Terror Bomb in London

[Ankh Morpork]

True true, cant deny that...but their 'war on terror' can be discussed...cos was it a war on terror or an excuse to enter iraq? (which we all know had nothing to do with the reasons they told us about in the start for attacking iraq)

/Ankh

[Xest]

I don't think your getting me right. The movements concerned with these bombings are not really articulating anything that could be constituted as a set of political goals that are in turn united by an ideology of sorts. There is nothing there. Not only this but the groups are not cohesive - with London they are not even sure who did it for example.

Contrast their situation with the IRA who had over 300 years of their own history, a very clear set of political aims that could be read and their own political representatives who you could talk to. Then I hope you can see what I am on about.

I don't really see why you don't agree that these groups have political aims just because they don't have a leader willing to talk about their aims and that's the issue, they probably feel that even if they did have a leader he wouldn't be taken seriously by the western world hence they resort to tactics like this, that's not to say however that their aims aren't politically focussed at all - they are.

Al Qaeda has a losely linked set of cells who have their own views on what is and isn't too extreme certainly, however they do still have generally the same united goal and that's to fight back against what they see as western oppresion and corruption of their societies by western ideas, technologies and products. The whole reason these cells have linked together under the name Al Qaeda is purely because they do have a united goal and again, just because they're not willing to sit down and talk about what they want doesn't devalue the fact they have clear political aims - the most prominent right now being getting the yanks and their allies out of Iraq.

Politics is a broad term and I think that's really where the confusion is here - the problem is you're saying just because they're not willing to sit down and talk doesn't mean they have political aims, however you can have political aims without a publicly defined plan or leadership that defines what those aims are. The WTC, Madrid, London weren't just random bombings, they all had well planned, well focussed political objectives. The WTC and Madrid succeded in those objectives but from what I can see the London bombings have failed - politics in the UK and stance on Iraq hasn't changed, no one's really anymore scared than they were before the bombings and the British economy has almost made a full recovery already.

I think I do understand what you're trying to say Sharkith, however vocal/written expression isn't the only way of expressing political opinions, views or objectives.

[Ankh Morpork]

however vocal/written expression isn't the only way of expressing political opinions, views or objectives.

Your right, thats why I will express myself using a banjo the next time

/Ankh

[Luz]

Think Shark means a political agenda is a list of things you want to achieve, basicly a list of things you want.

The terrorists act acording to a list of things they DONT want - rather then a set goal of what they wanna achieve in the end.

I think ?

[Sharkith]

True true, cant deny that...but their 'war on terror' can be discussed...cos was it a war on terror or an excuse to enter iraq? (which we all know had nothing to do with the reasons they told us about in the start for attacking iraq)

/Ankh

It seems very clear that it was an excuse to go into Iraq and a very poor excuse at that. I am still confused about why Blair, who is one of the best leaders the UK has ever had, decided to follow them.

[Xest]

Think Shark means a political agenda is a list of things you want to achieve, basicly a list of things you want.

The terrorists act acording to a list of things they DONT want - rather then a set goal of what they wanna achieve in the end.

I think ?

I'm not sure you can really look at it like that, you can just as easily define them not wanting us in Iraq as them wanting Iraq to exist without us occupying it Essentially what they do want is us to not interefere with their homelands, and to be fair, they've got a bloody good point.

The real question is, if we pulled out of Iraq, Afghanistan, stopped interfering with Israel/Palestine and such, would they then stop bombing abroad and keep their terrorist acts to their own areas of conflict or not?

[Ankh Morpork]

It seems very clear that it was an excuse to go into Iraq and a very poor excuse at that. I am still confused about why Blair, who is one of the best leaders the UK has ever had, decided to follow them.

You mean bush is the best leader the UK has ever had ]/Ankh[/B]

[Xest]

You mean bush is the best leader the UK has ever had ]/Ankh[/B]

To be fair the only thing Blair has really backed Bush on is the war on terror, Blair has been trying hard to get Bush to agree with him on the Kyoto agreement and improving aid to Africa.

Blair is a good guy really, he just made a mistake backing the yanks on the war on terror. I think his speach about Iraq at the last elections on election night and the speeches he made last Thursday have made a lot of his doubters wake up to realise that he is actually a pretty decent caring person and a strong leader.

[Ankh Morpork]

He did a nice speech after the bombing but as I said, I have no clue how his politics is affecting U.k other than what he does to the world politics..

/Ankh

[Sharkith]

I don't really see why you don't agree that these groups have political aims just because they don't have a leader willing to talk about their aims and that's the issue, they probably feel that even if they did have a leader he wouldn't be taken seriously by the western world hence they resort to tactics like this, that's not to say however that their aims aren't politically focussed at all - they are.

Al Qaeda has a losely linked set of cells who have their own views on what is and isn't too extreme certainly, however they do still have generally the same united goal and that's to fight back against what they see as western oppresion and corruption of their societies by western ideas, technologies and products. The whole reason these cells have linked together under the name Al Qaeda is purely because they do have a united goal and again, just because they're not willing to sit down and talk about what they want doesn't devalue the fact they have clear political aims - the most prominent right now being getting the yanks and their allies out of Iraq.

Politics is a broad term and I think that's really where the confusion is here - the problem is you're saying just because they're not willing to sit down and talk doesn't mean they have political aims, however you can have political aims without a publicly defined plan or leadership that defines what those aims are. The WTC, Madrid, London weren't just random bombings, they all had well planned, well focussed political objectives. The WTC and Madrid succeded in those objectives but from what I can see the London bombings have failed - politics in the UK and stance on Iraq hasn't changed, no one's really anymore scared than they were before the bombings and the British economy has almost made a full recovery already.

I think I do understand what you're trying to say Sharkith, however vocal/written expression isn't the only way of expressing political opinions, views or objectives.

I said I agree that they have political aims but that these aims have not been clearly specified - Luz has got it .

What got me thinking about it was reflecting on how the hell we are going to get out of this situation? The only way is for some form of communication to take place. Now that cannot happen if the only form of communication we get is on a website after the event of a bomb. We cannot put pressure on the United States who are currently acting in a morally ambivalent way to talk to groups that do not exist.

That said I am not convinced that the US would talk so long at Bush remains in power but surely something more constructive than the current situation could be brought to bear? So long as we cannot talk to them or listen to them we can never begin to understand what is so wrong. As Renton said in Trainspotting

"We are ruled by effete arseholes. It's a shite state of affairs and all the fresh air in the world will not make any fucking difference."