logo Sign In

terror in london — Page 4

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: oojason
Shim - if you think Iraq is a place where the West can engage the terrorist you are living in a dream world, m8.

Iraq and Afghanistan has turned into a nightmare for the West - terrorists are systematically spreading fear into the people of those countries by assassinating newly appointed government officials or those who ally themselves with the West - and make the Western amries look weak and inept in front of the people they are there to protect.



Warbler - "*sigh* Is it really necessery to compare us with those the blow up subway stations and resturants and Hijack planes and fly them into building killing thousands of innocent people?"

As opposed to being compared to those (us - the West) who bomb cities and kill innocent civilians with bombs from planes at great heights?


Invading Afghanistan and Iraq seemingly has had little effect in stopping or breeding terrorism or hate of the west.

Iraq had very little to do with terrorism at all before the west invaded - I still don't understand why people link the invasion of Iraq to stopping terrorism and 9/11.


think about it jason it makes more sense the so many of the other reasons, also this is a war aon terror, terror is no rooted in one contry and so it makes it almost impossible to attack. heres something that is probably going through the minds of so many war strategists. why go and look for the terrorist when we can make them come to us. teh US made a battle field for them to fight. tony blair is a very smart man and i dont hink he would have had britian invade iraq just to take out saddam when there the intell was so sketchy, and it was sketchy.


and to your last statement, exactly an dhow many terrorists are floking to iraq now for a chance to kill and american.
Author
Time
Post link
"tony blair is a very smart man and i dont hink he would have had britian invade iraq just to take out saddam when there the intell was so sketchy, and it was sketchy."

I'm sorry - I'm pro Labour but that is the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread. Obviously you are oblivious to the fact that intelligence used for going to war was taken from a student's thesis study, others made up and misinterpreted - Blair came out and said he has seen evidence which proves Iraq has weapons of mass destruction - which have never been found, and ignred Dr Blix' search team whose reports say that Iraq had no evidence of mass destruction.


In Iraq now there are insurgents and terrorists that will not be engaging the Western armies in battles - they will bobbytrap, entrap, bomb and spread fear - they will NOT engage in open warfare. It is an occupying ary's worst fear - being terrorised by people they cannoit fight & cannot see. Iraq isa training ground for experince for these terrorists that will eventually end up in the West targeting people and infrastructure.

These people were not there bfore the West invaded - so that was a fairly uselss exercise going to invade Iraq - wa it not - they had NO links to terrorism. Politicians may have wanted you to believe otherwise, but there it is - may as well have invaded Luxembourg for the good of stopping terrorism.

As for England only having it coming for invading Iraq & Afghanistan - I suggest you open a history book on the middle east and look up Britain's part in it - didn't exaclty cover ourselves in glory there - a LOT of resentment has been building against the West for many years.


Before you post more I implore you to get yourself down the library or start reading literature on how terrorism can rarely be defeated by military means, what leads someone into the life of becoming a terrorist, and the feelings of those on all sides involved. Would recommend you start at the troubles in Nothern Ireland and mainland Britain, then go on to the history of the middle East.

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
‘How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
*sigh* Is it really necessery to compare us with those the blow up subway stations and resturants and Hijack planes and fly them into building killing thousands of innocent people?


Uh, yes? Mostly because both sides are wrong? There are no good guys in wars, people. The chinese did horrible things with the people in Tibet, the japanese did horrible things with chinese along the history, japanese civillians were cold blooded murdered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, religiously brain-washed idiots from the middle east killed 3 thousand inocent US civillians in a horrible way, and these people in middle east were suffering from their blood thirsty dictators and from commercially-funded bombings from countries such as US and UK; 50 inocent civillians from UK gor murdered in a still suspicious way, can't talk about it so far because I haven't read much about the evidences, but they go ahead and kill inocent civillians based on fear and paranoia, and do I need to go ahead and say what the Great British Empire has done? Invading Iraq? Massacres in India? Massacres in China? Selling opium to China? The queen herself authorized the selling from Christ's sake. So there are no freaking good sides and bad sides! It's all part of men's stupidity, of hypocrisy, of a violent blood-thirst history of stupidity and violence that has followed our history since the early days, and if I refuse to be a part of it, I'm fucking labeled as a "liberal whining left-winged communist"? If I'm not with you, I'm the enemy? Both sides are terrorists.


Edit: only corrected the quote tags
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
jason i'm not going to argue with you. but you cannot deny that since they have invaded they have for the frist time been able to engage and kill terrorists with military personal. the terrprist have bases in iraq which can be attacked.
Author
Time
Post link
the problem here is that terrorism is not a physical force. It is an ideology.

you CAN NOT FIGHT AN IDEOLOGY WITH GUNS AND BOMBS!!! you don't even have to take my word for it. There are hundreds of case studies over history. Heck, christianity is an example, the romans tried to stamp it out and it eventually became their central religion. The problem is that bush was "pressured" into this. Do you honestly think that the majority of americans didn't want to see a grand war? Heck, don't you think that half the world wanted to see it? REmember all the sh** that bush got into when he sent the bin ladens back by plane? Do you know why he did that? It was becuase he might have been pressured into imprisoning them or worse. Now here is the problem with fighting an ideology. Every death does not remove from the overall force. It increases it! Martyrdom is HUGE in ideologies. This should be a damn media war, and the ati-terrorism side is losing it! Heck, a lot of media is presenting terrorists as repressed citizens fighting against american oppressors! WTF!!!!! how the hell is that going to help people understand that terrorism is wrong!?!?!?!?!

back to Iraq. Bush can not back out now!!! Britian can not back out now!! nobody in there can back out now!! to do so is to admit that terrorism is effective, that the terrorists have won! All those people asking otherwise are F**** idiots! Do you honestly think that pulling out will make things better? No! It will make things worse! How many people do you think will flock to the extremists whe they discover that they ca maipulate the most powerful countries in the world? Think about it outside of all the liberal bullsh** for a moment! Every secod that is sped philandering about the war is another second that the extremists gain a notch in power. That is what a media war is! And we are losing it! iraq was supposed to be a media coup for America! The headlines should have read "America crushes terrorist hot spot" "Democracy triumphs!" instead its "riots in streets, americans say no!" or "people say back down, terrorism triumphs!". I take it at least some of you are minor historians. What was it that fueled the flames of world war 2? the propaganda machine! (I had to do a final on the subject)
gtfo
Author
Time
Post link
"jason i'm not going to argue with you. but you cannot deny that since they have invaded they have for the frist time been able to engage and kill terrorists with military personal. the terrprist have bases in iraq which can be attacked."

I can't agree with that m8 - the terrorists do NOT have bases which can be attacked - and the chances of finding and killing terrorists are remote, and before invading Iraq there were no terrorists even there. They will operate in small cells probably living life as 'normal people'.

Shim m8 - we'll have to disagree on this subject.


Skipper - it seems the West once again invade parts of the world without a long term plan or thought on what it will really acheive (not a lot, other than spurring it's enemies into action) - and now they are stuck between a rock and a hard place, which will get a lot worse before it gets better. It seems we just cannot learn from our mistakes of the past.

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
‘How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.

Author
Time
Post link
... well that was pretty much my point.

i was using iraq because they are already there, but they could have technically ended with afgan(afghan... ahfgan...arrrrggghhh!!!). the iraq attack was fairly needless, but now that its there....
gtfo
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
I can't agree with that m8 - the terrorists do NOT have bases which can be attacked - and the chances of finding and killing terrorists are remote, and before invading Iraq there were no terrorists even there. They will operate in small cells probably living life as 'normal people'.


that is how they operate here, but not in iraq, thats why you get entire towns getting taken over by insurgents. those insurgents are the terrorists they are the groups that plan the bombing attacks here. and terrorist dont have bases in the way we think of them, theyhave cells, but they are pretty much the same thing, a place where they can meet and organize.

and your right there were no terrorists there b4. there are now because of the war, they come from other countries is my point. that was the whole point of the war to get the terrorist to go there, to a place where the US have a their military concentrated, to a place where they can shoot a missile at them and not risk killing americans or english or any western civilians. is it right that is debatable, but is it the case yes more the likely. iraq is a place where the terrorists are concentrating themselves. there is a reason that more americans have died since the war 'ended' and that reason is that b4 they were battleing a crippled army, but after they were and are fighting terrorists.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa
ric i'd say that accidents happen, the people that shot him didnt know he was a legal person working there, all they saw was a tanned man running away from them after some bombs almost went off. i am sure they yelled at him to stop but he didnt

The guy was innocent. In the current climate, if I saw a bunch of plain clothes guys running towards me with guns at a train station, I would fucking run for my life too! And once they had tackled him to the ground, surely handcuffs would suffice. Unless he had his finger on a detonator, which he didn't.
And I am not going to get into the oil thing, but let me say this - I am Wite and British, born and bred, both my parents are also white and British, but, I can admit that if you go back throughout history, the west has shit all over these people and we are not innocent. I personally have not shit on the east, but my ancestors have. My ancestors shit all over the native Americans, they shit all over the Australian aborigines and they shit all over the islamic people. It doesn't excuse these bombers, nothing does, but are hands are not clean - even Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, has made statements similar to the one I just made. Kick a dog long enough and he's gonna bite.

If they are gonna start shooting tanned people on the underground, I guess I better not sit out in the sun too long when I go on holiday. I would expect to hear a story like this in 1990's L.A, not London.

Quote
Originally posted by: oojason
Warbler - "*sigh* Is it really necessery to compare us with those the blow up subway stations and resturants and Hijack planes and fly them into building killing thousands of innocent people?"

As opposed to being compared to those (us - the West) who bomb cities and kill innocent civilians with bombs from planes at great heights?

And before Aeroplanes were invented, we would go over with swords - Crusades anyone?
Personally, I don't agree with waging war on me, my family and my city because of something that happened in the past, just like I think that the Irish should get over Northern Ireland. In the words of Ghandi, an eye for an eye will make everyone blind, my my point is that in their minds they have a point. This is revenge, just as the war on iraq is revenge for 9/11, no matter how America wants to sugar coat it.

P.S Before anyone starts calling me names, I am not an America hater - my wife is American and we are currently in the process of relocating to the U.S.A. What I am is an open minded person who can read history books.

Quote
Originally posted by: WarblerMost of time when we kill civilians, its because they are around a military target. Also when we do it, we have some sort of goal in mind, other than merely killing innocent people. The terrorists intentionally aim at killing civialians for no more reason than to do just that, kill civilian and scare everyone.

Well, they do it to get their point across. I don't agree with it, but it sure has got people discussing their P.O.V hasn't it?
We can argue all day over who is to blame, etc etc. I don't think it even matters who is to blame anymore. What Ric said about both sides being the bad guys is absolutely hitting the nail on the head. The bottom line is, this whole sorry mess sucks and I can't think of any way to fix it apart from letting mankind destroy itself and hope that whoever picks up the pieces will do a better job of running the planet than we have. War on terror – how can you wage war on a noun?

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
By the way, here's what happened: he was followed all the way from his block to the subway station. He was late, so he was moving fast. The cops told him to stop, he didn't hear it at first. They said it again and pulled their weapons, even though he was not holding any weapons and not showing to be of any visible threat. He listened to the cops second call and stoped. They moved close to him and shot him at the back of his head five times. They didn't ask any questions or even knew who that person was. The cops were congratulated on a job well done by doing something that, in another place and in another circustance, would have the killer get the death penalty. Tony Blair says the action was an in-policy shooting and that more will happen, since the cops have a shoot first ask questions later policy right now.

Why do we think we are in the good side of this war? Because we have technology, because we have McDonalds and shopping malls and our cars and sictoms on TV? Because our loved ones are on this side? Do you really think killing is justifiable because we are supposedly the good guys? There are no good guys, there is blood in both side's hands, we are worse than them. We are brain-washed by the government controlled media to work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, eat fast food buy videogames watch TV and be happy, so we generate money to the war machine and support the murderes in power without questioning. "In God we trust", yet we kill. And don't one DARE to oppose killing each other, as it's justifiable! Bombing the homes of inocent civillians is right, because we are fighting an enemy we created ourselves. And billions and billions of dollars and pounds and euros are being spent on this war industry, in which a few gather their huge profit and most of us suffer the consequences. On the other side, poor, hopeless people are brain-washed by a distorted view of religion that also teaches to kill for God's name, what God would want that?

I'm not sure how can people be so BLIND to what's happening to the world, how people can be so stupid to support these actions, in BOTH sides. Bush, Blair, Saddam, BinLaden, they are all the same, moved by the same reasons. But let us blind ourselves as we watch Fox News in our God blessed homes.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
So what are we supposed to do? Do nothing while they fly into builds and blow up strain stations and restaurants? What does working 8 hours a week and going to Mcdonalds have to do with any of this?(personally I don't do goto Mcdonald very often, I don't think their food is that good) Ric, I can understand how you might think we are as bad as they are, but worse than they are? People keep meantioning the crusades, that happened 100's of years ago. The people involved on both sides are dead. America didn't even exist at the time of the crusades and I'm sure most Americans don't approve of what happen there, atleast I don't. You say the media is brain washing us? how? why? The media in our country is separate from the government? So why would they perform this service for him? I read the newspapers here. I have seen many articles against the war in Iraq. In fact I'd say that most in media disagree with the war. The Republican conservatives constatantly complain about libral bias in the media. To me, it doesn't sound like they are working for the government. In fact, I'd say there is good percentage of Americans who are against the war. To me it doesn't seem like we are brain washed. Personally, I don't like war, but also I dont like doing nothing while we are attacked. The terrorist have to be stopped. Unfortunately I just don't see how we can solve this peacefully, sure we can leave Irag, and Afganistan, but I don't think that is going to stop Bin Laden. I don't want to kill innocent people, but also I don't want the terrorist should get way with doing the same. They have to be stopped somehow. How would you stop Bin laden? And don't say " by not creating him in the first place.". Wrong or right, he was created. Now we have to do deal with him. How do you suggest we do it? By doing nothing? By giving in to his demands and rewarding him for killing innocent people? What do you suggest we do?

Author
Time
Post link
huh is right, skip what you trying to say.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
So what are we supposed to do? Do nothing while they fly into builds and blow up strain stations and restaurants? What does working 8 hours a week and going to Mcdonalds have to do with any of this?(personally I don't do goto Mcdonald very often, I don't think their food is that good) Ric, I can understand how you might think we are as bad as they are, but worse than they are? People keep meantioning the crusades, that happened 100's of years ago. The people involved on both sides are dead. America didn't even exist at the time of the crusades and I'm sure most Americans don't approve of what happen there, atleast I don't. You say the media is brain washing us? how? why? The media in our country is separate from the government? So why would they perform this service for him? I read the newspapers here. I have seen many articles against the war in Iraq. In fact I'd say that most in media disagree with the war. The Republican conservatives constatantly complain about libral bias in the media. To me, it doesn't sound like they are working for the government. In fact, I'd say there is good percentage of Americans who are against the war. To me it doesn't seem like we are brain washed. Personally, I don't like war, but also I dont like doing nothing while we are attacked. The terrorist have to be stopped. Unfortunately I just don't see how we can solve this peacefully, sure we can leave Irag, and Afganistan, but I don't think that is going to stop Bin Laden. I don't want to kill innocent people, but also I don't want the terrorist should get way with doing the same. They have to be stopped somehow. How would you stop Bin laden? And don't say " by not creating him in the first place.". Wrong or right, he was created. Now we have to do deal with him. How do you suggest we do it? By doing nothing? By giving in to his demands and rewarding him for killing innocent people? What do you suggest we do?


First of all, I mentioned McDonalds not for any particular reason, but because it's a western capitalist symbol, like Coca-Cola.

OK, since the world is in a situation I, personally, think could be avoided in first place, I'll give two answers. First, how it should have been in the first place:

* The United Nations would invite leaders from all over the world in order to propose changes in their systems. Conutries with dictators would change into parlamentarist systems with free elections for prime-minister, and the dictator or emperor or king would remain at his office and represent the country but with no real powers. Other democratic countries would remain as they are. There would be no weapons of mass destruction, and weapons factories would be torn down. There would be a full list of regulamentations in order to keep peace, such as investing in education and irradicating any religious thoughts that favored violence and killing, by taking the children out of this pseudo-terrorist cells and getting them into some educational program. No country would invade each other. No country would interfere with political business. If any country disagreed and didn't comply, there would be financial sanctions, the country would be excluded from the rest of the world, and the population would be encouraged to perform peaceful disobedience like Ghandi. If this didn't work, THEN a United Nations troup, mostly unnarmed, would interfere, but negotiations would be the first step. There would be no terrorist acts as no country would be seen as the "enemy". There would have never been any dictatorships in south america and iran if there was no interference. There would be no weapons of mass destruction, no political crisis...

... but since people don't tend to think like that, here's what is needed to do now:

* Abort any international interferences. Slowly abandon Iraq but keep UN troops in there. Impose sanctions to countries which are home of religiously-based terrorist cells. Map those terrorist cells and try to impose peaceful resolutions to it. Propose asylum for those who are under the claws of those religious groups. Invest money in education in thrid-world countries, so that terrorists cells are not grown in first place. Do not invest in weapons or in the army, invest in education proposes. Throw BOOKS out of planes, not bombs. Peaceful resolutions ARE possible, since this is not a WW2 kinda war, the goal is not conquer territory, there is no need for violence.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite


OK, since the world is in a situation I, personally, think could be avoided in first place, I'll give two answers. First, how it should have been in the first place:

* The United Nations would invite leaders from all over the world in order to propose changes in their systems. Conutries with dictators would change into parlamentarist systems with free elections for prime-minister, and the dictator or emperor or king would remain at his office and represent the country but with no real powers. Other democratic countries would remain as they are. There would be no weapons of mass destruction, and weapons factories would be torn down. There would be a full list of regulamentations in order to keep peace, such as investing in education and irradicating any religious thoughts that favored violence and killing, by taking the children out of this pseudo-terrorist cells and getting them into some educational program. No country would invade each other. No country would interfere with political business. If any country disagreed and didn't comply, there would be financial sanctions, the country would be excluded from the rest of the world, and the population would be encouraged to perform peaceful disobedience like Ghandi. If this didn't work, THEN a United Nations troup, mostly unnarmed, would interfere, but negotiations would be the first step. There would be no terrorist acts as no country would be seen as the "enemy". There would have never been any dictatorships in south america and iran if there was no interference. There would be no weapons of mass destruction, no political crisis...


That sounds nice althought the irradication of religious thought scares me, I can easily see that going too far. Also, dictators are not going to give up power that easily. We tried sactions with Sadam and and also with Castro. It hasn't worked, Sadam hung on until he was taken out by force and Castro despite years of sactions, is still in power. And do you really think any of that would work with China? with Korea? Unfortunatly, I doublt it. I do however wish things could have gone that way.


Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite

... but since people don't tend to think like that, here's what is needed to do now:

* Abort any international interferences. Slowly abandon Iraq but keep UN troops in there. Impose sanctions to countries which are home of religiously-based terrorist cells. Map those terrorist cells and try to impose peaceful resolutions to it. Propose asylum for those who are under the claws of those religious groups. Invest money in education in thrid-world countries, so that terrorists cells are not grown in first place. Do not invest in weapons or in the army, invest in education proposes. Throw BOOKS out of planes, not bombs. Peaceful resolutions ARE possible, since this is not a WW2 kinda war, the goal is not conquer territory, there is no need for violence.


Somehow I just do think any of that will get rid of Bin Laden. For one thing, we no idea where he is, so how can we impose sactions on a country if we don't know what country he and other terrorist are in? Dropping books doesn't seem like bad idea. But I still think bombs are somtimes necessary. How about dropping both when and where they are necessary? What if we find a terrorist cell hiding in a country and that country is protecting them and while we try sactions(which can a long time to work), the terrorist cell carries out another attack. What do we say to the families of those killed in the attack which could have been prevented if we had bombed the cell instead of using sactions?
Author
Time
Post link
hmm dont know if you know this, but sanctions are the number 1 cause of terrorism, it was those sanctions which destroy economies and lower the quality of life.
Author
Time
Post link
yes sadly most americans dont. when the terrorist say stop influencing our countries they are talking about no military or economic presence. its ashame that most americans, actually most westerners dont realize that. its not jsut sanctions thou, its times when amerca says to a veyr poor country, if you make this cash crop, we'll lower the debt you owe us, if you dont we will be forced to increase the interest rates. and sadly the countries have no choice. so they will farm that one cash crop rather then food whoich would help there country as well as others, it will destory there lands. and then they have nothing left. and there economy collapses. this is one of hte things that happened in afganistain and the farming of opium.
Author
Time
Post link
Which goes to my point sanctions won't get rid of Bid Ladin, they will just make easier for him to get more recruits. I don't leaving Iraq and Afganistan are going to stop him from attacking us. I don't think he out for justice for his people or the people Iraq or Afganistan I believe it is out for revenge. For what I am not certain, but he seems to be acting like someone seeking revenge. So I ask again how do we stop him?
Author
Time
Post link
I think I'm gonna have to agree with Warbler on this issue. Work your magic, Warbler.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
its been said by many people that bin laden is deda, but the US will not report it B/C they dont want him to be a martyr
Author
Time
Post link
It's also been said that NASA has a satellite in space that can cause earthquakes in order to kill the president.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
its been said by credible sources. but hasnt been reported in any of the mainstream media. the rumor was that he was killed over a year ago in afganistain, and the us is using him as a political puppet now, to push bills like the patriot act through.

I'm not saying i believe it, but it is an interestin rumor