Why now?

[phatima]

Re: Why now?

Sadi - You watched the images that night and knew that your life would change because you're a Muslim? How did you know it was "Muslims" that were responsible for it only hours after it happened?

[Sadi_Sobi]

Re: Why now?

Awesome.

[Thap]

Re: Why now?

@Sadi Sobi

I’m sure if I was a lost British Paki that felt that his life was going nowhere, I would have wnated a piece of that action too. Thankfully, I’m not.

So Sobi you think that the Iraq war and Afghanistan and all the related violence has had little to do with the London bombings? And ‘lost British Pakis’ and Jamaicans excited by the 911 attacks planned their own, knowing that the aftermath increased the chances of more innocent people dying in far off lands?

And how was the US ‘brought to it’s knees’ did’nt it quickly bomb and invade two countries, did your ‘lost British pakis’ miss this?

[Sadi_Sobi]

Re: Why now?

Thap, I don't think what the london bombers did was because they were upset about Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine .... if they were, tehy would go do their jihad in these counttries, not in London.

They want to be infamous ... tehy're that alright.

And America was momentarily brought to its knees ... but it got back up again.

Phatima, by the time I came home the news channels were all pointing tehir fingers one way.

[phatima]

Re: Why now?

Yea true. I hadn’t heard about it until like a few days later that it was “Muslims”, even thought Bush knew about it since like months before , and I live in the DC area.

[Pinstripe_Danda]

Re: Why now?

War on terror has defined clarity as to who the adversary is. It is the scourge of islamic terrorism, from Manila to Manhattan. We don't cower down to such thinking, rationalize and try to assuage these murderers. We take it to them.

Since the madrid bombing, the spaniards arrested and/or thwarted multiple terrorist attacks from jihadists. The change in gov't didn't make them stop, the removal of troops iin Iraq didn't make them stop...so stop dreaming that this has to do with Iraq or somalia or the space shuttle flying on friday. It is a clash of ideas. Which, the fundos will lose.

[Thap]

Re: Why now?

You really think a bloke with an 8 month old baby who works with special needs kids wants to be 'infamous' and remebered for having killed innocents, 'coz it's awesome?'

How easy is that for you to say, and how contrived it sounds.

[Abdullah_k]

Re: Why now?

vEXCELLENT article from the Vancouver Courier by Kevin Potvin published on July 13, 2005.

It is worth reading word for word.

============================
Leaders should have considered consequences before they attacked Iraq
Civilian casualties part of dirty business of war

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, but on March 16, 2003, didn't the leaders of Spain, Britain and the U.S. get together on the Azores Islands off Portugal to conduct a war summit? And I believe that the next day, emerging from the war summit, U.S. leader George Bush issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Iraq. And I think, if I am not mistaken, that about 90 minutes after the passing of that deadline, Baghdad's skies erupted in a barrage of U.S. cruise missiles and U.S., British, Spanish and Australian armed forces flooded en masse through the official United Nations Demilitarized Zone between Kuwait and Iraq and invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq.

The Pentagon later announced that 320 Tomahawk cruise missiles had struck targets in Baghdad that night alone, as part of what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld termed a campaign of "shock and awe."

Since then, Australian beach-goers were bombed in Bali, Spanish commuters were bombed in Madrid, and now British workers have been bombed in the London Underground, with considerable shock and awe in return, it must be noted.

What no commentators I have read since the attack late last week have said is that, when you make war on someone, it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise when that someone fights back. The biggest reason why millions around the world marched against the Spanish-British-Australian-U.S. Axis plan to initiate war on Iraq is because war is a dirty business that, at least since the 1940s everywhere on the planet, has been all about killing innocent civilians.

To the London Underground worders with whom we have stunned sympathy, we can add the residents of London in 1942, those living in Dresden and Nagasaki in 1945, the people of Seoul and Pyongyang in the 1950s, the residents of Hanoi in the 1960s, those of Kabul in the 1980s, those in Baghdad today, and those in Columbia, Somalia, Rwanda, and countless other places, including Bali and Madrid, where any madman who plots war acquires the means to realize the dream.

It was the British First World War hero Winston Churchill who invented the thoroughly modern idea of bombing civilians as a means of draining an enemy fighter of his will to keep on fighting . During an insurrection by rebels against a British occupation of Iraq in 1923 Churchill, then in charge of forces deployed to that tragic country, hit upon the innovation of strapping bombs to the bellies of airplanes so pilots could drop the bombs onto those neighbourhoods of Basra and Baghdad where he perceived the resistance to the British occupation enjoyed its most enthusiastic support.

Thousands of innocent civilians, much like those in London last week, were ripped apart limb by limb, burned to the bone, and mangled and bloodied by Churchill's bombs. The press reports from the time state that no one had ever seen anything like it. The Iraqis were stunned. Iraqi newspapers commented on the shocking brutality of the--get this--"terrorist logic" of killing civilians in order to dissuade fighters.

In the constant barrage of news about Michael Jackson, Hurricane Dennis, Paris Hilton and mad cows, it may be easy to forget there is actually a war on. Spain, Britain, and the U.S. launched this war and, in the minds of those Muslims around the world who ascertain that they are the targets of this war, it is every bit as meaningful a war as any of the last century.

It is acceptable, if not widely applauded, for those having war waged on them to fight back. Would any of us do less were our country military occupied by a foreign army?

As to civilians getting killed, yeah, that's terrible. Should British, Spanish, or indeed, American civilians expect to be exempt from the rules of war as established by Churchill nearly a century ago? I don't think so. There is a reason why so many people protested against the war in Iraq. It's because civilians, ours as well as theirs, get killed in modern wars nowadays.

Spain, Britain and the U.S. wanted war. Well how do they like it so far? Did those leaders actually think they could wage a war with nobody fighting back? Get real.

"Bring 'em on," said Bush to the other side he picked a fight with. That's who families of victims in London should be fIngering today.

[Chel_Chabila_Babu]

Re: Why now?

@Abdullah k

vEXCELLENT article from the Vancouver Courier by Kevin Potvin published on July 13, 2005.

It is worth reading word for word.

============================
Leaders should have considered consequences before they attacked Iraq
Civilian casualties part of dirty business of war

CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG, but on March 16, 2003, didn’t the leaders of Spain, Britain and the U.S. get together on the Azores Islands off Portugal to conduct a war summit? And I believe that the next day, emerging from the war summit, U.S. leader George Bush issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Iraq. And I think, if I am not mistaken, that about 90 minutes after the passing of that deadline, Baghdad’s skies erupted in a barrage of U.S. cruise missiles and U.S., British, Spanish and Australian armed forces flooded en masse through the official United Nations Demilitarized Zone between Kuwait and Iraq and invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq.

The Pentagon later announced that 320 Tomahawk cruise missiles had struck targets in Baghdad that night alone, as part of what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld termed a campaign of “shock and awe.”

Since then, Australian beach-goers were bombed in Bali, Spanish commuters were bombed in Madrid, and now British workers have been bombed in the London Underground, with considerable shock and awe in return, it must be noted.

What no commentators I have read since the attack late last week have said is that, when you make war on someone, it shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise when that someone fights back. The biggest reason why millions around the world marched against the Spanish-British-Australian-U.S. Axis plan to initiate war on Iraq is because war is a dirty business that, at least since the 1940s everywhere on the planet, has been all about killing innocent civilians.

To the London Underground worders with whom we have stunned sympathy, we can add the residents of London in 1942, those living in Dresden and Nagasaki in 1945, the people of Seoul and Pyongyang in the 1950s, the residents of Hanoi in the 1960s, those of Kabul in the 1980s, those in Baghdad today, and those in Columbia, Somalia, Rwanda, and countless other places, including Bali and Madrid, where any madman who plots war acquires the means to realize the dream.

It was the British First World War hero Winston Churchill who invented the thoroughly modern idea of bombing civilians as a means of draining an enemy fighter of his will to keep on fighting . During an insurrection by rebels against a British occupation of Iraq in 1923 Churchill, then in charge of forces deployed to that tragic country, hit upon the innovation of strapping bombs to the bellies of airplanes so pilots could drop the bombs onto those neighbourhoods of Basra and Baghdad where he perceived the resistance to the British occupation enjoyed its most enthusiastic support.

Thousands of innocent civilians, much like those in London last week, were ripped apart limb by limb, burned to the bone, and mangled and bloodied by Churchill’s bombs. The press reports from the time state that no one had ever seen anything like it. The Iraqis were stunned. Iraqi newspapers commented on the shocking brutality of the–get this–“terrorist logic” of killing civilians in order to dissuade fighters.

In the constant barrage of news about Michael Jackson, Hurricane Dennis, Paris Hilton and mad cows, it may be easy to forget there is actually a war on. Spain, Britain, and the U.S. launched this war and, in the minds of those Muslims around the world who ascertain that they are the targets of this war, it is every bit as meaningful a war as any of the last century.

It is acceptable, if not widely applauded, for those having war waged on them to fight back. Would any of us do less were our country military occupied by a foreign army?

As to civilians getting killed, yeah, that’s terrible. Should British, Spanish, or indeed, American civilians expect to be exempt from the rules of war as established by Churchill nearly a century ago? I don’t think so. There is a reason why so many people protested against the war in Iraq. It’s because civilians, ours as well as theirs, get killed in modern wars nowadays.

Spain, Britain and the U.S. wanted war. Well how do they like it so far? Did those leaders actually think they could wage a war with nobody fighting back? Get real.

“Bring 'em on,” said Bush to the other side he picked a fight with. That’s who families of victims in London should be fIngering today.

:k:

Deserves a thread of its own but some will still not want to see coz it’s easier to go with the flow…

[Sadi_Sobi]

Re: Why now?

Thap, yes I do. If he didn't, he would have gone to Iraq and killed a couple of British/American soldiers. Remember those two blokes taht went to Israel and blew themselves up? They didn't get 1 millionth of the column inches this 30 year old did. Bit silly when you consider he aint even gonna be around tto read what's being writtena bout him.

[Thap]

Re: Why now?

Yup seems pretty unlikey to me sobi and I've felt less safe since the 'war on terror' started, if you die in an attack you don't know it happened living through the aftermath is the hard bit.

btw do you have any idea of how many mercenaries leave these fair isles to go murder for money in africa and south america? Who's stopping that 'business' ?

Why do you think London was attacked, honest question do you think it would have been attacked had it opted out of the war on terror?

[funguy]

Re: Why now?

@Thap

Why do you think London was attacked, honest question do you think it would have been attacked had it opted out of the war on terror?

Yes, it would have been attacked by us on our way to Baghdad. Actually, there is a constipation theory that US will first annex UK and then leverage it as a base to conquer the rest of Europe.

[Captain1]

Re: Why now?

@phatima1

Sadi - You watched the images that night and knew that your life would change because you’re a Muslim? How did you know it was “Muslims” that were responsible for it only hours after it happened?

US govt/media had declared it an act of UBL just a minutes later and you are talking about HOURS!

[Sadi_Sobi]

Re: Why now?

Thap, in all honesty yes I do. Why did 9/11 happen? Cuz of Iraq? Oh no, hang on, wasn’t it all a big jewish conspiracy? You know there were like one billion jews off work that day Thap, this is so not about Iraq … like PD said, Spain has pulled out its troops, but it hasn’t stopped the underground Spanish terrorist activities. It’s about 4 very lost men thinking of their eternal rewards.

[phatima]

Re: Why now?

@Captain1

US govt/media had declared it an act of UBL just a minutes later and you are talking about HOURS!

Well yea duh because they had already known something was going to happen even before. I’m talking about it getting out to the media, eliminating the rumors.

[Thap]

Re: Why now?

Same this time around, yet those of you who remember the numerous IRA bombings in the Uk will remember it used to take days for the attack to be offially claimed, the police had a hard time piecing together the evidence to make sure.

Nowadays blame now, evidence later or maybe never.

So the war on terror has not only increased your chances of:

a. Being blown up
b. Blowing someone up
c. Watching people being blown up on the telly

but has also done away with the need fo evidence in any of the above situations, this is a recipe for d. more things being blown up.

[Reza_Pahlavi]

Re: Why now?

@Sadi Sobi

Thap, yes I do. If he didn’t, he would have gone to Iraq and killed a couple of British/American soldiers. Remember those two blokes taht went to Israel and blew themselves up? They didn’t get 1 millionth of the column inches this 30 year old did. Bit silly when you consider he aint even gonna be around tto read what’s being writtena bout him.

What do you actually know about world politics and history?

Do you think for instance that the United States has never planned terrorist attacks on it’s home soil to blame others, and then precipitate a war against them?

Do you think Great Britain never played dirty games when the Irish struggle was going on for the last 30 years, to defame the Irish people and national movement?

Do you think Israel has never actually carried out terrorist attacks to win sympathy, and get other countries bombed?

If you don’t think so, then I can give you some examples.

[Lajawab]

Re: Why now?

@Abdullah k

vEXCELLENT article from the Vancouver Courier by Kevin Potvin published on July 13, 2005.

It is worth reading word for word.

============================
Leaders should have considered consequences before they attacked Iraq
Civilian casualties part of dirty business of war

CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG, but on March 16, 2003, didn’t the leaders of Spain, Britain and the U.S. get together on the Azores Islands off Portugal to conduct a war summit? And I believe that the next day, emerging from the war summit, U.S. leader George Bush issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Iraq. And I think, if I am not mistaken, that about 90 minutes after the passing of that deadline, Baghdad’s skies erupted in a barrage of U.S. cruise missiles and U.S., British, Spanish and Australian armed forces flooded en masse through the official United Nations Demilitarized Zone between Kuwait and Iraq and invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq.

The Pentagon later announced that 320 Tomahawk cruise missiles had struck targets in Baghdad that night alone, as part of what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld termed a campaign of “shock and awe.”

Since then, Australian beach-goers were bombed in Bali, Spanish commuters were bombed in Madrid, and now British workers have been bombed in the London Underground, with considerable shock and awe in return, it must be noted.

What no commentators I have read since the attack late last week have said is that, when you make war on someone, it shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise when that someone fights back. The biggest reason why millions around the world marched against the Spanish-British-Australian-U.S. Axis plan to initiate war on Iraq is because war is a dirty business that, at least since the 1940s everywhere on the planet, has been all about killing innocent civilians.

To the London Underground worders with whom we have stunned sympathy, we can add the residents of London in 1942, those living in Dresden and Nagasaki in 1945, the people of Seoul and Pyongyang in the 1950s, the residents of Hanoi in the 1960s, those of Kabul in the 1980s, those in Baghdad today, and those in Columbia, Somalia, Rwanda, and countless other places, including Bali and Madrid, where any madman who plots war acquires the means to realize the dream.

It was the British First World War hero Winston Churchill who invented the thoroughly modern idea of bombing civilians as a means of draining an enemy fighter of his will to keep on fighting . During an insurrection by rebels against a British occupation of Iraq in 1923 Churchill, then in charge of forces deployed to that tragic country, hit upon the innovation of strapping bombs to the bellies of airplanes so pilots could drop the bombs onto those neighbourhoods of Basra and Baghdad where he perceived the resistance to the British occupation enjoyed its most enthusiastic support.

Thousands of innocent civilians, much like those in London last week, were ripped apart limb by limb, burned to the bone, and mangled and bloodied by Churchill’s bombs. The press reports from the time state that no one had ever seen anything like it. The Iraqis were stunned. Iraqi newspapers commented on the shocking brutality of the–get this–“terrorist logic” of killing civilians in order to dissuade fighters.

In the constant barrage of news about Michael Jackson, Hurricane Dennis, Paris Hilton and mad cows, it may be easy to forget there is actually a war on. Spain, Britain, and the U.S. launched this war and, in the minds of those Muslims around the world who ascertain that they are the targets of this war, it is every bit as meaningful a war as any of the last century.

It is acceptable, if not widely applauded, for those having war waged on them to fight back. Would any of us do less were our country military occupied by a foreign army?

As to civilians getting killed, yeah, that’s terrible. Should British, Spanish, or indeed, American civilians expect to be exempt from the rules of war as established by Churchill nearly a century ago? I don’t think so. There is a reason why so many people protested against the war in Iraq. It’s because civilians, ours as well as theirs, get killed in modern wars nowadays.

Spain, Britain and the U.S. wanted war. Well how do they like it so far? Did those leaders actually think they could wage a war with nobody fighting back? Get real.

“Bring 'em on,” said Bush to the other side he picked a fight with. That’s who families of victims in London should be fIngering today.

Very accurate summation of events…:k:

[ahmadjee]

Re: Why now?

Thap Bhaijaan,

'War on Terror' has made the life of ordinary people very unsafe. It is not headed in the right direction and if things go the same way most people be it living in Jakarta or Oslo will live in fear for the rest of their lives. This war is a knee jerk reaction to a situation totally ignored for decades and the methods are to contain and minimize the effects of 'terrorism' not eliminate it.

This doesn't mean that it makes one side pristine & the other evil. Truth in all conflicts lies in the middle. Just like I don't deny that US foreign policies are grossly misrepresenting the values it's citizens perceive they are spreading around the world, I also do not deny that Muslims in general are capable of and have carried out terrorist acts including 9/11 and have used their religion to justify such actions. And the general consensus of Muslims around them are of sympathy and not disgust.

[Pinstripe_Danda]

Re: Why now?

Yes, we could alternative stick our heads in the ground and imagine the celestial virgins and rivers of milk and that impending rapture that is cometh..no thanks.

THis is it kids..this is how it is going to be for the next 10-15 years. Then the religous fundamentalists will go after the chinese and indians, who by that time would not be so kind. Remember individual freedoms are western phenomena.