Attack in London
 

London Attacks

Another horrible event to add to a long list. I am not quite sure how an American should react to it though. Obviously we show our support any way we can, but with all of the hatred and anger aimed towards us, it really isn't our place to say anything at all. Any Brits out there care to share their opinion?

The big question is who is responsible. If it is Al Queda how successfull has the war on terror been?

This is the key question. Who is responsible and who benefits? Time will tell I suppose.

Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for it.

I must say I'm surprised there hasn't been much response to it on this board.

There's another thread... This one will probably be merged in time.

Its in General Discussion

right here http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=91666

I looked through all of the most recent threads but didn't see anything, so by all means merge away.

Al Qaeda has supposively claimed responsability, but who knows these days. I wonder how often terrorist organizations take claim for attacks they had nothing to do with just for the free press.

By the way, reports again are shifting left and right, some are saying 40 dead, others are saying its only 2.

The report that says 2 was early on... they haven't even begun to take the dead from King's Cross and other tube stations. They have been rescuing the living first.

You should react in the same way any human being would react when they learn about the distress of another, be they English, American, Palestinian, Israeli or Iraqi.

Now is not the time to be making political judgements.

listening to radio 5 for information.
hell of a thing to encounter first thing in the morning.

apparently, folk there are less willing to simply assume al qeada did this than folk seem to be here: the organization claiming responsibility presents itself on a website as being something like a secret organization within al qaeada--bombs left on the tube and on a bus--it could have been anyone, really.

usually, if you think about it, there is a clear symbolic message to such attacks and it entails no disprespect to anyone hurt or killed to wonder about this from the outset--because if we do not think about this early on we will find ourselves watching the Official Interpretation closing over us.

it is a curious bit of timing.
one objective might have been to shake up the g8 simply to show that it can be done.
the olympics?

the type of action indicates a small group with minimal resources.

personally, i am not at all sure about the al qeada linkage.
i still find myself thinking that al qaeada and the bush administration are like two dysfunctional people in a violent codependent relationship. i am both curious and apprehensive about the type and amount of political capital the latter will attempt to extract from the folk who were killed or died. if it is al qeada behind this, they have found their status battered and would probably like being reinvigorated as public enemy number 1. the administration would probably in their heart of hearts like nothing better than an attack in order to start all over again the cycle of ideological production that has worked so well for them so far.

watching as information emerges--waiting for the next phase of this sad affair to unfold--obviously sympathies for the folk killed and injured.

The group that has claimed responsibility is not al-qaeda as you might think, but a group that calls itself (I just heard this on the news like 3 minutes ago) the Al-Quaeda Society (or group) of Europe...I haven't heard of them before.
What strikes me as odd is that double decker buses are symbolic but aren't exactly the heart of Britain's economy and spirit. They also, in spite of the horror, weren't as severe as plane crashes to real economic centers...it wasn't even Parliament or Big Ben or those things that have such meaning. I don't mean to offend ANYONE by downplaying the gravity of the situation, but it is perplexing...

To invoke fear one doesn't have to do tuns of dammage. All they need to do is show they are coordinated. 8 coordinated attacks across the city invokes much more fear in me then one large attack. A large attack can be done by a single person (look at the Oklahoma city bombing). But a coordinated attack takes planning and strategy.

Interesting, the thread for the London attack on Fark.com is turning into one of the biggest flame war I ever seen in my lifetime.

Other than that, I'm interested to see if this is related to winning the olympic bid or the G8 summit.

Its like a sick, twisted dream isnt it?

"The worst attack on London since the second world war"

Intelligence Failure?
Conspiracy against Islam?
Britain: Evil Empire?
Civil Liberties Violated?
Address Underlying Problems?
Were Jews Warned to Leave the Subway?
Questionable Airplane Impact Trajectories?
Bush Responsible for This for not Capturing Bin Laden?
Oppressed Freedom Fighters - Never Terrorists?
Israeli Intelligence Secretly Behind This?
War on Terror Lost?
Guantanamo Bay Really A Gulag?
All The G8's Fault?
Jihad - Reality or NeoCon Wet Dream?
.
.
.
I will be very, very, very curious to see the BRITISH response to this...

it just seems as more and more time passes by, and even though we are more vigilant, so are these bastards.

you can see quite alot of responses if you simply look at messageboards set up by various newspapers: the guardian has one going as does the washington post.

what i have been seeing is a very different type of response from 2001--here, many many folk are laying the whole thing on tony blair and bush, in the lap of their absurd "war on terror" and---in particular---the misbegotten colonial adventure in iraq.

i assume that american tv networks will be working hard to prevent that kind of response from taking too much shape publicly. it'd be hard to maintain what remains of the support for bushworld if folk were able to stray and think in more complex terms about what this action entails. i am sure that the bushsquad is going to milk this for all its worth.

but have a look for yourself. here for example:
http://forums.washingtonpost.com/wpf...ges?msg=3366.1

here, with links to blogs with photos:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Explosio..._across_London

I love it! Now it's Blair's fault too! Never the people who actually committed the crime.

You have a new word to add to you're rhetoric now, rb.

"blairworld"

my own thoughts are that the people responsible are the ones who placed the bombs. there are so many other ways to voice your desires and opinions in this world besides using violence against innocent civilians.

"What if" the UK wouldn't be a part of the coalition of the willing?

This attack is an attack in the context of the "war on terror", it was clear that ALKaida would try to strike back.
They have made Iraq a battleground and now trying to do some "moral bombing", not very surprisinly

Maybe, but is it JUSTIFIED?
Is blowing up civilians a justifiable response to anything?

Nevermind, I'm horrified of the ensuing rationalizations. :crazy:

Of course not, willfulling targeting civillians is never justified

What I find interesting is that security in London was supposed to be on a high alert because of the upcoming G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, and yet this happened. Perhaps this will push us to find more holes in our national security systems (both Britain and the US), because clearly if the London Underground can be bombed when security is meant to be high, they're doing something wrong.

That's secret TFP Politics code for something else, eh? ;)

What I've seen on the news about security in the underground was aimed mostly at the "normal" terrorists: people who want to leave bombs that explode later (i.e. non-suicide bombers). There's pretty much no way to leave a bag around without it being noticed.

...but, suicide bombers are different: they don't want to leave bombs behind, they *are* the bombs. There's pretty much no way of stopping them. If you were to discover them before they reach their destination, they'll simply (try to) blow themselves up where they are. The result will be death and destruction anyway.

I dunno how we could possibly stop them once they're on their way. Nothing except *very* itchy trigger fingers...

Do we know that they were suicide bombers yet?

Political Judgements have nothing to do with the nature of my original post. The fact that we live in a world where politics and the hatred therein could hinder compassion and pity for another is more my approach. Whether you or I like it or not, the politics of this event will be in discussion for months.

The relationship between British citizens and American citizens was already at a strain beforehand, but now it is very possible that things could turn ugly between our two nations. One (not myself of course) could argue the point that America started a war and now other countries have to suffer the consequences. Thought it is just as possible that the English will see this as a sign that terrorism must be stopped and could weild us more support. Its anybodies ball game, again, a Brit's opinion would be the only way to tell.

I don't think there is a better response for my arguement then this zen_tom.

So no, we can't reach a conclusion that they were suicide bombers. It will be interesting to see what precisely they were though.

Yawn.....DHS dusts the cobwebs off of it's color code..
 

Oh....our ole friend, DHS, dusts it's color coded warning level off and trots it out. Are these the last days before we fully embrace "the safety of power"?
Before we gladly and willing trade civilian law for martial law?
The message seems to be that, even with the heightened state of national security and alert that hosting the G8 summit brings in these troubled times, the prominent English speaking nation with the most experience dealing with terrorism at home, the UK, could not provide a safe and secure commute to the residents of it's largest city. Are you observing this America ? What can we do to better insure our safety, protect our families our children ? It was apparently too soon to present another lesson to the American people at home, concerning the danger of not fully embracing "the security of power".

I fear for my country, our freedoms, and I understand that our government "hates us for our freedom". I fear this much more than I fear "terrurrrrr".
In Sept., 2004 polling revealed that more than 50 percent of NYC residents polled believed that the U.S. administration at minimum had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and failed to act on it with the intent of preventing the attacks. Enough people signed a petition to influence NY state Atty General Elliott Spitzer to publicly announce that he would conduct an independent investigation of the 9/11 attacks. People in U.S. cities did not vote as a majority for Bush or other RNC sponsered political candidates. They do, however, ride subways and other mass transit. What is the most effective way to persuade them to vote for the next "war president" and "security party" candidates ?

Author Doris Colmes has seen it all before, and she explains my concerns about the U.S. response to terrorist attacks much better than I ever could.

Ballzor, I don't know where you get the idea that there is British hatred and anger against the US - Yes, there is a reasoned opposition to the foreign policy being conducted by the Allies in Iraq and elsewhere, but that opposition resides within the US as well, it is certainly not unique to the UK, nor is it, where it exists, directed solely at the US. The UK government gets it’s fair share of stick as well.

I work with both US and British citizens on a daily basis, and fail to see this 'strained' relationship you refer to. If anything, the UK and US relationship has been particularly strong recently in regards to events in Europe, and the continued cooperation between governments. I just don't recognise what you're talking about. The British public reelected the largely pro-Bush Tony Blair back into government only a month or so ago, I think if they'd been full of anti-US hatred and anger, that Blair may have not been so readily returned to Downing Street.

Yes, there will always be criticism of controversial policies and decisions, but that's freedom. Don't misinterpret considered criticism for 'hatred and anger', reserve that for the perpetrators of these horrible acts.

That's the thing...no matter what we do, no matter how secure we think we are, no matter how many preventative measures we take (limiting personal freedoms, heightened security, more observation) these people are still going to find weaknesses in the system and exploit them. Honestly, there isn't a whole lot we can do to better ensure our safety without trodding on a few amendments.

We can, however, continue to live our lives in a normal fashion despite the presence and possibility of terrorism. We can, however, continue to improve and test the existing systems of security. But we cannot expect to catch anything and everything terrorist-related. The best thing we can do is be prepared and keep our emergency response systems in peak shape while hoping that something like this never happens again (unlikely though that may be).

The UK did not issue a national security ID to it's residents even when it was threatened with IRA terrorists and further in the past, the darkest days of war against the Nazis. Now, they implement an ID in the name of national security. Will this ID be required to purchase admission to mass transit soon?

I recall the images of blast debris and the carcasses of the dead horses of the ceremonial queen's guard in the streets of London in the aftermath of an IRA bombing, years ago. The queen's cousin, WWII commander Lord Montbatten was killed in the IRA bombing of his yacht, and Britain soldiered on.....individual freedoms intact.

I visited the London Tubes website, and under the heading of "safety and security" there was only info about police efforts to curb crime. There was no demand for info about terrorist security precautions. That will change now.

The UK has more security cameras in place per square mile than anywhere else. There is news that the London Tubes were about to receive a major cctv camera and security communications modernization. Tricky, evil terrorists managed to proceed undetected on existing surveillance cameras to plant their bombs during a heightened pre-G8 security environment, and they did their deed before new surveillance cameras were installed in the tube system. How do they come to be sooooo capable?

powerclown:

you made that up.

i would not have made this move first because i see nothing parallel in england to the ways in which the right uses the particular prominence of television of organize public opinion.
there is certainly nothing similar in the kind of absurd loyalty you see amongst american conservatives toward the Leader.
third, for me bushworld is primarily a term used to designate the tendency within american conservative mode of argument to split away from the reality that other people know about and to replace it with this bizarre self-referential, self-confirming political space. i think that is a particularly american thing at the moment--of course there have been parallel uses of mass media to incite more murderous variants of this in the past (april-june 1994 anyone?)--but in the states, bushworld is new and relies specifically and heavily on television (and to a lesser extent radio--a decade ago it was the other way around)--and on the specific uses that americans make of their televisions.

so no, powerclown, i would not use the term even if i were inclined to.
perhaps you should consider modulating your new persona as witty gadfly.


but i think there are some interesting things going on--if you judge by the various webforums that are having conversations about this, you can see (1) that this is bringing lots of folk in two very different political contexts into direct contact with each other and that is opening onto a big, diffuse conflict over how these events are to be interpreted. (2) what is particularly interesting within that is the inability of american conservative perspectives--like ballzor's for example--to acquire purchase. the discourse that was able to channel 9/11/2001 is no longer effective in the states---whether it would become so were there an attack on the states itself is an open question, the possible answers to which are pretty horrifying---and is encountering a sense of how limited/specific that view really is in the world. american conservative discourse cannot control the debate on this. i find that interesting.

that this would result in flamewars is not a particular surprise, frankly.

but no-one not already far far to the right appears to be buying the linkage between iraq and the so-called "war on terror"--but they are making a link between iraq and these attacks, insofar as to policies of tony blair have set london up to be a target despite the very powerful opposition to those policies at home.
which would indicate that folk are seeing in the misbegotten colonial war in iraq the cause of these attacks.
which would in turn open up the possibility of thinking about these events not in terms of the fatuous "they hate us and must be stopped" pseudo-thinking that has done so much work since 9/11, but rather in terms of causal possibilities that really would put bushworld on the spot.

because i have not been watching american television, i do not know what i am supposed to think about this. but the webforum conflicts are much more interesting than watching the reactionary spin machine kick into gear.

it is obvious that the bush people would prefer to avoid this entire line of questioning/argument and so are trapped trying to make a rather pathetic argument for linking this to the Eternal Enemy of "terrorism"....witness rice's bland statement.

it is a very complex, very interesting moment to be watching webforums.

To me...London being attacked was always a "when" not an if....I've been waiting for it since Blair backed us up after 9/11

rb, you're a historian. how can you expect such change to take place in a few short years? Did you think an end to terror would come by now? Its a long battle, a long war, how can you expect an end to come soon?

Its sad, but hardly unexpected. We will be fighting them for a long time to come.

stevo: for what it's worth, i think you misunderstood which direction i was trying to go with this--i don't necessarily see an "essence" to "terrorism" that could be used to say anything meaningful about the attack(s) in london this morning. the whole idea of terrorism as a free-floating, context-independent variable is a particular construction, one that has been worked out and used endlessly by the bush administration and its far right allies to prop up this administration, to justify particular types of policies both domestically and internationally.

what i was trying to point to is the pounding that i see this particular construction of the notion of "terrorism" taking in webforum after webforum that i have been cruising through today--i think in part because this is bringing two very different political cultures (if you like) into contact with each other across these attacks--what is interesting is that bushdiscourse cannot control the debate, cannot even be seen to coherent frame the debate about these attacks. that is what i find interesting--the features of the administrations discourse of "the war on terror" is something that i only find interesting because it is repeated so much--i don't think it helps understand anything--but it does keep people afraid and dependent.

what i do see is lots of really pissy exchanges developing out of this inability to sound or be coherent about these attacks on the basis of the dominant conservative framing of the question.

Wonderful. So these types of attacks ARE legitimate after all. Just another terrorist attack to be filed away under "legitimate forms of political dissent".

To be so blase, so firm in the belief that these people 'had whats coming to them' is pure stubborness. I understand the reasoning, but I don't accept it. If you have a beef, I can't think of a less productive way to address it than this.

powerclown: would you perhaps consider abandoning your tack of the day and stop making stuff up about what i am saying. it is getting really annoying. i have no problem debating with you at all, but this is neither good for the whole civility thing nor helpful in terms of what i or anyone else might be saying.

That conclusion is bollocks.
The politics of Blair have led to these attacks, but that doesn't make them legitimate.
Thas is just a try to explain the reason and the mindset behind those attacks. The usual "those terrorists are just cray massmurders" is dumb and will ofer us no solution, no insight and no strategy to prevent those attacks. Those kind of statements are useless, if not dangerous.

People today is a day to mourn...... show some freaking respect and take a day off turning this into politics and partisan drivel.

People lost lives, families and loved ones and you want to argue today over politics..... show respect there's time for politics and time to just mourn and blame those that are responsible not each other because we don't agree on politics.

The right blaming the left and the left blaming the right freaking accomplishes nothing today except to say, "seeeeeee what the other side leads to."

We have fucking ignorant arseholes killing innocent people and creating mayhem and you're worried about political advantages and stances today?

Aren't we divided enough, can't we stand united today and mourn the loss and find compassion.

The terrorists thrive on our feasting on each other, causing more hatreds and anger directed at someone else (i.e. the opposing political party) and not blaming them.

If I misinterpreted your Blair statement, I apologize. At the very least, it is a bizarre way to characterize events.

The Universal Bulletin Board Communication Discrepancy bug, perhaps.

I agree.
I'll stand down for now.

Wise Move........

Thank you, Pan for the reminder here. The topic in the General forum brought home to me that real people on tfp are involved and trying to reach loved ones.

I just heard that one (or more) of the tubes is ready to go for tomorrow's commute. My hat is off to the British response team.

Again is one of those rare times I side with Roachboy. It's a political coup for Al Quaeda to claim responsibility for this. I simply dont think they have the resources at the moment to pull these things off. They have their hands full in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What I think this is, is a cousin terrorist group. Sure they probably took notes from AQ, but it is by no means as complicated as AQ is known for. Planting bombs in busses and subway can be done by a 9 year old, taking over planes and flying into buildings (3 within minutes of each other) is much more complicated.

This is a tragedy no doubt, but if this was AQ there would have been many more dead IMO.

I find it laughable to think that Al Qaeda is too busy in Afghanistan and Iraq to attack elsewhere. Madrid? Now London? Al Qaeda is not fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq so that they can't hit elsewhere - that simply isn't true.

Unlike that stupid flypaper concept, this event has been very startling. Last year, I studied near Russel Sqaure, and passed through both the Russel Square Station and King's Cross Station daily. Probably hundreds of times. If this attack was carried out a year ago, I could have been in the blast. I don't want it to seem like all I can think about is what could have happened to me, but I really feel for those folks in the blast in part because I can picture exactly where they were. I hope that as many people as humanly possible were saved, and that the bastards who did this are caught ASAP.

P.S. In King's Cross Station there is a plaque dedicated to those who died in an escalator fire there in 1987. I passed it often. I weep to think that there may be another plaque next to that one soon.

Madrid was carried out by terrorists in their own country. They presumably got assistance from AQ, but AQ did not carry it out. It's much easier to tell someone over the internet whom belongs to a cousin group than taking care of the transportation/paperwork/lodging/etc. of your own people. I imagine the same thing in London. If you read my post I never said they couldnt lend assistance, I said I dont think they could pull this all off themselves. A 9 year old can bomb in their own country, it takes lots of connections and money to do it in someone else's.

i think a fierce political shakedown is precisely what the aftermath of this situation needs.

let's figure out who's responsible and what we can do to improve our defenses for next-time. our international and defense policies are shaped by politicians... let's determine whether we're headed in the right direction or not. how does this event change or reinforce our views of terrorism? do our leaders understand the threat? if not, what is a better course of action? if so, how can we better facilitate a solution? these are all questions with politically linked answers and, i believe, the questions we should be asking ourselves.

I think the point, Seaver, is that Al Qaeda is not some organization - like we might think of as, say, a corporation - that can be easily pinned down or defined. It is more an amorphous network of individuals and groups with highly decentralized leadership that exists in countries all over the world. So it is fallacious to say, like, "Al Qaeda has 65% of its resources tied up in Iraq," because Al Qaeda isn't really measurable like that. So rather than this being a cousin group, as you put it, it may be a group that is part of and supported by the network that is loosely defined as Al Qaeda.

interesting that al qeada has been refigured in that way, isn't it?
the idea that the fln was in fact an organization like the french army only secret was the impetus behind a massive campaign of torture through and after 1956.
the matter only blew up politically when some pcf guy who was working in opposition to france's "police action" was tortured and the press found out about it.

i find that interesting.
sometimes parallels are direct. sometimes they're just curious and kinda ominous but you can't say why exactly.

From what I understand is happening in our country (the Netherlands), there are many young muslims angry at the west for various reasons. If you add some good "mentor" to such people, that anger will grow into hatred, which will grow into an acceptance that terrorism is justified. Sometimes there's not even face-to-face contact, but only e-mails and chats.

IMO, *that* is what Al-Qaida is: lots of small groups of like-minded angry young Muslims (read: kids), with a few diabolical mentors. When they do their deeds, "Al-Qaida" claims responsibility, because these youths want to be associated with their heroes. OBL may not be directly responsible, he may not have pulled the strings directly, but his influence is still there.

Excellent questions IMO. Thank you.

And it's extremely difficult to fight that, isn't it? Osama bin Laden could be captured or killed tomorrow, but his influence won't go away in a hurry, especially if he gets the "matryr's death" I'm sure he's hard for. It's easy enough to kill a man, but much more difficult to destroy his ideas.

I continue to be shocked by those who would use the term "terrorism" as a noun. I remember the good old days when it was used descriptively. Looks like we're buying what the media's created. Blaming "terrorists" sounds, to my ears, just like saying: "they" did it. When asked who "they" is, I can't imagine, nor have I heard, any intelligent response.

I challenge everyone here to not use the term anymore. It feels like those who would be quick to blame "terrorists," or "Al Qaeda" (whom I confess not to understand the make-up of) are lashing out blindly and in a panic. Does that seem smart to you?

Another thought:

Why is the last thing anyone seems to want to do is examine the reasons why such hatred might be created? Instead, an enemy must be found. Most unthinking people are happy with the word "terrorist," because as long as someone's doing something about "them" then they don't have to do anything, like maybe reduce their consumption, or maybe get educated about food politics, to give two examples at the tip of the iceberg. No, they can go on living their unchallenging life. The world's problems aren't their fault, it's the TERRORISTS" fault!

I don't think it's news to anyone that we in the west hold most of the wealth, and continue to do so off the backs of the other 90% of the world. Well guess what, someone wants it back because maybe their kid died of starvation or was blown up. Would you be angry if you lived in poverty your whole life? Maybe your child was blown-up in front of you? What? It was your grandmother? Would that make you angry? Congratulations. You're one step closer to bombing those you feel are responsible for your family's suffering.

Let's not point fingers without proof. I give thanks that my uncle and his family live in Hull and not London. I'm still waiting to hear from some friends.

I can't even begin to pretend to know who did this or what their motivations were. Please don't presume that you do. Question your proof.

If they use the weapons of terror, they are terrorists. Eliminating the term does nothing for anybody.

You're right, because I bought a pair of Nikes and don't grow my own food, some nuts set off bombs in London :rolleyes: .

The world's problems might not all be the terrorists fault, but this boming IS their fault.

I disagree that the west is wholy to blame for the poor situations in many areas in the world. Local leaders/dictators are just as culpable, if not more so. But what I really can't understand is wanting to somehow blame the victims for being the targets of bombings. Your reasoning seems no different than going to a rape victim and telling her "Well, why was your skirt so high? And that low cut blouse was awful revealing. Also, you shouldn't have been drinking so much". When people resort to terrorism, I honestly don't care why-they need to be eliminated. Whatever the cause, they are obviously beyond reasoning with. They have given up any claim of sympathy or understanding they might have had previously.

Does no one else consider the possibility that this is a "staged" event?

Observe the timing.....the day AFTER the Int. Olympic committee awarded the 2012 games, in a heavy competition with other cities, to London.

Britain appears to have needed a little "push" in the "resolve" department:
What is a terror "production", possibly designed to give the English speaking world a little "jolt" to offset the bad publicity of the Downing Street Memo, without "Mr. 9/11" himself, just happening to be on hand to give interviews and calm the sheeple, while allaying any inkling of suspicion or "stench" ?
Fellow TFP members, I spend a good deal of time attempting to keep informed about what passes for "hard news". My efforts do not yield accurate or consistant information. I know more concerning what I "don't know", than what I can believe. One of the few things that I am certain of is that your government, your political leaders are lying to you and intentionally misleading you. It may well be that ther is NO AL QAEDA. I do not know one way or the other, but I know that "officials", sworn to protect you, who tell you this, are not to be trusted....
<b>July 11, 2002: It is reported that the FBI believes there are approximately 5,000 al-Qaeda agents inside the US. In early 2003, FBI Director Mueller reduces the estimate to "several hundred." The New York Times then says that even suggesting over 100 is probably an exaggeration made for political reasons. [New York Times, 2/16/03]</b> the link to the rest of my post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...33#post1830433

I read your opinions posted on these threads, day after day, and I watch as so many of you challenge or attempt to marginalize the offerings of roachboy, a participant here who we are truly fortunate to have as a contibutor to the political discussions. Review what I am sharing with you in this post, how much of it have you already considered? How do you know that there is an "Al Qaeda" or an "Al Zarqawi" ? Because....."they" told you?
Please start challenging everything that our leaders and news reports tell us. Go to the source.....I visit the government sites to read the actual text of their briefings. How do you do it? How are you so sure of your opinions when you post few sources here and seem to rely on a "well, everyone knows that so and so is".....NO....they don't.....I'm here to tell you. I know where to search, and I put the time in....and I dont' know....so how can you?

Here is more research on the phantom "Al Zarqawi":
The first published Zarqawi reference that I can find from the NY Times in that site's archive search was dated March 24, 2002,
presumably about the Oct., 2001 murder
of US diplomat Laurence Foley in Jordan.
Zarqawi was supposedly implicated in Foley's
murder, according to the Jordanians, by
two captured "assasins"........

Also with the G8 being right there it seems an even more idiotic and questionable act. I mean think about it. The leaders of the 8 most powerful nations, plus some leaders from african nations, all together in the same room a hop skip and a jump away from the event. Each of these people now claim to be in solidarity with one another on the terrorism issue and will now most likely work much closer together and much harder to stomp out "the terrorists". Before this attack they may have had their differences in how "the terrorists" should be dealt with.. but now "its on" most likely.

On a small side note, but something that caught my eye. On the same day of the bombings in London a "mock terrorism drill" or whatever you want to call it was scheduled for NYC. These types of events have, more often than not, actually been mistaken for REAL terrorism attacks by the local population (one could say, terrorizing them). Afterall they include "victims" that have to be treated and wrapped up, and buildings are closed down and/or raided by various squads of uniformed or bio-hazard suit wearing individuals. This raised the memory of what happened on september 11th for me.. on september 11th the US government just happened to be running a drill that simulated pretty much exactly what happened on that day. The whole thing just seemed really odd to me.

It gives us a responsibility to get closer to the truth instead of creating an invisible scapegoat.
This reminds me of the same attitude I saw on fark.com in response to a recent online questionnaire regarding our ecological footprint. Participants could discover how many planets it would take to sustain their lifestyle should everybody live that way. When farkers discovered that it was almost impossible to get the total required planets under 1, they immediately decided that the quiz was "bunk" and dismissed it and made fun of it. I am shocked at how few people are willing to take a moment and reflect.

I lead a lifestyle which contributes to the world climate which created this act of violence. I can still live my life, but I have to consider what I can change about it, and act upon it. I do not feel guilt, however. I know it might be a contradiction, but then that's what I am and I can accept that.
I agree. I don't condone such acts.

I never said that the west was wholly to blame. Environment is a big part. Consider, however, that some of the local leaders recieve money from western governments to maintain the harmful status quo.

As for the accusation that I blame the rape on the rape victim, if you see the western world as a victim compared to the other %90 of the world, then we will never agree on the basic terms of this discussion. I can't go any further with that line of reasoning.

Although I'm not sure it's an inside job, the signs do point in that direction. It's all too convinient. I do totally agree with your analysis that there might be no Al Qaeda. I mean Al Zarqawi has been captured, injured, killed so many times that I can't even keep track. Al qaeda would be the perfect boogey man if it never existed. Use their name to do anything for political gain. Like you said, we have no way to keep our secret intelligence agencies in check when they issue these false statements. The real scoop always comes out, but its usually after the issue has already passed and is swept under the rug. It will be interesting if the cameras will catch the real terrorists, or if they will malfunction or be confiscated due to national security.

Mulder, I find that highly unlikely.

Follow the money, and power. This has all been staged by OBL. He's losing status to al-Zarqawi and needs to make moves. Unfortunately, though funds are plentiful he's finding it difficult to move explosives across borders without detection. Money is so much easier. So he paid off the Olympic Committee (always up for sale) to choose London in the hopes Bush/Blair would create bombing attacks to implicate him after which he got credit. Now that Bush/Blair have responded, OBL is staging the London recovery with his disguise rescue and emergency personnel cells - always easy to move these guys around. This in the hopes Bushworld will respond with further bomb blasts to take out his suicide rescue workers. To be followed by additional OBL press releases...

Back to reality, my thoughts and best wishes go out to those of you in London. I know you'll deal with events in spite of media and other nonsense. Just a thumbs-up from my little corner.

It simply isn't in the budget, but I'd book a trip to London today, if I could. I can't think of a better way to show my support. The obvious intent of terrorism is to terrorize people. Getting back to business, as usual, is the best way to negate the effects.

Ditto.
Too much evidence, too much history, to the contrary.
It presupposes the notion that these attacks are *wanted* by the countries that have been attacked. Doesn't make any sense.

"The group Al Qaeda in Europe claimed responsibility for the last major terror attack in Europe: a string of bombs that hit commuter trains in Madrid, Spain in March 2004, killing 191 people. Two days after that attack, a video was found in a trash can outside a Madrid mosque with a statement purported to be from the group’s spokesman, called by the nickname “Abu Dujan al Afghani.”

Etc, etc, etc..

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Claim from Al Qaeda in Europe behind London blasts

"Rejoice, Islamic nation. Rejoice, Arab world. The time has come for vengeance against the Zionist crusader government of Britain in response to the massacres Britain committed in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said the statement, which was translated by The Associated Press in Cairo.

In the new statement, the group said “the heroic mujahedeen carried out a blessed attack in London, and now Britain is burning with fear and terror, from north to south, east to west.”

“We warned the British government and the British people repeatedly. We have carried out our promise and carried out a military attack in Britain after great efforts by the heroic mujahedeen over a long period to ensure its success.”

“We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan,” the statement went on.

It was signed: “The Secret Organisation of Al Qaeda in Europe.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

linq

I agree with Aberkor about how the term "terrorist" has been reshaped by the media. Though I have to add that around here, in the circles I travel "terrorist" has become synonymous with "Islamic Fundamentalist".

Concerning the second point of ourselves in the west trying to do something to aliviate the hatred towards us. I think both Aberkor and alansmithee have a point. Alansmithee's rape victim analogy is rather good. Yet it doesnt cancel out Aberkors argument. It's important to deal with both the cause and the effect.


Conspiracy theories around the timing of the event don't hold much water for me. I don't think London would have lost the bid. London dealt with terrorist attacks in the past, this is nothing new to them. Any city hosting the game would be a terrorist target, Paris, London or New York, it really doesnt matter much.

Then we all know of the political, economic and most importantly idiological impact that 9/11 had on this country. After 9/11 the majority of the damage to this country was done by America it'self.

i would like to echo the last sentence in mantus's post above--i think it really important:

judging by reports i have heard so far and by reading through today's guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

it is most interesting to hear of london commuters simply taking back the transit system symbolically from the implications of yesterday's action.

hysteria and paranoia are not the only possible responses to this kind of event.

hysteria and paranoia are only reasonable if you think of the possibilities offered the public for thinking about itself, the world and the relations between the two through the lens provided by the bush administration's particular discourse of "terror"

taking back the transit system from the implications of yesterday's attack is, if you think about it, a far more reasonable approach than "batten down the hatches everyone--stay indoors and watch tv--look out for suspicious people and report them--but try to modulate the racist correlate of the category "terrorist" by not doing anything too obvious to your muslim neighbors--- mostly wait for draconian security measures, invasive domestic legislation and an irrational militarization of social relations coupled with an arbitrary but manly foriegn policy--
WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT.


the category "terrorist" is an empty signifier...it does not permit of analysis--it is not about analysis, it is about its opposite---it is about fear and passivity and a logic of handing control to the people your tv tells you Know what is Going On. They know. You do not have to.

the category "terrorist" is not about understanding anything: it is about isolation.
it is not about the process of collective response (taking back the transit system is a collective response--it did not require tv to co-ordinate) but rather about its opposite.

if the category terrorist is not descriptive, does that mean that it is meaningless?
no....
the discourse of terror is about--and coherently about--only one thing: the preferred mode of power for this administration.
isolated, shut up indoors, watching television, afraid, unable to parse the situation, absolutely unable to link such attacks to anything about american policy, which like capitalism becomes in this scenario an unqualified good---the discourse of "terror" has become the supporting structure of an authoritarian type of politics, one with the particular quirk of liking to brag about how free it is. hardly an unprecedented combo.
but none of this is necessary.
it is a choice.
it is the choice made by this administration in the days following 9/11/2001.
"terrorism" has been the bush administrations' necessary opposite since.
it has kept them in power.
that is what it is about--not an analysis of the facts of the matter, not an explanation for why such actions might be mounted, not the basis for a coherent response to such attacks. it is about fear. it is about routing fear into a consent for an authoritarian politics. it is about maintaining that consent.

it leans on particular features of american social life and its organization:
for example, the isolated house and the isolated nuclear family, the bizarre and central role played by tv in producing a sense of community and a sense of interaction with a wider context.

i think americans have alot to learn by simply watching londoners respond--not the blair government, but people, who are doing a far better job already in fashioning a rational response which does not preclude a desire to know why this happened and who did it, but at the same time does not translate these desires into an abdication of their own sense of their own city.

what you see in the mirror of these attack in london from the states is just how bizarre the states have become under george w bush and karl rove and the rest of the apparatchiks that pull the strings in the theater of reactionary meat puppets that is bushworld.

Staying "in power" is but a prerequisite for manipulating the populaces of primarily the Anglo-American nations via fear, into relinquishing what remain of their civil liberties and the right to vote in free, unhindered elections, to the state. I attempted to demonstrate in my last post, (and in several on other threads here in the past), that the Bush administraion will say and do anything to further feed the fear to hasten the goal. Question everything that they tell you, and watch what they do, and most importantly, see who benefits from each incident of internal "terror". Are Bush and Blair stronger politically today than they were two days ago? What is the focus of the G8 summit today, compared to what it was two days ago?

Look at where Ahmed Chalabi and his "news stooge", Judith Miller were recently......
Look at them today. She is a martyr, jailed to uphold the right to a free press, and he is Oil minister of Iraq.

You don't know what you think you know, and the only thing for certain is that there is a steady, uninterrupted erosion, of your constitutional freedoms, while federal lobbyists and corporate insiders increasingly benefit from a growing array of lucrative contract awards to them, as the administration "privatizes" the expanding operations of DHS, CIA, and the Pentagon.

I submit for your consideration that the same folks who bring you Miller and Chalabi with newly rehabilitated reputations, have now done likewise for Bush and Blair. They do whatever it takes.........

There's been calls in this thread for a British point of view so here's one from the Mayor of London:
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayor...ent_070705.jsp
The last paragraph is quite powerful.
So the only way we can lose to terrorism is if we allow our freedoms to be restricted in the face of these atrocities. Let's hope the British government doesn't push us down the route taken in the US and that the media will continue to do its job of asking questions and reporting facts.

But is there a way to win? The War on Terror in Afghanistan has obviously failed so far and the War in Iraq was also stated as a reason for these bombings. Powerclown asked on page 1, "Is blowing up civilians a justifiable response to anything?" Well no it's not, and look where it got us. After our own governments' actions we should expect exactly this form of retaliation.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9422.htm

Maybe we shouldn't be trying to win but to reach a middle ground. The US, surprisingly considering the personalities who run it, has conceeded some ground already - nearly all troops were withdrawn from Saudi Arabia after the invasion of Iraq (one of Bin Laden's goals) and recently Condi Rice has changed the foreign policy to one of promoting democracy over stability. Remember, it's the persuit of stability which created Bin Laden in the first place. The next moves should be to give Iraq full sovereignty (ie let it own the oil), get the troops out (I know people will say there will be bloodshed if that happens, but that's no change from the current situation), end the trade restrictions which keep hard working people across the world in poverty and offer aid where it's needed, chanelled through locally based organisations.


On the point of whether al Qaida exists. Yes it does - it was created in a New York attourney's office in early 2001 (IIRC). That's according to the Power of Nightmares documentary which the land of the free and home of the brave is unlikely to see. The name was required because a foreign national could only be prosecuted if he belonged to an outlawed organisation. Bin Laden only used the name after the US government made it popular.

Look, I know why such hatred exists. I've studied the Arab world in depth, hell it's my major. I've spoken to some of the greatest lecturers from that area (Khuri I suggest above all others), I've done my research.

Yes the US does some really stupid things in foreign policy, but their rage exists out of stifled democracy in their own country (according to the people from the region). It is out of this rage that these people redirect it at us. Some blame it on the lingering desire to bring back the Ottoman Empire, some blame it on overpopulation, some blame it on many things. But the fact is these people are killing our sons/daughters/mothers/fathers/etc. for reasons we do not deserve in any light.

However, what you and so many people like you propose, is blaming the victim. It's the moral equivilant of blaming the rape victim for wearing shorts, because if they were in say... a full burka a man could restrain himself.

As for Host, thanks for the time saved... I'll be ignoring your posts from now on. Throwing your hat in with the French who believed the Pentagon was hit by a carbomb now? (FYI my uncle was working at the Pentagon at the time, was only a few hundred feet away when it did hit)

Some other considerations providing the source is somewhat accurate.


Fri July 8, 2005 www.torontosun.com

http://www.torontosun.com/Columnists/home.html

And in the same paper


AlQueda seems to be at the top of list yet Cnn and other outlets are still speculative of the source. Wonder what can be gained and who needs co-operation to keep the lid on this in the event it is more significant than the usual suspects, or not. And how and why if this is bigger than London (possibly other targets) does the worlds media agree to repeating the same cue words. In the event of oppsites, that being,... no one knows anything or,..there is a hell of a lot of stuff we don't know,...I'll go with latter.

A personal email from a friend, with obviously strong political beliefs, in London:

I only know what I've read on the 'net, which is that they are muttering about
aQ, as usual. Me, I fancy Mossad sponsored by CIA.

Apart from the poor buggers injured/killed people aren't making a fuss. Most
people would have been more annoyed by the prospect of walking home
afterwards, with no public transport. Let's put it in perspective: some
700,000 people travel on the Tubes and the buses every morning. Whoever it
was can't get 'em all.

We had all this shite for 30 years when the Micks were at it; I was around the
corner when they bombed Harrods at Christmas in 1983. I know we behave
differently to a lot of Merkins, but then we are not a demonstrative people.
Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes not. And despite all the efforts of
Blair and his idiots we are not going to start panicking over this.

More blood on Bush and Blair's hands. Neither of them wants to know that if
we weren't busy killing innocent people on a daily basis in Iraq then innocent
people here wouldn't be getting blown up. Fuck 'em.

I had an email from *M telling me that people on *J were asking about their
'beloved *B' but I managed to resist the temptation to have a look. Told
him he's just jealous.

In the short term this will be a PITA. Croydon, a large town a few miles to
the east of here, was closed down for several hours yesterday while
'suspicious packages' were investigated, and this is bound to be an ongoing
thing. I'm going up to town next week to have lunch with some people -
postponed from yesterday - and I'm just hoping that there aren't any major
delays. My poor old car is on its last legs and, like me, doesn't like to be
kept waiting.

Don't worry about us lot, we'll manage. We always do.

I need to take a closer look at Host's previous post.

Seaver, I am sorry that you've chosen to "shoot the messenger", instead of reading the message and contemplating what it truly means. I know nothing that is not also available for your examination and consideration, if you look for it. It just affects me differently, perhaps because I lived through America in the '60's, the assassination of the Kennedy's, King, and I saw Oswald silenced on live TV. Vietnam, then Watergate, the fall of Nixon, Carter struggling to be our president and an honest christian American (he couldn't do it), Reagan's academy award winning performance as POTUS, and the selection of Dan Quayle as our VP. I'm weary, Seaver, I'm angry, and I doubt all that they tell us. If you read the examples I provide, I am confident that you will agree that there is considerable basis for my distrust and cynicism. Maybe in the short term, ignoring me is the easiest choice, but none of the incongruities anf contradictions that I display here, or the hypocrisy that I often point out, will go away.

being from an arab muslim background, i may be the only or one of the few ppl on TFP that can speak about the arab psyche from personal and first hand experience.

now to set things straight, it doesnt matter how much u study the arab world or talk to professors or lecturers in univeristy halls, none of this can be compared to 'living' what the arabs feel on the street. it is there that they discuss their politics. without being there and living the atmosphere, there is no comparison.

i do not live in the mid east, but rather in sydney. i was born here some 27 years ago, and this is where i call home. however, the 'street' is where u hear arab politics...even in australia. the cross sections are similar if not identical.

being an avid fan of arab-western politics, i have a keen ear for what is said on the street.
here is a list of things about the arab psyche which many of you may find useful

1) most arabs do not wantto be ruled the ottomon empire (this includes muslim and christian arabs). in fact, most arabs despise turks for that reason. so for someone to blame resentment of the west on wanting to go back to the days prior to kemal attaturk is a false notion. arabs are proud people, and do not like being ruled by someone foreign or installed by force..which brings me to my second point.

2) for those that say that resentment of the west is due to stifled democracy in arabia..id have to agree partially. the resentment that is directed at the west has many reasons, although 'the street' feedback is that the root reason for resentment is due to meddling of internal affairs and installing puppet governemnts propped up by western countries. after the brits and french tore arabia up between them and gave themselves mandates of certain parts, they installed governments that became oppressive tyrants. those would include the Saudi royal family, the Syrian dictatorship, the Saddam Hussein dictatorship to name a few. so although resentment is directed at the oppressors, the west did have a role to play in that resentment, and that resentment resonates through even till today. i still hear
voices talking about the injustices suffered by their governments, but the western countries are rarely ever mentioned in the same sentence. most of the brunt is directed at their own governemnts. many call for the overthrow of these regimes, but are uncertain of what to replace them with. this is why these regimes have lasted so long.

3) some of this fire is due to povery, overpopulation etc. but these factors are minor, and only play roles in certain circles. some of these circles are fanned by religious extremism, and hence the idea of suicide bombings become appealing because there is no last resort.

4) some of hatred has been fanned by direct occupation by western troops and governments of arab and muslim land. (this is OBL's initial qualm with the west - to remove troops from saudi or he'll declare a holy war against the US) this i think is the biggest ocntributing factor as to why this resentment and hatred has spread so much. resentment i feel is so much higher than any other time in recent history due to direct occupation. like i said earlier, is that the arabs are proud people, and when an occupying force comes through, it cannot go unnoticed. especially when thousands upon thousand have been killed for lame excuses. political upheaval is no easy task for any nation.

5) some religious extremists evidently dont like the western way of life shoved down their throats, and despise what is happening. but although this causes resentment, its hardly enough to start a war over. this westernisation of arabia is welcomed by most though.


so there you have it.. a look into an arabs mindset. please feel free to comment.

I am not looking to place blame. There is a difference between me flat out blaming the west on the attack, and me requesting that more people stop to examine their lifestyle and how it fits into the worldwide economics/food chain/politics which breeds such attacks. If you can't understand this difference, then perhaps I'm not making myself clear. If that's the case then I welcome any questions regarding my position.

Please don't infer that I would place any blame on a rape victim. I hope everyone here is mature and reasonable enough to see the leaps of logic that are being made to arrive at such an accusation.

dlishguy: Thanks for the valuable insight. Sorry I'm a Turk :) Don't worry - I have no interest in bringing back the Ottoman Empire. :D

Not all Arabs/muslims hate us. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...ims/index.html

I don't see the difference whatsoever, as I brought up the comparison earlier. What you just said would be the equivalent of telling a woman who was raped "no I don't blame you, but maybe you should examine your lifestyle and dress and see how it fits into the sexual desires which breed such attacks".

You are blaming the west for having a desirable lifestyle. Their gov'ts better enable people to achieve a comfortable lifestyle than the generally more autocratic governments in the Middle East, yet somehow it's the fault of western nations that they are resented. Those oil-rich countries in the area could be using their wealth to improve the living conditions of the citizens, but instead they line the pockets of a few high placed individuals. Yet I'm supposed to be to blame for their poor life because I bought some CD's yesterday and ate out?

I personally find it somehow offensive how these horrendous attacks are being hijacked by some as a way to promote their hatred of western society, by making that society somehow to blame for these acts of terrorism. I just hope that if these people are ever the victims of a tragedy, they will face the same blame as the cause of their own misfortune.

alansmithee:

you act as though a desirable lifestyle is some free-floating thing, not connected to an economic sector, for example, which would not only involve lots and lots parts of the production located all around the world but would also involve raw materials that have to come from somewhere and that somewhere would be more often than not elsewhere than the united states. this scale of international economic activity would necessarily entail a range of interactions with foreign policy, which necessarily involves the state and its relations to other states. and so on.

so i can see why you would not consider the economic and foreign policies of the united states and focus rather on the question of "lifestyle" in your analysis of the reason for terrorism above.
and clearly you are right: terrorists do not like you because you like to go to restaurants and you purchase cds. they are just snippy, jealous people who want to live the way you do.

The reason I don't believe the economic policy (especially in regards to the global food situation) has anything to do with these terrorist activities is because of who the people committing the acts are. These aren't activities originating from Somalia, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Honduras, Taiwan, India, Bangladesh, Laos, Cambodia, etc. where the effects of the Western world's control of most of the earth's resources are most heavily felt, they are originating from a region where much of the resources (oil) are still under control of the contries themselves. The Middle East is also primarily under the control of autocratic governments with a heavy religious undertone, and that undertone is heavily critical of the Western lifestyle.

And as I said above, I see many people opportunistically using these attacks in London as some sort of political leverage. For instance, despite these bombings being in London, you attributed all the blame for the attacks to the US. If what you say is true, wouldn't the rest of the Western world also hold some of the blame? But doing so doesn't further your agenda as much, hence the need to single out America. And for the record, many on the other side are doing this as well, as was pointed out in a thread about Limbaugh, so this isn't a one-sided tactic.

alansmithee,

you seem to think that arabs and muslims desire to live like you do. some do, but many dont. they certainly do not envy you for buying cd's or eating cheap chinese takeaway. and i doubt they'd stone you as you walked down through the souks of damascus or cairo while u wore your nike apparel while muching on some big mac. chances are..they do the same.

its a well known fact that the west and eurpean countries 'raped' and pillaged the resources of third world countries. and its also a well known fact that they also installed these autocratic governments that you talk about. its also these western governments that put these dictators in place, who have been lining their own pockets, so i do see a connection for resentment.

but once again the resentment isnt directed the western governments directly, but rather at the arab leaders.i have heard many a times, people wishing they could do away with the tyrants, but how? and especially how, after the US admisnitration directly supports governments like the Saudi regime. when the topic of regime change for saudi comes up, the US adminstartion is always careful to tread carefully.

but of course i cannot condone the bombing of innocents. espcially the latest tragedy.some may say that the WTC was a legitimate target and that the pentagon was a legitimate target for all that they stand for.

rightly or wrongly thats a contentious issue. however, the bombing of train stations and buses in down town london cannot be condoned by anyone, including arabs and muslims - partly because they have lived through it and know what it is like to live a life being terrorised.

i have also met many people though..non arabs and non muslims who seethe at what the US and western countries have done to their respective countries. and rejoiced at the 911 attacks in secret. so this 'hatred' isnt exclusively for arabs and muslims, but rather its festered by injustices caused however long ago by western countries.

By assisting us more overtly when we try to right some of these wrongs?

Well the French did get the WMD question right. If you still think it was a plane then you can explain why the damage to the outer wall was narrower and less high than the plane reported as missing and why the explosion was white instead of orange - the colour of explosives rather than aircraft fuel. In favour of it being a plane, the lampposts along what would have been the flightpath were bent in the direction of the pentagon, but you'd expect some plane wreckage - particularly from the wings and tail which didn't penetrate the building - and none was found.

Keep your mind open and keep reading Host.

I'll try one last time to show how this is a false analogy before moving on, because it's important to me.

A rape victim with a low cut dress is NOT to blame on her attack. This is because her way of dressing in no way harms or impoverishes the lifestyle of the attacker. Her way of dressing doesn't affect the economic and political climate in a way which maintains the world status quo, keeping the poor poor and the rich rich. Finally, her way of dressing does not support and install puppet/opressive regimes in third world or middle east countries.

A rape victim clearly does not hold the higher power position.

For whoever set the bombs off in London, this is about more than "wanting something we have."

Here's the latest from the Guardian:

Story

I've emboldened a quotation I was impressed with.

Of course it is. They want everything we have, and they want to kill us too.
Quite a difference indeed.

I suggest you do the same. There's plenty of proof out there that the pentagon was indeed hit by a plane, including *parts of said plane*

Some websites:
<a href="http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html">Page with lots of information about 9-11</a>

<a href="http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm">Why it is most likely that an American Airlines 757-223 hit it the Pentagon</a>

FYI, just a small recap
1) The damaged area was narrower and less high than the plane because the heaviest part of a plane is only a small part of the total height and width. In fact, if you take the size of the main body (without wings), and compare that size with the hole, they match.

2) There was plane wreckage, lots of it. Just because it's covered in debris, and cannot be recognized by an untrained bystander doesn't mean it isn't there. There's even pictures of wreckage, including at least one engine. Most of the plane pretty much disintegrated during of the impact, hence no "clearly visible" tail section and wings.

So, keep your mind open and keep reading jimbob.

Could you please elaborate on this statement?

my mind is very much open but i don't think it's obvious that there was a plane or that there was a car bomb. i do think it's wrong to ignore someone on the grounds that they share an opinion with people from a country where other people concluded that there was no plane, as Seaver claims to.

http://namastepublishing.co.uk/911%2...ne%20Sight.htm
if someone told me it were a picture of a car bombing i'd be inclined to believe them.

I agree 100% with this. Someone else was trying to make the case that it was the western lifestyle that was the cause of these terrorist attacks.



iBut why aren't any other third world countries (which I don't consider most of the Middle East, btw) sending off terrorists if it's all the western world's fault? And in the case of Iraq, the US tried to eliminate a dictator that they did help keep in power, yet we see how well the Iraqi people have recieved this action.

Again, I point to Iraq. We DID do away with a tyrant. And yet there's still a great amount of anger, supposedly because of the very actions that eliminated said tyrant.

Some may say that, and those people should be condemned as the terrorist supporters that they are. Only a truly sick individual could think that. How any reasonable person could believe the 9/11 attacks somehow justified is beyond me.

So bombing trains=bad, but destroying skyscrapers=good because arabs and muslims haven't had skyscrapers destroyed?

I have no doubt that no doubt that there are non-arabs and non-muslims who rejoiced at the 9/11 attacks. I have a feeling that some post on this very board. But that doesn't make them justified. And it's the arab/muslim countries that are commiting the acts, and continue to commit them, not these other people.

an interesting voice i read on the issue of "hating freedom" and all that was Gwynne Dyer's article.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/5495808.html

Not sure i entirely agree, but i do like the idea that we remember that the people behind this are rational and doing this for reasons, even if those reasons are evil.

Sure I could. You said they wanted more than something we have. I then say that they want everything we have. Their stated goal is world domination, with everyone joining their Muslim faith, under their rule.

"They want to kill us too" was a reference to the fact that they will try to kill us if we don't cooperate with their plans. In fact, being an atheist that was born a Jew, you can bet they won't think twice about killing me, even *if* I cooperate.

Getting us out of Iraq/Afghanistan/the middle east is just the beginning. Why would they stop there? There are "oppressed" Muslims in Europe too, so it's only natural that they'll want to take over. Where do you draw the line?

...I wonder if there were romans trying to "understand" the barbarians that invaded them. After all, the romans raped and pillaged their lands, so it's only fair that the barbarians destroyed their empire.

/rant

So the more I think on this, the more angry/befuddled I get. You "have a feeling" that some posters HERE rejoiced at the 9/11 attacks???

If I "have a feeling" that someone here fornicates with goats and kills children for breakfast, it wouldn't be within my rights to say such a thing. Such an opinion can only hurt the processes of this board.

What you write is pretty much is the most inflammatory thing I've seen on these politics boards. That you could hold such an opinion confuses me to no end. I honestly don't know what to say except that this comment illustrates the gap in understanding between the 'sides'.


Rather than hold such an opinion, I would encourage you to ask questions and dig into what you don't understand about opinions you don't get/like. We are supposed to respect and value the opinions of others in this place. In that spirit, I invite you to help me understand how you could have meant your comment differently than I read it.

Just because I question my articulation, I'll throw this out one more time: ascribing 'joy' to anyone, outside of actual the actual murderers, for the crimes others commit is a leap I can't even comprehend.


edit: fixed quotation marks

Divided houses fall far faster and with less resistance than those united. Western Civilization, and especially America is too divided now. WE are fighting more amongst ourselves then we are the true enemy.

The Right blames the Left saying they don't support the soldiers and the war and want attacks like Thursday to happen.... (Isn't that right, Rove and Limbaugh) And the Right bl;ames countries and leaders that do not agree with their views. The Right chooses to stand alone.

The Left see the Right as making excuses for Iraq and questioning patriotism and loyalty to country. The Left desires to try to be too peaceful, to worry about casualties of the innocent while not seeing that the enemy doesn't. (Any comments Mr. Moore, Mr. Dean?)

Neither side is correct. Both sides are dividing and allowing the enemy to win.

You must fight as dirty as your enemy, there is no true glory nor justification in war, however, if you must fight, end it fast and if that requires fighting as dirty as the enemy then get muddy. More innocents die when war is strung out.

Look at the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima..... they were needed to end what would have killed far far more men.

Stop being divided, find ways to compromise, or I guarantee we shall not win, in fact we shall lose not just by enemy hands but by feasting on each other.

I disagree, diversity and a healthy discourse stops a nation from going too far in any one direction. Just as diversity in a population stops it from being completely vulnerable to disease, it also stops us from being vulnerable from errors of policy.

In contrast, I'd argue that those who stand against us are weakened by their one-mindedness, and authoritarian stance. The desparation of their tactics shows us that they are weak.

We are not weak, and showing weakness by employing desparate and degenerate tactics will do our cause more damage than it would ever serve.

We are not losing, bombs have been set off in civillian areas since gunpowder was invented. This technique of warefare has been used by the disaffected and disenfranchised for centuries (I'm thinking of Guy Fawkes here as one example)

Are you suggesting we drop a nuclear weapon? On whom?

And no-one is feasting on anyone - remember our diversity is what makes us stronger. It is the way of nature, and no amount of ideological rubbish is ever going to change that.

You're quite put off by his opinion, huh? I read nothing personal in his remarks, nothing but a personal opinion. he named no one, nor implied anyone. relax. I don't doubt myself that there have been posters on this board that rejoiced, albeit silently, at the 9/11 attacks, and 7/7.

Discourse, public debate, questioning government and diversity are GREAT for a society and do prevent it from dying.

However, when on the day of attack you have talking heads not showing anger towards the terrorists, not sympathy towards those who died, but instead blaming the other political side for being to weak. We are not having discourse. We are not having diversity we are having a divided house.

You can disagree and argue but the second you begin to turn on each other, and that is what is happening in the USA, then you are divided and easier to take down.

You cannot have one side or both sides of a house so divided that they point fingers toward the other and on days like Thursday, spew hatred not at the parties responsible but at the people in the house they disagree with.

You cannot hate each other in your own house and expect to win a war, it is impossible. There is no civility. If you question Bush's tactics instead of getting answers or having civil discourse and debates, your patriotism is questioned. If you support Bush and question what the Left has to offer, you are considered blind and part of the problem.

I say neither side is wrong in questioning, the responses are wrong in that they turn the diversity against ourselves and the discourse and debates, the civility do not exist.

When civility does not exist in a house, it does not matter how strong the enemy, as they see the weaknesses and prey upon those.

Instead of these talking heads (and the vast majority were Right Winged extremist whack jobs) blaming the opposite political party and those in the house that do not agree with them, they should have shown their anger towards those truly responsible and shown the needed respect and sympathies towards the losses.

But they took the cheap road, blamed the opposing side and not those responsible. They chose to divide the house further and air the differences and hatreds in full view of the enemy.

Not once did I hear Limbaugh say we needed to get Osama. Instead for 3 hours he rambled about how the left, France, Germany, Spain and even the UK were responsible for the attack because they were weak.

To me, Thursday, Limbaugh and the rest of his talking heads gave comfort and aid to the terrorists by dividing us even more, on a day where we should have been united.

This is the division I am talking about. To have someone publicly say and believe that there are posters here that rejoiced at the tragedies, maimings and deaths of thousands is hateful, divisive and uncalled for.

If you are to win a war, you must stand united and stop spewing hate.

Look at sports..... no team has ever won that is divided so much they can't achieve anything. Even if they hate each other, they find ways to get along and show solidarity.

We show none. And on days when we should we have people on public airwaves spewing hatred towards not those responsible, not the terrorists but those in our own house.

It's clear we disagree often on this board, and even sides are taken, but in my mind what we have does not reflect the great right/left divide we see everyday in the popular media. Perhaps it's because of the technology, which by necessity means we can't interrupt each other. What we have here is much more reasonable and productive. I'm thankful for that.

Apologies pan, I didn't (and still don't) know anything about Limbaugh and what went on in congress(?) etc on Thursday. It certainly wasn't a date for scoring points, and I would hope that many of the people witnessing that kind of cheap political posturing will make their own minds up and share some of your disgust.

I see a lot of oversimplification happening in respect to the current situation, and worse, overuse of arguments designed to appeal to the obvious emotions that attacks like these generate. A cool head, and common sense should always prevail. Those who opt for more emotive arguments are evidently more interested in their own careers than doing the right thing.

I've disagreed with you many times about differing issues. But the above statement fairly succinctly boils down my position about the current war on terror.There is no "kind" war, war sets up condidtions that are contrary to civilized living. There are arbitrary rules agreed upon by most to pretty it up somewhat, but when those rules are broken by one side holding on to them yourself only costs lives. War is something that, when undertaken, should be done in the most efficient manner possible to end it. And the best way for this to occur is by coming to consensus.

I have seen in this thread and others dealing with the terror issue, people saying essentially that the west is to blame for these attacks, and that terrorists are justified in what they do. It is not a far leap that people who feel terrorists are justified in their acts to feel joy when those just attacks (in their view) are committed. Just like people often feel joy when a US attack succeeds against a terrorist target, these people would feel joy when a terrorist attack suceeds against an American/Western target. Remember, accusing someone of fornicating with goats and killing children for breakfast is only insulting to people who feel that those things are wrong. If someone finds nothing wrong with those acts, it's not an insult.


I made sure and quote the entirety of your post this time, hope this helps (even the parts that are irrelevant to what I'm saying).

You remarked about stevo's comments, and indirectly mine (as he was referencing someone talking about my comments). You talk about the divisiveness of our posts, but I notice you don't mention previous posts that sought to directly blame the victims of these attacks for their misfortune. Why are the opinions that are more left leaning not worthy of the divisive tag? Apparently it's uncalled for to say that there might be people who agree with terrorists, but totally reasonable to say that the victims of bombings are to blame for them :rolleyes: .

There is a big leap between someone saying the west is to blame, and saying the terrorists are justified in what they do. There is also a difference between saying the West has responsibility for it's actions, and those actions have consequences, and saying the West is to blame. I think in those differences lies the issue...


Most often, I have seen people say that the terrorists feel the west is to blame. I have seen people say that the terrorists feel justified in what they do. That is, the terrorists aren't 'crazy', they act according to their own internal logic.

I have seen people say/imply that to truly solve the problem, we need to understand their point of view, in order to combat it. Not just kill em all.

I have even seen people say that the west, the US, and Bush, in particular, piss off other people and other parts of the world, and that we need to stop pissing people off. That pissing people off has consequences.

I have seen people essentially say: If you walk in the slums at midnight with money hanging out of your pockets, you don't deserve to be robbed, but you shouldn't be surprised if it happens. That is, if you make yourself a target, you might get shot at.

(I'm not saying, btw, that we should appease anyone for everything all the time. But acting in ways that don't piss people off is a good idea at home, in the street, and as a country.)

In none of the above scenarios have I seen anyone express anything remotely like joy at 9/11.

I have even seen someone say that, indeed, the West IS to blame by us having the lifestyle we have. Haven't seen that extreme of an opinion much here. But even in that opinion, I don't see anything remotely like joy at the thought of people being attacked.

I'd sure be open to being shown examples of what you are talking about.


It seems to me that you read much into what people are saying, and that you miss the point they are trying to convey. I'm sure there is a lot of that. Myself included...