Breaking News: London Explosion!!

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
TBS
Registered User
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 11:44 pm
Location: Somewhere between here and now

Post by TBS » Thu Jul 07, 2005 10:10 pm

I am never really sure what to think about any of this. So I’ll just state facts. No one will ever be able to stop this. By this I mean terrorist activity. And I don’t just mean the activity that you read about or that you see in the news. Death and destruction happens at the hands of ignorance and religion every where, every day. You don't need to look far to see it.

So long as difference exists within the world, hate and ignorance will survive. Humans will never be able to accept that which is different. Never.


TBS
If you can in this life, help others.
If you can't, don't hurt them.

Yawner
Registered User
Posts: 2161
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:19 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by Yawner » Thu Jul 07, 2005 10:29 pm

TBS wrote: I am never really sure what to think about any of this. So I’ll just state facts. No one will ever be able to stop this. By this I mean terrorist activity. And I don’t just mean the activity that you read about or that you see in the news. Death and destruction happens at the hands of ignorance and religion every where, every day. You don't need to look far to see it.

So long as difference exists within the world, hate and ignorance will survive. Humans will never be able to accept that which is different. Never.


TBS


Well Said, However i believe that its more than that..

London is a mix of cultures and my best mate is Asian, i have many Muslim friends and they see it this way;

The extremists see that their Gods are saying to them that if they do this "Jihad" then they will go straight to the Islam version of Heaven, and if people can go to heaven by blowing themselves up then thats what they will do.. Im not saying that this is a fundemental issue in Islam, but im saying its one in the Extremist Islam..
Alan Kay : "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
Support the OpenDocument Format!

User avatar
psoTFX
Former Team Member
Posts: 7425
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 8:50 pm

Post by psoTFX » Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:12 am

I promised myself some time ago I'd not become embroiled in these debates here any more ... however this deserves a response.
SHS` wrote:
psoTFX wrote: And on the flip side the UK did once negotiate with terrorists ... wow, that was successful.

You cannot negotiate with these people, you immediately weaken your position ... as we did above. Even ignoring that, how do you negotiate with people who's ultimate goal is the elimination of "our" influence on "their" people ... because that's what it comes to, whatever they may "demand" now.

Or acts of terrorism can ultimately end in peaceful settlement. ;) Political ideals are different, though as the saying goes, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Jon, first off, given what happened today if I see a ;) in this topic again I'll lock it. Secondly, tell me then, go on, how do we "negotiate" with these people? You appear to have the smart answers so do share. I'm sure numerous politicians will be very interested in your thoughts on solving the Israelie-Palestinian question, the Saudi problem, the return to fundamentalism in Iran, the difficulties in (whoever runs and whichever political model is used) Afghanistan, the continued oppression of the democratic movement in Syria, the complete lack of any coherent "organisation" of these groups (unlike your dubious example above), the fact they seek not only the removal of "American" forces from the middle east but ultimately any western influence which may detract from their particular reading of the Koran, etc. etc. As I say, please, do share.
SHS` wrote: [On Turkey's membership of the EU]The only reason it isn't is that it is Muslim and thus Islamophobia runs rife which ultmately appeases the very terrorists you're trying to "stamp out" and kicks down the groups whom would benefit such as women's rights campaigners.

Geez, how to introduce xenophobia into an extremely complex situation. Obivously, it's because it's an Islamic state ... the slow progress on EU membership can't possibly have anything to do with the poor shape of the economy (and the subsequent drain it'll likely be on an already overstretched budget), issues with human rights (like the continued lack of them except when under extreme pressure), the little matter of Cyprus and Greece, et al. And, if you're trying to suggest terrorism in Europe is in some way due to the behaviour of EU politicians towards Turkish memership I'm sorry to raise the point that of its leaders Tony Blair and the British Government have been the most fervent supporters of its membership and remained so after British interests (and citizens) were attacked there. Yet today we witness what will, more than likely though we cannot say for certain at this point, turn out to be an attack by so called "Islamic extremists". This is frankly one of the worst posts I've seen you make ...

Saoshyant
Registered User
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 3:35 pm
Location: Portugal

Post by Saoshyant » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:05 am

I have no idea if these events were of those so-called fake terrorism (forged), but I doubt it due to the lack of professionalism. In anyway, I seriously hope some lone terrosist blows up Bush's ranch in Texas; it seriously makes more sense than killing innocent people.

geocator
Registered User
Posts: 16242
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:56 pm
Location: On dry land
Contact:

Post by geocator » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:20 am

Saoshyant wrote: I have no idea if these events were of those so-called fake terrorism (forged), but I doubt it due to the lack of professionalism. In anyway, I seriously hope some lone terrosist blows up Bush's ranch in Texas; it seriously makes more sense than killing innocent people.


How can you say such a thing after such tragedy. NO terorism is good. Saying they should blow something up is absolute hogwash. You dont have to agree with US policies or the president, but wishing ill will on anyone is evil too.

Magnotta
Former Team Member
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:16 am
Location: Ontario

Post by Magnotta » Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:31 am

Sad thing for London, a day after all the joy from the Olympics. This is a time when the people should have been able to celebrate, not mourn. Again, this impacts more than just people from London: so far it's been reported that at least 7 Australians were killed, and I'm not sure about any other countries, but chances are good.

You can't negotiate with terrorists. They're plan is to kill, to sacrafice themselves for some 'greater good' they believe in, and currently what they're fighting for is something that can't really be attained. Even should all countries pull out, the influence on life, particularily from America, will still be there, and their countries will still be dirt poor when compared to the likes of America, England, and so forth. These things aren't going to change, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the bombing in Madrid after Spain pulled out? If so, then there really isn't any solution at all.

As for the war on terror, it's a nice thing in threory, but is like the war on drugs: it can never be achieved. Everyone remember Timothy McVeigh? Basically, he's proof that even if you get rid of all the terrorist groups in th world, there will always be some nut out there willing to do these things.

eric etc
Registered User
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 3:47 am
Location: under your bed

Post by eric etc » Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:56 am

Saoshyant wrote: I have no idea if these events were of those so-called fake terrorism (forged), but I doubt it due to the lack of professionalism. In anyway, I seriously hope some lone terrosist blows up Bush's ranch in Texas; it seriously makes more sense than killing innocent people.


While I don't really care for Bush one way or another and am a resident of the United States I must say that is pretty nasty to say. Wishing more loss of life? Nice, really nice.

Back to the topic on hand, I was very impressed to see how the Londoners responded to this attack. Whether they be of the Emergancy services or everyday citizens they were very calm about the situation and kept a cool head. That is precisely the attitude to be displayed.

Sadly enough though these type of events will continue to occur until all threats have been eliminated, and even sadder I don't believe that will ever be accomplished. And if it isn't foreign terrorists you have to worry about it is terror from your own people. Any act to instill fear in another person is terrorism.

My thoughts and prayers go out to anyone who was touched by these events.

User avatar
TC
Former Team Member
Posts: 3633
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 7:23 pm
Location: Kµlt °ƒ Ø, working on my time machine

Post by TC » Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:50 pm

the whole point of terrorism is to cause fear and, uh, terror in the hearts & minds of civilians. blowing up bush's ranch - while he may be deserving in your eyes - would only cause terror to the bush family. that would be the direct opposite of terrorism. if they wanted to assassinate bush, i'm sure they would have by now.

and yes, a very nasty thing to say. while bush isn't a member here (as far as i know), i still take that as being against the rules - openly wishing harm on another. take care on the line you walk.
.:: 28:Ø6:42:12 ::.

User avatar
SHS`
Former Team Member
Posts: 6615
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:13 am
Location: Yellow Beach, Nine Dragons, Hong Kong
Name: Jonathan Stanley
Contact:

Post by SHS` » Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:36 pm

Rabidus_Lupus wrote: The ultimate goal of a terrorist is to make people fear them. Not hunt them down. I think most of them are relying on the fact they can get a trial if they're caught. What keeps people from doing wrong is the amount of punishment recieved for the crime. If you don't agree with my shoot on site idea, then at least we should torture them. Considering I don't believe in their heaven or any other, I think they should be punished by humans before they die.


To deny the humanity of others, however inhumane their actions, is in itself... inhumane.
JAS4Yeshua wrote: I'm sorry, but there's a big difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter." The terrorist actions are happening against innocent people. They are cowards that believe the only way they can achieve their goals are by killing those that cannot defend themselves.

Freedom fighters, historically, haven't attacked innocents (at least not intentionally, or in general). Their attacks were against military or political targets. Was that always the case, no, but that was the tendancy.


Please read what was said:

"One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter"

They are not the same person, and demonstrates the wonders of moral relativism, ie: The freedom fighter always does what is "fair game", and often involves killing people. Free fighters unfortunately don't go around armed with a bunch of flowers and sticking them into the rifles of their enemy...
psoTFX wrote: I promised myself some time ago I'd not become embroiled in these debates here any more ... however this deserves a response.


My attempt at staying as far away from the 'Net is proving rather futile at the moment aswell, though as for "lame post", don't deny this could be true... just trying to be pragmatic whilst annoyed with the "kill all ayrabs" mentality that appears to have surfaced in matter of minutes from yesterdays events whilst coping with jet lag!
psoTFX wrote: Jon, first off, given what happened today if I see a ;) in this topic again I'll lock it. Secondly, tell me then, go on, how do we "negotiate" with these people? You appear to have the smart answers so do share. I'm sure numerous politicians will be very interested in your thoughts on solving the Israelie-Palestinian question, the Saudi problem, the return to fundamentalism in Iran, the difficulties in (whoever runs and whichever political model is used) Afghanistan, the continued oppression of the democratic movement in Syria, the complete lack of any coherent "organisation" of these groups (unlike your dubious example above), the fact they seek not only the removal of "American" forces from the middle east but ultimately any western influence which may detract from their particular reading of the Koran, etc. etc. As I say, please, do share.


Excuse me whilst I try and write a quick responce, so I'll just quote ad verbatum an article regarding "Getting to YES" by Roger Fisher:
http://www.mediate.com/articles/currie4.cfm

While it may seem that those of us in the field of conflict resolution have had little to say since September 11, 2001, professional negotiators have not been silent on the subject of terrorism. Roger Fisher addressed this very question in the second edition of Getting To Yes, and in January of 1992, the Negotiation Journal published a special issue called Reflections on the War in the Persian Gulf. The insights found in these publications are just as valid in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attack as they were for the terrorism of the 1980s and early 90s.

In answer to the question, should we negotiate with terrorists, Roger Fisher replies with a resounding yes, because the better our communication, the better our chances of exerting influence. But doesn’t negotiating with someone whose behavior you abhor grant them legitimacy that they didn’t have before, and therefore reward criminal activity? Won’t this encourage further bad behavior because it means we have given into pressure? According to Fisher, it may confer a little legitimacy, but this effect can be minimized by involving relatively low level or non-governmental personnel in the initial talks. The effect could actually be eliminated if we had a policy of negotiating with anyone. With such a policy, no one could attain special status just because negotiations were opened.

What is much more certain and important is that a refusal to negotiate indicates rejection of the other side, and rejection creates serious physical and psychological obstacles to problem solving, because it prevents clear communication from taking place, and it guarantees defensiveness and resistance to change. We simply need to make it clear that a decision to negotiate does not mean acceptance of the other side’s behavior. We can in fact love our enemies and hate what they do, but to prove it we need to act in loving ways by accepting their humanity enough to negotiate for mutual gains. Each side need get no more than that to which they are entitled. And we need to remember that regardless of how we respond, there are no guaranteed results, except that forced agreements are always very unstable.

We need not accept their values or their conduct. What we do accept is the humanity underneath as deserving of due process with the realization that we could be at least partially wrong in our perceptions and conclusions (because of stereotyping, attribution bias, projection, misinformation, inadequate data, etc.). According to Fisher and Brown in their 1988 book Getting Together, we should consider all others as equals, that is “equally human, equally caught up in the situation, equally entitled to have rights, and equally entitled to have any interests and views taken into account” (Fisher & Brown, p. 160). In reality, that is a fairly minimal level of acceptance. But shouldn’t the enemy have to give something for this kind of acceptance? No, bargaining over acceptance is like bargaining over apology: acceptance is only effective when freely given, not when it’s withheld. It is coercive to use acceptance as a bargaining chip; it creates distrust and it helps further entrench a defensive, adversarial relationship.

What did we do right in the Gulf War according to Fisher? We strengthened our BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) and weakened Iraq’s BATNA by moving our military into Saudi Arabia. We also increased our negotiating power by building an international coalition. Where did we fail? Fisher said: “We failed to maintain effective communication with Iraq, the very actor we were trying to influence. We did not try to understand Iraq’s interests and perceptions. We did not accept the government of Iraq as the one with which to deal. We failed to explore fully options other than war. And, while holding aloft the mantle of the United Nations, we coerced it in ways that undercut its legitimacy and effectiveness” (Negotiation Journal, 8(1), p.17). The same could be said for our current refusal to negotiate with the Taliban government of Afghanistan. There are most always opportunities to negotiate with governments who harbor criminals, and to squander those opportunities, as we have done with Afghanistan, sets a very poor precedent.

One person’s “terrorist” is another person’s “freedom fighter.” Different perceptions and world views abound throughout the history of our small planet, and just as it is impossible to win a marriage, it is impossible to win peace and justice. Neither can be achieved in a competitive battle, and despite our “toughness” neither have been achieved in the Persian Gulf. Because we need to obtain and preserve both peace and justice, we owe it to ourselves and to everyone else to do the hard work of integrative negotiation whenever we possibly can. Getting past the posturing and rhetoric and involving all stakeholders requires skill and patience, so a respected mediator with knowledge of both Western and Islamic culture is probably essential. As a last resort, if power moves must be made (whether to raise consciousness, deliver punishment, or demonstrate our resolve), the goal should always be getting the other side to the negotiating table, not killing or beating them into submission.


Emphasis mine... further more, Islamism, in it's most important strain is a political movement derived from the European romantic movement, which attributed to Nationalistic Romanticism in 19th C to Fascism of the 20th C.

Whilst yesterdays event was a vile attempt at indescriminate mass murder, the target are principally "apostate" Muslims, not you or I. Why else was Edgeware Road and Aldgate East chosen, homes of westernised Arab Muslims and British Bangladeshis?

The Islamists are fighting an unrealisable fight as they are trying to oppose the corrupting forces of modernity, however... it was the only things that would have emerged from failed Arab Nationalism where the governments are hopelessly corrupt though the West has just turned a blinded eye to things in their quest for oil, and a power struggle to exert influence relative to the now defunct Sovient Union... Liberalism & Capitalism vs. Communism & Atheism.

Furthermore, the economies of the Middle East aren't completely oil dependant and/or hopelessly corrupt, are excluded to do world trade with the EU and US because of trade tarrifs (the joys of Conservatism when "Economic Liberalism" actually means "Economic Protectionism"). So there are scores of unemployed educated young men, with nothing to do... so extremism is the only thing that will flourish.

The only long term solution to the Islamist problem is to actively and fully support democracies against tyrannies of the Middle East. However, in the short term, this would mean that the acts by the Islamists will get worse... but no different to the flundering a lobster does as it's thrown into a vat of boiling water.

If the West continues to think that the Islamists can be dodged by engaging on an unwinnable "War of Terrar!", is it only at the cost of deserting not just the Liberals, Feminists, Socialists and Democrats of the Arab world, but all its people.

It's like the neighbour where a frail mother and young child came to your dorr asking for help from an abusive husband, only to turn them away as their husband isn't the sort you associate with as he's a "bit of a thug" and slam the door shut telling to go on their way...
psoTFX wrote: Geez, how to introduce xenophobia into an extremely complex situation. Obivously, it's because it's an Islamic state ... the slow progress on EU membership can't possibly have anything to do with the poor shape of the economy (and the subsequent drain it'll likely be on an already overstretched budget), issues with human rights (like the continued lack of them except when under extreme pressure), the little matter of Cyprus and Greece, et al. And, if you're trying to suggest terrorism in Europe is in some way due to the behaviour of EU politicians towards Turkish memership I'm sorry to raise the point that of its leaders Tony Blair and the British Government have been the most fervent supporters of its membership and remained so after British interests (and citizens) were attacked there. Yet today we witness what will, more than likely though we cannot say for certain at this point, turn out to be an attack by so called "Islamic extremists". This is frankly one of the worst posts I've seen you make ...


I never siad Turkey should be admitted now, as it's true it doesn't meet the economic criteria yet. However, I see no reason why Turkey shouldn't should it achieve such goals. Turkey is currently heading down the road to accession with no guarantee it will get it... just a slight disservice don't you think? The only reason the French have spouted and foamed "NON!" boils down to the fact Turkey is too "un-European" (news speak for "a bit dark" I guess).

As much as I hate Tony Blair, his support of Turkey is something I commend and hope he does use his EU presidency to win over the other 24 completely. Oh, and kick backside regarding the CAP.

I don't refute that yesterdays events were caused by a bunch of Islamists... came across the below on Blogoshpere and it's comments are interesting read in all:

http://www.stalinism.com/shot-by-both-s ... p?pid=1239
Last edited by SHS` on Sat Jul 09, 2005 8:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
Jonathan “SHS`” Stanley • 史德信
Image

User avatar
xox
Registered User
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 8:21 am
Location: Poland

Post by xox » Fri Jul 08, 2005 8:50 pm

Hi

7 July a day a never forgot

[`]


http://www.poland.pl/news/article.htm?id=176634
Poland's President Aleksander Kwasniewski has said that Thursday's attacks in London are another proof that there can be no compromises in the struggle against terrorism. It is a struggle which calls for solidarity and extreme determination, Kwasniewski told Polish Radio.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_200 ... n_bombings


On Thursday 7 July 2005 a series of four bomb explosions struck London's transport system during the morning rush hour. Three London Underground trains were hit within half an hour, and a London Bus was hit 30 minutes later. At least 50 people were reported dead with the number of injured reported as high as 700 (with 22 of these in a serious or critical condition).


p0zdro
sorry for the grammar faults, English isn't my first language.

action_man
Registered User
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 10:15 am
Location: England Nr Europe
Contact:

Post by action_man » Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:00 pm

There was an interesting article in the Times today that i found quite interesting, it tries to explain a few things from another perspective...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFrien ... 70,00.html

User avatar
JAS4Yeshua
Registered User
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:53 am
Location: Marina, CA
Contact:

Post by JAS4Yeshua » Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:38 am

SHS` wrote:
JAS4Yeshua wrote: I'm sorry, but there's a big difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter." The terrorist actions are happening against innocent people. They are cowards that believe the only way they can achieve their goals are by killing those that cannot defend themselves.

Freedom fighters, historically, haven't attacked innocents (at least not intentionally, or in general). Their attacks were against military or political targets. Was that always the case, no, but that was the tendancy.


Please read what was said:

"One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter"

They are not the same person, and demonstrates the wonders of moral relativism, ie: The freedom fighter always does what is "fair game", and often involves killing people. Free fighters unfortunately don't go around armed with a bunch of flowers and sticking them into the rifles of their enemy...

I did read the statement, and had responded to it appropriately. I never said that freedom fighters walk around with flowers. They do fight and kill. The difference is in how the battles are waged. Terrorists wage war on innocent people. Freedom fighters fight back against their oppressors directly, and most of the time they don't involve innocents.

How could anyone call bombing a subway, blowing up a cafe, flying a plane into a tower, and other acts anything but terrorism? It isn't freedom fighting; they are acts of cowardice, plain and simple.

I have respect for freedom fighters, even if I don't agree with what they are fighting for. I have no respect for those who would kill innocents and try to stir up fear in a people, like spoiled bullies that have never grown up emotionally from their childish games, only have become more deadly with their actions.
Jason

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:45 am

JAS4Yeshua wrote: I did read the statement, and had responded to it appropriately. I never said that freedom fighters walk around with flowers. They do fight and kill. The difference is in how the battles are waged. Terrorists wage war on innocent people. Freedom fighters fight back against their oppressors directly, and most of the time they don't involve innocents.

Your government's use of these terms has never revealed such a pattern. They call Iraqi insurgents "terrorists" even when they directly attack American military troops. They called Afghan mujahedin "freedom fighters" even when they murdered innocents.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

User avatar
psoTFX
Former Team Member
Posts: 7425
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 8:50 pm

Post by psoTFX » Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:15 pm

SHS` wrote: My attempt at staying as far away from the 'Net is proving rather futile at the moment aswell, though as for "lame post", don't deny this could be true... just trying to be pragmatic whilst annoyed with the "kill all ayrabs" mentality that appears to have surfaced in matter of minutes from yesterdays events whilst coping with jet lag!

I strongly urge you Jon to actually look at what's happening and stop reading the Daily Star or the one or two comments here from the younger generation who are yet to learn (and they will) better. Your post did nothing whatsoever to help the situation.
SHS` wrote: Emphasis mine... further more, Islamism, in it's most important strain is a political movement derived from the European romantic movement, which attributed to Nationalistic Romanticism in 19th C to Fascism of the 20th C.

Jon, stop reading your encyclopedia and join the real world.
SHS` wrote: Whilst yesterdays event was a vile attempt at indescriminate mass murder, the target are principally "apostate" Muslims, not you or I. Why else was Edgeware Road and Aldgate East chosen, homes of westernised Arab Muslims and British Bangladeshis?

Jon, I've heard some sources suggest the bus attack was aimed at the BMA! The most common sense "link" actually being the presence of SOAS ... but even that I find tenuous at best. Till such time a specific link is found which ties the locations of these attacks to those specific locations for a given reason I tend to balk at them.

I could quite as easily point out that just across the road from Edgware Road is Paddington Green Police Station (for those who don't know what this is it's a high security facility where terrorists and similar detainees are held and interviewed) and thus the bomb there was intended to send a warning to the authorities. I could say that the attack at Aldgate (not Aldgate East ... different line, different station) through Liverpool Street was a warning to the "capitalist City of London". But ya know what, unless these turn out to be suicide attacks I think both ideas are highly questionable since it would be very difficult (however many dry runs you attempt), particularly in the rush hour to be sure a timer based bomb would explode at a very specific location rather than a general "locale" (some of these runs are no more than a minute or two ... and a red signal can quite easily hold you for that length of time and more).

My personal feeling (as someone who's actually used the underground for much of his life and who applies a rather more 'logical' and 'calculating' thought process rather than a mostly 'emotional' one) and assuming these were timer based devices is that there was probably an intention to detonate in or close to the major interchanges at Kings X (the bomb exploded after leaving Kings X), Liverpool Street (the bomb exploded on the approach to Liverpool St.) and possibly Paddington (maybe Baker Street, the bomb exploded as the train left Edgware Road for Paddington). You can see that if there is any major lasting problem with this attack it's the loss of Kings X underground (a very very busy interchange). As for the bus, well, there are various "options" there ... I tend to think given what several eye witnesses have reported that the guy/girl carrying the bomb was delayed and either detonated the bomb intentionally realising they wouldn't be able to reach their intended underground target but wishing to cause maximum casualties ... or the bomb was on a timer and detonated itself. Alternatively the suicide bomber idea persists and that's also a possible ... when the tube in London shuts down people stream onto the buses (I know having been there done that more than once!).
SHS` wrote: The Islamists are fighting an unrealisable fight as they are trying to oppose the corrupting forces of modernity, however... it was the only things that would have emerged from failed Arab Nationalism where the governments are hopelessly corrupt though the West has just turned a blinded eye to things in their quest for oil, and a power struggle to exert influence relative to the now defunct Sovient Union... Liberalism & Capitalism vs. Communism & Atheism.

You any relation to George Galloway? He uses the same style of speech "This is the Wests fault, this is Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq, they caused it all". You'll find no disagrements from me that the U.S. in particular and to a lesser extent the UK (and _many_ other European states including France) made some very very poor decisions in the past. But ya know what ... everyone is granted this extraordinary apparatus called a "brain". And that brain it is believed uniquely amongst the animal kingdom gives us an ability for independent thought and reasoning. Tony Blair and Western Governments in general have not forced any Arab or other state to do anything (other than retreat as in the case of Hussein from Kuwait) ... they made choices just as our governments did. It appauls me the claptrap people like Galloway come out with ... he for example applauded Saddam Hussein for his stance (a guy that was responsible for the murder of millions of people both his own and others) yet blames Tony Blair et al for those actions! I'm sorry, could Hussein et al not think for themselves? He tried to gain as much from U.S. "aid" as the U.S. hoped to gain from giving it.
SHS` wrote: Furthermore, the economies of the Middle East aren't completely oil dependant and/or hopelessly corrupt, are excluded to do world trade with the EU and US because of trade tarrifs (the joys of Conservatism when "Economic Liberalism" actually means "Economic Protectionism"). So there are scores of unemployed educated young men, with nothing to do... so extremism is the only thing that will flourish.

Wow, strange that over a hundred and fifty other nations aren't privy to the NAFTA/EFTA/G8/G13 bloks and yet don't resort to despotism or terrorism. Quit blaming the West for all the ills of the world.
SHS` wrote: The only long term solution to the Islamist problem is to actively and fully support democracies against tyrannies of the Middle East. However, in the short term, this would mean that the acts by the Islamists will get worse... but no different to the flundering a lobster does as it's thrown into a vat of boiling water.

And when we do ... there is as you yourself note a backlash. The UK, France and Germany have tried extremely hard on all levels to support the turning tide in Iran ... and look what's happened. The religious supreme rulers decided enough was enough and held an election which could only go their way.
SHS` wrote: I never siad Turkey should be admitted now, as it's true it doesn't meet the economic criteria yet. However, I see no reason why Turkey shouldn't should it achieve such goals.

Jon, sorry but that's not what you said, you said and I quote:
SHS` wrote: The only reason it isn't is that it is Muslim

That was xenophobic in the extreme. There are very good reasons Turkey's accession is taking a long time, many of which I noted.

ScionCrow
Registered User
Posts: 3621
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:59 am
Location: Darkness

Post by ScionCrow » Sat Jul 09, 2005 2:07 pm

Saoshyant wrote: I have no idea if these events were of those so-called fake terrorism (forged), but I doubt it due to the lack of professionalism. In anyway, I seriously hope some lone terrosist blows up Bush's ranch in Texas; it seriously makes more sense than killing innocent people.


I'm not one to debate on this or anything but, I strongly disagree. I'm in no way of supporting Bush and I am a resident of the US, matter of fact, I LIVE in Texas. This is just inhuman if you ask me... if you don't like the way things are here.. why not move to somewhere else? *shrugs*


As for the London bombing.. I've heard death toll is over 50 and still counting. Injuries going up over 1000.. I'm still a bit worried for one of my friends that live in London..
No longer supporting phpBB. PM or email me regarding support and you will be ignored. I'm fully done with phpBB and everything.

Locked

Return to “General Discussion”