tired of the BS re: the war on terrorism

I was/am shocked and horrified by 9/11, the London train attacks etc. BUT I am sick and tired of the BS spouted by Bush, Blair etc. Tell us that you are shocked and horrified, send your condolences to the victims' families, pray. But please do not insult the rest of the world by telling us nonsense like "we in Britain/the US/the West/the free world do not support using violence to achieve one's aims or change another nation." Exactly what were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if not that? Don't you think that an Iraqi being bombed feels the same as a Londoner or New Yorker being bombed? If you truly do not support using violence to solve problems, then disband your military.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
I believe either they think we're stupid or we are so terrified of the "mad mullah" terrorists that they can say any old hypocritical crap and we'll believe it.

Sadly, the evidence that it's working is all around us.
wow, someone read my cyberspace rant! this is really bothering me! thanks for reading!
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
No problem. It's bothering the crap out of me, too!
I was/am shocked and horrified by 9/11, the London train attacks etc. BUT I am sick and tired of the BS spouted by Bush, Blair etc. Tell us that you are shocked and horrified, send your condolences to the victims' families, pray. But please do not insult the rest of the world by telling us nonsense like "we in Britain/the US/the West/the free world do not support using violence to achieve one's aims or change another nation." Exactly what were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if not that? Don't you think that an Iraqi being bombed feels the same as a Londoner or New Yorker being bombed? If you truly do not support using violence to solve problems, then disband your military.
Originally Posted by Amneris
i hear you, amneris. i think terrorism is more of a tactic than an idea. it's not like something like the cold war, which was based on ideology. these terrorist attacks are coming from several disparate groups in different regions...and using one tactic of violence to attack another is silly, if you ask me. the "war on terror" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me...the whole thing makes me very, very sad.
The Anticipated Attack
Don't blame Iraq for the bombings.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Thursday, July 7, 2005, at 10:39 AM PT



My son flew in from London at the weekend, and we were discussing, as we have several times before, why it hadn't happened yet. "It" was the jihadist attack on the city, for which the British security forces have been braced ever since the bombings in Madrid. When the telephone rang in the small hours of this morning, I was pretty sure it was the call I had been waiting for. And as I snapped on the TV I could see, from the drawn expression and halting speech of Tony Blair, that he was reacting not so much with shock as from a sense of inevitability.

Perhaps this partly explains the stoicism and insouciance of those Brits interviewed on the streets, all of whom seemed to know that a certain sang-froid was expected of them. The concrete barriers around the Houses of Parliament have been up for some time. There are estimated to be over 4 million surveillance cameras in the United Kingdom today, but of course it had to be the Underground—"the tube"—and the good old symbolic red London bus. Timed for the rush hour, and at transit stations that serve outlying and East London neighborhoods, the bombs are nearly certain to have killed a number of British Muslims. None of this, of course, has stopped George Galloway and his ilk from rushing to the microphone and demanding that the British people be removed "from harm's way" by an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. (Since the Islamists also demand a withdrawal from Afghanistan, it surprises me that he doesn't oblige them in this way as well, but perhaps that will come in time.)

Looking for possible timings or pretexts, one of course comes up against the meeting of the G8 powers in Edinburgh and perhaps the imminent British spot in the rotating chair of the European Union. (It can't have been the Olympic announcement on such short notice, but the contrast with the happy, multiethnic crowds in Trafalgar Square yesterday could hardly be starker, and it certainly wasn't enough to get the murderers to call it off.) Another possibility is the impending trial of Abu Hamza al Mazri, a one-eyed and hook-handed mullah who isn't as nice as he looks and who preaches Bin-Ladenism from a shabby mosque in North London. He is currently awaiting extradition to the United States, and his supporters might have wanted to make a loving gesture in his favor.

This would mean that the cell or gang was homegrown, rather than smuggled in from North Africa or elsewhere. Or it could mean coordination between the two. In any event, there are two considerations here. The first is Britain's role as a leading member of the "Coalition" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The second is its role as a host to a large and growing Muslim minority. The first British citizens to be killed in Afghanistan were fighting for the Taliban, which is proof in itself that the Iraq war is not the original motivating force. Last year, two British Muslims pulled off a suicide attack at an Israeli beach resort. In many British cities, there are now demands for sexual segregation in schools and for separate sharia courts to try Muslim defendants. The electoral strength of Muslims is great enough to encourage pandering from all three parties: The most egregious pandering of all has come from Blair himself, who has introduced a bill that would criminalize incitement to hatred on the ground of religion.*

During the last election the Conservatives, who have chosen to go soft on the Iraq war, mutated their lost hawkishness into a campaign against "illegal immigrants" and "bogus asylum seekers"—easy code words for an enemy within. So, there is another form of pandering at work as well. In the main, though, London is a highly successful and thriving melting pot, and I would be very much surprised as well as appalled if there were any vengeance pursued against individual Muslims or mosques.

Older Londoners are of course raised on memories of the Nazi blitzkrieg, and a younger generation remembers living through a long campaign of bombings by the Provisional IRA. This latest challenge is far more insidious, however, because the ambitions of the killers are non-negotiable, and because their methods so exactly match their aims. It will be easy in the short term for Blair to rally national and international support, as always happens in moments such as this, but over time these gestural moments lose their force and become subject to diminishing returns. If, as one must suspect, these bombs are only the first, then Britain will start to undergo the same tensions—between a retreat to insularity and clannishness of the sort recently seen in France and Holland, and the self-segregation of the Muslim minority in both those countries—that will start to infect other European countries as well. It is ludicrous to try and reduce this to Iraq. Europe is steadily becoming a part of the civil war that is roiling the Islamic world, and it will require all our cultural ingenuity to ensure that the criminals who shattered London's peace at rush hour this morning are not the ones who dictate the pace and rhythm of events from now on.

Correction, July 8, 2005: This piece originally and incorrectly claimed that Prime Minister Tony Blair had promised legislation that would outlaw speech that could be construed as offensive to Islam and that this represented an extension of Britain's blasphemy law. The government has introduced a bill that would criminalize incitement to hatred on the grounds of religion; this is an extension of a law that prohibits incitement to hatred on racial grounds and is unrelated to Britain's blasphemy law. Return to the corrected sentence
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
Scarlet, what are your thoughts?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
It seems the London terrorists are/were British-born Pakistanis from Leeds. It also appears the bus bomber was not the only suicide bomber:

Britain's first suicide-bombing?
I'll give my thoughts, but they probably won't be popular!

I think that the war in Iraq is an excuse for what we see happening. Strikes have been going on for a long time: Pan Am 103, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, WTC 1993 attack, marine barracks boming in 1983, 9/11....

Iraq is an unpopular war, so it's easy to blame the terror attacks on the coalition presence. However, what we're dealing with are - to use a phrase popular in some segments of the media - "Islamic fascists". We are the infidels who deserve to die. OF COURSE, all Muslims do not fall into this category, but those who do are incredibly dangerous to our existence.
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
Why are they killing us?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 13, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.


Who carried out the London massacre, we do not know. But, as to why they did it, we are already quarreling.

President Bush says that the terrorists are attacking our civilization. At Fort Bragg, N.C., he explained again why we are fighting in Iraq, two years after we overthrew Saddam Hussein. "Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war," he said, in "a global war on terror."

"Many terrorists who kill ... on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home."

Bush was echoed by Sen. John McCain. Those terrorists in Iraq, McCain told Larry King, "are the same guys who would be in New York if we don't win." We fight the terrorists over there so we do not have to fight them over here.

But is this true?

Few Americans have given more thought to the motivation of suicide-bombers than Robert Pape, author of "Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism." His book is drawn from an immense database on every suicide-bomb attack from 1980 to early 2004. Conclusion: The claim that 9-11 and the suicide-bombings in Iraq are done to advance some jihad by "Islamofascists" against the West is not only unsubstantiated, it is hollow.


"Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think," Pape tells the American Conservative in its July 18 issue. Indeed, the world's leader in suicide terror was the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. This secular Marxist group "invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the vest from the Tamil Tigers."

But if the aim of suicide bombers is not to advance Islamism in a war of civilizations, what is its purpose? Pape's conclusion:


[S]uicide-terrorist attacks are not so much driven by religion as by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide terrorist campaign – over 95 percent of all incidents – has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.


The 9-11 terrorists were over here because we were over there. They are not trying to convert us. They are killing us to drive us out of their countries.

Before the U.S. invasion, says Pape, "Iraq never had a suicide attack in its history. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly, with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004 and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year since the U.S. invasion, suicide terrorism has doubled ... Far from making us safer against terrorism, the operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorists and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life."

Pape is saying that President Bush has got it backward: The Iraq war is not eradicating terrorism, it is creating terrorists.

The good news? "The history of the last 20 years" shows that once the troops of the occupying democracies "withdraw from the homeland of the terrorists, they often stop – and stop on a dime."

Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide-bomb attacks on U.S., French, and Israeli targets in Lebanon. When U.S. and French troops withdrew and Israel pulled back to a six-mile buffer zone, suicide-bombings virtually ceased. When the Israelis left Lebanon, the Lebanese suicide-bombers did not follow them to Tel Aviv.

"Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism," says Pape, "the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies ... is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us."

What Pape is saying is that the neocons' "World War IV" – our invading Islamic countries to overthrow regimes and convert them into democracies – is suicidal, like stomping on an anthill so as not to be bitten by ants. It is the presence of U.S. troops in Islamic lands that is the progenitor of suicide terrorism.

Bush's cure for terrorism is a cause of the epidemic. The doctor is spreading the disease. The longer we stay in Iraq, the greater the number of suicide attacks we can expect. The sooner we get our troops out, the sooner terrorism over there and over here will end. So Pape says the data proves. This is the precise opposite of what George Bush argues and believes.

How would we defend our vital interests in the Gulf?

Answers Pape: As we did in the 1970s and 1980s. By getting our troops out, removing the cause of suicide-terror, leaving behind stocked bases and putting U.S. carrier and air forces over the horizon to ensure the Gulf oil flows. But unless and until American troops are withdrawn from the Middle East, the suicide attacks continue.




Guess who wrote this. Patrick J. Buchanan!

I don't agree, but I thought it was interesting.
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
I'll give my thoughts, but they probably won't be popular!

I think that the war in Iraq is an excuse for what we see happening. Strikes have been going on for a long time: Pan Am 103, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, WTC 1993 attack, marine barracks boming in 1983, 9/11....

Iraq is an unpopular war, so it's easy to blame the terror attacks on the coalition presence. However, what we're dealing with are - to use a phrase popular in some segments of the media - "Islamic fascists". We are the infidels who deserve to die. OF COURSE, all Muslims do not fall into this category, but those who do are incredibly dangerous to our existence.
Originally Posted by Scarlet
I completely agree with you as to the reason (partly) the coalition went into Iraq. I don't believe for one minute the action of the extremists are a result of our presence in Iraq. I was very very exposed by the media to the "mad mullah" phenomenon from all those attacks long before 9/11.

I guess the point we're making is, wrong move with Iraq! And, how is going to war (unnecessarily) with Iraq solving the problem? War is killing, and in this particular case, how are we any better than the terrorists?

Also my personal take is... Where the eff is Osama? I personally think if he's alive, he's in or around Pakistan.

Is Osama even worth bothering with? Seems to me this is a Movement, so how do we fight it?

I don't claim to have the answers, and I feel very frustrated by this matter.
I don't think the war in Iraq is the reason (there were plenty of wars before it for one thing) but I think that in going to war there, we are essentially stooping to their level, and no one can win.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











This has probably been asked before (probably by me), but do you think SH was good for Iraq and should've remained in power?
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
This has probably been asked before (probably by me), but do you think SH was good for Iraq and should've remained in power?
Originally Posted by Scarlet
No - but I also don't think Dubya is good for the US and should not remain in power, so should that start a war too?

And if the Conservatives win in Canada, I'll think the same of them.
I think the same of the Chinese goevernment and the list could go on and on. Believe it or not, Saddam was not the worst that there is. Saudia Arabia is barely any better, and we're buddy-buddy with them.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











This has probably been asked before (probably by me), but do you think SH was good for Iraq and should've remained in power?
Originally Posted by Scarlet
No - but I also don't think Dubya is good for the US and should not remain in power, so should that start a war too?
Originally Posted by Amneris
Elected president vs. dictator
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
This has probably been asked before (probably by me), but do you think SH was good for Iraq and should've remained in power?
Originally Posted by Scarlet
No - but I also don't think Dubya is good for the US and should not remain in power, so should that start a war too?
Originally Posted by Amneris
Elected president vs. dictator
Originally Posted by Scarlet
a dictator has to be supported by some group of people to get (and stay) there for any extended period of time.....

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
It doesn't take as much as one would think . . . .
I'm a 2something/3something. Started modified CG routine on 6/6/05
Cut more than ten inches from my BSL hair on 8-10-05 and growing it long again
But we're STILL adjusting.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
How does it make more sense to spend BILLIONS on removing a dictatorship when that money could have gone into a real global anti-terrorist plan? What happened to post-9/11 self-preservation?

Spending BILLIONS to oust Saddam only makes sense if he was a threat to the West, but that has not been proven, so now we're back to the "freeing the people of Iraq" argument.

It doesn't add up, and we all know it doesn't even though some of us keep trying to rationalize it.
This has probably been asked before (probably by me), but do you think SH was good for Iraq and should've remained in power?
Originally Posted by Scarlet
If removing a dictator who was killing his own people was the reason for the war, should we go into the Sudan next?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
But, but... Sudan has no oil Whatever else they had was taken by the French a long time ago.

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com