London Terror Attacks

You —

well it seems there have been multiple blasts there today.

I feel for all the dead, their families and friends.

Please read The Revival Press Release. I agree with it and am not repeating those points in this post.

Barring coincidence what who could have done it?

The possibilities:

1. Al Qaeda related
2. Anarchists related to the G8
3. IRA angry at being forcefully sidelined in N.I
4. Gov to push ID cards through.
5. The French retaliating for losing the bid.

Number 4 and 5 are for the conspiracy theorists and virtually implausible.

I would like to believe it has no link to 1. However, currently it is the most likely due to the nature of the attacks, and that a group linking itself to Alqaedah has claimed responsibility.

It is a terrible loss of life. However we must not forget innocent people are dying around the world. The families, friends and acquaintances of those people are also suffering. We must make sure our own goverment is not responsible for those deaths.

If any good can come of this terrible act, it may be allowing britons feel what others have felt for a long time and hold our government to account.

(If you have not figured it out, I lay this squarely at the feet of Bliar for making us a target of international terrorism).

EDIT

It seems my original post was seen as abit heartless and innappropriate. I have edited it.

Forum
General

100 — Sat, 9 Jul 2005 - 16:43

This e-mail was forwarded to me by Alif-Aleph UK, which is run by Richard Stone and Imam Abduljalil Sajid (and there may be others I haven't met). I would like to be able to link their website but there isn't one yet, as I get more involved I'll make sure you hear about it.

Dear Colleague,

You will be aware of the tragic incidents in London yesterday morning.
The Commission for Racial Equality through the Safe Communities
Initiaitve have set up an observatory to monitor any possible community
tensions that may arise as a result of this incident. We have already
been informed of the petrol bombing of a Sikh temple last night.

We would appreciate it if you could report back to us any community
conflict incidents that occur in the coming days and weeks as a result
of any localised heightened tensions between communities. We will be
feeding our information into Government Departments.

Please forward any information to Alexander Goldberg:
agoldberg@cre.gov.uk

Please feel free to pass this onto other community groups.

Many thanks in advance for all your help and support.

The Safe Communities Initiative

Safe Communities Initiative

Commission for Racial Equality

St Dunstan's House

201-211 Borough High Street

London SE1 1GZ

tel: 020 7939 0178

fax: 020 7939 0001

www.cre.gov.uk

Those articles were an excellent pick. Is Irfan a beautiful man or what? There's your Ghandi.

100 — Sat, 9 Jul 2005 - 17:07

Aasiyah

100! y r u swearing at ppl? chil out mate!

Oh dear. I was frantic wasn't I? Sorry about that. No offense, unless you're a paid up BNP/NF supporter by any chance...

Khan,

I'm only here briefly now, when I write Shabbat Shalom (Good Shabbos) as yesterday it usually means I'm outa here, for the record.

I don't see what Netanyahu being told, immediately by someone at Scotland Yard, that there had been an explosion, has to do with any conspiracy theories, unless you like making up theories about Jews, or about Israelis. Visiting Israeli officials are gonna be pretty high up on the list of people to call, and I think many other things were happening simultaneously, they didn't pack up all the other services and activities while someone got on the phone to their Jewish mate, which is the only implication I can think of, that explains what you find suspicious, this time.

Also I daresay I've emphatically disproved your claim: "ive also read numerous news articles of how the Israelis refused to comment after the netinyahoo slip up,.. " since we've got a retraction by the author half an hour after she wrote it, and numerous Israeli sources. But you are in denial, yanking my chain. Basically, did you have a source - specifically, that throughout the day Israel was refusing to comment on the story, which isn't the case - or do you make stuff up? When you call me on a claim I back it up. It's because I'm straight-talking. So far, you don't.

I'm a really serious guy a lot of the time, and I've been through this to some degree when I was posting a lot more around the web, swaying a little left, a little right, that one day you will realise your words are more important than you ever knew, and regret some things you've been saying.

Or you won't and I'll learn to distrust your remarks, and accept that in anonymity we can claim some weak rapport but no real understanding of each other. You called bin Laden apparently humble, and said there is no credible evidence his claims are true. But with a hmmm and any given fact you're happy to implicate whoever takes your fancy. I don't get it, or like I say you're not serious.

If you're responding please make it very lengthy for when I return. There's a lot you never addressed. And don't go accusing me of cornering you either, or claiming 'it's answered'. Because, er, blooming heck, man...

khan — Sat, 9 Jul 2005 - 22:44

seems like ur in denial mate,.. sorry geeza.. i aint jewish, therefore dont respond to jewish words.. english is all good.

ive posted several news stories.. ive never come up with no conspiracy theories..

just a few hmmms.. unfortunatly u aint provided no arguments to turn the hmmms.. into an 'aaaah..'

just jibberish.. i still dont see why ur bringing bin laden into it.. u stupid or summit, ur jewish, god fearing.. be honest with urself.. dont be a prat and try and paint a false picture of Muslims.. ur god does not tell u to lie.. for u to make an assumption it was Muslims.. makes me laugh and pity fools like u.

fact remains, Netinyahu was warned of his safety waaaay before the residents of London..

no matter how u look at it... it sucks..

u said other people were warned before the british public? tell me who.. or was that u again?

You — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 00:19

Everyone calm down.

If anyone WAS warned before the people that is absolutely shocking and awful.

Every life is worth the same.

100 — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 00:24

khan,

I'm not into persistent hmming, it's maybe for untrusting losers with time on their hands. I've no commitment whatsoever to 'prove to khan' whatever it takes to stop the sickmusic coming out. The way it works is, you make a point, any point, and you back it up, and acknowledge whatever you've been shown, and there's a clear purpose.

You repeat, slighty modified, and with no apparent regret in the revision, your original, refuted claim. But don't ask me for anything at all. Back it up.

fact remains, Netinyahu was warned of his safety waaaay before the residents of London..

Does it?

btw Admin, what kind of ridiculous position is that? Can you back up sickmusic's claims one iota?

You — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 00:26

what position?

If you mean something someone else wrote, I do not know.

If you mean something I wrote, please elaborate. I don't understand what you mean.

100 — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 00:28

I mean, an unwarranted Everyone calm down followed by an interpretation of sickmusic's claim. Have you any cause to think it?

You — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 00:40

100I mean, an unwarranted Everyone calm down followed by an interpretation of sickmusic's claim. Have you any cause to think it?

'Everyone calm down'

^^Self explanatory really. People are becoming almost accusatory.

'The Rest'

^^ well if its true that some were warned before others, I think that is wrong. I have no idea wether happened or not. I do not have any assumption on this.

However if it did happen, it may have cost the lives of those who were not warned.

PS was he warned? anyone have sources?

You — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 00:43

Also on a related note 20,000 people have been evacuated from central Birmingham.

There have also been reports of controlled explosions.

100 — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 00:46

One other thing khan. It's a nice thing I do, wishing you all and other people Shabbat Shalom before I vanish on a Friday. I told you what it means, because a few times now I've been asked further questions by you after saying it, so I thought you would like to know. It means have a nice weekend. (You could even go to some trouble and look something up... not to satisy petty curiosity, but for somebody else's sake. It's a piece of cake, same as if you're at all credible, everything I ask you is). I've asked you some questions you didn't answer. Don't be a cagey tit. Something about I saying I'm in denial by telling you the meaning of Shabbat Shalom. I'm starting to believe it.

100 — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 00:49

Admin,

Becoming this or that, who cares. I accuse you of being a decent human being, see? Not sickmusic, at this precise moment.

"I must say, if all Muslims are terrorists, and I'm only saying if...well it is dreadful..." How does that kind of arrogant, slimy bs sit with you?

You — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 01:00

100Admin,

Becoming this or that, who cares. I accuse you of being a decent human being, see? Not sickmusic, at this precise moment.

"I must say, if all Muslims are terrorists, and I'm only saying if...well it is dreadful..." How does that kind of arrogant, slimy bs sit with you?

I now understand where you are coming from.

However this situation is slightly different. Someone (I do not know, I have not read far back enough into this topic) suggested Netanyahu amongst others was informed about this situation before the public were.

I do not know the validity of this claim. Thus answering both sides.

So in your example if someone stated 'all muslims are terrorists.' you could respond 'if that is the case it's awful'. Its all about context. its still arrogant I grant you that. My mistake.

I thank you for thinking of me as a decent human.

What you must remember is everything such an event happens we always have to prove ourselves again. I do not like to be on the defense. Neither do many others.

After Oklahoma noone asked christians to prove themselves to be citizens of the USA.

100 — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 01:12

Admin,

I for one require nobody to prove themselves anything. I want khan to back up his claims. Somebody linked the story, followed by I think Irfan saying cue conspiracy theories and since then sickie's been doing all the running for conspiracy, which is very little effort on his part and apparently a waste on mine, including rooting through AP articles to find what I thought might put his mind at ease, because it's foul to put these theories about and then they have to be addressed if we're to have any understanding again.

Anyway thanks for clarifying. I can see you were seeking some balance. But it does rather validate sickmusic's credibility, and the claim still wants backing up. Admin, very straight, not hyperbole: otherwise khan was just telling me lies, and that's not funny. One claim is that he had sources showing Israel refused to rebut the claim. But I showed him his own source just half an hour later produced what was both a revision and an Israeli rebuttal of her first report. That closes that. But is he sorry for telling me he had a source, actually multiple sources? No, he's now saying, Netanyahu got the first warning. That's out of nowhere, except he hasn't got his head around this. Lying. To me.

salaf — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 01:18

Admin
After Oklahoma noone asked christians to prove themselves to be citizens of the USA.

The anti-government christians in America aren't a minority though whereas muslims in Britain are.

100 — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 02:03

salaf,

1) Nobody's being asked to prove their allegiance.

2) Christian Americans being the majority, makes that a group with massive parameters. It means nothing to affirm or question the loyalty of such a majority, but no call had gone out to white christians everywhere to have any particular involvement. Big difference. Whereas in Pakistan, you might look for your attacker among whites, but it's hardly narrowing anything down if you're just specifying Asian.

3) Please furnish your comments with a few extra words. They're ambiguously brief.

salaf — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 02:19

2) Christian Americans being the majority, makes that a group with massive parameters.

Hence "anti-government christians". This is a real section of the american population not some make believe phantom. Dislike of the federal government runs strong in many of the middle states.

*DUST* — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 02:43

1001) Nobody's being asked to prove their allegiance.

i don't think thats necessarily true 100...

after 9/11 there was a backlash against the muslim community who were accused of "pandering to the Islamic terrorists" because our leaders apparently hadn't condemned the attacks enough.
so this time around they went on the offensive, as it were, and condemned the attacks as quickly as other religious leaders, if not faster, and rightly so.
but what i dislike about it is the way non-muslims expect this of our community - the way i see it, terrorists are not from my religion so i shouldnt have to "apologise" for their idiotic acts. Islam does not, in any way shape or form, condone such barbaric acts of killing innocent civilians... if some twisted people want to use the name of our peace-loving religion in their quest for destruction, then i hate them all the more and so detest being linked to them in any way.

You — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 04:01

100salaf,

1) Nobody's being asked to prove their allegiance.

Thats not how I feel. You may not be asking, but others certainly are. Its the way it is portrayed; 'muslims have come out against this attack to make sure there are no vendettas against them'. I am sorry, but the attacks are wrong. They were not condemned to avoid any backlash, but because the events are wrong. Big difference.

2) Christian Americans being the majority, makes that a group with massive parameters. It means nothing to affirm or question the loyalty of such a majority, but no call had gone out to white christians everywhere to have any particular involvement. Big difference. Whereas in Pakistan, you might look for your attacker among whites, but it's hardly narrowing anything down if you're just specifying Asian.

Muslims brits, being a large community (2 million?) makes that a group with massive parameters. It means nothing to affirm or question the loyalty of such a large population. See?

Calling is different in different cultures. In the US the 'fatwas' are papers written by neocons (why are they not called extremists?) advising preemptive action against soveriegn states. Its heeded from the top down.

I find your argument weak.

3) Please furnish your comments with a few extra words. They're ambiguously brief.

Ambiguous? I did not realise. what is ambiguous? I try to be straight to the point.

Omrow — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 13:23

Israel Denies Mideast Strife, Terror Link

By DANIELLE HAAS, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM - Israeli officials on Sunday rejected British Prime Minister Tony Blair's contention that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is one of the underlying causes of terrorism, saying the London bombings were part of a wider terrorist war on Western countries.
Israeli officials have long stressed the global nature of terror, apparently wary that a connection between attacks in Europe or the United States and Middle East policy could increase pressure on Israel to resolve its conflict with the Palestinians.
Israeli Vice Premier Ehud Olmert said Sunday that "the terrorists operating in London last week were doing it as part of a comprehensive terrorist war against the Western civilization similar to what they've done in America, similar to what they've done in Spain."
Cabinet Minister Matan Vilnai said democracies including Israel are being targeted by terror. "We are part of it and the whole free world is now part of it," he said.
In a weekend interview on BBC Radio, Blair said it was crucial to address terrorism's underlying causes, which he identified as deprivation, lack of democracy and ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
"I think this type of terrorism has very deep roots. As well as dealing with the consequences of this — trying to protect ourselves as much as any civil society can — you have to try to pull it up by its roots," Blair said. He added that this meant boosting understanding between people of different religions, helping people in the Middle East see a path to democracy and easing the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said that Blair had "touched reality and spoke strategically of the need to deal with the problems of this region."
"I believe a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not involve reinventing the wheel. We all know the parameters. We all the know that this is going to be a two-state solution. We all know that Israel needs to end its occupation and secondly we need to see democracy in this region," he said.

100 — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 15:01

Admin, being asked to state your allegiance is not being asked to prove it. Also big difference. Another one - are you Salaf? I addressed those remarks to Salaf, hence with the third point. Salaf wrote

Admin wrote:

After Oklahoma noone asked christians to prove themselves to be citizens of the USA.

The anti-government christians in America aren't a minority though whereas muslims in Britain are.

And I called his remark ambiguously brief. Doesn't matter.

I take your point that it's important to know the difference between defensive condemnations and genuine shock. Fine. I think that's different from complaining about it. We've discussed a lot of implications here, and one is that Muslims, like anyone, define themselves to people by living around people, doing stuff. And the values of Islam, and the values of Muslims, may be seen as a whole. And I gather in this instance, some Muslims have brought shame upon the name of Islam. And therefore you might also like to say some stuff beyond expressions of immediate shock. The fact it's for your sake doesn't make everyone else villains. But you don't have to. Everything's cool.

(I think your point about Bush's conservative republican 'neocons' is random and totally out of context. I have no other comment on that. I reject as absurd your claim that Muslims in the UK are a comparable demographic in terms of percentage of overall population to Christians in the USA.)

It would be nice if khan fancied clearing up what's been going on with his comments.

Aasiyah,

I hope my comments to Admin cover the complaint. Obviously the other stuff you wrote is cool. I don't need you to tell me that. Like I said, you've nothing to prove. I keep saying over and over, if anything, you should be taking the dialogue to those particular factions of your community. At least that's constructive. It's not about proof. It's not about anything, do what you like.

Omrow,

I agree more or less with Erekat, or at least, although he made no mention of what the PA must do to ensure border security and anti-terrorism, including not paying for terrorism, I agree with his approach to dialogue and promotion of two states, and I support Sharon's activities in taking anti-terrorist action while securing divides properly and withdrawing from areas Israel can concede without agreement. Israel's position has been stated in many ways. The first manifestation was Sharon making sure his cabinet didn't draw too many direct links, this was Britain's affair and it doesn't do for Israel to go, 'see, see' or anything. It would be possible to demarcate that crisis. There are far bigger wars all over the place. Now today the cabinet is being less detached about it, which I don't especially agree with, but they are describing this from a strategic point of view they do believe - Israel has been facing a particularly random threat for several years. The 'underlying causes' of anti-western and anti-Israeli terror are strictly distinct, but the aggressive underlying ideologies are near-identical. Obviously that's why I support Erekat overcoming it. But the fact remains Erekat's leadership is still very limited indeed, and he cannot take the reigns of opposition to modern jihad singlehandedly by any means.

100 — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 19:45

Revival Editor,

Very disturbing news. I hope the community is putting measures in place to deter racists. Unquestionably those are nasty pricks who appreciate any opportunity to unleash vile behaviour and will now be drawing the link between all of Islam and the terrorists' jihad. In the experience of the Jewish community you can't be all-seeing but you can certainly be vigilant. Pricks.

Wonder what that NF guy has to say.

btw Salaf, thanks for expanding. I dispute your claim off the top of my head but, I now understand what you were saying.

100 — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 - 23:07

khan believes some stupid stuff but I know he can be great. I've no personal gripe with him although I either cannot stand or take seriously some of the stuff he reads, hears and speculates. ftr

Beast — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 - 11:20

Downing Street rejects call for inquiry

Downing Street has rejected a call by Michael Howard yesterday for a full inquiry into possible security failures before the London bombings.

In a television interview, the Conservative leader said: "Let's look again at our arrangements, let's have an inquiry into what happened and whether anything more could have been done."

In a separate development, the Guardian has learned that MI5 is to conduct an internal investigation into the bombings to try to establish how the terrorists avoided detection.

Security and intelligence officials said yesterday they had "absolutely nothing to hide" and described MI5, the domestic security service, as a "self-critical organisation".

They added: "[MI5] wants to find out how this got through".

Mr Howard, speaking on BBC News 24, said it was too early to say whether the government had made mistakes in its handling of the attacks: "The inquiry we have asked for is an inquiry into what happened, what went wrong."

Guardian

100 — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 - 12:23

There are a lot of ways of ascribing causes, from political affiliation to ideological belief to personal issues and personal gain and so on. This is Amir Taheri on their motives:

And this is why they did it
Amir Taheri
There is no way to reason with the terrorists, but the thinking behind their actions is perfectly clear

THE FIRST QUESTION that comes to mind is: what took them so long? The answer may be that in the past four years the British authorities have succeeded in preventing attacks on a number of occasions. David Blunkett, who was then Home Secretary, was often mocked for suggesting that this was the case.

It may take some time before the full identity of the attackers is established. But the ideology that motivates them, the networks that sustain them and the groups that finance them are all too well known.

Moments after yesterday’s attacks my telephone was buzzing with requests for interviews with one recurring question: but what do they want? That reminded me of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker, who was shot by an Islamist assassin on his way to work in Amsterdam last November. According to witnesses, Van Gogh begged for mercy and tried to reason with his assailant. “Surely we can discuss this,” he kept saying as the shots kept coming. “Let us talk it over.”

Van Gogh, who had angered Islamists with his documentary about the mistreatment of women in Islam, was reacting like BBC reporters did yesterday, assuming that the man who was killing him may have some reasonable demands which could be discussed in a calm, democratic atmosphere.

But sorry, old chaps, you are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it his divine duty to kill you.

The ideological soil in which alQaeda, and the many groups using its brand name, grow was described by one of its original masterminds, the Pakistani Abul-Ala al-Maudoodi more than 40 years ago. It goes something like this: when God created mankind He made all their bodily needs and movements subject to inescapable biological rules but decided to leave their spiritual, social and political needs and movements largely subject to their will. Soon, however, it became clear that Man cannot run his affairs the way God wants. So God started sending prophets to warn man and try to goad him on to the right path. A total of 128,000 prophets were sent, including Moses and Jesus. They all failed. Finally, God sent Muhammad as the last of His prophets and the bearer of His ultimate message, Islam. With the advent of Islam all previous religions were “abrogated” (mansukh), and their followers regarded as “infidel” (kuffar). The aim of all good Muslims, therefore, is to convert humanity to Islam, which regulates Man’s spiritual, economic, political and social moves to the last detail.

But what if non-Muslims refuse to take the right path? Here answers diverge. Some believe that the answer is dialogue and argument until followers of the “abrogated faiths” recognise their error and agree to be saved by converting to Islam. This is the view of most of the imams preaching in the mosques in the West. But others, including Osama bin Laden, a disciple of al-Maudoodi, believe that the Western-dominated world is too mired in corruption to hear any argument, and must be shocked into conversion through spectacular ghazavat (raids) of the kind we saw in New York and Washington in 2001, in Madrid last year, and now in London.

That yesterday’s attack was intended as a ghazava was confirmed in a statement by the Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe, an Islamist group that claimed responsibility for yesterday’s atrocity. It said “We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid (ghazava) in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid.” Those who carry out these missions are the ghazis, the highest of all Islamic distinctions just below that of the shahid or martyr. A ghazi who also becomes a shahid will be doubly meritorious.

There are many Muslims who believe that the idea that all other faiths have been “abrogated” and that the whole of mankind should be united under the banner of Islam must be dropped as a dangerous anachronism. But to the Islamist those Muslims who think like that are themselves regarded as lapsed, and deserving of death.

It is, of course, possible, as many in the West love to do, to ignore the strategic goal of the Islamists altogether and focus only on their tactical goals. These goals are well known and include driving the “Cross-worshippers” (Christian powers) out of the Muslim world, wiping Israel off the map of the Middle East, and replacing the governments of all Muslim countries with truly Islamic regimes like the one created by Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and by the Taleban in Afghanistan.

How to achieve those objectives has been the subject of much debate in Islamist circles throughout the world, including in London, since 9/11. Bin Laden has consistently argued in favour of further ghazavat inside the West. He firmly believes that the West is too cowardly to fight back and, if terrorised in a big way, will do “what it must do”. That view was strengthened last year when al-Qaeda changed the Spanish Government with its deadly attack in Madrid. At the time bin Laden used his “Madrid victory” to call on other European countries to distance themselves from the United States or face similar “punishment”.

Bin Laden’s view has been challenged by his supposed No 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who insists that the Islamists should first win the war inside several vulnerable Muslim countries, notably Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Until yesterday it seemed that al-Zawahiri was winning the argument, especially by heating things up in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yesterday, the bin Laden doctrine struck back in London.

100 — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 - 13:08

Omrow,

I don't know how you can clean it up but a lot of us would like you to apologise to Latifah.