London's Mayor Chimes In

[Abstract]

I dont know if by the nice comeback remark you thought i was trying to be smart by making that point, thats wasnt the case. Often with this kind of thing people dont read things the way they you write them if that makes sense?

While the Mayor may have meant the tea on the lawn, cricket loving Englishman etc thats a very old fashioned view of Britain today so i'd hope he doesnt see that as the average man on the street. Also whether someone is Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Jew etc whatever they are still British and that to me is the scariest thing about this. Its not people being shipped in to do this to us, its people who were born here and grew up here. Sleeping with enemy is a lot scarier than wondering if he's landing on the next flight.

[peter12]

Originally posted by arsenal+Jul 20 2005, 01:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Jul 20 2005, 01:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

But it was four British people that commited the terrorists attacks so that statement is in itself worthless.

As for Red Ken if he thought before he spoke he would never say anything. He's a political non-entity here.

I think Cowperson was refering to Christian/Catholic/Jewish etc Brits. The 4 Brits that commited the attacks were Muslim Extremists. [/b][/quote]
The IRA and Israel practically perfected the techniques that make the "Muslim" suicide bomber so successful.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Abstract@Jul 20 2005, 08:06 PM
I dont know if by the nice comeback remark you thought i was trying to be smart by making that point, thats wasnt the case. Often with this kind of thing people dont read things the way they you write them if that makes sense?

I thought it was a good comeback and congratulated you. They are indeed British citizens. Nothing more or less than that. Good point, but, as I noted, probably not the relevant point.

While the Mayor may have meant the tea on the lawn, cricket loving Englishman etc thats a very old fashioned view of Britain today so i'd hope he doesnt see that as the average man on the street. Also whether someone is Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Jew etc whatever they are still British and that to me is the scariest thing about this. Its not people being shipped in to do this to us, its people who were born here and grew up here. Sleeping with enemy is a lot scarier than wondering if he's landing on the next flight.

A typical multi-generational Englishman of whatever colour and even whatever religion, probably isn't going to blow himself up deliberately in a subway.

I just thought that was a stupid exaggeration on the Lord Mayor's part and was really unnecessary to his follow-up political comment on Iraq/etc.

Are you taking exception that people who are part of a western culture could be terrorists, or just that they could be suicide bombers

If it were true, I wouldn't take exception to it. Its not true, a gross exaggeration and an unnecessary addition to his political statement.

The FLQ and IRA are examples of Western society people who felt hopeless enough to resort to terrorism that included bombings, although not suicide bombing I guess. I don't know that the distinction between suicide bombers and regular terrorists is an important one though.

There's quite a bit of difference. The FLQ guys didn't blow themselves up, which is the only point we're arguing about. They arranged to fly themselves to Cuba in one instance. Maybe I missed something, but I certainly remember indiscriminate IRA bombing (although they tended to phone in warnings generally) but certainly not suicide bombings.

The Lord Mayor is completely off his rocker if he thinks ordinary multi-generational Britishers or Europeans would be lining up to blow themselves up under occupation.

That's not a criticism of Muslim extremists by the way. Simply an observation of the difference between the two cultures.

It just seems like semantics to me, and is missing the Mayor's point.

The Mayor's point was that if Britain was under occupation, common multi-generational Britishers would travel to the occupiers home country and deliberately, with forethought, blow themselves up while attempting to kill as many around them as possible.

That's just an idiotic thing to say and supported by absolutely nothing that we know of in western European culture.

Its an unnecessary exaggeration that didn't need to be attached to the rest of his political statement. I know if you are of the same opinion as the Lord Mayor regarding Iraq, it would be nice to make that attachment because it gives your argument a little "oomph" but really, its just a silly assertion and supported by nothing.

The IRA and Israel practically perfected the techniques that make the "Muslim" suicide bomber so successful.

You know of IRA and Israeli suicide bombers?

Cowperson

[peter12]

The IRA used suicide bombers several times in the 1970's on high risk targets such as military bases. Instead of religous fanatics they kidnapped British civilians and forced them to take the "package" to the target and then detonated the bomb.

Israel hasn't used suicide bombers before but modern terrorists do take alot of their infiltration and assasination methods from the Jewish terrorist groups of the 1940s.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by peter12@Jul 20 2005, 08:39 PM
The IRA used suicide bombers several times in the 1970's on high risk targets such as military bases. Instead of religous fanatics they kidnapped British civilians and forced them to take the "package" to the target and then detonated the bomb.

C'mon . . . that's not remotely the same.

That would be like having Britain under occupation with Britishers travelling to Beijing, forcing Chinese civilians to wear suicide vests under the threat of killing their families and then detonating them while they're on a subway.

That's NOT a suicide bomber in the vein we are talking about, a motivated, self-propelled bomb. That's a victim just like the rest.

Incidentally, that's what Al-Queda does in Iraq as well . . . .

Israel hasn't used suicide bombers before but modern terrorists do take alot of their infiltration and assasination methods from the Jewish terrorist groups of the 1940s.

That has nothing to do with the conversation.

Cowperson

[peter12]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Jul 20 2005, 02:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Jul 20 2005, 02:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-peter12@Jul 20 2005, 08:39 PM
The IRA used suicide bombers several times in the 1970's on high risk targets such as military bases. Instead of religous fanatics they kidnapped British civilians and forced them to take the "package" to the target and then detonated the bomb.

C'mon . . . that's not remotely the same.

That would be like having Britain under occupation with Britishers travelling to Beijing, forcing Chinese civilians to wear suicide vests under the threat of killing their families and then detonating them while they're on a subway.

That's NOT a suicide bomber in the vein we are talking about, a motivated, self-propelled bomb. That's a victim just like the rest.

Incidentally, that's what Al-Queda does in Iraq as well . . . .

Israel hasn't used suicide bombers before but modern terrorists do take alot of their infiltration and assasination methods from the Jewish terrorist groups of the 1940s.

That has nothing to do with the conversation.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Granted the motive is entirely different, but the technique is exactly the same. Using a human being to covertly deliver and detonate a bomb in a high security area was not too commonplace before the IRA started doing it.

[Agamemnon]

We don't know what 'we' would do. I believe we'd act the same as the 'terrorists', under identical circumstances, but I have no way to prove that, just as there is no way, currently, to disprove that. This is all opinion.

Its a strange opinion to have since you basically have nothing in history to really back it up . . . . which is evidence in itself to the contrary of your own thoughts.

Wishing it were so won't make it so.

Right. That's what I said in my post, there's no basis in history for this type of action. I also point out that Britain, nor any Western/Christian nation, has been taken over in the last 50 years (esp by a non-Christian state). My point, as I stated, is that we don't know. The British have never been put in that situation, so who knows how they would act? Who knows how Canadians would act? I think it's a little presumptuous for you to believe, definitevely, that suicide-bombings could not happen in Britain/Canada, as there's never been the situation/environment to allow for it (subjugation/marginlization).

If the Chinese invaded Canada and took over the place, would you or I really be motivated to strap bomb packs under our coats, travel to Beijing and explode ourselves in a crowded subway?

I think I'd be making a pretty bold statement if I were to claim "If Canada gets invaded, conquered, and exploited, no Canadian anywhere would suicide-bomb, because that's not our 'way'". There's no basis for this argument, just as there is no basis for the opposite.

I'm surprised you're so sure on a subject that doesn't really exist.

That's just not who we are.

I guess if you're the expert on 'who we are', then I'll have to bow down to your wisdom. I think 'who we are' is a people who do _not_ live in conquered desperation. How do you know 'who we are', hypothetically, under desperate circumstances? In the end, I'm saying it's 'possible'. You seem to be saying, with equal lack of evidence, that it is 'impossible'.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by peter12@Jul 20 2005, 08:51 PM

Cowperson

Granted the motive is entirely different, but the technique is exactly the same. Using a human being to covertly deliver and detonate a bomb in a high security area was not too commonplace before the IRA started doing it. [/quote]
Again, that's not what we're talking about.

The Lord Mayor essentially said ordinary multi-generational Britons would line up and willingly volunteer to be the torpedo, not the guy detonating it.

The person launching the torpedo lives. That's a rather large difference.

Heck, I could travel to Beijing, kidnap a family, threaten them with immolation and send the papa out to blow up his fellow Chinese if sufficiently motivated. Why not admit it? Sure I could do that.

Would I strap a bomb to myself and take care of it personally. NOPE!!! Would you? I doubt it. Would any of your crazy-ass friends? Probably not. I don't mind admitting that's not my thing. I like living too much.

(I'm surprised you haven't thrown at me that British guy who tried to blow up his shoes on an airplane a few years back . . . . do I have to help you people out all the time!! Well, that's ONE.)

Again, regardless of the Lord Mayor's political view on Iraq, the inference that the same numbers of Britons would be motivated to be suicide bombers is supported by absolutely zero evidence in any historical context.

Brits just aren't the "sort" and neither are most Europeans or those of European cultural influence, including Israeli's.

That's not a criticism of one culture over another. Its merely an observation supported by the evidence of one side and the lack of precedent on the other.

Are you guys being too PC to simply admit the obvious?

I think it's a little presumptuous for you to believe, definitevely, that suicide-bombings could not happen in Britain/Canada, as there's never been the situation/environment to allow for it (subjugation/marginlization).

Given the lack of evidence, its far MORE presumptious to take the opposite position.

It's, well, it's suicidal!!!

I think I'd be making a pretty bold statement if I were to claim "If Canada gets invaded, conquered, and exploited, no Canadian anywhere would suicide-bomb, because that's not our 'way'". There's no basis for this argument, just as there is no basis for the opposite.

Know of any Quebec suicide bombers? No you don't. Know of any extremely p*ssed Quebecers. Yes you do.

Give it up.

Your side is the one that has to demonstrate something here. Throw me a bone. Some kind of precedent from European history or European influence.

The Charge Of The Light Brigade?

In the end, I'm saying it's 'possible'. You seem to be saying, with equal lack of evidence, that it is 'impossible'.

The lack of evidence is the evidence.

There is absolutely nothing to support the Lord Mayor's ridiculous claim that multi-generational Britons would line up to volunteer for suicide bombing runs.

Got to go for a run. Back later.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

I think it's a little presumptuous for you to believe, definitevely, that suicide-bombings could not happen in Britain/Canada, as there's never been the situation/environment to allow for it (subjugation/marginlization).

Given the lack of evidence, its far MORE presumptious to take the opposite position.

It's, well, it's suicidal!!!

So, just so we get this straight, I'm suggesting we don't know what we're capable of, because we've never been put in that situation, and you're saying we DO know EXACTLY what we would do (not suicide-bomb), despite having no reference of your own. Because this situation has never arisen, there is no 'evidence' pointing one way or the other. Britain taking over Quebec hundreds of years ago does not qualify (hence why I've used the term 'the last 50 years' several times).

In the end, I'm saying it's 'possible'. You seem to be saying, with equal lack of evidence, that it is 'impossible'.

The lack of evidence is the evidence.

There is absolutely nothing to support the Lord Mayor's ridiculous claim that multi-generational Britons would line up to volunteer for suicide bombing runs.

Sounds to me like you're saying, 'because it never happened, it will never happen'. Pretty narrow thinking if you ask me. I'm not sure why you keep pointing out the lack of historical evidence, because, as I've said ad naseum, we don't know how we would react. There is no 'evidence' pointing one way or the other. It's never happened before. Seriously, I'm surprised you're so convinced as to how we'd act in a scenario we've never witnessed. Wierd.

[arsenal]

Ok, replace the word "British" with "Belgain" or "Austrian" or "Polish". Is there any evidence, that during the Nazi occupation of Europe, that any of these people resorted to suicide bombing? None that I can find.
Sure, there was resistence, or insurgency and some could consider that "terrorist" activity, but AFAIK they did not resort to blowing themselves and a bunch of innocent people up.

Now, how different are the British people compared to the Belgains, Austrians, or Polish? Probably not very different. So, the assumption, that Brits would resort to suicide bombing when faced with an occupational force, is a rather far stretch if you ask me.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by arsenal@Jul 20 2005, 10:42 PM
Ok, replace the word "British" with "Belgain" or "Austrian" or "Polish". Is there any evidence, that during the Nazi occupation of Europe, that any of these people resorted to suicide bombing? None that I can find.
Sure, there was resistence, or insurgency and some could consider that "terrorist" activity, but AFAIK they did not resort to blowing themselves and a bunch of innocent people up.

Now, how different are the British people compared to the Belgains, Austrians, or Polish? Probably not very different. So, the assumption, that Brits would resort to suicide bombing when faced with an occupational force, is a rather far stretch if you ask me.

Bad example because they were not invaded and occupied for complete generations. In the Middle East, where many suicide bombers come from, they have been occupied or colonized (either culturally, militarily, or both) off and on for several generations now.

A few years in the 1930s and 40s is nothing really.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Jul 20 2005, 11:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Jul 20 2005, 11:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-arsenal@Jul 20 2005, 10:42 PM
Ok, replace the word "British" with "Belgain" or "Austrian" or "Polish". Is there any evidence, that during the Nazi occupation of Europe, that any of these people resorted to suicide bombing? None that I can find.
Sure, there was resistence, or insurgency and some could consider that "terrorist" activity, but AFAIK they did not resort to blowing themselves and a bunch of innocent people up.

Now, how different are the British people compared to the Belgains, Austrians, or Polish? Probably not very different. So, the assumption, that Brits would resort to suicide bombing when faced with an occupational force, is a rather far stretch if you ask me.

Bad example because they were not invaded and occupied for complete generations. In the Middle East, where many suicide bombers come from, they have been occupied or colonized (either culturally, militarily, or both) off and on for several generations now.

A few years in the 1930s and 40s is nothing really. [/b][/quote]
Completely agree.

Suicide-bombing is a recent issue. You cannot look at 1940's Belgium, see a lack of suicide-bombers, and then decide that modern-day English would never do it.

Again, it seems like there's a strain of 'because it hasn't be done, it will never be done'. Times they are a changin.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Jul 20 2005, 04:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Jul 20 2005, 04:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-arsenal@Jul 20 2005, 10:42 PM
Ok, replace the word "British" with "Belgain" or "Austrian" or "Polish". Is there any evidence, that during the Nazi occupation of Europe, that any of these people resorted to suicide bombing? None that I can find.
Sure, there was resistence, or insurgency and some could consider that "terrorist" activity, but AFAIK they did not resort to blowing themselves and a bunch of innocent people up.

Now, how different are the British people compared to the Belgains, Austrians, or Polish? Probably not very different. So, the assumption, that Brits would resort to suicide bombing when faced with an occupational force, is a rather far stretch if you ask me.

Bad example because they were not invaded and occupied for complete generations. In the Middle East, where many suicide bombers come from, they have been occupied or colonized (either culturally, militarily, or both) off and on for several generations now.

A few years in the 1930s and 40s is nothing really. [/b][/quote]
So a few years of occupation by a military force, set on the elimination of all Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, Homosexuals and anyone else that isn't a pure-blood white christian, is better than generations of occupation by a country, where for the most part, they let them live as is?

Quite frankly, if I was living in those times, and I was Jewish, where my options are either hiding, or concentration camps, I would be more inclined to go a suicide bombing run. Hell, if I am going to die anyway (Which is what is stated in Bin Laden's decleration of War on America), might as take a few Nazi's with me right?

Now another example, lets take Saudi Arabia. That is where the majority of the 9/11 suicide bombers came from. The US has been there for quite a long time, generations lets say. Are they there to convert Saudi Arabia from Islam to Christianity? Nope. Are the American forces there to exterminate the Arab people? Nope. Are they there to "Americanize" them? Could be open to debate, but I highly doubt it. The ones that want to be "Americanized" probably would have been, even with out a US presence there. The ones that don't, will see it as the "American people trying to take over Saudi Arabia". But do the Americans force them to buy McDonalds? Force them to buy Nike? Nope, that is up to the Saudis'.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jul 20 2005, 04:43 PM
Suicide-bombing is a recent issue. You cannot look at 1940's Belgium, see a lack of suicide-bombers, and then decide that modern-day English would never do it.

Again, it seems like there's a strain of 'because it hasn't be done, it will never be done'. Times they are a changin.

But the Japanese did it in the 40's? Why didn't the Belgains do it?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by arsenal@Jul 20 2005, 11:53 PM

So a few years of occupation by a military force, set on the elimination of all Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, Homosexuals and anyone else that isn't a pure-blood white christian, is better than generations of occupation by a country, where for the most part, they let them live as is?

Quite frankly, if I was living in those times, and I was Jewish, where my options are either hiding, or concentration camps, I would be more inclined to go a suicide bombing run. Hell, if I am going to die anyway (Which is what is stated in Bin Laden's decleration of War on America), might as take a few Nazi's with me right?

Now another example, lets take Saudi Arabia. That is where the majority of the 9/11 suicide bombers came from. The US has been there for quite a long time, generations lets say. Are they there to convert Saudi Arabia from Islam to Christianity? Nope. Are the American forces there to exterminate the Arab people? Nope. Are they there to "Americanize" them? Could be open to debate, but I highly doubt it. The ones that want to be "Americanized" probably would have been, even with out a US presence there. The ones that don't, will see it as the "American people trying to take over Saudi Arabia". But do the Americans force them to buy McDonalds? Force them to buy Nike? Nope, that is up to the Saudis'.

Suicide is usually a last resort for people, whether used as an escape or as a weapon. I think for most people, it would take more than a few years of occupation. Not to mention the fact that for most of that time, people were fighting agaisnt the Nazis. It wasn't like there was no chance at ever driving them out. In many countries where suicide bombing occurs, there is no hope at all really that they will win by conventional means. If you are someone who resents western influence, the situation is much hopeless in terms of acheiving your goals than say someone in Europe who had several allied nations fighting to free you.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by arsenal+Jul 20 2005, 11:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Jul 20 2005, 11:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Jul 20 2005, 04:43 PM
Suicide-bombing is a recent issue. You cannot look at 1940's Belgium, see a lack of suicide-bombers, and then decide that modern-day English would never do it.

Again, it seems like there's a strain of 'because it hasn't be done, it will never be done'. Times they are a changin.

But the Japanese did it in the 40's? Why didn't the Belgains do it? [/b][/quote]
It was an act of desperation, not unlike a Belgian, British or American sailor choosing to go down with the ship or fight until the death for the greater good of their country.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Jul 20 2005, 05:07 PM
Suicide is usually a last resort for people, whether used as an escape or as a weapon.

Exactly, it is used as a last resort, by most people. What the Mayor of London said was that if Britain was occupied, it would spawn a bunch of British suicide bombers.

There is a huge difference though. British people, and most every Protestant, Catholic, Jew, etc religion, has not been brought up with the notion of Martyrdom. The extremist Muslims cater to it.

Basically, the Mayor is stating that the British people would do a complete 180 and start to think that "Hey, this is a good idea, it goes against everything I beleive in, but what the hell."

I just don't see it happening, and think that it is an outright silly comment.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by arsenal+Jul 21 2005, 12:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Jul 21 2005, 12:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Jul 20 2005, 05:07 PM
Suicide is usually a last resort for people, whether used as an escape or as a weapon.

Exactly, it is used as a last resort, by most people. What the Mayor of London said was that if Britain was occupied, it would spawn a bunch of British suicide bombers.

There is a huge difference though. British people, and most every Protestant, Catholic, Jew, etc religion, has not been brought up with the notion of Martyrdom. The extremist Muslims cater to it.

Basically, the Mayor is stating that the British people would do a complete 180 and start to think that "Hey, this is a good idea, it goes against everything I beleive in, but what the hell."

I just don't see it happening, and think that it is an outright silly comment. [/b][/quote]
I agree with that. I think it takes generations of conditioning, like you said, to instill the ideal of martyrdom in entire populations.

[octothorp]

Western culture has produced a many cults (Waco, most recently) that contain a heavy element of suicide and martyrdom, and none of these required generations to develop. Obviously, they're an extremist, fringe element of our culture, but so too are the extremist muslims who are committing these bombings. If our culture can produce suicide cults, and we can produce homegrown terrorists (like McVey or Kaczynski or the IRA), why is it so ridiculous to imagine our culture producing suicide bombers?

No, the average British or Canadian or American citizen isn't going to be lining up to volunteer for such missions, but neither is the average muslim. However, the notion that every single westerner values their own life or the life of others too much to carry out such an act is laughable.