London Underground Explosions

[Haddad]

Originally posted by WaTerLily:

Under no circumstances can any of the above

(or any other frustrations) even be justified

What about the exceptional circumstance? As in everything, there's the exception.

I think the Muslim community should do more to isolate criminals

How do you isolate criminals? Can the isolation work?

make life difficult for millions of Muslims in Europe

So, your issue with them is about your life getting difficult in Europe?

[Senora]

I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE, IF MY OPINIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN REFLECTED BY MY FELLOW NOMADS

 

The rules of a "just" war can be summarized as follows:

 

1.) The war must have a just cause; 2.) It must be waged by a legitimate authority; 3.) It must be formally declared; 4.) It must be fought with a peaceful intention; 5.) It must be a last resort; 6.) There must be reasonable hope of success; 7.) The means used must possess proportionality to the end sought.

 

Three other rules apply to the conduct of the conflict: 1.) Noncombatants must be given immunity; 2.) Prisoners must be treated humanely and; 3.) International treaties and conventions must be honored.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0313-04.htm

 

 

Its safe to assume that these terrorists could’ve found violations to these rules of war.

 

 

The just-war theory holds, among other things, that if one nation attacks another, and nothing less than complete destruction of the foreign war machine — total war — will suffice to restrain future acts of violence, then moral responsibility for casualties — military and civilian — must lie at the feet of the attacking, not the defending, nation.

Source: http://www.fff.org/comment/com0401d.asp

 

Though it may not be possible with the media, can we see how difficult it is to even label the “defenders†and the “offenders�

 

Take the US bombings in Japan during WWII. As inhumanely the act was, it was defended by many as an action that was necessary in preventing any further attacks on the United States. Such as the United States, these terrorists could defend their actions by stating that such extreme measures were required to defend their state(s) from possible destruction. So I ask, why is it the world can swallow the Hiroshima bombings with much more ease than say the 9/11, 3/11, or the London attacks?

 

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),

I disagree. Most of us here know the outcomes of a war, and based on your seemingly surprised number of noncombatant casualities, im sure you do as well. In almost every war, both sides expect innocent civilian/noncombatant casualties. The whole world knew that with this war, many Iraqi citizens would be caught in the cross-fire. The only distinction between the two “sidesâ€, is that one openly regrets them, while the other prides themselves. Nevertheless, can you see how some of these ‘terrorist†can justify their acts, when they see their brother/sisters dying to a war, that they have seen “unjust†from the beginning?

 

The murdering of innocent civilians is wrong, but the recent terrorist attacks should be blamed on both the terrorists and Great Britain.

[NGONGE]

And the moralising and straw clutching carries on and on! It wouldn’t be so bad if the comparisons were remotely similar, however, they are not. First of all, let us deal with the argument that the London bombings were a result of the Iraq war. The argument seems to be that if there were no Iraq war, there would not have been any London bombs! I’ll concede this as a remote possibility. There is a distant chance that those that carried the attacks in London are a new breed of terrorists who are totally unlinked to any other ‘movements’ and ideologies. But, with it being a very unlikely (remote) possibility, it also should not become the main argument when making this comparison.

 

The overwhelming evidence suggests that this (new breed of terrorist) is not the case. The attacks on the world trade centre in 1993; the bombing of the American Embassy in 1998 and the 2001 plane bombings of the world trade centre (again) in 2001 ALL took place way before the Iraq war! Bombings and terrorist attacks, you see, did not start with Madrid and Turkey or London (or even Bali). Will you now attempt to explain away each and every incident and try to link it to Iraq?

 

This type of fraudulent, blinkered and apologetic view of such murders should really stop. The wicked people that intentionally blow up civilians at least seem to have some sort of ideology and conviction. Wrong and evil it may be, however, all those observing it, know that it would stand up to scrutiny. Their basic argument is that the end justifies the means; the end seems to be the destruction of all non-believers and the waging of war in the name of Islam.

 

The American message will also easily withstand any scrutiny. Theirs is to spread liberty and freedom to whatever place they deem in need of such qualities. It’s imperialistic, some might argue. It’s immoral, some might say. But wasn’t that always what superpowers did? Didn’t the Romans do it? Didn’t the Brits do it? Didn’t WE in our old Muslim Empire (Khilafa) do it? Aha! Hang on a minute there old chap, some would say. We did it to spread the message of Islam, not to exploit the wealth of nations! It’s a more noble cause, you see. And I’d say it certainly is/ was. But, would a non-Muslim agree? If you can justify this one, the Americans can also justify theirs. Are things getting clearer or are we still blindly trying to look for excuses and make allowances?

 

Now let me turn my attention to World War Two and the outrageous attempt to compare what took place there to the motives and consequences of the London events. You ask why should the world swallow the Hiroshima bombings with much more ease than the bombing of the World Trade Centre? I can’t decide here weather you’re being stubborn and argumentative for the sake of arguing; or unaware of the history of that war; or, which is the worst of the three really, your moral judgment is flawed!

 

Without needing to give you a history lesson here (you can Google the details), World War II started in 1939 and ended in 1945. There were millions of deaths and unnecessary losses of life. Almost all of Europe, much of Asia and Africa (not to mention Australia and the United States) were involved in this war (at one time or another). Japan WAS the aggressor (along with Germany of course). Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. Japan carried on fighting long after Germany was defeated. Japan still fought even after the Hiroshima bomb. Japan only surrendered when Nagasaki too was bombed and it saw what devastation such a weapon can unleash. The world understood then, and understands now that such a bomb (at the time) was a necessity and helped in ending a long and brutal war. The London incident last week, my dear irksome Nomad, makes no difference to the conflict between the West and these terrorist individuals. Bombing London will not make the British government change its policy. There, simply, shall be NO surrender. To read you even attempting to make the comparison gives the impression that you actually APPROVE of such terrorist actions. If you do, it would go against all your ‘beliefs’ not to be man enough to admit it.

[Paragon]

NGONGE" I can’t decide here weather you’re being stubborn and argumentative for the sake of arguing; or unaware of the history of that war; or, which is the worst of the three really, your moral judgment is flawed!

My dear NGONGE, lol there are atleast three historical intepretations - Orthordox, Revisionist and post-Revisionist - which are used to explain and analyse the moral decision of dropping the atomic bombs on 'hiroshima and nagasaki'. As it seems, you've only used the typical 'orthodoxical approach to divulge the bombing of Japan. Yet, you've thought wise to disregard the lady's (supuu) comparison as flawed!

 

Is her comparison really flawed? From the Trumanian' traditional view, her comparison is indeed flawed. However from the revisionist's point of view, she is not! This is because, unlike the traditionalist historians, the revisionists believe that the heroshima and nagasaki bombs were droped, not 'primarilly' to defeat Japanese 'aggression', but to deny the Soviets their influence on the pacific, which was the agreement.

 

So the intention was not really war, but the creation of psychological american hegemony. And since that is the case, what difference does it make if one compares both Japan and London bombings?

 

PS: This is a psychological tag of war. A different kind of war where many people's loyalty becomes misplaced. A moral game of manipulation. Who will fall for it? Maybe most of us will.

[NGONGE]

If that’s the case, are you then saying that the ends justify the means and that the London bombing is no big deal? After all, America did it in Hiroshima so why shouldn’t anyone else do it in London?

 

We can talk about the different theories all day, saaxib. We can speculate and guess as to the reasons behind dropping those bombs. We can even question the morality of the whole situation. But, we can’t rewrite history or complicate simple acts. The bombs were dropped at an enemy state. One that America was at war with for several years. One that America was still at war with when the bombs were dropped. The American government at the time reasoned that the bomb was necessary because it saved lives (American lives). It took its decision in accordance with the circumstances, climate and outlook of the time (remember that World War II lasted several years).

 

How and in what way can that (revisionist or not) be compared to acts of terror against civilians by ‘unknown’ aggressors?

 

You say: “This is a psychological tag of war. A different kind of war where many people's loyalty becomes misplaced. A moral game of manipulation. Who will fall for it? Maybe most of us willâ€.

 

That’s fine, but I’ll repeat my original question: who is the other side in the fight?

 

Do you approve of this ‘war’ then?

[Warrior of Light]

For those who said Britain had it coming,

 

Robert Fisk writes for The Independent in London. Here's a recent article of his on the blasts - thought I'd share this.

 

The Reality of This Barbaric Bombing

 

If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us think insurgency won't come to us?

 

By Robert Fisk

 

"If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, "we will bomb yours." There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.

 

And it's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush - and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali.

 

It is easy for Tony Blair to call yesterdays bombings "barbaric" - of course they were - but what were the civilian deaths of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the children torn apart by cluster bombs, the countless innocent Iraqis gunned down at American military checkpoints? When they die, it is "collateral damage"; when "we" die, it is "barbaric terrorism".

 

 

For the remaining part

[Paragon]

That’s fine, but I’ll repeat my original question: who is the other side in the fight?

 

Do you approve of this ‘war’ then?

Lol. Thats my answer.

[NGONGE]

^^^

 

WoL: Robert Frisk should visit this site

 

 

[Warrior of Light]

^^^ what a sight, only in their wildest dream.

 

But from a serious note, Frisk did try to show that the aim of these bombings is to have england stop their alliance with Bush. Wonder if Blair could do that. :confused:

 

Oh, I think I'll migrate to Sweden now.

[N.O.R.F]

The saga continues..........

 

Looks as though NGONGE is banging his head into a brick wall. Saxib, it obvious ppl are not answering your questions, which are at the route of the whole argument, but rather than address the issue(s) prefer to delve into their own pots of honey and lick away just like Winney the Poo

 

On Monday i was questioned as i was walking into the mosque at Euston for duhur. Asked if i had seen any suspicious activities :confused:

 

The guys who apparently did the bombings remind me of the old divisions within the Islamic society at university :rolleyes: . What is it with Asians being easily led as soon as they get to uni both in terms of deenta and other extra curicular activties?

 

My piccadilly line is still down, i have to drive and pay the £8 congestion charge :mad:

[AYOUB]

Originally posted by WaTerLily:

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.

Spot on Water.

 

 

Originally posted by NGONGE:

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.

[/QB]

The twin towers were seen as the symbol of capitalism and everything Americana and I, for one, don't see them different from Iraqi ministry of finance or similar buildings bombed. Iraqi bridges and roads were 'legitimate targets'and I've even seen 'embeded' journalists showing tanks knocking down power lines. What happened in London was wrong but not different from what has been going on in Iraq and Afghanitan.

 

 

Originally posted by NGONGE:

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 ?

I don't know about the market but the restaurant was bombed because Saddam wa supposed to have in it at the time. He wasn't and many civilians were killed. What about the spy David Shayler's fiasco when reported that the Brits killed civilians trying to kill Qaddafi? Is this war too? What makes you think the same is not going on in Iraq or anywhere for that matter? The difference is one side boasts about it and the other says 'no comment'.

[-Serenity-]

I think Zephyrine, summed it up very well when she wrote

Tell that to the Iraqis who wake up in the morning and go to work (much like the London Commuters...much like everyone else), only to get blown up by their 'brothers' who are apparently 'fighting' for them, because they were unfortunate enough to be walking near a police station or working within 3 miles of an American checkpoint (c'mon, when was the last time an explosion killed a non-Iraqi? Last year? ). But who gives a shite about them, eh?

 

Just like the West puts Western lives above those of Muslims, so do the Muslims, when they see it as acceptable, even encourageable to kill a 1000 Muslims just to get a single American or Brit.

Terrorism has absolutely no place, excuse or moral justification any way you look at it. As I picked up today’s paper and read about the bombers being merely 22 and 18yr old boys who had everything to live for, I had this really sick feeling in my stomach. I cant understand why any1 of any moral stance would do this to their own families (who will forever be chastised), their communities (who will have to shoulder the responsibility for their actions) and most importantly to themselves. How does one decide to sacrifice themselves? And exactly for what cost? I flipped the pages of the paper and came across this other news that read

A suicide bomber targeted US soldiers giving to youngsters in Iraq – killing 27 inluding 18 children.

A

GI was also among the dead. Seventy others, including a four-year-old baby and three American troops were hurt

Terrorists and suicide bombers kill Muslims everyday. :mad:

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Seven:

How does one decide to sacrifice themselves?

Inside the Mind of an Iraqi Suicide Bomber