Terrorist attacks in London

[Ghoulish Delight]

Starting at just after 8AM London time, there were a series of 4 explosions on the London mass transit system. 3 in the Underground (one possibly involving as many as 3 trains at once), and one on a double decker bus. The confirmed casualty total stands at 33, not including the bus where there were casualites, but no confirmed number.

Scotland Yard says that had no prior warning at all and that there has been no claim of responsibility, though an Al Quaida linked cell has apparantly claimed responsibility on a website.

[Prudence]

I'm going to have to ponder my written response. The things I'm currently thinking aren't things I'm ready to admit to thinking.

[wendybeth]

I suspect it was the French. They are so pissed about the Olympics going to a country that doesn't even know how to cook.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I'm thinking that it might have been a good idea to focus a little more attention on finding Bin Laden over the past 3 years (That assumes of course, that he is responsible for this).

My heart goes out the citizens of London. This is absolutely horrible news.

[SacTown Chronic]

He (Blair) departed by helicopter back to London

What?!? He obviously knows nothing about courage or leadership.

The appropriate response, provided you wish to be remembered for your resolute bravery, is to have your yellow ass zig-zag the country in a jet. Do not fly straight into the teeth of the disaster area. Silly Brit.

[scaeagles]

I agree MBC. I think we should have taken him when the Sudan offered him up.

I would offer that the public has no way of knowing what effort is being put forth into Bin Laden. There might not be any. There might be 500 special forces traversing the mountains of Pakistan. Any info passed along to the public of our efforts would get to Bin Laden himself and certainly assist him in evading us and put those trying at greater risk.

This is not to say his hasn't been successful in evading us already, but you know what I mean.

[sunnygirl]

As a personal policy, I make no comments on politics whatsoever. I send my thoughts and prayers to the victims of this senseless tragedy and their families.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

"I truly am not that concerned about him (Bin laden)". - GW Bush, March 13th, 2002


"The goal has never been to get Bin Laden" Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. April 6th 2002

[scaeagles]

Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again......I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."

Bill Clinton, February, 2002.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I agree MBC. I think we should have taken him when the Sudan offered him up.


Well, except that there is no evidence that this ever occurred.

According to the 9/11 Commission report's statement: "[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States." But the report immediately continued: "Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Regardless, here we are talking about Clinton. I wasn't aware that he was still president. Perhaps we could talk about the actions of the guy who is actually in charge now? You know, making the world safer from terrorism and all that stuff.

I'm looking at CNN right now and the world doesn't look much safer.

[scaeagles]

Well, except that there is no evidence that this ever occurred.

According to the 9/11 Commission report's statement: "[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States." But the report immediately continued: "Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."


Except for the audio tape of Clinton saying what he said. Hmmm....Clinton contradicts the 9/11 commission report. So either Clinton is a liar, or the commission report is horribly flawed.

In regards to your next posting, in terms of why are we talking about Clinton, you said we should be focusing more on capturing Bin Laden, critical of the current adminstration not getting him yet. My point is that the responsibility lies with the previous administration. Based on Clinton's own words, we could have had him, making the current search for him a non issue.

The world wasn't safe prior to Iraq. Terrorist attacks existed before Iraq. Terrorist roles and activities were increasing prior to Iraq. But I suppose our actions in Iraq are responsible for all the ills of terrorism.

I can think of a way to make us safe from terrorism - let's completely capitulate to terrorist demands. That's all that will do it, because they are not interested in peaceful coexistence.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

My point is that the responsibility lies with the previous administration. Based on Clinton's own words, we could have had him, making the current search for him a non issue.

No, the responsibility now lies with the current administration. Regarding the Clinton quote you offered, you left out the part where he mentioned that at the time, he had committed no crimes against the US. There was nothing to hold him on at the time.


The world wasn't safe prior to Iraq. Terrorist attacks existed before Iraq. Terrorist roles and activities were increasing prior to Iraq. But I suppose our actions in Iraq are responsible for all the ills of terrorism.

I never said that our actions in Iraq are responsible for all the ills of terrorism. They are fueling the fire though by providing a breeding ground for new terrorists.


WASHINGTON - The U.S. count of major world terrorist attacks more than tripled in 2004.

The number of “significant” international terrorist attacks rose to about 650 last year from about 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides briefed Monday on the numbers by U.S. State Department and intelligence officials.


Tripled. Perhaps you could explain how our actions in Iraq are making the world safer because, today especially, I'm just not seeing it.

I can think of a way to make us safe from terrorism - let's completely capitulate to terrorist demands. That's all that will do it, because they are not interested in peaceful coexistence.

Or we could focus on the actual terrorists and not get sidetracked by attacking other countries that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks.

[SacTown Chronic]

As a personal policy, I make no comments on politics whatsoever.

Smart girl. What are your thoughts on sex, drugs and rock n roll? I love 'em!

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Hmm, been doing some thinking over the past few minutes.

I really didn't intent to have a political debate on this subject, not today anyway. My original intent was to only post that I felt very badly for the people in the UK. And yet, my anger over the fact that Bin Laden is probably responsible led me to make my remarks concerning him. I can see now that this wasn't the best, or most respectful, time to get into all of that though. I should have followed Prudence's lead and held my tongue.

Sorry for the derail and any offense it may have caused.

[€uroMeinke]

Democrat or Republican I think these bombings just underscore the fact that terrorist attacks are an inevitable part of our lives. You can't protect everything and everyone from possible attack, which means we have to accept our vulnarability and take our chances - just like we do whenever we leave the hosue.

Perhaps someday we'll eliminate Alqueda, but as long as their are disgruntled people in the world, there will be a subset who will use terroism as a tool to express it. I'm not sure if there really is a way of preventing it, but I think in the long term the answer lies more in getting people to be satisfied in their lives and situations instead of "weeding them out."

[scaeagles]

Bows to the wisdom of MBC and admits to poor judgement myself.

As far as getting people "satisfied with their lives and situations", I don't think that is even an issue with terrorists. Their jihad is against the infidel, and as long as the infidel exists, they will fight and try to kill the infidel. I don't hear them calling for food or water or medicine, I hear them calling for the destruction of Isreal and Jews and any who would support them. I hear them demanding Islamic law be followed. They hate the culture of the west. I don't see a way to make them satisifed without complete surrender to what they wish for socially and religiously.

[€uroMeinke]

Bows to the wisdom of MBC and admits to poor judgement myself.

As far as getting people "satisfied with their lives and situations", I don't think that is even an issue with terrorists. Their jihad is against the infidel, and as long as the infidel exists, they will fight and try to kill the infidel. I don't hear them calling for food or water or medicine, I hear them calling for the destruction of Isreal and Jews and any who would support them. I hear them demanding Islamic law be followed. They hate the culture of the west. I don't see a way to make them satisifed without complete surrender to what they wish for socially and religiously.

I think that message only flies with the down and outs - you don't see many shiek suicide bombers.

But the only viable alternative I see, is something horrificly geuesome - it means full and complete genocide, becasue as long as one of them lives, it's a threat. I'm not sure I have the stomach for that, though I'm certain of it's effectiveness.

That said, at the moment we can do nothing to satisfy the jihadists - what work we do now can only be realized in future generations - should Iraq truely become a thriving (econmically successful) democracy, that is a win for us. I think we have to find ways to make their movement irrelavent - I think most people just want to live their lives in peace.

[Moonliner]

While my heart goes out to those effected by today’s criminal acts I can't help but think, Is that it?? Four years since 9/11 and all they can come up with is four backpack bombs? That's an average of one a year. I can't say that I feel particularly terrorized. In fact I think it shows how weak support for these radicals really is.

[Name]

Shockingly, I actually almost see a little brilliance in Bush's unconcern of Bin Laden. Make him a small player that you don't care about, and show his attempts of terror are not effective, and that him and his name hold no weight in day to day activities, and he may eventually give up. He may become pissed, and try harder to be put in the spotlight, but keep ignoring him and he may just give up.(not likely, but could happen, and I could win the lottery too). But I do think that the greatest weapon we have against terrorism, is realizing that there are people that will use this tactic, and just be prepared for death at every hour of our lives. After all, it worked great for the Samarai warriors of Japan, and I think that it would help us all live more fulfilled lives. We are already dead anyway, its just a matter of when and how. So screw the cowardly terrorists, I refuse to live in fear.

[€uroMeinke]

But I do think that the greatest weapon we have against terrorism, is realizing that there are people that will use this tactic, and just be prepared for death at every hour of our lives. After all, it worked great for the Samarai warriors of Japan, and I think that it would help us all live more fulfilled lives. We are already dead anyway, its just a matter of when and how. So screw the cowardly terrorists, I refuse to live in fear.

Brilliant! - I envison an army Swank Samari, nowwork this into my hedon theory...

[Prudence]

I've been pondering all morning and into the afternoon.

These events bring out the worst in me and I vacillate between hiding the unflattering thoughts deep down where no one will see them but they fester and breed, or shining the bright light of exposure on them so that hopefully they will, like a nest of cockroaches, flee into the night.

Today I sided with the cockroach approach. Which means that I'm going to say the things I don't like to admit that I sometimes think. The things that are hurtful and offensive and that I don't WANT to think. And it's selfish of me to even say them, because it's for my own benefit -- to confront the cockroach thoughts in public in the hopes that I can see them for what they are and banish them with mental Raid.

For example:

As I stood in the shower this morning, I found myself thinking that internment camps sounded like a good idea. Not that I actually in my rational brain think that this is good. Or even in my usual empathetic "let's all hug a tree and then go embrace our neighbors' differences" brain. But the deep down reptilian part of my brain said "F*ck 'em all. They're not like me, they don't like me, they never will like me or be like me, they want to eliminate me and everything I hold dear, and they'd be lucky to end up in Gitmo instead of dead at my feet."

And I hate those thoughts. And I hate myself for thinking those thoughts. And I hate people that encourage me to think those thoughts.

It's a frustration for me. Like many flag-wrapped Americans, I, too, want to know where the condemnation is on the part of mainstream Muslims. I watched the 30 days episode with a redneck southerner livining 30 days as a Muslim. I heard the one man say that he won't apologize for what a handful of Muslims do because he's not responsible for their actions. But the voice in my head responded: "And yet you want to hold me responsible for the Crusades, which happened hundreds of years before my birth?"

Because part of me does believe that average, run-of-the-mill Muslims give an internal cheer for terrorist acts. Not a rational part, but a part nonetheless. Part of me does look at passers-by with suspicion and the nagging thought that they probably do want to exterminate me and impose their religious laws on my country. Part of me suspects that those people I see in the hallway at work every day are really more loyal to their ethnic homeland than to the USA, and that if push came to shove they'd shout "Death to America!" with the rest.

And it's not fair to the people around me. What, exactly, would it take for me to believe that they weren't terrorist sympathizers? A full page NY Times ad? Sousa marches on their car stereos? "USA!" chants at ball games? An H2 in every driveway?

I have the benefit of looking back on the Japanese internment camps as part of history and knowing that it was the wrong action to take. Of knowing that those Japanese-American families were not secretly rooting for the Emperor and hoping for a US defeat. Of seeing the horrible photos of families leaving houses they once owned, leaving lives they'd earned, and living as prisoners of war in their own country. I've had the opportunity to read the rationalizations -- conditions aren't that bad, for their own protection -- and the blatant racisim from national leaders of the time.

And then I examine my own thoughts and I'm no better than my ancestors. I see a culture I don't understand and I see some members of that culture attack mine, and I don't know how I'm supposed to tell the difference between potential attackers and law-abiding citizens. All of it looks foreign and foreign = suspicious. And suspicious = better safe than sorry. I'm scared of them, I'm scared of myself, and I'm scared for future generations.

And my own selfish, reprehensible, rascist inner turmoil is nothing compared to loss of life. But damn the terrorists for feeding my internal monster. Damn them for promoting fear for fear's sake. Damn them for promoting eternal reward as a justification for present pain. Damn them for using the powerless in their own power grab. And damn them to the deepest hell for every husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, and child who cries themselves to sleep as tears overflow the holes in their hearts.

[Name]

Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow you may very well be dead

[Morrigoon]

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Prudence again.

That pretty much sums it up. We think this, then feel guilty for thinking it because we know it's wrong, then feel confusion because we don't have a better answer, so we're left with no answer at all rather than the really bad answer.

[Ghoulish Delight]

fyi...


People seeking information on Americans believed to have been in London at the time of the attacks were urged to call 1-888-407-4747 (toll-free in the U.S.) or 1-202-501-4444 (regular toll line from outside the U.S. and Canada).

[scaeagles]

Prudence led me down a different train of thought with her "inner monster" idea.

While not the reason we went into Iraq, the Iraq insurgency is, in fact, run by and fought by terrorists. The terrorists obviously do not understand the majority of citizens in the US or Great Britain.

The fact is, that until the speech by Bush a few days ago, support was waning among the American populace. I believe that Americans know who is fighting us in Iraq at present. I believe that attacks such as this are a reminder that terrorists are in it for the long haul. I believe 9/11 is a distant and fading memory to many Americans, and I believe that Americans wish to live at peace with everyone.

However, attacks like this and the Madrid bombing only serve to freshen in the minds the feelings of horror of what terrorist attacks are. It strengthens the resolve rather than weakening it. I do not think that Americans or Brits are prone to backing down.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

What Prudence said.

I especially have problems with these issues because my family is Jewish. I was born in Israel - my parents lived there for years. You don't want to ask them what they think of Muslims and Islam.

I keep trying to tell myself "they're just people, just like us, and they're trying to protect their culture from invading cultures." We may not write "Death to Arabs" on our walls, but there's plenty of stuff in Christianity (our dominant religion) about persecuting others who don't follow Jesus.

But, but, but! Their religion IS their government! They have no fair trial system! Women's rights are non-existant! Their upper classes keep the lower classes uneducated and poor! They're animals compared to us!!!

And just like Prudence I hate myself for hating them.

I dig what € said about making the masses happier over there. The problem is, the only way to do this is to conquer them and "make them free"...which I obviously can't condone.....can I? My first instinct is that it simply won't work. But simply talking to their leaders isn't going to turn them into democracies. The idea of crushing those dictatorships and ruling classes is so appealing!

The Muslim nations aren't stupid. They are right. If they let American culture and American freedoms into their countries, they will no longer rule with an iron fist. We ARE the enemy, and they should fear us. Not because we're evil, but because we're good.

[mistyisjafo]

All I could think when I heard this happened was "How is this possible!". It's horrifying and devasting to hear so many people have lost their lives or were injured because of crazed people.

[€uroMeinke]

I dig what € said about making the masses happier over there. The problem is, the only way to do this is to conquer them and "make them free"...which I obviously can't condone.....can I?

Is it? That is one way I suppose - I actually wonder if it is possible at all, can poverty ever be eliminated? whatever the long term solution, I'm sure it'll take generations to take, which I think adds to the whole overall squemishness.

[scaeagles]

But I still don't see terrorists blowing things up because they are poor. You mentioned earlier that you don't see sheiks strapping bombs to themselves, but you don't see a whole lot of homeless Americans doing it either. You don't see suicide bombings in poverty stricken central American nations or in the huge blighted areas of cities like Rio de Janeiro.

They blow things up because of ideology. Because of hatred. Because they want to limit everyone into their twisted view of Islam and the laws proscribed therein.

It is long term. All change is long term. I think Americans have it so good in a society of microwaves and fastpasses that the processes that take longer seem unfathomable. I am truly thankful that there is no Hitler around today - I don't know if we would have the patience or stomach to fight the war over time that it took to accomplish the job. I am glad America has already been founded, because the 11 year from our Declaration of Independence in 1776 to the passage of a Constitution in 1787 would be seen as an eternity and the attempts to start America would be called a failure.

[€uroMeinke]

But I still don't see terrorists blowing things up because they are poor. You mentioned earlier that you don't see sheiks strapping bombs to themselves, but you don't see a whole lot of homeless Americans doing it either. You don't see suicide bombings in poverty stricken central American nations or in the huge blighted areas of cities like Rio de Janeiro.

Yes, but you have drive by shootings, indiscriminate killings, drug problems, etc. - the ideology sells becasue they are disenfranchised, usually economics is a big componant of that - we seldom want to move to a position of less comfort.

If this is a battle of ideology, I'm not sure a military approach is the most successfull. Pop culture may be a far greater weapon and propaganda must be our tool. We have to make the jihadists look foolish and silly, and a waste of good people's time.

[scaeagles]

Non-idealogues may perhaps be satisfied with better economic circumstances. But even in America with the drive by shootings and drugs, it isn't always about poverty.

Look at the hip hop music industry. East coast rappers shoot west coast rappers because they were dissed. Just a day ago or so rapper Li'l Kim was convicted of perjury in a case involving just that. These guys are rich.

Similarly, Islamic terrorists will be regardless of economic conditions. Bin Laden is very wealthy (or at least was - I think he was cut off or had assets frozen or something). His twisted version of Islamm, though, says to kill the infidels, and the infidels are those who doesn't believe what he does. The infidels are those that support Israel.

In Iraq, the general populace wants the terrorists to leave. They don't have support of anywhere near even a fair sized minority. The citizens want them gone. The average Iraqi isn't killing US soldiers or blowing up bombs even though conditions are less than ideal. I think the jihadists already look foolish, silly, and barbaric, but that won't change who they are or what they do. They are zealots who don't care what anyone thinks of them.

[Name]

In thinking of it, it seems that the terrorists are in fact fighting a losing battle, if they want us to leave their countries alone, it would be wisest to leave us alone. But that is a slightly buzzed infidel mind thinking, and not a pure follower of islam with someteen virgins waiting for me in a made up utopia land. But really, the more they(the terrorists) bomb, destroy, etc, our country and our friends countries, the more that the push to mess with their ideology will come from our leadership, and in a sense, rightly so. Its a losing game, the only way to win, is not to play.

[MickeyLumbo]

I suspect it was the French. They are so pissed about the Olympics going to a country that doesn't even know how to cook.

Excellent! :D


Vous devez écarter un certain mojo autour avant de le
donner à Wendybeth encore.

[wendybeth]

(Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Mickeylumbo! ;) )

[MickeyLumbo]

fyi...
fyi...

Quote:
Originally Posted by msnbc.com
People seeking information on Americans believed to have been in London at the time of the attacks were urged to call 1-888-407-4747 (toll-free in the U.S.) or 1-202-501-4444 (regular toll line from outside the U.S. and Canada).


__________________

one American closest to this mornings first blast was Rudolph Gulianni, one block away.

[surfinmuse]

Well all our English friends in that area are all alright, one said he was bruised up from the running mob right aroung King's Cross, other than that, everyone was just at home (none of our friends at 9-5ers who commute, as it so happens).

[Tref]

... the only way to win, is not to play.

And thank you very much, WOPR. How about a nice game of chess instead?

[Jazzman]

For the moment I'm resisting getting into the politics of this discussion out of respect for the fact that right now there are hundreds of people in London who are injured or dying, despairing and searching for missing loved ones, and generally hurting. Just as we all were four years ago. I just want to send them as many prayers, thoughts, good vibes and positive waves that I can manage. Debates will undoubtedly rage in the weeks to come, but for now I just want to offer them the same sentiment that they offered us when we were in their place:

Today we are all English.

[Boss Radio]

Jan Wenner has already decided that Bush is to blame...

Is it even possible to see both the left and the right meet in the middle to condemn this tragedy? Rather than finger point and play the blame game, is not the real issue how best to to proceed rather than beat each other up over whose perceived fault it is? Posters on both sides agree that terrorism existed pre-9/11 and pre-Iraq - Our actions have challenged it, met it head on, inflamed it, made it better, made it worse, all bringing us to this point: NOW WHAT?

It doesn't matter who started it. What matters is how we finish it. It is beyond ridiculous to see Red vs Blue America at a time like this.
It's not Clinton's fault. Or Bush's fault.

WE started it. All of us. Red and Blue. We drive the cars. We buy the oil. We buddy up to the bad guys and look the other way when we have to. We propped up the bad guys to begin with. Hell, we invented them.

And now, the playing field has been leveled, and we just look like the thug cops who beat Rodney King's sorry ass, taking advantage of the opressed.

The bitter harvest is here, so let's all work together and fix the ****ing thing.

We can't hide our heads in the sand, nor can we pick a fight with an exit strategy written in crayon on a candy bar wrapper.

We really need to evolve. All of us. Humanity.

And as much as we need to give the Arab Street McDonald's and cable TV, we also need to do our best to disrupt and extinguish the newly franchised disenfranchised.
(I just made that up)

If we can't evolve the planet, at least we need to evolve ourselves.

And why is it that people are only nice to each other after a tsunami, or a bombing, or Christmas?

[SacTown Chronic]

It is long term. All change is long term. I think Americans have it so good in a society of microwaves and fastpasses that the processes that take longer seem unfathomable. I am truly thankful that there is no Hitler around today - I don't know if we would have the patience or stomach to fight the war over time that it took to accomplish the job. I am glad America has already been founded, because the 11 year from our Declaration of Independence in 1776 to the passage of a Constitution in 1787 would be seen as an eternity and the attempts to start America would be called a failure.

I suspect that most American's capacity to stomach a long term battle is directly proportionate to their belief in the cause. For me, a week in Iraq would be equivalent to 50 years of fighting for our independence.

[scaeagles]

I suspect that most American's capacity to stomach a long term battle is directly proportionate to their belief in the cause. For me, a week in Iraq would be equivalent to 50 years of fighting for our independence.

I can understand that....but that made me think of something.

I wonder what the opinions of the French were in the 1770s. They had their own domestic issues. I wonder if they thought it worthwhile to be assisting this group of colonists thousands of miles away when only 20% of those colonists wanted freedom from England anyway. Of course, there's no way to know for sure.

The leaders of France saw the bigger picture. It wasn't so much about helping colonists half way around the world as it was about opposition to the British.

I sure am glad they helped us out and saw the bigger picture. I would guess, though, that the French probably lost more then 1700+ in 2.5 years. Again, I can't say for sure - I really don't know.

[sleepyjeff]

I sure am glad they helped us out and saw the bigger picture. I would guess, though, that the French probably lost more then 1700+ in 2.5 years. Again, I can't say for sure - I really don't know.

600+ at Yorktown alone...........No numbers are available for the entire War.

[wendybeth]

See? It all comes back to the French.;)

However, I fail to see how the Fench involvement in the Revolutionary war compares to this- quite a stretch there, guys. The government of France during the Revolutionary war was still an absolute monarchy, and they were using us every bit as much as we were using them. No ideology at play here at all, gentlemen- just good old fashioned mercenaries. Ironically, their involvement contributed to the downfall of the monarchy and helped to pave the way for their own revolution.

From Wikipedia:
"France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France), the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands) and Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) entered the war against Great Britain in an attempt to dilute Britain's superpower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower) status. France officially entered the war in 1778 and soon sent troops, ships and military equipment to fight alongside the American Patriot army against the British for the remainder of the war. French military involvement in the war proved decisive, though disastrous for the French economy. France's standing army at the time is estimated to have been some 100,000. Spain entered the war in 1779, but did not recognize the new American nation and sent no troops to fight alongside the United States. The Netherlands entered the war late in 1780, but its navy and army was soon overwhelmed by the superior British Royal navy and army."

According to the same submission, the number of Patriots was between 40-50%, while the number of Loyalists was around 15-20%.

[BarTopDancer]

Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray,
South Pacific, Walter Winchell, Joe DiMaggio

Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Studebaker, television,
North Korea, South Korea, Marilyn Monroe

Rosenbergs, H-bomb, Sugar Ray, Panmunjom,
Brando, "The King and I" and "The Catcher in the Rye"

Eisenhower, vaccine, England's got a new Queen,
Marciano, Liberace, Santayana good bye

CHORUS
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning since the world's been turning.
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it but we tried to fight it.

Joseph Stalin, Malenkov, Nasser and Prokofiev,
Rockefeller, Campanella, Communist Bloc

Roy Cohn, Juan Peron, Toscanini, dacron,
Dien Bien Phu falls, "Rock Around the Clock"

Einstein, James Dean, Brooklyn's got a winning team,
Davy Crockett, Peter Pan, Elvis Presley, Disneyland

Bardot, Budapest, Alabama, Krushchev,
Princess Grace, "Peyton Place", trouble in the Suez

CHORUS

'57 Little Rock, Pasternak, Mickey Mantle, Kerouac,
Sputnik, Chou En-Lai, "Bridge on the River Kwai"

'58 Lebanon, Charles de Gaulle, California baseball,
Starkweather, homicide, children of Thalidomide

'59 Buddy Holly, "Ben Hur", space monkey, Mafia,
Hula hoops, Castro, Edsel is a no-go

'60 U-2, Syngman Rhee, payola and Kennedy,
Chubby Checker, "Psycho", Belgians in the Congo

CHORUS

Hemingway, Eichmann, "Stranger in a Strange Land",
Dylan, Berlin, Bay of Pigs invasion

"Lawrence of Arabia", British Beatlemania,
Ole Miss, John Glenn, Liston beats Patterson

Pope Paul, Malcolm X, British politician sex,
JFK blown away, what else do I have to say?

CHORUS

Birth control, Ho Chi Minh, Richard Nixon back again,
Moonshot, Woodstock, Watergate, punk rock,
Begin, Reagan, Palestine, terror on the airline,
Ayatollah's in Iran, Russians in Afghanistan.

"Wheel of Fortune", Sally Ride, heavy metal, suicide,
Foreign debts, homeless vets, AIDS, crack, Bernie Goetz,
Hypodermics on the shores, China's under martial law,
Rock and Roller colour wars, I can't TAKE it anymore!

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning since the world's been turning.
We didn't start the fire
But when we are gone
It will still burn on, and on, and on, and on...

.

[Name]

According to the same submission, the number of Patriots was between 40-50%, while the number of Loyalists was around 15-20%.
Well, we'll just have to go into wikipedia and correct that obvious oversight to the correct percentage of 20% patriots.

[sleepyjeff]

According to the same submission, the number of Patriots was between 40-50%, while the number of Loyalists was around 15-20%.

I think those numbers have been inflated and deflated over the years as no accurate poll was ever taken at the time. However there are other ways to measure and get a sense of where the hearts and minds of those who lived back then were. Judging by some of the reading on this subject I have done today I would say that about 20% of the pop was strongly opposed to the Revolution and that an equal number(20%) were strongly for Revolution. The remaining 60% were mostly anti-British but not too keen on actual revolt.

I very telling statistic:

By 1779, there were more Americans fighting with the British than with Washington!

<<<In the Year 1779 there were no less than 21 regiments (estimated to total 6,500 to 8,000 men) of loyalists in the British army. Washington reported a field army of 3,468. <<<<

[wendybeth]

From a VOA broadcast- The Making of America:

"No one knows for sure how many Americans remained loyal to Great Britain. The Massachusetts political leader, John Adams, thought about thirty-three percent of the colonists supported independence, thirty-three percent supported Britain, and thirty-three percent supported neither side. Most history experts today think that about twenty per cent of the colonists supported Britain. They say the others were neutral or supported whichever side seemed to be winning."

Not that it has squat to do with the OP, so I think I'll quit my participation in this particular derail, and maybe chime in if it gets back on topic. ( Or if we find out it was the French.;):D )

[scaeagles]

However, I fail to see how the Fench involvement in the Revolutionary war compares to this- quite a stretch there, guys. The government of France during the Revolutionary war was still an absolute monarchy, and they were using us every bit as much as we were using them. No ideology at play here at all, gentlemen- just good old fashioned mercenaries.

So you are saying that because it was a monarchy, it was OK for the French to be involved? Actually, I would think the French citizenry would resent it even more. The were subject to the rule of a king, yet their armed forces were assisting others in getting freedom? Apparently they did - as wendy mentioned - a mere decade later the French monarchy fell.

I would suggest that we are using and being used as well. The Iraqi citizenry does, in fact, wish to be free (more so than the 20-50% of the American colonists that did), and we want democracy to spread throughout the reqion of the middle east for a wide variety of reasons. And yes, one of the goals all along was to establish a democrary in Iraq, as democracies have never been freindly to terrorists, and with a fundtioning democracy in Iraq, it is more likely to spread.

Go ahead, wendy...stay out of the thread....I dare you. :p

[Ghoulish Delight]

When the French got involved in the American Revolution, it was active, initiated by the citizens themselves. In Iraq, there was no active revolution, unless you count the Kurds, and even they had pretty much carved their niched and stopped at that. The fact remains that no revolution that's been initiated by outside forces has ever lead to a successful, stable nation.

[SacTown Chronic]

So when do we invade England and their homegrown terrorists? You know, fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here.

[MickeyLumbo]

tomorrow, 4:20pmGMT

dude

[sleepyjeff]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050721/ts_nm/security_britain_train_dc

I am not expert; but it seems to me they are getting more and more desperate with less and less sophistication.

[SacTown Chronic]

Who is getting more desperate?

[sleepyjeff]

Good question.....but I mean the terrorists themselves. I know this is serious stuff but this latest attempt seems to me a bit lame. Almost like those old superman shows when the bad guy runs out of bullets then throws the gun at Superman....just my take on it, I have no idea if there is anything to it or not.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Good question.....but I mean the terrorists themselves. I know this is serious stuff but this latest attempt seems to me a bit lame. Almost like those old superman shows when the bad guy runs out of bullets then throws the gun at Superman....just my take on it, I have no idea if there is anything to it or not.Ah yes, "the terrorists". I guess these guys will be having their union cards revoked.

[sleepyjeff]

Ah yes, "the terrorists". I guess these guys will be having their union cards revoked.

:confused:

[Scrooge McSam]

Ah yes, "the terrorists". I guess these guys will be having their union cards revoked.

ROFL :snap:

[Ghoulish Delight]

:confused:
Your assessment is as if "the terrorists" is some kind of organized, centralized fighting force. It's far from it. Even an organization like Al Quaida can't even be considered as such any more. It's a wide-spread, decentralized "network" of local groups that have little to no actual ties to the original Al Quaida network. They are Al Quaida in name and ideology only.

It's rather unlike terrorist cells to repeat their tactics. So I fail to see how a single, poorly executed, rush job leads you to the conclusion that "the terrorists" are getting desparate. Especially with Iraq having just been through a series of the most deadly terrorist attacks of the whole war. It seems much more likely that this is some small, independent group of nutjobs trying to make a name for themselves by copying someone else.

[sleepyjeff]

Your assessment is as if "the terrorists" is some kind of organized, centralized fighting force. It's far from it. Even an organization like Al Quaida can't even be considered as such any more. It's a wide-spread, decentralized "network" of local groups that have little to no actual ties to the original Al Quaida network. They are Al Quaida in name and ideology only.

It's rather unlike terrorist cells to repeat their tactics. So I fail to see how a single, poorly executed, rush job leads you to the conclusion that "the terrorists" are getting desparate. Especially with Iraq having just been through a series of the most deadly terrorist attacks of the whole war. It seems much more likely that this is some small, independent group of nutjobs trying to make a name for themselves by copying someone else.

So the attacks in Iraq are the works of terrorists?

[Ghoulish Delight]

So the attacks in Iraq are the works of terrorists?:confused: Who ever said they weren't?

[BarTopDancer]

terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state"

And aren't terrorists people who want to invoke fear to get their way?

It seems to me then, that the Bush Administration is also a bunch of terrorists. When are they going to invade themselves? :evil:

[€uroMeinke]

No no no - if they're on your side they are "freedom fighters"

[scaeagles]

Today there were blasts in Egypt. Four to seven car bombs. Several dead. Assuming it was done by terrorists, why Egypt? I suppose there could be anti-Egyptian terrorist groups, but if this is Al Qaida and their ilk, what possible gain is therre for them?

Egypt isn't friendly to terrorists, but they aren't pro-Isreal or supportive of our actions in Iraq.

I am a bit confounded by this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4709491.stm

[Prudence]

I believe that Al Qaida and similar groups feel that Egypt it too friendly to the west. I was reading something about this recently, but now can't remember where. Also, the area in question was popular with Israeli tourists.

[scaeagles]

the area in question was popular with Israeli tourists.

That's true, and I suppose terrorists don't care about such things, but all that does is discourage tourism by everyone, hurting the Egyptian economy.

[€uroMeinke]

That's true, and I suppose terrorists don't care about such things, but all that does is discourage tourism by everyone, hurting the Egyptian economy.

Somehow possessing great logic or reasoning skills doesn't seem to be high on a terrorists qualifications. I doubt the daily detonation of innocent Iraqis doesn't do much for their cause as well. I think mostly they like to blow things up and read about themselves in the paper.

[SacTown Chronic]

I am a bit confounded by this.
Nowadays, anyone with a grudge is a potential terrorist. Suicide bombings are the internet age equivalent of a good old fashioned murder-suicide. And there's the appeal of having seventy virgins waiting for you in Paradise. Though, to be honest, a little virgin goes a long way and that many virgins seems excessive to me.

[scaeagles]

Though, to be honest, a little virgin goes a long way and that many virgins seems excessive to me.

But we're talking for all eternity here, Sac. Heading into that first millenium that first virgin might be looking a bit.....unvirginlike.

[SacTown Chronic]

Three hours in Paradise with me and that first virgin will look a bit...unvirginlike. :evil:

[Prudence]

If I recall correctly, discouraging tourism is the point. They don't want outsiders to come into or possibly influence their country. Also, they want the existing government to collapse so that it can be replaced with one more to the terrorists liking.

[Name]

Three hours in Paradise with me and that first virgin will look a bit...unvirginlike. :evil:
I'm still wondering where all those virgins are coming from, its hard to find just one around here.

[SacTown Chronic]

Have you tried the local chapter of Young Republicans?

[Name]

I try to stay away from the under 12 crowd as much as possible

[SacTown Chronic]

The average age of a virginal Young Republican is 27.

[Name]

silly republicans, don't they know they are setting themselves up to be terrorist fodder.

[scaeagles]

I try to stay away from the under 12 crowd as much as possible

That's why Sac likes the Young Republicans.