The guy in the office who got hurt on the train actually sat in the carriage where the bomb went off!…he stood on the other end of the carriage…talking about looking death straight in the eyes….lucky enough he doesn’t remember anything, only that he woke up in the street.
wow, that is scary stuff...it is real interesting and quit puzzeling that the bombers appear to have been from educated middle class backgrounds, i think one even had a young daughter.
so after the bombing, i wasn't too worried as far as checking on people i know possibly being involved. i only know one person in the uk, and she rarely heads down to london, plus since my family knows hers, i would have found out very soon if something had happened. anyway, it turns out that my ex-girlfriend was in the uk looking at grad schools and was scheduled to head down to london on the day of the bombing, but the prof she was to meet cancelled the day before... crazy.
anyway, what does everyone think of blair's new 4 point plan?
"He told the Commons the government had a four-point plan, in which it would:
-Begin the process of consultation on planned counter-terrorism legislation within the next couple of weeks, with a priority being measures to combat the incitement and instigation of terrorism.
-Look urgently at how to strengthen the process for excluding from the UK those who incite hatred, and make it easier to deport such people.
-Start discussions immediately with Muslim leaders on combating "the perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of Islam" which lay behind the attacks.
-Talk to other nations on how to mobilize the "moderate and true voice of Islam."
personally, though it isn't perfect (nothing is), it makes me wish he were my leader. though i don't like the level of cooperation he's given dubya, i can understdan why.. in general i think blair's gotten a bad wrap. what do the brits here think of that? if he hadn't joined bush in iraq, would his pop numbers be up? i know that other situations like employment/etc are factors, but not sure how much in the public mind there.
I think that this is a very reasonable approach, however, I still give credence to those who say that terrorists are bringing it to the western nations because we are occupying their holy sites in the Middle East. If this is indeed the case, then as long as Blair continues to keep British troops in Iraq or wherever Dubya wants them, then terrorism will continue.
I think the problem with all of these plans is a severe lack of engagement with the governing parties in the Middle East. No, we don't want to encourage those who treat women like property but at the same time, they do, and we shouldn't point fingers from afar unless we have a greater dialogue with their culture. It's a back door method, if you will, but it involves more communication and diplomacy and less blowing up of people, both soldiers and innocent (like the 27 or so kids that just got blown up in Iraq as they were trying to get candy from a US Army truck).
agreed. but at least blair's points are the closest official policy to what you're talking about (which of course i agree with). i know that dubya hasn't ever said anything as remotely reasonable as this (prove me wrong caleb et al). and at least blair is calling for talking to muslim leaders as a major part of the policy. terrorism will likely never be "beaten", one group or another will always feel marginalized to the point of extremism and will conduct these sorts of attacks. but if we want to try to encourage these groups to express themselves in non-violent means, then we need to stop believing that we can achieve any progress through violence. we're setting the example, and right now we are setting exactly the kind of example that will lead to more terrorism.
in any case, we can't just leave iraq in the shape it is now after having created this escalated mess. we have to find some way to fulfill the promises of peace and more humane conditions that we shouted from our soap boxes when we rose our rifles and patriot missiles in to the air at the onset of the war. our current policy isn't bringing us any closer to peace. in fact, our choices now are pretty limited, but as you said wonderk, the key is likely in cultural means, not military ones. we want out of there, they want us out, the actual people of iraq just want everyone out so they can live in relative peace.. but no side is capable of conceeding, by the artificial terms they've created for themselves. the best answer i could see is for dubya to publically say that the us feels that the iraqi people are capable of running their own country and the us wants to leave and let them do so. however, we want to leave iraq in peace as we had intended, so tell the world that the us military will leave iraq as soon as 30 days (maybe 60, i'm not sure what the actual number should be) go by without a terrorist bombing or insurgent attack. put the ball in the terrorists court. if they really want us out of their lands, then all they have to do is stop killing. if they continue, then the iraqi people will definitely have to see them as the bad guys, and hopefully fewer people will be willing to tolerate, let alone help terrorists. 30 days of peace would hopefully halt the fuel being thrown on the fire so to speak, and give people a taste of hope, and maybe even convince some terrorists, who aren't completely fanatical personally, but part of a fanatical micro-culture, to leave the ranks of violence.
that's what heterarchy the hypothetical leader would do.. :)
well you are right that bush has never said anything near what blair said and that is due to eloquence, which we both know that bush has none of...but as far as policy what blair is propsing is very similiar to aspects of the patriot act which so many on the left seem to have problems with....can u imagine the outrage on the prospect of this administration proposing the deportation of "dissadents". so much points to blair for framing the policy in more approachable context then bush and co.
unfortunately the insergents are not so much just apposed to u.s. prescence there they are aimed at creating iraq into a theocracy similiar to iran and probably worse, we can all agree that would not be a positive outcome. so it is inperative that we continue what we started until finished...which was the establishment of iraq into a democratic nation blah blah blah...but like in any war (civil war thought to be over in months) you cannot predict all outcome in order to schedual a withdrawel...buy establishing a schedualed withdrawel you effectively place all strategy in the hands of politicians and fall into the same crux that veitnam became. once iraq is capable of independant rule and protection we will leave...
look at turkey as an example of what iraq will become...none of the insurgents have come from turkey as an example of islam and democratic process living in harmony..that is the long term peace that will be accomplished.
dear cr,
your last paragraph on comparing the situation in iraq developing into a system like turkey has, is a wishful thinking.
briefly, turkey is a modern republic that was established in 1923 and is a member or associate in most western pacts including military and commerce as well as cultural. and it is a child of ottoman empire which successfuly governed balkans, middle east and north africa as well as portions of russia for long centuries.
democracy is a hard one to insert, and requires long years of maturity and determination of its people. unfortunately i don't see such a tradition is taking a hold in iraq, no matter how much it is propagated it is. americans know it is a long road and a new election in usa eventually will produce a president who will halphazardly will call the troops home. similar to what happened in vietnam. then somebody will win an iraq war memorial and call it a great american attempt to insert democracy when in fact iraq will be three piece country with border wars to come.
i hope your wish come through in a blue moon.
looks like Londoners are finally feeling their oats and getting tough with terrorists & their breeding grounds (wishful thinking?). the fact that the suicide bombers were British citizens is amazing. imagine if 9-11 had been committed by U.S. citizens...unimaginable.
the early spin that these were attacks 'inspired by U.S. & British involvement in Iraq' now look purely partisan and opportunistic.
the reality is, the more radical muslim extremists attack, the more the truth surfaces, that 9-11 and multiple terrorists attacks happened before the Iraq invasion. they have centuries-old grudges and extremist religion-based f-ed up ideas about women, society, and governments. they, like Manson, are inspired by their god...this means any evil is acceptable to them...if it works for the 'greater good' [[sound familiar Hume & Communists?]]
the attacks on London, yes, may have been inspired partly by the U.S./British offensive in Iraq & Afghanistan against terrorists, but only in the manner that a serial murderer is inspired to kill quicker as he angrily watches news reports about a police team hunting him down & killing his associates. i'm ecstatic that al queda's inflamed, mad, and on the defense. imagine if we had not acted after 9-11, and all of their infrastructure was alive and growing to produce an attack trumping 9-11.
some say we shouldn't have attacked them in Afghanistan because it would only inflame them, possibly causing more attacks against them. you idiots. of course it raises the possibility of more attacks...but it lessens the possibility of more attacks in the future. this is the crux of the issue. people have no concept of long term versus short term consequences and results or morality. most of these people are just brainless, but the intelligent ones among them suffer from deconstructivist thinking in which every aim or greater goal or 'big picture' is systematically torn into pieces by valuing the micro over the macro. this valuing of the micro over the macro works in art but not life.
nicomachean, I appreciate your opinion, but Osama bin Laden has said, on one of his tapes I think, that he decided to declare war on the West because of the FIRST Iraq war. It wasn't the US army showing up in Iraq that is the problem, but the US Army showing up on MUSLIM HOLY LAND in Iraq and Saudi Arabia that is the problem. He said the US has no business in the country that has Medina and Mecca, which is part of the reason why he has declared war on the Saudis as well, because of their (strange) relationship with the Bushes, et al.
Yes, the guy is a psychopath but we have no reason not to believe him when he tells us to our faces.
On a side note, how screwed up is it that this bastard gets to go around making videos while a 22-year-old British-Pakistani kid who excelled at soccer decides to blow himself up on a subway? It's absolutely unimaginable, just like you said.
e, McVeigh wasn't a suicide bomber, he acted with the expectation he would survive...and did until caught and punished with lethal injection. someone willing to sacrifice their own life by their own will, whatever the scale of attack, seems to show much more fanaticism. i agree that oklahoma city was unimaginable in terms of scale & civilian deaths.
wonder K, it is true osam has stated our involvement in the gulf war and our prescence in saudi arabia was their impotus/justification for their attacks on 9/11. but he has also stated his over reaching goal of al queda (translated loosely as the "foundation/begining") is to convert the entire globe to islam...and by apperantly violent means if need be. that kind of zealotry and cockyness allowed him to effectivly brainwash young and inpresionable muslim men to commit the ultimate in cowardly deeds of suicide bombings to kill as many of the "infidels" as possible for this crazy ideal. He has also become all the more sure of his aim by past actions of the united states...he states that he is asured of our downfall due to our evacuation of lebbenon in the 80's after the bombing of the marine barracks when we left...our cutting and running after somalia when we ditched our good will mision of feeding starving refugees after the "black hawk down" incident...he is assured that we will bow down as long as he is able to ruthlessly order followers to kill civilians...he is able to test the resolve of the spanish govt. after the madrid bombings and so he tries the exact same thing in london...luckily to differant results (england appears to continue its course) he is expecting us to get out of iraq when it gets too bloody...if we do he wins...but he does'nt stop there he only becomes more cocky to acheive his ultimate fanatical goal...an islamic world...all dissenters are disposed of and justified by more religouse double speak in the form of fatwahs which state that the killing of innocents is fine as long as they have been warned to the purposes of his aim...he is polluting and slandering an entire religion for his own ego....the only solution is to not back down until it is clear that the killing of civilians will not be tolerated...it is kill or be killed
the u.s. is not perfect by any means (we have made mistakes) but the imputus on who fired the first shot is pointless...what is done is done the line has got to be drawn when a movement sees fit to kill inocent people..it is a truelly EVIL. we cannot comprimise, it is they who must comprimise
abra, turkey is just an example of the once contrarian view (of people on the "left") who thought that islam and a western style democratic government were incopatable as some sort of doomsday scenerio to our efforts in iraq.
it will be the blue moon when a small minority of imported "mujahadeen" are able to take over an advanced and diverce peoples such as the iraqi's...they have only made their ideological case all the more apperaently evil with their act today (the killing of 27 childeran) the iraqi people want us their until they are able to take the reigns when the opposition are nothing but a crazed jordanian who takes his orders from a rich fanatical saudi.
11. withdraw our sanctions on Iraq (enacted after the first Gulf War) [NA]
12. dismiss the idea of Jerusalem as the Jewish capital
13. the above are 'only a few examples of your oppression and agression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge...Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge...
14. convert to Islam ("The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam...It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions..."
15. stop lying, getting drunk, womanizing, etc...("...The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you...")
16.
a. purge our society of homosexuality
b. stop all fornication
c. reenact prohibition
d. outlaw gambling
e. stop trading with interest
("...We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest...)
17. confess to being "the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind"
18. join religion and politics ("...You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator...")
19. enact laws against 'immorality' ("...You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object...")
20. throw ex-president Clinton in jail!
("...Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?...") how do you know it wasn't the Lewinsky scandal that pushed OBL over the edge?!
21. stop exploiting women (not a bad suggestion) & forbid women to do certain jobs...cover themselves with veils too?? ("...You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.
22. outlaw porn & related industries ("...You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it...")
23. sign the Kyoto agreement
24. admit that 'the Jews' control our policies, media and economy
25. "...cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines..."
26. deny your atheism
"...If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him...The Nation of Martyrdom; the Nation that desires death more than you desire life...It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad peace be upon him) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over all other religions even though the Polytheists hate it. (Quran 61:9)...
...we are all infidels to be killed.
(still afraid of those right-wing christian conservative 'extremists'?)
whoa. i'm not sure where to start..
still afraid of those right-wing christian conservative extremists? hell yes. they're identical to the right wing conservative extremists of islam except for three things: the specific religion involved (which matters in semantics only) that the christian fundamendalists are controlling america instead of a dirt-poor network of desparate people, and that the islamists are actually under attach while the christians aren't. one bombing on us soil in a number of years, versus at least one bombing per day in iraq... if the roles were reversed, and bin laden was an enormously powerful world leader in the way the united states is, and the us was poor and barely able to defend itself, and we were invaded by a foreign islamic presence with no real conventional to defend ourselves, you'd better bet that the right-wing christian conservative extremists would be carrying out suicide bombings and doing anything they could to preserve their way of life in the face of a foreign presence seemingly bent on destroying their historical way of life. so hell yeah, i'm afraid of bush's religious conservative backers. they're pulling a lot of strings and they'd like nothing more than to impose christianity on the world in exactly the same way bin laden wants to do so. i fear them because i have no doubt that if they're given the opportunity to control america, then war and destruction and alienation will escalate beyong our control. and as an american, living in new york no less, i'm right in the middle. that's scary.
that bin laden is a fanatic and a madman is obvious, but to dismiss any powerful madman as simply a madman is very dangerous. he's also highly intelligent, very well educated, and has a carefully crafted message that has great appeal to a lot of people. invading countries, especially islamic ones, will only give fuel and power to bin laden's words.
turkey is nothing like iraq, as abra said. interestingly of course, both turkey and america are guilty of much worse genocides than iraq ever committed...
bin laden was partially motivated by the first gulf war, but he's more of a longterm fanatical islam extermist. even if the us hadn't invaded iraq either time, or had military presence in the middle east, he would still be doing more or less the same thing. however, it isn't bin laden that should be our first concern, it's all of those who are convinced to give their lives in the name of fanaticism. and those people, most absolutely certainly, are motivated in large part by the united state's action's in the middle east, specifically dubya's iraq war.
you don't win terrorism by killing terrorists, you win by not creating more of them. and creating more of them is exactly what bush has excelled at.
furthermore, your assertion of how strange it seems that the london bombers were actually british is naive and thoughtless. britain, like the us and most of the rest of europe, is a very diverse place. it's much easier for a native of a country to accomplish something like this than for a terrorist to try to cross all those borders and put together the neccessary materials and research without being caught. the latest reports indicate that the london bombers likely had no actualy contact or connection to bin laden other than through media coverage. obviuosly, they weren't "corrupted" by bin laden, they made up their own minds out of fanatical anger at the west for invading what they consider to be their holy land.
by your kaleidoscopic logic our only option is surrender. to fight at all will just incite more terrorism.
have you thought this through?
you ignore and neglect to consider the immorality of terrorism. christians would be suicide bombers if the circumstances were flipped? you need to start your rehabilitation by educating yourself about the differences among religions.
you don't win terrorism by killing terrorists, you win by not creating more of them
i needed a good laugh…thanks!
well, nico, i'm glad i could give a chortle. it makes me sick that you would laugh at my statements, but then again, i'm sure my statements make you sick.
my logic is far from kaleidoscopic, unless you mean that it incorporates empathy (not neccessarily sympathy) in to it, and therefore looks at the issue from more than ONE point of view. if that's what you mean, then i heartily thank you for the compliment. however, i doubt that was your intention. in any case, at no point have i said that our only option was to surrender, or even that we should consider surrendering at all.
i appreciate your constantly trying to pollute and contort what i say in to extremes which i would in no way agree with, in order to make your otherwise baseless points seem more reasonable compared to ridiculous ficticious assertions which were never made. if the only way you can make an argument is by pretending i've said things that i haven't, then that's too bad for you.
my point has time and time again been that we SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE TO WAR IN IRAQ IN THE MANNER THAT WE DID IN THE FIRST PLACE, if at all (which would then preclude any possibility of even bringing up the word "surrender"), but now that we're there we can't leave till we've fulfilled our promises (which is the opposite of the notion of surrendering). bush screwed up enormously, and so now instead of tracking down terrorists to bring them to justice for their awful crimes, we're creating more terrorists every day.
i can't believe that you would possibly think that i "ignore and neglect to consider the immorality of terrorism", when i consistently rail against violence of ANY kind, so i have to assume that you don't have a real counter-argument and are throwing out ridiculous smoke screens. in any case, accusing me of not believing that terrorism is immoral is incredibly offensive and ridiculously assinine. how can you make such insane accusations and still take yourself seriously?
hey everybody lets not take things too personal...the point of this is to share and express our point of view about the topic not debase others for not complying.
heter...i appreciate your empathy for the situation, but your attempt to turn the events around (christian/islam...and iraq invading us) is really jumping to conclusions and bypassing the current question on how to deal with the present reality. SIDE NOTE: it would be up for a whole new discusion to trace the cultural manifistations of how the u.s. became the sole super power while cultures of the middle east despite haveing the largest percentage of the worlds oil have remained somewhere hovering barly above 3rd world standards...perhaps a free and transparent democratic government and i diverse relatively open society)
i agree that todays christian right (while i coinsider myself a christian and could account for a acknowledged bias i don't come close to associating w/ Falwell and co.) would want to convert the entire world, the largest differance is that they would do it by acts of non-violence, and lead by peacful means for the most part....
no doubt bin laden is mad genius
i think it is way too early to be sure in righting off this latest attack in london as an independant action divorced from al queda, there are reports now that the terrorists traveled to pakistan and and plans for the london underground found on a leading al queda laptop in raids around the world...similiarly to how the transfer money i'm sure the network uses archiac means of communication that slip past our inteligence. we will see as new evidence arrives.
when a terrorist makes an attack and their demands are met i.e. spain, it encourage them to do more of the same i.e. london
when you pay a ransome to a terrorist for the release of a hostage you perpetuate more hostage taking....short term gain means long term regression and vice versa
caleb, i agree with your most recent post entirely.
arch, i still don't see how anyone is capable of saying that i am justifying or accepting of terrorism. and caleb's totally right that i got a bit carried away in my frustration, and maybe that's arch's/nico's intention, but i'm trying to discuss the issues, and am a bit indignant that so many of the responses to my posts are along the lines of "HETERARCHY IS A DIRTY DEMOCRACY HATING TERRORIST WHO EATS SMALL CHILDREN AS SACRIFICE TO HIS BEST BUDDY OSAMA BIN LADEN!" i mean, come on. it's infuriating.
if you think that i'm somehow justifying terrorism, then please enlighten me as to what i've said to that effect.
i've said time and again that there's no justification for terrorism, but that there's also no justification in my mind for the war in iraq. i believe the war in iraq is creating more terrorists, which is one reason that i'm against it. so how is that "justifying" terrorism? i feel like i'm taking frickin crazy pills here?! :)
in any case, my attempt to turn the situation around was not about bypassing reality, but about responding to nico's "(still afraid of those right-wing christian conservative 'extremists'?)" statement. even so, i would always assert that turning the situation around and looking at it from your enemies point of view is a valuable way to work towards dealing with the reality your face. ideally, if both sides could honestly do this, then the moniker of "enemy" might dissolve away between them. naive? maybe a little, but worthwhile nonetheless.
the historical tracings of the us's rise to power and the middle east's seeming impotence despite its natural resources would indeed be an interesting, but lengthy separate, discussion. but despite my enormous admiration for democracy as far and away the most humane, reasonable and enlightened form of governance ever to exist (despite accusations by several to the contrary here), i would say that several other very important factors would need to be considered as well, such as the us's own enormous natural resources and isolated geography, the history of near-perpetual conflict in the middle east, and the fact that oil as a resource has only really become anywhere near as important as it currently is in the past century - well after the united states was well along its meteroic path towards being a global superpower while the middle east was many centuries in to its cultural decline at the global scale. anyway, as you said, an interesting discussion, but a tangential one at best.
that the christian right would prefer to convert the world through peaceful means i don't refute at all, only add two caveats beyond my earlier hypothetical role reversal. 1- that the act of conversion is inherently a violent one in reality, even if it is theologically and theoretically the opposite, and 2- that the christian right is only capable of pursuing peaceful means of conversion because it occupies a global cultural seat of power. in previous centuries, when christianity did not have such a clear degree of power, it was most certainly only too happy to pursue violent means of conversion.
i fear extremists whether on the right or left, christian or muslim, or any other name.
heterarchy, i share your loathing of extremists (well...you fear, and i loathe) perhaps you don't think you sound extreme but your statements tell another story. (by the way i laugh because i imagine you huddled up in fear from Gandi or MLK, or any other peacemaker, seems like you should fear those who'd like to kill you because of your freedom)
when you compared fanatical Islamic terrorists to christian conservatives without mentioning the obvious difference (one does intentional violence to civilians), that's when i sensed an imbalance in your thinking. now, you say, well christians would, or have in the past, use violence if the table was turned. comparing christians of today to christians involved in theocracies hundreds of years ago is problematic at best.
i'm glad you realize the value of democracy' and liberty, because you didn't mention it in your original response, and that worried me. radical Islamists want theocracies worldwide, while christians want nothing of the sort.
it seems you have a sort of paranoia about christians...maybe you should ask one about what their beliefs are...hint, it doesn't include 'worldwide domination'.
i don't think you're justifying terrorism, you just don't propose a method of fighting it or solving the problem. because you don't, we're led to triangulate based on the logic of your comments. if you win by 'not creating any more terrorists', what do you do with the current terrorists? according to your logic, you can't hunt them down and kill them, because that would only inflame the ones who were left as well as inspire more.
you're confusing expected short term setbacks with long term victory.
alright, sorry it took me so long to reply, had studio midterm presentation yesterday, and a seminar midterm paper due today.. just turned it in, so i finally have a free minute. :)
bots, great toons, especially the uneasyrider one. :)
nico, you're right, i do fear and you do loathe. you aren't afraid of anything because you're a big tough guy. awesome. personally, i'd rather be afraid than loathe anyone. in any case, if i sound extreme because i rail so passionately against extremism, whether it be islamic, christian, easter, western, bin laden or bush.. then so be it. there are extremists on all sides, and too many of them have too much power, and so yes, that scares me.
if you loathe extremists, then i assume you must loathe our esteemed president?
if you scoff at that, then i certainly have to laugh hysterically at you comparing bush to gandhi or mlk.. indeed i think that comparison would probably be pretty offensive to a majority of the world and this country. lets see... two guys who advocated bringing about peace by NOT pursuing violence in any sort, in order to peacefully fight against an imposing power.. VERSUS a guy who advocates violence and war at the drop of a hat in order to impose control over others.
you were joking right? or do you actually not know anything about gandhi or mlk or the concept of PEACEmaking?
as for comparing radical christians to radical muslims, i think my comparison is quite valid. besides the long history that i already mentioned, how about the long-standing conflict and violence in northern ireland between catholics and protestants? bombings, snipers, the whole deal.. between two closely related branches of christianity. how does that figure in to your argument?
i'd argue that saying one religion is more inclined towards terrorism than the others greatly oversimplifies the situation. i'd say that terrorism isn't predicated on religion at all, but on fundamentally human characteristics such as anger, greed, pride, etc.. the whole human condition. terrorists often use religion as a motivational tool, but it's only a catalyst, and i would argue that saying that muslims are more likely to kill innocents than christians is inherently flawed. religions are only used as a tool to inspire people to commit otherwise universally "accepted" awful acts.
moving on, what worries me is that people like you feel that its neccessary to proclaim your respect for democracy and liberty as a mantra before being able to say or do anything else. your patronistic attitude is exactly what worries ME. it's symbolic of a reemerging nationalistic attitude that in its current iteration shouts its proclamations of love of freedom in order to suppress REAL liberty, and drown out the voices that would criticize those "freedom-lovers" in power. democracy, freedom, liberty.. these are precisely the foundations of my arguments against you. i am against bush's policies because i feel that freedom, liberty and democracy are being traded in for some supposed ficticious notion of security.
if you think that world-wide domination is NOT part of the christian (or most other religions for that matter) intention, then you obviously aren't a christian, or at least not a good one. if you do not give yourself to christ, you're going to hell, correct? and it's every christian's mission to space others from going to hell if they can, right? this is spoken of as "mercy", but what we're talking about here is conversion. the goal of every religion that asserts that it is the only true path to heaven/enlightenment/paradise/etc is to "save" the human race. this mean exactly "worldwide domination". how can you say something so naive? in any case, i've been raised completely surrounded by christians for most all of my life. most of my best friends growing up tried to convert me on multiple occassions, i tried not to hold it against them, and indeed even hung out at church functions and still think that they're generally good people. but the notion of righteous conversion is inherently a violent one. it's just a matter of doing the math.
as for proposing a method to fight terrorism, i did that earlier... see the post i ended with "that's what heterarchy the hypothetical leader would do.. :)" but the biggest issue i've tried to raise again and again is that bush has put us in a place where we have fewer options, where we're less secure because we're creating more terrorists than we were before, where things are much more difficult and dangerous than if he hadn't unilaterally invaded iraq as and when he did.
see this article from the american conservative. that's right, i'm quoting a conservative magazing, how's that for being as fair as possible? in any case, its an interesting statistical argument as far as how to fight terrorism.
as for the current terrorists, we track them down in conjunction with the un, interpol, etc. use small groups of special forces cells that would operate more like the terrorists themselves do. capture as many as possible while killing as few as possible. don't use interogation means that violate international standards (even if they might deserve it - we can't allow ourselves to appear to the world to be no less violent and inhumane than the terrorists, we're held to an unfair standard, but that's the price you pay when you're in our position). we give them fair trials, treat them exactly as we treat americans and as we say we want to treat all human beings. in other words, we walk the walk of all the honorable talk of humane freedom and democracy.
i would say that YOU are confusing expected short term victories with longer term ones. the long term is exactly what i'm concerned with and addressing.
"...Aswat is believed to have had a ten-year association with militant groups and met Osama bin Laden while attending an al-Qaeda training camp at Khalden in Afghanistan.
FBI documents obtained by The Times reveal details of how a London-based cleric sent Aswat to America in 1999 to set up camps in Oregon for US-born recruits...."
heterarchy, do you fear German people? how about Japanese people? decendents of Civil War veterans?
I ask because you seem to equate current groups of people with their ancestors hundreds or thousands of years ago. (Christians now with violent 'Christians' of the past)
It's not healthy or wise to live in fear my friend.
If Bush is extremist, then more than half of our country is extremist. Doesn't pencil out dude. If being an 'extremist' means anything other than a spineless moderate, then, hey, I'm an extremist too. Having core beliefs and values doesn't make you an extremist.
I believe you willingly neglected to mention that Bush offered peace to Saddam...Saddam could have walked away without violence, but, of course, he chose to be stubborn.
Your suggestion on how to fight terrorism seems to violate your own principles....are you going to hunt the terrorist down excepting them not to notice until they are all gone? Undoubtedly, they'll notice and they'll be ticked, and then dammit, you've just created more terrorists! Then you put them on trial, pretending that militant attacks on innocent civilians is defendable, giving the terrorists a chance to explain their reasoning...your going to create liberal terrorist sympathisers...I can see it now....little Mohammad Atta was beaten as a kid...how can you judge him?..."he was just trying to do something for the greater good!"..."his intentions were noble"...
het, I'm really sorry I abandoned you, I get tired of wasting energy typing responses to people who obviously don't get it. I didn't read most of the more recent posts and quite frankly I don't have the time now but I'll bite a little.
Nobody here thinks that terrorism is good. Extremists need to be stopped and invading Iraq was probably not the best way to go about doing that, because destabilizing the country has allowed it to become a practice ground for people who like to blow up things.
Saddam was not an extremist. He was a tyrant. There is a difference. We've eliminated one verifiable evil for one that is shape-shifting, ideological and cowardly.
Our resources are being wasted in a war that we started when they should be fighting terrorism where it starts - in the heart of Muslim countries, in ashrams and in Mosques.
That is all I have time for folks! Same time same place, next week.
Now let's go see about those new blasts in London.
very clear and succinctly put, wonderk. but those that disagree with you will never 'get it', i'm afraid. their world view will not allow them to follow the same thread.
i've been avoiding any of these conversations that have to do with iraq or politics - they suck you in and eat up all of your time. and you've got your hands full with this international rv trip to organize!
yeah, i'm just glad i didn't get in to the 'dead wrong' thread... 705 responses?! regardless of how frustrated i get by nico et al (and i'm sure i'm at least as frustrating to some of them:), i'm really glad that there's such passionate interest in politics among an architecture community. it's certainly better to vehemently disagree than to just not care. though as you said wonderk, they can take up a whole lot of your time, which is the one thing i don't have a lot of these days.
as for the most recent london attacks, fortunately it seems no one was killed or seriously injured. my first impression when i heard that that they were small explosions was to really worry that it might have been dirty/chem/bio weopons, so far it looks as if that isn't the case.
back to nico: you're completely ignoring the northern ireland point as far as religious extremism. there are christian extremists out there TODAY who are willing to commit terrorist acts, so in no way am i only referring to the long HISTORY of violence in christianity. and as i've been saying, christians have power today, and those in power rarely have to resort to terrorism to accomplish their goals, terrorism is the tool of the desparate.
in any case, i am not "living in fear", only admitting that i fear the violent impact that people like you (who are truly living in fear) can have on the world. what would you say the emotion behind terrorism and the war on terrorism is? fear. terrorists fear that we'll destroy their world and way of living, we fear that they'll destroy us and ours. instead of confronting the fear itself, people like you pretend they aren't afraid at all, and so externalize that confrontation in the form of violence.
it is in accepting my fears that i can learn to use them against themselves and become truly invulnerable to them.
that's my two cents on that.
as for being a "spineless moderate"... well, that's about the most extremist statement i've ever heard. "spineless moderate"?!?! how the hell is fighting against the popular tide of extremism and trying to shoulder the gap between extremely divergeant ideologies spineless? constructing bridges takes a whole lot of backbone my friend.
there are core beliefs and values on every inch of every political and ideological specturm nico. if i didn't have very strong core values why would i continue to spend so much time arguing with you?
it takes much STRONGER core values to be confident enough in your own to accept other's. it's those without strong values that must attack everyone else's instead of relying confidently on their own.
as for bush "offering" saddam peace, give me a break. you know that bush wanted to invade regardless. bush never had any intent of peace and knew that saddam was in a corner that he couldn't back out of. in any case, even if saddam did have an opportunity for peace, bush had a bigger opportunity not to initiate the war. there was no good reason to go to war in iraq, as has been proven time and again, and bush should not have ever even considered it. it should have never come to a point where "Saddam could have walked away without violence".
as for your perpetual perversion of my suggestions to fight terrorism, i fully expect other terrorists to notice what's going on, indeed it would neccessarily be a public campaign. the key point is that bush is trying to fight terrorism like its a static country, which of course it isn't. as the article i posted earlier showed, through plain facts and in a conservative forum, acts of terrorism are much more likely when you occupy a foreign land. my suggestion is predicated on hunting down terrorists with the sanction of the un and with the help of the countries involved. in this way, you arne't an "occupier", but are effectively a transient police force. instead of causing absolute chaos and destruction, leading to people being pissed off at you enough to join fanatical groups, you try to be as non-invasive as possible. you track down the small number of extremists without creating more of them. terrorism will never go away, as i've said before, but in the wake of 9/11 the us had enormous international sympathy and political clout that could have been used to leverage unprecedented cooperation from other countries in tracking down real terrorists. instead, bush f'd it up. opportunities were lost and we're worse off than we were before. i just don't see how his (or your) policies make any sense in light of how they've fared in reality. all the things you're arguing for are actually in practice today, and they just aren't working. your ideologies are getting a very fair opportunity to prove their merit, and they're failing in every regard.
I just want to say that every time I hear about a blast here or there or wherever - no matter if it's London or Lebanon - my stomach starts to go in knots. I'm the type of person that likes to take things into my own hands and I'm beginning to think that Rumsfeld needs to give me a packet of James Bond-esque goodies and a plane ticket so I can go "take care" of the terrorists myself. A crash course in Farsi wouldn't hurt either.
Peace, please! For the love of humanity. Seriously.
London under attack!
er. I dont think I care.
Everyone passing a big messy car wreck says "oh, I hope no one got hurt!" but is thinking "oh, I hope I see some brains!"
wakka wakka
Simon Kim - same simon who was at carleton till 94? i tried emailing you but it bounced back. drop me a line if its you...
innes
oklahoma city never forget
hi Innes - not exactly the same - a few motorcycle incidents have made it interesting. sent an email to bnode. let me know what's happening!
i commend the british government, seems they are hot on the trails of what happened when who...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4676577.stm
The guy in the office who got hurt on the train actually sat in the carriage where the bomb went off!…he stood on the other end of the carriage…talking about looking death straight in the eyes….lucky enough he doesn’t remember anything, only that he woke up in the street.
wow, that is scary stuff...it is real interesting and quit puzzeling that the bombers appear to have been from educated middle class backgrounds, i think one even had a young daughter.
so after the bombing, i wasn't too worried as far as checking on people i know possibly being involved. i only know one person in the uk, and she rarely heads down to london, plus since my family knows hers, i would have found out very soon if something had happened. anyway, it turns out that my ex-girlfriend was in the uk looking at grad schools and was scheduled to head down to london on the day of the bombing, but the prof she was to meet cancelled the day before... crazy.
anyway, what does everyone think of blair's new 4 point plan?
"He told the Commons the government had a four-point plan, in which it would:
-Begin the process of consultation on planned counter-terrorism legislation within the next couple of weeks, with a priority being measures to combat the incitement and instigation of terrorism.
-Look urgently at how to strengthen the process for excluding from the UK those who incite hatred, and make it easier to deport such people.
-Start discussions immediately with Muslim leaders on combating "the perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of Islam" which lay behind the attacks.
-Talk to other nations on how to mobilize the "moderate and true voice of Islam."
personally, though it isn't perfect (nothing is), it makes me wish he were my leader. though i don't like the level of cooperation he's given dubya, i can understdan why.. in general i think blair's gotten a bad wrap. what do the brits here think of that? if he hadn't joined bush in iraq, would his pop numbers be up? i know that other situations like employment/etc are factors, but not sure how much in the public mind there.
I think that this is a very reasonable approach, however, I still give credence to those who say that terrorists are bringing it to the western nations because we are occupying their holy sites in the Middle East. If this is indeed the case, then as long as Blair continues to keep British troops in Iraq or wherever Dubya wants them, then terrorism will continue.
I think the problem with all of these plans is a severe lack of engagement with the governing parties in the Middle East. No, we don't want to encourage those who treat women like property but at the same time, they do, and we shouldn't point fingers from afar unless we have a greater dialogue with their culture. It's a back door method, if you will, but it involves more communication and diplomacy and less blowing up of people, both soldiers and innocent (like the 27 or so kids that just got blown up in Iraq as they were trying to get candy from a US Army truck).
agreed. but at least blair's points are the closest official policy to what you're talking about (which of course i agree with). i know that dubya hasn't ever said anything as remotely reasonable as this (prove me wrong caleb et al). and at least blair is calling for talking to muslim leaders as a major part of the policy. terrorism will likely never be "beaten", one group or another will always feel marginalized to the point of extremism and will conduct these sorts of attacks. but if we want to try to encourage these groups to express themselves in non-violent means, then we need to stop believing that we can achieve any progress through violence. we're setting the example, and right now we are setting exactly the kind of example that will lead to more terrorism.
in any case, we can't just leave iraq in the shape it is now after having created this escalated mess. we have to find some way to fulfill the promises of peace and more humane conditions that we shouted from our soap boxes when we rose our rifles and patriot missiles in to the air at the onset of the war. our current policy isn't bringing us any closer to peace. in fact, our choices now are pretty limited, but as you said wonderk, the key is likely in cultural means, not military ones. we want out of there, they want us out, the actual people of iraq just want everyone out so they can live in relative peace.. but no side is capable of conceeding, by the artificial terms they've created for themselves. the best answer i could see is for dubya to publically say that the us feels that the iraqi people are capable of running their own country and the us wants to leave and let them do so. however, we want to leave iraq in peace as we had intended, so tell the world that the us military will leave iraq as soon as 30 days (maybe 60, i'm not sure what the actual number should be) go by without a terrorist bombing or insurgent attack. put the ball in the terrorists court. if they really want us out of their lands, then all they have to do is stop killing. if they continue, then the iraqi people will definitely have to see them as the bad guys, and hopefully fewer people will be willing to tolerate, let alone help terrorists. 30 days of peace would hopefully halt the fuel being thrown on the fire so to speak, and give people a taste of hope, and maybe even convince some terrorists, who aren't completely fanatical personally, but part of a fanatical micro-culture, to leave the ranks of violence.
that's what heterarchy the hypothetical leader would do.. :)
well you are right that bush has never said anything near what blair said and that is due to eloquence, which we both know that bush has none of...but as far as policy what blair is propsing is very similiar to aspects of the patriot act which so many on the left seem to have problems with....can u imagine the outrage on the prospect of this administration proposing the deportation of "dissadents". so much points to blair for framing the policy in more approachable context then bush and co.
unfortunately the insergents are not so much just apposed to u.s. prescence there they are aimed at creating iraq into a theocracy similiar to iran and probably worse, we can all agree that would not be a positive outcome. so it is inperative that we continue what we started until finished...which was the establishment of iraq into a democratic nation blah blah blah...but like in any war (civil war thought to be over in months) you cannot predict all outcome in order to schedual a withdrawel...buy establishing a schedualed withdrawel you effectively place all strategy in the hands of politicians and fall into the same crux that veitnam became. once iraq is capable of independant rule and protection we will leave...
look at turkey as an example of what iraq will become...none of the insurgents have come from turkey as an example of islam and democratic process living in harmony..that is the long term peace that will be accomplished.
dear cr,
your last paragraph on comparing the situation in iraq developing into a system like turkey has, is a wishful thinking.
briefly, turkey is a modern republic that was established in 1923 and is a member or associate in most western pacts including military and commerce as well as cultural. and it is a child of ottoman empire which successfuly governed balkans, middle east and north africa as well as portions of russia for long centuries.
democracy is a hard one to insert, and requires long years of maturity and determination of its people. unfortunately i don't see such a tradition is taking a hold in iraq, no matter how much it is propagated it is. americans know it is a long road and a new election in usa eventually will produce a president who will halphazardly will call the troops home. similar to what happened in vietnam. then somebody will win an iraq war memorial and call it a great american attempt to insert democracy when in fact iraq will be three piece country with border wars to come.
i hope your wish come through in a blue moon.
i'll respond to the initial post:
looks like Londoners are finally feeling their oats and getting tough with terrorists & their breeding grounds (wishful thinking?). the fact that the suicide bombers were British citizens is amazing. imagine if 9-11 had been committed by U.S. citizens...unimaginable.
the early spin that these were attacks 'inspired by U.S. & British involvement in Iraq' now look purely partisan and opportunistic.
the reality is, the more radical muslim extremists attack, the more the truth surfaces, that 9-11 and multiple terrorists attacks happened before the Iraq invasion. they have centuries-old grudges and extremist religion-based f-ed up ideas about women, society, and governments. they, like Manson, are inspired by their god...this means any evil is acceptable to them...if it works for the 'greater good' [[sound familiar Hume & Communists?]]
the attacks on London, yes, may have been inspired partly by the U.S./British offensive in Iraq & Afghanistan against terrorists, but only in the manner that a serial murderer is inspired to kill quicker as he angrily watches news reports about a police team hunting him down & killing his associates. i'm ecstatic that al queda's inflamed, mad, and on the defense. imagine if we had not acted after 9-11, and all of their infrastructure was alive and growing to produce an attack trumping 9-11.
some say we shouldn't have attacked them in Afghanistan because it would only inflame them, possibly causing more attacks against them. you idiots. of course it raises the possibility of more attacks...but it lessens the possibility of more attacks in the future. this is the crux of the issue. people have no concept of long term versus short term consequences and results or morality. most of these people are just brainless, but the intelligent ones among them suffer from deconstructivist thinking in which every aim or greater goal or 'big picture' is systematically torn into pieces by valuing the micro over the macro. this valuing of the micro over the macro works in art but not life.
"the fact that the suicide bombers were British citizens is amazing. imagine if 9-11 had been committed by U.S. citizens...unimaginable."
oklahoma city?
nicomachean, I appreciate your opinion, but Osama bin Laden has said, on one of his tapes I think, that he decided to declare war on the West because of the FIRST Iraq war. It wasn't the US army showing up in Iraq that is the problem, but the US Army showing up on MUSLIM HOLY LAND in Iraq and Saudi Arabia that is the problem. He said the US has no business in the country that has Medina and Mecca, which is part of the reason why he has declared war on the Saudis as well, because of their (strange) relationship with the Bushes, et al.
Yes, the guy is a psychopath but we have no reason not to believe him when he tells us to our faces.
On a side note, how screwed up is it that this bastard gets to go around making videos while a 22-year-old British-Pakistani kid who excelled at soccer decides to blow himself up on a subway? It's absolutely unimaginable, just like you said.
e, McVeigh wasn't a suicide bomber, he acted with the expectation he would survive...and did until caught and punished with lethal injection. someone willing to sacrifice their own life by their own will, whatever the scale of attack, seems to show much more fanaticism. i agree that oklahoma city was unimaginable in terms of scale & civilian deaths.
wonder K, it is true osam has stated our involvement in the gulf war and our prescence in saudi arabia was their impotus/justification for their attacks on 9/11. but he has also stated his over reaching goal of al queda (translated loosely as the "foundation/begining") is to convert the entire globe to islam...and by apperantly violent means if need be. that kind of zealotry and cockyness allowed him to effectivly brainwash young and inpresionable muslim men to commit the ultimate in cowardly deeds of suicide bombings to kill as many of the "infidels" as possible for this crazy ideal. He has also become all the more sure of his aim by past actions of the united states...he states that he is asured of our downfall due to our evacuation of lebbenon in the 80's after the bombing of the marine barracks when we left...our cutting and running after somalia when we ditched our good will mision of feeding starving refugees after the "black hawk down" incident...he is assured that we will bow down as long as he is able to ruthlessly order followers to kill civilians...he is able to test the resolve of the spanish govt. after the madrid bombings and so he tries the exact same thing in london...luckily to differant results (england appears to continue its course) he is expecting us to get out of iraq when it gets too bloody...if we do he wins...but he does'nt stop there he only becomes more cocky to acheive his ultimate fanatical goal...an islamic world...all dissenters are disposed of and justified by more religouse double speak in the form of fatwahs which state that the killing of innocents is fine as long as they have been warned to the purposes of his aim...he is polluting and slandering an entire religion for his own ego....the only solution is to not back down until it is clear that the killing of civilians will not be tolerated...it is kill or be killed
the u.s. is not perfect by any means (we have made mistakes) but the imputus on who fired the first shot is pointless...what is done is done the line has got to be drawn when a movement sees fit to kill inocent people..it is a truelly EVIL. we cannot comprimise, it is they who must comprimise
abra, turkey is just an example of the once contrarian view (of people on the "left") who thought that islam and a western style democratic government were incopatable as some sort of doomsday scenerio to our efforts in iraq.
it will be the blue moon when a small minority of imported "mujahadeen" are able to take over an advanced and diverce peoples such as the iraqi's...they have only made their ideological case all the more apperaently evil with their act today (the killing of 27 childeran) the iraqi people want us their until they are able to take the reigns when the opposition are nothing but a crazed jordanian who takes his orders from a rich fanatical saudi.
WonderK, yes, but beyond even the first Gulf war, unless we do everything OBL says...
1. apologize/accept punishment or revenge for our involvement with Palestine
2. apologize/accept punishment or revenge for attacking 'them' in Somalia
3. apologize/accept punishment or revenge for supporting the Russian atrocities against 'them' in Chechnya
4. apologize/accept punishment or revenge for the the Indian oppression against 'them' in Kashmir
5. apologize/accept punishment or revenge for 'supporting' the Jewish aggression against 'them' in Lebanon
6. apologize/accept punishment or revenge for supporting governments that prevent 'their people' from establishing the Islamic Shariah
7. accept the removal of said governments and replacement with the Shariah as the supreme law
8. stop 'stealing' [buying/paying money for] 'their' oil
9. close all military bases in 'their' countries
10. withdraw our support of 'the Jews'
11. withdraw our sanctions on Iraq (enacted after the first Gulf War) [NA]
12. dismiss the idea of Jerusalem as the Jewish capital
13. the above are 'only a few examples of your oppression and agression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge...Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge...
14. convert to Islam ("The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam...It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions..."
15. stop lying, getting drunk, womanizing, etc...("...The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you...")
16.
a. purge our society of homosexuality
b. stop all fornication
c. reenact prohibition
d. outlaw gambling
e. stop trading with interest
("...We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest...)
17. confess to being "the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind"
18. join religion and politics ("...You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator...")
19. enact laws against 'immorality' ("...You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object...")
20. throw ex-president Clinton in jail!
("...Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?...") how do you know it wasn't the Lewinsky scandal that pushed OBL over the edge?!
21. stop exploiting women (not a bad suggestion) & forbid women to do certain jobs...cover themselves with veils too?? ("...You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.
22. outlaw porn & related industries ("...You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it...")
23. sign the Kyoto agreement
24. admit that 'the Jews' control our policies, media and economy
25. "...cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines..."
26. deny your atheism
"...If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him...The Nation of Martyrdom; the Nation that desires death more than you desire life...It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad peace be upon him) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over all other religions even though the Polytheists hate it. (Quran 61:9)...
...we are all infidels to be killed.
(still afraid of those right-wing christian conservative 'extremists'?)
This is just gut-wrenching.
The Guardian's gallery of the dead and the missing
whoa. i'm not sure where to start..
still afraid of those right-wing christian conservative extremists? hell yes. they're identical to the right wing conservative extremists of islam except for three things: the specific religion involved (which matters in semantics only) that the christian fundamendalists are controlling america instead of a dirt-poor network of desparate people, and that the islamists are actually under attach while the christians aren't. one bombing on us soil in a number of years, versus at least one bombing per day in iraq... if the roles were reversed, and bin laden was an enormously powerful world leader in the way the united states is, and the us was poor and barely able to defend itself, and we were invaded by a foreign islamic presence with no real conventional to defend ourselves, you'd better bet that the right-wing christian conservative extremists would be carrying out suicide bombings and doing anything they could to preserve their way of life in the face of a foreign presence seemingly bent on destroying their historical way of life. so hell yeah, i'm afraid of bush's religious conservative backers. they're pulling a lot of strings and they'd like nothing more than to impose christianity on the world in exactly the same way bin laden wants to do so. i fear them because i have no doubt that if they're given the opportunity to control america, then war and destruction and alienation will escalate beyong our control. and as an american, living in new york no less, i'm right in the middle. that's scary.
that bin laden is a fanatic and a madman is obvious, but to dismiss any powerful madman as simply a madman is very dangerous. he's also highly intelligent, very well educated, and has a carefully crafted message that has great appeal to a lot of people. invading countries, especially islamic ones, will only give fuel and power to bin laden's words.
turkey is nothing like iraq, as abra said. interestingly of course, both turkey and america are guilty of much worse genocides than iraq ever committed...
bin laden was partially motivated by the first gulf war, but he's more of a longterm fanatical islam extermist. even if the us hadn't invaded iraq either time, or had military presence in the middle east, he would still be doing more or less the same thing. however, it isn't bin laden that should be our first concern, it's all of those who are convinced to give their lives in the name of fanaticism. and those people, most absolutely certainly, are motivated in large part by the united state's action's in the middle east, specifically dubya's iraq war.
you don't win terrorism by killing terrorists, you win by not creating more of them. and creating more of them is exactly what bush has excelled at.
see here, time magazing actually publishing something that isn't ridiculous propaganda
furthermore, your assertion of how strange it seems that the london bombers were actually british is naive and thoughtless. britain, like the us and most of the rest of europe, is a very diverse place. it's much easier for a native of a country to accomplish something like this than for a terrorist to try to cross all those borders and put together the neccessary materials and research without being caught. the latest reports indicate that the london bombers likely had no actualy contact or connection to bin laden other than through media coverage. obviuosly, they weren't "corrupted" by bin laden, they made up their own minds out of fanatical anger at the west for invading what they consider to be their holy land.
cartoons are funny, too bad this one got clipped.
check here for the end of the strip
a little serious levity for the situation...
heterarchy??? ??? ?
i don’t know where or why to begin.
by your kaleidoscopic logic our only option is surrender. to fight at all will just incite more terrorism.
have you thought this through?
you ignore and neglect to consider the immorality of terrorism. christians would be suicide bombers if the circumstances were flipped? you need to start your rehabilitation by educating yourself about the differences among religions.
you don't win terrorism by killing terrorists, you win by not creating more of them
i needed a good laugh…thanks!
well, nico, i'm glad i could give a chortle. it makes me sick that you would laugh at my statements, but then again, i'm sure my statements make you sick.
my logic is far from kaleidoscopic, unless you mean that it incorporates empathy (not neccessarily sympathy) in to it, and therefore looks at the issue from more than ONE point of view. if that's what you mean, then i heartily thank you for the compliment. however, i doubt that was your intention. in any case, at no point have i said that our only option was to surrender, or even that we should consider surrendering at all.
i appreciate your constantly trying to pollute and contort what i say in to extremes which i would in no way agree with, in order to make your otherwise baseless points seem more reasonable compared to ridiculous ficticious assertions which were never made. if the only way you can make an argument is by pretending i've said things that i haven't, then that's too bad for you.
my point has time and time again been that we SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE TO WAR IN IRAQ IN THE MANNER THAT WE DID IN THE FIRST PLACE, if at all (which would then preclude any possibility of even bringing up the word "surrender"), but now that we're there we can't leave till we've fulfilled our promises (which is the opposite of the notion of surrendering). bush screwed up enormously, and so now instead of tracking down terrorists to bring them to justice for their awful crimes, we're creating more terrorists every day.
i can't believe that you would possibly think that i "ignore and neglect to consider the immorality of terrorism", when i consistently rail against violence of ANY kind, so i have to assume that you don't have a real counter-argument and are throwing out ridiculous smoke screens. in any case, accusing me of not believing that terrorism is immoral is incredibly offensive and ridiculously assinine. how can you make such insane accusations and still take yourself seriously?
man you piss me off.
hey everybody lets not take things too personal...the point of this is to share and express our point of view about the topic not debase others for not complying.
heter...i appreciate your empathy for the situation, but your attempt to turn the events around (christian/islam...and iraq invading us) is really jumping to conclusions and bypassing the current question on how to deal with the present reality. SIDE NOTE: it would be up for a whole new discusion to trace the cultural manifistations of how the u.s. became the sole super power while cultures of the middle east despite haveing the largest percentage of the worlds oil have remained somewhere hovering barly above 3rd world standards...perhaps a free and transparent democratic government and i diverse relatively open society)
i agree that todays christian right (while i coinsider myself a christian and could account for a acknowledged bias i don't come close to associating w/ Falwell and co.) would want to convert the entire world, the largest differance is that they would do it by acts of non-violence, and lead by peacful means for the most part....
no doubt bin laden is mad genius
i think it is way too early to be sure in righting off this latest attack in london as an independant action divorced from al queda, there are reports now that the terrorists traveled to pakistan and and plans for the london underground found on a leading al queda laptop in raids around the world...similiarly to how the transfer money i'm sure the network uses archiac means of communication that slip past our inteligence. we will see as new evidence arrives.
It seems to me Heterarchy is justifying Terrorism by using the same moral equivalency that perpetuates terror.
when a terrorist makes an attack and their demands are met i.e. spain, it encourage them to do more of the same i.e. london
when you pay a ransome to a terrorist for the release of a hostage you perpetuate more hostage taking....short term gain means long term regression and vice versa
caleb, i agree with your most recent post entirely.
arch, i still don't see how anyone is capable of saying that i am justifying or accepting of terrorism. and caleb's totally right that i got a bit carried away in my frustration, and maybe that's arch's/nico's intention, but i'm trying to discuss the issues, and am a bit indignant that so many of the responses to my posts are along the lines of "HETERARCHY IS A DIRTY DEMOCRACY HATING TERRORIST WHO EATS SMALL CHILDREN AS SACRIFICE TO HIS BEST BUDDY OSAMA BIN LADEN!" i mean, come on. it's infuriating.
if you think that i'm somehow justifying terrorism, then please enlighten me as to what i've said to that effect.
i've said time and again that there's no justification for terrorism, but that there's also no justification in my mind for the war in iraq. i believe the war in iraq is creating more terrorists, which is one reason that i'm against it. so how is that "justifying" terrorism? i feel like i'm taking frickin crazy pills here?! :)
in any case, my attempt to turn the situation around was not about bypassing reality, but about responding to nico's "(still afraid of those right-wing christian conservative 'extremists'?)" statement. even so, i would always assert that turning the situation around and looking at it from your enemies point of view is a valuable way to work towards dealing with the reality your face. ideally, if both sides could honestly do this, then the moniker of "enemy" might dissolve away between them. naive? maybe a little, but worthwhile nonetheless.
the historical tracings of the us's rise to power and the middle east's seeming impotence despite its natural resources would indeed be an interesting, but lengthy separate, discussion. but despite my enormous admiration for democracy as far and away the most humane, reasonable and enlightened form of governance ever to exist (despite accusations by several to the contrary here), i would say that several other very important factors would need to be considered as well, such as the us's own enormous natural resources and isolated geography, the history of near-perpetual conflict in the middle east, and the fact that oil as a resource has only really become anywhere near as important as it currently is in the past century - well after the united states was well along its meteroic path towards being a global superpower while the middle east was many centuries in to its cultural decline at the global scale. anyway, as you said, an interesting discussion, but a tangential one at best.
that the christian right would prefer to convert the world through peaceful means i don't refute at all, only add two caveats beyond my earlier hypothetical role reversal. 1- that the act of conversion is inherently a violent one in reality, even if it is theologically and theoretically the opposite, and 2- that the christian right is only capable of pursuing peaceful means of conversion because it occupies a global cultural seat of power. in previous centuries, when christianity did not have such a clear degree of power, it was most certainly only too happy to pursue violent means of conversion.
i fear extremists whether on the right or left, christian or muslim, or any other name.
heterarchy, i share your loathing of extremists (well...you fear, and i loathe) perhaps you don't think you sound extreme but your statements tell another story. (by the way i laugh because i imagine you huddled up in fear from Gandi or MLK, or any other peacemaker, seems like you should fear those who'd like to kill you because of your freedom)
when you compared fanatical Islamic terrorists to christian conservatives without mentioning the obvious difference (one does intentional violence to civilians), that's when i sensed an imbalance in your thinking. now, you say, well christians would, or have in the past, use violence if the table was turned. comparing christians of today to christians involved in theocracies hundreds of years ago is problematic at best.
i'm glad you realize the value of democracy' and liberty, because you didn't mention it in your original response, and that worried me. radical Islamists want theocracies worldwide, while christians want nothing of the sort.
it seems you have a sort of paranoia about christians...maybe you should ask one about what their beliefs are...hint, it doesn't include 'worldwide domination'.
i don't think you're justifying terrorism, you just don't propose a method of fighting it or solving the problem. because you don't, we're led to triangulate based on the logic of your comments. if you win by 'not creating any more terrorists', what do you do with the current terrorists? according to your logic, you can't hunt them down and kill them, because that would only inflame the ones who were left as well as inspire more.
you're confusing expected short term setbacks with long term victory.
more
alright, sorry it took me so long to reply, had studio midterm presentation yesterday, and a seminar midterm paper due today.. just turned it in, so i finally have a free minute. :)
bots, great toons, especially the uneasyrider one. :)
nico, you're right, i do fear and you do loathe. you aren't afraid of anything because you're a big tough guy. awesome. personally, i'd rather be afraid than loathe anyone. in any case, if i sound extreme because i rail so passionately against extremism, whether it be islamic, christian, easter, western, bin laden or bush.. then so be it. there are extremists on all sides, and too many of them have too much power, and so yes, that scares me.
if you loathe extremists, then i assume you must loathe our esteemed president?
if you scoff at that, then i certainly have to laugh hysterically at you comparing bush to gandhi or mlk.. indeed i think that comparison would probably be pretty offensive to a majority of the world and this country. lets see... two guys who advocated bringing about peace by NOT pursuing violence in any sort, in order to peacefully fight against an imposing power.. VERSUS a guy who advocates violence and war at the drop of a hat in order to impose control over others.
you were joking right? or do you actually not know anything about gandhi or mlk or the concept of PEACEmaking?
as for comparing radical christians to radical muslims, i think my comparison is quite valid. besides the long history that i already mentioned, how about the long-standing conflict and violence in northern ireland between catholics and protestants? bombings, snipers, the whole deal.. between two closely related branches of christianity. how does that figure in to your argument?
i'd argue that saying one religion is more inclined towards terrorism than the others greatly oversimplifies the situation. i'd say that terrorism isn't predicated on religion at all, but on fundamentally human characteristics such as anger, greed, pride, etc.. the whole human condition. terrorists often use religion as a motivational tool, but it's only a catalyst, and i would argue that saying that muslims are more likely to kill innocents than christians is inherently flawed. religions are only used as a tool to inspire people to commit otherwise universally "accepted" awful acts.
moving on, what worries me is that people like you feel that its neccessary to proclaim your respect for democracy and liberty as a mantra before being able to say or do anything else. your patronistic attitude is exactly what worries ME. it's symbolic of a reemerging nationalistic attitude that in its current iteration shouts its proclamations of love of freedom in order to suppress REAL liberty, and drown out the voices that would criticize those "freedom-lovers" in power. democracy, freedom, liberty.. these are precisely the foundations of my arguments against you. i am against bush's policies because i feel that freedom, liberty and democracy are being traded in for some supposed ficticious notion of security.
if you think that world-wide domination is NOT part of the christian (or most other religions for that matter) intention, then you obviously aren't a christian, or at least not a good one. if you do not give yourself to christ, you're going to hell, correct? and it's every christian's mission to space others from going to hell if they can, right? this is spoken of as "mercy", but what we're talking about here is conversion. the goal of every religion that asserts that it is the only true path to heaven/enlightenment/paradise/etc is to "save" the human race. this mean exactly "worldwide domination". how can you say something so naive? in any case, i've been raised completely surrounded by christians for most all of my life. most of my best friends growing up tried to convert me on multiple occassions, i tried not to hold it against them, and indeed even hung out at church functions and still think that they're generally good people. but the notion of righteous conversion is inherently a violent one. it's just a matter of doing the math.
as for proposing a method to fight terrorism, i did that earlier... see the post i ended with "that's what heterarchy the hypothetical leader would do.. :)" but the biggest issue i've tried to raise again and again is that bush has put us in a place where we have fewer options, where we're less secure because we're creating more terrorists than we were before, where things are much more difficult and dangerous than if he hadn't unilaterally invaded iraq as and when he did.
see this article from the american conservative. that's right, i'm quoting a conservative magazing, how's that for being as fair as possible? in any case, its an interesting statistical argument as far as how to fight terrorism.
as for the current terrorists, we track them down in conjunction with the un, interpol, etc. use small groups of special forces cells that would operate more like the terrorists themselves do. capture as many as possible while killing as few as possible. don't use interogation means that violate international standards (even if they might deserve it - we can't allow ourselves to appear to the world to be no less violent and inhumane than the terrorists, we're held to an unfair standard, but that's the price you pay when you're in our position). we give them fair trials, treat them exactly as we treat americans and as we say we want to treat all human beings. in other words, we walk the walk of all the honorable talk of humane freedom and democracy.
i would say that YOU are confusing expected short term victories with longer term ones. the long term is exactly what i'm concerned with and addressing.
"...Aswat is believed to have had a ten-year association with militant groups and met Osama bin Laden while attending an al-Qaeda training camp at Khalden in Afghanistan.
FBI documents obtained by The Times reveal details of how a London-based cleric sent Aswat to America in 1999 to set up camps in Oregon for US-born recruits...."
from Top al-Qaeda Briton called Tube bombers before attack
hmmm....1999...before Bush was even in office....before the Iraq invasion....hmmm...put your thinking caps on, kids
heterarchy, do you fear German people? how about Japanese people? decendents of Civil War veterans?
I ask because you seem to equate current groups of people with their ancestors hundreds or thousands of years ago. (Christians now with violent 'Christians' of the past)
It's not healthy or wise to live in fear my friend.
If Bush is extremist, then more than half of our country is extremist. Doesn't pencil out dude. If being an 'extremist' means anything other than a spineless moderate, then, hey, I'm an extremist too. Having core beliefs and values doesn't make you an extremist.
I believe you willingly neglected to mention that Bush offered peace to Saddam...Saddam could have walked away without violence, but, of course, he chose to be stubborn.
Your suggestion on how to fight terrorism seems to violate your own principles....are you going to hunt the terrorist down excepting them not to notice until they are all gone? Undoubtedly, they'll notice and they'll be ticked, and then dammit, you've just created more terrorists! Then you put them on trial, pretending that militant attacks on innocent civilians is defendable, giving the terrorists a chance to explain their reasoning...your going to create liberal terrorist sympathisers...I can see it now....little Mohammad Atta was beaten as a kid...how can you judge him?..."he was just trying to do something for the greater good!"..."his intentions were noble"...
good luck on your midterms...
nobody's got any inside info on the latest wave of blasts?
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/london_bombings
het, I'm really sorry I abandoned you, I get tired of wasting energy typing responses to people who obviously don't get it. I didn't read most of the more recent posts and quite frankly I don't have the time now but I'll bite a little.
Nobody here thinks that terrorism is good. Extremists need to be stopped and invading Iraq was probably not the best way to go about doing that, because destabilizing the country has allowed it to become a practice ground for people who like to blow up things.
Saddam was not an extremist. He was a tyrant. There is a difference. We've eliminated one verifiable evil for one that is shape-shifting, ideological and cowardly.
Our resources are being wasted in a war that we started when they should be fighting terrorism where it starts - in the heart of Muslim countries, in ashrams and in Mosques.
That is all I have time for folks! Same time same place, next week.
Now let's go see about those new blasts in London.
Under attack again
link
University College Hospital, where a large area was cordoned off after an incident.
very clear and succinctly put, wonderk. but those that disagree with you will never 'get it', i'm afraid. their world view will not allow them to follow the same thread.
i've been avoiding any of these conversations that have to do with iraq or politics - they suck you in and eat up all of your time. and you've got your hands full with this international rv trip to organize!
yeah, i'm just glad i didn't get in to the 'dead wrong' thread... 705 responses?! regardless of how frustrated i get by nico et al (and i'm sure i'm at least as frustrating to some of them:), i'm really glad that there's such passionate interest in politics among an architecture community. it's certainly better to vehemently disagree than to just not care. though as you said wonderk, they can take up a whole lot of your time, which is the one thing i don't have a lot of these days.
as for the most recent london attacks, fortunately it seems no one was killed or seriously injured. my first impression when i heard that that they were small explosions was to really worry that it might have been dirty/chem/bio weopons, so far it looks as if that isn't the case.
back to nico: you're completely ignoring the northern ireland point as far as religious extremism. there are christian extremists out there TODAY who are willing to commit terrorist acts, so in no way am i only referring to the long HISTORY of violence in christianity. and as i've been saying, christians have power today, and those in power rarely have to resort to terrorism to accomplish their goals, terrorism is the tool of the desparate.
in any case, i am not "living in fear", only admitting that i fear the violent impact that people like you (who are truly living in fear) can have on the world. what would you say the emotion behind terrorism and the war on terrorism is? fear. terrorists fear that we'll destroy their world and way of living, we fear that they'll destroy us and ours. instead of confronting the fear itself, people like you pretend they aren't afraid at all, and so externalize that confrontation in the form of violence.
it is in accepting my fears that i can learn to use them against themselves and become truly invulnerable to them.
that's my two cents on that.
as for being a "spineless moderate"... well, that's about the most extremist statement i've ever heard. "spineless moderate"?!?! how the hell is fighting against the popular tide of extremism and trying to shoulder the gap between extremely divergeant ideologies spineless? constructing bridges takes a whole lot of backbone my friend.
there are core beliefs and values on every inch of every political and ideological specturm nico. if i didn't have very strong core values why would i continue to spend so much time arguing with you?
it takes much STRONGER core values to be confident enough in your own to accept other's. it's those without strong values that must attack everyone else's instead of relying confidently on their own.
as for bush "offering" saddam peace, give me a break. you know that bush wanted to invade regardless. bush never had any intent of peace and knew that saddam was in a corner that he couldn't back out of. in any case, even if saddam did have an opportunity for peace, bush had a bigger opportunity not to initiate the war. there was no good reason to go to war in iraq, as has been proven time and again, and bush should not have ever even considered it. it should have never come to a point where "Saddam could have walked away without violence".
as for your perpetual perversion of my suggestions to fight terrorism, i fully expect other terrorists to notice what's going on, indeed it would neccessarily be a public campaign. the key point is that bush is trying to fight terrorism like its a static country, which of course it isn't. as the article i posted earlier showed, through plain facts and in a conservative forum, acts of terrorism are much more likely when you occupy a foreign land. my suggestion is predicated on hunting down terrorists with the sanction of the un and with the help of the countries involved. in this way, you arne't an "occupier", but are effectively a transient police force. instead of causing absolute chaos and destruction, leading to people being pissed off at you enough to join fanatical groups, you try to be as non-invasive as possible. you track down the small number of extremists without creating more of them. terrorism will never go away, as i've said before, but in the wake of 9/11 the us had enormous international sympathy and political clout that could have been used to leverage unprecedented cooperation from other countries in tracking down real terrorists. instead, bush f'd it up. opportunities were lost and we're worse off than we were before. i just don't see how his (or your) policies make any sense in light of how they've fared in reality. all the things you're arguing for are actually in practice today, and they just aren't working. your ideologies are getting a very fair opportunity to prove their merit, and they're failing in every regard.
I just want to say that every time I hear about a blast here or there or wherever - no matter if it's London or Lebanon - my stomach starts to go in knots. I'm the type of person that likes to take things into my own hands and I'm beginning to think that Rumsfeld needs to give me a packet of James Bond-esque goodies and a plane ticket so I can go "take care" of the terrorists myself. A crash course in Farsi wouldn't hurt either.
Peace, please! For the love of humanity. Seriously.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.