Attack in London - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

alansmithee · 07-12-2005, 12:15 AM

I read your later post, and didn't read this one. My comments were based on what pan said. I might respond to your later one If I think there's enough difference to warrant it, but I think there was a couple of key things here that I didn't want to miss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

alansmithee, I hope that you, Pan, and roachboy will forgive me for "barging" in on your "back and forth", but I would like to satisfy my curiousity, and maybe reach a greater understanding about my inability to understand how you, and say... Marvelous Mary, gain and hold your convictions.

Here's one example of the compartmentalization that goes on. I'm a "conservative", as is MM. Therefore, we obviously hold the same convictions, right? So I obviously believe that Saddam has some WMD stashed up his ass. Also, this is apparently the position of black america, since i'm black and generalizations are the in thing for liberals. Also, union members all hold this position, fyi.

I will now continue in my appointed post as spokesman for conservatives, blacks, and union members (there's more, but I don't want to go through all the time listing the various sub-groups I am also representing).

Quote:

The following is a post from Marvelous Mary, which is a response to zen_tom:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=91489&page=2
(Near bottom of page)

zen_tom makes (IMO, anway) the easily defended statement that ,"Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction and the US waging a war based on that issue", and Marvelous Mary countered with a reference to "UN SCR 687", and an article from a consrvative Harvard student periodical that offers it's own analysis of Charles Duelfer's 10/2004 WMD report, that is intended to persuade that the U.S. was justified in invading Iraq, and that Bush did not mislead, because.....only the U.S. administrations reaction to 9/11 intervened to blunt Saddam's "waiting game", whereby, when the U.N. sanctions ended, he would have put his dormant WMD programs in high gear, and emerged as a
menace to the world.. ... (my comments continue below MM's post....)

Marvelous Mary ended her response to zen_tom with:

alansmithee, as the self appointed, repetitive poster of the overwhelming evidence that Saddam did not possess WMD, and that key members of the Bush administration were either reported, in 2001 and 2002, to either agree
that he had not reconsituted his WMD programs, or are directly quoted as saying that, along with WH press secretary McClellan's Jan. 12, 2005 admission to the press that Bush agreed that no WMD were found, or were likely to be found, based on the Duelfer report, in areas outside of Iraq, such as Syria, and my recently posted quotes from Bush and Rice that:

and that Bush had claimed that:
In late January 2003, in his SOTU address, more than a month after Iraq had presented it's data and inventory of WMD and WMD programs to the U.N.,
Bush claimed that Iraq's WMD inventory, as a justification for war, included:

.....I am confident that it diminishes the credibility of any individual of any ideology to disagree that Bush misled and exaggerated to the point that he either could be called a liar, or incredibly misinformed to the degree that he was incompetent or inept.

I read the links you posted. Many I don't find credible whatsoever for supporting your claims. That being said, at the very least any rational person would have to assume form those quotes and the associated sources of many of them that there was no WMD in Iraq, and that Saddam had no functioning weapons program.

The "program in the wings" is an interesting idea, but to me seems little more than some after the fact rationalization for a particular issue that has little legs otherwise. It's little more than pretty conjecturing.

However, I would disagree somewhat that you proved your borderline libelous attacks. There was a body of evidence that suggested the possibility of WMD before Bush even took office.

I see it more like the admin decided that they had enough reasons to go to war in Iraq (and I'm sure we all could think of reasons why they would, good and bad) and WMD was what they thought would be the easiest reason to sell. It just happens that it was wrong in hindsight.

Quote:

Even with this body of formidible evidence, I still find myself having to post it again and again on these threads. The trend is that resistance to the evidence is shrinking.

My question to you is, in the face of this evidence, why do people still defend Bush with such anger, as MM did, and what do you think that it will take, as
far as evidence, if an admission from Bush himself is not sufficient enough for posts such as MM's to cease here? Why is is so difficult to process such straightforward, well documented arguments?

Why despite mountains of evidence to the contrary do some people still claim that Bush lost the '00 and '04 elections?

Sometimes people believe things despite evidence to the contrary. And if someone believes that strongly, possibly no amount of evidence would sway them. The manner in which info is presented can often also influence how it is received.

Sometimes it's simply best to ignore posts where people are too far gone from reality.

pan6467 · 07-12-2005, 04:41 AM

I am truly confused here. I'm an admitted Liberal and I truly believe one of the last hippies on the face of the Earth. So I am lost in how my saying the partisan politics is killing us is supported by a righty and my fellow lefties are attacking me like I have no idea what the Hell I am talking about.

Rob Reiner once said of All In the Family that the writers did not want to shove politics down people's throats that's why they made Mike just as bad as Archie in his views.

What we have is a nation that is so torn and so fucking positive they are right they refuse to truly debate. The attitude is "You either agree with me or you are wrong, wrong, wrong".

Look, after listening to Limbaugh Thursday I realized we are so polarized that we're toast. It maybe a defeatist attitude but look at this thread.

I have 1 person posting in agreement with me, and his and my politics are about as opposite as it can get at times. The people who's politics resemble mine are yelling at me, saying I don't understand that "debate, is healthy and keeps us moving forward" and I have the Righties ignoring me (except for Alan).

Debate is very healthy..... but we don't have debate anymore, we have people espousing their views and not giving an inch, not budging, not attempting to even see what the other side is saying. And in all honesty, both sides are so paranoid that the other may make a good point and have to be recognized for it, that a lot of debate gets so far off true topic and onto another issue, that by the time everything is said and done the debate comes down to "yes it is, you ignorant ass" and "no it isn't you son of a silly person." and NOTHING is accomplished but to have both sides turning away the people in the middle.

It's not just Bush who has this "you're either with us or against us" mentality. It's the whole f'n GOP and the whole f'n Dems and if you're in the middle or speak your mind in non agreement of an issue...... you may as well live in Siberia because noone takes you seriously. If you're a Dem. and you disagree on something..... you're a sellout, part of the problem because the "brainwashing" is starting to work on you, not informed enough to truly know or my favorite "not enlightened and still just a young soul that needs to be slapped in a couple lives so that you know the truth."

If you're a GOP and disagree, then you are "brainwashed by the Mainstream Media", not informed, a turncoat, not patriotic and my favorite, "not religious enough, HEATHEN."

I love the fact that my 2 senators Voinivich and Dewine found some balls and stood up to their party and tried to end some of the bullshit. It's sad though because the GOP are making them to be "not true conservatives, turncoats who need to be ousted from office."

Dems are just as bad.

So if someone speaks their mind and goes against the grain, that is what they have to look forward to? Isolation from their party? And you still want to sit there and tell me that these people, who have the best interest of their constituency and the nation, are to be exiled because they spoke out against their party and tried to do what was best for ALL not just for the select.

I know I sound like a fucking Memorex..... but come on people, we are on the verge of killing ourselves simply because we refuse to truly listen to those who break the mold and want to find solutions and not harp on problems, that always, no matter what the issue comes down to, end the same way==> "shut the fuck up ignorant ass", "fuck you son of a silly person" and nothing gets done.

There were many Dems that sold Clinton out, simply because he tried to work with both parties. It's why the Right hated him also. He was charismatic enough and had enough sense to try to find solutions that would work for both sides. And neither side wanted that. Because, compromise and finding middle ground means somewhere you have to admit you were not 100% correct.

And being 100% correct is all there is in politics these days. You are not allowed by your party to EVEN think there maybe another way, that both sides can agree on. If you so believe that there maybe middle ground.... see above..... it's Siberia and name calling for you.... by your fellow partisans. And of course the other party laughs at you and uses you to their advantage........ so your credibility is totally shot.

It's a great game of power the parties are playing and would rather play than truly help the country.

And so the terrorists laugh at us as they know that they have free reign while we destroy ourselves from within.

Stop the patisan politics, stop the polarization.... stop the fucking "I'm right you're wrong, shut the fuck up" attitudes.

Everyone can find the proof they want for their issue because somewhere down the line someone has biased and screwed with the information enough to support exactly what you want said on a certain issue...... sad thing is someone has done the exact same thing for the other side.

Just look at us on this board, because it is a microcosm of the whole (IMHO), the Left beatup the Right, the Right beat up the Left and no solutions are found, just further animosity and division. Those in the middle lose interest and become so disenchanted they don't truly give a fuck.... all they want is both sides to shut the fuck up because they have both sides telling them how stupid they are.

I know I was as big a partisan and one of "the elite" who believed my side was it. And what I realize and Thursady put the nail in the coffin so to speak..... I was no better than Limbaugh or O'Reilly .... I thought I was, but no, the problem is I had become so wrapped up in proving the other side wrong my arguments made no sense anymore, I was just out to prove how right I was and how wrong everyone else who didn't agree was.

The only thing I am 100% sure of now is that the fucking partisan politics and the division has got to end. We are in a critical state and we need to be united and find ways to live together and better our country and world before it's too late.

The terrorists don't give a damn about our politics and they are thriving on our infighting.....

roachboy · 07-12-2005, 06:30 AM

at this point, i think that a more formal thread might be a good idea, something on the order of a debate-type thing.
seems like all of us keep moving back and forth across the threshold of getting down to maybe trying to either explain or perform an explanation for why political discussion keeps breaking down into the nonexchange of monologues.
i would be interested in trying something with pretty firm ground rules: maybe a q and a type format or something, i am not sure.
i will not have time over the next few days to devote to figuring out the format: if one of the comrades here has an idea of how this might work, please feel free to post it.

alansmithee: i think this flirting with the threshold process is particularly apparent in the conversation that we have been having.
i would of course be fine with anyone and everyone participating in the type of more structured conversation that we considered earlier.
and to forewarn you about the place of likely breakdown or talking-past in the debate-like thing, should it happen: my way of thinking about many political questions is shaped by a long marxian background--i do not understand myself as being a marxist at this point, simply because i do not see it as possible or useful any more--but when it comes to debating political questions, the types of arguments that i tend to start off with are marxist in style. i mention this because it sets up an obvious problem in that these types of arguments do not in general work at the same level as straight political arguments in the american context: they consider other data relevant and in different combinations. i mention this because i would prefer that you know this is coming and not allow it to simply grind any conversation into nothingness.

pan: in the end, i guess the main place that i diverge with you is that i do not see division as a basic problem. i think this divergence follows from basically different attitudes toward the idea of nation--you seem to work from it as a basic operational category: i see it as something that is becoming obsolete and is not worth either saving or worrying about trying to save.
i also do not see tfp as a microcosm, and so do not connect problems folk encounter here in talking across political positions with the state of anything outside itself.

this thread has drifted well beyond its initial premise--as is often the case here the question that has driven it that way has to do with in what way one can and should understand this category "terrorism"--i am not sure that any attempt to stage a structured conversation should start with this, simply because it is an obvious wedge issue.

pan6467 · 07-12-2005, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

pan: in the end, i guess the main place that i diverge with you is that i do not see division as a basic problem. i think this divergence follows from basically different attitudes toward the idea of nation--you seem to work from it as a basic operational category: i see it as something that is becoming obsolete and is not worth either saving or worrying about trying to save.

Wow.................. just fucking wow............... That is one of the most elitist, defeatist, most arrogant things I have ever heard from anyone.

Wow. So because you see the nation as becoming obsolete, fuck trying to get along.

Trying to find ways to bring the nation together, is useless and shouldn't even be tried, according to you?

Wow................

So when the terrorists come and blow up our buildings and bring nukes and diseases ..... it's ok, because we are obsolete and not worth saving?

Because what you are saying (and please correct me if I am wrong, I truly want to be wrong):

Quote:

i see it as something that is becoming obsolete and is not worth either saving or worrying about trying to save

it goes to follow that there is no use in trying to stop the terrorists, we are obsolete and not worthy of being saved?

Wow....... thank God you are an extremist on the very very far end, but it scares me because I have a feeling we have a lot of this attitude on the Left and the Right. And those are the ones that have some power and refuse to let the parties work together.

On the other hand, it is good that people are awakened to this attitude by the extremists who are in power so that the may lose their power and we can become united.

You maybe right in a way Roach, your belief and the ones similar on the Right side, may in effect start truly showing their agendas and wake the people up to how fucking divided we are and how there are those on both sides that want to keep us divided, for if we start working together, they have no power anymore.

07-12-2005, 09:30 AM

pan, I don't want to speak for roach, but the way I read it, when he says the 'nation is obsolete', I think he means the concept of nationality is obsolete, not that the US is past caring about.

As an example, note how effective a non-national organisation like Al Quaida can be in comparison to the nations they choose to attack.

roachboy · 07-12-2005, 10:08 AM

pan: ok, let me explain what i was saying. you got it wrong.

zen is basically correct: i was talking about the ideolopgy of nationalism in general. as for teh states, i live here too, friend, and so i am obviously concerned about what these things mean for the place in which i live.

if you actually think about how globalizing capitalism is developing, the functions that the nation-state had traditionally fulfilled are being transferred to the transnational level--think about the e.u. in political terms, and the confusion/problems that are attending it. if ytou think about economic power, environmnetal regulation,e tc etc, the processes are underway that will at one point make the nation-state--and the whole ideology of nationalism--a thing of the past.

obviously things are not there yet--but as i understand nationalism to be little more than the ideological expression of the nation-state, it would follow that as the former gives way to another formation the ideology becomes unnecessary.

and what has nationalism given us anyway? what i see in it is largely a history of massacres, from the colonial period through two world wars, through the present forms of militarized delerium. of course it also has provided flags to wave and illusions of unity to defend--but these seem to me little more than flip sides of the same thing.

it also was the framework within which complex systems of democratic accountability came to take shape--the pressure points that these patterns of democratic accountability relied upon have been transferring away from the nation-state level for 30 years now...production is no longer organized around nation-states--ownership is no longer bound by nation-states--patterns of economic co-ordination operate at the transnational level--the institutions that will come to regulate transnational capital flows are starting to take shape. increasingly, the institutions that had been amenable to pressure for organized groups of citizens in the context of the nation-state are disappearing, morphing onto a different level of organization.

i think the entire politics of the bush administration is shaped by these considerations--they react absolutely against it, because they know that if this process were to go forward on a multilateral, transnational basis, that their reactionary ideology would sooner rather than later find itself with nothing to talk about. so they took a huge gamble--that gamble was iraq--it was aimed against the un as a signifier for the entire process of transnational capitalism--not as such, but as something that in its logic rendered nationalism obsolete. the idea was to alter the situation by forcing the american military hegemon on top of these institutions--that way nationalism could collapse everywhere else, but in the states folk could pretend things were otherwise. this was not about you, this was not about me, this was not about the well-being of anyone--this was an act oriented around political self-preservation.

and the bush administration fucked it up---they lost. the consequence of this fuck up will play out for a long time. but they lost.

what do you think a nation is anyway? something eternal that you conflate with other types of collective identity formation? well, it isnt. do you think a nation is a thing, endowed with an essence, something outside of history? then you are fooling yourself. the modern nation-state is a product of the late 18th-19th centuries--it has a history, it served and serves a particular function, it is a social model coterminous with an older style capitalism. as the newer forms of capitalist organization take shape, the ideology will change eventually as well. ideology is a functional entity--it adapts people to the socio-economic situation in which they operate while at the same time providing them with a way of thinking they are doing something else. within that, it is the basis for arguments floated by the dominant order to legitimate itself.

so you find what i said to be arrogant and defeatist? well, pan, i dont know what to say to you--i dont think you understood what i was actually saying---maybe now it is a little clearer, though i am sure you will not like it any better.

suffice it to say that your busby berkeley model of this fiction you call the nation is like calling for a musical to take place on a sinking ship. you seem to think that if we all sing and dance together that the ship will decide not to sink. i have nothing against singing and dancing...but i really cannot fathom how you imagine that doing so is going to stop anything at the level of structural transformation. it does not even address structural questions--and it cant. and you are not interested in these questions, it seems. to which there is really nothing i can say.

as for the question of what this means for americans--and i am one, pan, like it or not--i dont know. sometimes i am more optimistic and sometimes i am less so. it is all speculation, really. what i do know is that the run the americans have had since world war 2 is coming to a kind of end--but i ahve no idea what the end will entail or how people will react to that. i hope for the best, prepare for the worst i suppose. but i do know one thing: the contemporary type of extreme right politics you see still floating about, steaming and degenerate, here and elsewhere, has nothing coherent to say about any of this and that if i am right (sometimes i hope that i am not) they will lead the states to absolute disaster in the longer run--unless this politics destroys itself--which i think it is on the way to doing. but that is another matter.

and in the end, how do you have any idea of wherther i am "an extremist" or not if you do not take the time to figure out what i am trying to say?

pan6467 · 07-12-2005, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

pan, I don't want to speak for roach, but the way I read it, when he says the 'nation is obsolete', I think he means the concept of nationality is obsolete, not that the US is past caring about.

As an example, note how effective a non-national organisation like Al Quaida can be in comparison to the nations they choose to attack.

I understand but do you think Al Quida and the terrorists fucking care?

If we don't have a strong resolve and defense the terrorists are going to totally destroy everything we have and kill millions of innocents.

I am sorry being a confederation and having partisans running around with agendas that are what THEY want and not what is best for the nation, we allow this to happen.

It's bullshit, self righteous and hypocritical, to sit there and take advantage of what this great nation has to offer and then say, "it's really obsolete and not worth saving"..... as you accept college loans, or government help in someway: or "fuck those who don't agree with me, taxes are too high and the government is too over it's bounds." as you go camping in a national park, eat meat inspected by the USDA, drive on public roads and so on.

Roach's attitude will get thousands upon thousands killed and there is no fucking excuse for it except for some grand "I"m right, you're wrong" bullshit.

The terrorists are coming. There's a book out saying they have nukes..... whether they do or not I'm sure it's just a matter of time. I'm sorry I don't want to fucking fry or have radiation poisoning to look forward to for me or my children..... So we better fucking get our shit together and start finding ways to compromise and rebuild and save what we have.

Sorry, but for anyone to tell me this nation is not worth saving....... and expects to be taken seriously by me..... won't ever happen.

Perhaps I am old school, but this is the greatest nation on Earth when we work together but when we are divided we are the deadliest and most open to terror.

And I'll be damned if I let those inside or out destroy what I believe in.

pan6467 · 07-12-2005, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

pan: ok, let me explain what i was saying. you got it wrong.

zen is basically correct: i was talking about the ideolopgy of nationalism in general. as for teh states, i live here too, friend, and so i am obviously concerned about what these things mean for the place in which i live.

if you actually think about how globalizing capitalism is developing, the functions that the nation-state had traditionally fulfilled are being transferred to the transnational level--think about the e.u. in political terms, and the confusion/problems that are attending it. if ytou think about economic power, environmnetal regulation,e tc etc, the processes are underway that will at one point make the nation-state--and the whole ideology of nationalism--a thing of the past.

obviously things are not there yet--but as i understand nationalism to be little more than the ideological expression of the nation-state, it would follow that as the former gives way to another formation the ideology becomes unnecessary.

and what has nationalism given us anyway? what i see in it is largely a history of massacres, from the colonial period through two world wars, through the present forms of militarized delerium. of course it also has provided flags to wave and illusions of unity to defend--but these seem to me little more than flip sides of the same thing.

it also was the framework within which complex systems of democratic accountability came to take shape--the pressure points that these patterns of democratic accountability relied upon have been transferring away from the nation-state level for 30 years now...production is no longer organized around nation-states--ownership is no longer bound by nation-states--patterns of economic co-ordination operate at the transnational level--the institutions that will come to regulate transnational capital flows are starting to take shape. increasingly, the institutions that had been amenable to pressure for organized groups of citizens in the context of the nation-state are disappearing, morphing onto a different level of organization.

i think the entire politics of the bush administration is shaped by these considerations--they react absolutely against it, because they know that if this process were to go forward on a multilateral, transnational basis, that their reactionary ideology would sooner rather than later find itself with nothing to talk about. so they took a huge gamble--that gamble was iraq--it was aimed against the un as a signifier for the entire process of transnational capitalism--not as such, but as something that in its logic rendered nationalism obsolete. the idea was to alter the situation by forcing the american military hegemon on top of these institutions--that way nationalism could collapse everywhere else, but in the states folk could pretend things were otherwise. this was not about you, this was not about me, this was not about the well-being of anyone--this was an act oriented around political self-preservation.

and the bush administration fucked it up---they lost. the consequence of this fuck up will play out for a long time. but they lost.

what do you think a nation is anyway? something eternal that you conflate with other types of collective identity formation? well, it isnt. do you think a nation is a thing, endowed with an essence, something outside of history? then you are fooling yourself. the modern nation-state is a product of the late 18th-19th centuries--it has a history, it served and serves a particular function, it is a social model coterminous with an older style capitalism. as the newer forms of capitalist organization take shape, the ideology will change eventually as well. ideology is a functional entity--it adapts people to the socio-economic situation in which they operate while at the same time providing them with a way of thinking they are doing something else. within that, it is the basis for arguments floated by the dominant order to legitimate itself.

so you find what i said to be arrogant and defeatist? well, pan, i dont know what to say to you--i dont think you understood what i was actually saying---maybe now it is a little clearer, though i am sure you will not like it any better.

suffice it to say that your busby berkeley model of this fiction you call the nation is like calling for a musical to take place on a sinking ship. you seem to think that if we all sing and dance together that the ship will decide not to sink. i have nothing against singing and dancing...but i really cannot fathom how you imagine that doing so is going to stop anything at the level of structural transformation. it does not even address structural questions--and it cant. and you are not interested in these questions, it seems. to which there is really nothing i can say.

as for the question of what this means for americans--and i am one, pan, like it or not--i dont know. sometimes i am more optimistic and sometimes i am less so. it is all speculation, really. what i do know is that the run the americans have had since world war 2 is coming to a kind of end--but i ahve no idea what the end will entail or how people will react to that. i hope for the best, prepare for the worst i suppose. but i do know one thing: the contemporary type of extreme right politics you see still floating about, steaming and degenerate, here and elsewhere, has nothing coherent to say about any of this and that if i am right (sometimes i hope that i am not) they will lead the states to absolute disaster in the longer run--unless this politics destroys itself--which i think it is on the way to doing. but that is another matter.

and in the end, how do you have any idea of wherther i am "an extremist" or not if you do not take the time to figure out what i am trying to say?

I understand but as these terrorists don't fucking care if America is a sinking ship or not. They are coming to kill and harm as many people as they possibly can.

Right now what you are saying is not the time. The time will come and perhaps it will work. But now is not the time.

It all boils down to this. We either work out differences stand together and do what we can to defeat Al Quida or we kiss our sweet asses goodbye.

No "Busby Berkely" attitude here, it's a question of survival..... because the more divided we are the easier the terrorists have at destroying and killing millions. And they don't give a damn about our politics.

Do you think when they use a suitcase bomb in a NYC subway they're going to ask people before they get on the subway if they approve of Bush's policies or not? Do you think they are going to ask those at a DisneyWorld if America is the great Satan, as the gas the place?

Hell no. They have one mission and it is becoming clearer ............ destroy the West. Your attitude whether intentional or not only helps them.

moosenose · 07-12-2005, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

If we don't have a strong resolve and defense the terrorists are going to totally destroy everything we have and kill millions of innocents.

...

The terrorists are coming. There's a book out saying they have nukes..... whether they do or not I'm sure it's just a matter of time. I'm sorry I don't want to fucking fry or have radiation poisoning to look forward to for me or my children..... So we better fucking get our shit together and start finding ways to compromise and rebuild and save what we have.

You don't see the problem with these two statements? What you are espousing is nothing short of capitulation to the terrorists. I am unwilling to compromise with them. I suspect that if you or your child were one of the people to be killed as a required part of the "compromise", you would oppose such a compromise, too. Then again, maybe you would not...lots of communists went to their deaths in the various purges believing that they were dying for the greater good...

roachboy · 07-12-2005, 10:34 AM

pan:
that is ridiculous.
see you in another thread--this one is getting nowhere.

boatin · 07-12-2005, 10:38 AM

pan, i think it's easy to say "let's work harder to get along" than it is to actually do it. case in point, Roach made a comment in 163 that totally lit you up.

rather than try to 'get along', which to me means trying to understand what the other is saying, and why, you went off.

I work hard to try to understand what Roach is saying, I don't always succeed (I wonder if I'm over 50%

), but I understood his basic point on that one. I sure didn't read it the way you did. I mention my reaction, because I think your reading of that was an example of reading in the worst possible light. We all do it. There are posters here who I'm most liable to read that way...

I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just suggesting that 'getting along' starts at home. I work at it, but it's frickin hard...

boatin · 07-12-2005, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Hell no. They have one mission and it is becoming clearer ............ destroy the West. Your attitude whether intentional or not only helps them.

I respect your right to hold this opinion. But I disagree.

I disagree about your first sentence about 80%, and completely disagree with second.

It's your opinion. Mine is different. But when you say that my opinion, or anyone's is helping the terrorists, you sure aren't trying to understand. You are preaching. You seem to know what's right, and what's wrong. I'm always somewhat envious of those with such certainty.

I'm not sure how you can reconcile that preaching with your comments of stopping the left/right rhetoric and getting along. But I'd be interested in reading your opinion.

pan6467 · 07-12-2005, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

You don't see the problem with these two statements? What you are espousing is nothing short of capitulation to the terrorists. I am unwilling to compromise with them. I suspect that if you or your child were one of the people to be killed as a required part of the "compromise", you would oppose such a compromise, too. Then again, maybe you would not...lots of communists went to their deaths in the various purges believing that they were dying for the greater good...

Compromise within ourselves.... trash the partisan politics...... read all my posts before jumping to conclusions.

boatin · 07-12-2005, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Compromise within ourselves.... trash the partisan politics...... read all my posts before jumping to conclusions.

Not sure how being told we support terrorists with our opinions is anything but partisan politics.

I did read all your posts. I don't get it. Please see previous 2 posts of mine, as well...

Would apreciate your thoughts.

trib767 · 07-12-2005, 02:58 PM

AWESOME NEWS: The anti-terror squad have homed right in on the bastards that bombed our public transport system. They're saying that all of them died in the exlosions and they have video footage of them all together at Kings Cross. They arrived from Leeds on an early morning train after meeting up en route at Luton. A car at Luton station has been found full of explosives and is currently the subject of controlled explosions. They've also arrested an individual in Leeds that is related to one of the bombers.

Bloody brilliant work in less than a week, don't you say ?

Elphaba · 07-12-2005, 03:06 PM

Very awesome news, Trib.

Elphaba · 07-12-2005, 04:09 PM

I just found this CNN.com report:

Tuesday, July 12, 2005; Posted: 5:43 p.m. EDT (21:43 GMT)

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Police are focusing their investigation of last week's terrorist attacks on four men who could have been suicide bombers, the head of the city's anti-terrorist police said Tuesday.

Police were led to the four men after the family of one reported him missing just hours after the bombings on the capital's transit system that killed at least 52 people, said Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke.

"The investigation quite early led us to have concerns about the movements and activities of four men, three of whom came from the West Yorkshire area," Clarke told a news conference.

"We are trying to establish their movements in the run-up to last week's attacks and specifically to establish whether they all died in the explosions."

Meanwhile, the British Press Association reported police found explosives in a car they believe was linked to the London blasts.

Police said bomb squad officers removed the explosives and planned to detonate them safely.

The car was parked in a train station car lot in Luton, which is 30 miles north of London and home to one of the city's three major airports.

Police closed the train station and the parking lot and cordoned off a 100-yard (-meter) area around it before investigation the vehicle.

Also Tuesday, Bedfordshire police said they were investigating another vehicle possibly connected to the bombings in a storage area in the town of Leighton Buzzard near Luton Airport.

At Tuesday's news conference, Clarke said three of the four men in question were from West Yorkshire, in northern England.

He said officers found personal documents bearing the names of three of the men near the train seats on three Underground trains where bombs exploded Thursday and personal property of the fourth man on the bus.

Clarke said it was "very likely" one of the men from West Yorkshire died in the bombings, which the government says bear the hallmark of al Qaeda.

Clarke said police arrested one man Tuesday while conducting a series of raids in West Yorkshire, about 200 miles north of London.

The news conference came hours after officers in Leeds, in Yorkshire, carried out a series of raids. Army bomb disposal experts earlier carried out a controlled explosion to gain access to a house in the Hyde Park area of the city.

Hundreds of residents from surrounding streets had to be evacuated as armed police took up position outside the house. Police also raided five other houses in the city.

London police have taken more than 700 witness statements and have had more than 2,000 calls to the anti-terrorist hotline, said Andy Hayman, London police assistant commissioner and head of specialist operations.

Officers are also reviewing 2,500 tapes of closed-circuit television footage from across the capital, as scores of families await news of loved ones feared killed.

In the capital two more victims were named. Jamie Gordon and Philip Stuart Russell were recovered from the site of the bus bombing in Tavistock Square, police said.

Meanwhile Tuesday, U.S. officials lifted a ban on about 10,000 U.S. military personnel based at RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath, both in the eastern English county of Suffolk, going into the Greater London area. (Full story)

Matt Tulis, a spokesman at RAF Mildenhall, earlier told PA: "We are concerned about the safety of our folks and are trying to do what we can to protect them. This is the best course of action right now."

The instruction to U.S. forces contradicted the message from politicians, including London's mayor, for people to return to the capital.

Britain's finance minister, Chancellor Gordon Brown, vowed Tuesday that the European Union would unite to defeat terrorism and clamp down on the financing that feeds it.

Brown said he would raise the issue of sanctions against countries that failed to act against terrorist financing on the agenda of an International Monetary Fund summit later this year.

Anxious families frustrated by the slow progress of police efforts to identify victims were asked to show patience Monday by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair.

Prime Minister Tony Blair vowed Britain would defeat the terrorists who inflicted the "murderous carnage of the innocent."

Talking of Britain's "revulsion" at the attacks, the prime minister told the House of Commons that 56 people were still hospitalized.

Blair said it seemed probable the London attacks were carried out by Islamic extremist terrorists. He said he knew of no specific intelligence that could have prevented the bombings.

London police revealed three additional confirmed deaths above the 49 already announced -- and said the number of dead was expected to rise further.

Forensics experts have said it could take weeks to identify all the bodies recovered, many of which were mangled in Thursday's attacks.

Police chief Blair said rescue workers were now recovering body parts, not entire bodies. He encouraged Londoners to go about their lives as normal, continuing to use the city's public transport systems but remaining vigilant.

Deputy Chief Constable Andy Trotter of the British Transport Police said police had "redoubled our efforts" to make people feel safe moving about the capital again.

"We say that London is open for business. If we don't do that, then the terrorists will have won and that's not what we want," Trotter said.

In their search for clues to the attacks, which also wounded 700 people, police urged the public to send in pictures and video taken with digital cameras or mobile phones at the bomb sites.

Authorities have warned Britain could face more terrorist attacks unless those responsible for the attack on London's transport network are captured.

highthief · 07-12-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Very awesome news, Trib.

While good work with respect to the investigation, I think it is devastating news if these guys were indeed suicide bombers and if the rumour that they were home grown is correct. It is relatively easy to close your borders against foreign threats, it is orders of magnitude harder to stop such threats if they are internal and unconcerned about their own lives.

pan6467 · 07-12-2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

pan, i think it's easy to say "let's work harder to get along" than it is to actually do it. case in point, Roach made a comment in 163 that totally lit you up.

rather than try to 'get along', which to me means trying to understand what the other is saying, and why, you went off.

I work hard to try to understand what Roach is saying, I don't always succeed (I wonder if I'm over 50%

), but I understood his basic point on that one. I sure didn't read it the way you did. I mention my reaction, because I think your reading of that was an example of reading in the worst possible light. We all do it. There are posters here who I'm most liable to read that way...

I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just suggesting that 'getting along' starts at home. I work at it, but it's frickin hard...

Very true. It is going to be hard, and I am the one preaching it and look how it makes me hypocritical.

But people I'm not being Chicken Little here. They are FUCKING COMING and the partisan bullshit has got to stop.

I respect what Roach is saying and in time perhaps what he predicts will happen.... now is not the time.

Case in point: even if this is 1/2 true we need to start finding ways to get along and to weed out the terrorists.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN
Al-Qaida nukes already in U.S.
Terrorists, bombs smuggled across Mexico border by MS-13 gangsters

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 11, 2005
12:22 p.m. Eastern

Editor's note: Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin is an online, subscription intelligence news service from the creator of WorldNetDaily.com – a journalist who has been developing sources around the world for almost 30 years. The subscription price for the premium newsletter has been slashed in half and is now available for only $9.95 per month.

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – As London recovers from the latest deadly al-Qaida attack that killed at least 50, top U.S. government officials are contemplating what they consider to be an inevitable and much bigger assault on America – one likely to kill millions, destroy the economy and fundamentally alter the course of history, reports Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan is called the "American Hiroshima" and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups.

Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union – including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines, artillery shells and even some missile warheads. In addition, documents captured in Afghanistan show al-Qaida had plans to assemble its own nuclear weapons with fissile material it purchased on the black market.

In addition to detonating its own nuclear weapons already planted in the U.S., military sources also say there is evidence to suggest al-Qaida is paying former Russian special forces Spetznaz to assist the terrorist group in locating nuclear weapons formerly concealed inside the U.S. by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Osama bin Laden's group is also paying nuclear scientists from Russia and Pakistan to maintain its existing nuclear arsenal and assemble additional weapons with the materials it has invested hundreds of millions in procuring over a period of 10 years.

The plans for the devastating nuclear attack on the U.S. have been under development for more than a decade. It is designed as a final deadly blow of defeat to the U.S., which is seen by al-Qaida and its allies as "the Great Satan."

At least half the nuclear weapons in the al-Qaida arsenal were obtained for cash from the Chechen terrorist allies.

But the most disturbing news is that high level U.S. officials now believe at least some of those weapons have been smuggled into the U.S. for use in the near future in major cities as part of this "American Hiroshima" plan, according to an upcoming book, "The al-Qaida Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime and the Coming Apocalypse," by Paul L. Williams, a former FBI consultant.

According to Williams, former CIA Director George Tenet informed President Bush one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that at least two suitcase nukes had reached al-Qaida operatives in the U.S.

"Each suitcase weighed between 50 and 80 kilograms (approximately 110 to 176 pounds) and contained enough fissionable plutonium and uranium to produce an explosive yield in excess of two kilotons," wrote Williams. "One suitcase bore the serial number 9999 and the Russian manufacturing date of 1988. The design of the weapons, Tenet told the president, is simple. The plutonium and uranium are kept in separate compartments that are linked to a triggering mechanism that can be activated by a clock or a call from the cell phone."

According to the author, the news sent Bush "through the roof," prompting him to order his national security team to give nuclear terrorism priority over every other threat to America.

However, it is worth noting that Bush failed to translate this policy into securing the U.S.-Mexico border through which the nuclear weapons and al-Qaida operatives are believed to have passed with the help of the MS-13 smugglers. He did, however, order the building of underground bunkers away from major metropolitan areas for use by federal government managers following an attack.

Bin Laden, according to Williams, has nearly unlimited funds to spend on his nuclear terrorism plan because he has remained in control of the Afghanistan-produced heroin industry. Poppy production has greatly increased even while U.S. troops are occupying the country, he writes. Al-Qaida has developed close relations with the Albanian Mafia, which assists in the smuggling and sale of heroin throughout Europe and the U.S.

Some of that money is used to pay off the notorious MS-13 street gang between $30,000 and $50,000 for each sleeper agent smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico. The sleepers are also provided with phony identification, most often bogus matricula consular ID cards indistinguishable from Mexico's official ID, now accepted in the U.S. to open bank accounts and obtain driver's licenses.

The Bush administration's unwillingness to secure the U.S.-Mexico border has puzzled and dismayed a growing number of activists and ordinary citizens who see it as the No. 1 security threat to the nation. The Minuteman organization is planning a major mobilization of thousands of Americans this fall designed to shut down the entire 2,000-mile border as it did in April with a 23-mile stretch in Arizona.

According to Williams' sources, thousands of al-Qaida sleeper agents have now been forward deployed into the U.S. to carry out their individual roles in the coming "American Hiroshima" plan.

Bin Laden's goal, according to the book, is to kill at least 4 million Americans, 2 million of whom must be children. Only then, bin Laden has said, would the crimes committed by America on the Arab and Muslim world be avenged.

There is virtually no doubt among intelligence analysts al-Qaida has obtained fully assembled nuclear weapons, according to Williams. The only question is how many. Estimates range between a dozen and 70. The breathtaking news is that an undetermined number of these weapons, including suitcase bombs, mines and crude tactical nuclear weapons, have already been smuggled into the U.S. – at least some across the U.S.-Mexico border.

The future plan, according to captured al-Qaida agents and documents, suggests the attacks will take place simultaneously in major cities throughout the country – including New York, Boston, Washington, Las Vegas, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles.

In response to the G2 Bulletin revelations, Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a citizen action group demanding the U.S. government take control of its borders, said an immediate military presence on the borders is now imperative "to stop the overwhelming influx of unidentified, potentially hostile and seditious persons coming across at an alarming rate."

"Terrorists have carte blanche to carry practically anything they want across our national line at this time," he said. "As ordinary citizens have warned this government for years, the only surprising part about the new information reported here is that nothing apocalyptic from Mexican-border weapons trafficking has yet happened. Terrorism has reared its ugly head in London again these past few days, and as we know all too well we are not immune in this country. At this point, the next attempt to attack America at home is just a matter of 'when,' not 'if.' And our unsecured borders have surely contributed to this threat – yet our government officials continue to fiddle while our nation's margin of security and safety burns away. The president and Congress had better wake up before they have to answer for another devastating terrorist incursion on our own soil."

link: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203

pan6467 · 07-12-2005, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

Not sure how being told we support terrorists with our opinions is anything but partisan politics.

I did read all your posts. I don't get it. Please see previous 2 posts of mine, as well...

Would apreciate your thoughts.

Opinions are necessary to a society and government like ours. they are necessary to ALL mankind, as is individuality.

However, there is a huge difference between opinion and respecting others and just saying "fuck you Lib/Cons. our side is right and your side is fucking wrong and we refuse to even listen. In fact we'll trash you until noone will listen to your side."

That is what we are getting. We are getting the "fuck you" and the finger pointing and unable to move forward.

I do believe perhaps with Bush going to Leahy and Reid for their opinions on the SC nomination, perhaps partisan politics is coming to an end...... or perhaps it is for PR and he has no intention of listening to them.

We just need to end the partisanship, compromise with each other and go after the true enemy with tenacity and a unity that cannot be broken.

I don't want to watch this country I love destroy itself from within anymore. There's been way too much hatred it's time to make peace with each other.... we have a true enemy that doesn't give a fuck about which side of abortion you are on, their only purpose in life is to kill us (and they have plenty willing to commit suicide to do it) and we best find out how to stop them.

The first step is Unity.

Elphaba · 07-12-2005, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

While good work with respect to the investigation, I think it is devastating news if these guys were indeed suicide bombers and if the rumour that they were home grown is correct. It is relatively easy to close your borders against foreign threats, it is orders of magnitude harder to stop such threats if they are internal and unconcerned about their own lives.

I agree highthief. Much that has been published lately says that Great Britain is a very open country including receiving folks that claim refugee status for their political beliefs. These folks may have become the internal threat. I really don't know one way or another. Maybe when the "believed to be" suicide bombers are identified, we can better assess this question.

moosenose · 07-12-2005, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I don't want to watch this country I love destroy itself from within anymore. There's been way too much hatred it's time to make peace with each other.... we have a true enemy that doesn't give a fuck about which side of abortion you are on, their only purpose in life is to kill us (and they have plenty willing to commit suicide to do it) and we best find out how to stop them.

The first step is Unity.

It's impossible to reach a unified position when one group on "our side" offers as a "solution" the appeasement of the enemy. The way to deal with people who want to kill you is to kill them first, not to give them hugs and therapy while giving into their demands. I'm virtually POSITIVE that we could stop fundamentalist muslims from attacking the US if we only would change our Constitution to whatever fucked up vision of what a "proper Islamic State" should be they have. If we put all American women in Burquas, execute all homosexuals, kill all Jews, exterminate all but fundamentalist Islam as a religion, and bow to Mecca five times daily while obeying Sharia law, I'm sure we could have peace with them. Somehow, however, I doubt that they would settle for less than that, and I sure as hell would not allow that to happen.

Appeasement only emboldens your attackers.

pan6467 · 07-12-2005, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

It's impossible to reach a unified position when one group on "our side" offers as a "solution" the appeasement of the enemy. The way to deal with people who want to kill you is to kill them first, not to give them hugs and therapy while giving into their demands. I'm virtually POSITIVE that we could stop fundamentalist muslims from attacking the US if we only would change our Constitution to whatever fucked up vision of what a "proper Islamic State" should be they have. If we put all American women in Burquas, execute all homosexuals, kill all Jews, exterminate all but fundamentalist Islam as a religion, and bow to Mecca five times daily while obeying Sharia law, I'm sure we could have peace with them. Somehow, however, I doubt that they would settle for less than that, and I sure as hell would not allow that to happen.

Appeasement only emboldens your attackers.

I don't know where you can even begin to see me saying we need to compromise with the terrorists. I am saying GOP and Dems need to work on compromises with each other.

Nowhere am I saying we need to appease the terrorists. I don't think we could even if we tried. And trying would sell our country short.

However, it is necessary to stop the partisan bullshit and to come together and work as a nation to better ourselves and stand united. That is what I am arguing for.

It is extremely important for us as a nation to become united. This is a war, no matter how you slice it and the divisive partisanship and hatreds of each other is unhealthy in the protection of our security and the overall advancement of our nation.

moosenose · 07-12-2005, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I don't know where you can even begin to see me saying we need to compromise with the terrorists. I am saying GOP and Dems need to work on compromises with each other.

Nowhere am I saying we need to appease the terrorists. I don't think we could even if we tried. And trying would sell our country short.

However, it is necessary to stop the partisan bullshit and to come together and work as a nation to better ourselves and stand united. That is what I am arguing for.

It is extremely important for us as a nation to become united. This is a war, no matter how you slice it and the divisive partisanship and hatreds of each other is unhealthy in the protection of our security and the overall advancement of our nation.

Well, the problem is that the far left seems to be running the Democrats into the ground with their anti-war stance. Just take a look over at D.U. for an example of what I'm talking about. Doing nothing is no longer an option, and hasn't been since 9/11. Attacking Bush because we went into Iraq isn't helping, ESPECIALLY when so many Democrats in Congress voted FOR the IWR, and are now attacking him. When was the first time the term "quagmire" was used to refer to either Afghanistan or Iraq? I'll give you a hint: It was used by Democrats in office BEFORE a single US troop set foot in either country.

Frankly, I'd like to see us go to a WWII model. In WWII, once Pearl Harbor happened, almost everybody gave up their differences and worked TOGETHER. How was this possible? It was possible because there was a leftist in office, and the Right gave up their personal political axes for the good of the nation. (read up on the Isolationist movement and the German-American Bund for two examples) If there were a Democratic President in office after Clinton, and he had done EXACTLY what Bush has done, we'd be united behind him. But I don't honestly think (and this is not a reflection on people here, but rather a reflection on the far left as a whole) that the far left has it in them to cooperate for the greater good. They have an agenda to push, and will push it no matter what the cost is. In fact, I believe that the higher the cost is to the nation, the more they like it, because the ultimate goal of the Far Left is to destroy America to make the world safe for "progressive experiments" like the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cambodia/Kampuchea. Now I don't believe that ALL Democrats are that way, but given Zell Miller's defection and the obviously famous "Joe-Mentum" of the 2004 primary season, I think the Cynthia McKinneys are much more in control of the Democratic party than the Joe Liebermans are.

Elphaba · 07-12-2005, 07:00 PM

Uh, Moose... the entire world was behind us after 9/11 and you could not have found greater unity among our people and our politicians in any other era or war.

I suggest we lost all of our international support and the bipartisan support of the President, when we were drawn into a preemptive war under false pretenses. Blame whomever you wish about whatever you choose to. Nothing is going to be discussed reasonably in this forum if the "debate" continues as this has.

moosenose · 07-12-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Uh, Moose... the entire world was behind us after 9/11 and you could not have found greater unity among our people and our politicians in any other era or war.

I suggest we lost all of our international support and the bipartisan support of the President, when we were drawn into a preemptive war under false pretenses. Blame whomever you wish about whatever you choose to. Nothing is going to be discussed reasonably in this forum if the "debate" continues as this has.

No, we lost the "bi-partisan support" because we didn't sit by idly after having been attacked. Prior to going into Iraq, there were massive anti-war demonstrations around the world. If we had sat on our proverbial hands, the world would have stayed with us. We didn't, and pissed off a lot of people who were making a lot of money by taking outright bribes from Saddam Hussein. It's one thing for them to say "we're sorry you got attacked." It's quite another for them to say "We're sorry you got attacked, and we don't care if you piss in our ricebowl." And that's EXACTLY what we did....we took out a guy who was putting large quantities of petrodollars in their pockets illegally.

filtherton · 07-12-2005, 07:06 PM

I think it's unfortunate that moosenose is such a firm supporter of murdering innocent people, but alas, that is his right as an american.

pan6467 · 07-12-2005, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Well, the problem is that the far left seems to be running the Democrats into the ground with their anti-war stance. Just take a look over at D.U. for an example of what I'm talking about. Doing nothing is no longer an option, and hasn't been since 9/11. Attacking Bush because we went into Iraq isn't helping, ESPECIALLY when so many Democrats in Congress voted FOR the IWR, and are now attacking him. When was the first time the term "quagmire" was used to refer to either Afghanistan or Iraq? I'll give you a hint: It was used by Democrats in office BEFORE a single US troop set foot in either country.

Frankly, I'd like to see us go to a WWII model. In WWII, once Pearl Harbor happened, almost everybody gave up their differences and worked TOGETHER. How was this possible? It was possible because there was a leftist in office, and the Right gave up their personal political axes for the good of the nation. (read up on the Isolationist movement and the German-American Bund for two examples) If there were a Democratic President in office after Clinton, and he had done EXACTLY what Bush has done, we'd be united behind him. But I don't honestly think (and this is not a reflection on people here, but rather a reflection on the far left as a whole) that the far left has it in them to cooperate for the greater good. They have an agenda to push, and will push it no matter what the cost is. In fact, I believe that the higher the cost is to the nation, the more they like it, because the ultimate goal of the Far Left is to destroy America to make the world safe for "progressive experiments" like the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cambodia/Kampuchea. Now I don't believe that ALL Democrats are that way, but given Zell Miller's defection and the obviously famous "Joe-Mentum" of the 2004 primary season, I think the Cynthia McKinneys are much more in control of the Democratic party than the Joe Liebermans are.

See what I mean??????

You are saying it is all the Lefts fault and their extremists but there is no fault on the GOP side at all.

That's the fucking partisanship that has to fucking end. We cannot afford to keep pointing fingers.

But if you choose to keep doing so. See where it gets you.

Elphaba · 07-12-2005, 07:10 PM

Yawn... any chance of a political dialogue here, or just ranting?

ObieX · 07-12-2005, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Very true. It is going to be hard, and I am the one preaching it and look how it makes me hypocritical.

But people I'm not being Chicken Little here. They are FUCKING COMING and the partisan bullshit has got to stop.

I respect what Roach is saying and in time perhaps what he predicts will happen.... now is not the time.

Case in point: even if this is 1/2 true we need to start finding ways to get along and to weed out the terrorists.

link: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203

The part of the article i found to be most disturbing was this one right here:

Quote:

In addition to detonating its own nuclear weapons already planted in the U.S., military sources also say there is evidence to suggest al-Qaida is paying former Russian special forces Spetznaz to assist the terrorist group in locating nuclear weapons formerly concealed inside the U.S. by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

pan6467 · 07-12-2005, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

we took out a guy who was putting large quantities of petrodollars in their pockets illegally.

And you have proof of this? Because the administration doesn't even have proof they admitted it.

But yet again, to you it is all the Left's fault..... no GOP is to blame whatsoever...... except those like Voinivich and Dewine (whom the GOP call turncoats and are working to make sure they won't get re-elected), who want to help end partisan politics because they see that it is killing us faster than the terrorists.

Where does it end?

Does it end when every single American agrees with you? Should your will be totally dictated to everyone else?

And in time when your side loses, should the next party in control's will be dictated to you?

Because without compromise that is what you are suggesting, your will is to be dictated to everyone and those who don't like it have no rights to say anything because you are the "majority".

It's bullshit to think that way and it's divisive to the entire nation..... or don't you care?

The more divided we are the easier it is for the terrorists to destroy us. The easier it is for us to lose democracy and our system all together and turn into a dictatorship.

Compromise between the majority and the minority is the most ESSENTIAL ingredient to keep our society moving forward and bettering itself. To believe otherwise leads to the end of our society.

pan6467 · 07-12-2005, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

The part of the article i found to be most disturbing was this one right here:

Quote:

In addition to detonating its own nuclear weapons already planted in the U.S., military sources also say there is evidence to suggest al-Qaida is paying former Russian special forces Spetznaz to assist the terrorist group in locating nuclear weapons formerly concealed inside the U.S. by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The whole article is frightening, but yes it is scary to think that the USSR had nukes on our soil and never turned them over to us when they fell.

moosenose · 07-12-2005, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Compromise between the majority and the minority is the most ESSENTIAL ingredient to keep our society moving forward and bettering itself. To believe otherwise leads to the end of our society.

it's strange how this argument only comes out from the left when the left is out of power, while when the left is in power, their attitude is "fuck you, you're the minority and we can violate whatever rights of yours we want to."

Nixon resigned because he knew that if he was impeached, the Republicans wouldn't vote the Party line, they'd look at the evidence. Clinton PROVED that the left had no such moral fiber.

And BTW, what YOU see as "our society moving forward and bettering itself", many of us see as "the left destroying our culture and values to the detriment of our nation".

moosenose · 07-12-2005, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

See what I mean??????

You are saying it is all the Lefts fault and their extremists but there is no fault on the GOP side at all.

That's the fucking partisanship that has to fucking end. We cannot afford to keep pointing fingers.

But if you choose to keep doing so. See where it gets you.

Once again, it's the right that has to cave in and sacrifice OUR core values for what YOU think. Sorry, we've had FAR too much of that. Ever hear of boiling the frog? No more. That's what the message of the past two presidential election cycles has been. The left has taken and taken and taken, and when the right says "fuck you, it's YOUR turn to give a little", the left screams "Partisanship!" and all kinds of other things.

pan6467 · 07-12-2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Once again, it's the right that has to cave in and sacrifice OUR core values for what YOU think. Sorry, we've had FAR too much of that. Ever hear of boiling the frog? No more. That's what the message of the past two presidential election cycles has been. The left has taken and taken and taken, and when the right says "fuck you, it's YOUR turn to give a little", the left screams "Partisanship!" and all kinds of other things.

That is your belief? Then so be it...... we'll see if division and being divisive just to be divisive (which in my opinion you are admitting to being) works and betters the country.

I don't believe it will.

Nowr do I believe the GOP will forever be in power and what by your beliefs should happen is the Dems to say "fuck you we're in power" and do whatever they want, and you should have no say.

We'll see what happens.... I hope the people in power truly do not have your sense of helping the country.

pan6467 · 07-12-2005, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

it's strange how this argument only comes out from the left when the left is out of power, while when the left is in power, their attitude is "fuck you, you're the minority and we can violate whatever rights of yours we want to."

Nixon resigned because he knew that if he was impeached, the Republicans wouldn't vote the Party line, they'd look at the evidence. Clinton PROVED that the left had no such moral fiber.

And BTW, what YOU see as "our society moving forward and bettering itself", many of us see as "the left destroying our culture and values to the detriment of our nation".

This proves that you have sour grapes towards the Dems and it shows me you just want to say "fuck you Dems." no matter what your party does.

Political revenge is a good way to run your country..... that sounds like what you are espousing. Not that your philosophies and beliefs are better, but that you just want revenge.

Must be truly painful to be so full of hate that you are willing to see the country disolve just for revenge purposes.

Cynthetiq · 07-13-2005, 01:14 AM

Let's move off the Left/Right rhetoric rants and back towards the thread topic.

Elphaba · 07-13-2005, 11:13 AM

Some additional information on the bombers was reported at timesonline.co.uk:

July 13, 2005

The suicide bomb squad from Leeds
By Michael Evans, Daniel McGrory and Stewart Tendler

FOUR friends from northern England have changed the face of terrorism by carrying out the suicide bombings that brought carnage to London last week.
It emerged last night that, for the first time in Western Europe, suicide bombers have been recruited for attacks. Security forces are coming to terms with the realisation that young Britons are prepared to die for their militant cause.

Three of the men lived in Leeds and the immediate fear is that members of a terrorist cell linked to the city are planning further strikes. The mastermind behind the attacks and the bombmaker are both still thought to be at large.

The man who planted the bomb at Edgware Road was named last night as Mohammed Sidique Khan, 30, the married father of an eight-month-old baby, who is believed to have come from the Leeds area.

Two other terrorists were Hasib Hussain, 19, who bombed the bus in Tavistock Square, of Colenso Mount, Leeds, and Shehzad Tanweer, 22, the Aldgate bomber, who lived at Colwyn Road, Leeds.

Police are still trying to identify the fourth, whose remains are believed to be in the bombed Tube train carriage on the Piccadilly Line. It is thought that he comes from Luton.

Armed police raided six addresses in West Yorkshire yesterday, including the homes of three of the men, who they now know travelled to Luton in a hired car last Wednesday to join the fourth man. They boarded the 7.40 Thameslink train to King’s Cross the next day, each armed with a 10lb rucksack bomb.

Police found a bomb factory in Leeds containing a “viable amount of explosives”. Explosives were also recovered from a car left parked near Luton station. The raids came after the discovery of driving licences and credit cards at the scenes of the explosions, and a telephone call from the mother of Hasib Hussain, who asked police to try to trace her son.

A relative of one of the bombers was arrested and taken to London for questioning. Intelligence agencies say that at least two of the men had recently returned from Pakistan. All four were British, but with origins in Pakistan. MI6, MI5 and British diplomats were in touch with the Pakistani authorities last night to try to track down any connections with terrorists there. Security sources confirmed that none of the bombers was on any MI5 file, although one had links to a person investigated by police.

The four were captured on CCTV cameras at King’s Cross Thameslink station, laughing together and carrying rucksacks, minutes before they set off for their targets at 8.30am on July 7.

roachboy · 07-13-2005, 01:35 PM

an overview of the coverage of the attacks in london from today's guardian.
if you want to understand some of the more bizarre conservative takes on this, look no further than the always vile fox "news"....

Quote:

Accuracy and honesty

Journalism is a vital part of our national response to terrorism: reporting honestly and accurately what has happened, and I believe the BBC did that last week and we will continue to do it

Roger Mosey, head of BBC Television News
Wednesday July 13, 2005

The horror of what happened in London last week will not fade from our memories. For those of us who live and work in this great city, terrorism has been both a reality and a threat over the years; but nothing prepares us for the shock of an event like last Thursday's attacks. We grieve for those who lost their lives.

In these times of tragedy, broadcasters have the natural human responses - but also the need to keep our audiences informed of what is happening. Journalism is a vital part of our national response to terrorism: reporting honestly and accurately what has happened, and equipping people with the knowledge to understand the world in which we're living. I believe the BBC did that last week and we will continue to do it. Nothing tests our public service mission more than our reaction in times of emergency.

In all, more than 30 million people watched BBC News last Thursday - more than the other news broadcasters in the UK put together. With audiences of that size and with stories of this scale, many issues arise about our coverage. I want to address the main ones.

First, our scheduling and the question of whether there was too much about the London bombings on terrestrial television. News 24 was carrying rolling coverage from the start of the incidents, and we first did a news report on BBC1 just before 10am. At that stage all broadcasters were reporting that the cause of the tube disruption was believed to be a power surge - but as soon as we'd confirmed the reports of the bus explosion in Tavistock Square we moved News 24 onto BBC1 and our coverage continued until 7pm. We have two sources for believing this was right. Audiences were more than double the normal level; but we've also asked a representative cross-section of viewers whether they thought the coverage was proportionate and by a large majority they thought it was.

In the evening schedule we made a commitment that we would bring our audiences news on the hour every hour on BBC1. I'm particularly pleased that we commissioned a special current affairs programme at 8pm from the Newsnight team, which allowed us to give more of the background and context to the day's events. It included interviews with the home secretary and with Rudolph Giuliani, and a film by our specialist correspondent John Ware on the nature of the terrorist threat. Again, we know this was appreciated by the audience as well as being journalistically the right thing to do.

Second, people have asked about the flow of information - and in particular whether the BBC was more cautious than other news sources. Let's be clear that the BBC does not withhold known facts. We always want to be first with confirmed news, and it is non-negotiable in our journalism that we supply information as soon as we have it.

However, we will not report mere rumour and nor will we run casualty figures, as the most obvious example, without being able to verify them. At times last Thursday we were seeing other news sources running figures well above any official estimates, and in some cases those reports exceed the known death toll today. That isn't the way the BBC operates, so on very rare occasions our information will be "later" than some of our rivals: accuracy is more important than speed, though we want to achieve both. This approach has been praised by commentators here and in the United States - where the LA Times and the Baltimore Sun are among the newspapers approving of the BBCís restraint.*

Third, how do we decide what images to show - and do we impose a time delay? We have to show the reality of these shocking events, though it's also a requirement that we preserve human dignity and do not add to the distress of relatives.

Overwhelmingly, I believe we achieved this - though early in the coverage under the pressure of the breaking news there was a brief sequence shown on News 24 that should have been edited out. We have said that we will delay live feeds by a few seconds only in exceptional circumstances, and that remains one of the options for our output teams. But that wasn't invoked on Thursday because for the most part our reporting was after the event. The greatest need for a delay is when weíre with a live and unpredictable event - for instance the Beslan siege - and where we don't want to have close-up images of death and destruction unfolding on the nation's television screens without there being an editorial judgement first.

Finally, we are never immune from accusations of bias. It goes without saying that there is nothing more sensitive than matters of life and death, and the BBC's audience response has been massively supportive and understanding about the dilemmas we face in reporting terror. There have been two main exceptions. From a smattering of radical websites comes the argument that we are being hypocritical in mourning the dead of London when we allegedly gloried in civilian deaths in Iraq.

This utterly misrepresents the BBC's reporting of Iraq, where we have always sought to portray the whole picture of events in that country. The second exception is principally Fox News in the United States. A contributor to Fox said after the London bombings that "the BBC almost operates as a foreign registered agent of Hezbollah and some of the other jihadist groups". On the Fox website today there is an opinion piece, "How Jane Fonda and the BBC put you in danger". I am writing this in a building which was bombed by Irish terrorists. My colleagues and I are living in a city recovering from the wounds inflicted last week. If I may leave our customary impartiality aside for a moment, the comments made on Fox News are beneath contempt.

Then there has been a controversy about our use of language - particularly the question of whether the BBC banned the word "terrorist". There is no ban. It's true the word is contentious in some contexts on our international services, hence the recommendation that it be employed with care. But we have used and will continue to use the words terror, terrorism and terrorist - as we did in all our flagship bulletins from Thursday.

source: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...527063,00.html

roachboy · 07-14-2005, 06:11 AM

link to a guardian newsblog on the two minutes of silence observed in london today in memory of the victims of last week's bombings:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/arc...e_silence.html

07-12-2005, 04:41 AM	#162 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I am truly confused here. I'm an admitted Liberal and I truly believe one of the last hippies on the face of the Earth. So I am lost in how my saying the partisan politics is killing us is supported by a righty and my fellow lefties are attacking me like I have no idea what the Hell I am talking about. Rob Reiner once said of All In the Family that the writers did not want to shove politics down people's throats that's why they made Mike just as bad as Archie in his views. What we have is a nation that is so torn and so fucking positive they are right they refuse to truly debate. The attitude is "You either agree with me or you are wrong, wrong, wrong". Look, after listening to Limbaugh Thursday I realized we are so polarized that we're toast. It maybe a defeatist attitude but look at this thread. I have 1 person posting in agreement with me, and his and my politics are about as opposite as it can get at times. The people who's politics resemble mine are yelling at me, saying I don't understand that "debate, is healthy and keeps us moving forward" and I have the Righties ignoring me (except for Alan). Debate is very healthy..... but we don't have debate anymore, we have people espousing their views and not giving an inch, not budging, not attempting to even see what the other side is saying. And in all honesty, both sides are so paranoid that the other may make a good point and have to be recognized for it, that a lot of debate gets so far off true topic and onto another issue, that by the time everything is said and done the debate comes down to "yes it is, you ignorant ass" and "no it isn't you son of a silly person." and NOTHING is accomplished but to have both sides turning away the people in the middle. It's not just Bush who has this "you're either with us or against us" mentality. It's the whole f'n GOP and the whole f'n Dems and if you're in the middle or speak your mind in non agreement of an issue...... you may as well live in Siberia because noone takes you seriously. If you're a Dem. and you disagree on something..... you're a sellout, part of the problem because the "brainwashing" is starting to work on you, not informed enough to truly know or my favorite "not enlightened and still just a young soul that needs to be slapped in a couple lives so that you know the truth." If you're a GOP and disagree, then you are "brainwashed by the Mainstream Media", not informed, a turncoat, not patriotic and my favorite, "not religious enough, HEATHEN." I love the fact that my 2 senators Voinivich and Dewine found some balls and stood up to their party and tried to end some of the bullshit. It's sad though because the GOP are making them to be "not true conservatives, turncoats who need to be ousted from office." Dems are just as bad. So if someone speaks their mind and goes against the grain, that is what they have to look forward to? Isolation from their party? And you still want to sit there and tell me that these people, who have the best interest of their constituency and the nation, are to be exiled because they spoke out against their party and tried to do what was best for ALL not just for the select. I know I sound like a fucking Memorex..... but come on people, we are on the verge of killing ourselves simply because we refuse to truly listen to those who break the mold and want to find solutions and not harp on problems, that always, no matter what the issue comes down to, end the same way==> "shut the fuck up ignorant ass", "fuck you son of a silly person" and nothing gets done. There were many Dems that sold Clinton out, simply because he tried to work with both parties. It's why the Right hated him also. He was charismatic enough and had enough sense to try to find solutions that would work for both sides. And neither side wanted that. Because, compromise and finding middle ground means somewhere you have to admit you were not 100% correct. And being 100% correct is all there is in politics these days. You are not allowed by your party to EVEN think there maybe another way, that both sides can agree on. If you so believe that there maybe middle ground.... see above..... it's Siberia and name calling for you.... by your fellow partisans. And of course the other party laughs at you and uses you to their advantage........ so your credibility is totally shot. It's a great game of power the parties are playing and would rather play than truly help the country. And so the terrorists laugh at us as they know that they have free reign while we destroy ourselves from within. Stop the patisan politics, stop the polarization.... stop the fucking "I'm right you're wrong, shut the fuck up" attitudes. Everyone can find the proof they want for their issue because somewhere down the line someone has biased and screwed with the information enough to support exactly what you want said on a certain issue...... sad thing is someone has done the exact same thing for the other side. Just look at us on this board, because it is a microcosm of the whole (IMHO), the Left beatup the Right, the Right beat up the Left and no solutions are found, just further animosity and division. Those in the middle lose interest and become so disenchanted they don't truly give a fuck.... all they want is both sides to shut the fuck up because they have both sides telling them how stupid they are. I know I was as big a partisan and one of "the elite" who believed my side was it. And what I realize and Thursady put the nail in the coffin so to speak..... I was no better than Limbaugh or O'Reilly .... I thought I was, but no, the problem is I had become so wrapped up in proving the other side wrong my arguments made no sense anymore, I was just out to prove how right I was and how wrong everyone else who didn't agree was. The only thing I am 100% sure of now is that the fucking partisan politics and the division has got to end. We are in a critical state and we need to be united and find ways to live together and better our country and world before it's too late. The terrorists don't give a damn about our politics and they are thriving on our infighting..... __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

07-12-2005, 06:30 AM	#163 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	at this point, i think that a more formal thread might be a good idea, something on the order of a debate-type thing. seems like all of us keep moving back and forth across the threshold of getting down to maybe trying to either explain or perform an explanation for why political discussion keeps breaking down into the nonexchange of monologues. i would be interested in trying something with pretty firm ground rules: maybe a q and a type format or something, i am not sure. i will not have time over the next few days to devote to figuring out the format: if one of the comrades here has an idea of how this might work, please feel free to post it. alansmithee: i think this flirting with the threshold process is particularly apparent in the conversation that we have been having. i would of course be fine with anyone and everyone participating in the type of more structured conversation that we considered earlier. and to forewarn you about the place of likely breakdown or talking-past in the debate-like thing, should it happen: my way of thinking about many political questions is shaped by a long marxian background--i do not understand myself as being a marxist at this point, simply because i do not see it as possible or useful any more--but when it comes to debating political questions, the types of arguments that i tend to start off with are marxist in style. i mention this because it sets up an obvious problem in that these types of arguments do not in general work at the same level as straight political arguments in the american context: they consider other data relevant and in different combinations. i mention this because i would prefer that you know this is coming and not allow it to simply grind any conversation into nothingness. pan: in the end, i guess the main place that i diverge with you is that i do not see division as a basic problem. i think this divergence follows from basically different attitudes toward the idea of nation--you seem to work from it as a basic operational category: i see it as something that is becoming obsolete and is not worth either saving or worrying about trying to save. i also do not see tfp as a microcosm, and so do not connect problems folk encounter here in talking across political positions with the state of anything outside itself. this thread has drifted well beyond its initial premise--as is often the case here the question that has driven it that way has to do with in what way one can and should understand this category "terrorism"--i am not sure that any attempt to stage a structured conversation should start with this, simply because it is an obvious wedge issue. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-12-2005, 10:08 AM	#166 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	pan: ok, let me explain what i was saying. you got it wrong. zen is basically correct: i was talking about the ideolopgy of nationalism in general. as for teh states, i live here too, friend, and so i am obviously concerned about what these things mean for the place in which i live. if you actually think about how globalizing capitalism is developing, the functions that the nation-state had traditionally fulfilled are being transferred to the transnational level--think about the e.u. in political terms, and the confusion/problems that are attending it. if ytou think about economic power, environmnetal regulation,e tc etc, the processes are underway that will at one point make the nation-state--and the whole ideology of nationalism--a thing of the past. obviously things are not there yet--but as i understand nationalism to be little more than the ideological expression of the nation-state, it would follow that as the former gives way to another formation the ideology becomes unnecessary. and what has nationalism given us anyway? what i see in it is largely a history of massacres, from the colonial period through two world wars, through the present forms of militarized delerium. of course it also has provided flags to wave and illusions of unity to defend--but these seem to me little more than flip sides of the same thing. it also was the framework within which complex systems of democratic accountability came to take shape--the pressure points that these patterns of democratic accountability relied upon have been transferring away from the nation-state level for 30 years now...production is no longer organized around nation-states--ownership is no longer bound by nation-states--patterns of economic co-ordination operate at the transnational level--the institutions that will come to regulate transnational capital flows are starting to take shape. increasingly, the institutions that had been amenable to pressure for organized groups of citizens in the context of the nation-state are disappearing, morphing onto a different level of organization. i think the entire politics of the bush administration is shaped by these considerations--they react absolutely against it, because they know that if this process were to go forward on a multilateral, transnational basis, that their reactionary ideology would sooner rather than later find itself with nothing to talk about. so they took a huge gamble--that gamble was iraq--it was aimed against the un as a signifier for the entire process of transnational capitalism--not as such, but as something that in its logic rendered nationalism obsolete. the idea was to alter the situation by forcing the american military hegemon on top of these institutions--that way nationalism could collapse everywhere else, but in the states folk could pretend things were otherwise. this was not about you, this was not about me, this was not about the well-being of anyone--this was an act oriented around political self-preservation. and the bush administration fucked it up---they lost. the consequence of this fuck up will play out for a long time. but they lost. what do you think a nation is anyway? something eternal that you conflate with other types of collective identity formation? well, it isnt. do you think a nation is a thing, endowed with an essence, something outside of history? then you are fooling yourself. the modern nation-state is a product of the late 18th-19th centuries--it has a history, it served and serves a particular function, it is a social model coterminous with an older style capitalism. as the newer forms of capitalist organization take shape, the ideology will change eventually as well. ideology is a functional entity--it adapts people to the socio-economic situation in which they operate while at the same time providing them with a way of thinking they are doing something else. within that, it is the basis for arguments floated by the dominant order to legitimate itself. so you find what i said to be arrogant and defeatist? well, pan, i dont know what to say to you--i dont think you understood what i was actually saying---maybe now it is a little clearer, though i am sure you will not like it any better. suffice it to say that your busby berkeley model of this fiction you call the nation is like calling for a musical to take place on a sinking ship. you seem to think that if we all sing and dance together that the ship will decide not to sink. i have nothing against singing and dancing...but i really cannot fathom how you imagine that doing so is going to stop anything at the level of structural transformation. it does not even address structural questions--and it cant. and you are not interested in these questions, it seems. to which there is really nothing i can say. as for the question of what this means for americans--and i am one, pan, like it or not--i dont know. sometimes i am more optimistic and sometimes i am less so. it is all speculation, really. what i do know is that the run the americans have had since world war 2 is coming to a kind of end--but i ahve no idea what the end will entail or how people will react to that. i hope for the best, prepare for the worst i suppose. but i do know one thing: the contemporary type of extreme right politics you see still floating about, steaming and degenerate, here and elsewhere, has nothing coherent to say about any of this and that if i am right (sometimes i hope that i am not) they will lead the states to absolute disaster in the longer run--unless this politics destroys itself--which i think it is on the way to doing. but that is another matter. and in the end, how do you have any idea of wherther i am "an extremist" or not if you do not take the time to figure out what i am trying to say? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 07-12-2005 at 10:15 AM..

07-12-2005, 10:34 AM	#170 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	pan: that is ridiculous. see you in another thread--this one is getting nowhere. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-13-2005, 01:14 AM	#197 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Let's move off the Left/Right rhetoric rants and back towards the thread topic. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

07-12-2005, 09:30 AM	#165 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	pan, I don't want to speak for roach, but the way I read it, when he says the 'nation is obsolete', I think he means the concept of nationality is obsolete, not that the US is past caring about. As an example, note how effective a non-national organisation like Al Quaida can be in comparison to the nations they choose to attack.

07-12-2005, 10:38 AM	#171 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	pan, i think it's easy to say "let's work harder to get along" than it is to actually do it. case in point, Roach made a comment in 163 that totally lit you up. rather than try to 'get along', which to me means trying to understand what the other is saying, and why, you went off. I work hard to try to understand what Roach is saying, I don't always succeed (I wonder if I'm over 50% ), but I understood his basic point on that one. I sure didn't read it the way you did. I mention my reaction, because I think your reading of that was an example of reading in the worst possible light. We all do it. There are posters here who I'm most liable to read that way... I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just suggesting that 'getting along' starts at home. I work at it, but it's frickin hard...

07-12-2005, 02:58 PM	#175 (permalink)
trib767 Crazy Location: London, UK	AWESOME NEWS: The anti-terror squad have homed right in on the bastards that bombed our public transport system. They're saying that all of them died in the exlosions and they have video footage of them all together at Kings Cross. They arrived from Leeds on an early morning train after meeting up en route at Luton. A car at Luton station has been found full of explosives and is currently the subject of controlled explosions. They've also arrested an individual in Leeds that is related to one of the bombers. Bloody brilliant work in less than a week, don't you say ?

07-12-2005, 03:06 PM	#176 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Very awesome news, Trib.

07-12-2005, 04:09 PM	#177 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I just found this CNN.com report: Tuesday, July 12, 2005; Posted: 5:43 p.m. EDT (21:43 GMT) LONDON, England (CNN) -- Police are focusing their investigation of last week's terrorist attacks on four men who could have been suicide bombers, the head of the city's anti-terrorist police said Tuesday. Police were led to the four men after the family of one reported him missing just hours after the bombings on the capital's transit system that killed at least 52 people, said Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke. "The investigation quite early led us to have concerns about the movements and activities of four men, three of whom came from the West Yorkshire area," Clarke told a news conference. "We are trying to establish their movements in the run-up to last week's attacks and specifically to establish whether they all died in the explosions." Meanwhile, the British Press Association reported police found explosives in a car they believe was linked to the London blasts. Police said bomb squad officers removed the explosives and planned to detonate them safely. The car was parked in a train station car lot in Luton, which is 30 miles north of London and home to one of the city's three major airports. Police closed the train station and the parking lot and cordoned off a 100-yard (-meter) area around it before investigation the vehicle. Also Tuesday, Bedfordshire police said they were investigating another vehicle possibly connected to the bombings in a storage area in the town of Leighton Buzzard near Luton Airport. At Tuesday's news conference, Clarke said three of the four men in question were from West Yorkshire, in northern England. He said officers found personal documents bearing the names of three of the men near the train seats on three Underground trains where bombs exploded Thursday and personal property of the fourth man on the bus. Clarke said it was "very likely" one of the men from West Yorkshire died in the bombings, which the government says bear the hallmark of al Qaeda. Clarke said police arrested one man Tuesday while conducting a series of raids in West Yorkshire, about 200 miles north of London. The news conference came hours after officers in Leeds, in Yorkshire, carried out a series of raids. Army bomb disposal experts earlier carried out a controlled explosion to gain access to a house in the Hyde Park area of the city. Hundreds of residents from surrounding streets had to be evacuated as armed police took up position outside the house. Police also raided five other houses in the city. London police have taken more than 700 witness statements and have had more than 2,000 calls to the anti-terrorist hotline, said Andy Hayman, London police assistant commissioner and head of specialist operations. Officers are also reviewing 2,500 tapes of closed-circuit television footage from across the capital, as scores of families await news of loved ones feared killed. In the capital two more victims were named. Jamie Gordon and Philip Stuart Russell were recovered from the site of the bus bombing in Tavistock Square, police said. Meanwhile Tuesday, U.S. officials lifted a ban on about 10,000 U.S. military personnel based at RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath, both in the eastern English county of Suffolk, going into the Greater London area. (Full story) Matt Tulis, a spokesman at RAF Mildenhall, earlier told PA: "We are concerned about the safety of our folks and are trying to do what we can to protect them. This is the best course of action right now." The instruction to U.S. forces contradicted the message from politicians, including London's mayor, for people to return to the capital. Britain's finance minister, Chancellor Gordon Brown, vowed Tuesday that the European Union would unite to defeat terrorism and clamp down on the financing that feeds it. Brown said he would raise the issue of sanctions against countries that failed to act against terrorist financing on the agenda of an International Monetary Fund summit later this year. Anxious families frustrated by the slow progress of police efforts to identify victims were asked to show patience Monday by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair. Prime Minister Tony Blair vowed Britain would defeat the terrorists who inflicted the "murderous carnage of the innocent." Talking of Britain's "revulsion" at the attacks, the prime minister told the House of Commons that 56 people were still hospitalized. Blair said it seemed probable the London attacks were carried out by Islamic extremist terrorists. He said he knew of no specific intelligence that could have prevented the bombings. London police revealed three additional confirmed deaths above the 49 already announced -- and said the number of dead was expected to rise further. Forensics experts have said it could take weeks to identify all the bodies recovered, many of which were mangled in Thursday's attacks. Police chief Blair said rescue workers were now recovering body parts, not entire bodies. He encouraged Londoners to go about their lives as normal, continuing to use the city's public transport systems but remaining vigilant. Deputy Chief Constable Andy Trotter of the British Transport Police said police had "redoubled our efforts" to make people feel safe moving about the capital again. "We say that London is open for business. If we don't do that, then the terrorists will have won and that's not what we want," Trotter said. In their search for clues to the attacks, which also wounded 700 people, police urged the public to send in pictures and video taken with digital cameras or mobile phones at the bomb sites. Authorities have warned Britain could face more terrorist attacks unless those responsible for the attack on London's transport network are captured.

07-12-2005, 07:00 PM	#185 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Uh, Moose... the entire world was behind us after 9/11 and you could not have found greater unity among our people and our politicians in any other era or war. I suggest we lost all of our international support and the bipartisan support of the President, when we were drawn into a preemptive war under false pretenses. Blame whomever you wish about whatever you choose to. Nothing is going to be discussed reasonably in this forum if the "debate" continues as this has.

07-12-2005, 07:06 PM	#187 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I think it's unfortunate that moosenose is such a firm supporter of murdering innocent people, but alas, that is his right as an american.

07-12-2005, 07:10 PM	#189 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Yawn... any chance of a political dialogue here, or just ranting?

07-13-2005, 11:13 AM	#198 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Some additional information on the bombers was reported at timesonline.co.uk: July 13, 2005 The suicide bomb squad from Leeds By Michael Evans, Daniel McGrory and Stewart Tendler FOUR friends from northern England have changed the face of terrorism by carrying out the suicide bombings that brought carnage to London last week. It emerged last night that, for the first time in Western Europe, suicide bombers have been recruited for attacks. Security forces are coming to terms with the realisation that young Britons are prepared to die for their militant cause. Three of the men lived in Leeds and the immediate fear is that members of a terrorist cell linked to the city are planning further strikes. The mastermind behind the attacks and the bombmaker are both still thought to be at large. The man who planted the bomb at Edgware Road was named last night as Mohammed Sidique Khan, 30, the married father of an eight-month-old baby, who is believed to have come from the Leeds area. Two other terrorists were Hasib Hussain, 19, who bombed the bus in Tavistock Square, of Colenso Mount, Leeds, and Shehzad Tanweer, 22, the Aldgate bomber, who lived at Colwyn Road, Leeds. Police are still trying to identify the fourth, whose remains are believed to be in the bombed Tube train carriage on the Piccadilly Line. It is thought that he comes from Luton. Armed police raided six addresses in West Yorkshire yesterday, including the homes of three of the men, who they now know travelled to Luton in a hired car last Wednesday to join the fourth man. They boarded the 7.40 Thameslink train to King’s Cross the next day, each armed with a 10lb rucksack bomb. Police found a bomb factory in Leeds containing a “viable amount of explosives”. Explosives were also recovered from a car left parked near Luton station. The raids came after the discovery of driving licences and credit cards at the scenes of the explosions, and a telephone call from the mother of Hasib Hussain, who asked police to try to trace her son. A relative of one of the bombers was arrested and taken to London for questioning. Intelligence agencies say that at least two of the men had recently returned from Pakistan. All four were British, but with origins in Pakistan. MI6, MI5 and British diplomats were in touch with the Pakistani authorities last night to try to track down any connections with terrorists there. Security sources confirmed that none of the bombers was on any MI5 file, although one had links to a person investigated by police. The four were captured on CCTV cameras at King’s Cross Thameslink station, laughing together and carrying rucksacks, minutes before they set off for their targets at 8.30am on July 7.

07-14-2005, 06:11 AM	#200 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	link to a guardian newsblog on the two minutes of silence observed in london today in memory of the victims of last week's bombings: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/arc...e_silence.html __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite