Do you really care?

zoro · 13-07-2005 06:28PM

treefingers wrote:

i agree the suicide bombers were terrorists. but would you also believe that the people in charge of the us/uk military are also terrorists?

its true they try to attack specific targets (often based on misguided/ill researched information, it must also be noted), but they accept that some 'collateral damage' is necessary?

ie., they know they are killing innocent bystanders.

i'm not even sure myself on this point.

ooooh i have a partner now

i mean, what is an 'acceptable' level of innocent deaths? does the end always justify the means regardless of casualties along the way?

that's the exact phrase that i was looking for but just couldn't put my finger on it

Mossy Monk · 13-07-2005 06:37PM

treefingers wrote:

discussion?

what discussion, all that is in this thread is an obvious attempt at a troll imo

aphex™ · 13-07-2005 06:45PM

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

''What did the US do to incite terrorism on September 11th? ''

now that's a good one,brilliant

You don't actually have an answer, do you? Or even why people in the WTC deserved it? Hello?

treefingers · 13-07-2005 06:58PM

aphex&#8482 wrote:

You don't actually have an answer, do you? Or even why people in the WTC deserved it? Hello?

i'm not trying to argue that the people in the world trade centre deserved to die, but even a brief look at american foreign policy over the past 60 years has showed that its over-aggressivness has made it many enemies that would not otherwise have been.

quick example - us bombing of sudan under dubious pretexts. 10s of thousands of innocent people dead. the us even blocked a UN enquiry into it.

i suggest you read chomskys "hegemony or survival" if you haven't already. he gives an almost completely irrefutable account of americas, and i quote, "imperial grand strategy - in which the United States has attempted to maintain its hegemony through the threat or use of military force."

to suggest that americas foreign policy had nothing (or even that it only played a small part) to do with sep 11 is madness.

chomsky calls american foreing policy (particularly with regard to cuba, central america and the middle east) "terrorism."

chomsky: "Nothing can justify crimes such as those of September 11, but we can think of the United States as an "innocent victim" only if we adopt the convenient path of ignoring the record of its actions and those of its allies, which are, after all, hardly a secret."

jaggeh · 13-07-2005 07:16PM

people died its a tragedy

do i care? not particularly, innocent people die every day in their hundreds if not thousands as a direct/indirect result of americas aggressive foreign policy for the last 50 years.
england is equally as bad but they are at it much longer.

ergo · 13-07-2005 07:26PM

I think this sums up what provoked 9/11 and all the rest:

treefingers wrote:

american foreign policy over the past 60 years

and as for the London thing, well i can see OP's point, it has been coming

just over two years ago 1,000,000 (ONE MILLION) people marched in London against this illegal war

and it looked for a while as if Blair might not be able to get his way and I really doubt that England would have seen its first ever suicide bombers if the Blair had listened to the million and UK hadn't followed the US into Iraq

and yes, although it's a lot closer to home it does feel quite distant at the same time, it only really brought it home to me seeing the messages on Sky News for people to contact home if they were OK

and someone else brought up the very valid point of what the hell is the story with the double standards of the US being allowed to have WMD and nobody else (depending on if they are judged as a US-friendly country of course)?
nobody ever mentions this when talking about the non-existent WMD in Iraq

zoro · 13-07-2005 07:30PM

Abel Tasman wrote:

and someone else brought up the very valid point of what the hell is the story with the double standards of the US being allowed to have WMD and nobody else (depending on if they are judged as a US-friendly country of course)?
nobody ever mentions this when talking about the non-existent WMD in Iraq

brought up by myself - and it really really annoys me

Mr.Nice Guy · 13-07-2005 07:35PM

treefingers wrote:

i agree the suicide bombers were terrorists. but would you also believe that the people in charge of the us/uk military are also terrorists?

Of course not. Their goal is not to murder innocents.

treefingers wrote:

its true they try to attack specific targets (often based on misguided/ill researched information, it must also be noted), but they accept that some 'collateral damage' is necessary?

ie., they know they are killing innocent bystanders.

i'm not even sure myself on this point. i mean, what is an 'acceptable' level of innocent deaths? does the end always justify the means regardless of casualties along the way?

You could say the same about the Allies who bombed German cities like Dresden knowing there would be high casualties. Regardless of your position on the US/UK's policies overseas, to say that the innocent people in London last week 'had it coming' is both distasteful and ignorant. Horrible comments.

ergo · 13-07-2005 07:39PM

indeed Zoro, thanks for bringing it up

the US has a war driven economy IMHO, oil being a big factor too obviously

in 2002 the US accounted for 50% of world global expenditure on arms and obviously all other countries combined acounted for the other 50%

and that was before the all out Iraqi effort, God knows what % it was the past 2 years

treefingers · 13-07-2005 07:44PM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Of course not. Their goal is not to murder innocents.

You could say the same about the Allies who bombed German cities like Dresden knowing there would be high casualties. Regardless of your position on the US/UK's policies overseas, to say that the innocent people in London last week 'had it coming' is both distasteful and ignorant. Horrible comments.

i take your point on how you view civilian casualties, but i never said they "had it coming".....(unless i misread your post and you're not talking about me?)

Mr.Nice Guy · 13-07-2005 11:49PM

treefingers wrote:

i take your point on how you view civilian casualties, but i never said they "had it coming".....(unless i misread your post and you're not talking about me?)

I know you didn't say they had it coming, the OP did. I should have made that clearer. Sorry.

OLP · 14-07-2005 12:06AM

RoundyMooney wrote:

Somebody ban this twat... :eek:

yeah ban him for his oppinion, next we'll go after everyone who thinks football is crap

Sleepy · 14-07-2005 12:15AM

Try and put yourself into the mindframe of one of the terrorists. Bombing Madrid had the effect of the Spanish government being overthrown and an anti-war party taking the reigns of power and pulling out of the "Coallition of the willing". Why wouldn't they try the same tactic on the British? It worked the first time.

Yes, attacking innocent civilians is completely indefensible but reality tells us that there's never been a war where innocents weren't killed. And as I already pointed out, the British public re-elected their war-mongering prime minister so they are, in a sense, responsible for his actions.

arbeitsscheuer · 14-07-2005 12:16AM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

You could say the same about the Allies who bombed German cities like Dresden knowing there would be high casualties. Regardless of your position on the US/UK's policies overseas, to say that the innocent people in London last week 'had it coming' is both distasteful and ignorant. Horrible comments.

That's a bad example to give MNG.
IMO, the RAF committed a war crime there. The firebombing of Dresden was a deliberate act of terrorism, with threadbare justification: "Uh... We're targetting Dresden's industrial workforce and, uh, they live in houses so... Let's Bomb the whole residential block!!!"

Btw note: it was ONLY the RAF, not the USAF. The USAF only bombed during the day, and only STRATEGIC targets like Factories, Airfields, Ports, Trainyards, Powerplants, etc. So this "Allies" stuff (which btw I hear ALL the feckin time) is inaccurate and lazy reporting.

On-topic: MNG is spot on. Blair and Bush were probably wrong to invade Iraq. And maybe wrong about Afghanistan too. But they never DELIBERATELY targeted innocents. This is crucial. The bombs in Britain were a cowardly act, targeted at innocents. I have no love for the USA, and altho I am English I in no way endorse our current Foreign Policy - I am a Socialist, and against wars of aggression.

Now, somebody did make a good point about the value of life.
52 ppl die in Britain: Massive tragedy
1000's of ppl die as a result of US or British military action: Barely a footnote in the Media coverage.
Ergo, to the media, a "westerner's" life is far more valuable than the life of someone from a faraway country.
But in a way this is understandable, as we have far closer links with the UK and the US than with any other states. End of story.

OLP · 14-07-2005 12:23AM

off-topic. SebtheBum: love the sig

Mr.Nice Guy · 14-07-2005 12:38AM

SebtheBum wrote:

That's a bad example to give MNG.
IMO, the RAF committed a war crime there. The firebombing of Dresden was a deliberate act of terrorism, with threadbare justification: "Uh... We're targetting Dresden's industrial workforce and, uh, they live in houses so... Let's Bomb the whole residential block!!!"
Btw note: it was ONLY the RAF, not the USAF. The USAF only bombed during the day, and only STRATEGIC targets like Factories, Airfields, Ports, Trainyards, Powerplants, etc. So this "Allies" stuff (which btw I hear ALL the feckin time) is inaccurate and lazy reporting.

Well the point I was making was that in a war, countries accept that civilians will die but I accept that Dresden was a poor example to use.

arbeitsscheuer · 14-07-2005 12:40AM

Cheers OLP, tis all down to Kaptain Redeye for an inspired post a few months back... Unless ur talkin bout the links at the end, they're just a few of my fave webcomics. :cool:

OLP · 14-07-2005 12:42AM

nah i meant the quotes, gave me a nice lil laugh

Guy:Incognito · 14-07-2005 12:54AM

Just to get this right. The us got what they had coming to them for involving themselves in Iraq and overthrowing a dictator who was killing a lot more of his own people than have died since. The Us is not sending in suicide bombers, its their fellow Iraqi's. But on the other hand people feel George Bush should interfere in a different way in another dictatorship in African countries. Just because they want him to give money and cancel debt ( which will probably on end up making the leaders in those countries even richer and leave thepeople starving anway as the leaders are creaming it all off for themselves and letting their own people starve). These countries have the ability to support themselves but through a corrupt system that is taking all th emoney, millions are dying of starvation.

So to summarise, George Bush, Blair etc should interfere amd sort out certain countries, but say to others " tough ****. deal with it"?

county · 14-07-2005 12:57AM

i suppose omagh had it coming aswell!

Guy:Incognito · 14-07-2005 12:59AM

zoro wrote:

No it won't stop the effort, but again, war isn't only fought "over there", which is something that the West has literally taken for granted.

Yeah, it was a good job that whole World War Two incident didnt reach European shores.

Theres only been 1 or 2 more times that would constitute war since so they are hardly taking things for granted.

@ OP : By your thinking do the Iraqi's not have it coming now for "fraternising with americans" or somthing?

Guy:Incognito · 14-07-2005 01:07AM

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

''What did the US do to incite terrorism on September 11th? ''

now that's a good one,brilliant

Lots of people have have given answers like that but no one has actually answered th equestion.

If I walk up to you and smack you in the face would you be satisfied if I explained it by laughing and saying "aah you know why"?

Guy:Incognito · 14-07-2005 01:14AM

Abel Tasman wrote:

just over two years ago 1,000,000 (ONE MILLION) people marched in London against this illegal war

A Lot more people voted to keep Tony Blair in power. ( and George Bush for that matter)

Abel Tasman wrote:

and someone else brought up the very valid point of what the hell is the story with the double standards of the US being allowed to have WMD and nobody else (depending on if they are judged as a US-friendly country of course)?
nobody ever mentions this when talking about the non-existent WMD in Iraq

Was it justified to limit Germany's armies in the twenties and thirties? Or should they have let them build as big an army as possible and start.......... oh yeah WW2?

If Saddam had started WW3 who would you all have turned to for help, and eventually who would you blame on not forseeing it and putting a stop to it?

treefingers · 14-07-2005 02:42AM

Stekelly wrote:

Lots of people have have given answers like that but no one has actually answered th equestion.

If I walk up to you and smack you in the face would you be satisfied if I explained it by laughing and saying "aah you know why"?

i think i tried at least to answer this in an earlier post.

american foreign poilicy since 1950s has been rotten to the core. i mean if you are in the least bit interested in american foreign policy (or world affairs in general) then you should have dozens of examples where american force was used for no good reason.

if you can't think of at least 3/4 occasions when the us acted without global consent or without legal authority in using violence then i am not sure you can contribute effectively to this thread, because you obviously are not aware of all sides of the story.

i just find it hard to believe that people who are assume they are knowledgeable of world affairs believe that american foreign policy has been completely justified since WW2.

and for the record i am not in the least bit anti-american. the facts are clear for all to see....

GOAT_BOY · 14-07-2005 07:50AM

I understand the points the OP is TRYING to make, but unfortunately for him and his contraDICKtory ways, he does sound like a retard.

kegan5 · 14-07-2005 03:13PM

I can't believe wat I've just read... u need help.... seriously....
These people are just as likely to hit Ireland as they were to hit London and how would u feel if you or ur family had gone off to work one morning to earn their days pay and that happened?

Have some respect Geese!You've annoyed me now :mad:

simu · 14-07-2005 03:21PM

kegan5 wrote:

These people are just as likely to hit Ireland as they were to hit London

I doubt it tbh

kegan5 · 14-07-2005 03:23PM

My point was that this person who started this says that Londoners had it coming because of our involvement over in Iraq...

Well whats to stop them hitting Shannon? Or anywhere else for that matter...

I'm not saying they will just that it's hardly out of the question ya know

simu · 14-07-2005 03:24PM

kegan5 wrote:

My point was that this person who started this says that Londoners had it coming because of our involvement over in Iraq...

Oh, I agree with you there. But I'd be very surprised if they attacked Ireland.

robinph · 14-07-2005 04:49PM

simu wrote:

Oh, I agree with you there. But I'd be very surprised if they attacked Ireland.

But probably only due to the lack of publicity to their cause that they would get from attacking a smaller target such as Ireland.

And what response would you like to see from the UK if they were to attack Ireland for allowing the refueling of jets etc here. Would you expect your nearest neighbours to just say tough, you had it coming after all as you sold them some petrol?

Do you really care?

Comments