http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050720/ts_ ... MlJVRPUCUl

London mayor says West fueled Islamic radicalism

By Andrew Gray
Wed Jul 20, 8:53 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Western foreign policy has fueled the Islamist radicalism behind the bomb attacks which killed more than 50 people in London, the British capital's mayor Ken Livingstone said on Wednesday.

Livingstone, who earned the nickname "Red Ken" for his left-wing views, won widespread praise for a defiant response which helped unite London after the bombings. But he has revived his reputation for courting controversy in recent days.

Asked on Wednesday what he thought had motivated the four suspected suicide bombers, Livingstone cited Western policy in the Middle East and early American backing for Osama bin Laden.

"A lot of young people see the double standards, they see what happens in (U.S. detention camp) Guantanamo Bay, and they just think that there isn't a just foreign policy," he said.

Police say they believe there is a clear link between bin Laden's al Qaeda network and the four British Muslims who blew up three underground trains and a double-decker bus on July 7.

"You've just had 80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of a Western need for oil. We've propped up unsavory governments, we've overthrown ones that we didn't consider sympathetic," Livingstone said.

"I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s ... the Americans recruited and trained Osama bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians to drive them out of Afghanistan.

"They didn't give any thought to the fact that once he'd done that, he might turn on his creators," he told BBC radio.

ANGER OVER IRAQ

Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has insisted the bombings have no link to its foreign policy, particularly its decision to invade Iraq alongside the United States.

But an opinion poll this week showed two-thirds of Britons see a connection between the Iraq war and the bombings. A top think tank and a leaked intelligence memo have also suggested the war has made Britain more of a target for terrorists.

That did not stop the right-wing Daily Telegraph castigating Livingstone, a maverick member of Blair's Labour party who was celebrating London's selection as host of the 2012 Olympics just hours before the bombers struck.

Wednesday's edition of the paper featured a picture of the mayor between photographs of two radical Muslim clerics under the headline: "The men who blame Britain."

Livingstone has made clear he condemns all killing, including suicide bombing. But is also a long-standing critic of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians.

"If you have been under foreign occupation, and denied the right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs, often denied the right to work, for three generations, I suspect if it had happened here in England, we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves," he said on Wednesday.

Israel's ambassador to London Zvi Heifetz accused the mayor of expressing sympathy for Palestinian militants.

"It is outrageous that the same mayor who rightfully condemned the suicide bombing in London as perverted faith', defends those who, under the same extremist banner, kill Israelis," he said in a statement.

he's probably on to something, but its easier to "fight terror" by killing lots of people and not change our own (i.e. government) behavior.

Yes, and that will make it [terrorism] all go away never to return again.

You know, it's just not that simple.

Give him a nobel prize for sociology.

He also said it was wrong to only kill the poor in the bomb blasts. This guy has had it out for everyone since the fall of the Soviet Union.



I put a bunch of quotes from him in the other thread about London.

It's a religous war. It's not simple and it will never stop.

seems pretty obvious that the attacks were based on US-British foreign policy in the middle east. hell, I'd be doin the same thing if foreign countries were comin in here and stealing our natural resources

*buying

Oh is that what those Executive Orders were pertaining to Iraqi's petrolium, they were reciepts. Ahhhh, now I see.

If we own the country, then we own the oil, and if we went in without any authority other then our own to take control of that country, I call that theft. Regardless of the ways anyone wants to spin it.

And your dead on alive888 the majority of us would be doing the same thing if say China came in wanting to own our natural resources.

It's definitely not simple, but this is not merely a question of religious fundamentalism, their pivotal objective is to get the Western countries out of the Middle East.

These are some excerpts of the statement of responsibility for the attacks, which appeared on a jihadist Web site that has been utilized by al-Qaeda on previous occasions to make announcements.

"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. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters".

"We continue to warn the governments of Denmaark and all the crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused".

Here is screenshot of the message posted shortly after the attacks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Al_Q ... nsible.jpg

And a translation, courtesy of Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Londo ... explosions

Fighting terrorism must entail something more than simply trying to deterr it with retaliation.

Considering root causes is a needed analysis that unfortunetely seems utterly beyond some Western rulers or what is referred to as foreign policy experts.

A more rational foreign policy does not mean that Western governments excuse the deliberate targeting of civilians.

I don't know about you, but even if I do get the urge to kill dozens of my fellow countrymen based on foreign policy in regards to a country I am barely associated with, I don't act on it because its not a logical step. One is justified in attacking the occupying force, not roasting Belgian babies over a fire because they are tastier that way.

Dance of deception

by James M. Wall

Among the messages of sympathy that poured into London following the July 7 bombings were condolences from the governments of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Iran, Turkey—all nations with majority Muslim populations—and at least two Muslim nongovernmental groups: Hamas and Hezbollah.

But as Middle East scholar Juan Cole pointed out on his Web site "Informed Comment," only ArabicNews.com and a few Chinese sites mentioned this list. The Western media gave little attention to this strong Muslim expression of solidarity.

Why this omission? Support from Muslim nations did not fit the dominant narrative in the U.S., which insists that "the reason we are attacked is that they hate us and our way of life, and we are not going to let that deter us from fighting terror." This narrative is not based on reality.

The narrative also insists on a connection between Islam and terrorism, even though suicide bombing is anathema to Islam. Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, has compiled a database that includes every suicide terrorist attack anywhere in the world from 1980 to the beginning of 2004. "The facts show that suicide terrorist attacks are not primarily an outgrowth of Islamic fundamentalism and are, almost always, part of an organized campaign to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military force from territory that the terrorists consider home." The world leader in suicide bombing is Sri Lanka, where a secular Marxist group draws its recruits from Hindu families (Chicago Tribune, June 29).

Western nations are not involved in a "war" on terror against people "who hate us." What we are involved in is a dance of deception led by leaders in Washington and London who took us to war for reasons they know to be false and who now compound that deception by hiding behind the rhetoric of a simplistic struggle against evil. The U.S. media are complicit in this deception. The British media are not much better, though some journalists, including the London Independent's Robert Fisk, point out the nakedness of the Whitehall and White House emperors.

Fisk had the courage to probe a painful point: Yes, the July 7 London attacks were barbaric, he says. But weren't these also barbaric—"the civilian deaths of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the children torn apart by cluster bombs, the countless innocent Iraqis gunned down at American military checkpoints?"

Prime Minister Blair made this pledge on the day after the London bombings: "They will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear." Fisk responded: "'They' are not trying to destroy 'what we hold dear.' They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East."

Deception dulls the mind—perhaps this explains why the usually well-informed Blair said that there should be two states in the Middle East, Israel and Palestine side by side, with two peoples, Arab and Jew, and two religions, Jewish and Muslim. Hopefully, the archbishop of Canterbury called Blair to remind the prime minister that there is also a Christian population in Palestine with historic connections that date back at least to the first journeys of Paul.

Blair's remark drew no reaction from either the American or British media, a further indication of the cultural-religious ignorance that encourages the absurd "clash of civilizations" paradigm—Muslims against the West—that is currently in vogue.

One journalist fond of the clash of civilizations paradigm is New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who has been writing columns of advice to Muslim populations, calling on them to modernize their faith and get on the capitalist train before modernity leaves them at the station. On the day after July 7 he suggested that Muslims worldwide are surrogate parents for the London bombers:

When jihadist-style bombings happen in Riyadh, that is a Muslim-Muslim problem. That is a police problem for Saudi Arabia. But when al-Qaeda-like bombings come to the London Underground, that becomes a civilizational problem. . . . It is essential that the Muslim world wake up to the fact that it has a jihadist death cult in its midst.
The assumption that worldwide Islam bears the responsibility for radical young men and women who blow up buses and trains is devoid of logic and conscience. Is Friedman saying that the only brothers for whom we must be keepers are those who share our religious tradition? This implies something I do not think Friedman wants to say: Islam "caused" these terrorist acts and Islam alone can make them stop.

Enough of giving advice to Muslims. Our responsibility is to demand that Western leaders accept that what they've done to others has a direct connection to what is now being done unto us. Of course we want our leaders to remain vigilant against violent attacks. But meanwhile, it is time to stop blaming others, and to heed the scriptural command to "look to your own house" (1 Kings 12:16).

http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=1112

so if the oil is ours, how come we are still paying over 2.25 a gallon?

Ok. The West looks into its own house. What is it supposed to do then? It's easy to say this, but how does a civilzation follow up to this? What concessions should be made to rectify damage done? Seriously, how does a civilization make peace with an ideological sect of a religion that seeks to destroy that civilization?

This reminds me of the Star Wars fans who defend Jar Jar Binks. *Hopes that China steals our cotton so that alive888 will go blow up somewhere* I try my best not to be rude, but what you said was about the dumbest thing I have ever read. You basically said, "I would go blow myself up, and kill innocent people, because they live in a country that steals my natural resources." Are you really so in love with your natural resources that you would do something like that? We aren't even talking about fresh water or food here, we are talking about oil. India has been stealing our telemarketing jobs for years and I never considered a suicide bombing. I'm hoping you just had a brain fart, and didn't mull over what you were thinking before you typed it. Being the uberist anti capitalist is so 30 years ago.

Supply and demand. We hit Peak Oil around 2001 sometime. That means gas prices will never drop to what they were because the actual resources are becomming limited. This country alone uses 20 million barrells a day. At that rate it's impossible to keep prices where they've typically been. But oil companies are also gouging the shit outta the consumer and have been forever.

On top of that our four largest military bases in Iraq are set up right along the main major pipeline. They are constantly being blown up. Because the locals know why we are there and are attempting to sabotage such theft of their natural resources. So in short, it takes some 6 weeks to get oil from Iraq to a refining station then to the consumers tank. But when you have to drive through hell to get that oil it makes it a lot more difficult. The overriding idea behind the invasion I think is eventually when we kill off half the population we'll be able to extract and move oil much easier then having to go through Saddam. Who as you may recall was ready to change from the dollar to the Euro in his oil trading. Which would not have been good for our economy.

Along with this you must realize we pay so much less for a gallon of gas then anywhere else in the world, and yet consume more then anywhere else in the world. When this finite resource ends it will be whoever can obtain enough of it around the world who will stand to be the superpower. Because without oil economic progress is impossible. As well the ability to wage war is gone. It's a matter of sustaining the American way of life, while making millions around the world suffer at the end of our boot. I know some will rationalize it and somehow come to the conslusion that it was the right move to make. While I think it's cruel, inhumane, and greedy. Also the lies and deception that got us into this quagmire set a new standard of manipulation for this country. How easily thoes can be led into wars for natural resources yet trumpet freedom as the true cause for such ruthless hostility against innocent people.

I think you are missing the point. First off insurgents in Iraq are mainly Iraqi. Second they are fighting for their country. They go after US-British forces more then blow up innocents. While we attempt to kill the insurgents and kill lots of civilians in the process. Both are committing horrible acts. But they have a right to defend their homeland. While we have no right to invade a soverign country that had not done anything to us and was only sitting ontop of the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world.

So if China were to come into say Philly and start killing anyone who will not let them control those classic cheese steaks in that town and you watched thousands of your fellow citizens be killed by bombs dropped at 30,000 feet which caused your way of life to cease to exist you'd be taking up arms to get rid of such occupier and restore order. Which no doubt about it Saddam was, order. He kept those people in line brutally, that's why he was our ally for all that time remember.

Oh and Philly was only used because I was thinking of a place that had something unique to a town. Not to say such war would be fought over something so stupid. Oil is vital cheese steaks are not. But I think you get my point.

The point you are making now is not what was stated, and even if they took our cheese steaks I doubt you would become a suicide bomber. Also the suicide bombers in the US, and Britain are not from any of these countries that are having their cheese steaks stolen. They are just misguided dumb fucks dying and murdering for a cause that does not effect them in the least bit. If someone steals your cheese steaks, I will be a bit peeved , and may come and help defend Philly, but I'm not going to go complete nutso over it. Now if they come and steal my Tex Mex, I'll be exploding at the nearest bus station I can find.

The terrorist deserve death and hell. I dont agree with saudi arabians culture of misogony (just like they dont like our britney spears type women), but im not gonna blow my self up at a market in mecca. I dont know what the fuck happened with islamic fundamentalism, i know a lot of it has to do with poverty and lack of work and futures in the middle east, but its fucking crazy and people with more authority in the faith need to take some fucking action. I know they cant stop it, but then again, they havent really tried. Its obvious what the US needs to do, and its obvious weve had some ignorant and immoral policies in the mideast that propelled this, but jesus almighty christ they are fucking nuts

Robert Pape, the author mentioned in this article, wrote Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. His book is drawn from an immense database on every suicide-bomb attack from 1980 to early 2004.

Pape uses this unprecedented research to debunk held misconceptions about the nature of suicide terrorism, he reaches the following conclusions:

- Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism.

- Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.

- Al-Qaeda fits the above pattern. Although Saudi Arabia is not under American military occupation per se, one major objective of al-Qaeda is the expulsion of U.S. troops from the Persian Gulf region, and as a result there have been repeated attacks by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden against American troops in Saudi Arabia and the region as a whole.

The aim of suicide bombers is not to advance Islamism in a war of civilizations.

Robert Pape provides an analysis grounded in fact, not politics, and recommends concrete ways to fight and prevent terrorist attacks. Military options may disrupt terrorist operations in the short term, but a lasting solution to suicide terrorism will require a comprehensive, long-term approach one that relies on a combined strategy of homeland security, nation building in troubled states, and greater energy independence.

They havent been stealing our telemarketing jobs, we have been giving the jobs to them