If everyone who doesn’t find this Sun editorial vile had been killed on Thursday (and only them), I’d have been broadly in favour of the attacks.
No, not really. But it takes a level of evil almost on a par with that of the killers to write something so twisted and appalling the following day.
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.
How fucking horrible. I’d really like to know how all the talk in the immediate aftermath of the bombings about not letting the terrorists change our way of life is remotely consistent with stampeding over peoples’ supposed ‘rights’ and locking up thousands of people in internment camps.
It’s just that not being an appalling totalitarian regime seems to be to be central to "our way of life". To behave as The Sunt recommends would be to become exactly what the free world is meant to stand against.
So as you say, fuck The Sunt and their sympathisers almost as much as the terrorists themselves.
Hmmmm presumably the Sun believes that it sells its newspaper in a country other than Britain. Prerevolutionary Portugal, perhaps, or maybe Honduras.
"Throughout history we have fought on the side of good and we never surrender whatever the cost." Well, that’s true. I don’t see how any reasonable person could disagree with that.
"We didn’t win at Dunkirk by running away." (Peter Cook)
I’m not sure what the appropriate response here is. Sang froid — "Whatever the crisis, there’s always somebody proposing concentration camps as the solution" — rage — "Hang Wade!" — or blind, gibbering panic? I suppose I shall opt for a combination of the first and third.
But it takes a level of evil almost on a par with that of the killers to write something
Deep.
What’s all this Blitz stuff – I thought that was nightly air raids by the most powerful airforce at the time. Not really the same thing.
From Jason Burke, regarded as one of the leading experts on terror, an insight into what motivates Islamic Fundamentalists, any ideas from the following on how to defeat them?
"However, despite this variety (of muslim grievances), there are certain universal themes. To understand them we have to redraft our question. ‘What do they want?’ implies a Western concept of acting to achieve specific goals. Instead we should be asking: ‘Why do they feel that they have to act in the way that they do?’ The answer is that, from their twisted standpoint, they believe they have no choice.
In every militant statement you can see a mix of the general and the specific. Imam Samudra, the Bali bomber referred to above, saw the night clubs of Bali as part of a general cultural assault mounted by the West against the Islamic world. This is typical.
In Kashmir, locals speak of their repression as part of a global campaign against Muslims. In Chechnya, the war with Russia is seen as a manifestation of the same push to eliminate Islam.
Last week a previously unknown group threatened violence in France and listed the banning of the veil from schools alongside continuing American support for Israel, the war in Iraq and the killing of civilians in Afghanistan as evidence that the West never abandoned the Crusades.
This perception that a belligerent West is set on the humiliation, division and eventual conquest of the Islamic world is at the root of Muslim violence. The militants believe they are fighting a last-ditch battle for the survival of their society, culture, religion and way of life. They are fighting in self-defence and understand, as we in the West also believe, that self-defence can justify using tactics that might be frowned on in other circumstances.
In addition, an explanation for the parlous state of the Middle East must be found. If Islam is the perfect social system, the militants’ logic runs, then something else must be to blame for the second-rate status, economically, militarily, politically, of their lands. They blame the West – and the failure of most Muslims to practise their religion with sufficient discipline and devotion. The bombs are designed to restore the pride of Muslims worldwide and, by weakening the ‘Crusaders’ and their allies, hasten the eventual return to the golden age of a thousand years ago when the lands of Islam were the world’s leading power."
Speaking of vile press, there’s a front-page news article in today’s New York Times that all but blames the attacks on British civil libertarians.
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?
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.
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.
Hope the camel-fuckers nailed some fudge-packers. ://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com
Nah, they’re too busy nailing your mother.
(Sorry for stooping, John, but someone had to say it.)
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.
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?
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
The root cause of Muslim terrorism is the decision of Muslims to commit terrorist acts.next case
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?