Log in

View Full Version : Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?



Pages : 1 [2]

Biz
07-10-2005, 01:05 PM
You quote mensnewsdaily and rightwingnews as opponents of the Iraq war?

This type of dishonest argument is not worth responding to. c ya

Did you even read the articles? They were discussing people floating the "we deserved it!" and attacking them.

The point was to show you people used the argument.

Do you read anything?

P.S. The recruitment thing is true as well. Look it up....it will also require reading as well, fair warning.

Editing now. Here, to help you out about why I linked what I did.


Do others really use that excuse? Who? Please provide a quote of someone, somewhere, using that excuse so we can all mock them.

As far as I know, it is completely a fabrication spawned by Melonie and other supporters of the Iraq war.

BTW, dishonest insinuations are just as much a lie as an outright false statement.

Can you even admit you were wrong about that?

**Edit #2**
http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2003/04/04/iraq/main547705.shtml

I'll cut and paste what's there so you don't have to read :)


After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, recruiters saw a spike in inquiries about military service but the numbers of actual recruits remained fairly steady.

See...:) Recruitment != support or no support for a war.

Casual Observer
07-10-2005, 02:52 PM
Original question - nobody thinks that G8 might have had anything to do with the bombings? Not to mention that Britain was mentioned as a target, along with three additional countries back in 2001?

Of course the G8 is related, if only remotely so--wouldn't you attempt to usurp what is objectively an inherently positive and humanitarian agenda focused on the very nations that would be ripe for recruitment into Islamist spheres of influence? As for the other countries on AQ's shit list, that's been developing for thirty years. And yet we still have policymakers in denial about the magnitude and scope of the conflict.

Unfortunately, it's going to take a lot more dead Americans for any semblance of unity on this problem of civilization versus barbarism, and Iraq isn't helping the focus, regardless of one's opinion of the validity of the war or lack thereof.

Destiny
07-10-2005, 03:04 PM
...THAT IS A GOD DAMN FUCKING LIE. Twice now you have stated that our troops intentionally target civilians. Both times I have asked you for proof. Each time, rather than provide proof, you have called me a liar. Either you have some concrete proof that our soldiers are guilty of this or you don't. If you do, post it. The vast majority of our troops in Iraq are nothing but kids (at least to someone as old as me). They could care less about GWB or geopolitical politics and quite likely would guess that the G8 is a new game for their play station. They are just trying to do a difficult job the best they can and get home in one piece. I'm not going to sit quietly by while you accuse good people like them of war crimes.

Jenny
07-10-2005, 03:34 PM
Of course the G8 is related, if only remotely so--wouldn't you attempt to usurp what is objectively an inherently positive and humanitarian agenda focused on the very nations that would be ripe for recruitment into Islamist spheres of influence? As for the other countries on AQ's shit list, that's been developing for thirty years. And yet we still have policymakers in denial about the magnitude and scope of the conflict.
Well, yah. That's why I thought it was a little odd that nobody else seemed to mention. Or maybe they did, and I didn't read carefully enough?


Unfortunately, it's going to take a lot more dead Americans for any semblance of unity on this problem of civilization versus barbarism, and Iraq isn't helping the focus, regardless of one's opinion of the validity of the war or lack thereof.
Okay. Read that again. Am I misunderstanding something? Why are American lives the only lives that matter to you? I mean, outside the obvious. Why more dead AMERICANS? Especially as what we are discussing is specifically dead brits. And again - speaking as an alien with no sense of American superiority over the world, - could you explain why, empirically, your bombs and deaths are civilized and theirs are barbaric? And please don't say that they started it - because whether or not you agree with American foreign policy you must see that the casual way that America both officically and unofficially undermines the sovereignty of other nations is somewhat contentious

Casual Observer
07-10-2005, 04:07 PM
Or maybe they did, and I didn't read carefully enough?

I don't think they did, actually. So much for keeping on thread...


Why more dead AMERICANS?

Because what other nation or nations are capable of dealing with these threats to Western Civilization? Europe is famous for handwringing and not much else when it comes to matters of foreign policy; Bosnia and Kosovo, anyone? How's that ESDP coming along? And what about their ever popular separate peace? It is only when Americans are suitable incensed and wounded that critical mass can be achieved to address this problem; and things just aren't bad enough yet, nor have we lost enough of our own citizens to truly get serious about the problem. Only the British are ready to stand next to us and take on this task; they're the only nation that reliably puts up the blood and money when the shit hits the fan.


And again - speaking as an alien with no sense of American superiority over the world, - could you explain why, empirically, your bombs and deaths are civilized and theirs are barbaric?

Jenny, we know you're not stupid. If you can't see the inherent barbarism in Islamist militancy, I'm not sure who could possibly explain it to you. Islamist groups that would use a low-yield nuclear weapon on an American, British or French target seek the destruction of Western Civilization and the values it espouses. Surely, this is patently clear? Reducing it to the level of merely inconvenient international crime as happens on university campuses is ostrich tactics.

As noted earlier in the thread:


Even if one were to grant the ridiculous and fallacious notion that there is moral and cultural equivalency between incidental casualties in a combat zone where actual combatants are engaged (such as Fallujah, Kabul, Mosul or Tikrit) and the meticulously calculated killing of civilian populations exclusively by means of subterfuge and deception (such as London, Beslan, Istanbul or New York), I'm pretty sure you'd find a way to join with the other apologists to whom the real distinction is meaningless since the very concept of a clash between civilizations and ideas is too uncomfortable for you to accept. emphasis mine

Comparing American military operations--carried out with unparalleled concern for civilian casualties that it guarantees we will suffer more military casualties (seriously, if we didn't care about civilian casualties, you wouldn't be able to stand two rocks on top of each other in Fallujah)--to terror operations that specificially target civilian populations as the preeminent means of pursuing a political agenda is preposterous, and yet, widely accepted by apologists. Fact of the matter is, that the US conducts warfare in a far more humane fashion than any other party in the history of conflict.

Melonie
07-10-2005, 04:31 PM
It is only when Americans are suitable incensed and wounded that critical mass can be achieved to address this problem; and things just aren't bad enough yet, nor have we lost enough of our own citizens to truly get serious about the problem.

I agree wholeheartedly. While the deaths of innocent people of ANY nationality is a tragedy, it is really only the US who is in a position to send the 100,000+ troops necessary to make a serious dent in the Islamic terrorist agenda. Sending US troops requires the determination of the US president and US congress, which in turn requires the outrage and support of US voters in the long term. Expounding on the other theory, in order to build up enough outrage and support from US voters to send an additional 100,000 troops to the middle east and really dominate islamic terrorists, IMHO it will take 100,000 US civilian casualties resulting from a future islamic terrorist attack on US soil. Obviously, I'm hoping that this will never happen. 50 UK civilian casualties during this week's attacks is absolutely tragic, however it does little to increase US resolve (and arguably can be used to weaken the US resolve which already exists).


Only the British are ready to stand next to us and take on this task; they're the only nation that reliably puts up the blood and money when the shit hits the fan

While that is certainly true about the Brits, they are not the only country which is making a committed proportional effort in the war against terrorism. Arguably the Aussies are even more involved than the Brits on a per-capita basis, undoubtedly motivated by their own civilian casualties during the Bali attacks. Even the Dutch have participated significantly, undoubtedly due to the high profile islamic terrorist stuff going on in their own country (and much to the chagrin of their immediate neighbors France and Germany no doubt). And no troops are more determined than the Poles, who have undertaken some pretty 'nasty' missions in Iraq as well as proportionately heavy casualties.

But as you correctly point out, it takes a lot of military manpower to fight an anti-terrorism war against poorly organized 'low tech' adversaries embedded in urban middle eastern settings, and essentially no country except the USA currently has that level of manpower in uniform.

dlabtot
07-12-2005, 09:17 AM
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.


The US invasion and occupation of Iraq is totally unrelated to 9-11. The only relationship between Bush's war against Iraq and terrorism is that it is causing more anger, resentment and utimately terrorism against the United States and our allies.

Jenny
07-12-2005, 01:06 PM
Because what other nation or nations are capable of dealing with these threats to Western Civilization?
We are. We shall neo-go-ti-ate. No, I'm kidding. Nutshell - we all seem to think that you are not a complete nimrod, so what do you think would cause the attacks to stop? We know perfectly well that they don't want to take over the world, and it's not that they "hate freedom." So in terms of AQ terrorism, what do you think they would have to be given.



Europe is famous for handwringing and not much else when it comes to matters of foreign policy;
And we know what America is famous for (Zaire and Chile, anyone? Got any more military juntas you like to institute while you're over there?), which is at least part of the reason you have to deal with this now - at some point you have to acknowledge the forseeable results of your own foreign policy.


Jenny, we know you're not stupid.
You think I'm a little bit stupid - go on. Admit it.



If you can't see the inherent barbarism in Islamist militancy,
I can see the inherent barbarism. I was more implying that from an alien perspective, when people are just as dead, and a just cause is hard to pinpoint in these days of post colonialism (for those of us who aren't jingoistic, rah rah nationalists) it's hard to tell why your bombs aren't - barbaric, I mean. I'm perfectly cognizant of the cultural difference (which seems still to have a lot to do with We're us and they're them). A biological difference, not so much. Let's pretend for a minute that Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 bombings had some connection to the war in Iraq, and there was actually a good reason for invading (other the rah-rah jingoistics I just brought up). How many people (approximately) were killed by Amer-British bombs, guns, etc. How many were killed by Iraqi + terrorist bombs guns, etc. How many people total, would still be alive? Did Sadam NEED to be invaded? Honestly, I don't know. That is not the kind of thing that I know. I know that he was not a very nice man. But I know plenty of people who would similarly swear that Bush eats babies for breakfast. I also know that seeing as America pretty much INVENTED Sadam and Osama, it makes you seem like a bunch of retards to run around crying about them now. Like "I know we put a madman killer at the head of an arbitrarily drawn country with a history of dissent, but he was meant to be OUR madman killer." Dolts.



I'm not sure who could possibly explain it to you. Islamist groups that would use a low-yield nuclear weapon on an American, British or French target seek the destruction of Western Civilization and the values it espouses.
Do they? Or are they just trying to get the West out of the East so that they can suitably squash Israel? I find it hard to believe that they care that much more about our civilization than their own. Of course, that could be me expecting excessive rationality from suicide bombers.



Surely, this is patently clear? Reducing it to the level of merely inconvenient international crime as happens on university campuses is ostrich tactics.
Okay. Then. Let's acknowledge the difference between crime and terrorism and war, and stop acting like the middle east invaded when in fact a terrorist cell planted a bomb. If good old Timmy and his brethern has gotten abroad, surely you would want to have to have to fight off invaders.


Comparing American military operations--carried out with unparalleled concern for civilian casualties that it guarantees we will suffer more military casualties (seriously, if we didn't care about civilian casualties, you wouldn't be able to stand two rocks on top of each other in Fallujah)--to terror operations that specificially target civilian populations as the preeminent means of pursuing a political agenda is preposterous, and yet, widely accepted by apologists. Fact of the matter is, that the US conducts warfare in a far more humane fashion than any other party in the history of conflict.
tell it to the Vietnamese. And the East Timorese. And the chileans who were strangled with barbed wire under the american funded and organized coup. Or better yet, let's not.

Really, I don't think anyone has a good opinion on the war. I mean anyone. Anywhere. I think that all people base their opinions on this matter sheerly on their pre-existing opinions of the American Republican Party, and they seek out whatever supports that pre-existing opinion. I don't think that rational discussion (because that involves listening and knowing stuff) has ever really had a place here. This really hits home with certain posts - e.g. we don't know for CERTAIN that there are no WMD, and so that could still be true, etc.

Melonie
07-12-2005, 03:26 PM
This really hits home with certain posts - e.g. we don't know for CERTAIN that there are no WMD, and so that could still be true, etc.

Well, we DO know for certain that large, well defended truck convoys left military facilities in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities for the Syrian and Iranian borders during the two week 'Turkish delay' immediately prior to coalition troops entering Iraq - the satellite photographs of the convoys have been published. Are you implying that there truck convoys were carrying sand ?

Jenny
07-12-2005, 03:38 PM
I think I was "implying" that there is really very limited indications that the trucks WERE carrrying WMD EXCEPT your previous assertion that they were there. Like "we know they were there, so if they are not there now, they have obviously been moved".

As to what they were - well, I don't know honey. Maybe it was a bank robbery. Maybe they were black market bathing suits. Maybe they were other components of the military. I suppose it is possible that they were WMD, but you can't bloody find them, and that doesn't lend you a lot of credibility after insisting so strongly that they were there. I mean really Melonie - look at it from a distance - "No, we know FOR A CERTAINTY that there are WMD" then "There are no WMD in Iraq ... but there were, we swear!" I mean, really.

dlabtot
07-12-2005, 03:54 PM
Well, we DO know for certain that large, well defended truck convoys left military facilities in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities for the Syrian and Iranian borders during the two week 'Turkish delay' immediately prior to coalition troops entering Iraq - the satellite photographs of the convoys have been published.

Really? Is that true? Where were they published? What military facilities did they leave from? Where did they end up?

Casual Observer
07-12-2005, 04:05 PM
Nutshell - we all seem to think that you are not a complete nimrod, so what do you think would cause the attacks to stop? We know perfectly well that they don't want to take over the world, and it's not that they "hate freedom." So in terms of AQ terrorism, what do you think they would have to be given.

See, that's the attitude that is so inherently problematic; the willingness to negotiate, appease and capitulate with groups that are entirely irrational in their demands, goals and means of pursuing their agendas, and the outright denial of the intent of the enemy. They do hate freedom--that's not one of GWB's lame catch phrases (of which there are many). Don't tell me--particularly with you being a dancer--that there is a lot of freedom for anyone under Sharia law, which is their model for governance and living. They do wish to create a 14th Century Caliphate--they have said as much. They do wish to subjugate infidel populations and exterminate Israel. None of this is in question, especially since they have laid out their goals in their own propaganda. This is why your moral equivocating of collateral combat casualties with intentional civilian terror targets is so offensive an idea.

To that end and in your nutshell, there is nothing that can be done to make these fanatics stop carrying out terror operations, save the persistent and systematic dismantling of their organizations. Given their comparatively small numbers and Islamist bent, it is a fallacy that widespread dissemination of liberal democratic governance and free-market economic systems will significantly inhibit their ability to recruit new foot soldiers in this conflict; the GWB administration suffers from this fallacy as do most of his opponents on the Left. These fanatics will always be there so long as there are infidel Westerners and Jews to make scapegoats for an Islamist philosophy.


I find it hard to believe that they care that much more about our civilization than their own. Of course, that could be me expecting excessive rationality from suicide bombers.

You're not the only one suffereing from that delusion--it's called mirror imaging; the presumption that your enemy or adversary thinks, analyzes and responds as you would. There is no rational way to deal with these people as they only understand force and death because that is what they love and that is what they seek. It's not that they care about our civilization; it's that our civilization is more attractive to more people across this globe (even in places where sentiment towards Western policies runs hot and cold) and that appeal to the masses is threatening and revolting to them and their Islamist ideology. Look what is happening in France for a perfect example--women being pulled from schools, told to wear burkas, demands to create gender-segregated facilities, refusal to assimilate to French customs and culture, et al. Western Civilization is the problem, in the eyes of the Islamist. The foreign policy of Western nations is merely emblematic and ancillary by way of comparison.


I don't think that rational discussion (because that involves listening and knowing stuff) has ever really had a place here.

Sure. Plenty of people here merely spout their feelings without any attempt to rectify those feelings with historical, empirical or socio-cultural prisms through which to come to such conclusions. That doesn't mean no learning or otherwise valuable exchanges take place.

Melonie
07-12-2005, 04:36 PM
Really? Is that true? Where were they published? What military facilities did they leave from? Where did they end up?

... detail city about our satellite surveillance of Iraq at

As far as your requests for specific destinations of the truck convoys, this was never made public. The only 'leaks' have been from Russians who purportedly rode with the convoys, from ex-Saddam personnel who purportedly loaded the trucks, and from Intelligence Community 'insiders'. The published material has not appeared in mainstream news media (not surprisingly), only in alternative media that you would consider to be partisan.

Again, the point was not to attempt to prove that these WMD truck convoy assertions are totally cast in stone documentable fact. If intelligence info such as this is treated in a similar manner as intelligence info of previous conflicts, it may be 50 years before 'hard evidence' is made public. All I was pointing out is that, just because there have been no mainstream media publications regarding the discovery of huge stashes of WMD's in Iraq after the coalition arrived, this does NOT mean that alternate possibilities therefore reasonable doubt does not exist in regard to Iraqi WMD's having been relocated. It's the old corrolary of trying to conclusively prove a 'negative'.

dlabtot
07-13-2005, 09:41 AM
Well, we DO know for certain that large, well defended truck convoys left military facilities in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities for the Syrian and Iranian borders during the two week 'Turkish delay' immediately prior to coalition troops entering Iraq - the satellite photographs of the convoys have been published.


Really? Is that true? Where were they published? What military facilities did they leave from? Where did they end up?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/n...-unpowell02.htm



The link you provided does not support your assertion. It does not show pictures that you say were made public. In fact, the article you link to pre-dates the time frame in which you say these truck convoys moved. The article does not even mention truck convoys and in no way supports the statements you have made.


In other words, the statements you have made are utter falsehoods.

Just wanted to clear that up.

SthnrnGrl77
07-13-2005, 05:07 PM
Y'know, if we lost this whole "sanctity of life" garbage and turned the Middle East into glass, it would solve a lot of problems ;).

It'll probably happen once the first dirty bomb goes off in the US, I guess.

there was a guy on talkradio today saying they have 20 nukes and will set them off in 20 cities in the near future. for some re ason the g'vt doesn't seem to take this seriously even though they know it (surprise surprise) the guys name is paul williams and do a google search for him and it'll scare the crap out of you. Oh well I guess you can't live in fear.

Deogol
07-14-2005, 03:35 AM
there was a guy on talkradio today saying they have 20 nukes and will set them off in 20 cities in the near future. for some re ason the g'vt doesn't seem to take this seriously even though they know it (surprise surprise) the guys name is paul williams and do a google search for him and it'll scare the crap out of you. Oh well I guess you can't live in fear.

Yea, he has been making the television circuit.

What causes anxiety, is that he is simply aggregating multiple news sources and presenting them in kind. The information is already out there - it has just been drowned out.

If it does happen - boy oh boy - I wouldn't want to be a muslim in America. I think the result would make Krystal Nacht look like a kindergarten food fight until martial law was declared and enforced (that is if it even CAN be enforced at that time!)

SthnrnGrl77
07-14-2005, 11:04 AM
well my concern if it does happen is the innocent victims and their families , not whether people are being PC or not.
With that said I don't think it will happen, but who knows. They would have done it by now I suppose. Who knows.