London bombings politics/discussion thread
- Thread starter JackFrost2012
- Start date
- Status
The_Sorrow
Banned
Prine said:
I'm sorry but that is BS. Most terrorist's are Muslims and if you say anything otherwise you are lying to yourself.
radioheadrule83 said:
This should be the last post of this thread. Ken Livingston's speech was amazing and radioheadrule summed everything up, very well. wow. In memory of those killed today, they will defintely be in my mind, as well as, Ken's speech. I hoped AL Qaeda heard that shit, ya feel me?
Phoenix said:I thought civilizations considered the intentional murder of innocents as unjustifiable. Maybe its just me
There's no accounting for sanity and lines crossed, and just all goes back to that whole perspective argument. Intentional or not, there is collateral damage in places like Iraq. Push a people hard enough, and they'll spring back violently. I'm not saying it's right, God no. But when all you have left is the shirt on your back and hatred for the people who put you in that situation (regardless of their intentions), violence is likely the only avenue left.
That's valid, but it would've been impossible to convince the American people to rally behind a war on any one of those countries. Iraq was an established bogeyman thanks to the Gulf War, making it a natural choice.
Phoenix
Member
Ponn01 said:
The NVA was NOT AN ARMY OF INSURGENTS! The NVA posessed Tanks, Armored Transport, Aircraft, SAM sites, etc. They aren't even close to being the same thing.
The gross overstatement you made is beyond reproach. The situation between Israel and Palestine isn't anywhere near our situation with the US and AlQaeda.
Squirrel Killer
Member
If, in the face of simple logic (price of oil has gone up), bare facts (Iraq is far from the largest oil producer), sufficient alternate reasons (link to terrorism in general, WMD (later proven incorrect), non-compliance with UN resolutions), the abandonment of the position by most anti-war types, and scads of rhetoric (not that that would convinve me either), you still hold to a dream of a "IT'S ALL FOR OIL" rally cry, there is nothing that anyone on an internet forum can say that would make this discussion worth continuing. Suffice it to say, you're wrong.fortified_concept said:
Red Blaster
Member
The_Sorrow said:
I hate using it, but :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
Fucking bail out.
Boogie said:Fatghost is Canadian. Though you sure wouldn't know it based on his politics
Offtopic but:
Why the fuck am I "uncanadian" because I'm not a socialist?
It saddens me that Canada has reached the point where if you're not part of the majority opinion then you're not part of the country.
fart said:
'Fraid not.
Choice quotes from on other isssues:
"GST is bullshit just like ANY tax is bullshit"
On global warming:
"= Shorter winters and longer hotter summers?
Canada would only improve if such a thing could come to pass."
Government's role? Health Care? Education? Welfare? Naw:
"The government should just insure that the roads are maintained (which Ontario has done a shitty job of) That I don't have to worry about criminals running around (which the country has done a shitty job of lately, with bullshit sentancing). The government should make sure our borders are secure and should facilitate trade domestically and internationally. Finally, the government should allow me security of my person and my property.
All the rest I really don't think I should be paying government to do."
Instigator
Banned
Phoenix said:
Phoenix, you surprise me. Iraq still has the second largest oil reserves. The reason why Iraq is so low on that list is because of the sanctions and constant sabotage after the invasion.
You can't invade any of these other countries because they're allies, Iraq was not. Be a bit more honest with your arguments
So part of the reason for this invasion of Iraq is to break the deadlock from after the first Gulf War, use that large untapped oil reserves in a world with ever increasing demand and gain a new foothold in the Middle East (as the Saudi ally is getting more hostile to US military presence on holy land) as a staging point for any other invasion/operations, that will have to do about the stability of the region, a region that is vital for the stable flow of oil.
It is indeed about oil.
xsarien said:
So you'll go on record as saying those responsible in London are Iraqi's that are "pushing back"? Horseshit. They are the same Muslim radicals that have been doing this shit for 30 years now.
Nice backtrack on the "war for oil" tired cliche. But now you take it to new preposterous heights. Whats next, Bush allowed 9/11 so he could make a land grab in Iraq? I honestly wouldn't be shocked if you agreed to that.
The_Sorrow
Banned
Boogie said:
I disagree. Have you been seeing that many terrorist attacks being commited by non-Muslims? Because if you have I would like you to point me out to them.
fortified_concept said:
Horse puckey.
I'll ask you again, if I kick you in the nuts and say, "oh sorry, I was just trying to swat a fly", does that change the fact that you are reeling in pain, sucking your thumb and asking for Mommy?
It doesn't matter what their aims are. The end result of their savagery is that innocents die. Innocents die directly, ergo, because they were targeted. That makes the perpetrators twisted fvck's anyway you cut it.
bob_arctor said:
As I understand it, the USA (as well as my country) has a 100% volunteer army. If people sign up for service, they understand what service may entail, correct? So if a country decides to deploy their armed forces in whatever fashion the government sees fit, then you can't really say it is unfair to the armed forces, since they all signed up with the understanding that they may be asked to fight.
The_Sorrow said:
most?? :rolleyes
And by that i meant these twisted souls are not following islamic teachings, hence "not muslim"
They are desperate fuckers that need to be wiped out. Im a muslim, born and raised in Uk (living on the outskirts of London). Todays incident was an attack on me as well as every briton, and its fucking pathetic to see people sterotyping everything.
Ninja Scooter
Member
this type of attack (if it is indeed al quaida) just makes me wonder why they haven't attacked the U.S. again? Are we just that safe? Is our government doing a better job of sniffing them out? Are they scared to attack the U.S.? Not to trivialize it at all, but i watch what happened in London and think that pulling something like that off on our soil couldn't be that difficult for the terrorists.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
The_Sorrow said:
Oklahoma City bombing?
Unabomber?
Abortion Clinic bombings?
Boogie said:
Wow, should I be honored or worried that you've cataloged some of my posts?
And I wasn't serious with every quote...the global warming thing for example. The government stuff I am serious about. I don't see why you think its such a shock that people could think that given how much our government has screwed up in the areas of health care, education and welfare.
The_Sorrow said:
Terrorism in Ireland.
Basque terrorists.
Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka (I'm actually not sure what religion they are)
Terrorism in Central and South America.
Domestic Terrorism in America (Oklahoma City bombing).
Now, maybe most of these might not have been as active as Islamic terrorists the last few years isn't an excuse for people to just forget they exist.
The_Sorrow
Banned
Ignatz Mouse said:
Compare those three, to the hundreds that have been dished out by Muslim terrorists and you can see why I am drawing my conclusion.
ToxicAdam said:
And with this, you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of decades of middle east policy, and how the conflicts in the region - both political and military - have affected the people. That's not what I'm saying, you know that's not what I'm saying, and if you're going troll at least don't make it so patently obvious.
Having plenty of friends and family that came within inches of becoming well aquainted with a steel I-beam in lower Manhattan, I'm not even going to justify this sick shit with a response.
The_Sorrow
Banned
Prine said:
I have nothing against the religion of Islam. In fact I have relatives who are Muslim(I myself am Cathloic) but most terrorists these days are Islamic.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
The_Sorrow said:
That's just on US soil.
And there's more than one abortion clinic bombing.
And, as pointed out, plenty of IRA bombings in the UK.
Plus, the others mentioned.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
fart said:
I'm assuming he's trying to point out what a non-ending, circular kind of logic the whole "shade of grey" perspective is. As in, where do we draw the line?
Phoenix
Member
Instigator said:
Hmmm... here is one from 1990
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/ene_oil_pro_in_199&int=300
1982
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/ene_oil_pro_in_198&int=300
1972
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/ene_oil_pro_in_197&int=300
So unless the sanctions and constant sabotage have been going on since I've been born - Iraq isn't the primo oil producer.
Fine. Iran isn't, they produce more oil than Iraq and could be overcome militarily the same as Iraq. If its about the oil, why not invade them? They're a part of our Axis of Evil.
Are we using that large untapped oil reserve? Do we have troops on it? Are we securing it for our use to for the rest of the world in any way?
I'm pretty liberal too, but according to him I'm a flag-waving jingoist because I don't think it's valid to call al Qaeda a group of freedom fighters.ronito said:
I honestly have no idea; it's certainly not because we're "just that safe." I think it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be reasonably safe from this sort of attack. I also don't think they're afraid to attack the US, although it may be harder to recruit within US borders.Ninja Scooter said:
Boogie said:It doesn't take much effort to use the search function, dude ;P
Look, I know you weren't serious in some of those, but even so, I think most of your views are pretty batshit insane. No offense
I'm a fan of realpolitik. What can I say? I think it's obvious in this case that diplomacy has failed and will continue to fail. The terrorists operate in a different frame of reference to us and no common ground can be reached because they are only willing to deal in extremes.
ie: The west conforms to their ideology or else it must be destroyed.
You can't blackmail them into coming to the table like you could with a traditional government by threatening invasion or removal (which has seemed to work with Libya for example).
You can't really undermine their powerbase because Saudi princes will continue to funnel money to them, extremists in the middle east and other Islamic nations will continue to support them and the common people will continue to see this Jihad as their only way to overcome the disenfranchisement that exists in most of these countries.
We can't even target and kill them one by one because killing them makes them martyrs and it's logistically impossible to kill them without killing innocent people, which only feeds the problem and makes it worse.
So appeasement won't work, diplomacy won't work. Hell, invasion in and of itself won't work. All that would work would be a long term erosion of their traditional culture, government, and values and replacing them with western ones. Not an ideal situation to be in, but we've let ourselves get backed into a corner here. I don't think there are any good options available at this point.
ronito said:
You realize that there are virtually no parallels between modern Afghanistan and Iraq and Ghandi's India, right? What you could possibly argue is that there should be a modern Ghandi in Saudi Arabia or Iran. But the latter is run by religious extremists who have blurred religion and politics into one super-belief system, and the former is just run by a government that is WAY to chummy with the United States for comfort, especially given the origin of many of the 9/11 hijackers.
Phoenix said:
Oh, make no mistake. If Iraq had turned out to be the milkrun that Cheney and Rumsfeld insistsed it would be, we would already have troops in Iran.
Phoenix said:
Not only that, but IIRC, the Soviets were in there as early as 1954 offering aid to the North Vietnamese. What you don't hear, is that the Pentagon White Papers on Vietnam were not as mythical as the lies perpetrated by that shithead I.F. Stone that it was a "civil war". The NVA was under the direction of Hanoi almost from day one.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
APF said:
My batshit insane theory of the day? These attacks were obviously methodically planned over some time though they occurred the day after the Olympic hosting announcement. I say between the U.S. and the U.K., whoever had "won" the hosting, would have been attacked today as a means to send a message as the whole world would be watching. In other words, there probably was a plan of attack already in place here in the U.S., just waiting for the word "Go". Luckily, we are not hosting the Olympics. Perhaps there were plans laid out for any major nation (allied with us that is) that tried to win hosting. *Shrug* Seems as feasible as some of the stuff in this thread.
Fresh Prince
Banned
True but I think al Quaida realises any attack on American soil will just strengthen Bush's resolve. An attack on any of America's allies will put pressure on the alliance (ala Spain) and in a sense cut off one of it leg's beneath them.Ninja Scooter said:
ASIO knew something was up there had been a couple of raids on houses in Melbourne and Sydney so it seems like their doing their job.
However we'll see another lockdown of anybody who like like an 'arab' :\
- Status