London Explosions

Barged into Afghanistan?

Even the Germans showed up with the Russians on that one.

Your comment is unfounded, on 9-11-01 the United States had 'barged' in nowhere. They got what the deserved in Afghanistan.


Hey, I understand Denmark is next..

lets see:

Moscow, London, New Dehli, Madrid, Bali,



Maybe you can justify some of these

Grand Mosque Seizure, November 20, 1979: 200 Islamic terrorists seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, taking hundreds of pilgrims hostage. Saudi and French security forces retook the shrine after an intense battle in which some 250 people were killed and 600 wounded.

Air India Bombing, June 23, 1985: A bomb destroyed an Air India Boeing 747 over the Atlantic, killing all 329 people aboard. Both Sikh and Kashmiri terrorists were blamed for the attack. Two cargo handlers were killed at Tokyo airport, Japan, when another Sikh bomb exploded in an Air Canada aircraft en route to India.

Soviet Diplomats Kidnapped, September 30, 1985: In Beirut, Lebanon, Sunni terrorists kidnapped four Soviet diplomats. One was killed but three were later released.

Chechen Rebels Seize a Moscow Theater, October 23-26, 2002: Fifty Chechen rebels led by Movsar Barayev seized the Palace of Culture Theater in Moscow, Russia, to demand an end to the war in Chechnya. They seized more than 800 hostages from 13 countries and threatened to blow up the theater. During a three-day siege, they killed a Russian policeman and five Russian hostages. On October 26, Russian Special Forces pumped an anesthetic gas through the ventilation system and then stormed the theater. All of the rebels were killed, but 94 hostages (including one American) also died, many from the effects of the gas. A group led by Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev claimed responsibility.



Beslan?


remember the hijacked plane they planned to crash into the Eiffel Tower back in 1995/96


Bruguiere and other French intelligence officials like to note dryly that France first realized it had become a target of al Qaeda-style jihadists when a group of Algerian radicals hijacked an airliner with the intent of crashing it into the Eiffel Tower in 1994. They viewed the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as another, if much larger, part of the jihadist campaign against Western civilization.


That French special prosecutor/ judge already had a job before September 2001



Can you some how find a way to blame President Bush for these acts
also?


The German Interior Minister speaks

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,156 ... 82,00.html


Hmmm, maybe Van Gogh was really killed by aliens


Have you been to Malmo lately?

 

the Russian theatre seige screwed up because the gas had to be pumped in through every avable entrance to fill the room, so the people closest to the points where the gas was realsed delieverd a fatal dosage to the hostages in that area, whilst knocking the other hostages out. that type of gas in expirmental in CT seiges and we havent till the theatre seige learnt how deadly it could be. In all honesty i couldnt see that particular seige "go noisey" because of the risk of killing many hostages because of the layout of the building, so i dont think it could have ended anyother way because the Russian goverment arent going to give in and they didnt want blood on their hands so the only option was to use expirmental gas.

 

Note that I said they barged in after the first attack. I can't think of anything that would put more fuel to the fire of Islamic terrorists. The terrorists did obviously strike first, and for that there is no fault in the USA; however, the best way to counter terrorism is to make sure that fear isn't spread, denying the weapon its effect. Like turning a bomb into a flashbang.

I'm surprised you actually heard of this?
This, by the way, was not an act of terrorism but of hatred and intolerance.

??

 

9 minus 1 minus 1 is 7. :lol:

 

That is uncalled for.

 

Although Iam not from london all is appreciated.

 

75 dead and 730+ injured

 

First I would like to offer condolences to all those Brits affected by these despicable acts.
I have no doubt that the British people will keep a stiff upper lip in the face of these cowardly acts of terrorism that target innocents in order to gain publicity.

Roel wrote:

This to me seems like justification of their actions and appeasement as the recommended way of dealing with them.

Yet now you brand them as criminals? If they are criminals, and I have no doubt that they are, then why should their actions result in a "reaching out to the Muslim world"? Why shouldn't they be treated as criminals?
Furthermore I haven't seen much reaching out by these so called peace loving Muslim countries as of yet. Not after 9/11 and not after these acts of terrorisms committed in the name of all Muslims.
The whole idea of stopping terrorism by making them love us is misquided and will not work. As long as they are motivated by fundamentalist Islam they will consider the decadent secular western societies as their mortal enemies. Have you not listened to what the leaders of the Terrorist organizations have been saying all along?
Osama made it quite clear and his lieutenants are just as radically oriented.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 70,00.html

That reminded me of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker, who was shot by an Islamist assassin on his way to work in Amsterdam last November. According to witnesses, Van Gogh begged for mercy and tried to reason with his assailant. “Surely we can discuss this,” he kept saying as the shots kept coming. “Let us talk it over.”

Van Gogh, who had angered Islamists with his documentary about the mistreatment of women in Islam, was reacting like BBC reporters did yesterday, assuming that the man who was killing him may have some reasonable demands which could be discussed in a calm, democratic atmosphere.

But sorry, old chaps, you are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it his divine duty to kill you.


The author is an Iranian commentator on Middle Eastern affairs.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Malmo+muslims

Malmo

 

Stonewall and Grieg, you both make the mistake to think that "Muslim countries" means the same as "terrorist organizations". My suggestion on how to deal with terrorism would only have been appeasement had the Muslim governments themselves been the terrorist organizations; however, they are not, they are independent of them and if the lack of any evidence that the Iraqi government supported terrorists hasn't opened your eyes to this then what will?

The vast majority of Muslims despise the terrorists that form the fundamentalist corner of their religious group. Why? Because the methods of organizations like Al Quaeda are against Islam itself. Then can we not talk to Muslim countries, knowing that the vast majority of the people who form their inhabitants, do not support terrorism in any way or even condone it? Can we not establish friendly relations with them if only to stomp down the seed of a positive attitude towards terrorism where it is sown?

I am not saying the US or the UK should go and reason with terrorists. On the contrary, I say everything should be done to fight them and to make sure they lose every bit of support they have, because they are criminals. "Appease" the countries they use to hide in, and they will lose local support; but never, never give them what they want, be it political or military action or just the spreading of fear. Do not give them fear. Acting violently against an organization that can be linked to them (a Muslim government for example) but isn't, results in more people believing the terrorist's cause to be righteous.

 

The author is an Iranian commentator on Middle Eastern affairs.


I actually speak a fair amout of Farsi...


So I don't really agree with your analysis about me.


Having many refugee friensds from the Islamic Republic of Iran, I get the impression that the people are more pro western than some nations being discussed as a potential EU members.

 

Roel wrote:

If, as you say, there is no connection between Muslim countries and Muslim terrorists then why should our response to the terrorists be, as you say, "establishing friendly relations with Muslim countries.".
What Muslim countries are on an unfriendly basis with the UK?
You say that if we appease the countries they hide in they will lose local support. The fact that they have local support is due to a type of radical fundamentalist Islam that they share with the terrorists. How, pray tell will appeasement change the minds of these religious zealots?

 

The only connection between Muslim countries and Muslim fundamentalist terrorist organizations is that the latter lives in the former. However, since Islam is essentially a moderate religion, the majority of Muslims will not support the methods employed by terrorists unless they see it as the only viable option. This is most common among those who feel threatened by the west directly, or those who are without opportunity in life because of poverty. Thusly, both restrictions on trade with Muslim countries and direct active violence against Muslim countries puts fuel to the fire of terrorist organizations, which is why I see doing neither as the best option when confronting terrorism.

Basically what I'm saying is that you can't argue with these fundamentalist zealots, you can't reason or compromise with them, but then again it appears they can't be fought either, since after almost four years of 'War on Terror' they are as elusive and active as when it started. However, you can tear away their support by taking away the reasons for terrorism; a feeling of lack of options when confronting the West.

 

Roel wrote:

This is just a new twist on an old Leftist theme..poverty as the cause of crime..now it's poverty as the cause of terrorism.

Both are total BS IMO.

Folowers of a "moderate religion" will not begin killing innocent people. in contravention to the tenents of that religion, merely because they cannot afford to carry the latest cell phone or drive a luxury car.

 

Poverty may have something to do with it, as may lack of education etc., but the bottom line is that Islam is not a 'moderate' religion. It's hardly a religion, more a fascist ideology in the guise of a religion. The acts of terrorism are only the symptoms, the disease is Islam itself.

I strongly recommend that you all have a good look at this site :

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

 

all this is just fanatism, which we can not control or eliminate nor hit back, if the situation keep goin on we might see another crusade? ( christians vs muslims)

 

They attack our capitals, London, Moscow , Washington, New Delhi


I guess we will threaten their religious capital


MAD :bang:

 

Uh-oh.

Right.

1) The tactic of degrading the threat from terrorists / guerillas / etc by cutting off their popular support (which Roel is advocating) is actually quite a good one (see Malaysia). Whether it will work in this case, I do not know, but surely it is not a bad thing to attempt.

2) Poverty may be a cause via an unusual link - illiteracy. If you are told by your Holy Man that Society X are evil heretics and that if you fight them you are doing God's work, and if you die fighting you go to heaven...
How will you know any better?
Has anybody else spotted the parallel to the Crusades yet?

Education might work. Have you heard the rubbish that the Middle Eastern radio stations spout?

3) If the Western world wants every (and I mean every) Muslim to rise up and attack, then sure, go ahead and bomb their Holy sites. :roll:

 

I wouldn't condemm islam as some kind of fascist system.The truth is that the great majority of muslims are peace loving people like all others.
But I do agree that Islam is basically an agressive religion.
At some point of it's history, this was also true for Christianity.

And let's not forget that only 10 years ago the christian Serbs massacred over 8000 innocent people in Srebrenica, just because they were....muslims.
But being a christian I know that such killers have understood nothing about Christianity, and are not representative for it.
Same for Islam....

When dealing with terrorism, there are 2 mistakes I think the west should avoid under any circumstances:

- Giving up some of our freedom in favour of security.

- Accept the logic of war of cultures, west against islam which Ben Laden wants to happen

If we avoid these mistakes, and Ben Laden sees that he cannot harm our freedom, and won't get us into a "crusade" against Islam, then his attacks in the West will be a failure.

Another great problem is the situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
In 2001, islamic terrorists lost Afghanistan, but they won Iraq in 2003, and are about to retake control over large parts of Afghanistan again.The role of Pakistan here is more than dubious.
Like an islam expert wrote in a newspaper here recently:You can borrow an afghan but you cannot buy him....

We should know that such terrorist attacks on our cities cannot be avoided.There will always be some fanatic fundamentalists ready to kill innocent people.
There won't be any quick solution to the problem.