London Explosions

Ah, but I was serious :smok:

 

Absolutly Hilarious!

Remind me not to do any such foolish thing if I travel abroad

 

Ok - Desertwolf, if you travel abroad, don't...

 

I heard an interesting interview on the Today programme (BBC Radio 4)this morning.

(I have heavily paraphrased - neither the interviewer nor the interviewee were as blunt or as rude as I have written below )

A member of the British Council of Mosques was on, basically stating the official position that Islam is against suicide, and roundly condemning the suicide bombers in London. Which, can I state for the record, is a good thing to do, very appreciated (by myself, at least), and hopefully it will help to stop all Muslims in Britain being victimised for the actions of an extremist minority.

Interviewer: Thanks. Interesting question - why has your organisation never condemned suicide bombings elsewhere, like in Palestine?

Interviewee: You can't compare London (talked at length about how Muslims in England live in freedom) to Palestine (talked at length along the party line of 'they stole our land, brutal regime, etc).

er: And that condones suicide bombing?

ee: Well, no. Nothing condones it.

er: So would you condemn Palestinian suicide bombers?

ee: No.

er: So you condone it?

ee: No, I was explaining why they do it, not justifying it.

er: So do you condemn it?

ee: No.

And it went in that little circle until they ran out of time.

(for 'you' she meant 'your organisation' - the British Council of Mosques)

Which I found interesting, although in truth the guy was probably not expecting such a question and the Council had not prepared an answer, so he stuck to diplomatic principles of 'do not commit to an answer'.

 

Seems like the interviewer failed to distinguish between an objective analysis of why suicide bombing is so common in Palestine, and the subjective opinion on it of the interviewee, which the latter wouldn't give.

 

She was asking why the British Council of Mosques, of whom the interviewee was the official representative, had never condemned suicide bombings elsewhere, and Palestine became the example.

Sorry, paraphrasing does come with hazards - ~I have edited the post slightly...

 

Very Interesting interview actually. I cn see the tough position that official would be in!

 

they would say that wouldnt they....the fact they do not condem all suicide bombings tells me that they support this kind of extermist action is some way shape or form and have some sympathies towards groups who perpetrate such acts.

just watch their body language of these people when they are interviewed about sensitive topics...often the actions do not match what they are saying.

 

Now that we know more about the bombers what does it do to the poverty as a cause of terrorism theory? Were not these bombers British citizens, relatively well off when compared to most of the truly poverty stricken people of the world. One was a teacher with a responsible position and a wife and family.
It seems to me that poverty played no role whatsoever in the motivations of these people. The religious zealotry and intolerance that spurred them on apparently was the result of indoctrination by purveyors of the "religion of peace"?
These people have declared a holy war with the west based on fundamental idelogical reasons that no amount of pandering or appeasement will serve to assuage IMO.

 

No Muslim representatives have ever come out and condemned terrorist attacks. In fact, I find their silence to be deafening.

Maybe it's just me but it seems that the Muslim religion can't tolerate existing in a global society.

As for poverty, that's the crutch for all problems to be hanged on. Poverty doesn't cause a d*** thing.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4694441.stm

Poverty is one cause along with incorrect education. Just because some terrorists are educated or better off doesn't mean it is not a cause. There is no one single cause and therefore there is no one single cure.

 

Headline in a Middle East newspaper. (Not recently, possibly Syria)

" Islaam is the religeon of peace. Death to our enemy Israel"

Talk about hypocracy!

 

poverty got nothin to do with it!

if that were the case why arnt the countries of the third world bombing the developed world?

most african countries are far worse of than those in the middle east but we dont see them bombing cities in europe and the us!

ppl will try to see any other cause than the real one...which is religious intolerance pure and simple!

 

A suicide bomber has been shot dead by police in stockwell tube station

 

That poor people don't automatically turn into terrorists is obvious. This doesn't mean, however, that poverty "got nothin to do with it". Terrorist organizations are usually led by well-educated, well-to-do religious leaders; they have to find their following somewhere, however. The people who have committed the attacks on London were obviously not poor but their motivations are in fact known to no one; no one can explain why they did it. It's not just because they weren't poor, but because they weren't anything most terrorists are except under the influence of radical Muslim leaders.

Interesting. So apparently all of the Muslim world supports these terrorists and thinks they are right, because if they wouldn't do so, they'd be heretics. Indeed it is truly amazing how many of the 1.3 billion muslims in the world have actually blown themselves up in an attempt to clear the world of western domination. :-?

It is true of course that monotheistic religions are inherently intolerant, and that many other factors add to the current stance of many Muslims towards the Western world. But guess what? The West is not a homogenuous religious entity! Therefore there must be some other grudge radical Muslims have with the West. Like, perhaps, the economic and political dominance over the world and the US and her allies' recent arbitrary use of this dominance? Doesn't that have something to do with poverty?

 

It's all well and good to make a blanket statement however in order to persuade anyone there should be some logical rationale and a convincing argument accompanying said statement. I could claim that poor dental hygiene is a cause of terrorism however unless I make a good case for it by establishing a logical basis for a causal relationship few are likely to be persuaded.

 

Roel wrote:

Where in "these people have declared a holy war with the west" did you find a condemnation of all 1.3 billion Muslim people? I was referring to the terrorists. Don't distort my words to attempt to make a point of your own. Let your thesis stand or fall on it's own merits

Who said their intolerance is based on antagonism towards the religion of the west? I didn't. Their leaders have stated that it is also the godlessness of the west that they despise(as well as contrary religious views). Infidels are infidels whether pagan or Christian or Jew.
Instead of speculating on possible causes as to why they hate us why not listen to what reasons they themselves give?

Arbitrary? Can you expand upon that notion a bit?

 

What they're saying on the radio news at the moment is that a man has been shot dead outside a tube station by police hunting yesterday's failed tube-bombers, they haven't come out and said he actually was a suicide bomber or one of them, yet.

As for poverty, I do think it does have something to do with the causes of terrorism. As far as I'm aware in many Islamic countries the majority of the population lives in pretty poor conditions and under those circumstances poor, young and disadvantaged men (In particular) will feel more inclined to turn to violence, especially if a minority of educated but bigotted individuals are instructing them to strike out against their oppressors (Real or imaginary).

The key here is that for a violent body such as a terrorist organisation to be established and perpetuate you need a large body of disgruntled individuals to support it, lead by an intelligent core to make the decisions and plan operations. The core need to maintain the support of the mass and can do so by directing anger and bitterness at the enemy (As some extremist Muslim clerics do), if they do not maintain this channeling of aggression towards an external foe the groups usually fracture and fragment. This is what seems largely to happen in Africa, tribal violence by Africans directed at Africans, if they ever united against a common external enemy there would almost certainly be international African terrorist groups.

Similarly if there is no cause for dissaffection among the youth, there is no support for the movement which will quickly run out of steam. It's no good telling people that all their problems are down to America/Britain if they don't actually have any real problems!

A generally poor populace is more likely to be poorly educated, and more likely to be more easily indoctrinated.

There are of course always going to be exceptions, but it's worth pointing out that although one of the suicide bombers was a teacher and family man, one of the others was descibed in a quote by a neighbour as "A bit of a Dork" and a social recluse.

 

I tried to avoid pulling the poverty card as a blanket statement but rather to support the thesis much like Simon did in the previous post. Attacking the way in which I'm arguing seems like an overreaction to something you expected me to do, which is to conform to a stereotype.

Well, there are many ways to interpret "these people", aren't there. JCalhoun also stated that "no Muslim representatives have ever come out and condemned terrorist attacks" (even though Desertwolf did just a few posts ago). I was assuming that you were talking about the Muslim world in general.

My point was really that if their motivation is not religious, it must also have some other motivational grounds. Such as frustration, or distortion of the truth by fanatical leaders influencing others through the lack of education of the masses. I.E. poverty.

Something along the lines of "This terrorist grouping attacked us. We can trace some vague links to a mean dictator we've wanted out for a decade. Let's attack".

 

Roel wrote:

I don't see where Simon related his theory of the poverty/terrorism link to the London bombers.

A criticism is not an attack. I don't assume you will conform to a sterotype..however you can be depended upon to support the "party line" more often than not

Why don't we use the plainly obvious one? i.e referring to terrorists which is what my post was concerned with.

Not sure what this means. Is Desertwolf a "muslim representative"?

Why would you assume that their motivation was not religious? They claim that it is..do you have good reason to doubt their claim?

You might find the justification attenuated perhaps but to claim it is arbitrary (as though motivated by whim or impulse) is hyperbole IMO.