Terror Bombing in London

[cbacon 0]

Secondly, we need more global work right now. Treating it as 'individual problems' which it seems like most countries are content to do is just going to hurt other countries because they won't stop 'someone else's problem'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

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?

[Art Sandusky 0]

The problem is that G8 is dedicated to solving global problems that affect us all. It's not a good sign when Terrorism doesn't make a place on the top docket, since we both agree that it's a pressing global problem, don't you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To be honest, I don't put Terrorism above matters involving an entire continent with hundreds of millions of people and the potential self-baking of our own planet.

 

Yeah it's important and all, but at least the people who have suffered terror attacks in the West thus far have been able to resume normal lives at some point. In parts of Africa (we're talking whole groups of countries here), there's not much besides famine and despair. I can also easily see that becoming a future main hotbed of terrorists should conditions remain intolerable and discontent rises, which it already is to a lesser degree than the Middle East. Aiding that continent in building its own infrastructure and sense of order would go an incredibly long way in warding off potential future problems of many varieties. Outside of the war zone in Iraq, there isn't that much practical concern over something that may happen anywhere in the world only once or twice a year.

 

I'm not advocating complacency by any means, but I can easily understand Blair's rationale in setting such an agenda for the G8 conference. Also, since it's the eight most industrialized nations in the world, there's obvious potential in the continent of Africa. It also makes sense that these industrialized nations would address some of the possible side effects of their activities.

[Justice 0]

I understand that, Kotz, and think it should be a problem we need to look at. But Terrorism should be there, somewhere, and it does disappoint me that it isn't.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Eh, I figure the leaders talk about that kind of stuff during downtime, casually. It'd be impossible to not talk about it amongst themselves especially after today.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The problem with your assertion, Judge, is that terror has never been a "throw money at it" problem. Honestly, do you think ignoring Africa and throwing money into the DoD budget is going to stop more terror attacks?

[Justice 0]

No, Tyler, but resources don't just consist of money. They consist of intelligence, experience, and many other intangibles. That's why it's foolish to say that Iraq is taking up more resources than could be gotten through a globalized war on terror.

[cbacon 0]

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?

 

And finally, let's get back on topic. We shouldn't be arguing stuff like this in a thread for the Terror victims in London.

 

This is a thread for the terror victims?

[cbacon 0]

As always, Robert Fisk makes some good points:

 

"If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us think insurgency won't come to us?

 

"If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, "we will bomb yours." There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.

 

And it's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush - and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali."

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

[Hmm, what was the motive behind yesterdays attacks again?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To kill as many innocent people as they possibly could, because they are terrorist fucks.

[cbacon 0]

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

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

As always, Robert Fisk makes some good points:

 

"If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us think insurgency won't come to us?

 

"If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, "we will bomb yours." There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.

 

And it's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush - and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So in other words you are justifying innocent people being killed. No suprise there.

[cbacon 0]

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

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your goddamn right that I'm saying that.

 

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

If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, "we will bomb yours." There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.

 

And it's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush - and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali."

 

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.

 

edit. The Bali bombings were in 2002, BEFORE the war in Iraq started. Isn't that amazing that the australian people paid the pirce before the Iraq war started. You might wanna check the facts of the people you quote before posting them.

[cbacon 0]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your goddamn right that I'm saying that.

 

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

If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, "we will bomb yours." There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.

 

And it's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush - and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali."

 

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.

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

[

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

If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, "we will bomb yours." There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.

 

And it's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush - and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali."

 

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}>

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You talk about reading comprehension, how about the tone of an article. Anybody who does not have their head up their ass (obviously you do not fall into this category for obvious reasons "No act of terrorism is justifiable, whether it be coaltion bombs raining over Afghanistan or Iraq...") can clearly see that he is justifying the attacks. "OBL said you bomb us, we bomb you, there you go", the talk of them paying the price e.t.c is clearly justifying it. These sentences on there own may not be justifying, but in the context of that article and the tone in which it was written in shows that he is justifying the actions. But as I pointed out earlier, this guy has no fucking clue, his comments about the Bali bombing prove that.

[cbacon 0]

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.

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You say that, yet you prove no evidence to counteract what I have said, I wonder why, could it be because you are wrong.

 

BTW Don't go talking about peoples head. You have proven time and time again what a moron you are whenever the subject of the U.S and the Iraq war comes up. No matter how outlandish the claims may be, you are determined to beleive the worst when it comes to Bush and the U.S.

[cbacon 0]

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.

 

Don't go talking about peoples head. You have proven time and time again what a moron you are whenever the subject of the U.S and the Iraq war comes up. No matter how outlandish the claims may be, you are determined to beleive the worst when it comes to Bush and the U.S.

 

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'.

[Vanhalen 0]

What a bunch of sad motherfuckers you all are, over 30+ people are dead

[King Cucaracha 0]

If baffles me why people like this Fisk guy feel the need to create explanations and justification for sub human scum (yep, a Mike reference, I'm sorry) bombing people. It's not some sort of petty playground squabble. 'Oh, you started it by coming to Iraq'. Because of course, Iraq was a happy little paradise, home of pixies an elves before the US and UK et. all came along.

 

The only 'justification' there can be for shit like this is that these fucks are wrong in the head. If troops pulled out of Iraq, the terrorists wouldn't just disappear. If the troops had never gone, the terrorists would still be around. If you're willing to bomb innocent civilians from innocent countries in the way these terrorists do, there's obviously something wrong with them that no amount of political back-pedalling can change.

[Art Sandusky 0]

All I can say is I sure hope you guys don't have the same kinds of laws and shit passed there after your attack like we had here.

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

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'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have used examples in that text to show how I have come up with what I believe the tone of the article. You believe differently, but the minute you get close to the point made by me, you go off on a tangent about commies and hippies and the like and abandon any hope of sticking to the point. When I said prove it, I meant using examples form the text how you came to a different conclusion. And yes he is a moron, or something much worse, a person who twists the facts to suit his own twisted beliefs

 

Don't go talking about peoples head. You have proven time and time again what a moron you are whenever the subject of the U.S and the Iraq war comes up. No matter how outlandish the claims may be, you are determined to beleive the worst when it comes to Bush and the U.S.

 

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'.

 

I am pretty sure that the people who would have carried out the attacks on London where not Iraqis or Afghans. Don't sprout that bullshit because it doesn't fly. If your gonna use that excuse, and say that these attacks happened because of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (sp?), then the perpetrators must be from those countries, because if not then that reason is just rubbish.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I would just like to again thank JOTW for pointing me towards the ignore function for C-Bacon. Although I still must read what people quote so please stop quoting C-Bacon.

 

It's fairly obvious that he is out of touch with reality.

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

But its fun to argue with him. Whenever he gets into a argument in which he has clearly lost, its fun to watch him make like a 8 year old who has been caught red handed and keeps on changing his story to get out of it, only digging himself a bigger hole

[cbacon 0]

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.

[bob_barron 0]

Wow, one day after a terrorist attack and C-Bacon is already trying to justify their actions and rationalise why what happened happened.

 

But remember, this is the guy who thought Bush getting re-elected was worse then 9/11, so it's no surprise

[cbacon 0]

Wow, one day after a terrorist attack and C-Bacon is already trying to justify their actions and rationalise why what happened happened.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

 

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.

[bob_barron 0]

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

 

I read that and can pretty much comprehend what you're saying.

 

And you are justifying their attacks. And if Britain finds a way to retaliate, you'll be the first to cry and moan about it.

 

If Britain sends these people to prison, you'll be the first to bitch about their conditions there.

[cbacon 0]

I read that and can pretty much comprehend what you're saying.

 

And you are justifying their attacks. And if Britain finds a way to retaliate, you'll be the first to cry and moan about it.

 

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 Britain sends these people to prison, you'll be the first to bitch about their conditions there.

 

If they're put on a fair trial and Britain adheres to their basic human rights, then i'd have absolutely no problem.

[bob_barron 0]

Hey, how about this, why don't you tell me why the attacks occured?

 

Sure.

 

Because there are sub-human terrorist scum out there wishing to do harm, and these people should be found and executed.

 

There ya' go.

 

We shouldn't try to understand these people or rationalise or justify what they did. Find them, kill them. That's all.

 

If they're put on a fair trial and Britain adheres to their basic human rights, then i'd have absolutely no problem.

 

I doubt that, given that you do nothing but whine about Guantanamo even though one of the chief Democratic critics of the place backed down from his claim.

 

Of course you complained, that it wasn't paradise.