Support NeoGAF

[fortified_concept]

No, I'm referring to western nations that have taken a stance against terrorism dating to before 9/11. Does your nation support the existence of Israel? Then you're an enemy of these people. Don't try and drag Iraq into this, it's irrelevant to the whole discussion.

My nation supports the existance of Palestine exactly like every european nation including the UK. You must know that EU's policy on that matter is very very very different compared to USA's.

If Iraq was never invaded do you think the UK would be safe from terrorism? If you are please tell me so I can stop arguing with you right now.

UK would be A LOT safer than it is now. Especially if Blair wasn't USA's lapdog following them in every war like -let's say- Afganistan which was not his business, I'm quite sure that UK would be now as safe as Germany for example.

 

[human5892]

They had to know something like this would be coming after helping Bush commit war crimes in Iraq.

They did -- in fact, Britain was fortunately able to stop other terrorist attacks before they went anywhere, but officials have continuously warned that it would only be a matter of time before a successful one broke through.

Of course, that doesn't make it any less painful when it actually does happen. :/

 

[Fatghost]

Bollocks to political correctness, it could easily have been dozens of people who post on this board blown to smithereens this morning.

Political correctness is nonsense, and all these fucking apologists and relativists piss me off too.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

The other day I saw a car accident that happened in some street in Italy. 4 people died.


ITS ALL BECAUSE OF BUSH AND THAT FUCKING WAR! NO WAR FOR OIL, ASSHOLE.

If Bush had declared that the War in Iraq was about stopping car accidents I supopse I might have been pissed at that, too.

Try logic, you might like it.

 

[DCharlie]

actually - i agree with part of Cockles post

preaching hate in London goes on a lot.
If you don't like the country... FUCK OFF HOME.

That goes for the moaning fucking Welsh.
If englands so shit FUCK OFF BACK TO YOUR SHEEPY HOME LAND.

 

[akascream]

If god exists, he's fucking hating every single one of you right now.

If God exists, it's his own damn fault heh.

 

[APF]

Well sure, I agree that specific AQ factions and members are not always fighting for the sake of the "big picture", but unless I missed something I don't think that's what anyone was talking about here in the thread.

<sigh> No. What you are arguing for is the supposed justifications of specific AQ members not sharing the greater AQ picture. What I am saying is that what drives AQ as an organization is different than what motivates someone who launders money for them, or supplies members with fake passports. Those are called "useful idiots."

 

[Nerevar]

My nation supports the existance of Palestine exactly like every european nation including the UK. You must know that EU's policy on that matter is very very very different compared to USA's.

Yes, but does your nation support the existence of Israel? A fundamental tenet of radical Islam is that Israel does not deserve to exist and that the Jews must be driven from the land and destroyed, returning all the territory to the Arabs. In case you haven't noticed the US had been a major sponsor of peace talks between Israel and Palestinians prior to and after 9/11 - that doesn't mean the terrorist groups found it acceptable.

UK would be A LOT safer than it is now. Especially if Blair wasn't USA's lapdog following them in every war like -let's say- Afganistan which was not his business, I'm quite sure that UK would be now as safe as Germany for example.

WTF? You mention Afghanistan and then how safe Germany is, neglecting to mention that Germany participated in the Afghanistan war. Do you even know what you're talking about? And furthermore, you think it was "ok" to let the Taliban continue ruling Afghanistan? What about the irreversible damage the Muslims had wrecked on the native Buddhist culture of Afghanistan, was that "ok" to just let slide? And the violent abuses of civil rights that were (and still are) going on in that country? It makes Tibet look like disney world. At what point do you stand up for the wanton civil rights abuses of others and say "this is not right"? Clearly the US draws the line at "when it affects us" (although not always - look at Somalia for example) (ed: or "when your dictatorial leader made an assasination attempt against my ex-president daddy"), when should your country draw the line?

 

[Deg]

Terrorists stuff is old and has happened to every country in history. You will always piss someone off. But you can never justify killing of people. There is thing called protest. Why not do that?

actually - i agree with part of Cockles post

preaching hate in London goes on a lot.
If you don't like the country... FUCK OFF HOME.

That goes for the moaning fucking Welsh.
If englands so shit FUCK OFF BACK TO YOUR SHEEPY HOME LAND.

YEaH LeTS aCT JUsT LiKE TeH Terrizists.

Idiot.

 

[human5892]

<sigh> No. What you are arguing for is the supposed justifications of specific AQ members not sharing the greater AQ picture.

I was talking about the general greater picture, though. Before your posting I never once mentioned specific AQ members or even made a distinction between various agendas, and as far as I saw neither did fortified or anyone else.

What I am saying is that what drives AQ as an organization is different than what motivates someone who launders money for them, or supplies members with fake passports. Those are called "useful idiots."

...yes? I agree but I don't see the significance to what I was talking about.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Let me clarify for black-and-white thinkers like Toxic Adam:

I don't think the war in Iraq is responsible for this at all. But I am pissed that our country is not combatting terrorism but instead is fighting a war that they *claim* is an attack on terrorism. Where's our anti-Al Queda agenda? Nowhere. But hey! We're in Iraq! That's in the same general region as Afganistan and Saudi Arabia, therefore we're doing something!

 

[bionic77]

actually - i agree with part of Cockles post

preaching hate in London goes on a lot.
If you don't like the country... FUCK OFF HOME.

That goes for the moaning fucking Welsh.
If englands so shit FUCK OFF BACK TO YOUR SHEEPY HOME LAND.

I was in London last summer and I saw part of a ridiculously insane Muslim sermon on part of the news. They were actually publically calling for jihad and other crazyness. I really have no problem with people like that being deported or locked up, because there just shouldn't be any tolerance for it.

Still, I can't support anything Cockles says because the guy is an out and out racist and people like him are the scum of humanity. Also, if I were a Muslim, looked like a Muslim, or was friends with any Muslims I would give that fucker a wide berth for a long time.

I just hope my cousin is all right. I think he was supposed to take the train in today.

 

[DCharlie]

"YEaH LeTS aCT JUsT LiKE TeH Terrizists.

Idiot."

not at all.
People actively recruiting and preching hatred is wrong on both sides of the coin.

There is freedom of speech and there is spreading hatred.

If someone is on a street corner actively promoting terrorism against a country they are residing in, then they should be deported. Simple as that.

"But you can never justify killing of people. There is thing called protest. Why not do that?"

but its alright to have people on the street preaching that you should - and in the name of god no less?? please. I guess i could protest it, but then i'd just be labelled a racist huh?

Its got fuck all to do with being like the terrorists. and it's got fuck all to do with racism.

 

[pulsemyne]

Oi I'm welsh and I don't mean about the place!.

 

[DCharlie]

"Oi I'm welsh and I don't mean about the place!."

then you can stay.
apologies - i just had a lot of welsh mates at uni and at my old work place.
their favourite passtime was complaining about how shit England/London was and how they were gonna leave...

... but never did.

 

[APF]

I was talking about the general greater picture, though. Before your posting I never once mentioned specific AQ members or even made a distinction between various agendas, and as far as I saw neither did fortified or anyone else.

You're being unresponsive. AQ gives a broad litany of alleged grievances as recruitment/propaganda tools, which include much of what has been said in this thread as explanations/justifications for terrorism, but that's just the superficial side of the picture. That's my point. You seem to not really know what your point is, but want to argue with me anyway. Ok.

 

[pulsemyne]

Yeah we love a go at the English. It's more friendly then anything though. Don't take it too heart. I'm not in England by the way (in swansea).

 

[HokieJoe]

WHY? WHY people can't see that huge line which separates defending someone's actions and understanding the real motives behind certain actions. WHY for god's sake can't you understand that just because I don't think that Al Queda is murdering people because they're christians but because of USA's and their allies involvement in the Middle East, doesn't mean that I'm not furious and disgusted by them and their actions? I partly blame certain western goverments for this, I'm not trying to excuse Al Queda's actions. Can you understand that?

I don't think it requires empathic gymnastics, so to speak, to understand the motivations here. I think that a lot of people understand the motivation(s), they just think they're screwed up- irrespective of the motivations.

For instance, Eric Rudolph bombed abortion clinics. He killed innocent people because he felt that abortion is murder. So you see, I understand his motivation(s); but that doesn't detract from the fact that he's a fvcking whack-job.

IMO, the real problem is that Al Qaeda and their ilk are stuck in a time pre-dating the middle ages.

 

[human5892]

You're being unresponsive. AQ gives a broad litany of alleged grievances as recruitment/propaganda tools, which include much of what has been said in this thread as explanations/justifications for terrorism, but that's just the superficial side of the picture. That's my point. You seem to not really know what your point is, but want to argue with me anyway. Ok.

I'm not being unresponsive deliberately -- I just don't understand what you're getting at. My position in the thread has always been that the basic root of the attacks comes from the jihad that many Muslims -- including those in AQ -- feel themselves to be engaged in due to encroachment on their holy land and other perceived violations by outsiders, such as the United States, both past and present (in fact that's almost a verbatium repost of what I said earlier). I don't think that is a superficial justification for the terrorism, but rather the justifaction for it (as stated by the terms of the jihad, of course -- I certainly don't think terrorism and life loss is justified). Then you began talking about other reasons that different AQ factions and individuals may have, which is all well and good but not really relevant to what I've been saying.

 

[Pug]

DC I don't know if the Welsh comment was made towards me but never the less congratulations a most stereotypical post. What I was trying to point out was using the term "indigenous population" for a barbaric act that took place in a city which is great thanks in main to cultural diversity that goes back centuries is ridiculous. More than that thousands upon thousands of Muslims have been born here and have lived here for generations. Finally how many of the people killed or injured today were Muslims? I would have no problem putting the perpetrators of this act up against the nearest wall. Saying that if I lived in Baghdad and my children were blown to bits by a $500,000 bomb dropped from 35,000 feet maybe I’d want to put Blair and Bush up against the nearest wall.

 

[Pochacco]

I have a friend in England right now staying at Oxford University for a summer study abroad program. They had classes cancelled today because of what happened. She said she was going to let me know what all happened (hopefully with pics?) later.

Hopefully, I need some new wallpaper.

</sarcasm>

 

[Vince]

I certainly think "Fuck Bush" in light of this news. Not because he's to blame for terrorist actions, but becuase he's been justifying a *fucking stupid war* in the name of counter-terrorism which he *goddamned knows is not the source of this attack or 9/11* while having more or less given up on going after al Queda.

It's sort of ironic that it provokes such a responce in you, considering everytime I read a post much like your own, I'm driven to the conclusion that most people who inhabit this planet truely are not smart people.

The Iraq War, be whatever political orientation you may hold, was hardly a "fucking stupid war" in that in many ways it was a continuation of the prior Persian Gulf War from 12 years previous (in much the same way as World War 1 & 2 are often viewed by contemporary historians as the same conflict) in which there was only a Clausewitzian pause of open hostility and a return to pseudo-politic that masked several IIS operations, such as the assasination attempt on President HW. Bush in 1993 or the financial backing of Palestinian suicide bombers or the communications with Al-Qaeda and correspondance with Osama bin-Laden as outlined in the 911 Commission Report:

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States.

At the very least, it's abundantly obvious that the unresolution of the Persian Gulf conflict by HW Bush or Clinton allowed for an Iraq which had both direct and indirect consequences on Islamic radicalism and al-Qaeda's rise to prominence; be this indirect as in the necessity of basing US troops in Saudi Arabia as a deterent and the lead into al-Qaeda's movement to irradicate the US from the region (see US Barrack's attacks & USS Cole), or the direct involvement of Iraq with al-Qaeda and islamic radicals -- to which extent we are unsure.

At a deeper, more Straussian level, it's clear that there are huge intangible gains towards removing the Iraqi Regime and replacing it with a democratic one. I don't think anyone can dispute the long-term consequences of this in a region of the world that is as entrenched with fanatical beliefs that are allowed to happen under non-transparent regimes. Perhaps Bush and Company (may of whom studied under Strauss or his sucessors at Chicago, as did I although not to the same extent) know only too well how interconnected these systems are in the real world and understood that while Afghnanistan was the current (and was the immediate responce) there needs to be a long-term solution to the "radical Islam" problem, and this will ultimately happen in much the same way as "radical' western beliefs have died out -- through long-term socio-political change. Only these processes are slow (Consider the downfall of the Holy Roman Church or the Revolutionary periods of th 18th and 19th centuries) and that a perturbation of the system may expediate the process (See Mechanisms in Political Process by Tilly) just as it does in my field when dealing with molecular or biological systems that exhibit the same sort of self-organized, self-stabilizing dynamics as governments. But, this would be the Straussian ideal, to wage a war for a reason that the vast populace would be incapable of understanding and selling it on concepts that the masses could understand and feed on...

Your pseudo-political wisdom (which has a level of intelligence and thinking akin to a monkey with a keyboard) reminds me of George Orwell who said: Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it. Hopefully, you're just 15 and will grow up.

*9/11 Report

 

[heidern]

BBC parliament has a commons debate on this. Galloway is really going for it.

 

[fortified_concept]

This is very excausting. You can't understand what I'm saying.

Yes, but does your nation support the existence of Israel? A fundamental tenet of radical Islam is that Israel does not deserve to exist and that the Jews must be driven from the land and destroyed, returning all the territory to the Arabs. In case you haven't noticed the US had been a major sponsor of peace talks between Israel and Palestinians prior to and after 9/11 - that doesn't mean the terrorist groups found it acceptable.

I'm not gonna go into detail about EU policy on the matter. All you need to know is that EU supports an independent Palestinian state and that Al Queda isn't a really big threat to them.

WTF? You mention Afghanistan and then how safe Germany is, neglecting to mention that Germany participated in the Afghanistan war. Do you even know what you're talking about? And furthermore, you think it was "ok" to let the Taliban continue ruling Afghanistan? What about the irreversible damage the Muslims had wrecked on the native Buddhist culture of Afghanistan, was that "ok" to just let slide? And the violent abuses of civil rights that were (and still are) going on in that country? It makes Tibet look like disney world. At what point do you stand up for the wanton civil rights abuses of others and say "this is not right"? Clearly the US draws the line at "when it affects us" (although not always - look at Somalia for example), when should your country draw the line?

There's a HUGE difference between Germany's assistance with security forces and UK's full on attack. And once again you're putting words into my mouth. I did NOT say that I was against the Afgan war. I gave an example of Blair's behaviour acting like USA's lapdog and following them blindly.

Since you're trying so hard to win this discussion by constantly putting words into my mouth and since it's really tiresome for me to explain again and again the same things, I declare you the winner of the argument. Now can you please stop quoting me I'm trying to make a discussion with others too.

 

[DCharlie]

"DC I don't know if the Welsh comment was made towards me but never the less congratulations a most stereotypical post."

no - i had no idea you were welsh. I actually agree - the post was in poor taste and shouldn't have (dis)graced the board. I apologize.

"What I was trying to point out was using the term "indigenous population" for a barbaric act that took place in a city which is great thanks in main to cultural diversity that goes back centuries is ridiculous."

agreed.

"More than that thousands upon thousands of Muslims have been born here and have lived here for generations. Finally how many of the people killed or injured today were Muslims? I would have no problem putting the perpetrators of this act up against the nearest wall. Saying that if I lived in Baghdad and my children were blown to bits by a $500,000 bomb dropped from 35,000 feet maybe I’d want to put Blair and Bush up against the nearest wall."

And the same here. My issue isn't with Islam/muslims at all - it's with the rogue side of things *be it fundamental christian ideas about murdering pro-life doctors, IRA, Al Q, anything...* that seems to get a free pass to spout hate (speakers corner is a REAL eye opener - i popped there when i was back and was , frankly, disgusted). There is freedom of speech and there is spreading hate. There is a difference - although i will freely admit it's impossible to police the line.

 

[Pug]

Vince Orwells phrase "Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it" actually sits just as well with your post.

 

[Deg]

not at all.
People actively recruiting and preching hatred is wrong on both sides of the coin.

There is freedom of speech and there is spreading hatred.

If someone is on a street corner actively promoting terrorism against a country they are residing in, then they should be deported. Simple as that.



but its alright to have people on the street preaching that you should - and in the name of god no less?? please. I guess i could protest it, but then i'd just be labelled a racist huh?

Its got fuck all to do with being like the terrorists. and it's got fuck all to do with racism.

Say what you want now. But i caught you out with your earlier post. Events such as these do bring people out of their shells.

then you can stay.

and its not your right to decide on others lives or whether others should stay in a country or not. There are authorites for that.

 

[DCharlie]

"Say what you want now. But i caught you out with your earlier post. Events such as these do bring people out of their shells."

so go on - what exactly did you catch me out saying? that i'm a racist and that all muslims should be hung? what exactly did you catch me out with??

you are reading far too much into this.
You can believe what you want about whether i'm a racist or not. I frankly don't care.

"and its not your right to decide on others lives or whether others should stay in a country or not. There are authorites for that."

... can you even tell when people are joking? or are you just one big ball of 'serious'?
I know today has been rough for some people, but please try to filter out what i'm saying.

 

[APF]

I'm not being unresponsive deliberately -- I just don't understand what you're getting at. My position in the thread has always been that the basic root of the attacks comes from the jihad that many Muslims -- including those in AQ -- feel themselves to be engaged in due to encroachment on their holy land and other perceived violations by outsiders, such as the United States, both past and present (in fact that's almost a verbatium repost of what I said earlier). I don't think that is a superficial justification for the terrorism, but rather the justifaction for it

And again my point is that this is the propaganda, not the real reason these groups exist. OBL's main point of conflict is with the House of Saud, after all (and no, not just because of former US bases in SA). AQ is a reactionary group essentially fighting against social, political, and religious progress, as well as simply the march of time which has altered the geopolitical landscape since what they believe were Islam's glory days--progress which the West as a whole, and America in specific, represent. This is far different than what you state above, unless you radically alter what it means to "encroach on holy lands" and bring it back to pre-colonial times, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Crusades, etc. To do so is to recognize that it's not reactionism to a set US policy, but rather comes out of a desire to establish their religious and political hegemony over the ME, and then over the world as a whole.

 

[Vince]

Vince Orwells phrase "Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it" actually sits just as well with your post.

If you are referring back to myself, then of course I'm open to the possibility. Although, unlike the guy I was responding to, my thinking is more mehcnaistic and less emotive; and in many of the critical areas is attributable to others in academia who are informed and have established work on the subject.

 

[DCharlie]

Vince - serious question - did you study politics ?

 

[Deg]

so go on - what exactly did you catch me out saying? that i'm a racist and that all muslims should be hung exactly??

you are reading far too much into this.
You can believe what you want about whether i'm a racist or not. I frankly don't care.


... can you even tell when people are joking? or are you just one big ball of 'serious'?
I know today has been rough for some people, but please try to filter out what i'm saying.

I dont think you are racist at all. But there's alot hatred and a certain focus there. UK people can catch onto it easily

Bear in mind the people who did this are Al Qaeda that does not give you an excuse to hate on just anyone for no good reason or to push forward your own political agenda.

 

[iapetus]

i'm a racist and that all muslims should be hung

Damned by his own words, ladies and gentlemen. Never trust a man named after a Sega console.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

It'll be interesting to see if the Bush administration raises the Threat Level™ after this. The only time I've seen it used was to keep people scared to secure Republican votes at election time, but why not get started early for 2008? Look at the terrorists, gay people, and flag burners!!! Not at what we're actually doing! Vote Republican 2008!

 

[Beer Monkey]

Imagine if every dollar spent fighting in Iraq were spent fighting terrorism instead. Intelligence, infiltration, surgical strikes.

Not only would we have taken out more terrorists, but their recruiting wouldn't be on the rise (Iraq civilian martyrs result in new recruits).

Not only is this dumb war helping the terrorist cause, but it's seriously damaging the morale of our military.

 

[human5892]

And again my point is that this is the propaganda, not the real reason these groups exist. OBL's main point of conflict is with the House of Saud, after all (and no, not just because of former US bases in SA). AQ is a reactionary group essentially fighting against social, political, and religious progress, as well as simply the march of time which has altered the geopolitical landscape since what they believe were Islam's glory days--progress which the West as a whole, and America in specific, represent. This is far different than what you state above, unless you radically alter what it means to "encroach on holy lands" and bring it back to pre-colonial times, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Crusades, etc. To do so is to recognize that it's not reactionism to a set US policy, but rather comes out of a desire to establish their religious and political hegemony over the ME, and then over the world as a whole.

I agree that AQ most likely does have visions of hegemony and that obviously there are many complex factors involved in the current warfare it is engaged in, but I also would say that the current jihad and land displacement is a large part of the fuel that produces the violence we see today, in both terrorist attacks and between Palestine and Israel, and not just mere propaganda as you say. I don't think you can't outright dismiss the fury of an entire religious group over a serious violation of their tennents as pure propaganda, nor do I think that reactions against the West are based solely on the desire to reclaim their "glory days" -- if U.S. and other Western forces were gone from their lands and had never been there in the first place, I doubt there would be nearly as severe an outreach to harm those nations just because they represent progress.

 

[Deg]

Imagine if every dollar spent fighting in Iraq were spent fighting terrorism instead. Intelligence, infiltration, surgical strikes.

Not only would we have taken out more terrorists, but their recruiting wouldn't be on the rise (Iraq civilian martyrs result in new recruits).

Not only is this dumb war helping the terrorist cause, but it's seriously damaging the morale of our military.

Now that they are in Iraq they got to make something of it sadly. What a messy situation that is. But i really also want to see Al Qaeda erased.

And the same here. My issue isn't with Islam/muslims at all - it's with the rogue side of things *be it fundamental christian ideas about murdering pro-life doctors, IRA, Al Q, anything...* that seems to get a free pass to spout hate (speakers corner is a REAL eye opener - i popped there when i was back and was , frankly, disgusted). There is freedom of speech and there is spreading hate. There is a difference - although i will freely admit it's impossible to police the line.

Bear in mind an organisation like Al Qaeda are very twisted and even more hypocritical. I dont think not doing anything would really have made that much of a difference. They already have given such stupid statements.

 

[Trizten Dareeque]

It's wierd that people are getting on others that have a "us against them attitude". Isn't that the terrorists base motivations of killing random people in public places?

Exactly and that is why we shouldn't have that attitude.

 

[Vince]

Vince - serious question - did you study politics ?

Serious question, from you to me?

I dabbled in it, but it was never a career goal so I'll eagerly fold to a serious scholar of politics I was focused on Biochemistry and what was emerging as the field of Neuroscience, but got into politics/history because of how similar many of the governing dynamics are between the fields, believe it or not. Systems of things just seem to act alike, regardless of scale.

 

[DCharlie]

"Damned by his own words, ladies and gentlemen. Never trust a man named after a Sega console."

it's a fair cop. *takes of white pointy hat*

the interesting thing is, when i posted my pic in the off topic, people were shocked that i wasn't black because only black people own dreamcasts apparently!

anyways - sorry - taking things further off topic here.

"But there's alot hatred and a certain focus there. UK people can catch onto it easily "

I agree. and unfocused anger is never good.
I guess my personal peev is that this has been going on for a while. Now, bear in mind i _don't_ agree with what Cockles says on the whole (tarring an entire section (except the welsh ) with the same brush is never a good thing. But there are obvious elements in London who are quite openly trying to stir things up.

Like you say - today has been a rough day , even as an ex Londoner, and yes - perhaps i'm lashing out a bit, but someone at some point has to say "okay, the spouting of rubbish (on both sides) has to stop". I don't want to see the UK "do a US" and just run headfirst into some other country and start stiring things up, i want to see us do something responsible.

"I dabbled in it, but it was never a career goal so I'll eagerly fold to a serious scholar of politics I was focused on Biochemistry and what was emerging as the field of Neuroscience, but got into politics/history because of how similar many of the governing dynamics are between the fields, believe it or not. Systems of things just seem to act alike, regardless of scale."

ha ha - well, i'm not a politically minded person. And the nearest i've come to neuroscience/biochemistry is my good friend Martyn Amos (DNA computing, Genome project etc etc... conversations with him resulted in blood pouring out of my nose).

 

[Nerevar]

This is very excausting. You can't understand what I'm saying.

Or you have no clue what the hell you're talking about, as evidenced here ...

I'm not gonna go into detail about EU policy on the matter. All you need to know is that EU supports an independent Palestinian state and that Al Queda isn't a really big threat to them.

The EU supports the existence of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, which is currently the same stated goal as the US peacekeeping. The reason that Al Qaeda hates the US more is because we provide significantly much more aid to Israel in both an economic and military capacity. If the US were to pull out, the EU would be under just as much of a threat as the US currently is. I know that doesn't boil down to "it's America's fault", which is the resonating theme of all your posts.

There's a HUGE difference between Germany's assistance with security forces and UK's full on attack. And once again you're putting words into my mouth. I did NOT say that I was against the Afgan war. I gave an example of Blair's behaviour acting like USA's lapdog and following them blindly.

So your incapacity to frame a coherent argument is my fault? If you wanted to talk about Iraq, you should have said Iraq, not given a roundabout example in Afghanistan which contradicted your following point. I already addressed the Iraq matter, if you have a problem with my opinion (which I will restate for you here: Britain would be in danger of terrorism even without a direct attack on Iraq; see: Bali and other attacks on western democratic targets prior to the Iraq war) state that. Don't try and get around the argument by bringing up tangential points which have no bearing on the central point we're discussing.

Since you're trying so hard to win this discussion by constantly putting words into my mouth and since it's really tiresome for me to explain again and again the same things, I declare you the winner of the argument. Now can you please stop quoting me I'm trying to make a discussion with others too.

I'm not trying to "win" anything, just pointing out that your blind hatred of Tony Blair and blaming him for the Al Qaeda attacks on London is shortsighted, stupid, irrational, and ultimately fruitless. Furthermore, voting him out of office in favor of a party that supported an immediate evacuation of Iraq (such as Spain) because of this would be much, much worse than any other course of action you could take.

 

[Vince]

Imagine if every dollar spent fighting in Iraq were spent fighting terrorism instead. Intelligence, infiltration, surgical strikes.

Fighting terrorism is asymmetrical, you can't just throw money at it and say Look! It's gone now. You're fighting a foe without bounderies, it truely is a virtual-state and it's an oppertunistic conflict... unlike Iraq and it's conventional war we fought. You can't just make comments as you did.

Not only would we have taken out more terrorists, but their recruiting wouldn't be on the rise (Iraq civilian martyrs result in new recruits).

Not only is this dumb war helping the terrorist cause, but it's seriously damaging the morale of our military.

1) Iraqi civilian martyrs will not attack the US or UK homeland, the recruitment is much different than that which happened in Afghnaistan in the 1990s. These people are given a car to drive and a button to push, they have no access to international travel, no ability to pull off an attack like today or September 11. Time magazine interviewed such a "terrorist", I recommend you read it.

2) Show me a study of the US military morale being damanged, thanks.

PS. Smart friend you have, heh, as you said he focuses more on the intersection of computation and biology but I deeply respect his work.

 

[xsarien]

The levels of blindness, sheer ignorance, hate, and general stupidity in this thread is honestly making me take a second look at who I respect around here.

A few things:
Direct blame on Bush is obviously misdirected. However, it represents a failure of his joint terrorism policies with the UK, it's certainly not some kind of validation. Assuming for a moment that this is definitely an Al-Qaeda attack (because I'm cynical, and wouldn't put it past some Anti-G8, anti-IMF folks to just blame some brown people to divert attention), then what we just witnessed is proof that the plan of "Drawing terrorists to Iraq" is not only stupid on paper, but futile in practice.

What is a strawman is the argument that Bush is being proactive about terrorism. If anything, it's the very definition of reactionary tactics, kneejerk ones at that. From day one, it has never dealt with the real issues of why we were attacked. To do so would require thought, and apparently giving any kind of context or rationale to 9/11 in New York, 3/11 in Madrid, or today in London is tantamount to defending the terrorists. Or at least, that's what any card-carrying conservative will tell you.

That's a shame, because the only way to stop terrorism is to understand what motivates someone to hijack a plane or strap on some dynamite. Bombing the ever-loving snot out of their home country will just confirm their beliefs and create more terrorists. How people like ToxicAdam can't grasp that seemingly elementary concept baffles me. You can't punish people who obviously aren't afraid of death with...death.

There is one absolute here: The United States was justified in waging war on the Taliban. They were knowingly safeguarding the man who orchestrated the WTC attack, thumbed their nose when we asked for him, and that was that. Iraq was and is a distraction. For all of our sources, informants, and overall intelligence, the one constant was that Osama and Saddam never, ever worked together. The fact that Saddam ran a secular government precluded any possibility of Osama working with him, and that stance has been backed by captured AQ members, as well as members of Saddam's regime.

Iraq's only real hand in any kind of global terrorism was rewarding families of Arab bombers in Israel. There are and were bigger fish to fry, but the almighty dollar is stopping us from going there. "Starting" with Iraq never made sense. Not from the perspective of using it as a core to stabilize the mideast, nor from perspective that removing Saddam would put terrorists on notice and/or drastically reduce their funding.

Also, I've never played this card on GAF, and I never plan to again. But I'm going to make one exception: Cockles, if I had the means, I'd ban your ass for a long while. Hate begets hate, and pulling out the sarcastic "Religion of peace, eh?" rhetoric does nothing to solve the problem, insults Muslims who don't pervert their religion to violent ends, and - to be blunt - is fucking disgusting.

I don't recall hearing "Stupid Christians" when Oklahoma City was bombed; when the Japanese subway system was gassed, the focus was on the act and the politics of the cult, not the cult themselves. What you fail to realize - or are just ignoring because it's easier to just make fun of Islam - is that religion isn't driving these people, politics is driving them; they're simply wrapping religion around their violence to avoid any internal struggle they have with what their subscribed religion has to say about killing innocent people. "Hey, if I interpret it this way, it's okay to blow shit up!"

 

[ToxicAdam]

If Bush had declared that the War in Iraq was about stopping car accidents I supopse I might have been pissed at that, too.

Try logic, you might like it.

Wierd, I always thought the war was to stop one country from funding/aiding terrorist orginizations. I'm trying to remember when it from that, into being the answer to stopping all terrorism across the world.


Nice try, spanky.
----

It's strange to see people condemn our religious kooks, yet rationalize the religious kooks of another country. I guess when you are a self-hating American (not directed at anyone in particular) it comes natural.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Wierd, I always thought the war was to stop one country from funding/aiding terrorist orginizations. I'm trying to remember when it from that, into being the answer to stopping all terrorism across the world.


Nice try, spanky.
----

It's strange to see people condemn our religious kooks, yet rationalize the religious kooks of another country. I guess when you are a self-hating American (not directed at anyone in particular) it comes natural.

WHY DOES EVERYBODY HATE FREEDOM!?

 

[APF]

I agree that AQ most likely does have visions of hegemony and that obviously there are many complex factors involved in the current warfare it is engaged in, but I also would say that the current jihad and land displacement is a large part of the fuel that produces the violence we see today

The problem is that when you hear claims that their major grievance is "encroachment on holy lands," you think gee, that's actually a legitimate complaint, we should be more respectful. Until you start to realize what that actually means: first turning the clock back to medieval times, then handing over ourselves to Islamist rule.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Religious people are not nihilists.

Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of Al-Qaeda Islamism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of Al-Qaeda Islamism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

:lol

Must.. watch.. now... Thanks to you, I'm no longer bored.

 

[ToxicAdam]

The levels of blindness, sheer ignorance, hate, and general stupidity in this thread is honestly making me take a second look at who I respect around here.



That's a shame, because the only way to stop terrorism is to understand what motivates someone to hijack a plane or strap on some dynamite. Bombing the ever-loving snot out of their home country will just confirm their beliefs and create more terrorists. How people like ToxicAdam can't grasp that seemingly elementary concept baffles me. You can't punish people who obviously aren't afraid of death with...death.

!"

On most aspects I agree with you. The war with Iraq should have never happened. I can recall a year before the invasion, certain Republicans calling for it, and I didn't really agree with them. Most people that were on the fence believed that Iraq did have nuclear capabilities, I was one of them. The war was just ... for that reason alone. But, it appears to have all been false. So, now we need to look for an exit. But, if large terrorist attacks like this occur, it will only mean we will become more entangled.

The current administration doesn't believe exterminating terrorists is the answer. They truely believe by funding/helping independent democracies in that region, that alone will stabilize it in the future.

In essence, the ill will they create now will be countered by a lawful, prosperous country in the future.

I don't agree with it, but that's what they believe. This idea that they are going to exterminate all dissent in that region by mass killings or oppressive fear tactics is a bit disingeneous on your part.

 

[ronito]

Two things:

First, do not confuse religion with religious fundamentalists. No matter how much they want it fundamentalism (be it Christan, Hindu, Islamic) in any form is NOT about religion. It's about power.

Secondly, whatever happens one thing is for sure. The rift in america over the war on terror is going to grow to a gigantic chasm. I worry about that.