More London Attacks? [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

KWhit

07-21-2005, 07:57 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8655541/

LONDON - British police said Thursday that emergency services were responding to reports of incidents at three London Underground stations.
Incidents were reported at Oval, Warren Street, and Shepherds Bush stations, and the Metropolitan police said incidents were “ongoing.”

Separately, a spokesman for the transit system said there were no reports of casualties.

An eyewitness reported seeing a bag explode at one of the stations, Sky News reported. Other reports said that smoke was seen coming out of a train, a fire brigade spokeswoman told Reuters. The reports could not immediately be confirmed.
More than 50 people were killed two weeks ago when four bombs hit three underground trains and a red London double-decker bus.

The attacks have been blamed on four Muslims from Britain and police say they believe al-Qaida were behind them.

Emiliano

07-21-2005, 08:00 AM

Just heard. Damn. Here, they're reporting "bomb explosions" right now. The entire underground has been stopped.

Critch

07-21-2005, 08:02 AM

Early reports are of detonators, but no explosions set off. A bus had it's windows blown out, but no injuries. May have been a nailbomb on the underground, but it failed to explode. Only one injury reported so far.

Hopefully the news doesn't get any worse.

Coder

07-21-2005, 08:23 AM

Only one week left before I go to London.

wade moore

07-21-2005, 08:27 AM

Hard to go about 'business as usual' if you're a Londoner from here out I would think...

Raiders Army

07-21-2005, 08:28 AM

...

sachmo71

07-21-2005, 08:29 AM

CNN is reporting 3 "small devices" exploded in on the London transit system.

Rizon

07-21-2005, 08:38 AM

Probably more the work of a copycat group.

Critch

07-21-2005, 08:40 AM

There also reporting that armed police have surrounded a hospital in central London, speculation is that the person who set off one of the explosions may be inside receiving treatment. A live captive could be valuable.

gstelmack

07-21-2005, 08:42 AM

Yeah, this sounds like a group of teenagers out doing a "prank" (I put that in quotes because they're idea of a prank doesn't match mine).

Ksyrup

07-21-2005, 08:43 AM

My first impression of this is that it's obvious the first attacks didn't disrupt much of anything, and so some related extremists put together a small, hastily-planned attack to try to unsettle the nerves of Londoners, since the first attack didn't succeed in that respect like they thought it would. I hope no one was seriously hurt and that these things don't continue, but in the big picture, this seems like a positive indication.

moriarty

07-21-2005, 08:48 AM

Yeah, this sounds like a group of teenagers out doing a "prank" (I put that in quotes because they're idea of a prank doesn't match mine).

I kind of agree with this. There's bound to be alot of fear/anxiety after the attacks, and this is probably (hopefully?) something minor that is getting carried away.

Remember how many false alarms, diverted airliners, etc.. we had after 9/11?

Solecismic

07-21-2005, 09:05 AM

I lived there for a year when the IRA was most active, we had a bomb destroy a house two blocks from the house we were renting. It fries your nerves for about a day, then things are back to normal. The English are very proud of standing up to the German bombing during WWII. This is only going to piss them off.

London couldn't exist without mass transport. Many Londoners wouldn't even think of owning cars. Terrorists would have to blow up every single tube station before people would stop using the underground.

Edit: as I read more about this, I think the intent was not to hurt people and the group that did this may well be one of those weird college protests and has nothing to do with Muslims.

sachmo71

07-21-2005, 11:20 AM

England has been dealing with lots of false alarms since the initial bombings.

ColtCrazy

07-21-2005, 02:45 PM

I've been in England all summer. My wife and I were in London yesterday. She has now flat refused to go back into London till the day we leave.
I tend to agree with the above comment that it was a copycat job. 3 tubes/1 bus..same as 2 weeks ago. Luckily there were no falities, and the London police has been quick to respond. I'm really impressed with the way they've handled everything over here in the wake of the original attacks.

p.s. Just on a different note, one of the people to have been tragically killed in the original attacks was a young Arab woman, very attractive with a bright future. I'm a bit surprised that she hasn't turned into more of a figure for the West to show how ruthless these terrorists are that they are killing ones of their same faith (though the terrorists sense of "faith" is warped when compared to real Isalm.)

3ric

07-21-2005, 04:03 PM

vtbub

07-21-2005, 04:04 PM

Dear Lord. Glad you got home okay.

Cringer

07-21-2005, 05:38 PM

Coder

07-21-2005, 05:45 PM

I was in central London (Oxford Street/Soho area) when the bombs went off. Most of the subway system was stopped and the streets became fairly congested, but there were no sense of alarm, people took in the news and went on with their daily lives. The Brits are determined to live through this as usual, even if the awareness is up high. We walked to our hotel in Bloomsbury to collect our bags and went on to start walking towards the train station to catch a train to the airport. Luckily, we found a cab and got to the airport only 15 minutes later than planned.

Not to threadjack or anything, but this is spooky.. here we are, two Swedes, and not just Swedes, we're both "Göteborgare".. we've both found this board (the only Swedes on here), we're both football fanatics (not very common in Sweden) and we're going / we've been in London within a week of eachother.. :)

And no, we've never met

sovereignstar

07-21-2005, 05:49 PM

Not to threadjack or anything, but this is spooky.. here we are, two Swedes, and not just Swedes, we're both "Göteborgare".. we've both found this board (the only Swedes on here), we're both football fanatics (not very common in Sweden) and we're going / we've been in London within a week of eachother.. :)

And no, we've never met

Nerds Unite!!!

Cringer

07-21-2005, 05:54 PM

Nerds Unite!!!

Swedish Nerds!

Coder

07-21-2005, 05:57 PM

Dam strait!

07-21-2005, 06:16 PM

ABC news (tv) just said that (authorities) are saying in some ways todays bombs were more sophisticated then the ones from last time. That the chemicals were not mixed correctly though.

I dunno, just what they are saying.

There is information on BBC and other sources saying that explosives were apparently recovered and that they are apparently sophisticated. One source says they are similar to the explosives used two weeks ago. There are also now reports of two arrests. It appears this may have been a serious attack that failed, related to the earlier attacks. However, of course the story is still developing, and the information being reported now could turn out to be wrong.

Wolfpack

07-21-2005, 08:36 PM

If this is true, then it definitely points to a concerted attempt to get the UK to withdraw from Iraq like Spain did. Either that or they've decided to ratchet things up and since they either can't or won't strike at America at present, the UK is the next best thing. In any case, it signals an ominous turn in that perhaps the images of mangled buses and trains and storefronts from Israel may be about to be visited on the British (and Americans, at some point) on a more frequent basis.

moriarty

07-21-2005, 08:45 PM

Wolfpack

07-21-2005, 08:51 PM

How can you be two weeks late to a terror attack? It's not like they could say the car broke down on the way into town or something. :D

Easy Mac

07-21-2005, 08:56 PM

It's kinda weird, it's not the usual Bin Laden tactic to follow up a terrorist activity with a similar one shortly afterward (at least i dont' think it is). Wonder if this is a new strategy, or if the second group screwed the pooch and missed their original date.
I seriously doubt Bin Laden even came close to ordering these attacks. I think its probably a group that wants to be or is loosely affilitated with Al Qaeda (maybe funding at best). I don't see why we feel the need to always connect things to Bin Laden, as if that somehow makes it worse. Isn't it enough to understand that people are out there who hate others way of life on their own?

Perhaps this should say something about the state of security in general, as in it doesn't exist. You can do everything you want, but you won't stop terrorism. You can stop some of the people, but you can't stop them all. Sickos will be sick, its happened throughout history.

CHEMICAL SOLDIER

07-21-2005, 09:41 PM

Those wacko Islamo Fascists are at it again.

07-21-2005, 11:00 PM

This from MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8655541/

NBC News has learned that British authorities told their U.S. counterparts that the backpacks used in Thursday's planned attacks and the explosives found in the backpacks are identical to those used in the July 7 attacks — evidence that strongly suggests the two sets of attacks were connected.

If this is accurate, I don't know what to make of it. Maybe if their handler had already fled, the second group didn't properly do the final assembly on their own, or maybe these were two separate groups operating loosely under control of one person, and the second group just screwed up. Or maybe something else entirely. No matter what, it isn't good. But perhaps the authorities can learn a lot from the evidence collected.

Coder

07-22-2005, 05:44 AM

And they tried again today..

Police have shot a man trying to detonate a bomb on a train at the subwaystation in Stockwell at 10 a.m. local time (that'd be around 5 a.m. EDT).

jeff061

07-22-2005, 06:53 AM

That is craziness.

They chased the guy onto the train, he started to trip, the cops pushed him down then shot him 5 times in the back. I can't even imagine being the cops in that situation. Knowing you could be killing an innocent, but if you don't make your move they'll blow themsevles up.

All they've said so far is that he had a very thick winter jacket on and no backpack.

KevinNU7

07-22-2005, 07:19 AM

thick winter jacket in the summer + running from cops = death

I have no problem with this formula

jeff061

07-22-2005, 07:23 AM

Even if he stopped and put his hands up they'd probably shoot him. They really don't have a choice if they are confident this is a bomber with a trigger who knows where. Just an insane situation. Has got to fry your nerves if you are one of the cops chasing him.

moriarty

07-22-2005, 07:24 AM

I seriously doubt Bin Laden even came close to ordering these attacks. I think its probably a group that wants to be or is loosely affilitated with Al Qaeda (maybe funding at best). I don't see why we feel the need to always connect things to Bin Laden, as if that somehow makes it worse. Isn't it enough to understand that people are out there who hate others way of life on their own?
.

Well a group linked with Al Qaeda is claiming responsibility, and since Bin Laden is still seen as the head of Al Qaeda ... I think it's pretty clear why they're connected. But you're right, until we know more we don't know if this is a group acting on their own or not. Still the planning, and sophistication (if you believe the news) does sound like something coordinated by an experienced group.

Critch

07-22-2005, 07:26 AM

TroyF

07-22-2005, 07:59 AM

The BBC mentions that the guy was shot three times in the head as the police have been trained to go for head shots as a body shot could set off a suicide bomb. That's pretty chilling.

Some eyewitnesses are reporting that he was wearing a belt with wires sticking out.

Very chilling, but smart.

I think Al-Queda is making a large mistake here. A very large mistake.

If they think the Brits are like the people in Spain, they must have forgotten the IRA. I don't see the British backing down. I see them stepping up.

The most chilling thing to me is that I think we are getting closer and closer to "end game." People can call me a war monger or a hater or any other choice of words they like, but I can promise you at some point the terrorists are going to cross the line where the US, Brits, and Israeli's have no other option than to take off the gloves and do some things that aren't very nice.

I think a concerted effort to terrorize the British speeds up that scenario drasticly.

KevinNU7

07-22-2005, 08:03 AM

The most chilling thing to me is that I think we are getting closer and closer to "end game." People can call me a war monger or a hater or any other choice of words they like, but I can promise you at some point the terrorists are going to cross the line where the US, Brits, and Israeli's have no other option than to take off the gloves and do some things that aren't very nice. .
what would that be?

JonInMiddleGA

07-22-2005, 08:10 AM

what would that be?

Do the words "black glass" mean anything to you?

KevinNU7

07-22-2005, 08:12 AM

Do the words "black glass" mean anything to you?
No it doesn't

moriarty

07-22-2005, 08:13 AM

Do the words "black glass" mean anything to you?

Nuclear extermination? As in drop nukes on every middle eastern country, knowing that we'll kill about a billion or so innocent people but we might, just might, get a handful of terrorist in there. :confused:

KevinNU7

07-22-2005, 08:16 AM

And then all the ones out of the ME survive

Coder

07-22-2005, 08:28 AM

Sky News are reporting that the police had identified the man they shot as being part of yesterday's bombers based on surveillance cameras. They "quickly located him and put a shadow on him, trying to follow him to any of his contacts". However, as he approached the Stockwell subwaystation, the undercover officers got worried he was planning a new attack. They pulled their guns and shouted warnings to people around them and told him to stop, that's when he started running, eventually tripped and then shot.

JonInMiddleGA

07-22-2005, 08:29 AM

moriarty

07-22-2005, 08:40 AM

Let's say that I believe Congressman Tom Tancredo's recent remarks were accurate & appropriate.

You think we should take out Islamic holy sites as a retaliation? Because that will stop them from terrorist attacks?

Right now, we have a handful of islamic extremist causing terrorist issues (and most people of islamic faith are very peaceful btw). If you bomb islamic holy sites, you'll guarantee to seriously piss off all 1.3 billion people of islam faith. Sounds like a great strategy. :rolleyes:

Cringer

07-22-2005, 08:45 AM

You think we should take out Islamic holy sites as a retaliation? Because that will stop them from terrorist attacks?

Right now, we have a handful of islamic extremist causing terrorist issues (and most people of islamic faith are very peaceful btw). If you bomb islamic holy sites, you'll guarantee to seriously piss off all 1.3 billion people of islam faith. Sounds like a great strategy. :rolleyes:

Well, if that tactic is going to become available, can I start bombing christian churches as my way to prevent them from attacking abortion clinics?
:)

Warhammer

07-22-2005, 08:45 AM

Very chilling, but smart.

I think Al-Queda is making a large mistake here. A very large mistake.

If they think the Brits are like the people in Spain, they must have forgotten the IRA. I don't see the British backing down. I see them stepping up.

The most chilling thing to me is that I think we are getting closer and closer to "end game." People can call me a war monger or a hater or any other choice of words they like, but I can promise you at some point the terrorists are going to cross the line where the US, Brits, and Israeli's have no other option than to take off the gloves and do some things that aren't very nice.

I think a concerted effort to terrorize the British speeds up that scenario drasticly.

I gotta agree. You can push us around for a bit, but once we get our backs up against a wall we will fight. I think a lot of people forget, the only country (right, wrong, or indifferent) to have ever used the Bomb in anger against a foe is the US.

The Brits will not back down from this.

Coder

07-22-2005, 08:46 AM

Thing is, these few moronic muslims who are doing these attacks, are HOPING that some moronic westerner will retaliate against muslims who are NOT supporting the radicals. By doing so, the westerner will alienate more muslims, including the ones who weren't previously interested in destroying any bonds there are between the majority of both sides.

Don't fall into their trap.. don't alienate the general muslim.

Warhammer

07-22-2005, 08:48 AM

You think we should take out Islamic holy sites as a retaliation? Because that will stop them from terrorist attacks?

Right now, we have a handful of islamic extremist causing terrorist issues (and most people of islamic faith are very peaceful btw). If you bomb islamic holy sites, you'll guarantee to seriously piss off all 1.3 billion people of islam faith. Sounds like a great strategy. :rolleyes:

Then those 1.3 billion people of islam that are not extremists need to stand up and start telling the extremists to stop smearing islam.

The Christian whackos over here are pointed out, tried, and convicted by other Christians here. You don't see the same thing happening with Muslims.

jeff061

07-22-2005, 08:52 AM

You nutty republicans*.

*Statement directed at a select few who probably think Anne Coulter should be president, not all republicans.

Bee

07-22-2005, 08:54 AM

Nuclear extermination? As in drop nukes on every middle eastern country, knowing that we'll kill about a billion or so innocent people but we might, just might, get a handful of terrorist in there. :confused:

I don't see that happening, but I do think it's possible that at some point if the terrorists push too far you'll see the US take off the gloves in dealing with international issues. I could see it getting to the point that we'd ignore other countries "international rights" and use strike forces to go after all known terrorist targets no matter where they are. Perhaps even the use of tactical nukes, although I don't imagine they would come in handy in very many instances if it all. I would imagine just an overall much stricter enforcement of Bush's "you're either with us or against us" approach. But I don't see any massive nuclear strike by us when there are much more efficient ways of dealing with things.

Rizon

07-22-2005, 08:57 AM

Turns out the man shot today was an American tourist upset over ice not being in his fucking drink.

moriarty

07-22-2005, 09:01 AM

I don't see that happening, but I do think it's possible that at some point if the terrorists push too far you'll see the US take off the gloves in dealing with international issues. I could see it getting to the point that we'd ignore other countries "international rights" and use strike forces to go after all known terrorist targets no matter where they are. Perhaps even the use of tactical nukes, although I don't imagine they would come in handy in very many instances if it all. I would imagine just an overall much stricter enforcement of Bush's "you're either with us or against us" approach. But I don't see any massive nuclear strike by us when there are much more efficient ways of dealing with things.

Problem is, I dont' think we know where they are. Heck, we know some of them are in Iraq, yet we can't get them.

And all this talk of nukes is silly. If we knew where they were and they were willing to stand and fight, we could easily take them out with conventional weapons.

JonInMiddleGA

07-22-2005, 09:06 AM

KevinNU7

07-22-2005, 09:12 AM

Turns out the man shot today was an American tourist upset over ice not being in his fucking drink.
not funny

flere-imsaho

07-22-2005, 09:18 AM

sachmo71

07-22-2005, 09:19 AM

thick winter jacket in the summer + running from cops = death

I have no problem with this formula

Unless you are going to a costume party dressed as the terminator and suddenly that bran muffin kicks in?

flere-imsaho

07-22-2005, 09:19 AM

If they think the Brits are like the people in Spain, they must have forgotten the IRA. I don't see the British backing down. I see them stepping up.

Hello, ETA?

flere-imsaho

07-22-2005, 09:21 AM

Let's say that I believe Congressman Tom Tancredo's recent remarks were accurate & appropriate.

So what you're saying is that we should act like terrorists, right?

moriarty

07-22-2005, 09:22 AM

To borrow a useful analogy ... I can't always find every single rattlesnake in a field, but if I bush-hog that field, I sure do make it harder for them to hide.

You scare me.

jeff061

07-22-2005, 09:23 AM

That's impossible. You can't be a terrorist unless your targets are westerners.

sachmo71

07-22-2005, 09:23 AM

Uh-oh...

Jon is playing stick in the beehive again!

HomerJSimpson

07-22-2005, 09:24 AM

I believe after the Madrid bombings further bombs were found on the train lines which were supposed to go off after the original ones. So I'm not sure we can't claim this isn't an Al-Qaeda taught tactic.

Further, groups change tactics. The goal of these attacks might be to slow the economy of Britian by attacking the transportation infrastructure. It may be that the plan is to have numerous attacks spaced out over several weeks until they cause either the security to be so tight that it slows down the rate of business, or the shut down of the tube system which would be a major problem for businesses in London.

moriarty

07-22-2005, 09:24 AM

How did we turn this into another political/policy thread anyways? Can we save this thread for updates on the bombing / investigation?

flere-imsaho

07-22-2005, 09:25 AM

To borrow a useful analogy ... I can't always find every single rattlesnake in a field, but if I bush-hog that field, I sure do make it harder for them to hide.

So, by extension, you'll be advocating the nuclear razing of Great Britain, seeing as how that's where the London bombers originated from?

TroyF

07-22-2005, 09:26 AM

I'm not saying I agree with what will eventually happen, I'm just saying I think it WILL happen. Fear does some really strange things to people. Eventually, they are going to take it one step too far. The people of Israel, Britain, the US and other countries are going to stop thinking of the terrorists as a pest and they are going to be genuinely afraid for their lives.

When that happens, I can PROMISE you things are going to turn ugly.

And if the terrorists want that to happen, they are stupider than even I thought they were. Because if that happens, they won't have to worry about a ton of Muslims running around to take up the fight.

HomerJSimpson

07-22-2005, 09:27 AM

So what you're saying is that we should act like terrorists, right?

No what he is saying is we should take up the "Final Solution" to the problem. He is for the complete annihilation of anyone that does not think like him.

Bee

07-22-2005, 09:34 AM

Problem is, I dont' think we know where they are. Heck, we know some of them are in Iraq, yet we can't get them.

And all this talk of nukes is silly. If we knew where they were and they were willing to stand and fight, we could easily take them out with conventional weapons.

I'm guessing we have a ton of suspicous sites on our list and I'm guessing if it gets to the point that Troy was talking about, they all get bombed. I don't see nuking the entire middle east or anything remotely resembling that, but I do see us getting to the point that we start taking out suspicious locations without full confirmation that they are terrrorist training grounds, bomb making factories, etc.

And if it gets to the point that Troy was talking about, I'd also expect to see a major rounding up of suspects beyond what we saw after 9-11 and probably not just in the US but worldwide with extractions being performed all over without regard to international rights, etc.

Like I said, I could see the possibility of tactical nukes on specific targets if deemed appropriate, but that's a far cry from the kind of nukes that you are talking about.

Klinglerware

07-22-2005, 09:40 AM

Further, groups change tactics. The goal of these attacks might be to slow the economy of Britian by attacking the transportation infrastructure. It may be that the plan is to have numerous attacks spaced out over several weeks until they cause either the security to be so tight that it slows down the rate of business, or the shut down of the tube system which would be a major problem for businesses in London.

Yeah, along those lines, a very plausible tactic that they could try would be to trigger a lot of nuisance false alarms. Things like leaving an empty knapsack in the subway or the airport, checking in for a flight but not boarding the plane. They shut down entire airports when they investigate these potential threats--imagine what it could do to the economy if the airport or the subway is shut down every other day. And they could do this without detonating a single bomb...

sachmo71

07-22-2005, 09:45 AM

Yeah, along those lines, a very plausible tactic that they could try would be to trigger a lot of nuisance false alarms. Things like leaving an empty knapsack in the subway or the airport, checking in for a flight but not boarding the plane. They shut down entire airports when they investigate these potential threats--imagine what it could do to the economy if the airport or the subway is shut down every other day. And they could do this without detonating a single bomb...

As could every other group of nutjobs under the sun.

bob

07-22-2005, 09:54 AM

what would that be?

- "Can you imagine some pretty unattractive alternatives?"

- "Not without slides..."

Sorry, just trying to lighten the mood a little.

Klinglerware

07-22-2005, 09:55 AM

Nuclear extermination? As in drop nukes on every middle eastern country, knowing that we'll kill about a billion or so innocent people but we might, just might, get a handful of terrorist in there. :confused:

Yep, with the global nuclear fallout resulting from a massive strike, we'd be killing a whole bunch of ourselves, too. Also, I hope we've switched to alternative fuels by then.

Sounds like a well-thought out and clever strategy to me!

JonInMiddleGA

07-22-2005, 09:57 AM

... tactical nukes on specific targets ...

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

JonInMiddleGA

07-22-2005, 10:00 AM

Uh-oh... Jon is playing stick in the beehive again!

Nope. Look back in the thread, it wasn't me who brought it up. I just offered an explanation to a reference that Kevin didn't understand.

JonInMiddleGA

07-22-2005, 10:00 AM

You scare me.

I probably should.

KevinNU7

07-22-2005, 10:01 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/22/london.tube/index.html

flere-imsaho

07-22-2005, 10:03 AM

Jon, if you feel obliterating Mecca (and/or other sites of importance to Islam) with "tactical" nuclear weapons is the solution to terrorism, you are woefully misguided.

As a counter-example, what would you, as an American, do if someone, say, blew up the White House, Pentagon or World Trade Center?

HomerJSimpson

07-22-2005, 10:06 AM

rkmsuf

07-22-2005, 10:08 AM

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

I'm with you on this one. Tell them they have a week to hand over Bin Laden or whoever you want to put on a list or the nukes are dropping. We'd probably have to drop one but after that watch how easy it will be to locate these scumbags.

flere-imsaho

07-22-2005, 10:11 AM

I'm with you on this one. Tell them they have a week to hand over Bin Laden or whoever you want to put on a list or the nukes are dropping. We'd probably have to drop one but after that watch how easy it will be to locate these scumbags.

Or, alternatively, you instead radicalize the entire Muslim population, and now get to deal with 1.3 billion terrorists. Are you willing to take that chance?

Again, how would you react if terrorists blew up the White House, Pentagon or World Trade Center? Would you give up and accede to the terrorists' demands?

rkmsuf

07-22-2005, 10:21 AM

Or, alternatively, you instead radicalize the entire Muslim population, and now get to deal with 1.3 billion terrorists. Are you willing to take that chance?

Again, how would you react if terrorists blew up the White House, Pentagon or World Trade Center? Would you give up and accede to the terrorists' demands?

They already blew shit up. We didn't start this.

If none of the 1.3 billion muslims are willing to help bring to justice the terroists than f-ck em, they are all terrorists.

So how many right now out of 1.3 billion muslims are actually terrorists? Hmm...can't be a big percentage. What's wrong with the rest of them sitting on their asses while their evil breatheren blow shit up.

sachmo71

07-22-2005, 10:28 AM

They already blew shit up. We didn't start this.

If none of the 1.3 billion muslims are willing to help bring to justice the terroists than f-ck em, they are all terrorists.

So how many right now out of 1.3 billion muslims are actually terrorists? Hmm...can't be a big percentage. What's wrong with the rest of them sitting on their asses while their evil breatheren blow shit up.

HA!

moriarty

07-22-2005, 10:31 AM

Klinglerware

07-22-2005, 10:35 AM

You'll have to forgive rkmsuf, he spent his last five years out in the woods hunting down Eric Rudolph, while the rest of us sat on our asses playing xbox.

:p

Heh heh, xbox players are all terrorists!

Edit: the one's not hunting down Eric Rudolph, that is...

rkmsuf

07-22-2005, 10:43 AM

If I catch a Muslim playing Xbox there is going to be trouble.

sachmo71

07-22-2005, 10:45 AM

Nope. Look back in the thread, it wasn't me who brought it up. I just offered an explanation to a reference that Kevin didn't understand.

Jon, just expressing your opinion stirs up the bees. I'm not blaming the stick; it is what it is.

JonInMiddleGA

07-22-2005, 11:07 AM

Or, alternatively, you instead radicalize the entire Muslim population, and now get to deal with 1.3 billion terrorists. Are you willing to take that chance?

Eh, had a fairly long reply written, but realized that you should know by now pretty much exactly what my take on this is & that the post would be irrelevant -- you already know the answer to what you asked.

jeff061

07-22-2005, 11:19 AM

rkmsuf

07-22-2005, 11:20 AM

You totally missed his point.

oh well. I try hard.

Coder

07-22-2005, 11:33 AM

Aren't you forgetting that after every attack of this sort, Muslims are interviewed and condemn the attacks. Or isn't that shown on Fox News? Maybe some media outlets aren't interested in shifting the blame from the entire faith of Islam to just a few ultra conservatives?

Sky News is non-stop showing interviews with Muslim Clerics, "regular" British Muslims, all saying the same things. According to a poll they've run today, 88% of the British Muslims think there's NO justification for the attacks in the Koran.. only 5% thought there was.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13391671,00.html

Several of the busdrivers and tubedrivers in London are Muslims.. do you think they consider these attacks a brilliant idea? Do you honestly think that just because they're not out there with guns hunting down any potential neighbours who could be planning the next attack they're Al-Qaeda supporters?

http://www.sky.com/skynews/home

Ah well.. no one listens to a Swede anyway :(

Klinglerware

07-22-2005, 11:37 AM

Jag lyssnar...

Bee

07-22-2005, 11:43 AM

moriarty

07-22-2005, 11:52 AM

What's 5% of 1.3 billion? Just curious...

65 million? :)

Holy crap, bring out the nukes and bomb the islamic holy site of Jerusalem.

Quick!

Klinglerware

07-22-2005, 11:53 AM

What's 5% of 1.3 billion? Just curious...

Probably the same percentage of Americans would sympathize with or claim the same sort of justification in the bible for the abortion clinic and gay club bombings. Doesn't make 'em terrorists though...

Bee

07-22-2005, 12:11 PM

65 million? :)

Holy crap, bring out the nukes and bomb the islamic holy site of Jerusalem.

Quick!

Of course, the 5% was only British Muslims. I'll go out on a limb and guess that the percentage would be higher in some of the more "radical" muslim countries...

Bee

07-22-2005, 12:14 PM

Probably the same percentage of Americans would sympathize with or claim the same sort of justification in the bible for the abortion clinic and gay club bombings. Doesn't make 'em terrorists though...

Didn't say it did. But it's interesting to see how many feel the attacks are justified and what size "pool" the terrorists have to draw from. Although as I posted above, I'm guessing the 5% is a pretty low percentage overall considering it's based on British Muslims (unless they are far more radical than I've been led to believe) :D

Solecismic

07-22-2005, 12:23 PM

I have to pretty much stay out of this one due to recent events.

I'll just say this: the innocent Muslims around the world need to do more. They need to cast the violent aggressors out of the religion entirely. Their condemnations so far seem very weak and support of terrorism (5% in Britain) is enormous.

Things have just gone too far. They are quickly reaching the point where they have less credibility than Tom Cruise and his Scientology friends.

Dutch

07-22-2005, 12:26 PM

Terrrorism being spawned from the middle east is still going to happen. No need to retaliate with nuclear weapons against a group of people who have absolutely no say in what's going on inside their borders.

But there is a need to stay the course. Continue to over-throw rogue regimes that fuel pro-terror propaganda. Continue to install governments that take responsability for their actions with regard to terrorists groups. Continue to offer the people more information than just one sided information. Continue to empower the people of the region to make the choice on a government-scale on whether they which to support terror or not.

Cringer

07-22-2005, 12:27 PM

We could also help stop terrorism by not harboring those wanted by other countries for blowing up planes.....

moriarty

07-22-2005, 12:57 PM

Umm... in other news, they released pictures of several of the alleged bombers (or failed bombers).

MrBigglesworth

07-22-2005, 01:05 PM

If they think the Brits are like the people in Spain, they must have forgotten the IRA.
Ok, I've read somethig like this a couple times on this thread, and it's crap. The Spanish people were not cowed by terrorism. Every Spaniard, regardless of political affiliation, wants to stand up to terrorists, the same as in this country. It's just that the left leaning components, as in this country, believe that going to war in Iraq is an idiotic way to combat terrorists (90% of the Spanish were against the Iraq war), and so they (we) get labeled soft on terrorism. Furthermore, the right leaning parts lost the Spanish elections because of a cover-up of the bombings where they continued to blame a Basque group even though it was clear that it was Al Queda. They lost all credibility with voters then.

Klinglerware

07-22-2005, 01:32 PM

We could also help stop terrorism by not harboring those wanted by other countries for blowing up planes.....

Shhh... Jeb might have an election to win next year ;)

Dutch

07-22-2005, 01:44 PM

Ok, I've read somethig like this a couple times on this thread, and it's crap. The Spanish people were not cowed by terrorism. Every Spaniard, regardless of political affiliation, wants to stand up to terrorists, the same as in this country. It's just that the left leaning components, as in this country, believe that going to war in Iraq is an idiotic way to combat terrorists (90% of the Spanish were against the Iraq war), and so they (we) get labeled soft on terrorism. Furthermore, the right leaning parts lost the Spanish elections because of a cover-up of the bombings where they continued to blame a Basque group even though it was clear that it was Al Queda. They lost all credibility with voters then.

Iraq has everything to do with the War on Terror. Regardless, it was written up as an Al Qaeda victory in the Middle Eastern newspapers and encouraged terrorists and discouraged westerners. Mileages vary, but the conditions were met.

TroyF

07-22-2005, 03:14 PM

A few things:

1) Spain backed down. It wasn't only the war in Iraq they were upset with. It wasn't Iraq that attacked them. It was Al-Queda. And Spain recalled all the troops in on both counts. It was and remains one of the most disturbing decisions any country has made in this ridiculous game.

2) Jon and I get attacked everytime we bring up the possiblity of mass destruction taking place.

I won't speak for Jon, but for me as a history buff, there is no doubt that eventually the terrorists will cross the line. It could have happened wiht 9/11, but it came pretty damned close. A major attack within weeks after 9/11 would have set the wheels in motion for what I think will eventually happen. . . the terrorists will instill the fear they want to instill.

Then they will be stunned at what strong countries who are fearful do. If they think it'll be some 1700's holy war, they are sadly mistaken. It'll be a war they won't want to fight.

Klinglerware

07-22-2005, 03:24 PM

JonInMiddleGA

07-22-2005, 03:46 PM

2) Jon and I get attacked everytime we bring up the possiblity of mass destruction taking place.

Eh, I think it's just too tempting to jump around & throw a fit about my blunt advocacy of such a move.

Meanwhile, I believe few actually consider the reality of just what you're talking about -- the eventuality that a line will be crossed (for me it was long ago, but I'm talking about at a national level). And then ... well, something about "awakening a sleeping giant" comes to mind.

JonInMiddleGA

07-22-2005, 03:48 PM

In another confirmation of the US media's obsession with the suffering of young white women at the expense of (a) hard news (b) the suffering of other Americans, CNN.com has a big story about a couple of teenage girls who survived the London bombings.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/22/tennessee.sisters.ap/index.html

I am glad they survived, but I wonder why they didn't have such a story on the one American who got killed, Michael Matsushita. CNN's reporting on his death was barely a few paragraphs long...

I think all the news agencies/networks/services have done quite a bit on those girls. I imagine their media accessability being quite a bit better than his might have a little something to do with the ratio of media time.

Klinglerware

07-22-2005, 03:55 PM

I think all the news agencies/networks/services have done quite a bit on those girls. I imagine their media accessability being quite a bit better than his might have a little something to do with the ratio of media time.

Yeah, that's very true--I suppose you can't interview a dead man. I would imagine that there would be much more outrage if those girls didn't make it, however...

flere-imsaho

07-22-2005, 04:25 PM

2) Jon and I get attacked everytime we bring up the possiblity of mass destruction taking place.

Absolute and complete horseshit. Cut the fucking martyr complex.

No one here is ridiculing you two for suggesting a WMD terrorist attack could happen on U.S. soil.

Instead, we're taking issue with your insane belief that bombing Mecca is the solution to stopping terrorism.

Again, what would Americans do if terrorists blew up the White House, Pentagon or the World Trade Center? Likewise, what do you think Muslims would do if we were to blow up Mecca?

Honestly, take a step back from the computer and use some common sense.

TroyF

07-22-2005, 04:28 PM

Eh, I think it's just too tempting to jump around & throw a fit about my blunt advocacy of such a move.

Meanwhile, I believe few actually consider the reality of just what you're talking about -- the eventuality that a line will be crossed (for me it was long ago, but I'm talking about at a national level). And then ... well, something about "awakening a sleeping giant" comes to mind.

Exactly. It's not about what I think or what you think or about if we want it to happen or not. . . it's about the reality that it will happen if the terrorists continue down this path.

I don't think most people realize how close 9/11 came to doing this. I fully believe one more MAJOR attack on US, British or Israeli soil in the months directly following 9/11 would have already started what we are talking about.

flere-imsaho

07-22-2005, 04:28 PM

Saudi Arabia has everything to do with the War on Terror.

Fixed that for you.

flere-imsaho

07-22-2005, 04:32 PM

1) Spain backed down. It wasn't only the war in Iraq they were upset with. It wasn't Iraq that attacked them. It was Al-Queda. And Spain recalled all the troops in on both counts. It was and remains one of the most disturbing decisions any country has made in this ridiculous game.

The Spanish electorate made the simple calculation that invading Iraq wasn't doing anything to protect them from terrorists, and decided the fight wasn't worth it.

If you have a philosophical problem with that, I'd like to suggest that you enlist in the U.S. Army so you can take a Spaniard's place fighting your glorious War On Terror.

Easy Mac

07-22-2005, 04:32 PM

2) Jon and I get attacked everytime we bring up the possiblity of mass destruction taking place.

You're "attacked" because people find your ideas self defeating. What good would nuclear options do? Killing innocent people to kill the bad ones doesn't make you any better than the terrorists. Otherwise, whats the point? Does it make you any more altruistic because you killed those 500 terrorists while killing the other 100,000 who were just there? So please, don't play the martyr card and just argue you're point.

flere-imsaho

07-22-2005, 04:34 PM

I don't think most people realize how close 9/11 came to doing this. I fully believe one more MAJOR attack on US, British or Israeli soil in the months directly following 9/11 would have already started what we are talking about.

So, the solution is a pre-emptive strike that will turn most of the world's 1.3 billion muslims against us? Yeah, sounds like a good strategy to me....

Let's face it, Jon's talking about genocide. In his world, we won't be safe until every muslim is either dead or cowed into utter servitude.

John Galt

07-22-2005, 04:45 PM

Honolulu_Blue

07-22-2005, 04:54 PM

Exactly. It's not about what I think or what you think or about if we want it to happen or not. . . it's about the reality that it will happen if the terrorists continue down this path.

I don't think most people realize how close 9/11 came to doing this. I fully believe one more MAJOR attack on US, British or Israeli soil in the months directly following 9/11 would have already started what we are talking about.
The only way I could ever see this "reality" (though I see it more as fantasy) coming to be is if we were the victim of a nuclear attack or perhaps a devastating biological attack. I cannot see the U.S. responding with a nuclear strike in any other scenario.

And even if this "reality" were to come to pass, who the hell do we nuke? Iran? Saudia Arabia? Egypt? The entire Middle East? If the entire Middle East why not India and Pakistan? Plenty of Muslims there too. So after we've gone and nuked 1/5 of the globe, what then? Will we really be safer? Better off? Not in the least bit.

JonInMiddleGA

07-22-2005, 04:55 PM

So, the solution is a pre-emptive strike that will turn most of the world's 1.3 billion muslims against us? Yeah, sounds like a good strategy to me....

Let's face it, Jon's talking about genocide. In his world, we won't be safe until every muslim is either dead or cowed into utter servitude.

Flere, here's what I think we're talking about that (if I understood his latest post) Troy felt like is being missed/avoided/isn't being talked about ... or at least what I was trying to say in my reply to him -- nevermind for a second, just for a second at least, whether you think it's a good/bad/indifferent idea ... that's not part of the equation just for discussion purposes.

What I believe (and what I think TroyF believes) is that there is a set of circumstances that makes use of tactical nuclear weapons against one or more targets in the middle east a virtual certainty - based on, I dunno, let's call it a combination of American/Western psychology and history. And that those circumstances are growing closer & closer to being met each time there's a terrorist attack. That's something beyond "national security" or "national interest", what I'm talking about is more like a "national psychology".

Basically, there's a point at which the U.S. & Great Britain will become pissed past the point of being concerned with collateral damage -- they'll be sending a message intended to be loud & clear, something to the effect that "okay, that's ENOUGH, this shit is going to stop NOW" (read that in an angry parent tone for proper affect).

Like I said, never mind what you think of the action, never mind what I think of it either -- what I'm nearly positive TroyF was saying earlier is that he believes (and I agree) that it's a virtual certainty if the attacks continue, sooner or later, there's a point of no return/no forgiveness/no quarter given which will result in the most devastating military response in history.

edited to add: While I was posting to Flere, Honolulu Blue was posting on the exact thing I'm talking about. We obviously have drawn different conclusions, but he was spot on target with the subject he tackled.
(I'm adding this because I said this wasn't being talked about & then HB's post is right above mine doing just that).

Ryan S

07-22-2005, 04:58 PM

Basically, there's a point at which the U.S. & Great Britain will become pissed past the point of being concerned with collateral damage -- they'll be sending a message intended to be loud & clear, something to the effect that "okay, that's ENOUGH, this shit is going to stop NOW"
Quite frankly, I am extremely pissed off that such a message has not been sent already.

Klinglerware

07-22-2005, 05:00 PM

So, the solution is a pre-emptive strike that will turn most of the world's 1.3 billion muslims against us? Yeah, sounds like a good strategy to me....

Not only that, it would probably turn the rest of the non-muslim world against us too. More importantly, once you open the pandora's box of launching pre-emptive nuclear strikes all bets are off and all states will then view this as a legitimate tool. Instead of dealing with terrorists with their crude devices, we could be dealing with more powerful adversaries who will now have no reason not to use their sophisticated nuclear weaponry against our cities...

TroyF

07-22-2005, 05:06 PM

You're "attacked" because people find your ideas self defeating. What good would nuclear options do? Killing innocent people to kill the bad ones doesn't make you any better than the terrorists. Otherwise, whats the point? Does it make you any more altruistic because you killed those 500 terrorists while killing the other 100,000 who were just there? So please, don't play the martyr card and just argue you're point.

Wasn't playing the martyr card. Just pointing out the obvious.

And what's with the self defeating garbage?

What do YOU see as the solution to this? Do you think that terrorists are going to continue blowing up innocent civilians for the next ten thousand years and we are always going to take it in stride? Do you think the people of the US would stand for what's happening in Israel for even a half a second? Or if the terrorists make a concerted, long term strategy of continued attacks on the Brits, that they'll just pop in some Monty Python tapes and pretend nothing is happening?

If it's self defeating to believe a line WILL be crossed and understanding what's going to happen when that time comes, then you have me aptly named.

Hell, give me some hope. Show me the terrorists are going to stop. Show me how all we have to do to end this is to leave Iraq and Saudi Arabia and the attacks on Israel, Britain and the US will stop. Until then, the only self defeatist thing I see happening is people watching TV reports of bombs going off in London subways and pretending surprise and shock.

EDIT: Jon expressed my belief perfectly above.

Dutch

07-22-2005, 05:06 PM

Fixed that for you.

Weak. You cannot dispute my words so you make up something else and dispute that. It's like you wrote Michael Moore's material for him. :)

Glengoyne

07-22-2005, 05:40 PM

...Do you think the people of the US would stand for what's happening in Israel for even a half a second? ...
I've long contended that if the U.S. were being attacked by Mexicans in the same manner that Palestinian Elements have been attacking Israel, that we would make the Israeli response look like an invitation to a picnic.

yabanci

07-22-2005, 06:20 PM

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2005/trall050716.gif

MrBigglesworth

07-22-2005, 06:43 PM

Weak. You cannot dispute my words so you make up something else and dispute that. It's like you wrote Michael Moore's material for him. :)
I was just going to let it go, but since you think silence is acceptance, I have to say that saying Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror is completely and utterly wrong. Mainly because: there was no state sponsored terrorism in Iraq (other than Palestinian groups, and their number one financer is our close ally Saudi Arabia). There were absolutely zero ties between Iraq and any terrorist group that had any chance of attacking us. We went into Iraq because of their vast stockpiles of WMD's. Saying otherwise is like arguing that the Civil War was about states' rights.

TroyF

07-22-2005, 06:45 PM

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2005/trall050716.gif

The cartoon has some truth to it. I can respect that.

But what would you suggest we do now to appease this group of people?

Am I wrong, or does each action, each attack cause more people to lose the "I really feel for the poor radical Muslims and their plight?"

Lets say I pissed off my neighbor. Just royally screwed him over. It's MY fault. I'm in the wrong. So the neighbor proceeds to do everything he can to piss me off. He tears up my garden, cuts down my tree house, slashes my tires.

Will there or won't there come a point that he'll push me over the edge and I'll stop trying to figure out WHY he's doing what he's doing and just react to it?

At that point it doesn't matter who was wrong or who was right. The only question will be how long it takes me to snap and say "That's it, this simply isn't happening anymore." and then what I do to ensure it doesn't.

Do I think the radical Muslims have some valid points? Yeah, I do. Very few and they aren't easy to find or to understand in a lot of cases, but I see what they are thinking and have some empathy for it.

But when they are slaughtering innocents and trying to make me fearful to live my life, they've lost their pity points. I don't really care anymore. I don't care what their agenda was/is, why they do what they do, or what I can do to make it stop. (in fact, I firmly believe anything short of handing over Israel back to the radicals will not be enough) ALL I care about is making it stop.

----------------------------------------------------

Have I REALLY reached the point I wrote above? Not quite, but I'm getting closer. And every strike makes me believe they won't stop until the true horror starts. Because there will come a day I feel exactly like what I wrote above. And it's coming closer and closer to a reality.

MrBigglesworth

07-22-2005, 06:50 PM

Quite frankly, I am extremely pissed off that such a message has not been sent already.
Terrorism is the absolute greatest threat ever to the history of the planet. There is absolutely nothing to compare it to, it is an unspeakable evil. Sure, just over 3,000 people died of it in this country in the past couple dozen years, and in response we got 2,000 American soldiers killed and killed over 10,000 Iraqi's, and held however many innocent people in jail, but terrorists are teh suck. Civil liberties are nothing when compared to the threat that terrorism poses. Better to lock up and bomb every brownish person than to have another subway bomb go off. Better to allow government agents unfettered and secret access into your home, into your library records, into your business. What, you think I am overreacting and my fear is exactly what the terrorists want? Well you hate America and everything it stands for, like freedom and equality.

duckman

07-22-2005, 07:07 PM

Sure, just over 3,000 people died of it in this country in the past couple dozen years....
Just 3,000 dead? Got 2,000 soldiers killed? :rolleyes: :mad:

To be honest, I don't even know how to respond to this little piece of sarcasm. But to even suggest what you are saying is distasteful. I hope most liberals don't think like you because that's just sad. :(

MrBigglesworth

07-22-2005, 07:27 PM

Just 3,000 dead? Got 2,000 soldiers killed? :rolleyes: :mad:

To be honest, I don't even know how to respond to this little piece of sarcasm. But to even suggest what you are saying is distasteful. I hope most liberals don't think like you because that's just sad. :(
In case anyone else missed the point, 3,000 dead is a lot, but it doesn't make it a cause to turn into a fascist police state that invades other countries on a whim. I'd rather live in America with a 3,000 in 260 million (or 3 in 260,000, or .001%) chance of being killed by a terrorist. America survived the Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc without losing our common sense, no reason we can't survive 3k dead.

JonInMiddleGA

07-22-2005, 08:09 PM

flere-imsaho

07-22-2005, 08:25 PM

edited to add: While I was posting to Flere, Honolulu Blue was posting on the exact thing I'm talking about. We obviously have drawn different conclusions, but he was spot on target with the subject he tackled.
(I'm adding this because I said this wasn't being talked about & then HB's post is right above mine doing just that).

Best post I've seen from you yet.

While I will agree with you that, at some point, such an action* becomes possible, if not likely, to happen, I continue to disagree with you that such an action is a desirable outcome.

If I can go further, for a second, let me say that if I understand correctly you, Dutch & TroyF, at least, view Radical Islam as a growing threat that will come to encompass much of the Islamic world. Your world view has Radical Islam fighting for hegemonic supremacy against "Western" values of freedom, democracy, and liberty. As such, a confrontation such as you describe is probably inevitable.

I, however, do not share your worldview. I believe history shows us otherwise. In fact, I believe many of that same notions were espoused by Communist-haters in the 20th century. The three (or more) of you will have to work a lot harder to convince me otherwise.

* "such an action" defined as bombing Mecca or similar.

panerd

07-22-2005, 08:25 PM

While I don't advocate the nuclear option (for starters explain to me how this will kill all of the terrorists) I do sometimes wonder about how this country feels about our freedom. We are willing to have thousands of soldiers die in wars in the middle east because the ACLU doesn't want us to search Arabs getting on our airplanes. How about instead of the NY police randomly searching backpacks on subways they stop all Arabs and suspicious non-arabs carrying backpacks. And don't give me some bullshit about Timothy McVeigh or the Atlanta bomber all of the recent attacks have been Arabs. This loss of freedom for some seems less dangerous to me than 1000's of Americans being killed in wars. If you are law abiding citizen why do you care?

TroyF

07-22-2005, 08:27 PM

In case anyone else missed the point, 3,000 dead is a lot, but it doesn't make it a cause to turn into a fascist police state that invades other countries on a whim. I'd rather live in America with a 3,000 in 260 million (or 3 in 260,000, or .001%) chance of being killed by a terrorist. America survived the Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc without losing our common sense, no reason we can't survive 3k dead.

And unless you've missed it, the goal is far more than 3,000. And the likely result will be an action that someday takes thousands more.

But lets be literal. Afterall, you are.

Do you know what a fascist police state is? Do you know the meaning of fascism?

My guess would be no. Because a fascist state uses violence to suppress political opposition. I really don't see that going on here or have you been beat up recently because you hate GW? Was it by the military or the police? And do the corporations have legislative power or do your elected officials have that power?

I know, you just said a fascist police state. As if they can be seperated. You can have a democratic government and a fascist police state at the same time.

But you have this all figured out. Soon you'll throw out the "nazi" card and I'm sure you'll follow that up with some dictatorship comment. If only I could use such intelligent arguements. . .

flere-imsaho

07-22-2005, 08:30 PM

Quite frankly, I am extremely pissed off that such a message has not been sent already.

I concur. It is a shame that Bush & Blair haven't put more pressure on the Saudi Royal Family to curb the funding of terrorist activities that happens amongst their subjects.

Cringer

07-22-2005, 08:30 PM

My guess would be no. Because a fascist state uses violence to suppress political opposition.

"Who needs enemies when you have friends like COINTELPRO?" - Jeff Ott

flere-imsaho

07-22-2005, 08:37 PM

Weak. You cannot dispute my words so you make up something else and dispute that. It's like you wrote Michael Moore's material for him. :)

I thought it was a little more original than saying "No Dutch, invading Iraq wasn't the solution to terrorism" for the umpteenth time. If you manage to substantiate your argument one of these days, that will be news.

TroyF

07-22-2005, 08:38 PM

Best post I've seen from you yet.

While I will agree with you that, at some point, such an action* becomes possible, if not likely, to happen, I continue to disagree with you that such an action is a desirable outcome.

If I can go further, for a second, let me say that if I understand correctly you, Dutch & TroyF, at least, view Radical Islam as a growing threat that will come to encompass much of the Islamic world. Your world view has Radical Islam fighting for hegemonic supremacy against "Western" values of freedom, democracy, and liberty. As such, a confrontation such as you describe is probably inevitable.

I, however, do not share your worldview. I believe history shows us otherwise. In fact, I believe many of that same notions were espoused by Communist-haters in the 20th century. The three (or more) of you will have to work a lot harder to convince me otherwise.

* "such an action" defined as bombing Mecca or similar.

Desireable or not isn't the point. That's what I've been trying to get through all along. I don't WANT it to happen. I think it's inevitable that it will.

And no, I don't think Radical Islam is like Communism. Communism was a government. The radical Islam faction will not stop. They are going to continue to use violence. And they are getting better. Them getting better isn't helping things, it's only going to worsen them.

I see very little chance that we don't have an end game situation at some point. Every attack gets us closer to that reality.

flere-imsaho

07-22-2005, 08:40 PM

Actually Biggles, liberal bullshit like you've spewed in this section of the thread is the best example of why 3k dead isn't the biggest threat this nation faces.

Absolutely. Trigger-happy morons are a far bigger threat to our nation.

Cringer

07-22-2005, 08:42 PM

Absolutely. Trigger-happy morons are a far bigger threat to our nation.

You're all wrong, the left handed albino midget eskimos are the greatest threat to this country.

Raiders Army

07-22-2005, 08:44 PM

Stupidity is the absolute greatest threat ever to the history of the planet. There is absolutely nothing to compare it to, it is an unspeakable evil. Sure, over 17,000 people died of it in this country in the past year due to drunk driving, and in response we held however many guilty people in jail. Civil liberties are nothing when compared to the threat that stupidity poses. Better to lock up and bomb every media person than to have another article based on hearsay instead of facts.

Fixed it for ya.

flere-imsaho

07-22-2005, 08:45 PM

Desireable or not isn't the point. That's what I've been trying to get through all along. I don't WANT it to happen. I think it's inevitable that it will.

Fine. Then I've got you mixed up with Jon, who clearly does believe in such things.

And no, I don't think Radical Islam is like Communism. Communism was a government. The radical Islam faction will not stop. They are going to continue to use violence. And they are getting better. Them getting better isn't helping things, it's only going to worsen them.

I think you need to review your history of the 20th century before making statements like that. Go back and read what people thought of Communism in, say, 1955.

flere-imsaho

07-22-2005, 08:46 PM

You're all wrong, the left handed albino midget eskimos are the greatest threat to this country.

Well, that goes without saying....

MrBigglesworth

07-22-2005, 08:47 PM

Actually Biggles, liberal bullshit like you've spewed in this section of the thread is the best example of why 3k dead isn't the biggest threat this nation faces.
Theoretical question for you Jon: what is the WORST thing a terrorist could do to America? They can't invade and overthrow the gov't, so the worst they could do would be to set off a nuke or two. Now, your proposed pre-emptive strike is to first set off a nuke. My question then is, would that make it MORE or LESS likely that someone would want to nuke America?

MrBigglesworth

07-22-2005, 08:56 PM

Do you know what a fascist police state is? Do you know the meaning of fascism?

My guess would be no. Because a fascist state uses violence to suppress political opposition. I really don't see that going on here or have you been beat up recently because you hate GW? Was it by the military or the police? And do the corporations have legislative power or do your elected officials have that power?

I know, you just said a fascist police state. As if they can be seperated. You can have a democratic government and a fascist police state at the same time.

But you have this all figured out. Soon you'll throw out the "nazi" card and I'm sure you'll follow that up with some dictatorship comment. If only I could use such intelligent arguements. . .
I think you are a little mistaken. JonInMiddleGA is a fascist (or totalitarian if you want to split hairs) and puts forth fascist-type ideas, and in my post I was talking about how I'd rather live with the threat of terrorism than live under the rules that he and other like him put forth. Furthermore, you really don't know anything more than a sophomoric definition of a fascist police state. Distilling it to 'a place where the state uses force to suppress political oppression' and being serious about it is really quite amusing.

Brillig

07-22-2005, 10:30 PM

JonInMiddleGA is a fascist.
Calling JIMGa a fascist is an insult to all right-thinking fascists. Bloodthirsty psychopath is closer to the point.

TroyF

07-22-2005, 10:53 PM

I think you are a little mistaken. JonInMiddleGA is a fascist (or totalitarian if you want to split hairs) and puts forth fascist-type ideas, and in my post I was talking about how I'd rather live with the threat of terrorism than live under the rules that he and other like him put forth. Furthermore, you really don't know anything more than a sophomoric definition of a fascist police state. Distilling it to 'a place where the state uses force to suppress political oppression' and being serious about it is really quite amusing.

No, calling Jon a fascist shows a complete and total lack of understanding of the word. No college prof or anyone with a brain who has studied actual fascism would make that statement.

Fascism is the "corporate state" It's a state run by corportations. There are NO elections in a fascist state. And the governement uses force to ensure the message gets through.

There are other traits of fascism and other loose definitions. But those are critical pieces to fascism and pretending they aren't is exactly the type of "sophomoric" definition you accuse me of having. Your exact quote:

In case anyone else missed the point, 3,000 dead is a lot, but it doesn't make it a cause to turn into a fascist police state that invades other countries on a whim.

I'm assuming you are talking of Iraq with the second part. Which leads me to believe you were pointing out The Patriot Act or some other nonsense to show how we've became a fascist police state. If you really believe that, you are a fool. Period.

I think you need to review your history of the 20th century before making statements like that. Go back and read what people thought of Communism in, say, 1955.

This is a joke, right? By 1955 the McCarthy bubble had already burst. Even in the height of the communism scare with the Hiss and Rosenberg trials, the fear was mainly psychological, not real. The communists were not plotting and executing large scale attacks on American soil or threatening civilian targets across the world.

That's not to say we didn't act like idiots when it came to Communists or that we didn't make some horrific decisions because of it. (we all know how Vietnam turned out) But if the "Commies" had been conducting terrorist activities against the US and our allies, the cold war may not have been so cold. Odds are, it would have warmed up very quickly.

For reference, read some of the "close" calls we had with the Soviets that had both of us within minutes of pushing the button. Some of them are pretty terrifying reads.

Considering we were that close to doing it despite knowing the other side had nuclear weapons pointed right back at us, what makes you think we are going to be more level headed against an enemy that appears weaker with little/no fear of an immediate strike back against us?

Again, anyone who thinks we are going to stay this way for decades and decades is living in some sort of a dream world. We aren't going to continue to watch innocent civilians die. Eventually, there are going to be factors in play that will cause something very, very nasty to happen. It may be a recession. It may be a widespread national frenzy like the McCarthy era that causes us to act irrationaly.

But more likely and the thing I envision happening, is that the terrorists are going to do something that will cause the gloves to come off. Maybe it's a suitcase bomb in Israel (trust me on this one, there'd be no need for US or British involvement were that to happen, it would be the end of the Middle East as we know it in about 30 seconds) Maybe it's a series of attacks in the US or London that cause us to be so fearful for our lives that we'll go to extreme measures to make it stop. Whatever. . . my point is I think they will cross that line and that we'll see something most people can't possibly imagine.

Maybe I'm an idiot and I'm wrong. I can live with that. I don't see anything happening that will change my feelings at this point.

vtbub

07-22-2005, 11:11 PM

There really isn't a circumstance that I can see going nuclear simply because these aren't acts done by a state but by barbarians. What I can see is us either taking the collar off Sharon and Israel and let them do the dirty work, or have us declare war and literally occupy everything from Libya to Afghanistan.

Sadly, there are no right answers.

MrBigglesworth

07-23-2005, 01:08 AM

-Mojo Jojo-

07-23-2005, 02:07 AM

But what would you suggest we do now to appease this group of people?

Am I wrong, or does each action, each attack cause more people to lose the "I really feel for the poor radical Muslims and their plight?"

Speaking in terms of appeasement misses the point. It assumes that this is a conflict of military might, which it is not. It's a war of ideas. The war will be won or lost in terms of whose ideas are more appealing to moderate Muslims: ours or Bin Laden's. We've done much to help Bin Laden sell his message that the West is at war with Islam. Convincing Muslims that we respect them and their interests is not appeasement, it's hitting Bin Laden where it hurts most. The Department of Defense's Defense Science Board figured out this conflict to a stunning degree back in November. See here: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf

Sadly no one listened. Quotes:

"To succeed, we must understand the United States is engaged in a generational and global struggle about ideas, not a war between the West and Islam. It is more than a war against the tactic of terrorism. We must think in terms of global networks, both government and non-government. If we continue to concentrate primarily on states (...), we will fail."

-------------------

"Policies, diplomacy, military operations, and strategic communication should not be managed separately. Good strategic communication cannot build support for policies viewed unfavorably by large populations. Nor can the most carefully crafted messages, themes, and words persuade when the messenger lacks credibility and underlying message authority."

-------------------

"A year and a half after going to war in Iraq, Arab/Muslim anger has intensified. Data from Zogby International in July 2004, for example, show that the U.S. is viewed unfavorably by overwhelming majorities in Egypt (98 percent), Saudi Arabia (94 percent), Morocco (88 percent), and Jordan (78 percent). The war has increased mistrust of America in Europe, weakened support for the war on terrorism, and undermined U.S. credibility worldwide. ... Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America’s national security and reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities."

-------------------

"There is consensus in these reports that U.S. public diplomacy is in crisis. Missing are strong leadership, strategic direction, adequate coordination, sufficient resources, and a culture of measurement and evaluation. ... The number and depth of these reports indicate widespread concern among influential observers that something must be done about public diplomacy. But so far these concerns have produced no real change. The White House has paid little attention. Congressional actions have been limited to informational hearings and funding for Middle East broadcasting initiatives, Radio Sawa and Al Hurra."

-------------------

"Frames simplify and help to communicate complex events. But like the Cold War frame, the terrorism frame marginalizes other significant issues and problems... Often the terrorism frame directs attention to tactics not strategy. The focus is more on capturing and killing terrorists than attitudinal, political, and economic forces that are the underlying source of threats and opportunities in national security."

-------------------

"Information saturation means attention, not information, becomes a scarce resource. Power flows to credible messengers. Asymmetrical credibility matters. What's around information is critical. Reputations count. Brands are important. Editors, filters, and cue givers are influential. Fifty years ago political struggles were about the ability to control and transmit scarce information. Today, political struggles are about the creation and destruction of credibility."

John Galt

07-23-2005, 08:23 AM

No, calling Jon a fascist shows a complete and total lack of understanding of the word. No college prof or anyone with a brain who has studied actual fascism would make that statement.

Fascism is the "corporate state" It's a state run by corportations. There are NO elections in a fascist state. And the governement uses force to ensure the message gets through.

There are other traits of fascism and other loose definitions. But those are critical pieces to fascism and pretending they aren't is exactly the type of "sophomoric" definition you accuse me of having. Your exact quote:

MrBigglesworth already said this, but there is little doubt that Jon is a fascist. He admits with pride that is an authoritarian. He believes in genocide as an effective policy solution to terrorism. He believes in absolute restrictions on certain types of disloyal speech (being a practicing democrat is treason). He doesn't believe in democracy and elections. Really, there is nothing to suggest Jon's particular form of preferred authoritarianism isn't fascist. He has been light on the "corporate state" stuff, but given how he expresses himself on most issues, I'm sure he would end up there as well. So, before you accuse Biggles of showing a "complete and total lack of understanding," you might want to check your facts.

BTW, there are other definitions of fascism which have less emphasis on corporate politics. For many, it is about a form of control and communication (which is why Italy is the more proto-typical fascist regime).

KWhit

07-23-2005, 09:18 AM

Speaking in terms of appeasement misses the point. It assumes that this is a conflict of military might, which it is not. It's a war of ideas. The war will be won or lost in terms of whose ideas are more appealing to moderate Muslims: ours or Bin Laden's.
Great post, Mojo. I agree with you 100%. IMO, the war on terror is just making the problem much, much worse.

Klinglerware

07-23-2005, 09:55 AM

Yes, that was a great find, Mojo. I've said this before but I'll say it again: there a lot of our best and brightest, both civilian and military, working in the DoD and CIA in policy, defense, and intelligence analysis. I despise how their reputations are being absolutely tarred and feathered when their analyses don't always mesh with administration policy. They are trained to consider all possibilities and report what they see--nuanced, impolitic conclusions shouldn't be cause to question their patriotism or their competence...

fantastic flying froggies

07-23-2005, 03:57 PM

Dutch

07-23-2005, 04:30 PM

Great post, Mojo. I agree with you 100%. IMO, the war on terror is just making the problem much, much worse.

That's just plain wrong. It was worse long before we removed the Taliban and the Baath Party.

It is a War of Ideas. I agree 100% with that, however. The people in Afghanistan and Iraq were simply not given the opportunity to voice their opinion and had no say in their government and those governments were run by leaders who simply acted illegally and without regard for international law.

The way to win the war of idea's isn't to try and change their minds. That's not going to work. No sweet-talkin' American President or French President or British Prime Minister is going to make headlines in the Taliban newspaper or the Baath Party Gazette.

They have been spewing anti-American and anti-West and anti-Jewish and anti-Christian filth for many, many decades (and surely longer than that) prior to our choice to help them reform the middle east.

But the big difference was 9/11. No longer where they just a bunch of rhetoric spewing clerics who funded bombing buses in Israel. They had moved up. Now they were bombing US bases and installations in Saudi Arabia, Embassies in Africa, Naval Vessels in Yemen, attempting an assisination of a US President in Kuwait, and of course, the grand finale of 9/11.

But it wasn't the grand finale in their minds and it may not be still. They were working hard on their next big strike. What was next? Would they be able to top that? How many Americans on the other side of the planet could a these guys really kill in one go?

And Saddam Hussein's continual dogging of UN Sanctions left the US in a bad bind. We had to keep the status quo on the Northern and Southern no fly zones because of this clown. And at the same time the Al Qaeda were pressing for and winning recruits because of their rhetoric and murder against the US military in Saudi Arabia.

Something had to give. The status quo was not only failing to be effective anymore, but it was unravelling at the seams. Al Qaeda recruiting was on the rise, public opinion of the US and the West had already shrunk to next to nothing. US Soldiers were on complete lock-down in prison styled camps in the desert so they wouldn't be bombed or attacked by extremists. Saddam Hussein was shooting at UN planes daily with anti-aircraft guns of all kinds. Some we could find and destroy, others that they hid from us and only brought out into the open, fired, and re-hid.

Amnesty International was blaming 500,000 Iraqi children's deaths not on Saddam Hussein, but on UN Sanctions and an "Oil for Food" program that was crippled by corruption. Killing support for UN Sanctions in the west.

Russia was preparing massive military sales to Iraq the second UN Sanctions were lifted and France had oil contracts set up to do the same. Both Russia and France were starting a campaign to have UN Sanctions lifted from Iraq. Despite the fact that Iraq had never adhered to the 1991 US Cease-Fire Agreement or the 16 UN Sanctions placed up them.

Something had to be done. The over-analysis paralysis of the left today was no option. The use of military force was and always will be the USA's final option. But in this case it was neccessary. I believe that and with the failure of diplomacy, I thought it was neccessary.

But I didn't support it as a "Muscle Flexing Excercise". I support it because regardless of what was said or how things were done, the end result is the same. The Taliban and the Baath Party are gone. Those are good things in the long term development of the Middle East. If we lose a friend or two in the polls, so be it. But if we gain an ally or two in the fight for building responsable nations that can fucking police their own.

It's worth it.

Honolulu_Blue

07-23-2005, 06:22 PM

That's just plain wrong. It was worse long before we removed the Taliban and the Baath Party.

It is a War of Ideas. I agree 100% with that, however. The people in Afghanistan and Iraq were simply not given the opportunity to voice their opinion and had no say in their government and those governments were run by leaders who simply acted illegally and without regard for international law.

The way to win the war of idea's isn't to try and change their minds. That's not going to work. No sweet-talkin' American President or French President or British Prime Minister is going to make headlines in the Taliban newspaper or the Baath Party Gazette.

They have been spewing anti-American and anti-West and anti-Jewish and anti-Christian filth for many, many decades (and surely longer than that) prior to our choice to help them reform the middle east.

But the big difference was 9/11. No longer where they just a bunch of rhetoric spewing clerics who funded bombing buses in Israel. They had moved up. Now they were bombing US bases and installations in Saudi Arabia, Embassies in Africa, Naval Vessels in Yemen, attempting an assisination of a US President in Kuwait, and of course, the grand finale of 9/11.

But it wasn't the grand finale in their minds and it may not be still. They were working hard on their next big strike. What was next? Would they be able to top that? How many Americans on the other side of the planet could a these guys really kill in one go?

And Saddam Hussein's continual dogging of UN Sanctions left the US in a bad bind. We had to keep the status quo on the Northern and Southern no fly zones because of this clown. And at the same time the Al Qaeda were pressing for and winning recruits because of their rhetoric and murder against the US military in Saudi Arabia.

Something had to give. The status quo was not only failing to be effective anymore, but it was unravelling at the seams. Al Qaeda recruiting was on the rise, public opinion of the US and the West had already shrunk to next to nothing. US Soldiers were on complete lock-down in prison styled camps in the desert so they wouldn't be bombed or attacked by extremists. Saddam Hussein was shooting at UN planes daily with anti-aircraft guns of all kinds. Some we could find and destroy, others that they hid from us and only brought out into the open, fired, and re-hid.

Amnesty International was blaming 500,000 Iraqi children's deaths not on Saddam Hussein, but on UN Sanctions and an "Oil for Food" program that was crippled by corruption. Killing support for UN Sanctions in the west.

Russia was preparing massive military sales to Iraq the second UN Sanctions were lifted and France had oil contracts set up to do the same. Both Russia and France were starting a campaign to have UN Sanctions lifted from Iraq. Despite the fact that Iraq had never adhered to the 1991 US Cease-Fire Agreement or the 16 UN Sanctions placed up them.

Something had to be done. The over-analysis paralysis of the left today was no option. The use of military force was and always will be the USA's final option. But in this case it was neccessary. I believe that and with the failure of diplomacy, I thought it was neccessary.

But I didn't support it as a "Muscle Flexing Excercise". I support it because regardless of what was said or how things were done, the end result is the same. The Taliban and the Baath Party are gone. Those are good things in the long term development of the Middle East. If we lose a friend or two in the polls, so be it. But if we gain an ally or two in the fight for building responsable nations that can fucking police their own.

It's worth it.
Wow. And I thought Fox News was bad. :D

Cringer

07-23-2005, 06:26 PM

By the way, sadly, the guy caught and killed yesterday by the London Police had nothing to do with the bombings. I still think the cops did the right thing though, even if it must be hell for them right now...and for the guy's family too of course.

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050723/ap_on_re_eu/britain_underground

Based on the fact that they had no idea who he was, if he was connected to it, and that they had him in custudy and pinned down, I think tis is a horrible tragedy and a major fuck up.

Let me say that yesterday I was "Fuck yeah, blew his ass away." But after hearing this stuff, I think they screwed this one up big time. Atleast give me something about something he did, some kind of action while he was pinned down that led to the shooting of him.

Ryan S

07-23-2005, 09:20 PM

Atleast give me something about something he did, some kind of action while he was pinned down that led to the shooting of him.
Given the heightened tension in London, I would say that running away into a train was enough justification.

ice4277

07-23-2005, 09:48 PM

Yeah, um, maybe don't run from the police in that situation. Kind of like if I'm trying to barge through a metal detector at the airport, nobody's fault but my own when I get my ass blown off.

Dutch

07-23-2005, 10:55 PM

Wow. And I thought Fox News was bad. :D

I'm all ears if you care to go into detail.

Cringer

07-23-2005, 11:41 PM

Given the heightened tension in London, I would say that running away into a train was enough justification.

You are right. What I had read did not say this. Heard on the radio a bit ago that he jumped through the ticket booth and took off. When I heard that I thought it made more sense then. I don't understand at all why the guy would run. Still seems a bit over the top by the police, but I see where they are coming from.

Critch

07-24-2005, 12:51 AM

I don't think it's over the top at all. There's been suicide bombers, some guy flees the police and jumps onto a train then the first thoughts of the police have got to be to safeguard the people on the train, and themselves, by making sure he can't blow himself up.

Still don't know why the guy was stupid enough to run from police and dive onto a train though.

MrBigglesworth

07-24-2005, 02:53 PM

I'm all ears if you care to go into detail.
Dutch before the war:
It sure seems like their arsenal of WMD that existed in 1998 still exists. Anybody care to challenge that? Where are the US lies in this? The Iraqi's haven't disarmed, the UN said, "Disarm". And this is somehow American lies?

Those who are questioning the United States are wrong. There is no other way around it. I would be nice if I thought there was a better way to say it. But saying that Iraq has disarmed and the USA is lying is simply having the wrong opinion.
Then:
If he does not have any WMD left (i.e. He did in fact destroy the known stockpiles he never accounted for) he fooled me, he fooled Reuters, he fooled the AP, he fooled Bush, he fooled Clinton, he fooled the Iranians, the Russians, the Germans and French, his own people, his own generals, and just about everybody on the face of the planet including you, the reader of this post.
And now you are talking about completely different stuff. I think he mentioned FoxNews because you basically swallow, digest, and spew forth the RNC line whatever it may be at the time. First, it was that Iraq has WMD's and all the people that disagree are simply wrong. Then, Iraq doesn't have WMD's, but everyone was wrong about that (throwing into the memory hole all the people you were arguing with before). Now, you don't even discuss the WMD's and just give the next talking points. Furthermore, there are very few people who disagree with the war in Afghanistan, yet you make it the central focal point of your discussion of the war on terror. I think you know that Iraq is what people are pissed at.

Dutch

07-24-2005, 04:17 PM

Dutch before the war:

Then:

And now you are talking about completely different stuff.

I am re-iterating what we already know.

I don't know what happened to those stockpiles the UN inventories. Maybe they were all destroyed in Operation Desert Fox. Maybe they were moved to Syria. Maybe they were buried in the sand like the Iraqi Air Force and even the dictator Saddam Hussein when we found him. Maybe they were the weapons Libya suddenly appeared with and offered to the UN for destruction. Maybe Saddam Hussein destroyed them behind the UN Inspectors backs. Who knows.

I think he mentioned FoxNews because you basically swallow, digest, and spew forth the RNC line whatever it may be at the time.

Is that what you call what you do as Michael Moore's voicebox?

First, it was that Iraq has WMD's and all the people that disagree are simply wrong. Then, Iraq doesn't have WMD's, but everyone was wrong about that (throwing into the memory hole all the people you were arguing with before). Now, you don't even discuss the WMD's and just give the next talking points. Furthermore, there are very few people who disagree with the war in Afghanistan, yet you make it the central focal point of your discussion of the war on terror. I think you know that Iraq is what people are pissed at.

My position on Iraq's WMD's has not changed as much as you suggest it has. And my position is not RNC controlled. It's the same position as UN Resolution 687 that was signed off by the UN secretary-general and agreed to by the UN security council members and never revoked. It is also my position that regime change, to include military force if diplomacy fails, per President Clinton, was not a lead RNC position either.

Nothing really changed accept the embarrassment that we did not find the WMD's.

Iraqi Generals were handing out gas-masks to their troops because the "battalion next to ours" is going to use chemical weapons against advancing US/UK units. If they truly destroyed their VX and Mustard Gas and other WMD's, it fooled a lot of people, not just the RNC.

Again, people are pissed about Iraq, I agree. I believe it's because they haven't been told the entire story if they chose to watch the ABC Nightly News or even 24-hour CNN coverage. Those people who do watch Fox News tend to be understanding because they get a better view of the Bush Admin's big picture. Those who don't watch Fox News are told nothing. They just get Death Tolls and SNAFU's and not an ounce more, "Because good news doesn't sell". It's no wonder, really.

But anyway, the balance between Good and Bad news does sell, or so it seems. Fox News is proving the formula to be a moderate success.

gstelmack

07-24-2005, 04:38 PM

And now you are talking about completely different stuff. I think he mentioned FoxNews because you basically swallow, digest, and spew forth the RNC line whatever it may be at the time. First, it was that Iraq has WMD's and all the people that disagree are simply wrong. Then, Iraq doesn't have WMD's, but everyone was wrong about that (throwing into the memory hole all the people you were arguing with before). Now, you don't even discuss the WMD's and just give the next talking points. Furthermore, there are very few people who disagree with the war in Afghanistan, yet you make it the central focal point of your discussion of the war on terror. I think you know that Iraq is what people are pissed at.
What exactly did Dutch say that was wrong? 9/11 COMPLETELY changed how we will deal with threats to this country. No more 12 years of dodging around trying diplomacy if we think someone is even a moderate threat. And you can go back through these threads and find me saying this PLENTY before and after the Iraq invasion: we aren't messing around anymore. 3000+ of our people were killed in four coordinated attacks on one morning, and we are not going to take chances anymore. It's not business as usual, it's SURVIVAL.

Call that "Fox News" all you want, but it's also the truth. Lots of people seem to forget what exactly went on on 9/11 and how that changed the world...

Coder

07-24-2005, 05:04 PM

Again, people are pissed about Iraq, I agree. I believe it's because they haven't been told the entire story if they chose to watch the ABC Nightly News or even 24-hour CNN coverage. Those people who do watch Fox News tend to be understanding because they get a better view of the Bush Admin's big picture. Those who don't watch Fox News are told nothing.

Can't help it.. but this made me laugh. We get Fox News in Sweden too you know.. but it's considered a comedy channel here.

I get my news from several sources, none of which I consider "covering all the angles". However, by taking in news from American Media, European Media, and yes, sometimes I even checked a Saudi online newspaper to see what they were writing, I piece together what I consider to be a pretty decent overall picture.

And believe me, Fox News are reporting lots of things in a VERY different way than most news outlets around the world. And by most news outlets, I mean such things as one piece of news being reported in a certain way across Sweden, Germany, Denmark and the UK, and then turned around and given a whole different spin on Fox News.

gstelmack

07-24-2005, 05:07 PM

And believe me, Fox News are reporting lots of things in a VERY different way than most news outlets around the world. And by most news outlets, I mean such things as one piece of news being reported in a certain way across Sweden, Germany, Denmark and the UK, and then turned around and given a whole different spin on Fox News.
Here in the US, those same media channels are busy not telling the same side of the Karl Rove story to the public that they're telling the courts...

-Mojo Jojo-

07-24-2005, 05:08 PM

I don't know if this is entirely germane to this thread, but I just finished watching a documentary that aired on BBC in January called The Power of Nightmares about militant Islamists and neocons (click here for info (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm)). Has anyone here seen it? There are 3 1-hour episodes. It is available for free download at the Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares). You can also find it at most bittorrent search sites if you want a faster download. I'd love to see some academic discussion of this film. It makes a lot of interesting arguments. It provides pretty good evidence for some assertions, others.. not so much. Most of what I've found online is highly polarized (ie. either "it's a completely worthless pack of lies" or "ohmygod, I've seen the light!"). I'd be curious to hear what some of you folks think about it.

MrBigglesworth

07-24-2005, 07:28 PM

I don't know what happened to those stockpiles the UN inventories. Maybe they were all destroyed in Operation Desert Fox. Maybe they were moved to Syria. Maybe they were buried in the sand like the Iraqi Air Force and even the dictator Saddam Hussein when we found him. Maybe they were the weapons Libya suddenly appeared with and offered to the UN for destruction. Maybe Saddam Hussein destroyed them behind the UN Inspectors backs. Who knows.
Maybe the magic WMD fairies came and took them from under Saddam's pillow in the middle of the night.

Is that what you call what you do as Michael Moore's voicebox?
In March of 2003 I was very pro-war, I didn't think the government was capable of that kind of deception. I remember arguing with several Europeans about it. When they turned out to be right, I admitted I was wrong. I did not continue to make rationalization after rationalization.

Again, people are pissed about Iraq, I agree. I believe it's because they haven't been told the entire story if they chose to watch the ABC Nightly News or even 24-hour CNN coverage. Those people who do watch Fox News tend to be understanding because they get a better view of the Bush Admin's big picture. Those who don't watch Fox News are told nothing. They just get Death Tolls and SNAFU's and not an ounce more, "Because good news doesn't sell". It's no wonder, really.
According to PIPA:
Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions...For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between.
It seems that research in the reality based community does not back up your assertion that if only people would watch more FoxNews, they would be more informed.

Dutch

07-24-2005, 09:04 PM

Maybe the magic WMD fairies came and took them from under Saddam's pillow in the middle of the night.

Is that the rational thinking you tout? :)

yabanci

08-19-2005, 07:46 AM

Given the heightened tension in London, I would say that running away into a train was enough justification.
Yeah, um, maybe don't run from the police in that situation. Kind of like if I'm trying to barge through a metal detector at the airport, nobody's fault but my own when I get my ass blown off.

And then a month later the truth starts coming out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801523.html

In explaining why Menezes had been shot, police initially issued a statement saying that "his clothing and his behavior at the station added to suspicions" they had about him being a potential suicide bomber. He was shot the day after the failed attacks on the London transit system and two weeks after the July 7 bombings on the system that killed 56 people, including the four presumed bombers, and wounded 700 others.

That police statement reinforced widely published reports that eyewitnesses said Menezes had jumped over the turnstile at the Stockwell subway station and was wearing a padded jacket despite warm weather. But Blair said Thursday that those reports had never been confirmed by the police.

"We have been as responsible as we could be in a very fast-moving scenario," the commissioner said, urging people to see Menezes' "tragic" death in the context of "the largest criminal inquiry in English history."

But according to new police documents, witness statements and photographs aired this week on ITV News, Menezes, contrary to the impression given by police, walked slowly into the train station and was wearing a lightweight denim jacket.

The new documents leaked to the television station indicated he was already being restrained by one officer when he was shot dead by another. The BBC reported Thursday night that a staff member of the police oversight commission had been suspended after an investigation into the source of the leaked documents.

Blair told BBC radio Thursday that there was no coverup involved and that he had no intention of resigning, as some have suggested. His office issued a statement saying that immediately after the shooting, Blair intended that "the terrorist investigation take precedence" over any investigation into the shooting.