Istanbul bomb blasts

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]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"...

Those totally different situations. They are nationalist terrorist organizations operating on a limited area. None of the nations involved would have foreigner powers intervening in their own affairs.

AQ is a global terrorist organization which has operated all over the place for years and by no means it has struck only against American intrests.

In Tunis they murdered German tourists by the busloads, In Kenya they bombed US embassy along with hundreds of Kenyans, etc. Then if something like 9/11 would have happened somewhere in Europe and the main base of operations for AQ was clearly seen to be Afganistan, NATO would have acted anyway.

[feersum.endjinn 6]

AQ is a global terrorist organization which has operated all over the place for years and by no means it has struck only against American intrests.

I think it is a bit misleading to speak about Al Qaeda as "global organization". What "Al Qaeda" consists of is numerous small local organizations with common ideological base but quite different goals, some of which have carried out terrorist actions for decades, for example in Philippines. 9/11 was huge publicity boost for Bin Laden's rather small group - now we have these small groups cooperating and getting common funding base for their strikes.

Quote[/b] ]In Tunis they murdered German tourists by the busloads, In Kenya they bombed US embassy along with hundreds of Kenyans, etc. Then if something like 9/11 would have happened somewhere in Europe and the main base of operations for AQ was clearly seen to be Afganistan, NATO would have acted anyway.

In most of these cases AQ has now little or no public support, due to massive civilian casualties (like Kenya) or economic hardships caused by lost tourism income (Luxor masacre, Egypt).

What USA should do is let Saudi Arabias current regime fall, as most of AQ footsoldiers and funding came from Saudi Arabia and whatever regime would rise couldn't be more fucked up than current one. What is happening right now is that Saudi royal family is just channeling anger of their disenchanted youth against western world, though relationship between AQ and Saudi government probably has changed radically after this autumns strikes.

Sadly, no US administration ever has had balls to do this.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]What USA should do is let Saudi Arabias current regime fall, as most of AQ footsoldiers and funding came from Saudi Arabia and whatever regime would rise couldn't be more fucked up than current one. What is happening right now is that Saudi royal family is just channeling anger of their disenchanted youth against western world, though relationship between AQ and Saudi government probably has changed radically after this autumns strikes.

Sadly, no US administration ever has had balls to do this.

Ok i dont want to say this but :

Are you nuts? , what do you mean by channeling anger of young youths? Dude the govt here is pissed off at AQ itself let alone support it .. what are you trying to say ? Your own post is contradicting itself

Besides i dont think if another regime will rise that it will be any better then this one .... it'll be even worse if AQ think'a'likes take over here , the present govt no matter how corrupt it is , IS STILL the only BEST option we have atm , take my word on it i liv here i know the condition of the country especially the political one , we wont have a educated democracy here if this govt fails dont dream about it man. it'll be a power struggle among some ignorant goon. As much as i'd like to see a new govt here i crtainly wouldnt want anything to happen at the moment. Its bound to fuck up the countrys infrastructural growth as well plus all the policy's will go through a re-vamp which dont do a country any good as it will throw us back towards a 'new' start ... and whos knows whether it might be for the good or worse.

I'd rather go along with whats present rather then invest my backing in this 'unseen' revoluionist movement. We need more educated well studied people in religion/politics who have a liberal view on things related to such matters and can strike a perfect balance between the both , there might be certain characters here that can do that but they wont get any backing from most of the population. As i said i'd rather wait for awhile still ....

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

...Well well well.

Ive just come back from the London anti Bush  march, and then i heard about this. The crazy thing for me is that i was in Istanbul this time last year (i didnt meet the British ambassador like Walker- but i met someone who met him).... Its very shocking and sad. For all i know, someone i met may have died  

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ] Most of course innocent people being in the wrong place at the wrong time

Id say really all the people killed in this blast are 'innocent' as far as whether theyre legitimate targets or not. Working in a bank or an Embassy does NOT make someone a legitimate target as far as im concerned and i really dont think Al-Quaida make any such distinctions (they just want to back up their views by callously killing people). If America bombed an embassy (as it did in Serbia) very few (non americans) here or elsewhere would stand for it.

But if bloody proof were needed that the bloody 'War on Terror' has accomplished F!<k all in relation to curtailing terrorism worldwide then this is it.

That said i cant see there being a quick or easy answer to this problem of international terrorism and the appropriate response by states. Both sides have momentum and vested interests, and wherever you stand this looks set to continue for some time.

This knee-jerk response is all i can be bothered to give right now(marching is tiring).

[ExtracTioN 0]

The last report is 27 dead people and 450 wounded

[Wilco 944]

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

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

Well put my friend, well put.

[denoir 0]

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ] Most of course innocent people being in the wrong place at the wrong time

Id say really all the people killed in this blast are 'innocent' as far as whether theyre legitimate targets or not. Working in a bank or an Embassy does NOT make someone a legitimate target as far as im concerned and i really dont think Al-Quaida make any such distinctions (they just want to back up their views by callously killing people). If America bombed an embassy (as it did in Serbia) very few (non americans) here or elsewhere would stand for it.

The point of that sentence was in the "being in the wrong place at the wrong time" - i.e random victims. I certainly agree that the embassy staff in Turkey were not a legitimate target.

But now that you mention it, come to think of it - there could be a distinction. If it was done related to the Iraq war then one could argue that the embassy was a legitimate political target. The embassy is technically Bristish soil, right? That makes it as valid target for those fighting the UK/US as the political targets in Baghdad that were bombed by US and British planes. Personally, I don't approve of either, especially if extensive collateral damage is inflicted.

Of course this is all just in theory. They bombed not just the embassy but a clearly civilian bank as well. So it's obvious that those who did it didn't care about the laws of war.

However while might seem a bit controversial at this moment to ask, but what's the real difference between this than for instance the bombing of Baghdad? There were innocent civilians there too. Political targets, not related to the war directly (like say for instance the ministry of agriculture) were bombed. People died as well. What's the real difference? Should we really consider dropping a bomb from a high altitude be any morally superior or different than driving a bomb in a truck?

As I said, I think both are very wrong, but I can understand that to some extent both are inevitable consequences of war. Britain is a part of the "War on Terror". That means that it has acknowledged that there is a war being faught. Is it not strange then that your enemies attack you as well?

I get the feeling that it's the same thing as during WW2 the German Blitz on London was a "despicable cowardly attack on innocents" while the fire-bombing of Dresden was just "killing some bad Nazis".

But where is the substantial difference? The number of innocent people killed by American bombs still outnumber the number of innocent that terrorists have killed. Sure there are some very clear-cut situations such as the previous Istambul bombings where innocent people were targeted on purpose.

This situation, although awful, I'm not so sure about. I condemn it, but I condemned the bombing of Baghdad as well. I'm not sure that you can say that the people inside and the people that happened to be on the streets outside of the Iraqi ministry of agriculture were any less innocent than the people that were inside and outside the British embassy.

One could try to argue that USA and Britain had a higher moral foundation to stand on becuase their cause was just etc etc - but if anything is relative it's moral. I can assure you that people willing to strap a bomb to themselves deeply believe in their cause. So let's not even go there.

---

The bombing of an embassy in Serbia isn't quite comparable. The problem there was not in bombing an embassy per se - it was the bombing of a Chinese embassy - i.e a third party not involved in the conflict. Technically USA bombed China. And in some circles that was considered to be something of a problem. Also it was not on purpose but an intelligence screw up.

[bn880 5]

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

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

Well put my friend, well put.

That is false.

There would still be wars as there were before, almost or even the same ones... perhaps not labeled as war on terror, but war for freedom etc.

Free Afghanis from Taliban rule, free Iraqis from Hussein rule

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]The bombing of an embassy in Serbia isn't quite comparable. The problem there was not in bombing an embassy per se - it was the bombing of a Chinese embassy - i.e a third party not involved in the conflict. Technically USA bombed China. And in some circles that was considered to be something of a problem. Also it was not on purpose but an intelligence screw up.

I agree, my point was simply that bombing embassies not posing an immediate material threat is not cricket (even when embassies do pose a threat its not the done thing to bomb them-Kofi Annan doesnt like it). If NATO had bombed the Serbian embassy in some third country (somewhat more comparable) i would likely not have seen it as justified, though it should be mentioned that the powerful may find it easier to be more discriminating than the weak when commiting (as in this case) acts of violence. The muslim fundamentalists have chosen to strike in Turkey because there are soft targets there and simply because they can (of course Turkish support of the US, UK,Israel etc may help to convince them when killing fellow muslims-but theyde rather hit US/UK mainland im sure)

Quote[/b] ]This situation, although awful, I'm not so sure about. I condemn it, but I condemned the bombing of Baghdad as well. I'm not sure that you can say that the people inside and the people that happened to be on the streets outside of the Iraqi ministry of agriculture were any less innocent than the people that were inside and outside the British embassy.

Even though i share a sense of uncertainty at the moment (perhaps for a different reason), if you can condemn the Nazi firebombing of London and the Allied firebombing of Dresden (as you have done before) then surely you can condemn the Coalition bombing of Baghdad as well as the Al-Quaida/other groups bombings here and elsewhere with not too much problem.

So the US and others (UK included) in a widely unpopular move have invaded Iraq. In my view that in no way legitimates this attack. Its not as though its likely to be Iraqis hitting back anyway. Its simply the A.Q. associated extremists continuing their campaign of violence against their hated foes. What you seem to be implying is that somehow because Britain took part in the invasion of Iraq that this is perhaps though unfortunate maybe not too bad-or at least a sort of geo-political version of bad karma coming back to haunt, its Al Quaida hitting back against the war on terrorism.

But you have also said (rightly) that the invasion of Saddams Iraq was not a very credible part of the war on terror, (just a way to get a stable oil supply, get rid of daddies enemy for Bush etc). So do you think that any country that goes into another country and sheds blood without UN approval might sort of deserve any Al Quaida or other bomb it has coming? Because lots of little conflicts take place without UN approval (France's frolics in Africa for a start).

Im certainly not saying that the people killed on the streets of Baghdad were not just as innocent as those who died in Istanbul. It is surely a fact of modern war that the innocent and unwarlike almost always die in greatest numbers.

But there is the question of intent and the degree of carefulness in avoiding collateral death and destruction. A.Q. clearly is not at all bothered by killing a bunch of civilians who happen to have chosen that street at that time. The coalition in Iraq was more bothered (i like to think anyway) though they still didnt show as much care as they could have -were all the cluster bombs,  DU ammo etc used really necessary to win the war?(+ the poor level of preparation for the transitional and post war environment indicates a lack of care).

Also, I think perhaps most people prefer things to be predictable, and the real fear of Al Quaida may lie in its perceived unpredictability and irresponsibility. The Coalition may have killed people but at least they appeared to do so in a civilised ordered fashion (which is bollocks obviously). People fear and dislike chaos. If TBA and Blair can convince people that they are bringing stability then people will be happy (and be willing to forget the current unpopular problems). TBA and Blair are really fighting against logistically much weaker and seemly more chaotic terrorism that attempts to undermine their nations efforts in relevant areas, by means of their own organised and finely controlled state terror directed at undermining the terrorists efforts.

The Iraq war had bugger all to do with fighting terror it would appear (except in a very roundabout way-and of course serving as a terrorist recruiting agent). Afghanistan did though and if that half arsed performance in terrorist catching (and especially) nation building is anything to go by then this ‘war’ could take a while. (like forever)

Im starting to wonder if those neoconservatives are actually that bothered about even trying to 'win' this war against international terrorist nasty people. From where im sitting they seem much more interested in simply fighting it.

Fighting in such a way as to -minimise- terrorism is of course precisely the thing to do though. Firstly by ensuring that we ourselves dont engage in any (or as little as possible!), then through the usual intelligence driven police and military means. Naturally the invasion of Iraq has complicated things(as it was always likely to) and created a new battle ground/source of terrorist related tension.

[ozanzac 0]

The bombing of British 'targets' whilist GWB is in Britain: a coincidence? I think not.

What interests me most in this incident will be how Turkey responds to the bombings, and how they deal with 'rogue' organisations. (I'm just sick to death of the word terror, whether it be ending in -ism or -ist. It's a dirty word in my mind, not due to the actions it brings, but due to GWB flogging the word like a dead horse.)

I expect Turkey to be heavy handed (or fisted) in its response, and will probably be encouraged by Blair and Bush to be so. Not a good thing for anyone really, as whatever the response is, it is likely it will simply be a catalyst for further 'incidents' ( I dislike the word attack. Same as above, plus other reasons)

Of all the events that have happpened over the last 2 years, (Actually since Bush was instated as president). Only one thing has stayed constant in my mind: The sooner Bush is removed from the presidency, the sooner the world will be a better place.

[Gollum1 0]

Free Afghanis from Taliban rule, free Iraqis from Hussein rule

Why would TBA care about AQ or Afghanistan without 9/11?

Bush heavily criticized Al Gore during his election campaign for "using nation building and the military in the same sentence." In fact, opposing peacekeeping and nation building (Somalia...) was one of the distinguishing things of his campaign.

The U.S didn´t want to invade anyone before 9/11 (Right? )but now they´ve invaded two countries and are rapidly learning how to keep the peace. I think the same wars wouldn´t be fought without 9/11 and the war on terror.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Quote[/b] ]I expect Turkey to be heavy handed (or fisted) in its response, and will probably be encouraged by Blair and Bush to be so

Perhaps so, perhaps not. Turkey is still i think trying to get into the European Union. Theyre still being too harsh on the kurds so a whole new set of human rights violations wont exactly set them in the right direction (as they know), then again with so many bombings happening in such a short space of time in a country in which the military is still a dominant force they may well conduct a major clamp down. I think Turkey may well need such a clamp down though (provided it is carefully conducted).

Quote[/b] ]Not a good thing for anyone really, as whatever the response is, it is likely it will simply be a catalyst for further 'incidents' ( I dislike the word attack. Same as above, plus other reasons)

It is possible to fight against terrorism (yes im tired of the word too but using it is easier than defining a whole new set of terms) without increasing it. Turkey is 99% muslim (nominally at least) so at least we know the government wont simply arrest every muslim caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.  

Turkey has extensive intelligence apparatus so they should in theory at least be able to conduct a fairly successful and targeted  intelligence led drive against Al-Quaida et al.

But yes of course in that case the question is whether the Turkish authorities will show due restraint.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Arrests made (-CNN)

"Turkish authorities have arrested several people in connection with two massive explosions in Istanbul that left at least 30 people dead and 450 wounded."

"The Turkish government said it received a joint claim of responsibility from al Qaeda and a Turkish Islamic militant group, the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front (IBDA-C), for Thursday's bombings. "

(in hurry else would have found non-cnn article)

[bn880 5]

Free Afghanis from Taliban rule, free Iraqis from Hussein rule

Why would TBA care about AQ or Afghanistan without 9/11?

For other reasons which may benefit the US. Attack on Iraq certainly had nothing to do with 11/9 factually, the support gained for the war was based on the bombing of New York but facts do not support this.

It is therefore false to assume no wars would be waged by the US had the bombing of New York not occured.