Istanbul bomb blasts

[Blake 0]

At least 3 separate explosions, 6 buildings collapsed. Banks and British consulate hit.

[ralphwiggum 6]

I smell AQ.....

[denoir 0]

Reuters reports that the building of the British consulate has been severely damaged.. No reports yet on casualties..

Gee, this war on terror thingie is working out really well, isn't it?

[Gollum1 0]

Gee, this war on terror thingie is working out really well, isn't it?  

You got it all wrong, it´s the war against terrorism against AMERICANS.

[acidcrash 0]

and the rest of us get dragged along for the ride

why bomb banks though? i find that rather odd...

[ralphwiggum 6]

symbol of western capitalism. aside from the fact that WTC was tallest, thus easiest to fly into, it also had numerous financial firms, a metaphorical representation of America, the capitalist pig.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]You got it all wrong, it´s the war against terrorism against AMERICANS.

And fellow muslims, it seems.

[Firestarter 0]

Its "funny" that the whole world have known, that the american way of fighting terrorism doesnt work...except the americans...in german we say: mistakes will make you clever. i hope so.

[Blake 0]

Yeah, but I'm sort of cynical to say that these kinds of attacks would have probably happened even if US wouldn't have done anything after 11.9.

Fanatics just don't think just with pattern of reaction->counter-reaction logic.

[denoir 0]

AQ was a relatively small organization before USA started going after them. Now we have attacks every week contributed to AQ. And you're saying it has nothing to do with Bush strutting around the muslim world in his tanks?

IMO there could not be a clearer cause-effect pair than it is. And I think that Bush would agree too, as he keeps insisting that this is a war we're talking about. It would be odd for the enemy to just sit idle.

I think that he's going about it the completely wrong way, but that's another discussion...

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]AQ was a relatively small organization before USA started going after them. Now we have attacks every week contributed to AQ. And you're saying it has nothing to do with Bush strutting around the muslim world in his tanks?

AQ certainly wasn't small before 9/11. Hundreds of recruiters and 'fighters' were sent around the world as 'sleeping terrorists' well before 9/11 and arrests made after it around the world must have been just a tip of the iceberg. Not to mention what kind of impact succesfull terror attack on that day had on future AQ wannabes. I really se no chance of flowers and candies diplomacy with these fanatics.

When it comes to Afganistan I supported the attack 100%, since the Taliban refused to give in AQ and supported it, there was clear reason for the assault. Having done nothing US would just have been more or less a sitting duck. I'm one of those people who saw no alternative at that point in 2001.

Now, I'm not saying invasion of Iraq was helpful in reducing terrorism since Saddam had virtually no part in worldwide terrorism (maybe in Israel in form of suicide bomber support). While I wholeheartedly supported the ousting of Saddam's brutal regime, the attack and occupation has been executed quite hastily and overconfidently. More men on the initial phase and retaining some essential government control could have helped in creating more stable Iraq. Iraq is kind of double-edged sword affair in my opinion. Surely it has increased AQ support. At this point it is still early to say that has it paid off.

Anyway it sad that countries like Turkey have to pay the price, even though they didn't take part in the war. Still without futher evidence I'm not going to shout it was Bush's fault all the way altough his policies have been alienating lately.

Quote[/b] ]

IMO there could not be a clearer cause-effect pair than it is.

Well reasons for rich Saudi kids blowing themelves up or flying into skyscrapers lie somewhere else than logic...

[EiZei 0]

Well, AQ people might not consider turks to be "true" muslims since they are some some kind of allies with the US.

[Guest]

Ya...the whole thing is stupid. Like some of Bush's speech in Britain recently. You know the stuff....we will fight for peace etc etc. Rather oxymoronic (there is an oxy there...).

[Heatseeker 0]

Somehow i keep thinking that this so called war on terrorism will never stop, we all know how motivated these extremist radical muslims are. I mean its easy to understand their motivations, the invasion of their world, religion and way of life. The U.S. knows it too and history tells us they will always need enemies for economical and political reasons. Just take a look at Israel, this is another never ending conflict that will last like forever and will cost many peoples lives. Something EU doesnt want/need for sure is to get involved in this, but i guess U.S will never understand or see things from our side and will say that we are either with or against them or classify us has a bunch of hippies for being rational or not having a war wish/need.

[Gollum1 0]

Edit: There would be no "war against terror" without terrorism against Americans.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]AQ was a relatively small organization before USA started going after them. Now we have attacks every week contributed to AQ. And you're saying it has nothing to do with Bush strutting around the muslim world in his tanks?

AQ certainly wasn't small before 9/11. Hundreds of recruiters and 'fighters' were sent around the world as 'sleeping terrorists' well before 9/11 and arrests made after it around the world must have been just a tip of the iceberg. Not to mention what kind of impact succesfull terror attack on that day had on future AQ wannabes. I really se no chance of flowers and candies diplomacy with these fanatics.

Hundreds yes, but not thousands as it is most likely today. AQ had in a decade less than ten (although high profile) attacks. Now you're having them on a weekly basis.

Quote[/b] ]When it comes to Afganistan I supported the attack 100%, since the Taliban refused to give in AQ and supported it, there was clear reason for the assault. Having done nothing US would just have been more or less a sitting duck. I'm one of those people who saw no alternative at that point in 2001.

I agree that America had to do something. And I fully understand that. The problem was and still is that huge military actions and invasions won't stop terrorism - on the contrary - you just risk improving their recruitement base. They did not know how to get AQ, so they went for the next best thing - their friends the Taliban. And had this been done properly then perhaps there would be a point to it (coming down on countries that support terrorists). The action was however so half-assed - the place was just bombed and left in more or less anarchy. So nothing was really achieved.

Quote[/b] ]

Iraq is kind of double-edged sword affair in my opinion. Surely it has increased AQ support. At this point it is still early to say that has it paid off.

Which is my point.

1) There is a problem with muslim fundamentalist terrorists

2) You don't quite have the means or knowledge of how to fight them.

Then the logical action is not to invade a muslim country - not when you have not shown any capability of fighting the terrorists. And since terrorists require a recruitement base and logistics from symphatizers, you are only helping them out.

Through Iraq Bush played right into AQ's hands. They never liked Saddam and Saddam never liked them. And now he's gone, and you have a huge number of free religious Iraqis that resent the US for ideological reasons. The anarchy in the country enables them to operate freely plus they get to kill US soldiers. The times could not be better for AQ. And the worse the situation in Iraq is, the better for them.

The invasion of Iraq was truly Christmas (well, not Christmas, but you get the point) coming early for AQ.

Quote[/b] ]

Still without futher evidence I'm not going to shout it was Bush's fault all the way altough his policies have been alienating lately.

My usual argument is quite simple. As many in the world, I really don't like Bush because of his international politics. And I'm from the EU, Sweden - a good friend of USA.

Now tell me this, if your buddies resent you for your actions, what do you think your enemies will? If I, from a friendly western country went from like to dislike, how many do you think that crossed over the path from quiet resentment to joining up with terrorists. How many were on the line, but not ready to cross it that were pushed over by Bush's militant way?

Quote[/b] ]Well reasons for rich Saudi kids blowing themelves up or flying into skyscrapers lie somewhere else than logic...

Cause and effect does not at all have to do anything with logic. The effect can be very unlogical but it will still have a cause. You step on my toe by accident and I burn down your house. Logical? No. Proportionate? No. Cause and effect. Yes.

Is it Bush's fault that terrorists kill people? No, that's the terrorists fault. Bush fault is however the facilitation of it and the speeding up of it. He's simply making things worse.

[Acecombat 0]

Nice post denoir...

Now this has me thinking when did terrorism first start ....

Why is this war labelled as war on terrorism when its only A/Q the target ??

There are lots of terrorist organizations worldwide .... Basque separtist can be classfied as one and what about the IRA why wasnt this 'crusade' launched against them if the war was truly about terrorism? Or maybe as gollum said its only about "War on terrorism against americans"...

[denoir 0]

I saw now that at least 26 people have been killed (including the British Consul-General) and over 400 wounded. Most of course innocent people being in the wrong place at the wrong time

If these recent attacks in Turkey are really AQ then they're digging their own grave. Just as Bush can't get people's support by bombing them, neither can AQ. Attacking a US war ship is one thing, blowing up muslim civilians is another. You can't very well go around and blow up the people you are claiming that you are fighting for.

Anyway, I hope that those who did this die a gruesome death.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I visited the british Consulate several times when I was in Istanbul for a few months before traveling on to Iran. There were an awful lot of Turkish shops and a whole market close by as well as housing and a couple of schools. I rather expect that even though many Brits were killed including the British Consule General (I think I met him he wrote a letter for me so I could enter Iran) a lot of the staff were Turkish so I suspect the final death toll to be in the main Turks. Even more of the staff at HSBC were Turkish. So it could well end in the hundreds of Turkish dead.

As usual the bombers dont care who they kill. This is not suprising bombers are usualy type 3 assasins, failures in their normal lives allready on the verge of suicide. This means they are easy meat for the true terrorist who winds them up like little robbots so that the bombers look to the bombing to give their lives meaning.

It is intresting to note that rate of attacks has increased since the invasion of Iraq. As I have said before terrorism requires several things to work in this case:

Motivation

Percieved assaults on Islam. To whit: failure to deal even handidly with the Arab Isreili conflict, the invasion and occupation of a majority muslim (even if secular) nation, tarring all muslims with the brush of terrorism for the actions of Al Qaeda when any one with an ounce of strategic nouse can see its motivations are anti Islamic. Al Qaeda is about getting its leaders in power in Saudi Arabia, the Yemen, the Sudan, Algeria, and the rest of the Arab world followed by similar destabalisation of other Muslim countries. (it is in their mission statement)

It is about power.

Economics

With Osama they had about 20 million US dollars in personal fortune plus an unknown amount from CIA and Saudi business men when they were all mates attacking the Russians in Afghanistan and later setting up a client state to get at Caspian Oil and prevent it coming through Iran.

Until the invasion of Iraq Al Qaeda could afford to do one major attack every three to four months (check the attack rates). Bombings dont come cheap you need to train people. You need to gather, transport, buy and store explosives and their detonation systems. You need safe houses, target research and reconacence, transport, bank accounts money transfers, fake IDs and passports. None of it comes cheap.

Then TBA and TBA2 invaded Iraq and dropped the ball.

Means

Until TBA and TBA2 invaded Iraq Al Qaeda was badly short of funds. The complete failure of TBA and TBA2 to set and achieve strategic goals has lead to the situation that now confronts us. A bunch of new type 3 assasins ready for an Al Qaeda trigger that Osama can sell to Sadam as ready made bombers.

Strategic TBA and TBA2 Failures

TBA and TBA2 failed to find WMD.

Either TBA and TBA2 new they did not exist and lied to invade on pretext or they were criminaly incompetant and invaded by error thus killing thousands. For such an error they should have and still must resign.

TBA and TBA2 failed to find Sadam

This has had a direct effect on the war on terror; which we are now seeing in the massive increase in bombings carried out by Al Queda. Now all most certainly recieving more funding than ever it did in its CIA supported days because it has freed Sadam to support it with billions of US dollars he has had salted away.

TBA and TBA2 sowed the seeds of terrorism now we all reap the whirl-wind.

Sadly Walker

[bn880 5]

AQ was a relatively small organization before USA started going after them. Now we have attacks every week contributed to AQ. And you're saying it has nothing to do with Bush strutting around the muslim world in his tanks?

IMO there could not be a clearer cause-effect pair than it is. And I think that Bush would agree too, as he keeps insisting that this is a war we're talking about. It would be odd for the enemy to just sit idle.

I think that he's going about it the completely wrong way, but that's another discussion...

Well listen to what Bush and Blair have been saying in their little love speech today. That terrorists do not understand the convicion of the free people, people who love peace, who have tolerance, etc etc. Well, all it took was one attack on US soil to start basically numerous wars. Tolerance and peacefull my butt...

[hellfish6 7]

(Hellfish look's up the number for the Canadian Consulate's immigration office)

[bn880 5]

LOL

[Gollum1 0]

There are lots of terrorist organizations worldwide .... Basque separtist can be classfied as one and     what about the IRA why wasnt this 'crusade' launched against them if the war was truly about terrorism? Or maybe as gollum said its only about "War on terrorism against americans"...

Exactly. Now of course I don´t expect TBA to intervene in every terrorism war in the world, but it´s just hypocritical to suddenly start fighting a war against "terrorism" that´s threatening the "world". Just say it, you´re acting in your own interests, like Iraq. The revisionists are saying that the U.S went in to help innocents. Bulls**t. The war was founded on fear of Saddam´s nonexistent weapons.

"Help! Maybe Saddam planted a WMD under my bed! I´m too scared to look!"

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]"Help! Maybe Saddam planted a WMD under my bed! I´m too scared to look!"

Here let me Help ...

/Sends a A/c Carrier along with thousands of troops plus state of the art armed to the teeth armed forces ..under gollums bed....*dont worry they'll find them ...*

[hellfish6 7]

Welcome, Turkey, to Bush Country.