Comments on: The Underwear Bomber and the war of ideas http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/31/the-underwear-bomber-and-the-war-of-ideas/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: avsk7294 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/31/the-underwear-bomber-and-the-war-of-ideas/#comment-28431 Sat, 09 Jan 2010 07:57:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6120#comment-28431 The Islamic jihad was not the brainchild of Osama but that of the American Imperialism [with the aid and assistance of the most right-reactionary forces in every country of their occupation] whose only concern is to assist the MNCs and the TNCs in their exploitation of the abundant natural resources the world over.All talk of upholding the values- that too American ones[?]- of freedom, democracy, free choice,etc. is nothing more than a cliche to hoodwink those gullible guys in their own as well as other countries!
After all what business do the Americans have in those countries no matter what their social-economic-political systems are? If the former USSR was wrong in ‘exporting’ revolution to the third world countries how can the USA directly wage wars in the name of their brand of democracy? If America’s political evangelism is right then Osama’s and his ilk’s retaliation is also right! If America has every right NOT ONLY TO DEFEND BUT ALSO SPREAD ITS STYLE OF LIFE AND BELIEFS then how can one find fault with others who also feel that their values are being threatened?.After all it was this very same America which originally recruited and trained them in their ‘jihad’ against the truly humanizing socialist ideology that was sought to be practiced in such countries. IF communism was a taboo for them can the American way of life be sold to them in the name of pseudo-democracy?
AND lastly,no American other than the ones who are genuinely-not for tactical or personal/practical reasons-opposed to the neocolonialist wars of his country has any right to grouse against the backlash of his country’s atrocities elsewhere.Let them not gloat over their system which has driven thousands on to the streets in their own country and is ruining the lives of the millions in other countries.Because that system and its government in their country are not theirs but those of the warlords in the service of the MNCs and the TNCs.
A V Samikkannu, Pappireddippatti, Tamilnadu, India

]]>
By: dutch http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/31/the-underwear-bomber-and-the-war-of-ideas/#comment-28401 Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:01:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6120#comment-28401 As long as America continues doing business with the corrupt dictatorship called Saudi Arabia, Al-Qaeda will live on. This is not America vs Islam but an Arab family dispute gone horribly wrong.
America has a double standard with which dictatorships it wars with or does business with. It’s hypocrisy at its best. That’s where Bin Laden ideas came from.
End all business relationships with the Saudi’s and Bin Laden and his ideas will die along with it.
Remember Bin Laden is funded by Arab money paid for by Americans.

Lesson to America: Have some bloody standards when choosing international business partners.

]]>
By: jimigenius http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/31/the-underwear-bomber-and-the-war-of-ideas/#comment-28390 Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:48:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6120#comment-28390 bad work, top to bottom.

]]>
By: An0nym0us http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/31/the-underwear-bomber-and-the-war-of-ideas/#comment-28376 Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:42:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6120#comment-28376 Israel “…gained her State by terrorism against the British and has continued in this illegal manner ever since.” – Posted by AnOldBrit
Looks like AnOldBrit is one of the remaining faithful members of Oswald Mosley’s British Union. Back then when all normal Brits were watching the raise of Hitler with horror, these guys painted ‘Perish the Jews’ on the walls.

Shall I remind that it was the Brits that issued the Balfour declaration, when they needed support of Jewish financiers to finance WWI? And then reneged on it to keep happy the Arabs like Husseini who anyway betrayed them by openly joining Hitler? However thousands of refugees trying to get to then-British mandate of Palestine were turned back to certain death in Hitler-occupied Europe.
The “terrorism” mentioned by AnOldBrit began as Jewish resistance to Arab revolt. Some Jewish organizations started targeting the Brits only in response to executions of Jewish resistance fighters. It worked – when 2 British sergeants were hanged and a message was left that it was done in response to hanging Jewish detainees, the hangings stopped on both sides. As for the famous explosion of British offices in King David hotel, the advanced warning was issued giving enough time to evacuate the building – too bad it wasn’t heeded. Somehow I don’t remember Arabs and Muslims ever giving detailed advanced notice on their bombings, that began even before Israel was founded, and continue ever since – the underbomber just the last, but unfortunately by no means final case.

]]>
By: Anon86 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/31/the-underwear-bomber-and-the-war-of-ideas/#comment-28371 Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:46:35 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6120#comment-28371 P.S.

I just noticed that you claimed that “No other nation would ever bomb refugee camps and nuclear reactors”

That statement is ridiculous. Many nations have done both. When civilian sites are used for military purposes, military attacks on those targets are legal.

]]>
By: Anon86 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/31/the-underwear-bomber-and-the-war-of-ideas/#comment-28370 Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:30:02 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6120#comment-28370 OldBrit.

For your information, the Irish Republic is a separate sovereign nation. The individual terrorist republican groups acting in North Ireland were not.

If the Republic of Ireland’s actual official army (Later known as the Defence Forces) had attacked North Ireland’s Belfast it wouldn’t have been an act of terrorism, but an act of war.

And if Ireland then decided to hide its official military in Dublin, then yes, the city would be bombed.

The terrorist groups in North Ireland were criminals, and the matter in dealing with them was a domestic one. Which is why their actions, separate from the Republic of Ireland, would not lead to Dublin being bombed.

Contrast with Hamas, a terrorist group which has complete political and military control over Gaza. And was elected as Gaza’s government. Making Gaza a separate entity from Israel.

Hence their actions against Israel were an act of war. As surely as if Spain or the Irish Republic had started launching missiles at London.

Regarding your statements regarding standards of conduct? Israel is indeed bound by international standards and complies with them to the letter.

You just don’t understand those standards. You simply assume that if you don’t like what is happening, the standards must have been broken. International law doesn’t work that way.

]]>
By: defcon86 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/31/the-underwear-bomber-and-the-war-of-ideas/#comment-28368 Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:41:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6120#comment-28368 Andycomment. Such a short post, and yet so rich in issues worth debating.

1. “Hundreds of thousands people have died in the opression of Iraq.”

We can see here that you imply that Americans are a cause of oppression in Iraq, and that American oppression led to the deaths of all these innocent people.

You ignore the fact that these deaths were caused direct actions of Islamic terrorists against civilians. Their kidnapping, murder and suicide bombs directly killed those people. Actions which some would consider “hate filled” and not justifiable in any manner.

2. “The US supports ethnic cleansing against Palestinians.”

The term ‘ethnic cleansing’ is a concrete legal term which should not be used lightly.

Unless you are on your way to the International Court to get a ruling that the legal term applies, perhaps you should wonder why the international court has not yet made such a ruling and why this is so.

Unless you are an International Court judge, in which case your opinion is relevent.

3. “America murders political opponents by missile strikes and calls the victims terrorists.”

You seem to mistake policical entities for those actively involved in enemy military activities, and the difference between the two.

And the term ‘terrorist’ is not a subjective term. It is a term which applies to those who make deliberate illegal attacks against civilian targets, for the purpose of killing civilians.

It is the method of a person which determines whether that person is a ‘terrorist’, not their cause. So when these people are called terrorists, it isn’t mere propaganda, but a definitive description.

“Innocent people are imprisoned and tortured in US run prisons.”

This involves a bunch of assumptions.

-Are they, in fact, innocent?
-Regardless of the above, do they need to be guilty of a crime to be lawfully imprisoned?
-If they are treated in a particular manner, is that treatment fitting the definition of torture?
-And if they are tortured, is it systemic or isolated?
-And does such events have any actual bearing on whether we should fight terrorism, or is it merely a secondary issue for those who need to feel moral superiority before they will allow their nation to defend themselves from harm?

]]>
By: AnOldBrit http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/31/the-underwear-bomber-and-the-war-of-ideas/#comment-28367 Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:28:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6120#comment-28367 defcon86

For your information, the Irish Republic, of which Dublin is the capital, is not part of Great Britain any more than Spain is, so the analogy IS a good one. IRA terrorists DID use Eire as a base but at no time did we consider bombing Dublin. We are a civilised nation who are bound by accepted standards of international conduct. Sadly, Israel is not bound by such a code.

“The fact you expect Israel to act different to any other nation seems to indicate double standards.”

Israel DOES act differently to every other nation, no other nation would bomb refugee camps and nuclear reactors.

Israel breaks every standard of accepted conduct. It is a terrorist state.

]]>
By: andycomment http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/31/the-underwear-bomber-and-the-war-of-ideas/#comment-28366 Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:36:02 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6120#comment-28366 In an article commenting a war of ideas it is wrong to say one side is “hate filled” and ignore the other sides actions.
Hundreds of thousands people have died in the opression of Iraq. The US supports ethnic cleansing against Palestinians. America murders political opponents by missile strikes and calls the victims terrorists. Innocent people are imprisoned and tortured in US run prisons.
The ideas of justice, freedom and equality have not been defeated. They just have been ignored.

]]>
By: defcon86 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/31/the-underwear-bomber-and-the-war-of-ideas/#comment-28365 Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:19:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6120#comment-28365 @ OldBrit

Your analogy is flawed. Gaza is a separate entity which is not part of Israel, nor are the people in Gaza considered civilians of Israel.

Imagine instead that Spain started using its military to launch missiles at London. And making sure that all missile sites and Spanish soldiers were located in Madrid.

For your first question “Would the UK bomb Madrid”, the answer is “you bet”. Civilian areas used for military purposes become legitimate targets.

For your second question “What would the reaction be” the answer is “hypocrisy”. Because while there would undoubtable be outrage at the UK’s actions, the reality is NO nation (let alone a Muslim one) will allow another nation to deliberately fire missiles at their civilians without reply.

The fact you expect Israel to act different to any other nation seems to indicate double standards.

You seem to believe that Israel is not allowed to defend itself, and hence all such actions of defence are “illegal” according to your view.

That standard doesn’t fly with any other nation, so why treat Israel differently?

]]>