Terrorist Bombing In London

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8492258/

Right now, I'm wondering what it would be like if NY got the Olympics - if these sets of circumstances are linked. A power outage followed by a series of explosions in the London subway. A report of a double decker bus exploding as well. Number of casualties unspecified at the moment. This all happening with Tony Blair on the G8 tour, coincidence?

EDIT: Number of confirmed casualties so far 90. This is a serious tragedy!
At least 6 explosions at wide spread targets.

[Pretentious]

The fact it comes the day after the Olympic announcement is pure coincidence. It's obvious this was something that's been in planning for awhile now, not something that was thrown together in a day.

And this is just, well, horrible.

[Conan-san]

Blair's to leave the G8. This is the EXACTLY THE THING HE SHOULDN'T DO! He should be pressing on with G8 and showing these Terroriests that nomatter what happens, it will be business as useal but instead, he's pandering to the terrorist's will.

What an 'effing idiot, our Blair.

[James]

He'd be damned as insensitive if he didn't, he's damned as weak if he does.. I don't think he can win really.

Personally, I think a trip back is relevant for a leader under such circumstances if it's only for a brief period - which it is, just being an afternoon trip.

This isn't Olympics orientated, it will be a G8 protest. Nasty stuff. I was just passing through one of the areas hit last week. First time I'd been to Russell Square and that was just on a whim. Freaky.

[Pretentious]

al-Queda is supposedly taking responsibility for this.

Ugh! This is just sickening.

[Phantasm]

wow...This is just so sad...And in London of all places?!It just sounds so weird...and VERY unexpected!!:eek: I think its a good think Blair left the Summit.What would the English public say if he didn't? And as a leader of his country, that should be his top priority.

[Zero-V]

He'd be damned as insensitive if he didn't, he's damned as weak if he does.. I don't think he can win really.
The people condemming him as Insensetive actually would be in a minority, the majority want strength for the issues at hand, and hes' not showing it

[Clayface]

The people condemming him as Insensetive actually would be in a minority, the majority want strength for the issues at hand, and hes' not showing it

I have to disagree. I think the only human thing to do was to return home. G8 is going to continue, and he's returning to it within a day or two. The death of these people is a far more important and pressing than attending to this conference, IMO.

Regardless, this is terrible news. I had a moment of panic when I woke up this morning, hearing on the radio alarm that an attack had taken place - I flashed back to Sept. 11th. Very chilling. My heart goes out to the people of London.

[Nightflower]

Just as a warning: no political discussion allowed. This is a major event in the world, but it's dangling on a thin thread: if it devolves into "See, Bush was right, you whiny liberals!" or "Blair's an idiot who's not fit to run the country", the thread will be closed.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

I heard G8 is coming to Scotland anyway, so Blair's decision to return just comes down to the wash. The summit will go on, and now they will probably concentrate more on fighting terrorism, so if the terrorists intent was to disrupt it they've just brought a lot more mess on themselves.

[Phantasm]

Fighting 'terrorism' is not going to get them anywhere.They have to think about what is it that caused 'terrorism' to emerge first. This 'War on Terror' is obviously leading to MORE terror as we are seeing quite recently.

[sun]

I have to disagree. I think the only human thing to do was to return home. G8 is going to continue, and he's returning to it within a day or two. The death of these people is a far more important and pressing than attending to this conference, IMO.

Regardless, this is terrible news. I had a moment of panic when I woke up this morning, hearing on the radio alarm that an attack had taken place - I flashed back to Sept. 11th. Very chilling. My heart goes out to the people of London.When I heard the news on the radio, I too flashed back to 9/11. I too am very sad about it. To all of Great Britain, we from the U.S.A. send our sympathies and prayers...Stuart

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

On a more personal level, can the assorted London TZ users check in here on the thread and let us know you're OK? I know we have more than a few.

-- Ed/Ace

[solarflere]

IMO we (U.S. and U.K.) have to strengthen our attack on Afghanistan. Taliban’s and Al Qaeda are on the offensive.

This is just terrible!

[Artimus Gigan]

I don't think Alqueda was going to just bomb what city won the oylympics


If they did have plans for multiple cities they would have probably went thru with all of them. This certainly is strange that they would strike London, but then again London isn't has heavily secured as the major cities in the US.

[Dark Fact]

I just watched the press conference on this this morning.

Is Al Qaeda that stupid that they would risk another war to bomb a country as powerful as London?

They're just asking for it, aren't they?

[Juu-kuchi]

IMO we (U.S. and U.K.) have to strengthen our attack on Afghanistan. Taliban’s and Al Qaeda are on the offensive. Immediate violent retaliation is not exactly a good idea.

Blair as PM has a duty to his countrymen more than the world leaders that are at G8. So I'm not surprised that he went back. If he stayed at G8 then I would understand but be highly wary as to why he isn't rushing back to calm his people.

[GregX]

And the award for worst name for a terror group goes to...

The Secret Oganization Group of al Qaeda of Jihad in Europe

That can't be real.

[Chrono1995]

What chills me is that I was riding the buses in London just three days ago. London's got some of the best people I've ever seen, so I'm very saddened that it's happened to them. It's good to hear the G8 summit will continue, but I hope they don't lose focus. I may not be much of a Christian, but I'm going to pray for the folks in London anyway.

Umm...our terror level is now Florida Orange, just to let you know.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

Fighting 'terrorism' is not going to get them anywhere.They have to think about what is it that caused 'terrorism' to emerge first. This 'War on Terror' is obviously leading to MORE terror as we are seeing quite recently.What about the biggest terrorist attack that started the war on terror? 9/11 only happened because of the religious hate between Muslims (mostly Palestinian) and Christians.
The war on terror isn't causing this, but preventing more of these attacks from happening. I have personally always been against organised religions for amongst many reasons the holy wars.

Umm...our terror level is now Florida Orange, just to let you know.It's risen everywhere for underground and rail transportation.

[solarflere]

Exactly 9/11 started the War on Terror, not the other way around.

[Phantasm]

Right, 9/11 did. 'Terrorists' are leaders like Bin Laden and Hussien.NOT the people who's homes get blown up every damn night.All this and suicide bombers are people representing the resentment of having their countries blown up because of some scum who hides himself in caves while others blow out nations trying to look for him.

What happened in London IS TERRIBLE. NO BODY should be subjected to that and it SHOULD come to a stop. I just think this isn't the way. You bomb them, they will bomb you. Will it get anywhere? It isn't at the moment.All this seems like is a series of exchanging bomb explosions.:( I guess what Flash said in JLU about the whole 'eye for an eye makes everyone blind' applies here. What makes me so sad, personally is the realization that with every damn attack, the face of the world as we know is changing. And for the worse. London...I would NEVER have, in my wildest dreams even, imagined a possible attack there. Same was with NY until the whole 9/11 thing. Nowadays...the attitude towards having a city blown up is that of expectancy. We live in constant fear of an attack. The world was supposed to be a 'safer' place after this 'War on Terror' was initiated. It seems now as if, in a way...War on Terror is the reason people live in terror everywhere. Mid-Easterners in fear of bombs thrown at them and us over here in fear of them retaliating in the form of a 'terrorist attack'.:sad:

[Supremus]

IMO we (U.S. and U.K.) have to strengthen our attack on Afghanistan. Taliban’s and Al Qaeda are on the offensive.

This is just terrible!Taliban??? Afghanistan??? What the...??? Please turn off Faux News. :) Yes, it's certainly terrible, but I don't see what another round of turning the rubble in Afghanistan would do!? We have had two of these faux-wars now, and if anything the threat of terrorism is greater than before. As anyone with an eye on history will tell you, you can't bomb or physically fight an ideology, and that's what's at the root of all this, assuming the bombings were in fact carried out by "the usual suspects", which hasn't been confirmed at all yet.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

I hear your concern Phantasm. Neither you or I want any more people dying.

However, it is us who are retaliating and they are attacking. They started it with WTC bombing (way back in '92), and we pretty much over looked it, like you suggested hoping it wouldn't happen again, letting the home state security take care of it. But since that didn't help much with 9/11 happening it was aout time to retaliate with the war on terror. If pres. Bush didn't start it, people would be complaining he should.

The only way of eliminating terrorism is by killing terrorists, because they die trying anyway.

[RedTail]

Fighting 'terrorism' is not going to get them anywhere.They have to think about what is it that caused 'terrorism' to emerge first. This 'War on Terror' is obviously leading to MORE terror as we are seeing quite recently.
So we appease the terrorists? Yea, because that worked so well for Neville Chamberlain... :yawn:

[SirLemming]

The reason people are blaming Al-Quaeda is because THEY CLAIMED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ATTACK. We're not exactly believing that yet, and we shouldn't jump to conclusions, but... you can hardly blame people for thinking it was them. And if it turns out it wasn't them, I won't exactly have much sympathy for them. I won't have sympathy for people who even claim responsibility for this.

Nowadays...the attitude towards having a city blown up is that of expectancy. We live in constant fear of an attack. The world was supposed to be a 'safer' place after this 'War on Terror' was initiated. It seems now as if, in a way...War on Terror is the reason people live in terror everywhere. Mid-Easterners in fear of bombs thrown at them and us over here in fear of them retaliating in the form of a 'terrorist attack'.:sad: Even though what you're saying more or less makes sense, I don't think it's really preventable. Of course we live in fear after the 9/11 terrorist attack. And it's not like how scared we are really has anything to do with whether or not they attack.

[solarflere]

Taliban??? Afghanistan??? What the...??? Please turn off Faux News. :) Yes, it's certainly terrible, but I don't see what another round of turning the rubble in Afghanistan would do!? We have had two of these faux-wars now, and if anything the threat of terrorism is greater than before. As anyone with an eye on history will tell you, you can't bomb or physically fight an ideology, and that's what's at the root of all this, assuming the bombings were in fact carried out by "the usual suspects", which hasn't been confirmed at all yet. If you haven't seen the news lately Taliban is still in Afghanistan. They shot don’t a CH-47 Chinook Navy SEAL carrier. It was heading for a secret mission. They killed them all. So obviously they are still very strong since they took out 18 Navy SEALs.



What happened in London IS TERRIBLE. NO BODY should be subjected to that and it SHOULD come to a stop. I just think this isn't the way. You bomb them, they will bomb you. Will it get anywhere? It isn't at the moment.All this seems like is a series of exchanging bomb explosions.images/smilies/frown.gif I guess what Flash said in JLU about the whole 'eye for an eye makes everyone blind' applies here. What makes me so sad, personally is the realization that with every damn attack, the face of the world as we know is changing. And for the worse. London...I would NEVER have, in my wildest dreams even, imagined a possible attack there. Same was with NY until the whole 9/11 thing. Nowadays...the attitude towards having a city blown up is that of expectancy. We live in constant fear of an attack. The world was supposed to be a 'safer' place after this 'War on Terror' was initiated. It seems now as if, in a way...War on Terror is the reason people live in terror everywhere. Mid-Easterners in fear of bombs thrown at them and us over here in fear of them retaliating in the form of a 'terrorist attack'.:sad: So what do you suggest, forget all of this even happened? You protest the war on terror but you do not offer any other alternative, which irritates me. All those antiwar who do not offer any other alternatives should stop talking.
We need to hit them again and hard this time. No more carpet bombing but precision bombing. Actually going into the Afghan caves and not just blowing them up. We need to get them out of hiding and take them out.

[Phantasm]

So what do you suggest, forget all of this even happened? You protest the war on terror but you do not offer any other alternative, which irritates me. All those antiwar who do not offer any other alternatives should stop talking.
We need to hit them again and hard this time. No more carpet bombing but precision bombing. Actually going into the Afghan caves and not just blowing them up. We need to get them out of hiding and take them out.That comment scares me. Because of this whole implication of 'revenge' inherent in it. The idea that you put forth about crushing them so hard they won't be able to hit back.Well, the same tactic was used to subdue Germany at the end of WW1 and the result was the disaster that Hitler caused in retaliation. So no, that won't do anyone any good except villinize those who will inflict that kind of treatment on those people, and give them all the more reason to feel hatred towards Europe.:sad:

What alternatives to war are there? Many. I'll stick with the 'a peaceful session of talking things out', Compromises, Treaties etc... But Military tactics if used right, can prove to be successful.America OBVIOUSLY is far superior to Afghanistan military wise.It just AMAZES me that with all the high tech gadgets that the Military has, it resorted to sticking with the old school, blast the city, session. These opponents and terrorists are not armed with anything other than normal guns and use horses for transportation for God's sake!There shouldn't be any need to wipe out generations of people to catch a hold of them.

[James]

So what do you suggest, forget all of this even happened? You protest the war on terror but you do not offer any other alternative, which irritates me. All those antiwar who do not offer any other alternatives should stop talking.
We need to hit them again and hard this time. No more carpet bombing but precision bombing. Actually going into the Afghan caves and not just blowing them up. We need to get them out of hiding and take them out.
Well I think that's the danger with fighting terrorism. By nature it's far more insidious than even precision bombing can achieve. It's not something where you can punch the leader and it will fall. I think - without getting political - this is the tendency for reaction to terrorism to be one of retaliation by force - strategic or otherwise. However I think to root out Terrorism has to be as insidious as it's deployed by the terrorists. How you do that, I don't know, but I don't think another drive into the middle east is what is needed here. We all need to remain calm, carry on with our lives and prove that the aim of terrorism - to spread terror - is not effective. It will not disrupt how we do things and it will not change the resolve of countries in any political mandate they are currently working on, be it left or right wing.

[DarkKnight007]

On this devastatingly sad day, I would like to convey my heartfelt prayers and sympathy to all British Toon Zone posters and all TZ posters worldwide who might have lost someone they know! :( --DarkKnight007

[Spongebrain2.0]

Al-Queda is the equivalent of the Nazis or Hitler's Army, except, Al-Queda are a bunch of [cowards]. They're cowards, I say, we friggin blow all those Al-Queda, no questioning, just freakin blow them all down. You see an Al-Queda guy running at you with a grenade, you blow his head off. When they find Osama, I don't want him to get an trial or anything, I say we shoot Osama on sight. There's no point to giving this monster a fair trial, his entire regime has killed millions of people on this planet. This man is the Hitler of today, & we're not going to Al-Queda slip away, we will win this war. America has the best security & armed forces in the world. A bunch of Al-Quedas running around with home-made bombs strapped to their chest aren't going to stop us. Burn in hell, Al-Queda, you are worthless monsters that don't deserve to live, you damn dirty apes!

[solarflere]

That comment scares me. Because of this whole implication of 'revenge' inherent in it. The idea that you put forth about crushing them so hard they won't be able to hit back.Well, the same tactic was used to subdue Germany at the end of WW1 and the result was the disaster that Hitler caused in retaliation. So no, that won't do anyone any good except villinize those who will inflict that kind of treatment on those people, and give them all the more reason to feel hatred towards Europe.:sad:

What alternatives to war are there? Many. I'll stick with the 'a peaceful session of talking things out', Compromises, Treaties etc... But Military tactics if used right, can prove to be successful.America OBVIOUSLY is far superior to Afghanistan military wise.It just AMAZES me that with all the high tech gadgets that the Military has, it resorted to sticking with the old school, blast the city, session. These opponents and terrorists are not armed with anything other than normal guns and use horses for transportation for God's sake!There shouldn't be any need to wipe out generations of people to catch a hold of them. On the contrare, they are hiding in caves and vast complexes. Its hard to find them even with our technology. As for your so called "alternatives" how can you talk to them when ther took down the the World Trade Center in my city and killed Over 2500 people in the prosses. We have to go after them and eradicate them. They will die anyways by blowing themselvs up. So we have to do it for them.

[Clayface]

What alternatives to war are there? Many. I'll stick with the 'a peaceful session of talking things out',

But that's the thing. Your belief is idealistic, but not realistic. You can't talk your way out of things with someone like bin Laden. You're talking about people that see our way of life as evil, and will sacrifice everything, including their own lives, to stop it. And when I say "our way of life", I'm not just talking foreign policy. I'm talking basic freedoms, like equal rights for women, the idea of a woman even being able to wear what clothes she wants in public, the way a person can act in public, freedom of religion, etc. Their intention is to obliterate us. Period. There is no other option for them. They don't have any desire to live side by side with us. They don't want peaceful coexistence. They want us dead and gone. Yes, the long term solution is education and understanding. But to even begin that process, you have to be able to get in and talk with the people. And to do that, you have to get rid of the terrorists. It's circular. Show me a realistic option.

[RedTail]

But that's the thing. Your belief is idealistic, but not realistic. You can't talk your way out of things with someone like bin Laden. You're talking about people that see our way of life as evil, and will sacrifice everything, including their own lives, to stop it. And when I say "our way of life", I'm not just talking foreign policy. I'm talking basic freedoms, like equal rights for women, the idea of a woman even being able to wear what clothes she wants in public, the way a person can act in public, etc. Their intention is to obliterate us. Period. There is no other option for them. They don't have any desire to live side by side with us. They don't want peaceful coexistence. They want us dead and gone. Yes, the long term solution is education and understanding. But to even begin that process, you have to be able to get in and talk with the people. And to do that, you have to get rid of the terrorists. It's circular. Bingo, if talk accomplished anything with Jihadis like Al'Qaeda and Hamas, there'd have been peace in Israel long ago. The only way to deal with these people is to stomp them out.

[Spongebrain2.0]

I find it hilarious when people say "We must find out why these Terrorists did this" or "We have to find out why these Terrorists hate us". Hello......they're terrorists, you want to know why they do these attacks, cause they hate our way of life, they hate our life as the fact we accept people of all religions, race, etc. to live a life of freedom. You can't reason with terrorists, Terrorists are the closest things to an actual alien invasion on earth, except aliens that hide in caves & act like cowards.My heart goes out to the people of London, & STOP bashing Tony Blair for coming back to his country to speak & reassure his people. Geez, would you like Mr. Blair to stay at G8 & leave his people in fear & stress?:shrug:

[solarflere]

But that's the thing. Your belief is idealistic, but not realistic. You can't talk your way out of things with someone like bin Laden. You're talking about people that see our way of life as evil, and will sacrifice everything, including their own lives, to stop it. And when I say "our way of life", I'm not just talking foreign policy. I'm talking basic freedoms, like equal rights for women, the idea of a woman even being able to wear what clothes she wants in public, the way a person can act in public, etc. Their intention is to obliterate us. Period. There is no other option for them. They don't have any desire to live side by side with us. They don't want peaceful coexistence. They want us dead and gone. Yes, the long term solution is education and understanding. But to even begin that process, you have to be able to get in and talk with the people. And to do that, you have to get rid of the terrorists. It's circular. Show me a realistic option. I salute you!

[Phantasm]

But that's the thing. Your belief is idealistic, but not realistic. You can't talk your way out of things with someone like bin Laden. You're talking about people that see our way of life as evil, and will sacrifice everything, including their own lives, to stop it. And when I say "our way of life", I'm not just talking foreign policy. I'm talking basic freedoms, like equal rights for women, the idea of a woman even being able to wear what clothes she wants in public, the way a person can act in public, etc. Their intention is to obliterate us. Period. There is no other option for them. They don't have any desire to live side by side with us. They don't want peaceful coexistence. They want us dead and gone. Yes, the long term solution is education and understanding. But to even begin that process, you have to be able to get in and talk with the people. And to do that, you have to get rid of the terrorists. It's circular. Show me a realistic option. Yeah...At this point, Bin Laden will definately not agree with 'talking things over'. I agree. But I also said that they should go hunt him down but without stomping on all those people who have had the misfortune of being born in the same country as he is.That doesn't seem to be happening. Instead, the innocent people are also being turned into terrorists because its their homeland that is being destroyed in the process, causing them to want revenge. And so the terrorist attacks continue.:sad:

[Spongebrain2.0]

But that's the thing. Your belief is idealistic, but not realistic. You can't talk your way out of things with someone like bin Laden. You're talking about people that see our way of life as evil, and will sacrifice everything, including their own lives, to stop it. And when I say "our way of life", I'm not just talking foreign policy. I'm talking basic freedoms, like equal rights for women, the idea of a woman even being able to wear what clothes she wants in public, the way a person can act in public, etc. Their intention is to obliterate us. Period. There is no other option for them. They don't have any desire to live side by side with us. They don't want peaceful coexistence. They want us dead and gone. Yes, the long term solution is education and understanding. But to even begin that process, you have to be able to get in and talk with the people. And to do that, you have to get rid of the terrorists. It's circular. Show me a realistic option.

You showed him!!! Seriously, Clayface just hit it perfectly. That explains the exact reason why we can't reason & be peaceful with Al-Queda. BRAVO, Clayface, I second that salute!

[Supremus]

If you haven't seen the news lately Taliban is still in Afghanistan. They shot don’t a CH-47 Chinook Navy SEAL carrier. It was heading for a secret mission. They killed them all. So obviously they are still very strong since they took out 18 Navy SEALs.Alright, let's just try some perspective, shall we? The Taliban had no connection to what happened today, in Madrid, or even on 9-11. They are currently fighting an invading force in their country, which is very different to what happened today. They are not a terrorist organisation, they are/were an oppressive regime. Despite the current message about "Freedom being on the march" and all that, let's remember that the Taliban were not considered the threat after 9-11. They were told they would be left alone if they handed over Bin Laden and his associates. Of course, they didn't have Bin Laden, so they couldn't do that and became a target as a result.

The Taliban did of course support various terrorist groups, but almost entirely for the purposes of internal conflicts in the region than external attacks on Western countries, which isn't very different from how our own Governments support and have supported various shady organisations and regimes themselves.

I find it a little bit concerning when people just jump to incorrect conclusions and want to revenge-bomb people.

[solarflere]

Yeah...At this point, Bin Laden will definately not agree with 'talking things over'. I agree. Fine then, they should go hunt him down but without stomping on all those people who have had the misfortune of being born in the same country as he is.That doesn't seem to be happening. Instead, the innocent people are also being turned into terrorists because its their homeland that is being destroyed in the process, causing them to want revenge. And so the terrorist attacks continue.:sad: Guess what, Bin Laden is only one of the terrorists, we have to kill them ALL. And everyone who is born there are trained from early age to hate and kill us. I will never forget the newspaper picture where these terorists put on their hoods and bomb vests and took their children and infants and dressed them up the same way. They are born to hate and kill us. Understand that.


Alright, let's just try some perspective, shall we? The Taliban had no connection to what happened today, in Madrid, or even on 9-11. They are currently fighting an invading force in their country, which is very different to what happened today. They are not a terrorist organisation, they are/were an oppressive regime. Despite the current message about "Freedom being on the march" and all that, let's remember that the Taliban were not considered the threat after 9-11. They were told they would be left alone if they handed over Bin Laden and his associates. Of course, they didn't have Bin Laden, so they couldn't do that and became a target as a result.

The Taliban did of course support various terrorist groups, but almost entirely for the purposes of internal conflicts in the region than external attacks on Western countries, which isn't very different from how our own Governments support and have supported various shady organisations and regimes themselves.

I find it a little bit concerning when people just jump to incorrect conclusions and want to revenge-bomb people. When you hide a killer in the U.S. you become an accomplice and a fujative as well. Taliban was hiding Bin Laden so they became the target as well. They gave then safe haven, and protected them. They are a terrorist regime, and the country does not belong to them anymore. The people of have spoken. It’s like a former U.S. president trying to take over "his country.

[Clayface]

Yeah...At this point, Bin Laden will definately not agree with 'talking things over'. I agree. Fine then, they should go hunt him down but without stomping on all those people who have had the misfortune of being born in the same country as he is.

Absolutely. I agree 100%. But, I think we've been going to great pains to do just that - more so than in any other war in history. Yes, innocents have been and will continue to be killed in this horrible conflict. It's unfortunate, but also unavoidable. The best we can do is to keep the innocent casulties to a minimum.

And you're right, the "war on terror" has, and will continue to create more terrorists. That's part of the cyclical nature of all this as well, and it's not pretty. So again, the best we can do is minimize the damage to those caught in the crossfire.

[James]

Bingo, if talk accomplished anything with Jihadis like Al'Qaeda and Hamas, there'd have been peace in Israel long ago. The only way to deal with these people is to stomp them out.
Yes, but as much as "talking" doesn't effectively do much, neither does the ass kicking which just fuels vendettas and reinforces the hatred. Terrorism isn't like a controlled dictatorship. You can't cut off a few strategic heads and the rest will crumble. It's fueled on counter ideology which is far harder to attack and destroy. It runs in families, friends and networks beyond what a good few well placed bombs can take out.

I think just going in on attacks isn't the way to deal with it. These people believe in what they are doing, they don't see it as being "evil", as Clayface said. It's ideological differences in how one views life and those around. It is something which requires active measures, but to fight the enemy, you have to understand them and why they think like they do. That's basic tactics. This isn't standard warfare and terrorism cannot be defeated in either a democractic or totalitarian world. While there is freedom of thought, there will be terrorism. How to protect our people and try and quell terrorism is a far more practical standpoint to work from.

We need to understand how these people think and find solutions which will bring practical depletion to their movement. This is a tough "war" to fight as there is no definitive end to it and there never has been throughout history. We need to remove ourselves from that perspective and look at ways of stopping acts of terrorism as much as possible rather than believe in a magic method to stop terrorism for good. Unless we can all be brainwashed to think in the same way, that's not going to happen.

[Phantasm]

Guess what, Bin Laden is only one of the terrorists, we have to kill them ALL. And everyone who is born there are trained from early age to hate and kill us. I will never forget the newspaper picture where these terorists put on their hoods and bomb vests and took their children and infants and dressed them up the same way. They are born to hate and kill us. Understand that.
WRONG.

I can tell you that blatantly. Complete and ignorant over generelization of that region,its culture and religion.

[Spongebrain2.0]

I remember a picture of a little boy holding a machine gun decked out, ready to fire......:(

[Spongebrain2.0]

WRONG.

I can tell you that blatantly. Complete and ignorant over generelization of that region,its culture and religion.
No, actually he is right. Most kids are taught America is evil, & all that jazz. It saddens me that people are actually defending Al-Queda:sad:

[Phantasm]

No, actually he is right. Most kids are taught America is evil, & all that jazz. It saddens me that people are actually defending Al-Queda:sad:I am not defending Al-Queda!:confused: :eek: I was just stating the fact that he had over generelized all this opinions. You are right, MOST kids are. NOT everyone.

[solarflere]

WRONG.

I can tell you that blatantly. Complete and ignorant over generelization of that region,its culture and religion.They are BORN to hate and KILL us, get that through your head.

[Tienshin]

No, actually he is right. Most kids are taught America is evil, & all that jazz. It saddens me that people are actually defending Al-Queda:sad:

She's not defending Al Qaeda, she's replying to the part of the post that seemed to imply all muslims are raised to hate the west. Which is clearly a false statement and gross generalization. That is not defending Al Qaeda,

[Supremus]

Guess what, Bin Laden is only one of the terrorists, we have to kill them ALL. And everyone who is born there are trained from early age to hate and kill us. I will never forget the newspaper picture where these terorists put on their hoods and bomb vests and took their children and infants and dressed them up the same way. They are born to hate and kill us. Understand that.Translate this post to Arabic, or whatever appropriate language, and that's virtually the same message they are using against us. The pictures are not bomb belts, but stealth bombers, apache helicopters and endless pictures of blown up bodies and destroyed buildings.

I can understand how so many people fall for the "they hate our freedom" nonsense, considering that this message is being rammed down people's throats 24-7, but it's simply not true. They hate the way the western world has meddled in their culture. If we kept to ourselves, there is no way they would bother hassling us in the first place. I am not saying that is necessarily what we should do, but we have to understand that our actions have consequences, and considering how many hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in the Middle East over the last 15-20 years through bombings and sanctions, we are still very much in the green, so to speak.

[SirLemming]

We need to calm down a little. I support the war in Iraq more than most people do, but even I would rather not have anyone die. Most likely a lot of the terrorists will in fact need to die, but it's a serious, sad business. The only resolution to this whole thing will most likely leave us all content, not happy.

[Phantasm]

Translate this post to Arabic, or whatever appropriate language, and that's virtually the same message they are using against us. The pictures are not bomb belts, but stealth bombers, apache helicopters and endless pictures of blown up bodies and destroyed buildings.

I can understand how so many people fall for the "they hate our freedom" nonsense, considering that this message is being rammed down people's throats 24-7, but it's simply not true. They hate the way the western world has meddled in their culture. If we kept to ourselves, there is no way they would bother hassling us in the first place. I am not saying that is necessarily what we should do, but we have to understand that our actions have consequences, and considering how many hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in the Middle East over the last 15-20 years through bombings and sanctions, we are still very much in the green, so to speak.
Perfect. You hit the nail on the head!:)

[solarflere]

Translate this post to Arabic, or whatever appropriate language, and that's virtually the same message they are using against us. The pictures are not bomb belts, but stealth bombers, apache helicopters and endless pictures of blown up bodies and destroyed buildings.

I can understand how so many people fall for the "they hate our freedom" nonsense, considering that this message is being rammed down people's throats 24-7, but it's simply not true. They hate the way the western world has meddled in their culture. If we kept to ourselves, there is no way they would bother hassling us in the first place. I am not saying that is necessarily what we should do, but we have to understand that our actions have consequences, and considering how many hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in the Middle East over the last 15-20 years through bombings and sanctions, we are still very much in the green, so to speak. As Clayface put it so perfectly, they hate out way of life. They hate for what we stand for. They have democrasy. And for all of you non-beliavers I have this to say "Hear no evil see no evil" if you xhoose to ignore it, does not mean the evil does not exist.

[Artimus Gigan]

Al Queda is pretty much like the KKK except it has a larger bankroll and is more heavily armed.

What they are trying to push onto everyone is an absolutism belief. Absolutistic beliefs don't work at all because there are always exceptioms, not to mention only a minority can usualy conform to it. They really offer nothing productive, even though they compare them to revolutionaries that is not quite right. Revolutionaries want to change the order so society can function better as a whole. Alqueda just wants to destroy and only have a few benefit. So even if they do suceed, what they want humanity as a whole to do is just not practical in anyways whatsoever, infact it's counter productive.

In which case they would lose in the end anyways...

[James]

This is precisely why we don't have political threads: case in point.

And no, not everyone in the middle east hates the West like this. The West is unpopular, but by no means does it mean one can compare all to extremists. That is offensive to many people in that region who are religious and fundementally against terrorism as anyone here is.

As soon as we start generalising like this, the quicker we lose touch with who we are fighting. As soon as we do that, they've won.

[Peter Paltridge]

Remember that British friend I mentioned in the other topic? She JUST missed this. She was in another train when it all went down--it suddenly stopped and threw some people about, then she had to wait for 50 minutes until the doors were opened. She walked to the train station and saw what it had been turned into, and felt like vomiting.

:eek: Needless to say, that's news to wake up to. When I heard this happened, I was worried about her, and my worries were right--she was almost in it! I'm relieved she's OK, though.

[Phantasm]

As Clayface put it so perfectly, they hate out way of life. They hate for what we stand for. They have democrasy. And for all of you non-beliavers I have this to say "Hear no evil see no evil" if you xhoose to ignore it, does not mean the evil does not exist.
And it is amazing how the West seems to continue to feed them the reason to hate.

[Artimus Gigan]

And it is amazing how the West seems to continue to feed them the reason to hate.He was talking about the terrorist groups, not the populice as a whole..

[I.R Joey]

Guys let me remind you that this not a day for petty arguments. I know you mean well but right now we need to focus on just helping the people of London resolve this.

As for Al-Quadea their monsters but I don't think we can say that their just randomly attacking us. I think there are about three reasons Al-Quadea is bent on destroying us....

1. Western troops on the ground in Saudi Arabia the home of the Prophet Mohamed and the the birthplace of Islam.

2. Suppourt of Israel (which ties into the situation with the Palastinians)

3. What they perceive as Western imorality (IE we're not like them).

I don't really think you can reason with people like this. They're fanatics not politicians like, say a head of state. They don't have to worry about how popular in the poles they are.
What we need to do is underminethe source of Al-Quadea's recruits. We have to raise living standards in the Middle East. Show them that westerners aren't the crusaders of hundreds of years ago, and that men like Bin Laden, and Al Zaheri are certainly not like Saladin. I believe that once people have better standards of living, they'll have hope for themselves and for their children. They'll be less likely to want to throw their lives away for foolish men who do not represent Islam. I also think we need the resto of the Muslims in the world to stand up and at the top of their lungs condem these monsters for the savages that they are. It's their religon that's being hijacked and they need to stand up.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Originally Posted by solarflere
Guess what, Bin Laden is only one of the terrorists, we have to kill them ALL. And everyone who is born there are trained from early age to hate and kill us. I will never forget the newspaper picture where these terorists put on their hoods and bomb vests and took their children and infants and dressed them up the same way. They are born to hate and kill us. Understand that.


Erm, no I'm not.

I'm not a terrorist.

And I'm not Middle Eastern either. I'm of Slavic descent. My people were itinerant; we're from anywhere. Even Chechnya, where a lot of terrorist activity is going on. So you want me dead? You want to kill me based on what type of blood I have? Skin color? Hair? Religion? Take your best shot; you're a daisy if you do!

By lumping all people together as a certain stereotype, we're as bad as them. "They" hate Americans because we're stupid, fat, obnoxious, and inconsiderate greedy cretins.

Doesn't match who you are? Neither is that concept or description of Middle Eastern or Afghani people. A lot of them are trying to scrape by since their economy is kaput. Mothers do hope their children don't end up like their fathers -- dead and useless to anyone. Think about how many people want to break the cycle....and you would just condemn them as much as their neighbor, who "looks the same to me."

[Supremus]

As Clayface put it so perfectly, they hate out way of life. They hate for what we stand for. They have democrasy. And for all of you non-beliavers I have this to say "Hear no evil see no evil" if you xhoose to ignore it, does not mean the evil does not exist.That's just wildly incorrect and a sign that you are not really listening to what I am saying, but rather projecting a generalized view. I am not saying evil does not exist, but paintiing them as some sort of 1-dimensional bogey-man is simplistic and not very intelligent. Tell me, what is your basis for saying they hate your way of life? They hate the way of life of a lot of people around the world who have never bombed them to smithereens or meddles in their internal affairs, and yet somehow they take little or no action against those. Look at the facts, my friend, not the propaganda you are being bombarded with.

[Clayface]

That's just wildly incorrect and a sign that you are not really listening to what I am saying, but rather projecting a generalized view. I am not saying evil does not exist, but paintiing them as some sort of 1-dimensional bogey-man is simplistic and not very intelligent. Tell me, what is your basis for saying they hate your way of life? They hate the way of life of a lot of people around the world who have never bombed them to smithereens or meddles in their internal affairs, and yet somehow they take little or no action against those.

Yet. Of course they're going to go after the ones they percieve as the biggest threat, namely the Western countries.

The basis for saying they (and by they I mean the terrorists, not muslims in general) hate our way of life comes from recorded preachings of bin laden and the like. I'm not saying that that's their only motivation, but it is certainly one. As you said, check out the facts, friend.

There's a lot of overgeneralization going on on both sides of this argument, and we're starting to steer toward political talk with that last comment from Phantasm. So everyone please take a step back, take a deep breath, calm down a bit, think about what you're saying before you post, and let's try and steer clear of any bashing.


Remember that British friend I mentioned in the other topic? She JUST missed this. She was in another train when it all went down--it suddenly stopped and threw some people about, then she had to wait for 50 minutes until the doors were opened. She walked to the train station and saw what it had been turned into, and felt like vomiting.

How horrible. I'm glad to hear your friend is ok though.

Getting this thing back on topic (and away from the generalizations): have all the UK TZ members checked in yet? Who do we know is from the UK that hasn't posted yet?

[Artimus Gigan]

That's just wildly incorrect and a sign that you are not really listening to what I am saying, but rather projecting a generalized view. I am not saying evil does not exist, but paintiing them as some sort of 1-dimensional bogey-man is simplistic and not very intelligent. Tell me, what is your basis for saying they hate your way of life? They hate the way of life of a lot of people around the world who have never bombed them to smithereens or meddles in their internal affairs, and yet somehow they take little or no action against those. Look at the facts, my friend, not the propaganda you are being bombarded with.Those smaller countires lack international influence

They go after america because it's the big fish

[Supremus]

This is precisely why we don't have political threads: case in point.Nah, it's still pretty clean, if a little passionate. Nothing wrong with that. Some people might even find it educational. :) Until outright flaming starts, I would urge the mods to show a little restraint and leave this running.

[solarflere]

And it is amazing how the West seems to continue to feed them the reason to hate. I can speak from a first hand experiance because i live in NYC, same goes for U.K. London, Madrid Spain, Bali Indonesia and other high terrorist attacks. We know what real terror feels like because we have been there. I saw the second place hit the second WTC tower with my own two eyes. It was beyond beliaf. That is why I beliave that terrorists must die. There are a lot of good people who live around terrorist states but its the terrorists we have to go after. Unless you have been there and witnessed it first hand, you don't know what real fear taste like.

[James]

Nah, it's still pretty clean, if a little passionate. Nothing wrong with that. Some people might even find it educational. :) Until outright flaming starts, I would urge the mods to show a little restraint and leave this running.
I wasn't asking for it to be closed, but when we all start talking about terrorism politics rather than the issue at London, it reminds me why we stopped politics.. it all goes back to the same debate. We're all drawn to it and I don't think it brings out a good side.

My grandmother's son's cousin was in the train ahead of one that was bombed. He was in London for a meeting that was actually cancelled before the day began. To have died for a non existent meeting would have been awful.

[Supremus]

Those smaller countires lack international influence

They go after america because it's the big fishNo, that's simply not true. If you listen to what people in the Middle East themselves have to say, and not what the mainstream media transcribes from the Government propaganda briefings, you will get a much clearer understanding of what's going on. Just look at how intolerant we in the west are of Middle Eastern and other cultures' influence on our society. Can you imagine how offensive it is to people in the Middle East to see the supposedly "corrupting" nature of Starbucks, McDonalds, Levis, etc, etc, drown out their own culture? Add to that the bombings, the sanctions, the meddling in political affairs, and of course they're going after the "big fish".

[Supremus]

I wasn't asking for it to be closed, but when we all start talking about terrorism politics rather than the issue at London, it reminds me why we stopped politics.. it all goes back to the same debate. We're all drawn to it and I don't think it brings out a good side.I know. I just wanted to get that comment in there before an over-zealous mod stepped in and put a stop to the fun. I think it's difficult to discuss today's events in terms other than "that's terrible" without a little political context, though. Yes, it does bring out a few unplesantries, but as long as it remains somewhat restrained, what's the harm?

[Artimus Gigan]

No, that's simply not true. If you listen to what people in the Middle East themselves have to say, and not what the mainstream media transcribes from the Government propaganda briefings, you will get a much clearer understanding of what's going on. Just look at how intolerant we in the west are of Middle Eastern and other cultures' influence on our society. Can you imagine how offensive it is to people in the Middle East to see the supposedly "corrupting" nature of Starbucks, McDonalds, Levis, etc, etc, drown out their own culture? Add to that the bombings, the sanctions, the meddling in political affairs, and of course they're going after the "big fish".If you mean capitalistic establishments based on the Middle East in America

hell there are loads of resturaunts like those in the big metropolitan areas..

There really isn't any drowning out of culture in those areas, they all seem to blend together.

[Wounded_Dragon]

I can speak from a first hand experiance because i live in NYC, same goes for U.K. London, Madrid Spain, Bali Indonesia and other high terrorist attacks. We know what real terror feels like because we have been there. I saw the second place hit the second WTC tower with my own two eyes. It was beyond beliaf. That is why I beliave that terrorists must die. There are a lot of good people who live around terrorist states but its the terrorists we have to go after.
And these terrorist are? And no, generic labels or group names aren't enough. It's not like they're wearing the black hats. This may be the hardest thing to grasp about the London attack, that terrorists can be invisible. And they can also operate indvidually. While I'd be ecstatic if we caught Osama tomorrow, I'd be a fool if I thought terrorism on the whole would be affected. When people talk about "understanding the terrorists" they're not doing it to "appease" them; they're doing it so we can learn how to cut off recruitment, recognize potential recruits and supply networks, and prevent future disasters.

Thoughts and prayers to Londoners today.

[Peter Paltridge]

My grandmother's son's cousin was in the train ahead of one that was bombed. He was in London for a meeting that was actually cancelled before the day began. To have died for a non existent meeting would have been awful.Right. Almost losing a friend to this is darn scary (of course, actually losing one would be worse). I'm kind of annoyed to see this topic turn into nothing but one long shouting match. What's there to shout about? Terrorists are always going to be around. New nutheads are born every day. What can anyone REALLY do?

[audiecugi]

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8492258/

Right now, I'm wondering what it would be like if NY got the Olympics - if these sets of circumstances are linked. A power outage followed by a series of explosions in the London subway. A report of a double decker bus exploding as well. Number of casualties unspecified at the moment. This all happening with Tony Blair on the G8 tour, coincidence?

EDIT: Number of confirmed casualties so far 90. This is a serious tragedy!
At least 6 explosions at wide spread targets.
All the reports I've seen/heard/read claim there have been 33 - 40 confirmed dead. Where did you get 90 from?

None the less this is a horrible tradgity, and my heart and prayers go out to the people of London.

[sun]

As Clayface put it so perfectly, they hate out way of life. They hate for what we stand for. They have democrasy. And for all of you non-beliavers I have this to say "Hear no evil see no evil" if you xhoose to ignore it, does not mean the evil does not exist.
"They" the terrorists, yes, the entire Middle Eastern population, I do not think so..there are "some' or " many'', who might say, U.S.A. is bad, no good, or, whatever, but, those same "some" or "many", or ""whoever" in the Middle East, would not put on a suicide belt and blow up innocent people, any more than those in the U.S.A. would do the same..It is called " Hasty Generalization" Yes, the terrorists, need to be eliminated, but, just because you do not like someone, or their way of life, does not condemn a whole people to the idea that everyone would kill you...It is just not true.

[Clayface]

All the reports I've seen/heard/read claim there have been 33 - 40 confirmed dead. Where did you get 90 from?

The numbers keep changing. Earlier I saw a report that said 100 dead, 500 wounded. CNN is currently claiming 37 dead, 700 wounded. :crying: I'm kind of amazed the death toll isn't higher. Unfortunately, its gonna be a while before we know the full extent of this.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

What's there to shout about? Terrorists are always going to be around. New nutheads are born every day. What can anyone REALLY do?That's almost too pessimistic. I say we kill those terrorists of today so that new ones wouldn't be made (not born). We can't define their religion, so we need to kill them. They aren't free enough to chose their religion there, so if we brought freedom to all like we are doing in Iraq, people would start seeing that they don't have to follow the ways of their predecessors and choose their own lifestyle. Hopefully not continuing the saga.

[Czar Gato]

My prayers go out to everyone that was affected. I hope all our London members are OK! :(

[Supremus]

If you mean capitalistic establishments based on the Middle East in America

hell there are loads of resturaunts like those in the big metropolitan areas..

There really isn't any drowning out of culture in those areas, they all seem to blend together.The west is generally less hardcore religious and therefore open to foreign cultures, and in our economy, the small kebab shop on the corner is seen as less of a threat than the influx of global corporate franchises would be in the Middle East. And still, here in the UK, where a very large part of the population is Muslim, there has been an increasing resentment towards their inability to integrate with our values and beliefs, and immigrations has become a really hot potato.
I am not saying any of this in support of terrorist actions, which I despise as much as anyone else, I am just concerned about the unintelligent and uninformed approach a lot of people have to this issue, which is why I am trying to explain it. It simply doesn't work to dismiss them as just being evil. The former Soviet Union and communists were painted as 1-dimension evil monsters during the cold war, and we now know how simplistic and lacking in insight that was.

[Wounded_Dragon]

That's almost too pessimistic. I say we kill those terrorists of today so that new ones wouldn't be made (not born). We can't define their religion, so we need to kill them. They aren't free enough to chose their religion there, so if we brought freedom to all like we are doing in Iraq, people would start seeing that they don't have to follow the ways of their predecessors and choose their own lifestyle. Hopefully not continuing the saga.
I'm a little confused on how bringing democracy to those who purportedly want to kill us helps things.




When western corporations do things like seizing water supplies so they can sell bottled water back to the people they seized it from in the first place, you can imagine how they might be a tad ticked off.


Did specific areas of the US really go up to level orange today?

[Spongebrain2.0]

When they say "Terrorists" they mean Al-Queda or any person who causes terror like what happened today. And terrorists aren't good people, I actually wonder if the Nazis & Hitler were here instead of Al-Queda, what people would be saying:shrug:

[Clayface]

Did specific areas of the US really go up to level orange today?


Yep, but only for "mass transit systems, including 'regional and inner city passenger rail, subways and metropolitan bus systems'," according to this article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/07/us.response/index.html).

[The_NewCatwoman]

My thoughts are with the London population.

As for the codes, yes, portions of the United States raised their terrorists alerts levels to "Orange." The railways and buses in major cities are being watched closely and under security of some sort, which is ironic because I was going to take the train to Chicago this weekend... I'll probably still go being the fatalist that I am, but it does give me pause.

tNC

[Artimus Gigan]

When they say "Terrorists" they mean Al-Queda or any person who causes terror like what happened today. And terrorists aren't good people, I actually wonder if the Nazis & Hitler were here instead of Al-Queda, what people would be saying:shrug:Ehhhh probably be similar to Saddam or Castro...

And castro we can't do anything about due to the close proximity

[Supremus]

When they say "Terrorists" they mean Al-Queda or any person who causes terror like what happened today. And terrorists aren't good people, I actually wonder if the Nazis & Hitler were here instead of Al-Queda, what people would be saying:shrug:You do understand the fundamental differences in both ideology and method between Hitler's war machine and the supposed Al Qaeda "organisation", right?

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

I'm a little confused on how bringing democracy to those who purportedly want to kill us helps things.It wouldn't. I say we kill them. And bring democracy to those who don't blend in the majority (majority being the terrorists).


When western corporations do things like seizing water supplies so they can sell bottled water back to the people they seized it from in the first place, you can imagine how they might be a tad ticked off.That's how they live in Tunisia. I was there on a vacation some years ago. Even though people there are averagely poor, they get along. Besides, their old water was unhygienic.


Did specific areas of the US really go up to level orange today?Like I said before, all of the US raised the terror warning for all underground and rail based traffic.

[Supremus]

It wouldn't. I say we kill them. And bring democracy to those who don't blend in the majority.You have not yet displayed any difference between your message and "theirs", nor have you explained how you know or why you think they hate your freedom. If a muslim used your exact words about us, you would presumably label him an evil terrorist or "freedom hater". Take a few steps back, maybe some deep breaths, and think about what it actually is you're saying. I don't mean that as an insult, but as genuine advice.

[I.R Joey]

The simplistic idea that dropping a bunch of bombs on people will somehow resolve our problems in the Middle East would be a greater threat to the peace process than anything else. One kid sees his mother or dad killed in an American attack and 15 years later he's strapping on a bomb,


We need to raise living standards I think.

[solarflere]

You have not yet displayed any difference between your message and "theirs", nor have you explained how you know or why you think they hate your freedom. If a muslim used your exact words about us, you would presumably label him an evil terrorist or "freedom hater". Take a few steps back, maybe some deep breaths, and think about what it actually is you're saying. I don't mean that as an insult, but as genuine advice. You have not diplayed any other alternative to killing the terrorists. You keep repeating your self over and over again. Say something diferent for a change.

[Wounded_Dragon]

When they say "Terrorists" they mean Al-Queda or any person who causes terror like what happened today. And terrorists aren't good people, I actually wonder if the Nazis & Hitler were here instead of Al-Queda, what people would be saying:shrug:
Oy, the first to bring up Hitler. I think we're approaching critical levels...and isn't the first to bring "him" up the one to lose the discussion? ;) I can't decide whether it's propaganda or just poor history teaching. Why do people assume that evil people are that way just "because." He was charismatic. The populace was vulnerable. Other nations feared them.


It wouldn't. I say we kill them. And bring democracy to those who don't blend in the majority.
Ok...so basically you want to kill everyone that doesn't agree with us and keep at it till we get the majority we like. And that's not a tad hypocritical?



That's how they live in Tunisia. I was there on a vacation some years ago. Even though people there are averagely poor, they get along. Besides, their old water was unhygienic.
Ok...so they don't have money and therefore don't matter? And "unhygenic" water isn't so bad in undeveloped(read: factories and waste) countries.

[Clayface]

You have not yet displayed any difference between your message and "theirs", nor have you explained how you know or why you think they hate your freedom.

I'm not defending everything that TrogdorNyimbhat has said. But I will repeat what I said on a previous page:

The basis for saying they (and by they I mean the terrorists, not muslims in general) hate our way of life comes from recorded preachings of Bin Laden and the like. (Do a search for transcripts and you can find the facts yourself.) I'm not saying that that's their only motivation, but it is certainly one.

[Wounded_Dragon]

You have not diplayed any other alternative to killing the terrorists. You keep repeating your self over and over again. Say something diferent for a change.
And you have not displayed sufficient knowledge to show that you KNOW who the terrorists are.

[Supremus]

You have not diplayed any other alternative to killing the terrorists. You keep repeating your self over and over again. Say something diferent for a change.I thought you would have been able to put the pieces together from my previous posts, but I will be happy to spell it out. It's actually very simple: Stop supporting terrorists like Bin Laden when it's politically convinient only to turn on them later. Stop selling weapons to people like Saddam, only to invade their countries under false pretences later. Stop overthrowing governments and installing puppet regimens. Stop meddling in political and cultural affairs. Stop talking about freedom while holding people in inhumane, illegal gulags. Stop kidnapping and torturing innocent foreign nationals, etc, etc. The bottom line is this: stop cheesing people off to the point where they feel like they need to kill you. Now, if you don't want to do these things, you just have to accept that there are consequences. Unfortuanltly it's consequences for innocent civilians, not the people perpetrating the injustices in the first place.

Now it's your turn to stop repeating yourself and tell me how you message is different from "theirs". The floor is yours.

[solarflere]

And you have not displayed sufficient knowledge to show that you KNOW who the terrorists are. Every exemist who is willing to die for their cause in order to kill us. Who ever is after out lives is uor enemy. In this specific case, its all of the terror groups Al Qaeda in particular.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

You misinterpreted my thoughts Wounded Dragon, and failed to quote the whole sentence. I was referring to terrorists being the majority we should kill. The only reason the majority doesn't approve the western world and wants to destroy us is because they're not allowed to think differently. If we brought democracy to the we would most probably be much more likable in their eyes. Same thing that is happening in Iraq. Before we freed them, if anyone from there spoke highly of any other country/religion would be shot on site. Now however if you watch the news, you'd see the only people Iraqi majority dislikes are the insurgents.

[solarflere]

I thought you would have been able to put the pieces together from my previous posts, but I will be happy to spell it out. It's actually very simple: Stop supporting terrorists like Bin Laden when it's politically convinient only to turn on them later. Stop selling weapons to people like Saddam, only to invade their countries under false pretences later. Stop overthrowing governments and installing puppet regimens. Stop meddling in political and cultural affairs. Stop talking about freedom while holding people in inhumane, illegal gulags. Stop kidnapping and torturing innocent foreign nationals, etc, etc. The bottom line is this: stop cheesing people off to the point where they feel like they need to kill you. Now, if you don't want to do these things, you just have to accept that there are consequences. Unfortuanltly it's consequences for innocent civilians, not the people perpetrating the injustices in the first place.

Now it's your turn to stop repeating yourself and tell me how you message is different from "theirs". The floor is yours.

Is it me or is there Paranoia in the air. How many hours did you watch CNN or other one sided news source anyway. Where do you get those Ideas. And before you will show me the so called facts, can you prove any of them.
Who ever is out to kill us, be it terrorists or a county leader (Hussein) are our enemy.

[Clayface]

I thought you would have been able to put the pieces together from my previous posts, but I will be happy to spell it out. It's actually very simple:

I would propose that it is not, in fact, "simple".


Stop supporting terrorists like Bin Laden when it's politically convinient only to turn on them later. Stop selling weapons to people like Saddam, only to invade their countries under false pretences later. Stop overthrowing governments and installing puppet regimens.


There are times when you are forced to act, and times when in acting, you must chose the lesser of two evils. Not a "simple" choice by any means, and not always avoidable. You're the one now oversimplifying the situation.


Stop meddling in political and cultural affairs.

Define "meddling". When is it ok, and when is it not? When do we chose to ignore foreign countries' pleas to get involved, and when do we act? When and where do we have the responsibility to act, and when and where do we have the responsibility to stay out? How do we determine that staying out of any particular affair is in our own (or the world's) best interest? When are we putting ourselves in danger by not "meddling"? Again, it is a far more complicated issue than you're making it out to be.

[Phantasm]

I thought you would have been able to put the pieces together from my previous posts, but I will be happy to spell it out. It's actually very simple: Stop supporting terrorists like Bin Laden when it's politically convinient only to turn on them later. Stop selling weapons to people like Saddam, only to invade their countries under false pretences later. Stop overthrowing governments and installing puppet regimens. Stop meddling in political and cultural affairs. Stop talking about freedom while holding people in inhumane, illegal gulags. Stop kidnapping and torturing innocent foreign nationals, etc, etc. The bottom line is this: stop cheesing people off to the point where they feel like they need to kill you. Now, if you don't want to do these things, you just have to accept that there are consequences. Unfortuanltly it's consequences for innocent civilians, not the people perpetrating the injustices in the first place.

Now it's your turn to stop repeating yourself and tell me how you message is different from "theirs". The floor is yours.


:eek: :eek: *claps*:)

[Wounded_Dragon]

You misinterpreted my thoughts Wounded Dragon, and failed to quote the whole sentence. I was referring to terrorists being the majority we should kill. The only reason the majority doesn't approve the western world and wants to destroy us is because they're not allowed to think differently. If we brought democracy to the we would most probably be much more likable in their eyes. Same thing that is happening in Iraq. Before we freed them, if anyone from there spoke highly of any other country/religion would be shot on site. Now however if you watch the news, you'd see the only people Iraqi majority dislikes are the insurgents.
The whole purpose of democracy is to serve the majority, at least that's what keeps getting pounded into my head these days (as part of a very small minority, I'm not so sure, but I digress).

And frankly, you've not really proven at all that spreading democracy is essential to the national interest of the USA. Democracy isn't what's winning the Iraqis over, rebuilding the country is what's doing that, as well as harming recruitment (terrorists feed on discontent people)

The US is the largest arms dealer in the world.

The US has engineered government changes before, although the example I'm thinking of happened long before this age of near-instant communication

These bits and others you won't find on those "liberal news media" that people love to blame facts they don't like on.

[Supremus]

Is it me or is there Paranoia in the air. How many hours did you watch CNN or other one sided news source anyway. Where do you get those Ideas. And before you will show me the so called facts, can you prove any of them.If you refute these facts, you have effectively disqualified yourself from the discusssion. Regardless of whether you believe it, I have presented you with an alternative (again), and yet you continue to evade the challenge I presented you with.


Who ever is out to kill us, be it terrorists or a county leader (Hussein) are our enemy.Nobody is disputing this, but just as a hypothetical question, if you knew for a fact that with each person you killed with each bomb, 5 new terrorists would be created, would you keep bombing? I am just trying to ascertain if you are willing to approach this with any degree of logic, or if you just like loud explosions.

[Clayface]

Democracy isn't what's winning the Iraqis over, rebuilding the country is what's doing that, as well as harming recruitment (terrorists feed on discontent people)

I disagree. I would say democracy is indeed a factor that is winning them over. When Saddam was in power, they "voted" him in over and over again. Because they had no choice. He was the only candidate, and to vote for someone else, or to even not vote, could mean toture or death. Iraqi people died over there for their right to not vote for Saddam,or for the right to vote for someone else. Do the research and you'll find many stories of brave men that stood up to Saddam in the "elections" and paid dearly for it. True democracy was indeed desired by many.

[Wounded_Dragon]

I would propose that it is not, in fact, "simple".

That's just the thing: people keep trying to make this debate simple, when it really isn't. And it's really hard to debate when the one side will accuse the other of being on the side of terrorists if they don't say anything besides "bomb the crap out of _target X_"

[Supremus]

I would propose that it is not, in fact, "simple".No, in relative terms only, not practical ones, of course.


There are times when you are forced to act, and times when in acting, you must chose the lesser of two evils. Not a "simple" choice by any means, and not always avoidable. You're the one now oversimplifying the situation.

Define "meddling". When is it ok, and when is it not? When do we chose to ignore foreign countries' pleas to get involved, and when do we act? When and where do we have the responsibility to act, and when and where do we have the responsibility to stay out? How do we determine that staying out of any particular affair is in our own (or the world's) best interest? When are we putting ourselves in danger by not "meddling"? Again, it is a far more complicated issue than you're making it out to be. The point is, despite the political rhetoric, we know what causes terrorism, and we know why they hate us. It's similar to how we destroy the environment, actually. We know we're doing it, we know how to stop, it IS relatively simple to fix, but we just won't do it because of the luxuries polluting affords us. Exact same thing with how we deal with the Middle East. 30+ years of foreign policy, or metaphorical pollution, if you will, has created the current scenario, and we are looking at a period of damage control before we can even begin to think about effectively reversing the problem.

[solarflere]

If you refute these facts, you have effectively disqualified yourself from the discusssion. Regardless of whether you believe it, I have presented you with an alternative (again), and yet you continue to evade the challenge I presented you with.

Nobody is disputing this, but just as a hypothetical question, if you knew for a fact that with each person you killed with each bomb, 5 new terrorists would be created, would you keep bombing? I am just trying to ascertain if you are willing to approach this with any degree of logic, or if you just like loud explosions. Where do you get there ideas. We need to get them wiere it hurts. We need to show them and we will not be messed with. AS I said in my previous posts, those terrorists dont just get recruted, they are born. They are taught to kill and hate us from the beggining of their lives. How many times do I have to repeat this untill you get this through your head.

[Spongebrain2.0]

I do know we will win this war, & Al-Queda will crumble. Why? Because there's no way in hell the US could possibly let Al-Queda win. We have won every war we've been in, & this war isn't even a straight on, face to face war. It is a war between the brave & courageous (America) & the cowardly [people] who run around & hide in caves(Al-Queda)

[Phantasm]

Where do you get there ideas. We need to get them wiere it hurts. We need to show them and we will not be messed with.Right.Just as long as we can mess with any nation on the face of the planet...:eek:


They are taught to kill and hate us from the beggining of their lives.
That seems fair enough because you obvious hate and have so blatantly expressed your views on killing them too.

[Wounded_Dragon]

I disagree. I would say democracy is indeed a factor that is winning them over.

*snip*

True democracy was indeed desired by many.
People naturally want a say over their own destiny, but that's not what makes a functioning democracy. A desire for freedom, maybe. Courage of convictions, definitely. I'm just skeptical since Americans tend to badmouth their government an awful lot, but seem really eager to spread copies of it, as well as being equally eager to abandon said copies before they're ready.

[SSJPabs]

But remember London's faced far worse and come through, I don't doubt they can do so with this.


Where do you get there ideas. We need to get them wiere it hurts. We need to show them and we will not be messed with. AS I said in my previous posts, those terrorists dont just get recruted, they are born. They are taught to kill and hate us from the beggining of their lives. How many times do I have to repeat this untill you get this through your head.Well trying to show them we will not be messed with hasn't had a great impact so far has it?

Anyhow, aside from the horrific loss of life, I'm sad because there seemed to be a concerted effort to focus on and help Africa for the first time in a long time. These attacks have disrupted and effort to ease the burden on millions of people and that's nearly as unforigivable as the killings themselves.

BTW Egypt's top envoy to Iraq has been confirmed dead by the Egyptian information ministry. Damn.

[Clayface]

The point is, despite the political rhetoric, we know what causes terrorism, and we know why they hate us. It's similar to how we destroy the environment, actually. We know we're doing it, we know how to stop, it IS relatively simple to fix,

I still disagree with your basic assumption that it is relatively simple to stop and/or fix. Unless and until you can answer the questions I proposed in my previous post, you can't convince me that it's simple.

That said, I do agree with you that it is the previous 30+ years of foreign policy that has created the scenario. I just don't agree with your implied assumption that many of the choices made in those years were necessarily wrong or could be avoided.

[Wounded_Dragon]

Where do you get there ideas. We need to get them wiere it hurts. We need to show them and we will not be messed with. AS I said in my previous posts, those terrorists dont just get recruted, they are born. They are taught to kill and hate us from the beggining of their lives. How many times do I have to repeat this untill you get this through your head.
Where does it hurt? What targets are you advocating attacking? "Terrorists" isn't specific enough, what part of THAT do you not get.

Interesting...so you're assuming that they hate us on a genetic level? What is that, modern racism?

Ah, but you mention teaching. Now we're getting somewhere. Now, what shall we teach them and how shall we persuade them we are correct? And no, the wrong end of a grenade isn't going to work.

[Joker Jr]

We have won every war we've been in, & this war isn't even a straight on, face to face war.
Vietnam ring any bells?


It is a war between the brave & courageous (America) & the cowardly ******* who run around & hide in caves(Al-Queda).
Complete manichean ignorant drivel. Try and read around these subjects a little more and fill that giant grey area in that sits between your black and white fixation before you make such ridiculous generalisations.

[Supremus]

Where do you get there ideas. We need to get them wiere it hurts.But it doesn't hurt. They are not afraid to die. They will even help you as much as to blow themselves up from time to time, but since they are apparently born this way, maybe you are suggesting a complete genocide in the Middle East, in which case your argument has lost all traction.


We need to show them and we will not be messed with. AS I said in my previous posts, those terrorists dont just get recruted, they are born. They are taught to kill and hate us from the beggining of their lives. How many times do I have to repeat this untill you get this through your head.If you are so impossibe to reason with that you can't or won't answer the two very simple and very relevant questions I asked you, I have no interest in trying to debate this with you any longer.

[Clayface]

People naturally want a say over their own destiny, but that's not what makes a functioning democracy. A desire for freedom, maybe. Courage of convictions, definitely. I'm just skeptical since Americans tend to badmouth their government an awful lot, but seem really eager to spread copies of it, as well as being equally eager to abandon said copies before they're ready.

While the American democracy is not a flawless government, I think most Americans probably agree that it's the best out there. Ironically, it's the freedoms and benefits the government provides that allow us to criticize it. ;)

I fear we're falling further and further toward a political topic/debate....

[Wounded_Dragon]

this war isn't even a straight on, face to face war. It is a war between the brave & courageous (America) & the cowardly ******* who run around & hide in caves(Al-Queda)
*sigh* The "War on Terror" is not against a specific group, no matter how much governments say it is (or wish it were so). It's a battle against intolerance, a battle against hate.

A war against an enemy that can be anyone, anywhere, and can just disappear (maybe even into those caves) is one of the hardest wars to win.



It's the freedoms and benefits the government provides that allow us to criticize it.
And if we actually critically thought about the government, I'd be all for spreading our government. But we don't think about our government that way.

[Supremus]

I still disagree with your basic assumption that it is relatively simple to stop and/or fix. Unless and until you can answer the questions I proposed in my previous post, you can't convince me that it's simple.I am not under any illusion that this is a we're-wrong-they're-right scenario, so I avoided the specifics and said it was simple in relative terms and comparable to how we deal with pollution. Maybe that wasn't clear, or maybe I missed another question?


That said, I do agree with you that it is the previous 30+ years of foreign policy that has created the scenario. I just don't agree with your implied assumption that many of the choices made in those years were necessarily wrong or could be avoided.I think you misunderstood me, then, or perhaps you missed when I said earlier that it wasn't necessarily wrong, but just that we have to accept the consequences of our actions. If we understand what causes a problem, we can make an eductaed decision about whether or not we feel it's worth repeating the mistakes in teh future, or what we can do to avoid it. I am not saying we can eliminate the terroist threat over night.

[SimpsonGuy100]

Channel 5 said the death toll is nearly, is or over 50.:crying:

[Clayface]

And if we actually critically thought about the government, I'd be all for spreading our government. But we don't think about our government that way.

Oh, I don't know. It seems to me debates like the one here, those in the media outlets, and those all over the internet and in homes everywhere across this country are the very proof that we do indeed look at our government critically.


I am not under any illusion that this is a we're-wrong-they're-right scenario, so I avoided the specifics and said it was simple in relative terms and comparable to how we deal with pollution. Maybe that wasn't clear, or maybe I missed another question?

My stance is only that even in relative terms, it's not simple. (In fact, I'm not clear on how you can reduce it to relative terms.)


I think you misunderstood me, then, or perhaps you missed when I said earlier that it wasn't necessarily wrong, but just that we have to accept the consequences of our actions. If we understand what causes a problem, we can make an eductaed decision about whether or not we feel it's worth repeating the mistakes in teh future, or what we can do to avoid it. I am not saying we can eliminate the terroist threat over night.

Now that's a statement I can agree with.

[Tienshin]

I thought you would have been able to put the pieces together from my previous posts, but I will be happy to spell it out. It's actually very simple: Stop supporting terrorists like Bin Laden when it's politically convinient only to turn on them later. Stop selling weapons to people like Saddam, only to invade their countries under false pretences later. Stop overthrowing governments and installing puppet regimens. Stop meddling in political and cultural affairs. Stop talking about freedom while holding people in inhumane, illegal gulags. Stop kidnapping and torturing innocent foreign nationals, etc, etc. The bottom line is this: stop cheesing people off to the point where they feel like they need to kill you. Now, if you don't want to do these things, you just have to accept that there are consequences. Unfortuanltly it's consequences for innocent civilians, not the people perpetrating the injustices in the first place.

Now it's your turn to stop repeating yourself and tell me how you message is different from "theirs". The floor is yours.



That’s quite the argument you have there. I mean the moral high ground is nice when arguments can be backed by little more then selective hindsight. Let’s address political realities for a moment.


Stop supporting terrorists like Bin Laden when it's politically convinient only to turn on them later.

The US stance to support Bin Laden in Afganistan was seen as move to check the aggression of the USSR which was condemned by the Security Council and many other nations. Furthermore Osama’s animus towards the US principally stems from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait when the Saudi’s allowed US forces to mass within their borders. It was not the US that decided to just stay in Saudi either. At the request of the Crown Prince the US initiated massive military sales of F-15’s that upgraded the Saudi Arabia’s air force which in turn created the need for the presence of US personel to remain in country to provide training, logistics, etc. This was seen as affront by Osama and formed the basis of the Fatwa he issued against the United States.


Stop selling weapons to people like Saddam, only to invade their countries under false pretences later.

When Saddam came into power he was beloved by not only the US but nearly the whole of Europe as well. He was regarded as a reformer and it was thought that he could potentially be an ally in an area where religious fundalmentalism was often the rule of law. Of course that all changed. And even though the US did sell weapons to Iraq during those years it was still regarded as the lesser of two evils when compared to Iran. Once Saddam invaded Kuwait he had sealed his fate as nothing more then a meglomanical dictator. And the world responded accordingly.


Stop overthrowing governments and installing puppet regimens

When exactly was the last time this happened? Are you talking about Iraq? Afganistan?


Stop talking about freedom while holding people in inhumane, illegal gulags.

Inhumane…that’s laughable. Have you ever seen a real gulag? Where exactly would you suggest detainees be held?


Stop meddling in political and cultural affairs

Meddling how? In terms of globalization the world is a much smaller place everyone “meddles” in everyone’s political and cultural affairs. How else would the UN exist or the various summits that pop up like G8? It's a convienent argument to make when it suits the issue but of course when the US is viewed as not being involved enough (aid to Africa), involved at all (genocides in Africa) we get slammed for that as well.


And so and so on.

I agree with you that a better and more inclusive approach to terrorism needs to be established, because it is plainly obvious that a military approach isn’t the correct solution. Better diplomacy and forward thinking foreign policy are clearly the answer. However, that does not solve the immediate issue as terrorism cannot be stemmed by solely by diplomats, not given the sledge hammer like tactics we've seen Al Qaeda use anyway.

But what I find most disturbing about your posts is the direct line of causation you make in how these events unfold though you pretty much give a pass to those who perpetrate the acts. Yeah, I understand events of the past effect those which happen today, but when do groups like Al Qaeda have to shoulder the burden for their actions? If you agree that they are so deplorable, then what is the action they should take. Clearly current their approach is self destructive and only perpetuates violence. We don't blame the victim of crime for "asking for it" on an individual basis, so why do so here?

[Supremus]

My stance is only that even in relative terms, it's not simple. (In fact, I'm not clear on how you can reduce it to relative terms.)Because we know what the problem is, and we know what we can do to stop it. That's the relative part, but like I said, the practical part of actually doing it is, of course, far more complicated, but it would be more effective long-term, and it would be a lot easier to square with our self-proclaimed greatness and love of freedom and democracy, than just bombing the crap out of these supposed evil-do'ers and freedom-haters.


Now that's a statement I can agree with.We're getting there. And I didn't even have to bomb you. :)

[Wounded_Dragon]

Oh, I don't know. It seems to me debates like the one here, those in the media outlets, and those all over the internet and in homes everywhere across this country are the very proof that we do indeed look at our government critically.
We talk about our government. That doesn't mean we look at it critically (I try, but even I'm guilty of it. I missed information on a proposition I had to vote on last year)

But most of the discussion here has consisted of trying to argue that such a critical discussion should take place. That's not a good sign.

And most media discussions almost always have to cover themselves, to avoid being labeled traitorous. It's eased up a little currently because it's "trendy" again to bash the government, and that just makes critical discussion that more difficult.

And major media is part of the problem. We'll get newsbits on how some woman frivoulously sued McDonald's for being burned by coffee, but we won't get the follow-up that mentions the burn being third-degree (skin melting), the 700 other cases of burn injuries, the warnings that McDonald's received, the offer of settlement for much less than what the jury awarded, McD's not even offering enough to pay for her treatments (yes, she needed emergency treatment and skin grafts), etc, etc.

Even PBS isn't immune, as Congress tends to shrink their budget whenever they can, forcing a reliance on corporate sponsors...

[SirLemming]

Political or not, this debate sure is getting ugly. Or at least, among a few people it is.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

He was regarded as a reformer and it was thought that he could potentially be an ally in an area where religious fundalmentalism was often the rule of law.Sounds like the kind of guy we could use in US! ;)

[Supremus]

But what I find most disturbing about your posts is the direct line of causation you make in how these events unfold though you pretty much give a pass to those who perpetrate the acts. Yeah, I understand events of the past effect those which happen today, but when do groups like Al Qaeda have to shoulder the burden for their actions? If you agree that they are so deplorable, then what is the action they should take. Clearly current their approach is self destructive and only perpetuates violence. We don't blame the victim of crime for "asking for it" on an individual basis, so why do so here?This is all getting a little bit too far off-topic. We can debate the specifics of US actions via PM if you want, but it's fairly irrelevant, and and I don't intend to turn this into an anti-US tirade, but I had to address a few issues since whathisface asked.

If you read my posts, it will be perfectly clear to you that I am not using any of this as justification for terrorist acts, nor do I place all the blame on our own Governments. I am merely explaining why things are the way they are, and I feel it's kind of redundant to keep hammering how evil the actions of the terrorists are, as it's pretty obvious, it doesn't move the debate forward, nor does it add any new insights, and the "blame the victim" accusation is perfectly acceptable. If someone gets beaten up after sleeping with his friend's wife, even if she invited him, he has to accept some of the blame, even though you can't legally defend even a provoked attack.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

I'm not sure why I'm stepping into the bear trap, but...

Terrorists are not born. They are made. Terrorist techinques are learned behavior. Of necessity, this means it can be unlearned. It also means it can not be taught in the first place. However, nobody is a terrorist from birth unless you subscribe to the theory that humanity is evil from birth and is unredeemable from this state.

Further, terrorism (and counter-insurgency in general) survives because there is popular support for it as an option. Remove the popular support and the insurgency will die. This is the only way insurgencies have ever been defeated throughout history.

One way to remove the popular support is to completely exterminate the population -- every man, woman, and child -- whether or not they are actually involved in the terrorist activities. This is the only way to win a war on terrorism purely through military means. I think (but I'm not quite sure) that this is not an acceptable option to the average Western mind. Unless and until you are willing to take that step, the only alternative to removing popular support is through words and actions.

This is not to say that military action has no place in counter-terrorism operations, or to say that we can win over the average Al-Qaeda operator by talking to him. Bombs and bullets have a place in a counter-insurgency, but it is not an accident that US Army Special Forces teams are trained to be medics and engineers to the local populace in addition to being trigger pullers.

Getting back to the original purpose of the thread, the news media is, at this moment, attempting to give 24-hour coverage to about 20 minutes worth of known fact at this time. At this point, I would take just about any casualty report with a grain of salt the size of an armadillo. Despite the instantaneous nature of the news these days, I suspect we're not going to know any reliable numbers for a few days yet.

Stay safe. Our thoughts are with you, London.

-- Ed/Ace

[Clayface]

We talk about our government. That doesn't mean we look at it critically (I try, but even I'm guilty of it. I missed information on a proposition I had to vote on last year)

But most of the discussion here has consisted of trying to argue that such a critical discussion should take place. That's not a good sign.

I think everyone's in agreement that it should take place. I think what we're in disagreement about is whether or not it has already been taking place, whether or not what has taken place is enough, whether it's even going to make a difference in the long run, and what the discussions' implications are for the immediate problem.


And major media is part of the problem. We'll get newsbits on how some woman frivoulously sued McDonald's for being burned by coffee, but we won't get the follow-up that mentions the burn being third-degree (skin melting), the 700 other cases of burn injuries, the warnings that McDonald's received, the offer of settlement for much less than what the jury awarded, McD's not even offering enough to pay for her treatments (yes, she needed emergency treatment and skin grafts), etc, etc.

See, none of that matter to me, because of the one basic fact: she did it to herself. She purchased a product knowing full well it's hot enough to burn (anyone that claims they don't know that is lying to themselves and to us), and she dropped it on herself. To me, that absolves McDonald's of responsibility/liability, and makes her lawsuit frivolous. But that's an entirely diffferent debate, and one way off topic for this thread.

[Joker Jr]

Tienshin, we're not ignoring the abhorrent act that has happened in London today, Madrid and New York previously and perpetually in Iraq, but just about everybody knows already, and it is hard for me to see the point of reiterating, that the perpetrators are despicable. Therefore we are simply putting forward the counter-argument that is necessary for some perspective on the reasons for these attacks beyond the "terrorists are evil and we are good" generalisation that is flying about, although nothing like as strongly from you. :)

[ToOn~g@l]

My goodness what sad news to wake up to. My thoughts are with the people in england. And I hope the terrorists get whats coming to them.

[sun]

Simplification of the causes, dynamics, extent, designs, and future of "terrorism", and and the "terrorists" is a mistake in my opinion..Many good points have been brought out, but I would say this discussion has begun to scrape the surface of the entire problem..For if you fail to deal with, and define clearly, the -- entire problem, as it really exits, you cannot solve it..If it were simply a question of catching a few people, well that would fine. We will catch them.. So, after a previous terrorist attack, we caught some people, but the problem is not solved as this mornings attack proves..As I said before, my heart and prayers are with the families of those who were hurt and killed..Hopefully, somehow, the larger picture can be solved...But I will end my role of the discussion by saying, I honestly believe, that it will not be solved easily..If it were easy, it would have been solved already...

[Tienshin]

Tienshin, we're not ignoring the abhorrent act that has happened in London today, Madrid and New York previously and perpetually in Iraq, but just about everybody knows already, and it is hard for me to see the point of reiterating, that the perpetrators are despicable. Therefore we are simply putting forward the counter-argument that is necessary for some perspective on the reasons for these attacks beyond the "terrorists are evil and we are good" generalisation that is flying about, although nothing like as strongly from you. :)

My point was arguing causation for these events with rhetoric lacks just as much perspective as screaming "Kill them all". Counter arguments are nice and necessary but not when then central points contained therein offer little more then a simplistic view of a complex issue. So I am not quite certain how you equate me clarifying and expanding on vague points with some actual background and facts with me flag waving and spouting absolutist claims i.e. "terrorists are evil and we are good".

[Joker Jr]

Simplification of the causes, dynamics, extent, designs, and future of "terrorism", and and the "terrorists" is a mistake in my opinion..Many good points have been brought out, but I would say this discussion has begun to scrape the surface of the entire problem..For if you fail to deal with, and define clearly, the -- entire problem, as it really exits, you cannot solve it..If it were simply a question of catching a few people, well that would fine. We will catch them.. So, after a previous terrorist attack, we caught some people, but the problem is not solved as this mornings attack proves..As I said before, my heart and prayers are with the families of those who were hurt and killed..Hopefully, somehow, the larger picture can be solved...But I will end my role of the discussion by saying, I honestly believe, that it will not be solved easily..If it were easy, it would have been solved already...
Beautifully put. If you read one post in this thread, let it be this one.

[KCJ506]

Has anyone noticed this?
September 11, 2001: Four planes highjacked (Northern United States)
March 11, 2003: Four trains blown up (Madrid, Spain)
Today: Four explosions (London, England)
All three took place during Rush Hour in their respective locations, occured within two years of each and all came in groups of four.

[Joker Jr]

My point was arguing causation for these events with rhetoric lacks just as much perspective as screaming "Kill them all". Counter arguments are nice and necessary but not when then central points contained therein offer little more then a simplistic view of a complex issue. So I am not quite certain how you equate me clarifying and expanding on vague points with some actual background and facts with me flag waving and spouting absolutist claims i.e. "terrorists are evil and we are good".
I did try and correct the "equation" error in my last sentence when I realised I veered slightly off of what I was originally going to write but what you seemed to have felt wasn't intended.

As for clarifying and expanding on rhetoric it is practically impossible to do this from my perspective as the entire debate revolves around political systems and structures and I don't want to get the thread closed so I won't go into it. Except to say that my position is definitely not based on "vague points" with no evidence and if you want a basic summary of where I'm coming from then just have a look at a decent sociology book and then Marxist perspectives. This would work in Britain but I'm not sure about the teaching style of sociology in other countries. Anyway, if you're interested, try it.:)

[Tienshin]

I did try and correct the "equation" error in my last sentence when I realised I veered slightly off of what I was originally going to write but what you seemed to have felt wasn't intended.




That was my misunderstanding, I actually deleted the post but since you replied before I removed it I just put it back.

[Joker Jr]

That was my misunderstanding, I actually deleted the post but since you replied before I removed it I just put it back.
Don't worry about it, it was my fault for making the original post too ambigious.

[Spongebrain2.0]

It's just sad that people are saying "Let's solve this by talking to the terrorists & reasoning with them". Please, terrorists are people that want to scare the hell out of you, they want you to fear them. They're ruthless barbarians that are worthless monsters. They CAN'T be reasoned with, We CAN'T solve this peacefully. Another thing, before we EVER solve anything about world hunger in Africa, I say we put our main focus on these terrorists. The "War on Terror" should & is our main priority at the moment.

[Sailor Chibi Otaku]

*waves the British flag* Canada loves you!! Please call us!!

I wish there was more I could do but alas, I cannot. Know that I am thinking of you.

[ToxicOne]

My condolences to all the London members and London in general.

[Supremus]

It's just sad that people are saying "Let's solve this by talking to the terrorists & reasoning with them". Nobody said that.

[Joker Jr]

It's just sad that people are saying "Let's solve this by talking to the terrorists & reasoning with them". Please, terrorists are people that want to scare the hell out of you, they want you to fear them. They're ruthless barbarians that are worthless monsters. They CAN'T be reasoned with, We CAN'T solve this peacefully. Another thing, before we EVER solve anything about world hunger in Africa, I say we put our main focus on these terrorists. The "War on Terror" should & is our main priority at the moment.
I'm not saying it's possible to reason with the terrorists because as you sort of pointed out, by the time they become terrorists they've fallen into the abyss and reached the point of no return in terms of rationalising. Instead, I am saying that the causes of terrorism should be looked at in genuine depth - not corporate media depth - real depth. It is impossible to solve a problem effectively unless you fully understand it and this is what we should be trying to do rather than just jumping on the old easy determinism that you seem fond of.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

Nobody said that.That's what Phantasm said early on in the debate.

@ Ace the Bathound - I agree. That's what I said, we don't have to kill babies, just impose democracy so that they can chose their religion so they don't grow into terrorists in the first place. And kill those who are so they can't mislead them.

@ KCJ508 - Freaky find! Although 9:30AM is hardly considered rush hour, which is when I think the first plane hit.

[SSJPabs]

@ Ace the Bathound - I agree. That's what I said, we don't have to kill babies, just impose democracy so that they can chose their religion so they don't grow into terrorists in the first place.How do you "impose" democracy? Isn't that an oxymoron? You might be able to create conditions that are favorable to people creating their own democracy but to actually impose democracy seems problematic at best. But we are also negotiating quietly with some of the insurgent leaders in Iraq because that seems to be the best workable option at this point.

But this post is mostly to point out that according to CNN many Middle-Eastern states (and Hezbollah) have condemned this attack (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/mideast.reax.reut/index.html). While it's just words for now, at least it's generally the right words.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

Yes, impose democracy. Forbid... non democracy!

Besides, everywhere there is democracy it's imposed! Take US, you have to let every nimrod protest , even if they're burning the US flag. It's an imposed democracy!

[Samurai Rocko]

RIP to the lost lives in London. I don't know to much about politics, but I do know that we need to do something about this. I know we don't need to bomb an entire country, but we need to kick some Terroist ass and hopefully find Bin Laden and any other major terrorist leaders. The time for talk is over. I just wish someone would think of a good plan without killing off innocents.

[James]

They CAN'T be reasoned with, We CAN'T solve this peacefully. Another thing, before we EVER solve anything about world hunger in Africa, I say we put our main focus on these terrorists. The "War on Terror" should & is our main priority at the moment.
Well then you waste your time away. You can't win this war, only try and solve the issues to stop the animosity that creates the terrorism. This isn't a bully boy war, you can't win it by weapons and soldiers. It's a deeper rooted issue. If you ignore that fact and try and pretend they are simple evil sprites from a video game, you will lose any chance of quashing any such movement.

And to some degree, talking shouldn't be discounted. Ireland was an issue which I was taught at school was impossible to solve, and while it still isn't solved (again, while people are free to think, they'll always be opposition to every situation), it has got far less volitile. It's been a hard political road, but the main success has not been bombing the terrorists, but by talking to the middle men; those who support the terrorist actions within the infrastructure.

I'm not saying Ireland is proof that rxtreme Islamist can be resolved in the same way, I'm saying that while you can't talk to the extremists, those extremists work through the sympathy of those who share the same ideals but not the same motivations. Sway them, and you lessen the extreme powerbase.

I think we have to look at the cause of terrorism and address that and the people it affects.

You can't win this war with bombs. The more you bomb, the more people you'll turn to support these men. You need to look at ways of capturing extremist and offering better negotiations and understanding to those in the same culture and region who would support such terrorism.

Such changes don't happen over night. It can take generations in which the young experience a life that's different from their elders, however just bombing and attacking areas doesn't do anything more than keep the cycle going and offering credence to these extremists as well as give them fresh recruits who have been damaged in this struggle between ideologies.

[sdp]

you can't win a war against a noun.

putting "terrorism" over world hunger is the stupidest thing.

[I.R Joey]

Guys lets not forget that today isn't the kind of day to be mudslinging about
partasin issues. One of the worst things about the last few years is that we've allowed the War on Terrorism to become a divisive, partisan, political issue. That's just what Al-Quadea wants.

I don't think we should expect that free govermernt in the middle east
will look like our goverment. Just look at the wide variety of democratic goverments all around the world. Their all diffrent. Middle Eastern democracy will reflect it's cultural values and the cultural context under which is was formed.

That being said, looking at these images,I don't know how Israeli citizens live under the constant threat of this kind of thing.

[I.R Joey]

Well then you waste your time away. You can't win this war, only try and solve the issues to stop the animosity that creates the terrorism. This isn't a bully boy war, you can't win it by weapons and soldiers. It's a deeper rooted issue. If you ignore that fact and try and pretend they are simple evil sprites from a video game, you will lose any chance of quashing any such movement.

And to some degree, talking shouldn't be discounted. Ireland was an issue which I was taught at school was impossible to solve, and while it still isn't solved (again, while people are free to think, they'll always be opposition to every situation), it has got far less volitile. It's been a hard political road, but the main success has not been bombing the terrorists, but by talking to the middle men; those who support the terrorist actions within the infrastructure.

I'm not saying Ireland is proof that rxtreme Islamist can be resolved in the same way, I'm saying that while you can't talk to the extremists, those extremists work through the sympathy of those who share the same ideals but not the same motivations. Sway them, and you lessen the extreme powerbase.

I think we have to look at the cause of terrorism and address that and the people it affects.

You can't win this war with bombs. The more you bomb, the more people you'll turn to support these men. You need to look at ways of capturing extremist and offering better negotiations and understanding to those in the same culture and region who would support such terrorism.

Such changes don't happen over night. It can take generations in which the young experience a life that's different from their elders, however just bombing and attacking areas doesn't do anything more than keep the cycle going and offering credence to these extremists as well as give them fresh recruits who have been damaged in this struggle between ideologies.
Thank you SJJ, for putting that so well. It was what I was trying to say in my other post. Flattening some city, or blowing up some terrorist is only a quick fix to a much more deep rooted problem. We shouldn't just be assuming that these people are monsters, just because. People don't strap themselves to bombs... just because. There are underlying reasons for these things, some of which go back to times long before any of us were born. By just using our millitary like a blunt hammer for every problem, we're just feeding the cycle. A bomb drops on a terrorist stronghold and yes it kills terrorist, but what about the child who see's his family die in the blast? Again aren't we just sowing the seen for another terrorist. Yes we need the millitary, but it's not the absolute end all answer that some make it out to be. We have to improve the quality of life in places like Palestine and other areas. When people have education, and something to hope for in life, and for the life of their kids. I think they'll be far less likely to throw it all away.

[Chris Wood]

As for today's tragic news, my heart goes out to the people of London. I hope the US will lend whatever assistance possible, and screw whichever jerkoffs were responsible.


As for this thread, I'm amazed it is still alive. It just doesn't get any more political than this, and there are several offensive remarks in there.

[Supremus]

That's what Phantasm said early on in the debate.Sometimes context is important. This is one of those times.

;)

[Supremus]

As for this thread, I'm amazed it is still alive. It just doesn't get any more political than this, and there are several offensive remarks in there.Personally, I think a blanket ban on political debate is stupid, and I am glad the mods have left this one running. I don't think it has gotten too personal, and I certainly haven't been offended by anything anyone has said, so as long as it doesn't get real ugly, I don't think there's any reason why we can't have a debate like this on a regular basis, but hopefully without such tragic events to spark it.

If the mods or certain posters are so sensitive to political issues, perhaps there should be an anything-goes-enter-at-your-own-risk forum, where the rules were a little more relaxed, as long as nothing illegal was discussed, such as downloading and stuff. Wouldn't the terrorists want us not to be able to discuss stuff like this? Don't they want us to cower, quietly in fear? We can't let them win! Let's have an official anything-goes-enter-at-your-own-risk forum.

;)

[TimTwoFace]

As I'm sure everyone in this thread has said, or felt, our thoughts are with everyone in London - the dead, the injured, their families, and the shaken general populace. I hope that, in particular, any TZ member from the London area is A-OK, and that their friends and families are just the same.

As for the thread - I just spent the last half hour or so reading through the eight pages of this thread that sprung out of nowhere and it looks like this passionate debate between some members is getting ugly. This is the reason why political threads were banned from the Cafe - as important as they are, it just opens the floodgates to flamebaiting and mudslinging. Besides, nearly every possible point has been made, and we'd only be repeating ourselves from this point on - and not only that, it's turned into a discussion on terrorism, rather than a thread to inform and/or send condolences, as I believe was its original intent.

So, with that...this thread has been closed.

Again, my thoughts, as well as those of everyone else that has checked into this thread, are with all affected in London.

-Tim

[TimTwoFace]

OK. This thread has been re-opened. After some discussions amongst mods, we all decided - and hoped - that a civilized discussion on this sad, but important event can still unfold here. As this story will develop in the coming days, it's worth keeping open in order to deal with these changes and updates.

Again, let's lay down the rules, which we tend to forget when dealing with passionate issues such as this:

-NO swearing, or blocking out swear words
-NO flamewars, flamebaiting, or flaming of any sort
-And please, don't make broad generalizations about anything - those are only bound to upset people, and it will make you look unintelligent and uninformed.

Political issues are still on very shaky ground around here. Please, everyone, I know you're a good, intelligent lot - so let's not let this thread spiral out of control like it nearly has already, K?

-Tim

[One Radical Dude]

I hate to say it, but I knew this was going to happen at some point. It's a very tragic incident, no doubt. My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and the people of the UK.

[Supremus]

I hate to say it, but I knew this was going to happen at some point.Yes, I think the relatively (and amazingly) calm reaction it has received from Brits is a sign that we were expecting something like this to happen sooner or later. Not to make light of what was obviously a very serious incident, but speaking to people about this, I get the sense that the many were simply relieved that it wasn't worse, and that the emergency services were able to deal with it as well as could be expected.

I know quite a few people in the London area, and while many are taking tomorrow off, they all plan to be back on the tube and busses Monday morning, which shows commendable resilience and sends exactly the right message, not only to the spineless cowards behind the attacks, but also to those who released the arrogant statements about "London burning with fear". It may be a new generation, but it's still the city that weathered the Blitz during WW2.

Btw, kudos to the mods for re-opening the thread.

[ZorBrak]

Monsters. They will all get theirs. If not in this life, than in their death.

As for "London burning with fear". What a joke. Al-Queda...you are like the loser kid in school that actually deserved to be picked on. It's like a bee stinging someone and going HA I MORTALLY STABBED YOU! I'm not making light of the tragedy only bringing to light just how PATHETIC these cave dwelling vermin are. Only animals live in caves. How can they talk of anyone being in fear while we all live in homes and work. They hide in caves. HIDE. They're all pathetic.

[One Radical Dude]

Yes, I think the relatively (and amazingly) calm reaction it has received from Brits is a sign that we were expecting something like this to happen sooner or later. Not to make light of what was obviously a very serious incident, but speaking to people about this, I get the sense that the many were simply relieved that it wasn't worse, and that the emergency services were able to deal with it as well as could be expected.

I know quite a few people in the London area, and while many are taking tomorrow off, they all plan to be back on the tube and busses Monday morning, which shows commendable resilience and sends exactly the right message, not only to the spineless cowards behind the attacks, but also to those who released the arrogant statements about "London burning with fear". It may be a new generation, but it's still the city that weathered the Blitz during WW2.

Btw, kudos to the mods for re-opening the thread.
You're right, Supremus, it most certainly could have been worse. Thank goodness it wasn't any worse.

[Chris Wood]

They hide in caves. HIDE. They're all pathetic.

Er, partisans tend to avoid open spaces, because their enemies have a habit of dropping large bombs on them. Al Queda is pathetic because they target civillians.

Of course, we don't even know who is responsible for this most recent outrage.

[RayChuang]

A couple of comments:

1. This attack shows that we must stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. It won't take much for someone to hide an Iranian-made nuclear device inside a small delivery van and we could see a casualty toll that could run into the hundreds of thousands, not to mention a Ground Zero that will be uninhabitable for a couple of hundred years. :(

2. You really now have to wonder will Bloomsbury and/or Scholastic will now seriously start advising bookshops not to do midnight sales of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince starting on 16 July 2005. A large crowd of adults and children at a bookshop waiting for the release of the new book would be an extremely tempting target for a suicide bomber wearing a backpack bomb. :eek:

[Weatherman]

Staying out of the politics of all this.


The USA did something really touching here in town. Back on 9/11 the British Army played The Star Spangled Banner at the US embassy in London and the US Army returned the favor today by playing God Save the Queen at the British embassy in DC.

[Serena S.]

All those people that got killed....R.I.P.:crying: I didn't think something like this would happen to London.:( When I think about what happen to them, it reminds me of 9/11 all over again.:crying: I just want this (senseless) war to end soon, so something like this will never happen again (hopefully).:mad:

[Joker Jr]

To bring a bit of optimism in here, I think the British reaction to this has been remarkable, particularly the Londoners themselves. They just seem to be getting on with living and reacting in a rational, rather than emotional way. The questions that are being aksed by the public are intelligent and sensitive to the issues and with the help of the media it might be possible to turn this event into something good in the long term. Unfortunately, the British media at the moment are acting as Government mouth pieces and fundamentally not the Fourth Estate. Nevertheless, if the public continue to think and not just "react" then things might turn out for the better.

Of course, the opposite could be true as well and to be honest, it probably will be as the current British Government doesn't really seem to listen to the people of London.

[James]

1. This attack shows that we must stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. It won't take much for someone to hide an Iranian-made nuclear device inside a small delivery van and we could see a casualty toll that could run into the hundreds of thousands, not to mention a Ground Zero that will be uninhabitable for a couple of hundred years. :( Again terrorism works outside regional boundaries. This has nothing to do with Iran per se. Nuclear bombs for terroristic purposes is viable now. If someone from Iran, Russia, England, Belgium wanted to make a device, the details are available, as are the materials - if you know where to look. What makes it difficult is getting such parts into countries. Furthermore, it's - touch wood - more hassel that it's worth. Explosives are far easier to work with and carry the amount of terror and publicity required. Why use a machine gun when a pistol does the trick? It's the message rather than the death toll which is important to these people; we can attack your country even when you have heighten security for programmes like G8.



The USA did something really touching here in town. Back on 9/11 the British Army played The Star Spangled Banner at the US embassy in London and the US Army returned the favor today by playing God Save the Queen at the British embassy in DC. That's really cool. I'm not a patriotic guy, but that's made me day. It's always good to hear of the good that comes out of the bad. I find that quite touching somehow.

[SSJPabs]

To bring a bit of optimism in here, I think the British reaction to this has been remarkable, particularly the Londoners themselves. They just seem to be getting on with living and reacting in a rational, rather than emotional way. The questions that are being aksed by the public are intelligent and sensitive to the issues and with the help of the media it might be possible to turn this event into something good in the long term. Unfortunately, the British media at the moment are acting as Government mouth pieces and fundamentally not the Fourth Estate. Nevertheless, if the public continue to think and not just "react" then things might turn out for the better.I'm proud of the British public myself and hope we can all learn something from them. But I think the idea of London collapsing from this is silly. They endured years of constant conflict with the IRA (although they targeted their bombs primarily for economic damage as opposed to loss of life) as well as the blitz. For now we can all say that London has seen worse and survived. I have every bit of confidence in modern day Londoners to go on from this.

Also, SJJ's articulation of points regarding state and non-state actors is spot on with what I think and what I think the evidence points to. Excellent job SJJ! That said an encouraging point is that the US has had progress recently (since Bolton left as Undersecretary for Arms Control) with non-proliferation agreements and buying of nukes etc. Which I think is a sign that at least some sectors of the government are looking at this in a long term, strategic way.

[Joker Jr]

There is no chance of London collapsing from this because it's something that the majority of Londoners are used to and also, the attack was too small to really knock everybody into reactionary lunacy.

However, the negative consequence of these attacks for the British people is that they might be used an excuse to rid us of "airy-fairy" civil rights and the liberty (albeit small) that is the only thing that can save us from the full Orwellian society.

[sun]

I guess the official who is what we would call the "Mayor" has upped the total deaths to 50, and , according to Scotland Yard, they are still pulling bodies from the rubble..It may be days till we know the final total..given the number of injured, this disaster ranks among the very worst. I am so sorry:crying: :crying: :crying: :crying: :crying: May the world be with London and Great Britain in its grief.

[James]

However, the negative consequence of these attacks for the British people is that they might be used an excuse to rid us of "airy-fairy" civil rights and the liberty (albeit small) that is the only thing that can save us from the full Orwellian society.
Not wanting to get into British politics, but even if this does help the ID card proposal, this isn't anything Orwellian. Spain has had ID cards for years and remains a proper democracy. I'm personally not sure I want to pay out on ID cards, but while most of us have passports and driving licenses, another form of identification won't be the be all and end all.

So I wouldn't worry. If this attack does make it easier to put this proposal through, it's not the end of liberty, it's just like having a driving license attached mandatorily to your wallet. People used to worry about CCTV in the same way. All this will do - as it did after Madrid - is make it easier for the Police to identify and convict. Spain, as I recall, stated that while ID cards couldn't have prevented the Madrid bombing, it was a help for the Police in the aftermath.

[Joker Jr]

Not wanting to get into British politics, but even if this does help the ID card proposal, this isn't anything Orwellian. Spain has had ID cards for years and remains a proper democracy. I'm personally not sure I want to pay out on ID cards, but while most of us have passports and driving licenses, another form of identification won't be the be all and end all.

So I wouldn't worry. If this attack does make it easier to put this proposal through, it's not the end of liberty, it's just like having a driving license attached mandatorily to your wallet. People used to worry about CCTV in the same way. All this will do - as it did after Madrid - is make it easier for the Police to identify and convict. Spain, as I recall, stated that while ID cards couldn't have prevented the Madrid bombing, it was a help for the Police in the aftermath.
I'm aware that on the surface of it ID cards aren't really a big extension on the amount of information the state has on us already but the principle that they have the right to know all this about me on a nice handy card simply doesn't sit well with me. Probably because to say I don't trust the state would be like saying Bill Gates is a bit rich.

Regardless of the principle of liberty vs security argument though, most of the evidence I've seen on ID cards indicates that all of their supposed purposes - prevention of terrorism, benefit fraud et al - won't actually work and it leaves me wondering that as Blair and Clarke have seen the same evidence what their true purpose is.

Note: Hopefully, post is not too political.

[Fone Bone]

I am very saddened by yesterday's events and my thoughts and prayers go out to London. I am going to ask a favor from everyone in this thread however. The "kill 'em all" comments that were so prevalent yesterday scare me as it is difficult for me to hear the exact words used by terrorists used by fellow Americans. I realize how upsetting this entire situation is, but I find it interesting how none of Toon Zone's British members have used such blanket statements in this thread. I would also ask that people not make general statements about Muslims as the people who were responsible for the attacks weren't born evil, they were made. And most Muslims don't share these ideals at all.

Thank you for your attention and again, my heart goes out to the people of England.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

I would also ask that people not make general statements about Muslims as the people who were responsible for the attacks weren't born evil, they were made. And most Muslims don't share these ideals at all.Muslim isn't a race, those who are Muslim are indeed made that, and I said we should kill all the terrorists, not all Muslims. If we brought democracy to the region, their descendants might chose to not be Muslim, which would be preferable in ending terrorism as Muslim(ism) is a corrupted religion which suggests killing non believers. It's like a well organised evil cult that rules the entire region and is bent on world domination. Just to even things up, all religions are evil by the way, but I'm not suggesting all followers are.

[solarflere]

Muslim isn't a race, those who are Muslim are indeed made that, and I said we should kill all the terrorists, not all Muslims. If we brought democracy to the region, their descendants might chose to not be Muslim, which would be preferable in ending terrorism as Muslim(ism) is a corrupted religion which suggests killing non believers. It's like a well organised evil cult that rules the entire region and is bent on world domination. Just to even things up, all religions are evil by the way. You are wrong there. It’s true that in the Koran it states that the west civilization are infidels but that does not make a religion bad. How many people have died over the Christian crusades over the century (the Holy Wars)? Countless lives. Extremism can not be blamed on religion. There are extremists in Judaism, Muslims, Christianity and others as well. I believe that extremism is bad no matter what religion it is. Its the extemists that make the religion look bad.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

It's just as bad if it doesn't condemn violence or murder. At least Christianity does.

[audiecugi]

Muslim isn't a race, those who are Muslim are indeed made that, and I said we should kill all the terrorists, not all Muslims. If we brought democracy to the region, their descendants might chose to not be Muslim, which would be preferable in ending terrorism as Muslim(ism) is a corrupted religion which suggests killing non believers. It's like a well organised evil cult that rules the entire region and is bent on world domination. Just to even things up, all religions are evil by the way, but I'm not suggesting all followers are.
If you ever get a chance take a world's relition class. I did, at it really opeaned my eyes. Every religion that we studied it that class ( Toeisim, Islam, Hinduisim, Budisims, Judisim, and Christianity) I found some thing similar to my own beleifs. I also learned that most main stream relgions are really all about trying to do good, they have their different ways about trying to do good, but they are trying to do good. Islam is no exception. It is a good religon full of people trying to do good, and to do what they believe to be God's will. Just because there are some fundamentalist who spread terror by commiting terrorisim, doesn't mean all Islams are like that. Muslim is not the same thing as being a terrorist. Muslims are not taught to kill all non beleivers. Some sects of Islam may teach that you need to kill all non beleivers, but the majority don't. Please don't paint all Muslims with the same broad stroke.

[Fone Bone]

It's just as bad if it doesn't condemn violence or murder. At least Christianity does.I believe the Koran (I know I spelled that wrong) does condemn murder but the terrorists subvert it. If you are going to make blanket statements about a religion I would prefer it if you would read up on it first.

Take care,
Matt.

[solarflere]

It's just as bad if it doesn't condemn violence or murder. At least Christianity does.How do you know, have you actualy read the Koran, no you only heard a one sided interpretation by a onesided person. No religion is bad, its only being interpreted as bad. At some point, the witch hunts and holy wars were incouraged by the Christians.

[Classic Speedy]

I just found out an aunt and uncle of mine were going on vacation in England while this terrorist act happened. Haven't heard from them yet- I hope they're OK. :(

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

Christians make the most of our nation (US) and the reason we don't have nearly as much terrorists is that the church that dominates our ground is strictly against such acts.

The only reason there are terrirists like the ones who executed the London and NY attacks is their religion. If they were atheist they wouldn't have a reason to attack. And don't say that "they're just fighting back" again, because there was nothing to fight back before 9/11.

[Supremus]

Muslim isn't a race, those who are Muslim are indeed made that, and I said we should kill all the terrorists, not all Muslims. If we brought democracy to the region, their descendants might chose to not be Muslim, which would be preferable in ending terrorism as Muslim(ism) is a corrupted religion which suggests killing non believers.Countless generations of muslims in the western world have chosen to continue being muslims, so democracy doesn't seem to have any influence on that. It is in fact one of the fastest growing religions, perhaps the fastest, even in the western world. I am not a fan of any religion either, but to dismiss "Muslimism", as you call it, as corrupted, is not only a little simplistic, it would also seem to indicate a profound lack of knowledge on the subject, and it doesn't address the real problem.

I understand that you are passionate about dealing with terrorism, and there is nothing wrong with that, but like I said earlier, I would urge you to consider how you would react to your own words and proposed actions if they came from someone of this "Musliministic" faith.

[solarflere]

Christians make the most of our nation (US) and the reason we don't have nearly as much terrorists is that the church is strictly against such acts.

The only reason there are terrirists like the ones who executed the London and NY attacks is their religion. If they were atheist they wouldn't have a reason to attack. And don't say that "they're just fighting back" again, because there was nothing to fight back before 9/11. True but its the way they interpreted the religion. As I said before in my other post. Those salem witch trials were murders of innosent people as well and they were based on a misinterpreted religious belief.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

Countless generations of muslims in the western world have chosen to continue being muslims, so democracy doesn't seem to have any influence on that. It is in fact one of the fastest growing religions, perhaps the fastest, even in the western world. I am not a fan of any religion either, but to dismiss "Muslimism", as you call it, as corrupted, is not only a little simplistic, it would also seem to indicate a profound lack of knowledge on the subject, and it doesn't address the real problem.

I understand that you are passionate about dealing with terrorism, and there is nothing wrong with that, but like I said earlier, I would urge you to consider how you would react to your own words and proposed actions if they came from someone of this "Musliministic" faith.I'm sorry, of course, how thoughtless of me. Let me correct myself as to not tick anybody off: All religions are corrupted. If anyone has something to object about that statement, then they are uneducated.

[solarflere]

We are getting way off topic here again, lets try to concentrate on London. We don't want this thread to close agan. Anyone heard the latest death count?

[Clayface]

We are getting way off topic here again, lets try to concentrate on London.

Agreed. This last conversation has started to turn nasty and the snide comments and attitudes are not welcome. If it starts up again, warnings will be handed out.


We don't want this thread to close agan. Anyone heard the latest death count?

Last I had heard, it was 50+ killed, with that expected to rise, but not go above 100. And 700 injured (which must be an estimate, because I find it hard to believe that exactly 700 were wounded).

[James]

I believe the Koran (I know I spelled that wrong) does condemn murder but the terrorists subvert it. If you are going to make blanket statements about a religion I would prefer it if you would read up on it first.

Take care,
Matt. I think this is a dangerous area for people to debate on unless they a) have an intimate knowledge of the book and b) understand it's practical implications to modern day Muslims.

It does, as far as I'm aware, condemn murder, but in other areas advocates attacks against non Muslims. As has just been said, it's really about interpretation and context. Go through the Bible and you'll see many references and declarations that Christians do not go by. There is a lot of Jewish law in there which even the most literal Christian who sees Old Testament as an important part of Christian teaching would not adhere to. So in the end, it's not as easy as finding what the Koran "says", it's understanding how it's applied and who applies it.

As Christainity shows (being a religion most here are aware of to some detail) there are all kinds of extremes to the books contexts. We have Christians who are very liberal and take what they see as the message while others who are more literal who take the word.

I'm not someone who has studied the Koran, so I'm not going to say what it does say, I just think it's not really relevant to this topic of the attacks of London. I doubt there are many people here - including myself - who are educated enough in the religion and the text to make comment. Perhaps best to steer clear. That way we all avoid looking ignorant and making crass presumptions.

[Clayface]

Last I had heard, it was 50+ killed, with that expected to rise, but not go above 100. And 700 injured (which must be an estimate, because I find it hard to believe that exactly 700 were wounded).

UPDATE: CNN has just posted that the death toll on that double-decker bus has been raised from 2 to 13.

[sun]

Christians make the most of our nation (US) and the reason we don't have nearly as much terrorists is that the church that dominates our ground is strictly against such acts.

The only reason there are terrirists like the ones who executed the London and NY attacks is their religion. If they were atheist they wouldn't have a reason to attack. And don't say that "they're just fighting back" again, because there was nothing to fight back before 9/11.I apologize for reentering this discussion, off topic,,Mods, no more from me, but this comment, must be looked at more deeply..There is a different kind of "terrorism" here..We have the highest rate of murder, of any civilized country in the world...None of our many religiouns have prevented this..If you read the newspapers, carefully, you will find an enourmous amount of child abuse, some of it unspeakable...Now yes, this is not like London...or other terrorist attacks..I admit..But the Church or any of our Religions for that matter, have not prevented the U.S.A. from over all, being one of the violent nations (I am talking about in the U.S.A., murder, rape,robbery, rape, etc.== neighbor on neighbor, not anything political ok?} on earth..sorry, it is the truth...and thank you for letting me say this...I promise...this is my last post on this terrible event...I have gone off topic, and will remove myself from the discussion..Stuart

[James]

UPDATE: CNN has just posted that the death toll on that double-decker bus has been raised from 2 to 13.
I'm not surprised. An explosion like that I'd have thought would kill more than 2. I was surprised that the count was so low initially. Considering the damage to the bus, I can't imagine the effect to the passengers.

I think also we need to steer clear of religion as a focus. Religion is just a tool adopted by these such people who are extreme. It suits the mindset. You will have races, cultures and societies which are not driven or controlled by religion but do the same thing anyhow. Look at the Nazi's power. It wasn't religious based, it was social ideology. It was a race considered righteous for reasons beyond faiths.

If people believe they are righteous, they will act that way. Religion can help cement that inner belief, but if you manage to remove religion, people would find other ideologies to support their extreme ideology.

It's the people's mindsets not the religion that is the danger. As proved in the past, any religion, any ideology, any idea, pushed to the extreme, can be dangerous.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

I apologize for reentering this discussion, off topic,,Mods, no more from me, but this comment, must be looked at more deeply..There is a different kind of "terrorism" here..We have the highest rate of murder, of any civilized country in the world...None of our many religiouns have prevented this..If you read the newspapers, carefully, you will find an enourmous amount of child abuse, some of it unspeakable...Now yes, this is not like London...or other terrorist attacks..I admit..But the Church or any of our Religions for that matter, have not prevented the U.S.A. from over all, being one of the violent nations (I am talking about in the U.S.A., murder, rape,robbery, rape, etc.== neighbor on neighbor, not anything political ok?} on earth..sorry, it is the truth...This is my last post on religion here.

I never said we don't have terrorism. I said we have less terrorists (than middle east). I suggested that the dominating church (Catholic Christian) doesn't in any way endorse terrorism. Besides, we don't need a particular religion to prevent crimes, since every church decides what is right according to them, but that's why we have laws, so that regardless of your religion you would be brought to justice for breaking a local or constitutional law.

However, since almost all of the middle east is dominated by Muslim(ism?) which is constantly on the rise, that religion gets to decide what is wrong from right by adjusting the laws according to it's preferences, and then you get the gereralizations.


By the way, if a bus explodes I would expect everyone on board to die, so the moderately small count of 13 is at the same time good and bad.

[Clayface]

I'm not surprised. An explosion like that I'd have thought would kill more than 2. I was surprised that the count was so low initially. Considering the damage to the bus, I can't imagine the effect to the passengers.

Yeah, I had the same reaction to the initial count of 2. I'd been wondering if it was just an off duty bus or one in an non-busy area for it to have only caused 2 deaths. Sad to hear that it was indeed more.

I heard a horrible story on the news morning about some young lady who was trying to find her boyfriend who had been missing since the explosion. Apparently his cell phone was still working, and they were able to trace it's location to the area that bus was in. But, I don't think they actually found the phone, and they certainly hadn't found the boyfriend. :( What a nightmare.

[solarflere]

Yeah, I had the same reaction to the initial count of 2. I'd been wondering if it was just an off duty bus or one in an non-busy area for it to have only caused 2 deaths. Sad to hear that it was indeed more.

I heard a horrible story on the news morning about some young lady who was trying to find her boyfriend who had been missing since the explosion. Apparently his cell phone was still working, and they were able to trace it's location to the area that bus was in. But, I don't think they actually found the phone, and they certainly hadn't found the boyfriend. :( What a nightmare. I had a simular reaction. They said the bus was packed from pleople running out of the Underground into ther buses and then later the bus blew up. I thought they could not count the bodies in their condition thats why the death toll was initialy 2. But now its revealed to be 13.

[Joker Jr]

According to some eyewitnesses the explosion on the bus was powerful enough to send it "flying through the air" and if that's the case then it would be a miracle that anybody survived. Still, stranger things have happened so there's still hope.

[solarflere]

According to some eyewitnesses the explosion on the bus was powerful enough to send it "flying through the air" and if that's the case then it would be a miracle that anybody survived. Still, stranger things have happened so there's still hope.Only the roof of the second layer of the double decker bus flew in the air, not the entire bus.

[Joker Jr]

Only the roof of the second layer of the double decker bus flew in the air, not the entire bus.
I was taking this from very early reports so it's no wonder there was some exaggeration.

Thinking about the bus I remembered that I had been slightly confused by the fact that only one bus was attacked when multiple trains were. If the intention was to bring the whole transport system down and really terrify people then I would have expected there to be more bus attacks. After all, thousands of people used the bus service when it restarted later in the day and this means that they weren't scared enough by the earlier explosion to put them off. I'm not sure if I would used a bus so soon after when only one had been attacked.

It all seems very strange at the moment and the sooner we get some information the better, especially with the BBC continuously reporting that they don't know anything and only veering from this line when Blair or Clarke says otherwise.

[Wounded_Dragon]

This is my last post on religion here.

I never said we don't have terrorism. I said we have less terrorists (than middle east). I suggested that the dominating church (Catholic Christian) doesn't in any way endorse terrorism.

Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity. Let's go back that far and see where Christianity was at that point, then judge accordingly, from a historical point of view.

Hmm...slavery still around. Conquest of the Americas was on the horizon. Oh, and the Spanish Inquisition. Can't forget the Spanish Inquisition.

[Joker Jr]

Can't forget the Spanish Inquisition.
Or expect them for that matter.

[Clayface]

Thinking about the bus I remembered that I had been slightly confused by the fact that only one bus was attacked when multiple trains were. If the intention was to bring the whole transport system down and really terrify people then I would have expected there to be more bus attacks.

Yeah, I agree. I had been wondering the same thing. There were reports on the news last night stating that several unexploded bombs have been found by police, but I haven't seen any confirmation of that today.

[Supremus]

Yeah, I agree. I had been wondering the same thing. There were reports on the news last night stating that several unexploded bombs have been found by police, but I haven't seen any confirmation of that today.Yesterday there were report that police carried out at least one controlled explosion, but that's sort of standard procedure if they can't determine if the object in question is really a threat or not. If it were, we would have probably heard about it by now, so chances are that an unlucky Londoner will be returning to the charred remains of his parked car, or something like that.

[Nightflower]

Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity. Let's go back that far and see where Christianity was at that point, then judge accordingly, from a historical point of view.

Hmm...slavery still around. Conquest of the Americas was on the horizon. Oh, and the Spanish Inquisition. Can't forget the Spanish Inquisition.
This discussion on religion is offtopic to the thread, so please refocus on the topic at hand.

[TimTwoFace]

Yes, let's please keep this religious talk out of it; despite what these idiot terrorists say, they are not representatives of the Islamic faith at all.

I must also add my voice to how amazed - and happy - I am to see the majority of those in London immediately getting on with their lives. It's still a sad event, but this will in no way slow down life for the majority of the people there. Considering all that London has gone through over the centuries, this is pretty minor - like I said, still horrible, but it's not going to scare people away from living their lives. That's the best way to deal with these problems. If that works, then terrorism fails - terrorism without terror is a failure.

If my hometown - or nation - were hit with an act of terrorism (as we were in the 70's), I would like to think I'd be able to move on, and live my life, too. It would be changed, but life would go on.

-Tim

[Elven Moon]

I got an email from my friend studying abroad in England saying that she is OK :) I am relieved, she could've easily been on the train from Oxford to London.

[Clayface]

News agencies are starting to report (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/08/bombings.investigation.ap/index.html) details of the devices used. I guess this quote answers my previous question:


Police said they had found no bombs other than the four that exploded.

It does seem odd there weren't more.

[Joker Jr]

It does seem odd there weren't more.
Very. The attacks overall seem very poorly thought out in terms of targets. Firstly, there's the obvious fact that innocents were attacked over leaders and secondly, by attacking predominantly the London working class, the people who opposed the war in Iraq and voted in a left wing Mayor who has consistently fought against the plight of Arabic nations. The attacks seem completely counter-productive for the perpetrators and their cause. Instead of finding a way of helping people to understand their motives they have possibly alienated a group who in the past have shown some empathy.

All this supports my idea that these attacks were carried out by very small ignorant group of people who want to be part of the Al Qaeda movement without having any understanding of their motives and think that all that matters is blowing up innocents indiscriminantly.

I fear this has done serious damage to the possibility of Western and Middle Eastern leaders resolving the conflict peacefully.

[Supremus]

Very. The attacks overall seem very poorly thought out in terms of targets. Firstly, there's the obvious fact that innocents were attacked over leaders and secondly, by attacking predominantly the London working class, the people who opposed the war in Iraq and voted in a left wing Mayor who has consistently fought against the plight of Arabic nations. The attacks seem completely counter-productive for the perpetrators and their cause. Instead of finding a way of helping people to understand their motives they have possibly alienated a group who in the past have shown some empathy.

All this supports my idea that these attacks were carried out by very small ignorant group of people who want to be part of the Al Qaeda movement without having any understanding of their motives and think that all that matters is blowing up innocents indiscriminantly.It looks like a text book terrorist attack on "soft" targets. If anything, it may have been a little bit more sophisticated than those taking place in Iraq and elsewhere, as it would seem these guys have figured out they don't need to blow themselves up to get the job done. Very rarely do terrorists go for "hard" targets such as World leaders, as it's much more difficult. In Iraq they are even killing their own people, so it's a little bit optimistic to think they would spare supposedly innocent westerners because they may be against the actions of their governments.

As for their alleged affiliation, contrary to popular belief, there is no Al Qaeda network. They're certainly not the Bond villain organisation the government and the media would have us believe. Al Qaeda is simply a cause that anyone with a grudge can sign up to, but it helps their notoriety to tag along with the Al Qaeda brand, rather than calling themselves the East Sussex Liberation Front. Basically, anybody even remotely engaged in terror activity these days will be described as Al Qaeda or "having Al Qaeda links" by the media, if they haven't already labelled themselves. The only competing "brand" that can seem to get any kind of press these days is the IRA.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

The terrorists don't care who the target is, as long as they get news coverage.

[Joker Jr]

It looks like a text book terrorist attack on "soft" targets. If anything, it may have been a little bit more sophisticated than those taking place in Iraq and elsewhere, as it would seem these guys have figured out they don't need to blow themselves up to get the job done. Very rarely do terrorists go for "hard" targets such as World leaders, as it's much more difficult. In Iraq they are even killing their own people, so it's a little bit optimistic to think they would spare supposedly innocent westerners because they may be against the actions of their governments.
I know. It just seems that after the evidently well thought out attacks on the symbol of the Western system on 9/11 that the Madrid and London attacks have been somewhat less thoughtful. I suppose the obvious answer is that while the 11 or 12 who worked with Bin Laden to attack the Twin Towers were more intelligent in their choice of targets (symbolically) the other two groups have simply wanted to kill anybody with no other message than:

"We can kill innocent people."

Not exactly inspiring I would think for even the worst of fanatics.

One thing the incongruence between the attacks does prove though is your next point:


As for their alleged affiliation, contrary to popular belief, there is no Al Qaeda network. They're certainly not the Bond villain organisation the government and the media would have us believe. Al Qaeda is simply a cause that anyone with a grudge can sign up to, but it helps their notoriety to tag along with the Al Qaeda brand, rather than calling themselves the East Sussex Liberation Front. Basically, anybody even remotely engaged in terror activity these days will be described as Al Qaeda or "having Al Qaeda links" by the media, if they haven't already labelled themselves. The only competing "brand" that can seem to get any kind of press these days is the IRA.
It would be nice if the media took note.

[Outlander00]

First, I wanted to say that I am deeply saddened that this occured and that those individuals responsible for its implementation are brought to justice... the victims ass well as the people of Britain deserve that much. I actually was hoping (which hasnt been the case) that none of our British breatheren were in that area of London at the time when I saw the news at 7:30 in the morning.

I am dismayed by the ignorance displayed by individuals in this discussion. There are a lot of people who just think that because a guerilla band of individuals who believe in the cause they are fighting for can be easily resolved by invading a region of the world and decimating their forces... It that is not the case.

When it comes to the currrent form of "terrorists", there are so many conditions relating to religion, history, culture and society in the greater Arab world (noticed I said Arab and NOT Muslim)... so many that they would take a thread within itself to discuss... that these individuals feel either threatened or confused. And it is these individuals who are inspired (and, in some cases, taught) by the wrong people... whether they be clerics, teachers or even individuals from their villages or cities... to fight against those who they believe are to be the cause of the "problems" within "their world".

I remember a specific quote that has rang in my mind since 9/11... "One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". This is so very true with many of these individuals in these organizations, whether it be Al-Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Checyean rebels, South American rebels and the (might as well be) former IRA. They believe that what they do is good for their people. And as long you have change, people who are being opressed or protest to a specific action done by a government, there will always be "terrorists".

Now... Why would they think that?

Answer that... and try to deal and accomodate those whys... and you'll have a better weapon than any laser guided bomb, M-4, M1A1 or intelligence can be.

Am I saying to appease this current crop of terrorists? No... But damn it try to understand why these people commit to these orgnaizations and try to address the regions concerns and anger towards the western nations.

[Artimus Gigan]

First, I wanted to say that I am deeply saddened that this occured and that those individuals responsible for its implementation are brought to justice... the victims ass well as the people of Britain deserve that much. I actually was hoping (which hasnt been the case) that none of our British breatheren were in that area of London at the time when I saw the news at 7:30 in the morning.

I am dismayed by the ignorance displayed by individuals in this discussion. There are a lot of people who just think that because a guerilla band of individuals who believe in the cause they are fighting for can be easily resolved by invading a region of the world and decimating their forces... It that is not the case.

When it comes to the currrent form of "terrorists", there are so many conditions relating to religion, history, culture and society in the greater Arab world (noticed I said Arab and NOT Muslim)... so many that they would take a thread within itself to discuss... that these individuals feel either threatened or confused. And it is these individuals who are inspired (and, in some cases, taught) by the wrong people... whether they be clerics, teachers or even individuals from their villages or cities... to fight against those who they believe are to be the cause of the "problems" within "their world".

I remember a specific quote that has rang in my mind since 9/11... "One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". This is so very true with many of these individuals in these organizations, whether it be Al-Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Checyean rebels, South American rebels and the (might as well be) former IRA. They believe that what they do is good for their people. And as long you have change, people who are being opressed or protest to a specific action done by a government, there will always be "terrorists".

Now... Why would they think that?

Answer that... and try to deal and accomodate those whys... and you'll have a better weapon than any laser guided bomb, M-4, M1A1 or intelligence can be.

Am I saying to appease this current crop of terrorists? No... But damn it try to understand why these people commit to these orgnaizations and try to address the regions concerns and anger towards the western nations.Actualy many of the current fighters the US forces are destroying are just pretty much hired guns...

They've pretty much wiped out all the ones with a "religious" cause

The terrorists are also not anywhere close to being freedom fighters either. They're more or less like the Klan or an organized crime syndicate. Their entire mindset is also not practical at all.


An easy comparison is this. Think of the world as a giant CPU and think of the countries as different parts. Over time you need to upgrade parts of the computer to keep it working efficantly. Now the Majority of the established and functioning countries are a democrasy. So if you think as the governmental system as the OS. now ofcourse unmoddified CPU OS's can't intergrate(you can't have a stock PC and Mac work together). So you have to pretty much choose one or the other. That also means that certain programs(social groups) can't run on them. A group like AlQueda won't work in a Democrasy, same thing goes for the communism groups, and dictatorships. So easiest way to free up available memory is to delete them.

Besides you're wrong on that account about weapons, many of the super bombs(which thse groups want to use against The US and Europe) can wipe out entire cities and establishments.

Which is pretty mucht the same as formatting the hard drive...

and thus youa re free to install whatever you want so it intigrates well into the current system.

[James]

Very. The attacks overall seem very poorly thought out in terms of targets.
I don't see this. They hit precisely who they wanted to.


Firstly, there's the obvious fact that innocents were attacked over leaders
Which was there intention. Terrorism works as a tool against the masses, not the leaders. You instill fear into the civillian population by targeting them, and not the people who rule.. who, quite frankly, can be replaced. It's easier, more effective and gets the message to the people you want to scare - the public.


and secondly, by attacking predominantly the London working class, the people who opposed the war in Iraq and voted in a left wing Mayor who has consistently fought against the plight of Arabic nations.
Actually, if you look at the areas attacked, they are all on tourist lines. I hadn't noticed this, but my girlfriend did. Picadilly Line is the line which connects Heathrow, Kings Cross is a major transit point for akk and Russells Court is popular with tourists. Liverpool Street is the final destination for the Stansted Airport Bullet Train. Edgware is on the circle line which is the line for all the tourist attractions in London.

While the timing for all these attacks were at rush hour, the after effect will neatly make travelling on this lines less comfortable for tourists as well as residents. In this light - the bombings were even more smart. Not an idea widely carried, but an interesting perspective to consider.


All this supports my idea that these attacks were carried out by very small ignorant group of people who want to be part of the Al Qaeda movement without having any understanding of their motives and think that all that matters is blowing up innocents indiscriminantly.
All voices who have any authority on terrorism seem to think the opposite, with the co-ordination between attacks being considered a non amateur plan. Add the bus being maybe a symbolic hit, and we have people who know their targets, know their equipment and know their job.

[solarflere]

49 Confirmed dead, 700 injured (estimated) 4 Ameracans were part of the 700 injured, no Americans dead.
source (http://www.nbc5.com/news/4692637/detail.html?z=dp&dpswid=1167317&dppid=65193)

[tigerrunner]

This is devastating. I'm praying for the people of London, the same way I was for Madrid and NY, my home. My only hope is that whoever did this is brought to justice, without innocent people killed in the process (an impossibility, but still something I pray for).

It's eerie how overjoyed people in London looked just a day before at getting the 2012 Olympics, and now there's just a complete reversal of emotion. It's also eerie that London was competing against NYC and Madrid (as well as Paris and Moscow, capitol cities of two countries clearly outspoken against the Iraqi War). But this is no time to get into politics; my focus is on the people of London (and England as a whole) and their health, safety and security. God bless.

[RayChuang]

All this supports my idea that these attacks were carried out by very small ignorant group of people who want to be part of the Al Qaeda movement without having any understanding of their motives and think that all that matters is blowing up innocents indiscriminantly.
You may have a point! Don't forget that London has a very large Muslim population and given that there are very radical Muslim clerics living in London, I'd almost put down some money at a Ladbrokes betting parlour in London that the attacks were carried out by London-based Muslims who have been reading the al-Qaeda supporting web sites a bit too much lately and want to make a name for themselves.

Besides, if they were really trained in al-Qaeda methods the terrorists would probably blow themselves up as part of the attack and would likely attack targets of greater importance such as inside the City (London's financial district) or near the Houses of Parliament.

[guinaevere]

To all my British friends and neighbors, my prayers are with you.


I do know we will win this war, & Al-Queda will crumble. Why? Because there's no way in hell the US could possibly let Al-Queda win. Sure we could... by giving in to their wishes, by not standing up when pushed. No bully ever stops beating a kid and taking his lunch money because the kid he picks on asks him nicely to stop.


Has anyone noticed this?
September 11, 2001: Four planes highjacked (Northern United States)
March 11, 2003: Four trains blown up (Madrid, Spain)
Today: Four explosions (London, England)
All three took place during Rush Hour in their respective locations, occured within two years of each and all came in groups of four. The reason for the timing is because of their desire to hit as many people as possible with the tools they have.

And yes, Al Queda is very into numbers. Sept 11 was an anniversary of our prosecuting the failed terrorist attack in NY in the 90s. A nice shiney star to whomever proves they know their history with the name of the terrorist and what building he tried to blow up.


putting "terrorism" over world hunger is the stupidest thing. Nope. Terrorists do nothing to forward the well being of their people... including feeding them... they use their funding towards training for future terrorist ventures. In the meantime, they teach those who are starving in their towns that the West are the reason for their oppression and hardships.
Meanwhile billions of tax dollars and private donations from around the world which are sent to countries in need of aid (let's just call it food for now, though the moneys are meant to benefit the people in many ways), are often diverted once reaching the target countries by corrupt governments.


As for this thread, I'm amazed it is still alive. It just doesn't get any more political than this, and there are several offensive remarks in there. ditto.


Countless generations of muslims in the western world have chosen to continue being muslims, so democracy doesn't seem to have any influence on that. What are you talking about?! The hope that countries follow a democratic structure has no corrolation in this. WHERE do you make out that this hope, this desire for people, rather than oppressive regimes, running their own countries is equal to them not following their faith?!


Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity. <snip> Can't forget the Spanish Inquisition. This is true. If you look at organized Islam, being around 1400 years old, it's basically at the same evolutionary stage as Christianity when that became the corrupt horror we all cringe at... Slavery, torture and killing those who they fear, who disagree with them.

And before anyone has a cow over this, just as I don't say that EVERY Christian during the 1200s was guilty of the crimes equated with the Inquistion, I am NOT saying every Muslim is guilty of these practices. I'm making the point that at this phase in organized religions, it seems that we see a pattern of absolute corruption by those with the power to wield it.


This discussion on religion is offtopic to the thread, so please refocus on the topic at hand. Well, religion in general is offtopic, yes. But the terrorist acts were committed by and in the name of extreme Islamists. Nightflower, I'm not trying to put the kibosh on this discussion, but if the thread is allowed to remain open to discuss the tactics and desires and dealing with terrorists, it's not humanly possible to seperate their motivation from it. We all know that while all the Al-Queda terrorists are Muslim in name, they are radical extreme Islamists, not our friends and neighbors who pray to Allah every day.


Yes, let's please keep this religious talk out of it; despite what these idiot terrorists say, they are not representatives of the Islamic faith at all. I have a feeling it's very bad karma to disagree with the mods on this, when you take action in (kill) in someone's (Allah's) name, you're representing them.

Funny, just talking with RG, I mentioned a great line from Alice In Wonderland... I repeat it, as it's terribly relevent to my choice to hit the "post" button, rather than just delete my ramblings: I give myself very good advice, but I very seldom follow it. :sweat:

[James]

I have a feeling it's very bad karma to disagree with the mods on this, when you take action in (kill) in someone's (Allah's) name, you're representing them.:sweat: The problem is, few people here (including myself) understand the nature of the religion, it's contemporary context and the diversity in it's followers. In the same way that non Christians maynot understand the complexities of the seperate churches, what's taken in context generally, what isn't. Etc.

If opinion is uneducated (and in this sort of topic, non objective or rational) it's best to stay clear. Unless someone is Muslim or someone who has done a great deal of education (beyond a school programme) I think it's best to avoid the complexities of passing judgement on religion as much as a non Christian, who has not really had first hand experience of Christianity, the Bible or the Christians who read it should try wax comparison about some serial killer who has killed in the name of God. It just's a powder keg waiting to insult someone.


You may have a point! Don't forget that London has a very large Muslim population and given that there are very radical Muslim clerics living in London, I'd almost put down some money at a Ladbrokes betting parlour in London that the attacks were carried out by London-based Muslims who have been reading the al-Qaeda supporting web sites a bit too much lately and want to make a name for themselves. As far as I'm aware, that doesn't enter many extremist ideology. If you are sympathetic to the enemy - sleep with enemy to an extent - you are as bad as the enemy. I think London based Muslims are neither a group they want support from or even acknowledge beyond how they rest happily in an enemy culture.

[Joker Jr]

I don't see this. They hit precisely who they wanted to.
I meant that although this particular group hit who they wanted to, their attack on London was completely stupid from a tactical point of view. Bin Laden killed innocent people who even some Americans have managed to argue could be considered indirectly guilty of exploitation and numerous deaths themselves. In the cases of London and Madrid the connection is so tenuous that nobody could possibly empathise with it. The fact they don't care about this shows to me that this group hasn't thought out the consequences of their actions for their own supporters. It seems almost certain that these terrorists were home grown because there is a complete lack of understanding about what is being fought against. Regardless of what Bin Laden and others might say, it isn't just "the West" but specific parts of our societies that are hated and are categorised into "the West", and I'm not talking about our "freedoms".



Which was there intention. Terrorism works as a tool against the masses, not the leaders. You instill fear into the civillian population by targeting them, and not the people who rule.. who, quite frankly, can be replaced. It's easier, more effective and gets the message to the people you want to scare - the public.
And that's why this is terrorism and not freedom fighting in this case. A part of freedom fighting is to wake people up from their apathetic ignorance of the terrible things their leaders do abroad and domestically so that they might gain support. This was mindless killing, well planned, but mindless killing nevertheless.



Actually, if you look at the areas attacked, they are all on tourist lines. I hadn't noticed this, but my girlfriend did. Picadilly Line is the line which connects Heathrow, Kings Cross is a major transit point for akk and Russells Court is popular with tourists. Liverpool Street is the final destination for the Stansted Airport Bullet Train. Edgware is on the circle line which is the line for all the tourist attractions in London.

While the timing for all these attacks were at rush hour, the after effect will neatly make travelling on this lines less comfortable for tourists as well as residents. In this light - the bombings were even more smart. Not an idea widely carried, but an interesting perspective to consider.
This is an interesting idea and it warrants further investigation but to be honest, it seems too clever. How many people are going to think about the attacks in those terms? The logical answer is that the targets were the "easiest" to hit and that the location of the attacks might be near where the terrorists live or some other more mundane reason. Then again, maybe your girlfriend is a genius?:)



All voices who have any authority on terrorism seem to think the opposite, with the co-ordination between attacks being considered a non amateur plan. Add the bus being maybe a symbolic hit, and we have people who know their targets, know their equipment and know their job.
The problem with these "authorities" is that to get into their position as "authorities" they will have had to internalise the ideas of their superiors to the point that they automatically think about how to make the evidence fit how they want it to fit. The same thing happens to almost every mainstream journalist so it makes sense for the "occupational socialisation" to take affect in this case too.

[Supremus]

What are you talking about?! The hope that countries follow a democratic structure has no corrolation in this. WHERE do you make out that this hope, this desire for people, rather than oppressive regimes, running their own countries is equal to them not following their faith?!??? I think you're getting a little confused.

[James]

I meant that although this particular group hit who they wanted to, their attack on London was completely stupid from a tactical point of view.
It wasn't. The message has been made. They don't really care that London got back on it's feet fast - that's political spin from us. Their point seems fairly clear to me; they can attack a hard spot like London in the midst of an international convention of leaders. Simple as that. They know - as do we - that no matter how well London responded, the message remains and that weakness has been created.


In the cases of London and Madrid the connection is so tenuous that nobody could possibly empathise with it. The fact they don't care about this shows to me that this group hasn't thought out the consequences of their actions for their own supporters. It seems almost certain that these terrorists were home grown because there is a complete lack of understanding about what is being fought against.
No one is saying that there is a massive message connection. I think this is G8 related and it was clear in advance that UK was the stage. The reason for Madrid could be utterly different from an utterly different cell. The use of timed explosions on a public transport system is a tell tale sign of an organised group working within a similar MO.


Regardless of what Bin Laden and others might say, it isn't just "the West" but specific parts of our societies that are hated and are categorised into "the West", and I'm not talking about our "freedoms".
The West, generally is hated because ideologically it's lives far from Islam - particualy extreme Islam. The West is generalised target because of just that, it uniformly operates on an opposing ideology. There are areas of focus obviously, and that comes down to targets of political, topical and vunerable, but generally, extreme Islam is actually pretty defined from what I've read. If you're belief doesn't adhere to their religious context, you are nothing in the eyes of them or their religion.



And that's why this is terrorism and not freedom fighting in this case. A part of freedom fighting is to wake people up from their apathetic ignorance of the terrible things their leaders do abroad and domestically so that they might gain support. This was mindless killing, well planned, but mindless killing nevertheless.
Not really. Freedom Fighting simply means freedom from something. To extremists such as these, they are fighting to destablize and destroy a sinful and oppressive lifestyle/regime. So while to us it's about Terror, to them it's about fighting for what they believe in, fighting to remove a very strong power which to them, threatens their ideology. So essentially, the freedom fighter/terrorist issue still holds.



This is an interesting idea and it warrants further investigation but to be honest, it seems too clever. How many people are going to think about the attacks in those terms? The logical answer is that the targets were the "easiest" to hit and that the location of the attacks might be near where the terrorists live or some other more mundane reason. Then again, maybe your girlfriend is a genius?:)

They weren't easy. Liverpool and Kings Cross are high profile London stations being both national train and London tube networked. If theywanted easy, they could have found far easier targets. These were specifics. East end would have been a simple attack.


The problem with these "authorities" is that to get into their position as "authorities" they will have had to internalise the ideas of their superiors to the point that they automatically think about how to make the evidence fit how they want it to fit. The same thing happens to almost every mainstream journalist so it makes sense for the "occupational socialisation" to take affect in this case too.
Well that's paranoid ;), and IMO, your viewpoint doesn't take into account what seems fairly rational points made by the authorities. This was co-ordinated, it has an MO of previous co-ordinated attacks and there is - IMO - a clear message. No offense, I'm seeing nothing to support your argument that this was done by amateurs.

[Tygger Redclaw]

These events have deeply saddened me.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of the attacks.

I hope that those responsible are brought to justice.

[Supremus]

I'm seeing nothing to support your argument that this was done by amateurs.Depends how you define "amateur".

Unfortunately, it's not particularly difficult to make a timer or even remote trigger-based explosive device. The biggest challenge is handling it carefully, and if the one in the bus really do go off by mistake, which is one theory that's being worked on, then it would be perfectly reasonable to assume these were amateurs, or home-grown terrorists who could have have gotten their training from the internet rather than a "proper" terrorist camp.

So far there is nothing to suggest a level of expertise beyond what most determined people would be able to achieve. That's what's so scary about this kind of terrorism. Any half-wit can do it.

[James]

Depends how you define "amateur".

Unfortunately, it's not particularly difficult to make a timer or even remote trigger-based explosive device. The biggest challenge is handling it carefully, and if the one in the bus really do go off by mistake, which is one theory that's being worked on, then it would be perfectly reasonable to assume these were amateurs, or home-grown terrorists who could have have gotten their training from the internet rather than a "proper" terrorist camp.
That's not how it works. It's the networking that's required which makes such a mass attack a professional one.

Anti Terrorist Squad are very good in the UK. The reason the UK is consider a tough area for terrorism is that they have tabs on those extremists who are potential threats. Blowing things up isn't a common approach, and as such, those with the potential for such behaviour are easier to track than most people realise. Such people gravitate in similar patterns which, if your squad is good, makes such types trackable. Anti Terrorist have said they've foiled several potential attacks over the past few years - but no one is perfect.

However, such co-ordination in manpower, equipment and people (people who are extreme in belief to commit to such an act) requires professional handling. The police are aware of the processes and methods in preparing and co-ordinating which is why the experts I think belief this is a professional attack.

Simply put, unlike Hollywood, these types are pretty exclusive. You don't suddenly become "extreme" to the point you'll attack a city. There is a process to this sort of character type, and as such, it's rare for amateurs to suddenly become professional terrorists. To expertly attain, plan and execute a four point simultaneous explosive attack on a capital during the period of an international conference takes experience.

[Alex Toon]

Although I am saddened for the families, I never expected London to be attacked because they stayed out of Iraq. Maybe the attack was based on religion.Al-quaida thinks that Jesus is a false prophet. Heck, I didn't know about this until Friday because of Hurricane Dennis
I would have made a joke about Hitler's attack on London and where that got him, but I won't.
http://www.cagle.com/news/LondonBombing/images/tab.gif

[Supremus]

That's not how it works. It's the networking that's required which makes such a mass attack a professional one.It's actually the decentralized nature of these supposed terrorist networks and their lack of professionalism that make them so dangerous and difficult to catch. That's the reason both the mayor and head of Scotland Yard had in recent months spoken out about the inevitability of an attack on London. They know many of the usual suspects, it's the new, home-grown threat they're afraid of.


Anti Terrorist have said they've foiled several potential attacks over the past few years - but no one is perfect.They have made a lot of arrests and a lot of headlines, but that's usually followed by a 3 paragraph follow-up on page 29 days or weeks later when the suspects were released due to lack of evidence. Every time they have anything that looks like a success, they will honk the big horn about it, so Believe me, if they had foiled anything substantial, we would know at least some of the details.


Simply put, unlike Hollywood, these types are pretty exclusive. You don't suddenly become "extreme" to the point you'll attack a city. There is a process to this sort of character type, and as such, it's rare for amateurs to suddenly become professional terrorists.That was before we started invading other people's countries under false pretences. Most security analyst will tell you that apart from the obvious danger of terrorists getting their hands on chemical or biological weapons, the immediate concern is that the actions of our governments have given them the ability to mobilize even moderates to fight against us.

[guinaevere]

??? I think you're getting a little confused.After re-reading Post 174, I agree. I completely misread both the original statement and your response. http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/guinaevere/smilies/loopy_green_eyes.gif

[Supremus]

After re-reading Post 174, I agree. I completely misread both the original statement and your response. http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/guinaevere/smilies/loopy_green_eyes.gif
Not a problem. I think you had the right point, just the wrong poster.

[SimpsonGuy100]

Death Toll now: 52 and rising. :crying:

And also news of the phonelines being too expensive and still dosen't help anybody with lost relatives of the bombing attack.

I feel strongly for London this month.

[Natey]

when i heard this i was not in shock. there is so much more of that in isreal every day. but i beileve the terriosts have something up their sleves right now for America. So always be alert

~nate~

[SimpsonGuy100]

British Police confirmed that all of those bombers were British.

No need for religious hatrid now.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

British Police confirmed that all of those bombers were British.

No need for religious hatrid now.They were all Muslim. And it's disturbing the UK raises it's own enemies.

[solarflere]

They were all Muslim. And it's disturbing the UK raises it's own enemies. Its pretty much acceptable now, U.S. basicaly made Bin Laden who he is today during the Soviet ocupation in Afghan.

[SimpsonGuy100]

They were all Muslim.
Yes, but they were raised here.

[Supremus]

A French minister has just been reported as saying the 4 suspected bombers were initially arrested in 2004, but were let go in an attempt to try and connect them with and catch a potentially larger network. If it's true, I guess that plan didn't work out too well, and it would be an extraordinary lapse of intelligence if a group that should be under surveilance could go ahead and carry out an attack of this nature.

As for home-grown terrorism, given the current political climate and the UK's huge muslim population, I guess it's not all that surprising that some of those would have been radicals.

[SimpsonGuy100]

Very Shocking news from London Tonight:

Huge fury rises in London as a terroist expert discovered an isralli internet short movie showing suffering victims of the attack, horrifying images of the explosions and the harrowing images of torment....all to thank the people who bombed London.

Dispicable, these people don't deserve to be in our country. I want the people who bombed the capital and made the video out of our country and sent to hell.

Never have I heard anything so disgusting.

[solarflere]

Very Shocking news from London Tonight:

Huge fury rises in London as a terroist expert discovered an isralli internet short movie showing suffering victims of the attack, horrifying images of the explosions and the harrowing images of torment....all to thank the people who bombed London.

Dispicable, these people don't deserve to be in our country. I want the people who bombed the capital and made the video out of our country and sent to hell.

Never have I heard anything so disgusting. I am pretty sure it was Palestinian, not Israeli. Can you provide a source?

[SimpsonGuy100]

I'll search it on Yahoo!'s Video Search.

If not, I'll search differently with Google.

[SimpsonGuy100]

BUMP

15 minutes later: Very sorry guys.

I can't find the headline so I couldn't copy a sentence from it, paste it into the search and show you how dispicably horrible the video is.

My best advice to the people who want to watch it is to watch the news and it may turn up.

It certinely appeared on London Tonight. :(

[Supremus]

Very Shocking news from London Tonight:

Huge fury rises in London as a terroist expert discovered an isralli internet short movie showing suffering victims of the attack, horrifying images of the explosions and the harrowing images of torment....all to thank the people who bombed London.

Dispicable, these people don't deserve to be in our country. I want the people who bombed the capital and made the video out of our country and sent to hell.

Never have I heard anything so disgusting.Just for a little perspective; there are hundreds of videos and pictures of Western forces shooting, burning and bombing the you-know-what out of civilians in the Middle East. When you declare war on terror, it's naive to think that terror won't strike back. That's not justification for such horrific actions, but simply the sad reality of the world we live in.

[SimpsonGuy100]

^^I know.

But the video I was talking about was celebrating the fact that millions of people died and it thanked all the people who did it.

And that sort of thing is absolutely apauling.

[Supremus]

^^I know.

But the video I was talking about was celebrating the fact that millions of people died and it thanked all the people who did it.

And that sort of thing is absolutely apauling.Maybe I misunderstood. I thought the video in question was from the London attacks?