The simple fact is, the UK is not missing four thousand people and two national landmarks. I appritiate the Star Spangled Banner being played at the palace, but I really doubt you feel the same way as 86\% of the people in the states.

Also, as a point of reference, in the Vietnam war (whatever you opinions are on it), the United States lost about 54 thousand people over the course of about 10 years. In one hour, we could have lost approximately 1/2 that number.
------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by RenegadeSnark:
If you have a problem with the average IQ around here, don't do things to lower it.

---

This message has been edited by TheTaxMan on September 13, 2001 at 10:31 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheTaxMan:

The simple fact is, the UK is not missing [b]four thousand people and two national landmarks. I appritiate the Star Spangled Banner being played at the palace, but I really doubt you feel the same way as 86\% of the people in the states.

.[/B]

---

your right we're only missing half of northern ireland, we only had canary wharf blown to shit, nail bombs placed on trains and in shopping centres, car bombs placed outside places JUST because they are adjacent to military barracks (a pub got blown up in the night at the top of my road jutt because it was opposite the barracks).

plus i've said it already but not everyone who died in the WTC was american a large majority were british.

we probably dont feel the same way as you but i doubt you felt the same way about us when people were being killed over here.

------------------
simultaneity is not absolute. So just because you think i'm wrong, from my frame of reference i'm right!

Going back to what DKB said about terrorism in the UK - a pub bombing in Soho left many dead, and a very young infant with a 2 inch nail imbedded into his head. I dont mean hanging out - i mean fully in his head. I think he survived, but im saying you need to take a step back and realise just what W is trying to do.

Don't get me wrong - Tuesday was horrific and whoever did it does need to be brought to justice, but i'm saying that W is currently going with the public at this point in time. Afghanistan said that they where horrified, but if they could successfully find out who did it, find them, and then possilby the country in question could extradite them over to the US and possilby something good will happen. Carpet bombing an entire country over 30 people is not a good thing. A hell of a lot of people died on Tuesday, Some brits, most americans, but how many innocents will die if we decide to carpet bomb an entire city? What would it cause other terrorists to do? In my opinion Bush is trying to keep the invulnerable look of the US up - even though it has had a terrible blow delt to it. By declaring war on an invisible enemy, he has declared war on the nation who harbours them. No matter how many innocent people died in the WTC - more will die in war.

What would the US have to gain from war? In my opinion, a brief taste of revenge for Tuesday. They could go in and wipe out every terrorist in Afghanistan, but that would cause other groups to go Ape, launching more attacks upon the US - and then it starts again. It's a vicious circle and it looks like Bush is falling into it.

It's my opinion - feel free to insert rants here...

-toes

------------------
"Genitalia, while fun to play with, are rarely peasent to look at"

A large majority is a large bit more than 51\%.

And I'm not sure, but I don't think that the US government funds the IRA (like the Taliban funds other terrorists). I really can't make a view point out of the IRA though, I'm not informed enough about it.

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by RenegadeSnark:
If you have a problem with the average IQ around here, don't do things to lower it.

---

Let's consider a few points here:

-- It has been said by many that several nations live with this every day. These other nations are not, as far as I can tell, fighting back against the terrorism, for a variety of reasons, from lack of a military to corruption to fear. So, you are suggesting that we accept a similar response, and just ignore it and allow it, and it will go away? It hasn't before, why should it now? What possible evidence can you give me that the terrorists would say "Oh, you're not fighting back, so I must be wrong?" And the IRA is not a good example for reasons stated below.

-- From what I have heard, a terrorist group usually has a motive behind the killing, and an ultimate goal that they are fighting towards. For example, the IRA was (is?) fighting towards a united Ireland. Because of this goal, it was possible for the British Government to negotiate with the heads of the IRA to attempt to form a treaty. Once the goal of the group is met, then in theory the terrorism will stop. There was NO given reason for the attack on us, except for blind, unreasoning hate towards the U.S. The only perceived goal that I can see is the destruction of the U.S., and since that goal is unacceptable to us, we must take action to remove the source of that hatred, so that it cannot harm any more U.S. citizens.

-- Normally, an act of terrorism is committed, a group takes responsibility (and usually a reason for the attack, see above). Why has no one taken responsibility? My only guess is that it was a potshot at us, and if we don't respond then we just become a juicier target.

One more thing that I'm surprised no one has mentioned: Despite the frothing-mouthed expressions of desire to carpet-bomb entire nations, does anyone notice that the U.S. hasn't acted yet? We have suspicions and indications that Bin Laden (sp?) is behind this, and yet we have done nothing aside from arresting (not killing, but arresting) some very hard suspects. The U.S. is treating this just like a crime (albeit very large-scale), and I think that it's obvious, despite current public opinion, that the U.S. is holding itself in tight restraint right now. Why are we being faulted for an action we haven't taken yet, and by all accounts won't take soon?

Because of the nature of the attack and the attacker, a tightly-controlled and precisely guided military response is very appropriate.

------------------
--Jynx

I used to be a kleptomanicac, but I took something for it.

i have no doubt they'll figure some way of terrorising the US again.. we're not as impervious as we'd like to think we are... but once again, if they want to play this game with the world's most undeniable bad asses... bring it on.

terrorism isn't funny, what's happened to UK in the past from the IRA isn't cool, and other nations from other terrorist groups... but I beleive the Giant that once was awakened by another nation has fallin asleep yet again, but this time, readily alert to wake up yet again, and prove it's dominance.