Terrorist attack in London

[Jay]

Ahhh.... That explains the oversized sex toys then...

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Terrorist attack in London

I would have to ask you for proof that they have morphed into something stronger.....

She didn't say stronger, she said sinister.

You don't think they've become more determine as of late?

She did say that didn't she....thanks for the correction.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Terrorist attack in London

The bulk of the training and such was done in Afghanistan...I'm sure there are cells all over...

Although I would think the Balkans would be on Russia's watch, AQ acttivities in the Balkans were significant.

We did cut their head off though, and made life a bit of a hell for them....unless you count the menu at the prison...

Meaning AQ is hardly operatinal anymore? Not even in Iraq, Pakistan, Eastern Europe and elsewhere?

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Terrorist attack in London

"Sageman points out that the root of the misconception is the fact that bin Laden and his lieutenants did have control of this whole social movement for five years, from 1996 to 2001. But all of that changed when Al Qaeda's control "more or less evaporated" at their height in 2001 after the loss of its sanctuary in Afghanistan."

"He argues that Al Qaeda has been subsumed into the larger Salafi jihad revivalist movement that predates it."

"Sageman says that by destroying the training camps, the U.S. eliminated the financial and operational backing bin Laden provided the jihad. "By cutting off the 'golden chain,' he really doesn't have that much money left. We're monitoring his communication so he can't communicate with his troops. The whole network degenerated because [we] undermined the control of this social movement." "

I'll just repost this.


Ever see a chicken with its head freshly cut off? It can run about and such...

 

[Reverend Blair]

I don't have a problem with Spain pulling troops out of Iraq Rev. The problem is the symbolism of how it was done. If the bombs had not gone off and Zapareto won, then there is no issue with pulling Spanish troops out immediately. But the message it sent was that Spain was cowering to the terrorists. The symbolism is the same as when Hamas sent a suicide bomber in the American barricks in Beirut in 1983 (1985?) which caused Reagan to pull troops out of Lebanon, an event bin Laden has repeatedly pointed out as evidence of the West's weakness.

Bullshit. Zapatero, who opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq, went after terrorists harder then his predecessors did. There was no cowering. He said he'd pull the troops out and he did. Then he went after the people who attacked him.

Reagan, who shouldn't have been there in the first place because his goals had little to do with helping anybody but himself, ran away. Reagan was a coward and a criminal.

 

[Toro]

Bullshit. Zapatero, who opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq, went after terrorists harder then his predecessors did. There was no cowering. He said he'd pull the troops out and he did. Then he went after the people who attacked him.

You're totally missing the point. The actions and words of nations send messages. The message of the timing of the pullout was that Spain would bow to international terrorism. The fact that they nailed the guys who masterminded it does not change the symbolism of Spain's timing.

Reagan, who shouldn't have been there in the first place because his goals had little to do with helping anybody but himself, ran away. Reagan was a coward and a criminal.

And once again your blind ideological rage causes you to miss the point - or choose to ignore it. Whether or not you or anyone else thinks America should have been in Lebanon is irrelevant to the message sent that America and the West will be forced out of the region if you draw blood. Bin Laden has said that over and over again. It is the basis of their strategy.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/08/london.attacks/index.html

death toll rising....


********

good post rev. The reality is: perceptions (such as those defined by the US(G) and labelled "cowards" etc..) fall into the non thinking perimeters. The other reality is, who cares if some ass calls someone a "coward"??? One can be rest assured the terrorists........whatever group they align themselve with.....don't give one damn about such "perceptions" or Image.....and even if they did use such silly words in their own propaganda......it is meaningless. Since when should "we" be concerned about "image" /perceptions with those SOB's???

Spain handled their 3-11 VERY EFFECTIVELY indeed (and INTELLIGENTLY). And if anyone was naive enough to think that Spain would not follow through on finding, destroying those criminals........then they don't know the Spaniards. ( who by the way have a much longer history on this planet than the US) The Spanish population did not support the insanity of Iraq........and they changed their leadership accordingly. Their message is more powerful in that it tells the USG........to "p*** off " and deal with their own bloody war. It is their right to do just that. If the USG wants to perpetuate terrorism/ cycle of violence with their warmonger attitude......they are the ones with the problem. There are many other and more effective ways to deal with this issue.

 

[I think not]

There are many other and more effective ways to deal with this issue.

List a few if you would please

 

[Ocean Breeze]

The message of the timing of the pullout was that Spain would bow to international terrorism

:roll:


that is again......the non thinkers, and bushcon spin.


but even if it were the case........that can be used to Spains advantage. It might give the "terrorists" the illusion that they actually "won" a round......when they DIDN'T.

the concept is more psychological in its framework. Lest we forget terrorism is not just barbaric killing , it is a psychological "game" if you will. Ergo a lot more psychology is nec in how one establishes control again. One has to outthink them and outsmart them. Bombs and war is what they are familiar with.......and don't do the job anyhow.

the "be vigilent" phrase does not really mean anything without some substansive idea as to how to be "vigilent". The general population has a big role now too. What to be observant for. --for eg. Some simple/tangible guidelines might be wise. Having a color coded alert for eg...... means very little with out some general guidelines. accompanying each code level. (for eg.) guidelines that the average citizen can relate to.


****** the issue of how these tragedies are reported factors in too. The more repetative coverage of this .....on TEEVEE for eg......with victim interviews, etc only highlights the drama of the event......and gives the "terrorists" additional sensational coverage/advertizing. Seems the media might play a role in presenting the facts, information as it comes in ....in a matter of fact fashion.---with a business like style. The tone can be adapted to a less emotional one.

How many times does CNN have to replay the same interview with the same victims to get their point across?? this saturation can be interpreted as glorifying the event in the bizarre minds of those that caused it. One can bet , they are watching the visual media. The kind of coverage it gets adds to their "ego" too.

 

[Reverend Blair]

You're totally missing the point. The actions and words of nations send messages.

Yes they do. Sabre rattling rhetoric, illegal invasions, attempted coups, destroying entire cities, propping up dictators, and refusing to sign onto treaties all send strong messages. So does pretending that international institutions don't matter and refusing to be bound by international laws that you expect others to adhere to.

The message being sent is that the USA is a rogue state. We've received that message loud and clear.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

You're totally missing the point. The actions and words of nations send messages.

Yes they do. Sabre rattling rhetoric, illegal invasions, attempted coups, destroying entire cities, propping up dictators, and refusing to sign onto treaties all send strong messages. So does pretending that international institutions don't matter and refusing to be bound by international laws that you expect others to adhere to.

The message being sent is that the USA is a rogue state. We've received that message loud and clear.

INDEED. Nice touch , and hitting the core issues too, Rev. Good job.

 

[I think not]

You're totally missing the point. The actions and words of nations send messages.

Yes they do. Sabre rattling rhetoric, illegal invasions, attempted coups, destroying entire cities, propping up dictators, and refusing to sign onto treaties all send strong messages. So does pretending that international institutions don't matter and refusing to be bound by international laws that you expect others to adhere to.

Yes, but the Soviet Union is gone now, so don't have to worry about that anymore.

The message being sent is that the USA is a rogue state. We've received that message loud and clear.

Only a small minority I'm afraid, you know, the parties that never get to govern.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

You're totally missing the point. The actions and words of nations send messages.

Yes they do. Sabre rattling rhetoric, illegal invasions, attempted coups, destroying entire cities, propping up dictators, and refusing to sign onto treaties all send strong messages. So does pretending that international institutions don't matter and refusing to be bound by international laws that you expect others to adhere to.

Yes, but the Soviet Union is gone now, so don't have to worry about that anymore.

The message being sent is that the USA is a rogue state. We've received that message loud and clear.

Only a small minority I'm afraid, you know, the parties that never get to govern.

:?: :?: :?:

Yes, but the Soviet Union is gone now, so don't have to worry about that anymore.

but the US(G) has taken its place......in that context. And the rest of the world IS WORRIED.

 

[Jo Canadian]

I was flipping through various channels to see the difference of coverage. It's all pretty much the same, although Global had to go on pointing out that England was also on the List of Christian countries targeted by Al-Qweeda.

:roll: Nothing like adding more fuel to the fire eh?

 

[Ocean Breeze]

I was flipping through various channels to see the difference of coverage. It's all pretty much the same, although Global had to go on pointing out that England was also on the List of Christian countries targeted by Al-Qweeda.

:roll: Nothing like adding more fuel to the fire eh?

exactly. this is the kind of crap that inflates their "confidence"...

One of the CA channels seems to be the most matter of fact about this type of event. In fact it is matter of fact about most issues. ( reference being the news itself.......not the various other "editorial"/opinion type programs..

 

[Ocean Breeze]

LOOK IN THE MIRROR mr. bush inc.

look in the mirror for America
By Derrick Z. Jackson | July 8, 2005

IN HIS INITIAL reaction yesterday to the London transit bombings, President Bush decried ''people killing innocent people." He said: ''The contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty and those who kill -- those who have got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks."

Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail to a friend
Op-ed RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
Reprints/permissions
More:
Globe Editorials / Op-Ed |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts This came a week and a half after Bush invoked the innocent in his Fort Bragg, N.C., speech in an attempt to shore up sagging American support for his invasion and occupation of Iraq. Doggedly tying 9/11 to Saddam Hussein even though no tie existed, Bush said of global terrorists: ''There is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad, including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see."

Bush also said the enemy will fail. ''The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance of freedom," he said. Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair said the ''slaughter of innocent people" will fail to cower the British people, and Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin called the attack an ''unspeakable attack on the innocent."

It was all appropriate in the moment. In a greater context, there is a tragic hollowness. The world, of course, shares the sympathies of Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, who said the London bombings were a ''despicable, cowardly act." Yet every invoking of the innocents also reminds us of our despicable, cowardly killing of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Or perhaps you forgot about them. That was by design. We have rightfully mourned the loss of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. We have begun mourning the loss of about 40 people in London. We have mourned the loss of 1,751 US soldiers, who, bless them, were following orders of their commander in chief. But to this day, there has been no major acknowledgement, let alone apology, by Bush or Blair for the massive amounts of carnage we created in a war waged over what turned out to be a lie, the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

These innocents never existed, either in Iraq or Afghanistan. ''We don't do body counts," said both General Tommy Franks, former Iraqi commander, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. When Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt was asked about the images of American soldiers killing innocent civilians on Arab television, Kimmitt said: ''My solution is quite simple: Change the channel. Change the channel to a legitimate, authoritative, honest news station. The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda. And that is lies."

The United States waged its own war of propaganda by refusing to conduct a legitimate, authoritative, honest accounting of the deaths of innocent civilians. As it urged people to change the channel, the Bush administration cut off all channels to finding out what we did to women, men, and children who were shopping, working, or leaving their mosques. In an invasion based on falsehoods, the truth of the civilian carnage might have been too hard for Americans to take, and support for the war might have ended in the first few weeks.

The propaganda of an invasion with invisible innocents surely allowed Bush to seamlessly switch his stated reason from the unique horrors of WMD to liberating an oppressed people. It is a lot easier to tell the world you are their great liberator if you do not have to own up to the thousands of dead people who will never get the chance to vote in that free election. It sounds a little bit like people who say African-Americans should be thankful for slavery because they are no longer in Africa.

Worse, this denial of death, in a war that did not have to happen, is sure to fuel the very terrorism we say we will defeat. The innocents in the so-called war on terror are always ''our" citizens or the citizens of our allies. The only innocent Iraqis are those killed by ''insurgents." Our soldiers clearly did not intend to kill innocents. But this posturing of America as the great innocent, when everyone knows we kill innocents ourselves, is likely only to make us look more like the devil in the eyes of a suicide bomber.

and not only in the eyes of the "suicide bomber". It also makes the US the biggest hypocrit on this planet.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

From the beginning, this has been a question about how to stop terrorism, not about whether or not to do it.

Bush's approach is a catastrophic, costly failure. But the Democrats fear being critical of Bush's flawed policies because the White House is so good at defining criticism as enabling the terrorists. However, it is Bush's ideological obtuseness (really Cheney's) and delusional state that has endangered us all. As with his other ventures in life (except for the ones where Daddy's friends bailed him out or gave him a free ride), Bush has struck out and thought he hit a home run.

.

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[Toro]

Only a small minority I'm afraid, you know, the parties that never get to govern.

Or listened to.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Terrorist attack in L

Is that why the US is the most despised country on the planet and even its closest allies don't trust it?