London Underground Explosions

[Faarax-Brawn]

I think you should seduce and flirt with Taqwa as much as possible. The wife will certainly be pleased. Think about it...Her eyes filled with joy knowing her man is having a permanent affair with Taqwa.

 

Some1 rescue 'Skinny'

Not this one

[AYOUB]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Will he ever take the blinkers off for a second? Could he not see the hypocrisy of accepting the support of anti-war western left-wingers on the one hand and legalising the blood of all non-Muslim on the other?

Most 'Anti-war Western left-wingers' seem to be accepting Blair and Bush's part in all this.

 

You've expressed opinions of some people I've worked with in this topic. People who don't remember the first target in the Gulf War II was a restaurant and almost all ministries in Iraq were bombed. Are you saying bombing a train station is wrong but the ministry of transport is fair game? Where do you draw the line? As for giving 48 hour warning to Saddam, the people who claimed the responsibility for the recent outrages have been giving warning after warning of what they intend to do. The American security forces have been involved in Afghanistan for more than a decade before 911 and can't plea innocent even over there as far as i'm concerned.

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Northerner:

So the skinny Somali should resort to biting his opponents ear off???

If he's quick enough to reach it, and can evade a punch/jab or a knife/razor/machete.

Does the skinny Somali 'want to be like Mike'?

Not in terms of spirit.

Is the skinny Somali willing to stoop so low that his only justification is 'he did it first' like a school yard soap opera?

This isn't about 'he did it first'; the skinny Somali was minding his business at some thousands miles away from where Mike Tyson come.

---

Originally posted by Afromali:

What the hell would a skinny weighing a perfect 120lb[with a 6-6 frame], schedule a fight with a 230lb ferocious fool?

The skinny didn't schedule a fight; it was imposed on him.

More importantly, if the fight were voluntary, why would one mention the obvious strength difference?

It was involuntary.

You come to the ring, you fight, not whine.

True.

why would the skinny come to the ring, and start raining blows and jabs at the referee, his coach, his opponents coach, the judges, the audience and basically anyone in the vicinity?

He doesn't have a coach, the rest of the referee, his coach, his opponents coach, the judges, the audience come from where Mike come- hence, being impartial and nepotistic.

[-Serenity-]

^ If I didnt know any better, I'd say u were ignoring NGONGE's comments.

 

'Skinny' still cant take on Mike.

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Athena:

I'd say u were ignoring

Maybe you're right.

'Skinny' still cant take on Mike.

What Mike doesn't understand is, the skinny is a human being who by absorbing Mike's blows, punches, jabs and cuts over a period of time, would transform into a formidable opponent of equal or better strength. The skinny could reach a level (highly probable) of strength where Mike's blows, punches, jabs and cuts would have no effects. Mike, by unfairly fighting an unmatched opponent, is forcing the skinny into an unparalleled adaptational & metamorphosis processes. The end result could be; the skinny transforming into a Kenshiro:

 

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by AYOUB_SHEIKH:

quote:Originally posted by NGONGE:

Will he ever take the blinkers off for a second? Could he not see the hypocrisy of accepting the support of anti-war western left-wingers on the one hand and legalising the blood of all non-Muslim on the other?

Most 'Anti-war Western left-wingers' seem to be accepting Blair and Bush's part in all this.

 

You've expressed opinions of some people I've worked with in this topic. People who don't remember the first target in the Gulf War II was a restaurant and almost all ministries in Iraq were bombed. Are you saying bombing a train station is wrong but the ministry of transport is fair game? Where do you draw the line? As for giving 48 hour warning to Saddam, the people who claimed the responsibility for the recent outrages have been giving warning after warning of what they intend to do. The American security forces have been involved in Afghanistan for more than a decade before 911 and can't plea innocent even over there as far as i'm concerned.

AYOUB, war is never right, saaxib. However, war has rules and regulations that most countries at war would follow. The bombardment of ministries is fair game. After all, they are the symbols of your enemy. As for the restaurant and the fish market (it was a market of sorts at any rate), could you really say that these were intentional?

 

You see Ayoub, the fact that I’m even willing to argue this two-faced point with you is wrong. But, I really want to see where your argument is leading us. Did the Americans do their best to avoid civilian casualties or did they not? Did they set out to completely destroy Iraq? Could they have brought about more chaos and havoc on the place or could they not? Why didn’t they? Why did the people of Iraq (the majority that is) come out waving flowers and welcoming the invader? Why did eight million take part in the January American sponsored vote?

 

Like you saaxib, I totally disagree with the occupation of Iraq. However, unlike you, I don’t allow my opposition to the occupation cloud my judgment and attempt to compare that with the intentional blowing up of ordinary civilians in London (and Iraq). That man kills man is nothing new. That man uses sophisticated weapons to kill his fellow man is not out of the ordinary. But when man deliberately sets out to murder unarmed people thus disregarding all known laws, is the height of injustice. There is no comparison between the two “sides†because one made it clear that it was not setting out to kill civilians (and the eyes of the whole world can testify to that end), while the other “side†does not care for civilians or show any remorse for their death.

 

I’m clear on where I stand on this. I’m calling a spade, a spade. Where do YOU stand? Do you support those that murder innocent people (just because you hate America and the UK’s policies) or do you not?

 

Don’t get into distractions, comparisons that don’t exist and excuses saaxib. Deal with facts. Does western policy set out to kill innocent civilians? If you agree that it does not (which, by the way, you have no other choice but to do), you will also agree (and you have no choice here either) that they indeed hold the moral high ground in this issue.

 

Saaxib, try and be true to your own convictions here. Forget about this thread all together and decide to either support these people (in the name of jihad) while accepting no pleas, questions or arguments. Or, denounce such acts without the get out of jail card of “you reap what you sow†and the like! Have you the intellectual and moral integrity to choose a direction here?

[xiinfaniin]

@NGONGE

Didn’t want to steal your thunder, But the inmate of the month is still a convict, don't you say?

[NGONGE]

^^^^Absolutely. Though there is such a thing as scale, as you kindly just demonstrated.

[Baashi]

Ngonge,

No one (in his right mind) supports those that murder innocent people. I for one don’t. That being said, I think you are misreading the argument of those who disagreed with your characterization of the Western transgressions against the weak nations as being justifiable or even acceptable (under the International law). I disagree with this characterization.

 

Yes, war can only be waged under legitimate authority. Since the faceless terrorists (vigilante citizens attacking another country at will) represent no citizens, their war is unjust war. That much is agreed.

 

What I don’t agree is the argument that those civilians who die at the hands of stronger state waging UNJUST war is justifiable or less evil. “Collateral Damageâ€, “Surgical Attackâ€, and “Smart or guided bombs†do kill innocent people. They are dropped intentially in a metropolitan area like London (in this case Baqdad) as long as they do the job regardless of the human cost. The priority is to handicap the regime by any means necessary and to lessen the casualty of invading army. You seem to be arguing that this kind of loss of civilians came about in a familiar War declared and waged by known state that loudly claims her willingness to follow the rules of engagement at the discretion of its generals on the field! But you leave one glaring fact: the fact the war in itself is UNJUST! Because it is unjust war, any civilians killed in circumstances they didn't create is as evil as the ones that lost their lives in London.

 

Let me take it further! One can cite Horishima and dazzle the audience with stories of how many thousands of Japanese school children perished at the hands of civilized Uncle Sam. Where does this fact leave your argument in elevating the loss of civilian lives lost in acts of unorganized violence (terrorism) over that of organized and declared violence?

[Castro]

Iran press blame West for blasts: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4672037.stm

 

Tehran Times has always been one of my favorites.

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Coofleh:

Iran press blame West for blasts:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4672037.stm

From the link:

Kayhan paper says Britain and the US had to create an atmosphere of terror and insecurity in London so that the G8 leaders would endorse their belligerent policies like the occupation of Iraq.

 

This analysis is misplaced. For one, the G8 leaders cannot do something about what the US does to weak opponents. In fact, the US doesn't need the blessings of the G8 leaders. What the US wants from the G8 leaders is armaments, cash & European lives to waste. On their part, the G8 leaders want from the US a piece of the Iraqi cake. So far, they have failed to reach a-win-win accord.

[NGONGE]

What I don’t agree is the argument that those civilians who die at the hands of stronger state waging UNJUST war is justifiable or less evil. “Collateral Damageâ€, “Surgical Attackâ€, and “Smart or guided bombs†do kill innocent people. They are dropped intentially in a metropolitan area like London (in this case Baqdad) as long as they do the job regardless of the human cost. The priority is to handicap the regime by any means necessary and to lessen the casualty of invading army. You seem to be arguing that this kind of loss of civilians came about in a familiar War declared and waged by known state that loudly claims her willingness to follow the rules of engagement at the discretion of its generals on the field! But you leave one glaring fact: the fact the war in itself is UNJUST! Because it is unjust war, any civilians killed in circumstances they didn't create is as evil as the ones that lost their lives in London.

If the argument here was simply war in Iraq and the justifications for it, questioning of methods used and conduct of the coalition forces (from a Muslim point of view), I might have tuned my rhetoric down and conceded a few points, saaxib. However, I did not set the course of this discussion. Rather, it was decided by those that chose to compare WAR with terrorist actions (therefore seeking to minimize and lessen the appearance of the latter).

 

Some Nomads chose to bring Iraq into the discussion and attempted to use it as an excuse for this atrocity, saaxib. Some continue to do so. It’s not, or at least that’s how I read it, some throwaway comment uttered in anger. They were actually “moralising†the issue and judging one in relation to the other! I still insist that no such comparison exists. For to apply a comparison, and a moral one at that, only strengthens my own case when justifying the actions of the coalition in Iraq.

 

This habit of “comparative†moralising goes both ways, saaxib. To say that the bombs in London are as evil as those in Iraq throws up a whole lot of moral and ethical questions. That death occurred in both places is not enough reason to construct such a comparison. Death and war happens the world over. Are all forms of death evil then?

Would someone killing in self-defence be regarded the same as someone killing in cold blood? Is accidental death the same as intentional murder?

 

As you can tell by now, I disagree with the notion that all death is evil (as your post above implied). Some cases of death are unavoidable, such as the issue of collateral damage. Yes, one can argue about the morality of collateral damage, but that would be an entirely different discussion. Here you see, collateral damage would be LESS evil than intentional damage. For collateral damage (as the term is used) implies lack of intention or desire to kill civilians. It’s purely a consequence of war. It’s avoided if it can be helped and regretted when it occurs. It’s not the intended target of whoever commits it; it’s not an end in itself. On the other hand, bombing tube trains or lines of unarmed men standing outside police stations, is the actual target and aim. When one attempts to moralise and pass judgment on the one act (London bombings) based on the results of the other (Iraq, collateral damage, etc) is it not then clear who would hold the moral high ground there? Is it also not right to justify the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

 

The moralists amongst us are applying their own arbitrary rules and principles here. It is akin to saying “ I condemn the war in south Somalia, however, it’s not half as bad as the one WE had to suffer in the northâ€. Note the similarity? It’s in the use of the “weâ€. How much different is that from the use of “our brothers and sisters in Iraqâ€? Morality seems to be applied in accordance to what side of the fence you’re on. These murders (which can or can not be attributed to me) though bad, are not half as evil as your murders! To put it in other words, the consensus seems to be “it’s no big dealâ€.

 

 

Now to move to your point about war being unjust! This was an oversight on your part, saaxib. I’ve already stated that war was unjust (see why I keep telling people not to hurry reading?). Be that as it may, war is a fact of life. Civilians, throughout history, got caught up in war (many died). Had the words “War is UNJUST†been the cry and practise of all humans, I would also be screaming that slogan at the top of my lungs. However, that is not the case and hardly ever been the case. War, by the evidence we have from all time, is indeed just. Might is right and to the victor the spoils, etc..

 

Slogans and perfect truths aside, what makes war just or unjust are the people involved in it and the side of the fight they’re in. For example, many of the anti-Saddam people in the West, Arab world and Iraq regarded that war as justifiable, fair and necessary (some even excused the ‘collateral damage’ as a small price to pay when getting rid of such an ‘evil’ dictator). The anti-America brigade on the other hand, could never see any reasons to justify that war! What makes the second group right and the first not? Is it because Islam said so? I suppose not even I could argue with divine authority! However, Islam also said many things about the killing of innocent lives. Should it not apply here and completely relegate the comparison between War and the London events into an insignificant rant?

 

Zigzagging round topics, ethics and principles to fit in with one’s own prejudices is fraudulent and will, almost always, render one’s grievance null and void. Which is why the invasion of Iraq is justified and the invasion of Afghanistan is justified.....

[Miriam1]

I guess I am tad bit late on this one..but... I am glad everyone is fine..and really really hope that Diamante comes out okay..Inshallah!!

Hijabified..sisters.. stay strong..your iman is unbreakable!

[-Lily-]

Ok boys, the tit for tat arguments are not getting you far. Make it simple, very simple:

 

1) We don't have to agree with Irag/Afghan war

2) We don't have to agree with Bush/Blair foreign policies.

3) We all know that these unjust policies opress the islamic world, specifically Iraq/Palastine.

4) We know a lot of Muslims feel frustrated that their culture, religion and way of life is being attacked BUT

 

Under no circumstances can any of the above (or any other frustrations) even be justified for the killings of the innocent people of London, most who were against the war and Bush to begin with.

 

I think the Muslim community should do more to isolate criminals who seek glory for themsleves, and make life difficult for millions of Muslims in Europe. They are the true enemy of Islam.

[Alisomali]

So the Met. Police is saying that some of these ppl were suicide bombers.

If that is the case they are going to hell for sure, b/c our religion says that suicide is HARAM.

Im tired of ppl making excuses for suicide bombers.

First it was the Palestinians to use suicide boming b/c they were oppressed by the Israelis, then it was the 9-11 hijackers then it was used in Iraq against IRAQIS and now in London.

Can't ppl see this destructive downward spiral and why are so many people fast to condone these acts?

How about if someone said "I'm going to get drunk or high so i have no fear b4 i go fight the Americans" or whomever. Then would that be justified.

These so called fighters for the Muslim cause are really messing with our religions tenents. They are ignorant and dont know the religion themselves!!!