Comments on: Musings on death

By: Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:10:00 +0000

Yes... nice example of the obscurantiscism that is the real threat to the continued existence of civilised, humane values.

What next? Rain is caused by water falling from the sky? Earthquakes are the result of the ground shaking?

By: rbbiker

rbbiker — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:06:00 +0000

The root cause of Muslim terrorism is the decision of Muslims to commit terrorist acts.next case

By: James O

James O — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:26:00 +0000

It’s fairly simple. Based on a reading of Al-Quada’s stated reasons for their campaign, you could conclude they are motivated by opposition to western hegemony in the region, and specifically the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. There’s a summary of them here:

http://www.j-n-v.org/London_Blasts/L_B_rapid_rebuttal.htm

Now, even if we accept these groups own descriptions of their motivations, virtually every anti-war individual or group has made clear that this in no way justifies or legitimises the killing of innocent civilians. When discussing the PLO or the IRA, even the most fanatical Unionist or Zionist would agree that their campaign had a specific political aim and motivation: in fact it is the targeting of civilians in pursuit of a political goal (by either state or retail terror) which defines ‘terrorism’.
However, since Thursday, the pro war crowd has become almost hysterical in insisting that western policy in the Muslim world plays no role in motivation of Al-Quada. Pointing out that the occupation of Iraq was the reason given by the perpetrators is usually discounted as a pretext, and those who mention it as appeasers, acting as an apologist for Islamofascism, etc, etc
The point being: You can’t quote Al-Quada statement when they support your argument and ignore them when they don’t

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:20:00 +0000

James O

Can't quite follow your argument. Perhaps I am thick.

What precisely do you mean by:

"The Pro-war crowd usually start screeching about appeasement when Al-Quada's statements on Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan are introduced into the argument, however, it seems these rules don't apply when it backs up your side of the argument."

Or is there any meaning to what you are saying? Is it ironic/ post ironic?

By: James O

James O — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:39:00 +0000

Bob, it would be very easy to find statements from Al-Quada and similar groups also asserting that their campaign is motivated by the oppression of Muslims in the Middle East – which of course was the stated reason for the London bombings. The Pro-war crowd usually start screeching about appeasement when Al-Quada’s statements on Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan are introduced into the argument, however, it seems these rules don’t apply when it backs up your side of the argument.

By: hungbunny

hungbunny — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:36:00 +0000

Nah, they're too busy nailing your mother.

(Sorry for stooping, John, but someone had to say it.)

By: Tom Shelly

Tom Shelly — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:20:00 +0000

Hope the camel-fuckers nailed some fudge-packers. ://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com

By: David Duff

David Duff — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:56:00 +0000

You asked a question, as follows: "If you think that "the Government must act without delay, round up this enemy in our midst and lock them in internment camps. Our safety must not play second fiddle to their supposed 'rights'", then fuck you. I don't hope you die, but you sure as hell don't deserve to live."

Well, I *do* think that and I reciprocate your personal sentiment, but not in your language; and I will spend all of 3 seconds trying to follow the tortuous logic contained in your final sentence of which St. Augustine might have been proud.

By: Jasper Milvain

Jasper Milvain — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:08:00 +0000

The great thing about newspaper editorials is how few people read them, even when every other sentence is in underlined italics with bold capitals for the important words. It’s the slant of the news pages you have to watch for.

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:25:00 +0000

Peter H

I am a libertarian myself, but I think valid questions can be asked of Britains approach to terrorism, in particular, why is Britain producing so many terrorists. Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber" is British. So is Saajid Badat, who pled guilty in London four months ago to plotting to use a shoe bomb similar to Mr. Reid's . And Ahmed Omar Sheik, who orchestrated the 2002 kidnapping-murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, is a British citizen of Pakistani descent who graduated from the London School of Economics.

Are we too liberal in our attitude to people who want to blow us up? I am all for liberalising drugs, and I do not care what people do in their bedroom. 24 hours drinking fantastic. But what if we are giving succor to people who want to destroy liberalism? Are we even harboring racists and religious fanatics.

The following is from OBLs 1996 “Declaration of War On America”. Enjoy...

“As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.
(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.
(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:
….
(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you:
(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.
(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.
(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object."

Are you feeling the love?