Bombs kill at least 150 in bali tourist night spot

[Chill 0]

Heres an example:

They find out who bombed it and it turns out to be a Indonesian. Does Australia go and bomb Indonesia?

Why not? The USA bomded Afganistan and now Iraq!

Im just trying to point out how stupid that kind of thought is! All countries have extremist, so do we punish all people of the same belief/race for the actions of the extreme minority?

[ralphwiggum 6]

if the bomber was an Indonesian, he did it within his country. AQ went beyond its borders and attacked US soil. If AQ did it to American hotspot in Kabul then, US would not have taken military action. however, the Afghanistan gov't would do so.

see the difference?  

so is it ok for AQ to attack NY, but not for US to Afghanistan?

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Oct. 14 2002,06:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if the bomber was an Indonesian, he did it within his country. AQ went beyond its borders and attacked US soil. If AQ did it to American hotspot in Kabul then, US would not have taken military action. however, the Afghanistan gov't would do so.

see the difference?  

so is it ok for AQ to attack NY, but not for US to Afghanistan?<span id='postcolor'>

Ralph, seriously, if it was a US hotspot overseas, say a US embassy in the Middle East, and as many people died, the US reaction would have probably been quite similar...I think the important fact is which countries' civilians die, as much as where it happens.

- edit - Inflammatory, sorry, also been discussed to death -

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Oct. 14 2002,07:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ralph, seriously, if it was a US hotspot overseas, say a US embassy in the Middle East, and as many people died, the US reaction would have probably been quite similar...I think the important fact is which countries' civilians die, as much as where it happens.

<span id='postcolor'>

I was replying to Chill's post. If same thing happened as you posted, then US's usual reaction would be cooperating with local gov't.

-EDIT: response to Fubar's edit

[Major Fubar 0]

Well, anyway, I should point out that I would probably be against Australia attacking Indonesia if it did turn out to be an Indonesian, until:

a) It was proved beyond any reasonable doubt who the culprit is

b) They established the motive was indeed to kill Australian citizens

c) It wasn't the act of a lone conspirator or extremist group unaffiliated with the Indonesian government

Generally, except in certain cases, mass killing in retaliation to other mass killings is never a good thing. This is my personal view, and not meant to be an indictment on the US or any other countries foreign policy.

[Frizbee 0]

Well, actually the blame of this bombing has fallen upon the Jihad Islamia or JI terrorist faction, and not on Al Qaeda as some of you seem to think judging by your posts.

Another point of note which I feel alot of you have missed, is that the terrorists are attacking places such as the WTC, and now Bali to make people go "Oh gosh, they've attacked us because of our governments involvement... lets get them to step back"

They EXPECT people to have that sort of idiotic reaction, they thrive off responses like that. Its the basis of terrorism. Inspire fear in people and they BACK OFF.

Give in to them once, and the next time they want something.. they'll resort to an attack again. Getting involved to stop ALL terrorist groups now (Including the IRA and PLA and non-islamic groups) is the only way to ensure that there are no continued attacks. I can't believe the majority of you can't see that.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Oct. 14 2002,14:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Any country that falls in with America on 'lets bomb a third world country to the stone age' is going to be trated the same as if you were America,<span id='postcolor'>

with that logic, it is ok to claim that muslims who are not with US is as same as AQ, and thus we can treat them with whichever means we deeem necessary.<span id='postcolor'>

Only if they oppenly support AQ. And this is not my thinking, in case you havn't noticed, I dont work for AQ Thta was just what I think AQ would probably think. If you work for Al Queda, please feel free to correct me on AQ doctrine then please turn yourself over to the authorities

And I agree with Maj. Fubar, no point bombing Indonesia unless they were 100% sure that the bombing was supported by the Indonesian goverment. Afghnistan can be sort of justified becuase the Afghani goverment openly uspported AQ, but still bombing nearly everything in site is not the answer. I dont care if the civilian death toll was 2 or two thousand, fact remains, bombing is bad unless you can gurentee 0% civilian casualties, which under current technology is impossible. Right, what the hell am I talking about? This is suppose to be about the tragedy in Indonesia, not Afghnistan, please excuse me while I shoot myself.

[Major Fubar 0]

A lot of us can see that big government sticking their nose into the running of countries outside their jurisdiction pisses people off to the point where they take extreme action.

This doesn't mean I condone terrorism. But it does help to explain "why us"...

Imagine if the country you live in had it's policy and freedom dictated to by a "super power" who liked to install puppet leaders under their control. Let's not forget where Usama and Saddam got their initial support, before they bit the hand that fed them.

What I am saying, is while terrorism is never the answer, maybe some countries need to learn to mind their own goddamn business and clean up their own back yards before muscling in on the running of others.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Oct. 14 2002,08:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What I am saying, is while terrorism is never the answer, maybe some countries need to learn to mind their own goddamn business and clean up their own back yards before muscling in on the running of others.<span id='postcolor'>

well, too late to say that to AQ and Taliban.

and what rights do AQ have on Indonesia? none. So I see it more appropriate to disapprove this attack then to discuss US and rest of the world.

[Major Fubar 0]

It's just sad that we are now moving into an era where the whole world may well be facing the prospect of worrying about bombs and attacks every time they leave the house...I know people who lived in Ireland and England at the height of their terrorist attacks, and they tell me it really ruins your quality of life living in that kind of environment.

[Chill 0]

I think a LGB84 thru my roof of my house would really ruin my day in downtown Bahgdad!

I agree with Fubar. The governments make the own ideas even if the majority don't agree! US policies are the main problems and will be the cause of the blood shed in the Mid East to Bali! Look at Vietnam their paranoia towards Communism put them into a conflict ruled not by the Milatry but by the government. Now every bomb attack is AQ! How stupid.

I'm glad to see some people like Maj Fubar that can actually see what is causing all these fruitless attacks.

[SirLoins 0]

Frizbee is right.

And what amazes me is the automatic assumption that US foreign policies are the cause now for all terrorist activity. Another excuse to blame America first.

As soon as we give into the terrorist, from whatever country they come from, they will have won.

I'm glad to see some people like Frisbee that can actually see we must do all we can to stop these murderers.

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Oct. 14 2002,08:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, actually the blame of this bombing has fallen upon the Jihad Islamia or JI terrorist faction, and not on Al Qaeda as some of you seem to think judging by your posts.

Another point of note which I feel alot of you have missed, is that the terrorists are attacking places such as the WTC, and now Bali to make people go "Oh gosh, they've attacked us because of our governments involvement... lets get them to step back"

They EXPECT people to have that sort of idiotic reaction, they thrive off responses like that. Its the basis of terrorism. Inspire fear in people and they BACK OFF.

Give in to them once, and the next time they want something.. they'll resort to an attack again. Getting involved to stop ALL terrorist groups now (Including the IRA and PLA and non-islamic groups) is the only way to ensure that there are no continued attacks. I can't believe the majority of you can't see that.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Frizbee is right.

And what amazes me is the automatic assumption that  US foreign policies are the cause now for all terrorist activity.  Another excuse to blame America first.

As soon as we give into the terrorist, from whatever country they come from, they will have won.

I'm glad to see some people like Frisbee that can actually see we must do all we can to stop these murderers. <span id='postcolor'>

To keep this short (have repeated this kind of things far to many times):

1. If you would ever be able to eliminate all organisations that can be called terror cells (in the long run most certainly every street gang, or any even vaugly violent criminals, would be called terrorists too) that are around in the world today, you would at the end have multiplied the development of new organisations by many times. Maybe you get 10 new terror organisations for each you eliminate - at least if you eliminate them by, covardly, deliberatly risks (and do take millions) civlian lives by bombing entire nations. All, and I'm sure the only thing, that one can do is to try being creative about it - bombs are not very creative - by removing their reason for using terror. The relation between cristians and Muslims have always been infected; but historically the cristians are the real bad guys. The last 50 years the muslims have been forced to eat much shit that can be blamed on primary USA. Either we make it up with them (not easy, but can be done if we swallow our bloody pride), not at all only on our own short time economic conditions, or we learn to live with them throwing back shit at everyone they think deserves it.

2. If you just meet these terror organisations with violence, you will soon have a global version of the Israel/Palestine conflict (not by far only involving muslims/cristians). We have to be creative now or the next chance may be 200 years away.....

3. Another thing one can say that the ones behind 9/11 wanted is exactly what happened - the western world, lead by USA, confirmes how bad they are by staring a war on terror (in a conflict that definitely did not start at 9/11 2001); and give real concrete reasons for 100:s of new terror organisations to start up.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Oct. 14 2002,22:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. Another thing one can say that the ones behind 9/11 wanted is exactly what happened - the western world, lead by USA, confirmes how bad they are by staring a war on terror (in a conflict that definitely did not start at 9/11 2001); and give real concrete reasons for 100:s of new terror organisations to start up.<span id='postcolor'>

well, i'm thinkning that most muslims know what OBL did is wrong, but they are reluctant to admit that since that would make them look like they are supporting US 100%. so i doubt if they see US as the only bad guy on the street.

[SirLoins 0]

Edited by Sirloins cause I don't know what the heck I'm doing

[KingBeast 0]

"To most in the Muslim nations, bombs are the only language they understand."

SirLoins, That is the most absurd if verging on Racist (religionist? ) thing I have heard in a very long time. I would be careful what you say in future

[SirLoins 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. Another thing one can say that the ones behind 9/11 wanted is exactly what happened - the western world, lead by USA, confirmes how bad they are by staring a war on terror (in a conflict that definitely did not start at 9/11 2001); and give real concrete reasons for 100:s of new terror organisations to start up.<span id='postcolor'>

If I am reading him correctly, he is saying, because they flew airplanes into the WTC, and we have responded to that aggression, that somehow they have proven themselves to be the good guys?

We did not start the war on terror, we started the war to end the war on terror.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well, i'm thinkning that most muslims know what OBL did is wrong, but they are reluctant to admit that since that would make them look like they are supporting US 100%. so i doubt if they see US as the only bad guy on the street.<span id='postcolor'>

We agree on that Ralph.

But what has alway botherd me is, where is the outcry from the Muslim communities in the US, (especially the US) and around the world condeming the terrorist actions.

There silence is deafening.

[SirLoins 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">KingBeast Posted on Oct. 14 2002,23:43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To most in the Muslim nations, bombs are the only language they understand."

SirLoins, That is the most absurd if verging on Racist (religionist? ) thing I have heard in a very long time. I would be careful what you say in future <span id='postcolor'>

My point is, that throughout history, the Muslims, and other nations as well, have used war to solve there problems.

It is therefore, my opinion, that that is the language they understand.

I stand by my comments.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 22 2002,18:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The race card always seems to rear it's ugly little head.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Oct. 14 2002,20:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Frizbee is right.

And what amazes me is the automatic assumption that  US foreign policies are the cause now for all terrorist activity.  Another excuse to blame America first.

As soon as we give into the terrorist, from whatever country they come from, they will have won.

I'm glad to see some people like Frisbee that can actually see we must do all we can to stop these murderers.<span id='postcolor'>

So, if we "give in" to terrorists by not going to war, we are being weak.

But if people retaliate to the virtual occupation and dictatorship of their countries and culture by superpowers, by what they consider the only means avaiable (again, not justifying terrorism, just explaining the mindset of the perpetrators), then they are also in the wrong?

Please, explain to me how you rationalize that the Western superpowers should be able to dictate policy to other countries around the world, and decide who their leaders should be? Might makes right? If so, then the superpowers are no less evil or morally bankrupt than the terrorists.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But what has alway botherd me is, where is the outcry from the Muslim communities in the US, (especially the US) and around the world condeming the terrorist actions.

<span id='postcolor'>

AFAIK, many muslim groups in US condemned attacks while also pointing out US's a bit biased policy.

and where was the outcry of Christians when muslims were attacked on streets after 9-11?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point is, that throughout history, the Muslims, and other nations as well, have used war to solve there problems.

It is therefore, my opinion, that that is the language they understand.

<span id='postcolor'>

yup, that includes US as well. and with your logic, that is the only language that US will understand.

[Frizbee 0]

There are ways to go about removing a foreign power from your country without resorting to cowardly attacks on unarmed civilians.

Giving your own life for something you believe in can be considered Brave, and to a point Heroic. However, taking innocent lives along with your own is far from it.

I didn't say by not going to war we would be considered weak... But elimination of the terrorist cells before they get established, before they get weapons and the manpower to carry out co-ordinated attacks with the support structure to disappear afterwards (ie. Al Qaeda, the IRA etc.) is the only way to ensure that terrorism is not used as a weapon in ANY attempt to sway people's emotions.

Think. If you let the terrorists get away with one attack, and withdraw from the war against terror because of them.. then next time that group wants something, they'll resort to another attack. Why? because it worked.

I quote Harrison Ford from Airforce One... "Atrocity and Terror are not political weapons. And to those who would use them, your time is over"

THAT is the attitude we should all have, because THAT is the only attitude that will work. No more of this "We'll get involved when it suits us politically." or "We'll stick our noses in only when it suits us."

[foxer 0]

Man,some of you guys make it sound like the U.S. planted the bombs that killed those people.

Most of the places america has bomb was just asking for a bomb anyways.If america killed some civilians when they bomb,they shouldn't blame america,they should blame their gov't.Of course there are some stupid things america does and messes up big time.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Oct. 15 2002,10:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I didn't say by not going to war we would be considered weak...  But elimination of the terrorist cells before they get established, before they get weapons and the manpower to carry out co-ordinated attacks with the support structure to disappear afterwards (ie. Al Qaeda, the IRA etc.) is the only way to ensure that terrorism is not used as a weapon in ANY attempt to sway people's emotions.

Think. If you let the terrorists get away with one attack, and withdraw from the war against terror because of them.. then next time that group wants something, they'll resort to another attack.  Why? because it worked.<span id='postcolor'>

And you really think that attacking Iraq will end terrorism?

If you want to retaliate, send special operatives in to arrest/take out/assassinate terrorist leaders. Why bomb a whole country (including civilians), to retaliate against a small faction of fanatics?

What if Timothy McVey (the Oaklahoma bomber) had decided to attack an overseas target instead of sticking in the USA. Would the country concerned be justified in attacking the whole of America?

Anyway, this debate has been done to death on these forums over and over again. Pro-US advocates can't see the cause behind the terrorist attacks...and I'm sure they think the same about those on the other side of the deabte.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Oct. 15 2002,11:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Oct. 15 2002,107)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I didn't say by not going to war we would be considered weak...  But elimination of the terrorist cells before they get established, before they get weapons and the manpower to carry out co-ordinated attacks with the support structure to disappear afterwards (ie. Al Qaeda, the IRA etc.) is the only way to ensure that terrorism is not used as a weapon in ANY attempt to sway people's emotions.

Think. If you let the terrorists get away with one attack, and withdraw from the war against terror because of them.. then next time that group wants something, they'll resort to another attack.  Why? because it worked.<span id='postcolor'>

And you really think that attacking Iraq will end terrorism?

If you want to retaliate, send special operatives in to arrest/take out/assassinate terrorist leaders. Why bomb a whole country (including civilians), to retaliate against a small faction of fanatics?

What if Timothy McVey (the Oaklahoma bomber) had decided to attack an overseas target instead of sticking in the USA. Would the country concerned be justified in attacking the whole of America?

Anyway, this debate has been done to death on these forums over and over again. Pro-US advocates can't see the cause behind the terrorist attacks...and I'm sure they think the same about those on the other side of the deabte.<span id='postcolor'>

What if Timothy McVey (the Oaklahoma bomber) had decided to attack an overseas target instead of sticking in the USA. Would the country concerned be justified in attacking the whole of America?

Easy america wouldn't stand for that and would put the guy in jail/death penalty.Plus he didn't have base in america.