Attack in London - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

powerclown · 07-07-2005, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

People today is a day to mourn...... show some freaking respect and take a day off turning this into politics and partisan drivel.

People lost lives, families and loved ones and you want to argue today over politics..... show respect there's time for politics and time to just mourn and blame those that are responsible not each other because we don't agree on politics.

I agree.
I'll stand down for now.

tecoyah · 07-07-2005, 02:31 PM

Wise Move........

Elphaba · 07-07-2005, 03:10 PM

Thank you, Pan for the reminder here. The topic in the General forum brought home to me that real people on tfp are involved and trying to reach loved ones.

I just heard that one (or more) of the tubes is ready to go for tomorrow's commute. My hat is off to the British response team.

Seaver · 07-07-2005, 04:15 PM

Again is one of those rare times I side with Roachboy. It's a political coup for Al Quaeda to claim responsibility for this. I simply dont think they have the resources at the moment to pull these things off. They have their hands full in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What I think this is, is a cousin terrorist group. Sure they probably took notes from AQ, but it is by no means as complicated as AQ is known for. Planting bombs in busses and subway can be done by a 9 year old, taking over planes and flying into buildings (3 within minutes of each other) is much more complicated.

This is a tragedy no doubt, but if this was AQ there would have been many more dead IMO.

guy44 · 07-07-2005, 04:35 PM

I find it laughable to think that Al Qaeda is too busy in Afghanistan and Iraq to attack elsewhere. Madrid? Now London? Al Qaeda is not fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq so that they can't hit elsewhere - that simply isn't true.

Unlike that stupid flypaper concept, this event has been very startling. Last year, I studied near Russel Sqaure, and passed through both the Russel Square Station and King's Cross Station daily. Probably hundreds of times. If this attack was carried out a year ago, I could have been in the blast. I don't want it to seem like all I can think about is what could have happened to me, but I really feel for those folks in the blast in part because I can picture exactly where they were. I hope that as many people as humanly possible were saved, and that the bastards who did this are caught ASAP.

P.S. In King's Cross Station there is a plaque dedicated to those who died in an escalator fire there in 1987. I passed it often. I weep to think that there may be another plaque next to that one soon.

Seaver · 07-07-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

I find it laughable to think that Al Qaeda is too busy in Afghanistan and Iraq to attack elsewhere. Madrid? Now London? Al Qaeda is not fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq so that they can't hit elsewhere - that simply isn't true.

Madrid was carried out by terrorists in their own country. They presumably got assistance from AQ, but AQ did not carry it out. It's much easier to tell someone over the internet whom belongs to a cousin group than taking care of the transportation/paperwork/lodging/etc. of your own people. I imagine the same thing in London. If you read my post I never said they couldnt lend assistance, I said I dont think they could pull this all off themselves. A 9 year old can bomb in their own country, it takes lots of connections and money to do it in someone else's.

irateplatypus · 07-07-2005, 06:13 PM

i think a fierce political shakedown is precisely what the aftermath of this situation needs.

let's figure out who's responsible and what we can do to improve our defenses for next-time. our international and defense policies are shaped by politicians... let's determine whether we're headed in the right direction or not. how does this event change or reinforce our views of terrorism? do our leaders understand the threat? if not, what is a better course of action? if so, how can we better facilitate a solution? these are all questions with politically linked answers and, i believe, the questions we should be asking ourselves.

guy44 · 07-07-2005, 06:16 PM

I think the point, Seaver, is that Al Qaeda is not some organization - like we might think of as, say, a corporation - that can be easily pinned down or defined. It is more an amorphous network of individuals and groups with highly decentralized leadership that exists in countries all over the world. So it is fallacious to say, like, "Al Qaeda has 65% of its resources tied up in Iraq," because Al Qaeda isn't really measurable like that. So rather than this being a cousin group, as you put it, it may be a group that is part of and supported by the network that is loosely defined as Al Qaeda.

roachboy · 07-07-2005, 07:32 PM

interesting that al qeada has been refigured in that way, isn't it?
the idea that the fln was in fact an organization like the french army only secret was the impetus behind a massive campaign of torture through and after 1956.
the matter only blew up politically when some pcf guy who was working in opposition to france's "police action" was tortured and the press found out about it.

i find that interesting.
sometimes parallels are direct. sometimes they're just curious and kinda ominous but you can't say why exactly.

Dragonlich · 07-07-2005, 08:56 PM

From what I understand is happening in our country (the Netherlands), there are many young muslims angry at the west for various reasons. If you add some good "mentor" to such people, that anger will grow into hatred, which will grow into an acceptance that terrorism is justified. Sometimes there's not even face-to-face contact, but only e-mails and chats.

IMO, *that* is what Al-Qaida is: lots of small groups of like-minded angry young Muslims (read: kids), with a few diabolical mentors. When they do their deeds, "Al-Qaida" claims responsibility, because these youths want to be associated with their heroes. OBL may not be directly responsible, he may not have pulled the strings directly, but his influence is still there.

Elphaba · 07-07-2005, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

i think a fierce political shakedown is precisely what the aftermath of this situation needs.

let's figure out who's responsible and what we can do to improve our defenses for next-time. our international and defense policies are shaped by politicians... let's determine whether we're headed in the right direction or not. how does this event change or reinforce our views of terrorism? do our leaders understand the threat? if not, what is a better course of action? if so, how can we better facilitate a solution? these are all questions with politically linked answers and, i believe, the questions we should be asking ourselves.

Excellent questions IMO. Thank you.

Easytiger · 07-07-2005, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

From what I understand is happening in our country (the Netherlands), there are many young muslims angry at the west for various reasons. If you add some good "mentor" to such people, that anger will grow into hatred, which will grow into an acceptance that terrorism is justified. Sometimes there's not even face-to-face contact, but only e-mails and chats.

IMO, *that* is what Al-Qaida is: lots of small groups of like-minded angry young Muslims (read: kids), with a few diabolical mentors. When they do their deeds, "Al-Qaida" claims responsibility, because these youths want to be associated with their heroes. OBL may not be directly responsible, he may not have pulled the strings directly, but his influence is still there.

And it's extremely difficult to fight that, isn't it? Osama bin Laden could be captured or killed tomorrow, but his influence won't go away in a hurry, especially if he gets the "matryr's death" I'm sure he's hard for. It's easy enough to kill a man, but much more difficult to destroy his ideas.

aberkok · 07-07-2005, 09:32 PM

I continue to be shocked by those who would use the term "terrorism" as a noun. I remember the good old days when it was used descriptively. Looks like we're buying what the media's created. Blaming "terrorists" sounds, to my ears, just like saying: "they" did it. When asked who "they" is, I can't imagine, nor have I heard, any intelligent response.

I challenge everyone here to not use the term anymore. It feels like those who would be quick to blame "terrorists," or "Al Qaeda" (whom I confess not to understand the make-up of) are lashing out blindly and in a panic. Does that seem smart to you?

Another thought:

Why is the last thing anyone seems to want to do is examine the reasons why such hatred might be created? Instead, an enemy must be found. Most unthinking people are happy with the word "terrorist," because as long as someone's doing something about "them" then they don't have to do anything, like maybe reduce their consumption, or maybe get educated about food politics, to give two examples at the tip of the iceberg. No, they can go on living their unchallenging life. The world's problems aren't their fault, it's the TERRORISTS" fault!

I don't think it's news to anyone that we in the west hold most of the wealth, and continue to do so off the backs of the other 90% of the world. Well guess what, someone wants it back because maybe their kid died of starvation or was blown up. Would you be angry if you lived in poverty your whole life? Maybe your child was blown-up in front of you? What? It was your grandmother? Would that make you angry? Congratulations. You're one step closer to bombing those you feel are responsible for your family's suffering.

Let's not point fingers without proof. I give thanks that my uncle and his family live in Hull and not London. I'm still waiting to hear from some friends.

I can't even begin to pretend to know who did this or what their motivations were. Please don't presume that you do. Question your proof.

alansmithee · 07-07-2005, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberkok

I continue to be shocked by those who would use the term "terrorism" as a noun. I remember the good old days when it was used descriptively. Looks like we're buying what the media's created. Blaming "terrorists" sounds, to my ears, just like saying: "they" did it. When asked who "they" is, I can't imagine, nor have I heard, any intelligent response.

I challenge everyone here to not use the term anymore. It feels like those who would be quick to blame "terrorists," or "Al Qaeda" (whom I confess not to understand the make-up of) are lashing out blindly and in a panic. Does that seem smart to you?

If they use the weapons of terror, they are terrorists. Eliminating the term does nothing for anybody.

Quote:

Another thought:

Why is the last thing anyone seems to want to do is examine the reasons why such hatred might be created? Instead, an enemy must be found. Most unthinking people are happy with the word "terrorist," because as long as someone's doing something about "them" then they don't have to do anything, like maybe reduce their consumption, or maybe get educated about food politics, to give two examples at the tip of the iceberg. No, they can go on living their unchallenging life. The world's problems aren't their fault, it's the TERRORISTS" fault!

You're right, because I bought a pair of Nikes and don't grow my own food, some nuts set off bombs in London

.

The world's problems might not all be the terrorists fault, but this boming IS their fault.

Quote:

I don't think it's news to anyone that we in the west hold most of the wealth, and continue to do so off the backs of the other 90% of the world. Well guess what, someone wants it back because maybe their kid died of starvation or was blown up. Would you be angry if you lived in poverty your whole life? Maybe your child was blown-up in front of you? What? It was your grandmother? Would that make you angry? Congratulations. You're one step closer to bombing those you feel are responsible for your family's suffering.

I disagree that the west is wholy to blame for the poor situations in many areas in the world. Local leaders/dictators are just as culpable, if not more so. But what I really can't understand is wanting to somehow blame the victims for being the targets of bombings. Your reasoning seems no different than going to a rape victim and telling her "Well, why was your skirt so high? And that low cut blouse was awful revealing. Also, you shouldn't have been drinking so much". When people resort to terrorism, I honestly don't care why-they need to be eliminated. Whatever the cause, they are obviously beyond reasoning with. They have given up any claim of sympathy or understanding they might have had previously.

host · 07-08-2005, 03:13 AM

Does no one else consider the possibility that this is a "staged" event?

Observe the timing.....the day AFTER the Int. Olympic committee awarded the 2012 games, in a heavy competition with other cities, to London.

Quote:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...stupidity_.htm
July 7, 2005

Wow, al Qaeda must be the stupidest terrorists, no wait, stupidest people period, on this entire planet. Their purported goal is to shake the will of the western powers that have invaded Iraq, and to drive them out, no? Then can someone please explain to me the logic of the London bombings? No seriously, it is time to apply logic to these events. Please do not hand me the nonsense about these people being “killers” who do not apply logic. You do not become the number one terrorist organization without having some logic, no? We are expected to swallow that these people were smart enough to circumvent our billion dollar intelligence and air defense systems with box cutters, but they cannot play coherent cause-effect scenarios out in their mind prior to carrying out terrorist activities? I doubt that very much.

Just this week, it was reported that England had drafted plans to pull out their troops, gone, see you later, victory for al Qaeda, right? So we are to believe then that the orchestrated response to these plans was to blow up a double decker bus, in England. Now, can you guess what the most likely response to such an event would be:

1) Pull the troops out faster
2) Galvanize public support, thus keeping the troops in Iraq

Those of you that selected number one, I will assume you work for the Bush administration. Those of you that selected number two, good job. Now that we have established the enormous stupidity in the England bombings, the next logical front to examine is here in the United States.

Let’s examine the political climate here in this country just prior to this “attack”. Support for the Iraq War was at an all time low. People were unmoved by the President’s speech, dropping his overall approval rating to 43%. The drums of impeachment were growing louder with each passing day, with the revelations that the Downing Street Memos do indeed prove that George Bush committed felonies in lying to Congress and starting war without Congressional approval. Also on our political front was the Valerie Plame story and how it appears there is a good chance that Karl Rove committed treason in outing a covert CIA operative, who just happened to be assigned to uncovering WMD. Considering the closeness of Rove to Bush, if these allegations proved to be true, then how much of a stretch is it to assume Bush had complete foreknowledge of the revenge against Joe Wilson by outing his wife.

Now the corporate media has tried very hard to ignore these stories. We have had coverage of the Michael Jackson trial, and most recently the missing girl in Aruba for months now as Bush’s world unraveled daily. No offense to the Holloway family but the story about Natalie’s events should not be a lead story on any news show, with the possibility of impeachment, treason, and the Iraq War events happening daily. But there was our media, firmly in the pocket of George Bush, pimping the pain of the Holloway family as the most important news story. This aside though, the real stories were finally starting to poke through. Mainstream media received so many complaints about their ignoring potentially Bush-damaging stories, that they finally had to cover them.

Now, from al Qaeda’s perspective one would logically conclude this is a good thing. We were told by the Bushies that a vote for John Kerry was a vote for al Qaeda because they were so afraid of the great warrior, Bush. Considering the plummeting poll numbers for Bush and calls from the grass roots in this country for his political head, one should conclude that al Qaeda would be happy that the news had finally turned its attention to the possibility of getting rid of Bush. Please do not hand me the nonsense about how they do not look at these events. We are led to believe that al Qaeda runs their own website so they can leak stories that help Bush and claim credit for their own terrorist activities so it is obvious they are on the cutting edge of technology and Internet news.

So I ask again, given that the events in the US are in the favor of al Qaeda, and that public opinion for the war had been steadily eroding, I must ask the obvious question. Why in the world would they now carry out another terrorist mission? Are we honestly to believe they did not think about what the ramifications were? If the war was going poorly for them and the world was united against them, then I could understand an attack to break our will, but when things are going well, why in the world would they carry out this attack? It has now been reported that:
“BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said a previously unknown group calling itself the Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe had claimed to be behind the attacks in a statement posted on an Islamist website.
The group's statement said the attacks were revenge for the "massacres" Britain was committing in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the country was now "burning with fear and panic", he added.”
Uh-huh. So, al Qaeda carried out the attacks for the massacres committed by the British troops, which are miniscule in comparison to the US. They further carried out the attacks in complete obliviousness to the news of the imminent British troop pullout. They further carried out these attacks despite the fact that Bush’s poll numbers were in the toilet and heading lower, leading to a possibility of impeachment. They further carried out these attacks even though the media had finally begun to cover the stories that could be potentially damaging to the entire war machine that they are fighting against. Wow, they are some stupid terrorists.
The level of stupidity is equal to when Osama bin Laden released his latest hit video, four days before the Presidential election. Surely he must have realized that would have only aided Bush, yet there he was providing America with a little fear before the election, a move that only could have helped Bush. Today, here is his little outfit, al Qaeda, once again coming to the aide of his alleged arch-nemesis Bush............

.............I understand this raises things we do not want to consider. Well, consider this. In the early 1960’s your government considered operations that would sacrifice innocent, civilian American lives in order to start a war with Cuba. I will not rehash Operation Northwoods (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/) here except to point out that it is horribly naïve to assume people in power, would not seek to abuse that power for their own ends. If this was true in 1962, it is even truer in 2005.

We see the images of terror on the television and we remember our fear, just like we were supposed to. Our President will use this attack to rebuild all he has lost in support and we cannot allow that to happen. This attack does not change the fact that George Bush started his war 6 months prior to obtaining Congressional approval. It does not change the fact that he knowingly lied to Congress to go to war, fitting his intelligence around his policy. It does not change the fact that Karl Rove apparently may have committed treason against the United States. Don’t let him use this tragic event to sway us from pursuing the truth. Don’t let him.
Cui bono America, Cui bono.
Anthony Wade, a contributing writer to opednews.com, is dedicated to educating the populace to the lies and abuses of the government. He is a 37-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive and professional Rehabilitation Counselor working with the poor and disabled, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess.
Anthony Wade’s Archive: http://www.opednews.com/archiveswadeanthony.htm

Britain appears to have needed a little "push" in the "resolve" department:

Quote:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a1384df4-ec...00e2511c8.html
MoD plans Iraq troop withdrawal
By Jimmy Burns and Peter Spiegel
Published: July 4 2005 22:02 | Last updated: July 4 2005 22:02

The Ministry of Defence has drafted plans for a significant withdrawal of British troops from Iraq over the next 18 months and a big deployment to Afghanistan, the Financial Times has learnt.

In what would represent the biggest operational shake-up involving the armed forces since the Iraq war, the first stage of a run-down in military operations is likely to take place this autumn with a handover of security to Iraqis in at least two southern provinces.

Defence officials emphasised that all plans for Iraqi deployments were contingent on the ability of domestic security forces to assume peacekeeping duties from UK troops. Iraqi forces have so far proven unable to take over such roles in areas where the insurgency is most intense, and progress has disappointed coalition officials.

But senior UK officers believe the four south-east provinces under UK command, which are largely Shia and have not seen the same violence as more Sunni-dominated areas north of Baghdad, may be ready for a handover earlier than those under US command.

Any reduction of UK troops could be timed to coincide with plans being developed to deploy a total of up to 3,000 troops to Afghanistan before the end of next year. This deployment would take the lead in a Nato force to take over from US troops in the south of Afghanistan......

Quote:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E28737,00.html
Just not enough force
Patrick Walters, National security editor
June 18, 2005

DOUGLAS Wood's extraordinarily fortunate rescue this week continues Australia's incredible run of good fortune in Iraq. Wood, the only Australian to be held hostage for a lengthy period by Muslim insurgents, escaped with his life thanks to the efforts of a dedicated multinational hostage relief effort and, not least, to a successful house raid conducted by the fledgling Iraqi army.

In 28 months of military operations in Iraq, the Australian Defence Force has not lost a man or woman on active service, although the army has suffered several seriously wounded from car and roadside bombs in Baghdad.

The army's 500-strong deployment to al-Muthanna province in southern Iraq is going well, with Lieutenant-Colonel Roger Noble's troops quickly establishing a good rapport with the local community in Samawah and surrounding villages.

Australia's military contribution to the war on terror continues to be notable, not just for the professionalism of our defence force but also for the paucity of the numbers involved.

But within the next few months the Howard Government must ponder tough questions about our future contribution to the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres, still the front line of the global effort against Islamist terrorism. For all the Government's rhetoric, our contribution to US-led coalition efforts at a critical time for both countries remains largely a token effort.

The insurgency in Iraq remains potent, with violent attacks on Iraqi security forces and stretched US forces in northern and central Iraq occurring every day.

In Afghanistan the Government of Hamid Karzai is still struggling to establish the rule of law in the face of stiff opposition from tribal warlords and attacks mounted by heavily armed Taliban and al-Qa'ida elements.

We have fewer than 1000 defence personnel inside Iraq and only a single army mine clearance expert in Afghanistan. This compares with US military forces of 139,000 in Iraq and about 10,000 in Afghanistan, and Britain with 10,000 in Iraq and about 1000 in Afghanistan.

A fortnight ago tiny New Zealand dispatched 50 Special Air Service troops to Afghanistan, a force now on its third rotation. In addition, the Kiwis have a 120-strong contingent working on provincial reconstruction tasks in Bamiyan province.

"The trouble is we believe our own propaganda," observes one senior Australian government source. "We have a contradiction at the heart of our policy. This is a desperate time for the US in Iraq. They are critically short of troops. The fact is the UK is the only country fighting and dying with the US."

..........With Britain set to take over the running of the UN-backed International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan next year, the pressure on the Howard Government will be to match rhetoric with action. The NATO-led ISAF troops will be boosted to more than 10,000 in the run-up to parliamentary elections in September. The US and British military would like to see the Australian army play a bigger role in Afghanistan..........

Quote:

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do...&obj_id=123359
http://theconservativevictory.blogsp...or-troups.html

Government must explain plans for massive British troop deployment to Afghanistan

Following press reports today that the UK has been asked to provide an additional 5,500 troops for operations in Afghanistan, Shadow Defence Secretary Michael Ancram, has written to Dr John Reid asking for clarification as to how this deployment would affect British operations in Iraq. He wrote: "There have been reports in the media this morning that the UK has been asked to provide an additional 5,500 troops for the operations in Afghanistan. It is my understanding that the offer was made at last week's NATO meeting in Brussels. According to the same reports 5,500 troops will be pulled out of Iraq within the next 12 months, reducing the British presence there by almost two thirds. "I would be grateful if you could clarify several issues:When was a decision on deploying additional troops to Afghanistan made?What is the exact nature of the deployment? What is the composition of the troops designated for the deployment? How many reservists will be deployed? When do you expect the first contingent to be deployed? Has the U. S. approached any other of our allies? Have any other Coalition partners indicated that they may want to commit additional troops to Afghanistan?"Finally, are you satisfied that Iraq's own security forces will be able to take on a greater burden of the struggle against the insurgency there? Are you confident that Iraq will have calmed down enough by the spring next year to allow resources to be switched to the new campaign?.......

What is a terror "production", possibly designed to give the English speaking world a little "jolt" to offset the bad publicity of the Downing Street Memo, without "Mr. 9/11" himself, just happening to be on hand to give interviews and calm the sheeple, while allaying any inkling of suspicion or "stench" ?

Quote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...685159,00.html
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...nG=Search+News
July 07, 2005

Rudy Giuliani in London and sees terror again
By Sam Knight, Times Online

Rudolph Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York so closely identified with his city's recovery after September 11 attacks, was in London this morning, just yards from Liverpool Street station when the bombs went off.

Mr Giuliani, who was given an honorary knighthood by the Queen in recognition of his leadership in 2001 said today's events strongly recalled the attacks on the World Trade Centre.

"They are a very eerie reminder of September 11. I was right near Liverpool [Street] station when the first bombing took place, so I could hear the sirens and then kept hearing reports of different bombings, in different parts of the city," he told Sky News television.

Mr Giuliani was in the City as the Underground system was evacuated and roads were closed in a rush of emergency vehicles and evacuations. A bomb on a Tube train between nearby Aldgate and Moorgate killed seven people and injured dozens.

"As we were walking through and driving through the streets of the city, it was remarkable how the people of London responded calmly and bravely," said Mr Giuliani.

The former Mayor, who now runs Giuliani Partners, a security consultancy and investment bank, said that New Yorkers would be full of sympathy for Londoners caught in today's violence..........

Quote:

http://www.occupationwatch.org/headl...rqawi_phe.html
July 07, 2005
The Zarqawi Phenomenon

Dahr Jamail
TomDispatch
July 6, 2005

A remarkable proportion of the violence taking place in Iraq is regularly credited to the Jordanian Ahmad al-Khalayleh, better known as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and his organization Al Qaeda in Iraq. Sometimes it seems no car bomb goes off, no ambush occurs that isn't claimed in his name or attributed to him by the Bush administration. Bush and his top officials have, in fact, made good use of him, lifting his reputed feats of terrorism to epic, even mythic, proportions (much aided by various mainstream media outlets). Given that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be based upon administration lies and manipulations, I had begun to wonder if the vaunted Zarqawi even existed.............

.............The Bush administration has regularly claimed that Zarqawi was in -- and then had just barely escaped from -- whatever city or area they were next intent on attacking or cordoning off or launching a campaign against. Last year, he and his organization were reputed to be headquartered in Fallujah, prior to the American assault that flattened the city. At one point, American officials even alleged that he was commanding the defense of Fallujah from elsewhere by telephone. Yet he also allegedly slipped out of Fallujah either just before or just after the beginning of the assault, depending on which media outlet or military press release you read.

He has since turned up, according to American intelligence reports and the U.S. press, in Ramadi, Baghdad, Samarra, and Mosul among other places, along with side trips to Jordan, Iran, Pakistan and/or Syria. His closest "lieutenants" have been captured by the busload, according to American military reports, and yet he always seems to have a bottomless supply of them. In May, a news report on the BBC even called Zarqawi "the leader of the insurgency in Iraq," though more sober analysts of the chaotic Iraqi situation say his group, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad, while probably modest in size and reach is linked to a global network of jihadists. However, finding any figures as to the exact size of the group remains an elusive task.

Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell offered photos before the U.N. in February, 2003 of Zarqawi's "headquarters" in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, also claiming that Zarqawi had links to Al-Qaeda. The collection of small huts was bombed to the ground by U.S. forces in March of that year, prompting one news source to claim that Zarqawi had been killed. Yet seemingly contradicting Powell's claims for Zarqawi's importance was a statement made in October, 2004 by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who conceded that Zarqawi's ties to Al Qaeda may have been far more ambiguous, that he may have been more of a rival than a lieutenant to Osama bin Laden. "Someone could legitimately say he's not Al Qaeda," added Rumsfeld..........

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5280219/site/newsweek/
.................The first high-level Bush administration references to Zarqawi came in October 2002 when President Bush, in a speech in Cincinnati, laid out the case against Saddam’s regime by emphasizing what he described as “high-level contacts” between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. One prominent example cited by the president was the fact that “one very senior Al Qaeda leader [had] ... received medical treatment in Baghdad this year”—a reference to Zarqawi. Then, in his February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell described Zarqawi as “an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants.”

But just last week, in little-noticed remarks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Zarqawi’s ties to Al Qaeda may have been much more ambiguous—and that he may have been more a rival than a lieutenant to bin Laden. Zarqawi “may very well not have sworn allegiance to [bin Laden]," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. “Maybe he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be ‘The Man’ himself and maybe for a reason that’s not known to me.” Rumsfeld added that, “someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda.”

Rumsfeld’s comments essentially confirm the contents of a German police document, first reported by NEWSWEEK last year, that quoted a terrorist defector from Zarqawi’s network in Afghanistan describing the group as operating in “opposition to Al Qaeda.”....................

Fellow TFP members, I spend a good deal of time attempting to keep informed about what passes for "hard news". My efforts do not yield accurate or consistant information. I know more concerning what I "don't know", than what I can believe. One of the few things that I am certain of is that your government, your political leaders are lying to you and intentionally misleading you. It may well be that ther is NO AL QAEDA. I do not know one way or the other, but I know that "officials", sworn to protect you, who tell you this, are not to be trusted....
<b>July 11, 2002: It is reported that the FBI believes there are approximately 5,000 al-Qaeda agents inside the US. In early 2003, FBI Director Mueller reduces the estimate to "several hundred." The New York Times then says that even suggesting over 100 is probably an exaggeration made for political reasons. [New York Times, 2/16/03]</b> the link to the rest of my post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...33#post1830433

I read your opinions posted on these threads, day after day, and I watch as so many of you challenge or attempt to marginalize the offerings of roachboy, a participant here who we are truly fortunate to have as a contibutor to the political discussions. Review what I am sharing with you in this post, how much of it have you already considered? How do you know that there is an "Al Qaeda" or an "Al Zarqawi" ? Because....."they" told you?
Please start challenging everything that our leaders and news reports tell us. Go to the source.....I visit the government sites to read the actual text of their briefings. How do you do it? How are you so sure of your opinions when you post few sources here and seem to rely on a "well, everyone knows that so and so is".....NO....they don't.....I'm here to tell you. I know where to search, and I put the time in....and I dont' know....so how can you?

Here is more research on the phantom "Al Zarqawi":
The first published Zarqawi reference that I can find from the NY Times in that site's archive search was dated March 24, 2002,
presumably about the Oct., 2001 murder
of US diplomat Laurence Foley in Jordan.
Zarqawi was supposedly implicated in Foley's
murder, according to the Jordanians, by
two captured "assasins"........

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3603949.stm

Excerpt from April 6, 2004 BBC News Article

....Confessions

The shooting of Mr Foley outside his home was the first killing of a Western diplomat in the city.

He was shot several times in the chest and head as he walked towards his car.

Among those sentenced to death by the military court were Libyan Salem Saad bin Suweid and Jordanian Yasser Freihat, who were arrested in December 2002 and accused of carrying out the actual shooting.

They had told the court they were innocent and had been forced to confess to the crime.

The other six were sentenced to death in absentia, including Zarqawi.......

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...887379,00.html
Sunday February 2, 2003

....But the question that remains unresolved is whether there is any evidence that Saddam is in bed with al-Qaeda. The answer is likely to devolve to two lines of investigation - both of which, Bush administration officials will say, lead directly from Saddam to al-Qaeda.

The first connection, Powell is certain to allege, is a one-legged Jordanian wounded in the allied bombing of Afghanistan, who the Bush administration will argue is that missing link. He is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Stories about al-Zarqawi have been carefully fed to the media, suggesting his key role as the connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam. Most of them have been unsourced. And all have been dismissed by those who have followed the career of this veteran of the global jihad, who was fighting for Islam long before the world had heard of Osama bin Laden and whose al-Qaeda credentials have, in part, been created to fulfil the agendas of those who want him for other reasons.

So it is al-Zarqawi who is credited with being al-Qaeda's chemist-in-chief - an expert in weapons of mass destruction. It is al-Zarqawi, too, who is credited with being the mastermind behind a plot to use ricin to poison food at a British military base and other Allied military sites across Europe........

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...l=chi-news-hed
Prisoner casts doubt on Iraq tie to Al Qaeda
Story at odds with Powell's UN case

By Cam Simpson and Stevenson Swanson
Tribune correspondents
Published February 11, 2003

HAMBURG, Germany -- A former Al Qaeda recruit told German authorities last year that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, portrayed by the Bush administration as the critical link between Osama bin Laden's group and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, was actually opposed to Al Qaeda.

In voluminous statements given to German federal police after his April arrest, Shadi Abdallah, a 26-year-old Jordanian who claims to have served briefly as a bin Laden bodyguard, maintained that Zarqawi was allied instead with Iraq's enemy, the fundamentalist Islamic government of Iran.......

U.S. yet to confirm Jordanian is behind biggest attacks

By Christine Spolar and Bill Glauber, Tribune foreign correspondent. Christine Spolar reported from Baghdad, with Bill Glauber in Hillah

February 19, 2004

BAGHDAD -- With insurgent bombings growing in frequency, scale and sophistication, a senior U.S. military official said Wednesday that investigators still have not confirmed that a Jordanian terrorist linked to Al Qaeda was behind two of the highest-profile attacks in Iraq.

More than a week ago, coalition leaders named the Jordanian, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as the prime suspect in attacks on the UN headquarters in Baghdad and a mosque in Najaf, and offered a $10 million reward for his capture. But the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said investigators still have no conclusive proof against al-Zarqawi.

The latest suicide attack--a two-vehicle assault Wednesday on a coalition base south of Baghdad--was resisted by a guard who opened fire as the drivers approached, preventing them from getting inside before their 1,500 pounds of explosives were detonated. Still, the blasts just outside the base killed 10 people and injured 100 others.

U.S. officials suspect foreign fighters are involved in such attacks, though analysts have said that unanswered questions on cases as important as the UN and Najaf bombings underscore their concerns about investigative procedures in Iraq. Analysts said uneven evidence collection and coordination among U.S. and Iraqi agencies are hampering efforts to identify and stop insurgent groups.

Similar methods

Wednesday's blasts in Hillah fit a pattern of increasingly coordinated attacks that have rattled Iraq in recent weeks from the northern city of Irbil to the central town of Fallujah. At least 506 people have been killed in such explosions since August. In February alone, 219 people have died.

The power and pace of bombings this month have riveted the attention of coalition and military investigators. The discovery of a memo that could be linked to al-Zarqawi, who was indicted in Jordan in one bombing plot and convicted in absentia in the killing of a U.S. government worker in 2002, was trumpeted last week by U.S. officials.

The memo, found on a compact disc taken from a suspect last month, outlined a plan for inciting civil war in Iraq, and U.S. officials were quick to point to al-Zarqawi as the connection to foreign elements operating in the country. If the memo is to be believed, al-Zarqawi boasted he was behind 25 violent attacks in Iraq.

Wednesday, a senior military official acknowledged that the claims are considered plausible but not proven.

"We can't just say, `Yep, it's him,'" said the official. So far, the coalition's best links have been the suspected al-Zarqawi memo and similarities that investigators have found in the methods and explosives used in some bombings.

"We haven't been able to prove it, but those attacks are consistent with his abilities ... [although] others have those abilities and have access to similar munitions too," said the senior military source, who is familiar with the case........

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4466324/
By Rod Nordland
Newsweek
Updated: 3:01 a.m. ET March 7, 2004

March 6 - The stark fact is that we don’t even know for sure how many legs Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi has, let alone whether the Jordanian terrorist, purportedly tied to al Qaeda, is really behind the latest outrages in Iraq.....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ees-usat_x.htm
Posted 7/5/2004 11:39 PM Updated 7/6/2004 8:33 AM

Foreign detainees are few in Iraq
By Peter Eisler and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency.

Since last August, coalition forces have detained 17,700 people in Iraq who were considered to be enemy fighters or security risks, and about 400 were foreign nationals, according to figures supplied last week by the U.S. military command handling detention operations in Iraq. Most of those detainees were freed after a review board found they didn't pose significant threats. About 5,700 remain in custody, 90 of them non-Iraqis.

The numbers represent one of the most precise measurements to date of the composition of the insurgency and suggest that some Bush administration officials have overstated the role of foreign holy warriors, or jihadists, from other Arab states. The figures also suggest that Iraq isn't as big a magnet for foreign terrorists as some administration critics have asserted.

In Ramadi, where Marines have fended off coordinated attacks by hundreds of insurgents, the fighters "are all locals," says Lt. Col. Paul Kennedy, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment. "There are very few foreign fighters."

ObieX · 07-08-2005, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Does no one else consider the possibility that this is a "staged" event?

Observe the timing.....the day AFTER the Int. Olympic committee awarded the 2012 games, in a heavy competition with other cities, to London.

Also with the G8 being right there it seems an even more idiotic and questionable act. I mean think about it. The leaders of the 8 most powerful nations, plus some leaders from african nations, all together in the same room a hop skip and a jump away from the event. Each of these people now claim to be in solidarity with one another on the terrorism issue and will now most likely work much closer together and much harder to stomp out "the terrorists". Before this attack they may have had their differences in how "the terrorists" should be dealt with.. but now "its on" most likely.

On a small side note, but something that caught my eye. On the same day of the bombings in London a "mock terrorism drill" or whatever you want to call it was scheduled for NYC. These types of events have, more often than not, actually been mistaken for REAL terrorism attacks by the local population (one could say, terrorizing them). Afterall they include "victims" that have to be treated and wrapped up, and buildings are closed down and/or raided by various squads of uniformed or bio-hazard suit wearing individuals. This raised the memory of what happened on september 11th for me.. on september 11th the US government just happened to be running a drill that simulated pretty much exactly what happened on that day. The whole thing just seemed really odd to me.

aberkok · 07-08-2005, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

If they use the weapons of terror, they are terrorists. Eliminating the term does nothing for anybody.

It gives us a responsibility to get closer to the truth instead of creating an invisible scapegoat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

You're right, because I bought a pair of Nikes and don't grow my own food, some nuts set off bombs in London

.

This reminds me of the same attitude I saw on fark.com in response to a recent online questionnaire regarding our ecological footprint. Participants could discover how many planets it would take to sustain their lifestyle should everybody live that way. When farkers discovered that it was almost impossible to get the total required planets under 1, they immediately decided that the quiz was "bunk" and dismissed it and made fun of it. I am shocked at how few people are willing to take a moment and reflect.

I lead a lifestyle which contributes to the world climate which created this act of violence. I can still live my life, but I have to consider what I can change about it, and act upon it. I do not feel guilt, however. I know it might be a contradiction, but then that's what I am and I can accept that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

The world's problems might not all be the terrorists fault, but this boming IS their fault.

I agree. I don't condone such acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I disagree that the west is wholy to blame for the poor situations in many areas in the world. Local leaders/dictators are just as culpable, if not more so. But what I really can't understand is wanting to somehow blame the victims for being the targets of bombings. Your reasoning seems no different than going to a rape victim and telling her "Well, why was your skirt so high?... When people resort to terrorism, I honestly don't care why-they need to be eliminated. Whatever the cause, they are obviously beyond reasoning with. They have given up any claim of sympathy or understanding they might have had previously.

I never said that the west was wholly to blame. Environment is a big part. Consider, however, that some of the local leaders recieve money from western governments to maintain the harmful status quo.

As for the accusation that I blame the rape on the rape victim, if you see the western world as a victim compared to the other %90 of the world, then we will never agree on the basic terms of this discussion. I can't go any further with that line of reasoning.

samcol · 07-08-2005, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Does no one else consider the possibility that this is a "staged" event?

Although I'm not sure it's an inside job, the signs do point in that direction. It's all too convinient. I do totally agree with your analysis that there might be no Al Qaeda. I mean Al Zarqawi has been captured, injured, killed so many times that I can't even keep track. Al qaeda would be the perfect boogey man if it never existed. Use their name to do anything for political gain. Like you said, we have no way to keep our secret intelligence agencies in check when they issue these false statements. The real scoop always comes out, but its usually after the issue has already passed and is swept under the rug. It will be interesting if the cameras will catch the real terrorists, or if they will malfunction or be confiscated due to national security.

cyrnel · 07-08-2005, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Does no one else consider the possibility that this is a "staged" event?

Observe the timing.....the day AFTER the Int. Olympic committee awarded the 2012 games, in a heavy competition with other cities, to London.

Mulder, I find that highly unlikely.

Follow the money, and power. This has all been staged by OBL. He's losing status to al-Zarqawi and needs to make moves. Unfortunately, though funds are plentiful he's finding it difficult to move explosives across borders without detection. Money is so much easier. So he paid off the Olympic Committee (always up for sale) to choose London in the hopes Bush/Blair would create bombing attacks to implicate him after which he got credit. Now that Bush/Blair have responded, OBL is staging the London recovery with his disguise rescue and emergency personnel cells - always easy to move these guys around. This in the hopes Bushworld will respond with further bomb blasts to take out his suicide rescue workers. To be followed by additional OBL press releases...

Back to reality, my thoughts and best wishes go out to those of you in London. I know you'll deal with events in spite of media and other nonsense. Just a thumbs-up from my little corner.

StanT · 07-08-2005, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ballzor

London Attacks

Another horrible event to add to a long list. I am not quite sure how an American should react to it though. Obviously we show our support any way we can, but with all of the hatred and anger aimed towards us, it really isn't our place to say anything at all.

It simply isn't in the budget, but I'd book a trip to London today, if I could. I can't think of a better way to show my support. The obvious intent of terrorism is to terrorize people. Getting back to business, as usual, is the best way to negate the effects.

powerclown · 07-08-2005, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Mulder, I find that highly unlikely.

Ditto.
Too much evidence, too much history, to the contrary.
It presupposes the notion that these attacks are *wanted* by the countries that have been attacked. Doesn't make any sense.

"The group Al Qaeda in Europe claimed responsibility for the last major terror attack in Europe: a string of bombs that hit commuter trains in Madrid, Spain in March 2004, killing 191 people. Two days after that attack, a video was found in a trash can outside a Madrid mosque with a statement purported to be from the group’s spokesman, called by the nickname “Abu Dujan al Afghani.”

Etc, etc, etc..

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Claim from Al Qaeda in Europe behind London blasts

"Rejoice, Islamic nation. Rejoice, Arab world. The time has come for vengeance against the Zionist crusader government of Britain in response to the massacres Britain committed in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said the statement, which was translated by The Associated Press in Cairo.

In the new statement, the group said “the heroic mujahedeen carried out a blessed attack in London, and now Britain is burning with fear and terror, from north to south, east to west.”

“We warned the British government and the British people repeatedly. We have carried out our promise and carried out a military attack in Britain after great efforts by the heroic mujahedeen over a long period to ensure its success.”

“We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan,” the statement went on.

It was signed: “The Secret Organisation of Al Qaeda in Europe.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

linq

Mantus · 07-08-2005, 07:01 AM

I agree with Aberkor about how the term "terrorist" has been reshaped by the media. Though I have to add that around here, in the circles I travel "terrorist" has become synonymous with "Islamic Fundamentalist".

Concerning the second point of ourselves in the west trying to do something to aliviate the hatred towards us. I think both Aberkor and alansmithee have a point. Alansmithee's rape victim analogy is rather good. Yet it doesnt cancel out Aberkors argument. It's important to deal with both the cause and the effect.

Conspiracy theories around the timing of the event don't hold much water for me. I don't think London would have lost the bid. London dealt with terrorist attacks in the past, this is nothing new to them. Any city hosting the game would be a terrorist target, Paris, London or New York, it really doesnt matter much.

Then we all know of the political, economic and most importantly idiological impact that 9/11 had on this country. After 9/11 the majority of the damage to this country was done by America it'self.

roachboy · 07-08-2005, 09:26 AM

i would like to echo the last sentence in mantus's post above--i think it really important:

Quote:

Then we all know of the political, economic and most importantly idiological impact that 9/11 had on this country. After 9/11 the majority of the damage to this country was done by America itself.

judging by reports i have heard so far and by reading through today's guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

it is most interesting to hear of london commuters simply taking back the transit system symbolically from the implications of yesterday's action.

hysteria and paranoia are not the only possible responses to this kind of event.

hysteria and paranoia are only reasonable if you think of the possibilities offered the public for thinking about itself, the world and the relations between the two through the lens provided by the bush administration's particular discourse of "terror"

taking back the transit system from the implications of yesterday's attack is, if you think about it, a far more reasonable approach than "batten down the hatches everyone--stay indoors and watch tv--look out for suspicious people and report them--but try to modulate the racist correlate of the category "terrorist" by not doing anything too obvious to your muslim neighbors--- mostly wait for draconian security measures, invasive domestic legislation and an irrational militarization of social relations coupled with an arbitrary but manly foriegn policy--
WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT.

the category "terrorist" is an empty signifier...it does not permit of analysis--it is not about analysis, it is about its opposite---it is about fear and passivity and a logic of handing control to the people your tv tells you Know what is Going On. They know. You do not have to.

the category "terrorist" is not about understanding anything: it is about isolation.
it is not about the process of collective response (taking back the transit system is a collective response--it did not require tv to co-ordinate) but rather about its opposite.

if the category terrorist is not descriptive, does that mean that it is meaningless?
no....
the discourse of terror is about--and coherently about--only one thing: the preferred mode of power for this administration.
isolated, shut up indoors, watching television, afraid, unable to parse the situation, absolutely unable to link such attacks to anything about american policy, which like capitalism becomes in this scenario an unqualified good---the discourse of "terror" has become the supporting structure of an authoritarian type of politics, one with the particular quirk of liking to brag about how free it is. hardly an unprecedented combo.
but none of this is necessary.
it is a choice.
it is the choice made by this administration in the days following 9/11/2001.
"terrorism" has been the bush administrations' necessary opposite since.
it has kept them in power.
that is what it is about--not an analysis of the facts of the matter, not an explanation for why such actions might be mounted, not the basis for a coherent response to such attacks. it is about fear. it is about routing fear into a consent for an authoritarian politics. it is about maintaining that consent.

it leans on particular features of american social life and its organization:
for example, the isolated house and the isolated nuclear family, the bizarre and central role played by tv in producing a sense of community and a sense of interaction with a wider context.

i think americans have alot to learn by simply watching londoners respond--not the blair government, but people, who are doing a far better job already in fashioning a rational response which does not preclude a desire to know why this happened and who did it, but at the same time does not translate these desires into an abdication of their own sense of their own city.

what you see in the mirror of these attack in london from the states is just how bizarre the states have become under george w bush and karl rove and the rest of the apparatchiks that pull the strings in the theater of reactionary meat puppets that is bushworld.

host · 07-08-2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

............it is a choice.
it is the choice made by this administration in the days following 9/11/2001.
"terrorism" has been the bush administrations' necessary opposite since.
it has kept them in power.
that is what it is about--not an analysis of the facts of the matter, not an explanation for why such actions might be mounted, not the basis for a coherent response to such attacks. it is about fear. it is about routing fear into a consent for an authoritarian politics. it is about maintaining that consent........

Staying "in power" is but a prerequisite for manipulating the populaces of primarily the Anglo-American nations via fear, into relinquishing what remain of their civil liberties and the right to vote in free, unhindered elections, to the state. I attempted to demonstrate in my last post, (and in several on other threads here in the past), that the Bush administraion will say and do anything to further feed the fear to hasten the goal. Question everything that they tell you, and watch what they do, and most importantly, see who benefits from each incident of internal "terror". Are Bush and Blair stronger politically today than they were two days ago? What is the focus of the G8 summit today, compared to what it was two days ago?

Look at where Ahmed Chalabi and his "news stooge", Judith Miller were recently......

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Embedded Reporter's Role In Army Unit's Actions Questioned by Military

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 25, 2003; Page C01

New York Times reporter Judith Miller played a highly unusual role in an Army unit assigned to search for dangerous Iraqi weapons, according to U.S. military officials, prompting criticism that the unit was turned into what one official called a "rogue operation."

More than a half-dozen military officers said that Miller acted as a middleman between the Army unit with which she was embedded and Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, on one occasion accompanying Army officers to Chalabi's headquarters, where they took custody of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law. She also sat in on the initial debriefing of the son-in-law, these sources say.

Since interrogating Iraqis was not the mission of the unit, these officials said, it became a "Judith Miller team," in the words of one officer close to the situation.

In April, Miller wrote a letter objecting to an Army commander's order to withdraw the unit, Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha, from the field. She said this would be a "waste" of time and suggested that she would write about it unfavorably in the Times. After Miller took up the matter with a two-star general, the pullback order was dropped..........

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...229618,00.html
Chalabi 'tipped off Iran about spy codes'

Mark Oliver and agencies
Wednesday June 2, 2004

The controversial Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi, a former favourite of the Pentagon who has recently fallen out with Washington, was today embroiled in allegations that he tipped off Tehran that US agents had cracked the secret codes of its intelligence service...........

.......As recently as last month, the INC was on the US government payroll, receiving around £180,000 a month from the defence department for intelligence under a specific authorisation from Congress.

The New York and Los Angeles papers said they had learned some details of widely reported US assertions last month that Mr Chalabi had given classified material to Iran, but had agreed not to publish those details at the request of US officials who said to do so would endanger an ongoing investigation.

Mr Chalabi spoke out against the US last month after his home in an upmarket district of Baghdad was searched by Iraqi police, accompanied by US troops, who seized papers and computers. Two INC offices in Baghdad were also searched.

The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times said the requests to withhold the information they had gathered were withdrawn today when other news accounts began appearing. A CIA official declined to comment on the reports last night.

The New York Times said that after Mr Chalabi tipped them off, Iranians in Tehran sent a bogus message to Baghdad purportedly disclosing the location of an important weapons site in an apparent attempt to test whether what they were hearing was true.

The idea was that if the United States was able to intercept such transmissions, Americans would react by going to the weapons site. They intercepted the message, according to the New York Times, but did not take the bait by going to the weapons site. .......

Look at them today. She is a martyr, jailed to uphold the right to a free press, and he is Oil minister of Iraq.

You don't know what you think you know, and the only thing for certain is that there is a steady, uninterrupted erosion, of your constitutional freedoms, while federal lobbyists and corporate insiders increasingly benefit from a growing array of lucrative contract awards to them, as the administration "privatizes" the expanding operations of DHS, CIA, and the Pentagon.

I submit for your consideration that the same folks who bring you Miller and Chalabi with newly rehabilitated reputations, have now done likewise for Bush and Blair. They do whatever it takes.........

jimbob · 07-08-2005, 01:19 PM

There's been calls in this thread for a British point of view so here's one from the Mayor of London:
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayor...ent_070705.jsp
The last paragraph is quite powerful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Livingstone

They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.

So the only way we can lose to terrorism is if we allow our freedoms to be restricted in the face of these atrocities. Let's hope the British government doesn't push us down the route taken in the US and that the media will continue to do its job of asking questions and reporting facts.

But is there a way to win? The War on Terror in Afghanistan has obviously failed so far and the War in Iraq was also stated as a reason for these bombings. Powerclown asked on page 1, "Is blowing up civilians a justifiable response to anything?" Well no it's not, and look where it got us. After our own governments' actions we should expect exactly this form of retaliation.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9422.htm

Maybe we shouldn't be trying to win but to reach a middle ground. The US, surprisingly considering the personalities who run it, has conceeded some ground already - nearly all troops were withdrawn from Saudi Arabia after the invasion of Iraq (one of Bin Laden's goals) and recently Condi Rice has changed the foreign policy to one of promoting democracy over stability. Remember, it's the persuit of stability which created Bin Laden in the first place. The next moves should be to give Iraq full sovereignty (ie let it own the oil), get the troops out (I know people will say there will be bloodshed if that happens, but that's no change from the current situation), end the trade restrictions which keep hard working people across the world in poverty and offer aid where it's needed, chanelled through locally based organisations.

On the point of whether al Qaida exists. Yes it does - it was created in a New York attourney's office in early 2001 (IIRC). That's according to the Power of Nightmares documentary which the land of the free and home of the brave is unlikely to see. The name was required because a foreign national could only be prosecuted if he belonged to an outlawed organisation. Bin Laden only used the name after the US government made it popular.

Seaver · 07-08-2005, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Why is the last thing anyone seems to want to do is examine the reasons why such hatred might be created? Instead, an enemy must be found. Most unthinking people are happy with the word "terrorist," because as long as someone's doing something about "them" then they don't have to do anything, like maybe reduce their consumption, or maybe get educated about food politics, to give two examples at the tip of the iceberg. No, they can go on living their unchallenging life. The world's problems aren't their fault, it's the TERRORISTS" fault!

Look, I know why such hatred exists. I've studied the Arab world in depth, hell it's my major. I've spoken to some of the greatest lecturers from that area (Khuri I suggest above all others), I've done my research.

Yes the US does some really stupid things in foreign policy, but their rage exists out of stifled democracy in their own country (according to the people from the region). It is out of this rage that these people redirect it at us. Some blame it on the lingering desire to bring back the Ottoman Empire, some blame it on overpopulation, some blame it on many things. But the fact is these people are killing our sons/daughters/mothers/fathers/etc. for reasons we do not deserve in any light.

However, what you and so many people like you propose, is blaming the victim. It's the moral equivilant of blaming the rape victim for wearing shorts, because if they were in say... a full burka a man could restrain himself.

As for Host, thanks for the time saved... I'll be ignoring your posts from now on. Throwing your hat in with the French who believed the Pentagon was hit by a carbomb now? (FYI my uncle was working at the Pentagon at the time, was only a few hundred feet away when it did hit)

OFKU0 · 07-08-2005, 06:36 PM

Some other considerations providing the source is somewhat accurate.

Fri July 8, 2005 www.torontosun.com

Quote:

Explosive answers

By MARK BONOKOSKI

LONDON -- Despite a posted claim of responsibility by an Islamic terrorist group calling itself The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe, the key to yesterday's rush-hour bombings could lie in the explosive residue reportedly found at one of the four sites.

If the bomb material turns out to be RDX (Royal Demolition Explosives), then it could truly be the work of al-Qaida operatives, since RDX, 150% more powerful than TNT, has long been one of the terrorist organization's preferred explosives. That, along with titadine, a compressed dynamite.

If, however, it turns out to be the Czech-made Semtex plastique, it could mean the resurgence of a major terror campaign by the Irish Republican Army.

And there have been warnings.

As early as this spring, The Observer newspaper reported that British security forces were put on alert after being tipped by the MI5 intelligence service concerning "dissident Irish republican terrorists (who are) currently planning to mount attacks on the U.K. mainland."

According to that report, that warning pointed a finger at a dissident faction of the IRA known as the Real IRA, a group that carried out Northern Ireland's single-worst atrocity -- the 1998 car bombing in Omagh which killed 29 people.

The Real IRA -- which looks upon hunger-striker Bobby Sands as its martyred Che Guevara -- exploded at least three bombs in central London in 2001 on the 20th anniversary of Sands' death in an Ulster prison.

The timing of the bombings could not have been better planned -- regardless of the perpetrator.

With the leaders of the G8 meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland -- complete with rockers Bono and Bob Geldof providing photo ops in their quest to end world poverty -- and with London having been just awarded the 2012 Olympic games, the world's eyes were already watching.

Britain's Home Secretary Charles Clarke confirmed that there were four explosions in central London yesterday -- three on subway trains and the fourth on a bus.

"We do not know who or what organizations are responsible for these terrible criminal acts," he said.

There is speculation, however, that the double-decker bus explosion near Tavistock Square may have been due to a suicide bomber accidentally triggering his device before disembarking and entering his real target, a portion of London's underground subway network.

If that is the case, it virtually mirrors the modus operandi used by an al-Qaida cell in Madrid last year when train bombings there resulted in the deaths of more than 200.

No question yesterday's bombings brought this city to a standstill, and certainly stole the joy the entire country was experiencing with the surprise announcement that London, and not the odds-on favourite, Paris, would host the summer Olympics in seven years time.

Back in March, when The Observer published the warnings by MI5 that it had evidence that the Real IRA was about to remount its terrorist campaign, reaction was muted.

A month earlier, British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a formal pubic apology for what was being called one of the "most notorious miscarriages of justice in British legal history" -- the jailing of 11 innocent people known as the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven who spent upwards of 14 years in prison for IRA bombings they did not commit. The apology came at a dangerous time. A week earlier, the IRA withdrew its peace offer to destroy its remaining weaponry after London and Dublin were too quick to blame it for the multi-million-pound bank robbery that December in Belfast.

Yesterday, those dangerous times exploded into reality -- no matter who, or what, was behind the bombings.

http://www.torontosun.com/Columnists/home.html

And in the same paper

Quote:

Eric MargolisFri, July 8, 2005

Grim U.K. reminder

By ERIC MARGOLIS

LONDON -- What a sobering difference a day can make. On Wednesday afternoon and late into the night, jubilant throngs filled Piccadilly Circus to fete this city's victory over Paris in the bitterly contested competition to host the 2012 Olympic Games.

Yesterday morning, just before 9 a.m., crowds began milling around London underground stations. At first, we were told there had been a massive power failure during rush hour.

Soon after, a stream of emergency vehicles began converging on central London. We then learned it was not a power failure at all, but something far more sinister: A series of bombs had gone off in at least three underground (subway) stations, trapping passengers deep below street level. Another bomb blew apart one of the city's iconic red double-decker buses.

The long-feared terrorist attack on London had finally occurred.

It came right after PM Tony Blair assured the International Olympic Committee his nation could assure security for the Games, and just at the opening of the G8 Summit meeting in Scotland.

Britain's MI5 internal security service and police were on maximum alert for the summit. In spite of this, London suffered its worst terrorist attack since the IRA bombed its financial district a decade ago.

As I write -- to the continuing sound of sirens -- London remains largely paralyzed. All public transportation is inoperative and traffic is in chaos as millions fight to get home. Trains are cancelled or delayed. It's impossible to get to London's airports. Cellphones are not working. Parents are unable to get to schools to take their children home to safety.

Some service was expected to be restored by late yesterday. But parts of the underground -- where, one day earlier, I rode both subway lines that were bombed -- will likely be seriously affected for the next few days as emergency crews clear wreckage and look for additional bombs.

Riding the often fire-and failure-plagued London underground is an unsettling experience at the best of times. By yesterday evening, three trains were still trapped underground in smoke-filled tunnels as investigators did their grim work.

Who committed this outrage? It bears all the hallmarks of al-Qaida: Multiple, carefully co-ordinated attacks designed to inflict great physical and psychological damage as well as economic punishment. Suicide bombers may have been involved, likely part of a 15- to 20-man terrorist team. MI5 -- Britain's intelligence service -- and Scotland Yard have been hunting just such a team for the past two years and made hundreds of arrests, but without success. Police fear other bombs are still set to go off, a favourite tactic of terrorists in the Mideast.

The attack shows that despite being at maximum security and having an almost Orwellian network of surveillance cameras that cover almost every major street, London still remains vulnerable. Londoners, however, are taking the attacks coolly.

There was no panic, except at the bombing sites. People seemed dazed, and uncertain what to do. Some had to walk 16 to 24 km to get home yesterday.

PM Tony Blair and London Mayor Ken Livingston both made sombre, restrained and highly effective comments on the attack that were noteworthy for both their determination and their lack of the kind of patriotic flag-waving seen in the U.S. after 9/11. London's emergency services have performed admirably.

Even so, the city and the nation remain in shock. Al-Qaida has shown that in spite of the best efforts of the Western powers, it is able to strike even in one of the most heavily guarded cities on Earth.

The attack is also a reminder that the shadowy organization has not been destroyed or even, apparently, incapacitated. The London bombing starkly contradict U.S. claims that al-Qaida and other like-minded extremist groups have been crushed.

AlQueda seems to be at the top of list yet Cnn and other outlets are still speculative of the source. Wonder what can be gained and who needs co-operation to keep the lid on this in the event it is more significant than the usual suspects, or not. And how and why if this is bigger than London (possibly other targets) does the worlds media agree to repeating the same cue words. In the event of oppsites, that being,... no one knows anything or,..there is a hell of a lot of stuff we don't know,...I'll go with latter.

Elphaba · 07-08-2005, 06:52 PM

A personal email from a friend, with obviously strong political beliefs, in London:

I only know what I've read on the 'net, which is that they are muttering about
aQ, as usual. Me, I fancy Mossad sponsored by CIA.

Apart from the poor buggers injured/killed people aren't making a fuss. Most
people would have been more annoyed by the prospect of walking home
afterwards, with no public transport. Let's put it in perspective: some
700,000 people travel on the Tubes and the buses every morning. Whoever it
was can't get 'em all.

We had all this shite for 30 years when the Micks were at it; I was around the
corner when they bombed Harrods at Christmas in 1983. I know we behave
differently to a lot of Merkins, but then we are not a demonstrative people.
Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes not. And despite all the efforts of
Blair and his idiots we are not going to start panicking over this.

More blood on Bush and Blair's hands. Neither of them wants to know that if
we weren't busy killing innocent people on a daily basis in Iraq then innocent
people here wouldn't be getting blown up. Fuck 'em.

I had an email from *M telling me that people on *J were asking about their
'beloved *B' but I managed to resist the temptation to have a look. Told
him he's just jealous.

In the short term this will be a PITA. Croydon, a large town a few miles to
the east of here, was closed down for several hours yesterday while
'suspicious packages' were investigated, and this is bound to be an ongoing
thing. I'm going up to town next week to have lunch with some people -
postponed from yesterday - and I'm just hoping that there aren't any major
delays. My poor old car is on its last legs and, like me, doesn't like to be
kept waiting.

Don't worry about us lot, we'll manage. We always do.

Elphaba · 07-08-2005, 07:03 PM

I need to take a closer look at Host's previous post.

host · 07-08-2005, 07:05 PM

Seaver, I am sorry that you've chosen to "shoot the messenger", instead of reading the message and contemplating what it truly means. I know nothing that is not also available for your examination and consideration, if you look for it. It just affects me differently, perhaps because I lived through America in the '60's, the assassination of the Kennedy's, King, and I saw Oswald silenced on live TV. Vietnam, then Watergate, the fall of Nixon, Carter struggling to be our president and an honest christian American (he couldn't do it), Reagan's academy award winning performance as POTUS, and the selection of Dan Quayle as our VP. I'm weary, Seaver, I'm angry, and I doubt all that they tell us. If you read the examples I provide, I am confident that you will agree that there is considerable basis for my distrust and cynicism. Maybe in the short term, ignoring me is the easiest choice, but none of the incongruities anf contradictions that I display here, or the hypocrisy that I often point out, will go away.

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...522983,00.html
So, Mr Bremer, where did all the money go?

At the end of the Iraq war, vast sums of money were made available to the US-led provisional authorities, headed by Paul Bremer, to spend on rebuilding the country. By the time Bremer left the post eight months later, $8.8bn of that money had disappeared. Ed Harriman on the extraordinary scandal of Iraq's missing billions

Thursday July 7, 2005
The Guardian

When Paul Bremer, the American pro consul in Baghdad until June last year, arrived in Iraq soon after the official end of hostilities, there was $6bn left over from the UN Oil for Food Programme, as well as sequestered and frozen assets, and at least $10bn from resumed Iraqi oil exports. Under Security Council Resolution 1483, passed on May 22 2003, all these funds were transferred into a new account held at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, called the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), and intended to be spent by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) "in a transparent manner ... for the benefit of the Iraqi people".

The US Congress also voted to spend $18.4bn of US taxpayers' money on the redevelopment of Iraq. By June 28 last year, however, when Bremer left Baghdad two days early to avoid possible attack on the way to the airport, his CPA had spent up to $20bn of Iraqi money, compared with $300m of US funds.............

Quote:

http://mkanejeeves.com/?p=129
....Last September, a Rumsfeld commissioned report by the non-governmental Defense Science Board advised the Administration to change it’s Middle East Policy pronto, telling it to listen to the populace of the Middle East and communicate in a way that “should seek to reduce, not increase, perceptions of arrogance, opportunism, and double standards.”

The Board went onto say: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably (in) Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.” Our buddies.

To understand the violence in London, today, you have to take a look at the history of the Middle East. For instance, back in 1917, British Lt. General Stanley Maude declared, after invading and occupying Iraq to “free” its people from dictators. “Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.”

Middle East countries have been “liberated” since before the time of Christ (Rome getting in there, first.) The Middle Eastern nations have been conquered or liberated by the West (And I’m not counting Mongols, because, frankly, who does, anymore? They are soooo passé.), largely after the birth of Christianity by the Crusaders, the Normans, the French (a few times, including by Napoleon), the Germans, the Russians, the British (a few times), the Americans (a few times) and the Nazis (once was enough).

In the last two hundred years, Western liberators (wearing pants and all) decided that the robe-wearing, bearded, turban-clad denizens of the Middle East were somehow “beneath” us. They had to be taught. They had to be led. They had to be “civilized.” And, oh, yeah, there was that riches thing. (In the past hundred years? Oil. Black Gold. Texas Tea. Weee-doggies.)

Plus, they weren’t Christian.

The Rumsfeld appointed panel went onto state: “…when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.”

The panel stated that BushCo. saying “‘freedom is the future of the Middle East’ is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World.”

Arabs, it seems, don’t see themselves in that light. In fact, the report explained, a large majority yearn “to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the U.S. so determinedly promotes and defends.

“In the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering…

“The critical problem in American public diplomacy directed toward the Muslim world is not one of ‘dissemination of information,’ or even one of crafting and delivering the ‘right’ message…

“Rather, it is a fundamental problem of credibility. Simply, there is none…

“If we really want to see the Muslim world as a whole and the Arab-speaking world in particular move toward our understanding of ‘moderation’ and ‘tolerance,’ we must reassure Muslims that this does not mean they must submit to the American way.”

That, plus the latest CIA Report that states Bush’s Iraqi invasion has, basically, inspired thousands of new terrorists to “come on down” and fight the fight on the sands of Iraq, gives you some idea of why London was bombed today.

There have been, and always will be, terrorists. All it takes is ten people and a bomb, or a spear, or a rifle and a belief. But part of the reason London was targeted today is that, for some aberrated reason, Blair decided to back Bush in Bush’s illegal war on Iraq.......

,,,,,,,,,,,, On the same day as the London bombings and the KBR contract, Christopher Preble, a national security specialist at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, declared re: our Iraq fiasco: “There are no good options…There are going to be thousands more casualties and we’re going to spend $4 billion to $8 billion a month for some time to come.”

On the plus side? The Bush administration raised the terror alert a notch to code orange, today, for the nation’s mass transit systems.........

........... Said George Bush: “They have such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks. The war on terrorism is on.

“…we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate.”

Remember that the next time you bomb the heck out of a city filled with innocents, Speed-Racer.

And, remember that the next time you read an official government report that shows that you’ve screwed up big time...........

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec14.html
Bush Gives Medal of Freedom to 'Pivotal' Iraq Figures

By Ann Gerhart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 15, 2004; Page C01

Trumpeting America as liberator, the White House conferred the highest civilian honor yesterday on three men intimately involved with the decision to invade Iraq or the troubled aftermath of the invasion.

President Bush awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Tommy Franks, the now-retired Army general who led the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq; former CIA director George Tenet, who told Bush it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction; and L. Paul Bremer, who presided over the first 14 months of Iraq reconstruction. ............

dlish · 07-08-2005, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Yes the US does some really stupid things in foreign policy, but their rage exists out of stifled democracy in their own country (according to the people from the region). It is out of this rage that these people redirect it at us. Some blame it on the lingering desire to bring back the Ottoman Empire, some blame it on overpopulation, some blame it on many things. But the fact is these people are killing our sons/daughters/mothers/fathers/etc. for reasons we do not deserve in any light.

being from an arab muslim background, i may be the only or one of the few ppl on TFP that can speak about the arab psyche from personal and first hand experience.

now to set things straight, it doesnt matter how much u study the arab world or talk to professors or lecturers in univeristy halls, none of this can be compared to 'living' what the arabs feel on the street. it is there that they discuss their politics. without being there and living the atmosphere, there is no comparison.

i do not live in the mid east, but rather in sydney. i was born here some 27 years ago, and this is where i call home. however, the 'street' is where u hear arab politics...even in australia. the cross sections are similar if not identical.

being an avid fan of arab-western politics, i have a keen ear for what is said on the street.
here is a list of things about the arab psyche which many of you may find useful

1) most arabs do not wantto be ruled the ottomon empire (this includes muslim and christian arabs). in fact, most arabs despise turks for that reason. so for someone to blame resentment of the west on wanting to go back to the days prior to kemal attaturk is a false notion. arabs are proud people, and do not like being ruled by someone foreign or installed by force..which brings me to my second point.

2) for those that say that resentment of the west is due to stifled democracy in arabia..id have to agree partially. the resentment that is directed at the west has many reasons, although 'the street' feedback is that the root reason for resentment is due to meddling of internal affairs and installing puppet governemnts propped up by western countries. after the brits and french tore arabia up between them and gave themselves mandates of certain parts, they installed governments that became oppressive tyrants. those would include the Saudi royal family, the Syrian dictatorship, the Saddam Hussein dictatorship to name a few. so although resentment is directed at the oppressors, the west did have a role to play in that resentment, and that resentment resonates through even till today. i still hear
voices talking about the injustices suffered by their governments, but the western countries are rarely ever mentioned in the same sentence. most of the brunt is directed at their own governemnts. many call for the overthrow of these regimes, but are uncertain of what to replace them with. this is why these regimes have lasted so long.

3) some of this fire is due to povery, overpopulation etc. but these factors are minor, and only play roles in certain circles. some of these circles are fanned by religious extremism, and hence the idea of suicide bombings become appealing because there is no last resort.

4) some of hatred has been fanned by direct occupation by western troops and governments of arab and muslim land. (this is OBL's initial qualm with the west - to remove troops from saudi or he'll declare a holy war against the US) this i think is the biggest ocntributing factor as to why this resentment and hatred has spread so much. resentment i feel is so much higher than any other time in recent history due to direct occupation. like i said earlier, is that the arabs are proud people, and when an occupying force comes through, it cannot go unnoticed. especially when thousands upon thousand have been killed for lame excuses. political upheaval is no easy task for any nation.

5) some religious extremists evidently dont like the western way of life shoved down their throats, and despise what is happening. but although this causes resentment, its hardly enough to start a war over. this westernisation of arabia is welcomed by most though.

so there you have it.. a look into an arabs mindset. please feel free to comment.

aberkok · 07-08-2005, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

However, what you and so many people like you propose, is blaming the victim. It's the moral equivilant [sic] of blaming the rape victim for wearing shorts, because if they were in say... a full burka a man could restrain himself.

I am not looking to place blame. There is a difference between me flat out blaming the west on the attack, and me requesting that more people stop to examine their lifestyle and how it fits into the worldwide economics/food chain/politics which breeds such attacks. If you can't understand this difference, then perhaps I'm not making myself clear. If that's the case then I welcome any questions regarding my position.

Please don't infer that I would place any blame on a rape victim. I hope everyone here is mature and reasonable enough to see the leaps of logic that are being made to arrive at such an accusation.

aberkok · 07-08-2005, 08:17 PM

dlishguy: Thanks for the valuable insight. Sorry I'm a Turk

Don't worry - I have no interest in bringing back the Ottoman Empire.

jorgelito · 07-08-2005, 09:40 PM

Not all Arabs/muslims hate us. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...ims/index.html

alansmithee · 07-08-2005, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberkok

I am not looking to place blame. There is a difference between me flat out blaming the west on the attack, and me requesting that more people stop to examine their lifestyle and how it fits into the worldwide economics/food chain/politics which breeds such attacks. If you can't understand this difference, then perhaps I'm not making myself clear. If that's the case then I welcome any questions regarding my position.

Please don't infer that I would place any blame on a rape victim. I hope everyone here is mature and reasonable enough to see the leaps of logic that are being made to arrive at such an accusation.

I don't see the difference whatsoever, as I brought up the comparison earlier. What you just said would be the equivalent of telling a woman who was raped "no I don't blame you, but maybe you should examine your lifestyle and dress and see how it fits into the sexual desires which breed such attacks".

You are blaming the west for having a desirable lifestyle. Their gov'ts better enable people to achieve a comfortable lifestyle than the generally more autocratic governments in the Middle East, yet somehow it's the fault of western nations that they are resented. Those oil-rich countries in the area could be using their wealth to improve the living conditions of the citizens, but instead they line the pockets of a few high placed individuals. Yet I'm supposed to be to blame for their poor life because I bought some CD's yesterday and ate out?

I personally find it somehow offensive how these horrendous attacks are being hijacked by some as a way to promote their hatred of western society, by making that society somehow to blame for these acts of terrorism. I just hope that if these people are ever the victims of a tragedy, they will face the same blame as the cause of their own misfortune.

roachboy · 07-08-2005, 10:49 PM

alansmithee:

you act as though a desirable lifestyle is some free-floating thing, not connected to an economic sector, for example, which would not only involve lots and lots parts of the production located all around the world but would also involve raw materials that have to come from somewhere and that somewhere would be more often than not elsewhere than the united states. this scale of international economic activity would necessarily entail a range of interactions with foreign policy, which necessarily involves the state and its relations to other states. and so on.

so i can see why you would not consider the economic and foreign policies of the united states and focus rather on the question of "lifestyle" in your analysis of the reason for terrorism above.
and clearly you are right: terrorists do not like you because you like to go to restaurants and you purchase cds. they are just snippy, jealous people who want to live the way you do.

alansmithee · 07-08-2005, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

alansmithee:

you act as though a desirable lifestyle is some free-floating thing, not connected to an economic sector, for example, which would not only involve lots and lots parts of the production located all around the world but would also involve raw materials that have to come from somewhere and that somewhere would be more often than not elsewhere than the united states. this scale of international economic activity would necessarily entail a range of interactions with foreign policy, which necessarily involves the state and its relations to other states. and so on.

so i can see why you would not consider the economic and foreign policies of the united states and focus rather on the question of "lifestyle" in your analysis of the reason for terrorism above.
and clearly you are right: terrorists do not like you because you like to go to restaurants and you purchase cds. they are just snippy, jealous people who want to live the way you do.

The reason I don't believe the economic policy (especially in regards to the global food situation) has anything to do with these terrorist activities is because of who the people committing the acts are. These aren't activities originating from Somalia, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Honduras, Taiwan, India, Bangladesh, Laos, Cambodia, etc. where the effects of the Western world's control of most of the earth's resources are most heavily felt, they are originating from a region where much of the resources (oil) are still under control of the contries themselves. The Middle East is also primarily under the control of autocratic governments with a heavy religious undertone, and that undertone is heavily critical of the Western lifestyle.

And as I said above, I see many people opportunistically using these attacks in London as some sort of political leverage. For instance, despite these bombings being in London, you attributed all the blame for the attacks to the US. If what you say is true, wouldn't the rest of the Western world also hold some of the blame? But doing so doesn't further your agenda as much, hence the need to single out America. And for the record, many on the other side are doing this as well, as was pointed out in a thread about Limbaugh, so this isn't a one-sided tactic.

dlish · 07-08-2005, 11:50 PM

alansmithee,

you seem to think that arabs and muslims desire to live like you do. some do, but many dont. they certainly do not envy you for buying cd's or eating cheap chinese takeaway. and i doubt they'd stone you as you walked down through the souks of damascus or cairo while u wore your nike apparel while muching on some big mac. chances are..they do the same.

its a well known fact that the west and eurpean countries 'raped' and pillaged the resources of third world countries. and its also a well known fact that they also installed these autocratic governments that you talk about. its also these western governments that put these dictators in place, who have been lining their own pockets, so i do see a connection for resentment.

but once again the resentment isnt directed the western governments directly, but rather at the arab leaders.i have heard many a times, people wishing they could do away with the tyrants, but how? and especially how, after the US admisnitration directly supports governments like the Saudi regime. when the topic of regime change for saudi comes up, the US adminstartion is always careful to tread carefully.

but of course i cannot condone the bombing of innocents. espcially the latest tragedy.some may say that the WTC was a legitimate target and that the pentagon was a legitimate target for all that they stand for.

rightly or wrongly thats a contentious issue. however, the bombing of train stations and buses in down town london cannot be condoned by anyone, including arabs and muslims - partly because they have lived through it and know what it is like to live a life being terrorised.

i have also met many people though..non arabs and non muslims who seethe at what the US and western countries have done to their respective countries. and rejoiced at the 911 attacks in secret. so this 'hatred' isnt exclusively for arabs and muslims, but rather its festered by injustices caused however long ago by western countries.

Seaver · 07-09-2005, 12:11 AM

Quote:

but once again the resentment isnt directed the western governments directly, but rather at the arab leaders.i have heard many a times, people wishing they could do away with the tyrants, but how? and especially how, after the US admisnitration directly supports governments like the Saudi regime. when the topic of regime change for saudi comes up, the US adminstartion is always careful to tread carefully.

By assisting us more overtly when we try to right some of these wrongs?

jimbob · 07-09-2005, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

As for Host, thanks for the time saved... I'll be ignoring your posts from now on. Throwing your hat in with the French who believed the Pentagon was hit by a carbomb now? (FYI my uncle was working at the Pentagon at the time, was only a few hundred feet away when it did hit)

Well the French did get the WMD question right. If you still think it was a plane then you can explain why the damage to the outer wall was narrower and less high than the plane reported as missing and why the explosion was white instead of orange - the colour of explosives rather than aircraft fuel. In favour of it being a plane, the lampposts along what would have been the flightpath were bent in the direction of the pentagon, but you'd expect some plane wreckage - particularly from the wings and tail which didn't penetrate the building - and none was found.

Keep your mind open and keep reading Host.

07-07-2005, 02:31 PM	#42 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Wise Move........ __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

07-07-2005, 04:35 PM	#45 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	I find it laughable to think that Al Qaeda is too busy in Afghanistan and Iraq to attack elsewhere. Madrid? Now London? Al Qaeda is not fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq so that they can't hit elsewhere - that simply isn't true. Unlike that stupid flypaper concept, this event has been very startling. Last year, I studied near Russel Sqaure, and passed through both the Russel Square Station and King's Cross Station daily. Probably hundreds of times. If this attack was carried out a year ago, I could have been in the blast. I don't want it to seem like all I can think about is what could have happened to me, but I really feel for those folks in the blast in part because I can picture exactly where they were. I hope that as many people as humanly possible were saved, and that the bastards who did this are caught ASAP. P.S. In King's Cross Station there is a plaque dedicated to those who died in an escalator fire there in 1987. I passed it often. I weep to think that there may be another plaque next to that one soon. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

07-07-2005, 06:13 PM	#47 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	i think a fierce political shakedown is precisely what the aftermath of this situation needs. let's figure out who's responsible and what we can do to improve our defenses for next-time. our international and defense policies are shaped by politicians... let's determine whether we're headed in the right direction or not. how does this event change or reinforce our views of terrorism? do our leaders understand the threat? if not, what is a better course of action? if so, how can we better facilitate a solution? these are all questions with politically linked answers and, i believe, the questions we should be asking ourselves. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

07-07-2005, 06:16 PM	#48 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	I think the point, Seaver, is that Al Qaeda is not some organization - like we might think of as, say, a corporation - that can be easily pinned down or defined. It is more an amorphous network of individuals and groups with highly decentralized leadership that exists in countries all over the world. So it is fallacious to say, like, "Al Qaeda has 65% of its resources tied up in Iraq," because Al Qaeda isn't really measurable like that. So rather than this being a cousin group, as you put it, it may be a group that is part of and supported by the network that is loosely defined as Al Qaeda. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

07-07-2005, 07:32 PM	#49 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	interesting that al qeada has been refigured in that way, isn't it? the idea that the fln was in fact an organization like the french army only secret was the impetus behind a massive campaign of torture through and after 1956. the matter only blew up politically when some pcf guy who was working in opposition to france's "police action" was tortured and the press found out about it. i find that interesting. sometimes parallels are direct. sometimes they're just curious and kinda ominous but you can't say why exactly. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-07-2005, 03:10 PM	#43 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Thank you, Pan for the reminder here. The topic in the General forum brought home to me that real people on tfp are involved and trying to reach loved ones. I just heard that one (or more) of the tubes is ready to go for tomorrow's commute. My hat is off to the British response team.

07-07-2005, 04:15 PM	#44 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Again is one of those rare times I side with Roachboy. It's a political coup for Al Quaeda to claim responsibility for this. I simply dont think they have the resources at the moment to pull these things off. They have their hands full in Afghanistan and Iraq. What I think this is, is a cousin terrorist group. Sure they probably took notes from AQ, but it is by no means as complicated as AQ is known for. Planting bombs in busses and subway can be done by a 9 year old, taking over planes and flying into buildings (3 within minutes of each other) is much more complicated. This is a tragedy no doubt, but if this was AQ there would have been many more dead IMO.

07-07-2005, 08:56 PM	#50 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	From what I understand is happening in our country (the Netherlands), there are many young muslims angry at the west for various reasons. If you add some good "mentor" to such people, that anger will grow into hatred, which will grow into an acceptance that terrorism is justified. Sometimes there's not even face-to-face contact, but only e-mails and chats. IMO, that is what Al-Qaida is: lots of small groups of like-minded angry young Muslims (read: kids), with a few diabolical mentors. When they do their deeds, "Al-Qaida" claims responsibility, because these youths want to be associated with their heroes. OBL may not be directly responsible, he may not have pulled the strings directly, but his influence is still there.

07-07-2005, 09:32 PM	#53 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	I continue to be shocked by those who would use the term "terrorism" as a noun. I remember the good old days when it was used descriptively. Looks like we're buying what the media's created. Blaming "terrorists" sounds, to my ears, just like saying: "they" did it. When asked who "they" is, I can't imagine, nor have I heard, any intelligent response. I challenge everyone here to not use the term anymore. It feels like those who would be quick to blame "terrorists," or "Al Qaeda" (whom I confess not to understand the make-up of) are lashing out blindly and in a panic. Does that seem smart to you? Another thought: Why is the last thing anyone seems to want to do is examine the reasons why such hatred might be created? Instead, an enemy must be found. Most unthinking people are happy with the word "terrorist," because as long as someone's doing something about "them" then they don't have to do anything, like maybe reduce their consumption, or maybe get educated about food politics, to give two examples at the tip of the iceberg. No, they can go on living their unchallenging life. The world's problems aren't their fault, it's the TERRORISTS" fault! I don't think it's news to anyone that we in the west hold most of the wealth, and continue to do so off the backs of the other 90% of the world. Well guess what, someone wants it back because maybe their kid died of starvation or was blown up. Would you be angry if you lived in poverty your whole life? Maybe your child was blown-up in front of you? What? It was your grandmother? Would that make you angry? Congratulations. You're one step closer to bombing those you feel are responsible for your family's suffering. Let's not point fingers without proof. I give thanks that my uncle and his family live in Hull and not London. I'm still waiting to hear from some friends. I can't even begin to pretend to know who did this or what their motivations were. Please don't presume that you do. Question your proof. __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

07-08-2005, 07:01 AM	#62 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	I agree with Aberkor about how the term "terrorist" has been reshaped by the media. Though I have to add that around here, in the circles I travel "terrorist" has become synonymous with "Islamic Fundamentalist". Concerning the second point of ourselves in the west trying to do something to aliviate the hatred towards us. I think both Aberkor and alansmithee have a point. Alansmithee's rape victim analogy is rather good. Yet it doesnt cancel out Aberkors argument. It's important to deal with both the cause and the effect. Conspiracy theories around the timing of the event don't hold much water for me. I don't think London would have lost the bid. London dealt with terrorist attacks in the past, this is nothing new to them. Any city hosting the game would be a terrorist target, Paris, London or New York, it really doesnt matter much. Then we all know of the political, economic and most importantly idiological impact that 9/11 had on this country. After 9/11 the majority of the damage to this country was done by America it'self.

07-08-2005, 06:52 PM	#68 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	A personal email from a friend, with obviously strong political beliefs, in London: I only know what I've read on the 'net, which is that they are muttering about aQ, as usual. Me, I fancy Mossad sponsored by CIA. Apart from the poor buggers injured/killed people aren't making a fuss. Most people would have been more annoyed by the prospect of walking home afterwards, with no public transport. Let's put it in perspective: some 700,000 people travel on the Tubes and the buses every morning. Whoever it was can't get 'em all. We had all this shite for 30 years when the Micks were at it; I was around the corner when they bombed Harrods at Christmas in 1983. I know we behave differently to a lot of Merkins, but then we are not a demonstrative people. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes not. And despite all the efforts of Blair and his idiots we are not going to start panicking over this. More blood on Bush and Blair's hands. Neither of them wants to know that if we weren't busy killing innocent people on a daily basis in Iraq then innocent people here wouldn't be getting blown up. Fuck 'em. I had an email from M telling me that people on J were asking about their 'beloved *B' but I managed to resist the temptation to have a look. Told him he's just jealous. In the short term this will be a PITA. Croydon, a large town a few miles to the east of here, was closed down for several hours yesterday while 'suspicious packages' were investigated, and this is bound to be an ongoing thing. I'm going up to town next week to have lunch with some people - postponed from yesterday - and I'm just hoping that there aren't any major delays. My poor old car is on its last legs and, like me, doesn't like to be kept waiting. Don't worry about us lot, we'll manage. We always do.

07-08-2005, 07:03 PM	#69 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I need to take a closer look at Host's previous post.

07-08-2005, 08:17 PM	#73 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	dlishguy: Thanks for the valuable insight. Sorry I'm a Turk Don't worry - I have no interest in bringing back the Ottoman Empire. __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

07-08-2005, 09:40 PM	#74 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Not all Arabs/muslims hate us. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...ims/index.html __________________ "The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter

07-08-2005, 10:49 PM	#76 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	alansmithee: you act as though a desirable lifestyle is some free-floating thing, not connected to an economic sector, for example, which would not only involve lots and lots parts of the production located all around the world but would also involve raw materials that have to come from somewhere and that somewhere would be more often than not elsewhere than the united states. this scale of international economic activity would necessarily entail a range of interactions with foreign policy, which necessarily involves the state and its relations to other states. and so on. so i can see why you would not consider the economic and foreign policies of the united states and focus rather on the question of "lifestyle" in your analysis of the reason for terrorism above. and clearly you are right: terrorists do not like you because you like to go to restaurants and you purchase cds. they are just snippy, jealous people who want to live the way you do. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-08-2005, 11:50 PM	#78 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	alansmithee, you seem to think that arabs and muslims desire to live like you do. some do, but many dont. they certainly do not envy you for buying cd's or eating cheap chinese takeaway. and i doubt they'd stone you as you walked down through the souks of damascus or cairo while u wore your nike apparel while muching on some big mac. chances are..they do the same. its a well known fact that the west and eurpean countries 'raped' and pillaged the resources of third world countries. and its also a well known fact that they also installed these autocratic governments that you talk about. its also these western governments that put these dictators in place, who have been lining their own pockets, so i do see a connection for resentment. but once again the resentment isnt directed the western governments directly, but rather at the arab leaders.i have heard many a times, people wishing they could do away with the tyrants, but how? and especially how, after the US admisnitration directly supports governments like the Saudi regime. when the topic of regime change for saudi comes up, the US adminstartion is always careful to tread carefully. but of course i cannot condone the bombing of innocents. espcially the latest tragedy.some may say that the WTC was a legitimate target and that the pentagon was a legitimate target for all that they stand for. rightly or wrongly thats a contentious issue. however, the bombing of train stations and buses in down town london cannot be condoned by anyone, including arabs and muslims - partly because they have lived through it and know what it is like to live a life being terrorised. i have also met many people though..non arabs and non muslims who seethe at what the US and western countries have done to their respective countries. and rejoiced at the 911 attacks in secret. so this 'hatred' isnt exclusively for arabs and muslims, but rather its festered by injustices caused however long ago by western countries. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy