azekeil

I don't think you can write it off just as "fucked up politics". What the majority of these people are motivated by is a perversive, pervasive, evil religious (I hate to use that word, but it's the only one that fits) ideology* that, unfortunately, is so strong and has so much currency with these people that it no longer requires the figurehead of Bin Laden. What UBL and his cronies were motivated by when they originally propogated the whole thing is anyone's guess.

I do agree with you wholeheartedly that Islam cannot be represented by terrorism. I was so glad to see one of the spokesmen at yesterday's London press conference very pointedly saying "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" because it reflects a very marked departure from the party line of "Islamic fundamentalist terrorism". Nothing, as a Muslim woman, makes me feel more ashamed or more angry than to have the word "Islamic" appended to something so vile.

* A little religious ideology unfortunately goes a hell of a long way. You take instances like Palestine, Chechnya, the Bosnian wars, some of the things done by (a very very tiny proportion of) US and UK soldiers in Iraq, the situation in southern Thailand, etc, and you can take people who have no opinion and in the name of their faith make them care so deeply they are prepared to do anything to protect their "brothers".

The really frightening thing for the world is that now it's been begun, now that Pandora has opened the box, those demons are never going to go away. There are always going to be people susceptible to this kind of grotesque perversion of the spirit of a faith. There is always going to be fodder for this canon. Now that those manipulating this from the top know what buttons to push, they will always keep on pushing them till they get their own ends, and whether those ends are as they claim, or whether they are something darker and more sinister as

azekeil suggests, is something that I don't think we can truly know.

I've never believed in the death penalty. Even as a Muslim, knowing that it's allowed in our faith, I've hated it. But for these people, I'd almost be willing to hold the sword myself.

From:

tefkas.livejournal.com

Oddly enough, the parallels betweel Al-Qaeda and BUsh ideologies continue, don't they?

They both claim that we're either with them or against them, and they both insist on propogating self-perpetuating conflict: the terrorists continue to wend their way along a path that is guaranteed to raise resistance. The Americans, having declared 'a war on terror', have effectively created a climate of terror that doesn't even need terrorist action to persist.

The nilhism of it all is profoundly depressing.

From:

Yeah, but... what has Iraq got to do with terrorism?

From:

The 'statement' above claims that:

"Nation of Islam and Arab nation: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London."

From:

My fear is that there can be no reasoning with terrorists even if we'd want to. From my logical conclusion above the only reasons left they have to do it are extremist ones most probably cultivated under the guise of religion as you suggest.

From:

Yes. I do feel the US' reaction is just that - a reaction. The terrorists are changing "America's way of life" by their actions. Uncomfortably they also seem to be bringing everyone else along with them - some more willingly than others *pointed look at Blair*.

From:

That's answering the question "What has the terrorism got to do with Iraq?".

My question was "What has Iraq got to do with terrorism?".

To the best of our government intelligence reports, Iraqis weren't involved with any terrorism, weren't supporters of any terrorism, the former Iraqi secular government under Saddam Hussein was indeed an enemy of Muslim fundamentalism (and an enemy of Usama bin Laden in particular) and was, for many years, at war with Muslim fundamentalist regimes elsewhere, such as Iran.

Just because some nutter claims to do something awful on behalf of Reason X does not mean that those involved with Reason X had anything to do with something awful.

It's simply not true, nor logically consistent, to suggest that Iraq had anything to do with terrorism.

From:

I don't think you can reason with terrorists. Whatever their aims, they've legitimised to themselves the use of soft, non-military targets in their "war". From what I've seen and heard on the news, they're unwilling to compromise their 'strategic aims' to win goodwill or bargaining chips, and there's only one real way to deal with that, even though I dislike advocating it.

Eliminate the threat.

From:

Good point. But a bit of a moot one, if you don't mind my saying so.

It matters not a jot whether Iraq ever sponsored terrorism as a state or not.

These 'mujahideen' as they like to call themselves (I take umbrage with this title, I shall explain why later) are using this as just one part of their ideology - defend your Muslim brothers in Iraq from the Zionist oppressors - and Iraq has absolutely no say in the matter at all. Iraq meets every one of their criteria for "go blow up London, ug!": it's an Arab, Muslim state, the cradle of Islamic civilisation (yada yada) and it's just been occupied by the Big Bad USA.

It was always going to become a beacon to aspiring terrorists to use as a pretext to carry out attacks.

* On Mujahideen: the very title mujahid gives these people a currency and a value that they don't deserve to have. Mujahid implies that they are fighting a righteous war sanctioned by God (Jihad) and that, crucially, every other true believing Muslim has a duty to join with them and fight. It's one hell of a big claim to make...

From:

Yes, quite, but I also don't see why it matters a jot whether some random terrorist choose to pick Iraq as their rallying cry instead of, say, the colour of our hats.

The reason we invaded Iraq was because the government refused to give UN weapons inspectors full access to all sites they wished to investigate, as demanded under UN resolution 1441. That is the only reason presented to Parliament.

We will presumably remain there until A. this investigation is complete (which seems to be the case now; it has been effectively completed and no WMDs were found) and B. the country is able to govern itself peacefully (which does NOT seem to be the case now).

Nothing else should affect our decision to remain there.

Terrorism should neither cause us to withdraw nor to remain.

If, before the London bombings, we were planning to leave in a few months, then we should still leave in a few months. Because the bombings shouldn't affect us either way.

That's why I don't agree with Axekil's proposition that "As a result, Britain must now not pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan any time soon".

I don't agree. If, before the London bombings, we were planning to leave over the next six months, then we should continue doing so.

I reckon the UKUS coallition has been planning to (substantially) withdraw from Iraq sometime between just before the end of this year and the middle of next year. I don't think the London bombings should cause us to shorten nor extend that.

From:

I agree with

easternpromise above - it's a bit of a moot point. The terrorists implicate themselves with Iraq by their statement that the attack was retaliation for the 'massacres' carried out by British troops in Iraq (and Afghanistan).

Even if the statement is falsified I don't believe that any group that carries out such attacks should expect any less, even if it was not what they intended. Plus we have yet to hear Iraq decry the attacks and try to separate them from Iraq as a country. The terrorists should expect themselves to be associated with Iraq (and Afghanistan).

From:

Exactly, but if there is any chance that pulling out when we had originally planned could be seen to be acquiescing to the terrorists then that is no longer an option for us.

Hopefully in practise this will not be much of a difference. But the attack will rally extremist insurgents in Iraq and prolong the struggle now - never a good thing.

From:

emilydongray.livejournal.com

Totally agree with you, however it is based on the premise that al-q'aeda actually did it. I am not so sure, neither are the authorities it seems. What I do find interesting is that the Israeli Embassy claims it received a warning from "the police", the police say this is not so - but it begs the question, who warned them and why?!

Crazy shit, I mourn.

From:

That's allowing terrorism to affect our judgement and I don't agree.

That would allow, for instance, Israeli extremists to bomb London and falsely claim them on behalf of Iraqi extremists in the hope of extending the coallition stay in Iraq.

This isn't like the Ireland suitation whereby we could authenticate claims from the IRA using codewords. We have no real prospect of being able to authenticate these claims. They could be counter-insurgents.

From:

That's allowing terrorism to affect our judgement and I don't agree.

True, but I feel the situation in Iraq will be changed by the attack, meaning we need to change our response - whether or not this was caused by the terrorists it's still an effect that needs to be dealt with.

One would hope however in your example that the Iraqis would deny the allegations and not allow it to descend into a worse mess than it already is.

I think my main point is that I can see no logical way that the situation as it stands can be alleviated, or that any good can come of the policies everyone is following.

From:

One would hope however in your example that the Iraqis would deny the allegations and not allow it to descend into a worse mess than it already is

How can they deny an allegation which doesn't directly implicate them in an attack? They've been used as the pretext, sure, but the group doesn't claim to be Iraqi. How can Iraq deny that it has been cited as a factor in compelling a group of people to formulate a terrorist attack? It's a fact, not an allegation, surely?

I have to say I agree with

aoakley in that we can't allow our foreign policy to be dictated to by terrorists. As it stands, we were already planning on sending more troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in any case, and this does to some extent strengthen the requirement for that to happen, but if we had been due to pull out altogether a terrorist attack shouldn't change our decision to do that.

I think my main point is that I can see no logical way that the situation as it stands can be alleviated, or that any good can come of the policies everyone is following.

There's little hope for it being alleviated. One would hope that once Iraq is stable and settled then that may take away some of the impetus for attacks of this nature, as a peace deal in Palestine might also go some way to doing, but I have my suspicions that these terrorists will then just come up with some other excuse. It seems to me they enjoy making trouble and any kind of pretext is 'a-ok'. Fact is, no government can bow to terrorism - it just invites more...

From:

gerald_duck

If as a result of this atrocity we resolve to keep the troops in Iraq come what may, the terrorists have won.

Yes, the terrorists must have known that would be the outcome of their actions. They're not stupid; it's therefore reasonable to assume that you — but not I — are playing right into their hands by having the obvious and expected reaction.

As an aside, I still don't understand why things went the other way after the Madrid bombings; I wonder whether Al Quaeda was equally surprised, or whether they have a better handle on the Spanish psyche than I do.

From:

chaosdeathfish.livejournal.com

Two possible theories:

1) The terrorists who planned this attack are trying to scare and intimidate the people of Britain (many of who were against the Iraq war in the first place) so they put even more political pressure on the government to pull out of Iraq - similar to what happened in Spain, although obviously circumstances are different; if so, this seems to have backfired, as the people of Britain haven't been cowed.

Or:

2) They are trying to force the governments of the UK and US to stay in Iraq longer, therefore recruiting even more people to their cause. If this is true, they must have become so focused in their hatred that they are willing for their enemies to stay in Iraq to further their own goals, despite that being against what their pseudo-religious aims are. They must be willing to justify any action as long as it furthers their ultimate goal.

The second case seems more scary, although it suggests that the leaders of these organisations are more amenable to analysis like any other enemy, as their religion is a justification for any action they take, rather than the driving force.

From:

I don't believe we will necessarily resolve to keep the troops in Iraq come what may, but I do think it has ruled out any swift withdrawal.

What other reaction would you suggest?

I must say I'm not up on the Madrid bombings. I may have to go and have a look.

From:

So, as I think a few others have said here, the solution is to completely disregard the attack when considering the question of how to handle Iraq. The trouble is I think the attack will change what the Iraqis do and thus change our position on handling Iraq.

From:

gerald_duck

I confess I'm not 100% certain, but I think I'd suggest we withdraw from Iraq as soon as we can without leaving an even worse mess than we've caused already.

That's exactly what I'd have suggested on Wednesday, and surely if I change my view because of the terrorist attacks, the terrorists have won? (Yes, I know I'm ruthlessly hijacking the rhetoric of the political right, there.)

Besides, if it was decided that we couldn't disengage for however-long after such an attack, what happens if they keep the attacks coming with a shorter period than that? We never disengage?

From:

No, no one is sure. And no one wants to blame without certainty in these difficult times. But in order to make any progress one has to start somewhere and make some assumptions. Of course I may well be wrong. We may never find out for sure, as many of these things go.

From:

I agree with you on the withdrawal policy before the attacks, and I'd continue to agree with you after the attacks.

I don't think I'm thinking of a fixed period when I'm suggesting we don't withdraw just yet, but clearly we can't be seen to be acquiescing in our withdrawal. Obviously the situation would have to be revisited if attacks continued under the same banner of 'This retribution is for continued prescence in Iraq and Afghanistan'.

From:

gerald_duck

I do wonder, though: if we started withdrawals today, would we really send a message that encouraged terrorism? My suspicion is that withdrawal isn't what the terrorists — at least, the politically and tactically astute ringleaders, rather than the rank and file — want.

Why, after all the other misinformation he's perpetrated over Iraq, when Tony Blair stands up and tells the British people what the terrorists are trying to achieve, should we believe him?

From:

Well, perhaps.

It's still not good though, however you look at it :/

From:

gerald_duck

Indeed. The attacks yesterday have made the situation much more awkward for us.

They're our enemy, so that was probably intentional.

From: