London Bombins

[Malchik]

I think Bush already has "lost face". Most people I know dont support his ideas  :/ .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can I ask precisely what it is they don't support and when they changed their minds? Many of the Americans I know were in favour when the invasion occurred and have turned against only because they are not winning. It's the 'get out before any more soldiers are killed, who cares about the Iraqi's' syndrome. After all Saddam has gone.

 

But of course getting rid of Saddam was never the issue for the US government which is why they have to ignore groundswell opinion. The Iraqi oilfields are not secure unless the US maintains a high profile at least around the oil fields. This they could not legally do if an elected Iraqi government threw them out. Until they can stabilise the government, if ever they can, they cannot pull out.

 

Perhaps the Americans are beginning to realise that the US president dances to the tune of the oil industry not to the wishes of the electorate?

[CLB1110]

By saying they dont support his ideas I mean they didnt support the war at all. Take my cousin for instance. Alot of his friends are the army, and are in or were in iraq. Since his friends are in danger because of Bush it doesnt give him a very good disposition toward Bush.

[Dilvish]

Has your cousin asked his friends why they joined the military? They must have understood that there was danger involved.

[dagoth v.s fargoth]

the wise saying goes

 

violence only begets more violence

 

until then, i thought begets wasn't even a word

 

so for thr above reason, we should definately fight back

 

u hav 2 admit, the news wud finally become slightly interesting

[Peregrine]

Even for a semi-literate kid like you, that post is sad. Seriously, that makes no sense at all. The phrase "violence begets violence" means that violence produces more (literally, to father) violence, so you shouldn't use it. If someone hurts you, you shouldn't hurt them in revenge, because it will only lead to more violence. Whether you agree or disagree with the statement, at least get it right.

 

 

It makes no sense, because after that pacifist quote, you argue for violent counter-attack. Besides this obvious flaw, there are two more:

 

1) Attack who? In case you haven't noticed, they haven't found an obvious target. Unless you're Bush, "this guy hurt us, lets go kill this other guy over here" is not a valid strategy. The problem with terrorism is that it rarely gives you a clear target to attack.

 

2) You're arguing for violent retribution so that your news can be more interesting. This isn't ancient Rome, where it was considered acceptable to murder lots of people for entertainment. I'm very, very glad that you don't have any political power, but very frightened by the knowledge that you will someday be able to vote.

[dagoth v.s fargoth]

if we don't fight back, what else can we do? roll over and just let them keep getting away with it? and besides, it's not like people never die on the news anyway. yes, we could arrest them. but as you said, they haven't found a definite suspect. if you can think of some other way that's better, i'd love 2 hear it, but i can't see it. i realise that my last post does sound like i encourage violence, but i don't. i just can't see a better way, is all

 

and why does being semi-literate matter in the slightest? this is a place 4 complete strangers 2 talk about what they want, nobody wants 2 know if they're literate.

 

i'm sorry i got the statement wrong, it still means the same thing.

 

remember peregrine, this is a place 2 talk about important subjects, not just 2 flame each other.

 

i'm sorry if this post sounds offensive also, because it isn't meant 2 b so.

[Malchik]

It would help dvf if you followed the basis rules of punctuation such as capitalisation and used less shorthand speech forms. These are not text messages and so keeping it short is not an issue. You will note that the forum rules request people not to use these shorthand methods of writing. It is a matter of degree. No one is going to object to the odd 4 for 'for' but the more it is used the more the post has to be interpreted instead of read and that makes it annoying to many members of the forum. If you have something to say that you want people to read its only polite that you make it straightforward for them to be able to do so.

 

I agree with Peregrine's points, although I would me lighter on the sarcasm. If we return violence with violence who do we direct it against? There are plenty in the UK who believe spitting at innocent Moslem women strikes a blow for Britain. Such useless narrow-minded bigots are far less value to this country than those they are spitting at. I'd be most inclined to use violence against them. The undermining of stable societies is one of the main desires of the terrorists. Moving towards a cycle of increasing violence plays straight into their hands. In other words they are manipulating you exactly as they intend. Stand back for a minute and think, what is it that would hurt them most and you'll find violence is not the answer.

 

If they blow themselves up they are simply fools. If we shoot them they become martyrs and nothing attracts more people to a cause than martyrdom!

[Stampede]

Fools they may be. But I doubt the victims and their families would be willing to write them off so lightly.

 

The authorities have no choice but to pigeonhole a nation because of the acts of fundamentalists. Until someone comes up with a better solution, I will back the strict screening and security.

 

One would have to wonder though if a docile muslim would be converted to supporting these terror acts (not taking part) after enough degredation from policing forces and by what he perceives as "the west".

 

It is such a viscous circle, but when you get backed into a corner you fight however you can. The terrorists seem to care little for killing innocent muslims, why should the west worry about those who would take offence or be inconvenienced?? If it means there is less chance of having to scrape the melted flesh of a child off the side of a wall, then go for it.

 

By stating this though, I am not implying war. War should be a last resort if even that and as Perry said, war against who? They are striking in England itself! Any outspoken fundamentalist should be detained, instead of exploiting the benefits of their base of operations.

[Peregrine]

if we don't fight back, what else can we do? roll over and just let them keep getting away with it?

 

And I repeat, who exactly do you want to fight back against?

 

What you can do is increase security, and try to stop terrorist acts before they happen.

 

and besides, it's not like people never die on the news anyway

 

Of course they do, but what you were suggesting is that we attack someone so your news can be less boring. Roman gladiator games in the 21st century. Hopefully you can see the moral problem with sentencing people to death so you can be entertained.

 

yes, we could arrest them. but as you said, they haven't found a definite suspect. if you can think of some other way that's better, i'd love 2 hear it, but i can't see it. i realise that my last post does sound like i encourage violence, but i don't. i just can't see a better way, is all

 

Other way than what, "kill someone unrelated to it"? It's not too hard to do that, even "do nothing" would be better.

 

 

and why does being semi-literate matter in the slightest? this is a place 4 complete strangers 2 talk about what they want, nobody wants 2 know if they're literate.

 

Because it shows two things:

 

1) Your lack of intelligence and/or maturity. Nobody over 20 years old considers AOLish like you write in to be acceptable. We're not impressed, you're not fitting in, you're just making yourself look like you have the writing knowledge of a 5 year old.

 

2) Your lack of concern for what you're writing. If you don't care enough about what you're writing to use coherent sentences, why should we care enough to read it or take it seriously?

 

i'm sorry i got the statement wrong, it still means the same thing.

 

No it doesn't. You're using a pacifist statement to support the use of more violence. That's the exact opposite of what it means! Normally I'd call it amusing irony, but with you it's pretty obvious that you just don't know what you're talking about.

 

remember peregrine, this is a place 2 talk about important subjects, not just 2 flame each other.

 

And you'll notice that every argument you have made has been replied to.

[Stampede]

Don't get too frightened off by Peregrine DvF he's like the Skeletor of the debates forum. He's scary and quite evil, but deep down he's a good sort.

 

I would suggest you think carefully about your arguments here though, the debates forum is a tough place. I hardly ever post here...the stench of dead noobs makes me wretch. Keep on posting though, the goal is to attempt to convey your point and leave your opponents stunned by a morning star of wit.

 

Let's keep it civil guys. To quote some excellent philosophers of the past:

 

Try to see it my way,

Do I have to keep on talking till I can’t go on?

While you see it your way,

Run the risk of knowing that our love may soon be gone.

We can work it out,

We can work it out.

Think of what you’re saying.

You can get it wrong and still you think that it’s alright.

Think of what I’m saying,

We can work it out and get it straight, or say good night.

We can work it out,

We can work it out.

Life is very short, and there’s no time

For fussing and fighting, my friend.