The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Many terrorist organisations take accountability by providing some sort of detail, certainly the IRA did. You can't just blow something up and make a call saying "Oim fram de Oi Arr Ayyyy, Oi blew up yurr derty billdun". They won;t believe you.
When you see something like "someone claiming to be from Al-Quaeda" etc, they don't actually have any confirmation.
When you see something like "someone claiming to be from Al-Quaeda" etc, they don't actually have any confirmation.
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: