Innocent Muslims treated like Irish in70's London

[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.' 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.......

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

[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....