Canada Now The Only Top 5 Al-qaeda Target Not Hit

[heyrabbit]

Pointless to rationalize probabilities about who's more at risk?

 

Maybe Ellesmere Island is their next target then, for all we know.

 

You dolt. Whimsical?

 

You think the Trade Centres were a "whimsical" target? Or even London, for that matter?

They can be absolutely whimsical about chosing which location to target. The world trade center wasn't the only area of significance, moron. That's one of dozens of locations that could have been struck.

 

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Osama and Al-quaeda are particularily intelligent or rational. have you ever heard Osama or any other al-quaeda members speak? They're fucked. They're really well organized cowards. Being able to evade authorities doesn't necessarily make them intelligent.

 

I'm not impressed with Al-quaeda at all. They are supposedly so well organized with terrorist cells all over the world. If they are so "rational and intelligent" they'd be able to pull off more than 3 major attacks in 4 years. They have to worry about hiding expenses. Other than that, it's as complicated as filling a bag with explosives and getting on public transit.

[Doc]

It's one thing to get on public transit and do that, it's another to plant a number of devices and set them off with a timer instead of a radio device. The targets they've chosen in the past aren't whimsical at all. They have been calculated to have an impact. Bringing down two of the major structures devoted to corporate exploitation, flying a plane into the US' most secure defensive structure, and simultaneously detonating 4 bombs during the busiest part of a London morning is something far more then whimsical.

 

I won't disagree that they are cowards, but you really have to understand that they believe without a shadow of a doubt what they are doing is just. Matt makes mention of it everyday in his blog. Where's the front page news when 30 or 40 people die in an Iraqi car bomb explosion? Where's the front page news when the Americans and Iraqi Security Force go into a place like Fallujah and kill innocent civilians?

 

heyrabbit, you have to understand that al-Qaeda doesn't need to carry out more then a few attacks in the west per year to achieve they're objectives. They aren't thinking of this as a short term war. They're looking generationally with this. Many believe that the goals they seek won't be seen in their lifetime. The attitude in the west is that we can bring an end to terrorism. We never will be able to as long as there is a group of people who feel oppressed and shorted enough to believe that violence is the only solution to effecting change.

 

The twin towers weren't the only area of significance. You're correct in that. It was the one area where they would be able to have maximum exposure. New York is widely regarded as the media capital of the world. Why wouldn't you attack it first? If you really wanted to get your message out, it's the first place you'd hit. And since economic repression is one of the most prevalent forms of repression in the world, why not attack one of the symbols of western prosperity?

 

D

Edited July 11, 2005 by Doc

[Bizud]

I think that calling them crazy is going too far. They're all just really caught up in a movement that does not have a practical purpose. They don't believe that what they're doing is wrong. If you were put down all of your life would you not resent those who live in excess? And the West is even more of a target because we are different from the Muslims, on top of that.

It has nothing to do with the less fortunate being jealous of our affluence, that's just utter crap. The reason there's rabid anti-american, and anti-western, sentiment in many parts of the world is because the United States acts in its own interest to the detriment of these countries and peoples (supporting corrupt and dictatorial regimes, conducting terrorism), and the rest of the western world, Canada included, does the same.

 

And what's this "first place you'd hit" nonsense? Like there was some major war against the West that was declared on September 11th, 2001? This kind of terrorism is not a new problem, neither is al-Qaida. 9/11 just happened to be when the US stood up and took notice.

 

Finally, as to the structure of al-Qaida, try to remember that this is a decentralized "organization" (even using that word is kind of laughable) composed of autonomous cells - Osama doesn't communicate with them, doesn't know where they are, doesn't direct them. That's what makes them hard to combat, but talk of what "Osama" is planning doesn't make any sense. That just isn't how underground organizations work.

Edited July 11, 2005 by Bizud

[Maverick]

Pointless to rationalize probabilities about who's more at risk?

 

Maybe Ellesmere Island is their next target then, for all we know.

 

You dolt. Whimsical?

 

You think the Trade Centres were a "whimsical" target? Or even London, for that matter?

They can be absolutely whimsical about chosing which location to target. The world trade center wasn't the only area of significance, moron. That's one of dozens of locations that could have been struck.

 

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Osama and Al-quaeda are particularily intelligent or rational. have you ever heard Osama or any other al-quaeda members speak? They're fucked. They're really well organized cowards. Being able to evade authorities doesn't necessarily make them intelligent.

 

I'm not impressed with Al-quaeda at all. They are supposedly so well organized with terrorist cells all over the world. If they are so "rational and intelligent" they'd be able to pull off more than 3 major attacks in 4 years. They have to worry about hiding expenses. Other than that, it's as complicated as filling a bag with explosives and getting on public transit.

You're just lucky Doc replied first. You would have been locked in your room crying, otherwise.

[Doc]

so you're saying I was too nice?

 

;)

[heyrabbit]

My original point stands.terrorists will always find a way. There's not really anything you can do to stop it. If you beef up security in one spot they'll go to another.

 

Here's my opinion.

 

Ultimately, religion is the root cause of terrorism. You can make all the arguments you want about mistreatment by the West. But terrorist don't wake up one day and think, "that's wrong! I think I'll terrorize innocents." It takes years of indoctrinization and brainwashing by the culture they live in.

People make a distinction between regular muslims and extremists. That's fair, although the jump from pious to psychotic is much smaller than people think. A devout catholic, or a christian's mind is as separated from reality as extremists are. Think of how detrimental it is to a societies mental health when you live in a culture that brainwashes people into devouting their lives to superstition and irrational beliefs.Of course you're actions are going to be affected when you are separated from reality.

 

If you are mindless enough to believe in and "accept" the existence of god - the insecure and naive man's pacifier- than your mind is capable of accepting anything. This type of mind is extremely dangerous. We are seeing it in action.

 

George Bush is as fucked in the head as Osama. Not because of his actions, but because the root cause of his actions. He's working in the name of Jesus. Ain't that fuckin' scary.

 

Maverick: I'm shakin' in my boots, cowboy.

[Maverick]

Where did the queer Western talk come from? You a Stetson man? I don't swing that way, my friend.

[Doc]

Mav, seriously, the hostility is growing old. Don't you think there's enough bs in the world without needing to swing your e-penis in the air challenging all comers?

 

heyrabbit, I won't completely disagree with you on the religion being a root cause of terrorism. I guess if you look at the IRA in the 80's and 90's, you could view it as a fight of Protestantism vs. Catholicism or whatever (I must admit, I know very little about the details, but this seems to be the general idea I've gleaned). But for all the negatives that come from religion, there are so many more that believe in using their faith to help others instead of hurting.

 

I guess it depends on the individual. You are right about indoctrination and brainwashing though. A PRIME example is the American public following September 11. Instantly you have a nation of people ready to go to war, to seek vengeance. Or at least, that's what they'd have us believe...

 

D

[Moonlight_Graham]

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Osama and Al-quaeda are particularily intelligent or rational. have you ever heard Osama or any other al-quaeda members speak? They're fucked. They're really well organized cowards. Being able to evade authorities doesn't necessarily make them intelligent.

 

I'm not impressed with Al-quaeda at all. They are supposedly so well organized with terrorist cells all over the world. If they are so "rational and intelligent" they'd be able to pull off more than 3 major attacks in 4 years. They have to worry about hiding expenses. Other than that, it's as complicated as filling a bag with explosives and getting on public transit.

Are you fucking me? They organized to hit (and destroy, as a bonus) the WTC towers and the Pentagon (the freakin' military headquaters of the most powerful military in human history!) and would have plowed into the White House or Capital Hill if not for some brave passengers.

 

Thats quite advanced work. And Bin Laden himself has managed to hide well so far, much better than Saddam did, from the U.S. while being the most wanted man in the world & with a large U.S. bounty on his head.

 

And yes i have heard (aka read) Bin Laden speak. He seems quite intelligent. He has rationale for everything he does and thinks, even though i don't agree with most of it. He's not an idiot blathering out "duh i hate those fucking Americans, i want to kill those stupid bastards. Fuck you U.S.!"

[ecnarf]

Are you fucking me?

;)

 

345678

[sancco]

does Canada have troops in Iraq? i know Australia does, i reckon we're screwed. we're next. then again, if it happens it happens, in a world of globalisation its hard to avoid it.

 

"So far, in the "war on terror" initiated since 9-11, the USA and its allies have been responsible for over 13,000 civilian deaths, not only the 10,000+ in Iraq, but also 3,000+ civilian deaths in Afghanistan, another death toll that continues to rise long after the world's attention has moved on.

 

Elsewhere in the world over the same period, paramilitary forces hostile to the USA have killed 408 civilians in 18 attacks worldwide (see Table 1). Adding the official 9-11 death toll (as of October 29th 2003) brings the total to just under 3500"

 

 

America has killed more innocent civilians than the terroists have, yet the terroists were intent on doing this in the first place. Explain that? How is a supposedly efficient, organised American military sso inaccurate while Al-Queida (excuse spelling) can execute complicated plans with little resources. I'm not trying to make the you know what hit the fan, i just think media has a stranglehold over what we believe, and its best to do research on these sort of things and evaluate it for yourself.

 

check this site out, i found it interesting.

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_feb0704.htm

[ecnarf]

does Canada have troops in Iraq? i know Australia does, i reckon we're screwed. we're next. then again, if it happens it happens, in a world of globalisation its hard to avoid it.

 

"So far, in the "war on terror" initiated since 9-11, the USA and its allies have been responsible for over 13,000 civilian deaths, not only the 10,000+ in Iraq, but also 3,000+ civilian deaths in Afghanistan, another death toll that continues to rise long after the world's attention has moved on.

 

Elsewhere in the world over the same period, paramilitary forces hostile to the USA have killed 408 civilians in 18 attacks worldwide (see Table 1). Adding the official 9-11 death toll (as of October 29th 2003) brings the total to just under 3500"

 

 

America has killed more innocent civilians than the terroists have, yet the terroists were intent on doing this in the first place. Explain that? How is a supposedly efficient, organised American military sso inaccurate while Al-Queida (excuse spelling) can execute complicated plans with little resources. I'm not trying to make the you know what hit the fan, i just think media has a stranglehold over what we believe, and its best to do research on these sort of things and evaluate it for yourself.

 

check this site out, i found it interesting.

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_feb0704.htm

Canada does, indeed, have troops in Iraq, a small handfull that are on an exchange program with American / British soldiers. This doesn't constitute Canadian political or military support for the war, though.

 

And in Iraq, the casualty figures are 20,000 +, not 10,000+.

[sancco]

yeah its probably slightly outdated. i dunno who said it, but do you really think this is a religious war, a shihad? what are you basing this on? im not doubting you just curious

 

 

EDIT: i mean from bush's perspective - what's his motive?

Edited July 12, 2005 by sancco

[ecnarf]

It's a religious war because Bush has said that God himself directed him to attack Iraq...

[sancco]

ahahahahaha

 

ha

ha

heh

 

 

ahhhhhhhhhahahahahahaha

 

 

sorry im not completely up to date with what hes up to these days but thats hillarious. bush is a tool.

[heyrabbit]

Mav, seriously, the hostility is growing old. Don't you think there's enough bs in the world without needing to swing your e-penis in the air challenging all comers?

 

heyrabbit, I won't completely disagree with you on the religion being a root cause of terrorism. I guess if you look at the IRA in the 80's and 90's, you could view it as a fight of Protestantism vs. Catholicism or whatever (I must admit, I know very little about the details, but this seems to be the general idea I've gleaned). But for all the negatives that come from religion, there are so many more that believe in using their faith to help others instead of hurting.

 

I guess it depends on the individual. You are right about indoctrination and brainwashing though. A PRIME example is the American public following September 11. Instantly you have a nation of people ready to go to war, to seek vengeance. Or at least, that's what they'd have us believe...

 

D

The numbers speak for themselves. Look up the amount of people killed in human history over religion.

 

Look at this ridiculous on going battle between the Palestinains and Isreal over "holy land" for christ's sake.pardon my pun.It really is hard to believe.

 

Maverick: you have so many interesting well thought out things to say. I just can't help but feel sexually attracted to you.

 

Graham: No.

[sancco]

lol no comment

[juanpe]

Bush' (and British and the ex-president of Spain)'s interest has just to do with economics, with money, with power... his "excuse" was to say that God directed him to attack Iraq and what really surprises me is that religious people hadnt rebelled themselves against that excuse... he's lied to the world, he's lied to his citizens, and the worst thing? that people believed him (or had the same economical interests as him) and invaded Iraq

[supercanuk]

Bush' (and British and the ex-president of Spain)'s interest has just to do with economics, with money, with power... his "excuse" was to say that God directed him to attack Iraq and what really surprises me is that religious people hadnt rebelled themselves against that excuse... he's lied to the world, he's lied to his citizens, and the worst thing? that people believed him (or had the same economical interests as him) and invaded Iraq

ahh the almighty dollar... apparently its a higher calling. ;) :angry:

[sancco]

conspiracy theory

[mikebutt]

Just to add a quick note, its about security interests as well as economic interests. And when I say security interests I don't mean combating terrorism. If the United States was interested in combating terrorism they wouldn't be wasting time in Iraq. I mean base deployment and that sort of thing. Basically it's about the US doing whatever it damn well pleases.

Edited July 14, 2005 by mikebutt

[sancco]

but what are you gonna do about it? what can anyone do except the american people

[mikebutt]

Nothing for the time being, but the geopolitical order is changing. Europe will likely someday be acting in an international sense as though it were a single state. India and especially China will grow to superpower size someday. Brazil is going to be able challenge the US in Latin America. Russia is getting back on its feet and will wield some power again. I believe that eventually a geopolitical order will emerge that will be able to pressure the US and provide real competition for it.

[sancco]

thank god for the changing "geopolitics" and competition for America, cause it feels about time for ww3

[supercanuk]

thank god for the changing "geopolitics" and competition for America, cause it feels about time for ww3

Competitiion for America? I am pretty sure America will stop at nothing to continue its dominance.

Edited July 14, 2005 by supercanuk