"irfan" wrote:

British far-right groups are a possibility.

A few years ago there were bombs in Brick Lane, gay bars, and some other places I think.

This could be a similarly inspired attack.

But it's too big to be some rag-tag skinheads.

Hi how you doing.

I don't think that's a fair assumption. You say don't blame all Muslims for the atrocities in London (if it was a group with Muslim affiliation, who were responsible), but by the same token I don't think 'the right' would blow people up on buses or trains. There are some very extreme right groups who are violent etc and are shit as far as I am concerned, but what the media considers the "extreme right" such as the BNP and the NF do not condone that kind of hatred. I have seen much hatred coming from the likes of the ANL in my time, and it is everything but tame.

Yes, nationalists will attack when attacked..but that is justifiable - you would do exactly the same. The difference is that blowing someone's Mom, Dad or child to bits under a premeditated, insidious premise is not the kind of thing the BNP or the NF would do.

The guy who killed those people in Brick lane was an evil *** who should be wiped out - just like those people that murdered innocent civilians in London yesterday; I don't condone gay relationships, but I have to accept that they exist. That is a world away from doing what he did - yet like Muslims, I face being labelled because of my views. Views which are not actually illegal in any way whatsoever.

To me, the assertion that the 'extreme right' is a bunch of skinheads is non-existent; there's a million or so and rising - they don't shave their heads and even if they did you have to judge people on what they do rather than what you think they should be doing based on the actions of a minority. Seeing a Muslim women wrapped from head to toe in Muslim dress..what if you said the same thing about her only in reverse; you'd be guilty of the very discrimination and blanket racism you accuse others of.

IMO - and I am not alone on this - it's the British media creating the facade you propogate, toward race and religion..and you have to ask yourself why. I really detest the way the media seems to pick on white culture, because if the roles were reversed I am sure that there would an almighty uproar. Our discussion groups of all colours and creeds generally agrees on this assumption.

Additionally, to cement their stance on such voilence, there's actually been instances on both the NF and BNP sites at least, where people have tried to encourage that kind of mindless hatred and this has been fully denounced. It isn't tolerated. You can't win people over through anger, blowing them up irrespective of whether you're white, black or Asian and as such the condemnation of those responsible goes right across the racial spectrum.

I think to be honest, that a lot of white British people would be offended at such an accusation thrown at them.

[size=18]The reality of this barbaric bombing[/size]
Robert Fisk

Independent, 8 July 2005

'If you bomb our cities,' Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, 'we will bomb yours.' There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush's 'war on terror' and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.

And it's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that 'they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear'. 'They' are not trying to destroy 'what we hold dear'. They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush " and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives " while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali.

It is easy for Tony Blair to call yesterdays bombings 'barbaric' " of course they were " but what were the civilian deaths of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the children torn apart by cluster bombs, the countless innocent Iraqis gunned down at American military checkpoints? When they die, it is 'collateral damage'; when 'we' die, it is 'barbaric terrorism'.

If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us believe insurgency won't come to us? One thing is certain: if Tony Blair really believes that by 'fighting terrorism' in Iraq we could more efficiently protect Britain " fight them there rather than let them come here, as Bush constantly says " this argument is no longer valid.

To time these bombs with the G8 summit, when the world was concentrating on Britain, was not a stroke of genius. You don't need a PhD to choose another Bush-Blair handshake to close down a capital city with explosives and massacre more than 30 of its citizens. The G8 summit was announced so far in advance as to give the bombers all the time they needed to prepare.

A co-ordinated system of attacks of the kind we saw yesterday would have taken months to plan " to choose safe houses, prepare explosives, identify targets, ensure security, choose the bombers, the hour, the minute, to plan the communications (mobile phones are giveaways). Co-ordination and sophisticated planning " and the usual utter ruthlessness with regard to the lives of the innocent " are characteristic of al-Qa'ida. And let us not use " as our television colleagues did yesterday " 'hallmarks', a word identified with quality silver rather than base metal.

And now let us reflect on the fact that yesterday, the opening of the G8, so critical a day, so bloody a day, represented a total failure of our security services " the same intelligence 'experts' who claim there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when there were none, but who utterly failed to uncover a months-long plot to kill Londoners.

Trains, planes, buses, cars, metros. Transportation appears to be the science of al-Qa'ida's dark arts. No one can search three million London commuters every day. No one can stop every tourist. Some thought the Eurostar might have been an al-Qa'ida target " be sure they have studied it " but why go for prestige when your common or garden bus and Tube train are there for the taking.

And then come the Muslims of Britain, who have long been awaiting this nightmare. Now every one of our Muslims becomes the 'usual suspect', the man or woman with brown eyes, the man with the beard, the woman in the scarf, the boy with the worry beads, the girl who says she's been racially abused.

I remember, crossing the Atlantic on 11 September 2001 " my plane turned round off Ireland when the US closed its airspace " how the aircraft purser and I toured the cabins to see if we could identify any suspicious passengers. I found about a dozen, of course, totally innocent men who had brown eyes or long beards or who looked at me with 'hostility'. And sure enough, in just a few seconds, Osama bin Laden turned nice, liberal, friendly Robert into an anti-Arab racist.

And this is part of the point of yesterday's bombings: to divide British Muslims from British non-Muslims (let us not mention the name Christians), to encourage the very kind of racism that Tony Blair claims to resent.

But here's the problem. To go on pretending that Britain's enemies want to destroy 'what we hold dear' encourages racism; what we are confronting here is a specific, direct, centralised attack on London as a result of a 'war on terror' which Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara has locked us into. Just before the US presidential elections, Bin Laden asked: 'Why do we not attack Sweden?'

Lucky Sweden. No Osama bin Laden there. And no Tony Blair.

"Geroff" wrote:

Hello how you doing.

I don't think that's a fair assumption. You say don't blame all Muslims for the atrocities in London (if is a Muslim group), and by the same token I don't think the right would do that. There are some very extreme right groups who are violent etc., but what the media considers the "extreme right" such as the BNP and the NF do not condone that kind of hatred.

Yes, they will attack when attacked..but that is justifiable. You would do the same. The difference is that blowing someone's Mom, Dad or child to bits under a premeditated premise is not the kind of thing the BNP would do.

The guy who killed those people in Brick lane was an evil fuck who should be wiped out; I don't condone gay relationships, but I have to accept that they exist.

And the assertion that the 'extreme right' is a bunch of skinheads is non-existent; there's a million or so and rising - they don't shave their heads and even if they did you have to judge people on what they do rather than what you think they should be doing. Seeing a Muslim women wrapped from head to toe in Muslim dress..what if you said the same thing about her only in reverse; you'd be guilty of the very discrimination and blanket racism you accuse others of.

There's been instance on the NF and BNP sites at least, where people have tried to encourage that kind of argument and his has been fully denounced. You won't win people over by blowing them up whether you're white, black or Asian.

I am not saying that there is even the possibility that the BNP carried out this attack. Any far-right group that may carry out such attacks would have to be much further to the right than the BNP.

I'm sure the BNP and NF condemn indiscriminate violence. Muslim groups such as Hizb ut Tahrir and al Muahajiroon also condemn indiscriminate violence.
But I bet many BNP and NF members and supporters were glad at the Brick Lane bombing. Just as many HT and alM members and supporters are glad to see London targeted for its part in the War on Terror.

I didn't mean to label all far-right extremists as skinheads, I'm sure many of them have a full head of hair. I'm sorry if I offended you.

Well, let's see which of Osama's men did this. I would think given the nature of the attack (several low-grade weapons that even then could have been much more effective), if the perpetrators are identified they will be found to have been British youths overdue for a mission and not overstretching. IMO Fisk is a nasty, pushing anger and hatred in the guise of sympathy for others. I am biased. I had the dubious pleasure of meeting one of his friends, who it was clear to me held deeply warped antisemitic prejudices. And I have sometimes read the actual drivel. What kind of idiot when a bomb goes off, brands it a 'security failure', yet consistently rails against security measures?!!! What kind of idiot says 'well, Osama told you so and you didn't listen'?!!! Read the stuff and you realise, hey this is a man framing his dark thoughts like a very deep philosophical story, not straight reporting at all. For real, read it and compare it with anything but the most bilious op-ed. Sorry, I get upset. He's a very big player. Fortunately he's been flying the dhimmi flag long enough for most people to know better.

Well Hi Y'all,

Firstly let me say how sorry I am for all of the people and their families that have been caught up in this waste of life.

Omrow,

If that is THE Omrow. You really have to grow up little boy. It really is no wonder not a single woman in the whole of Pakistan would marry you, even just to get to Britain.

You are a very very sick little piglet. And I suggest that you see a vet, that specialises in animal psychiatry as soon as mommy takes your nose ring out to let you eat from your trough, just run LITTLE man all the way to sanity, you disgusting little pillock.

:twisted:

"Geroff" wrote:

IMO - and I am not alone on this - it's the British media creating the facade you propogate, toward race and religion..and you have to ask yourself why. I really detest the way the media seems to pick on white culture, because if the roles were reversed I am sure that there would an almighty uproar. Our discussion groups of all colours and creeds generally agrees on this assumption.

Off topic I know but, I'll be interested to know what 'white culture' actually is.

White Culture:

1. Yoghurt, milk or dairy cream.

2. Work, beer, piss on the doorstep.

3. (archaic, racist) Civilised British culture wherever it is exhibited.

dunno if its appropriate or not to be asking this as people are still mourning over their loved ones and will be for some time..

but it appears as if the blame has stuck with 'islamist terrorists'.

the only proof so far is on a Jihadist web site - unless there has been some next admittance of it dat i aint aware of.

Admin can probably back me up on this, coming from a web development background.. Anyone with a basic knowledge of web devlopment can post anything by preserving their anonymity.

I've extensively searched the WWW, for the web site, but havent found anything.. If I would have found it, would have performed a trace ip, or whois and can find details of the site owner..

People can publish stuff on the web with 100% anonymity, they can hide their ip adress by bouncing off proxies, they can get domain names by providing fake details, they can purchase web space by providing fake details?

Now how can I know for sure, It was not some next Islam hater who passed the blame onto 'Islamist lunatics'..?

I reckon, even if it was some next organisation who we're responsible for it, the blame would still lie with the 'Islamist nutters..' as they're always the convenient usual suspect.

But I don't know, - reasons I ask these questions is that I can't understand why Muslims would do it.

The people behind it were 'smart' in the sense they carefully planned the attacks successfully..

It proves they do have a brain,.. if they had faith in Allah, they wud also know that this kind of act is directly against the teachings of the glorious Qur'an..

people also will say that they use Qur'anic verses to justify their actions, but I am not aware of any Quranic verse that can even be closely interpreted to kill innocents..

I dunno Muslims what do u think?

khan,

Twaddle. Look, they call themselves Muslims. They are proud to be waging this terrorist war on the west. Osama's real, even if you don't yet have the intellignece on this blast, so it's more like you're in a state of mind where any other explanation would do.

But you don't need an explanation. You're fine. Get over it.

That last line about verses in the Qu'ran - well, I've been quoted verses intended to portray that terrorism is in fact a manifestation of the duty to perform juhad, only from Muslims. I'm sure you have too. Instead of trying to confuse everyone, why not address your remarks to some bigots. The way you'll find a bigot is by stepping outside and yelling, 'Hey everyone, I just realised, I prefer other men to beautiful women.' Then tell me what the Qu'ran does and doesn't allow.

Sorry but to a non-Muslim it's like you're practising taqqiyeh with such questions, and if you're doing that I lose my love. Obviously you don't want to feel implicated - so you aren't, okay? It's like the fascist guy up there who thinks it's unfair for Muslims to suspect fascists, or call them skinheads. No, it isn't, and noone but a fascist argues thus. See the connection?

"khan" wrote:

people also will say that they use Qur'anic verses to justify their actions, but I am not aware of any Quranic verse that can even be closely interpreted to kill innocents..

Its not so much that they quote quranic verses but more of a case of twisting what it says, and putting twisted spin on it.

Even if we were able to find the original post of the person who claimed responsibility, how can we be sure that it actually was them? They may simply be taking the responsibility to gain some media coverage to their cause?

100, ur post is filled with emotions..

i can get all emotional too,.. like open a web site with your old dear admitting to the attacks..

then when the medias all over ur old dear, saying she wants to jeapodise our freedom..

u'd ask the same questions, as you know ur old dear better than some next fool whos been spoonfed by the media, and u know she aint capable of something like that as it goes against her beliefs..

u wud ask for the same proof mate... ud do the trace ip on the web site, ud find the tossser who created it.

"100" wrote:

White Culture:

1. Yoghurt, milk or dairy cream.

2. Work, beer, piss on the doorstep.

3. (archaic, racist) Civilised British culture wherever it is exhibited.

That's not a definition - unless you choose to quote your source. Well..

I do not think that you actually give a flying f about what you are talking about, other than the fact that white culture has been mentioned which seems to have struck a very raw nerve.

- 1. Yoghurt, milk or dairy cream.

Explain the inference of yoghurt, milk and dairy ice-cream; what exactly is your implication? Skin pigmentation? Explain.

- 2. Work, beer, piss on the doorstep.

Who? Where? London? Which Londoner's?

- 3. (archaic, racist) Civilised British culture wherever it is exhibited.

You haven't pointed to any source, you're just being very selective with your argument which you have attempted to conceal as judgement. You are judging others here on your own prejudice and THAT is intolerance.

Now what if the same we levelled at you? At Islam? What if such an accusation was thrown within the watchful eye of the media or in the workplace?

khan,

If it wasn't viable, or credible, or if I had a big chip on my shoulder. When the authorities report, or bin Laden makes a statement, you've got something to go off. Until then my point stands. You feeling emotional lends you no additional legitimacy.

I'm not suggesting that you aren't genuine; not suggesting you aren't deeply upset at the notion of Muslims, maybe British Muslims, being terrorists; not suggesting you aren't upset at the killings; not suggesting anything about you at all. Just telling you what, in my experience, the argument you took on up there stands for. It's nothing to do with your 'old dear', but provided you can go on acknowledging your response is purely emotional then there's obviously nothing wrong with saying whatever pops into mind.

Gerroff,

Nice to meet you. I'm Jewish.

That yoghurt line is a joke you didn't get. Bacterial culture.

Work, beer, p*** everywhere - that's around lots. Maybe you live somewhere very isolated. I've even just heard British resilience put 'well, we'll be down the pub tonight so, up yours, Osama.'

The third thing - what I'm saying there is, civilised culture is open to everyone. Your thing about whites is rubbish. Call it British culture.

yeh whatever 100, the same can apply to ur old dear if i'd created a web site with a photoshop edited image of her in military gear.

keep on waffling.

"100" wrote:

It's like the fascist guy up there who thinks it's unfair for Muslims to suspect fascists, or call them skinheads. No, it isn't, and noone but a fascist argues thus. See the connection?

That's where you are wrong. You don't know me, you don't know my nationality or where I reside. Prove me wrong.

You deliberately misrepresented my opinion, which I will clarify: It's not wrong to suspects fascists - not all "right-wing" groups as the media chooses to portray them, are fascists. Understand? Don't accuse whole groups of people by using a definition imposed upon them by the British government and the British media.

You abdicate calling skinheads terrorists - because they have no hair, yet it is wrong to associate Muslim's with terrorism, because they wear Muslim attire. It is hypocritical of you to stand on such a fragile moral high-ground where only a select demographic isn't beyond question.

Your assertion that no one but a fascist argues is ridiculous and counterproductive. You're setting yourself up with a false opposition and it appears that the only reason for doing that is denial.

I seriously wanted to know what Geroff meant by 'white culture'.

Geroff can you please define 'white culture'.

oh also, timed devices have been found on bombs, suicide bombings may be ruled out..

another thing netinyahoo was 'apparantly' informed of the attacks minutes before it happened..

i dunno if it true or not, as its news reported on web sites.

Khan, come on, mate. So you're emotional.

"Geroff" wrote:

"100" wrote:

It's like the fascist guy up there who thinks it's unfair for Muslims to suspect fascists, or call them skinheads. No, it isn't, and noone but a fascist argues thus. See the connection?

That's where you are wrong. You don't know me, you don't know my nationality or where I reside. Prove me wrong.

You deliberately misrepresented my opinion, which I will clarify: It's not wrong to suspects fascists - not all "right-wing" groups as the media chooses to portray them, are fascists. Understand? Don't accuse whole groups of people by using a definition imposed upon them by the British government and the British media.

You abdicate (100: advocate) calling skinheads terrorists - because they have no hair, yet it is wrong to associate Muslim's with terrorism, because they wear Muslim attire. It is hypocritical of you to stand on such a fragile moral high-ground where only a select demographic isn't beyond question.

Your assertion that no one but a fascist argues is ridiculous and counterproductive. You're setting yourself up with a false opposition and it appears that the only reason for doing that is denial.

I don't get your point. Have to be honest. There's something in there but it isn't clear. I'll try.

I see you as wanting to protect a 'white culture' and also not wanting the BNP and NF to be compared with terrorist groups. The first objective is pointless, and you didn't explain what YOU think white culture is. I gave you my definition, but it seems you want a link to some [url=http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+white+culture&meta=]dic... The second isn't an issue. All you have to say is, as far as I'm aware the 'far-right' (inverted commas for your high sensibilities) doesn't have a terrorist agenda, but many 'Islamist' groups do, so they're the obvious suspect. And, I do believe you're affiliated with one of those groups or people close to you are. I believe this because you defend them but offer no supporting fact or logic. Whereas I know, I've met many BNP voters and found them intolerant and often brutish. As far as I'm aware the BNP believes Britain cannot belong to minorities, is slipping to minorities, and SOMETHING must be done. ('Oh, but not something at all violent. Stop calling me racist. etc)

Gerroff, we agree about the ANL. I also noted from much of your earlier post that you spell and phrase things the US way, maybe antipodean, but the content suggested London. I don't care about that, it wasn't under discussion.

"100" wrote:

Khan, come on, mate. So you're emotional.

mate im a Londoner, i cant help getting emotional, theres prats out there who are attacking my freedom.

khan, you and I have had these chats before. Let's drop it, you're a nice guy. Sorry.

Irfan,

Hi. I am not offended and equally I didn't set out to offend you.

Quote:

I am not saying that there is even the possibility that the BNP carried out this attack. Any far-right group that may carry out such attacks would have to be much further to the right than the BNP.

I agree, and respect your opinion. I don't however believe that the government will see it that way, especially when it comes to sacking people or illegally excluding their children for displaying insubordination - a mere expression of opinion. Is it acceptable that views contrary to Mr. Blair should be declared extreme?

Quote:

I'm sure the BNP and NF condemn indiscriminate violence. Muslim groups such as Hizb ut Tahrir and al Muahajiroon also condemn indiscriminate violence. But I bet many BNP and NF members and supporters were glad at the Brick Lane bombing. Just as many HT and alM members and supporters are glad to see London targeted for its part in the War on Terror.

I didn't experience that. I view many sites, talk to as many people as possible. I feel sick to view some views from both sides of the political divide. In debate with groups, I didn't see a condolence that people had died in brick lane..I also didn't see such condolence reflected within those parties. The NF and BNP members debating, were sickened by the scenes they saw as I was irrespective of their own take on homosexuality.

Quote:

I didn't mean to label all far-right extremists as skinheads, I'm sure many of them have a full head of hair. I'm sorry if I offended you.

It depends what your definition of extremist actually is. I've met skinheads and looked past the preconception; they're some of the kindest people I've ever met. Further, on equal merit, I can't label people as racist simply because they disagree with Labour policy on issues such as immigration. I agree that foreign policy is a one factor allowing people to walk into this country and indiscriminately kill others.

apology accepted..

khan, thank you.

Geroff,

We just disagree very strongly, I'm afraid, and I will purposely associate anyone promoting the BNP with the values Jews, and no doubt Muslims, perceive from the BNP. The BNP is a big threat, they aren't talking about some extra regulation on immigration to ensure security, there's that 'white cultur' thing. I can be right-wing, I can vote tory, so I accept you want to distinguish different parts of the spectrum. But the BNP is not going to get my sympathies. In any case I can't help the feeling, reading all your posts, that your point is very lost. What is upsetting that I have said, so I can work with you here?

100,

Quote:

That yoghurt line is a joke you didn't get. Bacterial culture.

A joke? White culture = bacterial. Well that explains a lot about your judgement if merely to separate fact from fiction. It's not fact, it is but a racial slur.

Quote:

Work, beer, p*** everywhere - that's around lots. Maybe you live somewhere very isolated. I've even just heard British resilience put 'well, we'll be down the pub tonight so, up yours, Osama.'

Your view certainly seems to reside within that domain. Selective judgement. By your definition the British resilience is based on one person's comments - out of over 60,000,000..it bears no significance especially to the 3 million people who have to work in places like London, obviously attempting to remain undaunted by the horror that's just been unleashed.

Quote:

The third thing - what I'm saying there is, civilised culture is open to everyone. Your thing about whites is rubbish. Call it British culture.

No, you inferred that archaic, racist philosophy forms the catalyst upon which civilised, British culture is historically cultivated. That is the way it came across. A stereotype. If civilised culture is open to 'everyone', then naturally one would prescribe such an affiliation without any connotation towards British culture in particular.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_britain_explos...

now netinyahoo warned of attack..

..let's just take a look at those experts Blair relies on, shall we?
Boaz Ganor, director general of Israel's International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism.

Mordechai Kedar, a counter-terrorism analyst for Israel's public television.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050707/wl_uk_afp/britainattacksreax_050707...

That rates a "Hmmmmm".

khan,

After the first blast Netanyahu was warned not to go anywhere. Because of AP tossers saying 'hmm', which is actually a very disgusting thing to go around saying, it was immediately misreported and in spite of clarifications throughout the day from both Israeli and British officials as well as from the AP, it is now in the Zionist Crusader rumour mill. The AP just does irresponsible things like that, and it's hard to hold them accountable for, f'rinstance, what you just wrote.

Geroff, then you can call it 'global culture'. Whatever. You're being a prick, you know? Yoghurt is white culture, it was a very simple joke. I am being very clear, I believe 'white culture' implies nationalistic, racist beliefs. You are calling me racist for saying that. Prick.