Bomb attacks in london (3 Viewers)

[chickenham]

The civilians in Iraq were killed in the process of ensuring that a US backed government is established there.
Saddam stopped playing ball so he was removed. He was still US funded when he was gassing the Kurds. They were tacitly involved in the atrocities they supposedly removed him for (as well as for the non-existent WOMD).

Against the wishes of the people at large the US re-instated many members of Saddam's cabinet which made life very dangerous for supporters of what used to be the opposition party.
Any talk of liberation or democracy for the Iraqis or good guys vs bad guys is naive to the point of being upsetting. If you mess with the Muslim world they won't take it lightly. Insurgents my bollocks. Better find a viable alternative to oil real soon.

If you don't love America / Britain then GET OUT pinko.

 

[kraster]

The main reason behind the war was to get rid of Saddam who was a total fucking cunt. It may not fit into your right-on lefty beliefs but the war was for a humanitarian reason. .

The main reason behind this war was not to get rid of Saddam. It was to rid Iraq of WMDs and because of Saddam's "links" with Al Qaeda. Regime change is illegal under international law. Saddam didn't seem to bother the US administration too much when they were supplying him with weapons to aim at the Iranians.

The use of cluster bombs is as indiscriminate as any terrorist bomb. Why do you think this is justifiable? If you drop a Daisy cutter bomb or cluster bomb on populated areas you can be pretty sure that it's going to kill innocent people. But that's just collateral damage, eh?

 

[Latex lizzie]

Sorry I'm late to this..was ona little holiday.

first up I'm not surprised by any of this..and my sympathies go out to anyone directly affected by it all.
Secondly..

watch the civil liberties float down the drain in the name of law and order.that is what we should really be worried abou, britain first, then we usually follow right behind like good little doggies..

condeming terrorists is like cursing at the wind.

 

[aoboa]

I'm going to repeat myself now just in case people still don't get it.

THE AIM OF THE IRAQ WAR WAS NOT TO KILL IRAQI CIVILIANS - FACT.

THE AIM OF THE ATTACKS ON LONDON WAS TO KILL AS MANY INNOCENT CIVILIANS AS POSSIBLE - FACT

Can the people who justify the bombing in London with the bullshit excuse that "the UK was bombing people in Iraq so they are just as evil" kindly get the above into their thick fucking skulls.

Jesus you don't half miss the point do you?
Are you saying that civilians weren't deliberately killed in Iraq?
Fallujah was razed to the ground with bombs, napalm, chemical weapons, depleted uranium. There were civilians there. All animal/plant life was wiped out - they call it collatoral damage - they deliberately killed civilians.
US/UK are at war by their own admission, a war on terror, remember???
A terrorist attack on London is an act in that war - no one is defending what happened in London but you've got to understand why.
If you go into an all encompassing 'war on terror' you've got to expect these kind of attacks.

Yes the invasion of Iraq was to remove Saddam, but not for the humanitarian reasons you think.

 

[billygannon]

watch the civil liberties float down the drain in the name of law and order.that is what we should really be worried abou, britain first, then we usually follow right behind like good little doggies..

I don't know about this. The English are very used to being bombed and their reaction seems to be business as usual. They're just saying "fuck 'em" to the terrorists.
They'll introduce the ID card scheme, but they have a better understanding of terrorism and how to react to it than the Americans.

 

[Latex lizzie]

..different ballgame to the previous terrorist attacks (IRA), and if you call business as usual locking up people with Irish accents and general harrasments all through the eighties then we are saying the same thing. The Brits have been even talking about bringing in a "homeland security" minister.

I shudder.

 

[broken arm]

most of the comment on this side of the water has suggested that ID cards wouldn't have prevented an attck like this anyway.

 

[Latex lizzie]

Of course not.Just because you know who someone is doesn't mean you can stop them from thinking/doing what they like. there will always be way around that sort of thing for terrorists, instead the information will be used to buy and sell ordinary punters like you and me. The respective governments just need an excuse.Terrorism fits the bill perfectly, and because it is open ended they can get away with it as long as they like.

 

[spiritualtramp]

Fallujah was razed to the ground with bombs, napalm, chemical weapons, depleted uranium. There were civilians there. All animal/plant life was wiped out - they call it collatoral damage - they deliberately killed civilians.

Funny, I seem to recall that civilians were advised to leave Falluja.

for the record, I didn't support the bloody war. But I do think there is a bit of a difference between civilian deaths in a war and blowing up a tube train.

Yes the invasion of Iraq was to remove Saddam, but not for the humanitarian reasons you think.

Of course, Saddam was a wonderful leader. go talk to some Kurds, will you?

 

[spiritualtramp]

most of the comment on this side of the water has suggested that ID cards wouldn't have prevented an attck like this anyway.

ID cards won't stop an attack. However, in Madrid ID cards did assist in tracking down the bombers.

 

[broken arm]

for the record, I didn't support the bloody war. But I do think there is a bit of a difference between civilian deaths in a war and blowing up a tube train.

in fairness though, i think if your loved one/friend was blown up I don't think you'r feel any less pain because the person who dropped the cluster bomb said they were doing it in the interests of conventional warfare.

there is something very deep here in terms of intent and duality of morality. but..............

 

[aoboa]

Funny, I seem to recall that civilians were advised to leave Falluja.

So that makes it okay? If the terrorists had issued a warning on Friday, I suppose that would have made the bombing okay??? Terrorism is terrorism no matter what way you look at it. Using napalm in an urban area on civilians is just 'warfare', yeah????

for the record, I didn't support the bloody war. But I do think there is a bit of a difference between civilian deaths in a war and blowing up a tube train.

Dead cililians is dead civilians. Iraq isn't a war, it's an invasion - there is a bit of a difference.
You're missing the point of the concept, 'the war on terror'. If terror is your enemy, this is it's response.
If you're involved in a 'war on terror' - this is your enemy.
Thursday just proved once again, that the war on terror doesn't make the world safer, just the opposite.

Of course, Saddam was a wonderful leader. go talk to some Kurds, will you?

Good or bad isn't the issue though. The US/UK had no right, under any law, to go in and do what they did - even though Saddam was their creation.

 

[spiritualtramp]

in fairness though, i think if your loved one/friend was blown up I don't think you'r feel any less pain because the person who dropped the cluster bomb said they were doing it in the interests of conventional warfare.

there is something very deep here in terms of intent and duality of morality. but..............

No, of course you wouldn't feel any less pain, but that wasn't what I was getting at. Whilst the invasion of Iraq wasn't very moral the aim wasn't to kill civilians. As I said already, if they really wanted to kill civilians they could have easily wiped out the entire population.

 

[spiritualtramp]

So that makes it okay? If the terrorists had issued a warning on Friday, I suppose that would have made the bombing okay???

I somehow doubt a warning on friday would have made a difference, given that the attacks were on thursday.

Dead cililians is dead civilians.

Ugh, look I'm not saying the deaths in Iraq are ok.

My point is about the intent to murder.

Here is an example:

Scenario one: I have a kid and it gets run over by accident by a driver who shouldn't have been driving in the first place, blood and guts everywhere, kid dies, terrible stuff altogether.

Scenario two: My kid gets run and killed over on purpose.

Which do you think is worse? i'm thinking scenario two is.

Good or bad isn't the issue though. The US/UK had no right, under any law, to go in and do what they did - even though Saddam was their creation.

I imagine the fact that Saddam was their creation may have been a factor in getting rid of him.

 

[aoboa]

I somehow doubt a warning on friday would have made a difference, given that the attacks were on thursday.

Jeez You get the point though??? If they gave a warning on THURSDAY would it have made a difference to you??? Telling civilians to get out of their city so you can flatten their houses and make the area uninhabitable for years is cool too???

Ugh, look I'm not saying the deaths in Iraq are ok.

My point is about the intent to murder.

Here is an example:

Scenario one: I have a kid and it gets run over by accident by a driver who shouldn't have been driving in the first place, blood and guts everywhere, kid dies, terrible stuff altogether.

Scenario two: My kid gets run and killed over on purpose.

Which do you think is worse? i'm thinking scenario two is.

You're talking about an accident and a murder. It's very different.
Dropping a bomb on a city is designed to murder whatever way you look at it. So is planting a bomb on a train. So, morally, the two are pretty much the same. In the case of a war you justify actual (premeditated) murder using the term collatoral damage. It's still very much murder though.

Accidently hitting someone with a car isn't premeditated and is defined as manslaughter, not murder.

I imagine the fact that Saddam was their creation may have been a factor in getting rid of him.

You really want to believe that they just spent billions of dollars to make Iraq a nicer place, don't you??

 

[spiritualtramp]

Dropping a bomb on a city is designed to murder whatever way you look at it. So is planting a bomb on a train.

The bomb targets in Iraq were mainly Iraqi government infrastructure.

If they a) only bombed housing estates and b) had no other reason than to kill civilians your point would be valid.

You really want to believe that they just spent billions of dollars to make Iraq a nicer place, don't you??

No, I'm actually pretty cynical about the reasons for the invasion. Pretty glad Saddam is gone though.

 

[aoboa]

The bomb targets in Iraq were mainly Iraqi government infrastructure.

If they a) only bombed housing estates and b) had no other reason than to kill civilians your point would be valid.

You conveniently ignored this part though:
"So, morally, the two are pretty much the same. In the case of a war you justify actual (premeditated) murder using the term collatoral damage. It's still very much murder though."

They razed Fallujah, among other attacks on civialians (remember all the wedding party massacres?).
Have a look here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9355.htm

edit:
A. Against the Governments of the US and the UK

1. Planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles.

Evidence for this can be found in the leaked Downing Street Memo of 23rd July, 2002 in which it was revealed that: “military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy.” Intelligence was manufactured to willfully deceive the people of the US, the UK, and their elected representatives.

2. Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure, by intentionally directing attacks upon civilians and hospitals, medical centers, residential neighborhoods, electricity stations, and water purification facilities in violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), Articles 7(1)(a), 8(2)(a)(i), and 8(2)(b)(i). The complete destruction of the city of Falluja in itself constitutes a glaring example of such crimes.

3. Using disproportionate force and indiscriminate weapon systems, such as cluster munitions, incendiary bombs, depleted uranium (DU), and chemical weapons. Detailed evidence was presented to the Tribunal by expert witnesses that leukemia had risen sharply in children under the age of five residing in those areas which had been targeted by DU weapons.

4. Failing to safeguard the lives of civilians during military activities and during the occupation period thereafter, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Articles 13 and 27, and the ICC Statute, Articles 7 (1)(a) and 8(2)(a)(i). This is evidenced, for example, by “shock and awe” bombing techniques and the conduct of occupying forces at checkpoints.

5. Using deadly violence against peaceful protestors, beginning with, among others, the April 2003 killing of more than a dozen peaceful protestors in Falluja.

6. Imposing punishments without charge or trial, including collective punishment, on the people of Iraq, in violation of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Geneva Conventions, and customary international law requiring due process. Repeated testimonies pointed to “snatch and grab” operations, disappearances, and assassinations.

7. Subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the ICCPR, other treaties and covenants, and customary international law. Degrading treatment includes subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to acts of racial, ethnic, religious, and gender discrimination, as well as denying Iraqi soldiers Prisoner of War status as required by the Geneva Convention. Abundant testimony was provided of unlawful arrests and detentions, without due process of law. Well known and egregious examples occurred in Abu Ghraib prison as well as in Mosul, Camp Bucca, and Basra.
The employment of mercenaries and private contractors to carry out torture has served to undermine accountability.

8. Re-writing the laws of a country that has been illegally invaded and occupied, in violation of international covenants on the responsibilities of occupying powers, in order to amass illegal profits (through such measures as Order 39, signed by L. Paul Bremer III for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which allows foreign investors to buy and takeover Iraq’s state-owned enterprises and to repatriate 100 percent of their profits and assets at any point) and to control Iraq’s oil. Evidence listed a number of corporations that had profited from such transactions.

9. Willfully devastating the environment, contaminating it by depleted uranium (DU) weapons, combined with the plumes from burning oil wells, as well as huge oil spills, and destroying agricultural lands. Deliberately disrupting the water and waste removal systems, in a manner verging on biological-chemical warfare. Failing to prevent the looting and dispersal of radioactive material from nuclear sites. Extensive documentation is available on air, water pollution, land degradation, and radiological pollution.

10. Actively creating conditions under which the status of Iraqi women has seriously been degraded contrary, to the repeated claims of the leaders of the coalition forces. Women’s freedom of movement has been severely limited, restricting their access to education, livelihood, and social engagement. Testimony was provided that sexual violence and sex trafficking have increased since the occupation of Iraq began.

11. Failing to protect humanity’s rich archaeological and cultural heritage in Iraq, by allowing the looting of museums and established historical sites and positioning military bases in culturally and archeologically sensitive locations. This took place despite prior warnings from UNESCO and Iraqi museum officials.

12. Obstructing the right to information, including the censoring of Iraqi media, such as newspapers (e.g., al-Hawza, al-Mashriq, and al-Mustaqila) and radio stations (Baghdad Radio), targeting international journalists, imprisoning and killing academics, intellectuals and scientists.

13. Redefining torture in violation of international law, to allow use of torture and illegal detentions, including holding more than 500 people at Guantánamo Bay without charging them or allowing them any access to legal protection, and using “extraordinary renditions” to send people to torture in other countries known to commit human rights abuses and torture prisoners.

 

[Latex lizzie]

Hello. I have been discussing these and other isssues over here

http://www.thumped.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=15801&page=1

for quite some time with myself and the odd tumble weed.

Start at page one and read down for lots of opinion. Now play nice.

 

[broken arm]

Hello. I have been discussing these and other isssues over here

http://www.thumped.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=15801&page=1

for quite some time with myself and the odd tumble weed.

Start at page one and read down for lots of opinion. Now play nice.

shut it junkie

 

[Latex lizzie]

so I have a name now.

Darn.