Bombs in London

[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 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 [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

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'? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img]

[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 [img][/img]

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.