Terrorism

[DoubledStratum]

This is an irksome issue alright. :dry:

Given the "atrocities" occurring recently in the Western world, the British Government has made Glorifying Terrorism illegal.

I'm tired and almost nonsensical, but to me it seems we're worse that the terrorists. We're the ones who delayed the ceasefire in Beruit. We're the ones who marched into the Middle East with Tanks and Bombs and lowered the area. Thousands, if not millions of lives destroyed thanks to the West.

We capitalise as much as possible. We suppress the world in an attempt to be the most wealthy. We do so much crap to these little Arabic countries that they're prepared to kill not only innocent civillians, but also themselves, because it's the only way they'll make an impact.

And then Mr. Bush makes a speech, in which he refers to them as "Islamic facists".

Given the state of the United States' Administration as of the last few years, even in my ignorant state I am comfortable with my assumption that Bush is being hypocritical. Again. :dry:

Who's worse off? Those who fly planes into buildings and suicide bomb trains, or those who use apache helicopters and trade embargos to force others into the dust.

And, just to settle my young and naive mind:
Why can't we negotiate with terrorists?

 

[letdown]

People's lives seem to be worth more or less depending on what country you are from. It will be a neverending cycle of violence if America/UK governments don't address their involvement in the Middle East rather than branding all these people 'evil.' They aren't going to stamp out "extremism" by killing people... ideas and anger don't just die.

It's difficult to negotiate with terrorists as we know it now, as they aren't one organisation but separate people who link themselves with the ideas of AQ. As you can see in the UK bombings they are disaffected young British born Muslims who turn to a certain ideology/interpretation in their religion which promotes violence after seeing what their governments are doing in the Middle East. What they (and a lot of other people) are angry about doesn't seem to be heard by the people in power.

 

[Ze'ev-Hayalim]

terrorists dont care about compromises, they want to kill us all because we're infidels.

Yet i must admit, I'm sick at how blair and bush are handling it... thousands of dead U.S and UK soldiers for a country that doesnt care...

 

[DoubledStratum]

Infidels suggest religous reasons, and religion is almost never the cause of war. A tool of war, yes. But even the current situation in the Gaza Strip is a war over land and power, masked by the fact that the land is "holy". ¬_¬

Terrorists do care about compromise. It's just that a compromise has never been reached. Because "we do not negotiate with terrorists". Why talk to people who hate us when we can blow them to pieces? -_-

 

[Ze'ev-Hayalim]

I would like to see a compromise reached between Hizbollah and the Israeli government, but thats like tits on a bull.

 

[am I alive]

They don't care about innocent people, it is all about profit. How many innocent people they where killed all over the world, more than terrorists did. They invest mld $ in making weapons,and sell those weapons to poor countries supporting war, when it is in their interest, at the other side there are millions hungry people, and people without healt care, even in their own countries. I'm not support terrorists, they are doing that, didn't they sell weapons to Bin Laden when he fought agains Russian army in Afganistan?
He's a bad boy now.
I'm form Serbia(Europe),we were bombarded by Nato in 1999, so i experienced how it is.
Rich are richest, poor are poorest that is how it is.

 

[poison]

Before saying anything else, I will say this: the thing that was the best you said in your little rant was that war should't have to happen; we should just negotiate. I wish the world was like that. However, I am really angry at what those guys did the 11th of September. Did you guys here about Britian catching like 20 guys who were gonna bomb buildings?

I hate Bush. I started out liking him, but that went into the ground pretty quick. He isn't doing a bad job, but he isn't doing a good one thats for sure.

 

[GodFath3r]

Bush doesn't know how to handle this country properly. Just look at Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, it took him a WEEK to respond to the situation and send help. :mellow:

 

[Alf Stewart]

Watch this for an education on geo-politics:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967

Persevere with it - there's a lot of great information.

 

[theleastofthese]

This is a situation near and not-so-dear to my heart and soul. I do NOT like bush and his war-profiteers, nor do I care much for blair, bush's lap dog. Neither one of them shows any compassion or good sense - from a humanistic perspective - imho.

I'm a born citizen of the USA and have grown to hate my own country - it's leaders and policies, that is - since bush started his own private war over 9/11 and "terrorism". The lies and death and destruction are unbearable to me but this war-president has a lot of wealthy friends getting all the wealthier from 'dubya's' war venture. It makes me sick sick sick to know of the havoc bush has wreaked on the whole world. He's made us LESS safe from "terrorists" with his policies and weapons. What a total ass, and a mean one at that.

I'm counting the days till he's out of office - I have a little clock that does just that!!:wink: He's done more damage worldwide in the last six years than all the terrorists in the world. He's an arrogant megalomaniac and a danger to living beings everywhere - and that includes animals and forests!!

ashamed to be an American in these times,

least

PS; only 860 days left of bush's Reign of Terror....which is about 859 days too long...:sad:

 

[Marshmallow]

Thought some people would like to see this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Its an hour and a half long, but explains some thing about the 9/11 conspiricy theory, i watched it today and found it very interesting,

it shows evidence that a plane did not crash into the pentagon, that flight 93 (i believe it was this flight) did not crash land in a field but landed safely in cleveland, shows video of footage highlighting loads of seperate explosions within the twin towers that would of brought them down, and shows how another building close to the twin towers collapsed in a demolition style collapse, the evidence is pretty strong and has certainly made me think twice about it being a 'terrorist' attack

 

[One who listens..]

Vikki hun, all the stuff in that video has come under close scrutiny and was dismissed as either false or taken out of context...

I know, I loved it too, and I watched the whole thing, but then I saw this pupular mechanics (The site) issue, about loose change, where they counter everything he said..

It was a plane that hit the pentagon, (Actual evidence was found), Flight 93 really did crash, and there really were bodies, (I don't know where he heard there were none).

The biggest thing was this, those seperate explosion things, that was burning jet fuel, pouring down the elevator shaft. The superheating blew out windows.
I'll try and find the article now..

It blew my mind when I found it most of loose change was false...

 

[One who listens..]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

Here it is. There are ten full pages, I found the one that disputes the fuel burning idea, and the bombs down the building idea.

Hope this clears some things up.

P.S Btw, I am aware the article is written in a very biased manner, against anyone that believes otherwise, but read it nevertheless...

 

[Marshmallow]

i know, i just watched it today and found it really interesting and just posting the link in case anyone else wanted to watch it

 

[One who listens..]

Oh I found it really interesting too, and I based a lot of my arguments and debates off it, and it hurt when I found out almost everything in it was falsified one way or another...

 

[Alf Stewart]

All this stuff can really bring you down sometimes. Especially if you are already feeling powerless to change your own situation let alone international conflicts! :biggrin:

Although, it has to be said, looking at global problems can be a way to break the pattern of continually focusing on your own problems. It can sometimes help to put your own worries into perspective.

 

[reborn1961]

Whatever your position on different world governments, terrorism is just not an acceptable practice. The problems of the middle east go back to the beginning of time and in my humble opinion, will never stop. The actions terrorist take are that of cowards. If you want to fight, fight like a man (or woman). I never liked Sadam but I give him this........he fought like a man and came out with his tanks and army for a real fight. He didn't hyjack planes or tape bombs to children and adults to sneak in and blow up.

Humans will always fight amoung each other no matter where on the planet you go and no country is innocent of doing things they probably should not have done. But as far as terrorist, I personally hope we can eliminate each and every one. But I also know, a new one is born every day and not just in the middle east, terrorists are in every country and come in every shape, sex, color etc. Sad thing is I know at my age I will never see peace in my life time. I do hope some of the younger generations get to live on a peaceful planet one day.

 

[JohnADreams]

And, just to settle my young and naive mind:
Why can't we negotiate with terrorists?

Funny thing is we have negotiated with them in the past and we will negotiate with terrorists in the future. It's just that no country wants to be seen as giving in to threats and demands by any Tom, Dick and Harry who makes them, it would make them far too easily exploited. There comes a point when it is possible to negotiate, mainly when both sides are willing to compromise for the sake of peace and will not be viewed as weak by doing so. Until then, each side will view the other as stubborn, unjust and unsympathetic.

 

[TG123]

This is an irksome issue alright. :dry:

Given the "atrocities" occurring recently in the Western world, the British Government has made Glorifying Terrorism illegal.

I'm tired and almost nonsensical, but to me it seems we're worse that the terrorists. We're the ones who delayed the ceasefire in Beruit. We're the ones who marched into the Middle East with Tanks and Bombs and lowered the area. Thousands, if not millions of lives destroyed thanks to the West.

We capitalise as much as possible. We suppress the world in an attempt to be the most wealthy. We do so much crap to these little Arabic countries that they're prepared to kill not only innocent civillians, but also themselves, because it's the only way they'll make an impact.

And then Mr. Bush makes a speech, in which he refers to them as "Islamic facists".

Given the state of the United States' Administration as of the last few years, even in my ignorant state I am comfortable with my assumption that Bush is being hypocritical. Again. :dry:

Who's worse off? Those who fly planes into buildings and suicide bomb trains, or those who use apache helicopters and trade embargos to force others into the dust.

And, just to settle my young and naive mind:
Why can't we negotiate with terrorists?

That is so true and well said. Thank you for this post.

Cristo Vive!
- Tomasz

 

[worlds edge]

We're the ones who marched into the Middle East with Tanks and Bombs and lowered the area. Thousands, if not millions of lives destroyed thanks to the West.

About the only thing I disagree with in your post is this part. The coalition of the less and less willing has actually used a considerable degree of restraint compared to what they could be doing. Compare what is going on in the Middle East to what went on during even so recent a war as World War II. There's been nothing like a bombing of Dresden or Hamburg or Montecassino, to say nothing of what the Soviets did when they hit Berlin.

There's plenty of blame to go around, but I don't really fault the troops on the ground too much.

And then Mr. Bush makes a speech, in which he refers to them as "Islamic facists".

A rather stupid neologism, I agree. Nationalism is a purely Western concept, and fascism is in many ways simply nationalism taken to an extreme. The Arabs or Kurds one might describe as fascist (the Ba'ath Party types still around) are the least Islamic and the most Islamic really have no interest in nationalism.

Who's worse off? Those who fly planes into buildings and suicide bomb trains, or those who use apache helicopters and trade embargos to force others into the dust.

Actually, it is kind of an open secret that the Apache helicopter is a complete dud in any sort of capability, as an offensive weapon, as troop support even in trying to maintain the damn thing. It is also apparently very vulnerable to surface to air missles (too slow). One commentator I read (WarNerd) thinks it should be re-dubbed the Hopi. :tongue:

What you should be talking about is the A-10 Warthog. The military brass and the contractors who keep coming out with overpriced garbage like the Apache hate the damn thing, yet nobody's been able to replace it even after 20 years of trying. Which leads me to the suspicion that at least some of the "support the troops" types are more interested in lining their pockets or playing with the latest whiz-bang technology (whether or not it really works) or probably both than in actually, well, supporting the ground troops with effective air support.

And, just to settle my young and naive mind:
Why can't we negotiate with terrorists?

Well, one problem would be "which terrorists?"