[QUOTE=Fiona]Secondly I am very conscious that the west justifies its actions in other countries on the basis that democracy exists in the west and should be spread all over the world. I can see it might puzzle the opposition to claim that the civilian population are innocent if they accept that these countries are democratic. Surely that suggests that every person is responsible for what the governments and armies do ?[/QUOTE]
I would find it very difficult to accept that most international terrorists, who are relatively sophisticated, multilingual, multi-cultural individuals, actually believed every person in nation X is responsible for electing its officials, much less agreeing with every policy enacted by that nation through history. This is just mindless, senseless demonizing, pointing a finger at a nation and saying, "You are responsible for everything I hate that happened to my people!" And who ends up dead? Not statistics, but folks who might be your parents, your siblings, your children. It's absolutely despicable.
Bombs in London
Fable: Part of democracy, as you should well know, is the people's responisbility to change leaders who act in manners that can be considered dangerous to the nation they govern. The democracy we have existing in the West is one of apathy. The average person moans, complains and rants about the guy in power, but does nothing to change that fact. The ratio of people who protest the Iraq war, for instance, to those who actual attempt to do something to change the fact is so broad, that it's a wonder that their voice is even heard.
We have long since given up on what Democracy is meant to be, and have become an apathetic shadow of it. That is why I agree with Fiona, as I have stated in previous discussions, that the West is at much fault as the people who plan, and act on these terrorist mechnicians.
That said, no terrorist act is justified (contrary to what some may think I believe), and I sympathize for those who lost, or were lost in the bombings in London. But for things to begin to change in regards to these terrorist acts, the West has to stop thinking that it is the absolute right, and start understanding why these acts are occuring, and go from there.
We have long since given up on what Democracy is meant to be, and have become an apathetic shadow of it. That is why I agree with Fiona, as I have stated in previous discussions, that the West is at much fault as the people who plan, and act on these terrorist mechnicians.
That said, no terrorist act is justified (contrary to what some may think I believe), and I sympathize for those who lost, or were lost in the bombings in London. But for things to begin to change in regards to these terrorist acts, the West has to stop thinking that it is the absolute right, and start understanding why these acts are occuring, and go from there.
Mindless, degenerate, coward bastards. There is no possible justification for these acts. Never mind all this crap about it being motivated by the War in Iraq- whether you agree with it or not, a "war" with soldiers and tanks and aircraft fighting the same of an enemy is not the same thing as blowing up a bus full of innocents.
I have always believed that "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are the same thing observed from different perspectives- I am quite sure if the word had been in use in the 18th century the British government might have used the former as a description for those brave men who fought for American independence, and now they are rightly regarded as heroes who earned their freedom through blood, sweat and tears. However I am quite sure that George Washington never said to is men " I know chaps, lets go into that town over there and blow up a ton of gun powder under those civvies," no, and the heathens (there can be no other word) that perpetrated these acts today are terrorists of the purest sense and no one will ever consider their acts to be for the good of their people.
I have always believed that "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are the same thing observed from different perspectives- I am quite sure if the word had been in use in the 18th century the British government might have used the former as a description for those brave men who fought for American independence, and now they are rightly regarded as heroes who earned their freedom through blood, sweat and tears. However I am quite sure that George Washington never said to is men " I know chaps, lets go into that town over there and blow up a ton of gun powder under those civvies," no, and the heathens (there can be no other word) that perpetrated these acts today are terrorists of the purest sense and no one will ever consider their acts to be for the good of their people.
England expects...
...you to visit:
limey-simey.deviantart.com
...you to visit:
limey-simey.deviantart.com
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=the_limey]Mindless, degenerate, coward bastards. There is no possible justification for these acts. Never mind all this crap about it being motivated by the War in Iraq- whether you agree with it or not, a "war" with soldiers and tanks and aircraft fighting the same of an enemy is not the same thing as blowing up a bus full of innocents.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I don't care what incoherent accusations are made against a particular foreign government, or "democracies," or "the West" in general, there can be *no* excuse for this kind of atrocity. It's one thing to target military bases and soldiers, which is the sort of thing Washington in fact did. That was an action of war. This targeting of civilians can have no possible justification.
At least 33 dead, over 700 injured.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I don't care what incoherent accusations are made against a particular foreign government, or "democracies," or "the West" in general, there can be *no* excuse for this kind of atrocity. It's one thing to target military bases and soldiers, which is the sort of thing Washington in fact did. That was an action of war. This targeting of civilians can have no possible justification.
At least 33 dead, over 700 injured.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
Yshania
- Posts: 8572
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Some Girls Wander By Mistake
- Contact:
Not to detract from the tragedy, but I am simply amazed that the casualty list was not tenfold considering the targets and the time of day!
Blair made my skin crawl with his "we will not be intimidated" speech though. We won't, but he makes my skin crawl anyway. The first time he addressed the nation at midday, we wanted answers to the confusion, or to put end to speculation, or at least just to let us know what was planned...but he "rallied"
Maybe that is his job, but I felt patronised.
Oh, and the way he pauses...unnecessarily...between words....for...emphasis...?...grrr
From what I understand, though, the emergency services were well prepared - that is a blessing!
Blair made my skin crawl with his "we will not be intimidated" speech though. We won't, but he makes my skin crawl anyway. The first time he addressed the nation at midday, we wanted answers to the confusion, or to put end to speculation, or at least just to let us know what was planned...but he "rallied"
Maybe that is his job, but I felt patronised.Oh, and the way he pauses...unnecessarily...between words....for...emphasis...?...grrr
From what I understand, though, the emergency services were well prepared - that is a blessing!
Parachute for sale, like new! Never opened!
Guinness, black goes with everything.
Guinness, black goes with everything.
-
Cuchulain82
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:44 pm
- Location: Law School library, Vermont, USA
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Yshania]Blair made my skin crawl with his "we will not be intimidated" speech though. We won't, but he makes my skin crawl anyway. The first time he addressed the nation at midday, we wanted answers to the confusion, or to put end to speculation, or at least just to let us know what was planned...but he "rallied" Maybe that is his job, but I felt patronised.[/QUOTE]
Ysh, do you think that your response is typical? I know responses to Bush and most other politicians here would have been similar, and I wonder if it hints at a widespread feeling of being fed up with politicos. Today we look upon Churchill and Lincoln in awe for their rhetoric, but when Blair or Bush try to do something similar, we all feel so disgusted by it.
Maybe that is his job, but I felt patronised.[/QUOTE]Ysh, do you think that your response is typical? I know responses to Bush and most other politicians here would have been similar, and I wonder if it hints at a widespread feeling of being fed up with politicos. Today we look upon Churchill and Lincoln in awe for their rhetoric, but when Blair or Bush try to do something similar, we all feel so disgusted by it.
Custodia legis
[QUOTE=dragon wench]
Yes, the killing of innocents is always wrong, no matter the circumstances; there are no exceptions IMO, not ever. Yes, virtually every nation and culture in the world is guilty of it, but that can never justify the slaughter of innocents, regardless of the cause.[/QUOTE]
This I agree with. It does not matter whether it is carpet bombing, suicide bombing or running over their houses with tanks, it does not matter whether it is the US of A, Israel or Al Quada who performs the act - targetting of civilians is always unjustifiable and immoral in my opinion.
Yes, the killing of innocents is always wrong, no matter the circumstances; there are no exceptions IMO, not ever. Yes, virtually every nation and culture in the world is guilty of it, but that can never justify the slaughter of innocents, regardless of the cause.[/QUOTE]
This I agree with. It does not matter whether it is carpet bombing, suicide bombing or running over their houses with tanks, it does not matter whether it is the US of A, Israel or Al Quada who performs the act - targetting of civilians is always unjustifiable and immoral in my opinion.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
[QUOTE=fable]Exactly. I don't care what incoherent accusations are made against a particular foreign government, or "democracies," or "the West" in general, there can be *no* excuse for this kind of atrocity. It's one thing to target military bases and soldiers, which is the sort of thing Washington in fact did. That was an action of war. This targeting of civilians can have no possible justification.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there is a big difference. War always means a lot of civilian casualties. War "Washington style" attempts to trade civilian lifes for military objectives, while war "Terrorist style" attempts to trade civilian lifes for political objectives. I can't see why military objectives are inherently more worthy or that they makes the killings more justifiable.
@Yshaina: He certainly made my skin crawl too, imo it displays very skew priorities to start with the terrorist hunting rhetorics at this point.
@Chuclain: As much as I dislike Churchill the difference is that in his time there was an actual threat to English independence, I think that the tolerance for bombastic nationalism increases with the severity of the threat.
I don't think there is a big difference. War always means a lot of civilian casualties. War "Washington style" attempts to trade civilian lifes for military objectives, while war "Terrorist style" attempts to trade civilian lifes for political objectives. I can't see why military objectives are inherently more worthy or that they makes the killings more justifiable.
@Yshaina: He certainly made my skin crawl too, imo it displays very skew priorities to start with the terrorist hunting rhetorics at this point.
@Chuclain: As much as I dislike Churchill the difference is that in his time there was an actual threat to English independence, I think that the tolerance for bombastic nationalism increases with the severity of the threat.
While others climb the mountains High, beneath the tree I love to lie
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Dottie]I don't think there is a big difference. War always means a lot of civilian casualties. War "Washington style" attempts to trade civilian lifes for military objectives, while war "Terrorist style" attempts to trade civilian lifes for political objectives.[/quote]
If you want to trade your life for a military objective, that's fine. You've made the chioce for yourself. But that choice does not exist for hundreds of civilians when they are targeted. That's the difference. Washington controlled an army, and that army's sharpshooters picked off the British and Hessian mercenaries in tight-packed formation. But Washington never ordered the burning of houses owned by British sympathizers, or their hanging.
I can't see why military objectives are inherently more worthy or that they makes the killings more justifiable.
Let me provide an example. When Chechnyn terrorists attack and kill Russian troops, they're killing an occupying force that has looted, raped, burnt, imprisioned, and slaughtered a significant portion of the population. By targeting the already dissipirited Russian troops, who regard Chechyn property as legitimate spoil in lieu of their poor wages, they make it more difficult for the Russian government to operate in the territory, and the word gets back to troops at home. The justification for the "terrorist" acts committed on Chechyn soil lie is making the war ultimately unprofitable and ultimately untenable for Russia, just as it was for the Soviet in Afghanistan.
But by targeting children in a school, what did a small group of Chechyn terrorists achieve? World horror at their actions. Putin's arguing for stronger measures (meaning, more power in his hands) to do what he wanted. Just the opposite of what the Chechyns need to accomplish if they hope (as they all do) to get the Russians out.
If you want to trade your life for a military objective, that's fine. You've made the chioce for yourself. But that choice does not exist for hundreds of civilians when they are targeted. That's the difference. Washington controlled an army, and that army's sharpshooters picked off the British and Hessian mercenaries in tight-packed formation. But Washington never ordered the burning of houses owned by British sympathizers, or their hanging.
I can't see why military objectives are inherently more worthy or that they makes the killings more justifiable.
Let me provide an example. When Chechnyn terrorists attack and kill Russian troops, they're killing an occupying force that has looted, raped, burnt, imprisioned, and slaughtered a significant portion of the population. By targeting the already dissipirited Russian troops, who regard Chechyn property as legitimate spoil in lieu of their poor wages, they make it more difficult for the Russian government to operate in the territory, and the word gets back to troops at home. The justification for the "terrorist" acts committed on Chechyn soil lie is making the war ultimately unprofitable and ultimately untenable for Russia, just as it was for the Soviet in Afghanistan.
But by targeting children in a school, what did a small group of Chechyn terrorists achieve? World horror at their actions. Putin's arguing for stronger measures (meaning, more power in his hands) to do what he wanted. Just the opposite of what the Chechyns need to accomplish if they hope (as they all do) to get the Russians out.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
I might have misinterpreted you Fable, I agree that military targets are another thing than civilian ones. What I do not agree with is the commonly held opinion that accepting civilian casualities in achieving the destruction of a military target is fundamentally different from choosing a civilian target in the first place. For example carbet bombings are not inherently more moral than buss bombings. If you agree with this then I think we are in complete agreement.
While others climb the mountains High, beneath the tree I love to lie
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
-
Bloodstalker
- Posts: 15512
- Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Hell if I know
- Contact:
I want to extend my sympathy to the people who were affected. Acts like these are always tragic, and IMO never justified. I don't want to get much more into it right now as I'm doubtful I could say much without my temper getting the best of me.
I'm glad to hear that those I know from here are safe though.
I'm glad to hear that those I know from here are safe though.
Lord of Lurkers
Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!
Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Dottie]I might have misinterpreted you Fable, I agree that military targets are another thing than civilian ones. What I do not agree with is the commonly held opinion that accepting civilian casualities in achieving the destruction of a military target is fundamentally different from choosing a civilian target in the first place. For example carbet bombings are not inherently more moral than buss bombings. If you agree with this then I think we are in complete agreement.[/QUOTE]
Oh, then we're in agreement. There simply are no acceptable civilian targets, in my opinion. None.
Oh, then we're in agreement. There simply are no acceptable civilian targets, in my opinion. None.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
Yshania
- Posts: 8572
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Some Girls Wander By Mistake
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Dottie]@Yshaina: He certainly made my skin crawl too, imo it displays very skew priorities to start with the terrorist hunting rhetorics at this point.[/QUOTE]
Exactly!
That and the drama queen tendencies..."he looks badly shaken"...bleh! He had a powerful audience with the G8, and he no doubt played to them - I could almost picture him mentally rubbing his hands as the news was broken! What was questionable, to me, was why Sir Ian Blair and Charles Clarke had addressed the public before he did, trying to calm people and avoid too much speculation, and when he did he threatened war on terrorism (which until this point was speculation) and then promised to be leave for London within "a couple of hours" I agree that the G8 conference should have continued, but he had an issue of national security on his hands! Call me cynical, but if he wasn't shaking with excitement, it was because he was **** scared. I doubt very much he was moved to emotion. It would have aleady been determined that his family was safe, as were the senior members of Scotland Yard.
Cuchulain82, I can honestly say I know very few - if any - Blair sympathisers.
Exactly!
That and the drama queen tendencies..."he looks badly shaken"...bleh! He had a powerful audience with the G8, and he no doubt played to them - I could almost picture him mentally rubbing his hands as the news was broken! What was questionable, to me, was why Sir Ian Blair and Charles Clarke had addressed the public before he did, trying to calm people and avoid too much speculation, and when he did he threatened war on terrorism (which until this point was speculation) and then promised to be leave for London within "a couple of hours" I agree that the G8 conference should have continued, but he had an issue of national security on his hands! Call me cynical, but if he wasn't shaking with excitement, it was because he was **** scared. I doubt very much he was moved to emotion. It would have aleady been determined that his family was safe, as were the senior members of Scotland Yard.
Cuchulain82, I can honestly say I know very few - if any - Blair sympathisers.
Parachute for sale, like new! Never opened!
Guinness, black goes with everything.
Guinness, black goes with everything.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Blair isn't alone. Bush is using it as a photo op to say in effect "the war on terrorism is right, and must continue!" What disgusting leaders we have. Like hogs, they sniff for good PR moments at times like these.
What disgusting leaders we have. Like hogs, they sniff for good PR moments at times like these.To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=Yshania]Cuchulain82, I can honestly say I know very few - if any - Blair sympathisers.[/QUOTE]
Of all my British friends and colleagues, I don't know anyone who sympathise with Blair. It seems all Brits abhor him - that's why I was so surprised he was re-elected.
Certainly this event will strengthen the bond between Blair and Shrub, and provide fuel for future proactive "war on terror" acts.
A good thing though that London was well prepared for emergency, the tolls could have been even higher than they were.
Of all my British friends and colleagues, I don't know anyone who sympathise with Blair. It seems all Brits abhor him - that's why I was so surprised he was re-elected.
Certainly this event will strengthen the bond between Blair and Shrub, and provide fuel for future proactive "war on terror" acts.
A good thing though that London was well prepared for emergency, the tolls could have been even higher than they were.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
-
Yshania
- Posts: 8572
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Some Girls Wander By Mistake
- Contact:
[QUOTE=fable]Blair isn't alone. Bush is using it as a photo op to say in effect "the war on terrorism is right, and must continue!" What disgusting leaders we have. Like hogs, they sniff for good PR moments at times like these.[/QUOTE]
Sad, isn't it? This, in itself, depreciates the value of a life IMO, on whichever side of the fence.
What disgusting leaders we have. Like hogs, they sniff for good PR moments at times like these.[/QUOTE]Sad, isn't it? This, in itself, depreciates the value of a life IMO, on whichever side of the fence.
Parachute for sale, like new! Never opened!
Guinness, black goes with everything.
Guinness, black goes with everything.
-
Yshania
- Posts: 8572
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Some Girls Wander By Mistake
- Contact:
[QUOTE=C Elegans]Of all my British friends and colleagues, I don't know anyone who sympathise with Blair. It seems all Brits abhor him - that's why I was so surprised he was re-elected.
Certainly this event will strengthen the bond between Blair and Shrub, and provide fuel for future proactive "war on terror" acts.
A good thing though that London was well prepared for emergency, the tolls could have been even higher than they were.[/QUOTE]
Tell me about it!
I agree, and I am sure that the victims and their families were grateful to the men on the ground.
What is niggling me though, is the apparent lack of intelligence...I can't say that I believe this 100%
Certainly this event will strengthen the bond between Blair and Shrub, and provide fuel for future proactive "war on terror" acts.
A good thing though that London was well prepared for emergency, the tolls could have been even higher than they were.[/QUOTE]
Tell me about it!
I agree, and I am sure that the victims and their families were grateful to the men on the ground.
What is niggling me though, is the apparent lack of intelligence...I can't say that I believe this 100%
Parachute for sale, like new! Never opened!
Guinness, black goes with everything.
Guinness, black goes with everything.
[QUOTE=C Elegans]Of all my British friends and colleagues, I don't know anyone who sympathise with Blair. It seems all Brits abhor him - that's why I was so surprised he was re-elected.[/QUOTE] People like Osama Bin Laden help people like Bush and Blair get re-elected with their actions. I'm surprised that an intelligent, educated - although insane - man like Bin Laden doesn't realise that.
She says: Lou, it's the Beginning of a Great Adventure
[QUOTE=Yshania]What is niggling me though, is the apparent lack of intelligence...I can't say that I believe this 100%[/QUOTE]
London is the most expected target for a terrorist attack since NYC 9/11. This could not have been a surprise for anyone - and today, with most of the security at the G8 in Scotland and everything...I hope you Brits keep us updated in the future as the background to this unfolds.
EDIT: @Coot: I don't think Osama minds at all that Blair and Bush get re-elected. I think it suits his purposes as well as theirs to continue the polarisation.
London is the most expected target for a terrorist attack since NYC 9/11. This could not have been a surprise for anyone - and today, with most of the security at the G8 in Scotland and everything...I hope you Brits keep us updated in the future as the background to this unfolds.
EDIT: @Coot: I don't think Osama minds at all that Blair and Bush get re-elected. I think it suits his purposes as well as theirs to continue the polarisation.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
-
Cuchulain82
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:44 pm
- Location: Law School library, Vermont, USA
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Yshania]Cuchulain82, I can honestly say I know very few - if any - Blair sympathisers.[/QUOTE]
I don't know any Brits well enough to talk politics anymore, but I personally know very few Bush supporters. I guess what I was trying to get at was the fact that today politicians have abused any trust given to them that we seem to be pretty cynical no matter what. This is a time to band together, be patroitic, and stop terrorism. However, when we hear our politicians say that, we rightfully know that to them it means "this is another reason I can use to force my agenda, and another way I can consolidate what power I have left". Not good times.
I don't know any Brits well enough to talk politics anymore, but I personally know very few Bush supporters. I guess what I was trying to get at was the fact that today politicians have abused any trust given to them that we seem to be pretty cynical no matter what. This is a time to band together, be patroitic, and stop terrorism. However, when we hear our politicians say that, we rightfully know that to them it means "this is another reason I can use to force my agenda, and another way I can consolidate what power I have left".
Not good times.Custodia legis