Bomb attacks in london (1 Viewer)

[kraster]

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

Did you know that America was supporting Saddam when he gassed the Kurds in Halabja?
The biggest problem I have with this war in Iraq is that it's based on a false premise therefore any acts undertaken by the coalition forces are illegal and morally reprehensible.

Al Qaeda itself is a myth started by America to prosecute Bin Laden for the USS Cole bombings, in absentia, because of an American Law requires a defendant to be a part of an organisation in order to be prosecuted. Al Qaeda doesn't exist as an organised network in reality. But the philosophy of Ayman Al Zawihiri and Bin Laden does influence some disparate groups into conducting atrocities in places like London.

Both sides in the war on terror are wrong. It's not one or the other. America's gung-ho attitude, lack of proper planning, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Nassiriya have left Iraq in a pitiful mess of violence and inflamed and polarised Arab opinion.
This polarisation of attitudes has boosted Bin Laden's philosophy of all out war on people who don't share his medieval worldview.

In other words, America's prosecution of an Illegal war in Iraq and the cackhanded way in which they prosecuted it has actually made a reality of the myth of Al Qaeda.

 

[broken arm]

does anyone else see the current US strategy in Iraq is "changing the colour of the corpses" or is it capacity building????????

 

[steve albino]

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.

The following extracts come from a John Pilger article here:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=8240

"Over the past two weeks, the contrast between two related "global" events has been salutary. The first was the World Tribunal on Iraq held in Istanbul; the second the G8 meeting in Scotland and the Make Poverty History campaign. Reading the papers and watching television in Britain, you would know nothing about the Istanbul meetings, which produced the most searing evidence to date of the greatest political scandal of modern times: the attack on a defenceless Iraq by America and Britain.

The tribunal is a serious international public inquiry into the invasion and occupation, the kind governments dare not hold.

The most shocking testimony was given by Dahr Jamail. Unless you read the internet, you will not know who Dhar Jamail is. He is not an amusing Baghdad blogger. For me, he is the finest reporter working in Iraq. With the exception of Robert Fisk, Patrick Cockburn and several others, mostly freelancers, he shames the flak-jacketed, cliché crunching camp followers known as "embeds". A Lebanese with American citizenship, Jamail has been almost everywhere the camp followers have not.
Jamail described how Fallujah's hospitals have been subjected to an American tactic of collective punishment, with US 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 the hospitals. Children were shot dead in front of their families, in cold blood. "

 

[Latex lizzie]

[/QUOTE]Al Qaeda itself is a myth started by America to prosecute Bin Laden for the USS Cole bombings, in absentia, because of an American Law requires a defendant to be a part of an organisation in order to be prosecuted. Al Qaeda doesn't exist as an organised network in reality. But the philosophy of Ayman Al Zawihiri and Bin Laden does influence some disparate groups into conducting atrocities in places like London.[/QUOTE]

..er this is not strictly true. 9/11 was organised and executed by a well organised bunch of folks called al qaeda? I'll agree that the US has elevated their status to that of a huge network of evildoers but a myth? don't think so. THey are out there with a common purpose and ideal the roots of which were seeded in afgahnistan and pakistani training camps.who knows what long term plans and structures were handed out during those years? not me you or the CIA? Lets face it for an group that is supposedly "unorganised" they have had the most sucessfull reign of terror and highest body count of any "organised" terrorist group. Just because they dont send each other emails every day doesn't make it any less an organisation.

 

[Latex lizzie]

I think John Pilger should have the final say on this (and everything)

Lest We Forget; These Were Blair's Bombs
By John Pilger
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Sunday 10 July 2005

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071005X.shtml

In all the coverage of last week's bombing of London, a basic truth is struggling to be heard. It is this: no one doubts the atrocious inhumanity of those who planted the bombs, but no one should also doubt that this 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 "our way of life", which his own rapacious violence in other countries has despoiled.

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". A House of Commons committee has since verified this warning. Had Blair heeded it instead of conspiring to deceive the nation that Iraq offered a threat the Londoners who died on Thursday 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, however tyrannical the regime. On the contrary, in 2003, the CIA reported that Iraq "exported no terrorist threat to his neighbours" and that Saddam Hussein was "implacably hostile to Al-Qaeda".

Blair's and Bush's invasion changed all that. In invading a stricken and defenceless country at the heart of the Islamic and Arab world, their adventure became self-fulfilling; Blair's 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 last week it seemed that his spinmeisters 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.

Moreover, the G8 meeting in Scotland and its accompanying "Make Poverty History" campaign and circus of celebrities served as a temporary cover for what is arguably the greatest political scandal of modern times: an illegal, brutal and craven invasion conceived in lies and which, under the system of international law established at Nuremberg, represented a "paramount war crime".

Over the past two weeks, the contrast between the coverage of the G8, its marches and pop concerts, and another "global" event has been striking. The World Tribunal on Iraq in Istanbul has had virtually no coverage, yet the evidence it has produced, the most damning to date, has been the silent spectre 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, one of the best un-embedded reporters working in Iraq. He described how the hospitals of besieged Fallujah had been subjected to an American tactic of collective punishment, with US 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, the elderly, were shot dead in front of their families, in cold blood.

Imagine for a moment the same appalling state of affairs imposed on the London hospitals that received the victims of Thursday's bombing. Unimaginable? Well, it happens, in our name, regardless of whether the BBC reports it, which is rare. When will someone ask about this at one of the staged "press conferences" at which Blair is allowed to emote for the cameras stuff about "our values outlast [ing] theirs"? Silence is not journalism. In Fallujah, they know "our values" only too well.

While the two men responsible for the carnage in Iraq, Bush and Blair, were side by side at Gleneagles, why wasn't the connection of their fraudulent "war on terror" made with the bombing in London? And when will someone in the political class say that Blair's smoke-and-mirrors "debt cancellation" at best amounts to less than the money the government spent in a week brutalising Iraq, where British and American violence is the cause of the doubling of child poverty and malnutrition since Saddam Hussein was overthrown (Unicef).

The truth is that the debt relief the G8 is offering is lethal because its ruthless "conditionalities" of captive economies far outweigh any tenuous benefit. This was taboo during the G8 week, whose theme was not so much making poverty history as the silencing and pacifying and co-opting dissent and truth. The mawkish images on giant screens behind the pop stars in Hyde Park included no pictures of murdered Iraqi doctors with the blood streaming from their heads, cut down by Bush's snipers. Real life became more satirical than satire could ever be.

There was Bob Geldoff on the front pages resting his smiling face on smiling Blair's shoulder, the war criminal and his knighted jester. There was an heroically silhouetted Bono, who celebrates men like Jeffrey Sachs as saviours 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 Paul Wolfowitz, beaming and promising to make poverty history: this is the man who, before he was handed control of the World Bank, was an apologist for Suharto's genocidal regime in Indonesia, who was one of the architects of Bush's "neo-con" putsch and of the bloodfest in Iraq and the notion of "endless war".For the politicians and pop stars and church leaders and polite people who believed Blair and Gordon Brown when they declared their "great moral crusade" against poverty, Iraq was an embarrassment. The killing of more than 100,000 Iraqis mostly by American gunfire and bombs -- a figure reported in a comprehensive peer-reviewed study in The Lancet -- was airbrushed from mainstream debate.

In our free societies, the unmentionable is that "the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people", as Arthur Miller once wrote, "and so the evidence has to be internally denied." Not only denied, but distracted by an entire court: Geldoff, Bono, Madonna, McCartney et al, whose "Live 8" was the very antithesis of 15 February 2003 when two million people brought their hearts and brains and anger to the streets of London. Blair will almost certainly use last week's atrocity and tragedy to further deplete basic human rights in Britain, as Bush has done in America. The goal is not security, but greater control. Above all this, the memory of their victims, "our" victims, in Iraq demands the return of our anger. And nothing less is owed to those who died and suffered in London last week, unnecessarily.

 

[Latex lizzie]

Al Qaeda itself is a myth started by America to prosecute Bin Laden for the USS Cole bombings, in absentia, because of an American Law requires a defendant to be a part of an organisation in order to be prosecuted. Al Qaeda doesn't exist as an organised network in reality. But the philosophy of Ayman Al Zawihiri and Bin Laden does influence some disparate groups into conducting atrocities in places like London.[/QUOTE]

..er this is not strictly true. 9/11 was organised and executed by a well organised bunch of folks called al qaeda? I'll agree that the US has elevated their status to that of a huge network of evildoers but a myth? don't think so. THey are out there with a common purpose and ideal the roots of which were seeded in afgahnistan and pakistani training camps.who knows what long term plans and structures were handed out during those years? not me you or the CIA? Lets face it for an group that is supposedly "unorganised" they have had the most sucessfull reign of terror and highest body count of any "organised" terrorist group. Just because they dont send each other emails every day doesn't make it any less an organisation.[/QUOTE]

also http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5D0EA068-B745-4CEF-99D7-E0BB3827A2F0.htm

 

[hugh]

Guys,

Just because John Pilger says something, this does not automatically make it true. He may be a good journalist, but he obviously has a very specific agenda. Ditto for those 54 lads in Istanbul.

And what's this American Law that only allows you to be prosecuted if you are part of an organisation? That sounds deadly .... does it mean I can go over and murder somebody and as long as I'm not in an organisation I'm okay?

 

[aoboa]

Guys,

Just because John Pilger says something, this does not automatically make it true. He may be a good journalist, but he obviously has a very specific agenda. Ditto for those 54 lads in Istanbul.

Agreed. Pilger is a great read but he has a tendency to get a little over excited.

 

[Latex lizzie]

I agree too. But I'd much rather listen to him them most of the western media.

 

[steve albino]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Some other sources/writers that describe similar things as Pilger:

Ramzy Baroud; March 19, 2005
[/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]I visited Baghdad as a reporter a few years before the US invasion. There were posters and statues of the ousted President Saddam Hussein everywhere. But not one checkpoint. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Those lucky enough, or maybe unfortunate enough to report from the occupied Iraqi capital after March 2003, must have noticed how things have changed. It seems as if for every torn poster or knocked-down statue, there should be a checkpoint erected and manned by frightened or angry US troops ready to open fire without warning. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]And they often do, killing entire families on the spot under various pretexts: "The car was speeding", "the driver wouldn't respond to various signals," "the passengers acted suspiciously," and so forth. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]A Newsweek photo gallery, recently posted at MSNBC.com and titled "Suddenly Orphaned", brings to life one of the tragically frequent "incidents" experienced by Iraqi civilians at the hands of occupation troops. A "speeding" car was acting "suspiciously" in the Iraqi town of Tal Afar. The driver was "ordered" to stop, yet "failed" to do so, despite clear "hand signals", and "warning shots". [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The well trained soldiers "had no other choice" but to open fire, killing a mother and father of six. Soldiers quickly "assessed" the situation, dragging six little blood-spattered kids out of the car, forced them to their knees before the US troops, whose feet, were also splattered with the Iraqi civilian blood. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The tragedy was anything but rare. It just happened that photographer Chris Hondros was there to witness it and to relay it to us. The Newsweek photo gallery however, assured us that the wounded children were carried compassionately to a nearby hospital and that the "army had immediately ordered an investigation," which became the end in itself. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Of course, we have every right to question the army's account in every reported "incident." After all, the war itself was the accumulation of a remarkable edifice of lies, devised by a group of unabashed politicians, army brass and media pundits.
[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]How can they possibly expect us to believe that the killings of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians at the hands of the US military were a series of unfortunate events? That the shoot-to-kill policy still being used against independent and unembedded journalists was an inadvertent outcome of beleaguered troops mistaking a journalist's binoculars for antiaircraft guns and the outsized Palestine Hotel - where journalists were based in the early days of war - for an Iraqi Army installation? [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The US Army has absolved its troops - save a few who callously photographed themselves torturing and sexually abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib - from any wrongdoing. The message was: Do with Iraqis what you must; just don't leave any indicting evidence behind. [/font]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7471


It was to these same young men that ex-Marine Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey was referring when he said:

"It sickened me so that I had actually brought it up to my lieutenant, and I told him, I said, 'You know, sir, we're not going to have to worry about Iraq - you know, we're basically committing genocide over here, mass extermination of thousands of Iraqis...'"


(http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/24/148212)


On January 8, Newsweek's Michael Hirsh and John Barry reported that Defense Department planners were discussing the adoption of the "Salvador option." In the early 1980s, wrote Hirsh and Barry,



"...faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported 'nationalist' forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success --despite the deaths of innocent civilians..."



There was, of course, nothing "so-called" about the death squads. And the counter-posing of "rebel leaders and sympathizers" and "innocent civilians" conveys the impression that a civilian was innocent only if he or she did not sympathize with the rebels. Be that as it may, Hirsh and Barry reported that now the Pentagon is debating whether to pursue a similar strategy in Iraq.



"...one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called 'snatch' operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation."


[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]by Dahr Jamail; DahrJamail.com; February 09, 2005[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]He pauses for a few deep breaths, then continues, “All I can say is that Fallujah is like it was struck by a tsunami. There weren’t many families in there after the siege, but they had absolutely nothing. The suffering was beyond what you can imagine. When the Americans finally let us in people were fighting just for a blanket.” [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]“One of my colleagues, Dr. Saleh Alsawi, he was speaking so angrily about them. He was in the main hospital when they raided it at the beginning of the seige. They entered the theater room when they were working on a patient…he was there because he’s an anesthesiologist. They entered with their boots on, beat the doctors and took them out, leaving the patient on the table to die.” [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]This story has already been reported in the Arab media. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The doctor tells me of the bombing of the Hay Nazal clinic during the first week of the siege. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]“This contained all the foreign aid and medical instruments we had. All the US military commanders knew this, because we told them about it so they wouldn’t bomb it. But this was one of the clinics bombed, and in the first week of the siege they bombed it two times.” [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]He then adds, “Of course they targeted all our ambulances and doctors. Everyone knows this.” [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The doctor tells me he and some other doctors are trying to sue the US military for the following incident, for which he has the testimonial evidence on tape. [/font]

 

[Latex lizzie]

there is no real argument with this, the bombings of hospitals and maltreatment of Iraqis in general has been widely reported. It's just that very few people can do anything about it. On the ground the insurgency makes it impossible for forigen aid workers to work effectively, also independent observers are a thing of the past. The US military has the country on lockdown so they can do what the fuck they want. they like it that way. Just imagine all the stuff that is going on behind the scenes. The might of the american dream running loose and unhindered by conventions and laws. You only have to look at the article on the good old boy who shot the bin men dead or the guy who did an on the spot "mercy killing" of a combatant. They were let off scott free.What we are dealing with and always have is a mentality that "our" (meaning the west) lives are more important and quantifiable then "theirs" (meaning the arabs) everyday scores of Iraqi soldiers and police a massacred in the name of "democracy" and it barely merits a headline..they will be the ones that I will feel most sorry for end the end when the political tide exposes this adventure for what it is and the US legs it. These people will be pulling each other apart for decades, and just because politicians tell you this is a long hard road does that make it right? no. rather the question is who put us on this road and why? the answers to these questions were on the lips of the 100,000 prostesters that took to the streets on the eve war in dublin and demonstrations all over the world. There were other ways to solve the problem of Sadam I'm sure of it. If you look at the state of the country as a whole and see how long it will be fucked this can only have been true. The Iraq war was never a good idea. No war in the entire history of mankind has ever been a good idea.

 

[kraster]

..er this is not strictly true. 9/11 was organised and executed by a well organised bunch of folks called al qaeda? I'll agree that the US has elevated their status to that of a huge network of evildoers but a myth? don't think so. THey are out there with a common purpose and ideal the roots of which were seeded in afgahnistan and pakistani training camps.who knows what long term plans and structures were handed out during those years? not me you or the CIA? Lets face it for an group that is supposedly "unorganised" they have had the most sucessfull reign of terror and highest body count of any "organised" terrorist group. Just because they dont send each other emails every day doesn't make it any less an organisation.

No. Al Qaeda did not exist before 911. As I've said before it was because of a technicality in a trial that the defendant coined the phrase Al Qaeda. Bin Laden himself never used the term until after 911.
Al Zawihiri was greatly influenced by the teachings (rantings) of Sayyid Qutb. Qutb was a reactionary who, while visiting America during the 50s, came to the belief that the west's selfishness and obsession with the material world would lead to the corruption of the soul. On his return to Egypt he intended to establish a vanguard to vanquish this influence on Islamic society. He believed that Governments and people alike were "infected" by this moral decrepitude seeping in from the west and the leaders should be overthrown.
President Nasser of Egypt spotted this and put Qutb on trial and he was executed.

Ayman Al Zawahiri took Qutb's view one step further by stating that the moral decrepitude from the west was so ingrained into the ordinary people that they would have to be shocked out of it by the use of terrorism. This is were the fundamental principle lies.

After the Afghan war he started to prosecute this ideology in Algeria, Egypt and Syria. It was an abject failure and failed to do what it had intended. Again Zawahiri diversified his ideology and turned his sights on the source of it all, America. Al Zawahiri had teamed up with Bin Laden during the Afghan war and in 1998 after facing defeat all over the middle east they issued a Fatwah against America. This was a small group of lunatic idealists acting in desperation. Not a massive cohesive terrorist organisation. Acting on a plan devised by Khaled Sheiq Mohammed they orchestrated the 911 attacks on America.

In desperation to retaliate, the Americans attacked Afghanistan to oust the Taliban and capture "Al Qaeda". When they reached the Tora Bora mountains they found they were fighting a phantom enemy. There was no massive organised armed militia just a few sheep and a lot of empty caves.

"Al Qaeda" is a myth in terms of an integrated support network of terrorism but that's not to say that the ideology has not gained a foothold. Disenchanted youths on the streets of Palestine, Yemen, Sudan, Iran etc. etc. are susceptible to the Brainwashing of the fundamentalists because they have fuck all else in their lives. Repressive regimes, no economic future and civil unrest only lead to despair and the breaking of the human spirit.

Attacking and occupying a country illegally only serves to exacerbate the situation and, ironically, substantiate the myths put forward by Zawahiri's twisted philosophy.

 

[Latex lizzie]

What's in a name? the intent and policy of like minded terrorists was there before 9/11 they were the ones who chose to name their organisation after the fact and carried out their deeds nonetheless. So I'm in a band the last three months that doesn't have a name yet. We are writing songs and planning things. We will have a name but the song remains the same. 'scuse the terrible analogy.This is a music forum!

 

[Latex lizzie]

back on topic they seem to have maybe caught some people.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13385127,00.html

lets hope they do a better job then the birmingham 6.

 

[hugh]

there is no real argument with this, the bombings of hospitals and maltreatment of Iraqis in general has been widely reported.

I agree. There seems to be overwhelming evidence that the yanks have killed a lot of civilians. But .... the original argument was, I think, about intentionality. Is there a deliberate policy to do this in an effort to terrorize the population? Or is it accidental? There is of course, somewhere kind of inbetween, where the safety of civilians is not particularly high on the agenda ......

I don't know the answer to this but I suppose the point I was getting at is that John Pilger (and zmag etc etc) have a specific political outlook on this that means it is in their interest to convince people that it is deliberate ... in much the same way that the American military will try to convince us that it isn't (after they have given up trying to convince us that it isn't happening obviously). It's kind of like listening to what Kevin Myers has to say about Northern Ireland. You have to read it and interepret it with this in mind ....

I had something else to say but I've just realised its sunny outside and what the fuck am I doing indoors .....

 

[Latex lizzie]

I'd say when a pilot,soldier uses smart weaponry that can nearly cook you breakfast rolls up in a tank/plane and identifies civilians (or doesn't bother to check and fires anyway then that in my book is deliberate.I say again it's US (the west) v's THEM (arabs/muslims) and our lives are worth more in their book. I was listening to the radio chatter from pilots earlier in the war and it saddend me to think how much enjoyment they were getting out of dropping bombs.They were laughing.

 

[aoboa]

It's pretty much across the board and has been happening since the beginning of the invasion.
I reckon that there is a certain amount of it that is deliberate - to cause fear and submission among the population. The rest, no matter what they say, is down to the fact that they just don't care about the civilian population. It's fair to say that the invading forces see every face as a potential 'terrorist' - and they've used this to justify plenty of the civilian casualties.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, there is no moral difference between what the US/UK are doing and what happened in London on Thursday.
When the US military calls an airstrike on a wedding party, kills 50 people (men, women and children) and says, 'Sorry, we thought they were the enemy', I call that terrorism too.

 

[Latex lizzie]

Darn tootin.

 

[spiritualtramp]

I agree. There seems to be overwhelming evidence that the yanks have killed a lot of civilians. But .... the original argument was, I think, about intentionality. Is there a deliberate policy to do this in an effort to terrorize the population? Or is it accidental? There is of course, somewhere kind of inbetween, where the safety of civilians is not particularly high on the agenda ......

I don't know the answer to this but I suppose the point I was getting at is that John Pilger (and zmag etc etc) have a specific political outlook on this that means it is in their interest to convince people that it is deliberate ... in much the same way that the American military will try to convince us that it isn't (after they have given up trying to convince us that it isn't happening obviously).

At least someone knows what I'm trying to get at here.

 

[broken arm]

At least someone knows what I'm trying to get at here.

i know what you are getting at. I just don't really agree with you on the issue of intentionality or who is setting the moral boundaries.

"shock and awe"