London

[ACPlayer]

For a good look at the political background leading to the London disaster:

The Time of Revenge (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/08/blowback/index1.html)

The article is on Salon.Com and if you are not a subscriber will have to look at an advert to get access to the full article.

[ripdog]

The last line of the article:

If Americans look closer, however, they will realize that Bush's incompetent crusade has made the world more dangerous, not less.

This article will be dismissed by conservatives as anti-American/anti-Bush. I have to admit that I don't see any language in this piece that paints the perpetrators in a negative light. A polar opposite of what I'd expect from Fox News, which raises red flags for me. If this were truly a look at the political background leading up to the event, Juan Cole would have refrained from labeling Bush as "monumentally stupid".

[fluxrad]

As much as I hate Bush and am annoyed at Blair's lapdog-like attitude towards him, I must say that I didn't even feel the need to read the article. It is absolutely assinine to assume the root cause of the blast before the culprits have even been determined. It's a fair bet that this was perpetrated for the exact same reasons as the Madrid bombings, but assigning motive where there is not even a defined villain yet is simply political posturing.

Hell. This could have been the friggin' IRA for all we know.

[ACPlayer]

Juan Cole is definitely and vocally opposed to Bush's policies in the middle east.

As far as dismissing this by conservative (I would say neo-cons not conservatives) I definitely expect them to dismiss any view not offered first on Fox News. The few still thinking for themselves may find some nuggets to ponder (or not).

In any case his blog is a must read for anyone interested in the middle east.

[elscorcho768]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as dismissing this by conservative (I would say neo-cons not conservatives) I definitely expect them to dismiss any view not offered first on Fox News. The few still thinking for themselves may find some nuggets to ponder (or not).

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, it is possible that conservatives just have a different opinion on issues than liberals and are not simply following the talking points of Fox News. I wish we could get past the name calling and disrespect each side shows to each other, and simply say, "I disagree with the conservative/liberal viewpoint because..."

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as dismissing this by conservative (I would say neo-cons not conservatives) I definitely expect them to dismiss any view not offered first on Fox News. The few still thinking for themselves may find some nuggets to ponder (or not).

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, it is possible that conservatives just have a different opinion on issues than liberals and are not simply following the talking points of Fox News. I wish we could get past the name calling and disrespect each side shows to each other, and simply say, "I disagree with the conservative/liberal viewpoint because..."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. I can't stand bitter partisanship. Polical theory can be very interesting, but it's often impossible to discuss without breaking into name-calling and stereotypes.

I'm conservative and enjoy watching foxnews, because it's marketed towards my point of view. If someone told me I didn't form my own opinions, but allowed myself to be brainwashed by a cable news network, I'd be very offended. I would never claim that someone who is liberal marches to beat of CNN or the NY Times, I would just assume they have a different opinion than I do.

[ctj]

If someone said of a rape or domestic abuse victim, 'she brought it on herself', liberals would be offended (and rightly so). Yet many of them often seem to use this same logic when discussing terrorism.

[ripdog]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone said of a rape or domestic abuse victim, 'she brought it on herself', liberals would be offended (and rightly so). Yet many of them often seem to use this same logic when discussing terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't arguing that the article was factually incorrect--I believe that US foreign policy makes the world a more dangerous place. My point was that the article was slanted too far left, which makes it easy to dismiss as liberal garbage.

[lastchance]

Terrorism is simply another form of war. You can bring war upon yourself through lousy policy decisions.

Terrorism is not like rape or domestic abuse in that people will keep doing it, and you need to catch them. There is often a root cause, and you can stop that.

Of course, the people who are already doing this stuff are unsavable and should be caught and thrown away.

Remember, most people aren't born bad, they become that way though upbringing.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism is simply another form of war.

[/ QUOTE ]

And Zarqawi is a "Jordanian Fighter," huh?

Terrorism is a ruthless, barbaric form of warfare that kills innocent people.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism is simply another form of war.

[/ QUOTE ]
Terrorism is a ruthless, barbaric form of warfare that kills innocent people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there any other kind?

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism is simply another form of war.

[/ QUOTE ]
Terrorism is a ruthless, barbaric form of warfare that kills innocent people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there any other kind?

[/ QUOTE ]Shock and Awe. It's only barely a synonym of "terror" and that slight difference makes us holy, and them evil.

[ALawPoker]

Right, overthrowing a dangerous dictator who kills thousands of people a year (and sacrificing our own troops safety and efficiency in order to protect innocent people) is the same thing as flying a plance into a building and intentionally killing thousands of innocents. Give me a break. I usually appreciate rational decent, but you my friend are 100% irrational. Go move to Iran if you love them so much. Or better yet, just do the whole world a favor and put a gun to your head.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, overthrowing a dangerous dictator who kills thousands of people a year (and sacrificing our own troops safety and efficiency in order to protect innocent people) is the same thing as flying a plance into a building and intentionally killing thousands of innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're talking about reasoning behind going to war. It has nothing to do with the post I made, talking about what war is. Innocent people die in every war, and any justification you make for it, and even very good ones doesn't change that fact. War is about people dying, people getting killed by other people, and nothing else.

Terrorism is a ruthless barbaric form of warfare that kills innocent people.

Warfare is a ruthless barbaric form of warfare that kills innocent people.

[Gamblor]

Warfare is done by uniformed soldiers who volunteer or are otherwise compensated for their efforts. Warfare is done by sovereign nations who protect their ideals by force, and most importantly, the targets are aware that they are targets and are afforded the opportunity and means to defend themselves.

Terrorism is committed against unknowing civilians who are unaware that they are targets. Warfare is done by political groups that are unwilling to fight face to face and wish to take advantage of democracy by terrorizing its citizens into demanding policy change.

[bluewilde]

I agree that both war and terrorism result in the deaths of innocents and that this makes both abhorrent. But I really do feel as though it's the intentions of the attackers in these conflicts that make one barbaric and the other not. I feel there are just wars and barbaric wars, but that terrorism is always barbaric. One regrettably kills innocents and the other intentionally kills innocents. From your post, however, it seems that while this distinction matters to me, it doesn't matter to you. Does this make our views irreconcilible? What do you think?

On a completely different note, it was mentioned above that terrorism has causes and these causes can be removed. Inasmuch as terrorists claim the policies of certain nations are at the core of their, the terrorist's, actions, this is true. But I suspect an element of terrorist's motivation is thirst for power. The US and other western countries do not only encroach on their culture, but their ability to exert control over their own people. I feel that many terrorist groups are playing on political and religious themes for their personal pursuit of power, not the best interst of those they claim to represent. Thoughts?

I am very interested in these discussions. Thanks for a great thread guys,

Blue

[lastchance]

Wars about killing other people. A terrorist may regret the fact that he is killing someone, but does it for his cause. A soldier will do the same thing.

Gamblor, why the hell are you giving the other person a fighting chance? And why does it make War somehow acceptable? War is not a fair thing. If you don't play fair, you'll live without honor. If you play fair, you'll die with honor. I'd rather live without honor. When it comes down to it, in war, you're putting everything on the line. If you're putting your life and other people's lives in trouble, then the stakes are already far too high to give them a chance to shoot back.

Agree with your second paragraph, bluewilde. A lot of people fight for self-interest, hell, most people do, but terrorism doesn't get started without support. Removing support singlehandedly winz.

[Cyrus]

Osama bin Laden is no more a true representative of Islam than General Mladic, who commanded the Bosnian-serb forces, could be held up as an example of Christianity. After all, it is written in the Qur'an that we were made into different peoples not that we might despise each other, but that we might understand each other.

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies.

Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.

Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terrorism is simply another form of war.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And Zarqawi is a "Jordanian Fighter," huh?

Terrorism is a ruthless, barbaric form of warfare that kills innocent people.

[/ QUOTE ]

We call it collatoral damage when we do it to them.

Mack