This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
Some Questions for Tony Blair
Published on July 11, 2005 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
The bomb attaks in London took place when Londoners were going about their normal work. The tube trains were probably targetted because of their symbolic value and also provided an easy soft target. This was an attack on civillian non combatants and there fore needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. This kind of terrorist attackis not onlo bad for Islam but if it is done in the name of Islam damages the very cause for which it was done in the first place. LIke the Madrid Train bombing this event was also designed to influence British public opinion. One unfortunate consequence of this terror attack has been the physical and mental harassment of Asian minority in London, Birmingham, and other places. The entire Asian Community in England has withnone voice condemned the attacks and hence there is no justification for attacks on Asians. It is unfortunate that non white minorities are being targetted in England as reprissal for the Tube Train Bombings. Tony Blair and his Home Secretary must provide adeqyuate security to Asians living in Britain. Three religious houses have also been attacked. The British public should not play into the hands of the perpetrators of these atacks by becoming vengeful and anti Asian.

The real reason behind the attacks is clear:The involvement of Tony Blair and his Governemnt in Iraq. The Spanish people voted out the Government that took them to war in Iraq, the British people reelected that government.

Thre are some reports that the British Government is likely to ask Australia to stand in for the UK after a pull out from Britain.. The strikes have provaked a debate for the first time in England over the wisdom of being involved in Iraq.

The graceful speech of Ken Livingston, the Mayor of London, was the only decent response from a high profile public figure in England. Tony Blair was his usual arrogant self wihout a trace of sorrow or remorse.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jul 13, 2005
There is NO legitimate justification for the DELIBERATE and indescriminant targeting of CIVILIANS in such a cowardly attack. Period. Anyone who believes there that there is justification for these terrorist attacks is no better than the scum who carry them out. What the hell is wrong with you people?


There has been comment that those responsible are Londoners. If that is true than it becomes more difficult to apply an extreme wahhabi/punshon islam profile to the terrorist model. It is no longer us and against them.
Link

on Jul 13, 2005
"There has been comment that those responsible are Londoners. If that is true than it becomes more difficult to apply an extreme wahhabi/punshon islam profile to the terrorist model. It is no longer us and against them."


Ur, really? I don't agree. Or are you saying that where you live determines whether you are truly an Islamic terrorist?

They are also saying that the weapons used came from Eastern Europe. Were the terrorists, say, in Chechnya not of the "wahhabi/punshon islam profile"? If homegrown al Qaeda cells pop up, can you really make a difference between them and bin Laden, just because of where they live?

To me, this actually defeats the Liberal stereotype of the "downtrodden Middle East" getting back at us. In reality this proves that it is a socio-political ethos, not some "freedom fighter" crap caused by western oppression and poverty in the Middle East.
on Jul 13, 2005
The tube trains were probably targetted because of their symbolic value and also provided an easy soft target. This was an attack on civillian non combatants and there fore needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.


Just as an aside, this sounds almost like the the contras in Nicaragua (attacking soft targets and civilians)

Which seems to say to me that they were asking for it. Contrary to what many might think, we shouldn't be led to the voting booth by threats. If so, we will live oppressed by nations half-a-world away, simply because they finance terrorist who impose their will on us.


And the difference between that and America imposing its will on the rest of the world for 60 years is what exactly?
on Jul 13, 2005
"And the difference between that and America imposing its will on the rest of the world for 60 years is what exactly?"


Oddly, we haven't been sending people to blow themselves up on buses in Russia, or China. We have a full arsenal of nuclear weapons, and, strangly enough, the world is free to choose their own governance as long as they don't threaten us.

I wonder if the same would be true if bin Laden had a few hundred nukes? You're full of it if you think you can equate the US's view of the world with terrorist's view of the world. I'm sorry, but people who do this kind of moralist equation are SCUM. All you do is bolster the idea that people who murder schoolchildren and other innocent civilians are just as morally right as the US.

You reinforce their propaganda, and if it weren't for the fact that you do it out of self-righteous moral indignance, I'd say you were a cowardly tool. Instead, you're an snotty, self-superior tool that preaches the cause of terrorists to make yourself look more elevated.

How can you live with yourself knowing people who suicide-bomb people's wedding parties and behead aid workers would give your perspective a standing ovation?
on Jul 13, 2005
Ur, really? I don't agree. Or are you saying that where you live determines whether you are truly an Islamic terrorist?


What I am saying is the angry young man with nothing to lose is the likely candidate for recruitment. In a western society you won't experience the ethnic cleansing of Chechnya. If you cannot apply a situation of extreme misery - like Sudan for instance than the motivation is not religiously based. It is political. IE no extreme brainwashing through religious-only study.

To clarify it takes years of non secular religous study [religous-only] at a pakastani madrass to arrive with a person who shouts the name of Allah with a bomb on his back. It doesn't happen overnight, not in a G8 country and if it does happen, religion did not play a primary role. There are many other reasons to have conflict with America.

They are also saying that the weapons used came from Eastern Europe. Were the terrorists, say, in Chechnya not of the "wahhabi/punshon islam profile"? If homegrown al Qaeda cells pop up, can you really make a difference between them and bin Laden, just because of where they live?


Chechnya is a whole different catagory, suffering from mass ethnic cleansing and serious resettlement problems. A very different kettle of fish.

Without the indoctrination we need to look for reasons other than religous fundamentalism. If we don't we'll just sit around and wait for the next "sleeper" to awaken. We'll wonder how this could have happened and come up with nothing. No amount of homeland security will buy you that type of protection.

The problem is deeper - one that looks at both the political and economic repercussions of who and what america does business with. My point? Supporting the wrong people because it is profitable but not ethical leads to problems that cannot be resolved until the american assistance is stopped. I can think of a few examples.
on Jul 13, 2005
'To clarify it takes years of non secular religous study [religous-only] at a pakastani madrass to arrive with a person who shouts the name of Allah with a bomb on his back. It doesn't happen overnight, not in a G8 country and if it does happen, religion did not play a primary role. There are many other reasons to have conflict with America.


Really? I don't agree. There's been enough instances of cult violence in the US and around the world perpetrated by people who were full grown adults when they joined to discount that. Did the Japanese cult that undertook a gas attack on their subway nab their members as small children?

No, people are impressionable, especially people who have to deal with the constant anti-US propaganda and the cultural sympathies they might feel in combination. In my experience people who come to religion later in life are just as easily moved to radicalism if they have a propensity for such in the first place.

Teens in the US get guns and pipe bombs and go to school with nothing but teen angst to drive them. Add radical Islam or political indoctrination to that and you still can't see the possiblity?

I don't doubt, though, that many, many terrorists aren't all that religious, and just use it as an excuse for their racist or political hate. That I can grant you. As long as they fight under the banner of religion to validate their acts, though, you have to deal with it as such. There's no reason to lump Islam as a whole into it, though.
on Jul 22, 2005
After this post was put up the Royal Socity of International Affairs, the respected think tank Chatam House came up with a report ssaying the same thing"the Iraq factor". Terrorism cannot be defeated militarily, it can be beaten only when the political conditions that give rise to it are met squarely and fairly.
on Jul 22, 2005
After this post was put up the Royal Society of International Affairs, the respected think tank Chatam House came up with a report saying the same thing"the Iraq factor". Terrorism cannot be defeated militarily, it can be beaten only when the political conditions that give rise to it are met squarely and fairly.


Sorry, but I don't buy into this theory. If you make it "costly" enough ( kill enough of them) for them to do business it will stop soon enough.
on Jul 22, 2005
Terrorism cannot be defeated militarily, it can be beaten only when the political conditions that give rise to it are met squarely and fairly.


You mean when countries give in to terrorists demands. Appeasement will not end terrorism, only fighting it will.
on Aug 05, 2005
Just should the terrorists in the head as you find them. Forget the trials and listening to them whine and pretend they did not want to hurt people. In the end, they are simple cowards who find imature and youths to do their dirty work.

As for Britian waking up to not being in Iraq... not gonna happen.
on Aug 05, 2005
Maybe, just maybe, if these were idealistic terrorists who wanted something reasonable, I MIGHT grant the idea some merit. In reality, though, we face in the leadership of these groups "corporate" terrorists, who want nothing resembling peace since it would end their business venture, and megalomaniacal terrorists, whose aims go much further than peace.

Frankly, a homogeneous fundamentalist Islamic state isn't any more palatable to most of the people who live in the Middle East than it is to me. To give into those kinds of demands would enslave hundreds of millions of people and destablize the world, IF their aims are just the Middle East.
on Aug 06, 2005
The argument re: Iraq fals flat when you consider that 9/11 happened before Iraq and Afganistan, aslo Iraq was a secular society under Sadam, and Sadam was an enemy of the terroists himself, these guys are covering their hatered of the west under the guise of Islam, however Islam does not preach or condone their actions, any more than christianity does, after the earlier grew out of the latter, just as Christianity grew out of Judaism, one God worshipped by all three, makes no more sense than their so called holy war.
2 Pages1 2