Not Again - London Tube Alert

[Noorah]

:rolleyes:

[Kashafa]

^^ You have joined November 2002 and have 6 posts thus far.. That's an average of 0.1875 posts a month. Do you have anything to contribute besides perfecting the sarcastic eye-roll ?

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by Femme Fatale:

Ya'll need to stop the useless bickering and shut the hell up....119 responses for an 'alarm' but not even one thread for the 89 people who died in Egypt. Or were they not 'innocent' also?

 

Uff.

Surely some mistake, my dear. Your reply came right after my one that ended with the mention of the innocent Egyptian dead. I’m sure you were not including me in the ‘bickering’ description but thought I’ll clarify it nonetheless.

 

For arguments sake, Let's say the terrorist united under one banner, one leadership, and decided to attack exclusively military targets in the UK and USA. Any civilian casualties would be brushed off as "collateral damage"(as u so deftly put it). Would that be justifiable ?

Again, the IRA and ETA points will not be dignified with a reply from my side. Up your game, saaxib.

 

As for this question of yours. The reply is YES. You see, here they will be fighting a WAR not a terrorist action (regardless of what the other side decides to label them as). The issue of ‘collateral damage’ though abhorrent and unacceptable (since innocent death is unacceptable) still has a moral justification. The intention is never to kill. Efforts show that the intention is not to indiscriminately kill. Surely you can see the huge difference between that (in spite of its result) and someone who sets out to intentionally kill and promises to kill even more. They might be invaders and occupiers but if one decides to compare them to those that intentionally blow up innocents, one really can’t fault the moral justifications of the invaders.

 

PS

It was not I who attempted to compare the two sides, saaxib. It’s those that try to excuse the actions of the terrorists by comparing them to the Americans in Iraq. I thought already told you to try and keep up.

[Haddad]

 

I don't think Jean Charles de Menezes looks like Asian or Pakistani.

[Warrior of Light]

^^ Hate to say this but maybe he had a tan?? May his soul rest in peace.

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Warrior of Light:

...maybe he had a tan??

It's a strong possibility. Good analysis.

[Castro]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Fidel,

Now I wonder if I repeated my questions from the previous thread, are you going to engage me or will you run like Haddad did?

No running. Note to self: park a$$ here!

 

Never mind, I’ll ask anyway. We already know who the invaders of Iraq are,

We sure do.

 

but, who are these people that blow up trains and kill civilians?

Insurgents, mujahideen, rebels and fragmented nationalists.

 

Is there a way of finding them and fighting back?

Yes. It's called MOABs, the mother of all bombs, also referred to as carpet bombing.

 

Did the air bombing set out to kill civilians

Yes. It is used as a tool of fear. You cannot pacify the enemy without it.

 

or were they merely “collateral damage�

There is no such thing. Even before the first bomb was dropped in Iraq, there was talk of how many will fall victims to them. Collateral damage is a nice, neat way of packaging a calculated and brutal act.

 

Remember, we are making moral judgments here, intention matters.

Intentions, unfortunately, do not matter. The road to hell is paved with them. Instead, I now prefer conducting moral equivalency tests. Moral judgements are subjective, personal and much more difficult to guage relative to equivalency tests.

 

Yesterday, another terrorist attack took place in Egypt. Eighty eight people are reported dead so far. Few foreigners and many Egyptians! Was this too the result of the Iraq occupation?

Possibly. It may also be related to Palestine. Remember, just like the war on terror is being fought on many fronts, so is the war on the war on terror.

 

Could this too be brushed away with simple definitions of ‘terrorism’?

I'm not sure what the simple definition of terrorism is but that bombing has already been labelled as a terrorist act in western media. See terrorism is funny in that when we perpetrate it, it's a legitimate action for democracy, freedom or even oil. When they do the same thing, it's an immoral act fueled by maniacs in the name of a devilish religion.

 

 

I do believe your arguments are still sound. Even if we disagree on a couple of major points. I think that's cool.

[Muhammad]

so he was not even Muslim, Arab or Desi? :confused:

[OG_Girl]

Salah, He was Brazilian, not a muslim .I knew he was an innocent. I feel sorry for his family.

 

God help you if you got brown/black skin.If I were him I wouldn't tan

 

Salam

[Jacaylbaro]

Heeeeeey Nomads ,,,, i think we should evacuate our sisters/brothers in Londo back to Somalia ,,,, it is much secure than London now ,,,, am i right or wrong ??

 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[N.O.R.F]

Kashafa, on the point about listening to our Imams/Sheiks, i take it you actually go to Friday prayers and listen? :confused:

 

Seems as though we going in circles here.

 

We have one who is justifying the attacks based on an electoral system of democracy (which is not a Sheria) and condones the killing of innocents (again wrong according to Sheria/Islamic Laws) and thinks ppl will actually take him seriously :rolleyes:

 

Then there is the debate of War Rules vs Terrorism Rules. Again, the jutification of the killing of innocents on a transport system is being compared to that of a 'known' attack (ie war). Yes both are wrong. But one is/was aimed at Govnt buildings/milatary targets/strategic infrastructure with aim of bringing the Iraqi govnt down and trying to avoid the deaths of civlians (yes at least they tried to avoid the deaths) and the other was aimed the London tranport system aiming to kill innocent ppl.

 

Thought i would just like to highlight the basics/developments of this thread. My debating is done!

 

goes to bang his head on another brick wall

[AYOUB]

Ngonge

Here are some quotes for you from '60 Minutes' May 12, 1996:

 

Leslie Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died (as a result of sanctions against Iraq). I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

 

Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."

 

The people behind the London bombings probably have the same casual attitude when it comes to taking inocent lives.

[- Femme -]

Ngonge,

 

Seems I missed it. I wasn't really interested in the thread anymore anyway. I just hate people who discriminate.