The Terrorism thread

[Bigd5903]

Anyone hear about the terrorists killing 115 children in Russia today after they crashed 2 planes a few weeks ago? It made me sick when I saw the videos on TV. I bet Russia will get involved in the war now.

 

[twins172_up]

i didn't get the whole story....i thought they were holding that many hostage...i didn't know they killed them

 

[Bigd5903]

they had over 1000 hostage and they lined up and executed 200 people, most of them are children.

 

[Shafty]

Yeah, I read about it in the paper this morning. What an evil world we live in, huh? <

 

[Bigd5903]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/04/russia.school/index.html theres the story.

 

[kong1971]

The only hope we can hold onto is that terrorism is going to burn itself out soon. How long do you think they can continue to muster suicide attackers before there is just no one left in their orginizations? How long do you think they can operate like this before every civilized government in the world mobilizes and exterminates them? Terrorism is a virus that kills its host. Men like Ghandi and Martin Luther King had the right idea when it came to changing society: passive resistance and communication. Blowing up yourself and a roomful of children solves no problems, silences the voice of the dissident forever, and fills the very society you seek to change with disgust and hatred for your cause.

 

[longTom]

The only hope we can hold onto is that terrorism is going to burn itself out soon. How long do you think they can continue to muster suicide attackers before there is just no one left in their orginizations? How long do you think they can operate like this before every civilized government in the world mobilizes and exterminates them? Terrorism is a virus that kills its host. Men like Ghandi and Martin Luther King had the right idea when it came to changing society: passive resistance and communication. Blowing up yourself and a roomful of children solves no problems, silences the voice of the dissident forever, and fills the very society you seek to change with disgust and hatred for your cause.

Ever read the Koran? or the communist manifesto?
Unfortunately we won't run out out of idiots near fast enough.
Not that I disagree with your idea I just don't think it's going to happen. things will get much worse before they get better.

 

[TheExecutioner]

As I am sure you have all heard, London was subject to 4 co-ordinated bombings in the space of an hour during it's rush hour period. Many Londoners have been anticipating such an attack to occur, the question was only a matter of when.
Around 40 people are dead and hundreds more are injured, the tube system of London was today crippled by the blasts. In a way I feel we got off lightly considering that over 3 million people a day use the underground.
My thoughts and prayers are there with families who have been victims of today's attacks.
Me personally had only just missed the blasts around 10 minutes ago I was there where it happened!
Peace and respect Londoners.

 

[Kal-el]

My heartfelt sympathies go out to all that have lost loved ones, suffered, and have to deal with such a cowardly attack against innocent individuals. I commend Tony Blair on his decision to keep the G-8 summit functional while he returned to England- inspite of such a grave tragedy at home.

What has my curiosity in this attack will be England's response; where the US took forever and a day to mount an attack against the "suspected" perpetrators of 9/11 (and I don't mean Iraq), England has a history of retaliating very fast. But they have to find the corrcet source of the attacks. They can't act on the first tip. Everybody wants it to be al-Queda. But one must be sure first before a swift attack is launched.

 

[REDZULU2003]

Very sad, I cant belive how evil people can be.
It was going to happen sooner rather than later, but still its terrible and a massive shock.
Lets hope we catch those responsible and get them to justice.
The UK will never be beaten by terrorists, no one can break the Brtiish heart, try as you may you wont beat us.
The Germans tried and failed, and so will the extremeists, we wont do what some do and invade from anger but do it in a political sensible fashion.
This attack was on ALL races, ALL ages, ALL sexs, ALL and EVERYTHING...no descrimination was in the attack, just to kill and terrorize us brits.....hey you failed, cos we are getting back to normal life again and GOD HELP you when we catch your sorry arses.

 

[Kal-el]

It is a terrible tragedy, but once again I think it proves that George Bush and Co. have a distorted view of the world. "We'll fight the terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them at home."-GWB. Unfortunately, this dosen't hold true anymore. You can't fight terrorism with violence, and this event sadly proves it. Look at Madrid last year-191 people dead, at to the fact of London- 50 or more dead. I hate to say it, but I believe America's next.

 

[Bib]

Kal,

>It is a terrible tragedy, but once again I think it proves that George Bush and Co. have a distorted view of the world. "We'll fight the terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them at home."-GWB. Unfortunately, this dosen't hold true anymore. You can't fight terrorism with violence, and this event sadly proves it. Look at Madrid last year-191 people dead, at to the fact of London- 50 or more dead. I hate to say it, but I believe America's next.<

Please do not open up this stupid shit can of worms. How do you know what the results would have been of doing nothing? There may have been thousands of more terrorist acts in the last three years. You are so full of shit. Terrorist acts have been occuring consistantly since the late 70's. Since taking an offensive stance, terrorist acts, outside of the middle east, have gone down.

But there WILL be many more terrorist acts whatever we do. I believe more if we do not take action.

You still do not understand the nature of the enemy, what their plans are, how they intend to destroy the west. Until you do, you have no idea of how to even approach the problem.

At least do not throw our weak bullshit, attacking Bush with crap that does not apply to the facts.

Bigger

 

[koooky]

"You still do not understand the nature of the enemy, what their plans are, how they intend to destroy the west. Until you do, you have no idea of how to even approach the problem." --Bib


And WHO does understand the nature of the enemy, what their plans are, and how they intend to destroy the west? Is it someone in the Bush admin? I don't think you could lump all of the various terrorist groups together as just "the enemy". I would bet it would be safe to say that some of them would cease and desist ALL terror activities against the west(USA) if the USA would completely withdraw from the ME.

WHat IF thats all it took? What if the complete withdraw of American forces and interest in the Middle East would solve all of OUR terror worries? What would happen? Would they go back to just killing each other on a mass scale? Who knows. But I would bet that this could be part of a permanent solution.

But, I also realize that this is completely out of touch with reality. As long as there is oil there, America will always try to have some control/interest in the area.

kook

 

[Kal-el]

originally posted by Bib:

But there WILL be many more terrorist acts whatever we do. I believe more if we do not take action.

You still do not understand the nature of the enemy, what their plans are, how they intend to destroy the west. Until you do, you have no idea of how to even approach the problem.

Bib, George Bush has definetly increased world terror by the desicions he makes. For instance, after September 11, 2001, if he would'nt have started a war, would have given more support to Palestinians, recieved more Palestinian refugees, brought home the military from Saudi Arabia, cancel the economic sanctions against Iraq (that killed over 500,000 children), ask Israel to destroy their wmd's, and if he gave as much money to Arab countries as it gives to Israel, these kind acts would have brought world peace which would have dramatically brought down the number of potential terrorists.

And the reason my arguement focuses on Bush is because I believe he made alot of horrible desicions. Nothing Clinton said nor did got us involved in this quagmire. Yes, Clinton did send bombs over Iraq in 1998 (operation Desert Fox), because Iraq kicked out weapons inspectors, but mostly he wanted to take away attention from his impending impeacHydromaxent hearings. I do not agree with the things Clinton did either, but he was definetly the "lesser of 2 evils". Anyway, if he dosen't start ww111 by 2008, or get himself impeached by then, he will go down in history as one of the most fraudulent Presidents ever.

 

[Kal-el]

(CNN)- The number of Americans who believe the war in Iraq has made the US less safe from terrorism spiked sharply after last week's terror attacks in London

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/11/bush.terror/index.html

There it is, more Americans are cowering in the face of terrorism than ever because of the London bombing.


Wake up people!

 

[penguinsfan]

What has my curiosity in this attack will be England's response; where the US took forever and a day to mount an attack against the "suspected" perpetrators of 9/11 (and I don't mean Iraq), England has a history of retaliating very fast. But they have to find the corrcet source of the attacks. They can't act on the first tip. Everybody wants it to be al-Queda. But one must be sure first before a swift attack is launched.

Well, it's been five days. GWB laid out his demands to Afghanistan in 8 days and that looks to be pretty good, considering the damage was probably 1,000 times greater, though not the death rate. Of course England has to make sure it's al-Qaeda, but what if it is? What are they going to do? Send troops to hunt down bin Laden near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border? I think they're already doing that. I'm sure had the US launched a retaliation on 9/12/01 this post of yours would be about how England should take extreme caution in reacting too swiftly, like the Americans did.

Look, I think Bush is the biggest asshole since Jimmy Carter, if not worse. It's not that hard to find legitimate criticisms of the man, but some of your threads are so ridiculous they take away from otherwise good points. I'm sure before hurricane season is up, I'll enjoy your thread about how Bush used HAARP to inflict floods and damage in counties that voted for John Kerry.

And what the fuck is with the term "suspected" perpetrators of 9/11 ?

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by penguinsfan:

Well, it's been five days. GWB laid out his demands to Afghanistan in 8 days and that looks to be pretty good, considering the damage was probably 1,000 times greater, though not the death rate. Of course England has to make sure it's al-Qaeda, but what if it is? What are they going to do? Send troops to hunt down bin Laden near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border? I think they're already doing that. I'm sure had the US launched a retaliation on 9/12/01 this post of yours would be about how England should take extreme caution in reacting too swiftly, like the Americans did.

England's hunting Bin Laden? That's news to me. W sent 10,000 troops into Afganistan, that's a joke, there's more of a police force in some major cities. And when Bin Laden was corned in the Tora Bora mountains, W diverted US troops to Iraq, and "passed the buck" of finding UBL up to afgan rebels, who in the previous week, we were fighting against. So you see, its a kindergarden operation.

And what the fuck is with the term "suspected" perpetrators of 9/11 ?

It is fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were of Saudi dissent. Since that's the case, then why did we invade Iraq? None of the hijackers were Iraqi or were affiliated with Saddam's regime.

 

[longTom]

Very sad, I cant belive how evil people can be.
It was going to happen sooner rather than later, but still its terrible and a massive shock.
Lets hope we catch those responsible and get them to justice.
The UK will never be beaten by terrorists, no one can break the Brtiish heart, try as you may you wont beat us.
The Germans tried and failed, and so will the extremeists, we wont do what some do and invade from anger but do it in a political sensible fashion.
This attack was on ALL races, ALL ages, ALL sexs, ALL and EVERYTHING...no descrimination was in the attack, just to kill and terrorize us brits.....hey you failed, cos we are getting back to normal life again and GOD HELP you when we catch your sorry arses.

GO GET EM RED!!!!!!!!
Glad to see /hear you are ok.

 

[iwant8inches]

Kal,

>It is a terrible tragedy, but once again I think it proves that George Bush and Co. have a distorted view of the world. "We'll fight the terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them at home."-GWB. Unfortunately, this dosen't hold true anymore. You can't fight terrorism with violence, and this event sadly proves it. Look at Madrid last year-191 people dead, at to the fact of London- 50 or more dead. I hate to say it, but I believe America's next.<

Please do not open up this stupid shit can of worms. How do you know what the results would have been of doing nothing? There may have been thousands of more terrorist acts in the last three years. You are so full of shit. Terrorist acts have been occuring consistantly since the late 70's. Since taking an offensive stance, terrorist acts, outside of the middle east, have gone down.

But there WILL be many more terrorist acts whatever we do. I believe more if we do not take action.

You still do not understand the nature of the enemy, what their plans are, how they intend to destroy the west. Until you do, you have no idea of how to even approach the problem.

At least do not throw our weak bullshit, attacking Bush with crap that does not apply to the facts.

Bigger

Why would doing nothing be an option in the first place? Who has ever suggested that? The Iraq invasion/occupation has done nothing positive when it comes to deterring and preventing terrorist acts. It's added fuel to the fire if anything and done plenty to take away effort and man power in the country of Afghanistan for one. On the subject, It was a horrible thing done and justice hopefully will prevail.

 

[penguinsfan]

England's hunting Bin Laden? That's news to me. W sent 10,000 troops into Afganistan, that's a joke, there's more of a police force in some major cities. And when Bin Laden was corned in the Tora Bora mountains, W diverted US troops to Iraq, and "passed the buck" of finding UBL up to afgan rebels, who in the previous week, we were fighting against. So you see, its a kindergarden operation.

England and all the NATO allies have sent troops to hunt bin Laden, as well as other countries such as Canada. Remember the Canadians that were mistakenly killed by US forces? Well, they were there in the effort to hunt bin Laden.

I do agree that not enough military might has been directed towards the effort in Afghanistan. I don't know how much more troops would help in the effort. There are issues of terrain that make airpower a little more relevant than manpower, when compared to Iraq. Nevertheless, I will agree that more needs done in that campaign. I'll even concede that relying on locals to carry the bulk of hunting bin Laden down in Tora Bora may have been a blunder, but it's not the colossal blunder that some make it out to be. Some of those locals were familiar with the underground tunnel systems in that area, whereas the US troops had no familiarity with them at all. It's obviously a tough call to make and perhaps the wrong one was made. Others would have likely made blunders too. I remember when John Kerry was talking about how Bush "outsourced" that job. It made for a nice talking point in a debate, but Kerry didn't have the right ideas either. He has repeated opposed developing bunker busting nukes and one could have come in handy in that very Tora Bora situation, for what it's worth. At any rate, while mistakes have undoubtedly been made, nothing you said made any more sense of your comment that the US took forever to respond.

It is fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were of Saudi dissent. Since that's the case, then why did we invade Iraq? None of the hijackers were Iraqi or were affiliated with Saddam's regime.

The short answer is that it has nothing to do with where these individuals were born, though I don't trust the Saudi government at all. Assuming Hussein al-Husseini had nothing to do with the bombing in Oklahoma City and Timothy McVeigh acted alone, should we have bombed Buffalo, NY since it was McVeigh's hometown? We went into Afghanistan because that was were al-Qaeda was operating out of and their standing government refused to bring them to justice. That brings me to point out that again your original post was about the US response to 9/11 and bringing up Iraq is an entirely separate argument.

 

[Kal-el]

I thought I should point this out, mostly due to the recent terror attacks in London. Terrorism has been around awile, with its use as early as the Classical Age against the Romans. The term "terrorism" was coined during the reign of the Jacobins in revolutionary France, and has the imagery of intimidation, brutality, and fear. America's experience with this is relatively recent, however, becoming the regular target of terrorists in the Cold War era. Today, we deal with these terrorists, who use identical tactics as terrorists in the past. Why are we the target of these terrorists? The answer is simple: we are a hinderance to their goals and a disturbance in the region, simply put we are seen as the enemy.

First of all, let's look at the region and what the people want. We enjoy the liberal democracies/republics of the west, and assume its what others want too. I don't think so. Unlike in the west, there is no separation of church and state in the middle east. Many "extremeists" are intertwined with government and how it should be run. Saudi municipal elections showed a decisive win for "fundamentalists". This dosen't mean that the region will sucumb into tyranny, even though that is what some people want. Most would rather opt for a government that is fair and Islamic in nature. This is being different and we must accept this.

This is where the west, and America specifically, enter the picture. There are alot of reasons for our involvement in the region, ranging from Cold War politics to economic interests. In the process, we left behind our mark that is more visible today by the terrorists we are fighting. We overthrew an ELECTED Prime Minister of Iran to be replaced by the brutal Shah, in responce to Iran's nationalization of British and American oil interests and to "counter" Soviet influence. Both the Shah's brutal measures and introduction of pro-western reforms alienated the population to the point of revolution in 1979, where a fundalmentalist Iranian government took power. That government is not what the people want, but they enjoy the popularity of the anti-US sentiment from the days of the Shah, and more recently for its defiant stand against the US. We have supported numerous regimes that we know to be corrupt, yet to so anyway for our own interest. American involvement in this arena has alienated and radicalized the population.

Some may counter by saying it is time to correct the mistakes of the past and change the dynamic of the region. This is the exact same attitude that was held during the imperialist era and is nonsense. The US agenda introduced into the region as what is seen by many Arabs as further violations of soverignty; an arrogant power continuing in the legacy as the Cold War. One thing that we should have learned from history is that change comes from within a nation and the thoughts of its people. Iran is a perfect example. The people are again asking for change as the hatred for the US inspired by the Shah's regime gradually lessens and the ruling elite losing its power hold. Such thinking cannot be forced on the people. Another example is Qatar, a shining example of prosperity in a land of misery. The people have accepted some wetern ideals over time, though Islam plays an important role in the lives of the people. So, my point is to change the dynamic is unrealistic. This can't and won't be accomplished with force.

Now that we have looked at why we are so attractive to terrorists, what can be done? The first thing would be to stop the status quo. The invasion of Iraq confirms the suspicions of many that we are there to satisfy our selfish motives at the cost of the people and imposing our will on them. Let the region follow its own "dynamic." The wishes of the people are crystal clear. It probably dosen't sound appealing to us, but we don't live there. Let the people have the type of government they want, and let them work for it. They are not incapable of overthrowing dictatorships (alot we supported), and us getting involved adds to the problem.

As unappealing as it may be to accept that we are responsible for this problem, it is the fact. It is more acceptable to claim that they hate us for our "freedom" or way of life. Nothing is further from the truth. They do have a different way of life and a different religion, but that isn't what drives their hate. Our unneccasary and unwanted intrusion into their lives over the past few decades is enough. Let's stop this behavior before we uneccassarily suffer and lose even more lives for our behavior.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by penguinsfan
England and all the NATO allies have sent troops to hunt bin Laden, as well as other countries such as Canada. Remember the Canadians that were mistakenly killed by US forces? Well, they were there in the effort to hunt bin Laden.

I am aware of this, I was using sarcasm before.

I am not going to debate the reasons why we went into Afganistan. The US response to 9/11 was waging a war with Afganistan. Ok, I don't support it, but its justifiable. Anyway, Bush gave UBL like a 3 month head start before he did anything after 9/11.
But, if W never went to war, would more Americans be alive today? Bush's war brings the casaulity of American lives since 9/11 to around 4,800 people. What difference would it had made if terrorists killed Americans or W's foreign policy killed them? I guess with Americans being killed due to W's foreign policies, they are WILLING to die as opposed to a terrorist coming over and ending the lives of the UNWILLING. But its speculative, but worth the effort to look at the increasing death toll of military- and wonder if this war on Iraq made any difference in body count. Ultimately, the purpose of this war is to lessen death. This isn't a war about economics or 2 political ideas, but an engagement of people that are spoonfed that they are doing the right thing in killing.

The enemy is winning because they are killing about as many people as they would have if we didn't invade. Al- Quadea and George Bush seem to be competing- whose policies will kill more Americans.

 

[REDZULU2003]

I aint going to get too involved with this thread 'cos I would be here forever with lots to say and probably offend some members.
So I will say this, Terrorism can be defeated, it can also be defeated without attacking other nations or people, and done in a calm manner.
Example being the IRA in Ireland and their attacks on England in the UK.
Also they attacked parts of Ireland, but I'm now dealing with England.
For years we had this, being attacked by the IRA and my city was blown to hell by them some years ago 'Manchester' and London has been attacked many times.
Tons have been killed, they target anyone, anywhere and at anytime.
We the Brits, didnt jump over to Ireland and start attacking IRA targets like say we and someother nations have done in Iraq, but had peacekeepers in place to observe and maintain order on the areas affected in Ireland.
Our soldiers were NOT allowed to shoot anyone, unless told so by a HIGH ranking officer...unlike in Iraq where if someone runs at you they can be dropped, I agree with that as its a threat but the UK soldiers weren't allowed and some went against this and got Court marsheled and sent down for it...we were peacekeepers.
It took YEARS and YEARS and YEARS and YEARS, but finally we the British have found peace with the IRA, they have stopped 'touch wood' attacking our soild and also their own, with just minor hiccups here and their from time to time.
Mainly from plastic groups such as the fake IRA, but these are amateurs.
The IRA dis-armed most of its weapons and even showed a insight into its training camps and videos where the English are HATED.
Anyways, we beat it....took many fuckin years but we now dont get attacked by the IRA, we still have peacekeepers in Ireland to this day and we still will be hated for reasons mainly religious and with us also owning the North, the peace is kept.
It took COUNTLESS times of talking with the leaders of shien fein and other Irish groups but it has been done and the IRA stopped its war on us.
I feel that the world should take note of Britains efforts with dealing with this terrorism and start doing the same.
I'm sad that we went against the grain and attacked Iraq, but its started now so......
I feel that we could prevent alot of other attacks if the British gouvernment talked to the terrorists, and/or the nations involved with it.
No this isnt giving in to the terrorists, but solving it and doing it in a modern way and not blowing every fucker up and just makeing things worse.

 

[REDZULU2003]

I have to jump in here and edit members from saying ENGLAND....its the UNITED KINDGOM or BRITAIN and thats England, Wales, Scotland and also Northern Ireland...it isnt just ENGLAND.
Sorry for the capitals, I aint pissed just need to make it sink in that it isnt just England, but a whole Kingdom...my kindom of many nations.#
Plus I might as well add, the UK should look back to how its handled the IRA and solved that without all the attacks done to Iraq and co.
We can solve some of this by doing what we did with the IRA.
See the thread 'reasoning behind terrorism'.

 

[iwant8inches]

Best start to a thread in a long while.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by Me
America's experience with this is relatively recent, however, becoming the regular target of terrorists in the Cold War era.

I forgot that in the American Revolution, we used asymetic warfare, ambushes, sniping and raids- which during the 18th century would have constituted terrorism in the minds of the strict military tacticians of then. So we practiced it here much earlier than that.

 

[loco]

Red I would like to see the peaceful side of things but also to string it out for yrs and yrs seems crazy. and to many lost lives over a long period of time. maybe it's just me but they came knocking here (terrorist) not iraq in this case. and so personally speaking I have no problem for the sake of civilians and things taking it to thier backyard and trying to find them and attempt to put a stop to it. now there is also a point to where you say ok enough is enough they are hiding to well for us, go home but be aware trouble may come knocking again. now may be a good time for that, but of course I don't know any more than they allow the media to feed us which is usually slighted and bias anyway.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by REDZULU2003
So I will say this, Terrorism can be defeated, it can also be defeated without attacking other nations or people, and done in a calm manner.
Example being the IRA in Ireland and their attacks on England in the UK.

Exactly, I can't stress this enough. Wonderful example in Northern Ireland.

 

[penguinsfan]

The US response to 9/11 was waging a war with Afganistan. Ok, I don't support it, but its justifiable.

Well, that's better than hearing you call it unjustified, but I'm curious as to what an appropriate response would have been that you would have supported.

Anyway, Bush gave UBL like a 3 month head start before he did anything after 9/11.

9/11/01: al-Qaeda attacks the WTC and the Pentagon.
9/20/01: Bush issues his demands of the Taliban before a joint session of Congress.
10/7/01: U.S. forces launch strikes in Afghanistan.

You've got to get up so early to fool me that you'll be too damn tired to do it when you time comes, but if you keep the exaggerations within reason you can fool most people.

It seems like a reasonable timeline to me, given how serious and unprecedented the matter was.

But, if W never went to war, would more Americans be alive today? Bush's war brings the casaulity of American lives since 9/11 to around 4,800 people.

First, you're getting away from a legitimate argument because you're linking deaths from 9/11 in with military casualties in Iraq, which was not a direct response to 9/11. So the number 4,800 is irrelevant, because no course of action could have changed the roughly 3,000 that died on 9/11. At last count I saw, there were over 1,600 deaths from the Iraq campaign. So it's by no mean a valid illustration to address what if W had never gone to war.

Second, more Americans might not be alive today, but probably down the road. While there have been costs, the military efforts have resulted in the deaths or arrest of a number of signifcant Islamofascists, whose goal is nothing more or less than to kill as many westerners as possible.

What difference would it had made if terrorists killed Americans or W's foreign policy killed them? I guess with Americans being killed due to W's foreign policies, they are WILLING to die as opposed to a terrorist coming over and ending the lives of the UNWILLING. But its speculative, but worth the effort to look at the increasing death toll of military- and wonder if this war on Iraq made any difference in body count. Ultimately, the purpose of this war is to lessen death. This isn't a war about economics or 2 political ideas, but an engagement of people that are spoonfed that they are doing the right thing in killing.

The enemy is winning because they are killing about as many people as they would have if we didn't invade. Al- Quadea and George Bush seem to be competing- whose policies will kill more Americans.

That is one of the more disturbing things I have ever read. If I were to kill you (illustration, not a threat) why should I be punished? After all, we can safely assume that you are indeed going to die someday. If I was responsible for you death by way of a motor vehicle accident should the penalty be the same as if I had shot you in cold blood?

You have a way of throwing these numbers around in your posts without ever addressing the moral element of those deaths. Though tragic, it is not the same when one is killed unintentionally, as compared to an act of violence. Just yesterday a car bomber killed an American troop and I believe 27 children by driving up with a car bomb. For one thing, most leftist sources count insurgent deaths as "civilian deaths" because they're not part of a standing army (but somehow they're supposedly entitled to Geneva Convention protection). It totally skews any reflection on how our troops are conducting themselves. Show me one example of an American troop blowing himself up in such an operation.

All deaths are not morally equal. I can accept that people die by accidents and natural causes, but murderous violence requires that someone is brought to justice.

 

[penguinsfan]

Plus I might as well add, the UK should look back to how its handled the IRA and solved that without all the attacks done to Iraq and co. We can solve some of this by doing what we did with the IRA.
See the thread 'reasoning behind terrorism'.

RED, I honestly think you're wrong about this. I freely admit that I am not an expert on the IRA problems within the UK, but I do believe it was a power struggle issue more than anything. I don't believe the IRA ever had a belief instilled in them that would equal Whahabism, the sick mental illness that says EVERYONE that does not believe like you must convert or be killed.

If someone says "do X,Y, and Z or I will kill you" and you are simply not going to do X,Y, and Z, then you can certainly try to negotiate. But if it becomes apparent that this person is not going to change his mind, sooner or later it dawns on you that your options are pretty limited other than dying or killing, and I'll personally choose killing over dying 10 out of 10 times. The UK will not do what really should be done, but what they need to do (IMHO) is to go into the community that is fast becoming Londonistan and find the radicals that were rallying in the streets a few weeks ago, calling for the deaths of Tony Blair and George Bush, while promising jihad and KILL THEM! With London's surveillance cameras, it's not as if they couldn't identify who the radical element is.

 

[finalsight]

I'd just like to add some wise sayings:

"Just because one way is easier doesn't make it the best"

"Violence only breeds more violence"

"the enduring hand gathers allies, the violent hand pushes them away"

"We are not afraid"

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by penguinsfan
Well, that's better than hearing you call it unjustified, but I'm curious as to what an appropriate response would have been that you would have supported.

Well, I don't fully support violence, but if I had to pick I'd say that fighting terrorism is a police matter, not a military one. A war is waged by an army fighting against another one.

That is one of the more disturbing things I have ever read. If I were to kill you (illustration, not a threat) why should I be punished? After all, we can safely assume that you are indeed going to die someday. If I was responsible for you death by way of a motor vehicle accident should the penalty be the same as if I had shot you in cold blood?

If you were responsible for my death by the means of a shotgun blast, that's a little different then let's say a motor vehicle accident, and should be treated as such. One is pre-meditated and the other is'nt. They are Totally different. Even though the end result is the same.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by penguinsfan
You've got to get up so early to fool me that you'll be too damn tired to do it when you time comes, but if you keep the exaggerations within reason you can fool most people.

For the record I'm not trying to fool anyone, and what exactly are you talking about about getting up early?

Originally posted by penguinsfan
All deaths are not morally equal. I can accept that people die by accidents and natural causes, but murderous violence requires that someone is brought to justice.

I agree

Originally posted by penguinsfan
It seems like a reasonable timeline to me, given how serious and unprecedented the matter was.

I don't support violence at all, but asking W to be non-violent is asking to much, I know this. I know I sound like a pacifist- I basically am. If Bush acted swiftly and silently the al-Quaeda training camps in Afganistan would have been nothing but dust, and within just a few days after the attacks. If he would'nt have given a warning- nothing- just kept his mouth shut and would have mounted an attack without telegraphing his intentions. It might sound cruel, hell, even radical, but such an attack would have been effective in that they had'nt yet begun hiding or developing their defensive posture. I believe we could have decimated al-Quaeda if we would have simply attacked- with no warning at all, and I mean a decisive all-out attack on anything that resembled al-Quaeda or the Taliban.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by REDZULU2003
For years we had this, being attacked by the IRA and my city was blown to hell by them some years ago 'Manchester' and London has been attacked many times.
Tons have been killed, they target anyone, anywhere and at anytime.
We the Brits, didnt jump over to Ireland and start attacking IRA targets like say we and someother nations have done in Iraq, but had peacekeepers in place to observe and maintain order on the areas affected in Ireland.

Excellent point Red, however the attitude of the British government to the IRA is in my opinion a model which contrasts very positively with the insane US term "war on terror." It is true that if the British had conceded a state of war, they would have conceded POW status, unlike the tawdry US administration. But by the insistance that terrorists routinely targeted civilians, including women and children, were nothing more than criminals, the British made clear a statement belittling the postures of these so called "freedom fighters." People who kill like the IRA killed, belong in the same prison as the Yorkshire Ripper, and not enshrined in song as martyrs to some noble cause. In doing this (with some exceptions re: the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland which found scores of IRA members not guilty for lack of proof), we maintained the old principles of liberty and due process in a way which the Americans seemed to abandoned. Of course the abuses of governmental power by the armed forces and the security services are a matter of record in Northern Ireland, but on my point- the IRA are nothing but a bunch of murderers.

Now that I'm on the subject, In a modern inclusive Europe where progressives are looking for devolved government in a co-operating Europe (something which Ireland has and will gain from massively), these "soldiers" are now relics of an ugly past. True, Britain has a responsibility for creating the situation, but the Toiseach has no such debt and is right to tell thses thugs to sort themselves out if they want to be taken seriously in the future.

 

[penguinsfan]

Well, I don't fully support violence, but if I had to pick I'd say that fighting terrorism is a police matter, not a military one. A war is waged by an army fighting against another one.

That would be the ideal response, but in reality it is more of a domestic one. If you don't have legal jurisdiction in a given territory, it is tough to do that kind of action. Also, when a state sponsors terrorism or knowingly provides safe haven for terrorists and shows no cooperation in bringing such individuals to justice, then military action to remove that ruling authority or bring them to suBathmateit to given terms is completely justified.

If you were responsible for my death by the means of a shotgun blast, that's a little different then let's say a motor vehicle accident, and should be treated as such. One is pre-meditated and the other is'nt. They are Totally different. Even though the end result is the same.

I agree completely. But my point is this is why mourn the deaths of those that have died on the 9/11 attacks and in the pursuit of justice following the attacks, but I have absolutely no sympathy for the terrorists or Taliban forces. The only tragedy is that the entirety of them is not yet dead. There is no moral equivalence here because the deceased office workers and even US soldiers would have never under any circumstances planned a massive attack with the intention of killing unsuspecting civilians, whereas the terrorist element would do it all again in a nanosecond.

By the same token, you cannot equate those civilians that have died during our military campaign to our civilians killed on 9/11. Civilian deaths at the hands of our military action are absolutely tragic, but they are not intentional and are victims of accidental death, whereas ours were victims of pre-meditated murder. It is not a moral equivalent. That is not meant to belittle their significance, but simply to show our cause is justified in spite of some inevitable accidental casualties.

 

[penguinsfan]

For the record I'm not trying to fool anyone, and what exactly are you talking about about getting up early?

I was just feeling a little smartassed and saying I watch for exaggerations and inaccuracies when debating something and I'll call them out. It's nothing personal. I've enjoyed kicking the issue around with you, despite our disagreements.

I don't support violence at all, but asking W to be non-violent is asking to much, I know this. I know I sound like a pacifist- I basically am. If Bush acted swiftly and silently the al-Quaeda training camps in Afganistan would have been nothing but dust, and within just a few days after the attacks. If he would'nt have given a warning- nothing- just kept his mouth shut and would have mounted an attack without telegraphing his intentions. It might sound cruel, hell, even radical, but such an attack would have been effective in that they had'nt yet begun hiding or developing their defensive posture. I believe we could have decimated al-Quaeda if we would have simply attacked- with no warning at all, and I mean a decisive all-out attack on anything that resembled al-Quaeda or the Taliban.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but that is certainly an interesting observation. To what degree it might have worked, who's to know? I kinda suspect that bin Laden and his top ranking crew were holed up almost immediately as a precaution, but it probably would have set their forces back somewhat. The problem is the media would have bitched about being kept in the dark as they tend to think they need ten journalists for every soldier to give us the constant updates. The bigger problem is some in the international community would have cried out the some diplomatic effort should have been attempted first, such as the list of demands before the joint session of Congress. Still an interesting thought, seeing as how you cannot please everyone anyway.

 

[wreck]

This thread needs to get back on topic out of respect for the UK and its tragic loss. Both kal-el and penguin have very valid points but there are other threads about Bush and the war and thats where their discussion should get moved to.

Tnx

 

[copper_handshak]

Iraq is a war of liberation. America is thanked by those who value peace and freedom. You others...must be mentally ill. I pity you.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by copper handshak
Iraq is a war of liberation. America is thanked by those who value peace and freedom. You others...must be mentally ill. I pity you.

Please.. That's exactly what the powers that be want the population to believe. They tell you that you must fight for your country. Negative. No country deserves that. They also say "what if enemies invade our country, should'nt we defend ourselves?" An answer to that would be non-violence is more effiecnt than violence.

These same people tell you that you must fight for your liberty, but they seemed to forget that the Gauls lost their war against the Romans and that the French are no worse off for being descendents of the conquered, having benefited from the civilazation of the conquerers. These are just narrow-minded, agressive people.

 

[wreck]

My heart felt condolences go out to all in the UK

Egyptian chemist Magdy MaHydromaxoud Mustafa el-Nashar's town house, where British news media reported that police found evidence of the explosive TATP inside a bathtub.

"but he says he wasn't involved??"

Egypt's Interior Ministry announced Friday that Egyptian authorities were interrogating el-Nashar

"Anyone ever here of how the Egyptians interrogate? I here their not to nice"

"From the families of the bombers"

Hussain's family said it was unaware of his activities and "would have done everything in our power to stop him" had it known.

Khan's family expressed "deepest and heartfelt sympathies" for the victims and insisted Khan must have been "brainwashed" to have been involved. The family called on people to "expose the terror networks which target and groom our sons to carry out such evils."

"I hope they are sincere and maybe something good can come from this with the Arab population starting to speak out"

 

[REDZULU2003]

Which other nations have sorted terrorism out like the UK did with the IRA? not many, and the US answer to everything is attack attack attack, which is why they are hated in the middle-east as they usually are the scape goats for whatever attacks planned.
Is it Syria or Iran who's next? I pray that the UK gouvernment says NOPenis Enlargement to anything like Iraq ever again and uses what it achived with the IRA as a white dove in all this bullshit i.e the war on terrorism isnt the correct term that should be used, it sends the wrong message out to the Muslim world and they themselves are getting tired of being tarded with the same brush, so hence more bastards are born.

 

[REDZULU2003]

I'd just like to add some wise sayings:

"Just because one way is easier doesn't make it the best"

"Violence only breeds more violence"

"the enduring hand gathers allies, the violent hand pushes them away"

"We are not afraid"

I would agree

 

[Duppi_KronKite]

What's up with this crap anyways?

As those bombings were taking place in London, the government was running drills of that exact same thing happening, in the same locations and at the exact same time. They then claim they had to switch from drill to reality once it actually was being carried out. Seems a bit strange to me that such things could happen as coincidence.

Funny how the exact same drills happened on 9/11 as well.

Friggin dumb government should pick a better time to have their drills instead of always having them at the same time the real things are taking place.

Enough with my rant... I need some pussy as it's been a long day.

 

[Bib]

Guys,

Well, I see nobody cared enough to research the reasons for Islamic terrorism, and the Wahhabi sect in particular. Without this knowledge, you really cannot make any viable conclusions about how to handle terrorism.

If anyone thinks the west leaving the middle east will solve the problem, they are misinformed.

If anyone thinks Palestine has anything to do with terrorism (except in Israel), they are misinformed.

If anyone thinks military action in Afghanistan or Iraq is causing more terrorism, they are sadly misinformed.

The radical Isalamist are waging war against the west in order to destroy the west, our economy, our religions, our traditions, the way in which we live. They see western culture as a direct insult to their ideas of Islam. That is the reason people are dying. Period. Please figure this out.

Your options are:

1) Convert to the Wahhabi form of Islam, and practice it religiously. The Taliban is a good template.

2) Die.

3) Fight and kill with everything you have in order to try and retain your chosen way of life.

Pulling out of the middle east would not work to stop terrorism, because most Muslims in the area are not radicals, and want to delve into western culture. The terrorists are attacking us, because we are the source of western culture, that the terrorists feel are destroying Muslim culture. Either get it, or die.

There will be more terrorist attacks, whether you fight or not. Until you convert to Wahhabism.

Bigger

Bigger

 

[penguinsfan]

What's up with this crap anyways?

As those bombings were taking place in London, the government was running drills of that exact same thing happening, in the same locations and at the exact same time. They then claim they had to switch from drill to reality once it actually was being carried out. Seems a bit strange to me that such things could happen as coincidence.

Funny how the exact same drills happened on 9/11 as well.

Friggin dumb government should pick a better time to have their drills instead of always having them at the same time the real things are taking place.

Enough with my rant... I need some pussy as it's been a long day.

Excellent point. Could be more than meets the eye on this, especially after Oklahoma and 9/11.

 

[iwant8inches]

Guys,

Well, I see nobody cared enough to research the reasons for Islamic terrorism, and the Wahhabi sect in particular. Without this knowledge, you really cannot make any viable conclusions about how to handle terrorism.

If anyone thinks the west leaving the middle east will solve the problem, they are misinformed.

If anyone thinks Palestine has anything to do with terrorism (except in Israel), they are misinformed.

If anyone thinks military action in Afghanistan or Iraq is causing more terrorism, they are sadly misinformed.

The radical Isalamist are waging war against the west in order to destroy the west, our economy, our religions, our traditions, the way in which we live. They see western culture as a direct insult to their ideas of Islam. That is the reason people are dying. Period. Please figure this out.

Your options are:

1) Convert to the Wahhabi form of Islam, and practice it religiously. The Taliban is a good template.

2) Die.

3) Fight and kill with everything you have in order to try and retain your chosen way of life.

Pulling out of the middle east would not work to stop terrorism, because most Muslims in the area are not radicals, and want to delve into western culture. The terrorists are attacking us, because we are the source of western culture, that the terrorists feel are destroying Muslim culture. Either get it, or die.

There will be more terrorist attacks, whether you fight or not. Until you convert to Wahhabism.

Bigger

Bigger

Fighting and killing is an option and is one that is being pursued, however the more important and practical question to ask is how do these people respond to this tactic? In what ways are they hurt by this overall when it matters little to them whether they die or not? In other words is fighting on a very large scale in one country to "contain" the terrorism there so as not to fight them here working and will it complete the objective? In the first place that would seem horribly inhumane. The answer is clearly at least to me, no. Other means need to be looked into and it obviously should start with some form of diplomatic means and or something a bit more covert. Of course it's not my job to come up with solutions to such complicated and serious matters. The overt tactics seem to be fueling their reason to end westerners and non believers lives.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by iwant8inches
Fighting and killing is an option and is one that is being pursued, however the more important and practical question to ask is how do these people respond to this tactic? In what ways are they hurt by this overall when it matters little to them whether they die or not? In other words is fighting on a very large scale in one country to "contain" the terrorism there so as not to fight them here working and will it complete the objective? In the first place that would seem horribly inhumane.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Bib
There will be more terrorist attacks, whether you fight or not. Until you convert to Wahhabism.

This thread shows that we need to grow a bit more in relation to terrorism. Most people seem to be saying that for them terror is synonomous with MUSLIM terrorists. That is far from the truth.

This (Muslim inspired terrorism) may be the most immediate threat for Americans but it is not the final definition of terrorism. For most Americans today terrorism is a new idea, yet it is as old as civilization itself. Terrorism is Not Wahabbism, ETA, or the IRA, it is a tactic used by these "outfits" to further their ends. Some of the above comments seem to imply that this is an "Arab" thing. Negative. The ETA, and IRA are still with us and we never know when they will flare up. Within the last year ETA has made more than 10 attacks and IRA agents have been detained for illicit arms trade. This in mind, we cannot win a "war against terrorism" because we simply can't win a fight against a tactic. It is like saying we are fighting a war against "guerilla warfare." Not possible. In the 3 cases I have mentioned we are not fighting terrorism a bit.

Here are some objectives that is totally different, but at the same time uses terrorism to advance its cause:

1) The spread of fanatic Wahhabism

2) The idea of securing a Catholic majority in all of Ireland

3) The independence of Basque peoples within the boundaries of Spain and France.

We need to be aware of these differences. If I were to arrive from another planet and knew nothing of conditions here just from the above posts I would think that terrorism is simply another word for "Muslim."

 

[Kal-el]

originally posted by copper handshak
Iraq is a war of liberation. America is thanked by those who value peace and freedom. You others...must be mentally ill. I pity you.

For those of you for this illegal and immoral war, I offer this to contemplate. I agree that terrorism is horrible, but at the same time when people say that it is caused by a hatred of democracy, that is an oversimplification of the reason why Muslim fundamentallists hate the US and UK (and most Western countries).

If you look at the insurgents of the past and now, it is crystal clear. The IRA in the UK are fighting against the British because they perceive them to be an occupying force on Irish lands. The Basque separatists consider the Spanish government to be an occupying force on Basque land. The Native Americans were known to fight the union armies when conditions got bitter enough, including the famous Custer's last stand, in this, they were fighting an "insurgency" against an occupying force.

In Vietnam, the Vietcong were fighting against us due to the fact that we had hundreds of thousands of troops occupying their land. If the occupation had lasted long enough, I bet the Kuwaiti's would have fought an insurgency against Iraq in 1991. The current illegal occupation of Iraq has produced thousands of insurgents as well as terrorists.

When you look back at history, you see that terrorism is the weapon of the weak against occupying forces, which can only fight back by means the US likes to call "terrorism". While it is unpopular for anyone to imply that 9/11 was in any way provoked, Bin Laden did not decide to kill 3,000 US citizens because he misunderstands our culture and dosen't accept our differences. If you look at the fatwa he issued, the reasons he cited are clear: the troops we had in Saudi Arabia were perceived by him to be an occupying force; and our support for the occupation of Palestine by Israel. Not to mention all the other forms of intervention we have blindly pursued in the Middle East, including but not limited to the Persian Gulf War, the billions we give to Egypt and Jordan for keeping peaceful ties with Israel, and the list goes on.

I am the first to admit that cultural differences do exist, but they are Not the primary reason why Muslims and Middle Eastern people hate us. They did'nt look at the 1st Amendment and decide they hate our freedom; they didn't see Paris Hilton's sex tape and decide to kill thousands of Americans. its not that simple.

If we are to believe that terrorism is caused by our Western culture, then we must answer the following: Why hasn't Switzerland been hit? Or Sweden? How about Norway? Canada? These are all countries that never engaged in occupation intervention in a foreign countries' interests.

To push this point home, consider this: When was the last time a Muslim country told the US what to do? It has always been the US intervening in Middle Eastern politics. They give us trouble? We're in their back yard. If we're on their property, its kinda ignorant to expect them to lay down and do what we say. If North Korea decided to invade the US, they'd have trouble, so why do we expect everyone else to lie down and take it?

The bombing in London was horrific and despicable...But it was not unprovoked. When we stick our noses and 160,000 coalition soliders in their countries, it is foolish to think that we won't end up without a black eye.

And before anyone decides to invoke the arguement that I am "defending the terrorists" I am not. If we are to win the "war on terror", we have to uderstand our enemy. It is true of any war. If we don't discover our enemies' motives, we will never cut off their flow of eager recruits. How do we do that? End our flawed policy of occupation and intervention. (at least where it is unnecessary, like the invasion of Iraq)

 

[Kal-el]

originally posted by copper handshak
Iraq is a war of liberation. America is thanked by those who value peace and freedom. You others...must be mentally ill. I pity you.

For those of you for this illegal and immoral war, I offer this to contemplate. I agree that terrorism is horrible, but at the same time when people say that it is caused by a hatred of democracy, that is an oversimplification of the reason why Muslim fundamentallists hate the US and UK (and most Western countries).

If you look at the insurgents of the past and now, it is crystal clear. The IRA in the UK are fighting against the British because they perceive them to be an occupying force on Irish lands. The Basque separatists consider the Spanish government to be an occupying force on Basque land. The Native Americans were known to fight the union armies when conditions got bitter enough, including the famous Custer's last stand, in this, they were fighting an "insurgency" against an occupying force.

In Vietnam, the Vietcong were fighting against us due to the fact that we had hundreds of thousands of troops occupying their land. If the occupation had lasted long enough, I bet the Kuwaiti's would have fought an insurgency against Iraq in 1991. The current illegal occupation of Iraq has produced thousands of insurgents as well as terrorists.

When you look back at history, you see that terrorism is the weapon of the weak against occupying forces, which can only fight back by means the US likes to call "terrorism". While it is unpopular for anyone to imply that 9/11 was in any way provoked, Bin Laden did not decide to kill 3,000 US citizens because he misunderstands our culture and dosen't accept our differences. If you look at the fatwa he issued, the reasons he cited are clear: the troops we had in Saudi Arabia were perceived by him to be an occupying force; and our support for the occupation of Palestine by Israel. Not to mention all the other forms of intervention we have blindly pursued in the Middle East, including but not limited to the Persian Gulf War, the billions we give to Egypt and Jordan for keeping peaceful ties with Israel, and the list goes on.

I am the first to admit that cultural differences do exist, but they are Not the primary reason why Muslims and Middle Eastern people hate us. They did'nt look at the 1st Amendment and decide they hate our freedom; they didn't see Paris Hilton's sex tape and decide to kill thousands of Americans. its not that simple.

If we are to believe that terrorism is caused by our Western culture, then we must answer the following: Why hasn't Switzerland been hit? Or Sweden? How about Norway? Canada? These are all countries that never engaged in occupation intervention in a foreign countries' interests.

To push this point home, consider this: When was the last time a Muslim country told the US what to do? It has always been the US intervening in Middle Eastern politics. They give us trouble? We're in their back yard. If we're on their property, its kinda ignorant to expect them to lay down and do what we say. If North Korea decided to invade the US, they'd have trouble, so why do we expect everyone else to lie down and take it?

The bombing in London was horrific and despicable...But it was not unprovoked. When we stick our noses and 160,000 coalition soliders in their countries, it is foolish to think that we won't end up without a black eye.

And before anyone decides to invoke the arguement that I am "defending the terrorists" I am not. If we are to win the "war on terror", we have to uderstand our enemy. It is true of any war. If we don't discover our enemies' motives, we will never cut off their flow of eager recruits. How do we do that? End our flawed policy of occupation and intervention. (at least where it is unnecessary, like the invasion of Iraq)

 

[Kal-el]

originally posted by copper handshak
Iraq is a war of liberation. America is thanked by those who value peace and freedom. You others...must be mentally ill. I pity you.

For those of you for this illegal and immoral war, I offer this to contemplate. I agree that terrorism is horrible, but at the same time when people say that it is caused by a hatred of democracy, that is an oversimplification of the reason why Muslim fundamentallists hate the US and UK (and most Western countries).

If you look at the insurgents of the past and now, it is crystal clear. The IRA in the UK are fighting against the British because they perceive them to be an occupying force on Irish lands. The Basque separatists consider the Spanish government to be an occupying force on Basque land. The Native Americans were known to fight the union armies when conditions got bitter enough, including the famous Custer's last stand, in this, they were fighting an "insurgency" against an occupying force.

In Vietnam, the Vietcong were fighting against us due to the fact that we had hundreds of thousands of troops occupying their land. If the occupation had lasted long enough, I bet the Kuwaiti's would have fought an insurgency against Iraq in 1991. The current illegal occupation of Iraq has produced thousands of insurgents as well as terrorists.

When you look back at history, you see that terrorism is the weapon of the weak against occupying forces, which can only fight back by means the US likes to call "terrorism". While it is unpopular for anyone to imply that 9/11 was in any way provoked, Bin Laden did not decide to kill 3,000 US citizens because he misunderstands our culture and dosen't accept our differences. If you look at the fatwa he issued, the reasons he cited are clear: the troops we had in Saudi Arabia were perceived by him to be an occupying force; and our support for the occupation of Palestine by Israel. Not to mention all the other forms of intervention we have blindly pursued in the Middle East, including but not limited to the Persian Gulf War, the billions we give to Egypt and Jordan for keeping peaceful ties with Israel, and the list goes on.

I am the first to admit that cultural differences do exist, but they are Not the primary reason why Muslims and Middle Eastern people hate us. They did'nt look at the 1st Amendment and decide they hate our freedom; they didn't see Paris Hilton's sex tape and decide to kill thousands of Americans. its not that simple.

If we are to believe that terrorism is caused by our Western culture, then we must answer the following: Why hasn't Switzerland been hit? Or Sweden? How about Norway? Canada? These are all countries that never engaged in occupation intervention in a foreign countries' interests.

To push this point home, consider this: When was the last time a Muslim country told the US what to do? It has always been the US intervening in Middle Eastern politics. They give us trouble? We're in their back yard. If we're on their property, its kinda ignorant to expect them to lay down and do what we say. If North Korea decided to invade the US, they'd have trouble, so why do we expect everyone else to lie down and take it?

The bombing in London was horrific and despicable...But it was not unprovoked. When we stick our noses and 160,000 coalition soliders in their countries, it is foolish to think that we won't end up without a black eye.

And before anyone decides to invoke the arguement that I am "defending the terrorists" I am not. If we are to win the "war on terror", we have to uderstand our enemy. It is true of any war. If we don't discover our enemies' motives, we will never cut off their flow of eager recruits. How do we do that? End our flawed policy of occupation and intervention. (at least where it is unnecessary, like the invasion of Iraq)