Terrorist attack in London

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
the Brits are very resolute and strong natured people


IMHO.......the Brits are very matter of fact , reasonable people and NOT Inclined to over react or go off half cocked. As a people they are quite mature in a crisis and the aftermath. They are not prone to hysteria. or "revenge". They are more inclined to seek proper legal justice. But we shall see...... but going by the reports from London and how they are handling the press conferences.......it is very impressive. Spain handled their 3-11 in an impressive way too. ......and they suffered more casualties.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
another perspective:

NO ONE doubts the atrocious inhumanity of those who planted the bombs that killed and caused mayhem in London yesterday. No one should also doubt that this outrage has been coming since the day Tony Blair joined George Bush in their bloody invasion and occupation of Iraq.

They are “Blair’s bombs,” and he ought not be allowed to evade culpability with yet another unctuous speech about other people’s violence.

He was warned. Indeed, the only reliable warning from British intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was that which predicted a sharp increase in terrorism “with Britain and Britons a target.” Had Blair heeded that warning--instead of conspiring to deceive the nation that Iraq offered a threat--the Londoners who died yesterday might be alive today, along with tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Three weeks ago, a classified CIA report revealed that the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq had turned that country into a focal point of terrorism. None of the intelligence agencies regarded Iraq as such a flashpoint before the invasion. On the contrary, in 2003, the CIA reported that Iraq “exported no terrorist threat to his neighbors,” and that Saddam Hussein was “implacably hostile to Al-Qaeda.”

Blair’s and Bush’s invasion changed all that. In invading a stricken and defenseless country at the heart of the Islamic and Arab world, Blair’s adventure became self-fulfilling, and his epic irresponsibility has brought the daily horrors of Iraq home to Britain.

For more than a year, he has urged the British to “move on” from Iraq, and this week, it seemed that his spin doctors and good fortune had joined hands. The awarding of the 2012 Olympics to London created the fleeting illusion that all was well, regardless of messy events in a faraway country.

Above all, the G8 meeting in Scotland and its accompanying "Make Poverty History" campaign and circus of celebrities served as a cover for what is arguably the greatest political scandal of modern times: an illegal, rapacious invasion conceived in lies.

Over the past two weeks, the contrast between the coverage of the G8, its marches and pop concerts, and another “global” event has been salutary. The World Tribunal on Iraq in Istanbul has had virtually no coverage, yet the evidence it has produced, the most searing to date, has been the silent specter at the Geldoff extravaganzas.

The tribunal is a serious international public inquiry into the invasion and occupation, the kind governments dare not hold. Its expert, eyewitness testimonies, said the author Arundathi Roy, a tribunal jury member, “demonstrate that even those of us who have tried to follow the war closely are not aware of a fraction of the horrors that have been unleashed in Iraq.”

The most shocking was given by Dahr Jamail--for me, the finest reporter working in Iraq. He shames the flak-jacketed, cliché-crunching camp followers known as “embeds.”

He described how the hospitals of besieged Falluja had been subjected to an American tactic of collective punishment--with U.S. Marines assaulting staff and stopping the wounded entering, and American snipers firing at the doors and windows, and medicines and emergency blood prevented from reaching them. Children and the elderly were shot dead in front of their families, in cold blood.

We have heard little of this. Imagine for a moment the London hospitals that received the victims of yesterday’s bombing under such an attack. Unimaginable? But it happens, in our name.

The two men responsible for this, George Bush and Tony Blair, arrived smiling at the G8 meeting at Gleneagles. No one in the British “mainstream” has made the obvious connection of what they have done in Iraq. No one has stood up and said that Blair’s smoke-and-mirrors “debt cancellation” at best amounts to less than the money the government spent in a week brutalizing Iraq, where British and American violence is the cause of the doubling of child poverty and malnutrition since Saddam Hussein was overthrown.

The unstated theme of the G8 week has been silencing and pacifying and co-opting dissent and truth. The mawkish images on giant screens behind the pop stars in Hyde Park beckoned a willful, self-satisfied ignorance. There were no images of murdered Iraqi doctors with the blood streaming from their heads, cut down by Bush's snipers. They and the suffering inflicted on their country have been airbrushed.

On the front page of the Guardian, the Age of Irony celebrated as real life became more satirical than satire could ever be. There was Bob Geldoff resting his smiling face on smiling Blair’s shoulder--the war criminal and his knighted jester.

Elsewhere, there was a heroically silhouetted Bono, who celebrates men like Jeffrey Sachs as saviors of the world’s poor while lauding “compassionate” George Bush’s “war on terror” as one of his generation’s greatest achievements; and there was Gordon Brown, the enforcer of unfair rules of trade, saying incredibly that “unfair rules of trade shackle poor people”; and Paul Wolfowitz, beaming: This is the man who, before he was handed control of the World Bank, devised much of Bush’s so-called neo-conservative putsch, the bloodfest in Iraq and the notion of “endless war.”

And if you missed all that, there is a downloadable pdf kit from “one Campaign” e-mail to “help you organize your very own ongoing Live8 party.” The suppression of African singers and bands, parked where Geldoff decreed in an environmental theme park in Cornwall, far from the vaunted global audience, was described correctly by Andy Kershaw as “musical apartheid.”

For the politicians and pop stars and church leaders and polite people who believed Blair and Brown when they declared their “great moral crusade” against poverty, Iraq was an embarrassment. The killing of more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians by mostly American gunfire--reported in a peer-reviewed study in The Lancet--was deleted from mainstream debate.

Has there ever been a censorship as complete and insidious and ingenious as this? In our free societies, the unmentionable is that “the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people,” wrote the playwright Arthur Miller, “and so the evidence has to be internally denied.” Not only denied, but distracted by an entire court of jesters.

Deploying the unction of Geldoff, Bono, Madonna, Paul McCartney and company, the invaders and plunderers of Iraq and the pawnbrokers of Africa, headquartered in London and Washington, have pulled off an unprecedented scam: the antithesis of February 15, 2003, when 2 million people brought both their hearts and brains and anger to the streets of London.

The people killed and maimed in Iraq and the people willfully impoverished in Africa by our governments and our institutions in our name, deserve the return of that anger--before Blair and his court can exploit the atrocity and tragedy that has now befallen London, and which need never have happened.


something to think about.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Ocean Breeze said:
I'm afraid there is no quieter way of doing it.


I think there IS. and this is where the media can play a big role.. as well as what is fed to the media. It does call for a new approach and a rethink . By "quieter" I mean , more subtle. and less verbally aggressive. FIRM is good, aggressive is not. Not in this situation. Aggression is the language of terrorism. Calm,matter of fact firmness is not.


for eg. When someone is talking LOUD and AGGRESSIVELY and is annoyingly irritating/or even threatening.........the best way to counter act that is to speak in a very quiet , measured calm voice in return. It changes the "mood" immediately. The idea is to diffuse......not engage/perpetuate in a cycle of verbal violence.

Well if we ever get our illustrious asshole off of his high horse and start practicing what he preaches, that would help alot. I remember pre-election period when his wife called him a simple man. Herein lies the problem, simple men can't face complex problems. And the war on terror is a complex issue. In extreme situations, war may be necessary, this is why I generally support invading Afganistan, the Taleban had a choice and they blew it. After that however, he lost focus, the dead had not been buried yet and he rushed into Iraq. Shame.

Recently I read a report about a man in Iran who is facing his eyes being gouged, an eye for an eye so to speak, for crime he committed when he was 16. The Iranian government offered the man a way out by paying $150,000. If I were a leader of a western country, I would hop on this in a heartbeat. I would pay the fine for him. I think it would send ripple effects throughout the ME that westerners actually give a f*ck
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
What the brits really need to do is find out who is responsible for this terrorist attack. If it is a result of terrorists living within the U.K., but originate from other countries, then the U.K. must ask itself, what is wrong with their immigration policies.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that dramatically reducing or halting altogether immigration (like the US has done) from countries where terrorists originate (or also countries that harbor terrorists), will go a long way to eliminate the risk of a terrorist attack.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
I remember pre-election period when his wife called him a simple man. Herein lies the problem, simple men can't face complex problems. And the war on terror is a complex issue. In extreme situations, war may be necessary, this is why I generally support invading Afganistan,


absolutely. Even simple men with good advisors can do much to resolve these issues as long as they stay focussed on the real issue and not go off on some insane tangent that has complicated the problem even more. Sadly your "illustrious" (not) leader is way over his head now......and although he might not want to face it........he is losing the control ,he sought so hard to gain./maintain. That alone leaves him vulnerable. He is no longer operating from a position of strength. He had such an opportunity post 9-11......to do so much positive/good and work collectively with the internationals. He blew it. Big time.

I guess the operative question is: What now??? Removing him (and his team)from leadership would be a start. Might be chaotic for a while , but the situation as it stands is no great shakes anyhow. Just hope the built in checks and balances kick in... something major has to change before a new route can be activated on all this. (or so it seems)
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Nascar_James said:
What the brits really need to do is find out who is responsible for this terrorist attack. If it is a result of terrorists living within the U.K., but originate from other countries, then the U.K. must ask itself, what is wrong with their immigration policies.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that dramatically reducing or halting altogether immigration (like the US has done) from countries where terrorists originate (or also countries that harbor terrorists), will go a long way to eliminate the risk of a terrorist attack.

this is a multi faceted issue.......and must be/is probably being approached from many "fronts". The Brits are no fools. They have a long history in their nation......but how this will be resolved , remains to be seen. Blair better be bloody smart now. He can start by distancing himself from the bush regime. (tactfully and politely.....quietly....and make BRITAIN his main concern. He kinda lost it for a while when he ganged up with bush)
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,338
70
48
52
Das Kapital
Re: RE: Terrorist attack in London

Ocean Breeze said:
Said1 said:
Ocean Breeze said:
I think not said:
Not nec......in the direct tangible sense. The UN can play a big part in overseeing this., monitoring it CLOSELY. .......but each leader of each nation must make this a focus.....and this has to be transmitted right down to the population. Don't think this job can be "assigned" to one party.... it has to be a collective action with full COOPERATION from all nations. But the leaders who foster terrorism .......regardless of how......must be brought to World criminal court. Leaders who don't cooperate would be penilized.

The UN had monitored it closely, they didn't collectively act in an aggressive manner. They still can, no one is stopping them from penalizing national leaders who don't cooperate.


they would have to start with the US leader ......for CONTRIBUTING to more terrorism with his ILLEGAL invasion in Iraq. The Iraq situation is very much part of this equation now.

Ok. Now what about everything "pre- illegal" invasion? What I said is true, they sat on their collective arses.
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Ocean Breeze said:
Nascar_James said:
What the brits really need to do is find out who is responsible for this terrorist attack. If it is a result of terrorists living within the U.K., but originate from other countries, then the U.K. must ask itself, what is wrong with their immigration policies.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that dramatically reducing or halting altogether immigration (like the US has done) from countries where terrorists originate (or also countries that harbor terrorists), will go a long way to eliminate the risk of a terrorist attack.

this is a multi faceted issue.......and must be/is probably being approached from many "fronts". The Brits are no fools. They have a long history in their nation......but how this will be resolved , remains to be seen. Blair better be bloody smart now. He can start by distancing himself from the bush regime. (tactfully and politely.....quietly....and make BRITAIN his main concern. He kinda lost it for a while when he ganged up with bush)

Wrong approach. By distancing himself from his closest ally and friend, Blair would play right into the hands of the terrorists. We should never cave in to the terrorists, no matter what. This is a long term war and we need to keep up the fight otherwise the terrorists will win.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Nascar_James said:
Ocean Breeze said:
Nascar_James said:
What the brits really need to do is find out who is responsible for this terrorist attack. If it is a result of terrorists living within the U.K., but originate from other countries, then the U.K. must ask itself, what is wrong with their immigration policies.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that dramatically reducing or halting altogether immigration (like the US has done) from countries where terrorists originate (or also countries that harbor terrorists), will go a long way to eliminate the risk of a terrorist attack.

this is a multi faceted issue.......and must be/is probably being approached from many "fronts". The Brits are no fools. They have a long history in their nation......but how this will be resolved , remains to be seen. Blair better be bloody smart now. He can start by distancing himself from the bush regime. (tactfully and politely.....quietly....and make BRITAIN his main concern. He kinda lost it for a while when he ganged up with bush)

Wrong approach. By distancing himself from his closest ally and friend, Blair would play right into the hands of the terrorists. We should never cave in to the terrorists, no matter what. This is a long term war and we need to keep up the fight otherwise the terrorists will win.

both bush and blair will have to deal with the Iraq issue in a more constructive way. re: distancing, it is HOW it is done. I did say, tactfully, politely.......and does not imply that blair is not part of the collective international attempts to deal with terrorism. He must no longer appear to be a bush lap dog.....but a man on his own merit within the global community .

Spain distanced itself from bush , and still continues to be part of the global community in dealing with terrorism as it continues to deal with it on a national level.
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,338
70
48
52
Das Kapital
Ocean Breeze said:
both bush and blair will have to deal with the Iraq issue in a more constructive way. re: distancing, it is HOW it is done. I did say, tactfully, politely.......and does not imply that blair is not part of the collective international attempts to deal with terrorism. He must no longer appear to be a bush lap dog.....but a man on his own merit within the global community .

How would they distance themselves?
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Said1 said:
Ocean Breeze said:
both bush and blair will have to deal with the Iraq issue in a more constructive way. re: distancing, it is HOW it is done. I did say, tactfully, politely.......and does not imply that blair is not part of the collective international attempts to deal with terrorism. He must no longer appear to be a bush lap dog.....but a man on his own merit within the global community .

How would they distance themselves?

by not acting like a salivating puppy to bush's demands. saying NO to bush when appropriate and in good judgement......while cooperating in the terrorist issue The aim being COOPERATION , not "following" bush's requests /demands. (Or "appeasing" him.)
 

bulldog

Electoral Member
Jun 16, 2005
163
0
16
Re: RE: Terrorist attack in London

Ocean Breeze said:
I think not said:
Ocean Breeze said:
The call is for new and innovative THINKING and strategy. Psychology plays in this too. The civilized world must take its power back......and this involves psychology. (not horrendous military /aggressive approaches.)

As a psychologist, I can tell you this much. A psychologist is trained to treat basically normal thinking people. I never practiced - I did research. But psychs help normal people get through life's difficulties - such as grieving, divorce, making a major life decision, - you get the idea.

Psychs do not give medicine. They do not deal with seriously ill people. Schizophrenia was once thought to be a psychological ailment, but now it has been proven to be physiological.

I am simply saying that a psychological approach is not going to work on people who do not think the same way - at least in a same general way. Example: I saw an Arab woman beat her dog with a 2x4 because he was barking. I don't think that way. How can you reason with someone like that? I'm sorry, but I think this has gone beyond psychology.

Bull Dog
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,338
70
48
52
Das Kapital
Ocean Breeze said:
Said1 said:
Ocean Breeze said:
both bush and blair will have to deal with the Iraq issue in a more constructive way. re: distancing, it is HOW it is done. I did say, tactfully, politely.......and does not imply that blair is not part of the collective international attempts to deal with terrorism. He must no longer appear to be a bush lap dog.....but a man on his own merit within the global community .

How would they distance themselves?

by not acting like a salivating puppy to bush's demands. saying NO to bush when appropriate and in good judgement......while cooperating in the terrorist issue The aim being COOPERATION , not "following" bush's requests /demands. (Or "appeasing" him.)

I said they, as in Bush and Blair.

France is the 4th biggest foreign investor in the terrorist haven Saudi Arabia, ( mainly in the service sector ie: banking) care to wager what the UK has invested?
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Example: I saw an Arab woman beat her dog with a 2x4 because he was barking.

and I saw an American tourist doing this very same thing.--at a ski resort. (and believe me, I and a few others intervened) Human nature is human nature.

No one is talking psych as in therapy. The fact that terrorism has a strong psychological componant is a given. Othewise there would be no response of fear , anger etc. or desire for revenge etc. The psychological componant applies in how to better comprehend this mindset. Have been hearing more and more about this aspect on various GOOD TV channels now. and the psychologists on the panel indicate that this componant cannot be ignored. It is also an important componant in outsmarting them. Psychology plays a big part in how come some turn to terrorism in the first place. We are not talking research or diagnosis here. We are talking something along the lines of forensic psychology/psychiatry and how it can be utilized to regain control again. As it stands now.........the "terrorist" groups hold the controlling cards. They use the element of surprise. ( a psychological factor). and other techniques which puts them one step ahead.
 

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
Re: RE: Terrorist attack in London

bulldog said:
Example: I saw an Arab woman beat her dog with a 2x4 because he was barking. I don't think that way. How can you reason with someone like that? I'm sorry, but I think this has gone beyond psychology.

Bull Dog

I've seen that happen quite a bit also...unfortunatley. The problem there is that there are many people (even in North America) that are dicks, and treat animals like objects. You don't have to be muslem for that. If that's the case I shouldn't trust white people, blacks, and natives. Hell maybe I'll throw jews in there too, but the ones I knew never beat their pets or pissed me off but I'm sure they did something. :roll:
 

missile

House Member
Dec 1, 2004
4,846
17
38
Saint John N.B.
I can't prove this, but I believe that part of all the money we spend on oil ends up in the hands of the terrorists..so,in a way,we are responsible for whatever they do.