or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › London Terror Attack: Politics
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

London Terror Attack: Politics

post #1 of 369
Thread Starter 
This is the thread for discussing the political ramifications/causes of the recent terror attacks.

Have fun. Keep it clean or I will murder you.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #2 of 369
I just want to express how impressed I am with the attitude of the British in this sad situation. The words of those living in London both seen on the "tele" and written in the other thread here at AI show gracious and self-controlled wisdom in action.

Most impressive,

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #3 of 369
Thread Starter 
I think a large part of that is that once the situation calmed down there is no real reason to be confused as to what happened and why.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #4 of 369
Pipe up if you rode the tube today!

Me? Gloucester to Victoria to Euston.

Never seen Euston so empty.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #5 of 369
Blame Bush for the bombings. Hell, some of you blame him for everything else, so why not this too?
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #6 of 369
An intelligent response would be to say that the people who actually carried out the bombings are responsible for their actions and that the UK should carry what it considers appropriate justice on them; and that Iraq, Bush, Blair, et al. can be seen as a justification from the terrorists, and thus these people and situations carry some of the burden as well.

The UK has been through this kind of thing before, the culture is different, and they have a right to handle this the way they want to handle it.

...but no one's going to say that here.
post #7 of 369
Thread Starter 
One of the main reasons these things are happening is because of centuries of Western imperialism and exploitation in the middle east.

It is not that terror victims had it coming or that terrorists are justified in their actions, but there are reasons things happen.

Funny that critique of centuries of foreign policy by over a dozen nations is interpreted as "Bush hate". It's almost like there's an active desire to not even attempt to understand what is being argued.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #8 of 369
This underlines the need for the WOT including the war in Iraq and the continued holding and interrogation of those in prison. It also must make us think even more seriously about the regimes in Tehran and Damascus. The WOT cannot be successful until all terrorist-harboring regimes have been neutralized one way or another
Moe has left the building
Reply
Moe has left the building
Reply
post #9 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
This underlines the need for the WOT including the war in Iraq and the continued holding and interrogation of those in prison. It also must make us think even more seriously about the regimes in Tehran and Damascus. The WOT cannot be successful until all terrorist-harboring regimes have been neutralized one way or another

Well, that's the point, isn't it? Terrorism is a tactic, and, even worse, operates more or less independently of state-funding, which is what the Bush admin and their supporters don't seem to get. Certainly there are issues of funding, but the fundamental issue for those of us on the other side of it (and those of us in London right now) is simply this: shooting at terrorists makes more terrorists, not fewer.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #10 of 369
Does anyone see an analogy to the Native Americans in the US?
Moe has left the building
Reply
Moe has left the building
Reply
post #11 of 369
Quote:
One of the main reasons these things are happening is because of centuries of Western imperialism and exploitation in the middle east.

At least in the middle east, the British probably have more responsibility than the US, since they were screwing everyone there for a couple of hundred years.

But I think that you are being too generous to the British "talking heads". I have not heard their accusations myself yet, but I doubt that they are being as general as you state.

It is probably more like "This is all due to that bastard GWB", not "The west caused this via centuries of colonial oppression"
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #12 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
But I think that you are being too generous to the British "talking heads". I have not heard their accusations myself yet, but I doubt that they are being as general as you state.

I've been watching iTV and the Beeb since yesterday morning at 11:00 when I got off a bus near Hyde Park Corner. I've not heard ANYTHING but updates.

Quote:
It is probably more like "This is all due to that bastard GWB", not "The west caused this via centuries of colonial oppression" [/B]

You seriously underestimate the British TV news.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #13 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
shooting at terrorists makes more terrorists, not fewer.

brilliant
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #14 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Does anyone see an analogy to the Native Americans in the US?

Not really - we killed 99% of the native americans with guns and disease, took the land they were on, lampooned them in comics and movies, formed an oppressive government agency to interfere in their affairs, forced them onto reservations, and then finally threw them a bone by letting them start casinos.

You can compare the native americans to the various genocides that have occured over the years, but nothing that bad has ever happened in the middle east.

The only thing with an equivalent effect is the flipping of the magnetic poles of the earth, which turned the whole middle east into a desert, and mother nature did it, not us.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #15 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
One of the main reasons these things are happening is because of centuries of Western imperialism and exploitation in the middle east.

I'm really surprised how absent this point is from public discussions. I'm guessing it's just due to widespread ignorance of even recent history. It's just unfortunate how our views of and actions toward those regions haven't fundamentally changed and in some cases, obviously Iraq and afghanistan, are still so strikingly similar.
post #16 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Well, that's the point, isn't it? Terrorism is a tactic, and, even worse, operates more or less independently of state-funding, which is what the Bush admin and their supported don't seem to get. Certainly there are issues of funding, but the fundamental issue for those of us on the other side of it (and those of us in London right now) is simply this: shooting at terrorists makes more terrorists, not fewer.

No, but killing them makes for fewer.

These are not people that can be reasoned with. That is the part that many keep skipidy-skipping bye. They don't want to live in peace with you, they want you dead. They don't want to have tea and crumpets with you at Starbucks, they want you dead. They don't want to stand next to you at a soccer game as your kids play a lively round together, they want to watch their kids kill yours. They don't want to have a friendly game of bridge after work, they want to dangle your charred body from a bridge. They don't want the "infidels" out of Iraq so that they can live in peace with their muslim neighbors, they want to rule the region with terror and brutality.

They have declared war on all civilized nations, we can't just pretend there is no war. War typically means that one side will try to kill more people on the other-side than can be bared, thus a victory. That is obviously their objective. It would seem some would grant a victory without even lifting a finger. What is far worse is they are targeting not military, but civilians that can't defend themselves. And yes, they will take money to support their cause from whomever is willing to give, wether pretenses are true or not.

They refers to fanatic radical muslims and their supporters and not the vast majority of muslims, just to be clear.
post #17 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
No, but killing them makes for fewer.

Well, only if they have no friends or relatives. Maybe we target only those?

At any rate, I'm about to ride the tube back to my flat. I'll let someone else deal with the rest of your argument, as we're all being booted from the British LIbrary.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #18 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
War typically means that one side will try to kill more people on the other-side than can be bared, thus a victory. That is obviously their objective.

pfft .. are you joking? They better pick up the pace. More people have probably been killed over the past couple years slipping on wet floors than from terror attacks.

These attacks, like all terror attacks, aren't intended to wipe out the enemy, they are meant to intimidate the target population.
post #19 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
pfft .. are you joking? They better pick up the pace. More people have probably been killed over the past couple years slipping on wet floors than from terror attacks.

These attacks, like all terror attacks, aren't intended to wipe out the enemy, they are meant to intimidate the target population.

Spain could not bare the civilian deaths, and thus they handed a victory to the Muslim extremists. This is an attempt to achieve the same in England.

Come on.
post #20 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Spain could not bare the civilian deaths, and thus they handed a victory to the Muslim extremists. This is an attempt to achieve the same in England.

Come on.

This is exactly correct. There is a dircet line from this event to the one in Spain. If Britain capitulates their will be 2-3 more just like it.

I think Britain has more spine than Spain.

( hmmm...that kind of rolls of the tongue doesn't it )
post #21 of 369
90+% of spain was opposed to the war from the start. The population was never on your side. Same with Manhattan. You people don't speak for the victims of the major terror attacks on the west.
post #22 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Spain could not bare the civilian deaths, and thus they handed a victory to the Muslim extremists. This is an attempt to achieve the same in England.

Come on.

Spain did the right thing, they ditched a government that lied to them, and waged their tail to the US foregin policy.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #23 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
It started yesterday among the elite media at around 8:00 AM EST.

Don't be surprized to find out it was a CIA operation to drum up political support for the Iraq war. Expect calls for impeachment of GWB from the far left.

Like I said, some talking heads in England have already all but made the statement that it's Bush's fault.

If the past is a template, I can guarantee a lot more in the near and far future. Even though many claim they don't want to hate after this tragedy, they sure have what would seem to be tremendous hate for GWB. So expect some very hateful statements.

I could be wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Blame Bush for the bombings. Hell, some of you blame him for everything else, so why not this too?

The only people I've heard make blatant statements like this are from people like you two. Why do you guys need someone to argue with - you could just sit in your rooms and have arguments with your imaginary friends.
post #24 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
The only people I've heard make blatant statements like this are from people like you two. Why do you guys need someone to argue with - you could just sit in your rooms and have arguments with your imaginary friends.

Well...actually...there was another post (deleted yesterday).
post #25 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This is exactly correct. There is a dircet line from this event to the one in Spain. If Britain capitulates their will be 2-3 more just like it.

I think Britain has more spine than Spain.

What would this capitulation look like? If it involves Iraq, I'd say the capitulation was starting the war in the first place.
post #26 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
What would this capitulation look like? If it involves Iraq, I'd say the capitulation was starting the war in the first place.

Please explain.
post #27 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
What would this capitulation look like? If it involves Iraq, I'd say the capitulation was starting the war in the first place.

Um, hello!!??

Terrorism did not stem from Iraq. Muslim terrorists have been attacking western interests long before even 9/11.

Let's not forget that.
post #28 of 369
Thread Starter 
e#s:

Quote:
It is probably more like "This is all due to that bastard GWB", not "The west caused this via centuries of colonial oppression"

On what grounds do you make this claim?

Why do you think the British are, as a populous, so reluctant to involve themselves militarily in the ME? It's because they have a much better understanding of what their nation's history means in broader geopolitical terms as they have a recent history of being occupying colonialists.

Do not assume that the British are just Americans across the ocean.


CC:

Quote:
Well...actually...there was another post (deleted yesterday).

There are hundreds of posts outlining a very rational and intelligent sequence of historical events pre-dating Bush by hundreds of years covering multiple nations. Yet if one post says "BUSH CAUSED THIS ALL BY HIMSELF!" that is apparently the one worth latching on to and commenting on.

Is this not extremely dishonest on an intellectual level?

Quote:
Please explain.

Think of it this way:
Vader attempting to piss Luke off so much that he joins the dark side.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #29 of 369
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Terrorism did not stem from Iraq.

Doth mine eyes deceive me?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #30 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
There are hundreds of posts outlining a very rational and intelligent sequence of historical events pre-dating Bush by hundreds of years covering multiple nations. Yet if one post says "BUSH CAUSED THIS ALL BY HIMSELF!" that is apparently the one worth latching on to and commenting on.

Is this not extremely dishonest on an intellectual level?

I wasn't latching onto the ONE post...only pointing out that Naples and Cosmo weren't" The only people I've heard make blatant statements like this" as the previous poster said.
post #31 of 369
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/news...TY-BRITAIN.xml

"London police chief Ian Blair said more than 50 people were killed in the blasts and 700 wounded.

He said the final death toll was not yet known. Police had yet to reach one of the bombed underground carriages in central London as the surrounding tunnel was unsafe.

Blair said no survivors were trapped underground and the task now was to retrieve bodies. Andy Trotter of the Transport Police said the number of bodies still trapped was not known, but one police source said it could be more than 10.

"This was a crowded tube train at rush hour in central London with several hundred people on board," Trotter said.

Andy Hayman, of the London police specialist operations branch, spoke of the "extreme circumstances" under which rescue services were working, saying they faced the hazards of tunnel collapse, vermin and "dangerous substances" in the air."
post #32 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, hello!!??

Terrorism did not stem from Iraq. Muslim terrorists have been attacking western interests long before even 9/11.

Let's not forget that.

Still, would there have been a London bombing if there was no irak invasion?
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #33 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by New
Still, would there have been a London bombing if there was no irak invasion?

Well...there was a WTC/Pentagon attack and there had been no Iraq invasion.
post #34 of 369
There are no simple answers, no single cause, no one is totally innocent, everyone feels justified for doing what they do or think. If you can accept that, welcome to reality. Otherwise, have fun in la-la land.
post #35 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Please explain.

Well, I think that going to war in Iraq was exactly the kind of action that benefits bin Laden and other radicals - it gets us out of his hair, it inflames opinion against the US, it provides a training ground for new terrorists, it gives them a chance (however small) to take over a new government in the Middle East, and it makes it easier to target Americans.

IMO, there's simply no upside for the WoT in going into Iraq. More generally, I just don't know what "capitulation" would entail. Distancing yourself from the Iraq war? Putting effort into resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
post #36 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well...there was a WTC/Pentagon attack and there had been no Iraq invasion.

but there was everything else that motivated that one.
post #37 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, hello!!??

Terrorism did not stem from Iraq. Muslim terrorists have been attacking western interests long before even 9/11.

Let's not forget that.

I don't understand how this responds to my post. I said that going to war in Iraq, rather than opposing the war, was capitulation to terrorism. By definition, that means the terrorism came prior to the war in Iraq. Right?
post #38 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by BuonRotto
There are no simple answers

Certainly true. However...

Quote:
Originally posted by BuonRotto
everyone feels justified for doing what they do or think.

That doesn't mean that everyone is justified for doing what they do.

Terrorists might use the invasion of Iraq as justification for their (recent) bombings...but this doesn't mean they are right. And then...we go back to 9/11. There had been no invasion of Iraq there, so what was the justification then? And was it right?
post #39 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
but there was everything else that motivated that one.

USS Cole, WTC 1, Tanzania... on and on and on.
post #40 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well...there was a WTC/Pentagon attack and there had been no Iraq invasion.

Actually the first Iraq War in 1990 was the reason for terrorism in the 1990s up until 9/11. I'm not saying it was a legitimate reason, but it was the stated reason.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › London Terror Attack: Politics