1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Dear God... [London terrorist attack]

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Pyrion, Jul 7, 2005.

  1. Kluge

    Kluge Observing your world for over 50 years

    Somebody did say:

    But the thing is, nobody put denial ads in newspapers and hunted people down after the Columbine high school shootings. Specifically, I didn't see any apologies from the 'matrix' crowd for providing commonly accepted role models so the shooters would look innocent until acting guilty.

    I also wonder from time to time why nobody called for air strikes on Buffalo NY after the Oklahoma City attack. I guess somebody thinks that proximity is not sponsorship.

    We've had bans on travel to Libya in the past, I assume that included immigration from Libya. I think there were attacks in Europe that were attributed to Libya even though the US had banned travel to Libya, but I don't recall attacks in the US being attributed to Libya.

    One thing that needs to be done is to build things that are resistant to attack. An explosion that penetrates 40 feet into a building shouldn't collapse 12 stories above it. It will be expensive but sometimes things happen by accident, too.

    Also, maybe a transit system that bans bicycles should limit the carry-on baggage as well. The TV shows these guys as if they're lugging 40 pound packs. It's not complete freedom, but it's a public transit system after all.
  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    James, you are a man of science, you can't simply build things that will "resist" bombings. You can, of course, build things to minimize death but they will never be 100%.

    I am not saying we should stop seeking answers in technology and science (quite the contrary) but I just don't see us doing anything that will stop terrorism for generations to come.
  3. cdw

    cdw Ahhhh...the good life.

    ? I have no clue what you are talking about. None.
  4. Advocat

    Advocat Viral Memes a Speciality Staff Member

    One of the causes of the demand that the Muslim world as a whole stand up and state their opposition to the terrorists are the oft-repeated reports and videos of various people of the Muslim world celebrating the attacks of 9/11 and those that came after.

    Having seen these repeated images, people now expect (consciously or unconsciously) to see similar clips of people refuting terrorism, in order to balance things out in their minds.

    In part, and only in part, I blame the Western media for this expectation. Videos of imams raving from the pulpits, and streets scenes of people cheering destruction, make for better viewer ratings and for more dramatic news than similarly-sized groups of people quietly gathering to show their disdain for terror tactics, or to listen to an anti-Islamicist preacher.

    The ranting videos make the prime news hour, if they don't actually get continually replayed for days. Reports on anti-terrorist speeches or gatherings get a couple of column inches on page 15.

    Now, are there nations/cultures where the people do need to be vocal about being against the terrorists. Absolutely. Do these people/governments need to take real action? Darn right.

    But our own media is in part feeding this need by their search for ratings. We all know the media showed the vids of people dancing in the street to celebrate 9/11. How many people have seen videos of British/Canadian/US Muslims groups denouncing the actions of Islamicists during the past week? Press releases are about all we get to see.
  5. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    I don't buy that argument, entirely. I read the daily newspaper, every day, all of it. I pay attention to the notices of local events. The city of Reading isn't huge, only about 83,000 but the county the local paper covers has about 340,000 residents. In other words, I'm pretty certain there's a sizable Muslim population.

    I have never seen any notices of any kind (except from Christian, Buddhist, and other churces) about services, prayer vigils, or any sort of event of any kind, about any Muslim group gathering to discuss or denounce terrorism. Not once!

    The silence on the part of Muslims, especially as compared to other religions, is staggering.
  6. joseftu

    joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    While I agree that many of the denunciations of terrorism are lukewarm at best, and that there is more that Muslim leaders could be doing, my understanding of Islam is that, like in Judaism, the kind of suggestion you're making here is really not at all the way that Islam works.

    In Catholicism, there is such a thing as excommunication, and the Pope (or lower levels of church officials? I don't know?) can impose that. But from what I have read, there is no such thing as excommunication in Islam, and no imam or mullah has the power to make any such decision. It's just not possible within the context of the religion (the same goes for Judaism).
  7. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    It is possible for individual imams and mullahs to declare a follower apostate, from what I've read; the effect (for observant individuals) is supposed to be even more devastating than excommunication
  8. ravital

    ravital Banned

    I believe this is correct, but only one factor. Another significant one is: Frenchmen can demonstrate for or against the ban on religion-related articles of clothing, Americans can demonstrate in the streets for more or less lattitude in religious symbols in public places, Israelis can march against Jewish settlements in occupied territories, even the Chinese, living in a dictatorship, can organize something as monumental as Tiananmen Square. No one is monolithic, every nation or people or ethnic group is multi-dimentional. So it stands to reason, when Moslems say "we're this but we're not that and terrorists don't represent us," that someone should respond with "show us." Absent fear of retribution from their own (which can be a huge problem), it's a reasonable expectation.
  9. joseftu

    joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    Seems like I need to do some more research!

    In any case, it's more or less a side issue--the main point seems to be that the will is not there. I think that that's a good point. I think that there are large numbers of Moslem religious leaders who do have the will, whatever specific tactic (apostate, general condemnation, public statement, etc.) they use.

    But I think there are also, unfortunately, large numbers who do not have that will. That's a serious problem.

    I don't have any firm figures, but it seems like there's a large minority of Moslem religious leaders who are very strong on condemning terrorism, and doing all that they should be. And then there's a smaller minority who are actually condoning or even promoting terrorism. And there's a much larger majority who are somewhere in the middle...really too lukewarm. That's changing, I think, quite rapidly. The lukewarm are becoming stronger, growing the will. It's not happening rapidly enough, but it is happening.

    I think that AQ (or it's really a kind of post-AQ philosophical nexus--not one cohesive group) is making more enemies among Muslims than ever before, but I also think that we won't get anywhere in understanding them enough to prevent their spread until we look more closely at the reasons for that lukewarm response.
  10. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Paranoia it isn't Techie. If a certain percentage of the leadership of the Muslim religion is preaching death to the infidels or whatever it is they refer to non Muslims as, then the threat is real, not imagined. And there's every reason to go on a witch hunt if that's what you like to call it. The British govt must have similar opionions, as it is now going to make unlawful, the praising of suicide bombers and the criticism of the west. Or are they just paranoid as well?
  11. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    It's not whether every Muslim IS... It's whether every Muslim WOULD. And they're proving time and again that yes, they mostly WOULD keep quiet and shield terrorists. That is an enabling society. Joe alludes to it here, and I think accurately enough -

    Okay, now ask yourself WHY. Why is the lukewarm majority changing? Because it's red on red, Joe. Arab Muslims are killing Arab Muslims. That's the only thing pissing off the populace. Once it's back to westerners dying, it's dancing in the streets again. It's a sick, very racist society.
  12. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    Prove it.
  13. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Total BS response. The proof is in the pudding. If you're tired or unable to make headway in the current debate, bow out or agree to disagree. The stance you just put on display is beneath you.

    So far, the majority of the "moderate Muslims" out there have been entirely silent, which essentially provides comfort and security for the terorrists in shielding their operations from prosecution by outside forces.

    Or tell you what: you prove it that they're doing everything they can. Your choice.

  14. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    The pot is calling the kettle black. The entire arguement being made is based on assumptions and conjectures created out of paranoia because the majority of terrorists that have been in the news are muslim, and that does not mean the majority of muslims are or are concealing terrorists no matter how vocal they are about it. Finally, I refuse to stand down, because the idea of disallowing muslims to immigrate to America is ridiculously absurd to the point that the only thing that the people supporting it have been arguing to me is some unprovable claim that the majority of muslims are helping or hiding terrorists. No one has even addressed the loopholes, the effects on innocents, nor the fact that for the terrorists it won't do jack because they can still run across the US-Mexican border along with ravital's lawn service guy.
  15. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Allowing a target suspect group free travel to the US at this time is most assuredly something that only works to aid and assist those who might wish to do us harm. However, I do not remember ever bringing this point up in my last post to you.

    I must submit that your own conjectures are just that--conjecture, made without the benefit of attributable information. While one could perhaps--perhaps!--point to historical precedents, we now find ourselves in a struggle for which there is no precedent. Never before has the US found itself engaged in wholly asymmetrical combat with an enemy that has no fixed base operations and which has the capability to blend in with a society that has as its single fixed component a specific religious belief. That this group has targeted and most likely will continue to try targeting American national assets, and it is simply ridiculous to make available unfettered access to these objectives. Again, the position you are pushing seems to be that America's freedoms are somehow greater than the survival of America itself. You may wish to debate this item as vociferously as you can, but you find yourself at a disadvantage for the following reasons:

    1.) I was not just military, I was SOF, which does give me a fair degree of insight into the special workings of keeping America safe, especially during contingency operations;
    2.) The Bill of Rights is applied only to Americans;
    3.) There is no constitutional right obligated to travellers who wish to do the United States grievous harm.

    In short, there is no legal reason which would proscribe the DoS from suspending visa issuance to members of any nation, based upon security concerns. This is a fact. Whether visa issuance continues or not is a matter for debate between the DoS and the National Command Authority at a minimum, though one would presume that the scope of the topic would invite vigorous and spirited debate in the House and Senate.

    I could go on, but work beckons. So at this point, I'll call it and say we'll just have to agree to disagree.

  16. Kluge

    Kluge Observing your world for over 50 years

    There was some sarcasm there, however, what I meant was that when a terrorist act was commited in the US by a US citizen, we realized that it was a crime committed by one or more criminals.
    When we are afraid that the terrorism is some kind of commando act sponsored by an organization, we become obsessed with the differences between us and them, forgetting that it is still a crime committed by criminals. I can only agree with arguments that other countries or religions might not be adequately assisting the prosecution of criminals, I can't agree that resembling such criminals is a crime.



    Maybe the peaceniks just aren't getting coverage.
    I'm actually paying my bills late from reading this thread and typing too slowly.
  17. joseftu

    joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    I don't really think that anyone's debating whether there's a legal reason. That's not really the issue at all. The point Techie is making (and I agree) is that such a policy would be ineffective, and unjust.

    The injustice alone might not be enough to rule out such a policy, if it could be established that a compelling national security reason would be served. That has not been established--and Techie's reasoning (which seems quite sound) as to why it has not been established has not even been addressed. There's no evidence, and no one has made any argument, that keeping Muslims out of this country would help national security in any way.

    A policy of forbidding immigration based on religion would not help, would certainly be completely unenforceable (no one has addressed that obection, either), and would also, certainly (no conjecture) keep out many people who are completely innocent, and could help us in this struggle.

    That's the point, and that's clearly where we disagree.
  18. cdw

    cdw Ahhhh...the good life.

    James, I'm following you... It wasn't you I was questioning, but Ethics and the thread is getting even more confused because some posts in the thread have since been removed. Sorry for the confusion. :)
  19. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Nothing was removed from this thread, as far as I am aware and you replied to Jame's post not mine, you also quoted his post, not mine.
  20. cdw

    cdw Ahhhh...the good life.

    roflmao No wonder I couldn't find it! Old age has definately set in on this poor gal.

    Well, then, yes James, you confused me. One, IMO, has nothing to do with the other and I don't forget that the crimes committed by terrorists are crimes. And I think of McVeigh and clan as terrorists as well as criminals. I don't think the governor was a terrorist though, so no sense using bombs.

Share This Page