Support NeoGAF

[xsarien]

I think that dismissing AQ as a bunch of loonies who "simply [state] that 'God is telling me this is right,'" is at best a gross caricature of who they are and what drives their organization. But I guess you feel it's better to demonize your enemies than to try and understand them?

Oh, I understand them just fine. That remark begins and ends at their understanding of (what they claim to be) their own religion. It doesn't negate their overall goals or their politics, but to characterize them as simply a religious group that has gotten too political and too violent is an insult to legitimate religious groups.

It's a useless question, but ultimately it depends on the tactics and motivations for our actions that we use. I would say that obviously, the American Revolutionaries were deeply conflicted about the Revolution itself, and were also deeply committed to the cause of freedom--not just independence--as is clearly evident by the aftermath of that conflict.

[EDIT: I find also find it sad that you feel only your political enemies, the dreaded Republicans, could object to the idea of AQ being considered "freedom fighters" for "obvious reasons." I think it casts a horrible light on where you are coming from, philosophically]

I don't ask the question out of malice, and I'll thank you very much for not judging me. I ask it to do two things: 1) It gets a rise out of jingoistic assholes; hollow flag-waving gets to me; 2) It forces people to think very carefully about the definition of terrorism, terror, and recognize that a terrorist and a freedom fighter are often the same, and only seperated by opposing points of view. Which side is right is a seperate discussion.

 

[fart]

xsarien, why do you hate freedom?

also, "democracy can be imposed on people" :lol

do you read what you write, or are you just stupid?

 

[APF]

do you read what you write, or are you just stupid?

Your name is fart.

I don't ask the question out of malice, and I'll thank you very much for not judging me. I ask it to do two things: 1) It gets a rise out of jingoistic assholes; hollow flag-waving gets to me; 2) It forces people to think very carefully about the definition of terrorism, terror, and recognize that a terrorist and a freedom fighter are often the same, and only seperated by opposing points of view. Which side is right is a seperate discussion.

So did I pass your test?

 

[xsarien]

Your name is fart.


So did I pass your test?

It's not a test.

 

[Ghost]

What i dont understand about this whole thing is why in this age we still need sniffer dogs or Xray machines to detect bombs.


We should have things like this:

http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN08-13-99/sniffer_story.html (but smaller)


In every bus, every tube station.



It's inconcievable to me that we have no electronic way of doing something a dog can be trained to do.

 

[The Chosen One]

What's interesting is that just a couple of weeks ago Bush said it was better to fight terrorist "over there" (referring to Iraq) instead of our home soil. I wonder how UK residents feel about those statements now...

 

[xsarien]

What i dont understand about this whole thing is why in this age we still need sniffer dogs or Xray machines to detect bombs.


We should have things like this:

http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN08-13-99/sniffer_story.html (but smaller)


In every bus, every tube station.



It's inconcievable to me that we have no electronic way of doing something a dog can be trained to do.

The problem with electronic sniffers is that they're often stationary. A lot of work is being done, and advancements are being made, but we're still a long way off from it being practical, cheap, and effective. You need all three for it to be installed system wide in any city.

 

[fart]

Your name is fart.

so it's the latter then? duly noted.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Who gave you the right of defining what's terrorism and what's not?

First off, it's not my definition. See: "the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians" and "a violent action targetting civilians exclusively." (And before anyone whines that I've edited those definitions, yes, both definitions also include other, more broad, definitions too.)

Also note that I wasn't saying "terrorism is...", rather I was saying that "suicide bombings are..." I'm defining suicide bombings on civilians (a tactic used by your "freedom fighters") as terrorism, but I'm not limiting my definition of "terrorism" to just that. Certainly poisoning a water supply would potentially qualify as well. As would coordinated attacks on the power grid. Or mailing deadly chemicals. Etc...

You've restricted the definition of terrorism exactly the way the US goverment has, and you're basing your whole argument according to it. The ones that you call terrorists (Palestinians) have killed hundrends for their freedom. The ones that I call terrorists have killed 20,000-100,000 people in a single war (I'm not even gonna start counting the unjustified wars USA has started - it'd be a huge post) for the corporate profit. I don't give a shit what was the way they were killed or the definition the US goverment is providing, all I care is how many were killed and why.

My whole argument is that, however you define terrorism, suicide bombings on civilians qualify. I can't help it if the US government is defining terrorism correctly. Further, I argue that denying that a group that conducts suicide bombings of civilians is a terrorist group (which European and Asian governments and you claim) is wrong. I guess I am throwing in a side argument of "it's not about oil", which seems to have gotten you to abandoned that position in favor of "corporate profits".

 

[radioheadrule83]

The beehive needed whacking.

It's a fucking mess. The people that have died here today nowhere near amounts to the people that had died at the hands of the Ba'athists before the invasion in Iraq alone. It's a fraction of the dessimation in New York. This isn't to say you can quantify tragedy -- it's definately still a disaster. It makes me sick. For me, this has emboldened a line that I've mentally drawn in sand all the clearer. This is an interdependant world. If we're not living in common, and having values in common, freedoms and quality of life - the ingredients are there for radicalism to thrive. Well it's been there, and done that. It's already thrived. So now what do we do about it?

IRAQ

Does anyone honestly think for a minute that if we pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and left the Israelies to their own ends that terrorism would stop? The embassies of the US and others have been bombed consecutively long beforehand.

And I'm sorry! Simply saying we shouldn't have invaded cuts the whole issue short of real debate.

There would have been fewer attacks if we hadn't.... yes, this is most likely true, but bare with me for a minute. Let's say for a minute Saddam Hussein never bothered invading Kuwait, consequently causing operation Desert Storm. Let's say the UN then didn't make his country suffer by putting them under sanctions... let's pretend that Saddam didn't steal their chance of a better life by syphoning money from the corrupt UN oil for food programme. Let's say people in Iraq actually had a quality of life as such that the mad ravings of a murderous inhuman dog like Zarqawi meant nothing. There would have been no attacks then either.

In the purely hypothetical event where we didn't have to invade Iraq, brought up so often with the benefit of hindsight: what would Iraq actually be like today? Would I be right in saying it would have remained the same mess under the same corrupt regime repeatedly displaying insubordination on the world stage? In the hypothetical timeline of events that I just described above, where everything was rainbows and gumdrop smiles, they would have had the life we WANT to give them now. The fact is, it's easier to moan about something you can vote out in 4 years than it is to moan about something you don't know much about and can't change without significant investment of money, time and lives. What if the sacrifice is worth it? We're aflood with cynics who for some reason believe Iraq will never overcome this point in it's history. And why should this even turn out to be a purely Iraq issue anyway?


ISRAEL

Israel and Palestine have been THE catalyst for this kind of radicalism. That doesn't merely go back to George Bush and Tony Blair. It goes back through decades of leaders, right up to the big tragedy of World War II. The UN toyed with both peoples and their new geography. That geography carries religious significance. It's been a time bomb, with the unfortunate ability to denotate time and time again. Then we've got all of these other countries around them with different alleigances and ideologies. Many of them are sympathetic to Palestine... and among them you've got these crazy fucking assholes that wanna reinstate an Islamic caliphate and spread it the world over. American/western feet treading on their soil is an abomination to them. They're acting outside of their own laws... they don't recognise any laws as we know them in fact. It completely baffles me that this goes on, when the mandate of a law system in any country so strongly supports finding these people and doing away with them once and for good. Whoever we would talk to - aayatolahs, Imams, moderate politicians, leaders from countries like Syria etc. It never does any good. Are we so fucking weak? We're not welcome there, yet we've been so tolerant of them here. Draw that fucking line in the sand.


THE BEEHIVE

Fuck thinking about civil liberties, fuck sovereignty, and fuck all of the other pathetic shit we get to arguing about for a second. Think about it in the simplest terms... what would you rather have calling the shots in the west? Democracy or radical Islam elements? What's so good about us that we're too good for the existence of militant Islam in our countries but these countries in the Middle East are not? Why are we so good that we will decry undemocratic activity in our countries but largely ignore it in others? You think people chose to be brought up in a climate of such strict doctrine? The Middle East IS a beehive. It's a beehive because decades of war. It's a beehive because we've been feverously whipping up oil contracts with them, battling over it at any cost. Vetoing one another on matters of international security just to keep our ties. It's a beehive because inspite of their hot commodities, people in the Middle East have a lower quality of life than they should. Wealth is distributed to their corrupt rulers, and many are conditioned to never even question it. Men talk on behalf of GOD, and that is seldom questioned either. All of this - it's left the whole area susceptible to doctrines of hate. If you don't want us to go in and free countries from the kind of regimes Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe run.. if you think people anywhere in the world should have the freedom to blow up others with differing ideologies without our interference, then WHY? As the most powerful, influential and rich in both history and funds - do we not have an obligation to do what we can for the wider world? IF you really don't think we should be getting involved in other countries affairs then be realistic. Kiss world peace goodbye. Say hello to Chemical and Nuclear proliforation and watch them try and wipe each other (especially the Jews) off the face of the Earth. It's this or isolationism. And it's gotten to the point where I'm fine with fucking either.


MY TAKE:

The civilised world should deliver an ultimatum: join us or die.
Move on in the world without these countries that harbor these people/attitudes if necessary. Despite the huge arsenals available to the dominant countries on this Earth - all the weapons and people we have at our disposal - it's not enough thanks to this tolerance we have for the intolerant. Again this is probably thanks to World War II. The Jews were scapegoats for relatively minor problems in 40s Europe and they were nearly wiped from the globe by the Germans. Radical Islamic militants bomb our cities and kill our people as they go about their everyday business and we sitback, and tread on eggshells so we don't offend people. People SHOULD be offended. Especially if they consider themselves British. We seem to be scared about talking about this because of political correctness! It's insane!!!

We should be saying to any country that we perceive could help: I want Zarqawi's head on my desk. I want every fucking so called freedom fighter rounded up, I want your borders closed-- if you can't do this on your own, let us do it for you. Oh and you are absolutely forbidden from developing chemical or nuclear weapons... then we should have the fucking balls to follow those words up and punish countries when they laugh in our faces. Like Saddam Hussein did for 11 years for example.

Maybe it's time to modernise and educate people out of these destructive myopic beliefs. Osama thinks he's fucking Saladin. The biggest and best thing we can achieve is spreading our influence in the middle east. If we can get in, perhaps making an example of just Iraq alone, and create the climate for it to protect itself and prosper as it should whenever it is we will leave the country -- there's a chance it will change the world. The surrounding region, it's future generations and the world in general will look on and be able to say we did a good thing. If we leap out now, fuck off back home and forget we ever tried anything of the sort -- allow men like Zarqawi their haven -- do you really think that will do any good? There is a jihad upon the apostate rulers of the West, and sadly the innocent people they rule. People are recruited into that life because they have no real grasp of the value their own lives have. If they had better lives and learned the freedom of opinion, I honestly don't think that would be the case. It's high time we called a Jihad of our own on the tyranny of evil men and vanquished them from the world. They talk about crusades and crusaders? Give them a fucking crusade. And leave every innocent bystander besides with a better way of life.


WHAT ALTERNATIVE IS THERE? PLEASE TELL ME.

Maybe we should lower our dependance on the region for oil (which we have already started doing)... then we hit them. No aid. No trade. Accept absolutely NO asylum seekers. I'm serious. Is that what you want? What do you want exactly? I hear all this wonderful war-hating, altruistic love all the time in these debates but I never hear any good alternative ideas.

Of course, this is just my opinion - but I believe that if we don't rectify this part of the world today, it will haunt us and our children down the line.


===============

Ken Livingston has said the best things I've ever read or heard anyone say after an attack like this. I can't find the full text, but here's the gist of it:

"This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty or the powerful, it was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners."

"Black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindus and Jews, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, class, religion whatever."

"I would like to address todays attackers. I know that you do not fear death. That is what makes you so dangerous. I know that you do fear you may fail in your long term objective: to destroy our free society. And I will show you why you will fail.

"In the days that follow, look at our airports, look at our seaports and look at our railways. "

He finished by saying that people would still come to London and Britain to enjoy the life we offer here, the diversity and freedom -- our way of life.

"Nothing you do, however many of us you kill will stop that life. Where freedom is strong and people can live in harmony, whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail."

These kind of things are attacks on everyone in free countries.
Think of the potential damage this could do to us. Nationalism on the rise again in the next election. Extremism begets extremism. No one likes extremists but they've got no ideas on how to fight them. I guess there's no easy answers. The line is drawn for me though as I've said earlier. I've had enough of this - I don't want to be seeing this kind of thing on the news for my whole adult life. Stamp it out now.

So they don't fear death: in that case I hope they're tortured, blinded and fucking skinned alive before we give them the mercy of death. Televise it. I don't give a toss any more. Whatever answer we come up with I hope it's one where somebody pays the price we paid in blood today. Knowing the pathetic passive mess that the West has become though, we'll probably just deal out a few house arrests.

 

[bob_arctor]

What's interesting is that just a couple of weeks ago Bush said it was better to fight terrorist "over there" (referring to Iraq) instead of our home soil. I wonder how UK residents feel about those statements now...

I touched on this before somewhat. I don't think UK residents care either way what Bush said in his speech as they can smell bullshit a mile away. Now, for us, in general, this recent attack should definitely shine a big magnifying glass on Bush's assertion, but alas, I don't think it will. I predict more flag-waving, "We good, Them bad" nationalism, and a heightened terror alert. Basically, more of the status quo: fear. I actually think this attack in London will help the Bush administration's thick-headed approach to the war in Iraq; that's how little faith I have in general opinion.

 

[Phoenix]

Anyone?
I'm genuinely curious....

Well considering that terror attacks didn't start after the Iraq war.... now if you want to look at western countries that have terror attacks in them today that aren't related to Iraq at all - you call look throughout Central and South America. There are also terror attacks going on in parts of Africa. You rarely hear about terror attacks in other parts of the world, because honestly - you don't care and that's just the reality. The reality of the news you see every evening and the news that western media is going to give you.

 

[Boogie]

OK I misread your post. I have a question though: Who gave you the right of defining what's terrorism and what's not? You've restricted the definition of terrorism exactly the way the US goverment has, and you're basing your whole argument according to it. The ones that you call terrorists (Palestinians) have killed hundrends for their freedom. The ones that I call terrorists have killed 20,000-100,000 people in a single war (I'm not even gonna start counting the unjustified wars USA has started - it'd be a huge post) for the corporate profit. I don't give a shit what was the way they were killed or how the US goverment and the US media define terrorism, all I care is how many were killed and why.

Deliberate targeting of civilians is part of the definition of terrorism. You can't simply pick and choose what you call terrorism to suit your own whims (something that the US government may also be guilty of, but to simply say "who gave you the right of defining what's terrorism and what's not" is an absurd question, because it can be tossed right back at you, and shows no real insight at all)

edit: nevermind, I posted too early. Squirrel Killer already did a good job of responding to this.

 

[The Chosen One]

I touched on this before somewhat. I don't think UK residents care either way what Bush said in his speech as they can smell bullshit a mile away. Now, for us, in general, this recent attack should definitely shine a big magnifying glass on Bush's assertion, but alas, I don't think it will. I predict more flag-waving, "We good, Them bad" nationalism, and a heightened terror alert. Basically, more of the status quo: fear. I actually think this attack in London will help the Bush administration's thick-headed approach to the war in Iraq; that's how little faith I have in general opinion.

Sad to say, but I actually agree with you. I think this attack will help Bush here some. I'm sure is approval ratings will rise at least a little bit. The conservative talking heads and White House spin machine will be out in full force over the next several days. The spineless Democrats will just stand around looking confused.

 

[xsarien]

The civilised world should deliver an ultimatum: join us or die.
Move on in the world without these countries that harbor these people/attitudes if necessary. Despite the huge arsenals available to the dominant countries on this Earth - all the weapons and people we have at our disposal - it's not enough thanks to this tolerance we have for the intolerant. Again this is probably thanks to World War II. The Jews were scapegoats for relatively minor problems in 40s Europe and they were nearly wiped from the globe by the Germans. Radical Islamic militants bomb our cities and kill our people as they go about their everyday business and we sitback, and tread on eggshells so we don't offend people. People SHOULD be offended. Especially if they consider themselves British. We seem to be scared about talking about this because of political correctness! It's insane!!!

I heard this before. It was in the streets of New York the week immediately following 9/11. (Well, except for the "consider themselves British" part.) Don't go there; don't be so black and white like our President. It's not about walking on eggshells, it's about eradicating the causes of terrorism. We can do this, and it doesn't need to be through installing democracy like it's some damned software patch. Unfortunately, there is no one, solid answer to the problem, and it can't be solved in a short period of time. Any solution is going to be long-term.

 

[flsh]

Is there a place I can see the names of the people who died\were injured? A friend wants to see if someone he cares about is safe or happened to be in the bombings

 

[fortified_concept]

First off, it's not my definition. See: "the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians" and "a violent action targetting civilians exclusively." (And before anyone whines that I've edited those definitions, yes, both definitions also include other, more broad, definitions too.)

Also note that I wasn't saying "terrorism is...", rather I was saying that "suicide bombings are..." I'm defining suicide bombings on civilians (a tactic used by your "freedom fighters") as terrorism, but I'm not limiting my definition of "terrorism" to just that. Certainly poisoning a water supply would potentially qualify as well. As would coordinated attacks on the power grid. Or mailing deadly chemicals. Etc...


My whole argument is that, however you define terrorism, suicide bombings on civilians qualify. I can't help it if the US government is defining terrorism correctly. Denying that a group that conducts suicide bombings of civilians is a terrorist group is wrong. I guess I am throwing in a side argument of "it's not about oil", which seems to have gotten you to abandoned that position in favor of "corporate profits".

You can't just automatically define Palestinian suicide bombers as terrorists without even considering the fact that they're defending their country from the oppressors. And btw it is about oil, and if can't even admit that, the discussion ends here.

 

[Phoenix]

We invaded iraq and afganistan to ensure the war on terror was not fought in our country. We gave the terrorists a front to fight on. The soldiers/iraqis are paying for it instead of american civilians. Maybe it didnt work as well as they had hoped but the fact is SOMETHING had to be done.

Makes FAAAAR more sense to watch them train in their camps, infilitrate their organizations so you know who is there, study the dynamics of the organization, and then drop laser guided bombs on groups of people as necessary. Far easier to kill roaches when they are together, than after they scatter.

 

[Boogie]

You can't just automatically define Palestinian suicide bombers as terrorists without even considering the fact that they're defending their country from the oppressors. And btw it is about oil, and if can't even admit that, the discussion ends here.

A) Yes, you can. Regardless of of their cause, indiscrminately targeting civilians is terrorism. If you deny that, and say that Palestinian suicide bombers are justified in their actions, and it seems you are, then you do support terrorism. Bottom line.

B) No, it's not about oil. The "it's all about oil" chants have died down in the last year or so, and for good reason. It shows very little understanding about the war. It is about changing the political landscape of the Middle East. Whether you say that it's a good thing, or a bad thing, it is more about America's attempts at establishing it's security (or power, depending upon how you view it), NOT about oil.

 

[midnightguy]

former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was warned BEFORE the first bomb went off, as he we headed to that area of London

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - Israel's Finance Minister and former Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was on his way to address British businessmen at
a London hotel when the first bomb exploded in a nearby London Underground
station Thursday morning.


Israel denies reports that Netanyahu had received advance information about
the attacks and was warned to stay away before the blasts happened.


Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev dismissed those reports as
"rubbish."


Regev said he wanted to make it unequivocally clear: "All our information
was afterwards."


Netanyahu's advisor Amir Gilad explained what had happened in a radio
interview.


"We were exactly on our way to the hotel [located over a subway station --
the first one to blow up-, Gilad said.


"We were asked by the British security sources not to arrive at the hotel.
Still it was not clear what was happening. We stayed in the hotel where we
were guests," Gilad said.


Netanyahu was due to open a large conference at the time of the explosion,
Gilad added.


"Now we are receiving updates all morning from British security sources that
are speaking about terror attacks in the underground train and also in buses
throughout the city," he said.


Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had no immediate comment on the attack
on London.


Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said that Israel was standing with
the British at this time, and he said that Israel has long warned that
terrorism is not only a problem for Israel but for the entire Western world.


"Terrorism can attack every country in the world that has the ideology of
freedom, of democracy," Shalom said in a radio interview.

 

[APF]

Sad to say, but I actually agree with you. I think this attack will help Bush here some. I'm sure is approval ratings will rise at least a little bit.

I think your cynicism is misplaced. If all you're concerned with is lowering Bush's approval ratings, or his ratings on Iraq and terrorism, don't worry. They will lower.

 

[Boogie]

former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was warned BEFORE the first bomb went off, as he we headed to that area of London

Uh, that's not what your little news report says.

 

[Phoenix]

You can't just automatically define Palestinian suicide bombers as terrorists without even considering the fact that they're defending their country from the oppressors.

They are defending their country from oppressors by blowing up civilians in another country? Something about that strategy just seems to defy logic.

And btw it is about oil, and if can't even admit that, the discussion ends here.

If it were about 'the oil' the US would have invaded the large numbers of oil rich nations in the world a long time ago. Its not about the oil.

 

[TheDuce22]

Makes FAAAAR more sense to watch them train in their camps, infilitrate their organizations so you know who is there, study the dynamics of the organization, and then drop laser guided bombs on groups of people as necessary.

If it were that easy dont you think we would have found binladin by now?

 

[Phoenix]

If it were that easy dont you think we would have found binladin by now?

There was a time when we knew where Bin Laden was. Bin Laden has gone 'underground' now so you have about as much chance of finding him as you do of finding me and I'll narrow it down - I'm in downtown Atlanta right now.

 

[pnjtony]

Can anyone locate me a larger version of the image in this word doc?
http://www.jacksonareatheatre.com/Kara.doc

I seriously think that's my cousin Kara and her girlfriend. I haven't seen her in years but it looks just like her and I know she lives in London.

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[ToxicAdam]

The beehive needed whacking.
[major snip]

Great post.

 

[Ponn]

It's a no-win situation. At this point it has escalated past redemption or reprisal for anyone involved. No one can honestly come up with a right way of handling this for both sides peacefully. The "War in Iraq" will never end because those that wanted the war for both right and wrong reasons just could not or refused to see what was going to happen. People said it was going to be like vietnam but Americans thought "whatever, we are America and much stronger now" "America, FUCK YEAH!!" and so on. The problem is, its now Vietnam but on a global scale and in our backyards.

My friend said it best, Bush needs to take it further. He's trying to save face at this point but the steps have been taken, we are there and its not going to end now until he takes it further. Go in there in Stormtrooper outfits if necessary but get it done now and be thorough. That nasty underside of all governments has been exposed so lets just flip it over, take care of business and be done with this disaster and then try and move on from there. We are trying to put on a show for the world and seem like we are doing all the right things and in the meantime things are getting slowly worse and just giving the terroists more fuel to light their fires with. The time for alternatives is done, accept the fact that we have to make some hard decisons and do it now.

 

[fortified_concept]

A) Yes, you can. Regardless of of their cause, indiscrminately targeting civilians is terrorism. If you deny that, and say that Palestinian suicide bombers are justified in their actions, and it seems you are, then you do support terrorism. Bottom line.

B) No, it's not about oil. The "it's all about oil" chants have died down in the last year or so, and for good reason. It shows very little understanding about the war. It is about changing the political landscape of the Middle East. Whether you say that it's a good thing, or a bad thing, it is more about America's attempts at establishing it's security (or power, depending upon how you view it), NOT about oil.

A) Yes it seems that I support terrorism. Me and dozens of european and asian goverments. We should all suffer horrible deaths for being so evil.

Of course you'll never realize that they're not targeting civilians they're targeting public opinion the politicians and the economy. These bombings have crippled Israel's economy and forced the Israeli leadership to take them seriously. Did you know that before the attacks started to happen the Isreali goverment wasn't even accepting discussions with Palestinians about the matter? The "peace talks" started after the suicide bombings started; till then they didn't even considering talking to them.

So you see just like USA which doesn't really target civilians, Palestinians don't target civilians too. They're just "side losses". So can you decide? It's neither or both.

And btw please spare me the lecture. USA dropped two atomic bombs in two of the most densely populated cities of Japan.

 

[midnightguy]

Uh, that's not what your little news report says.

LOL! of course there are DENIALS in there.


read the original AP release

original AP release:


By AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jul 7, 7:14 AM ET


JERUSALEM - British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes
before Thursday's explosions that they had received warnings of possible
terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said.


Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had planned to attend an
economic conference in a hotel over the subway stop where one of the
blasts occurred, and the warning prompted him to stay in his hotel room
instead, government officials said.


Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said he wasn't aware of any Israeli
casualties.


Just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the
Israeli Embassy to say they had received warnings of possible attacks,
the official said. He did not say whether British police made any link
to the economic conference.


The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the nature of
his position.


The Israeli Embassy was in a state of emergency after the explosions in
London, with no one allowed to enter or leave, said the Israeli
ambassador to London, Zvi Hefet.


All phone lines to the embassy were down, said Danny Biran, an Israeli
Foreign Ministry official.


The ministry set up a situation room to deal with hundreds of phone
calls from concerned relatives. Thousands of Israelis are living in
London or visiting the city at this time, Biran said.


Amir Gilad, a Netanyahu aide, told Israel Radio that Netanyahu's
entourage was receiving updates all morning from British security
officials, and "we have also asked to change our plans."


Netanyahu had been scheduled to stay in London until Sunday, but that
could change, Gilad said.

 

[xsarien]

They are defending their country from oppressors by blowing up civilians in another country? Something about that strategy just seems to defy logic.

I don't think anyone ever said it was logical. It's "justified" as retribution.

If it were about 'the oil' the US would have invaded the large numbers of oil rich nations in the world a long time ago. Its not about the oil.

Iraq has vast oil reserves coupled with being a pushover as far as military strength was concerned. If you're going to be dumb enough to try the Neocon approach, Iraq is a logical starting point. (Not that I agree with that particular philosophy. I'm just sayin'.)

 

[Squirrel Killer]

You can't just automatically define Palestinian suicide bombers as terrorists without even considering the fact that they're defending their country from the oppressors.

Yes I can. Tell you what, they stop killing babies, I'll stop calling them terrorists.

And btw it is about oil, and if can't even admit that, the discussion ends here.

Then why is the price of oil skyrocketing?

 

[Ponn]

There was a time when we knew where Bin Laden was. Bin Laden has gone 'underground' now so you have about as much chance of finding him as you do of finding me and I'll narrow it down - I'm in downtown Atlanta right now.

I can guarantee there is something coca-cola related nearby.

 

[Boogie]

A) Yes it seems that I support terrorism. Me and dozens of european and asian goverment. We should all have horrible deaths.

Of course you'll never realize that they're not targeting civilians they're targeting public opinion the politicians and the economy. These bombings have crippled Israel's economy and made the Israeli leadership to take them seriously. Did you know that before the attacks started to happen the Isreali goverment wasn't even accepting discussions with Palestinians about the matter? The "peace talks" started after the suicide bombings started; till then they didn't even considering talking to them.

So you see just like USA which doesn't really target civilians, Palestinians don't target civilians too. They're just "side losses". So can you decide? It's neither or both.

And btw please spare me the lecture. USA dropped two atomic bombs in two of the most densely populated cities of Japan.

A) Idiot. They're not targeting civilians? They're targeting public opinion? HOLY FUCKING SPIN, BATMAN! Fucking listen to yourself.

And bringing up WWII? What a weak way to try to obscure the actual current situation.

And you can support the cause of a Palestinian state without supporting the terrorists who kill civilians. Like those European governments you mention

B) Oh, wait, I notice there isn't any response to B, is there? That's right.

 

[Fatghost]

MY TAKE:

The civilised world should deliver an ultimatum: join us or die.

I pretty much agree with this now too. As bad as colonialism and paternalism was, it was better than this. It's probably the best solution we have, invade countries that won't tow the line and force them into civilization and rational behavior before weapons proliferate to the point were we won't be able to stop them.

Sad state of affairs we've come to, but the reality is this: if there are places in the world where people are not free, where capitalism is not firmly entrenched, where personal rights and property rights are protected and rational, then our own freedoms and property rights might one day be endangered by a festering underclass or ideology that is birthed in those places.

We can't become isolationists because the economic and technological realities of the day wouldn't let it happen. And the lessons of history are clear as well: an isolationist society, even if it begins as a mighty empire, will eventually be destroyed by new competitors as time progresses. Our best course of action would be to co-opt competitors now and bring them onto our team. And if we need to compel that co-operation with the deadliest of force, then so be it.

 

[Phoenix]

It's a no-win situation. At this point it has escalated past redemption or reprisal for anyone involved. No can honestly come up with a right way of handling for this both sides peacefully.

So long as each side is committed to blowing each other up as a solution, there is no window to create a solution.

The "War in Iraq" will never end because those that wanted the war for both right and wrong reasons just could not or refused to see what was going to happen. People said it was going to be like vietnam but Americans thought "whatever, we are America and much stronger now" "America, FUCK YEAH!!" and so on. The problem is, its now Vietnam but on a global scale and in our backyards.

The 'war' (i.e. armed conflict between standing armies) in Iraq IS over and has been over for a long time now. This is NOTHING like Vietnam, and to even call them the same is to not understand the dynamic of the two.

My friend said it best, Bush needs to take it further. He's trying to save face at this point but the steps have been taken, we are there and its not going to end now until he takes it further. Go in there in Stormtrooper outfits if necessary but get it done now and be thorough.

Your friend is a nut, plain and simple. SO you're going to to in storm trooper style and do what exactly? Terrorists don't glow red with their names above them when you point your weapon in their direction. So what exactly will you do?

 

[ToxicAdam]

I don't think anyone ever said it was logical. It's "justified" as retribution.






Iraq has vast oil reserves coupled with being a pushover as far as military strength was concerned. If you're going to be dumb enough to try the Neocon approach, Iraq is a logical starting point. (Not that I agree with that particular philosophy. I'm just sayin'.)

If any one of your wacky rantings were true, we would have made Kuwait the 51st state back in 90's after we liberated it.

Keep spreading the same tired line that people have been saying for 13 years now. Oh by the way, you also said a draft would be instituted after Bush was elected. How is that coming along?

 

[Boogie]

I pretty much agree with this now too. As bad as colonialism and paternalism was, it was better than this. It's probably the best solution we have, invade countries that won't tow the line and force them into civilization and rational behavior before weapons proliferate to the point were we won't be able to stop them.

Sad state of affairs we've come to, but the reality is this: if there are places in the world where people are not free, where capitalism is not firmly entrenched, where personal rights and property rights are protected and rational, then our own freedoms and property rights might one day be endangered by a festering underclass or ideology that is birthed in those places.

We can't become isolationists because the economic and technological realities of the day wouldn't let it happen. And the lessons of history are clear as well: an isolationist society, even if it begins as a mighty empire, will eventually be destroyed by new competitors as time progresses. Our best course of action would be to co-opt competitors now and bring them onto our team. And if we need to compel that co-operation with the deadliest of force, then so be it.

Holy hell. Yeah, let's renew imperialism. That's bound to work at stopping terrorism.

This thread is begging for the reinstatement of the rolleyes smiley, from both sides.

 

[Red Blaster]

It's probably the best solution we have, invade countries that won't tow the line and force them into civilization and rational behavior before weapons proliferate to the point were we won't be able to stop them.

That would take such a ridiculous amount of time and money that it's simply impossible to even fathom.


Just curious, but how many of you have education in political science? I'm wondering, 'cause I've seen some really stupid shit in the last 6 pages.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Of course you'll never realize that they're not targeting civilians they're targeting public opinion the politicians and the economy.

...by killing civilians.

Look, you want to say that the Intifada is legitimate and as long as their going after military, hell even government targets, I'm with you. Isreal is certainly no angel in all this. But going after civilians is terrorism. It's not really a controversial definition, except for people who have an axe to grind. BTW, I'll bet, if you look, that the European and Asian governments that you're relying on for your support are as appalled by the terrorist actions certain groups within the Palestinian community have committed as we are.

 

[Prine]

Didnt know cockles was such a racist. Did you see the news reports? A bomb went off in a muslim area, did you see the people staggering out of the trains? lots of muslims were hurt.

Terrorist arnt muslims. They are cowards and use it to gain allegence.

 

[APF]

My friend said it best, Bush needs to take it further. He's trying to save face at this point but the steps have been taken, we are there and its not going to end now until he takes it further. Go in there in Stormtrooper outfits if necessary but get it done now and be thorough.

I think that may have been a valid option way back when, right after "major combat operations" had ended. There has long been a disagreement between people who wanted a low-profile footprint and people who wanted to lock the country (especially the borders) down with lots of troops, but as time goes by it's less and less feasible to increase the sense of foreign military occupation, and that's the big dilemma we're facing.

 

[Phoenix]

I don't think anyone ever said it was logical. It's "justified" as retribution.

I thought civilizations considered the intentional murder of innocents as unjustifiable. Maybe its just me

Iraq has vast oil reserves coupled with being a pushover as far as military strength was concerned. If you're going to be dumb enough to try the Neocon approach, Iraq is a logical starting point. (Not that I agree with that particular philosophy. I'm just sayin'.)

Top World Oil Producers, 2004*
(OPEC members in italics)

Country
Total Oil Production**
(million barrels per day)
1)Saudi Arabia 10.37
2)Russia 9.27
3)United States 8.69
4) Iran 4.09
5) Mexico 3.83
6) China 3.62
7) Norway 3.18
8) Canada 3.14
9) Venezuela 2.86
10) United Arab Emirates 2.76
11) Kuwait 2.51
12) Nigeria 2.51
13) United Kingdom 2.08
13) Iraq 2.03

Iraq is listed as number 13. I know with absolute certainty that you could take Nigeria, Venezuela, Norway, and Mexico with far far less effort than taking and securing Iraq. If its about the oil after all, why not get involved in places that fewer people care about (Venezuela) or that are so much closer geographically that its stupidly cheap to do (Mexico).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html

 

[fortified_concept]

nevermind

 

[Fatghost]

Holy hell. Yeah, let's renew imperialism. That's bound to work at stopping terrorism.

This thread is begging for the reinstatement of the rolleyes smiley, from both sides.

If you'll note, there is nothing we could to appease the terrorists short of converting to their radical branch of Islam and essentially dismantling everything of value in our society.

Also, appeasement has never worked.


Also, if we stop the half measures and do things right, we can co-opt these societies into becoming like us. It may take two generations, but at least the problem will be solved.

 

[Instigator]

As bad as colonialism and paternalism was, it was better than this. It's probably the best solution we have, invade countries that won't tow the line and force them into civilization and rational behavior before weapons proliferate to the point were we won't be able to stop them.

You can't be serious. If so then give Guileless a call, he seems to be nostalgic of colonialism.

 

[ronito]

Bolded for emphasis since I couldn't say it any better. Good job SK.

...by killing civilians.

Look, you want to say that the Intifada is legitimate and as long as their going after military, hell even government targets, I'm with you. Isreal is certainly no angel in all this. But going after civilians is terrorism. It's not really a controversial definition, except for people who have an axe to grind. BTW, I'll bet, if you look, that the European and Asian governments that you're relying on for your support are as appalled by the terrorist actions certain groups within the Palestinian community have committed as we are.

 

[Ponn]

So long as each side is committed to blowing each other up as a solution, there is no window to create a solution.



The 'war' (i.e. armed conflict between standing armies) in Iraq IS over and has been over for a long time now. This is NOTHING like Vietnam, and to even call them the same is to not understand the dynamic of the two.



Your friend is a nut, plain and simple. SO you're going to to in storm trooper style and do what exactly? Terrorists don't glow red with their names above them when you point your weapon in their direction. So what exactly will you do?

There has been more casualties since Bush's famous War is over, Mission done statment. The government may like you to think the war is over but its not, its now turned to guerilla warfare (aka vietnam) and terroist attacks which is much more difficult to deal with. Hence the remark that at this point in order to finish this thing before it gets even worse we need to take it too harsher steps. Trust me on this, I have always and still am against this war. And its unfortunate that our government has put us in this position that will forever mark this country. Take a look at the long history between Palestine and Israel. We are now in that situation with terroists and if we keep handling it the way that situation is handled (and really a part of the whole reason this is going on too begin with) it will never end.

 

[The_Sorrow]

All the "blame America first" fucks make me want to vomit.

Indeed. There to brainwashed to even realize what they are saying/typing.

 

[Boogie]

Just curious, but how many of you have education in political science? I'm wondering, 'cause I've seen some really stupid shit in the last 6 pages.

I'm minoring in Poli Sci, and taking mainly International Relations courses for it.