London Blasts!

RabidMonk said:
I disagreed with his blame by pointing out that it was Al Qaeda whom first attacked, quite dreadfully might I add. Does it not make sense after such an action to seek out and eliminate the source? What are the other alternatives in that situation?
Does that make their deliberate attack on innocent civilians any more just? I didn't see random brits and spaniards attacking Iraq, I saw a military unconditionally obeying their government. Face it Ratty, the muslim terrorists do not care for your life and well-being! This is what they do! Unfortunately, this is an issue that will have to be resolved through force.
Have you ever asked yourself why terrorists target USA and its allies? Could it mayhap be because the Muslim world mostly loaths America and everything it stands for? If that is the case (hint: it is), then what is the reason for all that loathing? Are Muslims inherently evil and barbaric (shut up, CCR) or does it have something to do with the fact that 70% of them are pauperized and illiterate? Mayhap if their greatest natural resource, oil, was placed under control of the *people*, to benefit *their* well-being, and not self-serving autocratic regimes sponsored by the US, mayhap *then* Muslims would be less prone to blowing themselves up in crowded metro stations?

You conservatives always amuse with your simplistic amoeba-level logic. In your perception, the terrorist problem boils down to the simple binary relation "They blow us up => We nuke 'em". In your shortsightedness you completely disregard the causality of the "They blow us up"-bit. If the battle against terrorism is to bear any palpable success, the western world - and especially USA - must first acknowledge that its foreign policies concerning the Middle East are, and have always been, deeply malapropos and wholly aimed at exploiting Middle-eastern resources without yielding anything in exchange. Next they must alter those policies radically, end the perverted simbiotic relationship with repressive local governments and establish promotion of democracy, human rights, fair distribution of wealth and economic independance as primary outlines of a new, more humane policy. As long as American mistreatment and mismanagement in the Middle East persists, terrorists will continue their activity, local populations will continue to support and sponsor them, America will continue to crack down on them without paying any heed to such trivial things as international conventions, and the circle of bloodshed will remain firmly closed.

I was not using 9/11 as a justificaiton for the aforementioned attrocities and overall perversion that followed and will continue to follow.
No, but you scorned the attitude towards terrorism of European countries, as if conservative USA is somehow better and more efficient in the way it handles terror. This is especially laughable because many European countries have *far* more experience in dealing with organized terrorist networks than USA, and I daresay more success.

Oh, and fuck you RM. Hoping terrorist attacks happen is almost as bad as going through with it, and you are wrong anyway: in Europe terrorists attacks help moronic Socialists.
What are you talking about? Socialist parties are marginal and completely insignificant in all European countries except Belarus (where socialists are in power). You aren't confusing socialists and social democrats again, are you? Because if you are, I will tell Kharn and he will punch you.
 
Silencer said:
Big T said:
Do the lives cost more because they speak English?
Yes, unless it's their first tongue :P
True, aquired skills.

Also, almost all native English speakers are terrible at speaking English, plus, they are drunk. Well, I am.
 
Fine, Social Democrat, whatever. Partido Socialista Obrero Español says nothing about Democratic, and it's a member of the International, so it's still Socialistic.
 
John Uskglass said:
Fine, Social Democrat, whatever. Partido Socialista Obrero Español says nothing about Democratic, and it's a member of the International, so it's still Socialistic.
:eyebrow:

You are joking, right? *All* social-democratic parties of some significance are members of the Socialist International. It's the world's largest union of moderate left-wing parties. Hell, half major European parties are in it, from British labourists to German SPD. Don't confuse it with the Comintern, which was started by bolshevyks and established global socialist revolution and destruction of bourgeoisie as its primary agenda.
 
Comintern was the Socialst International. The International is the Socialist International.

Eduard Bernstein was a Socialist. A Communist, no, Socialist, yes. Belaurs' government is Communist, not Socialist. If Bernstein was a Socialist, so then is Zapatero and friends.
 
(sigh)

...it's turned into one moron causing a huge burning and a political reference that's turned it even worse...

Then again its still stimulating. I suppose also its an easy way to vent frustration at mindless massacre. Very well then carry on.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
So would it be wrong to suggest the idea of creating a virus that only targeted certian genetic groups that happen to be those asocaited with terrorists. I mean who said genicide was always wrong.

Sure it'd take out a few innocents but hey, problem solved.

*hides from nasty feedbacks*

i shall call it FDV (thats Forced Death Virus)
 
Briosa, why are you always the one bringing news like this, you Harbinger of the Doomed Rat you.

Pope_Viper said:
I wonder which group will claim responsibility, is the IRA still a large threat over there?

HAH!

The IRA always announces its attacks

ALWAYS.

Sander said:
Basically speaking: few people here like or ascribe to the American conservative mindset or want to, while that mindset is highly popular in the USA, it is simply not-suited for Europe.

The Dictionary said:
# Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Whereas in most other European countries, "liberal" or "neo-liberal" means the right-wing political parties i favour of liberalizing policies, decentralization and other anti-welfare state policies.

Rat said:
What are you talking about? Socialist parties are marginal and completely insignificant in all European countries except Belarus (where socialists are in power). You aren't confusing socialists and social democrats again, are you? Because if you are, I will tell Kharn and he will punch you.

John never specifies social democrat over socialist. No need to, really, most people just say "socialist" when they mean social democrat. It's not that bad, it's not like they're saying Marxist or communist, as long as he doesn't mean socialist in the Marxist way...

We could start calling neo-liberal fascists. That'd be funny.

John said:
Comintern was the Socialst International. The International is the Socialist International.

Glaring ignorance doesn't suit you, John. Are you actually purporting to be so ignorant as to not understand the difference between communism and social democracy? Just because a political party doesn't have the word "democracy" in its name?

Raven boy said:
Socialist International

...

The Socialist International (SI) is an international organisation for social democratic and democratic socialist parties

You can read, right? I've always assumed you could read, but I'm beginning to doubt it now

Wild_qwerty said:
So would it be wrong to suggest the idea of creating a virus that only targeted certian genetic groups that happen to be those asocaited with terrorists.

Terrorism eugenetica? No offense, Wild qwerty, but that was probably the most horrible thing I heard since Hitler had a nightmare about his grandmother and decided to kill all the Jews.

Jebus said:
Why did I just find out about this now?

Lack of contact with reality. I had to work yesterday, but I was stuck to my tv before I finally had to go.

BACK ON TOPIC

Condoleances to any British affected. Me and my family both have lots of friends in London from which we hope to hear soon enough.

I've seen nobody comment on it, so I'll be the first. Two things really impressed me here, one positive one negative...or mebbe two negative two positive...

The negative, scary thing was the immense amount of patience and planning that must've gone into this. 4 simultaneous attacks one day after the election for the Olympics (symbolics, as the Olympics are primarily a Greco-Roman and thus Western thing (shhh, Jebus)) and during G-8 (a clever political move, totally devoiding the G-8 of its purpose)...

And people, please, stop shouting Al-Qaida. It can't be the IRA, ok, and it's probably a terrorist network with links to Al-Qaida because, quite frankly, Al-Qaida has grown so much since the beginning of the War on Terror that it now has links with everyone, but not every attack in the world is Al-Qaida, by definition.

On the positive side, I was very impressed by the British reaction. The ambulances, firemen and policemen all reacted with great speed. The Brits didn't panic, meaning the evacuations were, for the most part, very calm and only the people in the Picadilly line were stuck for a moment. Without such a great handling of the situation many more would've been hurt, maybe more would've died. I salute you, Londoners.

The bestest reaction of the day, after Democratic politician Loesewies van der Laan who states "this doesn't effect our security level in any way, we're not in any more or less danger now. Simple as that" rather than panic-mongering like so many politicians do, goes to the British police chief, after being asked "Could this have been islamic terrorist", he says, paraphrased,
"Well, first off, I don't think there's such a thing as an islamic terrorist. This religion inherently has nothing to do with terrorism. I think anyone who calls himself an "islamic terrorist" or uses the term is just extremely confused." Booyeah.
 
John Uskglass said:
Comintern was the Socialst International. The International is the Socialist International.
Comintern was founded by bolshevyks in 1919 and disbanded in 1943. Socialist International was founded in 1898 and after a number transformations and permutations it evolved into the international organization of social-democratic parties it is now. The two organizations have never been related in any way.

Kharn said:
John never specifies social democrat over socialist. No need to, really, most people just say "socialist" when they mean social democrat. It's not that bad, it's not like they're saying Marxist or communist, as long as he doesn't mean socialist in the Marxist way...
That varies from country to country, really. In Croatia people make a very clear distinction between socialism and social democracy. In fact, a social democrat might even take offense at being called 'socialist', and vice versa. What can I say, my people are sensitive about semantics.
 
Ratty said:
Comintern was founded by bolshevyks in 1919 and disbanded in 1943. Socialist International was founded in 1898 and after a number transformations and permutations it evolved into the international organization of social-democratic parties it is now. The two organizations have never been related in any way.

Also, the Socialist International ceased to exist by WW I, before the Comintern was founded. The current Socialist International was founded in 1945, only loosely based on anything preceding it, including the old Second International
 
Kharn said:
And people, please, stop shouting Al-Qaida. It can't be the IRA, ok, and it's probably a terrorist network with links to Al-Qaida because, quite frankly, Al-Qaida has grown so much since the beginning of the War on Terror that it now has links with everyone, but not every attack in the world is Al-Qaida, by definition.

The reason al Qaeda was brought up in this particular discussion was because the group that claims responsibility calls themselves the "Secret Organisation of al-Qaeda in Europe."

Kharn said:
Whereas in most other European countries, "liberal" or "neo-liberal" means the right-wing political parties i favour of liberalizing policies, decentralization and other anti-welfare state policies.

Yeah, I looked it up after Sander had told me. Thanks for the correction; I will know to use it correctly next time.


Ratty, you're obviously too emotional about this to debate this with me peacefully, so I will stop trying to, but may I at ask what you would propose as a solution to muslim terrorism, since you obviously disagree with our current?
 
RabidMonk said:
Ratty, you're obviously too emotional about this to debate this with me peacefully, so I will stop trying to, but may I at ask what you would propose as a solution to muslim terrorism, since you obviously disagree with our current?
My proposed solution? Destruction of Muslim states throughout the world and eradication of their religion. Don't act so shocked. Thanks to phenomenal treatment the Middle East has been receiving from the international community, it may by now be too late for any permanent solution that doesn't involve genocide.
 
I fucking hope it doesnt come to that ratty...



Because if thats the way it plays out, the death toll is going to be outrageous.
 
Hey, not to be too much of a master of the obvious, but so far "the West" has been losing more lives attacking them than we have when they've been attacking us. It's little more than one big drama-romp started by the US. If it ends badly, heh, well...
 
Well, first off, I don't think there's such a thing as an islamic terrorist.

Guffah.

All terrorists blow things up, but not all Muslims are terrorists.

An Islamic Terrorist would be an Islamic Revolutionary, responding to increasingly liberal trends in Muslim society.

Are they going to say there can't be such a thing as an Irish terrorist, or a Christian one?

The KKK were Christian Terrorists, but they never claimed as such because their goal was mostly lynching niggers and not reforming churches.
 
Back
Top