possible terrorist attack in London

[Yamori]

You know xaoshaen, you haven't contributed a single thing to this thread and have just used single sentences saying "Hilarious, you're naive!" in response to everything. Doesn't make me want to take what you say seriously at all.

[xaoshaen]

You know xaoshaen, you haven't contributed a single thing to this thread and have just used single sentences saying "Hilarious, you're naive!" in response to everything. Doesn't make me want to take what you say seriously at all.

Oddly, the people I pointed those posts at contributed nothing to this thread and made logically atrocious statements to boot. I can't really help it if other people post hilarious, naive, or greivously wrong statements, and it certaintly doesn't make me want to take them seriously either. I do find it amusing that you managed to include at least one blatant fallacy in a post criticising me personally. I mean, really, how hard is it to at least be correct when you attack someone?

[Gidan]

You know xaoshaen, you haven't contributed a single thing to this thread and have just used single sentences saying "Hilarious, you're naive!" in response to everything. Doesn't make me want to take what you say seriously at all.

Oddly, the people I pointed those posts at contributed nothing to this thread and made logically atrocious statements to boot. I can't really help it if other people post hilarious, naive, or greivously wrong statements, and it certaintly doesn't make me want to take them seriously either. I do find it amusing that you managed to include at least one blatant fallacy in a post criticising me personally. I mean, really, how hard is it to at least be correct when you attack someone?

But for the most part yoru just attacking. What would be more useful would ahve been to in a nice way saying that you disagree and why you disagree. People may have a different point of view then you. If they are pointing out things that are blatantly wrong, sure point it and but say where its wrong and why.

Saying thats not correct because of x, y and z. Is far more useful then a statement like "your dont understand" or "your wrong".

[Durck]

Blah Blah Blah! Countries don't like the U.S. because of our beliefs, pure and simple. Because of our success. Because of our stigma of arrogance, that is usually misplaced. Because of capitolism. Because of Freedom of Religion.

Denmark supports capitalism. Last I checked they also have freedom of religion. When's the last time someone crashed a hijacked plane into major buildings in Denmark?

Face it, the US has a VERY long history of supporting some seriously repressive dictators, as long as they promised to oppose communists, or support corporate interests. Yes, I know, much of that was the 60s, 70s and 80s, but that doesn't matter, all of that is still fresh in the mind of some people, and show me where we have EVER apologized for it. The US has propped up dictators who oppressed and tortured their people, and were effectively as bad as Saddam. Hell, we supported Saddam as long as he was fighting a war against Iran, despite what we knew he was doing to his people in Iraq at the time. (you can find pictures of current senior administration officials shaking his hand like they were best buddies from back in the Reagan administration.)

Getting over our misplaced arrogance and admitting we were wrong in much of our actions (supporting the Shah, despite his secret police, murders, torturing of dissidents, etc. just to name one) would go a LONG way towards changing things. I am realistic enough to know that that will never happen, however. The other thing we need to look at is our complete blind support of Israel, which we do regardless of the illegality and extremism of some of their actions. Again, given the power of the JDL, among others, a resolution of condemnation of Israel when, say, missile strikes aimed at some Hamas target miss and take out innocent women and children will never happen, regardless of how appropriate such a resolution might be.

The United States cannot be isolationist, given our status and power, but neither does that power give us the right or license to be unilateral in imposing our will upon other nations, and flying in the face of international opinion. At least, not without incurring serious consequences down the line, not least of which is increased terrorism since we give proof to the terrorist propaganda by doing things like randomly arresting innocent people, the cold-blooded killing of a wounded man on film, etc.

As for solving starvation, no, I don't have any instant solutions. If there were easy and instant solutions, they would have been tried already. What can be done when certain areas of the country have been suffering a drought for years on end, meaning no crops or livestock can be raised? Actually being more environmentally conscious, cutting greenhouse emissions and suchlike would certainly help in the long run, but a) we're not even doing that, and b) that doesn't help in the short term.

-Arlos

Arlos, you do realize that almost everything you stated as reasons occured way before THE DEVIL came into power, dont you? Why would he apologize for stuff that occured before he became leader?

And I admit, the U.S. cannot hold itself up on a pedestal and claim itself righteous, we have made some questionable decisions in the past (but so have many countries). But... do those decisions make the terrorist response correct and just? In my opinion, no, it does not. Nor can it justify that behavior. Forcing young men and women to strap on a bomb - and believe me many are being forced go read some of the literature - for a religous idea; is not the way to win friends and influence people. No this runs deeper, this is a struggle for power, and a struggle against all faiths outside of Islam. Its even a struggle within Islam itself.

Have you studied the Wahabi sect of the Islamic faith. It is very much the driving force behind the anti-american jihadist movement. Saudi Arabia gave over 80 billion dollars in the last 30 years or so to the Wahabists, which preach the "infidel must be slain" version of Islam. Just search Wahabism in google, you will be amazed at the links and what you will find.

This is NOT just about the bad things America has done. This is about a fascist religous movement gaining more and more power over the last 4-5 decades, who use violence against innocents to wreak havoc and promote dissent; and kill. Maybe America can be blamed for some of its past, but it is NOT the sole reason, nor is it the sole benefactor of the aggresion. No sir, killing innocent women and children, the every day people, in the name of a god; as a decisive blow against the zionist supporting faiths, is not what I call a reactionary response to the past actions of a vapid state. And claiming a jihad with its very definition meaning 'religous war', argues against your testimony to the countrary that "America is the blame."

If you deny that then your doing yourself an injustice.

-Durck

As a side bar:

Go watch PBS documentary, "Death of a Princess" for an interesting and frightening look at the insides of Wahabi Islam in Saudi Arabia.

Or read, "Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World" - a very inciteful look at modern islamic movements, and their hatred for all that we stand for.

[xaoshaen]

But for the most part yoru just attacking. What would be more useful would ahve been to in a nice way saying that you disagree and why you disagree. People may have a different point of view then you. If they are pointing out things that are blatantly wrong, sure point it and but say where its wrong and why.

Saying thats not correct because of x, y and z. Is far more useful then a statement like "your dont understand" or "your wrong".

Which is exactly what I did when there was a reasonably constructed post, like, say Arlos'. Consider a post like:

... Uh no, they have initiated terrorist attacks because of our general presence in the middle east (oil interests), because we have put troops in places they considered important in various ways, and because we financially support israel. Most importantly, we've been having military ventures in their area for quite awhile.

The US foreign policies are what caused them to become violent.

This obviously doesn't give them a right to kill innocent people - and their response is not justified, but it's just buying into propaganda to assume that these terrorists are doing what they do solely because they "hate freedom" or because they want to kill anyone who has a different religion (which to some extent I'm sure is true, but it isn't the whole story).

If they really only wanted to kill because of religious differences, why did these problems only start awhile after the US began sticking its nose into the middle east?

I'm pretty sure if we abandoned the middle east and stopped supporting Israel, we would have no more terrorist attacks. I personally would be in favor of it, since I think the middle east is generally a barbaric culture beyond redemption, that has nothing to really offer us. But that probably won't happen because of oil interests. We really need to come up with a fuel alternative. :/

Just about every single premise, piece of evidence, and projection bears almost no relation to the world we live in. You'd have to write a thesis to cover every misconception, untruth, and fallacy in it.

I went ahead and dismissed other posts for similar reasons. Some posts were immediately contradicted by the original poster himself.

[Yamori]

You're wrong xaoshaen, because you obviously are. I'm so sure you're wrong that I won't even say why. HAHA

[xaoshaen]

You're wrong xaoshaen, because you obviously are. I'm so sure you're wrong that I won't even say why. HAHA

Kind of like

they have initiated terrorist attacks because of our general presence in the middle east (oil interests), because we have put troops in places they considered important in various ways, and because we financially support israel. Most importantly, we've been having military ventures in their area for quite awhile.

?

Heh.

[mofish]

The Shah is a good example. We strangled democracy in its cradle in Iran because the rightfully elected leader wanted to nationalize Iran's oil companies. We had him overthrown and propped up the Shah's brutal non-democratic government. So, you want to know why there was a revolution in Iran, and why it is so anti-US, look in the mirror.

For people in this country to keep saying that the reason we are targets is because they hate our way of life is naive. It directly has to do with the West's foreign policy in the region, the early colonization, repression, and puppet-mastering that has gone on there for a century now. And Israel.

Thinking that the majority of the anti-American zealots have any grasp of actual American foreign policy is incredibly naive.

It doesnt take a political scientist for Iranian citizens to figure out who supported and sent the goons that killed their family members and deposed their leaders.

[mappatazee]

Surprise surprise, we now have permanent military occupation of Iraq, perfectly located next door to 2/3rds of the world's oil supply. Rumsfeld said we will not be pulling out for at least 12 years. India and China are industrializing, with over 1 billion people each. China has bought Maytag, attempting to outbid Chevron for control of Unocal.

Edit: and I forgot to mention (do I need to?) that the world's oil production has peaked, and will decline from now onward.

[mofish]

Hey man, its all about liberating people from an evil dictator. Seriously.

[Gidan]

I dont think you could ever convince me or many other that oil had absolutly nothing to do with it. Whether its the main reason or not, its still there.

[mappatazee]

Funny how the reason has changed from disarming Saddam Hussein to spreading freedom and getting rid of terrorists (read: there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to our invasion. Funny how George W. Bush's recent address on 'why we are in Iraq' was all about terrorism (mentioned it over 30 times) and 9/11 (mentioned 5 times), but WMD were not mentioned at all.

[Thon]

i'm just glad we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined spends on theirs

they can hide in their caves while we carpet bomb the shit out of them with weapons beyond their understanding

[Arlos]

The Shah was a great guy, huh?

The Shah's brutal secret police force, Savak, formed under the guidance of CIA (the United States Central Intelligence Agency) in 1957 and personnel trained by Mossad (Israel's secret service), to directly control all facets of political life in Iran. Its main task was to suppress opposition to the Shah's government and keep the people's political and social knowledge as minimal as possible. Savak was notorious throughout Iran for its brutal methods.

The interrogation office was established with no limit of using horrific torture tools and techniques to break the arrested dissenters to talk in a matter of hours.

The censorship office was established to monitor journalists, literary figures and academics throughout the country. It took appropriate measures against those who fell out of the regime's line.

Universities, labor unions and peasant organizations, amongst others, were all subjected to intense surveillance by the Savak agents and paid informants. The agency was also active abroad, especially in monitoring Iranian students who publicly opposed the Shah's government.

Interrogation, torture and long term imprisonment by Savak for reading or possessing any forbidden books. The prohibited books were removed from the book-stores and libraries; even the Tozih-ol-Masael written by Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini was forbidden.

Over the years, Savak became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest, detain, brutally interrogate and torture suspected people indefinitely. Savak operated its own prisons in Tehran, such as Qezel-Qalaeh and Evin facilities and many suspected places throughout the country as well. Many of those activities were carried out without any institutional checks.

SAVAK's torture methods included electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting brokon glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails. Many of these activities were carried out without any institutional checks.

Also, check here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/wo ... /savak.htm

Oh yeah, real enlightened sort, he was.

-Arlos

[mofish]

Of course the real comedy of the middle east lies in the whole chain of errors.

1. We depose the democratically elected leader of Iran for oil interests.
2. This leads, directly, to the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
3. Now that Iran hates us, we equip Saddam Hussein and Iraq to fight Iran.
4. Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait, becomes enemy of his parents, the USA.
5. We start a war with Iraq, 2003, who was originally made a military power by us, to help against Iran, which became our enemy because of our propping up of the Shah and our overthrow of their rightful government in the 50s.

Hilarious!

[Lyion]

Of course, Iran is MUCH better off without the Shah, and its people, economy, growth, and neighbors are much the better with a Theocratic Islamic Revolutionary Government.

You do realize most of the accusations against SAVAK are about the same as the ones in Gitmo?

Seriously, read about it or learning from the Iranian Documentation, rather than sources as uncredible as The Guardian.

It's not a very good argument you are making, Arlos. I suggest head down to San Jose and speak with any of the millions of Iranians about SAVAK and learn the truth, instead of posting pure bullshit propaganda.

[Arlos]

I cannot believe you are sitting here claiming that torture never happened under the Shah. Simply boggles the mind. It staggers me that you are THAT delusional.

From Harvard Law website:

By carefully documenting the cyclical use of torture, Abrahamian demonstrates that torture techniques are not “primitive” methods discarded by modern nations. In fact, modern notions and technological innovations played a crucial role in cultivating torture in Iran. SAVAK personnel were trained in the United States and Israel, where they learned “scientific” methods to prevent unwanted deaths from “brute force.” These “scientific” methods included sleep deprivation, extensive solitary confinement, and an electric chair with a large metal mask to muffle screams while amplifying them for the victim. Although the traditional bastinado or falak—an excruciating whipping of the soles of the feet—remained the torture of choice, interrogators performing the whippings now referred to each other as “doctors” or “engineers.” Technological developments also included the introduction of the videotape to Iran in the late 1970s. Now, recantations could not only be taped, but “edited, polished, and, if necessary, remade from scratch,” allowing the regime to control both their timing and content.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

The service had virtually unlimited powers of arrest and detention. It operated its own detention centres, like the notorious Evin Prison. It is universally accepted that SAVAK routinely subjected detainees to physical torture.

Not to mention, it was a CIA operation that deposed the democratically elected Prime Minister and put the Shah in power in the first place, which we did as a favor to Britain, who was pissy about Iran nationalizing the oil industry.

-Arlos

[Harrison]

Funny how the reason has changed from disarming Saddam Hussein to spreading freedom and getting rid of terrorists (read: there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to our invasion. Funny how George W. Bush's recent address on 'why we are in Iraq' was all about terrorism (mentioned it over 30 times) and 9/11 (mentioned 5 times), but WMD were not mentioned at all.

now.

... if you think there is any validity to that bullshit.

[Zanchief]

Well Finawin, terrorism wasn't a big problem in Iraq since Saddam would just kill anyone who was a threat to his power.

But I am curious would the justification for invasion in Iraq is this week? I don't think I got the neo-con newsletter yet so I just don't know what you kids are going with.

[Lueyen]

Well Finawin, terrorism wasn't a big problem in Iraq since Saddam would just kill anyone who was a threat to his power.

But I am curious would the justification for invasion in Iraq is this week? I don't think I got the neo-con newsletter yet so I just don't know what you kids are going with.

Yes, but only when they became a threat to him, before that point he harbored them. Or did you choose to ignore this post?

http://namelesstavern.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=9046

Here is some information on Abu Nidal, I think terrorist is a pretty fair label for him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal

I noticed there were no responses to Lyion's post by those here who claim Sadam had nothing to do with terrorisim. Around 50 views on this thread and 1 response. But I guess I can see why some might want to ignore it, just like ignoring an assasination attempt on a US citizen commisioned by Sadam, or attacks on American Forces patroling no fly zones during non combat time periods... do I really need to go on? Even the lefts beloved Clinton saw it neccecary to take military action with Iraq.

There was a long laundry list of reasons for regime change in Iraq, yet you all choose to focus on WMD's by virtue of the fact that none were found. It is only through refusal to admit that Sadam did have connections with terrorists, that you can can say we had no justification to take action against Iraq in our responses to 9/11. You then go on to state that the only given valid reason was suspicion of WMD's, and then rant on and on about how Bush was wrong, and to suggest that he made it all up to justify it for his own personal gain or reasons. How convienent.

You know it occurs to me that it was suggested that Clinton took action in Iraq to draw attention away from the Monica situation. Although I may not have agreed or liked many of the things he did, I never let my disagreement with his ideas put me into such a blind hatred of the man to a point where it clouded my perception of reality to believe that an American president would make such a huge abuse of the office. Unfortunatly this is something many of you are doing.

[Martrae]

Well Finawin, terrorism wasn't a big problem in Iraq since Saddam would just kill anyone who was a threat to his power.

But I am curious would the justification for invasion in Iraq is this week? I don't think I got the neo-con newsletter yet so I just don't know what you kids are going with.

I dunno what neo-con is but I can give you the link for what the liberals want you to say this week.

http://www.moveonpac.org/lte/lte_t.html ... 3&posted=1

[Rust]

Well Finawin, terrorism wasn't a big problem in Iraq since Saddam would just kill anyone who was a threat to his power.

But I am curious would the justification for invasion in Iraq is this week? I don't think I got the neo-con newsletter yet so I just don't know what you kids are going with.

Yes, but only when they became a threat to him, before that point he harbored them. Or did you choose to ignore this post?

http://namelesstavern.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=9046

Here is some information on Abu Nidal, I think terrorist is a pretty fair label for him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal

Ok, Nidal entered Iraq in 1999, and was killed there in 2002, presumably on Saddam's order. Note the article doesn't say he was active in this period, as he had leukemia.

How is this different from the US openly hosting various *active* Cuban exile terrorists for years, like Orlando Bosch and others?

--R.

[Lueyen]

Bosch wasn't exaclty given a warm welcome in the US he was imprisoned, then given a parole of house arrest and eventually a presidential pardon. He was never extrodited to Cuba. Basically he has enjoyed a fragile form of asylum and protection by the US. I think the answer as to why can be found in links to the CIA and secretive operations to weaken and unseat Castro during the Cold War era. Much like Bin Ladin we were supportive to a point in an effort to combat the spread of communisim. Essentially we supported a lesser evil to defeat a greater one... and the lesser ones soon became and embarasment as thier actions continued to escalate and go beyond that which we would support, especially after the end of the cold war. History will judge if these actions were were justifiable or prudent, however hindsight is always 20/20 and it's easy to judge from the cheap seats.

But to answer your question Rust, there is one distinct difference. Bosch was held as a prisoner until political pressure caused a pardon vs Nidal who was given a government office to operate as an element of the government. As far as other unnamed Cuban exile terrorists I would submit that caution be used with this term as it would likely be applied by Castro to anyone who even so much as demonstrated against him.

[Lyion]

I guess since they were trained in the US and Israel, they are evil, eh? A few propaganda stories and they are the devil!

Your posts are a la Gitmo, and could equally be used to the Mossad or CIA.
Funny though you ignored my points of my posts.

Like I said, Arlos, I suggest you actually speak to an Iranian, or learn about the time period you are discussing. There are a few million in San Jose. They can explain to you what you are missing from reading propaganda.

[Arlos]

I wasn't aware that Harvard Law was in the propaganda business. Face it, I've seen the same sort of reports COUNTLESS places, including on the History channel. I linked many of them, none from "radical" sources. YOU are the one with your head in the sand ignoring reality. Am I claiming that Khomaini was some sort of saint? Of course not. But what I am claiming is that the Shah was just as bad as, say, Pinochet or other such dictators we've propped up, frequently after first overthrowing democratically elected governments, which is exactly what happened in Chile AND in Iran.

So, when it is common knowledge that in the past the US overthrew democratically elected leaders because they did things we didn't like (see: nationalizing the Iranian oil industry), and we supported brutal dictators who repressed their citizenry and had secret police groups who would imprison and torture thousands of citizens, AND we've never apologized for it... People from regions where stuff like that has occured are going to look on ANY move we make with extreme suspicion, figuring "Oh, there goes the US, back to its old tricks again."

-Arlos