London Terror Attack: Politics - Page 4

Looks like we need to discuss the difference between guerilla tactics and terrorism.

A broad definition of terrorism from Wikipedia:


The tactics used by some units in the American Revolution were certainly brutal at times, but don't meet the definition of terrorism. In fact, the battles were generally not even considered guerilla warfare. (see below) The targets were British troops and mercenaries, not civilians; the perpetrators were government troops or irregulars working for the government; and the object was not to intimidate, but to defeat the British militarily.

Wikipedia chapter on terrorism.

From the Wikipedia section on the Revolutionary War:


Wikipedia chapter on geurilla warfare in the American Revoloution (See 3.2).

Yes, they do. And this "Secret Organization of Al Qaeda in Europe" admission looks as fake as a $7 bill. And, as you said, this is definitely a most obscure theory, but which has attacted the undivided attention of every mainstream outlet from here to the Yangtze Kiang, with all the necessary repetitions to ensure that the history has already been absorbed into the public consciousness.

http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/56252

extracted: To begin with, Al-Qaida statements come first to Arabic press not from BBC and Reuters. This statement first appear in mainstream press and was subsequently picked up by Arab press, which breaks rank with ever other statement Al-Qaida has ever issued officially. This fact alone should make the validity of this statement suspect. Secondly, the Arabic grammar used in the so-called claim of responsibility is incorrect. Al-Qaida statements have a consistency in the Arabic language that is written in their Mother tongue. Maybe most importantly, is the incomplete and incorrect ayahs from the Quran used in this alleged statement. While grammar could for arguments sake be overlook, incomplete and incorrect versus from the Quran is something the brothers of Tawheed or Holy Warriors who live and die by the word of Allah know intimately. In the ayahs quoted, they simply would not make these mistakes.


Of course they do. But that is NO EXCUSE to jump to conclusions, or manufacture fake ones, without rigorously examining the evidence. Lets overturn all the evidence before we get into kneejerking about muslim extremists. I recall this happening with the Oklahoma City bombing...instantly people were baying about Muslims....

....

Then we still have that pesky unexplained issue of how Scotland Yard and the Israeli Embassy knew about the attacks in advance, specifically enough to be able to inform a senior foreign politician to avoid a specific area at a specific time, on account of a bomb, carried on a moving vehicle, which was about to explode. If anyone's going to get into some investigation, a starting point is to look at specifics. Good cops don't ignore evidence, especially such flagrant material as this. Good detective work is transparent, and non-political.

Because this snaggly issue is awkward for the UK (and Israeli) authorities to explain, it now appears as if its been brushed under the carpet. Presumably, terrorist activities must be assigned to Muslims, by default Otherwise we are straying off-message.

That Netanyahu story, which was based on an anonymous source, has been denied by both the British and the Israelis.

But it sure fits nicely into the Jewish conspiracy theories, doesn't it.

[Elwood Blues voice]

I hate Los Angeles Conspiricy Theory Nuts!

[\\Elwood Blues voice]

Strange, that noone else has realized what you are saying here, you are saying/thinking a)that the terrorists are the real muslims, that they represent hardcore-Islam, and b) that terrorism is only used by people from the middle-east, and not from governments or people of the west, right?

Wrong: a) The terrorists around Osama Bin Ladin's Al-Qaeeda are not muslims but extreme wahabists, which even in its moderate form is a deviation from Islam, that were instrumentalised against the Soviet-Union by the US, Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan. After the Soviet-Union collapsed they became unemployed, at least until the US decided to put US-military-forces in Saudi-Arabia and other Gulfstates in 1991, which was the justification for Osama Bin Ladin to start his terror-campaign against the US and its interests.

b) Terrorism is a tool that was and is used by a lot of governments and groups. In the last century Germany terrorised british unarmed civilians with its airforce-bombardments, later the allied forces did the same with German towns, also killing unarmed civilians with the idea of retaliation and weakening the will of the Germans, later on the US killed unarmed civilians in Japan with its firebombs and later on the nukes, in order to intimidate Japan so that they surrender unconditionaly and quicker because the Soviets would have invaded Japan otherwise.
Eventhough all these activities including the Napalm-use in Vietnam could be justified as being part of real wars, they are nonetheless terrorism. But even without a war terrorism was used by the US in various CIA- and various paramilitary-operations, including car- and market-bombs, assassinations, coups, secret air-bombing-campaigns, massacres...
But the terror goes even beyond that by training other groups in terror like in the school of the americas or in camps in Pakistan in the eighties, so that these terrorists could train others etc...
Another form of terrorism is also the installation and support of dictatorships that oppress everyone calling for selfgoverning or more freedoms, through indefinite emprisonment, torture and executions... so much that the non-violent resistance gets eradicated while the rest gets brutalised and turns to violence for solutions..

Again another form of terrorism, ie. attacking civilians for political goals are sanctions and embargoes, since they only affect the civilian population, through absence of food and medicine and the encripplement of economy and the resulting unemployment and drop of education-level... while the regime gets stronger by it. For example the 12-years sanctions imposed on Iraq led to the death of approximately 500,000 children through malnutrition and lack of medicine.

Another similar form of terrorism, that works effectively like sanctions and embargoes is occupation like in the case of Israel/Palestine or Russia/Chechnya.


Nightcrawler

whatever, dmz. There's been no shortage of christian terrorists in both developed (including the US) and underdeveloped countries in recent decades. In fact, even just in the past 15 years there have been far, far more terrorist attacks on US soil committed by american christians.

no, and no.

giant, you are missing my point by a mile.

No, you're missing it, but that's because you start at the conclusion and look for premises. It's a plague the infects your whole process.

The story was deliberately altered. When the Netanyahu affair was first reported, Netanyahu himself, presumably innocently, said that he was informed by the Israeli Embassy, via Scotland Yard. BEFORE the first bomb went off. When people started naturally started asking questions, the original stories were de-linked, and a revised version came out. What is more believeable here?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050707/...n_explosions_1

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=85346

The word "before" commonly means "at an earlier time", by the way.

What a dick.

What is more believable to me is that there were some explosions and Netanyahu was told that he better not leave his hotel, and then someone with a Jewish conspiracy mindset either misinterpreted that or intentionally misled a reporter about it. What is not believable is that the Brits 1) had advanced warning and 2) decided to tell a former Israeli PM to watch out.

And I'd like to know what you think it would prove even if those two highly unlikely points really were true. The Israelis were behind it? If so, why did the Brits have to tell the Israelis? The Brits were behind it, in league with Israelis, and we just caught a glimpse of the conspiracy? Come on, let's hear it.

let me put it this way --- McViegh(sp?) got the death peanalty. No matter how many kids got gassed and burned at Waco, it is almost universally understood that he rebelled agianst an innate 'rightness' of the social order to extract his vengance.

We 'all know' he got what 'he deserved' --- that innate sense --- and it's is continued growth is my point.

I'm still trying to put things to bed at work, wiping noses and butts.

More later.

Not a dick, a sociopath who can think clearly in a crisis without emotional confusion. Actually, you need this kind of guy to be a certain percentage of the people in charge, because they can think clearly in the heat of the situation.

I'd be interested to have you enumerate these...going back to 1990 (your time frame).

Amazing how under every rock there is a Jewish Conspiracy nut under it? There are idiots like that on every message board I go to.

dmz, you are outnumbered. For some reason AI has been inundated with left wing radicals that hate the United States and what it stands for, generally hates the Western World, hates Israel, and thinks terrorism is justified and that Muslim radicals are tre chic.

Its amazing how so many people who would be considered a fringe group in most circles have come together on this website. Even more amazing that they are even moderators now and control this site's Thought Police.

Pretty sad.

If the israelis knew, Nethanyahu wouldn't have been there in the first place.

It only seems like they are. To me the moderators seem like the religious right - a different nasty fringe group.

No, you are sad.

You mean because of the censorship?

Ooh, hard to get happy over that one.

You don't know? Chris, how old are you? Why is it that you always ask people to explain any reference to high profile events from 2 or more years ago?

There's more where that came from: [1] and [2]

One's a racist and another advocating terrorist attacks on Paris and lamenting the fact that it didn't happen there.

Various abortion clinic bombings. The Oklahoma bomb.

A few others: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/usa-riot.htm

Now, with these Made-in-the-USA terrorist morons, have you, as a people, examined the root causes? Have you determined in what ways you can modify your policies and practices to remove their reasons and justifications for their actions?

Lots of crazy, psychotic idiots of all religious/political stripes. And regardless of our actions, policies and beliefs as a society, there will always be those who feel alienated, powerless or victimized, rightly or wrongly, and there will be those that will be able to convince them to carry out evil, horrible acts of terrorism.

No. Read the link:

"However, the biggest peculiarity of American political violence is that there's not more of it. Through most of the century, USA has been the world's fourth largest population, yet I can easily name 80 countries that have killed more of their people in political disputes -- and dozens more who can't because they just don't have enough inhabitants to start with. Considering how violent the USA is on a day-to-day basis (compare the American murder rate with any other rich country), it's remarkable that our national dispute resolution system has worked as well as it has."

We don't actually have a terrorism problem (outside of 9/11) - and you can't fix the root cause of every crazy person, it is much better to just kill them.

As to the day-to-day violence, it is caused by the war on drugs.

War on drugs -> higher drug prices -> addict crime and gang violence (to fight over profits)

War on drugs -> profits to terrorists in Afghanistan -> 9/11

War on drugs -> overworked border police, FBI, DEA, etc -> 9/11

War on drugs -> overfull prisions -> more criminals on the street -> more crime

When you look at the differences between Canada and the US, drug laws are what really stand out to explain the violence level differences. There are tons of guns in Canada - everyone in my town had one.

I count 37 abortion clinic bombings since the 70s here, many more arsons and 10 murders. OK city bombing. The anthrax was domestic.

You mean Netanyahu himself is of a "Jewish Conspiracy" mindset? Or that the Israel National News website has a "Jewish Conspiracy Mindset"?


The Israelis arent exactly new to instigating terror attacks, sometimes even attacks upon themselves and blaming other parties, namely Arabs...aka "false flag ops.. ..

Here's a sampling of Israeli terrorism etc. Don't forget that the BBC, wikipedia are wacky conspiracy theory websites bent on anti-American and anti_Jewish propaganda. Just saying this before you do.

Fake "al qaeda" cells in Gaza: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2546863.stm

The Lavon Scandal : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

Numerous incidents of Israeli terrorism here (usually financed by the US taxpayers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_terrorism

Attack on a US Navy ship by Israeli military.. http://www.ussliberty.org/

And no, I have not forgotten the issue of those Mossad Agents filming the 9-11 attacks from the New Jersey side, who when arrested by the FBI, were found to have explosive traces, several thousand dollars concealed in a sock, and maps of Manhattan with the WTC ringed in pen. But they weren't worth investigating because ...guess what...they weren't connected to OBL and Al Qaeda...

Of course Israeli terrorism doesnt exist, because these people aren't Arab or Muslim, and are funded by the United States. And anyone who mentions Israeli 'bad behavior' has to be 'antisemitic'. End of discussion.

Is this your way of evading providing supporting facts to this statement:

"In fact, even just in the past 15 years there have been far, far more terrorist attacks on US soil committed by american christians."

And you said "In fact, even just in the past 15 years there have been far, far more terrorist attacks on US soil committed by american christians."

You are lumping all of these events into one group and claiming the same characterization ("american christians") as the perpetrators.

McVeigh and Co. were just anti-government, not necessarily christians in any real sense. Same goes for the anthrax events.

Regarding the abortion clinic bombings those are certainly terrorist actions. With an important difference. None of them appear to have been targeted or intended to kill any people.

The doctor murders are just that, murders. Arguably "terrorist" acts...but broading the definition a bit I'd argue.

If you want I could go into the "mass murder" or "genocide" committed by the abortion services industry over the past 30 years. So...we can calm the rhetoric a bit, I think.

So you've provided a list. Okay. Now let me address the implication of your statement that "In fact, even just in the past 15 years there have been far, far more terrorist attacks on US soil committed by american christians."...which is that these terrorist acts are in some way far, far worse. Well, by the metric of human fatalities, you'd be wrong. By the comparision of targets (highly controversial abortion clinics which participate in the government-sanctioned act of murdering unborn children vs. a commuter train...an office building...etc.) I'd say you are wrong there too.

Finally, what makes your saying something like "In fact, even just in the past 15 years there have been far, far more terrorist attacks on US soil committed by american christians." any less broad-stroked a statement than if I were to say something like "and all these terrorist attacks carried out by middle eastern muslims"? Where does the "oh islam is a peaceful religion" apologetics go when we are talking about christian extremists?

I have to agree with Chris. McVeigh & co. weren't religiously motivated, AND since when did the Antrax cases turn out to be home-grown? I distinctly rememer Atta(?) being shown houses by the wife of the owner of the Nasty Enquirer, the first place hit by the anthrax mailers. (but if I'm full of it, you guys let me know)

The sad part, is that who knows, you could be right, maybe it was the jews. The tragic part is that there are dozens of potentially more reasonable and more likely explainations, including islamist radicals, but you latch onto the first that mentions Israel and and are completely to accept or twist anything to then fit this concept.

For instance, in your first post in this thread, regarding the website claim of responsibility, you quote "that the statement in which the group claimed responsibility for the attacks contained an error in one of the Quranic verses it cited" from which you conclude "An obviously fake "al qaeda" "admission", full of Koranic errors and misspellings etc, from a website, the URL of which has NOT remains unknown and remains unpublished." Nice leap.

Please, give a rest.

To the Londoners and Brits here, on both sides on our little political debates, I remain amazed at the strength and resolution of you and you countrymen.

And it's simply true, regardless of whether it hurts your little world-view. Just looking at the abortion clinic attacks, count up the bombings or count up the arsons or count the murders or, like any normal person, add them all up and no matter what you do you have many more individual attacks by these american radicals than the ones from the middle east, even since the 90s (15 bombings, btw). And the murders absolutely are part of the anti-abortion terror campaign, period. It's pathetic watching you try to justify terror attacks, particularly terror murders of innocents.

This is just pathetic. So since there were more attacks you have to find something to justify it to yourself. I guess al-qaeda should say, "well, we only attacked you 1/18 (or 1/200+ depending on what you count) the number of times as anti-abortion terrorists, so we aren't as bad." Dishonest people always try to find a way to put uncomfortable facts in a pleasant light.

It's not 'broad-stroked,' it's a simple fact that you find inconvenient.

And, dmz, yeah, the anthrax was domestic. That's ooooold news. Stop reading crackpot websites that tell you lies like that. Bust out lexisnexis and read any of the thousands of news articles on this or check out a summary.

I really have to wonder, dmz: how could you not know that a story like that is such total obvious BS? The only difference between the nuts on the left and the nuts on the right is that the ones on the left are "fringe."

No. The anthrax case appears to be the work of an individual who worked at the Frederick, MD, bio-weapons/ er um/ level 5 biosafety research facility...

The fact is that Frederick, MD happens to be a very conservative very Christian area, when I worked on the base there at the NCI, most locals wore little feet pins as some political statement against abortion. This is where the anthrax terrorist came from; not to suggest that the anthrax mailings were the work of a Christian zealot, but that insomuch as a terrorist from Kabul would be immediately associated with a certain religion, the same should be true for the anthrax case...

There seem to be three constants in the "War on Terror"

1. The WoT "Fanboys" - why do u h8 America?

2. The WoT Anti-Fanboys - OMG America is teh bad

3. Continued acts of terror

I am sick of this shit.

Every abortion bombing was probably done by a christian.

The pro-choice, pro-life camps divide pretty nicely along religious lines. If you believe that a soul is invested in the zygote as soon as the sperm fertilises the egg, then you are against both 1st trimester abortion and stem cell research. If you don't believe in a soul, neither of these is a problem because it is not murder until the brain of the fetus starts up.

In terms of the "not intended to kill people" claim:

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abo...rviolstats.htm

Abortion Provider Violence Statistics:

* 7 Murders
* 17 Attempted Murders
* 41 Bombings
* 168 Arsons
* 82 Attempted Bombings/Arsons
* 373 Invasions
* 1048 Incidences of Vandalism
* 591 Incidences of Trespassing
* 125 Incidences of Assault and Battery
* 357 Death Threats
* 3 Kidnappings
* 76 Incidences of Burglary

I wasn't trying to justify anything. Quit being a moron. I was trying to illustrate that what you are implying is wrong. I agreed that the bombings/arsons are an act of terror...with the important difference that no people were killed or targeted in them. And the murders were just that murders. Terrorist in nature, sure.


No, it is as broad-stroked as anyone trying to imply that all muslims are terrorist. That is the point I was trying to make (if you would care to pay attention).

And, dmz, yeah, the anthrax was domestic. That's ooooold news. Stop reading crackpot websites that tell you lies like that. Bust out lexisnexis and read any of the thousands of news articles on this or check out a summary.


Of course. And all Christians are terrorists too. We should round them up, lock them up and keep them away from the "normal" people.

You are mixing, jumlbing and quoting me out of context. In my quote about the "lumping together" I was specifically referring to the McVeigh and anthrax things.

Second, in reference to the "not intended to kill people" I was referring to the specific bombings/arson list that has been previously posted. Your list doesn't change things really either.

It is interesting that this list of "violent" acts includes "burglary" and "vandalism".