Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

DonPanic · 2005-07-07 06:42:01

War in Irak definitively doesn't make the world safer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … ...23.html

To that point of view, War at Iraq and on terror is an absolute failure

Palomar · 2005-07-07 07:07:06

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/sto … tml]Terror attacks in London

*Very sad. Lots of confusion, unknown numbers of people dead and injured.

They're attributing this attack to G8. Just yesterday, of course, London received the news it's won the opportunity to host the 2012 Olympics. Sorry, maybe I shouldn't say it, but why on Earth -any- major (Western particularly) city would WANT to host something with all the crazy potentials for terrorists as the Olympic games is beyond me. :hm: Yeah, I know the revenue from the Olympics is spectacular and etc...but all things considered, No Thank You.

Hopefully no more attacks on the good people of London. This is terrible.

--Cindy

P.S.: As of 9:25 a.m. EST 40 people dead, 300 injured.

DonPanic · 2005-07-07 08:33:04

LO
ecrasez_l_infame, the attacks have nothing to see with the Olympics, to take place in seven years, more surely with the G8 summit in Scotland and Mr Bush's presence.
(Where he made a fun of himself by falling down with the mountain bike he was riding;)

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-07 08:44:04

So I guess the "French bombing London because they lost the Olympics" theory is officially ruled out?

Seriously, I know someone that thinks it's a valid possibility.

Of course he also spouts the same economic theories as Martian Republic.

Palomar · 2005-07-07 09:03:18

LO
ecrasez_l_infame, the attacks have nothing to see with the Olympics, to take place in seven years, more surely with the G8 summit in Scotland and Mr Bush's presence.

*Yes, I know.

What I'm wondering, though, is why -- in this climate of terrorism and attacks (which might not be lessened by 2012) -- anyone would want to invite a grand mess like the Olympics into their city.

Folks in New York City were disappointed NYC wasn't picked to host the 2012 Olympic games. After 9/11, I'd be thrilled to never host an event sure to draw hundreds of thousands of strangers!

There is so much potential for terrorists to hide within the crowds and strike; the Olympics would be a prime opportunity.

Hopefully the overall domestic situation will be much improved for everyone by 2012.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-07-07 09:36:11

LO

So I guess the "French bombing London because they lost the Olympics" theory is officially ruled out?

We wouldn't bomb a city that the HiSpeed train has placed at minus than a two hours transport time and has turned into Paris' suburbs (or the reverse) where many thousands froggies work.

In spite of Chirac's politics, we feel as targets too. After all, Paris is among the main capitals of occidental civilisation. We supported Algeria in its struggle against islamic terrorism. An Air France jetliner was to be crashed against the Eiffel Tower, if you remember.
Paris' Metro is now controlled with lots of policemen and combat armed soldiers.

There is so much potential for terrorists to hide within the crowds and strike; the Olympics would be a prime opportunity.

What better opportunity to perform a carnage than overcrowded metros, trains or bus ? No need of Olympics.
With hooliganism, Stadiums are carefully police controlled places.

Folks in New York City were disappointed NYC wasn't picked to host the 2012 Olympic games

Bienvenue au club We'll share handkies

Grypd · 2005-07-07 15:01:04

The bombs in London are an attempt to terrorise the British population. 38 people are now confirmed dead but there are over 700 casualties. The emergency services where ready for something like this that is why the death rate is low. The mood over here is shock but not really surprise and a real sense of national anger, we have sort of been expecting it so have been well trained and a lot of previous plots have been stopped.

One thing Al-qhaeda should know. The Germans bombed London...They lost. The IRA bombed london...they Lost. Are you getting the drift. We are not the Spanish,all you have done is to really destroyed any sympathy or unrest that existed over Iraq. if you dont believe that trust this one statement you killed 38, you will loose a lot more than that.

DonPanic · 2005-07-07 15:10:43

Sorry for black humour...

We all know how tenacious and brave the Brits are

Palomar · 2005-07-07 15:12:12

One thing Al-qhaeda should know. The Germans bombed London...They lost. The IRA bombed london...they Lost. Are you getting the drift. We are not the Spanish,all you have done is to really destroyed any sympathy or unrest that existed over Iraq. if you dont believe that trust this one statement you killed 38, you will loose a lot more than that.

*We seek to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.

Al-Qaeda scum deliberately target civilians.

What a difference.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050707/ap_ … liani]Whoa. How weird is THIS?

Former NYC mayor Rudy Guliani was near one of the London explosions. Maybe he should move to western Kansas and stay there. :-\

SpaceNut · 2005-07-08 05:00:02

Numerologists are seeing a pattern in the timing of these events, in that they are triggered in the 9:00Am hour.

Seems that since some devices did not activate and that many surveillance cameras are at many of these locations, it may be possible to track down there attackers from these resources.

It is to bad that we must resort to the big brother tactics in order to keep things piecefull these days.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-08 05:06:58

It is to bad that we must resort to the big brother tactics in order to keep things piecefull these days.

The only alternative when the "vigilant citizens" approach doesn't work out. A problem many western countries need to shake off. It's a cultural thing, comes with socialism. :;):

My condolences to the British people, know that we stand with you as you have stood by us.

Palomar · 2005-07-08 08:08:23

*Who's complaining about Big Brother? Most folks nowadays are stampeding for the cameras -- any camera, so long as it's on. But yeah, I know...don't like the "forced upon us" stuff.

Official death toll at 50 now. [::edit:: More than 50 now]

Also heard that two other bombs -didn't- go off. Thankfully.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-07-08 10:20:25

The IRA bombed london...they Lost. Are you getting the drift. We are not the Spanish, all you have done is to really destroyed any sympathy or unrest that existed over Iraq. if you dont believe that trust this one statement you killed 38, you will loose a lot more than that.

LO
You seem to disdain the Spanish. I really don't think they are less courageous than any.
They have punished Jose Maria Aznar, their former prime, for having lied and maintened that lie against all evidences that ETA was responsible for the bombings.
Wouldn't you be angry if Blair had immediately accused the IRA for these attacks without any proof ?
The spanish socialists said they would withdraw their troops from Iraq, they had to do it to respect the political program they were elected for.
I'm sure the Spanish do mobilize all their forces to fight terrorism.

John Creighton · 2005-07-08 10:32:07

I find the target interesting. By targeting public transit a service which helps to conserve the use of oil by keeping people from using cars what does this say about the values of the terrorists.

Grypd · 2005-07-08 15:19:10

The IRA bombed london...they Lost. Are you getting the drift. We are not the Spanish, all you have done is to really destroyed any sympathy or unrest that existed over Iraq. if you dont believe that trust this one statement you killed 38, you will loose a lot more than that.
LO
You seem to disdain the Spanish. I really don't think they are less courageous than any.
They have punished Jose Maria Aznar, their former prime, for having lied and maintened that lie against all evidences that ETA was responsible for the bombings.
Wouldn't you be angry if Blair had immediately accused the IRA for these attacks without any proof ?
The spanish socialists said they would withdraw their troops from Iraq, they had to do it to respect the political program they were elected for.
I'm sure the Spanish do mobilize all their forces to fight terrorism.

They did withdraw from Iraq, which was the aim of the terrorists in the first place. They left their allies in what was a war in the lurch. So why should I respect that decision.

I would have been angry if Blair had blamed the IRA when it was not them but then he did not nor was it even mentioned. Difference in Culture here I suppose. In times of adversity our leadership does not lie to its electorate. Another thing that is different, after the Madrid bombings the Spanish insisted in withdrawing from Iraq. In the UK we just angry and we get very very determined.

And Spain does not really interest itself in international crime and terrorism until recently. Remember there was such a thing as the costa del crime with wanted criminals staying in spain to avoid prosecution. The same happened to the IRA with active cells preparing themselves to strike at British assets in Spain and in one example the Gibraltar operation where an IRA cell was shot dead after entering the colony from spain where it had been preparing its strike and Spain objected to the UK taking action.

DonPanic · 2005-07-08 20:27:24

LO

They did withdraw from Iraq, which was the aim of the terrorists in the first place. They left their allies in what was a war in the lurch. So why should I respect that decision.

No ! The very first reason why the troops were withdrawn was the will of the spanish population, it happened that its coincided with the terrorists' will.

With more than 80% of the Spanish opposed to war in Iraq before and during the war, Aznar did engage Spain in an unwanted war.
The spanish population will has not been dictated by the terrorists ! What you say is untrue and unfair.
Should Aznar had acted democratically, he wouldn't have sent troops to Iraq, same for most of the coalition countries leaders.
Therefore, you can't consider that the Spanish population betrayed the coalition, you can only do that if the Spanish population had changed his mind because of the attacks, which is not the case.
Aznar just betrayed his people's will as some other leaders did.
Who did lie about the WMD ? Who wanted war whatever would be the inspections results ? Who drove coalition forces straight into the lurch ?

Aznar was interested in fighting ETA terrorism, if he didn't fight islamoterrorism efficiently enough, blame him, he lied about the Madrid attacks authors, blame him, the actual spanish gouvernment is acting against islamoterrorists and trying to have a political agreement with ETA, as well as GB is trying to have a political agreement with the IRA.

BWhite · 2005-07-09 10:23:23

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php … 537]Andrew Sullivan

My comment,

We must not allow ourselves to become evil and justify it by citing the necessity of fighting evil. Or even close our eyes to the possibility.

dicktice · 2005-07-09 12:32:31

No such thing as "evil." Just survival tactics taken to irrational (species-wise) extremes. Look how the terrorists of today are causing the drawing together ordinarily disparate nations for mutual protection. Osama (the present-day embodiment of "Dr No") only wants to keep his ideals alive, after all, by using the cheapest and smartest weapons around: Individually programmable suicide bombers.

Grypd · 2005-07-09 13:15:30

LO
They did withdraw from Iraq, which was the aim of the terrorists in the first place. They left their allies in what was a war in the lurch. So why should I respect that decision.
No ! The very first reason why the troops were withdrawn was the will of the spanish population, it happened that its coincided with the terrorists' will.
With more than 80% of the Spanish opposed to war in Iraq before and during the war, Aznar did engage Spain in an unwanted war.
The spanish population will has not been dictated by the terrorists ! What you say is untrue and unfair.
Should Aznar had acted democratically, he wouldn't have sent troops to Iraq, same for most of the coalition countries leaders.
Therefore, you can't consider that the Spanish population betrayed the coalition, you can only do that if the Spanish population had changed his mind because of the attacks, which is not the case.
Aznar just betrayed his people's will as some other leaders did.
Who did lie about the WMD ? Who wanted war whatever would be the inspections results ? Who drove coalition forces straight into the lurch ?
Aznar was interested in fighting ETA terrorism, if he didn't fight islamoterrorism efficiently enough, blame him, he lied about the Madrid attacks authors, blame him, the actual spanish gouvernment is acting against islamoterrorists and trying to have a political agreement with ETA, as well as GB is trying to have a political agreement with the IRA.

The election that Spain was going through what was a very close thing until the bombings of the Madrid transport system. After it there was a move to the oposition and so political change and so the terrorists not only achieved there aims but gained much encouragement from it. In the final analysis when you go into a war especially one against an enemy who enjoys killing your weak and helpless to give up is not an option. To give up is to only enourage others to attempt the same.

And Spain gave up.......

BWhite · 2005-07-09 17:08:56

And Spain gave up.......

What about Italy?

DonPanic · 2005-07-09 17:09:38

30000 people evacuated from center of Birmingham... what a mess

And Spain gave up.......

So what ? The Mail reveals withdrawal plan

and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4668661.s … 668661.stm

Grypd · 2005-07-10 04:00:27

And Spain gave up.......
What about Italy?

Well there is this slight problem with the USA that is forcing the goverment of Italy out. Killing its citizens and ursurping her laws does tend to destroy faith in each other.

Grypd · 2005-07-10 04:09:56

30000 people evacuated from center of Birmingham... what a mess

And Spain gave up.......

So what ? The Mail reveals withdrawal plan

and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4668661.s … 668661.stm

Should have read the article. It is not a pullout but a reduction in forces in Iraq. And if you have read it properly it is just the British part of the mission the USA was going to reduce its contingent there by over 50% too.

The plan was always to reduce troop strength as the local Iraq security forces begin to take over there duties.

Birmingham was evacuated as there was a real and credible threat to peoples lives. Was it wrong to do so, Of course not.

DonPanic · 2005-07-10 06:02:50

Should have read the article.

LO
I didn't, this is a Skynews TV screen capture, when I opened The Mail page, article wasn't already on line.
I read the BBC news article on the same topic few hours later.
The spanish troops role may have been rather more symbolic than efficient, they don't seem to have missed drastically to the coalition.
Anyways, I think it's mean of you to scorn the Spanish.
On a french forum, I defend the Brits from accusations of having kindly harboured islamoterrorists with a non agression deal before 9/11, no matter what was my opinion on Blair's war pretexts or the efficiency of action in Iraq on global terrorism. It's no time for bashing any ally or former ally, but to pack toghether and closely cooperate against the terrorist threat.

BWhite · 2005-07-12 09:21:28

Laura Bush likes http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … tml]Sandra Day O'Connor, maybe for Chief Justice?

Also expressing views today was First Lady Laura Bush, who said she hoped her husband would pick a woman. "I would really like him to name another woman," she said on NBC's "Today" show, in an interview from Cape Town, South Africa, where she is traveling. "I admire and respect Sandra Day O'Connor, but I know that my husband will pick somebody who has a lot of integrity and strength."

Either that or the First Lady just slapped O'Connor across the face - - I "admire and respect" O'Connor but my husband prefers people of "integrity and strength"

It appears President BUsh also took my advice about meeting with the Senators:

Key GOP and Democratic members of the Senate met this morning with President Bush for a first discussion of the upcoming nomination of a new Supreme Court justice, with Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declaring afterward that he was confident that a "consensus" candidate satisfactory to both parties would emerge from the process.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2005-07-07 06:42:01

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#152 2005-07-07 07:07:06

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#153 2005-07-07 08:33:04

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#154 2005-07-07 08:44:04

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#155 2005-07-07 09:03:18

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#156 2005-07-07 09:36:11

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#157 2005-07-07 15:01:04

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#158 2005-07-07 15:10:43

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#159 2005-07-07 15:12:12

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#160 2005-07-08 05:00:02

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#161 2005-07-08 05:06:58

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#162 2005-07-08 08:08:23

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#163 2005-07-08 10:20:25

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#164 2005-07-08 10:32:07

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#165 2005-07-08 15:19:10

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#166 2005-07-08 20:27:24

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#167 2005-07-09 10:23:23

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#168 2005-07-09 12:32:31

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#169 2005-07-09 13:15:30

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#170 2005-07-09 17:08:56

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#171 2005-07-09 17:09:38

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#172 2005-07-10 04:00:27

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#173 2005-07-10 04:09:56

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#174 2005-07-10 06:02:50

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#175 2005-07-12 09:21:28

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Board footer