http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/london.tube/index.html

Just a day after London was picked for the Olympics.

As an American, all I can say is that I am shocked and appalled that something like this happend again and am deeply saddened that it had to come to such a close ally of the United States. I know first hand how devestating for morale cowardice attacks like this can be. I do know, however, that this will be a uniting and driving force for Britain. As many of you are aware, following the previous cowardice attacks on September 11th, the country was united in cause to seek justice. I hope that this makes clear to all British how critical a full scale war on terrorism truly is, and will have a similar effect.

When you have a group of people claiming to be militarists in the perversion of an otherwise peaceful religion attacking non-combatants and those serving in obviously non-combat-related roles, my assumption of course is that everyone in the subway was just trying to get to work or school, its always very dishonorable. My only thought is they attacked you out of fear and desperation, to find anything that might weaken your morale and determination. I'm sure, however, that they have failed.

It's was kind of scary riding the packed 3 train to Manhatten this morning...

I heard it was because of the G8 Summit thing..
[all the world leaders meet or something]

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg119413#msg119413 date=1120741881]
As an American, all I can say is that I am shocked and appalled that something like this happend again and am deeply saddened that it had to come to such a close ally of the United States. I know first hand how devestating for morale cowardice attacks like this can be. I do know, however, that this will be a uniting and driving force for Britain. As many of you are aware, following the previous cowardice attacks on September 11th, the country was united in cause to seek justice. I hope that this makes clear to all British how critical a full scale war on terrorism truly is, and will have a similar effect.

When you have a group of people claiming to be militarists in the perversion of an otherwise peaceful religion attacking non-combatants and those serving in obviously non-combat-related roles, my assumption of course is that everyone in the subway was just trying to get to work or school, its always very dishonorable. My only thought is they attacked you out of fear and desperation, to find anything that might weaken your morale and determination. I'm sure, however, that they have failed.
[/quote]

London's been dealing with terrorism for 20 years. We're already united. The sad thing is that our government's misguided actions in the middle east have caused us to become a target of terrorism again after we stopped being a target of the IRA. As for resolve: this attack strengthens my resolve to get rid of Tony Blair and his retarded foreign policy as soon as humanly possible.

Other than that, I quite agree. Dishonorable doesn't begin to describe these people. I am equally sure that they won't significantly damage our society or our principles.

Yeah, I read that about five minutes ago on AIM News. If you think about it, Bush is, in part, responsible for the attack(s) in England.

Shout: You live in Manhattan? I take the Q train to my morning classes :) There was an electrical failure at like 10:30 today though.

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=12124.msg119420#msg119420 date=1120747391]
Shout: You live in Manhattan? I take the Q train to my morning classes :) There was an electrical failure at like 10:30 today though.
[/quote]

I live in Wisconsin. I am doing an internship in Manhattan. I am staying at my grandmother's house in Queens. Q33 -> 82nd / Rosevelt -> 7 -> 42nd / Times square -> 2 or 3 -> Wall street.

:D All for $2.

I was staying in Tuxedo, ~2 hour drive northwest. Car -> Rt 17 -> Commuter Train -> Hoboken -> Path Train -> Grand Central -> 2 or 3 -> Wall street.

All for $12.

A Metrocard would save you a lot of cash :-/

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=12124.msg119426#msg119426 date=1120748450]
A Metrocard would save you a lot of cash :-/
[/quote]

I have a metrocard. Thats why I can take the bus + subway for $2.00.

*Sigh* again blaming President Bush for the attacks not only on ourselves but now on Britain, how tragically misguided.

Arta, there's a difference between IRA terrorism and Middle Eastern terrorism. Its not in the tactics or even the outcome, its the mind set. IMO, I can easily see the British becoming furious over being attacked by Arabs. Blaming Blair for this is no more intelligent than blaming Bush for our attacks.

Killing and maiming innocent people for a political agenda is the reason the word terrorist should be changed to simply coward. There is no honor for the bombers.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12124.msg119419#msg119419 date=1120746683]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg119413#msg119413 date=1120741881]
As an American, all I can say is that I am shocked and appalled that something like this happend again and am deeply saddened that it had to come to such a close ally of the United States. I know first hand how devestating for morale cowardice attacks like this can be. I do know, however, that this will be a uniting and driving force for Britain. As many of you are aware, following the previous cowardice attacks on September 11th, the country was united in cause to seek justice. I hope that this makes clear to all British how critical a full scale war on terrorism truly is, and will have a similar effect.

When you have a group of people claiming to be militarists in the perversion of an otherwise peaceful religion attacking non-combatants and those serving in obviously non-combat-related roles, my assumption of course is that everyone in the subway was just trying to get to work or school, its always very dishonorable. My only thought is they attacked you out of fear and desperation, to find anything that might weaken your morale and determination. I'm sure, however, that they have failed.
[/quote]

London's been dealing with terrorism for 20 years. We're already united. The sad thing is that our government's misguided actions in the middle east have caused us to become a target of terrorism again after we stopped being a target of the IRA. As for resolve: this attack strengthens my resolve to get rid of Tony Blair and his retarded foreign policy as soon as humanly possible.

Other than that, I quite agree. Dishonorable doesn't begin to describe these people. I am equally sure that they won't significantly damage our society or our principles.
[/quote]Your method still leaves way for terrorists ... I am dead serious when I say this, nuke the middle east.  Just a few cities, like in Japan, it stopped them.

I'd assume these terrorists are Iraq related, no?  Syria seems (from what I know)  like a good country to nuke somewhere.

Nuking anywhere is a 100% terrible idea nowadays.   It worked when we did it to Japan because:

A) Nobody else had the bomb
B) The "atomic" bomb (that is NOT the proper way to describe the bombs dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki) was much less powerful than the nukes we have today.

The "atomic" bombs dropped on Japan yielded roughly 15 kilotons.  Today, the average nuclear warhead yields between 1 and 100 megatons.  They tested the "atomic" bomb in the United States, they could not do that with today's nuclear weapons, and that should give you an idea of why we don't want to drop nukes period.  If we dropped even a single nuke into one part of the middle east, the entire area would reap the consequences (including Israel).

Just FYI:  The "atomic" descriptor of the nuclear fission bombs dropped on Japan is completely erroneous.  They produced a nuclear chain reaction.  For example, you would properly call a TNT bomb an atomic bomb because it produced an atomic chain reaction.

[quote author=DarkMinion link=topic=12124.msg119444#msg119444 date=1120754784]
Nuking anywhere is a 100% terrible idea nowadays.  It worked when we did it to Japan because:

A) Nobody else had the bomb
B) The "atomic" bomb (that is NOT the proper way to describe the bombs dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki) was much less powerful than the nukes we have today.

The "atomic" bombs dropped on Japan yielded roughly 15 kilotons.  Today, the average nuclear warhead yields over 100 kilotons.  They tested the "atomic" bomb in the United States, they could not do that with today's nuclear weapons, and that should give you an idea of why we don't want to drop nukes period.  If we dropped even a single nuke into one part of the middle east, the entire area would reap the consequences (including Israel).

Just FYI:  The "atomic" descriptor of the nuclear fission bombs dropped on Japan is completely erroneous.  They produced a nuclear chain reaction.  For example, you would properly call a TNT bomb an atomic bomb because it produced an atomic chain reaction.
[/quote]Point being?...if the entire Middle East feels the consequences so be it.  They need to stop the evil that is breeding in their region.  If they won't, we should because we are the ones suffering.

Maybe in the 50's, the average yield was around 100 kilotons.  France set off a 15 megaton bomb a couple years back in the ocean.  Huge difference between the weaponry we used in Japan and the weaponry available now.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg119445#msg119445 date=1120755330]
Point being?...if the entire Middle East feels the consequences so be it. They need to stop the evil that is breeding in their region. If they won't, we should because we are the ones suffering.
[/quote]

Evil is pretty subjective.  They think we're evil.  We think they're evil.  What you seem to be saying is that because we have the power to do so, we should dictate what is right.  I disagree with killing of millions of innocent people to stamp out a few extremists.

Nuking people isn't the answer just because there are less intelligent people out there with the bomb as well. If we drop one on somebody, even for a just cause, whats to stop India from dropping one on Pakistan and China to start lobbing them at Taiwan? Then we have North Korea, some really stupid bastards, with the bomb. Moral of the story is we'd wind up dropping more than one.

Didn't they set off a conventional explosive with the same power as the Nagasaki one?

Yes...you can make a conventional bomb with as much yield as the "atomic" bomb nowadays.

[quote]Maybe in the 50's, the average yield was around 100 kilotons.  France set off a 15 megaton bomb a couple years back in the ocean.  Huge difference between the weaponry we used in Japan and the weaponry available now.[/quote]

I meant to say megatons, Jesus.  I shouldn't type things when I just wake up.



Crazed, you're missing the most important point:

[quote]A) Nobody else had the bomb[/quote]

And believe it or not, we have allies in the middle east...nuking the place isn't the answer.  Plus it's a place of great beauty and world history, you don't just wipe something off the map like that.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Like TehUser pointed out we can think that they are evil but they think that we are evil.

While I agree with most of that DM, I couldn't resist this one.

[quote author=DarkMinion link=topic=12124.msg119455#msg119455 date=1120758233]
it's a place of great beauty[/quote]

[img]http://www.johnnichol.com/Iraq_desert.JPG[/img]

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=12124.msg119456#msg119456 date=1120759181]
Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Like TehUser pointed out we can think that they are evil but they think that we are evil.
[/quote]

I think your average neutral observer might agree that the bombing of innocent civillians, including women and children and non-combatant men, would be pretty much evil.

[quote author=DarkMinion link=topic=12124.msg119455#msg119455 date=1120758233]
Yes...you can make a conventional bomb with as much yield as the "atomic" bomb nowadays.

[quote]Maybe in the 50's, the average yield was around 100 kilotons.  France set off a 15 megaton bomb a couple years back in the ocean.  Huge difference between the weaponry we used in Japan and the weaponry available now.[/quote]

I meant to say megatons, Jesus.  I shouldn't type things when I just wake up.



Crazed, you're missing the most important point:

[quote]A) Nobody else had the bomb[/quote]

And believe it or not, we have allies in the middle east...nuking the place isn't the answer.  Plus it's a place of great beauty and world history, you don't just wipe something off the map like that.
[/quote]
I agree, but what alternative to going in & looking for each terrorist is there?  I'm sure no one wants to send our people to die fighting terrorism.

Personally, I'd rather have terrorists & their families die than my family.

Maybe not nuke the entire Middle East, I get worked up (obviously  ::))  But maybe use the same tatic as Japan.  Convince them to stop with force.  Obviously taking them out 1 by 1 is going to take forever (literally maybe).  Unless we can find some way to sit down with good ol' Bin Laden & say "Dude, what's with this, stop it eh?" & have him agree somehow there is no alternative than to remove the terrorists

I posted this on the same discussion at x86labs.org:
[quote]You're stupid.  Not every person in the middle east is a terrorist.  Why should millions of lives be sacrificed to kill a few thousand?[/quote]

Later:
[quote][quote author=Newby date=1120756024]
[quote author=R.a.B.B.i.T date=1120755819]
You're stupid.  Not every person in the middle east is a terrorist.  Why should millions of lives be sacrificed to kill a few thousand?
[/quote]

Because that few thousand, if given an oppertunity, will kill millions.
[/quote]So we should kill millions instead?  You realize that less than two dozen people are required to drop a nuke (President -> Commaner -> Ground Crew -> Flight Crew)?  Doing that would make us no better, and equally terroristic, which in turn would pave the path for other countries to nuke us.  Wow.  That's a good idea.[/quote]

If they are killing the evil and they see americans as evil people then the citizens must be followers of thier ways thus they must be killed.

Trying to talk on thier level is impossible, trying to force a government is impossible.
They hate our fucking guts. We need to step in when we need to not try to turn them all into
yankees fans.

I spose now that the initial 'shock' is over I've settled down a bit.
But I still only see a few options.

1) Talk it out:  "Dude, Bin Laden, what do you have against us?...we buy your oil, let's work it out eh?  You stop bombing us we'll, leave the Middle East"
2) Take out terrorists 1 by 1:  This could literally take forever, that doesn't sound like a good plan to me
3) Hiroshima approach (non-nuclear):  Just flatten a small city until Bin Laden (& whomever) agrees to sit down & talk






As for them dying vs. us dying....I'd rather have the terrorists & their family die than me & my family.
As for the 'kill them with kindness' theory, I think they'd just hate us even more for trying to impose our ways upon them ("our ways" being new medicines & money & such)

That would only fuel propaganda for Bin Laden.  IE:[quote]The evil Americans bombed and destroyed a city for no purpose.  They must be stopped.  We will increase our efforts.[/quote]
Good job, Cr4z3D, you've just given them more vigor than they had before.

What's your suggestion?

Crazed, you are complete moron.  I realize you are quite angry about terrorist actions, but think about what you're saying.  You also make it seem like you could give a shit about anyone in the Middle East, as if everyone in the Middle East were worthy of the same fate as terrorists, just because they may not like the USA or not.  I suppose they'd call you a very ethnocentric person, eh?  Besides, nuking the Middle East would cause far more problems that it'd fix.  You'd have a lot of blood on your hands, you'd have to give explanations as to why and convince people that the devastation caused was for the greater good, and deal with all the politics involved, etc. etc. etc.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=12124.msg119446#msg119446 date=1120755477]
Maybe in the 50's, the average yield was around 100 kilotons.  France set off a 15 megaton bomb a couple years back in the ocean.  Huge difference between the weaponry we used in Japan and the weaponry available now.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg119445#msg119445 date=1120755330]
Point being?...if the entire Middle East feels the consequences so be it. They need to stop the evil that is breeding in their region. If they won't, we should because we are the ones suffering.
[/quote]

Evil is pretty subjective.  They think we're evil.  We think they're evil.  What you seem to be saying is that because we have the power to do so, we should dictate what is right.  I disagree with killing of millions of innocent people to stamp out a few extremists.
[/quote]

We ARE evil.  But they are too... LOL!

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg119438#msg119438 date=1120751015]
Your method still leaves way for terrorists ... I am dead serious when I say this, nuke the middle east.  Just a few cities, like in Japan, it stopped them.

I'd assume these terrorists are Iraq related, no?  Syria seems (from what I know)  like a good country to nuke somewhere.
[/quote]

Congratulations, you're a fucking moron, and so is anyone else that honestly believes that dropping a nuclear warhead on ANY piece of land on this planet is a good idea.  I especially enjoy how you rationalize your motives by throwing the ole "they're all terrorists anyways" blanket over an entire section of the globe.  Kill 'em all, and let god sort it out, huh?

Yeah, and Americans can't seem to understand why the rest of the world fucking hates them.

CrAz3D really isn't a moron, he's just misguided. I'd like to add that none of you really know what would happen if we were to drop a few in the Middle East, nobody does. I'd like to add that none of you really have a better solution than Crazed so its not really too smart to just blast his ideas without offering other viable solutions. Oh yea, and if anybody says "Lets talk it out" *COUGH ADRON ARTA COUGH* I will slap the taste out of your mouth.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg119480#msg119480 date=1120764264]
I'd like to add that none of you really know what would happen if we were to drop a few in the Middle East, nobody does. I'd like to add that none of you really have a better solution than Crazed so its not really too smart to just blast his ideas without offering other viable solutions.
[/quote]

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?

So you can tell me for sure thats what would happen? How do you know that? Its just your guess and what YOU might do in that situation, but its not neccessarily true.

[quote author=EpicOfTimeWasted link=topic=12124.msg119483#msg119483 date=1120768059]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg119480#msg119480 date=1120764264]
I'd like to add that none of you really know what would happen if we were to drop a few in the Middle East, nobody does. I'd like to add that none of you really have a better solution than Crazed so its not really too smart to just blast his ideas without offering other viable solutions.
[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

We went about this war all wrong.  Look, all we had to do was piss one guy off to cause 9/11, and he paid relatively very little to do the damage he did, which costed us exponentially more.  The idea is to piss as few people off as possible in this war.  That way we have fewer of these incidents...and fewer of this exponential damage.  Using a nuclear weapon in the middle east pisses the most people off and a handful of those could do exponential damage to us.  Not only that, but we cause a political catastrophe that way too, the world would think even lower of us.  Dropping a nuclear bomb isn't the solution here. 

You still don't get it, Crazed.  What we did with Japan would not work today.  Everyone else has the freaking bomb, meaning everyone else would freak out and launch their bombs, and bang, nuclear holocaust.  All it takes is an itchy trigger finger like yours to ruin the fucking world.

Believe it or not, terrorists are a minority around the world, including the middle east.  Most people over there are just like me and you, they're people with families, jobs, and dreams.  The terrorist organizations over there are in the minority just like organizations like the KKK, or people like David Kouresh, are in the minority over here.  Bombing the middle east would be the equivalent of wiping out the entire population of a major city to kill a mouse.

Craz3d, dropping a nuke on the mid east would make us as bad as the terrorists, arguably much worse. That, I'm afraid, is totally, blindingly obvious.

[quote author="hazard"]
Oh yea, and if anybody says "Lets talk it out" *COUGH ADRON ARTA COUGH* I will slap the taste out of your mouth.
[/quote]

Sigh. When have I ever advocated that? It's my opinion that the thoroughly absurd amount of money we're wasting on invading Iraq would be put to much better use if it were spent on investigation and coherant intelligence gathering, with -- perhaps -- appropriate, small, targetted, specific military action where necessary.

Invading a whole country which, incidenctally, has nothing significant to do with terrorism, is just dumb. It has accomplished nothing except to create a horribly fertile breeding ground for a whole new generation of suicice bombers. Where are those weapons of mass destruction again?

And before you say it, I'll just repeat that I supported the war in Afghanistan.

I realize that Arta...I was 'in shock'(?) & hyped up, now I think nuclear warfare could be a little disruptive to things (the environment), that is why I posted:

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg119462#msg119462 date=1120760352]
I spose now that the initial 'shock' is over I've settled down a bit.
But I still only see a few options.

1) Talk it out:  "Dude, Bin Laden, what do you have against us?...we buy your oil, let's work it out eh?  You stop bombing us we'll, leave the Middle East"
2) Take out terrorists 1 by 1:  This could literally take forever, that doesn't sound like a good plan to me
3) Hiroshima approach [u](non-nuclear)[/u]:  Just flatten a small city until Bin Laden (& whomever) agrees to sit down & talk

[/quote]

[quote author=EpicOfTimeWasted link=topic=12124.msg119483#msg119483 date=1120768059]
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?
[/quote]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"

Does that sound like a fucking good idea?  I think not.


& to the rest of you, as I stated before, what is your idea?
I think talking it out with these friendly terrorists would be cool, but when is that gonna happen?

(I still like the bombing people into submission though :(, but since people object to the pointless death of thousands...I suppose we'll just keep letting our own people die)

Fact:
The US of A didn't get where it is today by sitting around doing jack shit while other countries did it for us.  We didn't wait for the Kind of England to forget about us & just accept his taxes for now, we stood up for what was right & said screw you!...We're doing what is right & just.



(I'm not saying [again] that we should nuke the middle east, but the terrorists must be stopped & if the peoples of those nations will not stand up to the terrorists someone MUST!  & logically, since we are the ones enduring their hatred we are the ones to stop their lust for blood & the time is now)

You still don't get it.  You're not talking about the pointless death of mere thousands.  You're talking about the pointless death of millions, perhaps billions.  The middle east isn't scattered groups of tent camps.  And plus, like I've been trying to pound into your fucking brain, if we drop the bomb, others will drop the bomb, and it will start a chain reaction all over the globe, leading to nuclear holocaust.  Do you get it yet?

Yes, the terrorists must be stopped, but "bombing the crap out of the middle east" will not do that.  Believe it or not, there are terrorists all over the world.  The middle east is not the biggest concentration of them, either.

[quote author=DarkMinion link=topic=12124.msg119497#msg119497 date=1120772063]
You still don't get it.  You're not talking about the pointless death of mere thousands.  You're talking about the pointless death of millions, perhaps billions.  The middle east isn't scattered groups of tent camps.  And plus, like I've been trying to pound into your fucking brain, if we drop the bomb, others will drop the bomb, and it will start a chain reaction all over the globe, leading to nuclear holocaust.  Do you get it yet?
[/quote]Where do you see that I keep talking about using nuclear bombs to destroy the middle east?
I keep trying to point out I was worked up & have 'retracted' that statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because the Middle East doesn't have the most doesn't mean we shouldn't stop them does it?

[quote]Just because the Middle East doesn't have the most doesn't mean we shouldn't stop them does it?[/quote]

Listen to yourself, seriously.  You're saying we should "stop the middle east", as if they're all guilty because of the actions of a tiny percentage of them.  That's the problem.  We can't go after the entire middle east because of what bin Laden and his cronies are doing.  Going after organizations like the Taliban, and Saddam's regime are understandable...but you simply can't do what you say we should do.  It's not a) Fair to the good, hard-working citizens of the middle east, nor is it b) feasible.

We need to pick out the root of the problem (Axis of evil for example) and start picking them off IMHO. Sitting around and waiting for them to strike first is a bad idea.

[quote author=DarkMinion link=topic=12124.msg119503#msg119503 date=1120773467]
[quote]Just because the Middle East doesn't have the most doesn't mean we shouldn't stop them does it?[/quote]

Listen to yourself, seriously.  You're saying we should "stop the middle east", as if they're all guilty because of the actions of a tiny percentage of them.  That's the problem.  We can't go after the entire middle east because of what bin Laden and his cronies are doing.  Going after organizations like the Taliban, and Saddam's regime are understandable...but you simply can't do what you say we should do.  It's not a) Fair to the good, hard-working citizens of the middle east, nor is it b) feasible.
[/quote]You're putting words into my mouth (hand?).

[quote]Just because the Middle East doesn't have the most doesn't mean we shouldn't stop them does it?[/quote]
I'm saying we need to stop them (terrorists)...not Middle Easterners.

You said "the middle east is not the biggest concentration of them..."
I said "Just because the Middle East doesn't the most [terrorists] doesn't mean we shouldn't stop them does it?"

I sort of think you guys are overreacting. Normally when someone says they want to nuke something after a major event they don't mean to use nuclear warfare but to attack and remove them. Or atleast this is how I interrept it because of the fact that people slowly stop using such strong language after awhile.

I hope everyone in London manages to get on with life(I'd say I hope they are ok but people died so clearly they aren't ok) as I'm sure they will. I also hope the terrorists who committed these acts are killed. Hopefully this will get everyone focused once again on stopping the terrorists and less on playing politics. I won't be one to bring up Iraq because at the end of the day this has very little to do with that. Attacks were planned and carried out against America and England before the Iraq war, I highly doubt that this would not have happened if Iraq had not happened. They're going to attack either way and claiming its 'For Iraq' is just a cheap ploy to have an excuse to kill people. However, noting how everyone held off on calling this a terrorist attack for a long time there seems to be a sort of feeling that it can't happen here(where here is London).

On a side note, there have been rumors of work being done here to create low yield nuclear weapons. If this infact true or not I have no idea.

Nukes less than 5kilotons still produce radioactive material I read...

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg119486#msg119486 date=1120769290]
So you can tell me for sure thats what would happen? How do you know that? Its just your guess and what YOU might do in that situation, but its not neccessarily true.
[/quote]

Fine, you win.  If you want to deal solely in absolutes, then you're correct, I can't say with absolute certainty that I know what will happen.

But, since when have world leaders, and other people with their finger on the button, relied on absolutes?

[quote author=EpicOfTimeWasted link=topic=12124.msg119474#msg119474 date=1120762653]
Congratulations, you're a fucking moron, and so is anyone else that honestly believes that dropping a nuclear warhead on ANY piece of land on this planet is a good idea.
[/quote]

There's one place a nuclear warhead could really be good. Jerusalem. As long as it stands, people are going to fight for it. Flatten it, and maybe there'll be peace.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg119496#msg119496 date=1120771932]
Fact:
The US of A didn't get where it is today by sitting around doing jack shit while other countries did it for us.  We didn't wait for the Kind of England to forget about us & just accept his taxes for now, we stood up for what was right & said screw you!...We're doing what is right & just.
[/quote]

That is, you're doing what you claim is right and just. Just like everyone else, fanatic terrorists included.

[quote author=nslay link=topic=12124.msg119487#msg119487 date=1120769360]
Look, all we had to do was piss one guy off to cause 9/11, and he paid relatively very little to do the damage he did, which costed us exponentially more.  The idea is to piss as few people off as possible in this war.  That way we have fewer of these incidents...and fewer of this exponential damage.
[/quote]

I think this is key... You don't want to be pissing people off, because pissed off people will always cause trouble.

[quote author=EpicOfTimeWasted link=topic=12124.msg119518#msg119518 date=1120775733]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg119486#msg119486 date=1120769290]
So you can tell me for sure thats what would happen? How do you know that? Its just your guess and what YOU might do in that situation, but its not neccessarily true.
[/quote]

Fine, you win.  If you want to deal solely in absolutes, then you're correct, I can't say with absolute certainty that I know what will happen.

But, since when have world leaders, and other people with their finger on the button, relied on absolutes?
[/quote]

Fine then, we won't deal in absolutes. What makes you qualified to speak as to what you believe the leaders of the Middle East would do. Would it be your extensive study on foreign policy with a speciality in the Middle East? Have you met the Middle Eastern leaders? Hrm?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=12124.msg119520#msg119520 date=1120776384]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg119496#msg119496 date=1120771932]
Fact:
The US of A didn't get where it is today by sitting around doing jack shit while other countries did it for us.  We didn't wait for the Kind of England to forget about us & just accept his taxes for now, we stood up for what was right & said screw you!...We're doing what is right & just.
[/quote]

That is, you're doing what you claim is right and just. Just like everyone else, fanatic terrorists included.

[/quote]
Logically who is right?  Are they right because they have decided our lifestyle is evil & have begun to kill us?  Are we right because we retaliate after being attacked?...seems to me like what we are doing is only self defense...it'd stand up in a US court of law, why can't it stand up internationally?

FYI, most of the western world is pretty glad not to have the US's justice system, at least, that's been my observation. IMHO, many aspects of it are pretty screwed up.

No one is right. The only answer is to stop people becoming terrorists in the first place. This will take a very, very, very long time. Violence may help in the short term, but in the long term, it will accomplish absolutely nothing, and imho, there's a good chance that it'll accomplish nothing in the short term too... except to create more terrorists. It's a vicious circle, and a really, really, really obvious one, at that.

Would you consider revolutionists terrorists? Doing the evil thing in order to achieve the right path for humanity?

I think you need to consider it from both sides. Sure, they're killing people, but people on our streets and our country die everyday because of common maladies. Why don't we help them?

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.

Bush's incentive, at heart, was right. However, he took the wrong approach. WMD's would've killed millions, and ruined the quality of life for millions more to come.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12124.msg119565#msg119565 date=1120786515]
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.
[/quote]

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.

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=12124.msg119567#msg119567 date=1120787069]
WMD's would've killed millions, and ruined the quality of life for millions more to come.
[/quote]

...except there weren't any, and arguably, they knew it. Anyone remember that footage of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice saying that Iraq was no threat? Before 9/11 obviously. I guess we'll never really know.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg119571#msg119571 date=1120787497]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12124.msg119565#msg119565 date=1120786515]
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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12124.msg119572#msg119572 date=1120787538]
[quote author=Topaz link=topic=12124.msg119567#msg119567 date=1120787069]
WMD's would've killed millions, and ruined the quality of life for millions more to come.
[/quote]

...except there weren't any, and arguably, they knew it. Anyone remember that footage of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice saying that Iraq was no threat? Before 9/11 obviously. I guess we'll never really know.
[/quote]

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

[quote author=nslay link=topic=12124.msg119577#msg119577 date=1120789029]
...except we put Saddam in power and gave him some (minor ones) originally.
[/quote]

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?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12124.msg119580#msg119580 date=1120789219]
[quote author=nslay link=topic=12124.msg119577#msg119577 date=1120789029]
...except we put Saddam in power and gave him some (minor ones) originally.
[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

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? 

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12124.msg119574#msg119574 date=1120787749]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg119571#msg119571 date=1120787497]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12124.msg119565#msg119565 date=1120786515]
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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]
uhm, uh, WTC in 93, WTC in 01, Spain, London, looks to me like they keep attackking over & over again

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".  :-\

Maybe a bit longer than weeks.

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

Yeah...
CNN says 37 deaths now

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg119611#msg119611 date=1120804848]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12124.msg119574#msg119574 date=1120787749]
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.
[/quote]
uhm, uh, WTC in 93, WTC in 01, Spain, London, looks to me like they keep attackking over & over again
[/quote]

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.

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

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?

I had to point this one out too:

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg119495#msg119495 date=1120771398]
[quote author=EpicOfTimeWasted link=topic=12124.msg119483#msg119483 date=1120768059]
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?
[/quote]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"
[/quote]

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

[quote author=iago link=topic=12124.msg119640#msg119640 date=1120825858]
I had to point this one out too:

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg119495#msg119495 date=1120771398]
[quote author=EpicOfTimeWasted link=topic=12124.msg119483#msg119483 date=1120768059]
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?
[/quote]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"
[/quote]

It's pretty amazing that Saddam managed to plan an attack on England from jail.  Read more carefully :P
[/quote]

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)

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

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=12124.msg119671#msg119671 date=1120839327]
That's the US's prime weakness; we have just too much land to cover, and too open a society.
[/quote]

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.

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

The Civil War? Pearl Harbor? The American Revolution?

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=12124.msg119697#msg119697 date=1120849404]
The Civil War? Pearl Harbor? The American Revolution?
[/quote]He asked when the LAST time we fought on American soil was...


I think the last time would have to be now, agains terrorism

We have not had soldiers take actions against any terrorists in the United States.  The last battle on American soil was in World War 2.

Fighter jets were in the air...
civilians took out the one plane in PA

The fight against terrorism isn't a "war".  Neither is the "war on drugs". 

40 people died in England.  That's not very many.  More people die from drinking and driving and starvation, easily, but I don't see any wars against those. 

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg119637#msg119637 date=1120824435]
Adron, bin Laden was behind the 93 attacks on the WTC, FYI. Facts not quote straight?
[/quote]

But the actual people doing the attacks were different ones. Chances are the people involved in an attack 8 years later were actually recruited after the attack in '93. To be able to keep attacking, there needs to be people around that are pissed off enough to give their lives to The Task. If people were happy where they were, they wouldn't go suicide bombing....

[quote author=Adron link=topic=12124.msg119750#msg119750 date=1120862869]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg119637#msg119637 date=1120824435]
Adron, bin Laden was behind the 93 attacks on the WTC, FYI. Facts not quote straight?
[/quote]

But the actual people doing the attacks were different ones. Chances are the people involved in an attack 8 years later were actually recruited after the attack in '93. To be able to keep attacking, there needs to be people around that are pissed off enough to give their lives to The Task. If people were happy where they were, they wouldn't go suicide bombing....
[/quote]

It seems to me that even if somebody was mildly upset, they stil woudn't go suicide bombing.  You need somebody who is down right pissed off and full of hatred to do that. 

Actually I was watching this documentary that showed suicide bombers were incredibly relaxed and seemed happy with life with a wife and kid. They do it to protect in what THEY believe in.

We try to change how they think and they arn't going to back down, you can't force beliefs into anything so they are taking offense to that.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=12124.msg119750#msg119750 date=1120862869]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg119637#msg119637 date=1120824435]
Adron, bin Laden was behind the 93 attacks on the WTC, FYI. Facts not quote straight?
[/quote]

But the actual people doing the attacks were different ones. Chances are the people involved in an attack 8 years later were actually recruited after the attack in '93. To be able to keep attacking, there needs to be people around that are pissed off enough to give their lives to The Task. If people were happy where they were, they wouldn't go suicide bombing....
[/quote]No shit that the bombers change from each attack...they are generally suicide bombers

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg119757#msg119757 date=1120866692]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=12124.msg119750#msg119750 date=1120862869]
But the actual people doing the attacks were different ones. Chances are the people involved in an attack 8 years later were actually recruited after the attack in '93. To be able to keep attacking, there needs to be people around that are pissed off enough to give their lives to The Task. If people were happy where they were, they wouldn't go suicide bombing....
[/quote]No shit that the bombers change from each attack...they are generally suicide bombers
[/quote]

Yeah, exactly. So they need to have pissed off people available to recruit new bombers from. The same old suicide bombers can't keep attacking over and over ;)

Why are they pissed off? Brainwashing.

Have you heard the phrase "One death is a tragedy, a thousand is a statistic"? I think that totally applies here.

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=12124.msg119781#msg119781 date=1120880091]
Have you heard the phrase "One death is a tragedy, a thousand is a statistic"? I think that totally applies here.
[/quote]

It doesn't quite apply to terrorism. For terrorism it's more like: A death here is a disaster, a thousand deaths elsewhere is a statistic. Examplified by American reporters talking about the disastrous tsunami, and how it was almost as bad as the 9/11 attack.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=12124.msg119759#msg119759 date=1120868499]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg119757#msg119757 date=1120866692]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=12124.msg119750#msg119750 date=1120862869]
But the actual people doing the attacks were different ones. Chances are the people involved in an attack 8 years later were actually recruited after the attack in '93. To be able to keep attacking, there needs to be people around that are pissed off enough to give their lives to The Task. If people were happy where they were, they wouldn't go suicide bombing....
[/quote]No shit that the bombers change from each attack...they are generally suicide bombers
[/quote]

Yeah, exactly. So they need to have pissed off people available to recruit new bombers from. The same old suicide bombers can't keep attacking over and over ;)
[/quote]Not true.  There was an interview on NPR about 2 months ago (I think Fresh Air) with a guy who had cataloged every single terrorist act in the world since 2000 (sorry, I forget his name, I'll try to find it).  There were over 6000 terrorist attacks, and only about 350 were suicide attacks.  Also, the largest terrorist group is the Shamal(?) Tigers in the Tibet region.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg119779#msg119779 date=1120879090]
Why are they pissed off? Brainwashing.
[/quote]

Why do Americans fear them so much? Brainwashing.

Why do Americans think that their way of life is the only way to be happy? Brainwashing.

We probably fear them because they killed our citizens, in mass numbers. And probably because they've openly said that they hate us and what we stand for.

Why do countless people from other countries come to our country? Because our way of life is better.
How come whenever you go to a resort area here in the summer, countless workers are from other countries? Because they like our way of life, and they like the amount of money they can get and send back. When I was on vacation a lot of the workers were form Europe and some from South America, a few were going to school and using the money to support their schooling. Though, all of them, were using the money to support their family back home. One was from some place owned by Russia, she liked it here... a lot, and was using the money to send back home. They come here because they can send way more money back to their families and not be taxed on it. A lot actually decide to live here because they prefer our way of life.

My heart goes out to the victims of the bombings, and their families. It's horrible that the world our children will be going into will be a world filled with people getting blown up on their way to work. It sickens me.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg119835#msg119835 date=1120929525]
We probably fear them because they killed our citizens, in mass numbers. And probably because they've openly said that they hate us and what we stand for.

Why do countless people from other countries come to our country? Because our way of life is better.
How come whenever you go to a resort area here in the summer, countless workers are from other countries? Because they like our way of life, and they like the amount of money they can get and send back. When I was on vacation a lot of the workers were form Europe and some from South America, a few were going to school and using the money to support their schooling. Though, all of them, were using the money to support their family back home. One was from some place owned by Russia, she liked it here... a lot, and was using the money to send back home. They come here because they can send way more money back to their families and not be taxed on it. A lot actually decide to live here because they prefer our way of life.

My heart goes out to the victims of the bombings, and their families. It's horrible that the world our children will be going into will be a world filled with people getting blown up on their way to work. It sickens me.
[/quote]hot damn trust, good points, <3!

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg119835#msg119835 date=1120929525]
We probably fear them because they killed our citizens, in mass numbers. And probably because they've openly said that they hate us and what we stand for.
[/quote]

Mass numbers?  Are you serious?

How many people in the last year have been killed by terrorists?

Have many people in the last year have been killed by cars?

I say that, because cars are killing people in, apparently, substantially higher than "mass numbers", we ban them.

How many people in the last year have been killed by drowning?

I say that, because water kills people in more than "mass numbers", we ban it too.

(although I don't have the numbers, I am certain that the lowest number by far will be the terrorists number)

Cars are accidents
Water is accidents

Terrorism is purposeful plotted destruction of life.

Why does that matter? People that die due to cars and drowning (unless it's in relation to blatant murder) die accidentally. Flying airplanes into tall buildings, or bombing restraunts/buses/subways/etc. is definitely not accidental it's clear that their goal is to murder a mass number of innocent people without regard for age/race/gender/religion.

Besides, even if terror-related deaths are far lower (number-wise) than other types of deaths, why does that call for any less of a concern? Terrorist attacks also cost a country tons and tons of money in property damage, it also hurts the moral of a country and the economy. Not only that, but it can hurt the companies in the country as well - enhancing the decline of an economy. For example, after 9/11 the airlines took a major hit, and some went bankrupt. The only good that can come out of one is that generally when a country is attacked by terrorists its peoples sense of nationalism increases.

Besides, it's not like William Ford (or anyone else) is out saying "lets produce a new SUV/car/truck/etc.  that intentionally kills people because they think differently than us"

Or it's not like water facilities are saying "lets taint this water so that it automatically drowns people swimming"

But what are terrorists doing? They're bombing products made by automobile makers, they're talking about poisioning the water during chlorination process as well. What do both of those have in common? It's intentionally killing people.

Edit:

Just because your country isn't getting involved enough with this ordeal to be a direct target of these terrorists, doesn't mean they won't come for you. You're still a primarily Christian country, and thus an enemy of the radical muslims that are performing these extreme acts of hatred. Instead of complaining about it, you people should help. I don't mean all of Canada, as I've read and/or heard that the vast majority of Canadians support the United States, but I mean the Canadian Do-Nothing Complainers like yourself.

This quote by Martin Niemoller came to mind.

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."


However, you're speaking out towards those who are willing to speak out in defense of you.

Maybe some Canadians have been bainwashed to believe that terrorism isn't that big of a problem...;)

I apologize.  Apparently we have different definitions of the word "mass numbers".

In your country, how many people are killed by crime each year?  And how many by terrorism?  What are you doing to solve the crime problems?

The entire reason that these attacks are so effective is that they get blown out of proportion.  40 people die, and suddenly the whole world is afraid and making noise and discussing it.  As soon as everybody makes a big deal out of a small attack, they've completed their goal.  You're helping terrorists!

When you say the economy was disrupted by it, how do you think the terrorists feel? I mean, the ones who didn't explode themselves.  I'm sure they feel pretty damn good that an attack they planned had such an enormous impact, which again encourages them.  Yet again, because of how people reacted to it, they helped the terrorists again!

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=12124.msg119817#msg119817 date=1120922723]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=12124.msg119759#msg119759 date=1120868499]
Yeah, exactly. So they need to have pissed off people available to recruit new bombers from. The same old suicide bombers can't keep attacking over and over ;)
[/quote]Not true.  There was an interview on NPR about 2 months ago (I think Fresh Air) with a guy who had cataloged every single terrorist act in the world since 2000 (sorry, I forget his name, I'll try to find it).  There were over 6000 terrorist attacks, and only about 350 were suicide attacks.  Also, the largest terrorist group is the Shamal(?) Tigers in the Tibet region.
[/quote]

Hmm, if you catalogue every single terrorist act, you're likely to get a lot of acts that aren't nearly as big events as the 9/11 attack.

If you put all the attacks together, then take out the top % with a significant effect on the USA, and then check for common perpetrators, what would the results be?

Besides, I don't think Bush is very concerned about the situation with the Shamal Tigers?

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg119835#msg119835 date=1120929525]
Why do countless people from other countries come to our country? Because our way of life is better.
[/quote]

Some come because their own country is being sucked out by the evil Americans. Some come just to have a look at the world. Some surely come because they want to try your way of life. You can't say your way of life is better though. You are currently sucking out other countries in the world. Eventually that'll change, but it really isn't a "your way of life", more of a "how things have happened to end up for now".

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg119835#msg119835 date=1120929525]
How come whenever you go to a resort area here in the summer, countless workers are from other countries? Because they like our way of life, and they like the amount of money they can get and send back.
[/quote]

This is also most likely because they're a cheap work force and because you're a rich country. It has nothing to do with your way of life, only with your happening to have more money right now. Why do a lot of Americans go on vacation to far away places? Because they like that way of life better? :P

[quote author=iago link=topic=12124.msg119827#msg119827 date=1120925426]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg119779#msg119779 date=1120879090]
Why are they pissed off? Brainwashing.
[/quote]

Why do Americans fear them so much? Brainwashing.

Why do Americans think that their way of life is the only way to be happy? Brainwashing.


[/quote]
Rofl

Let's see, crime is being handled. Criminals don't run free on the streets (unless they escape which is a different story). Now to handle terrorism it is a WHOLE different procedure to be taken.

What people fail to see that if the people are not alerted of the dangers we will be caught with our pants down like we were on 9/11.

It was an unprovoked attack which is the style of the terrorists and they do it withought warning,  so America must warn its citizens of the dangers so they can be on alert for anything out of the ordinary and goddammit it's doing a good job.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=12124.msg119888#msg119888 date=1120950375]
It was an unprovoked attack which is the style of the terrorists and they do it withought warning,  so America must warn its citizens of the dangers so they can be on alert for anything out of the ordinary and goddammit it's doing a good job.
[/quote]

I hope by provoked you don't mean America meddling in the affairs of the middle east; otherwise the attack was certainly provoked.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=12124.msg119884#msg119884 date=1120950065]
This is also most likely because they're a cheap work force and because you're a rich country. It has nothing to do with your way of life, only with your happening to have more money right now. Why do a lot of Americans go on vacation to far away places? Because they like that way of life better? :P
[/quote]

We go on vacation in other countries to see stuff, not to get a job. They aren't a cheap work force, they get paid the same amount as Americans (the ones that come here on school-sponsored stuff and such, not illegal Mexican immigrants) and they can send the money home without being taxed on it. In this situtation, Americans are losing out (giving American jobs to Europeans, and not getting money from taxes) but we're overlooking that and still allow them to get summer jobs and go home. I'm sure Americans going to foreign countries to get minimum-wage jobs and expect lots of benefits to send home to their familes is a rare occasion.

[quote] I apologize.  Apparently we have different definitions of the word "mass numbers".[/quote]

I'm using 'mass' in such a way that it means 'a lot of' or something to that effect.

I'm not sure of the crime rate in America, it's high, but we do have people to deal with that. Unless you want America to become a military-controlled state, the crime rate isn't going to change much.

How do you think countries should react to such blatant attacks on humanity, iago? Should we (USA) just sit back and say "cool, they killed 3,023 Americans, let's not do anything or say anything so they don't think that they hurt us?" No, we shouldn't. When people like this attack a country, not following formal rules of engagement, not having any regard for any form of human life, and not giving a damn that they're going to economically, physically, and socially harm a country and a way of life we should not sit back and just let it happen - and then not say anything.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=12124.msg119884#msg119884 date=1120950065]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg119835#msg119835 date=1120929525]
Why do countless people from other countries come to our country? Because our way of life is better.
[/quote]

Some come because their own country is being sucked out by the evil Americans. Some come just to have a look at the world. Some surely come because they want to try your way of life. You can't say your way of life is better though. You are currently sucking out other countries in the world. Eventually that'll change, but it really isn't a "your way of life", more of a "how things have happened to end up for now".

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg119835#msg119835 date=1120929525]
How come whenever you go to a resort area here in the summer, countless workers are from other countries? Because they like our way of life, and they like the amount of money they can get and send back.
[/quote]

This is also most likely because they're a cheap work force and because you're a rich country. It has nothing to do with your way of life, only with your happening to have more money right now. Why do a lot of Americans go on vacation to far away places? Because they like that way of life better? :P

[/quote]How about you live in America with me for a few years then you can move to Iran or something...would you like living in Iran more?  I expect an honest answer

dxoigmn, if by "the US meddling in Middle Eastern affairs" you mean "us helping protect them from eachother" then I accept that we did meddle, otherwise no (PST, we're weren't in Iraq until after 9/11)

We hadn't had anything to do with the Middle East before 9/11 since Iraq attacked Kuwait afaik.

(Ofcourse I mean Military Force)

Exactly what I'm thinkin Warrior.

As for us making too big of a deal out of terror attacks, I don't think I'd care as much if they attacked San Francisco (bye bye gay people?) or maybe Canada, since it seems as though iago wouldn't mind terribly much being bombed by terrorists. (;), I still <3 iago)

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=12124.msg119908#msg119908 date=1120954805]
We hadn't had anything to do with the Middle East before 9/11 since Iraq attacked Kuwait afaik.

(Ofcourse I mean Military Force)
[/quote]

It is always convenient to ignore the political side of things to get a point across.

There are gay people everywhere. Would you like to bomb NYC? They recently had a gay pride parade here.

You forgot Bin Laden already did that.  O wait.  Bin Laden killed some gay people, obviously Cr4z3D and Bin Laden are fellow prejudice anti-gay douchebags.

Cr4z3D, don't talk about terrorists being bad for killing Americans until you're willing to accept gays, jews, blacks, and asians as Americans too.  You should be more concerned about taking of life than taking of white, heterosexual American life.  You're a pompous fuck.

I accept gays, blacks, jews, & even some immigrants (the legal ones) as Americans.  But I spose if we're just supposed to allow people to be killed & not retaliate I'd rather have someone I don't particularly think is right in their lifestyle to no longer exist than someone who lives logically.

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=12124.msg119914#msg119914 date=1120956908]
You forgot Bin Laden already did that.  O wait.  Bin Laden killed some gay people, obviously Cr4z3D and Bin Laden are fellow prejudice anti-gay douchebags.

Cr4z3D, don't talk about terrorists being bad for killing Americans until you're willing to accept gays, jews, blacks, and asians as Americans too.  You should be more concerned about taking of life than taking of white, heterosexual American life.  You're a pompous fuck.
[/quote]
I like how you don't defend the Canadians...maybe you think they aren't worthy of sticking up for them?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg119920#msg119920 date=1120958315]
I like how you don't defend the Canadians...maybe you think they aren't worthy of sticking up for them?
[/quote]
He's not a mounty, how is he supposed to defend the canadians????

I don't see how we have been a threat to them outside of the military, elaborate.
What I HAVE seen us do is form treaties between fighting countries.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=12124.msg119888#msg119888 date=1120950375]
It was an unprovoked attack which is the style of the terrorists and they do it withought warning,  so America must warn its citizens of the dangers so they can be on alert for anything out of the ordinary and goddammit it's doing a good job.
[/quote]

I have a rock that keeps lions away. 

How's it work?

It doesn't, it's just a rock.  But I don't see any lions around, do you?

... I'd like to buy your rock.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg119903#msg119903 date=1120953083]
I'm not sure of the crime rate in America, it's high, but we do have people to deal with that. Unless you want America to become a military-controlled state, the crime rate isn't going to change much.
[/quote]

Out of curiosity, why does Canada have a lower crime rate? We aren't military controlled.  Seriously, why? I don't have an answer for that..

[quote]
How do you think countries should react to such blatant attacks on humanity, iago? Should we (USA) just sit back and say "cool, they killed 3,023 Americans, let's not do anything or say anything so they don't think that they hurt us?" No, we shouldn't. When people like this attack a country, not following formal rules of engagement, not having any regard for any form of human life, and not giving a damn that they're going to economically, physically, and socially harm a country and a way of life we should not sit back and just let it happen - and then not say anything.
[/quote]
It's a bit of a catch-22 really.  When Terrorists do something, and a big fuss is made, they've accomplished their goal.  They're trying to damage the country economically, physically, and socially.  What else can they do?  If they declare war and try to fight, they'll be crushed.  All they can do is slowly destroy morale, one attack at a time.  It's a good strategy, I'd like to hear the alternative to fighting the US?

The United States has an estimated 264,266,045 more people than Canada. I think that, somewhere within that number, there are some criminals.

An alternative to fighting the US? How about not fighting the US.

Rabbit: When did CrAz3D question the citizenship of jews, blacks, gays, etc.?

I think those figures are a bit off unless canada only has a few thousand people. Anyways I read the first two pages and the last two pages to get a bit of a drift on where this topic was going and it seemed to go from Bush and Blair to blame on everybody. I think the entire human race has to take into account the huge numbers of people that are destrorying our society. You think that perhaps America going into Iraq is a bad thing? Why?

The people who complain about Bush are the same people who pay $80,000 for a gas-sucking SUV or maybe not. Maybe they're the people who use anything powered by electricity, electricity made by oil?! You mean oil is the key to the entire world economy? Perhaps if you look into how badly we need oil, not just the United States or England but the entire world: you'd realize that controlling an oil producing country isn't bad at all. America may be full of fat McDonald's eating intellectual-rejects (I prefer Burger King, they have onion rings) but we all have to face the facts that we need oil.

On to a somewhat related subject is that the solution to significant problems are easier when they become sicker. I'll give an example (and this isn't by any means racism) if America was to commit mass-genocide upon the African-Americans, statistics would blatantly show that crime would go down, taxes would go down and property values would go up. It's simple statistics that more blacks commit crimes than any other minority. We could save time and simply only check arabs for airport security, they're the ones bombing us.

I apologize if I have offended anybody, but you have to look at every problem from every angle. This also brings back my previous origin of this post to oil and that we need to find alternatives. Saying fuel cells (a power source that requires hydrogen and produces only electricity and pure water) are going to change the future, isn't going to matter in five years.

Our generation is full of MTV-ridden morons who don't give a crap about our future, the same as the generations before us. Not a single generation before us in the 7000+ years humanity has had written existence have we ever been faced with a problem of this magnitude. We're fucked. Responses?

[quote] I think those figures are a bit off unless canada only has a few thousand people.[/quote]

From Wikpedia:

Canada:  July 2005 proj. - 32,233,955
USA: July 2005 proj. -  296,500,000

296,500,000 - 32,233,955 = 264,266,045

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg119939#msg119939 date=1120964496]
[quote] I think those figures are a bit off unless canada only has a few thousand people.[/quote]

From Wikpedia:

Canada:  July 2005 proj. - 32,233,955
USA: July 2005 proj. -  296,500,000

296,500,000 - 32,233,955 = 264,266,045
[/quote]

My apologies, the last I was aware of, America only had around 260,000,000 people.

Edit: That's the population of Canada? Holy shit.

I don't think you can trust a source where almost anyone can submit information :-/

If America would stop playing the role of global police, I think international hatred of America in general would drop. Unfortunately, like tyrants, we like to hold onto the things we've gained.

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=12124.msg119942#msg119942 date=1120965698]
I don't think you can trust a source where almost anyone can submit information :-/

If America would stop playing the role of global police, I think international hatred of America in general would drop. Unfortunately, like tyrants, we like to hold onto the things we've gained.
[/quote]

We don't police the globe, contrary to SOAD belief. Internation hatred of America won't stop until China becomes the economic power of the world which is destined in the next few years. On top of that, it's not only tyrants that hang onto the things they've gained, my dog who only has 1 toy (a hedgehog I bought from Petco because she chewed her Santa apart) hides it from people who come over, one thing -- protected?

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg119931#msg119931 date=1120962595]Rabbit: When did CrAz3D question the citizenship of jews, blacks, gays, etc.?[/quote]
It wouldn't surprise me, that's all.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg119931#msg119931 date=1120962595]
The United States has an estimated 264,266,045 more people than Canada. I think that, somewhere within that number, there are some criminals.

An alternative to fighting the US? How about not fighting the US.

[/quote]

I meant per-capita.  Find the statistics for that.  My city has the highest per-capita murder rate in Canada, and it's significantly lower than many of your cities's. 

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=12124.msg119948#msg119948 date=1120969558]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg119931#msg119931 date=1120962595]Rabbit: When did CrAz3D question the citizenship of jews, blacks, gays, etc.?[/quote]
It wouldn't surprise me, that's all.
[/quote]You forgot about the Mexicans, Catholics, Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, & the French, don't think that I discriminate discriminatively, I discriminate against everyone but me.


As for playing the 'world police' card...then who is going to stop AIDs in Africa?  Who is going to help India when they have an earthquake?  Who is going to help people in Asia when they get nailed by a massive tsunami?  Who is going to help France rebuild after being TOTALLY obliterated by the Germans?...since no one can stand up for what is right I suppose we should just let the world crumb?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg119904#msg119904 date=1120953228]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=12124.msg119884#msg119884 date=1120950065]
This is also most likely because they're a cheap work force and because you're a rich country. It has nothing to do with your way of life, only with your happening to have more money right now. Why do a lot of Americans go on vacation to far away places? Because they like that way of life better? :P
[/quote]How about you live in America with me for a few years then you can move to Iran or something...would you like living in Iran more?  I expect an honest answer
[/quote]

Hard to say.. Both seem like places I wouldn't like as much as where I live now. It's hard to give a completely balanced answer, because for example, I know English. That alone would be enough to make moving to America much more likely than moving to Iran or Japan. Or France.

That aside, I tend to like countries with reasonably high salaries. I probably wouldn't want to move to somewhere I had to reduce my living standards a lot. Living standards are lower in some countries for historical reasons, and because of the imbalanced economy of the world, but eventually that'll change, and only then will you really be pitting American way of life vs someone else's way of life. An

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg119972#msg119972 date=1120979785]
As for playing the 'world police' card...then who is going to stop AIDs in Africa?  Who is going to help India when they have an earthquake?  Who is going to help people in Asia when they get nailed by a massive tsunami?  Who is going to help France rebuild after being TOTALLY obliterated by the Germans?...since no one can stand up for what is right I suppose we should just let the world crumb?
[/quote]

Obviously whoever is sucking out the most money and resources out of the rest of the world will have more available to help others, perhaps in attempt to improve their image.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg119972#msg119972 date=1120979785]As for playing the 'world police' card...then who is going to stop AIDs in Africa?  Who is going to help India when they have an earthquake?  Who is going to help people in Asia when they get nailed by a massive tsunami?  Who is going to help France rebuild after being TOTALLY obliterated by the Germans?...since no one can stand up for what is right I suppose we should just let the world crumb?
[/quote]The International Red Cross.  Duh.

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=12124.msg120007#msg120007 date=1121008772]
The International Red Cross.  Duh.
[/quote]

That's a good one. They're much less into using their aid to pressure others into doing what you want them too. More into giving out of the goodness of their hearts.

Yeah, but notice how the Red Cross is originally an American thing?...hmm

America 1
World 0

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg120021#msg120021 date=1121018062]
Yeah, but notice how the Red Cross is originally an American thing?...hmm

America 1
World 0
[/quote]

Uhh, the Red Cross is originally a european thing.

America 0
World 1

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg119972#msg119972 date=1120979785]
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=12124.msg119948#msg119948 date=1120969558]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg119931#msg119931 date=1120962595]Rabbit: When did CrAz3D question the citizenship of jews, blacks, gays, etc.?[/quote]
It wouldn't surprise me, that's all.
[/quote]You forgot about the Mexicans, Catholics, Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, & the French, don't think that I discriminate discriminatively, I discriminate against everyone but me.


As for playing the 'world police' card...then who is going to stop AIDs in Africa?  Who is going to help India when they have an earthquake?  Who is going to help people in Asia when they get nailed by a massive tsunami?  Who is going to help France rebuild after being TOTALLY obliterated by the Germans?...since no one can stand up for what is right I suppose we should just let the world crumb?
[/quote]

Sorry, craz3d, but you're just completely wrong about this. The US is not generous. In fact, the US is quite possibly the least generous country in the world. See here and here. The US doesn't even make the top 20 in terms of foreign aid, when considered as a % of GDP: and that's the measure that counts. Is it more generous for a millionaire to give a charity $50, or for a penniless student to give $10?

The charity would certainly prefer the $50, regardless of who gave it.

But that doeesn't make the person who gave $50 better than the person who gave $10.

Anyway, Denmark rocks!

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg120021#msg120021 date=1121018062]
Yeah, but notice how the Red Cross is originally an American thing?...hmm

America 1
World 0
[/quote]

You want aid?  Look at the UN, I'd wager the UN provides more aid than the US ... although it has no military power, it has probably prevented  many wars with its aid (when people aren't hungry and they have the basic necessities people are usually happy).

[quote author=nslay link=topic=12124.msg120038#msg120038 date=1121027254]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12124.msg120021#msg120021 date=1121018062]
Yeah, but notice how the Red Cross is originally an American thing?...hmm

America 1
World 0
[/quote]

You want aid?  Look at the UN, I'd wager the UN provides more aid than the US ... although it has no military power, it has probably prevented  many wars with its aid (when people aren't hungry and they have the basic necessities people are usually happy).
[/quote]Uhm, note how the UN is not a single nation, it is a group of nations (the US is a member)

Interesting geographical Arta, thanks.

As for the Red Cross thing, my bad, I thought it went the other way around

[quote author=iago link=topic=12124.msg120033#msg120033 date=1121026040]
But that doeesn't make the person who gave $50 better than the person who gave $10.

Anyway, Denmark rocks!
[/quote]

Why not? He did more of a favor for the charity than the other. I don't like how you people feel that just because people have more money that they should be required to spend it frivolously.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg120053#msg120053 date=1121030844]
[quote author=iago link=topic=12124.msg120033#msg120033 date=1121026040]
But that doeesn't make the person who gave $50 better than the person who gave $10.

Anyway, Denmark rocks!
[/quote]

Why not? He did more of a favor for the charity than the other. I don't like how you people feel that just because people have more money that they should be required to spend it frivolously.
[/quote]

If I had a million dollars in my bank account and gave away $1000, that wouldn't make me a good person.  I wouldn't even notice the difference. 

Perhaps it's because I haven't grown up rich like you that I feel that way :-/

I haven't grown up rich, but even if I had I don't understand why that would make any difference. My father works extremely hard for his money, and he sacrificese both his life and his body to continue to do so.

A millionaire donating $50 to a charity helps the charity more than a poor person donating $10. The poor person donating $10 is stupid, in my opinion. If he's poor he should be using that $10 to survive and try and make more money so he isn't poor anymore. My grandfather (according to my grandmother, although I don't know his actual net worth) is a first-generation millionaire. He isn't dropping thousands, or even hundreds, of dollars to help x charity. Why? Because the only thing he gets back from it is a negligible amount of money off when he pays taxes. The whole point is to make more money, not lose money. He grew up extremely poor with many brothers and sisters in a small house in a poorer section of town. My great-grandmother even put one brother up for adoption because they couldn't afford him. My great-grandfather (who I never met) was abusive and just overall not a nice person. My grandfather hated him and would stand in the mirror and promise himself that he would not be like his father. He knows what it is like to be poor, have a hard life, and what it is like to work hard for your money. He had to deliver papers, collect bottles, and do other forms of work just to be able to buy milk and bread for his family. He knows that money doesn't grow on trees, and it took him a long time to make it. He had planned on being a radio repairman or something like that, but ended up being a Master Chief in the US Coast Guard. What did he do will his paychecks? He saved them, he didn't spend them. He saved them and eventually was able to invest in real estate and stocks. It took him a long time, why would he just spend money carelessly and then perhaps lose it? You might be saying "it's only 1000" but that's still $1000 that could have been reinvested.

People like Bill Gates, or people who are multi-millionaires, or billionaires, can afford to do stuff like that because they know they'll have money left over. However according to The Millionaire Next Door most millionaires (over 80%, iirc) today (especially new money) drive American cars, wear inexpensive clothing, and don't go to dinner where plates cost $100 each. They aren't staying in lavish hotel suites or being in any way careless with their money. What do they do? They invest, to ensure that them and their family will be supported in the long run.

I think that's where you're getting confused. It's not just "oh, I have money, let me blow it on stuff." In my opinion, donating any amount of money to a charity is a noble move. I would prefer to look at the bigger picture, which is the charity getting the money it needs versus who is donating the money. I think you should stop focusing on your "greedy capitalists that don't care about anyone but themselves" idea of America. Would you rather somebody donate $50, even if he could afford more, or not donate any at all? Wanting someone to donate more just because they can is, in my opinion, just as greedy.

If you had a million dollars in your bank account, and you gave away $1000, you'd definitely notice the difference. Why? Because you wouldn't be a millionaire anymore.

Edit:

Sorry that this was long and kind of a ramble but I am pretty passionate about this topic, especially the way you said it. I can't explain it, it's just the way you look at things and it kind of ticked me off. I also felt that a personal example was needed to drive my point home instead of just general statements, as those hardly ever (never) work with you.

Your ideas about the millionaire and the poor student are interesting and somewhat understandable. When you look at countries such as the USA and Denmark, they're not just rich and poor though. You're really looking at different populations. If there are two groups of people, one is group A, 100 people, each giving $1, for a total of $100, and a group B, 10 people, each giving $5 for a total of $50... Who is more generous now?

The difference between the USA and Denmark in GDP per capita is Denmark being 25% lower. The difference in aid provided (from Arta's links) is much much larger, and so even re-weighted as generosity per population, USA isn't much of a giver.

We have more than just a few assets. It's obvious, America being a global superpower. Why compare it to a dog?

... I assume you meant no offense to any Danes that might be reading... ::)

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg120058#msg120058 date=1121033494]
I haven't grown up rich, but even if I had I don't understand why that would make any difference. My father works extremely hard for his money, and he sacrificese both his life and his body to continue to do so.

A millionaire donating $50 to a charity helps the charity more than a poor person donating $10. The poor person donating $10 is stupid, in my opinion. If he's poor he should be using that $10 to survive and try and make more money so he isn't poor anymore. My grandfather (according to my grandmother, although I don't know his actual net worth) is a first-generation millionaire. He isn't dropping thousands, or even hundreds, of dollars to help x charity. Why? Because the only thing he gets back from it is a negligible amount of money off when he pays taxes. The whole point is to make more money, not lose money. He grew up extremely poor with many brothers and sisters in a small house in a poorer section of town. My great-grandmother even put one brother up for adoption because they couldn't afford him. My great-grandfather (who I never met) was abusive and just overall not a nice person. My grandfather hated him and would stand in the mirror and promise himself that he would not be like his father. He knows what it is like to be poor, have a hard life, and what it is like to work hard for your money. He had to deliver papers, collect bottles, and do other forms of work just to be able to buy milk and bread for his family. He knows that money doesn't grow on trees, and it took him a long time to make it. He had planned on being a radio repairman or something like that, but ended up being a Master Chief in the US Coast Guard. What did he do will his paychecks? He saved them, he didn't spend them. He saved them and eventually was able to invest in real estate and stocks. It took him a long time, why would he just spend money carelessly and then perhaps lose it? You might be saying "it's only 1000" but that's still $1000 that could have been reinvested.

People like Bill Gates, or people who are multi-millionaires, or billionaires, can afford to do stuff like that because they know they'll have money left over. However according to The Millionaire Next Door most millionaires (over 80%, iirc) today (especially new money) drive American cars, wear inexpensive clothing, and don't go to dinner where plates cost $100 each. They aren't staying in lavish hotel suites or being in any way careless with their money. What do they do? They invest, to ensure that them and their family will be supported in the long run.

I think that's where you're getting confused. It's not just "oh, I have money, let me blow it on stuff." In my opinion, donating any amount of money to a charity is a noble move. I would prefer to look at the bigger picture, which is the charity getting the money it needs versus who is donating the money. I think you should stop focusing on your "greedy capitalists that don't care about anyone but themselves" idea of America. Would you rather somebody donate $50, even if he could afford more, or not donate any at all? Wanting someone to donate more just because they can is, in my opinion, just as greedy.

If you had a million dollars in your bank account, and you gave away $1000, you'd definitely notice the difference. Why? Because you wouldn't be a millionaire anymore.

Edit:

Sorry that this was long and kind of a ramble but I am pretty passionate about this topic, especially the way you said it. I can't explain it, it's just the way you look at things and it kind of ticked me off. I also felt that a personal example was needed to drive my point home instead of just general statements, as those hardly ever (never) work with you.
[/quote]

Sorry, I wasn't thinking.  I was busy working full time while you were living in your beach house ;-)

I wish I was at my beach house :(

Great Danes?...punny (maybe)

Just saw a thing on CBS about Holland.  Some crazy SUPER critical man made a movie criticizing muslims & the koran, he got murdered.  They were saying how Holland is like THE most liberal nation in the world & that movie maker stomps on anything & everything people hold sacred & what not.  The idea for the movie was that of an ex?-muslim lady that is now apart of parliment.

Crazy that the most liberal nation in the world is also so VERY careful to stomp on everyone's feet...I would've thought they'd be all "people are good, I love everyone" instead of "haha, you believe in God, LOSER!"

I wish I had a beachhouse :(

I wish I've been to a beach
(that changes this weel, but still)

Beach houses are nice. Anybody here is welcome to rent out our beach house (I'll even give you the 'friends' rate) if they're ever in the Tampa Bay area.*


*NOTE: Offer only applies to Republicans and Americans, so Adron and that British guy can take a hike.  :P

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg120093#msg120093 date=1121046972]
Beach houses are nice. Anybody here is welcome to rent out our beach house (I'll even give you the 'friends' rate) if they're ever in the Tampa Bay area.*


*NOTE: Offer only applies to Republicans and Americans, so Adron and that British guy can take a hike.  :P
[/quote]

What if I live in America Junior?

[quote author=iago link=topic=12124.msg120078#msg120078 date=1121042111]
Sorry, I wasn't thinking.  I was busy working full time while you were living in your beach house ;-)
[/quote]

I think it also has to be pointed out that this is the same kid who ran up his dad's credit card and then asked us to click on links so he could pay it off.

OK. How about this one:

dxoigmn, or any of your compadres, give me a concrete, documented example OTHER than the Gulf Wars in which the US severely meddled in Middle Eastern affairs, that does not involve copious usage of subjective opinions disguised as facts.

Seriously, please provide this. I'd like to know.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=12124.msg120096#msg120096 date=1121048179]
[quote author=iago link=topic=12124.msg120078#msg120078 date=1121042111]
Sorry, I wasn't thinking. I was busy working full time while you were living in your beach house ;-)
[/quote]

I think it also has to be pointed out that this is the same kid who ran up his dad's credit card and then asked us to click on links so he could pay it off.
[/quote]

It was my credit card. And iago, way to go, ignoring the entire point of my post just to spit out a witty insult. Great way to debate.

All this is really unrelated (beach houses, etc.) The entire point of my post was that regardless of who is giving the money, people had to work hard for it. You shouldn't be saying "well, just because the US has more people they should be giving more than they already are." The US could simply hold all of the money back and not give any out in foreign aid, how would you like that? I mean, we have plenty of problems within the country (homeless children, poverty, etc.) that the money could be used for. Why don't you, iago, write letters to your government and request that they appropriate more funds to foreign aid? Same for you Adron. Don't criticize the United States for donating less than could if you're going to ignore the fact that most countries that donate do donate less than what they could afford. It's obvious that you're supposed to be looking out for your own above all.

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=12124.msg120102#msg120102 date=1121052332]
OK. How about this one:

dxoigmn, or any of your compadres, give me a concrete, documented example OTHER than the Gulf Wars in which the US severely meddled in Middle Eastern affairs, that does not involve copious usage of subjective opinions disguised as facts.

Seriously, please provide this. I'd like to know.
[/quote]

Playing devil's advocate:

1953 Iran
1958 Lebanon
1979 Afghanistan
1980-1990 Iran again (on the side of Iraq)
1981-1986 Libya
1982-1984 Lebanon again
1991 Gulf War (sorry, had to include it)
1998 Afghanistan again
1998 Sudan
1998 Kabul
2001 Afghanistan...yet again

I'm sure there's more

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg120104#msg120104 date=1121052870]
All this is really unrelated (beach houses, etc.) The entire point of my post was that regardless of who is giving the money, people had to work hard for it. You shouldn't be saying "well, just because the US has more people they should be giving more than they already are." The US could simply hold all of the money back and not give any out in foreign aid, how would you like that? I mean, we have plenty of problems within the country (homeless children, poverty, etc.) that the money could be used for. Why don't you, iago, write letters to your government and request that they appropriate more funds to foreign aid? Same for you Adron. Don't criticize the United States for donating less than could if you're going to ignore the fact that most countries that donate do donate less than what they could afford. It's obvious that you're supposed to be looking out for your own above all.
[/quote]

What I'm saying is that the US isn't a great donor for world aid. Other countries are already giving more. Every country has plenty of problems within that they could use money for.

Sure, you could start giving less, and that'd mean less money for the people in need. Yes, you do give some. Just don't pretend that you're this generous world supporter. You're not. The way you say "you're supposed to be looking out for your own above all" really gives a good hint about what you're like.

[quote author=PiaNKA link=topic=12124.msg120120#msg120120 date=1121060613]
[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=12124.msg120102#msg120102 date=1121052332]
OK. How about this one:

dxoigmn, or any of your compadres, give me a concrete, documented example OTHER than the Gulf Wars in which the US severely meddled in Middle Eastern affairs, that does not involve copious usage of subjective opinions disguised as facts.

Seriously, please provide this. I'd like to know.
[/quote]

Playing devil's advocate:

1953 Iran
1958 Lebanon
1979 Afghanistan
1980-1990 Iran again (on the side of Iraq)
1981-1986 Libya
1982-1984 Lebanon again
1991 Gulf War (sorry, had to include it)
1998 Afghanistan again
1998 Sudan
1998 Kabul
2001 Afghanistan...yet again

I'm sure there's more
[/quote]You missed at least 1 Iraq in there

Maybe the mid east should get their attack together then?

[quote author=PiaNKA link=topic=12124.msg120120#msg120120 date=1121060613]
[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=12124.msg120102#msg120102 date=1121052332]
OK. How about this one:

dxoigmn, or any of your compadres, give me a concrete, documented example OTHER than the Gulf Wars in which the US severely meddled in Middle Eastern affairs, that does not involve copious usage of subjective opinions disguised as facts.

Seriously, please provide this. I'd like to know.
[/quote]

Playing devil's advocate:

1953 Iran
1958 Lebanon
1979 Afghanistan
1980-1990 Iran again (on the side of Iraq)
1981-1986 Libya
1982-1984 Lebanon again
1991 Gulf War (sorry, had to include it)
1998 Afghanistan again
1998 Sudan
1998 Kabul
2001 Afghanistan...yet again

I'm sure there's more
[/quote]

Kabul is not a country, its a capital city.

[quote author=iago link=topic=12124.msg120094#msg120094 date=1121047172]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg120093#msg120093 date=1121046972]
Beach houses are nice. Anybody here is welcome to rent out our beach house (I'll even give you the 'friends' rate) if they're ever in the Tampa Bay area.*


*NOTE: Offer only applies to Republicans and Americans, so Adron and that British guy can take a hike.  :P
[/quote]

What if I live in America Junior?
[/quote]

Eh... I'll tell you what. The family and friends discount is usually around 50%, I'll give you 25%.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=12124.msg120129#msg120129 date=1121063220]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg120104#msg120104 date=1121052870]
All this is really unrelated (beach houses, etc.) The entire point of my post was that regardless of who is giving the money, people had to work hard for it. You shouldn't be saying "well, just because the US has more people they should be giving more than they already are." The US could simply hold all of the money back and not give any out in foreign aid, how would you like that? I mean, we have plenty of problems within the country (homeless children, poverty, etc.) that the money could be used for. Why don't you, iago, write letters to your government and request that they appropriate more funds to foreign aid? Same for you Adron. Don't criticize the United States for donating less than could if you're going to ignore the fact that most countries that donate do donate less than what they could afford. It's obvious that you're supposed to be looking out for your own above all.
[/quote]

What I'm saying is that the US isn't a great donor for world aid. Other countries are already giving more. Every country has plenty of problems within that they could use money for.

Sure, you could start giving less, and that'd mean less money for the people in need. Yes, you do give some. Just don't pretend that you're this generous world supporter. You're not. The way you say "you're supposed to be looking out for your own above all" really gives a good hint about what you're like.
[/quote]

I'll conceed that the US gives less than it could at a mere 0.16% it's the lowest ouf of any G-8 country. However, Canada, for example, only gives between .2 and .3 percent of it's total income. That still means that the US is giving more money, because we have a lot more of it. Reaching the standard that G-8 leaders want of .7% would probably not be beneficial for the United States. Besides, foreign aid allotment has been doubled to $50billion by 2010, which is a substantial increase.

I don't see how that comment would reflect negatively on me? I'm sure you care more about the security of Sweden than the United States, or the security of your family over mine, etc.

The only group that would be beneficial to is the G-8 unit itself. They aren't talking about all contributing an equal share, they're basically hobo-ing off of us, as per the usual agreement.

[quote author=PiaNKA link=topic=12124.msg120120#msg120120 date=1121060613]
[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=12124.msg120102#msg120102 date=1121052332]
OK. How about this one:

dxoigmn, or any of your compadres, give me a concrete, documented example OTHER than the Gulf Wars in which the US severely meddled in Middle Eastern affairs, that does not involve copious usage of subjective opinions disguised as facts.

Seriously, please provide this. I'd like to know.
[/quote]

Playing devil's advocate:

1953 Iran
1958 Lebanon
1979 Afghanistan
1980-1990 Iran again (on the side of Iraq)
1981-1986 Libya
1982-1984 Lebanon again
1991 Gulf War (sorry, had to include it)
1998 Afghanistan again
1998 Sudan
1998 Kabul
2001 Afghanistan...yet again

I'm sure there's more
[/quote]You got the part about 1980-1990 a tad wrong.  We supplied weapons and money to both Iraq and Iran, but officially backed Iraq.  That way no matter what happened we got a lot of people indebted to us.

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=12124.msg120167#msg120167 date=1121098806]
You got the part about 1980-1990 a tad wrong.  We supplied weapons and money to both Iraq and Iran, but officially backed Iraq.  That way no matter what happened we got a lot of people indebted to us.
[/quote]

I'm unaware of any support of Iran in the first Persian Gulf War, got an article on it?

No, but I'll try to find one.  I remember it from the Daily Show though.  I'll see what I can find.

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=12124.msg120193#msg120193 date=1121102319]
No, but I'll try to find one. I remember it from the Daily Show though. I'll see what I can find.
[/quote]

What a great source of serious information.

I agree.  ;)

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg120196#msg120196 date=1121102686]
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=12124.msg120193#msg120193 date=1121102319]
No, but I'll try to find one. I remember it from the Daily Show though. I'll see what I can find.
[/quote]

What a great source of serious information.
[/quote]

They don't usually report things that are completely untrue, I love the Daily Show.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg120160#msg120160 date=1121095394]
I'll conceed that the US gives less than it could at a mere 0.16% it's the lowest ouf of any G-8 country. However, Canada, for example, only gives between .2 and .3 percent of it's total income. That still means that the US is giving more money, because we have a lot more of it.
[/quote]

Because you have a lot more of it, yes. That's the important point here. You can't compare the absolute monetary amounts donated. An example of how to make it wrong the other way would be to compare the donations of all countries in the world except the USA vs the USA. World vs USA, anyone?

Or compare the donations of the old country Yugoslavia to the donations of the current three countries. The people living in each of the three parts are suddenly only a third as generous as they used to be because each country is only donating one third of the total they donated when they were one country? :P


[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg120160#msg120160 date=1121095394]
I don't see how that comment would reflect negatively on me? I'm sure you care more about the security of Sweden than the United States, or the security of your family over mine, etc.
[/quote]

Consider volunteers travelling to dangerous countries, risking their lives to help others. They could all just stay at home, relax, and have people click links to pay their bills? There are actually many people who put the wellbeing of others before their own.

So, by what you've said, Sweden should be held to a lower standard than the United States?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg120217#msg120217 date=1121107015]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg120196#msg120196 date=1121102686]
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=12124.msg120193#msg120193 date=1121102319]
No, but I'll try to find one. I remember it from the Daily Show though. I'll see what I can find.
[/quote]

What a great source of serious information.
[/quote]

They don't usually report things that are completely untrue, I love the Daily Show.
[/quote]Exactly.  They don't make news up, they only make up little comical addons.  I think this was from the Indecision 2004 season, or possibly from the Saddam Was Caught episodes.

Don't cite their facts as true because they twist them and contort them to make them funny, they aren't a legitimate debating source.

I looked into it and couldn't find anything about the support of Iran during that war, although we did sell weapons to Iran previous to the war and Iraq during it. In a multitude of ways, the United States benefited from the prolongation of the war. This might argueably lead to the conclusion that we wanted the war to continue, even though our official stance was that as long as the war didn't affect our allies or sway the balance of power: we were neutral.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg120220#msg120220 date=1121109239]
So, by what you've said, Sweden should be held to a lower standard than the United States?
[/quote]

I think you're incorrectly using the words "lower standard".  According to his side of the argument, it's an equal standard. 

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg120104#msg120104 date=1121052870]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=12124.msg120096#msg120096 date=1121048179]
[quote author=iago link=topic=12124.msg120078#msg120078 date=1121042111]
Sorry, I wasn't thinking. I was busy working full time while you were living in your beach house ;-)
[/quote]

I think it also has to be pointed out that this is the same kid who ran up his dad's credit card and then asked us to click on links so he could pay it off.
[/quote]

It was my credit card. And iago, way to go, ignoring the entire point of my post just to spit out a witty insult. Great way to debate.
[/quote]

Ooh, sarcasm, a much more acceptable debate topic than witty insults :P

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=12124.msg120220#msg120220 date=1121109239]
So, by what you've said, Sweden should be held to a lower standard than the United States?
[/quote]

By what I've said, if you split the US into blocks of the same population as Sweden, one of those blocks should be directly comparable to Sweden donation-wise. I think that means that the whole of the US donations divided by 30 should be comparable to Swedish donations.

[quote author=iago link=topic=12124.msg120252#msg120252 date=1121116837]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg120104#msg120104 date=1121052870]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=12124.msg120096#msg120096 date=1121048179]
[quote author=iago link=topic=12124.msg120078#msg120078 date=1121042111]
Sorry, I wasn't thinking. I was busy working full time while you were living in your beach house ;-)
[/quote]

I think it also has to be pointed out that this is the same kid who ran up his dad's credit card and then asked us to click on links so he could pay it off.
[/quote]

It was my credit card. And iago, way to go, ignoring the entire point of my post just to spit out a witty insult. Great way to debate.
[/quote]

Ooh, sarcasm, a much more acceptable debate topic than witty insults :P
[/quote]

I wasn't debating, you didn't give me anything to debate about. Am I suppose to argue that you weren't at work and I wasn't at the beach?

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg120280#msg120280 date=1121130225]
[quote author=iago link=topic=12124.msg120252#msg120252 date=1121116837]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg120104#msg120104 date=1121052870]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=12124.msg120096#msg120096 date=1121048179]
[quote author=iago link=topic=12124.msg120078#msg120078 date=1121042111]
Sorry, I wasn't thinking. I was busy working full time while you were living in your beach house ;-)
[/quote]

I think it also has to be pointed out that this is the same kid who ran up his dad's credit card and then asked us to click on links so he could pay it off.
[/quote]

It was my credit card. And iago, way to go, ignoring the entire point of my post just to spit out a witty insult. Great way to debate.
[/quote]

Ooh, sarcasm, a much more acceptable debate topic than witty insults :P
[/quote]

I wasn't debating, you didn't give me anything to debate about. Am I suppose to argue that you weren't at work and I wasn't at the beach?
[/quote]

Note the irony that I also used sarcasm :-P

Shut up.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12124.msg120299#msg120299 date=1121137049]
Shut up.
[/quote]

Good.. umm, what's ti called when somebody answers a debate topic? Re-something? I forget :(

Rebuttal

Bah, I re-read my post and instantly remembered "rebuttle" :P

Sureeeeeeeee you did.

I finally got round to blogging about this, if anyone is interested in reading my point of view on the whole thing:

http://musingsofharry.blogspot.com/2005/07/lets-not-lose-our-heads.html

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12124.msg120510#msg120510 date=1121270542]
I finally got round to blogging about this, if anyone is interested in reading my point of view on the whole thing:

http://musingsofharry.blogspot.com/2005/07/lets-not-loose-our-heads.html
[/quote]

lets-not-lose-our-heads* :-P

lol, oops :)

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12124.msg120510#msg120510 date=1121270542]
I finally got round to blogging about this, if anyone is interested in reading my point of view on the whole thing:

http://musingsofharry.blogspot.com/2005/07/lets-not-loose-our-heads.html
[/quote]


"Admittedly, we don't have 0 terrorist attacks every year -- this year, most unfortunately, we'll have at least 52." --- deaths