London bombings politics/discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fatghost28 said:
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.


You're right- because its not like we don't have terrorist in our own western countries blowing up or sniping our own citizens.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
 
The_Sorrow said:
I'm sorry but that is BS. Most terrorist's are Muslims and if you say anything otherwise you are lying to yourself.

How about some. Yeah, some is a more fair statement than most methinks.
 
Phoenix said:
You're right- because its not like we don't have terrorist in our own western countries blowing up or sniping our own citizens.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
OH MY GOD. please tell me that quote from fatghost is some kind of elaborate joke or something.

also, phoenix, why do you hate freedom?
 
radioheadrule83 said:
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?


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

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:



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.


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.

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.






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

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.
 
Don't have much time here but Iraq's oil "production" for 2004 might not be the best measure of how much oil is actually there. Not everything is exactly at 100% in Iraq these days.
 
Ponn01 said:
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.

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.

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 gross overstatement you made is beyond reproach. The situation between Israel and Palestine isn't anywhere near our situation with the US and AlQaeda.
 
fortified_concept said:
This argument is so weak and stupid that I don't even bother discussing it. Instead you can read the replies of others in this thread about the exact same thing. I mean c'mon it's ridiculous.
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.
 
Boogie said:
Fatghost is Canadian. Though you sure wouldn't know it based on his politics :P

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:
OH MY GOD. please tell me that quote from fatghost is some kind of elaborate joke or something.

'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."
 
xsarien said:
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.

Wow xsarien...just...wow...you know I'm a pretty liberal guy....but I'm shocked and awed by this post. As I remember Ghandi had less than the shirt on his back and he didn't blow up people. Either way, here you go...you've earned it.

805201.png
 
Phoenix said:
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

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:
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.


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.
 
Boogie said:
How about some. Yeah, some is a more fair statement than most methinks.

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:
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.

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:
I totally agree. After you.


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:
I'm sorry but that is BS. Most terrorist's are Muslims and if you say anything otherwise you are lying to yourself.


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.
 
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.
 
fart said:
BUT PHOENIX, YOU'RE EITHER WITH THE CAUSE OF FREEDOM OR AGAINST IT. JOIN OR DIE

BUT WAIT, NOTHING IS BLACK OR WHITE. EVERYTHING IS A SHADE OF GREY. EVEN THE SHADES OF GREY HAVE SMALLER, INDIVIDUAL SHADES OF GREY. THE WORLD IS A MILLION POINTS OF GREY.
 
ronito said:
Wow xsarien...just...wow...you know I'm a pretty liberal guy....but I'm shocked and awed by this post. As I remember Ghandi had less than the shirt on his back and he didn't blow up people. Either way, here you go...you've earned it.

Ghandi was a pacifist, and unlike a large majority of the insurgents in Iraq, actually had political clout.
 
The_Sorrow 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.

Oklahoma City bombing?

Unabomber?

Abortion Clinic bombings?
 
Boogie 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."

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:
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.

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.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Oklahoma City bombing?

Unabomber?

Abortion Clinic bombings?

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:
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
ToxicAdam said:
BUT WAIT, NOTHING IS BLACK OR WHITE. EVERYTHING IS A SHADE OF GREY. EVEN THE SHADES OF GREY HAVE SMALLER, INDIVIDUAL SHADES OF GREY. THE WORLD IS A MILLION POINTS OF GREY.
uh, what?
 
Prine 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.

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.
 
Fatghost28 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.

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 ;)
 
The_Sorrow 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.

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.
 
Instigator 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.

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.

You can't invade any of these other countries because they're allies, Iraq was not. Be a bit more honest with your arguments

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.

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.


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?
 
xsarien said:
Ghandi was a pacifist, and unlike a large majority of the insurgents in Iraq, actually had political clout.

And how do you think he got said political clout? By resorting to violence?
 
ronito said:
Wow xsarien...just...wow...you know I'm a pretty liberal guy....but I'm shocked and awed by this post.
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.


Ninja Scooter said:
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.
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.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Oklahoma City bombing?

Unabomber?

Abortion Clinic bombings?


The countless attacks on London by the IRA. Various acts of terror by Israeli extremist against Palestinian settlers.
 
Phoenix said:
Hmmm... here is one from 1990

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?



You and your silly facts. It's much easier to use tired cliches! Come on, quit spoiling all their fun.
 
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:
And how do you think he got said political clout? By resorting to violence?

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:
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.

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.
 
ToxicAdam said:
It was to counter you mocking people that draw distinct lines.
the "cause of freedom" is not a distinct line, and it's ridiculous to think it is. furthermore, the joke was in telling people to join the "cause of freedom" on threat of death. think about it (i know, it's hard, but try). it's hilarious.
 
Phoenix 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.


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.
 
APF 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.

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.
 
Ninja Scooter said:
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.
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.

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
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom