Suspected terrorist attack in London 4 dead including the attacker

[bush_cheney2004]

34 minutes ago, marcus said:

Not sure where you're getting your quote from, but I can't find it anywhere.

The Defense Minister is already on record saying that this was not about regime change.

 

It was about regime for the U.S. since at least 1998, as a matter of public law.   To pretend that UK/US/Allied interventions and policies for Iraq and Saddam before the Bush Administration did not stoke "terrorism" is to ignore the actual history/events.

Radical Islamic terrorism pre-dates the Bush Administration by many years (e.g. WTC truck bomb, embassy bombings, USS Cole, 911, etc.)

Edited March 28, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[marcus]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

It was about regime for the U.S. since at least 1998, as a matter of public law.   To pretend that UK/US/Allied interventions and policies for Iraq and Saddam before the Bush Administration did not stoke "terrorism" is to ignore the actual history/events.

The reason terrorism was able to thrive in Iraq was because the people who had control over the country, for many years, were no longer there. And the occupying force failed to bring order and control into the country after their shock and awe. This created the perfect situation for mercenaries to come from all over the world to join ISIS and make some cash. I'm sure some were idealists, but many went there for the cash, provided to them by Saudis and the Gulf States.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, marcus said:

The reason terrorism was able to thrive in Iraq was because the people who had control over the country, for many years, were no longer there. And the occupying force failed to bring order and control into the country after their shock and awe. This created the perfect situation for mercenaries to come from all over the world to join ISIS and make some cash. I'm sure some were idealists, but many went there for the cash, provided to them by Saudis and the Gulf States.

 

Radical Islamic terrorism was firmly in place long before the invasion of Iraq or fall of Saddam's regime.  

[marcus]

58 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Radical Islamic terrorism was firmly in place long before the invasion of Iraq or fall of Saddam's regime.  

ISIS came to be only after U.S.' decision to go into Iraq.

When you bully, attack, kill and shit on people, you will receive resistance and a feeling of vengeance. Sometimes these feelings can turn into an ugly response, like the crazy man who drove his car into the people in London.

People like yourself, who support these American adventures around the world, should accept these attacks and should take responsibility for them. Why? Because you support fueling the animosity.

Edited March 28, 2017 by marcus

[bush_cheney2004]

30 minutes ago, marcus said:

ISIS came to be only after U.S.' decision to go into Iraq.

When you bully, attack, kill and shit on people, you will receive resistance and a feeling of vengeance. Sometimes these feelings can turn into an ugly response, like the crazy man who drove his car into the people in London.

People like yourself, who support these American adventures around the world, should accept these attacks and should take responsibility for them. Why? Because you support fueling the animosity.

 

If you mean living in a "Western" nation that pursues economic and political interests around the world just as many critics like you do, then I most certainly "support" past, present, and future policies.   The difference is that I will not pretend to be sanctimonious while doing so.

[marcus]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

If you mean living in a "Western" nation that pursues economic and political interests around the world just as many critics like you do, then I most certainly "support" past, present, and future policies.   The difference is that I will not pretend to be sanctimonious while doing so.

I don't cheer on and support my country or any other country that tramples on other people's human rights for the sake of "economic and political interest".

[bush_cheney2004]

12 minutes ago, marcus said:

I don't cheer on and support my country or any other country that tramples on other people's human rights for the sake of "economic and political interest".

 

You don't have to cheer....living in the country and paying taxes is more than enough to be complicit.

[marcus]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

You don't have to cheer....living in the country and paying taxes is more than enough to be complicit.

Wrong. I don't have to leave my country in order to speak against some of its policies. If I don't agree with some of the policies, I speak out against it, I vote against it and I put my money against it.

You are complicit for the millions of deaths in the Middle East and the blowback for U.S. and the West's foreign policies because you happily support these policies. 

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, marcus said:

Wrong. I don't have to leave my country in order to speak against some of its policies. If I don't agree with some of the policies, I speak out against it, I vote against it and I put my money against it.

 

Talk is cheap....and your right to do so was secured with such policies.   If it be Canada, then entire books are dedicated to the imperialism of empire celebrated to this day by actions and consolidation of power over others with force.

 

Quote

You are complicit for the millions of deaths in the Middle East and the blowback for U.S. and the West's foreign policies because you happily support these policies. 

 

OK....you make it sound like that's a bad thing.  

I think cognitive dissonance while living exactly as I do in an evil western nation is far more dysfunctional.

[marcus]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

OK....you make it sound like that's a bad thing.  

It is a bad thing.

People like you, who are okay with policies that create death and destruction are bad for this world. You're not any different than those who support ISIS.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, marcus said:

It is a bad thing.

People like you, who are okay with policies that create death and destruction are bad for this world. You're not any different than those who support ISIS.

 

OK...if that's how you need to rationalize terrorists and terrorism, that's fine by me.   I am joined by hundreds of millions of other westerners living as I do without supporting ISIS.   It would seem that you have much work to do to convince them otherwise.

Your country is complicit in such matters and continues such policies regardless of your condemnations.

[marcus]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

OK...if that's how you need to rationalize terrorists and terrorism, that's fine by me.   I am joined by hundreds of millions of other westerners living as I do without supporting ISIS.   It would seem that you have much work to do to convince them otherwise.

Your country is complicit in such matters and continues such policies regardless of your condemnations.

Who said I support ISIS? I said you are as bad as an ISIS supporter. Because both you and the ISIS supporter are okay with death and destruction.

Just because I disagree with many of U.S. and friends' foreign policies, it doesn't mean that I support the latest bogeyman, ISIS. That's an extremely shallow way to think.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, marcus said:

Who said I support ISIS? I said you are as bad as an ISIS supporter. Because both you and the ISIS supporter are okay with death and destruction.

Just because I disagree with many of U.S. and friends' foreign policies, it doesn't mean that I support the latest bogeyman, ISIS. That's an extremely shallow way to think.

 

Easy for you to say...you are already enjoying and remain complicit in past/present death and destruction.   Disagreeing with the U.S. as your primary focus is very short sighted given previous history and massive complicity by other nations and their citizenry.

Terrorists in the UK are not just about ISIS...they are about attacking the status quo that you support in deed if not words.

[marcus]

7 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

you are already enjoying and remain complicit in past/present death and destruction.   Disagreeing with the U.S. as your primary focus is very short sighted given previous history and massive complicity by other nations and their citizenry.

Terrorists in the UK are not just about ISIS...they are about attacking the status quo that you support in deed if not words.

That's a lot of assumptions. And as the person you are making assumptions about, all I can tell you is that you are wrong.

I must say; With all of the faults that I think  you have, at least you are honest and upfront about your support for policies that are destructive and inhumane. Unlike many people on here who throw their hands in the air and scream "why do they hate us?!!" - Who seem to be oblivious to the actions of the team they have decided to unconditionally cheer for and not question their policies around the world.

Edited March 28, 2017 by marcus

[Altai]

19 hours ago, Altai said:

So first of all an attack happens in Britain.

Then another attack happens in US. 

Then suddenly British official's helicopter was forced to crash by a drone.


Countries communicates like wild animals. 

Now its Britain's turn.  Bomb pack panic at US presidency building. 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3194948/white-house-bomb-scare-evacuation/


Lets go US, its your turn. 

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, marcus said:

That's a lot of assumptions. And as the person you are making assumptions about, all I can tell you is that you are wrong.

 

Conclusions and assumptions about others based on what they post here applies to you as well.

[marcus]

6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Conclusions and assumptions about others based on what they post here applies to you as well.

I have based my comments about you by quoting you as you have been very upfront and unapologetic about supporting foreign policies that create death and destruction. On the other hand, you are assuming that I am "enjoying and remain complicit in past/present death and destruction" and "Terrorists in the UK are not just about ISIS...they are about attacking the status quo that you support in deed". 

You are simply wrong on both of those remarks.

You can either continue to assume and be wrong or you can ask me where I stand on those. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, marcus said:

...You are simply wrong on both of those remarks.

You can either continue to assume and be wrong or you can ask me where I stand on those. 

 

I don't care where you "stand", I only care about what you do.  

And what you continue to do is complicit in your goverment's domestic and foreign policy actions that have "caused" domestic and international terrorism.   Welcome to the club.....

 

[marcus]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I don't care where you "stand", I only care about what you do.  

And what you continue to do is complicit in your goverment's domestic and foreign policy actions that have "caused" domestic and international terrorism.   Welcome to the club.....

 

Just because you assume what I do / don't do about my government's domestic and foreign policy, it doesn't mean that it's true. I have never indicated what I do or don't do in regards to my government's policies.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, marcus said:

Just because you assume what I do / don't do about my government's domestic and foreign policy, it doesn't mean that it's true. I have never indicated what I do or don't do in regards to my government's policies.

 

 

If you reside in one of those evil western nations, then you are already in the complicity club, whether you agree or not.

Terrorists do not make exceptions for people who say they hate government policies too.

 

[Altai]

21 hours ago, Altai said:

Now its Britain's turn.  Bomb pack panic at US presidency building. 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3194948/white-house-bomb-scare-evacuation/


Lets go US, its your turn. 

Wow, Britain doubles its turn. Shot fired at Washington near congress building. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/shots-fired-outside-rayburn-building-on-us-capitol-grounds/2017/03/29/bee0f368-1484-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.19e5a18a43ef


Now final situation;

Britain: 3  
US: 2 

[H10]

On 3/27/2017 at 9:13 AM, Rue said:

 

What you and Altai and Kactus and Hot Enough have done is to argue that since you feel the US or the UK or the West is evil, terrorism is justified.

Its there for all to see. You apologize for  and defend terrorism.

"

What you and Altai and Kactus and Hot Enough have done is to argue that since you feel the US or the UK or the West is evil, terrorism is justified.

Its there for all to see. You apologize for  and defend terrorism."

 

No, we are arguing that the term terrorism ought to be a neutral term used to describe FACTS.  If a muslim bombing civilians in a tower is terrorism, then a government bombing  a funeral of civilians in iraq or afghanistan is terrorism.  If targetting an area with bombs and missiles and weapons, knowing civilians are in the area and likely to be struck is not terrorism when USA, Canada, and any other government does it, don't call it terrorism when ISIS, Al Qaeda, or anyone else you don't like does it.  Terrorism is an act.  I am simply calling for acts to be described within a standard.  I have no horse in this race.  If it is not terrorism to shoot up a house full of people in pakistan and shoot your way through the neighborhood because OBL is there, then its not terrorism when ISIS agents run over people on their way to kill parliamentarians in Britain.  This is just warfare.  The islamic armies don't have the technology or ability to attack western nations with conventional means, so they are using asymmetrical warfare.  This goes back to Sun Tsu who said to attack your enemy in war where they are weak.  Western nations weakness are our open borders and letting in people from countries who hate our guts, and radical islamic groups don't make technology, so they fight back by running us over and attack us where they can.  It is a war, sometimes you get hit, sometimes you hit back, there is no terrorism here.

[-TSS-]

I think the most astonishing detail of this attack was that the guy was 52 years old! I mean it is easy to understand that young people can be brainwashed into anything but one would have thought that a guy of that age already knows that all that religious rubbish is just that, rubbish and bullshit.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

I think the most astonishing detail of this attack was that the guy was 52 years old! I mean it is easy to understand that young people can be brainwashed into anything but one would have thought that a guy of that age already knows that all that religious rubbish is just that, rubbish and bullshit.

He was also quite a nasty piece of work, apparently.  I imagine if someone is already given to hurting people, it doesn't take much to point them in the direction you'd like them to hurt.

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, -TSS- said:

I think the most astonishing detail of this attack was that the guy was 52 years old! I mean it is easy to understand that young people can be brainwashed into anything but one would have thought that a guy of that age already knows that all that religious rubbish is just that, rubbish and bullshit.

Why is there this incredible imbalance, people drone on and on about this little terrorist action or that little terrorist actions but they never talk about the voluminous US terrorist actions. There are lots of 52 and older, and younger terrorists in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, ... Tony Blair, George Bush, Dick Cheney, ... . 

The US is the only nation to have ever been convicted of international terrorism, the only nation that has been admonished by the whole world, UNGA, for 24 years running, to stop its 70 years of terrorism against Cuba. 

This is the unbelievable disconnect from reality that is the norm here on this website, this incredible disconnect from reality that G. Greenwald describes below. 

"No observation will cause one to be ejected from acceptable mainstream company more immediately than pointing out that what the U.S. Government is doing is "terrorism" by definition. Ask Noam Chomsky about that, if you can find him. That's because using Terrorist threats (or civilian-destroying violence) for political gain, or to keep a population in fear, is something that only other people do -- but never the United States -- even when it's as plain as day (as it is here) that the U.S. Government is doing exactly that."

• Glenn Greenwald, August 20, 2009