Bombs in London

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


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]

[quote]
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

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.