Two die in London terror blasts

[Swift]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4659093.stm

Two people have been killed and scores have been injured after at least seven blasts on the Underground network and a double-decker bus in London.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said it was "reasonably clear" there had been a series of terrorist attacks.

He said it was "particularly barbaric" that it was timed to coincide with the G8 summit. He is returning to London.

An Islamist website has posted a statement - purportedly from al-Qaeda - claiming it was behind the attacks.

London's police chief Sir Ian Blair said there had been "many casualties" but it was too early to put a figure to those killed or injured.

[nonsequitur]

My condolences to all British people. I thought that my parents and sister were in the trains, but turns out they took a cab instead. Thank God.

[CrackerJack]

Yea, its pretty hectic.
Everyones talking about it over here. Im in Birmingham, so far enough away to be safe.

You can tell when its bad, as you can't get to the BBC news site its overloaded. Last time that happened, it was September the 11th !!!

Just after we won the vote to host the olympics too! I think everyone knew an attack would happen here in the uk, it was just a matter of when.

[sbw]

I think everyone knew an attack would happen here in the uk, it was just a matter of when.

this probably applies to the entire western world at this point. maybe not canada.

Scott

[Swift]

You can tell when its bad, as you can't get to the BBC news site its overloaded. Last time that happened, it was September the 11th !!!Thank God I recently bought a world travel radio. I have been listening to the BBC World Service all afternoon.


Just after we won the vote to host the olympics too! I think everyone knew an attack would happen here in the uk, it was just a matter of when. Must be a creepy thought.

[Swift]

this probably applies to the entire western world at this point. maybe not canada.Suppose Paris had won the Olympics Games contest, would the attacks have occured in Paris? Maybe there were terrorists standby in Paris too. 8O

[kuranes]

Sorry to hear its spreading again. Condolences to all you Brits.

[CrackerJack]

Thank God I recently bought a world travel radio. I have been listening to the BBC World Service all afternoon.

Must be a creepy thought.


To be honest, not really. Its not like you wake each day worrying, you just have to assume the day will be normal.
We had similar with the IRA for many years. (in fact since i was born!) so i guess we are pretty used to the threat. But obviously when it does happen its a nightmare.


I don't really think its connected with the olympics, as you say, we only won the vote yesterday, this attack looks to have been planned well before that.
I'd say it has much more to do with the fact that the G8 Summit is being held in Scotland today.

[relaxo]

this probably applies to the entire western world at this point. maybe not canada.

Scott
Not Canada? We have hundreds of troops in Afghanistan. and we actually kill pretty good too.

edit:(warning! bad humour. do not do this!)

Too my British cousins, now is the perfect opportunity to seek revenge upon muslims for this act. As the terrorists act indiscriminately, so should you. Destroy and kill that which the enemy holds dear.
I encourage you to attack mosques, burn korans and hunt down those who preach against western society. Find them, slit open their throats and spill their blood upon the pavement. They are subanimal and deserve death. Now is the time for western jyhad.

[jimore]

Christ, what a bummer of a roller coaster ride. My heartfelt condolances

[kikthinking]

40 dead now...and an al queda group claiming responsibility, blaming it on britain's involvement in iraq.

maybe it's bush's fault. just a thought.

[Nighthawk]

My sincerest condolences to the Brits.

[2ds]

bush didn't send the uk into iraq blair did.

you back the worlds largest sponsor of terrorism, expect for the usa's enemies to target you.

i feel sorry for all the victims who didn't vote for blair. for the others... well, you had the choice...

-2ds

[Nighthawk]

maybe it's bush's fault. just a thought.He is certainly a key figure in the causality.

Bush starts Iraq war --> Involves Britain --> retaliation by Al Quaeda.

Very simple equation on the surface, but I wonder how much of it involves a larger clash between the West and Islam. Would Britain have been a player in this clash without the Iraq war?

[cryokinetic]

He is certainly a key figure in the causality.

Bush starts Iraq war --> Involves Britain --> retaliation by Al Quaeda.

Very simple equation on the surface, but I wonder how much of it involves a larger clash between the West and Islam. Would Britain have been a player in this clash without the Iraq war?

<Horribly uninformed opinion>
I doubt they would have. The UK seems to be trying very hard (for whtever reason) to please the US. If the US hadn't decided to go to war in Iraq, the UK's role in this pissing contest would probably have been equivalent to Canada's perceived role... vocal supporter of the US, and nothing more (I realize that, in reality, Canada does more than just back the US vocally).
</Horribly uninformed opinion>

[Swift]

Very simple equation on the surface, but I wonder how much of it involves a larger clash between the West and Islam. Would Britain have been a player in this clash without the Iraq war?Ahum. I hope you don't mind me pointing you to one of my recent posts.
Interview with Osama Bin Laden (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=134320&postcount=84)

[2ds]

<Horribly uninformed opinion>
I doubt they would have. The UK seems to be trying very hard (for whtever reason) to please the US. If the US hadn't decided to go to war in Iraq, the UK's role in this pissing contest would probably have been equivalent to Canada's perceived role... vocal supporter of the US, and nothing more (I realize that, in reality, Canada does more than just back the US vocally).
</Horribly uninformed opinion>


this makes a whole heap of sense when you realise this war is being waged for economic not moral or security related reasons...

it's an economic amoral choice.

-2ds

[Claverhouse]

bush didn't send the uk into iraq blair did.

you back the worlds largest sponsor of terrorism, expect for the usa's enemies to target you.

i feel sorry for all the victims who didn't vote for blair. for the others... well, you had the choice...

-2ds

I wouldn't vote for anyone, nevertheless it wouldn't have made any difference. The Tories would have supported the USA just as slavishly --- all major parties are in favour of the status quo, which has Great Britain as a wholly-owned subsidary of the USA.


We had similar with the IRA for many years. (in fact since i was born!) so i guess we are pretty used to the threat.
Ditto. Although they generally concentrated their venom on Ireland and Northern Ireland...

These latest bombings show both how ineffectual they are --- whilst terrible for the victims, the threat to the majority of the population is nearly nil; and it doesn't much harm the British State --- and how the establishment will use it to further shove controlling methods like ID cards on the rest of us.

The weird little sicko Blair did a few stomach-turning, throaty-voiced, turns about 'our values', democracy, the need to fight a ruthless enemy etc., without saying anything useful ( such as we'll hunt you down and hang you high ), whilst Chirac and Bush stood utterly motionless beside like a pair of wax dummies. Sort of eerie.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[relaxo]

He is certainly a key figure in the causality.

Bush starts Iraq war --> Involves Britain --> retaliation by Al Quaeda.



Maybe it's islamic terrorists fault?

crazed idiot starts new religion called islam --> followers spread far and wide destroying all native religions, murder and rape ---> isalm keeps good chunk of world under it's conservative control while europe gains freedoms ---> europe invades islamic lands ---> europe leaves islamic lands ---> usa cuts business deals with islamic lands ---> crazy religious fundamentalists don't want christians and atheists involved in islamic lands ---> muslims want all jews dead, this is not called nazism however ---> usa decides not all jews should die, supports israel ---> crazy muslims begin terrorist attacks against western world ---> western world retaliates

the only proper response to these attacks is to invade and destroy more of the islamic world

Bush, you rock. thank you.
even as we speak freedom and democracy movements are spreading throughout the middle east unlike anything seen before. all because Bush invaded Iraq and brought them freedom. now everyone wants it.

[Nighthawk]

Maybe it's islamic terrorists fault?

Yes, I agree that ultimately it is the fault of those who committed the act.

[2ds]

I wouldn't vote for anyone, nevertheless it wouldn't have made any difference. The Tories would have supported the USA just as slavishly --- all major parties are in favour of the status quo, which has Great Britain as a wholly-owned subsidary of the USA.



I'll agree with this but if the british peopel really didn't want the war they could have been out in the streets throwing rocks at parliment..... we all choose action or inaction, i'm sure there is some Jefferson I should quote here....

I think you have it confused relaxo, it should be more like "crazy western world begin terrorist attacks against muslim world ---> muslim world retaliates"

The USA is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. Terrorism being the use of voilence to bring about a political ends. Just look at how many two bit dictators its installed in the last 5o years....

These bombings are a direct side effect of the Iraq war. As I stated before the Iraq war was an economic decision, unfortunately these things have a habit of offending the moral sensebilites of people who are involved. Especially when you decide to bomb them in the name of creating jobs in another country.

-2ds

[2ds]

Yes, I agree that ultimately it is the fault of those who committed the act.

that's too simplistic. would you refuse to accept responsibility for your neigbour egging your house if you lit a bag of dog poop on his front doorstep, rang the doorbell and hid in the bushes ?

- 2ds

edit: or to put it another way, there would be just as many western politicians in jail as islamic terrorists if you were to jail everyone responsible for the killing on both sides.

disclaimer: i live in one of hte countries of the coalition of the willing and when someone bombs us, well, i wont be one bit supprised. considering the way we have been treating other peoples lives, we can only expect them to treat ours the same.

-2ds

-2ds

[Nighthawk]

that's too simplistic. would you refuse to accept responsibility for your neigbour egging your house if you lit a bag of dog poop on his front doorstep, rang the doorbell and hid in the bushes ?

- 2dsI'm pretty sure I understand where you're coming from ... and yes, there is substantial cause and effect ... which is what I am trying to explore. At a very basic level, it is the fault of the individual terrorists who planted the bombs. However, there are a lot of complexities (as you alluded) involving why they planted them. This begs the question of whether it could have been prevented through non-violent means ... such as a different US foreign policy over the past 20-40 years.

[Nighthawk]

edit: or to put it another way, there would be just as many western politicians in jail as islamic terrorists if you were to jail everyone responsible for the killing on both sides.

Agreed. The West's hands have never been clean ... only more powerful.

[Swift]

that's too simplistic. would you refuse to accept responsibility for your neigbour egging your house if you lit a bag of dog poop on his front doorstep, rang the doorbell and hid in the bushes ? :lol: That analogy rocks. But let's not beat around the bush (no pun intended): the US is responsible for 50+ years of Palestinian suffering and 1.000.000 dead Iraqi children.

[PsiKik]

I wonder, will certain elements in the UK use this as an excuse to, for example introduce the compulsory ID cards for all ppl in the UK?

Will they use this as Britains 9/11?

[kuranes]

There was a Sikh coming home from helping with the WTC disaster who was attacked just because he wore a turban. This is wrong. But there will be many Relaxo-types out there looking to start vigilante groups. Silent Muslims -if you know where these people are who are creating this problem - let someone know, anonymously if you must. I realize that the current US admin is one sided and corrupt. Still, "we" live here. You will not believe the bloodbath that will likely get started if these guys are allowed to just keep blowing things up. And then there really will be no middle ground, as each side deals out eye for an eye retaliation, and ordinarily moderate people are forced to choose between extremes.

[PsiKik]

There was a Sikh coming home from helping with the WTC disaster who was attacked just because he wore a turban. This is wrong. But there will be many Relaxo-types out there looking to start vigilante groups. Silent Muslims -if you know where these people are who are creating this problem - let someone know, anonymously if you must. I realize that the current US admin is one sided and corrupt. Still, "we" live here. You will not believe the bloodbath that will likely get started if these guys are allowed to just keep blowing things up. And then there really will be no middle ground, as each side deals out eye for an eye retaliation, and ordinarily moderate people are forced to choose between extremes.
I agree totally. No matter how sick the controllers of Bush and Blair are there is no reason to attack innocent ppl - I have often thought that militant, violent rebel movements are probably controlled by SJ's , or young hot heads who have taken the path of least resistance - it is easier to plant a bomb and kill civilians than attack a military base, for example, or much, much harder formulate some strategy to tackle your opressor without violence, like Ghandi.

[garak]

I still hold a grudge over the revolutionary war.

[tragula]

Terrorism being the use of voilence to bring about a political ends.
-2ds

Fortunately that is not an accurate definition of terrorism. Terrorism is the intentional use of violence against civilians in order to accomplish a political goal.

I don't understand people who think it can be justified in any way. If I was angry with a group of people, because lets say they kicked my off my land or occupied my hometown or whatever, I wouldn't do an end run behind the backs of the soldiers or police and kill their wives and children indiscriminately. And I consider people who do, or support that type of action as nothing more than worthless animals.

It is sad day for London, and unfortunately I suspect they will feel less safe for a while, no matter how brave a face they put on it. People can blame it on Iraq if they want. But 9/11 happened before Iraq, as did the earlier trade center bombing in '93. So what it can really be traced back to are homicidal maniacs who don't value any human life unless it's Muslim.

[meshou]

Fortunately that is not an accurate definition of terrorism. Terrorism is the intentional use of violence against civilians in order to accomplish a political goal.Sadly, that's been the preffered method of warfare since at least the revolutionary war. The side that wins is usually the side most willing to harm civilians in the process.

Civilians are the food, morale, and future soldier base. It's foolish not to use that as a primary target if you intend to win a war.

So the trick is to oppose war instead of merely the most effective method of winning one.

[coffeezombie]

Sadly, that's been the preffered method of warfare since at least the revolutionary war. The side that wins is usually the side most willing to harm civilians in the process.

Civilians are the food, morale, and future soldier base. It's foolish not to use that as a primary target if you intend to win a war.

So the trick is to oppose war instead of merely the most effective method of winning one.

Not necessarily true. It depends upon what your purpose for the war is. If you are a conqueror who wishes to subjugate a country, attacking civilians is not generally a good long-term strategy, even if it has been done in the past. In the end, you just promote antagonism and eventual resistance. That is why the United States and Britain aren't going around killing Iraqi civilians. You may kill all the male civilians, but a future generation of them are going to bite you in the ass for doing that.

On the other hand, terrorism is a great strategy for getting "invaders" out of your country. Counterattacks against civilians only galvanize resistance, as can be seen by Israeli actions against Palestinians.

[T.J.]

That is why the United States and Britain aren't going around killing Iraqi civilians. You may kill all the male civilians, but a future generation of them are going to bite you in the ass for doing that.

No, that's why we shouldn't go around killing Iraqi civilians. And how do you know who's a civilian and who's a fighter, anyway?

This is also why the US can't and doesn't support colonies. We reap the benefits of exploitation without the hassle of responsibility.

[Nighthawk]

No, that's why we shouldn't go around killing Iraqi civilians. And how do you know who's a civilian and who's a fighter, anyway?

A good way to ensure that your civilians do not get killed by invaders (accidentally or otherwise) is not to pretend you are a civilian and then use that as an advantage shoot at the invaders. Eventually, the invaders will no longer bother to try to tell the difference.

[T.J.]

A good way to ensure that your civilians do not get killed by invaders (accidentally or otherwise) is not to pretend you are a civilian and then use that as an advantage shoot at the invaders. Eventually, the invaders will no longer bother to try to tell the difference.

But why would you give a shit about your fellow civilians [edit: citizens; cultural cohabitants... whatever] if you're desperate and pissed off and more concerned with stirring up hatred?

[Nighthawk]

But why would you give a shit about your fellow civilians if you're desperate and pissed off and more concerned with stirring up hatred?Exactly ... pretty much of a no win situation. The guerrillas use civilian attire as camouflage. The soldiers shoot back because they've had enough BS. The real losers are the civilians caught in the cross fire or mistaken for guerrillas.

[T.J.]

Exactly.

Right and those are the people we are fighting, so we should take that into account.

But a base in the Middle East, more contracts for Haliburton, a constant state of terror ( = free reign) back home... No one ever had any objective of making things better for the people of Iraq. Or for the people of the United States of America, for that matter.

Or if they did, they were delusional.

[coffeezombie]

No, that's why we shouldn't go around killing Iraqi civilians. And how do you know who's a civilian and who's a fighter, anyway?

This is also why the US can't and doesn't support colonies. We reap the benefits of exploitation without the hassle of responsibility.

I never said we should kill Iraqi civilians (or that we should be there in the first place). And the solution of "killing all men" is one that could work potentially in the short term, and has in the past, been used to subjugate a population. Of course, this method is great if you hope to permanently occupy their country and get rid of their civilization altogether. But if their civilization is too large, this is difficult, and will just mobilize hardcore resistance against you for certain.

In the past, a solution to this was to separate the population and to create slaves, but world citizens no longer accept that morally, so instead it's better just to try to sway civilians with propaganda (which is what we are trying to do to win our war now, of course).

[T.J.]

The real losers are the civilians caught in the cross fire or mistaken for guerrillas.

I'm sure as hell glad I'm not an Iraqi citizen just trying to make ends meet right now.

[T.J.]

I never said we should kill Iraqi civilians (or that we should be there in the first place). And the solution of "killing all men" is one that could work potentially in the short term, and has in the past, been used to subjugate a population. Of course, this method is great if you hope to permanently occupy their country and get rid of their civilization altogether. But if their civilization is too large, this is difficult, and will just mobilize hardcore resistance against you for certain.

In the past, a solution to this was to separate the population and to create slaves, but world citizens no longer accept that morally, so instead it's better just to try to sway civilians with propaganda (which is what we are trying to do to win our war now, of course).

But I'm saying that we are killing Iraqi civilians. Intentionally or no, that's what we're doing. By the cartload. Either directly by bullets or by destroying the infrastructure of their entire society.

The strategy you describe is not what is going down in Iraq. There may be a few nods to it, but in general.... 'quagmire' doesn't even begin to describe.

[coffeezombie]

But why would you give a shit about your fellow civilians [edit: citizens; cultural cohabitants... whatever] if you're desperate and pissed off and more concerned with stirring up hatred?

I'm not convinced that this is how terrorists look at the situation. I think they feel a deep ethnic/religious unity and truly *don't* want their fellow ethnic group members getting shot at. However, when they see the western world's superior weaponry and see their propaganda actually effectively subverting their fellow people, they get desperate and commit terrorist acts.

[T.J.]

I'm not convinced that this is how terrorists look at the situation. I think they feel a deep ethnic/religious unity and truly *don't* want their fellow ethnic group members getting shot at. However, when they see the western world's superior weaponry and see their propaganda actually effectively subverting their fellow people, they get desperate and commit terrorist acts.

Tomato, tomahto.... The road-to-hell terrorist or the opportunistic-psycho terrorist (and everything in between, as I'm sure there is) - the effect is the same.

[Nighthawk]

Right and those are the people we are fighting, so we should take that into account.
The people I know fighting over there do take that into account. There are very strict rules of engagement which are more restrictive than those most armies have to deal with. You cannot just open fire when you feel like it. Soldiers are sent to prison for that.


]
But a base in the Middle East, more contracts for Haliburton, a constant state of terror ( = free reign) back home... No one ever had any objective of making things better for the people of Iraq. Or for the people of the United States of America, for that matter.

Or if they did, they were delusional.Absolutely ... there is a small minority enriching itself from this war, just as in previous wars. Despite the democratic rhetoric, I doubt the welfare of the Iraqi people is high on the list of profiteers and industrialists. ... and I believe the were delusional as well, for believing things would just fall into place after they declared an end to hostilities.

I think we're on the same side of the issue here. I'm just a bit skewed towards the soldiers' perspective, having been one.

[T.J.]

I think we're on the same side of the issue here. I'm just a bit skewed towards the soldiers' perspective, having been one.

Yes I believe so. I don't have much pity for the soldiers, though... Or, no, I do, but my anger outweighs my pity. This country has no draft. At some point, every solider under the age of thirty (fifty?) made the decision to place trust in the American government.

It's understandable, and I hate that it's such a foolish thing to do.... But it is. And when people act so shocked and betrayed and angry... You should have known.

[Nighthawk]

Yes I believe so. I don't have much pity for the soldiers, though... Or, no, I do, but my anger outweighs my pity. This country has no draft. At some point, every solider under the age of thirty (fifty?) made the decision to place trust in the American government.

It's understandable, and I hate that it's such a foolish thing to do.... But it is. And when people act so shocked and betrayed and angry... You should have known.I understand your viewpoint. Yes, the soldiers are all volunteers ... unless you count those being extended past their drop dates. Nevertheless, they all volunteered at some point. I don't think very many of them expect pity or compassion. I just give compassion out of my personal choice, having some shared experiences. I try to offer that same compassion to the civilians caught in the crossfire.

[ohnoaninfp]

Not Canada? We have hundreds of troops in Afghanistan. and we actually kill pretty good too.


Too my British cousins, now is the perfect opportunity to seek revenge upon muslims for this act. As the terrorists act indiscriminately, so should you. Destroy and kill that which the enemy holds dear.
I encourage you to attack mosques, burn korans and hunt down those who preach against western society. Find them, slit open their throats and spill their blood upon the pavement. They are subanimal and deserve death. Now is the time for western jyhad.
Ok first of all the terrorists have taken the muslim faith and twisted it to serve their own evil purpose. Not every muslim is a terrorist. Why should a muslim who is a good law abiding citizen pay the price because of some wacko fanatics.

[ohnoaninfp]

My condolences.

[Serotonin]

the only proper response to these attacks is to invade and destroy more of the islamic world
I want you to take it upon yourself to try.



Bush, you rock. thank you.
even as we speak freedom and democracy movements are spreading throughout the middle east unlike anything seen before. all because Bush invaded Iraq and brought them freedom. now everyone wants it.

Sigh.
People say these things, probably not out of any truth or real admiration for Bush, but because it pisses liberals off.
Now either justify it or tell us what you really think.
The Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon was a follow-on from the mayhem after the prime-minister's assasination. There was one quote from a clueless Lebanese diplomat who said "This is because of the war in Iraq" and was amplified throughout the conservative blogosphere.
The UAE and Oman are quietly doing alright. Kuwait has given women the vote and the right to run for parliament.

These are fairly discrete occurrences. The attempt to link these good things to Bush invading Iraq is a really tawdry and puerile effort to win the conservative vs. liberal culture war and puts a stain on the relatively positive news coming from the Middle East at the moment. If you want to believe Bush is responsible for it, good for you. But don't try to convince me.

[relaxo]

People say these things, probably not out of any truth or real admiration for Bush, but because it pisses liberals off.

True!



Now either justify it or tell us what you really think.

That is what I really think. And it is justified because of the latest news that has been coming out of the middle east.



The Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon was a follow-on from the mayhem after the prime-minister's assasination. There was one quote from a clueless Lebanese diplomat who said "This is because of the war in Iraq" and was amplified throughout the conservative blogosphere.

A clueless Lebanese diplomat? Wow. Anyone who possesses that opinon is clueless, even if they are from the region that knows what is going on. Typical anti-bush speak.
In the past the Syrians assassinated whoever they wanted in Lebanon and nobody could do anything about it. The Lebanese know that Syria is on the hit list and have more courage now to fight back against the oppressor.



If you want to believe Bush is responsible for it, good for you. But don't try to convince me.
Nor can you convince an anti-bush of anything that puts Bush in a good light. Bush is responsible for all bad things, but never anything good.

[relaxo]

Ok first of all the terrorists have taken the muslim faith and twisted it to serve their own evil purpose. Not every muslim is a terrorist. Why should a muslim who is a good law abiding citizen pay the price because of some wacko fanatics.

absolutely true, but those that preach against western values and cellebrate killing should be dealt with for promoting hate.

I think my original comments were much too harsh, that is part of my sense of humour unfortunately, and I forget that 99%+ of the population don't get my humour.

I would encourage a koran burning party however, and I would attack mosques where it is obvious they preach against western society. The terrorists get moral support and encouragement from them.

I would not encourage slitting their throats or hurting people in anyway, bad attempt at humour, my apologies.

so just in case my crazed words have inspired anyone...it was meant as black humour, there is no western jyhad, go back to living in a great place with lots of diverse people who live in harmony.


seems that islam even backs my calls to retaliate against those who preach hatred:
Allah says in the Qur’an: He who killed any person, unless it be a person guilty of murder or spreading chaos in the land, should be looked upon as though he had slain all mankind.

Now they say it's OK to kill those that spread chaos in the land, but I think arresting them and putting them in jail is better, unless your government refuses to do so, then someone must take action against them.

[relaxo]

it is interesting that if someone posts something like, all christians should die, or , all advertisers should be shot, nobody takes it seriously, it's dismissed as just noise or humour. but state that all muslims should die, it is taken more seriously.
maybe because it is not said as much, so it's more shocking.

as an example

"shoot all christians"
probably dismissed as some stupid comment by a teenage metal head

"shoot all muslims"
now that looks more like hatred.

"shoot all hindus"
that just looks funny.

so it is muslims that are carrying out terrorist attacks, but for someone to say "shoot all muslims" you automatically get, "not all muslims are terrorists!".
if I say, "shoot all Americans", nobody takes it seriously, in fact, most people would add their own comments to it in agreement.

why the bias?

"shoot all jews"
that one looks bad too.

"kill all Ukranians"
"kill all Palestinians"

which one looks more serious?
why can one be dismissed as unserious and the other be offensive?

[Serotonin]

That is what I really think. And it is justified because of the latest news that has been coming out of the middle east.
References? That aren't simply right-wing blog opinion pieces?



A clueless Lebanese diplomat? Wow. Anyone who possesses that opinon is clueless, even if they are from the region that knows what is going on. Typical anti-bush speak.
Sorry, politician. Walid Jumblatt. The thing is relaxo, he's a socialist (http://www.cedarland.org/walid.html).
He also doesn't have a particularly stellar past.

When Israeli forces pulled out of the area in August-September 1983, Jumblatt's forces overran sixty Maronite villages, slaughtering around 1,500 innocent civilians and driving well over 50,000 out of their homes in the mountainous areas east and west of Beirut.

But when he says something that supports Bush, I guess he's worth listening to, isn't it? You're the one who brought Bush into the conversation, you're the one with the barrow to push. Weasel words from pro-Bush people say "Look at all the things happening in the Middle East at the moment, after the fall of Saddam. Coincidence? Huh? HUH?". Well, in short, yes. You've fallen into the trap of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc relaxo - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect. See the excellent Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit (http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html).

Jumblatt seems clueless because he changes his viewpoint regularly.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Revolution) seems to have something to say about it:

Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt remarked to a reporter of the Washington Post, "It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world". In this sense, the Cedar Revolution may also prove to be a dividend of the Bush administration's global war on terror, however, as stated previously, Jumblatts views are not entirely respected as they seem to change regularly. Indeed, Middle East Media Research Institute, a media monitoring service, recorded him saying "The oil axis is present in most of the U.S. administration, beginning with its president, vice-president and top advisers, including [Condoleezza] Rice, who is oil-colored, while the axis of Jews is present with Paul Wolfowitz, the leading hawk who is inciting (America) to occupy and destroy Iraq".
Sounds like Swift-talk.


Nor can you convince an anti-bush of anything that puts Bush in a good light. Bush is responsible for all bad things, but never anything good.

Whoa, dude, I don't really care what the ratio is of Good Bush Points to Bad Bush Points is, but I do get angry when people try to distort it for their own agenda, like you do. Both ways (the Bushitler stuff is annoying too). But you're the partisan one, so you really embody the characteristics that you froth at so much when talking about liberals.

[Serotonin]

it is interesting that if someone posts something like, all christians should die, or , all advertisers should be shot, nobody takes it seriously, it's dismissed as just noise or humour. but state that all muslims should die, it is taken more seriously.
maybe because it is not said as much, so it's more shocking.

as an example

"shoot all christians"
probably dismissed as some stupid comment by a teenage metal head

"shoot all muslims"
now that looks more like hatred.

"shoot all hindus"
that just looks funny.

so it is muslims that are carrying out terrorist attacks, but for someone to say "shoot all muslims" you automatically get, "not all muslims are terrorists!".
if I say, "shoot all Americans", nobody takes it seriously, in fact, most people would add their own comments to it in agreement.

why the bias?

"shoot all jews"
that one looks bad too.

"kill all Ukranians"
"kill all Palestinians"

which one looks more serious?
why can one be dismissed as unserious and the other be offensive?

These are subjective things. When you say "that one looks bad too" you're trying to make them look objective, like "this is more offensive". Spin, spin.

[relaxo]

Whoa, dude, I don't really care what the ratio is of Good Bush Points to Bad Bush Points is, but I do get angry when people try to distort it for their own agenda, like you do. Both ways (the Bushitler stuff is annoying too). But you're the partisan one, so you really embody the characteristics that you froth at so much when talking about liberals.

whoa dude, I have no agenda, unless it is to improve the lives of people in the middle east. In my opinion, from Syria pulling out of lebanon, to Libya dropping it's nuclear bomb plans, to protests against Syria in Lebanon, to women being allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, to women being allowed to vote in yemen and Saudi Arabia, to democracy protests in Egypt, and a host of other news from the middle east, the connection to the invasion and instituion of democracy in Iraq is legit.
I doubt Bush was involved in the decision to make that move anyway, he just approved it.

[relaxo]

You've fallen into the trap of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc relaxo - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect. See the excellent Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit (http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html).



That's a great site!

So, one thing I can say, without the invasion of Iraq, there would not be democracy in Iraq at this point in time. Given the previous nature of the Iraqi government, it would not be possible for a democracy to emerge there by this point in time.
Since Bush must have at least approved of the invasion, I can say, thanks Bush for invading Iraq and installing a democracy, since I consider a democracy in Iraq better for me than the previous government.

Given that this is a forum where people just post whatever is on their mind, to sit down and write an essay showing all of the evidence as to why the democrasizing of Iraq is related to other democracy and liberty movements throughout the middle east, is best reserved for a forum where that is what is expected.

But this is the INTP forum, where INTPs post whatever they are thinking.

[Swift]

Sounds like Swift-talk.It's a fenomenon, not a fox.

[Serotonin]

whoa dude, I have no agenda, unless it is to improve the lives of people in the middle east.
Says he who advocates indiscriminate killing of muslims.
But it's just my sense of humour!
Silly me, I must have misunderstood!
And then there's all those feminazistupidlib'rals to annoy. Time is short!
:rolleyes:


In my opinion, from Syria pulling out of lebanon, to Libya dropping it's nuclear bomb plans, to protests against Syria in Lebanon, to women being allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, to women being allowed to vote in yemen and Saudi Arabia, to democracy protests in Egypt, and a host of other news from the middle east, the connection to the invasion and instituion of democracy in Iraq is legit.
I doubt Bush was involved in the decision to make that move anyway, he just approved it.

Mmmhmmm. Musta been Donald "In my job I stand for 8-10 hours a day so I fail to see how making incarcerated Iraqis stand for 4 hours at a time in Abu-Ghraib is torture, except I guess I'm wearing comfortable shoes and clothes, in an air-conditioned room, and can move whereever I please, and I don't have attack dogs at my throat or am made to roll in excrement" Rumsfeld. Whatta Man!


Given that this is a forum where people just post whatever is on their mind, to sit down and write an essay showing all of the evidence as to why the democrasizing of Iraq is related to other democracy and liberty movements throughout the middle east, is best reserved for a forum where that is what is expected.
I'd say it's more anything-goes. All I've got from you so far is speculation, so your attempt at convincing us that the Arab spring was caused by Iraq hasn't even got off the ground. I'm not asking for an essay, I'm just asking for links to qualifiers.


But this is the INTP forum, where INTPs post whatever they are thinking.
I think you should enlist to fight in Iraq. Less charade, more grenade relaxo.