[karajorma]

Sorry to hear that Dan. Hope he's somewhere safe with his mobile turned off or something.

Originally posted by Liberator
Study history, every time Hitler made an aggressive move from 1938 until late into 1939, Europe's answer to his aggression was negotiation and appeasment.

Appeament does little but strengthen the enemy and make you look weak, if not actually doing so.

Try studying current affairs why don't you.

Look at Northern Ireland. Do you think that the British government has been appeasing the IRA?  There's a big difference between appeasment and negotiations.

Appeasment is idiotic and not a single person on this thread has suggested it. Stop attempting to set up a strawman.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Sigma957
Indeed, Africa is a hotspot that  is being overlooked by most major governments because the africans are fighting each other. When/if their attention is drawn elsewhere thats when the **** will hit the fan.

Well, at least, we tried to help things and correct the wrongs we've done in our old colonies. They just don't really want help. We're actually trying to help conflicts between them ( I personnally don't think we should, but that's another matter). I don't think these guys are so bitter against us, they're still celebrating french cultural things when I would completly understand they would dispise them instead. Hell, taking about the more sensitive North Africa issues, we're even in good terms with Algeria now.
Just don't be so paranoid, not everybody is after us or going to be, you know .

[Flipside]

If these people were doing this for a reason, I would be inclined to agree with the whole 'talk' thing. But I have yet to see any other reason given that 'to bring the War in Iraq and Afghanistan to the UK'. Which isn't so much a reason as a rather transparent excuse for being bloodthirsty bastards.

The UK public were quite well known for being somewhat divided over the entire Terrorism/War affair, it was that pressure, I feel, that kept Blair very much on his toes to make sure he was honest and that British troops behaved themselves in Iraq. All these people have done is polarised yet another country against them, simply generated more hatred for themselves,  which I think is what they want, a twisted, evil kind of fame.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator


Study history, every time Hitler made an aggressive move from 1938 until late into 1939, Europe's answer to his aggression was negotiation and appeasment.

Appeament does little but strengthen the enemy and make you look weak, if not actually doing so.

That's a completely daft analogy.  

Firstly, appeasement was against a singular enemy who could be fought militarily; terrorism is an ideology which cannot be fought via military means (because terrorists won't just pop up on an open battleground to be shot).  The Nazi analogy seems to be frequently dragged up, but it's about as analogous to the current situation as comparing Pol Pot to a rise in youth crime.

Secondly, no-one has suggested anything even akin to appeasement, unless you regard all forms of diplomacy and compromise as that.  For the most part, it's not even suggesting talking to terrorists - just recognising the concerns of the Arab world and the damage our foreign policy can and has done to them (and thus how we have raised support for terrorism against the West - as confirmed by a CIA report citing that the Iraq war was producing a new wave of Jihadist terrorists, potentially larger and worse than the Soviets in Afghanistan).

Thirdly, you can't combat an ideology using methods which support it; invading Muslim countries in police actions only acts to reinforce the claims that the US, UK and rest of western world are 'crusading zionists'.  (there's an anecdote I've heard from a journalist kidnapped in Iraq; during the 2004 US elections they wanted Bush to win as it would bring more conflict and thus support).

finally, and most importantly IMO - this is not a black and white situation.  It is simply not the case that the only 2 options we have are to either invade militarily every country that doesn't like us (without changing ourselves or listening why), or to 'surrender' (in whatever way that may be perceived).  Only idiots take black and white, us and them style perspectives, because the world operates in shades of gray.

@dan
That's terrible.  I have no idea what you must be going through.  I just hope your worst fears aren't realised.

[dan87uk]

thank god, my uncle is ok, he was knocked out by the blast and got cuts on his body and concusion but he is ok, he only jus bin released from hospital, his phone was damaged by the bomb thts why we cudnt contact him....im really relieved

[Flipside]

Glad to hear that Dan, I wish your uncle a speedy recovery

[dan87uk]

cheers

[NGTM-1R]

Originally posted by aldo_14

Thirdly, you can't combat an ideology using methods which support it; invading Muslim countries in police actions only acts to reinforce the claims that the US, UK and rest of western world are 'crusading zionists'.  (there's an anecdote I've heard from a journalist kidnapped in Iraq; during the 2004 US elections they wanted Bush to win as it would bring more conflict and thus support).

The problem is that some, perhaps even most, of these people are simply too committed to their ideology to back down. Either you have to deprive them of the means to act, or you have to kill them.

No method for depriving them of the means to act has yet presented itself; and in truth this may not be possible from outside the movement itself. It's only proved effective for the IRA in controlling its own members.

Thus any progress towards elimination of terrorist symptoms (attacks) must be achieved by killing the folks who cause them. Which might create more of the folks who cause them. Conversely allowing them successes without consequence also might cause more of them.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

[Ford Prefect]

I was at my college orientation when this happened, so I heard about it late.

Sucks.

[Flipside]

The thing is, if we dealt with the original cause of Terrorism, the oppression that the PLO and other organisations were fighting against, then the 'new age' Terrorists would not have a cause to fight for. If you can remove the gauze that the coward hides behind, then he is seen to be a coward. Then, if terrorist attacks continue, they can simply be shown to be the animals who thirst for blood that they appear to be.

I'm not talking about Iraqi farmers who have been told that the Americans are coming to rape their daughters, I'm talking about someone who uses other people as weapons, and who plots to kill people who's only true 'crime' was to be born in a country in the Western hemisphere, or merely to have moved there, since a fair number of the people hurt were immigrants who worked or studied in the area. Interesting how they set the bombs off in one of the most multi-cultural areas of London, shows what their opinion of the children of any God is.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by dan87uk
thank god, my uncle is ok, he was knocked out by the blast and got cuts on his body and concusion but he is ok, he only jus bin released from hospital, his phone was damaged by the bomb thts why we cudnt contact him....im really relieved

So I was close to the reason then Glad to hear that he's okay Dan.

Originally posted by ngtm1r


The problem is that some, perhaps even most, of these people are simply too committed to their ideology to back down. Either you have to deprive them of the means to act, or you have to kill them.

No method for depriving them of the means to act has yet presented itself; and in truth this may not be possible from outside the movement itself. It's only proved effective for the IRA in controlling its own members.

It might be worth remembering that this is the second wave of fundementalist terror. The first one was mostly confined to fighting secularism and western influence in the middle east. It failed spectacularly precisely because it sickened the general population of the country so much that they lost the popular support.

That is also exactly why the IRA had to give up in the end. They eventually lost the support of the common people who were sick of the cycle of violence. The leadership may have been responsible for calling off the bombing but that was in response to the fact that no one supported them.

The same sort of thing happened to ETA. They killed the wrong person and after a million people protested they pretty much gave up and have been pretty quiet recently.

The same thing can happen here but not while the west is continually stirring up resentment. Terrorist movements can't be stopped with force alone. you need to stop the grass roots support for it.

[vyper]

To those who were arguing over blaming Bush/Blair:

The case for their indictment as fools with blood on their hands is not one that claims we created an increase in terrorism by invading Iraq. The argument is that invading Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with stopping these terrorists (who saw Saddam as a weak, nigh secular leader who was "as bad" as any western leader). It did not challenge al-Queda or any other militant islamic fundamentalist group. It did not impede their ability to wage war on our civilians. It did not promote a positive image of the west in the east. Iraq was a sideshow to keep us entertained, and still is.  

Put simply, they are guilty of letting this happen by doing nothing truly productive to prevent it. We invaded Iraq, and instead of protecting Britain from state-sponsored terror of NBC weapons, we have been given plane after plane of coffins with union jacks on top.

Now, we have paid the price at home for our inaction, and for allowing our leaders to put on this charade. I am pro-war - but it has to be the right war, against the right people, or it's a waste of resources we cannot afford to waste.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ngtm1r


The problem is that some, perhaps even most, of these people are simply too committed to their ideology to back down. Either you have to deprive them of the means to act, or you have to kill them.

No method for depriving them of the means to act has yet presented itself; and in truth this may not be possible from outside the movement itself. It's only proved effective for the IRA in controlling its own members.

Thus any progress towards elimination of terrorist symptoms (attacks) must be achieved by killing the folks who cause them. Which might create more of the folks who cause them. Conversely allowing them successes without consequence also might cause more of them.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Those are the people that get the 'stick' approach - but remember we still have the carrot.

Ultimately, the die-hards will always find an excuse - but it'll be a lot easier for them to act with public support; communities to hide in (or simple people who give shelter), people who give funding to them, people who facilitate their communication, and soforth.

If you work at removing the foundations of terrorism - the legitimate grievances that give them support - you'll erode their ability to act freely and the support that stops them being turned in.  As it stands we're doing more to strengthen than weaken that support; the reason that killing them is creating them is because of the way they're being targeted.  

We've sacrificed thousands of Iraqi lives as collateral damage to prevent a hypothetical attack; more people have died in these wars than in 9/11, Madrid, Istanbul, London etc combined, so we had our pound of flesh a long time ago (not that the poor bastards cought in the crossfire were guilty of anything beyond livingwhere they lived).  So we're not exactly looking any better than the terrorist are.

Originally posted by dan87uk
thank god, my uncle is ok, he was knocked out by the blast and got cuts on his body and concusion but he is ok, he only jus bin released from hospital, his phone was damaged by the bomb thts why we cudnt contact him....im really relieved

Good to hear he's ok.

[Clave]

I am TOTALLY against appeasment or whatever you want to call it, and would happily see every terrorist put up against a wall and shot, BUT you can't do that, it's not a 'war' as such, so you either have to outwit them before the event or catch them afterwards by normal police methods.  

Now, they must want something, everybody does...so all I was suggesting was to find out what they want and see if it is reasonable...  

If it is NOT reasonable, then the hunt goes on, and we wait for the next lot of bombs to go off, and the cycle continues.

If it IS reasonable then some compromise may be reached, I have no idea what, but it worked with the IRA and decomissioning of their weapons, so 'maybe' something could be done.

I am not saying that we 'cave in' just that we learn something - It took 30 years and 3,000+ deaths to reach settlement with the IRA, so assuming the increased effectiveness of these well-funded groups, at what point do you start talking to them? 10,000 civilian deaths? 50,000? a million? what?....

Oh, and if you think a million is histrionics, remember this the Black Death killed 14 million...

[Kosh]

@Lib: The only way they ended the IRA bombings was to address the core reason that caused them to do that.


And Al-Qeuda (or however it is spelled) is NOT the same kind of organization as Nazi Germany was. You cannot defeat them by bombing them with planes or by rolling on top of their hideouts with tanks. I really wonder why you have such ill-informed beliefs......

[achtung]

What they want is not resonable if it's a group similar to al-queda.  Because they want to see anybody that does not follow islam dead.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Swantz
What they want is not resonable if it's a group similar to al-queda.  Because they want to see anybody that does not follow islam dead.

What I mean is go after the root causes for people to get recruited into such an organization in the first place. Just attacking soveriegn countries (no matter how evil the dictator might be) and occupying them is exactly what Al-Queda wants the americans to do. It is unfortunate that people like Liberator play right into their hands.

But the US has a bigger target in mind when it invaded Iraq.

[TopAce]

Eh? Who mentioned Liberator here?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TopAce
Eh? Who mentioned Liberator here?

See the previous page/s

[Swamp_Thing]

Originally posted by Flipside
If these people were doing this for a reason, I would be inclined to agree with the whole 'talk' thing. But I have yet to see any other reason given that 'to bring the War in Iraq and Afghanistan to the UK'. Which isn't so much a reason as a rather transparent excuse for being bloodthirsty bastards.

I don´t know, i see a kind of logic in these bombings. We attacked their country, now they attack ours. It´s a simple logic to follow. We killed their wifes, children, and family members, and now they done it to us. I know it´s hard to swallow, but it´s a fact anyway.
Look at Spain. Spain had never been attacked by islamic fundies before. Then Aznar goes and stands shoulder to shoulder with Bush, and commits a few thousand troops to Iraq. And then presto, out of the blue they get attacked by fundies.
Meaning, there is a "quid pro quo" logic at work here. I´m still surprised they left my country out of their target list, after what that dumb Durão Barroso did in the Azores Summit.
Look at France. They were struck hard back in the 60´s all through to the late 80´s, because of Algeers and the Suez canal. Then they changed their policy, they started to do things right, and the bombings stopped. They could start up again, thanks to that ridiculous headscarf ban, but the point is that if a country changes their policies, these fundamentalist movements do respond favourally to it.
Even the UK, never had much problems with this kind of terrorism, until Blair decided to join the warmongers.
There is a definite pattern here. It´s not just the fruits of a twisted bloodthirsty mind, there is purpose in these bombings.
And they know they can´t inflict damage to the british war machine, so they strike where they know you are the most vulnerable.

The IRA is a perfect example of how diplomacy can bare fruits. The tough aproach of Margaret Tatcher and other british PMs to the problem achieved nothing. But then the govt. tried the other aproach, tried a sit-down, tried to talk it over, and now the IRA is virtually deceased.
Diplomacy does work, but you have to be willing to take that step. And you have to be willing to compromise, and give them something. Just talking for the sake of talking won´t achieve anything, except maybe piss them off even more.