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 ).
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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: Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I ahve relatives in London; people who will 'pray for them' and think they have accomplished something annoy me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 83 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
<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...
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
[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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
"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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. Read the charter. NATO didn't get UN approval for Bosnia - which France participated in over Russian protest.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
