Political implications of London blasts

[epepke]

There's only one thread on the London blasts. This is a problem, because a lot of people are just being worried, concerned, or grieving.

Other people want to make political hay, get pissed off, and so forth and so on. I'm starting this thread for such discussions, so that the people in the other thread who are still in "upset" mode don't have to deal with it.

I'm doing this because I remember how unpleasant it was after 9/11 to hear the various assorted crap, which ran the gamut from "the chickens are coming home to roost" to "big deal, not much destroyed, few people dead."

[Hutch]

Good idea, epepke, the other thread is much to solemn for the politics that will eventually have to be discussed, perhaps with more light than heat for once (but I ain't holding my breath).

To take a lead from your title, I don't think there will be many political implications from this. Britain is already supporting the US in Iraq and this incident will not change that, may even give Blair's policies a bit of a boost. Other countries will mourn, view with alarm the tragic results, and then continue their policies as in what they percieve are their self-interests. That may be some Kissinger 'realpolitik' talking, but it seems the way to bet.

In shorter terms, if the culprits are caught and turn out to be local Muslims (or heavily supported by local Imans), then I suspect there will be a backlash and the only ones to benefit from that will be the BNP. I do suspect most highly that some of the more radical Imams in London will be laying very low tomorrow (Friday) during prayers.

But I can't see any major geopolitical paradigm shift because of this--maybe because with 9-11, Afghanistan, and iraq things have already shifted so much.

We shall see.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Hutch

To take a lead from your title, I don't think there will be many political implications from this. Britain is already supporting the US in Iraq and this incident will not change that, may even give Blair's policies a bit of a boost. Other countries will mourn, view with alarm the tragic results, and then continue their policies as in what they percieve are their self-interests.

Do you think that any countries will re-evaluate their "self-interests" in terms of political/military participation in the Middle East?

The message that the terrorists apparently tried to send is : you send troops to Iraq, we set off bombs in your cities. Even I picked up on that much. Which, in turn, suggests that the electorate (and politicians) in most of Europe -- who aren't that much dumber than I am, and often a great deal smarter -- will probably pick up on the message, too.

[delphi_ote]

There will be long term implications for United States foreign policy for the simple fact that America's allies get bombed in their capital cities.

[Ed]

I suspect that most nations look askance at having their foreign policy dictated by thugs. This terrible thing happened in London but I think that the implications are not lost on the French, Germans and so on. If anything I think that it will increase support, whether publicly or no, for activities designed to exterpate the groups that espose such things.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Ed
I suspect that most nations look askance at having their foreign policy dictated by thugs. This terrible thing happened in London but I think that the implications are not lost on the French, Germans and so on. If anything I think that it will increase support, whether publicly or no, for activities designed to exterpate the groups that espose such things.

They've all had plenty of time since the bombings in Spain to think of how they'd react in the same situation.

[Ed]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
They've all had plenty of time since the bombings in Spain to think of how they'd react in the same situation.

A reminder is always helpful.

[DavidJames]

John McCain wasted no time this morning using the attack to support Bush's invasion of Iraq. He was interviewed on MSNBC and used the opportunity to say this attack is the reason why we must take the war to the terrorists, like in Iraq. Said with a straight face and no irony.

[Fungrim]

Originally posted by Hutch
To take a lead from your title, I don't think there will be many political implications from this. Britain is already supporting the US in Iraq and this incident will not change that, may even give Blair's policies a bit of a boost.

Yes, and it bugs me. What were they trying to accomplish? I generally try to assume that people - even terrorists - have an rational personal agenda. That is, they think they make sense even if we don't agree. But even so I fail to see exactly what their gain is. This will probably strengthen the ties between Britain and US. It may give Blair a boost. There doesn't seem to be any clear political gain.

I've been trying to keep an eye out for Frensh or German reactions during the day, because I can't help feeling those may prove to be critical.

[Dorian Gray]

Do they even think this was done by a Middle Eastern-style terrorist, or by someone else like the IRA, some G8 protest group (who would be far off the mark), or someone else entirely?

[Number Six]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Do you think that any countries will re-evaluate their "self-interests" in terms of political/military participation in the Middle East?

The message that the terrorists apparently tried to send is : you send troops to Iraq, we set off bombs in your cities. Even I picked up on that much. Which, in turn, suggests that the electorate (and politicians) in most of Europe -- who aren't that much dumber than I am, and often a great deal smarter -- will probably pick up on the message, too.

I think the message is more general than that. I think the message is "you do what we say or else we bomb your cities." It's happens that "what we say" at this point in time is "take your troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan."

Does anyone really think that if there were no foreign troops in Iraq or Afghanistan then this whole thing would be over and violence on all sides would cease? I don't. That's not to say that particular current policies towards Iraq or Afghanistan are good but just that the terrorists aren't trying to achieve one particular goal with this bombing but rather are using one particular method of achieving many different goals one at a time.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by DavidJames
John McCain wasted no time this morning using the attack to support Bush's invasion of Iraq. He was interviewed on MSNBC and used the opportunity to say this attack is the reason why we must take the war to the terrorists, like in Iraq. Said with a straight face and no irony.

(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)Are you (rule 8) serious?

(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)John McCain.

I really had (rule 8) respect for the (rule 8) too.

(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Fungrim
Yes, and it bugs me. What were they trying to accomplish? I generally try to assume that people - even terrorists - have an rational personal agenda. That is, they think they make sense even if we don't agree. But even so I fail to see exactly what their gain is. This will probably strengthen the ties between Britain and US. It may give Blair a boost. There doesn't seem to be any clear political gain.

Their goal is to put a wedge between the West and Islam. Their goal is to marginalize rational parties and force people into extremism. Their goal is to provoke violence, so the only pictures of Westerners played in the Middle East are cold men with weapons. Their goal is to show the Muslim world we are nothing more than an inhuman force of violence bent on destrong Islam. Their goal is to paint themselves as the only challenge to this gross Western excess and imperialism they believe is corrupting Islam.

We're kidding ourselves if we refuse to see that they are accomplishing these goals, and that our angry reactions play right into their hands.

[athon]

Sadly, I see nothing in the near future which will see great changes to this situation. Increased communication between governments, opening information exchange and perhaps some relenquishing of certain freedoms and liberties will go a certain way to making it difficult for extremist groups to effectively carry out such attacks. But it won't stop it.

Massive changes across the global society are needed before we can see an effective end to this terrorist gestahlt. The climate created by these arguably few large-impact attacks is all too worthwhile to the extremist cause. Dismantling regimes will do little. Fighting terrorism as if it is a nation of people will do even less. Without sacrificing the very freedoms and way of life we believe in, we cannot completely prevent such atrocities from occuring.

It might not seem as pro-active as the world would like, but I think the most effective change will ultimately be brought on by people like us. People who make reason and logic more acceptable over extreme emotional reaction. People like us who champion discussion and condemn ignorance. The world is getting smaller and the voices more numerous. Now, more than ever, we need to find ways of convincing people to judge what they see and hear with measures of critical thinking.

By simply being the people we are, I think we are making change.

Athon

[Orwell]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
Their goal is to put a wedge between the West and Islam. Their goal is to marginalize rational parties and force people into extremism. Their goal is to provoke violence, so the only pictures of Westerners played in the Middle East are cold men with weapons. Their goal is to show the Muslim world we are nothing more than an inhuman force of violence bent on destrong Islam. Their goal is to paint themselves as the only challenge to this gross Western excess and imperialism they believe is corrupting Islam.

We're kidding ourselves if we refuse to see that they are accomplishing these goals, and that our angry reactions play right into their hands.

Right on! These murderous scumbuckets are butchering innocent people in an attempt to provoke us into butchering innocent Muslims in response, in the hopes of driving more people in their true target audience (the Muslim world) to their extremist ideology. The dead in London today are just props in this disgusting play.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Number Six

Does anyone really think that if there were no foreign troops in Iraq or Afghanistan then this whole thing would be over and violence on all sides would cease?

Probably not, but if there were no foreign troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the violence on all sides would probably be lessened and almost certainly redirected.

One of the statements by the terrorists includes

We still warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.


Had Denmark and Italy not put troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, then they probably would not themselves be current targets. (This is Denmark we're talking about here. The last time that Denmark was a military or diplomatic power, they were still wearing horns on their hats!)

I could easily see some governments deciding to withdraw their troops just to get themselves our of the line of fire -- and let Israel and the United States continue to fight alone.

[Tricky]

I think one of the questions that will be asked often and angrily will be, why did we divert so much material and manpower from going after terrorists to the pointless war in Iraq? I can concieve that these attacks may actually result in pulling troops out of Iraq, but strengthening them in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. Plus, I think you will see more cooperation from places like Turkey who are nominally allies with the US, but have much closer ties to Europe.

Another likely scenario is that Blair will get a gigantic surge of support, just as Bush did, possibly returning much of the power he lost at the last elections.

[CBL4]

Terrorist caused the Spanish government to lose an election. They also attacked Australians (in Bali) during their election. Now they are attacking Britain but not during an election. They obviously think that they can change the view of the nations that support the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. When is the next Italian election?

The question is what the response will be. Will these attacks make Britain more or less resolute? I think that it will stiffen Blair's backbone but I do not know about the rest of Britain. I would guess not much change.

As for the rest of Europe, I could not hazard a guess. It is conceivable that Schroeder or Chirac could send additional troops to Afghanistan but I doubt. I think it will be more of the same - words but no action out of their own country. Clearly anti-Arab sentiment will spread in the common man.

The problem is that Bush invaded Iraq instead of winning the Afghan war and attacking on terrorists. It is easy to want to attack terrorists but hate Bush and the invasion of Iraq.

CBL

[Ralph]

And once again we await the cries of outrage over the slaughter of innocent civilians from the mullahs.

The muslim clerics--the spiritual leaders of Islam--have the power to drastically reduce Al Quedas abilty to carry out operations like this.

Instead--they grant permission to use nuclear weapons against infidels and rant & stammer about Koran abuse.....

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Orwell
Right on! These murderous scumbuckets are butchering innocent people in an attempt to provoke us into butchering innocent Muslims in response, in the hopes of driving more people in their true target audience (the Muslim world) to their extremist ideology. The dead in London today are just props in this disgusting play.

That's what I was thinking.

"Look, they can't tell the difference between you and us. If that's the case, why not just join us?"

(rule 8)ers.

[LostAngeles]

This morning I got up and I did my usual routine. I took the bus down to the station and hopped on the train to come to work.

When the Jackson verdict came in, when the Swift Boat crap started, when there was an earthquake, I got to hear about it immediately from the Fox News-indoctrinated chick I work with. I didn't know until I sat down and opened up my web browser.

Somehow, you'd think that a public transit bombing of this magnitude would, I don't know, prompt some kind of a comment to the person who takes public transit. Hell, it should prompt something. Considering it's apparently Al-(rule 8)ing-Queda, sworn enemy of the Holy Bush, best friend of the Liberals.

But who cares about them terrorist hugging Europeans right?

My point, nothing, just another nagging sense of irony surrounding me.

On the upside, Mom did not call me at about five minutes to nine, Eastern like she did four years ago. I will, however, have to call her tonight as soon as I get home.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Number Six
I think the message is more general than that. I think the message is "you do what we say or else we bomb your cities." It's happens that "what we say" at this point in time is "take your troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan."

Does anyone really think that if there were no foreign troops in Iraq or Afghanistan then this whole thing would be over and violence on all sides would cease? I don't. That's not to say that particular current policies towards Iraq or Afghanistan are good but just that the terrorists aren't trying to achieve one particular goal with this bombing but rather are using one particular method of achieving many different goals one at a time.

That was very well said, thank you.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Orwell
Right on! These murderous scumbuckets are butchering innocent people in an attempt to provoke us into butchering innocent Muslims in response, in the hopes of driving more people in their true target audience (the Muslim world) to their extremist ideology.

Then they must think we are winning.

[Ed]

Originally posted by athon
By simply being the people we are, I think we are making change.

Athon
Until a fundimentalist joins in you are kidding yourself.

We are not the threat. Do you really think that anyone here poses a threat to you or your loved ones? I mean a threat in principle, because you are a westerner and live in a cesspit of sin and thrive in it? They hate you for what you are, we are generations away from an understanding that is meaningful.

Think of it this way. We are, collectively, heirs to a 2000 year old religion and we have evolved. They are still at the point we were at in 1400, they have not had their enlightenment yet.

We won't see it.

[delphi_ote]

We've got to reach out to the compassionate and rational Muslim moderates out there. I live with one right now, and it's given me so much perspective on this conflict. She's told me about Osama action figures given to children in moderate Muslim homes. These aren't angry extremists. These people have family in the U.S. and Britian. They're getting drawn into extremism just like we are, because they just don't understand us any better than we understand them. They have the same over-simplified view of this conflict most Westerners have, complete with "good guys" and "bad guys." We need to abandon these comfortable simplicities. Ignorance and misplaced anger have killed enough people already.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Ralph
And once again we await the cries of outrage over the slaughter of innocent civilians from the mullahs.

...snip...


Already had a lot of them on the TV saying how terrible and non-Islamic these attacks are.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Ed
We are, collectively, heirs to a 2000 year old religion and we have evolved. They are still at the point we were at in 1400, they have not had their enlightenment yet.

Ed, that is exactly the type of comment I'm talking about. You're implying that we are enlightened, and they aren't evolved. Think about how that comment would sound to a moderate Muslim. I can ask one when I get home if you like.

Or you could apologize for having exactly the reaction this type of incident is intended to cause and save yourself and the rest of us the embarassment.

[athon]

Originally posted by Ed
Until a fundimentalist joins in you are kidding yourself.

We are not the threat. Do you really think that anyone here poses a threat to you or your loved ones? I mean a threat in principle, because you are a westerner and live in a cesspit of sin and thrive in it? They hate you for what you are, we are generations away from an understanding that is meaningful.

Think of it this way. We are, collectively, heirs to a 2000 year old religion and we have evolved. They are still at the point we were at in 1400, they have not had their enlightenment yet.

We won't see it.

No, perhaps not. Maybe not in our lifetimes. Maybe we won't live to see a massive reduction in the recruitment of people into extremist networks. We won't change the views of extremists themselves and I never implied this. But people aren't born with their brains wired 'fundamentalist'. The possibility arises through differences in their life we take for granted which influence their way of thinking into sympathising with extremist views. It's these differences that need changing, and with new generations coming through, the existing networks must either recruit or starve.

This is where change will occur; in the recruitment pool. And since it is fed with ignorance, we can make small differences in combating that by encouraging rational thought.

Athon

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Then they must think we are winning.

Maybe you are winning. I feel like I'm loosing.

Isn't it Terry Jones from Monty Python who has renamed "The War on Terror" to "The Bombing of an Abstract Noun"?

[Darat]

For non-London Members it may be of interest for them to know that the Edgware road area of London is a heavily-Muslim populated area.

[athon]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
We've got to reach out to the compassionate and rational Muslim moderates out there. I live with one right now, and it's given me so much perspective on this conflict. She's told me about Osama action figures given to children in moderate Muslim homes. These aren't angry extremists. These people have family in the U.S. and Britian. They're getting drawn into extremism just like we are, because they just don't understand us any better than we understand them. They have the same over-simplified view of this conflict most Westerners have, complete with "good guys" and "bad guys." We need to abandon these comfortable simplicities. Ignorance and misplaced anger have killed enough people already.


Well said, delphi. This spectrum is what I'm talking about. There is no coven of extreme fundy Muslims sitting around cackling. There are families of people who have various reasons for subscribing to such sympathies, often out of ignorance, emotion, misinformation and irrational thought. There are probably a great number of 'near' extremists, people who have the mindset of an active extremist but share their mindset.

Athon

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
Ed, that is exactly the type of comment I'm talking about. You're implying that we are enlightened, and they aren't evolved. Think about how that comment would sound to a moderate Muslim. I can ask one when I get home if you like.

Or you could apologize for having exactly the reaction this type of incident is intended to cause and save yourself and the rest of us the embarassment.

The Muslim world has not evolved to the enlightened position of "separation of church and state." That is the largest gulf between us and the Muslim world. This isn't Muslim vs. Christian. This is a political power struggle clothed in religious garb.

Ed is dead-on right. The Muslim world is in 1400.

[Brown]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
Their goal is to put a wedge between the West and Islam. Their goal is to marginalize rational parties and force people into extremism.I do not disagree with this assessment, but it seems that this goal is destined to lead to bizarre consequences.

It is only a matter of time before someone bombs Mecca or Medina or both. The USA will certainly assert its innocence and proffer an alibi (and so will Israel), but those will hardly matter. Thanks to President Bush, the USA has virtually no international credibility, and the Muslim world would almost certainly be distrustful of US denials.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The Muslim world has not evolved to the enlightened position of "separation of church and state." That is the largest gulf between us and the Muslim world. This isn't Muslim vs. Christian. This is a political power struggle clothed in religious garb.

Ed is dead-on right. The Muslim world is in 1400.

The US at least is beginning to slip backwards, though. Church and state separation isn't set in stone, and there are plenty who are dedicated to making it weaker.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Brown
I do not disagree with this assessment, but it seems that this goal is destined to lead to bizarre consequences.

It is only a matter of time before someone bombs Mecca or Medina or both. The USA will certainly assert its innocence and proffer an alibi (and so will Israel), but those will hardly matter. Thanks to President Bush, the USA has virtually no international credibility, and the Muslim world would almost certainly be distrustful of US denials.

That's a bit of a "tinfoil-hat" theory, don't you think?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Brown
I do not disagree with this assessment, but it seems that this goal is destined to lead to bizarre consequences.

It is only a matter of time before someone bombs Mecca or Medina or both. The USA will certainly assert its innocence and proffer an alibi (and so will Israel), but those will hardly matter. Thanks to President Bush, the USA has virtually no international credibility, and the Muslim world would almost certainly be distrustful of US denials.

Another sign of this being a political power struggle is that you don't see the Muslims bombing the Vatican.

Nobody is going to bomb Mecca.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
The US at least is beginning to slip backwards, though. Church and state separation isn't set in stone, and there are plenty who are dedicated to making it weaker.

Excellent, we'll mount a crusade then. Since we are all religious now under the First Chirch of USA.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
The US at least is beginning to slip backwards, though. Church and state separation isn't set in stone, and there are plenty who are dedicated to making it weaker.

Pat Robertson is the inflamed appendix of religious evolution.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
"Look, they can't tell the difference between you and us. If that's the case, why not just join us?"
You have a very low opinion of the intellect of Muslims. The overwhelming majority do know the difference, you have to be nearly brain-dead not to. They're just too scared to offer any resistance, and believe that there will be no help for them. And if people with your mindset have their way, there won't be any help for them either. They're on their own, so they'll keep their mouths shut and opinions to themselves, while the thugs and terrorists run the roost.

When will people realize this is a war? And that the Islamic enemy will not stop once their immediate goals are met, they'll just make new ones. All western nations are targets for these people, those who think they can keep it out of their borderts are fooling themselves. Every capitulation emboldens them and makes them more ambitious. What worked in Spain they now use elsewhere. And so on and so on. Sing kumbaya and light candles all you want, it won't help. Unbreakable resolve is all these people will understand, but I fear that is unlikely to happen in the short term.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Grammatron
That's a bit of a "tinfoil-hat" theory, don't you think?

Yes, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened nor would I put it past the terrorists because they're (rule 8 * 5637) insane.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Pat Robertson is the inflamed appendix of religious evolution.

What an unappetizing mental image that presents!

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by WildCat
You have a very low opinion of the intellect of Muslims. The overwhelming majority do know the difference, you have to be nearly brain-dead not to. They're just too scared to offer any resistance, and believe that there will be no help for them. And if people with your mindset have their way, there won't be any help for them either. They're on their own, so they'll keep their mouths shut and opinions to themselves, while the thugs and terrorists run the roost.

When will people realize this is a war? And that the Islamic enemy will not stop once their immediate goals are met, they'll just make new ones. All western nations are targets for these people, those who think they can keep it out of their borderts are fooling themselves. Every capitulation emboldens them and makes them more ambitious. What worked in Spain they now use elsewhere. And so on and so on. Sing kumbaya and light candles all you want, it won't help. Unbreakable resolve is all these people will understand, but I fear that is unlikely to happen in the short term.

...That's not what I'm saying.

What I meant was that that's the message that the terrorists are trying to send to the rest of the Muslims in the world.

Terrorists bomb place X.
People in place X react by attacking Muslims in and around place X.
Terrorists say, "See. They can't tell the difference between us and you. Might as well side with us. They hate us anyway."

This doesn't quite happen as people in place X tend to be goddamned morons and for lack of a better term, rednecks. Most people can differentiate between their Muslim neighbor and the Muslim terrorist. And most Muslims realize this. But not for lack of trying on the terrorists part.

The extremists want a religous war. They want to make it "Islam vs. Everyone Else. Islam wins."

[athon]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The Muslim world has not evolved to the enlightened position of "separation of church and state." That is the largest gulf between us and the Muslim world. This isn't Muslim vs. Christian. This is a political power struggle clothed in religious garb.

Ed is dead-on right. The Muslim world is in 1400.

Please define 'the Muslim world'. Islamic states? I wouldn't use these to define Islam. They are theocratic states which entwine Islamic law into state law out of a desire for some regressive glory-age. If they define Islam, that would have Muslims all of the world see theocracy as a tenet of their faith.

You're right, this isn't Christianity vs. Islam. Islam is not a united front, even less so than Christianity. As much as it doesn't satisfy our urge to categorize the world so neatly, this is about people who equate western values with decadence, with unenlightenment, with baseness and sin and spiritual ignorance. Their Islamic beliefs compliment this perfectly, further fuelled by the cultures fermented within certain Islamic states.

It might make it easier for some to cope in the world by having large boxes to define 'good' and 'evil', but it is one step closer to that fundamentalist way of thinking than I personally want to be.

Athon

[WildCat]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
She's told me about Osama action figures given to children in moderate Muslim homes. These aren't angry extremists.
Yes, they are. Every bit as much as a Stormfront parent who gives their kid a Hitler doll. "Oh, he was just trying to reunite all the Germans, and those French and Poles were keeping them apart".

And yes, I feel the Nazi reference is appropriate here.

[Ed]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
Ed, that is exactly the type of comment I'm talking about. You're implying that we are enlightened, and they aren't evolved. Think about how that comment would sound to a moderate Muslim. I can ask one when I get home if you like.

Or you could apologize for having exactly the reaction this type of incident is intended to cause and save yourself and the rest of us the embarassment.

It is a fact, sorry. Western civilization did, in fact, go thru an enlightenment where the role of religion was reexamined, to it's detriment. Prior to that it was almost like living in an area under shiara law. I can't strss strongly enough that people back then really BELIEVED in a way that is virtually impossible for us to understand today*, that is unless you live under the sway of a mullah of some stripe. Go ask but read up a bit on western history first and frame it in the context of the evolution of belief systems.

Soft peddling it does zero good, thought it might make you more comfortable.


*Which is precisely why Medieval Art is so inaccessable today. You can look at it and see the forms and color and understand the iconograpy but you cannot, under any circumstances, apprehend it, you simply don't believe the way they did.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by DavidJames
John McCain wasted no time this morning using the attack to support Bush's invasion of Iraq. He was interviewed on MSNBC and used the opportunity to say this attack is the reason why we must take the war to the terrorists, like in Iraq. Said with a straight face and no irony. Originally posted by LostAngeles
(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)Are you (rule 8) serious?

(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)John McCain.

I really had (rule 8) respect for the (rule 8) too.

(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)(rule 8)The good senator has been for some time positioning himself for another presidential run. Whatever.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
Yes, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened nor would I put it past the terrorists because they're (rule 8 * 5637) insane.

Oh sure it could happen. We also could have world peace by next Tuesday.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
The extremists want a religous war. They want to make it "Islam vs. Everyone Else. Islam wins."
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but it is a religious war. Radical Islam vs. the world.

I really don't understand your logic here. It would be as if there was a massive public outcry against the LAPD after they killed those 2 AK-47 wielding, body armor-wearing bank robbers several years ago. "See, the police are just as bad as the bank robbers. Might as well join them". It doesn't work that way.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Oh sure it could happen. We also could have world peace by next Tuesday.

Now that, would be a delightful surprise.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The Muslim world has not evolved to the enlightened position of "separation of church and state." That is the largest gulf between us and the Muslim world. This isn't Muslim vs. Christian. This is a political power struggle clothed in religious garb.

Ed is dead-on right. The Muslim world is in 1400.

You speak of the Muslim world as if it's one entity. The Muslim world bleeds into America, the U.K., and Spain. Do those people live in 1400? I would certainly object if you said these people have not "evolved to the enlightened position of 'separation of church and state.'"

If people like them correct people like you on "their side" who paint us with a broad brush, extremism will have a much harder time taking root. If people like them become disenchanted hearing nonsense like this coming out of the mouths of their fellow countrymen, who's going to stand up for people like me? Who's going to tell Muslims that not all Americans think they're stuck in 1400?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
Their goal is to put a wedge between the West and Islam. Their goal is to marginalize rational parties and force people into extremism. Their goal is to provoke violence, so the only pictures of Westerners played in the Middle East are cold men with weapons. Their goal is to show the Muslim world we are nothing more than an inhuman force of violence bent on destrong Islam. Their goal is to paint themselves as the only challenge to this gross Western excess and imperialism they believe is corrupting Islam.

We're kidding ourselves if we refuse to see that they are accomplishing these goals, and that our angry reactions play right into their hands.

Here it is, WildCat. I agree with delphi and Orwell that this is what's likely going on.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Oh sure it could happen. We also could have world peace by next Tuesday.

Really? Is Koffi and Team UN on it? Cool. I will sleep better.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by WildCat
It would be as if there was a massive public outcry against the LAPD after they killed those 2 AK-47 wielding, body armor-wearing bank robbers several years ago. "See, the police are just as bad as the bank robbers. Might as well join them". It doesn't work that way.

If the police killed hundreds of other people AROUND the AK-47 wielding bank robbers...

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
...That's not what I'm saying.

What I meant was that that's the message that the terrorists are trying to send to the rest of the Muslims in the world.

Terrorists bomb place X.
People in place X react by attacking Muslims in and around place X.
Terrorists say, "See. They can't tell the difference between us and you. Might as well side with us. They hate us anyway."

This doesn't quite happen as people in place X tend to be goddamned morons and for lack of a better term, rednecks. Most people can differentiate between their Muslim neighbor and the Muslim terrorist. And most Muslims realize this. But not for lack of trying on the terrorists part.

The extremists want a religous war. They want to make it "Islam vs. Everyone Else. Islam wins." This is the process of polarisation, which is always the first aim of extremists without a naturally large constituency. Enough outrages will provoke outrages from the other camp, fomented by their own extremists, against innocents. Atrocity is answered by atrocity and the extremist arguments become self-validating.

The Balkans present plenty of examples, as does Kashmir. The BJP in India are in the same business. The danger lies in the community of interest between the extremists of both camps, who are normally a tiny minority. When circumstances are right they can be horribly inflammatory, especially given the general stupidity of humankind and the violent tendencies of young males. We all know what the BNP are going to be doing with this.

(Just re-hashing my posts on the Extremism in Islam thread.)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
You speak of the Muslim world as if it's one entity. The Muslim world bleeds into America, the U.K., and Spain. Do those people live in 1400? I would certainly object if you said these people have not "evolved to the enlightened position of 'separation of church and state.'"

If people like them correct people like you on "their side" who paint us with a broad brush, extremism will have a much harder time taking root. If people like them become disenchanted hearing nonsense like this coming out of the mouths of their fellow countrymen, who's going to stand up for people like me? Who's going to tell Muslims that not all Americans think they're stuck in 1400?

I had originally included a paragraph in my statement that I would bet hard money that many of the Muslims who have come to live in the West who are moderates would be very much in favor of the separation of church and state. They have had a crash course in enlightenment brought on by living in religious regimes. They are the modern day Pilgrims. They know firsthand all about the suppression of people who have democratic ideas in the world from which they came. I bet they could teach a few lessons to Americans about the separation of church and state.

But these are not who we are at war with.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Grammatron
That's a bit of a "tinfoil-hat" theory [someone bombing Mecca], don't you think? I used to think so. Now I'm not so sure. These bombers don't seem to be worried about killing Muslims. They also don't seem to place religious principles as paramount. It has already been observed that they subordinate sacred religious duties in favor of violence. It has already been demonstrated that they will go to extremes that people thought were unthinkable. They also try to elevate their "leverage," and an attack on Mecca would do that, by (among other things) driving oil prices sky high.

What I'm saying is that this unthinkable notion has now become thinkable.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ed
Really? Is Koffi and Team UN on it? Cool. I will sleep better.

A resolution is in the works!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Brown
I used to think so. Now I'm not so sure. These bombers don't seem to be worried about killing Muslims. They also don't seem to place religious principles as paramount. It has already been observed that they subordinate sacred religious duties in favor of violence. It has already been demonstrated that they will go to extremes that people thought were unthinkable. They also try to elevate their "leverage," and an attack on Mecca would do that, by (among other things) driving oil prices sky high.

What I'm saying is that this unthinkable notion has now become thinkable.

I don't know, it all seems like a plot from a James Bond movie, all that's missing is a line where the Osama tells Bond how he will set the world ablaze and out of its ashes the perfect Islamic society will rize.

Of course if by some horrible chance this was to happen, the end result is a huge war where "we" win anyway. Even if it goes nuclear.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Ed
Think of it this way. We are, collectively, heirs to a 2000 year old religion and we have evolved. They are still at the point we were at in 1400, they have not had their enlightenment yet.

Originally by posted by Luke T.The Muslim world has not evolved to the enlightened position of "separation of church and state." This misses a fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity. Christianity was created within a powerful state structure and made itself acceptable to that state by recognising separation. In fact it accepted the primacy of the state when it allowed Constantine the Great to preside over the Council of Nicaea. It was only later that an effort was made by Christian churches to gain ascendency, and they failed. Secular ascendency in Christendom didn't evolve, it was inherent. "Give unto Caesar".

Islam was created at the same time as a state structure. There never was a difference between Mohammed the Prophet and Mohammed the ruler and military commander. The concept of a secular state has actually had to evolve under Islam, and has given history such gems as modern Syria, Iraq and Egypt. Still, nil desperandum. Turkey is promising, as is Malaysia, and I think Iran will surprise the younger of us before they make their final posts.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Grammatron
A resolution is in the works!

Oh my! They really and truely are? And just when I thought that all was lost. Well, you just tell that nice Mr. Koffi that I am praying for him. Him and his nice son. Such a handsome boy. He must be proud.

Have to run now. Time for my meds!

(ambles off, runs into islamic chap, gets decapitated, singing happy songs all the while now that Koffi is on it)

[Cleopatra]

Maybe this will appear low but this is how I feel, I am sorry.

Each time such a tragic event occurs in a European city I can't help but thinking. " Maybe now, they will realize how Israelis feel.Maybe now they will realize how it feels to take the bus to go to work without knowing if you will arrive".

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Maybe this will appear low but this is how I feel, I am sorry.

Each time such a tragic event occurs in a European city I can't help but thinking. " Maybe now, they will realize how Israelis feel.Maybe now they will realize how it feels to take the bus to go to work without knowing if you will arrive".

Yes, but London's been through this. They had the IRA. I remember hearing about car bombs in marketplaces.

And supposedly, Gibson of Fox News already did that yesterday. He wanted Paris to get the Olympics so they could deal with terrorists.

You're Cleopatra, but he's a known dickwad. So there's a bias difference there.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
The US at least is beginning to slip backwards, though. Church and state separation isn't set in stone, and there are plenty who are dedicated to making it weaker. The tug-of-war won't end until one side expunges the other. Sadly, most atheists are far too pansy-assed liberal to actually eliminate religion. Whereas the religious will happily burn us if they get the chance. It's a Drunkard's Walk process. Be afraid.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
Yes, but London's been through this. They had the IRA. I remember hearing about car bombs in marketplaces.

Sure but it's tad different now. You see, this "Arabic multiculturalism" is knocking on their door and it ain't pleasant.

And supposedly, Gibson of Fox News already did that yesterday. He wanted Paris to get the Olympics so they could deal with terrorists.

You're Cleopatra, but he's a known dickwad. So there's a bias difference there. Sorry I didn't get that. Although my Satellite provider send me theFox News Signal I never watch it so I don't know of what you are talking about.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Sorry I didn't get that. Although my Satellite provider send me theFox News Signal I never watch it so I don't know of what you are talking about.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161750,00.html


...
Paris was exactly the right place to pick and the Olympic committee screwed up.

Why? Simple. It would have been a three-week period where we wouldn't have had to worry about terrorism.

First, the French think they are so good at dealing with the Arab world that they would have gone out and paid every terrorist off. And things would have been calm.

Or another way to look at it is the French are already up to their eyeballs in terrorists. The French hide them in miserable slums, out of sight of the rich people in Paris.

So it would have been a treat, actually, to watch the French dealing with the problem of their own homegrown Islamist terrorists living in France already.

...

It would have been a delight to have Parisians worried about security instead of New Yorkers. It would have been exquisite to watch.

But, alas, they picked London. I like the Brits. I like London. I hate to see them going through all this garbage when it would have been just fine in Paris.

...



Through the filter that's in place today, that wasn't there yesterday, that's just dickery.

Yes, he's talking about security and it was yesterday, but it still comes across as being dickery today.

[Badger]

I say "Bomb 'em into the 21st century with JLo, Coke2, and McDonalds"!!

Hear me out.

A totalitarian regime of any sort only thrives in isolation. Ignorance is a product of lack of education and exposure to ideas. Closed societies can be controlled easily.

The key is to open up these societies to the world. I'm not talking specifically about radical Muslims either. There are other countries/societies that need the light of education and communication let in to them (North Korea and China are two that I'm thinking of).

Look at what has happened since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Certainly there is economic strife and hardship, but there is also the rise of the middle class in the countries of the former Communist Bloc.

The way to "win" this is not through war or violence. It is through exposure to the rest of the world.

So, strafe 'em with iPods, cell and satellite phones! Carpet bomb 'em with internet capable laptops. The more the common man can communicate with his fellow who may or may not be located half way around the world, the better we all are.

I'll shut up and get off my soapbox now.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Maybe this will appear low but this is how I feel, I am sorry.

Each time such a tragic event occurs in a European city I can't help but thinking. " Maybe now, they will realize how Israelis feel.Maybe now they will realize how it feels to take the bus to go to work without knowing if you will arrive". That sounds like commuting on the Northern Line on a normal day.

What the people of London won't share with you is the experience of having carved out a colony from a hostile shore. The Saxon pioneer heritage has worn away over time, as has almost all of the Celtic resentment. (Even the Irish are getting over it.) The Israeli experience of nationhood is drastically different from the European nations with their long-established European cities. The experience of recently-established European cities in Palestine is bound to be just as different.

If you don't like the conflict, don't go there or get out if you were unlucky enough to be born there.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
That sounds like commuting on the Northern Line on a normal day.

What the people of London won't share with you is the experience of having carved out a colony from a hostile shore. The Saxon pioneer heritage has worn away over time, as has almost all of the Celtic resentment. (Even the Irish are getting over it.) The Israeli experience of nationhood is drastically different from the European nations with their long-established European cities. The experience of recently-established European cities in Palestine is bound to be just as different.

If you don't like the conflict, don't go there or get out if you were unlucky enough to be born there.

Capel Dodger I know how it is to hear to the news that in a place that is populated by people you know has been hit so, I quote this message and I will reply to it on jewish Sabbath hoping that spirits will be in better shape then.

[LostAngeles]

So.

How long until and why will the good Rev Phelps celebrate the attacks?

Anyone want to start a pool thread for him and the psychics?

[Ed]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
most atheists are far too pansy-assed liberal to actually eliminate religion. Whereas the religious will happily burn us if they get the chance.

A brilliant, true, crystelline distillation of complicated fact.

It is now part of my sig (if you have no objections)

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Of course if by some horrible chance this was to happen, the end result is a huge war where "we" win anyway. Even if it goes nuclear.
No, Grammy, there will only be losers if it goes nuclear - and maybe even if it doesn't. An inflamed war will not reduce fanaticism, no matter who "wins" any formal military confrontation.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Badger said:
So, strafe 'em with iPods, cell and satellite phones! Carpet bomb 'em with internet capable laptops. The more the common man can communicate with his fellow who may or may not be located half way around the world, the better we all are.
I recommend an air conditioner for every house.

~~ Paul

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Badger
Look at what has happened since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Certainly there is economic strife and hardship ...You think? :) From the off-handed nature of that, I suspect you've never experienced any such yourself. ... but there is also the rise of the middle class in the countries of the former Communist Bloc. And which class is currently riding the US to perdition?

The way to "win" this is not through war or violence. It is through exposure to the rest of the world.One problem with that is the hypocrisy of the Western world, which simply becomes clearer when more information is available. The US used to be very popular in the Arab world when they were vocally anti-imperialist, and especially after Wilson's 14 Points. The Arabs blamed everything on the European Imperial democracies - quite rightly, given the inherent hypocrisy and the being screwed by them. The Middle East's modern understanding of the US is based on experience, and it ain't so popular as it once was. The overthrow of Mossadeq, 1953, was the tipping-point, I think.

The more people know about the world, the more the majority know about what other no-more-deserving people than them have. Not part of any recipe for stability, so the "win" is going to come after a lot more disruption.

(To disarm the pedants, I realise that should be "than they", but it doesn't read well.)

[Hutch]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
So.

How long until and why will the good Rev Phelps celebrate the attacks?


Only if you can confirm that there were gays killed by the attacks...

In regards to the "1400's" comments, there is something to it in some Arabic countries in terms of culture and government...but to color all of Islam that way ignores (as has already been pointed out) Malaysia, Turkey, Bangladesh, et. al, where Isalm and democracy and peace with Christian/Buddist/Hindu neighbors have been shown to be possible.

The problem is (to use my 4 years in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates) is that most citizens of Arab states are living with the wrappings of 20th Century (Cars, DVD's. TV, Air Conditioning) and while the elites are moving into the future many others, having gained nothing due to archaic/corrupt governments, are not.

Badger was tongue in cheek, but the "Future Shock" is rippling throught the Arab world and terrorism is one of the waves.

IMHO as always.

[webfusion]

Arik Sharon has asked that Israeli cabinet officials refrain from making the comparison of the London's attacks to anything Israel has experienced.
"It is not our incident, and there is no need to talk (about it) beyond expressing shock," a source in the Prime Minister's Office said. "(Please) refrain from making statements that would equate the terror in Britain with that in Israel."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/597431.html

Cleopatra, if you want to draw the comparison, that is your right, but it serves little purpose, especially in trying to argue here with CapelDodger.

================================

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos -- your suggestion is 100% logical.
An air conditioning unit in every house throughout the MidEast would certainly cool off passions (pun intended).

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Hutch
The problem is (to use my 4 years in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates) is that most citizens of Arab states are living with the wrappings of 20th Century (Cars, DVD's. TV, Air Conditioning) and while the elites are moving into the future many others, having gained nothing due to archaic/corrupt governments, are not.
I agree - also based on Abu Dhabi time. However, one thing that Hutch did not add is that it is not just that too many citizens are being left behind, but that many countries in the middle east have huge expat worker populations. From my time in Kuwait I learned that something like 80% of the population was expat, either the Brits and the Frogs acting as technocrats or the masses of (subcontinent) Indians, Bangledeshi, etc. that are there for the menial jobs. These masses are also stuck in a subservient culture and have no hope of a way up.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by SezMe
These masses are also stuck in a subservient culture and have no hope of a way up.

If America and Britian could promote policies that would win these people over and improve their quality of life (like steadily investing in the region or creating education programs for the impoverished residents which offer incentives for them to return home) I think we'd make a lot more progress in this "War on Terror."

Before you laugh, remember how much we've spent so far in Iraq and what it's going to cost to fix what we broke. All we have to show for that investment so far are more enemies. Economically we're in a far better situation than our enemies. Why haven't we found Osama? Because he can move freely. Why can he move freely? Because he has sympathizers. Buy the sympathizers. Save violence for the times you know you're only going to hit the "bad guys."

Buy friends. Isolate your enemy. Crush your enemy (or let your outraged friends do it for you.) Win and live till tomorrow. Does this sound like I want to light candles and sing Kumbaya now, WildCat?

Taking on the world is the silly idealist solution. America and Britian need allies. We overreached, and we're paying the price. We need earn people's trust and show the world that we're good people that don't deserve this violence.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by webfusion
Arik Sharon has asked that Israeli cabinet officials refrain from making the comparison of the London's attacks to anything Israel has experienced.
[b]"It is not our incident, and there is no need to talk (about it) beyond expressing shock," a source in the Prime Minister's Office said. "(Please) refrain from making statements that would equate the terror in Britain with that in Israel."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/597431.html

Cleopatra, if you want to draw the comparison, that is your right, but it serves little purpose, especially in trying to argue here with CapelDodger.

================================



Thank you webfusion but I rarely care about what officials think that I as a citizen should think and discuss about.:)

I didn't wish to compare the incidents but the feelings of horror they create.But I will return to this in a couple of days as promised.

Capel Dodger is a very nice guy. Have you seen any other member with such a cute avatar? :c1:

[epepke]

Originally posted by athon
Please define 'the Muslim world'. Islamic states? I wouldn't use these to define Islam. They are theocratic states which entwine Islamic law into state law out of a desire for some regressive glory-age. If they define Islam, that would have Muslims all of the world see theocracy as a tenet of their faith.

You may be right but are not necessarily so. For us, separation of Church and State is the default assumption, and so we look for particular reasons to intertwine the two. This has not always been the case; consider the Holy Roman Empire.

It's entirely possible that people in Islamic states or who want states to become more Islamist consider a connected Church and State the default assumption. If so, the comparisons of Islam with Christianity around 1400 are close to the mark.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
If America and Britian could promote policies that would win these people over and improve their quality of life (like steadily investing in the region or creating education programs for the impoverished residents which offer incentives for them to return home) I think we'd make a lot more progress in this "War on Terror."

Before you laugh, remember how much we've spent so far in Iraq and what it's going to cost to fix what we broke. All we have to show for that investment so far are more enemies. Economically we're in a far better situation than our enemies. Why haven't we found Osama? Because he can move freely. Why can he move freely? Because he has sympathizers. Buy the sympathizers. Save violence for the times you know you're only going to hit the "bad guys."

Buy friends. Isolate your enemy. Crush your enemy (or let your outraged friends do it for you.) Win and live till tomorrow. Does this sound like I want to light candles and sing Kumbaya now, WildCat?

Taking on the world is the silly idealist solution. America and Britian need allies. We overreached, and we're paying the price. We need earn people's trust and show the world that we're good people that don't deserve this violence.

Didn't our attempts in the past to buy friends usually end up making enemies? Or is that no longer a valid lefthand spin?

Playing devil's advocate:
Sure, why woudn't it work now? We can't distribute the money evenly to people, so let's give it to the dictators who run these rogue nations and let them distribute the money. Oh, wait, Kyoto already does that...

With friends like us, who needs lawyers?

[Orwell]

The CBC reports that there have been no confirmed claims of responsibility.

There have been no confirmed claims of responsibility, but police said they are investigating a claim from a group calling itself "The Secret Organization of al-Qaeda in Europe." The web site said the attacks were carried out in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
More than 50 dead in London attacks (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/07/07/london050707.html)

We would all look pretty ***** stupid if it turns out the IRA did it... So, is there anything new on this?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Orwell
The CBC reports that there have been no confirmed claims of responsibility.


More than 50 dead in London attacks (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/07/07/london050707.html)

We would all look pretty ***** stupid if it turns out the IRA did it... So, is there anything new on this?

No, nothing new. But here is the translation of an as yet unconfirmed statement of credit which was linked to on the BBC website but no longer is:

In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, may peace be upon the cheerful one and undaunted fighter, Prophet Muhammad, God's peace be upon him.

Nation of Islam and Arab nation: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters.

We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid.

We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused.

God says: "You who believe: If ye will aid (the cause of) Allah, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly."

Here is a CNN link about this: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/07/bergen.alqaeda/index.html

[Number Six]

Originally posted by Orwell
The CBC reports that there have been no confirmed claims of responsibility.

More than 50 dead in London attacks (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/07/07/london050707.html)

We would all look pretty ***** stupid if it turns out the IRA did it... So, is there anything new on this?
I don't think we'd look stupid at all if the IRA turns out to have done this. We'd look wrong but not stupid. The sensible a priori position is that it was Islamist extremists that did this. And Islamist extremists have publicly taken credit for it although their claim hasn't been confirmed yet. And IRA bigwig Gerry Adams has publicly condemned the bombings in strong terms.

It's possible (anything's possible) that the IRA did this intead of Islamist extremists but if it turns out that way I don't think anyone should feel stupid for thinking otherwise.

[athon]

Originally posted by epepke
You may be right but are not necessarily so. For us, separation of Church and State is the default assumption, and so we look for particular reasons to intertwine the two. This has not always been the case; consider the Holy Roman Empire.

It's entirely possible that people in Islamic states or who want states to become more Islamist consider a connected Church and State the default assumption. If so, the comparisons of Islam with Christianity around 1400 are close to the mark.

It was earlier remarked by another poster that Christianity and Islam are fundamentally different because of their respective beginnings. I agree with this. However this expands into the fact that Christianity respect a structure inherent in their faith. Muslims don't have this; families tend to inherit beliefs in a scholar's interpretation and will visit mosques where these interpretations are also followed. You could be right about Islamic faith having an inbuilt 'default' of theocracy, but based on my experience I've not seen enough evidence to give this much support.

There's so much diversity within Islamic faith that the narrow view the west has of it is ludicrous. To then label the 'Islamic World' with broad sweeping definitions is at best erroneous, and at worst ignorant.

Athon

[athon]

Not exactly. People died today because evil people killed them. Your formulation suggests that there is no significant difference between those who committed the bombings and those who say that those who committed the bombing are evil, since they both believe in good and evil.

Good and evil are fantastic subjective terms. From my own, emotional point of view, these people are evil. From their own, emotional point of view, we are evil. We can both present our reasons why we believe so, until we have different versions of good and evil.

Wow, that got us far.

So in one respect, you're right. In terms of defining our world in personal views of 'good and evil', there is no significant difference. You'll be creating a straw man if you take that any further, though.

But there is a difference, and a very obvious one: namely, that the goal of the terrorists is to kill as many innocents, including women, children, and babies, as they can, because they see the very fact that they believe in a different God as evil; while the goal of those who fight the terrorists is to kill terrorists and thus prevent innocents from being killed.

You've perceived good and evil based on the definitions provided by your life, your upbringing and your own inherited values. According to those rules, you are right. Change them to a different set of rules (i.e. living a life of sin etc.) and suddenly murdering those sinners (and a few 'martyrs' for your cause) is justifiable.

I cannot justify them, because I don't follow such a system of values. But I don't see much use in trying to understand the world as good and evil like they do. I'd rather judge the actions of others through different means than emotion and anger.

This is an enormous difference: it is, in fact, just this difference that makes the terrorists evil and those who would fight them good. To suggests moral equivelancy here is either deeply dishonest or a case of moral idiocy.

You believe in objective morality? Wow.

I concede that by our own morals, this is a heinous act. And our morals are more conducive to a free and diverse society. I support our morals for that reason. They have different morals conducive to a society they wish to see; theocratic, religious based and regressive. To preserve a society I believe should exist, and to prevent the pain and suffering they wish to inflict, I would do everything in my power to fight their actions. Hatred and anger does not come into it for me.

To be sure, perhaps the terorrists who did this think that they did good. Hitler thought eradicating the jews and Slavs is good, too. Presumably, Ted Bundy thought killing women after raping them is good (or at least allowable), as well.

So what?

As Plato already realized, the mere fact that somebody desires evil because he thinks it good (or allowed) does not make a person less evil or merely a victim of a mistake. It is in fact the very fact that one desires evil things that is the definition of being an evil person.

Ok. So I disagree with Plato. No person's morals are inherently more righteous by anothers. They are righteous in accordance with a set of values, which differ between societies. Plato's society believed in murdering babies who suffered abnormalities. To our modern values, this is evil. To Plato, having society raise such an infant is evil. Does nothing to ojectively progress our arguments, but it does make a statement about our respective values.

On your view, nobody is ever morally guilty of anything at all. Let's take eating babies. If A kills and eats a baby because he thinks it's good (or allowed) to do so, then A is not "really" evil, but merely mistaken about what is good and evil. But if A kills and eats a baby despite knowing that it is a bad thing to do, then A had been a "victim" of his emotions or desires, since if he was in his right mind he wouldn't do something he knew was bad.

I'll leave this for the moment in light of my clarification above. If you still feel this is my belief, then you havn't understood.

Your "refusal to personify the cause" and claim that those who did this are "animals" is merely a verbal game. You do not REALLY want to treat them like animals--you would consider it bad to kill them on sight without a trial, for example. You merely use such words as an excuse for refusing to pass moral judgement and say that what they did is evil, because that's "simplistic" and "judgemental".

WTF? Skeptic, sometimes I wonder just how good your rational mind is.

A trial would be necessary to declare that these are simply people whose minds are so different to that which I personally define as 'morally human'. It would be solely to tell the difference between such people and one innocent of such behaviour. That being then declared...yes, then shoot them without emotion.

But if the result of all your moral theorizing is that you reached the stage where being "nonjudgemental" has completely corrupted your moral judgement, since if you refuse to pass moral judgement on those who did this, you clearly will refuse to condemn anybody for anything.

I'll let my argument above speak for itself for now.

Athon

[epepke]

Originally posted by athon
It was earlier remarked by another poster that Christianity and Islam are fundamentally different because of their respective beginnings. I agree with this. However this expands into the fact that Christianity respect a structure inherent in their faith. Muslims don't have this; families tend to inherit beliefs in a scholar's interpretation and will visit mosques where these interpretations are also followed. You could be right about Islamic faith having an inbuilt 'default' of theocracy, but based on my experience I've not seen enough evidence to give this much support.

There's so much diversity within Islamic faith that the narrow view the west has of it is ludicrous. To then label the 'Islamic World' with broad sweeping definitions is at best erroneous, and at worst ignorant.

It has to be pointed out that the context of this discussion is a particular subset of Islam. "Islamist" is a pretty good word for this, though I've also heard "Wahabbist" and "radical Muslim." The trouble with the word "Islamic" is that it is ambiguous. It can be interpreted as referring to Islamists, or it can be interpreted as referring to all Muslims.

One could equally as well defend Christianity by pointing out that Ned Flanders wouldn't agree with Torquemada. But still, what Torquemada did had something to do with the historical development of Christianity at the time.

Same with radical Islamists, or whatever you want to call them. Painting this simply as a bunch of "westerners" broad-brushing Muslims is obfuscatory.

[Darat]

I'm interested in the political outcome of this both for our internal and foreign policies.

For instance there had been a growing campaign against the government’s plans to introduce Identity Cards. I suspect that this event will now push the overall sentiment back to supporting the idea.

I can see that there will be quite a conflict in the political arena between the political appearance of not wanting to be seen to "give in to" the terrorist attacks yet wanting to use this to gain political capital against the current government because of their strong support for military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However once the shock dissipates I do not think it will have had a significantly effect on the political landscape in the UK.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Darat
For instance there had been a growing campaign against the government’s plans to introduce Identity Cards. I suspect that this event will now push the overall sentiment back to supporting the idea.


I think the question "How would ID cards have prevented this?" would still be asked, and still go unanswered. So while I think the government might redouble efforts, I'm still not convinced that there will be much support.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Darat
I'm interested in the political outcome of this both for our internal and foreign policies.

For instance there had been a growing campaign against the government’s plans to introduce Identity Cards. I suspect that this event will now push the overall sentiment back to supporting the idea.

Well, here's a question. London probably has more video cameras for government surveillance than any other place on the planet. Did they prevent this? Obviously not.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by epepke
Well, here's a question. London probably has more video cameras for government surveillance than any other place on the planet. Did they prevent this? Obviously not.
It might help the police finding out who did it though. In any case I think the system is targeted more on ordinary crime than on terrorism.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Kerberos
It might help the police finding out who did it though. In any case I think the system is targeted more on ordinary crime than on terrorism.

As for the former, we'll see.

As for the latter, what's the difference? Does an ordinary criminal with a bomb show up in day-glo orange, while a terrorist shows up in day-glo green? Blowing stuff up is blowing stuff up.

[richardm]

Originally posted by richardm
I think the question "How would ID cards have prevented this?" would still be asked, and still go unanswered. So while I think the government might redouble efforts, I'm still not convinced that there will be much support.

Well, my mistake - it has been answered (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4663155.stm) this morning by the Home Secretary:


I doubt it would have made a difference.


Well spotted Mr. C. But nevertheless, he continues:


I actually think ID cards do help rather than hinder.


:rolleyes:

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by epepke

As for the latter, what's the difference? Does an ordinary criminal with a bomb show up in day-glo orange, while a terrorist shows up in day-glo green? Blowing stuff up is blowing stuff up.
Ordinary criminals seldom blow up stuff, they steal cars and rob people.

[Darat]

Originally posted by epepke
Well, here's a question. London probably has more video cameras for government surveillance than any other place on the planet. Did they prevent this? Obviously not.

Whilst I agree about the number of surveillance cameras they are not for “government surveillance�. Most are operated by the police, the various local councils and a lot by private companies on behalf of businesses and so on.

(Some areas of London are covered by surveillance cameras that I agree can be loosely called “government surveillance�, but that is a consequence of our government being based in London and keeping the various government buildings under surveillance.)

However I do think it is a very valid point to rise but keep in mind that perhaps the system has worked at preventing and deterring terrorist attacks but in this instance failed to help. Just because a system is not perfect does not mean it should be scrapped.

(And I think that once the “ring of steel� was in place the City of London never suffered from another terrorist attack – but that is just my recollection so increased surveillance does seem to work.)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Darat
However I do think it is a very valid point to rise but keep in mind that perhaps the system has worked at preventing and deterring terrorist attacks but in this instance failed to help. Just because a system is not perfect does not mean it should be scrapped.

I'm not advocating that it be scrapped. I'm just wondering if it's any damned good at all.

There haven't been any terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. As far as I can tell, this is due to nothing whatsoever.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
This misses a fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity. Christianity was created within a powerful state structure and made itself acceptable to that state by recognising separation. In fact it accepted the primacy of the state when it allowed Constantine the Great to preside over the Council of Nicaea. It was only later that an effort was made by Christian churches to gain ascendency, and they failed. Secular ascendency in Christendom didn't evolve, it was inherent. "Give unto Caesar".

Islam was created at the same time as a state structure. There never was a difference between Mohammed the Prophet and Mohammed the ruler and military commander. The concept of a secular state has actually had to evolve under Islam, and has given history such gems as modern Syria, Iraq and Egypt. Still, nil desperandum. Turkey is promising, as is Malaysia, and I think Iran will surprise the younger of us before they make their final posts.

In my original post I was not seperating Church and State, per se. I was pointing out the relative maturity of the two religions. And I somehow do believe that it is difficult to maintain a hard edge over millenia.

But, nonetheless, my "1400" analogy holds. Christianity had, by that time, blurred the line between church and state to as great a degree as it is blurred in places like Iran which is the closest to a theocracy in the moslem world.

All religions know "the truth". It is natural that they think that they should have powers temporal as well as spritual. The difference is that we, in the west, tried that experiment for a while and moved on. We could argue what the causitive agents were back then for a change in direction but among them (which have applicability today) are things like the Black Death (which made people wonder about the "merciful and compassionate God" as well as providing a means for the demise of feudalism) the rise of a middle class that liked "things", education (spurred by things like the printing press).

[Ed]

QUOTE]Originally posted by delphi_ote
If America and Britian could promote policies that would win these people over and improve their quality of life (like steadily investing in the region or creating education programs for the impoverished residents which offer incentives for them to return home) I think we'd make a lot more progress in this "War on Terror."

[/QUOTE]


That is precisely and to a tee exactly what pisses off people like Osma. They like their way of life.

The only solution, IMO not H at all, is to have an energy policy that makes oil a worthless substance in the mid-term. Then we can safely ignore the entire mid-east and let them eat sand.

The problem, of course, comes if a large proportion of them feel that it is their bounden duty to convert us. Then we have a real problem.

Who am they? Glad you asked. It is the people who care, to a greater or lesser extent that:

To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/opinion/08friedman.html

If this makes any difference as to the outlook of a person, they are part of the they.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ed


To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/o...08friedman.html




What about this fatwa?


from http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/11/madrid.anniversary/
"The ruling was issued by the Islamic Commission of Spain, the main body representing the country's 1 million-member Muslim community"


seems like a reasonably "major" body..

[Ed]

Originally posted by The Fool
What about this fatwa?


from http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/11/madrid.anniversary/
"The ruling was issued by the Islamic Commission of Spain, the main body representing the country's 1 million-member Muslim community"


seems like a reasonably "major" body..

They are Uncle Toms or more precisely Uncle Abduls. They are playing to the man.

Anyhoo, that is one from a western country. Got any from the mideast?

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Ed
QUOTE]That is precisely and to a tee exactly what pisses off people like Osma. They like their way of life.

The only solution, IMO not H at all, is to have an energy policy that makes oil a worthless substance in the mid-term. Then we can safely ignore the entire mid-east and let them eat sand.

The problem, of course, comes if a large proportion of them feel that it is their bounden duty to convert us. Then we have a real problem.

Who am they? Glad you asked. It is the people who care, to a greater or lesser extent that:



If this makes any difference as to the outlook of a person, they are part of the they.

It pisses them off because it undermines their strategy. It is victory for us. The more trust and friends we earn in the world, the more ridiculous Osama and his ilk will seem.

There will always be fringe lunatics in any culture who want to throw a wrench in the system. Remember Oklahoma City? There are still right wing radicals in America who see that as a heroic act. I hung out with some John Birch types for a while, so this is straight from personal experience. Instead of addressing them as the "enemy" and an "axis of evil," we keep them close enough to keep an eye on, we have good relationships with their friends, we have ties to the culture they live in, and we don't generally let them provoke us into giving their views a voice in the mainstream. The one exception to this was the way Waco was handled. We used a large display of force against a right wing nut, and that's used as a recruitment tool for them to this day. We realize the Michigan Militia types consist of few very dangerous lunatics in an otherwise tolerable group of people. Our main stream laughed them right out of relevance. By constantly addressing Al Queda as our enemy and a growing threat and generally sounding like we're talking about Sauron, the entire world gains the perception that we're on equal footing. That they really are a challenge to our society. Once we let ourselves be demonized (and yes, we LET ourselves. America had the world's sympathy after 9/11, and we squandered that very real tactical advantage) the recruits are pouring in for anti-Western extremist Islamist groups like Al Queda. Current policies and cultural climates are driving more people into Osama's camp.

We've got to turn this around. We can start by trying to regain our traditional European allies and earning their trust while trying to earn the trust of the Muslims in our respective countries. We need to muzzle Christian extremists calling this a holy war. Eventually, we need to ally ourselves with more Westernized nations that are predominantly Muslim and ween ourselves off from supporting unpopular leaders in the Muslim world. We need to make this a very public effort, and we need to be honest. We need to show humility and strength. Theodore Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick" strategy is oft quoted, but it's the perfect strategy.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Ed
They are Uncle Toms or more precisely Uncle Abduls. They are playing to the man.

Anyhoo, that is one from a western country. Got any from the mideast?

Why should anyone condemn them if people like you are going to scoff at them? You've already rejected a good faith effort, or at least a politically advantageous situation (for us AND them.)

[Ed]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
[It pisses them off because it undermines their strategy. It is victory for us. The more trust and friends we earn in the world, the more ridiculous Osama and his ilk will seem.

But in so doing we must make alliances (with sometimes bad people) we must be there, we must share. These are all things that piss off Osma and his buddies. What you say sounds great. The problem is how

There will always be fringe lunatics in any culture who want to throw a wrench in the system. Remember Oklahoma City? There are still right wing radicals in America who see that as a heroic act. I hung out with some John Birch types for a while, so this is straight from personal experience. Instead of addressing them as the "enemy" and an "axis of evil," we keep them close enough to keep an eye on, we have good relationships with their friends, we have ties to the culture they live in, and we don't generally let them provoke us into giving their views a voice in the mainstream.

Even 10% nut rate in a population of 1,800,000,000 presents a problem.

We've got to turn this around. We can start by trying to regain our traditional European allies and earning their trust while trying to earn the trust of the Muslims in our respective countries. We need to muzzle Christian extremists calling this a holy war. Eventually, we need to ally ourselves with more Westernized nations that are predominantly Muslim and ween ourselves off from supporting unpopular leaders in the Muslim world. We need to make this a very public effort, and we need to be honest. We need to show humility and strength. Theodore Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick" strategy is oft quoted, but it's the perfect strategy.


We can turn it around with an agressive energy policy that declares the moral equivelant of war on imported oil. It will be painful and requires a statesman (we have none at the moment). The result would be a mid east with the relevance of black africa to world affairs. It sounds callus but we don't give a flying one about africa because they have little that we want. How nice if it were that way in the mid east. Then, let them develop, or not. Let them worship Allah or the Man in the Moon, who cares. Build a metaphorical wall around them. We owe them catagorically nothing.[/QUOTE]

[Ed]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
Why should anyone condemn them if people like you are going to scoff at them? You've already rejected a good faith effort, or at least a politically advantageous situation (for us AND them.)

A principled moral stand should be independent of what anyone says or how it is received.


Are you suggesting that they be given a pass? Were you critical that Bush did not respond in touchey-feely time to the tsunami? Why treat these characters any differently?

This is very important so I will repeat it:

A principled moral stand should be independent of what anyone says or how it is received.

[Orwell]

The grim connection (http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=40316)

But I want to invoke a different, less personal connection. I say this against George Bush, who quickly claimed the “contrast� couldn't be “clearer� between yesterday's London bombings and the concurrent G8 talks about ending poverty in Africa, or Tony Blair, who pointed to the same contrast as intentional and “particularly barbaric.� I think there is a grim but real relation between the bombings and the acts of the mighty nations of the G8 — and I'm not speaking metaphorically.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Orwell
The grim connection (http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=40316)

I have no idea how this relates except that this guy seems to be blaming the victem. And, guess what, we are all victems so this gets us nowhere.

[Orwell]

I wouldn't normally refer to the politicians who harp about "good and evil" as "victims". So if you read the article carefully, you will notice that he isn't blaming the victims. The link was posted to remind people that this "good vs. evil" stuff is a load of useless rhetorical demagogic bunk. That's all.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Orwell
I wouldn't normally refer to the politicians who harp about "good and evil" as "victims". So if you read the article carefully, you will notice that he isn't blaming the victims. The link was posted to remind people that this "good vs. evil" stuff is a load of useless rhetorical demagogic bunk. That's all.

So you are saying that good and evil are never absolute?

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Ed
A principled moral stand should be independent of what anyone says or how it is received.

Now we've come to the point where we see the fundamental problem in your reasoning. It's the same fundamental problem the terrorists have. You think that everyone was born into the world with the same understanding of things you have, but clearly they were not. Everyone's reactions are learned, taught. They come from our culture. If you want someone to see things your way, you have to educate them.

It's not enough to say "They're wrong and we're right and everyone should see that." That's lazy. You have to show that we are right and that we can be trusted. If they understand that, then they can take an educated AND principled moral stand. If you take this shortcut and call them all backward or call the few who are supporting and understanding us "Uncle Abuls," you're just validating their negative image of us. You're ensuring that these terrorist attacks achieve exactly what they're intended to achieve. You're taking a principled moral stand instead of an EDUCATED principled moral stand.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ed
So you are saying that good and evil are never absolute?

No. I do not wish to start a "metaphysical" argument. What I'm saying is that the same organisations, sometimes even the same people, that now are being called evil because they are responsible for terrorist attacks against western countries were being called "freedom fighters" twenty years ago, when they were fighting the Soviets and their allies.

The evil vs. good rhetoric ignores this.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
So.

How long until and why will the good Rev Phelps celebrate the attacks?

Anyone want to start a pool thread for him and the psychics?

Too late. (http://www.godhatesfags.com/featured/20050707_subway-bomb.html)

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Too late. (http://www.godhatesfags.com/featured/20050707_subway-bomb.html)

Ah, and the morbid little (rule 8) rears his hideous, worm-eaten head.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Darat
Already had a lot of them on the TV saying how terrible and non-Islamic these attacks are.

Not enough apparently.

Of course it's hard to get a handle on how many actually are speaking out against these atrocicites.

I don't think anyone's taken a pole and my own perception is limited to what I see in the media.

I just don't get the impression though that are large majority (say 75%-80% or so) are denouncing thse activities---at least with any real enthusiasm.

I think the clerics have the power & influence to do tremendous good here-----but most don't.

What would happen for example if the Imams in a given community upon hearing that a cash payment was to be made to a suiocide bombers family----said this was wrong.

"There's nothing noble or heroic about killing innocent civilians.
It's not Allah's will to do murder and it should not be rewarded in this life or the next one."

Not all will say this of course. There will always be a few pedophile priests & abortion clinic bombers in the christian woodpile-------as there will always be murder-happy jihadists
but it you had a reasonable majority who knows what might happen.

I think if the muslim clerics put as much zeal & enthusiasm into condemning terrorist acts as they do with things like Koran abuse---you'd see a noticeable decrease in terrorism........

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ed
They are Uncle Toms or more precisely Uncle Abduls. They are playing to the man.

Anyhoo, that is one from a western country. Got any from the mideast?
Lol....Got a goalpost that is stationary? Otherwise pointing out incorrect claims is probably pointless.

[Skeptic]

Had Denmark and Italy not put troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, then they probably would not themselves be current targets.

Well, yes. But if your remember correctly, the evil, horrible occupation of Iraq had something to do with the terrorists attacking the twin towers, pentagon, and other targets. The excuse then, IIRC, was not the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, but something else about infidels doing something the believers really, really don't like.

So the real messege is not, "don't attack the Muslim world", but rather, "don't attack the Muslim world just because the Muslim world declared on Jihad on you infidels and killed a few thousand of you worthless heathens." Not exactly the same thing. It is not a warning not to attack Jihadis, it is a warning not to resist Jihadis in any active way.

In reality the west has two choices: either to resist and fight back even if those who blow up buses full of civlians shout that you are an "agressor", or to withdraw, accept their reasoning, and convince yourself that you would only give them what they want this time (withdraw from Iraq, withdraw from the Muslim world in general, destroy israel, etc., etc., etc.) then surely it will satisfy them and they won't demand more. (Okay, okay, you'll give you Spain too, I mean occupied Al-Andalus, but that's it!)

It should be noted that, in the latter case, your "rational" and "sane" choice (unlike the crazy warmongering Bush) is to hang your hopes on the implied, and not even explicit, promise of temporary relative quiet if you surrender, made by a man responsible for deliberately killing thousands of innocents because his God told him to.

Good luck. I'm sure that will work.

[Jon_in_london]

I dont know if any of this has already been said but:

1. This puts an end to the "There is no terrorist threat, it doesnt exist, its only a deus ex machina created by our leaders to fighten us into voting for them, lets all build a wind farm and sing fly-lesbian-seagull witht he money instead" group of thought.

2. There were spontaneous condemnations from the muslim community. This is contrary to what some have claimed. I think the whole country has seen enough mangled Iraqis on TV each morning to think that Muslim=Terrorist sympathiser. I am extremely proud of the fact that there has been no increase in islamophobia in London or countrywide- no mosques have been attacked during friday prayers. I just saw a muslim crying because his brother is amongnst the missing..... cant accuse him of AQ sympathy.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Had Denmark and Italy not put troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, then they probably would not themselves be current targets.

Well, yes. But if your remember correctly, the evil, horrible occupation of Iraq had something to do with the terrorists attacking the twin towers, pentagon, and other targets. The excuse then, IIRC, was not the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, but something else about infidels doing something the believers really, really don't like.


It had nothing to do with 9/11. If the US had stuck to Afghanistan, I think there would be a huge difference in perceptions. Opening up Iraq as a battleground has only made things worse in the WOT.

[crackmonkey]

I've read online that there is a significant minority that feels the bombing was done by the government to gain sympathy for the war. Have you found this sentiment out there?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I dont know if any of this has already been said but:

1. This puts an end to the "There is no terrorist threat, it doesnt exist, its only a deus ex machina created by our leaders to fighten us into voting for them, lets all build a wind farm and sing fly-lesbian-seagull witht he money instead" group of thought.


I have never doubted that there was a terrorist threat. Australia has already had the Bali bombing to deal with.

The point of contention is if the Iraq invasion was a rational response. As far as I am concerned, all it has done is inflame the terrorist problem, not in any way reduce it.

Opening up a war on two fronts? It's been tried before, and failed.

Dealing with Afghanistan by itself was a big enough job, and that is still a problem that is not resolved in any way.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I've read online that there is a significant minority that feels the bombing was done by the government to gain sympathy for the war. Have you found this sentiment out there?

Are you refering to the chap with the tinfoil hat muttering to himslelf under the bridge? Hes hardly significant....

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I've read online that there is a significant minority that feels the bombing was done by the government to gain sympathy for the war. Have you found this sentiment out there?

Gimme a break. An insignificant minority would be more like it. The ashen look on Bush's face when he made his speech was enough to show that he was feeling lost and confused.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have never doubted that there was a terrorist threat. Australia has already had the Bali bombing to deal with.

The point of contention is if the Iraq invasion was a rational response. As far as I am concerned, all it has done is inflame the terrorist problem, not in any way reduce it.

Opening up a war on two fronts? It's been tried before, and failed.

Dealing with Afghanistan by itself was a big enough job, and that is still a problem that is not resolved in any way.

I never accused you of that AUP.

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism IMO. Has it inflamed it? Probably has in the sphere of the mid-east but I dont they need an excuse to murder and maim, just that they appreciate it... One could argue that Iraq has acted as a magnet drawing terrorist away from the west.......

I agree that Afghanistan should have been "enough for now" but the terrorists are opposed to that too, so we could get bombed even without Iraq. That said, theres no good going to come from a premature withdrawal from Iraq for anybody, least of all the Iraqis. Staying in Iraq is the more difficult thing to do. Pulling out is for paella eating surrender monkeys.. :p

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I never accused you of that AUP.

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism IMO. Has it inflamed it? Probably has in the sphere of the mid-east but I dont they need an excuse to murder and maim, just that they appreciate it... One could argue that Iraq has acted as a magnet drawing terrorist away from the west.......



From what I have read, it is now regarded as an excellent training ground. There is now a chance to practice real life urban warfare, something they couldn't do in Afghanistan. Roadside bombs, anyone?



I agree that Afghanistan should have been "enough for now" but the terrorists are opposed to that too, so we could get bombed even without Iraq. That said, theres no good going to come from a premature withdrawal from Iraq for anybody, least of all the Iraqis. Staying in Iraq is the more difficult thing to do. Pulling out is for paella eating surrender monkeys.. :p

Afghanistan had a legitimate justification for an invasion, to most reasonable people, IMO. Invading Iraq just gave OBL a 'see I told you so' legitimisation of his claims.

If the US had just stuck to Afghanistan, the legitimacy of it's intentions would have been much easier to justify. It would also have enabled it to concentrate on terrorism in a much smaller area. A 'Marshal Plan' in that area that actually demonstrated lasting results, certainty of rule of law for the whole country, cleared out the Taliban and Al Qaeda once and for all, would have been hard enough, but possible.

The real issue is, after Aghanistan is stabilised, what to do about Saudi Arabia. That is a ticking time bomb, and could go off at any time. If it collapses into a fundy regime, along with Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, then the whole region is going just as OBL wants. He's the one who is winning at present.

[Ausmerican]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned so far...what does this attack say regarding the 'We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here at home' idea?

[Skeptic]

You believe in objective morality? Wow.

Well, let's consider a variety of quotes from your posts to see if you believe in objective morality or not. For example (choosing at random, more or less):

I can find you scores of examples of gay-bashing in Queensland (arguably amongst the most 'unenlightened' of the states; afterall, it did raise Pauline Hanson). I can point out situations where Indigenous people have been denied human rights, politicians have said ignorant things and foreigners have been bashed.

Are you saying here that gay-bashing and denial of human rights is wrong? Or merely that it is something some societies do that offends people in other societies?

Is being deliberately offensive, with the intention of upsetting a broad group of people, immoral? Yes.

Flushing the Koran is a deliberate statement intending on humiliating and offending all Mulsims, and anybody else who sees value of any sort in the Koran.

Are you saying that being deliberately offensive, and that offending people and humiliating them is wrong? Or merely that is is a behavior that some people in other societies might dislike?

Other sections of this book described extreme violence for no real reason other than these other people were different. And the way women were treated in this; it was like some sicko had written it. Apparently it was a compilation from different artists, but it still made me sick thinking people read this and enjoyed doing so.

I think the end of it was the worst. I can't believe I actually continued reading any of it after the first few pages, but if I was going to make a case of this before the school governors I guess I had to know what this kid was reading.

Are you saying letting children read sick pornography is wrong? Or merely that people who consider it OK to let them read sick pornography might cause an emotional reaction with those who consider it wrong?

What about the pornography itself--are you saying rape is wrong? Or only that it is wrong in some societies and not in others and we happen to live in a society where it is? If the latter, what's so bad about showing children how other societies behave?

At worse, they'll grow up to enjoy rape, like many people in other societies, and surely we cannot say that is evil--it's just that they would belong to a different society than ours.

They fail to see how anybody could feel differently, and any form of empathy goes out the window. They become egocentric and cannot possibly see how it is humanly possible to understand the world in any way different to theirs.

But why should anybody feel empathy? Why is not feeling empathy with those who disagree with you wrong? Isn't it simple a social matter--some societies allow for more empathy to dissenting views than others, and those who do not arouse anger in those who do?

...I could go on, but you see my point. In reality, in all these (and many other cases) you make moral judgements based on objective morality.

So let us not take too seriously the canard that you do not believe in objective morality. If you did not believe in objective morality to the degree you claim--that of not condemning the bombing in London as morally wrong--then there would be no point, and you would have no reason, to post on this board condemning the actions which you did. After all, compared to the subway bombings, surely gay bashing, Koran flushing, women raping, or porn purveying is small beer.

Yet as your posts clearly show, you do consider such actions actually wrong, and worthy of condemnation, not merely different that what others like, or merely the cause of an unfavorable emotional reaction in people of some societies.

So it isn't a matter of not believing that some things are objectively right and some objectively wrong. You believe that as much as any non-psychotic does. It is simply that you pretend not to--because you consider being "nonjudgemental" to be a moral principle of the highest importance for some reason.

This, of course, shows the obvious--namely, that the claim not to believe in objective morality is self-contradictory for very similar reasons to those who claim that truth do not exist.

Do those who claim that truth does not exist think that it is true that there is no objective truth? If so, then they just refuted themselves, and if not, they do not actually believe what they are saying.

Similarly, do you, when you exhort us not to believe in good and evil because it might cause us to hate people of different religion that us, consider it evil to hate people of different religions than one's own? What if hating people of different religions is perfectly acceptable in our society?

If you think it is evil to hate people of other religions, then you admit that there is objective good and evil, beyound what society allows or dislikes, and you have refuted yourself. If, on the other hand, you don't think it is evil to hate people of other religions, why bother telling us not to do so? It isn't wrong, after all, by our lights, is it?

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Ausmerican
One thing I haven't seen mentioned so far...what does this attack say regarding the 'We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here at home' idea? It depends on whether "We" is only the US or if it includes our allies.

[crackmonkey]

WHat do you think it says? Did anyone ever promist that there would be no attacks at home if there was a war in the mideast? The Bush administration has gone out of its way to remind us that we're still at risk domestically, even to the point of being mocked for it (color-codes and such).
Having said that, how many attacks were prevented by Al Qaeda thugs streaming out of Europe and into Iraq?
How could anyone know? Why would anyone bring up such an utterly unprovable and pointless topic at all?

[kimiko]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
WHat do you think it says? Did anyone ever promist that there would be no attacks at home if there was a war in the mideast? The Bush administration has gone out of its way to remind us that we're still at risk domestically, even to the point of being mocked for it (color-codes and such).
Having said that, how many attacks were prevented by Al Qaeda thugs streaming out of Europe and into Iraq?
How could anyone know? Why would anyone bring up such an utterly unprovable and pointless topic at all? The question is not pointless- it was advanced by Bush himself in his most recent speech just over a week ago at Fort Bragg: Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington, and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq -- who is also senior commander at this base -- General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said: "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us." (bolding mine)

It was foolishly advanced as an either/or situation. So, is fighting in Iraq supposed to prevent attacks only in America or was it intended to help safeguard our allies as well? If we are selfish in our concern then perhaps the argument still stands, but it is clear that the Iraq war has not succeeded in drawing all terrorists to the area to prevent attack among the allies, although that should have been abundantly clear after Madrid and Bali. Since Bush still advanced the argument after those, he either intends Iraq only to protect America or perhaps the argument will finally be retired.

[athon]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, let's consider a variety of quotes from your posts to see if you believe in objective morality or not. For example (choosing at random, more or less):

What exactly is it you're trying to prove here? You have taken a number of quotes (out of context for a few of them) to try to say what? That because I believe in a set of morals, I believe that they are the same morals everybody has? Huh?

Skeptic, either you've not really thought about what I've said in light of your overpowering need to be right on this subject, or I just have not made my position clear enough. I'm happy to accept either.

But why should anybody feel empathy? Why is not feeling empathy with those who disagree with you wrong? Isn't it simple a social matter--some societies allow for more empathy to dissenting views than others, and those who do not arouse anger in those who do?

I'm not sure on your stance. Is it wrong to feel empathy with somebody who disagrees with you? No. Show me where I've said otherwise. People arrive at their conclusions based on numerous factors. Understanding those factors and relating them to your own experiences goes a huge way to negotiating future outcomes. It not only helps in anticipating future actions taken by others, but it helps in clarifying your own stance.

I'm happy to say 'I believe this is wrong'. I can say why I believe that, and it is nearly always associated with a desire to exist within a certain way of life. However, it is not objective. The decision to declare something wrong or evil is based on a set of parameters either personally chosen or you've chosen as a direct influence of your society.

...I could go on, but you see my point. In reality, in all these (and many other cases) you make moral judgements based on objective morality.

No. I make these moral judgements based on my desire to have a certain way of life. They are the morals I personally believe in. I assume you are making the mistake of objectifying this because we believe that others should live by our own morals. Not at all. I believe in really only one law that all people should be subjected to; the freedom to live in a community without fear of undue suffering on a person, should that person desire the same. If another's morals contradict that one rule, then I would do everything in my power to alleviate that.

So let us not take too seriously the canard that you do not believe in objective morality. If you did not believe in objective morality to the degree you claim--that of not condemning the bombing in London as morally wrong--then there would be no point, and you would have no reason, to post on this board condemning the actions which you did. After all, compared to the subway bombings, surely gay bashing, Koran flushing, women raping, or porn purveying is small beer.

You don't get it. The fact that I voice my opinions on the morals of an action hardly makes those morals objective. Otherwise, I'd arrogantly believe that anybody who disagreed with me would be inherently wrong, thence preventing me from learning anything. This isn't the case; in fact, I come here not just to voice my opinions, but to learn from what others believe. It's an exchange. I've changed my mind on a lot of things and feel stronger for it.

But it's extremely revealing that you should believe that posting your opinion on a subject may indicate objectivity.

Yet as your posts clearly show, you do consider such actions actually wrong, and worthy of condemnation, not merely different that what others like, or merely the cause of an unfavorable emotional reaction in people of some societies.

They are wrong in my opinion because the outcome of such actions offends my desire to live in a certain society. I referred to a single rule I would fight for - the rule to live free of the fear of undue suffering. Undue is just as subjective; who declares what is undue? Again, I have my own opinion and would decide what I would fight for based on that. But there is no universal set of standards for an acceptable cause or level of suffering. So I'm left to understand that my own standard is a personal belief. Won't stop me fighting for that, though.

Which is the essential core of conflicts such as these.

So it isn't a matter of not believing that some things are objectively right and some objectively wrong. You believe that as much as any non-psychotic does. It is simply that you pretend not to--because you consider being "nonjudgemental" to be a moral principle of the highest importance for some reason.

Such assumptions might sit better in your mind, but they're wrong. I simply understand that there is no rule book for humanity which we can all refer to. It would be easier if God did exist, and could offer a set of morals we all had to live by. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and we are left to endeavour to decided our own codes. Worse still, many people feel obliged to enforce their morals onto others, and make them suffer should they not adopt them.

I wish to live in a society where this does not happen. That desire is so great, and so important to me, I would fight for it. I have no wish to change the morals of another, but I have every wish that others not be adversely affected by them.

Similarly, do you, when you exhort us not to believe in good and evil because it might cause us to hate people of different religion that us, consider it evil to hate people of different religions than one's own? What if hating people of different religions is perfectly acceptable in our society?

Firstly, at no point do I 'exhort' anybody to follow my beliefs. Please show where I have done this. Merely proposing my opinion is hardly suggesting this is what other should believe. The fact you believe this demonstrates a certain arrogance on your behalf.

Secondly, if somebody wishes to hate another religion, than that's their choice. I don't feel personally that an emotion is necessarily evil. A sad way of existance, mind you, but one that is personal to them and I am obliged to let them have. If actions arise from this choice which make others suffer...I will then take offence and do whatever's in my power to prevent that. This choice I make is not out of a judgement of their morals, but a belief that I do not wish to live in a societ that has undue suffering. I will cooperate with everybody else who shares that wish.

Athon

[Ausmerican]

kimiko, thank you and well put.
crackmonkey, well named.

[Mephisto]

. . . that the world is a safer place because of our involvement in Iraq!

:bricks:

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Ausmerican
One thing I haven't seen mentioned so far...what does this attack say regarding the 'We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here at home' idea?

Actually, I think the real problem with that idea is "With what ethical justification are ´we´ (whoever ´we´ is) putting innocent Iraqi civilians in the line of fire and getting them killed in staggering numbers, in order to protect ´our´ own innocent civilians?".

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Darat
(And I think that once the “ring of steel� was in place the City of London never suffered from another terrorist attack – but that is just my recollection so increased surveillance does seem to work.) Post Hoc? :rolleyes: Tut-tut ....

The value of the cameras will more likely be in spotting the perpetrators rather than prevention. After all, nobody noticed them in reality so it's unlikely anyone watching a screen would. PIRA were aware of that, and more reluctant to get caught than this current mob.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by epepke
You may be right but are not necessarily so. For us, separation of Church and State is the default assumption, and so we look for particular reasons to intertwine the two. This has not always been the case; consider the Holy Roman Empire.Actually, the Church was usually at odds with the Emperors. Charlemagne declared himself Emperor of the West, but the Pope claimed the credit (essentially by a trick) and had the propaganda tool - a hierarchical Church and all those pulpits - to make it stick. The Emperors never acknowledged Papal superiority (except occasionally in extremis). They weren't chosen by the Pope but by heredity, violence or, later, a collection of clerical and secular Electors. Popes struggled for ascendency but never achieved it. They only got on when they needed the Empire against other enemies, such as the Normans of Calabria and Sicily (and they soon teamed-up with the Normans against the Empire). By the 18thCE the kings of Austria, France and (I think) Castile even held vetoes over Papal elections.

The only secular authority the Popes have ever had was in the Papal States, a pretty piss-poor showing if truth be told. Contrast that with the early Caliphate of Islam.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by athon
It was earlier remarked by another poster that Christianity and Islam are fundamentally different because of their respective beginnings. I agree with this. However this expands into the fact that Christianity respect a structure inherent in their faith. Muslims don't have this; families tend to inherit beliefs in a scholar's interpretation and will visit mosques where these interpretations are also followed. You could be right about Islamic faith having an inbuilt 'default' of theocracy, but based on my experience I've not seen enough evidence to give this much support.This is another fundamental difference. Christianity was organised as a hierarchy from the earliest times, reflecting the society it was created in. Islam had Mohammed at the top and then everybody else. After Mohammed the Caliphs played much the same role, but by the nature of things were men of violence rather than scholarship. Also by the nature of things the Caliphate fractured and "scripture" was interpreted to suit different political ends. With the advent of Turkish power the Caliphs became puppets. So there's not really been any hierarchy for a good long while.

An objective of the Wahabbists, much trumpeted by bin Laden, is the restoration of the Caliphate. With a man (yes, definitely a man) of arms and scholarship on the throne. Step forward ... guess who.

[Elind]

Originally posted by epepke
There's only one thread on the London blasts. This is a problem, because a lot of people are just being worried, concerned, or grieving.

Other people want to make political hay, get pissed off, and so forth and so on. I'm starting this thread for such discussions, so that the people in the other thread who are still in "upset" mode don't have to deal with it.

I'm doing this because I remember how unpleasant it was after 9/11 to hear the various assorted crap, which ran the gamut from "the chickens are coming home to roost" to "big deal, not much destroyed, few people dead."

Perhaps we should start another thread on the consequences of London.

Namely it looks (and will certainly be so claimed by the terrorists), as if it has now caused the Italians to turn tail and run, like the Spaniards did.

Way to go Italy! Let the terrorists know that what they do works.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Elind
Perhaps we should start another thread on the consequences of London.

Namely it looks (and will certainly be so claimed by the terrorists), as if it has now caused the Italians to turn tail and run, like the Spaniards did.

No, it doesn't. Italy's withdrawal was announced a long time ago. There's been some quibbling over the precise timing, but never over the decision to withdraw (part of their forces.)

(And for that matter, Spain did not "turn tail and run." What happened was that the sitting government's handling of the attack, in particular focusing narrowly on the ETA in the first days and ignoring the possibiblity that it was related to Al-Qaida, weakened it enough that it lost to the opposition in the following election (an election that was set to be a close thing in any case.) The opposition had been opposed to Spain's involvement in Iraq since long before the terror attack and did not change their stated policy because of it.)

(Edited for grammar.)

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The Bush administration has gone out of its way to remind us that we're still at risk domestically, even to the point of being mocked for it (color-codes and such).

I wonder if you could explain to me what we're supposed to do when the terrorists color-codes are elevated and there is no election?

What do we do when the terrorist threat level is Yellow? What do we do if it's orange (Pack a gun? Eye Middle-Eastern people suspiciously? Take a sweater?)? What about the highest threat level of all, Red; do we attack Brazil, Uruguay or Tanzania? Have you received inside information of what is expected of us? The Bush administration SHOULD be mocked for their ridiculous efforts - they are about as effective as the war in Iraq is in stopping terrorists.

(edited to add) The Bush administration had indeed gone "out of its way," but only to create a whole new generation of disabled American veterans, and to piss off a whole new generation of Muslim extremists!

[demon]

Kimiko:
"So, is fighting in Iraq supposed to prevent attacks only in America or was it intended to help safeguard our allies as well? If we are selfish in our concern then perhaps the argument still stands, but it is clear that the Iraq war has not succeeded in drawing all terrorists to the area to prevent attack among the allies, although that should have been abundantly clear after Madrid and Bali. Since Bush still advanced the argument after those, he either intends Iraq only to protect America or perhaps the argument will finally be retired."


One of the UK`s most esteemed (sadly esteemed in my view) anchor men, Trevor Macdonald had an interview with Bush earlier in the week and the "so we don't have to face 'em at home" issue came up.

Dear leader Bush again spouted one of Karl's favourite lines: "I'd rather we brought the terrorists to Iraq so we don't have to face them at home".
Indulging this ludicrous notion for a moment, logically it follows that Bush is admitting his policy is to use the men, women and children of Iraq, like a angler uses maggots, as bait: to *definitely* ensure hundreds of Iraqis die horribly as their country is turned into a terrorist playground, all so that his own superior version of humanity are that little bit safer.

Imagine the British army invading Ireland at the height of the troubles; as dozens of Dubliners are wiped out daily by "republican terrorists", the British PM says, "fcuk you, at least Kensington's okay."

Obviously, it's just a ******** line clearly used to make Middle America feel better. I don't think even Bush believes the hundreds of Iraqi Sunnis and others who are fighting the occupiers would otherwise be getting their visas sorted and enrolling in flight schools in Hicksville Tennesee. Or that Mohammed Atta would have cancelled his plans and caught a flight to Fallujah instead.

Nevertheless, he is pandering to a racism that regards Iraqis as subhuman and dispensable cannon fodder when he uses that line. Yet so lamentable is the state of our media that in the very next sentence he can talk about caring about, and wanting to bring freedom and peace to Iraqis and be completely at ease that the establishment lackey posing as our servant, holding power to account, will er, fail to spot the contradiction.

"It's been a pleasure", said Bush at the end of the interview. I bet it has.

[demon]

Elind:
"Namely it looks (and will certainly be so claimed by the terrorists), as if it has now caused the Italians to turn tail and run, like the Spaniards did."

Absolutely not so. They did not "turn tail and run".
I can assure you that in Spain, Zapatero had already made the election pledge to withdraw Spanish troops if he won. This promise was made a long time before the attacks. The PP party tried to hide the fact it was an Islamist attack and preferred to try and fool the Spanish public that it was the work of the Basque terrorist organisation ETA - as they realised that with only 3 days to go to the elections they and Aznar would be punished by the Spanish people who were 90% against the war in Iraq, which is exactly what happened.

[crackmonkey]

Originally posted by Mephisto
I wonder if you could explain to me what we're supposed to do when the terrorists color-codes are elevated and there is no election?

What do we do when the terrorist threat level is Yellow? What do we do if it's orange (Pack a gun? Eye Middle-Eastern people suspiciously? Take a sweater?)? What about the highest threat level of all, Red; do we attack Brazil, Uruguay or Tanzania? Have you received inside information of what is expected of us? The Bush administration SHOULD be mocked for their ridiculous efforts - they are about as effective as the war in Iraq is in stopping terrorists.

(edited to add) The Bush administration had indeed gone "out of its way," but only to create a whole new generation of disabled American veterans, and to piss off a whole new generation of Muslim extremists!

I'm sorry, but your odd little rant has little to do with the substance of my post. I mentioned that Bush never said we wouldn't be attacked domestically if we went into Iraq, and the color codes were one bit of evidence showing that they never said everything was going to be peachy.

The 'flypaper' strategy does make sense - it should be obvious that there are a finite number of trained AL Qaeda thugs. If Iraq is attracting a portion of these, it logically follows that there will be fewer of them available to attack us domestically. Why is this hard to understand?

[The idea]

Originally posted by demon
"I'd rather we brought the terrorists to Iraq so we don't have to face them at home".
Indulging this ludicrous notion for a moment, logically it follows that Bush is admitting his policy is to use the men, women and children of Iraq, like a angler uses maggots, as bait: to *definitely* ensure hundreds of Iraqis die horribly as their country is turned into a terrorist playground, [...]

Was Bush literally talking about transporting suspected terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to Iraq (for example) or was he simply talking about a side effect of having removed Saddam Hussein from power? If he was talking about the latter, then are you actually claiming that to have removed Saddam Hussein from a position of authority over the people of Iraq is to have used the people of Iraq like maggots?

Originally posted by demon
[...] all so that his own superior version of humanity are that little bit safer.

[...]

he is pandering to a racism that regards Iraqis as subhuman and dispensable cannon fodder when he uses that line. [...]
Suppose 4,000 people have become refugees and two countries agree to take in 2,000 each. As leader of one of those two countries, you tell your country that you are going to act as quickly as possible to select and transport the 2,000 who will go to your country. You put forward two arguments:
(1) The refugees need help as soon as possible.
(2) By getting first pick, you can avoid undesirables. For example, you can reduce the odds that some of the people of your country will be victimized by refugees who might commit crimes.

Would you argue that (2) is racist? If some of the refugees are going to commit crimes and you avoid getting them in your country, then the other country will get them.

However, in this situation we haven't even established that the people of the two countries are people of two different races. If they are the same race, then it is absurd to cry "racism." However, if they are different races, that fact might be irrelevant. As leader, you may be simply trying -- without doing anything unethical -- to do what is for the benefit of the people of your country.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
No, it doesn't. Italy's withdrawal was announced a long time ago. There's been some quibbling over the precise timing, but never over the decision to withdraw (part of their forces.)


You over analyse in the rest, but if you don't think announcing this two days after London is not an obvious signal to the terrorists that they have suceeded better than they could have hoped, then you are ......

The Phillipinoes and the Spaniards, and a few others, proved to the terrorists that this works well as a political tool, and those who think otherwise are craven apologists for the do nothing wimps.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Elind
You over analyse in the rest, but if you don't think announcing this two days after London is not an obvious signal to the terrorists that they have suceeded better than they could have hoped, then you are ......

Except that he did not "announce" it. It had already been announced, he merely repeated it. Now, repeating this point so soon after the attack is perhaps not the smartest political move and might on the surface give the impression that it comes as a result of the attack, but that notion is easily dismissed by pointing out that the decision was taken before the attack.

The Phillipinoes and the Spaniards, and a few others, proved to the terrorists that this works well as a political tool, and those who think otherwise are craven apologists for the do nothing wimps.

Well, thank you for that insult, and let me repay you by inviting you to a long visit in my ignore list.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
...The 'flypaper' strategy does make sense - it should be obvious that there are a finite number of trained AL Qaeda thugs.How is it "obvious?"If Iraq is attracting a portion of these, it logically follows that there will be fewer of them available to attack us domestically. Why is this hard to understand? Perhaps because it is illogical.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It had nothing to do with 9/11. If the US had stuck to Afghanistan, I think there would be a huge difference in perceptions. Opening up Iraq as a battleground has only made things worse in the WOT. This seems incontrovertible to me.

After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the return of the "Afghanis" was first felt in countries such as Egypt, Algeria and Saudi Arabia. (The overspill of the Mujahadeen war in Afghanistan was first felt in Kashmir, of course.) The US didn't pay much attention until the embassy bombings in Africa, but after 9/11 they did something about the metastasising cancer that was Afghanistan. Without that base-area the "Afghans" were fragmented and a dying (readily) breed.

Victory or defeat in Iraq, this new cancer will see "Iraqis" returning to their homelands with experience, new contacts and kudos in the eyes of susceptible young Muslims. Afghanistan was a failed state, Iraq is a not-yet-successful one. The effect is the same.

Had the US spent a fraction of the money and ordnance on Afghanistan as they have on Iraq the place would really be a glowing testament to democracy and freedom, unlike the facade in Iraq which is a testament to hubris.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The 'flypaper' strategy does make sense - it should be obvious that there are a finite number of trained AL Qaeda thugs. If Iraq is attracting a portion of these, it logically follows that there will be fewer of them available to attack us domestically. Why is this hard to understand? If Iraq is attracting untrained potential to a site where they can receive both training and experience that "finite number" goes up. Some of those attracted will be intercepted by recruiters before they get there, because they have desirable attributes in their home societies. They might stick out like rednecks in Iraq, but they're unremarkable on the Tube. The Soviets did the same with such recruits as Kim Philby, who was much more useful in the role he appeared perfect for than as a member of the CP.

When the Soviets were in Afghanistan it was a magnet and inspiration for wannabe jihadists; when the Coalition did for the Taliban after 9/11 it wasn't. Iraq is. What's more, Iraq isn't stuck away in the Hindu Kush, and it's Arab. The wooden-tops that brought this to you should be admonished, then shot. Not re-elected.

[crackmonkey]

If Iraq is attracting untrained potential to a site where they can receive both training and experience that "finite number" goes up

True, but the training and experience would no doubt be of far less value than that imparted by the AL Qaeda terror schools in Afghanistan. There will always be a threat from domestic terrorists who use relatively crude methods. There isn;t much one can do to prevent this. What Bush apparently tried to do was to attract the cream of the terrorist crop to Iraq. Those who graduated from AL Qaeda U. are vastly more dangerous and better trained than the typical domestic wannabe. By attracting the better-trained, organized, and funded thugs overseas, he's depleting the threat at home. And while there may be some training of recruits in Iraq, it's doubtless much more cursory, being in a war zone and having to operate in secret.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
What Bush apparently tried to do was to attract the cream of the terrorist crop to Iraq. Are you saying this was actually the plan? Not WMD, not an already-existing linkage with al Qaeda, but a bigger and better tar-baby? W(here)TF was that in the manifesto?

[crackmonkey]

You are excitable, aren't you? No, that is not what I'm saying at all. By no means are the above exclusive.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
You are excitable, aren't you? No, that is not what I'm saying at all. By no means are the above exclusive. Are you saying it was part of the original plan? To make the US military effective against terrorism by drawing terrorists onto the US military? If so, it was never presented that way to the electorate, which is the least you should expect in a democracy.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Are you saying it was part of the original plan? To make the US military effective against terrorism by drawing terrorists onto the US military? If so, it was never presented that way to the electorate, which is the least you should expect in a democracy.

Sometimes when a plan requires a certain behavior from the enemy, it's best not to divulge it's details publicly or they might not cooperate.

I'm not claiming this was Bush's strategy, only that if it was, it would be stupid to present it to the electorate.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Chaos
Actually, I think the real problem with that idea is "With what ethical justification are ´we´ (whoever ´we´ is) putting innocent Iraqi civilians in the line of fire and getting them killed in staggering numbers, in order to protect ´our´ own innocent civilians?".

A very important point, and one that appears to be overlooked in the ethno centric American view of the world.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
A very important point, and one that appears to be overlooked in the ethno centric American view of the world.

As opposed to those who would think nothing of risking Iraqi civil war should we just pull out tomorrow?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Sometimes when a plan requires a certain behavior from the enemy, it's best not to divulge it's details publicly or they might not cooperate.

I'm not claiming this was Bush's strategy, only that if it was, it would be stupid to present it to the electorate.

Refer Chaos' point. Pick a nice mark, like Iraq, to do this in. The collateral damage is unfortunately a part of war, isn't it?

The truth is, of course, that Bush and the neo-cons thought it was pretty much over with that speech on the aircraft carrier. Their ignorance and lack of forsight was amazing. Cooler heads tried to warn them, in their own administration.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Refer Chaos' point. Pick a nice mark, like Iraq, to do this in. The collateral damage is unfortunately a part of war, isn't it?

Leaving them under the rule of Saddam carried a lot of collateral damage too, but that didn't concern you two years ago.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The truth is, of course, that Bush and the neo-cons thought it was pretty much over with that speech on the aircraft carrier. Their ignorance and lack of forsight was amazing. Cooler heads tried to warn them, in their own administration.

You can't have it both ways. If the plan was to fight "them" over there, then it makes no sense to say Bush believed the fight was over with the speech on the aircraft carrier.

Which, IIRC is why they said at the time it wasn't over.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Leaving them under the rule of Saddam carried a lot of collateral damage too, but that didn't concern you two years ago.



A lie.



You can't have it both ways. If the plan was to fight "them" over there, then it makes no sense to say Bush believed the fight was over with the speech on the aircraft carrier.

Which, IIRC is why they said at the time it wasn't over.

I'm not trying to have it both ways, you are. The post hoc rationalisations for what has happened always seem to fit exactly what has happened.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
A lie.

Really? Well if you were for the war against Iraq on humanitarian grounds, you've done a good job of hiding it.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I'm not trying to have it both ways, you are. The post hoc rationalisations for what has happened always seem to fit exactly what has happened.

You can't simultaneously claim "the plan" which involves making Iraq a target for terrorist migration is evidence of American ethno-centric indiference to human life while claiming "the plan" was for the fighting to be all over with that speech on the Abraham Lincoln. The two are mutually exclusive.

[a_unique_person]

There are numerous countries around the world that concern me. Iraq is just one.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Except that he did not "announce" it. It had already been announced, he merely repeated it. Now, repeating this point so soon after the attack is perhaps not the smartest political move and might on the surface give the impression that it comes as a result of the attack, but that notion is easily dismissed by pointing out that the decision was taken before the attack.



Well, thank you for that insult, and let me repay you by inviting you to a long visit in my ignore list.

That's a good idea, if you think the above excuse is just "perhaps not the smartest move". I think it is craven cave-in and the Italians are idiots if they think it will not be celebrated as a major victory from London.

I'll ignore your craven comments if you ignore mine. OK.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Really? Well if you were for the war against Iraq on humanitarian grounds, you've done a good job of hiding it.



I was against the war on several grounds. So was Colin Powell, if I read him correctly. I repeatedly attribute motivations to myself that are purely your inventions.




You can't simultaneously claim "the plan" which involves making Iraq a target for terrorist migration is evidence of American ethno-centric indiference to human life while claiming "the plan" was for the fighting to be all over with that speech on the Abraham Lincoln. The two are mutually exclusive.

The motivation for fighting the war in Iraq rather than the USA has been raised as a reason for the invasion. I did not invent it, but several people appear to use it, even if it is just a post hoc rationalisation.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The motivation for fighting the war in Iraq rather than the USA has been raised as a reason for the invasion. I did not invent it, but several people appear to use it, even if it is just a post hoc rationalisation.

Are you saying you do or do not believe it then?

This is the problem with vague generalities. At some point if you want to argue an opinion you may have to be specific about what that opinion is.

[Lucky]

From Leif Roar:
Except that he did not "announce" it. It had already been announced, he merely repeated it. Now, repeating this point so soon after the attack is perhaps not the smartest political move and might on the surface give the impression that it comes as a result of the attack, but that notion is easily dismissed by pointing out that the decision was taken before the attack.I generally respect your posts as well thought out and sensible (only too rare in this forum!), but I cannot agree with you on this. Berlusconi did not ‘merely repeat’ his declaration, and as for dismissing the notion that the announcement is in response to the bombings ‘by pointing out that the decision was taken before the attack’, I am sure that will cut as much ice with islamist terrorists as it does with me. As The Guardian points out (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1524781,00.html):Doubts over the government's policies surged into the open in March when an Italian intelligence officer was shot dead by US troops while on a hostage rescue mission.

Shortly afterwards Mr Berlusconi spoke for the first time of a troop withdrawal in the autumn.

Speaking on television, he said: "A progressive reduction of the presence of our soldiers will start from September."

However, following a telephone call from President Bush Mr Berlusconi changed his stance, saying troop withdrawal was merely "a hope".And now, immediately following the London bombings, he has changed his stance back again, taking the first opportunity to publicly promise the earliest possible start to troop withdrawal. True there is nothing strictly new in what he said; it is a change of emphasis. But it is beyond reason to suggest that this emphasis is not a direct response to the bombings.

Now, you might argue that the Italian government is right to put the immediate security interests of its people before anything else, and disregard the wider consequences. That is a perfectly valid point of view (though I don’t share it). Instead, you are trying to hold on to a position that is not tenable, and I am wondering why. (I am trying to provoke you into reconsidering your view; I hope I haven’t provoked you into putting me on your ignore list!)

By the way, I was very much against the war in Iraq, which I regarded as completely unjustified and a dangerous diversion from the war against terrorism. But I am against an immediate pullout, as anything is better than giving in to terrorism. I think we will find that to be the view of the majority of the British people.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Lucky
But I am against an immediate pullout, as anything is better than giving in to terrorism. I think we will find that to be the view of the majority of the British people. I wouldn't be too sure about that. The picture painted here, and probably valid, is that "our" bit of Iraq is in much better shape than the US sector and we can start handing over to the locals very soon. A complete pull-out is unlikely, the British have a long tradition of military "advisors" in the region, but I think we'll be seeing the UK reduce troop-levels before the US does.

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in Berlusconi's "change of stance" after Bush's phone-call. There may have been other statements, from other parts of the government, for local consumption. My Italian's not that good, sadly, so it remains a mere suspicion.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Mycroft
You can't simultaneously claim "the plan" which involves making Iraq a target for terrorist migration is evidence of American ethno-centric indiference to human life while claiming "the plan" was for the fighting to be all over with that speech on the Abraham Lincoln. The two are mutually exclusive. a-unique_person is referring to post-hoc justifications, not "the plan". It's use as a post-hoc justification is the evidence of ethno-centrism since it demonstrates complete blindness to the implications. One of which is that the US has drawn this terrorism - which is now overwhelmingly aimed at Iraqis, particularly Shi'a - onto Iraqis to protect themselves. To many Americans that may seem perfectly reasonable, but to non-Americans it doesn't.

All the evidence is that this administration really did think the fighting was all over when Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished". It was a serious shot-in-the-foot if they didn't. Post-hoc justifications cropped up after that event.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
a-unique_person is referring to post-hoc justifications, not "the plan". It's use as a post-hoc justification is the evidence of ethno-centrism since it demonstrates complete blindness to the implications. One of which is that the US has drawn this terrorism - which is now overwhelmingly aimed at Iraqis, particularly Shi'a - onto Iraqis to protect themselves. To many Americans that may seem perfectly reasonable, but to non-Americans it doesn't.

Except he never said that. He said, "Pick a nice mark, like Iraq, to do this in. The collateral damage is unfortunately a part of war, isn't it?"

The implication is the US is bad for drawing this collateral damage onto Iraq, he never says if...then...

Originally posted by CapelDodger
All the evidence is that this administration really did think the fighting was all over when Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished". It was a serious shot-in-the-foot if they didn't. Post-hoc justifications cropped up after that event.

Except the administration denied at the time that the hostilities were over.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Except the administration denied at the time that the hostilities were over. Yes, isn't it great? They said "mission accomplished" and "denied at the time that the hostilities were over".

So they were telling the truth whatever happened. And, indeed, they were lying whatever happened, but you don't place much stress on that.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Yes, isn't it great? They said "mission accomplished" and "denied at the time that the hostilities were over".

So they were telling the truth whatever happened. And, indeed, they were lying whatever happened, but you don't place much stress on that.

I voted against this administration both times, and still recognize that it's incorrect to claim they meant "Mission Accomplished" when he made that speech. It was explained at the time that the banner wasn't Bush's idea, so it's dishonest to claim it was.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I voted against this administration both times, and still recognize that it's incorrect to claim they meant "Mission Accomplished" ... Yeah, it does very much depend what the meaning of "is" is. And it would be dishonest to say that Clinton said "is" when he meant "is" and not "is".

But of course Clinton didn't provide himself with the wonderful escape clause you seem to have thought of. If only he'd though to explain at the time that what he was saying wasn't true. Then he could have lied and been vindicated subsequently.

If only Nixon had admitted the Watergate burglary straight away. Then he could have denied it, and at the time explained tht he was responsible. And then at the same time, his denial would have been plausible and there would have been no cover-up.

But this sort of head-spinning game with lies and truth only had to be invented to excuse G.W.B.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Yeah, it does very much depend what the meaning of "is" is. And it would be dishonest to say that Clinton said "is" when he meant "is" and not "is".

But of course Clinton didn't provide himself with the wonderful escape clause you seem to have thought of. If only he'd though to explain at the time that what he was saying wasn't true. Then he could have lied and been vindicated subsequently.

If only Nixon had admitted the Watergate burglary straight away. Then he could have denied it, and at the time explained tht he was responsible. And then at the same time, his denial would have been plausible and there would have been no cover-up.

But this sort of head-spinning game with lies and truth only had to be invented to excuse G.W.B.

None of which addressed anything I said.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Mycroft
None of which addressed anything I said. Except maybe this:I voted against this administration both times, and still recognize that it's incorrect to claim they meant "Mission Accomplished" when he made that speech. It was explained at the time that the banner wasn't Bush's idea, so it's dishonest to claim it was. What are you getting at?

You point out that the administration made two different claims. They publicised only one. And now the fact that in between shouting lies they also told the truth in a whisper becomes a vindication of their honesty. How come?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Lucky
[SNIP]True there is nothing strictly new in what he said; it is a change of emphasis. But it is beyond reason to suggest that this emphasis is not a direct response to the bombings.

I really don't see why that should be "beyond reason," particularly since this is a limited withdrawal; the size and timing of the withdrawal corresponds to (some) earlier signals, there was really not time enough between the London bombings and Berlusconi's statement for there to have been a change of policy (particularly with Berlusconi busy with the G8 meeting) and since Berlusconi emphasised in his statement that this was not a new decision, that it was a partial withdrawal and that Italy would "stay the course." That's not an emphasis that would serve to plactate terrorists.

Of course, Berlusconi claiming that the decision to start withdrawal in Septemer wasn't in response to the London bombing is no proof that it wasn't, but then there's not evidence that it was either beyond the timing.

Look at Reuter's report (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleSearch.aspx?storyID=213017+08-Jul-2005+RTRS&srch=berlusconi):

[Berlusconi] shrugged off calls from back home, including from within his own government, to speed up the troop pullout following the deadly bomb attacks in London on Thursday. "We have to fulfil our commitments and cannot leave the job half done," Berlusconi told a news conference.

"As far as our troop withdrawal goes, the situation has not changed. We will begin, as I have already announced, a partial withdrawal of around 300 troops in September," he added.

(I haven't been able to find a detailed resume of the news conference, but note in particular Reuter's use of the phrase "calls from back home," which indicates that his statements came as a respone -- either to questions from the audience, or from external statements or criticism that he himself had referred to just prior.)

As I've said before, it might not have been the smartest thing to say at the time, but I really see no compelling evidence that Italy's decision comes as a response to the bombs in London.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
As I've said before, it might not have been the smartest thing to say at the time, but I really see no compelling evidence that Italy's decision comes as a response to the bombs in London.

No, but it's likely to be interpreted that way, which is the problem, really, isn't it?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Except maybe this: What are you getting at?

You point out that the administration made two different claims. They publicised only one. And now the fact that in between shouting lies they also told the truth in a whisper becomes a vindication of their honesty. How come?

It's not a vindication of their honesty, I think this administration has been dishonest in many ways. This just doesn't happen to be one of them. If you're going to damn them, damn them for something they really did.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner was placed by the crew of the aircraft carrier, not by the Bush administration. This was explained at the time. To try to make it retroactively a statement of the Bush administration is either ignorance or dishonesty.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Mycroft
...The "Mission Accomplished" banner was placed by the crew of the aircraft carrier, not by the Bush administration. This was explained at the time. To try to make it retroactively a statement of the Bush administration is either ignorance or dishonesty. Are you suggesting that the crew (meaning the commanding officer) acted independently, without the approval (tacit or otherwise) of the administration (meaning Bush, or more likely Rove)?

Seems to me that all stage-managed events--especially at the presidential level--are just that. Nothing is arbitrary or accidental or left to chance.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Are you suggesting that the crew (meaning the commanding officer) acted independently, without the approval (tacit or otherwise) of the administration (meaning Bush, or more likely Rove)?

Yes.

If not, why else would they have disavowed it at the time? If the message they had truly wanted to send was "it's over" they would have affirmed it instead.

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Seems to me that all stage-managed events--especially at the presidential level--are just that. Nothing is arbitrary or accidental or left to chance.

So we believe our President can bungle his way into a war we shouldn't be involved in and even doing that wrong, ignoring the advice of all his best experts, yet we're going to assume infalability when it comes to a PR event.

No, somebody didn't think it through, that's what they said at the time, and there is no reason not to believe it. If we're going to call him an idiot and a liar, let's look to his policies on social security or stem cell research.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Are you suggesting that the crew (meaning the commanding officer) acted independently, without the approval (tacit or otherwise) of the administrationYES.

'Mission Accomplished' Whodunit - CBS NEWS - Oct. 29, 2003 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/29/iraq/main580661.shtml) When it was brought up again Tuesday at a news conference, Mr. Bush said, "The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished."

Later, a Pentagon spokesman called The Associated Press to reiterate that the banner was the crew's idea.

"It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew," Navy Cmdr. Conrad Chun said, adding the president's visit marked the end of the ship's 10-month international deployment.So next time the Democrats or moveon.org or a pundit uses the 'Mission Accomplished' sign as anti-Bush ammunition remember they are simply misrepresenting the truth.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Are you suggesting that the crew (meaning the commanding officer) acted independently, without the approval (tacit or otherwise) of the administration (meaning Bush, or more likely Rove)?

Seems to me that all stage-managed events--especially at the presidential level--are just that. Nothing is arbitrary or accidental or left to chance. The banner is irrelevant, despite it receiving so much attention. The real issue is that the speech itself said this: "my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html

[Mycroft]

Thank you Z-N. Once again you come through with a link to demonstrate what we should all know. Someday maybe you will give me some pointers on how you keep them so handy, I think I could learn from you. :)

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by kimiko
The banner is irrelevant, despite it receiving so much attention. The real issue is that the speech itself said this: "my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html

Well, yes--but that is significantly different than saying that the Iraq mission is accomplished in the sense of "no more fighting". Clearly what was meant is that the war with Saddam's battalions have been finished, which was precisely the case.

It's another one of Bush's "lies" that were more deliberate misrepresntations by the press than anything else.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Thank you Z-N. Once again you come through with a link to demonstrate what we should all know. Someday maybe you will give me some pointers on how you keep them so handy, I think I could learn from you. :) I'll give you a hint...it made Sergey Brin and Larry Page billionaires. ;)

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by kimiko
The banner is irrelevant, despite it receiving so much attention. The real issue is that the speech itself said this: "my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html Major combat operations in Iraq were at an end, America had taken the country. They didn't control it entirely but Saddams forces were toast. I guess if one was so inclined - and so many are - they could debate the semantics of Bush's use of the word major...and at the same time they could also debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. ;)

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I voted against this administration both times, and still recognize that it's incorrect to claim they meant "Mission Accomplished" when he made that speech. It was explained at the time that the banner wasn't Bush's idea, so it's dishonest to claim it was. Who would be so deluded as to think that Bush has ever had an idea of his own? There would have been advance parties there, not just security but poitical, Rove's Rovers .:) They would have complete control over such matters as stage-dressing, and would surely have been aware of the implications of the banner. Combined with the "major combat operations are over" - there have been some since, of course, such as Faluja - gives a clear message that any sophist can wriggle away from later. Just like "We've never linked Iraq and 9/11, we just keep referring to them in the same sentence."

No wonder you didn't vote for them.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by richardm
No, but it's likely to be interpreted that way, which is the problem, really, isn't it? If the bombing altered the normal course of Italian political life, wouldn't that also be a problem?

[Elind]

Originally posted by richardm
No, but it's likely to be interpreted that way, which is the problem, really, isn't it? Not mention that Berlusconi is going to be interpreted as a bumbling idiot, if one insists on maintaining that he is not simply untrustworthy.

[Elind]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Major combat operations in Iraq were at an end, America had taken the country. They didn't control it entirely but Saddams forces were toast. I guess if one was so inclined - and so many are - they could debate the semantics of Bush's use of the word major...and at the same time they could also debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. ;)

But where would these threads go, if we didn't have semantics guaranteed to liven up a dying discussion?;)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Who would be so deluded as to think that Bush has ever had an idea of his own? There would have been advance parties there, not just security but poitical, Rove's Rovers .:) They would have complete control over such matters as stage-dressing, and would surely have been aware of the implications of the banner. Combined with the "major combat operations are over" - there have been some since, of course, such as Faluja - gives a clear message that any sophist can wriggle away from later. Just like "We've never linked Iraq and 9/11, we just keep referring to them in the same sentence."

No wonder you didn't vote for them.

Your speculation is fine for a writer of fiction, but when we can actually go back and read what these people said about the banner at the time, I'll go with the evidence.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Yes.

If not, why else would they have disavowed it at the time?A little pre-emptive plausible deniability, perhaps?If the message they had truly wanted to send was "it's over" they would have affirmed it instead.Maybe. I'm not familiar with the timeline of events, nor does it much matter to me. As I said in my last post, nothing having to do with a presidential appearance (certainly not this president, for whom campaign stops, stump speeches and the like are notoriously tightly controlled) is left to chance.So we believe our President can bungle his way into a war we shouldn't be involved in and even doing that wrong, ignoring the advice of all his best experts, yet we're going to assume infalability when it comes to a PR event.You're suggesting a point of view (or argument) that is not mine. Still, a person (or the person's p.r. team) can be brilliant or incompetent and arrogant at the same time.No, somebody didn't think it through, that's what they said at the time, and there is no reason not to believe it.Again, as I indicated, there's reason, by way of common sense.

Incidentally, was this not also the appearance where Mr. Bush hopped a fighter out to the carrier and then walked the deck in his flight suit? The one where they also made sure to arrange the ship so that the photo/video background showed the ocean, rather than the very nearby coast on the other side? If so, or even if not, it serves to illustrate my point.It's a small matter, but If we're going to call him an idiot and a liar, let's look to his policies on social security or stem cell research. Once again, please don't put words in my mouth; I'm not calling him an idiot or a liar. I'm discussing the M.A. banner.

[Regnad Kcin]

When it was brought up again Tuesday at a news conference, Mr. Bush said, "The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished."

Later, a Pentagon spokesman called The Associated Press to reiterate that the banner was the crew's idea.

"It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew," Navy Cmdr. Conrad Chun said, adding the president's visit marked the end of the ship's 10-month international deployment.Is it customary for such a banner to be created?

If the administration were already taking heat on the banner (again, without a timeline of events, I'm in speculative mode) it's easy to see how various "yeah-buts" could be generated. If, however, the banner were met with all manner of cheers, I'd wager you would've found the opposite to be true. Originally posted by zenith-nadir
So next time the Democrats or moveon.org or a pundit uses the 'Mission Accomplished' sign as anti-Bush ammunition remember they are simply misrepresenting the truth. Or maybe not.

[demon]

Don`t you just love this?

It`s so bloody obvious what the message was meant to be when Bush appeared on global TV with that banner behind him. He was basking in victory in his little fighter pilot uniform.
When are people gonna stop defending this sort of twaddle?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by kimiko
The banner is irrelevant, despite it receiving so much attention. The real issue is that the speech itself said this: "my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html Which seems to me to have been the theme to the whole shebang. The speech and the banner were complementary.

And it's true: major operations, at that stage, were finished. It's just unfortunate that what might've indeed been a natural expression of pride was usurped by an over-zealous administration spin machine.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Is it customary for such a banner to be created?

If the administration were already taking heat on the banner (again, without a timeline of events, I'm in speculative mode) it's easy to see how various "yeah-buts" could be generated. If, however, the banner were met with all manner of cheers, I'd wager you would've found the opposite to be true. Or maybe not.

In context the banner made perfect sense to the crew. Their mission was accomplished, their ten month deployment was over.

If you wanted to tell a nation that a war was over, would you choose a banner in the background of a speech? No. Occams razor should sort this out in no time.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Mycroft
...If you wanted to tell a nation that a war was over, would you choose a banner in the background of a speech? No. Occams razor should sort this out in no time. You're presupposing that someone wanted to tell the nation that the war was over. Who suggested that?

What I am saying is that, at the time, the administration believed (and repeatedly stated) that our forces would be welcomed in Iraq once the shock and awe portion was completed and Saddam was overthrown. That last portion having been accomplished, they believed the first portion would soon follow. By this way of thinking (which we now so clearly see was on the shortsighted side), they were doing a little victory dance. That's cool, but it was hasty and, as such, looks a bit foolish in hindsight.

As is often said, better to under-promise and over-deliver than the other way around.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
You're presupposing that someone wanted to tell the nation that the war was over. Who suggested that?

What I am saying is that, at the time, the administration believed (and repeatedly stated) that our forces would be welcomed in Iraq once the shock and awe portion was completed and Saddam was overthrown. That last portion having been accomplished, they believed the first portion would soon follow.

Then criticize them for that. The banner, however, doesn't support it.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by demon
...It`s so bloody obvious what the message was meant to be when Bush appeared on global TV with that banner behind him...Seems simple enough. And, as I've said, not so much dastardly as over-exuberant. Ham-handed p.r..

And it doesn't matter the original intent behind the banner's creation, it's what it was given (by the presidential team) to mean.When are people gonna stop defending this sort of twaddle? Say, is that a winged porker I see? ;)

[Regnad Kcin]

I want to revisit this for a moment.Originally posted by Mycroft
In context the banner made perfect sense to the crew. Their mission was accomplished, their ten month deployment was over.Why must the two be exclusive?If you wanted to tell a nation that a war was over, would you choose a banner in the background of a speech?Why not?No. Occams razor should sort this out in no time. For you, evidently. To me, Occam's suggests the opposite.