I really don't buy into most conspiracy theories BUT.......

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol
or,

It turns out they don't just attack us for being involved in their region, they attack us because they don't like our way of living and our religion.

What a surprise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm... the UK is involved in their region too...

Let me know when they bomb Hong Kong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite see why people seem so ready to line up on one side or the other side of the following question:

Does al-Qaeda have religious goals/grievances or does al-Qaeda have political goals/grievances?

It seems to me that al-Qaeda has both religious and political goals/grievances. Also, hasn't al-Qaeda attacked in Indonesia or Malaysia (or maybe in both countries)? al-Qaeda's criteria for attacking doesn't seem to be solely linked to resisting Western involvement in the Middle East.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"It turns out they don't just attack us for being involved in their region, they attack us because they don't like our way of living and our religion. "

LOL! I guess this explains why 15 out of 19 of the terrorists were Saudis (and America, against the wishes of the Saudi people but with the support of the dictators who rule Saudi Arabia, has stepped up occupation).

Do you really think a bunch of camel [censored] where sitting around one day, and they said to themselves "gee, I really don't like how nice the Americans treat their women and I want them to believe in Allah... lets go attack them and say it's because they're occupying our land".

Or do you think it's because American soldiers at the direction of their generals and politicians went to Muslim land and killed men, women and children?

[/ QUOTE ]

Really.... we killed lots of Saudi women and children (why 15/19 of the hijackers were Saudi)? Or is it because Saudi Arabia is a breeding ground for radical Islam and we haven't/they haven't done a thing about it?

We've also killed a lot more German, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. women and children... I don't see any of those nations exporting fanatics.

If you're looking for a common thread in most terror attacks worldwide in the past few years I'll give you a good starting point: Islam

I completely agree that US policy in the middle east has been perhaps worse than should be humanly possible. I would also like to suggest however that the statements made that "Islam is a peaceful religion" are, in some respects, a bunch of crap. Muslims were more than happy to try to match the crusades in barbarism and, if you take any class in Islamic history, you'll note that fundamentalist Islamic clerics have taken harder and harder stances over the years.... the Muslim world went from a land of science and a fair amount of tolerance (when Europe was in the dark) to a place/ideology where angry and unemployed young men seek vindication and an outlet for their anger. There are of course millions of peaceful law abiding Muslims out there who do not see their faith as, nor use their faith as, justification for violence; however these moderate Muslims have done little to muzzle the violent groups that hide within their flock so to speak.

I do not think that a bunch of "camel [censored]" (your words) were sitting around and arbitrarily decided to screw around with the US/UK/Spain/Australia/countries-that-run-Mohammed-cartoons, etc. I do think however that in societies where immense amounts of oil wealth have done little to help the general populace an angry and often unemployed and disadvantaged youth shifted from crime (like in the US) to a belief system that was already being manipulated to support faith based violence.

I dont have any links handy but there are plenty of new(er) polls out in regards to how Muslims across the board (nation by nation breakdowns as well) view the US, Bin Laden, and the justifications for suicide bombings; the results shown by unbiased professional polling organizations are truly frightening.

The problem of Islamic terrorism should obviously be directly linked to Islamic fanaticism. Though like any component it's not 100% of the cause (socio-economics being up there in my opinion)... but we're kidding ourselves to divorce the ideological underpinnings of this movement from the violence itself (fwiw we would also be barbarians to apply this to Muslims across the board; ie those moderate Muslims that you sadly never hear about) when we claim that they're only doing it because of our inept policy... I mean damn they killed people over cartoons for [censored] sake.

It's called religious violence and it's been happening all over the world for thousands of years... No one in New York or London cared when no one in New York or London died over the conflict in Kashmir, Rwanda, the crusades, the inquisition, etc....when that changed suddenly people started coming to a realization that "Oh man, certain unsavory types manipulate belief systems to suit their own violent ends... and what's more people eat it up". And, just as it would be ignorant to claim that any of those conflicts were purely political, so to would it be wrong to claim that this modern terrorism doesn't have a heavy religious component.

Regardless of US policy shifts after this "lovely" president leaves office there is still an up and coming generation of young fanatics throughout the Muslim world that have been forcefed a version of the Quran which supports violence and intolerance, are backed into a corner economically being part of the "underclass" in violent, unbalanced, and often US backed, dictatorships, and finally not being given any outside view of the world... they memorize the Quran in Arabic (even if it's not their native language)... they don't go on to college, learn foreign languages or other cultures (I would be curious to see how US high schoolers stack up against "classically educated" students of the Quran in an exam on world history and events... I sadly think we would win... it's sad that we would beat anyone), ever get to meet the people they're taught to despise, etc. That in my opinion is the reason why we'll be dealing with this issue 20, 30, 40 years down the road [of course in all fairness if you change the time and place we'd be talking about similar situations in Europe historically with respect to Christians].

With respect to London. I don't think enough of the facts are in just yet... depending on who they arrest and what evidence comes out I'll be curious to see what the exact plan was. Conspiracy theories are often comforting because they imply that a known entity (the government) can control everything as opposed to the scary realization that there are people (however inept; ie unexploded ordinance which you ought to know OP isn't unheard of) out there unchecked.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is one heck of damn good, fair treatment of the issue IMO.

Well said, that man!

[John Kilduff]

Excerpt from CBS News report:

"Hours before London explosives technicians dismantled a large car bomb in the heart of the British capital's tourist-rich theater district, a message appeared on one of the most widely used jihadist Internet forums, saying:"Today I say: Rejoice, by Allah, London shall be bombed."

excerpt:"Al Hesbah is frequently used by international Sunni militant groups, including al Qaeda and the Taliban, to post propaganda videos and messages in their fight against the West."

excerpt: "Prior to the Thursday night posting by al-Hazeen, there had been no specific allusions to threats against London or Britain seen on al Hesbah, or any other major jihadist forums in recent weeks."

The above last excerpt makes it appear to me that this is either an amazing coincidence or a case for Occam's Razor. I'll go with the second explanation, surmising that the simplest explanation is the actual explanation: that al-Qaeda or a similar jihadi group is behind the recent attempted London car bombings.

CBS News

The 300 word message left at the al Hesbah chat room by the regular poster "abu Osama al-Hazeen" also included the following quotes:

"In the name of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful. Is Britain Longing for al Qaeda's bombings?"

and

"We say to Britain: The Emir of al Qaeda, Sheikh Osama, has once threatened you, and he carried out his threats. Today I say: Rejoice, by Allah, London shall be bombed"

The same regular poster on the jihadist forum also criticized the recent knighting of Salman Rushdie.

[Bill Haywood]

I wonder if the Brits will get nostalgic for the IRA.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Taraz,

1- Moderate Muslims should most certainly get more press. I also think though, because of fear, moderates are silent in many of the countries we are talking about

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. It's definitely a combination of both.

[ QUOTE ]

2- I would happily go with a statement that suggests that the Bible=the Quran in terms of violence and teachings that can be used for violence; hence why both religions have violent supporters and violent pasts. I will however suggest to you that the modern radical teaching of the Quran in these fundamentalist sects highlights the violence; that's what makes "radical" Islam truly radical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree again.

[ QUOTE ]

3- You're suggesting that poll numbers taken on a nation-nation basis, within Muslim populations only (left that out in my original post) ... would suggest what? I would merely suggest what they do in fact show... that a pretty shocking number of Muslims in developed and non developed nations support the use of suicide bombing and campaigns of terrorism. (This of course does not mean that I consider the objectors to these notions somehow more violent for being Muslims) (At some point Im sure we can google those results on up for the thread... if it hasn't already been done in other threads)

[/ QUOTE ]

I linked to the study in another thread in this forum a few days ago.

[ QUOTE ]

It is of course not just the religion. The society, the economics, etc all play a significant role. I just think it's naive to say "OMG they hate us because we have troops in Saudi Arabia or support Israel" when it is faaaar more complex than just that. As I mentioned before I think the largest components have been the shift in Islamic teachings (in some groups/regions focusing on more violent aspects or more properly selectively showing the Quran to justify violence), that educations impact on fragile, stunted, and scared youth, and our unwillingness to actually bother with those two issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that we basically are in agreement but we are emphasizing different things. We both agree that the radical, violent sects of Islam are gaining a lot of steam and that it is troublesome. It's also clear that the situation is very complex.

All I'm trying to say that the reason that these groups are getting so much support now is because of every issue except religion itself. There are always radical wings of religious groups. But since the situation for so many people is so bad, they are grasping at ways to fight back and make sense of everything. I think it's more important to understand why these people are clinging to these views and the answer is not because they are pious Muslims.

I don't think you're doing this at all, but I just hate it when people try to simplify the issue into Muslim = bad. It's such a popular view these days that I just try to interject to clarify that this view doesn't do the situation justice and actually hurts our chances of figuring out a solution. It's not religion = bad, it's crappy geopolitical situation + sense of hopelessness + interventionist foreign policy + radical leaders + appeals to religion = bad.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I need some input here.

The 2 cars filled with Nails and gasoline they found in london UNDETONATEED. They are saying Al-Quida crapheads are most likely responsible.

Why would they do it. It makes no sense.

England just got a new prime minister that says he does not want his country to be the U.S's bitch anymore.

Al-Crapida could have used this for propoganda saying they are really winning the war in Iraq and that the Brits are definiatly the next to leave Iraq. And that they are chasing them away.

The prime minister makes a pretty good speech against being the U.S.'s bitch and WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.


OMG 2 car bombs THAT DID NOT GO OFF and must have been Al-Crapida.


Nothing says let's get back into the war on terror like a plot against your home city.

This sounds more like a government plot by someone other than an Al-Crapida attack.

All these Arabs do is make bombs and they could not set them off.

I hate conspiracy theorys but this whole thing stinks to the high heaven.

Don't get me wrong I would love to see the Brits back into the war on radical islam but not by shady government plots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering today's attack in Scotland, I seriously doubt both of these recent attacks are government plots. It will be interesting to hear the names, motives, backgrounds of those responsible for today's attack.

[/ QUOTE ]


The CIA reads message boards saw my post and had to come up with a cover so they hire 2 poor down on their luck arabs try them in court sentence to death. Then secretly release them to a mansion of wealth.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if the Brits will get nostalgic for the IRA.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you're saying that the brits missed the days of british agent run ira bombings, so now theyre doing british agent run al kida bombings?

I guess its possible.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Alex - the newly elected Prime Minister just made a speech against the US and all that, and it seems that the UK is going to be leaving Iraq...Why would they attack the UK after all this became obvious? Just to say "well actually, we preferred you in our country..."

I think Rearden's post are pretty damn valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the terrorists can tell political BS from reality? Furthermore, it's not "all about Iraq," it's about decades upon decades of behavior.

[Taso]

Oh, so I guess even if the UK stops all involvment in that region, the terrorists will still attack them, just for the "decades upon decades of behavior." I guess the "they attack us because we're over there" theory can never ever be proven wrong in that case. Fifty years from now, "well, we were involved for decades upon decades, that's why they are mad."

[GoodCallYouWin]

They might... no one can say what terrorists will or will not do. What we can say is if you keep killing muslims for no reason, if you keep occupying the middle east, they will continue to attack civilian targets. Doesn't it make more sense to save a lot of money but not participating in pointless wars for oil that never end, and at the same time stop killing innocent people and at the same time stop provoking terrorists attacks against your population?

No one is saying stop fighting the terrorists.