Targeting civilians in their transport means and lives is denounced and rejected.

Sensible words, right? Now guess who said them.

If you didn’t guess Moussa Abu Marzouk, deputy chief of Hamas, you were wrong.

Surprised? It turns the cast of characters condemning the bombings was a little strange. Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad condemned “these detested acts.” “We condemn with the strongest possible terms these explosions, and convey our sincere condolences to the British people and government,” said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. Others on the list include Iran, and shockingly, Hezbollah. Hezbollah’s Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah voiced outrage:

These crimes are not accepted by any religion. It is a barbarism wholly rejected by Islam,

Some earlier Fadlallah sentiments:

What martyrdom is greater than making yourself a human bomb detonating it among the enemy? What spiritualism is greater than this spiritualism in which a person loses all feeling of his body and life for the sake of his cause and mission?

Good, so we can expect no more attacks of Israel from Hamas or Hezbollah! You heard it here first!

Watch the media for stranger and stranger (and stranger) occurrences. Even the Guardian, famous for not using the T-word said:

A series of explosions ripped through London today as suspected terrorist attacks on tube trains and a bus killed at least 37 people and plunged the capital into chaos. [emphasis mine, here and in what follows]

The BBC, also typically shy of using such words said:

Four terror attacks on London’s transport network leave more than 30 people dead and 700 injured.

Wait, Muffti thought there were only ‘activists’ and ‘militants’ out there! Finally, from a newspaper that vigorously defended not using the word ‘terrorism’ with respect to attacks on Israelis:

…red double-decker bus in a deadly terror attack today, killing at least 37 people in coordinated rush hour carnage…

That’s right: the NY Times. Check here for their policy on using the word with respect to attacks on Israel.

Reminiscent of claims regarding text messages and 9-11, Antiwar.com has an early conspiracy claim about the London bombings and Netanyahu:

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to show up at a conference slated to take place in a hotel directly above a subway station where one of the blasts went off. AP avers “The warning prompted him to stay in his hotel room instead, government officials said.”

Hat tip to Kenny, Shechar and Yahoo News where most of the quotes were taken from.

About the author

grandmuffti

18 Comments

  • Iran and Syria, both on Washington’s list of states sponsoring terrorism, joined an unbroken chorus of condemnation, as did the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas and Lebanon’s Shi’ite Muslim Hizbollah guerrillas. …

    The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, responsible for many suicide attacks on Israelis, condemned the London bombings.

    “Targeting civilians in their transport means and lives is denounced and rejected,” Moussa Abu Marzouk, deputy chief of the group’s political bureau told Reuters in Damascus by telephone.

    Leading Lebanese Shi’ite Muslim scholar Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah voiced outrage. “These crimes are not accepted by any religion. It is a barbarism wholly rejected by Islam,” he said.

  • Every time they are done screwing us they realize they don’t want to go out with us, so Hamas Syria, IJ, and the like say something nice like “I need to go out and buy some milk” or “Baby, I don’t actually like terrorism”… Hoping that we will forgive him and go home. But I say “No baby, we have a thing going. Let’s dance. Have some cruise missiles. I know you like it.” So let’s go al-qaeda, are you cheating on me or what?

  • I don’t see any conflict. Since they were speaking to the British, they simply omitted three key words: “except for Jews.”

    Thus, it should actually read: “Targeting civilians in their transport means and lives is denounced and rejected, except for Jews.”

    Same goes for the other quotes. Everything works better when you add those words.

  • But lies sound so much prettier than the truth. And let’s face it, if terrorist supporters told the media what they tell their kids there would be no terrorism. It would have ended long ago.

  • Wow, Daniel, when you put it that way, Muffti has a bit of sympathy for the offending attitudes…

  • Don’t you know? They’re only terrorists when the attack is on YOUR soil. Everywhere else, they’re freedom fighters, opressed delicate snowflakes, and they’re just defending themselves from the vast Imperialistic-Zionist-Military-Industrial-Complex.

    /sarcasm.

  • so fine u r right! we all know that the terrorists are everywhere else but in israel. i m still puzzeled how is it possible that whole world hets fooled every time. they send their condolences and we all friends etc. i pashut lo mevin.

  • I hate when everyone brings Israel into the mix.

    Israel is involved in a land dispute. A nation is trying to create a homeland for itself.

    It’s a different story. What is that term you love, moral equivalizing?

  • Jobber-
    You hate when Israel is allowed on the same playing field as everyone else? Do you really believe that if “a nation is trying to create a homeland for itself” it makes Israeli civilians fair game for bombers in a way that British civilians aren’t?

    First, if the nation simply wanted to create a homeland for itself, it could have presented a counter offer to—or maybe even accepted—Barak’s offer at Camp David.

    Second, Murder is not ok, whether the political dispute driving it is a) the Palestinian desire for a nation (along with the “right of return” which would in effect give them a second nation in place of Israel) or b) Bin Laden’s demand that the West leave Afganistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, southern Spain, and the other Waqf lands.

    Contrary to your thesis sentence, it is the same story. An Israeli civilian in Tel Aviv, a British civilian in London, an American civilian in NYC…

  • gni, I am expaining why some people have sympathies for the Palestinian people in general. It does not mean that I agree or support them or the extremist actions, but it is important to acknowledge that there are 2 sides to the conflict.
    W/ Iraq btw, the US invaded this country so there are going to be people upset w/ that. Bush invaded after telling the American people about all the WMD. Which have not been found at all, not one dot of it.
    Also understand something, there is a war on, these people are fighting on their terms, not on our terms. This is how they fight, so be it. If yu wanna fight them, you’d better do the same thing, or else get out.

  • BTW when Bush sends bombers to bomb their cities and there is “collateral” damage killing innocent Iraqis, that is OK w/ you, but their relatives and loved ones call it terrorism, and this needs to be understood. Just naming one act of murder terrorism and the other “collateral damage” does not unequate them.

  • Jobber,
    your ‘collateral damage’ claim is valid by me, honestly.

    In the six bombs that went off, who was being targeted in each one. Who were the high ranking British officers, MI5, MI6 personnel who were taking the underground and double decker buses?

    I also used to dislike the arrogange of bringing Israel into every terrorism discussion, but after being on the net for over ten years, and being exposed to a lot of different opinions and ideas, my conclusion is that Israel really is the bell-weather for modern day terrorism. Arafat is the godfather, the world that refused to condemn the massacring of Jews can barely look in the mirror anymore with the daily suicide massacres in Iraq against IRAQI citizens, as well as American troops.

    Israel is involved in a land dispute.

    yeah, ok.

    Shavuah tov!

  • Josh, You only see the conflict from the US perspective. We are right, they are wrong. What we do is correct, what they do is morally reprehensible. the fact is that the US invaded Iraq, for the stated reason that Saddam had WMD.
    Some people took offense to this war, so they
    fight as they understand war, not as YOU understand war.

    Israel also invaded and occupied land that had belonged to other nations, that is why I called it a land dispute. YOU might prefer to call it belonging to Israel, but the world community sees it as a land dispute.

  • the attacks are about revenge and trying to curtail western influence in the middle east so that they can try and impose their own brand of fundamentalism at home.

    the irony is that if the west stopped meddling in the middle east, islamic fundamentalism probably wouldn’t have much of a shelf life. ten years ago, algeria, was feared to be the next great islamist state. the west generally stayed out of the violence that took place there and, despite the election of fundamentalists in 1995, algeria didn’t come apart at the seams when the military took over. ten years later, islamic fundamentalism has little residual influence in algeria.
    the argument could be made that, in many ways, 9/11 did have a huge negative effect on our economy.

    The idea of terrorism is to make the cost (lives, $$$, world opinion etc) of ‘staying the course’ (continuing to do whatever it is that is alienating the terrorirsts and causing them to beleive they have no alternative but violence) so high that the government reverses course. History has proven how successful it can be. Go check out how much power & opportunity the Catholics have now in Northern Ireland now and compare that to 30 years ago, prior to the IRA insurrection. Also think about how it was terrorists who forced the Israeli army out of Lebanon at the end of the 80s, the French out of Algeria and in the years to come it will be terrorism that forces the US out of Iraq.

    terrorism creates political pressure.

  • Jobber-
    A suggestion for civil discourse: If someone posts a comment disagreeing with you, it would be better for you to respond to the particular points raised in the comment, instead of attacking the person who disagrees with you by speculating that the poster harbers some third unmentioned viewpoint.

    When I disagreed with you, for example, you responded by speculating: “when Bush sends bombers to bomb their cities and there is “collateral” damage killing innocent Iraqis, that is OK w/ you…”

    That’s absurd and offensive. How do you know what is and isn’t ok with me? I certainly didn’t say anything about Iraq in my post.

    Same as when Josh disagreed with you. You again responded by attributing some extreme third point of view to Josh: “You only see the conflict from the US perspective. We are right, they are wrong. What we do is correct, what they do is morally reprehensible.”

    What you’re doing isn’t really that much different than name calling.

  • Jobber,
    you remember what happenned after 9/11, the popularity of Islam surged in the US. The point is not only so that they can try and impose their own brand of fundamentalism at home. It’s also to gain more support overseas, give hope to the muslim living with infidels that his redemption is near, and also to attract credibility.

    You see, it seems that since most people are lazy couch-potatoes these days, when they see someone feel really strong for something, they actually ‘respect’ the effort. I’m not saying that non-muslims are standing in line to give money to Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Keren Hakayemet of Iran, but as much as people might hate them, it’s already been established that these are are opposite ‘equals’.

  • the task is to make muslims like “us” more than they like bin laden. telling them that we are “liberating” them by occupying their countries clearly isn’t doing that. it has nothing to do with moral equivalence and everything to do with practicality. you can never rid the world of fanatics but you can limit the number of people who follow them. THAT’s the only part of the “war on terror” that really matters.

    Sorry GNI, I got pissed off w/ Josh callling me ignorant several times. I am attempting to open people’s minds, w/ out being called ignorant. My main concern is that I opposed this Iraq war, not the Afghan war.

  • are you going to suggest that the people of london, who had been through two decades of ira terrorism and had seen what happened in madrid, were caught completely by surprise?

    . it may be reasonable to presume that the people of fallujah were more prepared to come under attack than the people of london (although, given the state of affairs in iraq, they were likely far less prepared to actually cope with an attack many times the magnitude of the one in london). in any event, that reality doesn’t make their deaths any less worthy of condemnation than the deaths of the people killed in london this week.

    what it boils down to is that neither of us has taken the time to make a post explicitly condemning the death and carnage caused by the largely indiscriminate u.s. attack on fallujah. we have both explicitly condemned the attack in london, albeit i have done so with a concurrent interest in understanding why it happened (which is not the same as justifying). you, however, are trying to suggest that recognizing that the london attack had a strategic purpose for al qaeda is tantamount to absolving them of any blame for the taking of innocent life. i have repeatedly stated in this thread (and others) that i don’t condone the killing of non-combatants under any circumstances. that i don’t take the time to explicitly condemn each and every obvious episode of wanton disregard for the lives of innocents (whether carried out by the united states or al qaeda) does not lessen this view in any way. if you’d prefer to gobble up the b.s. and believe that al qaeda attacks are completely random and indiscriminate and not designed to exact both revenge and provoke a western response that provides them with their raison d’etre, be my guest. your efforts at suggesting that i am “justifying” the attacks by suggesting less simplistic reasons for why they continue to occur, however, are simply offensive and narrow-minded.

Leave a Comment