Bombs in London

[DB_Hunter]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
lol wow.....its usually a good idea to take the "I'm mature" approach when your already bland retorts need something more [img][/img]

Would you rather I insult you? I don't think that would be very prodcutive. It seems though you are just intent on winning the argument for the sake of it, and are trying to score points of any issue you can.

So basically, you accused me of having a narrow pro-west view without even knowing that i lived in the west? Wow, imagine how big of an ass you'd look if i WASNT in the west. All the more proof that you should get your facts straight before you make a reply. At least you didnt argue the actual content of the first part of my post. This way I don't have to bring up more counter-points for it. Moving on......

Newsflash for you..... all along I have been talking about ideas... that this is a war of ideas. Ideas are confined to the realm of the mind, not geographical location. You think only people living in the US and UK think what these nations are doing is correct?

Who says that a person cant rebutt someone's point with arguing what's NOT instead of what IS? Do you know how conclusions are drawn? By distinguishing the NOT, you isolate the IS. It's a basic principal used often in many fields, including math and science.
You want a supporting proof? Terrorist vs Army = Army wins. Unless the terrorists are complete idiots, they should be aware of this formula just as much as you are.

Let me try and make this simple for you...

Just tell me who you think intiated this war and why.

And yes, you did address the reason as to why the attacks have occured. You said that us being bombed is the effect of us going to war.

OK now put that remark into context. THIS bombing was prolly a retaliation attack. I didn't say why this whole 'War on Terror' thing started. So basically this goes back into the question I have asked you above.

@ Mut: One last time -

US invades Nam, Korea etc cos they are on paper no match for the US (without Soviet help)

USSR does its thing in Afghanistan etc bcos again, on paper, the Afghans are no match for the Soviets without another State like the US helping them.

Now that we understand that both countries don't give a damn what happens to their opponents, lets view the question again. Why did the US and USSR not fight each other? Simply cos they EACH felt that THEY would get destroyed, NOT because something would happen to dear mother earth and all pretty butterflies and dainty flower that exist.

[Mut]

Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
@ Mut: One last time -

US invades Nam, Korea etc cos they are on paper no match for the US (without Soviet help)

USSR does its thing in Afghanistan etc bcos again, on paper, the Afghans are no match for the Soviets without another State like the US helping them.

Now that we understand that both countries don't give a damn what happens to their opponents, lets view the question again. Why did the US and USSR not fight each other? Simply cos they EACH felt that THEY would get destroyed, NOT because something would happen to dear mother earth and all pretty butterflies and dainty flower that exist.

So, are you saying that unless they are expecting and ready to get completely bombed, they shouldn't go to war? Going into war that could lead into nuclear warfare is one of the dumbest things a country can do, they need to precisely know what they and the enemy can do and how far each other is capable going. You know it's called... STRATEGY. Something that is implemented in order to receive the least amount of damage while still taking down the enemy. You'd be the worst strategist in any sort of complex situation.

And you are so off on what happened in Vietnam and in Korea. You make it sound like US wanted to conquer Vietnam just because 'they are rich and powerful'. US aided in the Vietnam and the Korean war.

[Assertn]

Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
Would you rather I insult you? I don't think that would be very prodcutive. It seems though you are just intent on winning the argument for the sake of it, and are trying to score points of any issue you can.

You already insulted me. The line of civility was crossed when you tried to assume what my views were and then accuse them of being narrow.

Newsflash for you..... all along I have been talking about ideas... that this is a war of ideas. Ideas are confined to the realm of the mind, not geographical location. You think only people living in the US and UK think what these nations are doing is correct?

I dont even really know how to respond to this one. It doesnt even seem relevant to the argument =/

Let me try and make this simple for you...

Just tell me who you think intiated this war and why.

Clearly the terrorists did.....any relations America had with bin laden before this ordeal were on more peaceful grounds. Why did they start it? Beliefs. They are part of organizations where their beliefs conflict with ours, and so the acts they perform against us is considered honorable to their culture and their religion. In cases like these, how would you expect to propose peace?

Originally posted by: Nai
You mean tactics like these? This isn't a white and black issue. They aren't the absolute evil and you are certainly not the absolute good. Violence like this only inspires more acts of vengeance. It's a pointless circle of wanton destruction and as things are looking now it will never end.

"Wounded, another Iraqi writhes on the ground next to his gun."
The first sentence is key here. Sounds to me like that iraqi is just another of those idiots that are the reason for both marine and civilian casualties in Iraq.

[DB_Hunter]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Mut@chi

It's called, economic dominance. A powerful economy is a portrayal of a nation's growth, wealth, and power. If countries like Japan, France, UK, etc didn't want to be economically powerful, they would just share their technology and the resources they have freely with everyone else. But they don't because they want to show that they are just as powerful as the next country. It's all a matter of greed really.

I agree with that except the last line. I would say its more complex than greed. Sure, they want resources for themselves but what also drives these nations is to the desire to make their way of life dominant over others. This is the part where the ideas kick in. If you heard what Blair said yesterday, he didn't say that he's going to protect the underground or the infrastructure did he... he spoke of values and civilisation... both of which are built upon ideas.

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure

Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
Would you rather I insult you? I don't think that would be very prodcutive. It seems though you are just intent on winning the argument for the sake of it, and are trying to score points of any issue you can.

You already insulted me. The line of civility was crossed when you tried to assume what my views were and then accuse them of being narrow.

If you felt insulted by that then I apologise.

Let me try and make this simple for you...

Just tell me who you think intiated this war and why.

Clearly the terrorists did.....any relations America had with bin laden before this ordeal were on more peaceful grounds. Why did they start it? Beliefs. They are part of organizations where their beliefs conflict with ours, and so the acts they perform against us is considered honorable to their culture and their religion. In cases like these, how would you expect to propose peace?

OK so this is what I was talking about. Beliefs/ideas. Yeah, the realtions between the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the US during the 80's were coridial, while fighting the USSR. The fact that thousands of young Muslim men streamed into Afghanistan during the Soviet Invasion was a mistake, since simply fighting the USSR and kickig them out was not going to solve the problems of Afghanistan, as can clearly be seen now. Sure, the people in that country should have fought, it was a duty, but if others wanted to help they should have looked at the real casue of Afhganistan's weakness. But that's going off the point slightly.

The fact is that after the Afghan Jihad which the US supported it began to dawn upon the fighters that the despite kicking out a superpower in the form of the USSR they were still in the crap hole. When they looked around they saw economic deprivation and brutal oppression. This they slowly realised was the fault of their rulers. So they turned on them (this is why when the US goes to a ruler in a Muslim country the rulers say "I told you so", cos they have already been under attack). However, the fighters began to realise that the rulers were not alone. They were supported by successive US governments against the will of the local populace.

So Mubarak of Egypt is the second largest recipient of US Aid after Israel, being given billions of dollars since the 1970's. Did you know you have to publicly show you love for Mubarak or else the secret police will drag you away?

The Saudi Royal family, a bunch of backward despots, has long been supported by the US and before them the UK. They are some of the most hypcritical and oppressive people on Earth.

Saddam himself was supported in the 80's when he was fighting Iran. Afterwards when it didn't suit the US, it got rid of him, not because he was oppressing the people.

The UK supports King Abdullah of Jordan, a guy who annihalated an enitire town once that showed dissent (I kid you not).

Musharraf of Pakistan is supported by the US publicly when quite clearly he is hated by his people, proved further by the fact that there have been numerous attacks on his life. He refuses to step down as President and keeps changing the constitution in a pathetic attempt to prove that he is a legitimate ruler. What has the US response been? Before his co-operation after 9/11, he was a dictator. Post 9/11, he is a good ally in the 'War On Terror' and by having sham election he has 'restored democracy' to the country.

Now that these fighters see this they have decided to attack the US, UK and others who they see as helping support their oppresion and that of their people. I myself don't agree with the approach of a physical attack. I think if there is to be conflict then lets discuss what the hell the Western powers have been doing all this time and WHY they have been doing it. And no, its not as simple as simply wanting to make your self more rich and powerful. That's the end game naturally, but alongside their is a more ideological attack of not only making other nations subserviant to you, but also to make them adopt your values. Sounds contradictory? Read up what's going on by reports issues by think tanks like the 9/11 commision, the RAND report and others. Read what people like Henry Kissenger, Donald Rumsfeld and General Abizaid are saying about the Caliphate. I'm not talking fantasy here, this reality.

And no, I don't expect people to all hold hands under the rainbow. What I do want is from them to face the reality and the truth as to why people do the things that they do, and not simply repeat what say FOX news CNN say.