BBC too chicken shit to refer to terrorists as terrorists

[valvano]

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/12/nbbc12.xml

the first step in combatting terrorism is to admit to what you are dealing with, but it looks like the BBC doesnt want to offend the terrorists...

come on PCers, what the new PC term for terrorists? how about:
amateur bombing artist
non-professional renderers of death
misunderstood violent muslims

this is totally pathetic

[valvano]

you know, you may need to dig that hole you keep your head in a little deeper

[valvano]

waiting for you to answer mine

so what do we do countries do, just sit back and take it? have the UN pass a resolution? doing nothing plays even more into the terrorists hands. you cant reason with them, etc. they don't know the words to "Kum Ba Ya" so that won't work either.

how many people live in london and use public transportation every day? i'd say STRICTLY from a statistical standpoint, it was a lot less deadly than it could have been, maybe due to the terrrorists having to operate now more than ever deeper underground.
:D

[QueenAdrock]

I agree with Rhythm, maybe they just didn't want to jump to conclusions. I know they didn't want to come right out and say it was Al Qaeda until they were positive.

[sam i am]

whether it was Al-Qaeda or not, they were still terrorists. They caused terror.

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, but the word "terrorist" nowadays brings people to think "al qaeda" automatically, so I can see why they'd be hesitant.

[Schmeltz]

they were still terrorists. They caused terror.


Yeah, and they were still bombers. They used bombs.

News services do not have a responsibility to conform to anybody's political agendas; indeed, their responsibility is to report events factually and objectively. Your attempt to denigrate one of the world's most respected media outlets for failing to politicize their reporting is what is pathetic here.

[sam i am]

Yeah, and they were still bombers. They used bombs.

News services do not have a responsibility to conform to anybody's political agendas; indeed, their responsibility is to report events factually and objectively. Your attempt to denigrate one of the world's most respected media outlets for failing to politicize their reporting is what is pathetic here.

Dude, ratchet down....I wasn't the one who started the thread....

Just call a spade a spade. They were obviously terrorist bombers. Whether they were Al-Qaeda or not doesn't really matter. The facts are they use bombs and they are terrorists because they caused terror.

Dang, even Timothy McVeigh was called a terrorist. It could have been the IRA or Basque separatists or whatever. I think the BBC and most other news outlets have been very careful to say they think it might have been any number of organizations before jumping to conclusions.

[DroppinScience]

What about media outlets who change AP or Reuters wire stories from "militants" to "terrorists."

That's a lot of distortion going down...

[sam i am]

What about media outlets who change AP or Reuters wire stories from "militants" to "terrorists."

That's a lot of distortion going down...

So.

Everything's distorted. Nothing is objective. We all have our own points of view. We can still be precise with terminology.

[D_Raay]

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/12/nbbc12.xml

the first step in combatting terrorism is to admit to what you are dealing with, but it looks like the BBC doesnt want to offend the terrorists...

come on PCers, what the new PC term for terrorists? how about:
amateur bombing artist
non-professional renderers of death
misunderstood violent muslims

this is totally pathetic
What's pathetic is you don't even realize that the Brits are just showing the resolve that Americans like you can't muster.

[DroppinScience]

Ever heard the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

I think that's what this argument is.

I, for one, do believe the London bombers are terrorists, but I honestly don't mind if media outlets call them "bombers," "militants" or whatever. They're synonyms, really.

However, by the media saying "terrorists" you are making a judgement. The theory goes is that the media should be "objective" (very hard to do, but objectivity should be strived for). I say let each individual decide who is a terrorist and who is not and leave the media from taking these stands when they're simply just reporting the news.

[sam i am]

Very good point.

This was for Tung, not Dropping Science

[DroppinScience]

This was for Tung, not Dropping Science

Ouch! That was COLD. :eek:

[sam i am]

Sorry, Droppin.....I don't agree with you but your post hit while I was writing mine. Didn't mean to be cold, just wanted to avoid confusion that I might be "going mushy." I'd have to turn in my cold-hearted, hate the poor, kill the hippies, overpopulate the earth, power mad, big industry conservative republican card if I showed any compassion for anyone else's point of view...
;)

[Ali]

Maybe they don't want to jump to conclusions, using "bombers" doesn't lessen their credibility with reporting.


I would assume they want to make sure the investigations are thorough and they report the findings accordingly.

Do YOU know that it was a terrorist organization? If so, please tell us who.

British authorities and hopefully their news outlets will handle this case better than the U.S. after 9/11....If it had happened in the US, it would have immediately been blamed on Moslem terrerists, evidence or not.

Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? Fingers were immediately pointed at Muslim Fundamentalists, men in Turbans were 'seen' by 'witnesses' and who did it in the end?

[sam i am]

If it had happened in the US, it would have immediately been blamed on Moslem terrerists, evidence or not.

Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? Fingers were immediately pointed at Muslim Fundamentalists, men in Turbans were 'seen' by 'witnesses' and who did it in the end?

So what did happen in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing? The US had collective angst about how poorly we had treated those poor Muslim Fundamentalists, the FBI backed off on tracking cells in the US, and Al-Qaeda planned and executed 9/11.

Still, in the meantime, we caught, tried, convicted, and executed who actually did it and, before 9/11, Muslims were relatively unhindered again in the US. Oh what a horrible, horrible country we are... :rolleyes:

[King PSYZ]

i hope you dont belive 9/11 was caused by any laxes provided by scrutiny during the Oklahoma City investigation...

try severe cuts signed off by the good ol W even though he was advised against it.

[Schmeltz]

Did the BBC think "Hey, we must be careful who we call terrorists, we could offend the people who did this as they may actually be very nice guys".


Yes, I'm sure that was the ultimate rationale behind the BBC's decision, just as I'm sure your slippery slope argument about "rights groups for terrorists" merits some kind of serious consideration.

Droppinscience has it sort of right, I think. "Terrorist," to me, doesn't necessarily imply a judgment of one sort or another, but it is a term loaded with all kinds of connotations, as others have pointed out. Is there something wrong with using a milder turn of phrase in search of journalistic objectivity? Castigating the BBC for the neutral tone of their reporting, demanding that they use loaded terminology to cater to somebody's politicized agenda of how the news is supposed to read, is utterly and incomprehensibly ridiculous.


before 9/11, Muslims were relatively unhindered again in the US.


Interesting implication - Muslims are hindered, then, in the post-9/11 United States? That's a shame.

[Medellia]

Is there something wrong with using a milder turn of phrase in search of journalistic objectivity? Castigating the BBC for the neutral tone of their reporting, demanding that they use loaded terminology to cater to somebody's politicized agenda of how the news is supposed to read, is utterly and incomprehensibly ridiculous.
You know, some of the people who are upset about the BBC not using word "terrorist" possibly so as not to politicise the story are also the ones who say BBC is too liberal most of the time. Interesting.

[sam i am]

Interesting implication - Muslims are hindered, then, in the post-9/11 United States? That's a shame.

What I said was that their was such a national US angst after Oklahoma City that we failed to track terror cells in the US as closely as we might have if there had not been such an uproar about being sure that Muslims were not being treated unfairly or singled out for greater scrutiny when getting on planes.

This led to the conditions that made 9/11 feasible to carry out by those who did.


King PSYZ said : i hope you dont belive 9/11 was caused by any laxes provided by scrutiny during the Oklahoma City investigation...

try severe cuts signed off by the good ol W even though he was advised against it.

W was not in office when Oklahoma City went off nor when the FBI was badgered into backing off Muslim cells they suspected of terrorist plotting before 9/11. Clinton/Gore were in office.

W holds some responsibility for not heeding warnings closer to the event, I'm willing to concede (see, we conservative republicans will admit when you Liberals have a valid point), but Clinton/Gore actually submitted the budget for FY 2000 that cut funding for FBI investigations of known Al-Qaeda cells in the US.

[ms.peachy]

Personally I have no problem with them not using the word 'terrorist'. Because I am not 'terrorised'. I think the use of the word 'bombers' is perfectly legit. 'Terrorists' is giving them too much credit.

[Jasonik]

Personally I have no problem with them not using the word 'terrorist'. Because I am not 'terrorised'. I think the use of the word 'bombers' is perfectly legit. 'Terrorists' is giving them too much credit.
ms.peachy keepin it real once again!

The BBC hasn't used the phrase, "...bombers, considered by some on the right to be terrorists..."?

[Qdrop]

"...bombers, considered by some on the right to be terrorists..."?

whoa.
is that an actual quote from the BBC?




ordinarily, i realy could give a shit.
i mean "sensitivety over truth" is enraging....but if it's just in the vernacular or vocabulary sense....whatever.

whomever planted those bombs....fuck, even if it was the british gov't (which it wasn't) ...were still acting as terrorists. thus, they are terrorists...regardless of thier geographic or religious backround.

[Jasonik]

No, it's satire.

[Qdrop]

No, it's satire.

that's too bad....cause i really am not a fan of the BBC....


i could so see them saying this, though.....

[Ali]

What I said was that their was such a national US angst after Oklahoma City that we failed to track terror cells in the US as closely as we might have if there had not been such an uproar about being sure that Muslims were not being treated unfairly or singled out for greater scrutiny when getting on planes.

This led to the conditions that made 9/11 feasible to carry out by those who did.Your meddling in the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair) led to 9/11, nothing else.

You going to argue with that link?

[Qdrop]

Your meddling in the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair) led to 9/11, nothing else.

You going to argue with that link?

i am.

please connect those dots for me, oh caustic one...

[ChrisLove]

Bombers seems to be more accurate word to me, terrorists are often defined as having political motives which until otherwise confirmed these may not. Im Mcveigh was clearly a terrorist and so was 9/11 lot - they had political motives. No motive is yet known for this attack for certain so bomber is the correct term I would think.

Also I do not like them being referred to as terrorists because it gives too much credit – it implies Londoners are terrified which on the whole we are not. Almost everyone is back at work and the tube is as busy as ever, I work in one of Londons more well known high rise offices and terror is not an issue.

At the end of the day it does not matter, bombers seems to be more accurate to me, there can be no doubt that these people used bombs. But also who cares?

[King PSYZ]

King PSYZ said : i hope you dont belive 9/11 was caused by any laxes provided by scrutiny during the Oklahoma City investigation...

try severe cuts signed off by the good ol W even though he was advised against it.

W was not in office when Oklahoma City went off nor when the FBI was badgered into backing off Muslim cells they suspected of terrorist plotting before 9/11. Clinton/Gore were in office.

W holds some responsibility for not heeding warnings closer to the event, I'm willing to concede (see, we conservative republicans will admit when you Liberals have a valid point), but Clinton/Gore actually submitted the budget for FY 2000 that cut funding for FBI investigations of known Al-Qaeda cells in the US.

I wasn't referring to the FBI cuts, although I know that did have a lot to do with the attack (see i can admit when someone puts forth a VALID point[but don't marginalize me as a liberal based on two sentances]). I was referring to the cuts made on Imigration services and several other so called non-essential agencies that were in fact affected by W making cuts to their spending. Because of an understaffed Imigration these terrorists were able to come and go fairly unhindered because Imigration didn't have the man power to be as effective as they needed to be.

[franscar]

The American military had advised it's people to stay out of London for the time being.

Who's chicken shit?

[Ali]

The American military had advised it's people to stay out of London for the time being.

Who's chicken shit?Chicken Little!

[Qdrop]

The American military had advised it's people to stay out of London for the time being.

Who's chicken shit?

are you seriously calling the american military chicken shit?

so what are we, big bad imperialist neo-hawks....or military chicken shits?

please....i love when the liberals flip flop.

[D_Raay]

Terrorist means terrorist, Al Qaeda means terrorists.
Man you're dumb... Do you stop to take a shit or just do it while while you are walking?

[sam i am]

Your meddling in the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair) led to 9/11, nothing else.

You going to argue with that link?

Ali, first of all you never refuted my complete decimation of your previous link. Second, you provide a link that refers entirely to "Iran-Contra," as if this proves your point :confused: . So, you are making a direct, causal link between 9/11 and Iran-Contra? What are you smoking?

The British and French and sundry other imperialistic powers meddled in the Middle East for years and did not have these kinds of attacks. What makes them viable now is the inability of public willpower in the Western world to take all of the steps necessary to destroy those who would attack us.

At least, until W came along and said : wait a second, we'll take the fight to THEM. Instead of sitting around like passive dogs and taking our whipping, we'll go and CRUSH them.

The cool part is, we not only do that, but we STILL remain compassionate and nation-build at the same time. What a great country the USA is. Just like the Great Society : we had a war on poverty and the Vietnam War then (not to mention the ongoing Cold War) and still put men on the moon. Now, we have a robust world economy, the USA feeds most of the world, we build bridges and hydroelectric dams and we still protect the environment and do our best not to kill innocent civilians. Could the world ASK for any better people to resuce it from the possibility of Muslim Fundamentalism?
:D :eek:

[sam i am]

Man you're dumb... Do you stop to take a shit or just do it while while you are walking?

You made me laugh out loud with this one D_Raay. (y)

I wish gmsisko would lighten up a bit and join the dialogue instead of monolouging all the time. I wonder if he gets tired of talking to himself?

[Qdrop]

Ali, first of all you never refuted my complete decimation of your previous link. Second, you provide a link that refers entirely to "Iran-Contra," as if this proves your point :confused: . So, you are making a direct, causal link between 9/11 and Iran-Contra? What are you smoking?



yeah, i asked him this as well...but to no avail.

but i think he has me on ignore.....

[Ali]

complete decimation

LOL

You didn't even read it, maybe skimmed it, accused it of bias (mr pot) and slated the sources (like you ever back up any of your jingoistic comments).

If you want to know why I posted the Iran Contra link, it was to illustrate US (republican) involvement in something which came back tg bite them on the bum.

Remember how Saddam got into power in the first place?

[sam i am]

complete decimation

LOL

You didn't even read it, maybe skimmed it, accused it of bias (mr pot) and slated the sources (like you ever back up any of your jingoistic comments).

If you want to know why I posted the Iran Contra link, it was to illustrate US (republican) involvement in something which came back tg bite them on the bum.

Remember how Saddam got into power in the first place?

Ali, I decimated it, AGAIN, on the other thread. Go read it.

I can back up every one of my "jingoistic comments." Want a list of sources and quotes? How about primary and secondary sources? Do you have the time to become informed? Can you read a book instead of relying on the drivel from the internet? Do you have any scholarly inclinations or are you just reliant on what's easy and not well-researched or documented? Let me know...

Great illustration of the Iran-Contra link. Address my points and I'll address yours....oh.....wait....I already DID address yours. Try to pay attention, Ali. Go slow and point by point. It's not that hard. You can do it. Just keep thinking ..."baby steps." ;)

[Qdrop]

complete decimation

LOL

You didn't even read it, maybe skimmed it, accused it of bias (mr pot) and slated the sources (like you ever back up any of your jingoistic comments).

If you want to know why I posted the Iran Contra link, it was to illustrate US (republican) involvement in something which came back tg bite them on the bum.

Remember how Saddam got into power in the first place?

fucking weak.

so you just gloss over the fact that iran-contra had no connection to 9/11.

moron.

"oh, it was an example of your foreign policies coming back to haunt you, in some way....and umm....that's what 9/11 was."

again with the "9/11 was america's fault" bullshit.

liberals like you actually CREATE more conservatives....the way you say american foriegn policy creates terrorists.

yes, we supported Sadaam and propped him up in the late 70's and into the 80's. it seemed beneficial at the time to make him an ally.
Sadaam did some bad shit in the 80's (how much did the reagan regime know? i don't know..) and he took a turn for the "imperial dictatorship" in 91 with kuwait....
he's been an enemy ever since.

hind site is 20/20....

we made a mistake with saddam...and went back to clean it up in 2003.
we got rid of him...and are setting up a democratic gov't in it's place- at our own $$cost.

[Ali]

Can you read a book instead of relying on the drivel from the internet? No. Maybe you can read it to me? I'm so stupid, I really need someone clever to set me straight... here's me thinking England had a Queen and all the other silly things I believe in.

Yeah, the hell with Internet sources, I'll quote from FOKS news from now on, shall I?

[franscar]

are you seriously calling the american military chicken shit?

so what are we, big bad imperialist neo-hawks....or military chicken shits?

please....i love when the liberals flip flop.

Please don't use the word liberal, I dislike it immensely. I don't identify myself with any political group. I take it you came up with flip-flop yourself as well, huh?

The entire debacle in this thread is based upon the Americans being scared shitless by this incident. The British aren't. We're getting on with it. Who cares about the word "terrorist"? Everyone knows what happened, everyone is being told who the authorities believe was most likely to be responsible, what merit does using one word over another have?

And quite frankly the men and women and children catching the London Underground this morning have more balls than whoever decided that anywhere inside the M25 is ooh too scary for the soldiers. They don't even get big guns to carry. Looks to me like the American military is getting jittery because someone is fighting back. Wouldn't be the first time though, would it?

[sam i am]

No. Maybe you can read it to me? I'm so stupid, I really need someone clever to set me straight... here's me thinking England had a Queen and all the other silly things I believe in.

Yeah, the hell with Internet sources, I'll quote from FOKS news from now on, shall I?

Nice quote by Goering, BTW. Is he your idol? Is that quote supposed to be impactful because some fat, middle aged, overweight, wanna be Marshal from the 3rd Reich during WWII said it?

I already acknowledged, again if you read these posts instead of just idiotically spewing forth, that I misspoke with the king/queen thing. I was tired. It didn't substantively detract from the point, idiot.

Glad I'm clever enough to cover your gaffes. Read some real books, Ali. Then, get back to me. Meanwhile, I'll ignore you until you actually address some of the points I've made.

At least D_Raay and other libs on these threads are willing to engage honestly and have impassioned reasonability and rationality. At least they've admitted when they don't know or if I make a valid point. You, Ali, are simply a flamer and have not added anything useful to the discourse. :p

[sam i am]

Looks to me like the American military is getting jittery because someone is fighting back. Wouldn't be the first time though, would it?

Explain please. Love to see what you are referring to... :confused:

[Qdrop]

The entire debacle in this thread is based upon the Americans being scared shitless by this incident. The British aren't. We're getting on with it.

wow, you arrogant shit.

as if 9/11 brought our country to a standstill.

how dare you.
it's as if you dismiss the US's overcoming of our own terrorist attack which took the life of over 3,000 people in one of the most terrible spectacles in decades....
dismiss all military action we have taken up since then in attempts to limit terrorist activity, OVERWHELMINGLY AT OUR OWN COST.

and then claim to have "the suprior courage of it's people" on your side of the ocean when you lose 60 people in a train bombing....
because, apparently our military is staying clear of you rails system while londoners ride it to work.

you callous bitch.

please, show me your source on the american military pulling this "cowardly act" while the londoners "brave it out"....

no eurocentrism on your part...nooooo....

such stupid yanks are we.....

Looks to me like the American military is getting jittery because someone is fighting back. Wouldn't be the first time though, would it? oh, please divulge....
we're only knee deep in your bullshit so far....we have room for more!

[Freebasser]

it's as if you dismiss the US's overcoming of our own terrorist attack which took the life of over 3,000 people in one of the most terrible spectacles in decades...

...and then claim to have "the suprior courage of it's people" on your side of the ocean when you lose 60 people in a train bombing....

Now look who's comparing death-counts :rolleyes:

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4673987.stm) to what franscar was talking about.

[Qdrop]

Now look who's comparing death-counts :rolleyes:


this is concerning overcoming victimization...

not military action, you shit head.

that was about a brilliant as Ali linking Iran-contra to 9/11....

go back to beastie free, you haven't the cerebral cortex to hang with the big boys...

[Freebasser]

this is concerning overcoming victimization...

not military action, you shit head.

that was about a brilliant as Ali linking Iran-contra to 9/11....

go back to beastie free, you haven't the cerebral cortex to hang with the big boys...

Waaaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaah.

Baby.

P.S. I'm surprised you could actually spell cerebral cortex. Oh, I was checking out your website today. Nice "your" in the title of your song.

Fuck man, go and get spelling and grammar lessons, and then we'll see who has the right to call who stupid.

[Qdrop]

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4673987.stm) to what franscar was talking about.

..."But he emphasised that the decision was taken locally in the immediate aftermath of the bombings, when many companies were telling staff to stay out of central London because of the confusion and the need to leave emergency services unhindered.

Lieutenant Gloria Smith, based at RAF Mildenhall, said: "It's just a prudent measure, it's normal procedure any time there's such an incident."

you stupid shitheads.

it was just a standard safety/political move.
if they hadn't made that call...and more bombs went off and american personal were killed....his head would roll under scrutiny: "why didn't you warn our personel?!" etc...

[franscar]

Now look who's comparing death-counts :rolleyes:

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4673987.stm) to what franscar was talking about.

I honestly didn't think anyone else would spot that. Bravo sir, bravo.

please, show me your source on the american military pulling this "cowardly act" while the londoners "brave it out"....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4673987.stm

Way to "stay on the offence" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4672425.stm) in the war on "terror". (y)

[sam i am]

go back to beastie free, you haven't the cerebral cortex to hang with the big boys...

Way to go, Qdrop! (y)

It's fun when they have NOTHING to fight with, isn't it? Where are all the vaunted Liberal "ideas?" Anyone? All I hear is deafening silence in the arena of ideas coming from our left-wing (if you don't like "Liberal") friends....

[Qdrop]

i'm starting to truly realize that the strength of the liberal side of this section was carried almost entirely by Ace42 (and D_raay)...

with Ace gone....i'm seeing the glaring hole in the left's ability to make rational, coherant arguments.

a pity.

[sam i am]

This embodies what I have been arguing all along :

"When the Middle East grows in democracy and prosperity and HOPE, the terrorists will lose their sponsors." George W. Bush

See the link : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4672425.stm

[franscar]

See the link : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4672424.stm

BBC News Page Not Found?

[sam i am]

It was your link from above. Did I miss a number? Sorry. Same article you were linking to. My browser must have missed a digit...

[sam i am]

BBC News Page Not Found?

it's 2425 Sorry for the wrong #.. :o

[Qdrop]

P.S. I'm surprised you could actually spell cerebral cortex.

i surprised you have the balls to come on this section more than once a month.

you usually come here and post once or twice, spewing some empty, narrow, yank-bashing personal attacks....
and then proceed to keep posting in a pathetic back and forth melee, making it painfully obvious that you blew your entire mental load on the initial posts, and are now just limping along with immature dribble and thumb-nosings...
you can actually retrace the thread and pinpoint the *exact moment* your brain just collapsed.....
it's hilarious...

[Jasonik]

i'm starting to truly realize that the strength of the liberal side of this section was carried almost entirely by Ace42 (and D_raay)...

with Ace gone....i'm seeing the glaring hole in the left's ability to make rational, coherant arguments.

a pity.


LOL!!

[Tone Capone]

..."But he emphasised that the decision was taken locally in the immediate aftermath of the bombings, when many companies were telling staff to stay out of central London because of the confusion and the need to leave emergency services unhindered.

Lieutenant Gloria Smith, based at RAF Mildenhall, said: "It's just a prudent measure, it's normal procedure any time there's such an incident."

you stupid shitheads.

it was just a standard safety/political move.
if they hadn't made that call...and more bombs went off and american personal were killed....his head would roll under scrutiny: "why didn't you warn our personel?!" etc...

[Tone Capone]

Also,
You people are acting like Lakenheath and Mildenhall are right across the street from where the bombings took place... They are over an HOUR north of London on good traffic day. What do you suggest? Should everyone stationed at Lakenheath and Mildenhall RUSH right over to ride the trains to show everyone how brave we are?!?! Use you heads. You people aren't happy unless you are bitching and moaning about something no matter how ridiculous it is.

[bb_bboy]

Bombers seems to be more accurate word to me, terrorists are often defined as having political motives which until otherwise confirmed these may not.

This seems to be the most reasonable post out of all of those in this thread. If you want to play semantics games then you should really be certain that you understand the denotations of the words you are using. Especially when correcting someone else.

The entire debacle in this thread is based upon the Americans being scared shitless by this incident. The British aren't.

I don't disagree with everything you say, but I think that these generalizations are foolish and sloppy and they ultimately detract from your validity.

[Documad]

I think of a terrorist as one who commits acts of violence that involve lots of collateral damage in order to make common people feel a general sense of terror. We might not know everything yet, but I think this fits the bill pretty well. If I were a newswoman, I'd probably wait to say that in print or on TV.

I am still astounded at the number of people here who don't sound all that smart or well read to me but who shove their little bit of knowledge or dogma in people's faces in order to stiffle discussion. I'm not astounded that people get off on it, and it's amusing to see a small group of men jerk each other off now and then. But what I wonder is whether you find this technique effective elsewhere. When you talk down to people do they respect you more? Does it make you feel empowered? If so, maybe that's all you want. And when people walk away and discontinue talking to you, you assume that you got them with your sparkling wit or stunning arguments when it's far more likely that they went to talk to someone more interesting. I can't find the words to describe the way I feel watching people interact here sometimes. It's like a sociology experiment or something. But it's a blast. (y)

[Documad]

I put this in a separate post to distance it from the jerking off comments above. :)

So what did happen in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing? The US had collective angst about how poorly we had treated those poor Muslim Fundamentalists, the FBI backed off on tracking cells in the US, and Al-Qaeda planned and executed 9/11.

Still, in the meantime, we caught, tried, convicted, and executed who actually did it and, before 9/11, Muslims were relatively unhindered again in the US. Oh what a horrible, horrible country we are... :rolleyes:

Should Muslims be hindered just for being Muslims? Should they have been hindered in say 2000? Based upon what? How should they be hindered? Because that's not what the US has ever been about right? Or are you going to give me a history lesson on how we locked up the Japanese citizens during WWII now? But we never locked up our German citizens?

What I said was that their was such a national US angst after Oklahoma City that we failed to track terror cells in the US as closely as we might have if there had not been such an uproar about being sure that Muslims were not being treated unfairly or singled out for greater scrutiny when getting on planes.
I don't remember this national angst and I'm generally atuned to angst--especially if it's driven by race. Remind me please how did this national angst manifest itself and how did it actually affect the FBI? Are you saying that someone ordered the FBI to investigate all kinds of other suspect people but to leave Muslims alone? Are you saying that the FBI should not have investigated white crazy militia types post Oklahoma City? It seems sad but natural that law enforcement is always working on the last problem rather than anticipating the next.

I figured that the FBI was stretched pretty thin pre 9/11 because they were spending all their time investigating drug crimes (with a batch of bank robberies thrown in). And their computers were out of date and they were unable to share database info with local law enforcement etc. And it seemed like there was a focus on missing/exploited children and profiling when that was in fashion. But that was all because someone (Clinton? Bush?) told them to lay off the Muslims? :rolleyes:

[Ali]

You, Ali, are simply a flamer and have not added anything useful to the discourse. :pAnd you are a troll with nothing much to say.

Here's a question for you, from one father to another. You say you're too old to go and kill tererists in Iraq. Are any of your children old enough to serve?

How would you feel if one of them got killed or maimed over there?

Would you still be so gung ho?

[bb_bboy]

... their was such a national US angst after Oklahoma City that we failed to track terror cells in the US as closely as we might have if there had not been such an uproar about being sure that Muslims were not being treated unfairly or singled out for greater scrutiny when getting on planes.

Could you be less vague here - I'm afraid I don't recall examples of this outside of generalities.
____

As an initial, unbuttressed counter-point, I would refer to this:

from: Center for Cooperative Research (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=oklahoma&events=on&entities=off&articles=off&topics=off&timelines=off&projects=off&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&timeline=complete_911_timeline)

April 19, 1995 Complete 911 Timeline

The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City is bombed. US citizen Timothy McVeigh is convicted of the bombing, but some maintain there is a Middle Eastern connection. For instance, Richard Clarke, counterterrorism “tsar” during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, says the possibility is intriguing and he has been unable to disprove it. [Clarke, 2004, pp 127] The bombing leads to a surge in concern about terrorism. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act becomes law as a result of such concern. However, many anti-terrorism provisions Clinton seeks are not approved by the Republican-controlled Congress. [[my bold]] Many politicians agree with the National Rifle Association that proposed restrictions on bomb-making would infringe on the constitutional right to bear arms. [Clarke, 2004, pp 98-99]
____

Your point of view has struck my curiosity and I would like to know more about what you know concerning the FBI's role, specifcally in the area terrorism counter-intelligence, post "Oklahoma City."

[Qdrop]

And you are a troll with nothing much to say.

he's said more in a week, then you ever have on this site.

you are the troll among trolls, ali.

[Documad]

sam i am says interesting stuff, I'm glad to read it, and I think qdrop's worship of him is sweet. It's nice to see a newbie get a hearty welcome for once. I think it would interesting to talk about history with him, but so far he hasn't strung together a plan for today that is informed by history. (Listen, I can't do it either.)

The danger in setting someone up as an expert because he has good grammar and can cite a few tangential historical examples is that people will also swallow the complete nonsense buried alongside. JFK was killed because he was a liar? The liberal left was somehow directing the FBI's use of its limited resources pre 9/11? We are supposed to "suppress" all Muslims in the US? ---- They are so dense you could start a thread on any one of them. Conspiracy theories and racism are easier to swallow when presented by someone who is articulate and well read? Oh well, I agree it makes a nice change from the normal spammers.

[Qdrop]

and I think qdrop's worship of him is sweet. It's nice to see a newbie get a hearty welcome for once. oh please....it's just nice to see an intelligent conservative on this board.
he could be the first (next to jasonick- when he actually posts).
i'm just thrilled to see a bit of balance for once....aren't you?

i have no doubt that samiam and i will have many a heated debate in the future.

The danger in setting someone up as an expert because he has good grammar and can cite a few tangential historical examples is that people will also swallow the complete nonsense buried alongside. JFK was killed because he was a liar? The liberal left was somehow directing the FBI's use of its limited resources pre 9/11? We are supposed to "suppress" all Muslims in the US? ---- They are so dense you could start a thread on any one of them. Conspiracy theories and racism are easier to swallow when presented by someone who is articulate and well read? Oh well, I agree it makes a nice change from the normal spammers.
i don't think any of us are that naive...give us some credit.

obviously he has no agreement from anyone along the lines of his JFK assasination assessment or his rather vague muslim comments.

[Documad]

oh please....it's just nice to see an intelligent conservative on this board.
he could be the first (next to jasonick- when he actually posts).
i'm just thrilled to see a bit of balance for once....aren't you?

i have no doubt that samiam and i will have many a heated debate in the future.
I hope he sticks around too. I think it's sweet to see you taking a newbie to your bosom. He's apparently educated, but time will tell whether he's intelligent. :)

My other comment was probably due to work stuff. I've had a lot of new and aggressive opponents who try to razzle dazzle me with their resumes. In my real life experience it's usually a huge sign of weakness. I go the opposite way and admit when I haven't done something before. I know it's different on a message board because you're trying to convey that you know what you're talking about without having to provide voluminous supporting data for your position. And for some reason, when I debate people here it compels them to post their college GPAs.

P.S. qdrop, I don't really PM, so how's your dog?

[Qdrop]

P.S. qdrop, I don't really PM, so how's your dog?
she's fine now...
apparently it was a one time incident...

[Jasonik]

Thank-you Tungtvann. The Stephen Pollard article says it all.

But terrorism is not a value judgement. It is recognized as a crime against humanity under international law. One of the world's experts on this, Professor Norman Geras of Manchester University, defines it as 'the deliberate targeting of civilians with a view to killing and maiming them and if possible in large numbers'.

I think one of the main reasons the BBC doesn't want to use the 't' word is because 'terrorists are from somewhere else', 'British citizens are bombers not terrorists.

http://browndailysqueal.com/archives/001263.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4677209.stm

[Documad]

I'm still waiting for the goods on my buddies at the FBI. :rolleyes:

[sam i am]

And you are a troll with nothing much to say.

Here's a question for you, from one father to another. You say you're too old to go and kill tererists in Iraq. Are any of your children old enough to serve?

How would you feel if one of them got killed or maimed over there?

Would you still be so gung ho?


Ali, no my children are 4, 5, 6, & 7. I didn't say I was too old to go and serve. Other reasons than age prevent my being to go.

I don't know how I'd feel if one of my children grew up to be in the military and got killed or maimed. Probably proud of their service. Probably sad for the loss. Probably more convinced than ever that we have a country worth fighting and dying for. I can't say for sure because it hasn't happened...

I hope you, and Documad especially, note the lack of "muscle-flexing" here. I am capable of thoughtful consideration and non-inflammatory dialogue. Impassioned rhetoric and inflammatory language tends to get peoples' attention, however, and allows for later consideration of other posts....

Uh.....oh.......my startegy is revealed.... ;)

[sam i am]

Could you be less vague here - I'm afraid I don't recall examples of this outside of generalities.
____

As an initial, unbuttressed counter-point, I would refer to this:

from: Center for Cooperative Research (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=oklahoma&events=on&entities=off&articles=off&topics=off&timelines=off&projects=off&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&timeline=complete_911_timeline)

April 19, 1995 Complete 911 Timeline

The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City is bombed. US citizen Timothy McVeigh is convicted of the bombing, but some maintain there is a Middle Eastern connection. For instance, Richard Clarke, counterterrorism “tsar” during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, says the possibility is intriguing and he has been unable to disprove it. [Clarke, 2004, pp 127] The bombing leads to a surge in concern about terrorism. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act becomes law as a result of such concern. However, many anti-terrorism provisions Clinton seeks are not approved by the Republican-controlled Congress. [[my bold]] Many politicians agree with the National Rifle Association that proposed restrictions on bomb-making would infringe on the constitutional right to bear arms. [Clarke, 2004, pp 98-99]
____

Your point of view has struck my curiosity and I would like to know more about what you know concerning the FBI's role, specifcally in the area terrorism counter-intelligence, post "Oklahoma City."

Talk about vague. Use of the ords : "some," "possibility," "intriguing," "unable to disprove it," "concern," "many," and "proposed" are all exceptionally vague terms.

As far as the FBI's role in the area of terrorism counter-intelligence, I will admit that I am not as well-versed as I would like to be. I recall, as a primary source, watching CNN the day of the Oklahoma City bombing and having announcements made repeatedly that Muslim terrorism was suspected. McVeigh did not come to light until later. Few, if any, national or local media outlets first suspected domestic terrorism before Muslim terrorism.

I know that the FBI's budget was cut by the Clinton FY 2000 budget and I definitely recall an outpouring of statements like Blair's the other day regarding the loyalty and lack of suspicion for all Muslims who were not extremist. Again, first person, primary source recollection only.

[sam i am]

sam i am says interesting stuff, I'm glad to read it, and I think qdrop's worship of him is sweet. It's nice to see a newbie get a hearty welcome for once. I think it would interesting to talk about history with him, but so far he hasn't strung together a plan for today that is informed by history. (Listen, I can't do it either.)

The danger in setting someone up as an expert because he has good grammar and can cite a few tangential historical examples is that people will also swallow the complete nonsense buried alongside. JFK was killed because he was a liar? The liberal left was somehow directing the FBI's use of its limited resources pre 9/11? We are supposed to "suppress" all Muslims in the US? ---- They are so dense you could start a thread on any one of them. Conspiracy theories and racism are easier to swallow when presented by someone who is articulate and well read? Oh well, I agree it makes a nice change from the normal spammers.

FYI, I am neither a conspiracy theorist nor a racist. I have nothing against any particular race. I just want to kill off the terrorists who want to try to kill us off in Iraq while building Iraq into an example of what a Middle East democracy can look like with a predominantly Muslim population (because Israel is the orginal Middle East democracy, but they are predominantly Jewish).

I also never advocated suppressing all Muslims in the US - I simply stated that we should have been tracking Muslim extremist cells in the US more closely and that the Oklahoma City bombing caused a backlash against those who (incorrectly) assumed it was Muslim terrorist related originally. FBI resources could not be directed against known cells in the same way they had been PRIOR to Okla. City - just look at the travel rrecords of the 19 terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9/11.

My historical examples have not been tangential - they have been well-researched and spot on. Go back and read them - I promise you'll learn a lot. ;)

The only courtesy I would ask you to extend me Documad is that you don't put words in my mouth as you do above - it makes a mockery of your critiquing of my missives and points out your own sloppiness.

Finally, Qdrop has not always agreed with me. He might be impressed with my ability to effectively convey my point of view (and God knows we needed a good conservative Republican here :rolleyes: ), but he is not a Kool-Aid drinker. I'm sure he'll point out when I trip.... :eek: ;) (y)

P.S. I believe I have strung together a plan for today as informed by history - see what we are doing in Iraq...that's the plan, man....

[sam i am]

i don't think any of us are that naive...give us some credit.

obviously he has no agreement from anyone along the lines of his JFK assasination assessment or his rather vague muslim comments.

Qdrop - I'm disappointed you fell for this from Documad about my so-called "vague" Kennedy and Muslim comments. If you need clarification, please reread the original post and keep it in context. Also, I believe I have refined and clarified much since then, without detracting from orginal points.

The goal of the Left is to isolate and separate those of us not there : don;t let them do it over some challenge to our (mostly) common points of view...

[Documad]

So what did happen in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing? The US had collective angst about how poorly we had treated those poor Muslim Fundamentalists, the FBI backed off on tracking cells in the US, and Al-Qaeda planned and executed 9/11.

Still, in the meantime, we caught, tried, convicted, and executed who actually did it and, before 9/11, Muslims were relatively unhindered again in the US. Oh what a horrible, horrible country we are... :rolleyes:
Aren't you saying that the FBI had been tracking Muslim fundamentalists and that the FBI quit doing so on account of "angst"? I can't imagine what else you could mean. How exactly did "angst" cause the FBI to back off?

I never knew they were tracking Muslim fundamentalists in the first place and I had heard that the FBI's limited resources were tied up in the war on drugs. My friends who work there said that after 9/11 they got a shit load of money and a new direction.

[sam i am]

Aren't you saying that the FBI had been tracking Muslim fundamentalists and that the FBI quit doing so on account of "angst"? I can't imagine what else you could mean. How exactly did "angst" cause the FBI to back off?

I never knew they were tracking Muslim fundamentalists in the first place and I had heard that the FBI's limited resources were tied up in the war on drugs. My friends who work there said that after 9/11 they got a shit load of money and a new direction.

Addressed this on the other thread, but here goes : Do you know what "angst" means? Collective hand-wringing? Oh, we can't possibly classify a subsection of the US populace as "dangerous." We must respect them and not think that just because they go listen to an Imam who espouses extremist views that they might be infected by it.

get it? We WERE suspicious of Al-Qaeda PRIOR to Okla. City and continued to be after, but because McVeigh was caught, we backed off. Were you around and paying attention then?

[bb_bboy]

Talk about vague. Use of the ords : "some," "possibility," "intriguing," "unable to disprove it," "concern," "many," and "proposed" are all exceptionally vague terms.

As far as the FBI's role in the area of terrorism counter-intelligence, I will admit that I am not as well-versed as I would like to be. I recall, as a primary source, watching CNN the day of the Oklahoma City bombing and having announcements made repeatedly that Muslim terrorism was suspected. McVeigh did not come to light until later. Few, if any, national or local media outlets first suspected domestic terrorism before Muslim terrorism.

I know that the FBI's budget was cut by the Clinton FY 2000 budget and I definitely recall an outpouring of statements like Blair's the other day regarding the loyalty and lack of suspicion for all Muslims who were not extremist. Again, first person, primary source recollection only.

Clever. I was hoping for some insight into this. My calling your post vague wasn't meant as an attack, but rather a catalyst for the exchange of more substanital information on the subject.

Your noted displeasure with my source's choice of words (however trivial and debatable) does nothing to address the real point of the cited material (see bold passage in the original statement), just as your 'recollection' of 'possible news broadcasts' does nothing to address my inital inquiry.

[Qdrop]

Qdrop - I'm disappointed you fell for this from Documad about my so-called "vague" Kennedy and Muslim comments. they WERE pretty vague at the time, man.

If you need clarification, please reread the original post and keep it in context. Also, I believe I have refined and clarified much since then, without detracting from orginal points. i understand your points about Muslim targeting/investigation vs. public sensitivity now...and i agree. sensitvity over truth/pragmatism is a bane of our society.

i'm still rather unsure about your Kennedy assessment. you clarified in general by saying that "all liers get thier come-upens" or whatever. fine.

but please tell us exactly what you are refering to when calling Kennedy a lier and how got what he deserved....

actually, i'll start a separate thread about that ...perhaps.

The goal of the Left is to isolate and separate those of us not there don't put that on the Left. that's the goal of the right too.....or ANYONE debating ANYONE else. it's a pretty standard debate tactic. don't label that a "liberal thing".

: don;t let them do it over some challenge to our (mostly) common points of view... i can handle myself. thanks.
and while i agree with many of your opening sentiments...it remains to be seen if we "mostly" agree on everything.

remember, while i'm an indendent centrist....you are talking to a secular, agnostic, pro-choice, alternate life-style supporting, Foxnews hating, Hannity loathing, independant centrist.

[Jasonik]

Why does every thread in this section descend into a personal ideological pseudo-intellectual cock-wagging contest?

The topic of this thread held such promise.

It's too bad the tone of this forum is one of self-puffery and progenerating trite partisan sniping rather than sharing ideas, observation and insight.

The sad thing is that the 'regulars here' think they're so clever when they 'defeat' their foes who don't come back.

[Qdrop]

Why does every thread in this section descend into a personal ideological pseudo-intellectual cock-wagging contest? we're human...and we have egos.
and many of us are naturally defensive....aggression and ideological self-advertisment being our favorite "defense".

and everybody wants to labeled correctly...not mislabeled.

The topic of this thread held such promise. still does.

The sad thing is that the 'regulars here' think they're so clever when they 'defeat' their foes who don't come back. ego is a motherfucker.



if i had a dollar for every adjective you used....i could close on my house that much easier.

[Jasonik]

Some articles I found from a British newspaper regarding the matter.

Article1 (http://www.hookaniggaup.com/images/article1.JPG)
Article2 (http://www.hookaniggaup.com/images/article2.JPG)

[Jasonik]

Thank-you Tungtvann. The Stephen Pollard article says it all.
But terrorism is not a value judgement. It is recognized as a crime against humanity under international law. One of the world's experts on this, Professor Norman Geras of Manchester University, defines it as 'the deliberate targeting of civilians with a view to killing and maiming them and if possible in large numbers'.


I think one of the main reasons the BBC doesn't want to use the 't' word is because 'terrorists are from somewhere else', 'British citizens are bombers not terrorists.

http://browndailysqueal.com/archives/001263.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4677209.stm

[Documad]

Addressed this on the other thread, but here goes : Do you know what "angst" means? Collective hand-wringing? Oh, we can't possibly classify a subsection of the US populace as "dangerous." We must respect them and not think that just because they go listen to an Imam who espouses extremist views that they might be infected by it.

get it? We WERE suspicious of Al-Qaeda PRIOR to Okla. City and continued to be after, but because McVeigh was caught, we backed off. Were you around and paying attention then?
Yeah, I know you have nothing on the FBI. I think it's amusing that you just continue to spin different and bigger circles without saying anything. Maybe you can hoodwink people who know very little but I actually worked in this area at the time and know that you're completely full of shit.

It makes me wonder whether your style actually works for you. I bet it does with people who aren't sure of themselves. I know what simple words mean, I have been around for a long time, and I'm always paying attention. :D Now that I'm sure that you're doing this shit on purpose, you are no longer worth the effort.

[guerillaGardner]

It does seem silly to make a point of not calling them terrorists. Ultimately the main thing is that the BBC reports this whole 'conflict' impartially, fully and without bias. I don't think use of the word 'terrorist' is a major issue in that.

[D_Raay]

Anyone ever thought that just maybe the BBC is purposefully staying away from the fear mongering tactics of our press regardless if it is warranted or not?

If you saw Geraldo Rivera out in his slicker in Hurricane whatever you'd get what I'm saying about fear mongering.

[Ali]

I can't say for sure because it hasn't happened...I hope it never does.

You would be devastated.

[Ali]

Oh, we can't possibly classify a subsection of the US populace as "dangerous." We must respect them and not think that just because they go listen to an Imam who espouses extremist views that they might be infected by it.Is that a fact or an opinion?

Are you saying that an Imam in the US has said things which have been conclusively linked to acts of terror in the US, perpetrated by his followers? What you said above certainly sounds like this (unless you're implying that Islam is the problem, but that would be Religious Intolerance and that's illegal and immoral)

Which Imam and what did he say where and when?

No, I'm not puttng words in your mouth, you have made a very serious insinuation and I'd like to know more about it. We don't want any empty quotes now, do we?

[yeahwho]

i'm starting to truly realize that the strength of the liberal side of this section was carried almost entirely by Ace42 (and D_raay)...

with Ace gone....i'm seeing the glaring hole in the left's ability to make rational, coherant arguments.

a pity.

Thats pretty funny. Your gloating over the "labeled victory" of whom? Your winning what? Is the prize your recieving the current administration running the Country or is it being crass to folks on a message board.

I guess bitching at people is considered a win for common sense folk like you.
The act of terror was carried out by bombers. This thread is an excersise in mental masturbation for the victorious labelers of the BBMB.

If you want to see the word Terrorist in the UK media, you'll find a few thousand different British Reporters using the word terrorist here, UK Google (http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&gl=uk&ie=UTF-8&q=uk+terrorists).

Hey, maybe the prize is you get to ride in Air Force One like Dennis Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Miller).

[Qdrop]

Thats pretty funny. Your gloating over the "labeled victory" of whom? Your winning what? Is the prize your recieving the current administration running the Country or is it being crass to folks on a message board.

I guess bitching at people is considered a win for common sense folk like you.
The act of terror was carried out by bombers. This thread is an excersise in mental masturbation for the victorious labelers of the BBMB.

If you want to see the word Terrorist in the UK media, you'll find a few thousand different British Reporters using the word terrorist here, UK Google (http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&gl=uk&ie=UTF-8&q=uk+terrorists).

Hey, maybe the prize is you get to ride in Air Force One like Dennis Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Miller).

the fuck are you talking about?
i was referring to the BBMB political board. nothing else.
calm down.
you're just jealous cause i didn't mention you.

[bb_bboy]

Should we call members of the KKK "Southern Fighters"?

(I don't think so)

The KKK actually exists both north and south of the "Mason-Dixon Line", so your strained analogy is in fact useless.

Or perhaps it is the perfect example of the subtleties of language that you continually fail to grasp.

[Documad]

Why does every thread in this section descend into a personal ideological pseudo-intellectual cock-wagging contest?
I don't have a cock.

[Medellia]

Why does every thread in this section descend into a personal ideological pseudo-intellectual cock-wagging contest?
Hey, I don't do that! Mainly because my cock is in England. :/

[sam i am]

I put this in a separate post to distance it from the jerking off comments above. :)



Should Muslims be hindered just for being Muslims? Should they have been hindered in say 2000? Based upon what? How should they be hindered? Because that's not what the US has ever been about right? Or are you going to give me a history lesson on how we locked up the Japanese citizens during WWII now? But we never locked up our German citizens?


I don't remember this national angst and I'm generally atuned to angst--especially if it's driven by race. Remind me please how did this national angst manifest itself and how did it actually affect the FBI? Are you saying that someone ordered the FBI to investigate all kinds of other suspect people but to leave Muslims alone? Are you saying that the FBI should not have investigated white crazy militia types post Oklahoma City? It seems sad but natural that law enforcement is always working on the last problem rather than anticipating the next.

I figured that the FBI was stretched pretty thin pre 9/11 because they were spending all their time investigating drug crimes (with a batch of bank robberies thrown in). And their computers were out of date and they were unable to share database info with local law enforcement etc. And it seemed like there was a focus on missing/exploited children and profiling when that was in fashion. But that was all because someone (Clinton? Bush?) told them to lay off the Muslims? :rolleyes:

OK Documad - here you go...

http://www.ampolitics.ghazali.net/html/abdel_fattah.html

http://www.islamicity.com/recognitions/SanJose/

http://www.weeklyplanet.com/2001-09-27/cover.html

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/senate_proc091201.htm (look especially at "senator" Kerry's comments - enlightening!)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28400

http://cmcla.org/articles/terrorized.htm

http://fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror99.pdf

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0920-08.htm

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticles.asp?ID=15021

NONE of these are blogs.....

[sam i am]

Yeah, I know you have nothing on the FBI. I think it's amusing that you just continue to spin different and bigger circles without saying anything. Maybe you can hoodwink people who know very little but I actually worked in this area at the time and know that you're completely full of shit.

It makes me wonder whether your style actually works for you. I bet it does with people who aren't sure of themselves. I know what simple words mean, I have been around for a long time, and I'm always paying attention. :D Now that I'm sure that you're doing this shit on purpose, you are no longer worth the effort.

Documad - you arrogant prick : see the above links. Put THAT in your "I am SO superior" pipe and smoke you self-righteous, pitiful little woman! :eek:

[sam i am]

Is that a fact or an opinion?

Are you saying that an Imam in the US has said things which have been conclusively linked to acts of terror in the US, perpetrated by his followers? What you said above certainly sounds like this (unless you're implying that Islam is the problem, but that would be Religious Intolerance and that's illegal and immoral)

Which Imam and what did he say where and when?

No, I'm not puttng words in your mouth, you have made a very serious insinuation and I'd like to know more about it. We don't want any empty quotes now, do we?

Ali - ironically, after you posted this drivel, it HAS come out that those who carried out the London bombings WERE listening to IMAM's in Britain and they WERE influenced to carry out their TERRORISM by that spewing from their "Religious" leaders.

I LOVE it when it is so EASY to PROVE you wrong in your own words... ;)

[Qdrop]

Hey, I don't do that! Mainly because my cock is in England. :/

are you board coupling with ACE?!

[Ali]

Ali - ironically, after you posted this drivel, it HAS come out that those who carried out the London bombings WERE listening to IMAM's in Britain and they WERE influenced to carry out their TERRORISM by that spewing from their "Religious" leaders.

I LOVE it when it is so EASY to PROVE you wrong in your own words... ;)Don't change the subject when you can't produce the goods.

I asked about Imams in the US, not UK.

Most Imams in the UK have denounced (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=gmail&q=imam%20britain%20bombers) the bombings, bar one or two crazies, like Omar Bakri Mohammed, who has been banned from preaching in public and condemned by the MAJORITY of UK Muslims.

Waiting for those links...

P.S. you owe documand and the rest of the female posters an apology, you chauvanist wanker.

[D_Raay]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15961272%255E663,00.html

BRITISH police are considering the possibility that the four key suspects in last week's London attacks may have been tricked into setting off their bombs, a British newspaper has reported.

"We do not have hard evidence that the men were suicide bombers," a Scotland Yard spokesman told The Sunday Telegraph.

"It is possible that they did not intend to die."

According to the paper, one police hypothesis is that the bombers were tricked by a "master" who told them they would have time to escape -- when in fact the devices were set to go off immediately.

"The bombers' masters might have thought that they couldn't risk the four men being caught and spilling everything to British interrogators," an unnamed security official told the newspaper.

Lending weight to the theory is the fact that all four men paid their parking tickets before boarding a train at Luton for King's Cross, and they all had bought return tickets.

Moreover, the paper said, the men carried the explosives in rucksacks, not strapped to their bodies as is common practice among suicide bombers.

None were reported to have cried "Allah Akbar" (God is Greatest) before setting off their charge -- something most Middle Eastern suicide bombers do.

Police have based their theory that the attacks were suicide bombings largely around the fact that all four suspects died in the attacks.

The fact that one of the bombers was decapitated -- a common outcome for suicide bombers -- is also seen as supporting the theory, as well as the fact that investigators discovered no timer devices.

-----
The importance of this development is that the mainstream media is now reacting to the investigative work done by the blogs. The blogs point out the logical flaws in the official story, and the mainstream media rushes to explain it all away. As a result, the mainstream media is dancing all over the place with the ever-changing story and even those MSM readers and viewers who do not use the Internet are realizing something is very wrong with the official story.

[marsdaddy]

I didn't read all of this thread, so I apologize in advance but I saw something this weekend about the Brits calling the people responsible bombers and not terrorists that was too funny and on point. London Calling. (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/17/PKGJNCEUEU1.DTL)

"The stoic Brits are both amused and bemused by our grandstanding. One smarty-pants has even responded with an online petition, where Londoners can sign a formal apology for upsetting Americans with their calamity. "

:)

[59 Chrystie St.]

IT'S AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION THAT IS BEING LOOKED INTO...IT'S AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION THAT IS BEING LOOKED INTO...IT'S AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION THAT IS BEING LOOKED INTO...IT'S AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION THA IS BEING LOOKED INTO...

Sound familiar ???

[sam i am]

Don't change the subject when you can't produce the goods.

I asked about Imams in the US, not UK.

Most Imams in the UK have denounced (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=gmail&q=imam%20britain%20bombers) the bombings, bar one or two crazies, like Omar Bakri Mohammed, who has been banned from preaching in public and condemned by the MAJORITY of UK Muslims.

Waiting for those links...

P.S. you owe documand and the rest of the female posters an apology, you chauvanist wanker.

The links are above, wanker. Look before thou speakest next time... :rolleyes:

Just because you want to frame the conversation so you can ATTEMPT to back me into a corner does not give you the right to call me names.

Is it really so far fetched, in your global conspiracy, the US government lies, world to see that the same thing could happen in the US that happened in the UK? If second-generation Pakistani-Brits could be raised in that society, but set off bombs anyways, where do you think they got the ideas? The ether?

Finally, I am NOT a chauvanist. I have proven, over and over again, throughout all of my posts, that I am a true-blue feminist. Don't stereotype me and I won't stereotype you, OK?

[Medellia]

are you board coupling with ACE?!
Hahaha, no. It was just a dumb joke that for some reason I couldn't edit.

[Ali]

The links are above, wanker. Look before thou speakest next time... :rolleyes: Where? In your reply to documad? Where you say, "here you go documd"? Are those for me? Which ones? I don't have time to sift through them all and from what I hear, they're pretty ropey links.

Just because you want to frame the conversation so you can ATTEMPT to back me into a corner does not give you the right to call me names. Like "lying little shit" or "self-righteous, pitiful little woman"? You have absolutely no room to talk, Mr Pot.

Is it really so far fetched, in your global conspiracy, the US government lies, world to see that the same thing could happen in the US that happened in the UK? If second-generation Pakistani-Brits could be raised in that society, but set off bombs anyways, where do you think they got the ideas? The ether?

Finally, I am NOT a chauvanist. I have proven, over and over again, throughout all of my posts, that I am a true-blue feminist. Don't stereotype me and I won't stereotype you, OK?Still skirting the issue

[D_Raay]

You guys are careening into the partisan hackery realm.

Can't we have rational discussions? left right left right left right...

I dunno but I've been told, partisan hackery gets mighty old

[Documad]

You guys are careening into the partisan hackery realm.

Can't we have rational discussions? left right left right left right...

I dunno but I've been told, partisan hackery gets mighty old

Yeah, there's always a dilemna about whether to go off on a tangent and discuss silly factual inaccuracies or whether to ignore them and stay on topic. I too often go off on a tangent because I am just sick to death of the stuff people let slide on the radio and television. If you let people repeat a lie often enough it seems to become accepted as the truth.

The people involved in this meet my definition of terrorist (as did the IRA), but I think the Brits are lucky to have a news organization that wants some proof before broadcasting. The US's talking heads tend to go on the air and guess out loud because they can't bring themselves to admit they don't know anything yet.

[Documad]

I've read most of the 68 page FBI report now and skimmed the whole thing. I didn't see anything showing the FBI backed off pre 9/11 due to liberal angst. I have to say that I didn't expect to find it.

In between Oklahoma City and 9/11 I had a very minor role regarding a group that prepared for terrorist attacks. They talked about lots of scary stuff that was actually worse than what happened on 9/11. They didn't forecast what actually happened. I don't blame them. They were doing their job but they guessed wrong.

I was working at a courthouse when Oklahoma City happened. Prior to Oklahoma City we worried about people bringing guns to divorce court. After Oklahoma City we started hearing about the safety of the BUILDING. New courthouses are built differently today. After 9/11 we have more security at airports. After the London bombs they've apparently had more security on our passenger trains here. It's human nature and the nature of law enforcement to invest resources in fighting the past battle. I think because it's too god damn hard to forecast the next.

[Freebasser]

BRITISH police are considering the possibility that the four key suspects in last week's London attacks may have been tricked into setting off their bombs, a British newspaper has reported.

I found that post quite chilling. I noticed how on the CCTV footage of the four of them, one was carrying a plastic bag containing what appeared to be a drink or something else from a newsagents.

At the time I thought to myself, if you were going to blow yourself up, would you be concerned about whether or not you'd had a packet of monster munch beforehand?

It could well be that they thought they would be leaving their backpacks on the train and getting off at the next station. Yep, chilling :(

[Jasonik]

You guys are careening into the partisan hackery realm.

(!)

British Muslims issue fatwa against bombings


London - More than 500 British Muslim leaders and scholars condemned the killing of innocent people in the London terror attacks and said suicide bombings were "vehemently prohibited".

The British Muslim Forum issued the fatwa, or formal legal opinion, as more than 50 Muslim religious leaders from around Britain stood outside the houses of parliament on Monday to hear it read out.

The religious decree expressed condolences to the families of the 56 people killed in the bombings of three subway trains and a bus on July 7 and wished the hundreds injured a speedy recovery.

It said Islam condemns the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives, adding that suicide bombings are "vehemently prohibited". Police suspect the attacks were carried out by Islamist suicide bombers.

BMF secretary general Gul Mohammad quoted the Qur'an saying: "Whoever kills a human being... then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life it is as though he had saved all mankind."

He went on: "Islam's position is clear and unequivocal: murder of one soul is the murder of the whole of humanity; he who shows no respect for human life is an enemy of humanity.

"We pray for the defeat of extremism and terrorism in the world."

"We pray for peace, security and harmony to triumph in multicultural Great Britain."

The BMF is an umbrella group launched in March with nearly 300 mosques affiliated to it.

The fatwa, which will be read out in mosques across the country on Friday, comes before Prime Minister Tony Blair was to meet with leaders of Britain's 1.6 million-strong Muslim community to recruit their support. - Sapa-AFP-AP

* This article was originally published on page 4 of The Daily News (http://www.dailynews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=2630848) on July 19, 2005
-------------------------
Incidentally John McCain on Jay Leno last night suggested Muslim leaders should issue just such a fatwa. (lb)

[ms.peachy]

The importance of this development is that the mainstream media is now reacting to the investigative work done by the blogs. The blogs point out the logical flaws in the official story, and the mainstream media rushes to explain it all away. As a result, the mainstream media is dancing all over the place with the ever-changing story and even those MSM readers and viewers who do not use the Internet are realizing something is very wrong with the official story.
I don't know that I agree with your assessment of that story. The fact is that when something like this happens, things are bound to shift as new information enters the filter.

There are definitely things about the whole situation that make me think, "Hmmm...." and I can allow for the possibility that maybe the 'they didn't know they were on a suicide mission' theory is worth looking into further. (Mind you, I am not making any allowances for these fuckers on that basis. They can all still rot in hell.) But here are a few things that strike me as... well, they just strike me:
- the one guy had a wife who was 8 months pregnant. Now, regardless of how comitted you may be to your god and your politics, to leave her in the position she is in now...?
- the reports of the behaviour of the guy on the bus. From the witness descriptions, it seems he may have been frantically trying to deactivate the device. Several people reported hearing an anguished scream just before the blast, like this guy just realised he was in for it.

[sam i am]

(!)

British Muslims issue fatwa against bombings


London - More than 500 British Muslim leaders and scholars condemned the killing of innocent people in the London terror attacks and said suicide bombings were "vehemently prohibited".

The British Muslim Forum issued the fatwa, or formal legal opinion, as more than 50 Muslim religious leaders from around Britain stood outside the houses of parliament on Monday to hear it read out.

The religious decree expressed condolences to the families of the 56 people killed in the bombings of three subway trains and a bus on July 7 and wished the hundreds injured a speedy recovery.

It said Islam condemns the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives, adding that suicide bombings are "vehemently prohibited". Police suspect the attacks were carried out by Islamist suicide bombers.

BMF secretary general Gul Mohammad quoted the Qur'an saying: "Whoever kills a human being... then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life it is as though he had saved all mankind."

He went on: "Islam's position is clear and unequivocal: murder of one soul is the murder of the whole of humanity; he who shows no respect for human life is an enemy of humanity.

"We pray for the defeat of extremism and terrorism in the world."

"We pray for peace, security and harmony to triumph in multicultural Great Britain."

The BMF is an umbrella group launched in March with nearly 300 mosques affiliated to it.

The fatwa, which will be read out in mosques across the country on Friday, comes before Prime Minister Tony Blair was to meet with leaders of Britain's 1.6 million-strong Muslim community to recruit their support. - Sapa-AFP-AP

* This article was originally published on page 4 of The Daily News (http://www.dailynews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=2630848) on July 19, 2005
-------------------------
Incidentally John McCain on Jay Leno last night suggested Muslim leaders should issue just such a fatwa. (lb)

GREAT POST! This is FANTASTIC news. Love it that leaders are standing up for what's right.

BTW, I read an article in the Washington Post today that stated that "Muslim leaders believe 1% of Muslims are radicals...." Out of a population of 1.2 billion, that translates to 1.2 million radicals. Does anyone else, and I am genuinely asking this, have different data on this?

I'd love to have something to go by....thanks in advance for your help

[sam i am]

You guys are careening into the partisan hackery realm.

Can't we have rational discussions? left right left right left right...

I dunno but I've been told, partisan hackery gets mighty old


Good point. I'll go back to my positive optimism and WILL NOT devolve into partisan "hackery" again. Promise, D_Raay...much respect

[Documad]

I was also puzzled to hear that family reported them missing. And there was no family party or feast or whatever to celebrate their accomplishment (as is sometimes the case in the middle east).

[ms.peachy]

Just an FYI - not in the name of peace (http://www.notinthenameofpeace.com/)

Worth a look.

[D_Raay]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/britainattacksiran;_ylt=Aha4auf_GM6q5wPMB2Bj6fkDW7 oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

LONDON (AFP) - Britain protested furiously to
Iran over comments by a leading Iranian politician that the London bombings might have been deliberately carried out by the British government.

One possible reason for the July 7 attacks, in which at least 56 people died, "is that the British government itself created this situation", Ahmad Janati, a cleric who chairs the powerful Guardians Council, said Friday in a nationally broadcast sermon.

"These allegations are insulting and ridiculous," a spokesman for the Foreign Office in London said in a strongly-worded statement.

"It is a shame that a recent official letter of condolence over the bombings from the Iranian embassy in London and condemnations by Iranian government spokesmen in Tehran have been followed by such irresponsible statements," the spokesman said.

The Foreign Office had "protested strongly" to the Iranian ambassador in London, he added.

Janati suggested in his sermon that the British government might have carried out the bombings, and that the United States also perpetrated the September 11, 2001 attacks, to justify foreign wars.

"To understand who is behind these events, you need to look at who profits from them," he said.

"It's the Americans who profited from September 11 and today it's the British who are profiting from these attacks.

"They say that it's to fight terrorism that they have to go to
Afghanistan,
Iraq and elsewhere, and that's how they justify their presence in those countries."

[sam i am]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/britainattacksiran;_ylt=Aha4auf_GM6q5wPMB2Bj6fkDW7 oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

LONDON (AFP) - Britain protested furiously to
Iran over comments by a leading Iranian politician that the London bombings might have been deliberately carried out by the British government.

One possible reason for the July 7 attacks, in which at least 56 people died, "is that the British government itself created this situation", Ahmad Janati, a cleric who chairs the powerful Guardians Council, said Friday in a nationally broadcast sermon.

"These allegations are insulting and ridiculous," a spokesman for the Foreign Office in London said in a strongly-worded statement.

"It is a shame that a recent official letter of condolence over the bombings from the Iranian embassy in London and condemnations by Iranian government spokesmen in Tehran have been followed by such irresponsible statements," the spokesman said.

The Foreign Office had "protested strongly" to the Iranian ambassador in London, he added.

Janati suggested in his sermon that the British government might have carried out the bombings, and that the United States also perpetrated the September 11, 2001 attacks, to justify foreign wars.

"To understand who is behind these events, you need to look at who profits from them," he said.

"It's the Americans who profited from September 11 and today it's the British who are profiting from these attacks.

"They say that it's to fight terrorism that they have to go to
Afghanistan,
Iraq and elsewhere, and that's how they justify their presence in those countries."

What do YOU think, D_Raay?

[D_Raay]

What do YOU think, D_Raay?
I am afraid I do not have the knowledge needed to comment much further. On situations like this I feel I should bring in what other sides may be saying. It's only fair after all... The thing that I HATE is when they try to force feed a pre-conceived notion to us and then roll their eyes when we dare to question it.