Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: London attacks...justified but not right

  1. #1 London attacks...justified but not right 
    Forum Freshman Undecided's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    42
    A previously unknown group calling itself the "Secret Organization group al Qaeda Organization in Europe" released a statement Thursday claiming responsibility for the subway and bus bombings in London earlier in the day.
    -------------------------------------------
    The statement said Islam and "Arabism" could "receive the glad tidings."
    "It is time of revenge against the crusader and Zionist British government has come in response to the massacres committed by Iraq and Afghanistan," said the statement, translated from Arabic by CNN.
    ----------------------------------------
    "The mujahedeen heroes have launched a blessed attack in London," the statement said.
    -----------------------------------------
    "Here is Britain burning now out of fear and horror in its north, south east and west. We have often and repeatedly warned the British government and people."
    ---------------------------------------
    "We still warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan," it said. "We gave the warning, so we should not be blamed."
    -------------------------------------------
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...aim/index.html
    Another attack on the West by radical Islamists, but what does this attack really mean? The first question that must be asked is whether or not the attacks were justified. It can be argued that the attacks are indeed legitimate why? Well first lets review some Kantian philosophy, as the categorical imperative suggests there are two things that must be taken into consideration firstly the action which you have decided on, can it be willed as a universal maxim, Tony Blair invaded a defenceless nation, without provokation along with the US in which thousands of innocent Iraqi's were killed, and secondly in a offensive war you essentially do not consider the feelings or opinions of the people you are attacking, since the war in Iraq was not for the Iraqi people but for western interests the war failed in the second part of the categorical imperative which was to treat humans as an ends not a means. So it can be argued from a ethical POV that the attacks on the British today were justified as the UK willed offensive actions to be a universal maxim...but that does that mean just bc it is legitimate it is right? Obviously the answer is no, what the attacks on London showed was many things, one being the weakness (not the strength) of political Islam, and the United States how is this? A ideology or state which resorts to killing civilians is one which is devoid of not only morals, but one devoid of legitimacy outside the eyes of animals. Likewise the war in Iraq showed the weakness of the US in her ability to co-opt people to voluntarily join in on the "globalization bandwagon" in the region. So like animals devoid of morals, they attack each other, and they both attack each other where it hurts to shame each other into more attacks. What some Muslims and some Westerners forget is that their religion's, or their atheistic ideology teach one common moral...forgiveness. Yes the US/UK were wrong to invade Iraq, and attacking them can be ethically supported but if religion has taught us anything it is to shun temptation to do evil (which to kill anyone, as it says in the Quran to kill one man is like to kill all of humanity), and to take the higher road to enlightenment and winning with patientence, idea's, and not coercion. What scared the West 100 years was communism not because it was violent but because it was an idea, once communism became violent it lost its potency, same with American liberalism and Radical Islam, which sadly discredit both ideologies. History surely does repeat itself kids...while Americans and Muslims are killing each other, China, India, and other powers are quietly raising up to dominate both eventually.Oh the folly of our ways of animalism and ignoring the message of our religions and our ideologies.


    "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."

    -Benjamin Disraeli
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior Cottontop3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    252
    Sometimes violence against your oppressors is the last and only option available. If you just forgive your oppressors, you are giving in to them. You are going to allow them to do what they will, when they will and where they will, even to your own children. You must fight at times. If not, you are giving up and becoming something less than your potential. You are giving up your right to try to make this world a better place. For example, has Jesus or God or even Ghandi made this world a better place. IMO, a resounding no. Just good ways for some to hold onto power and to keep things status quo.


    Death Beckons
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman Undecided's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    42
    Sometimes violence against your oppressors is the last and only option available. If you just forgive your oppressors, you are giving in to them.

    Which is nonsense in the modern context, violence is a tactic used by those who lack power, or have too much of it. The moderate middle hardly ever adovcates violence as a means to an end. The use of violence can be justifed as a means of self-defence which is why the insurgency in Iraq is legitimate. These attacks can be argued as legitimate, but problematically the terrorists who commited this crime do not represent the ummah as they were elected, they are appointed by the vacant throne of the Caliph, which is not true for the Americans and British which have the will of population formally and popularly vested in x people. Violence in this context in London was a result of weakness by the inability to change gov'ts minds in terms of their policy. What the terrorists forget is that traditionally speaking these attacks do not force populations to give up on their policies it emboldens them to continue even stronger and now Muslim rights are going to be questioned. If anything this spat of violence has made the war they wanted over...worse. Forgiveness is not immediate, its a slow painful process but it is the end.

    You are going to allow them to do what they will, when they will and where they will, even to your own children.

    Self-defence is moral, but offensive actions simply are not, once that line is crossed you become what you hate.

    If not, you are giving up and becoming something less than your potential.

    I disagree as would many ethical theories would suggest that for a human to transcend the simplistic notions of animalistic rage are of a higher human value then seeking revenge. Your potential is not what you can kill but you can give to humanity. Hitler lived to potential...was that worth it?

    For example, has Jesus or God or even Ghandi made this world a better place. IMO, a resounding no. Just good ways for some to hold onto power and to keep things status quo.

    No Jesus, Ghandi did not make the world a better place, their message's did. It is not Jesus' fault Christians could not understand his message, why? Because of the ideology of animalism you just exhibited.
    "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."

    -Benjamin Disraeli
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Undecided, can you please use the normal quoting system. Just paste in the text you want highlight it and hit the quote button. It will put in the tags for you. It's hard to read when your doing Italics.

    Thanks.


    Quote Originally Posted by SomeBody
    Stuff should look like this
    If you put

    Code:
    Quote Originally Posted by Name
    The quoted text
    it will place the persons name above the quote. You of course have to put their real name and not just name.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior Cottontop3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Undecided
    Quote Originally Posted by Cottontop3000
    Sometimes violence against your oppressors is the last and only option available. If you just forgive your oppressors, you are giving in to them.
    Which is nonsense in the modern context, violence is a tactic used by those who lack power, or have too much of it.
    My point exactly. Those who have a stake in living free and self-determining lives. I guess you'd say that the Americans had no right to use violence to overthrow an oppressive British regime in 1776. I guess you'd say it was wrong for the French to rebel in 1789 against a similarly oppressive regime. I guess you'd say the Native American's should have just forgiven their American conquerors (imperialists) and not fought for their land. I guess you'd say the Chinese shouldn't have fought for their homeland against Japan during WWII.

    Violence still has a place in this world, increasingly so now that so few have so much power and are so willing to use it indiscriminately and unjustly. Don't feel so safe in your arrogance and ignorance.


    The moderate middle hardly ever adovcates violence as a means to an end.
    Too fat and happy (not to mention brainwashed) in my opinion.




    The use of violence can be justifed as a means of self-defence which is why the insurgency in Iraq is legitimate.
    So are you saying it is wrong for others around the world to help support their brothers and sisters in Iraq? Would you have disagreed with the French helping the new Americans rebel against Britain too? Would they, now, just be terrorists to you? I guess it will just depend on who wins this fight between the West and Islam to determine who was right and who was wrong. The victors always write the history.

    These attacks can be argued as legitimate, but problematically the terrorists who commited this crime do not represent the ummah as they were elected, they are appointed by the vacant throne of the Caliph, which is not true for the Americans and British which have the will of population formally and popularly vested in x people.
    A rebellion rarely starts with the full will of everyone behind it. The rebellion grows on people over time (short or long term), once it wakes up the normally sedate and previously brainwashed.

    Violence in this context in London was a result of weakness by the inability to change gov'ts minds in terms of their policy.
    Oh, so might makes right, is that it? Think about what you are saying in this one little sentence. Last I checked, America had no legal right to invade Iraq! Now, you want to argue that just because we are powerful and mighty, we have the right to be there, and nobody has the right to fight back against us? Think.

    What the terrorists forget is that traditionally speaking these attacks do not force populations to give up on their policies it emboldens them to continue even stronger and now Muslim rights are going to be questioned.
    This illegal and greedy war in Iraq, basically continued from 1991 to the present (no-fly zones in north and south Iraq, repeated indiscriminate bombings, harsh sanctions disregarding the welfare of a whole nation for the sake of hurting one man and his sons (that we supported and funded in the beginning and who wasn't "evil" while engaged in a war against Iran using chemical and biological weapons)), is surely the right way to make a positive change in the rights of Muslims in countries dominated by other powerful and corrupt regimes. Notice I say "other" here. America and Britain both are ruled by corrupt regimes who think they are above the laws of the average human. Who think they answer to a higher calling. By the way, I loved Blair's terrible acting job yesterday at 6:00 AM. He is just as transparent as Bush. Puppets controlled by big money and big power. I wish Americans would wake the fuck up and realize what their corrupt officials, corrupt media, corrupt CEO's are doing in their name.

    If anything this spat of violence has made the war they wanted over...worse. Forgiveness is not immediate, its a slow painful process but it is the end.
    Eventually, yes, I hope the rest of the world will forgive us for our arrogance and ignorance.


    You are going to allow them to do what they will, when they will and where they will, even to your own children.
    Self-defence is moral, but offensive actions simply are not, once that line is crossed you become what you hate.
    Yes, but you seem to think that there is no self-defense involved here. Study more about what is and has gone on in the middle east. Have you ever really thought about why we have such conflicts in this region of the world? It's about pride, religion and a touch of insanity on both sides. Always has been, and Muslims aren't going to give up the fight now just because the Protestant West is powerful and aggressive. I don't buy into the fact that 9/11 was Bin Laden's doing. Call me deluded and crazy if you want, label me whatever you want, but I have seen personally what corrupt, greedy, immoral humans can do when they want something. I try not to hold grudges though, knowing that they are human, but I will not sit idly by anymore when I think something wrong is happening. It took me too long, and I suffered too much because of the idiocy and ignorance of a few in this country to just sit, consume and ignore anymore.


    If not, you are giving up and becoming something less than your potential.

    I disagree as would many ethical theories would suggest that for a human to transcend the simplistic notions of animalistic rage are of a higher human value then seeking revenge. Your potential is not what you can kill but you can give to humanity.
    I don't buy into your lazy, thought destroying bullshit. This ISN'T about revenge, it's about justice and human rights (does the rest of the world have to serve us as slaves forever? Why do you think the people in Saudi Arabia are oppressed? Could it be partially our fault?)

    Hitler lived to potential...was that worth it?
    I'm not saying that violence is always right. But it is right sometimes when all other avenues have been pursued and no other option is left. People nowadays who think that violence is never justified are brainwashed and corrupted by a greedy and powerful western elite (call it media, call it corporate America, call it a dividing set of political parties, call it what you will, or don't. Stay content and ignorant of what is really happening in the world if you want.) Just don't come crying to me when you find out you helped perpetuate through your chosen ignorance another holocaust.
    For example, has Jesus or God or even Ghandi made this world a better place. IMO, a resounding no. Just good ways for some to hold onto power and to keep things status quo.
    No Jesus, Ghandi did not make the world a better place, their message's did. It is not Jesus' fault Christians could not understand his message, why? Because of the ideology of animalism you just exhibited.
    Yeah, their ideas have made this world a much better place. Easy to blame all the problems of this world on the many who don't buy into your dividing, controlling, religious bullshit. We are human, created by God, in God's image, and it is not His fault he fucked everything up, now is it? Must be our fault.
    Death Beckons
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman Undecided's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    42
    I guess you'd say that the Americans had no right to use violence to overthrow an oppressive British regime in 1776. I guess you'd say it was wrong for the French to rebel in 1789 against a similarly oppressive regime.

    No, plz do not pretend to know what I think or what I believe from one post...what would have been apporiate is if u said "do you believe that", not "I guess you'd say". My suggestion is not to guess what I would say, and just ask. Now actually dealing with your scenairo's the rebellions which you mentioned are legitimate in two senses. Firstly other means were used to change the gov'ts policies, debating, going to parliament (as the Americans did), peacefully challenging the King in France in the Estates General asking for peaceful reform and they both got nothing in return. Secondly the revolutions were legitimate as the population revolutionized against the regime as the regime did not change its policies by peaceful measures. Also their rights as human beings were being restricted and since all other means to which to change the minds of the gov't failed violence could be considered legitimate.

    I guess you'd say the Native American's should have just forgiven their American conquerors (imperialists) and not fought for their land. I guess you'd say the Chinese shouldn't have fought for their homeland against Japan during WWII.

    No I would not say that and I suggest you stop. The Native American's have every right to be angry at the white man surely, but the native people's should and I would say have forgiven the white man for his imperialism but have not forgotten nor should they forget, likewise with the Chinese. To forgive is the greatest virtue man has, we aren't animals (which you are suggesting we should act).

    Violence still has a place in this world, increasingly so now that so few have so much power and are so willing to use it indiscriminately and unjustly. Don't feel so safe in your arrogance and ignorance.

    Whom here are you calling ignorant? It best not be me...let's see this response.

    Too fat and happy (not to mention brainwashed) in my opinion.

    So you believe that the people in the middle must be middle class, they cannot be poor and starving or rich and glutonous? "The Middle" is not a material state of being but rather an intellectual and moral state of being. All people's of this Earth are brainwashed to some extent to suggest you aren't is disengenious. Now I don't see why you see happiness as unvirtous...if I am not isn't that the purpose of life to be happy (which does mean physical happiness)? Usually the Middle has an interest in maintaining the existing socio-economic order...usually not always because the Middle may hate the exisiting social order but hates the alternatives that much more (Egypt).

    So are you saying it is wrong for others around the world to help support their brothers and sisters in Iraq?

    In the fashion they did in London...yes completely. Bc they are ignorant people in the first place, let's remember that terrorism has never achieved its stated goals of getting gov'ts and societies to change rather it has always entrentched the will of the society to continue the fight and to be even more determined to get the job done. The attacks these ignorant ppl believe are helping the people of Iraq is really doing Iraqi's a disservice. Now I think it is ok to send money, material, etc to the actual Iraqi insurgents who are legitimately fighting in Iraq against an occupation force. But once you become the aggressor you are no better then those who attacked you first. You didn't see Vietnamese bomb New York did you? And they 3 million reasons to do so...

    Would you have disagreed with the French helping the new Americans rebel against Britain too?

    The French supported the US as a geo-political nessecity not because they believed in American principles...so in that sense French support was en par with the terrorists as they were using their power to extend their own agenda using the rebellion as a means to a greater end, thus immoral.

    Would they, now, just be terrorists to you? I guess it will just depend on who wins this fight between the West and Islam to determine who was right and who was wrong. The victors always write the history.

    If I could I would barf on you right now...stop being so ignorant and hyperbolic I don't care that they were Muslims I only care for the intent and consequences of these actions.

    A rebellion rarely starts with the full will of everyone behind it. The rebellion grows on people over time (short or long term), once it wakes up the normally sedate and previously brainwashed.

    Revolutions never really have the support of the majority, most Iranians in 1979 were not calling for an Islamic state, Islamists just happened to be the strongest of all the groups and ceased power, same in Russia, the initial Revolution was not Bolshevik, the Bolsheviks just happened to be the strongest of all the parties. Historically speaking revolutions are popular their aftermath hardly. And son we are all brainwashed...some more then others...but nevertheless we all are sheep. Political Islam is being undermined by this sort of action, and it had been in Algeria and Egypt once Islamists resorted to violence because they couldn't get what they wanted through popular and peaceful means, what happens with Islamists in pacticular is that they target civilians and they lose popular support.

    Oh, so might makes right, is that it? Think about what you are saying in this one little sentence. Last I checked, America had no legal right to invade Iraq! Now, you want to argue that just because we are powerful and mighty, we have the right to be there, and nobody has the right to fight back against us? Think.

    Where did this hyperbolic, obvious illiteracy come from? Where have I suggested ANYWHERE that the US was right in invading Iraq, or that might makes right? Surely not from what you quoted...you must learn how to read son.

    This illegal and greedy war in Iraq, basically continued from 1991 to the present (no-fly zones in north and south Iraq, repeated indiscriminate bombings, harsh sanctions disregarding the welfare of a whole nation for the sake of hurting one man and his sons (that we supported and funded in the beginning and who wasn't "evil" while engaged in a war against Iran using chemical and biological weapons)), is surely the right way to make a positive change in the rights of Muslims in countries dominated by other powerful and corrupt regimes.

    Preaching to the converted my friend...I don't disagree with you politically speaking...like I said the attacks on London can be considered legitimate but that doesn't mean they are right...we aren't animals. What you are consistently implying here is that revenge is good, you hit me I'll hit you in return...fine you want to be temporarily satisfied like an animal go ahead I will not stop you...but you cease being a human.

    Notice I say "other" here. America and Britain both are ruled by corrupt regimes who think they are above the laws of the average human. Who think they answer to a higher calling. By the way, I loved Blair's terrible acting job yesterday at 6:00 AM. He is just as transparent as Bush. Puppets controlled by big money and big power. I wish Americans would wake the fuck up and realize what their corrupt officials, corrupt media, corrupt CEO's are doing in their name.

    I agree...I never suggested that they weren't corrupted by money, but so are the Islamists Saudi money which forces them to conform to Wahhabism...money talks...world over. The neo-con US/UK (not all Americans or Brits who at least in the UK were in the majority against the illegal war in Iraq), and these Islamists (not all Islamists as most are peaceful political activists, but I still do not like their politics) are not different.

    Yes, but you seem to think that there is no self-defense involved here.

    By definition it is not a self-defense action, as it was a retaliatoryaction. As you even suggested as a legitimate reason for the attacks was that the US/UK killed millions of innocent of Iraqi's so why not kill their innocents, correct? That is not self-defence it was a retaliatory action...and self-defence can only occur when you attack something that can and will attack you...I doubt a subway in London would do that.

    Study more about what is and has gone on in the middle east.

    I probably know MORE then you about this region...so don't lecture me.
    I don't buy into your lazy, thought destroying bullshit. This ISN'T about revenge, it's about justice and human rights (does the rest of the world have to serve us as slaves forever? Why do you think the people in Saudi Arabia are oppressed? Could it be partially our fault?)

    Its revenge...its that simple you make cloak it under "justice and human rights" but killing innocents is denying them their rights the same rights you so want, likewise the way the US invaded Iraq supposedly for "Democracy", well killing people who never asked to be liberated is not "democratic". Do you know what these people who attacked London want the Middle East to look like? I can tell u its not "justice and human rights" the way you invision it. The people in Saudi Arabia are oppressed by a tyrannical regime which is supported by the US, but the laws of the state are supposedly "Islamic" and if you consider that oppressive then you surely would not support these bombings considering the motivations of these bombers. Its a game of power...get the US out so we can impose our way of life on these people, both the US and these terrorists are shits of the same coin.

    I'm not saying that violence is always right. But it is right sometimes when all other avenues have been pursued and no other option is left.

    What does attacking innocents in London have to do with it then?

    Just don't come crying to me when you find out you helped perpetuate through your chosen ignorance another holocaust.

    I hope to God you aren't talking to me like this...I only hope.

    Yeah, their ideas have made this world a much better place. Easy to blame all the problems of this world on the many who don't buy into your dividing, controlling, religious bullshit. We are human, created by God, in God's image, and it is not His fault he fucked everything up, now is it? Must be our fault.

    Indeed...indeed...because we acted on our animal impluses not our higher morals, and intelligence.
    "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."

    -Benjamin Disraeli
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman Undecided's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    42
    Undecided, can you please use the normal quoting system. Just paste in the text you want highlight it and hit the quote button. It will put in the tags for you. It's hard to read when your doing Italics.

    Oh I hate the quoting system its so ugly...It was my trademark on sci to have Italics instead of that ugly and misplaced "quoting" box. I think it keeps the forum looking clean...so let me try it for a while longer if u really don't like it then ok (if you not a mod...too bad).
    "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."

    -Benjamin Disraeli
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior Cottontop3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Undecided
    Firstly other means were used to change the gov'ts policies, debating, going to parliament (as the Americans did), peacefully challenging the King in France in the Estates General asking for peaceful reform and they both got nothing in return.
    I'll try it your way, for now. With regard to Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, other so-called terrorist groups now operating in and around this wonderful world of ours. Do you think their bombings of innocents in London, the U.S., Spain, Indonesia, Africa, etc., are justified, but not right? What do you think they should have done, assuming they have "justified" reasons for doing anything? Let's start here. There are so many aspects to this debate that we should take it slowly, imo.

    P.S. (In)Sanity owns this site.
    Death Beckons
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman Undecided's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    42
    Do you think their bombings of innocents in London, the U.S., Spain, Indonesia, Africa, etc., are justified, but not right?

    Those are all each individual cases that must be examined so I cannot give a blank statement. But lets look at it this way...according to the Quran (a which they supposedly believe in) killing one person is like killing all of humanity. Thus lets say that the US killed 100,000 Iraqi's, the Quran makes no distinction btwn that and a Muslim extremists killing one person...they bothed did the equilivent of killing all of humanity. This war that Al Q (i do not think of Al Q as a organization, much rather a ideological imperative as I doubt that OBL planned these attacks) is fighting is a war which is supposedly "defensive Jihad", problematically they have to prove (at least to me) that Islam is under attack, as that is the only way defensive violent Jihad can be waged. The people who call themselves part of Al Q do not consider people in secular regimes Muslims as they support the "apostate" rulers, thus attacking Iraq (a secular, unislamic state, with a apathetic population) was not a attack against Islam. It would be the equilivent of stating that 9.11 was an attack against Christanity because the US is a predominantely Christian state, so looking from that perspective all attack carried out by Al Q are illegitimate.

    What do you think they should have done, assuming they have "justified" reasons for doing anything?

    What they should do is rather then fighting a illegitimate violent Jihad, they should try start another intellecutal Jihad to spread their message (which I vehemently oppose) peacefully to the people of the Middle East, push for democracy, and for Islamic conceptions of freedom. The French revolution was a result of years of supression by the King and the first two estates denegrading the importance of the 3rd estate, but the first three tiers of the system depended entirely on the bottom tier...once the bottom became enlightened by enlightenment ideals, and once the state needed their support they said no without equal rights...once the gov't denied them that right it was over. Prior to 1789 in France u did not see "Enlightenment terror cells" going around killing innocent people, yet through intellectual contemplation, patience, and asserting their power they finally won through war...what is happening in the Middle East is the opposite, you have the violence first then the intellecutal contemplation and advocacy, which makes the ideology seem intolerant, and thus it losses its mass appeal. Why do you think Al Q is attacking the West? Because they have lost the appeal in the Middle East, their attempts at imposing Sharia in the Islamic world in the 90's failed...so in order to remain legit...they attacked the West, its a ideology and a way of life in decline. The London attacks...are a sign of fundamental weakness not strength.
    "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."

    -Benjamin Disraeli
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior Cottontop3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Undecided
    Quote Originally Posted by Cottontop3000
    Do you think their bombings of innocents in London, the U.S., Spain, Indonesia, Africa, etc., are justified, but not right?
    This war that Al Q (i do not think of Al Q as a organization, much rather a ideological imperative as I doubt that OBL planned these attacks)
    I agree with this, though I have no real evidence. You could, I guess, call me a loony, a conspiracy theorist. However, I am glad we are no longer fighting. I think we have a lot of common ground, but I plan to try to make the case that whether OBL and Al Q were behind these attacks or not, Muslims in general do have a case for a "defensive Jihad." I do know that Jihad's are considered a religious duty and are only allowed, according to the Koran (Koran is easier for me), as a tool to take back land or ideals that rightfully belong to Islam, according to Muslims, of course.

    problematically they have to prove (at least to me) that Islam is under attack, as that is the only way defensive violent Jihad can be waged.
    Sure, but to me, things are not as simple or transparent as they might have once been. Take the crusades. Christians wanted Jerusalem, the Holy Land, and so they took it. Correct me if I am wrong. Therefore, Muslims, who claim the same land as Holy to their Allah and their people, see it as a religious duty to take it back. Therefore, they are allowed to declare a Jihad. The Crusades of the past, the Jihads of the past are easy to understand in this context. Everything happening is physically visible, at least now it seems to have been. Back then, that may be another story all together; I don't know that I believe everything that I was taught in the history books.

    Nonetheless, in recent history I think the battle for the lands of the Middle East and the resources there is a little less visible, even though we have tv and newspapers and the airplane. Forget about the current war in Iraq for now. Look back several decades at least, to what happened in Iran with the Shah, the hostage situation, our backing of Iraq and Saddam in the Iranian-Iraqi war, our actions in Saudi Arabia, our involvement with and support of Israel. The U.S. and Britain's actions specifically. Specifically in and centered on Saudi Arabia. Can you see where I am going with this? Can you imagine a war for Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, but most successfully against Saudi Arabia, that wasn't waged by the West with weapons and infantry, but one that was waged diplomatically and with a lot of money? Again, I can't say it strongly enough, SAUDI ARABIA.

    The following is taken from the Columbia Encyclopedia, vol. 5, 1958. Old, I know, but still relevant. (Paraphrased and quoted.) Saudi Arabia was unofficially founded in 1925 by Ibn Saud when he, as king of the Nejd, "formally annexed" the Hejaz, which consists most importantly of the religious centers of Mecca and Medina. Recognized by Great Britain in 1927 as the kingdom of the Nejd and the Hejaz. The name of Saudi Arabia was adopted in 1932. "The oil concession for the entire country was granted in 1933 to a corporation organized in Delaware, the Arabian American Oil company." "The country is a nearly absolute monarchy, ruled by the king and his sons under Moslem law."

    Sorry for the history. I'm sure you already know this, but just for info. for others that might not know.

    Now, consider how close the U.S., Great Britain and the absolute monarch of Saudi Arabia have been for many decades, with a few squabbles (for appearances) over those same decades. At least from the end of World War II when Saudi Arabia joined the allies in March of 1945, after being neutral for most of the war.

    Is it possible that some devout Muslims feel they have been conquered by the West and enslaved by their monarchs, for the riches that oil brings to the monarch and the West? This is where I am coming from.
    Death Beckons
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman Undecided's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    42
    However, I am glad we are no longer fighting.

    I wasn't fighting...I was debating they are not one in the same.

    I do know that Jihad's are considered a religious duty and are only allowed, according to the Koran (Koran is easier for me), as a tool to take back land or ideals that rightfully belong to Islam, according to Muslims, of course.

    The problem with this Jihad is that it is disengenious as the Jihad is not defense in nature, nor offense it much rather a retailatory attack against the intrusion of Western influence (Jahiliyyah) in the Islamic world, and the decline of Islam as a major force in the world. What these Jihadists are doing is exacting revenge on the West for what the West has done to the Islamic world, by attacking and allowing reactionary western gov'ts consumed with fear turn into pseudo-authoritarian states like what the West did in their region. Secondly the purpose of the Jihadi's is to spread the message of "Islam" (not really Islam but their version of the faith) to become the standard all accross the Islamic world, so they condemn the actions of the US of invading a soverign nation trying to impose American values on them, alternatively they will be doing the same thing just in the name of Islam not liberalism. All this bull shit nonsense started when the US and the Mujahedeen thought they single handedly defeated the USSR when neither did...the USSR destroyed itself. But bc the Americans and the Islamists think they destroyed the USSR alone, so they think they can go ahead and change other "evils" all around the world...thus we have the creation of neo-conservatives, and their contemporaries the Al Q's.

    Sure, but to me, things are not as simple or transparent as they might have once been. Take the crusades. Christians wanted Jerusalem, the Holy Land, and so they took it. Correct me if I am wrong.

    The real reasons for the crusades had nothing to do with the Holy Land, the reason why Pope Media wanted an invasion of the region was to relieve pressure from the Byzantine Empire from the Islamic hordes, secondly Europe was killing itself, and the Knights of Europe who were supposedly xtian were killing like maniacs, so in order to cleanse their souls the Pope offered them a ticket to heaven by recapturing the Holy Land which was taken by the Muslims 400 years earlier. The Crusader states was only a means to an end to unite Europe, and protect Byzantium.

    Therefore, Muslims, who claim the same land as Holy to their Allah and their people, see it as a religious duty to take it back. Therefore, they are allowed to declare a Jihad.

    Palestine is only one of the reasons they are fighting the West, although if u look at what OBL wants from the West Palestine is not first on the list. What is, is the overthrow of apostate states which are in existence bc the US supports them through arms, economic, and other forms of support. For OBL Palestine has much more in terms of propaganda value then actual value, but I don't deny he seriously wants to recapture that piece of land, but that is not his primary objective. Just like Pope Media Palestine is really a means to an end.

    Can you see where I am going with this? Can you imagine a war for Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, but most successfully against Saudi Arabia, that wasn't waged by the West with weapons and infantry, but one that was waged diplomatically and with a lot of money? Again, I can't say it strongly enough, SAUDI ARABIA.

    A war that the West can successfully transplant its values into that region is one of sublime co-option. Marx suggested that liberals will use capitalism as the catalyst to change the world to suit their needs, and it has been happening since the end of WWII, especially after the neo-liberal revolution in the 80's. The co-dependancy of the world economy means that increasingly linked cultures, with western culture being the hegemonic culutral power. What Islamists fear is that this will change the ummah into another western clone. If you look at the world you have two worlds now...those states which are connected with the world economy and those which are not...and its no coincidence that those that aren't connected are where most of the terrorists come from, and anti-western hysteria. Why? Because they aren't co-opted by the existing system, they feel styimed by it, marginalized, and they are looking for a definition which is outside western ideas of defintion, that is why Islam is becoming such a powerful force. The Islamic world is embodied by Saudi Arabia...a schziodphrenic society, without direction, without perspective, a society which materially is pampered by western technology and material realities but a society that hasn't changed along with the economy, and economies that haven't reformed due to oil which allows the gov't to avoid the painful economic reforms that force liberalization like industrialization, mass education, and urbanization. Indeed money will be a big weapon of the West against this menace (not Islam) as it will force the socieites to change if they want to eat...America needs to get rid of dependance on foreign oil then things will quickly change. Let's not forget it is US SUV drivers who help finance this.

    Is it possible that some devout Muslims feel they have been conquered by the West and enslaved by their monarchs, for the riches that oil brings to the monarch and the West? This is where I am coming from.

    Those Muslim's are right, they have been conquered by the imperialism of capital, and rulers who are in it for themselves. But the problem is that they associate that with liberalism, not geo-politics. See China can be argued has been conquered by the West as well...but the difference is that modern China has used the West for its own good, it was Globalization on Chinese terms...since the Arabs are weak due to their fake states (Iraq, Syria, etc.) which were created to weaken the Arabs under the "Arab Facade" Arabs now have bought it up. This is where Islamists have a point, in order to be powerful again their own hope is to unite the people of Islam into a ummah, but problematically the people of the region define themselves by their supposed "nationality" instead of their religion.
    "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."

    -Benjamin Disraeli
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Junior Cottontop3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    252
    Therefore, what recourse do Muslims who do not feel heard in the region have other than to shake things up violently? When those in the world with the real power and money know that they have been winning the war between them and their enemies, we'll call them the Al-Q's, do you think they are going to listen to reason? Do you not think that it is possible that many in Saudi Arabia are so content with their wealth that they will not listen to the devout? Do you not think that they need to be woken up? Do you think we would have been having this discussion before 9/11?
    Death Beckons
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman Undecided's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    42
    Therefore, what recourse do Muslims who do not feel heard in the region have other than to shake things up violently?

    Its one thing to shake things up within your own state, when all means of peaceful resistance are exhausted, when that gov't is restricting freedom (whichever you were to define Freedom), attacking the state which is legitimate targets. But its quite another to attack innocents in a far away land who don't have an active role in suppressing you or your compatriots. Here is the paradox in the Islamic world, what supports the regimes more then anything else is Oil as long as the oil is pumping the gov;t can pay its way out of revolution. If the Islamists really want to get the regime on shaky ground ready for revolution they need to stop the flow of oil, or alternatively be advocates for fuel efficent cars in the West. This is the problem, if the Islamists succede at degarding the power of oil, they in turn degarde their own power as it is oil wealth which funds this movement. So what sustains these movements at the same time stifles them, because the region is so underdeveloped economically outside of oil extraction the Gov't has little to back on, and since the oil sector does not provide nearly enough in way of employment the bureaucracies in the region as large and thus inept. If Muslims want things to change they have to change their economy...they should start reading more Marx. Materialism not Allah decides what happens in a society.

    When those in the world with the real power and money know that they have been winning the war between them and their enemies, we'll call them the Al-Q's, do you think they are going to listen to reason?

    If they don't listen to reason they will be further marginalized, and they will lose eventually.

    Do you not think that it is possible that many in Saudi Arabia are so content with their wealth that they will not listen to the devout?

    Saudi's are not content with their wealth, it is that wealth that has corrupted the society. Youth in Saudi Arabia are ill-equipped to work in the world, 90% of private sector jobs in Saudi Arabia go to foreigners. The Gov't has to absorb the rest, and most majors in S.A are Islamic studies...what job can you get with that? And since they don't really feel the consequences of being unemployed to a generous welfare system they are dissolutioned with their life, one lacking any meaning, a life of pure consumption just like the position the Islamic world is in now...consumer not producer. So in search of meaning they go and become these terrorists to actually feel they are part of something greater then themselves. Wealth corrupts...

    Do you not think that they need to be woken up? Do you think we would have been having this discussion before 9/11?

    They are awake I believe, they are just to afraid to admit there is a problem in the Dar-al-Islam. I would have had this convo before 911...you?
    "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."

    -Benjamin Disraeli
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior Cottontop3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Undecided
    Its one thing to shake things up within your own state, when all means of peaceful resistance are exhausted, when that gov't is restricting freedom (whichever you were to define Freedom), attacking the state which is legitimate targets. But its quite another to attack innocents in a far away land who don't have an active role in suppressing you or your compatriots.
    First, I don't think ignorance on the part of Americans is a good enough justification for innocence anymore. Second, I see the Saudi Royal family as an extension of American and British wealth and power. I think a case could be made that they are American "citizens," acting as puppets of American and British foreign policy in a foreign land. Why go after the puppets, and not the ones pulling the strings? Remove the puppets, and other puppets will take their place. Also, to attack the regime in Saudi Arabia, one might lose more than one gains with respect to potential new Islamic recruits to the cause. The Al-Q's have successfully, I think, put the focus on the real threat to Islamic values and power, and that is the West.

    If Muslims want things to change they have to change their economy...
    Very hard to do while your power base is asleep and the enemy is in almost total control and continuing to feed the power base sleeping pills (money).

    they should start reading more Marx. Materialism not Allah decides what happens in a society.
    Yes, but the West has abused the power of Materialism. IMO, the West has used such a heavy hand around the world, especially when it comes to the Middle East, that we have made ourselves targets.


    When those in the world with the real power and money know that they have been winning the war between them and their enemies, we'll call them the Al-Q's, do you think they are going to listen to reason?

    If they don't listen to reason they will be further marginalized, and they will lose eventually.
    My statement here wasn't very clear. I meant, do you think the West, with all it's power, money, arrogance and need for more oil listened to the views of anyone else when it came to the Middle East? Don't you think the West will continue right along in it's self-serving pursuit of oil, money and more power? Like it's still doing today. I think the supposed attacks by Al-Q and/or the general feeling of anger by some Muslims agaisnt the West were a direct result of the West being unwilling to hear or recognize the fact that they were abusing their power in the Middle East, especially with regards to Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Iran.


    Saudi's are not content with their wealth, it is that wealth that has corrupted the society.
    I agree. How do the few there that recognize what has happened wake up the rest when they know they will be arrested and beheaded just for speaking out against the regime in Saudi Arabia? What recourse, but violence and revolution against the West, do they really have? I think that even if OBL wasn't behind the attacks of 9/11, the West found out that he wanted to do something like it and either beat him to the punch so that they would be justified in using force against him, and against Saddam and maybe now against Iran, or, more probably, they just let him do it, knowing that it would achieve the results they needed in order to tighten their grip on the region with the use of force. I don't think that OBL is a fool or a complete pawn though. He knows the West, IMO, and what we are likely to do in certain situations. Do you think he is still alive?

    They are awake I believe, they are just too afraid to admit there is a problem in the Dar-al-Islam. I would have had this convo before 911...you?
    Maybe, if I had known what was going on. But I didn't know about it until after 9/11, so no, probably not. It took 9/11 to wake me up.
    Death Beckons
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman Undecided's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    42
    Second, I see the Saudi Royal family as an extension of American and British wealth and power. I think a case could be made that they are American "citizens," acting as puppets of American and British foreign policy in a foreign land Why go after the puppets, and not the ones pulling the strings?

    Calling them American citizens is a bit much, also considering the official ideology of the state is vehemently anti-western it seems a odd mix. The Saudi Royals are no question part of the matrix which keeps the Middle East as it is, but at the same time it is the same entitiy which is tearing apart the region. Its a schzoidphrenic state with schzoidphrenic policies. (I suggest you read Middel East Illusions by Chomsky he details how the West has co-opted the rulers of the region to support the West) The problem with going with the puppeters is that they are way to strong to be dealt with effectively. If you attack the US for instance the Saudi's would feel like they have also been attacked in the sense they know why the US was attacked and it was because of them. So the end result is predictable, the US supports the Saudi's more, and the Saudi's seek more American aid to avoid having the regime collapse, and since the Saud's have a interest in staying in power (since they skim 40% of the countries GDP) they need US power so they would crush any insurgency. If the terrorists had attacked the Saudi's at home, the US support would have been more muted and the regime would be in real trouble.

    Also, to attack the regime in Saudi Arabia, one might lose more than one gains with respect to potential new Islamic recruits to the cause. The Al-Q's have successfully, I think, put the focus on the real threat to Islamic values and power, and that is the West.

    I disagree, I think what the people of Saudi Arabia want to see is a group of people who attack the symbols of the regime like prisons (Bastille-esqe in effectiveness), and attack their symbols of wealth like their cars, their officies etc. Basically scaring the regime to change, or scaring them to leave the country. The problem with this form of extremism is that once they start attacking innocent people, or people who work for the gov't in a security fashion (like the Police, like they did in Egypt and do in Iraq) they will lose support because those people may be part of the apparatus but those are just their jobs not their way of life. With the internet, cell phones, and other forms of communication they should be able to slowly create a mass movement, underground. It will take a long time to do this, but it will happen I am sure that the house of Saud will fall. Just that with attacking the US and the West they added a unnessecary enemy who can do a lot of damage, so in that respect one might lose more than one gains like increased support for Israel and Saudi Arabia after 9.11, invasion of Iraq, and a overtly assertive US policy in the region. When the Russian revolution happened you didn't see the Russians attack Paris, who do you think supported the Russians in terms of capital? Change only comes from the inside.

    Very hard to do while your power base is asleep and the enemy is in almost total control and continuing to feed the power base sleeping pills (money).

    If not impossible, not only because of what you mentioned but because the region's population is generally undereducated especially in the sciences which are essential for a developing economy. The region is devoid of major resources outside of oil, and the population realtive to India's and China's is not competitive thus investment would be slow to come in. The only reason why these societies aren't part of the Live8 campaign to stop poverty is because of oil, farnkly this region would have been poorer then Africa. How is Yemen going to fed and support 71 million people in 2050, it can hardly do it now with 21 million? Islam is not going to save them, but if the people who are anti-western come into power they aren't going to fix the economy and adapt it for the inevitable post-oil economy, thus Africanization will occur. You cannot blame the west for that.

    Yes, but the West has abused the power of Materialism. IMO, the West has used such a heavy hand around the world, especially when it comes to the Middle East, that we have made ourselves targets.

    We have I don't disagree, we have wrought so much injustice on other cultures of this world. The only reason why the West is the hegemonic power is because we stole their resources, and then protected our markets by denying them access to our markets which had accumulated much of the world's wealth, but for civilizations like China and Islam which had a chance to do it also...too bad they lost out on history. What set Europe apart from China and Islam was compeition, European powers competited with each other, Islam had no compeition, neither did China so they didn't see the nessecity of expansion.

    I meant, do you think the West, with all it's power, money, arrogance and need for more oil listened to the views of anyone else when it came to the Middle East?

    They are now...the Arab Facade is crumbling as we speak, the invasion of Iraq was a result (partly) of a realization of this begining of the end of the facade. The West is starting to say, we'll listen...on our terms.

    Don't you think the West will continue right along in it's self-serving pursuit of oil, money and more power? Like it's still doing today.

    It isn't...Western policy is changing.

    I think the supposed attacks by Al-Q and/or the general feeling of anger by some Muslims agaisnt the West were a direct result of the West being unwilling to hear or recognize the fact that they were abusing their power in the Middle East, especially with regards to Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Iran.

    Not only that...but that the West simply considers their culture inferior, and that western values are so persuasive that their Islamic way of life is highly threatened. A lot of this has to do with the Islamic perception of inferiority realtive to the west, that's where i say to them "tough shit".

    I agree. How do the few there that recognize what has happened wake up the rest when they know they will be arrested and beheaded just for speaking out against the regime in Saudi Arabia?

    Everyone knows there...just most aren't wiling to do anything about it because they are benefitting from it. And the poor there are marginalized by everyone, including their own countrymen, so they are forced to look for meaning...but the rich are also terrorists because of their wealth they lack meaning.

    What recourse, but violence and revolution against the West, do they really have?

    Imo to co-opt the West, and to take some western values voluntarily (bc they are going to happen regardless of what they want) and make sure those values ascribe to Islamic and Arabic bias'. IF they don't take it in voluntarily we will sallow them up, they will fight us but they will lose. Because after oil...they are going to need us to live.

    I don't think that OBL is a fool or a complete pawn though. He knows the West, IMO, and what we are likely to do in certain situations. Do you think he is still alive?

    OBL is not relevant imo, dead or alive it makes no difference.
    "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."

    -Benjamin Disraeli
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior Cottontop3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    252
    Alright, you make some good points. I'm gonna take a break here though. My brain hurts, as usual.
    Death Beckons
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •