cbacon

Barron, if I were to justify their attacks I would somehow imply they are right for committing them. If Britain were to retaliate by dropping bombs somewhere in the Middle East, then your damn right i'd have an issue with it. Hey, how about this, why don't you tell me why the attacks occured? If they're put on a fair trial and Britain adheres to their basic human rights, then i'd have absolutely no problem.

First part, no, second part, yes. Try reading the the entire thread first.

Funny, all your so called 'evidence' is bolded text that you radically interpret as something else . But if thats what entails 'winning an argument' in your world, then hey, far be it for me to tell you otherwise. Congrats. In addition to the other inane rationale you've spewed you went ahead and out did yourself a couple of posts up by stating that "they weren't Iraqis or Afghanis so it can't be about the war!". Yet another obvious example of your detatchment for reality, if you did any sort of research you'd realise attacks that are perpetrated by Islam Fundamentalists carry multiple incentives. I'm not going to bother replying to anything you post anymore until you at least do your research because you clearly don't know what your talking about as evident by your inability to come to terms with why terrorism occurs and you can't even put togehter a coherent or rational argument. I will, however, leave you with a bit of background but I really don't feel like being your teacher so this is the last i'm gong to say regarding this and the point about the attacks not being a result of the war. Most Islamic fundamentalists carry out attacks for reasons such as the belief that Palestinians are being oppressed in regards to the conflict with Isreal, the Western support of Middle Eastern dictorships, the military attacks that preceeded the 'war on terror', the abuse at Abu Ghraib and Gutanamo Bay, and of course, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. They don't have to be from Afghanistan or Iraq, but it is seen as an attack on the Islamic world by the 'Zionist Crusaders". So essentially, the foriegn policy of the US and other nations that follow suit. If the group claiming responsibilty for the attacks (a loose al Qaeda faction in Europe) turn out to be the perputrators, then this is exactly what they said. Now, many individuals on this board will say that these claims are not justfiable, but i'm sure the majority can agree that this is what the terrorists believe. Obviously nobody here condones their actions and whether you belive their incentives to be justifiable or not is irrelevent for the sake of this argument. These are many of the reasons why terrorism happens and this is fact. Home or anywhere, most terrorists just don't go around randomly blowing things up. They've got an agenda based on some kind of revenge/hate, that usually wouldn't be there if there wasn't some kind of provocation.

Umm, how would you like me to prove it? Your arguing on a subjective basis in relation to what Fisk said. You believe something like "paying the price" means "they deserved it". Besides that, all you've come up with is to claim he is a moron, yet you can't even argue against any of the specific reasons as to why his arguments are faulty other than he 'justifies terrorism'. That's the type of thinking that paints those who are anti-war as 'unpatriotic commies'. Obviously it's not worth refuting that kind of logic and I really can't give you any 'evidence' since its your inane mindset that can't comprehend the context of the article. Unless I emailed Fisk himself to ask him what he REALLY meant in his article. Nah, just the obvious that seems to escape individuals such as yourself. Arguring with you is a pointless endeavour since you really don't have a grasp of world affairs and can't even come up with reasons as to there is such resentment that propels such terrorism actions other than 'they're evil'.

The article explains why the attacks occured. Any other notions of Fisk somehow implying that he justified the attacks on the notion of 'context' and 'tone' are clearly fabricated in your own head. Anyone with a shred of rationality would not come to such conclusions after reading.

Your goddamn right that I'm saying that. By posting that crap, thats how I came to that conclusion. That artcile IS justifying the bombings. It is saying, "Oh well, they went into Iraq, they paid the price, bad luck". You agree with the article, which justifies the bombing, which killed innocent people, meaning you justify the killing of innocent people. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> First quote: Alright then. Second: None of what you bolded justfied the murder of innocent civilians. It's merely presenting reasons and rationale as to why they occured. England and Spain did pay the price, unfortunatly. It dosen't mean it was right for them to be attacked, especially innocent civilians that had nothing to do with their countries foriegn policy, but the actions of sending troops to bomb the Middle East obviously have adverse effects. And no, it dosen't mean they are right. I believe their reasons for hating nations like the US are justified for a variety of reasons, the big one currently being the war on Iraq. However, it does not excuse their actions. Let me re-iterate before others jump on me for this like last time: No act of terrorism is justifiable, whether it be coaltion bombs raining over Afghanistan or Iraq, insurgent bombs going off in the streets of Baghdad, or the atrocities committed yesterday in England. Whatever the motive, the wanton killing of innocents is not something I condone. It's absurd that I even have to spell this out for you. Reading comprehension. Learn it.

Amazing that you came to such a conclusion. Please show me where I implied that.

So what your saying is that they have no incentive and just commit these crimes because they are evil terrorists, nothing more?

As always, Robert Fisk makes some good points:

I'm perplexed as to why Justice believes that first world problems trump third world problems. Because about 30 dead every year is alot more dangerous than 50,000 every day? This is a thread for the terror victims?

Why tell ME we need more global work? When we were bombing Afganistan and actually seemingly going after terrorist targets, why was the help not asked for then, when some countries might have actually figured we were interested in crushing terrorism not ousting a dictator and "spreading freedom" Is it my fault or my policy that drove the allies away initially? TERRORISM is the world's problem, The war in Iraq certainly is not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> God, you are really pathetic. This isn't us asking for help. This is the world discussing a problem that is everyones. You try to relate this to Iraq, but I'm not talking about that. The resources we are spending there are near what a globally-backed war on terror could do. It shouldn't have anything to do with Iraq because we are talking about something that isn't just confined to Iraq, or even the Middle East. It shouldn't come down to the 'US did this'. It should be 'We, as a planet, need to look at this'. That's how we came to Global Warming and Africa on the agenda. Why can't it be the same on Terrorism? Shouldn't be something that EVERYONE should be discussing and trying to act out on, rather than just us and a few of our allies? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hmm, what was the motive behind yesterdays attacks again?

The real war is being fought in between the different factions that are trying to take control of the country for their own gain. Why else do you think that the insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than foreigners? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> a - Because they're in Iraq. The chances of killing an Iraqi are far greater than killing a non-Iraqi, when in Iraq. b - it's pretty difficult to get at Americans and other foreign nationals c - American troops are better protected than Iraqi civilians U.S. forces come under attack dozens of times on any given day, far outweighing terrorist attacks that kill civilians. We've also been over the fact that targets of suicide bombings, car bombings, etc. tend to be related to the occupation in some way, but I'm not going to continue pulling up articles to re-prove this. It's in the papers, on TV, etc., every single day. That's a terrible comparison.

Yikes, I almost joined a couple of friends on a trip to London this week. Glad I couldn't get work off after all. Some of my family are heading out in a couple of weeks though. Scary.

edit: ahh, wrong thread.

Sounds like a plan. Matt Good - Arizonas in St. Catherines on July 14. k-os - Molson Ampitheatre, the Edge and the Mix are selling the cheap tickets. Theres a drop down box for them on ticketmaster.ca

I'd say Cena/Edge seems more likely than Cena/Jericho.

I'd go, but as always its always hard dragging friends to these sorts of shows. If I can convince someone, i'm there. Also, you guys should check out Matt Good in St. Catherines on July 14 and k-os on July 15 (radio stations are selling tickets for $10)

Oh, stop it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Seriously though, sticking him in the mid card is one thing, but as a rule, former world champions should never by vying for mid card titles.

This cannot be good.

I never understood all the demand for the Buried Alive matches. Hopefully its gimmick specific in season mode (i.e. Undertaker or Kane matches only). I hate the fact that voice overs are back again, which probably means we won't be able to switch the rosters around again.

Please get a leader who isn't out of his fucking mind: Dear God, what will this man say next?

At the Barrie show, Bruce Cockburn made note of the hypocrisy of our leaders who help to prop up such corrupt regimes. Herein lies one of the root causes of developing world poverty.

The Neil Young performance was fucking great. Still need to get ahold of the Pink Floyd and Green Day sets.