In article <8v2dd15tqp7r8mordta7r1esf64p5qaul9@4ax.com>, Jim07D5
<Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:

Sean C <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> said:

Are the British soldiers beating, torturing and killing Iraqis by the
hundreds British by "cultural commitment," or just by nationality? If
Britain had been overrun by the Nazis, you would have seen acts of
terrorism every bit as heinous as this one against the invaders. As
horrific as the terrorist attacks in London were, they pale in
comparison to the devastation the Iraqi people have endured courtesy of
Bush and Blair. While there can be no justification for deliberate,
barbaric attacks aginst innocent civilians, there should be little
doubt about what the ultimate cause of these acts is. If there had been
no invasion of Iraq, there would have been no terrorist attack in
London. It is not the result of some inherent flaw in Pakistani culture
which makes them unable to interact with Western "civilization" without
violence.

Most people of Pak descent are quite able succeed peaceably in their
interactions with people of other cultures.

Let's assume the Iraq war is an unjust war (I think it is.) Should the
people of a country terrorize and kill random fellow citizens in order
to influence their government to make decisions, even if the decision
they seek is a pull-out from an unjust war? Can you say yes or no?

Absolutely no. There can be no justification for deliberate attacks
against innocent civilians. There is a democratic process in play,
however terribly flawed it is in the US as well as the UK.

The mainstream Islamic culture of Pakistan says "NO", as reflected in
the general reactions of those of Pakistani origin in England. What
the murderers did does not represent an inherent flaw in a *culture*
-- if it did, that culture would already be extinct. Such behavior is
intrinsically destructive of culture and civilization, and cannot be
permitted to drive the decisions of a government. I think the people
of England realize this.

We have to say "No" to terrorism.

Would you consider Blair to be British by "cultural commitment?" He
has, after all, unleashed quite a bit of terror of his own on the
people of Iraq in collaboration with his American allies. His actions
enjoy support from a sizeable minority of the populace, who might be
stunned to learn their support of this war renders them culturally
un-British. Sort of like how Christians stop being true Christians the
moment they do anything wrong.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:14:27 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone (Fred
Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

Were any of the British citizens of Pakistani descent who committed what
you admit were deliberate barbaric acts from Iraq? Then what is their
grievance again?

I'm not trying to take the ***** here Fred, but is that a rhetorical
question, or do you *really* have absolutely no idea what their
grievances might be?

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:14:27 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone (Fred
Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

Sean C <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote in
news:130720052103596635%redhawk@burnspammersalive.com:

In article <5ncad1tp8evn3mrmnlhfo4d70j780fbold@4ax.com>, Jim07D5
<Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:

BBB News:

"Prime Minister Tony Blair has called for new laws to tackle
extremism and a worldwide drive to address the "evil" ideology
behind the London bombings.

"Mr Blair said there would be "profound shock and anxiety" after
the news the suspected suicide bombers were British. "

Well, let's be clear. It isn't that they were British versus, say,
Pakistani nationals. It is that they were *not* British *by
cultural commitment*. Their cultural affiliation and values require
allegiance to an idea or set of ideas that is antagonistic to the
notion that individuals have a right to go about their daily
business peacefully under a democratic rule of law; and that
differences of opinion must be settled in accordance with this.

They have (or had) an allegiance to ideas that they believe
transcend the human rights that underlie democratic society.

Religion is the place where such antidemocratic ideas find a
natural, hospitable environment, and it is evident that some
religions are more hospitable than others.

So, let's be clear.
Jim07D5

Are the British soldiers beating, torturing and killing Iraqis by
the hundreds British by "cultural commitment," or just by
nationality? If Britain had been overrun by the Nazis, you would
have seen acts of terrorism every bit as heinous as this one against
the invaders. As horrific as the terrorist attacks in London were,
they pale in comparison to the devastation the Iraqi people have
endured courtesy of Bush and Blair. While there can be no
justification for deliberate, barbaric attacks aginst innocent
civilians, there should be little doubt about what the ultimate
cause of these acts is. If there had been no invasion of Iraq, there
would have been no terrorist attack in London. It is not the result
of some inherent flaw in Pakistani culture which makes them unable
to interact with Western "civilization" without violence.

Were any of the British citizens of Pakistani descent who committed
what you admit were deliberate barbaric acts from Iraq? Then what is
their grievance again?

I'm not trying to take the ***** here Fred, but is that a rhetorical
question, or do you *really* have absolutely no idea what their
grievances might be?