Pre-emptive apologies for ranting...

[johnnystress]

Anarchists responsible for the bombings? I'd say  highly highly unlikey.
 
I think the term "anarchicts" is being used by the media in the same way as "muslim" or even "chav" to pigeon hole a whole section of people who do not think as a hive mind or even have much in common.

Not everyone who belives in anarchy feels the need to wear a mask or indulge in rioting and other cliches.

The people who the media have seized on, and let's face it, they do look like our collective image of the mad anarchist with the molotov cocktail, are the Black Bloc

more info on them here..

Link: http://www.infoshop.org/blackbloc.html" target="_blank">Black Bloc

[Quirkafleeg]

It would be very easy, and wrong of course, to equate a few extremists shounting on the television to a whole group of people... the post 911 Question Time was a disgrace, something that did Muslims in general no good at all.

Just being nosey hear, but Shane were you born Muslim or did you convert?

[Matt Timson]

"A black bloc is a collection of anarchists and anarchist affinity groups that organize together for a particular protest action."

That doesn't sound much like anarchy to me...

[Funt Solo]

:: "Hardly any British Muslims condone bombings ... though ... after 9/11 there was an unpleasant tendancy to make the "chickens have come home to roost" argument"

What you refer to as the "chickens...roost" argument wasn't just made by British Muslims, which I think you know.  By placing both together in the same sentence the meaning becomes ambiguous.

:: ""chickens have come home to roost" argument, which is ... every bit the same as saying "they were justified in what they did"."

No.  No, it isn't the same at all.  This is the argument followed by everyone who supported the invasion of Iraq and has painted everything black and white, so that one must be either for or against them.  If you are against them, they label you an "appeaser of terror".

There's nothing wrong with people wanting to explore why 9/11 (and other atrocities) have taken place.  If you explore "why?", then surely you can see that it might be possible to reach a solution that doesn't involve military might (because that solution doesn't seem to be working).  It might not.  All I'm saying is, why not ask why?

To describe this way of thinking as "weak-minded", is to shut down the argument, pigeon-hole the person you disagree with and just reinforce that black or white approach that only serves to divide people.  You don't think perhaps that it is weak-minded not to be able to see two sides (or multiple facets) of a topic?

As for your comments on "God and everlasting life", please appreciate that whilst you seem to have no religious beliefs that you hold dear, other people do, and a comment like that could be very insulting to them (especially as it comes after a bizarre reference to a fatwa that holds no bearing on recent world events).

This thread was started by someone who was happy that he'd seen open-mindedness here.  Let's carry on with that.

[Dudley]

Is it a bumblebee?  Only, you say "fat little bastard", which Italian honeybees (the usual domestic variety) usually aren't.  If it is a bumblebee, at this time of year then it's unlikely to be a queen.  A drone bumblebee's very unlikely to sting you unless you actually sit on it: I shouldn't worry overmuch.  Unless you're irresistibly drawn to sitting on bees.

[Funt Solo]

:: "That doesn't sound much like anarchy to me..."

Yeah, they had an Anarachist's Society at Stirling Uni:  I often wondered how they arranged where to meet, and who was in charge?  

Anyone who listened to Anarchy In The UK by The Sex Pistols and then thought "yes, someone should really organise that" has sort of missed the point.

[paulvonscott]

Well, Gary and Art have covered most of what I'd have said.

I'm curious to know if there were the scenes of jubilaition across the muslim world that there were for the trade tower bombings.  Perhaps Britian isn't quite as hated or perhaps we've been shielded from it by the media as it would be seens as socially divisive.  

Which of course is why I understand the tone of a lot of posts.  

[Steve Green]

Depressingly, the BNP have already leapt on the bandwagon - they make ambulance-chasers look like amateurs...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4674675.stm

- Steve

[Thursday]

"Obviously Islamic terrorists carried out the attacks, but it is the Labour Party's fault they did it." -Nick Griffin, BNP head, taken from the BBC website.

I can't even begin to list the number of things wrong with this.  I just hope whoever interviewed him gave him a suitably hard time (actually I hope the interviewer gave him a severe thrashing with a stout stick, but that's just me; I suppose having twats like this is the price you pay for freedom of speech, politics et al).

The scary thing is, there are places where the BNP got more votes than the Green party.

[Max Kon]

would anyone complain if i went out BNP bashing?

:P (not serious)

[johnnystress]

Wouldn't it be funny(in a way) if it turns out to be the work of Timothy MacVeigh style white power nutters? The implications would be terrible but the look on that bastard Griffins face would be priceless

[House of Usher]

"The scary thing is, there are places where the BNP got more votes than the Green party."

Don't let that scare you too much. The BNP and the Greens pick up the votes of quite different sections of the electorate. Most people whose conscience tells them they'd like to vote Green vote Liberal Democrat or Labour instead due to tactical considerations. I can't believe there's anyone who would want to vote BNP but votes Tory or Labour instead because the main parties have a better chance of winning.

[Max Kon]

You mean like this?
'it's time to vote BNP, or we'll do this again
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41293000/jpg/_41293911_bus203.jpg>



And his face would be priceless

[Steve Green]

What, like this charmer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland

- Steve

[Adrian Bamforth]

"And not examining the historical factors that lead to the birth of Al Queda and ultimately 9/11 would be a very big mistake indeed."

Yes, though it's one thing to ask the question "did America do anything to to justify the attacks" (which is of course one of the first things you should do), and on other to say "the chickens have come home to roost" i.e. "America did something to justify the attacks".

ADE