View Poll Results: Is there a connection between the London attacks and the UK presence in Iraq?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    13 92.86%
  • No

    1 7.14%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 67

Thread: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

  1. #26
    Banned TerpsichoreToo's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    60
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Biz

    Do you think the extremists will rest until the infidels are annihilated?
    Terrorism has existed in one form or another since the start of recorded history, so the answer is no.

    Acts of terror are a sad fact of life just like their are rapes and serial murders. But when we go around living in fear or worse yet behaving just like the terrorist then they have won.

    The only way to beat terrorism is not to give the terrorist what they really want- which is to make us live and fear.

    check this out for more on the subject :



    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    Only if it causes 100,000+ civilian casualties ! Otherwise, many will still cling to the 'we deserved it' paradigm and will still oppose large scale military retaliation.
    Who here said we deserve it ? I don't see that anywhere in this thread. Please point out where any of us here who do not support this war said we "deserve it".

  2. #27
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Quote Originally Posted by TerpsichoreToo
    Who here said we deserve it ? I don't see that anywhere in this thread. Please point out where any of us here who do not support this war said we "deserve it".
    I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for an honest answer to your question.

  3. #28
    Banned TerpsichoreToo's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    60
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Quote Originally Posted by dlabtot
    I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for an honest answer to your question.
    I know, but I couldn't let that a false statement about those of us in this thread who do not support the war go without pointing out the dishonesty of the comment.
    Last edited by TerpsichoreToo; 07-09-2005 at 07:25 PM.

  4. #29
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    108
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Quote Originally Posted by TerpsichoreToo
    Terrorism has existed in one form or another since the start of recorded history, so the answer is no.

    Acts of terror are a sad fact of life just like their are rapes and serial murders. But when we go around living in fear or worse yet behaving just like the terrorist then they have won.
    Admittedly, part of my response was just to incite a reaction from you....

    But, to be serious /flex.....

    The main difference between rape, murder, and terrorism is escalation. Terrorism can escalate and will in the near future unleash a dirty bomb or something worse. It's only a matter of time.

    What then? Technology has advanced to the point where small groups of psychos can threaten nations. The technology for a small band of individuals to easily wipe out a city has never existed before. Now it does.

    Do you sit back and allow it? Or do you seek them out and annihilate them?

    This is a separate question from whether you like Bush or not. I think he's a sack of shit, personally, and voted for Kerry.

    The question is really about whether we have the force of will to do what's necessary. Seeing as how we don't go around rescuing oppressed people, I'm not sure we do.

    Take Iraq. If Bush had stood up and said "These people are being oppressed, raped, and murdered. We're going in to rescue them!" instead of the lies about the terrorist links, would we have?

    Of course not. We're selfish. We'd have said none of our business, let those fucks die under Saddam's rule. Just s'long as I can watch Sopranos, I'm happy.

    So Bush didn't do that, he lied....and it was probably also to avenge the assassination plot against his father and unfinished business and oil etc., and not terrorism, and that's wrong.....

    I just find it hilarious that everyone rips into us for knocking off a dictator and saving countless people from murder and rape.

  5. #30
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    The only way to beat terrorism is not to give the terrorist what they really want- which is to make us live and fear.
    You hear this all time in our know-nothing lamestream media, sadly, because it's a thoroughly worthless and tired platitude if there ever was one. The way to beat terrorism is to use pervasive and thorough intelligence methodologies, covert diplomacy and liason relations with similarly affected nations, and most importantly, skillfully directed and professional violence, executed with such intensity and focus that the elements of the problem--to include financiers, materiel supporters, host nations and organizational members--are ground into dust.

    It's about a lot more than refusing to live in fear, which doesn't really mean anything. Proactive, preemptive and prejudicial actions trump platitudes every time. Being on the defensive in this long, bloody and generational conflict only garners us very little; Beruit Barracks, 9/11, the Cole, the Kenyan/Tanzanian embassy bombings, et al all took place before Iraq, and yet we did nothing while US servicemembers and civilians were targeted and killed by these savages. Iraq is only tangentially related to Islamist terror, and only then very recently. Vigilance in this conflict is about taking the fight to the enemy, not waiting for it to come to us, and certainly not hoping that if we're nice and if we capitulate and appease these savages that they'll come around to our way of thought.

    The Army is having serious recruitment problems. What's your excuse for not signing up?
    Some of us on this board were in the military during the first go-around in Iraq. So now what's your excuse? If you're too much of a coward or invalid to join, or you're a beautiful person that's above service in the national interest and you can't be bothered to contribute, then just shut the fuck up and respect the people that actually do serve. They provide you with security you don't even deserve since you're too busy being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. Asking us to serve when you not only wouldn't serve but don't respect those that do is classically elitist and patently disdainful.

    Even if one were to grant the ridiculous notion that you know the intentions of those who gave the orders, I'm pretty sure that if you or a member of your family were a victim, this distinction would be meaningless to you.
    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.

    Have a nice day in your ivory tower of isolation and comfort--don't let reality creep in, because she's a right bitch.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  6. #31
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    ]

    Some of us on this board were in the military during the first go-around in Iraq. So now what's your excuse? If you're too much of a coward or invalid to join, or you're a beautiful person that's above service in the national interest and you can't be bothered to contribute, then just shut the fuck up and respect the people that actually do serve. .
    Yeah, they especially need people who've already served. I'm ex-military as well, and I agree - if you are fit and support this war and don't enlist, you are a coward.

  7. #32
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Being on the defensive in this long, bloody and generational conflict only garners us very little; Beruit Barracks, 9/11, the Cole, the Kenyan/Tanzanian embassy bombings, et al all took place before Iraq, and yet we did nothing while US servicemembers and civilians were targeted and killed by these savages.
    An therein lies the basis of the 'we deserved it' paradigm, i.e. that somehow all of these deliberate attacks were in some way 'morally justified', thus providing insufficient 'moral justification' on our part for any major retaliation. It was true in the 90's and it appears to still be true at least among certain groups of Americans.

    As to the 'GWB lied about WMD's in Iraq' issue, I'm not going to bother repeating the lack of factual basis to support this conclusion for the umpteenth plus one time. I would only point out that there is just as much 'reasonable doubt' and contrary evidence about that conclusion as there is in regard to some other conclusions I have posted which some posters attempted to promptly dismiss as invalid. The simple fact is that failure to find a 'smoking gun' is not proof that a gun was never present, and that no search can be considered conclusive until further checking across the Syrian and Iranian borders is conducted (re satellite pictures of huge truck convoys travelling from Iraq to Syria and to Iran immediately prior to coalition forces entering Iraq).

    And coming full circle back to the original topic of this thread, I won't even bother mentioning the captured business and shipping records indicating the sale of potential WMD components to Iraq by the French, Germans and Russians.

  8. #33
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    108
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Quote Originally Posted by dlabtot
    Yeah, they especially need people who've already served. I'm ex-military as well, and I agree - if you are fit and support this war and don't enlist, you are a coward.
    How come you didn't enlist after 9/11? You think those people in the twin towers deserve what they got?!

    See how that can be turned around?

    The fact the military has difficulty getting people to enlist can be directly attributed to the success of Hollywood and others showing the reality of war.

    The knifing scene in Saving Private Ryan gives me chills years after having seen it....ugh.

  9. #34
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    I notice that the lie that someone said we deserved it is being repeated.

  10. #35
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    108
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Quote Originally Posted by dlabtot
    I notice that the lie that someone said we deserved it is being repeated.
    Nobody said that. Melonie was explaining why others use that excuse, but no one in this thread has forwarded that notion.

  11. #36
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Biz
    How come you didn't enlist after 9/11? You think those people in the twin towers deserve what they got?!
    There is a recruitment crisis now, because of Bush's quagmire in Iraq. There was no recruitment crisis after 9-11, I don't think they had lowered the standards to take 40 year olds yet at that point.


    The fact the military has difficulty getting people to enlist can be directly attributed to the success of Hollywood and others showing the reality of war..
    That's ridiculous. People don't wan't to sign up to die for a war based on lies just to increase the profits of Haliburton and the rest of the oil and defense industies.

  12. #37
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    108
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Quote Originally Posted by dlabtot
    That's ridiculous. People don't wan't to sign up to die for a war based on lies just to increase the profits of Haliburton and the rest of the oil and defense industies.
    Actually, there has always been a recruitment problem for the military. It's just magnified now due to us being in so many places at once.

    60 Minutes and other news outlets did many stories immediately after 09/11 detailing how there wasn't a rush to be recruited into the military after the attack and compared it to Pearl Harbor when there was an attack and a resulting rush to be recruited.

    There was barely a spike after the twin towers fell.

    Why? Wouldn't an attack like that cause it? By your own line of reasoning, you'd think so.

    It didn't happen, though.

    It did happen after Pearl Harbor, though....luckily, we didn't have Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket or Platoon or the TV show Tour of Duty or Vietnam or Blackhawk Down or countless other things to show why volunteering might be....uncomfortable.

  13. #38
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Biz
    Melonie was explaining why others use that excuse, but no one in this thread has forwarded that notion.
    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.

  14. #39
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    People don't wan't to sign up to die for a war based on lies just to increase the profits of Haliburton and the rest of the oil and defense industies.
    I notice that the lie re GWB and Iraqi WMD's is being repeated, along with a new lie in regard to Halliburton.

  15. #40
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    108
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Quote Originally Posted by dlabtot
    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.
    Ah, I misread what you said. I thought you were hinting that someone in this thread held that stance. Apologies.

    To be argumentative, though, some people do hold that stance.

    A quick google reveals....

    http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...iani061305.htm

    http://www.resist.com.au/comments/c94.asp

    http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/0..._america_.html

    http://www.rightwingnews.com/crackpots/blame.php
    (that's a good one about how we deserved it and a right wing site acknowledging that the thought is out there and counterattacking lol).

    http://www.chicagoflame.com/media/pa...1-863171.shtml
    (University of Colorado professor saying we deserved it).

    That search took less then 5 minutes.

    People use that excuse, A LOT. How you could miss it is beyond me....

  16. #41
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Biz
    Actually, there has always been a recruitment problem for the military. It's just magnified now due to us being in so many places at once.

    60 Minutes and other news outlets did many stories immediately after 09/11 detailing how there wasn't a rush to be recruited into the military after the attack and compared it to Pearl Harbor when there was an attack and a resulting rush to be recruited.
    That is not true. A falsehood.

  17. #42
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    You quote mensnewsdaily and rightwingnews as opponents of the Iraq war?

    This type of dishonest argument is not worth responding to. c ya
    Last edited by dlabtot; 07-10-2005 at 09:28 AM.

  18. #43
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    I notice that the lie re GWB and Iraqi WMD's is being repeated, along with a new lie in regard to Halliburton.
    Like so many things said by supporters of Bush's war, your comment is totally unconnected to reality.



  19. #44
    Banned TerpsichoreToo's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    60
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    The question is really about whether we have the force of will to do what's necessary. Seeing as how we don't go around rescuing oppressed people, I'm not sure we do.

    Take Iraq. If Bush had stood up and said "These people are being oppressed, raped, and murdered. We're going in to rescue them!" instead of the lies about the terrorist links, would we have?

    Of course not. We're selfish. We'd have said none of our business, let those fucks die under Saddam's rule. Just s'long as I can watch Sopranos, I'm happy.

    So Bush didn't do that, he lied....and it was probably also to avenge the assassination plot against his father and unfinished business and oil etc., and not terrorism, and that's wrong.....
    I don't think there is much more I could add really. You stated things quite succinctly.

  20. #45
    Banned TerpsichoreToo's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    60
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    I notice that the lie re GWB and Iraqi WMD's is being repeated.
    Talk about being obtuse ! Even the White House has admited there were NO WMD. Try a little reality for a change .

    Bush said in his address to Congress in January 2003 that the British government had learned that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.

    The president's statement in the State of the Union was incorrect because it was based on forged documents from the African nation of Niger.

    White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said:

    "The president's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake" uranium "from Niger," Fleischer told reporters. "So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement."

    Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

    In fact in the long-awaited 2004 report by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.

    Duelfer also said his teams found no evidence of a mobile biological weapons capability.

  21. #46
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Which means two things ...

    #1 we still haven't yet searched beyond Syrian and Iranian borders thus there is no hard evidence available to refute your claim - a claim obviously echoed by liberal mainstream media (and BTW a claim which ignores the possible existance of those WMD's in February 2003 when the truck convoys started rolling), and

    #2 a 'you can't handle the truth' scenario probably applies i.e. it would probably scare the hell out of the mainstream US and European population if official public disclosure of the actual WMD's at the disposal of Islamic terrorists were made.

  22. #47
    God/dess
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    illinois
    Posts
    2,346
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    I can't believe I'm joining this mess. But here goes.....
    First the question "why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin was not answered. 2nd why is it always called "the Bush war"? The US is not the only country there. 3rd Congress Oked it so why does Bush take all the heat?
    I sat with some guys at work the other day at break and they were talking about a party they had went to where there were 5 GI's going back to Iraq, that's right going back. They told stories that would make your heart melt. How little kids would only go outside to play if GI's were around, how moms and dads would thank them for making a better Iraq for there children. Mom's making the troops home cooked food...the list goes on and on. Most of them never even seen the car bombs and things like this. You never hear that on CNN, NBC, CBS or Fox news. The good never comes out because it don't sell. I guess Dave Mustaine was right, "Peace sells... but who's buying?"
    I probley should not go here but I am already knee deep. Do you even know why they attack? They attack because there religion teaches that if you don't believe what they believe than you die. It even teaches that if you kill children why doing it, it was "Ala's" will. It's all good for the cause. Nice religion huh. NOT SAYING THEY ALL THINK LIKE THIS, JUST THE ONES DOING THE KILLING! It will never stop. They believe in death they have the biggest rewards in heaven. How can you stop someone who has nothing but when they die they are rewarded everything they want in heaven? You can't. They don't think like we do. Life on earth means nothing to them, but every thing to us. It's a never ending cycle.
    "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

  23. #48
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Quote Originally Posted by TerpsichoreToo
    ... Nor did I say I personaly knew their intentions. To say I did say either thing is a flat out lie. Also I spoke in support of the soliders, not against them.
    Really? Sure seems like you did.
    Quote Originally Posted by TerpsichoreToo
    Unintentional ? I think not !...
    Now what I did do was point out that it is impossible to attack a city and not expect to kill some innocent people. It is par for the course in a war.
    Unfortunately, that is true. But I'll asked again, can anyone show me a military that goes to a greater effort or spends as much money as ours to minimize civilian casualties? All those smart bombs, laser guided bombs and stuff like that, our tax dollars paid for that stuff in order to minimize civilian suffering.

    One can not call it unintentional when a direct order is given to attack. The attack is intentional and therefore killing the innocents is also intentional.
    I see. So, let's say a bank robber takes over a bank, holding hostages and the SWAT team goes in and an innocent civilian dies in the process. By your, "logic" that person's death would be intentional murder on the part of the police. So what would it be called when para-military groups take up residence in residential neighborhoods knowing our troops will be hesitant to attack? You can call them what you want but at thier very core, terrorists are cowards. They don't want our troops in Iraq. Fine, so what do they do? Do they mass on the battlefield and engage our soldiers in battle and try to drive them out of the country? No. They murder london commuters in the most cowardly fashion.

    Some people view it as an unfortunate by product and others view it as revenge. And still others view it as simply wrong.
    Well how do you view it? If you want to retreat into the pacifist position that all war is wrong, fine. Start a new thread and we'll discuss how pacificism is inherently hypocritical.

    Funny though how when it's innocent non Muslim people who die or get hurt in an attack the war supporters scream foul. But when it's innocent Muslims suddenly it's less of a tragedy.
    The loss of any human life is tragic. But that does not mean that the loss of all life is morally the same. There is a big difference between the two. In the case of 9/11, Madrid, London, the cowardly terrorists intended to murder innocent non Muslims. In the case of civilian casualties in war, that was not the intent. Are you really claiming those two events are morally equal?

    Well a good start would be not to attack countries who had no part in 9/11 and instead go after those that did. Another would be not to bomb hospitals and schools. And still another would be not to use weapons that cause diseases.
    Again you continue to slander our soldiers. Strange talk from someone that claims to be speaking in their support. Please post the evidence you have that our troops intentionally targeted hospitals and schools. What is common knowledge is that many of our enemies have used hospitals and schools as weapons storage facilities because they know we won't bomb them.

    And maybe it might help to just accept that terrorism occurs and always has . It's part of life. No one will be able to wipe it out completely. Even our President admitted as much not too long ago.
    Accept that evil people are going to continue to blow up office buildings and kill thousands of people? You can't be serious.

    Instead of attacking a country that was no threat to us and creating more terrorist than every before we could have focused on securing things in our own country . Things such as power plants, water supply and so on which all remain mostly open and easy targets for bio terrorism even after all this time after 9/11.
    We can battle terrorists in the streets of New York City or in the mountains of Afghanistan. Personally, I'd prefer we take the battle to them.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  24. #49
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    However, as a civilized society, we definitely make a distinction based on my intentions as a driver. If the child's death was the unavoidable consequence of my and her actions, nothing is done
    Actually not entirely true - your abilities, expetations, etc. are all weighed. If you had some knowledge or reason to believe that driving down that street at that time would result in the death that child, you would be held responsible. Collateral damage by definition is expected and anticipated. And saying that it doesn't matter because they are lying next to dead terrorists - that's just saying it doesn't matter because it's them, not us - dead bodies only matter when they are ours.

    And I read somewhere - perhaps someone can educate me further - that the efficacy of modern weapons, the kill index, was measured by how many civilians it could kill. Or as they like to say "potentially kill."

    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?
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  25. #50
    Banned TerpsichoreToo's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    60
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Why did the terrorists attack London, and not Paris or Berlin?

    Congress Oked it so why does Bush take all the heat?
    Well BigDaddy it is because Bush 'fixed" the intelligence in order to trick Congress. See the Downing Street Memos for more information on this subject.

    They attack because there religion teaches that if you don't believe what they believe than you die
    I'm sorry but that is not true. The religon forbids violence EXCEPT in cases when outsiders invade their country or try to force them to give up their religion. This has been covered repeatedly on this website. If you are interested in learning more about Islam try searching posts by Muyaha ( sp?) and a few other members. Give me a moment and I will find the members names who can give you a better understanding.

    editing to cont for BigDaddy
    - having trouble with the search function, sorry but there a few members who can better explain all this. I will start a thread and hopefully they will add their knowledge, that is if they haven't become so disgusted with the discrimination people other than yourself have posted here



    Now moving onto less worthy comments


    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Again you continue to slander our soldiers.
    THAT IS A GOD DAMN FUCKING LIE.

    You are now going on my ignore list. I do not care to converse with liars. Nor will I dignify the rest of your post with anymore attention. It and you are unworthy of my attention any further.

    Maybe someday you will pull your head out of Bush's rectum and see the light of day and take part in reality. Until then continue enjoy the scent of defecation. It must be packed solid into your nose and seeping into your throat by now.
    Last edited by TerpsichoreToo; 07-10-2005 at 01:24 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. anyone going to london or paris soon?
    By jamielovex in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-24-2008, 11:38 AM
  2. My first audition tonight in London for Paris
    By MinnieTheMinx in forum Newbie Board
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-09-2007, 08:12 AM
  3. My first audition tonight in London for Paris
    By MinnieTheMinx in forum Newbie Board
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-16-2007, 07:10 AM
  4. things to see in London & Paris?
    By mollyzmoon in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-06-2007, 07:39 PM
  5. Hello from Paris & London
    By Chevalier in forum Coming Out
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-25-2005, 08:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •