Nice to see a leader who tells it like it is when it comes to this disgusting notion of rationalising the actions of some seriously sick human beings. I don't give a shit if you are American, Iraqi or Pakistani, if you set out to deliberately murder innocent people, then you are scum of the earth, but even more puzzling are the one's that offer up reasonings or should I say would like to think they know the reasons for such behavior on the part of these individuals. If someone can truly get into the mind of a "terrorist" then good luck figuring them out.

It always gripes me when Afghanistan is lumped with Iraq on either side of the coin, I fully supported Afghanistan because it was clear that Al-Qaeda was based there, running camps, training future terrorists and all within the protection of a nation in turmoil, guided by the Taleban, enough said. As Howard stated "Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?" The sad reality is there are those who will continue to justify, welcome, explain and rationalise such abhorent behavior. Thank goodness I don't have to share a society with such people, an innocent life is an innocent life, stand up for it or fuck off.

I consider myself a very worldly person but this is the lowest point of feelings that I have ever had of Muslim culture, one which I have always looked at with respect and fascination as someone who studied history and enjoy learning about others. An entire group of people cannot be blamed for the actions of few, but is enough being done to remove such elements from continuing to promote such ideas of death. Truly sad. While I feel the U.S. had no business in Iraq from what we know I can never feel the London events are acceptable behaviour.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

Last edited by NYCTrancefan on Jul-22-2005 at 00:14

I think it's laughable that anyone thinks the war in Iraq isn't encouraging terrorism against the countries taking part in the operation!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I think it's laughable that anyone thinks the war in Iraq isn't encouraging terrorism against the countries taking part in the operation!

The first thing you are taught in history is to never assume cause and effect as being part of historical events. No one can say that the Iraq war isn't encouraging terrorism it seems obvious on the surface, what is being said is do not associate that as the rhyme and reason for such behaviours by terrorists or whatever name may suit your fancy. To do so would lead to a circle of claims and counter claims. I could go on and say in the 80's there were hijackings of airliners all over the Mid East region supported by the likes of Libya at that time. All of this however would be irrespective of the fact that there are all kinds of forms of terrorism for numerous reasons, Iraq is no exception.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I think it's laughable that anyone thinks the war in Iraq isn't encouraging terrorism against the countries taking part in the operation!

nah they have no link whatsoever. And accepting that link would make Howard somewhat responsible, and we cant have that.

They were just ppl who hated our freedom!lol

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan The first thing you are taught in history is to never assume cause and effect as being part of historical events. No one can say that the Iraq war isn't encouraging terrorism it seems obvious on the surface, what is being said is do not associate that as the rhyme and reason for such behaviours by terrorists or whatever name may suit your fancy. To do so would lead to a circle of claims and counter claims. I could go on and say in the 80's there were hijackings of airliners all over the Mid East region supported by the likes of Libya at that time. All of this however would be irrespective of the fact that there are all kinds of forms of terrorism for numerous reasons, Iraq is no exception.

Not sure I quite follow those last couple of sentences?

Anyway...

The Islamists attacked America on 9/11 because of US foreign policy towards the Middle East

Spain was attacked cos it was in Iraq, as was the UK

Why has al-Qaida et al chosen to attck these countries but not France or Germany or Canada? They are all part of the West and therefore, according to Blair and Howard should be as much as a target as the UK or Spain (and lets not forget the fact that last week an Islamist group warned Italy and Japan that they would be next because of their involvement in Iraq!

The Bali bombing is different because it does not fit into the pattern above, in fact it does seem to fit into the pattern Howard and Blair talk about. However, the Bali bombing was an attack not against Australia but against Westernism in an Islamic country and lets not forget the ideology of Islamism as layed down by Qutb - it is to keep Westernism out of the Islamic world. That makes the Bali bombing the most obvious attack of them all, cos that attack was an attack against their highest ideological priority.

No terrorists launch attacks just for the hell of it, none ever. Every single terrorist attack is done for a reason and the target too is chosen for a reason. The aim of the Islamists is to keep Westernism out of the Middle East (and the Islamic world) not to "destroy our way of life" or just because they hate us and our values - that is why 9/11 happened (they thought it might convince America to get out of Saudi Arabia and resolve the ME Peace Process), thats why Spain was attacked (to get them out of Iraq - out of the Islamic world), ditto for the UK, and Bali is the most obvious one...and that is why France has not been attacked or Germany or Canada, because they are not in Iraq

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley No terrorists launch attacks just for the hell of it, none ever. Every single terrorist attack is done for a reason and the target too is chosen for a reason. The aim of the Islamists is to keep Westernism out of the Middle East (and the Islamic world) not to "destroy our way of life" or just because they hate us and our values - that is why 9/11 happened (they thought it might convince America to get out of Saudi Arabia and resolve the ME Peace Process), thats why Spain was attacked (to get them out of Iraq - out of the Islamic world), ditto for the UK, and Bali is the most obvious one...and that is why France has not been attacked or Germany or Canada, because they are not in Iraq

Well first of all your idea that it is to keep Westernism out of the Islamic world represents exactly what I mentioned a few days back, that you cannot reason with such people. That statement in itself is one to me that represents deep intolerance of others who are not deeply Islamic, after all what consitutes Westernism in the minds of these individuals. Maybe I should go out and bomb a few mosques because I don't want Islamic influences where I live, that really accomplishes something, right? Like I said one big circle of rationalizations and assumed reasons for the actions of such people.

Secondly last time I checked Germany was involved in the Afghanistan campaign as well as Canada and the terrorists have made it clear that Afghanistan is part of their grievances, so what does that mean. It appears to me that some view these people as vanguards defending the Muslim World from the "evil" Western governments, imagine a Muslim world led by such people, intolerant of other peoples, oppressive and guided by nothing but religious teachings about who's God is better. I hope I never see such a day when the Taleban would become the norm of the Middle East, it would make now look a whole lot milder.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

you people making excuses for an airbase in Rhyad, or sanctions on Iraq or whatever irrational defence for irrational behavior such as jihad suffer from what is called "BATTERED WIFE SYNDROME".

quote:

Originally posted by bubble i think's he's lost sight already. if i was muslim, i might be offended at a possible slight toward islam. for the sake of australians, i hope he's right.

Don't misconstrue the quote to make it fit your own arguement.
Howard doesn't mention Muslims or Islam so don't assume it.
He clearly states, "[P}erverted ideology of people and their murder."
Where do we see "Muslim" or "Islam" in that statement? In fact, the whole dialogue doesn't mention either word once...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan It always gripes me when Afghanistan is lumped with Iraq on either side of the coin, I fully supported Afghanistan because it was clear that Al-Qaeda was based there, running camps, training future terrorists and all within the protection of a nation in turmoil, guided by the Taleban, enough said. As Howard stated "Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?"

This is exactly the point though: why is Howard lumping the Iraq invasion in with the Afghan invasion and his own military commitment to East Timor? The Afghan invasion was necessary because it was patently clear that the Taliban government was supporting and harbouring the terrorist group responsible for the September 11th attacks. There was a clear aim here, that if acheieved would most likely make Western society safer, in spite of the threats of retribution for it. The Australian presence in East Timor was different again. It was a small peace-keeping force sent in to stop the Indonesians from kicking the shit of the Timorese people and nothing more. This operation was in no way connected to the war on terrorism (indeed it preceded it by a couple of years) and wasn't in any way related to the rationale for invading Afghanistan or Iraq. Why is Howard conflating all these military operations together as though lending support to one or two of these operations logically necessitates the support of all three?

quote:

The first thing you are taught in history is to never assume cause and effect as being part of historical events. No one can say that the Iraq war isn't encouraging terrorism it seems obvious on the surface

That's fair enough, but look at the facts. The most major terrorist attacks since the Iraq invasion (Spain, Turkey, England etc.) have all been directed against nations that were involved in the Iraq war. After the attacks, those responsible mentioned the nation's support for the Iraq war forming a major part of the reason why they were targetted.

Am I saying that this in anyway justifies the attacks, or that the ideologies of these terrorist groups are in any way coherent, logical or justifiable? Of course not. Nonetheless, when you look at these facts and judge the impact that the Iraq war might have had on extremist groups in the form of a simple dichotemy (all other things being equal, would these groups be more or less likely to target a nation involved in the invasion of an Arabic state?) it becomes patently clear that the blind refusal of leaders such as Howard and Blair to accept that the Iraq war has made us more - not less - susceptible to terrorist attacks is completely misguided. I'm not blaming these two directly for what happened in London, but there is no question that following Bush into a war whose basis, ultimately, was part of a geopolitical strategy far removed from the illdefined aims of the "war on terror", has made their nations a more attractive target for those who see themselves as being at war with Western culture.

I mean, there's every chance that London would have been targetted by terrorist groups even if Britain hadn't involved itself in the Iraq war (as Howard said, Western countries were, afterall, targetted before the Iraq invasion as well) but you'd have a hard time convincing me that Britain would have been as or more likely to have been hit by terrorists had it invested the billions of pounds spent on the Iraq war in the strengthening security and intelligence organisations, both domestic and international, instead. Fact is, the methodology of the men at war with the "terrorists" is as fracured, misguided and nonsensical as those of the terrorists themselves. This "war" ceased being an exercise in the prevention of terrorist attacks a long time ago and it's currently little more than a bawdy, simple-minded moral crusade against an ideology they have no intention of understanding and even less intention of stamping out. Until they realise that their current tactics have only worsened the situation and increased the number of attacks being committed by extremist Muslim organisations across the world, then the didactic, post hoc justifications they deliver from behind the podiums about the moral authority they hold in this "war" will continue to ring hollow. In spite of Mr Howard's protestations and complete inability to admit fault or responsibility for anything, his commitment to the Iraq war has made his own nation and the world at large much less safe.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I think it's laughable that anyone thinks the war in Iraq isn't encouraging terrorism against the countries taking part in the operation!

People are just thick.

I don't really see much difference between the popular 'american' black and white philosophy and that of the attackers. Both sides disregard their opponents with childish terms like "evil", and both sides are responsible for causing the inflation of a conflict that has taken too many civilian lives, and will continue to take on more. The true source of the problem is neither american occupation in the middle east, nor the so called 'disturbed ideologies' of the suicide bombers, but the simple-mindedness and disorted world-view of people on both sides. All the time I hear people saying 9-11 was an attack on the innocent civilian population, but really, how many of those victims were really innocent? Democracy is about electing your leaders, not electing someone to take hits for you, and with every ballot you cast comes a certain responsibility. Everyone in those towers who would have supported actions amplifying this conflict were at least in part responsible for their own deaths, just like the hijackers are in part responsible for civilian victims of american bombings in the middle east.

Solution? err... nuke the world?

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian All the time I hear people saying 9-11 was an attack on the innocent civilian population, but really, how many of those victims were really innocent? Democracy is about electing your leaders, not electing someone to take hits for you, and with every ballot you cast comes a certain responsibility. Everyone in those towers who would have supported actions amplifying this conflict were at least in part responsible for their own deaths, just like the hijackers are in part responsible for civilian victims of american bombings in the middle east.

Your appalling indifference to the destruction of human life is matched only by your appalling indifference to the schematics of coherent logical argumentation. Nice one buddy.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/