Attacks in London

[dinochick]

Really glad to hear that you two are ok Eko & Jahled. I was worried about you!

[DarthTex]

My condolances to those who perished and their families. My best wishes to those who are hurt and recovering. My warm thoughts to those who were not injured.

 

The only silver lining I can see is that MANY more people were not harmed (i.e. Madrid).

 

I agree that such cowardly acts only galvanize those who are targeted to defend themselves and bring justice to those who demand it. Terrorism is a crime of stupidity. Those who have "closed" their minds to other thoughts and ideas (whether they be good or bad, depending on your perspective), elevate themselves with false premises that they are better than others. They can not live with the thought that others may think differently, AND that you can live with them in PEACE! Therefore they regress to the primitive instincts to attack what they are afraid of.

 

The "Western world" will deal with terrorists as best as they can, but it will take all nations (muslim too) to eradicate such "beasts". If the Islamic world doesn't bring its own extremists in-line, then when the Western world tries, it will be seen as the "big bully".

 

AdmiralToguroAni wrote:

 

I'm talking about the early 1990's occupation, not the post 9/11 one, just to clear that up. Since the 2001 occupation was already post-attack, we can figure that to be a logical advancement on the war front. The earlier occupation in Afghanistan was to help Israel, I believe, something that Al-Qaida wasn't too happy with.

 

What earlier occupation? The Soviets? I don't think they wanted to help Israel. After the Soviets left, Afghanistan has been in civil turmoil between rival factions (communists, Taliban, Northern Alliance, warlords, etc.). The Taliban (unfortunately) were the dominating faction (using their religion as the terror plan), and taking the people back a thousand years in human evolution and dignity.

 

AdmiralToguroAni wrote:

 

We can't let them win, but we have to win in such a way that will show them (and ourselves) that you can practice what you preach even during wartime, which the United States has not been doing, unfortunately.

 

What part has the United States NOT been doing, amigo? You are right that the US is NOT acting like Saddam. The US has not gassed thousands, not tortured millions (some just for his son's personal entertainment), and not killed those who "disagree" with government policies. The US HAS spent BILLIONS of dollars on NEW CIVIL projects for the PEOPLE of Iraq. Out of all of the new roads, power plants, sewages systems, water treatment plants, new schools, new telephone services, new police stations and new hospitals, I have not seen ONE new palace built. Everything has been done for the PEOPLE of Iraq, so that THEY can decide how THEY want to live their lives. Maybe I'm guessing here, but I don't think they're going to let another "Saddam" in power. Burnt once, twice shy. The best "governments" serve the people, and not the other way around.

 

Just as the "terrorists" don't represent all people of Muslim faith, apply the same rule to some of the US (and other nation) soldiers. Not all (soldiers) have lived up to the standards we want (and those that crossed the line have and will be dealt with accordingly). Those "misfits" are either being "weeded out" or are learning to toe-the-line. This is the example the Islamic clerics have yet to learn; take care of the extremists themselves.

[Trejiuvanat]

This thread has turned out to go beyond condolensces regarding the attacks on London to a discussions of idologies. I'll keep it open for a while as long as it keeps a civilized tone. (Those last CAPS seemed a bit too sharp for my liking).

 

As for my personal opinion on the matter. This is a blurry subject, no matter how one turns the matter there's nothing but half-truths and circumstational facts. And if you drag historical events and comparisons to it, there's definitely no truth at all. Especially if you consider that terrorists have no political affilition, no religion, just a twisted motive that may only be true for them.

 

Terrorists in general do not have a religion (and I think it is unfair to blame Islam), they can claim their deeds in the name of God, but that in the end is all bullshit. Religion is a cowardly justification that in the end winds up hurting badly those who do believe and profess their faith.

 

I have little love for religions over all, but I can respect all who believe in it whatever faith they choose or where raised in. Like Jahled there are aspects of Islam that disgust me, but it is something we cannot fight against, because we are not living it. As outsiders we are not entitled to judge nor sentence a religion. Changes of that kind must always come from those that live in it. If Islam does not change it will be forgotten and recede to a similar position to which the Catholic Church has receded.

 

There are also aspects of our religion (Capitalism and Democracy, which are the Western World's Religion) that disgust me, they are barbaric and tyrannical in it's own sense.

 

Back to the topic: What's the solution for terrorism?

 

Is there a solution at all? Declaring a war on terrorism and put every singly terror attack on the spotlight definitely is not the wisest move. It's just giving the terrorist more justification that they are doing the right thing. Are things safer now? Did the invasion of Iraq or Afganisthan stop the attacks on Madrid and London? Even if Bin-Laden is captured and Al-qaeda dismantled will then the violence stop? It's the wrong war to fight.

 

The Talibans and Saddam needed to go, but they should not have been ousted by foreign forces. If a regime is corrupt it will and it must be removed by their own people. That's what has happened over the course of our history. It's not a thing that happens overnight, and such a process takes time. (It's essentially what will happen in Cuba, what is happening in China).

 

In the end just as I cannot tolerate the acts of terrorists, I cannot show tolerance the current solution, in which democracy and 'freedom' are imposed.

[Eko]

Right, i've collected my thoughts now:

 

Trej has covered most of the points I would have written.

 

I would mention that terrorists cannot be fought like a normal threat, they have no fixed base that we can destroy, they have no fixed point that we can invade. Trej is correct in saying that the voilence will not stop with the war on terror, in fact IMO this simply creates more. Terrorism is simply a different tactic of fighting a war, but again, in my opinion an attack targeted deliberatly on innocent civilians is anathema to any cause. This is where it becomes cloudy of course because we must reconcile the cause against the actions of the group. For example, Nelson Mandela carried out a lot of sabotage on targets in the apatheid government, I have found no information on civilian casualities but from the perspective of the (very evil) Apartheid government he was a terrorist.

 

Terrorism is a very cloudy issue and exactly where to draw the line between terrorism and geurilla warfare for a worhty ideal depends a lot upon your perspective and how much you valule human life.

[Evaders99]

I'm going to debate on this point.

You asked, "What's the solution for terrorism?"

 

and then you go on to describe what isn't a solution. If your reaction to a "declaration of war" is "do-nothing", than the enemy already wins.

 

We can say that the war on terrorism did not stop further attacks on other western countries. We will never be safe with such a threat out there. But have we possibly avoided worse attacks - I believe so. We've not seen another attack against the US. Nor have we seen an global rampage of terrorism around the globe. We have stopped many training centers and supporters of Al-Qaeda. Do we do nothing when there are people actively training for our country's destruction? If this is not a war we fight, than we lose.

 

I believe that change must occur within. To stop this violent stream of Islamic fundamentalism (for that it is what it is, I'm not trying to blame it on Islam as a religion.. but as a culture where Islam is a repressive on human spirit and violence is taught to extreme measures), the muslim people must reject these teachings fully. They must stand strong and voice out their abhorrance for such acts. Further, they must be stop funding and supporting these groups (Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, etc)

 

But often change has to occur by some outside force. Such terror can come from within. The Nazis were elected in Germany, leading to the rise of Hitler and deaths of millions in Nazi concentration camps. The change was not a rise in the German people, but the forces of the Allies in World War II.

 

For 24 years, Saddam Hussein has run a repressive regime in Iraq. He has murdered hundreds of thousands, most notably the Kurds through chemical and biological weapons. His sons had full control to do whatever they wished, rape and torture. Do you think anyone in Iraq would have successfully removed them from power? How many people now have a chance to actually vote for a leader, freely?

 

For 5 years, the Taliban ruled Afghanistan with an iron fist. The harsh rule of extreme Islamic law forced many out of jobs and education (especially women). The Taliban housed and protected Al-Qaeda as they trained. Would anyone have removed them from power? How many now are free to run their own lives, free to determine their own path?

 

 

The Communist government in China and Cuba is a tragedy. Civil rights are non-existant. The Communist Party controls all the media, and also maintains the largest standing army. How many millions have died due to repressive governments in communist countries? More than ever was killed in both World Wars, Korean War, Vietnam War...

And you think they will ever change? China may be going to more economically viable choice in capitalism, but the Communist Party will never give control over to the people. Neither will Castro in Cuba. Once they have control, they fear any power to take that from them.

 

Do the ends justify the means? That is something we can debate on forever. I'd like to think we do our best to make things better, if its to rebuilding German and Japan after World War II, to rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq after these wars. I do not doubt that people in Iraq and Afghanistan have a chance to truly build their own democracy. Otherwise they risk another repressive regime.

 

I cannot tolerate inaction and indecisiveness, especially to a direct threat against the USA and other western countries. In our own self-interest, I believe we cannot back down from this. All these terrorists believe that we are weak, they pray on weakness. They saw previous attacks as weaknesses - where the previous World Trade Center bombings and US Embassy bombings were tests of American reaction. We did nothing but a criminal investigation leading to nothing - not exploring the extent to which Al-Qaeda saw to target us. Al-Qaeda knows that in going to war, they can use the own political system against us - the UN would never back any war. But I think they underestimate the resolve of the USA and other nations.

 

Further, I cannot tolerate the elitist mindset that 'western world' is running on a barbaric 'religion' - what else is there but man's choice? A will to live and desire to live it as he wishes? If you infringe neither on someone's right to life, liberty, or property - you should be able to do as you wish. That is what freedom and democracy is all about. How is that barbaric?

 

Should life be about fantasy of 'communist utopia' (where choices are made for you) OR should it be about freedom (where the choices are yours to make)?

 

You will always have people who disagree with you. You will always have people who desire power. You will always have people who use terror to gain power. But the answer to terrorism is not 'do-nothing' - it is not 'engage in long diatribes of dialogue'... it is not 'feel for their suffering and please give them money'... it is not 'understand their loathing for the western world'...

The solution is to function in civilization, you must have a sense of freedom - a power to work towards your own self-happiness. Liberty - why live for anything else?

[DarthTex]

Evaders99 wrote:

 

All that fine stuff

 

Ditto for me!

 

 

Freedom isn't cheap, and is paid for dearly with our lives.

 

Remember the Alamo!

Remember Pearl Harbor!

 

[Jahled]

Good post Evaders.

 

Well, i've just finally spoken to my neighbour who lives opposite my house as she dangled her two kids here and there. She lost a mate on the bus blast.

 

Curious news emerging from here in the UK; the police are almost certain that one of the bombers was a suicide bomber, possibly all four; following extensive intelligence, and house raids today.

 

They also think they were 'homegrown' suicide-bombers, from the Pakistaini community. This rather troubles me. Not just for community relations, but for the precident it sets now for Europe at least. Hopefully the Muslim community here at least will clean it's act up with what a few are preaching in their Mosques, in their faith's name; appealing to disenchanted and angry young men, who in this instance might have murdered fellow British citizans.

[Skynxnex]

I agree. Here in the US, specifically VA there was this one fellow whose name escapes me, but anyway he runs a mosque I think over in Alexandria and his sermons are nothing more than talking about how the West deserves to be bathed in fire or something.

 

I agree that its startling and I also agree with your other point that the community itself needs to do something. I dont think muslims can afford to be a silent majority and let these fanatics do what they want. If this continues we will eventually go into a culture war I am sure. That is, a war with no real economic reason behind it (which most wars are) but rather one based on different cultural values that are in a clash against one another. Condemning the attacks is fine, but more needs to be done. Advocating people to go and kill themselves for Allah or whoever is just wrong.

[Trejiuvanat]

Read today that the people responsible had been identified, and that at least one of them was dead. And that there were some people detained. I'm also suprised by Jahled's comment that they may have come form within the Pakistani-Brit community.

 

Regarding my position -which will probably not change- I still cannot see the exposed logic behind the arguument. The war against Iraq and Afganishtan -independent from their results- were not waged because the U.S. wanted to rid the world of people like Hussein or the Taliban. Both invasions were mainly fought in the name of the intern security of the world powers (mainly of course the United States).

 

The regimes of every country even if corrupt or inmoral do not lose their sovereignity. Whether that sovereignity is well-deserved or not is another matter, that would even question the existence of any regime. The corrupted government will always be a target because of the image they give, but their fates cannot be judged and sentenced. There are dozens of worse regimes than Saddam's, not only in the Muslim world but in Africa or in Latin America. No one is expecting any world-power to head in that direction, because no one wants them to do so.

 

Afganishtan is still the same mess it ever was. It was not a country that went 'bad' because of the Taliban's, it's situation was never bright. Same for Iraq, they can choose a leader. but they are choosing a leader among those that were repressed by Hussein that were running and exploiting the country before him. Having a constitution and claiming that their rulers were elected by the people is not the same thing as being a democracy.

 

Evaders mentioned Nazi Germany, which is another matter entirely. There was an open war against a country, because if had attacked and harassed another sovereign nation. And even WWII was not fought to save the Jews from extermination, the allies fought because all fell under attack from Germany and/or its allies.

 

I agree that the Islamic world must come out of its slumber, in some ways the Islamic world is 'temporarily' displaced in relationship to the West. Inverted if you think of it. When Islam was at the peak of its civilization, the West was living its darker ages, and now when Islam is in its darker ages the West shines under the oh-so-great banners of democracy and capitalism. I do believe that with time (a few generations) the Islamic People will understand that neither sticking to old saddam-like regimes favoring terrorists, nor becoming capitalists Oasis like Dubai will be the way to go for Islam. But any changes need time, and they grow even more difficult the more interest the West has in that region of the planet, especially because of the now sharpening interest in the Oil Reserves.

 

Personally, the way things are going, I fear that MidEast will be repetition of what has happened to Africa or Hispanic America before that. A land with much-needed natural resources that will be controlled by the world powers and then left behind in chaos.

 

Lastly to clear up some historical facts: As for El Ã

[Evaders99]

I'm not going to say the ends justify the means here... it will be for history to decide. But I believe that there is a time for force, when the need arises. I'm not saying that America should be the world police, it is certainly none of our business. We do have regimes that should have gone... but we do not remove them because of our own national self-interest. As you said, these wars were fought in the name of "security" - that again national self-interest. Whether you believe this is true or not, the rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan will be a marker for future of the Middle East.

 

I think it is a wakeup to some of Europe. There are many supporters of these terrorists within Europe's borders. I was reading an article specifically about the Islamic community in the United Kingdom - where many of these terrorists do get educated. It is a weakness of the open borders that Europe has cast, and that the terrorists know how to exploit. I hope as this investigation comes out, there will be more understanding in how these people operate, and ultimately who leads and funds these cells of terror.

 

 

 

I quote Albert Einstein, in a recently released letter to a friend, discussing the issue of World War II

"I didn't write that I was an absolute pacifist but that I have always been a convinced pacifist. That means there are circumstances in which in my opinion it is necessary to use force," he wrote.

 

"Such a case would be when I face an opponent whose unconditional aim is to destroy me and my people," he said. "Therefore the use of force against Nazi Germany was in my opinion justified and necessary."

 

---

 

I leave this debate with this:

America isn't perfect - I'm not going to prop our country up on a pedastal and say we always do things right. We don't, no one does. We disagree among ourselves even, but we live in an age where such 'free thought' is certainly a blessing.

 

With freedom comes responsibility, with free markets comes competition. There will always be countries on top and on the bottom. There will always be those countries to the be world's superpowers - leaders of the world and furthering human progress. There are many worse choices for such a leading country - if not America, who? Russia? China? England?

 

America will always be blamed whether we do something or not. It doesn't mean that we won't try. The judge we will leave to history.

[DarthTex]

The US government wasn't involved in Texas in the 1830's. The Alamo was defended by men from many countries (colonists?), including Texans of anglo & latino descent. Texas became a state in 1844, eight years after the Alamo.

 

Also, the US didn't keep Mexico after the Mexican-American war in the late 1840's.

[Stellar_Magic]

Involved or not, the majority of the people that entered Texas were American. Consider that an American senator went to fight alongside the defenders of the Alamo and you realize that American Manifest destiny. As to whether we occupied Mexico...we did go ahead and steal over a 1/3rd of all Mexican possesions. Compared to what we did to other nations Mexico has taken the most lasting damage. Even nuking Japan didn't slow them down much compared to Mexico, hello third world.

[Trejiuvanat]

The US government wasn't involved in Texas in the 1830's. The Alamo was defended by men from many countries (colonists?), including Texans of anglo & latino descent. Texas became a state in 1844, eight years after the Alamo.

 

Actually they were involved, as Stellar pointed out there was a former senator [Crockett], who was a 'independente agent'...cough... mercenary... working for President Jackson among the colonists who were just brought there to die and justify any further action. There were also some other shadowy figures like Fannin and Bowie.

 

Following the purchase of Lousiana, the US needed more room for settler and colonists to move in, so partly one could say that the whole Texas revolution and independence was imported from the US through agents and colonists. Why Texas? Because the frontier of New Spain were blurry, that whole territory is a wasteland, and Mexicans much like the Spanish before them had never had the need to clear them.

 

If you have a close look at the Texan Declaration of independence, the vast majority of the people that signed were US Americans, the whole thing was even redacted by a close friend of President Jackson. Sure there were some settlers, and even a couple of Mexicans, but the adquisition of Texas was a political maneuver undertaken by the US government greatly aided by 'independent agents'.

 

Also, the US didn't keep Mexico after the Mexican-American war in the late 1840's.

 

That would have been too much. No matter how much of an idiot Santa Anna was it would have been impossible for the US to take whole Mexico by military means. On the other hand in th 1850's we do have more 'independent agent's' ...cough...mercenaries trying to invade the countries of Central America...

[Lord_La_forge]

To quote the very late Jim Morrison, 'the west is the best,' because it is.

 

The Doors 1967 - "The End"

Very good track.

[Jahled]

Don't change light bulbs in the bath.

[Mad78]

It is a sad thing that people think that striking innocents who just wanted to get on with their normal lives will change much of the way things are.