Explosions On London Underground...

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The first step in stopping this terrorism is to determine why it is occurring the first place.

 

Yeah I would love to know about you plans on waging this war! Europe fight back? What do you propose?

 

I do appreciate what your trying to say Vinnie and I couldn't agree more about analysing the role of religion and other factors in coming to some conclusion. I do

However, I feel the point I am trying to make is being mis-understood. I am fully aware of the role that Islam plays in the ideology of Al-Qaeda. What I am trying to put across is that I seriously doubt that the root cause of this terrorism is due to simply to the following of the teachings of Islam. Such a view completely ignores the role Britain and America (and the West) play and played in the Middle East.

It also ignores the existence of Israel and the predicament of the Palestinians.

Furthermore, as mentioned, the governments in many of the Arab countries are ruled by monarchical tyrannies, supported by Britain and America.

 

I never stated that Islam has absolutely nothing to do with the character of this terrorism. Religion here is simply being used to unite and give purpose to the aggrieved. Religion has greater potential to unite people than nationalism or Marxism, neither would work as well in the Middle East because Islam is already there and can be easily understood. I believe that Islam is being used as the easily usable too and doctrine in which to repel the West. I would support them though not in their use of terorism.

 

Might simply be a difference of opinion in regard to role the West plays. I certainly don't doubt that the movement would not peter out. I would agree and probably imagine that Al Qaeda would attempt to remove the ruling elites of many of the Arab countries such as Saudia Arabia and Kuwait. I don't doubt also that their answer to the situation would be to impose their Islam onto these countries.

The current governments in many of the Arab regions are a less oppressive regime than one that be ran by Al-Qaeda. Unfortunately Britain and America have been supporting these oppressive regimes for decades. This is far from a good thing.

 

Whereas there is occurrence after occurrence of incitement to kill and main in the koran there is not a single example in the Christian scripture to do anything of the like and whilst Christians have done things in the NAME of Christianity they can never have done anything DIRECTED by Christian scripture.

 

I agree to an extent on this. It does make it a lot easier to understand your dislike of Islam and the reason why you think is all about a Holy War.

Though I again have to ask why you believe it is Britain and America that are being targeted by these terrorists more so than others.

Moreover, looking at it from another perpspective, from your viewpoint seeing that wars have been fought in the NAME of Christianity rather than from doctrine, considering the levels of barbarity that have been fought in the NAME of both religions why is the distinction between the two important in respect of what is placed in the scripture. It does I think have to taken into account the anachronisms of these tomes, the Koran and Bible were written a little while back and certainly and have no relevance to the circumstances and values of contemporary societies

 

That is to simplify the argument though. There is also the issue of why Bin Laden's ideology has taken the form that it has. It would be just as easy to wage the same campaign of terror under the banner of Marxism or Nationalism/pan-arabicism.

 

I don't think it is necessarily simplifying it but rather viewing the problem from the root cause. I think the role the West plays and the economic power of the West has to be appreciated when viewing the reasons behind the level of anger and hatred towards the West. Islam offers the answer. I imagine Bin Laden's ideology was somewhat guided by an understanding of history and a dislike of the understood position of the West in the Middle East.

Moreover, his time in Afghanistan fighting against the imperialist Soviet Union probably would have helped form, if not harden, his convictions whilst affirming his ideological base. I don't think Marxism could have a great deal of appeal at this time in, or maybe at any, at the concepts behind it would seem anathema to any peoples who have a strong religious background. In the case of Pan-Arabicism, this form of nationalism I doubt could receive the same support nor ideological base. Pan-Arabicism is at odds with state created nationalities and offers a block to Pan-Arabicism, furthermore the potentials to unite people and share common values is far more easier with a religion that already has a strong place in society, culture and history.

 

Bin Ladens wages this as a Holy War, his fundamentalism and the fundamentalism of others are not the cause but the catalyst of the rejection of the West.

It should be asked why fundamentalism has so much appeal at present.

[Survivor]

Some on this thread should take a long look at themselves, from being a sensitive and empthatic way of communicating concerns about friends and family in the area, its turned into the usual muslim bash a thon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks marcus - i would just like to stop everyones quibbling here for a minute to advise you that it strongly looks like my colleague Rachelle Yuen from our London office is most definitely one of the bodies on the train in Kings Cross.

 

I therefore would request that you all stop your finger pointing, b1tching and moaning and take time out to thank your lucky stars that you are alive and well and pray that Rachelle's family, friends and colleagues deal with this tragic loss the best they can.

[VinnieK]

To be fair, La Dolce Vita, you made a number of points in the post I originally responded to, not limited to the root cause of Islamic terrorism.

 

You stated that 100 or 50 years ago such terrorism never went on, and that Muslims weren't trying to take over the world in the name of Islam, as well as making the somewhat dubious claim that Christian nations have a 'worse track record' (not, and I emphasise this, that I believe it to be any better, both the Christian and the Muslim, and indeed Ancient, Pagan world have such an abysmal record when judged by modern standards that it would be hard to judge any as being significantly 'better').

 

That is the point I was originally responding to. Even if your argument that the responsibility for this mordern terrorism lays with the west is correct, the implication, whether intentional or not, that you have made is that it is aimed entirely at removing western intervention from the Middle East. What I have argued is that it is not, and that many of the aims and objectives of Al Qaeda and associated groups are not restricted to rebellion against some western hegemony, but do have an imperialistic, expansionist character based upon religio-fascist principles.

 

Religion has greater potential to unite people than nationalism or Marxism, neither would work as well in the Middle East because Islam is already there and can be easily understood

 

In this case, how do you explain the secular, nationalist movements that resulted in, say, modern Turkey, or a largely secular Iraq? Religion can be used, as it was in the Islamic Revolution in Iran, but to say that nationalism, and other ideologies 'wouldn't work as well' in Islamic countries is not only erroneous given the history of the region, but is dangerously close to presenting the Islamic world as some primitive region incapable of working with ideologies other than fanatical interpretations of religious doctrine. In short, you're dangerously close to sounding like Rog

 

the governments in many of the Arab countries are ruled by monarchical tyrannies, supported by Britain and America.

 

I agree with this entirely, and indeed I personally identify these tyrannies as the primary cause of disaffection in these countries that forms part of the root of Islamic terrorism. However, as stated, and as you acknowledge in your post, much of this terrorism is not geared towards 'booting the west' out, but also weakening these countries so that another form of tyranny, this time religious, can be imposed. That is to say that the involvement of the west in the region is not the sole, or even main cause of Islamic terrorism, but is accompanied by the nature of these regimes themselves, many of which were themselves movements and reactions to colonial rule. The point I'm trying to make is that the fundamentalism present in such movements is not simply a rejection of the west and western ideals (ideals which in various polls in the middle east have found a majority of support, antipathy being focused more on the policies of western governments), but a wholesale and violent rejection of anything that is viewed as contrary to the principles laid down by this fundamentalist brand of Islam, that is anything other than a strict, despotic theocracy.

 

You may of course then ask why such terrorism finds its targets in the West and not the regimes of the Middle East. However, as any history of despotic regimes reveals, it is easier to engage in terrorist activities in a liberal democracy than what is effectively a police state. Indeed, it also makes sense for these groups to attack the west first in an attempt to remove Western support for Middle Eastern regimes, weakening them to such a degree where they themselves can then be targeted by these groups.

 

Your question as to why such fundamentalism has so much appeal at present is also problematic, assuming, as it does, that this fundamentalism (which you see as a catalyst in the rejection of the west) does indeed have so much appeal. However, there is no such evidence that it does, in that, as in Iraq, there are examples where, come face to face with this fundamentalism, muslims themselves feel uncomfortable... especially when they are its targets. The acts carried out by fundamentalist groups against the West may indeed carry some kind of cathartic charge for some sectors of the Muslim world, but this does not then mean that they accept the fundamental brand of Islam, or indeed the wholesale rejection of Western ideals that accompany such acts. It is far more likely that for many, but by no means all, or even the majority, such acts are satisfying from the point of view that it is a slap in the face for supporters of the oppressive regimes under which they live, whilst the aims and objectives of these groups are restricted to only a small group of people who's ideas may indeed be anathema to those who are happy to applaud their actions.

 

In summary, in my view, the involvement of the Western world in the Middle East is a factor in the minds of Islamic terrorism, but it is more an aggravating factor than a cause. After all, the Middle East is not the only part of the world that has been subjected to colonial rule in the past. We do not today, or have at any point, feared African, or South East Asian terrorist groups, despite a legacy of colonial rule, accusations of the West forming an economic hegemony against these regions, and plenty of cold war support for dubious regimes in Africa and South East Asia. If the West must assume responsibility for the actions of these terrorists, then their behaviour must form the primary root cause of the rise of such terrorist groups. As such, it is surprising that this terrorism, and the fundamentalism that inspires and characterises it is largely unique to the Middle East.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I ought to be more specific in my posts I think.

 

I certain do not believe nor wish to present the peoples of the region as primitive, nor to sound like Rog. What I meant to express was that Islam in the Middle East has far more potential to unify the people than Arabian nationalism. I certainly agree with what you say about the secular nature of the Iraqi state. Rather, and I didn't express this well, that Islam has a greater potential to be the tool to unite the people in their rejection of the West rather than Marxism or state nationality.

In the case of Turkey, however, I would say that considering the history of Asia Minor, the Turkic population and the far closer interaction with Europe this give Turkey its own distinctive nationalism, Ataturk himself was eager to incorporate Western values and systems of government in the new Turkey.

 

I think it is an interesting point in what you say about other areas, such as Africa and the Near East. The Middle East does have a completely different demographic to Africa and the Near East. Africa, south of the Sahara contains that many nationalisms and religious grouping and languages that it would be difficult to drum up significant fundamentalist support. Certain pockets of ethnic groups or peoples of nationality could certainly embark on terrorist though they would never have access to the funds necessary to establish a coherent framework and ability to purchase equipment. In the case of the Near East, it is especially interesting considering the number of Muslims in Indonesia. The geostrategics, cultures, and level of interference from the West is completely different though.

 

I do still tend to believe that in view of the situation in the Middle East the fundamentalism is born from the resentment and hatred to the treatment of the people of Palestine and the legacy of colonial control in the region, and which still continues though in a different form. As I imagine you would agree this nature of this fundamentalism was not formed out of vacuum, I rather tend to think that the abuse of power used by the despotic regimes in the Middle East and the role of the West is the background to its formation.

 

I do agree completely in what you say about Al Qaeda and the nature of the movement. Though as I have said it is just where it has emerged from with such force in the world.

 

More to the point, I don't think it right to target Islam (not that you yourself have done) and portray it as some evil, destructive religion in light of these terrorist attacks.

[Rog]

I've just cleared all my posts from this thread out of consideration for Survivor.

[The Old Git]

i would just like to stop everyones quibbling here for a minute to advise you that it strongly looks like my colleague Rachelle Yuen from our London office is most definitely one of the bodies on the train in Kings Cross.

 

Very sorry to hear that Survivor, a terrible time for all friends and relatives

 

Would you know if Rachelle was related to Ron Yuen, who once updated a climbing guidebook for the Isle of Man?

[Survivor]

I've just cleared all my posts from this thread out of consideration for Survivor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

thanks Rog, but like I said previously, I hadn't met her, she was a colleague of mine in London, who I had chatted to once - but thanks for the consideration, not for me, but to any friends or family who could be reading this - it's appreciated.

[Survivor]

i would just like to stop everyones quibbling here for a minute to advise you that it strongly looks like my colleague Rachelle Yuen from our London office is most definitely one of the bodies on the train in Kings Cross.

 

Very sorry to hear that Survivor, a terrible time for all friends and relatives

 

Would you know if Rachelle was related to Ron Yuen, who once updated a climbing guidebook for the Isle of Man?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know Old Git, but I know she is a Yuen by marriage - nee Ng. She has been married for less than a year and is aged 27. It's truly a senseless death and she will be missed terribly by all. I can't think how her family, friends and her colleagues in London must be feeling right now

[Bill Posters]

If people want to show their feelings, they could do a lot worse than THIS website.

[girl89]

If people want to show their feelings, they could do a lot worse than THIS website.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

'CGI-limits reached, please try again later!'

[The Old Git]

It was mentioned in the weekend press, a bit like the "sorry world" one when Bush got re elected

[Survivor]

Just to keep you updated on my colleague in London - apparently all the bodies have been recovered now, but are being slowly identified - one can only assume that the identification process is not an easy thing due to mass injuries.

 

The worst thing is that Rachelle's husband has had to go and identify two bodies, of which neither turned out to be Rachelle. How does someone cope with something like this? Your wife of less that a year is killed in such a senseless way, and you can't begin to accept, grieve, or acknowledge her death until you have been given a sense of closure - ie a body.

 

It's just so terribly terribly sad.

[Bill Posters]

Very sad. They are much in my thoughts.

[Survivor]

Just to keep you updated on my colleague in London - apparently all the bodies have been recovered now, but are being slowly identified - one can only assume that the identification process is not an easy thing due to mass injuries.

 

The worst thing is that Rachelle's husband has had to go and identify two bodies, of which neither turned out to be Rachelle.  How does someone cope with something like this?  Your wife of less that a year is killed in such a senseless way, and you can't begin to accept, grieve, or acknowledge her death until you have been given a sense of closure - ie a body.

 

It's just so terribly terribly sad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Still no confirmed news. Rachelle's family came into the office today, spoke to a few in London and think today was a pretty hard day on everyone. I'll post again if any further updates.

[Survivor]

It is with deepest regret and sadness that I enform you that my colleague in London, Rachelle Yuen has been formally identified as one of the bodies that perished in the Kings Cross tube bombing.

 

Her family are thinking of holding her funeral back in her homeland of Mauritius, with a memorium to be held in London at a later date.

 

My thoughts and condolences are with everyone who knew her - she will be sorely missed.

 

Survivor