Innocent Muslims treated like Irish in70's London

[dcfcsteve]

no steve, i know but you are saying these people as in muslims in the western world, but these were the same people recruited by the "extremists", to blow themselves up. so that is a contradiction of sorts, I just dont fully agree with what you are saying.

Sorry Paul - but I was saying the opposite. "These people" was preceeded by the words "in traditionally Muslim Societies" - which are obviously not Western countries.

Divin't worry Paul - my Ma's from Roiscommon, and her eyesight's a bit ropey as well.... :p :D

[Plastic Paddy]

It's a fundamental tenant of religions to assert that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

It's "tenet", not "tenant", but to say such is to be nit-picky and to overlook the major point, which is that I agree with just about every assertion you've made.

Mypost - read and learn. Please.

:ball: PP

PS - "blowing sunshine up my own arse" - :D - I must remember that one...

[paul_oshea]

Sorry Paul - but I was saying the opposite. "These people" was preceeded by the words "in traditionally Muslim Societies" - which are obviously not Western countries.

ok, im still confused!! cos i thought you were saying:
the corrupting influence of the West is now so great in traditionally Muslim societies, they believe, that THESE PEOPLE are now actually no longer Muslims.

"these people" being the ones that have left the "traditionally muslim countries" i.e. the ones living in western societies i.e. the ones that blew themselves up last week. "they" being the extremists in the "traditional muslim countries" e.g. pakistan, who beleive "these people" are no longer muslims. yes? cos thats what i meant before. :confused: :confused: :confused: :)

btw what and where is "western cultures" defined???? :confused:

[dcfcsteve]

ok, im still confused!! cos i thought you were saying:
the corrupting influence of the West is now so great in traditionally Muslim societies, they believe, that THESE PEOPLE are now actually no longer Muslims.

"these people" being the ones that have left the "traditionally muslim countries" i.e. the ones living in western societies i.e. the ones that blew themselves up last week. "they" being the extremists in the "traditional muslim countries" e.g. pakistan, who beleive "these people" are no longer muslims. yes? cos thats what i meant before. :confused: :confused: :confused: :)

btw what and where is "western cultures" defined???? :confused:

You've got the first bit right. Basically - extremists believe that the vast majority of Muslims living in traditionally Muslim societies (e.g. Egypt, Saudi, Turkey etc) have become so corrupted by Western ideology/culture/habits that they can no longer be considered Muslims (the phrase used is 'abjurists' - i.e. those who have discarded the religion). Therefore, the extremists argue that ordinary Muslims in Muslim countries are now fair game for them without contradicting the teachings of the Koran.

It's not about the ones who've left - it's about ALL Muslims - particularly those in traditionally Muslim societies.

[lopez]

One thing that has been overlooked I believe is the power of 'brainwashing'. This corner of Islam is not much different from the Rev Moon and the mass suicide a good few years back in Guyana of those post nuptials. The striking thing about the three Leeds lads (and the two blokes who bombed Mike's Bar (?) in Tel Aviv) is the previously harmless lives they led, say a year prior to their attacks. Six weeks in a religious school in Pakistan is a hell of lot of time when compared with a story I heard from a aquaintance years ago who could feel himself being psychologically manipulated and bullied just by being alone a couple of hours with some Moonies whilst out fishing off San Francisco.

[paul_oshea]

the moons are a funny bunch alright. start with that alfie fella for god sake.

no, there are a few lads i know here and if you get into a discussion with them about anything related to islam, they will argue and argue, but its not necessarily what they are saying, its how htey say it, and the force, that manipulates you.

steve, that is what i was saying all along. but the guys that did it were living in western societies. so that kinda contradicts your point.

[dcfcsteve]

steve, that is what i was saying all along. but the guys that did it were living in western societies. so that kinda contradicts your point.

But they'd turned their back on Western society spiritually - only maintaining an outword appearance of still embracing it in order to not blow their cover. I don't see how there is a contradiction there - Al Qaeda's view of whether you're a true Muslim or not is not solely based upon geography, but upon your mind-set.

Anyways - that's an underlying explanation of how Al Qaeda get round the Koranic decree that Muslims shouldn't kill Muslims. Beyond that, I can't really answer any apparent contradictions done by individuals within their movement.

[GavinZac]

Well, what do you expect?? :confused:

Muslims took advantage of freedoms, (that they profess to despise :rolleyes: ) in a civilised Christian country, walked calmly into train stations, and buses to destroy them, and those in them. Of course, there will be reprisals. It's human nature to seek revenge when you have been attacked. Though they killed and injured their fellow Muslims, their intention was to massacre Christians. So Christians are going to retaliate to that.

Those involved in the plotting of the London and Madrid bombings should be locked up in Guantanamo Bay, where they could do no harm to anyone else who don't share their beliefs. The Americans take no chances with terror suspects, arrest them, and promptly put them in captivity, out of harms way. The British Government however, let all kinds of undesirables into their country at will, and don't track their movements, because they don't know where they are. In view of their laissez-faire attitude to dealing with terror suspects, the London bombings were unfortunately, inevitable.

thats about as right as your suggestion that holding up the ball should be a foul.

[GavinZac]

If it was not an attack by Muslims on Christians, what was it? Where were the bombs detonated? Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Africa? No, it was London. London is capital of the United Kingdom. The UK, despite it's presence of many faiths, is a predominantly Christian country. It's a tolerant, democratic, free, Western country. Muslims, or Islamic extremists, (if you want to be more PC), abused that tolerance, and freedom with the aim of attacking Christians. Whether or not other peoples were killed/injured is of little consequence to them. 55 people were killed, with 700+ injured. The vast majority of them were Christians, people like you or me. That's what they want, ultimately. They claim it is revenge for Muslims killed/injured as a result of the UK's foreign policies. But there is a distinct difference: UK forces do not intend to kill/maim innocent civilians when on duty, whereas Islamic terrorists deliberately set out to cause widespread damage, and destruction, with mass casualties. London was not bombed accidentally.

yes, thanks, we've established that the bombs were indeed in london, but the fact remains that it was four kids from yorkshire that killed some commuters, it was not an organised faith-wide-jihad against all christians in london. you've ridiculed yourself by saying that its the UK Gov's fault for "letting these people in" (you racist scum), when it was four english boys of a warped muslim faith who did this.

[GavinZac]

My post,

Your lack of even a basic level of knowledge and understanding regarding Al Qaeda and recent world events would be laughable/pitiful, where it not fuelling such a dangerous and inaccuaret viewpoint.....

It is completely and utterly wrong to say that the attack on London was intended as a Muslim attack upon Christians. To prove this, I'm happy to roll for a moment with your theory that the location of Al Qaeda attacks clarifies what their purpose and targets are.....

Since the World Trade Centre bombings in 2001 there have been 7 terrorist attacks around the globe attributed directly to Al Qaeda :

2002 : Djerba, Bali & Mombasa.
2003 : Casablanca and Istanbul.
2004 : Madrid
2005 : London

i agree on the whole, steve, but even you've missed the point that the label al-Qaeda has been bandied about for every islamic motivated attack; al-Qaeda is an off shoot of the Mughadeen of afghanistan, it is one of many islamic jihad groups, that has been, by the power vest in the US Media, singularised as the greatest evil threat against the west, and hence have been elevated to hero status by wannabe extremists. theres no evidence to suggest that al-Qaeda had anything to do with these train bombings, except a post on an internet site claiming "loyalty" to al-Qaeda.

ok, you guys, i did it. i bombed those trains

its easy to make stuff up on the internet

its oversimplification on points like these (that theres one aggressive group of muslims) that leads to idiots like mypost creating some final crusade in their minds.

[paul_oshea]

gavinzac, it wasnt just english "boys", who did this, there was a hell of a lot of planning and organisation gone into this, by many many mroe than just 4 english boys, I think everyone is missing the point somewhat, myself included.

yes any attack by a "muslim" using the word lightly here, is always going to be branded an "al qaida" attack, why? because no one actually knows who does most of them or who are they linked to, but try to associate them with one or other. al qaida is just an umbrella term now for any islamic extremists terrorist attacks.

But to say it was just four english boys is very naive. There are many organisations involved either directly or indirectly. And yes maybe some of them have "links" to "al qaida" members.

[GavinZac]

But to say it was just four english boys is very naive. There are many organisations involved either directly or indirectly. And yes maybe some of them have "links" to "al qaida" members.

i never said it was "just" four english boys. (that being the story now, it wasnt a suicide attack at first, for some reason). while its perfectly possible for four students to buy explosives (read june's FHM, the bit where Piers Hernu buys rare animals, a gun, and is offered explosives, in his local pub), set their watches and work out which four transports they can get on at the same time, its also possible they were motivated by some fanatic nut. but as it stands, there is no evidence linking them to any group, let alone specifically a group of afghanis.

[paul_oshea]

ya but gavin the tubes they got on, are the most busy of all london tubes, especially at that time in the morning.

[GavinZac]

ya but gavin the tubes they got on, are the most busy of all london tubes, especially at that time in the morning.

so? could they not research this themselves? im sure given a few days i could find out the best dublin buses to blow up as part of The People's Republic of Cork's (http://www.thepeoplesrepublicofcork.com) fight for independance.

[lopez]

ya but gavin the tubes they got on, are the most busy of all london tubes, especially at that time in the morning.I thought their research of the tubes was pretty awful myself (in terms of maximum carnage if I may for a second get my mind into psychopathic mode). They certainly hit the jackpot with the southbound Picc (crowded between Green Park and Kings X throughout the day), but the circles are very light in comparison with the southbound Victoria. Also they didn't have a clue that there are two different types of train and tunnelling on the Underground which shows that none of them certainly never spent their youth trainspotting (more's the pity). The difference being a much tighter space and therefore scope for more casualties.

[Superhoops]

so? could they not research this themselves? im sure given a few days i could find out the best dublin buses to blow up as part of The People's Republic of Cork's (http://www.thepeoplesrepublicofcork.com) fight for independance.
Not remotely funny and in very poor taste :mad:

[dahamsta]

I wouldn't say it's in particularly bad taste, just stupid. Sounds like something someone from proc would say, ironically enough.

adam

[GavinZac]

Not remotely funny and in very poor taste :mad:

i should change my tag line to "trust me, im being sarcastic". i dont post at that website. i dont see the bad taste, i was pointing out that any old nut could cause this chaos.

[dcfcsteve]

You just have to look at your own post to comfirm your suspicions that it is international internet idiot day-

Some of the best military minds in Israel and US can't figure out how to put a stop to Hammas-but equally Hammas will never put a stop to Israel.

The piece about the war in Iraq making the terrorism situation worse is nonenses- 9/11 occured well before the war in Iraq and Al Queda were also behind attacks in the mid nineties.

I'm aware of the chronology of events, but it is a fact that the Iraq War has created both a major cause celebre and an actual training ground/honey pot for extremists and extremist operations. I didn't say that the Iraq War created Islamic terrorism, but it has clearly made it worse - as has been begrudgingly accepted by both the UK and US Administrations.




And I never suggested that a nuclear attack would solve anything but did point out that if there is another "spectacular" like 7/11 then the uncumbent in the white house might "get a rush of blood to the head" and who will stop him--the UN

This is just ridiculous Samuel. I guarantee you this WILL NOT happen. And do you know why ? Becuase of the simple fact that nuclear bombs need a target. Let's just say that George Bush wakes up tomorrow morning determined to use nuclear bombs to destroy Islamic extremism. Where exactly do you propose he could/should aim it ? And if they did have a list of targets - why wouldn't they just take them out by air or ground forces, rather than use something as indiscriminate and internationally unacceptable as a nuclear bomb. To summarise - no targets, no bomb. You're getting more than a bit carried away with your arguement here.


A wooly thinker above wrote that Al Queda atrocities are not attacks on the Judea/Christians principles that have sustained our way of life for centuries- the writer used the fact that Al Queda are attacking traditional Muslim countries as the basis for his argument-he is wrong in his assertion however--Al queda are attacking Muslim countries because those countries are embracing the values of the west i e democracy and the relative freedom we enjoy and are thus by definition worse than Israel or western democracies. [/QUOTE}

Assuming I'm your famous "wooly thinker" - and ? I said exactly the same in my postings above. Your point is ?

[QUOTE=Samuel]A lot of Muslim writers are admitting that vast numbers
of the Muslim population in the middle east in particular are stuck in some sort of 16th centruy time warp-some are still going on about the Crusades.

Thier is a sickness within Islam that has to be rooted out, a sickness which convinces young men that they are victims of a vast zionist/western plot
thus convinceing them that it is "heroic" to strap themselves with explosives
and detonate themselves in bus Qs in Tel Aviv, supermarkets in Madrid, and tube station in London shattering lives and bringing misery on their own communities just like the facist IRA did to the Irish community in Britain in the 70s/80s.

This is a problem that has to be cured from within by Muslims. Unless they do however the hawks in various governments in the west may be tempted to cure it permanantly.

Totally agree with you. Though I fail to see how you've made my post look like a submission for 'International Internet Idiots Day' :D


If your lying on a beach and a fly keeps annoying you then you will eventually roll up a paper and swat the ****er..

I don't doubt that somewhere in cyberspace a group of young Muslims angry about the Iraq War, Afganistan and Guantanamo; angry about the Israeli-Palestinian situation; and angry at the presence of infidel armies in their Holy Land are saying exactly the same thing. To people like that, 7th July was them swatting the fly that's been annoying their religion for decades. Interesting how both sides could see exactly the same thing in the same situation, but in a completely opposite way......

[Superhoops]

...i was pointing out that any old nut could cause this chaos.
Perhaps you were, but the point could have been made much more effectively without having to resort to sarcasm about a very serious issue.

[GavinZac]

Perhaps you were, but the point could have been made much more effectively without having to resort to sarcasm about a very serious issue.

jaysus youre very sensitive for a rovers fan.

[Superhoops]

jaysus youre very sensitive for a rovers fan.
Forget it, the point is obviously lost on you.

[dcfcsteve]

the swapping the fly was a quote from a top US military guy recently-remember that when it comes to swatting that the US has a much bigger newspaper to roll up and do the swatting with. They (the US) are afterall
the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons against another country.
Immediately after 7/11 a majority of people polled in the US indicated that they would have no problem with their military responding with "extreme predjudice" to any threat on their nation. After the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbour in WW2 the Japanese admitted that they had "awoken a sleeping giant" and they paid a heavy price. I have no doubt that if they (the US) feel they are under threat they will react with "extreme predjudice"-again.
As for it being "internationally unacceptable" the war in Iraq is also "internationally unacceptable" but what can the completely useless and corrupt UN do about it- write irate letters to the Irish Times???


Yeddah,yeddah,yeddah.... .

So Samuel - who will they fire these bombs at ? Rhetoric aside, as I stated earlier the flaw in that approach is that nuclear bombs need a target.

Yet again, tell me if you will - WHO IS THE TARGET ??????

[mypost]

I have a high post count because I've been here since Day One.
That's not in dispute.


I have to deal with posters that come up with unsubstantiated, inaccurate arguments and try to set them on the right track.

This is a forum with multiple threads, with many different points of view. But, whatever a poster says about someone else's post, it doesn't change their position on the issue. So you can't set people on what you perceive to be the right track. There are several posters here, who to a certain extent, have backed what I have previously said , so we're not all idiots.


[Re: Taxi drivers]It was an analogy.

It was not an analogy. It was unsubstantiated nonsense.

[mypost]

Before the events of July 7th in London I thought the US Govt had gone overboard in its security clampdown since 2001, bringing in fingerprinting, etc, for all arrivals.
I now feel that this kind of clampdown is precisely what is needed in the UK. I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing bleeding heart liberals on 5Live whinging on about human rights and civil liberties.
As far as I'm concerned workers have a human right to go to work without the fear of being blown up.
It is now up to the British Govt to introduce much stricter security and better funding for the intelligence services. Furthermore, the Muslim community needs to start providing strong leadership and do more to stop these extremists.
If you want to live in Britain, play your part.

The USA Government doesn't go overboard with their security measures. 9/11 was their wake-up call, and they'll do whatever they feel is necessary to ensure it doesn't happen again. Their security measures have been successful so far, as there have been no Al-Qaeda attacks in the USA since September 2001. Other governments need to impose the same measures, to reduce the risks of an attack by Islamic extremists on their countries. Unfortunately, not all of them are willing to do that, and are leaving themselves more vulnerable to an attack than others.

[paul_oshea]

After the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbour in WW2 the Japanese admitted that they had "awoken a sleeping giant" and they paid a heavy price. I have no doubt that if they (the US) feel they are under threat they will react with "extreme predjudice"-again.

it has actually been said and written in many places, that the americans were aware of a threat that day, but let it happen any way, so they could retaliate, as they had planned on using nuclear weapons on the japs.

[Macy]

Before the events of July 7th in London I thought the US Govt had gone overboard in its security clampdown since 2001, bringing in fingerprinting, etc, for all arrivals.
I now feel that this kind of clampdown is precisely what is needed in the UK. I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing bleeding heart liberals on 5Live whinging on about human rights and civil liberties.
As far as I'm concerned workers have a human right to go to work without the fear of being blown up.
It is now up to the British Govt to introduce much stricter security and better funding for the intelligence services. Furthermore, the Muslim community needs to start providing strong leadership and do more to stop these extremists.
If you want to live in Britain, play your part.
What's your feelings about internment when it was going on in the north? Was the jailing of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six justified, as the cops thought they were the right men and besides they were irish so must be guilty of something? Do you think internment and other "justified" security responses helped break the IRA or helped them recruit more people to their cause?

[joeSoap]

Was the jailing of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six justified, as the cops thought they were the right men and besides they were irish so must be guilty of something? Do you think internment and other "justified" security responses helped break the IRA or helped them recruit more people to their cause?

Does it really matter?? The 'framing' of the aforementioned was by and large down to corrupt, frustrated cops, particularly the West Midlands Crime Squad.

Crimes against humanity like the London bombings needed the swift respponse and arrests required to assure the public that something was going to be done about it. I also believe the evidence of CCTV etc in this case justifies the arrests made. As of yet nobody has been charged with anything, so lets wait and see...

[Macy]

Crimes against humanity like the London bombings needed the swift respponse and arrests required to assure the public that something was going to be done about it. I also believe the evidence of CCTV etc in this case justifies the arrests made. As of yet nobody has been charged with anything, so lets wait and see...
So bombing pubs wasn't crimes against humanity? Or is it different because the cause was different? The type of reaction we're seeing now is exactly the same as the 70's as a result of IRA campaigns - The Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 were wrongly imprisoned on the back of such pressure for results.

People should just think carefully and learn from history before supporting knee jerk reactions to terrorist threats. Particularly the Irish, and especially the Irish living in England....

[dahamsta]

That's effectively what I said earlier. Are you an idiot too?? :confused: Certain posters here believe that.You're going down the wrong track there now mypost. If you start calling people idiots, you're going to end up calling me a fascist, when I ban you. There won't be another warning.

As to your reply to my post, I'll refer you back to the last sentence of that self-same post. It's not a matter of opinion at all, you're simply wrong, and I'm being genuine when I say that I think you should talk to someone about your beliefs.

adam

[lopez]

Funny with all this talk about 'nuking' I wish I had a pound for every time I heard that the solution to the 'troubles' was to 'Nuke Ireland.' :rolleyes: And my father always told me that the Irish had long memories.

[joeSoap]

When the IRA were operating at the height of their heyday in the 70's/80's, they had a 'cause' as an excuse for moneymaking through racketeering, gun running, ammunitions, extortion etc. Young recruits were probably indoctrinated by burning posters of Maggie and the Queen, and this 'cause' was how they recruited.

I can't see how the 'cause' of these extremists is like this, as they don't seem to be into all other facets of organised crime that the IRA were/are into.
Do they genuinely detest Western Society so much? Are they involved in criminal activity back home in their natve lands, or are they purely hell-bent on Western destruction?

[paul_oshea]

they are neo-facists trying to rid the world of all non muslims or "non true " followers, by force if must. IT is proof that those followers of islam, beleive their and only their religion is the "right" one.

[joeSoap]

So why aren't all followers of Islam bomb wielding zealots? Its a very small percentage of them that are, just like it was a small percentage of Irish Catholics that took up the gun in their 'war'.

What I can't understand is exactly what makes these people think like they do, when the majority of their religion don't?

[paul_oshea]

they are neo-facists

THEY AND THOSE!!!i said, as in the extremists

[dcfcsteve]

The target will be the country where they percieve the threat to be coming from

Thanks for the clarity Samuel....... :confused:

And those countries would be....? There is no single country in the world now who's government supports/condones terrorist attacks on the west. Libya used to, as too did the likes of Cuba. Not a bean does now. Unless a government could be shown to be actively supporting terrorist attacks, and refused to desist, then there is no way anyone would even BEGIN to consider launching a nuclear attack against them (for reference -Iraq wasn't a nuclear attack - despite years of multinational engagement with them, and despite a firm belief that they had weapons of mass destruction there themselves that they would use on the American/British forces).

So, yet again - who's the target....?

You willing to accept yet that the prospect of the US firing nuclear bombs off in reaction to terrorist attacks is intellectually redundant pie-in-the-sky ?

[dcfcsteve]

So why aren't all followers of Islam bomb wielding zealots? Its a very small percentage of them that are, just like it was a small percentage of Irish Catholics that took up the gun in their 'war'.

What I can't understand is exactly what makes these people think like they do, when the majority of their religion don't?

There is a very strong - and perfectly understandable - belief in the Muslim world that the West actively suppresses Islam. This has a historical root in the Crusades, and the modern activities of England and the US could easily be interpreted as a continuation of that historical suppression. This creates a massive sense of injustice/frustration amongst Muslims. Many Muslims look at the military might of the West and conclude that the only weapons they have to defend themselves/strike back against this suppression are their bodies. Add into that the fact that - for deeply religious Muslims - the desired endpoint of their life (reaching heaven and getting VIP treatment up there) can be reached much faster and to a deeper extent through martyrdom, and it shouldn't really be that much of a mystery as to why angry, frustrated and deeply religious Muslims living in hot-beds of anti-Westernism could think that way.

Imagine that you're a Muslim, liivng in a country with broadly anti-Western media/culture, and you have a trong sense of Muslim brotherhood/solidarity. (I appreciate that the London bombers didn't live in such countries, but they appear to have immersed themselves in anti-Western rhetoric, so in effect were one-man versions of this).

You see the US invade Muslim nations like Afghanistan and Iraq with at best limited ostensible reason for doing so, whilst you and your Muslim neighbours/friends etc believe it was really just so they could secure their oil supplies.

The main ostensible reason for invading Mulsim Iraq was to enforce UN Resolutions. Yet you know that none of the numerous UN Resolutions that have been passed against Israel over the last 30 years have been likewise enforced by the West.

An arguement was later developed that invading Iraq was to remove an evil dictator who was suppressing, torturing and murdering his own people. Yet you see your Muslim brothers and sisters being suppressed, tortured and killed in Israel-Palestine on a regular basis, with their homes and livelihoods destroyed at-will. Yet the West does nothing about that.

You see that as soon as any Muslim nation (e.g. Iran) tries to develop its own nuclear deterrent, the West starts to threaten them with violence. Yet a non-Muslim nation like Israel has been allowed to build up a huge nuclear arsenal without a single word of condemnation.

Would you not believe that the West was working to an anti-Muslim agenda ? Would you not be frustrated ? If you were deeply religious, very angry, had nothing ijn particular to live for, and believed that the ultimate aim of your life was to reach heaven in as perfect a way as you could - can you not then see how Martyrdom whilst attacking those who are actively suppressing your religion (i.e. the west) might be appealing to some people ? Before anyone tries to get all sanctimonious on me - I'm neither justifying nor agreeing with this approach. I'm just trying to articulate it...

On a minor point - the families of suicide bombers in Israel receive financial recompense from a number of extremist organisations. If you combine all the above with a belief that you and your family have a very bleak future, you may also conclude that it would genuinely be in their best financial interests for you to act in this way (in a similar way as the tradition in certain African countries for completely destitute mothers to literally sell their own very young children into what is effectively slavery, as a means of keeping the rest of their family alive).

[joeSoap]

thats some post....nice one,

[paul_oshea]

had nothing ijn particular to live for

I think you summed it up right there prefectly.

[Jim Smith]

Another interesting post their from dcfcsteve. I know its a small thing but:


On a minor point - the families of suicide bombers in Israel receive financial recompense from a number of extremist organisations. If you combine all the above with a belief that you and your family have a very bleak future, you may also conclude that it would genuinely be in their best financial interests for you to act in this way (in a similar way as the tradition in certain African countries for completely destitute mothers to literally sell their own very young children into what is effectively slavery, as a means of keeping the rest of their family alive).
When you look at the profile of many suicide bombers they are not destitute and tend to be rather well-off within their communities. I think what often happens is that (no matter how hard we try) we tend to judge their actions through our 'western' cultural perspective which is why we find it so hard to understand. The suicide bombers are very much a product of perceived injustice, a certain ideological mind-set and a very distorted (IMO) view of Islam.
Understanding this is made much more difficult by a general lack of understanding of Islam in the West. I think that this might be worth a look when it comes out:

Being a Muslim for a month (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3A88F293-C025-4FAE-B794-D98FF3390E08.htm)

[joeSoap]

Its been suggested that in this case, the suicide bombers weren't actual suicide bombers at all. They were (allegedly)duped into believing that there was adequate time for them to flee once the bombs had detonated, and they all thought they would live.

I don't know where this theory came from, but it was debated on one of those political shows on the beeb the other night.

[dcfcsteve]

Its been suggested that in this case, the suicide bombers weren't actual suicide bombers at all. They were (allegedly)duped into believing that there was adequate time for them to flee once the bombs had detonated, and they all thought they would live.

I don't know where this theory came from, but it was debated on one of those political shows on the beeb the other night.

I'd say this is just wishful conjecture JoeSoap - people WANTING to believe that they wouldn't be so wicked as to blow themselves up.

We've obviously no way of knowing now -though suicide bombers traditionally leave a video behind to explain their actions. However, common sense suggests this is unlikely. The rucksacks they were carrying were bloody big, and far from discreet. Putting one of those down on the tube with a view to just strolling off wouldn't really have worked, as somebody on one of the 3 tubes would've said "Oi mate - you forgot your bag". That would've put the bombers in a very tricky posiiton if they were hoping to get away alive, and probably rumbled them.....

Also - the bus bombing suggests that the guy involved there was fully in control. It appears that he was looking to get the Northern Line south from Kings Cross to detonate his bomb somewhere down there (Tott Court Rd ? London Bridge ? Waterloo ?). A statement released shortly after the bombings by a body claiming involvement talked about a burning cross and Britain burning in "it's northern, southern, eastern and western quarters". Initially this wasn't given much seriousness, but the speed with which it was released links in with a belief that the bombers were attempting to make the shape of a cross, and that the bus bomber was foiled in his efforts to travel to his desired destination to the south by a problem on the Northern Line (which there was that morning). Kings Cross was north, Aldgate/Liverpool St East, and Edgeware Rd West.

Again it's all conjecture, but it gives the targets a pattern that otherwise appears missing/random.

However - I would say that speculating that the guys involved were mere innocent dupes rather than evil suicide bombers is rather wishful/hopeful thinking.

P.S. Jim - as for the socioeconomic background of suicide bombers - it's true that a number of suicide bombings around the world have been carried out by people who were from relatively comfortable backgrounds. But it's only in Palestine where the families receive financial recompense for their efforts, and the people of the West Bank and Gaza are far from well-off.

[paul_oshea]

It appears that he was looking to get the Northern Line south from Kings Cross to detonate his bomb somewhere down there (Tott Court Rd ? London Bridge ? Waterloo ?).


nah bank.

[joeSoap]

Jeez...its only in the aftermath when you learn about these people, how meticulously they plan, and even more scarily, how easy it seems to be for them to carry out these atrocities undetected, that you realise just how wrong some aspects of the world are today.... :(