Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hunter on July 07, 2005, 04:43:34 am
-
Looks like only chaos bombs rather than devastating ones, but still;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
-
Well reports on TV are saying that there are 90 casualties in one of the tube explosions but then again the same station reported that a plane flew into a building in Chicago on Setember 11th so I don't trust rolling news much.
-
Yeah, it's changed since I posted - Looks like 20 dead, too....
-
6 hours after they announce that London gets the Olympic games rather than France too...
I hope it wasn't bombs, they don't know for sure yet. Hope no-one who visits these boards is effected by it...
-
Definately bombs; you can't get simultaneous accidental explosions on different transport networks. The Met. Police Commissioner was just on the telly saying there were 6 suspectedexplosions; 1 on a bus, the rest on the tube (Russel Sq, Moorgate, Liverpool St are ones I've heard; I've been in Moorgate station myself).
It looks like it was timed to coincide with the Olympic announcement and the movement of police / anti-terrorism officials to the G8 summit.
And it is, of course, a ****ing nightmare to happen.
EDIT; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4659093.stm
[q]- 0849 - Report of explosion on Metropolitan Line between Liverpool Street and Aldgate
- Further explosions reported at Aldgate East, Edgware Road, King's Cross, Russell Square and Moorgate
- Two Underground trains collide near King's Cross[/q]
-
In case the above link goes obsolete:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4659093.stm
-
Originally posted by TopAce
In case the above link goes obsolete:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4659093.stm
Y'know, that's going to confuse the hell out some people :D
(He means the link at the top of the page, BTW)
-
Hell. That post wasn't there when I started posting my reply!
-
I'm just evil that way.
Um.... story is that these blasts were at peak time in the morning. There's another report of an explosion near Hounditch Road. It's hard to quantify how bad 'bad' is in this situation, of course.
AFAIK the only confirmed casualties are 2 people at Aldgate East.
Al-Queda have been linked as responsible (scarcely a surprise; it's their type of MO).
-
True and it's most likely them but it's worth remembering that there are all kinds of anarchist w**kers in the country at the moment cause of the G8 summit and it's not exactly hard to copy an MO like this.
-
That's true, yes; albeit I don't think they'd want to be mistaken for another group if they arranged this sort of thing. I'm not sure if anarchist groups fall into this sort of sophisticated planned terrorism (synchronized blasts, possibly attacking the power infrastructure for the tube as well) instead of being mindless thugs; although it only takes a small group to pull this sort of thing off, so it's a moot point.
EDIT; if it was a suicide bomber on the bus, as has been suggested, I think that would definately point to an islamic fundamentalist group (as IIRC Al-queda is a sort of funding/organisation group for multiple independent groups rather than a singly homogenous 'worldwide' terrorist entity, I use the name as a sort of blanket cover for the specific organisation responsible).
-
Very unpleasent business indeed... and right on the wake of the Olympics / G8 etc. Quite unbelievable.
-
This is just so ****ed up, that's all I can say. :no:
-
:blah:
-
wait a second, I thought you all said there was no AlQueda, that it was all just made up by the US government after one of the bombings...
-
There is no shadowy terrorist organisation called Al Queda that has tentacles all over the world and which is run by Bin Laden from a cave in Afghanistan.
What in fact exists is a loose affiliation of muslim terrorist groups which only started to use the name Al Queda after the American government invented that name in order to prosecute certain indivuduals under the organised crime laws.
Bin Laden is not in charge of Al Queda. He's merely a finacier of their operations who has become a figurehead for the operation. In fact it's possible that the first he knew of the 9\11 attacks is when he saw them on TV (unless he's responsible for paying money to any of the people involved). Either way it almost certainly wasn't his plan.
Basically the name Al Queda is now famous after 9\11 and as a result Islamic terrorists use that name because it inspires more fear than saying they are part of Crimson Jihad or whatever cliche name they've choose for themselves.
-
Al-Queda was never mentioned by Bin Ladin until after it had come up in his trial - in absentia - for the Nigerian embassy bombings (as kara said, the only way they could convict Bin Ladin was to use the old racketeering laws created to tackle the mafia, and that required an 'organisation').
IIRC the main testimony detailing the 'operation' of Al-Queda was from a defector who a) was paid several hundred thousand dollars for his testimony and b) had stolen money from Bin Ladin.
My understanding is that bin Ladin is simply a financier and fixer; he's rich, he probably has some names in his phone book, but he's not orchestrating any attacks - just wiring the money. IIRC the guy regarded as responsible for organizing 9/11 was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. In fact, I believe many of the armed people seen in the various videos with Bin Ladin as his entourage were found to have been hired for that purpose (to be seen).
Not to say Islamic fundamentalist terrorism doesn't exist, of course; but it's politically expedient to depict it in the way Al-Qaeda allows. for one thing you have a Goldstein-esque figure of hate to blame, you have an identifiable target, and you have a mechanism to mobilise the population by presenting a seemingly credible threat to their existence. The truth is that these terrorists are organized in primarily independent small groups and cells, with shifting alliances and existing in shadow; it's not a case of cutting off the head to kill a snake. And because of this they will always exist - there's always going to be a lunatic fringe of humanity - the question is how to stop the 'normal' people who grow to sympathise and support them financially, logistically, or through engaging in acts of terror.
But these groups present a minimal threat to society compared to what they are portrayed as (under the guise of Al-Queda) - even despite todays tragedy, the vast likelihood is that we will never be within 100 miles of an attack, let alone caught in one.
I'd suggest looking for a copy of the BBC documentary 'The power of nightmares' (pt 3); it covers this in a lot of detail.
-
I find it incredably hard to believe that only two people died, reading the reports thus far.
-
It'll be in the tens, but hopefully not hundreds, I think. It seems that the blasts were on buses and on underground carriages; both in total i think don't carry enough for a massive death toll, and hopefully the nature of train carriages would have limited the effects of the blast to be upon (the poor sods in) a single carriage.
Really it's a moot point how many died; the point has to be that someone died because of these bastards, and they need to be hunted down, caught and convicted for that. I have to admit I share the same morbid curiousity a lot of people do about death tolls, but at the same time I get pissed off about the people in the media badgering the police chief (in interviews) for a rough number.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'd suggest looking for a copy of the BBC documentary 'The power of nightmares' (pt 3); it covers this in a lot of detail.
I second that. Get all three parts if possible. The documentary explains a hell of a lot of things about the history of the the islamic fundementalist movement.
-
They were just showing pictures of the bus blown up in Woburn place.... it's pretty horrible, the walls of the surrounding buildings are covered in blood.
EDIt; this is reportedly a statement of responsibility posted on an Islamist website (from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660391.stm);
[q] In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, may peace be upon the cheerful one and undaunted fighter, Prophet Muhammad, God's peace be upon him.
Nation of Islam and Arab nation: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters.
We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid.
We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused.
God says: "You who believe: If ye will aid (the cause of) Allah, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly.[/q]
And on a side note; "Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters."
Bollocks. They really are full of themselves, aren't they?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
It'll be in the tens, but hopefully not hundreds, I think. It seems that the blasts were on buses and on underground carriages; both in total i think don't carry enough for a massive death toll, and hopefully the nature of train carriages would have limited the effects of the blast to be upon (the poor sods in) a single carriage.
five trains in spain killed 300, I don't know if you'd call that massive or not, I'd say this could be half that.
oh, and fox news says 45 dead, 100 injured.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
five trains in spain killed 300, I don't know if you'd call that massive or not, I'd say this could be half that.
Half is possible, I think (albeit the Madrid train bombings killed 191 and wounded >1,800). In the Madrid bombings there were multiple bombs on the trains (some of which failed to go off, thankfully - they would have destroyed the station if they had). But what I hope is that the blasts were limited (on the underground) to a single carriage and hopefully contained somewhat by that.
But at the moment, I'm going solely on the reported injuries at hospitals, which are in the 100-200 range. It could be much, much worse than even Madrid depending on how many bodies are left underground and uncounted. I'm essentially hoping that I can make an optimistic guess and be right.
EDIT; obviously the only 2 fatalities confirmed (certain to rise), but the police have said there are 150 seriously injured and 'many more' walking wounded.
-
The Madrid bombings were also followed up with secondary bombs designed to kill rescue workers IIRC.
-
Currently the number most folks seem to have picked up on is ITN's 45 killed.
I'm hearing that there were three bombs that didn't go off, too. Given the similarities, this is starting to look like Madrid all over again...
-
I'm really glad to see the cities' various emergency services handling the bombings so well, they've all pulled together and it would have been a lot worse without the cool handling of the Ambulance, Fire, and Police services - but then, i'm not really surprised with that, i mean London has always been patron to destructive forces that she does not deserve; the Blitz, the IRA, and now -this-
-
I just heard about this on the radio and I'm terribly sorry that it happened to you guys. My condolences Britain.
-
From what I understand off the news reports is that this was setup well in advance and likely not aimed at the Olympic London win but rather the G8 summit in Scotland which is a stones throw away in terrorist terms.
Al Qaeda exists in some fashion. I did a school report on them long before all of this business with the USS Cole, the 911 attack and so on. They are a loose organization of fundamentalist extremists who don't have too much in common with each other except that they were (probably) prepared for jihad against Iraq during the 1991 Kwait invasion and then had the US come in and spoil holy land or somethingorother. It all has as much to do with Bin Laden family feuds in Saudi Arabia as it does with everything else...so its kind of a complicated and comple setup.
And damn them for attacking London.
-
Crap. Best wishes to all involved.
Though the timing (G8/Olypmic announcement) is wierd. If it was a terrorist attack, why now specifically? And I honestly don't believe it was anarchists, killing innocents at random just isn't part of the program.
Luckily, BBC is reporting only two deaths.
-
I hate to bring bad news.. but Yahoo is reporting at least 40..
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/london_bombings
-
I've heard approx 5 confirmed deaths on the BBC. I'd obviously expect that to rise as they recover bodies from underground.
Apparently, there were only 4 bombs (that affected 7 locations). Still waiting for further info, though.
-
Ok, there was this live thing on ABC with the head of the fire brigaid, and police, and rescue and what not.
They said 4 confirmed blasts 33 confirmed fatalities and they said there are more in another area but havent confirmed the number. They say there are 300+ with minor injuries and several with major (didn't hear that number)
Basically they are trying to comfort everyone and telling them to start thinking about the travel home.
-
Kalfireth, in that article you linked, why are they asking US law enforcement officials rather than UK ones?
London survived much worse, it will survive this tragedy. :)
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Kalfireth, in that article you linked, why are they asking US law enforcement officials rather than UK ones?
London survived much worse, it will survive this tragedy. :)
Yes...from what I understand, the blitz mentality from WWII and during the IRA bombings remains intact.
-
****. :eek: :(
Where's Flipside? He's a Londoner, no? I hope he's aliright. HAven't seen a response from him yet.
-
Hopefully he's just stuck in traffic somewhere. The entire subway is out of commision, so lot's of people are just stranded.
-
****ers :mad:
-
Unconfirmed reports that the Gartenavel (sp?) Hospital in Glasgow has been evacuated under bomb threat procedures. Not seen anything on the newswires, this come from a mate on the ground.
On the topic of London - if whoever did this actually think it'll have the effect of terrorising the British public, they need a history lesson. It just pisses us off.
-
Say what? ("http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_britain_explosions_1")
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Kalfireth, in that article you linked, why are they asking US law enforcement officials rather than UK ones?
London survived much worse, it will survive this tragedy. :)
The US official said he was informed by UK police officials
-
The NY governor and mayor are using this as another stunt to stroke their police egos. It's disgusting. :ick:
Pataki :no: :no:
Bloomberg :no:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Say what? ("http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_britain_explosions_1")
...the ****?!
-
Originally posted by vyper
On the topic of London - if whoever did this actually think it'll have the effect of terrorising the British public, they need a history lesson. It just pisses us off.
While the Brits were always resistant to the IRA and during the blitz it had a government telling it not to be scared the whole time.
For the past 4 years we've had a government trying to encourage us to jump at shadows so I wouldn't bet that we'll be seeing the same kind of dogged determination that we saw during those days.
I really hope we do but if this had been an IRA blast 15 years ago it's doubtful that the tube would have been down for more than an hour let alone all day.
That said no one in the country believes a word out of Blair's mouth these days so maybe when he tries to scare us with this (and you can f**king well believe the b**tard will) there's a good chance we'll just ignore him.
-
What's struck me is how controlled the entire situation has been. Despite the media's best efforts it's remained a very calm, if somewhat saddening, affair.
-
Yep. That much is true. Lets just hope we can keep that calm perspective on things.
-
That was... unpleasant..
Well, Im fine, pissed off, but fine.
Still checking up on friends etc, will post more later.
-
Bloody hell glad you're alright.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
That was... unpleasant..
Well, Im fine, pissed off, but fine.
Still checking up on friends etc, will post more later.
Were you present?
-
I heard one of the explosions, I was on the tube with a bunch of trainees going to a job fair. The lights went out for about 2 minutes, and then the train moved along to the next station and we had to get out and make our own way.
The actual explosion was about 1 mile from where I was, but because of the tubes acoustic properties, it seemed a lot closer. Just checked up on most people I know, still waiting to hear from one, but they should be fine.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Bloody hell glad you're alright.
-
I'm glad you're safe, Flip. Was getting worried.
-
Originally posted by Raa
I'm glad you're safe, Flip. Was getting worried.
Ditto. Good to see your alright. :)
Hope no-one you know is effected by it Flip. :(
-
For all the Londoners in this forum, I hope your families are ok.
-
Just heard from my brother, so everyones fine here :)
It was terrible, but inevitable, if I look at it without emotion, something tells me it could very much have been a lot lot worse.
I saw a lot of confusion, a lot of anger, but I must admit, I failed to see a single person cowering in fear. We were told is was a power surge at first, when the train got to the station we were told to run for the exits, which didn't sound like a 'Power surge' to me. Most people were pretty certain what it was from the moment it happened. Anyone over 30 in the UK has lived more of their life under the threat of terrorism like this than free from it.
It appears that arrests may have been made, but no details as yet. Personally, I think that they waited until most of the Police were in Edinburgh defending G8, so we had a reduced presence in London. It wasn't about the G8, but the G8 provided the window.
-
I was replying about these events on niteshdw's forum, and got a little "into it" while typing my reply. I decided to post it here as a show of both defiance, and support for the Londoners (incl Flip) who were there today.
The people who planned, executed and claimed glory for these attacks made one mistake. It is however a fatal mistake to make. They believed the British public would be intimidated, terrorized and beaten down by the fear they tried to invoke. We are still here. We will always be here. Nothing they do can take away our resolve, our determination and more importantly our faith in ourselves and our way of life.
I offer a salute to those who live in London and who picked themselves up and went about their business, and who will tomorrow go about their business, despite all that has happened. Many times before we have faced an enemy who wanted to attack not our military but our people and our way of life - and many times before we have faced them off.
What Elgar says in irony I say with conviction, britons never shall be slaves. Not to men who seek power for it's own sake, nor to men who would kill, maim and destroy to scare us into submission.
The people of this country have always stood against terror in all it's forms with unflinching resolve to continue living the way we believe is right - and we always shall do.
-
Good to see you safe Flip. Sounds like it was a close call, you being on the subway an all.
-
Glad to hear everything's all right, Flip. :)
Well said, vyper. I've never been to Britain myself, but from the people I've known online, I've often experienced that mentality. My condolences go out to the victims and their families, and I hope you find the bastards that did this.
-
You know, if I hear one more person on TV spent five minutes continuously sucking the cock of a token Muslim and telling us all not to be pissed at them all (which is highly unlikely anyway!), I'm going to commit murder.
-
Heh, Muslims didn't do this, *******s did, I don't really give a toss what excuse they hide behind, be it Islam, be it Justice, be it Snuffleupagus, it all still boils down to *******s :)
-
I'm not normally for retribution or capital punishment, but for the people that did this I will make an exception...
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/in_pictures_the_london_explosions/img/6.jpg)
-
Damn the people who did this. Thats all I can say because thats how I feel.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
While the Brits were always resistant to the IRA and during the blitz it had a government telling it not to be scared the whole time.
For the past 4 years we've had a government trying to encourage us to jump at shadows so I wouldn't bet that we'll be seeing the same kind of dogged determination that we saw during those days.
I really hope we do but if this had been an IRA blast 15 years ago it's doubtful that the tube would have been down for more than an hour let alone all day.
That said no one in the country believes a word out of Blair's mouth these days so maybe when he tries to scare us with this (and you can f**king well believe the b**tard will) there's a good chance we'll just ignore him.
To be fair, it'd be hard for them to keep the tube running after multiple blasts; there's too much of a risk in another attack for them to chance not checking the tunnels etc for devices
Of course, if the government uses this as an excuse to peddle their ID card ****e, I will be tempted to kick their arse myself......
Oh, and good to hear you're ok Flip.
-
Condolences to all the Londoners here. Good thing you're okay Flipside. :yes:
Two good articles on the incident:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/london.timeline/ <-- Timeline of events
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Coordinated_terrorist_attack_in_London <-- Wikinews article
-
Glad to hear our South-Easterners are unhurt. :yes:
I think it'd take something a lot worse than this to actually do some damage to Britain. We've lived with terrorism almost constantly since the 60s, so we've got (possibly) the best anti-terror infrastructure in the world, as evidenced by the swift reaction of all concerned.
My feeling is that it could have been an awful lot worse, as the casualties, while numerous, are far lower than they might have been. There was also no damage to the infrastructure apart from at one of the tube stations, so there will be little to no disruption after the SOCOs and forensic people clear out of the tunnels.
If it weren't for the 37 deaths (at this point), I honestly think we could laugh it off. For a group trying to bring down the government/punish Britain for Iraq/whatever, they did a pretty poor job - it'll be like it never happened inside a week. Plus they attacked the most heavily-CCTV-covered transport system in the world. If they weren't suicide bombers, then the plod will find them PDQ...
Vyper: your last comment is one I heartily agree with. There's been far too much of that on TV and radio today. :ick: One thing I found worth watching was George W.'s statement to the press at Gleneagles. Watching him trying (and failing spectacularly) to construct entire sentences on his own was hilarious. :D
Aldo: I hope that this will actually kill the ID card idea once and for all - such a system would have done nothing to prevent something like this...
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
wait a second, I thought you all said there was no AlQueda, that it was all just made up by the US government after one of the bombings...
[color=66ff00]No I said that the US government and the companies it supports orchestrated 9/11 in order to start a war for oil.
I used to think this was a preposterous idea until I saw the evidence.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I heard one of the explosions, I was on the tube with a bunch of trainees going to a job fair. The lights went out for about 2 minutes, and then the train moved along to the next station and we had to get out and make our own way.
The actual explosion was about 1 mile from where I was, but because of the tubes acoustic properties, it seemed a lot closer. Just checked up on most people I know, still waiting to hear from one, but they should be fine.
A Mile? That's practically nothing at the speeds the trains go. ****... Glad you're OK cob.
I hope they get someone for this. Someone big - not just the ****ers at the bottom. Someone.
-
Someone? How about all of them? Now that would be nice, although I guess that would leave us with a lot of unpopulated middle-eastern countries.
(that last bit is sarcasm in case anyone doesn't catch it)
-
Incidentally, this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4661633.stm) is why I don't like George Galloway. He couldn't even wait a single day before trying to make political capital.
-
Eh, he's a politician. The second the news hit, I would bet good money that the first thought of every politician in the UK, and abroad, was "how does this affect me, and how can I turn the situation to my favour." If any side holds off on trying to capitlize on the situation, which few have. it is merely out of concern that they would look like bastards.
-
just tell us who you want hit back.
-
Hit Pataki, Bloomberg and Bush, please.
-
well, I was thinking more along the lines of Mugabe.
-
Yeah, but I'd like those out of the way, too. :p
-
mutable birds, multable stones, who says we can't give em all a good smack.
-
Can´t say much about this, except that the whole world saw this coming a mile away...
Everybody knew a hit in London was just a matter of time.
Anyway, what i would like to know most of all right now, is wether any of our british friends from our little community got hurt or affected by this. I hope not. My next thought goes to those who DID got affected by this.
My final thought goes to the guilty parties envolved. I say parties, in plural, because there are many. The terrorists constitute only one. The others are the prepotent war mongering governments of the world who led us to this day.
Damn you Bush, and damn you Blair. You are just as guilty as those who pressed the trigger today. I hope you all rott in hell.
:blah:
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Damn you Bush, and damn you Blair. You are just as guilty as those who pressed the trigger today. I hope you all rott in hell.
:blah:
And how exactly are they as guilty as the buggers who set the bombs?
I want to know, in no uncertain terms, what Bush & Co have done to piss you folk off more than previous administrations and how they are guilty of setting the bombs.
I would also remind you that the people who set those bombs have been waging war on the West for over 1000 years.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Damn you Bush, and damn you Blair. You are just as guilty as those who pressed the trigger today. I hope you all rott in hell.
:blah:
For that statement, you can burn as well.
Let's get back on topic, yeah?
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Damn you Bush, and damn you Blair. You are just as guilty as those who pressed the trigger today. I hope you all rott in hell.
:blah:
...I don't even know what to say.
-
That was perhaps the most singularly idiotic statement I have ever heard...which is no mean feat.
-
Wasn't TM...
-
When I woke up this morning and saw the first images of blood soaked people on the TV, I had assumed there was another violent clash between protesters at the G8 summit and police. But that thought faded quickly as the actual news set in. Although 911 shocked me, the London bombings have made me more angry than shocked (I skipped being shocked).
We all knew they would strike again but I had assumed that it would be US soil and not UK soil although that was a very real possibility.
All I can say is that I hope they find the bastards who did this. If they come quietly then we'll give them a trial but I'd much rather have them fight it out and let the armed forces blow the **** out of them.
We do have to separate the generic from the specific here. We have to target terrorists in terrrorist networks...not the common man on the street be he muslim or christian or jewish or whatever.
As my anger fades...I'm just quietly thankful that the death toll is not higher than it is and I very much respect the resolve of Londoners. Thoughts from Canada are with you.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Although 911 shocked me, the London bombings have made me more angry than shocked. We all knew they would strike again but I had assumed that it would be US soil and not UK soil although that was a very real possibility.
Excuse me for sounding like a prick, but you are more angry that the UK got bombed than the US? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Raa
Excuse me for sounding like a prick, but you are more angry that the UK got bombed than the US? :wtf:
MMmm no thats not what I was saying.
I was saying that when 911 happened I did go into shock. I was totally shocked at the level of destruction and the scale of the attack. I was angry later...but shocked for a good many hours first (maybe days). With the bombings in London I wasn't so much shocked as just straight to very angry.
You know, the various stages of absorbing something like this. Shock, anger, sadness, and then resolve.
I was also expecting the next terror strike to be on US soil and not on UK soil. That was my guess. I was wrong. I'm not angry that it was on one or the other...I'm angry at the attack - period. Innocent lives were lost today and I am angry.
Maybe I should further break down the paragraphs so we can separate my emotional response to two separate attacks from whatever it was being interpreted as...
Excuse me for being a prick as well but since when did expressing emotional reaction on here somehow lead to bizzare innuendo about being angry over who should be attacked? Errm....thats definately :wtf:
Please explain...I'm very confused.
-
I was just asking because that's how it read. And since it seemed so uncharacteristic of you, I figured I'd ask. *shrugs*
-
First, may I say to Karajorma, IPAndrews, Flipside, Kalfireth, Diamond Geezer and the rest from England my deepest and sincerest prayers and condolences goes out to Britain and its people.
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Damn you Bush, and damn you Blair. You are just as guilty as those who pressed the trigger today. I hope you all rott in hell.
:blah:
Now on the same token(don't take this the wrong way or me sticking my thumb in your eye), I am not sure if you are refering to strictly Iraq, but I should mention this is not strictly related to Iraq but the actions in Afganistan as well.
@Kalfireth, Sorry this happened on your birthday.
-
You can't stop terrorists attacking civilian targets without imposing a totalitarian security regime, and nobody wants that.
This was no 9/11, or Madrid, but it was very personal and shocking to us. It would be nice to think there was a comforting solution like sending the SAS to deal with it, but sadly the only way to end terrorism is by negotiation....
-
Except of course that you cannot negotiate with a pyschopath...
-
I heard an analyst on the news say that the attacks in europe are just "conventional terrorist attacks on steroids" and that they were probably planning something "very big" for the US.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was right.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Except of course that you cannot negotiate with a pyschopath...
But you can keep removing the leadership until you get to someone more reasonable.
I can't speak for the rest of the Brits but quite frankly I think what we should do is finish what we started in Afghanistan. After removing the Taliban we just seemed to give up and concentrate on a stupid, ill concieved war in Iraq.
What they should have done was send those troops into Afghanistan and found Bin Laden. He may only have been a figurehead to the terrorists rather than the leader the media want to portray him as but capturing him would have done more in the war against terror than the Iraq war ever achieved.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
That was perhaps the most singularly idiotic statement I have ever heard...which is no mean feat.
Thank you. That is kind of you. :rolleyes:
Obviouslly, some of you don´t yet see that what happened today could have been avoided. Unless you consider what happened today as "colateral damage", and a "necessary evil for a greater good", i cannot fathom any possible way where you can equate Bush and Blair out of the responsible roster for today´s events.
In case some of you forgot, the war on Afghanistan and Iraq was supposed to rid the world of a terrorist threat, yet all i see is that those actions have pumped fresh blood into it. The taliban are still there, Osama is still there, the insurgence in Iraq is still there. So just what have they acomplished? Nothing, i say. Nothing, except more death and destruction.
Let me say it in no uncertain terms, that i see Bush and Blair on the same plane, where blame is assigned. At least i am not a hipocrit, who sees only those who strap explosives to their chest as worthy of endless damnation in hell. Yes they are guilty, yes they should burn, as anyone here has already agreed on. However, leaving them to take that punishment alone is leaving the door open for further attacks.
And untill you the public, realize this, we are going to see this happen day in day out.
For every action, there is an opposite reaction. And untill certain parties stop f**king around with other people, there will always be madmen lining up for a bloody payback.
-
kara, at the risk of this turning into a debate, the nature of the beast is that there is no central leadership or set hiearchy. I don't think that you could remove the leadership of a terrorist group and expect to have someone more "moderate" take their place. At this point if you remove or kill someone there is always going to be someone to take their place. Not only that but you make a martyr out of the former leader. I once heard an Political Scientist from John Hopkins say that Osama Bin Laden has reached the point of God hood in the eyes of the radical muslim world. Removing him for instance wouldn't help anything and might make things worse. The point is removing leadership of terrorist groups is not going to do anything.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
For every action, there is an opposite reaction. And untill certain parties stop f**king around with other people, there will always be madmen lining up for a bloody payback.
Even if you stop "****ing around," doesn't mean that they will stop attacking. Secondly, apart from Iraq, I guess you would have US do absolutly nothing in response to what happened 9/11/2001?
Like I said before this is revenge by them not only for Iraq but Afganistan and they will not cease until their appetites for blood is quenched. Which meanse the rest of Europe is a target.
And if you want to blame Bush and Blair, you should also blame every other Nation's Leader that took part in the Afganistan conflict.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
kara, at the risk of this turning into a debate, the nature of the beast is that there is no central leadership or set hiearchy. I don't think that you could remove the leadership of a terrorist group and expect to have someone more "moderate" take their place
I was basically saying that if you remove enough of the leaders eventually you'll get to someone willing to talk (or run out of terrorists). Basically that's the only thing you can do. Capture and imprison the bastards until they run out of terrorists. You can't leave them free and you can't kill them or you make them martyrs. Removing them or isolating them politically is the only option left.
Then while you're removing the leaders you have to take steps to remove the reasons why people join up with the terrorists in the first place.
One of the biggest mistakes the west ever made was not stepping up with a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan after the soviet pull out. Yet when we were given a second bite at it we made the same stupid mistake yet again and ignored Afghanistan to embark on an idiotic military adventure in Iraq.
Had Afghanistan been handled correctly we might have been able to get some support from the muslim world. Instead what little sympathy the muslim world had for the US after 9\11 was squandered in starting the unnecessary war in Iraq.
One thing I do agree with you Red. This isn't just about Iraq or even Afghanistan. But Iraq made the terrorists stronger by giving them a very visible example of the west being against Islam and quite frankly Bush and Blair were idiots to give that to them. Instead of doing things to help things get better both of them just made things worse.
-
I think the basic idea being conveyed is that the gung-ho rah-rah-rah actions of the war hawks has exacerbated an existing situation.
The fundamental issue is a clash of culture; Western consumerism and liberalism is encroaching on the good ol' Islamic fundamentalism that these people like so much. There's not much we can really do to stop this, unless we want to attempt to turn back the tide of globalisation by cutting our own nose off.
Given that this conflict is relatively inevitable, how do we deal with it?
(God, I hate that sort of question. Blargh.)
This is where Bush and Blair and all that come in. After all, we could have planned attacks and contemplated reactions and that sort of thing, created a well-thought-out strategy that would have ended or minimised this 'war' and its casualties. However, we did not; instead, we let a group of modern-day cowboys shout out "WOOHOO! YEEHAW! LET'S STIR UP SOME SH|T!"
Almost, anyway. And the problem with charging into situations and carrying out irrelevant interventions like the relatively unnecessary Iraq war and its pursuit of non-existent WMDs and terrorist links is that it really, really messes up the swamp. Lots of foul air comes to the surface; lots of young people, incensed at big, fatass, arrogant America, source of all those things that utterly disregard and destroy their most sacred concepts, walking into their country and just presuming that they can tell them how to do things.
Then, when somebody asks them if they want to blow up a train, they think of the Coalition of the Willing and say 'Okay.' I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the Iraq war, which has accomplished little save destabilise a region and impose democracy from above (which I do hope works, though I suspect it won't be as simple as that), has pissed off a lot of people and made terror attacks for the Al-Qaeda 'group' easier to carry out.
I mean, come on, people: it's basic cyclic causality. You charge in to save your oilfields, they declare holy war. They fly a plane into a skyscraper, you invade a country (or two). It's like a gang war: the Al-Qaeda Crew does a drive-by on some of the Neo-Con Hood, so the Neo-Cons firebomb one of Al-Qaeda's houses.
And you know what pisses me off? It's always the people in the middle who die - the people in the WTC, the people in Iraq, the people in London. You pro-war types sit on your sofas and declare war from your living room, and bin Laden and his cronies hang out in his cave and make big speeches about dying for the greater good and pleasing Allah and all that, but you never pay for your actions. Innocents die, and we all keep making the same mistakes.
Instead of being like certain American news stations and indulging our sense of drama with big Churchill-esque speeches and swearing revenge to the last, and just adding another level into the cycle, another excuse for a higher death toll... we should be stopping, thinking and trying to sort this out once and for all. Instead of invading Iraq again, let's a) find and prosecute the perpetrators, b) tone down interventionism in this 'hostile' territory, and c) make the advancement of Western culture so subtle and low-key that the fundamentalists are lulled into sleep and only wake up when it's too late and everybody else thinks that human life is more important than a ****ing book.
You know, because, short of genocide, there's no zerg rush capable of wiping out an entire culture.
I'm not particularly good at being a drama queen with exciting statements of how I'll stand firm with London and we Britons shall never be cowed or whatever, nor am I good at pretending utter despair or feeling sadness for thirty-seven people I don't know, nor at throwing my balls around and screaming defiance at Al-Qaeda, so I'll just say that I am deeply concerned about this incident and feel a mental sympathy for thirty-seven families who won't be seeing one of their own tonight because of somebody else's war, and that I wish more people had thought about this before taking leaps into the unknown.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
And if you want to blame Bush and Blair, you should also blame every other Nation's Leader that took part in the Afganistan conflict.
Oh, but i do! But the key players here are the US and UK.
Let´s remember that islamic fundamentalist terrorism started only 40 years ago. And basically it was a backlash to the actions of the western nations upon the poor nations of the middle east and north africa. We could go way back in time, and say it began with the crusades. But for for intended purposes, what we know now as the fundamentalist problem started in the 20th century.
We could follow the roots to the WWI, when the brits promised the arabs a nation of their own, and then backed down. Then we could go to the Israel affair. Again the arabs got the short end of the stick. Then we have the countless coups, supported by the US. Like Mossadeq´s overthrowing, and the Xá´s rule in Iran. Then we also have the Suez canal crisis, where the brits, french and israeli formed a nice little plot to control the canal from the hands of the egyptians. And there´s the israeli-arab wars. And countless other times, where arabs got f**ked in the ass by the west.
Really, it´s a wonder they didn´t start to fight back sooner.
Islamic Terrorism is a byproduct of western prepotence. There is no way around it. And when we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, we gave them yet another powerfull reason to backlash at us.
There is only one way to stop terrorism, wich to stop ALL actions for wich they are responding to. Get out of the region, and stop f**king about with their lives. Then maybe, just maybe, there is a chance to sit down and talk. Otherwise, we will continue to see this happen, day after night.
-
Lets not forget the era of colonialism, too. I honestly think africa is extremely bitter towards the west for basically ****ing up their continent. And mix that with the fact that Islam is spreading quickly down there and you have a powder keg ready to blow.
-
Indeed, Africa is a hotspot that is being overlooked by most major governments because the africans are fighting each other. When/if their attention is drawn elsewhere thats when the **** will hit the fan.
-
As everyone here should know, I was as much against the Iraq war as anyone else. I have no doubt it contributed to support behind these types of fundamentalists, and it may very well be what inspired yesterdays particular bunch of nutcases to do this.
However, if we focus on blaming Iraq, we risk excusing these people of responsibility for what they did. There are many, many people on this board and across the world who disagree with or even hate the foreign policy of the Western world - but the vast majority don't blow people up.
I agree 100% with Kara over Afghanistan; that presented a chance to work towards redeeming our countries in the eyes of many Arabs - we should have stayed there and rebuilt that countries infrastructure to be one we'd be proud to live in, not abandoned it for a trip to pick another fight.
My view has always been that you need to tackle terrorism with a carrot-and-stick approach; use the carrot (dialogue, diplomacy, aid) to stop the public opinion that aids terrorists and turns waverers into bombers, and the stick (police actions, military in exceptional circumstance - terrorism is not a military but crime issue) for the die-hards and leaders who cannot be swayed. Too much of the carrot and you leave yourself looking a soft target to the hard-boiled nutters, too much of the stick and you mobilise people against you.
As it is, I think the stick has been grossly overused.
Other stuff;
Fox news are the first to try and link the attacks to Iraq (I've been doing a bit of news channel sweeping today, curious as to biases and differences of coverage; so far BBC is the most measured and intelligent IMO).
@Lib people are pissed off at Bush & co because they've been waging a sort of 'bully doctrine' of seeking to attack possible threats. The US government has never shown any interest in international co-operation or compromise with countries that disagree with them, and has sought to ostracise the 'old europe' (not my phrase) countries and much of the UN as a result of this in the Iraq war buildup. Put simply - no-one likes a bully.
EDIT; also, Charles Clarke is now saying that 'The question on ID cards, but also on any other security measure actually, is on the balance of the ability to deal with particular threats and civil liberties, does a particular measure help or hinder it?'. So they're already working up to sacrifice the things we are told terrorists want to destroy.
-
Originally posted by Clave
... but sadly the only way to end terrorism is by negotiation....
Study history, every time Hitler made an aggressive move from 1938 until late into 1939, Europe's answer to his aggression was negotiation and appeasment.
Appeament does little but strengthen the enemy and make you look weak, if not actually doing so.
-
:( sorry about my delayed reply to this thread.....but my uncle was one of the ones caught up in the bombs, we cant get in contact with him so i havnt been on much....we fear the worst.....grrr i wont those ****ers who did this to either be caught or killed and bought to justice :mad:
-
Sorry to hear that Dan. Hope he's somewhere safe with his mobile turned off or something.
Originally posted by Liberator
Study history, every time Hitler made an aggressive move from 1938 until late into 1939, Europe's answer to his aggression was negotiation and appeasment.
Appeament does little but strengthen the enemy and make you look weak, if not actually doing so.
Try studying current affairs why don't you.
Look at Northern Ireland. Do you think that the British government has been appeasing the IRA? There's a big difference between appeasment and negotiations.
Appeasment is idiotic and not a single person on this thread has suggested it. Stop attempting to set up a strawman.
-
Originally posted by Sigma957
Indeed, Africa is a hotspot that is being overlooked by most major governments because the africans are fighting each other. When/if their attention is drawn elsewhere thats when the **** will hit the fan.
Well, at least, we tried to help things and correct the wrongs we've done in our old colonies. They just don't really want help. We're actually trying to help conflicts between them ( I personnally don't think we should, but that's another matter). I don't think these guys are so bitter against us, they're still celebrating french cultural things when I would completly understand they would dispise them instead. Hell, taking about the more sensitive North Africa issues, we're even in good terms with Algeria now.
Just don't be so paranoid, not everybody is after us or going to be, you know :p.
-
If these people were doing this for a reason, I would be inclined to agree with the whole 'talk' thing. But I have yet to see any other reason given that 'to bring the War in Iraq and Afghanistan to the UK'. Which isn't so much a reason as a rather transparent excuse for being bloodthirsty bastards.
The UK public were quite well known for being somewhat divided over the entire Terrorism/War affair, it was that pressure, I feel, that kept Blair very much on his toes to make sure he was honest and that British troops behaved themselves in Iraq. All these people have done is polarised yet another country against them, simply generated more hatred for themselves, which I think is what they want, a twisted, evil kind of fame.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Study history, every time Hitler made an aggressive move from 1938 until late into 1939, Europe's answer to his aggression was negotiation and appeasment.
Appeament does little but strengthen the enemy and make you look weak, if not actually doing so.
That's a completely daft analogy.
Firstly, appeasement was against a singular enemy who could be fought militarily; terrorism is an ideology which cannot be fought via military means (because terrorists won't just pop up on an open battleground to be shot). The Nazi analogy seems to be frequently dragged up, but it's about as analogous to the current situation as comparing Pol Pot to a rise in youth crime.
Secondly, no-one has suggested anything even akin to appeasement, unless you regard all forms of diplomacy and compromise as that. For the most part, it's not even suggesting talking to terrorists - just recognising the concerns of the Arab world and the damage our foreign policy can and has done to them (and thus how we have raised support for terrorism against the West - as confirmed by a CIA report citing that the Iraq war was producing a new wave of Jihadist terrorists, potentially larger and worse than the Soviets in Afghanistan).
Thirdly, you can't combat an ideology using methods which support it; invading Muslim countries in police actions only acts to reinforce the claims that the US, UK and rest of western world are 'crusading zionists'. (there's an anecdote I've heard from a journalist kidnapped in Iraq; during the 2004 US elections they wanted Bush to win as it would bring more conflict and thus support).
finally, and most importantly IMO - this is not a black and white situation. It is simply not the case that the only 2 options we have are to either invade militarily every country that doesn't like us (without changing ourselves or listening why), or to 'surrender' (in whatever way that may be perceived). Only idiots take black and white, us and them style perspectives, because the world operates in shades of gray.
@dan
That's terrible. I have no idea what you must be going through. I just hope your worst fears aren't realised.
-
:) thank god, my uncle is ok, he was knocked out by the blast and got cuts on his body and concusion but he is ok, he only jus bin released from hospital, his phone was damaged by the bomb thts why we cudnt contact him....im really relieved
-
Glad to hear that Dan, I wish your uncle a speedy recovery :)
-
cheers
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Thirdly, you can't combat an ideology using methods which support it; invading Muslim countries in police actions only acts to reinforce the claims that the US, UK and rest of western world are 'crusading zionists'. (there's an anecdote I've heard from a journalist kidnapped in Iraq; during the 2004 US elections they wanted Bush to win as it would bring more conflict and thus support).
The problem is that some, perhaps even most, of these people are simply too committed to their ideology to back down. Either you have to deprive them of the means to act, or you have to kill them.
No method for depriving them of the means to act has yet presented itself; and in truth this may not be possible from outside the movement itself. It's only proved effective for the IRA in controlling its own members.
Thus any progress towards elimination of terrorist symptoms (attacks) must be achieved by killing the folks who cause them. Which might create more of the folks who cause them. Conversely allowing them successes without consequence also might cause more of them.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
-
I was at my college orientation when this happened, so I heard about it late.
Sucks.
-
The thing is, if we dealt with the original cause of Terrorism, the oppression that the PLO and other organisations were fighting against, then the 'new age' Terrorists would not have a cause to fight for. If you can remove the gauze that the coward hides behind, then he is seen to be a coward. Then, if terrorist attacks continue, they can simply be shown to be the animals who thirst for blood that they appear to be.
I'm not talking about Iraqi farmers who have been told that the Americans are coming to rape their daughters, I'm talking about someone who uses other people as weapons, and who plots to kill people who's only true 'crime' was to be born in a country in the Western hemisphere, or merely to have moved there, since a fair number of the people hurt were immigrants who worked or studied in the area. Interesting how they set the bombs off in one of the most multi-cultural areas of London, shows what their opinion of the children of any God is.
-
Originally posted by dan87uk
:) thank god, my uncle is ok, he was knocked out by the blast and got cuts on his body and concusion but he is ok, he only jus bin released from hospital, his phone was damaged by the bomb thts why we cudnt contact him....im really relieved
So I was close to the reason then :) Glad to hear that he's okay Dan.
Originally posted by ngtm1r
The problem is that some, perhaps even most, of these people are simply too committed to their ideology to back down. Either you have to deprive them of the means to act, or you have to kill them.
No method for depriving them of the means to act has yet presented itself; and in truth this may not be possible from outside the movement itself. It's only proved effective for the IRA in controlling its own members.
It might be worth remembering that this is the second wave of fundementalist terror. The first one was mostly confined to fighting secularism and western influence in the middle east. It failed spectacularly precisely because it sickened the general population of the country so much that they lost the popular support.
That is also exactly why the IRA had to give up in the end. They eventually lost the support of the common people who were sick of the cycle of violence. The leadership may have been responsible for calling off the bombing but that was in response to the fact that no one supported them.
The same sort of thing happened to ETA. They killed the wrong person and after a million people protested they pretty much gave up and have been pretty quiet recently.
The same thing can happen here but not while the west is continually stirring up resentment. Terrorist movements can't be stopped with force alone. you need to stop the grass roots support for it.
-
To those who were arguing over blaming Bush/Blair:
The case for their indictment as fools with blood on their hands is not one that claims we created an increase in terrorism by invading Iraq. The argument is that invading Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with stopping these terrorists (who saw Saddam as a weak, nigh secular leader who was "as bad" as any western leader). It did not challenge al-Queda or any other militant islamic fundamentalist group. It did not impede their ability to wage war on our civilians. It did not promote a positive image of the west in the east. Iraq was a sideshow to keep us entertained, and still is.
Put simply, they are guilty of letting this happen by doing nothing truly productive to prevent it. We invaded Iraq, and instead of protecting Britain from state-sponsored terror of NBC weapons, we have been given plane after plane of coffins with union jacks on top.
Now, we have paid the price at home for our inaction, and for allowing our leaders to put on this charade. I am pro-war - but it has to be the right war, against the right people, or it's a waste of resources we cannot afford to waste.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
The problem is that some, perhaps even most, of these people are simply too committed to their ideology to back down. Either you have to deprive them of the means to act, or you have to kill them.
No method for depriving them of the means to act has yet presented itself; and in truth this may not be possible from outside the movement itself. It's only proved effective for the IRA in controlling its own members.
Thus any progress towards elimination of terrorist symptoms (attacks) must be achieved by killing the folks who cause them. Which might create more of the folks who cause them. Conversely allowing them successes without consequence also might cause more of them.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
Those are the people that get the 'stick' approach - but remember we still have the carrot.
Ultimately, the die-hards will always find an excuse - but it'll be a lot easier for them to act with public support; communities to hide in (or simple people who give shelter), people who give funding to them, people who facilitate their communication, and soforth.
If you work at removing the foundations of terrorism - the legitimate grievances that give them support - you'll erode their ability to act freely and the support that stops them being turned in. As it stands we're doing more to strengthen than weaken that support; the reason that killing them is creating them is because of the way they're being targeted.
We've sacrificed thousands of Iraqi lives as collateral damage to prevent a hypothetical attack; more people have died in these wars than in 9/11, Madrid, Istanbul, London etc combined, so we had our pound of flesh a long time ago (not that the poor bastards cought in the crossfire were guilty of anything beyond livingwhere they lived). So we're not exactly looking any better than the terrorist are.
Originally posted by dan87uk
:) thank god, my uncle is ok, he was knocked out by the blast and got cuts on his body and concusion but he is ok, he only jus bin released from hospital, his phone was damaged by the bomb thts why we cudnt contact him....im really relieved
Good to hear he's ok. :)
-
I am TOTALLY against appeasment or whatever you want to call it, and would happily see every terrorist put up against a wall and shot, BUT you can't do that, it's not a 'war' as such, so you either have to outwit them before the event or catch them afterwards by normal police methods.
Now, they must want something, everybody does...so all I was suggesting was to find out what they want and see if it is reasonable...
If it is NOT reasonable, then the hunt goes on, and we wait for the next lot of bombs to go off, and the cycle continues.
If it IS reasonable then some compromise may be reached, I have no idea what, but it worked with the IRA and decomissioning of their weapons, so 'maybe' something could be done.
I am not saying that we 'cave in' just that we learn something - It took 30 years and 3,000+ deaths to reach settlement with the IRA, so assuming the increased effectiveness of these well-funded groups, at what point do you start talking to them? 10,000 civilian deaths? 50,000? a million? what?....
Oh, and if you think a million is histrionics, remember this the Black Death killed 14 million...
-
@Lib: The only way they ended the IRA bombings was to address the core reason that caused them to do that.
And Al-Qeuda (or however it is spelled) is NOT the same kind of organization as Nazi Germany was. You cannot defeat them by bombing them with planes or by rolling on top of their hideouts with tanks. I really wonder why you have such ill-informed beliefs......
-
What they want is not resonable if it's a group similar to al-queda. Because they want to see anybody that does not follow islam dead.
-
Originally posted by Swantz
What they want is not resonable if it's a group similar to al-queda. Because they want to see anybody that does not follow islam dead.
What I mean is go after the root causes for people to get recruited into such an organization in the first place. Just attacking soveriegn countries (no matter how evil the dictator might be) and occupying them is exactly what Al-Queda wants the americans to do. It is unfortunate that people like Liberator play right into their hands.
But the US has a bigger target in mind when it invaded Iraq.
-
Eh? Who mentioned Liberator here? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by TopAce
Eh? Who mentioned Liberator here? :wtf:
See the previous page/s
-
Originally posted by Flipside
If these people were doing this for a reason, I would be inclined to agree with the whole 'talk' thing. But I have yet to see any other reason given that 'to bring the War in Iraq and Afghanistan to the UK'. Which isn't so much a reason as a rather transparent excuse for being bloodthirsty bastards.
I don´t know, i see a kind of logic in these bombings. We attacked their country, now they attack ours. It´s a simple logic to follow. We killed their wifes, children, and family members, and now they done it to us. I know it´s hard to swallow, but it´s a fact anyway.
Look at Spain. Spain had never been attacked by islamic fundies before. Then Aznar goes and stands shoulder to shoulder with Bush, and commits a few thousand troops to Iraq. And then presto, out of the blue they get attacked by fundies.
Meaning, there is a "quid pro quo" logic at work here. I´m still surprised they left my country out of their target list, after what that dumb Durão Barroso did in the Azores Summit.
Look at France. They were struck hard back in the 60´s all through to the late 80´s, because of Algeers and the Suez canal. Then they changed their policy, they started to do things right, and the bombings stopped. They could start up again, thanks to that ridiculous headscarf ban, but the point is that if a country changes their policies, these fundamentalist movements do infact respond favourally to it.
Even the UK, never had much problems with this kind of terrorism, until Blair decided to join the warmongers.
There is a definite pattern here. It´s not just the fruits of a twisted bloodthirsty mind, there is purpose in these bombings.
And they know they can´t inflict damage to the british war machine, so they strike where they know you are the most vulnerable.
The IRA is a perfect example of how diplomacy can bare fruits. The tough aproach of Margaret Tatcher and other british PMs to the problem achieved nothing. But then the govt. tried the other aproach, tried a sit-down, tried to talk it over, and now the IRA is virtually deceased.
Diplomacy does infact work, but you have to be willing to take that step. And you have to be willing to compromise, and give them something. Just talking for the sake of talking won´t achieve anything, except maybe piss them off even more.
-
Now it's time for my delayed reaction.
When I heard about what had happened, I went into shock. Then again, the British people (not just Blair here, but the Londoners who took the **** and the rest of the British people) have shown that I don't have a reason to. The attacks were horrible and cowardly, and the people who did it deserve to burn in hell. But, if there's one thing that I really admire about the British people, it's that they stand up like real men (figuratively speaking) and don't let things like this shake them. Hang in there, England--whoever did this **** is going down one way or another. ;)
And to dan, Flip, and all the other Londoners on this forum or otherwise: we're glad you're safe, and I want to join America in wishing that your country recovers quickly and stays strong. :)
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
...it's that they stand up like real men and don't let things like this shake them.
[/B]
That's not a very nice way to talk about the British girls. Some of them are quite lovely.
-
Post edited. :nervous:
-
:lol: You tell 'im, Ford!
I think most people here haven't been overly fazed by this purely because we're used to it (as kara said, anyone over 30 has lived with terrorism more than without it). And the whole "stiff-upper-lip" thing still applies somewhat, even with all the nannying of recent years.
We've got more to fear from our own government than we have from terrorists, to be honest - they're capable fo doing some real damage...
-
Namely ID cards.
-
Got it in one. Though I suspect they're cooking up even more oppressive goodies for us after this...
-
Yeah, that's always been my opinion regarding terrorism. It's bad, in that it can kill people, but that's pretty much it. The true goal is to influence a political change, and in any Western country there is simply no chance of that. Any proper war, be it a small ethnic/civil war or counterinsurgency or whatever, can and has kill many more people than all recent terrorist attacks combined, by orders of magnitude.
-
The bottom line is that Aldo is right.
Sometimes you use the stick, but sometimes you need to use the carrot.
-
Ah yes, I believe it was Roosevelt who said, "Walk softly but carry a big carrot." Err, no no, it was, "Tie a carrot to your big stick to make the mule walk softly" Eh, no that wasn't it.... "Ride the mule softly, but with a carrot on a big stick...." Eh, I dunno.
-
This ends one of two ways:
1)the peaceniks win and we talk our way out of it
2)we kill all the mullahs and other "clerics" who preach and indoctriate their hate as a means of control
The latter is far, FAR more likely to happen.
-
Name one time where military action has ended terrorism.
I named three cases where terrorism ended through social change so you should be able to name at least one.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
This ends one of two ways:
1)the peaceniks win and we talk our way out of it
2)we kill all the mullahs and other "clerics" who preach and indoctriate their hate as a means of control
The latter is far, FAR more likely to happen.
1.) You mean letting the reasonable people win?
2.) Kill them, and more will just appear to take their place. So you just end up right back where you started. So what next? Keep killing? Then they will just keep coming.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
This ends one of two ways:
1)the peaceniks win and we talk our way out of it
2)we kill all the mullahs and other "clerics" who preach and indoctriate their hate as a means of control
The latter is far, FAR more likely to happen.
Would you care to give an estimate as to the number of people we will have to kill to put a permanent end to terrorism? Specifically, Islamic fundamentalist terrorism? Specifically, anti-Western, anti-globalisation culture terrorism? Specifically, an entire sub-continent terrorism?
Genocide, sir?
-
Liberator does have a point, and I think most people realize that for certain individuals negotiation is futile, force is the only answer. The two are equally imporant. A majority of the support base can be removed through political and economic means, by taking away the legitimate grievances, but some people do in fact consider it a holy war, so the size of the carrot is irrelevant, because they are not after the carrot.
The success of the stick approach depends on the success of the carrot.
-
I just love the way that 'Republican' and 'Peacenik' have somehow been turned into insults. If you actually stop and look at the meaning of both those words, you'd realise how silly that is ;)
-
Originally posted by Liberator
This ends one of two ways:
1)the peaceniks win and we talk our way out of it
2)we kill all the mullahs and other "clerics" who preach and indoctriate their hate as a means of control
The latter is far, FAR more likely to happen.
No it's not. You can see already it's doing the complete opposite - just ask the CIA (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4122040.stm).
Again you're attempting to divide this complex issue into a black and white scenario with only 2 choices. Seeing the world in that way has never worked; not only that, it becomes a complete abdication of responsibility - you only need to say the 'only other' alternative is impossible and then give yourself carte blanche.
Have you considered why there are people preaching against the west? (not that this is necessarily equivalent to recruitment to terrorist / jihadist groups - disliking or even hating the US and soforth does not automatically make someone a terrorist, as much as you may like it to)
Or why people listen?
I mean, it's not because we live in democratic secular societies (at least, not for the majority - there's a lways a bunch of nutters, same as we have racists or bigots in every other country) - it's the arrogance of Us foreign policy that causes schisms. And 'arrogance' is lifted directly off of a report (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf) from an indepedent federal advisorty comittee that provides advice to the DoD.
I'm sure most people remember this quote;
[q]'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'[/q]
Incidentally, how do you plan on killing all these clerics? How are the local people going to feel when you do so? Are they going to go 'oh, the West must be good; they come in and kill these religious leaders we go to the mosque to listen to'?
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Look at Spain. Spain had never been attacked by islamic fundies before.
Unless you count the Moors... :nervous:
-
A majority of the support base can be removed through political and economic means, by taking away the legitimate grievances, but some people do in fact consider it a holy war, so the size of the carrot is irrelevant, because they are not after the carrot.
Liberator's answer to anything is force. He doesn't understand how the world REALLY works, and it doesn't look like he wants to. He just doesn't see the big picture.
-
You need BOTH force and a carrot.
The problem can't be solved by mearly one of them.. that is unless, everyone in the US and the world would be willing to convert to Islam and accpet the strict laws - as there will allways be a few of those fanatical warriors who will see any other religion as a blight.
sure, most people who support terrorist do so becosue of their social status and blame it on others..and becose of the attitude of the Us....at least that's what I'm told..
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
You need BOTH force and a carrot.
That's what pretty much everyone except for Liberator realises.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
You need BOTH force and a carrot.
Indeed, but it's a balance. The more lubrication you add, the less force you have to use.
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
Indeed, but it's a balance. The more lubrication you add, the less force you have to use.
I can think of ways that's not true ;7
-
About the body count, it's probably a bit higher than being reported because it's more than likely that many people were blown up beyond easy identification. The Israelis learned this...
My condolences to Londoners.
-
Hey, look: Terrorism works (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4664391.stm):
$3bn agreed for Palestinian Authority for investment in infrastructure.
Of course, we all know how trustworthy the PA is with finances (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4007251.stm). :rolleyes:
My condolences to Londoners - I know what you're going through.
My condolences to Brits as a whole, as well - your country's in sad shape, I hate to say.
-
No, it didn't work for the Palestinians. Do you want to know why? Because Israel still exists.
-
Amen.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
My condolences to Brits as a whole, as well - your country's in sad shape, I hate to say.
In what way precisely?
-
He's probably referring to Charles and Camilla.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
He's probably referring to Charles and Camilla.
[color=66ff00]My kingdom for a horse?
I thought you would be a fan of Britain given the government's alliance with the americans Sandwich?
[/color]
-
"Ugly ugly children...." er.. monarchy...
-
Originally posted by vyper
In what way precisely?
Bluntly, you're being taken over by Islam from the inside.
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]I thought you would be a fan of Britain given the government's alliance with the americans Sandwich?
[/color]
I might be, if I were a fan of America at the moment. But right now, I'm not even a fan of Israel.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Bluntly, you're being taken over by Islam from the inside.
Yeah. And we'd better sleep with a bat in hand cause the bogeyman lives under the bed too.
You do realise that the UK is one of the most secular nations on Earth right?
-
Bluntly, you're being taken over by Islam from the inside.
Do you have any idea how descriminatory a statement like that is? With thoughts like that, it is little wonder why they hate you so much.
Following that "logic", I could say that the mass immagrations into the US from China was a all along a plot by the chinese to take over the US from the inside. :rolleyes:
-
Well, technically he is right. Take the percentage of Muslims living in the UK today and let's say 40 years ago. Works the same way for France. So the question then is do you consdier this to be good, bad or neutral, which really would depend on your views regarding British (or more generaly national) identity.
Kosh: why is it discriminatory? All he's saying is that people who identify themselves with Islam make up an increasing percentage of the British population and/or that these people aren't assimilating well. It's like saying "Utah is mostly white Christian". Since when did all reference to race, religion or sex become discriminatory?
Originally posted by vyper
"Ugly ugly children...." er.. monarchy...
ahem ("http://eclectech.co.uk/camillaqueen.php")
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, technically he is right. Take the percentage of Muslims living in the UK today and let's say 40 years ago.
Technically he's speaking bollocks. The percentage of atheists in the country has increased at a much larger rate in the same time period. So if we're talking about someone taking over its the atheists.
In addition the number of Muslims increased as a direct result of opening the borders after the war. You might as well say that black people are taking over due to the influx of West Indians who came into the country around the same time.
Now that the wave of immigrations has ended the amount of muslims isn'#t increasing at any huge rate. Certainly not at a rate at which they could take over any time soon.
-
I never said they weren't.
-
It's descriminatory because it sounds like there is some kind of conspiracy to take over britain and turn it into an Iran style theocracy. It sounds like they want to take over the world. Which is complete non-sense.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I never said they weren't.
You said he was right about Islam taking over. You're going to have to provide more than the fact that there are more muslims in the country than 40 years ago to prove that ludicrous claim.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
It's descriminatory because it sounds like there is some kind of conspiracy to take over britain and turn it into an Iran style theocracy. It sounds like they want to take over the world. Which is complete non-sense.
Most mainstream faiths do though. Islam is no different... except it's got lots more followers in the developing, empoverished, world more willing to go postal in it's name.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
It's descriminatory because it sounds like there is some kind of conspiracy to take over britain and turn it into an Iran style theocracy. It sounds like they want to take over the world. Which is complete non-sense.
Well, I won't speak for Sandwich, but I at least didn't interpret it as any sort of conspiracy. It simple: immigrants generally go wherever the living conditions are best, which happens to be Western Europe, Canada and the like. As time passes, demographics begin to change, and certain ethnic groups begin to make up significant portions of the population. It's like Chinatown or Little Italy on a national level.
kara: It's a matter of interpretation. I would likewise agree with anyone who claimed that Mexicans are taking over the southern states in the US, though there is no grand plan (that I'm aware of) among Mexican immigrants to capture US territory or anything of that sort (though that would actually be kind of cool). It's just demographics, which are in fact no small matter when tracked over decades or centuries. Obviously, I didn't mean that there is any sort of consipiracy, just that for whatever reason Muslims are a significant minority in certain European countries, including Britain, and that, as far as I can see, is unlikey to change. In fact, it will likely increase, unless conditions change for the worse in Britain or for the better in the home countries of the immigrants.
-
The key word in that is minority. At a mere 2% of the population after 40-50 years and now facing a government which is cracking down on immigration I doubt anyone could make a sensible claim that they were taking over.
-
Well, I won't speak for Sandwich, but I at least didn't interpret it as any sort of conspiracy.
The way I interpreted that made it sound like HE thought it was some sort of conspiracy. But in addition to that it also makes it sound like muslims coming into England is a bad thing.
-
Remember: not all arabs are islamic, and not all islamics are dark skinned folk. If suddenly, all white brits decided to change religion to muslim, would that still qualify as "islam is conquering the UK from the inside"?
Generalizing like that is both dangerous, silly, and far from the truth. The UK is not being conquered by anyone, anymore than the US is by latinos. It´s just demographics.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
The percentage of atheists in the country has increased at a much larger rate in the same time period. So if we're talking about someone taking over its the atheists.
Nice statement - back it up.
Originally posted by karajorma
Now that the wave of immigrations has ended the amount of muslims isn'#t increasing at any huge rate.
Have you seen the rate at which new mosques are popping up all over?
Originally posted by Kosh
It sounds like they want to take over the world. Which is complete non-sense.
Go read the Koran.
Heck, there's even a Jewish plot to take over the world; His name is Jesus. ;)
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Remember: not all arabs are islamic, and not all islamics are dark skinned folk. If suddenly, all white brits decided to change religion to muslim, would that still qualify as "islam is conquering the UK from the inside"?
Thank you for pointing this out (no, I'm not being sarcastic). I have a number of Christian Arab friends here, the well-known Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily is an Arab-American Christian. While I don't know of any Jews who have converted to Islam, there are no lack of "whites" (have I mentioned how I hate being PC?) who have converted to either Islam or Judaism.
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Generalizing like that is both dangerous, silly, and far from the truth. The UK is not being conquered by anyone, anymore than the US is by latinos. It´s just demographics.
"Just demographics" is what can change the government of a country. Israel, founded as the Jewish Homeland, is facing that dillema, since the Arab-Israeli population is increasing at a greater rate than the Jewish-Israeli populace. "They" predict that within 50 years, the Arab population with outnumber the Jewish one, forming quite a connundrum with the democratic government.
-
Nice statement - back it up
Why don't you back yours up?
Go read the Koran.
Then again according to the Bible, slavery is ok, but most christians ignore that.
"They" predict that within 50 years, the Arab population with outnumber the Jewish one, forming quite a connundrum with the democratic government.
So? It sounds to me like you are afraid of them.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Nice statement - back it up.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293
50 years since the UK opened its borders and began letting muslims in and they've managed to make up 2% of the population as opposed to the 72% who are christian. Big f**king invasion isn't it. At this rate they might be in the majority some time in the year 3 million AD.
It's hard to find data on atheism for the same time period because the Census only included a question on religion in the 2001 census but if we go back 100 years virtually no one was an atheist then. They're 15% now so unless you're claiming that there was a huge convertion to atheism in the first half of the last century it's pretty obvious that the rate at which atheism is growing is faster.
Originally posted by Sandwich
"Just demographics" is what can change the government of a country. Israel, founded as the Jewish Homeland, is facing that dillema, since the Arab-Israeli population is increasing at a greater rate than the Jewish-Israeli populace. "They" predict that within 50 years, the Arab population with outnumber the Jewish one, forming quite a connundrum with the democratic government.
So in other words they're doing to you what the jews did to them in the late 40s. Increasing the population until they have the majority.
Isn't karma wonderful :D
-
Given that Israel is situated in the middle of the Arab world, I'm scarcely surprised it has more than a few Arabs moving in.
Ands...
Originally posted by Sandwich
Bluntly, you're being taken over by Islam from the inside.
Have you even been to the UK recently? (and what the hell has this got to do with anything anyways) The only way the UK will be 'taken over by Islam' will be if the majority of the population is Islamic. And in that case, it'd only be fair.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Why don't you back yours up?
I'm sorry, that wasn't supposed to be a challenge or anything, it was supposed to be a request. I didn't have time at the time to scour the web for UK statistics.
Originally posted by Kosh
Then again according to the Bible, slavery is ok, but most christians ignore that.
I haven't looked into that aspect with any sort of depth, so don't take my word for it (not like you would anyway), but from what I know, the slavery spoken of in the Bible is more like what a position of servanthood is today. Though I freely admit I could easily be wrong on that.
Originally posted by Kosh
So? It sounds to me like you are afraid of them.
Generally speaking, they've sworn to the destruction of Israel / the Jews. Wouldn't you be just a wee bit concerned? Somehow I don't think that if they get the majority of the government, they'd be inclined to pass up the opportunity.
Originally posted by karajorma
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293
50 years since the UK opened its borders and began letting muslims in and they've managed to make up 2% of the population as opposed to the 72% who are christian. Big f**king invasion isn't it. At this rate they might be in the majority some time in the year 3 million AD.
Those are for 2001 stats. Unfortunately the next census is planned for 2011, but the currrent estimates on the Muslim population of the UK put it around 3%. So... from 0% to 2% in 50 years, and from 2% to 3% in 3-4 years? That's one heck of an increase in growth rate (25 years for 1% at the beginning, and now a mere 3-4 years for another percent?).
Originally posted by karajorma
So in other words they're doing to you what the jews did to them in the late 40s. Increasing the population until they have the majority.
Isn't karma wonderful :D
Yeah, it is. The only problem is that the Jews haven't sworn to destroy Islam or the Arabs or whatever.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Given that Israel is situated in the middle of the Arab world, I'm scarcely surprised it has more than a few Arabs moving in.
My point exactly - there's over a dozen Arab/Muslim nations in the area, and yet they want to live in Israel. Hmm. How come the media never runs stories about the Israeli-Arabs, almost all of whom dread the thought of living under PLO rule as opposed to in Israel, hmm? Because that would ruin the carefully constructed image they've built up of Israel as the oppressor, the big bad guy picking on the helpless Arabs, the Great Satan. Well golly-gee-whiz, I don't FEEL like the Great Satan. :p
Originally posted by aldo_14
Have you even been to the UK recently? (and what the hell has this got to do with anything anyways) The only way the UK will be 'taken over by Islam' will be if the majority of the population is Islamic. And in that case, it'd only be fair.
So there's a Prime Minister Achmed in the UK's future, eh?
After all, it'd only be fair.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
My point exactly - there's over a dozen Arab/Muslim nations in the area, and yet they want to live in Israel. Hmm. How come the media never runs stories about the Israeli-Arabs, almost all of whom dread the thought of living under PLO rule as opposed to in Israel, hmm? Because that would ruin the carefully constructed image they've built up of Israel as the oppressor, the big bad guy picking on the helpless Arabs, the Great Satan. Well golly-gee-whiz, I don't FEEL like the Great Satan. :p
What's that got to do with the demographics of Israel? People live where they live, it doesn't mean they approve of the place they live, or agree with the government, or that they even want to live there. Arabs can want to move to a more secular or free democratic state the same as any other ethnicity can.
Originally posted by Sandwich
So there's a Prime Minister Achmed in the UK's future, eh?
After all, it'd only be fair.
Why not? If he (or she) is the right person for the job, gets voted in, and soforth. Be pretty damn racist to say I wouldn't accept a Muslim PM (or indeed an Arab, Jewish, etc PM).
EDIT; not to say I'd automatically approve of any PMs policies and soforth. But on the sheer basis of ethnicity/religion? It's no more intelligent than not wanting a female PM. And that's even with Thatcher as an exemplar.
I have no objections to any Muslim (or indeed Arab, although the two are not the same thing) population growth, because I'm not scared of it. In fact, Scotland needs more immigration, not less, and I couldn't give a **** what the religion of the immigrants are.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Those are for 2001 stats. Unfortunately the next census is planned for 2011, but the currrent estimates on the Muslim population of the UK put it around 3%. So... from 0% to 2% in 50 years, and from 2% to 3% in 3-4 years? That's one heck of an increase in growth rate (25 years for 1% at the beginning, and now a mere 3-4 years for another percent?).
Other reports put the current population at 3%. I went with the census record on the grounds that it's official and not based on random (and therefore possibly inaccurate) sampling. It's not a growth so much as just standard error in the polling sample.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Yeah, it is. The only problem is that the Jews haven't sworn to destroy Islam or the Arabs or whatever.
Nope. Kicking them off of their land was enough for the Jews. Maybe they'll get lucky and just get the same in return.
Don't expect me to weep tears of blood for the jewish portion of the population if that happens. It will be sad but they'll have had 50 more years to mollify the arabs on top of the 50 for which they have continually f**ked up. If they were stupid enough to continue antagonising them even when they were gaining political power that entire time then tough ****.
Originally posted by Sandwich
So there's a Prime Minister Achmed in the UK's future, eh?
After all, it'd only be fair.
I'd welcome a muslim prime minister just as much as I'd welcome a christian one (i.e not much but life is **** and I consider both as bad as each other) but then I'm not racist.
Sadly lots of people are and I actually doubt that we'll see a black or asian prime minister in my life time.
The fact that there isn't likely to be a Muslim PM any time soon sort of proves your argument false doesn't it?
-
Actually, Sandwich, if the Dutch muslim population ever became a majority and we got a PM named Ali, I'd be just has happy has I was now. (Meaning, pretty damned annoyed. Right now we've got a Christian Democrat (the name is odd, but conservative, somewhat right-wing religious party) and honestly, he's a bad PM. I don't care what religion someone has, I care about his views on economics and social stance. A progressive muslim PM would be a LOT better then a conservative Christian one, IMO.)
Before I say anything else, I would like to point out anything I say in this thread is for the sake of the argument, and in no means personally against anyone. If our opinions deferr, that doesn't matter for my personal view of anyone in here. I hope the others feel the same.
Honestly, the first thing I hate is the 'we were here first' argument, simply because it creates so many issues. No-one should be punished for what his or her great-grandfather did. No-one should automtically get any rights from what his or her ancestors did either.
As for a muslim takeover anywhere: Every vote counts as one, and only as one. That's a prime point of a democracy. If a majority decides that they want a Muslim PM, who am I to argue in any other way then a democratic one. If you disagree, create an opposing party and run in the elections for parliament.
About Isrealian opression: The violence has to stop on both sides, so one side will simply have to be the first to show a true dedication to lasting peace. If older attempts for peace failed, the process will simply have to be forced through somehow. Israel makes the process harder by not allowing the Palestinians souvereignity.
I would like to point out I don't see the connection between the bombings and this discussion, though. If a Christian fringe group commited the bombing, would we be discussing a Christian complot?
-
Originally posted by kasperl
I would like to point out I don't see the connection between the bombings and this discussion, though.
There isn't really. This whole muslims in the UK thing should really be split off.
Originally posted by kasperl
If a Christian fringe group commited the bombing, would we be discussing a Christian complot?
Where have you been? We've been discussing a fundementalist christian plot in the US for years now :p
-
Originally posted by karajorma
There isn't really. This whole muslims in the UK thing should really be split off.
Agreed, Sandwich, would you please be so kind to split the two threadds?
Where have you been? We've been discussing a fundementalist christian plot in the US for years now :p
Forgot 'bout that.....
More seriously, any religious plotting is utter nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
-
IIRC Islam is the fastest growing religion in the UK. It's also probably the only growing religion in the Uk. And indeed probably the most discriminated against one; largely because of the false connotation people draw that Muslims are fanatics.
In the latter case, it's about as a fair a connotation as saying all Christians are fanatics based upon the Lords Resistance Army in Uganda; for every person of any religion who resorts to fanatacism (and not even focusing on the subset who become terrorists or guerillas) you'll find hundreds and thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of perfectly normal people who just want a quiet, peaceful life.
EDIT; Incidentally, one of the tube bombings IIRC took place less than 2 blocks from a mosque. These kinds of people don't respect anyone who hold anything bar their own narrow band of 'beliefs', after all.
-
These people started with terrorism in their own countries against fellow muslims.
-
yup
Incidentally, a nice opinion piece (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4671577.stm).
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Why not? If he (or she) is the right person for the job, gets voted in, and soforth. Be pretty damn racist to say I wouldn't accept a Muslim PM (or indeed an Arab, Jewish, etc PM).
EDIT; not to say I'd automatically approve of any PMs policies and soforth. But on the sheer basis of ethnicity/religion? It's no more intelligent than not wanting a female PM. And that's even with Thatcher as an exemplar.
I have no objections to any Muslim (or indeed Arab, although the two are not the same thing) population growth, because I'm not scared of it. In fact, Scotland needs more immigration, not less, and I couldn't give a **** what the religion of the immigrants are.
Okay, now you're drifting away from my views and into rampant stupidity. It's not that long ago a large group of muslims declared they wanted Islam to be the primary force behind UK law and policy. Can you imagine what would happen with an Islamic PM? Aye... Think that one through please.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Okay, now you're drifting away from my views and into rampant stupidity. It's not that long ago a large group of muslims declared they wanted Islam to be the primary force behind UK law and policy. Can you imagine what would happen with an Islamic PM? Aye... Think that one through please.
And who says that group has anything to do with this hypothetical muslim PM? Even if he does who says he'll listen?
Blair is a stauch christian so shall we start assuming that he'll do anything the Archbishop of Canterbury tells him to do? :rolleyes:
-
Actually Blair isn't. Blair was a devout "I don't go to church really" guy right up until he was elected, and suddenly he was joining Cherie and Mass every chance he got.
-
The fact is that lots of christians want to introduce christian law and policies in the UK too. Does that mean we should never have a christian leader?
The fact is as long as you choose a moderate it doesn't matter which faith he has and if you choose an extremist, well it doesn't matter which faith he has there either.
Simple fact is that it's the level of tolerance that is important not which faith the person believes in.
-
Well, generally speaking demographic warfare has been pretty damn successful throughout history, and no less so in the 20th century. In the long run, he who f*cks most, wins. Today, the Africans are the only ones who are still doing it old school style: no battles to speak of, just massacre the women and children and in 20 years you win by default. But demographics are not to be underestimated, in any country.
When you say that a Muslim PM would be perfectly acceptable, well first of all I have my doubts as to whether that's just a statement, but in any case I don't think too many people would agree with you, particularly outside of the West, where tribal mentality is very much stronger. That's what it essentially is. My tribe, whichever one it happens to be, is preferable to all others, and given a choice I would choose to associate with and grant power to those who are of my tribe. When someone says that Islam is taking over Britain, or Mexicans are taking over the US, or Arabs are taking over Israel, it basically means "those damn no-good Other Tribesmen are gaining power, and we are loosing it, and if they continue to screw at a rate that exceeds our own, we're going to have problems a few years down the line. So, naturally, my sense of tribal (usually national) identity is offended."
Simple. Call it rascist, and it is, but it's part and parcel of being what has historically been identified as being human.
-
In which case I can look down on the rest of humanity for not acting that way :D
-
Originally posted by vyper
Okay, now you're drifting away from my views and into rampant stupidity. It's not that long ago a large group of muslims declared they wanted Islam to be the primary force behind UK law and policy. Can you imagine what would happen with an Islamic PM? Aye... Think that one through please.
Why the hell are you assuming an Islamic PM is less likely to uphold the secular nature of this country than a Christian, Jewish. Sikh, Hindu or Buddhist PM?
Are you seriously suggesting we should ban prime ministerial candidates on the basis of religion? Now that is most definately racism; especially if you consider the demographic changes that would be required to make that scenario even possible.
Of course, it is the nature of the Islamic religion to impose itself upon 'outside life' - for lack of a better term. For many Muslims, their faith has an overriding priority that makes it perfectly acceptable and expected as a basis for government, law, etc. I remember having a discussion about it with a muslim lad on the uni messageboards, specifically with regards to Shariah law. This means that said call doesn't equate to a Taliban or Iran-style government; that would be a question of the ways in which the religion was applied.
I'm sure you could use the bible for lots of nasty punishments like stoning and soforth - point being that we (despite being a Christian country before we were as secular as nowadays)don't apply them in that way.
-
we've got a **** load of wacked out christians over here who are activly trying to wedge there God into our laws, and no one would ever think of trying to bar them from office.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
we've got a **** load of wacked out christians over here who are activly trying to wedge there God into our laws, and no one would ever think of trying to bar them from office.
Partly because our president is one of them.
-
I am late getting into this, but my heart goes out to the UK for what has happened, and those responsible must be arrested and stand trial for their crimes.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Have you even been to the UK recently? (and what the hell has this got to do with anything anyways) The only way the UK will be 'taken over by Islam' will be if the majority of the population is Islamic. And in that case, it'd only be fair.
I disagree, that would not be fair, unless the majority respects the minorities (and how often does that happen)? Otherwise, if their faith has a huge influence on the law, you have a theocracy telling you how to live.
-
But who says that they won't respect the minority? The vast majority of muslims in this country are as tolerant of other religions as most christians in this country are.
I find it ironic that it's mostly people from other countries who are trying to claim that British muslims can't be trusted.
-
[q]Why the hell are you assuming an Islamic PM is less likely to uphold the secular nature of this country than a Christian, Jewish. Sikh, Hindu or Buddhist PM?[/q]
Because Islam as a culture is about a hundred if not more years behind us in terms of social development and equality.
There I've said it. Flame away.
-
Don't have to. The comment is idiotic enough to not need someone to flame it to prove it's wrong.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
I am late getting into this, but my heart goes out to the UK for what has happened, and those responsible must be arrested and stand trial for their crimes.
I disagree, that would not be fair, unless the majority respects the minorities (and how often does that happen)? Otherwise, if their faith has a huge influence on the law, you have a theocracy telling you how to live.
It would be fair with regards to the majority opinion. An Islamic Prime Minister does not by nature connotate theocracy any more than a Christian PM currently does.
I think it would be incorrect to assume a Muslim PM would have any less regard for the secular nature of this country than one of any other religion.
-
Why hasn't this thread been split yet?
-
No-one wants to split it, there are only people who want it split.
When the time comes, without splitting, it will be closed.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
But who says that they won't respect the minority? The vast majority of muslims in this country are as tolerant of other religions as most christians in this country are.
I find it ironic that it's mostly people from other countries who are trying to claim that British muslims can't be trusted.
Ehh, that's just my distrust for people in power showing. I'm not saying British muslims can't be trusted. I don't think anyone in power can be completely trusted. I don't trust the crazy Christians running the US either. I will vote for anyone as long as I agree with their policies, regardless of race, gender, religion/creed, sexual orientation, etc.
Originally posted by aldo_14
It would be fair with regards to the majority opinion. An Islamic Prime Minister does not by nature connotate theocracy any more than a Christian PM currently does.
I think it would be incorrect to assume a Muslim PM would have any less regard for the secular nature of this country than one of any other religion.
With regards to majority opinion, it would be fair. I think our definitions of "fair" in this case are not the same. My definition in this sense is that everyone be respected and treated equally or at the least the people in power try to treat everyone equally. I was saying you have a theocracy if religion dictates policy/law too much. It is not based on the faith of the leader.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
With regards to majority opinion, it would be fair. I think our definitions of "fair" in this case are not the same. My definition in this sense is that everyone be respected and treated equally or at the least the people in power try to treat everyone equally. I was saying you have a theocracy if religion dictates policy/law too much. It is not based on the faith of the leader.
Which was exactly my point. Even an expressly religious leader does not necessarily entail a theocracy; not to mention the inherent checks and balances that a democracy should have (and IMO does provide to some degree in the UK; i.e. the Lords and legal system).
My understand is that 'taken over by Islam' had the meaning that any form of government headed by a Muslim was being regarded as a bad thing within a western country, and that a connotation was being made between the religion and the theocracy in, for example, Iran. IMO that's an incorrect connotation.
-
People fear what they don't understand. This is no different than the BS that the US is being overrun with Mexicans. Hell, way back when, we even passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, banning all Chinese from immigration. It was later repealed, but it never should've been passed in the first place. They didn't "take over" when they were "allowed" back in. This fear of Islam is completely irrational, and it just shows how ignorant society is. :hopping:
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
This fear of Islam is completely irrational, and it just shows how ignorant society is. :hopping:
:sigh:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
:sigh:
What's that supposed to mean?
-
It's sort of along the lines of :rolleyes:, but with more sadness and less annoyance.
-
Have I already said what I think this thread's destiny will be? This has already gone more towards religion that terrorism politics. Religion threads are unhealthy.
I am not saying stop, because I don't have the power to do that, I just want to indicate that not only this thread has gone off-topic, but it headed into a more dangerous direction.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
It's sort of along the lines of :rolleyes:, but with more sadness and less annoyance.
And it's your own fault for starting it. Good job. :p
-
Sandy's right. I have the same fear about Christianity...
-
I have that fear of large groups of people.
-
Yeah, but the support base is far more limited. Not too many people are supportive of any sort of Christian fundamenalism, they're more likely to be atheists. Sure, you could make the arguement for the US these days, but it's a fundamentally secular (ba-dum-pshh) society and while it's fun to pretend that the Christian Coaltion is pulling all the strings, it's simply not true. And in Europe, it's even more far fetched.
Both Islam and Judaism have survived the rise of science better than Christianty, so people are more incilned towards faith.
-
Not too many people are supportive of any sort of Christian fundamenalism, they're more likely to be atheists. Sure, you could make the arguement for the US these days, but it's a fundamentally secular (ba-dum-pshh) society and while it's fun to pretend that the Christian Coaltion is pulling all the strings, it's simply not true.
I call BS on this one. The base of the entire Republican party ARE christian fundamentalists. The president is a fundamentalist.
-
*bows to pressure*
What's the latest from London? Last I heard, they'd identified the first victim, but what with the failed car-bomb and the successful bombing in a Netanya mall since then, I haven't heard much else here.
-
There was that police raid in Leeds......
-
Originally posted by Kosh
I call BS on this one. The base of the entire Republican party ARE christian fundamentalists. The president is a fundamentalist.
I have to agree. Religious fundamentalism is making epic strides in American society. People are looking desperately for reliable absolutes. Although I don't know if I'd say that it's the base of the party.
-
The police believe they've identified the 3 of the 4 suicide bombers (they found documents close to the explosion sites, and tracked the 4 meeting up in Kings Cross Station on CCTV after catching an 8.30 train from Leeds). It's possible the bus bomb may have been intended for another tube but went off after the tube was closed down.
One man - a relative of a bomber - is in questioning. IIRC the police launched 5 raids on houses in Leeds on that same day. Police have recovered explosives from one of these houses, and also from a car at a train station (destroyed in a controlled explosion).
BBC info; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4676861.stm
[q]# All four suspects were British nationals of Pakistani descent. It has been confirmed that three of the four were from West Yorkshire
# The men have been named as: Hasib Hussain, 18, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, and Mohammed Sadique Khan, 30
# The fourth man has not yet been identified by police
# All four were captured on CCTV at King's Cross station, wearing rucksacks, shortly before 0830 BST on the morning of the attacks. The footage was found on Monday night
# One suspect was reported missing by his family. Some of his belongings were found on the bombed Number 30 bus in Tavistock Square
# Property linked to a second man was found at the scene of the Aldgate/Liverpool Street Tube bomb
# Items belonging to a third suspect were found at the site of the Aldgate/Liverpool Street and Edgware Road Tube bombs
# One man has been arrested in West Yorkshire and is being questioned in London. He is believed to be related to one of the suspected bombers
# Police have searched the homes of three of the four suspects in West Yorkshire
# Six search warrants were executed in the Leeds area on Tuesday. A controlled explosion was carried out in the Burley area
# A "significant amount" of explosive material was found at an address in Leeds
# The men boarded a Thameslink train from Luton to King's Cross
# At King's Cross, they split up, three of them detonating their bombs on separate trains simultaneously at 0850 BST
# Two cars in Luton, one of which had explosives in it, are connected to the inquiry. Police spent 14 hours dealing with explosive devices found in one car at Luton Central railway station
# The other car was towed to nearby Leighton Buzzard
# Police sources have told the BBC they had not recovered any timing devices from the bomb scenes, possibly indicating that detonation was by hand
# Counter-terrorism officials believe the group of four would have had an outside "controlling hand" who could still be at large
# It is thought the cars were hired by the suspects in West Yorkshire before being driven to Luton
# More than 1,000 calls have been made by the public to an anti-terrorist hotline. Police have studied 2,500 CCTV tapes[/q]
-
Originally posted by Kosh
There was that police raid in Leeds......
One Accused arrested, right? And last I have heard, the casualty number was 52.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
I call BS on this one. The base of the entire Republican party ARE christian fundamentalists. The president is a fundamentalist.
Not that I disagree, but what policies has Bush implemented that shatter the Church-State divide? When I say fundamentalist, I mean something along the lines of Iran or Saudi. Bush and the entire Evangelical movement, despite the recent resurgence, are fighting for their survival against growing atheism, and will inevitable lose, it's just a matter of how long religion can hold on. Abortion and homosexuality is still legal, public schools teach a basically secular doctrine, freedom of religion is universal and all public policy is done along strictly secular lines. Ralph Reed may be having fantasies of religious control, but he, nor anyone, has the power to implement them.
Religious fundamentalism, though pesky, is not a real issue in the US, and personally I don't know why it has become the cause célèbre for liberals and progressives.
-
You're putting the cart before the horse Rictor. The reason why Bush hasn't managed to outlaw abortion and force the teaching of intelligent design is precisely because liberals have made it such a big issue.
Had everyone treated it like a minor issue these things would have been changed in the same way that Bush has managed to slowly erode other personal freedoms. Even with that he has managed to push abstinence only programs (both in the US and abroad) as well as various other religious based choices whenever he could wrap up the religious part of it in some other disguise.
Yes atheism is on the rise in America at the moment but how long do you think that would continue if Bush was managing to teach the kids the stuff he wants to be teaching them?
The other reason it's become the big cause for liberals is because sadly it's much harder to explain to people why the other infringements are a bad thing because those are explained in terms of security and most people are idiots who'll give up their freedom to be secure and then complain when it's too late and they realise that they've lost them both.
When Bush wants to push a religious agenda you point and say "Seperation of church and state is guarenteed in the constitution"
When he wants to push an authoritarian one it's much harder to come out with a simple one line explaination of why it's bad.
-
And at another divergence;
The first reactionary assault on civil liberties begins; http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/14/uk_ministers_data_retention/
-
I find it funny that you're talking about atheism as if it were a religion. I am not religious but spiritual, just making an observation.
Originally posted by Kosh
I call BS on this one. The base of the entire Republican party ARE christian fundamentalists. The president is a fundamentalist.
I also agree with this remark. Religion seems to be a bigger base for the neoconservatives than money, although, not that much bigger. OK, maybe they're about equal, but there are people that will vote for a candidate based on their view of one issue and one alone, which is pretty scary (*cough* abortion). Though our fearless leader may not be a fundamentalist compared to the fundalmentalist muslims, he is a fundamentalist compared to what we are used to, and I don't like the direction he has taken the country regarding religion (for starters). Compared to the rest of the developed world, we are still a very Puritan nation.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Yes atheism is on the rise in America at the moment but how long do you think that would continue if Bush was managing to teach the kids the stuff he wants to be teaching them?]
That's the thing. People can't be had by state indoctrination anymore, because at least in the US, they live in a very open society. Bush could order all schools to teach only creationism, it would still be a lost cause. There are so many sources of information these days, most of which are impossible to censor, that formal education has very much taken a back seat in matters of politics, religion etc (social sciences, as opposed to techical knowledge).
The way I see it, religion, all religion, is on it's way out. It might hold out for some time yet, and that time will be different in different parts of the world, but reason and science is so prominent that there is no going back. In any case, public sentiment does not favour theocracy in the US, even the fundies have to aa large degree appreciation for a secular and republican (small r) form of government. Even if Bush was to dedicate himself fully to implementing a fundamenalist agenda, with complete disregard for public opinion and the law, he still wouldn't be able to accomplish anything lasting. And this is assuming a religious-police-on-the-streets type scenario.
Originally posted by karajorma
The other reason it's become the big cause for liberals is because sadly it's much harder to explain to people why the other infringements are a bad thing because those are explained in terms of security and most people are idiots who'll give up their freedom to be secure and then complain when it's too late and they realise that they've lost them both.
When Bush wants to push a religious agenda you point and say "Seperation of church and state is guarenteed in the constitution"
When he wants to push an authoritarian one it's much harder to come out with a simple one line explaination of why it's bad.
Could be, but I think they're shooting themselves in the foot. Most people in the US *are* religious, so by waging what is percieved to be a war against religion (and let's be honest, having the 10 commandments in a courtroom doesn't suddenly make the country a theocracy, it's purely symbolic), they make themselves that much less attractive to most of the population, without benefiting too much in return.
-
It is because the opposition party has made such as big deal out of this that Bush hasn't established a theocracy in this country.
So he has to push his religous agenda slowly. His has to package it as something other than it is. He also has to decieve the general public about what it really does.
There are so many sources of information these days, most of which are impossible to censor,
The chinese government seems to be doing a pretty good job at censoring information on the net. Why don't you tell them that? :p
-
Originally posted by Rictor
That's the thing. People can't be had by state indoctrination anymore, because at least in the US, they live in a very open society. Bush could order all schools to teach only creationism, it would still be a lost cause. There are so many sources of information these days, most of which are impossible to censor, that formal education has very much taken a back seat in matters of politics, religion etc (social sciences, as opposed to techical knowledge).
What I'm seeing is me arguing that the government can and will try to be totalitarian and you arguing that it won't. What have you done with the real Rictor? :p
It's only a short step from allowing the teaching of creationism in class to simply dropping evolution completely. Sure Bush can't turn the country into a theocratic state overnight but he can lay the groundwork for someone who will. Remember that Iran was almost all the way to becoming a fully westernised liberal style democracy before it changed into the theocracy it is now.
Originally posted by Rictor
The way I see it, religion, all religion, is on it's way out. It might hold out for some time yet, and that time will be different in different parts of the world, but reason and science is so prominent that there is no going back.
I agree with the first statement but not the last one. It's not that hard for a country to push itself back to a more religious time. It won't happen unless the other non-religious abridgements of freedom are brought in too but to say it can't happen at all is naive in the extreme.
Both the religious and non religious infringements we are seeing can very easily feed on each other. It's not hard to go from the "If you're not with us, you're unamerican" to "If you're not with us, you're unchristian". Especially when you consider that the vast majority of Americans are religious as you say.
Originally posted by Rictor
In any case, public sentiment does not favour theocracy in the US, even the fundies have to aa large degree appreciation for a secular and republican (small r) form of government. Even if Bush was to dedicate himself fully to implementing a fundamenalist agenda, with complete disregard for public opinion and the law, he still wouldn't be able to accomplish anything lasting. And this is assuming a religious-police-on-the-streets type scenario.
Bush couldn't, those who come after him could. This is a long term problem not a quick 5 minute convert or die one.
Originally posted by Rictor
Could be, but I think they're shooting themselves in the foot. Most people in the US *are* religious, so by waging what is percieved to be a war against religion (and let's be honest, having the 10 commandments in a courtroom doesn't suddenly make the country a theocracy, it's purely symbolic), they make themselves that much less attractive to most of the population, without benefiting too much in return.
That is a problem but the only alternative is to let it all slide and bring the country down with it. Hammering on about the little things makes it clear that there is a huge problem with the bigger ones. If it weren't for things like that battle less people would have heard of seperation of church and state.
The idea is to draw the line in the sand exactly where the consititution says the line should be drawn. That's not a bad idea as it means that they can point at the constitution and say that's why. If you choose to wait and draw one later everyone says "why now?"
-
Why has this thread focused on the US. I thought it was London that was bombed...
-
Cause all threads where the word fundementalist is used eventually end up mentioning America :D
-
Joy...
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The way I see it, religion, all religion, is on it's way out. It might hold out for some time yet, and that time will be different in different parts of the world, but reason and science is so prominent that there is no going back.
Religion? On its way out? I think you might as well say art is on its way out. It's hardwired into us like speaking and reproducing.
-
Humans break hardwired programming all the time though.
-
No, we gloss over it.
-
Doesn't matter which. An atheist might still have a religious part in their brain but they ignore it.
If it stops being used it will go the same way as the appendix.
-
It does matter. Humans naturally want absolutes, and because we also possess an instinctual belief in a "natural order of things", we will always us that belief to validate our primal desire to enforce our own absolutes on others. The intellectual decision to break that pattern is inevitably crushed by the prospect of personal advancement. The reason that religion cannot be abandoned is the same reason that we create art, that communism failed, that war is a constant, and that people follow their governments off cliffs.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What I'm seeing is me arguing that the government can and will try to be totalitarian and you arguing that it won't. What have you done with the real Rictor? :p
It's only a short step from allowing the teaching of creationism in class to simply dropping evolution completely. Sure Bush can't turn the country into a theocratic state overnight but he can lay the groundwork for someone who will. Remember that Iran was almost all the way to becoming a fully westernised liberal style democracy before it changed into the theocracy it is now.
Nah, it's still me. And I absolutely do believe that the government can and will try to be totaliarian, I just don't think it's too likely to be along religious lines. Why? Because I must assume that those who try to institute governmental tyranny aren't stupid. State tyranny based on religion (and especially Christianity) would be very tricky to maintain. First of all, Christianity itself, even more so the Protestant factions which are the heart and soul of American fundamentalism, is an enemy of the State. But alright, that can and has been perverted.
The far bigger problem would be to construct a society so closed that it would be possible, over any period of time, to turn back the clock a few hundred years. In order for theocracy in America to be even concievable, we're talking literally 1984 level control over information and education. Putting aside the fact that a large percentage of the population are avowed atheists or very weak thesists, there's no way that a government could do away with not only the Constitution, but also all alternative methods of information (newspapers, radio, TV, Internet, carrier pigeons, word of mouth etc ) so as to prevent people from going through the same process which has been going on for quite a while now (assuming, of course, that the entire population could magically be transported back intellectually to 1800 or so). Religon is in decline for a reason. The reason being science, technology and reason. In order to accomplish a second ascension of religion, anywhere. you would need to compltely do away with those. You can extend it's lifespan a bit, like for example by piggybacking it onto nationalist sentiment (which, though not rational, is easier to justify and rationalize in the modern world), but it's days are numbered.
Even in Iran, to use your example, theocracy has been around for a scant 25 years or so. And let's be generous and give it another 20 years, though it will likely last quite a bit less. For one reason or another, faith is much more widespread and much stronger in the Muslim world than in the Christian. Even then, there is a huge reformist faction in Iran, and the theocracy is significant weaker than immediately following the revolution. I have two close friends who are Iranian. One is no more religious than the average Muslim, and the other is an atheist. Hell, even Saudi Arabia is modernizing and democratizing. What I'm saying is not that a theocratic dictatorship is impossible, only that is unpractical and unlikely, and that a dictatorship along secular lines is a far greater threat.
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
It does matter. Humans naturally want absolutes, and because we also possess an instinctual belief in a "natural order of things", we will always us that belief to validate our primal desire to enforce our own absolutes on others. The intellectual decision to break that pattern is inevitably crushed by the prospect of personal advancement. The reason that religion cannot be abandoned is the same reason that we create art, that communism failed, that war is a constant, and that people follow their governments off cliffs.
These are all trends. If they have been going on for all of human existance, that is no reason the believe that they will remain in the future. The character of humanity has been significantly changed, and will continue to be into the future. War is not constant (the world is now more peaceful than at any point in human history, and looks to be becoming more peaceful). Communism didn't fail, it failed at that specific time and in that specific fashion (a very oppressive variety). Look around at any Western society, the vast majority of people belong to the middle class. It's not hard to imagine Marx's classless society, not as a result of revolution and indoctrination, but because of the rise of the middle class, which in my opinion will only grow in strenght and numbers until it becomes universal.
If religion has been in decline for over a hundred years, at different speeds in diffrent parts of the world, but overall definitely in decline, is there any reason to assume that this trend will be reversed? If there is, I can't see it.
-
Did I say that they'd succeed in keeping the country a theocracy?
One single day under a theocratic government is one day too many. Hell even getting close to having one is bad.
-
Any enemy of promiscuity is an enemy of mine.
-
They don't have to "roll back the clock a few hundred years" to control information. Look at China. They effectively control access to any sources of information. This includes news websites, search engines, blogs, SMS text messanging services, the works. They don't control everything though. But they still control most of it.
-
It's futile, though. All they can do is delay the inevitable by a few years. It doesn't matter what the situation currently is, what matters is if it's getting better or worse. As far I know, in terms of the general "good stuff" (democracy, freedom, bla bla) the only place that's maybe standing still is North Korea, while everywhere else it's getting better and nowhere is it getting worse (aside from the inevitable peaks and valleys, but that's strictly short term stuff).
Communication is growing faster than censorship can keep up. If technology stopped advancing today, maybe in a few decades a government would be able to effectively control information, but how likely is that? It's not really a conscious effort, it's just a reality, looka at how much emphasis people place on communication. To cut it off would need insanely strict measures, which would be difficult if not impossible to implement themselves because of the very thing they're trying to control: communication.
-
It's futile, though. All they can do is delay the inevitable by a few years. It doesn't matter what the situation currently is, what matters is if it's getting better or worse.
Gee, they've been doing that for over 50 years now. The Communitst Party of China isn't going anywhere for a while.
-
underestimateing your enemee is a fatal mistake.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
underestimateing your enemee is a fatal mistake.
That's "enemy" and "underestimating" :p
The main reason why it is still in power is because it has been doing a fairly good job with the economy.