http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8492258/


Hey any Ayonae people there GL and I hope that you and your family were not caught up in this.

This is where Halo needs pop on and give us all updates.....

Hope all is well with you Londoners. It's a shame :(

Hope all the Brits on this board are doing ok.

It wasn't just the rail system.. a double-decker bus and some other transports were involved (4 blasts total).

We should just start indiscrimenatly killing muslims until this crap stops.

Let's just indiscriminately kill those who approve of indiscriminately killing people.

I can agree with that, since it seems to be the sad problem.

It's the result of other problems. Quite a few of them, in fact, and they are not limited to the Muslim community. Indiscriminately shooting Muslims won't solve those problems. Ill-conceived and poorly executed invasions won't either.

This all assumes that the London explosions were the result of Muslim terrorists. This hasn't been proven (at the time of my writing), but while it seems likely (to me, anyway), the caveat is worth keeping in mind.

Nothing will matter unless you simply just kill yourself. To the extremist muslims who commit these crimes (if indeed they did..Oklahoma bomber was thought to be a muslim)..you just being born is good enough reason for them to cut your head off or blow your mother to holly hell.

From CNN:

"A group, the 'Secret Organization group of al Qaeda Organization in Europe,' claimed responsibility in a Web site posting."

Tell ya what Thor, if you want to really point at issues problems relating directly to the current Jihad against all things western then perhaps we should go back to the Crusades.

They hate anything that isn't them and under their control. You are not going to reason with them...

My heart and hopes out to those being terrorized once again by the cowards that are constantly being sensationalized.

Fandros

Crusades please.......

My condolences to the people of the UK on this sad day.

Well, on the plus side, it could have been a hell of a lot worse. I'm glad it wasnt another WTC type situation.

We should just start indiscrimenatly killing muslims until this crap stops.

Substitute 'muslims' with 'westerners' and I bet you mirror their thoughts exactly.

Not a good solution

Tell ya what Thor, if you want to really point at issues problems relating directly to the current Jihad against all things western then perhaps we should go back to the Crusades.
Too cliche`! Though it does bring to question whether -- if Israel were somehow not a factor -- we would face such an intractable foe. There's your thought experiment for the day.
They hate anything that isn't them and under their control. You are not going to reason with them...
Extremism is like that, wherever it be found. But reasoning with such individuals isn't where I'd hang my hopes. Only social changes within the host countries that change the attitudes of the young will breed a peaceful future. Iran may ultimately prove a test case for such change, assuming we don't blow them up first. It'll take awhile, though, and the rest of us willl long be at risk before we see true improvement.

Its not like any of the muslim leaders openly oppose and campaign against this type of open hostility towards "westerners" . Instead they let it fester and continue to be taught in there countries while turning a blind eye to the groups and recruiting of terror.

In some cases like Iran actually electing top officials whose hands were dirty in terror.

"Secret Organization group al Qaeda Organization in Europe"
This looks like it passed through the Babelfish woodchipper a few times.

37 dead, 700 injured in the current CNN report. With luck, that's as high as it goes.

Agree Thor, given the timing ( rush hour) and nature of the homicide bombings I'm suprised it's not higher.

And wow Talid, what an incredibly stupid thing to day. Cancer through and through aren'tcha.

Fandros

Obviously the intent of the attacks was to cause much more carnage than that which they were able to, given the time of day and targets. Much credit should be given to Britain's security system of shutting down the grid for cell phone users, almost immediately; this prevented at least one other bomb (which was discovered and will hopefully provide forensic evidence) from exploding, as the terrorists seem to prefer using remote triggers utilizing cell phones.

To Travesty (the real one) and Jamman of Lost Fires, and to Halo, and everyone else over there, I can only pray you and your families and loved ones are safe.

The extremists are trying hard to ignite another Crusade, and I fear they are going to be successful before long.

Yanno was wondering, with G8 going on and all. Maybe this was intended to be a diversion? And with them shutting down cell phones perhaps more than just one bomb was thwarted...


Fandros

Even I'm reaching the point where I'm starting to believe that there simply is no answer. Maybe, just maybe, the solution is as absolute as a giant wall or genocide. Oh, sure, I'd prefer the world living in harmony, but that's not working out so well.

I'm sorry guys, I know the UK is no stranger to terror, but nobody deserves this.

Yanno was wondering, with G8 going on and all. Maybe this was intended to be a diversion? And with them shutting down cell phones perhaps more than just one bomb was thwarted...


Fandros

The news on FOX just gave an update item that two un-exploded devices have now been found, as of 4:50 cst.

Hope all the Aro people there are safe.

Either way its not a good idea to piss of the Brits. They won't roll over like Spain did, just ask Hitler.

The news on FOX just gave an update item that two un-exploded devices have now been found, as of 4:50 cst.

I would check that through other sources before beliving anything FoX News has to say. I remember watching them when they said WPMD were found in Iraq two weeks after the invasion. I never watched that channel again.

I hope Travesty (real one!) and Jamman are ok. Aswell as Halo and our other board folks. My best wishes to everyone hurt or affected by this.

Even I'm reaching the point where I'm starting to believe that there simply is no answer. Maybe, just maybe, the solution is as absolute as a giant wall or genocide. Oh, sure, I'd prefer the world living in harmony, but that's not working out so well.



Or we can be like mainland Europe and stick our heads in the sand and wish it all away.

Most of you still have no clue. You will someday though, this our mutual enemies promise.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/articles/10329634?version=1

"As far as I'm concerned, when they bomb London, the bigger the better," says Abdul Haq, the social worker. "I know it's going to happen because Sheikh bin Laden said so. Like Bali, like Turkey, like Madrid - I pray for it, I look forward to the day."
...

"I would like to see the Mujahideen coming into London and killing thousands, whether with nuclear weapons or germ warfare. And if they need a safehouse, they can stay in mine - and if they need some fertiliser [for a bomb], I'll tell them where to get it."
...

But it was the events of 11 September that crystallised Sayful's worldview. "When I watched those planes go into the Twin Towers, I felt elated," he says. "That magnificent action split the world into two camps: you were either with Islam and al Qaeda, or with the enemy. I decided to quit my job and commit myself full-time to al-Muhajiroun." Now he does not consider himself British. "I am a Muslim living in Britain, and I give my allegiance only to Allah."

According to Sayful, the aim of al-Muhajiroun ("the immigrants") is nothing less than Khilafah - "the worldwide domination of Islam". The way to achieve this, he says, is by Jihad, led by Bin Laden. "I support him 100 per cent."

Does that support extend to violent acts of terrorism in the UK?

"Yes," he replies, unequivocally. "When a bomb attack happens here, I won't be against it, even if it kills my own children. Islam is clear: Muslims living in lands that are occupied have the right to attack their invaders.
...

Referring to the latest truce offered by Bin Laden, and Britain's scathing rejection of it, Abu Malaahim adds: "He tried to make a peace deal. When terrorism happens, you will only have yourselves to blame."
...

"Islam is not like Christianity, where they turn the other cheek. If they raid our homes, it could lead to the covenant of security being broken. "Islam allows us to retaliate. That would include" - he tugs his "Jihad" coat tight against the night air - "by violent means."
So, all of you Gitmo bashers better pray none of the terrorists involved today were any of these guys...

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/10/gitmo.uk/

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/01/four-british-gitmo-detainees-released.php

And no Thormir, they aren't pissed off because we improperly invaded Iraq or they didn't have access to the best social welfare systems. They're evil. The sooner you and your friends here understand that, the better off we'll all be.

Ahhh akipt. Ever the ignorant extremist.

"They are an extreme Right-wing group - the Muslim version of the BNP," he says disdainfully. "They think Muslims should dominate, just like the BNP thinks whites should dominate. They use Islam as a vehicle to promote their distorted beliefs, particularly to unemployed young bloods who are vulnerable."

ALTHOUGH unemployment in Luton is just six per cent, the rate among Muslim youths is estimated at 25 per cent. "They are no more representative of our Muslim community than the BNP are of the white community."

It's time to practice for your SATs.

Islam : Muslim Extremist :: Christianity : __________

Ooohhh a cool analogy fill-in-the-blank!!!

I'm gunna go with "The Good Guys" as my answer :)

Palimax you watch too much West Wing Reruns!

*edit* Oh yeah, the answer is KKK

The Non-dirka dirka jihads? PERHAPS Crusader?

Both religions produce plenty of fine examples of complete assholes and twisted fucks, mostly who just use God as an excuse to kill. There is NO good guys when its all about the corruption of what is intended to be a framework for good, simple harmonious life.

*edit* Oh yeah, the answer is KKK

Perhaps if you are refering to marrying ignorance and hatred under the guise of religion, than you might be close. Still, the KKK is mostly a bunch of rednecks who can't even come close to what Al Queda and its like have done. The KKK is largely a product of ignorance with their membership having a very strong sense of self preservation. They just want the people they don't like and scare them to go away so they can continue to live their pathetic little lives. The jihadist on the otherhand, knows very well what they are doing down to the moment they blow themselves up in a crowded space.

Speaking of which, that particular West Wing episode, which they stepped out of storyline and presented a character play about the "the problem" was actually pretty informative. For those of you who haven't seen it, the West Wing is locked down for security reasons, trapping a 11th grade (ish) honors civics class in the White House lunch room. During their stay, each member of the cast comes into the room and does a good job of explaining "the problem" in the middle east to them - in fairly bite-size segments, in fairly plain english.

A good website on the subject is here:
http://westwing.bewarne.com/third/isaac.html

It includes the fact that reviews to the show were mixed. Some called them out for being too soft on the subject, some called it a condescending bore. Still others lauded them for providing some basic information for those of us here in America who think the "middle east" is somewhere near Kansas.

Quotes follow:

But Josh emphasizes that the problems are not due to Muslims in general. Josh gives these high school students an SAT kind of question:
"Islamic extremist is to Islam as _______ is to Christianity."
After hearing from the students, Josh writes down his answer: "KKK. . . . It's the Klan gone medieval and global. It couldn't have less to do with Islamic men and women of faith of whom there are millions and millions.Muslims defend this country in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corp, National Guard, Police and Fire Department."

When he runs out of other things to say, Josh calls in friends. First up:Toby. "...there's nothing wrong with a religion whose laws say a man's got to wear a beard or cover his head or wear a collar. It's when violation of these laws become a crime against the state and not your parents that we're talking about lack of choice." He goes on to say that "The Taliban isn't the recognized government of Afghanistan. The Taliban took over the recognized government of Afghanistan. . . . When you think of Afghanistan, think of Poland. When you think of the Taliban, think of the Nazis. When you think of the people of Afghanistan, think of Jews in concentration camps."

Later a student asks Sam: "...what do you call a society that has to just live every day with the idea that the pizza place you are eating in could just blow up without any warning?"
"Israel," Sam answers.

Josh's parting advice to the students on how to relate to the terrorists is: "...remember pluralism. You want to get these people? I mean, you really want to reach in and kill them where they live? Keep accepting more than one idea. It makes them absolutely crazy."


Regardless, I'm mostly quoting Aaron Sorkin and his writing staff, but I think they did a good job of explaining the situation at a level people could get their heads around it.

The analogy is to make them understand that the "extreme" Muslims are a small faction of Islam. They are to Islam as a group like the KKK or Army of God is to Christianity. We all know that the KKK are a bunch of fucknuts, and it's easy to fill a page of quotes by them, and it's easy to paint all Christians to be like them -- if you live 4,000 miles away.

My best wishes go out to those in britian...
My opinion is that the extremists are sticking their own necks out in the long run..
Bombing everything all around the world constantly is just going to put more and more nations against them eventually imho...

Ahhh akipt. Ever the ignorant extremist.

Apparently it's Islam : Muslim Extremist :: Christianity : Akipt

You poor fools. You can't even say terrorist. It's no wonder your political leaders, news media heads, and bubble-headed celebrities (actually, there's no distinction between any of those) get the Founding Fathers confused with the likes of Stalin and Saddam.

Get a clue. Faster please.

Who is it that's afraid of saying terrorist? These particular terrorists are Muslim Extremists, and they're no more representative of Islam in general than the KKK (http://www.kkk.bz/index1.htm) or the Army of God (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:PdpQVB9I6C0J:www.armyofgod.com/+army+of+god&hl=en&start=1) (google cache, hopefully they're down) is representative of Christianity. Both of those groups are responsible for acts of terrorism as well.

Oh, I hate these fuckers, but if you could just help me by pointing "them" out, we'd all apprecaite it. It's not every bearded man living in the middle east, is it? At least with the Klan they're easy to spot.

Akipt is talking about the communist Grumblin from his page 3 comment...

The only people comparing Christians and Muslims are you guys and the terrorists themselves, as I pointed out above.

So what is your point in comparing the two TERRORIST elements of the groups?

Maybe Democrat Senator and former KKK recruiter Robert Byrd can shed some light on it for me.

See, I can make rhetoric that did absolutely nothing but enflame and make pointless arguments like you!

There is a facet of Islamic society that is totally nihilistic. They arent this way because they dont have hope, they are this way for a variety of reasons. One of the main reasons is a core element of the philosophy of Islam. Remember, Muhammad was a Warlord in some sense of the word. He conquered Mecca and subdued the tribes of Saudi Arabia.
As an effective military leader he was able to translate to his followers that dying for him in battle against the infidel was a gift to god and that this gift would be repaid 100 fold. Because of the fanatism of his warriors and those that came after him, Islam dominated a very large region in a very short period of time and became the greatest empire on the earth around the 600s.

Contrast this to the story of Jesus Christ. Wether you believe in him or not. The attitude toward life is starkly contrasted. Christ never picked up the sword, and allowed violence to destroy him rather to compromise his values and commit acts of violence. But Christ never went willingly to his death. His time on the cross was full of fear of death and a clinging to life. The message is that life is precious, and has to be clung to for every second we are on this planet. The message here has nothing to do if you are religious or not, this is the core of the values ingrained in western civilization, it is as unescapable as the pigmintation of your skin.

Now if you ask a Jihadist, they will tell you that this difference is the reason they will win this war. They will tell you straight out. "Westerns love life, we love death" The love of death, to them, is a weapon as powerful as any army. We see celebrations for the families of suicide bombers. To find a comparison for this in history is sort of complicated. The obvious choice is to compare them to the Japanese mindset of WW2. But I think this is a faulty comparison. The Japanese mindset prefered life to death, but the dishonor of defeat was worse to death to them. The Islamic mindset, I believe is most closely related to that of the Vikings or the northern Barbarians who lived with this Ragnarokian fatalism. The Suicide Bomber is the modern day incarnation of the Berserker. The Jihadists will point to how these people eventually overcame the wealthier and technologically superior Roman Empire, bringing it down.

The departure is the use of these bombs against civilians and innocents which is a clear violation of the tenets of the Koran. But the counter arguement is that the Jihadists are merely playing the game as set forth by the west, and the United States.
Dropping the nuclear bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was the correct thing to do. It saved American (and probably Japanese) lives. To the islamic mind, this gives the excuse to carry out attacks against civilians. If a one suicide bomber can kill many, and force the other side to back off, then to their mind, the suicide bomber is saving lives! See the twisted logic?
The next question we need to ask is why the jihadists believe they are at war with the west. Once again we need to go back to the core of the religion. There is a massive movement of "Islamic Nationalism". There is a belief and a strong desire to unite all Islamic nations under one flag. In essence to reforge the broken empire of Muhammad.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/images/Arab_Empire.gif

The Jihadist blame the west for the division of this holy empire. They believe the Crusades have never really stopped and there has been a Western tearing apart of this empire. Through Imperialism or the backing of corrupt puppet dictators or regimes. To them, this war is almost eternal in some sense. President Bush told us the war against Terrorism will go on for a long time. The Islamics fully believe that the war probably wont be won in their lifetimes, but they are part of the eon long struggle that they will eventually win, like the tide pounding against the rocks. In that sense, they arent completely focused on winning. They dont mind going underground and waiting, waiting, waiting for the right moment to strike. The most important thing isnt victory, the most important thing to the jihadist is the creation of the next generation to fight in the struggle.

My point here is that evil is defined by your point of view. To themselves, they arent evil. They absolutly believe they are doing the right thing, that they are heros. To say, "Oh they are evil and thats all we need to know about them" is a tactical mistake beyond comprehension. I saw an interview with a former FBI director of Counter Terrorism Dale Watson (post 9/11) the other day, and I was horrified when he had NO concept of what he was fighting. He didnt know the difference between Sunni and Shiite, he didnt know what a Madrassa was, he didnt know the philosophical base of jihad was. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/06/19/national/w233906D13.DTL
"A bombing case is a bombing case," said Dale Watson, the FBI's terrorism chief in the two years after Sept. 11, 2001. "A crime scene in a bank robbery case is the same as a crime scene, you know, across the board. A bombing in Oklahoma City is not fundamentaly different than the one on 9/11 "
Bald, the FBI's current anti-terrorism chief, said his first training in that area came "on the job" when he moved to headquarters to oversee anti-terrorism strategy two years ago. when asked about his grasp of Middle Eastern culture and history, he replied: "I wish that I had it. It would be nice."
"What skill sets would they need to better identify, penetrate and/or prevent a future Osama bin Laden-style terrorist attack?" Kohn asked.

Watson answered: "They would need to understand the attorney general guidelines for counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigation."

"Anything else?" the lawyer inquired.

"No," Watson answered.


I guess in Akipts world, all you need to know is they bad, we good. No more knowledge is necessary. Just blindly obey.

How can you fight something you dont understand? How can you defeat it? If you kill a terrorist, you are merely pruning the leaves off a tree. We wont win this "war" till we can kill the tree, and actually understand what we are fighting.

And in pipes osgilisheep666 to cover his pardner's ass, just like old times. I'm getting nostalgic actually just thinking about it.

Akipt has been known to verbally discriminate against entire races due to the actions of few before. It's not a surprise that his ignorance hasn't left him in his (blissful) abscence, as disappointed as i am. And it wasn't hard to draw a parallel to his post on this topic and assume he was referring to every muslim in his term "mutual enemy"

The people responsible for this tragedy are indeed terrorists, by the very definition of the word. But i don't think my definition and akipt's are the same thing. Because as soon as you start generalising and tying innocent people into your definition, you're half way toward the mindset of the terrorist. So the point in comparing christian and muslim terrorists was the (futile, i suppose) hope of having you learn the error of your ways. Ultimately that discrimination is wrong.

- Interesting post Ll

Terrorists hide behind Islam.. There religion. Therefore in order to fight them you must destroy there ideals. You must destroy Islam it's self. Destroy the roots and the tree will die.

Great Idea.. worked GREAT for the Romans against the Christians.

Does anyone else find it unusual that HaloChanter hasn't commented on this attack, etc. at all, or has he been inactive here lately?

EDIT: Looks like his last post was June 26.

Lleauric I certainly think that you are right, at least in case of the ideological leaders, the clerics, the politicians etc.

However I seriously doubt that the grunt soldiers (aka the suicide bomber himself) has such a broad view and needs historical justification.

I think for them it is plain simple heroism, making a choice between living an ordinary life or becoming part of something bigger (serving god's cause) is a no brainer.

Since giving a common noble goal to the entire muslim population thats worth living for is not an option (hell, we can't even unite the west and give real purpose to people's lifes) then the only key to this issue is removing those people who fanatize the suicide bomber. The radical islamist clerics.

If there is no one to preach about the 100 virgins waiting for you in heaven to compensate for your martirdom then how will you get to know that you can be a martyr at the first place?

But that would take radical moves, stuff like limiting the freedom of religion.

Great Idea.. worked GREAT for the Romans against the Christians.

This was posted after I started writing my last reply.

Yea you are right. How about we all convert to the Islam? Worked for the Romans....

Akipt has been known to verbally discriminate against entire races due to the actions of few before.
Really?

It's not a surprise that his ignorance hasn't left him in his (blissful) abscence, as disappointed as i am.
Sorry for disturbing your echo chamber.

And it wasn't hard to draw a parallel to his post on this topic and assume he was referring to every muslim in his term "mutual enemy"
Heh, you assumed. You know what that does.


I guess in Akipts world, all you need to know is they bad, we good. No more knowledge is necessary. Just blindly obey.

So taking the same logical level of analysis that you apply to one of my posts, I can deduce that all you want to do is UNDERSTAND the terrorist.

Understand why they are terrorists, to remove this root.
How can you fight something you dont understand? How can you defeat it? If you kill a terrorist, you are merely pruning the leaves off a tree. We wont win this "war" till we can kill the tree, and actually understand what we are fighting.

I think it's much more comparable to africanized bees or brown tree snakes. :(

Islam : Muslim Extremist :: Christianity : __________
Eric Rudolph fits. Neo-conservatives are working on it. The James Dobsons, Randall Terrys, and Roy Moores of the country can also be wedged into the slot.
You can't even say terrorist. It's no wonder your political leaders, news media heads, and bubble-headed celebrities (actually, there's no distinction between any of those) get the Founding Fathers confused with the likes of Stalin and Saddam.
Several of us mentioned terrorism; still having trouble with simple reading comprehension? Please go on about this "confusion" between the Founders and Stalin/Saddam. So many accusations, so little backup. To help you out, I'll get the ball rolling:
Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.
This was courtesy of Edwin Vieira, former fund raiser for ex-KKK leader David Duke, speaking at "Justice Sunday," an anti-Judicial Branch rant held by leaders of the radical right. The biggest bobblehead of the day belonged to Bill Frist, who is cultivating their vote for a 2008 Presidential run. So you're right, akipt, I guess some of our political leaders are getting confused about Stalin!
See, I can make rhetoric that did absolutely nothing but enflame and make pointless arguments...
You've made an ARo career out of it. Do you expect us to be surprised by this now?
And no Thormir, they aren't pissed off because we improperly invaded Iraq or they didn't have access to the best social welfare systems. They're evil.
I realize logic isn't your strong point, but the two aren't mutually exclusive. But since you brought it up, let's look at these two points I didn't actually make. The debacle in Iraq has created terrorists. And not just peasants with pistols, but people trained in combat and the use of explosives. Iraq is a recruitment tool, training ground, and organizational rallying point for the enemy. Betterment of Muslim societies is preventative. Comfortable people are less inclined to strap bombs to themselves (the still at large bin Laden being a notable exception).


Ultimately, Muslim leaders are going to have to decide just how to handle the extremists in their midst. As one of those "news media heads" akipt so dislikes recently noted, Salman Rushdie still lives under a death sentence, while no major cleric has issued a fatwa against bin Laden. And our political leaders will have to decide how to apply just the right sort of pressure to heads of states that contain and -- directly or indirectly -- support terrorists. Invading them isn't always going to be a productive strategy (especially if it's the wrong country). But holding hands with them isn't much better.

Does anyone else find it unusual that HaloChanter hasn't commented on this attack, etc. at all, or has he been inactive here lately?

EDIT: Looks like his last post was June 26.

I do hope he is ok or at the very least didn't know anyone injured....:(

If he's still at Sussex, he's probably okay.

I can deduce that all you want to do is UNDERSTAND the terrorist.

In the same way a doctor wants to understand a tumor. Why isnt cancer cured by simply taking a scapel to the growth?

In the same way the FBI wants to know how serial killers think.

Understanding why a 17 year old boy would get on a bus strapped with explosives is step one from stopping it from ever happening. Welcome to the 21st century, where wars are no longer won by killing.

An aside before I have to attend to work. What was the first thing that crossed your respective minds upon hearing word of the bombings? It's a rhetorical question, but did any come close to Faux News' Brit Hume?
"My first thought when I hard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack adn I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, 'Hmmm, time to buy."
L2 nailed the rest. Cheers,

I'm curious....

Did gas prices drop anywhere else in the country or just where I live? Pump prices are down $.05 today. Curious. What did I miss and is this related?

Welcome to the 21st century, where wars are no longer won by killing.

It's so easy living in an echo chamber.

Amen brother. Pass the brown sauce.

I was watching hardball or o'reilly last night (I forget) and there was a guest, last name Rubin I believe (someone with more time can finda transcript). He was asked what his reaction is to the bombings. He replied that after 9/11 there was world unity against the terrorists. Now he hope that we can regain that world unity against the terrorist enemy. He is basically hoping that people will forget that bush has not caught obl, we are 400billion$ into the iraq quagmire, and bush's recent speech didn't have the jumpstart effect he wanted. We should all forget all about that stuff and get back to kicking ass on the enemy.

I find it very convenient that during the G8, where they are talking about global climate and poverty (things bush loathes), and after bush's dismal speech and his slumping approval rating we have this to jump start us again.

Indeed Phelonius. Break out the aluminium hats!!!

I have mine firmly affixed at all times.

I find it very convenient that during the G8, where they are talking about global climate and poverty (things bush loathes), and after bush's dismal speech and his slumping approval rating we have this to jump start us again.

You must be fucking kidding. If our Administration hates Poverty/Climate change and everything else you espouse only liberals care about how come the US pledges more money to AIDS reasearch/prevention in Africa each year then the whole world combined? Oh yea I forgot I am just a republican sheeple. I am supposed to tow the party line...

Amen brother. Pass the brown sauce.

Not sure what relevance the 4 extremists sitting in a resturant have to do with anything.

And im not even sure what relevence the echo chamber comment has.

Look at the last two major American wars. The Cold War and Vietnam War.
The Cold War was won not by armed conflict, but the triumph of one system and the failure of an ideology. The Vietnam war was lost not because the other side killed more than we did, it was lost because we lost the war of ideas in Vietnam.

The old style of warfare was simple. Confront the enemy on the field of battle, kill more of them then they kill of you and you win. For the majority of human existance this has been the way, until it found its ultimate expression on the battlefields of World War One, in places like Verdun and on the Eastern Front in World War Two. Wars were conflicts that were determined by which society could bleed more.

This ended when we dropped 2 Atomic Bombs on Japan. If the idea of war is to bleed the other side while minimizing our own bloodloss, then what is more effective than the use of Nuclear Weapons?
[quote]On 9 December MacArthur said that he wanted commander's discretion to use atomic weapons in the Korean theatre. On 24 December he submitted "a list of retardation targets" for which he required 26 atomic bombs. He also wanted four to drop on the "invasion forces" and four more for "critical concentrations of enemy air power."

In interviews published posthumously, MacArthur said he had a plan that would have won the war in 10 days: "I would have dropped 30 or so atomic bombs . . . strung across the neck of Manchuria." Then he would have introduced half a million Chinese Nationalist troops at the Yalu and then "spread behind us -- from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea -- a belt of radioactive cobalt . . . it has an active life of between 60 and 120 years. For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the North." He was certain that the Russians would have done nothing about this extreme strategy: "My plan was a cinch." (12)

In a full out war the use of nuclear weapons becomes the moral choice. This is the final evolution of the concept of total war, as a result, we have backed away from wanting to ever engage in one.
Wars are still FOUGHT with killing, but they arent WON by killing.

If your solution and the battleplan to win the "war on terror" is to "kill all the terrorists"... we will lose.

And Akipt. Explain to me a few things, now that Ive got you here.

1. How does GitMo help us? Here we are trying to convince people in the middle east that our style of system works and is the best in the world, yet at the same time, we hold these people without charges for an indefinite period of time. Either our legal system works, or it doesnt. It seems that we dont trust our system of justice to protect us, we cant take the RISK of exposing these people to our legal procedings.

2. Are we in Iraq to bring freedom to the people there, or are we there to fight the terrorists on their own ground? It seems to me that turning these peoples homes into a proxy battlefield is in direct conflict with the goal of bringing them freedom and peace. Either is a fine, but which is it? It cant be both.

3. What role does Iraq play in winning the "war"? I personally think it has more to do with Chinese nuclear subs and Aircraft carriers than it does with WMD or Al-Queda, but would be interested in hearing the ultimate goal here. Like, what do we do if Iraq acheives peace, where do we fight the terrorists then?

You must be fucking kidding. If our Administration hates Poverty/Climate change and everything else you espouse only liberals care about how come the US pledges more money to AIDS reasearch/prevention in Africa each year then the whole world combined? Oh yea I forgot I am just a republican sheeple. I am supposed to tow the party line...

Way to go straw man. By the way I am a republican.

Understanding why a 17 year old boy would get on a bus strapped with explosives is step one from stopping it from ever happening.

The 17 year-old living in a country steeped in poverty, with no real industrial capability or trade potential other than oil, may be easy prey to those wanting to demonize the west as being responsible for all the troubles in their lands; but, I believe it is also worth looking at the economic side of the suicide bomber's motivation, and how being able to contribute to the family a fairly significant amount of money (for them) brings it's own glorification and heroism, at least in the eyes of the family. It has been reported by both western and Muslim journalists that these young suicide bombers are being enticed as much with money as with religious fanaticism.

Envy = motivation
It may be cloaked in religious teaching, but it is envy of those in the west having more than those living in the middle of deserts have.
(Yeah, simple, I know, but I am on a break and only a little time)

If our Administration hates Poverty/Climate change and everything else you espouse only liberals care about how come the US pledges more money to AIDS reasearch/prevention in Africa each year then the whole world combined? Oh yea I forgot I am just a republican sheeple. I am supposed to tow the party line...
I don't know why you'd mention climate change, given the recent revelation that Philip Cooney, chief of staff to Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality, revised government scientific reports to downplay the risks and sources of global warming (then resigned and went to work as a consultant for Exxon). Repubs have always tried to muddy the waters of climate change -- it's SOP.

Some notes on Bush's poverty (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/actaidusa/112059178765.htm) in Africa initiatives. Aid has increased, which is generally good, but not to the degree promulgated by the Bush administration. Much of the money Bush has agreed to send is simply old commitments repackaged as new deals. Also, as the article mentions, most poverty/famine aid is also short term relief rather than infrastructure building resources that offer long term solutions.

AIDS prevention in Africa comes with a lot of strings attached. In order to pander to his extremist base, a considerable sum of money earmarked for AIDS prevention is tied up in abstinence-only "educational" programs, which are known not to work. Uganda (http://hrw.org/reports/2005/uganda0305/) is one nation that suffers from this myopic vision of relief (the US is another, though it suffers differently).

Anyone -- perhaps our Republican sheeple, Osgiliath -- with a link to US monetary support of AIDS prevention/research in Africa? I'm interested in the numbers. Cheers,

1. How does GitMo help us? Here we are trying to convince people in the middle east that our style of system works and is the best in the world, yet at the same time, we hold these people without charges for an indefinite period of time. Either our legal system works, or it doesnt. It seems that we dont trust our system of justice to protect us, we cant take the RISK of exposing these people to our legal procedings.
The first step is for you people to get educated so you can stop making America look evil when your like-minded political (ie world public relations) leaders lose all sense of reality when they compare Gitmo to a gulag. In others words, stop being disconnected from reality so damned much and giving our enemies yet more public relations victories.

Every prisoner has had a legal hearing, often more than one. I think it's once per year (probably more often) to classify whether they should still be an enemy combatant or not. And since the 2004 Supreme Court ruling approved of Gitmo's tribunals and legal arrangements are good enough for an AMERICAN CITIZEN, they should be just fine for these foreign enemy combatants, don't you think?

But there are still some prisoners who have had trials delayed. You want to know why? It's because THEIR lawyers have requested the delay, to more thoroughly gather all the facts so the prisoner won't perjure himself during the trial. In other words, their access to lawyers are keeping them out of jail for an even longer stay. "Ah, why's it taking so long?" Because the evidence and witnesses ARE STILL IN A WAR ZONE. Duh.

So, how about educating some out of new Arab and Muslim friends instead of giving them something else to curse us about.

2. Are we in Iraq to bring freedom to the people there, or are we there to fight the terrorists on their own ground? It seems to me that turning these peoples homes into a proxy battlefield is in direct conflict with the goal of bringing them freedom and peace. Either is a fine, but which is it? It cant be both.
Simple, it's not us who are turning their gradually rebuilt homes, schools, MOSQUES, streets, hospitals, water and sewer treatment plants, electrical infrastructures, and businesses into a battlefield. It's the terrorists. And if we left, it would only get worse. The CITIZENS of Iraq are slowly realizing this, no education on our part required.

3. What role does Iraq play in winning the "war"? I personally think it has more to do with Chinese nuclear subs and Aircraft carriers than it does with WMD or Al-Queda, but would be interested in hearing the ultimate goal here. Like, what do we do if Iraq acheives peace, where do we fight the terrorists then?
Then, at about this phase of the war on terror, all that UNDERSTANDING and HAND WRINGING stuff you cried about earlier will be overshadowed by the billions of people worldwide working to EMULATE what we did in Iraq for their own country... dominoe effect.
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:THxqHPMiy8MJ:accordionguy.blogware.co m/Photos/2005/01/iraqi_voter.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://accordionguy.blogware.com/Photos/2005/01/iraqi_voter.jpg&imgrefurl=http://accordionguy.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/1&h=332&w=240&sz=21&tbnid=THxqHPMiy8MJ:&tbnh=115&tbnw=83&hl=en&start=5&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpurple%2Bfinger%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3De n%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26sa%3DN)

The first step is for you people to get educated
Re-Educated you mean. So I think like you.

Every prisoner has had a legal hearing,
Everything is "legal" if the state says it is, that doesnt make it honest. Combatant Status Review Tribunals, as they have been named, are proceedings that are so narrow in scope and limited in the question that it really doesnt answer any questions. Is there Habeus Corpus? No. Is the Attorney Client Privilage? No.
In fact, these Tribunals were established as way around Article 5 of the Geneva Convention.
Which belies the next question, what is the plan? So they have a trial every year that determines if each person fits the criteria that the same organization that runs the trial has created. Lets take for example the case of Ali Hamza Ahmad Sulayman al Bahlul of Yemen. This dude was picked up for "producing videos glorifying the murder of Americans to recruit, inspire and motivate other al-Qaida members” to attack the United States and other countries." Ok, so thats a combatant, we know by the definition of the court. Now what?
I mean, whats the plan? Are we going to eventually release him? When? Do we even know? Are we going to shoot him? Are we going to turn Gitmo into an islamic retirement home and keep these guys forever. Oh I know, maybe we can strap them into movie chairs and make them watch images to re-wire their brainwaves. No more of the old ultra-violence for you boy-o.
The lack of a plan interests me.
Interestingly enough, a lot of the people released from gitmo were people given to us by such allies as afgani warlords or foreign regimes, who it turned out, had no relation at all to Al-Queda. Im sure they didnt mind at all being picked up and taken to a tropical island for fun and sun while they had to wait for evidence in a "war zone"
Besides.. what warzone?
http://newmexiken.com/images/2004/05/Accomplished.jpg
>shrug<

It's the terrorists.
Right, I know... but we have made many public statements that we are in Iraq to avoid fighting Al-Queda in New York, or LA or wherever.
So we wonder why the average Iraqi says "oh ya, thanks for the new school, but could you kindly GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY" In the end it is always about security. If I had a friend and every time he came over, people started shooting my windows out, Id probably ask that friend not to come over any more. The reality is that our presence is a factor in the extreme violence occuring in Iraq. But you are right, we cant leave. But we cant stay either. Quite the pickle. Its a good thing we had enough troops to secure the borders and prevent foreign fighters from pouring in from Syria and Iran.

the billions of people worldwide working to EMULATE what we did in Iraq for their own country
That will be cool.. kind of like "The Marshall Plan: Reunion Tour"
Everyone will be praying to be the next to be invaded by the US because then they get rebuilt up so nice. "please Allah, bring the infidels to here, Sabib and I REALLY want a new jacuzzi"

So, with all the scalpel metaphors, do we have some plan to tell the "good" foreigners from the "bad" ones -- or are we just going to lance things until the pain is gone?

Thats a great question Pali. Its the kind of question that has resonance throughout history. I *think* I have an answer for you, and Ill be quoting a lot of people whos first name is Thomas.

There are two views on this. The first is from our old friend Thomas Hobbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes)
In Leviathan, Hobbes set out his doctrine of modern natural right as the foundation of societies and legitimate governments. In the natural condition of mankind, while some men may be stronger or more intelligent than others, none are so strong and smart as to be beyond a fear of violent death. When threatened with death, man in his natural state cannot help but defend himself in any way possible. Self-defense against violent death is Hobbes' highest human necessity, and rights are borne of necessity. In the state of nature, then, each of us has a right to everything in the world. Due to the scarcity of things in the world, there is a constant, and rights-based, "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short" (xiii).

But war isn't in man's best interest. According to Hobbes, man has a self-interested and materialistic desire to end war — "the passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by their industry to obtain them" . He forms peaceful societies by entering into a social contract. According to Hobbes, society is a population beneath an authority, to whom all individuals in that society surrender just enough of their natural right for the authority to be able to ensure internal peace and a common defense. This sovereign, whether monarch, aristocracy or democracy (though Hobbes prefers monarchy), should be a Leviathan, an absolute authority. Law, for Hobbes, is the enforcement of contracts


Basically, Hobbes said that the greater the danger, the more rights man is willing to surrender. For Hobbes, security trumps everything. The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq seem to be Hobbesian in that they believe the more chaos and destruction they create, the less likely a democracy will be to develop, or if it does, the majority will place the power in some sort of Iranian style despotism, if nothing else but for their own safety. It is a grand version of extortion.
Should we in the United States or the West subscribe to this? Tom Friedman has an interesting article in the NYTimes today about that very thing. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/opinion/08friedman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and %20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20F riedman
Is the suppression of all Muslims in our countries the answer? What do we lose as a whole if we compromise our principles and beliefs in the name of safety.
I think Thomas Jefferson said best when he said:
"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots"
What Jefferson is saying here is that Freedom is not free. Freedom is dangerous and has risk attached to it. Part of the price of living in a free and open society is that something like 9/11 can happen. We as a society have to make the determination if our values are worth it the risk.

The final person I will quote is, sadly, not named Thomas, but I think his eloquence has significant relevance in answering your question Palimax. His name is Kenneth Livingstone and he is the Mayor of London

I want to say one thing specifically to the world today. This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.

That isn't an ideology, it isn't even a perverted faith - it is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder and we know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other. I said yesterday to the International Olympic Committee, that the city of London is the greatest in the world, because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack. They will stand together in solidarity alongside those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved and that is why I'm proud to be the mayor of that city.

Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.

I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.

In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.

They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.


Any questions?

I don't think it answers my question at all.

Should you take action againt "the problem," how do you go about targetting it?

Which problem?
Radicalized Muslims? Terrorists enroute to commit acts of violence? Personal feelings of insecurity?

Did you read the Friedman article?

We cant fix these broken societies, only the people living there can. Freedom has to be a conscious choice, it cant be thrust on you or given as a gift. It must be bought and continually paid for.

As far as we go... We can stop supporting crooked regimes. We can become energy independant by moving away from fossil fuels and investing heavily into alternative sources of energy. We can continue to be city on the hill that Reagan and JFK envisioned.
You want 100% assurances of safety right now? Sorry Sunshine. Nothing can give you that, and anyone that tells you they can is lying. I guess youll have to live with the terrible knowledge that you have .0001% chance of being killed by a terrorist attack.
Our victories will come in the mideast when people demand Fatwas not against Salman Rushdi, but against Osama Bin Laden. The war will be won when Al-Queda cant recruit because young people in the middle east are too busy making money and participating in the world economy than caring about Jihad or whatever. The end will come not with a bang, and a surrender, but quietly, gradually and without notice.

Just wanted to say thanks Ll for posting the text of Livingstone's speech.
Very inspiring words, indeed.

LLeauric, you and I are asking our questions to the wrong people. There are others in this thread who want action of a fist-meets-face kind; and I've been making the point that there's no scalpel solution to the problem, because you can't attack Islam, because Islam isn't any more at fault than Christianity is at fault.

You're quite right.

LL's posts probably reflect what is the most likely answer. Many of the inequities here in the states will only be remedied on a generational basis. Societies grow mostly based upon what ideals parents and educators chose to bestow on the young. Children are oblivious to hatred and know nothing of the strife of adults. Unfortunately, children do not run things and the world of adults demands immediate action when such tragic events such as terrorism strikes.

Politicians who are the key manipulators of the emotions of their constituants will take action mostly due to the fact that they will not stay in office long if they do not acknowledge what the majority demands. The people are fickle though, and the actions they demanded a year or two ago may have given birth to operations that are far more complicated and consuming of time, resources and lives than any anticipated. Democracy is a two way street with the down side being that a vision or plan that requires long term commitment is seldom left unaltered or in the same favorable light.

Add to all that the fact that no one can agree on the nature of terror. Is it an act of war, or is this a criminal act? Probably it is both and neither, since the common conception of war is the most intimate relationship between the governments of nations yet there is no nation specific to be targetted as the "enemy". Also, most all wars of the past were fought over tangiable goals such as real estate. Terror can be carried out by organized crime syndicates or any organization of like minded individuals (reguardless of nationality) that has access to manpower, intelligence and finances. All they fight for could just be an ideal and nothing more. The events of 9/11 proved the plots of these organizations can yield casualties in the numbers that would otherwise be associated with military campaigns. The plots of James Bond and Tom Clancy are riddled with such organizations killing far more people in fiction than all that were killed in real wars the scope of WWII.

Ultimately nations will do whatever they feel they can afford in terms of finances and willpower to conteract terrorism based on their percieved threat. For most, that will be absolutely nothing but perhaps blow some smoke up some asses and speak some will timed words of sympathy. Others may take the approuch of the French, that being that of becoming a broker of sorts and try to subjecate the so called rogue nations through trade. Then again, France has so many muslims they might be afraid that to do anything more might incite a civil war in their own borders. Countries like Sweden could probably get away with doing absolutely nothing at all, since chances are they are not a target unless they throw in with the Americans and Brits. Both the UK and the USA could do FAR FAR more then what is being done on the military side, but no one knows how to go about that and very few are willing even if anyone did. Both nations have enough nuclear fire to settle the questions in the Middle East and destroy all the religious strife and bickering over oil in that part of the world FOR GOOD many times over. Call it kemotherapy of sorts for a cancer on the world.

Everyone knows that will never happen. History is full of failed examples where people tried to exterminate an ideal by killing all that beleived in it. So, all that really remains is token demonstrations of force, strong words and the hope that parents and leaders of all faiths may perhaps one day teach their children and followers how to co-exist.