Innocent Muslims treated like Irish in70's London

[dcfcsteve]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...527288,00.html

Islamophobic...now thats a new one.

What's so new about the word 'Islamophobic' Metrostars ?

It's like clarifying that an incident wasn't just a 'Hate Crime' but was 'Homophobic - i.e. a very specific type of hate crime.

Likewise - the incident above wasn't 'rascist', but a very specific form of anti-religious attack.

Struggle to see how that word/concept is a new one....

[mypost]

I fear an awful lot of innocent muslims are going to take an awful lot of stick for this.

Well, what do you expect??

Muslims took advantage of freedoms, (that they profess to despise ) 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.

[Plastic Paddy]

Muslims took advantage of freedoms, (that they profess to despise ) 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

Oh dear...

That's the kind of reductionist theorising that is dangerously wrong. This was not an attack on Christians by Muslims. It was an indiscriminate act of hate by a select few, designed to inflict the maximum loss of life irrespective of its origin. In that, it succeeded. Make no mistake, though, this is NOT Muslims vs Christians. You painting it as such really doesn't help anyone.

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.

So "we" brought it on ourselves? Thanks a million pal. That makes us here in London feel a whole lot better, let me tell you.

Thank God views like yours are not in the mainstream. We're more civilised than that. Bombs or no bombs, we'll carry on as ever.

Given the unreconstructed neocon crap you're spouting, you're not a staffer in the Bush administration by any chance?

PP

[dahamsta]

Given the unreconstructed neocon crap you're spouting, you're not a staffer in the Bush administration by any chance?

Ordinarily I'd say tone it down, but, well, the post you were responding to was pretty much the kind of oversimplified, generalistic, sectarian, stereotypical crap I'd expect from a taxi driver with a lifetime subscription to the Star. So, can't fault you on this occasion.

Muslims and Christians eh? Them and us. Four legs good, two legs bad.

adam

[joeSoap]

the post you were responding to was pretty much the kind of oversimplified, generalistic, sectarian, stereotypical crap I'd expect from a taxi driver with a lifetime subscription to the Star.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Well, what do you expect??

Muslims took advantage of freedoms, (that they profess to despise ) 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.

I expect pigs to grunt ...and while your reaction disappoints me -well based on your previous opinings -it doesn't surprise me in the least.

Someone to blame -and someone to kiss it better.

[Peadar]

I'm going to try and explain how I feel about all of this.

At the weekend I took some time to walk around the area where my sister lives. The people I met on the streets were from many ethnic groups but predominantly Muslim in religion. I didn't see hate in their eyes and nothing told me they had murder in their hearts. Their faces showed sadness and sincerity. They were ordinary people who left their home country for one reason or another and were now trying to forge a life for themselves in West London. Dotted between the Arab shops and restaurants are Irish pubs. They share the streets with Irish people who followed so many similar paths in life to bring them there.
The people who attack Muslim communities were just looking for an excuse to vent their hatred. We would probably have seen the same attacks if Pakistan knocked England out of a football World Cup or something.

The blast on my train wasn't caused by a Muslim bomb. It was caused by a terrorist bomb!

[Lionel Ritchie]

Well said Peadar.

[dcfcsteve]

Well, what do you expect??

Muslims took advantage of freedoms, (that they profess to despise ) 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.

My post,

You're a self-confirmed idiot.....

[paul_oshea]

people dont be too harsh, there is reasoning in a backward sorta way to what he was saying...

muslims have to start listening and accepting that there ARE extremists within their communities, and must start to tackle this issue. I never brand everyone ( or any one individual ) with the same stick, but if all muslims say that he was such a blah blah, and these arent beleivers of islam etc ( 99.9% of muslims deplore such acts ), then fair enough, but they are aware of where these people go and what they do, I just think it should be monitored and these people ousted from their communities ( if they show any hatred/incite hatred ), if this were done then NO ONE could have any justification in blaming muslims for such atrocities. At the moment these people are living in stronghold muslim communities, at the end of the day these people are muslims, whether or not they are extremists or not, their beliefs and ideologies are centred around islam....

I dont blame any muslims for what happend, i blame individuals ( these people are types of sociopaths in my opinion, as tehy lead double lives as such ) who have been easily manipulated, because they are easily led people...

[dcfcsteve]

people dont be too harsh, there is reasoning in a backward sorta way to what he was saying...

muslims have to start listening and accepting that there ARE extremists within their communities, and must start to tackle this issue. I never brand everyone ( or any one individual ) with the same stick, but if all muslims say that he was such a blah blah, and these arent beleivers of islam etc ( 99.9% of muslims deplore such acts ), then fair enough, but they are aware of where these people go and what they do, I just think it should be monitored and these people ousted from their communities ( if they show any hatred/incite hatred ), if this were done then NO ONE could have any justification in blaming muslims for such atrocities. At the moment these people are living in stronghold muslim communities, at the end of the day these people are muslims, whether or not they are extremists or not, their beliefs and ideologies are centred around islam....

I dont blame any muslims for what happend, i blame individuals ( these people are types of sociopaths in my opinion, as tehy lead double lives as such ) who have been easily manipulated, because they are easily led people...

POS - you're points are fair, but 'My Posts' weren't. He was effectively saying that it's a problem with Muslims and that they're only attacking Christians - which betrays his lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation.

As an exercise - switch the word 'Irish' for every mention of the word 'Muslim' in both 'My Post' and your messages above. And then pretend than you're a Londoner after the Bishopsgate or Canary Whard bombings, or a Manc after the Arndale bombing. Give you a slightly different take on things.... ?

[paul_oshea]

steve, i have actually been doing that with all posts, thinking about how irish people would have been treated, i hadnt been around those times, so I cant really make a fair assessment, but ya, I agree I do feel rather hypocritical, as I know I would be the first to get my back up if i had been around during those times....

[joeSoap]

steve, i have actually been doing that with all posts, thinking about how irish people would have been treated, i hadnt been around those times, so I cant really make a fair assessment,

I was going to watch Ireland v England in a pub in Borough in 1988, and was told in no uncertain terms by the barman to "f-uck off, you dirty irish c**t," and "to take my explosives with me".....nice chap.

[mypost]

This was not an attack on Christians by Muslims. It was an indiscriminate act of hate by a select few, designed to inflict the maximum loss of life irrespective of its origin. In that, it succeeded. Make no mistake, though, this is NOT Muslims vs Christians.

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.

We're more civilised than that.

Than what??

[mypost]

the post you were responding to was pretty much the kind of oversimplified, generalistic, sectarian, stereotypical crap I'd expect from a taxi driver with a lifetime subscription to the Star.

So that's the kind of spam that people sit and write on their laptops all day. Now I know why you have posted here 3,400 times.

Just how many taxi drivers do you know, have a lifetime subscription to the Star??

This is a thread on a serious issue. We don't have to read wild and unfounded generalisations against posters, that have nothing to do with it.

[Plastic Paddy]

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.

So you damn an entire people for the act of a mindless few? Are you Irish? Did you ever visit London in the seventies, eighties or nineties? Do I even need to spell my point out further?

So that's the kind of spam that people sit and write on their laptops all day. Now I know why you have posted here 3,400 times.

That might have something to do with the fact that it's dahamsta's website. I should imagine that a fair proportion of those 3,400 posts were spent responding to views like yours. Enough said.

PP

[dcfcsteve]

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.

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

As you can see from the above list, 4 occured in overwhelmingly Muslim countries (Tunisia, Indonesia, Morocco and Turkey), whilst the other 3 occured in Christian countries (Kenya, Spain, Uk) - albeit countries/cities with sizeable Muslim populations. If we go back to the first signs of Al Qaeda in 1993 - of all the attacks they've been involved in around the world since then, the majority have been in Muslim countries (the above, plus Saudi, Yemen and Tanzania which is equally split Christian/Muslim). And that's without taking into account Al Qaeda's clear presence and involvement in terrorist activities in both Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment. Therefore - under your theory that the location of an Al Qaeda target therefore clarifies their aims, it could be more justifiably argued that the organisation is actually out to kill Muslims than it is Christians or any other religion ! How do you like them apples then, eh.....?

Moving on from the evidence of their actual activities - even a vague understanding of Al Qaeda and extremist Islamic movements would have made you aware that they consider the vast majority of fellow Muslims to be no different than other Infidels - they have ambraced a modern, Western, non-Islamic lifestyle, and so they can no longer be considered Muslims. In that way, Al Qaeda groups are able to justify attacks on Muslims when the Koran specifically dictates against this. Therefore - they are out to kill FULL STOP. Regardless of whether its Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhist, Rastas or non believers.

Of course a bomb attack in a majority Christian place like London or New York will more than likely lead to a majority of Christian deaths. But the same is true for bomb attacks in majority Muslim cities/countries like Casablanca or Saudi Arabia as well. If they really wanted to target Christians, then why didn't they follow the blindingly obvious strategy of attacking popular churches on a Sunday ?? I'll tell you why - whether they killed all Muslims or all Christians matters not a jot to Al Qaeda. Their aim is to just kill. Full stop. Your assertion is therefore completely incorrect and betrays your lack of understanding of the situation.

Perhaps your time might be better spent reading quality newspapers and/or watching in-depth news programmes, rather than serving up dangerously incorrect uneducated viewpoints like the above on internet chat sites...

[dcfcsteve]

they had structure enough to issue a fatwah against Rushdie one which he took seriously enough to go into hiding about-the problem with Muslim extremism is that there is no raison detre i e the facist IRA want a United Ireland-and we can assume that they will "go away" if they get it- the Basques want and independent Basque Region and likewise they will **** off
presumably-but what does the Islamofacists want? why are groups like Hammas allowed
to make statemnets about driving Israel into the sea and teaching their children that it is ok to kill Jews and Gentiles in their quest to impose Islam
on the rwst of the world. If the Muslim community doesn't address the problem in their midst then some US president might in the same way that
Truman did in Japan via Enola Gay in 1945......

I'm staggered by the ill-informed nature of a lot of the postings on this topic.

Samuel - Al Qaeda DID NOT issue the fatwa against Salman Rusdie. The Ayatolla of Iran did. But let's not let fact reduce the power of our arguements, eh.....?

I agree with your sentiment/frustration that Al Qaeda appears motiveless to us, and that they cannot be negotiated with - as they want something completely anathaema to our democracies/lifestyle.

Hammas exists almost solely to drive the Israeli's out of the Middle East. In that way, they are not remarkably different than groups like the IRA/ETA etc have been/are. Regardless - who and how do you promise Hammas's extremist statements are stopped then ? It only takes one person to set-up a supposed terrorist group and issue any statements they want. How exactly is this to be stopped then..... ?

And the piece de resistance - suggesting that the atomic/nuclear bomb is the way to solve Islamic extremism. Bravo ! Any thoughts on where exactly the bombs should be dropped ? Again - please don't let facts and relatively minor details get in the way of your well-condidered viewpoints...

Even is there was a Bond Baddy-esque location of 'Extremistville' in 'Extremiststan' that was chock-full of evil-doers working in factories churning-out terrorists and terrorist implements, do you not have even an inkling of suspicion that such drastic measures as nuclear bombs could actually make the global situation worse ? It was reported in the news earlier this week that even the likes of Bush and Blair are now privately admiting that the Iraq War has made the terrorist situation worse, and has finally created the link between Iraq and terror that they claimed was there beforehand. Just think how much worse something like that would be if it had gone nuclear......

Now I'm just going to check my calendar to see if it really is International Internet Idiots day.......

[paul_oshea]

As you can see from the above list, 4 occured in overwhelmingly Muslim countries (Tunisia, Indonesia, Morocco and Turkey), whilst the other 3 occured in Christian countries (Kenya, Spain, Uk) - albeit countries/cities with sizeable Muslim populations. If we go back to the first signs of Al Qaeda in 1993 - of all the attacks they've been involved in around the world since then, the majority have been in Muslim countries (the above, plus Saudi, Yemen and Tanzania which is equally split Christian/Muslim). And that's without taking into account Al Qaeda's clear presence and involvement in terrorist activities in both Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment. Therefore - under your theory that the location of an Al Qaeda target therefore clarifies their aims, it could be more justifiably argued that the organisation is actually out to kill Muslims than it is Christians or any other religion ! How do you like them apples then, eh.....?

steve, dont be too oversighted here, it doesn't necessarily matter what country they struck in, but where, what and who they struck in that country. follow..???

I had this arguement with pat o, last night, one I would like to discuss with you also some time, but societies in the western world are far more accomodating to muslims and islam, if I however went to pakistan or wherever, society there would not be accomodating to my beleifs both religous or otherwise. At the end of the day, muslims, in general do feel that there religion is "the one" and arent acceptant of other religions. Jihad itself means struggle for the sake of Allah, based around the idea of a struggle to convert/rid others, There are many forms of this which change according to time and context. There are many books about this huge subject, please consult some of them to get a good understanding.


Finally, Anything, especially religion can be manipulated to justify an action. The logic of their actions and thoughts behind this can only be given by them. However I would say that it is not the “what?” but rather the “why?” that should be questioned.

[paul_oshea]

anathaema to our democracies/lifestyle.

what have the band from liverpool got to do with al qaida, anathema is a solemn curse, once used by winston churchill and roosevelt. anyhow i think the context in which you have used it here is incorrect.

whether they killed all Muslims or all Christians matters not a jot to Al Qaeda. Their aim is to just kill. Full stop. Your assertion is therefore completely incorrect and betrays your lack of understanding of the situation.

steve, thats not wholly true either, there aim is to kill "infidels" as i exlpained earlier what the "old" meaning of infidel is, a non beleiver/follower of islam.

Most groups that carry out these attacks have said in the past, we apologise beforehand if brothers of islam get caught up in our tirade against the infidels of the western world. so is that not saying something in itself?