Attack in London - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aberkok · 07-09-2005, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I don't see the difference whatsoever, as I brought up the comparison earlier. What you just said would be the equivalent of telling a woman who was raped "no I don't blame you, but maybe you should examine your lifestyle and dress and see how it fits into the sexual desires which breed such attacks".

I'll try one last time to show how this is a false analogy before moving on, because it's important to me.

A rape victim with a low cut dress is NOT to blame on her attack. This is because her way of dressing in no way harms or impoverishes the lifestyle of the attacker. Her way of dressing doesn't affect the economic and political climate in a way which maintains the world status quo, keeping the poor poor and the rich rich. Finally, her way of dressing does not support and install puppet/opressive regimes in third world or middle east countries.

A rape victim clearly does not hold the higher power position.

For whoever set the bombs off in London, this is about more than "wanting something we have."

aberkok · 07-09-2005, 06:18 AM

Here's the latest from the Guardian:

Story

I've emboldened a quotation I was impressed with.

Quote:

Chris Johnston
Saturday July 9, 2005

The three London Underground explosions occurred within seconds of each other at about 8.50am, the Metropolitan Police said today.

Brian Paddick, the deputy assistant commissioner, said the revised timings were made after reviewing technical records from Transport for London.

The records suggest that timers rather than individuals may have set off the devices, but Mr Paddick stressed that no line of enquiry had been ruled out.

It was originally thought that the Edgware Road bomb was detonated at 9.17am, but it transpired that this was when police were first called about an explosion, and there had been earlier calls about other incidents. The Tavistock Square bus bomb timing remains at 9.47am.

Article continues
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme earlier this morning, Tony Blair said that no amount of surveillance could have prevented Thursday's terrorist attacks in London.

The prime minister said that the government did everything it could to protect Britons, but added: "If people are actually prepared to go on to a tube or a bus and blow up wholly innocent people, people just at random, to do the maximum death and destruction without any thought for their human rights or human life, you can have all the surveillance in the world and you couldn't stop that happening."

"That is why ultimately, although we have to take the measures necessary, the underlying issues have to be dealt with too," he said.

Mr Blair said the response of Londoners had been "extraordinary" and showed that they would not be "terrorised by terror".

"I think that we will continue with our way of life, I genuinely believe that," he said. "Even as we mourn the lives of those people killed so brutally and unnecessarily the sense, I think, and I hope, within the country, is to pull together and to make sure people can't divide us,"

The government will be cautious and will not introduce authoritarian laws in response to the tragedy, promised Mr Blair, who chaired another meeting of the Cobra civil contingencies committee this morning.

Meanwhile, a new claim of responsibility for the bombings was posted on the internet today by a group linked with al-Qaida.

But the authenticity of the statement from the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade could not be confirmed and was treated with caution. The group has previously claimed responsibility for events that it was unlikely to have played any role in, such as the 2003 blackouts in the United States and London that resulted from technical problems.

Another group, calling itself The Secret Organisation of al-Qaida in Europe issued a claim of responsibility for Thursday's attacks three hours after the rush-hour explosions.

A massive police hunt is underway for what appears to be a small al-Qaida cell responsible for the four bombs.

Early speculation that suicide bombers were involved appeared to be receding, with evidence that the tube bombs had been placed on the floor by the carriage doors. Anti-terrorist sources said that the main anxiety was that the bombers were still at large and could strike again.

Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, said four bombs, weighing less than 4.5kg (10lbs) each, were probably carried in backpacks and placed on the floor of the three underground carriages and on the seat or floor of the number 30 bus that was blown apart in Tavistock Square.

"There is nothing to suggest that there was a suicide bomber," said Sir Ian, "but nothing can be ruled out." The bombers, he admitted, could be at large in Britain, already out of the country, or dead.

Nothing could have been done to prevent the attack, he said. "No intelligence service is perfect. This is an imperfect world and it is an imperfect science."

The leads now being pursued will come from closed circuit television tapes and mobile phone calls made in the area of the bombs. Police are also hoping to receive tip-offs from the public, such as people who have noticed that a lodger is missing or that a lock-up garage is deserted.

Attention has focused on the number 30 bus and the possibility that the bomb there was in transit to another tube train and went off prematurely, killing 13 people.

"Our total effort today is focused on identifying the perpetrators and bringing them to justice," said Charles Clarke, the home secretary. "That is the number one preoccupation that the police and the security services have at this moment."

Dozens of emergency workers are continuing the grim task of removing bodies from tube carriages and searching for clues that could lead to the prosecution of those responsible.

Andy Trotter, deputy commissioner of the British Transport Police, said emergency services would continue to try to remove the 21 bodies that are believed to remain on the Piccadilly line train between Russell Square and King's Cross stations today and into tonight. However, the rescue operation will progress carefully as conditions are said to be hot and hazardous.

The official death toll in the worst terrorist attack on mainland Britain stands at 49 people. King's Cross station has become a focal point as people leave flowers and gather with posters of missing loved ones.

Dragonlich · 07-09-2005, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberkok

For whoever set the bombs off in London, this is about more than "wanting something we have."

Of course it is. They want everything we have, and they want to kill us too.
Quite a difference indeed.

Dragonlich · 07-09-2005, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob

...(tilted conspiracy stuff)...

Keep your mind open and keep reading Host.

I suggest you do the same. There's plenty of proof out there that the pentagon was indeed hit by a plane, including *parts of said plane*

Some websites:
<a href="http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html">Page with lots of information about 9-11</a>

<a href="http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm">Why it is most likely that an American Airlines 757-223 hit it the Pentagon</a>

FYI, just a small recap
1) The damaged area was narrower and less high than the plane because the heaviest part of a plane is only a small part of the total height and width. In fact, if you take the size of the main body (without wings), and compare that size with the hole, they match.

2) There was plane wreckage, lots of it. Just because it's covered in debris, and cannot be recognized by an untrained bystander doesn't mean it isn't there. There's even pictures of wreckage, including at least one engine. Most of the plane pretty much disintegrated during of the impact, hence no "clearly visible" tail section and wings.

So, keep your mind open and keep reading jimbob.

aberkok · 07-09-2005, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

Of course it is. They want everything we have, and they want to kill us too.

Could you please elaborate on this statement?

jimbob · 07-09-2005, 07:32 AM

my mind is very much open but i don't think it's obvious that there was a plane or that there was a car bomb. i do think it's wrong to ignore someone on the grounds that they share an opinion with people from a country where other people concluded that there was no plane, as Seaver claims to.

http://namastepublishing.co.uk/911%2...ne%20Sight.htm
if someone told me it were a picture of a car bombing i'd be inclined to believe them.

alansmithee · 07-09-2005, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

alansmithee,

you seem to think that arabs and muslims desire to live like you do. some do, but many dont. they certainly do not envy you for buying cd's or eating cheap chinese takeaway. and i doubt they'd stone you as you walked down through the souks of damascus or cairo while u wore your nike apparel while muching on some big mac. chances are..they do the same.

I agree 100% with this. Someone else was trying to make the case that it was the western lifestyle that was the cause of these terrorist attacks.

i

Quote:

ts a well known fact that the west and eurpean countries 'raped' and pillaged the resources of third world countries. and its also a well known fact that they also installed these autocratic governments that you talk about. its also these western governments that put these dictators in place, who have been lining their own pockets, so i do see a connection for resentment.

But why aren't any other third world countries (which I don't consider most of the Middle East, btw) sending off terrorists if it's all the western world's fault? And in the case of Iraq, the US tried to eliminate a dictator that they did help keep in power, yet we see how well the Iraqi people have recieved this action.

Quote:

but once again the resentment isnt directed the western governments directly, but rather at the arab leaders.i have heard many a times, people wishing they could do away with the tyrants, but how? and especially how, after the US admisnitration directly supports governments like the Saudi regime. when the topic of regime change for saudi comes up, the US adminstartion is always careful to tread carefully.

Again, I point to Iraq. We DID do away with a tyrant. And yet there's still a great amount of anger, supposedly because of the very actions that eliminated said tyrant.

Quote:

but of course i cannot condone the bombing of innocents. espcially the latest tragedy.some may say that the WTC was a legitimate target and that the pentagon was a legitimate target for all that they stand for.

Some may say that, and those people should be condemned as the terrorist supporters that they are. Only a truly sick individual could think that. How any reasonable person could believe the 9/11 attacks somehow justified is beyond me.

Quote:

rightly or wrongly thats a contentious issue. however, the bombing of train stations and buses in down town london cannot be condoned by anyone, including arabs and muslims - partly because they have lived through it and know what it is like to live a life being terrorised.

So bombing trains=bad, but destroying skyscrapers=good because arabs and muslims haven't had skyscrapers destroyed?

Quote:

i have also met many people though..non arabs and non muslims who seethe at what the US and western countries have done to their respective countries. and rejoiced at the 911 attacks in secret. so this 'hatred' isnt exclusively for arabs and muslims, but rather its festered by injustices caused however long ago by western countries.

I have no doubt that no doubt that there are non-arabs and non-muslims who rejoiced at the 9/11 attacks. I have a feeling that some post on this very board. But that doesn't make them justified. And it's the arab/muslim countries that are commiting the acts, and continue to commit them, not these other people.

martinguerre · 07-09-2005, 09:20 AM

an interesting voice i read on the issue of "hating freedom" and all that was Gwynne Dyer's article.

Quote:

During the whole of World War II, about 30,000 Londoners were killed by German bombs and three-quarters of a million lost their homes. Then, between 1971 and 2001, London was the target of 116 bombs set by various factions of the Irish Republican Army, although they only killed 50 people and injured around 1,000. And not once during all those bombs did people in London think that they were being attacked because of their values and their way of life.
It was clear to them that they were being attacked because of British policies abroad, or the policies of Britain's friends and allies. The people who organized the bombs wanted Britain out of World War II, or British troops out of Northern Ireland, or the British Army out of the Middle East (or maybe the whole G-8 to leave the rest of the world alone). Nasty things, bombs, but those who send them your way are usually rational people with rational goals, and they almost never care about your values or your way of life.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/5495808.html

Not sure i entirely agree, but i do like the idea that we remember that the people behind this are rational and doing this for reasons, even if those reasons are evil.

Dragonlich · 07-09-2005, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberkok

Could you please elaborate on this statement?

Sure I could. You said they wanted more than something we have. I then say that they want everything we have. Their stated goal is world domination, with everyone joining their Muslim faith, under their rule.

"They want to kill us too" was a reference to the fact that they will try to kill us if we don't cooperate with their plans. In fact, being an atheist that was born a Jew, you can bet they won't think twice about killing me, even *if* I cooperate.

Getting us out of Iraq/Afghanistan/the middle east is just the beginning. Why would they stop there? There are "oppressed" Muslims in Europe too, so it's only natural that they'll want to take over. Where do you draw the line?

...I wonder if there were romans trying to "understand" the barbarians that invaded them. After all, the romans raped and pillaged their lands, so it's only fair that the barbarians destroyed their empire.

/rant

boatin · 07-09-2005, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I have no doubt that no doubt that there are non-arabs and non-muslims who rejoiced at the 9/11 attacks. I have a feeling that some post on this very board. But that doesn't make them justified. And it's the arab/muslim countries that are commiting the acts, and continue to commit them, not these other people.

So the more I think on this, the more angry/befuddled I get. You "have a feeling" that some posters HERE rejoiced at the 9/11 attacks???

If I "have a feeling" that someone here fornicates with goats and kills children for breakfast, it wouldn't be within my rights to say such a thing. Such an opinion can only hurt the processes of this board.

What you write is pretty much is the most inflammatory thing I've seen on these politics boards. That you could hold such an opinion confuses me to no end. I honestly don't know what to say except that this comment illustrates the gap in understanding between the 'sides'.

Rather than hold such an opinion, I would encourage you to ask questions and dig into what you don't understand about opinions you don't get/like. We are supposed to respect and value the opinions of others in this place. In that spirit, I invite you to help me understand how you could have meant your comment differently than I read it.

Just because I question my articulation, I'll throw this out one more time: ascribing 'joy' to anyone, outside of actual the actual murderers, for the crimes others commit is a leap I can't even comprehend.

edit: fixed quotation marks

pan6467 · 07-09-2005, 05:55 PM

Divided houses fall far faster and with less resistance than those united. Western Civilization, and especially America is too divided now. WE are fighting more amongst ourselves then we are the true enemy.

The Right blames the Left saying they don't support the soldiers and the war and want attacks like Thursday to happen.... (Isn't that right, Rove and Limbaugh) And the Right bl;ames countries and leaders that do not agree with their views. The Right chooses to stand alone.

The Left see the Right as making excuses for Iraq and questioning patriotism and loyalty to country. The Left desires to try to be too peaceful, to worry about casualties of the innocent while not seeing that the enemy doesn't. (Any comments Mr. Moore, Mr. Dean?)

Neither side is correct. Both sides are dividing and allowing the enemy to win.

You must fight as dirty as your enemy, there is no true glory nor justification in war, however, if you must fight, end it fast and if that requires fighting as dirty as the enemy then get muddy. More innocents die when war is strung out.

Look at the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima..... they were needed to end what would have killed far far more men.

Stop being divided, find ways to compromise, or I guarantee we shall not win, in fact we shall lose not just by enemy hands but by feasting on each other.

07-09-2005, 06:15 PM

I disagree, diversity and a healthy discourse stops a nation from going too far in any one direction. Just as diversity in a population stops it from being completely vulnerable to disease, it also stops us from being vulnerable from errors of policy.

In contrast, I'd argue that those who stand against us are weakened by their one-mindedness, and authoritarian stance. The desparation of their tactics shows us that they are weak.

We are not weak, and showing weakness by employing desparate and degenerate tactics will do our cause more damage than it would ever serve.

We are not losing, bombs have been set off in civillian areas since gunpowder was invented. This technique of warefare has been used by the disaffected and disenfranchised for centuries (I'm thinking of Guy Fawkes here as one example)

Are you suggesting we drop a nuclear weapon? On whom?

And no-one is feasting on anyone - remember our diversity is what makes us stronger. It is the way of nature, and no amount of ideological rubbish is ever going to change that.

stevo · 07-09-2005, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

So the more I think on this, the more angry/befuddled I get. You "have a feeling" that some posters HERE rejoiced at the 9/11 attacks???

If I "have a feeling" that someone here fornicates with goats and kills children for breakfast, it wouldn't be within my rights to say such a thing. Such an opinion can only hurt the processes of this board.

What you write is pretty much is the most inflammatory thing I've seen on these politics boards. That you could hold such an opinion confuses me to no end. I honestly don't know what to say except that this comment illustrates the gap in understanding between the 'sides'.

Rather than hold such an opinion, I would encourage you to ask questions and dig into what you don't understand about opinions you don't get/like. We are supposed to respect and value the opinions of others in this place. In that spirit, I invite you to help me understand how you could have meant your comment differently than I read it.

Just because I question my articulation, I'll throw this out one more time: ascribing 'joy' to anyone, outside of actual the actual murderers, for the crimes others commit is a leap I can't even comprehend.

edit: fixed quotation marks

You're quite put off by his opinion, huh? I read nothing personal in his remarks, nothing but a personal opinion. he named no one, nor implied anyone. relax. I don't doubt myself that there have been posters on this board that rejoiced, albeit silently, at the 9/11 attacks, and 7/7.

pan6467 · 07-09-2005, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

I disagree, diversity and a healthy discourse stops a nation from going too far in any one direction. Just as diversity in a population stops it from being completely vulnerable to disease, it also stops us from being vulnerable from errors of policy.

In contrast, I'd argue that those who stand against us are weakened by their one-mindedness, and authoritarian stance. The desparation of their tactics shows us that they are weak.

We are not weak, and showing weakness by employing desparate and degenerate tactics will do our cause more damage than it would ever serve.

We are not losing, bombs have been set off in civillian areas since gunpowder was invented. This technique of warefare has been used by the disaffected and disenfranchised for centuries (I'm thinking of Guy Fawkes here as one example)

Are you suggesting we drop a nuclear weapon? On whom?

And no-one is feasting on anyone - remember our diversity is what makes us stronger. It is the way of nature, and no amount of ideological rubbish is ever going to change that.

Discourse, public debate, questioning government and diversity are GREAT for a society and do prevent it from dying.

However, when on the day of attack you have talking heads not showing anger towards the terrorists, not sympathy towards those who died, but instead blaming the other political side for being to weak. We are not having discourse. We are not having diversity we are having a divided house.

You can disagree and argue but the second you begin to turn on each other, and that is what is happening in the USA, then you are divided and easier to take down.

You cannot have one side or both sides of a house so divided that they point fingers toward the other and on days like Thursday, spew hatred not at the parties responsible but at the people in the house they disagree with.

You cannot hate each other in your own house and expect to win a war, it is impossible. There is no civility. If you question Bush's tactics instead of getting answers or having civil discourse and debates, your patriotism is questioned. If you support Bush and question what the Left has to offer, you are considered blind and part of the problem.

I say neither side is wrong in questioning, the responses are wrong in that they turn the diversity against ourselves and the discourse and debates, the civility do not exist.

When civility does not exist in a house, it does not matter how strong the enemy, as they see the weaknesses and prey upon those.

Instead of these talking heads (and the vast majority were Right Winged extremist whack jobs) blaming the opposite political party and those in the house that do not agree with them, they should have shown their anger towards those truly responsible and shown the needed respect and sympathies towards the losses.

But they took the cheap road, blamed the opposing side and not those responsible. They chose to divide the house further and air the differences and hatreds in full view of the enemy.

Not once did I hear Limbaugh say we needed to get Osama. Instead for 3 hours he rambled about how the left, France, Germany, Spain and even the UK were responsible for the attack because they were weak.

To me, Thursday, Limbaugh and the rest of his talking heads gave comfort and aid to the terrorists by dividing us even more, on a day where we should have been united.

pan6467 · 07-09-2005, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

You're quite put off by his opinion, huh? I read nothing personal in his remarks, nothing but a personal opinion. he named no one, nor implied anyone. relax. I don't doubt myself that there have been posters on this board that rejoiced, albeit silently, at the 9/11 attacks, and 7/7.

This is the division I am talking about. To have someone publicly say and believe that there are posters here that rejoiced at the tragedies, maimings and deaths of thousands is hateful, divisive and uncalled for.

If you are to win a war, you must stand united and stop spewing hate.

Look at sports..... no team has ever won that is divided so much they can't achieve anything. Even if they hate each other, they find ways to get along and show solidarity.

We show none. And on days when we should we have people on public airwaves spewing hatred towards not those responsible, not the terrorists but those in our own house.

aberkok · 07-09-2005, 07:42 PM

It's clear we disagree often on this board, and even sides are taken, but in my mind what we have does not reflect the great right/left divide we see everyday in the popular media. Perhaps it's because of the technology, which by necessity means we can't interrupt each other. What we have here is much more reasonable and productive. I'm thankful for that.

07-09-2005, 07:54 PM

Apologies pan, I didn't (and still don't) know anything about Limbaugh and what went on in congress(?) etc on Thursday. It certainly wasn't a date for scoring points, and I would hope that many of the people witnessing that kind of cheap political posturing will make their own minds up and share some of your disgust.

I see a lot of oversimplification happening in respect to the current situation, and worse, overuse of arguments designed to appeal to the obvious emotions that attacks like these generate. A cool head, and common sense should always prevail. Those who opt for more emotive arguments are evidently more interested in their own careers than doing the right thing.

alansmithee · 07-09-2005, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Divided houses fall far faster and with less resistance than those united. Western Civilization, and especially America is too divided now. WE are fighting more amongst ourselves then we are the true enemy.

The Right blames the Left saying they don't support the soldiers and the war and want attacks like Thursday to happen.... (Isn't that right, Rove and Limbaugh) And the Right bl;ames countries and leaders that do not agree with their views. The Right chooses to stand alone.

The Left see the Right as making excuses for Iraq and questioning patriotism and loyalty to country. The Left desires to try to be too peaceful, to worry about casualties of the innocent while not seeing that the enemy doesn't. (Any comments Mr. Moore, Mr. Dean?)

Neither side is correct. Both sides are dividing and allowing the enemy to win.

You must fight as dirty as your enemy, there is no true glory nor justification in war, however, if you must fight, end it fast and if that requires fighting as dirty as the enemy then get muddy. More innocents die when war is strung out.

Look at the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima..... they were needed to end what would have killed far far more men.

Stop being divided, find ways to compromise, or I guarantee we shall not win, in fact we shall lose not just by enemy hands but by feasting on each other.

I've disagreed with you many times about differing issues. But the above statement fairly succinctly boils down my position about the current war on terror.There is no "kind" war, war sets up condidtions that are contrary to civilized living. There are arbitrary rules agreed upon by most to pretty it up somewhat, but when those rules are broken by one side holding on to them yourself only costs lives. War is something that, when undertaken, should be done in the most efficient manner possible to end it. And the best way for this to occur is by coming to consensus.

alansmithee · 07-09-2005, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

So the more I think on this, the more angry/befuddled I get. You "have a feeling" that some posters HERE rejoiced at the 9/11 attacks???

If I "have a feeling" that someone here fornicates with goats and kills children for breakfast, it wouldn't be within my rights to say such a thing. Such an opinion can only hurt the processes of this board.

What you write is pretty much is the most inflammatory thing I've seen on these politics boards. That you could hold such an opinion confuses me to no end. I honestly don't know what to say except that this comment illustrates the gap in understanding between the 'sides'.

Rather than hold such an opinion, I would encourage you to ask questions and dig into what you don't understand about opinions you don't get/like. We are supposed to respect and value the opinions of others in this place. In that spirit, I invite you to help me understand how you could have meant your comment differently than I read it.

Just because I question my articulation, I'll throw this out one more time: ascribing 'joy' to anyone, outside of actual the actual murderers, for the crimes others commit is a leap I can't even comprehend.

edit: fixed quotation marks

I have seen in this thread and others dealing with the terror issue, people saying essentially that the west is to blame for these attacks, and that terrorists are justified in what they do. It is not a far leap that people who feel terrorists are justified in their acts to feel joy when those just attacks (in their view) are committed. Just like people often feel joy when a US attack succeeds against a terrorist target, these people would feel joy when a terrorist attack suceeds against an American/Western target. Remember, accusing someone of fornicating with goats and killing children for breakfast is only insulting to people who feel that those things are wrong. If someone finds nothing wrong with those acts, it's not an insult.

Quote:

This is the division I am talking about. To have someone publicly say and believe that there are posters here that rejoiced at the tragedies, maimings and deaths of thousands is hateful, divisive and uncalled for.

If you are to win a war, you must stand united and stop spewing hate.

Look at sports..... no team has ever won that is divided so much they can't achieve anything. Even if they hate each other, they find ways to get along and show solidarity.

We show none. And on days when we should we have people on public airwaves spewing hatred towards not those responsible, not the terrorists but those in our own house.

I made sure and quote the entirety of your post this time, hope this helps (even the parts that are irrelevant to what I'm saying).

You remarked about stevo's comments, and indirectly mine (as he was referencing someone talking about my comments). You talk about the divisiveness of our posts, but I notice you don't mention previous posts that sought to directly blame the victims of these attacks for their misfortune. Why are the opinions that are more left leaning not worthy of the divisive tag? Apparently it's uncalled for to say that there might be people who agree with terrorists, but totally reasonable to say that the victims of bombings are to blame for them

.

boatin · 07-09-2005, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I have seen in this thread and others dealing with the terror issue, people saying essentially that the west is to blame for these attacks, and that terrorists are justified in what they do.

There is a big leap between someone saying the west is to blame, and saying the terrorists are justified in what they do. There is also a difference between saying the West has responsibility for it's actions, and those actions have consequences, and saying the West is to blame. I think in those differences lies the issue...

Most often, I have seen people say that the terrorists feel the west is to blame. I have seen people say that the terrorists feel justified in what they do. That is, the terrorists aren't 'crazy', they act according to their own internal logic.

I have seen people say/imply that to truly solve the problem, we need to understand their point of view, in order to combat it. Not just kill em all.

I have even seen people say that the west, the US, and Bush, in particular, piss off other people and other parts of the world, and that we need to stop pissing people off. That pissing people off has consequences.

I have seen people essentially say: If you walk in the slums at midnight with money hanging out of your pockets, you don't deserve to be robbed, but you shouldn't be surprised if it happens. That is, if you make yourself a target, you might get shot at.

(I'm not saying, btw, that we should appease anyone for everything all the time. But acting in ways that don't piss people off is a good idea at home, in the street, and as a country.)

In none of the above scenarios have I seen anyone express anything remotely like joy at 9/11.

I have even seen someone say that, indeed, the West IS to blame by us having the lifestyle we have. Haven't seen that extreme of an opinion much here. But even in that opinion, I don't see anything remotely like joy at the thought of people being attacked.

I'd sure be open to being shown examples of what you are talking about.

It seems to me that you read much into what people are saying, and that you miss the point they are trying to convey. I'm sure there is a lot of that. Myself included...

roachboy · 07-09-2005, 11:15 PM

Quote:

I have seen in this thread and others dealing with the terror issue, people saying essentially that the west is to blame for these attacks, and that terrorists are justified in what they do. It is not a far leap that people who feel terrorists are justified in their acts to feel joy when those just attacks (in their view) are committed.

wow....what an offensive argument. it's like you reached some kind of pinnacle.

Grey2000 · 07-09-2005, 11:16 PM

Allow me to make an observation about the liberal/leftwing reaction to the attacks....

The left loves to lecture about the laws of 'unintended consquences', for example, the violent situation in Iraq would, by their way of thinking, be an unintended consequence of the decision to invade. Fair enough.

But for some reason they believe themselves to be above the selfsame laws.

Answer me this question.

What is the unintended consequence of :

Painting your very own government as Nazis ?
Portraying your own Commander In Chief as a primate and a zealot ?
Attacking your own country at every turn.
Trying to 'understand' the terrorists?
Mirroring terrorists opinions in all but their actions.

The intended consequence may be to turn up the level of vigilance on government activity, and quite rightly so.

But what of the unintended consequence ?

Terrorists winning the media war.
Aid and comfort to the enemy.
Fueling the fires of anti-americanism and hatred.
Showing the madmen that we care more about their freedoms than they do about ours.
Providing an intellectual safe-haven for radical-ideas on the basis of 'understanding the threat'

In if perhaps one of these unintended consequences were to allow a massive attack to take place, would they take any responsibility ?

Or are liberals immune to such laws ?

Well, I think we know the answer.

Remember when Abu Ghraib broke ? What did the liberals say ?

That Don Rumsfeld had 'created a climate' where abuse could take place.

Seems like they fail to recognize their own ability to 'create a climate' where terrorists can rely on public support for their viewpoints, if not their actions
(and, quite frankly there's plenty of support for their actions too)

Overall I'd just like liberals to be aware that taking the 'right path' (in thier view) does not mean they have no responsibilty towards their nation and the safety of their society.

Their actions, no matter how noble in ideal, also have consequences.

Something , from what I've seen, that they almost never concern themselves with.

filtherton · 07-09-2005, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grey2000

Allow me to make an observation about the liberal/leftwing reaction to the attacks....

The left loves to lecture about the laws of 'unintended consquences', for example, the violent situation in Iraq would, by their way of thinking, be an unintended consequence of the decision to invade. Fair enough.

But for some reason they believe themselves to be above the selfsame laws.

Answer me this question.

What is the unintended consequence of :

Painting your very own government as Nazis ?
Portraying your own Commander In Chief as a primate and a zealot ?
Attacking your own country at every turn.
Trying to 'understand' the terrorists?
Mirroring terrorists opinions in all but their actions.

The intended consequence may be to turn up the level of vigilance on government activity, and quite rightly so.

But what of the unintended consequence ?

Terrorists winning the media war.
Aid and comfort to the enemy.
Fueling the fires of anti-americanism and hatred.
Showing the madmen that we care more about their freedoms than they do about ours.
Providing an intellectual safe-haven for radical-ideas on the basis of 'understanding the threat'

In if perhaps one of these unintended consequences were to allow a massive attack to take place, would they take any responsibility ?

Or are liberals immune to such laws ?

Well, I think we know the answer.

Remember when Abu Ghraib broke ? What did the liberals say ?

That Don Rumsfeld had 'created a climate' where abuse could take place.

Seems like they fail to recognize their own ability to 'create a climate' where terrorists can rely on public support for their viewpoints, if not their actions
(and, quite frankly there's plenty of support for their actions too)

Overall I'd just like liberals to be aware that taking the 'right path' (in thier view) does not mean they have no responsibilty towards their nation and the safety of their society.

Their actions, no matter how noble in ideal, also have consequences.

Something , from what I've seen, that they almost never concern themselves with.

Grey, i feel like you made a great argument, unfortunately i feel as though your it is nothing more than a sound refutation of some sort of caricature.

Who here is "Mirroring terrorists opinions in all but their actions."?
Who here is "Attacking your own country at every turn."?
What is wrong with "Trying to 'understand' the terrorists?"?
Surely you know that even conservatives are guilty of trying to understand things too?
Who here is providing "Aid and comfort to the enemy."?
Are you seriously trying to claim that anyone on this board is committing treason?
By all means, give me some examples of liberals in this discussion engaging in these activities you've deemed so harmful.
No one here is attempting to justify terrorism.

As for the rape analogy, i don't think people are blaming the victim as much as trying to determine the motivation of the perpetrators. The rape analogy doesn't necessarily hold because the rape analogy assumes innocence on behalf of the victim. Anyone who believes america is the helpless woman walking down a dark street with a miniskirt on obviously hasn't been paying attention in American Jingoism class. Individual citizens are innocent, but america's hands have been bloody since the first colonists landed. Britain's shit is plenty rancid too. The difference between the british and the americans seems to be that the british don't rush to abandon their civil rights to feel safe when someone blows up some of their citizens, while americans, i think, are generally too shortsighted to care if their rights are slowly eroded.

Dragonlich · 07-10-2005, 12:01 AM

Grey2000, I'd say that's a pretty good assessment.

Just as an example: in the Netherlands, a lot of "leftist" reporters and politicians have been bashing the US war on terror for years now. If an attack were to take place, I have no doubt whatsoever that they'll blame the US actions, and the fact our government "kissed Bush's arse". (Note: They'll also feel very sorry for the loss of life, and will hate the terrorists for it, but that's beside the point.)

That attitude creates an environment where extreme Muslims living here will feel that their actions are indeed justified. In effect, we are spreading Al-Qaida's propaganda more efficiently than they are themselves.

filtherton, you say that America's hands have been bloody since it was founded. But I'd say that everyone's hands are bloody. That includes the Muslim countries, third-world countries, *everyone*. We are no better than they are, but not worse either.

Grey2000 · 07-10-2005, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Grey, i feel like you made a great argument, unfortunately i feel as though your it is nothing more than a sound refutation of some sort of caricature.

Who here is "Mirroring terrorists opinions in all but their actions."?
Who here is "Attacking your own country at every turn."?
What is wrong with "Trying to 'understand' the terrorists?"?
Surely you know that even conservatives are guilty of trying to understand things too?
Who here is providing "Aid and comfort to the enemy."?

Well I never related my posts to other posts on this forum and indeed I find that most people here are fairly reasoned, but here's the point, the key point that I think most liberals miss, its not who's right, and who's wrong that I'm arguing.

I'm arguing that liberals can't absolve themselves from blame, and in fact should consider what the effect of their (well intentioned, perhaps) actions are.

Unintended consequences.

filtherton · 07-10-2005, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

Grey2000, I'd say that's a pretty good assessment.

That attitude creates an environment where extreme Muslims living here will feel that their actions are indeed justified. In effect, we are spreading Al-Qaida's propaganda more efficiently than they are themselves.

Do you think it is appropriate for people in iraq to blame bush for their local terrorist activities? I do. Especially after bush pointed out the how convenient it is that we get to use iraq as a staging ground in the war on terror instead of using the united states. We'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here. It didn't seem to work for britain, i wonder if it will work for us? I have a sneaking suspicion that it won't. Nothing will work, unless we figure out how to slow the creation of new terrorists. We certainly aren't going to kill them all without becoming just as bad as they are. As far as spreading propoganda for them, well, you couldn't do better than to desecrate the koran whilst indefinately detaining people whose link to terrorism may be tenuous at best. You couldn't do better than to tell them to "Bring it on".

Quote:

filtherton, you say that America's hands have been bloody since it was founded. But I'd say that everyone's hands are bloody. That includes the Muslim countries, third-world countries, *everyone*. We are no better than they are, but not worse either.

Yeah, so everyone is an asshole. Why are you surprised when someone gets punched in the nose? Why do you feel like it's even possible to accept the fact that everyone is an asshole and still expect that no one will get punched in the nose? If you want the violence to stop, eventually someone is going to have to be the better person first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grey2000

Well I never related my posts to other posts on this forum and indeed I find that most people here are fairly reasoned, but here's the point, the key point that I think most liberals miss, its not who's right, and who's wrong that I'm arguing.

I'm arguing that liberals can't absolve themselves from blame, and in fact should consider what the effect of their (well intentioned, perhaps) actions are.

Unintended consequences.

What i'm saying is that arguing about what liberals do or do not do is pointless when you aren't actually talking to anyone who is liberal and also subscribes to the particular beliefs that you are referring to. There are plenty of liberals here, and the vast majority have absolutely zero in common with the picture you painted of liberals. What does that tell you about the values and beliefs your are ascribing to liberals in general?

boatin · 07-10-2005, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grey2000

Well I never related my posts to other posts on this forum and indeed I find that most people here are fairly reasoned, but here's the point, the key point that I think most liberals miss, its not who's right, and who's wrong that I'm arguing.

I'm arguing that liberals can't absolve themselves from blame, and in fact should consider what the effect of their (well intentioned, perhaps) actions are.

Unintended consequences.

I don't see liberals absolving themselves from blame. On this board or elsewhere. What I believe he was asking is to show us some examples of what you are talking about. Certainly the extremists on each side are bad. I think everyone can agree that Limbaugh and Moore are cut from the same cloth. Different ends of it, of course.

But you don't seem to be talking about the extremes. You say "most liberals". Who are they if they aren't on this board? Or ARE you talking about the extremists? I have no more desire to compare the worst of the left and the worst of the right. Been there 1000x already on these forums.

Grey2000 · 07-10-2005, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

I don't see liberals absolving themselves from blame.

Don't you ?

Can you show me some examples of Liberals accepting blame as opposed to simply apportioning it to others ?

I doubt it - because the anti-war brigade cannot get their head around the idea that terrorists are encouraged by their stance. The idea that standing up for what they believe in can actually put the success of the fight against terrorism in jeopardy is entirely alien to most of them.

filtherton · 07-10-2005, 01:00 AM

How exactly are the terrorists encouraged by liberals?

jimbob · 07-10-2005, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grey2000

Can you show me some examples of Liberals accepting blame as opposed to simply apportioning it to others ?

I doubt it - because the anti-war brigade cannot get their head around the idea that terrorists are encouraged by their stance. The idea that standing up for what they believe in can actually put the success of the fight against terrorism in jeopardy is entirely alien to most of them.

I think the right is to blame for terrorism and can't get their head round the idea that they encourage people to take up arms. Can you show me an example of Neo Cons accepting blame? This is a pointless line of argument isn't it?

We're told that standing up for what you believe in is what the terrorists want to destroy. Are you telling people they shouldn't take a stand? Are you unamerican or should america tear up the bill of rights and become a fascist state? When you said earlier that there are unintended consequences of 'Painting your very own government as Nazis?', ie pointing out that some aspects of policy are not too far removed from what happened in germany in the 1930's, do you acknowledge the consequences of not doing so?

And surely there's an unintended consequence of not trying to understand terrorists?

jimbob · 07-10-2005, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

I wonder if there were romans trying to "understand" the barbarians that invaded them. After all, the romans raped and pillaged their lands, so it's only fair that the barbarians destroyed their empire.

It's completely understandable that the barbarians would fight back. But you put quotes round 'understand' as if you think it's a silly thing to do! Surely if the Romans didn't try to understand and lost an empire, then that's not the right course of action now.

Maybe being less confrontational and more understanding when they were still powerful enough to hold an empire would have enabled them to keep it for longer. Ok, Rome wouldn't have been as powerful or rich, but how did the average Roman benefit from this power? I doubt they benefitted much from an expanding empire, just as the majority of people in the US don't today.

Grey2000 · 07-10-2005, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob

I think the right is to blame for terrorism and can't get their head round the idea that they encourage people to take up arms. Can you show me an example of Neo Cons accepting blame? This is a pointless line of argument isn't it?

Not really a pointless line at all. There's been an awful amount of attention paid to the consequences of the governmeant actions, but very little on how anti-govt/war activities have consequences of their own.

Quote:

We're told that standing up for what you believe in is what the terrorists want to destroy. Are you telling people they shouldn't take a stand? Are you unamerican or should america tear up the bill of rights and become a fascist state?

Well, actually I'm not American at all, but I get your point.

How do you decide when attacking your government is aiding and abetting the enemy ? I don't know the answer to that, but it at least bears thinking about.

And lets face it no bill of rights has been torn up, has it ?
You can't have it both ways, absolute security and absolute liberty.

Quote:

When you said earlier that there are unintended consequences of 'Painting your very own government as Nazis?', ie pointing out that some aspects of policy are not too far removed from what happened in germany in the 1930's, do you acknowledge the consequences of not doing so?

Oh, so that's what they do - 'point out' aspects of policy ?
The whole BushHitler brigade must somehow be a figment of my imagination.

Quote:

And surely there's an unintended consequence of not trying to understand terrorists?

Absolutely -A point which I acknowledge early in my original post, but we're talking about liberal-responsibilities here, not conservative.

Besides, which do you think pleases a terrorist more, being seen as an evil bastard who performs attrocities that are beyond the pale or,
being seen as a victim of US foreign policy, standing up for his rights ?

host · 07-10-2005, 03:24 AM

Reading all this, I was reminded that it is time to remind some here that you should ask yourself again, "how do I know what I know"? Before you post.

It is not a partisan, or an "anti-American", or a "terorist loving" activity to post this information. It does not "undermine the war effort" and "divide us in a time of war". The folks who are doing that, IMO, are our "leaders", and you if you take anything that they tell you at face value. Do the work it takes to be informed, and I can almost guarantee you, you'll "know" less because of it.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010916-2.html
...........Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never.............

Only later did we find this to call the president's remarks into question:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 14, 2004; Page A16

While planning a high-level training exercise months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, U.S. military officials considered a scenario in which a hijacked foreign commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon, defense officials said yesterday.

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...18-norad_x.htm
NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center...................

Quote:

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html
Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates
scenarios in preparing for emergencies
Story and Photos by Dennis Ryan
MDW News Service

Exercise SimulationsWashington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 — The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard.

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in509471.shtml
'99 Report Warned Of Suicide Hijacking

WASHINGTON, May 17, 2002

Former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council when the report was written, said U.S. intelligence long has known a suicide hijacker was a possible threat.

(AP) Exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal report warned the executive branch that Osama bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building......
(Edited to add lil "dots" between the quoted article segments.)

......"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Thursday.

The quandry that I keep coming back to.....is.....I have a personal standard that makes me hesitant to open my mouth.....if I don't feel confident that I know what I'm talking about. Please tell me how you are able to get past all the uncertainty and doubt that I have because of the inconsistancies of what our federal officials have declared to us....via the MSM press....and on their own official websites.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=26

In this exchange, I respond to these comments....

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

You forgot to quote this part of your source link:

"The investigation was enormously helpful in figuring out who and what to look for as we worked to prevent attacks. It allowed us to see where we as a nation needed to close gaps in our security.

And it gave us clear and definitive proof that al Qaeda was behind the strikes."

and I haven't seen a response to my reply, since.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=29

aKula · 07-10-2005, 03:55 AM

Like in any battle understanding your enemy is an important step in defeating them. On another note, it seems that security is to be stepped up at London tube stations. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?s...id=158&tid=126
I don't think it's an effective implementation, I think the government just wants to be seen as doing something. It will, however, appease the fear of people using the tube and limit the liklehood of further attacks in the trains.

martinguerre · 07-10-2005, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

wow....what an offensive argument. it's like you reached some kind of pinnacle.

in a very cold light, i think the best summation that can be made of that argument is that he beleives some of us have failed nationalism.

the idea that there is joy to be had in human death, is of course only possible through some sort of us/them dichotomy and nationalistic ideology. so perhaps a lack of enthusiasm for america's death dealing is processed as rooting for the other team, since to the national...it is "obvious" that one would cheer for death, one side or the other.

roachboy · 07-10-2005, 09:51 AM

grey--i normally dont do this quote myself thing, but in response to your post, i think this better than what i would write were i to address you directly.

suffice it to say that i see nothing other than a polite restatement of the old rightwing canard that dissent=aiding and abetting the enemy.

presumably, you would feel the opposite way if a "liberal" (another empty category) administration was in power and the conservatives in opposition--given your argument, i would assume, in which case, naturally, anything goes.

as to the content of your post, here goes:

Quote:

it is most interesting to hear of london commuters simply taking back the transit system symbolically from the implications of yesterday's action.

hysteria and paranoia are not the only possible responses to this kind of event.

hysteria and paranoia are only reasonable if you think of the possibilities offered the public for thinking about itself, the world and the relations between the two through the lens provided by the bush administration's particular discourse of "terror"

taking back the transit system from the implications of yesterday's attack is, if you think about it, a far more reasonable approach than "batten down the hatches everyone--stay indoors and watch tv--look out for suspicious people and report them--but try to modulate the racist correlate of the category "terrorist" by not doing anything too obvious to your muslim neighbors--- mostly wait for draconian security measures, invasive domestic legislation and an irrational militarization of social relations coupled with an arbitrary but manly foriegn policy--
WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT.

the category "terrorist" is an empty signifier...it does not permit of analysis--it is not about analysis, it is about its opposite---it is about fear and passivity and a logic of handing control to the people your tv tells you Know what is Going On. They know. You do not have to.

the category "terrorist" is not about understanding anything: it is about isolation.
it is not about the process of collective response (taking back the transit system is a collective response--it did not require tv to co-ordinate) but rather about its opposite.

if the category terrorist is not descriptive, does that mean that it is meaningless?
no....
the discourse of terror is about--and coherently about--only one thing: the preferred mode of power for this administration.
isolated, shut up indoors, watching television, afraid, unable to parse the situation, absolutely unable to link such attacks to anything about american policy, which like capitalism becomes in this scenario an unqualified good---the discourse of "terror" has become the supporting structure of an authoritarian type of politics, one with the particular quirk of liking to brag about how free it is. hardly an unprecedented combo.
but none of this is necessary.
it is a choice.
it is the choice made by this administration in the days following 9/11/2001.
"terrorism" has been the bush administrations' necessary opposite since.
it has kept them in power.
that is what it is about--not an analysis of the facts of the matter, not an explanation for why such actions might be mounted, not the basis for a coherent response to such attacks. it is about fear. it is about routing fear into a consent for an authoritarian politics. it is about maintaining that consent.

it leans on particular features of american social life and its organization:
for example, the isolated house and the isolated nuclear family, the bizarre and central role played by tv in producing a sense of community and a sense of interaction with a wider context.

i think americans have alot to learn by simply watching londoners respond--not the blair government, but people, who are doing a far better job already in fashioning a rational response which does not preclude a desire to know why this happened and who did it, but at the same time does not translate these desires into an abdication of their own sense of their own city.

what you see in the mirror of these attack in london from the states is just how bizarre the states have become under george w bush and karl rove and the rest of the apparatchiks that pull the strings in the theater of reactionary meat puppets that is bushworld.

Dragonlich · 07-10-2005, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob

It's completely understandable that the barbarians would fight back. But you put quotes round 'understand' as if you think it's a silly thing to do! Surely if the Romans didn't try to understand and lost an empire, then that's not the right course of action now.

I put quotes around understand because I don't think anyone can truly understand the warped ideas of these terrorists. The best you can do is guess their motives, based on your *own* experience. And I can only assume that your experience does not include a blind adherance to an extremist religion.

I'd say normal people cannot understand anyone willing to kill hundreds of innocent people just to draw attention. No sane person can understand someone that wants to kill people they never met for "insulting" their religion (or even because a religious leader *said* they insulted their religion).

I understand that Muslim extremists want us to stop supporting Israel (so they can kill the Jews), and leave the middle-east (so they can take over).
Then they'll demand control of Spain and the balkans. And then, because there are Muslims all over the world, they'll want to control all of it; after all, it's all part of the Muslim nation.

Do you understand why I think we'll lose everything if we are "understanding and less confrontational"?

Pacifier · 07-10-2005, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

Do you understand why I think we'll lose everything if we are "understanding and less confrontational"?

a bit, but I think a two way strategy will wok much better than your "no understanding and just confrontational". Fight those who you are capable of fighting and winning against, understadn what fuels them and fight the reasons for the plague that terrorism is. Fight where you can change something for good.
Both fights so far, Iraq and Afghanistan, are not very successful.

What is your attempt of "confrontation"? invade anther nation? open up a new front whithout a plan what to do when the nation is invaded? Piss of some more people?

So far the ones who seem to be "all over the world" are we.

aberkok · 07-10-2005, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

I understand that Muslim extremists want us to stop supporting Israel (so they can kill the Jews), and leave the middle-east (so they can take over).

I understood there were some Muslim extremists who want the US to stop supporting Israel so that they'd stop oppressing Palestinians. Was I wrong?

/threadjack

P.S. I know Palestinians often suicide bomb the Jews, and I don't condone that.

dlish · 07-10-2005, 02:40 PM

a little over 57 years ago, i do remember the arabs and jews living together in harmony in a place called palestine, until the colonialists came through and divided the people and religions.

the arabs would rather live with the jews and have been for many centuries, and in relative harmony at that. but for an outside power to come in, support another race though monetary and military means, no wonder the arabs turned on their cousins. its this meddling in middle east affairs that ive been saying that turn ordinary people into terrorists. all they need is an excuse, and the west provides this to them.

obviously this is also the case in iraq, where the islamists needed an excuse to start a holy war, and bush and rummy gave them the green light.

07-09-2005, 05:55 PM	#91 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Divided houses fall far faster and with less resistance than those united. Western Civilization, and especially America is too divided now. WE are fighting more amongst ourselves then we are the true enemy. The Right blames the Left saying they don't support the soldiers and the war and want attacks like Thursday to happen.... (Isn't that right, Rove and Limbaugh) And the Right bl;ames countries and leaders that do not agree with their views. The Right chooses to stand alone. The Left see the Right as making excuses for Iraq and questioning patriotism and loyalty to country. The Left desires to try to be too peaceful, to worry about casualties of the innocent while not seeing that the enemy doesn't. (Any comments Mr. Moore, Mr. Dean?) Neither side is correct. Both sides are dividing and allowing the enemy to win. You must fight as dirty as your enemy, there is no true glory nor justification in war, however, if you must fight, end it fast and if that requires fighting as dirty as the enemy then get muddy. More innocents die when war is strung out. Look at the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima..... they were needed to end what would have killed far far more men. Stop being divided, find ways to compromise, or I guarantee we shall not win, in fact we shall lose not just by enemy hands but by feasting on each other. __________________ 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?"

07-09-2005, 07:42 PM	#96 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	It's clear we disagree often on this board, and even sides are taken, but in my mind what we have does not reflect the great right/left divide we see everyday in the popular media. Perhaps it's because of the technology, which by necessity means we can't interrupt each other. What we have here is much more reasonable and productive. I'm thankful for that. __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

07-10-2005, 12:01 AM	#104 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Grey2000, I'd say that's a pretty good assessment. Just as an example: in the Netherlands, a lot of "leftist" reporters and politicians have been bashing the US war on terror for years now. If an attack were to take place, I have no doubt whatsoever that they'll blame the US actions, and the fact our government "kissed Bush's arse". (Note: They'll also feel very sorry for the loss of life, and will hate the terrorists for it, but that's beside the point.) That attitude creates an environment where extreme Muslims living here will feel that their actions are indeed justified. In effect, we are spreading Al-Qaida's propaganda more efficiently than they are themselves. filtherton, you say that America's hands have been bloody since it was founded. But I'd say that everyone's hands are bloody. That includes the Muslim countries, third-world countries, everyone. We are no better than they are, but not worse either. Last edited by Dragonlich; 07-10-2005 at 12:04 AM..

07-10-2005, 02:40 PM	#120 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	a little over 57 years ago, i do remember the arabs and jews living together in harmony in a place called palestine, until the colonialists came through and divided the people and religions. the arabs would rather live with the jews and have been for many centuries, and in relative harmony at that. but for an outside power to come in, support another race though monetary and military means, no wonder the arabs turned on their cousins. its this meddling in middle east affairs that ive been saying that turn ordinary people into terrorists. all they need is an excuse, and the west provides this to them. obviously this is also the case in iraq, where the islamists needed an excuse to start a holy war, and bush and rummy gave them the green light. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

07-09-2005, 07:32 AM	#86 (permalink)
jimbob Crazy Location: Liverpool UK	my mind is very much open but i don't think it's obvious that there was a plane or that there was a car bomb. i do think it's wrong to ignore someone on the grounds that they share an opinion with people from a country where other people concluded that there was no plane, as Seaver claims to. http://namastepublishing.co.uk/911%2...ne%20Sight.htm if someone told me it were a picture of a car bombing i'd be inclined to believe them.

07-09-2005, 06:15 PM	#92 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	I disagree, diversity and a healthy discourse stops a nation from going too far in any one direction. Just as diversity in a population stops it from being completely vulnerable to disease, it also stops us from being vulnerable from errors of policy. In contrast, I'd argue that those who stand against us are weakened by their one-mindedness, and authoritarian stance. The desparation of their tactics shows us that they are weak. We are not weak, and showing weakness by employing desparate and degenerate tactics will do our cause more damage than it would ever serve. We are not losing, bombs have been set off in civillian areas since gunpowder was invented. This technique of warefare has been used by the disaffected and disenfranchised for centuries (I'm thinking of Guy Fawkes here as one example) Are you suggesting we drop a nuclear weapon? On whom? And no-one is feasting on anyone - remember our diversity is what makes us stronger. It is the way of nature, and no amount of ideological rubbish is ever going to change that.

07-09-2005, 07:54 PM	#97 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	Apologies pan, I didn't (and still don't) know anything about Limbaugh and what went on in congress(?) etc on Thursday. It certainly wasn't a date for scoring points, and I would hope that many of the people witnessing that kind of cheap political posturing will make their own minds up and share some of your disgust. I see a lot of oversimplification happening in respect to the current situation, and worse, overuse of arguments designed to appeal to the obvious emotions that attacks like these generate. A cool head, and common sense should always prevail. Those who opt for more emotive arguments are evidently more interested in their own careers than doing the right thing.

07-09-2005, 11:16 PM	#102 (permalink)
Grey2000 Upright Location: Cape Town, South Africa	Allow me to make an observation about the liberal/leftwing reaction to the attacks.... The left loves to lecture about the laws of 'unintended consquences', for example, the violent situation in Iraq would, by their way of thinking, be an unintended consequence of the decision to invade. Fair enough. But for some reason they believe themselves to be above the selfsame laws. Answer me this question. What is the unintended consequence of : Painting your very own government as Nazis ? Portraying your own Commander In Chief as a primate and a zealot ? Attacking your own country at every turn. Trying to 'understand' the terrorists? Mirroring terrorists opinions in all but their actions. The intended consequence may be to turn up the level of vigilance on government activity, and quite rightly so. But what of the unintended consequence ? Terrorists winning the media war. Aid and comfort to the enemy. Fueling the fires of anti-americanism and hatred. Showing the madmen that we care more about their freedoms than they do about ours. Providing an intellectual safe-haven for radical-ideas on the basis of 'understanding the threat' In if perhaps one of these unintended consequences were to allow a massive attack to take place, would they take any responsibility ? Or are liberals immune to such laws ? Well, I think we know the answer. Remember when Abu Ghraib broke ? What did the liberals say ? That Don Rumsfeld had 'created a climate' where abuse could take place. Seems like they fail to recognize their own ability to 'create a climate' where terrorists can rely on public support for their viewpoints, if not their actions (and, quite frankly there's plenty of support for their actions too) Overall I'd just like liberals to be aware that taking the 'right path' (in thier view) does not mean they have no responsibilty towards their nation and the safety of their society. Their actions, no matter how noble in ideal, also have consequences. Something , from what I've seen, that they almost never concern themselves with.

07-10-2005, 01:00 AM	#109 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	How exactly are the terrorists encouraged by liberals?

07-10-2005, 03:55 AM	#114 (permalink)
aKula Psycho	Like in any battle understanding your enemy is an important step in defeating them. On another note, it seems that security is to be stepped up at London tube stations. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?s...id=158&tid=126 I don't think it's an effective implementation, I think the government just wants to be seen as doing something. It will, however, appease the fear of people using the tube and limit the liklehood of further attacks in the trains.