Terrorist Attack in London

[j-turbo2002]

Good question PJ. Bubba hit the nail right on the head with the hammer when he said that the biggest problem is with the interpretation of the Koran. The extreme form of Islam (or, the extreme interpretation of the Koran) is more of a return to the classic fundamentals of Islam. You know, a return to what was originally preached by the prophet Muhammad. Bubba gave an excellent example of Muhammad ibn ‘abd al-Wahhab and his followers, the Wahhabis The traditional form of the Koran preaches a strict defiance against internal and external enemies. Thus, in these times, they are allowed to conduct the “Holy War”. Now do not quote me here but from what I remember, they are allowed to conduct Holy War if there is a significant threat to Islam, the teachings of the Koran, and how the Koran plays a role in Islamic Law and the Role of the Believer. Now this is where the conversation gets "deep". In order to see why Western Civilization is a threat you have to go and research how the western society functions (daily life, laws, etc.) and compare that to the Islamic Law that is preached about in the classic fundamentals of the Koran. Now, over the years there have been many Clerics, Mullahs, Imams, and Ayatollahs who pick up on certain bullshit issues as to why the “West” is a threat to Islamic society and then declare (or try to declare) “Holy War” because it differs with what is preached in the classical Koran. Therefore, it is a threat to the Islamic State.

[Firefox]

In answer to PJ, this is how I think the extremists justiy their cause. The USA and Britain/the UN were instrumental in establishing the State of Israel. This has lead to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian areas by the Israeli's. OK you can dispute to the world's end about who really owns what land but the fact remains that many Palestinians have been murdered and their villages bulldozed. The USA don't support this act by Israel. In fact there are UN resolutions against it, but there is a big Jewish influence in the US/GB and essentially the US have chosen to conveniently ignore the resolutions and continue to support Isreal with arms and politically although Bush has done various things in a small way to try and resolve the issue eg The roadmap process. The extremists interpret this as a justification for Jihad/struggle What it says in the quran is: Jihad also includes the striving and establishing of justice. Before one can strive for justice in his/her community, justice must be one of his/her main religious and moral principles. Jihad may also reflect the war aspects in Islam (Submission). The fighting of a war in the name of justice or Islam, to deter an aggressor, for self defense, and/or to establish justice and freedom to practice religion , would also be considered a Jihad. So we have Israel- Palestinian Question - injustice - Jihad - 911 - Invasion/bombing Afg/Iraq - Jihad- Madrid - London bombing etc etc If there had been no Palestinian problem there would have been no Al Quaeda and no 911 and no Jihad. To be honest, if Saudia Arabia invaded Britain tomorrow and decided a regime change was needed; We could have some elections, but they would geared towards an Islamic State, there would be our version of Jihad and insurgence here. No doubt the same thing would happen in the US. So, while I can't condone terrorism I can understand the process which has lead to the current situation. All the powers that be seem to do is say "we will never give in". They don't seem to want to concentrate on how we got here, the practical solutions and the long term picture.

[Shafted]

Today that land on the east end of the Mediteranian is Israel, before that Palestine and before that even Israel. The main problem here is that you have two seperate peoples with no tolorance of each other that both have a multi-generational claim to that land. And niether feels they should have to give an inch of concessions to the other. Maybe it's time to just step out and let them kill each other until the situation stabilizes on its own. Weither they annihilate each other or come to a peaceful agreement the world will be a much better place.

[Dr. Shoe]

Actually, the Israel-Palestine situation is not as clear cut. In the 1890s a group of wealthy Jews formed The New Israel Zionist Movement with the objective of constructing a new Zionist state. They looked at a number of sites including places in Africa that would correspond to Sudan and Uganda today and a site in Palestine that corresponds to the environs of Tel-Aviv. In the end, the Palestine site was chosen for two reasons: Firstly, it was comparatively close to Jerusalem and secondly it was swamp and scrub land with very few indiginous inhabitants. The land (around 100 sq miles) was purchased for much more than it was worth and the swamps were drained and the scrubs irrigated to become some of the most fertile land in the region. Quite soon, the local Palestinians who had deliberately ripped of these stupid Europeans (and Americans) felt as if they themselves had been ripped of and so tried to take the land back by force and when this didn't work they appealed to the Ottoman Empire who controlled the area at the time to oust them. This was taken in hand but the Great War intervened and Turkey lost the territory which was placed under British Jurisdiction until the end of WWII. In 1909, the town of Tel-Aviv was founded by a group of "Pioneers" led by Hertzl (hence Hertzlia) and this provided a focus for more immigrants many of whom settled on lands purchased around Haifa. However, it soon became a responsibility of the British to control immigration to the point where things became quite violent with the pioneers forming the terror groups Haganah, Stern and Irgun. After WWII, activity was stepped up as German, East European and Russian refugees started pouring into the region until in 1948, Ben Gurion as the elected president declared a state of independence of a territory stretching from just north of Gaza to Haifa and Tel-Aviv to the western half of Jerusalem and almost surrounding a Palestinian enclave now referred to as the West Bank. In responce to this, the newly formed UN on the advice of the British split the region into four states: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel with official recognition of the latter. In 1949, the "palestinian" states with the backing of Egypt, mounted a coordinated attack on Israel with the aim of snuffing the new state out but the Israelis held their own and took the West Bank area and an area now known as the Gaza Strip. 18 years later, the Israelis mounted a pre-emptive strike on massing Palestinian and Egyptian forces in the infamous six-day war in which Israel added the Golan Heights to their occupied territory. In 1973, the palestinians mounted a sneak attack on the holiest of all Jewish holidays, Yom Kippur. Israel fought back once again and pushed their enemies back deep into Egypt and penetrated Lebanon as far as Beirut and totally destroyed the military of both Syria and Jordan provoking a capitulation and non agression pact on the part of Jordan and by 1979 peace with Egypt. Syria has never signed any kind of pact and continues to sponsor Hezbollah and other intifada groups to this day. True, Israel is provocative in not taking strong enough action to withdraw the West bank settlements but the Palestinians were actually making headway in the "peace process" but like all terrorist organisations, they are just fronts for criminal activity such as drug production and weapon smuggling.

[Firefox]

I think the Jewish/Arab conflict goes back much further than 1890. I didn't say the situation was clear cut, but that you could argue about it to the end of the world. Nevertheless we've taken sides along with the USA at various points and if one is brave (or alternatively stupid) enough to do that, then there are consequences to follow. And consequences as to how we should act to get out of the situation.

[Skirted-UK]

In other words the whole situation is so complex only historians understand it and its completely lost on the average man in the street!

[j-turbo2002]

According to the following reference (see below), H.A.R. Gibb describes that under the classical fundamentals of the Koran, the common interest of the Islamic Community require members to join with all those of its other members who are similarly of their responsibilities to “Strive in God’s path” for its defense against external and internal enemies.

He then goes on to state that this “Holy War” has naturally taken different forms in different ages. In the primitive 7th Century Muslim Community, this “Holy War” concept led to the policy of expansion and Muslim wars of conquest in the 7th Century.

This backs up my point that under this classical form of Islam, they can propagate and declare “Holy War” on what they see fit as long as they follow the strict discipline and teachings of Islam. This has been going on for thousands of years and it has absolutely nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestinian situation, US support for Israel, war in Afghanistan, or the UN mandated/US led war in Iraq. This is just emotional, shameless, and arrogant finger pointing at the USA and Israel.

Now, remember, not all Muslims believe in this doctrine. Most Muslims follow the more peaceful, 19th and 20th Century versions of the Koran.

It is just unfortunate that you have a few bad apples in the basket.

References:

The Encyclopedia of the Worlds Religions

( http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=6W2eAXnBBI&isbn=076070712X&itm=1 )

[j-turbo2002]

In other words the whole situation is so complex only historians understand it and its completely lost on the average man in the street!

No, it is not really that complex. Just remember, you can do anything if you just put your mind to it.

[Bubba136]

As JT says, it's not really that complex if you keep in mind the things modern historians believe are responsible for current radical Moslem mindset. One is the fact that Gingus Kahn came within a hair's breath of completely annihilating the religion during his sweep across the earth way back when -- and, now looking back -- to bad he didn't finish the job. And then, Moslems are still smarting from the "whacking" the Crusaders administered back in the 11th, 12th and 13th Centuries -- modern Moslems believe the Crusades are responsible for "stifling" development of Arab cultural because they "eliminated" so many highly educated clerics -- causing Arab culture to be stuck in the 7th century (or, somewhere back there). Then, there's the fact that most western governments support Israel -- that's really a "red flag" that causes Arabs' blood pressure to rise. The fact that the United States and Britain have military forces stationed in several religiously significant areas of the middle east -- infidels trespassing upon "sacred" ground -- is enough, in itself, to cause WWIII. Add into the mix the war in Iraq, Moslems literally froth at the mouth with anger. There are so many justifications, in their minds, for retaliation -- none of which make westerners comfortable. Now, for the hard part. What is the solution? Actually, besides total annihilation of one side by the other, there isn't one. Throughout the entire development of western civilization and culture, there has been developed a set of conditions that, when applied, cause certain responses. For instance, the response of inflicting pain through torture has almost always caused the person/people being tortured to react in ways the torturer wants. Alsoin western culture, the threat of death is a huge stimulant in eliciting cooperation from an enemy. So, in western cultures whenever these stimuli are applied when negotiating with adversaries, the “expected” responses are usually achieved. Now, the difficulty here is that Moslems do not respond to these stimuli in the same manner as westerners. How can you negotiate with a culture that believes giving their lives fighting "infidels" in the furtherance of their religious beliefs forever places them at the "right hand of Allah with 75 virgins forever at their service?" How do you negotiate with people that believe their only reason for being on this earth is to kill non-believers? The answer is really very simple. We've got to finish the job that Gingus Khan started. Totally eliminating all Moslems and stamping out the religion once and for all time..... Or, until we reach a point where those that remain are willing to join the rest of the world, accepting the fact that most of western culture is willing to live and let live.... keeping foremost in mind forever that if they aren't willing to adjust their attitude, they will be colored "gone." That's the only cure to this cancer. And, for all of the wishful, politically correct thinking that comes out of our more liberal societies -- Sweden, France, the Netherlands and some of the weak knee do-gooders in the UK, for instance -- their "cure," like baring their throats in an act of submission, is only going to cause their deaths. Now, this is only my opinion....but, like it or not, it's based on very solid evidence.

[Dr. Shoe]

What I can't understand is that Jesus is recognised by Islam as a prophet so therefore Christians being followers of a prophet of Islam cannot be "infidels". So therefore as both the USA and UK are nominally Christian nations why attack us as infidels?

http://www.muslimworld.co.uk/prophetjesus.htm

You could argue that our nations are secular, however, so was Iraq before the war and if any thing we have brought religious freedom to those lands, if they would just accept it!

As you all know I was against the invasion from the start simply because one state should not intervene in the internal affairs of another.

Come to think of it, no one connected to any known Islamic terror organisation has ever used the invasion of Iraq as an excuse for the London Bombings (AFAIK).

I think the real reason for this hate campaign is because of what they see as Western "meddling". This is unfair because if they sell us their oil and then build western style hotels, western style tourist attractions, western style homes, drive western style cars then they will get western meddling. THEY CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! If they don't want to be part of the western world then they should say:"Sorry, we don't want your money and we have no wish to sell you our oil." then they should dump their Mercs, Cadillacs, BMWs and Rolls Royces into the sea, tear down their luxury homes and go back to living in tents and riding camels otherwise they are guilty of hypocrisy of the highest order. Why I'm in rant mode, these clerics that spout hate filled diatribes against our culture should see how long they can survive on their own on a desert island living according to their sacred texts!

[Dawn HH]

Dr. shoe:-) I'm wholeheartedly with you on your rant. These people will never learn until it is too late and someone has annihilated them all. Cheers--- Dawn HH

[micha]

As JT says, it's not really that complex if you keep in mind the things modern historians believe are responsible for current radical Moslem mindset. One is the fact that Gingus Kahn came within a hair's breath of completely annihilating the religion during his sweep across the earth way back when -- and, now looking back -- to bad he didn't finish the job. And then, Moslems are still smarting from the "whacking" the Crusaders administered back in the 11th, 12th and 13th Centuries -- modern Moslems believe the Crusades are responsible for "stifling" development of Arab cultural because they "eliminated" so many highly educated clerics -- causing Arab culture to be stuck in the 7th century (or, somewhere back there). Then, there's the fact that most western governments support Israel -- that's really a "red flag" that causes Arabs' blood pressure to rise. The fact that the United States and Britain have military forces stationed in several religiously significant areas of the middle east -- infidels trespassing upon "sacred" ground -- is enough, in itself, to cause WWIII. Add into the mix the war in Iraq, Moslems literally froth at the mouth with anger. There are so many justifications, in their minds, for retaliation -- none of which make westerners comfortable.

Now, for the hard part. What is the solution? Actually, besides total annihilation of one side by the other, there isn't one. Throughout the entire development of western civilization and culture, there has been developed a set of conditions that, when applied, cause certain responses. For instance, the response of inflicting pain through torture has almost always caused the person/people being tortured to react in ways the torturer wants. Alsoin western culture, the threat of death is a huge stimulant in eliciting cooperation from an enemy. So, in western cultures whenever these stimuli are applied when negotiating with adversaries, the “expected” responses are usually achieved. Now, the difficulty here is that Moslems do not respond to these stimuli in the same manner as westerners. How can you negotiate with a culture that believes giving their lives fighting "infidels" in the furtherance of their religious beliefs forever places them at the "right hand of Allah with 75 virgins forever at their service?" How do you negotiate with people that believe their only reason for being on this earth is to kill non-believers? The answer is really very simple. We've got to finish the job that Gingus Khan started. Totally eliminating all Moslems and stamping out the religion once and for all time..... Or, until we reach a point where those that remain are willing to join the rest of the world, accepting the fact that most of western culture is willing to live and let live.... keeping foremost in mind forever that if they aren't willing to adjust their attitude, they will be colored "gone." That's the only cure to this cancer. And, for all of the wishful, politically correct thinking that comes out of our more liberal societies -- Sweden, France, the Netherlands and some of the weak knee do-gooders in the UK, for instance -- their "cure," like baring their throats in an act of submission, is only going to cause their deaths. Now, this is only my opinion....but, like it or not, it's based on very solid evidence.

Bubba, please calm down!

Reading your contribution I always remembered our own german catastrophee: The first step was the invasion under french kings into the western Rhineland of Germany. Later Napoleon Bonaparte ocuppied the whole German rsp. Austrian territory. The reaction was the counterstrike of Prussia and Austria in the famous battle of Leipzig in Saxonia. Later (1870) France and Germany tried a revench. A provocating alliance between Spain and Germany, a provocating ultimatum of the french ambassador and a provocating answer of Bismarck. Again a bloody war. Later the bomb attack on the austrian throne successor Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Serbia. I'm sure that the majority of french people were keen on a revench because of the lost war of 1870. Vice versa in Berlin the same arrogance: we aren't afraid of our "arch enemy" France. Next week we are in Paris! Again many millions of victims.

The french and the allied revench: The dictate of Versailles and the economical plundering of Germany. The german revench: Voting for this idiot Adolf Hitler who promised a blooming economy and a strong germany. The result: A digusting genocide. The allied revench: A terror bombing against innocent civilians. I'm glad that we have broken this "circulus vitiosus" finally. I don't want the same game again!

It's absolutely necessary to resist powerful against islamic fundamentalism but I don't believe that wars could be helpful ... (read it again )

micha

[Nicole]

Marvelous- I come back and people here are using the atrocity in London to propose and justify mass murder.

[Bubba136]

I don't understand, Nicole. Perhaps you had better explain your comment. Micha, as far as your comment is concerned, perhaps we should get our books out and read to the terrorists about our past good deeds, accomplishments and wishes not to cause them harm. And, explain to them that we only desire to "live and let live" in a warm, wonderful world of peace and harmony, in a united world under mother sky and father earth. Then, perhaps, they just might see the error of their way in trying to slaughter every human being that isn't a moslem. That is, of course, if you can get their attention long enough to hear your cry before they lop off your head.

[Nicole]

I don't understand, Nicole. Perhaps you had better explain your comment.

You said:

>We've got to finish the job that Gingus Khan started. Totally eliminating all Moslems and stamping out the religion once and for all time..... Or, until we reach a point where those that remain are willing to join the rest of the world, accepting the fact that most of western culture is willing to live and let live.... keeping foremost in mind forever that if they aren't willing to adjust their attitude, they will be colored "gone."

There are several million Moslems in the world. You are explicitly stating that they should be eliminated- what's there not to understand?

[Dr. Shoe]

Several million? Several Billion more like!

[Bubba136]

A large enough number ---- or, until they get the message.

[Shafted]

I agree with you Bubba to some extent. But rather than targeting all of Islam, we need to target only those sects that sponser terrorism.

[dr1819]

I'm not Islamic, but Christian. I agree with Tony Blair's and others' assessment that it's the rare minority of Islamics who's causing all the problems, and therefore, I do not advocate focusing on Islamics, per se'. However, I wholeheartedly believe in using all tools to pinpoint potential terrorists, including profiling of all sorts. The problem is that this is difficult to do, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that those carrying out the deeds are "under the radar." Still, enough could be caught if immigration policies were made more restrictive.