London blasts cause chaos on Tube (4 Viewers)

- vOnAm -

Senior Member
Jul 22, 2004
3,779
#22
So was the guy who got shot really dangerous? Did he merit getting shot?

Seems sad to be shot five times when your already pinned to the ground. They better be at 100% sure or else its another victim of all of this senseless bloodshed.
 

Tom

The DJ
Oct 30, 2001
11,726
#27
Sure but please, take those inverted commas out. There's no debate here. Those people who are blowing up innocent civillians are terrorists. Whatever you think about Bush & Blair's actions.. these suicide bombers ARE terrorists.. end of story.

Oh, and if they are taking that advice then this really isn't going to end anytime soon. Where's the honour and good sense in blowing yourself up!

Cheers chx
 
Feb 26, 2005
591
#28
++ [ originally posted by Tom ] ++
Sure but please, take those inverted commas out. There's no debate here. Those people who are blowing up innocent civillians are terrorists. Whatever you think about Bush & Blair's actions.. these suicide bombers ARE terrorists.. end of story.
If strapping a few pounds of high explosive to yourself and detonating it thereby causing maximum damage, terror, shock and awe qualifies as terrorism, then dropping bombs on densely populated cities with no regard as to whether those harmed by the explosions are civilians or combatants, and firing hundreds of thousands of tank shells into the homes of people and calling it "shock and awe tactics" qualifies as terrorism as well.

If there are terrorists in London, then there are terrorists in Baghdad. The only difference is that one set of terrorists wears uniforms and answers to gets orders from some governments.
 
Feb 26, 2005
591
#29
++ [ originally posted by Tom ] ++
Where's the honour and good sense in blowing yourself up!
I suppose there is more honour and good sense in doing the dirty business from a safe distance? Maybe they should begin using remote detonated bombs so they can be more like the American and British soldiers.
 

Tom

The DJ
Oct 30, 2001
11,726
#30
Yes, you're right there are terrorists in Baghdad. They're blowing up our troops day in, day out!!

I think you're missing the point. By refusing to accept the train bombers are terrorists are you, in effect saying that their actions are acceptable in light of the Iraq war?
 

Tom

The DJ
Oct 30, 2001
11,726
#32
Its a forum ffs. If you can't air differences of opinion what good is it being on here in the first place!
 
Feb 26, 2005
591
#34
++ [ originally posted by Tom ] ++
Yes, you're right there are terrorists in Baghdad. They're blowing up our troops day in, day out!!

I think you're missing the point. By refusing to accept the train bombers are terrorists are you, in effect saying that their actions are acceptable in light of the Iraq war?
You damn skippy. If you are overwhelmed by a superior force, you don't just sit down and meekly accept your fate. You fight back with such resources as you have available to you. Hollywood has made countless blockbusters dedicated to men who refused to lie down and die even after their countries were overrun by occupation armies. They used the same guerrila tactics of attacking the enemy where it hurt until such time as he was forced to rethink his actions and pull his armies out of their country. If you guys like, you can continue to leave your friends, brothers, fathers and sons in another country fighting an unjust occupation war, and continue to mourn and count the bodybags.
 

Tom

The DJ
Oct 30, 2001
11,726
#35
we're not overwhelming anybody. Removing a ruthless dictator and trying to assist in setting up a new Democratic Iraq, free from fear of persecution. That's what we're trying to do. God knows why we bothered though.
 

Chxta

Onye kwe, Chi ya ekwe
Nov 1, 2004
12,088
#36
++ [ originally posted by Tom ] ++
we're not overwhelming anybody. Removing a ruthless dictator and trying to assist in setting up a new Democratic Iraq, free from fear of persecution. That's what we're trying to do. God knows why we bothered though.
Erm, I disagree! Mubarak's also a dictator; Musharraf, Castro, Hu Jintao, Karimov, I could go on and on...

Why Saddam?

What has the West done about Karimov?

What did the West do about Charles Taylor?

What did the West do about Mobutu Seseseko?

People have different cultures, and I can assure you that most Middle Eastern cultures are far from democratic. Trying to impose an alien culture on a peoples is bound to meet with resistance.

And FYI, Karzai in Afghanistan isn't a democracy.
 
Feb 26, 2005
591
#37
++ [ originally posted by Tom ] ++
we're not overwhelming anybody. Removing a ruthless dictator and trying to assist in setting up a new Democratic Iraq, free from fear of persecution. That's what we're trying to do. God knows why we bothered though.
If you believe that tripe then you and Tony Blair have the same weedman.:D

The greatest crimes in humanity have had some noble ideal as their public cornerstone, but the real motives have always been economic or imperialist.

The European powers claimed they were coming to civilise Africa, that they were taking God to the Godless, whereas they were actually coming for their own empire building exercises, and cheaper resources with which to fuel the Industrial Revolution. America went into Iraq claiming weapons of mass destruction were targeted at America, and so they had to go in to protect themselves. When they saw that that pig wouldn't fly if you pushed it out of a plane at 60,000 feet, they changed their tune. Suddenly they began singing about how they were taking democracy to the democracyless. Afterall, self-preservation is avarice, but to lay your life down for an ideal, and another man's "freedom", now there's a cause.

The real motive for the Iraq War is and will always be oil. The least you people can do is be honest for fuck's sake.
 

Emma

Senior Member
Mar 4, 2004
3,753
#38
Of course England brought it on herself. We wouldnt have the same problems if we hadnt went to war, thats pretty obvious. This is what we get, this is the price you pay or invading a country for someone elses agendas but take them to government buildings not community buses. Thats not fighting back because that isnt fighting the enemy.

What is annoying though is when its British born terrorists, its not like its iraqis who are doing it because we put a precision warhead in their parents bedroom like madlawyer is making out.

Its british kids who are feeding of our government in the first place.
 

Chxta

Onye kwe, Chi ya ekwe
Nov 1, 2004
12,088
#40
++ [ originally posted by Emma ] ++
Of course England brought it on herself. We wouldnt have the same problems if we hadnt went to war, thats pretty obvious. This is what we get, this is the price you pay or invading a country for someone elses agendas but take them to government buildings not community buses. Thats not fighting back because that isnt fighting the enemy.

What is annoying though is when its British born terrorists, its not like its iraqis who are doing it because we put a precision warhead in their parents bedroom like madlawyer is making out.

Its british kids who are feeding of our government in the first place.
It is British kids who don't feel British. I have relatives who were born and bred in Britain, and whenever they come to Nigeria, they feel more at home. So the question should be why is it that they feel more at home in an 'alien' country? Those youngmen who went to Pakistan before blowing themselves up felt alien in Britain, they felt unwanted. And that is why it was easy for the mullahs to brainwash them in the first place. Had they felt very British, I can guarantee that they wouldn't have done what they did. But I don't understand the black guy's beef!
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 4)