Explosion heard in London - political part

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Yeah, because that is such a common event here at Apolyton....

Yeah, cuase out there in the real world you see so much intelligent debate and people changing their minds...

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I'm a bit pissed so I haven't readthis whole thread, but I'd say that it is time for all countries to hunt down Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The Yanks are bogged down in IRaq and seem to have forgotten that enemy #1 is bin Laden. We, and I mean all countries that can, need to capture this bastard.

What this means is not invading some country, but instead old fashion police work. Hunt him down and get him. IF the US helps, great, if not we need to do it ourselves. For too long, too many people have been sayting why doesn't the US go after him. It's time for everypone to take responsibility to capture him.

Uhm, maybe its just me but...

I think Al Qaeda is beyond the point where Bin Laden matters. I dont know to what extent his money is helping the entire thing, but I think the individual cells and local organizations of Al Qaeda is the driving force now.

I bet taking care of Bin Laden woulda worked if you could have managed it in the 90's, but nowadays I think each cell is determined enough to work independantly.

I think the fastest way to end terrorism is to pull out of the Middle East (Iraq, Saudi Arabian bases) and Afghanistan. But then they'd surely demand Israeli land. And if they win that, who knows if they'd stop or keep doing it because of the west's decadence and their potrayal of the west as a bunch of infidels.

I'm scared, very very scared, for the future of the world

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, the people of Kabul might have thought the destruction of their city in '92 was actually a very bad event.... Probably extremely comparable..

which of course happened AFTER the West had left the Afghans to their own devices. And after Thatcher was out of office for that matter.

I mean if there were NO Hamas attacks on Israel, and if sometime after Red Ken leaves politics, Israel completes its withdrawl from the the territories, and Hamas THEN destroys Ramallah, I swear I wouldnt complain about Red Ken. I doubt anyone else here would, either.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by molly bloom
And Margaret Thatcher endorsed mujahedin terrorists who indiscriminately killed Afghani civilians.

They're politicians, not moralists.

but no one mentioned maggie in this thread until you. also it's not the best comparison in the world, but then i guess you already know that...

[Kontiki]

Disagree with that. Taking out Bin Laden would be of huge ceremonial importance. True, the various cells probably don't need him to operate, but it kind of makes a point when you can show that you've rounded up the bastard that masterminded so many attacks. Looking at it from another angle, it can only embolden other cells or terrorist groups to see that Bin Laden could do what he did and continue to run around and thumb his nose at the US et al.

Edit: In response to Ninot.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I'm a bit pissed so I haven't readthis whole thread, but I'd say that it is time for all countries to hunt down Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The Yanks are bogged down in IRaq and seem to have forgotten that enemy #1 is bin Laden. We, and I mean all countries that can, need to capture this bastard.

What this means is not invading some country, but instead old fashion police work. Hunt him down and get him. IF the US helps, great, if not we need to do it ourselves. For too long, too many people have been sayting why doesn't the US go after him. It's time for everypone to take responsibility to capture him.

In all likelihood OBL is somewhere in Pakistan. The US has offered Pakistan as much FBI help as they would like in getting him. If they havent its either cause A. more police resources simply wont speed up a slow process or B. They dont want foreign police running around, they insist on doing it themselves or C. Theyre not real eager to catch him.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


In all likelihood OBL is somewhere in Pakistan. The US has offered Pakistan as much FBI help as they would like in getting him. If they havent its either cause A. more police resources simply wont speed up a slow process or B. They dont want foreign police running around, they insist on doing it themselves or C. Theyre not real eager to catch him.

I'd say a little from B and a little from C.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


which of course happened AFTER the West had left the Afghans to their own devices. And after Thatcher was out of office for that matter.

Oh, of course, that makes all the difference. I mean, give them billions in arms, hail them as freedom fighters, then if they destroy their own country, well, what did we do???

[Ninot]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


In all likelihood OBL is somewhere in Pakistan. The US has offered Pakistan as much FBI help as they would like in getting him. If they havent its either cause A. more police resources simply wont speed up a slow process or B. They dont want foreign police running around, they insist on doing it themselves or C. Theyre not real eager to catch him.

I think its C.

They want US help as long as they have India on their border. Finding him would be a quick end to that. Also, Bin Laden does have alot of support in that region right? Why would any common man in Pakistan be looking to help the U.S.A. and the west over Bin Laden?

[Ramo]

evidence on deliberate killing of Afghani civilians by people that Thatcher explicityly endorsed? Something comparable to the bus bombings, pizza parlor bombings that Hamas has engaged in?

There's also Saint Ronnie's endorsement of the terrorist Contras as the "moral equivalent of our founding fathers" (of course one could say that slave-owning etc. isn't particularly moral, but he meant it in a good sense).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Oh, of course, that makes all the difference. I mean, give them billions in arms, hail them as freedom fighters, then if they destroy their own country, well, what did we do???

We gave them billions of arms and hailed them as freedom fighters cause they were fighting the Soviet Occupation (and if you really want to claim parallels between the Soviet occupation and the Israeli occupation we can , but that will not generate light I think) SOME of the groups engaged in destructive actions, notably those led by Dostum and Hekmatyar. We SHOULD have done something to help stop that, but it hardly makes Thatchers remarks in the 80s retroactively support of terrorism.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


There's also Saint Ronnie's endorsement of the terrorist Contras as the "moral equivalent of our founding fathers" (of course one could say that slave-owning etc. isn't particularly moral, but he meant it in a good sense).

ive never considered Ronnie a saint, and I consider support of the Contras one of his worse policies.

So youre saying Red Ken is the moral equivalent of Ronald Reagan? Fine by me.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by GePap


Oh, of course, that makes all the difference. I mean, give them billions in arms, hail them as freedom fighters, then if they destroy their own country, well, what did we do???

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ninot


I think its C.

They want US help as long as they have India on their border. Finding him would be a quick end to that. Also, Bin Laden does have alot of support in that region right? Why would any common man in Pakistan be looking to help the U.S.A. and the west over Bin Laden?

I think its a lot of A - its really not that easy to find the guy, for a lot of reasons, and it depends on slow unraveling of AQ, capturing people with info, establishing order in NWFP, etc.

US help for Paki wouldnt end with OBLs capture, as theres much more to AQ than OBL. And while he has alot of support from Paki Islamists, hes opposed by the secularists in Pakistan, and at least since 9/11 by the Paki military. Hell, AQ tried to kill Perv twice - why wouldnt Perv want to get OBL?

[Ramo]

ive never considered Ronnie a saint, and I consider support of the Contras one of his worse policies.

So youre saying Red Ken is the moral equivalent of Ronald Reagan? Fine by me.

I'd say that the comments are morally comparable (I don't know if Red Ken has given terrorists any material help).