NationStates Jolt Archive

The latest editorial from Ynet describes the situation with 100% accuracy. I am posting it in response to a string of threads on this forum that attempted to absolve the perpetrators of the attacks from the blame.

Justifying future attacks (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3110491,00.html)

The Islamic and Arab nations are overjoyed because the time has come to exact revenge on the British "Jewish crusader" government – these are the words that open al-Qaeda's claim of responsibility for the July 7 attacks in London.

However, despite the terrorist organization's explicit announcement, and despite the slaughter caused by the bombs detonated by the group in the name of and for the sake of Islam, the so-called "progressive" public opinion in Britain has invested in the past 24 hours immense efforts in a bid to repress, blur, and cover up the connection between the terror attacks and radical Islam.

A senior London police official has been quoted in length after baselessly claiming that the words "Islam" and "terrorism" do not go together.

The daily Guardian published an article by Muslim publicist Faisal Bodi, who charged that "the fury generated by Tony Blair's decision to coat-tail George Bush into what only the blind still call a justified war has put us all in the firing line."

Meanwhile, senior Labor party figure David Clark argued that "the political dimensions of this problem mean that there can be no hope of defeating terrorism until we are ready to take legitimate Arab grievances seriously… it is obvious that we care so little for Arabs living in Palestine."

Similarly spirited opinion pieces, analyses, and headlines are flooding the British media.

This bad wind has made its way to the office of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the most serious statesman in the world today, who told BBC the underlying causes of terrorism must be "pulled up by the roots." The root causes, according to Blair, include poverty and the Middle-East conflict.

With all due respect, Britain's prime minister got it wrong, as did the analysts who are already pointing their finger not only at the terrorists, but also at President Bush, Israel, "the rich," and the West itself, thus absolving the terrorists of their crime.

Terror must be eliminated mercilessly

The attempt to bury reality as it is under heaps of empty words is futile. The following truths are obvious to any intelligent person examining the 21st century's terror waves:

Firstly, this is Muslim terrorism. Not anarchist, not Zionist, and not neoconservative. This terror comes from Islam's zealots, who believe in the need to initiate a global jihad at this time against the infidels, the Jews, the "Christian crusaders," and moderate Muslims.

Secondly, this terror comes from wealthy, educated Muslims, not poor, mindless ones.

Islamic countries are flooded with hundreds of billions of dollars they received from selling high-priced oil. The terrorists who planned and perpetrated the terror attacks in New York and Madrid were established individuals who spoke foreign languages and were familiar with technology.

This is also the socioeconomic profile of Hamas and Hizbullah leaders.

There is no connection, even not a slight one, between the war on poverty and the war on terror.

Thirdly, the jihadists initiated a terror war against the West because it is the West, and not in order to "advance" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict's resolution or push the United States to pull its forces out of Iraq.

Their one and only motive was, and still is, to undermine the basis of the despised Western culture and expose it as weak.

Sowing destruction for the purpose of sowing destruction.

Therefore, al-Qaeda's terror would not have ended - indeed, it would have only intensified - had the U.S. reacted to terror attacks by removing its forces from Iraq, while Israel withdrew to the Green Line.

The jihadists are aiming for something else, much larger: They wish to establish a new world order premised on radical Islamic doctrine.

Fourthly, there is only one way to fight terror: Fight it. Hit it. Eliminate it mercilessly.

The war on terrorism must be total, until victory is achieved and the enemy surrenders.

Any compromise with Islamic terrorism, any attempt to understand it - that is, to forgive it, at least partially, means continuing on the slippery slope Winston Churchill warned of in June of 1940 when he refused to open negotiations with Hitler.

Shortly after the mass terror acts, and even before all the victims have been identified, the self-deception machine sprung into action in Britain and across Europe.

The shifting of blame from the murderers to others has already begun. This is how the ground is laid for the next terror attacks.

(Forgive me for being a lazy illiterate, but I could not be arsed to read the whole thing, which will probably make my statement incorrect)

You are saying that all muslims and Tony Blair should get 100% of the blame for the attacks?

(Forgive me for being a lazy illiterate, but I could not be arsed to read the whole thing, which will probably make my statement incorrect)

You are saying that all muslims and Tony Blair should get 100% of the blame for the attacks?
If you could actually be arsed to read the whole thing you wouldn't ask such a silly question.

Im sorr, so what are you saying (In summary)?

Tony Blair had it right when he said that the best way to eliminate terrorism is to fight poverty, etc rather than grabbing a gun and hunting them all down. If you fight back against them in this way all you do is give them more followers. It is better to try and change the opinions of the terrorists recruiting populations rather than give them more ways to convince others that they are being repressed and are simply fighting for a just cause.

(Directed at the article's writer)

Hmph. The typical response from one who knows none but aggression.

On one part I agree; we do not cover up what has happened. Radical elements within Islam carried out this attack, of that there appears to be little doubt (although three separate groups claim individual responsibility, which is a little unusual), and stating otherwise is pointless. Firstly, however, we make the point of appreciating that the "Islam" section of that statement could very easily have been replaced by any other organisation, and it is the "Radical" part that is at fault. Secondly, such terrorists perform these deeds with the intent of getting a message of some sort across; ignoring this message may indeed encourage further attacks, but will basically say to the groups "You think we care about what you want?"

Of course, I don't agree with that idea either. There is no way either brute force or deliberate ignorance will counter the terrorist threat.

Because what you propose is a war on Terrorists. Not terrorism, which is ultimately the thing we should be really trying to defeat. There is a very real distinction to be made there, and I think that attempts thus far have focused on People rather than the underlying concepts. You cannot defeat Terrorism by defeating Terrorists; it does not work like that. I cannot stress that enough: each time you remove one, you incite the concept in another.

Defeating terrorism must focus on the underlying causes. Let's face it: Do you see Osama Bin Laden spearheading the Jihad on the front line with a suicide bomb? No, of course you don't. Yet he would go down as a Martyr were he to do so. Why doesn't he? Because he has celebrity, he has a following and, were the war against the west to be successful, he would be the first to benefit.

Don't you get it? The true Islamic terrorists are those who are unhappy with circumstance. The ones who actually are persuaded into a life of destruction are those who have experienced the poverty and oppression around them and want to engage in this because of promises that things can get better for them. Meanwhile, the wealthy, Educated ones that you claim are the source of this terror would, I venture, be highly unwilling to actually give their own lives for it.

While it is the high-class that drive it, it is ultimately the poor and downtrodden that are the wheels of this machination. Remove the driver and someone else will just get on the front seat; remove the wheels and that car is going nowhere.

If you take away the motivational factors that push these people into the arms of the Muslim militant wings, its followers will dry up. Without the lackeys, Al Qaeda and the likes of it are doomed. Otherwise, it's like trying to drain the sink without turning the water off or pulling out the plug; no matter what else you do, it's just going to keep flowing and flowing.

Such motivation is not addressable through aggressive means. Iraq has demonstrated that. But that doesn't mean you're going to resign yourself to overflowing the sink. You can be defiant of terrorism while still not encouraging it, and that to me seems like the most obvious thing I've ever had to say, but bare with me. Terrorists will not stop the very second you remove the causes of their initial suffering. In fact, those who are terrorists now will probably remain so. However, malcontent is their prime recruiter. Remove the issues of poverty, illness, oppression, hoarding of resources and capitalistic self-worship and you will at least have turned the tap off. From there, it's a matter of flushing out those few drips that remain.

Terrorists can be dealt with after, and only after, Terrorism has been dealt with. To think and claim otherwise will leave you with damp feet.

With regards to this phrase....

"Fourthly, there is only one way to fight terror: Fight it. Hit it. Eliminate it mercilessly.

The war on terrorism must be total, until victory is achieved and the enemy surrenders"

How do you propose to achieve this, invade all islamic countries? Shoot all people that could be or could become terrorists?Ban islam?

How do we carry out a literal war on islamic terror? By invading every single country in the middle east and killing anyone we think is a little too 'islamic'?

Anyway, I thought we were going to beat the hell out of terrorism when we invaded the terrorists country, which is called Iraq. Methinks in a couple of years we'll find out the terrorists country was actually called Iran and invade that, or perhaps we'll discover that the people behind terror are the same people who want gay marriages here in the US, so we'll poke them with pointy sticks. Thats the cool thing about fighting something as nebluous as 'terror'. A government can beat the hell out of anyone it wants, including you, under the guise of 'keeping you safe'.

Have you guys read 1984? 'Terror' is used a lot like 'Goldstein' was in 1984. Not in such an extreme manner but the idea is the same.

The occupation of Iraq wasn't the reason Al-Queda came into existence of course, but I'm sure they aren't having any problems recruiting from the pool of civilians who have lost loved ones due to the occupation or who are in abject poverty due to the war.

One thing we need to do (we meaning Americans, and to a lesser extent Europeans) is to get serious about alternate fuel sources so that we aren't forced to blunder around in the middle east like Superman on crack. Nothing is gonna change down there as long as the US is so dependant upon oil... there's too much money at stake. Once oil isn't #1, then maybe we can start to fix stuff... or stuff will start fixing itself. At the very least it won't be so easy for terrorist organizations to get money.

A Chinese poet from the Tang Dynasty once wrote about wild grass:

"Wildfires cannot destroy them;
They will grow again when the spring wind blows".

You cannot eliminate terrorism by stamping it out here, there and everywhere, because the harder you try to push a tiger into a corner, the fiercer the tiger will get.

Elimination of poverty, fairer and more sincere conducts of foreign policy by Western nations and negotiation are the key root weapons against terrorism.

With regards to this phrase....

"Fourthly, there is only one way to fight terror: Fight it. Hit it. Eliminate it mercilessly.

The war on terrorism must be total, until victory is achieved and the enemy surrenders"

How do you propose to achieve this, invade all islamic countries? Shoot all people that could be or could become terrorists?Ban islam?
The original author doesn't know what he means, simple as that. If he did, his wording wouldn't be so sloppy.

You can't fight "terror." End of discussion. You can't fight it any more than you can fight fear or loathing or love--it's an abstract. And you can't fight terrorism as a tactic either, any more than you could fight sneak attacks or pincer movements. And as to this enemy that the writer proposes we destroy, that we wage total war on, would he mind telling us exactly who that enemy consists of? Didn't think so--why? Because it's easier to write nonsensical platitudes than to actually come up with an argument for action.

A couple of things;

Those terrorists weren't muslims. They may THINK they are muslims, but they aren't.

Second, and I think this is a very cutting point;

The worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States of America before 9/11, and still the secont-worst terrorist attack in history was committed by an American. A christian, to be exact.

So let's not pool all the terrorists we need to be fighting under the 'muslim' label. Because the families of a few hundred dead men, women and children from Oklahoma City don't have nightmares about muslims.

I think we should just kill stuff.

What? Its what humans do. Don't deny it.

I think we should just kill stuff.

What? Its what humans do. Don't deny it.

We're good at it. We should definitely go with our strengths. *nod*

That article doesn't make much sense, really, especially because at this point NO ONE knows who perpetrarted those attacks.

Meanwhile, senior Labor party figure David Clark argued that "the political dimensions of this problem mean that there can be no hope of defeating terrorism until we are ready to take legitimate Arab grievances seriously… it is obvious that we care so little for Arabs living in Palestine."
One, it's the Labour Party, not Labor. Two, he's not a senior figure at all; he was a government advisor but ceased to be so after a fall-out with Blairites. If the author can't even get basic information like this correct, I fail to see how he/she can be trusted to provide an accurate analysis of the British reaction to the attacks and terrorism at large.

Three, he's right.

Terrorism is crime based on faith (religion or political ideology). Banning faith would prove effective as there would be nothing to base terrorism on. A good idea is beginning with the worst threat (statistically it would be Islam) and work one's way down the list of phony value-systems and flawed beliefs.

Terrorism is crime based on faith (religion or political ideology). Banning faith would prove effective as there would be nothing to base terrorism on. A good idea is beginning with the worst threat (statistically it would be Islam) and work one's way down the list of phony value-systems and flawed beliefs.

That's not a very good definition of terrorism, because it leaves the idea of 'crime' undefined. Given that it is not very clear what is legal or illegal in the international level, it's hard to take that definition as valid.

That being said, I don't believe it is statistically true that 'Islam' would be the worst ideology in this sense. I think the first would certainly be nationalism (especially during the imperial age). The next most likely expansionist ideologies in general. However, this all very much depends on what we define as crime.

Yeah, the IRA is certainly a faith-based organisation. So is the Chechnyan Liberation Front.

*Rolls eyes*

Terrorism is crime based on faith (religion or political ideology). Banning faith would prove effective as there would be nothing to base terrorism on. A good idea is beginning with the worst threat (statistically it would be Islam) and work one's way down the list of phony value-systems and flawed beliefs.

Faith can't be banned. Faith is an inert emotion/action. You can't just *click* and stop faith. -_-'

Alright, Womble that was the most stereotypical right-wing rant ever. But I agree with some of it. I'll analyse.

There is no connection, even not a slight one, between the war on poverty and the war on terror.

The jihadists are aiming for something else, much larger: They wish to establish a new world order premised on radical Islamic doctrine.

So it is a coincidence that the level of support for religious radicals is proportionate to the level of poverty in a country? The ordinary people recruited by the elite of the Islamist movement are angry about poverty and government oppression more than fighting for ideology. The military fight against terrorism must be accompanied by efforts to increase education, reduce poverty and increase political freedom in the middle east.

Fourthly, there is only one way to fight terror: Fight it. Hit it. Eliminate it mercilessly.

The war on terrorism must be total, until victory is achieved and the enemy surrenders.
How do you suggest that we do that? Terrorism is too decentralised to use the old techniques and the easy solutions against. Due to this decentralisation (yes, Osama doesn't micromanage or direct every attack) there will be no end to the war in the sense of a treaty or surrender; even Bush has admitted this.

Any compromise with Islamic terrorism, any attempt to understand it - that is, to forgive it, at least partially, means continuing on the slippery slope Winston Churchill warned of in June of 1940 when he refused to open negotiations with Hitler.
I'm against compromise, but in favour of understanding it. To defeat the enemy you must understand him.

Since when was not understanding something helpful? That does for any situation, in war or peacetime.

"An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind"

Turning into a autocratic, despotic, fearful, unfree society in order to protect ourselves from people who would like to see our freedoms, rights, tolerance, and open-mindedness destroyed would mean meeting them halfway there.
A non-governmental group kills civilians and we all agree that this is wrong. So, why is it right if a government group then sets out to do just the same thing? There has to be a way to secure peace without turning ourselves into the very thing we are trying to fight.

I don't like the source as it has an agenda that I haven't fully grasped.

Thirdly, the jihadists initiated a terror war against the West because it is the West, and not in order to "advance" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict's resolution or push the United States to pull its forces out of Iraq.

If the source originated from niether country I might give this opinion more weight. But basically its one Isreali's opinion with their own particular agenda so no I wouldn't say its 100% truth and your niaeve to think opinion can be 100% truth

The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems.
Why are the [U.S.] still associated with this malignant cancer known
as the United Nations? They [UN] are anti-American; anti-Semitic; they
cheat, steal and lie (oil-for-food fiasco); they (Kofi) preach being
anti-gun with a stash of high-powered weapons hidden in the basement of
one of their buildings; they have a Human Rights Commission that
includes human rights violators, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Zimbabwe,
Congo, Libya, China, and Cuba, etc., etc....and now a credible book that
reveals that they are drug-abusing perverts, as well.

The bodies of bloodied children carried away from a scene in the Gaza Strip filled TV screens around
the world and brought about an immediate international condemnation of Israel. Some things never change.

The 'Palestinians' never seem to change their criminal tactics...using children again in their pernicious PR.

Israel's pursuit of terrorists has been met with Arafat's thugs shoving children in the streets among them
and rigging those streets with bombs to maximize their lies.

Israel entered the southern end of Gaza in an effort to uproot the terrorist infrastructure and demolish
weapons-smuggling tunnels running under the Israeli-Egyptian border into Gaza.

The 'Palestinians' hatred for the innocent is despicable. Arafat, and his ilk, consider children to be disposable
refuse, to be utilized at his will...and paraded before cameras and an international audience to gain support
against Israel.

It's worked in the past...so why change? And with a Jew-hating, compliant audience like Europe...it's a 'winning'
design every time.

UN is not only irrelevant but on the verge of becoming termina

I no longer care if Arabs and Muslims get offended,some comments
are meant to be taken personally to show the un-acceptible action.

*rolls eyes*

The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems.
Why are the [U.S.] still associated with this malignant cancer known
as the United Nations? They [UN] are anti-American; anti-Semitic; they
cheat, steal and lie (oil-for-food fiasco); they (Kofi) preach being
anti-gun with a stash of high-powered weapons hidden in the basement of
one of their buildings; they have a Human Rights Commission that
includes human rights violators, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Zimbabwe,
Congo, Libya, China, and Cuba, etc., etc....and now a credible book that
reveals that they are drug-abusing perverts, as well.

The bodies of bloodied children carried away from a scene in the Gaza Strip filled TV screens around
the world and brought about an immediate international condemnation of Israel. Some things never change.

The 'Palestinians' never seem to change their criminal tactics...using children again in their pernicious PR.

Israel's pursuit of terrorists has been met with Arafat's thugs shoving children in the streets among them
and rigging those streets with bombs to maximize their lies.

Israel entered the southern end of Gaza in an effort to uproot the terrorist infrastructure and demolish
weapons-smuggling tunnels running under the Israeli-Egyptian border into Gaza.

The 'Palestinians' hatred for the innocent is despicable. Arafat, and his ilk, consider children to be disposable
refuse, to be utilized at his will...and paraded before cameras and an international audience to gain support
against Israel.

It's worked in the past...so why change? And with a Jew-hating, compliant audience like Europe...it's a 'winning'
design every time.

UN is not only irrelevant but on the verge of becoming termina

I no longer care if Arabs and Muslims get offended,some comments
are meant to be taken personally to show the un-acceptible action.

*yawn* you finished?

*yawn* you finished?

What is that for cause you know its true!

The original author doesn't know what he means, simple as that. If he did, his wording wouldn't be so sloppy.

You can't fight "terror." End of discussion. You can't fight it any more than you can fight fear or loathing or love--it's an abstract. And you can't fight terrorism as a tactic either, any more than you could fight sneak attacks or pincer movements. And as to this enemy that the writer proposes we destroy, that we wage total war on, would he mind telling us exactly who that enemy consists of? Didn't think so--why? Because it's easier to write nonsensical platitudes than to actually come up with an argument for action.

I beg to differ. George Bush had an excellent plan to fight terror. Though he opposes socialized medicine as the liberal commie movement that it is, he did support school screening for mental disorders.

Why? Because the best way to rob terrorists of their ability to invoke terror in our population is to give tranquilizers to those who do, or might, feel afraid. If people who might someday be motivated to vote to appease the terrorists because of fear don't feel fear they'll happily vote for the party that is prosecuting the war on terror mercilessly. They won't allow fear to make them say things like "but what if I get sick and can't afford health insurance," or "what if Bush's tactics are actually making the problem worse."

They will act like true patriotic citizens. When they see headlines that read "bloodiest day in Bagdhad since start of Iraq war," they will respond with a courageous "whatever." When asked to do their part by serving in the military because all of their jobs have already been shipped overseas, so they may as well be too, they will respond with a vibrant, patriotic, "alright."

Mandatory psychological health screening. That is the key to winning the war on terror. It's a shame that the idea went mostly nowhere because the liberal wing of the Republican party were afraid that a population that wasn't afraid of liberals wouldn't vote Republican. They should have more faith in the virtue of their message, or they should have been the first on the screening list.

I beg to differ. George Bush had an excellent plan to fight terror. Though he opposes socialized medicine as the liberal commie movement that it is, he did support school screening for mental disorders.

-Snip-

Just to check... that was sarcasm, yes?

What is that for cause you know its true!

Wonderful thing about opinion it can't be absolutely true. It was actually because I'm bored with people ranting about whos evil or good. Its never that simple

Wonderful thing about opinion it can't be absolutely true. It was actually because I'm bored with people ranting about whos evil or good. Its never that simple

But killing children is evil and people who kill children are evil.

But killing children is evil and people who kill children are evil.

how were these children killed?

In a russian school in a place called beslam.

They were raped and shot.

In a russian school in a place called beslam.

They were raped and shot.

And all Palestinian people did this?

Great britain, UK, England. WHY! Why do you want to know things? do you want me to educate you?

And all Palestinian people did this?


Yep. Just like all Israeli people are bloodthirsty monsters that napalm refugee camps.

Aren't generalisations great?

Yep. Just like all Israeli people are bloodthirsty monsters that napalm refugee camps.

Aren't generalisations great?

Do you have to be so anti semitic in the way you mention negative aspects of the jews?

Do you have to be so anti semitic in the way you mention negative aspects of the jews?

I'm negative about most people who think immolating unarmed civilians is a good idea.

I'm negative about most people who think immolating unarmed civilians is a good idea.

Then pray they never blow a bus full of you're children up, perhaps you're views would change then!

Then pray they never blow a bus full of you're children up, perhaps you're views would change then!

So, killing children gives others the right to kill more children?

... sorry, I don't get it :confused:

So, killing children gives others the right to kill more children?

... sorry, I don't get it :confused:

Two wrongs don't make a right but why should the jews take all the blame they kill some of them and vice versa.

Then pray they never blow a bus full of you're children up, perhaps you're views would change then!

Perhaps if you didn't rain fire down on their homes they wouldn't be so violent? Perhaps if you didn't fire rocket salvos in crowded streets they wouldn't be so violent?
Perhaps if you gave them back what's theirs, they wouldn't be so violent? Kindly remember - it was the "anti-semitic" West that put you there, and that the Arabs were there first.

Great britain, UK, England. WHY! Why do you want to know things? do you want me to educate you?

What could you educate me on?

Perhaps if you didn't rain fire down on their homes they wouldn't be so violent? Perhaps if you didn't fire rocket salvos in crowded streets they wouldn't be so violent?
Perhaps if you gave them back what's theirs, they wouldn't be so violent? Kindly remember - it was the "anti-semitic" West that put you there, and that the Arabs were there first.

Perhaps if they did'nt blow kids up, blow schools up, blow people up, maim mutalate indiscriminantly the jews wouldn't be so violent.

Oh and I'm not a Jew I just think they should'nt get attacked when both side are just as bad as each other.

Two wrongs don't make a right but why should the jews take all the blame they kill some of them and vice versa.

I can't speak for the whole world, but I blame both sides equally.
But I simply expect Israelis to be able to look at their own history and to realise that answering violence with violence will only lead to more killings. I know I maybe shouldn't assume this, but I do. That's why I react differently to Israeli violence than to Palestinian.

Perhaps if they did'nt blow kids up, blow schools up, blow people up, maim mutalate indiscriminantly the jews wouldn't be so violent.

If you tried not throwing phosphur and thermite on civilians whenever they kill someone, maybe you'll notice they stop killing?

Oh well, at least when you two wipe each other out we can move in and take the land. We could use more living space I suppose.

edit: And like Cabra said - I also blame both sides equally. They're both as dumb as each other.

Perhaps if they did'nt blow kids up, blow schools up, blow people up, maim mutalate indiscriminantly the jews wouldn't be so violent.

Oh and I'm not a Jew I just think they should'nt get attacked when both side are just as bad as each other.

So we shouldn't attack either side?
Sorry, buddy, one side HAS to end the violence at one stage, without looking for revenge. And I would expect every Western, educated, established, enlightened, UNO nation to see that as well....

So we shouldn't attack either side?
Sorry, buddy, one side HAS to end the violence at one stage, without looking for revenge. And I would expect every Western, educated, established, enlightened, UNO nation to see that as well....

You'd make a better diplomat than me. :D

So we shouldn't attack either side?
Sorry, buddy, one side HAS to end the violence at one stage, without looking for revenge. And I would expect every Western, educated, established, enlightened, UNO nation to see that as well....

Then why not the palastinions for once not the Israelis? why should'nt they be made to stop? Its a question I honestly want to know?

Then why not the palastinions for once not the Israelis? why should'nt they be made to stop? Its a question I honestly want to know?


Because Palestinian leadership is fragmented; Some groups such as Fatah have renounced violence, others such has Hamas havent. So its alot harder to ask things to the Palestinians.

Then why not the palastinions for once not the Israelis? why should'nt they be made to stop? Its a question I honestly want to know?

I can't make either of them stop. Otherwise I would make them stop at the same time.
And before we go on, who or what are you going against? I haven't seen a single post here saying "look at those bad Israelis killing those poor innocent Palestinians". Everybody so far agreed that both sides are equally gulity for not stopping the violence.

Maybe if the Palestinains accepted the Israeli compromises instead of wanting 100%, right now, then we'd get somewhere with the whole mess.

Maybe if the Palestinains accepted the Israeli compromises instead of wanting 100%, right now, then we'd get somewhere with the whole mess.

I think at this point it dos'nt make a difference what you do, they hate each other that much that many will fight not for land or religion, but simply for hate's sake!

Oh and I'm not a Jew I just think they should'nt get attacked when both side are just as bad as each other.
So both sides are equally bad, but The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems.
?

And all Palestinian people did this?
Notice how Gaba the Troll never replied.

Notice how Gaba the Troll never replied.

I can't remenber ever saying all palastinions, to be honest.

I can't remenber ever saying all palastinions, to be honest.
Thanks to the internet, you don't even have to remember. All you have to do is read your own words in this thread.

(Forgive me for being a lazy illiterate, but I could not be arsed to read the whole thing, which will probably make my statement incorrect)

You are saying that all muslims and Tony Blair should get 100% of the blame for the attacks?

Read the entire article. It will answer your question. Why do you even comment about it if your don't read it?

Well, it goes more or less like I expected. 99% of the posts so far were knee jerk reactions to the "trigger words", and the contents of posts are so rich with cliches they could well be made out of newspaper clippings. Now, I am not going to respond to each and every one of the four pages of posts- but let me deal with the more often repeated cliches. I'll take a quote out of one post or another where it appeared, and respond to it without mentioning the author- simply because more than one person said all of those things.

You are saying that all muslims should get 100% of the blame for the attacks?

This cliche makes the very common Western mistake of not distinguishing between Islam and Islamism, or views Islamism as an integral part of the Islamic faith. For this person, a call to uproot Islamism is equivalent to declaring an all-out war on Islam. This is false.

Islamism is not Islam or an expression of it. Islamism is a political doctrine which was developed principally by two arab thinkers in the first part of the 20th century - Qutb and Banna - who were deeply immersed, not in the culture of the middle east, but in the theoretical perspective of the European romantic movement. It is not an alien, exotic or even really an "oriental" doctrine. It is directly inspired by the same intellectual currents which gave rise to romantic nationalism (and colonialism) in the 19th century, and fascism in the mid 20th century.

Islamism is neither a national liberation movement nor a movement for social justice. The main goal of Islamism, explicitly, is to restore the Caliphate, Islamic empire of old that was abolished by the proponents of modernity in Turkey. It is not an anti-imperialist movement. Islamism is an imperialist movement, with imperialist goals and motivations.

Understanding this is essential to understanding the rest of the misconceptions expressed by the posters in this thread.

Elimination of poverty, fairer and more sincere conducts of foreign policy by Western nations and negotiation are the key root weapons against terrorism

Another common misunderstanding. Like I said above, Islamism is not a social justice or liberation movement. It cares not for the welfare of the people or the Western conduct. Qutb, the ideological father of Islamism, saw the primary enemy not as the foreign policy of Western states, but as Modernity: and in particular materialism, liberalism, and democracy.
Reminds you of something? Yep, the ideology behind German and Italian fascism. There even was a very close historical connection between Nazism and Islamism, in both ideology and actions.
The primary ideological reason behind Islamist terrorism is fear that materialism, liberalism and democracy are damaging to the values which Islamists hope to promore: piety and submission to the will of god. By wreaking havoc and disrupting normal life in the West, they are attempting to create ideological confusion and generate rejection of Modernity and its values that would come from inside the West itself- such is the so called "progressive" movement. In other words, Islamists are not fighting against poverty or oppression in the least. They are not even trying to breed Bin Ladens in the Middle East, it is but a byproduct. What they are aiming for is breeding Chomskys and Galloways in the West.

These are the true "underlying causes" behind what happened in London.

You can't fight "terror." End of discussion. You can't fight it any more than you can fight fear or loathing or love--it's an abstract.
Wrong again. Ideological twins of Islamism- German Nazism and Italian fascism- were successfully crushed not by addressing their "root causes" such as the Versailles treaty, but by the military means, crushing their economic and military capability. Neither ideology was destroyed completely, of course, but they were reduced to a nuisance, a minor disturbance, and being a Nazi or a fascist became something to be ashamed of. The only difference in the case of Islamism is that it is less centralized- but that does not mean they cannot be fought by force. It means they will have to be fought in more places and by more sophisticated tactics- but they can, and should, be beaten, not appeased. Fighting terrorism must be a manhunt, not a charity.

To defeat the enemy you must understand him.

A catchy slogan with little substance. To defeat the enemy, you must know him, not understand him. To defeat Hitler, you had to know the location of the industry centers and the movement of the troops, not understand the basics of the Nazi racial theory. To defeat Bin Laden, you need to know the names, the places and the numbers of the bank accounts, not the inner workings of his and his men's twisted psychology.

So it is a coincidence that the level of support for religious radicals is proportionate to the level of poverty in a country?
This statement is false for two reasons. First, it attempts to equate Islamists with "religious radicals" in general, while there is a clear difference of both goals and means of achieving them. Second, it is false factually, since the Islamists do not come from countries with the worst level of poverty in the world.

1)We are not facing "relious radicals". We are facing the Islamists, the fascist imperialist movement described in the first part of my post. These people are not religious radicals per se, but religious radicals with a conqueror agenda that dictates violent means of achieving it. Neither Christian, nor Jewish, nor Hindu or other radicals pursue an agenda of building a faith based empire centered on rejection of Modernity. Neither Christian, nor Jewish, nor Hindu or other radicals engage in worldwide violent campaign against random civilian targets.
2)Obviously, Islamism does not come from the countries with the world's worst levels of poverty. In fact, as noted by other posters, Islamism is decentralized, and many of its proponents are Muslims living in the West, where levels of poverty are hardly an issue at all. But even in the Middle East poverty is far from the African or South Asian levels, which is evident by the flow of workforce- there are many Asians and Africans coming to the Arab countries in search of better jobs, while hardly any Arab looks for work in Nigeria or Tanzania. At the same time, the truly poor states of the sub-Saharan Africa, even the Muslim ones among them, did not become strongholds of Islamism or an equivalent movement, and no one looses much sleep over Tanzanian or Nigerian terrorists.

The true Islamic terrorists are those who are unhappy with circumstance. The ones who actually are persuaded into a life of destruction are those who have experienced the poverty and oppression around them and want to engage in this because of promises that things can get better for them.
This is also a common, but false view. Yes, the upper layer of the Islamist terrorist gangs is made of very wealthy aristocrates from influential clans. But the lower rank are not poor, ignorant jobless peasants. Any statistics on terrorism's "cannon fodder" consistently show that a typical low-rank terrorist is almost never a poor farmer with a family to feed, who wants to vent his anger by blowing other people up. Typical low-rank terrorists are educated men -and women as of late- in their 20-s, from middle class families. Many of those who have committed terrorist attacks on behalf of Al-Qaeda were people who lived in the West for decades and had jobs with higher than average income. Terrorists do not recruit from the unemloyment offices, they recruit from the universities and lucrative Islamic schools where education costs impressive money.

More later.

Elimination of poverty, fairer and more sincere conducts of foreign policy by Western nations and negotiation are the key root weapons against terrorism

Another common misunderstanding. Like I said above, Islamism is not a social justice or liberation movement. It cares not for the welfare of the people or the Western conduct. Qutb, the ideological father of Islamism, saw the primary enemy not as the foreign policy of Western states, but as Modernity: and in particular materialism, liberalism, and democracy.
Reminds you of something? Yep, the ideology behind German and Italian fascism. There even was a very close historical connection between Nazism and Islamism, in both ideology and actions.

The primary ideological reason behind Islamist terrorism is fear that materialism, liberalism and democracy are damaging to the values which Islamists hope to promore: piety and submission to the will of god. By wreaking havoc and disrupting normal life in the West, they are attempting to create ideological confusion and generate rejection of Modernity and its values that would come from inside the West itself- such is the so called "progressive" movement. In other words, Islamists are not fighting against poverty or oppression in the least. They are not even trying to breed Bin Ladens in the Middle East, it is but a byproduct. What they are aiming for is breeding Chomskys and Galloways in the West.

You misunderstand. I know that reduction of poverty, and increasing political freedom in the ME will not convince the ideological fathers and upper-crust directors of Islamism to lay down their arms. What I want is to cause their support among ordinary poor Muslims to wither away. I believe that vast reform - forcing oppressive governments to get with the programme or be toppled, installing education and anti-poverty programmes - that is the way to make Islamist terrorism history.

That last comment about Chomsky and Galloway - not that I agree with those guys - was not worthy of the rest. It plain enough that you're making a low swipe at the Left.

You can't fight "terror." End of discussion. You can't fight it any more than you can fight fear or loathing or love--it's an abstract.
Wrong again. Ideological twins of Islamism- German Nazism and Italian fascism- were successfully crushed not by addressing their "root causes" such as the Versailles treaty, but by the military means, crushing their economic and military capability
The root causes of Nazism didn't need to be addressed during WWII. Hitler had already addressed them in the 1930s.

So we should crush the Islamists' economic and military capability. That would make sense if they were an actual country with a conventional military. But they're not. They have no weapons factories that we can bomb, nor do they have armies or navies that we can engage in battle. We need a new approach.

So it is a coincidence that the level of support for religious radicals is proportionate to the level of poverty in a country?

2)Obviously, Islamism does not come from the countries with the world's worst levels of poverty.
Yes it does, with the added condition that these countries have a Muslim majority. That's why the people of poor, ravaged places like Afghanistan show more support for Islamists than the people of more civilised, prosperous countries like Iraq and Libya.

Thirdly, the jihadists initiated a terror war against the West because it is the West, and not in order to "advance" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict's resolution or push the United States to pull its forces out of Iraq.

Their one and only motive was, and still is, to undermine the basis of the despised Western culture and expose it as weak.
That is where I completely disagree, and therefore I come to completely different conclusions.

That is where I completely disagree, and therefore I come to completely different conclusions.
I wonder whether I've seen you before....hmmm

"You are saying that all muslims should get 100% of the blame for the attacks?"

Well I'm sorry but i can't agree with you on that point, i do not see how at the moment you can possibly assert with any authority who conducted the 7/7 London bombings as no one knows at the moment. Whilst it may well have been 'Islamists' it need not necessarily have been motivated by a desire for a universal empire based on islamic doctrine. You never answered the question about whether muslims should get the blame for the attacks either.......

"Elimination of poverty, fairer and more sincere conducts of foreign policy by Western nations and negotiation are the key root weapons against terrorism"

Whilst it is true that there are always those who will support an ideology until the end the majority of people are progressive and fairly open minded about life and do not seek to harm others. This means there will always be those radicals and psychos who see violence as a means of self expression but without the support of ordinary people they will be powerless. The comparison of German and Italian fascism with Islamism is also false for these were state created and endorsed reactions to problems within these nations post WW1, not reactions against society (by the way both Nazism and Fascism pandered to big business and cannot be seen to be reactions against modernity, one of their key aims was to modernise the respective countries.) Your cheap dig at Galloway and Chomsky is also uncalled for, throwing mud at others only gets your hands dirty.

"You can't fight "terror." End of discussion. You can't fight it any more than you can fight fear or loathing or love--it's an abstract."

No you cant fight terrorism but you can remove the roots which feed it. Forcible intervention into areas where there are suspected terrorists does little more than kill innocents and turn more and more against you creating more radicals. Do you seriously want to invade yet more countries? Terrorism cannot be crushed because it evolves and changes, it is not an object it is an idea and cannot be removed conventionally. The comparisons between fighting the Nazis and Islamists does not make sense, the Nazis were a state in the normal sense whereas Islamic terrorsits can be found all over the world and cannot be bombed out like the Nazis.I agree that eliminating poverty will not remove terrorism, but it will go a long way towards it.

"To defeat the enemy you must understand him."

Once again i cannot understand your comparison with the Nazis! Removing Bin Laden or whoever is behind the terrorist attacks will not do anything, will everyone else just give up and go home?You need to eliminate the breeding grounds of terrorism, yes it is often poor countries, not the individuals and in doing this you will come to understand them.

"So it is a coincidence that the level of support for religious radicals is proportionate to the level of poverty in a country?"

I would be interested to know just how you know that the 'Islamists" were behind the recent bombing or what their idelogical motivations were. How can you tell that all terrorists believe in this ideological standpoint? Terrorists do not come from the poorest countries such as Nigeria and Tanzania firstly for the reason these are actually predominantly Christian countries in Africa and also because the people there cant afford to leave their lives behind and become terrorists, their families would starve.They do not have the neccesary skills to become terrorists and are not educated enough to know about ideology and political thought, nor do they have time in their lives for thought about it. Whilst Islamism may not directly come from poor people, it could gain their passive support as they see the West ignore and exploit them.

"The true Islamic terrorists are those who are unhappy with circumstance.
The ones who actually are persuaded into a life of destruction are those who have experienced the poverty and oppression around them and want to engage in this because of promises that things can get better for them."

I for one cannot believe that any educated person in their right mind could believe that terrorism and fear is the way to change conditions, it must be a last resort. These people feel the only way to help get noticed and change the lives of those in other countries is with bombs, i think that is is a sad world we live in where people are driven to such extremes for recognition.

The whole of the authors article while he goes on about other peoples cliches is riddled with them. Do you actually believe there is a sinister Islamic organisation hell bent on world domination? Or is this just a back lash in response to a wave of terrorist attacks we are at this moment unable to find the culprits of?

I'll reply in more detail later, but just one point I MUST address:

Do you actually believe there is a sinister Islamic organisation hell bent on world domination?

YES damn it. (http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/english.html) And they aren't even hiding. Take that wax out of your ears already.
The Reasons for the Establishment of Hizb ut-Tahrir

Its purpose was to revive the Islamic Ummah from the severe decline that it had reached, and to liberate it from the thoughts, systems and laws of Kufr[b], as well as the domination and influence of the Kufr states. It also aims to restore the Islamic Khilafah State so that the ruling by what Allah (swt) revealed returns.




The Aim of Hizb ut-Tahrir

[b]Its aim is to resume the Islamic way of life and to convey the Islamic da’wah to the world. This objective means bringing the Muslims back to living an Islamic way of life in Dar al-Islam and in an Islamic society such that all of life’s affairs in society are administered according to the Shari’ah rules, and the viewpoint in it is the halal and the haram under the shade of the Islamic State, which is the Khilafah State. That state is the one in which Muslims appoint a Khaleefah and give him the bay’ah to listen and obey on condition that he rules according to the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and on condition that he conveys Islam as a message to the world through da’wah and jihad.

The Party, as well, aims at the correct revival of the Ummah through enlightened thought. It also strives to bring her back to her previous might and glory such that she wrests the reins of initiative away from other states and nations, and returns to her rightful place as the first state in the world, as she was in the past, when she governs the world according to the laws of Islam.

It also aims to bring back the Islamic guidance for mankind and to [b]lead the Ummah into a struggle with Kufr, its systems and its thoughts so that Islam encapsulates the world.

For the Holy Womble's benefit, I will bump this thread.