Bomb attacks in london (1 Viewer)

[coast to coast]

First off, i am in no way condoning what happened in London today, but you have to ask yourself what constitutes terrorism. If everyone is calling this a war then where do you draw the line with respect to retaliations. Countless people in Iraq have died in bomb attacks at the hand of other nations. Is it because they were dropped from planes what makes it right! People are fighting by the means they can its just the superpowers of the world are more technologically advanced. Remember greed is the ultimate monkey that is driving this, and perhap if America didnt fuck this up right from the start (i am talking about 20-30 years ago) then perhaps they could have had economic relations with the whole middle east much the way they do with Saudi Arabia. Donkey OJ is completely right in what he is saying its the viewpoint we see it from that makes it right/wrong. But to close fuck anyone that takes an innocent life be they black, white ....etc

Yeh, defining "terrorism" is practically impossible, no one has managed to come up with a good definition. Chomsky would define everythig as terrorism. But it is possible to differentiate between what al-Qa'eda do and what say the IRA or ETA do and what is going in Palestine/Israel and Chechnya/Caucasus and what democratically elected states (like US, UK) do. I'm not saying that because a weapon comes from a plane in an army it makes it alright (in fact no one actually even implied that) but there are great differences between them.

 

[jane]

First off, i am in no way condoning what happened in London today, but you have to ask yourself what constitutes terrorism. If everyone is calling this a war then where do you draw the line with respect to retaliations. Countless people in Iraq have died in bomb attacks at the hand of other nations. Is it because they were dropped from planes what makes it right! People are fighting by the means they can its just the superpowers of the world are more technologically advanced. Remember greed is the ultimate monkey that is driving this, and perhap if America didnt fuck this up right from the start (i am talking about 20-30 years ago) then perhaps they could have had economic relations with the whole middle east much the way they do with Saudi Arabia. Donkey OJ is completely right in what he is saying its the viewpoint we see it from that makes it right/wrong. But to close fuck anyone that takes an innocent life be they black, white ....etc

I think one of the problems is that, the way Bush and Co have painted it, when you condemn violent attacks on innocent people in the west, you justify their war, and when you question the war, or condemn the attacks on people not in the west, you are condoning their definition of terrorism.

I don't think that anyone in his or her right mind is going to turn around and say that by suggesting that this attack in London is no surprise somehow condones the killing of innocent people. Pardon my corniness, but we have to reclaim the right to condemn terrorist attacks in the west in their own right, without that being attached to some fucked-up justification for bombing other innocent people.

That's what pissed me off about 9/11. I remember walking around the streets, thinking, "Oh my god, there are millions of people in the world whose WHOLE LIVES are like this. Please, if there is a god, let this never ever happen to anyone again," while knowing that it was going to mean a lot more people were going to be bombed. And then I felt like if I was upset about the WTC, I was inadvertently offering myself as a poster child for Bush's war.

 

[coast to coast]

I think one of the problems is that, the way Bush and Co have painted it, when you condemn violent attacks on innocent people in the west, you justify their war, and when you question the war, or condemn the attacks on people not in the west, you are condoning their definition of terrorism.

I don't think that anyone in his or her right mind is going to turn around and say that by suggesting that this attack in London is no surprise somehow condones the killing of innocent people. Pardon my corniness, but we have to reclaim the right to condemn terrorist attacks in the west in their own right, without that being attached to some fucked-up justification for bombing other innocent people.

That's what pissed me off about 9/11. I remember walking around the streets, thinking, "Oh my god, there are millions of people in the world whose WHOLE LIVES are like this. Please, if there is a god, let this never ever happen to anyone again," while knowing that it was going to mean a lot more people were going to be bombed. And then I felt like if I was upset about the WTC, I was inadvertently offering myself as a poster child for Bush's war.

I don't see how you can think that George boy has managed to hi-jack your emotions. That a bit paranoid.

 

[broken arm]

bbc website/police confirm 33 dead

 

[nofriendo]

No offence to anyone living abroad but I would hate to live in a country where when a bomb goes off the first hour is discussing which of 10 organisations is responsible. With the current climate in Dublin if a bomb went off everyone would be "who the fuck was that??" and we would be stumped for a number of days!! But today straight away it was , is it al qaeda, IRA, tree huggers, g8 protestors etc. So as much as i bitch and moan about Dublin i am perfectly content walking the streets with the only worry being do i have enough energy to do the junkie/charity worker hurdle on the way home!

 

[oh shit]

I was inadvertently offering myself as a poster child for Bush's war.

poster adult, pinko

 

[jane]

I don't see how you can think that George boy has managed to hi-jack your emotions. That a bit paranoid.

I do think people's grief was hi-jacked by the US government as an excuse to bomb people. Everyone in NY at the time (ok, nearly everyone) was begging the government NOT to bomb Afghanistan because for once, we, as Americans, had gotten a taste of what it felt like to be terrified. And then, he did it anyway, and STILL spouts rhetoric that suggests he is dishing out 9/11 justice, despite how many people begged him not to do it.

So he did appropriate people's grief, and repeated -- time and time again -- that 'you're with us or against us', meaning that you side with the government or the terrorists, and peppered all of it with pictures of 9/11 to show that there is nothing in between. That's not paranoid. That's what he did. I'm not saying that it worked, I'm just saying that is what he tried to do.

 

[avernus]

 

[jane]

poster adult, pinko

Whatever, dude.

You'll be old someday, you just wait.

By the way, I'm still somewhat surprised that the fact that ID CARDS ARE ALREADY MANDATORY FOR FOREIGNERS seems to get so little reaction around here.

 

[nofriendo]

I was on craigslist there and found very very odd post!!! Fucking Nutjobs

WE GOT YOUR BACK

Reply to: [email protected]
Date: 2005-07-07, 3:31PM GMT/BST


Stay strong....Your friends in the U.S. have your back!

 

[P. Littbarski]

By the way, I'm still somewhat surprised that the fact that ID CARDS ARE ALREADY MANDATORY FOR FOREIGNERS seems to get so little reaction around here.

ID cards are mandatory for foreigners in a lot if not most countries around the world

 

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

jeepers - the coup have no luck with album covers:

 

[taubstumm]

as an aside:

Chomsky would define everythig as terrorism.

no he wouldn't. he has a very simple definition of terrorism - the definition given in the u.s. army code as an operational concept for training purposes - that is, a neutral, descriptive, objective definition (to the extent that neutrality and objectivity are possible in discussing these concepts).

here it is:

"the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear" (us army operational concept for terrorism counteraction, t.r.a.d.o.c. pamphlet no. 525-37, 1984).

and obviously, the reason that this isn't used as an 'operational concept' in places like the new york times, or fox news, or inside george bush's brain, is because it would generate some difficult questions, like "hey, doesn't what we're doing in iraq fit perfectly with our own definition of terrorism?" and the like.

more here: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20020702.htm

 

[jane]

ID cards are mandatory for foreigners in a lot if not most countries around the world

I just wonder about it.

If they weren't concerned about the questionable legality of making us carry cards (which they did not do until fairly recently), they would not include 'this is not an identity card' on the back of the bloody thing.

 

[photon]

Whatever, dude.

You'll be old someday, you just wait.

Your constant claims to be "old" are falling pretty uselessly on my ears, Jane...

By the way, I'm still somewhat surprised that the fact that ID CARDS ARE ALREADY MANDATORY FOR FOREIGNERS seems to get so little reaction around here.

Sorry to pick nits (ewww) with you, but the Garda National Immigration Bureau cards that us furriners get specifically say that they AREN'T to be used as ID. All they do is state what your current residency status is. If a non-Irish person is ever asked for ID, they need only produce the same sort of thing that an Irish person has to, i.e. a passport, driver's license, etc.

Paul

 

[oh shit]

Sorry to pick nits (ewww) with you, but the Garda National Immigration Bureau cards that us furriners get specifically say that they AREN'T to be used as ID. All they do is state what your current residency status is. If a non-Irish person is ever asked for ID, they need only produce the same sort of thing that an Irish person has to, i.e. a passport, driver's license, etc.

Paul

basically it means that you can't use it to get into strip bars

 

[coast to coast]

as an aside:


no he wouldn't. he has a very simple definition of terrorism - the definition given in the u.s. army code as an operational concept for training purposes - that is, a neutral, descriptive, objective definition (to the extent that neutrality and objectivity are possible in discussing these concepts).

here it is:

"the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear" (us army operational concept for terrorism counteraction, t.r.a.d.o.c. pamphlet no. 525-37, 1984).

and obviously, the reason that this isn't used as an 'operational concept' in places like the new york times, or fox news, or inside george bush's brain, is because it would generate some difficult questions, like "hey, doesn't what we're doing in iraq fit perfectly with our own definition of terrorism?" and the like.

more here: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20020702.htm

yes, by that definition, war is terrorism.... which it may well be (war is shit and terrifying after all) but that doesn't mean there isn't huge, important differences between 'war' and and transnational terrorist actors. My point being that just saying everything that fits these criteria is 'terrorism' paints over a lot of important details.

 

[coast to coast]

I do think people's grief was hi-jacked by the US government as an excuse to bomb people. Everyone in NY at the time (ok, nearly everyone) was begging the government NOT to bomb Afghanistan because for once, we, as Americans, had gotten a taste of what it felt like to be terrified. And then, he did it anyway, and STILL spouts rhetoric that suggests he is dishing out 9/11 justice, despite how many people begged him not to do it.

So he did appropriate people's grief, and repeated -- time and time again -- that 'you're with us or against us', meaning that you side with the government or the terrorists, and peppered all of it with pictures of 9/11 to show that there is nothing in between. That's not paranoid. That's what he did. I'm not saying that it worked, I'm just saying that is what he tried to do.

The answer is obvious: Secede from the Union!

 

[jane]

Your constant claims to be old are falling pretty uselessly on my ears, Jane.



Sorry to pick nits (ewww) with you, but the Garda National Immigration Bureau cards that us furriners get specifically say that they AREN'T to be used as ID. All they do is state what your current residency status is. If a non-Irish person is ever asked for ID, they need only produce the same sort of thing that an Irish person has to, i.e. a passport, driver's license, etc.

Paul

But that's the thing. The relevance of our immigration status is only a concern of the Justice Department, so there's no need for them to make us carry them at all times. That's the beef I have. Well, the main beef.

Also, they should be allowed to be used as ID, but I also think it's a bit shit that it's all "We use this to identify you, but at no time do you have the right to use it to identify yourself, despite it containing your name, address, and proof that you live in Ireland."

 

[taubstumm]

yes, by that definition, war is terrorism.... which it may well be (war is shit and terrifying after all) but that doesn't mean there isn't huge, important differences between 'war' and and transnational terrorist actors. My point being that just saying everything that fits these criteria is 'terrorism' paints over a lot of important details.

ah yeah, i know. i just wanted to give a bit of context. disambiguation, like. keepin it real on noam's behalf.