Print
Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women
by Christopher Hitchens, Slate
Reposted from:
http://www.slate.com/id/2169592/nav/tap1/
Why on earth do people keep saying, "There but for the grace of God …"? If matters had been very slightly different over the past weekend, the streets of London and the airport check-in area in Glasgow, Scotland, would have been strewn with charred body parts. And this would have been, according to the would-be perpetrators, because of the grace of God. Whatever our own private theology or theodicy, we might at least agree to take this vile belief seriously.
Instead, almost every other conceivable explanation was canvassed. The June 30 New York Times report managed to quote three people, one of whom attributed the aborted atrocity in London to Tony Blair's foreign policy; one of whom (a New Zealand diplomat, at that) felt "surprisingly all right about it"; and one of whom, described as "a Briton of Indian descent," was worried that "if I walk up that road, they're going to suspect me." The "they" there was clearly the British authorities, rather than the Muslim gangsters who have declared open season on all Hindus as well as all Jews, Christians, secularists, and other kuffar or infidel filth.
On the following day, July 1, the same newspaper informed us that Britain contained a "disenfranchised South Asian population." How this was true was never explained. There are several Muslim parliamentarians in both houses, often allowed to make the most absurdly inflammatory and euphemistic statements where acts of criminal violence are concerned, as well as several districts in which the Islamic vote keeps candidates of all parties uneasily aware of what may and may not be said. True, the Muslim extremist groups boycott elections and denounce democracy itself as profane, but this does not really count as disenfranchisement.
Only at the tail end of the coverage was it admitted that a car bomb might have been parked outside a club in Piccadilly because it was "ladies night" and that this explosion might have been designed to lure people into to the street, the better to be burned and shredded by the succeeding explosion from the second car-borne cargo of gasoline and nails. Since we have known since 2004 that a near-identical attack on a club called the Ministry of Sound was proposed in just these terms, on the grounds that dead "slags" or "sluts" would be regretted by nobody, a certain amount of trouble might have been saved by assuming the obvious. The murderers did not just want body parts in general but female body parts in particular.
I suppose that some people might want to shy away from this conclusion for whatever reason, but they cannot have been among the viewers of British Channel 4's recent Undercover Mosque, or among those who watched Sunday's report from Christiane Amanpour on CNN's Special Investigations Unit. On these shows, the British Muslim fanatics came right out with their program. Straight into the camera, leading figures like Anjem Choudary spoke of their love for Osama Bin Laden and their explicit rejection of any definition of Islam as a religion of peace. On tape or in person, mullahs in prominent British mosques called for the killing of Indians and Jews.
Liberal reluctance to confront this sheer horror is the result, I think, of a deep reticence about some furtive concept of "race." It is subconsciously assumed that a critique of political Islam is an attack on people with brown skins. One notes in passing that any such concession implicitly denies or negates Islam's claim to be a universal religion. Indeed, some of its own exponents certainly do speak as if they think of it as a tribal property. And, at any rate, in practice, so it is. The fascistic subculture that has taken root in Britain and that lives by violence and hatred is composed of two main elements. One is a refugee phenomenon, made up of shady exiles from the Middle East and Asia who are exploiting London's traditional hospitality, and one is the projection of an immigrant group that has its origins in a particularly backward and reactionary part of Pakistan.
To the shame-faced white-liberal refusal to confront these facts, one might counterpose a few observations. The first is that we were warned for years of the danger, by Britons also of Asian descent such as Hanif Kureishi, Monica Ali, and Salman Rushdie. They knew what the village mullahs looked like and sounded like, and they said as much. Not long ago, I was introduced to Nadeem Aslam, whose book Maps for Lost Lovers is highly recommended.
He understands the awful price of arranged marriages, dowry, veiling, and the other means by which the feudal arrangements of rural Pakistan have been transplanted to parts of London and Yorkshire. "In some families in my street," he writes to me, "the grandparents, parents, and the children are all first cousins—it's been going on for generations and so the effects of the inbreeding are quite pronounced by now." By his estimate and others, a minority of no more than 11 percent is responsible for more than 70 percent of the birth defects in Yorkshire. When a leading socialist member of Parliament, Ann Cryer, drew attention to this appalling state of affairs in her own constituency, she was promptly accused of—well, you can guess what she was accused of. The dumb word Islamophobia, uncritically employed by Christiane Amanpour in her otherwise powerful documentary, was the least of it. Meanwhile, an extreme self-destructive clannishness, which is itself "phobic" in respect to all outsiders, becomes the constituency for the preachings of a cult of death. I mention this because, if there is an "ethnic" dimension to the Islamist question, then in this case at least it is the responsibility of the Islamists themselves.
The most noticeable thing about all theocracies is their sexual repression and their directly related determination to exert absolute control over women. In Britain, in the 21st century, there are now honor killings, forced marriages, clerically mandated wife-beatings, incest in all but name, and the adoption of apparel for females that one cannot be sure is chosen by them but which is claimed as an issue of (of all things) free expression. This would be bad enough on its own and if it were confined to the Muslim "community" alone. But, of course, such a toxin cannot be confined, and the votaries of theocracy now claim the God-given right to slaughter females at random for nothing more than their perceived immodesty. The least we can do, confronted by such radical evil, is to look it in the eye (something it strives to avoid) and call it by its right name. For a start, it is the female victims of this tyranny who are "disenfranchised," while something rather worse than "disenfranchisement" awaits those who dare to disagree.
http://www.slate.com/id/2169592/nav/tap1/
Why on earth do people keep saying, "There but for the grace of God …"? If matters had been very slightly different over the past weekend, the streets of London and the airport check-in area in Glasgow, Scotland, would have been strewn with charred body parts. And this would have been, according to the would-be perpetrators, because of the grace of God. Whatever our own private theology or theodicy, we might at least agree to take this vile belief seriously.Instead, almost every other conceivable explanation was canvassed. The June 30 New York Times report managed to quote three people, one of whom attributed the aborted atrocity in London to Tony Blair's foreign policy; one of whom (a New Zealand diplomat, at that) felt "surprisingly all right about it"; and one of whom, described as "a Briton of Indian descent," was worried that "if I walk up that road, they're going to suspect me." The "they" there was clearly the British authorities, rather than the Muslim gangsters who have declared open season on all Hindus as well as all Jews, Christians, secularists, and other kuffar or infidel filth.
On the following day, July 1, the same newspaper informed us that Britain contained a "disenfranchised South Asian population." How this was true was never explained. There are several Muslim parliamentarians in both houses, often allowed to make the most absurdly inflammatory and euphemistic statements where acts of criminal violence are concerned, as well as several districts in which the Islamic vote keeps candidates of all parties uneasily aware of what may and may not be said. True, the Muslim extremist groups boycott elections and denounce democracy itself as profane, but this does not really count as disenfranchisement.
Only at the tail end of the coverage was it admitted that a car bomb might have been parked outside a club in Piccadilly because it was "ladies night" and that this explosion might have been designed to lure people into to the street, the better to be burned and shredded by the succeeding explosion from the second car-borne cargo of gasoline and nails. Since we have known since 2004 that a near-identical attack on a club called the Ministry of Sound was proposed in just these terms, on the grounds that dead "slags" or "sluts" would be regretted by nobody, a certain amount of trouble might have been saved by assuming the obvious. The murderers did not just want body parts in general but female body parts in particular.
I suppose that some people might want to shy away from this conclusion for whatever reason, but they cannot have been among the viewers of British Channel 4's recent Undercover Mosque, or among those who watched Sunday's report from Christiane Amanpour on CNN's Special Investigations Unit. On these shows, the British Muslim fanatics came right out with their program. Straight into the camera, leading figures like Anjem Choudary spoke of their love for Osama Bin Laden and their explicit rejection of any definition of Islam as a religion of peace. On tape or in person, mullahs in prominent British mosques called for the killing of Indians and Jews.
Liberal reluctance to confront this sheer horror is the result, I think, of a deep reticence about some furtive concept of "race." It is subconsciously assumed that a critique of political Islam is an attack on people with brown skins. One notes in passing that any such concession implicitly denies or negates Islam's claim to be a universal religion. Indeed, some of its own exponents certainly do speak as if they think of it as a tribal property. And, at any rate, in practice, so it is. The fascistic subculture that has taken root in Britain and that lives by violence and hatred is composed of two main elements. One is a refugee phenomenon, made up of shady exiles from the Middle East and Asia who are exploiting London's traditional hospitality, and one is the projection of an immigrant group that has its origins in a particularly backward and reactionary part of Pakistan.
To the shame-faced white-liberal refusal to confront these facts, one might counterpose a few observations. The first is that we were warned for years of the danger, by Britons also of Asian descent such as Hanif Kureishi, Monica Ali, and Salman Rushdie. They knew what the village mullahs looked like and sounded like, and they said as much. Not long ago, I was introduced to Nadeem Aslam, whose book Maps for Lost Lovers is highly recommended.
He understands the awful price of arranged marriages, dowry, veiling, and the other means by which the feudal arrangements of rural Pakistan have been transplanted to parts of London and Yorkshire. "In some families in my street," he writes to me, "the grandparents, parents, and the children are all first cousins—it's been going on for generations and so the effects of the inbreeding are quite pronounced by now." By his estimate and others, a minority of no more than 11 percent is responsible for more than 70 percent of the birth defects in Yorkshire. When a leading socialist member of Parliament, Ann Cryer, drew attention to this appalling state of affairs in her own constituency, she was promptly accused of—well, you can guess what she was accused of. The dumb word Islamophobia, uncritically employed by Christiane Amanpour in her otherwise powerful documentary, was the least of it. Meanwhile, an extreme self-destructive clannishness, which is itself "phobic" in respect to all outsiders, becomes the constituency for the preachings of a cult of death. I mention this because, if there is an "ethnic" dimension to the Islamist question, then in this case at least it is the responsibility of the Islamists themselves.
The most noticeable thing about all theocracies is their sexual repression and their directly related determination to exert absolute control over women. In Britain, in the 21st century, there are now honor killings, forced marriages, clerically mandated wife-beatings, incest in all but name, and the adoption of apparel for females that one cannot be sure is chosen by them but which is claimed as an issue of (of all things) free expression. This would be bad enough on its own and if it were confined to the Muslim "community" alone. But, of course, such a toxin cannot be confined, and the votaries of theocracy now claim the God-given right to slaughter females at random for nothing more than their perceived immodesty. The least we can do, confronted by such radical evil, is to look it in the eye (something it strives to avoid) and call it by its right name. For a start, it is the female victims of this tyranny who are "disenfranchised," while something rather worse than "disenfranchisement" awaits those who dare to disagree.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, July 3, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 194 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #53811 by dogooder on July 3, 2007 at 10:21 am
From the NY Times 6/29 "Stoic Londoners Shrug at Latest Threat":"It's only when I got to work that I realized what was happening," said Renee Anderson, 32, a New Zealander from her country's nearby diplomatic representation.
"I feel surprisingly all right about it," she said. "We all kind of thought, well you could be hit by a bus anyway and the English mentality must be such that they have coped with this for such a long time with all the bombings so they just get on with it. You can see that."
Other Comments by dogooder
3. Comment #53815 by liberalartist on July 3, 2007 at 10:49 am
I really appreciate Hitchen's candor, something so hard to find these days. Religious apologists and political correctness have provided space for extremism to flourish. How can the western world have two standards for its citizens? Half exist in a free, fairly secular world, the other half live in a theocracy. Its time to demand that all people who want to live in the western world updhold those morals and standards. And I am tired of being made to feel that I am prejudice for saying that. There is nothing immoral about demanding freedom and equality for all people. Culture be damned! Other Comments by liberalartist
4. Comment #53818 by gordon on July 3, 2007 at 11:29 am
I thought I'd share this,Smoke me
I've made a bomb at last
I got the design online
A terrorist manual, an anarchist cookbook
Imagine if your kids have time
It's all there if you take a look
I've searched for the ingredients
As if I was just shopping
Picking up the groceries
Careful now, no dropping
Place them in the truck
But careful when you take a ride
If your boot is full of stuff
Like Carbon Tetrachloride
Military detonation cord
No problem, it's available
I've drilled the holes in the pipe
Everything is saleable
I'm really just a gardener
I do it for the pleasure
It's just for the allotment
Ammonia nitrate in large measure
Mercury fulminate powder
Improvising and experimenting
Information from foreign lands
I let young boys do all the work
I don't want hooks for hands
And as for the targets of this action
I'm not quite sure yet
Am I in this just for God?
Or some self important sage
Will innocents and children
Be victims of this rage?
It doesn't really matter to me
I'm insulated from guilt and sin
The powdered aluminium
Is packed within the bin
I've placed some nails and shards of glass
To give it extra bite
They've told me I must consecrate
To go and fight the fight
To get my look in keeping,
I've grown a long dark beard,
So when the media photograph,
I'll have that look of fear,
There's no room for a hesitant,
On the road to militant.
And when I've done the deed,
Guided by my spiritual mentors
There'll be virgins aplenty
For my carnal delectation
On and on for all eternity
Take a long look at yourself
By the time you've reached this stage
You've become a viscous mixture
Of failure and rage
I've become an aberration
A product of a vacuous theology
They were smiling at my gullibility
As I imbibed their ideology
It's too late now
My brains are being splattered
In this blossoming paroxysm
Destroying all that mattered
The only thing that's left
As I drift away in smoke
Beside the pain and innocence
The smouldering remains
The blame and protestations
Claims and counter claims
Is the obvious corruption
Of which I've played my part
The persuading and cajoling
The manipulators art
The result is my martyrdom
Myth behind the trigger
The seductive kiss of faith
Toxic from the giver
Other Comments by gordon
5. Comment #53820 by pewkatchoo on July 3, 2007 at 11:41 am
I agree with the sentiment of the article. However, I am not entirely sure how a few canisters of petrol and some gas bottles with some nails attached to it are going to 'shred people to bits'. Particularly as said bottles were stuck inside the boot of a mercedes. Even if the whole lot had exploded, the nails would not have flown more than a few feet and the gas bottles would have more than likely just vented and not shredded. It takes several minutes of extreme heat to blow a gas bottle. The actual threat was always less than the perceived threat. The British people are becoming extremely wimpy these days. Even when we had real terrorists back in the 70s and 80s people didn't panic in this way. Other Comments by pewkatchoo
6. Comment #53824 by robert s on July 3, 2007 at 11:54 am
The nails seem to be more symbolic than dangerous in themselves.The propane seems to have been there as a fuel-air explosive to initiate the attack. It would have been the gasoline dispersed by that, relatively small, explosion that would have caused most of the damage.
I hardly have to refer you back to recent nightclub fires to point out that this in itself would have caused dozens, if not hundreds of fatalties through smoke inhalation and crush injuries in the club.
So while this is a less dangerous than a truck load of high explosives, it did come very close to killing a lot of people using only materials that are very easy to acquire without raising suspicion.
Other Comments by robert s
7. Comment #53827 by kcjerith on July 3, 2007 at 12:31 pm
While I agree with the over tone/sentiment of the article, Hitchens kicks ass, I find one conclusion hard to believe. While I don't go to night clubs regularly I do go once in a while. Often the term "ladies night" is used to draw in large crowds of both genders. I am sure everyone in here can figure out why a guy would want to go to a club on ladies night. Of course I am nit picking, and who knows, maybe that is why that site was chosen, but I would be a bit hesitant to jump to that conclusion.Other Comments by kcjerith
8. Comment #53830 by roach on July 3, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Great article.pewkatchoo: The article doesn't say that the explosives and nails would "shred people to bits". But why argue over this? The point is that the intent was to injure and kill innocent people. Perhaps it is true that the actual threat was less than the perceived threat. So what? Is it not better to err on the side of caution? I hope no one thinks this places me on a slippery slope and that the logical conclusion of this attitude is the annihilation of religious people and state sponsored destruction of religion in general.
Other Comments by roach
9. Comment #53831 by Red Foot Oakie on July 3, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Great article. But I'm confused by one thing.Not to be ghoulish, but why would you want to kill a bunch of people "whose lose would be regretted by nobody"? I thought that the goal would be to kill people who would be missed.
Perhaps it's a comment on mentality of the perps- maybe it was nobod that THEY would miss.
Other Comments by Red Foot Oakie
10. Comment #53838 by BillySands on July 3, 2007 at 1:22 pm
We wont let the bastards get us down. Here is an email i just got
two quotes from an eye-witness.........John Smeaton (these
are real) John just surpassed himself on the National ITV news. The
interviewer asked "What message do you have for the bombers" - he
replied:
"This is Glasgow - we'll just set about you"
John done an interview on CNN and they asked how he restrained the guy
and he said "Me and other folk were just tryin tae get the boot in and
some other guy banjoed him" !
Apparently John Smeaton now has his own site http://www.johnsmeaton.com/
Other Comments by BillySands
11. Comment #53840 by Nails on July 3, 2007 at 1:37 pm
5. Comment #53820 by pewkatchoo on July 3, 2007 at 11:41 am I agree with the sentiment of the article. However, I am not entirely sure how a few canisters of petrol and some gas bottles with some nails attached to it are going to 'shred people to bits'. Particularly as said bottles were stuck inside the boot of a mercedes. Even if the whole lot had exploded, the nails would not have flown more than a few feet and the gas bottles would have more than likely just vented and not shredded. It takes several minutes of extreme heat to blow a gas bottle.
The tactic is quite simple: burning car attracts attention as the primary incendary device ignites.
Second stage needs an observer to notice the propane which will be slowly heating, causing panic and buildings to be emptied. This causes terror (fear) with few victims.
If the vehicle is not inspecvted closely, it will go bang.
Big time.
2 standard size gas canisters will lift an average car a couple of feet off the ground, throwing glass and nails over 20-30 feet.
Nasty.
The actual threat was always less than the perceived threat. The British people are becoming extremely wimpy these days. Even when we had real terrorists back in the 70s and 80s people didn't panic in this way.
The IRA primarily targeted military targets until they hit a military band and the outrage caused a change in direction.
Whenever 'soft' targets were in immediate danger, warnings were issued giving a small amount of time to evacuate.
In this guise, the perceived risk is much greater than the actual risk and becomes an acceptable face of terrorism, causing millions of pounds worth of damage (ie manchester) with little loss of life.
I just hope these morons were better doctors than terrorists because these were just half-baked attempts at mayhem.
Lord help us if they get better....
Other Comments by Nails
12. Comment #53841 by Diplo on July 3, 2007 at 1:42 pm
It's a times like this we really need people like Hitchens to tell it like it us. Far too many people are becoming apologists for Islamic terror, or else they are downplaying it. It really doesn't matter how successful or inept these attempted attacks were - the intent was there. And the intent, if not the reality, is to bring mass causality suicide-bombing to the streets of Britain where civilians are the prime target. These bombers may be far less technically savvy than, say, the IRA, but they are also far more ruthless and dangerous. What is more, they are hear to stay for the foreseeable future.
Other Comments by Diplo
13. Comment #53842 by scottishgeologist on July 3, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Hey Billy, what can I say? Pure dead brilliant! ROFLMAO!!That is one of the funniest things I've read for a while. Huh, I bet the Flea laughed at that!
And for any visitors to this site who cant quite cope with Glasgow humo(u)r, speech, witicisms, etc, just have a look here:
http://www.glasgowsurvival.co.uk (The game of Nedopoly is class!)
And of course for some highly amusing light relief, you cant beat this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd8vVUGqNX0
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
14. Comment #53843 by scottishgeologist on July 3, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Back on a serious track, Diplo points out:"These bombers may be far less technically savvy than, say, the IRA, but they are also far more ruthless and dangerous."
Very true. And they are also prepared to use suicide tactics. Something I dont think the IRA did (unless the dead hunger strikers count)
Maybe the IRA knew their religion was BS? As others have pointed out it was as much about politics and tribalism as anything else.
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
15. Comment #53844 by BillySands on July 3, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Hi SG, we can just set the big man on them http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8yQIg7ydbg
Other Comments by BillySands
16. Comment #53849 by Clappers on July 3, 2007 at 2:40 pm
"but they cannot have been among the viewers of British Channel 4's recent Undercover Mosque"The same week that Channel 4 showed celebrity big brother, where 3 uneducated white girls showed their ignorance by making racist comments, Undercover mosque showed highly educated clerics extolling their flock to kill homosexuals, marry girls who are at least 9 years old etc.
Guess what statements were made in the house of commons by the prime minister, and what apologies were made to hurt feelings
Other Comments by Clappers
17. Comment #53854 by mmurray on July 3, 2007 at 3:37 pm
These bombers may be far less technically savvy than, say, the IRA, but they are also far more ruthless and dangerous. What is more, they are hear to stay for the foreseeable future.
And they don't have a political aim like the IRA - they just want to kill us. It reminds me of the movie Independence Day (OK I like B grade science fiction) where they ask the alien something like what can we do to live in peace and it says `die'.
Michael
PS: There is a certain irony of course in the fact that 9/11 was the beginning of the end of the IRA because the US funding and support dried up.
Other Comments by mmurray
18. Comment #53855 by Corylus on July 3, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Blimey Gordon – you managed that in a couple of days! Beginning to dislike you now :P
That would have taken me weeks. Plus I would have murdered it by trying to force it into traditional form. (Instead of just hinting at the possibility like you've done). That's the only way I can deal with irrational events – I intellectualise them to death. It wouldn't have worked – your bomber is, by definition, outside of rational…
Well done.
Other Comments by Corylus
19. Comment #53871 by k1mgy on July 3, 2007 at 6:34 pm
The video deserves some translation for us non-British. Still, it's classic:"This is Glasgow - we'll just set about you"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCqprbH7mrg
Other Comments by k1mgy
20. Comment #53881 by Philip1978 on July 4, 2007 at 12:20 am
Ah, I admire the Scottish for many a reason, I know that's mighty strange coming from an Englishman, but I am very proud of the way you handle yourselves in times of trouble. "This is Glasgow - we'll just set about you", if that is not enough to put the shits in the terrorists then there is always the promise of getting a Glasgow Kiss or banjoed, perfect, my hat off to you all! Other Comments by Philip1978
21. Comment #53884 by Xenocratic on July 4, 2007 at 12:43 am
How about Hitchens' "shame-faced..refusal to confront" the "facts" about the country he lavishes such unequivocal support on these days, namely the United States of America, unquestionably the world's biggest terror state? A state, I might add, that may luxuriate in its secular nature but has murdered untold millions throughout the world since World War II in the name not of democracy or freedom, but simply so that US capital could triumph on a global scale. Or why doesn't the esteemed Mr Hitchens make mention of the fact that the royal family who run the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist country, Saudi Arabia, is propped up by the US? A country, furthermore, that the UK has sold massive amounts of arms to and which Tony Blair refused to allow an inquiry into. Where is the denunciation of US support for General Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan? Or the support of the king of Morocco for decades when he was a massive abuser of human rights? Where is the elementary acknowledgement that the US has often purposefully crushed secular nationalists in the Middle East such as Muhammad Mossadeq in Iran, or ignored and pilloried the likes of Yasser Arafat? What about US support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan who were the forerunners of the Taliban? For anyone whose memory goes back far enough, in the late seventies democracy started blossoming in Afghanistan but once the Soviets invaded and US started supporting religious nutjobs that was the end of the little experiment, which might have been reversed if perhaps the US government had actually assisted the virtually destroyed nation once the Russians were gone. Last time I checked it wasn't Lebanon who invaded Israel in 1982, but rather the other way around, in a war which saw tens of thousands of Lebanese slaughtered by the IDF led by Ariel Sharon, "a man of peace" according to Bush the younger. Hitchens was once a champion of the cause of the Palestinian people, but no more, it would seem. Then again, I suppose to a hypocritical ideologue such as Hitchens the lives of Muslims, or anyone not sufficiently blessed to live in marvellously "free" societies built on the backs of the world's oppressed masses, matters not one jot.Other Comments by Xenocratic
22. Comment #53885 by mmurray on July 4, 2007 at 12:51 am
A state, I might add, that may luxuriate in its secular nature but has murdered untold millions throughout the world since World War II
Millions? Can you give some examples to back that up or are you just using `millions' as a euphemism for `lots'.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
23. Comment #53886 by Goldy on July 4, 2007 at 1:20 am
For all the "millions" America, or even the West, has killed, how many untold millions has it saved? For all the bad regimes it has "propped" up, how many good decent and honest leaders has it helped? Talking as an European I can honestly say without American aid and support we'd have been in a bit of a pickle.Other Comments by Goldy
24. Comment #53887 by petermun on July 4, 2007 at 1:25 am
Glad Hitchens is not mincing his words and that he is brave enough to express them.It is now clear that all those suspected of placing the bombs are medical doctors, or the like. OK - so Hippocrates didn't have the benefit of Mo's wise words - but doesn't 'his' oath still apply to all medics - faithheads or not? Or as faithheads is theirs the hypocritic oath?
Other Comments by petermun
25. Comment #53889 by Creeping Jesus on July 4, 2007 at 1:42 am
Discussion in Glasgwegian and other Scots dialects here..http://firstfoot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11819&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Warning! Contains swearing, puerile humour, and what might be described as an intense dislike of the religious.
Other Comments by Creeping Jesus
26. Comment #53891 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 4, 2007 at 2:26 am
To explain the obvious to ninnies like Xenocratic:Reduced to the most basic, if the United States goes, we all go with it. The world gets a few decades of Shariah-induced misery, before inter-islamic war (Sunni vs. Shia, different sects of Sunni and Shia against each other, etc.) which would almsot certainly be nuclear in nature, reduced us to total barbarism and savagery.
We back the United States because it is the lynchpin of the West.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
27. Comment #53892 by Xenocratic on July 4, 2007 at 2:28 am
Dear mmurrayYou question whether I am exaggerating by using the term "millions". So let's turn to some real world incidents: How about Vietnam where the estimates of civilian deaths range between 3 to 6 million? No counted at the time, and no one cares, so we'll probably never know the exact figure. Perhaps you'd like me to sight the murder of about a million landless peasants in three months in 1965 when General Suharto ascended to power in a coup supported by the US and the UK. Suharto compiled one of the worst human rights records of the Twentieth Century before finally being ousted in 1998. I could go on and on, but for a more detailed account of US imperialism, and the literally millions of deaths for which the US government has been responsible for, see the following article:
http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm
The are also numerous articles on the web and many books on the subject. Try reading the political books by Chomsky, William Blum, Chalmers Johnson, John Pilger, Michael Parenti, Gore Vidal, to name a few major writers on US imperialism.
Dear Goldy
You are quite right in pointing out that the US helped Europe greatly after World War II, but even this was for cynical reasons as the United States needed a market for their wares so it made sense to rejuvenate European countries devastated after the War. The rest of the world were designated as reservoirs of resources to be endlessly plundered, as is still the case today. The United States, like all states, is not in the game of saving people, it is a concentration of power intent on retaining and extending its power. The US happens to be the world's most powerful state, ergo it naturally follows that they are also the most violent.
Care to name all these "millions" who have been saved by kind US assistance? Or how many "good decent and honest leaders" has the US "helped"? To be honest, I'm pretty stumped. Unless of course you classify Tony Blair as "honest and decent", or perhaps John Howard? White guys in nice suits, to be sure, but decent and honest they sadly are not.
Other Comments by Xenocratic
28. Comment #53893 by Xenocratic on July 4, 2007 at 2:36 am
I may be a ninnie, Fanusi Khiyal, but you are a deluded, naive buffoon who knows almost nothing about history or even present day socio-political reality. Perhaps you should ask yourself the root of fundamentalism and not always moan, like Hitchens and his ignoble ilk, about its manifestations which arises, as it virtually always does, as a result of disenfranchisement, marginalisation and horrible oppression. The US has only its past practices to blame for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and anyone who says anything else simply isn't living in the real world. Maybe instead of calling people such as myself, and we are fortunately not alone, childish names you should do a little bit of research. You dare talk to me about the "obvious" when your evaluation of the US is a product of such woeful misinterpretation that I cannot believe someone on this website, supposedly for enlightened people, could possibly think such thoughts, let alone post them on this forum.Other Comments by Xenocratic
29. Comment #53894 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 4, 2007 at 3:00 am
Xenocratic, contra to what you may think, 'enlightened' does not mean 'swallowing the latest bromides hook, line, and sinker'. It is, in the words of Kant, Sapere Aude - Dare to Know! In other words, looking at evidence for yourself.I know that killing of westerners and jews isn't a problem for your ilk, so answer the following questions. If islamic totalitarianism only results from American misconduct:
Why are Sunnis and Shias killing each other with an inhuman viciousness, and why have they done this for over thirteen-hundred years? Why did Iran send children to clear mine fields in its war with Iraq?
Why did Moslems kill seventy-million Hindus when they ruled India? And in case you didn't bother to notice, this was before the United States even existed.
Why are Buddhists in Thailand, Christians and jews throughout the Molem world (including areas like Indonesia), animists in Africa, all being hunted and killed by Moslems? Why are blacks, even black Molsems, being subjugated and sometimes sold into slavery in places like Saudi Arabia? (Answer: Islam has long been a vessel for Arab supremacism).
Well?
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
30. Comment #53895 by Ultraviolet G on July 4, 2007 at 3:01 am
>XenocraticHitchens would actually agree with you about the Zionist occupation of Palestine (which is exacerbated by American Christians), US war crimes (especially in Cambodia which was even more egregious than Vietnam: see his work on Kissinger) and the House of Saud (he often pointedly refuses to call Arabia "Saudi"). Where did you form your opinion of him? It seems completely opposite to the truth. You seem to fall into the old "liberal vs. conservative" or "America vs. everyone else" trap. (Hitch isn't a conservative by the way).
Other Comments by Ultraviolet G
31. Comment #53896 by parrja on July 4, 2007 at 3:03 am
Xenocratic, your view of the world is as unbelievable to me as Fanusi Kyiyal's seems to be to you.I'm sure if you look at any country where the US has made bad decisions you'll find at least several other countries and or internal groups that have caused much greater problems than the US.
The focus on the US as the great Satan is a nice simple concept that angry, ignorant people can latch onto, nothing else.
The current problems with terrorism have 99% to do with the ignorance promoted by a backward religion and culture and about 1% to do with American actions.
Other Comments by parrja
32. Comment #53897 by Davin06 on July 4, 2007 at 3:06 am
"I cannot believe someone on this website, supposedly for enlightened people, could possibly think such thoughts, let alone post them on this forum."Have to agree with Xenocratic here, am suprised at the ignorance being shown here, As Atheists we condem the religious for being ignorant, surely you people don't wish to be hypocrits? Follow the advice given by Xenocratic read a bit before jumping on the propaganda delivered by the western governments, the things that have been done in our name is nothing short of criminal, and it is no exaggeration when the 'millions' is quoted or are you in the same school as to believe 70,000 people have been killed in Iraq since the war started are you one of the numerically challenged?
Xenocratic, dunno what to say, even on these so called enlightened forums there is no escaping the ignorant, keep posting someone has to hold the light at the end of the tunnel.
Other Comments by Davin06
33. Comment #53898 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 4, 2007 at 3:09 am
Quick question Davin06: Are you aware of a concept called "English Grammar"?More extended question: How many of the Iraq casualties are a result of coalition forces killing jihadists, rather than jihadists killing civilians and each other? Yeah, I though so.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
34. Comment #53902 by Davin06 on July 4, 2007 at 3:27 am
"More extended question: How many of the Iraq casualties are a result of coalition forces killing jihadists, rather than jihadists killing civilians and each other? Yeah, I though so."yeah you though what? are you trying to say the jihadists have killed more people? do you seriously think the coalition forces haven't killed civilians? ever heard of Falluja?
yes I have heard of english grammar, I just don't use it.
Other Comments by Davin06
35. Comment #53903 by Robert Maynard on July 4, 2007 at 3:33 am
Xenocratic said:Care to name all these "millions" who have been saved by kind US assistance?What a silly demand. In order to quantify it, we'd need to be able to figure out exactly how many people would have died if aid which was supplied by the US had not been. In other words, you're asking Goldy to present statistics for scenarios that didn't happen, so we can compare them to what actually happened. :|
Don't let me defend US foreign policy for a moment, but a lot of the "case studies" on that page were pretty weak .. the entries for Hungary, Pakistan, and Yugoslavia come to mind.
Besides that, I think you and your "ilk" fail to make a critical distinction between the callous actions of the CIA and various iterations of the executive branch, and the rest of the government - not to mention the US citizenry in general. There's even a historical note on that page about how respectably Congress has been able to act when they learn of these unethical projects. But whether or not you intend it, these analyses typically conclude that the CIA is made up of some 300 million Americans, and all are equally culpable.
Unless you're itching to make some hollow arguments about transference of guilt, I would argue that the people of the United States (and being a democracy, the nation IS the people) do not have blood on their hands, precisely because of how unaware the majority are kept of illegal covert actions carried out on other nations by the powerful manipulators at the helm of their country. The citizenry of the US or UK or any Western nation isn't "to blame" for Islamic terrorism, and they don't deserve it either. Nobody deserves terrorism.
Defending it by bringing up the nation-building crimes of the CIA during the Cold War is a cowardly and masochistic equivalence. It's indefensible to basically argue that the West is due for some form of payback, and it's given a bizarre pretense of karmic justice by blurring the public with their covert intelligence agencies.
I don't think even Hitchens would disagree that there are real problems with how the executive branch of US government can be used to (further) undermine and abuse and tarnish the resources and reputation of the United States.
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
36. Comment #53905 by gordon on July 4, 2007 at 3:39 am
XenocraticThe historical reasons for disenfranchisement for much of the population all over the planet are there for anyone studying history. This is true even within American social groups. This disenfranchisement or the need to be within a tribe is possibly the reason that religion exists anyway. The US does not do much in the name of altruism, it's mostly about trade. Here in the UK we only recently finished the payments to the US for the mortgage we took out to fight the Second World War. The fact that the US gets to use its power for good or bad is exacerbated by European states who haven't got their act together and offered a balancing position. Europe is particularly weak on World affairs. The Presidency of George Bush as an extension of an oil cartel business is a poor advert for the democratic system in the US. The World moves around money. We exploit others to get it, as individuals or groups. Religions move around money in a great many cases. I spent a great deal of time in the Middle East before and after 11/9. I met many members of Al Qaeda before they were associated with this type of bombing. Originally they wanted US help to set up a Caliphate throughout the Middle East, something which would be beneficial to all sides. I even introduced one group to the US Embassy here in the UK. They were convinced they would be encouraged by the US to avoid 'instability' in the area but from the start they only looked upon a deal as a temporary solution. There are no poor controllers in these groups. Extortion and obligation is part and parcel of the running method. Total control is what they want. The US has many faults but it is an evolving democracy and I hope the UK will do its part now Blair has gone. Al Qaeda has no room for doubt or change. It has no rational core. One either believes or one is out of the loop. Here in the UK we have been through long bombing campaigns by the IRA (financed by the US by the way) but the IRA were not nihilists. Al Qaeda's dream is a nihilistic society, no room for dreams, excitement, free thought, human passion or advancement. The Enlightenment is under threat from many sources, not least from evangelicals and other numpties but the Al Qaeda vision is the worst sort of living death imaginable, particularly if you happen to be female. As such it should be easy to defeat by showing how human beings can work toward a world fit for all its inhabitants. We are still evolving and only just beginning to see our place in the universal scheme but we have a long way to go. Al Qaeda is a blip on the journey, a bump in the road. We have to fight it with everything at our disposal whilst not losing sight of our own morality and purpose.
Other Comments by gordon
37. Comment #53906 by fonex_86 on July 4, 2007 at 3:52 am
Xenocratic and Davin06 seem like some other nut elsewhere who argued that Allied forces in WW2 are more 'evil' than Hitler's SS.Sorta like, "looky looky the yanks killed ten civilians!" while behind him some lunatic jihad just blew himself and 100+ others to kingdom come.
Was gonna write more about the Al-Qaeda, but gordon's post sums up my opinions quite nicely.
Other Comments by fonex_86
38. Comment #53907 by pewkatchoo on July 4, 2007 at 4:02 am
Xenocratic sounds just like some Aussie bawheid I used to know. He will be rubbing his hands together at the problems in the UK at the moment, even though he lives there. If you want to know where all the ex-commies went, you have not got far to look. They have found common cause with the islamic nutjobs. Other Comments by pewkatchoo
39. Comment #53911 by windweaver on July 4, 2007 at 5:25 am
Those of you criticising Xenocratic for his denunciation of American foreign policy should check out the following article:http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/jan02herman.htm
We have been heavily propagandised in the West to believe that America is a benign power which often comes to rescue of weaker nations and which acts out of a noble sense of purpose. The truth, of course, is very different.
Other Comments by windweaver
40. Comment #53912 by Quetzalcoatl on July 4, 2007 at 5:47 am
There was an interview on Newsnight on Monday with a former Jihadi. He essentially said that even if the USA and UK withdrew from Muslim countries, stopped interfering, the terrorists would STILL ATTACK US. This is because they believe their religion gives them the right to enforce their beliefs on others. They probably wouldn't say "Allah be praised, we have won against the Great Satan! Let us renounce violence and return to living peacefully!" NO CHANCE.People may not like the USA, but it's a lot better than most other countries. Except the UK, which is of course the greatest.
Xeno- don't even start on Palestine.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
41. Comment #53913 by Vinelectric on July 4, 2007 at 5:48 am
It seems that I'll have to clean up after Fanusi Khiyal once more. 1. On Shia Vs Muslim in Iraq:
Throw any underdevloped country into anarchy and see for yourself whether the ethnic tensions explode into genocide sooner or later. Sunni-Shia intermarriage is commonplace among pre-war Iraqis so can you use simple logic to figure out why the rift has suddenly become so manifest only after the American forces wrecked the already crippled country?
I can not forgive you for ignoring the numerous shia and sunni communities throught the muslim world who coexist peacefully.
2. Muslims hunting Jews and blacks in Africa?
Jews: huge well established community in Morocco. The only threat is that from muslim extremists. The Islamic version of people like you. Charged up, mad, angry hate-preachers.
Blacks: you mean Darfur? Both parties are as black as any african can be. This is a battle for resources in an impoverished land that has gone out of control. The so called Janjaweed are arabic speaking black africans.
3. Muslims killing Hindus in India?
I am not informed on the Indian matter. I'll dig it up but I bet it will be some other exaggerated bullshit.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
42. Comment #53916 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 4, 2007 at 6:45 am
It isn't my business to be a flyswatter, but when there is a real danger that intellectual offal like Vinelectric risk misleading the intellectually honest, I feel it incumbent to set him straight,On the subject of jews and Moslems, he ignores the relentless pogroms that jews have routinely suffered at the hands of Moslems, and the humiliating status of _dhimmi_ that was imposed on them. The yellow star comes from Baghdad and not from Berlin. In his precious Morcocco this was routine, instituted as it was by Almohad (1146-1267). Pogroms against those who are _specifically cursed by the Qur'an, the word of Allah himself_ were hardly uncommon. I invite you to examine the list in The End of Faith, where Sam Harris makes a far better list than I could. But I would like to see how he accounts for the 800,000 jews expelled by Moslems during the years 1947-1955.
When it comes to black subjugation by Moslems, where do you think that the word 'kaffir' comes from? It's arabic and means unbeliever. Slaves have been taken by Moslems from Africa since the eighth century - and guess what? They're still doing it. Saudi Arabia 'officially' abolished slavery in 1962, but it still practices it, which is why you get adds trading young girls for cars in that hellhole. Oh, didn't know about that? Or how tens of thousands of blacks are still enslavbed to Arab Moslem masters in Mauritania, Mali and the Sudan? Or about how the Arabs particularly liked young boys, and would castrate them on the spot? Or about the idea that the violence in the Sudan is exclusively black-on-black, try this on for size. In 1910, the Sudan was 10% arab; it is now 50% arab. That wasn't done by birthrates.
Perhaps our fine fellow would like to explain the persecutions in Nigeria? Does Vinelectric know anything about the 1969 Alhara declaration where the Christians tried to escape, in their words, 'the jihad'?
As for Sunni/Shia communities, those only exist in those areas where Islam has sufficiently decayed. This is the exception, not the norm. A few communities here and there mean zip when weighed against thirteen hundred years of carnage.
As for the persecution of Hindus, read K.S. Lal's "Legacy of Muslim rule in India". Or read Pakistani textbooks, where children are still taught that the Hindu is the enemy of the Moslem. Or look at this story from Bangladesh, about 22 Hindu houses being torched:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002965.php
Anyway, I believe that I have proved my point. Note that Vinelectric has made no attempt to discuss things like the persecution of Buddhists and animists, or the Handscharr division. Jihadism isn't caused by American hegemony - it is caused by the fact that an appalling number of Moslems are primitive, brutal savages, addicted to violence, drunk on an appalling level of arrogance, and generally not just uncivilised but anti-civilised.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
43. Comment #53926 by Cool on Oolon on July 4, 2007 at 8:42 am
Nails:The IRA primarily targeted military targets until they hit a military band and the outrage caused a change in direction.
That is just not true. Often the IRA targeted civilians in the hope the "Brits" would be sickened and demoralised and pressurise the government into withdrawl. Anyone- man, woman or child (born or unborn)- was considered a valid target if it furthered their aim.
Other Comments by Cool on Oolon
44. Comment #53939 by bitbutter on July 4, 2007 at 9:35 am
(apologies of the double post) @anyone living in the UK reading this: please consider registering at theyworkforyou.com and adding your comments next to the transcription on debate on Counter terrorism (which addresses these attacks) in the house of commons here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-07-02a.671.0#g679.0 Other Comments by bitbutter
45. Comment #53940 by ignored_ethos2 on July 4, 2007 at 9:37 am
Xenocratic, I'm finding myself agreeing with you as well. I would like to believe that for the most part Hitchens would also agree. Many on this forum want to blame religion for everything, and this works a lot of the time because, well, religion is to blame for so much that is wrong in the world but this overlooks many important factors, that are equally to blame. Yes, our actions as a nation have consequences, consequences that we are now seeing everyday. Religion may at least be partly responsible but all these people (extremist, fundamentalist) need is a catalyst and the American government seems to be eager to play the accelerant role in the great arson of our society.
Keep on posting, maybe people will begin to do as Fanusi Khiyal suggests and "Dare to Know".
Other Comments by ignored_ethos2
46. Comment #53950 by Xenocratic on July 4, 2007 at 10:42 am
Wow, I'm still reeling from the deluge of insults and wayward reasoning foisted upon my person and my earlier posts by numerous people on this forum. It would appear as if most of you have taken certain statements that I have made to infer completely unrelated conclusions which were not intended in the least. I apologise for not addressing all the issues raised, but that would take far too long.Let me start with my most virulent critic, Fanusi Khiyal. Firstly I would like to thank you for your highly informative posts which have certainly broadened my intellectual horizons. You seem to know an inordinate amount about the Muslim world, for which I commend you. I feel, however, that the game of enumerating atrocities is a dubious one, but for the sake of argument I shall briefly go along with your preferred mode of discourse. The Spanish Conquistadores massacred approximately 150 million indigenous people during the 16th and 17th centuries. Belgium, ruled by King Leopold II at the time, wiped out between 15 and 20 million people in the Congo during the late 19th Century. Do you think, Fanusi, that the British achieved world domination by being nice to people? Or how about the Romans when they were the imperial top dogs in an earlier age? As Tacitus wrote after Julius Caesar had totally destroyed a Gaulish village – "they made a desert and called it peace". It has ever been so with the West, whom you seem to love so much. The reason the Aboriginal population in Tasmania was completely wiped out, or the ones in Australia were drastically reduced or the Native American population diminished to a few hundred thousand from a projected 20 million, wasn't because they were fed candy by the friendly colonisers.
As for the US being a "lynchpin of the West", whatever you may mean by the term, well why don't you ask the young Iraqi children who had their faces burned off by the US bombardment during Desert Strom II how much they appreciate the US' gloriously great role in the world? Or how about the Palestinian children who are killed by tanks supplied to the IDF by the US because they dare to throw rocks at their brutal occupiers? Or families killed by F-16s, also supplied by the US, who are blown up by missiles as they calmly stroll on a Gaza beach? Or maybe the Nicaraguans or the Guatemalans or El Salvadorians have glowing stories to tell about their gringo saviours? Perhaps If you had seen a family member hanging from a tree with his genitals stuffed in his mouth you may have a slightly different opinion of the West's brave "lynchpin". That was once routine in El Salvador during the eighties when death squads, armed and trained by the US, waged war against their own citizens. But perhaps the Haitians, who lived through decades of the Duvalier family rule, have wonderful stories to tell about how they were hacked to pieces by the Tonton Macoutes, the death squads who were viciously rampant throughout the country. Once again the Duvalier dynasty was a favoured regime of the US government. The list goes on and on almost so endlessly that I'm tired already. But I suppose uncomfortable facts of this sort matter hardly at all to someone as brilliant as you are, I mean I'm the one who has reputedly been swallowing "bromides hook, line and sinker", whatever the heck that is supposed to mean.
I also take issue with your suggestion that my "ilk", whom I presume you mean Islamic fundamentalists, don't think it's a problem if "westerners and Jews are killed". I've never suggested anywhere in any of my posts that I find this even remotely acceptable, let alone having no "problem" with the deaths of innocent people. You, on the other hand, have seemingly been so deranged by your hatred for Islam and the adherents of this faith that you are able to seriously write that "an appalling number of Moslems (sic) are primitive, brutal savages, addicted to violence, drunk on an appalling level of arrogance, and generally not just uncivilised but anti-civilised". This displays such "appalling" (your favourite adjective evidently) level of racist and cultural contempt that it beggars belief. Your other comments directed at myself and others here demonstrates that you are a deeply hateful human being so the chances that I'll appeal to you on the level of common compassion for all human beings and applying to yourself the same standards you advocate for others, my essential point, is probably vanishingly slight. You are not alone, just the most extreme, in this forum in missing my attempts to advocate the golden rule, which is fundamental to my conception of morality and by which I try and live by, because the level of harsh disdain shown towards non-Europeans by some in this forum is quite shocking. My hope is that many of you are perhaps not aware of exactly what your statements imply.
Parja – I never stated that the US is "the great Satan", not now or ever. You are right, that would indeed be an "angry, ignorant" thing to claim, that's why I don't do it. In any case, I suspect you're living in a dream world if you honestly believe that the US bears 1 % of the responsibility for terrorism in the world today. Even if we limit this just to terrorism emanating from the Middle East, which is what I assume you mean by the term in this instance, then the share is much greater, even when we turn to such sources as the National Intelligence Agency or even the CIA. If you are able to bring yourself to acknowledge the basic fact that the US is the number one terror state in the world, then of course your apportioning of responsibility becomes childishly ridiculous.
Thanks for the thoughtful post, Robert Maynard, but similar to many others you have taken one of my points to mean something else entirely. When I speak of the US I mean the government, which, if we judge by those who actually bother to vote, certainly doesn't represent the majority of the people who live in the geographical and cultural entity known as the United States of America. Most Americans don't have blood on their hands and I would never dream of saying so. I agree with you 100 % that "nobody deserves terrorism". I feel, however, that your post doesn't address anything I wrote in my contribution as you don't even acknowledge that the US or the UK have committed, and continue to commit, large scale terrorist operations. The logical thing to do if you want to stop terrorism is to stop being a terrorist. Seems pretty simple to me, but perhaps I'm missing something. The CIA "interventions" during the Cold War had nothing to do with "nation-building" and the CIA continues to "intervene", in that wonderful euphemism, in sovereign nations 18 years after the end of the Cold War. The article which I referred to in my post is simply a sample of a much larger body of work that I urge you to explore. No single article could possibly hope to provide the full story on US "interventions" so I would recommend books as your best source of information.
While I am also aware that most Americans don't know what is going on beyond their borders or what their government is really up to because the mass media in the US is basically a system of corporate controlled propaganda, that still doesn't mean that they bear no responsibility in uncovering the truth and challenging the official lies which dominate this society. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid, as you cannot both reap the rewards of your nation's violent foreign policy and then complain when some members of the oppressed nations start resisting their horrible lot in life. The Western nations are the last to feel that they are victims considering the atrocious disproportion, particularly in recent decades, in violence which has been meted out globally. The entire history of European "intervention" in other nations is nothing short of shamefully disgusting. As George Bernard Shaw once said – "terrorism is the war of the poor, war is the terrorism of the rich".
Excellent post, gordon, I really enjoyed reading it and feel as if I've learned a number of significant things. I agree that Al Qaeda is dangerous, and I have a deep loathing of Islam, along with all religions, yet I still contend that if you create a problem, and continue to maintain the conditions in which the problem flourishes, then said person has no moral justification to now suddenly want to destroy it. Osama Bin Laden is certainly no disenfranchised person, but he is seen as a hero by people who see themselves, often justifiably so, as victims of Western oppression. Read people like Robert Fisk for the insight into how Britain and the US have propped up horrendous regimes so that they could exploit the region's immense oil wealth. I think it behoves you, and most of the people who have posted comments on this forum, to ask yourself what exactly "our own morality and purpose" truly is. As Ghandi responded when asked what he thought of Western civilization – "I think it's a good idea". Often the West has been filled with great ideas and yet committed deeds that fall far short of their noble ideals. Let's aim to actualise the ideals, both at home and abroad, and rightfully shame the ignoble actions.
Fonex_86 – your ad hominem attack on myself and Davin06 is both childish and a complete misrepresentation of my views.
Pewkatchoo – I am certainly not "rubbing my hands together" at the prospect of innocent civilians being killed. I have never been a communist nor even vaguely sympathetic to "Islamic nutjobs". Your language indicated that you are a complete simpleton who probably thinks the world is neatly segmented into pure evil in one corner and pure good in another. Maybe you've been watching too much of the O'Reilly Factor because the level of intelligence displayed by your post just about matches his.
Quetzalcoatl – The United States is one of the world's greatest nations, as is the UK. Not related to my point about their governments' terrorism, I'm afraid. As for adducing a single individual to speak for 1 Billion Muslims, well, I thank you know how preposterous that is. If there was no US intervention in these nations and they were able to utilise their own resources to develop their own populations there would be far fewer people who would even think about joining fundamentalist organisations. This is a very basic socio-economic analysis. How many extremists have ever emerged from the likes of Kuwait, Qatar or the UAE? Interesting question for you and the others to ponder.
Why, if I may be so bold, should I not "even start on Palestine"? Are you afraid you may actually be exposed to the horrible truth of this great injustice which has been systematically distorted in the West for sixty years by a complicit media?
Ultaviolet G - I know a lot about Hitchens, and had great admiration for him because of the views you mentioned. You have to admit that he has certainly taken on a more conservative conflection since 9-11. He has a lot of significant comments to make on religion, most of which I agree with, yet his view of world affairs has become so ridiculously simplistic that he makes the maniacs on Fox Noise seem reasonable by comparison. You hardly ever hear him come out anymore denouncing US foreign policy. In an interview on Fox News he even criticised Hugo Chavez for being a demagogue, never mind the great socialist experiment the man has been attempting to establish in Venezuala. He is certainly too intelligent and contrarian to fall neatly into any single category, but many of his political views ally him with the conservative spectrum in the US, which is sad considering his eloquent defence of many worthy causes in years gone by. Don't know what you mean by "America VS. everyone else".
Thank you, Windweaver, Davin06 and ignored_ethos2, for backing me up, though judging by the unreasonable hostility displayed by people in this forum it would seem that vitriol has clouded their ability to conduct a rational, fact-based analysis of the world situation. Not surprising, really, considering the egregious falsehoods pedalled by the mass media in the UK and the US. Anyone in this day and age who thinks that the US is a "benign power" is either pitifully ignorant or so deeply indoctrinated that they won't even be able to comprehend what is written in the likes of Z Magazine or on the Counterpunch website. Don't trust anything I've written here, folks, I invite you all to look it up and read some of the authors I mentioned in an earlier post.
Other Comments by Xenocratic
47. Comment #53951 by pewkatchoo on July 4, 2007 at 10:51 am
Hey Xeno, if the cap fits... Other Comments by pewkatchoo
48. Comment #53954 by chezzyd on July 4, 2007 at 11:06 am
The US Govt has perpetrated some pretty bad things to protect its own interests - like all major powers do.. But I have to say, if it came down to it - I'd rather they were in power than the Mullahs.Other Comments by chezzyd
49. Comment #53956 by gordon on July 4, 2007 at 11:37 am
chezzyd,I prefer not to have any of them in power over me. I rather hope that our liberal democratic ideals will grow and grow.
Xenocratic,
Thank you. I prefer a quiet debate rather than shouting or name calling. The US is far from having clean hands. None of us have.
Pewkatchoo,
You say in the other debate,
'As to the final point of the article. I would suggest that it is already too late. I think that relations between Muslims and everyone else have already been poisoned beyond easy repair. It is going to be very difficult for people to trust Islam any more.'
I have a great many Muslim friends. I even brought one chap into the country from Yemen to work in a London hospital as a plastic surgeon. He works here still, passing another examination last week (for which I give thanks to the Celestial Teapot, Blessed Be Its Lid). Guess who was the first to get a call when he passed? They are far removed form these lunatics as is possible and they are still my friends. I helped a Palestinian friend who worked for me in the Middle East to get residency in Ireland, where he now has children and is very happy thank you. The events of this week have not soured my affection for them or their families. Whilst agreeing that all religious moderates support the extremists (fundamentalists) by their acquiescence, the people at the top have to be seen in the light of their actions. These people are gangsters, we should stop calling them terrorists. You do not see a cleric strapping a bomb to his body and launching himself at a nightclub full of slags. You hear him convincing others to do so. The people on whom the message falls are not always disenfranchised but they are brainwashed. It is after all a very powerful message. Our own message is too weak. We set a poor example in the manner in which we have lived our lives over the last couple of centuries in the worship of capitalism and money. I am not suggesting that capitalism should or could be replaced but I am suggesting that the systems we have at present are jaded and overgrown. We are over populated (as a planet) and for everyone to have what we have is not possible within the resources we have available. Something has to give. Science will provide many answers, it always does, but we need to have a say in how the science is used by powerful corporations and governments or we will simply exacerbate the condition. In the mean time, the problems will get worse. Any time soon the US will attack Iran. Pakistan will explode and the Saudi monarchy will be overthrown. Yemen is already on the brink, partly due to Al Qaeda and partly due to the extraordinary corruption of the rulers there and in many other Middle East countries. Fasten your belts; it will be a long and bumpy ride.
Other Comments by gordon
50. Comment #53966 by geckoman on July 4, 2007 at 1:25 pm
XenocraticImpressed by your post number 47. The USA does indeed have much to be ashamed about and one might well argue that their assumption of the moral high ground is an affront.
I don't know what 'lynchpin of the west' means either, but I do think the USA, having assumed the role of the world's policeman, has discovered this can be a lucrative position to hold, so they won't let go easily. Probably one reason they dislike the UN so much.
I would add that up to the end of WW2 the USA could justifiably claim to have intervened in overseas conflicts for acceptable reasons. And that it was that USA to which people looked for help and which they respected. It seems a long time ago now.
Keep the thoughtful posts coming.
Other Comments by geckoman
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little Electric Chairs around their necks instead of crosses."
Lenny Bruce
"...the stereo- type of scientists being scruffy nerds with rows of pens in their top pocket is just about as wicked as racist stereotypes."
Richard Dawkins
"I turned to speak to God, About the world's despair; But to make bad matters worse, I found God wasn't there."
Robert Frost
"Scientific truth is too beautiful to be sacrificed for the sake of light entertainment or money. Astrology is an aesthetic affront. It cheapens astronomy, like using Beethoven for commercial jingles."
Richard Dawkins
"I doubt that religion can survive deep understanding. The shallows are its natural habitat. Cranks and fundamentalists are too often victimised as scapegoats for religion in general. It is only quite recently that Christianity reinvented itself in non-fundamentalist guise, and Islam has yet to do so (see Ibn Warraq's excellent book, Why I am not a Muslim). Moonies and scientologists get a bad press, but they just haven't been around as long as the accepted religions. Theology is a respectable discipline when it studies such subjects as moral philosophy, the psychology of religious belief and, above all, biblical history and literature. Like Bertie Wooster, my knowledge of the Bible is above average. I seem to know Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon almost by heart. I think that the Bible as literature should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum - you can't understand English literature and culture without it. But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns. "
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Darwin's Dangerous Idea
Daniel C. Dennett
Before the Dawn
Nicholas Wade
Irreligion
John Allen Paulos
Genome
Matt Ridley
Parenting Beyond Belief
Dale McGowan (Editor)
More Books
1. Comment #53808 by Crazymalc on July 3, 2007 at 10:00 am
Other Comments by Crazymalc