Terrorism in the London

[Arta]

...except we put Saddam in power and gave him some (minor ones) originally.

Yes, which he used to gas the Kurds, among other things, and which we quite methodically destroyed after Gulf War I, and which would not have remained usable until Gulf War II anyway, because they have a limited shelf-life, and would have decayed into harmless goo.

Next?

[nslay]

...except we put Saddam in power and gave him some (minor ones) originally.

Yes, which he used to gas the Kurds, among other things, and which we quite methodically destroyed after Gulf War I, and which would not have remained usable until Gulf War II anyway, because they have a limited shelf-life, and would have decayed into harmless goo.

Next?

Hey wait a second, didn't we give them anthrax too?

If you really want to know one reason (I believe) why we're there.  Consider Tony Blaire's involvement.  Consider British Petroleum.  Now look at a map, who is in between Afghanistan and Iraq?  Iran!  Why is this interesting?  Well, British Petroleum used to be known as Anglo-Iranian Oil and has all the deeds in London to the oil feilds in Iran.  Coincidence? 

[CrAz3D]

I agree. Terrorism is actually a very small problem -- even after 9/11 -- if you view it in terms of 'deaths caused'. For example, far more deaths are caused every year by smoking, preventable disease and road accidents, than are caused by terrorists. The whole issue needs to be viewed with a good sense of perspective.

Far more deaths could have been prevented if the money spent on the war in Iraq was spent on hospitals, public health campaigns and road safety legislation/enforcement.

Yea, we would have needed those hospitals. If we hadn't done anything, they'd be attacking us again and again, since they knew we'd do nothing.

Arta, I'm not going to lie to you. If I was in command of a hostile nation trying to expand my power and you were in command of England, I'd attack you all out. Why? Because from all the talking that I've done with you, I've come to the conclusion that in response you'd build a hospital and send me a fax telling me what I'm doing is wrong. Tisk tisk, appeasement doesn't work. Just ask your ol' chap Neville.

If we were speaking in person I'd roll my eyes and blow a raspberry at you

You're assuming that:

a) they would attack over and over again, and
b) that the total casualties from those attacks would exceed those which arise from more easily preventable causes over the same period of time.

I think that (a) is highly unlikely, and (b) is certainly false. Taking one, isolated event, and extrapolating it into a series of events, is not sensible.

uhm, uh, WTC in 93, WTC in 01, Spain, London, looks to me like they keep attackking over & over again

[QwertyMonster]

It sucks. Apparantly it was planned for weeks so my brother told me. And they sent a threatening letter  to Italy saying, "You're next". 

[CrAz3D]

Maybe a bit longer than weeks.

[QwertyMonster]

On the news it just said it could of been a Suicide bomber.

[CrAz3D]

Yeah...
CNN says 37 deaths now

[Adron]

a) they would attack over and over again, and
b) that the total casualties from those attacks would exceed those which arise from more easily preventable causes over the same period of time.

uhm, uh, WTC in 93, WTC in 01, Spain, London, looks to me like they keep attackking over & over again

WTC in 93 wasn't the same people as WTC in 01. Mentioning both of those is more like pointing out that new people join terrorist groups all the time, especially when you keep pissing people off.

Also, total casualties from those attacks are still way below those from more easily preventable causes over the same time.

[Hazard]

Adron, bin Laden was behind the 93 attacks on the WTC, FYI. Facts not quote straight?

[iago]

Wow, I missed most of this, but I have to say that I agree with Arta and Adron on this one.

I think that what we see here is evidence of one of the major problems in the world/America: people are used to death and violence, and think that death and violence are good ways to solve problems. 

They kill us, we kill them.  If we keep attacking them, they'll stop.  If they keep attacking us, we'll stop.  In the end, all we do is piss each other off, and promote more violence.  You see this in people (gangs, for example), and countries.  And as long as the violence continues on both sides, it's never going to be fixed.

If you push somebody, and they push you back, then you push them harder, etc., when does it stop?  Does it stop when one person pushes so hard they cause an injury?  Yes, but that creates hard feelings and you probably won't be friends anymore.  Does it stop when one grows up and says "this is dumb"?  Yes, and they continue being friends.  Now, expand that 100000x, and it's the same as what's happening now.

As Arta said, as long as you keep pissing people off, there will always be terrorists.  If you flatten the middle east, do you think the rest of the world is going to stand idly by?  The ONLY type of attacks that are going to work against the US are terrorist-style.  There is no way any army could fight the US directly, so they HAVE to use these kinds of tactics.  What would you do if America was a small weak country and you lived a happy life in it, but Iraq kept telling you that you weren't happy and that you should be living like them?  Would you just change your way of life and decide that America must be wrong just because Iraq is stronger than you?  Or would you find a way to fight them?

[iago]

I had to point this one out too:

Uhh, we don't know what would happen if a few nukes were dropped in the middle east?  Apparently you've missed the news about the US led efforts to disarm the Iraqi dictator accused of using chemical weapons on his enemies, or just about anyone else that looked at him wrong?  If the US then suddenly decided to nuke a sizeable chunk of land for nothing more than "they could have one day attacked us"... I know DAMNED WELL what would happen.  You think other countries would just sit around and say "it's understandable, they're just mad, let them blow off some steam"?  Or, do you think they would come fully on board with the "American is a power hungry, war mongering country that thinks of itself as the only country that matters" theory?

One day was yesterday for London.  So what do we say to these God damned terrorists?... "Oh well, they're mad because we have a good lifestyle & value equality...lets just let them blow of some steam for another few centuries & kill a few more citizens of the free world"

It's pretty amazing that Saddam managed to plan an attack on England from jail.  Read more carefully

[CrAz3D]

I had to point this one out too:

Uhh, we don't know what would happen if a few nukes were dropped in the middle east?  Apparently you've missed the news about the US led efforts to disarm the Iraqi dictator accused of using chemical weapons on his enemies, or just about anyone else that looked at him wrong?  If the US then suddenly decided to nuke a sizeable chunk of land for nothing more than "they could have one day attacked us"... I know DAMNED WELL what would happen.  You think other countries would just sit around and say "it's understandable, they're just mad, let them blow off some steam"?  Or, do you think they would come fully on board with the "American is a power hungry, war mongering country that thinks of itself as the only country that matters" theory?

One day was yesterday for London.  So what do we say to these God damned terrorists?... "Oh well, they're mad because we have a good lifestyle & value equality...lets just let them blow of some steam for another few centuries & kill a few more citizens of the free world"

It's pretty amazing that Saddam managed to plan an attack on England from jail.  Read more carefully

When Epic mentioned 'nuking a sizeable piece of land' we were talking about terrorists.  I believe he was pointing out that we invaded Iraq because 'they might attack us first' & Epic was saying we'd bomb random places to kill terrorists because 'they might attack us first'.

That's what I understood from what he wrote, that he was just comparing our pre-emptive strike against Iraq to a possible attack against terrorists (using nuclear warfare)

[Topaz]

That's the US's prime weakness; we have just too much land to cover, and too open a society.

[shout]

That's the US's prime weakness; we have just too much land to cover, and too open a society.

The prime weekness of the world is that terrorism works. We don't have too much land to cover, when is the last time we fought a war on U.S. soil? The mexican-american war?

I think the use of nukes should not even be something worth argueing, they should never be used at all.

[Hazard]

Hostility should never be used at all, but once in a while the circumstances require it.