Woolwich Islamic Terrorist Attack

[Rossfan]

When the English were being bombed by a foreign army ( WW 2 by Germany) they weren't too pushed about the methods they used to fight back.
Time for the Brits and other Western countries  to stop supporting the Yanks' Oil "Crusades".

[johnneycool]

To me Brand just wrote a load of wordy shite.
He fails to recognize that too many Muslims are being brain washed in the UK and most is happening in the Mosques.

And you have facts that back up your statement?

So where else are they being brain washed then? Maybe you know.

Hating, dosen't come naturally i believe. They are being taught to hate.

Perhaps so. Who taught these guys to hate? Or these?

Disclaimer: This response is not to be taken by either pro-US or anti-US propagandists as anti-US propaganda. It's simply an attempted reminder that atrocities perpetrated by both sides are to be condemned and their motivations examined.

I hate the simplistic and incorrect terms used to try and explain away how this happens and will continue to happen. The main stream media are happy to run with the 'terrorist' angle as its easy and doesn't require much thought and very seldom questioned by anyone else for fear of condoning the actions which isn't the point but easily misconstrued as such.

Terms such as 'monkey religion', 'towel heads', 'sand jockeys' or whatever are terms used to class a race as somehow less human than us, much akin to the Reverend Ian's eulogies against Catholics.
If they're an underclass then their life is worth less than ours type mentality, no better than a dog then its easier to not give a shit about the 10's and 100's of thousands killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya after the tanks and jet fighters and TV cameras have left the stage.
If there was ever a breeding ground for radicals to be brain washed then its from there, not what happens in a Mosque in London or wherever.

The current actions being carried out in the name of freedom and democracy in the middle east are coming home to roost and unless a more holistic approach is taken then people in the western world better get used to the types of activities in Boston and Woolwich I'm afraid.

I'm not condoning any of these actions, just trying to understand why its happening.

[seafoid]

Meanwhile Irish times report that the UK wants to arm the Syrian opposition and the FT says al Qaeda is active in the Syrian opposition.

It's not rocket science. 

[muppet]

Good post johnneycool.

[thejuice]

The problem in trying to understand these actions begins when you look at these incidents in isolation to the wests relationship with the middle east from after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the end of colonialism. There are so many factors to be considered. You have the foundation of Israel which has become a highly militarised state. It now has significant strategic influence for the USA in the region because of this. The scramble for oil by European counties and America. The proxy wars of the Cold War era. The reason so many dictators were propped up was simply that they chose Capitalism over the Soviet Union. Western eyes were so fixed on curtailing Moscow that so long as they were on your side it didn't matter so much how they acted towards their people. Obviously secular dictators who were happy to let the oil flow in the right direction were favoured. In order to create stability in the region they also needed to be armed. Hence Saddam getting his weapons to murder the Kurds.

In this period you also had the flourishing of religious fundamentalism. I think people need to look at the life of Sayyid Qutb, a man who came to the USA in the 1940's from Egypt looking for ideas to help modernise his home country. But American materialism frightened him. He saw a people trapped by their obsession with wealth and attainment. Their notion of freedom to him was a paradox. He returned home to an Egyptian state run by Abdel Nasser who he saw as having the same vacuous morals as in the USA. SO he started a group called the Muslim Brotherhood who wanted to build a modern state but with strict religious values at its core. They were soon imprisoned and tortured. In prison he became radicalised and his writings along with that of his accomplices lead us down the sorry path to the attacks on September 11th 2001 in New York.

Today's western society is as we know heavily dependent on middle eastern oil. For the basic fuel needs but also the oil markets themselves to finance its debts. To argue against western multinational companies owning oil in the ME or northern Africa from a moral stand point puts capitalism in the dock. The fact of a company owning foreign assets itself isn't wrong or immoral. That is so long as it acquired them through moral and fair means. With this in mind calling for the absolute withdrawal of western influences on the ME before the west has secured its energy needs is a non-runner as it would cause the collapse of Western (and other large emerging) economies.

So while the NIMBY's moan about wind turbines and other forms of energy that offer greater self reliance, western governments will to continue to cause turmoil in other parts of the world to keep the show on the road. So where does that leave us. I think European countries need to build greater energy independence and we need a more responsible form of capitalism, that is willing to cut a fairer deal. Western society should re-examine its material needs and how it sources them, more self reliance and less disposable goods would be a start. The most common thing found in landfill is food and childrens toys. Considering the almost infinite nature of a child's imagination is it necessary to buy them all these plastic trinkets. 

What I think the middle east states need is to be rid of extremism, democratise, and start standing up for itself. However there is the underlying sectarian nature that might delay any stability. The state boundaries weren't drawn with Sunni's or Shias in mind but colonial interests. Perhaps the national boundaries might get redrawn in the blood of men, as all national boundaries tend to do, before any peace is reached.

[muppet]

Another very good post there Juice.

[seafoid]

The problem in trying to understand these actions begins when you look at these incidents in isolation to the wests relationship with the middle east from after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the end of colonialism. There are so many factors to be considered. You have the foundation of Israel which has become a highly militarised state. It now has significant strategic influence for the USA in the region because of this. The scramble for oil by European counties and America. The proxy wars of the Cold War era. The reason so many dictators were propped up was simply that they chose Capitalism over the Soviet Union. Western eyes were so fixed on curtailing Moscow that so long as they were on your side it didn't matter so much how they acted towards their people. Obviously secular dictators who were happy to let the oil flow in the right direction were favoured. In order to create stability in the region they also needed to be armed. Hence Saddam getting his weapons to murder the Kurds.

In this period you also had the flourishing of religious fundamentalism. I think people need to look at the life of Sayyid Qutb, a man who came to the USA in the 1940's from Egypt looking for ideas to help modernise his home country. But American materialism frightened him. He saw a people trapped by their obsession with wealth and attainment. Their notion of freedom to him was a paradox. He returned home to an Egyptian state run by Abdel Nasser who he saw as having the same vacuous morals as in the USA. SO he started a group called the Muslim Brotherhood who wanted to build a modern state but with strict religious values at its core. They were soon imprisoned and tortured. In prison he became radicalised and his writings along with that of his accomplices lead us down the sorry path to the attacks on September 11th 2001 in New York.

Today's western society is as we know heavily dependent on middle eastern oil. For the basic fuel needs but also the oil markets themselves to finance its debts. To argue against western multinational companies owning oil in the ME or northern Africa from a moral stand point puts capitalism in the dock. The fact of a company owning foreign assets itself isn't wrong or immoral. That is so long as it acquired them through moral and fair means. With this in mind calling for the absolute withdrawal of western influences on the ME before the west has secured its energy needs is a non-runner as it would cause the collapse of Western (and other large emerging) economies.

So while the NIMBY's moan about wind turbines and other forms of energy that offer greater self reliance, western governments will to continue to cause turmoil in other parts of the world to keep the show on the road. So where does that leave us. I think European countries need to build greater energy independence and we need a more responsible form of capitalism, that is willing to cut a fairer deal. Western society should re-examine its material needs and how it sources them, more self reliance and less disposable goods would be a start. The most common thing found in landfill is food and childrens toys. Considering the almost infinite nature of a child's imagination is it necessary to buy them all these plastic trinkets. 

What I think the middle east states need is to be rid of extremism, democratise, and start standing up for itself. However there is the underlying sectarian nature that might delay any stability. The state boundaries weren't drawn with Sunni's or Shias in mind but colonial interests. Perhaps the national boundaries might get redrawn in the blood of men, as all national boundaries tend to do, before any peace is reached.

Very good stuff Juice but I think the post war period that coincided with Keynesianism in the West was a quite  progressive time for the Middle East, when Israel wasn't at war at least.

Egypt was a very optimistic country in the 50s and 60s. The quality of the music that was coming out of Cairo then has not been matched since Mubarak took over. There was genuine optimism that the country would share in modernity and hardline conservatives were sidelined. Same thing in Iran. The veil was dropped, women took a stronger part in things and people had the feeling things were different.

http://www.serpentine.org/yasmin/SohairZuki.html

The 1973 war changed everything.     It proved the West would do everything to back up Israel. It led to a depression in the West that collapsed Keynesianism. 

The chaos broke the economies of many of the countries in the Middle East, it strengthened the desert sheiks of the gulf, probably led to the 1979 revolution in Iran and ultimately led to a reactionary fightback in the US led by Reagan , spawned neoliberalism and the next 40 years showed the people of the region they were not going to share in prosperity.  The Iraq war was just confirmation.

I think Syria, Egypt etc are a bit like Ireland in the 17 and 1800s. Small coterie of very rich, system of property enforced by doses of violence, large population growth,  mass pauperism,  no chance of things improving, religious conservatism etc.

[thejuice]

Good points there Seafoid, some I know little about to comment on.

Egypt was a very optimistic country in the 50s and 60s. The quality of the music that was coming out of Cairo then has not been matched since Mubarak took over. There was genuine optimism that the country would share in modernity and hardline conservatives were sidelined. Same thing in Iran. The veil was dropped, women took a stronger part in things and people had the feeling things were different.

Would you agree with my theory that for a lot of people this looked like a good thing, which I think it was.

But for Qutb and his ilk it was his country descending into decadence. They were sidelined but also imprisoned and tortured, or so goes the claim. From this experience he proclaimed that underneath the veneer of modernity and freedom was an animalistic brutality.  Hence the spawning of extremism which took firm root within the fertile soil of economic collapse. Funnily enough, his own sides animalistic brutality he could justify.

[seafoid]

Good points there Seafoid, some I know little about to comment on.

Egypt was a very optimistic country in the 50s and 60s. The quality of the music that was coming out of Cairo then has not been matched since Mubarak took over. There was genuine optimism that the country would share in modernity and hardline conservatives were sidelined. Same thing in Iran. The veil was dropped, women took a stronger part in things and people had the feeling things were different.

Would you agree with my theory that for a lot of people this looked like a good thing, which I think it was.

But for Qutb and his ilk it was his country descending into decadence. They were sidelined but also imprisoned and tortured, or so goes the claim. From this experience he proclaimed that underneath the veneer of modernity and freedom was an animalistic brutality.  Hence the spawning of extremism which took firm root within the fertile soil of economic collapse. Funnily enough, his own sides animalistic brutality he could justify.

Qutb would have been like a more extreme version of William Binchy.
When it was clear that Egypt was never going to make it he could say "look, I was right".
And with the population growing and the economy not there was less to go around and more chaos. 
and chaos is always good for fundamentalists. 

[Walter Cronc]

In theory could the U.S survive on their own untapped oil reserves?? I know we often hear about the vast resources in Alaska. Also isnt Canada now the 2nd biggest supplier of oil in the world behind Saudi? Canada better watch out. The Yanks will be invading yet 

[muppet]

In theory could the U.S survive on their own untapped oil reserves?? I know we often hear about the vast resources in Alaska. Also isnt Canada now the 2nd biggest supplier of oil in the world behind Saudi? Canada better watch out. The Yanks will be invading yet 

That isn't how it works.

This is: http://www.debtclock.ca

[deiseach]

That isn't how it works.

This is: http://www.debtclock.ca

[muppet]

Ours looked like that once.

[red hander]

The responses here are just so predictable.   The big bad Brits and Yanks invading other countries only have themselves to blame, blah, blah, blah.  You guys are a frickin joke

Botton line is these animals are looking for a reason to be offended.

Anyone remember the affront that precipitated the 9/11 attacks-US Military presence in Saudi Arabia.

How convenient is it for them to forget that the US were only invited in by the Saudis who were afraid Sadam was going to Annex them after he was done in Kuwait.

The US faced down the Nazis, it faced down the Japs, it faced down Communism and it sure as hell isn't going to be dictated to by a monkey religion.

Yeah, those lovely, Saudis, eh? And who was it that supported Saddam when he invaded the sovereign territory of his neighbour Iran, breaking international law? The Yanks only turned against Saddam cos he threatened 'their' oil in the Middle East, they didn't give a shit about the evil he did before the first Gulf War.

As for the US facing down the Nazis, I think you'll find that was the Red Army ... 9 out of 10 German soldiers killed in WWII died at the hands of the Soviets, who suffered the most casualties, military and civilian, of any combatant. Yeah, the US really faced down the Viet Cong and the Cubans too, didn't it? It's not going to be dictated to by a bunch of peasants armed only with a Kalashnikov, bag of rice and a love of their country, or a bearded geurrilla who had the balls to free his people from a murderous US-backed military junta up to its neck with the Mafia

Are you that thick that you can't face up to the fact that only the yanks entered the war the Nazi's would have won the war? The yanks were the difference makers in WW2.

Your beloved Ruskies were a hateful regime as well, they suppressed the rights of their own people and were despicable but hey, hold the commies up as bastions of light if you will, the fact is the yanks are the most important economic dynasty of the last 100 years, end of!

I must be thick - even though I do know how apostrophes work - cos I'm going to reply to you ... the Nazis would not have won the war but for the US. The US didn't enter the war until December 1941, more than 2 years after it began. The tide had already begun to turn in Europe. By the time the US was making a significant contribution, namely the Eighth Air Force's daylight bombing campaign on Germany, it was 1943. We'd already had the most significant battle of WWII by that stage at Stalingrad, and we'd also had El Alamein.

Maybe you'll point out where I held the 'commies up as bastions of light' in my post, or mentioned 'important economic dynasties'. Your guff is usually rambling bullshit at the best of times, but you really shouldn't post while drinking (meths by the look of it)

I never did drugs in my life kid!

The yanks were in the war prior to December 1941, they were sending everything but manpower to the fighting forces opposing the Nazis and but for them entering the war the brits were fooked.

Hitler should never have went near Russia, he made the same mistake as Napoleon and his countrymen died horribly in their tens of thousands, the Russians won because Hitler was mental enough to have his men fight in winter without the necessary clothing and equipment, tens of thousands froze to death and the Russians would have fell but for mother nature.

Ever been to America homie?

Seven or eight times ... I'm going back in under a fortnight for Republc V Spain at Yankee Stadium and then a few days in Chicago. I love visiting America. But I don't get the relevance of your question 

[seafoid]

Red hander

That fella who spoke to the cameras after the attack was a red hander too.