Bombs in LOndon

The Reids wrote:

Following up to Rita


My heartfelt condolences... the elation of the "Games" to this very low
point.


As a New Yorker, my condolences as well. I love London and
hearing about the destruction, deaths, injuries and the fear
that Londoners will experience as a result for a long time
to come makes me ill. I know people there will respond with
courage, just as New Yorkers did to 9/11.


thanks both. I remember posting same on 9/11 or 11/9 as we would
call it, its a pity that the solidarity the west felt at that
moment has dissipated to some extent.

Yeah, thanks to our incompetent president, whose moronic
reaction to this latest outrage was to say the perpetrators
have "evil in their hearts"! (IMO, ALL fanaticism is
"evil", be it Moslem, Christian or whatever.)

wrote:

Internet service is quite slow here (Essex) too. I suspect congestion.

But thank God for the internet! Remember when such
instantaneous world-wide communication was purely a dream of
the science-fiction writers?

From: Rita
Organization: Road Runner - NYC
Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:04:22 GMT
Subject: Bombs in LOndon

Do you think France will be exempt from this kind of attack since it
did not participate in the Iraq war? Seems Denmark and Italy have
been warned.

No. For the Islamists there are plenty of issues to go around. The banning
of the Islamic veil in the schools here still rankles with the Islamist
fanatics. And the French are in Afghanistan, an Islamic country, fighting
alongside the rest of the Europeans who are there.

Donna Evleth

On 7/07/05 18:04, in article ,
"Rita" wrote:

There is little doubt in my mind that the Iraq war has greatly
increased successful recruitment of Islamic radicals.


We got a hint of this a couple of years ago during our prison visits.
A fairly high percentage of prison inmates are "Arabs" from the suburbs
but they are not Islamic radicals. In French prison slang they
are divided into a group of trouble makers, called the "gremlins"
and the "barbues" the bearded ones who are the "born agains".
They are very careful and do not create trouble. But one wonders
what is going on, really.

After 9/11 there was, in fact little support for Al Qaeda, but
the Iraq war brought strong emotions of wanting to go fight the
Americans. Also, progressively through the Bush administration
the anti-American sentiments started to go through the roof.

The real question is how many of these have been radicalized to the
extent of doing something. The DST has done a good job of short
circuiting any terrorist attacks, we have had nothing serious since
95-96, which is the longest streak of non-attacks in our 30+ years
in France.

Fortunately most of the gremlins are big talkers and do nothing.
But from this huge mass of youth some radicals will distill out.

Nobody knows how many.

Rita wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:44:47 +0200, Earl Evleth wrote:


On 7/07/05 16:32, in article ,
"Rita" wrote:


On 7 Jul 2005 06:45:07 -0700, wrote:



we could stop invading other peoples countries in search of oil,
that might lessen our exposure.

I agree the invasion of Iraq has made both the U.S. and Britain
ongoing targets. However, our leaders in both countries are
adamant against changing their course. Recent polls showed that
the majority of Americans have become disenchanted with the war
in Iraq and don't believe it has made us "safer". And England
re-elected Blair as well.

If I understand what Bin Laden has said and why Al Qaeda took the
form it did, these radical Muslims are against non-Muslim presence
in Islamic nations. That is the basic core of what is driving them.
A secondary issue is protecting Muslims in nations which are not
mainly Muslim.

These radicals telegraphed their intentions and did so long before
9/11. It seems likely that if the US had withdrawn rapidly

from Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War One, we might have avoided

the Embassy bombings and eventually 9/11. But US national
interests (oil, never forget it) seemed involved and we
could not bring ourself to stand off, possibly not thinking
that Bin Laden was a real treat, just a bother.

It should also be noted that Islamic radicals were also
at war with an secular socialist movements in mainly Arab states.
The Ba'ath party movements in Syria and Iraq were national socialist
secular reactions against radical Islam, especially the Muslim
Brotherhood movement which was given birth in Egypt. This is also
why there was virtually no coordination of terrorist movements
between Iraq and Al Qaeda. However the Ba'ath party movement is
also totally decadent, Saddam was one example of that, and probably
could not serve forever as Western supported buffer against both Iran and
radical Islam in the middle east. US policy itself was decadent in
the region and that is why radical Islam has grown more powerful.

For some reason the Bush administration never figured that out or projected
not having done so for pandering reasons of wanting to tie 9/11 with Iraq.
The American people still appeared mostly duped about this.

What did happen is that radical Islamic terrorists moved into Iraq
opportunistically no longer having to fight Saddam. The new base
of terrorism has, therefore, shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq.
But that situation has become more complicated with the development
of a sectarian conflict between Sunnites and Shi'ites in that country.
This has also brought into Iraq Wahhabite Saudi terrorists (the
9/11 terrorists were mainly from this group) who even more strongly
believe that Shi'ites are heretics.

I use the "dragon teeth" analogy. If you plant dragon's teeth, they produce
more dragons. Bush in not concentrating on just Afghanistan sewed dragon's
teeth, they gave birth and some of the dragons showed up in London today.
They showed up in Madrid a year ago and may now appear in more of Europe. I
don't think there are a lot of dragon's teeth in Europe are around but even
a few hundred or a thousand will cause us trouble. If we in turn, turn to
abusing the Moslem populations in the UK and Europe, the dragan's teeth will
increase in numbers, a lot.


I think the above is a reasonable analysis. There now seem to be
various splinter groups from Al Queda, and who knows what will set
them off?

There is little doubt in my mind that the Iraq war has greatly
increased successful recruitment of Islamic radicals. It is such
a mixed picture there, with the Sunnis playing their game, and
according to a story in the NY Times yesterday, certain Shiites,
back by Iran, still bent on a religious Islamic state in Iraq,
are trying to take control in Basra and the South.

The only thing I know for certain is that Bush's boast that "we
are fighting them in Iraq so we won't have to fight them at home"
rings very hollow. As a New Yorker, I'd be a fool indeed to take
Bush at his word on this.

Do you think France will be exempt from this kind of attack since it
did not participate in the Iraq war? Seems Denmark and Italy have
been warned.




It seems to me that one factor which is overlooked by those who label
the bombers as "islamic fanatics" and "terrorists" is that the arabic
culture traditionally demands blood revenge for killing.
Consequently, just as 9/11 was blood revenge for the US-Israeli action
against the palestinians, the Madrid and now the London bombings are
blood revenge for the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the
current war.

T.

The Reids wrote:
Following up to Des Small

And England re-elected Blair as well.

not because of the war policy, the opposition are also pro war
and on other issues its a no contest.

the Lib Dems and The Greens were NOT pro war.

But it was never plausible that they would form a government this time
round. (Not that it was every very likely the Tories would either.)

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


The Reids wrote:

Following up to Des Small
As a New Yorker, my condolences as well. I love London and hearing
about the destruction, deaths, injuries and the fear
that Londoners will experience as a result for a long time
to come makes me ill.

With all due respect, ******** to that. I was planning to go up to
London tomorrow, and if the trains are running I still will.


quiet right, I'll not be scared off by some fanatic, (no not Ken)
its called terrorism, so they win if you are terrorised.
"London can take it" comment by six month London immigrant after
an IRA bomb.

Considering how England bore up for several years as the bastion against
Hitler (before the U.S. got around to joining in) I don't think anyone
doubts it! (Although it is perhaps easier when it's a declared war, and
you KNOW you can expect such horrors.)


Diva,

Read your history and that will tell you why we didn't get involved at the
beginning of the war in Europe.

Don

"Rita" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:44:47 +0200, Earl Evleth wrote:

On 7/07/05 16:32, in article ,
"Rita" wrote:

On 7 Jul 2005 06:45:07 -0700, wrote:

we could stop invading other peoples countries in search of oil,
that might lessen our exposure.

I agree the invasion of Iraq has made both the U.S. and Britain
ongoing targets. However, our leaders in both countries are
adamant against changing their course. Recent polls showed that
the majority of Americans have become disenchanted with the war
in Iraq and don't believe it has made us "safer". And England
re-elected Blair as well.

If I understand what Bin Laden has said and why Al Qaeda took the
form it did, these radical Muslims are against non-Muslim presence
in Islamic nations. That is the basic core of what is driving them.
A secondary issue is protecting Muslims in nations which are not
mainly Muslim.

These radicals telegraphed their intentions and did so long before
9/11. It seems likely that if the US had withdrawn rapidly
from Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War One, we might have avoided
the Embassy bombings and eventually 9/11. But US national
interests (oil, never forget it) seemed involved and we
could not bring ourself to stand off, possibly not thinking
that Bin Laden was a real treat, just a bother.

It should also be noted that Islamic radicals were also
at war with an secular socialist movements in mainly Arab states.
The Ba'ath party movements in Syria and Iraq were national socialist
secular reactions against radical Islam, especially the Muslim
Brotherhood movement which was given birth in Egypt. This is also
why there was virtually no coordination of terrorist movements
between Iraq and Al Qaeda. However the Ba'ath party movement is
also totally decadent, Saddam was one example of that, and probably
could not serve forever as Western supported buffer against both Iran and
radical Islam in the middle east. US policy itself was decadent in
the region and that is why radical Islam has grown more powerful.

For some reason the Bush administration never figured that out or
projected
not having done so for pandering reasons of wanting to tie 9/11 with Iraq.
The American people still appeared mostly duped about this.

What did happen is that radical Islamic terrorists moved into Iraq
opportunistically no longer having to fight Saddam. The new base
of terrorism has, therefore, shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq.
But that situation has become more complicated with the development
of a sectarian conflict between Sunnites and Shi'ites in that country.
This has also brought into Iraq Wahhabite Saudi terrorists (the
9/11 terrorists were mainly from this group) who even more strongly
believe that Shi'ites are heretics.

I use the "dragon teeth" analogy. If you plant dragon's teeth, they
produce
more dragons. Bush in not concentrating on just Afghanistan sewed
dragon's
teeth, they gave birth and some of the dragons showed up in London today.
They showed up in Madrid a year ago and may now appear in more of Europe.
I
don't think there are a lot of dragon's teeth in Europe are around but
even
a few hundred or a thousand will cause us trouble. If we in turn, turn to
abusing the Moslem populations in the UK and Europe, the dragan's teeth
will
increase in numbers, a lot.

I think the above is a reasonable analysis. There now seem to be
various splinter groups from Al Queda, and who knows what will set
them off?

There is little doubt in my mind that the Iraq war has greatly
increased successful recruitment of Islamic radicals. It is such
a mixed picture there, with the Sunnis playing their game, and
according to a story in the NY Times yesterday, certain Shiites,
back by Iran, still bent on a religious Islamic state in Iraq,
are trying to take control in Basra and the South.

The only thing I know for certain is that Bush's boast that "we
are fighting them in Iraq so we won't have to fight them at home"
rings very hollow. As a New Yorker, I'd be a fool indeed to take
Bush at his word on this.

Do you think France will be exempt from this kind of attack since it
did not participate in the Iraq war? Seems Denmark and Italy have
been warned.


Rita,

As a New Yorker you are easy to fool. Look at your two foolish Senator's.
One of them is married to the most foolish President we ever had in our
History. Bedroom Bill. 9-11 was set up on his watch, as were all of the
Embassy bombings in which he said over and over again, "We will catch the
people who did this and punish them". Never caught one other than the ones
who hit the Tower with a truck bomb, and the others are still free as far as
we know.

Don

The Reids wrote:
Following up to Nils Zonneveld

Terrorism only started on 9/11 for Americans, the IRA existed long
before this. Unfortunately their activity was paid for by American fund
raising.


I don't think this is an appropiate reaction at this time.

he's a rather unpleasant self confessed troll.

Clearly. Best wishes from the USA in this time of confusion and
sadness.