[analogika]

He was disarmed BEFORE you invaded.

I'm sorry, aberdeen, but I'm not going to run over the same old ******** time and again just because you wake up every morning with a blank mind and decide to re-write history a you construe fit.

And that includes noting that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism, and that, in fact, fundamentalist Muslims HATED Saddam for being too secular.

Your fecking invasion created Iraqi terrorism. London would not have happened, had you not invaded.

But that's been said here a dozen times already, as well.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

The atacks of 11 September are the "greatest terrorist attack the world has ever seen"?!?

Considering the number killed, the number of nationalities with fatalities and the overall cost, 9/11 has to be right up there. And that's not even counting the military responses from the US to follow, the national and international mindset, the FUD and other intangibles.

Besides, in that instance, being No. 1 isn't a good thing.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by nath

Hey aberdeen - how did yesterday's bombs manage to stop themselves from killing muslims? I'd really like to know.

Also, I see you still haven't started you own thread for your little hate-fest. What's up, worried nobody will want to join in?

I don't know. Why ask me? The terrorists are the ones all hot for killing innocents whether they be in London or the M.E. or be they muslims or not.

Sorry, but I have as much right to talk about this matter as you do. Unless you invoke a special anti-infidel ruling here in this thread where only true believers can participate in the discussion.

And ONLY THOSE who know the super secret special al Qaeda high sign?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Randman

Considering the number killed, the number of nationalities with fatalities and the overall cost, 9/11 has to be right up there. And that's not even counting the military responses from the US to follow, the national and international mindset, the FUD and other intangibles.

Besides, in that instance, being No. 1 isn't a good thing.

So you wouldn't consider fire-bombings to be terrorism? The Holocaust? Support for the Contras? Support for Pinochet? Overthrowing governments because they wanted socialism instead of capitalism?

[Randman]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So you wouldn't consider fire-bombings to be terrorism? The Holocaust? Support for the Contras? Support for Pinochet? Overthrowing governments because they wanted socialism instead of capitalism?

Name 1 fire bombing with the cost in human life and dollars that equals 9/11. As for the others, no. They do not fit the definition of terrorist attacks.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Randman

Name 1 fire bombing with the cost in human life and dollars that equals 9/11. As for the others, no. They do not fit the definition of terrorist attacks.

Interesting how you added the dollars into that. But I'm pretty sure both Dresden and the Japanese cities who suffered from our(allies) bombing runs cost both more in lives as well as money.

They might not have been terrorist attacks but they sure were terrorism and support of terrorism. Or do you disagree with that?

[analogika]

nm.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by analogika

He was disarmed BEFORE you invaded.

I'm sorry, aberdeen, but I'm not going to run over the same old ******** time and again just because you wake up every morning with a blank mind and decide to re-write history a you construe fit.

And that includes noting that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism, and that, in fact, fundamentalist Muslims HATED Saddam for being too secular.

Your fecking invasion created Iraqi terrorism. London would not have happened, had you not invaded.

But that's been said here a dozen times already, as well.

We didn't know whether Saddam was armed or not. NO ONE KNEW for sure and we couldn't take the chance. I predict you and nath will continue to disagree with me on this issue on these boards. How do I know this? Well, maybe I'm psychic.

George W. Bush and most of the free world 'knew' Saddam was going to do something to get at the US and specifically, GWB. How did everyone know this (except you apparently...I secretly believe you know the truth but refuse to admit it, but that's ok)?

It wasn't voodoo or esp, it was the things he had done leading up to the invasion which telegraphed his intent and the resources at his disposal.

The cancer has already been in existence in the minds of the people who can, will and do falsely convince those who are most gullible that blowing themselves up will send them to a paradise with 72 virgins.

Like a leech is used to suck out the poison in a wound, the war in Iraq is merely bringing to the surface the poisoned minds that already existed in the ME. It takes much more than losing a friend or family member to enemy combat to create a terrorist. If we've killed 100,000 in Iraq (someone mentioned that # but I don't know if that's accurate) then there should be a million terrorists on the streets of Baghdad by now. Al Jazeera wouldn't have to beat the drum to rile up the believers to go and commit jihad if that were true.

No, your tired old song and dance, dog and pony show is losing ground in the march of progress and the world's expansion of knowledge.

The West and the US are not devils. We are not the great Satan. We wouldn't be in Iraq had it not been for the attack on 9/11. There is no direct link we' can see between 9/11 and Saddam. But in the WoT president Bush announced who was going to be targeted and gave everyone a chance to be with us or against us. Saddam chose his course and we are doing what's in our best interests now.

There is a short term sacrifice being made in exchange for long term future security and prosperity for all.

[nath]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I don't know. Why ask me?

Because you claimed that not being muslim was a reason for death by teh terrar. Meanwhile, in the real world, many muslims died on September 11 as well as in various other supposedly Islam-inspired massacres.

Originally Posted by mojo2

Sorry, but I have as much right to talk about this matter as you do.

The matter (as defined by the thread title) is the London bombings. You have rarely touched on that subject in your keyboard diarrhoea over the last few pages, and even then only when prompted.

Originally Posted by mojo2

Unless you invoke a special anti-infidel ruling here in this thread where only true believers can participate in the discussion.

And ONLY THOSE who know the super secret special al Qaeda high sign?

That's right aberdeen, I am in fact one of the terrists. I engineered it all especially to give myself an extra long journey home yesterday.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So you wouldn't consider fire-bombings to be terrorism? The Holocaust? Support for the Contras? Support for Pinochet? Overthrowing governments because they wanted socialism instead of capitalism?

But, but, but...what about...



It's NOT the same. You don't get it. Terrorism is the scourge of the earth. London was a transformative event, just like 9/11 was. Just like Madrid was, but unfortunately Spain's response to their attack has encouraged the terrorists. And MAY have been in the minds of yesterday's hideous bombers.

[Hawkeye_a]

As a human being, i am insulted that some people choose to measure the effects of terrorism in terms of Dollars.

Also.... terrorism or war or whatever. it's all just killing and murder. one has a piece of papaer that says they can, the other dosent...it dosent change what they inevitable do....which is kill.

3000 People killed on 9/11 does not equal 100,000 Iraquis killed duringthe Iraqi invasion. All 103k were civilians and never deserved to be killed, not by an aircraft crashing into their building nor by bombs and amunition.

So quit trying to over emphasize 9/11. It was trajedy in the timeline that is our lives.... just because it happened on American soil might make it special to some, but those who consider themselves to be citizens of the earth, see it as yet another act of agression since the begining of time. And for those of us who have been around for longer, might recall, as pointed out earlier the Holocaust, Polpot, Rawanda, Albania, Bosnia, etc....Im referring to harm to civilians of course. Whether they are 'terrorized' by terrorists, militas or by armies....that dosent change the 'means' or the 'end' to the people on the receiving end.

And considering that 100k Iraqis have 'paid' for 911 (even though they had nothing to do with it)....id say that the trajedy in iraq (in terms of casualties that is) is 33X greater than 911. (Since the number killed seems to matter when comparing one murder from the next.)

To those of you who seem to have a limited midset, please dont lable me as anti-American or whatever. I am against civilian death and agression bar none....whether it be at the hands of terrorists or militaries or even individuals. I hates what happened on 9/11, as i did what happened in Iraq and more recently in London.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

But, but, but...what about...



It's NOT the same. You don't get it. Terrorism is the scourge of the earth. London was a transformative event, just like 9/11 was. Just like Madrid was, but unfortunately Spain's response to their attack has encouraged the terrorists. And MAY have been in the minds of yesterday's hideous bombers.

How is it not the same? A lot of innocent people dead, a lot of money spent on rebuilding because of the use of terror by the West.

Maybe you need to remind yourself what terror is?

ter·ror ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr)
n.
Intense, overpowering fear. See Synonyms at fear.
One that instills intense fear: a rabid dog that became the terror of the neighborhood.
The ability to instill intense fear: the terror of jackboots pounding down the street.
Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.
Informal. An annoying or intolerable pest: that little terror of a child.

and the terrorism

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

so, how does the above not fit?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by mojo2

But, but, but...what about...



It's NOT the same. You don't get it. Terrorism is the scourge of the earth. London was a transformative event, just like 9/11 was. Just like Madrid was, but unfortunately Spain's response to their attack has encouraged the terrorists. And MAY have been in the minds of yesterday's hideous bombers.

Oh boy...

How can you have so many contradictions in so few sentences?

Terrorism = New Transformativeness!

That paragraph of yours is so empty of meaning it is a wonder you can walk straight! Any event is transformative!

But in England, the populace has been under IRA fire for so long, why should this be anything new for them??

The only thing that does not change is your take on the situation which is projection in panoramic-technicolor format. I am sure there is something like THX in your brain as well.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by nath

Because you claimed that not being muslim was a reason for death by teh terrar. Meanwhile, in the real world, many muslims died on September 11 as well as in various other supposedly Islam-inspired massacres.

The matter (as defined by the thread title) is the London bombings. You have rarely touched on that subject in your keyboard diarrhoea over the last few pages, and even then only when prompted.

That's right aberdeen, I am in fact one of the terrists. I engineered it all especially to give myself an extra long journey home yesterday.

You have some twisted view of things, fella! But perhaps I could be a bit clearer.

OBL and his crowd don't care about ANY innocents. They kill anyone and everyone without regard for identity when they conduct a terrorist attack. However, in the countries where they have tried to wrest political power from moderate muslims they have specifically attacked those of different sects and more moderate views because they believed only OBL and his ilk's view was PURE.

I will note and bring to the attention of anyone in a debate with nath that he (she?) utilizes the technique/tactic of taking a non-issue (my supposed straying from the thread topic, even though I wasn't and haven't been) or a relatively unimportant issue and blows it full of air to make it appear like a substantive matter behind which nath can manoever/hide and get the adversary to expend energy addressing.

Those who attempt to help force the opponent to deal with the non-issue by trying to shame him are in effect violating Demonhood's edict about a certain number of posters who practice ganging up on an opponent.

My posts have been grounded in responding to existing responses and expanding on the thread topic by evoking a broader model by which we might gain a greater, a clearer understanding of these events.

If you were part of yesterday's carnage would you actually JOKE that you were? Only if you were using reverse psychology and trying to throw everyone off the trail. Which makes me wonder, where I hadn't until the moment I first read your "joke," if maybe you were in the loop somehow.

Be careful with what you say. These are not joking matters and you don't know who lurks on these pages. With the zeal that exists to keep the free world safe, law enforcement may lock you up first and ask questions later...at their leisure.

Lotsa luck lamenting your lack of liberty when you are locked up.

[Superman]

I'm appalled by the liberal bad-mouthing and finger-pointing going of the allied forces on here.

I havent read the entire thread, but from what I gather from the last 2 pages is that the UK is to blame for the London Bombings because it was part of the coalition that took Saddam down. So in your warped sense of karma, England got what was coming to it?

Please remember that it was the 9/11 terrorist attacks that started the whole War on Terror. Had the Mulsims not done that, we wouldnt have gone in to Afghanistan, and eventually Iraq.

[von Wrangell]

Wow, just wow......

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Interesting how you added the dollars into that. But I'm pretty sure both Dresden and the Japanese cities who suffered from our(allies) bombing runs cost both more in lives as well as money.

They might not have been terrorist attacks but they sure were terrorism and support of terrorism. Or do you disagree with that?

A convincing argument can be made that the most merciful form of warfare is that which is terribly violent for as long as it takes before the opponent gives up. And that any other way of waging war is sadistic because more people suffer for a longer period of time.

But we really shouldn't be talking about ANYTHING but LONDON.

Right, nath?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Superman

I'm appalled by the liberal bad-mouthing and finger-pointing going of the allied forces on here.

I havent read the entire thread, but from what I gather from the last 2 pages is that the UK is to blame for the London Bombings because it was part of the coalition that took Saddam down. So in your warped sense of karma, England got what was coming to it?

Please remember that it was the 9/11 terrorist attacks that started the whole War on Terror. Had the Mulsims not done that, we wouldnt have gone in to Afghanistan, and eventually Iraq.

And to use your "logic":

Hadn't you kept your forces in SA and continued to support the massacres and oppression of Muslims OBL wouldn't have had to fly planes into your building.

And now you turn!

(lets see how far we can take this)

[analogika]

SimpleLife: aberdeen here apparently only walks straight because vacuum is lighter than air and rises to the top.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

A convincing argument can be made that the most merciful form of warfare is that which is terribly violent for as long as it takes before the opponent gives up. And that any other way of waging war is sadistic because more people suffer for a longer period of time.

But we really shouldn't be talking about ANYTHING but LONDON.

Right, nath?

So deliberately targeting innocents is acceptable to make sure the war ends sooner. And now the question is, why doesn't the same apply to your enemy?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by analogika

SimpleLife: aberdeen here apparently only walks straight because vacuum is lighter than air and rises to the top.

Now be nice to him. He needs our help.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by analogika

a) It is/was obvious to most - INCLUDING YOUR OWN ****ING PRESIDENT - that Iraq had virtually nothing whatsoever to do with international terrorism.

In case you had not noticed, Palestinian terrorism is international terrorism. Attacking Jordan, attacking Lebanon, attacking Israel, attacking the Achille Lauro, attacking athletes in Munich, using Iraq as a base of operations, coordinating with Hizb-allah in Syria. America did not invade Iraq for its support of Palestinian terrorists, Iraq supported terrorists besides Palestinians- but they were among the long list of terrorists Hussein welcomed. As you say, your states turn a blind eye to this problem. I hope you sleep well at night, knowing you contribute to it.

---

What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted: Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

Just tell us one thing: Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?

If not, why aren't you moving heaven and earth to find out the answer?

-- from Andrew McCarthy, former federal prosecutor.

[von Wrangell]

You forgot the link again. Just a sec, I'll find it for you.

edit: Here's the link you forgot to add.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0506290912.asp

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

As a human being, i am insulted that some people choose to measure the effects of terrorism in terms of Dollars.

Well, unfortunately, idealism does not last long, does it? FYI, Insurance companies have put a price tag on human life and it is essential to measure effects on the economy. Like it or not, your life is valued for what you can provide, not for your existence.

Also.... terrorism or war or whatever. it's all just killing and murder. one has a piece of papaer that says they can, the other dosent...it dosent change what they inevitable do....which is kill.

3000 People killed on 9/11 does not equal 100,000 Iraquis killed duringthe Iraqi invasion. All 103k were civilians and never deserved to be killed, not by an aircraft crashing into their building nor by bombs and amunition.

So quit trying to over emphasize 9/11. It was trajedy in the timeline that is our lives.... just because it happened on American soil might make it special to some, but those who consider themselves to be citizens of the earth, see it as yet another act of agression since the begining of time. And for those of us who have been around for longer, might recall, as pointed out earlier the Holocaust, Polpot, Rawanda, Albania, Bosnia, etc....Im referring to harm to civilians of course. Whether they are 'terrorized' by terrorists, militas or by armies....that dosent change the 'means' or the 'end' to the people on the receiving end.

And considering that 100k Iraqis have 'paid' for 911 (even though they had nothing to do with it)....id say that the trajedy in iraq (in terms of casualties that is) is 33X greater than 911. (Since the number killed seems to matter when comparing one murder from the next.)

To those of you who seem to have a limited midset, please dont lable me as anti-American or whatever. I am against civilian death and agression bar none....whether it be at the hands of terrorists or militaries or even individuals. I hates what happened on 9/11, as i did what happened in Iraq and more recently in London.

Unfortunately, making sense means you are likely to be targeted as a liberal, even if you are not! Welcome to the club!

Back on topic, the efficiency of terrorism is measured by the psychological consequences, as was said earlier. To have the greatest impact, there needs to be something very clear in the message which needs to be translated through all senses. The effect on the psyche is quite dramatic as you may imagine it, and a little worse. That is why there are trauma/debriefers acting to assist. The duration of the trauma effect varies from a few weeks to a lifetime. The variation of the effects is due to the following, especially:

1) prior experience to trauma event
2) state of mind before the event
3) life experience (the richer the better)
4) support group present in your life (proximity to family as a ressource to vent)
5) unresolved issues related to prior trauma events
6) etc.

Although I doubt this was known when terrorism began, this may be used in a strategy to increase the effect of the terrorist acts. In London, I doubt the effects at a psychological level will be that important for the Londonians, but it does not mean people will not be affected. Of course, there is the loss of human life which can never be reclaimed. Trauma victims will recover completly after a few months, for at least 96% of them. But they are likely to be slowed down as human beings performing a role in their society.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Superman

I'm appalled by the liberal bad-mouthing and finger-pointing going of the allied forces on here.

I havent read the entire thread,

I think you should.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by analogika

SimpleLife: aberdeen here apparently only walks straight because vacuum is lighter than air and rises to the top.

New Age Politics, with lots of spiritual forces going around, seems like.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

As a human being, i am insulted that some people choose to measure the effects of terrorism in terms of Dollars.

Also.... terrorism or war or whatever. it's all just killing and murder. one has a piece of papaer that says they can, the other dosent...it dosent change what they inevitable do....which is kill.

3000 People killed on 9/11 does not equal 100,000 Iraquis killed duringthe Iraqi invasion. All 103k were civilians and never deserved to be killed, not by an aircraft crashing into their building nor by bombs and amunition.

So quit trying to over emphasize 9/11. It was trajedy in the timeline that is our lives.... just because it happened on American soil might make it special to some, but those who consider themselves to be citizens of the earth, see it as yet another act of agression since the begining of time. And for those of us who have been around for longer, might recall, as pointed out earlier the Holocaust, Polpot, Rawanda, Albania, Bosnia, etc....Im referring to harm to civilians of course. Whether they are 'terrorized' by terrorists, militas or by armies....that dosent change the 'means' or the 'end' to the people on the receiving end.

And considering that 100k Iraqis have 'paid' for 911 (even though they had nothing to do with it)....id say that the trajedy in iraq (in terms of casualties that is) is 33X greater than 911. (Since the number killed seems to matter when comparing one murder from the next.)

To those of you who seem to have a limited midset, please dont lable me as anti-American or whatever. I am against civilian death and agression bar none....whether it be at the hands of terrorists or militaries or even individuals. I hates what happened on 9/11, as i did what happened in Iraq and more recently in London.

Dude, we asked Saddam to comply. We gave him years and months and weeks. It was in the NEWS every freeking day for months. HE knew what was coming. THEY knew what was coming and we gave him every possible chance.

THEN when we fire on a target we really try to be selective about our targeting.

On the OTHER hand...

The 9/11 attacks were total surprise attacks on innocents who were given NO advance knowledge and had no say in their fate. They couldn't become refugees, they couldn't go to a cousin's farm or dig a reeeeeealllly deep shelter or anything.

There really is a difference between 9/11 or yesterday's surprise LONDON terrorist attack and
the killing the US is doing in Iraq. By the way, to be absolutely clear...


Whenever and wherever the residents of an Iraqi community have been able, with our help and the help of the iraqi police & military, to assure peace and stability, massive amounts of reconstruction money flows in and civic work projects begin in earnest.

No killing. No more war zone living conditions after the $$ starts flowing. All it takes is for the terrorists to stop the terrorism and the fighting.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

All it takes is for the terrorists to stop the terrorism and the fighting.

exactly.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

How is it not the same? A lot of innocent people dead, a lot of money spent on rebuilding because of the use of terror by the West.

Maybe you need to remind yourself what terror is?

ter·ror ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr)
n.
Intense, overpowering fear. See Synonyms at fear.
One that instills intense fear: a rabid dog that became the terror of the neighborhood.
The ability to instill intense fear: the terror of jackboots pounding down the street.
Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.
Informal. An annoying or intolerable pest: that little terror of a child.

and the terrorism

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

so, how does the above not fit?

So you wouldn't consider fire-bombings to be terrorism?

Well, it's kinda like defining obscenity. I can't really describe it for ya, but I know it when I see it.

The Dresdin (and other German firestorms) and Tokyo (and other Japanese firestorms) firebombings were part of a campaign on BOTH sides of no holds barred all out war to the death. Civilians were not expected to be able to escape the kinds of warfare being waged by both sides. We have become more civilized and our weapons more precise since then, but the nature of war has changed and I wonder if it is for the better or not. If the West used the rationale that the most humane execution of war would be unleashing the greatest amount of destruction on the enemy until they capitulated we would be almost done in Iraq IMHO by now.

We decimated the Germans and took back all of Europe from them and Japan in the Pacific in less than four years.

If we fought WWII the way we're fighting in Iraq, hell, the Axis powers wouldve figured out that the only possible way for them to win would be to become terrorists and hope for the US people to withdraw their political support for the war.

The Holocaust? Support for the Contras? Support for Pinochet? Overthrowing governments because they wanted socialism instead of capitalism?

The Holocaust wasn't an act of terror as such, although it was indeed terrifying. It was designined to eliminate an entire race of people. The germans weren't trying to CONVINCE anyone to do anything but to die.

Support for the Contras was an effort to deny Communism to take hold in Central & South America. I don't know the details about Pinochet. I'll leave the overthowing Govt's explanation to others. But none of these are terrorism as such.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

exactly.

Huh????

What'd I say? What'd I say????

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Well, it's kinda like defining obscenity. I can't really describe it for ya, but I know it when I see it.

So actually terrorism is just what you view as terrorism and not anything else. You do know that this is the exact same reasoning as OBL uses? It's so unbelievably sad to see both extremes in this war(US and Al Qaida) use the exact same "logic".

The Dresdin (and other German firestorms) and Tokyo (and other Japanese firestorms) firebombings were part of a campaign on BOTH sides of no holds barred all out war to the death. Civilians were not expected to be able to escape the kinds of warfare being waged by both sides. We have become more civilized and our weapons more precise since then, but the nature of war has changed and I wonder if it is for the better or not. If the West used the rationale that the most humane execution of war would be unleashing the greatest amount of destruction on the enemy until they capitulated we would be almost done in Iraq IMHO by now.

Dresden.

So you believe that firebombing Iraq(and perhaps a few other nations) and perhaps nuke two different cities(this will make Sherwin c*m) like Mecca and Medinah would be the best way to end this war? Again, that is exactly the same reasoning as Al Qaida uses. The difference is that they can only dream of inflicting as much damage to innocent civilians as you have done and are capable of doing.

We decimated the Germans and took back all of Europe from them and Japan in the Pacific in less than four years.

If we fought WWII the way we're fighting in Iraq, hell, the Axis powers wouldve figured out that the only possible way for them to win would be to become terrorists and hope for the US people to withdraw their political support for the war.

Less than four years? That's no surprise as Europe had been fighting this war on their own until you saw that you wouldn't get your loans back if Germany would take control.

And again you talk in black&white scenarios only. I'm not saying the West should stop fighting terrorism. I never have and never will say that.

The Holocaust wasn't an act of terror as such, although it was indeed terrifying. It was designined to eliminate an entire race of people. The germans weren't trying to CONVINCE anyone to do anything but to die.

It convinced those who weren't Jews, Gypsies, etc etc etc(I hope you remember that as many non-Jews died as Jews) to turn them(the targeted groups) in. It convinced the targeted groups to leave their countries because the governing bodies and the population scared into submission didn't want them there and because they were tought that their belief system didn't fit into European culture(hmmm, sounds familiar....). The Holocaust was much more than just the concentration camps. And yes, it was terror on a very large scale.

Support for the Contras was an effort to deny Communism to take hold in Central & South America. I don't know the details about Pinochet. I'll leave the overthowing Govt's explanation to others. But none of these are terrorism as such.

Yes, it was. It still was terrorism! The contras slaughtered people who supported the democratically elected communist government!

And you don't know about Pinochet? Please read up on it because it is large-scale state sponsored terrorism. And guess who the main sponsor was? And financing militias that committed some of the most disgusting acts of torture and slaughter because you were afraid that you couldn't compete with another ideology is nothing but terrorism.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Oh boy...

How can you have so many contradictions in so few sentences?

Oh, I guess I'm just talented that way.

Terrorism = New Transformativeness!

That paragraph of yours is so empty of meaning it is a wonder you can walk straight! Any event is transformative!

But in England, the populace has been under IRA fire for so long, why should this be anything new for them??

The only thing that does not change is your take on the situation which is projection in panoramic-technicolor format. I am sure there is something like THX in your brain as well.

I see trails and flying elephants at times but that's usually only when the flashbacks kick in.

You are absolutely right to question my meaning with the use of "transformative" in describing the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks.

The British people thought the dangers of terrorism were pretty much gone. But now, THEY'RE BACK!!! What's more, the danger is from without, with a foe far less reasonable (as if the IRA could have EVER been said to have been reasonable...the statement seems fantastic, but the reality is that a negotiated truce has been reached!!!) than the IRA.

There is NO negotiating with OBL.

Like the line in the 007 film, "Goldfinger" with Bond strapped to a table with a lazer beam about to vaporize his jewels and then the rest of him...

Bond: (to Goldfinger) Do you expect me to talk?

Goldfinger: No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!

OBL expects us to become Muslims like him and if we don't he will kill us.

Yesterday will stand out in the minds of EVERYONE forever as the day terrorism (the IRA unpleasantries notwithstanding) touched Britain.

People who were able to think themselves immune from the danger of radical Islam now have to face up to the problem as though it never was discussed before. Funny how a bomb in YOUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD will open your eyes to the harsh realities of terrorism.

And those of you who STILL don't get it yet, will it take a bomb in YOUR neighborhood to open YOUR eyes to the scourge?

Now is the time to condemn terrorism and although the poor people in Africa still deserve our support, if the issue of terrorism threatens you (and it does) then it threatens your ability to work towards a solution to African starvation.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So deliberately targeting innocents is acceptable to make sure the war ends sooner. And now the question is, why doesn't the same apply to your enemy?

We're trying to become a more civilized people. The terrorists are not evolving. If we were the followers here we might fight their fire with a firestorm.

But, we are the leader of the free world and our power is truly frightening and so our righteous wrath is restrained that the world will be spared the full force of our anger and what will evolve will be a better race of man.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

There is NO negotiating with OBL.

How do you know that? Have you tried? Because he has tried.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

We're trying to become a more civilized people. The terrorists are not evolving. If we were the followers here we might fight their fire with a firestorm.

But, we are the leader of the free world and our power is truly frightening and so our righteous wrath is restrained that the world will be spared the full force of our anger and what will evolve will be a better race of man.

Keep 'em coming!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So actually terrorism is just what you view as terrorism and not anything else. You do know that this is the exact same reasoning as OBL uses? It's so unbelievably sad to see both extremes in this war(US and Al Qaida) use the exact same "logic".

Dresden.

So you believe that firebombing Iraq(and perhaps a few other nations) and perhaps nuke two different cities(this will make Sherwin c*m) like Mecca and Medinah would be the best way to end this war? Again, that is exactly the same reasoning as Al Qaida uses. The difference is that they can only dream of inflicting as much damage to innocent civilians as you have done and are capable of doing.

Less than four years? That's no surprise as Europe had been fighting this war on their own until you saw that you wouldn't get your loans back if Germany would take control.

And again you talk in black&white scenarios only. I'm not saying the West should stop fighting terrorism. I never have and never will say that.

It convinced those who weren't Jews, Gypsies, etc etc etc(I hope you remember that as many non-Jews died as Jews) to turn them(the targeted groups) in. It convinced the targeted groups to leave their countries because the governing bodies and the population scared into submission didn't want them there and because they were tought that their belief system didn't fit into European culture(hmmm, sounds familiar....). The Holocaust was much more than just the concentration camps. And yes, it was terror on a very large scale.

Yes, it was. It still was terrorism! The contras slaughtered people who supported the democratically elected communist government!

And you don't know about Pinochet? Please read up on it because it is large-scale state sponsored terrorism. And guess who the main sponsor was? And financing militias that committed some of the most disgusting acts of torture and slaughter because you were afraid that you couldn't compete with another ideology is nothing but terrorism.

Only the most unthinking and knee-jerk reactionary rabid xenophobe would support a war on Islam when islam and Muslims are not really the issue.

It is OBL who obscenely uses Islam as an excuse to bring to life his UN-holy hatred. He and his followers are the problem.

You are putting words in my mouth that I would not say. Why would I advocate any such thing? I respect the holy places of Islam and feel no need to even think of such things as you have suggested. You should watch your words.

The terrorist forces in Iraq are the ones who perpetuate death and violence every day in Iraq. If they were to stop the only news coming from there would be the stories of how life was quickly returning to normal and how the people's lives were improving with the help of the US.

I don't want to study Pinochet and the Contras but I suppose I should, if only for the reason to know when you are over stating a fact or omitting some portion of the truth of the things you might say.

Ok, you made your point.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

How do you know that? Have you tried? Because he has tried.

But, Mr. Bush's critics argued, the term "evildoers" dehumanizes our enemy. And again, the critics are both right and wrong. Yes, the term does dehumanize our enemy. But this is only because our enemy has already dehumanized himself. A characteristic of fantasy ideology is that those in the throes of it begin by dehumanizing their enemies by seeing in them only objects to act upon. It is impossible to treat others in this way without dehumanizing oneself in the process. The demands of the fantasy ideology are such that it transforms all parties into mere symbols. The victims of the fantasy ideology inevitably end by including both those who are enacting the fantasy and those upon whom the fantasy is enacted--both those who perished in the World Trade Center and those who caused them to perish; and, afterwards, both those who wept for the dead and those who rejoiced over the martyrs.

There is one decisive advantage to the "evildoer" metaphor, and it is this: Combat with evildoers is not Clausewitzian war. You do not make treaties with evildoers or try to adjust your conduct to make them like you. You do not try to see the world from the evildoers' point of view. You do not try to appease them, or persuade them, or reason with them. You try, on the contrary, to outwit them, to vanquish them, to kill them. You behave with them in the same manner that you would deal with a fatal epidemic--you try to wipe it out.

So perhaps it is time to retire the war metaphor and to deploy one that is more fitting: the struggle to eradicate disease. The fantasy ideologies of the 20th century, after all, spread like a virus in susceptible populations: Their propagation was not that suggested by John Stuart Mill's marketplace of ideas--fantasy ideologies were not debated and examined, weighed and measured, evaluated and compared. They grew and spread like a cancer in the body politic. For the people who accepted them did not accept them as tentative or provisional. They were unalterable and absolute. And finally, after driving out all other competing ideas and ideologies, they literally turned their host organism into the instrument of their own poisonous and deadly will.

The same thing is happening today--and that is our true enemy. The poison of the radical Islamic fantasy ideology is being spread all over the Muslim world through schools and through the media, through mosques and through the demagoguery of the Arab street. In fact, there is no better way to grasp the full horror of the poison than to listen as a Palestinian mother offers her four-year-old son up to be yet another victim of this ghastly fantasy.

Once we understand this, many of our current perplexities will find themselves resolved. Pseudoissues such as debates over the legitimacy of "racial profiling" would disappear: Does anyone in his right mind object to screening someone entering his country for signs of plague? Or quarantining those who have contracted it? Or closely monitoring precisely those populations within his country that are most at risk?

Let there be no doubt about it. The fantasy ideologies of the 20th century were plagues, killing millions and millions of innocent men, women and children. The only difference was that the victims and targets of such fantasy ideologies so frequently refused to see them for what they were, interpreting them as something quite different--as normal politics, as reasonable aspirations, as merely variations on the well-known theme of realpolitik, behaving--tragically enough--no differently from Montezuma when he attempted to decipher the inexplicable enigma posed by the appearance of the Spanish conquistadors. Nor did the fact that his response was entirely human make his fate any less terrible.

...

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Well, unfortunately, idealism does not last long, does it? FYI, Insurance companies have put a price tag on human life and it is essential to measure effects on the economy. Like it or not, your life is valued for what you can provide, not for your existence.



Unfortunately, making sense means you are likely to be targeted as a liberal, even if you are not! Welcome to the club!

Back on topic, the efficiency of terrorism is measured by the psychological consequences, as was said earlier. To have the greatest impact, there needs to be something very clear in the message which needs to be translated through all senses. The effect on the psyche is quite dramatic as you may imagine it, and a little worse. That is why there are trauma/debriefers acting to assist. The duration of the trauma effect varies from a few weeks to a lifetime. The variation of the effects is due to the following, especially:

1) prior experience to trauma event
2) state of mind before the event
3) life experience (the richer the better)
4) support group present in your life (proximity to family as a ressource to vent)
5) unresolved issues related to prior trauma events
6) etc.

Although I doubt this was known when terrorism began, this may be used in a strategy to increase the effect of the terrorist acts. In London, I doubt the effects at a psychological level will be that important for the Londonians, but it does not mean people will not be affected. Of course, there is the loss of human life which can never be reclaimed. Trauma victims will recover completly after a few months, for at least 96% of them. But they are likely to be slowed down as human beings performing a role in their society.

Will wonders never cease???!!!

SL, I agree with you!

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Only the most unthinking and knee-jerk reactionary rabid xenophobe would support a war on Islam when islam and Muslims are not really the issue.

It is OBL who obscenely uses Islam as an excuse to bring to life his UN-holy hatred. He and his followers are the problem.

You are putting words in my mouth that I would not say. Why would I advocate any such thing? I respect the holy places of Islam and feel no need to even think of such things as you have suggested. You should watch your words.

That's really good to hear.

I guess it was your claim earlier about how "easier" it would be to win this war if you used WWII tactics that got to me. But for once I agree with you and apologise for implying that is what you wanted.

The terrorist forces in Iraq are the ones who perpetuate death and violence every day in Iraq. If they were to stop the only news coming from there would be the stories of how life was quickly returning to normal and how the people's lives were improving with the help of the US.

There are basically three parties fighting in Iraq at the moment. All of them are causing death and violence. Those parties are the CoW(at the moment that's basically the US and Britain), the mujahedin(for you infidels that's the guerrillas) and then the terrorists. There are only two there that are able to claim they are there for noble causes although it completely depends on your POV which one actually is doing the noble thing. Those are the CoW and the Mujahedin. The terrorists are there because the invasion created a vacuum that allowed them to operate inside Iraq. They weren't able to do that before. IMO in basic terms the result would be the same if either the CoW or the Mujahedin would back down. There would be peace in Iraq. The problem is what kind of peace and what kind of Iraq we would see after that. I want the Iraqis to decide for themselves what kind of country they want to build but the US government has other ideas. They have been working from day one on putting in place laws that benefit them and the US companies that are profiteering from this war. And I can promise you that the Mujahedin would be quicker to deal with the terrorists than the US.

I don't want to study Pinochet and the Contras but I suppose I should, if only for the reason to know when you are over stating a fact or omitting some portion of the truth of the things you might say.

Ok, you made your point.

You definately should study those because it's important for Americans to understand why the US is not well liked around the world. You might have a lot of freedom and "wealth" in the US but that has often come at the cost of other innocent people. So I encourage you to read up on Pinochet and the Contras. But that's just the appeticer. There are so many other instances that I could mention but I'll let you start with those two.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

...

So you don't believe IRA were Evildoers(tm)? Or do you believe that England did the wrong thing by negotiating with them? This is one of the few black&white situations so far in this thread. And you set yourself up so nicely for it

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Well, unfortunately, idealism does not last long, does it?

Socrates, Gallileo, Ghandi, Matrin Luter King Jr...... it's empires that dont last long. The ideas, such as 'democracy', 'science' and 'art' last.......a whole lot longer.

[nath]

Please, all of you, remember to say a prayer for Omarion.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050707/325/fmw5r.html

[Mark Larr]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Just wanted to point out how seriously screwed their understanding of Islam is.

But from reading your posts, you are on their side.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

But from reading your posts, you are on their side.

Really? How did you come to that conclusion?

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

But from reading your posts, you are on their side.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Don't worry about it. He probably didn't read more than my signature and decided that I supported the terrorists. Ah, well. That's his problem and not mine.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Don't worry about it. He probably didn't read more than my signature and decided that I supported the terrorists. Ah, well. That's his problem and not mine.

Nah, it's just the sheer amount of brainwashed, black and white, close minded people is amazing. So much that's it's getting scary.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Oh, I guess I'm just talented that way.
I see trails and flying elephants at times but that's usually only when the flashbacks kick in.

I know. Sorry for you!

You are absolutely right to question my meaning with the use of "transformative" in describing the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks.

The British people thought the dangers of terrorism were pretty much gone. But now, THEY'RE BACK!!! What's more, the danger is from without, with a foe far less reasonable (as if the IRA could have EVER been said to have been reasonable...the statement seems fantastic, but the reality is that a negotiated truce has been reached!!!) than the IRA.

Ouch! More contradictions!

Here is some mojo2 logic:

IRA is more reasonable than Al Qaida
IRA cannot be reasonable under any conditions
IRA negotiated a truce.

There is NO negotiating with OBL.

With the fluctuating logic rules you use, I don't see how can anyone discuss this with you!

Yesterday will stand out in the minds of EVERYONE forever as the day terrorism (the IRA unpleasantries notwithstanding) touched Britain.

More mojo2 logic:

Britain was really affected by Al Qaida yesterday
Britain had been vicitmized by many years of ongoing terrorism by IRA
Britain was only affected by terrorism yesterday

People who were able to think themselves immune from the danger of radical Islam now have to face up to the problem as though it never was discussed before. Funny how a bomb in YOUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD will open your eyes to the harsh realities of terrorism.

You certainly are immune to reality.

And those of you who STILL don't get it yet, will it take a bomb in YOUR neighborhood to open YOUR eyes to the scourge?

I see. Maybe you should plant your own bombs?

Now is the time to condemn terrorism

Terrorism has been condemned by everyone on these boards without exception except those who supported:

1) Proportionality attacks from the U.S. to countries that were basically defenseless
2) Interference in foreign countries under the cover of protecting so-called American interests abroad
3) America's economic foreign policies that have, at times, supported totalitarian states which are a crucible of terrorism

and although the poor people in Africa still deserve our support, if the issue of terrorism threatens you (and it does) then it threatens your ability to work towards a solution to African starvation.

I see: New Hostageness!

[Randman]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Interesting how you added the dollars into that. But I'm pretty sure both Dresden and the Japanese cities who suffered from our(allies) bombing runs cost both more in lives as well as money.

They might not have been terrorist attacks but they sure were terrorism and support of terrorism. Or do you disagree with that?

They were not terrorism. I don't think you know what terrorism means. Look it up in a dictionary then come back.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Randman

They were not terrorism. I don't think you know what terrorism means. Look it up in a dictionary then come back.

I'll have a go!

[fires up dashboard]

Oxford American says 'the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims'.

Sounds rather like US foreign policy to me.

Originally Posted by mojo2

The British people thought the dangers of terrorism were pretty much gone. But now, THEY'RE BACK!!! What's more, the danger is from without, with a foe far less reasonable (as if the IRA could have EVER been said to have been reasonable...the statement seems fantastic, but the reality is that a negotiated truce has been reached!!!) than the IRA.

OK aberdeen. A couple of things here. Firstly, as you say, the UK fought a War on Terror for about 50 years against nationalist groups in Northern Ireland. It was only once a Labour government was elected that was, in your parlance, 'prepared to negotiate with the terrorists' - to widespread criticism from the Right - that we established a (shaky) peace. I find it interesting that the only reason you can come up with against a similarly balanced strategy in the current War on Terror is that teh ayrab terrists are somehow just less 'reasonable' than the maniacs on both sides in Ulster.

Secondly, it is entirely possible (maybe even likely) that those involved with this week's shenanigans were British (i.e. not a danger from 'without'). Apparently a suspected cell based in the West Midlands are under investigation. It's also now been all but confirmed that these were not suicide attacks, and that those responsible are still on the loose.

I realise the strange way your mind works will forment this information into some ghastly conspiracy where the only sensible course of action is to annihilate more terrorists, but I hold this bizarre hope that one day you will either have a breakthrough, or simply realise your inherent eviltude and shoot yourself in the head.