London mayor blames Middle East policy for bombings

[mukade]

Hey Mukade, who is the "your" you are referring to?

Sorry, I forgot to quote the post.

I was reffering to the orginal poster.

Mukade

[anniemcu]

I really hope this doesn't turn into another thread where everyone who doesn't like the message starts criticizing the messenger.

You're the one who did that.

No, he isn't. He posted the info about the Mayor's statements - putting the truth out there. Who is being attacked? The ones who stand up and say "Here are some of the facts that we need to look at and deal with."

Very typical, and foolish.

[anniemcu]

...What I am objecting to is your taking only one side of his interview and posting it to make political points. That is the same tactic the BNP have been using to create hatred against the Muslim community.

The last thing we need now is more hatred.

Mukade

I fail to see where the quote, or anything else in that original post, in any way promotes hatred.

[The Weekenders]

I don’t think the "talk with terrorists" strategy will work here. The Aim of the IRA is to get the British out of Ireland. But the Islamic extremists have as their goal the destruction of Western democracy to be replaced with an Islamic state. There is nothing to discuss, we either surrender to their demands or fight. I agree that we may have provoked their hatred of us and even their extreme tactics by our useless foreign policy towards the Arab world. But, this doesn’t change where we are now. Unless you are willing to become a Muslim, you will not get anywhere talking to these hate driven extremists.

That's basically my view and my problem with Livingstone is, that as a leader, cataloguing Western sins is beside the point and possibly giving "aid and comfort" to the wrong people. The idea is not to ennoble the jihadists by making their case, because after all, everybody has a case in the big picture. I am speaking here of nations and cultures. Everyone has strengths, weaknesses, hypocrisies, histories involving bloodshed, etc. No one has moral high ground. In the end, maybe you have to make some choices when bullets and bombs are flying about, even if you wish the world were a better place.

You may want to understand the terrorists but the immediate reality for London is to identify, isolate and capture terrorists; not define, explain and sympathize.

It never ceases to amaze and depress me that several rabid posters here harbor such hatred and resentment of Western culture and countries. Like teenagers who have brooding contempt for their parents and family homes, they hyperfocus on their own familiar domain and lack the overview that a few years away from home might supply. Yeah, your parents were hypocritical and imperfect, but have you had a chance to really look at the other guys parents? Are they that much better? Yes, you want to do better than your parents, but does that mean that nothing they provided you had value?

Every system has its flaws but there is a long-term civilizing process that occurs and its more facilitated by Western democratic models of govt. than medieval theocracies. Several major world cultures have already tried those, and history is rife with their bloody consequences. My way of looking at the world is to fully acknowledge those consequences and inclinations but when forced to choose and defend who is looking out for my interests, it's pretty hard to choose Islam. And its hard for me to understand those of you who continue to hyperfocus on our faults while the other side is so obviously bent on destroying you.

Jihadists are following both personal and social inclinations in their actions. Likely, they are ennobled by the purity of their unreformed religion. They are given to animal-like passion which is the stuff of poetry and mythology but doesn't function well on a crowded planet. I can't imagine screaming to my Holy Father while I cut somebody's head off – but it reminds me of berserkers and other images of our various other (not just Western) cultures' PAST, not present.

The jihadists feel some sense of glory because they have stripped away the artifices and complexities of industrialized life and have come down to a simple version of living and dying for the glory of their God. Never mind that their manipulators choose safe harbor while they send the acolytes off to die with no protection; you might bring up that Bush does a similar thing, but in fact there is an actual mandate for our soldiers to survive to fight another day and go home as well, so the comparison breaks down there.

There is an awful sense of self-disdain when you have to snuff out the fires of such passions in the name of some bigger principle that you find wanting in morality (the Western "system"). Perhaps some of you just don't want to be a part of it and I understand that.

But who is it going to be and where does that leave you? Do you want an Islamic ascendancy in place when we have already lived through centuries of religious wars? To give credibility to the jihadists is yielding a small inch to their vision and I can't fathom how that helps the outcome in favor of freedom from their theocracy.

Bush and the neo-cons have obviously set up the latest context of grievances being used by the Islamists. But does that make anything going on in London even an iota more acceptable? Is there ANY good reason to take anything less than a hard line against the jihadists?

[spittin_in_the_wind]

But if you can't stomach reading Osamad's writing because he's a terrorist and kills people -- how can you listen to Bush? (maybe you can't stomach him either?)

No, I can't stomach him, either! After watching State of the Union each year I feel polluted...

I'll accept it as my flaw not to want to read the writings of Osama, but it doesn't make me more willing to do it. It would feel like reading Hitler or something, it's just too ulcer-inducing, sorry. I'm sure there are other sources that don't require my giving Osama the validation of reading his stuff. That being said, I can see the value of knowing what is in there; I just don't want to be the person to dive into that pile.

Robin

[jGilder]

Hey Mukade, who is the "your" you are referring to?

Sorry, I forgot to quote the post.

I was reffering to the orginal poster.

Mukade

Cop on! All I did was post an article that the BBC published. You seem to want to make this discussion something personal about me. This is silly.

[jGilder]

But if you can't stomach reading Osamad's writing because he's a terrorist and kills people -- how can you listen to Bush? (maybe you can't stomach him either?)

No, I can't stomach him, either! After watching State of the Union each year I feel polluted...

I'll accept it as my flaw not to want to read the writings of Osama, but it doesn't make me more willing to do it. It would feel like reading Hitler or something, it's just too ulcer-inducing, sorry. I'm sure there are other sources that don't require my giving Osama the validation of reading his stuff. That being said, I can see the value of knowing what is in there; I just don't want to be the person to dive into that pile.

Robin

Believe me... I understand. As much as I can't stand to listen to Bush, I'm compelled to because I want to see what lies he's telling this time. The same compulsion led me to read Osama's letter to America, but I couldn't find many lies. His writing is far more fact based than what Bush says in his speeches. The hardest part about reading what Osama says is that his response is unfathomable and unforgivable. Bush's war in Iraq is also unfathomable and unforgivable, but in this battle -- Bush and the history of US Middle Eastern policy is the aggressor. Osama is responding to aggression.

I'm not justifying terrorism, but let me offer some allegory:

If some big guy came up to you and stood on your toe -- you'd ask him to please get off. If they refused, you might look around for friends to help. If your friends also asked the guy to get off your toe, and he refused -- someone might go and find a policeman. If the policeman shows up and refuses to make the guy get off your toe -- what are you going to do? Knee him in the balls and run like hell.

The victims of US foreign policy have tried to seek legal assistance in their protest of US atrocities against them through International law. The US vetoed the UN resolution condemning Saddam for gassing the Kurds, and they vetoed countless UN resolutions condemning the Israeli government for its treatment of the Palestinians. When you combine that sort of behavior with the US overthrow of the democracy in Iran and installation of a dictator there, as well as the CIA activity in Iraq that brought Saddam's Ba'ath party to power... and eventually Saddam himself, as well as the continued support of repressive regimes in the region -- it amounts to being a big guy standing on their toes. This kind of desperation without legal recourse leads to getting kicked in the balls.

Remove, if possible, the atrocities of 9-11 just long enough to get through Osama’s letter. The US government doesn’t want anyone listening to what he has to say, and I can understand why. But I can also see that it paints a much clearer picture of what US foreign policy means to the victims.

Most Americans aren’t aware of the brutality that US policy exacts on Middle Eastern people. If they did, maybe they would be demanding we let the people of the Middle East control their own government and resources. People in America wouldn’t want any foreign government controlling our affairs that way – so why is it ok for us to do it to them?

[jGilder]

That's basically my view and my problem with Livingstone is, that as a leader, cataloguing Western sins is beside the point and possibly giving "aid and comfort" to the wrong people. The idea is not to ennoble the jihadists by making their case, because after all, everybody has a case in the big picture. I am speaking here of nations and cultures. Everyone has strengths, weaknesses, hypocrisies, histories involving bloodshed, etc. No one has moral high ground. In the end, maybe you have to make some choices when bullets and bombs are flying about, even if you wish the world were a better place.

I guess you prefer leaders to say silly things like, "They're jealous of our freedom." or "They want to destroy our way of life." Livingston has the courage to address the real issues at stake rather than cloaking it in some sort of convoluted and hypocritical patriotism. It doesn't give "aid and comfort to the wrong people," but rather gives a sane overview of the bigger picture for a change. Bush's statements give aid and comfort to the wrong people by propping up flawed rational for immoral policy. That policy is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

It never ceases to amaze and depress me that several rabid posters here harbor such hatred and resentment of Western culture and countries.

It never ceases to amaze and depress me that you consider sane criticism of a flawed and immoral foreign policy as hate. By dressing it as hate you think you can easily quell the argument. This is a cheap tactic. According to the principals of the constitution and the beliefs of our founding fathers it's our patriotic responsibility as citizens to criticize the government when we recognize anti-American activities coming from the leaders. Our foreign policy for the past 50 years has contradicted just about everything this country supposedly stands for.

Like teenagers who have brooding contempt for their parents and family homes, they hyperfocus on their own familiar domain and lack the overview that a few years away from home might supply. Yeah, your parents were hypocritical and imperfect, but have you had a chance to really look at the other guys parents? Are they that much better? Yes, you want to do better than your parents, but does that mean that nothing they provided you had value?

Fine, but that doesn't mean you go out and kill the other guy's parents and install brutal dictators to run their families. One thing I learned when I moved away from home was that I was responsible for cleaning my own house, and I had to clean my own house before I could go to my friends house and criticize him for living in a mess.

Every system has its flaws but there is a long-term civilizing process that occurs and its more facilitated by Western democratic models of govt. than medieval theocracies. Several major world cultures have already tried those, and history is rife with their bloody consequences.

Is that why we overthrew the democracy in Iran and installed a medieval monarchy? It turns out the only way the Iranian people could defeat the US sponsored dictator was to back a medieval theocracy. You could actually surmise that the US sponsored overthrow of the democracy in Iran was ultimately responsible for the medieval theocracy there.

Sure, every system has its flaws all right, and the US flaw is spreading repression and tyranny with one hand and claiming to be spreading the "Western democratic models of govt." with the other.

My way of looking at the world is to fully acknowledge those consequences and inclinations but when forced to choose and defend who is looking out for my interests, it's pretty hard to choose Islam.

That's fine, Enders, choose whoever you want to look out for your interests. But if you think that's your right, why can't it extend that right to the people of the Middle East to choose their own ways rather than having the people you selected go and force them to do things they don't want?

And its hard for me to understand those of you who continue to hyperfocus on our faults while the other side is so obviously bent on destroying you.

Who's bent on destroying whom? This is one of the biggest fallacies. The people of the Middle East have no intention of taking over the US. They do however want to reclaim the Middle East, but that's their right. If anyone's trying to destroy anyone else -- it's the US government.

Jihadists are following both personal and social inclinations in their actions. Likely, they are ennobled by the purity of their unreformed religion. They are given to animal-like passion which is the stuff of poetry and mythology but doesn't function well on a crowded planet. I can't imagine screaming to my Holy Father while I cut somebody's head off – but it reminds me of berserkers and other images of our various other (not just Western) cultures' PAST, not present.

And of course the US actions are rosy and cute. You haven't walked among the corpses of the dismembered women and children following the US assault on Fallujah and elsewhere. This isn't anything new either. Think about the unfathomable and indiscriminate death and destruction from the US military's secret war in Laos for example.

The religious extremists are on both sides. When you have the situations resulting from the unjust policies of corrupt governments it facilitates the extremists to go into action. If the US had proceeded according to the principals and standards it purports -- it would be disarming for the extremists. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has done more to bolster the ranks of the jihadists than they could have ever have dreamed possible.

The jihadists feel some sense of glory because they have stripped away the artifices and complexities of industrialized life and have come down to a simple version of living and dying for the glory of their God. Never mind that their manipulators choose safe harbor while they send the acolytes off to die with no protection; you might bring up that Bush does a similar thing, but in fact there is an actual mandate for our soldiers to survive to fight another day and go home as well, so the comparison breaks down there.

The leaders on both sides have other people carrying out their biddings and dying. The US has more equipment and the people carrying out their bidding don't have to commit suicide. Either way innocent people are terrorized and are dying. The comparison is the scariest part.

There is an awful sense of self-disdain when you have to snuff out the fires of such passions in the name of some bigger principle that you find wanting in morality (the Western "system"). Perhaps some of you just don't want to be a part of it and I understand that.

If "(the Western "system")" amounts to Imperialism -- you're right, I don't want any part of it.

But who is it going to be and where does that leave you? Do you want an Islamic ascendancy in place when we have already lived through centuries of religious wars? To give credibility to the jihadists is yielding a small inch to their vision and I can't fathom how that helps the outcome in favor of freedom from their theocracy.

I would have loved to see what would have happened had we left the democracy in place in Iran. The problem is that the US wants to be in control of whatever it is that's in power. It's pompous, arrogant, and dangerous. And it's obviously not working.

Bush and the neo-cons have obviously set up the latest context of grievances being used by the Islamists. But does that make anything going on in London even an iota more acceptable? Is there ANY good reason to take anything less than a hard line against the jihadists?

You have to take a hard line, of course, but to continue the pattern of US policy will only make the problem worse. At some point we have to take our heads out of the sand and take a good hard look at what our policy has been and what it really means. Ultimately, the only solution will be to change our policy.

[perrins57]

Hey Mukade, who is the "your" you are referring to?

Sorry, I forgot to quote the post.

I was reffering to the orginal poster.

Mukade

Cop on! All I did was post an article that the BBC published. You seem to want to make this discussion something personal about me. This is silly.

Yes jGilder that is highly unfair, to get personal with you just because you posted an article - not right at all I wouldn't stand for it! Nobody make personal remarks about jGilder, even if he does smell and have a face that fell out of the ugly tree hitting every branch on the way down.

[jGilder]

Yes jGilder that is highly unfair, to get personal with you just because you posted an article - not right at all I wouldn't stand for it! Nobody make personal remarks about jGilder, even if he does smell and have a face that fell out of the ugly tree hitting every branch on the way down.

[OnTheMoor]

Who's bent on destroying whom? This is one of the biggest fallacies. The people of the Middle East have no intention of taking over the US. They do however want to reclaim the Middle East, but that's their right. If anyone's trying to destroy anyone else -- it's the US government.

Fallacy according to whom? You can't state "This is one of the biggest fallacies" when you have no numbers to back it up, have (correct me if I'm wrong) not stepped foot in the Middle East in the past decade or so, and, again I am assuming, have not engaged a fellow with a bomb strapped to his chest in a conversation about his feelings. Unless you are psychic, don't talk in absolutes about how people think. (and please don't say "Weekenders did it first!")

[Paul]

Hey y'all! I thought a nice cheese might brighten things up around here

[anniemcu]

... my problem with Livingstone is, that as a leader, cataloguing Western sins is beside the point and possibly giving "aid and comfort" to the wrong people.

The sad irony of this is that, by continuing to deny the importance of those sins, and denying that there is anything to be done about them at this point, is what really feeds the terrorists, and those who look at the US, and Britain, as hypocrits. *That* is no aid or comfort to anyone but the perpetraors, and sentences us all to continuing the wrong practices and reaping the "rewards".

[jGilder]

Who's bent on destroying whom? This is one of the biggest fallacies. The people of the Middle East have no intention of taking over the US. They do however want to reclaim the Middle East, but that's their right. If anyone's trying to destroy anyone else -- it's the US government.

Fallacy according to whom? You can't state "This is one of the biggest fallacies" when you have no numbers to back it up, have (correct me if I'm wrong) not stepped foot in the Middle East in the past decade or so, and, again I am assuming, have not engaged a fellow with a bomb strapped to his chest in a conversation about his feelings. Unless you are psychic, don't talk in absolutes about how people think. (and please don't say "Weekenders did it first!")

Bush and his Administration needed to create a threat in order to justify their invasion and occupation of Iraq. This is obvious when you listen to their public statements leading up to the invasion. This quote sums up the fallacy of what the threat is.

• "This new enemy would be marketed as an unseen ghost and an ambiguous goblin, lurking here, there and everywhere, invisible and hiding, coming out of closets dark and eerie, ready to slaughter Americans and destroy our way of life. They hate our freedoms and who we are, we are told. They are from a different civilization and religion, and they hate our Christian ways. With no tangible state sponsor, composed of borders and visible terrain, or an existent home that can be blown to dust these barbarians are said to spread throughout the world, thus becoming the catalyst – and the excuse – for American military – read military industrial complex – intervention in any land deemed a “haven for terrorists.” - from The ‘Catastrophic’ Success of the Republican Party by Manuel Valenzuela, social critic and commentator, international affairs analyst, Internet columnist and author

In Bush's State of the Union speech on Tuesday, January 29, 2003 he says:

• "Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world.

The irony being that the US was usually on the side of the "small groups of men" who "seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world." The US, in a sense, was exactly who Bush was referring to here. In other words -- we are the enemy. This is the convoluted rational of US foreign policy.

The US wants to demonize anyone who resists US aggression and paint them as wanting to destroy our way of life and our freedom. As long as the US can fool Americans into believing that the terrorists are "jealous of our freedom" and want to "destroy our way of life," they will get them to support their own terrorism believing that it's a "war on terrorism." Very clever -- and effective.

In that same speech Bush says about Saddam:

• A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.

Here again Bush tries to make us believe that Saddam is a direct threat to the US. He knows that this isn't possible, but uses it anyway. We know now that most of what Bush and his Administration said about Iraq was outrageous lies, but Bush knows the only way to get support for his terrorism he was planning in Iraq was to put forward this fallacy.

[perrins57]

Fallacy according to whom?

Actually that's "Fallacy according to who?", no need to objectify this statement.
Undisputed hair splitting champion