My condolences to the dead and injured in London

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

As you all might be aware by now, London has suffered a terrible attack from terrorists where bombs went off in the subway and on a double decker bus killing over 37 people and leaving 700 wounded. This sort of action is just beyond my comprehension. Is terrorism for real, or is it the by-product of the development of modern civilisation? Moreover, what can be done to prevent it? More police? More armament? Protests? I wonder to what extent the attacks were related to the G8 summit. To protest against the G8 is acceptable, but it should be kept peaceful. These events will surely mean just one thing. If any international agreements are to be made in some country, there is apparently a severely increasing risk of terrorist attacks in that country, where not the military is the target or some president, but human civilians. I leave my condolences to the dead and injured and i hope that the world is not going to lose its mind...:(

[madjo]

I am lost for words, this attack is beyond my comprehension too. I really can't believe this happened.

Really strange feeling. Last year I visited a few of the places that got hit by those bombs today.

My condolences to the family of the people that got hurt or killed. :(

I know that the Londoners are strong enough to pull through this, and rebuild the city like never before.

[Tokelil]

This is surely a socking event. And it makes one think who's next... Im lost for words regarding what people doing this might think. It makes no sence. :hurt:

[Roj]

Moreover, what can be done to prevent it? More police? More armament?

My sincere condolences to the innocents and their families who were harmed in this atrocity.

That being said, to answer the above questions:

More police?

Yes, and good international police work at that.

More armament?

No.

A policy of staying out of other countries' business would serve far better. The madness perpetuated on 911 and fanned by the invasion of Iraq, an act fueled by financial greed and political gain, continues. Back then I said that the stupidity perpetuated by the US was just the start. This horrendous incident unfortunately bears me out.

Stay tuned people - it's not going to get better any time soon.

[Roj]

This is surely a socking event. And it makes one think who's next... Im lost for words regarding what people doing this might think. It makes no sence. :hurt:
Take a look at the countries that invaded Iraq. There's one potential short list.

[Paul]

More police?
Yes, and good international police work at that.
How would more police would have helped in any terrorist act that you can recall? Only thing more police would do it make more people feel like they are being treated as criminals.

I agree with your other point.

[Roj]

How would more police would have helped in any terrorist act that you can recall? Only thing more police would do it make more people feel like they are being treated as criminals.

I agree with your other point.
You misunderstand me. Police work also implies investigations, infiltrations, undercover work, intelligence gathering and other methods of ferreting out clues and information. Each country has its own special unit responsible; Israel has the Mossad, GB has Scotland Yard, America nas the (shudder) CIA and Canada has the RCMP and CSIS. Then there's Interpol. All need to work together. That's the kind of police work I am referring to.

[Paul]

This is surely a socking event. And it makes one think who's next... Im lost for words regarding what people doing this might think. It makes no sence. :hurt:
My condolences to everyone touched by this latest inhumane act.

To what Tokelil said, I think it's a complete red-herring to worry about 'terrorists'.
I'm so cynical about this stuff now that any time something like this happens I look to see what policy implementation Bush wants to distract us from.

[Roj]

My condolences to everyone touched by this latest inhumane act.

To what Tokelil said, I think it's a complete red-herring to worry about 'terrorists'.
I'm so cynical about this stuff now that any time something like this happens I look to see what policy implementation Bush wants to distract us from.
Hear hear.

[Paul]

You misunderstand me. Police work also implies investigations, infiltrations, undercover work, intelligence gathering and other methods of ferreting out clues and information. Each country has its own special unit responsible; Israel has the Mossad, GB has Scotland Yard, America nas the (shudder) CIA and Canada has the RCMP and CSIS. Then there's Interpol. All need to work together. That's the kind of police work I am referring to.
Nice in theory, but <cough>bullshit</cough>.

The 'intelligence community' couldn't even follow the trail of 'put options' on the airlines before 9/11. The world's financial system has the most detailed trail for transactions of anything. Of course, these systems are for making sure you and I play in line, some others - like the ones who made the 'put options' and operated 9/11 aren't affected by what the intelligence community offers.

Am I cynical enough for you yet?

[Roj]

Nice in theory, but <cough>bullshit</cough>.

The 'intelligence community' couldn't even follow the trail of 'put options' on the airlines before 9/11. The world's financial system has the most detailed trail for transactions of anything. Of course, these systems are for making sure you and I play in line, some others - like the ones who made the 'put options' and operated 9/11 aren't affected by what the intelligence community offers.

Am I cynical enough for you yet?
The Mossad knew (big surprize - that nation personifies nationalized paranoia and with good reason). They warned. They were ignored. 911 followed. That pretty much says it all for me.

[Paul]

The Mossad knew (big surprize - that nation personifies nationalized paranoia and with good reason). They warned. They were ignored. 911 followed. That pretty much says it all for me.
Says what? That the people Mossad warned decided to make a buck and buy airlines options on 9/10? Just innocently using an 'inside tip'?

Edit: or are you saying the intelligence community did know, thus they are effective (in at least knowing).

[Tokelil]

Wikipedia already have a page for the event with info etc. :cross-eye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

[Roj]

Says what? That the people Mossad warned decided to make a buck and buy airlines options on 9/10? Just innocently using an 'inside tip'?

Edit: or are you saying the intelligence community did know, thus they are effective (in at least knowing).
The intelligence community in Israel knew something was up and passed the alert to the American intelligence community which chose to ignore it.

The LAST country whose intelligence I'd ignore is Israel's.

[Nick555]

As the first Brit to reply to this thread, I would like to thank you all for you messages. The thoughts of myself & my family also go to the friends & relatives of those killed or injured.

As for what can be done, I think in a free country, if some crazy group really wants to place a bomb, they will do - it's just a matter of time. The level of difficulty their capability of doing this is reflected in the soft targets they were forced to choose & the time it has taken since Iraq. The G8 summit was in Edinburgh, around 500 miles away.

I don't believe that the invasions of Afganistan or Iraq has caused the attacks in Madrid or London, they are simply an excuse. If the invasions had not happened, some other excuse would have been found; support of the Saudi ruling elite, or just that we looked at them in a funny way.

I have just read an excellent article in the London Times which tries to explain why they did it, you can read it here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1684970,00.html).

Regards
Nick

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

I have just read an excellent article in the London Times which tries to explain why they did it, you can read it here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1684970,00.html).

Regards
Nick

The articles surely clarifies things but also portrays the situation in an extreme way. It's not that all Muslims despise the western world. If so, then here in the Netherlands we would surely have seen them running the streets celebrating after the death of Theo van Gogh, but instead the majority send their condolences. So we cannot speak of the 'Muslims' as the attackers, but the extremist faction of the Muslims, more noticeably Al Qaeda or the Jihad. It should have never come to pass that those factions gained so much power and support. Im sure you all agree that it must have happened through the interference of America in the middle east from e.g. the shipment of dozens of weapons to Iraq in the Gulf war so they could defend themselves against Iran. However, im not saying America should have let the middle east do its thing. It is clear now that Christians and non-believers (and other western religions) face a danger that we still need to get used to. Only when we understand the enemy, may precautionary measures be successful.

Okay, enough rambling for now :biggrin:

[Qaz]

As sad as it is, it's really not all that unique event: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article294701.ece

[acehole]

I'm going to stay out of the political discussion as I know I'll get too opinionated.

Luckily I'm in Sussex (50 miles away) at the moment, but I was up by London Bridge the night before :ermm:. Do we know of any forum members who are in London atm?

[Paul]

In November 2004, Newsweek reported that FBI agents stationed in London were not using the Tube. This in the context of intelligence that Al Qaeda was planning a "big bomb" attack on a major UK landmark during the US presidential election. [look for paragraph beginning "Some U.S. law-enforcement officers..."]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6514619/site/newsweek

[Nick555]

The articles surely clarifies things but also portrays the situation in an extreme way. It's not that all Muslims despise the western world. If so, then here in the Netherlands we would surely have seen them running the streets celebrating after the death of Theo van Gogh, but instead the majority send their condolences. So we cannot speak of the 'Muslims' as the attackers, but the extremist faction of the Muslims, more noticeably Al Qaeda or the Jihad. It should have never come to pass that those factions gained so much power and support. Im sure you all agree that it must have happened through the interference of America in the middle east from e.g. the shipment of dozens of weapons to Iraq in the Gulf war so they could defend themselves against Iran. However, im not saying America should have let the middle east do its thing. It is clear now that Christians and non-believers (and other western religions) face a danger that we still need to get used to. Only when we understand the enemy, may precautionary measures be successful.

Okay, enough rambling for now :biggrin:

Oh sorry, of course I did not mean all Muslims, I meant the extremist factions. I should have made that clear. I used the article as a way to show that there is no rational discourse we can have with these particular terrorists.

[Shadowraven]

I would like to extend my sincere condolences to all the people in the U.K. that were affected by this horrendous act. There can never be any kind of justification for this kind of behavior, but there are reasons.

I agree with Paul and Roj in much of what they've said here, but would like to add some more. Roj is right when he says that more effective Law Enforcement could help in these situations to some extent. That is, it could if the agencies involved would pay more attention to their own information. Some of them fail to act on what they do know for what seems like political reasons. Dubya was warned before 9/11 that terrorists were planning to use commercial airplanes as guided missiles. He was told several times. Then he ordered to offending people to stop talking about it. I also find it curious that on 9/11 there were no Israelis in the WTC. At least that is what I've read.

Now with Paul's information that picture becomes a little clearer, and puts the lie to everything Dubya has said. The fact is that 9/11 did Dubya a big favor. He was on the decline before that and not likely to get any better. He projected a very negative image to the country and there was (and still is) a lot of suspicion about his "winning" the election. I'm still not sure if he just chose to ignore the warnings because he is inept, or if he ignored them on purpose.

Dubya has also done nothing to make anyone in the U.S. any safer than they were before 9/11. Sure he has instituted a lot of visible changes to airline passengers, but has done nothing about the services people, and baggage handlers that have contact with the aircraft. He has done nothing to more effectively check containers that enter this country by ship. More than 90% of them still enter this country with no effective surveillance. The BBC twice managed to get uranium past port security into the U.S. This was well after 9/11. Gods only know what terrorists could have already gotten in. If nothing else to borders are surely porous enough. The fact is people in the U.S. are no safer now than they were before 9/11. But they have lost some freedoms.

The problems the world is now experiencing with extremist groups can be followed back in large part, to the policies the U.S. has followed for years. It has resulted in the frustration, and feeling of powerlessness, on the part of many Muslims. It is hardly any surprise that some of them are going to finally feel cornered enough to fight back in the only way they can. Before now they were completely ignored. Now they are not.

Unfortunately, Dubya has decided to play into the hands of the terrorists. He has done exactly what they wanted him to do. He is just too dim to see that, even though he was warned by better minds than his. His stubbornness and stupidity are not the virtues he makes them out to be. By attacking Iraq he has stirred up the extremists in the Muslim World and brought them together the way nothing else has. Now they are lashing out at the rest of the world and it will only get worse. If we really want to stop this sort of thing, we need to start staying out the politics of these countries. We can and should help them. But we should stop trying to tell them what to do and trying to run them. Then we might stop having attacks like the one we saw in London.

[matty28carter]

I think its a terrible thing that has happened in London. Our thoughts are with the families of the victims.

It was always known that 'something' would happen in London it was just a matter of time as to when.

[acushla]

Only when we understand the enemy, may precautionary measures be successful.

You can't be serious.

To know anything at all about this 'situation' is to know that to these extremists Westerner's and their way of life is something to be destroyed in a Holy War...a view that to these same extremists is supported and justified by what we consider a misinterpretation of the Koran.

By it's very definition we will never be 'safe' and we can expect more of the same for the rest of eternity.

Bombs in subways is certainly disconcerting but if you truly want something to worry about I'd suggest you start paying attention to China.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

You can't be serious.

To know anything at all about this 'situation' is to know that to these extremists Westerner's and their way of life is something to be destroyed in a Holy War...a view that to these same extremists is supported and justified by what we consider a misinterpretation of the Koran.

By it's very definition we will never be 'safe' and we can expect more of the same for the rest of eternity.

Bombs in subways is certainly disconcerting but if you truly want something to worry about I'd suggest you start paying attention to China.

Right, so you think all effort poored into anti-terrorism is all in vain? Surely not. I think that terrorism can be dealt with, but must be dealt with at its roots. There is no point trying to stop a suicide bomber in the middle of the crowd. No technology can stop him from reaching his goal. What we need is good anti-terrorism units that can prevent this individual from getting the bombs in the first place. The difficult part is that not all actions are from the same group and some actions are not even commanded from higher up the terrorist networks. Still we must hope for the best. The police and security forces in Britain (and in the Netherlands) were never so active as now.

I see no relation with terrorism and China. In fact, i believe you mean North Korea, the last pure communist country teaching its citizens to hate America and the western world. Still, neither North Korea is the biggest threat at the moment. The reason being is that it is extremely poor and has little power. All that its president does is to bluff. Of course any threat still needs to be treated with caution.

[acushla]

Right, so you think all effort poored into anti-terrorism is all in vain?

In a manner of speaking I do believe that anti-terrorism is all in vain and I will explain why. Success is not measured by how many plots you stop...failure is measured in how many plots you fail to stop. It would seem to me that you suggest a time will come that, by eliminating the root causes that breed terrorism, causes that we perceive to be poverty and hopelessness, we will eliminate terrorism. This is naive at best. I'll tell you why. Poverty and hopelessness might well contribute to terrorism, but in the context we are discussing there is a far deeper and fundamental factor at work, and that is hate. Hate by people who are convinced that their way is the only way and all others who represent something else (the devil) must die. Surely you see the difficulty here in thinking for a moment you can ever eliminate that.

As for my comment on China...I meant China...but not in the context of terrorism. Do you have any idea of the rapid growth of cutting edge technology and production of weapons of war that China has stockpiled in the past 5 years? Do you have any idea why?

I have said this before about Iraq...people seem to forget that the United States is NOT the only super power with military might. To not have acted for the true reasons (oil, duh) of being in Iraq would leave the door wide open for a power like China to step in...something that certainly would not have been in the United States best interest. Or yours.

Prior to responding to this post I would gently suggest you do a little bit of searching around in GOOGLE on some of my main points and see what you discover. You will be surprised. :o

Opinion is one thing...facts are something else. :globe: :foureyes:

[Paul]

Hate by people who are convinced that their way is the only way and all others who represent something else (the devil) must die.
Who was this comment referring to? Seems ambiguous given the light of many people's attitudes in the western and mid-eastern worlds.

As for my comment on China...I meant China...but not in the context of terrorism. Do you have any idea of the rapid growth of cutting edge technology and production of weapons of war that China has stockpiled in the past 5 years? Do you have any idea why?
Yes, and this armament increase is still only a fraction of the total and increase in American armament. Does arming one's self show an aggressive intent? Then what is America's intent?

Basically, everything we have seen today has been played out over and over and over again in human history. Politicians controlling the masses with fear, terrorists killing civilians because fighting the military directly is hopeless, large powers planning for war and calling it peace.

On this level humans are fucking dumb, basically. We're slightly better than animals fighting for scraps in the serengeti. If anyone on either side of these struggles would do anything intelligent the repetition of history might end.

The solution? Don't take sides in this retarded mentality.
BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD.

[acushla]

Who was this comment referring to? Seems ambiguous given the light of many people's attitudes in the western and mid-eastern worlds.


Yes, and this armament increase is still only a fraction of the total and increase in American armament. Does arming one's self show an aggressive intent? Then what is America's intent?

Basically, everything we have seen today has been played out over and over and over again in human history. Politicians controlling the masses with fear, terrorists killing civilians because fighting the military directly is hopeless, large powers planning for war and calling it peace.

On this level humans are fucking dumb, basically. We're slightly better than animals fighting for scraps in the serengeti. If anyone on either side of these struggles would do anything intelligent the repetition of history might end.

The solution? Don't take sides in this retarded mentality.
BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD.

Wow...Paul responding to one of MY posts. I feel honoured.

I am going to guess that your first question refers to the people who hate us...so that of course would first and foremost be the Muslim extremists. Over eight decades, dozens of groups have emerged that ascribe to this hatred. The culprits include Osama bin Laden's al-Qai'da network, the Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah in Lebanon, Egypt's Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Palestinian Hamas, and Muslim Brethren chapters throughout the world.

From rock-throwing to navigating planes into the World Trade Center, these organizations sanction the use of violence against American, Western, and even Muslim interests. Tunisian terrorist, Fouad Salah, who can best sum up the anti-Western ideology of fundamentalist Islam: "We Muslims should kill every last one of you (westerners)."

To state that China's military build up is but a fraction of the United States might be true...but it is an ever increasing fraction and one that is causing concern in the Pentagon. For a special report published in The Washington Post...go here:

http://washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20050626-122138-1088r.htm

As to the rest of your post, what is there to say. Of course you are right...but knowledge alone achieves nothing...which would lend credence to your summery...BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD.

Couldn't (and didn't) have said it better myself.

Shows us first hand just how difficult, if not impossible, change can be!

[Paul]

I am going to guess that your first question refers to the people who hate us...
No, my question was almost fasitious. The "Hate by people who are convinced that their way is the only way" is purpotrated by all sides. I heard from the 'right' on more than one occation that we need to 'go over there [middle east] and either kill them all or convert them to christianity".

Besides, 'terrorists' and that whole cause is such an illusion, I can't stand to talk about it much more.

That is a good China article, worth reading. The last sentence is giving me pause, "We are now in an arms race with a new superpower whose goal is to contain and overtake the United States."
I was just talking with me wife the other day how it seems China is so willing to buy America's debt, and that it could easily crush this economy in a week right now if it wanted to by mearly selling it's $US reserves. The US would lose much of it's economic leverage with a dollar worth about 6 cents. Naturally, American's being not very forward thinkers, are more than happy to have anyone pay to make their party last a little longer.

I truly wish America had much more humility and intelligence, less 'brute strength and ignorance' that seems to gain praise internally. Because I would rather a world exploited by American capitalism, than one brutalised by Chinese facism. With more humility and intelligence, it might come to be.

[acushla]

No, my question was almost fasitious. The "Hate by people who are convinced that their way is the only way" is purpotrated by all sides. I heard from the 'right' on more than one occation that we need to 'go over there [middle east] and either kill them all or convert them to christianity".

Besides, 'terrorists' and that whole cause is such an illusion, I can't stand to talk about it much more.

That is a good China article, worth reading. The last sentence is giving me pause, "We are now in an arms race with a new superpower whose goal is to contain and overtake the United States."
I was just talking with me wife the other day how it seems China is so willing to buy America's debt, and that it could easily crush this economy in a week right now if it wanted to by mearly selling it's $US reserves. The US would lose much of it's economic leverage with a dollar worth about 6 cents. Naturally, American's being not very forward thinkers, are more than happy to have anyone pay to make their party last a little longer.

I truly wish America had much more humility and intelligence, less 'brute strength and ignorance' that seems to gain praise internally. Because I would rather a world exploited by American capitalism, than one brutalised by Chinese facism. With more humility and intelligence, it might come to be.

Given the scope and depth of your thinking...it would be nice to see you post in the community more often.

Thank you for a fresh perspective.

[Shadowraven]

No, my question was almost fasitious. The "Hate by people who are convinced that their way is the only way" is purpotrated by all sides. I heard from the 'right' on more than one occation that we need to 'go over there [middle east] and either kill them all or convert them to christianity".

Besides, 'terrorists' and that whole cause is such an illusion, I can't stand to talk about it much more.

That is a good China article, worth reading. The last sentence is giving me pause, "We are now in an arms race with a new superpower whose goal is to contain and overtake the United States."
I was just talking with me wife the other day how it seems China is so willing to buy America's debt, and that it could easily crush this economy in a week right now if it wanted to by mearly selling it's $US reserves. The US would lose much of it's economic leverage with a dollar worth about 6 cents. Naturally, American's being not very forward thinkers, are more than happy to have anyone pay to make their party last a little longer.

I truly wish America had much more humility and intelligence, less 'brute strength and ignorance' that seems to gain praise internally. Because I would rather a world exploited by American capitalism, than one brutalised by Chinese facism. With more humility and intelligence, it might come to be.

I find myself in agreement with most everything you just said. As for the U.S. doing anything reasonable in the world community, especially towards China, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. They could easily hurt us if they wanted to. It's just not to their advantage. We're too good a customer right now.

Terrorism is not what Dubya and his crowd of braying Asses say it is. Nor does it exist for the reasons he says. It exists because some powerful men have taken advantage of a people's frustration towards the West to put foward their own agenda as the people's. That is another recurring theme through history, as I'm sure you already know.

One thing you can bet on, few people, including politicians, have read, or even understand, history. If they did, they would have already learned it's lessons. That is if they could manage to get past their own arrogance. People always assume that their current situation is different from earlier ones. They can't see that it is no different. Just the time, theme, and parties involved have changed.

Don't look for the U.S. to do anything intelligent anytime soon.

[acushla]

I also find it curious that on 9/11 there were no Israelis in the WTC. At least that is what I've read.

Dubya has also done nothing to make anyone in the U.S. any safer than they were before 9/11.

The problems the world is now experiencing with extremist groups can be followed back in large part, to the policies the U.S. has followed for years.

By attacking Iraq he has stirred up the extremists in the Muslim World and brought them together the way nothing else has. Now they are lashing out at the rest of the world and it will only get worse. If we really want to stop this sort of thing, we need to start staying out the politics of these countries. We can and should help them. But we should stop trying to tell them what to do and trying to run them. Then we might stop having attacks like the one we saw in London.

No, no, no, no.

There weren't any Israelis in the WTC on September 11th? I bet there weren't any Eskimos or people from the Congo (to give two examples) either. What does that mean exactly? I'll tell you. It means there weren't any Israelis in the WTC on September 11th. Period.

If you read your History you would know that there have been problems with Muslim extremist groups before the US was even a country. Long before.

Again...extremists in Muslim countries were 'stirred up' before even the Prophet Mohammad appeared on the scene. If you've read your history you would know that there was a ruling faction of Muslims who, afraid of the teachings of Mohammad and the effect they had on the population, were plotting to kill Him, which resulted in Mohammad taking flight under cover of darkness to leave the city he was born in.

You might want to seek out 'The Last Sermon of Prophet Mohammad' to understand why some sought to silence him.

Bush has done nothing to make the citizens safer.

What if, in the end, the truth is that nothing and nobody can do anything to make the people safer?

What if I was to suggest that the primary purpose of all the 'show' of airport security and the like was to present an image of security for the people to have them think they were safer? I believe there is something noble in that approach.

In present History the invasion of Iraq did nothing to bring the extremists together in a way we hadn't seen before.

That honour would go to the successful attack on the WTC...an attack that we all know involved very few men and a very simple plan. That success is what brought the extremists together. That one act made them aware that they were not powerless, that there were ways to fight a perceived enemy, and you needn't be too organized to accomplish your goals. It is hard to fight men who are willing to blow themselves up in the name of a cause.

You may find this distasteful, but I am not altogether convinced that Bush is wrong. What I do know is that the US really has no choice now but to see this thing through. I only hope I will be around in 20 years to see if he was right or wrong.

The final point I would like to make is this...if I was living under the rule of a brutal and repressive government, I would think it the duty of a 'free' nation such as Great Briton or the US to come and liberate me and show me there is a better way to live my life. You might argue that this is not what the US is really doing...and I would disagree with you. Why? The main objective might not be a concern for the population...but it is definitely in the mix, and should all of this prove to be defined by us (it is the victors who write History) as a success I can assure you the people will be living very different lives from that which they have known. And grateful for it. Remember, we read about the few...the ones with an agenda of violence and chaos. Methods by which they hope to circumvent Iraq becoming a Democracy in a desperate attempt to retain power. Do not be misled to think for one moment that this somehow reflects the will of the majority. Remember...over 8 million, think about that, 8 million Iraqis braved death in order to vote. Those are the people you should be concentrating on.

A final comment. I had my shoes shined the other day in the heart of Toronto. As the man began to work on my shoes I asked him where he was from. He answered Iraq, and so a conversation began about the current situation. He made it very clear how much he despised the US etc, etc, and as I listened it suddenly occurred to me to interrupt him and ask the following question: 'If all Iraqis were told they could have a ticket to leave Iraq and go anywhere in the world they desired...where would they go?

Without a hesitation he stated his answer.

USA.

I rest my case.

[Qaz]

The final point I would like to make is this...if I was living under the rule of a brutal and repressive government, I would think it the duty of a 'free' nation such as Great Briton or the US to come and liberate me and show me there is a better way to live my life.

Let me put it this way.

No f**king way.

It most certainly isn't the duty of any nation to interfere with internal matters of any other nation. Not by itself.

Without a hesitation he stated his answer.

USA
Did you ask him why?

[Willow of Oz]

Let me put it this way.

No f**king way.

It most certainly isn't the duty of any nation to interfere with internal matters of any other nation. Not by itself.


I concur. There are a lot of periods in history where one race/nation has come along and forcibly shown another people a better way to live their life. Arguably, it wasn't all sunshine and roses for the people who were liberated.

And as to why the guy said the USA? I'm guessing because he hadn't been to a wide brown land Down Under.

[acushla]

It most certainly isn't the duty of any nation to interfere with internal matters of any other nation. Not by itself.


Did you ask him why?

To say it isn't the duty of any nation to interfere with internal matters of other nations is akin to saying that it is not your responsibility to intervene with your neighbour who, when he isn't keeping his two seven year old daughters chained to the basement wall, is busy raping them.

As a matter of fact I did ask him why. His answer can be summed up in one word: OPPORTUNITY.

[acushla]

I concur. There are a lot of periods in history where one race/nation has come along and forcibly shown another people a better way to live their life. Arguably, it wasn't all sunshine and roses for the people who were liberated.

And as to why the guy said the USA? I'm guessing because he hadn't been to a wide brown land Down Under.

Actually, there have been rumours that the USA is close to making a decision as to whether or not they are going to come down and liberate you guys! :)

[Qaz]

To say it isn't the duty of any nation to interfere with internal matters of other nations is akin to saying that it is not your responsibility to intervene with your neighbour who, when he isn't keeping his two seven year old daughters chained to the basement wall, is busy raping them.
You call a police, you don't go smack him with a baseball bat.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

You call a police, you don't go smack him with a baseball bat.

Indeed that's why the UN was set up. I do realise the UN hasnt been all that great either (with corruption and all) in the past few years, but it's primary role still is to act as the 'police' in the world. Furthermore, i suppose that all important actions are negotiated with the UN members first before carried out. It's sort of a democratic system were it not for the fact that some countries have the right to veto... Still it is better than if some nation, like the USA, is allowed to go its own way without consulting other nations. That's how wars are started. Bush almost couldnt restrain himself when he decided to attack Iraq. In the end a lame excuse was made up to go to war, but if it were not for the UN, America would have gone to war straight away with probably an even greater distaste from other countries and all consequences that would follow would not have been pleasant ones. In the case of North Korea, it would seem that to interfere is not appropriate at the moment, so there is also a question of timing...And any interference with other countries, including going to war, need to be backed up with contingency plans and plans dealing with how a demolished country can be put back onto its feet. As with president Bush, the decision to remove Saddam from power may have been appropriate, but the way he rushed things and not having any means of making sure Iraq would be stabilised after the war was a great mistake. Bush couldnt help the citizens in a demolished Iraq and anarchists and terrorists saw their chances to take advantage of the situation. So i say it is allright for a superpower to interfere but only under the flag of the UN if you know what i mean.

[acushla]

You call a police, you don't go smack him with a baseball bat.

I make my point...you intervene.

The real point here is that we have certain standards of morality and behaviour and there are means by which those standards are enforced.

Just like the neighbour who is brutally abusing his children which is contrary to our 'standards' and we call the 'police' to 'correct' the situation...so it should be in the International community.

If you know what I mean.

[Qaz]

Just like the neighbour who is brutally abusing his children which is contrary to our 'standards' and we call the 'police' to 'correct' the situation...so it should be in the International community.
No arguments there. I just don't think that any single nation should be that 'police'.

[acushla]

Bush almost couldn't restrain himself when he decided to attack Iraq. In the end a lame excuse was made up to go to war,

...And any interference with other countries, including going to war, need to be backed up with contingency plans and plans dealing with how a demolished country can be put back onto its feet.

As with president Bush, the decision to remove Saddam from power may have been appropriate, but the way he rushed things and not having any means of making sure Iraq would be stabilised after the war was a great mistake. Bush couldn't help the citizens in a demolished Iraq and anarchists and terrorists saw their chances to take advantage of the situation.

So i say it is alright for a superpower to interfere but only under the flag of the UN if you know what i mean.

I do not understand the thinking that allows somebody to suggest that Bush made up some 'lame excuse' to go to war with Iraq.

People seem to conveniently forget the fact that not once, not twice, but three times the 20 voting members of the UN voted UNANIMOUSLY that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction...and three times a deadline was given to Saddam to comply with inspections and reveal the locations of these weapons.

Three times he failed. The fact that he failed because he (for sake of argument) did not have any is beside the point...and something only known in hindsight. The fact is 20 nations thought he did...the US being but one of those countries.

The fact that the administration was patient enough to endure three votes and three deadlines speaks highly to their desire to comply with the will of the majority...but when faced with the prospect of yet another vote and another deadline...well...enough is enough. Time for somebody to act...not sit around debating an issue you all agree on and do nothing while the 'enemy' gets stronger.

I often wonder how the world would have viewed Bush had mass stockpiles of 'weapons of mass destruction' been found. Let me guess. Oh, I know...HERO comes to mind. You might have others. Let me know.

So there weren't weapons...so what? We all know there are many other reasons for us to be there. If you want to point a finger of shame...take it away from Bush and point it at Saddam. When the truth of an imminent invasion was before him, he was given the opportunity to spare his country a war and remove himself in exile to a willing country' of which there were several. He choose to stay. An example of his complete disregard and disdain for the people of Iraq. Perhaps we had no right to ask him to leave...that is not the point. The point is we were coming in and the only thing that would prevent carnage to the level we saw it was for Saddam to leave. A classic example of John F. Kennedy's statement 'Ask not what your country can do for you...ask what you can do for your country.'

To accuse Bush 'to not having any means of making sure Iraq would be stabilised after the war' is to believe the propaganda of a left wing press.

News thrives on the negative...the few...the things that go 'boom'. In no way does this represent the greater reality of what is being achieved. Is it going as quickly as people would like? Of course not...but you had better believe it IS happening. In the last speech Bush gave before the nation he repeated the fact that 'This only has one outcome.'

Think about that...'This only has one outcome.'

Sooner or later.

One last comment...Rex, buddy, pal...friend...leave my sayings alone.

If you know what I mean. :)

[acushla]

No arguments there. I just don't think that any single nation should be that 'police'.

I got to thinking about this a little further. I am not certain, in this example, that I would necessarily wait around for the Police to show up.

Perhaps I would take that baseball bat.

I think it is events like this which are covered under 'justifiable homicide'. It is not my life I am saving...it is the lives of others.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

One last comment...Rex, buddy, pal...friend...leave my sayings alone.

If you know what I mean. :)

I dont agree with your beliefs about Bush doing the right thing and all but im not going to be bothered to get drawn in a long discussion so i think i'll leave it. Back on topic about the recent bombings, i will not believe that nations should sit back and watch it happen. Only God knows how many terrorist attacks have already been prevented. Not all things appear in the news as you say only the 'negative' things seem to get the most attention.

[Shewolf]

More police is not really an answer. Might help..but not an answer.
Sad fact is, there have always been terrerists and there always will be. The only reason they are so much more high priority now is that the media is always on about it and communications travel faster. We will just do what we always do..we do as much as possible to track down and deal with people like these and we do not let them change our way of life or our will. We carry on.

I have had my worries about people I know in London, but thankfully none were involved.
My thoughts go out to all concerened.

[acushla]

Sad fact is, there have always been terrerists and there always will be. The only reason they are so much more high priority now is that the media is always on about it and communications travel faster. We will just do what we always do..we do as much as possible to track down and deal with people like these and we do not let them change our way of life or our will. We carry on.



Well said.

[acushla]

I feel bad for Roj.

You know...lying around on a beach and all... drinking overproof rum till he passes out.

I feel bad because I see all the fun he is missing here in this forum...I can almost read the 'hammering' now.

Maybe, just maybe, they have Internet in the DR and he will be sober long enough to check in and tell us how we all should think. :cheeky:

Maybe. :)

[BALTY]

Yes, I know all the Liberals here in this forum hate the so called RIGHT WING, or THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT! Sometimes only because they sound righteous, or better than the rest of us. But knowing or seeing where they come from may shed a better light. Yes, some far right wingers ARE nuts!!! Just as far leftists ARE too!!!
The Idea of a true democracy sounds good, hey communist does too, by its roots. But we all know from "history" these things don't work. In free society, there are checks and balances of some sort, in order to keep the soverty afloat, and not run-a-muck. And Blah Blah Blah, you've heard it before.

If you remember ...
The UN has key leaders from certain countries, that had been doing business under the table, (illegally by UN mandates) all along with Iraq we now know! Does anybody care about that. Hell Saddam should have been outta there long before, as the nation would have been penniless, meaning that the sanctions may have worked if we ALL ( cough cough - UN) would let it. I know the family kept most of the illegal funds, but it trickled through enough to keep them alive as long as it did.
Personally I think the only mistake Bush made was getting on his soapbox to a point where the USA couldn't back down again (a fourth time). But leaders of the world's economy need to act. We all knew of the acts of inhumanity Saddam emposed on it's own people. We just waited long enough, and yes, used that bad info, as a rallying entry point, but did what it needed to at the time!

I like you Paul, for all you do here, and for your good wisdom on matters such as these. But the last thing you'd mentioned about .. "The solution? Don't take sides in this retarded mentality.
BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD."
All sounds beautiful, but doesn't Get-er-done!
actually sounds a little Miss Universie!! (he he)!

Bush never got into this mess because of the terrorist there. But they are there now, under the false pretenses of killing the "great Satan". We need to see it through like it or not. Also need to worry about North Korea, and Iran too! The longer this plays out in Iraq, the least likely we'll mess into these two countries' affairs. Iran knows that! Hhmmm, think I'll throw some more money there, in my own neighborhood... good distraction.


Should we have messed into Hitler’s affairs? Yes? If so...
Would you then say we entered the war to early, too late, or just the right time? I know the USA gets accused of joining WWII late (us wimps- right?). I've heard some one mentioning that in here not long ago! But being of political mind, and running a political state are two different things.
The only thing I see for certain. The USA hasn't been late since.

Anyway this could go on between us all here in this forum forever... you know... bickering, in stead of liquoring!

Rock on~

[Shewolf]

Firstly..I'm kinda shocked that you guys could turn a thread about people dying into a debate.
Secondly...the USA wern't early with Iraq..they were well late. I believe they had a chance at Saddam years ago and failed to kill him.

[BALTY]

Firstly..I'm kinda shocked that you guys could turn a thread about people dying into a debate.
Secondly...the USA wern't early with Iraq..they were well late. I believe they had a chance at Saddam years ago and failed to kill him.
True Dat!
God bless~

[acushla]

... bickering, in stead of liquoring!



Classic! :beer:

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Firstly..I'm kinda shocked that you guys could turn a thread about people dying into a debate.
Secondly...the USA wern't early with Iraq..they were well late. I believe they had a chance at Saddam years ago and failed to kill him.

Wait a minute, who is joining the debate now? ;) Look i mean no offense here, but sometimes it is good to hear other peoples opinions about the way terrorism is dealt with and how it should be dealt with. Mourning and grieving doesnt get us anywhere and i respect those who have been victim to remorseless killing that is still quite alien to us in the western world.

[acushla]

Wait a minute, who is joining the debate now? ;) Look i mean no offense here, but sometimes it is good to hear other peoples opinions about the way terrorism is dealt with and how it should be dealt with. Mourning and grieving doesn't get us anywhere and i respect those who have been victim to remorseless killing that is still quite alien to us in the western world.

I totally agree with this.

If anything, a discussion of this nature serves to honour their deaths...it is hard for me to explain this concept, but it gives some meaning and some productivity to the how and the why of their deaths.

The deaths should act as a catalyst for discussion...otherwise they fade away into anonymity and an opportunity for learning has been forever lost.

Perhaps there is someone with greater skills of communication who could articulate the ideas I am attempting to convey.

[Shewolf]

Perhaps it would be more respectful in a diferent thread.

[Heigar]

Perhaps it would be more respectful in a diferent thread.

I agree this thread was for sending condolences not a debate on terrorism there are plenty of other threads on terrorism that all this debating would have fit right in.

[acushla]

If you go back to the beginning of this thread and work forward...guess what...it's Roj's fault.

And here I am thinking that moderators were supposed to lead by example! :puzzled:

Trust him to disappear just when he has some explaining to do. :ponder:

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

I agree this thread was for sending condolences not a debate on terrorism there are plenty of other threads on terrorism that all this debating would have fit right in.

So perhaps a moderator can fix this, if they dont mind the extra work...then we might be able to continue to debate this subject of terrorism without making duplicate threads.

[Willow of Oz]

I got to thinking about this a little further. I am not certain, in this example, that I would necessarily wait around for the Police to show up.

Perhaps I would take that baseball bat.

I think it is events like this which are covered under 'justifiable homicide'. It is not my life I am saving...it is the lives of others.

yep, snip the thread off somewhere else.
And shewolf: you're only shocked because you haven't been here long enough to become jaded - these guys would hijack a thread commemorating the virtues of Mother Teresa and use it to discuss terrorism and the current political climate.

So anyway:
The problem becomes, where do you draw the line?
The dude next door bought a gun. I therefore launch a preemptive strike.
A guy starts getting fresh with my daughter. I smack his head in with a baseball bat to protect her virtue.
The parents next door make their children work the entire weekend cleaning and slaving away and never let them enjoy their childhood. I get the welfare people in to take the kids away and give them a better life.
Liberation.
My ideals.

Your comment, Acushla, about the US stepping in to 'liberate' Australia was actually wryly received. I've read with amusement various incidents over the past few years from both a local (Oz) and international perspective, and it's interesting drawing comparisons. 'Illegal boatpeople' or 'asylum seekers'? Was our centre for such people suitable to house them (and their families) or are we putting men, women and indeed children in what amounted to a maximum security prison? Our media tended to portray it as something not particularly nice, but hey, you don't just give these immigrants cable TV. We aren't trying to encourage these actions. Strict and harsh accommodation, but fair. People I know who worked on some of the security systems certainly wouldn't have described it thusly.
It's almost farcical at times, until that little ball of dread in the pit of your stomach starts reminding you of how things can end up if push comes to shove and one of the larger countries decides it doesn't feel like playing games anymore. Sure, it'll be nice when one of their politicians comes over twenty years later and says "sorry y'all" but it's going to be cold comfort to those living here with past rash decisions leaving ongoing ramifications.

EVERY country has a set of citizens they treat like crap. You might not see it, and it often won't get a lot of publicity (especially within that country) but it happens. Whether you're talking racial, religious, the poor, the uneducated, the fill-in-the-blank, I don't care, it happens. To various degrees most assuredly, but it happens. And that's exactly why you can't just stomp over other countries.
Raise issues, discuss, complain, compromise and assist.

[acushla]

And that's exactly why you can't just stomp over other countries.
Raise issues, discuss, complain, compromise and assist.

Since this thread does not appear to have been redirected I will carry on. Damn that Roj. When will he learn. Somebody give him a good talking to. Toe?

I am not clear on your last two sentences. Do you mean that instead of stomping over other countries you should raise issues, discuss, complain, compromise and assist? I will go with this.

I am acutely aware of the difference between language and ideas and real life.

In the world of ideas it would seem reasonable to suggest that you can't just stomp over other countries...in the real world it happens everyday.

In the world of ideas it would seem reasonable to suggest that you should raise issues, discuss, complain, compromise and assist...in the real world that happens every day.

Meanwhile the stomping continues.

I remember seeing a program on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a Jew being interviewed broke it all down this way: If it is a question of killing or being killed...then I'm going to kill.

Pretty basic and not too difficult to understand.

It's still a Jungle out there.

As to where do you draw the line...not knowing doesn't mean you don't draw one.

[madjo]

For your consideration: A letter to the terrorists, from London:
http://www.lnreview.co.uk/news/005167.php
Normally that site is not really serious about it's articles, but I couldn't let this one escape you all.

[acushla]

For your consideration: A letter to the terrorists, from London:
http://www.lnreview.co.uk/news/005167.php
Normally that site is not really serious about it's articles, but I couldn't let this one escape you all.

Hmmm...seems that the person (did you notice there is no credit given. Oversight?) who wrote this is just a tad angry.

More importantly, it would seem to me that contained behind the words is a very important idea of the reason 'why' the attacks.

Speaking in broad strokes it is evident that the area of the world inhabited by the attackers has not changed significantly in centuries. If you look at the west you will quickly see that our advancements in virtually every, if not all, fields that comprise civilization, have come a long way.

It has been suggested that this discrepency in achievement is a major contributing factor to the resentment that leads to haterd of the West and the quality of life we enjoy.

Having said all that I am dissappointed by the letter. Dissappointed because it is reactionary and really serves no positive purpose...other than perhaps making the person feel better for the time he/she wrote it.

My mother always taught me never to bring myself down to the same level of those who attack me. Something she told me just about every day. :cheeky:

[Shadowraven]

This is an interesting concept, someone quoting history to me. Acushla, you of all people here, should know that I most definitely DO read history. I also try to keep abreast of the rest of the news that my government discourages being reported.

Yes there have been extremists in the Muslim world for a long time. There have also been extremists in the West, in India, and in Asia. The U.S. has been mostly screwing with the ones in the Middle East. Our policies have had a great negative effect there overall.

For one thing, remember the Shah? That's why the Iranian's dislike us so. The Saudi's are mad because we seem to be influencing their government so much. Not to mention our support for Israel. They have continued to ignore their own agreements with the Palestinians and the U.N. They keep doing things that directly provoke the Muslims and are just plain wrong. The U.S. does nothing about this, even though we could.

It's disingenuous to say that we needed to intervene in Iraq because of its government. They are hardly the only country to be living under a brutal dictator. Are you suggesting that we should go attack all those other countries too? Dubya wanted to attack Iraq ever since he first got into office. It's hardly any surprise he finally did. We need to learn to stay out of the politics of other countries. That is, unless we want to treat everyone the same, and get the same in return.

To say everyone agreed that they had WMD's is silly. All the weapons inspectors for the U.N. said that they did not, and we have not found any to this day. So his original reason for attacking them holds no more water now than it first did. He didn't show any patience whatsoever. He just had to wait until it looked like he could do it. He still should have done it through the U.N. His intelligence was in direct contradiction to the intelligence our allies had.

Dubya has lied so often, about so many things, it amazes me that ANYONE could still support him. He certainly didn't go into Iraq to make their life a better one. He tried to turn it, illegally, into a Neocons wet dream. He tried to sell off assets he had no right to. When he was found out, and people started to fight harder, he backed off.

His insistence on using too little force, in direct contradiction to what his best military people told him, made the situation worse. Especially when his policies started forcing a lot of people there to start losing their jobs due to his illegal tampering. I mean illegal according to what behavior treaties say is allowed by an occupying country.

To say that 9/11 probably emboldened the extremists is probably true. But his illegal war in Iraq has been the greatest recruitment poster he could have ever provided to the opposition. They can point to Iraq and say, "see how bad they are, you're next". From what I've read it is generally accepted that everything he has done so far has just made a bad situation even worse.

As for protecting the country, there is little he could truly do. But the stuff he could do, he's refused to. Better controls on airport service employees would help, and he's done nothing. Scanners large enough to check every container coming into our ports would be another, and could make a difference. But he won't do that either. The simple fact is that he doesn't want to do anything except rape U.S. citizens for his big corporate friends. He's certainly done nothing yet to help the average person, or our allies.

IMHO he is a dismal failure as a president, and a person. I believe him and Cheney to be one of the more corrupt administrations to have held that office. You tell me to read history, and maybe world news. I suggest you look more closely. I've formed my opinion of him based on his actions, or inaction, and on nothing else.

To call the media in the U.S. "liberal" implies that you are not paying attention. Yes there are a number of liberal people in the media. Liberals tend to be social activists and want to make a contribution to outing the lies our leaders tell us. But the media is not owned by Liberals, it is owned by Conservative corporations, and they control what is reported. Listen to the journalists when they say that they are afraid to report what they see for fear of being fired. Don't believe me? Go to one of their professional sites and read about it.

The U.S. media does not do much in the way of true investigative reporting on our government. The only one that does is PBS and NPR. The U.S. Conservative government is doing everything they can to cut their funding as much as possible too. Coincidence you might say, I think not. They don't want any kind of independent press in this country like the BBC is in the U.K. The BBC may not be perfect, but it's better than most U.S. news services.

[acushla]

His intelligence was in direct contradiction to the intelligence our allies had.

All right…let’s do this again.

Are you saying that the UN did not vote unanimously 3 times that (they believed) Iraq were in possession of ‘weapons of mass destruction’?

Are you saying that the US simply waited until after the 3rd vote and used the 4th vote as an ‘excuse’ to go in?

Seems to me the US does not need an ‘excuse’ to do anything it wants to do.

He still should have done it through the U.N. His intelligence was in direct contradiction to the intelligence our allies had.

Oh, really? So all those Allies who sit with the US in the UN were voting that Saddam had weapons because…they were bored? They thought it would be funny? They didn’t know how to vote ‘No’?

When America finally decided to act you're saying that Briton, our Allie, said to themselves...'You know, our intelligence says the US is wrong but hey, lets go to war with them anyway. It's not as if we've got anything better to do than to anger all the citizens in our country.

All the weapons inspectors for the U.N. said that they did not...

No, what they said was that they hadn’t found any. Not the same thing.

So his original reason for attacking them holds no more water now than it first did.

Monday morning quarterbacking is always fun…however you play it you can always win. I repeat: I often wonder how the world would have viewed Bush had mass stockpiles of 'weapons of mass destruction' been found. Let me guess. Oh, I know...HERO comes to mind. You might have others. Let me know.

I did not say, or even imply, that the American mainstream press was Liberal. What I did say was: To accuse Bush 'to not having any means of making sure Iraq would be stabilised after the war' is to believe the propaganda of a left wing press.

Of course there was a plan...the elections themselves was a part of that plan.

If you want to say that the US did not anticipate or were prepared for the extent of the resistance they would encounter in the aftermath of 'victory' ...well...now you're saying something that is true. Is that a fault? Is that something they should have known? If they had known should that have been enough of a deterrent to scrap the entire mission? What is the mission? Could you for one moment consider that perhaps Iraq is but one piece of a larger picture that when put together in the end makes for, at the very least, a better and more secure world for the US to operate in?

Somebody is always on top and it looks as if it's going to be us. Unless of course China has other ideas.

I pointed out the 8 million who risked their lives to vote. How does 100, 200, 1000, 10,00, or even 100,000 others who are against having those 8 million vote more important of fighting a truer fight than the 8 million? Why are they more deserving of all the press they get as opposed to the 8 million? Perhaps 8 million people who welcome somebody giving them an opportunity to decide their own future rather than live in terror under a regime led by a brutal dictator is just to much of an endorsement...something that the leftist media obviously prefers to ignore. Too much thinking for them perhaps? Do you suggest that there is nothing good to be found in the decision to go in? Not even the hope that perhaps the mess and uncertainty of that part of the world that has the seeds to grow to eventually have an impact that would severely undermine US interests...not even the hope that that situation could be turned around so the threat no longer existed? It has been said before, if you want peace you have to go to war. When you break it all down, there are two enemy's who have very different visions for the future. Our future. Personally I cheer for my side. Who do you cheer for?

I found it significant that you were silent on the Iraqi shining my shoes who said that every Iraqi would move to the US in a heartbeat. What do you say to that? Where do you read that? Most importantly…what do you say if you knew that to be true? :globe: :foureyes:

I've said this before...it seems pointless to discuss how we got there, or if we should have done this or not done that. The fact of the matter is we're there. The only thing to discuss now is, having created the situation we find ourselves in, what is the best course of action we can take to create an outcome that produces the best results for everyone concerned.

No matter how long that may take.

I concur with you that you probably do read History. What I think though is that you do not bring an objectivity to that reading...something that is imperative to a truer understanding. You are too quick to judge, and then denounce, so in the end you simply use 'History' to further your own agenda.

'History' is NOT opinion. :bulb:

[acushla]

OK...is it just me or does anybody else find it odd that three of the 'suicide bombers' reportably involved in the London bombings were identified by papers found on their bodies?

[Willow of Oz]

Meanwhile the stomping continues.

This was quite funny. So I had to quote it :-)


I remember seeing a program on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a Jew being interviewed broke it all down this way: If it is a question of killing or being killed...then I'm going to kill.

Yes, but the problem is that it might not be a question of kobk. If it is not, then you risk turning it into a kobk situation by assuming it is.
Person's A and B start off as, if not friends, then acquaintences.
Person A then goes and arms himself. Let's call him Country A. Person B sees person A arm himself, so he starts thinking it's a kobk situation,so he arms himself too. Let's call him Country R. Country A notices this, and decides to acquire more arms. Country R ... but I'm sure you see where this is leading. Sure, it's a country example, but the same principles apply to people too. Once you start assuming you've got some sort of kobk situation you reinforce that same concept in your opposition.
A palestinian in your example will read that story and be persuaded that he needs to arm himself and prepare to kill himself. (note to self - reword that sentence).

[BALTY]

I like the way we view the worldly events in here. Very "biased" a lot of you!
Liberal vers. conservatism.
Both sides with intelligent thinking, but obviously latent with bias for Bush or against.
You soak in what you want to hear, ignoring a lot of facts that are media biased to begin with.

We all pray over our griefs
We fall prey because of our beliefs
We all lie when our government pries
We all cry when government lies
Who's to blame in this game of politics?
Who gives fame to leaders and heretics?
God knows who and where they'll aim us
But it is us who allow them to become so famous!
Famous, infamous, does it matter?
We need to stick together, even if the latter
For hanging together here, may seem desperate
Without cohesiveness, we’ll all hang separate!
Balty

"Griefs" → poetic license
Last two lines I give credit to Ben Franklin. Great American!
;)

[Shadowraven]

I didn't comment on the Iraqi shining your shoes because it didn't seem worth giving a response to. Of course other people view this country that way. What has that go to do with anything? Many have viewed other Western countries in the same light. Opportunity. Ask our other members here about that. America is not the only country who provides that. Wasn't that Iraqi you were talking to in Canada?

I also forgot to comment on something you said earlier when I mentioned no Israelis in the WTC. I mentioned none being there because it was curious. From my understanding there were almost ALWAYS some in there. That's why I mentioned it. Is it true? I can't say for sure, but I remember the source as being generally believable.

Am I somewhat biased now, yes. But that is only because I see us heading down a path already traveled. Since I do read history I see some of those signs that worry me. Saying that I twist what in read is not really a fair statement. None of you truly know me well, but people who do will tell you that I try to go out of my way to be fair to the opposition. I try to see if I might be wrong in how I see things. I will look up anything you tell me about, I do research, and I try to not take any statements at face value. You can't trust everything you see so you had better double check it. What I'm not doing is trying to view things they way I want to, or bend history to my liking. I started as a Republican. Their behavior changed me.

As for the U.N. votes, not everyone there had the intelligence available to them that we and the Europeans did. They still hadn't got a real vote to actually go in yet though, did they? That's because there were still some serious reservations about what Bush was saying. Even Colin Powell didn't really believe that much of it from what he said, but he was trying to support his boss. Didn't you notice the reactions among the delegates in the U.N. to the speech he made trying to make the case for war? They were skeptical because their intelligence said something different. That's why they wouldn't vote to attack Iraq. They also knew Bush had an agenda to attack Iraq and that he had told lies about intelligence before. They just didn't trust him.

I'm not ignoring the votes you mentioned, but they didn't attack, did they? There were a lot of voices in the U.K. and U.S. that didn't believe we had a leg to stand on. They were independent, had more information than we did, and didn't have the agenda Bush did. Everyone knew that Bush had been chomping at the bit since his election to attack Iraqi. They also knew he was telling lies to justify his attack. Are we now supposed to believe that he was suddenly telling the truth and attacked Iraq with good reason. That's asking quite a lot.

As for the situation becoming ugly quickly in Iraq, he should have known that was going to happen. He was warned often enough that it would. The people telling him were his top generals and Colin Powell. Look what happened to them. Many of them were retired early, marginalized, or retired in disgust with what he was doing. He was told, he just ignored the warnings of minds better able to understand the situation than he, or his cabinet, could.

[BALTY]

I still say the UN votes went the way they did because of the underhanded dealings with iraq that they had going on! :ermm: