London
 

What do y'all think about the attack on london. I have heard alot of people bash the U.S. about the attacks on Iraq and stuff and say the war on terror is stupid but then London happened now they are like we need to kick their ass why is that???

I think the United States in a weird way...set a precedent...behaving the way "we" did when it came to the war on terrorism. Also, I think unless it happens to you, then you become overly hostile....

They could not understand how we responded because it never happened to them. Now, they see how it feels to be terrorized....

Ill never understand the war on terrorism though

Are Iraqis behind these attacks?

I don't think this is the first time London has been attacked...

I think the difference with the U.S. is that many people didn't understand WHY it happend. While I don't condone the loss of life/violent action, I understand why some terrorist attacks happen.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SweetAngelZeta
[B]
They could not understand how we responded because it never happened to them. Now, they see how it feels to be terrorized....

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

Ever heard of the IRA? The Blitz? Never happened to them?????
Who was it who said that those who fail to heed the lessons of history...?

Nor is it the first time that particular neighbourhood was attacked... London had been dealing with terror bombings from the IRA for decades before this...

Yea London has been attacked a few times. I get pissed when people are like we just have to be nice and the terrorists won't attack. I've actually heard people say that. I'm like it doesn't matter if your nice or not they are TERRORISTS for a reason if you have more than them like everyone in the U.S. has they will kill you just as easily and quickly as a soldier over there. However yea i think people could sympathize but now they can empathize and their eyes are open more and now maybe they will realize the world can't all get along like they think it can. But as a former soldier i really don't care for terrorists or so much Iraqi people that much and this might be a bold statement but to achieve peace there must be war.

Re: London
 

I think some of the misunderstanding when it comes to statements about the War on Terror and the War in Iraq.... see when I watch US media the two are treated as one in the same, or interchangibly - while in the international (well Auzzie, British, German, and Canadian that I get here) the two are treated as seperately...

So some one can support the War on Terror but completely disagree with the War in Iraq... and it isn't all that rare really - afterall while Spain was withdrawing troops from Iraq, it was increasing troop strength in Afghanistan... heck even the French are in Afghanistan (though you never seem to hear Fox mention that... hmmm).

This of course has led to vastly different approaches to combating terrorism - with the US taking the approach of militarily combating the problem, and Europe taking the approach of legally... so whereas the US detains terror suspects as enemy combatants for the most part; Europe tends to go after them as criminals... who's right? Who knows really - the Europeans have been dealing with terrorism for decades (heck centuries), but terrorism is still a problem; the US is using military might to crush terrorists, but terrorism is still a problem... neither method seems to be totaly effective, so maybe other approaches need to be examined.

Trying to achieve peace through war is like trying to achieve love by rape. I hope you understand how dangerous your statement is.

One man's terrorist is another's freedom frighter. The Indians were considered "terrorists" as well as the patriots during the American Revolution. Santa Anna looked at the Texans as terrorist. They weren't called but slave revolts were put down in the same manner as things in Iraq. Would you call them terrorist?

There were no Iraqis involved in that blast according to my knowledge. and I'm 100 percent sure there were NO IRAQIS flying those planes during 9/11 (hell you'd be hard pressed to find any Afganis but I digress)

like i said it was a bold statement just my opinioni really if it wasn't for war we wouldn't be a free country and it was war that freed us from slavery so in some cases its necessary. But we are the world's police and as long as there are problems we are gonna handle it by fighting because thats all we know.

Do not compare blacks fighting for their freedom to what's going on in Iraq. You do our cause a great disservice. When a man is held under bonds he should fight to be free. We should've left it up to the Iraqis to revolt. You can't start revolution from the outside. We're only asking for trouble with this.

We're NOT the world police. It's that type of thinking that has us as the most hated nation in the world. But since you went htere how come we never showed up in the Sudan? What about missle strikes in Rwanda? I've never seen a police org with THAT much selective action in my life.


Like I said trying to obtain peace through war is as effective as spreading love through rape.

Re: Re: London
 

We are =====>here<====== on this.

I was simply saying our country is founded and based on war thats all. War is all we know we fought for everything we have and people look to us to solve their problems. And yes our ancestors had to fight for their freedom i'm not taking anything from them of course, america had to fight for its freedom thats all i was saying. And if anything doesn't come out of this war atleast we got saddam mind you he did commit genocide, maybe we should of just stayed out of it and let him kill more people. And once again it was just my opinion. And why can i have my own opinion because we are free and why are we free because of war. But i really don't want this to be a big issue opinions thats all i wanted and thats all i gave.

Just because you did it in the past doesn't make it right today.


Yeah you're free to state your opinion and I'm free to disagree with that opinion. Since this is a public forum. I'm also free to tell you that blood is on American hands as well.

We were supporting Saddam while he was committing genocide. Heck I still have the picture of Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam while he was fighting Iran (we supported Saddam then too). So in truth maybe we could've prevented that BUT, that is neither here nor there.

It's funny how people bring up "sitting back" while Saddam was killing his own people but for some reason tend to forget that we did sit back and watch millions of Africans killed, maimed, raped, beaten every year while we just "ignore" the problem.


I'll say it again, you can't force democracy NOR revolution. If the people don't want it then you're putting yourself in a bind. Heck to be honest Bin Laden was warming up to take down Saddam himself.

You'd thought the lesson from Vietnam wouldn't be lost on this country...

aiight