terrorists attack london

<p>The administration refuses to accept responsibility for their own mistakes and to acknowledge reality. Notice how Bush said he wanted Osama dead or alive, then doesn't mention him since we haven't caught him. Dick Cheney said the insurgents are in their last throes when Rumsfeld said he thinks the insurgency will last for 8,10,12 years. They based the invasion of Iraq on stopping Saddam Hussein from his iminent ability to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States, when in fact he had nothing. Then he changes his position that the Iraq war was actually to spread democracy and freedom when we can't find anything and our bodycount continues to accumulate.</p>

<p>We live in a democracy and people are free to vote for whoever they want. You made one choice, I made a different one. As a popular bumper sticker says: When Clinton lied, nobody died. You choose to support a regime that is incompetent and cannot support itself with facts and frankly, I could never tell my future children that I was aligned with them. History will have the final word.</p>

<p>"The oil for food scandal investigation shows that many leaders like Chirac, Putin, and Annan were involved in directly in smuggling millions of dollars to the relatives of these leaders."</p>

<p>It has been clearly shown that Kofi Annan has had nothing to do with it. As you yourself said "Idiot.... thats all I'm going to say."</p>

<p>And don't you think safety would transcend political boundaries? Those areas voted more Democratic than they did in 2000.</p>

<p>To basically sum up the past page: Britain was attacked by terrorists. So what are we going to do now? Declare war against a billion Muslims and multiple dozens of Islamic countries that will wreck our economies and kill millions of people? Or are we going to address the causes of terrorism because what we have been doing since 9/11 is clearly not working?</p>

<p>Haha... this is very interesting. Why does everyone have to use low blows, why can't we all just debate. </p>

<p>Honestly, this administration has made a lot of mistakes. But so has every administration that has been involved in a war. </p>

<p>I don't understand some people. Saddam killed more than a hundred thousand of his own people. He put people through meat grinders, he built torcher chambers and taught his kids to kill people for fun. Isn't that enough reason to take a dictator out of power? Do you have hearts?</p>

<p>When Clinton lied he shamed the country, I hated to think that a lying adulterer was leading the country. Clinton is also partially responsible for 911. After the 93 WTC bombings he sent off a few bombs and brushed the attacks off. He didn't want to deal with a growing threat, instead he was more worried about appeasing everybody.</p>

<p>"I hate you idiots who think there is any other way of dealing with the problem, than what we are doing now."
You must be a <em>very</em> popular person at school when you think there's only one way to do everything. Let me guess, it's your way too, isn't it?</p>

<p>Last time I checked, the September 11 attacks were in Bush's term and that he waited over 8 months to talk to his anti-terrorism chief even though Clinton warned Bush when he became president that Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were the greatest threats to the United States. I'm not even going to go into how Bush took the entire of month of August 2001 as vacation or how he left the CIA chief Porter Goss in charge, after the monumental failure between the FBI and CIA to communicate between each other. We easily could have stopped 9/11 with our existing laws but it was incompetence on our side that ultimately resulted in failing to stop over 3000 deaths.</p>

<p>During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, after the US embassies were bombed in Africa, Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes against Bin Laden for his base (then in Sudan), against the opposition of Republicans. It would have been inappropriate for Clinton to start a war in his final months in office, for Bush to inherit. Clinton trusted that Bush would do what was best for the country, not ignore the nation's best interests.</p>

<p>In addition, we're responsible for well over 100,000 Iraqi deaths in the war over the past two years. Although we may have meant well, we're killing more people more indiscriminately than Saddam ever did.</p>

<p>dude, he sat back and dididnt do anything, like any other democrat and when **** was boiling up. It happened and it wasent his term anymore so it didnt matter.</p>

<p>Now if he would have had done his job instead of ignorring it.</p>

<p>It may not of happened.</p>

<p>Why did clinton cancel the sailing meetings with head of CIA. Hmm when bush came back in he was sure to reinstate it.</p>

<p>clinton only met with James Woolsey once and that was the interview at first.</p>

<p>so you tell me.</p>

<p>Sandy Berger only worried about the press and media.</p>

<p>How about</p>

<p>In 1995, the FBI was instructed that intelligence and criminal investigations had to be separated even further than "what is legally required" to avoid "the unwarranted appearance" that our intelligence operatives were - shriek! - sharing their information with prosecutors, and vice versa.</p>

<p>I can go on</p>

<p>Better the people of iraq dead then Americans.</p>

<p>and if you dont feel the same way, maybe yo should move over there.</p>

<p>have some frigging pride in your country/</p>

<p>Just search</p>

<p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=is+clinton+to+blame+for+9%2F11&btnG=Google+Search%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=is+clinton+to+blame+for+9%2F11&btnG=Google+Search&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I notice that "is clinton to blame for 9/11" got 619,000 hits. I find it more interesting to see that "is bush to blame for 9/11" got 1,180,000 hits, nearly twice as much. How long are you going to blame Democrats for everything that goes wrong when you have the presidency and Congress? Sooner or later you will have to admit your failures as well as your successes--cause if it isn't done, the voters will let you know in 2006 and 2008.</p>

<p>A few of those Google headlines for Clinton:
9/11 Panel Critical of Clinton, Bush (washingtonpost.com)
Clinton's Inaction Led to 9/11? - BreakTheChain.org (which states in its first sentence: Bill Clinton may be to blame for a lot of things, but to imply that his ineptitude caused the tragic loss of life on September 11 is ludicrous at best and self-serving at worst.)</p>

<p>A few of those Google headlines for Bush:
The Oracle - Former CIA agent says Bush to blame for 9/11
CBS News | 9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable | December 18, 2003 ...</p>

<p>It is truly sad that a thread about terrorism has turned into a ridiculous debate between radical republicans and democrats. The world needs to be united in its battle against terror, and that needs to start at home.</p>

<p>I'll never understand people who blame <em>Americans</em> for the barbaric acts of barbaric people who try to murder and slaughter their way into paradise.</p>

<p>I never blamed Americans for terrorism, only for inaction to stop such events from happening or to remove the <em>causes</em> of said attacks. The people who oppose that and would rather us be attacked are the ones who are enemies of the state.</p>

<p>Your hate-filled messages do not help your argument. This is a discussion board, meant for discussion, not name-calling.</p>

<p>My point is that we do not "cause" terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks are caused by terrorists. If they want to inflict mass murder, no amount of intellectual rationalising will ever change that. We are not dealing with normal people. We are dealing with people who hate <em>us</em>(rather than simply hating what we do) and people who hate everything that Western democracies stand for. The only thing they will ever be satisifed with is a world in which everyone is ruled by fanatical Islamists and in which the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, and company no longer exist.</p>

<p>I oppose vincent's inability to spell oppose as well as opposing his stance and opposing the war.</p>

<p>I also oppose his homophobic insults. What if I was gay and opposed the war? At least choose something that insults everyone like "asstard"</p>

<p>Maybe he is just a right wing clue-**** who has taken everything his parents say a little bit too seriously.</p>

<p>Terrorists don't discriminate. They see our societies built on democracies and they want to destroy it and reverse the progress we have made as Westerners over the years. There are extremists in all religions its just that islamic fanatics make themselves more known to the world. </p>

<p>We've got to stop terrorism and theres no other way we can do it than by fighting fire with fire. Fanatacism has to be stopped and unfortunately it will take years, probably decades. </p>

<p>I've got to say i oppose the war in Iraq. I think Bush should be more concerned with the dictator Mugabe but no he has no oil doesn't he so Bush isn't bothered about righting that wrong in this world. </p>

<p>I've got to say this but all Bush seems bothered about is fighting wars that have the direct outcome of oil. I seriously feel sorry for you Americans having Bush as your president. Seriously, hes harping on about Korea every five minutes and Fox news is a load of government propoganda.</p>

<p>hello quoted me saying:
I wouldn't like to envolve politics but their main goal (extreme islamic org.) is too impose Islam upon the world </p>

<p>hello wrote: That is false</p>

<p><strong><em>As this post may be a bit contovercial, please read it throughly so you get the whole msg I'm trying to convey</em></strong></p>

<p>I wouldn't bring it up again but it's jsut to close to my heart for me to let it go.
so what are the goals of these org.? </p>

<p>I was just reading today about the basic principles of Al-Quaeda and some other linked org. All are supportive and encouraging the killing of what is called "siners" - meaning people who aren't muslim or muslims who follow democracy and cooperate with western goverments (who as well are consider as siners). Adding to that the recent things said by the newly elected Irani president (quote):"the Islamic revolution will take over the world". what's my point in all that quoting? no, I'm not trying to show muslims as bad people or Islam as a bad religioun, I've studied arabic and read some of the Koran so I know that the main stream Islam doesn't support killing of innocents and respects other religiouns. However, It is fact that while obviously not all muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists are muslim. As one said in this thread, if we want to get rid of terrorism we shouldn't only fight actively, but support the main stream muslim world, help to restore their economy. I am positive that most muslims are against terrorism and would perfer a good economy over a "muslim revolution" (I am not just saying that, I have talked to many muslims, have muslim friends and read muslim news-papers). Iraq in my opinion was wrong, they should have invated Iran instead - radicales in Iran is the real danger. If Iran gains an Atomic bomb Europe and Israel would suffer.</p>

<p>One more thing, Even if their only goal (and it's not) is to get the US and other nations out of Iraq (which is basically and acceptable idea, not everyone whould agree with the US invation to Iraq), this fight shouldn't be fought on the expense of civilians, that is something that Islam has kind of invented and as many Islam intelectuals are saying - Islam itself should make it go away. Wanna fight? fight against the troops, not against the innocent civilians (like vietnam for example).</p>

<p>again, I know it's quite controvercial, replys are welcomed.</p>

You say "this fight shouldn't be fought on the expense of civilians, that is something that Islam has kind of invented and as many Islam intelectuals are saying - Islam itself should make it go away"</p>

<p>When did Islam invent it? I think it is more accurate to say that fanatics and people who use the religion for their own purposes invented it. Islam still says "don't kill innocent civilians, animals and don't destroy homes, plants, and properties" even in a war.</p>

<p>Sandy-Owl, you just wrote:
"I think it is more accurate to say that fanatics and people who use the religion for their own purposes invented it" - and I couldn't agree with you more, but, the fact is that those people are muslims (fanatic ones) who use parts of the Koran to excuse those horiffic acts. So can you agree with "extreme Islam invented terrorism?" </p>

<p>I'm pretty sure I did mention that Islam itself respects other. my point is that extreme Islam takes part of the Koran - say the "Jihad" and enterprets it for its own use, such as war against the west. </p>

<p>actually, here is something from my reply:
"I've studied arabic and read some of the Koran so I know that the main stream Islam doesn't support killing of innocents and respects other religiouns".</p>

<p>I am not trying to "blame it on Islam", but the muslim society, in my opinion, must unite against this "terror culture" which grows at its edges and speak out loud and clear against it. what is loud and clear? that, in my opinion, is opposing and acting against all forms of terrorism world wide - and that has nothing to do with political opinion, it just means that this way of war is not acceptable.</p>

<p>Dan, you said": "So can you agree with "extreme Islam invented terrorism?""
NO! It's a resounding "No." Terrorism has always existed in one form or the other at the time of and even before the crusades.
I agree with you in saying that Muslims should denounce it, but most Muslims do. But, an average human being in the East has far more things to worry about (putting food on his table) than stop terrorism worldwide. Yes, countries should act against terrorism but it won't stop there. Unless, the West and the United States alter their foreign policy, not much will happen (especially a nonpartisan approach towards Palestine/Israel issue). People are not born terrorists. They react to circumstances. Of course, it doesn't justify their acts.</p>


Invade Iran? Do you think invasions are a joke? How many civilian casualties and still .......</p>

<p>Let me ask you one question, who created the Al Qaeda to irritate the soviet army invading Afghanistan? Where did the organization get its initial capital & equipment?</p>

<p>The only reason countries like North Korea & Iran are developing Nuclear technology is to protect themselves from a possible invasion by the US. And now that the rest of the world has proved its inability to stop outrageous invasions (eg Iraq), just strengthens their cause to develop a weapon that can deter such an attack.</p>

<p>No country in the world including the United States will ever use a Nuke in an offensive. Its more of an insurance policy.</p>