Bombs in London

[Munsu]

As of now 7 bombs have been reported to have exploted some if not all in double deck buses... i'll post more after i find out more

Edit: Apparently some bombs were in the subway also

Edit 2: this just came out

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/...london.tube/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/london.tube/index.html)

[Turkish-S]

a litle map of where they are placed. (http://www.google.com/local?hl=en&lr=&q=bomb&near=London,+UK&sa=X&oi=loc alr)

[Munsu]

Things to take into consideration are, is this the act of terrorist like Osama, or does this have anything to do with them being selected to hold the Olimpics in 2012

[Honoko]

there's a G8 summit going on right now... so it could be related to that, too.

[Munsu]

Yeah, I had forgotten about that... and when it occured to me I was too lazy to edit my post i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif

But yeah, endless possibilities here atm... at least there haven't been many deaths thus far as far as i know, only 2...

[Terracosmo]

2 deaths? My mother just told me the expected death count is currently among 90, then again, I haven't watched the news so I ain't sure. And she's quite a confused person so. i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif

Regardless, this is bad news. If this turns out to be terrorism, we're in for yet another "war against terror" charade.

Damn, if everybody could just shut the fuck up and accept each other... people suck.

[Turkish-S]

i don't think it was osama if he did it there would be more deaths. i personally think it was a protest vs the G8... but we can't know for sure yet...

i also heard that some internet site's claimed that they were responsible.

[Munsu]

Originally posted by: Terracosmo
2 deaths? My mother just told me the expected death count is currently among 90, then again, I haven't watched the news so I ain't sure. And she's quite a confused person so.

Regardless, this is bad news. If this turns out to be terrorism, we're in for yet another "war against terror" charade.

Damn, if everybody could just shut the fuck up and accept each other... people suck.

I havent checked the news in a couple of hours, so i don't know... last time i had checked it was 2 deaths and about 90 or so injured...

[Psyke]

The scary thing about this is that it's obvious the attack was coordinated and well planned. It happend 1 day after London was selected to hold the 2012 olympics, and the message was pretty clear that the terrorists are showing their capabilites to the world. Let's hope that nothing else is gonna happen and especially during world events such as the olympics.

All these terrorists should be killed without trial. What they are doing now is unforgivable and should not be tolerated.....

[Mut]

I hope nobody ties this into London being selected for the 2012 Olympics considering it's 7 years away. Nobody really gives a shit about the Olympics. Nobody is gonna spend enough time and effort to bomb an athletic event even if it's world-wide.

*shrugs*

[DB_Hunter]

I work in the area where the first bomb exploded... this morning I went to work early otherwise if I had gone in at my usual time I would have been caught up in the melee.

I just got back home and to be honest people are walking around as if nothing has happened... only the rail/tube stations are causing a bit of an annoyance but otherwise people are acting normal.

The enire London Underground (subway) system has been shut down for the day, which is a major hassle. Overhead trains are running again from certain places atleast.

From a personal angle, it doesn't actually feel like a major attack since I havn't seen any injured people in person, and almost all of the places they are showing I visit often anyway so it doesn't kinda fit the bill mentally as a major international incident.

Though it kinda makes you think that after this attack Blair & Bush would find it even harder to sell the strategy of warmongering to people, since even by their standards its not working.

[Itachi_y2k5]

in the news it says it doesnt ahve anything to do with the 2012 Olympics it was to do with the G8 meeting at Gleneagles, it also says that al-queda admitted to doing this

[Psyke]

Originally posted by: Mut@chi
I hope nobody ties this into London being selected for the 2012 Olympics considering it's 7 years away. Nobody really gives a shit about the Olympics. Nobody is gonna spend enough time and effort to bomb an athletic event even if it's world-wide.

*shrugs*

The terrorist are not targeting the Olympics..... To me it just feels like they are demonstrating what they are capable of. The world makes a decison on a certain venue and it gets bombed the next day. They are only using the Olympics and London to make a statement, and one that is shocking countries all over and making them implement new measures to counter terrorism.

[Mut]

Originally posted by: Psyke
The terrorist are not targeting the Olympics..... To me it just feels like they are demonstrating what they are capable of. The world makes a decison on a certain venue and it gets bombed the next day. They are only using the Olympics and London to make a statement, and one that is shocking countries all over and making them implement new measures to counter terrorism.
Which is precisely why I made my post...

i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif

Anyway, according to cnn.com, at least 33 are dead and 'scores' are injured.

[Assertn]

Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
Though it kinda makes you think that after this attack Blair & Bush would find it even harder to sell the strategy of warmongering to people, since even by their standards its not working.
On the contrary.....this would encourage even more affirmitive action against terrorism.

What? you think people are going to say "Stop trying to stop the terrorists, let them roam free and hope we dont get on their bad side"?

[ChaosK]

hmm...? are you sure they're all related? and also what is G8?



Originally posted on: CNN website
A group, the "Secret Organization group of al Qaeda Organization in Europe," claimed responsibility in a Web site posting. <u>The authenticity of the claim could not immediately be verified.</u>

It is not verified yet so we cant determine if it was really them.

[DB_Hunter]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure


Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
Though it kinda makes you think that after this attack Blair &amp; Bush would find it even harder to sell the strategy of warmongering to people, since even by their standards its not working.
On the contrary.....this would encourage even more affirmitive action against terrorism.

What? you think people are going to say "Stop trying to stop the terrorists, let them roam free and hope we dont get on their bad side"?

No, but I would say look beyond your narrow view of the West being the good guys and that they have the right to kill however many damn civillians they want. When some civillians die like in Afghanistan the other day (17 died while the Americans were looking for their SOLDIERS... VALID MILITARY TARGETS) it was reported like, "oh yeah, a few more Afghans died and I scratched my arse this morning too". When westerners die oh nooo, its something different then isn't?

It's by people with views like yours that add legitimacy to the idea that countries like the UK and US are free to go screw over whoever the hell they want. You can't have a War without being hit yourself.. its that simple and if you can't take it DON'T GO TO WAR.

Listen, I was in the area myself today. If I was doing my usual routine I would have been caught up too. I KNOW that the people killed today are not involved in the fighting and should not have been killed. My point is however people need to grow the hell up and realise that this ain't no Hollywood movie where some dumbass hero with rippling muscles and weird gadgets and gizmos is gonna save the day in some far of land and he is the good guy and then everyone lives happily ever after.

And if you are gonna reply by saying "but they started it with 9/11", then don't bother.

[The Heretic Azazel]

Of course that isn't how they're reported, American media is biased to America and that has nothing to do with anything.

But yeah I suppose instead of "screwing over" terrorists we should all sit still and get killed by those fucking cowards.

What a brilliant idea.

[DB_Hunter]

Lol cowards lets see now...

The world's richest, most technologically advanced country with the world's most advanced military VS a bunch of gurellia's who fight in sandals.

Sure is a great level playing field to be calling others cowards.

Edit: Yea Cold War, case and point. When faced by more less equal opposition, both the US and Soviet/Russian armies were too cowardly to fight each other and so got others to do their dirty work... for thesemselves they came up with pretty little terms like Mutally Assured Destruction to big themselves up.

[Mut]

Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
No, but I would say look beyond your narrow view of the West being the good guys and that they have the right to kill however many damn civillians they want. When some civillians die like in Afghanistan the other day (17 died while the Americans were looking for their SOLDIERS... VALID MILITARY TARGETS) it was reported like, "oh yeah, a few more Afghans died and I scratched my arse this morning too". When westerners die oh nooo, its something different then isn't?

It's by people with views like yours that add legitimacy to the idea that countries like the UK and US are free to go screw over whoever the hell they want. You can't have a War without being hit yourself.. its that simple and if you can't take it DON'T GO TO WAR.

Listen, I was in the area myself today. If I was doing my usual routine I would have been caught up too. I KNOW that the people killed today are not involved in the fighting and should not have been killed. My point is however people need to grow the hell up and realise that this ain't no Hollywood movie where some dumbass hero with rippling muscles and weird gadgets and gizmos is gonna save the day in some far of land and he is the good guy and then everyone lives happily ever after.

And if you are gonna reply by saying "but they started it with 9/11", then don't bother.
OF COURSE we're gonna cry about American soldiers dying. Their lives are clearly more of a priority to us than the lives of Afghans. However, I'm not saying that American lives are more significant or precious than other races' lives, it's just that at times of war and fight for terrorism, the security and safety of our nation and its people are our #1 priority since casualties are inevitable. It really isn't fair but can't really do much when we resort to using weapons.

There isn't ANY type of reasonable or logical solution when it comes to terrorism. If they are going to slam planes into building and set off seven bombs all over a city in the first place, what's to say that they'll keep any compromises or peace agreements we make with them? When our lives our threatened by psychopaths, humans only know one thing: kill them before they kill us. It's sad but oh well.



Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
Lol cowards lets see now...

The world's richest, most technologically advanced country with the world's most advanced military VS a bunch of gurellia's who fight in sandals.

Sure is a great level playing field to be calling others cowards.
I'm trying to keep this discussion civil, but this is just retarded. Going into guerilla warfare on another country's home turf is pretty much suicide. Ever heard of Vietnam? They're not just PEOPLE IN SANDALS. You've got such a ignorant idea on people that fight there. It's not like they are using swords and catapults to fight us. They have guns just like us, they have bombs just like us. Their army isn't incompetent. Sure, we could always out nuke any country but who the fuck wants to start pushing the red button to win wars when the consequence and casualty is multiplied by a million-fold?



Edit: Yea Cold War, case and point. When faced by more less equal opposition, both the US and Soviet/Russian armies were too cowardly to fight each other and so got others to do their dirty work... for thesemselves they came up with pretty little terms like Mutally Assured Destruction to big themselves up.
If US and the Soviet Union actually decided to have a full on war, we would've nuked ourselves to death. The US and Soviet Union weren't 'cowards'. We were afraid of it going into a nuclear war. Stop using the 'war is bad!' ideal to come up with your ultra-bias, ignorant posts.

[DB_Hunter]

That's why I'm saying by both sides bombing the crap out of each other be it via F-18 or underground bomb is only going to continue the cycle of violence. The crux of the matter is that of you look at what's going on more closey you will see that there is really a fundemental war of ideas going on between, and lets be open about this, the West and Islam. To be really clear, lets use the term capitalism and Islam, since the word West is very general and refers to all people in the West regardless of their personal view.

If this war between ideas is not resolved, then the bloodshed will continue. And this isn't something as basic as you don't belive in my God, its more ideological. It's a war where two fundemetally different ways of life are meeting and they are meeting head on. They cannot tolerate the existance of the other, just like in the Cold War, due to their expansionist nature. There are people on both sides with their aims and objectives, and some of them will use physical means to achieve their objectives. In my view violence is counter productive, and should not be used.

At the end of the day if we avoid examining these ideas and be ready and willing to approach them with an open mind then whether or not we as individuals pick up a gun and fire will not change the fact that our actions will cause ignorance in the world to prevail and thus result in more unnecesary killing.

Before anyone points out that I havn't actually pointed out the differences between Islam and Capitalism, or infact why both capitalism and Islam can be spoken of on equal terms, then PM me. People have written books upon books on issues like these and I'm not going to start writing a book in this thread.

[stos289]

According to this (http://haganah.org.il/haganah/index.html) site, it's been confirmed that the Al-Qaeda group located in Europe was the cause of the bombings. Also, it states that based off an Al-Qaeda website, Italy and Denmark are the next targets. Let's hope that we can take counter measures in order to stop these events from occuring.

[DB_Hunter]

I'm trying to keep this discussion civil, but this is just retarded. Going into guerilla warfare on another country's home turf is pretty much suicide. Ever heard of Vietnam? They're not just PEOPLE IN SANDALS. You've got such a ignorant idea on people that fight there. It's not like they are using swords and catapults to fight us. They have guns just like us, they have bombs just like us. Their army isn't incompetent. Sure, we could always out nuke any country but who the fuck wants to start pushing the red button to win wars when the consequence and casualty is multiplied by a million-fold?

I'm talking about Afghanistan. The afghan fighters wander the mountain tops in their damn sandals.




If US and the Soviet Union actually decided to have a full on war, we would've nuked ourselves to death. The US and Soviet Union weren't 'cowards'. We were afraid of it going into a nuclear war. Stop using the 'war is bad!' ideal to come up with your ultra-bias, ignorant posts.

You miss the point, and are being condescending in putting forward the we-nuke-each-other-the-whole-world-goes-to-hell argument. The point is the US and the USSR were not prepared to die for their ideals, the very same ideals the fight to enforce on weaker countries acting so righteous.

And I'm not anti-war per se, just anti-"but we are rich and powerful so our ideas must be right"...

[Mut]

Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
If this war between ideas is not resolved, then the bloodshed will continue. And this isn't something as basic as you don't belive in my God, its more ideological. It's a war where two fundemetally different ways of life are meeting and they are meeting head on. They cannot tolerate the existance of the other, just like in the Cold War, due to their expansionist nature. There are people on both sides with their aims and objectives, and some of them will use physical means to achieve their objectives. In my view violence is counter productive, and should not be used.
The risk of not fighting back is completely suicidal. We might as well ask them to bend all of us over and have their way. So are you saying, that if a guy tried to mug you with a gun, and you had a gun yourself, you're not going to use it on him and instead, ask him to think it over? Although this comparison is on a WAY smaller scale, it's the same principle and concept. If they're going to threaten us, why should we need to be the 'bigger man' in hope of succeeding from the miniscule possibility of peace when the consequence could be ten times worse if we do?



At the end of the day if we avoid examining these ideas and be ready and willing to approach them with an open mind then whether or not we as individuals pick up a gun and fire will not change the fact that our actions will cause ignorance in the world to prevail and thus result in more unnecesary killing.
So, these individuals who killed thousands of people should be offered peace? Sorry, this isn't Batman. Revenge is pretty much what we're after right now and those terrorists deserve it. You're grabbing on to a hopless, narrow-minded idealistic view. If people are capable of causing chaos this large, they're in the category of CRAZY and words aren't gonna get through to them. Besides, it's not like it's ever going to reduce the casualties anyway.



Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
I'm talking about Afghanistan. The afghan fighters wander the mountain tops in their damn sandals.
lol wow. Please don't tell me you didn't think I was talking about Vietnamese soldiers/vigilantees.

Anyway, stop saying they're just people on sandals. They got GUNS, BOMBS, MISSILES AND ROCKETS. DUHHH.



You miss the point, and are being condescending in putting forward the we-nuke-each-other-the-whole-world-goes-to-hell argument. The point is the US and the USSR were not prepared to die for their ideals, the very same ideals the fight to enforce on weaker countries acting so righteous.
But the whole world does go to hell. The US is a large part of the world's economy. A failing economy is worse than a nuclear war.



And I'm not anti-war per se, just anti-"but we are rich and powerful so our ideas must be right"...
But that's how the world works. As much as every peace-lover says that achieving and maintaining peace is important, ultimately, we're all looking for world dominance whether it's by force, physically, or technologically. That's just the nature of humans.

[DB_Hunter]

The risk of not fighting back is completely suicidal. We might as well ask them to bend all of us over and have their way. So are you saying, that if a guy tried to mug you with a gun, and you had a gun yourself, you're not going to use it on him and instead, ask him to think it over? Although this comparison is on a WAY smaller scale, it's the same principle and concept. If they're going to threaten us, why should we need to be the 'bigger man' in hope of succeeding from the miniscule possibility of peace when the consequence could be ten times worse if we do?

I agree with your example and concept. However, your argument rests on the premisce that 'they' made the first move, which is wrong. Study the UK foreign policy from the 1800's up until now and you have over 200 years of deliberate manouvering and actions. Do the same for US policy post world war 2.



So, these individuals who killed thousands of people should be offered peace? Sorry, this isn't Batman. Revenge is pretty much what we're after right now and those terrorists deserve it. You're grabbing on to a hopless, narrow-minded idealistic view. If people are capable of causing chaos this large, they're in the category of CRAZY and words aren't gonna get through to them. Besides, it's not like it's ever going to reduce the casualties anyway.

Hmm... you know what you said could be said EXACTLY word for word by people on either side? You just proved my point that if you just look at what people do devoid of the reasons as to why they do them you aint gonna get anywhere. And just because something may be hard to do or may take a long time doesn't mean its wrong.

And excuse me for saying so but 'they won't ever listen'???? And did you learn this bit of world poltics and history form the likes of bush, rumsfeld, perle, cheney, wolfowitz and co?

[Xollence]

37 people have died so far.



Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
Lol cowards lets see now...

The world's richest, most technologically advanced country with the world's most advanced military VS a bunch of gurellia's who fight in sandals.

Sure is a great level playing field to be calling others cowards.

Edit: Yea Cold War, case and point. When faced by more less equal opposition, both the US and Soviet/Russian armies were too cowardly to fight each other and so got others to do their dirty work... for thesemselves they came up with pretty little terms like Mutally Assured Destruction to big themselves up.

Actually they're very well armed as you can see. Guerilla warfare on home turf is always superior to an advanced military. Actually we did do some fighting, look at the Vietnam and the Korean war. We didn't get others to fight for us. And we even fought against Russian pilots during the Korean war.

So are you saying we should've fought the Russians? Are you stupid? Of course two super powers with nukes aren't gonna openly fight each other.

[Assertn]

Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
No, but I would say look beyond your narrow view of the West being the good guys and that they have the right to kill however many damn civillians they want. bitch bitch bitch

Um yeah....you're the one with the narrow view buddy. I make a statement that accurately identifies causality of the situation and you go ramble accusations about me just because I happen to live in the US.

The only thing narrow about my post was that i used logic instead of flowery emotions to draw my conclusion. I suggest you try it sometime.



It's by people with views like yours that add legitimacy to the idea that countries like the UK and US are free to go screw over whoever the hell they want. You can't have a War without being hit yourself.. its that simple and if you can't take it DON'T GO TO WAR.

You act like you know all there is to know about terrorism. Do you even know why they attack us? I'll tell you one thing, it is NOT because of our ability to go to war. If terrorists were trying to make a statement about war, then the last thing they would do is rattle the cage of a 1st world country.

Go hug a tree, r3n jr.

[Death BOO Z]

dammit, i just remembered that one of my friends went to London... I hope nothing happened to him, at least so far there were no reports of victims from my country... I hope it stays this way.

[DB_Hunter]

Xollence, try actually reading my posts insteading of reposting the same reason as Mut for why the two nulcear armed superpowers with the ability to destroy each other as well as most of the earth and end civilisation as we know it didn't go to war. Thank you. Please let this be the last time I tell you and everybody else that I am aware that they both possesd something called nuclear weapons, not to mention chemical and biological weapons.



Originally posted by: AssertnFailure


Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
No, but I would say look beyond your narrow view of the West being the good guys and that they have the right to kill however many damn civillians they want. bitch bitch bitch



Um yeah....you're the one with the narrow view buddy. I make a statement that accurately identifies causality of the situation and you go ramble accusations about me just because I happen to live in the US.

The only thing narrow about my post was that i used logic instead of flowery emotions to draw my conclusion. I suggest you try it sometime.

Ok two things.

1) Don't add words to my quotes, especially ones as immature as those, they only serve to degrade the level of the conversation and make you seem unable to make your points without having to resort to petty and insulting language.

2) I did not know that you lived in the US, though that doesn't surprise me. Your point there was based upon a false assumption that I was saying what I was cos I'm anti-american.

Your last line is too petty to address.



It's by people with views like yours that add legitimacy to the idea that countries like the UK and US are free to go screw over whoever the hell they want. You can't have a War without being hit yourself.. its that simple and if you can't take it DON'T GO TO WAR.

You act like you know all there is to know about terrorism. Do you even know why they attack us? I'll tell you one thing, it is NOT because of our ability to go to war. If terrorists were trying to make a statement about war, then the last thing they would do is rattle the cage of a 1st world country.

Go hug a tree, r3n jr.

Listen, you do not, REPEAT, do not rebutt someone's point by saying don't think that you know what your talking about. You do it by bringing forward your argument with supporting proofs.

And frankly I don't even know if you understood my point as you seem to be going on why the people wouldn't attack a country... I'm not even addressing the the reason as to why the attacks have occured in that statement.

Again, last line too petty to respond to.

[Assertn]

lol wow.....its usually a good idea to take the "I'm mature" approach when your already bland retorts need something more i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

So basically, you accused me of having a narrow pro-west view without even knowing that i lived in the west? Wow, imagine how big of an ass you'd look if i WASNT in the west. All the more proof that you should get your facts straight before you make a reply. At least you didnt argue the actual content of the first part of my post. This way I don't have to bring up more counter-points for it. Moving on......

Who says that a person cant rebutt someone's point with arguing what's NOT instead of what IS? Do you know how conclusions are drawn? By distinguishing the NOT, you isolate the IS. It's a basic principal used often in many fields, including math and science.
You want a supporting proof? Terrorist vs Army = Army wins. Unless the terrorists are complete idiots, they should be aware of this formula just as much as you are.

And yes, you did address the reason as to why the attacks have occured. You said that us being bombed is the effect of us going to war.

[Mut]

Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
Xollence, try actually reading my posts insteading of reposting the same reason as Mut for why the two nulcear armed superpowers with the ability to destroy each other as well as most of the earth and end civilisation as we know it didn't go to war. Thank you. Please let this be the last time I tell you and everybody else that I am aware that they both possesd something called nuclear weapons, not to mention chemical and biological weapons.
Your explanation regarding US and the Soviet Union is ridiculous. Nobody can take it seriously.

[Honoko]

gaaahhh..... i'm gone all day and i go home to read a nice long argument about US/Vietnam/Terrorists's Reasons/Quibbling Over Vocab.... and all i wanna say is that i agree with Terra: people suck =P

why can't everyone just stop hatin'? i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif

[DB_Hunter]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
lol wow.....its usually a good idea to take the "I'm mature" approach when your already bland retorts need something more

Would you rather I insult you? I don't think that would be very prodcutive. It seems though you are just intent on winning the argument for the sake of it, and are trying to score points of any issue you can.



So basically, you accused me of having a narrow pro-west view without even knowing that i lived in the west? Wow, imagine how big of an ass you'd look if i WASNT in the west. All the more proof that you should get your facts straight before you make a reply. At least you didnt argue the actual content of the first part of my post. This way I don't have to bring up more counter-points for it. Moving on......

Newsflash for you..... all along I have been talking about ideas... that this is a war of ideas. Ideas are confined to the realm of the mind, not geographical location. You think only people living in the US and UK think what these nations are doing is correct?



Who says that a person cant rebutt someone's point with arguing what's NOT instead of what IS? Do you know how conclusions are drawn? By distinguishing the NOT, you isolate the IS. It's a basic principal used often in many fields, including math and science.
You want a supporting proof? Terrorist vs Army = Army wins. Unless the terrorists are complete idiots, they should be aware of this formula just as much as you are.

Let me try and make this simple for you...

Just tell me who you think intiated this war and why.



And yes, you did address the reason as to why the attacks have occured. You said that us being bombed is the effect of us going to war.

OK now put that remark into context. THIS bombing was prolly a retaliation attack. I didn't say why this whole 'War on Terror' thing started. So basically this goes back into the question I have asked you above.

@ Mut: One last time -

US invades Nam, Korea etc cos they are on paper no match for the US (without Soviet help)

USSR does its thing in Afghanistan etc bcos again, on paper, the Afghans are no match for the Soviets without another State like the US helping them.

Now that we understand that both countries don't give a damn what happens to their opponents, lets view the question again. Why did the US and USSR not fight each other? Simply cos they EACH felt that THEY would get destroyed, NOT because something would happen to dear mother earth and all pretty butterflies and dainty flower that exist.

[Munsu]

Tell me a country that gives a damn about an enemy's country during a war, and i'll show you a Catholic Muslim

[Mut]

Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
@ Mut: One last time -

US invades Nam, Korea etc cos they are on paper no match for the US (without Soviet help)

USSR does its thing in Afghanistan etc bcos again, on paper, the Afghans are no match for the Soviets without another State like the US helping them.

Now that we understand that both countries don't give a damn what happens to their opponents, lets view the question again. Why did the US and USSR not fight each other? Simply cos they EACH felt that THEY would get destroyed, NOT because something would happen to dear mother earth and all pretty butterflies and dainty flower that exist.
So, are you saying that unless they are expecting and ready to get completely bombed, they shouldn't go to war? Going into war that could lead into nuclear warfare is one of the dumbest things a country can do, they need to precisely know what they and the enemy can do and how far each other is capable going. You know it's called... STRATEGY. Something that is implemented in order to receive the least amount of damage while still taking down the enemy. You'd be the worst strategist in any sort of complex situation.

And you are so off on what happened in Vietnam and in Korea. You make it sound like US wanted to conquer Vietnam just because 'they are rich and powerful'. US aided in the Vietnam and the Korean war.

[DB_Hunter]

The only State that gave a damn about the inhabitants of another country was the Caliphate, before the end when it began to buckle under the various pressures. Established in the 7th Century, it lasted until 1924 before it was destroyed.

Don't take this as sarcasm, but honestly forgive me for such a brief answer. It would take alot of time to explain all of this here on the thread. If you want more info PM and I will try to send you some useful resources.

Oh and by all means, do your own research.... though I doubt me saying that will make you do it or not do it...

[Munsu]

na' that's fine... so ONLY one state in the whole history of the world has given a damn about the inhabitants of another country during a War...

so now back to the US... what's so wrong about them for not giving a damn (in your opinion) about the inhabitants of Afghanistan, they are just behaving like any other country would in a war (according to what you just said)... so it's not worth singling out the US behavior on the WAR on terror...

[Turkish-S]

Originally posted by: Budweineken
na' that's fine... so ONLY one state in the whole history of the world has given a damn about the inhabitants of another country during a War...

so now back to the US... what's so wrong about them for not giving a damn (in your opinion) about the inhabitants of Afghanistan, they are just behaving like any other country would in a war (according to what you just said)... so it's not worth singling out the US behavior on the WAR on terror...

but then osama is also just behaving like any other "country" in a war.


damn man am i the only one that understand's db??
he just says"don't say that mid-east(muslims) are bad and that the west is good" and "to go out and do a war ageanst terror won't stop them"

they are both the same. they both kill inocent people....

[Nai]

Once again it's been clearly shown that humanity simply cannot change its ways. If you think what happeneded in London is a tragedy, just wait for the aftermath. The ever growing animosity towards the Middle East and Muslims created by these events comitted by a few extremists is what truly will spell tragedy in the end.


Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
You can't have a War without being hit yourself.. its that simple and if you can't take it DON'T GO TO WAR.

I kind of agree with this. The UK did after all get involved in a war against another country. They did invade another country and killed god knows how many people there. Now, they are getting attacked on their own soil. It's called consequences. One can't go around invading other countries and policing the entire world without facing some. I don't think anyone is truly surprised by this unfortunate event. I know that I'm sure as hell not.

With that said, I think this whole "war of terror" is a complete and utter farce. You don't fight ideals with weapons. And you certainly don't extinguish the flames of hate by adding more bodies to the pile.

[DB_Hunter]

Originally posted by: Budweineken
na' that's fine... so ONLY one state in the whole history of the world has given a damn about the inhabitants of another country during a War...

so now back to the US... what's so wrong about them for not giving a damn (in your opinion) about the inhabitants of Afghanistan, they are just behaving like any other country would in a war (according to what you just said)... so it's not worth singling out the US behavior on the WAR on terror...

I completely agree with you... its just that we are talking about the current war in which the US is a leading actor, but ofcourse it isn't alone.

[Munsu]

The problem is that we are not fighting Osama per se... we are fighting Countries that harbor them, that allow them to roam freely... that's the big problem... Countries that allow these individuals to do as they please... So the US has to stop that bull shit and it is now, not tomorrow, but now if we don't want another disaster like 9-11... If your response is that we don't give a damn (like Afghanistan's was) then we'll tear you apart... and like that we instil fear on Countries that insist on protecting these know terrorist...

I fear my daddy, hence I don't dare lay a finger on him...

A War wouldn't be needed if every country would just fucking realize that these individuals do no good for the benefit of the World, and everyone should do anything possible to find them and stop them...

[weakest anbu]

ahahah you actually believe that "war on terrorism" bullshit. the truth is its all about the oil mmmmm oil mmmm middle east control mmmm delicious.

[Munsu]

well as a consequence we gain a couple of Oil wells, I'm all for it i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif

Still, I think the US will play it's cards right this time around and leave the Oil under Middle East Control, but that's yet to be seen...

That the US used Osama and Sadam as an excuse, then so be it... it was their fault for letting it come to this in the first place..

And if the US really wanted total cotrol over that Oil, they could have easily done so in the Gulf War...

[Turkish-S]

Originally posted by: weakest anbu
ahahah you actually believe that "war on terrorism" bullshit. the truth is its all about the oil mmmmm oil mmmm middle east control mmmm delicious.

yea and the only one's who notice this and dares to do something back are the terrorist..

BIG P.S. i don't mean with this post that the terrorist are doing a good thing.

[intense]

Originally posted by: Budweineken


And if the US really wanted total cotrol over that Oil, they could have easily done so in the Gulf War...

that was before Bush. Now that US has a new dictator, values and leadership channges, maybe Bush is all out oil? we may never know.

[Munsu]

ironically back then it was this current President's dad... so I don't think they differ that much in opinion, only thing that's different are the circumstances sorrounding them... and this time it's more personal

[weakest anbu]

Originally posted by: turkish-shikamaru
yea and the only one's who notice this and dares to do something back are the terrorist..

BIG P.S. i don't mean with this post that the terrorist are doing a good thing.

terrorist? do you mean the US soldiers who killed more innocent ppl in iraq than 911+this incident combine? its just a matter of perspectives. To me killing ppl with a rifle is no better than killing ppl with a bomb attaching to your body.

[Mut]

Originally posted by: weakest anbu
terrorist? do you mean the US soldiers who killed more innocent ppl in iraq than 911+this incident combine? its just a matter of perspectives. To me killing ppl with a rifle is no better than killing ppl with a bomb attaching to your body.
Except there is a difference between innocent people getting caught in crossfire, and strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing yourself up in a public area full of innocent bystanders.

Suicidal bombers blow themselves up killing many people with them in order for the 'greater good'. Whatever that means.

[Munsu]

And whose fault is it that so many innocents died in Iraq? I blame the Iraq administration for making civilians sleep in the targets that the US were gonna bomb... it's a miracle that more of them didn't die... the message is clear, US will no tolarate this bullshit anymore and wont be man-handled by coward tactics

[weakest anbu]

nah I rather place the blame on bush who started the shit. i dont believe that "cant find binladen bullshit" if the US really want to find someone... theres no place to hide. like i said its all mmm oil mmmmmm

[Nai]

Originally posted by: Budweineken
And whose fault is it that so many innocents died in Iraq? I blame the Iraq administration for making civilians sleep in the targets that the US were gonna bomb... it's a miracle that more of them didn't die... the message is clear, US will no tolarate this bullshit anymore and wont be man-handled by coward tactics
You mean tactics like these (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)? This isn't a white and black issue. They aren't the absolute evil and you are certainly not the absolute good. Violence like this only inspires more acts of vengeance. It's a pointless circle of wanton destruction and as things are looking now it will never end.

[Masamune]

condolences to all people who lost someone or got injured in the bombing

[DB_Hunter]

Originally posted by: Budweineken
And whose fault is it that so many innocents died in Iraq? I blame the Iraq administration for making civilians sleep in the targets that the US were gonna bomb... it's a miracle that more of them didn't die... the message is clear, US will no tolarate this bullshit anymore and wont be man-handled by coward tactics

So the world has to do what the US likes then...

The US has never tolerated something it hasn't liked if it could help it... nothing new there. The thing is now that you can only squeeze a people so much before something will give. I'm not talking 9/11 style here, but more in the sense of a revolution of sorts. I'm not sure how closely you follow world politics and events, but the US is losing its grip. It most certainly is not the power it once was. It's not simply about the Middle Eastern world that's under attack, but the entire Muslim world in one way or another. The populations of the Muslim countries have been abused to an unacceptable degree by US supported governments, like those of Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan (who boils his opponents to death among other things), Mubarak of Egypt, Musharraf of Pakistan... the list is quite long.

Its not that the people in these countries have nothing better to do in their lives than go and try to kill everyone. Their frustration is composed of not being allowed political dissent, progress and having their resource rich lands plundered by foreign powers. They don't see the West as a moral entity... look at the Libyan case for example. Gaddafi himself hasn't changed, his regime is the same. All he has done is handed over some WMD equipment to allay the concerns of Western countries so people like Tony Blair are now meeting with him. He is still the same ruthless tyrant as before.

I think ultimatly what will happen is something that the US wishes to prevent... the merging of all these lands into one superstate, the Caliphate. Naturally, as a State with its own aims and objectives it won't be willing to do the bidding of the US like the current regime's do... the US has good reason to try and prevent such a State from rising. A State like that would control crucial routes like the Suez Canal, not to mention the vast oil wealth of the Middle East, as well as all the other resources.

[Assertn]

Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
Would you rather I insult you? I don't think that would be very prodcutive. It seems though you are just intent on winning the argument for the sake of it, and are trying to score points of any issue you can.
You already insulted me. The line of civility was crossed when you tried to assume what my views were and then accuse them of being narrow.



Newsflash for you..... all along I have been talking about ideas... that this is a war of ideas. Ideas are confined to the realm of the mind, not geographical location. You think only people living in the US and UK think what these nations are doing is correct?
I dont even really know how to respond to this one. It doesnt even seem relevant to the argument =/



Let me try and make this simple for you...

Just tell me who you think intiated this war and why.
Clearly the terrorists did.....any relations America had with bin laden before this ordeal were on more peaceful grounds. Why did they start it? Beliefs. They are part of organizations where their beliefs conflict with ours, and so the acts they perform against us is considered honorable to their culture and their religion. In cases like these, how would you expect to propose peace?




Originally posted by: Nai
You mean tactics like these (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)? This isn't a white and black issue. They aren't the absolute evil and you are certainly not the absolute good. Violence like this only inspires more acts of vengeance. It's a pointless circle of wanton destruction and as things are looking now it will never end.
"Wounded, another Iraqi writhes on the ground next to his gun."
The first sentence is key here. Sounds to me like that iraqi is just another of those idiots that are the reason for both marine and civilian casualties in Iraq.

[Mut]

I like how everyone keeps on bringing up 'circle of violence'. Okay, then how do you think a nation should resolve this matter? You are dealing with people who will set off bombs in places that have nothing to do with a country's military. That's just nothing but cowardly cheap shots on their part.



Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
I think ultimatly what will happen is something that the US wishes to prevent... the merging of all these lands into one superstate, the Caliphate. Naturally, as a State with its own aims and objectives it won't be willing to do the bidding of the US like the current regime's do... the US has good reason to try and prevent such a State from rising. A State like that would control crucial routes like the Suez Canal, not to mention the vast oil wealth of the Middle East, as well as all the other resources.
It's called, economic dominance. A powerful economy is a portrayal of a nation's growth, wealth, and power. If countries like Japan, France, UK, etc didn't want to be economically powerful, they would just share their technology and the resources they have freely with everyone else. But they don't because they want to show that they are just as powerful as the next country. It's all a matter of greed really.

[Nai]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
"Wounded, another Iraqi writhes on the ground next to his gun."
The first sentence is key here. Sounds to me like that iraqi is just another of those idiots that are the reason for both marine and civilian casualties in Iraq.
Idiot? The man was heavily wounded and disarmed. What the marines did in that clip was not acceptable by any means. It was plain murder. They shot a man who posed no threat and then celebrated that action. Can you imagine the outcry had that man been an American executed by Iraqis? Once again, America aren't the universal good guys here to save the earth in this conflict. In fact, they are just as bad as the "terrorists" they fight when commiting atrocities like these.


Originally posted by: Mut@chi
I like how everyone keeps on bringing up 'circle of violence'. Okay, then how do you think a nation should resolve this matter? You are dealing with people who will set off bombs in places that have nothing to do with a country's military. That's just nothing but cowardly cheap shots on their part.
Not lash out at a random Arab country, that's for certain. In fact, that's pretty much the dumbest idea you can do when you're dealing with fighting an ideal. No matter how many of these "terrorists" you kill it won't kill their ideals. That's a lesson the previous Crusade should have taught people. You only make them martyrs of their cause. Martyrs, who will later on inspire a new generation as immortalized heroes.

[Mut]

The problem I have with the people screaming out 'stop the violence' is that they propose no logical resolution. They stand in the back screaming out what they think should be done and yet, take no action or even suggest what would be a reasonable resolution to this matter. Yelling out 'stop the violence' is pointless and a waste of time if you aren't going to explain your stance.

I'd really like to hear what you anti-war people think should happen.

[Nai]

Originally posted by: Mut@chi
The problem I have with the people screaming out 'stop the violence' is that they propose no logical resolution. They stand in the back screaming out what they think should be done and yet, take no action or even suggest what would be a reasonable resolution to this matter. Yelling out 'stop the violence' is pointless and a waste of time if you aren't going to explain your stance.
My stance is rather obvious in that that I utterly detest pointless warfare akin to this. Sadly, I really can't offer a cure for human stupidity. Much like I can't offer the perfect cure for HIV. I can however tell you that this specific war did not have to occur. In fact, most of the reasons behind it were complete and utter lies. And I for one sincerely doubt Americans would have supported it if not for 9/11 and the animosity and fear it created towards Arab countries.

Really, what did you expect would happen after attacking Iraq? Did you expect everything to become like in a fairytale? No, of course not. America attacked their home, stole their pride and stomped on their cities. Can you blame them for being angered and wanting to extract revenge by spilling the blood of Americans or Britts? There's really no doubt in my mind that King George's latest crusade has furthered the ideals of terrorism in this world.

Fight it with education and good intentions. Not weapons and hate ( cheesy, I know ). Show people that the image painted by these extremists of America as a nation of butchers is untrue. That's really the only way I can see long lasting peace ever happen.

[Mut]

What are you talking about... I'm talking about what London should do in regards of the bombing not 9/11, Iraq war, etc. Whoever the terrorists were, they attack London, not the US, so I wanted to know what you guys think London should do about this. Should they retaliate or sit down and share bed time stories?



Originally posted by: Nai
Fight it with education and good intentions. Not weapons and hate ( cheesy, I know ). Show people that the image painted by these extremists of America as a nation of butchers is untrue. That's really the only way I can see long lasting peace ever happen.
Oh my god, wow. How are these ideals going to be fought with education and good intentions? You want people to ignore what happened and start busting out books to educate the mass? That'll take decades, probably more. And by 'more', I really mean never. The people of Great Britain need to figure out a way to take care of the situation NOW, not years and years later.

Let's look at racism in the US. Are books going to solve the ideal of one race is superior to another?

[Nai]

Originally posted by: Mut@chi
What are you talking about... I'm talking about what London should do in regards of the bombing not 9/11, Iraq war, etc. Whoever the terrorists were, they attack London, not the US, so I wanted to know what you guys think London should do about this. Should they retaliate or sit down and share bed time stories?
Retaliate against WHO would be my question then. Another random Arab country? No, definitely not. They should definitely do their utmost to apprehend the people responsible for it. This should not serve to fuel yet another war campaign, however.


Originally posted by: Mut@chi
Oh my god, wow. How are these ideals going to be fought with education and good intentions? You want people to ignore what happened and start busting out books to educate the mass? That'll take decades, probably more. And by 'more', I really mean never. The people of Great Britain need to figure out a way to take care of the situation NOW, not years and years later.

Let's look at racism in the US. Are books going to solve the ideal of one race is superior to another?
Will weapons solve anything?

Will invading yet another country deal with the situtation or will it merely serve to satiate the bloodlust?

Will launching a crusade on the Middle East create peace?

No, not really. Education is the only cure for ignorance as far as I know. And it certainly would take time to cure all the ignorance in this world. This is by no means an instant solution. If you know of a superior one, feel free to share.

[The Heretic Azazel]

Don't you think America would want to settle terrorism without incident? Terrorists don't fucking care, they will not listen to the U.S., they will continue to seek dominance in numbers and welcome killing themselves and anyone in their path in the name of their cause. Think what you want to think about that being a "different" culture, that's still fucking primitive and barbaric, whether you're biased to your country or not. And it riles me right the fuck up when people in this thread speak as if these horrible people have been wronged by the U.S., after our soldiers were tied to vehicles and dragged until they fucking died, or had to beg for their lives on videotape for the terrorists' own amusement, just so they could have their heads lopped off... people who didn't do anything wrong.

I don't wanna get off on a tangent but these terrible people are being treated with the utmost respect and service. They fucking eat better food at Guantanamo Bay than I do, which pisses me right off, and yet people are saying they are being mistreated. Whatever, they aren't being treated badly enough.

The fact that this is all they know is insignificant. Not caring who lives or dies and freely killing themselves and others for a cause, culture or not, IS WRONG. I don't care who you are, that is fucking deplorable and these dangerous people have to be stopped. There is no reasoning with that.

I don't support Bush's motives, his ideals or anything about him, but the fact is he got us in this shit and now we can't pull out until it's all over with. We're in this mess for the long haul.

[Mut]

Originally contradicted by: Nai
They should definitely do their utmost to apprehend the people responsible for it. This should not serve to fuel yet another war campaign, however.
This is just a paradox. You're just contradicting yourself. There is NO way people who are responsible is going to be apprehended without GB, US, or whoever taking action. How the hell is group A (people who are after the responsible ones) suppose to apprehend group B? No one is going to turn group B in, and for sure they aren't going to turn themselves in. That just leaves those group A with one choice, capture them by force. If group B is going to stop group A from capturing them, should group A stop and sit down so they can talk things over? No, of course not.

That one sentence I quoted makes you sound like a closet war-lover or just a big hypocrite.



Will weapons solve anything?
Germany and their racist ideals got crushed into an oblivion. Yes, there were millions of casualties. But the Nazi party sure as hell weren't going to be educated out of killing over 6 million Jews. Did it end the Nazi ideals? No, but it made sure more Jews weren't tortured and executed.



Will invading yet another country deal with the situtation or will it merely serve to satiate the bloodlust?

Will launching a crusade on the Middle East create peace?

No, not really. Education is the only cure for ignorance as far as I know. And it certainly would take time to cure all the ignorance in this world. This is by no means an instant solution. If you know of a superior one, feel free to share.
Look, I don't want people to go to war, nobody does. But using education to resolve this matter is a long shot. It's something that we can't ever rely on since we don't even know if anything positive that can prevent war will even be taught over there.

[Nai]

Originally posted by: Mut@chi
This is just a paradox. You're just contradicting yourself.
I never said they should not take any action. Nowhere in this thread have I opted for apathy. I just don't think they should commit the same dreadful mistake the US did and in turn create even more hostilities and support for these "terrorists" in the Middle East. The gathering of accurate intelligence should be the very first step the UK takes.


Originally posted by: Mut@chi
Germany and their racist ideals got crushed into an oblivion. Yes, there were millions of casualties. But the Nazi party sure as hell weren't going to be educated out of killing over 6 million Jews. Did it end the Nazi ideals? No, but it made sure more Jews weren't tortured and executed.Wastly different, really. You cannot compare a country with an ideal. And as you say, the Nazi ideals are still alive and strong. I'm sure plenty of Nazi's are out there today beating the living crap out of homosexuals and Jews. My point is that fighting an ideal with weapons is futile, something I think you agree with.


Originally posted by: Mut@chi
Look, I don't want people to go to war, nobody does. But using education to resolve this matter is a long shot. It's something that we can't ever rely on since we don't even know if anything positive that can prevent war will even be taught over there.
Indeed, it is a longshot. But how long have we been on this path of war? Since ancient times. It still isn't working at all. I think it's about time that we start trying something else.

[Mut]

This is what you said a couple of pages back.


Originally posted by: Nai
You don't fight ideals with weapons. And you certainly don't extinguish the flames of hate by adding more bodies to the pile.

Now, you say this.


Originally posted by: Nai
I never said they should not take any action. Nowhere in this thread have I opted for apathy. I just don't think they should commit the same dreadful mistake the US did and in turn create even more hostilities and support for these "terrorists" in the Middle East. The gathering of accurate intelligence should be the very first step the UK takes.
Okay, then what do you suppose that UK does after gathering enough information and evidence? Should they... send the bad guys an angry letter? I'm not sure how a country can 'apprehend' the bad guys without invading another country, and without it going into war since that country being invaded isn't just gonna bend over.



Wastly different, really. You cannot compare a country with an ideal. And as you say, the Nazi ideals are still alive and strong. I'm sure plenty of Nazi's are out there today beating the living crap out of homosexuals and Jews. My point is that fighting an ideal with weapons is futile, something I think you agree with.
Starting out the sentence with 'Germany' is my mistake. I meant Nazi every time I said Germany. The Nazi's ideal is no different than a terrorist's ideal. Granted there are still Nazis out there, but is it on the same scale of back in WWII? No, and since it isn't, what we did was right.



Indeed, it is a longshot. But how long have we been on this path of war? Since ancient times. It still isn't working at all. I think it's about time that we start trying something else.
It has worked plenty of times.

[Nai]

Originally posted by: Mut@chiOkay, then what do you suppose that UK does after gathering enough information and evidence? Should they... send the bad guys an angry letter? I'm not sure how a country can 'apprehend' the bad guys without invading another country, and without it going into war since that country being invaded isn't just gonna bend over.
Assuming that a country would willingly shelter them that is. And if a country does, then it's up to diplomacy to solve it. Yes, diplomacy. Neither UK nor US can barge into a country ignoring all its laws to apprehend criminals at their own leisure. That's just how the world works. I'm still not seeing how I'm being hypocritical here.


Originally posted by: Mut@chi
Starting out the sentence with 'Germany' is my mistake. I meant Nazi every time I said Germany. The Nazi's ideal is no different than a terrorist's ideal. Granted there are still Nazis out there, but is it on the same scale of back in WWII? No, and since it isn't, what we did was right.
Still doesn't change the fact that it's still a living and breathing ideal. What you did was crush Nazi Germany, not Nazism. What you did in Iraq was crush Iraq, not terrorism. Do you see the difference here? An ideal isn't something you can touch. Nazi Germany was a faction in a war.


Originally posted by: Mut@chi
It has worked plenty of times.
Temporarily at best.

[Jessper]

Originally posted by: Nai
Temporarily at best.

You have said a lot of stupid things in this thread already (along with DB) but I'm going to pick this one.

The U.S. used war to break away from Britain, as far as I can tell(correct me if I'm wrong here) it has worked on a long term scale.

The U.S. had a civil war back in the day, turns out slavery is outlawed here now.

WWII, it seems the German's aren't out to conquer the world again and its been a while, they also seem to have no intention of doing so. Also, there are far less reports (in fact, I haven't heard one in my life time) of Nazis killing Jews.

Those are only fairly recent (in the grand scheme of things) there are plenty more examples further back in history.

Oh, I also wanted to touch on this:



Really, what did you expect would happen after attacking Iraq? Did you expect everything to become like in a fairytale? No, of course not. America attacked their home, stole their pride and stomped on their cities. Can you blame them for being angered and wanting to extract revenge by spilling the blood of Americans or Britts? There's really no doubt in my mind that King George's latest crusade has furthered the ideals of terrorism in this world.

Lets try using this paragraph on another event:

Really, what did you expect would happen after attacking the World Trade Centers? Did you expect everything to become like in a fairytale? No, of course not. The terrorist attacked their home, stole their pride and stomped on their people. Can you blame them for being angered and wanting to extract revenge by spilling the blood of their leaders and people that support them? There's really no doubt in my mind that Usama's latest crusade has furthered the ideals of the war on terror in this world.


Also, what if there is no way to convince these people (through diplomacy) to relinquish them? You're assuming an awful lot saying diplomacy will do it. Diplomacy was tried in WWII also, Hitler even agreed to their demands then went strait back on his words and tried to conquer the world. Diplomacy will not always work, if you believe it will you are an idealist, not a realist and the world will not work on your terms.

Also, if you kill everyone that believes in an ideal the ideal will die with them, so yes you can kill an ideal. I'm not saying to nuke Iraq but simply that it is possible to destroy an ideal.

[Assertn]

First of all....in response to the marine shooting that wounded iraqi.....

It's a war, and he was one of the people that are responsible for the war being as long as it is. Things don't look pretty in a war atmosphere....there are lots of stuff all throughout history that would give you worse impressions. For all we know, the marines in that video may have gone through their own hard times, seeing their friends killed by enemies that they cant even spot before its too late. If I went through everything that men out in combat situations go through, then I probably would feel the same sense of haste to take out an enemy.


Secondly......and this is to everyone talking about using peace to handle terrorism.....it's been said several times already but you guys STILL haven't given a reasonable response to it.....

The terrorists are dying for what they believe in. They think that what they are doing is right when they sign up, they think that what they are doing is right when they go through the training, and they think what they are doing is right when they go out to commit the deed.

To form a peace with them would require you to convince them that their life is a LIE

[Xollence]

It also said somewhere on that page that he was planning on ambushing the troops with IEDs. That bastard was planning on killing our troops, he got what he deserves.

[2:25]

I agree with Nai that fighting violence with violence isn't the best answer. By all means, I'm not saying that one shouldn't defend themselves.

But if some stranger comes up to you and hits you in the face, do you punch him right back? I was taught not too. You can bitch at him, spit in his face, make a scene and all, but never lower yourself to the level of hitting him back.

I hope you guys see the connection I'm trying to make here.
You can kill an ideal by replacing it with a bigger ideal and setting a better example, not necessary shooting people until blood spats out all over. Though education/brainwashing might be slower/more expensive, the result is probably better than war.

Honestly, if you believe that war so far is the best solution, would you believe in it so much that you would join the army yourself? (if you had the choice)

[Xollence]

How is spitting in someone's face not lowering yourself to their level? It's either you walk away or hit him right back, any other choice would make you look like an idiot and a coward.

How are you gonna educate them? They believe in their beliefs so much I think the only possible way is to convert them into another religion or a different set of beliefs, one that doesn't promote killing themselves and innocent people. Seriously since you believe so strongly that the result, if any, from this would be better I want to know how would you go about educating them? What, send them textbooks on morals and ethics?

[Terracosmo]

Setting ideals will not matter at all to people who won't listen.
Quite frankly, all is lost. But it doesn't really matter, since once war has destroyed the globe (and it eventually will) we'll be probably be dead anyway.
Selfish? Yes. Rational? Indeed.

Everything sucks. People, their idiocy, their disability to see things clearly... everything. The few individuals who think about the future of mankind are not in positions where their views count for what happens. That's just how it is. That's how it always has been. If people punch others, they will punch back. I know I would.

[Assertn]

Originally posted by: 2-25
I agree with Nai that fighting violence with violence isn't the best answer. By all means, I'm not saying that one shouldn't defend themselves.

But if some stranger comes up to you and hits you in the face, do you punch him right back? I was taught not too. You can bitch at him, spit in his face, make a scene and all, but never lower yourself to the level of hitting him back.

I hope you guys see the connection I'm trying to make here.
You can kill an ideal by replacing it with a bigger ideal and setting a better example, not necessary shooting people until blood spats out all over. Though education/brainwashing might be slower/more expensive, the result is probably better than war.

Honestly, if you believe that war so far is the best solution, would you believe in it so much that you would join the army yourself? (if you had the choice)

it still doesnt argue my second point. the people initiating the violence think that what they are doing is the "right thing to do"

The interpretations you guys make about violence is one that is trained into you culturally, and therefore doesn't fit when crossing into other cultures. When we hear rape, we are trained to think "BAD", but there are cultures where the word rape is no different than the word sex. You might think you're being
the good guy by trying to avoid hurting someone, but they think they are being good guys by hurting you.

If you ever get the chance to take an anthropology course, you should look into it. I took one course 2 semesters ago and it totally broadened my scope on culture. i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif


And why would a person who supports war have to join the army? That's like saying that anyone who opposes the war has to pick up a sign and march to the whitehouse. Its ok to have an opinion without getting extreme about it


Terra: Exactly....the people who have the power to do anything choose to do whatever benefits themselves. The reason Bush was probably so quick to start a war on Iraq in the first place was probably because he wanted to take advantage of the opportunity before his 4 year term was up.

[Mut]

2-25, DB_Hunter, and Nai are all insane and are just still holding on to the 'war is bad' gimmick even though they can't even bring up a fully supported argument.

Educate an entire culture to do almost everything nearly opposite? Why don't we just kill off the whole culture/race if we're going to turn them into us? It's way more efficient, cost effective, and quicker.

[Assassin]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
To form a peace with them would require you to convince them that their life is a LIE

its not a matter of convincing them that thier life is a lie, its a matter of convincing them that there are other ways to approach problem besides explosives.

the real problem isn't what they believe in, its WHY they in it.

unless anyone here actually buys the whole "they hate freedom" argument put forward by the government, its pretty easy to see that tehse individuals are quite pissed about something. the only way to end this cycle is to figure out why they want to blow shit up in the first place, and then work on solving that.

anyway, comming back to the original topic of teh bombing, i haven't checked the news since yesterday evening, but to me it doesnt seem like the work of al-queda. its too random, too pointless. thier targets have always been us embassy's or other political/military targets. blowing up a subway and some double decker busses is stupid, and gets them nowhere.

i think its more likely to be a group based out of one of the war torn african countries, seeing as some very important ppl (and i use the term loosely) were in the neighbourhood for the g8 summit.

[Assertn]

Originally posted by: Assassin


Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
To form a peace with them would require you to convince them that their life is a LIE

its not a matter of convincing them that thier life is a lie, its a matter of convincing them that there are other ways to approach problem besides explosives.

the real problem isn't what they believe in, its WHY they in it.

unless anyone here actually buys the whole "they hate freedom" argument put forward by the government, its pretty easy to see that tehse individuals are quite pissed about something. the only way to end this cycle is to figure out why they want to blow shit up in the first place, and then work on solving that.

You're missing the point just as the others have......
saying "coming up with a peaceful resolve with the terrorists" sounds all good and all.........
but you're still not taking into account that these people consider genocide to be a religious experience. You can't fight religion....simple as that. Spiritually influenced people will die long before you'll succeed in converting them.

They will remain pissed off until North America and Europe are blown off of the face of the earth.

[Jurojin]

I say we build a time machine, and prevent the development of weapons past sticks. That way, only thing people can do when mad at each other is poke each other with sticks.


*passes out sticks to forum members*

Have fun!

[Mut]

Originally posted by: 2-25
I agree with Nai that fighting violence with violence isn't the best answer. By all means, I'm not saying that one shouldn't defend themselves.

But if some stranger comes up to you and hits you in the face, do you punch him right back? I was taught not too. You can bitch at him, spit in his face, make a scene and all, but never lower yourself to the level of hitting him back.
What? Were you taught to contradict yourself too? I'm not sure where you get the idea that you shouldn't punch that person back if they randomly hit you in the face. How can someone defend themselves if they can't retaliate back? How are they gonna defend themselves? Are they going to say "please stop, I don't want to fight" to some nut who punched you in the face out of nowhere? That's insane. Explain to me how one can defend him or herself against another in a situation you brought up. And no, that person isn't going to stop punching you.



I hope you guys see the connection I'm trying to make here.
You can kill an ideal by replacing it with a bigger ideal and setting a better example, not necessary shooting people until blood spats out all over. Though education/brainwashing might be slower/more expensive, the result is probably better than war.
Wait... so you're agreeing that our ideal (or any others') is ultimately better since it's what you think they should follow it... okay, too bad no terrorist organizations like to sit down and have a formal debate. And 'brainwashing'... haha, yeah. We should just turn them into slaves if we're going to make them believe what we want them to believe.



Honestly, if you believe that war so far is the best solution, would you believe in it so much that you would join the army yourself? (if you had the choice)
Irrational and illogical reasoning. Not even gonna bother.

[Assassin]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
You're missing the point just as the others have......
saying "coming up with a peaceful resolve with the terrorists" sounds all good and all.........
but you're still not taking into account that these people consider genocide to be a religious experience. You can't fight religion....simple as that. Spiritually influenced people will die long before you'll succeed in converting them.

They will remain pissed off until North America and Europe are blown off of the face of the earth.

genocide as a religious experience? wtf

tehres a difference between being willing to die for what u believe in, and killing urself or others because u think its a one way ticket to heaven. i think u, and most ppl in teh west are confused about the concept of being a martyr in islam. take it from me, im muslim. these attacks have nothing to do with any "spiritual experience".

thier hatred stems from other reasons which i wont get into now, but its definately not somethign religious....granted, tehre are some exceptions, like the taliban, but on the whole, its not right to simply say "its because of thier beliefs" for every terrorist attack tehre is.

[DB_Hunter]

Originally posted by: Mut@chi


It's called, economic dominance. A powerful economy is a portrayal of a nation's growth, wealth, and power. If countries like Japan, France, UK, etc didn't want to be economically powerful, they would just share their technology and the resources they have freely with everyone else. But they don't because they want to show that they are just as powerful as the next country. It's all a matter of greed really.

I agree with that except the last line. I would say its more complex than greed. Sure, they want resources for themselves but what also drives these nations is to the desire to make their way of life dominant over others. This is the part where the ideas kick in. If you heard what Blair said yesterday, he didn't say that he's going to protect the underground or the infrastructure did he... he spoke of values and civilisation... both of which are built upon ideas.



Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
[quote]
Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
Would you rather I insult you? I don't think that would be very prodcutive. It seems though you are just intent on winning the argument for the sake of it, and are trying to score points of any issue you can.
You already insulted me. The line of civility was crossed when you tried to assume what my views were and then accuse them of being narrow.

If you felt insulted by that then I apologise.



Let me try and make this simple for you...

Just tell me who you think intiated this war and why.


Clearly the terrorists did.....any relations America had with bin laden before this ordeal were on more peaceful grounds. Why did they start it? Beliefs. They are part of organizations where their beliefs conflict with ours, and so the acts they perform against us is considered honorable to their culture and their religion. In cases like these, how would you expect to propose peace?

OK so this is what I was talking about. Beliefs/ideas. Yeah, the realtions between the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the US during the 80's were coridial, while fighting the USSR. The fact that thousands of young Muslim men streamed into Afghanistan during the Soviet Invasion was a mistake, since simply fighting the USSR and kickig them out was not going to solve the problems of Afghanistan, as can clearly be seen now. Sure, the people in that country should have fought, it was a duty, but if others wanted to help they should have looked at the real casue of Afhganistan's weakness. But that's going off the point slightly.

The fact is that after the Afghan Jihad which the US supported it began to dawn upon the fighters that the despite kicking out a superpower in the form of the USSR they were still in the crap hole. When they looked around they saw economic deprivation and brutal oppression. This they slowly realised was the fault of their rulers. So they turned on them (this is why when the US goes to a ruler in a Muslim country the rulers say "I told you so", cos they have already been under attack). However, the fighters began to realise that the rulers were not alone. They were supported by successive US governments against the will of the local populace.

So Mubarak of Egypt is the second largest recipient of US Aid after Israel, being given billions of dollars since the 1970's. Did you know you have to publicly show you love for Mubarak or else the secret police will drag you away?

The Saudi Royal family, a bunch of backward despots, has long been supported by the US and before them the UK. They are some of the most hypcritical and oppressive people on Earth.

Saddam himself was supported in the 80's when he was fighting Iran. Afterwards when it didn't suit the US, it got rid of him, not because he was oppressing the people.

The UK supports King Abdullah of Jordan, a guy who annihalated an enitire town once that showed dissent (I kid you not).

Musharraf of Pakistan is supported by the US publicly when quite clearly he is hated by his people, proved further by the fact that there have been numerous attacks on his life. He refuses to step down as President and keeps changing the constitution in a pathetic attempt to prove that he is a legitimate ruler. What has the US response been? Before his co-operation after 9/11, he was a dictator. Post 9/11, he is a good ally in the 'War On Terror' and by having sham election he has 'restored democracy' to the country.

Now that these fighters see this they have decided to attack the US, UK and others who they see as helping support their oppresion and that of their people. I myself don't agree with the approach of a physical attack. I think if there is to be conflict then lets discuss what the hell the Western powers have been doing all this time and WHY they have been doing it. And no, its not as simple as simply wanting to make your self more rich and powerful. That's the end game naturally, but alongside their is a more ideological attack of not only making other nations subserviant to you, but also to make them adopt your values. Sounds contradictory? Read up what's going on by reports issues by think tanks like the 9/11 commision, the RAND report and others. Read what people like Henry Kissenger, Donald Rumsfeld and General Abizaid are saying about the Caliphate. I'm not talking fantasy here, this reality.

And no, I don't expect people to all hold hands under the rainbow. What I do want is from them to face the reality and the truth as to why people do the things that they do, and not simply repeat what say FOX news CNN say.

[Xollence]

Obviously it would have to be because of their beliefs. Yeah they do have a twisted way of interpreting the Koran, but still they are religiously motivated. The master mind of 9/11 had the Koran and a hijacker's manual in his bag which had all of his beliefs written on there and their god.

[Jessper]

Originally posted by: Assassin
unless anyone here actually buys the whole "they hate freedom" argument put forward by the government, its pretty easy to see that tehse individuals are quite pissed about something. the only way to end this cycle is to figure out why they want to blow shit up in the first place, and then work on solving that.


I agree that this is probably the only way to have a peaceful solution, however it is nonsense to put it forward as an actual idea for resolution.

If you expect that we will change the way we live our lives to suit some people in another country BECAUSE they bombed us, you are sorely mistaken. There is no way this will follow through logically.

[Assassin]

no one said anyhting about changing the way u live ur life. ur working under teh assumption that they hate teh american way of life, which is the just retarded.

ask anyone who's knows anyhitng about mideast affairs; its not the american way of life thats the problem, its western foriegn policy.

as far as 'our' way of life goes, the ppl in the mideast life a way more luxurious life then u can imagine. its not just a bunch of barbarians living in caves like most ppl seem to think

Edit:



Obviously it would have to be because of their beliefs. Yeah they do have a twisted way of interpreting the Koran, but still they are religiously motivated. The master mind of 9/11 had the Koran and a hijacker's manual in his bag which had all of his beliefs written on there and their god.

so if i put bibble in my bag and go blow up an embasy, does that mean that my motivation is due to some christian beliefs? are u going to blame jesus for it, and say that 'our lord and saviour' preaced terrorism?

like i keep saying, religion has nothign to do with it. dont use the fact that the guy had a quran in his bag as proof of his motivation. its thinking like that which leads to further conflict.

[Assertn]

Assassin.....you say im wrong, but then you also say "for reasons i dont feel like going into"
you might as well not even argue if you arent going to bother convincing me why my point is wrong.
If you have a better reason for why terrorists started the whole ordeal, i'd like to hear it.

As for everyone else (including that long post from DB_Hunter that i'm not going to even START to read).......I'm done.
I've said what i had to say and those who don't agree just ramble the same unjustified nonsense as before.

[Assassin]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
I've said what i had to say and those who don't agree just ramble the same unjustified nonsense as before.

precisely y i dont explain all the otehr reasons...i've said what i wanted to say, and theres no point in me trying to repeat the same arguments over and over again since there isn't a real point to it.

for those who are intrested, u can do ur own research on the topics of the israel/palestine conflict, the causes of teh first and second gulf wars, the 10 year econimic sanctions on iraq (theres a wonderful book called 'Iraq Under Seige'), and western foriegn policy in general.

[Jessper]

Originally posted by: Assassin
ask anyone who's knows anyhitng about mideast affairs; its not the american way of life thats the problem, its western foriegn policy.


So Al Queda is out to change our foreign policy by bombing us? It seems to have worked, there is a change. Bombing us is not going to convince us to change the way we do things in the way they seem to want it.



so if i put bibble in my bag and go blow up an embasy, does that mean that my motivation is due to some christian beliefs? are u going to blame jesus for it, and say that 'our lord and saviour' preaced terrorism?

No, but if you believed with all that you are that Jesus did tell you to blow up a building then how are we going to convince you that he didn't? You wouldn't believe us no matter what we do, and that is why religion is a part of this, even if it is an extremist of the religion they will not back down if we tell them they are wrong. There are few things that can motivate someone to willingly give their lives up (I'm not talking going somewhere you have a chance to die but going where you know you will die) and religion is one of them, though at that point it is usually twisted.

You need to calm down about the religion thing, we arent saying that people are evil by default because of their religion or that everyone of their religion will do this. It is the extremes we are talking about.

[Assertn]

assassin, telling me to go do research isn't going to change my stand on the matter

I still believe that the guys who hijacked our planes and crashed them into buildings believed that they were going to a better place after death because of it.
You can't put personal experience into the argument unless you actually know any terrorists or are one yourself.

[Mut]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
...are one yourself.
hahaha... Assassin...

[DB_Hunter]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
As for everyone else (including that long post from DB_Hunter that i'm not going to even START to read).......I'm done.
I've said what i had to say and those who don't agree just ramble the same unjustified nonsense as before.

I'm sorry you feel that way.



Originally posted by: Mut@chi
hahaha... Assassin...

You know that actually was a good link.. though for the record I better say I mean the joke part of the post, not the argument part.

[Xollence]

Originally posted by: Assassin
so if i put bibble in my bag and go blow up an embasy, does that mean that my motivation is due to some christian beliefs? are u going to blame jesus for it, and say that 'our lord and saviour' preaced terrorism?

like i keep saying, religion has nothign to do with it. dont use the fact that the guy had a quran in his bag as proof of his motivation. its thinking like that which leads to further conflict.

I'm not saying just because he had a koran in his bag, it's because of what he wrote in the hijacker's manual about his religious beliefs and what he is planning on doing.

And yes there are people like that, who use the Bible as an excuse to commit murder. There were a few cases a month or two ago. They have a twisted interpretation of the Bible, just like the morons who took part in the 9/11 attacks who had a twisted interpretation of the koran.

[Nai]

What I referred to was the global picture and using war as a mean to create peace. Not territorial conquest, which also tends to be something temporary mind you. And yes, I am probably an idealist more than I am a realist as I hope human stupidity and ignorance is something that can be cured someday by proper education. If that makes me a complete imbecile oblivious to everything human nature stands for and is, then so be it.

I should however have been much clearer in my previous post, and I apoligize that I wasn't. I blame lack of sleep.


Originally posted by: Mut@chi
Educate an entire culture to do almost everything nearly opposite? Why don't we just kill off the whole culture/race if we're going to turn them into us? It's way more efficient, cost effective, and quicker.
So now you're blaming their culture? Do you really think these peoples deepest desire is to blow themselves up for fun? You don't think they are doing this because of.. uh, a reason which is so important they are willing to die for it? That reason being that they see the Western world as tyrannical? Something which is merely enforced when you rape their soil and kill their people.

What some of you need to realize that the problem isn't only the Middle East. No matter how much your leaders preach and tries to assure you that you're the good guys, it cannot be denied that the Western world has started a lot of bad shit in the Middle East. Hell, Osama and his crew even used to be CIA lapdogs. And who provided Saddam with weapons in the first place?


Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
I've said what i had to say and those who don't agree just ramble the same unjustified nonsense as before.
And you wonder why he called you narrow-minded earlier? To brand everything that doesn't agree with your own view "unjustified nonsense" isn't what I'd call open-minded exactly.

Anyway, I should have known better than get involved in yet another war debate. I'm done.

[Mut]

Originally psychobabbled by: Nai
What some of you need to realize that the problem isn't only the Middle East. No matter how much your leaders preach and tries to assure you that you're the good guys, it cannot be denied that the Western world has started a lot of bad shit in the Middle East. Hell, Osama and his crew even used to be CIA lapdogs. And who provided Saddam with weapons in the first place?
Who said I was blaming culture? I'm talking about how impractical and improbable it is to use education to fight terrorism. You just misunderstood my post.

[Assassin]

@jessper: ya bombing the shit outta buildings isn't going to bring about any change. i never said it would. im simply saying that thier reasons aren't entirely religious, thats all.

@assertn: im not trying to change ur stand. i was just stating my own stand. and that comment wasnt directed at u, it was for anyone reading. im not gonna waset time explaining everything i mentioned to somone on an internet forum. i just mentioned those topics so if anyone was intrested, they would have somethign to start.

@mut: ur house is next u damn korean!

@xollense: the mere fact that he was on board a plane that he intended to fly into a building shoud be enuff to nulify any thing he wrote in his little journal regarding his beliefs. the guy had mental problems, so anyhitng he writes cant be reflected towards teh whole religion, or even other fundementalists.

[Xollence]

Dude I never said that it should reflect the whole religion or its beliefs, I just said he was religiously motivated when he carried these acts out.

[The Heretic Azazel]

Originally posted by: Nai



Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
I've said what i had to say and those who don't agree just ramble the same unjustified nonsense as before.
And you wonder why he called you narrow-minded earlier? To brand everything that doesn't agree with your own view "unjustified nonsense" isn't what I'd call open-minded exactly.

Anyway, I should have known better than get involved in yet another war debate. I'm done.

That's emphasis on the unjustified in unjustified nonsense.. a lot of you people on this thread offer no avenue through which to convey how we can be peaceful with these extremists when they don't give a damn about anything but killing and are not afraid at all to die for their cause. I don't see how we can somehow sit down and talk things out... that's not their way. Their culture is murder, these people are trained from an early age to become killing machines.

And saying they have some kind of justification for what they do is absolutely incredulous.

[Assertn]

Originally posted by: Nai


Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
I've said what i had to say and those who don't agree just ramble the same unjustified nonsense as before.
And you wonder why he called you narrow-minded earlier? To brand everything that doesn't agree with your own view "unjustified nonsense" isn't what I'd call open-minded exactly.

Sorry but nice try. I don't just pull adjectives out of my ass to add flavor to my responses. The reason for my use of the word unjustified is simply because every single post made against our points had the lack of justification to them. They were sugar-coated concepts that had no discernable feasibility.

Hey, we should all put down our weapons and talk to the terrorists. Allow ourselves to be their shoulder to cry on. Then all will be right with the world.

Sounds like a good idea....here's another one......
tomorrow I'm going to figure out how to use happiness as an alternate source of power for my geo.

[Jessper]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
Sounds like a good idea....here's another one......
tomorrow I'm going to figure out how to use happiness as an alternate source of power for my geo.

It can't be done, I tried it earlier, however! Rage maybe be a better source as there is more emotion in pure rage and the happiness engine(tm) simply lacks power to do anything. If you have any further progress however I would be interested in knowing, thanks! =)

[Mut]

Nai, you're not done. Answer this.


Originally posted by: Mut@chi


Originally contradicted by: Nai
They should definitely do their utmost to apprehend the people responsible for it. This should not serve to fuel yet another war campaign, however.
This is just a paradox. You're just contradicting yourself. There is NO way people who are responsible is going to be apprehended without GB, US, or whoever taking action. <u>How the hell is group A (people who are after the responsible ones) suppose to apprehend group B?</u> No one is going to turn group B in, and for sure they aren't going to turn themselves in. That just leaves those group A with one choice, capture them by force. If group B is going to stop group A from capturing them, should group A stop and sit down so they can talk things over? No, of course not.

[DB_Hunter]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
Sorry but nice try. I don't just pull adjectives out of my ass to add flavor to my responses. The reason for my use of the word unjustified is simply because every single post made against our points had the lack of justification to them. They were sugar-coated concepts that had no discernable feasibility.

Yeah, that's why you couldn't even answer my last lengthy post...

[ChaosK]

would this be a bad time to show this? end of the world! (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/flash/endofworld.html)

[Terracosmo]

I shed a tear in front of my TV set before. There was this story about a girl who took the subway, on one of the trains which exploded. She barely managed to survive and her boyfriend (naturally worried out of his mind) calls her, making sure she's alright. She replies with "It's okay, I'll take the bus instead". Guess which bus she took? Number 30. She died in the explosion on that one.

LIFE IS SO FUCKING UNFAIR!

Goddamnit...

[darkshadow]

omg, thats just.........nasty....pff barely surviving , just to get caught op in a second explosion.....man, FUCKING TERRORISTS!!!
BUT, if I was her boyfriend, i would tell her to stay put, find somewhere save, like stay with the ambulance or something, and i would pick her up PERSONALLY, but then again it should've never happend

@chaoskiddo , haha that was funny, i loved the french and irak part

[masamuneehs]

Ahh a beautiful political fist fight online...

Just to throw it out there, how many people believe that it is partly the lopsided advancement in military technology that has spurned these terrorist techniques?
I mean, if there is no real hope to winning the battle then "take as many down with you as possible" ala suicide bombers.
If military targets are so hardened and impossible to strike, such that your goals will never possibly get accomplished or your cause recognized, "aim at the weak castle wall"
If you face snipers, Unmanned bombers, stealth bombers, guns that allow their users to shoot around corners, and shit loads of air support and armored vehicles, and your group only has AKs and some C4, can you really go out there and face them in battle? "Discretion is the better part of valor" and employ the same stealth (albeit by different means) that your enemy enjoys.

The problem is that war used to be about soldiers fighting soldiers until one group admitted defeat. Warriors were the ones who were supposed to die in war, not civilians. By protecting and armoring and making it harder to kill soldiers than it is to kill civilians, perhaps we are unknowingly thrusting our civilians out into the fray instead. Modern war favors terrorism by forgetting that soldiers are supposed to be the ones dying in order to end conflict. The new doctrine is that soldiers must survive and be protected in order to attain victory.

The problem is what to do about it...

[SK]

cities need better military defenses. i know we want our freedoms but we may need to lose a little personal comfort for better protection.

[Mut]

Reign of Fire (a movie about dragons in London) was not shown today on ABC, and instead some gay movie that starred Frankie Munoz was shown. Obviously from the fear that someone, somewhere was going to bitch about it if the movie were shown.

I hate people.

[masamuneehs]

Originally posted by: Mut@chi
Reign of Fire (a movie about dragons in London) was not shown today on ABC, and instead some gay movie that starred Frankie Munoz was shown. Obviously from the fear that someone, somewhere was going to bitch about it if the movie were shown.

I hate people.

Or maybe they just realized that that is a TERRIBLE movie and should never be shown. Seriously, if ABC won't show it, it's got to be incredibly horrendous...

Chalk another one up to the uber-sensitive conservative "upholders of morality and censorship"

Who remembers when they wouldn't show Cowboy Funk, Waltz for Venus or Sympathy for the Devil on Adult Swim after 9/11? I mean, the first one is semi-understandable (tho they didn't air that episode for like 8 months after it was supposed to show...) And Waltz had a minor scene with airplane hijacking in its start (and, to Cartoon Network's credit, did air in the next running of the season) but Sympathy for the Devil had no terrorists, nothing even remotley similair to attacking cities. It was just the title. Couldn't have that polluting my impressionable 15 year old mind...

[Terracosmo]

Originally posted by: Mut@chi
I hate people.

[Death BOO Z]

actually, bebop did have quite a nack for predicting future disasters...
in the begnning of the movie, i think, there was a scene about someone trying to blow up the twin towers (teddy bomber, i think that was his name), and in one of the later episodes, there was the columbia space shuttle almost getting blown up becuase of the heat-isolation parts.

[masamuneehs]

Originally posted by: Death BOO Z
actually, bebop did have quite a nack for predicting future disasters...
in the begnning of the movie, i think, there was a scene about someone trying to blow up the twin towers (teddy bomber, i think that was his name), and in one of the later episodes, there was the columbia space shuttle almost getting blown up becuase of the heat-isolation parts.

Session 22 (Episode 22 to you stiff cats with no jazz in your bones) was Cowboy Funk, with the Teddy Bomber and the bombing of multiple large buildings, one structure having two huge identical towers (design is different tho from WTC)

Session 19 Wild Horses, had the remake of the Columbia shuttle.

Session 8: Waltz for Venus starts with a hijacking of a plane.

Session 4: Gateway Shuffle has a biological virus &amp; extremist movement

But alot of these ideas had been around for along time. To say that Bebop predicted anything would be going far too out there.

Oh, and they have been making some raids on suspected homes in Britain in regards to teh attack, although all 4 bombers have been confirmed dead, 'martryed' at the sites.

http://www.ajc.com/news/conten...ies/0705/13london.html (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/0705/13london.html)

http://www.taipeitimes.com/New.../2005/07/13/2003263300 (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/07/13/2003263300)

[Munsu]

We are at it again:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/...london.tube/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/21/london.tube/index.html)

Though nothing serious happened this time apparently...

[Jaredster]

Wow, this sucks.

[Xollence]

Security found two "bombs" at my mall and had to evacuate everybody. 6 floors full of people, pain in the ass.

[SK]

sad sad world we live in. why cant we all hold hands and be friends?

[Turkish-S]

Originally posted by: SK
sad sad world we live in. why cant we all hold hands and be friends?

lol to hear that from your mouth
(kug) Quote: freedom isn't free (kug)

edit: and i don't say these bomb's are for freedom. but if you fight a war for "freedom" you won't be holding hands too.

[Hikyuu]

On NPR this morning they said that London Police shot a suspect that was fleeing.. Though I could be mistaken..

[masamuneehs]

Originally posted by: Hikyuu
On NPR this morning they said that London Police shot a suspect that was fleeing.. Though I could be mistaken..

And now, guess what? It might have been part of an investigation, but now its going around that the man may not have been a bomber... (perhaps he was related or connected with the terrorists though?) (or maybe the cops just had an itchy trigger finger after all thats happened there?)

Man may not have been Bomber
http://today.reuters.co.uk/new...URITY-BRITAIN-SHOT.xml (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&amp;storyID=2005-07-22T162522Z_01_EIC258403_RTRUKOC_0_SECURITY-BRITAIN-SHOT.xml)

Good Report on 'Suspect" Shot by Police
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...,1280,-5159815,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5159815,00.html)

Oh, and for those who don't know. Mayor Bloomberg ordered yesterday that police can search any bags that people are carrying in the subways or even on train lines coming into or out of NYC.

[SK]

i hate bush man. and i hate the democrats that passed the extension of the patriot act.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163219,00.html

[Hikyuu]

http://www.thisisessex.com/dis...amp;contentPK=12882486 (http://www.thisisessex.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=170742&amp;command=displayConte nt&amp;sourceNode=170502&amp;home=yes&amp;contentPK=12882486)
pictures of the men?

[Lefty]

Funny thing is the one that was shot was not taken down by police it was the SAS.

[m7b]

sick world

[Hikyuu]

Originally posted by: Lefty
Funny thing is the one that was shot was not taken down by police it was the SAS.

SAS? SAS stands for?

[GhostKaGe]

Originally posted by: Hikyuu


Originally posted by: Lefty
Funny thing is the one that was shot was not taken down by police it was the SAS.

SAS? SAS stands for?
special air service

and the guy that got shot wasn't a terrorist but a brizilian guy workin in london seems like he was the victim of a witch hunt

[Lefty]

Well he ran and gave them reason to feel threatend. SAS don't fuck around, period. I would hate to say but it's better safe than sorry. Granted it is a great tradegy but if they did nothing and he was a terrorist it would be an even greater tradegy. It's one of the horrible damnd if you do damnd if you don't situations.

[Turkish-S]

Originally posted by: Lefty
Well he ran and gave them reason to feel threatend. SAS don't fuck around, period. I would hate to say but it's better safe than sorry. Granted it is a great tradegy but if they did nothing and he was a terrorist it would be an even greater tradegy. It's one of the horrible damnd if you do damnd if you don't situations.

maybe he was a drugs dealer.

[GhostKaGe]

witness statements indicate the man was face down on the ground when he was shot 5 times in the head and the guys that shot him wearnt SAS they where SO19 armed response unit plain clothed police officers hence the reason he ran when they pulled the guns they were in plain clothing and he didn't speak english as a first language in that situation anybody would have responded by running