George W Bushy And Blair - The Reason For Recent Terrorism? A full discussion of this (hopefully)

[shadowx 0]

Hi everyone,

 

Before i start this isnt just a rante but also i want this to be a decent discussion with view points from different people. If you want to rant about either of the above people feel free! but also back yourself up!

 

So:

 

Last year as you all probably know london was attacked by terrorists, many people died and it caused a lot of problems in general, and most people probably also know of the recent threats to security out many british airports in the UK and possibly abroad, im not sure about abroad though. Now id like to ask what everyone thinks the reasons for these attacks and threats are?

 

As you mightve guessed i personally believe that Blair and Bush (they arent worthy of their "president" and "prime minister" titles in my opinion) are one hundred percent to blame. Yes Blair, 100%! And youre friend Bushy! the blood of hundreds drips from your hands. And my reason is simple: the war on the middle east, not iraq, or afghanistan the whole of the middle east and i belive it is heading for the entire eastern world. Why are they so bent or world domination? Bush cant even come up for a reason! I mean the guy who has his finger on a big red button that determines the fate on the entire worlds population doesnt even know why he would push the button! There is something VERY wrong with that. And then Blair has wrecked the UK, now i have no problem with people from other nationalities, but what i do have a problem with is the fact that a few terrorist who HIJACKED a plane in one UK airport (cant remember which!) are allowed to stay in the UK because "its against their human rights to send them back from whence they came" What the ****?!?!?! I dont care if their country kills them, you dont hijack planes, its wrong, i dont care what happens if you get sent home its wrong so deal with whatever youre gonna get! But, back on topic! After wrecking this country he folows his little friend bush over to the eastern world and wrecks a couple more countries. I think its slightly strange that every country targeted so far is in the east, they are weaker in military terms but have a lot of economical benefit such as oil and cheap labour, coincidence? Yeh right! They are both bullies and have to stick together because they cant fight alone, and as is happening the prey are becoming the predator. Remember how no matter how big someone was if they picked on the wrong guy they got a smack from all his mates? Well Blair and bush go strolling into the east and then wonder why the trade center was attacked, the london transport system was attacked and they find bottle bombs aimed at planes to be flying over the USA. Ill tell you why blair and bush, because like the rest of the world the terrorists hae had enough.

 

I agree with the terrorists motives, i definately do not agree with their methods, but as the sayin goes, "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" And i say power to the freedom fighters. Definately do not kill people or cause such problems and sadness but yes, stand for your pointm dont back down and let the world know, and if any "extremists" read this (which i doubt but anything is possible on the internet!) then i say good on you for standing up for your cause, but please stop killing!

 

But overall them two are the root of all the violence aimed at the USA and UK and to be honest if the white house and the PM's house were attacked tomorrow I'd shrug it off, So long as innocent people arent harmed it really wouldnt bother me one little bit, i know it might upset a lot of people if that did happen but its the lesser of two evils, if they dont stop attackking the east they will carry on this war, its already been started in my opinion and only they can stop it. Now idlike to say i am definately not saying go attack the PM or his bum buddie bush but its just a scenario! So dont do it! But you get my point.

 

So what does everyone else think? Like ive said i think the terrorism is completely their fault for attacking the eastern countries of course they are going to strike back, they shouldnt strike back against innocents but yes they should strike back in some way.

 

And like i said i dont agree with the bombings or threats atall i simply agree with the motive to let blair and bush know that enough is enough, i belive the july bombings last year were a warning, if those bombs were meant to kill they wouldve been alot bigger and full of shrapnel, so take head blair, stop the war! Before more bood is on your hands. And i also dont think anyone should attack blair or bush but like i said i wouldnt care if it did happen. the world would be alot quieter.

 

Please reply and let me know your opinions ad if you disagree dont jus say "youre wrong" tell me why you think i am wrong! This could be an intresting thread with any luck!

[Dragonfly 0]

Today terrorism is a very complex story and it is difficult to conclude from any side that this is wrong and this is right. What is right to you may go terribly wrong for others. And what is right for others may terribly go wrong for you too. I am saying this because the nature of terrorists these days are difficult to predict. Had not USA invaded Iraq will all these happened? We cannot say No. It all may still happen. And the root of terrorism has a very long history. If you just blame the current leaders (US, UK or any other countries) it may be wrong to do so. It is the policy of those states probably in the past one decade that seemed to have threatened others and others felt insulted in the case of Osama and his Al-qaeda network. Therefore, in my opinion it is unwise to simply blame the current leadership in US and UK. If others are at the helm what the heck will they do too? Except showing a more cowardice acts towards terrorists. But by saying like this I'm not justifying all the actions undertaken by their governments. All I want to say is it is too complex a story by now.

[TypoMage 0]

Terrorism is kind of stupid. I mean why would people do it. Because they hate other countries. Why don't they just keep there thoughts to themselves why can't they just leave us alone?

[shadowx 0]

i do agree it is a complex matter but we can see that countries not involved in wars do not suffer from terrorism, or should i say that the terrorism isnt aimed at the citizens of that country. And also there has never been terrorism on this scale untill this war against the east begun.

And i agree it is very difficult to tell right from wrong, infact, there is no right or wrong, it is a matter of opinion, which is what is meant by "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter." to one man they are terrorists but to another they are like soldiers in a war against oppression. and in this case i think of them as freedom fighters, although i strongly disagree with their methods!

And i disagree with you TypoMage, terrorism isnt stupid, it is however in my opinion very bad as many innocent people die and many lives are ruined. But the terrorists are sending a message, a message that they wont sit back and watch THEIR lives being ruined and their countries invaded by us, the western invaders.

Why don't they just keep there thoughts to themselves why can't they just leave us alone?

I see that youre from the USA, im from the UK so when we saw "us" atleast we me the same!
But think of it the other way around, you and your familly and friends are happilly sitting in the garden sunbathing or in the pool or whatever when suddenly a fighter jet screams over head and bombs the town/city near you, killing hundreds and wrecking many lives, possibly killings friends and familly or even you, This is what was happening in iraq and such other places where the usa and Uk have declared war. Wouldnt you want to strike back? send a message to the leaders saying "stop bombing us or we'll bomb you" or sit and watch more bombs drop?

The terrorists are taking the first option, and rightly so, in a way they are the ones trying to stop this war but obviously its a vicious cycle where we get bombed and bomb them so they bomb us and we bomb them again etc....

the point of terrorism is to spread terror, but the point of this terror is usually to prove a political point about them disagreeing with someone else.

obviously they should not kill or hurt innocent people but nor should our troops, they are simply terrorists too, but they are organised terrorists called an "army". but armies do not torture innocent people...

[Kioku 0]

Congratulations. I saw the topic and assumed "This guy must not know what he's talking about". I actually read it and you confirmed it. Good job.

[shadowx 0]

explain yourself? that way we can have decent discussion

[Kioku 0]

Firstly, the terror attacks happened earlier on in Bush's career. Before the entire "SMOKE EM OUT OF THEIR CAVES" *BLEEP* occured.

Secondly, the extremist islamics HAVE been saying "DEATH TO AMERICA AND ISRAEL" since what, the 1970's? Try to keep up. Past terror attacks have happened before Bush or Blair were in charge of anything against the USA. I don't think they left a notice saying "LOL BY THE WAY THIS BOMB IS BECUZ WE DONT LIKE THE GOVERNOR OF TEXAS". I don't think they were trying to say "DEATH TO AMERICA AND ISRAEL BUT WERE GIVING U A WARNING LOL".

Thirdly, if you're going to pull out some LOOSE CHANGE conspiracy *BLEEP*: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons ; Maddox sums it up the best.

 

Fourthly, yes. Terrorism is stupid. Get over it. Killing yourself? What did you just accomplish other than ending your own life? Nice going, *BLEEP*. Now you can't see the destruction you've created, because you're dead. A well thought out plan, huh?

 

Fifthly, war against opression? Please, put down the Kool Aid and stop repeating what you hear. What opression? They're in a democracy and able to vote. If they were that against opression, weren't they in a dictatorship ruled by Saddam Hussein who tried to ethnically cleanse the Kurds using Mustard Gas and often at times snapped out on people, taking them in and flogging their feet with electrical wires? Just overlook that. Yeah, sure.

[cangor 0]

The muslims have been at war with the western world ever since the crusades... and even before that... terrorism is just a recent chapter in this fight... we keep pissing off the muslims and for some reason they've never really forgotton the crusades... sore losers I guess...
plus, most people don't realize how radically different their religion and media is from ours... they have a completely different set of values...

here, read this article:
http://international.nytimes.com/
I had to analyze it for a class and I don't completely agree with the angle it takes but just note the key points it brings up. You can't argue with numbers, you can only argue with how they're presented...

Edited August 18, 2006 by cangor (see edit history)

[shadowx 0]

"war against oppression" you know what i mean, bush and blair telling them what to do even though its absolutely nothing to do with them. And ive no doubt that attacks did happen before bush and blair decided they wanted to rule the world but never on this scale.

 

And i appologise for not knowing about the attacks scince the 70's because i was still an idea in my parents heads!

 

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Now that is funny, and i agree its absolute crap, even if there was a conspiracy and the government knew they wouldnt print it out and tell the world.

 

About blowing yourself up: Do soldiers not put their lives on the line for their countries? and the kamikazees at pearl habour (i think it was pearl harbour, i might be wrong i never liked history.) The terrorists are simply willing to die for their country, and i agree it is rather stupid to kill yourself but its what they belive and ican understand why they belive this because their religion tells them to. I imagine if the pope told christians to kill themselves because god told them to, some very devout christians might do it. Its the same with muslims and any other religion.

 

I think their attitudes are partly from the media and religion which they have, and this is the "fuel" for the terrorism fire, but i still belive that the wars started by blair and bush prove the spark which lights the fuel. The sooner those two are out of control the better the world will be in my opinion

[no9t9 0]

George W. Bush and Tony Blair are not the cause of the recent terrorism. They may have put it into a higher priority on the list in the western world but this "war" has been going on for a long time.The root cause of the problem is because there are religious fanatics on both sides. Westerners like to think they have done nothing wrong but they are just as much to blame.The conflict in the middle east is a result of many factors. In the today's world, it really is about resources and political games. It started with russia and usa cold war. The remnants of that war is the conflict in the middle east.

[gaea 0]

Wow, lots of good discussion and points here (as well as a few massively inane ones). I'm going to try and (intelligently) answer a lot of points that were brought up, so please bear with me as this post will probably be quite long.

 

First and foremost I'd like to applaud shadowx's call for a well informed debate. Hopefully this won't turn into propaganda like dribble.

 

And the root of terrorism has a very long history. If you just blame the current leaders (US, UK or any other countries) it may be wrong to do so. It is the policy of those states probably in the past one decade that seemed to have threatened others and others felt insulted in the case of Osama and his Al-qaeda network.

Well said! While Bush/Blair and their cronies certainly didn't start this deluge of "terrorism," one would be hard pressed (or massively ignorant) to argue that they didn't severely exacerbate the situation (in much the same fashion that Israel has been doing in Lebanon). We've been fighting a loosing war. I'd venture to say that partially stems from a misconception: that we are fighting against a set group of people, instead of an ideology. Our actions only serve bolster their numbers. For every insurgent we kill, two more rise up to take their place. Every time Iraqi civilians get killed, families get destroyed, or some new atrocity comes to light it changes people over to the extremists' side.

 

What is funny (in a disgustingly sick ironic sense) is that the CIA helped build, fund, and train the Maktab al Khidamar (more commonly referred to as "MAK"); a large section of which later split, following their leader Osama Bin Laden to create the al-Qaeda network. This is not to say that the CIA trained Bin Laden himself--as many conspiracy theorists claim--as there is no hard supporting evidence to suggest this. To understand why this happened we must look back to the cold war era. I'll try to keep this historical summery as brief as possible as this post is already getting gigantic. When the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) seized control of the country in April of 1978 the US was terrified, fearing that the so called "domino effect" would come into fruition. A year later, following the overturning of Afghanistan's head of state, thousands of Soviet Union troops flooded into the country in an effort to protect the communist government. In response, the United States (as well as many of their allies) helped fund a resistance movement consisting of -- you guessed it -- "radical" Muslim fighters (known as the Mujaheddin, of which MAK was the head contingent). From 1978 to 1992 the US poured at least six billion dollars (some estimates range as high as $20 billion) worth of weapons, training, and hard currency into these rebel groups. Most of the money and arms were funneled through Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence group (their version of the CIA). Among those trained by the US was a US Green Beret by the name of Ali Mohammed. Mohammed trained at Camp Peary (one of the CIA's infiltration and sabotage training camps located in Virginia) sometime between 1982 and 1989. He (and many others like him) later went on to train a substantial amount of the al-Qaeda operatives. And it's not like this took place in Afghanistan without the US's knowledge--most of it occurred at the "al Kifah Refugee Centre" located in downtown Brooklyn New York. If you're interested in learning more about this subject, I highly suggest the following well written article by Norm Dixon (it's inside the "hide" tags).

[hide=dixon]

 

 

Mujaheddin

In April 1978, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) seized power in Afghanistan in reaction to a crackdown against the party by that country's repressive government.

 

The PDPA was committed to a radical land reform that favoured the peasants, trade union rights, an expansion of education and social services, equality for women and the separation of church and state. The PDPA also supported strengthening Afghanistan's relationship with the Soviet Union.

 

Such policies enraged the wealthy semi-feudal landlords, the Muslim religious establishment (many mullahs were also big landlords) and the tribal chiefs. They immediately began organising resistance to the government's progressive policies, under the guise of defending Islam.

 

Washington, fearing the spread of Soviet influence (and worse the new government's radical example) to its allies in Pakistan, Iran and the Gulf states, immediately offered support to the Afghan mujaheddin, as the "contra" force was known.

 

Following an internal PDPA power struggle in December 1979 which toppled Afghanistan's leader, thousands of Soviet troops entered the country to prevent the new government's fall. This only galvanised the disparate fundamentalist factions. Their reactionary jihad now gained legitimacy as a "national liberation" struggle in the eyes of many Afghans.

 

The Soviet Union was eventually to withdraw from Afghanistan in 1989 and the mujaheddin captured the capital, Kabul, in 1992.

 

Between 1978 and 1992, the US government poured at least US$6 billion (some estimates range as high as $20 billion) worth of arms, training and funds to prop up the mujaheddin factions. Other Western governments, as well as oil-rich Saudi Arabia, kicked in as much again. Wealthy Arab fanatics, like Osama bin Laden, provided millions more.

 

Washington's policy in Afghanistan was shaped by US President Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and was continued by his successors. His plan went far beyond simply forcing Soviet troops to withdraw; rather it aimed to foster an international movement to spread Islamic fanaticism into the Muslim Central Asian Soviet republics to destabilise the Soviet Union.

 

Brzezinski's grand plan coincided with Pakistan military dictator General Zia ul-Haq's own ambitions to dominate the region. US-run Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe beamed Islamic fundamentalist tirades across Central Asia (while paradoxically denouncing the "Islamic revolution" that toppled the pro-US Shah of Iran in 1979).

 

Washington's favoured mujaheddin faction was one of the most extreme, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The West's distaste for terrorism did not apply to this unsavoury "freedom fighter". Hekmatyar was notorious in the 1970s for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil.

 

After the mujaheddin took Kabul in 1992, Hekmatyar's forces rained US-supplied missiles and rockets on that city killing at least 2000 civilians until the new government agreed to give him the post of prime minister. Osama bin Laden was a close associate of Hekmatyar and his faction.

 

Hekmatyar was also infamous for his side trade in the cultivation and trafficking in opium. Backing of the mujaheddin from the CIA coincided with a boom in the drug business. Within two years, the Afghanistan-Pakistan border was the world's single largest source of heroin, supplying 60% of US drug users.

 

In 1995, the former director of the CIA's operation in Afghanistan was unrepentant about the explosion in the flow of drugs: "Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets... There was a fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan."

 

 

Made in the USA

According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992 (some 60,000 attended fundamentalist schools in Pakistan without necessarily taking part in the fighting).

 

John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American "black Muslims" were taught "sabotage skills".

 

The November 1, 1998, British Independent reported that one of those charged with the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Ali Mohammed, had trained "bin Laden's operatives" in 1989.

 

These "operatives" were recruited at the al Kifah Refugee Centre in Brooklyn, New York, given paramilitary training in the New York area and then sent to Afghanistan with US assistance to join Hekmatyar's forces. Mohammed was a member of the US army's elite Green Berets.

 

The program, reported the Independent, was part of a Washington-approved plan called "Operation Cyclone".

 

In Pakistan, recruits, money and equipment were distributed to the mujaheddin factions by an organisation known as Maktab al Khidamar (Office of Services MAK).

 

MAK was a front for Pakistan's CIA, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate. The ISI was the first recipient of the vast bulk of CIA and Saudi Arabian covert assistance for the Afghan contras. Bin Laden was one of three people who ran MAK. In 1989, he took overall charge of MAK.

 

Among those trained by Mohammed were El Sayyid Nosair, who was jailed in 1995 for killing Israeli rightist Rabbi Meir Kahane and plotting with others to bomb New York landmarks, including the World Trade Center in 1993.

 

The Independent also suggested that Shiekh Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian religious leader also jailed for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, was also part of Operation Cyclone. He entered the US in 1990 with the CIA's approval. A confidential CIA report concluded that the agency was "partly culpable" for the 1993 World Trade Center blast, the Independent reported.

 

 

Bin Laden

Osama bin Laden, one of 20 sons of a billionaire construction magnate, arrived in Afghanistan to join the jihad in 1980. An austere religious fanatic and business tycoon, bin Laden specialised in recruiting, financing and training the estimated 35,000 non-Afghan mercenaries who joined the mujaheddin.

 

The bin Laden family is a prominent pillar of the Saudi Arabian ruling class, with close personal, financial and political ties to that country's pro-US royal family.

 

Bin Laden senior was appointed Saudi Arabia's minister of public works as a favour by King Faisal. The new minister awarded his own construction companies lucrative contracts to rebuild Islam's holiest mosques in Mecca and Medina. In the process, the bin Laden family company in 1966 became the world's largest private construction company.

 

Osama bin Laden's father died in 1968. Until 1994, he had access to the dividends from this ill-gotten business empire.

 

(Bin Laden junior's oft-quoted personal fortune of US$200-300 million has been arrived at by the US State Department by dividing today's value of the bin Laden family net worth estimated to be US$5 billion by the number of bin Laden senior's sons. A fact rarely mentioned is that in 1994 the bin Laden family disowned Osama and took control of his share.)

 

Osama's military and business adventures in Afghanistan had the blessing of the bin Laden dynasty and the reactionary Saudi Arabian regime. His close working relationship with MAK also meant that the CIA was fully aware of his activities.

 

Milt Bearden, the CIA's station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the January 24, 2000, New Yorker that while he never personally met bin Laden, "Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did ... [Guys like] bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did."

 

In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge of construction techniques (he has a degree in civil engineering), he built "training camps", some dug deep into the sides of mountains, and built roads to reach them.

 

These camps, now dubbed "terrorist universities" by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers.

 

Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the mujaheddin told the August 13, 2000, British Observer, "The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism car bombing and so on so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns ... Many of them are now using their knowledge and expertise to wage war on everything they hate."

 

Al Qaeda (the Base), bin Laden's organisation, was established in 1987-88 to run the camps and other business enterprises. It is a tightly-run capitalist holding company albeit one that integrates the operations of a mercenary force and related logistical services with "legitimate" business operations.

 

Bin Laden has simply continued to do the job he was asked to do in Afghanistan during the 1980s fund, feed and train mercenaries. All that has changed is his primary customer. Then it was the ISI and, behind the scenes, the CIA. Today, his services are utilised primarily by the reactionary Taliban regime.

 

Bin Laden only became a "terrorist" in US eyes when he fell out with the Saudi royal family over its decision to allow more than 540,000 US troops to be stationed on Saudi soil following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

 

When thousands of US troops remained in Saudi Arabia after the end of the Gulf War, bin Laden's anger turned to outright opposition. He declared that Saudi Arabia and other regimes such as Egypt in the Middle East were puppets of the US, just as the PDPA government of Afghanistan had been a puppet of the Soviet Union.

 

He called for the overthrow of these client regimes and declared it the duty of all Muslims to drive the US out of the Gulf states. In 1994, he was stripped of his Saudi citizenship and forced to leave the country. His assets there were frozen.

 

After a period in Sudan, he returned to Afghanistan in May 1996. He refurbished the camps he had helped build during the Afghan war and offered the facilities and services and thousands of his mercenaries to the Taliban, which took power that September.

 

Today, bin Laden's private army of non-Afghan religious fanatics is a key prop of the Taliban regime.

 

Prior to the devastating September 11 attack on the twin towers of World Trade Center, US ruling-class figures remained unrepentant about the consequences of their dirty deals with the likes of bin Laden, Hekmatyar and the Taliban. Since the awful attack, they have been downright hypocritical.

 

In an August 28, 1998, report posted on MSNBC, Michael Moran quotes Senator Orrin Hatch, who was a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee which approved US dealings with the mujaheddin, as saying he would make "the same call again", even knowing what bin Laden would become.

 

"It was worth it. Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union."

 

Hatch today is one of the most gung-ho voices demanding military retaliation.

 

Another face that has appeared repeatedly on television screens since the attack has been Vincent Cannistrano, described as a former CIA chief of "counter-terrorism operations".

 

Cannistrano is certainly an expert on terrorists like bin Laden, because he directed their "work". He was in charge of the CIA-backed Nicaraguan contras during the early 1980s. In 1984, he became the supervisor of covert aid to the Afghan mujaheddin for the US National Security Council.

 

The last word goes to Zbigniew Brzezinski: "What was more important in the world view of history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few stirred up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"

[/hide]

 

Terrorism is kind of stupid. I mean why would people do it. Because they hate other countries. Why don't they just keep there thoughts to themselves why can't they just leave us alone?

No offence, but that is (in my opinion) a very one-sided and ignorant viewpoint. These "terrorists" didn't just wake up one day and say "hey, lets go kill people in the united states." These people dedicate their lives to this cause; some are even willing to forfeit their lives in the process (i.e. suicide bombers). To suggest that they would make these ultimate sacrifices without provocation (for instance: Bush saying they attacked us "because they hate our freedom") is completely ludicrous. I'll briefly outline a few of the reasons why these terrorists (in this case specifically referring to those in Iraq) are willing to commit such horrible atrocities. There are many, many more and I suggest that you read up on the subject if you're so inclined. The reasons include: between 40557 and 45104 Iraqi civilians have been killed so far in the war (as of the time of this post); The entire Abu Ghraib scandal (along with many otherssuch as the recent gang raping of a 14 year old girl, following the murder of her entire family); Paul Bremer (and the CPA) having basically sold off their entire economy; The fact that we destroyed their entire infrastructure in "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (past what decades of sanctions and drawn out bombing campaigns had already done); not to mention that we've been building dozens of permanent bases in the country, and show absolutely no signs of leaving any time soon.

 

Fourthly, yes. Terrorism is stupid. Get over it. Killing yourself? What did you just accomplish other than ending your own life? Nice going, *BLEEP*. Now you can't see the destruction you've created, because you're dead. A well thought out plan, huh?

Their mentality is that the larger group (e.g. the cause) outweighs the importance of any individual within it. As such, they don't need to see the results; they only need to know what will happen. It is also worth noting that when Hamas (who is currently the Palestinian Authority) originally started the first Islamic suicide bombings they were never intended to be used on such a massive scale. The loss of the bomber's life was intended to underscore the severity of the situation, along with whatever damage they created.

 

Fifthly, war against opression? Please, put down the Kool Aid and stop repeating what you hear. What opression? They're in a democracy and able to vote. If they were that against opression, weren't they in a dictatorship ruled by Saddam Hussein who tried to ethnically cleanse the Kurds using Mustard Gas and often at times snapped out on people, taking them in and flogging their feet with electrical wires? Just overlook that. Yeah, sure.

Funny how selective your memory is. You underscore how "Saddam Hussein...tried to ethnically cleanse the Kurds using Mustard Gas," and yet fail to mention that it was the United States that provided him with many of the helicopters (45 Bell 214ST helicopters, 60 Hughes helicopters, and 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters), much of the mustard gas, and "numerous shipments of bacteria/fungi/protozoa" (this allegation is the only one based on shaky ground, as the agents were never fully identified), not to mention countless intelligence briefings. In 1988, in responce to Saddam gassing the Kurds, the entire US Senate unanimously passed sanctions against Iraq, barring the exportation of US technology. While the measure was created with the best of intentions, it was blocked soon afterwards by the (Regan) Whitehouse. The US was both a financial and political backer of Saddam's regime from 1984 up until 1990 when he invaded Kuwait. For those that can't do the math, this includes the time in which he committed most of his atrocities.

 

 

If you've managed to read through all of this, I applaud you.

 

 

 

And now, to quote Jon Stewart, for your moment of Zen:

Edited August 20, 2006 by gaea (see edit history)

[shadowx 0]

thanks for the backup! i thought i was being beaten into a corner!

I do appologise for not knowing about the long history as i wasnt around and history was never my strong point and it always foccused on the world wars. But like i said and gaea also said blair and bush are stirring everything, im sure without them the 9/11 attacks probably wouldnt have happened and london wouldnt have got bombed, and im almost sure that at the 2012 olympics here there will be more attempts. Disrupting the games and spreading fear about traveling to the UK similar to what has happened with traveling to the USA.

And the fact that CIA trained these groups really does make me laugh, it reminds me of how the english and possible the USA invented concentration camps which hitler then used against us and anyone else he didnt like. The USA and recently the UK have a terrible habbit of sticking their noses where they dont belong. I actually think that the nuclear fears over iran were just a cover up to go and attack yet another eastern country, like the magical weapons of mass destruction that somehow managed to disapear the moment bush stepped into the country...strange that is!

Our actions only serve bolster their numbers. For every insurgent we kill, two more rise up to take their place. Every time Iraqi civilians get killed, families get destroyed, or some new atrocity comes to light it changes people over to the extremists' side.

Yup We stop killing they loose numbers, hopefully! Its just a vicous cycle of us attacking them and them getting more numbers attacking us so we attack them...etc... And the attitudes of blair and bush only serve to make things worse "We dont negotiate with terrorists" err why not? All you have to do is talk to them, you dont need to give them millions or anything atall. Talk to them and stop the war! Are they stupid? Were fighting a loosing battle, i know that the UK and USA are powerfull but not as powerfull as the whole eastern world as well as all the muslims etc that live in the western world also. If Blair and Bush decided to see the reasons why the terrorists attack then maybe they could solve those issues such as getting out of their country, that would be a good start! But of course blair and bush are far too powerful and god-like to actually talk to someone when they could just bomb them instead!

no war every ends because all the enemy is dead, the wars end because the leaders decide to end it. It makes me wonder how the UN can enforce a cease fire on the lebanon war but yet allow the UK and USA to repeatedly kill civilians and invade countries...It makes me wonder just how corrupt the systems could be.

I think the solution is for the UK and USA to hold talks with the extremist groups, not in person but over the phone, video conferencing etc and sort this out! Otherwise its going to escalate and one side is going to get real mad and drop a nuke or a dirty bomb and from then on were all doomed to watch a nuclear war, then we're all dead.

[gaea 0]

...blair and bush are stirring everything, im sure without them the 9/11 attacks probably wouldnt have happened and london wouldnt have got bombed

Actually, the 9/11 attacks were before Bush started to royally *BLEEP* up the country--so it'd have to disagree with you on that point. I'd be more apt to lay the blame at some of the previous presidents' actions (though, before 9/11, Bush had basically ignored all requests to boost up surveillance on "terrorist" threats to the US. That's more an issue of negligence than inciting them though). The London bombers, on the other hand, released a statement claiming that it was partially in response to the war in Iraq; so that's a pretty solid case.

 

I actually think that the nuclear fears over iran were just a cover up to go and attack yet another eastern country, like the magical weapons of mass destruction that somehow managed to disapear the moment bush stepped into the country...strange that is!

If you look back you'll see that most of that "evidence" came from a newly formed (i.e. created by Bush & Co.) section within the pentagon: The Office of Special Plans (now if that isn't an ominous sounding name then I don't know what is!). The O.S.P.'s job was to use a process known as data mining to find possible threats from Iraq. Data mining, in essence, is when you look through the thousands of discredited or implausible intelligence reports on a certain subject in order to find a few that you can prop up. Basically, you sift through a known pile of junk in an effort to find collaborating evidence. It's also worth noting that Abram Shulsky, former director of the O.S.P., has been personally briefing Cheney about Iran. Anyone see a pattern emerging?

 

It makes me wonder how the UN can enforce a cease fire on the lebanon war but yet allow the UK and USA to repeatedly kill civilians and invade countries...It makes me wonder just how corrupt the systems could be.

Actually, Israel has been constantly breaking the cease fire from basically day one. They continue to do "small" raids into the country to stop the alleged shipments of arms, etc, to Hezbollah. Defiantly better than the mass bombing of civilian targets, but it is still an infraction of the UN resolution. More frightening were Israel's Defense Minister Amir Peretz's comments, which included: "We will put everything on the table. Our duty is to prepare for the next round [of the war]..."

 

P.S. The recent terrorist plot to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" is a huge over dramatization (dare I say it, propagandization) over a bunch of amateur plotting a rather infeasible attack (as anyone with a degree in chemistry could have pointed out). But I'll spare you the details, as I'm going to write about it in the corresponding thread when I have a chance.

Edited August 23, 2006 by gaea (see edit history)

[shadowx 0]

Even if the cease fire is being broken though atleast it has been made by the UN which is more than in iraq. As much as a cease fire wouldnt do much i think an ultimatum for the UK and USA to leave iraq and withdraw their troups would be a good sign, the radicals probably wouldnt abide by a ceasefire anyway but if theres no soliders for them to shoot at it has the same, possibly a better effect.

The Office of Special Plans

lmao what a name! Only bush could think of that.
Im guyessing that iran wont be the last country to go under "investigation" there. I never knew of this office untill now, seems rather interesting though. To me it seems that bush and blair have their hearts set on world domination. they seem to be targetting countries which they think are weaker than others such as afghanistan, iraq, iran... and once they have them under their belts who knows where they'll look. Either that or bush has some mental disorder (litereally! not just having a dig at the guy!) Hes obviously not very clever, and his reasons for wars are just stupid.

What would like to know is how many more innocent people in the USA and the UK and also in iraq have to die before bush and blair pull out. I've heard of acceptable losses in wars but this is ridiculous. And as soon as they do pull out i belive that the terrorists will stop attacking us.

P.S. The recent terrorist plot to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" is a huge over dramatization (dare I say it, propagandization) over a bunch of amateur plotting a rather infeasible attack (as anyone with a degree in chemistry could have pointed out). But I'll spare you the details, as I'm going to write about it in the corresponding thread when I have a chance.

Yeh i thought that when i heard it on the news, didnt know the details of the bombs they were going to use but death on an unimaginable scale, they already did that in 9/11 and as much as a few planes of people is a lot of people to die its not unimaginable, i agree it seems like propaganda. Especially if, as you say, the bombs wouldnt have even worked in the first place. But then when things like this are going on you cant really trust the news because it only tells us what the governments wants us to hear most of the time. I think the only real information comes from sources the government doesnt control like the internet but then you cant always trust it.

I never heard about the london bomber's statement, but now i have heard of it it strengthens my belief that there will be an attack during 2012. The july attacks were too small and localized to be a full attack. They hit a few trains and a bus and not many people died. If it was a full attack there wouldve been gas involved as it was on the underground. And the bombs wouldve been much bigger. Unless the war is over a bigger attack will come im sure of it. At the next election for both the USA and the UK with any luck bush and blair will be out.

[Kioku 0]

The gassing of the Kurds happened quite a while back. Although he claims to have been targetting soldiers from Iran or supporters thereof, I highly doubt pregnant women and children shot execution style were soldiers.

Funny how selective your memory is. You underscore how "Saddam Hussein...tried to ethnically cleanse the Kurds using Mustard Gas," and yet fail to mention that it was the United States that provided him with many of the helicopters (45 Bell 214ST helicopters, 60 Hughes helicopters, and 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters), much of the mustard gas, and "numerous shipments of bacteria/fungi/protozoa" (this allegation is the only one based on shaky ground, as the agents were never fully identified), not to mention countless intelligence briefings.

Did the orders say "Gas that village of people your religion is against and feel free to shoot innocent women and children"? I don't think so.

Seriously. The war was founded on *BLEEP* and bad intelligence ( entire world's. Not only US intelligence. ) that suggested he was trying to get a nuke, no doubt. The reasoning of knocking Saddam down a notch, I'm all for.