Radical Muslim narrow-minded discrimination.

[ReD_ReBeL]

Ok this is in now way meant to be discriminating towards Muslims but what i don't understand(being UK white male) is that why exspecially middle eastern and asian muslims come to the UK(for example since im from here) and plan terrorist acts against the civillian population for example there are 7 muslims in court in England and one area which thy planned to bomb was an big nightclub and when asked why, one muslim man commented "how can you can you call those innocent dancing around like slags". Now this sounds to me like they simple whats to put there own values on the rest of humanity. i cant understand that why these individuals come to live in the UK(not the one's which where born here) and thn want to destroy it, yet hold Pakistan, Afghanistan in high praises calling it a 'great muslim nation', if thats the case why didn't thy live there? yes, i know the UK can offer asylum seekers a decent security blanket, but thn thy down the round turn there backs on these ppl and called the 'sinful westerners' . it confuses me . can we discuss this maturely plz? in no way discriminating the whole muslim faith, i even tall with a Muslim man who lives in my street, and hes decent(his wife is friends with my mum). this discussion is aimed at the far radical muslim popluation.

[TC]

Uh, maybe they're not thrilled about the UK bombing their countries and torturing and murdering their people? Think of that? Maybe they view the British populations complacency as a passive endorsement of Bush and Blairs reign of terror in the middle east? Maybe they think that that passive endorsement amounts to a degree of shared responsibility, and shared culpability. Maybe they think that the only way to bring westerners out of their indifference to the horrors of their wars is to bring a tiny, fraction of a taste of that war home to them. Maybe they're tired of the world thinking that Iraqi and Palestinian and Afghan blood is easier and cheaper to spill than European and American blood.


(and for the CPS's information, this was intended only as hypothetical and speculative answer to a question of motives rather than an endorsement or 'glorification' of those actions.)

[Mariam]

Well they are not called radical muslims for nothing!!
let me tell you something as i live in a middle eastren country....I said before in another thread that islam has many doctrines and they may not all agree on what is done by the name of islam, not all muslims support bombing and killing....
Even in islamic countries and among muslims themselves, a radical musliam is supposed to be some kind of a small dictator who explains his or her religion in a radical way, and try to control others in some kind of a missunderstanding of the truth of their religion..
And about this type of muslims living in EU countries or any part of the world, i dont think that they represent every single living muslim.
For example..there are British people living here, and i know that alot are living here as if it was their home country,they know that muslims are not all Bin LadinS.
But i think RADICAL muslims take advantage of what's called democrasy and freedom which is not as fulfilled in the middle east as it is in the west.
I once read that the Freanch philosopher Dirreda said that there is no different between Bush and Bin Ladin,because they are both radicals!!
Again not all muslims agree with Bin Ladin just because he's muslim, no.They believe that islam never told him to kill all those innocent people....and not all muslims hate Americans or British people, but they hate what their governments did. And of course not all Americans agree with Bush...and so on..
The problem is with the doctrines (even muslims find it a problem).
But TragicClown has a point if we wanted to explain the radicals behaviour, that's true.
They think that they are paying back..avenging their blood-wasted people in a way that they hurt the the people who have hurt them....but i dont think that other innocent people regardless of their religion are the right goal.
Again......not all musilms agree.
Peace!!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Uh, maybe they're not thrilled about the UK bombing their countries and torturing and murdering their people? Think of that?

And how the fuck does that give them an excuse to target innocent civilians?


Maybe they view the British populations complacency as a passive endorsement of Bush and Blairs reign of terror in the middle east?

And spilling civilian blood is really going to get them on their side isn't it? The Islamists are just fucking cowards who take their anger out on soft targets. Fuck them!


Maybe they think that that passive endorsement amounts to a degree of shared responsibility, and shared culpability.

Maybe the average Joe Bloggs just thinks it isn't his problem, but I know for damn sure that blowing him up isn't exactly going to endear him.


Maybe they think that the only way to bring westerners out of their indifference to the horrors of their wars is to bring a tiny, fraction of a taste of that war home to them.

It doesn't work. It just makes them think all muslims are murderous bastards even when they aren't. But let's not get a bit of reality in the way of some pointless revenge against defenceless targets, shall we?


Maybe they're tired of the world thinking that Iraqi and Palestinian and Afghan blood is easier and cheaper to spill than European and American blood.

Then they should try attacking the ones responsible, in other words the militaries and leadership of those countries spilling their people's blood. But instead they target those who have nothing to do with it. They are cowards, pure and simple.


(and for the CPS's information, this was intended only as hypothetical and speculative answer to a question of motives rather than an endorsement or 'glorification' of those actions.)

Frankly I'm disgusted you even articulated that viewpoint. But someone has to play the apologist I suppose.

http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/2174/puke1vs.gif

[TC]

And how the fuck does that give them an excuse to target innocent civilians?


The people that we're talking about would question the fact that American, British and Israeli civilians really are 'innocent.' They're perhaps about as innocent as German civilian Nazi party supporters during WWII; not personally responsible for any atrocities, never killed anyone, built innocent? Debatable.


And spilling civilian blood is really going to get them on their side isn't it? The Islamists are just fucking cowards who take their anger out on soft targets. Fuck them!

Westerners seem to have this notion that they're so special that the rest of the world has to ry to look good for them, get them on their side. Thats not the point. The Americans and British are *not* on their side, they are the enemy. They want to hurt them badly enough that they'll stop their massacres in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel, they aren't interested in getting converts. The madrid bombs worked, the IRA bombs in England worked: public support to continue a conflict degrades if the public feels that the risks and costs of conflict are too great, and terrorism attempts to achieve that end.

And there aren't many things braver than selflessley sacrificing yourself for your people, which is what they conceptualize themselves as doing.


It doesn't work. It just makes them think all muslims are murderous bastards even when they aren't. But let's not get a bit of reality in the way of some pointless revenge against defenceless targets, shall we?


Do you seriously think that the Israelis would have given up a single settlement if not for attacks on civilians within Israel? If Muslims don't resist at all, and if it costs nothing to flatten their cities and murder them for sport, then the Israelis and the Americans and the British have no reason to stop. They'll simply continue to take what they want.


Then they should try attacking the ones responsible, in other words the militaries and leadership of those countries spilling their people's blood. But instead they target those who have nothing to do with it. They are cowards, pure and simple.


The choice is not between soft-targets and military targets but between soft-targets and no targets. These are people acting out of desperation, hitting targets not out of preference but out of opprotunity. If they could kill the political leadership or the militaries of the aggressor states, they would, obviously. But they can't. People become terrorists when they don't have the numbers or the money or the weapons to become guerillas just as people fight as guerrillas when they lack the money and weapons to fight as conventional soldiers. And as i've discussed an argument can be made that civilians of aggressor nations are at least partially responsible, they're responsible by way of inaction. They might not be personally killing muslims but they're letting them die at the hands of people who are at least nominally responsible to them.

By permitting violence against civilians abroad they're participating in that violence to an extent, the same way that that the Germans who watched the SS round up Jews and undesirables and did nothing were passively participating in that act of violence. And since they can't attack the people who are most responsible for it they have to settle for attacking the people who are partially responsible for it.


Frankly I'm disgusted you even articulated that viewpoint. But someone has to play the apologist I suppose.

Look, i'm a white non-muslim London resident who uses public transportation and goes to nightclubs, i don't want to get blown up! If i knew someone was going to blow up civilian targets in Britian i'd report them out of self interest and not feel guilty about it. But its increadibly immature to pretend that these people are insane or simply religious fanatics who don't have a defensible political position. Its important to understand the logical basis of their ideological position rathe than simply being dismissive of it, because its a logic that imperialists have created. The Bush administration and the christian conservatives want to portray it as a cultural clash, of terrorism being motivated by hatred of western values, thats their agenda, it shouldn't be ours, because it absolves the imperialists of responsibility for creating the actual cause of terrorism, an expansionist, brutal, criminal foriegn policy responsible for countless atrocities against Arabs and Muslims. They don't want to attack Canadian civilians or Swiss civilians or Hong Kong civilians and they're just as western and decadent as Brits and Israelis and more so than Americans, becuase they don't really give a damn about western culture, they care about western troops in the middle east. There would be no islamic terrorism against the west if there was no western imperialism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The people that we're talking about would question the fact that American, British and Israeli civilians really are 'innocent.' They're perhaps about as innocent as German civilian Nazi party supporters during WWII; not personally responsible for any atrocities, never killed anyone, built innocent? Debatable.

How is it debatable? You should know that Joe and Jane Public have no real choice in dictating foreign policy. And since it's impossible to take a survey of one's victims before making an attack, they might also be attacking those who might otherwise be sympathetic. Civilians are not monolithic when it comes to opinion.


Westerners seem to have this notion that they're so special that the rest of the world has to ry to look good for them, get them on their side. Thats not the point. The Americans and British are *not* on their side, they are the enemy.

Correction: the British and American governments are their enemy.


They want to hurt them badly enough that they'll stop their massacres in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel, they aren't interested in getting converts.

and hurting civilians does that how exactly? They're not the ones giving the orders and pulling the triggers.


The madrid bombs worked, the IRA bombs in England worked: public support to continue a conflict degrades if the public feels that the risks and costs of conflict are too great, and terrorism attempts to achieve that end.

It took the Spanish government to actually pull the troops out of Iraq. Given enough roadside bombs and IEDs against military targets in Iraq, the British and American forces in Iraq will pull out. As for the IRA, they decided to stop the killing and start negotiating. The same appears to be happening for ETA.



And there aren't many things braver than selflessley sacrificing yourself for your people, which is what they conceptualize themselves as doing.

Because hitting defenceless targets who can do little to prevent the slaughter is soooo brave :rolleyes:



Do you seriously think that the Israelis would have given up a single settlement if not for attacks on civilians within Israel? If Muslims don't resist at all, and if it costs nothing to flatten their cities and murder them for sport, then the Israelis and the Americans and the British have no reason to stop. They'll simply continue to take what they want.

They are already resisting in Iraq. I have no problem with people blowing up imperialist troops, but I do have a problem with targetting civilians whoever does it.
As for the IvP issue, maybe if they stopped wasting lives and resources on suicide bombers and concentrated on government and military targets...


The choice is not between soft-targets and military targets but between soft-targets and no targets.

Iraq puts the lie to your statement.


hese are people acting out of desperation, hitting targets not out of preference but out of opprotunity.

No they're not. They are being used by their political and religous leaders for their own ends. Civilians are never targets of opportunity because they are constantly vulnerable when going about their daily lives.


By permitting violence against civilians abroad they're participating in that violence to an extent, the same way that that the Germans who watched the SS round up Jews and undesirables and did nothing were passively participating in that act of violence. And since they can't attack the people who are most responsible for it they have to settle for attacking the people who are partially responsible for it.

You realise that the same argument could be made excusing collateral damage by coalition forces in Iraq?

The problem with legitimising violence against British and US civilians is that is also legitimises imperialist violence against other civilians. I think the problem is because being a civilian in western "democracy" is like riding a wild bull or a bucking bronco - the best one can do is hold on and not get thrown off and trampled on.

[Revolution67]

One thing I do not understand as to why Muslims migrate to Western countries, they view as immoral, wicked, depraved? Can they even dream of having a life, the freedom, the opportunities, the freedom to express themselves they get in the country of their adoption, in their countries of origin? I can hardly think of any Islamic country, though with a couple of exceptions, where people enjoy freedom to express their views, where the ethnic and religious minorities are treated at par with the majority Muslim community. In Saudi Arabia and the countries on the Arabian peninsula, people belonging to other faiths cannot build their places of worship, cannot celebrate their festivals. Non-muslims cannot enter Mecca. I do not see/hear any Muslim/Arab leftist on this board making hue and cry about this discrimination againt non-Muslims? Not only this, but keeping any other religious book other than Quran is prohibited and we talk about Islam being tolerant and peaceful. :lol:

Having lived in Australia for two years as an international student and been in the company of these guys (Pakistanis/Afghanis/other lot from Muslim world), I always heard them saying how great their countries were, in the past and how well cultured, well behaved and well mannered their women are, as compared to 'slutty western' women. Though, it was a different matter, that they were always looking out for an opportunity to have sex with the same 'slutty white women'.

The logic of targetting innocent civilians to revenge what the American and British governments are doing in the Middle East is deranged, idiotic and would further harm the interests of the peace-loving muslims, who want to keep themselves away from the acts of Islamic terrorists. Having been on the revolutionary left board for a few months now, I have seen either comrades here, do not realise that blindly supporting Islam and the acts of Islamic terrorists is actually shooting in the foot. Capitalism and religious fundamentalism are two main enemies of Communist ideology, thought and philosophy and I am afraid to say, revolutionaryleft is being used by some fanatical muslims, who are coming here under the garb of being leftists, to use left front against Americans and British civilians, military and the government to further their own cause.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by rudra+--> (rudra)One thing I do not understand as to why Muslims migrate to Western countries, they view as immoral, wicked, depraved?[/b]

Considering that the majority of their home countries are primative rectionary societies ruled by fundamentalist lunatics, is it really all that shocking to find out that living among the "infidels" in the "backyard of the devil" is more appealing to them?

We can see the blue eyed devil's horns shrink away exponentially with every bite of their Big Macs.


red rebel
[I'm] in no way discriminating [against] the whole muslim faith

Why not?

To not do so is socially irresponsible.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:36 PM
i cant understand that why these individuals come to live in the UK(not the one's which where born here) and thn want to destroy it, yet hold Pakistan, Afghanistan in high praises calling it a 'great muslim nation', if thats the case why didn't thy live there?
The people you're talking about certainly don't consider Pakistan or present-day Afghanistan "great muslim nations". They consider the rulers of those countries to be "apostates".

A number of the biggest Muslim fundamentalist demagogues living in Europe and North America...are living there because they'd be jailed or executed if they had stayed in their home countries.

Something to think about if you really want to understand fundamentalists' motivations.

I think it's pretty hard to guess at these individuals' motivations, in the case of the London bombings. It was a comparative handful...all kinds of random and idiosyncratic factors kick in when you start looking at a few individuals out of millions.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:40 PM
Maybe they view the British populations complacency as a passive endorsement of Bush and Blairs reign of terror in the middle east? Maybe they think that that passive endorsement amounts to a degree of shared responsibility, and shared culpability.
But al-Qaeda and similar groups are just as willing to commit wholesale slaughter in Muslim countries, in East Africa, etc.

Even back in '98, when they bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania - they killed hundreds of Kenyans and Tanzanians. Iraq - far more so. The hotel bombings in Jordan. Etc.

I think the al-Qaeda strategy is based on something much simpler: they're ultrarightists, with contempt and hatred for the great majority of humanity.

And despite the historical experience that terrorism is almost always self-defeating, they have no other good options either. They're acting out of frustration over the defeats Islamic fundamentalism has suffered in one majority-Muslim country after another.

Attacking the US and UK is part of a strategy that hopes to bring down "apostate" regimes in the Muslim countries - attacking the "far enemy" in hopes of rallying the masses to attack the "near enemy." Can't say it's been terribly successful, except in Iraq, and that's a short-term success setting up inevitable long-term self-defeat.

***

I can't say that I've seen that complaint about "passivity" in any bin Laden statement either. Maybe that's your own complaint, that you're projecting onto al-Qaeda?

I've never cared for that attitude from leftists - haranguing people that they must get involved or else they're complicit. Strikes me as middle-class guilt, from people who deep down feel the government is their government, and therefore they're responsible for its deeds.

And of course contempt for working people, who may have all kinds of reasons for not joining some campagin. Haranguing people that they must join never helps, certainly. It smacks of wishing you could coerce people into joining you.

Anyway, I like it even less in your version, where it's put forward as an explanation for the bombings.

[patrickbeverley]

The example Red Rebel gives is an excellent example of why I hold on to my anti-religious views. It is religion that makes these people act in this barbaric way.

To Red Rebel:
Yes. You have a point. I wish you wouldn't bring immigration into it though :( And you "even" talk with a Muslim man who lives down your street? Whoopee-do!

To TragicClown:
We have to make a distinction between political and religious violence here. A bomber trying "to bring a tiny, fraction of a taste of that war home to them" would, in my opinion, not be justified. But, you know, I could be wrong. But a bomber attacking clubbers for being "slags"? :angry: for the love of Marx, what an arsehole!

Ugh, religion. Bring it down.

[Cheung Mo]

An Islamist wacko is little more than Pat Robertson with a bomb and a Koran.