London terrorist attacks

[Jacey1973]

I only just heard about this from a woman who served me in a newsagents. I was completely shocked, i can't go home yet to watch the news cos i'm doing work experience all day in a local primary school.

It sickens me that we should be celebrating our olympic victory today and yet these scum of the earth terrorists manage to ruin everything, again. My piano teacher lives in central London, I hope he is ok.

I feel quite tearful. Anyone else been watching the news?

[BoliverAllmon]

this is the first i have heard of it.  I am going to a news site right now.

boliver

[mikeyg]

This is why these people need to be eradicated.

[BoliverAllmon]

Do you think it was because of the summit or the olympics?

[mikeyg]

Do you think it was because of the ...olympics?

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

[BoliverAllmon]

This is why these people need to be eradicated.

agreed talking nicely doesn't work.

[BoliverAllmon]

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

Is that suppose to be sarcasm?

[mikeyg]

Yes.  Humor in situations like this help people get through it.

[BoliverAllmon]

Yes.  Humor in situations like this help people get through it.

AAAhhhhh ok. so today starts the glorious assault on the post count right?

[mikeyg]

yes, right after I get back from physics.

[BoliverAllmon]

yes, right after I get back from physics.

procrastinator.

[mikeyg]

Nuh uh.  SCHOLAR :p

[BoliverAllmon]

oh I my mistake. Proceed.

[mikeyg]

I shall.




















(And good job spamming this thread to death, Dr. Evil)

[Waldszenen]

Come on guys, this is a serious issue and you're all poking fun in the topic.


have a little respect, eh?

[thracozaag]

  Perhaps now people will stop whining 24/7 about Bush/Blair and focus on the real problem: radical Islam.

koji

[BoliverAllmon]

I just read that Blair knew that these attacks were going to happen. Some are even speculating that he instigated the attacks. He did this so he could have an excuse to stay in Iraq. what do you think? LOL

[Torp]

Bring back the crusades!

Kill 'em all, let god sort them out!

Maybe genocide isn't such a bad approach.  I think I'll start putting a cap in the head of everyone who disagrees with me.  I'm sure that will make them change their minds.

[BoliverAllmon]

yeah dead people change minds quickly.

[Bouter Boogie]

Come on guys, this is a serious issue and you're all poking fun in the topic.


have a little respect, eh?

I agree with Waldszenen 

[Torp]

yeah dead people change minds quickly.

It's the people living that you have to worry about.  Kill my family for our ideology and I can assure you that ideology will become stronger.

[BoliverAllmon]

It's the people living that you have to worry about.  Kill my family for our ideology and I can assure you that ideology will become stronger.

true indeed.

[jas]

I can't stop thinking of those poor people who were in the area. It's so completely awful.
The world has gone completely mad. It's a horrible, mind-boggling state of affairs when this sort of thing becomes a relatively common occurrence. It's really depressing that there's so much mindless, pointless hate in the world. It's all but taken over. Or that's what it feels like, anyway.

Jas

[Torp]

The world has gone completely mad. It's a horrible, mind-boggling state of affairs when this sort of thing becomes a relatively common occurrence. It's really depressing that there's so much mindless, pointless hate in the world. It's all but taken over. Or that's what it feels like, anyway.

Jas

I couldn't agree more.

[Jacey1973]

Just got home. It's all over BBC1 and ITV1 (not surprisingly). It is weird, they only cancel everything on TV when it is serious - like sept 11th and Diana's death.

I just saw an interview with a man with his eye bandaged up on BBC1 and he said he was gonna get on the carriage where the bomb went off, but it looked full too full so at the last minute he went in the carriage next door. He said he saw everything happen, just people covered in blood looking through the window between the carriages. I feel so angry that innocent people are victimised, the average person has nothing to do with politics or has any real control over how we run this country so why do they end up suffering?

Just waiting to hear Tony Blair's speech, think they're all having a meeting in Downing Street currently (i'm listening to 5 live at the mo).

Can't believe 21 ppl died at Kings Cross, i've been there so many times glad i wasnt there today.

[pianonut]

we send our deepest sympathies. 

[TheHammer]

I can't stop thinking of those poor people who were in the area. It's so completely awful.
The world has gone completely mad. It's a horrible, mind-boggling state of affairs when this sort of thing becomes a relatively common occurrence. It's really depressing that there's so much mindless, pointless hate in the world. It's all but taken over. Or that's what it feels like, anyway.

Jas

Sadly enough, the world was mad all the time.

What I always ask me, when there is some news about terrorist attacks, is: What is these people driving to carry some kilos of explosives and let themselves torn apart, just for the sake of killing other people. So, obivously, they have some kind of problem. I don't think any "radical muslim" would get the idea of killing some Europeans or Americans just because he can't stand Coke or McDonalds, because he doesn't like Christians very much, or envys us, because we have cars and TV. Something must have happened, that has been so "horrible, mind-boogling" and "mindless, pointless" that there are indeed people willing to sacrifice their lives just in order to damage the Western world. So what has this caused?
If you listen to Osama bin Ladens speeches, he is always, always speaking of with-drawal of the western troops from the Mid-East. Leaving the Arabs alone.

There is no camera when a "smart-bomb" hits a house with a family sleeping, "innocent people", "the average person [who] has nothing to do with politics or any real control over how we run this country". Of course the bomb is destroying the house, melting the people there into a indistinguishable mass of burnt flesh. Imagine YOUR mother, YOUR siste, YOUR brother, YOUR father would have been killed by an American bomb. You could do nothing but look at them burning. And of course your country can't protect you, as our country can protect us. So what do you do?

Perhaps now people will stop whining 24/7 about Bush/Blair and focus on the real problem: radical Islam.

koji

The real problem is Bush/Blair. Their policy changes nothing in a cirle of death and hatred.

Prolonging any actions in the Mid-East will only prolong terrorism. And that does not mean only military, economical and political (spreading of freedom and democracy). I see no point whatsoever, what we should have to do there (at least to this extent). If these people want freedom, they should fight for it. Why should we fight for them, when then even their own people come here to thank us with murder?

[BoliverAllmon]

so stop helping those less fortunate?

[TheHammer]

If this help consists in killing thousands of civillians: yes.

[thracozaag]

The real problem is Bush/Blair. Their policy changes nothing in a cirle of death and hatred.

Prolonging any actions in the Mid-East will only prolong terrorism. And that does not mean only military, economical and political (spreading of freedom and democracy). I see no point whatsoever, what we should have to do there (at least to this extent). If these people want freedom, they should fight for it. Why should we fight for them, when then even their own people come here to thank us with murder?

  You're probably a big fan of Nevile Chamberlin as well, then.

koji

[thracozaag]

If this help consists in killing thousands of civillians: yes.

  6 million dead Jews would beg to differ with you on this point.

koji

[Floristan]

We woke up to the news here in the U.S.  Horrible.  I understand you Brits are no strangers to terrorism what with the IRA and all.  (I remember the incredible security at Harrod's when I was last in London.)

It's hard to say what brought this about -- G8 summit seems logical, but these terrorists don't appear logical in the usual sense of the term.  It might have just been the day this particular sleeper cell decided Allah called them...or maybe they just couldn't stand to see Brits happy over the Olympics.  No way of knowing -- they're fanatic Islamic fundamentalist barbarians.  Their thought patterns are alien to me.

Just saw Blair's speech.  He's visibly, deeply affected; believes the attacks were aimed at disrupting the G8; expressed his determination to continue with the G8 talks (after conferring at length with officials in London); said our determination to maintain our way of life is much greater than the terrorists' determination to impose their extreme way of life on us.  A moving speech.  Nothing I can add.

[TheHammer]

Chamberlain's politics was as it was because he tried to address the hard treatment of Germany after WWI. And this treatment was possibly THE factor of the up-rising of Hitler (I just guess you refer to the politic of "apeasement").

Plus, this was a European problem, and, after the occupation of either Austria or the Chechoslovakia, the European states had all right to intervent. Concerning most actions of the USA and other Western countries in the Mid-East, these were IMO unrightful.


And I am not saying that you should completely stop all conflict management there. One should just do it without killing people, and without making the impression of just "helping" for getting some god darned oil! Because this is exactly what happens...

6 million dead Jews would beg to differ with you on this point.

koji

I don't doubt that many people would place their life higher than that of others. That does not make murder rightful.


Edit: The whole point is this: Are you going to make war in a crisis and thus killing people no matter what, that is, killing with 100% of certainty? Or are you trying to solve a crisis with other facilities, thus perhaps endangering more people, but only perhaps after all.

[thracozaag]

Chamberlain's politics was as it was because he tried to address the hard treatment of Germany after WWI. And this treatment was possibly THE factor of the up-rising of Hitler (I just guess you refer to the politic of "apeasement").

Plus, this was a European problem, and, after the occupation of either Austria or the Chechoslovakia, the European states had all right to intervent. Concerning most actions of the USA and other Western countries in the Mid-East, these were IMO unrightful.


And I am not saying that you should completely stop all conflict management there. One should just do it without killing people, and without making the impression of just "helping" for getting some god darned oil! Because this is exactly what happens...


I don't doubt that many people would place their life higher than that of others. That does not make murder rightful.


Edit: The whole point is this: Are you going to make war in a crisis and thus killing people no matter what, that is, killing with 100% of certainty? Or are you trying to solve a crisis with other facilities, thus perhaps endangering more people, but only perhaps after all.

  So what's your plan for dealing with radical Islam, then?

koji

[BoliverAllmon]

good question.

[TheHammer]

So what's your plan for dealing with radical Islam, then?

koji

That is THE question. Firstly, in my ideal fantasy world, this would never happened, because of what I said above, but now we have the problem, okay.
One thing that is driving these people nuts is the US military presence in Iraq. Okay, you can't just remove them (although that would be good...eh, let the Iraqi people VOTE if they want the USA or not, that would be cool), that is clear, but one should at least express the will to do so at fast as possible. Democracy could be the way to go if it happens, but this is a modern state's form, so you need a modern state before. That is difficult to realise, and USA will perhaps need even more troops, if they had done this invasion properly from the beginning, that would have been much better....(unchangeable now).

But let's think globally: 1. Israel. What was this all about in the 1940s? They just let them occupy the land because it is written in this old book? Peace process between Isreal and Palestina must be reinforced by the USA, with special pressure on Isreal. The USA must be literally the advocate of the Palestines, and they must fulfill their duty there. The steps that are currently taking are good beginning.
2. Credibility. I only say Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, etc. Shut them down, now. The number of all the terrorists enprisoned there will be excelled by the number of new radicalized young Arabs, who hate the West just because these prisons.
3. Oil. The USA should try to get clean on this subject anyway, how I am not so sure.
4. Political pressure. The USA should at least make the impression they were not going to interfere any further with Arab issues at least with military means (Iran).
5. Bush. He is the symbol of Arabic hatred. You will need a new leader to be credible. Sad Kerry didn't make it, although I doubt he would have changed anything.
6. Wars. No violence anymore, no killing of terrorist leaders when 10 civillians have to die as well(even if not, rather capture them, and give them a proper trial).

After all, the whole situation is of course a complicated mixture of so many things, a solution is probably IMPOSSIBLE. I therefore realize, that most of the stuff I wrote above is quite flawed, and won't work. Anyway, that does not mean that I must be quiet and can't complain about the great American foreign policy that brought us here.

Besides, my "masterplan" was to count on a strong Europe, possibly even with a truly democratic Europe, both taming the US and "searching the dialogue" with the Arabic World. But well...

Now feel free to tear these suggestions apart. At least noone is killed executing them (no pun intended).

[thracozaag]

  Aside from point 3, I disagree.

koji

[TheHammer]

That, of course, does not surprise me. What would be your agenda then, adressing this problem? (although I think this would be a god topic for another thread)

[Teddybear]

TheHammer, in your first post you said everything I was going to say, so I won't bother much. What happened today was not right, it was terrible. Once again, I feel heartbroken.

But if someone barged into my home, rearranged it, took my stuff and killed my whole family as TheHammer described I MIGHT START BEHAVING SOMEWHAT RADICALLY, TOO. I'd find out just the way to hurt them as much as possible. What respect do the Arabs owe to, for example, the US?

Sometimes I just wish Bush, Osama, and all their pals moved to another galaxy.

T

[tenn]

The people who did this are contemptible, heartless cowards just like those that carried out the attrocities on Sept 11th, the Madrid bombing and the Beslan siege.
Let's not let them pull our strings like they did after Madrid and don't forget that during the Beslan siege local Muslims (in their shame) offered themselves as substitutes.

[mikeyg]

I've said for a long time that we should cease to involve ourselves in world affairs, if those people want to destroy eachother, let them.  There is no need for US troops to be in Ia just to protect a couple of Kurds.

[thalbergmad]

It was a matter of when not if this was going to happen.

Until Blair gets off his politically correct horse and starts deporting/locking up people that are known to harbour terrorist symphathies and people that openly support terrorism, attacks like this are going to be more frequent.

Perhaps now this will happen, but sadly 37 people have paid with their lives.

[i_m_robot]

One thing that is driving these people nuts is the US military presence in Iraq. Okay, you can't just remove them (although that would be good...eh, let the Iraqi people VOTE if they want the USA or not, that would be cool), that is clear, but one should at least express the will to do so at fast as possible. Democracy could be the way to go if it happens, but this is a modern state's form, so you need a modern state before. That is difficult to realise, and USA will perhaps need even more troops, if they had done this invasion properly from the beginning, that would have been much better....(unchangeable now).

Military presence in Iraq = murder of innocent people

got lost somewhere

how'd this become a logical, sensical, or plausible reason for mass murder/suicide


the truth whether they will admit it or not

they kill because to find purpose in life

they are with out a path and those who see this use them as tools

its like a little boy who find a father in the leader of a crime syndicate

they are raised in blood and no nothing else so they continue to kill

-----

its common sense that wounding something will only make it stronger

so if they attacked with purpose then it would surely be fatal

yet they do not

so then why attack at all

perhaps a death wish

perhaps to instill fear

and if it works

they have found purpose

if it does not

their deaths were in vain

life goes on and the cycle continues

[i_m_robot]

I've said for a long time that we should cease to involve ourselves in world affairs, if those people want to destroy eachother, let them.  There is no need for US troops to be in Ia just to protect a couple of Kurds.

then others would harbor animosity towards us for turning our back

and the cycle continues

[TheHammer]

Generally, I give you the point that many people who seem to "lose the path in life" tend to become criminals, aggressive or search for a deeper meaning. But this is nothing exlusively Arabic, that is happening everywhere. So why is the Arabic society other? Because of the religion? Probably not, Koran calls as much to war against the infidel as does the bible.
So, for me it is quite obvious that this hatred has something to do with US and Western foreign policy, Iraq is just the tip of the iceberg. I think I made clear at least why these people COULD become terrorists. After all, you don't know them personally, do you? Neither do I.

They attack because they see no other remedy than violence. Perhaps the lust for revenge. Of course this is strenghtened by SOME religious leaders there. But without the Western World fooling around with this region, I think 9/11 and today's London attacks would not have occured. Just imagine there had been no oil in the Mid-East. Surely there would be as much US troops in there as in Simbabwe or Antarctica.


After all, these posts of mine were mainly caused by the common disbelief, these were completely irrational, "barbaric" monsters, who stopped to be humans when they first saw the Koran. WRONG, these are or at least were people like you and I. In a way, they fight for their country. Or at least they think they do. This thinking is the whole problem. Without an enemy, there is no war, and America has made itself the enemy of a whole ethnicity. The "cycle continues" when US and European policy on this issue will stay the same.

[i_m_robot]

no one can really say why it is they kill

but these are all excuses- and poor ones

self tends to look for a more psychological reason as to why

but often the why has no real answer

[thracozaag]

It was a matter of when not if this was going to happen.

Until Blair gets off his politically correct horse and starts deporting/locking up people that are known to harbour terrorist symphathies and people that openly support terrorism, attacks like this are going to be more frequent.

Perhaps now this will happen, but sadly 37 people have paid with their lives.

  Well said.  A rally held scant months before (in May) in London supporting the killing of "infidels", etc.  Amazing that nothing was done about that at the time, especially in light of this recent bombing.  As much as I despise this type of xenophobic behaviour, unless the muslims within their own community denounce and help in rooting out the terrorist cells within their own religion, it's up to us.

koji

[thracozaag]

That, of course, does not surprise me. What would be your agenda then, adressing this problem? (although I think this would be a god topic for another thread)

  From what I can tell, this is the current plan in the objective of the United States concerning the aims and goals of the WoT are as follows:

1) Gather actionable intelligence

2) Find, capture, and kill our enemies (in that order)

3) Promote and help establish democracy in the Middle East, using military involvement as a last resort.

If military assets are committed you fight until the objective is completed and you do not waiver against your enemies. More on this later but its undeniable that the success we've had in places like Iraq and Afghanistan have had a material impact in places like Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Eastern Europe, among others. These events do not happen in a vacuum.

From a strategic perspective, especially when you consider where each country sits within the region, we are in a unique position to make some significant progress in the next 5 - 15 years. It would be unrealistic to sugarcoat things and expect the greater Middle East to look like Southern France in 3 - 5 years but I believe we are at the very least making strides in the right direction. A peaceful and democratic Middle East is good not only for the United States but the world, in general.

Have we taken a slap at the hornets nest? You betcha, but it would be naive to believe you can achieve the aims of the WoT without people, such as despot regimes and terrorists organization (with a lot to loose if we succeed), not putting up a fight. Again, because they are as we are, acting out of self-interest. But as I've posted before in every modern war there are choices between sides and there relative future view of the way of the world. And in each case one side fights for more or less progress and one side stands for more or less stagnation. There is no arguing which side the United States and the west stand on.

Let me be clear as well that these objectives are made in presence of absolute values, which are encapsulated in words such as freedom and democracy. However, they are also made with the understanding that self-interest is paramount in our decision process. The pressing issue at the moment is the fate of the Middle East and thus we have committed blood and treasure to that region of the world. Limited resources and goodwill prohibit our efforts in being all things to all people and that is unfortunate but a realisitic derivative of a free society. I wish we would take action against Sudan and frankly the jury is still out if we will or not. But at the same time I have to be realistic and view things from the prism that is our self-interest and how things on a global scale stack up against one another. Surely, Africa is a problem and will continue to be addressed but radical Islam and the fate of the Middle East are more pressing at the moment.

koji

[BoliverAllmon]

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

[TheHammer]

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.