If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The Tube bomber in his own words...
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,722 Bot
Please lets not get into whether he's actually guilty or not because its really a little pointless untill the inquest of the deaths comes around.
However, a tape of the person whose supposed to be the head bomber on July 7th has come forward and makes interesting reading. He certainly seems to put himself into the grand scheme of international terrorism and clearly blames our foriegn policy for his actions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/uk/4206800.stm
However, a tape of the person whose supposed to be the head bomber on July 7th has come forward and makes interesting reading. He certainly seems to put himself into the grand scheme of international terrorism and clearly blames our foriegn policy for his actions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/uk/4206800.stm
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
the strange thing he seems more british than any of our politicians.....
In a democratic society there can be no innocent civilians. We put them in there, we can get them out so they must be operating with our approval. Simplistic but true enough. We fill our cars with stolen petrol, use goods that have been made in sweatshops, yadda yadda.
We make the arms for the soldiers that shoot them, we make the clothes that they wear, etc etc . It's pretty easy logic to follow.
There are a lot of them. Foreign policy is irrelevant- they'd do it regardless.
So there is no reason behind this at all? Its just the fault of him being brain washed?
There was a lot of (justified) anger amongst Britons of all races and religions about Tony Blair's illegal war and slaughtering of Iraqis. It was only a question of time before someone used it to their advantage.
To suggest that the war on Iraq and Britain's foreign policy in the Middle East had little or nothing to do with the London bombings is very naive IMO. And in the case of Tony Blair saying it, it's nothing short of criminal and yet another damned lie.
I guess what I am saying is that its more complex than just the Iraq war, there's Afghanistan for a start plus all the other areas where we either directly shaft muslims or let them get shafted and do nothing.
The war in Iraq was a useful recruiting tool, but that was all. The religious Islamic fundamentalists don't have a political agenda other that realpolitik, so I think it would be a huge mistake to credit them with one simply based on a few soundbites.
If these bombers really cared about "my people" he wouldn't be worshipping people who blow up Iraqi markets.
They don't care about "my people". The bombers themselves have been brainwashed like members of many other cults have been- the reasons why are in the bombers' heads, not in any political discourse. The leaders are solely interested in political power for themselves- the hideous bastardisation of Islam is just one way of gaining it.
These terrorists have no more political ideologue than the men at Waco did.
I don't tend to think it is, actually. Or not the politics we're talking about, anyway.
Like most cults they recruit lonely people at uni and other places. That's what seems to have happened with the London bombers. they attack people who are socially disenfranchised too, which is about politics I suppose, just not the politics of foreign policy.
Angry young men will always be attractive to brainwashers- they can easily be groomed into believing in scapegoats, and from there they will do anything.
I don't think any man who goes through with blowing himself up could be called a coward.
Ridiculously and hoplessly both evil and stupid, yes.
Its been said before but 'Its a lot easier to die for your beliefs than it is to live for them'
That's a nice soundbite but it's not always though is it?
Yes it takes some sort of guts or faith or whatever you want to term it to touch that trigger, but thats a one off, one fleeting movement before oblivion. If he really cared about his Muslim 'brothers' he'd be in Southern Russia or Iraq helping give out food or helping people build houses, that would take courage.
I'd call him stupid, I'd call him crazy, but I'll still call him a coward. If he weren't one he would find a better way to wage this "war", one more effective, one that doesn't involve killing innocent people on the subway.
I think I agree with you there and the saddest thing is that these people are actually very nice on the surface, reading about one of them, who would seem a family man, loved his job and life, I just don't understand it
So there's an obligation to put country before religion then?
On what basis would they do it regardlessly, exactly?
Foreign policy is irrelevent? What the fuck are you talking about? We bomb countries, kill and maim thousands upon thousands, support the illegal occupation of Palestine, uproot entire societies and effectively kick off a civil war all for economic benefit yet that's all irrelevent? Pull the other one :rolleyes: .
It defies belief some people can actually come away with comments like that - the reality is staring you right in the face and yet you still can't see it
It would be harder for bin Laden and al-Zaqawi (sp) to recruit, but lets not indulge the fallacy that they are on some noble cause because of us going to war with them once in a while. If these leaders loved their people so much they wouldn't car-bomb Iraqi markets, they wouldn't chop the heads off of dissenters, they wouldn't routinely rape, beat, kill and subjugate women.
The "Western infidel" is not to blame as the Bush-haters would have us all believe. I was and am vehemently against the war in Iraq, but even if that hadn't happened we would still have suicide bombers trying to kill us. They'd find another excuse- they did before.
The West has power in the region. It may or may not use it humanely. That is irrelevant. These people want the power from us so that they can rule the world. That is blindingly obvious. These people are not saving the Islamic peoples from the terrible Western infidel, they are simply wanting power for themselves.
After all, these people consider most Islamic people to be enemies. Why? Because these "enemies" want democracy, freedom, women to be treated as people. Everything that they don't want, because with democracy comes a lessening of power.
We have created the breeding ground for these people, we created this breeding ground 100 years ago, not now. That much is certain. But lets not pretend they are making a principled political stance against Western foreign policy- they are making a murderous stand against anyone who doesn't blithely hand power over to them.
Welcome back.
I'd so missed the daily opinion pieces from little miss stormfront.
Just so this isn't me calling you a racist fool, I'll ask a question.
What is "British"?
You actually believe "bin laden" and "al zaqarwi" are men of position and power?
I don't think their stance on democracy has anything to do with power, it's to do with Islamic Sharia law which some Muslims adhere to, and they don't take lightly to Western occupation because of it.
And that brings me to my final point, trust the Brits to go conquer 1/3 of the world eh?
sensible job ...popular ...played sports etc etc etc ...
I'd watch my mouth if I was you...that could be illegal for all we know these days