or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Explosives-Packed Car Defused in London
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Explosives-Packed Car Defused in London - Page 4

post #121 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

and yes, when all else fails they kill people. Other than Muslims I mean.

A cogent analysis to say the least.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #122 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

A cogent analysis to say the least.

But that's what it comes down to isn't it?

I'm not talking about some jokers and wannabe jihadis with a home-made shoe bomb - the real hardcore threat (such as it is - and there are not too many) is from people who have seen family members slaughtered, people who have been tortured and abused, people who want revenge.

And no, I am not saying they have been tortured by the West (not initially anyway - this goes way back before Abu Ghraib and Bush) but they were tortured and murdered by the Saudi authorities, by the Egyptian authorities, by the Jordanian authorities....

And because they saw themselves as victims (which they were) and were also religious they took comfort in religion. The West got involved because the Arab Governments doing the torturing of their own citizens were blatantly allied to the West - ie Saudi and Egypt for example.

Therefore the jihadis started to see their Governments as Western lackeys who were oppressing their own people....

These people are not the same as some home-grown nutter who has listened to the sermons of some other home-grown nutter down the mosque...these idiots would never be allowed anywhere near a terror cell most of them.

I'm not condoning it, I'm just saying let's actually see what we're dealing with and take it from there. Not everything is 'al Qaeda'.... it's time to stop making capital out of this mess and actually clear it up. Or at least start national debates on how to do it - and to do that we need to tell the truth about what it is.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #123 of 132
Sego: Did you see the Guardian's piece on the Scotland stuff today? Any thoughts on how a guy involved in a (seemingly incompetent) bombing could keep his involvement in this so completely off the RADAR of his parents and family?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #124 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Sego: Did you see the Guardian's piece on the Scotland stuff today? Any thoughts on how a guy involved in a (seemingly incompetent) bombing could keep his involvement in this so completely off the RADAR of his parents and family?

No, I have not read that article yet, I'll go over it now.

Re your question, I think there are several distinct strands in what is always lumped together as 'terrorism' and we very, very soon need to seperate these. They are all threats - it is not that some are not but they are different in scope and type.

I would say they are these:

1) Real jihadis - ie people belonging to groups like Zarqawis or others which are highly secretive and professional terrorist cells. I don't think there are too many of these..in a way they have been defeated in the main ones that persist are operating in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

2) Wannabe radicals who look up to these and want to play. Maybe the shoe-bomber was one such. Maybe the 7/7 bombers too - some of these are probably also sometimes used by the above groups as 'useful idiots' but they are not connected.

I think these are the ones active in the UK mainly.

3) Government/Intel activity. I am not saying they are actually carrying out operations but rather they are claiming threats and alerts where none exist to falsely inflate the perception of threat. Why would they do this if the threat was real?

4) Cult activity. For sure I know this exists in Islam as it does in Christianity and other religions.

Without a doubt there is a form of 'Millennial' Cultism that is ostensibly Islamic - perhaps in the same sense as Koresh was 'Christian' or Aum was Buddhist - and this uses brainwashing techniques and is the same really as any cult anywhere. They are violent but they are not terrorists and I don't believe they have any such links to terror groups.

Perhaps this guy was a member of one of these cults - al-Muhajiroun is one famous one but there are several.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #125 of 132
I'm still waiting for a reason or who is [insert cool radical Islamic terrorist group name] responsible. There hasn't been a Bin-Ladan-Gram in months. What a feckin' mess the U.K. is in.

Watched "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" last night...

"If the milk turns out to be sour, I ain't the kinda pussy to drink it." - Rory Breaker

Indeed.
post #126 of 132
post #127 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

My plea to fellow Muslims: you must renounce terror

As the bombers return to Britain, Hassan Butt, who was once a member of radical group Al-Muhajiroun, raising funds for extremists and calling for attacks on British citizens, explains why he was wrong

Sunday July 1, 2007
The Observer

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Article continues
Friday's attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.

And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'

He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.

I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN - I met him on two occasions - and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.

How did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting this (flawed) utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no 'rendering unto Caesar' in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: 'Are you British or Muslim?' But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.

This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, every time mosque authorities banned us from their grounds, it felt like a moral and religious victory.

Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism. A handful of scholars from the Middle East has tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.

But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me and a number of other people who have recently left radical Islamic networks as a far more potent argument because it involves stepping out of this dogmatic paradigm and recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.

The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.

However, it isn't enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. It may be difficult to swallow but the reason why Abu Qatada - the Islamic scholar whom Palestinian militants recently called to be released in exchange for the kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston - has a following is because he is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam.

Since leaving the BJN, many Muslims have accused me of being a traitor. If I knew of any impending attack, then I would have no hesitation in going to the police, but I have not gone to the authorities, as some reports have suggested, and become an informer.

I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.) However, demystification will not be achieved if the only bridges of engagement that are formed are between the BJN and the security services.

If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.


Very good arguments, and the right ones, too. The radical islamism and the terrorism involved with it is a movement against modernism, against secularism, relativism...

Why do they view modernism and secularism as a threat? Don't both allow everyone to worship his god and follow his religion?

Secularism and modernism knows something like human rights, freedom of thinking, movement and expression, which includes the freedom to be religious...

The main-problem radical islamism has with it is that secularism and modernism are based upon laws and consitutions written by humans.

Why do they think that is a problem? They think this is a major problem, because ideas, and laws are derived from ideas, have a spiritual source, and since they think that the spiritual world is filled with God, His spirit and angels on the one side, and the devil and the demons that follow him on the other and since God set up His rules and laws for us in the holy books, a complete departure from these, instead of an adaption and analogical extension to new situations, would mean to instead follow the inspiration of the devil and his servants.

So they look upon the modern world and suspect its devoted members of having become servants of the devil. In order to not only suspect but to be sure, they looked upon the effects of the modern world and they found:

a) Family-structures are eroded because of the drive of individualism, selffulfillment, equality... and the call and need of the economic world.

b) A lot of things that were forbidden in religions are allowed in the modern world: taking of usury, sex pre- and beside marriage, abortion...

c) The justice-system has devolved to the point, where the rich can buy themselves out through highpaid lawyers, while the poor have to endure the full brunt of the law.

d) The concentration on economy-needs (the whole life is being organized around the economy, education, health-systems, social systems, leisuretime, vacation-time..., everything is being organized in such a way as to make economy as efficient as possible) promotes godlessness and denies afterlife.

e) The highly efficient economy has developed also highly deadly technology leading to the two worldwars, holocaust, nukes and their use, exploitation and abuse of nature, as well as exploitation, abuse and oppression of nondeveloped people and countries in various forms.

So, for radical islamism, the situation is clear, modernism and secularism are evil developments inspired by the devil, and this evil already has found its way to the islamic world, but not yet completely succeeded in its transformation, and the radical islamists see themselves as the knights that try to stop and rollback the evil with all means necessary.


See, it's highly convincing, and there are a lot of muslims who sympathise with that analysis and worldview, most only disagree with them that something can be done about it, instead prefering passiveness, leaving fate to God, and they also disagree with the methods.
The more educated an islamist is, the more he prefers activism.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #128 of 132
A more rational take on this overblown fiasco from a former Scotland Yard official.

What kind of an organization is "al qaeda", if their activities are now relegated to setting fire to vehicles with gasoline? I always understood that bombs usually contained explosives. Are the armies of oil-money soaked "jihadists" are getting a little tight-fisted?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #129 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

A more rational take on this overblown fiasco from a former Scotland Yard official.

What kind of an organization is "al qaeda", if their activities are now relegated to setting fire to vehicles with gasoline? I always understood that bombs usually contained explosives. Are the armies of oil-money soaked "jihadists" are getting a little tight-fisted?

It was not an Al-Qaeeda-operation, but it was inspired by Al-Qaeeda. Fortunately for the scottish people, these doctors were pretty amateurish and untrained in organising a terror-attack.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #130 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

It was not an Al-Qaeeda-operation, but it was inspired by Al-Qaeeda. Fortunately for the scottish people, these doctors were pretty amateurish and untrained in organising a terror-attack.

Nightcrawler

I have a real problem saying this was "inspired by al Qaeeda." Al Qaeeda has no monopoly on car bombs, or any other type of terror attack. We don't know what inspired these guys, and likely won't get the true story. Certainly al Qaedda cultivated the global jihadist movement, but even there the instigation was the Russian-Afghan war, and before that the memory of failed Arab nationalist/socialist movements from the 50s and 60s. Blaming every Islamic act of political violence on al Qaeeda is akin to saying the US is responsible for all of the evil in the world today, There are as many dissaffected people out there as there are ambitious empire builders (in this case mostly financial empires) in other Western nations.

Also, there is plenty of precedent for doctors being involved in armed resistance movements. Two of the most infamous examples are Che Guevara and George Habash (best known as a co-founder of POPULAR FRONT FOR THE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE--PFLP). Doctors see human suffering up close, and are well aware of the differences class and wealth foster. The reaction by the media--that such actions are insane and another example of how far Muslims are out of touch with reality--is just BS.

One thing I've been aware of since 9-11: there is a certain brilliance in staging such attacks in nations' media capitals. It scares the hell out of reporters, columnists, editors, TV news producers as well as everyone else. People will do strange things when they're afraid, and even stranger things when they feel the lives of their families are also at risk. I beleive the media lockstep that followed Bush and Blair's call to war was incredibly influenced by such fear (even though the attacks were in NYC it didn't take much imagination on the British press' behalf to see them repeated in the UK).

The question I always ask is who benefits from such attacks. Terror was a useful strategy when it was about particular political and social grievances (I doubt there'd be a Palestinian Authority if there hadn't been armed resistance accompanying the entire period of the Israeli occupation, nor an Israeli state--at least in 1948, and in Palestine--if the Irgun, Stern Gang and others didn't attack British targets), but once it devolves into a war of civilizations--as it's being portrayed now--the stakes and the fear factor get way too high to pay useful dividends.
Sometimes it feels as if the two sides are playing a game of chicken. How often does that end in catostrophic collisions?
post #131 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ptrash View Post

I have a real problem saying this was "inspired by al Qaeeda." Al Qaeeda has no monopoly on car bombs, or any other type of terror attack. We don't know what inspired these guys, and likely won't get the true story. Certainly al Qaedda cultivated the global jihadist movement, but even there the instigation was the Russian-Afghan war, and before that the memory of failed Arab nationalist/socialist movements from the 50s and 60s. Blaming every Islamic act of political violence on al Qaeeda is akin to saying the US is responsible for all of the evil in the world today, There are as many dissaffected people out there as there are ambitious empire builders (in this case mostly financial empires) in other Western nations.

Also, there is plenty of precedent for doctors being involved in armed resistance movements. Two of the most infamous examples are Che Guevara and George Habash (best known as a co-founder of POPULAR FRONT FOR THE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE--PFLP). Doctors see human suffering up close, and are well aware of the differences class and wealth foster. The reaction by the media--that such actions are insane and another example of how far Muslims are out of touch with reality--is just BS.

One thing I've been aware of since 9-11: there is a certain brilliance in staging such attacks in nations' media capitals. It scares the hell out of reporters, columnists, editors, TV news producers as well as everyone else. People will do strange things when they're afraid, and even stranger things when they feel the lives of their families are also at risk. I beleive the media lockstep that followed Bush and Blair's call to war was incredibly influenced by such fear (even though the attacks were in NYC it didn't take much imagination on the British press' behalf to see them repeated in the UK).

The question I always ask is who benefits from such attacks. Terror was a useful strategy when it was about particular political and social grievances (I doubt there'd be a Palestinian Authority if there hadn't been armed resistance accompanying the entire period of the Israeli occupation, nor an Israeli state--at least in 1948, and in Palestine--if the Irgun, Stern Gang and others didn't attack British targets), but once it devolves into a war of civilizations--as it's being portrayed now--the stakes and the fear factor get way too high to pay useful dividends.
Sometimes it feels as if the two sides are playing a game of chicken. How often does that end in catostrophic collisions?

Here are the reasons why I think the attack was inspired by Al-Qaeeda:

These doctors are highly educated muslims, that attack in a western country, and they have diverse nationalities, and they targetted civilians with the goal of killing themselves and them together.

This combination is the trademark of Al-Qaeeda and only them.

All the other islamistic rebel-, guerillia- and terrorgroups concentrate their activities in local areas, dealing with specific threats, like the ones in Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir/India/Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq...

Only Al-Qaeeda is staging and inspiring international islamistic terrorism against civilians.

It's even quite possible that these doctors contacted Al-Qaeeda and informed them over what they wanted to do, in order to get a fatwa from an Al-Qaeeda-cleric, justifying their planned killing of themselves and civilians in the name of Islam, in order to secure their afterlife in paradise.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #132 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

These doctors are highly educated muslims......

Quote:
It was initially thought that Mr Ahmed was a medical doctor. However, it was reported today that he has a doctorate in aeronautical engineering and has studied at Queen's University in Belfast and Anglia Polytechnic University in Cambridge.

Looks like the 'Doctor' bullshit is falling apart - nice ironic tie in wth the NHS though....at least the UK propaganda meisters have a sense of humour....

More here
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Explosives-Packed Car Defused in London