chicot

Of course they do, but that's no reason to assume that each and every suicide bombing has to carried out by a young Arab male. As you well know, that is a false assumption.

? The London bombers were not of Arab origin. Apart from the Jamaican, they were all Pakistani.

Happy Birthday Have a great day.

So in other words, "martyrdom operations against enemies of Islam" can mean attacks on military targets as well as attacks on civilians, which was precisely my point.

There have also been suicide bombings against US troops in Iraq (as well as those targetting civilians). Care to hazard a guess as to how the groups that have carried out those attacks would describe them?

Given that there is plenty of speculation about an attack on Iran at the moment, I don't think it is at all out of the question that it could just as easily refer to attacks on an invading army. They would still be "martyrdom operations" and a US force invading Iran would certainly be seen as "enemies of Islam and the Islamic republic of Iran". BTW the BBC spin on it is that it's a load of hot air: BBC Link

Thanks

"Enemies of Islam" is pretty standard mullah speech which could mean several things. Does he mean all enemies of Islam?. Some enemies of Islam?Selected enemies of Islam? The statement talks of "all-out readiness" which implies that these operations are not to be carried out now but at some future time (an invasion of Iran, perhaps?). Why wait? Are there not already "enemies of Islam" (in his view) in the world? If he was incapable of making judgements (as you seem to be suggesting) as to which enemies of Islam are to be attacked, why shouldn't he be advocating attacks against them right now? Also, where are these "martyrdom operations" to be carried out? In Iran? Abroad? If the latter, it seems a strange policy to forewarn western nations by publicly announcing his intentions in this way. Again, you may be right that he is indeed advocating terrorist attacks against civilians but I don't think the snippet provided makes that clear by any means.

You're missing my point. From the original post, it is not clear whether or not terrorist attacks are being advocated. For instance, if someone drives a truck laden with explosives into a tank from an invading army in the centre of Tehran, would that actually be terrorism? Now, it may be that he was actually advocating attacks on civilians (as you seem to be assuming) but that's not really clear from the original post.

And in what context would these "martyrdom operations" be carried out? If they are advertising for people to go and blow themselves and civilians up, that is one thing. If they are advertising for people to carry out these operations against military targets in the event of an invasion of Iran, that is quite another. Can you provide more details?

I'm not taking that bet! Yes, they are almost certainly muslims.

That doesn't change the fact that JSP's original statement that the London bus bomber is an Arab is almost certainly untrue.

? Where does it say the bus bomber is an Arab? I thought it was established that he was of Pakistani origin.

Suicide bombings certainly seem to have increased and, assuming they are indeed being carried out by foreigners, that would seem to suggest that their influence is increasing. I'm not sure that attacks against the US military are down however. I read a report a few weeks ago that stated that attacks against the US military are at exactly the same level as they were a year ago (about 60-70 a day if I remember rightly). Unless these attacks actually cause loss of life they don't make the news (that's the way it is here and I'd guess it would be the same on your side of the Atlantic). Suicide bombings that kill dozens of people are always going to receive more media coverage than attacks on military targets that kill no one.

And BTW am I actually allowed to reply with my opinion to JSP since he actually asked what it was? Perhaps I should just give a highly condescending reply and tell him that my opinion is irrelevant.

When exactly would opinion be relevant? This is a politics board - what exactly do you expect people to be doing apart from stating their opinion? Or maybe I should just wait for someone else to offer an opinion and then rip into it. Nah, there's enough people playing that game already.

Once upon a time I used to enjoy having a civilised debate with you. Sadly, it seems that is no longer possible. I asked what you believed because I wondered what your opinion was, not because it made any difference to the reality on the ground. How do you know what I made my "assumption" on? Are you are a mindreader as well as being supremely arrogant? I provided that link simply as a counterexample not because my entire opinion was based upon it's contents. You are indeed well-named.

Well, what do you believe? That there are more foreign insurgents than Iraqi ones?

Nope. I think that most of the ones actually blowing themselves are up are probably foreigners with some help and assistance from more ruthless and fanatical elements of the Iraqi insurgency.

This is what I meant: Few foreign fighters in Iraq "Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency." Yes, I know the article is a year old but I somewhat doubt that the number of foreigners being held has increased so that it is now 50% of the total number or anything like it.

What are you going on about ?! I was not talking about Iraqis in "jail", I was talking about those Iraqis being held by the US for being part of the insurgency. As US spokesmen confirm time and again, the vast majority of those are Iraqi.

I agree (this is a sure sign the apocalypse is upon us). There is almost certainly some cooperation between elements of the homegrown insurgency and the foreign jihadis.

Is that why the vast majority of people being held in Iraq by the US are actually Iraqis?

Radical Islam? You do realise that a large part of the insurgency is down to ex-Baathists who certainly are not motivated by radical Islam, Baathism being very much a secular movement?

And he'd be right. That is a bigoted statement, pure and simple. What do you think would have been the reaction to : Americans are dicks. Period? or Jews are dicks. Period? or how about African-Americans are dicks. Period?