[trash-talk] London trashers ... are you OK?

Sat Jul 9 17:13:01 PDT 2005

Personally I thought you were justified, and Mono Girl overstepped a line
with me too. It was very VERY insensitive. You're right in the middle of it
Ian, and I think you handled the ignorant email as well as anyone would
given the situation.

______________________________

Shell Bryson

new media designer & developer

icq 10058302

aol/aim subhuman2k

cell +44 (0) 7760 254 152

land +44 (0) 131 539 0188

digital:harmony

 <http://www.dhnewmedia.com/> www.dhnewmedia.com

4/8 North Leith Mill, Edinburgh, EH6 6JY Scotland

  _____  

From: trash-talk-bounces at tcp.com [mailto:trash-talk-bounces at tcp.com] On
Behalf Of Ian Abbott
Sent: 10 July 2005 00:52
To: Garbage Trash-Talk
Subject: Re: [trash-talk] London trashers ... are you OK?

This is my last post on this as I'm sure the rest of you don't want to see
some flame war going on forever between myself and Mono Girl.

Let me say first that the daily death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan is
horrifying. It is also true to say that in comparison to the 100,000+ deaths
in the middle east or to the 3,500+ dead of September 11, the death toll in
London is minimal. However that doesn't mean that it should be made "light
of" as Mono Girl has. People are dead. Bodies are not identified - some
bodies are being eaten away in the hot 100 degree tunnels by rats and may
never be identified. People have lost friends and family - others have been
badly shaken and traumatised. Yes, it may "only be" 50 dead. It may "only
be" 700 injured. London was lucky in that respect. However to come out with
comments such as "How can Bush & Blair sleep at night" and so on, no matter
how much truth there is to that, so soon after the events I find to be
tactless. A single person dead is one person too many.

I think most of us on the group fall into the anti-war category. I know I
do. I found Bush & Blair's "war on terror" on Iraq sickening. There were no
WMD and invading for the sake of regime change is totally against all known
UN conventions. There were no links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda at
that time and Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 bombings according to
intelligence and common sense. Instead of bringing democracy to the area
with his war, Bush has introduced instability, insurgency and a rise in
hatred of the west in certain fundamentalist areas (I stress fundamentalist
as 99.999999% of Muslims do not see the west as "infidels"). If Al Qaeda
weren't there before, they certainly are now. Speaking of which, I think
it's safe to say AQ is a state of mind shared by loosely connected terror
units rather than a centrally controlled structure. Whatever structure there
may have been (and I doubt even that was as made out as it was back in the
days post the WTC attacks) was disbanded shortly after the ineffective
attacks on Afghanistan where the Taliban are again gaining power, opiate
production is back in full swing and feelings against the west are again on
the rise.

Directly connecting the London bombings with the Iraq insurgency is also
unfair as it seems to connect killing of Muslims in Iraq with killings in
London. Unfortunately many Muslims died in the London bombings as London is
a wholly integrated multicultural society, so that sort of thinking is
facetious. Whatever insurgency has occurred in Iraq has been very secular
and not just aimed at the West - in fact, it has mainly been targeted at
Iraqi civilians attempting to stabilise the country post-invasion and many
of the insurgents are coming from outside of the country to deliberately
destabilise the area.

Personally I'd like to see our troops come home as soon as possible as don't
think we should have been there in the first place. Once again, as with the
London bombings, we've come off lightly - far fewer British troops are
coming home in body bags compared to the USA. Why this is I am not sure, but
I am thankful. Unfortunately it looks like we'll be there for the next 10
years if Bush gets his way - sometimes it feels like Britain is an annexed
state of the USA. The Bush government has this concept that they can win a
war on terror - I'm not so sure such a thing is feasible; how do you win a
war against a concept?

Violence begets violence on both sides (retaliation for bombing equals more
bombing ad infinitum) whilst curtailing civil liberties back home with a
controlled police state means the terrorists win. The politics of fear on
both sides is damaging for us all and I don't there's a real solution. You
can't sit down and debate with isolated fundamentalists who see everyone as
"infidels" but then again killing them causes martyrdom and another hundred
will step up to the cause.

It's complete madness and I don't think we're ever going to see an end to
this. That's what truly scares me.

So please don't treat me like I have no understanding of the issues. In
fact, I'd recommend you watch the very informative documentary series "The
Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear" by Adam Curtis -
it'll open your eyes to the full details of what's been going on here for
the past few decades. It even shows the strange rationales used by Bin Laden
and his cohorts in justifying killing other Muslims and how a previous
fundamentalist group started killing off each of its own members with
similar twisted logic until *no one* was left.

Sorry to anyone who thought I was coming across all judgmental but it just
appeared to me that M.G., whilst making perfectly valid comments to which I
don't actually disagree that much (George Galloway stated similar opinions),
just said them a bit *too* early, Let London bury its dead before discussing
such matters - it's just a question of tact.

So I apologise to M.G. for using the language I did in the mail below; I
should've considered my posting more thoroughly before sending, but maybe
M.G. should also consider their use of language and tact before making such
posts in the future,

With that, I'd like to draw a line on these events and give my condolences
to the families and friends of anyone who has been affected by terrorism in
any form at any time.

Regards,

Ian

On 10 Jul 2005, at 00:16, Ian Abbott wrote:

Don't be such as f-ing idiot. For chrissakes don't you think I know what's
going on over there as well. It may come as a surprise to you but people in
the UK have a fairly good idea on what's going on in the world and most of
us find the entire Iraq situation terrible - we didn't want to go there in
the first place you know...

All I wanted was for you to display just a bit of sensitivity *for one day*
you total arse. 

*whatever* wanker

Ian

On 10 Jul 2005, at 00:04, OCourtneyLoveO at aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 09/07/2005 16:14:03 GMT Standard Time,
iabbott at ruiner.demon.co.uk writes:

That may be so but you could have at least kept that to yourself for now.
They still haven't recovered all the dead in the tunnels and the heat and
the rats are making it harder... 

Have some respect for all of the dead in the UK, and Iraq, and all across
the world and think before you come out with stuff like that.

Personally I disagree with the war in Iraq but now is *not* the time.

sorry ian

ill put ~100,000 dead muslims in iraq + afganistan

on the back burner for now

tomorrow is another day.......

~whatever~

~Mono Girl~

_______________________________________________

Trash-talk at tcp.com list delivered to iabbott at ruiner.demon.co.uk

http://www.tcp.com/mailman/options/trash-talk/iabbott%40ruiner.demon.co.uk

http://www.tcp.com/mailman/listinfo/trash-talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.tcp.com/pipermail/trash-talk/attachments/20050710/803cb79e/attachment-0001.html