I haven't seen the list of enemies of Bush (sounds rather Nixon-like) but how far up it were/are the Indonesians. I notice not lot has been said about them - especially surprising since they haven't stopped planting bombs against western targets. Sky BBC Looking through the archives I saw: Britons told to leave Indonesia They were told to leave Indonesia because of the inreased threat of terrorist attack - why? Because of the then new war with Iraq. Makes sense doesn't it? And that's my point, it does make sense. Right-wingers and the pro-war section round here don't seem to realise that going to war and generally planting your size 11s all over the Muslims will get them more, and not less angry and as such more likely to do the things that supposedly created the need for war in the first place. Yet the British foriegn office can manage to put 2 and 2 together (It's a shame that Tony's calculator was broken that day), so I wonder why some still can't figure that out.
Conclusion - all further military interventions should be curtailed due to terror threats from maniacs in Indonesia to a few thousand foreign tourists who would be wise not to vacation in threatening states. Where's the story here?
I'd have thought the story was quite obvious, bomb blows up and injures several. But it didn't happen in Tulsa so it's not news, right? Anyway... The 'story' is that terrorism is still happening. It's good to let people to help know what's going on in the world. I'm just the outlet that all. I wouldn't like the ignoramuses to think that the Bushies war on terrorism is actually winnable. Yes I know that it's not over yet - but that's my point, it will never be. I'm also trying to point out the flawed logic of thinking that waging war/invading these countries will somehow stop the terrorists from wanting to do what they are actually doing now and have been doing for ages. It just breeds further contempt. It should be easy to see. And further... If the Indonesian Muslim extremists blowing things (and people) up isn't news, then wasn't the whole issue of Iraq blown up (pardon the pun) out of all proportion? Iraq wasn't blowing anyone up yet we all know what it was subjected to. Your ignorance knows no bounds if you think what's going on in Indonesia has no bearing on the bigger picture. They're still Muslims, and they still don't like the US. And that's even after you got rid of Saddam! Odd really isn't it. You'd have thought they'd like the US now.
The idea that the bombing of a KFC in Indonesia somehow shows that invading Iraq was a mistake is beyond ignorant. No one suggested that the war on terrorism would be short or easy - or that it would eradicate all terrorism everywhere.
Perhaps we should legalize murder since it's obvious that homicide laws do not prevent murders from occurring. One can debate the wisdom of invading Iraq, but appeasement is surely not the answer.
Well quite frankly, that's exactly how it was made to sound by your Leader supreme. 'Terrorism will be a thing of the past now that the US is on the case'. Kinda thing. And before anyone get any further knickers in twists - my initial points were: 1) That the bombings had happened and no-one here had posted or even mentioned them. That straight-forward, it really was. 2) That since the UK foreign ministry recognises that attacking Iraq would raise the ire of Muslims worldwide, so much so they advocate Britons to leave Indonesia. However the 'right' on this board and the US administration seem to fail to realise the same applies when Iran is invaded or Syria or anyone else that the US isn't bosom buddies with. Just moreso. Resulting nothing more than an actual increase in anti-Western attitudes and consequently anti-Western actions. And there wasn't any attempt to say that the KFC bombings show that invading Iraq was wrong. It was an attempt to show that despite the US going on the offensive, and moreover letting all and sundry know that, nothing has changed, indeed in that neck of the woods, some might say it's got worse. The war on Terrorism is unwinnable at best and will result in constant wars/conflicts for the US and the further and increased threat of terrorist attacks. You cannot defeat terrorism by the means the Bush administration thinks you can - all that does is breed more suicide bombers.
NO no no, what is it with people on here? Just up for a fight this fine Sunday afternoon? I'm informing people that it is still happening. That's it. It happened, I let people reading these boards know, if they didn't already know. Terrorism is still happening. I know some of the Fox crowd only think of terrorism as Mid-East based. And as soon as Syria and Iran are sorted out, that's the problem over with. It won't be. As this event proves. I'm not advocating damn appeasement! I'm advocating not thinking that THE most favourable option is to go and tread on everyones toes then punch them in the stomach in order to stop the hatred.
Uh, chief, the US administration raised the terror alert at the beginning of the hostilities in Iraq, so I don't think they "failed to realise" that there was a possibility of a terrorist blowback. So, you favor appeasement, then? Just give Osama what he wants? Fantastic.
Ok, precisely why the Bush administration's actions regarding the threat of terrorism don't make a blind bit of sense. And that just leaves the individuals round here that either ignore that fact or just don't care. Uh, chief, read a post made previous to yours... I'm not advocating damn appeasement! I'm advocating not thinking that THE most favourable option is to go and tread on everyones toes then punch them in the stomach in order to stop the hatred. Posted by me in response to BenR's similar position to yours. You both seem to think that because I don't think the Bushies way of doing things is the most sensible, I am automatically advocating just letting terrorists run amok. Am I allowed to think that there are better ways of achieving the same result? Guess that "either with us or against us attitude" still matters to some. It's not that black and white.
No, but if you're going to do the moronic oversimplification bit to the administration's position, why can't I do the same thing to yours?
Because I would have thought an intellect such as yours would have been able to sufficiently put me in my place without stooping to my "moronic" levels. Apparently not.
It's Sunday. I felt like slumming it on the moronic level for a bit. It's quite nice - I feel like a Galaxy fan.
This is event doesn't really prove anything. Most of the terrorism in Indonesia is a result of the supreme provocation of Christians living in Moslem lands. It is merely a continuation of the genocide and religious cleansing we've seen in many other Moslem countries, which has nothing to do with the USA. Of course, the minor attack on the BK is a bit different, but there are larger issues involved. The purpose is to reduce the amount/level of terrorism. You can't take any act of terrorism and suggest that our approach is failing. Not that I think invading Iraq was such a good idea. I also reject the simplistic "cycle of violence" theory. It sounds nice, but has no bearing in reality. Often times, the greatest provocation is weakness.
That's the second time today I've been called simplistic or some such name. I take this line as it seems required. Thing is I've taken more than a passing interest in our very own problems regarding Northern Ireland. There was a cycle going on there for years - and one that wasn't a figment of my imagination Ben. But it's getting on and I've beers to drink...
You were the first one in this to trot out the "ignorance" line, so next time, don't go casting stones.
I didn't call you simplistic, but I do believe the "cycle of violence" theory is terribly simplistic. I believe not fighting back will encourage even more violence in many instances.
B...but I live in a glass hous...oh nevermind. I wasn't complaining, just commenting. We're all allowed to say what we see fit aren't we? And my 'ignorance 'comment was conditional, whereas others' weren't, but I guess that's just picking. And you haven't really said anything other than I'm moronic and that 'I started it'. But thanks for your input anyway. Halfway through A bottle of Stella Artois. I'm convinced the Belgians make good beer because they need it to live there.
But 'fighting back' is what's been happening for bloody ages - and it's clearly not been working. It's time for a different approach (and by that I don't mean going in there with tanks etc. For that would be an expansion of what already happening). The practice of fighting back isn't working so can we at least try a different theory?
Au contraie. It's worked very well. As mentioned in another thread, it saved Western Civilization. The theory of appeasement has been tried as well, and with disastrous results. Again, I question the choice to invade Iraq, but the general approach makes sense to me. We're in this war whether we like it or not.
I'm talking about now and in that particular geographical region. It isn't working. Not 'it worked some other time in history with other people in another situation'. It's clearly not working the way you think it will. And once again, I'm not FOR appeasement. Just to try and make that clear. Changing stance doesn't necessarily have to mean capitulation.