http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/london.tube/index.html
:(
Anyone think of some terrorists with an interest in numerology?
7/7/2005 8:50
On another board I saw someone request prayers for the injured/dead, think I'll go do that.
To all my UK friends and relatives. My thoughts and prayers go out all.
With Deepest Sympathy,
RT :cry:
From someone who lived/worked in London for the past...hmmm....18 years or so.
It was almost inevitable that this was going to happen. London has been bracing itself for something like this for a while.
Londoners have been used to bomb threats on the Underground on a fairly regular basis (these don't get reported) and for a period of time there were no public bins on any of the major roads.
Many times I've sat in a darkened tunnel on the London Underground for 15 minutes or more with no word of an announcement as to why we've stopped. 15 minutes is a LONG time in the dark with no explanation.
This may sound strange, but in actual fact, when it came, it wasn't as bad as I expected it to be. I thought the Docklands would be hit by an almighty explosion. I know for a fact that one building alone holds 8,000 people there and that would mean a lot more casualties.
My heart goes out to those who are injured and the families. It must be hell for them.
I'm one of the very lucky ones. I moved away from London two weeks ago. I used to work in Mayfair part-time and Thursdays was one of my working days. Not that I'd have been hit, but I'd have been in the midst of it. My timing was impeccable, oddly enough.
Sarah
I think your timing would have been 'impecable' if you had moved out a day earlier, and you WOULD have been hit :P especially that 2nd one, but still saved u trouble.
Death toll keeps climbing according to the news :( . The number of cities in diff. countries keeps climbing that's been hit by terrorist atttacks...
NYC, Madrid, London... and more i'm sure i just cant remember
Having lived through the horror of 9/11 when I was living in NYC, I know that the aftermath of a terrorist attack can be traumatic beyond description. My heart goes out to all those people in London who are now suffering as a result of this senseless crime of violence. My condolences to all who have lost a loved one or a good friend in this horrific act of violence. :cry:
Can't help but wonder what the powers that be at the G8 Summit are going to try to slip by us while the attention of the world is focused on the crisis in London. :evil:
7 bombs on 7/7/7.
Says 4 (not 7) bombs on:
http://www.nytimes.com/
-the new york times says '4 blasts'
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/london.tube/index.html
cnn says '4 bombs'
I assume that new york times meant bombs
Quote from: OrionsDreamSays 4 (not 7) bombs on:
http://www.nytimes.com/
-the new york times says '4 blasts'
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/london.tube/index.html
cnn says '4 bombs'
I assume that new york times meant bombs
My mistake; I thought there had been five. Two were recovered (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=918193) undetonated.
Heartfelt sympathy for all the families who have lost loved ones.
Healing for all involved: all the victims, and for those that need to better learn our underlying interconnectedness.
[/color]
I bet there were seven bombs. 4 that went off, 2 found undetonated, and one they missed.
Hi:
I always find this is a time to reflect on the horrors of the devices we have invented called bombs and the devastation and destruction they cause. When people in the UK vote to engage in a war, that war entails the dropping of bombs in some foreign land. Bombs that wreak death and destruction, blowing innocent women and children to bits with rockets, grenades, mines and a plethora of other weapons to boot.
Of course, it's "easy" for a militarised, dehumanised automaton to push a button from several hundred miles away and a guided missile does the dirty work.
None of us get to see the real images of the bodies blown apart in any event.
A child reduced to mere shards of flesh and bone, and blood seeping into the earth; a mother weeping over a charred piece of flesh that was once her child's face. It is all very remote and unreal. But to the people who are impacted by this kind of action it is very real. They have loved ones as well. They care just as much for their children as we do, and we cannot keep sending bombs over to the "other side" and expect these people to keep on taking it.
There are no justifications for the actions that took place yesterday, just as there are no justifications, IMO, for the actions initiated from "our" side. But, of course, when it's "us" planting the bombs from the comfort of our cosy western enclave, perhaps most of us believe the end justifies the means. Well, I'm suggesting the "other side" kinda feel the same way.
Myself, I am dearly hoping that this will signal the end of the British public's support for the military actions in Iraq. Quite simply, if we keep supporting acts of terror then acts of terror are going to keep befalling us. We will have to see that connection one day. Preferably sooner rather than later. There will be those who will no-doubt be calling for "revenge" but this is a time for great compassion and restraint, a time to reflect on British military actions thus far and realise, once and for all, that war is not the answer.
Yours,
Frank
"I know for a fact that one building alone holds 8,000 people there and that would mean a lot more casualties."
Sarah:
I think the goal of the people who planted these devices was not to cause the maximum amount of casualties. I think their goal was to incapacitate the whole of central London and wreak utter havoc, rather than death and destruction.
It would take a LOT of serious explosives to devastate a large building. Plus, you have the difficulty of finding a delivery system for those explosives. Some kind of manual delivery would be impossible. The only alternative is to do it remotely. Problem is, the military hardware to do that with the requisite degree of accuracy is rather hard to obtain and extremely expensive.
To incapacitate the Tube, all you would need are 4 or 5 strategically placed bombs of a size you could carry in a medium-sized handbag, plus they blew up one bus. This latter action tells me they were gunning to wreak havoc rather than cause maximum fatalities. After all, why blow up one bus? In my opinion, their specific goal was to paralyse the public transportation system. Doing this will incapacitate the whole of central London and you wreak total havoc. Plus, you now have the fear aspect. Anyone going on a Tube or bus for the next however-length of time will be wondering if they'll be next.
So to me, they were going for maximum havoc coupled with maximum psychological impact.
Yours,
Frank
QuotePosted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:12 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi:
I always find this is a time to reflect on the horrors of the devices we have invented called bombs and the devastation and destruction they cause. When people in the UK vote to engage in a war, that war entails the dropping of bombs in some foreign land. Bombs that wreak death and destruction, blowing innocent women and children to bits with rockets, grenades, mines and a plethora of other weapons to boot.
Of course, it's "easy" for a militarised, dehumanised automaton to push a button from several hundred miles away and a guided missile does the dirty work.
None of us get to see the real images of the bodies blown apart in any event.
A child reduced to mere shards of flesh and bone, and blood seeping into the earth; a mother weeping over a charred piece of flesh that was once her child's face. It is all very remote and unreal. But to the people who are impacted by this kind of action it is very real. They have loved ones as well. They care just as much for their children as we do, and we cannot keep sending bombs over to the "other side" and expect these people to keep on taking it.
There are no justifications for the actions that took place yesterday, just as there are no justifications, IMO, for the actions initiated from "our" side. But, of course, when it's "us" planting the bombs from the comfort of our cosy western enclave, perhaps most of us believe the end justifies the means. Well, I'm suggesting the "other side" kinda feel the same way.
Myself, I am dearly hoping that this will signal the end of the British public's support for the military actions in Iraq. Quite simply, if we keep supporting acts of terror then acts of terror are going to keep befalling us. We will have to see that connection one day. Preferably sooner rather than later. There will be those who will no-doubt be calling for "revenge" but this is a time for great compassion and restraint, a time to reflect on British military actions thus far and realise, once and for all, that war is not the answer.
Great post Frank. People have to finally realize that OUR governments are to blame. We always stick our noses into other people business and prop up dictators in these countries as long as the oil flows, or we have some sort of influence over these leaders. We proped up Alkaida and Sadamm when it benefited us, and when these leaders eventually turn on us we try to remove them and this cycle of violence continues. We never seems to learn from history, you can ONLY have peace with peace. Where are the bombs blowing up in Switzerland? The War on Terrorism means there will be more terrorism.
There is a GREAT talk show that is discussing this disaster in a thoughtful way, finally. www.freetalklive.com (It is in the archives section on the right side of the page.)
In all, I feel sorry for the UK citizens that have to suffer through this tragedy, but I also feel sorry for the innocent civilians in the Middle East that have to suffer throught this thoughtless war.
Han Solo
An awful thing to happen, but also, something that was an unfortunate inevitability. My heart goes out to those suffering right now due to this, and my thoughts and prayers are with all those effected.
Hans:
Thanks for the link.
I read a number of articles from selected journalists of a more serious and reflective ilk, and Robert Fisk of the Independent always has some sensible things to say on these kinds of issues.
Below is the start of an article published today. I haven't got the whole thing as it's currently online pay-per-view due to the fact that it's todays. But you can see from the intro where he is coming from.
Yours,
Frank
Robert Fisk: The reality of this barbaric bombing
If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us think insurgency won't come to us?
By Robert Fisk
Published: 08 July 2005
"If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, "we will bomb yours." There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.
And it's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush - and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali.
Article Length: 759 words (approx.)
this article was on www.lewrockwell.com one of my favorite sites.
The Failed War on Terrorism
by Anthony Gregory
by Anthony Gregory
The savage attack in London, for which al Qaeda has reportedly taken credit, is just one more indication that the War on Terrorism is not working.
Just recently, the Bush administration cancelled the publication of the annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report, which would have embarrassingly revealed that major terrorist attacks worldwide increased from 175 in 2003 to 625 in 2004. The War Party has been arguing for almost four years that the Bush administration's War on Terrorism has reduced the number of terrorist attacks throughout the globe, but all data seem to demonstrate an increase.
The most loyal Terror Warriors weren't even shaken by the leaked Rumsfeld memo of October 2003, which candidly and simply conceded the most basic limitations inherent in the U.S. government's bureaucratic central-planning approach to wiping out global terrorism:
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.
This all made perfect sense, and was refreshing to see coming from the Secretary of Defense. Terrorism is a tactic, "a form of action available to virtually any determined adult anywhere anytime," as Robert Higgs once wrote. For this reason, a "War on terrorism... can be only a figure of speech." And it can only be a failure. Short of wiping out the human race, all the nuclear bombs in the world and preemptive strikes until the end of time cannot prevent what happened in London. Only by looking at the Western policies in the Middle East to which this fundamentalist violence is a response do we have a chance of isolating our countries from such hostility.
Many have warned that the War on Terrorism, and especially the Iraq war, would only augment the threat of international terrorism, serving as just the example of genuine grievances that such maniacs as bin Laden need to gain followers and garner support in dollars and lives. Some Middle Easterners certainly hate Americans and Westerners for no reason other than our cultural identity. But they become folk heroes only when the Osamas of the world have such incidents of imperialism as Shock and Awe to point to.
The horrific atrocity in London is simply the latest and most pronounced incident of the terrorism incited by the War on Terror, at least since the attack in Madrid. When the Spanish were attacked, they did the wise thing. They pulled out of Iraq, on schedule, and distanced themselves from the belligerent U.S. foreign policy of perpetual war for its own sake. They did not shy away from the principle of justice for actual terrorists, only from a policy of cyclical violence guaranteed to make matters worse.
How horrible it is that innocent Britons would pay for the crimes of their own government and the U.S. government of which London is one of the most loyal satellites. The victims were not responsible for what their government had done, but thanks to the unfortunate realities of partisan democratic politics, the hawkish Blair was reelected and the English State has continued to side with the U.S. State in its terrible foreign misadventures.
And yet, like clockwork, we can expect calls for redoubling the efforts to solve Islamic terror with State terror, to vanquish this fanatic violence with well-calculated and engineered violence of our own. As far as the warmongers are concerned, any apparent decline in terrorism is a great reason to continue the war, the only better reason being if the war is utterly failing to reduce terrorism at all.
We will likely also hear another argument riddled with bloody paradoxes. In the midst of this bloodshed we will hear about the tragic loss of innocent life and the preciousness of every victim of the attack. But if Britain considers pulling out, as Spain did, we will likely hear that such loss of life is the price "we" must all pay to maintain international order and ensure the progress of the civilizing forces of the Global War on Terror. The British will be accused of being wimps, as were the Spanish when they decided that the hopeless project in the Middle East was not worth any more Spanish blood – and as were the French and Germans when they decided from the beginning that they had had enough war in the past and did not need any more unnecessary militarism just to please a hyper-powerful bloodthirsty Uncle Sam. And so the attack described today as being beyond the sensibilities of all civilized people, and thus warranting an amplified campaign of Anglo-American aggression against Arabs and Muslims, may tomorrow be shrugged off nonchalantly as the price great Empires must pay in the blood of "their" subjects for the benefit of leading the world to a Brave New future.
These words are not unpatriotic in any real sense, nor do I mean the least bit to slight those whose loved ones were murdered in Britain. Like the thousands of innocents who died in New York on September 11, 2001, the nearly two hundred who died in Madrid on March 11, 2004, and the tens of thousands who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since even before the official War on Terror began, they were all victims of aggression, mass violence and insanity. It is never right to attack innocent people for the crimes of a guilty few. Never. Nor does it ever bring about the end of violence always promised of it. This truth applies to the War on Terrorism just as it applies to the terrorist attacks conducted by Muslim extremists, for there is no moral or practical reason to support either type of violence. The cycle of bloodshed will only continue now, but it is largely up to the British people whether or not the role of their own government in the cycle will be greater or lesser than it has been.
The real triumph of civilization is the extent to which coercion is banished from human relations. Brute force is not our salvation, especially as directed by State central planning and done so with little regard for the innocents who inevitably die in warfare. Such violence did nothing to save the innocents who died in London, nor can it do anything to bring those people back or solve the underlying problem
Han Solo
I would like to acknowledge my appreciation also for that link Hans.
What I would add to what has been said is that there are many here in the US who are opposed to the war in Iraq.
There is an inability for mainstream America to listen and learn why this war is a mistake. Most of the serious alternative discussions are to be found only by doing some digging (as Hans has done). Unfortunately, a lot of folks don't do that, and are instead spoonfed the administration's viewpoint.
It is distressing for someone my age to have witnessed everything from Viet Nam to this current madness. My hope is that someday the US will transition from world policeman to friendly neighbor. No clue if and when that will happen though. :(
Okay, that just about does it. I will keep this civil, but the sheep are feeding freely here, with their heads in the usual place!
First, I join in expressing my heartfelt sympathy to the victims of this latest act of savagery. Second, I really do not think this is the time or place for this dicussion, but I just started steaming as I read the posts. Does
no one think anymore?!
Frank, do you realize what you are saying when you state:
Quote...reflect on the horrors of the devices we have invented...
Are you really saying that it is not people using those devices who are inflicting the horror? :shock: Do you actually believe the devices are themselves motivated to terror and killing? And are you also one of those who spout that there is "no good or evil" in the world? (No, this is not a personal attack and I am not trying to be insulting or rude.)
On an entirely different level we could debate the ethics of those
people who invented the devices you mention. At some level, all destructive devices also have a constructive purpose -- building dams, nuclear power, assisting in gathering food for starving people, etc. And whether those humane projects actually result in good in the long run can also be debated. But my point here is that they are
devices -- neither good nor bad in their own right. It is the people who use them who are evil, yes -- evil! Those people chose a course of action they knew would bring hurt, and they delight in it! Evil!! Please, let's stop listening to the "politically correct committee" and start calling a spade a spade. There is personal accountability and we are all responsible for our own actions. This business of "Oh the poor criminal, or the poor terrorist; we must sympathize with them because they've had a hard life. That's what makes them do what they do -- they're victims too." Gag me! Okay, sorry -- enough ranting. Can you see what I am trying to say?
And that's not even the focus of my post!
Another one: Frank or Han said:
Quote...U.S. government of which London is one of the most loyal satellites...
People, stop sounding like parrots and wake up! Can you not see that the story and history between America and Great Britain is one of the greatest examples of the triumph of love, respect, friendship, loyalty, etc. in the history of our world? Does anyone happen to recall a couple of little things like the American Revolution and the War of 1812? We were
enemies, mates -- hated each other; took every opportunity to trade shots; nothing nice to say. Then it finally dawned on both sides that maybe we each weren't so bad after all. (I think it began over WWII, but don't quote me.) All right, granted; right now the U.S. is a "bigger power" than England. But that could (and will) change at any time really. And I like to think the new-found friendship will still be there. And I think that friendship is about more than money. If I'm right, England is far from the largest recipient of American money. So stop with the "satellite" crap already! At least give credit where it's due!
Now for the quoted article:
Quote...the Spanish when they decided that the hopeless project in the Middle East was not worth any more Spanish blood...
About Spain caving in to terrorism, I can certainly see the logic in that. If my neighbor displeases me I will just destroy something he values. Then I'll tell him he must do as I require or I will do something worse next time. He capitulates if he is Spain, and I am his ruler. Who needs freedom anyway -- much better to be ruled by threat of violence!
Quote...as were the French and Germans when they decided from the beginning that they had had enough war in the past...
Oh puuleeeeze! France and Germany had extremely lucrative financial reasons for not wanting the Iraq status quo to be disturbed. It was not their innate resistance to war. Come on sheep, we need to think a little bit here. Follow the money! And, let's see, was the U.N. also opposed to intervening in Iraq? Yes? Wonder why that could be... Naah, couldn't have anything to do with all the loot they were skimming from the "oil for food" fiasco... certainly not!
Follow the money! Think!
Now that you have me labeled as a card-carrying Republican (Wrong!), let me cover a few more items.
Do I belive Bush deliberately lied about the WMD before we invaded Iraq? No. I believe both we and England were relying on the intelligence we had available at the time. Clinton used the same intelligence to tell us Iraq was into the WMD game and took his own military action to try and stop it. Do I believe Bush had his own reasons for going into Iraq? Yes. Again, if you want to know the truth, follow the money! I just haven't quite figured out what sum of money would be worth the lives of our soldiers.
I also believe most if not all of our military planners should be sent back to kindergarden for the incredible, unbelievable, (words fail me)
total stupidity of their failure to plan for the aftermath of our initial attack! Did they think Saddam's army was going to just disappear? Did they have
no clue there just might be a tiny bit of looting and civil disobedience after we moved in? Would the result of just a tad more prior planning have been a less horrific battle than is now taking place? I say yes! We should never have invaded Iraq without clear and definite goals and objectives. "Freeing the Iraqis" is a noble phrase, but "it don't put bread on the table."
As to the war on terrorism, neither the U.S. nor England are fighting it. We are not controlling our borders; we are not expellling known terrorist sympathisers; for crying out loud, we are educating terrorists in our schools! The war in Afghanistan I can see -- we knew there were terrorist training camps, supply dumps and God knows what else there and it makes sense to take them out.
I
firmly believe we must fight terrorism. I, for one, don't like the idea of being ruled by a neighborhood bully. They aren't going to just go away. Those homicidal fanatics have been shooting at us for many, many years and part of what keeps them coming is the fact that we are letting them get away with it. Yes, even Bush -- have you seen anything from him against the Saudis? No, and not likely to, either.
Now, to Frank and Han: how would you stop the violence? It's a serious question -- if we could come up with a rational plan perhaps we can find a way to make it heard.
I understand your aversion to violence and I share it. And I abhor the suffering of innocents -- though I think we may have a different idea of who exactly are those "innocents." At the same time, I'll go back to the very old rabid dog comparison. You cannot reason with a vicious, fatally diseased animal. It's him, or you.
Ghandi used non-violent resistance to defeat the British in India some time back. It sounds good. Then realize that he lost thousands of his followers killed and likely many more injured before his cause prevailed. And he was dealing with a relatively humane government. Had he been dealing with those we face, his cause, and his people, would simply have been exterminated. Anyone read the original War of the Worlds? That's who we're fighting. They don't want to negotiate, they don't want peace. They want us dead -- end of story. Only this time, I don't think a common cold virus is going to come and save us.
So I repeat my question -- how would you handle it?
Greatoutdoors:
"no good or evil" in the world? (No, this is not a personal attack and I am not trying to be insulting or rude.) "
I see you have not done your research. To ignorant people there is good and evil. Is it evil to fight for your just cause for brilliant victory in the face of all odds? Well thats what terrorists think when they attack.
We think its evil, they think its good. Who is to say that our opinion is better than theres.
Now of course, just out of common sense in my respect, it seems evil. But is it evil for a shark to eat a dolphin? Its just what they do.
I'm glad though that you stated all the above as your OPINION and not facts, as is this post.
Quote from: OrionsDreamIts just what they do.
I'm glad though that you stated all the above as your OPINION and not facts, as is this post.
As long as their are radical religious sects, politicians, lobbyists, Large corporations and masses of people we will have conflicts in the world.
Right, you cant just state your side as the right one, and start blowing off and mocking other's, even though its seems its alright to.
QuoteI firmly believe we must fight terrorism. I, for one, don't like the idea of being ruled by a neighborhood bully. They aren't going to just go away. Those homicidal fanatics have been shooting at us for many, many years and part of what keeps them coming is the fact that we are letting them get away with it.
Like OrionsDream said, it's not that cut and dry as "bad guys" and "good guys".
The US has been terrorizing the Mid-East and other areas of the world for decades, and supporting Israel with weapons far superior to any Islamic nation's. It's no surprise "they" are bombing us, though I have my doubts as to who actually did it at such a convenient time for "us".
The US is the only nation in the world that has been condemned by the World Court for terrorism. Naturally, our arrogant government no longer pays any mind to the World Court, but if you were to look up why exactly we were condemned, you would quickly realize who the "bully" is in these foreign wars. It isn't those little, foreign extremist groups. It's the
US.
...
All no_leaf said was that thats what the world court said. We all know that all those countries commited terrorist acts.
With all the fighting going on, you'd think it would teach US not to fight. This will always be a dividing factor which I hate, but will never change....so sad.
Greatoutdoors, I understand you...completely, which is why I stray away from these political fueled topics. It is parroting, I agree, whole heartily.
I often feel like the black sheep on these forums because of my personal views...but eh, I wouldn't be me if I followed right along just to feel embraced by the majority. ;)
Nay
EDIT: LOL! and I said my say in less than a hundred words....gosh, people do love to hear themselves talk..LOL!
Attack On London: Blair Plays The Terror Card
Prison Planet | July 7, 2005
By Paul Joseph Watson
The attack on London represents a brutal attempt to coral the British population behind accepting the introduction of the national ID card, renewing support for the war on terror and reinvigorating trust in a government that had the backing of less than 15 per cent of the country.
RELATED:
Explosions In London
Who Stands To Gain? Israel Warned Before Blast, Cover-up in Progress
Even at this very early stage it is clear that the evidence points to inside involvement.
The statement on a website from an unknown Al-Qaeda group claiming responsibility is exactly what we'd expect after such an event. Santa Claus could post a message saying he was responsible for the attack, does that make it so? Rupert Murdoch's Sky News are busy playing Al-Qaeda training videos with masked militants jumping through flaming hoops. The emotive propaganda is clear, these images are being linked in montages with past images of 9/11, the Bali bombing and the Madrid bombing and injured people crying in the streets.
Even if the police and government back away from the Al-Qaeda claim, which now appears to be the case, pro-establishment Neo-Con media outlets will repeat it like an endless drumbeat until it sinks in.
The key evidence thus far is as follows.
Original Associated Press and Israeli radio reports stated that Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Israeli Prime Minister received a warning before the first explosion that an attack was about to take place. Scotland Yard passed on a warning to the Israeli embassy who forwarded it to Netanyahu. Netanyahu was due to make a speech at a Hotel adjacent to the site of the first blast. He cancelled the speech and remained in his hotel room.
Arutz Sheva sourced Army Radio with the following.
"The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address and economic summit."
For an hour after the first blast, the government and the news media were reporting that the cause was an electrical power surge. If the government knew bombs were going to go off before they did, why did they report for an hour that it was an accident? Were they trying to bide time so they could get their story straight?
Both Scotland Yard and the Israelis have since denied that they had any foreknowledge of the attack.
Since the original report, major TV news networks have been completely silent on the Netanyahu story. They are just repeating claims that there was no prior knowledge.
About an hour after the story broke, Associated Press started altering their online news stories, stating that Netanyahu got the warning after the first blast and not before. It seems as if they are scrambling to co-ordinate their cover story. Either there were no warnings or the warning was after the first blast. The dithering seems to suggest there is some confusion on how to successfully hide the smoking gun, the fact that Netanyahu was warned before the first explosion.
Why didn't the people on the trains and buses get the same warning?
On June 7th, MI5 downgraded the London terror alert from its second highest level "severe general" to a lower category of "substantial".
Why did they do this, was somebody lowering the guard?
The timing of the attack is very suspicious, coming on the heels of the start of the G8 conference. Both Tony Blair and George Bush in their speeches have tried to paint the attack as an assault on globalization and the G8 itself. This means that if you're against the G8 and globalization, then you're with the terrorists! It's a tried and tested method they've used time and time before.
In any crime you look at history and motive, The British government has been caught in multiple examples of carrying out bombings in London which were then blamed on the IRA. They even had one of their own MI5 agents wihin the Omagh bomb squad. Click here for an archive of this evidence.
The British government has also been caught scripting fake terror alerts for political effect. Days before the Queen's speech notable November speech in which she first introduced ID card legislation, ITN news correspondants and government lobbyists got together to cook up a fake terror alert involving planes attacking Canary Wharf. A London Independent article later exposed this as a crass psy-op campaign to get the British people behind the ID card.
From Putin blowing up his own apartment buildings to Israel being behind Hamas, the evidence is consistently clear that large scale terrorism is always state sponsored.
The Madrid train bombing is another example. The bombers were found to be police informants with close links to the Spanish security services. They had access to the most secure areas of the Madrid train system. The Spanish government initially tried to blaim the Basque group ETA for the blast in the hope that the people would rally behind the government and get them re-elected. After ETA denied involvement and the people started saying the government was involved, the Spanish government had to blame Al-Qaeda and kill some patsies by claiming they blew themselves up during a raid.
The wider agenda will become clearer when Blair firmly points the finger at the selected patsies designated to take the fall. But for the moment he's happy to grandstand as the courageous leader who immedately returned to London to take control of the chaos.
BBC polls that were showing 80 per cent plus opposed the ID card will now likely flip back in the opposite direction. Support for the European Union and increased globalization through the G8 will rise. Who stands to gain from all this? Who has the motive?
We will continue to track developments as they occur and keep our readers posted
//www.infowars.com
i dont really trust anything i hear on tv. I really think that something very bad is going on.
QuoteHeh, heh. I'm not familiar with that ruling, but, if true - they somehow missed Libya, Syria, Georgia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc., etc., etc.? I guess that says everything you need to know about the World Court's values and what they consider 'terrorism'. No one should pay them any attention.
Some of those countries may have supported terrorist cells, etc., but none of them actually terrorized other countries themselves. That's the difference. The US has never been condemned, for example, for funding and training al Qaeda, which we did. We were condemned for actual
terrorism.
The US was condemned for unlawful use of force against Nicaragua, during what I think was the Reagan Administration. We went in and ruined the country, leaving innocents dead, ruining countryside, and leaving the Nicaraguan with a serious political and economic crisis. Then we just left. It was Nicaragua's complaints to the World Court about US action that got the US condemned.
None of the other countries you mentioned ever did any such things to other countries. The last country in the Mid-East to try something like that was Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, and we know what happened in response to that. And just because there are terrorist cells
in a country (ie, Afghanistan), does not mean that the country itself is committing terrorist actions. I don't know where you begin associating Iraq with terrorism, either, because all of that junk has been dismissed even by our own 9/11 Commission. It was just propoganda to get us into more war.
So in terms of actual governments, none of those countries are really guilty of terrorizing other countries. The US, on the other hand, was condemned directly for those types of actions itself. It wasn't some extremist group
from the US doing that crap to Nicaragua; it
was the US doing that crap to Nicaragua.
Hello,
My prayers and those of my friends go out to London. My condolences to the families and friends of those who have suffered loss of loved ones. Oh God, it's hard to write (sniff...sigh...)
Deepest sympathies
:cry:
In any crime you look at history and motive, The British government has been caught in multiple examples of carrying out bombings in London which were then blamed on the IRA. They even had one of their own MI5 agents wihin the Omagh bomb squad. Click here for an archive of this evidence.
Astralp_
This excuse is often used by supportors of these groups to absolve them of any responsiblility. Yes the government had active agents within the IRA as well as many other groups, often these agents are put in the impossible situation of having to be involved in such attacks even although their ultimate aim is to stop them.. it goes with the counter intelligencve territory I'm afraid.
While there is slim evidence that on occasion blasts were blamed on the ira when it was not them, the fact remains that most if not all IRA bombs were carried out by and with the full support of the IRA, nevermind individual members who may have been counter agents. The Omagh bomb was despicable and was probably the first time all the naive US 'irish' supporters of the IRA movement realised the actual reality of this group, and the bomb blew off all the misty eyed naive romantisism and allowed sympathetic americans to see this group as what it actually was.. a brutal terrorist organisation that claims innocent civilian lives as well as those 'legitimate' targets. btw the omagh bomb was not even unique in its indiscriminate targeting of civilians.. it was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Then came 9/11 and America realised that terrorism in any form cannot be supported, no matter what the cause. The crazy practice of Ira collection boxes in irish theme pubs in the US largely came to an end as US citizens realised the realities of terrorism... at last.
At least some good has came out of all this.
In the end people have to talk to each other. The Irish republican movement and the UK government eventially realised this and more progress has been made than in years of terrorism.
With islamic fundamentalism it is the same.. in reality they are political movements dressed up in religious trappings.. a dialogue has to be established to bring all this to an end. It is lack of dialogue that leads to such attacks in the first place.
Doug
Those of you who are ready to blame "us" for the problem, I invite you to read Christopher Hitchens' article, "We cannot surrender." (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15713152&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=07-07--war-on-britain--we-cannot-surrender--name_page.html)
I'm not forwarding any particular view, or replacing my views with his own, but Hitchens often reminds me of many things I just soon forget because it's convenient.
Hi:
There are many people in the world who have moved on from the old us-versus-them constructs and have engaged the actions of compassion, tolerance and restraint. It is unfortunate to note the country best placed to set a strong influence in the adoption of the incoming paradigm is still largely paralysed and blinded by greed and sheer self-interest. The American government are rapidly turning into rampant capitalist fundamentalists who will stop at nothing in their lust for power.
Their engagement in this "war on terror" is sheer lunacy. They are surely insane. They have been blinded by bloodlust in a wretched desire for revenge that has now been linked to their insatiable thirst for cheap oil (representing a fraction under 5% of world population yet consuming 30% of world oil production per year) protected by a seemingly invincible military force.
Their actions are now inflicting real terror on innocent people.
Over 10,000 dead in Iraq alone and rising. Of course, this does not count the sheer misery caused to those who have been maimed, injured or otherwise displaced. Having their homes blown to bits, and all their possessions destroyed by the invading forces. Little wonder that terror attacks from the "other side" are increasing dramatically.
Such flagrant violations of human rights by the American military in their imposition of terror upon others, merely serves to set the stage for elements of those "others" to justify similar actions in return. It appears to perpetually escape the notice of the American administration that the inflicting of terror by military force merely serves to create the very conditions that breed the very "terrorists", which the American government purport to be dead set against.
The more people that are displaced by western military forces, the more likely they will be to engage in the actions of revenge.
These are not soldiers in uniform. These are ordinary men and women with the potential to wreak havoc in any modern-day western city. Such as was seen in London the other day. Just 4 or 5 people, a little high explosive, and a whole city is locked in terror. What's to say they don't do the same next week? The chances of them being caught are next to nil. These are people who wouldn't stand out in a crowd, because to all intents and purposes they are just ordinary people. Yet in that innocent-looking sports bag are a number of pounds of high explosive primed to go off in 10 minutes or so. Just discretely slip it under the seat and get off at the next stop. No one suspects a thing. Later that day they are back living their normal life.
If there is one thing British people learnt from the Northern Ireland situation is you cannot beat determined "terrorists". The British government were eventually forced to negotiate with the IRA and all the other parties involved. A deal was thrashed out and the troubles, i.e. the bombings and the killings, began to subside after some 30 years of violence. Think of it. The relatively small island of Ireland containing a hard-core group of very determined individuals belonging to an outlawed organisation called the Irish Republican Army, or "terrorists" as the British government used to call them. They were pitched against the might of the British MI5, MI6 the British military and the Irish police force, and all on that tiny island. Yet still, they could not be beaten! Even when contained within that small island. Yet the American government believes they can defeat "terrorists" on a world scale. To think that is naïve to the extreme. It is an exercise in insanity that is going to cause the unnecessary deaths of many, many innocent people, and inflict suffering and misery on countless others.
I think that is why British people are progressively withdrawing their support. The current world situation the American administration's actions are fuelling smacks of a Northern Ireland situation raised to a world level.
It's all too easy to claim the Spanish "gave in" to terrorism. When you look at the facts it is clear the Spanish people simply did not want to become embroiled in the issue any more than they had been already. They merely saw the futility of it all and said enough. That, to me, is pure democracy in action. The government tried to pull the wool over their eyes claiming the bombing was an action by a local group "ETA" that have been the focus of a number of terror actions in the past. But the Spanish people saw through the lies and voted them out. And I don't blame them. I just wish British people would decide the same way and somehow force the government to withdraw our military forces before yet more innocent lives are lost in this senseless, fruitless "war".
You can see what these "terrorists" are doing. They are taking selective action to pick off the governments that support the American military action in Iraq and places. I would think their ideal would be to get to a situation where America was isolated and then they'll concentrate their attention on bombing American civilians. Because if they started bombing American civilians now then that would likely reinforce the existing support amongst the other nations. But if America stands isolated when the bombs start going off on their mainland then I'm guessing it will then be seen by Europe and others as an "internal" issue.
If this whole thing escalates, I can easily picture a situation where a bomb a day was going off in trains and places all over America. Because there is no way you can stop it. Just like the situation in Northern Ireland. In fact, it is even worse than Northern Ireland because the whole thing will be spread over a vastly greater area.
Yours,
Frank
Telos:
Thank you for presenting the link. There is one big aspect you have to consider though, and that is, it's the Daily Mirror. :)
Yours,
Frank
Quote from: FrankHi:
There are many people in the world who have moved on from the old us-versus-them constructs and have engaged the actions of compassion, tolerance and restraint. It is unfortunate to note the country best placed to set a strong influence in the adoption of the incoming paradigm is still largely paralysed and blinded by greed and sheer self-interest. The American government are rapidly turning into rampant capitalist fundamentalists who will stop at nothing in their lust for power.
Their engagement in this "war on terror" is sheer lunacy. They are surely insane. They have been blinded by bloodlust in a wretched desire for revenge that has now been linked to their insatiable thirst for cheap oil (representing a fraction under 5% of world population yet consuming 30% of world oil production per year) protected by a seemingly invincible military force.
Their actions are now inflicting real terror on innocent people.
Over 10,000 dead in Iraq alone and rising. Of course, this does not count the sheer misery caused to those who have been maimed, injured or otherwise displaced. Having their homes blown to bits, and all their possessions destroyed by the invading forces. Little wonder that terror attacks from the "other side" are increasing dramatically.
Such flagrant violations of human rights by the American military in their imposition of terror upon others, merely serves to set the stage for elements of those "others" to justify similar actions in return. It appears to perpetually escape the notice of the American administration that the inflicting of terror by military force merely serves to create the very conditions that breed the very "terrorists", which the American government purport to be dead set against.
The more people that are displaced by western military forces, the more likely they will be to engage in the actions of revenge.
These are not soldiers in uniform. These are ordinary men and women with the potential to wreak havoc in any modern-day western city. Such as was seen in London the other day. Just 4 or 5 people, a little high explosive, and a whole city is locked in terror. What's to say they don't do the same next week? The chances of them being caught are next to nil. These are people who wouldn't stand out in a crowd, because to all intents and purposes they are just ordinary people. Yet in that innocent-looking sports bag are a number of pounds of high explosive primed to go off in 10 minutes or so. Just discretely slip it under the seat and get off at the next stop. No one suspects a thing. Later that day they are back living their normal life.
If there is one thing British people learnt from the Northern Ireland situation is you cannot beat determined "terrorists". The British government were eventually forced to negotiate with the IRA and all the other parties involved. A deal was thrashed out and the troubles, i.e. the bombings and the killings, began to subside after some 30 years of violence. Think of it. The relatively small island of Ireland containing a hard-core group of very determined individuals belonging to an outlawed organisation called the Irish Republican Army, or "terrorists" as the British government used to call them. They were pitched against the might of the British MI5, MI6 the British military and the Irish police force, and all on that tiny island. Yet still, they could not be beaten! Even when contained within that small island. Yet the American government believes they can defeat "terrorists" on a world scale. To think that is naïve to the extreme. It is an exercise in insanity that is going to cause the unnecessary deaths of many, many innocent people, and inflict suffering and misery on countless others.
I think that is why British people are progressively withdrawing their support. The current world situation the American administration's actions are fuelling smacks of a Northern Ireland situation raised to a world level.
It's all too easy to claim the Spanish "gave in" to terrorism. When you look at the facts it is clear the Spanish people simply did not want to become embroiled in the issue any more than they had been already. They merely saw the futility of it all and said enough. That, to me, is pure democracy in action. The government tried to pull the wool over their eyes claiming the bombing was an action by a local group "ETA" that have been the focus of a number of terror actions in the past. But the Spanish people saw through the lies and voted them out. And I don't blame them. I just wish British people would decide the same way and somehow force the government to withdraw our military forces before yet more innocent lives are lost in this senseless, fruitless "war".
You can see what these "terrorists" are doing. They are taking selective action to pick off the governments that support the American military action in Iraq and places. I would think their ideal would be to get to a situation where America was isolated and then they'll concentrate their attention on bombing American civilians. Because if they started bombing American civilians now then that would likely reinforce the existing support amongst the other nations. But if America stands isolated when the bombs start going off on their mainland then I'm guessing it will then be seen by Europe and others as an "internal" issue.
If this whole thing escalates, I can easily picture a situation where a bomb a day was going off in trains and places all over America. Because there is no way you can stop it. Just like the situation in Northern Ireland. In fact, it is even worse than Northern Ireland because the whole thing will be spread over a vastly greater area.
Yours,
Frank
Do you think it is all bad what america is doing? I mean, don't you think Iraq is going to a better country?
You view is very black and white, I a little surprised.
Hi:
That's the old, "end justifies the means argument".
Yours,
Frank
...
Quote from: FrankHi:
That's the old, "end justifies the means argument".
Yours,
Frank
And that is not a good thing? The end to saddam by the means of war, seems pretty fair to me!
Hi Lente:
If it sounds good to you then fine. The old dictator has gone, that is a fact.
Bush finally had the pleasure of settling an old score. Problem is the legality of the invasion is highly questionable. Many people in the know, so to speak, steadfastly maintain the invasion was illegal from the start. And it would appear that more and more American people are waking up to that possibility, as they continue to pay the price of Bush's folly with the blood of their countrymen.
The body count rises daily, as do the costs that now run into many billions of dollars. The price of crude oil is going skywards and it is only a matter of time before the world economy feels the squeeze, and a world recession will be looming on the horizon. Not only that, the military actions have had the effect of provoking many millions of Muslims all over the world, and this has helped transform Iraq into an open battleground for training what America and her allies call "terrorists". Iraq was never a breeding ground for "terrorists". It sure is now though!
These "terrorists" are spreading all around the world and engaging themselves in a war that the American administration has declared against them. Little wonder the number of "terrorist" actions worldwide has escalated sharply in the past two years.
The civilian death toll runs into the tens of thousands but no one really knows how many civilians the occupying forces have killed, as the American military publicly declared, "We don't do body counts". Despite this being a clear legal requirement under the Geneva Convention, being the occupying force. I think what they actually meant was, "We fired off several thousand cruise-missiles initially to do the dirty work and we weren't there at each point of impact to know how many civilians were blown apart in the blast."
10,000 civilian deaths is a very conservative estimate. A number of knowledgeable observers estimate up to 100,000 civilian deaths. That is sheer genocide in any language.
The message has been slow getting through to the American people. I guess for a while they were living on that rosy glow they must have felt, watching their boys marching into Baghdad and taking the place by storm. But then time dragged on. The body count started building, costs went through the roof and now two years on with nothing to show for it but seventeen hundred body bags (and rising) with no end in sight.
It wasn't all that long ago that the American people had to face the reality that was Vietnam. And I believe they will have a similar reality to face before not too long in Iraq.
Slowly but surely, the reality of Iraq will dawn. The platitudes are wearing a little thin now, and people are hungry for some real progress. There were no weapons of mass destruction and the only thing coming out of Iraq are the body bags. Plus, there's the billions and billions of dollars spent with nothing to show for it. Very soon, the American people are going to have to entertain the possibility that they have been lied to all along.
Bush appears to be forever asking the American people to, "Stay the course". I guess it wouldn't be too bad if he were to actually specify what this course is, exactly. I'm hoping it will only be a matter of time that the American people will realise that Bush is utterly delusional, and totally out of sync with reality.
Yep, old Saddam has gone alright. Problem is the military actions have had the effect of replacing him with hundreds of tin-pot heroes all running riot with AK47s and bags of Semtex.
Yours,
Frank
Quote from: FrankHi:
That's the old, "end justifies the means argument".
Yours,
Frank
The old, "end justifies the means argument" is a very valid argument. How about this? The U.S. entering WWII against Nazi Germany and liberating France. What a different place Europe would be if we would of been cowards and tried to negotiate with Hitler.
Iraq did invade another country and Saddam Hussein did kill thousands if not hundreds of thousands of his own people during his reign. Tell the relatives of some of those thousands that he had killed that the war was not justified.
Lets look at this another way. Say one of your neighbors was becoming violent with other neighbors. Beating and killing them for what ever reason they wanted. It's not your business they are not doing it to you. What do you do? Do you let them continue? Sometimes someone has to step in.
As for the terrorists there is no negotiating with them. It's not just about the war in Iraq with them. Compared to the world population they are a relatively small group. They are controlled by fanatical people with an ideology hell bent on killing people. I have heard many of their statements that they have released over the years. They want to kill Westerners because they disagree with their religion and way of life. The terrorist attack on 9/11 was prior to the Iraq war..so why did they do that. People and the terrorists will say it's because of our foreign policy. They always need a reason to kill innocent people. It will always be something.
What would you suggest that the world does about fighting or fixing the terrorism problem? In my opinion there will always be terrorism. We have all been killing each other since the beginning of time and it looks like it will always continue. Running from them and meeting their demands will only make them demand more and want to kill more of us.
Brad
QuoteHi Lente:
If it sounds good to you then fine. The old dictator has gone, that is a fact.
Bush finally had the pleasure of settling an old score. Problem is the legality of the invasion is highly questionable. Many people in the know, so to speak, steadfastly maintain the invasion was illegal from the start. And it would appear that more and more American people are waking up to that possibility, as they continue to pay the price of Bush's folly with the blood of their countrymen.
Many people in the know are really just talking bovine excrement, I know that sounds harsh, but they saw themselves as a power and thought they could decide what is legal and what not, however they discovered they couldn't stop America from doing what it wanted. So it would be ridicule's to say these people had any basis for telling the world what is acceptable and what not, because ultimately power decides, that be a good thing or not.
QuoteThe body count rises daily, as do the costs that now run into many billions of dollars. The price of crude oil is going skywards and it is only a matter of time before the world economy feels the squeeze, and a world recession will be looming on the horizon. Not only that, the military actions have had the effect of provoking many millions of Muslims all over the world, and this has helped transform Iraq into an open battleground for training what America and her allies call "terrorists". Iraq was never a breeding ground for "terrorists". It sure is now though!
OK maybe the Price is getting high, higher than a lot of people find acceptable, but what do you care if you were a oppressed person under Saddam! You wouldn't give a damn about economics and the body count rise is regrettable, but totally worth it in your view.
To my view even the price is "OK", meaning that it is not keeping me awake at night, and I believe it might be worth it, of course my opinion is not set in stone, because 1) And don't know everything about this subject 2) Its still going on, so the price will still rise. If these things change my opinion may change, but for now I believe it might be worth what we pay if a better new Iraq will be build.
As for the terrorist, this is NOT our doing, you can't say we made them attack, for it is their choice to attack, it is their choice to view our action of attack on Saddam as a war declaration to them also. They just take it that way.
QuoteThese "terrorists" are spreading all around the world and engaging themselves in a war that the American administration has declared against them. Little wonder the number of "terrorist" actions worldwide has escalated sharply in the past two years.
There is no war against "them", there is a war against terrorists, they make themselves fit the description! "They" take it as a war against "them" and they choose to engage America as terrorists, this is not our doing, the choice was and IS whit them!
QuoteThe civilian death toll runs into the tens of thousands but no one really knows how many civilians the occupying forces have killed, as the American military publicly declared, "We don't do body counts". Despite this being a clear legal requirement under the Geneva Convention, being the occupying force. I think what they actually meant was, "We fired off several thousand cruise-missiles initially to do the dirty work and we weren't there at each point of impact to know how many civilians were blown apart in the blast."
The Geneva Convention counts for nothing, so there is a piece of paper whit some war rules on it, RIDICULES, because apparently no one can enforce those rules, Oh I'm sure it will become important in the politics later on, but NOW when it matters it counts for nothing!
Quote10,000 civilian deaths is a very conservative estimate. A number of knowledgeable observers estimate up to 100,000 civilian deaths. That is sheer genocide in any language.
In any language? Who makes the rules? Is 10,000 acceptable for a better Iraq or 100,000? I can't say yet, but I wouldn't so no yet either.
QuoteThe message has been slow getting through to the American people. I guess for a while they were living on that rosy glow they must have felt, watching their boys marching into Baghdad and taking the place by storm. But then time dragged on. The body count started building, costs went through the roof and now two years on with nothing to show for it but seventeen hundred body bags (and rising) with no end in sight.
Oh some message will get across, but the right one or the popular one? Damn that war is IN and liberation of oppressed country's is OUT! Its all political play!
QuoteIt wasn't all that long ago that the American people had to face the reality that was Vietnam. And I believe they will have a similar reality to face before not too long in Iraq.
Not if they stick whit it and make it work! If everyone makes it work, war is a reality now, do you want them to back away now and let everything crash and break apart behind them? How would that be fair?
QuoteSlowly but surely, the reality of Iraq will dawn. The platitudes are wearing a little thin now, and people are hungry for some real progress. There were no weapons of mass destruction and the only thing coming out of Iraq are the body bags. Plus, there's the billions and billions of dollars spent with nothing to show for it. Very soon, the American people are going to have to entertain the possibility that they have been lied to all along.
Ha I agree, so you might think I'm pro American or Bush, but no and I think your right here, I'm not saying the war was of pure intent by the politics ( or bush).
QuoteBush appears to be forever asking the American people to, "Stay the course". I guess it wouldn't be too bad if he were to actually specify what this course is, exactly. I'm hoping it will only be a matter of time that the American people will realise that Bush is utterly delusional, and totally out of sync with reality.
I don't actually hate bush like you, but I'm no fan of him either, I'm sure America has better rulers, and I hope they actually choose a better ruler next time.
QuoteYep, old Saddam has gone alright. Problem is the military actions have had the effect of replacing him with hundreds of tin-pot heroes all running riot with AK47s and bags of Semtex.
The War made the (more) Terrorist? No, like I said before, IT WAS THERE OWN CHOICE, besides they had to be somewhere already, they don't just drop out of the sky!
Lente:
"There is no war against "them", there is a war against terrorists, they make themselves fit the description! "They" take it as a war against "them" and they choose to engage America as terrorists, this is not our doing, the choice was and IS whit them! "
Pheraps you are not aware of Bush's coined phrase "The War on Terror"? I think that means we are in a 'war' against 'them' (terrorists). When Bush said we were going to fight the terrorists, I think we can assume, and know bc he said it himself, that we are in a war against them.
WE DECLARED WAR ON THEM. Well not 'we' but Bush, and he, to the world, represents America.
--
I dont think this is a 'genocide'. The otrocities in Darfur is a genocide, (and omg i cant believe it hasn't been posted anywhere here, and it isnt known too widly, bc are dying, and it hasnt even reached the worst stage yet).
"Not if they stick whit it and make it work! If everyone makes it work, war is a reality now, do you want them to back away now and let everything crash and break apart behind them? How would that be fair? "
Why would the people want to stand behind this war we protested from the start?? What kind of message would that send?? 'If bush does something we dont like, we'll help him anyway'? I dont think so.
-I would hardly say that the war in Iraq was worth it. Sure, Saddam was a horrible horrible dictator, but the people did not have to live in fear of bomb threats in their types of churches (mosques, etc.) every single day. I saw videos where we stormed houses, tore apart furniture, and left.
QuoteLente:
"There is no war against "them", there is a war against terrorists, they make themselves fit the description! "They" take it as a war against "them" and they choose to engage America as terrorists, this is not our doing, the choice was and IS whit them! "
Pheraps you are not aware of Bush's coined phrase "The War on Terror"? I think that means we are in a 'war' against 'them' (terrorists). When Bush said we were going to fight the terrorists, I think we can assume, and know bc he said it himself, that we are in a war against them.
WE DECLARED WAR ON THEM. Well not 'we' but Bush, and he, to the world, represents America.
--
You missed my point. Terrorist aren't borne terrorist, people choose to engage in terrorist behavior and become terrorists by CHOICE!
QuoteI dont think this is a 'genocide'. The otrocities in Darfur is a genocide, (and omg i cant believe it hasn't been posted anywhere here, and it isnt known too widly, bc are dying, and it hasnt even reached the worst stage yet).
"Not if they stick whit it and make it work! If everyone makes it work, war is a reality now, do you want them to back away now and let everything crash and break apart behind them? How would that be fair? "
Why would the people want to stand behind this war we protested from the start?? What kind of message would that send?? 'If bush does something we dont like, we'll help him anyway'? I dont think so.
But you would want to be sending the message that a america leave the Iraqies on there own (AGAIN) after starting this whole mess!?
Quote-I would hardly say that the war in Iraq was worth it. Sure, Saddam was a horrible horrible dictator, but the people did not have to live in fear of bomb threats in their types of churches (mosques, etc.) every single day. I saw videos where we stormed houses, tore apart furniture, and left.
Well change is hard, but they can have hope, something it think they couldn't have whit Saddam, because dictators don't usually become nice people for no reason!
(http://library.nothingness.org/images/4/society.jpg)
Allegory of The Cave (http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/platoscave.html)
Society of the Spectacle (http://www.huzzam.com/etext/debgsociespec/)
The Allegory of the Cave setting. Plato's 2500's years old metaphor still represent our ''Modern World'' like never before. In a more modern twist, The Society of the Spectacle can be an analogy to Plato's allegory. Anyway, I'm ''watching the show'' and don't like what I see....
War, what is it good for?
Quote from: no_leaf_clover
QuoteModern Genocide in Africa:
Sudan (2,000,000 deaths so far)
Ethiopia (1,000,000)
Burundi (475,000)
Congo (2,120,000+)
Uganda (550,000+)
Zimbabwe (20,000)
Equatorial Guinea (50,000)
Nigeria (1,000,000)
Rwanda ( 810,000+)
Somolia (100,000)
Botswana (100+)
Algeria (210,000)
Guinea Bissau (1000+)
Morocco - Western Sahara (1000+)
South Africa (1000+)
Going outside of Africa into other continents, you have...
Americas:
Colombia (upwards of 160,000)
Brazil (upwards of 300,000)
Cuba (1000+)
Asia:
North Korea (2,000,000+)
Burma (115,000+)
India (100,000+)
Nepal (6,000+)
China (35,000,000)
Pakistan (1,561,000)
Indonesia (510,000+)
Philippines (1000+)
Afghanistan (840,000+)
Sri Lanka (1000+)
Cambodia (2,310,000+ to 2,810,000+)
Vietnam (1,110,000+)
Laos (110,000+)
Europe:
Russian-Chechnya (60,000+)
Georgia (100+)
And finally..... the Middle East!
Israel-Palestine (4,000+)
Iraq (190,000 - also continuing to this day)
Kill people and destroy civilizations; no exceptions.
Imagine what are the possible conflicts to come.... It is us, the populace that can change everything but we are stuck in the cave.... The one with the marionnettes (the ''war mongers'') are throwing any kind of manipulative ideologies to make wars, we have the choice to say no (we are the one holding the guns not them) but.... It seems.... we are stuck in there....
Take care,
Hi Time Traveller:
What an unusual mindset, if I may say. Someone who would consider negotiation a cowardly act. Myself I would consider it a very courageous act. Diplomatic negotiation, beating out a deal in the face of all the odds against. There is nothing cowardly about it. In my view, great compassion and great restraint require great courage.
It is always tempting in a debate for a person to present an ideal hypothetical scenario for themselves followed by a number of "what if" questionings. But if your hypothetical arguments are to bear any validity then any hypothetical arguments from myself must bear equal validity. Naturally, in any hypothetical event, I will cherry-pick hypothetical arguments to support my case, in very much the same way as you have chosen to cherry-pick arguments to support yours.
Personally, I would rather deal with the facts of the various matters.
For the sake of completeness, in your hypothetical scenario regarding a couple of my neighbours becoming violent and beating and killing one another... would I step in? No I most certainly would not, as doing so would place myself at serious risk of harm to start with. Moreover, it is not for me to take the law into my own hands. My clear duty would be to immediately inform the proper authority. In this case it would be the Police. But it's all-hypothetical anyway and has no bearing.
It is true that Iraqi military forces invaded Kuwait. But I think we should put aside the deeper questions of how this came about because we'd have to take a little step back to the war previous to that, where Saddam's forces invaded Iran. At the time America and much of the western world was backing Saddam in his invasion-release-war that lasted some 8 years. During which time the Americans were publicly supporting Iraq while secretly selling arms to the Iranians. Ha ha, I can remember old Ollie North giving his testimony like it was yesterday.
Anyhow, following the 8-year war with Iran, Saddam unfortunately got a little carried away with his invasion plans, after being supported and armed to the teeth by western arms companies; under the auspices of the American government and other governments such as the Soviet Union and Britain. Saddam sent his military into Kuwait and the UN Security Council declared it an illegal act, told Saddam to get the hell out and Saddam refused. So, under the auspices of the UN Security Council, a coalition force was organised consisting of around 30 or so countries and they eventually convinced Saddam's military to return to Iraq.
Note: all this was enacted fully in accordance with United Nations' resolutions.
Since that time, old Saddam has been classed as something of a tyrant.
Basically, he went from being best of friends to public enemy number 1, within the space of about 12 months.
After Operation Desert Storm, the American and the British government began to spread all manner of propaganda about Saddam and his alleged activities. Claiming he was stockpiling chemical weapons, killing off millions of Iraqi citizens, and all that jazz. Numbers varied wildly depending on the motives of the people presenting the propaganda. But I clearly remember several official spokespersons from Britain and America claiming throughout the mid to late 1990's that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical weapons and all manner of "nerve agents" together with the long-range delivery systems to basically wipe out half of Europe. Plus, there were all kinds of rumours doing the rounds that he was constructing a nuclear bomb, and all the usual kinds of propaganda blurb.
This was, of course, all lies.
There have, I agree, been some reports of human-rights abuses coming from Iraq. Reports of detention without trial and torture. But the USA currently holds thousands of people without trial, and torture has been alleged regarding American troops also. So here we have the typical line of pots calling kettles black.
Now, as regards negotiating with Hitler, my memory is a little rusty as it is about 28 years since my last school history class. But as WW2 had quite an impact in Europe, modern history tended to focus on the two world wars fought in the first half of the 20th century. So it is something I learnt about in depth.
The British Prime Minister met with Adolf Hitler a number of times in 1938. Hitler had been engaged for several years taking back territory that had been taken from Germany under the Treaty of Versailles that Germany signed following WW1. Well, they were basically forced to sign, as they had no other choice. Hitler came to power in 1933 and, by 1938, Germany had invaded Austria and had made inroads into Czechoslovakia (as it was called then).
At this stage, Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister and Adolf Hitler, the Chancellor of Germany, met a number of times and came to an agreement - The Munich Agreement - that basically said Germany could keep everything thus far but strictly no more. Anyhow, Hitler went and invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia and the French and the British thought Poland would be next on Hitler's invasion list. So Britain and France agreed that if Hitler invaded Poland it would be war. Hitler invaded Poland on September 1st 1939 and the rest, as they say, is history.
So you see we DID try to negotiate with Hitler a number of times.
There was in fact a specific policy in place allowing Germany several concessions. This was called the Policy of Appeasement, due to the fact that it was generally recognised, by that time, that the rest of Europe had been way too harsh on Germany following WW1 and they were keen to make amends. Unfortunately, by then it was too late. The tyrant had secured something of a power-base. Plus, he had two alliance agreements with Italy and Japan.
The punitive Treaty of Versailles directly caused the very conditions that led Hitler to getting into power in the first place. Throughout the 1920's Germany suffered hyperinflation, the people were starving, and the country was bankrupted by overly punitive war reparations. Hitler came along and basically said to these people, "Vote for me and I'll rip up the Treaty of Versailles". And so he was voted chancellor of Germany in 1933.
I specifically refute your suggestion that there is "no negotiating" with "terrorists".
Again, I use the Northern Ireland situation.
We had 30 years of fighting. Lot's of bombs, shooting and general unrest in Northern Ireland and the "troubles" as they were called, often spilled out onto the British mainland.
The solution only came when both sides began to "think the unthinkable" as they called it at the time. It was a bit of a masterstroke by Tony Blair I'll grant him that. I'm not a fan but that was brilliant in appointing Mo Mowlam as Northern Ireland secretary, just after Labour kicked out the Conservatives in the 1997 general election. I remember the interview like it was yesterday. She was taking all kinds of flak, and she just said, as straightforward as you could imagine, "To solve this crisis we have to begin to think the unthinkable". No one ever believed it would be possible.
They eventually sat around a negotiating table and thrashed out a deal. It wasn't easy. The talks were stalled on sticky issues time and time and time again. But they darned well got there in the end. It took them several years of arguing it out. But they did it, and effectively ended 30 years of violent uprising.
You say, "Compared to the world population they are a relatively small group." I would invite you to consider that Americans count for a fraction less than 5% of world population. If you carry on this course, at some later stage you could well run the risk of having the whole Islamic world turn against America. We are talking of around 1.3 Billion people, about 20% of world population. That's a heck of a lot of people to have disliking you! The extremists of the Islamic world are already turned against you, and they are recruiting more and more people every day, in the battlegrounds of Iraq particularly.
I would invite you to consider the following report, and I quote:
Estimated Strength of Iraqi Resistance Skyrockets: Because the U.S. military occupation remains in place, the "transition" has failed to win Iraqi support or diminish Iraqi resistance to the occupation. According to Pentagon estimates, the number of Iraqi resistance fighters has quadrupled between November of 2003 and early September 2004, from 5,000 to 20,000. The Deputy Commander of Coalition forces in Iraq, British Major General Andrew Graham, indicated to Time magazine in early September that he thinks the 20,000 estimate is too low; he estimates Iraqi resistance strength at 40,000-50,000. This rise is even starker when juxtaposed to Brookings Institution estimates that an additional 24,000 Iraqi resistance fighters have been detained or killed between May 2003 and August 2004.
---end quote---
Of course, the Islamic Community Leaders in the more moderate countries are still in support of peace. But cracks are beginning to appear.
Unfortunately, throughout history, all we have really seen is the typical knee-jerk reaction of "us" against "them". Problem with that idea is against the background of the Wider Reality, there is no such thing as "us" and "them". It is the very belief construct of "us" and "them" that is the root cause of the problem. Each side points to specific acts of terror the "other side" has inflicted. Then, in a fit of self-righteous anger, one side feels justified in their retaliation against the "other side", with each side calling the other "the enemy". Of course, the Americans feel wholly justified in their actions. But, then again, the other side feel EXACTLY the same sense of justification!
And so it continues.
The simple answer to finding out the motivations behind people's actions is to begin to see the world from their perspective. Then it all starts to become clear. But doing that takes compassion, coupled with quite a large degree of understanding and lots of mental effort. Well, it does with me. But maybe I'm a bit thick and other people would pick it up much quicker.
Violence simply begets more violence. You said yourself that we have always been fighting each other since time began, and I would agree. But does no one actually sit down and seriously think WHY that might be?
Yours,
Frank
QuoteYou missed my point. Terrorist aren't borne terrorist, people choose to engage in terrorist behavior and become terrorists by CHOICE!
That's a totally unfair statement. These people are brought up brainwashed no less than those for the so-called "War on Terror" are here. The main difference is that when
those people are brainwashed, they're brainwashed so that they may blow themselves up, etc., rather than just letting their government do it for them.
Do you think anybody in their right mind would blow themselves up, killing both themselves and innocents, unless they believed they were
right? That what they were doing was
good for their people?
And guess what! We all here believe we are right too (or at least you pro-war guys)! We believe what we're doing is good for
our people.
Truth be told, and I would think this is obvious, but both sides are wrong, and all of this is bad for all people
Further, you aren't being told what's really going on in these situations; you can't possibly expect to! Have you guys never heard of something called
propoganda? Because if not, I can give you an idea of what it is. It's all of those things the media and government will tell you, that are either misleading, manipulative, or even not true at all, to try to get you to support military action! Propoganda has been used for hundreds of years, in every single major war you can think of. Do you think there is any exception to that today? Do you think that for once in modern history, especially in such a
controversial part of history, that our government and media should suddenly come clean during war time and
not press propoganda forward?
No!The fact that some of you are arguing the Iraq War was just shows this exactly.
QuoteIraq did invade another country and Saddam Hussein did kill thousands if not hundreds of thousands of his own people during his reign. Tell the relatives of some of those thousands that he had killed that the war was not justified.
Time traveler, there has already been a war, another time, for you to claim this! Since that war, Persian Gulf, I'm sorry but there's been no evidence of any further genocide, any further production of WMD (quite the opposite, as we found out!), and certainly no involvement with al Qaeda.
"Saddam is a bad guy!" is
no excuse for this war! Do you see that chart of genocide going on in the world today that Patapouf just posted? If the US was concerned about "bad guys," I have a feeling they'd go after some of the
real bad guys. Someone here mentioned Durfur. The Sudan genocides are exactly the kind of thing that the US could easily go in and crush and save millions of lives. Two million have died there so far from that fascist genocide. Saddam only killed about a tenth of that many, ever, and he had much better weapons at his disposal. This should tell you something about the "bad guy" excuse, if you were to ever buy it at all. It's amazing how people forget about all the WMD and al Qaeda stuff Bush was rambling about before the war, once word gets out that he was lying!
QuoteBut you would want to be sending the message that a america leave the Iraqies on there own (AGAIN) after starting this whole mess!?
That point is totally irrelevant to whether or not this war was just to begin with.
I stick a knife with backwards teeth into someone. If I were to pull it out, it would surely inflict more damage. But I just stabbed someone. "What do you want me to do, pull it out?!?!"
That's not the point!QuoteWell change is hard, but they can have hope, something it think they couldn't have whit Saddam, because dictators don't usually become nice people for no reason!
I hate to break it to you but Iraq today is a bigger mess than it was when Saddam was in charge. In fact, more people are dying violent deaths in Iraq today 58 times more often than they were pre-war. Now, 50% of the deaths taking place in Iraq are our fault.
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40470000/gif/_40470131_iraqi_deaths_gra203.gif)
Do you think that those stats make Iraqis very happy? Maybe they were dancing out on the streets when Saddam was removed from power, but something tells me they aren't getting any happier over there now. The only people that are, are those benefitting from all of this. Everyone else is dying, while the fundamental Bushies are over here telling us how good this war is for everyone!
Quote from: no_leaf_clover
That's a totally unfair statement. These people are brought up brainwashed no less than those for the so-called "War on Terror" are here. The main difference is that when those people are brainwashed, they're brainwashed so that they may blow themselves up, etc., rather than just letting their government do it for them.
Exactly, this is why every cultures and nations around the world have to watch out to not fall into this trap because the consequences are like a snow ball going down a mountain: ''you pinch me I'll pinch you back''.
As for the ''war of terror'', it is impossible to militarily fight that, the only way they will be able to control this is to use a really strict global surveillance (exactly what those war mongers wants) that would be closely similar to the ''Big Brother'' scenario. Without any surprise, the conflict will escalate in the future creating a lot of stress to many around the world and they will easily put more ''liberties and freedom'' with rigid laws that will help to prevent war and terror; but again watch out, there is two sides to a coin. Since the society will be in a state of anomie and disorder, the people will think that those rigid ''laws'' will bring them back their old comfortable life, they will accept them immediately without even questioning them.
As for dictators, just analyze how Nicaragua's population tried to get rid of a powerful dictator (not a lot of people heard about that due to the disinformation process) but, since this dictator was a good friend to the Western world, the ''intelligent agencies'' (if we can call them that....) where paying contras (terrorists basically) to put fear on the general population and put them in misery so that they will vote a ''Western represntative''; this is just one story.... We, the Western world, are far from being clean and right like we think we may be.... People have to open their eyes a little.
Again, they probably had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because we sold it to him but not to find one just divide people even more since they will argue against one another (like we do right now)and this is what they want; we only talk but do not do anything constructive.
As for Ben Laden, it is sad to say that we, again, helped with the CIA to let him become as powerful as he is right now, they purposely moved Al Qaeida to the Afghanistan to make an underground war with the Russians, they funded him and the terrorists group for some period of time.... The war mongers knew that their good old friend Ben Laden was, like it is presented in the media, a huge anti-westerner (ex: 1994 World Trade Center missed terrorist attack) but they have waited, just like Pearl Harbor, to be ''pinched first'' so that the population will get shocked so they have a good reason to go in war.... And also, they have clearly shown that the war in Iraq was planned before 9/11....
Chess masters, war mongers..... They can pretend to be communist, capitalist, human rightist, religious extremist, any kind of ideologies masked in the name of what is ''right and the truth'' but always manipulating the little sheeps to play their little games. Destroy to build again to destroy later and rebuild again to.... a cycle that we have to get out of quickly. And this have to be done by every people around the world; only one not doing it may bring down everybody else: when are we going to learn? We have to learn to discuss in a constructive manner instead of pulling out the guns; this is even more important in this new millennium due to the terrible weapons we have built.... How sad it would be to see nuclear weapons being launch to one another; but with how things are going, nobody will be surprised if somebody launch one in the future time to come.... They are like sleeping logs that are waiting to be burned.... We have to really do something folks.
Together we stand divided we fall,
And man.... What the world needs now.... Is love.... Sweet love.....
Take care,
QuoteAgain, they probably had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because we sold it to him but not to find one just divide people even more since they will argue against one another (like we do right now)and this is what they want; we only talk but do not do anything constructive.
You are actually perfectly dead-on with this statement.
About 35 or so shells containing nerve gases
were found in Iraq. They were left over from the Iran-Iraq War, making them no grounds for new invasion, and most certainly came from the US. They were not, however, in any position to be used. In fact, a few of them were 'accidentally' triggered and nothing happened.
The alleged WMD program itself, however, was in worse condition than it was after the Gulf War. Iraq was disarming like it was supposed to, and I'm sure Bush knew that. After all, how much intel can you have exactly, showing Iraq is developing WMDs when in reality it was just the opposite? Not much, I'll tell you that.
QuoteQuoteYou missed my point. Terrorist aren't borne terrorist, people choose to engage in terrorist behavior and become terrorists by CHOICE!
That's a totally unfair statement. These people are brought up brainwashed no less than those for the so-called "War on Terror" are here. The main difference is that when those people are brainwashed, they're brainwashed so that they may blow themselves up, etc., rather than just letting their government do it for them.
Do you think anybody in their right mind would blow themselves up, killing both themselves and innocents, unless they believed they were right? That what they were doing was good for their people?
And guess what! We all here believe we are right too (or at least you pro-war guys)! We believe what we're doing is good for our people.
Truth be told, and I would think this is obvious, but both sides are wrong, and all of this is bad for all people
Further, you aren't being told what's really going on in these situations; you can't possibly expect to! Have you guys never heard of something called propoganda? Because if not, I can give you an idea of what it is. It's all of those things the media and government will tell you, that are either misleading, manipulative, or even not true at all, to try to get you to support military action! Propoganda has been used for hundreds of years, in every single major war you can think of. Do you think there is any exception to that today? Do you think that for once in modern history, especially in such a controversial part of history, that our government and media should suddenly come clean during war time and not press propoganda forward? No!
The fact that some of you are arguing the Iraq War was just shows this exactly.
Yes both sides are "wrong" (if anyone can be the judge of that) and in a ideal world we would have to take no action, there would be no war, but that is not reality!
The reality is we take action against those who we think are wrong and do wrong, what the enemy believes or is made to believe is not a consideration, can not be a consideration in the world as it currently is!
Is this my opinion? Yes! Based on propaganda? Partially, yes I wouldn't deny it, I'm not expert in this, I watch TV, so I'm influenced, however I do not believe everything is propaganda, and I still believe Iraq was a bad place live and there is a good chance it will become a better place to live. Non of you told me anything yet to make me believe otherwise.
QuoteQuoteBut you would want to be sending the message that a America leave the Iraqies on there own (AGAIN) after starting this whole mess!?
That point is totally irrelevant to whether or not this war was just to begin with.
I stick a knife with backwards teeth into someone. If I were to pull it out, it would surely inflict more damage. But I just stabbed someone. "What do you want me to do, pull it out?!?!" That's not the point!
Leave it in, get proper help and pull it out in right time. This is what America (and other countries) should do, get proper help, heal the country and leave when the time is right!
Quote
QuoteWell change is hard, but they can have hope, something it think they couldn't have whit Saddam, because dictators don't usually become nice people for no reason!
I hate to break it to you but Iraq today is a bigger mess than it was when Saddam was in charge. In fact, more people are dying violent deaths in Iraq today 58 times more often than they were pre-war. Now, 50% of the deaths taking place in Iraq are our fault.
I'm not denying that Iraq is a big mess, I'm saying there is a chance Iraq becomes a better Iraq than the old Iraq, if we work on hard. And if that happens it might have been worth it all.
QuoteDo you think that those stats make Iraqis very happy? Maybe they were dancing out on the streets when Saddam was removed from power, but something tells me they aren't getting any happier over there now. The only people that are, are those benefitting from all of this. Everyone else is dying, while the fundamental Bushies are over here telling us how good this war is for everyone!
They might be happy later all this happened, might not be, but you judge to soon and view everything black and white! You fail to realize that this war might also bring something good, and you fail to realize the price may after all be worth it!
Consider the possibility! I do consider the possibility that this war will be a great tragedy, but I won't say this before it is really clear (and it is not even if you might think so) and I will never say this in a ultimate sense, discounting the possible good that came out of it anyway!
Just for a moment think outside you "everything is black and white" box and see that it is not all bad! In fact even bush is not all bad, I'm sure there are a few things he done OK.
Lets not forget the US-Government flow the whole Bin Laden Family out of the US after 9/11! It is proven that Bin Laden was the friend of US as long as he terrorized the Sowjets for the US in Afghanistan. Plus it is basically proven the Bush does lie to the public on different occasions, the American president lies to the US citizens! That is a fact! No not all the US does is bad, No the Terrorist are not right. But as Kofi Anan said Fighters for freedom on one side are seen as Terrorists on the other side. How would you feel if your wedding is bombed? It sure would feel like terror to me....
Can you defend human rights by ignoring them? The US ignored the UN-council, the US ignores international law (Guantanamo), the US ignores Human rights they capture People (Terrorist they say) in European Countries and fly them out to Countries in the middle east were they can torture them to gather info's.
Lets not forget that the weaponry industry has sponsored large parts of the US government. Who's is really to believe that the US government Bombed Iraq to make the US citizens saver? common guys! lets get realistic governments all overt the world have deluded People so many times in the past, who is to believe to are not doing it right know? The Swiss government sells tanks to the Arabs despite the 90% of the Swiss People being against it, they simply didn't tell them what they are doing.
there is a power struggle out there for the world, it always has been. Keep the masses dumb is part of the game.
From the depth (or rather, lack thereof) of this topic thus far, it would seem Iraq could turn out as a success in the long run, given it got up its own government, etc. That would be wonderful, and given the scope of this thread so far I can see where you're coming from.
However, I have a rather strong suspicion that Iraq will not be the last conflict we will have in the Mid-East, and that stability in that region is only going to get worse. It'll likely continue in a downward spiral, until we stop it at home, or until agendas are fulfilled or hampered by governments themselves, or maybe even until there's just no one left to kill. Rest assured that there are still other goals the Bush Admin has for the Mid-East, though.
It's only a matter of time before we invade either Iran or Syria, or both, or other such countries in the Mid-East. Propoganda campaigns have already started here in the US, with the issues raised with Iran's recently-elected president, and various condemnations of Iranian/Syrian WMDs/harboring of terrorists on the part of the Bush Admin (ie, Rice at the UN), etc. Iran and Syria are both in a rather grave danger of eventual US invasion down the road. The only thing holding the Bush Admin back from doing it now is public disapproval, and all it would take is another big "terrorist attack" like 9/11, and we could be there with a draft even. It's that simple, really. Fear drives the masses.
Most, if not all of the big issues behind these wars revolve around Israel. All these Muslim nations (Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. etc.) are enemies of the state of Israel, which the US has unwaveringly been backing for decades with everything from money to nukes. Israel is the US's foothold in the Mid-East, and whether it be for oil, or spreading "democracy," or any other reason, our government has expressed interest in these Islamic countries in regards to abolishing their governments. Iraq was only one of a set.
And here's where this post turns into a big downer. :(
If you want to see the onset of a potentially huge, global problem, consider this: Iran, Syria, and the Palestinians are all now being supplied with modern Russian weaponry. Contrary to what you may believe, modern Russian weaponry is not second rate, and is not to be underestimated. In response to economic limitations, they have developed inexpensive, strategic counters to US weaponry. They have anti-tank missiles that can shred Abram tanks for just a fraction of the cost of the tank itself. They have similarly developed missiles for taking out whole aircraft carriers for a fraction of the cost of an actual AC (BrahMos (http://www.defense-update.com/products/b/brahmos.htm)), since they cannot afford to compete with such monsters spawned from our own massive military budget. The scariest part is that several news agencies (do some Google searches if you'd like) have reported that both Iran and Syria are now being supplied with these weapons.
On April 29th of this year, Putin pledged to aid Palestinians fight "terrorism". As WikiNews reported,
"Today in Ramallah Russian President Vladimir Putin promised to aid Palestinians. In a press conference held after talks with Mahmoud Abbas, Putin said that Palestinians cannot fight terrorism with slingshots and stones. He pledged to give airplane equipment, helicopters, communications equipment and to train security forces. The Russian President was cheered by the Palestinian crowd prior to the conference."
The 'slingshots and stones' bit is in bold because this remark does not suggest a reaction to "terrorism", per se. This remark is instead suggestive of Palestinian oppression from Israel. Putin is now arming Palestinians in response to the decades-long US arming of Israel. And, as I've said, various news organizations have recently began reporting that Russia is also arming Iran and Syria. So basically, Russia is now aiding those countries that the US and Israel will be seeking eventual war with, and they're being armed with weapons specifically geared towards countering US tech in a cost-effective manner. These events are unfolding right before us, right here at the present moment. Our eyes are, not surprisingly, turned away from it, but it's happening right now nonetheless; history in the making.
So the situation in the Mid-East right now is tame compared to what it very well could be in a couple years. If we invade Iran and/or Syria in the future and escalate the Mid-East conflicts, it simply won't be another Iraq. We will be facing countries that have been armed with up-to-date military technologies. And unfortunately, both countries sit on rather substantial plots of oil.
It's mind-blowing stuff to me, to see the news of these events suddenly start coming out. I don't support the war in Iraq, or any further war in the Mid-East at all, but honestly I don't know what else can be done at this point in time. We can hope and pray for no more war, but if another 9/11 occurs on American soil, we are genuinely and utterly screwed. I say I'm against these wars, and I am, but honestly I don't think there's anything we can really do about them. We can educate ourselves and hope that enough people come to grips with the seriousness of these events, but I don't think that's very likely anymore, and that's why I don't think there's really anything we can do about it. If everyone were to take to the streets, we could achieve something. Otherwise it would be very difficult, judging by how the hippy protests were dealt with. It's sort of all or nothing from US citizens at this point, I guess. :?
My sympathies to all those affected by the attack.
As usual, I've learned a bit as I read through these posts.
Quote from: astralp
Arutz Sheva sourced Army Radio with the following.
"The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address and economic summit."
Astralp, imo you're hitting too close to the V-ring. The above was the AP news release that came out of Jerusalem. I haven't heard anyone in the blogs or news mention the fact that Netanyahu appeared on the CNN/Lou Dobbs show here in the US on 8 July. Notice the original report above said the attack resulted in Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than traveling but on the Lou Dobbs interview he gave this response:
Quote
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI FINANCE MINISTER: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: Let me first ask you, there are reports, and they surfaced yesterday almost immediately and continued today, that Israeli security forces received advance word of these explosions. Any truth to that?
NETANYAHU: Well, certainly not. If there was any advance notice, then I don't know of any. It certainly didn't get to me.
I was en route to the hotel right above that terminal. And I was stopped by the British security detail, who told my security, my Israeli security detail, that we just had an explosion. So my guys had absolutely no idea that this was about to happen...
DOBBS: You were on your way to the Liverpool Street...
NETANYAHU: And actually, I was on -- yes, to an economic conference right above the place where the first train blew up. So we had no idea this was going to happen.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/08/ldt.01.html
I saw that last one on TV, he was getting a bit tongue tied to say the least.
Then we have this in the Jerusalem Post:
QuoteIn the aftermath of the attacks, The Prime Minister's Office instructed Israeli officials not to give interviews to the foreign media.
Aye, mum's the word mates. I bet Netanyahu got his arse chewed out by Sharon for stuttering to Lou Dobbs, heh.
Oops, what's this?
QuoteTerrorism expert says at least one person tipped off to London attacks
Tom Kenny
Action News 36
Jul 7, 18:25 PM EDT
Terrorism expert Tommy Preston of Preston Global in Frankfort, Kentucky, said sources in the intelligence community reported that at least one person in London, England was warned of Thursday morning's terrorist attacks moments before the initial blast. Preston, citing sources in the intelligence community, said former Israeli Prime Minister and current Finance Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was in London this morning for an economic forum. "Just before the first blast, Netanyahu got a call from the Israeli Embassy telling him to stay in his hotel room. The hotel is located next to the subway station where the first attack occurred and he did stay put and shortly after that, there was the explosion," Preston said.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WTVQ/MGArticle/TVQ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783713979
Local Kentucky Station WTVQ
I tend to believe Tommy Preston, you can read about him here:
http://www.uky.edu/PR/UK_News/news112000.html
QuoteA native of Carrollton, Preston opened a one-person PR office in Lexington in 1968. From that point, The Preston Group grew into a multi-disciplined firm attracting national and international organizations such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, Dow Corning, the U.S. Selective Service, Occidental Petroleum and the eventual majority whip of the US Senate and former governor Wendell Ford. Preston served four years as Gov. Ford's special assistant, press secretary and commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Public Information.
In the mid-1980s, Preston developed a model for public relations contingency planning and response against terrorism and workplace violence. He formed Preston Global in 1996 to focus on aggressively defiant crises facing corporations, institutions and individuals.
A UK Fellow with a journalism degree from UK, Preston is the only Kentuckian to be elected to the College of Fellows of the Public Relations Society of America. He has received more than 100 state and national communication awards from organizations including the International Film Festival, the International Film and TV Festival of New York, the Gold Camera, the US Industrial Film Festival, PRSA, IABC, the Kentucky Press Association and National Editorial Association
Obviously, the man has some contacts.
When the bombs go off I no longer look around for "evil ayrab islamics",
I just try to pay attention to what's happening in spook-world.
Modern terrorism is a hybrid animal.
cheers,
cho
I have a question and some food for thought.
Why would the terrorist's wait to bomb the UK a day after the London olympic bids were a day or so over???
Why wouldn't they have done it a week before? Are they that ignorant? But they can plan complex bombs, timings, detonations, etc.......hmmm??
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005310148,00.html
What does everyone else think? I have heard conspiracy theories on the net that make logical sense.
Maybe it seemed more important to them to time the blasts with the opening of the G8?
Hi:
I would suggest the olympic bid success had nothing to do with it. That the timing was linked to the G8 summit.
Yours,
Frank
It was the G8.. its got nothing to do with olympics.
The leaders of the 8 richest countries in the world were meeting in Gleneagles for the G8 summit but they only arrived on Wednesday. By making the bombs go off on Thursday, they could be sure that they were all there, thus allowing for full coverage. The bombs were a message to these countries.
The G8 or 8 richest countries in the world are: United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, USA, Canada, Japan and Russia.
QuoteBy making the bombs go off on Thursday, they could be sure that they were all there, thus allowing for full coverage.
And allowing for cute TV footage showing them all standing behind Blair as he went on about how we need to hunt down these radicals by supporting more war. Bush even nodding his head some. :lol:
It's a good thing that the British police are not nearly as stupid as the American counterparts. We would've blamed al Qaeda and never looked back. The Brits are actually looking into this thing, though, quite seriously.
So far, the al Qaeda connection has been dismissed (at least according to some sources) as being the main suspect, with eyes now turning to domestic terrorists at Scotland Yard, and with arrests being made domestically recently/soon (within the past hour apparently, but unclear o.O).
Quote"MSNBC TV translator Jacob Keryakes, who said that a copy of the message was later posted on a secular Web site, noted that the claim of responsibility contained an error in one of the Quranic verses it cited. That suggests that the claim may be phony, he said.
"This is not something al-Qaida would do," he said.
Furthermore, the website posting doesn't even claim personal responsibility, it simply references "the heroic mujahedeen" in the third person. The posting praises the attack, it doesn't even take responsibility for it."
Then there have been claims of right-wing extremist involvement, trying to sitr up trouble with Muslims by making it appear as though the attacks were committed by them.
QuoteThere are several reasons for this belief. One is that GCHQ and MI-5 intercepts of the communications of Muslim groups in Britain and abroad - groups suspected of ties to militants - revealed that targeted individuals and organizations were genuinely surprised at the London bombings. Another is the statement of former Metropolitan London police commissioner Sir John Stevens that the perpetrators were 'almost certainly' British. Although many accused Stevens of stirring up racial tensions, he never referred to British Muslims. British Prime Minister Tony Blair ruled out any probe of the bombings claiming it would 'distract' from the investigation.
It might also explain the attempts to stir up racial tensions by playing up the presence of radical Islam in Britain, the fact that the video cameras were mysteriously all not working in the bombed bus, the 'military' source of the explosives, and the odd report of a Canary Wharf shooting by police. It would also make the London attacks similar to the strategy-of-tension attacks in Madrid, where extreme right-wingers attempted to frame Muslims for a police attack in order to create racial tension. The fact that we seem to know less about the bombing now than we did last week is also something to think about.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/diplomatic/foreign.htm
Of interest, the investigation so far has turned the following (among others):
"Contrary to original claims that Israel was warned "minutes before" the first attack, unconfirmed rumors in intelligence circles indicate that the Israeli government actually warned London of the attacks "a couple of days" previous. Israel has apparently given other warnings about possible attacks that turned out to be aborted operations. The British government did not want to disrupt the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, or call off visits by foreign dignitaries to London, hoping this would be another false alarm."
https://www3.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/317679.html
The discrepencies in the Israeli warnings have already been brought up here in great detail on the previous page. On Thursday, the PM's Office instructed Israeli officials not to give any interviews to foreign media. The concern was the "danger that this kind of report can bring to Israel."
Discrepencies with the bus's camera and whether or not they were working:
QuotePolice are examining CCTV footage and forensic evidence from the scenes of the attacks, looking for, among other things, DNA evidence. It was disclosed on 10 July that the CCTV camera on the bus had not been working since June. [12] However in another report, investigators were making efforts to recover images of the CCTV camera from the remains of the bus. [13]
The two conflicting sources (cited as sources 12 and 13) were Guardian, and The Independent, respectively.
It'll be interesting to see how all this turns out. There's still yet a lot of unclear and contradictory information, but within the last hour it's come out that arrests have been made, so apparently they're on someone's heels despite all this confusing media coverage. :?
So far, the al Qaeda connection has been dismissed (at least according to some sources) as being the main suspect, with eyes now turning to domestic terrorists at Scotland Yard, and with arrests being made domestically recently/soon (within the past hour apparently, but unclear o.O).
Well, I think everything points towards a radical Islamic group being involved... homegrown radicals mind you... the UK has a big Muslim population these days. Everything point towards the fact that it was British Muslims who carried out the bombings.
In my view there is no 'global Al-Qaeda network'. There was perhaps something vaguely close to this description before 9/11, but after the attacks on Al-Qaeda camps in Afganistan and the Saudi crackdown in their country, I think that this 'network' if we could ever really call it that, is gone.
However what you still have and increasingly will have, is lots of disparate Islamic radical groups whose only real link is ideological. However, what these groups tend to do these days is claim to be 'Al-Qaeda' thus giving an added fear factor to their campaign and also announcing their allegience to a common cause.
You see, What Bush and Blair don't seem to realise, nor the media in general, is that 'Al-Qaeda' is not a 'global network' anymore, if it ever was, it is an *ideological movement*. Now anyone can take action in the name of 'Al-Qaeda'.
Some UK defence chiefs have now acknowledged this however and I read an article with one of these the other day. He admitted that the latest thinking suggests that 'Al-Qaeda' is an ideological movement nowadays rather than some kind of organised global 'james bond villain' style organisation, like some people would have you believe.
This is bad news because the realisation that in fact you are dealing with lots of separate and independant groups springing up like new grass all over the place and carrying out actions in 'the name of Al-Qaeda', means that it is so much more difficult to stop such groups.. they are likely to only have very limited contacts with other groups of like minded individuals and infiltrating them is next to impossible... there is no 'global terrorist network' to smash, as Bush or Blair would have you believe..
One thing you can't kill is an idea. Al-Qaeda is now an idea.
Doug
It appears confirmed now: the attacks appear to have been carried out by suicide bombers and the bombers were all British Muslims. Three of the bombers came from Yorkshire and the fourth from Luton.
It's a sad state of affairs when there are elements of the British Muslim community that are driven to attack and kill their own citizens.
Doug
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050724/ap_on_re_eu/britain_underground_8;_ylt=Au4rZyhZwViGhKS1PvKWUbblWMcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5bGVna3NhBHNlYwNzc3JlbA--
One mistaken police shooting after the bombings and the whole country is up in arms. I wish we had the same high value for life.
Hell, we attacked an entire country that wasn't responsible for our bombings, and everyone accepts it.