A double-decker bus and several Underground stations have exploded. Many casualties, and much is unknown - not even the cause of the explosion.
On the first day of the G8 conference in Scotland.
Number 10 said it was "still unsure" whether the explosions were a terrorist attack and although casualties were reported, no further details were yet available.
Ouch. That really sucks... As for causes and such they might find out more soon, the things just happened.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Yikes!
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Ick.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
I still remember March-April two years ago, when we had God knows how many explosions. The English government, BBC and Skynews didn't give a damn. The reporers didn't even look at the Israeli side of what's going on.
And now they get an explosion. Well, at least they know now what it is to live in fear.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Not funny, the girl I love is in London right now and would have been going to the Airport right about now, to say the least I'm honestly afraid for her. I'm normally a rather calm person, most dangerous events don't bothe rme. This honestly does frighten me a bit, she is the world.. more than the world to me. Makes me wish I was back in Iraq at the moment.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
They've shut down the bus system in London because of the bombings.
(&/282"§§( German kezboard. Who can tzpe on these things anzwazÄ)
[ July 07, 2005, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
By now it's six explosions. One in Russell Square.
I was staying there two summers ago; it makes it so different when you know the place.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
shut down :|
Anyone tried to contact Londoner hatrackers?
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Dammit. First rioting, now this?
This is not the peace process.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:Originally posted by Haloed Silhouette: And now they get an explosion. Well, at least they know now what it is to live in fear.
Since we have been under the constant threat of terrorism for many years with the Irish troubles, I find it utterly disgusting that you don't appreciate that we have suffered greatly from terrorism. I'm sorry that the journalists didn't seem to give a damn, but you can be sure that the British people did.
I don't appreciate your insulting attitude while my country is under attack.
I'm sorry that I may be being rather more harsh than I usually would, but I am just amazed at how angry and upset reading that statement just made me.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Haloed Silhouette:
And I know what it's like.
Well, if you DO know what it's like, don't make us think you're gloating over it... If you want to blame reporters, do that, but the Londoners have nothing to do with that, so what is it to you if they live in fear right now?! As someone who has been through something like that it seems to me that you should sympathize with them.
Black Fox, I hope she's alright. Please post as soon as you find something about her, ok? I have a friend who's visiting England, but fortunately she wasn't in London today; I know how it feels to wait for news, hang in there.
Bella Bee, are you living in London or not?
And who are our Londoners? I hope they're all safe...
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
*growls*
--j_k
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
BB-- you're fine. Your comments are justified and proper.
I just emailed Amira-- oh, good heavens, I'm losing my apathy. . .
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Wow -- and just after they had such great new yesterday about being chosen for the Olympics. This is a terrible thing to happen and totally erases all the good feelings of yesterday....
My prayers are with our British Hatrackers... hope everyone's okay.
FG
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
No, I'm not in London. I currently live about 30 miles away. But a lot of my friends live and/or work there. Thankfully, none of them should have been in the area of the bombs today, although I'm still waiting to hear for sure.
We've been waiting for this since 9/11, but it doesn't make it any easier. What makes it even sadder, it that yesterday London won the right to hold the 2012 Olympics. The headlines on the papers this morning all have headlines about 'London's Golden Day'.
Black Fox, I'm sure she'll be fine. I hope you hear from her soon.
Thankfully, so far the reports suggest that there won't be as many dead as there could have been, although there are a lot of wounded.
For any of you praying types - please keep those who are hurt and grieving in your thoughts. I know they could do with it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
CNN reports just now that Scotland Yard reports a total of 4 explosions (3 underground and one bus).
A website purportedly from the London arm of Al Queda claims responsibility for the bombings.
HS, I think you owe an apology. Your comments were very callous.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: The English government, BBC and Skynews didn't give a damn. The reporers didn't even look at the Israeli side of what's going on.
And now they get an explosion. Well, at least they know now what it is to live in fear.
In looking over the full context of what HS said, I think it is only the media he is directing his comment to. He is upset with how the media handle a previous situation, so he is saying now "they" know (the media, I assume) what it is like.
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he wasn't trying to be callous to British citizens....
FG
[ July 07, 2005, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: I still remember March-April two years ago, when we had God knows how many explosions. The English government, BBC and Skynews didn't give a damn. The reporers didn't even look at the Israeli side of what's going on.
And now they get an explosion. Well, at least they know now what it is to live in fear.
With the amount of violence displayed by both sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it's no wonder that the reporters have given up covering it. You can only cover the daily exchange of rhetoric and violence in so many ways before it becomes a non-newsworthy event except on a local scale. Since London is a central player in world policy it's only natural that news coverage would be higher.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I just thought about how bad it could have been had they planned the explosions for yesterday, with all that crowd... o_O :shivers:
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I really hope George Bush says, or more importantly does, someting very good, very quickly. The UK has pretty much been our best friend since we got hit, and I hope the fact that George and all his secret service are in the country will give him a chance to make some token effort toward beginning to repay the debt very soon. If he doesn't at least make a strong statement and show some sort of attempt at intellegence gathering and sharing within the next couple hours, I'll be very disappointed.
And for the record, I don't see how it could make a civilized person happy to see anyone learn to live in fear. That's a barbaric statement if I ever heard one.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Bella Bee,
I agree 100%. Your response was far more reasoned than mine was going to be.
Having recently been there and used the underground a lot (including King's Cross station), it does change one's view.
My thoughts and prayers are with the people of London today, and with your government and with those who must respond to this crisis.
I will also add my prayers that the terrorists (everywhere) come to find a better and less destructive way to have their voices heard, and give up on violence as an option.
I hope all our other London-based friends check in soon.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
160 reported dead so far. Eye witnesses speak of many more still underground.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Bush spoke on CNN. He expressed condolences to the British people and urged caution to the American people heading to work today.
Security has stepped up on the DC subway this morning. Bush is in conference with the heads of Homeland Security at this time.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
That is "160 reported injured" actually.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: With the amount of violence displayed by both sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it's no wonder that the reporters have given up covering it.
That is a pitty, actually. That we grow used to violence. (but I think we can pretty much get used to anything...) "It's been going on for years" is no relief for those who suffer now. I remember seeing "Hotel Rwanda" and thinking: "How can people ignore stuff like that?!"
Posted by xnera (Member # 187) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Bush spoke on CNN. He expressed condolences to the British people and urged caution to the American people heading to work today.
Security has stepped up on the DC subway this morning. Bush is in conference with the heads of Homeland Security at this time.
Thanks. I'd missed that.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I was watching this on Fox News this morning. I've been to many of those stations before, so it was particularly startling. The reporters on Fox were talking about how the London people are reacting remarkably well and without panic. (They were also comparing their reaction to the New Yorker's reaction on 9/11, saying they were very similar.) They also made the point that the people are no strangers to terrorism, with IRA attacks in their past. Anyway, it made me proud of the British people--for not letting the terrorists succeed in their terror. So I think the comment that they're learning to live in fear is misguided at best.
When I got to work this morning, one of my coworkers asked me if I thought it was terrorists. I knew what she meant, but I said that of course it was terrorists, whatever group it was, by the very definition it is an act of terrorism.
-Katarain
Posted by xnera (Member # 187) on :
Yeah, there were cops on the El platform this morning.
I saw a lot of cops around last week, too. I figure it was because of the Taste of Chicago, but it still made me nervous because I started wondering if they knew something was going to happen. Weird, you'd think the presence of the police would make me feel more calm, but it doesn't. I guess it's because seeing the police is a reminder that this world isn't as safe as we like to think it is.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: That is "160 reported injured" actually.
Sorry about that. I must have mis-heard on CNN. I'm listening while working. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Living in fear? This is London we're talking about. Its people defied all that the Luftwaffe could throw at them, a bombing that makes Israel's troubles look like a child's scraped knee. I suggest that children who know nothing of history have a nice hot cup of STFU.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Actually, reading the story from CNN this morning, I got tears in my eyes. Not sure exactly why. I guess because it's so effing screwed up, all of it. *kicks things*
Has anyone heard from Amira?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The T here in Boston is on eleveated alert today too. My mom was in King's Cross station yesterday (she ahd been in England/London for a week, through yesterday. She got home safe and sound last night), going on a quick trip to Scotland on her last day over there. She called me at 8AM this morning, since we hadn't talked since she got back. She's rather rattled.
My fiance spent a year in England at UCL, and lived not 5 minutes from KC, and 10 from Russell's (sp) Square. She got a hold of one of her friends still in the city, and she's okay. My fiance is hoping everyone else she knows that she's lost touch with is okay as well.
My condolences and sympathy go out to the victims and their families...
-Bok
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
mack-- I emailed her, but forgot to put my real name; she may not recognize my email addy.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
Sickening. Just Sickening.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: Its people defied all that the Luftwaffe could throw at them, a bombing that makes Israel's troubles look like a child's scraped knee
Yes, 60+ years ago; and remember that Israel's troubles, though rather small in magnitude, happen in a much smaller nation. Greater London has a higher population than Israel.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Living in fear? This is London we're talking about. Its people defied all that the Luftwaffe could throw at them, a bombing that makes Israel's troubles look like a child's scraped knee. I suggest that children who know nothing of history have a nice hot cup of STFU.
And again, why do we have to compare sufferings?! This post is just as rude as the one it is answering. Please be civil about this, both you and HS.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote: One caller to BBC Five Live said his friend had seen "the bus ripped open like a can of sardines".
It seems clear that many people must have died if this happened to a "packed" bus.
I'm sure Amira and Pixie will check in with someone as soon as possible. Right now the phones are pretty tied up. Is Amira on dial up still? It might be a while. Until then we can only pray.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
We really have to avoid contention among those of us who are against terrorism. It's important that we all pull together. Contention makes things worse not better.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I also e-mailed Amira. She doesn't live or work in London itself, so she's probably fine. (And if we don't hear from her today, I think I can still find her phone number).
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
HS: You *had* to answer that, didn't you?!? Forget the *scale* of things, innocent people have been hurt or killed today, for them it doesn't make much difference that it wasn't in a Luftwaffe bombardment, in a Palestinian suicide bombing or in an Israeli punishing mission -or whatever one would call it-, ok?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Right now, the scale doesn't matter. People died at the hands of other people. That in itself is enough for mourning.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The news this morning was making a tenative connection to G8. I don't know what to think about that. My thought is that if it does have something to do with G8, then the other 7 countries are a target as well. I don't know... I just have this sense of dread that it's going to get a lot worse and I just hope I'm way wrong.
-Katarain
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
This stinks.
About the only good thing is that the death toll seems to be staying in the 100’s and not the 1,000’s.
I’m very surprised our subways haven’t been hit yet.
Guess the war on terror isn’t over.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Wow, British people are so great, aren't they? This calm efficiency is inspiring. (Watching BBC coverage.)
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Guess the war on terror isn’t over.
Did anyone think it was?
I don't think the "war on terror" will EVER be over.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I don't think that the "war on terror" will be won in a traditional sense-- but it will ultimatly be self-destructive.
--j_k
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Oh man.
I hate, hate hearing about this. No matter what country, no matter what, mack is right - a large number of people were murdered and injured today. And that's definitely cause to mourn.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Thank you for your concern and sympathy to the London Hatrackers.
Thank you for your mourning of people who live far from you.
Thank you for thoughts and prayers for Londoners and all others who have and continue to suffer at the hands of terrorists.
I’m amazed by the calm efficiency that London is responding with. Our years living under threat of the IRA have clearly left their mark and kept us safe until now. We’re thankful that we have got off lightly … Madrid and 9/11 were so much worse.
London is strangely quite with helicopters above the palace. People are contemplating long walks home (2 – 3 hrs) rather than using public transport.
We will recover, we will host the Olympics in 2012. We will continue to protest against the rich exploiting the poor, we will continue to work towards peace in the middle east and hope that moderate leaders will join us at the table. We will continue to protest against ‘terror laws’. We wont let them win.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:I still remember March-April two years ago, when we had God knows how many explosions. The English government, BBC and Skynews didn't give a damn. The reporers didn't even look at the Israeli side of what's going on.
And now they get an explosion. Well, at least they know now what it is to live in fear.
And from the Begging the Question thread:
quote:Because England is blowing up.
I just want to say that I find your delight in this event beyond appalling. I don't give a damn what your personal feelings toward England are, but the fact that you would look at these bombings with glee, regardless of what the past circumstances of you or your country may have been, has just earned you my contempt for life.
That is all.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Isn't HS from England? I feel so confused right now.
Posted by Lucky4 (Member # 1420) on :
I've just heard from my best friend who got married three weeks ago and moved to London this past week. She and her husband were downtown during the attacks, but they have finally made it home. It took over 2.5 hours for them to get to the place they are staying which is somewhat outside London from what I understand. She reports that the phones most places continue to be out of service due to the high demand.
She says that she has been extremely encouraged by people's reactions, that for the most part they are smiling and calm and going about their days. That amazes me. Humans are truly so resilient.
I certainly feel better having heard from her and knowing that she's ok. To the rest of you who are worried for loved ones, you are in my thoughts.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*panics* My parents are in London! *goes off to check email* Oh, phew! That's right -- they're in Zürich this week. Went yesterday.
Yesterday I was hearing about England hosting the 2012 Olympics, and now this!
HS is indeed originally from England, but he identifies as Israeli -- and identifies his father, with whom he seems to spar a lot, as from England. Regardless, his comments were disgusting. When people said similar things about 9/11, I was equally appalled.
It takes a certain something to twist the knife like that. And it ain't something good. HS, this is hardly the behavior of רחמנים, בישנים, וגומלי חסדים! Grow up.
To all of you in London and environs: please stay safe!
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Haloed Silhouette: I still remember March-April two years ago, when we had God knows how many explosions. The English government, BBC and Skynews didn't give a damn. The reporers didn't even look at the Israeli side of what's going on.
And now they get an explosion. Well, at least they know now what it is to live in fear.
No one likes your country 'cause you're rude.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
You just don't like em cause you're Irish.
My condolences to the victims and thier families.
Ni!
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I find out everything so late, being on the west coast of the US. I just found out about this when I checked my livejournal(I hadn't turned on the news this morning.) I am in tears. I feel for everyone that doesn't know the whereabouts of their family and friends and I'll be praying for their relief.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: We really have to avoid contention among those of us who are against terrorism. It's important that we all pull together. Contention makes things worse not better.
I've been trying to think of a non-bitter way to say this, but the best I can do is: this is why the opinions people express need to be careful and thought out and why wild allegations and rampant, unproductive blamecasting are such dangerous things.
Edited to, hopefully, make it clear that I was not directing my comments to Tatiana.
[ July 07, 2005, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I heard about this when I woke up this morning, but I had to go off to work so I couldn't check the updates later.
It's very horrible. Thankfully, I know few people in London, although there are a few that I know are sometimes there that we haven't got a hold of yet. My heart goes out to all the injured and killed, their friends and family. This attack well and truly hit home for me, even though I'm so far away.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
I think you all got me wrong. Rivka, I'm indeed English many generations back, I identify partially with the Jewish people - I'm no strict Israeli. My father is not English.
I was not twisting knives; if you even bothered to look at my post without being so damn biased about me, you'd see that I was referring to the English government's approach, and what the main media stations made of the whole project.
I certainly don't regard the fact that England got mass-bombed as a matter of glee. The Begging the Question thread has absolutely nothing to do with this, aside the fact that the nature of its comments is rather unrealistic, so I basically take this thing to extreme. There was no glee in that, mind you, and if your mind is so damn perverted that you twist my words into life contempt - then life contempt is what you deserve.
If jeebus202 think that "my" country - as a collective - is rude, then he's no damn better than what was said about me - having certain negative "feelings" for England as a whole. That just goes on as one more irrelevant and inappropriate remark of his.
As for KoM's remark of "I suggest that children who know nothing of history have a nice hot cup of STFU" - I think that the one who should shut the **** up is he. Again, prejudice remarks; don't think for a single minute I know "nothing" about Irish-English history. True, I'm no expert in that arena, I never said I was, but to immediately classify me as an absolute knowledge-lacker in history is a) rude; b) prejudice; c) loaded with personal contempt of one form or another; and d) wrong.
"HS: You *had* to answer that, didn't you?!" While I can understand Corwin's point of view, I do believe that if someone suddenly tells me to shut the **** up does deserve a reply. I wasn't comparing suffering, I was simply telling KoM - who was comparing suffering (which was Corwin's argument in that post - not to do that stuff) that he HIMSELF seems to be in the direction of "knowing nothing" about the factors involved - that "knowing nothing" bit is part of the reason he told me to shut the **** up.
Regarding another statement of mine that "I know what it's like" - that was sympathy. Knowing what a hurt person feels and having a mutual understanding of the pain is sympathy by definition. Corwin's reply to that was "Well, if you DO know what it's like, don't make us think you're gloating over it... If you want to blame reporters, do that, but the Londoners have nothing to do with that, so what is it to you if they live in fear right now?! As someone who has been through something like that it seems to me that you should sympathize with them".
I wasn't making you think that I'm gloating over it. Whether you infer vanity into that feeling or not is not part of my post. I did blame the general attitude of reporters, and I never said it had anything to do with the Londoners, except that they were reporting similar attacks. "It is to me that they live in fear right now" that they know what it's like, and therefore I can sympathise them and vice-versa with greater understanding of what's going on out there! So yes, it is sympathy, and if you didn't realise it by now - there's your proof. I do sympathise with them, and I'm sorry it wasn't clear before.
For your information, I have some family there, and we've been trying to contact them for about 10 hours - but the phone network is down or something. I am not gloating over it, and certainly have no glee.
HS/JH
=== At the time of writing this post, the previous post was Teshi's at 21:16 my time, opening with the words: "I heard about this..."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
More than 700 injured now. Around 40 dead, and around 50 of those 700 are critical or serious condition.
I think what makes it so much worse, is that the attacks came on the same day that Londom was hosting a summit committed to ending poverty in Africa and halting Global Climate Change. It makes so much less sense, and seems like such a more offensive crime against the planet, let alone just the people.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:If jeebus202 think that "my" country - as a collective - is rude
I know it for a fact.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
HS, may I suggest that you take a step back for a moment? The fact that so very many people in this thread found your comments offensive indicates that you should at least consider that your phrasing is at fault, not our interpretation. The mature thing to do here is to apologize for any unintended offense, assure the people of London that your thoughts are with them, and leave it be.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Oh, really? I know many people in Israel who're far less ruder than You Yourself.
You're a pot calling the kettle black. (Figure of speech, no racism intended.)
My apologies for adding an "e" to your pseudonym, by the way.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Oh, really? I know many people in Israel who're far less ruder than You Yourself.
Lies.
quote:You're a pot calling the kettle black.
Racist.
quote:My apologies for adding an "e" to your pseudonym, by the way.
Apology NOT accepted.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
"I do sympathise with them, and I'm sorry it wasn't clear before."
Does this stand for nothing?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
jebus, please stop baiting him.
Jonathan, please don't play the freaking martyr. Forty people (at least) die, we object to the way you are showing your "sympathy", and then you act self-righteous about our objections.
Grow up, or failing that, shut up.
Edit: and listen to Eljay.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Honestly? When it's one line at the end of a huge justification of why your original statements weren't offensive and everyone is out to get you, not really. Plus it's a statement of sympathy, not an apology for the prior offense, which is what I suggested.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Your initial reaction, JH, was inappropriate and it's hard for people to forget that. Do not wish harm on other people, even if you're stinging/hurting yourself.
Can we focus on what happened in London, please, and not on what people may or may not have said?
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Jebus, you're acting like a true moron. I'm saying "like" because you've had insights before, and I know you're not a moron. But now for the "like" bit:
For a start, you don't know a tenth of the people I know, so by saing "lies" you're being a childish, ostentatios, boasting blob of slime. Secondly, your claim "racist" does not rely on the parantheses at the end of the paragraph. Thirdly, I don't give a damn whether you accept the apology or not; I was being polite - something that I don't really wish to be now.
If this was intended as three jokes, they're in the wrong place. I personally think this is what's truly off limits. Maybe my phrasing wasn't ideal back then - but it was relevant and dealt with the topic with some sense of respect, whether inferred or not. You, though, are being pathetic.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Sometimes, HS, being sympathetic is being able to give people what they need, and commiserating in a way they can appreciate. This isn't about you (and shooting back with "I'm not the one making this about me" won't help).
My thoughts go out to those in the city. I can only hope that I would be able to deal with a similar event with such stoicism.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Please regard my last post (intended at jebus) as obsolete. I'm off this thread - for now. When I wrote that (jebus-related) post, the following posts were not on yet.
This is just so you see it's NOT provocation.
Bye.
Posted by Zemra (Member # 5706) on :
I am so sorry to hear about it. I have been following the news since one hour after it happen I am amazed with how well they are handling it. I cannot know how they fill but I do now that nobody should go through this. My prayers are with the people of England and especially with the Londoners.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
This is the first I've heard about it; Hatrack is pretty much my major news source.
*prays*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
BTW, current toll is at 37 dead, over 700 wounded. Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I thought of Amira when I heard about this too. Anyone heard from her yet?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm worried about her, too, but I remember the phones are very tied up, also it's late at night now, so it may be a while before we hear anything.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I heard on the radio that there have been several official requests that people not try to call until the demand isn't so high. I'm not sure I could comply with that if my loved ones were there.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
We have more British Hatrackers than I realized, I have learned from reading this thread. Are there yet more we haven't heard from yet? Where is that thread where everyone posts where they are from?
FG
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Phone systems are generally built on the presumption that most people aren't going to be using them at any given time. Typically, a small city (pop < 10,000) will be served by 24-48 trunks...
Assuming that there's even more compression at higher populations, there's going to be a lot of busy signals for a long time...
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yikes. I only recently heard about this. Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
So, London is falling asleep at last, it's been a strange evening, we all walked home (!) and for once couldn't grumble about our awful tube system. A more than usual number of people gathered at the local pub ... something about being with our comunity at this time.
Disturbing reports are coming through from 'un official' sources, the bomb on the bus was likely to be the driver. He got off the bus before setting it off, unfortunately he didn't get far enough away from the blast.
We've been saying not if but when for 4 years. We joined the war on terror, we invaded Afganistan, we invade Iraq, we did it for our own ends, we did it without legal backing. We did it without legal merit and we knew we would pay the price. The price is here and honestly, it is not as bad as I feared. But then I haven't lost anyone dear to me - I don't think.
I remember on 9/11 posting the question to US citizens what part they played in creating an environment in which somewhere, someone it the world thought the most meaningful act of their life was to wreak vengance. And now I must ask myself the same question.
I did not vote for this government, or the last one, but the reality is that the alternative party would likewise have participated in the 'war on terror' and honestly I'm glad the choice isn't up to me. I'm not Gandhi and I like my life with electricity and running water.
England has behaved abysmally through much of history (wars between catholics and protestants, crusades). So we are in no position to preach ... but maybe we have experiences and lessons that we have learnt to put into the pot of humanity.
We have lived under a terrorist threat for over years 30 years and we do nearly have peace now, perhaps others could learn that when attacked by a wasp hitting the hive with a tennis racket may not be wise, but rather build your defences, be vilgilent and move on to the next generation.
Our papers support are clearly biased towards the Palistinans. Partly British tradition of supporting the underdog. Maybe our way of redressing the balance of other media but still not helpful. Some honest unbiased reporting might help create mutual understanding rather than a war of retaliatory words with a back drop of retaliatory action.
More than ever I feel sad that in a world where some are trying to learn from the past and move away from our cycle of vengence as seen by the G8 agenda we are still pulled back into the world of vengence. I'm naive, I know, but .... if the alternative is hate then I know where I would rather be.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I will say this, It is a little saddening to see a topic like this turn into so much bickering and arguing back and forth. If I see a man broken on the side of the road and crying in pain it is not my place to laugh at him or feel any kind of joy or satisfaction in him being hurt in a manner that I had been. Or telling a person they should not mourn because you have had more to mourn for. I admit that I am not perfect either and there are many times when I do feel and act in such a way, but I am trying to change. I would ask that you attempt to better yourself a bit as well. No one becomes perfect in a day, but no one gets better without trying to.
That and I find it sad that people would say,"well this has happened to us because we have gotten into an unjustified war." Fact of the matter is that be a conflict justified or not, and in reality it is all a rationlization to kill, there will be people who "fight" back. I would doubt, but of course I don't 100% know, that the bombers did this because the UN didn't vote on the issue, or because there were no mass caches of WMDs found in Iraq.
That and on a much brighter note Pixe, my love , is completely fine. I have to admit , even though it wasn't logical, I was honestly frightened and worried to the point of shaking when I first thought about it. I have the kind of imagination and personal experience to understand what things like that look like, and to think of her in a situation like that is unbearable. I truely mourn for the people as I am sure that someone in London etc. who had the same fear as mine did not get to be relieved, did not get to start worrying. Instead now they are entering a time of mourning. I personally feel we should pray for these people, and if not religious at least give them a considerate thought. It is easy to deal in death with numbers and statistics. What is truely different between 100 and 200 wounded etc. Does it become an evil act if it breaks a thousand etc. Should we not mourn if but one person is murdered, if but one be wounded. Remember that for every one person who dies there are dozens who cared for them who are brought into sadness.
Posted by ShadowPuppet (Member # 8239) on :
I would like to take a minute to compare two things to everyone
on one hand a scene from the movie "War of the Worlds" (if you haven't seen it yet I suppose this is a bit of a mini-spoiler)
the scene in which a crowd is rabid and practically tears a family to shreds because they want a van (those who've seen it will relate)
on the other hand this little argument that took place through this thread
I'm not one to point fingers I'm not condeming anyone
but doesn't it strike any of you as funny that in a moment of disaster we would rather wind ourselves so tight that the fewest misinterpreted words send us flying off the handle than to worry about the things which matter if someone says something that doesn't sit well
you still have the right as a human to ignore it
I'm not one to take sides
an event like this makes us quick with our words sometimes not thinking through the consequences unless you can be certain you're words will be taken in the best possible manner intended then maybe you shouldn't say them
and
if someone has offered an apology don't retreat to the mind set of a five year old and egg them on to get another reaction
if I've pissed anyone off with this post then by all means rip me a new one
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I have a lot to say right now but I just can't bring myself to rail against a Londoner right now.
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were both completely justified under international law. To say otherwise and imply that you brought this on yourselves is to justify the actions taken against London today. Firebird, you should read Lewis's essay "On the Dangers of National Repentance."
And I'm going to leave it at that... I feel inappropriate enough as it is.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I haven't read the whole thing, but nothing could be more disturbing to me than an attack on public transportation, especially subways. It's one of my worse fears.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Don't feel inappropriate ... isn't the point of a forum to share different views? Isn't the root problem of today that we resort to violence rather than finding a way to share our views respectfully? Isn't our duty to try to find another way?
We're all entitled to our opinion ... I'm just trying to express mine. This is my city ... I'm entitled to show my grief as I see fit.
I'd rather hear your argument than an attack on mine. I'd rather we build a common understanding. I have read Lewis's essay, I don't rember the details, I do remember agreeing with part of the analysis but disagreeing with the conclusion.
I'm not saying we deserve the acts of today ... I am saying our actions have contributed to it happening. Life does not exist in a vacuum, are actions are interrelated. We have a choice between retaliation or building a common understanding and working towards a common goal. I would rather work towards the later and see less of the former.
It doesn't matter which of our actions have been antagonistic. It only matters that they were and that we should redress our behaviour to avoid it in the future.
We learn from history what we have not learned from history.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: That and on a much brighter note Pixe, my love , is completely fine.
Great news!
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
quote: 'm not saying we deserve the acts of today ... I am saying our actions have contributed to it happening. Life does not exist in a vacuum, are actions are interrelated. We have a choice between retaliation or building a common understanding and working towards a common goal. I would rather work towards the later and see less of the former.
This is exactly how I felt after 9/1i
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Do they know that the people involved are members of al Queda? That seems to be the conclusion that people have jumped to, but, other than a claim on a website, is there anything tying them to it? I remember after both the Oklahoma City bombing and the Atlanta Olympics bombing, the immediate assumption that it was Islamic terrorist turned out to not only be false but also hindered the investigation. There are plenty of people who would like to take a shot at the G8 or have a beef with England and her allies. I'm not sure that it's necessarily al Queda that carried this out, although I haven't seen the recent news on it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I remember after both the Oklahoma City bombing
I was going to post about this. Does anyone remember people jumping to the conclusion after OC that it was Islamic terrorists? I heard about it 20 minutes or so after it happened, and it was immediately linked to the anniversary of Waco with the stated possibility that it was a surviving Branch Davidian or another internal militia who was responsible. There was a list of all the federal operations that had been run out of that building that ticked off the militia types.
In the coverage I saw, they were always the front-runner for being responsible.
Dagonee
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
When Oklahoma City happenned I was 7 so I don't remember it directly, but there was an article I read recently about the hours before and after the attack. One thing I remember about the article is that Islamic terrorism was the first conclusion. However, somebody realized that if it was international terrorism, the target and the date were odd.
Another thing I remember from that article was that Tim McVeigh's first thought was "Why didn't it all come down?" That guy was sick.
--j_k
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
My wife had two cousins in the second tower that was hit on 9/11. They were evacuating even though the 'all clear - return to your offices' announcement had been given when that second airliner struck.
They said it shook the whole building. They could hear its structure creek and moan as they made their way out.
When they finally made it to the streets below, the building collapsed and they were both knocked unconscious by the falling debris. They never met their rescuers.
My wife's family back east spent three heart wrenching days looking through every hospital they could find. My wife was a mess during all of this, but we were some of the lucky ones in the end, because they both made it out with whole (but badly injured) bodies.
To this day, neither woman will go back in a high-rise.
The sad thing is how ineffective terrorist attacks are. They don't inspire fear for more than a moment or so, then the nation under siege bands together and becomes even stronger than before. I guess these idiots have never heard of 'Pearl Harbor' or 'The Blitz.'
My heart and prayers are with the people of London tonight. Stay strong for each other.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
The thing is, if the terrorists had timed this a couple of weeks before the last elections (as was done in Spain) I could see the Labour government losing and Britain pulling out of Iraq.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Dag, I do remember people jumping to the conclusion that the Oklamhoma City bombing was committed by Muslims. And being completely shocked when it turned out not to be true.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
That's true Jebus, they had an effect on both Spain and the US on a political level.
Bush was voted back in on a fear driven ticket, and the Spanish withdrew from Iraq as a result of the bombings on their trains.
I guess it's more effective than I previously stated. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dana, were they officials or part of the general public? I do remember explaining to a few friends that it was likely internal.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Public, and some media. News commentator-types.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah. I avoid news commentator-types when I can. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
We saw this unfolding last night our time. How dreadful.
***
quote: The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were both completely justified under international law.
Jim-Me, this is by no means certain. Many international legal scholars disagree with you on that point (as does this almost-lawyer ).
Posted by TheDisgruntledPostman (Member # 7200) on :
I hadn't reliezed earlier that someone had already posted about this but whatever, dosen't really bother me. I'm in a political mood right now so i just want to say something. IfTony Blair decides to act against these attacks with "force" what will the London activists do, nothing, well probally nothing, because they experienced it, this type of tradgedy. I am almost posotive you won't see American's protesting against Blair in(if he does) take action, like London did back when Iraq first started. But that's all to far away to think of now, this has all just started so lets just see how things get before arguments get made up. Stil say a prayer, or two.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
My sympathies. **** terrorists.
[ July 08, 2005, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Pithy, and it hits all the important points.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
My post? Or another's?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, prayers are just what we need. In fact, with all those people praying for the recovery of the wounded, why, I'm sure none of them will die! Indeed, how can any god possibly ignore the effect of ten million concentrated prayers? He'll surely make the dead get up and walk!
If you feel the need to do something, how about writing a letter of sympathy to the victims, or contributing to a fund for their recovery, or something? Surely your god has all the prayers he needs.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Look, KoM took this horrible tragedy in London and turned it into a mean-spirited attack against religion. Just look at my big surprised face: Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
Nice attitude KoM.
Prayer is more than a plea for support from a deity. It is a commitment by an individual to keep a person(s) in their thoughts. But I guess giving a damn about others isn't something that people who pray are capable of. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I ahve relatives in London; people who will 'pray for them' and think they have accomplished something annoy me.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
Where did you see in this thread any statement that implied prayer accomplished anything?
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:I ahve relatives in London; people who will 'pray for them' and think they have accomplished something annoy me.
Maybe so, but can we just say that whenever someone says something pro-religious, we can just take it as a given that you're sneering at them and move on? Do you have to self-righteously belittle them every time?
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
I'm agnostic myself, so I'm finding his anti-religion attitude somewhat curious. I pray for people even though I admit that in my own personal assessment there may be no God.
Prayer to me is more than speaking to God, it is the combined will of prayer that has the power to move and change the world. It need not be in a temple, or at your bedside with your hands pressed together. It can be merely a thought of good will, concern, or love for your fellow human being.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Not posting here very often, my opinions probably (and shouldn't!) mean a whole heck of a lot.
But what happened in London is very sad. I don't believe prayers help much personally - but they certainly don't hurt. If someone thinks prayers may help, they shouldn't be discouraged by those of us who disagree.
People who pray certainly don't annoy. It's people who think they have all the answers.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
Everyone's opinions are worth something Chungwa. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow. Just, wow.
KoM reaches new depths.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
<tangent> What if one thinks/believes prayers will hurt? (Not myself) </tangent>
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
People do wish ill on others and it does have an effect IMHO. Remember the old axiom: "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it."
We're getting off topic though. This thread's about the London bombings, not my opinions on metaphysics or KoM's insensitive comments on people who pray.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:<tangent> What if one thinks/believes prayers will hurt? (Not myself) </tangent>
Then a thread about a horrible tragedy caused by a terrorist attack would not be the place to bring out the argument. A thread about prayer in general would be a better place for it. And an attitude of civil discourse would be the correct manner to discuss it, and not the self-righteous mocking KoM consistantly uses whenever religion even looks like it might come up.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Some comments from ealier in the thread regarding the London Blitz, other terrorist attacks, and tragedy in general.
London pulled through the Blitz. New York survived 9/11. Israel still exists despite repeated tragedies. So does Ethiopia, Somalia, Rwanda, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. How many can I list?
Yes, a lot of people died, and more were injured. It was also emotionally devastating, and expensive. Individually, people suffered life altering tragedy.
On a daily basis, the personal tragedy in the world outweighs today's bombing.
But collectively, we pull through. Somehow I think that this is an important perspective. We absorb the damage, and go on.
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
Still...
Posted by ShadowPuppet (Member # 8239) on :
someone posted somewhere about how people bind together in times of need
I'm too lazy and drunk to quote
but this is something that I've wanted to say to somebody for a long time
isn't it just pitiful and sad how people only come together in times of crisis and grief
but give it a few months and all of a sudden people are at each other's throats again
I have no examples but you'll find it true
why does it take disaster to bring us together even the "patriots" are against someone or another
it's disgusting and vile
for any nationality and especially for us all in general
people use the phrase "why can't we all just get along" as a joke a lot of the time
but I ask you know anyone who can provide me a decent answer
why not? why does it take death and pain to bring us together when as a human race we should all be unified
actually Ender's Game is a prime example the entire earth is unified in the attack on the Formics but once the war against something different is ended then the world is at itself for control of itself
the thought is gut wrenching that as one species we are so divided
we are so...
it makes me sick
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
<derail> Shadow's posting style reminds me of someone... I'm sure it's not him but it just stood out tonight. </derail>
I've discovered tonight that one of my online friends lives less than 9 miles from King's Cross station and that the son of another online friend traveled through that station AND on the route of the bus that exploded, both apparently within a few minutes prior to the incidents. Needless to say, both friends were quite freaked out.
I will never understand what these terrorists think they're going to accomplish with these kinds of acts, unless their sole purpose is murder and mayhem. What do their organizations gain by blowing up a commuter bus full of people and multiple major train hubs? Or by ramming a couple planes into skyscrapers? Or by strapping a bunch of bombs to their chests and committing suicide in the middle of a crowd?
I'm going back to my corner of ignorance with my stitching and playing ostrich for a while...
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
Pain and loss are reminders of how frail and precious life is. We often lose sight of that as we plod through our daily lives. It's when we experience those feelings again that we remember how important we are to one another.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's entirely about timing though. For example, if the US were hit with multiple terrorist attacks sometime in the next year, I think it would do the opposite of raising support for Bush.
Everyone would say "You made us go through all this and we still aren't any safer?" I think it would shake confidence and swing it towards the Democrats. Terrorists CAN have a big effect on elections and governments, but I don't think they are very good at gauging what those effects are.
(I posted this before I read page three of this thread, thus, this post is in response to people talking about how the attacks would have been more effective had they been made before the British reelection)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Exploding Monkey: Pain and loss are reminders of how frail and precious life is. We often lose sight of that as we plod through our daily lives. It's when we experience those feelings again that we remember how important we are to one another.
I don't need a ton of distruction to remember how beautiful and valuable life is. I already know... It's just to agonizing to think about. I think I am burning out or something... The constant fear.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, historically Americans have usually been at each others throats except for times of national crisis that brought them together.
The Revolutionary War split much of the nation and caused bitter debates. Much of the early political wrangling, and first years of the nation were years of arguments and bitter disputes. All of that went on for more than 60 years until culminating in the Civil War. There was perhaps a short period of togetherness during Reconstruction, but that was gone by far when the 20th century hit. We stopped arguing most of the time for the major wars, but other than that it's been arguments and disdain.
But what is new is what we have in America right now. I don't America as a whole has been this polarized since the Civil War. For that I mostly, but not entirely blame Bush, not Republicans in general, but Bush, for pushing the nation to such extremes, and for doing absolutely nothing to stem the tide and take a step past urging togetherness to actually try and do something about it.
There's a general lack of respect in much of the world. Lack of respect for other nations, for fellow citizens, for everyone.
I think much of why terrorism exists is to serve as a pin to the western bubble. Westerners for the most part have lived in a bubble of safety and security. Their governments do things in foriegn nations that screw with the daily lives of regular people, and the regular people of the West never really feel the effects.
People might say that they realize how precious life is, and that they know and care about what is going on in the world, but I think the majority of Westerners find it hard to really remain constantly vigilant. We have our own lives and problems, no matter how unimportant they may be in the grand scheme of things, we'd rather deal with changing the oil in the car than what our military might be doing in another country.
More specifically in this case, if the terrorists are Iraqi, they're probably thinking it's payback for the thousands of Iraqi citizens who have been made casualties by America's war to fight the terrorists in Iraq, rather than at home. And considering how callous that strategy is, I wouldn't be surprised to see the people of Iraq being pretty callous in return.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I predict that this attack will strengthen British resolve and furthermore lead to them taking an ever greater role in 'leading' the war on terror instead of following. The Brits are a tough people at the core, they will not be frightened off like Spain.
I also feel sad for the people who died for the cause of the great inferiority complex of whoever is responsible, unable to cope with the modern world, thus bent on lashing out at it. Like the inferiority of childhood we can only hope they can outgrow it. But those people who died will never grow a day older or learn or experience another thing and they deserved better.
It is miserable to see it happening still, but I have my small piece of this war to fight, I leave it to others, clearly competent and very motivated (doctors, police, and military) to find the path that ends these acts.
I leave it to the intellectuals who will blame us for these things and will say it is really our own fault to STFU.
BC
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I'm worried. I hope everything will be all right. I have a friend who's in England now. After telling another of my friends that she was in the boonies with her grandparents and not in London, I got scared. I hope she's OK.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:The Brits are a tough people at the core, they will not be frightened off like Spain.
It's not about being tough or not. It's a knee-jerk reaction that can happen in any country given the right timing, even the US.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
The Al-quedains are a bunch of cowardly psychotic cockroaches. Bombing women and children in the name of god?
...these guys are as sh!t to the wind bad as Jeffery Dahmer. If they want a Jihad, fine, take on some of Our Marines, or Our Army soldiers, but only a low life scum sucking piss brain is going to bomb women and children and civilians.
These men are the worst kind of evil.
quote: Guess the war on terror isn’t over.
This was stupid, jay.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd say there is a difference between trying to understand why the terrorists do what they do and blaming the West for it.
Saying "the terrorists attacked wherever because Americans invaded Iraq" isn't blaming America, it's explaining why what happened happened. Not recognizing the difference is dangerous, it shows a lack of ability to understand the motivation of the enemy, and their reasoning. And understanding can be the difference between a long or shorter war.
So if someone says "Britain was attacked because they are in Iraq" or "British soldiers killed Iraqi citizens in Fallujah," they aren't necessarily blaming Britain or America, or at least when/if I say it, I certainly am not blaming us. In the long run, fighting the terrorists man for man is never going to win this war, it will come down to winning a greater ideological war, and a war of public opinion.
And for that war, there is no hope of victory if we don't understand the thought process of terrorists. I find it impossible to believe "they are mindless killers" is a good enough explanation, or for that matter, that it's even half way true.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
firebird, your posts on p.2 were wonderful. I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier. It expresses much of what I felt after Oklahoma City and the two bombings of the WTC (the first one in the garage and then 9/11). Not that we are to blame, but are we contributing...and with suicide bombers that question about what is it that makes them believe that the wrongs they've suffered (real or imagined) are worth their life?
Dag, I'm reading in the Washington Post now that experts are almost certain this was an al Qaeda related (or inspired) attack. One of the worrisome things they all seem to be saying is that while the core of al Qaeda has become less active, the overall movement has become decentralized and spreading throughout the world.
They believe that small cells with no official connection to bin Laden et al. are nonetheless learning their techniques and target selection practices and that the London attack has many features of an al Qaeda operation.
In summary, a couple of them said it's really the worst-case scenario: attacks by groups of young, educated internet-literate men with no central control, but access to the techniques of a mature al Qaeda.
Maximum destruction for minimum infrastructure.
Without casting blame (so please, Bush supporters, don't dogpile), I believe this is one of the unintended consequences of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. I recall people saying as much. That we had cut the head off the hydra and now we could expect lots of local autonomy and LESS ability to contain or track.
I don't see that as a reason NOT to go after al Qaeda's heads, so, again, don't dogpile. It's just one of the things that happens.
One last thought: The British are wonderful people, but I heard some news of retaliation against Muslims after 9/11. I sincerely hope that calmer and more rational heads prevail in this time. When dkw and I were there in April there was a report about one mosque in London being included on a list of places that some young cell members had frequented in the past. I pray that everyone realize that mosques are a place of worship and peace and that bad people could be found in any place of worship if you scratch hard enough. Loss of those places of stability in communities would make things worse, not better. And, of course, personal attacks against people who look like Arabs are not allowed either.
I hope that London teaches the world a lesson in calm rational but deliberate response to this attack. We could sure use an example.
Again, I'm praying for the people of London, especially the victims, and I will add today the Arab people and communities there and in the US.
And a prayer for the terrorists to find a less violent path.
KoM: Also please remember that prayer does not preclude doing OTHER things too. You might look into the charitable works of various denominations and especially their emergency relief efforts before you go slamming people who pray. They pray AND they act.
If anything, prayer leads to action, rather than replacing it.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
[aside] sorry that you're drunk, ShadowPuppet [/aside]
Bob, I'm not going to "dogpile", but i would like to respond, please.
quote: I believe this is one of the unintended consequences of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq
Okay - let me ask you. Do you really really think this WOULDN'T have happened if we had never attack Afghanistan or Iraq?
Do you remember who attacked first?
It is hard for all of us, who are generally good people, to really understand the mind of a terrorist. They really really are filled with hate and evil. They want to kill. They relish in killing. They even relish in dying in their quest to kill.
If we had not responded at all to 9/11, would the violence have stopped? No! Our lack of response would be seen as a sign of weakness and they would continue on their goal to rid the world of western infidels.
We are not talking of people, heads of state, who we can sit down across the table from and work out the problems, as we perhaps could do, and have done, in other conflicts. These terrorists are extremists and madmen. They are bent on our destruction with singular focus.
They are like cancer cells invading the body of the world. If we don't rid ourselves of them, they will grow and become stronger and fill the whole world with their cancer.
We need to find a way to educate the young people who are recruited by these extremists, in order to end the flow of hatred. That is the only hope into ever truly winning any way against this group of random people.
Farmgirl
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Firebird, thank you for your extremely well spoken and measured response... and for allowing me the space to cool down . I am ashamed that I was less in control of my temper far away than you were in the middle of it. Good on you. Very good on you, indeed.
To honor that, I will make my points as you requested.
Afghanistan: we went in and destroyed terrorist elements that had attacked our nation and deposed a government that was clearly and openly supporting them. No problem with international law.
Iraq: There was a clearly articulated cease-fire agreement with Iraq which Hussein's administration regularly and systematically violated for more than a decade. They also completely failed to comply with the UN resolutions regarding their chemical weaponry *whether or not they actually kept any*. You can argue all you want about other options or what mistakes the Bush and Blair administrations made focussing on Chemical Weapons (my opinion has aways been that they kept the VX and hid it beyond our ability to find and, with about twenty 55 gallon drums being the cache in question, that wouldn't be hard at all) but there is no question that we had the right to go back in and have had since 1992.
As for the Lewis essay, his point was that it is not productive in any way to apologize for what "we" did when your clear subtext is "look what 'they' got us into."
I got ticked because I have had to repeat the middle paragraph (on Iraq) way too many times on this forum, where people seem particularly dense about accepting it and I get a little more irate everytime I have to write it.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:If we had not responded at all to 9/11, would the violence have stopped? No! Our lack of response would be seen as a sign of weakness and they would continue on their goal to rid the world of western infidels.
I don't think this or the attack in Spain would have happened if they hadn't sent troops into Iraq.
More attacks on America if it hadn't reacted to 9/11? Perhaps. I still see it as highly likely that there could be more attacks on America because of the way they reacted, though.
Jim-Me: That doesn't make the attack on Iraq legal. The U.N. didn't approve. Granted, I think the U.N. showed it's major flaw there as many countries were acting in their own interests, and not in the interest of peace. Nevertheless, the war in Iraq was still illegal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think Jim-me is overstating it a little when he says it was definitely legal under international law. But so are people who say it was definitely illegal. What's clear is that there were compelling arguments on both sides of the issue, and that no tribunal has authority to decide the issue. Further, there is absolutely no requirement that the UN approve an action to make it legal. It's an oversimplification to cite lack of UN approval as definitive evidence of illegality.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: I don't think this or the attack in Spain would have happened if they hadn't sent troops into Iraq.
jebus, I think you and I will have to agree to just disagree on this point.
Maybe they wouldn't have happened at this particular point in time, or in this way, but I still feel like it would have happened eventually. Because the terrorists' "war" is against the entire western world, or anything that resembles America. So they would have continued to attack us until our Allies would intervene, or until they gained strength to also target others who disagree with their world philosophy, and that would include Spain and England. Eventually.
FG
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Dag,
I'm unclear... violation of a ratified cease-fire isn't justification for re-opening hostilities?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"They are like cancer cells invading the body of the world. If we don't rid ourselves of them, they will grow and become stronger and fill the whole world with their cancer."
Hm. I'm not comfortable with this assessment. Are you so certain that they're varelse?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are potential proportionality and notice issues involved. I think the case is pretty compelling and come down on the side of the war being legal. But, as I said, there's no one to review it, and the decisions I've read on the other side bring up a lot of issues that have to be reconciled.
My big beef are with people who definitively state blatantly false conclusions, such as "The UN said the war was illegal." I think your summary catches the two main points well. But legal definitiveness can only be obtained after the theory is tested in court. Here, there's no court competent to hear the case.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Here, there's no court competent to hear the case.
This is probably the most relevant point of all. I'm not saying this is the way it *ought* to be, but the fact of the matter is that "war crimes" are only committed by losers. There's no one to try the winners.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Tom -- as always, I sometimes feel stupid around you. I'm sorry -- I don't know the meaning of the word varelse, and when I put it into Merriam-Webster online, it doesn't recognize the word. Can you rephrase that so I can better answer you?
Thanks FG
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Haven't read the Speaker series in a while? Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
oh, oh, gotcha! I'm sorry -- my mind wasn't following along in that direction...
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
So to answer Tom then...
The types of terrorists we seem to be dealing with -- and I am saying this totally disregarding race, ethinicity, religion, etc..... are people who relish in killing innocent people. Madmen. Planting bombs or putting bombs on themselves and going into populated areas with the focused intent of killing others who have no direct personal association with them -- not like shooting back at soldiers in a army shooting at you, but innocent people going about their daily lives and hurting no one.
so yes, I think that type of mentality is cancerous. No different that serial killers.
FG
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
So Dag, U.N. endorsement isn't necessary to make a war internationally legal? Huh, I thought that was kind of one of the points of the U.N.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nope. Read the charter. NATO didn't get UN approval for Bosnia - which France participated in over Russian protest.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
The UN doesn't have a point and really won't as long as there's a security council veto. One nation on the council can prevent anything from being done. For example, there will never be UN Sanctions against a security council member... and they are basically then free to do anything they can and are willing to.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The exact definition of "internationally legal" isn't. That is, there really isn't one. There are a few wannabe definitions, but they all have considerable edge case failures, or worse.
And many things which are not right are perfectly legal, as we should all be aware of. I'm less concerned with questions of international legality and more concerned with questions of blatant incompetence and irresponsibility.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And while the UN has little point as far as many things military go, that does not make it lack a point. It has been a considerable resource for international cooperation, and a large enough one that lack of presence in it has allowed it to exert real if minimal pressure through threat of exclusion.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
This truely is the land where time stands still...
I presume that the meaningless sound and fury simply means that amira and others haven't checked in yet?
And much as i am loathe to wade into the quagmire, Dagonee, are the madmen because they kill "indiscriminately" (although, it does seem that they are perfectly aware of who they're attacking), or because they disregard the lives of others for the sake their ideology? Because, if that is madness, then history is full of madmen. (my point is that i think they are the opposite of madmen, they are cold calculating bastards who don't care about other people.)
And my parting shot:
Quoting Kos:
quote:The wingers, stung from the spectacular failure of their "flypaper" theory, are now desperately trying to rebut the obvious fact that Iraq has fueled terrorist attacks.
"What about 9-11?" they shriek. "That happened before Iraq!"
"What about the WTC bombing", they add. "That also happened before Iraq."
Yeah, sure. Of course those happened before Iraq. No one is claiming that terrorism was created by Iraq. We're arguing that letting Al Qaida off the hook in Afghanistan and pursuing an unecessary war in Iraq has fueled terrorism.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And much as i am loathe to wade into the quagmire, Dagonee, are the madmen because they kill "indiscriminately" (although, it does seem that they are perfectly aware of who they're attacking), or because they disregard the lives of others for the sake their ideology? Because, if that is madness, then history is full of madmen.
Is there a particular reason this was aimed at me?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I'm wondering if he really meant to aim it at me. Since I called them madmen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, let me be clearer: I haven't called them madmen. I fail to see how any "quagmire" that may or may not exist in this thread is related to me in any way.
Nor does calling me a "winger" or posting a quote aimed at "wingers" as any kind of shot, parting or otherwise, reflect any understanding at all about me or my views.
Thank you for playing.
Dagonee Edit: Written without seeing FG's post.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
FG, this is the fourth time someone from this particular group of people has attributed something to me I didn't say in an out of the blue manner like this. I have no idea what their problem is with me - whether it's personal, whether they just formed the entirely wrong impression about me and have reinforced it amongst each other, or whether it's just a total coincidence. But it's getting a little tiresome.
Dagonee
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
You are I are just so much alike they can't tell us apart, Dag! Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Dags, I say this with no malice or intention to insult you, but your posts come off so correct and crisp that it gives them (unintentionally, I'm sure) an arrogant, somewhat condascending tone when read, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with you.
The fact that you post so much causes me personally to attribute certain types of responses to you if I see your name in a thread. I know that I've personally done this in a thread within the last two weeks when I wasn't careful about checking who posted a given comment.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Pod -- are you implying (through the Kos quote ) that Al Qaida operated, trained and recruited ONLY in Afghanistan, and no where else in the world? That their funding and ideological support came only from Afghanistan?
FG
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
London was quiet this morning but generally back to business. We are grieving, but also amazed at how quickly our emergency services have responded, how little disruption is visible today and how stoic our people are being.
The comments most made about these terrorists today is how different they are to the IRA. The IRA’s MO was to inflict maximum damage to building with minimum damage to people. These terrorists are different, aiming to inflict maximum casualties and create maximum fear.
Bob_Scopats: Thanks .. I think I remember us agreeing after 9/11. I’m also hearing the same about Al Qaida decentralisation, although I’m also hearing Al Qaida is also in the business of providing funding for a very broad anti west agenda.
Jim-Me … no worries. Just watch the road rage ☺. On the legal merits … I hope we can all agree that it’s very complicated given that International Law is still in its infancy. There are many different opinions and a whole panel of experience legal professionals were not able to come to a unanimous decisions. My point was to show the British resolve to combat terrorism. (Aside, we all know of cases where the defendant can’t legal be proved guilty ‘beyond a shadow of a doubt’ but clearly is not quite innocent either.)
Lyrhawn: Thanks for spotting the difference between explaining why what happened happened and saying we are to blame. No need to repeat your point you did it very well.
To clarify my words for Jim-Me and others, I don’t feel guilty and the inference was not meant to be ‘look what they got us into’ but rather ‘Don’t question my resolve to see and end to terror just because I question how we are addressing it.’ My city has just shown how resolved it is, we knowingly pursued and action that would lead to retaliation, we have now felt the retaliation and our resolve has not been lessened.
Nevertheless, I will still not look for vengeance. I will demonstrate against my government if it choses retaliation. I will pray that our London Muslim community is not lashed out against. I will continue to oppose our ‘terror laws’ that remove the presumption of innocence, that remove our civil liberties, in the name of security.
I will continue to argue for a solution that acknowledges our part in creating the madness which is some people’s reality today. I will look for a solution that brings together moderate men who wish to find a road to peace. I don’t know what that solution is, but I believe the first step will be to find a solution for Israel and Palestine.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The types of terrorists we seem to be dealing with -- and I am saying this totally disregarding race, ethinicity, religion, etc..... are people who relish in killing innocent people. Madmen.
See, I disagree. I think very few terrorists are madmen.
I think they do not think of what they do as the murder of innocent people. They certainly don't think of their victims as innocents -- they are citizens complicit in the rule of an evil regime, whose deaths are necessary to bring down the oppressor. And I suspect that they don't even think of their victims as people.
It is much easier to kill anyone if you demonize them and turn them into something subhuman. I'm not any happier about doing it to our enemies than I am about the fact that some of them do it to us.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That quote doesn't imply that at all.
It implies that we've largely abandoned Afghanistan, which coincidentally means that the drug trade there has only boomed, funneling money right back into terrorism despite our efforts.
Also, the largest rallying cry for terrorists in the past few years has been Iraq, in a way that Afghanistan never could have been, because the connection was obvious to everybody.
Iraq was bad, but there are worse places. Iraq pushed its boundaries and violated the terms we imposed by occasionally shooting missiles at planes and the like, but there are other countries which do worse.
Trying to explain to someone already (justifiably) untrusting of us why an invasion of Iraq was justified, when they've heard first and second hand stories about the lives of relatives lost, is hard.
Using the invasion of Iraq to argue that the US isn't out for justice or safety to such a person is remarkably easy.
On another note, while there are certainly evil terrorists and madmen terrorists, research has found that's just not very accurate, similarly to how many of the thoughts about cults were woefully mistaken.
Most people who become involved in terrorism, just like most people who become involved in cults, are normal, every day people. Most suicide bombers are educated, and able to well-articulate why they're willing to give up their lives. Terrorists are not all out to destroy freedom; most of them see us as destroying freedom, and see themselves out to win freedom for their people. This is one of my beefs with Bush's administration -- the terrorist as inhuman, when many terrorists are all too human, and that is what makes them successful, and that is what makes them willing to die in their cause.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To expand briefly on Tom's logic; we don't think of all the civilians killed by our bombs in Iraq as murdered by us, or even particularly troublesome; its not that far of a stretch, incorrect as it may or may not be, to think similarly about civilians killed by terrorism.
Or for an even better example, regardless of legality, where is our guilt for what we did to Cambodia? We killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians there, quite possibly more than half a million. Are we madmen, for failing to punish those responsible, and many of us for honoring them?
No, we aren't madmen. We have weighed, individually and collectively, what we find important, and generally decided what happened was regrettable, but okay, despite the horror, and the terror, and the awful tragedy of it all.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Tom you and I disagree for once. I think the terrorists are fully aware that they are klling innocent victims, that's the point, they want to send the loudest message possible and they don't care how they do it - but not because they are evil, it's because they are desperate. They know what the effect of killing civilians is. They know governments lose support when the people have to see the realities of a controversial war like this.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, I'm not trying to argue the semantics of the word "madmen". To me, people who would terrorize in this way are mad - evil - whether that be due to indoctrination they received or their own choices. But it is not a rational, logical, caring mind that chooses to go out and kill others outside the normal parameters of war.
Fugu -- I don't know how bringing up Cambodia or any other situation has relevance to what is being said. We can point to many many events in history that are bad, some done by others, some done by us -- but nothing done previously can ever justify, validate or excuse what the terrorists are choosing to do at this time and place. Just because it has been done before certainly doesn't make it right.
FG
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:But it is not a rational, logical, caring mind that chooses to go out and kill others outside the normal parameters of war.
Nice adding in "caring" to make your point fit, but it's not essential to being rational and logical is it?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
FG, What's your take on the atomic bombing of Japan? Is that not outside the normal parameters of war? If so, were our leaders madmen?
I'm not asking to trip you. I'm saying that the persepctives are similar. It's easy to picture forthing at the mouth madmen, but from a certain perspective, these acts of terrorism are the best options avaiable to these people and they chose them in many cases for what seems to them to be logical reasons, just as we had logical reasons for incinerating whole cities full of innocent people.
[ July 08, 2005, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, I couldn't think of a better way to say it. That someone who cares even a little bit about other people, and about the human race, could justify just going to blow up a random group of individuals who are not directly involved in a war action against them. To me, that is sub-human.
If I, personally, were to go out tomorrow and kill a bunch of people on my way to work, just to make a point about something which is unrelated to those specific individuals, would you not think I was mad?
FG
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
FG -- I'm pointing out that we don't call those among us who did those things madmen or subhuman, that we don't call ourselves madmen or subhuman for having been involved in them. That's incredibly relevant to whether or not we call others madmen.
I'm not saying what they did was right, morally justifiable, or anything like that, but humans do many things for perfectly "logical" reasons which are not right or morally justifiable.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:t. That someone who cares even a little bit about other people, and about the human race, could justify just going to blow up a random group of individuals who are not directly involved in a war action against them. To me, that is sub-human.
Ummm, Farmgirl, you realize that the fire-bombing of Dresden and Tokyo, along with the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are among the most large scale examples of this in history right?
Edit: and who said that the World Trade Center was a "random" group of people. It was probably the best economic target to hit in the entire US. The other place hit was the Pentagon, which was of course a valid military target...
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
We were at war with Japan, and there is an argument, whether or not you agree with it, that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to save further combat and more lives lost.
The attack on the people of England was not to prevent further war, or to prevent further loss of life it was only to cause fear, terror, and kill as many innocent lives as possible.
When we drop bombs now and civilians are killed in Iraq or in Afghanistan, it is collateral damage - the intention is to destroy military targets, civilians are NOT targeted. We don't bomb hospitals or subways on purpose. In contrast, terrorists intentionally seek out non-military targets.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
However none of that points to madness.
Evil acts does not a madman make.
quote:If I, personally, were to go out tomorrow and kill a bunch of people on my way to work, just to make a point about something which is unrelated to those specific individuals, would you not think I was mad?
Yes, but if you believed the killing of those civilians would help your point, then you wouldn't necessarily be mad, and it would also be far more analogous to the recent bombings.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
They seek non military targets not because they would not love to score some dead soldiers. It plays well back home to meet the army of the Crusader, it is simply that they die when they try and we soak up the causulties we do take without getting all worked up.
They hit checkpoints and die, they try TCP's and die and they try to attack our vehicals and bases and they die. They do not want to die, so they attack soft targets and count on the Western Media to make them heroic freedom fighters instead of sniveling cowards.
"Hey Bob why you on the floor?" "I am looking for a contact lens" "Where did you drop it?" Over there Then why look here? "The light is better!"
We have been pressing them in there lairs now too, and when we rush in do they fight and scream curses and go down in glory?
Hell no! They lie and say the IED is the work of a six year old and was left by some stranger and they never saw it before...
There is no courage in Terrorist, they fear change, they fear losing power, and they fear to stand up like men. The only courage they ever show is when they are more afraid of looking like the cowards they are.
BC
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Ummm, Farmgirl, you realize that the fire-bombing of Dresden and Tokyo, along with the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are among the most large scale examples of this in history right?
Yes, I do.
I also realize that America now chooses to try to limit civilian casualties of war as much as possible. Call it evolving into a more humane war, or however you want to put it. Yes, civilians are still killed, but they aren't our TARGET anymore.
I have heard both sides of the debate on those incidences -- and all I can say is I am glad I wasn't the one making those decisions. But again, I'm not debating past history, or what happened in other conflicts. The stage of war has changed greatly in 50 years -- mainly due to the use now of instant communication that makes everything very now and very real.
So while we (America) are trying to hunt down just those who are actively targeting us with hostility, they, in turn, are killing anyone that associates with us. Two very different approaches.
FG
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:When we drop bombs now and civilians are killed in Iraq or in Afghanistan, it is collateral damage - the intention is to destroy military targets, civilians are NOT targeted. We don't bomb hospitals or subways on purpose. In contrast, terrorists intentionally seek out non-military targets.
Belle, while this is true and I believe it is 100% true, it matters very little to the people who die or have relatives killed. And, even in their most charitable moments toward us, they are unlikely to take into account that our bombs or bullets just missed by a bit.
Farmgirl-- I'm sorry to go back a page. It may surprise you to know that I agree with you 100%. In fact I thought I'd said as much in the post you responded to. I think you are responding to something I didn't say, which is that same old thing of us having "caused" the terrorism or the increase thereof. Or that somehow terrorism is justified by past bad actions of the US.
Not in the least. I merely said I understood that one of the inevitable consequences of not having gotten bin Laden (and a few others) immediately is that we are now facing a less centralized foe that still has access to his money and his advice.
In otherwords, we drove them further underground and it makes them harder to find.
That doesn't mean we should stop trying. It means we're in for more of the same. And it is unavoidable. I'm not blaming anyone, I'm stating a fact that has been stated by the government's own experts & the Rand Corp folks.
In other words: this is likely to continue.
I'm not certain how to stop it either. I mean, if people are willing to die to inflict this kind of damage, what possible range of punishments can we put forward as a deterrent?
If the cells can be formed and funded anywhere and without central coordination, what will we accomplish when we finally kill bin Laden, Zarqawi and the rest?
If not fighting them encourages them, and fighting them encourages them in other ways, what are we going to do?
I submit that there is no safe alternative. I submit that no matter what we do, our citizens will be attacked at home and abroad. I submit that maybe our best course of action is to show the bastards that no matter what they do, we will go on living in free and open societies.
In fact, if we really wanted to stick it to them, we'd just pass every possible law giving freedom and rights to every person in our societies.
In fact, we ought to really piss 'em off and pass laws granting US citizenship to every person in the World. Then we can legitimately go protect our citizens everywhere and enforce our decadent brand of freedom and justice wherever anyone lives.
Screw 'em! I say we just assert that everyone in the world is now free, uncategorically and anyone who doesn't like it will have to leave!
(hyperbole aside, the sad truth is that they win whenever we curtail our freedoms in response to their terror. And we will have to do so because we can't ask people to ride the subways or walk the streets if they aren't safe. So we'll end up like Israel with guards carrying machine guns on school field trips. Great. I hate the world sometimes.)
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
We bomb precisely now because we can, our surgical tools are sharper. But we made the tools because we wanted to be able to perform more precise surgery. That shows a long term commitment to a philosopy of preserving life and limiting the destruction of war.
Dresden was the Brits ballgame, they had been pounded and wanted to pound back, go figure. The history of the battle of the Pacific gave us good figures on the kind of casualties we could expect taking the Japanese Mainland, we saved scores of thousands of Americans and a million Japanese with the Atom Bomb.
BC
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There should be little courage needed in a soldier either. The kind of courage that they show in the movies, of people fighting against heavy odds, is generally the result of ppor planning. The first rule of warfare is to accept as little risk as poosible. You attack where you're strongest and the enemy is weakest. If you can, you kill them when they're unprepared; from ambush; when they're asleep. That's not cowardice. That's being smart.
Of course they have no chance against our soldiers. Why would they ever fight a battle there is no chance that they could ever win? It's the same reason why the American rebels didn't fight the British from Napoleonic squares, the Spanish guerillas used hit and fade tactics against the invading French, and the Michael Collins and his men fought their British occupiers, not by attacking the soldiers, but by terrorizing the people behind the soldiers.
Right now, their options, as they see it, are to fight back using the best tactics available to them or give up. What they achieve with their terrorist attacks is the best return on the resources they put into it. A number of men who would barely even be a nuiscence to a small fratcion of our armed forces changed the world with the 9/11 attacks.
It's dumb and it's dangerous to assume that they aren't intelligent or that they are crazy. They have definitie (and indefinite) goals in mind and they believe, not without reason, that what they do is the best way of them to achieve these goals.
[ July 08, 2005, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
"a million Japanese" ::snort::
I'd say to state that as fact is quite a bit off.
Posted by ShadowPuppet (Member # 8239) on :
(written without reading the entire fourth page and written only as an observation)
<aroundthebush> I'm completely sober this time </aroundthebush>
I've just noticed which I should have earlier
that some people here and on many other forums
judge and condemn people because they come off as "sounding" a certain way
pause...rewind "sounding" a certain way "sounding" a.. "sounding"
it's an internet forum text based
true though it may be that you can judge people a lot of the time by their writing
I think it safest in this situation to not jump to conclusions about someone's intentions unless you can see and hear them text is just not a safe medium for deciding someone's emotional intent
just thought I'd say soomething...
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
My point was NOT that our actions were wrong in those instances, but that if Farmgirl uses her definition, both Churchill and Truman were "evil" and "madmen".
People talk about how "evil" the nazis, the commies, the current crop of arab terrorists, etc are, but they are just people. Pure and simple. Its dehumanizing to apply those labels, which coincidently are the EXACT SAME LABELS THE TERRORISTS USE TO DEHUMANIZE US.
People can't even agree on a definition of "terrorist". It usually starts out with "using fear as a weapon, often by killing civilians". When they are confronted with the other instances of that definition, the definition has "with no declaration of war" added. Then when its brought up that the US rarely declares wars anymore, and that the terrorist groups have quite clearly declared war on the US, "with no recognized country" gets added to the definition.
So you can kill civilians to provoke fear as long as you are at war and have a flag on your shirt and not be evil? But if you take the flag off your shirt you are a raving evil mad-man?
And you can't cop-out and say that the US no longer intentionally kills civilians. Either those in our government that ordered civilians targeted were evil or the terrorists are not evil.
1: Particular Arab Group leaders have ordered the killing of civilians to invoke fear as a weapon 2: Particular United States leaders have ordered the killing of civilians to invoke fear as a weapon
A: Anyone who has ordered the killing of civilians to invoke fear as a weapon is evil B: Anyone who has ordered the killing of civilians to invoke fear as a weapon is insane
Unless you add "without declaring war from a recognized country" to both A and B, I'm afraid I see no difference between 1 and 2.
Where does my logic fail?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I see your point, Xavier, and you made it well.
I will rescind using the terms "madmen" or "evil" when describing what the terrorists are. I can see how it can be interpreted in different ways, other than they way I think of it, which I can not find adequate words to express.
and Mr. Squick - I hope I never implied in my posts that terrorists lack in intelligence. Quite the contrary, I realize they put much thought and effort into their targets and purpose.
FG
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
And, I guess, I would like to go back to the core question -- how do we stop these people? You can't talk with them; they have made that apparent. They are very set on wiping whatever we represent off the face of the earth.
I mentioned education of the young that they recruit and indoctrinate. Someone else mentioned solving the Israel/Palestinian conflict as a means to an end to the ongoing hatred.
But with them so spread out, so diverse, so adament about their cause -- how do we stop it? It certainly isn't conventional war.
FG
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
When you try to use it. Show me an Order signed by our President saying "Kill Civilians to create Terror!" if you are refering to historical figures then your context is wrong, and not applicable.
To say that the terrorists are our equivelent conterparts is as foolish as thinking your computer has feelings, it is engaging in 'humanizing' them. Just as fallacious as 'De-humanizing.' I hate to be the one who has to say it, but those birds are just not right. A portrait of weakness, ignorance and wrongheaded direction. They will not live in peace because they know that peace means things they cannot live with, equality, fellowship and compromise. Peace is hard, war is easy to accept because life is cheap to them. They think that makes them stronger but that only works if we value our lives more highly then our own ideals.
BC
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
We end it by outgrowing it, we help the Iraqi's grow until the terrorist are trivial, marginal and ignored, we help them grow in infrastructure, wealth, self sufficiency, equity and pride. It is a mistake to think the terrorist here are anything more then drag or friction on forward progress, the insurgents are being left further and further behind and becoming increasingly irrelevent.
Reminds me of the French really, no wonder they sympathise with each other.
BC
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
FG, To a large extent, there is no "them". Our problem isn't with a fixed group of people. If it was, we could find them and kill them (and that's pretty much what we're going to have to do with quite a few of them) and that would be the end of it. We're fighting a cause, and a cause that currently has money and people pouring into it.
I don't know enough about it to give anything approaching a definite answer, but I'd argue that one of the first steps is to see that these are acutally people and not subhuman monsters; that there are reasons why poeple join this cause and do these things. You need to understand your enemy in order to defeat him, but somehow the call to understand why they do what they do and for complex solutions to complex problems has be painted as being somehow "weak".
The strategy that our leadership has been putting out only makes sense if you don't stop to question it. It sounds superficially good, but what's underneath? We had an examination of this in the President Bush's speech thread that I think you started.
In another example, I saw an interview with Donald Rumsfeld talking about Guantanamo where he said something like "We've been releasing prisoners from there. We've released hundreds. And so far 12 of them have shown up on the battlefields of Afghanistan or Iraq." with the implication that these people's original imprisonment was legitimate. And I thought to myself, "I can't believe our leaders could be that stupid."
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
BC, Your post illustrates the ignorance that pervades all such discussions involving "terrorists". These people are not cowards, not madmen, not criminals, and obviously not stupid. And, while I find their methods and goals deplorable, I cannot find fault in their desire to fight for what they believe, and to do it in the only manner that they consider possible. Dealing with these foreign fighters in any manner that dehumanizes them, or their native population, will ultimately fail because it doesn't deal with the underlying issues that allow terrorists to so easily recruit new members.
In no way should this be interpreted as a reason to discontinue our military actions against terrorism, but it should be obvious to everyone that other approaches need to be addressed if we ever plan on ending the war on terror...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To be honest, if the London bombing turns out to have been carried out by Islamic terrorists and there are further attacks in Europe, I could see a regretable but justfied greatly increased scrutiny of all the recent Muslim immigrants in Europe.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Not cowards? They most definitely are cowards, they kill civilians who are on their way to work. They high jack planes and fly them into buildings. They commit suicide so they do not have to face the consequences of their actions. There isnt much more in the world more cowardly than this.
Not criminals? Can you explain how these people are not criminals? Because that statement just blows my mind, that you think mass murderers are not criminals.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Not cowards? They most definitely are cowards, they kill civilians who are on their way to work. They high jack planes and fly them into buildings. They commit suicide so they do not have to face the consequences of their actions. There isnt much more in the world more cowardly than this.
Promethius, they're fighting a war, just as we are. What is different is their classification of targets. We differntiate between civilians and soldiers and they don't. Demeaning them for what is essentially an idealogical difference does nothing to move this conversation forward. As to their cowardice, I'd like to see you knowingly blow yourself up to inflict damage on people you consider your enemies. If you do a little research you'll find that this has nothing to do with "facing consequences". It's about instilling fear in an enemies population. We accomplish the same thing with smart bombs and Marines, and no one calls us cowardly for it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Hm. I'm not comfortable with this assessment. Are you so certain that they're varelse?
The people currently perpetuation international terrorism-the deliberate targetting of civilians on their way home from civilian jobs-for deliberate, calculated, cold-blooded murder...they're definitely, obviously varelse.
Unless you spend massive amounts of life and treasure capturing them alive and essentially brainwashing them out of their varelse beliefs, that is.
-----
The people who will eventually become terrorists are a different story.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:The British are wonderful people, but I heard some news of retaliation against Muslims after 9/11. I sincerely hope that calmer and more rational heads prevail in this time.
The BBC, at least, is being extremely careful. They are having Muslim/dark-coloured people reading the news condemning the attacks, they are posting condemnations from Muslim leaders both at home and abroad. It is very clear, at least from that particular news source that there are precautions being taken. However, there is a lot of residual racism in Britain which may manifest itself. Hopefully, the work being undertaken, both obviously and subtly, by the BBC and the government to prevent a backlash is admirable.
And sadly, the retaliation against Muslims was not restricted to just the U.K., but of course Canada and the U.S. as well (for certain).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:We accomplish the same thing with smart bombs and Marines, and no one calls us cowardly for it.
We do not accomplish the same thing as terrorists with smart bombs and Marines. That is a stupid statement. The goal of smart bombs and Marines and other conventional military tools and soldiers is to defeat another military enemy and to minimize civilian casualties. It is not to defeat the enemy by slaughtering as many innocent civilians on their way to work such that the enemy is too horrorstruck and terrified to keep fighting.
Jackass.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Demeaning them for what is essentially an idealogical difference does nothing to move this conversation forward.
It's reprehensible that you classify deliberate murder of civilians as merely a 'difference in ideology'.
One ideology is that of decency and restraint, the other is that of cold-blooded murder.
And as for courage of fanatical religious extremist...I stand by previous statements I've made that blowing yourself up to go straight to everlasting Paradise while murderring your hated rivals isn't bravery, it's a freaking good deal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the point about smart bombs is well made though. When the US wants to attack, it does so with cruise missiles and Nighthawks most of the time. For the last 10 years, you haven't really seen a lot of US troops on the ground, you see a Hornet dropping a JDAM. It might appear to some that we hide behind our technology. Pesonally I'm find hiding behind technology, the less US troops that die, the better.
How to end the conflict? Like I said before, you'll never, ever, ever, EVER win by fighting terrorists man to man. You have to fight the greater war.
Ending the Palestine/Israeli conflict would go a LONG way towards solving the problem. We could earn a ridiculously large amount of goodwill.
Increasing aid to Africa will ensure that less young Muslims there grow up in poverty with anti-US feelings.
Open trade to Iran and flood it with Western products. The youth of Iran are overwhelmingly pro-West, they just can't do much with the clerics in power.
Stop, for the love of God, supporting countries like Saudi Arabia. It undermines any sort of moral superiority we might have.
The sad thing is, without the Iraq war we could have afforded to do everything I just mentioned, and the world would be a very different, and much better place.
The birth of a terrorist is very similar to the birth of a gang member in America. They come from destitution and poor slums. Terrorists organizations have money, they give many young Muslims a place to feel like they belong, and they provide money. An American war on African poverty would do far more than our war on Terror in Iraq. Britain has the right idea, ending African poverty. Which makes it all that much more sick that they were attacked, they are one of the few countries really committed to ending the real problem.
We can hack away at the limbs for another hundred years, or we can start going for the roots. It all depends on how long you want the war to last.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: The sad thing is, without the Iraq war we could have afforded to do everything I just mentioned, and the world would be a very different, and much better place.
Wow.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow what a stupid thing to say?
Wow, what a good point?
I need to know whether I have to thank you or defend myself.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Rakeesh I appreciate your straight fowardedness in the face of such stupidity, these acts are the very deffinition of cowardice, how complex nonsense supplanted simple sense in our society is a sad story that starts with Marxism and ends who knows where. Will we see reasoned behavior in genocide and rape?
I tell you this and take for what you will, if they could these people would own you as slaves, use your wives as servants and your daughters as sexual playthings, they would take your lands and property from you to use as there own, killing those who said it was wrong. They would do this and their religion is no bar, the Koran not only allows this it encourages it.
The only thing that stops them is not moral conscience, it is the fact that we stand ready to kill them if they try. Terrorism is just the visible symptom of the frustration they feel at not being able to follow their inclinations to subjigate everything to their will to power. These are just the ones who hate not having your lands, daughters, and labor the most.
Are they human, of course they are. This is the way humans have been since the dawn of man, until We learned not to be this way. If that is not an achievement that sets us apart as worth preserving I hope I never have to come up with a better one.
BC
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
" An American war on African poverty would do far more than our war on Terror in Iraq. Britain has the right idea, ending African poverty. Which makes it all that much more sick that they were attacked, they are one of the few countries really committed to ending the real problem."
If you think helping Black Africa would not create as much hostility from Muslims as occupying Afganistan and Iraq you are a sad silly person, go ahead and tell an Arab he is black and see what happens... Hee Hee Thus far those are the only people the Muslims can beat, it is the only front they are winning on! They will be hemmed from all sides and made the equals of (to them) racial inferiors, I fear you are deeply ignorant or simply stupid.
BC
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Lyrhawn,
I think you have vastly overrated the money spent on the war and the power of money in general.
NO amount of money will end the Palestine/Israel conflict.
No amount of history has... they literally have been out to exterminate each other since the oldest books of the bible.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, no, there were a few periods of rather peaceful coexistence prior to the crusades when jerusalem was in the hands of muslims. Fairly long periods, in fact.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well first of all, I never said money was the be all end all. But money is necessary to do almost anything.
Ending the Palestine/Israel conflict will come from direct American intervention. Securing a Palestinian state and keeping the Israeli state intact as it is. Giving a lot of aid to Palestine to help them build their nation up out of third world status. And these days, a lot of it will depend on leaning on Israel to make them give Palestine time to secure itself. It will also probably require a trusted third party to provide a peacekeeping force in Palestine.
The populations of both countries are ready, it's the leadership that has always held up the process. But Arafat is gone now, and real pressure and the promise of aid (tied to reform) will get Abbas to uphold his end of any potential deal.
As for Africa. BC, you've either misunderstood me, don't care to understand me, or are horribly wrong. None of which matters to me, because you obviously don't care to be constructive, but prefer to be destructive.
But if you really think that leaving Africa to its devices will NOT make the terrorist problem worse, then you are sadly lacking in knowledge about the current situation in Africa.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
There were stalemates where the advance was stopped or beaten back and the ground behind was consolidated and reorganized.
Even in Europe the Islamic demographic threatens to overwhelm constitutional government where military action has failed. If you do not believe this is a deliberate policy you should read the words of Arafat on the subject of the 'Duty to Breed.'
The same demographic force threatens Isreal itself as naturalized Muslims grow in population at four times the rate of Jews. In a century every country in Europe could have a Muslim majority to vote in a Theocracy.
We face this now and change the hearts and minds of these people now or we face it later when nobody can win. Well maybe the Liberals will makeit so they can, I hope not.
BC
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, I don't know if I'd call that peaceful coexistance really. Prior to the Crusades, Muslims spent a few hundred years slowly creeping into Anatolia before Christians smartened up and fought back, that's why Byzantium was pretty much a militarized camp for the whole of the Crusades and prior to it. And before that, many generals of Rome led military incursions into Muslim lands, but were soundly defeated many times.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:We do not accomplish the same thing as terrorists with smart bombs and Marines. That is a stupid statement. The goal of smart bombs and Marines and other conventional military tools and soldiers is to defeat another military enemy and to minimize civilian casualties. It is not to defeat the enemy by slaughtering as many innocent civilians on their way to work such that the enemy is too horrorstruck and terrified to keep fighting.
Jackass.
Rakeesh, Whether you agree or disagree with me, I expect common decency and respect when being addressed. I haven't insulted you, I've merely made a statement that you disagree with.
Perhaps I didn't provide enough context in my comparison between terrorists attacks and our conventional military. One of the goals with any military action (especially an occupation) is to make the indiginous population fear/respect the power of the occupying forces. This is what we're able to accomplish using conventional military power. Terrorists obviously don't have this infrastructure and can't compete on a level playing field. They're using tactics that are reprehensible to us, but justified by them to achieve some level of fear and to try to further their own goals.
If you'd like to talk about this, then I'm more than happy to. If you'd like to continue being a insulting ass, then I won't bother responding.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I want to help Africa precicely because it will hurt the terrorist and make them crazy, I want em crazy, that is when they are easy to spot so they can be killed. I did not say do not help Africa, I just said do not expect it make you any Islamic friends.
Leaving Africa alone just gives Muslims a place to practice genocide and get a feel for the work, bad idea for the rest of us they want to kill.
BC
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Leaving Africa alone just gives Muslims a place to practice genocide and get a feel for the work, bad idea for the rest of us they want to kill.
Let's get our terminology correct:
Leaving Africa alone just gives terrorists a place...
not Muslims.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Wait wait wait, muslims are respsonsible for all the genocide in Africa?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Apparently.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Are their a significant percentage of Non-Muslims in the terrorist set these days? I guess it would be clearer to tighten the group of specific Muslims that are being refered to...alright the terrorist subset of the Muslims set does not need a place to practice genocide freely.
BC
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ah, I was right then, you did misunderstand me. Well that, and you don't understand in general.
Leaving Africa alone creates a BREEDING ground for new terrorists. This war isn't all about making America everyone's best friend next door neighbor, it's about stopping a terrorists from becoming terrorists in the first place.
To do that, you erase the causes that lead to them becoming terrorists, and I believe the main cause is poverty. It creates many of the other problems. Fighting poverty also does create a certain amount of good will towards America, not just from Muslims or Africans (which is will by the way), but from the rest of the world, in a time when we could really use a boost in our image.
Edit to add: The majority of genocides that have taken place in Africa have been for ethnic or tribal reasons, not for religious regions, especially in sub-Saharan Africa where Muslims are far less prevelant.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lyrhawn: we're talking about Palestinians (there are and long have been Christian and Muslim Palestinians) and Jews in that context, not Christians and Muslims, and they did have a long period of not trying to kill each other.
Also, there were plenty of Christians in Jerusalem getting along just fine with Muslims in Jerusalem; the problems were generally much further away, on borders. Inside the Muslim empire(s), there were long periods of peace.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My bad, I saw Crusades and went into attack mode.
Yes, you're right, Palestine itself has seen long periods of relative peace and calm before the Crusades.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:To do that, you erase the causes that lead to them becoming terrorists, and I believe the main cause is poverty
I'm sorry -- but I'm not understanding this. You are saying you believe that terrorists become terrorists because they are poor? What about all the countries of poor people, or all the poor people in general who do NOT become terrorists?
What makes you think poverty has a significant impact on this? I thought it was their ideology, not their economic status, that breed terrorists.
(not that I don't think poverty shouldn't be alleviated -- I'm just failing to see a connection between that and terrorism.)
FG
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Fugu, I'm weak on my dark ages history, but I rather thought the Jews were in exile during the time you speak of?
Posted by TheDisgruntledPostman (Member # 7200) on :
To me though it appears that the Terrorists are trying to start some kind of world war. Getting countrys' they want in it angry so they'll come with America and fight. Then eventually enemies of the countrys' that are fighting the terrorists or that are in Iraq fighting the end of the regime will enter the war on the side of the enemy. It just seems that things are going o to well for them when we're not on their tail.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Fighting poverty is always a temporary thing, look at Somalia, happy in squalor now that its surplus population was allowed to die in famine after we could no longer protect the aid rolling in from warlords.
In Europe and America we have flattened out population growth, and perhaps in China as well I have heard it is too early to tell there. however this does nothing for us except give us a comfortable living space that is the envy of ever larger populations of people that are living at the reproductive edge of their environments. In terms of species it represents a losing strategy unless everybody is playing the same game.
If we give them help the higher standards will allow more survivors to adulthood who are just as empoverished as ever. I should not have to explain this to any high school graduate.
"Population will grow to the limit of that resource necessary to life that is present in the least quantity."
Take any area where we might want to institute our own superproductive industrial farming technology, in doing so we would replace a hundred thousand farmers with ten thousand, providing more food but putting ninety thousand people out of work and making them hungrier. Do gooding is a very bad business to get into. I trust good old selfishness much more. Much Much more.
We provide a market for their natural resources and protect those interests. We let them buy from us a smorgasboard of technology that they think they cannot live without, we let them create their own place, and we stop any invaders at the borders. Simple, selfish and minimalist, plus we could show a profit.
BC
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
FG,
I think Lyrhawn is saying that only poor people become terrorists. Not that all poor people are terrorists, but that all terrorists are poor people.
I also think that means the actual bombers, since Bin Laden is obviously fabulously wealthy.
Pardon me if I've put any words in your mouth, Lyrhawn.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
THT,
You have to understand BC is over there and your earlier statements could have been construed as saying that his goal and the goal of the terrorists were the same.
Your clarification doesn't help much.
Lumping "fear" and "respect" together as one item is the problem.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A piece I've recommended on hatrack before, The Market for Martyrs, siezes upon the fact that suicide bombers are not easily classifiable, economically or otherwise, to argue for a unique approach to ending such attacks.
That is, there is no stereotypical suicide bomber. If anything, there's a bias towards educated middle class people, among them.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Ending the Palestine/Israel conflict will come from direct American intervention. Securing a Palestinian state and keeping the Israeli state intact as it is. Giving a lot of aid to Palestine to help them build their nation up out of third world status. And these days, a lot of it will depend on leaning on Israel to make them give Palestine time to secure itself. It will also probably require a trusted third party to provide a peacekeeping force in Palestine.
I really don't see how you believe this to be true. We've tried direct American intervention for my entire life, with several presidents. It doesn't work.
The Palestinian Arabs don't want a separate state that leaves Israel intact... unless they've changed ther demands drasitcally since Arafat died or something.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
It is affluence that has created the terrorist, they would be comical without the oil money and we would be dealing with a much smaller population. It is essentially unearned wealth being spent unwisely. Yes unearned, in that it is not a thing valuable to the people paid for it so it creates a gap in responsibility to the wealth bestowed. Money from nowhere for nothing does not create a more responisible class of leaders.
Our continued dependance on oil is a mercy to the people of this region, because when we do choose to utilize the technology to free ourselves from OPEC we will leave the populace unsupported with an uncaring elite living off stored wealth. They will be forced to find ever more interesting ways to throw away thier lives until they can support the population they have with what they have on hand. At least now the elites see to the minimal needs of the poorest.
BC
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Fugu, you're supposed to be helping Lyrhawn! no fair fighting on my side Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jim-Me: nope, no exile to speak of. Sure, it was post diaspora, but that doesn't mean everyone left, that just means that a lot went different places.
I know that during the crusades jews were for a time banned from jerusalem, but iirc that was by the christians, and I'm talking about some of the pre-crusade period.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Not everyone left... there was tolerance for a few individuals, but certainly no co-existing nations, agreed?
Posted by TheDisgruntledPostman (Member # 7200) on :
Im not sure if anyone really saw this, so me being myself and wanting to get my point across will re-say it
To me though it appears that the Terrorists are trying to start some kind of world war. Getting countrys' they want in it angry so they'll come with America and fight. Then eventually enemies of the countrys' that are fighting the terrorists or that are in Iraq fighting the end of the regime will enter the war on the side of the enemy. It just seems that things are going o to well for them when we're not on their tail.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
There is no force the terrorist could call on to face anything like a united first world. In fact the closest thing to a united Arab effort was the attempt to dislodge Isreal that resulted in the six days war. The end of which was that Isreal beat them all in six days and aquired the lands that have been the source of all the disputed claims every since.
No I think we are faced with many selfish men and their agregate stupidity rather then a vast Arab conspiricy, the obvious plans hopes and desires of the Muslim peoples are dangerous enough but transparent.
There will be no world war, they have no means to bring it forth, I do not doubt that the German's as they were in World War II would conquer all of the middle east as it is today save only Isreal. Egypt would be the hardest fight, with the most armour and air power. We cannot be beaten here in open war by any foe native to the region.
BC
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The people currently perpetuation international terrorism-the deliberate targetting of civilians on their way home from civilian jobs-for deliberate, calculated, cold-blooded murder...they're definitely, obviously varelse.
I disagree -- and, in fact, I think this point of view makes the whole definition of "varelse" meaningless. Someone "varelse" is someone with whom communication is absolutely impossible. At worst, terrorists are hostile ramen.
quote: the obvious plans hopes and desires of the Muslim peoples are dangerous enough but transparent.
Hey, BC, could I ask you a personal favor? I'd appreciate it -- as a formerly Muslim people, myself -- if you stopped lumping every single Muslim in with a fanatical terrorist minority. I mean, it's been a few years, but I'm pretty sure that bin Laden and I didn't have similar plans, hopes, and desires.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There were lots of Jews in Jerusalem during most of the period. It was extremely cosmopolitan.
And as the original statement was that Jews and Palestinians have been out to exterminate each other since the early books of the bible, which I hardly think is equivalent to there have been "no co-existing nations", I hope I've made my point. Particularly as the "rephrasing" is sort of silly -- for very long periods in history there were neither palestinian nor jewish nations, so of course there weren't co-existing nations.
There were lots of Jews. And lots of Palestinians. In the same place, getting along just fine.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Except for the fact that there was no distinct group of "Palestinians" until less than 100 years ago.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Has anyone heard from Amira yet?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom-- I didn't think Baha'i were considered true Muslims by the rest of the Muslim population?
Not looking for a fight-- just clarification.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
If they consider themselves Muslims, then that works for me. Lots of Christians would say I'm not a Christian, too, I guess. You know?
Posted by TheDisgruntledPostman (Member # 7200) on :
I'm really getting tired of all of the racisim. America(majority) has to be racist to someone group. At times it was Africans, the Irish, any race that is put just diferent for a reason. So now that America(majority) has a new enemy like figure in our lives we have to be afraid and watchfull and totaly disrespectful, i find it terrible how we lost our sense of trust. Down the totilete like a gator, darn.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It's not just America. It's a lot of the world- or perhaps the whole world in general, but not every individual person. Humans like to distrust, to hate, to lay blame. Result? People die.
I think everyone's tired of it. Shakespeare was tired of it when he wrote Romeo and Juliet.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
The 'wow' was not because it was a stupid thing to say, but because of the direct way you said it, ticking items off on your list as though the solution was obvious. The 'wow' was because I got the impression you were implying anyone who didn't realize how simple the solution was were themselves stupid.
quote:Securing a Palestinian state and keeping the Israeli state intact as it is.
Some would say these goals are fundamentally in conflict. I mean...wow, all we've got to do is fight poverty in Africa and solve the Palestinian issue and terrorism would be curbed thousands fold!
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Are their a significant percentage of Non-Muslims in the terrorist set these days? I guess it would be clearer to tighten the group of specific Muslims that are being refered to...alright the terrorist subset of the Muslims set does not need a place to practice genocide freely.
Rwanda [1994] the Hutus tried to kill all the Tutsis, neither of whom were Muslim.
Bosnia-Herzogovina [1992-1995] 200,000 Muslims were slaughtered by the Serbs.
quote: Dana, were they officials or part of the general public? I do remember explaining to a few friends that it was likely internal.
From that site.
quote: April 19, 1995 started out as just another ordinary day. I woke up, exercised, showered, dressed, and ate breakfast. I turned on the television. I became horrified when I heard the news. A bomb had exploded at the Oklahoma City federal building. The explosion destroyed the building, taking out a children's day care located inside. Preliminary reports linked the incident to Muslim terrorists. I drove to work with my ears glued to the radio. I walked in the office and asked if anyone had heard about the bombing. My supervisor said, "Oh yes, I heard. I think I am going to become a Muslim now, and blow up little children." I was shocked to hear that, but nevertheless, I understood his remarks. He was just reacting to the media's programming. How could he not think such a thing?
From a different site.
quote: From Wednesday morning until Friday afternoon - when suspect Timothy McVeigh was arrested - all persons who appeared "Middle Eastern" instantly became suspects in the fatal bombing of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building. . . . . . . . . . .
Congressman McCurdy indicated on Oklahoma City's KWTV Channel 9 Wednesday morning that he believed Muslim students at the University of Oklahoma were involved.
Interesting that we knew even as far back as a decade ago who we should be looking at.
BC
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:I'm really getting tired of all of the racisim. America(majority) has to be racist to someone group. At times it was Africans, the Irish, any race that is put just diferent for a reason. So now that America(majority) has a new enemy like figure in our lives we have to be afraid and watchfull and totaly disrespectful, i find it terrible how we lost our sense of trust. Down the totilete like a gator, darn.
I don't think it's just us. People in general have a tendency to fear those who a different from them (xenophobia). People aslo have a tendency to make generalizations. Put the two together and you get racism, paranoia, stereotypes, et cetera.
--j_k
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Interesting that we knew even as far back as a decade ago who we should be looking at."
Except that -- and this is a point that you may have missed -- in that specific case, that was not whom we should have been looking at.
[ July 08, 2005, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
rivka: I was operating under the implied definition from saying palestinians and jews had been in conflict since the early books of the bible. And there is some continuity among those peoples.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't mean to make it sound like "do this and it's solved!" like I made some grand realization. These things have been discussed before, but no one ever really seems to want to tackle the issue.
From what I read about the last real deal between the Palestinians and Israelis, it was a done deal until Arafat pulled out at the last minute. Arafat was the reason that deal never panned out. I think by now, most Palestinians and Israelis realize that neither nation is going anywhere. The real contentious issue is what happens to Jerusalem.
As for terrorists and poverty. Not ALL terrorists come from poverty, just like not all people in poverty become terrorists. But as I explained before, poverty is the perfect breeding ground for a terrorist. Young Muslims (and Christians in Africa I might add) looking for money and a different life find both things easily in a terrorist organization. It's an excellent recruiting ground. The same thing happens in America. A disproportionate number of people in the American military comes from those living beneath the poverty line. For many, it's the only way to escape a slum. When you get there, you're fed an ideology and trained to do whatever.
Do I think ending poverty in Africa will end terrorism? Not by itself no, but it would be a massive blow to the terrorist cause. Do I think that solving the Palestine/Israeli problem will end the problem? No, but again, a massive blow, and a massive help to western nations trying to stop terrorism.
Someone on here asked how to end the terrorist problem at its root, that's the best way to go about it, in my opinion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:The substantial body of empirical results reviewed or derived by Krueger and Maleckova (2003) thus finds “little direct connection between poverty or [poor] education and participation in terrorism.” Moreover, Berrebi (2003) finds that Palestinian suicide bombers have substantially more schooling and better economic backgrounds than the average Palestinian. Berrebi’s statistical portrait reaffirms the portrait that emerges from Nassra Hassan’s (2001) interviews with potential Palestinian suicide-bombers, which in turn sounds exactly like a quote from the literature on cult converts: “None of [the bombers] were uneducated, desperately poor, simple minded or depressed. Many were middle class and, unless they were fugitives, held paying jobs. ... Two were the son’s of millionaires.”
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's more to terrorism than Palestinian terrorism. It's but a piece of the puzzle.
Posted by monteverdi (Member # 2896) on :
I don't know about you folks, but judging by the advertisements that are now appearing at the bottom of my screen the 'system' has determined we might be tempted to send flowers to Israel.
Some day they will get it right.
Love,
Monteverde
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Here, there's no court competent to hear the case.
How 'bout the ICJ?
The US could seek a declaration as to whether the invasion/war was legal or illegal under IL.
Not that they *will*, but the ICJ is competent.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
My wife just saw on the news that PM Blair is pulling Great Britain out of Iraq?
Anyone else hear of this?
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Great Britiain pulling out of Iraq is not on the news ... just watching. So I think you wife must be mistaken ...
I'd be very suprised if we did pull out of Iraq.
Lyrhawn, that you for persisting to keep the discussion going on how we solve terrorism. I think you arguments are good.
Making Poverty History would IMHO help a tremendous amount in the war against terrorists. But I'd caution against aid ... it has had disasterous consequences in Africa. I'm rather promote trade, but completely free trade will not help quite yet, I think we are going to have to have some positive discrimination towards. Thoughts?
Someone else also made the very pertinent point that finding alternative to Oil and Gas would also make a huge difference. We are currently in a very difficult situation where in order safeguard our way of life we have to rely to quite a large extent on the middle east (they have half the worlds Oil and Gas reserves, Russia has another 1/4) and so consequently we don't give them the space to sort out their own politics and we have the added difficulty of very rich people with no 'work' to do.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Naw. Your wife musta misheard repetition of old news: Italy is pulling its troops out of Iraq in September.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Just thought I'd share this. V funny, to be read in a puzzled and incredulous voice ... not angry rant. If you don't find it funny then please trust that it is meant to be funny but possibly strange English humour!
The only additional thing I'd add would be that snow disrupts our tube system more convincingly that those pesky bombs!
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
Wasn't it Napoleon that said:
"The only time Italy has ended up on the same side it started on is when it switched sides twice during the same war."
Yes, I could not find the news of GB pulling out anywhere either. She must have misunderstood the TV.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The first study he cites didn't focus on Palestinian terrorists, they're just focused on because they have a high concentration of suicide bombers, an area of particular interest for him.
However, I think you'll find it generally holds. Look at many revolutionary movements -- educated middle class citizens, often students, tend to be responsible. Look at the examples of terrorists that are held before us -- the leadership of Al Quaida that we've captured has been highly educated across the board, as far as I've noticed; while the membership could certainly be different, I haven't seen any particular evidence in that direction.
I'm not saying all terrorists are educated or from a decently well off background, but I don't nearly see this link between poverty and terrorism you're a proponent of, and I don't see you providing any data that suggests it in the face of multiple studies which refute it, one in the general case and several in a specific case.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Even in Europe the Islamic demographic threatens to overwhelm constitutional government where military action has failed. If you do not believe this is a deliberate policy you should read the words of Arafat on the subject of the 'Duty to Breed.'
Yea, and won't they be peeved when they find out the Jews are already working on taking over all of Europe?
Jeez, we should act now to eliminate all the Muslims and the Jews from Europe before it's too late.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Has nobody heard from Amira yet? I'm concerned.
Posted by amira tharani (Member # 182) on :
I'm here. I was away in the Lake District when it all happened and I had no internet access and no one's phone numbers. I've just got back. My sister and the rest of my family are safe, thank God. Thank you all for your prayers, emails and good wishes.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
<relieved> Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Even in Europe the Islamic demographic threatens to overwhelm constitutional government where military action has failed. If you do not believe this is a deliberate policy you should read the words of Arafat on the subject of the 'Duty to Breed.'
"Yea, and won't they be peeved when they find out the Jews are already working on taking over all of Europe? Jeez, we should act now to eliminate all the Muslims and the Jews from Europe before it's too late."
I thought it was the Anglo-Saxons who were trying to take over Europe. Come to think of it... ...the Celts can't be trusted either, what with all the McDonald's overrunning the best tourist traps.
[ July 09, 2005, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Alright, on doing some research into the poverty/terrorism link, I've found mixed results.
Most studies I see from searching only link the number of actual terrorist attacks in a country to that nation's level of poverty. I think a better indicator would be to person by person try and identify the root and poverty level of each individual person in a terrorist organization, which is obviously going to be very hard, if not impossible.
Some specific instances that link poverty to terrorism have come acrossed me though:
quote: Recent media coverage of Abdullhal al Muhajir, the “dirty bomb” suspect, illustrates the link between poverty and terrorism. Many terrorists have a history of violence and criminal activity like Muhajir, and are often lured by terrorist leaders scouring poor neighborhoods for new recruits. Terrorist leaders may capitalize on these individuals’ despair and feelings of lost hope by giving them a sense of false power. This increases the probability that scores of vulnerable American neighborhoods will be kept under siege.
Even the outgoing President of the World Bank thinks there is a link:
quote: If we want stability on our planet, we must fight to end poverty. Since the time of the Bretton Woods Conference, through the Pearson Commission, the Brandt Commission, and the Brundtland Commission, through to statements of our leaders at the 2000 Millennium Assembly - and today - all confirm that the eradication of poverty is central to stability and peace.” — Outgoing World Bank president James D. Wolfensohn, 10/3/04
From what I've read, there seems to be grudging consensus that ending poverty in countries would eliminate safe havens for terrorists, limit areas where they could have training camps, eliminate recruiting grounds, and would make these nations more stable, and eliminate the weapons trade that flows through many African nations, proliferating illegal arms sales to insurgent fighters throughout the world.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The World Bank president isn't talking about terrorists being poor, he's talking about general conflict being aided by the presence of poverty -- there's certainly plenty of non-terrorist violence occuring because of poverty, and I'm not even denying that the presence of poverty can lead to terrorism, just that there's a correlation between terrorists and poor people.
The first link is anecdotal evidence at best.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and note the earlier quotation by him on the same page.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Dagonee, my genuine apologies for the misattribution.
Never-the-less, i wish you were less of a whiner. Nobody has an ulterior motive in criticizing you. My mistake was an honest one, and i stand by what i said, even if it doesn't apply to you. So, kindly shove off.
Regarding a comment i believe FG made, disengagement is the wrong strategy. While i doubt you'll have much success discussing anything with Al Qaeda, not communicating is the best way to let someone else slander you without having a method to win the war of ideas. So far the bush administration has failed abyssmally in it's attempts to disengage. It didn't work with Iran, didn't work with North Korea, and it's not going to work in Iraq (with respect to the locally-grown insurgency there).
Communication is the key, i'd say the only key, to defeating the ridiculous characatures that extremists paint of others, and fuel the hatred they feed upon. (i mean, this is the point of politics isn't it? Christian extremists have tried the whole abortion clinic bombing thing, and have failed, what's the new modus operandi? Stacking the courts with activists, and launching smear campaigns against anyone who disagrees with them.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Exploding Monkey: Wasn't it Napoleon that said:
"The only time Italy has ended up on the same side it started on is when it switched sides twice during the same war."
I very much doubt it, considering there wasn't a Kingdom of Italy in Nappy's time. Sounds more like Churchill. Also, it's not true; in their war with Ethiopia, they were on their own side throughout. Granted, they lost rather badly against tribesmen with spears, but they didn't actually switch sides.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Dagonee, my genuine apologies for the misattribution.
Never-the-less, i wish you were less of a whiner. Nobody has an ulterior motive in criticizing you. My mistake was an honest one, and i stand by what i said, even if it doesn't apply to you. So, kindly shove off.
LOL
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not saying that poverty CAUSES terrorism. Not by itself, it certainly doesn't. But it certainly makes it easier to keep it going.
Dropping bombs isn't solving the problem, it's making it worse. Fighting poverty will produce real results, and will gain us new allies and partners in the war.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The statements I'm arguing against are the ones about terrorists being more likely to be poor people.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Rakesh summed up my response perfectly, pod.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If I had the time to sort through your link I'd try and find something wrong with it, but there's just too many links and too much information there to try. So, to a point, I'll concede that piece of the argument, about the personal economies of the terrorists. But my greater point about fighting poverty as being more effective than a man to man war on terrorists in fighting the war on terrorism still stands I believe.
It'd be nice to see a study that actually give information on large numbers of terrorists from all different geographic locations, the middle east, palestine, Africa, Indonesia, and what their economic status is at.
I couldn't find that information in your link, or in my own search, to be honest. But there is much more to the argument than just recruiting.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
What I linked to cited several studies on the topic, and mentioned their conclusions.
And I never said they looked at all geographic locations, I said that one of the studies didn't just look at Palestine. In response to your complaint which seemed to allege that everything I referred to cited the characteristics of Palestinian terrorists.
Note that I'm not saying my position is hard and fast true, I'm saying that every bit of evidence I've seen, some of which I've linked to references to, supports terrorists not being easily socioeconomically classifiable, and if anything tending towards middle class, and that I've never seen any information in support of your view (which you pretty much stated as fact), and noted you haven't provided any.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Maybe sometime in the future, we'll hear Ted chiming in about how liberals are generally more polite than conservatives Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I suppose I'll have to concede that particular point then. I don't have the time to research anything that would back up my claim, and I certainly don't have the time to wade through the several dozen studies you linked to. I'll get back to you in a couple weeks.
And until then, I'll leave terrorist's individual socioeconomic status out of my argument.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
?! I linked to the full text of one article that references maybe a dozen studies, of which three or four are directly relevant.
Oh, I see, all the other links on the article page; yeah, didn't even look at those, its all about the full text pdf that's linked at the top.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
No,(to Genocide) but they need to act now to make sure that the Muslim/Germans, and Muslim/French and so on are more Westernized and integrated then they are at this point. There is much between the death of the body and the death of allegiance to a central faith.
That is if they care who's values their laws reflect. I am sure we would raise hell if MAMBLA got a majority or looked like they might.
The Japanese had plans of revenging themselves on the US with their super economy and efficiency, plans that have turned into a pleasant friendship simply because their kids kids are as self indulgent and uninterested in vengeance and cultural identity as ours.
BC
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Oh, good to know you've decided against genocide. It's a bit of a hot button these days, maybe in the future it could work out though.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
By the way, have I mentioned that I think you're an insane racist? Just thought I'd drop it in.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My bad. I didn't realize that top link was the link to the article you were quoting from Fugu. I thought you pulled it from ONE of the many articles in the link. I'm reading the article now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, first off, there ARE militant Christian groups in Africa. Which they probably should have covered instead of making Christianity look pleasant compared to Islamic militancy.
None of the sources used to make the article involved studies of terrorists and insurgents in the Iraq War, which even the President contents is the front line war on terror. Regardless, none of the studies take into account anything from beyond 2003, when the insurgency in Iraq really took hold.
The study itself admits that:
quote: People with strong ties are very unlikely to convert – included those who are married with children, home-owners, people well-established in their jobs, occupations, and neighborhood.
I think that contradicts the claim that poverty has little or nothing to do with terrorism. The more people in established jobs will lower the pool of potential good recruits for terrorism.
The majority of the references in this article are in fact to Israel/Palestine type terrorism, and suicide bombers. I saw little or no reference to Africa. The majority of the article focuses on cult mentality, which I agree does heavily relate to terrorism and terrorist organizations, but I think there is much lacking.
Overall, I'll agree with you that the majority of terrorists are probably not poor. But I think much of your article helps to prove my point that ending poverty would be a major blow to the terrorist effort.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its not being poor that leads to lack of ties in most of the cases they looked at, its being young.
And its not attempting to be an absolutely encompassing article, its a brief look at an interesting theoretical notion which I believe he is working on doing a more thorough treatment of.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Except that at the end of the article he says that that is changing. Recent suicide bombers have been older men, and even women, with families and children.
I would LOVE to see him write a larger, broader and more encompassing article on the subject.
Either way, after reading that, and not being able to come up with a comporable article of my own to defend my earlier assertion, I have to admit that on that point, you're probably right and I'm wrong.
But I don't think it really weakens my larger argument on fighting poverty.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Didn't intend it to Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Maybe sometime in the future, we'll hear Ted chiming in about how liberals are generally more polite than conservatives
Jeff, that was a cheap shot. Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
At least two standard deviations from the norm and proud of it!
BC
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Aaaah, so you're just a troll. I see.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
No, I am improbable and proud of it, you have had Statistics née? You have studied Psychology?
You know that insanity is merely defined as deviation from the norm? Standard deviations are mathematical shifts in probability by specific units on the Normal Curve (bell curve)
Combine the two and my statement is an amusing reference to my being at a very high level of mental and physical performance, and therefor two deviations from the 'norm' and reasonably classifiable as 'insane' née? but my modesty level was too high to allow me to be less then deprecating about it.
I do not mind explaining it to you though, I am not the best teacher but we all do the tasks we are handed.
BC
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, it's possible to be abnormal without also being a jerk. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Myself, I prefer to be alarmingly normal.
And I think I'm fairly good at it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"You're not going crazy Arthur, you're going sane in a crazy world!"
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
That really sucks... As for causes and such they might find out more soon, the things just happened.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
HS, this is hardly the behavior of רחמנים, בישנים, וגומלי חסדים! Grow up.![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)