London terrorist attacks

[TheHammer]

Well, thracozaag, firstly, you missed the most important goal of the USA, to which you already agreed (you remember, point 3). Even if the US president is really willing to help these people there, to promote democracy, it is just not the picture he is giving. It at least seems that he is just striving for the oil. So, at best, this is an image problem. And at worst, you have voted for a corrupt and money driven leadership, which is now governing your country, not in the interest of its people, but of themselves. But I disgress.

Then, I actually don't see why promoting democracy is a good idea. Noone asked for that, and up until now, there have been more failures in US politics fooling around with other governments than there have been success. Did it ever occured to you that these people perhaps have no interest in our values? I am quite sure that if you had asked a German peasant in 11th century if he wants to be a free man, he would have stared at you for a long time and then spiked you with his hay-fork. As I said before, a modern state's form needs a modern society first. You will not be able to establish a democracy in a country where most people are suffering and still believe the things of Koran literally. So you have two options: try to help them a bit structurally, try to begin diplomatic negotiation with their leaders, try to begin a cultural dialogue, if you are really interested in that at all. This approach is careful, and with respect to their way of living, without false hauteur and arrogance. So, over a longer period of time, they become interested in the Western way of life, will open their markets, and thus will open their culture and society for Western values. This has happeden in China and the whole Far East. USA has not bothered with them for a long time. Now they are becoming more and more democratic. On the other hand, this approach has to ignore some violations of human rights in the countries it is dealing with. As we perceive in China too.

The other possibility is to try to get rid of the political leaders and just make these countries democracies no matter what the population thinks of this. This was the approach of the USA for a long time, if with intelligence mehtods (early 80's), military actions (90's and recently) or economical pressure (90's). After all, in the light of these actions, although now long passed, your point three seems like mockery. Both Saddam Hussein and the Muschaheddin were supported by the USA, how does that fit into your plan?
This approach is quite harmful to the population as it requires usage of warfare and causes major resistance in the population, aka rebellions. On the other hand, most often, when a certain economical improval is to be perceived, people tend to become somewhat open to democracy and the West. This has hapened for example in the richer oil states, such as Dubai (although WITHOUT any US involvement), and, to a very small extent, in Afghanistan, where the situation seems a bit calmer.

After all, the decision has already been made, so you have to think on how do you get the best of option number two.And that means, basically you have to ask yourself: will we be able to bring wealth and stability to the Mid-East without bringing up the whole population against us? If you can do this, than democracy will come by itself. There are only two problems: firstly, we won't make it. Most Western nations have serious economical problems, also the US is not in the good shape in was once (mostly because of the war in Iraq, you have to admit). Secondly, the USA does not want a wealthy and stable Mid-East. Because then their troops there would not be needed any longer. And a wealthy, modernized Mid-East will not be so easy to control, they probably want their oil for themselves, or at least they will not let themselves be taken to the cleaners so easily (note that these points are a personal opinion of mine, based on the events of the recent and farer past).

Further, I wonder how the USA want to make a 10 year stand in the Mid-East? These will be not realiseable, economically, political, military.
I could go on and on, I have to say... E.g. your second point: " Find, capture, and kill our enemies (in that order)". Lol, is there another order? And as I said I am not the big fan of just killing people, after all this is (IMO) no war in the classical sense, and the terrorist are no soldiers who can be killed no matter what. Capture, okay, but then give them a trial if they are in any way guilty. Just killing them is against any value America stands for, and makes the US military terrorist themselves (any innocent killed is a murder, not a war accident, then). I think there was a discussion lately on the status of these terrorists?

However, I have to practise... anyway, this won't change anything. We both had our opinions, I enjoyed your point of view. If you wanna go on, please do so, I don't feel the urge (will still respond).

[TheHammer]

Just because we are in Iraq was not the reason for these attacks. Remember we didn't start this war. There was the Cole bombing, the first WTC bombing, 9/11. We finally got a President who didn't take crap from these radical whackjobs, and we took action.

boliver

What other reasons are there then? Besides the ones I already named, i.e. the whole US foreign policy form the 1970's up to today? Do you think these Arabs were just bored, and thought who can we kill? After all, BinLaden and Hussein were your FRIENDS not even 20 years ago.

[BoliverAllmon]

These people will continue to attack. They attacked before we did. They already had the hatred. These people take the Koran litterally. They believe they must kill all Christians and Jews. There is no such thing as innocent civilians in there eyes. People must die.

[BoliverAllmon]

What other reasons are there then? Besides the ones I already named, i.e. the whole US foreign policy form the 1970's up to today? Do you think these Arabs were just bored, and thought who can we kill? After all, BinLaden and Hussein were your FRIENDS not even 20 years ago.

I don't remember them being FRIENDS. Enlighten me.

[TheHammer]

Err, Bin Laden and the Mudschaheddin were supported by 1 billion $ in their fight against communism. Saddam was at least helped into power and also support with satellite pictures in his war against Iran in which he killed thousands of innocents as well. USA also selled weapons to him. You don't remember the famous hand shake scen with Donald Rumsfeld? They look like friends to me, and if not that, allies at least.

[BoliverAllmon]

Ok, I forgot about that. Forgive me oh great Hammer. At the time it looked like we were doing the right thing. Hindsight is always better than foresight.

boliver

[TheHammer]

Ok, I forgot about that. Forgive me oh great Hammer. At the time it looked like we were doing the right thing. Hindsight is always better than foresight.

boliver

You are forgiven.  :P

No seriously, you said Iraq wasn't the reason. I asked which there were then. Answer? And I added that there had to be some actions from the side of the USA since once upon a time, these terrorists were your allies. That did not mean the USA had chosen the wrong allies (which is true nevertheless, don't tell me you didn't know how dangerous Saddam is, and after he killed all this people...come on), but that even the fundamentalist did not hate the Western world all the time. You have to understand where this hate comes from to fight it.

And so you admit the failure of the US government at that time? That they were placing their national interest (fighting communism) higher than the interest of any of these surpressed people? What makes you think  the USA changed their mind? What makes you think they are not following their interest right now, instead of trying to achieve something? Is it some Bush speeches? Man, this guy has betrayed you all or he is the most incompetent guy ever in presidency.

[BoliverAllmon]

These people will continue to attack. They attacked before we did. They already had the hatred. These people take the Koran litterally. They believe they must kill all Christians and Jews. There is no such thing as innocent civilians in there eyes. People must die.

this was my answer as to why they attack

[TheHammer]

Since "They attacked before we did" is wrong IMO, I ignored it.
Also, religious beliefs play only a minor role, because, again, fundamentalist have not always been enemies of the USA. So, they already took the Koran literally when they worked together with USA.

But, well, this is my opinion, and that is yours...

[BoliverAllmon]

Since "They attacked before we did" is wrong IMO, I ignored it.
Also, religious beliefs play only a minor role, because, again, fundamentalist have not always been enemies of the USA. So, they already took the Koran literally when they worked together with USA.

But, well, this is my opinion, and that is yours...

why is it wrong?

[TheHammer]

why is it wrong?

Because I see European intervention in Mid-Eastern affairs after WWII as "attacks" in a broader sense. But what I think is of no improtance. The important thing is, these people down there have the feeling USA begun this. Have there been islamistic terrorist attacks before the US tried to control this region? IMO, the USA started this. They should think about their past policies and change it accordingly.

[ashraf_khalil72]

will ibeleive as amuslim this proplem is about some terrorists who kills inocent peoples
in the name of islam those savages are not related to my relegion (islam)  we muslims
suffered from thim too
we should defferentiate between those killer and islam

[TheHammer]

Very true, indeed. But I fear my friend, people here (in the Western world) will become more and more suspicious about Muslims in general. And it is a sad fact that up to now no major Muslim Organization has openly critized or chastised these terrorists. That would be an improtant step and could actually help. Much more young Muslims would perhaps refrain them from taking the path of violence.

Islam has nothing to do with it. With the "correct" interpretation of the Bible, you can justify anything (see Crusades), as well. I think noone here is so stupid to throw all Muslims in one pot. There are enough criminals in the non-Arabic world to show that the deeds of individuals do not say anything about other individuals, no matter how much they have in commun.

[barbosa-piano]

 I heard everything about it, and though I am not British, I love Great Britain and I give my best wishes to the British people and share the sorrow from the depths of my soul. This day will surely be marked, as one more act of destruction and disgust against the civilized world, perpetrated by the terrorists that have pride in claiming that they did it, which many groups did. The reason why they claim it, is because it is hard to be done. The determination, fraternity and organization of the civilized people is immense, and that is why it is a desire to claim responsibility for the attacks, because it is a very hard task in terrorists minds. But that does not mean that we are frightened. We fight on the side of justice, and on the cause that we will fight to exist and keep our traditions and way of life alive. Could you imagine, if we decided to pay back with terrorism? Our way to make terrorism would be by dropping exocet missiles from Eurofighters and bombs from B-52s, and by using the nuclear power and superior estrategy. Diplomacy does not work against terrorists. It must be a relief for them that we have not yet thought that way, or of genocide, which in our way of thinking would be out of question. We defend the right for liberty and life. This is not a time to blaim other allied countries for their mistakes, because we are all fighting this war together to defend our rights. This is a time for the friendly nations to give their prayers and forces on this difficult time. We must stop this in the most effective and correct way, for the sake of our future generations. As I finish this, I commend the Londoners for their strength and pacience, and once more, I give my best wishes to the British people and to the rest of the free world. We shall not be frightened, nor surrender.

Sincerely,
Mario Barbosa

[ashraf_khalil72]

will hammer its very important to notify that bin ladin was supported by the CIA ( thats will known now) during the american war on communism also they did help saddam hussein killing
iranian(later his iraqi people) by the war gases  when isay american imean government all
all that was for pragmatic causes now all the people are suffering from terrorism by the way there is no definite defenition for the word (terrorism) also for apragmatic causes so the word it self can be used in many defferent ways ,to describe any one dont you agree with me that the proplem is more huge than afew hundreds may be thousends who commit theses crimes ?

[TheHammer]

Hmm, lol, you make me smile. I recommend you read the whole thread. E.g. answer number
54, in which I said:
 

Err, Bin Laden and the Mudschaheddin were supported by 1 billion $ in their fight against communism. Saddam was at least helped into power and also support with satellite pictures in his war against Iran in which he killed thousands of innocents as well. USA also selled weapons to him. You don't remember the famous hand shake scen with Donald Rumsfeld? They look like friends to me, and if not that, allies at least.

So I think I agree with you. Or do you agree with me? 

[ashraf_khalil72]

 
will ithink hammer we agree with each others

[Jacey1973]

It is so saddening to watch the news today (49 now confirmed dead, but there is still bodies trapped between Kings Cross and Russel square tube stations).

I really don't see what the terrorists have achieved - because it has just made British people unite and made them more determined to get rid of terrorism for good.

The saddest stories on the news are of families who have had loved ones missing since yesterday.

[ashraf_khalil72]

will is living in the middle east ithink ican calrify few thing :
does western dimocrassy(american) is the best for us? my personal openon is NO bacause we have defferent cultures what good in some region is not nessairly good for another

whats terrorism ?? the us till this moment  do not want to put adefenite defenition for terrorism why?
ithink because they want to describe who  ever they want to describe withit e.g they describe the iraqi resistance by being terrorists although all laws of the world gave them the right to resist the army whos occupaing their country


we have proplems with our regimes yes we do but who give the americans the right to fight  our battle (idont mean violence by the word battle) if we dont get our freedom by
our selves so we dont desirve it freedom is not agift its ahuman right isnt it?

what happens from the american troops in iraq (abo ghraib prison) ,in goantanamo
what wasnt it described by beung terrorism? ithink because the languge of force is stronger the bthe languge of humanity also because the term (terrorism) is so elastic i beleive for apragmatic reasons

lastly forget me my english

[ashraf_khalil72]

hammer im glad UR so ojective

[TheHammer]

Well, I guess I try my best, although I am not so sure about this (you know, doubt everything, even your mind...). However, thanks.

May I ask, where are you from? I think we should use this opportunity for a real dialogue, you already gave important insight in the feelings and the perspective of the Arabic population. (Of course, again we don't know for sure how representative your arguments are, but at least you know probably more about this then we do, hence my question about your background, if it doesn't bother you...) 

[ashraf_khalil72]

will im from egypt if u want to know me better we can meat in chat room now if U dont mind

[i_m_robot]

I_m_Robot: No, these are not excuses. These are reasons why terrorists might act as they act. And they are not poor. I ask you what you think most people you know would do in similar situations, that is, being under the impression of being threatened by a over-mighty enemy, which just bombed your house (or the house of the neighbor, or any house in the country) just for the sake of some barrels of oil (because, even if it's not true that the USA are interested in oil at all, the only thing that matters is that these people have this immpression. Hence their hate.)
After all, your "psycological" reasoning is in a way an excuse, too. If they had fulfilled lives, they wouldn't kill other people. And so on.

of course- they are all excuse

self just typed a bunch of stuff then the page refreshed and it was gone

so selfs just gonna say

if someone dies for you, the least you can do is trust that person

even if that person makes a mistake

[drooxy]

yes, the frogeaters did it.  Quick, blow them up.[/i]

I do not find this very funny... sorry.

[BoliverAllmon]

I just finished reading alot of these posts. I want to say that I don't put all Muslims in a pot. I think that some are extremists and radicals. I am personally a Christian, but feel the same way towards certain Christians. I feel that they are extremists and radicals. So the guy from the Egypt (I don't remember your name), no ill feelings.

boliver

[thracozaag]

will ibeleive as amuslim this proplem is about some terrorists who kills inocent peoples
in the name of islam those savages are not related to my relegion (islam)  we muslims
suffered from thim too
we should defferentiate between those killer and islam

  It is my most sincere hope that muslims will deal with terrorism internally by rooting out the extremists.  And for god's sake where are all the feminists?  They should be decrying the depolorable way women are being treated, specifically under the Taliban and other fundamentalist oligarchies.

koji

[thracozaag]

I just finished reading alot of these posts. I want to say that I don't put all Muslims in a pot. I think that some are extremists and radicals. I am personally a Christian, but feel the same way towards certain Christians. I feel that they are extremists and radicals. So the guy from the Egypt (I don't remember your name), no ill feelings.

boliver

  In the fifteen or so major conflicts in the world (just read in the Times about the horrors of teachers trying to survive in Thailand), the overwhelming majority of these conflicts are cause by muslims not being able to get along with their neighbors.
  ANd when's the  last time you've heard of Shinto plane hijackers, or methodist suicide bombers?

koji

[musik_man]

I'd like to point out that the US never supported Bin Laden.  He wasn't in Afganistan during the Soviet invasion, which is when America funded guerrillas.  He only started his terrorist activities after the Persian Gulf war.  Ironically, not because of America invading Iraq, but because there were non-muslim troops in Mecca.

[i_m_robot]

know thy stuff

[TheHammer]

I'd like to point out that the US never supported Bin Laden. He wasn't in Afganistan during the Soviet invasion, which is when America funded guerrillas. He only started his terrorist activities after the Persian Gulf war. Ironically, not because of America invading Iraq, but because there were non-muslim troops in Mecca.

Well, the USA supported the ISI (Pakistani intelligence service) which then supported Afghanian and Mudshaheddinian resistance against the Soviets.
Whereas OBL wasn't in Afghanistan in 1979 (the year of the invasion) he was there to fight against the Soviet occupation (I think from 1982-1989, or along these lines) and in those times the USA started their support programme (if you have other information, please link to your sources).
I did not say that his terror activities started as a reaction to the Iraq war.

Also, this reference to Bin Laden was only made to point out that the USA were not always the enemy for these extremists. Something must have changed their mind recently, though.

So, do you want to argue with that, or just give non-related and only suggestive information? I mean, come on, that was quite "not-to-the-point". 

In the fifteen or so major conflicts in the world (just read in the Times about the horrors of teachers trying to survive in Thailand), the overwhelming majority of these conflicts are cause by muslims not being able to get along with their neighbors.
 ANd when's the last time you've heard of Shinto plane hijackers, or methodist suicide bombers?

koji

This may be true and fine. But, since you quoted Boliver, I assume you are reacting to his statement, that being Muslim does not necessarily make someone a terrorist, and that being Christian does not prevent someone of being one either. Are you going to argue that, or why have you quoted him? What is this supposed to suggest? (If you are just giving perhaps interesting, but non-related information, excuse me that I did not spot this before.)



Edit: This NYTimes column pretty much sums up what I wanted to say in this thread (although it is only focussing on recent events, and has a remark to an obscure Bush-incident, which has not really anything to do with the whole point. Just makes the author look like a Bush-basher, but he is right nevertheless):
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/opinion/11herbert.html

[abell88]

In the fifteen or so major conflicts in the world (just read in the Times about the horrors of teachers trying to survive in Thailand), the overwhelming majority of these conflicts are cause by muslims not being able to get along with their neighbors.
  ANd when's the  last time you've heard of Shinto plane hijackers, or methodist suicide bombers?

How about the conflict in Northern Ireland...Catholics vs. Protestants?

[i_m_robot]

This may be true and fine. But, since you quoted Boliver, I assume you are reacting to his statement, that being Muslim does not necessarily make someone a terrorist, and that being Christian does not prevent someone of being one either. Are you going to argue that, or why have you quoted him? What is this supposed to suggest? (If you are just giving perhaps interesting, but non-related information, excuse me that I did not spot this before.)

he seems to just be pointing out a correlation however he neglects to take into consideration those christians who have committed atrocities much larger scale -their hands are not so clean

[thracozaag]

he seems to just be pointing out a correlation however he neglects to take into consideration those christians who have committed atrocities much larger scale -their hands are not so clean

   Don't misconstrue me; aside for the art and music I have absolutely no love for religion.  But radical Islam is the most persistent and serious threat to civilization we will encounter in our lifetime.

koji

[BoliverAllmon]

Islam is indeed the greatest problem we have when it comes to religion.

[i_m_robot]

actually the most persistent and serious threat is intolerance

it is the driving force behind most of the crap that happens

and sorry if self misconstrued what you said

it was just a supposition


(BA you posted while self was typing and thus self removed some of what self was going to say)

[BoliverAllmon]

actually the most persistent and serious threat is intolerance

it is the driving force behind most of the crap that happens

and sorry if self misconstrued what you said

it was just a supposition


(BA you posted while self was typing and thus self removed some of what self was going to say)

I think you are correct intolerance is the biggest issue. THough islam tends to be the most intolerant of all religions; therefore, Islam being the biggest threat.

boliver

[Dazzer]

Islam is indeed the greatest problem we have when it comes to religion.

Religion is indeed the greatest problem when it comes to peace.

[BoliverAllmon]

Religion is indeed the greatest problem when it comes to peace.

not necessarily religion. Take Buddism for instance. I can't think of a single instance when Buddism was the culprit of terror.

boliver

[TheHammer]

I think you are correct intolerance is the biggest issue. THough islam tends to be the most intolerant of all religions; therefore, Islam being the biggest threat.

boliver

How do you know that? Have you studied the Koran (I have not)? I don't think it is more intolerant than the Bible.
The only difference here is that Christian people had the Age of Enlightement, in which certain values like freedom and democracy, and egalitiy, and therefore tolerance, where developped. However, these are philosophical statements which may not apply absolutely to the whole world.

[BoliverAllmon]

Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us to kill all non-Christians. Koran does though, it says to kill all non-Islam believers, Especially christians and jews. That to me is intolerance way beyond Christianity.

boliver

[TheHammer]

I don't think that this stands in the Koran (we should ask someone who has some knowledge, and I already have one in mind, be patient), and the Commandment: You shall have no other gods beside me. Can be translated also in a quite aggressive sense...

[Dazzer]

not necessarily religion. Take Buddism for instance. I can't think of a single instance when Buddism was the culprit of terror.

boliver

that's where you're wrong.
buddhism is not a religion. its a culture, or a way of life. They do not worship any being or beings, but rather live a set lifestyle in order to achieve a state of enlightenment. A belief.

[thracozaag]

Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us to kill all non-Christians. Koran does though, it says to kill all non-Islam believers, Especially christians and jews. That to me is intolerance way beyond Christianity.

boliver

  I'm afraid I must concur; as violent as the Old Testament is (and it is VERY violent), the Koran is even worse.

koji

[BoliverAllmon]

And Christianity has been freed from the Old Testament, due to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. No longer are we a nation that is attempting to control land and go to war as other nations, but we are a culture of people that comes from every way of life. I hope that makes sense.

boliver

[TheHammer]

That seemed a bit different in the time of the Crusades, I must say...
and it only proves that, although Christianity is peaceful in itself, misguided people nevertheless misuse(d) it for war and violence. Same thing with Islam.

[BoliverAllmon]

That seemed a bit different in the time of the Crusades, I must say...
and it only proves that, although Christianity is peaceful in itself, misguided people nevertheless misuse(d) it for war and violence. Same thing with Islam.

Agreed, in the wrong hands any religion can become dangerous. In church we have been studying the four major cults. We started by defining cults and what makes a cult. We discussed how say a Baptist church (I am baptist therefore that is why I can speak of them) could become so entangled in a bunch of things contrary to God's Word that that church could become a cult. I am not saying that all Baptists are cults. I am saying any church can become so screwed up that they become a cult.

boliver

[Dazzer]

regardless, religion is now just an excuse to wage war. better off without it.

[BoliverAllmon]

I completely disagree. Religion is not focused on war. I don't know why you think that.

[i_m_robot]

I completely disagree. Religion is not focused on war. I don't know why you think that.

war is construed to focused on religion

look for a difference

find a reason to kill

justification

ex:

the crusades were about taking back land -plain and simple

then somehow it turns into a holy war -even though both religion share a single god

but with the right words patriotism overrules logic

ex:

bush is christian -so he says

bush looks for bin laden -bush announces war against terrorism

bin laden and terrorist are muslim

HOLYWAR

see

[BoliverAllmon]

you can say the same thing for democracy and communism. Wars were started over that. SHould we get rid of both of them?