Resistance strikes a blow against US imperialists and their lapdogs (the UK)
by Eric, 16 April 2008
By, umm, bombing a bus full of women and children. Yes, here’s that resistance that Terry Jones mentioned.
At least 53 died and another 90 were injured when explosives packed in a bus detonated outside a restaurant near a court in Baquba, north of the capital.
[…]
The bomb there exploded just before noon in a crowded area.Most of the dead were women and children and many of the bodies are said to be too badly burned to be identified.
Presumably this collateral damage is acceptable when it is a result of the resistance’s actions. Terry Jones, who admittedly has been consistent since 2001, should be justifiably proud of the resistance’s glorious assault on the invaders.
Wednesday 16 April 2008 at 18:35
The mentality of the bombers reminds me of a line Marlon Brando had in the “Wild Ones” in response to Patricia Neal’s question about what he was rebelling against:
“I don’t know. What have you got?”
Wednesday 16 April 2008 at 18:50
You’re wrong. They know exactly what they are rebelling about, it is a well-thought out and consistent political ideology (even if it seems kooky and reactionary to us). The deaths of Muslims are of little importance since they are either martyrs or not true Muslims. The deaths of the children can be theologically justified if you are a takfiri.
To suggest they are just rebelling wildly is simplistic and plays into the blind automaton argument for their actions.
But for Terry Jones, who presumably is not a takfiri, such deaths cannot be explained away by theological arguments. Therefore his only justification for his stance is that he is a idiot. To call these deaths a responsibility of the US and the UK is preposterous, especially when similar deaths of Muslims occur in Algeria and Pakistan, and even in the most holiest of sites Mecca in 1979.
Thursday 17 April 2008 at 8:57
There is aa couple of big terrorist trials going on in England at the moment, and in both of them the alleged would-be terrorists say they were motivated by the sight of Muslim deaths. The obvious question is ‘how come you weren’t as motivated to do something about Darfur or Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq etc etc?’. Having read this post, I now understand that Muslim on Muslim violence is a ‘good thing’ and should probably be encouraged! What a way to run a society!
Thursday 17 April 2008 at 15:43
Scoop:
If you were talking about the theorists of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah, I’d agree that they know exactly what they believe in “however kooky and reactionary”, but they invariably do this from a safe distance. With the exception of Tariq Ramadan’s first cousin, who blew himself up at a clinic in Hilla along with 120 Iraqi Shias, and one of bin Laden’s sons, it ain’t the ring leaders or those that the ringleaders hold near and dear who get sent out to blow themselves up.
The rest are the products of very heavy indoctrination, that usually is laid on from a very early age. I still remember the footage from PA TV of Arafat exhorting his followers to give their children up for martyrdom missions if they feel they themselves are too old to fight, when all the while he was stuffing his pockets and the pockets of his friends while he kept his wife and daughter in Paris.
If Arafat or Saddam were true believers, I’m a raisin-eyed virgin in paradise, yet both sent untold numbers to certain death.
Thursday 17 April 2008 at 16:10
The rest are the products of very heavy indoctrination
Agreed, but that indoctrination includes the theological justifications that leading thinkers like Ayman al-Zawahiri have developed. They are not merely brainwashed into killing themselves like a legion of Manchurian Candidates. They have to build up the belief-structure that rests upon first. Especially given the Koran has specific warnings about not killing Muslims.