Yi-Long wrote:Mark. how many bombs do you think 'we' have lobbed on the heads of innocent Afghanis and Iraqis!?
None. But "our" governments? Far too many. I seriously doubt, however, the intent was to cause death of innocent civilians, even though that proved to be the deeply unfortunate result. On the news yesterday Iraqi insurgants murdered countless children in an attempt to bomb coalition soldiers. The difference? The bomber knew the children were there and detonated anyway. Would the British have done the same (ie. bomb a house full of children on purpose?) No they wouldn't, and if they did then they would bring shame to my country.
I DO NOT approve of killing innocent people, anywhere in the world (DUH!... but just to be very very clear cause you seem to have a problem understanding this)
No, I get it alright. You're not a psycho. I know. I just don't appreciate your "ability" to understand the motives of terrorism. It's something I can't and won't do. That's what makes us different. You CARE what they think and feel. I just want them dead.
but what other means do these 'people' (extremists) have to fight against us? You really think they are gonna fight 'fair' cause we PRETEND we do!?
How can I put this? I know WHY they use these tactics. I just don't understand HOW they could bring themselves to do so. If I wanted to kill Muslims I could strab on a bomb and walk into a Mosque. But that's something I couldn't do - kill innocents. No matter my cause or grieveance. Nothing justifies terrorism. It's worth pointing out that the London bombers were all British-born - raised and nurtured by a country it so vehemently turned against.
Yeah it ain't nice and civil, but neither is cowardly lobbing long-distance rockets at 'an area where we SUSPECT could be terrorist activity'.
War isn't civil in reality. The notion of civility is an illusion. What I'm talking about here is intent. When Britain kills innocents in war it's not the direct purpose. Hell, you get soldiers shooting each other in so-called "friendly-fire". Humans makes mistakes, errors of judgement, and sometimes innocent people on both sides suffer. What these terrorists do is calculated to the nth degree and is no mistake. Innocent deaths is the goal.
About being anti-american. I usually only express those feelings when it's about them messing up DVD's and movies etc (and I also critisize anyone else doing that, be it HKL, dutch dvd companies, or R4 etc etc.) or when we're discussing world-politics...
Well, if you say you don't have a problem with Americans in general I won't call you out on it... but it just seems to me (and others) that your criticizism is disproportinate. You started MANY threads about American abuses, but not one about American sufferings. Intentional or not it comes across as biased.
You say 49% of the americans DIDN'T vote for Bush: I know. That still means there's about 50% of people that DID vote for that idiot. Many MANY americans are religious idiots, still condemning gays and abortion etc etc. Hell, I'm sure many Bush-voters would love a come back of segregation. I don't mind people being religious, but when it affects (in a bad way) OTHER people's lifes, it's wrong.
Can't argue with that. My point was that 49% still counts for over 100 million people who feel disenfranchised from what their country is doing and the direction it runs in. I feel the same about Labour in the UK. I voted minority to make a point. But Labour still won. I wonder what happened to all those millions of marchers and protestors come polling day? I can't be blamed for what Tony Blair did. Why should I now be at risk from terrorists because of him?
Terrorisme MUST be stopped. But our goverments are doing it the wrong way. Instead of taking away the basis of hate, we actually increase their hate against the west.
That makes sense up to a point. But how do you negotiate with people who don't want to talk but only spill blood? It could be argued that many of these terrorists are using the war in Iraq as an excuse to further their racist, anti-western holy war. 9/11 was before Iraq. OK, so that was Palestine. But if it wasn't one of those, would it be something else? Anything else as justification? To me the only solution really is for western powers to get the fuck out of the Middle East and leave them to it. But, decades of medalling has left the region unstable, so how can they leave? Each time they interfere it gets worse... but they can't do nothing can they? It's a catch-22. If you have a solution better than that Yi-Long... please share.
There are so many other things we can use to get rid of terrorisme, like working closely together with the goverments who have terrorists among them, build a good relationship, and get them on our side, against the terrorists.
That sounds great. But isn't that what they're already doing? Most of Saddam's lot were arrested by Pakistani Police.