Doesn't everyone feel safer now?

[Argus]

Almost a year ago, Governor Pataki of New York said "With supreme guts and righteousness, President Bush went into Iraq". Pataki's son Teddy is, with supreme guts and righteousness, seeking a 3 year law school deferment. Gov. Pataki, who himself received a medical deferment from service in Vietnam, says he hopes his son gets the deferment.

This hypocrisy is what bothers me a lot. We will send other people's kids or other people into battle but not ourselves. Bush nor Pataki do not believe in war if it involves themselves or their kids bit it is fine for others. What kind of bravery or leadership is that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you see bin Laden or al-Zarqawi blowing themselves up for Allah's glory?

[Argus]

My position is pretty simple:

Indeed.

If we want to address the symptom, we must acknowledge our role in perpetuating the policies (such as supporting corrupt dictators that are sympathetic to our interests)

But all nations do that, including the Chinese, for example, and the Russians, and the French. And it isn't like these people are opposed to dictators. They just want to BE the dictators.

that increase the anti-western sentiment that is the wellspring of radical ideologies that promote terrorism as a tactic and then change those policies accordingly. This would require us to change our own ways (such as curbing our dependence on oil), which would mean a radical adjustment to our way of life.

So you are suggesting we radically adjust our way of life in order to attempt to placate some religious wackos who, by your own claim, are a small minority of the Muslim world?

Why?

[mirror]

Argus

It is actually people like you who wants to see American cities bombed otherwise you would not be supporting a war monger president, who is going to be bringing more attacks on US soil. And everyone knows is only a matter of time.

Those bombers in London today delivered a message. They can hit again the same place, the same time, and the UK is powerless to stop it. How long do you think it is going to take for them to do the same thing on US soil? And perhaps Canada as well?

[Argus]

Black Dog: boiling down your last post, is it fair to say that, moving forward, the best strategy for the West is to pull out completely from the Middle East?

That's not entirely accurate. For one reconizing the integrated nature of the global economy means that total isolationism isn't going to help anyone. I've used the term "constructive engagement" which I can summarize thusly: stop selling arms to repressive and undemocratic regimes (such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates).

1) China, Brazil and North Korea are huge arms sellers to the third world. No one ever seems to be particularly outraged at this.

2) In what way would the people of the middle east be better off if we stopped selling them military equipment and their dictators had to buy them from the Chinese and Russians instead?

[generalsharpshooter]

1. U.S>attacked

2. Spain>attacked

3. UK>attacked

4. Australia

5. Canada

[Argus]

You war mongers can go on and fight your wars.

I just wish there was some way the rest of us who don't believe in war could be kept out of it.

The problem for the war mongers is that this US/UK invasion of Iraq is not a moral war. The WW 2 war against Germany was. And that my dear friends is the difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem for intelligent people is to somehow stifle their laughter and jeering when loopy, intellectually bankrupt people use terms like "warmongers" while somehow expecting their opinions to be taken seriously.

[mirror]

1. U.S>attacked

2. Spain>attacked

3. UK>attacked

4. Australia

5. Canada

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Brilliant except you left out Iraq attacked. How come?

[Argus]

George Galloway; British Parliament, 7-7-05

The opinions of lunatics seldom sway the thoughtful.

[Argus]

Argus

It is actually people like you who wants to see American cities bombed otherwise you would not be supporting a war monger president, who is going to be bringing more attacks on US soil. And everyone knows is only a matter of time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please see previous post.

[mirror]

Suicide bombings becoming key terrorist tool against West

Unheard of only a few decades ago, suicide bombings have rapidly evolved into perhaps the most common method of terrorism in the world.

The pace of such attacks is quickening. According to data compiled by the Rand Corp., about three-quarters of all suicide bombings have occurred since the Sept. 11 attacks. Suicide bombers now routinely hit new targets — Britain, Iraq, Morocco, Spain and Uzbekistan all faced their first suicide bombings in the past three years.

About 400 suicide bombings have shaken Iraq since the U.S. invasion in 2003, and suicide now plays a role in two out of every three insurgent bombings. In May, an estimated 90 suicide bombings were carried out in the war-torn country — nearly as many as the Israeli government has documented in the conflict with Palestinians since 1993.

The bombings in London, which killed 56 people, illustrate the profound difficulty of preventing such attacks, experts say. Intelligence officials believe the bombers, in a common pattern, were foot soldiers recruited for the occasion, young men of Pakistani and Jamaican backgrounds reared in Britain who had recently converted to radical Islam. The four bombings required no exit strategy and were pulled off with devices that apparently were made in a bathtub and were small enough to fit in backpacks.

"With the exception of weapons of mass destruction, there is no other type of attack that is more effective than suicide terrorism," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert who heads the Washington office of Rand, a California think tank. "The perception is that it's impossible to guard against."

Yes Argus you are a warmonger. you may not even realize it, but you are to support the US occupation of Iraq. And it is people like you who are most dangerous because you support someone like Bush whose policies of occupying Iraq are contributing to a huge escalation of suicide bombers.

[generalsharpshooter]

1. U.S>attacked

2. Spain>attacked

3. UK>attacked

4. Australia

5. Canada

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Brilliant except you left out Iraq attacked. How come?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Iraq had been attacked more than any of the countries i mentioned. But the five countries i mentioned were the five main countries Al Qaeda were targeting. And being a canadian citizen i just hope people are more alert, because Canada is the most vulnerable out of all 5 of those countries.

Which means 3 down. 2 to go.

[GostHacked]

The United States equipped these guys in another form to resist the invasion of the USSR into Afghanistan.  Taking that training and information and killing innocent civilians is NOT what the United States had them do.

Blaming the United States for suicide bombers because they gave them money, training and funding some 25 years ago is akin to blaming someone's driving instructor when that student kills someone drinking and driving.

Interesting and I think it is a bad analogy. It is not like a US trained 'freedom fighters' to only have then get drunk and start shooting people. The difference here is that the stuff Osama did after the USSR left was planned and intentional. A drunk driver does not get in the car HOPING he kills someone.

The US did help out Bin Laden during the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, that is well known. http://www.ict.org.il/articles/bin-ladin7.htm eventhough he was just one factor in the whole scope of things. Osama took it to another level. The Taliban DID help him establish some camps in the the country and allowed him to do what he wanted. But I also think him being regarded as a 'Sheikh' was due to im helping out the Taliban and driving out the USSR forces. Also Interesting to note that both the Taliban and the U.S. claim that they alone were the driving force to have the USSR forces leave and then the eventual fall of Soviet Russia (which we all know was rotting from it's core and fell upon itself). That was back in the 70's and 80's. So it is only 20 years AFTER the US decideds that the Taliban are a bag group and needs to be culled. Why wait so long if they were a threat and harboured terrorists.

There is also something else I saw being thrown around in this thread. Not caring what the reasons are for the terrorist attacks and just kill them. The virus analogy fit that like a glove. Killing the patient will not cure the desiese and you will gather no information on how that vuris attacks and harms the human body.

Same thing goes for the terrorists attacks. Find out WHY they happen then you can find a cure. If you simply say, fuck it and kill them, they have alreayd won. Without justification and solid reasoning for going after them, this will feul the fire and add more applicants for those terrorist networks.

The US has been in the buisness of attacking other countries, some with valid reasons, but for the most part just horrible reasons. So if the terrorists respond by attacking US and US interests, for their invasions of other countries for the wrong reasons. Nothing has been learned.

NOW THE OIL DILEMMA!!! This ties in to it all somehow.

We are so dependant on oil it is insane. Every day we use oil. Not just for cars (transportaion, manufacturing, ect) but things we use every day. Plastics is a huge user of oil based petrolium products. The computer most of you use has many plastic components (most likely your case IS plastic). This feuls our dependancy on it. Saying we can move overnight (or in ten years) to other forms of energy is simply is being ill informed. It will be a slow process but it can happen. If it did happen overnight, the economies that depend on the sale/import/export/manufacturing ect of oil will crumble. Those other methods have to be streamlined, integrated and the transfer has to be smooth.

Which brings me to this :

So once really all these wars are about obtaining resources for our current way of life and lifestyles. We know now that Iraq had little IF anything to do with the WTC attacks or international terrorism. Afghanistan was the focal point of the War on Terrorism and really should still be. Osama was and still IS in Afghanistan. So why was the fight brought to Iraq? Also the US military (Rummy included) thought that war would last about 6 months. Such shortsightedness. Now there is a flood of insurgents and (local and to a greater number from other countries). The US calculated wrong in the attack on Iraq, and now they are paying for it, and will continue to pay for it for years to come. I don't think that made us safer. More terrorists have been borne out of this invasion of a country that had little to do with international terrorism.

This has been a pretty interesting thread so far, and some personal attacks that were just not needed. I have done them as well but that was in retaliation to (and I will point this out ) BHS saying that I would be one that loved Americans getting killed in another attack. Which a wrong assumption to make.

[mirror]

Western policies are to blame, says Livingstone

Ken Livingstone yesterday blamed western policies for contributing to the spread of the extremist beliefs that inspired the London bombers. The mayor of London highlighted the West's role in the creation of al-Qa'eda by saying: "We created these people. We built them up. We funded them."

His comments coincided with remarks from Muslim extremists that went much further, claiming that ministers were "the real terrorists" and that voters were to blame for the attacks because they returned Tony Blair to power.

Well there you have it folks. Livingstone by-the-way is not some raving religious nut of a suicide bomber, he is the mayor of London. The West of couse contribulted to these suicide bombings. So when the people in the US ask themselves why they were attacked one of the things they can do is look in the miror. Americans need to ask themselves why they reelected Bush for a second term. What a huge mistake that was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

let me understand this, he's the mayor of london so somehow he's an expert on the subject?

The United States equipped these guys in another form to resist the invasion of the USSR into Afghanistan. Taking that training and information and killing innocent civilians is NOT what the United States had them do.

Blaming the United States for suicide bombers because they gave them money, training and funding some 25 years ago is akin to blaming someone's driving instructor when that student kills someone drinking and driving.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

GostHacked

Thanks for your post.

I know it can be a bit confusing however that above quote you attributed to me was actually posted by cybercoma as you can see above or by checking back through yesterday's postings.

[GostHacked]

Mirror.

My bad, I am not used to the quote system here, this style of message board is still new to me. I have screwed up those f'n tags often here.

[Argus]

Yes Argus you are a warmonger. you may not even realize it, but you are to

Please see previous posts.

[GostHacked]

Just ran across this article.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...ational/Toronto

That perception makes us more free, but perhaps more vulnerable than our friends in New York, Madrid and London. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on whether we put a higher premium on freedom or security.

And I guess this is what this thread is all about.

[Guest eureka]

The greatest number of suicide attacks, Argus, have been carried out by Tamils. Those Tamils were fighting for an independent state and religion had nothing at all to do with it.

Next were the attacks from a few different groups in India and Kashmir. Those attacks were part of the contest for Kashmir or for Kashmiri independence from both India and Pakistan. They were not rooted in religion though some of it was.

The suicide attacks in Iraq are by secular Sunni mostly. Where religion has come into that, it is mostly from those who are using religion as a tool. There is little religious in the insurgency.

Quebec and the IRA have no place in comparison. Suicide attackers all are in areas where the "terrorists" have no political options and no armaments to match their enemy.

[BHS]

The US did help out Bin Laden during the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, that is well known. http://www.ict.org.il/articles/bin-ladin7.htm eventhough he was just one factor in the whole scope of things. Osama took it to another level. The Taliban DID help him establish some camps in the the country and allowed him to do what he wanted. But I also think him being regarded as a 'Sheikh' was due to im helping out the Taliban and driving out the USSR forces. Also Interesting to note that both the Taliban and the U.S. claim that they alone were the driving force to have the USSR forces leave and then the eventual fall of Soviet Russia (which we all know was rotting from it's core and fell upon itself). That was back in the 70's and 80's. So it is only 20 years AFTER the US decideds that the Taliban are a bag group and needs to be culled. Why wait so long if they were a threat and harboured terrorists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought this was a little wonky sounding, so I did a little research. The taliban were organised into the form that we recognise in the mid-90's by Pakistan's ISI. They had previously been smaller, scattered groups, and were only one facet of the mujahadeed forces that fought against the Soviets. If the Americans helped them, it was only as these smaller groups of relatively unorganised guerrilla fighters, and not the scary all-powerful religious zealots we saw in blowing up bhudda statues.

taliban

[mirror]

London bombings fail to damage Blair ... yet

What kinds of questions do today's repeat attack in London bring to mind for you?

This article mentions a few.

I have observed from afar the strife in the Middle East. Someone asked this in an article I read somewhere today: "Are we now to become like a giant Israel, and start having to act like the Isreali people, worried all the time about violence?" I wonder and what are the alternatives to life like that?

I read some tube drivers don't want to go back to work.

Would you take the tube in London now if you had alternative transportation?

[mirror]

Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey

Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths.

This was published online on October 29, 2004. Shocking!

[cybercoma]

nevermind.

[err]

Hey, I've got news for you...THERE WERE TERRORIST ATTACKS BEFORE THE WAR.

Just in case you forgot about 3000 people that died.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd like to post last week's Linda McQuaig article from the Toronto Star discussing this topic:

LINDA McQUAIG

It's hard to imagine how the war on terror could be viewed as a success.

Among other things, terrorism is up sharply since the war to end it began — even before the horrific bombings in London last week. The number of serious international terrorist attacks more than tripled — to 655 last year from 175 the year before — according to U.S. government figures.

The Bush administration was hoping to keep these discouraging numbers secret, and so decided last April not to include them in its annual terrorism report to Congress. But congressional aides, briefed on the statistics, released them. It was the second year in a row the administration tried to hide a dramatic rise in terrorist attacks.

This raises the question: has the war on terror actually increased terrorism?

Perhaps terrorism would have increased anyway, but I'd guess the war on terror has made things worse. The heavy-handed methods used by George Bush (and helper Tony Blair) — including invading Iraq even though it had no links to 9/11 terrorists, and illegally detaining and torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay — have only exacerbated the rage many in the Middle East already felt against the U.S.

The war on terror certainly does nothing to get to the root of the problem.

For several years now, a new kind of "political correctness" has prevented meaningful public discussion about this entire subject. Despite the endless commentary generated by the attacks of Sept. 11, one thing was clear from the outset: any probing of the so-called "root causes" would be strictly off-limits in mainstream debate.

Perhaps this was understandable; discussing "root causes" seemed to reward the terrorists by paying attention to issues they wanted on the agenda. But it's also created a wilful blindness.

It's interesting to note there was no such wilful blindness about the "root causes" of the Nazi rise to power. I recall being taught in school about the deep sense of grievance felt by the German people over the reparations imposed on them after World War I. This background wasn't meant in any way to let Hitler off the hook for his atrocities. It simply helped explain how he'd managed to manipulate the German public to win power.

The people of the Middle East have legitimate grievances against America — from the U.S. overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 to decades of U.S. backing of tyrants in the region (including Saddam Hussein in the 1980s) to unwavering U.S. support for Israel during its 38-year military occupation of Palestine.

Until the U.S. changes its behaviour, the Middle East will be fertile ground for Islamic extremists to win recruits — and even some public support.

As long as we refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the grievances felt in that part of the world, let alone try to correct them, we'll go on as we are, enjoying the satisfaction of venting our rage against the evils of terrorism. We just won't do much to stop it.

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

Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator.

[cybercoma]

I'm still wondering why we're supposed to give in to the "grievances" or better yet, demands of a bunch of murderous religious nutjobs who would intentionally slaughter innocent civilians to get their point across?

Until these, for lack of a better word, assholes learn how to use a little diplomacy, then we'll talk. Until then we drop bombs on them and try to free the people living in fear of them.

[mirror]

You know Bush's liberation of Iraq reminds me SO MUCH of Mulroney's support to boycott South African goods. The main reason Mulroney agreed to support the boycott is that the South African gold mining businesses would be damaged. Guess who benefitted from those mines being boycotted? Well Peter Monk of Barrick Gold of course. And just guess who is on, and who has been on for a long time, Barrick's Board of Directors.? You gessed it, good ole Brian Mulroney of course. Apartheid my ass!

[mirror]

Echoes and Theories, but No Solid Links in London Bombings

Other law enforcement officials questioned the true intent of the suspects. "The first question you need to ask is whether this was really an attempt at four more serious explosions, or an attempt to say, 'We can do it again,' " said a former senior military official with access to British intelligence reports. "It is less probable that this was a bad batch that didn't go off, and more likely that they did it this way on purpose."

This is quite a serious mess to try and sort out for the police. No suspects aprehended so far contrary to other reports.

Authorities Probe Pakistani Linked To Plot in Oregon

This is getting a little too close for comfort.