Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Previously, we had not had domestic suicide bombings, assuming that's what they were. Nor had an innocent Brazilian been shot eight times on suspicion by our cops before.TeeJay said:
Assuming they've caught these bombers ... what now?
- Thread starter Bernie Gunther
- Start date
ricbake
working out how
Bernie Gunther said:
I am sure that there are many groups in many different stages on similar routes to extremist. The behaviour of the government, spinning across the surface of the problems of the future recruits, shows no sign of changing.
To demonstrate the fact, how about a total denial of any concevable link between Iraq and the actions of totally disillusioned youths controlled by Terrorist Handlers. Probably financed by dissenting Saudi's, who's disgust for the American way of life fuels imagination to conceive, plan and execute the events that took 3,000 lives in central New York one sunny morning.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
It's clear that there are worrying signs in the behaviour of both Bush and Blair. That book I was on about earlier, the "Psychology of Military Incompetence" really describes a personality disorder that is invariably associated with mind-bendingly incompetent leadership. It's basically narcissitic personality disorder, which they both show worrying signs of, although Bush is more obviously sociopathic.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Oh dear, are people doing amateur psychiatric diagnosis again?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Good, there were some thought-provoking posts there from relatively new posters. It is good to see some attempt at understanding the mind-set of the bombers. We need to switch on our brains and think for ourselves on this issue and be very critical of the propaganda poured out by Bush/Blair and the establishment. Our perspective needs to be whole-world not just UK/US based. We need to stop our own world wide agression and support of agression if we are not to expect retaliation.
That is not to say that there is any justification of bombing innocent people. It probably does more to stimulate the build-up of our military capacity and also secret service action. It gives an excuse to hate the people deemed through culture, religion or even percieved 'race' to be supporters of the action. People who in fact probably despise and hate it.
Hocus Eye.
That is not to say that there is any justification of bombing innocent people. It probably does more to stimulate the build-up of our military capacity and also secret service action. It gives an excuse to hate the people deemed through culture, religion or even percieved 'race' to be supporters of the action. People who in fact probably despise and hate it.
Hocus Eye.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Iraq costs us about £3billion a year according to the Defence Committe report and they reckon we're stuck with it for many years to come. More than the cost in pounds, we must also reckon on the likelihood of an increasing cost in human life.
I still haven't had a satisfactory explanation from anyone of exactly why it was a good idea to get into this mess. Clearly Blair has no idea how to fix it.
I still haven't had a satisfactory explanation from anyone of exactly why it was a good idea to get into this mess. Clearly Blair has no idea how to fix it.
What now?
Short term
Medium term
Long term
Short term
- Find out who else is involved and track them down
- Due process of Law
Medium term
- Supplement religious education with rationalist/atheist education
- Enhance free speech to allow open criticism of religious superstition and prejudice
- Separate the notions of race, culture and religion
- Replace them with individualism, freedom and equality
Long term
- Recognize that the religious notion of 'evil men' doesn't explain anything
- Recognize that urban terrorism is part of a sequence of cause and effect
- Isolate the original causes
- Eliminate them
inflatable jesus
I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders
I do think that capturing these people is a golden opportunity to understand why people are driven to do such incomprehensively evil things.
There's an opportunity to understand how they were recruited, what kind of support they had and why they wanted to do such a thing. It's an opportunity to find out if these acts are tolerated by certain sections of the muslim population of the UK and of so, to confront them.
It also removes the ability to Blair et al to effectively decide for themselves why people are attacking civilians in the UK. It could stop them from spinning it to suit themselves and information obtained could help to actually solve some of these problems.
There's an opportunity to understand how they were recruited, what kind of support they had and why they wanted to do such a thing. It's an opportunity to find out if these acts are tolerated by certain sections of the muslim population of the UK and of so, to confront them.
It also removes the ability to Blair et al to effectively decide for themselves why people are attacking civilians in the UK. It could stop them from spinning it to suit themselves and information obtained could help to actually solve some of these problems.
jiggajagga
Judge_Mental
slaar said:
Exactly, but does anyone think they will get a 'fairer' trial than the Guilford 4 or Birmingham 6?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
IIRC that £3 billion doesn't include "one off" costs such as having to buy in extra ammo and kit though. I remember reading somewhere that Iraq 2003-2004 had cost about a billion over and above allotted expenditure..Bernie Gunther said:
As for the human cost, if the US/UK do (as I suspect they might) go down the route of "encouraging" the political division of Iraq into three semi-autonomous zones (which sounds like a good way of preventing some of the ethnic strife until you think about it), then while they may be able to better contain "insurgency" per se, I've a huch all that will really happen is that "insurgency" becomes ethnicity and locality-based guerrilla warfare. "Policing" that would truly be a nightmare.
I don't believe there was a "good idea", I believe Blair (and many in his cabinet and in his immediate political milieu) was driven by the Atlanticism that has been inculcated into him for the last 20 years through the various pro-US fora he has belonged to/attended.
He and most of his political generation have, to a greater or lesser extent, been "programmed" to always turn to America first, much (imho) to the detriment of the majority of the British people.
Badger Kitten
oof
What Binkie said. Damn good post.
I would add, encourage UK-based training of Islamic scholars in moderate Islam. Many of the imams who preach in UK mosques are coming over from very different parts of the world where Sharia law is enforced with fairly medieval ideas. Until the equivalent of the Enlightenment happens, and European Muslims and Imams are encouraged to challenge, debate, read the Koranm in the vernacular, interpret it in context, make it meaningful to their daily lives rather than learn it by rote and have it 'interpreted' for them by imams with a medieval, jihadist world view, fundementalism and alientation will remain a potent force.
We need the Islamic equivalent of Martin Luther.
I'd like moderate Islam to be worldwide of course, but let's start with Europe, where integration of faith into daily life means engaging with the modern world, not shunning it. And trying to blow it up.
I would add, encourage UK-based training of Islamic scholars in moderate Islam. Many of the imams who preach in UK mosques are coming over from very different parts of the world where Sharia law is enforced with fairly medieval ideas. Until the equivalent of the Enlightenment happens, and European Muslims and Imams are encouraged to challenge, debate, read the Koranm in the vernacular, interpret it in context, make it meaningful to their daily lives rather than learn it by rote and have it 'interpreted' for them by imams with a medieval, jihadist world view, fundementalism and alientation will remain a potent force.
We need the Islamic equivalent of Martin Luther.
I'd like moderate Islam to be worldwide of course, but let's start with Europe, where integration of faith into daily life means engaging with the modern world, not shunning it. And trying to blow it up.
Imo, at the moment there is a battle of ideas, not the battle of ideas such as the ‘the clash of civilisations’ beloved of neo-cons and T Blair et al: between our great democracies and the various evil axis, of us and them, crazed Islamic terrorists, etc, vs the world.
Instead, for me, it is a ‘battle of ideas’ but instead it is between those, perhaps the great mass of world opinion, who don’t see such thing in a such a binary and narrowly focussed way and those who want to declare ‘war on everything’. Those who see Islamic terrorism, (while obscene and something to be defeated) as something not ‘out there’ but something which has roots and a genesis, not a freestanding ideology, but something that came into being partly because of us, thru our imperial adventures across the decades. That has its roots in the injustices that the West has perpetrated on the Occident and beyond for many many decades and that still festers today. Imo, this is why Blair and co are so determined to push and hold the line that there are no excuses for such atrocities, of course there aren’t, but there are wider reasons for why such an abhorrent ideology and movement comes into being. .If it becomes the peoples ‘common sense’ that maybe Britain’s (and of course the US role) in Iraq, Afghanistan and even further back, Aden, etc, Suez, etc, has a bearing on why the current events and other atrocities are happening then the whole rationale for their ‘War On Terror’ comes into question
What I am afraid of is that this ‘war’ will ossify like the response to the IRA campaigns did: the power of the state becomes much greater in the battle between ‘us and them’. Everyone else, just gets on with their lives and it is left to a few civil libertarians and politicos to scrutinise what is happening, I know I looked away. Even worse, we could have a new ossified cold war, when whole economies were geared up to fighting total war, with all the lost opportunities/resources, proxy wars(see above
Imo, this is why if there are more shootings, when new authoritarian legislation is brought in, as it will, people must speak up and stand up for civil liberties (for everyone not just ourselves.) There should be mass peaceful protests, not hijacked by STWC,but genuine wider coalitions, which also uses other varied tactics. In summary , we should be vigilant
Instead, for me, it is a ‘battle of ideas’ but instead it is between those, perhaps the great mass of world opinion, who don’t see such thing in a such a binary and narrowly focussed way and those who want to declare ‘war on everything’. Those who see Islamic terrorism, (while obscene and something to be defeated) as something not ‘out there’ but something which has roots and a genesis, not a freestanding ideology, but something that came into being partly because of us, thru our imperial adventures across the decades. That has its roots in the injustices that the West has perpetrated on the Occident and beyond for many many decades and that still festers today. Imo, this is why Blair and co are so determined to push and hold the line that there are no excuses for such atrocities, of course there aren’t, but there are wider reasons for why such an abhorrent ideology and movement comes into being. .If it becomes the peoples ‘common sense’ that maybe Britain’s (and of course the US role) in Iraq, Afghanistan and even further back, Aden, etc, Suez, etc, has a bearing on why the current events and other atrocities are happening then the whole rationale for their ‘War On Terror’ comes into question
What I am afraid of is that this ‘war’ will ossify like the response to the IRA campaigns did: the power of the state becomes much greater in the battle between ‘us and them’. Everyone else, just gets on with their lives and it is left to a few civil libertarians and politicos to scrutinise what is happening, I know I looked away. Even worse, we could have a new ossified cold war, when whole economies were geared up to fighting total war, with all the lost opportunities/resources, proxy wars(see above
Imo, this is why if there are more shootings, when new authoritarian legislation is brought in, as it will, people must speak up and stand up for civil liberties (for everyone not just ourselves.) There should be mass peaceful protests, not hijacked by STWC,but genuine wider coalitions, which also uses other varied tactics. In summary , we should be vigilant
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Who do you propose should organise said protests then?treelover said:
Donna,i know you are an apologist for the SWP, but you are also capable of posting very articulate coherent reponses in threads, so why pick up on a tiny little bit of my post and not the main themes, particualarly if you now read the following post about the US senator, 
edited due to indiscretion, now rectified
edited due to indiscretion, now rectified
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
bit of a tacky opening, there...treelover said:
Because it was the piece with which I disagreed.treelover said:
Clearspring
Hello, hello
jiggajagga said:
If he blew himself up in his mind he was going to paradise. If he was shot by police, he wouldn't.
Badger Kitten said:
Unfortunately, what George W Bush is about is trying to roll back the Enlightenment, too.
It's a long argument, repeated all over these boards (the best bits before you arrived).
To summarise: his opposition to action on climate change, for example, is rooted in the wish for belief to overcome Enlightenment theory-formation-and-testing processes (science and its models).
It is informed by lobbyists who deploy the Mediæval "Argument from Authority".
It is also supported by fundamentalist religious leaders - Xtian Imams - who rely on Bibilical authority ("...let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.") - and who are keen to hasten Armageddon anyway.
Then there's the profoundly anti-Enlightenment attitude promoted by the White House aide who said to an interviewer that:
guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Badger Kitten said:
In a sense, Islam doesn't need a Martin Luther because it's never had a central religious authority to overthrow. It's always, as I understand it, been a matter of a throng of different teachers and interpreters competing for audiences - in an economic sense, very like the "free market in theology" that is US Protestantism.
I've started wondering over the past few weeks whether Luther and his predecessors (Jacob Böhm?) might have been inspired by Islam.
And can I remind people that one of the consequences of Luther was massive destruction, both in the initial peasants' revolts (I heartily recommend Luther Blisset's Q on this) and later in the Thirty Years' War, which led to the deaths of between 15% and 20% of the people in Central Europe.
SO: what, then, is to be done?
Disengagement from the American neo-con project seems to be essential.
I do not pretend to know how an isolated USA without allies would pan out. But it seems clear to me that isolating it is a prerequisite for change for the better.
That's quite apart from the little local self-interested motive: disengagement, including withdrawal from the US occupation of Iraq and wholehearted engagement in the EU approach to the Palestinian question (for all its faults), would clearly remove the major motives for bombing London (or Liverpool).
Of course these are already being presented as the "surrender" options. But they're the right thing to do anyway.
Speech for Gordon Brown: "Fuck you Osama, we're cutting loose from these other fundamentalist nut-jobs despite you."
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
That's problematic for the government though, I doubt we'll be hearing any more from their testimony than we are likely to hear from Saddam Hussein's trial in Iraq.inflatable jesus said:
What we do hear will be spun to fuck because it's extremely inconvenient for Blair's goverment to have citizens making their own mind up about this stuff. Particularly if as seems likely, these bombers were radicalised at least in part by Blair's policies and those of his idiot neo-con allies. We're supposed to shut up, wait and see and just accept whatever propaganda line they've decided to feed us. If we start asking questions we might ask questions like:
"So Tony, exactly how was it in our interest to bring this situation about?"
or
"Given the utter incompetence your neo-con pals have demonstrated in Iraq and your decision to get in bed with these maniacs, why should we have any confidence in your judgment?"
Badger Kitten
oof
Good point about disengaging from all fundeMENTALISTS.
Does our tolerance and politeness work against us? Should we push our own British/European values - (and what are they? 'Tolerance?' 'Decency?' 'Liberalism'? what?) as hard as the fundementalists
( Xian neo cons, Islamofacists) push theirs? Should we actively engage more to preserve our 'civilised' values from those who oppose them - try to preserve a multi-hued society rather than a monochrome, monotheistic one?
Can you push for tolerance, non-extremism - a multiple point of view - a multicultural society - as easily as pushing intolerance, extremism? How do you defend your right to say whatever you want and protect yourself from those who abuse that right and preach hate and stir up violence?
Does our tolerance and politeness work against us? Should we push our own British/European values - (and what are they? 'Tolerance?' 'Decency?' 'Liberalism'? what?) as hard as the fundementalists
( Xian neo cons, Islamofacists) push theirs? Should we actively engage more to preserve our 'civilised' values from those who oppose them - try to preserve a multi-hued society rather than a monochrome, monotheistic one?
Can you push for tolerance, non-extremism - a multiple point of view - a multicultural society - as easily as pushing intolerance, extremism? How do you defend your right to say whatever you want and protect yourself from those who abuse that right and preach hate and stir up violence?
Badger Kitten
oof
I don't have an answer to that BTW. I am cringing at the thought of 'citizenship' classes in schools. At the same time the Finsbury Park Mosque - which is seems that some of the alleged bombers may have been involved with - allegedly - is just down my road from where I live - and appears to be hosting people who are encouraging other people to blow me up. Which pisses me off.
So I feel more strongly... about defending the civilised values that I like to uphold from these hatefilled frothing idiots, than I usually do
So I feel more strongly... about defending the civilised values that I like to uphold from these hatefilled frothing idiots, than I usually do
Similar threads
- Poll
