Turn on thread page Beta

Londoners Pay Heavy Price for Blair's Deception watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hear Hear, Newsnight yesterday discussed this and was quite interesting and by invading Iraq and Afghanistan while it has removed some senior figures, many more across Europe are being bread and Iraq showed (great decision imo) that countries are willing to stand up to these people, if we were now to remove troops (like Spain did) it would be seen as a victory for them and would stimulate them to carry out more attacks.

    Plus if you compare all the attacks from New York (2,200+ dead), Madrid (191 dead), Bali, Indonesia and London (50+ dead) etc, the impacts they are causing in terms of disrupting ways of life as well as killings innocent civilians is slowly decreasing, showing that they are as a whole getting weaker. Plus am article iv just read in the Economist suggests that as this was 100% inevitable and isnt likely to happen again in the foreseeable future (compared to past bombings), its been a victory for democracy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The bias doesn't bother me, but the faulty claims, outright lies and skewed morality does. I don't see the point in fisking the whole moronic thing, it's impossibly far from redemption.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    My response was to the poster who asked why 'they' don't come out and fight, instead of being cowards.

    That is it - plain and simple. It is not an indication that I agree with what has/is being done on both sides. Rather it is a logical reason for why one side cannot compete with the other on a level playing field.

    Don't imply that there is any more to it than what I wrote. And that goes for the other posters who denigrated me for making a comparison. I chose your post Lawz, to respond to, as I respect your intelligence!
    Fair enough - though once again you couldnt be more wrong ... in thinking im intellegent that is

    I do have to take issue with the notion of the "real terrorists" though ... I'd rather live in the Middle East with Bush having a nuclear bomb, than live in London or New York with someone such as Bin Laden et al having one. Would you feel differently?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Fair enough - though once again you couldnt be more wrong ... in thinking im intellegent that is

    I do have to take issue with the notion of the "real terrorists" though ... I'd rather live in the Middle East with Bush having a nuclear bomb, than live in London or New York with someone such as Bin Laden et al having one. Would you feel differently?
    You are too modest my dear!

    I'm not sure that I would trust either of them with my future, to be quite honest.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    You are too modest my dear!

    I'm not sure that I would trust either of them with my future, to be quite honest.
    Modest is not a term I hear often unless its tinged with sarcasm ... but thank you for the novel experience.

    I agree it would be nice if nuclear weapons didnt exist, but I think the preference that most would have - ie for the weapons being in the hands of the US than Bin Laden and the like illustrates the point - that their methods and moralities are far more barbaric and blood-thirsty. If one asks the simple question - who is more likely to use the weapons to kill millions - the answer is patent. (I know someone will think of bringing up Hiroshima - but as of today - the US is far less likely to nuke Terahn than Bin Laden would be to nuke NY if he had the means.

    I think alot of the chat from people blaming Blair is utterly stupid because of COURSE its his and Bush and all our governments faults.

    When you commit to a war, whether a gulf war, world war, or war on terrorism, you realise that it will kill soldiers on both sides, and inevitably some civilians. In many of the wars we fight that isn't a factor - the war is on foreign soil, where none of our civilians are present.

    This is aglobal war unlike any other and it was always going to involve sivilian deaths on all sides.

    Anyone who claims these attacks justifies NOT starting the global war on terrorism is deluded. After all, when it comes to these acts, who truly struck the first blows?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Fact of the matter is that if Bush really hated all Muslims, and wanted to kill as many as possible he could nuke the entire ME and turn it into a holiday resort.

    Fact is he doesnt ... reason being he doesnt desire the death of civilians.
    Technically he could not do that just because he wanted, he would have to have quite a few people along side before the button could actually be pushed. Bin Laden on the other hand would probably have the button in his pocket.

    Bush does not hate all muslims - not the ones that make him rich anyway, for example Bin Landins Family. Watch the doc "Fahrenheit 9/11".

    (Original post by Lawz-)
    We didnt kill them deliberately ... we didnt WANT to kill innocent civilians - it was not the PURPOSE. There is a pronouncd difference.
    Damn good point.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rome)
    After all, when it comes to these acts, who truly struck the first blows?

    Um, dont know. Would love it if someone could tell me.
    I know things hit the fan when 9/11 happened - but what was that about?
    Was B Ladin bored? Or he had some reason for it in his mind?

    There is nothing that can justify killing an innocent let alone 1000's - what im asking were the 9/11 attacks a result of some type of provocation? Not if they were right or wrong.

    The London bombing etc were probably a direct result of irac war, Im not saying the war should or shound not have happened Im after who did strike the first blow? How far back in history do we have to go? And who was in the right?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)

    Id feel safer if we managed to lock people like you up .... if Im honest.

    I didnt know that u r this stupid.. I didnt like the article too.. i read that and posted here...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by che guevara)
    I didnt know that u r this stupid.. I didnt like the article too.. i read that and posted here...
    Yeah - I see that now.
    Sorry about that.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by che guevara)
    Do you feel safer now that George Bush's and Tony Blair's barbaric attacks on Iraq have brought barbaric attacks to London?
    No i don't feel safer but this is human's natural reaction after a situation like this! however if there are people who are mentally capable of bombing London then they should be stopped hence the war on terrorism. Although the war in iraq wasn't about this matter and hence it may have motivated more people to join terrorist groups. The War in Iraq was partly about the US showing the rest of the world "whos the boss"! and partly to gain more control over the middle east / oil / boosing domestic economic growth and etc...
    I don't blame the neo cons who are running the USA for doing this. if you look back you see any country who had enough power , has done the same thing...As i'm sure you are well aware the Persians did it when they could, the British,the Spanish and the frennch... have all travelled to other regions inorder to gain or to establish their "power"... Its human nature!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RMIM)
    Um, dont know. Would love it if someone could tell me.
    I know things hit the fan when 9/11 happened - but what was that about?
    Was B Ladin bored? Or he had some reason for it in his mind?

    There is nothing that can justify killing an innocent let alone 1000's - what im asking were the 9/11 attacks a result of some type of provocation? Not if they were right or wrong.
    He originally objected to the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Chrism)
    He originally objected to the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm.
    Has he moved on from his original objection? It seems likely he has in view of subsequent events.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrism)
    He originally objected to the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm.
    Ok. And what was wrong/right with that? That was trigger for bringing down Twin Towers?

    Read somewhere that he wanted to have his guys set up in Saudi Arabia - Saudi refused his offer and had US move in instead.

    That upset him or something?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (To 'che guevara') [geezer who posted this thread]

    Muslims and terrorist are two different things
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by THE UNDERDOG)
    (To 'che guevara') [geezer who posted this thread]

    Muslims and terrorist are two different things
    Read it again - he's quoted from the article. It's not his own opinion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    My response was to the poster who asked why 'they' don't come out and fight, instead of being cowards.

    That is it - plain and simple. It is not an indication that I agree with what has/is being done on both sides. Rather it is a logical reason for why one side cannot compete with the other on a level playing field.
    How many battles have ever been fought evenly-matched? At Bannockburn, the Scots were outnumbered 4:1 - peasants against well-equiped English knights. We won.

    You didn't give a logical reason - you gave an opinion. Indeed, you suggested the British Army were cowards and these terrorists were somehow brave. So to answer your question:

    Should they just stand out in the middle of the open - put their arms into the air and say, "here I am, kill me" - whilst the 'legal' terrorists crouch behind the cover of an armoured tank, killing with their high sophisticated killing machines?
    Yes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RMIM)
    Ok. And what was wrong/right with that? That was trigger for bringing down Twin Towers?
    He objected to non-believers being present in what he saw as holy land.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 11, 2005

1,348

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.