Six Bomb Blasts Around Central London 3468
M3rk1n_Muffl3y writes "There were six explosions around London this morning. Information is still emerging, but looks like there were bombs detonated on a bus near Russel Square and several others on the Underground around the City and King's Cross. It's been difficult to reach people on their mobiles."
More details (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:1, Insightful)
Anti-Callousness (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Mobile network switched off... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be a little bit considerate. Not all
To our British friends (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope someday my children will understand terrorism as a savage relic of the past but I do not hold much hope for that.
Be strong people of England.
Our thoughts & prayers go out to the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
Cellphone system near breakdown (Score:3, Insightful)
My closest friends were 10 minutes late on the train.. and missed the aldgate bomb by 10 minutes as a result
All the stupid people who thought war could make us safer are to blame for this. Thank you, Tony Blair. You stopped the IRA bombing london then started al Qaida doing it. Sheer fucking genius.
Re:Fucking Animals (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fucking Animals (Score:2, Insightful)
Fuck you, man. (Score:5, Insightful)
Clever (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fucking Animals (Score:4, Insightful)
The "War on Terror" is a meaningless phrase used to justify anything that the US feels like doing in another country.
If you were less keen on wiping people out who disagree with you, there might be less people who disagreed with you.
And Londeners have known about terrorism for decades due to the bombing activities of the IRA - partly funded by American donations. Go figure.
Re:Fucking Animals (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fucking Animals (Score:5, Insightful)
This was well planned, and has - so far - had exactly the result the terrorists wanted, London has ground to a standstill with public transport closed for fear of further attacks. London's stock exchange has taken a bit of a tumble, and according to the BBC it has disrupted [bbc.co.uk] the G8 summit.
Not a bad return on the investment in explosives, and I'm sure you could've covered that by betting on the effect on the markets.
Re:Only two dead so far... (Score:4, Insightful)
If a bomb of any real size blows up in an enclosed subway car during a rush hour... I can't see how there could be no deaths next to it. And if the count of 6 blasts in subways is true, that means the body count is definitely going to rise a lot. '2 dead' would mean that four of those blasts didn't kill anyone. With hundreds of wounded already in hospitals... And we know that one bomb was strong enough to blow off the whole roof of a london bus, so it was no firecracker...
People in the UK are used to it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to have gone out of favour after 11th Sept 01. Funny how it's not funny when it starts happening to you, isn't it?
Re:The real bugger is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that it's
- a co-ordinated series of attacks on transport infrastructure
- there were no warnings
- there are reports of a suicide bomber on the bus
it looks fairly obvious that it's an Al-Qaeda-inspired attack based on the Madrid model.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only two dead so far... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sound like a "hippy 'peaceful protest' attack" to you?
Re:The real bugger is... (Score:3, Insightful)
The news casters were saying that it is a war tactic of the old Beduin where people would come out of the dust, attack and disappear into the dust. These "specialist teams" have specialist keywords and work on their own. In other words they develop unique behavior patterns for each attack making them nearly impossible to track.
What bugs me is that the G8 might have actually talked about African aid, farm subsidies, and global warming. At least that was the agenda by Blair. Now, well the terrorists are playing right into the hands of George Bush!
Re:Seven explosions (Score:4, Insightful)
FUCK THE TERRORISTS
I have to say I agree, there's really no better way to put it.
What I personally will never, ever get around is how someone can become so sick that they believe they are doing the Right Thing when participating in terror acts such as this. Things like this always have me wondering if humanity will end up distroying itself sooner rather than later. Yet I hope that world peace can some day be a reality. Without hope there's not much left, is there?
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Terrible. (Score:3, Insightful)
1. This distracts the world from Karl's outing the CIA agent.
If that's the first thing you though, then you're in pretty bad shape. Do you think "the world" gives a rat's ass about Valerie Plame's job at the CIA and which reporter(s) knew about it? It sure as hell isn't the sort of issue that makes it much past the US talking head circles in terms of real import.
Regardless, the first thing I thought was that the local terrorist cell(s) that did this learned a lot from their last attempt in Madrid, and got their timing better. Further, that they've joined philosophical sides with the people who think smashing out the windows at a Starbucks whenever there's a "global" summit in town will somehow make things better for poor people and for bored, anarchist-minded college students without a clue. And whatever people think about this event, where they're really going to feel it is in their wallet. The stock markets across the world just took a huge hit, and that portion of the economy that depends upon a smoothly operating London has ground to a halt. This will cost billions upon billions of dollars, and the people that think that not enough is being done for the poor should understand that a huge amount of resources just evaporated in several clouds of smoke, courtesy of Islamist fundamentalist wack jobs (note that an Al Queda cell is already claiming responsibility for this event).
Re:More details (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Very Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
So far, the mods have done a good job modding down anything over the top and kept the good humored jokes up.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:1, Insightful)
So the fact that someone claims the attack in the name of al-qaeda proves -if anything- that this is not an al-qaeda attack
My personal belief is that the "al-qaeda network" is no more than a figment of western imagination, created to give terrorism a face that really isn't there. The network of the 9-11 bombers has been destroyed, most of Bin Laden's chums have been killed or captured.
Re:Watch the Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Not just about Iraq (Score:2, Insightful)
You say that like there were no terrorist attacks before Iraq! What about Bali (punishment for Aussies helping the UN in East Timor)? What about 9/11 (punishment for not invading Iraq and taking the alternative of long-term sanctions)? What about the attack on the USS Cole (no retaliation for that IIRC, looks like the "violence begets violence" crowd forgot to congratulate the USA on that, and the terrorists forgot to take notice)? The French convicted several terrorists who planned to attack Strasbourg in 2000 -- and they didn't want anything to do with attacking Iraq. They'd even stopped enforcing the no fly zone and called for an end to sanctions on Iraq!
Canada is also on the Al-Qaeda hit list, and they opposed Iraq. Their crime was to help get rid of the Taliban. Elsewhere, Russia, Thailand, Phillipines, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon are just some of the countries facing Islamic terror right now. You'd have to be pretty naive to think all of those countries are being attacked over Iraq.
No doubt the terrorists will mention Iraq when they claim this attack. It is propaganda, and all the people who feel so clever because they don't believe Bush's "they hate our freedom" explanations should also be smart enough not to believe that jihad terror began with Iraq and is related only to that.
Re:Terrible. (Score:1, Insightful)
Bush & Blair are as much to blame for the deaths of poor innocents in their countries as the idiot terrorists.
The only people to blame for these deaths are the people that perpetrated these attacks.
I do not condone Iraq, and protested heavily against it, but this comment is downright STUPID.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
More people, statistically, will die today on US highways than have been reported so far in London.
An order of magnitude more will die of smoking related diseases in the US.
Even more will die of starvation globally. Or natural causes.
People make jokes about things that stress them out. Its how people cope, and people shouldn't be made to feel bad about it. Its human nature. Its the political correctness bullshit that its somehow wrong that keeps people from dealing with this kind of emotional stress. Joking is a BIG part of getting past things like that.
Yes, it may be insensitive, but you can't think of a thing to say that isn't going to offend someone somewhere.
Re:The real bugger is... (Score:5, Insightful)
In WWII, Stalin deliberately had German commanders assassinated if they were too easy on the native population. If a commander committed atrocities, Stalin reckoned that it would only let people rally against the Germans. So he let the atrocious commanders live, just to keep the atmosphere of conflict going. It's the same thing here, and it's been going in the Middle East for years.
Re:Fucking Animals (Score:1, Insightful)
I look at it this way, I have no problem with those who want to disagree with me, and I'm even willing to work with those who dislike me, but I have no proclivity to negotiate or understand anyone who wants to kill me.
And for those who want to say that other countries started the terrorists up, just remember that nobody did anything to provoke fundamental islamics that forced them to blow up buddhist religious artifacts.
Then again, we need to realize this: Anything with the word "fundamental" in it is a nice way of saying "completely nuts".
Fundamental muslim = nut Fundamental christian = nut with a different religion working towards a similar goal
But that's just me
Re:Cellphone system near breakdown (Score:2, Insightful)
Got to find out whether my friends are safe...Got to find out whether my friends are safe
What are you going to do if they aren't rush down there and help out? Why don't you do that anyway.
I could understand if this was your family, but I think it is getting a bit ridiculous. Gets to the point where everybody has to ring everybody then ever new who lives in London, or even went there once for a weekend.
Re:Wow. (Score:2, Insightful)
The same happened with 9/11. There's nothing wrong with it in principle. It's not like these folks are seeking out Brits and laughing in their faces. It's a way of coping with misery in the world.
In other words, lighten the fuck up. Folks reading this are okay, I hope their loved ones are okay, and I offer what sympathy they require, but that doesn't change a thing about how I'd respond to this.
Re:To our British friends (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What will the EU do? (Score:4, Insightful)
Simply 'pressing more' doesn't achieve your goals of safety, it works against it.
The only pressure that would 'kill them at the source' would be a full-scale genocide, killing everybody of a threatening (ethnical, religious, etc) group, their relatives, the relatives of relatives, their friends, relatives of their friends....
But that's not a 'good' action from anybody's viewpoint, and even that will not be enough to stop all potential terrorists.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:1, Insightful)
You cannot bring about peace with war.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, I'm making jokes about it.
Making jokes about something does not mean you don't take it seriously. Neither does it mean you disrespect anybody. It just means that you, for a moment, want to make someone laugh.
Yes, I made jokes about 9/11. I made jokes about when 60 people died in a fire in the house next to mine, and I made jokes about when a colleague I really liked killed himself in car crash (yes, it was most definitely his own fault).
If you think that means these people are "just a joke" to me, you... I lack the words, even - it's that stupid.
Re:Wow. (Score:0, Insightful)
Make them in private with your friends, maybe post it in a month or so when the shock has worn off, but on the day itself, show a bit of decency, a bit of class, and keep it to yourself.
Re:What will the EU do? (Score:1, Insightful)
And about the rights they deserve, I remind you that BEFORE one person can feely spech and defend in court, you even don't know if he is a terrorist.
Here in the Basque Country we know something about terrorism, believe me. Don't let the rage to blind you.
Would have happened anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
Sept. 11 happened without Iraq, the Morocco bombings [cbsnews.com] happened without Iraq (Morocco? Arab/muslim country? Hello?), the Turkish synagogue bombing [bbc.co.uk] happened without Iraq, the Paris bombings [bbc.co.uk] happaned without Iraq, and many others did as well. Get over yourselves.
My sympathy for the poor bastards who were killed or hurt in London.
Re:More details (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a lot of crazy violent people out there, but it will not strain British resolve. Lets hope that there aren't more attacks, and keep our friends in Europe in our thoughts.
Thanks to Sattelite Radio and the internet, I can listen to BBC (Used to have to get it on shortwave)
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More details (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fucking Animals (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fucking Animals (Score:2, Insightful)
jesus fucking christ. read a book for fuck's sake. no wonder the world's fucked, with idiots like you running around hoisting the flag of the good ol' US of A whilst simultaneously invading the same countries whose inhabitants you've starved for the last ten years.
Re:People in the UK are used to it. (Score:3, Insightful)
So I hope all the people of America today will stand with us as we did through 9/11. We have many differences as the discussions at the G8 will show but we must never get used to this feeling or democracy as we all practice it will have lost.
Someone from the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't careless. The IRA did this loads of times, lots of people have died in the same situations spread out over a couple of weeks. It used to be a fact of life that this happens. 1 event isn't a huge issue.
Save the pity and shock for else where. It's not needed and hopefully we won't whore this like September 11th was.
I know this'll get marked troll but I think it's an opinion we NEED to see put out. Some of us couldn't careless, it won't stop our lives any more then seeing a giant pink elephant would.
It happened, it's over and done with, next please.
Re:More details (Score:5, Insightful)
War on Iran (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Fucking Animals (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorism is inherently political. A terrorist does what he does not out of sheer spite but in order to achieve political and ideological goals.
This whole event was political from the beginning. Whether the politics in question are those of Islamic extremism, anti-G8 anarchism or Irish republicanism remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that the bombings were politically motivated.
Re:More details (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More details (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the flawless logic of the politician - all that anti terrorist legislation didn't work, so lets have more anti terrorist legislation.
Re:7 bombs (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The real bugger is... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is indeed. That we haven't had a similar attack in the US yet is part luck, part vigilance, and partly, no doubt, the bad guys biding their time until they can rig up something dramatic enough to really stoke up Al Jazeera when it happens.
I'm certain it's going to happen in the US again, just like it will probably happen in Italy, Denmark, and elsewhere.
As for how (or whether) this distracts from the G8 agenda... remember: it's exactly the G8 agenda that these guys hate. They're not distracting from the agenda, they're showing their disdain for it. They hate the notion of wealthy western countries using their resources to lift poor countries up and back democracy. These punks only thrive where people are miserable and vulnerable to their medieval way of looking at things.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:1, Insightful)
conspiracy theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Be prepared to see many conspiracy-theory books in stores soon...
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
This would benefit the IRA how?
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that is probably why they attacked. It is much harder to recruit impressionable teens into your organization when there is no polarizing force (read: military occupation) in place. Terrorist groups rely on continued escalation by US/UK as a selling point for joining their organization. The terrorists thrive on this scenario:
1) Attack civilians
2) Wait for retaliation
3) Use collateral damage as a rallying point to increase membership
4) GOTO 1
I truly believe that if we left Iraq tomorrow, the insurgency would collapse in a short time because they'd have no real reason to exist. The true terrorists would have no freedom fighter status in which to cloak themselves, and the nationalist insurgents would likely turn against the terrorists.
Re:What will the EU do? (Score:3, Insightful)
We make me sick.
Re:Seven explosions (Score:5, Insightful)
or the insurgents (foreign-funded by the french) that fought against the legitimate british rulers?
or the guerrilla attacks that were considered "barbaric" but used because they were the only means the american rebellion had of beating the british?
i'm not trying to say our "founding fathers" were terrorists -- i'm just saying that these concepts are relative.
Re:Not just about Iraq (Score:3, Insightful)
I take issue with listing this as a "terrorist attack." The USS Cole is a US-flagged vessel of war, and if that's not a valid military target then I don't know what is.
It was a surprise attack, it was a suicide attack, but it was a perfectly legal and valid attack by just about any standard.
Re:Sounds good to me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you know who is responsible ?
If so, are you sure that you are right ?
Re:Sounds good to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny, so are they. Welcome to the moral low ground.
Re:This was innevitable (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you HONESTLY believe that Al-Quaeda gives two shakes about the lives of innocent civilians that died as a result of military operations in Afghanistan (justfied w.r.t 9/11) or in Iraq (unjustified imho)?
Cause if you do then tell me why in the hell they're fucking bombing Iraqi citizens?
This is NOT about "innocent lives lost" in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere. It's about retaining power and crushing the West. Pure and simple. Just like Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. or Randal Terry and his bunch of Christian extremist wankers want to retain power, so does the extreme fundamentalist Islamic movement. They see the west as a whole as immoral and evil so they attack it. They see any Muslim who doesn't agree with thier specific brand of Islam as the enemy (blowing up police stations in Iraq for instance) and justified in dying. It's the same fucking sick morality that people in the U.S. use to shoot abortion doctors and blow up abortion clinics.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm so glad the first Gulf War and WWII were ended by a round table discussions.
Re:More details (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, other than the fact London has been a major target for terrorists for nigh-on 4 years, and this is the first attack to not have been thwated?
+Pete
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree totally. However, I would like to remind people that the war on terror possibly prevented many more such incidents.
Those who forget history... (Score:1, Insightful)
Remember Neville Chamberlain? "Peace in our time?" Caving in to tyrants won't get you peace. Killing them will.
The war we fought against Germany and Japan brought us 50 years of peace.
The Islamists have the same goals as Hitler -- world domination with them in charge. Giving in to them now will only encourage them.
Re:More details (Score:4, Insightful)
If they don't do anything then people will accuse them of doing nothing and if they introduce more laws then people will complain about a loss of rights.
Re:What will the EU do? (Score:3, Insightful)
He didn't say we shouldn't. He pointed out that going on a rampage would only help our enemy.
Not going berserk != giving up
Re:What will the EU do? (Score:4, Insightful)
If by "people in Iraq" you mean radical Panislamic terrorists from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and many places OTHER than Iraq, who believe there should be a single Islamic theocracy across the whole of the mideast that is the rightful seat of government for the world, then yes, absolutely.
I find this all or nothing view - especially coming from an argument point that tends to condemn "all or nothing, black and white" views - rather disconcerting.
So you're saying that full scale ethnic and religious genocide is the only way to modernize and democratize the mideast, to enable a free flow of information and a free exchange of ideas, and to empower the peoples of said nations to control their own personal and collective destinies in an environment that nurtures ideals of freedom? (Note: any belief that terrorist ideals or those of Panislamic radicals are "just as valid" as, e.g., Western democratic ideals is pure, unadulterated moral relativism.)
That the only logical solution is to pack up, and let the threat of Panislamic radicalism fester and grow in the mideast, and to be content to deal with brutal terrorist attacks, regardless of whether more people die from "smoking" or "car accidents" each year?
Smoking is a choice. Car accidents have the word "accident" in the name for a reason. A terrorist attack is a deliberate decision on the part of another human to kill as many people, usually innocent, in the target site as is practical or possible. Additionally, the reason why airline disasters (not referring to 9/11, here) are so heavily covered even as many more die from other reasons is because larger incidents resonate negatively with people. People don't like the idea of dozens of hundreds of people dying at once. It scares them. It shakes their being. And no, it's not an effect of "the media". It's a very natural, human reaction to mass casualty.
I suppose I don't need to remind anyone of the suffering that would occur from a massive collapse of the economies of the US and/or West stemming from an inability to obtain secure, stable supplies of reasonably priced energy sources. For better or worse, this is the nature of things.
The US (and/or the West) are not responsible exclusively, or even mostly, for the situation in the mideast. The mideast has had its own difficulties with modernization since before the US was even remotely an influence, or indeed even existed. If you're content to point the finger squarely at the US or UK or the Iraq action for these attacks, be my guest. But that's a severely and seriously wrongheaded idea.
When it becomes politically expedient, the terrorists will make no distinction between London, Washington DC, Paris, or Madrid, regardless of any nations real or perceived support or non-support of, e.g., the Iraq action. And then what will you do? Be content to placate, and eventually essentially live subservient to terrorist whim and demands?
To destroy our enemy, we have to know our enemy. We have to understand that we are facing a radical fundamentalist movement with global reach and a very specific plan. They are not just out to kill us for the sake of killing us. They want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region s governments and pave the way for a new empire, an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area from Europe to Africa, from the Middle East to Central Asia.
The American people have a right to hear the answer to a fundamental question: How are we going to win this war? What is our strategy for eliminating the terrorists, discrediting their cause, and smashing their forces so that America can actually be safer?
The jihadist movement that hates us is gaining adherents around the
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:5, Insightful)
Either that or complete all out war where we level their countries to the ground and exterminate their people (note to those about to mod as troll, this is not something I support).
The problem is western governments meddle in middle eastern affairs because they need the region to be "compliant". They don't want to get too involved, but at the same time they've spent several decades meddling (usually with disasterous side effects) and thus building up the hatred.
Of course the amount of hatred that has built up will probably take just as many decades to go way.
Re:Seven explosions (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have a gripe against the British government or establishment, then you should target the attack at them (even if there will be collateral damage to civilians).
This is where comparisons between Islamic terrorist attacks and the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan always break down. All the recent terrorist attacks have been aimed at civilians (many of whom protested against the war anyway). That is precisely what makes them "terrorist" in my eyes. [No matter what some people say, the UK/US forces have done everything possible to avoid civilians casualties.]
If they were legitimate "freedom fighters", they would be attacking the British military or government.
Re:Someone from the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, we are used to this from the IRA days. My condolences to anyone who has lost someone. These lunatics need to be stopped. Still against ID cards though, no matter how the government will try and spin this in its favour.
Phillip.
Re:Not just about Iraq (Score:4, Insightful)
These guys are more like pirates than legitmate combatants.
Re:Cellphone system near breakdown (Score:1, Insightful)
Your logic needs some work.
Frankly, I can't stand Bush and I definitely did not vote for him; however, he and Tony Blair are not to blame for these attacks despite the paths of action they have chosen for our respective countries. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc--you argue that since Bush and Blair have advocated these things (i.e., military action in Iraq), these attacks that have followed are a necessary and direct result of them. That's not right... correlation does not imply causation, and such a path of logic hardly places any kind of responsibility on the agents that actually committed this atrocity: the terrorists themselves.
What you have to remember is that these people are ideologically opposed to our way of life. They call my fellow Americans and I "infidels" and constituents of "the Great Satan." Unmitigated hatred motivates their actions, not some logical progression of thought. While our presence in the Middle East almost certainly gives them something to point at (as what any rational person would call little more than a feeble excuse), it is not the cause for this. We provoked the 9/11 attack by merely existing, and the instant we blame ourselves and one another for these heinous crimes these monsters have committed, we afford credence to their claims that we are, in essence, the Bad Guys(tm).
Don't blame Blair for the terrorism. Blame the terrorists, and the terrorists alone.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
Read about why they did this. It was in retaliation for roles in Afghanistan partly. Sept 11 prompted the destruction of the terrorist camps there. Thousands of people in the same organizations that live to blow up innocent people were taken out. I think quite a few were stopped since obviously...they are dead.
Most importantly, I must point out talking to the terrorists would not have prevented this either. You can't explain to them that Afghanistan was prompted by the terrorists themselves and nothing was done about them for years even though governments knew about them until they killed thousands of innocent people. Leaving them alone was the worst thing to do.
Re:Welcome to the 21st century... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because you're still more likely to die crossing the road.
They've killed probably a few dozen people. The death toll will rise as they clear out the mess in the Underground, but I doubt it'll get up above a hundred.
Frankly - and perhaps rather callously - we can afford to lose a hundred people to terrorists every few years. It's completely insignificant compared to the whole population - the only difference here is that it's spectacular and newsworthy. Not feeling safe? You survived the Cold War, didn't you? Managed to live with the ever-present threat of nuclear annihilation, but can't cope with the terrorists?
Call this war? In war people die in numbers like this every day. London has taken far worse than this in the past. You bury the dead, hunt down the killers and get on with life.
Re:Our thoughts & prayers go out to the UK (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not just about Iraq (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be perfectly true....IF WE WERE AT WAR WITH SOMEBODY AT THE TIME.
Legal? Valid? What laws are you looking at???
We weren't at war with anyone. We were on a port of call, at the permission of the host goverment. International law, the laws of the Seas, you name it...we had every right to be where we were, doing what we were doing. Furthermore, we were attacked not by a country, but by a terrorist group bent on Islamic world goverment. What happened was a cowardly act of murder. It was in no way legal, and to call it valid raises serious questions about your own judgement.
You're an embarrassment to your country. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:THE AMERICANS DID IT (Score:2, Insightful)
That doesn't make any sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not WW2. Impoverishing them until they have nothing left to lose will not solve the problem. It didn't work in Israel, and it won't work for the west.
Get some perspective. You're still thousands of times more likely to die from normal homocide than you are from terrorism. You're thousands of times more likely to take your own life. Sure, we should and can do things to help prevent terrorism... stop supplying Israel with military aid, for example, and replace the silly symbolic airport screenings with something that has a chance of catching people. But ultimately there isn't a whole lot one can do to stop someone who is willing to die, once they've been driven to that point. Spend more time and money putting the west in a positive light around the world, and accept that sometimes bad things will happen.
I feel terrible for the people in London. I fear that the tragedy of this event will be followed by the tragedy of throwing away what is good about their society.
Re:Seven explosions (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't they have the right to defend themsleves, because they don't do it with planes and hi-tech gear its less legitimate to defend and retaliate?
Terrorism is just a bad name for rebellion, wether you agree with the rebellion or not, if the rebels win they become revolutionaires if they lose they were terrorist, but I let you guess who looks like the empire and who looks like the rebels in this.
Then what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Give in?
That didn't work well with bullies in grade school, and it won't work with bullies now.
(Although I have to admit that all the free publicity and credibility that we give terrorism by watching every little news item about terrorist strikes, and discussing them for hours is a VERY EFFECTIVE way to encourage terrorism.)
Yes yes. (Score:0, Insightful)
Also, the Russians, French, Germans, North Koreans, and African Pigmys would have already each built moon bases if it wasn't for those evil Americans.
Give it a rest.
Re:To our British friends (Score:5, Insightful)
You can be assured the people of the Briton will never surrender to Terrorism. We faced down the IRA for 30 years despite their attacks being many times more often and many time more serious in casualties and damages each year.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but they are bored of that now anyway. It's the war on civil liberties they will try this time around.
"QUICK! Arrest some people and hold them without charge! Then introduce national ID cards."
If those measures don't eliminate the existance of bombs and make everyone happy then I don't know what will.
Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm, that's why WWII ended because folks sat around tables discussing ways to solve the problems, right?
Oh wait, no.
History, you know, kinda has a habit of repeating itself.
Re:The real bugger is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course this is not the view of the average person in that part of the world. It's the mantra of the crazies that are working for groups like Al Queda, and it's the rhetoric they use to justify slaughtering civilians. Do you really think that foreigners (from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia) killing young, native Iraqi police recruits or health care workers in Iraq is about what "we" have done to "them" for the last 100 years? They are not preaching self-determination for the people in the Arab world. They are preaching the viritues of a thuggish, mysogonistic theocracy that kills women for sending their daughters school (lest they learn to think on their own). See the policies of those fine fellows and Al Queda supporters, the Taliban, for some details on how they think humanity should carry on, day to day. That philosophy is entirely antithetical to liberty, democracy, and an open culture. Freedom isn't a "gambit," it's the best way for people to live. Slaughtering people that stand up for it requires no further commentary, as it's plain what those thugs want: chaos, and a brutal environment in which their medeival way of life can come back from the grave. What they want are sheep, and sure as hell not people (including women! gasp!) who flock to the polls to elect their own government.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
I would also like to point out that a "War" is often defined as clashing armies, or states, or coilitions. Not generally civilians. You cannot have a "war" on terror. War simply spreads more terror. If a people are being oppressed (from their prespective, not ours), they will spread terror against their oppressors. A man is the most dangerous when you take away his hopes and dreams, and from their perspective this is exactly what we have done (I am sure I stole that quote from somewhere). Lets not forget that only one nation has ever used a Nuclear Bomb during warfare, and it was used on civilians, TO SPREAD TERROR!
At least the polls are starting to show that Americans have started to figure out that Bush is evil, however it is too bad it took this long! Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
'Pressing more' works (Score:3, Insightful)
The more desparate you make the people in Iraq, the more recruits are easily available for terrorist groups.
Simply 'pressing more' doesn't achieve your goals of safety, it works against it.
The people of Iraq are being terrorized by a small number of Sunni Baathist "deadenders" and a larger number of radical Jihadis from all over the middle east. The insurgency does not draw heavily from the Iraqi populus. The insurgency is bad, in the short term, for the stability of Iraq. But good in the long term because all of the rats are in one trap. The Jihadis are being killed in droves every day. They can't have a meeting above ground for fear of being disintegrated by a 2000 pound bomb. 'Pressing more' has been entirely effective. Are you really suggesting that the Allies capitulate and leave the new Iraqi democracy to its fate? Do you really think that this will placate the Jihadis and keep them terrorising the west? Do you want to see new and more powerful Taliban regime in Iraq?
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seven explosions (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, at some point the civilians hold some responsibility. White civilians in the south that supported the racist government, for instance, in the U.S.
but, again, i don't support civilian death regardless of your reasons. i do support public and governmental pressure to force our governments act justly, however, regardless of the political cost. (and that, of course, means that i support awareness programs that make the public understand the political games and also understand things from a less myopic perspective.)
Re:Seven explosions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not just about Iraq (Score:2, Insightful)
We weren't aware we were at war with Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor, either.
A formal declaration of war is a courtesy, not a requirement. Even the US Constitution allows states to wage a war without bothering with a Congressional declaration if it's "in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
"Furthermore, we were attacked not by a country, but by a terrorist group bent on Islamic world goverment."
No flag no warfare?
How does your requirement for a country fit into domestic conflicts? Does everything ever done by the Confederacy automatically become "terrorist" because nobody else recognized them as a country?
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Seven explosions (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember watching bombs exploding in Iraq and couldn't help but imagine mothers, fathers, sons and daughters thinking the same thing. Did the "Coalition of the Willing" pilots think they were "doing the right thing" or just following orders?
Lesson to be learned here: what we describe as terrorism (and this was terrorist activity) is justified in someone else's mind. Question is how do you deal with it? Do we continue bombing entire countries, thereby creating new terrorist recruiting grounds?
Re:More details (Score:2, Insightful)
Simple fact is that after attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 and going after terrorists aggressively for a change, the number of terrorist attacks has not risen from normal even during the "jihad against all involved" claims. More people die in car crashes than what the terrorists do. If everyone just let them do their thing without forcing them into hiding and wiping out the ones that are found, they would grow so organized that they could create chaos worldwide on a scale way beyond this.
My prayers go out to the families affected by this attrocity. To the people acting like a war on terror isn't working, do you just want to let this group stay in London and keep doing this? You have to take them out. It is the only way. You can't sweet talk terrorists into being nice people. They're brainwashed enough to strap explosives on their bodies and blow up children.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:4, Insightful)
Just a normal day for Bhagdad.... (Score:1, Insightful)
this is the war our leaders chose to have. why do we act surprised when the people we are killing choose to fight back?
Re:Someone from the UK (Score:1, Insightful)
Changing your behaviour means, to use a horribly overused cliche, 'the terrorists have won'.
And double agree on ID cards. The money about to be wasted on that project would be far better spent on beefing up the intelligence services and police service to better administer and apply the laws we have already. We don't need anything else, and some of the more obvious knee-jerk reaction legislation should be repealed. We are meant to be a good example of enlightened civilisation, not giving a model for a 'big brother' society of sheeple.
If somebody says 'something must be done', it's a good indicator that nothing should be done - at least not without long introspection beforehand.
In all likelihood, more people will have died on the roads of the USA today than in the bombing incidents in London, and almost certainly more people will have died of starvation or other easily preventable diseases of poverty. We have more to gain by 'loving our neighbours' than smiting the heathen.
I fully expect these events to be used as an illogical justification for ID cards and national database.
May the injured and bereaved get the care an attention they need.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:4, Insightful)
no- i disagree. Invading Iraq (no connections to 9/11, Al-Quada) was the worst thing to do. This administration losing focus on afghanistan and Bush telling the nation that he didn't care about Osama Bin Laden was the worst thing to do. Spreading our military so thin to fight a pointless war in Iraq that destabilized the entire region, and let Iraq become an open border den of terrorist activity, with extremists pouring in from nearly every country in the region was the worst thing to do.
claiming a "war on terror" with no tangible goal, no exit strategy, no fundamental way to achieve victory was the worst thing to do.
And we never really left "them" alone. Who is "them" anyway? Every single militant group who threatens us? there's probably tens of thousands of "those". Al Zarquawi had NO ties to Al-Quada untill we invaded Iraq... we are creating enemies faster than we can kill them.
What are you talking about? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it isn't. If anything, the grandparent poster was apathetic. Apathy doesn't keep the cycle of hatred going. The thing that keeps the cycle of hatred going is blind rage. "HOW COULD THEY DO SUCH A THING???" If anything, apathy acts to help halt the cycle of hatred.
Re:Those who forget history... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, 'cause WWII was the last war the US was involved in...
Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs (Score:5, Insightful)
1) "Secret Organisation al Qaeda in Europe"? That's a hastily made-up name if I ever saw one. It's against 'normal' Al Qaeda's modus operandi to go claiming responsibility so quickly, so why the new 'secret' version would be so forthcoming baffles me.
More seriously,
2) The actual statement talks about how Britain is trembling in fear 'to the North, South, East and West'. Well, having heard from people who have a bus in mangled bits RIGHT OUTSIDE THEIR FECKING WINDOW, they've failed in that one. Everyone is just pissed off they've got several miles to walk home, because there's no public transport.
We did terrorism for years, thanks to the IRA (funded by certain Americans, but we don't care as we can tell the difference between individuals and states, unlike Al "smash the Infidel by blowing up a bunch of random people" Qaeda). We got bored and went back to work before these little wankers even started.
Re:Explain to me... (Score:3, Insightful)
He also says he's a Christian, so I don't think there's much point in listening to what he says rather than watching what he does.
TWW
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Someone from the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
It won't happen, but it would be the best course of action.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:0, Insightful)
What they want is power and attention. The first we can't allow, and the second, free societies can't stop.
Nuke a few of their cities, and wait to see if a Chief Joseph shows up. If not, rinse, lather, repeat.
Seems you can't read, either. (Score:4, Insightful)
In what way does this make fun of the bombing victims? I don't see any thing along the lines of "haha, they got blown up". Here's my point: the original post was making fun of the people who did the bombing, not the victims. So in what way is it offensive to the victims of the bombings? But, hey, I don't think you actually bothered to, you know, read the fuckin' comment before you took offence. No, you just saw someone making a comment that wasn't "oh no this is a tragedy this is all blair's fault
Jeez... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The populace might be scared, but the powers-that-be aren't. Blowing up a subway, though tragic for the citizens, does nothing to effect the British military...which is now further in action due to an angry government. Good job.
2. What, in all domains of intelligence and common sense, would make a terrorist think that the British would yeild to this kind of action? For starters, the British are known for being some of the most stubborn people in Europe!
3. Scare tactics and violence don't effect the British. If suffering massive casualties and leveling their cities is the terrorist's plan for getting the British to listen, someone needs to point them to the nearest WWII documentery.
4. Blowing up a subway and a bus, will hardly do anything to make the British back down. If anything, it will only achieve making the British tighten their security, heighten their awareness, and step-up their efforts against the terrorists.
So, though I am not British nor am I in the UK, I say have a good day, put the kettle on, and get a broom. Hopefully one day the terrorist dorks will get a clue.
Re:What will the EU do? (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but how many of their relatives can one kill before they get involved?
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:2, Insightful)
And if the polls are showing people thinking Bush is "evil" I'm losing faith in the mindset of the left even more than ever. Just because you're not under attack on home ground and don't hear people running and screaming is no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.
Re:Explain to me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:0, Insightful)
Muslims here in the UK have been inciting against western secularism for *years* prior to 9/11.
The idea that these attacks are "punishment" for our behaviour is absurd and insulting.
It took this morning's attacks for me to see that pacifism and hopes for "dialogue" is naive to the point of insanity. These subhuman-filth with their murderous prehistoric superstitions simply have no place in Europe.
The sooner people realise this, the fewer lives will be lost to their barbarism.
Re:What will the EU do? (Score:1, Insightful)
> the situation in the mideast. The mideast has had its own difficulties with
> modernization since before the US was even remotely an influence, or indeed
> even existed.
The difficulties in the Middle East aren't to do with `modernization`, whatever that means. You need to study the history of the region again, with open eyes, this time. It's been a western plaything for some time now. Pay particular attention to western oil companies.
> A terrorist attack is a deliberate decision on the part of another human to
> kill as many people, usually innocent, in the target site as is practical or
> possible
Look at the definition of terrorism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terror
It applies to both the actions of `terrorist groups` and 'democratic' regimes such as in the US, UK etc. The bombs in London today were planned to occur at the same time as the G8 summit, where the heads of countries such as the US, UK etc are gathered.
> When it becomes politically expedient, the terrorists will make no
> distinction between London, Washington DC, Paris, or Madrid, regardless of
> any nations real or perceived support or non-support of, e.g., the Iraq
> action. And then what will you do? Be content to placate, and eventually
> essentially live subservient to terrorist whim and demands?
These attacks are in revenge for actions against groups that have long been persecuted by those who would take their countries natural resources just to make a quick buck. You can deny this if you like, but you'll have to wake up sooner or later.
go read history (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really, really, believe that Bin Laden decided to spend several years planning the 9/11 attack, sacrifice several people, kill thousand of innocent people just because he wanted, without a reason? Do you really be that terrorist are the "bad guy" that decides to kill random people
Man, you have seen too many too many hollywood movies or listened (and believed) too many George Bush speeches. OF COURSE there's something which triggered the 9/11 attack. Terrorist don't act randomly and kill people without a reason, why would they? They're not stupid. I don't agree that killing people is the correct way to answer to what EEUU did, but terrorist think that it is, or they have a different vision from what EEUU with respect some military event
Go read some history. I hate how some EEUU citiziens think that EEUU is always "right" just because of their collaboration in the WWII. Yes, there was something that EEUU did that triggered the 9/11, go and learn some history, you'll find that the collaboration in the WWII doesn't neccesarily means that EEUU is always the "good guy"
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm thinking hard, but who did the US ATTACK that bin Laden cared about?
Re:Because we all know (Score:2, Insightful)
Peace != Surrender
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
I totally disagree. Have you stopped to consider that the UK probably wasn't even on the Al-Quada (sp?) radar until the US/UK invaded Iraq and made it a hot bed of terrorist activity where none previously existed???
One could argue that the (badly applied) war on terror (i.e. Sadam is a bad man) was actually the catalyst for this attack. This is a prime example of how the 'War on Terror' has made citizens of civilized countries less safe.
You think they are sick? (Score:2, Insightful)
Do I agree with terrorist tactics? No but I do recognise the desire for revenge. Against innocent civilians? The innocent civilians are the ones paying the subsidies and the military. For every right there are responsibilities, for every action there are consequences.
Re:Tired of America being blamed... (Score:3, Insightful)
But please realise that it is perfectly possible to like America as a country while simultaneously disagreeing vigorously with the policies of the current American government.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people say the war in Iraq is a part of the war on terrorism but it's actually something else. It has mainly helped terrorists by pissing off more people and providing an unstable country which can be used as a base.
The war in Afganistan and internal security measures can be helpful against terrorism, and I don't remember any large attacks in retaliation for that.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that you're trying to use shame/guilt to silence a free discussion.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that you'd have to go back to the days of Babylon in order to find out "who started it". I'd say its the fault of all parties involved for letting this situation go on for as long as it has. The West needs to quit using vassal states to do its bidding and the Middle East needs to get away from blowing up innocent people in order to achieve their political goals.
Re:go read history (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't be confused, this isn't merely about a military event, this is a religious EDICT. As for the rest of the babble that is your post, it's not worth comment.
Bin Laden and al Qaeada are very clear on their objectives:
This isn't complicated. Did the US do some things that may have angered him more? Of course, but in the end, he wanted to attack the US regardless.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
maybe our support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip? we have given the Israeli's millions of dollars AND weapons and aircraft. what have we given the people whos land we took to give to them? several hundred thousand dollars and no protection from a military who has killed thousands of palistinian children.
think about it - if 10 or 20 years ago an american hellicopter came in and blew up your dad or your uncle or your brother or your friend you'd be pissed wouldn't you. Lucky for you, you're American. You will most likely never have to experience someone coming onto your soil and accidentally killing your friends and/or family because they had to shove their nose where it didnt belong. Unfortunately, this new "war on terror" in a nation that never once supported bin laden (in fact, bin laden HATED hussein) and who never once threatened or attacked any US citizen outside of their own country - is creating the next generation of terrorist. Look at the children you see in the news footage now - we are killing their big brothers, fathers and uncles, and because of it - your child may be stuck fighting them in the next war.
I'm not saying that they are right in what they do . All I'm saying is that perhaps we should pick the stick from our own eye before we attempt to pick the splinter from theirs.
Comments (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
If you believe that, then you are naive. The insurgents that operate in Al Anbar, Fallujah, Baghdad et all are just as much of a Sunni nationalist army as they are a resistanece against the Americans. Right now, they do not directly fight Al Sadr and others, simply because Al Sadr was a thorn in the Americans side, but if the Americans left, then the exact same forces would now start fighting with the Kurds over Kirkuk, and the Shiites over Baghdad and surrounding areas.
The rank and file of the insurgency is not "America haters" or Al-Qaeda or whatever, they are run of the mill Sunnis whose status has declined after Saddam. Even if they do not hate Shiites per se, they do hate the fact that they lost prestige and their cushy jobs that they had under Saddam. When people lose their jobs and go hungry, people do crazy things (think Germany in the 20s and 30s), and often will fight to get back their way of life.
That way of life will not magically return if the Americans leave. Its just if that happens, they will have to deal with well organized Kurdish and Shiite militias, hell bent on making sure that they won't lose what little they have gained after Saddam's removal.
Frankly, what this all makes me think is that the whole idea of keeping Iraq one cohesive nation is just plain dumb.
Re:Someone from the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have plenty, too much in fact. We're just too busy crying over tens of people who've died in a one-off event and can't be brought back to care for the thousands who die daily and can be saved in the future.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
The Ghandi responce (Score:5, Insightful)
Give in?
That didn't work well with bullies in grade school, and it won't work with bullies now.
(Although I have to admit that all the free publicity and credibility that we give terrorism by watching every little news item about terrorist strikes, and discussing them for hours is a VERY EFFECTIVE way to encourage terrorism.)
When they knocked down the towers, the best thing we could have done, is built taller towers in their place.
If we can demostrate that their tactics do not successfully inspire fear (that is the point of a terrorist attack), we win. Reactionary wars, and warning systems, and the trumpeting of meassages of fear from the media, and the leadership only help the terrorists acheive their goals.
To use the bully analogy, there are options besides caving and fighting. After the bully punches you. You stand back up, stick out you chest, and look at him, waiting for him to hit you again (they seldom do). Bullies don't know how to deal with this responce. They actually prefer you swing at them...
Re:More details (Score:2, Insightful)
You are dehumanizing PEOPLE and saying that "you have to take them out." You don't seem to care at all what might be the rationale, or what could be done to prevent this OTHER than continuing to kill people. You could at LEAST look at alternatives before saying "it's the only way."
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the drivers is that Arab civilization used to be the pinnacle of education and knowledge, the center of the entire world -- heck, they're called the 'arabic' numbers. But, the center of gravity has shifted west and they've been left out of it. So, there's some sense that their rightful place in the world has been taken from them. This frustration will be magnified whenever the West does something that they disagree with. That probably includes the "retaliation" you're talking about, but probably also a lot more (maybe even including 'existing').
(Note: not claiming that all Arabs are terrorists or vice-versa.)
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
While Saddam Hussain is a master terroriser , he was one of the few despots in the Arab world who was active against Al Queda and its ilk.So far from reducing the hot spots that breed terrorism , invading Iraq and removing Saddam has actually increased the number of countries the terrorists could shelter in.
Remember , Saddam's Iraq was relatively Secular. In that part of the World , the tribe was dominant over the religion.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, just because one attack wasn't triggered by a war that means wars can never trigger attacks? Computer crashes are never caused by faulty hardware, because mine crashed today and all the hardware is fine.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:1, Insightful)
Simple, naive solutions like suggestion "just pulling out" would usher in the age of universal peace and happiness is the same old appeasement that never works with unreasonable fanatics.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
The leader of a country isn't someone who isn't constantly showing up in random markets with a bomb. They may indescriminantly kill people inside their own country, but it's not to gain a political voice where they had none before (it might be to supress other political voices, but that's a different thing from ostensibly having only one option for political expression). Leaders of countries can be affected by international diplomacy, embargoes, etc... terrorists won't ever be affected at all by this kind of thing.
(yes, there are shades of gray between them, but one fundamentally already has a large amount of power that's fixed in a certain location... the other has very little power and can move anywhere... the options for dealing with them is fundementally different)
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:5, Insightful)
Islam has always been a melded church and state, even more so than the Catholics ever did. For many years (up to the present) there has been essentially no difference between clerics and rulers, usually they were the same people, still are. This causes pervasive problems. Not the least of which is that those who hold the reigns of government are religiously obligated to eradicate the infidels (both the Koran and bible are very clear about converting or killing nonbelievers). Just as bad (and we see some of this in the States) is that the government feels the need to ban or repress science, as both religion and science are claiming to have the truth, and they can't both be right. This makes Theocracies third world countries, and it makes the citizens jealous of those who are not so backwards.
Theocracy and democracy cannot easily coexist, just as Communism and Capitalism have trouble. A Theocracy next to a democracy finds that many of its citizens would flow over the border to join the heathens, and those left behind would hate the outsiders for reasons related to religious dogma and jealousy. You just can't build your dreams on forcing people to strictly adhere to a set of rules if there is a beautiful country nearby without those rules. This will cause persistent conflict that cannot be eliminated without eliminating either Democracy or Theocracy, I know which one I'll pick. One way or another, Theocracy has got to go, there will be no peace until it does.
That being said, the US hasn't been terribly careful in picking its battles (literally and figuratively), but we didn't cause the problem. The problem will continue until there is a concrete change in the world dynamic, leaving them alone won't solve anything. If they were powerful enough to destroy us, they would have done so long ago. We have been powerful enough to destroy them for many years, and yet we have not done so. Fortunately, the balance of power is not likely to ever change.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to learn history before you can ignore it (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because most Americans weren't paying attention at the time. The US was giving massive amounts of aid and weapons to Israel, ticking people off. The US backed the Saudi government, which brutally represses dissent. People were pissed that the US backed the coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Algeria. I'm sure the extremists were unhappy with the first Gulf War. Whatever it was, something set them off.
I say glaze the whole fucking middle east over with some tactical nukes.
You see, when people make this sort of generalization, then all of the US allies, Qatar, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, etc. all get really uncomfortable and may just decide to stop helping us. Where do you think the US got all their intelligence on Al Qaeda from? Syria had been actively fighting them for years, and turned over huge amounts of information on them, including names and detainees, as a gesture of goodwill and assistance towards the US. Too bad the US immediately sanctioned them afterwards on behalf of Israel.
Re:Then what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the best way is to remove its causes. People generally become terrorists because they are upset about something. Pretty much anything done involving Israel is a cause of tension. The US's general arrogance in foreign policy has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and some of them are trying to get back at us. Now, you can't make everybody happy, so this only goes so far. In some places (Israel/Palestine), there is no good answer, so anything we do is automatically bad. But, we could do far more to avoid pissing off everyone we come in contact with.
As someone said, you don't fight terrorists with a conventional army. You don't have to take over a country and deal with millions of people who don't want you there just to kill a few hundred terrorists. You move in quietly, kill them, and leave. Or go with our usual cruise missile attacks.
The reality is, though, that terrorism isn't going away. Even President Bush admitted that (before changing his mind). We can't keep them out of the country, either, it's just too big. Our attempts to prevent terrorism simply take little freedoms from 280 million people to try to find the 10 that are working on the next 9/11.
For those who say that it must be working, because there hasn't been a repeat of 9/11, keep dreaming. Before 9/11 we had Oklahoma City (done by a white American, who we aren't worrying about right now). Before that was the World Trade Center bombing. That's only 2 outside attacks on US soil in 20 years. If we can prevent a repeat for the next 15 years, then you have something to back up that claim.
Whether Iraq and Afganistan are 'good wars' or not is an entirely different question. There are reasons to go there, and reasons not to. Fighting terrorists is pretty low on the list, though, because it's just not the most effective way to do it. Long term it might help, because if the people of those countries become free and happy they won't be as pissed off at us anymore (see par. 1). The press (and the government press people) aren't helping, because we only hear about the horrors of war, we never hear about the people of those countries being better off for our invasion.
Re:People in the UK are used to it. (Score:4, Insightful)
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole (Score:3, Insightful)
People dying can be funny. Look at the Darwin Awards.
That said, this particular event was most certainly not funny.
The latest and a Londoner's view (Score:5, Insightful)
3 were on underground trains and 1 on a bus.
As a Londoner I've been expecting this, its inevitable, you can never have a free society and prevent every terrorist. The thing we must do is, like we did in the 70s under the threat from the IRA, is continue our lives and not let the terrorists dictate our actions and lives.
We must not let our government use this as an excuse to impose more authoritarian laws and continue to spread the message of freedom and liberty, in its social, personal, political and economic guises.
We must not give in to the terrorists and become like them. They want us to attack innocent people who just happen to be arabic or muslim, it will help swell their ranks.
Re:More details (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, we need to find the people behind this, just as we would investigate and break up any other organized crime ring. That does not mean we suspend all civil liberties and privacy rights to do it, or send countries back to the stone age.
Being more focused on terrorism as a security priority is good. Making sure all of our various investigative departments and governments are working together and sharing information is good. Those are the post-9/11 activities that have made a difference in preventing terrorist attacks. Passing "feel-good" but useless legislation is bad. Including every pet neo-con wish into a blanket "War on Terrorism" is even worse. Giving up our rights and lives to combat a vague fear - that's what "terrorism" is all about. And *that* is what the "War on Terrorism" has gotten us.
Re:This was innevitable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Those who forget history... (Score:3, Insightful)
Another post quotes from Battlestart Galatica, "The opposite of war isn't always peace, sometimes is't slavery." Freedom and Slavery are on opposite ends of the spectrum. War is in the middle. The Islamist who feels oppressed or fears enslavement by Western countries knows the pathway to freedom, his freedom, is war against the oppressor.
A key front in the "war on terror" needs to include stopping the supply of new terrorists. It's one thing (an important one at that) to go after the known terrorists; but, terrorists aren't born terrorists. Ordinary people are made into terrorists by some radicalizing event. The life of Ayman al Zawahiri [wikipedia.org] is a text-book example of how an otherwise decent fellow is radicalized into a monster.
I don't have the easy answer to how to do that. Frankly, I wouldn't trust anyone who said they did. But I don't see anyone in authority even trying to work on the problem.
Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole (Score:2, Insightful)
- Mel Brooks
Re:Then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fighting terrorism does not encourage terrorism.
Invading an unrelated country and calling it 'war against terror' (cos' you know, all those dirty Arabs who don't like the US, it's, like, all the same, no ?) certainly does.
The solution is to fight terrorists, not people who have nothing to do with them, so as not to turn them into terrorists.
Comprende ?
Thomas-
Re:Clever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the 21st century... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Great! Let's give these guys the Nobel Peace Prize then. You f***ing imbecile. They weren't considerate, they deliberately detonated the bombs during rush hour traffic, when the greatest volume of passengers would be present. Only through their own stupidity were there so few casualties.
Never fear though, originally terrorism was only about second or third priority at the G8, but guaranteed it is now first.
You sit there and say that it couldn't be Muslim extremists and then you go ahead and defend them just in case they are. Asshole.
Before I read anything, I'd like to say (Score:4, Insightful)
"Al Qaeda" as a term did not exist prior to a certain (sorry) trial where a criminal termed his movement in that fashion, spinning a tale of massive worldwide organization. He got a reduced sentence, I believe.
His tale was used exclusively by Bush and the neocons after 9-11 (without crediting the source). Point is, there was no "Al Qaeda" in name or organization prior to 9-11 -- but now there is. Any radical fundie who wants to blow something up now will call himself a member of "Al Qaeda". It's a like a decentralized franchise operation.
There were quite a few operatives in this operation. It took coordination, and that takes numbers. BUT. Not that many. This could have been done by four people, total, on the low side. Grandly expanding four psychos into a worldwide "terrorist" army with which we are at war will be Blair's and Bush's instant exploitation.
This is a CRIMINAL act, not an act of war. Timothy McVeigh was not a member of the militant terrorist Michigan Militia, and that group was not at war with the U.S. What bin Laden is, is a nutjob, and he has a small cadre of nutjobs that are with him. He can't declare war. He's not a country. He's a criminal. Send police after him. SAME with these nutjobs.
OTOH, could have been Iraqis bringing the war back to Britain.
Iraq has nothing to do with the f*^&ing "war" on "terror". The people there are fighting us because we invaded and took over their country, incidentally stealing their oil and establishing a permanent military garrison. It's called an insurgency, and insurgents use guerilla tactics. The invader calls it "terrorism". Nut jobs are indeed coming in from around the world, but Bush was falsly invoking them as the cause of the insurgency from day one of the occupation; they are not the primary movers. Iraq did not harbor jihadists. He lied. Iraq NOW has pissed off citizenry that will eventually bring the war to the US and Britain. But we MADE them. They did not exist before.
What makes my fury boil is the way Bush and Blair will idiotically and unashamedly link the criminal act in London to the need to continue the "War on Terror" in Iraq, making the ears of informed people bleed from the sheer pain of listening to the exploitation of death. Iraq may very well have spawned the attacks on London, but IF the attack came from Iraq, then B&B brought it on. Bush actually said, "Bring it on!" when asked about terrorist attacks engendered by his invasion of Iraq.
Well, they've brought it on, either the nutjobs or pissed-off Iraqis. What now, you fake cowboy? Gonna keep killing "terrorists" until the world runs out of them, as you've implied?
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
If I recall, Ben Franklin went across the pond to mack it with the French ladies and drum up support there, but that was about it.
--grendel drago
Re:go read history (Score:1, Insightful)
He had a reason, but it's irrational and insane. He's religious fundamentalist, and the motivations of such people are incomprehensible to reasonable, logical thinkers. He thinks Christians and Jews are abominations and must be exterminated. He hates the West, all of it, regardless of whether or not a given subsection of it is involved in Iraq or not. America is the "Big Satan" and Israel is the "Little Satan" and anybody who isn't actively trying to destroy both nations is the enemy of Islam.
You people amaze me. You are able to throw your hands up in the air at the oddball decisions of President Bush, and say, "Well, he's a religious weirdo, who knows what those people think," but you're attempting to explain the actions of terrorists through logic. "We deserve it," for some reason. "We caused this. This is our fault, if we hadn't (done whatever), then they wouldn't have done this."
No. Bullshit. They tried to knock over the World Trade Center in 1993 when Bill Clinton was president. Why? They bombed the USS Cole during Clinton's term. Why? They slaughtered hundreds at our embassies in Africa. Why? President Clinton mostly ignored them, why did they still want to get us? All because of Gulf 1? If there's no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, why in the world would these terrorists be so upset about Iraq?
And, I ask you, why has there not been a single American civilian death on our own soil since 9/11? How hard would it be for just ONE al Qaeda sympathizer or sleeper cell operative to build a bomb and blow up the food court at a shopping ball? Or a zoo? An amusement park? A sporting event? A crowded bus? Why? NOT ONE. Not one in 4 years. There's almost 300,000,000 people in our borders, and NOT ONE OF THEM has done this. Why?
I actually don't know the answer, but I have a few ideas. (1) They're busy dying in Iraq (2) Our new security policies after 9/11 have been successful on some level (3) They get to America and begin to live here and experience our country while planning their assault, and after experiencing freedom, stability, and economic success, their urge to blow themselves to smithereens or get arrested while trying to both other people up abates and eventually vanishes. Why destroy this? It's paradise compared to the disease-infested cess pools they came from.
Terrorist don't act randomly and kill people without a reason, why would they?
Yes, they do, because they're irrational people. Rational people do not blow themselves up. Rational people do not blow themselves up in an effort to kill other people because they are of a specific religion. You give them too much credit.
They're not stupid.
Yes, they are. Stupid, and brainwashed.
Yes, there was something that EEUU did that triggered the 9/11, go and learn some history, you'll find that the collaboration in the WWII doesn't neccesarily means that EEUU is always the "good guy".
What history? I have no idea what you're talking about here.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying terrorism is a good response (it's not), I'm not saying it's an effective political tool (it just makes more people angry and hurt and irrational), but I'm saying people under stress do irrational things and the US and "The West" have done very little to address the (very) personal stress experienced by people in poor and/or politicaly opressive countries. Invading and dismantaling a country is NOT stress reducing. If there are drivers on the road in the USA who feel the need to rear-end people who cut them off in fits of irrational road-rage, what do you think thier unstable stress-monky counterparts are likey to do when they see hundreds of thousands of people like them (or they themselves) killed and left homeless (wether for thier long term good or not).
War of any kind breeds hate and irrational behavior. Others have mentioned the "two ways to win the win the war on terror" Kill 'em all, or get out. I think there needs to be a third idea mentioned, take some of the crazy wealth of our "Western" nations, spread it arround, with a good heaping portion of good-will and non-military aid and watch people suddenly get content and rational. Watch dictatorships and radical fundamentalism dry up as people find fewer and fewer things to be angry about. Watch them fix little problems, or things that have been on the back burner (like AIDS, Global Warming, and the Impending Energy Crisis) instead of devoting thier time to being mad the person next-door.
Never underestimate the power of a decent standard of living.
Terrorists, separatists and names. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:go read history (Score:1, Insightful)
Repeat after me: Iraq has nothing to do with 911.
Re:Clever (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't laugh - it happened a couple of years ago.
Re:To our British friends (Score:1, Insightful)
Winston Churchill said that "we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender". Here we find ourselves fighting in the hearts and the minds of the people and the rooms of public debate.
Changing our lifestyle would be giving in. We'll offer up a quick prayer for the dead and bereaved, then carry on about our business; like we have done since 1940.
As a spanish guy, from Madrid, I'm sorry (Score:2, Insightful)
Now I'm ashamed.
Time to take out the garbage... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not.
- saying that the french where behind this is racist
No, it's not.
- Anyone who as a minimum of real understanding about those two words ( this obviously dont mean you , at all ) can see what is meant in my reply.
Oh that's just lovely, someone who can barely string a coherent sentence together giving English lessons.
- There whas no joke , hence my reply and point.
Actually, there was a joke. I think everybody on Slashdot except you saw that the original post was a joke.
- The two are unrelated , one is remebering the deceased and good times and someone you knew , the other is a racist comment about people who died in a murdering action. I can make the disertion between the two , I guess you cant.
Jokes at funerals can be both in a negative context and benign, just like the original post. 99% of jokes about death in general aren't trying to be insensitive or belittle the event or even applaud it. You are creating intent when there is none there, just like you are creating racism when there is none there.
- "The French have it bad enough "
Another racist comment based on your obvious lack of education and current knowledge
I don't know what the hell you are talking about, but please shut the fuck up. It is a KNOWN FACT that the French are the butt of many jokes, particularly from the British and the Americans. I stated that fact. You called me a racist. HOW THE FUCK IS MAKING A FACTUAL OBSERVATION ABOUT CURRENT INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE RACIST?
- BTW London aint in France
Where in the hell did I say that or even imply it? You are not making any sense.
- As I said I am a Real American , from CANADA.
Where? In your sig?
- There is no morality discussion here
You were the one that started this whole moral debate about morbid humour by jerking that big knee of yours. You also needlessly went off on some racism/sexism tangent that is both irrelevant and inaccurate.
YOU ARE MAKING NO SENSE.
Re:Not just about Iraq (Score:5, Insightful)
So if someone in the Army is walking in a street, its ok to shoot him because he/she is a valid military target?
Of course.
The kicker is "valid military target". Army personnel "walking in a street" of a country that they are currently invading, for example, and who have not surrendered in any way, are perfectly legitimate targets for the defenders. No body of international law would convict the shooter of war crimes in that case.
Sorry if that's not the answer you wanted, but war has a tendency to suck that way.
Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs (Score:2, Insightful)
Bravo! I know there are exceptions, but as a general rule people who have something to lose do not risk losing it. One of the fundamental problems with these "terrorists" is that they feel they've got nothing to lose. How about engaging them in the world economy? How about actually listening to them? I am not talking about the people who have already committed terrorist acts, but their neighbors and relatives need to be talked to and engaged positively so they are not recruited into the same nightmare. Where is the Western Powers' pressure on the Saudi government to open up it's society and allow more participation in their own government? All this talk of "democratizing the middle east" is pure bull-hockey unless you address the countries with the worst problems.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't believe travel across the Atlantic was as convenient as it is today. Please don't think for a second that if the situation was reversed today that the Americans won't get just as brutal. In fact the Americans don't need much provocation to go on their killing sprees. Some 100,000 dead Iraqis. 2,000,000 dead Vietnamese. Nobody knows how many dead Central and South Americans. Their is no moral high ground in the war amongst pirates.
Re:Seven explosions (Score:3, Insightful)
Any soldier who kills will say the same as his government "This is not terror this is unfortunate but necessary." Regardless of what country or faction they come from.
Re:Propaganda (Score:2, Insightful)
The point of my post, which you appearantly missed, is that stated motivations, and true motivations don't have to match, and in the case of most public figures taking public actions, they ussually don't match. The fact that he has been saying it for a long time only proves he is a good politician and is staying "on message", it says absolutly nothing about his true motivations.
Remember that he was more than happy to get help from the CIA until the '91 gulf war and the placement of western soldiers in the arabian peninsula? He certainly was not saying these things about Americans (perhaps Russians) prior to '91. So either you haven't known his name as long as some of us have, or you have a poor recollection of history. I hope it is the former...
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More details (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorist organisations that have increased their membership as a result of governments "trying to take them out":
- the Provisional IRA
- ETA
- PLO and PFLP
- almost all Resistance organisations in Europe during the Second World War - but especially the French
- ANC
- lot and lots and lots of others
- any organisation I would join if some other country was bombing civillian men, women and children round my way on the grounds that they may hit a terrorist as well
Terrorist organisations which have been defeated as a result of governments trying to "take them out"
- Dutch resistance during the Second World War (temporarily - and due to inflitration by native Dutch speakers and code intercepts rather than shooting and bombing).
er... that's all I can think of.
Sure. Let's go with the proven tactic.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
maybe our support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip?
bin Laden was very clear about the motivation for the 9/11 attacks. His primary motivation is to remove American troops from the "Land of the Two Holy Shrines". That is, Saudi Arabia. While he does mention the Israeli occupation of Palestine, that was not his primary motivation, and reducing U.S. support for Israel will not appease him.
Re:The latest and a Londoner's view (Score:5, Insightful)
A free society is something you have to fight for. Always. Just because we've had an easy ride the past few years doesn't mean the battle is over. Just as this attack isn't the start of anything. It's one more lunatic group who's cult philosophy involves murdering innocent people.
I agree that I don't want these nuts to change my way of life, and I don't want the government to introduce any knee-jerk authoritarian legislation. Or ID cards. I also don't want to hear any talk of 'terrorists'. I want those responsible identified. And I want them punished.
Phillip.
The point of terrorism. (Score:3, Insightful)
Terrorism is the use of fear, most commonly achieved through violence, in order to effect a political goal. Hamas's stated goal is to drive the Israelis into the sea, and make their future nation of Palestine an Arab and possibly Islamic state. Al Qaeda's stated goal is to remove the influence of the "decadent west" from Islamic lands, and halt the tide of modernization, and thence create a pan-Arab great big Muslim kingdom, sorta like they had a thousand years ago.
--grendel drago
Re:More details (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen lots of people around with this notion. So the question is, how and why did these people become brainwashed?
Let's say that you personally had the power to go out and put a bullet in the brain of every single person who is currently brainwashed. Consider that, perhaps, these people are becoming "brainwashed" because they've grown up in an environment where they've lost friends and family members; that maybe other social groups have dominated their group by brutal force. It is quite possible that, given the hundreds (or thousands?) of people that you'll be offing, there'll be hundreds or thousands of their friends and family members who will then be ripe for new brainwashing...
There is no doubt, the people who perpetrated this attack are sick bastards. They do deserve death. But if we simply go out and start killing people in kind, don't we just become terrorists ourselves?
--John
History is a bitch. (Score:1, Insightful)
And my relatives wonder why I'm a Unitarian. "
Well I'm an American, and in the name of all that's American, I'll start a campaign to bomb the planet. Now according the logic used on this forum, I represent all Americans, and therefore all Americans should be hated, and feared.
Hmmm...here's a big clue for everyone here. Saying you are, doesn't make you one. Bin Ladin and his followers doesn't represent Islam, or any other religion. Bin Ladin represents himself, and that's it.
Maybe this forum would gain a better prespective by educating themselves about Islam (in this day and age, there's no excuse for not knowing), and listen to what the majority moderates have to say on the situation.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
we don't know about it, we think that there's just people fussing over something and muslims arguing over israeli land, but have no idea of the real situation.
it's amazing how efficient the information blackout is, and the complete ignorance of people in america about what's actually happening in the middle east. going to europe i talked to people who actually understood that it was a complex and nuanced situation with no easy solution, talking to people here they look at you like you're some kind of communist.
f*cking amazing.
not affiliated with either side, but in an age of such complete media saturation the utter lack of unbiased information about this is shocking.
Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say (Score:2, Insightful)
English as it was to the Americans, and I'm not sure if you are in
London. It's hard to swallow, this shit... and the worst part about
it is the media sculpting the public's natural shock, mourning, and anger into
a choreography of fear and subordinance. The government in the U.S.
used it to convince people that they shouldn't have privacy or rights
to fair trial if they were so 'evil' as to support or not directly
combat "terrorism" in an obvious (physical and base) way.
I tried explaining to people that if we actually allow our government
to persecute the people who they pin the blame on this, it will only
be an act of complacency in the persecution of innocent people that
will now have reason to hate and attack our society. People in NYC
considered me a traitor and spineless, but I genuinely believe that
sending guns to a poor country doesn't do anything but create enemies
that don't have much to lose (the worst kind of enemies).
This is the reason for my sympathy. Of course I send my condolences
to the innocent people, whoever that is, that died this morning or
were hurt. That doesn't go without saying, but it's true. However,
the greater tragedy is how much this sort of thing will usher in a new
age of technological oppression. Where people don't have as much of a
chance to redeem themselves, or balance their karma, or pay off their
delinquent debts. This is what is the biggest burden that people in
the U.K. will have to face.
In a wider context, the U.K. already leads the world in adoption of
technologies for 'protection' that actually erode personal privacy and
rights. This event, at the G-8 host, will open the doors wide(r) open
for the U.S. and other countries to follow the U.K. example of cameras
and cards and all of that other mess that's coming.
Not Even Close (Score:5, Insightful)
The simple fact is that terrorists attack the US because they are seriously pissed off at our foreign policies, and if we would just quit trying to be the world's self appointed police force, terrorist attacks would decline dramatically.
Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a quote from Blair today:
"Our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism upon the world,"
(source: wikipedia [wikipedia.org])
Someone in Iraq could say pretty much the same thing to justify the continued resistance against US forces.
Funny how everyone in this world thinks he's with the good guys and the others are the bad boys.
Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs (Score:5, Insightful)
jesus we have people in texas and alabama yelling about how badly we have to attack countries so they can finally "feel safe".
As usual (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't reply to tell me that "oh, most religious people don't go around blowing things up." I know that and I don't care. When was the last time you heard of a group of radical atheists throwing a hand grenade into a tour bus?
Re:Respond with more force (Score:3, Insightful)
If you knew who THEM was, you could arrest THEM ahead of time.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm reminded of Lisa Simpson:
Re:What will the EU do? (Score:5, Insightful)
I honestly don't believe it's my personal fault that there are countries that haven't kept pace with the prosperity of the Western world. And while I also don't think that I am in any way immediately responsible for the birth of said prosperity, what I am responsible for is doing what I can to allow it to continue. If I were in charge, I would be more than willing to help other countries prosper, as well, but there are a few things that you'll need to keep in mind about the nature of this help:
1) It will be on my terms. If I cannot afford to continue aid, or if such aid impairs with my own well-being, then I shall not be obligated to provide you with it.
2) It will require your help. I cannot hold your hand forever; such aid is given with the expectation that it will be used towards an ultimate goal of self-sufficiency.
3) You shall not squander what I give, nor complain when what I give is not what you expect. You do not need anyone's approval to work problems out on your own. If you don't like what I have given you, then you can find your own solutions. My solutions are inevitably influenced by my world-view. Naturally, this is not necessarily your world-view. If you want solutions other than the ones that I can most readily provide, then you will find them yourself.
This is very simple, common sense. I'm not as well-versed on foreign affairs as all of the political experts here, but I imagine it follows roughly along the guidelines listed above. The impression I am getting from the posts above mine is that there are some who believe that the people of the Western world are at fault for the shortcomings of the less-prosperous. I have done nothing to actively squander the growth and development of any nation, and I'm certain that this holds for the vast majority of people in the world.
The people of these nations living on 15 cents a day are no more or less human than the rest of us. They are no more or less capable of forming solutions to their problems, as others have done throughout history. In fact, the Southwest Asian/Northern African region has historically been a hub for intellectual pursuit. There is no reason to believe that they are incapable of surviving without the support of the Western world, and by insisting that they are, you do them a disservice greater than that caused by any bomb, tariff, or ideology.
Re:go read history (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, a religious fundamentalist. Not very different from Bush, in my opinion.
Though in my opinion, Bush's has more faith in money than in religion. Religion is just the excuse he tells to the cattle in order to get voted into office again.
Priorities. (Score:3, Insightful)
$180 billion buys a lot of research and infrastructure to get us off of foreign oil. To introduce efficiencies, reduce consumption and research better methods of generation. Which would do a hell of a lot more to reduce terrorism (by slowing if not stopping the flow of money to the Saudis who fund a lot of these groups) than what has turned out to be an expensively optional war. It's possible that Iraq will end up better than it was under Saddam---I certainly hope it does---but the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
--grendel drago
Message from a Muslim in London (Score:3, Insightful)
If this is the work of misguided Muslims, then they have committed a major sin by the killing of innocent people, and have sullied our beutiful religion.
Other than those directly affected by these attacks, it will be the Muslims in the UK who suffer the most. And once again, we will need to prove that our religion is not one of barbarity and bloodshed, as it is often portrayed. No doubt there will be innocent Muslims who are verbally or physically assaulted because of this event. So we are not pleased by this event one bit, and we condemn those who planned and carried this out.
Please know that for every so called Muslim scholar who may appear on t.v. proclaiming there support for this attack as valid retribution for the slaughter of Muslims, there will be many many more who are not given the opportunity to condemn this. If you really want to see the Muslim reaction to this, then visit sites such as http://www.deenport.com/ [deenport.com] or http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ [sunniforum.com].
We pray for all those affected by this terrible event, and we hope that all those responsible for it are brought to justice.
start learning history... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution [wikipedia.org]
This success and embarassment of the US emboldened the radical Islamists and gave leaders in the Middle East who wanted to organize a fighting force a great way to make one, by claiming that this was a battle for Islam. A tactic we (the US) exploited well in backing Bin Laden against the USSR in Afghanistan.
Our involvement in Iran also led us to believe we had to have someone to support in the Middle East against these radicals. This led to a period of nearly unconditional backing of Israel. Israel knew we were unlikely to drop support of them and thus engaged in many nasty actions against Arab people in neighboring countries. They even attacked one of our own ships. Our backing of Israel during this brutal period didn't help us in the eyes of Bin Laden and other radical Islamists with an axe to grind.
Now all of this isn't to say that if our opponent(s) were more reasonable that things wouldn't have gone differently. But we had plenty of warning in 1978 that there were people in the Middle East using Islam as a cause who would turn their fighters against us if we only gave them a reason to do so.
Apparently we didn't think it'd be a problem. We underestimated the trouble these people could cause of us. This continues under Bush as strong as ever. And that's how we got into two wars at once without the manpower to finish either of them correctly.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to believe that too.
But look at History. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US funnelled money to groups like Al Qaeda, and elements of Pakistan's ISI, to aid them in fighting the Soviets. When the Soviets pulled out, there was a 10-year civil war that killed tens of thousands of civilians. Kabul was reduced to rubble. Guess who owned the country after that?
If the US pulled out of Iraq now, Iraq would become little more than a client state of Iran. Which would make countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria nervous as hell. Invading Iraq was a mistake of such huge proportion, given it's oil reserves, and the reserves of most of the nations neighboring Iraq, the end result will be effective control of a dangerously large proportion of world reserves by a single entity, should we pull out now. In other words, a major fucking disaster.
Personally, I think that the only workable option, right now, is partition. Give the Kurds a huge chunk of the north, and it's oil. Give the Shiites a chunk, and the Sunnis a chunk, including the fields borderinng with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, but above all, leave the Shiites a little short on the deal, because they're going to rely on Iranian assistance anyway. The other thing the US should do, is tap into the moderate Shiites - so far largely ignored in favor of the radical shiite politicians we put into power (the Chalabi gang). That would probably give us a better outcome.
Frankly, I think that the best outcome for the war-profiteers will be to continue occupation for a couple more years, and then pull out, leaving the region in a state of constant warfare for the next 100 years until the last drop of oil is sucked out of the ground. The war-profiteers will make the most money that way, which, of course, was the whole point of this excercise in the first place.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs (Score:5, Insightful)
And unlike Tony "let's invade Afghanistan because someone we think hurt us might be hiding there" Blair and George "let's destroy Iraq because that Saddam guy is an asshole" Bush ?
Hold on a minute. Although the invasion of Iraq can certainly be questioned, attacking Afghanistan was a reasonable thing to do. We didn't think someone was hiding there, we absolutely knew they were, and the government of Afghanistan wasn't even trying to deny it. They were knowingly harboring and protecting a large and dangerous terrorist organization, and pretty much the whole world was in agreement that that was not right.
My only beef with the Afghanistan situation is that we're dropping the ball now. The US acquired a reputation during the Cold War for going into small countries, screwing them up badly, and then leaving. That sort of ham-handed meddling is exactly what makes a big chunk of the world mad at us. If we're going to fix that reputation we need to do right by Afghanistan. We need to leave it a much better place than we found it, and we're not doing that.
Experts? (Score:2, Insightful)
Typical of a government wishing to force a change onto an unwilling populous (read ID Cards). History just repeats itself.
Re:go read history (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice hystrionics full of specious reasoning.
He doesn't think of Christians and Jews as abominations. He just considers us unbelievers who must be kept out of Arab affairs and especially out of Islamic holy sites. E.g., the American forces stationed near Mecca. He and his followers are sick of having their plans for an ideal, "just" Islamic society being thwarted by American funded & trained tyrants. Like the Saudi royal family. It's that simple. He's quite OK with letting us live our corrupt, infedlic lives; he just wants us to do it over here, not there.
Now his vision of an ideal, "just" Islamic society is abhorrent to most everyday Arabs, and that's where his campaign of terror comes in. Essentially, he provokes the West to occupy and brutalise an Arab country. Al Queda shows it is "fighting the infdels over there to prevent them from coming over here". They become popular. They can take control. Nightmare for everyone who lives under a pure Islamist state.
Your life would be easier if you stopped watching Fox news. Al Queda's stated aims have always been "the expulsion of American Armed forces from the sacred sites of Islam [Saudi Arabia]". That's why OBL got followers. That's why they came after the U.S. It's a stupid, irrational reason, but that's religion for you.
Because Al Queda likes to think big. Simple suicide bombings in a food court are too small potatoes. Also, their main goal was to get America to invade, occupy and brutalise an Arab nation. Mission Accomplished.
Al Queda is not a monolithic group. It's the umbrella name given by the West to the world-wide Islamist insurgency that views OBL as their role-model. Most of the "Al Queda" fighters in Iraq are locals and from neighbouring states. The cells are very likely still alive and kicking. Just waiting for their next order.
As for "cess-pools", that would be true if they were poor. Almost all of the known Al Queda operatives captures or killed came from very nice, middle-class Arab families. Fairly well educated and had a good future if they wanted it. I saw an interview with the family of one of the 9/11 hijackers and their pain and grief were heart-breaking. They hate Islamists and terrorism. They're quite moderate Islamics and have nice jobs. They don't understand why their son suddenly turned their back on them when he went to Europe to go to University. He almost completely stopped
Mind of a terrorist (Score:2, Insightful)
Innocent lives were lost in vain today. Terrorism is mindless evil, I agree. But have you ever considered the mindset of a terrorist?
Hundreds of children got orphaned in the quest for Saddam in Iraq. Here's a sample of what could be going through their minds...
"My innocent family was massacred by the US bombing. I heard the people of the US vote their leaders... and the same people couldn't prevent their leaders from doing this. Why shouldn't they be responsible for shattering my childhood? School, education, etc. isnt important for me. Revenge is."
Ghandi was a pussy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask the Brits if they think Ghandi was a pussy.
And lastly, our striking back at them is what gets them the continued support they need ot function. Muhammad 6 pack (I know, it's terrible...) doesn't think all westerners are inharantly evil. He just lost his brother/son/father/sister in an attack by US forces, and hates our foreign policy. Give him no reason to hate us, and Al Queda loses the vast majority of their esential support, and therefor loses ability to conduct operations.
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hard not to see everything else as a joke, in comparison.
Neocons: Invade the world, invite the world. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Then what? (Score:4, Insightful)
You treat terrorists as criminals. You hunt masterminds with Interpol. You capture them, and give them a fair trial.
It worked with Libia and the Lockerbie disaster [google.com], which before 9/11 was the worst act of terrorism perpetrated on americans (nearly 200 died).
Note that Libia and colonel Khadafi have renounced terrorism and appear to be genuine so far.
It worked very well with IRA terrorism in Ireland and England. Note that the IRA hasn't been detonating bombs in a long time.
You have to be prepared to be patient and persistent. You don't have to bomb or invade anybody.
Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It! (Score:1, Insightful)
There were distinct reasons Iraq was chosen. I'd like to reiterate this from one of my previous messages, below. You can make arguments about North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., as being more "appropriate" targets under various circumstances, but Iraq was picked for a reason. And no, it wasn't to "help the wealthy man".
---
It's pretty saddening that no one will confront the very real danger that is Panislamism and its radical forms, especially Europe, given its close geographic proximity. Regardless of what Europe's motivation is for ignoring this threat, the Panislamic radicals won't differentiate between Paris and Washington DC when it's time to execute attacks against the West.
As for the insurgency in Iraq, where the fuck do you think these people come from? That they're just ordinary Iraqis fighting the evil US dog occupiers? Hardly. Most of them are radicals, many not even from Iraq, who are attacking and killing their own Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters indiscriminately, in the hopes of turning them manifestly against the US forces, forcing an almost pragmatic decision: even though there will be turmoil and perhaps civil war if the US leaves, we'll keep killing you until you rise up against the US, or make it politically difficult for the US to remain. Then we'll install the radical Islamic theocracy that only 1% of Iraqis said they wanted in numerous Oxford Research studies in Iraq. And then truthout can say "Look, we told you so! The US going into Iraq just made the whole region worse; look at even Iran's recent election! See, the Republicans don't care about making the mideast a safer place or fighting terror, in fact, all they're really concerned about is the flow of oil!"
What a completely retarded view. First, all the naysayers who, disgustingly, in my opinion, invoke the US war dead in favor of their arguments also apparently don't care about Iraqis at all. Because if the US leaves, a SHITLOAD more Iraqis will die than ever would have, regardless of whether or not the US ever set foot in Iraq in 2003. That is an absolute given. So if they're out to "preserve life", that's certainly not the way to do it. Further, some people apparently can't understand the concept of sacrifice and taking risks. But I won't even get into that here. And finally, there is continuing and perpetual ignorance to the fact that we don't yet live in the utopian Star Trek-style world government where everyone is happy: there are people in the world, regardless of why (and, as I've said before, it's not due exclusively, or even mostly, to US policy), who want to see and end to the West. And no, it's not because they "hate freedom" (though, actually, they do). But the reason is irrelevant. There comes a time when you realize that there still are nation-states on this Earth, and that sometimes, they need to be defended. Proactively. Or, to say a dirty word, "preemptively". Anyone who can't see the writing on the wall with respect to energy and the mideast has their head in the sand. And frankly, the need for energy from at least quasi-friendly states in the mideast in the short term is not necessarily at odds with standing up quasi-democratic, free governments among the peoples of the mideast. (Iraq was a good place to start, because it was an easy case to make in a simplistic fashion, and was one of the MOST secular states, meaning the least likelihood of an internal Islamic backlash.)
Even Kerry got it:
To destroy our enemy, we have to know our enemy. We have to understand that we are facing a radical fundamentalist movement with global reach and a very specific plan. They are not just out to kill us for the sake of killing us. They want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region s governments and pave the way for a new empire, an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area fr
The truth is somewhere in-between (Score:5, Insightful)
Your typical terrorist does indeed usually have a rational goal in mind. These are not people who blow up stuff just for fun, or because a little voice in their head told them to do it - there is usually a very real and logical justification behind their actions.
Where things start to diverge from the typical American worldview is that things that do not matter the slightest bit to an American might matter a great deal to a terrorist - and vice versa. Plus there is often the same confusion of motive between terrorist and Americans as there is between Americans and terrorists. And finally, terrorists are by definition willing to do things considered unconciencable in the American (really, Western) value system.
For example, Western society makes a distinction between "church" and "state", and further makes a distinction between "combatant" and "civillian". Other societies may not, and in particular, the branches of Islamic fundamentalism that are causing all the problems these days do not.
The fundamental problem here is a clash of cultures with very, very different value systems. There's a lot of perfectly normal Western behaviour that to an Islamic fundamentallist of the correct flavour, would be the Western equivelant of painting pentagrams on chruch altars. Certain elements see Western civilization (and American civilization in particular) as being every bit as evil as Nazism, and they are willing to go to great lengths to attack it.
Cast in the right light, the French Resistance during WW2 was a "terrorist" organization. So too was the American Revolutionary Army, with George Washington subbing in for Bin Laden.
That might seem over the top, a sort of psudeo-Godwinesque claim, but there is an essential core truth in there. The French Resistance and George Washington tended to limit their hostillities to military targets, which is seen as "honourable" in Western circles, but that's the Western distinction between soldier and civillian talking. If your culture makes no such distinction, then attacking civillians is not de facto an unconciencable act.
So it is very much a mistake to make the assumption that terrorists are simply irrational killers and dismiss them as such. It behooves Western civilization to understand exactly what the beef the terrorists have, and to examine those complaints in the cold, hard, RATIONAL light of the truth.
Because part of that truth is that the West - and again, America in particular - is not entirely innocent. When people call you the "great Satan" there is usually a reason or two behind it.
In particular, the Israelis have been treating their Arab Palestinean population very, very badly for quite some time now - and the staunchest supporter of Isreal is the USA. That does nothing to endear the US to Arabs in the area - and when the US invades Iraq under false pretences (bringing more Arabs under American colonial rule) that starts to look a lot (from an Arab perspective) like a cultural war being waged on Islam.
The invasion of Iraq has to have been the biggest strategic blunder since the invasion of Poland (or perhaps the invasion of Russia, I'll accept either) by Hitler. How to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.... If the US had concentrated on eliminating the terrorist cells in Afganistan, and then had Marshall Planned Afganistan, the world would be a MUCH safer place right now.
Now as far as the "no single death on American soil" argument goes... Al Quaida has NEVER had much of a presence on American soil. Prior to 9/11, the holder of the most successful terrorist attack in the US was Tim McVey and co, a group of AMERICANS upset at their own government. Al Quaida had made a couple of attempts at the WTC, but they had been dismal, almost laughable, failures. Al Quaida simply wasn't in the business of setting off random bombs at sporting events and shop
You're probably not from Oklahoma (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Look before you rant.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Looking at the daily suicide bombing in Iraq, you'd think they show a decent pool of people willing to die.
However, many of them have been shown to be handcuffed to the steering wheel of their bomb-laden car. Most of these are then detonated by someone watching.
Most disturbing are the reports that these people are often sympathetic to the new Iraqi regime. Insurgents target these people, chain them to bombs, and give them the option to drive up to the enemy + get blown up + have your family live or not drive up to the enemy + get blown up + have your family die.
It's particularly insidious but note that most foreign fighters must be brought to the US, since it can be tough to make a whole, local family disappear here. Police are just too eager and effective to let something like that slide.
In the same vein as the parent post, all of this is pretty much the direct consequence of religion (defined as religious institutions specifically). Religion has always been about creating a control structure (and all of the coercion that comes with it). People will tell you that you can't have God without religion, but I believe that to be obviously false.
You cannot have a religion without somebody in charge (they fracture into small cults, read about the Branch Davidians). In creating this structure, someone always dictates what "the greater good" wants.
Radical militant Muslim extremests are but one of the examples, but the corrosive effects of systematized social coercion can be much more insidious. I live in the Midwest US (town of less than 350,000 people) and I've known more than one person to leave a church because of serious pressure to vote a certain way.
When God dictates it, there can be no dissent. Without dissent, there can be no democracy. I don't think that anyone's God wants a totalitarian state (theocratic or otherwise). The fallacy lies in a man dictating the word of their "God".
Not that I'm so sure about the whole "God" thing...
Re:Respond with more force (Score:4, Insightful)
It's good to know that you think we should make general practice of nuking cities the size of Pittsburgh. That'll prevent a dozen desparate loners from rising up among the 90% of the world (who would see that as brutally barbaric, stalinistic, and view America as the greatest evil of our time), and strike out at us. It's also sure to promote our interests worldwide; everyone loves to trade with nations that kill hundreds of thousands at a time. There's no better way to save a city than to destroy it. And when, as things stand today alone, China is viewed as a more appropriate world leader than America by even our allies like the Aussies, we can make everything better with a couple well-placed nuclear ICBMs on densely populated cities.
Ack, sorry! I just noticed that the Sarcasm-Lock light is glowing on my keyboard. Oh well, I'll retype this later.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This was innevitable (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a lot of people are misinformed about what exactly al Qaeda is. They don't have ground troops, they don't have an army, and post the Afghanistan invasion they don't even have much of anything resembling an organisation anymore.
What al Qaeda are/were was essentially a venture capital firm for terrorists - they would give funding to anyone who came to them with good ideas about how to kill Americans (or other westerners). Relatively speaking they were pretty small, but they did have a fair amount of cash. Usama bin Laden didn't, as far as we can tell, mastermind the WTC and Pentagon attacks. He didn't come up with the idea, he didn't plan them. He did provide the cash to the people who did though, presumably because he thought it sounded like a good idea when they came looking for funding.
Post Afghanistan al Qaeda as a funding system for terrorists is largely destroyed - they still have money, but the means to disburse it is ridiculously curtailed. Al Qaeda were, really, quite a small group, and what little there was of them was largely captured, disbanded, or dispersed.
What we have now is, instead, disparate groups of islamist terrorists (which we've always had) who have a common name to rally behind and attribute their work to - a name happily provide and publicised by the western media. It would surprise me not in the least to find that the perpertrators of the London bombings have never met with bin Laden, or any member of al Qaeda for that matter. I fully expect they are an entirely independent unrelated group who are borrowing/using the "al Qaeda" name because it carries greater recognition. Read their name and statement again with this in mind - they sound exactly like a small group of idiots trying to pretend to be a super secret branch of an organisation they've heard plenty about and would love to join, but for the life of them can't figure out how (perhaps demonstrations of terrorist acts will do it they think).
We are not facing an army, nor a terror network, nor a grand machiavellian plot. We are facing random disjoint groups islamist radicals who now have a convenient name to ascribe to so they can have a pretend sense of "belonging".
Jedidiah.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
"Anarchist groups haven't been involved in terrorism since the nineteenth Century and it's hard to believe they'd suddenly start now."
I'm pretty sure Anarchists were still quite active in the early 20th century. In the early twentieth century "anarchist" was the blanket condemnation applied to enemies of the state as was "communist" in the 50's and "terrorist" is today. There is something about political propaganda that mandates there be some in vogue term ending in "ist" which politicians can use to brand and denigrate all their enemies without having to think to much.
Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by someone usually refered to as an "anarchist", and in an important lesson we should learn from today, the overreaction by nation states to that act of terrorism did vastly more damage to those nation states than the act of terrorism itself. It triggered World War I, millions of casualties, the Russian Revolution, and the end of the Habsberg empire of which Ferdinand was an heir.
Kind of shows how one relatively easy to execute act can lead to widespread devestation when politicians go nuts in response.
9/11 as tragic as it was, lead to an overreaction by the U.S. that resulted in the Iraq war which has killed far more people than 9/11 did and will cost the U.S. far more than 9/11 did before its done.
The use of bombs against civilians as happened in Madrid and London is tragic. But, I'm afraid you really can't to holier than though about it when you drop bombs on civilians as the U.S., Britain and Israel have done as a matter of routine over the years. There isn't really any difference between the two acts other than the attempt by the U.S, Britain and Israel to rationalize it, the fact is the civilians are just as dead and maimed whether you use a suicide bomber or an F-16 to deliver the payload.
Death won't stop them either (Score:5, Insightful)
You sound as if you think there's a finite list of terrorists out there, and as soon as we scratch every name off the list then the terrorism problem will be solved! Not a chance - those people were made into terrorists, they weren't born that way. It doesn't matter how many of this generation's terrorists die for their crimes, if there's another equally large generation coming right after them.
I'm not agreeing with the idea that the way to stop the creation of new terrorists from religious zealots is to "treat them better" or "stop offending them" - for all I know it may be just the opposite. But we do need to understand these people, desperately, because it's only understanding or dumb luck that's going to allow us to stop the terrorist meme, and I'm not feeling very lucky.
I admit vengeance sounds pretty nice, but I'd gladly trade it for a more scientific understanding of the sociology of violence. The question of how we make more dead terrorists isn't nearly as important as the question of how we protect more live innocents. If capital punishment for mass murderers is part of that, then fine, but don't lose sight of the goal just because one step along the way is more emotionally compelling.
Re:go read history (Score:5, Insightful)
It is amazing that people have no historical education about the Middle East and the US involvement in world affairs. To make points short for this post, the US [i]is[/i] the sole reason why the US is hated by many parts of the world. The UK [i]is[/i] the sole reason why the Middle East is divided up as it currently is by religious and ethnic based borders. Even my brother's Army Times newpaper and Soldiers publication point out quite clearly that 'radical' Islamics, Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and others are not anti-Democracy or anything of the sort. And these are military publications for military personnel. The 'terrorist' groups are simply attacking the US and the UK because of the US and UK's military and economic support of Israel and other political and military involvement in the Middle East (i.e. US support of Iraq in the 1970's and early 1980's and the true political history and US involvement in Iran). The attacks on the World Trade Center buildings during both US presidential administrations, the attack on the USS Cole, and Pentagon were nothing more than symbolic. The US has not had one single attack on its soil since then because there is no general terrorism threat to the US and there never was one. If there was a genuine terrorism threat, it would not take any effort to poison water supplies, poison food supplies, bomb subways, blow up dams, blow up oil pipelines, etc. None of these things happened before 9/11 and none of these things have happened since 9/11. Again, there is not a general terrorism threat to the US and there never was one. The reasons why the current US presidential administration is using the 9/11 terrorist attacks to gain more control over the US population through fear and thoughtlessness is a conversation for an entirely new thread.
Also, the US is not the world's largest democracy. India is the world's largest democracy. And although India and Pakistan have historically been back-and-forth over Kashmir, why haven't Al Qaeda attacked India like they did the US? Because Al Qaeda is not anti-democracy, but anti-US and anti-UK foreign policy.
I could easily go on, but the number of ignorant and uneducated posts on Slashdot is incredible. So many people simply do not get it. There are posts with everything from calling Al Qaeda crazy and insane to banning Islam in the US. These are all uneducated, knee-jerk reactions which are no different than those views held by the very people you are speaking out against. When people start to become as bad as the people they are trying to change, then nobody wins.
And not to be one-sided, but the Middle East has more than its share of problems all on its own. If the Islamic people learned to stop fighting everyone including themselves, banded together and worked as a single homogeneous union, something akin to the EU the world would be a much different and possibly better place.
On a side note, what will happen when China surpasses the US as the world's largest Superpower? Do you believe Al Qaeda will start attacking China? Unless China gets involved in the Middle East and Israel, then the answer is no. But, if history is any lesson, the US will try to start trouble with China instead and then claim innocence when the shit hits the fan. It is already happening with Taiwan. US citizens will not research it for themselves and the cycle will continue. The next century will be an interesting one indeed.
I don't care what the politics are (Score:2, Insightful)
P.S. Yes that is God with a capital "G" even if this is slashdot
Re:History is a bitch. (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, fine. Since we're constantly told that there are more than a BILLION muslims, and you seem to want us to believe that the "majority moderates" (the majority of more than a billion is more than half a billion) oppose Bin Ladin, let's see what happens next.
We've seen how many people in the Muslim world will protest over reports of the desecration of a copy of the Koran, so let's see whether they are more or less outraged by Al Qaeda's intentional mass murder of civilians in the name of Islam and Allah.
If the "no murder of civilians in our name" protests look like they represent more than half a billion people, we've definitiely learned something, as you suggest.
However, if the "no murder of civilians in our name" protests don't come close to the scale of the "no desecration of our sacred book" protests, I think we'll see for ourselves (yet again) the real values and priorities of the majority of the Muslim world without need of instruction from you.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming "We" equates to the USA and "over there" equates to the Middle East you could not be more wrong. The US has been majorly messing with the govenments and politics of that region for over 60 years.
Another problem is that with the majority of these examples it's very unclear who "they" are in the first place. Conspiracy theories trumpeted by governments and corporate media are no subsitute for proper evidence.
Re:Respond with more force (Score:4, Insightful)
Killing civilians is wrong and moreso dangerous because now you have just created more terrorists from the survivors--if your family is dead, it doesn't matter if it came from a car bomb or a missile, you're still going to be pissed and looking for vengence.
We need to be better than these fuckers, we need to find the ones responsible and kill them without killing everyone else around them. No negotiation, but specific targeted elimination. Carpet bombing no, a sniper's shot definitely.
Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. There just isn't any real evidence of some globe spanning terror network, or army of al Qaeda out to get us. Everything we know about al Qaeda shows them to be a kind of venture capital enterprise for terrorists. Bin Laden didn't come up with the idea, or plan, or mastermind or orchestrate the WTC attack. He provided money to some people because they explained their idea and I guess he thought it sounded good.
The statement we have for the London attack is worth reading carefully. For a moment pretend that al Qaeda is just a small operation that had a lot of cash to fund whatever terrorist came to them looking for money, and that said small organisation is (post Afghanistant) essentially unable to do anything. The name of the group claiming responsibility "The Secret Organization Group of Al-Qa'ida of Jihad Organization in Europe", and their statements to the effect of "We worked really hard to pull this off" start to come off like a small group of nutjob wannabes who have heard the western media portrayal of al Qaeda, thought it sounded like a good idea, tried to "join up" but couldn't actually find anything to join up with, so created their own little secret club and are trying to "get attention" from this massive globe spanning terror network they've heard about and prove that they're capable by blowing things up.
Jedidiah.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:1, Insightful)
Just because the IRA apologizes for one attack against civilians after 30 years doesn't mean it didn't happen!
Although your list of targets very effectively refutes one of the grandparent's points, another point was that the IRA usually gives a warning before an attack on civilians. These warnings include a code word to indicate that the warning is `official'. If nothing else, they make it easier to determine who's behind the attack. Since there was no warning today, it is less likely that this was an IRA attack.
As an aside, these warnings have often been no more than a formality, because they came too late, were unclear, or were plain wrong. And of course, despite these `humane' warnings the IRA is still a bunch of dangerous psychopaths.
mission accomplished (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bring you evidence number one [yahoo.com].
Just look at the poor lady on the left. She's half scared to death! I don't care what the situation is, having a military personnel on a public transit is NOT good! What's that you say? We're trying to STOP terrorism? Because from where I'm standing, having a soldier with a huge fucking gun pointing at people is very intimidating. If this is how the government is reacting, I'd say the terrorist's mission is accomplished.
Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It! (Score:3, Insightful)
We all want the same things. We just disagree on how to go about it. (Yes, it's true. You're being lied to about that too.)
We backed a coup in Iran primarily over oil (Soviets get honorable mention), not because it was the right thing to do. And we are prosecuting a war in Iraq primarily because of oil, not because it is the right thing to do. Certainly not all of the myriad merry-go-round of official justifications, which have been as conclusively debunked as one could ask for.
If our goal was really WMD proliferation, or "being the world's policeman," we would have gone about it very differently... for instance, the way we used to. Everyone knows it.
Bad intentions, bad planning, bad management. And yes, as you point out, now we have no acceptable exit strategy either.
Re:More details (Score:2, Insightful)
I think a lot of people have the attitude of "If you can't catch all criminals, then stop trying to catch any."
The goals of the terrorists are familiar not alien (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you think that Islamism is the same thing as Islam. Perhaps you think that it is some form of national liberation struggle, or a reaction against imperialism or Bush's failure to sign up to Kyoto.
It is not.
Radical Islamism - in its most important strain - is a political doctrine which was developed principally by two arab thinkers in the first part of the 20th century - Qutb and Banna - who were deeply immersed, not in the culture of the middle east, but in the theoretical perspective of the European romantic movement. It is not an alien, exotic or even really an "oriental" doctrine. It is directly inspired by the same intellectual currents which gave rise to romantic nationalism in the 19th century, and fascism in the mid 20th century.
You might think that its main aim is to oppose military action in the middle east.
It is not.
Its main aim, explicitly, is to restore the Caliphate, abolished by Ataturk when modern Turkey was established. It is not an anti-imperialist movement. It is an imperialist [ http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/07
Qutb saw the primary enemy, not as the foreign policy of Western states, but as Modernity: and in particular materialism, liberalism, and democracy. This is the primary reason that London has been bombed: not because it has "attacked muslims" but because they fear that materialism, liberalism and democracy are damaging to the values which Islamists hope to promore: piety and submission to the will of god.
The radical Islamists are not fighting a realisable campaign, in the same sense that the Irish nationalists were. They do not want a Caliphate in the sense that the IRA wanted a united and independent Ireland. They are fighting a battle against the corrupting forces of modernity for the souls of all muslims. Their principal enemies are principally "apostate" muslims, not you or I.
Why do you think a bomb went off in Edgware Road?
Do you think that it was an accident that the home to London's liberal, westernised Arab muslims was targetted?
Many western "liberals" have simply projected their own concerns about US policy onto the radical Islamists. That is not fair to them: they do NOT share your concerns, but have ones of their own which you would do well to respect. They are not fools or mindless religious fanatics: they are philosophers. You should listen, in particular, to what radical Islamists say, and not what you think they ought to be saying.
Islamist movements have been strong, and growing stronger, in the middle east since the 1950s. Banna established the Muslim Brotherhood which was brutally oppressed by Nasser. The survivors fled to Saudi, where in 1961, they established the Islamic University, in Medina. There they developed the Islamist analysis. That generation taught young, unemployed, hopeless Saudi men who went off to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechenia. Those men returned and turned their sites from the "near enemy" - the Saudi royal family who were tainted by unislamic values - to the "far enemy": the west, capitalism, and in particular the Unit
How many died? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It! (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about that for a minute. The Worst in the World.
And you call him a kindergartner.
A kindergartner? A kindergartner who liked removing teeth with pliers, I guess.
Unfortunately, your grasp of history is as loose as your grasp of current events, and the war is not going as well as you would like to believe. [poynter.org] The insurgents include many Iraqis, for a variety of reasons, so your reference to what "The Iraqis" want isn't necessarily meaningful. If you're pointing out that bad actors like Iranian intelligence have a bit of a home-court advantage there too, you're not exactly helping yourself.
(That's a private account by a Wall Street Journal reporter, by the way. For those not current with U.S. media, the W.S.J is ostensibly right-wing, and pro-war.)
Re:To be truly British (Score:3, Insightful)
London and londoners are well-accustomed to the threat of terrorism, people who live here refuse to let it invade or dictate their lives, hence why every bus I saw on the way home was packed and why a bus driver interviewed on the radio will be back in his seat tomorrow morning.
Ken Livingstone, the Mayor or London, released an excellent statement [london.gov.uk] this morning which, in my opinion, well articulated the feeling in Britain and in London. Londoners have never lived in fear of terrorism, if they did, nobody would ever use the tube. This will do nothing, if the tube were open tomorrow morning, I'd take it to work and I know hundreds who would do the same.
Re:First Post (Score:4, Insightful)
The only resource really required to commit mass murder is a lack of respect for human life.
Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole (Score:4, Insightful)
We've been calling ourselves Americans before there even WAS a United States of America. There's no reason to stop now, however inaccurate it may be. Not that it is especially inaccurate: it derives from the fact that this was intended to be a new American nation, and Americans were different from Europeans, so therefore we are Americans, not Europeans. It wasn't intended to be a statement of nationality per se, but merely to distinguish from Europe. Once the nation was formed, incorporating America into its name, the moniker inevitably stuck, and there's not a thing wrong with that.
It's confusing, but not wrong.
And incidentally, you would have more luck convincing people to stop calling Native Americans, Indians, and that won't go away either, and has a far less rational (though just as historical) basis for sticking around.
Filled with hate and ignorance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:go read history (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It Doesn't Matter (Score:4, Insightful)
The downside is greatly reduced accuracy. This was overcome by placing large numbers of muskets into a tightly-packed formation of troops, and having them fire volleys in unison. No individual soldier could be sure of his individual target, but a rectangular cross-section of space to the immediate front of the formation would become very hazardous to occupy.
In fact, the word of command preceeding "fire" in the British Army was not "aim" but rather "level".
Now if you are hunting food, it is very rare that you are presented with a tightly-packed formation of deer, ducks, turkeys, or whatever. Aim counts when you are substancence hunting, and so the natural weapon of the hunter is the rifle, not the smoothbore. Slow rate of fire does not matter when your target is not shooting back, and when it is likely to run or fly away after a miss.
Most of the firearms extant in the colonies at the time were hunting weapons used to obtain food, not military weapons. So the American Revolutionary Army make a tactic of not forming up in ranks to blaze away (as per current accepted military custom) but instead preferred to hide in the bushes, take a potshot, and then fall back into the woods - hit and run tactics, rather than stand and fight tactics.
(Your typical American Revolutionary was also ununiformed and so hard to identify as an "enemy combatant", where the British wore easily identified bright red coats)
The standard tactics of the guerilla throughout history - see, for example, the Mongols vs the Romans, or the Vietcong vs the US Army.
Seen from the point of view of a commander vastly outnumbered in terms of men and firepower, this is a natural and sensible thing to do. Seen from the point of view of the commander with the bigger battalions and the greater firepower, it is cowardly, sneaky, and unfair. Seen from the point of view of the line soldier, for whom death lurks behind every tree, this is... terrifying.
The major differences between the modern Islamic extremist "terrorist" and an American Revolutionary "freedom fighter" (besides the fact that the Americans won, where the Islamics are still in doubt - and never forget that the victors write history) is that, as far as I can recall at least, the American Revolutionaries limited themselves mostly to military targets (although the odd Loyalist homestead was not immune) where your modern Islamic terrorist draws no such distinction between "soldier" and "civillian" - and that is largely a cultural thing.
As far as "there being no reasoning with them" being a source of irrationality... if the Soviet Union had invaded the US (not that there was ever a real liklihood of that ever happening, but let's pretend) would you rest until all the invaders had been thrown out of your homeland? Would you accept the argument "Well they're here and they have all the guns, so we might as well just learn to speak Russian and be done with it"?
Do NOT mistake "They won't do what we want them to do!" with "irrationality".
Also, do NOT mistake "one must study the reasons why they are acting the way they are and seek to understand their point of view" with SYMPATHY for their cause. The American invasion of Afganistan was COMPLETELY justified, and I shed not a single tear for any Al-Quaida member or Taliban member killed in the process.
But one must also keep an open mind, and if one finds that one's own government has behaved badly and to some degree provoked the activity, it is just good sense to rectify the problem. Just because the terrorists want something doesn't mean that what they want is WRONG.
If I were the American President, I would have:
1) Utterly destroyed Al-Quaida in Afganistan and anybody who aided and abetted them. Utterly. Finding Bi
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess maybe your right, the Iraq war couldn't have been an overreaction to 9/11 since its wasn't a reaction to it at all since there was no connection between the two outside of the fabrications of the Bush administration.
But on the other hand as recently as Bush's prime time speech a week ago he was STILL trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 and using 9/11 to justify a largely unprovoked invasion. I could have seen taking down Saddam back in the early 90's when he invaded Kuwait, but to wait more than a decade and then do it with no real justification put the U.S. and Britain dangerously close to war crimes charges because thats what people who launch unprovoked aggressive wars are branded as these days, Saddam was one when he invaded Kuqait, Hitler was one, now the U.S. and Britain are in the same league. How sad
Re:Fuck you, man. (Score:3, Insightful)
It was a famous Londoner that once said:
Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly
If we lose our sense of humour just because of a few mass murders, the terrorists will have won.
Re:go read history (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not sure that I can agree with you on this. It's hard to know exactly what the real opinions are in such a large, unstable and heterogeneous population which is the Middle East. I remember that when the US became involved in Somalia, Aidid was able to mobilize mass support and outrage against the US by claiming that the Americans were there to force muslim Somalis to become Christian. Ignorance isn't all one way.
The 'terrorist' groups are simply attacking the US and the UK because of the US and UK's military and economic support of Israel and other political and military involvement in the Middle East (i.e. US support of Iraq in the 1970's and early 1980's and the true political history and US involvement in Iran).
This may be true to a certain extent, but don't underestimate how unstable most middle-eastern countries are (due to a large degree by the demographics changes taking place there). It general, I would simply assume that any power that gets involved in the ME will be attacked at some time or another, because some splinter of a faction of a radical ideology will find a reason to do so.
The attacks on the World Trade Center buildings during both US presidential administrations, the attack on the USS Cole, and Pentagon were nothing more than symbolic. The US has not had one single attack on its soil since then because there is no general terrorism threat to the US and there never was one.
I'm sorry, but I find both of those statements simply unconscionable.
And although India and Pakistan have historically been back-and-forth over Kashmir, why haven't Al Qaeda attacked India like they did the US? Because Al Qaeda is not anti-democracy, but anti-US and anti-UK foreign policy.
I might have missed something further up the node, so I'm not sure if you are interested in addressing the motivations of Al Qaeda exclusively, or if attacks by other similar and probably related groups qualify, but India has been subject to constant provocation by Islamic terrorist groups, including a daylight attack on the Indian parliament in 2001. And, yes, I know that the radical Hindus can be jerks too.
Because Al Qaeda is not anti-democracy, but anti-US and anti-UK foreign policy.
I'm not sure that a lot of the AlQaeda guys are very deep thinkers who are pissed off that they don't have a spot on the McLaughlin Group, so much as angry Westerner-haters who want to kill a lot of people, but hey I could be wrong. But what is true is that a deep feeling of resentment of the success and power of the West is behind a lot of their motivation. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it is something more visceral and racist than what I think you are describing.
If the Islamic people learned to stop fighting everyone including themselves, banded together and worked as a single homogeneous union, something akin to the EU the world would be a much different and possibly better place.
"If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon." Pre-WW1 Turkey (which is what you are essentially describing) and Pan-Arab nationalism (in the '60's? '70's?) were failures for good reasons: the ME has simply become too unstable to make this kind of an approach work. If it worked would it make the world better off? Maybe. I'm not sure that bigger is always better in geo-politics. And there's no way that it would resemble the EU (for better or for worse).
Do you believe Al Qaeda will start attacking China? Unless China gets involved in the Middle East and Israel, then the answer is no.
China has had it's own internal struggle against Islamic terrorists, e.g. in the Uighur region, but it hasn't been well-publicized.
you're naive (Score:3, Insightful)
If we left these people alone, maybe in a few centuries, they would recover. But we owe them a big debt, and right now, we still make their plight worse on balance.
Re:The truth is somewhere in-between (Score:4, Insightful)
The two examples you use of revolutionaries not attacking civilian targets have one very crucial difference to the contemporary "terrorist" organisations; they were fighting a war on their own land: the civilians were their brothers, mothers and cousins. The modern attacks have been carried out on foreign (to the perpetrators) soil. They are at "war" with these countries, so everyone is a valid target.
An equally valid (and equally flawed) WWII analogy is the allied fire bombings of Hamburg and Dresden. These were raids on almost purely civilian targets, carried out after the war was effectively already won, and intended to terrify Germany into submission. "Bomber" Harris did not differentiate between civilian and military targets (though the many crews who refused to drop their bombs did), and there was certainly nothing honourable about it.
Basically, an army on foreign soil makes little distinction between civilian and military targets. Only when they're fighting close to home do they stop and think about who's actually being killed.
Re:go read history (Score:1, Insightful)
Terrorism is NOT just for nutbars! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet, to conceive of terrorism as solely the result of mental imbalance is
Let me put it to you another way and perhaps you can think about this:
Assume we have two forces, one large and well armed and trained, another smaller and less well supported. Assume that something the larger one has done has annoyed or threatened the smaller one (or that they percieve it is so, which is really all that matters).
Think of this strictly as a tactical problem. You are the smaller power, you are vehemently opposed to the larger power and its stance (whichever one you don't like very very much). You are at a point where you feel you have to fight back. So, how do you do it?
Do you:
A) Take your primitive tools, limited resources, and probably dubiously trained manpower into the field against modern professional armies with state of the art technology (planes, tanks, satellites, etc) and great training, pretty much knowing you're going to get your ass kicked?
Or do you
B) Take your primitive tools, limited resources, and dubiously trained manpower (and because of their dubious training, some of them may be well suited to certain 'special actions') and find a way to strike at your opposition which will: a) cause them great pain and upset and which *may* (maybe) lead to them changing their policies and b) strike at them in such a way as to not risk your organization or your ability to continue the fight and c) do so in such a way as you can afford and reasonably manage?
Strictly on a tactical level, going after the soft targets in a democritized society is a good decision for a small irregular force with some zealots handy.
No mental imbalance is required, except perhaps on the behalf of a couple of the zealots. Mostly, calm cool decision making is required from those who authorize, plan and order these actions. No mental imbalance there, just a real desire to take the fight to the enemy in a way that will really hurt them and do so in a cost effective way for the attacker.
Now, it remains to be seen if these tactics will force the changes in attitude or policy that the terrorists want. History tells us governments sometimes can be bloodied enough to back away from unpopular stances (sometimes at the behest of their own bloodied citizenry). Similarly, these ops may not be setup to play to a G8 crowd (other than to say 'you tried to take us out, we're not gone, now we're kicking you in the nads to remind you we ain't dead'), but may be playing to the recruiting areas where the terrorists look for a power base and economic support and recruits. They are saying to those people 'look, the little guy really *can* hurt the big guy' and 'our resistance is not ineffective' and 'we're willing to die for our beliefs' (or to order some brainwashed folks to do so for us, but that isn't stated in the PR).
I personally wore the uniform of my nation and would never like to think of myself as waging war on civilians. I'm not happy when I hear of civilians being hurt in exchanges between the UN and people using them as human shields. But the truth is, I was trained and acculturated into that view by the institution of my military.
If, OTOH, I'd grown up in a spot fraught with troubles, economic destitution, and guided by those who had a particular worldview and were gearing up for the final religious war or who were feeling religiously persecuted or somehow tainted or abused by a far off rich power (who are obviously corrupt because they're rich and we're not and we're morally pure so they must... not be?), then I'd probably look at the assets my side has (small amounts of money, having to work from the shadows, no B-2s, no F117s, no M1s, no satellites, etc) and I'd understand if they had to fight a bit dirty or hit at the soft targets. That's just how you have to fight when you're that outgunned. Or so I can ima
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
"Add to that his threats and weapons programs"
Dude, you seem to be stuck in 2001. Everyone, including the Bush administration has admited there were no weapons programs worth anything any time recently. Saddam's aids maybe told them there were some, and Chalibi set up a scam in which people like CurveBall lied and told the Bush administration there were weapons programs, and the Bushists were all to willing to believe the lies. If Saddam, had any weapons "programs" they must have been bad ones because they didn't keep him in power.
"War crimes?!? Please...you are so out of the mainstream. Bush's policies are key to eliminating the slime on this planet."
Well it aint working because your apparently still here
Out of the mainstream huh, well if you've read the Downing Street Memo, Blair's inner circle openly discussed the risk that they would be open to war crimes charges if they invaded Iraq based on fabrication, which is exactly what happened.
We have a problem in this world if a country like the U.S. can fabricate a case for war against any country they choose, take the country down on the whim of a cracked, power mad, President and Vice President, and never have to answer for it. Whose next, Syria or Iran?
"I don't know where you live, but I guarantee in the long run it will be a better place because of these policies."
Well you just proved you have no clue what you are talking about and how stuck you are on yourself, because I guarantee you, that you, me nor anyone else, has a clue where these policies are going to take us in the long run.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably should ask before I start this rant, who exactly is "We" and "They". Those are kind of vague terms.
Oh well, I cant wait to start the rant, I'm assuming "We" is the blessed United States of America and the "They" is all the devil's spawn who oppose her.
First, Dude, you need to stop kidding yourself.
OK here is the first hint, just a little clue, what nation refers to itself as the worlds sole remaining superPOWER. You see superPOWER means they have a whole lot of POWER. If the U.S. isn't seeking to expand its POWER the only explanation is because it already has all the POWER so its no longer possible to expand the POWER any further.
Maybe you could have sold the "we stand for freedom" part if you'd stopped there. But I assure you if there is one entity completely devoted to expanding its power in the world its the United States.
You don't spend $500 billion a year on weapons, wars and intelligence unless you are planning on using it to expand your power. You dont put troops in like 120 countries unless you are intent on expanding your power. You don't have a dozen aircraft carriers and thousands of nukes unless you are bent on expanding your power.
You don't invade a country every 5 years or so and change their government unless you want power, well maybe if you installed freedom you would have a case but we have installed more dictatorships than democracies over the last 100 years. You don't stage coups every few years, topple sovereign governments, and install puppets, often ruthless and despotic dictators as puppets if you "stand for freedom" and are disinterested in power. I assure you the list of countries where the U.S has installed or kept in power ruthless dictators is long and well documented. The mess that is Iran today is entirely due to the United States installing and keeping in power the Shah of Iran, a ruthless dictator who was the antithesis of freedom. Marcos in the Phillipines, Diem in Vietnam, Pinochet in Chile, Samosa in Nicaragua, Guatamala, El Salvador, Argentina, this list goes on for a while, all places where the U.S. sold freedom down the river, and peoples in to slavery, in the pursuit of wealth and POWER.