2 minutes silence! 7/7

[NewMagnie]

You have to consider that their could be quite a few non Muslims who at least understand if not sympathise with the actions of the suicide bombers.

 

It is unfortunate that the reaction of the Muslim community to the bombings is considered in isolation and is held to be based entirely on their adherence to Islam.

 

Their is a political/social/military perspective which places the bombings in the context of retaliation to the Western Alliance actions in the Gulf states and which sees a tactical validity in them. This has much more to do with a political analysis than a religious or even racial one.

 

The point I'm making, I suppose, is that it's not merely the Muslim population of the UK which is becoming politically radicalised, society as a whole is affected by this.

 

To say that you're in danger of being killed for being an "unbeliever" underestimates and misrepresents the risk. The victims of 7/7 were indiscriminately targetted. At least one of the fatalities was Muslim as I recall. The basis for targetting them was not that they were infidels but that they were located in the heart of London.

[Neil R]

I know if I went out tommorrow on the street and asked folk if they would rather one Shetlander died or 100 iraqis they would pick the iraqis, mabey not right, but thats life. people allways look after there own. Lifes are not equal, even if they should be.

 

What you say might well be true; I really hope it's not though because anyone can see that it is wrong to have that belief. It is not helped by the way sections of the media project certain stories to the top of the agenda, e.g. a US soldier's death (while a horrific and regrettable story) gets equal footing with "another 50 Iraqis are killed".

 

That doesn't even fit with the idea of 'looking after your own', other than that the American comes from a similar society to ours (even though it is hundreds of miles away), while the Iraqis are perceived as weird brown people.

 

I know if someone here dies it affects more people who were close to him/her, but to me 1 Shetlander = 1 Briton = 1 American = 1 Iraqi.

[Rasmie]

probably a lot more than 13% christians in the UK approved of the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. and the subsequent "collateral" (weemin an bairns) damage but there's statistics, damn lies and statistics

[Styles]

probably a lot more than 13% christians in the UK approved of the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. and the subsequent "collateral" (weemin an bairns) damage but there's statistics, damn lies and statistics

 

But they dont want civillians to be killed. The 13% of Muslims thought that fellow UK civillians deserved to die.

[peeriesooky]

probably a lot more than 13% christians in the UK approved of the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. and the subsequent "collateral" (weemin an bairns) damage but there's statistics, damn lies and statistics

 

But they dont want civillians to be killed. The 13% of Muslims thought that fellow UK civillians deserved to die.

 

but you'd have to be pretty niave to think dat nae innocents are gonna be hurt or killed in military actions. be it by stray bombs, "friendly fire" etc

[Styles]

probably a lot more than 13% christians in the UK approved of the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. and the subsequent "collateral" (weemin an bairns) damage but there's statistics, damn lies and statistics

 

But they dont want civillians to be killed. The 13% of Muslims thought that fellow UK civillians deserved to die.

 

but you'd have to be pretty niave to think dat nae innocents are gonna be hurt or killed in military actions. be it by stray bombs, "friendly fire" etc

 

But they did not want it to specifically kill civillians unlike the suicide bombers.

[peeriesooky]

but do da specifics really maiter when it is innocent lives that are taken?

[peeriesooky]

on a slightly different point, can u honestly say dat da folk dat planned da bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki didn't know dat innocent civilians were gonna be killed?

 

therefore, can u honestly say dat any bomb dropped isnae gonna hurt or kill innocent civilians?

 

or, as long as it was meant for a military target, are these sort of civilian casualties "acceptable"?

[Styles]

on a slightly different point, can u honestly say dat da folk dat planned da bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki didn't know dat innocent civilians were gonna be killed?

 

therefore, can u honestly say dat any bomb dropped isnae gonna hurt or kill innocent civilians?

 

or, as long as it was meant for a military target, are these sort of civilian casualties "acceptable"?

 

They were acceptable to the allies as it ment less of a loss of life to the allies and a quick end to the war. Plain and simple.

[Neil R]

on a slightly different point, can u honestly say dat da folk dat planned da bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki didn't know dat innocent civilians were gonna be killed?

 

therefore, can u honestly say dat any bomb dropped isnae gonna hurt or kill innocent civilians?

 

or, as long as it was meant for a military target, are these sort of civilian casualties "acceptable"?

 

They were acceptable to the allies as it ment less of a loss of life to the allies and a quick end to the war. Plain and simple.

 

Acceptable to the allies, maybe, but morally acceptable? Many historians now feel that some of the bombs dropped on Dresden in particular were highly unnecessary, didn't particularly target important German infrastructure and would have made little difference to the rapidity of the war's conclusion.

[peeriesooky]

on a slightly different point, can u honestly say dat da folk dat planned da bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki didn't know dat innocent civilians were gonna be killed?

 

therefore, can u honestly say dat any bomb dropped isnae gonna hurt or kill innocent civilians?

 

or, as long as it was meant for a military target, are these sort of civilian casualties "acceptable"?

 

They were acceptable to the allies as it ment less of a loss of life to the allies and a quick end to the war. Plain and simple.

 

is it ok for us to carry out atrocities dat we wid be up in arms against if sumwan else did it?

 

take the september 11th or july 7th bombings. is the way to deal wi these sort o atrocities tae go and bomb their backyard, or is it not hypocritical for us to dae whit we are appalled at dem fir daing? is it really da side u are on dat determines whether an act his wrang or not?

 

pretty one-sided, unfair system if dat is da case

[Styles]

on a slightly different point, can u honestly say dat da folk dat planned da bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki didn't know dat innocent civilians were gonna be killed?

 

therefore, can u honestly say dat any bomb dropped isnae gonna hurt or kill innocent civilians?

 

or, as long as it was meant for a military target, are these sort of civilian casualties "acceptable"?

 

They were acceptable to the allies as it ment less of a loss of life to the allies and a quick end to the war. Plain and simple.

 

is it ok for us to carry out atrocities dat we wid be up in arms against if sumwan else did it?

 

take the september 11th or july 7th bombings. is the way to deal wi these sort o atrocities tae go and bomb their backyard, or is it not hypocritical for us to dae whit we are appalled at dem fir daing? is it really da side u are on dat determines whether an act his wrang or not?

 

pretty one-sided, unfair system if dat is da case

 

The allies were up in arms about the nazis and japanese killing civillians, but quite happly did it themselves such as the fire bombing of Dresden.

 

It is an unfair system, as we all know history is written by the victors. Hence the allies come out of it all smelling of roses and their enemies as all that was evil. Life is not fair, you just have to make sure you end up on the winning side.

 

The allies also included Stalin who murdered far more people than Hitler.

[Mag]

I question the purpose of these (however many) minutes silences.

 

I feel saddness for those who lost a loved one in the appartently random 7/7 attacks.

 

But, if the silences are to support the grieving, should we not have them for a bereaved person who lives locally? They might benefit from our silent empathy.

 

If they are to mark an atrocity, should we not have them for the 100,000 killed in Iraq? Or those massacred in Rawanda?

 

I have a horrible suspicion that these silences are designed to focus our anger on the alleged enemy, and so encourage our support for the 'war'.........which of course causes more bereavement.................