Terrorist Attack on London

Here's the thing about The War on Terror- if we sat back and did nothing, nothing would be accomplished. We're taking small steps forward in order to try to minimize terrorism throughout the world. In no way, shape or form have we made much progress at all. Yet. We're trying. Again, if we sit back and say "Please don't hurt us terrorists!"- it isn't going to stop. What do you suggest we do about terrorism? If you have a solution, I'm all ears.

Here's the thing about The War on Terror- if we sat back and did nothing, nothing would be accomplished. We're taking small steps forward in order to try to minimize terrorism throughout the world. In no way, shape or form have we made much progress at all. Yet. We're trying. Again, if we sit back and say "Please don't hurt us terrorists!"- it isn't going to stop. What do you suggest we do about terrorism? If you have a solution, I'm all ears.

The problem with the War on Terror in my eyes is just that. It's a war, on terror. As we all (?) know the middle-east is a heap of impossible-to-prounounciate-countries with a culture that wastly differs from ours. That in itself is the problem combined with the whole ethno-centrism that we as westeners show time and time again.
Terrorists cannot be stopped by shoving people in Guantanamo Bay and flushing down the Qouran (true or not). And it sure as hell wont be better by bombing all the brown people or ...some of us claiming a new crusade.

I don't have a solution, I do however have a suggestion as to how it might have been better - don't fund extremists with weapons. As a basic rule of thumb, I think that could have helped us now.

So no, I don't have a solution. I'm not payed to make one (yet), and I'm not qualified to make a "true" statement as to how a solution can be made. But atleast talk to the buggers before blowing their houses to bits.

Terrorists claimed after 9/11 that they were in a war against the West. Last time I checked, it takes two to tango. Now it's a war and frankly I think we're making progress. We've shut a lot of terrorist training camps, captured key leaders from Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. There would have been attacks whether there was a War on Terror or not. So blaming America and the other countries that are actively engaged in the War on Terror for the attacks is a joke. They estimate they've stopped about 100 attacks or more within the past three years. That's a lot of lives saved, whether they are American or Russian or whatever it's still a lot of lives saved.

But atleast talk to the buggers before blowing their houses to bits.

Does it count if we yell "duck" while the bomb is on it's way down?

Terrorists claimed after 9/11 that they were in a war against the West. Last time I checked, it takes two to tango. Now it's a war and frankly I think we're making progress. We've shut a lot of terrorist training camps, captured key leaders from Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. There would have been attacks whether there was a War on Terror or not. So blaming America and the other countries that are actively engaged in the War on Terror for the attacks is a joke. They estimate they've stopped about 100 attacks or more within the past three years. That's a lot of lives saved, whether they are American or Russian or whatever it's still a lot of lives saved.

I'm not blaming anybody, I'm just saying that it's a piss poor way of making the terrorists dwindle in numbers. And I take great joy from the fact that you cannot have a war against a feeling. Yet Bush Jr. tries to make us believe that anyhow*.

And would you give me a credible source for those numbers? Because they are purely speculative (or so it seems in my mind).

*note: I know what he/the ones who actually decide anything means, but the pure linguistical idiocy of it humours me

"Africa is the more important issue" - So we should just completely back out of Iraq to help Africa? We can only help so many people at once. And it's not like we're just sitting on our asses not helping Africa, we're trying to combat another major problem in terrorism.

Did I say to back our troops out? Every three seconds, an African child dies of poverty. The ONE Campaign topic that I made about a month ago garnered a ridiculously small amount of responses. This London attack(BTW, you realize that shit like this happens everyday in the Middle East?) garners five pages of responses. I'm sorry but I don't feel like talking about it anymore. Why I did, it was just in me. All we do is talk and talk and wait for more shit to happen. All of this is out of our reach. There's nothing we can do to alter what is happening in Iraq now.

But we can do something to help the life of one African boy or girl escape the life of poverty. Don't you see the difference between the two issues? For one, all we do is talk about it, and for the other, we can actually do something to help it.

"Africa is the more important issue" - So we should just completely back out of Iraq to help Africa? We can only help so many people at once. And it's not like we're just sitting on our asses not helping Africa, we're trying to combat another major problem in terrorism.

Did I say to back our troops out? Every three seconds, an African child dies of poverty. The ONE Campaign topic that I made about a month ago garnered a ridiculously small amount of responses. This London attack(BTW, you realize that shit like this happens everyday in the Middle East?) garners five pages of responses. I'm sorry but I don't feel like talking about it anymore. Why I did, it was just in me. All we do is talk and talk and wait for more shit to happen. All of this is out of our reach. There's nothing we can do to alter what is happening in Iraq now.

But we can do something to help the life of one African boy or girl escape the life of poverty. Don't you see the difference between the two issues? For one, all we do is talk about it, and for the other, we can actually do something to help it.

Everyday 50 people die and 700+ are injured from an outside threat that bombs a metropolitan area? Now that's a modifed truth if I ever heard one.

And Africas problems cannot be solved by helping random child X with ridiculous little money from person Y (seen in the greater scheme of things). An initiative from a macro perspective with closed internal markets and foreign aid (writeoffs and such) is probably the only "help" for Africa.

I read it on the internet (the 100 attacks that have been foiled) a while ago. I can't find it anymore.

I read it on the internet (the 100 attacks that have been foiled) a while ago. I can't find it anymore.

I don't have any numbers on that looking through JSTOR and ELIN, so my guess is that they're immensly bogus.

So blaming America and the other countries that are actively engaged in the War on Terror for the attacks is a joke.

Not exactly blaming America or the other countries per se, but the CIA did train bin Laden, and supplied Iraq with weapons against Iran. I don't understand why this was done in the past, and I don't understand why it took this many years for America to do something about terrorism, which suddenly became a household word.

Every three seconds, an African child dies of poverty. The ONE Campaign topic that I made about a month ago garnered a ridiculously small amount of responses.

It's sad, and I agree it should get more attention. I don't remember seeing your ONE campaign thread, but I appreciate your support for the cause.

So by your words, as long as we stay under 2 million people, we're fine? It is a big deal; we're in the 21st century -- civilian deaths are supposed to be avoided. It might not hit your heart like it hits some, but that's for the reasons I previously stated.

I dont think it was 100,000. Im yet to see any proof of this...

And I'm not sayind its fine that civillians die. But be realistic. And if Iraqi's and Afgahns are willing for the war to continue, what place is it of yours to criticise?

So you've spoken to a few Iraqis...Now tell me, Matthew, did any of the people to whom you spoke lose a family member, a friend, a person in within their neighborhood?

I didn't ask them. Some of them are taxi drivers, one is a pretty good mate of mine. But theres no way I'd ask them that. I do have some morals.

The problem is that american foreign politics is, throughout history and still, extremely shotsighted. That's why they wont let countries develop internal markets with aid.

Why is it when America does step in, they should mind their own business? And when they don't, people ask and criticise america for not helping? Try holding every country to the same standard.
And remember riots example: You can give a man a fish and it'll feed him for a day. But teach him to fish, and it'll feed him for a lifetime.

Here's the thing about The War on Terror- if we sat back and did nothing, nothing would be accomplished. We're taking small steps forward in order to try to minimize terrorism throughout the world. In no way, shape or form have we made much progress at all. Yet. We're trying. Again, if we sit back and say "Please don't hurt us terrorists!"- it isn't going to stop. What do you suggest we do about terrorism? If you have a solution, I'm all ears.

Excellent post there fender. The bottom line is they have no solution, they just like to criticise.

Gloveguy, do you support any aid agencies?

Why is it when America does step in, they should mind their own business? And when they don't, people ask and criticise america for not helping? Try holding every country to the same standard.
And remember riots example: You can give a man a fish and it'll feed him for a day. But teach him to fish, and it'll feed him for a lifetime.

Just because I'm not fond of the way that Iraq has been delt with, and that Vietnam was a shitty move... oh and bombing the shit out of Japan doesn't mean I don't like the help USA has given the rest of the world in WWII. Which is the only time that USA atcually did something generally good. And look what happend after that, the Marshallplan, the rejection of Keynes, Bretton-Woods and so on.

So yeah, in short; Pax Americana fucking sucks. It has lent the world much blood and much grief. But would any other country have done better? Don't know, don't believe that to 100% either.

What I do know, for a cold fact is that since America became the leading nation of this world. All instigations of helping less fortunate countries, trying to make peace in ...oh say Gaza has been shot down. And that numerous dictators got to do more or less what they wanted through active help. And that the whole world is becoming dependant on american companies. So yeah, I dislike the politics that USA has driven but I'm not sure anyone would have done it better.

...

But I wont do the ordinary post and just complain. You wanted suggestion as to how it could have been different?

* Don't arm the people you're later on going to bomb
* Keep curch and state separate
* Don't finance and aid contras
* Don't interfere in international politics of other nations against the will on the UN
* Remember that it was you that took on the role of Pax Americana, then uphold it
* Follow customary law
* Follow international law
* Don't let lobbying deprive your political system of the democratic values it once had

There, just for starters. I'm so fucking fed up with americans claiming that the USA did well, when everything points in the other direction. Just as I'm tired of the casual anti-americans.

And remember, I'm saying that America did screw it's responsibility up; but that I'm unsure that any other country/coalition would have done it better.

I dont think it was 100,000. Im yet to see any proof of this...

Some links I found:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 88,00.html
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?f ... /toll.html
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News ... 10,00.html
http://progrev.blogspot.com/2005/04/ira ... -toll.html
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov2004/MediaLens1103.htm

Other sources, such as http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ put it between between 22 000 and 25 000, though.

Why is it when America does step in, they should mind their own business? And when they don't, people ask and criticise america for not helping?

Not necessarily. I believe America would get heaps of praise if they upped the money, resources, or food to Africa or other poorer nations, for example, but when it comes to war with an ambiguous motive, that's a delicate issue that doesn't go quite well with the public eye, nationally and internationally.

Here's the thing about The War on Terror- if we sat back and did nothing, nothing would be accomplished. We're taking small steps forward in order to try to minimize terrorism throughout the world. In no way, shape or form have we made much progress at all. Yet.

What puzzles me personally, is that not a lot of effort was put into homeland security (primarily borders), or focusing more on terrorist networks and groups, but the primary focus suddenly became Saddam and Iraq. Since when Saddam and Iraq become terrorists that is a threat to America? It's hard to see the correlation between 9/11 and Saddam.

Like we've stated before, you can't just ship money over the Africa and think that will make a difference. You have to physically bring the money over and make sure it goes to good use.

People say "you can't rebuild a whole country" or "America thinks they can go in there and just re-shape a whole country". Well, if you were to help Africa you would have to do the same thing but on a much, much larger scale. You'd have to rebuild schools, hospitals, teach them about sexual education, and then you have those tribal wars going on where they take all the money and spend it evil vs. good.

You crictize the War on Iraq but the aid to Africa would have more bloodshed then the War on Iraq if we put 100% focus on that vs. Iraq. No matter what you do to help people there is going to be bloodshed and innocent people dying. No matter who you help, how you help, or when you help. That's the the stupid thing about life. Bad things happen to good, innocent people and there is nothing we can do about it. Mistakes happen and sometimes when your intent is to do good you mess up a little bit and sometimes it may appear that you are doing more harm than good.

Like I've said before, America has troops in Africa that are giving aid to the families and children in Africa. We have troops that are dying in Africa just like we have troops dying in South America. I hate seeing people die but it's all for a good cause.

So drift back, think about it and wonder if America is really doing such a bad job after all. America isn't flawless but America certainly isn't evil. I really, honestly believe that George Bush is doing all this for the good of the Iraqi's and the good of the Middle East. I don't care if you laugh at that or if you judge me any differently because I believe my country is doing the right thing. But when my friend's brother gets home from Iraq in the next two weeks I'll ask him if the war was worth it. You better believe he'll say yes.

Like we've stated before, you can't just ship money over the Africa and think that will make a difference. You have to physically bring the money over and make sure it goes to good use.

People say "you can't rebuild a whole country" or "America thinks they can go in there and just re-shape a whole country". Well, if you were to help Africa you would have to do the same thing but on a much, much larger scale. You'd have to rebuild schools, hospitals, teach them about sexual education, and then you have those tribal wars going on where they take all the money and spend it evil vs. good.

--snipped--

Seriously, where do you get your information?

"Tribal wars"? "Rebuilding the whole continent"?

I don't mean to talk down to you, but this is such ethno-centric bullshit. The wars that are going on shouldn't be described as tribal as this is something else then what's going on in the most countries with internal and regional disputes. Ok, this is a major subject, so the post will be long. If you start at the Berlin conferance, you will see what is the big beef with Africa. You have white men drawing a map by using a ruler, with no respect as to which people originating from which ethnic group lives where. This opens up for two major things:

1. The borders per se will mean little to the people actually living there.
2. Nations cannot be formed and kept by western, traditional standards

What happens is that within the country, within the borders that we made, people that vastly differs are forced to live "as one". Angola is a good example of this since it's so clear. Three ethnic groups who form three parties to fight the colonialization from Portugal. They are not tribes, they are just three diffrent ethnic groups (would you call hispanics a tribe? Or Jews, or African-American?). These three have their basis in three distinct areas of the nation, and hence you have a dispute. That through the involvement of USA and Sovjet (loads of smaller actors were involved, but lets focus on these two) it becomes a full out war.

This is not unique for the continent since we as westerners systematically rape the land of resources, monetarian liquidity (when they have any...) and try to force our values on Africa. Every nation is it's own, and e-v-e-r-y nation has a internal system of roads, cities, schools and hospitals that work. Even though not according to our standards. So we don't have to build up a whole continent, or "help the savages from themselves". What we need to do is give them the opportunity to colse their markets from imports that out-do the internal equivalence and write off the enourmous debts. This is how western countries developed, and this is probably the way for african countries to develop. No country went from inferiour market-state to a developed country without imposing restrictions on import, so why should they?

What I mean to say is - we don't have to go down there and make things right, we just have to give them the opportunity that we had. We're not going to save them by sending fuckloads of money. And we're definatly not going to solve anything by going in there and trying to stop every regional dispute (dis-legimate the goverment and so on).

Riot, we're not dealing with African terrorism here. We're fighting deseases. We're giving aid. What we're doing in Iraq now -- I don't even think Bush has any idea of what's going on. I have no clue why you think that by trying to modernize a continent, we'd be entering a war. Yes, there are corrupt governments that need to be overthrown, but this sure as hell isn't to be looked at from a military standpoint. Look at it this way, you don't see people going to Iraq or being able to go to Iraq to shoot documentaries on the poverty situations. The point is, these two are not in the same category.

And if Iraqi's and Afgahns are willing for the war to continue, what place is it of yours to criticise?

Who, besides a select few that you know personally, is wanting this war? Who wanted bombs to be dropped onto their city or neighborhood? What makes you think the civilians want this war to keep going?

Gloveguy, do you support any aid agencies?

Look at the sig. I support the ONE Campaign. Not because of the wristbands or the cool commercials or the fact that Bono's behind it, but I feel that we really have something here. We really have the opportunity to make poverty history.

I like the Wristbands, they look cool.

Is Bin Laden still in the cave? Any evidence that proof Bin Laden also involved with this London attacks?

Is Bin Laden still in the cave? Any evidence that proof Bin Laden also involved with this London attacks?

Who knows, and no.

I called them tribes because that's what they are. Villages, tribes whatever you want to call them. There is a lot of fighting going on in Africa.

And in this world miltary force is our diplomacy. It's a shame really but it's impossible to overthrow a government without using force and you know it. You think they are going to back down? You think they'd step down if we sent them an angry letter, make a threat, or give them money? I don't think so.

I called them tribes because that's what they are. Villages, tribes whatever you want to call them. There is a lot of fighting going on in Africa.

And in this world miltary force is our diplomacy. It's a shame really but it's impossible to overthrow a government without using force and you know it. You think they are going to back down? You think they'd step down if we sent them an angry letter, make a threat, or give them money? I don't think so.

Sorry, but what you think and do not think has nothing to do with this. African diplomacy has a history of peaceful coupes when the world puts pressure on them. And the forces that actually did something good by force were peace-keeping (i.e not able to shoot first, non-aggressors).

It saddens me that many people has this notion of Africa as backwards when in fact the leaders in Africa are by far more educated than the leaders in the West.

And no, they are not tribes that fight. Neither is it villages. And there isn't as much fighting in Africa as you seem to think either.

The people I know that have been in Africa via the Army have said they used quite a bit of ammo over there. They said there was a lot of bloodshed and a lot of violence.

But you know what? I'll take your word for it. Even though everyone I've talked to that has had experience in Africa and has had experience studying Africa that Africa is a shithole. Africa has used up almost all of their natural resources. It's hard to survive when you don't have any resources.

:roll: The people I know that have been in Africa via the Army have said they used quite a bit of ammo over there. They said there was a lot of bloodshed and a lot of violence.

But you know what? I'll take your word for it. Even though everyone I've talked to that has had experience in Africa and has had experience studying Africa that Africa is a shithole. Africa has used up almost all of their natural resources. It's hard to survive when you don't have any resources.

Then the people that you know are blind and can clearly not have read shit about the continent.

* Yes - they're poor
* Yes - there's war
* Yes - it's goddamn hard living there

* No - they have absolutly NOT used up most of their resources, rather it points in the opposite direction with new finds each day of coltrane, diamonds and other minerals
* No - Africa is not backwards
* No - Africa is not a "shithole"

Go visit the place yourself instead of all these friends you have that has been all over the world. Go read something a bit more empirical than the latest post on a Internet forum. Go! Prosper!

At least I have some first hand information, at least I talk to africans (mostly diplomats) who tell me how THEY perceive the situation. I find that a bit more reliable than the experiences from a-n-y soldier.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying I know quite a few soldiers (including the highest ranking officer in Minnesota currently) who have been all over the country and they all tell me this and that. And then I place that together with what I learn from school and that's what I get.

You claim there aren't "tribes" in Africa yet there are.

http://www.africaguide.com/culture/tribes/
http://www.douglasyaney.com/tribes_in_a ... _order.htm

imo, if I want to hear about Africa's situation, I'd rather hear from sources in Africa rather than sources in the US. Same with Iraq.