Neo-Cold War Paranoia

[el Chi]

Right, this War Against Terror is starting to get out of control and infect the collective mind of the populous sending them into a spiral of paranoia, confusion and most importantly FEAR. I mean I know this is obvious but I only say it because I just felt it a few minutes ago more than I ever have.
Living in London, the thought has crossed my mind more than once that it could be the next target after Madrid. However as I'm at uni in Reading (30 mins away by train), I'm more concerned for my family and even moreso for my father who works in central London. Just now though, there was a loud booming noise that could have been thunder but sounded a bit odd for thunder. This worried me quite a bit and I immediately went to switch on BBC News 24 and Sky News just to be sure. Sky weather said that there was likelihood of thunder. Thank Christ for that, but it's not the point... I had this only once before when, soon after 9/11, I heard a plane go over my house very loudly and seemingly, very low. I suddenly realised what it must've been like for New Yorkers seeing the second plane. Of course this is silly; lots of planes go over London as it is a big city and has 3 airports in relatively close proximity.
My point is simply that things are getting out of hand and instead of Communist subversives, we now discriminate against Muslims; a friend of mine - a GOOD person and not a racist at all - recently said to me that he sometimes felt wary around Islamic people. This is the power of propaganda. It's a hideous tragedy and will simply separate the West from the Middle East and throw more wood on the fire.

 

[Gorgon]

I live in North London, and I AM not scared.

Nothing to be scared of.

 

[slicktick]

You make a very good point, the media and propoganda of the world have made this tense situation more than it is already and have made many people paranoid and worried as el chi talked about. I think it is the concentration on terrorisim in the middle east that makes us think that way, you dont hear about terrosist groups not form there all too often and i think it gives most people the mentality that only people from that region are terrorists.

 

[el Chi]

I think it is the concentration on terrorisim in the middle east that makes us think that way, you dont hear about terrosist groups not form there all too often and i think it gives most people the mentality that only people from that region are terrorists.

Exactly, and let's not forget that that is racism! And when it's preached by a government (as seems to be the current situation) that is institutionalised racism! Segregation, anyone? Apartheid, anyone?
No-one's heard much about the IRA or Eta (except a tiny bit after Madrid) in the media lately, have they? :hmph:
Oh and there are groups training on US soil to over-throw Castro, but that's not terrorism, no. How does that figure?

And I sort of agree with G0rgon, I've never really been scared before, which is why this sudden small shot of paranoia surprised as it did. I live in an area which is in many ways a small-scale Israel: a large Orthodox Jewish population right next to a large Muslim community. They get on fine. They're not terrorists in the slightest.

 

[Direwolf]

I live relatively close to New York, the biggest and most promising target of them all. I'm not sure if its the natural overdose of cynicism around here or what but most people are not all that bent out of shape about it.

 

[Sui]

hell- i live in Brighton, as far south from london as u can go and im scared that our entire ecosystem will be ruined by london getting bombed. i mean its hard not to be scared when the media is reporting toxic bombs uncovered JUST in time. i mean, what if ONE was exectuted... there could be HUNDREDS of potential disasters out there! My dad goes to london a lot too, so i get worried...

 

[ductonius]

Exactly, and let's not forget that that is racism!

Bull-s**t. If a particular part of the world contributes more than its share of terrorists there is abosolutly nothing racist about saying so.

And when it's preached by a government (as seems to be the current situation) that is institutionalised racism! Segregation, anyone? Apartheid, anyone? [/B]

Which govornment has been doing this? Hmm?

No-one's heard much about the IRA or Eta (except a tiny bit after Madrid) in the media lately, have they? :hmph: [/B]

Thats becuae the British and Spanish have been taking care of them. They havent had much of a chance to do anything.

Oh and there are groups training on US soil to over-throw Castro, but that's not terrorism, no. How does that figure?[/B]

Overthrowing a govornment is not terrorism.

 

[Korgoth]

I have been screaming about the fear mongering propaganda forever now, glad other people are starting to catch on...



Think open mindedly and you'll be alright, can't say the same for the populace.

 

[el Chi]

Bull-s**t. If a particular part of the world contributes more than its share of terrorists there is abosolutly nothing racist about saying so.

Yes it is. As soon as you start to say "Everyone from <insert country/religion/ideology here> is a terrorist [or some such other undesirable quality]" then that is a stereotype, many of which are racist. It is racism and if you adopt that perspective on others, you are a racist.
Next.

Which govornment has been doing this? Hmm?

The US govt (with my own, the UK, in tow). Unless it had evaded your attention the only countries attacked so far as part of the "War on Terror" have been primarily Islamic. The countries on the "Axis of Evil" are either Islamic or Communist. As part of a clamp-down on terrorism, how many arrested have not been Muslims? How many of the prisoners in Camp X-Ray are not Muslims?
This is one of the reasons the Islamic extremists hate the West (specifically the US) so much is because they feel bullied, and it's no wonder. I'm not condoning their reaction, not a bit, but even so...
Next.

Thats becuae the British and Spanish have been taking care of them. They havent had much of a chance to do anything.

Well, I'm aware that the IRA are on a cease-frie of sorts, and I'm not particularly aware of Spain's situation with Eta, so you may have a valid point there. Nevertheless Muslim extremists are the focus - see above point.
Next.

Overthrowing a govornment is not terrorism.

You're joking surely? Surely you're not serious? If there was a group plotting to violently over-throw Bush, then that would be considered terrorism in a shot. Revolutionaries is another term, but if al-Qaeda want to violently over-throw the US's power does that make them revolutionaries? I very much doubt so. The only reason for making a statement like that is because "Oh who gives a flying f*ck about them commie spics in Cuba. They's is terrorists they is." If it were any other goverment it would be terrorism.
Your argument is full of holes. Please don't take anything of what I've said as an insult because what I have done is systematically taken apart your argument in a sensible way. Think about it.

 

[Korgoth]

You also have to keep in mind here el chi, this is a tricky line to walk. You wouldn't arrest a black man for a crime a white man commited would you? No, it doesn't make sense. You wouldn't look for islamic militants in a catholic church either would you? How do you go about avoiding racial profiling>racism, when the aggresor is primarily one race?
The fear and hate mongering propaganda aren't being used to fuel genocide, at least not yet. But if we aren't careful it could easily lead to such. My concern is for the not so black and white things going on here. Who knows what these wars are ultimately leading to. Oil supremacey, possible genocide, mere counter measures? Truth is, I don't know, but any of the above is a possibility.
What about stripping the freedoms of the public to benefit your role in power and secure your role? Taking away basic freedoms one by one, by harnessing this fear and using it as a tool to justify illegal detentions, arrest, and convictions with out trial. Have we seen these yet? Yes...
Who knows....

 

[ductonius]

Yes it is. As soon as you start to say "Everyone from <insert country/religion/ideology here> is a terrorist [or some such other undesirable quality]" then that is a stereotype, many of which are racist. It is racism and if you adopt that perspective on others, you are a racist.
Next.

Strawman. Sorry, try again.

I asked, "when a particular part of the world produces more than its share of terrorists, how is it racist to say so?"

That is, how is it racist to say "X area of the world produces more than its share of terrorists?"

Answer: Its not.

The US govt (with my own, the UK, in tow).

The fact that you think the US is "preaching" this is simply a factor of your own bias and not the fact that the US is actually condeming a single race. They're prepared to lock anyone up for terrorists activities, including Brits and Canadians.

Unless it had evaded your attention the only countries attacked so far as part of the "War on Terror" have been primarily Islamic.

That dosent prove there is any sort of racism involved. It simply proves we tend to target those countries from which the terrorists who attacked us or our allies came.

The countries on the "Axis of Evil" are either Islamic or Communist. As part of a clamp-down on terrorism, how many arrested have not been Muslims? How many of the prisoners in Camp X-Ray are not Muslims?

Quite a few, there are a bunch of Brits and Canadians in Camp X-ray at the moment.

This is one of the reasons the Islamic extremists hate the West (specifically the US) so much is because they feel bullied, and it's no wonder.

And why do they feel "bullied"? Its becaue western liberal values are impinging on thier controlling and restrictive cultures. But thats an entierly differnet discussion altogether.

Nevertheless Muslim extremists are the focus - see above point.

Yeah, becaue other than the Bali bombing, the USS Cole, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, a French oil tanker, the Madrid Trains, the Istanbul bombings, bombings on a couple of Marine barraks, several hundered Palistinian sucicide bombings and hundered of other foiled plots, what have Islamic terrorists ever done to us?

You're joking surely? Surely you're not serious? If there was a group plotting to violently over-throw Bush, then that would be considered terrorism in a shot.

No, they'd be charged with sedition and shot. Sedition and terrorism are not the same.

Revolutionaries is another term, but if al-Qaeda want to violently over-throw the US's power does that make them revolutionaries?

Only if they do not resort to terrorist acts.

I very much doubt so. The only reason for making a statement like that is because "Oh who gives a flying f*ck about them commie spics in Cuba. They's is terrorists they is." If it were any other goverment it would be terrorism.

#1. Nice job trying to put words in my mouth.

#2. Sedition is not terrorism. If a group wants to overthow a govornment, let them try as much as they want by attakcing that govorments military. As soon as they deliberatly attack a civilian target, they are terrorists.

 

[el Chi]

You also have to keep in mind here el chi, this is a tricky line to walk. You wouldn't arrest a black man for a crime a white man commited would you? No, it doesn't make sense. You wouldn't look for islamic militants in a catholic church either would you? How do you go about avoiding racial profiling>racism, when the aggresor is primarily one race?

That's a very good point. My fear is that it can easily seem that Muslims are exclusively the target and that will simply make the problem and tensions worse.

My concern is for the not so black and white things going on here.

Exactly - there was the same problem in the Cold War - you were one or the other - those countries that tried to take a non-alligned stance were presumed Communist, leading to more and more problems.

And all the things you mentioned about stripping basic freedoms etc. - all very Stalinist/1984 - but some things seem frighteningly similar (in an it-could-easily-get-too-similar-to-be-comfortable kind of way).

 

[el Chi]

Strawman. Sorry, try again.

I asked, "when a particular part of the world produces more than its share of terrorists, how is it racist to say so?"

That is, how is it racist to say "X area of the world produces more than its share of terrorists?"

Answer: Its not.

First off: Strawman?
Secondly - yes to an extent I did misread what you said. No, it is not racist to say "place X produces a large amount of terrorism"
However what is happening is that it is being drilled into the public subconcious that all Muslims are terrorists - this is not necessarily intentional but it is a problem that must be addressed, but it isn't and so the race/culture divide grows and grows and harbors racism.

The fact that you think the US is "preaching" this is simply a factor of your own bias and not the fact that the US is actually condeming a single race. They're prepared to lock anyone up for terrorists activities, including Brits and Canadians. Quite a few, there are a bunch of Brits and Canadians in Camp X-ray at the moment.

I am trying to be somewhat objective here, but of course my own biases and subjective views are a factor, as are yours... Perhaps, "preaching" was a word too open to interpretation. If you constantly attack a race or religion it will eventually be perceived as racism. It can easily be, and has been, contrasted to McCarthyism. The fact that these people hail from the UK or Canada is irrelevant as they were Islamic and that is the issue. Increasingly, Muslims feel not of their country but of their religion, nationality is irrelevant; it is an issue of religion.

That dosent prove there is any sort of racism involved. It simply proves we tend to target those countries from which the terrorists who attacked us or our allies came. And why do they feel "bullied"? Its becaue western liberal values are impinging on thier controlling and restrictive cultures.

Or that oil is involved - but ignore that because that's just a whole new can of worms, and after all it's just my silly bias.
The point is that it seems like racism. Surely it can't be a mystery why the US is being attacked by Muslim extremists when all the while it is supporting Israel, which is perceived by most Muslims, as a huge enemy of the religion? That doesn't make them terrorists, remember, reacting violently and killing innocents does. Whilst I completely agree with you that Western liberal values are a thing to be celebrated, to say what I highlighted in bold is tantamount to religious/cultural ignorance or racism. I'm not calling you yourself a racist but that is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. They feel bullied because they appear to be the constant focus-point of suspicion. Personally, if middle-class white people all over the world were under suspicion of terrorism all the time (if we imagine that was as "justified" as the situation is now) I'd feel persecuted or bullied. And as I've pointed out before, there seems to be more global unity within Islam than the global middle-class white-people community.

Yeah, becaue other than the Bali bombing, the USS Cole, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, a French oil tanker, the Madrid Trains, the Istanbul bombings, bombings on a couple of Marine barraks, several hundered Palistinian sucicide bombings and hundered of other foiled plots, what have Islamic terrorists ever done to us?

You make an uncontestably good point here - but I never defended them. However how many civilians and innocents have been killed in carpet bombings, "friendly fire", CIA activity (including inadvertant catastrophes due to badly thought out and executed plans) and other violent regimes supported financialy by the US?What justifies those actions? Of all the points of arguments, I can see this as the one we're least likely to budge on.

#1. Nice job trying to put words in my mouth.

#2. Sedition is not terrorism. If a group wants to overthow a govornment, let them try as much as they want by attakcing that govorments military. As soon as they deliberatly attack a civilian target, they are terrorists.

#1: Fair point, sorry about the wording.
#2: If it happened in the current political climate, it would be considered terrorism, I feel sure. Muslim extremists have said they want to overthrow Israel, but they are terrorists. And how does one distinguish between an act of sedition or an act of terrorism? Both have political ends, both would usually attack political/military/economic targets...

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Yeah, becaue other than the Bali bombing, the USS Cole, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, a French oil tanker, the Madrid Trains, the Istanbul bombings, bombings on a couple of Marine barraks, several hundered Palistinian sucicide bombings and hundered of other foiled plots, what have Islamic terrorists ever done to us?

Heh, fantastic quote there. You win

 

[Dedalus]

good post el Chi. i've got a few muslim friends too. for the most part they're either born in the UK or moved here several years ago and they seem to be fine. but there's always that small group of people who give everyone else a bad name. there's a whole society at uni that looked up to bin laden because he was 'standing up to america'. i mean, hearing that sort of stuff on the news is one thing, but hearing it from a friggin university student is completely another. you f*ckin look up to him?! i just find these sorts of people bloody ridiculous. but obviously there are the large majority of muslims who are just normal everyday people caught in the middle between the crazy extremists and the equally crazy finger pointers.

now i'm not muslim, and i'm not racist either, but i have to admit i have been a little more wary whenever i travel around london. i don't think i've ever heard any government, US/UK or otherwise, explicitly state that being muslim = terrorist. it's the spin the media puts on it, and of course us dolts who read the news pick up on that sensationalism and unconsciously it gets into our everyday life.

london generally seems like a safe place *touchwood*. although recently i've tried to use the tubes less (partly to do with a terrorist threat and partly due to the weather heating up the whole london underground with a salty smell of piss in the air). i've seen the number of police officers triple over the past month. it went from a couple of coppers to larger patrols who now wear bullet proof vests and carry SMGs. i live near Heathrow (massive airport) so the security here is even more tight. went past there the other day and saw a flippin tank..crazy stuff.

but yeah, please don't turn this into a flame war, let's keep it civil eh?

 

[Sprafa]

You don't get it do you?

that's the point in terrorism. They goal is not to kill people. Their goal is to get you like you are now. Their goal is to terrorrize . The means to achieve that goal, however, are quite controversial.

They want you to feel bad around Muslims, they want you to feel afraid. That's how they get what they want. They get it when the People realizes it can't survive with this total remake of their way of life and give in to demands.

Islamic fanatic terrorism is only a passage. It's a consequence of the situation in the Middle East and the fall of the importance of religion worldwide. The last ones are always the most committed. Religion is falling & the Middle East is in crisis, those 2 at the same time created radicalist teologists we see today. And what better way to spread their beliefs then tru public displays of power. After Sept. 11th 2001, Islam is the greatest growing religion worldwide. Why? Because their members are so faithful, that they can strike the US in their own soil, lose their haven (Afghanistan) and still be free. That is the most powerful show of faith ever.
Islamic radicalists however, exist for over 20 years. Ahmed Al-Zawahiri, number 2 in Al-Quaeda (and by most analysts, the greatest influence, as Bin Laden is simply the funder of Al-Quaeda) was the leader of an Egyptian terrorist organization in the 1980's, and Egypt hunt them down and shot them, 1 by 1, until they were pratically eradicated. However, after the fall of his org. Zawahiri visited the US for fundings several times (3 or 4, maybe more, those r the ones confirmed) and no one moved crap. So does the Bin Laden family, that has many familiy members in the US, and may be funding their old renegated son.


By the way, Omar Bakri, the greatest Al-Quaeda authority in the UK, says there is a plan for an attack in London , something "as never seen before".

After the Islamics, other "terrorist thrends" will appear around the world.

Anyway, terrorism exits since privates have the powers of nations. I support total & absolute loss of "freedom" for eradication of law violation by the State, however most do not.
The People must understand that while "underground" exists, terrorism will develop. The elimination of terrorism will only come with total control.

I know you'll probably bash me for that ^^, but that's just me.

 

[Dedalus]

sprafa that was a little over-complicated way to say what you were trying to say. well i don't think you'll get rid of terrorism by controlling them.

you've got to think why do people decide to be terrorists. you've almost got it in your post but not quite. there are only 'terrorists' if there are 'anti-terrorists'. if you stop giving them a reason to be a terrorist then they won't be terrorists anymore because there will be no-one to terrorise (used the word terrorist a bit much there i think...). from what i've read and from what i understand of it, the middle east has a lot of hostility towards the west because they feel we have somehow 'interferred' in their affairs. fair point. but then they're also at fault themselves; if someone is doing something wrong, they're gonna keep doing it until you tell them what it is. so maybe someone needs to stand up and tell a few home truths.

an american friend of mine is a staunch patriot and such, and of course he now has this annoying wariness towards muslim people that he didn't have pre-9/11. i keep telling him it's nonsense and how not all of them are bad it's just the few spoiling it for the rest etc. but then he said "yeah, you wait till there's an attack on london, then you'll see". i can see the logic in that, i can see how an attack on london would be a massive wakeup call, and i can see the strands of revenge taking form in my mind. it's all a giant mess. kinda makes you want to move to the arctic and take kiera knightley along with you

 

[el Chi]

You're entitled to your views, of course, but would you really be content without the basic freedoms of thought, opinion, etc? An oppressive state similar to the Taliban? Or Stalin or Mussollini or Hitler, the list goes on and on. And even then, it doesn't eradicate an "underground", in fact it could even make it more resolved. By the way, if the State had the powers you suggest, Martin Luther King could never have made the statement in your sig. Well, he could have I suppose, but he'd end up very dead.

Of course there will always be other terrorist "trends" or similar devices for fear-mongering, you're right and this is just the current one. However with al-Qaeda it's not about simply instilling fear - with the IRA it wasn't; they had political aims - it seems like revenge. Of course, al-Qaeda would call it Jihad but that's simple rhetoric to hook people in and most Muslims wouldn't fall for such a blatant trick.

Dedalus: Regarding the potential for hate attacks as retaliation - there was recently a small BNP gatering outside the oh-so-controversial mosque in Finsbury Park :hmph:
I'm not sure I quite agree with you that the Muslim community of the Middle East need to stand up to tell home truths - I would have thought that some anger generated by meddling in certain foreign affairs would have spoken for themselves - it's not through jealousy...

 

[Lil' Timmy]

finally, some politics in the house

And why do they feel "bullied"? Its becaue western liberal values are impinging on thier controlling and restrictive cultures. But thats an entierly differnet discussion altogether.

that's just silly. do your research and you will see exactly why the US is hated/distrusted in not only the islamic world, but also central america and much of africa as well. it's called imperialism, plain and simple. it's true that much of the radically fundamentalist muslim sects would probably have issues with the "liberal values" oozing from the west, but infact thse are of such minor concern compared to the policies of US dominance in other parts of the world. some of these perceptions by muslims are surely exagerated by their own propaganda-pushing governments. however, there is more truth than lie to it. bullying it is.

No, they'd be charged with sedition and shot. Sedition and terrorism are not the same.

sedition.. come on.. you know el chi is right here. terrorism is a catch-all term nowadays, and any action by bin laden would be considered terrorism by this administration.. he could climb up a tree and fox news would report it as a plot to plant dirty bombs in our national forrests.


the topic is of terrorism and it's semantic use as a tool. the current climate in the US so closely resembles fascism, that it's surreal. "terrorism" IS the new "communism", and unchecked, our tribal xenophobia would have resulted in muslim internment camps shortly after 9/11.

of course real 'terrorism' is a matter of perspective. it's sad to say, but it's true. most people would be 'terrorist' (or freedom fighters?) if they perceived a threat to their homeland and families. how many iraqi civilians have died in the current war? do you even care? it's somewhere between 9000 and 11000 by most estimates. many more than US civilians killed on 9/11. "but one act was unprovoked terrorism, and the other was a retaliatory war, different situation". hardly, more like different perspectives. the muslim extremists perceive themselves in a war with the US government, they'll happily tell you that. bin laden will tell you that his actions in organizing 9/11 was an act of war (he'd probably go so far as to call it an act of defense actually). if you'll remember the US administration played with the notion of calling 9/11 an act of war at first, but it was discarded because fighting wars is usually no fun, but fighting 'terrorism' is down-right everyone's duty as god-fearing, civilised humans, right? 'terrorism' is much more useful.

simply put the difference between a revolutionary and a terrorist is if it's one of "ours" or one of "theirs". this is a fact about humanity in general, and it's just as true of the US as any other country.

 

[el Chi]

Actually they got the best of both worlds and labelled it a "War against Terrorism" Genius :hmph:
Scary thing is, I can see how you could justify such attacks as acts of war because al-Qaeda had already (as far as they were concerned) declared it. And if you are not a nation state, how does one commit an act of war? But whether such an act is legitimate warfare or terrorism is so contentious that both sides play off each other using both of the terms. Personally I'd see it as the latter as they attacked innocent civilians and not military targets. But then where does that put the Allies' bombings of civilians or the constant bombing of Iraq since the last Gulf War.

 

[ductonius]

First off: Strawman?

Stawman: The logical fallicy whereby a person constructs a weakened version (a strawman) of the others argument and proceeds to demolish it. Since it does not deal with the persons actual argumet it is a mistake and not a valid argument.

However what is happening is that it is being drilled into the public subconcious that all Muslims are terrorists - this is not necessarily intentional but it is a problem that must be addressed, but it isn't and so the race/culture divide grows and grows and harbors racism.

The US has made it very clear that they will target terrorism wherever it is, no matter what. The fact that the current hotspot for terrorism is the Middle East and not Ireland, Spain or France is does not mean that the US is trying to portray all Muslims as terrorists. Therefore, the publics preception of Muslims is entierly incidental.

Those who generalize too much will end up blaming all Muslims or People of Middle eastern decent for the problem. However, this is simply ignorance and not something that should be taken as the general attitude, since it obviously is not.

I am trying to be somewhat objective here, but of course my own biases and subjective views are a factor, as are yours... Perhaps, "preaching" was a word too open to interpretation. If you constantly attack a race or religion it will eventually be perceived as racism. It can easily be, and has been, contrasted to McCarthyism. The fact that these people hail from the UK or Canada is irrelevant as they were Islamic and that is the issue. Increasingly, Muslims feel not of their country but of their religion, nationality is irrelevant; it is an issue of religion.

If the vast majority of terrorists attacking or planning attacks on the US, Britian, Canada, Spain, France, Italy, or Germany are Moslem, being Muslem becomes a defining feature of those wishing to do harm to those countreis. It woudl be the same if the vast majority of terrorists had a bumble-bee tattoo on thier left hand; a bumble-bee tattoo on the left hand would become a defining feature of terroists.

In addition, someone dosent have to be Middle-eastern to be Muslim, so race isnt even an issue.

The fact that a group which possesses a defninig featue is the focus of an investigation is not at all the sign of any sort of bias. If the vast majority of peopel arrested have this feature it is also not a sign of bias.

Or that oil is involved - but ignore that because that's just a whole new can of worms, and after all it's just my silly bias.

Oil is a very ubiquidous resource, that is, no matter where you go, it can be found in some form. Thus, no matter where the US steps it can be "because of oil".

The province of Alberta in Canada has the largest known oil reserves on the planet in the form of tar sand; over a trillion (trillion with a T) barrels.

If the US wanted oil, they can just ask them for some, they dont need to invade any place to get it.

The point is that it seems like racism.

Veggy-burgers may taist like meat, but they arn't.

Surely it can't be a mystery why the US is being attacked by Muslim extremists when all the while it is supporting Israel, which is perceived by most Muslims, as a huge enemy of the religion?

Not mysterious at all but it dosnet justify attacks against US civilians.

That doesn't make them terrorists, remember, reacting violently and killing innocents does.

Im not sure what yoru point is. No, dislikeing the US for supporting Isreal does not make one a terrorist. Everyone is entitled to thier own opinion. However, committing acts against American civilians for the US govornments support of Isreal does make one a terrorsits.

Whilst I completely agree with you that Western liberal values are a thing to be celebrated, to say what I highlighted in bold is tantamount to religious/cultural ignorance or racism.

I dont think you can seriously argue that the culture in most middle eastern countreis is not restricitve and repressive to personal freedoms, especially to those of women.

I'm not calling you yourself a racist but that is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. They feel bullied because they appear to be the constant focus-point of suspicion.

Well, you know, blowing up civilians is not exactally the way to make yourself look innocent.

In addition, the Jews have a long history of actually being the focus point for suspiction and hate. Did the Jews in Nazi Germany blow up busses and buildings? No, they either got the hell out or went about thier business and obeyed the law. Do the Jews in the US blow up buildings owned by the KKK or neo-nazi groups? No. They just go about thier business and obey the law.

If you feel your are the center of suspision, the best repsponse is to not do anything suspisios. The worst response is to run around blowing things up with ANFO or airplanes.

Personally, if middle-class white people all over the world were under suspicion of terrorism all the time (if we imagine that was as "justified" as the situation is now) I'd feel persecuted or bullied.

Sure, but would you lash out and resort to acts of violence? I know I wouldnt, becaue its a completly irresponsible and irrational way to react.

However how many civilians and innocents have been killed in carpet bombings, "friendly fire", CIA activity (including inadvertant catastrophes due to badly thought out and executed plans) and other violent regimes supported financialy by the US?What justifies those actions?

1. Carpet bombing where?

2. Friendly fire is fire on ones own troops, not civlians. What you probably mean is collateral damage. In either case, the intnded targets are not civilian and therefore they cannot be counted as the same class of act as deliberate attacks on civilians (terrorist acts). Equating accidental killings and deliberate killings puts moral equivalence on accidental death and murder.

3. The CIA is an intelligence agency and causing civlian casualite is not what they aim for. Accidental deaths are, again, accdiental and are not equivalent to deliberate acts of killing.

4. The cold war was a secret war, but a war nonetheless. In all war, innocents get caught in the crossifire. In order to defeat the Soviet Union teh US was forced to do some pretty unsavory things in South America. However, that dosent excuse acts of terroism against the US.

Of all the points of arguments, I can see this as the one we're least likely to budge on.

"You ain't kiddin" -- Bill

#2: If it happened in the current political climate, it would be considered terrorism, I feel sure. Muslim extremists have said they want to overthrow Israel, but they are terrorists. And how does one distinguish between an act of sedition or an act of terrorism? Both have political ends, both would usually attack political/military/economic targets...

The US is currently very careful about who it calls a terrorist and who it calls and insurgent (insurgent syn. seditionist). You will notice that they do not call the fighters in Iraq terrorists, because they are not, they call them insurgents.

Acts of sedition are acts against the govornment, notibly through acts against the military.

Terroism is the deliberate targeting of civilians for the purpose of killing as many as possible.

If a terroist organization also wishes to overthow a govornment, that means they are guilty of both terrorism and sedition.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

2. Friendly fire is fire on ones own troops, not civlians. What you probably mean is collateral damage. In either case, the intnded targets are not civilian and therefore they cannot be counted as the same class of act as deliberate attacks on civilians (terrorist acts). Equating accidental killings and deliberate killings puts moral equivalence on accidental death and murder.

my my, what lovely euphemisms you have.. "collateral damage".. hmm, so lets say i tended to take out what i perceive as a center for US economic hegemony.. what is my target, and what is the collateral damage? labels are the enemy of truth.

one is killing, and so is the other. there is moral equivalence between the two. i'm not a pacifist, and i fully understand that civilians will die in a war. but i'm not going to pretend that there is some sort of moral law that changes reality. killing of innocents is killing of innocents, and everyone should understand that.

 

[ductonius]

finally, some politics in the house
that's just silly. do your research and you will see exactly why the US is hated/distrusted in not only the islamic world, but also central america and much of africa as well. it's called imperialism, plain and simple. it's true that much of the radically fundamentalist muslim sects would probably have issues with the "liberal values" oozing from the west, but infact thse are of such minor concern compared to the policies of US dominance in other parts of the world. some of these perceptions by muslims are surely exagerated by their own propaganda-pushing governments. however, there is more truth than lie to it. bullying it is.

What you seem to be saying is that becaue the US is the largest power in the world at the moment at becaue it has a presnece in these countries the people in those countreis feel as though the US has a large ammount of power and can put people in any country on the planet.

Well, thank you Mr.Obvious.

Being powerful and having the ability to extend ones presence is not the root cause of these problems. You will notice that areas of the world which have adopted western values, or which accept the right of other cultures to exist have not risien up to start bombing american civilians.

We dont see many East Indian, S. Korean, Argentinian or Japanese terrorists, do we? Its only where the new freedom of the Western values threatens to knock down the establish cultureal power of some group where we see anti-american terrorism happeing.

Does the US throw its weight around? Sure.
Does that cause a certian amout of antipathy toward it? Absolutly.
Does that encite people to terrorism? Certainly not.

sedition.. come on.. you know el chi is right here. terrorism is a catch-all term nowadays, and any action by bin laden would be considered terrorism by this administration.. he could climb up a tree and fox news would report it as a plot to plant dirty bombs in our national forrests.

Hyperbole does not make a good rational argument.

As I have said before, the US gov is very careful about who it calls terrorist and insurgent.

The moment I read "Muslim internment camps" it became clear that I would be wasting my time replying to your speech. Im sorry, but if you want to discuss things without resorting to massivly biased hyperbole, please come again.

If not. I bid you good day, sir.

 

[Sprafa]

I'm sorry, now that I read my psot I see I worded myself wrong.

what I meant was a total control of information by the State (which many call "loss of Freedom", thereby the mistake) to prevent any attempt to hurt its citizens and violate the law.

That is, the State knows everything you do (Big Brother style) but it does not intervenes unless you are clearly breaking the law or planning to.
Of course a corrupt state would also limit its citizens freedoms to oppose it, but if that happened total popular revolt would be unstoppable.

So I basically like a Big Brother democracy, with freedom of belief & opinion.

Hiperterrorism, begun by Al-Quaeda, that consists in a society-wide spread of terrorist actions, not necessarly linked between themselves in any other way then a common purpose.

 

[ductonius]

my my, what lovely euphemisms you have.. "collateral damage".. hmm, so lets say i tended to take out what i perceive as a center for US economic hegemony.. what is my target, and what is the collateral damage? labels are the enemy of truth.

Collateral damage is damage resulting from an attack which was not intended in the attack.

Destorying a AAA emplacement but also demolishing a henhouse is just as much colateral damage as accidentally killing civilians.

one is killing, and so is the other. there is moral equivalence between the two.

Well, then we have come to the end of our discussion. A person who puts moral equivalence on the act of a police officer shooting a violent suspect and the acts of John Wayne Gacy is not a person with whom reasonable discussion is possible.

Good day sir.

 

[mrchimp]

How many of the prisoners in Camp X-Ray are not Muslims?

1) There are prisons practically full of Catholic terrorists
2) What do you expect the coalition to do? Lock up random none muslims to look politically correct? Camp X-Ray was made to deal with the Afganistan and Iraq wars, now do you think it's coincidense that those two countries are muslim and that the people in Camp X-Ray are muslim? or do you think it's because president Bush doesn't like muslims?

The goverment (the english goverment) isn't being racist too anyone, infact there too scared to send asylum seekers away because they don't want to look racist. There too scared to deport know terrorists because people like you will accuse them of being racist.

What your doing is defending the terrorists. whether you see it that way or not.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

We dont see many East Indian, S. Korean, Argentinian or Japanese terrorists, do we? Its only where the new freedom of the Western values threatens to knock down the establish cultureal power of some group where we see anti-american terrorism happeing.

so you're saying it's only the peoples that perceive the US as a threat that would resort to anti-american 'terrorisnm'?? thanks mr. obvious..

Does the US throw its weight around? Sure.
Does that cause a certian amout of antipathy toward it? Absolutly.
Does that encite people to terrorism? Certainly not.

"certainly not" huh? i'd be happy if you could spare some of your wisdom to illistrate that last deduction.

Hyperbole does not make a good rational argument.

perhaps not, but it's fun and makes for an entertaining read. also, hyperbole helps when trying stress something of importance, or exagerate the obviousness of something.

As I have said before, the US gov is very careful about who it calls terrorist and insurgent.

really? careful? this whitehouse??
taken from a whitehouse press briefing (bold added for emphasis):
Q: If I could follow, 25 soldiers have been killed in the last three days, many more Iraqis. Now we have these uprisings from Sunni and Shia. What is the administration doing, beyond military action, to try to win their support --

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, I disagree with the characterization of your question. And I think you just had a briefing from Secretary Rumsfeld and Chairman Myers and they talked about how what you are seeing is what I just described -- a relatively small number of extremist elements who are trying to take advantage of the situation and go about a violent power play to try to undermine the transition from oppression to democracy that is underway in Iraq. But they will fail; we will defeat them. These individuals are thugs and terrorists and remnants of the former regime; they are enemies of freedom, and they will not prevail. That is why we are taking the fight to these enemies of freedom.

Q: Scott, they are Sunni and they are Shia in these different groups. What is the administration doing --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I would describe them as thugs and terrorists and remnants of the former regime. And as was pointed out in the Pentagon briefing just a short time ago, I think they were described as somewhere in the range of 1,000 to 6,000, a relatively small number of these extremist elements who are enemies of freedom and enemies of the Iraqi people and a brighter future for the Iraqi people.

The moment I read "Muslim internment camps" it became clear that I would be wasting my time replying to your speech. Im sorry, but if you want to discuss things without resorting to massivly biaed hyperoble, please come again.

If not. I bid you good day, sir.

see the above referense to 'hyperbole', but yeah, you're right.. internment camps could never happen in a freedom loving country like ours..

i guess that means good day, sir

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Destorying a AAA emplacement but also demolishing a henhouse is just as much colateral damage as accidentally killing civilians.

Well, then we have come to the end of our discussion. A person who puts moral equivalence on the act of a police officer shooting a violent suspect and the acts of John Wayne Gacy is not a person with whom reasonable discussion is possible.

Good day sir.

henhouse? aren't we talking about human beings? "violent suspects", "gacy", sir, while entertaining, hyperbole is hardly a tool for rational discussion. also, didn't you just bemoan someone putting words in your mouth? you should refrain from doing it to others then :|

i like that the 10,000 or so iraqi civilians are now equivalent to 'violent suspects'.. not even the ever careful US government would term it that way :/

good day.

 

[Dedalus]

1. We dont see many East Indian, S. Korean, Argentinian or Japanese terrorists, do we? Its only where the new freedom of the Western values threatens to knock down the establish cultureal power of some group where we see anti-american terrorism happeing.

2. Does the US throw its weight around? Sure.
Does that cause a certian amout of antipathy toward it? Absolutly.
Does that encite people to terrorism? Certainly not.

1. the indian region was secured by the UK in a similar situation to what iraq is in now. except the british did it a little different. there were still terrorists but they worked together and the country is prosperous and is joining the modern world. i expect there are a few people who are still opposed to the western influence on their country, but i wouldn't label them as 'terrorists'. they want their country back how it was, what's wrong with that? they don't want imperialist people shoving them out of the way. anyway, that point is a little short sighted, especially your use of 'terrorist'. pre-programmed by modern society eh...

2. another very short sighted comment. can you think five minutes in front of your face? for all your quoting and analysing and argumentative posture, you lack a bit of common sense. "Does that encite people to terrorism? Certainly not." that happens to be a very naive thing to say. when the british were trying to keep hold of the US, they sent armies over and pillaged and killed and whatever else. they wanted to keep you part of the British Empire, so in other words they were being Imperialist. the denizens of the americas were naturally angry and wanted to murder every brit they saw. in other words, they were terrorists (to borrow the term you use frequently). of course, it's common sense to note that they weren't terrorists, but they were just people standing up for their rights. which is exactly what we see here, except you label them as terrorists and thusly shed yourself of any responsibility to fix the situation, even though you are the one who craeted it in the first place.

similar to the british/america situation all that time ago: present day, the US want to expand their 'empire' of the wonderful, beautiful, perfect, heavenly, nirvana-esque Democracy. so the US go over and bang a few heads and say here, have Democracy. now if i've been living happily and someone comes along and suggests, no, orders me to change then naturally i'm going to be a little peeved. so, when you're shoving your lovely democracy in someone's face, expect them to want to kick your face in.

"Does that encite people to terrorism? Certainly not." i'm sorry but yes it does.

i'm pretty well versed when it comes to history, and from all the texts i've read i can't see a single instance of 'terrorism' involving muslim nations. the only event that involves the middle east was the crusades and that's going a while back. so i think you should rethink your ideas on that point. terrorism didn't just spring up around your ears. you created it. think about that.


EDIT: forgive the bad structure. doing a million things at once.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

i'm pretty well versed when it comes to history, and from all the texts i've read i can't see a single instance of 'terrorism' involving muslim nations. the only event that involves the middle east was the crusades and that's going a while back. so i think you should rethink your ideas on that point. terrorism didn't just spring up around your ears. you created it. think about that.

good post dedalus, but i don't understand your last point. certainly, if one consider palestine a nation (which many muslims do), then the suicide/homocide (yay for semantics!) bombings in israel are terrorist acts right? you could argue that 9/11 was an act supported by the saudis, yes? i must be missundestanding your point


edit: oh i should point out that that press briefing i quoted above is from april 7, 2004.

 

[el Chi]

"Stawman: The logical fallicy whereby a person constructs a weakened version (a strawman) of the others argument and proceeds to demolish it. Since it does not deal with the persons actual argumet it is a mistake and not a valid argument."
Thank you.


"The US has made it very clear that they will target terrorism wherever it is, no matter what. The fact that the current hotspot for terrorism is the Middle East and not Ireland, Spain or France is does not mean that the US is trying to portray all Muslims as terrorists. Therefore, the publics preception of Muslims is entierly incidental.Those who generalize too much will end up blaming all Muslims or People of Middle eastern decent for the problem. However, this is simply ignorance and not something that should be taken as the general attitude, since it obviously is not. "
Fine, and yes of course it is borne out of ignorance, but I have seen little in the way from governments trying to set the record straight that not all Muslims are terrorists.

"In addition, someone dosent have to be Middle-eastern to be Muslim, so race isnt even an issue." I never said it was - I actually said it was a religious matter; but religious is still racism.

"Oil is a very ubiquidous resource, that is, no matter where you go, it can be found in some form. Thus, no matter where the US steps it can be "because of oil". If the US wanted oil, they can just ask them for some, they dont need to invade any place to get it." So the original Gulf War was genuinely because the Kuwatis were being so hard-done by and it was purely coincidental that the US has oil ties there? Perhaps one could say that wasprotecting US interests, but I find it monstrously hypocritical; if Kuwait didn't have oil Bush Sr. wouldn't have given it a second thought.



"I dont think you can seriously argue that the culture in most middle eastern countreis is not restricitve and repressive to personal freedoms, especially to those of women"
I didn't argue that at all - I believe I said that liberal Western culture is something to be celebrated but going around showing them the light? I have a deep problem with missionary work and this is only marginally better.

"Well, you know, blowing up civilians is not exactally the way to make yourself look innocent." Earlier, you mentioned how ignorant it is to generalise... There are some extremists that make the rest of the religion look bad.

"In addition, the Jews have a long history of actually being the focus point for suspiction and hate. Did the Jews in Nazi Germany blow up busses and buildings? No, they either got the hell out or went about thier business and obeyed the law. Do the Jews in the US blow up buildings owned by the KKK or neo-nazi groups? No. They just go about thier business and obey the law." I'm not quite sure of your point here: I wouldn't say that the current situation is like Nazi Germany - not yet at least. Besides, obeying the law didn't help them (this is not a criticism of the Jews in Nazi Germany for whom I hold the utmost reverie) - but then suicide bombings aren't exactly helping Palestine. American Jews at the moment need not fear the KKK or Neo-Nazis becaus: a) They are wealthy and powerful; b) The KKK and Neo-Nazis are fringe groups of idiot fanatics who talk a lot but <touch wood> aren't a real threat.

"If you feel your are the center of suspision, the best repsponse is to not do anything suspisios. The worst response is to run around blowing things up with ANFO or airplanes." I know what you mean but seeing as "suspicious" activities are so open to interpretation that it could feel tantamount to oppression.

"Sure, but would you lash out and resort to acts of violence? I know I wouldnt, becaue its a completly irresponsible and irrational way to react." No, not necessarily (unless the situation called for some sort of resistance movement like the French in WW2 or ordinary citizens harboring Jews in Nazi controlled areas, a la Anne Frank's situation) but then once again it is a minority reflecting badly on everyone else.


"1. Carpet bombing where?

2. Friendly fire is fire on ones own troops, not civlians. What you probably mean is collateral damage. In either case, the intnded targets are not civilian and therefore they cannot be counted as the same class of act as deliberate attacks on civilians (terrorist acts). Equating accidental killings and deliberate killings puts moral equivalence on accidental death and murder.

3. The CIA is an intelligence agency and causing civlian casualite is not what they aim for. Accidental deaths are, again, accdiental and are not equivalent to deliberate acts of killing.

4. The cold war was a secret war, but a war nonetheless. In all war, innocents get caught in the crossifire. In order to defeat the Soviet Union teh US was forced to do some pretty unsavory things in South America. However, that dosent excuse acts of terroism against the US."
1. Iraq, Afghanistan, N. Korea, Vietnam - you name it.
2. Well I did actually mean friendly fire - when I'm talking about the US killing people in this bit, I don't just mean Muslims - but yeah why not throw "collateral damage" into the mix. Yes it's going to happen but with a military budget larger than many countries' GDPs one would've hoped the targetting would be more precise, no?
3. The CIA has helped so many crooked regimes that have ended in the abritrary executions of hundreds of thousands - Pinochet, the Taliban (ironically), Saddam, Iran, the list is almost endless. Their plans are often completely selfish, mishuided and badly planned. Perhaps it's not intentional but if you take on something as serious as helping a dictator to power you've got to tak some responsibilty and think past the five minutes in front of your nose.

"You will notice that they do not call the fighters in Iraq terrorists, because they are not, they call them insurgents." Actually I've heard them be called terrorists by various military and PR personnel.

"Acts of sedition are acts against the govornment, notibly through acts against the military.
Terroism is the deliberate targeting of civilians for the purpose of killing as many as possible." Fair point, but then would that make the attack of the USS Cole and the Marine barracks acts of sedition or legitimate warfare?

Mr.Chimp - I find your comment about me defending terrorists offensive. At no point did I condone any terrorist actions. What I have been doing this whole time is commenting on the culture of fear that has ensued from this War on Terror and some of the blatant inequalities. Yes, there are great troubles with terrorism in the Middle East (however the idea the Saddam had connections with the Taliban was preposterous) but there are more things that need to be done than kill or imprison everyone who doesn't agree with you. Find out why they don't and then work on that? Is that unreasonable?
Finally - I am sorry if I have offended any Americans as people. I have issues with your foreign policies (and I have no illusions that the UK is blemish-free) and so please don't think I'm criticising you as a populous. It is the people in power whose pugnacious attitude has marred your values and global image, in exactly the same way that violent extremists are giving Muslims a bad image.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

el chi, not to be a grammar naz.. um, 'grammar opressionist', but reverie means daydreaming or being lost in thought/dream. i think you meant 'reverence'. also, religious persecution is not racism. it's simply a matter of definition.

 

[Dedalus]

good post dedalus, but i don't understand your last point. certainly, if one consider palestine a nation (which many muslims do), then the suicide/homocide (yay for semantics!) bombings in israel are terrorist acts right? you could argue that 9/11 was an act supported by the saudis, yes? i must be missundestanding your point

i'm getting confused myself now...

i don't think 9/11 was supported by saudi's because the attack was labelled as a holy act by those who carried it out, so i guess that rules out the saudi government having a hand in it. if it's classed as an act sanctioned by god then the generalisation must go towards the religion, which of course is islam, which of course is where all this stigmatism towards muslims comes from. anyway, there may have been people in saudi who were glad to see their fellow muslims 'standing up' to the US. from what i understand saudi arabia has been a stable country and looks to have a promising future, so i can't see why they would want to strike out at the western world. but of course there might be the 'old guard' who want everyone non-saudi out the door and to never return.

palestine and israel is a completely different kettle of fish. you could argue that the palestinians are standing up for themselves, then you could argue that israel are bringing it on themselves (which in part they are). but as is always the case, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. israel, although making steps, still keep treading on palestinian toes and inciting more violence. palestinians keep reacting to different events and the whole cycle carries on. i don't know whether i'd call it terrorism though. defiance maybe, it's just reactionary. which is exactly what's going on with the rest of the world. the west just seems to be rattling everyone's cage then whinging when they get their comeuppance.

don't know if i answered your query there, went on a tangent...

 

[Lil' Timmy]

i'm getting confused myself now...

yeah, sometimes i wish being certain came easily to me

the example of saudi arabia is a complex one in itself. since the saudis are a theocracy, is there really the distinction you draw? from what i understand, it was more than just a few saudis that were glad to see 9/11, in many places across the world (including bejing!) people were literally dancing in the streets. but sticking to saudi arabia, it is relatively stable. it derives its stability from the extensive system of subsidies and welfare services (like electricity, water, and fuel). however, they majority of saudis still hate the US, according to most accounts. but i guess you're talking about "state-sponsored terrorism"??

confusion abounds..

 

[el Chi]

el chi, not to be a grammar naz.. um, 'grammar opressionist', but reverie means daydreaming or being lost in thought/dream. i think you meant 'reverence'. also, religious persecution is not racism. it's simply a matter of definition.

Blast you're right. Damn you.
And I'm sure that religious persecution is encompassed by "racism" but whatever.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

And I'm sure that religious persecution is encompassed by "racism" but whatever.

it's not. it's really simpe if you think about it. races and religions are not the same thing.

example: not all muslims are semetic caucasians. some are nubian africans, some are southeast asians, some are anglo-saxons, etc.

to persecute a religion does not necessarily entail racism. i'm not argueing that the US foriegn policies have not been often racist, btw, just that you seem to be conflating two concepts.

 

[mrchimp]

i'm pretty well versed when it comes to history, and from all the texts i've read i can't see a single instance of 'terrorism' involving muslim nations. the only event that involves the middle east was the crusades and that's going a while back. so i think you should rethink your ideas on that point. terrorism didn't just spring up around your ears. you created it. think about that.

not in ancient history at any rate, however they did happen to commit genocide once or twice, but thats not the point is it?

Terrorism is the use of gurilla tactics on civilians to destabalize your opponent, it was invented by the british or to be more specific Winsten Churchill. I suppose your point is that the Bush administration is useing it as a buzz word to justify there military action against muslim factions in Iraq? which in turn looks like there labeling all muslims as terrorists and causeing racial hatred amongst the general public...

Personally I think if (if's the wrong word) there is any racial hatred in England it's because of 9/11 and imagration. I meet racists (or anti Muslims) on a regular basis (not out of choice) and there more concerned about asian youths getting away with criminal offences because the police won't dare touch them, or sagging imagration laws and people leaching off the welfair system. It wouldn't matter if the goverment were talking about them being terrorists or not, the racists would be saying it anyway and have been for years.

While your arguing over the goverments chioce of words, people are voteing for the BNP because they don't think the goverment isn't takeing enough action and that they are scared of being called racist so inevitably becomeing soft when they should be more resistant.

Compared to the BNP the goverment is not racist, not in the slightest, not by a long stretch of the imagination. I'v witnessed real racism and I'v listend to it's propaganda and I can quite safely say the English goverment is not promoteing it or indeed related to it. I can not say the same for the media but there out of anyones control.

 

[Dedalus]

this ****ing forum...i wrote out a response and the page refreshed and it vanished...can't be arsed to write it all up again. do it later maybe

bloody thing

 

[el Chi]

"not in ancient history at any rate, however they did happen to commit genocide once or twice, but thats not the point is it?"
Most people did it at one point or other. How very depressing.

"Terrorism is the use of gurilla tactics on civilians to destabalize your opponent, it was invented by the british or to be more specific Winsten Churchill. I suppose your point is that the Bush administration is useing it as a buzz word to justify there military action against muslim factions in Iraq? which in turn looks like there labeling all muslims as terrorists and causeing racial hatred amongst the general public..."
I thought it'd been argued here that the term wasn't applicable to nation states? Besides, guerrilla tactics are not terrorist actions.

"Personally I think if (if's the wrong word) there is any racial hatred in England it's because of 9/11 and imagration. I meet racists (or anti Muslims) on a regular basis (not out of choice) and there more concerned about asian youths getting away with criminal offences because the police won't dare touch them, or sagging imagration laws and people leaching off the welfair system. It wouldn't matter if the goverment were talking about them being terrorists or not, the racists would be saying it anyway and have been for years."
Nah the problem of racism has been here for AGES, it's just that the targets and excuses move around with the times. This year's topics are exactly what you mentioned.

"While your arguing over the goverments chioce of words, people are voteing for the BNP because they don't think the goverment isn't takeing enough action and that they are scared of being called racist so inevitably becomeing soft when they should be more resistant."
The BNP get votes by going to disillusioned poorer areas and telling the inhabitants and voters that it's the fault of immigrants (legal or not) and foreigners and that they'll solve the issue. In exactly the same way that Hitler did.

"Compared to the BNP the goverment is not racist, not in the slightest, not by a long stretch of the imagination. I'v witnessed real racism and I'v listend to it's propaganda and I can quite safely say the English goverment is not promoteing it or indeed related to it. I can not say the same for the media but there out of anyones control."
You're right, the British govt. is fairly clean in terms of racism.
Oh, except for that Tory MP who got fired for that Morcambe Bay joke.

 

[mrchimp]

I can't make out your responses very well...

Unfortunately it's not just the working classes that are voteing for the BNP and it wasn't just the lower classes that supported Hitler. Also some of the "pesants" are makeing a protest vote, they don't actually believe in the BNP's values.

Believe it or not some of the problems I mentioned are real and weren't invented by racist's, I think some people like to believe they were.