Terror Bomb in London

[Finolin]

but it was not cut and pasted from that page it was another page...and the full EDIT2: was a quote.

If it's a quote, I would suggest that you go back and mark it as such and drop a link or attribution. If you're going to follow the bandwagon as Xest suggested, you should at least let people differentiate between what you personally think and what you're repeating from others (assuming there is a difference).

[Ankh Morpork]

If it's a quote, I would suggest that you go back and mark it as such and drop a link or attribution. If you're going to follow the bandwagon as Xest suggested, you should at least let people differentiate between what you personally think and what you're repeating from others (assuming there is a difference).

Eh...what on earth are you on about? This bloody bandwagon you keep talking about, I havent seen you come with any vital information what so ever apart from telling me that I am wrong. I didnt put any 'quote marks' on it since it was proberbly nobody worth mentioning saying it but it was more somebody saying the exact same things that I wanted to say. My main language isnt english and politics can be pretty damn hard to discuss sometimes on another language.

Edit: Well, saying that you have brought NO vital information was proberbly abit harsh. Sorry about that part...

/Ankh

[Ankh Morpork]

Right, Im off for tonight but I look forward to continue this discussion laters!

/Ankh

[Lieva]

ill get lair to monitor this thread you guys seem to be getting abit irate with each other but my head hurts too much to follow it

[Ankh Morpork]

[quote="Banana"]ill get lair to monitor this thread you guys seem to be getting abit irate with each other but my head hurts too much to follow it ]

Don't worry - just a friendly discussion

/Ankh

[Satyn]

tbh, Fert and Ankh, I know both of you and i truely hate going in a discussion with you two cos i can never win So to see you guys discussing a matter here on the boards is pretty worrying! BUT entertaining

[Satyn]

Oh and to come back on the topic from post 1, just saw on the news it were 4 guys from Leeds (sp) behind the bommings.

[Lairiodd]

Your partially correct about this. But please, dont say 'the way you would have liked' its more like 'the way most of the world would have liked'.

If they had used it correctly there wouldnt be so much american-hate all over the world atm. Don't you think its abit weird why the U.S is among the most hated lands in the world? Imo instead of acting like the world police that nobody wanted they should take a look at your own land instead. Also, a land that ignores the U.N and refuse to let their war criminals stand trial in Haag should really sit down and think about what makes them 'better' than all other countries.

The problem with America is that they are rich and alot of other countries aren't and even worse they do it as evil capitalists. No matter what they do they will be critisied. There were complaints about not going into Yugoslavia and complaints about going into Iraq and before that complaints about the sanctions.

Of course the Madrid bombings had a political agenda, the agenda was to try and swing the election the other way and it worked.

Apparently, the problem was that the Spanish government lied to the people. The claimed it was home grown terrorists even when they knew it wasn't, but yeah electing people who would bring the troops home sent the wrong message.

Think Shark means a political agenda is a list of things you want to achieve, basicly a list of things you want.

I was reading an editorial on some news site where someone was listing their greviences. It was an anti-bombing editorial. Basically, the point was that if you actually list what their problems are, it doesn't sound like it justfies the bombings. Having said that it did leave out things like invading Iraq . It was a list of things like which specific western values that they object to.

To be fair the only thing Blair has really backed Bush on is the war on terror, Blair has been trying hard to get Bush to agree with him on the Kyoto agreement ...

Kyoto is a waste of time, but not really on topic .

like I said the Iraq decision is a complete mystery to me. Why did he ruin what is essentially one of the best leaderships this country has ever had by doing something like that? It is very depressing. I agree he is a top class politician and he does care. He is also trying to curtail Bush and in fact he has wrung some concessions out of the Americans - despite the facts that they are not able to move very far on climate etc just now.

Blair is a decent guy he gets upset when his government struggles to change things. But on the one big issue - Iraq I am at a complete loss. It can only look like a modern day crusade to me.

He probably looked at all the hardships the people of Iraq were facing and figured it was worth helping. Also, even if Iraq didn't have WMD (which they weren't sure one way or another), some country in the region might have/be developing them. This is not a problem that will just go away.

The only real worry is whether terrorists will commit an atrocity with a nuclear, chemical or biological device in the meantime - that's the biggest issue, if it weren't for that then terrorism is something that in the grand scheme of things isn't too bad.

Those who are high up in terrorist groups know that that would not be a good idea. An American city turned to dust and the gloves would truly come off.

Imo if there are any other reason he should have stated them before going to war since he is risking the lifes of his people. No, I dont think it was one guy who walked up to him and tricked him, it takes more than that.

You can't always lay out your plans before a war starts. Like, if Bush has on 12th September said "ok the following is my plan for the next 8 years ..." and listed what he actually did, then it would have made it much more difficult to actually pull off and more generally, it helps your enemy in a war if you tell him your plans.

The 'Axis of Evil' have one country that really was and is a threat against world peace and thats North Korea..but I seriously doubt that they dare to attack them. (especially not with china so close to the battlefield...you never know what china might do)

Just because they can't act against one "evil" country doesn't mean that they shouldn't act against another "evil" one.

America isn't infinitely powerful. China clearly considers N. Korea within its sphere of influence and that means that there is little that America can do.

I agreed on the first iraqi war, since they did attack another country. But the second one I was against even before media finally started to wake up and report other things apart from the stuff the 'chosen' reporters did.

/Ankh

Iraq broke the peace agreements at the end of that war loads of times. That is sufficient reason to invade.

ill get lair to monitor this thread you guys seem to be getting abit irate with each other but my head hurts too much to follow it ]

Seems OK ... look even Ankh agrees with me .


The only issue is:

I think Xest's actions were reasonable, most of the other posts in the thread were about the topic at hand.

[Finolin]

Don't worry - just a friendly discussion

/Ankh

Friendly here too. Heading to France for a wedding tomorrow though so I may not be online until Monday.

[Ankh Morpork]

Friendly here too. Heading to France for a wedding tomorrow though so I may not be online until Monday.

Oh, in other words i've got the full weekend to do some yanke bashing ]/Ankh[/B]