London Terror Attack: Politics - Page 5

That is good, because those anti-abortions bombers kill people all the time:

http://www.goddesscafe.com/opinion/clinicbomb.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9810/24/abortion.violence/

They are hard to find, now that Iraq has filled up all the google slots on bombing.

Also, the atlanta olympics bomb has not yet been mentioned.

That guy does not appear (or claim) to be a "christian" from what I have read. And he is responsible for Atlanta olympics, at least one abortion clinic and a homosexual night club or two.

Look, this is derailing the thread.

Giant was trying to imply that these events are "far, far" worse that the other terrorist attacks. I agree that the bombings and murders are terrorist acts...but there is a significant difference in that most bombings (at least in the original list) appear intended to de-commission the facility rather than to kill people.

The murders are indeed murders and unacceptable.

Furthermore the targets...clinics that engage in a highly controversial act of government-sanctioned murder of unborn children is not quite the same as a commuter train or an office building (or some of the other civilian targets we hear tale of in Iraq).

Finally, there is the broad-stroked statement that (if said about "muslims") would have gotten him smacked...that "american christians"...as if to imply that all "american christians" are terrorists...just like some people like to say/imply about all muslims. That is crazy talk and un-productive.

Terrorist acts? Yes. The same/worse? Well...maybe...maybe not. Depends on how you define "bad" or "worse". Loss of life in aggregate?

Now...I have no more plans to address this topic but instead to return to the original thread topic.

I tend to agree in-part with both of you. The abortion clinic bombings were terrorist attacks by christians (I doubt that there has been a non-christian abortion bombing). Not only did christians perpatrate the attacks, but christian families often helped the attackers hide and/or escape. I don't agree that the bombings were not intended to kill people, the bombers obviously have not problem killing people - as they not only did the bombings (where people died), but also murdered people directly.

But they can't compare to the muslum terrorist attacks on the US.

From this:

...to this:

so much for not derailing the thread...with your little semantic vitriol.

(Removed poorly chosen metaphor -jq)

Wow Chris. Think about what you're posting. You are justifying terrorism: "... intended to de-commission the facility rather than to kill people..." and "clinics that engage in a highly controversial act of government-sanctioned murder of unborn children." I've never heard the most extreme leftist justify terrorism in such a way as you've done here.

Can you imagine a left-winger saying "well on 9/11 they were really trying to hit the buildings rather than the people" and "at the WTC they engage in controversial business."

Just... wow.

Well, there actually was a link -- an odd coincidence to say the very least --between Atta and the Nasty Enquirer, Sun etc:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/101501/n...ked_to_t.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/s...574913,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/s...566642,00.html
http://www.sptimes.com/News/100501/S...ccidents.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...13890-2001Oct5

Note that my only positions here is that these wingers are totally hypocritical when it comes to terrorism and that they hide the fact that many of them actually sympathize with the terrorist campaingn that has accounted for the largest number of attacks in the US by far. When christians make arguments along the lines of "muslims use terrorism because islam (or even radical islam) is backwards and primitive," it's willfully ignores the fact that christians account for the vast, vast bulk of terror attacks in the US in recent decades.

The worse and better argument is also somewhat of a cop-out, since only sept. 11 put the radical muslims ahead of the radical american chrisitians and their mainstream sympathizers.

There are far more significant "odd coincidence[s]" between the hijackers and israelis, but the conclusions those would lead you to don't fit into your preconcieved worldview like this does. Considering how the fact that the antrax attacks were domestic was spread across the front pages of newspapers and web sites for months (even turning the term "person of interest," which referred to an american, into a mainstream phrase), your interpretation of events is unquestionably more out there than you see sammi jo's as.

giant, even if you call all abortion clinic violence "Christian" (I'm not quite sure how you square "Sniping for Christ" with the Sermon on the Mount) no one has died since 1998 from this violence. You're really, really stretching the facts here, and you need to keep this in prespective. We don't have abortion bombers attacking the banking system or Pentagon, threatening to get nukes, etc. We don't have a worldwide campaign of abortion bombers who are attempting to sway government policy with mass casuality attacks.

Also, if you put pen to paper and figure out the incidence of those Christians who can somehow square violent behavior with Christianity, it's not above 'background' of any particualar group.

Yes, but can you go to the Washington Post, or the Guardian and find those? It's just a conicidence, but a very, very odd one. No one has been tried and prosecuted for those attacks, either. I'd have to say it's a distinct possibility.

The Christians and the Muslums had the same ideas, methods and everything - it is just a matter of degree and scope, not method and intent.

And they did want to sway government policy, and they were just as barbaric as the muslum terrorists, they were just a little more fat and happy because of our comfortable lifestyle, so they didn't put as much effort in.

Wrong, dmz. If the anti-abortion attacks were committed by radical muslims for our support of israel, you wouldn't be telling me to "keep this in prespective" and defending these terrorists by saying "no one has died since 1998 from this violence," conveniently ignoring the bombings, arson and other violence has happened since then.

After all, dmz, muslim terrorists haven't killed anyone in the US since 2001. "You need to keep this in prespective."

You're wrong on all counts, here. It is entirely a matter of method and intent.

You can't prove any differently.

Uh ... yeah. Unlike naples and apparently you, I don't hang out on nutjob conspiracy sites.

No, there is no possibility that it had anything to do with atta. Read the FAS summary again and stop holding totally crackpot beliefs.

No one is ignoring anything except that you wont acknowledge that one religion is wired in a way that drifts it towards violence and the other is not. One religion basically has a Denomination that is causing/supporting/believes in mass casualty attacks and the other has fringe groups that no denomination will support that cause sporadic violence that doesn't even register above normal crime statistics.

Come on, giant, we have a problem with several whole factions of Islam, On the order of a whole Christian denomination or two. There is no comparison.

hmmmmm......what about this Israeli connection you mentioned?

Except for the whole history of violence, war and terrorism by chrisitians that continues to this day.

wtc 93 didn't register above normal crime statistics. If the towers hadn't collapsed then 9/11 wouldn't have either. Your arguments attempting to justify this terrorism are disturbing.

Really giant you're really, really stretching here, are we going to have to go back and have the Spanish inqusition argument again? Where is this violence instituionalized today?


Yes, but they did. Body for body, dollar for dollar they altered our government's behavior. Also, don't forget the Pentagon.


No one's justifyng terrorism of any sort. I can't let you guys equate an expected incidence of criminals in any given denomination to an entire denomination dominated by criminal behavior.

...and you prove my point.

Blow stuff up, kill people, get media attention on issue, repeat.

Same for both camps.

Well, as pointed out 100 times in this thread, the vast, vast majority of terrorist attacks in the US have been committed by christian terrorists that many american christians sympathize with.

But on top of that christianity has been a violent religion from the beginning, not just during the inquisition and crusades (but those certainly are very significant), and we still have christian violence across the world in modern times.

Since when do psychological and political impact of crimes show up in "crime statistics?" Don't try to avoid the fact that your point about "crime statistics" was flawed by bringing up something unrelated to "crime statistics."

It's a terror campaign by any definition. Funny (well, actually scary) how terrorists become simple "criminals" when you agree with them, dmz.

Well..because that;s not what they were doing...they were deliberately intending to kill lots of people. Maybe that's why?

Chris, I don't even know why you think you are qualified to make any comment on the subject since you just found out about the anti-abortion terror campaign yesterday.

Look if someone wants to call bombing abortion clinics (absent people) "terrorism" (and I actually agreed)...they want to call it what it is...I am fine with that. But then don't quibble when I call abortion what it is...murder. Systematic? Yes. Government approved? Yes. Murder? Yes.

Giant...if you think you are being cute by acting like an idiot...well...I don't think so.

Good thing you are a christian defending christian terrorists. If you were a muslim talking making similar comments about al-qaeda...

Not going to argue that Christianity doesn't have a violent past. On par with Islam. But to claim that it has been so since the beginning? Come Giant, you know better than to use such a blatant lie. Or am I forgetting the passages where Jesus led his people into battle and told them to seek vengence on their enemies?

...then he would be the darling of the left and you would seeking to find ways to address the inequities that caused his behavior.

Nice. Another personal attack following your "moron" comment.

Not sanctioned or condoned by any major catholic, orthodox or protestant denomination. Can you say the same about Islamic violence?

So you aren't capable of a serious, honest discussion.

Again you are obviously incapable of having a serious discussion. The facts show you are wrong. People on the left and right had nearly identical views about retaliating against the terror attacks.

The dangerous "fringe" is not on the left. Terror attacks in the US in recent decades have been almost exclusively committed by christians and other right-wing ideologues (with the exeception of (2 - 5 by muslims, depending on how you count 9/11). Terror victims have been almost exclusively liberal (abortion clinics, manhattan).

Likely fall-out:
(1) Support by the public and lawmakers for the Patriot Act and other domestic policies legitimizing curtailment of civil and Constitutional rights, which was dwindling in Congress, will be dramatically rejuvenated.
(2 Similar support for the war in Iraq, and further potential pre-emptive strikes against other nations with a large Muslim population, will too, be dramatically rejuvenated.
The terrorists have given Bush and Blair exactly what they wanted, and needed, so badly. Read into that exactly you wish. Bushcorp and allies couldnt have wished for a better reversal of fortune. The toll of 50 dead and several hundred injured is a small price to pay for a potentially massive wave of public support for the Bush (and Blair/Berlusconi/etc axis) administration's worldview and corresponding policy set, which was given the green light by the 9-11 attacks. Coincidentally, of course.

A nasty thought, which I am sure has passed through many peoples' minds, is when the next terrorist attack mightl happen on the US mainland, for example, on an Amtrak train, or city buses, or shopping malls, etc, as in the style of the Madrid or London attacks? This will probably happen when the public regains a sense of reality after the support for the "war against terrorism" in the wake of the London bombings starts to wane. Paranoid? Maybe so, but it's probably a realistic guess. The architects of the attacks do have an agenda, with intense motivation, despite the impression that terrorism appears random, capricious and 'senseless' to the public. And the motive is almost always related to greed, fear, acquisition, power and control. The notable exception, of course, is the cult of the suicide bomber ... which is a symptom of a broken people in a broken nation, who have nothing left to lose, such as what is happening in Palestine and Iraq.

Every time there is an attack, and a corresponding imposition of extreme measures sold as "anti-terrorism", we know that the Bush crew, together with the terrorists, (whoever the hell they are working for), have won.

Although I'm not a fan of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, he has hit it spot on.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBOE08NZAE.html


Amen. Exactly so.

Not only is the current US policy aggravating the problem as well as creating new ones, but the Bush administration is "cherry picking its terrorists". Latin American terrorism, traditionally funded by US tax-dollars, organized crime and carried out by "death squads' many of whom have received their training at Fort Benning and elsewhere on the mainland US, traditionally pro-fascism and pro extreme rightwing causes, is wholly acceptable to Bush and co. Israeli state terrorism, funded by US tax dollars, cannot be even questioned in polite conversation due to the demands of political correctness. Irish terrorism, usually funded by US private donations, is always convenently ignored.

Don't forget "shock and awe", or the indiscrminate killing of innocent civilians in Iraq and elsewhere by the US military, which is no less than state sponsored terrorism with a huge budget. The Bush administration is turning the United States into a rogue nation.

Speaking of politics,

What's up with Segovius? Any word yet?

yup. Right on.

Speaking of delusions, you think Americans are more concerned with Christian terrorists than Muslim terrorists.

Newsflash-You're wrong

Yeah, you. It wasn't until 9/11, the largest terrorist attack in history, that islamic terrorism caught up with christian terrorism for detruction in the US. Islamic terrorism has a long, long way to go before it catches up with christian terrorism for the number of attacks here, and I'm sure we all hope it never, ever comes close.

Ahem. Enough of the insults, please, from everyone.

We seem to have lost the plot here a little. Check the thread title. I'm fairly certain I've just read 4 pages about abortion clinic bombings and very little about London. I can see how we got here but I'd prefer that it got back on track.

This thread has gone bad, off topic, into the realms of paranoid fantasy , stopping at all stations on the way to the playground. Can't you good people do a bit better? I'm keeping out of the politics because I can't quite face it yet but I was interested in what AI thought. Not anymore. Peace.