Doesn't everyone feel safer now?

[BHS]

Actually the Brits record all their interviews with the prisoners. A little bit of information for you, so stop destorting things about which you have no idea what you are talking about.

Even a former president of the US has condemed the American treatment of the US prisoners. But of course you know better!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow. Recorded interviews. I bet that prevents "abuse". I stand by my previous statement. And please, you're just as misinformed as any other member on this site.

Which president would that be? Let me guess - Jimmy "The Peanut" Carter. Am I right? It would figure, that the president who didn't have the balls to do anything about American hostages in Iran wouldn't condone treating would-be mass murderers to a little water-boarding. Really, who cares what Carter, a man who can tell you what kind of cologne Arafat preferred as a Ramadan gift, has to say about anything?

[mirror]

Whew, this is a relief!

London attacks not meant to kill: Suspect

[BHS]

Whew, this is a relief!

London attacks not meant to kill: Suspect

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have to be joking. You can't possibly believe this guy.

[mirror]

So, it appears they can't lower their guard yet in the UK.

Have you heard about all the Al Quaeda websites that have been dismantled over the past few weeks? No one is claiming responsibility for it. I wonder why!

Third terror cell on loose

[mirror]

The Iraqi war is directly responsible for the July 21 London attacks. Tony Blair needs to fess up and to start to tell the truth about the war.

'Confession' lifts lid on London bomb plot

Bomb suspect: 'No al Qaeda links'

[BHS]

The Iraqi war is directly responsible for the July 21 London attacks. Tony Blair needs to fess up and to start to tell the truth about the war.

'Confession' lifts lid on London bomb plot

Bomb suspect: 'No al Qaeda links'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just a thought - how do you know he's not lying? Al-Qaeda operatives are trained to lie if they're captured, because they know the value of disinformation. All we have to go on is his word at this point, and what good is the word of an attempted mass-murderer? Geez, you're gullible.

[mirror]

I forgot.

Yup, it's only Bush & Blair who tell the truth. All the rest of the people on our planet are liars.

[BHS]

I forgot.

Yup, it's only Bush & Blair who tell the truth. All the rest of the people on our planet are liars. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's just how ridiculous you are - defending the credibility of a wanna-be subway cinder by slandering the leaders of the free world.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

Jimmy "The Peanut" Carter. Am I right? It would figure, that the president who didn't have the balls to do anything about American hostages in Iran

Hilarious. You realize of course that Jimmy Carter sent Delta teams in to rescue the hostages, only to see them inexplicably 'crash into each other' on the way to the mission. Then, (after Carter was voted 'least likely president to accomplish anything) Ronnie RayGun and his sidekicks (former CIA director cum-Vice President George H.W.Bush, and election campaign manager-cum CIA director William Casey), came to the rescue with a negotiated secret arms deal (known to many people as The Iran-Contra Scandal) that was already in the works to 'free the hostages'! What incredible, billion to one luck!

[Guest eureka]

How is it slandering anyone to point to a known truth about them?

[Shady]

The Iraqi war is directly responsible for the July 21 London attacks. Tony Blair needs to fess up and to start to tell the truth about the war

Why don't you complete your conversion by joining one of the many terrorist groups fighting against freedom? I mean, you're already providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Now you're even helping spread their propaganda. Shame on you!

To suggest that the terrorist bombings in London are soley based on the invasion of Iraq is grossly irresponsible. You're nothing more then a mouth piece for terrorism. They tell you what to say, and you say it, as though it's gospel. I'm sick and tired of this attitude of appeasement, especially in Canada. We are truely a country without a spine, a nation of fence-sitters hardly matched in the world. Aside from possibly Spain and Switzerland.

The truth is, Iraq has very little to do with the Islamic fascists that threaten the world today.

They consider everyone of us not Muslim as infidels, who deserve death. Shall we start our conversion for fear of terrorist reprisal?

They consider the presence of multi-national troops and aid workers in Afghanistan as illegal and immoral. Shall the world start its withdrawal for fear of terrorist reprisal?

They consider the freedoms we enjoy, especially the freedom provided to women as a grave disgrace in the eyes of Islam. Shall we start repealing these rights for fear of terrorist reprisal?

The answer to these questions is an obvious NO. Well, obvious to people of non-appeasement. Either you comply 100% with each terrorists demand, or there will always be an excuse for a bombing, kidnapping, or suicide attack. One doesn't allow its foreign policy to be dictated by terrorists. Let's remember, September 11th took place before any military invasion in Iraq. The bombings in Bali took place before any military invasion in Iraq. Australia, for example, who lost 88 people in the Bali bombings was originally sited by Osama Bin Laden as a legitimate target for terrorism due to its involvement in the liberation and aid in East Timor. Anyone that spreads the false notion that Iraq is the cause of these types of terrorist actions is a liar and a propagandist.

The attitude of some people in this world, and especially some people in this forum is frightening, but reminds be of a great quote from President John F Kennedy.

"Now we are face-to-face once again with a period of heightened peril. The risks are great, the burdens heavy, the problems incapable of swift or lasting solution. And under the strains and frustrations imposed by constant tension and harassment, the discordant voices of extremism are heard once again in the land.  Men who are unwilling to face up to the danger from without are convinced that the real danger comes from within."

[cybercoma]

The Iraqi war is directly responsible for the July 21 London attacks. Tony Blair needs to fess up and to start to tell the truth about the war

Why don't you complete your conversion by joining one of the many terrorist groups fighting against freedom? I mean, you're already providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Now you're even helping spread their propaganda. Shame on you!

To suggest that the terrorist bombings in London are soley based on the invasion of Iraq is grossly irresponsible. You're nothing more then a mouth piece for terrorism. They tell you what to say, and you say it, as though it's gospel. I'm sick and tired of this attitude of appeasement, especially in Canada. We are truely a country without a spine, a nation of fence-sitters hardly matched in the world. Aside from possibly Spain and Switzerland.

The truth is, Iraq has very little to do with the Islamic fascists that threaten the world today.

They consider everyone of us not Muslim as infidels, who deserve death. Shall we start our conversion for fear of terrorist reprisal?

They consider the presence of multi-national troops and aid workers in Afghanistan as illegal and immoral. Shall the world start its withdrawal for fear of terrorist reprisal?

They consider the freedoms we enjoy, especially the freedom provided to women as a grave disgrace in the eyes of Islam. Shall we start repealing these rights for fear of terrorist reprisal?

The answer to these questions is an obvious NO. Well, obvious to people of non-appeasement. Either you comply 100% with each terrorists demand, or there will always be an excuse for a bombing, kidnapping, or suicide attack. One doesn't allow its foreign policy to be dictated by terrorists. Let's remember, September 11th took place before any military invasion in Iraq. The bombings in Bali took place before any military invasion in Iraq. Australia, for example, who lost 88 people in the Bali bombings was originally sited by Osama Bin Laden as a legitimate target for terrorism due to its involvement in the liberation and aid in East Timor. Anyone that spreads the false notion that Iraq is the cause of these types of terrorist actions is a liar and a propagandist.

The attitude of some people in this world, and especially some people in this forum is frightening, but reminds be of a great quote from President John F Kennedy.

"Now we are face-to-face once again with a period of heightened peril. The risks are great, the burdens heavy, the problems incapable of swift or lasting solution. And under the strains and frustrations imposed by constant tension and harassment, the discordant voices of extremism are heard once again in the land.  Men who are unwilling to face up to the danger from without are convinced that the real danger comes from within."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

damn, what a great post.

[BHS]

To quote the Irish Spring girl from the 80's:

"And I like it too!"

[Argus]

To quote the Irish Spring girl from the 80's:

"And I like it too!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would not go so far as to say Mirror and his ilk gives aid and comfort to the enemy. I would say that the sentiment he and others express represents a sort of wishy-washy white liberalism which distrusts and dislikes militarism and has an easy contempt for its proponents. Such people have never known fear or threat and believe military force is a thing of the past, an unneeded and unwanted relic.

In a world where everyone believed the same it would an admirable trait. In a world where many still feel power flows out of the barrel of a gun it's somewhat suicidal.

In any event, their distrust and distaste of Bush and Co. (fairly legitimate, IMHO), and their jealousy and dislike of the United States, combined with a reflex sympathy for the downtrodden, or those who appear to be downtrodden (see big militaristic Israelis against poor little Arabs) and their distaste and contempt for conservative militarists has tended to make a lot of them feel that Bush & Co are in large measure responsible for the violence. A sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing, though not going quite that far.

And of course, there's that mushy liberal attitude towards violent people. They can't understand the violence, and so try to understand what harm was done to the violent person, be it home-grown criminal or foreign "insurgent" to provoke such violence.

Interestingly, while they can suggest a cop killing bank robber must have had a trying childhood and needs our understanding to help reform, and that a subway bomber must be reacting to societal racism and the oppression and violence directed towards the Muslim world they feel no such interest in what inspires people who beat up blacks or gays. Nor the slightest sympathy for them. So this sympathy towards the violently inclined is not universal.

[BHS]

Thanks Argus. That was a good rebuttal post, and I particularly liked the final paragraph. You've given me things to think about.

Sorry mirror. We probably shouldn't be using you as a lab specimen, but you did ask for it.

[Guest eureka]

Shady, that is a rambling, incoherent pile of BS. If you are intending to turn it in as a school essay, you had better do a major rewrite, Grammaticaly, it was not bad so it will possibly earn you a D.

Don't ask questions when you have the answer(?) riveted in your mind. Don't accuse those who have their feet more firmly on the ground and their minds more attunred to the reality of terrorism of appeasement. Don't accuse people who can read and absorb the information on the reasons and origins of terrorism of giving succour to terrorists.

It is you who are the danger; and an extreme danger. You are still mired in the era of gunboat diplomacy - as is Bush. But, the world is not like that anymore. It does not cower at the very sight or threat of a Western regiment making its way to impose retribution on unacomaditing natives.

What does Bali having occurred before 9/11 have to do with the exponential growth of terrorists and their sympathisers. To use your rhetorical style, the answer is; nothing. Iraq is without the shadow of doubt, the impetus for the spread of terrorism. Of course Bin Laden aimed at those who were still attacking or occupying Muslim areas. So what! Terrorism has now warped into a general hatred of the West's aggression inIraq that sees anything Western as a legitimate target.

You wild portrayals of the motives of the Islamic World ignore all of the history of that world. A century ago, Muslims could not get enough of Western culture and progress. That part of the world was modernizing and democratizing itself. We killed that progress with our imperial(economic and territotial) policies and our betrayal of the aspirations of the Muslim World.

Iraq was the tipping point.

[Argus]

It is you who are the danger; and an extreme danger. You are still mired in the era of gunboat diplomacy - as is Bush. But, the world is not like that anymore.

The delightful thing is that this illustrates exactly my point. A disdain for militarism with an unyielding belief that because they reject it everyone else does to.

Except they don't. Gunboat diplomacy is not a thing of the past, nor is the mindless agression and violence which attracts gunboats.

It does not cower at the very sight or threat of a Western regiment making its way to impose retribution on unacomaditing natives.

Actually, most of the world does, in fact, walk very carefully for fear of western regiments - or western missiles. Wild-eyed, raving religious wackos seeking martyredom, of course, are another story.

What does Bali having occurred before 9/11 have to do with the exponential growth of terrorists and their sympathisers. To use your rhetorical style, the answer is; nothing. Iraq is without the shadow of doubt, the impetus for the spread of terrorism.

Hmm ,as was Indonesia, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and anything else the Islamofacists decide offends them. If it wasn't Iraq it would be something else. Terrorism was escallating before Bush was ever elected, before 911.

Of course Bin Laden aimed at those who were still attacking or occupying Muslim areas.

And there you have that reflexive need to believe that violent people are motivated by something understandable and logical, and something we can do something peaceful about to accomodate. Why, just stop commiting "attacking" and occupying Muslim areas! Then there'll be no terrorism!

So what! Terrorism has now warped into a general hatred of the West's aggression inIraq that sees anything Western as a legitimate target.

But this general hatred of the West existed before the Iraq invasion. Thus Bali, thus 911, thus Kenya. You are attempting to blame Western action in Iraq for a generlized growth in Islamism and violence towards the west when it is, in fact, a response to that violence, not the cause of it. Timelines are pretty damned clear here. Your refusal to acknowledge that is silly.

You wild portrayals of the motives of the Islamic World ignore all of the history of that world. A century ago, Muslims could not get enough of Western culture and progress. That part of the world was modernizing and democratizing itself. We killed that progress with our imperial(economic and territotial) policies and our betrayal of the aspirations of the Muslim World.

Balls. Modernizing? Couldn't get enough of Western culture? Nonsense. Rot. Fairy tales. Islamism is being driven by billions in Saudi oil money funding schools for religious fanatics all across the world.

[Guest eureka]

Read a little about the history of our relations with that part of the world and you will be less likely to make yourself sound foolish.

[Argus]

Read a little about the history of our relations with that part of the world and you will be less likely to make yourself sound foolish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh spare me your white guilt trip. Our ancestors were better fighters than their ancestors. That's all there is to that story, and I'm glad it's not the other way around because I very much doubt they'd have been nearly as kind to us as we were to them.

[GostHacked]

IF most (or all) of the Islamist terrorist fundamentalists are comming from Saudi Arabi, or if the money is comming from Saudi Arabia to fund terror cells around the world. Why have they not been invaded up to this point?

If the invasion of Iraq did not contribute to the rising numbers of terrorist activities around the world, then what is causing it?

I have seen that tossed around here several times. Saudi Arabia is the main reason all this crap is going on? Am I understanding this correctly?

IF Saudi Arabia is causing and funding the terrorists... I ask

Why was Afghanistan invaded?

Why was Iraq invaded?

Why not get to the root of the problem and take Saudi Arabia out?

[Argus]

Why not get to the root of the problem and take Saudi Arabia out?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For what? For their religious beliefs? Because they prostletyze their religious beliefs? Oh, we don't like their religious beliefs? Tough. That's hardly an acceptable reason to go to war these days, now is it?

Don't get me wrong, I belief that Saudi money pushing their Wahabi brand of religious fundamentalism is one of the major causes of the increase in Islamism and thus terrorism. But how do you physically attack a nation for pushing a religious idea you disagree with?

Especially when you have fairly close economic and trade ties with them and they have cooperated with you numerous times in the past.

No, attacking a nation for pushing its religious beliefs runs completely contrary to our beliefs in freedom of religion, speech and information. The US and others have been putting pressure on them to halt or redirect funding away from extremist clerics, and on Pakistan to close down some its more fanatical schools, but there are limits to the pressure which can be applied to one of the world's most wealthy oil states. I am one of those who believes the invasion of Iraq was partly aimed at the Saudis, however, at influencing them and putting pressure on them.

[GostHacked]

I did not mention religious beliefs, so let's leave that factor out of this for now. I am not sure. It may all come from religious centers, but that is no reason NOT to invade if they support terrorists through those means. If the religion spreads hate, I would not consider it a religion anymore.

I am focusing on money and the support of terrorist groups outside Saudi Arabia. Are there ties to that nature? Any evidence to support my claim?

Well you may not invade for religious reasons, but if money is flowing out for terrorist activities (Saddam was linked in just the same way to Al Queada) You sure should be able to take them out.

Why all this pussyfooting around with Saudi Arabia if this IS the case? What do they have as collateral that prevents the US from invading?

[Shady]

Shady, that is a rambling, incoherent pile of BS

I respectfully disagree. It was quite coherent and concise, but above all else, not BS. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Read a little about the history of our relations with that part of the world and you will be less likely to make yourself sound foolish

That is a rather ignorant statement. All things considered, our relations with the middle east have very little significance in the stagnant state that part of the world finds itself in. They've been cruising in neutral for hundreds of years, and now, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Why all this pussyfooting around with Saudi Arabia if this IS the case?

The difference between Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, is that the government of Saudi Arabia is a western ally. They're not a hostile government, though they do have a problem with terrorism amoungst thier citizenry.

[GostHacked]

Shady, if they are supporting terrorism then they are a threat and dangerous. Iraq was an ally (of some sorts) to the US during the 80s. So personaly I don't by that 'they are an ally of the US or the west'.

Seriously, other than an 'ally' what do they have as collateral that prevents the US from doing a regime change there?

Other countries are exporting terrorism as much as (I am guessing) that Saudi Arabia has. By religous means no doubt.

[Guest eureka]

Perhaps I could recommend a little reading to both of you before you continue to write as though you know what you are writing about.

Try "Political and Social thought in the Contemporary Middle East"; Praeger, 1987, Edited by Karpat. It is a collection of essays by mostly Middle Eastern scholars and may prove a little difficult for the superficial perusal that is evident in your gleaning of information. It was written before the present interest in Islamists and Islam - take a leaf out of Kimmy's book and distinguish between them.

However, there are 26 essays and you could take it in manageable gulps.

Then, there is a fairly easy read, "Towards Understanding Islam;" Message Publications, 1997 (though first published in 1932). Reissued at the instigation of the Islamic Circle of North America to help our understanding of Islam.

You will find in that one that we, Kafirs (infidels) will be punished by God as will those Muslims who do not live by their faith. But, Islam says that we will be punished by God at the day of Judgement and not before and not by Muslims. There is no hate there.

See you all in hell someday but not before we are called to judgement in the afterlife.