Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: niteowl]
    #4384503 -

Frightening the public is the government's job, not terrorists.
Terrorists just want to get their point across, in a sometimes extreme manner.


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: Adamist]
    #4384515 -

Adamist said:
Terrorists just want to get their point across, in a sometimes extreme manner.


Yeah, really! Why does everyone give them such a hard time? Geez o' weez  :sad:


--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: looner2]
    #4384520 -

they just need a government program.


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: 1stimer]
    #4384555 -

Islamic terrorism cannot be ended by non-Muslims, and it is extremely unlikely it can be ended by Muslims either. It is here to stay.

It is possible to catch some terrorists and to kill others. But you will never get them all.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: Vex]
    #4384664 -

Quote:
It's a very simple connection to make really. Before Iraq there was no muslim terrorism in england. Now there is. Hmm, why is that? I know it probably has something to do with blair being stuck up bush's ass day and night. The UK is the only major nation that regularly provides strong vocal support for the US and for our shared goals. They are meddling in the middle east, which is of course exactly why terrorists despise the American government, so naturally the UK becomes a target as well.



Although Saddam should have been taken out in the first gulf war, he was not. Instead a conditional cease fire was signed. He has broken those conditions for more than decade and sadly it took that much time and 9/11 to get the executive and legislative branches to realize that this behavior should no longer be accepted. We are not meddling is someone else's business, this our business(and many others) and finally we are doing something about it. If some Muslims feel that this is unjust and take up arms they are wrong and will be served the ultimate justice in time.

Also thanks for pulling your last sentence(emphasis on the second clause) right out of your ass, i enjoyed that.

Vex said:
Also, off topic a bit, but does anyone else find it a bit infuriating when Bush dumbs down the terrorists goals in some sort of effort to de-understand them? He says "The terrorists mission is to kill and maim innocent people" That's retarded though. Their goal with this london bombing was probably more about disrupting englands workforce, economy, and tourism industry (which they have done btw)the fact that innocent people die when they destroy the subway is just icing on the cake for them and it's incidental to their larger plans. Saying their "barbaric" mission is to kill and maim innocent people is like saying the US army's mission in Iraq is to kill innocent people. It has nothing to do with liberation or WMD's or anything. It's the same thing really, and it just irritates me that he feeds everyone this simple little dumb downed explanation for something that is so complex. And then people believe him...it's amazing, and part of the reason why we will never win the "war on terror" with this current pile of shit strategy.


There is a reason they chose to blow the bombs in the tube and then later on the bus(can you guess why this bomb was intended to go off an hour later?) during morning rush hour. Can you guess this reason? Or will your obvious bias blind you from seeing the answer even when I shove it in your face?

Your attempt at comparing the intent of these terrorists to the coalition's is one the stupidest things i have ever read in this forum. Not even close. Keep up the good work.  :laugh:

Also you seem to not understand English. A goal(mission) is different than a motivation. When someone says a person's goal(mission) is to kill innocent people it doesn't imply that their sole motivation for doing this is because they like killing innocent people nor imply that there aren't many other reasons for motivation.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang

Edited by d33p (07/08/05 07:35 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: 1stimer]
    #4384677 -

1stimer said:
Quote:
The terrorists goal is to demoralize and create fear in the masses of the country they attack by killing defenseless civilians.


Do you have any sources?



You'll find absolute undisputable proof right here: http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes1.html#terrorism


Also see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2829059.stm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina41030.htm


--------------------
Bush bashers beware http://graypantherssf.igc.org/guantanamo.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46501


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: d33p]
    #4384705 -

Your reading comprehension is so bad, that i think it would be a waste of time to respond to your "i completely missed the point" scolding/response.

argue about the semantics of a word all you want in some feeble attempt to make me appear stupid, that's fine. It's such a lame attempt at "debate". However, i'm not going to explain to you how to deduct and induct a paragraphs meaning.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: Vex]
    #4384861 -

Vex said:
Your reading comprehension is so bad, that i think it would be a waste of time to respond to your "i completely missed the point" scolding/response.

argue about the semantics of a word all you want in some feeble attempt to make me appear stupid, that's fine. It's such a lame attempt at "debate". However, i'm not going to explain to you how to deduct and induct a paragraphs meaning.


ROFL, you are so funny.  :rolleyes: You tried to give an excuse if not just a reason for the terrorist actions. I gave my opinion and some backing of why i think that reason is a crock of shit. If people continue to do terrible things over crock of shit reasons then may they die a slow violent death. Not much can be done to stop these morons short of an isolationist policy which ain't going to fly in today's world. And even then once all these morons lose their bad reasons the other muslim terrorists still have enough bullshit reasons and a few semi-decent ones to last them until the murder of the last infidel as far as they are concerned.

And if you dont understand the meaning of words its your own damn fault. I'd like to see you try and explain that me. :lol:


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: d33p]
    #4384939 -

Iraq = 20,000+ civilians dead
Afghanistan = 35,000+ civilians dead

9/11 = 3,000+ civilians dead
7/7 = 50+ civilians dead

Who are the bigger terrorists?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: bukkake]
    #4384973 -

Yep.


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: d33p]
    #4385002 -

d33p said:

" Not much can be done to stop these morons short of an isolationist policy which ain't going to fly in today's world. And even then once all these morons lose their bad reasons the other muslim terrorists still have enough bullshit reasons and a few semi-decent ones to last them until the murder of the last infidel as far as they are concerned"

Yep.


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: 1stimer]
    #4385090 -

Nobody has ever claimed that fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq makes the whole western world perfectly safe or that we're now invulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Instead, the whole premise behind the "flypaper theory" is that the more blood and treasure that Al-Qaeda spends in Iraq, the less they'll have to use in attacks against the West. Al-Qaeda does not have unlimited resources and it's to our advantage to see them used against Coalition and Iraqi forces rather than buses and airplanes full of civilians in the West. Were it not for the conflict in Iraq, all the suicide bombers, money, and manpower Al-Qaeda is using there would be free to go elsewhere.

This shouldn't be such a difficult concept to get a handle on, even for anti-war liberals.


Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: Phred]
    #4385122 -

Funny isolationism was brought up. A more isolationist United States has no ties to Israel or military bases in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic-dominated countries, which originally incited this anger from these lunatics.

Phred, we are no safer now than we were before 9/11. Proof of that is: the reaction from people in the United States after the London bombings were, "When are we next?" And even our government is telling us it's inevitable.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: Phred]
    #4385192 -

Phred said:
the whole premise behind the "flypaper theory" is that the more blood and treasure that Al-Qaeda spends in Iraq, the less they'll have to use in attacks against the West.


Too bad it's a sorry ass theory with no facts to back it up. An individual can decide on his own or a small group of like minded individuals can agree to commit a terrorist act. No communication outside those involved is necessary. There is no need for centralized command and control. It also doesn't require gobs of money - terrorism is done on the cheap. A cell phone, nitrate based fertilizer (maybe urea), rudimentary electronics, some diesel fuel... all these can be had by one individual with limited resources. This 'theory' (which in fact is not a theory, but a strategy) comes from those stuck in the nation-state warfare mentality, which does not apply to the present situation. Indeed, many terrorists are in opposition to their own governments and their ideals are not necessarily bound to a set location (with the exception of the importance of Mecca) - it's global.

Quote:
Were it not for the conflict in Iraq, all the suicide bombers, money, and manpower Al-Qaeda is using there would be free to go elsewhere.


[sarcasm]Well I guess that explains London and the increase in major terrorist attacks worldwide.[/sarcasm]


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4385287 -

Are jihadists pouring into Iraq from other countries? Yep.

Are they being killed there? Yep.

Will the ones killed there be carrying out terrorist attacks in London? Nope.

Are there Islamic radicals living in London? Yep.

Are there Islamic radicals of English citizenship who were once detained in Guantanamo, then returned to England at England's request, then released into the general population living in or near London? Yep.

Did they carry out the Thursday attacks? Perhaps.

Presuming it was English Islamic radicals (as opposed to imported ones) who carried out the attacks yesterday, would they have done so had England not aided the UN with the invasion of Afghanistan and the Coalition with the resumption of hostilities in Iraq? Perhaps not.

Regardless of the root causes of Islamic terrorism directed against England, be it England's creation of the state of Israel over sixty years ago, England's inaction in Bosnia, or England's support of the Persian Gulf War and the recent Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns, is it better for the English to be able to deal with at least some of them with armed troops rather than unarmed bobbies? I say yep. I understand you disagree. It takes all kinds to make a world.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: bukkake]
    #4385299 -

Of course it's inevitable, duh! The US media, the US entertainment industry, US banks, US universities, and the US government are all controlled by Jews, don'tcha know. That makes the US a fair target in their eyes -- killing Jews is great, but killing American Jews is even better. It's a two-fer.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: Phred]
    #4385429 -

Phred said:
Nobody has ever claimed that fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq makes the whole western world perfectly safe or that we're now invulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Instead, the whole premise behind the "flypaper theory" is that the more blood and treasure that Al-Qaeda spends in Iraq, the less they'll have to use in attacks against the West. Al-Qaeda does not have unlimited resources and it's to our advantage to see them used against Coalition and Iraqi forces rather than buses and airplanes full of civilians in the West. Were it not for the conflict in Iraq, all the suicide bombers, money, and manpower Al-Qaeda is using there would be free to go elsewhere.

This shouldn't be such a difficult concept to get a handle on, even for anti-war liberals.


Phred


Donald Rumsfeld:


Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4385506 -

It's clear from the full text of this memo -- addressed to combat commanders almost two years ago -- that Rumsfeld wasn't operating on preconceptions or trying to forcefeed his philosophy to those in the field. Instead he was doing what any manager who knows his job would do: ask those on the spot to fill you in.

These are not rhetorical questions he's asking; he really wants them to give him their opinions. How else should he adjust strategy? Sit in Washington and plow on with no course adjustments?

Note the timeline here -- he's asking these questions six months after the fall of Baghdad. That's enough time for the people on the ground to whom he was speaking to have formed some kind of feel for just what was working and what wasn't.

Based on the answers the commanders in the field gave him, he then came up with questions for the people to whom the memo was addressed. Again, these are neither loaded questions nor rhetorical questions -- he really wants their unput.

Here's the entire memo:

****************************************************

October 16, 2003

TO: Gen. Dick Myers
Paul Wolfowitz
Gen. Pete Pace
Doug Feith
FROM: Donald Rumsfeld

SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism

The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?

DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere ? one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.

With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:

-- We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them ? nonetheless, a great many remain at large.

-- USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.

-- USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban ? Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.

-- With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.

Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?

Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?

Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.

-- Do we need a new organization?

-- How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?

-- Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?

It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.

Does CIA need a new finding?

Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?

What else should we be considering?

Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.

Thanks.

************************************

What answers did he receive to these questions? Was there unanimity among the group on each question? Which answers were acted on? What changes in strategy resulted from those questions? What changes in policy resulted? Which questions remain unanswered today?








Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: bukkake]
    #4386141 -

> Who are the bigger terrorists?

Pretty simply answer, those that target civilians intentionally. You seem to want to blame the US for the civilian deaths in Iraq, but the blame for those deaths is the fault of the extremists (terrorists, saddam, etc) that brought the US to Iraq in the first place. How many civilians has the US killed in Peru, or Iceland, or France, or China, or almost any other country you name... not too many.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: London Bombings Prove Iraq War Does Not Deter Terrorism [Re: Phred]
    #4386258 -

Are jihadists pouring into Iraq from other countries? Yep.


Last figure I heard was that 80-90% of the fighters captured in Iraq are Iraqi.

Will the ones killed there be carrying out terrorist attacks in London? Nope.


But knowing fellow muslims are being killed in Iraq is likely to CREATE more "jihadists" (or less melodramatically "people with a greivance against the US for occupying muslim countries").

Did they carry out the Thursday attacks? Perhaps.

You mean you would get in contact with people who have been imprisoned in Gitmo and splashed all over the newspapers for the last 3 years in order to launch a secret attack? The idea is a complete non-starter. Not least because their every movement is liable to be under close observation by the secret service.

is it better for the English to be able to deal with at least some of them with armed troops rather than unarmed bobbies?

It's better not to have to "deal with" them at all. Like we did perfectly well before Blair clung to Bush's coat-tails in the foolish occupation of Iraq.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Iraq War Quiz
( 1 2 all )		 RonoS 3,172 21 03/27/03 02:51 PM
by Murex
* No humanitarian case for Iraq war Xlea321 1,049 2 01/30/04 04:02 AM
by Xlea321
* Bush's rush to Iraq War Helping al-Qaida fft2 538 0 07/14/04 03:49 AM
by fft2
* Military families grow angry with state of Iraq war Zahid 1,050 4 10/30/03 04:21 PM
by PsiloKitten
* Iraq war recap
( 1 2 3 all )		 iglou 3,096 43 08/08/03 06:55 AM
by ololiuqui
* Bush Wants Another $70 bn For Failed Iraq War! ekomstop 1,283 19 10/27/04 02:31 AM
by FrankieJustTrypt
* Blix: "Iraq war was illegal" Xlea321 598 1 03/06/04 02:44 AM
by orion
* Top GOP Rep Calls Iraq War 'Unjustified' fft2 882 9 08/20/04 10:50 AM
by whiterasta

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
6,245 topic views. 1 members, 20 guests and 17 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.039 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 18 queries.