CODE ORANGE

[huff'npuff]

As you all probably know, our country is on code orange alert because of what happened in London.. HIGH
Let's all pray for those that may be in harm's way- Police,firemen,etc.
Our own Iceman is in that group, so let's always hope that everyone's safe.

[truckboy]

Yes, lets keep them in our thoughts. I heard a British official or reporter comparing it to our 9/11. They really backed us up after that and are paying the price now. This attack has the reverse effect on me than was intended to have on the Brittish people. It's like when the bully or neighborhood slimebag beats up your little brother or gentler friend for backing you up.

But that's not important. Prayers and hope are what's needed now, not my selfish anger.

[bdee]

I don't know about anyone else, but after these things happen it feels like there's another shoe to drop, so to speak. Let's hope not.

[MTBME]

They will always be another shoe to drop. We can only hope we'll drop it on them before they have another chance to drop it on us.

[Mr_Cheeze]

This proves one thing. No matter what anyone says to reason why we are in Iraq, specifically whether the allied forces are a "magnet" for terrorists making Iraq a battleground versus Al Qaeda; one thing remains perfactly clear. What happens in Iraq will have NO EFFECT upon an organized terror attack anywhere else in the world. This should be a big wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee moment for anyone who believes that Iraq is about fighting the terrorists. So no more of this idiotic "Well, we haven't been attacked since 9/11, so we have to be doing something right." That is the worst kind of narrow thinking. This proves that if they want to terrorize, they can and they will.

[MTBME]

"This proves that if they want to terrorize, they can and they will. "

But that's always been the case. Once that genie gets out of the bottle, there's no turning back. My surprise was that I though their security was a bit higher in London. It wasn't just a lucky bomber but 4 or 5 of them! Was there no chatter beforehand? I suspect in the weeks to come we'll be hearing about "another" downing street memo and how the British government dropped the ball.

[Mr_Cheeze]

"This proves that if they want to terrorize, they can and they will. "

But that's always been the case. Once that genie gets out of the bottle, there's no turning back. My surprise was that I though their security was a bit higher in London. It wasn't just a lucky bomber but 4 or 5 of them! Was there no chatter beforehand? I suspect in the weeks to come we'll be hearing about "another" downing street memo and how the British government dropped the ball.


There is already a report that they knew something. British authorities received a warning from Israeli officials to tell Benjamin Netanyahu to remain in his hotal and to stay away from a meeting he was to attend at a hotal near one of the blasts.

[kernel crash]

I also heard that. So was Netanyahu the target or just an extra feather in the cap had they got him. Look at the pattern so far since 9/11 and Madrid. Big high visability targets. Then lay low for a year or more till things settle down. So what happens now?

[PutAwayWet]

When one side escalates the violence, the other will follow. "To stop the violence, we must increase our violence!" I only wish more people understood that the way to stop terrorism isn't to escalate our attacks on them, but to understand them and use peace to fight for peace....

[kernel crash]

"but to understand them and use peace to fight for peace.... "

Has that ever worked? I mean show me some historical perspective to back that up.

[huff'npuff]

I started this post just to have folks think of the dedicated people that are helping to make us safe.
That said, I firmly believe that the peace approach is absolutely wrong. These cowardlys.o.b.'s take peace and negotiations as a sign of weakness.
Yes, it IS a wake up call. Wake up and bomb their homelands until THEIR innocents realize that the world is sick of them supporting and hiding them.

[slapheadmofo]

There can never be an understanding with those filthy f*cking animals. They don't want peace; they want to take the planet back to the stone ages and kill or subjugate all of us in the process. They are subhuman and need to be exterminated.

[MTBME]

There's a lot of truth to what slapheadmofo says here. They hate us. Our culture. Our religious beliefs. Our democratic form of government. Our treatment of women. I don't see peace with these guys anytime soon. Not in our lifetime.

[mtbtom]

Wake up and bomb their homelands until THEIR innocents realize that the world is sick of them supporting and hiding them.


Bomb countries and kill innocent people ? That makes us no better than the terrorists.

[TrailBate]

I don't know who is the more effective terrorists: Al Qeada or the media. Yes, lot's of people were killed (but it was no 9/11, lets stop that stupid comparison, shall we?), but now the media is going apeshit. I've already seen reporters in boston subway's telling you how to get out, threat levels being raised (what are we at? Magenta? mauve?), editorials saying "whether you are for the war or against it, you are in it." blah blah blah. Romney going on channel 4 explaining what he is doing about it, besides knee jerk reactions.

The media is terrorizing more people than Al Qaida.

Then Rush Limbaugh is saying how Germans, British, Scottish, were all cheering when 9/11 happened, and how more respectful and manly we are for not cheering this. I'd love to see the reports of these Europeans cheering after 9/11

yes, it was a terrorist attack. Let's not start wrapping our homes in plastic again, m'kay?

[kernel crash]

Odd tone to your response TrailBait. I mean lets quickly shift focus away from the London bombings to the media! I mean it wasn't as bad as 9/11. After all a couple of bombs didn't go off. So it wasn't as bad as it could have been! Try to sell that to the 700 plus victims of todays bombings and the thousands more that were in the subway. I guess the reminder to the world that these guys are still out there doesn't fit your agenda, does it.

[FriedRys]

There can never be an understanding with those filthy f*cking animals. They don't want peace; they want to take the planet back to the stone ages and kill or subjugate all of us in the process. They are subhuman and need to be exterminated.
You got it all wrong, they just want to show us the error of our ways and bring us back into the fold of the True Believers. That being said, the Brits aren't like the Americans, they play the game much harder, hell look at the way they have dealt with the Irish. My guess is there is going to be a rash of dead "suspected terrorists" coming up around the U.K. and Europe.

[sizlinseagulsoup]

"but to understand them and use peace to fight for peace.... "

Has that ever worked? I mean show me some historical perspective to back that up.



There were no terrorist attacks while Carter was president and backed off our military operations in developing nations. Then Reagan comes along, tries to homogenize the world to a completely arbitrary capitalist standard, and look... people are dying now.

[sizlinseagulsoup]

Just something to mull over... http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070007

[kernel crash]

"There were no terrorist attacks while Carter was president"

Nice that you bring up Jimmy Carter. That helps to make MY point. Didn't the Iranians grab American hostages at the embassy and keep them hostage for over a year, and let them go on the day Regan was sworn in. That could certainly be viewed as an act of terrorism. The peace at all cost attitute from Carter was viewed as a weakness in the eyes of our enemies.

[sizlinseagulsoup]

"There were no terrorist attacks while Carter was president"

Nice that you bring up Jimmy Carter. That helps to make MY point. Didn't the Iranians grab American hostages at the embassy and keep them hostage for over a year, and let them go on the day Regan was sworn in. That could certainly be viewed as an act of terrorism. The peace at all cost attitute from Carter was viewed as a weakness in the eyes of our enemies.


While your deontological philosophy is admirable, what do you feel is better? Having tens of people held hostiage, or having thousands die in random terrorist attacks because of hardline policies?

[TrailBate]

"There were no terrorist attacks while Carter was president"

Nice that you bring up Jimmy Carter. That helps to make MY point. Didn't the Iranians grab American hostages at the embassy and keep them hostage for over a year, and let them go on the day Regan was sworn in. That could certainly be viewed as an act of terrorism. The peace at all cost attitute from Carter was viewed as a weakness in the eyes of our enemies.


Yeah, do we want to discuss how Reagan got those hostages released?

[TrailBate]

Odd tone to your response TrailBait. I mean lets quickly shift focus away from the London bombings to the media! I mean it wasn't as bad as 9/11. After all a couple of bombs didn't go off. So it wasn't as bad as it could have been! Try to sell that to the 700 plus victims of todays bombings and the thousands more that were in the subway. I guess the reminder to the world that these guys are still out there doesn't fit your agenda, does it.



You missed the point entirely. Terrorists are all about making people afraid. The media is doing a better job doing that than the terrorists. Is anyone surprised there was another attack? Did anyone believe there would never be another one? The media is making it out like YOU WILL BE NEXT! Not 5 years from now, not next week, but PROBABLY TODAY!!

It's like the high school shootings. The more attention the media gives it, the more likely there will be more.

and If I wanted this to "fit my agenda", I'd be complaining how Bush should have spent more time and effort going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and less time making up lies to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaida.

[huff'npuff]

Wake up and bomb their homelands until THEIR innocents realize that the world is sick of them supporting and hiding them.


Bomb countries and kill innocent people ? That makes us no better than the terrorists.



Diplomatic efforts have really had a lot of success,havent they ? They laugh at our "be nice" approach.
Declaring war in no way parallels terrorism. War is hell. Civiians (innocents) die in every war. When it comes to more civilized people dying versus those that have no regard for human life I have no qualms whatsoever about bombing them into oblivion.

[TrailBate]

Diplomatic efforts have really had a lot of success,havent they ? They laugh at our "be nice" approach.
Declaring war in no way parallels terrorism. War is hell. Civiians (innocents) die in every war. When it comes to more civilized people dying versus those that have no regard for human life I have no qualms whatsoever about bombing them into oblivion.


"civilians die in every war"? So guess you don't care about the 50 dead brits? You wouldn't care about a few hundred more dead american civilians? Or are western civilians just more valuable than middle eastern civilians? Who has no regard for human life? Bush? You?

Since you have "no qualms", I assume you are in the military, posting from Iraq?

[huff'npuff]

OKAYYYY,

I made the original post simply to ask that we all keep those at risk in our hearts and mind. It was never my intent to start another mickey mouse political BS debate.
We all have our opinions,and they've been voiced before many times. Now let's just say a thankful prayer that we are in a country where we can do just that,and think of those that are in dangerous positions everyday to keep us safe.
PAX VOBISCUM

[kernel crash]

"I'd be complaining how Bush should have spent more time and effort going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan"

I believe that's just what the navy Seals and Special forces that went down in the helicoptor last week were doing. And based on the firepower involved, they may have been closing in. I think this kind of casual attitute about Bin Laden from the administration is a ruse to draw him out. The plan seems to be to put highly specialized teams in place using high tech monitoring and surveilence equipment as opposed to putting thousands of boots on the ground.

[fvh420]

We don't have the boots available to be on the ground searching for Osama. They are all on the ground in Iraq fighting a war that was planned out by the Neocons long before 9/11. Bush was picked by the Republican power brokers before the 2000 election becuae he was open to the idea of a war in Iraq.

As for the media - they do fan the flames of fear. The need something new to report on and draw viewers to get ratings to make $. Having so much free media is a double edged sword. On one hand, investigative reporting leads the discovery of corruption, etc. On the other hand, there is money to be made by advertising so you get the kind of sensationalism we see from Fox.

The terrorist know that dramatic events will draw the press, give them the exposure and help spread terror. Groups like Greenpeace have know this for years. They want to effect change. They get change by drawing attention to an issue. I am absolutely not calling Greenpeace a terrorist group. What I am saying is if you do something spectacular you will get attention.

[MTBME]

"if you do something spectacular you will get attention"

Kind of like this guy!

http://www.lowellsun.com/local/ci_2844979

[huff'npuff]

" "civilians die in every war"? So guess you don't care about the 50 dead brits? You wouldn't care about a few hundred more dead american civilians? "

Don't you try putting words in my mouth. Those Brits didn't die in any war! They were victims of animals! I care about them and every American civilian and serviceman that dies.
.................................................. .............................................

" Or are western civilians just more valuable than middle eastern civilians? Who has no regard for human life? Bush? You? "

Sport,when it comes to choice, I'll choose CIVIL civilians anytime. Guess who they are.
As for the Bush or me comment, you really exhibit low class thinking trying to turn what I said around to protect fanatical killers. NO, I'm not in the military, posting from Iraq.Are YOU in Iraq - posting from a hideout while you console the cutthorats that attack freedom around the world !?

I already posted my regret for starting this thread. It was meant as encouragement to those that help protect AMERICAN civilians-not as a platform for toilet paper rhetoric.

[TrailBate]

In one breath you say we're in a war, and civilians die. Then you say the Brits aren't in a war. Make up your mind. Iraqi civilians weren't in a war either, until Bush invaded. But then the rightys get their panties in a bunch whenever anyone mentions Iraqi civilian casualties.

[sizlinseagulsoup]

The racism on this thread is absolutely disgusting. I think people should read a book on arab anti-americanism because clearly certain users are very very mislead on the subject.

Just a brief summary of what you may find in such a book...

The majority of people in Arab nations are actually pro-US (however, recent operations in Iraq have sunk those numbers so that the majority of people in Arab nations are anti-US). The idea that the people are "savages" and "hate everything about us" is a common misconception that has been brought about by Republican propaganda to make the lives lost in the Middle East seem less important. In reality, they are exactly the same as US--people (capitalist even). Muslims are not hating the United States, FUNDALMENTALISTS do. Look at Indonesia... 4th largest country in the world which is dominated by Muslims. Not a lot of terrorists coming from there even though we have an equally deporable military past in the region (although, nothing to the extent of what we do in Israel). That is because they do not have such a radical fundamentalist population.

I really hope the racists on the forum read what I just wrote and modify their hate speach accordingly. Terrorists are a specific group, not a nation of people. Just an FYI, the terrorists in London were not being harbored by any Middle Eastern nation, they came from a European sect of al Qaeda (at least, so the news has been saying).

[huff'npuff]

In one breath you say we're in a war, and civilians die. Then you say the Brits aren't in a war. Make up your mind. Iraqi civilians weren't in a war either, until Bush invaded. But then the rightys get their panties in a bunch whenever anyone mentions Iraqi civilian casualties.


Excuse me........where did I say we're IN a war ?? Yeah, I know we're in a war in Iraq, but I said :


" Declaring war in no way parallels terrorism. War is hell. Civiians (innocents) die in every war."
That is fact,even history, if you like-not my wish. However,nothing else seems to have worked,so if that's what it takes, then I'm for it.
I don't get my panties in a bunch either( since I don't wear panties ). No, I don't get my knickers in a knot,either. It's sad that civilians die in war, but I'll not worry about the other side when I see our boys being killed.

Bombing their homelands would be an act of war. Of course no one wants to see that,but I stand behind my conviction that nothing less will ever resolve this non-sensical killing of innocents.

[slapheadmofo]

One side does everything in their power to inflict as much damage as they can on civilians. The other makes appreciable (if not totally successful) efforts to spare civilians. One side is killing 1000s of civilians in Iraq these days and one side is risking (and expending) lives to try to restore services to them.

I'm not terrorized by these barbarians anywhere near as much as I'm pissed off by them. The communities that breed and support them need to start taking more responsibility in suppressing them.

[huff'npuff]

One side does everything in their power to inflict as much damage as they can on civilians. The other makes appreciable (if not totally successful) efforts to spare civilians. One side is killing 1000s of civilians in Iraq these days and one side is risking (and expending) lives to try to restore services to them.

I'm not terrorized by these barbarians anywhere near as much as I'm pissed off by them. The communities that breed and support them need to start taking more responsibility in suppressing them.



I wish I could have said it as succinctly. Thanks Slaphead.

[TrailBate]

Nobody is defending terrorists. But it has already been proven that Iraq had nothing to do with any terrorist attacks against the US. The US has killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

[mtbtom]

Diplomatic efforts have really had a lot of success,havent they ? They laugh at our "be nice" approach.
Declaring war in no way parallels terrorism. War is hell. Civiians (innocents) die in every war. When it comes to more civilized people dying versus those that have no regard for human life I have no qualms whatsoever about bombing them into oblivion.


Bombing them into oblivion. Sure, just launch a nuclear missile at all Islamic countries and kill them all.

I'm not sure if you're speaking (or writing as it may be) out of anger, but this has got to be the most ignorant thing I've read on these forums.

[huff'npuff]

Kevin,
I won't waste my time reading a book about this. The news,as pumped up as it may be, still informs me of body counts by terrorists.
Nowhere in my posts did I ever mention Muslims. I am against any and all terrorists. For all we know, we may even find that the IRA was behind this particular attack in Britain. Although I doubt it very much.
You certainly do seem to object to anything that our country does anywhere though :
" Not a lot of terrorists coming from there even though we have an equally deporable military past in the region (although, nothing to the extent of what we do in Israel). "
.................................................. .................................................. .................................
" Just an FYI, the terrorists in London were not being harbored by any Middle Eastern nation, they came from a European sect of al Qaeda (at least, so the news has been saying)."
Just where do you think that Al Quaeda originates from ?

[slapheadmofo]

Nobody is defending terrorists. But it has already been proven that Iraq had nothing to do with any terrorist attacks against the US. The US has killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.


It's true that Iraqis are the biggest victims of terrorism right now. Hopefully they reach a point (the sooner the better) where they can take control of their country back and deal with those animals in their own way. You can bet it'll be a lot harsher than taking naked pictures of them.

Kevin, do you really think we need you to explain the difference between terrorists and nations? The problem with liberals is they think they're much smarter than everyone else and that if only the rest of us understood things better, we'd be in total agreement with them. Instead of trying to educate us about the obvious, why don't you go back and look a little further into the problems that you say Indonesia doesn't have with Islamists. Maybe start with the Bali nightclub bombings and go from there.

Adherents to Shariah are savages. Terrorists and militant Islamists hate everything about us. Instead of people getting their panties in a bunch feeling guilty about an alleged koran in a toilet or two, how about a little outrage about women being gang-raped as punishment for one of their male relative's petty transgresssions? That's these people's idea of justice, and they want to inflict it on the entire planet. They understand only violence and that's how they need to be dealt with.

[kernel crash]

"Muslims are not hating the United States, FUNDALMENTALISTS do. "

I think most people on this forum understand the difference from what I've read so I don't think we have a problem with this.

"Just an FYI, the terrorists in London were not being harbored by any Middle Eastern nation, they came from a European sect of al Qaeda"

I think the jury is still out on this one. We'll have to wait a while to know but they obviously share the same ideals as the fundamentalists.

[huff'npuff]

"Bombing them into oblivion. Sure, just launch a nuclear missile at all Islamic countries and kill them all.

I'm not sure if you're speaking (or writing as it may be) out of anger, but this has got to be the most ignorant thing I've read on these forums. "

My,my! You sure do take things literally! Heck, can't nuke 'em. We'd lose all that oil!
I'm glad you and some others weren't around for WWII. We'd still be fighting it.
If it weren't for virtually bombing the enemies into "oblivion " to get them to surrender, many more lives on BOTH sides would have been lost.
Sorry kids, I'm through playing. Go
play pattycake with the terrorists,and turn your backs on your own country. I'm done with the lot of you.

[sizlinseagulsoup]

Kevin, do you really think we need you to explain the difference between terrorists and nations?


I wouldn't need to if I truly believed people knew the difference. When someone wants to bomb the middle east into oblivion, they clearly don't.

Oh yeah, the Brits are blaming Tony Blair for the attack. Are they playing paddycake with the terrorists too?

[slapheadmofo]

Okay, so you're saying that H + P a stupid racist.
You wanna fill in the blanks on exactly who else you're labelling that way? I'm curious.

[huff'npuff]

Okay, so you're saying that H + P a stupid racist.
You wanna fill in the blanks on exactly who else you're labelling that way? I'm curious.



I think it was just me. I'm in a class by myself. ;D

[Mr_Cheeze]

The racism on this thread is absolutely disgusting. I think people should read a book on arab anti-americanism because clearly certain users are very very mislead on the subject.

Just a brief summary of what you may find in such a book...

The majority of people in Arab nations are actually pro-US (however, recent operations in Iraq have sunk those numbers so that the majority of people in Arab nations are anti-US). The idea that the people are "savages" and "hate everything about us" is a common misconception that has been brought about by Republican propaganda to make the lives lost in the Middle East seem less important. In reality, they are exactly the same as US--people (capitalist even). Muslims are not hating the United States, FUNDALMENTALISTS do. Look at Indonesia... 4th largest country in the world which is dominated by Muslims. Not a lot of terrorists coming from there even though we have an equally deporable military past in the region (although, nothing to the extent of what we do in Israel). That is because they do not have such a radical fundamentalist population.

I really hope the racists on the forum read what I just wrote and modify their hate speach accordingly. Terrorists are a specific group, not a nation of people. Just an FYI, the terrorists in London were not being harbored by any Middle Eastern nation, they came from a European sect of al Qaeda (at least, so the news has been saying).


Ok, how is this: Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all of the terrorists are Muslims. That's a fact, Jack. Oh, I'm sure you'll cite some reference to some minor group in Zimbabwe or something, but you get my point, and you cannot gloss over it. Racism? Where do you think it started? With us or with learning that these radical extremists, led by the grand master of radical extremists, Bin Laden, want to wipe us out. Why? Yes, they hate us. Why? Well, one reason is because we support the JEWS. But, no, we are the racists. And you wonder why anti-Liberal rhetoric harps with terms such as anti-patriotism. You can spew that it's all our fault, all the media's fault, but you are just wrong. They hate us because of the way we live. Is that our fault? I am sure that you believe that it is.

Here's another fact, you are one of us, too. And they want to kill you too. Not because of George Bush, not because of Ronald Reagan or Donald Rumsfeld or that we don't spend enough foreign aid on Arab nations. It's because they have been brainwashed by cultural differences and fanatical leadership that has preyed upon the minds of a weakened and depressed people. Is that our fault? Not unless you are truly ignorant enough to believe it. So what do we do? Just sit back and take what they give us while we attempt to reason with the unreasonable? Sorry, but after 9/11 and Spain and now London, and whatever comes next to remind us that they are still out there, you are going to be hard pressed at convincing anyone to give peace a chance.

Now if you want to argue about how to go about fighting this enemy, then we have a debate; because I certainly do not believe that Iraq is the answer. That much is obvious. Is it helping our image in the eyes of these radicals? Hell, it's making us look more Satanic. Maybe it is helping them recruit more people to their cause. That's certainly plausible. But to suggest that John Kerry could have gone over withg lollipops and IPODs in some vain attempt at showing that we're not such bad people, you are drinking some bad Tazo.

[catbbq]

Ok, guys, lets bring it back a notch. I doubt anyone was ever convince of anything by calling them racists or ignorant. I tend to stop listening when people start saying such things about me.

So how about a calmer, cooler assessment?

1) We (the people on the discussion) aren't terrorists. Therefore, we don't actually know why they do what they do. Some probably want to eliminate the Western way of life. Others probably just enjoy the thrill. Some are probably brainwashed. A few may even believe they are doing the right thing according to their religion.

2) We can probably agree that most of them can't be reasoned with.

3) Terrorism, by its very nature, attacks innocents. While I am sure attacking a military target is terrifying, being military means you will be attacked. That is why it is called defense. To defend, someone has to attack.

4) The situation in the middle East is a bit unique in that their is no obvious enemy from a country perspective. When people fight for their country, bombing that countries resources into dust is a good way to fight. When people fight for ideals shared by a few, finding those resources are much harder.

5) From a strategy perspective, war isn't about killing, it is about inflicting damage. Countries typically take care of their wounded which puts a drain on resources. I expect it is much cheaper to bury a soldier than to treat a shattered hip.

I am thankful that at this particular point in history no one has attempted to take my rights to say these things. I am thankful that I wasn't worried about getting up this morning and going down to my kitchen for coffee. I am thankful that (if the rain holds) I will be able to go for a bike ride later today and not be fearful of being shot or bombed. I am thankful the most I have to worry about is where I am going on vacation this winter.

So lets try to keep it civil. Calling people names only leads to hate. Hate is how we got into the mess in the first place.

[TrailBate]

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all of the terrorists are Muslims. That's a fact, Jack. Oh, I'm sure you'll cite some reference to some minor group in Zimbabwe or something, but you get my point, and you cannot gloss over it.

How about the japanese terrorists that gassed their subway a few years back? How about the IRA? How about Timothy McVeigh? The Columbine shooters? The Chechen rebels? (yes, many of them are indeed muslim) The spanish separatists? The rebels in Haiti?

[TrailBate]

or the Columbian drug cartel? Brazil is having a lot of problems with terrorists in Rio. Argentina is having some terrorist problems too.

[huff'npuff]

Don't forget the gangs in the cities too! jeez!

[huff'npuff]

Don't forget the gangs in the cities too! jeez!


OH - and the bullies in the schoolyard and playground.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all of the terrorists are Muslims. That's a fact, Jack. Oh, I'm sure you'll cite some reference to some minor group in Zimbabwe or something, but you get my point, and you cannot gloss over it.

How about the japanese terrorists that gassed their subway a few years back? How about the IRA? How about Timothy McVeigh? The Columbine shooters? The Chechen rebels? (yes, many of them are indeed muslim) The spanish separatists? The rebels in Haiti?




I guess you missed the part where I qualified my statement with "since the year 2000". But thanks for buttressing my point anyhow.

[sizlinseagulsoup]

1) We (the people on the discussion) aren't terrorists. Therefore, we don't actually know why they do what they do.


Actually, we do know why terrorists do what they do. There have been detailed studies on the subject. Here's one particularly good book on the subject... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400063175/qid=1121086072/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-5133540-6572825

[TrailBate]

I guess you missed the part where I qualified my statement with "since the year 2000". But thanks for buttressing my point anyhow.


I guess I also missed the part where you "qualified" your statement by excluding all non-middle eastern people who aren't attacking the US. My bad.

[Mr_Cheeze]

No, your bad is your unsurprising missing of the point that religious profiling is the fault of those who started this whole mess... which to remind you again, was not us. I realize, though, that using a liberal's skewed logic, any terrorist attck from here on is is our fault because of Iraq. Yet we can't fight back else we would be racists. Ya, makes sense to me.

[PutAwayWet]

You missed the point entirely. Terrorists are all about making people afraid. The media is doing a better job doing that than the terrorists. Is anyone surprised there was another attack? Did anyone believe there would never be another one? The media is making it out like YOU WILL BE NEXT! Not 5 years from now, not next week, but PROBABLY TODAY!!

It's like the high school shootings. The more attention the media gives it, the more likely there will be more.

and If I wanted this to "fit my agenda", I'd be complaining how Bush should have spent more time and effort going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and less time making up lies to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaida.


A quote (not sure from whom) worth remembering:

"Violence is to terrorism what propaganda is to American Democracy."

[PutAwayWet]

" Or are western civilians just more valuable than middle eastern civilians? Who has no regard for human life? Bush? You? "

Sport,when it comes to choice, I'll choose CIVIL civilians anytime. Guess who they are.


Ever spent any time with those "uncivil" civillians in other countries? You know, the ones with families and friends and lives that don't happen to be between our priveliged borders? Just how are you so sure they're not 'civil'? Someone made a comment about how they all hate us, and our way of life. Of course they hate people who make judgements about their 'civility' from thousands of miles away in front of a TV. I don't particularly care for people like that, either.

[PutAwayWet]

You know, one thing I see on this thread permeates all responses:

Those who take it upon themselves to investigate and educate themselves on the 'war', terrorism, etc. seem to have a different view than those who rely on spoon-fed 'news'. Those who have sought to see all sides of the truth bring insightful comments and references to back up their ideas. Those who have not spew rancid regurgitations of mass media fear mongering.

Here's a good place to start if you'd like to get a clearer picture of just how American history isn't as glossy as you learned in school:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060528427/qid=1121177808/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6314530-8051817?v=glance&s=books

Only once you have a clear picture of our past can you begin to fathom the truth of our present.

Who else has some good reading material for those who would like to know all sides of an argument before making an educated decision?

[slapheadmofo]

You guys and your condescension crack me up. Goes right back to the egocentric attitude of "If only you were smart, you'd agree with me". My wife took a US history class a while ago and that laughable Zinn book was the purported textbook. I had a chance to go thru some of it; the majority of the reviews on Amazon spell out what I found pretty well. For example:

"This book is a perfect example of the somewhat ignorant way that many historians apply 20th century morality to events that happened hundreds of years ago. Unfortunately, pushing his political views are more important to him than portraying accurate unbiased history."

And it didn't take Fox news or the election of GWB to make me realize that a dog with a history of biting people needs to be put down. I could really care less what it's reasons are at that point.

[Mr_Cheeze]

You know, one thing I see on this thread permeates all responses:

Those who take it upon themselves to investigate and educate themselves on the 'war', terrorism, etc.... blah blah blah yadda yadda dabba dabba doo...
Who else has some good reading material for those who would like to know all sides of an argument before making an educated decision?


In other words, those with whom you happen to agree present, in your eyes, the more cogent arguments. What a coincidence. ::)

[PutAwayWet]

In other words, those with whom you agree happen to present, in your eyes, the more cogent arguments. What a coincidence. ::)

Cheeze...you sound like a pretty smart guy from the posts I've read. My question is this: Why would you only listen to one side of an issue before making a decision on something? Are people afraid to believe they are part of somethng less than perfect? Afraid to have their beliefs challenged? To consumed with mass consumerism, working too many hours to get too much stuff, to explore the reality beyond their tv screens and newspapers?

You wouldn't buy a house after seeing it from the street, why buy the BS in the media without taking a closer inspection?

[kernel crash]

" My question is this: Why would you only listen to one side of an issue before making a decision on something? "

There's the flaw in your thinking. What makes you think he is only listening to one side of any story! Just because he doesn't come to the same conclusion as you doesn't mean he needs to do more research until he see's things your way. Jeez.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Now wait. I think you must be referring to others on this BBS. Either that or you are making wrong assumptions about who has what political bias and why. I neither automatically accept what the liberally biased mass media presents daily, or blindly follow the alternatives (Fox, Newsmax, et. al.) Furthermore, some of this so-called credible data that these resident liberals often present are taken from hardly credible sources tehmselves, likely found by Googling keywords and finding the first site or blog that back a point, regardless of the agenda of the sites' creators. That's not necessarily the best way to back an argument. The internet is rife with get-a-lifers with nothing better to do than create giant wastes of virtual space with their nonsense. Kind of like what we are all doing here on this mountain biking forum. ;D

[PutAwayWet]

Cheeze, you're right - I'm referring to everyone, including myself. The point is, everyone has an agenda. If you only read, listen, etc to one news source then you are only hearing one side. The more you hear that one side exclusively...the more you believe their word as gospel without question, and the more you are a tool to the advancement of that agenda.

It's hard to read some of the stuff on the other side. It's easier for me to want to believe that the country I live in is all-benevolent; that the world truly does revolve around the US and as the center of that world, our hopes, dreams, and wallets are the only thing that matters. When I first read stuff by Chomsky and Zinn (among others), it was pretty devastating to my world and self view. You get over that, though, and then you start wanting to affect a positive change. Understanding the shortcomings of something is the first step towards making it better.

I would argue that the 'liberally biased mass media' does not exist. Liberal and conservative are not real places - rather they are all relative to what those in power dub 'the middle'...they are descriptions of current trends in political agendas. Current 'liberals' are not liberal whatsoever - on the grand spectrum they sit just slightly left of today's conservatives, who are very far to the right. Many of today's liberals are still right wing, just not so much as the extreme right wing currently in power. True liberals like Dennis Kucinich are so far to the left they can't even be described by today's 'liberal-conservative' rhetoric.

Kernel - all I ask is that you expand your views. If you can read "A People's History of the United States" and we can have an intelligent discussion about the merits of US policy throughout history, there's a good chance I will take your points to heart, regardless of what your beliefs are. But, I cannot listen to people regurgitate pro-American propaganda (and often outright lies) - especially when they offer no understanding of the whole issue. It's like you're trying to describe the intricacies of ocean life after a day at the beach or giving a lecture on the computerization of automotive technology after seeing an ad for BMW.

"Criticism of one's government to affect positive change is the most sincere show of devotion to your fellow citizens."

[huff'npuff]

" But, I cannot listen to people regurgitate pro-American propaganda "

Now THAT'S a surprise ! hah!

See how easy it is to pick one thing to prove a point ?
Now tell me that it's all in my eyes only,and that I should read more pro-enemies of America propaganda....yehriiiight.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Howard Zinn is most certainly a peacenik and a commie. Here is a better book by a different Zinn.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1884737994/qid=1121191563/sr=8-5/ref=pd_bbs_ur_5/103-3654373-3159016?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[PutAwayWet]

Cheeze, I own that one too. Much more pleasurable reading, without a doubt. :)

[mtbtom]

NEWS FLASH:

London Terrorist Bombers Are British Citizens

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/13/london.blair/index.html

In retaliation England prepares to bomb itself into oblivion.



I made the 2nd part up.

[kernel crash]

Yes quite possibly. At least the ones that blew themselves up. Now it will be interesting to find out what kind of outside influences / training they had. Can you imagine. One guy was 19 years old. The other had a small child at home. There's something real F up with that religion. It seems to prey on weak minds.

[Mr_Cheeze]

There's something real F up with that religion. It seems to prey on weak minds.

Well, that would be all religions. But hey, I wouldn't want to offend those sensitive to such statements.


Okay, maybe I would.

[huff'npuff]

NEWS FLASH:

London Terrorist Bombers Are British Citizens

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/13/london.blair/index.html

In retaliation England prepares to bomb itself into oblivion.



I made the 2nd part up.









From AP :
" At least three Britons of Pakistani descent are suspected of carrying out the July 7 attacks that killed 52 and injured 700. Surveillance cameras captured the men as they arrived in the capital 20 minutes before the explosions began."

surprise,surprise

[mtbtom]

From AP :
" At least three Britons of Pakistani descent are suspected of carrying out the July 7 attacks that killed 52 and injured 700. Surveillance cameras captured the men as they arrived in the capital 20 minutes before the explosions began."

surprise,surprise


And your point is ???????????????????????

[huff'npuff]

From AP :
" At least three Britons of Pakistani descent are suspected of carrying out the July 7 attacks that killed 52 and injured 700. Surveillance cameras captured the men as they arrived in the capital 20 minutes before the explosions began."

surprise,surprise


And your point is ???????????????????????



Just as I suspected. You can't see it.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Here's a point: the radical Muslims don't even have to be foreign born, as is evident by these four bombers who, according to reports, were all born on British soil. What does this mean? I'll tell you what it means to me. Profiling is justified and NECESSARY if there is any headway to be gained into breaking their cells.

[mtbtom]

Just as I suspected. You can't see it.


Thanks for your enlightening post.

[mtbtom]

Here's a point: the radical Muslims don't even have to be foreign born, as is evident by these four bombers who, according to reports, were all born on British soil. What does this mean? I'll tell you what it means to me. Profiling is justified and NECESSARY if there is any headway to be gained into breaking their cells.


I'll accept that to some degree. I suppose if you were looking for Islamic terrorists you wouldn't start by investigating the Shriners. But where do you stop ? Wire tap everyone who has ever set foot in a mosque ? Detainment camps ? It would be a different story, if it were your civil rights that were being violated.

Anyway, my point was this - the notion that the UK (or some other country) should go "bomb a country into oblivion" in response to the attack is truly an asinine idea. That's all.

[sizlinseagulsoup]

Zinn's actually not exactly anti-american, for the most part he is pro-america (in it's ideals) but anti-american in the direction that the country has been taken. I suppose a lot of us on this forum (including you Cheeze) are the same way. Yeah, this country is pretty awesome in its ideals (ie, do whatever the hell you want) but it sucks in the way certain groups of people have executed those privledges (I'm not talking politics here, I'm talking exploitation of the common man/indigenous holocaust/etc, which are the major talking points of the book). While Zinn is most definitely a classic leftist (the two times I've seen him in person were at an anti-war rally in downtown boston and a Nader rally in Harvard square), he's not an idiot. Dismissing his points strictly because you disagree with his political leanings is a waste of an opportunity. This book should be evaluated for it's historical merits, which is why it's standard issue at almost every school in the country.