The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Reading about the Istanbul bombings, it wasn't really a surprise to see someone quoted as claiming it was linked to al-Qaeda - it seems like that's always the case these days.
But can we really believe them?
Part of what makes these claims difficult to believe is the way they appear to be made as a knee-jerk reaction, with no evidence, or even reasoning, given to back them up.
Perhaps a bigger problem is because of the boy who cried wolf. That boy being George Bush, who was notably forced to admit to having lied about claiming there was evidence linking al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
Even putting aside all other issues of possible government lies and distrust, this one instance is enough to at least question the standard veil of 'we can't show you the evidence for security reasons'.
Enough to question it, but that's not to say it isn't sometimes true.
Which leaves us without anything other than trust and guesswork to analyse such claims.
Something else sticks in my throat too. Whenever Bush speaks about the justification for the Iraq war, it now seems to go along these lines:
'Terrorists attacked us.. 9/11... we're on a war on terror in response... the war on iraq is war on terrorists'
Where does the reasoning falter? Linking 9/11 to Saddam. He wasn't responsible, yet Bush uses a link between the two to justify the war.
And the same is true when he talks about the prospects of figthing anyone else (bar al-Qaeda).
How can he (or anyone else) strenghten the argument? Blame al-Qaeda.
In reality, whatever you think of the morality of the war on terror, there is no single evil empire of 'terrorists' conspiring to hurt the west, only numerous smaller groups, all with their own agendas.
However many people are killed in the war on terror, it can never avenge 9/11. Al-Qaeda were responsible, not Hussein, not Kim Jong Il, not any collection of foreigners with a bloody way of expressing their politics.
And they certainly aren't all in league with al-Qaeda.
If the civilian price is not too high, preventing genuine terrorist groups from posing a threat to other civilians must be a worthy cause.
But it won't bring anyone back, and it won't avenge their deaths.
But can we really believe them?
Part of what makes these claims difficult to believe is the way they appear to be made as a knee-jerk reaction, with no evidence, or even reasoning, given to back them up.
Perhaps a bigger problem is because of the boy who cried wolf. That boy being George Bush, who was notably forced to admit to having lied about claiming there was evidence linking al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
Even putting aside all other issues of possible government lies and distrust, this one instance is enough to at least question the standard veil of 'we can't show you the evidence for security reasons'.
Enough to question it, but that's not to say it isn't sometimes true.
Which leaves us without anything other than trust and guesswork to analyse such claims.
Something else sticks in my throat too. Whenever Bush speaks about the justification for the Iraq war, it now seems to go along these lines:
'Terrorists attacked us.. 9/11... we're on a war on terror in response... the war on iraq is war on terrorists'
Where does the reasoning falter? Linking 9/11 to Saddam. He wasn't responsible, yet Bush uses a link between the two to justify the war.
And the same is true when he talks about the prospects of figthing anyone else (bar al-Qaeda).
How can he (or anyone else) strenghten the argument? Blame al-Qaeda.
In reality, whatever you think of the morality of the war on terror, there is no single evil empire of 'terrorists' conspiring to hurt the west, only numerous smaller groups, all with their own agendas.
However many people are killed in the war on terror, it can never avenge 9/11. Al-Qaeda were responsible, not Hussein, not Kim Jong Il, not any collection of foreigners with a bloody way of expressing their politics.
And they certainly aren't all in league with al-Qaeda.
If the civilian price is not too high, preventing genuine terrorist groups from posing a threat to other civilians must be a worthy cause.
But it won't bring anyone back, and it won't avenge their deaths.
Page:
Skarra wrote:
> I'm not suggesting that the alternative to war is inaction, but i am
> saying war was the best option, in my view. I'm not pro-war, i just
> recognise peace is sometimes won at the barrel of a gun.
And do you really think it'll be a lasting peace? Do you remember the Cold War? I do, and if that is Peace at the barrel of a gun, you can keep it.
I do agree that sometimes war is necessary; the Balkans conflict springs to mind, but even then that was only cos we'd made such a pigs ear of things (allowing Milosovic to stay in power? Making deals with him? We did all this and more). But only as a last resort. Can you explain to me why the war was a last resort? After all, the excuses that were used (WOMD, terrorism being rife in Iraq) have now been shown as either lies, or mistaken beliefs at best. Breach of UN resolutions? Why haven't Israel been invaded then? Freeing the Iraqi people? Even a senior member of the US government has publically admitted that the US would not have gone to war if this was the sole reason. So what are we left with? Getting rid of a dictator? So why do the US and UK support so many of them?
>
> I mean, what are the other options.
As I mentioned earlier; economic and diplomatic pressure. It's what is being done (albeit somewhat ineffectually at the moment...) with North Korea. It brought an end to apartheid in South Africa.
>I do assume that you did want to
> free the people of Iraq, but can i ask what you'de have done to free
> them?
Yup, you can certainly ask;
- I've written to my local MP expressing my disgust at the land grab (I did so last December, when it had became obvious that war was inevitable) and outlining my opinions as to how Iraq would have been better dealt with.
- I've argued (endlessly it seems...) with a range of people; pro war, anti american, mindlessly stupid (yes, Belldandy again...) about this. I don't claim to have changed many opinions, but I've at least got people thinking about other methods.
- I've made donations to the Red Cross specifically aimed at humanitarian relief in Iraq
- I've emailed a letter to the White House expressing my support for their efforts in rebuilding Iraq.
Now none of this is particularly much, I admit. But it's something, and you'll find that a lot of anti-war people do much the same sort of things.
Now; can I ask you what YOU have done to free the people of Iraq?
> I'm not suggesting that the alternative to war is inaction, but i am
> saying war was the best option, in my view. I'm not pro-war, i just
> recognise peace is sometimes won at the barrel of a gun.
And do you really think it'll be a lasting peace? Do you remember the Cold War? I do, and if that is Peace at the barrel of a gun, you can keep it.
I do agree that sometimes war is necessary; the Balkans conflict springs to mind, but even then that was only cos we'd made such a pigs ear of things (allowing Milosovic to stay in power? Making deals with him? We did all this and more). But only as a last resort. Can you explain to me why the war was a last resort? After all, the excuses that were used (WOMD, terrorism being rife in Iraq) have now been shown as either lies, or mistaken beliefs at best. Breach of UN resolutions? Why haven't Israel been invaded then? Freeing the Iraqi people? Even a senior member of the US government has publically admitted that the US would not have gone to war if this was the sole reason. So what are we left with? Getting rid of a dictator? So why do the US and UK support so many of them?
>
> I mean, what are the other options.
As I mentioned earlier; economic and diplomatic pressure. It's what is being done (albeit somewhat ineffectually at the moment...) with North Korea. It brought an end to apartheid in South Africa.
>I do assume that you did want to
> free the people of Iraq, but can i ask what you'de have done to free
> them?
Yup, you can certainly ask;
- I've written to my local MP expressing my disgust at the land grab (I did so last December, when it had became obvious that war was inevitable) and outlining my opinions as to how Iraq would have been better dealt with.
- I've argued (endlessly it seems...) with a range of people; pro war, anti american, mindlessly stupid (yes, Belldandy again...) about this. I don't claim to have changed many opinions, but I've at least got people thinking about other methods.
- I've made donations to the Red Cross specifically aimed at humanitarian relief in Iraq
- I've emailed a letter to the White House expressing my support for their efforts in rebuilding Iraq.
Now none of this is particularly much, I admit. But it's something, and you'll find that a lot of anti-war people do much the same sort of things.
Now; can I ask you what YOU have done to free the people of Iraq?
I'm not suggesting that the alternative to war is inaction, but i am saying war was the best option, in my view. I'm not pro-war, i just recognise peace is sometimes won at the barrel of a gun.
I mean, what are the other options. I do assume that you did want to free the people of Iraq, but can i ask what you'de have done to free them?
I mean, what are the other options. I do assume that you did want to free the people of Iraq, but can i ask what you'de have done to free them?
Skarra wrote:
>
> Perhaps in the short run, it will lead to more attacks, but if they
> did nothing, the problem won't go away.
Why do you assume that the alternative to war is to do nothing? Is that what you really think being anti-war is about? There are so many other ways to skin a cat than to declare a mindless and needless war.
Also, do you consider 50 years to be short term? Because that's the length of time that the White House are mentioning.
> After all, since the war on
> terror, there have been few, or no attacks on the scale of the 1993
> attacks and the 2001 attacks on the WTC in the US/UK. So, they must
> be doing something right.
No, there have just been attacks on US and UK citizens abroad. Does that make it better?
And here's a thing; there hadn't been any attacks on that scale BEFORE 9/11 either. In fact, not a single consulate in the world had been bombed by Al-Quaida prior to 9/11. Now the British consulate in Turkey has been bombed, and the US and UK embassy's in Saudi get evacuated with alarming regularity. We're no more or less secure than we ever were here in the UK, but if you want to leave the country the risks have rocketed.
Doing something right? Total and utter asshat. If that were the case, where is Bill Clinton's medal for making sure nothing of the scale of 9/11 happened beforehand?
>
> The ones in other nations are just because they are good ways of
> attacking us, but attacks against abroad interests have been
> happening for decades, so the war won't really effect that.
Right...and that will be of comfort to the people who died yesterday then? That it's "been happening for decades"? Well...if that is the case, could you provide me with links to a website that gives details of attacks by Islamic terrorists on foreign consulates and western owned sites prior to 9/11?
I'll say to you what I said to Belldandy (though make no mistake; I'm not comparing you to him!!); these are people dying. Not numbers. And more people are dying because of Dubya's stupidity and Blair's poodle impressions than would have died had the US and UK governments dealt with the terrorist problem via a mix of carrot and stick.
>
> And the question of invading Iraq will cause more attacks. First,
> 9/11's already happened.
Erm...and? What the hell has Iraq got to do with 9/11? Even Dubya has admitted no links.
What I will tell you though is that barely any extremist Islamic groups existed in Iraq prior to this war. Now there are god knows how many. And they've got a big source of recruits now as well...
>
> Also, think of this, we don't invade Iraq, terrorists say:
> "I'll hold a holy war against the West?
>
> Or, we do invade Iraq, and terrorists say:
> "Right, i'll really, really hold a hold war sagainst the West.
> It's not going to make that much of a difference. A Holy War's a Holy
> War!
Uhh...no offence, but don't you think you're being a little simplistic? Again, you're assuming that the only alternative to war is inaction and that simply isn't true.
But here's a scenario for you to consider:
America invades Iraq. Lots of Iraqi's die and are continuing to die because of this invasion. Lots of good Moslems see this and resent America's occupation of an Islamic nation. Terrorists get more recruits.
OR
America and the UK bring to bear economic pressure on Iraq (the US was the biggest purchasor of Iraqi oil until 2001), and provide aid to the few dissidents who didn't get massacred the last time we encouraged an uprising. Saddam falls, the country is not occupied, and the terrorists don't have the excuse to recruit more people.
Which of these is preferable?
I'm grossly oversimplifying what I believe should have happened, and I accept that the terrorists will get some recruits no matter what. But this war increases them; it doesn't destroy terrorism, it breeds it. If the USA and UK cause terror in other nations (and they most assuredly do), then people will cause terror to the UK and USA.
I want to make something else clear as it occurs to me that I have rather a combatative style of debating at times; I utterly and totally disagree with your opinion, but I appreciate your taking the time to post and expand on it.
>
> Perhaps in the short run, it will lead to more attacks, but if they
> did nothing, the problem won't go away.
Why do you assume that the alternative to war is to do nothing? Is that what you really think being anti-war is about? There are so many other ways to skin a cat than to declare a mindless and needless war.
Also, do you consider 50 years to be short term? Because that's the length of time that the White House are mentioning.
> After all, since the war on
> terror, there have been few, or no attacks on the scale of the 1993
> attacks and the 2001 attacks on the WTC in the US/UK. So, they must
> be doing something right.
No, there have just been attacks on US and UK citizens abroad. Does that make it better?
And here's a thing; there hadn't been any attacks on that scale BEFORE 9/11 either. In fact, not a single consulate in the world had been bombed by Al-Quaida prior to 9/11. Now the British consulate in Turkey has been bombed, and the US and UK embassy's in Saudi get evacuated with alarming regularity. We're no more or less secure than we ever were here in the UK, but if you want to leave the country the risks have rocketed.
Doing something right? Total and utter asshat. If that were the case, where is Bill Clinton's medal for making sure nothing of the scale of 9/11 happened beforehand?
>
> The ones in other nations are just because they are good ways of
> attacking us, but attacks against abroad interests have been
> happening for decades, so the war won't really effect that.
Right...and that will be of comfort to the people who died yesterday then? That it's "been happening for decades"? Well...if that is the case, could you provide me with links to a website that gives details of attacks by Islamic terrorists on foreign consulates and western owned sites prior to 9/11?
I'll say to you what I said to Belldandy (though make no mistake; I'm not comparing you to him!!); these are people dying. Not numbers. And more people are dying because of Dubya's stupidity and Blair's poodle impressions than would have died had the US and UK governments dealt with the terrorist problem via a mix of carrot and stick.
>
> And the question of invading Iraq will cause more attacks. First,
> 9/11's already happened.
Erm...and? What the hell has Iraq got to do with 9/11? Even Dubya has admitted no links.
What I will tell you though is that barely any extremist Islamic groups existed in Iraq prior to this war. Now there are god knows how many. And they've got a big source of recruits now as well...
>
> Also, think of this, we don't invade Iraq, terrorists say:
> "I'll hold a holy war against the West?
>
> Or, we do invade Iraq, and terrorists say:
> "Right, i'll really, really hold a hold war sagainst the West.
> It's not going to make that much of a difference. A Holy War's a Holy
> War!
Uhh...no offence, but don't you think you're being a little simplistic? Again, you're assuming that the only alternative to war is inaction and that simply isn't true.
But here's a scenario for you to consider:
America invades Iraq. Lots of Iraqi's die and are continuing to die because of this invasion. Lots of good Moslems see this and resent America's occupation of an Islamic nation. Terrorists get more recruits.
OR
America and the UK bring to bear economic pressure on Iraq (the US was the biggest purchasor of Iraqi oil until 2001), and provide aid to the few dissidents who didn't get massacred the last time we encouraged an uprising. Saddam falls, the country is not occupied, and the terrorists don't have the excuse to recruit more people.
Which of these is preferable?
I'm grossly oversimplifying what I believe should have happened, and I accept that the terrorists will get some recruits no matter what. But this war increases them; it doesn't destroy terrorism, it breeds it. If the USA and UK cause terror in other nations (and they most assuredly do), then people will cause terror to the UK and USA.
I want to make something else clear as it occurs to me that I have rather a combatative style of debating at times; I utterly and totally disagree with your opinion, but I appreciate your taking the time to post and expand on it.
Light wrote:
> My beef with Dubya and Blair boils down to this; the approach they
> have taken will lead to far more
> terrorism worldwide. This war on terror will cause FAR more terror
> attacks than it stops in my opinion.
Perhaps in the short run, it will lead to more attacks, but if they did nothing, the problem won't go away. After all, since the war on terror, there have been few, or no attacks on the scale of the 1993 attacks and the 2001 attacks on the WTC in the US/UK. So, they must be doing something right.
The ones in other nations are just because they are good ways of attacking us, but attacks against abroad interests have been happening for decades, so the war won't really effect that.
And the question of invading Iraq will cause more attacks. First, 9/11's already happened.
Also, think of this, we don't invade Iraq, terrorists say:
"I'll hold a holy war against the West"
Or, we do invade Iraq, and terrorists say:
"Right, i'll really, really hold a hold war sagainst the West. It's not going to make that much of a difference. A Holy War's a Holy War!
> My beef with Dubya and Blair boils down to this; the approach they
> have taken will lead to far more
> terrorism worldwide. This war on terror will cause FAR more terror
> attacks than it stops in my opinion.
Perhaps in the short run, it will lead to more attacks, but if they did nothing, the problem won't go away. After all, since the war on terror, there have been few, or no attacks on the scale of the 1993 attacks and the 2001 attacks on the WTC in the US/UK. So, they must be doing something right.
The ones in other nations are just because they are good ways of attacking us, but attacks against abroad interests have been happening for decades, so the war won't really effect that.
And the question of invading Iraq will cause more attacks. First, 9/11's already happened.
Also, think of this, we don't invade Iraq, terrorists say:
"I'll hold a holy war against the West"
Or, we do invade Iraq, and terrorists say:
"Right, i'll really, really hold a hold war sagainst the West. It's not going to make that much of a difference. A Holy War's a Holy War!
Personally, I have no problems believing that this was Al-Quaida. For all I lay into Dubya and Blair, make no mistake that I prefer them and western democracy (such as it is) to the borderline fascism of Al-Quaida (or more accurately, of Wahhabi Moslems; most of the terror groups from the Arab nations seem to draw the majority of their followers from this new and utterly hateful branch of Islam).
My beef with Dubya and Blair boils down to this; the approach they have taken (illegal invasion of Iraq whilst continuing to allow Arial Sharon free reign to butcher as many Palestinians as he likes, and condemning the Palestinians who retaliate) will lead to far more terrorism worldwide. This war on terror will cause FAR more terror attacks than it stops in my opinion.
My beef with Dubya and Blair boils down to this; the approach they have taken (illegal invasion of Iraq whilst continuing to allow Arial Sharon free reign to butcher as many Palestinians as he likes, and condemning the Palestinians who retaliate) will lead to far more terrorism worldwide. This war on terror will cause FAR more terror attacks than it stops in my opinion.
Kyz21 wrote:
> Prove it
You prove it wasn't them.
In this case, it's guilty until proven otherwise. The attack had all the trade marks of them. A truck bomb, well timed, well organised, they don't give a fig about civilians in the area, and the phone claims. All of this poins to them, and do you really think it wasn't them, just because it normally is.
> Prove it
You prove it wasn't them.
In this case, it's guilty until proven otherwise. The attack had all the trade marks of them. A truck bomb, well timed, well organised, they don't give a fig about civilians in the area, and the phone claims. All of this poins to them, and do you really think it wasn't them, just because it normally is.
All they have to do is show the Telephone line details for that time, which line are active.
Do you think terrorists use 141 to withhold their numbers?
Do you think terrorists use 141 to withhold their numbers?
Prove it
The reason Al-Quaeda are being blamed, isn't because there a scape goat, but because just minutes after the bombings, they phoned in a claim all the explosions were down to them.
Al-Quaeda are basically a scapegoat for bombings and terrorist attacks and uneducated people such as politicians and news-casters blame them for unaccountable acts of terrorism.
Page: