London - We are with you!

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:32 pm

Mike wrote: It will be interesting to see if the IRA had any role in this, indirect or otherwise

It doesn't fit their pattern, Mike. They often would notify people just before bombs went off. They aren't into a body count the way al qaeda is.

Plus... Both Catholic AND Prodestant militants have been at peace lately. It's one of the great successes of this generation. Ireland's subsequent economic boom is too good for anyone to want to screw it all up. It's so good in fact that lately they have a net immigration.

- Bill

Mary S · Post by **Mary S** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:35 pm

I agree - the IRA has been winding down over the last few years.

Anyone else have a seething rage in their heart??

No, just a profound sense of sadness that the human race is capable of doing this to itself....

MikeK · Post by **MikeK** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:55 pm

It doesn't fit their pattern, Mike. They often would notify people just before bombs went off. They aren't into a body count the way al qaeda is.

True, but a tango is a tango is a tango. Patterns can always change as 9/11 demonstrated. With that said I don't think the IRA was directly involved but I'm sure there are contacts that both groups share.

Mary S · Post by **Mary S** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:58 pm

Mike this might help answer your question concerning common contacts.

http://www.terrorismanswers.org/groups/ira.html

jorvik · Post by **jorvik** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 7:16 pm

It could have been the ira, they are sch*tthouses, they don't have honour, and they have trained with hammas....also at Iniskillen they directed folks into the blast area

.it's not a question of "pick your terrorist group".......they are all bad, ira, hammas etc..but Y'know sometimes I hate to be proved right, I was right about WMD, and I said that there would be an atrocity in London........and tony bliar standing there looking so shocked f*ckwitt

.i said this would happen and I'm no einstein......and I'm sorry to say folks it'll get worse

...we will pull out of Iraq, bettya..and it will slide into Islamic fundamentalism........14th century minds with 21st century technology.to use against us ...scary

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 7:57 pm

Are you more interested in being "right" to support your anti-Balir views, or are you basing your opinions on something substantive?

I can say "We will have a terrorist attack in the U.S. because we honor the Easter Bunny" and will be "proven right" when it happens. It will happen, after all; that's a near 100% certainty. We were minding our own business on September 11, 2001 and it happened. It had been going on for more than a decade before that. So when the next U.S.-based terrorist event comes, will I have proven causality?

I want to remind you that the U.K. lost many prominent citizens on 9/11, and one of the whacko groups claiming responsibility mentioned Afghanistan in their reasoning. They hate it when we mess up their grand poobah's bachelor pad, you know...

- Bill

jorvik · Post by **jorvik** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:05 pm

I take no delight in being "right" in fact I'm quite sad that what seems so obvious to me .seems to elude better educated folk than I

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:15 pm

We're all sad, jorvik. In this we agree 100%.

I'm only pointing out the issue of causality. That's something which "better educated folk" work very hard to investigate. With this kind of running experiment, there's no proof.

If you have a dozen parallel universes, perhaps we can apply for a grant to study the matter...

Yes, jorvik, reasonable people will make connections. But to what end? The same connections have been made to prove the opposite case. That's why the U.K. is where it is right now. One could reasonably argue that a much, much worse scenario was in the making before the organizational structure of al qaeda was flattened, and Hussein's war machine was dismantled. Even Libya's change of heart of recent has been attributed to coalition attitudes towards international mischief. An analysis I heard just today pointed to the relatively small loss of life compared to the kind of splash al qaeda looks for. Two of the bombs didn't even go off, giving evidence that ultimately may be the undoing of the perpetrators. (This is how the Madrid plotters met their demise.) Not only was this a senseless act, but it was the work of amateurs.

There is a time to think about all these things. Right now - speaking as a scientist - we need more data. And right now - speaking as a human being - we need time for grief.

- Bill

Stryke · Post by **Stryke** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:26 pm

We could Nuke the Middle east to Glass and I suspect those left would still bomb .

How do we educate the fanatical and ignorant .

Huge difference between we could and we should

I just dont think these folks will give up because of military action .

jorvik · Post by **jorvik** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:33 pm

quote
"I just dont think these folks will give up because of military action .

no they won't, military action won't work at all

here or in Iraq

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:48 pm

I'm a supporter of the use of tactical nukes. For example, had I been the president of the United States, I would have authorized the use of a Neutron Bomb to irradicate Al Sadr and his filthy goons from the Mosque in Najaf. Yes, I would have had the commander clear out the city and then detonate a neutron bomb about.. oh... 100-200 yards from the mosque. The radiation would have killed everyone in it but the building would be just fine.. oh, and there probably wouldn't be as intense of an insurgency as there is now because that is where all the schit actually started. I will go so far as to say the insurgency in Iraq as it is now is directly related to how we handled Al Sadr.

MikeK · Post by **MikeK** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:58 pm

Mike this might help answer your question concerning common contacts.

Thanks for the link Mary, but I was thinking more about suppliers and other support rather than tactics. If the IRA goes dorment that means their old supply chain will go looking elsewhere for business, and if that business is with others in the same area of operations so much the better for them. There are also common sources of income for the larger groups including FARC, the IRA and Hezbollah which is the drug trade. Let's just say that the war on drugs was very extensive and there might have been more than one goal for slowing the flow of narcotics onto US streets.

Were these guys rookies?

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:01 am

I feel that only the Islamic community will stop the Islamic terrorists.

In a documentary on 911 an Islamic school from which the falling of the towers was watched had the teachers and students interviewed.

They were all in shock and deeply saddened by the tragedy.

However, when the students were asked about suicide bombers (in general) they viewed them as heroes.

The teachers were totally thrown and dismayed by such thoughts.

I think that in some of the conflicts while the majority of the Islamic community detests terrorism there may be an underlying understanding of the middle east conflict that generate some level of sympathy.

These are terrorists that will only be found when family and friends decide enough is enough and step up to stop them.

We cannot stop them from the outside.

Funding has to stop. Governments and individuals have to stop funding the terrorists.

Governments and individuals have to root them out and stop them.

Governments and individuals have to decide this is not what they want connected to a beautiful faith and they must decide not to feel any sympathy for these aberrant few.

I believe that only when the Islamic world decides to step up will these evil horrid people who are bastardizing a wonderful religion be stopped.

I hope it happens before the rest of the world says enough and over reacts.
_________________

Sad thing is that, for 200 years, the islamic world was pretty much isolated. And thier leaders kept them like this
This is still a problem. Even secular dictators like saddam and Musharaf did little.

Saddam maintained control by making one sect of islam go against another.

Musharaf will supress most of the extremism in the border of pakistan/afganistan but will let the rest go rampant(as long as it doesnt threaten his power, he wont do anything)

And the saudi's? Dont even get me started......mainstream islam that is practiced through out the world is unfortunatly horribly supressed there. Islam is against rulership by blood, or anyone being superior by blood. But the saudi royal family looks down on anyone not arabian, if you are a black muslim(i mean black muslim, not the 'nation') you are an 'inferior' muslim. And i dont even have to talk about the woman.

Lots and lots of reform is needed in the muslim world........starting with the arab nations.

Islam it self promots peace, but the muslim world is living in the middle ages.

So whats my point?

REFORM WILL TAKE A VERY VERY VERY LONG TIME.

IJ · Post by IJ » Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:37 pm

Jorvik, agreed that military "success" in Iraq is a long difficult road. But instead of just pointing this out, do you have any suggestions? I mean, what would YOU do with the power to control our military? Leave it to total chaos and have to go back in later or what?

Tony, I suppose it's hyperbole, and cynicism.... but do you really think it'll do the USA any long term good to poison large swaths of soverign nations with radiation? Something tells me the insurgents would STILL be upset about the treatment of their mosque if it was unusable for hundreds of years. Perhaps a more temporary cloud of poisonous gas would suffice? Even then how would using WMD against the country for which that was our primary gripe look to them and to the world? Maybe... a perimeter! And wait for them to run out of food! No WMD used.

Nor would I advise burying the entire region. The place is full of heroes as well as villains. What about those who risked their lives--then lost em--fighting saddam? The guy who wrestled the suicide bomber from a crowd in iraq and gave his life saving many others? The guy who tracked down our captured soldier? Etc. Never mind the millions of innocents who had the misfortune of being born in the wrong place. And don't forget that HAD we nuked them to glass, london still would have been bombed. Those people didn't commute from Baghdad.

jorvik · Post by **jorvik** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:24 pm

Quote
Jorvik, agreed that military "success" in Iraq is a long difficult road. But instead of just pointing this out, do you have any suggestions? I mean, what would YOU do with the power to control our military? Leave it to total chaos and have to go back in later or what?

Ian, it's not just a long difficult road.it's a road to nowhere

...You won't get the changes that you want in Iraq. It will go to Fundamentalism or something else.it won't go to US style democracy, complete with burger bars,wallmarts and presidents with coloring books. We have been let down badly by the leaders in our countries....one day we will just have to walk away