More bombs?
 

biggy which is our society actually recognising that we all, every
single one of us, have a responsibility for what happens in our
country, and everyone thus must make the effort to live and work
together


You probably won't appreciate me replying to your post, but the bit
I've snipped struck a chord with me, even if you didn't mean it the way
I've taken it.

I am very conscious of my failure to prevent Tony Blair from lining up
with George W to beat up the world in my name. I do object to anyone
trying to blow me up for this failure, but I recognise the failure for
what it is and don't expect to be seen as "innocent" by the victims of
it, or those who consider those victims to be their brothers.

We can do something about it, and we chose not to on 5 May.

More bombs?
 

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:13:56 GMT, Neil Williams wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:42:03 +0100, Ross
wrote:

Without extremists, there is no terrorism.

A very wise statement.

Thanks.


[...]
I'll give the Government
some credit (rare, that) for *not* overreacting to either incident.

Must admit I was surprised, but I think that because it became clear
so quickly that this was a bit of a damp squib, it would have been
difficult for them to make a panic situation out of it.

Listening to BBC News 24 this afternoon there was an almost palpable
sense of disappointment (on the part of the anchors) that nothing
bigger had happened.


I am, however, very disappointed (but not surprised) by some of the
rubbish that is being spouted by some members of the Great British
Public, including people seriously suggesting the idea of baggage
scans on LUL and buses, and someone in this week's Milton Keynes
Citizen suggesting that ID cards would in some way have helped prevent
either of these sets of attacks.

As time goes by I become less and less enamoured of a significant
proportion of the Great British Public. I think it's partly due to
living in a city which is struggling to handle the year 2005 with
attitudes better suited to 1965, so perhaps I need to get back to a
big city where there's a tad more understanding of different cultures.


[1] An uncomfortable truth, but one we have to understand if we're
going to get anywhere near solving the issue. There is an
unwillingness to accept that seeking to understand terrorists and
their motivation is not the same thing as supporting them,
particularly among readers of low-end gutter tabloid newspapers.

Well, the writers of articles for publication in low-end, etc. I'm not
always sure how much attention people pay to the crap written in some
of the tabloids, beyond using it justify views they already hold. I
don't think people's opinions *change* as a result of the tabloids;
they just become more firmly held.

--
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

More bombs?
 

On 21 Jul 2005 16:07:40 -0700, MIG wrote in
. com, seen in
uk.railway:

biggy which is our society actually recognising that we all, every
single one of us, have a responsibility for what happens in our
country, and everyone thus must make the effort to live and work
together

You probably won't appreciate me replying to your post, but the bit
I've snipped struck a chord with me, even if you didn't mean it the way
I've taken it.

Actually, I do agree with the context you've chosen to use it in.


I am very conscious of my failure to prevent Tony Blair from lining up
with George W to beat up the world in my name. I do object to anyone
trying to blow me up for this failure, but I recognise the failure for
what it is and don't expect to be seen as "innocent" by the victims of
it, or those who consider those victims to be their brothers.

Quite. I just wish that in this supposedly enlightened age people
would realise that beating them up because they beat us up because we
beat them up because they beat us up (ad infinitum) simply doesn't
work. It's pointless.

I strongly object to people using Iraq débacle to further their own
twisted objectives, because I really do not believe that those who
instigate these things give a damn about Iraq or the Iraqis other than
as a justification, although I think the deluded fools they use as
cannon fodder do. But I'm also realistic enough to know that those
instigators don't give a damn what I think either.


We can do something about it, and we chose not to on 5 May.

I can honestly say that I voted against, but unfortunately in many
cases people felt there was no viable alternative.

--
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

More bombs?
 

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:09:09 +0100 someone who may be Ross
wrote this:-

I strongly object to people using Iraq débacle to further their own
twisted objectives, because I really do not believe that those who
instigate these things give a damn about Iraq or the Iraqis other than
as a justification

That is indeed the case. I'm sure they were delighted with the
invasion as it allowed them to operate where they had not been able
to operate before due to Mr Hussein's antipathy towards them. We now
know Mr Liar was told the invasion would increase terrorism and he
didn't tell the rogues in Westminster about this.

However, without Iraq there would be one less grievance that can be
used to inflame people. The way to deal with terrorism is to drain
the poison, not to try and look macho with so-called security
measures and the like.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

More bombs?
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:09:09 +0100 someone who may be Ross
wrote this:-

I strongly object to people using Iraq débacle to further their own
twisted objectives, because I really do not believe that those who
instigate these things give a damn about Iraq or the Iraqis other than
as a justification

That is indeed the case. I'm sure they were delighted with the
invasion as it allowed them to operate where they had not been able
to operate before due to Mr Hussein's antipathy towards them. We now
know Mr Liar was told the invasion would increase terrorism and he
didn't tell the rogues in Westminster about this.

However, without Iraq there would be one less grievance that can be
used to inflame people. The way to deal with terrorism is to drain
the poison, not to try and look macho with so-called security
measures and the like.


I am thinking about the way our own politicians and newspapers are
trying to create images of hordes of evil intent on destroying our way
of life.

Equivalent messages are undoubtedly being spread among groups who have
more genuine reason to feel under threat, and that they have little to
lose.

If it's so easy to convince people that Muslims are an undifferentiated
evil mass, think how much easier it must be to persuade people that
Westerners are the same.

More bombs?
 

In message
David Hansen wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:09:09 +0100 someone who may be Ross
wrote this:-

I strongly object to people using Iraq débacle to further their own
twisted objectives, because I really do not believe that those who
instigate these things give a damn about Iraq or the Iraqis other than
as a justification

That is indeed the case. I'm sure they were delighted with the
invasion as it allowed them to operate where they had not been able
to operate before due to Mr Hussein's antipathy towards them. We now
know Mr Liar was told the invasion would increase terrorism and he
didn't tell the rogues in Westminster about this.

However, without Iraq there would be one less grievance that can be
used to inflame people. The way to deal with terrorism is to drain
the poison, not to try and look macho with so-called security
measures and the like.



As the Australian PM pointed out, Bali was before Iraq, WTC was before Iraq,
Nairobi was before Iraq, Mombasa was before Iraq etc, etc, etc. Iraq is
irrelevant to Al Qaeda, where it is Sunni versus Shi'ite in a civil war that
was probably inevitable, however Saddam was removed.

Incidentally he is not Mr Hussein, you shouldn't assume Western norms apply
in other cultures.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

More bombs?
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
In message
David Hansen wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:09:09 +0100 someone who may be Ross
wrote this:-

I strongly object to people using Iraq débacle to further their own
twisted objectives, because I really do not believe that those who
instigate these things give a damn about Iraq or the Iraqis other than
as a justification

That is indeed the case. I'm sure they were delighted with the
invasion as it allowed them to operate where they had not been able
to operate before due to Mr Hussein's antipathy towards them. We now
know Mr Liar was told the invasion would increase terrorism and he
didn't tell the rogues in Westminster about this.

However, without Iraq there would be one less grievance that can be
used to inflame people. The way to deal with terrorism is to drain
the poison, not to try and look macho with so-called security
measures and the like.



As the Australian PM pointed out, Bali was before Iraq, WTC was before Iraq,
Nairobi was before Iraq, Mombasa was before Iraq etc, etc, etc. Iraq is
irrelevant to Al Qaeda, where it is Sunni versus Shi'ite in a civil war that
was probably inevitable, however Saddam was removed.

Incidentally he is not Mr Hussein, you shouldn't assume Western norms apply
in other cultures.


Iraq is part of the general policy that results in many, particularly
Muslim, people being killed or having their livelihoods destroyed.

Nothing can be done about the fanatics, who are beyond redemption. But
on their own, they are not much of a threat. When millions of people
are so disaffected by the policies of the West that they start
listening to the fanatics, then we are in trouble.

As has been mentioned, our own Government and police forces start
repressing us, which is just what the terrorists want. It now seems
that the terrorists have just succeeded in getting the British Police
to institute a shoot-to-kill policy in London.

So we've got the world we created. Smug comments about what was and
wasn't before Iraq don't count for much. I now live and work in a city
where the police shoot to kill. Thanks a lot.

More bombs?
 

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:41:13 +0100 someone who may be Graeme Wall
wrote this:-

As the Australian PM pointed out, Bali was before Iraq, WTC was before Iraq,
Nairobi was before Iraq, Mombasa was before Iraq etc, etc, etc.

And as others have pointed out, the invasion of Iraq is but one
factor. They have also pointed out that before the invasion there
was the "oil for food" programme and the "no fly zones".


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

More bombs?
 

MIG wrote:
As has been mentioned, our own Government and police forces start
repressing us, which is just what the terrorists want. It now seems
that the terrorists have just succeeded in getting the British Police
to institute a shoot-to-kill policy in London.

And?

Can you be sure it was the police?

More bombs?
 

Brimstone wrote:
MIG wrote:

As has been mentioned, our own Government and police forces start
repressing us, which is just what the terrorists want. It now seems
that the terrorists have just succeeded in getting the British Police
to institute a shoot-to-kill policy in London.


And?

Can you be sure it was the police?

There is no such thing as a "shoot to injure or disable" policy, if you
(police or armed forces) shoot someone your intention is to kill them.
--
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont