Nearly killed my son - but this thread for analysis, not sympathy

The people apologizing and justifying the terrorists simply make me want to puke. The "well you had it coming for what you did" attitude is contemptable. Do any of you apologists really think the terrorists will simply lay down their arms and give up violence if we're 'nice' to them? If you do, you're just being stupid.

You cannot give in to brutality. It does NOTHING but give strength to the brutes, and they will go on and on unimpeded with further brutality. You cannot have a peaceful resolution with people who willingly blow themselves up to murder scores of innocents. It's maddening to think that anyone would believe this nonsense!

The people who commit these acts are animals and should be treated as such. They do not act out of what we like to call 'sanity'. They have proven time and time again that they will commit any atrocity to further their agenda. In fact, it is atrocity itself they aspire to. I do not try to paint a pretty picture about Iraq, but what's going on has nothing to do with Iraq, Iraq is simply the catchphrase of the day for these animals. On other days they use Palestine, Afganistan, Bosnia, Ireland or any other topic that sets fire to their insanity. The words they use as a banner for todays atrocity is meaningless, it's just a cover to justify their actions.

If you believe that todays terrorist catchphrase is the reason for their actions, then you are the fool who believes their propoganda. These individuals would use any name to justify their atrocities, their brutality, their murder. It is the ACT they want, not the crap they shout about.

They are animals that need to be put down for the good of the world. Your sympathy for them is wasted and foolish.

...
Iraq isn't an attempt to simply "stop terrorism" using the military. It's an attempt, you could call it a gamble (one could argue the gamble is better than leaving the status quo), to change the face of the middle east by attempting to prop up democracies and goverments expressing the willingness to reform into democracies. Of course this is done by the best means we have at our disposal on a case-by-case basis (in the case of Iran war was not our best means obviously). ...The idea being that THIS would stop terrorism, over a very long time period of course. The question is, what is the middle east going to look like in 20 or 30 years? Since nobody knows the answer to it, it's really premature to say this strategy has failed since it's on such a grand scale. (Never been attempted ever before...big problems require big efforts I guess.) There's evidence that indicates both success and failure currently.

We could say it's not likely to work because "it's too hard", I guess. People who said similar things about aviation, space travel, computers, and a crapload of other things were wrong about it, but hey maybe this one really IS too tough. (I'd disagree)

This goal was always one of the reasons to invade, not the primary one focused on by the media as we all know, but it was always one of the justifications of the Iraq war. He was saying things like "work to advance liberty and peace in that region" since the beginning...

"A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions." etc.

"We're advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability, and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren."
(recent quote, consistent with the others)

I don't know why it has to be pointed out over and over again that the WMD thinking was most likely an intel failure (of course the UN didn't think he was complying 100% either), and it's even possible that material was moved out of the country or could even still be hidden somewhere. (They just discovered a huge ass bunker complex under Baghdad didn't they?) There's no credible evidence of "lies"--and they weren't needed at the time, everything indicated that an invasion was the correct action.

I can understand people not being 100% certain that we had just cause to invade, I've had doubts at times too. But being entirely certain that we DIDN'T have any just cause to invade? That's a tough one for me to understand... such a tired argument..

Note: Not sure what prompted me to start talking about Iraq on soapbox here, I guess it was an earlier post in the thread. Oh well.

INCORRECT. Gandhi was already preaching Satyagraha and Ahimsa in South Africa before he had ever got onto the Indian Political scene, which was all before and during WW2.

And its GANDHI, not Ghandi. lets make sure we';re talking about the same person. Although some ppl have spelled it Ghandi, not that the spelling matters, but if you are familiar with Hindi, GH gives a different sound than a simple G, and writing it GHANDI in hindi changes the name significantly.

If the US would stop putting these people into power, they wouldn't have to turn around ten years later and go to war with them. Or does anyone not remember that Saddam was far from the first to receive US money, weaponry, support?

The US put Saddam in control of that country and turned a blind eye to what he was doing for YEARS.

Just like they did with the Shah in Iran.

Just like they did with Noreiga.

Just like they did with a list longer than memory will grant me at ten of five in the morning.

The point being, much of this we literally have brough upon ourselves. Not because of ideology, but because, literally, we put them in power.

You'd think by now, someone would take a hint... maybe playing with the stability of nations in an attempt to gain control over their resources or to influence their economy to be more receptive, or to keep friction alive so as to hold back the progress of surrounding countries that you prefer not to be as powerful as you isn't such a great thing to do.

From a British viewpoint I have to say that isn't why Britain got involved in this Iraq mess. Parliament agreed to go war because they were told that Iraq was a direct threat. Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction' and could launch them on British targets within 45 minutes. The Iraq regime was evil, but Britain only got involved to protect itself, not as some good against evil war, I'm afraid.

Now we pay the price I suppose. We will have to be vigilent and hope this was a one off. Unlike America though, I can't see the British people demanding the invasion of some other country for revenge.

Revenge was never a factor, that's what terrorists do. For some people I'm sure it was a factor but you can always find idiots if you look for them. Saddam ignored the UN's demands for YEARS, it's not hard to imagine (think back to before the war) that he was not complying with the UN because he was hiding something or up to something. It's hard to do this, but try to remember the tone of the discussion and reasoning years ago before the war started. Placing blame on the ones who made the decision to DO something about the intel we had at the time doesn't help ANYONE. It's easy to place blame in hindsight when something doesn't go exactly as planned...

Cienna, I agree, but are there any recent examples of this happening? (Besides the obvious case of Iraq and Afghanistan--ALTHOUGH since we're attempting to install good democratic governments in these two rather than cooperative dictators, it's different.) Any examples since the end of the Cold War, I mean?

I'm not saying our Cold War decisions were correct, but we weren't simply "manipulating governments" for the heck of it because it might benefit us, in most cases it was done to combat the spread of communism. Of course, we now know (again, in hindsight it's easy...) that our "technique" of fighting communism like this was a bad one which had more long term bad consequences than good ones. Hopefully we learn from this past, that's all I can say. I do think we have learned--we're assisting democratic governments now, rather than dictators that simply cooperate with us. We're also going after terrorists more than we have before, and most importantly we're trying to change the parts of the world that breed terrorist thinking. The fact that the US and Europe contributed to creating the breeding grounds isn't as important as it is to attempt to fix it, in my opinion.

Noam Chomsky pointed out that both in both Cambodia and East Timor, despotic regimes were terrorising their own people. Cambodia warranted thousands of column inches. From memory, East Timor at that time warranted four, in the New Times and The London Times, combined.

What we have to realise is that the view we are fed of depots and tyrants very much depends upon political expediency for our governments. Thus the inaction over Zimbabwe and the appalling idea that we in the UK are returning people who have claimed asylum here to a homicidal maniac.

Saddam Hussein didn't change between the time we were selling him arms and the occasion of his invasion of Kuwait. Our attitude changed, but not because he had been a nice chap until then. Individuals can act with honour and consistency...states rarely do.

We are wrong if we think that our media is free and fair, and that we are not also subject to propoganda and dogma. Our danger is far greater, because we believe that what we read is the truth.

We should stand together to force our governments to stop spending more money on arms than aid, should demand that they stop subsidising products and then force those subsidised products on developing countries...and we should ALL ask difficult questions of all our representatives, that's the way things will improve.

Our main problem is not that we try to do too much, but that many of us are apathetic about the chances for any change, and do nothing at all.
Cali

Yeah but it wasn't big til after. I win.


And some people cut other people slack for a spelling type-o made at the end of a 16 hour shift.

Each listed in my inital post were after the end of the cold war. The more striking examples that escaped me in the wee hours being the Haitian leader (sorry, name escapes me at the moment) who was quickly relieved of office in the midst of what was rapidly becoming a coup ... who was initially installed to power courtesy of the US with promises of financial support, weaponry, etc. (sound familar?).

Then of course, there's the 10 million per year payoff to the Ayotollah (purportedly the enemy of democracy, remember?) to go live quietly in England.

Anyway, the point I was making rests on the reality that this cycle of paying to install "leaders" that we later wind up warring against seems fairly consistant. It do make one wonder. This one, anyway.

It was a big deal in South Africa.. And it does illustrate he was a hypocrit. So i win. And ur forgetting, gandhis other antics that go to support why im not a huge fan of gandhi.

And u are forgiven for the spelling.. i wasnt attacking ur spelling, just pointing out that Ghandhi and Gandhi are two different names.. But i have seen it spelled Ghandi quite frequently..

Your arguments are still flawed.

supporting britain in WWII against the nazis is sort of a no-brainer.

i win teh internets

Oops, I worded that question wrong. I meant, are there any examples of leaders *that we installed* after the Cold War (for reasons unrelated to the Cold War), that came back to haunt us? In other words, governments we helped establish around the 90's or later, which then turned around and became enemies for whatever reason.

I think the only thing flawed here is your ego. The reason India went into the war, wasnt about the Nazis.

Anyways, YOU WIN - feel better? Have a cookie. I suggest you read up on Gandhi and get a feel for what he was really like. I, personally get the feeling you're not here to have a logical discussion about Gandhi, rather just WIN a stupid forum conversation. - My Last reply to you.

So start a Gandhi thread. I wouldn't mind hearing a little about what is so bad about him; all I know is pretty much what the typical person knows of him, and that displays him as a pretty damn good guy.

http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000884.php

Talk about a hairy situation --

They sound like they believe in absolutes, just as Bush and many other politicians do.

So many have already been accosted of their existence -- no matter how meager, poor, or small it is. Politicians talk of making choices and putting a price on statistics they haven't witnessed.

People leave their air conditioners on when they go out to work and commute 2 hours a day in a gas guzzling SUV. When they go out to lunch, they try and justify their point of view on statistics that they can't even comprehend.

I lived in a medium-sized town of 20k or so for a few years. I wonder what it'd be like if they were all dead inside a year. Just a ghost-town left. I wonder what it'd be like to walk through the streets and count 20 000 dead human bodies. To try and sleep at night with bombs going off and random blasts of gun fire... I wonder what that would do to my nerves.

You know, if that's real, it PROVES they want us to leave those countries ASAP. Which only strengthens the importance of finishing the jobs there. If they don't want it, we should be doing it.

If the wars are "helping" them out so much, why would they be eager to get them to stop? I think they're afraid of democracy, myself.

OK, I've been away for a bit, and this thread seems to have died down.

I'd like to add a couple of things, if thats all right, as an attempt to tidy the end up.

The first is that I don't regard my opinions on Iraq etc, and how our governments have behaved, and the results, as quite final opinions. My current reactions assume that there are moral imperatives on a government similar to those on individuals, and that they can be judged in similar ways. I am not sure that hypocrisy, deceit, media manipulation etc are not actually an essential part of what governments must do on the behalf of their citizens the way things are currently set up in the west. ie that we in fact (without saying or even realising) are asking them to do all this on our behalf, and to carry the blame on our behalf.
I need to think much more about this. What actually IS the responsibility of the government of a nation state, and to whom ? Particularly an affluent, powerful, western one ? Is it possible that a moral and well intentioned citizenry necessarily forces immoral policies onto its leaders in such situations ? A huge implicit, unspoken demand to preserve their affluence at all costs ? With the threat of being voted out if you falter ? I really am not sure.

The second thing I'd like to say takes a huge jump from the general to the specific.

A few more details of my son's experience in the London bombing, in case some of you are interested :

He travels to work each day on the "ThamesLink" train coming down from the northern suburbs into Kings Cross station. Then he catches the tube, going through Baker Street and Edgware Rd. On the day in question the ThamesLink line was delayed by about 15mins, as it was down to single line working at one point for maintenance. It now turns out that as he travelled down to Kings Cross, the four bombers, with their backpacks, were either on this same train with him, or on the one before. They must have been similarly behind schedule.

He remembers sitting opposite two obviously gay guys, one talking loudly about his new job, at a hairdressers in Knightsbridge - three feet away from him.

He hurried to the tube station (being slightly late) and was annoyed when he just failed to catch the first train, it pulled away as he reached the closing doors.

He caught the next a couple of minutes later. Just after Baker Street it braked to an unusually violent stop in the tunnel. Edgware Rd is the next station after Baker Street. After a while (not as long as I previously thought) it reversed back to Baker Street, where they were told it had terminated due to an "power failure". They all quietly spilled out into the world, and caught buses. Not till he got to work did he learn what happened.

The timings make it virtually certain that the train blown up just after leaving Edgware Rd was the one he had failed to catch by mere seconds.

Moreover, reading the paper, and seeing the lists of photographs of the dead and missing, there looking back at him from the page, he finds the face of the guy opposite to him on the train into KingsCross. Even with a mention of KnightsBridge and hairdressing. I guess the guy just walked a bit faster.

What can you say ? I really do find it a bit hard to contemplate. I guess, unlike so many other places, we just aren't adapted to these events. The palestinians, for instance, flinch I understand every time they hear a helicopter. Israelis are wary of buses.

Feelings are strange things, aren't they ? I think I'm very calm and rational about all this, and then as I type I find the beginning of unexpected tears welling up in my eyes (even though in RL I'm actually male). And even though he is perfectlt totally unharmed. Silly, isn't it, when so many others in so many places suffer real and irreversible loss.

My God - what must that feel like .............if it's your own child....

Damn,

I guess he can really thank good fortune for that day. Seconds from disaster, but saved. I'm sure being that close to death would mess with anyone's mind for a time. Poor bloke.

in the meantime I watch China, Russia and Khazakstan. I thiink this is where wIII will be born.

Firstly I would like to express my condolences to the people of the UK for the recent attacks.

Personally I don't see the American people as wanting to invade whole countries to eradicate one terrorist group. It is not like we had a popular vote on the matter.

The fact that Bush Jr. was elected in the first place is a good indication of how highly broken we as a people are and / or how broken our political system is. The man lacks the credentials to take care of someone's cat for the weekend, let alone run a country.

I feel a bit like some of the Germans must of felt in WWII, i.e. "I can't believe this man came to lead us and I can't believe we are saying and doing these things." The Bush administration is scary, and has even scared our media into submission.

The US is having technical difficulties right now. Please tune in later.