If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Radical Liberalism+Pacifists = enemies of the free world
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Before you flying off at your finger tips, understand this:
first, I have never posted anything here condoning or supporting acts of terrorism on your soil. So, I get real aggravated when I read that you respond apathetically or in some cases supportively of what happened over here on the 11th.
Second, no SINGLE act that has ever been done by the P.I.R.A or similar terrorist organizations on your soil has achieved the carnage and death toll of the WTC/Pentagon attack.
Thirdly, some of your own citizens have died in this attack. Accordingly it does concern the UK.
So I can't believe what I am reading here. You have assholes saying; "America got what it deserves...". I donot know of any Americans that say "those women and kids got what they deserved" when your own terrorists get kill them.
Some have said there is a similarity between us here. Innocent citizens of the UK have been killed by terrorists because their Government has imposed their will on those that want to be free.
Now it is said that we have had our innocents killed because we impose our will on the people of the mid-east. By the way, your government's hand are dirty in that as well...
In either case, I believe both of those theories are wrong. I hope most of you do as well.
It seems that many oppose the said war declared by president Bush at least on this forum anyways. I doubt the sentiment is the same across england.
Is it rampant liberalism? Do you hate your goverment? If you don't like Blair, we can send you Clinton...
Or is it a combined hatred and fear of the military? You good people don't do conscription anymore do you?
Well Englanders, this is a war, it is a World war, it affects us all. It is a shame it took so long to begin a stopping of this.
Unfortunately, I think this war has claimed more of your citizens lives than ours, as you have been fighting terrorism on your soil much longer than us.
I still can't understand the anti-war sentiment I read here, it is reminiscent of the US 1960's vietnam-era homefront. Do you really feel justified as being a pacifist or are you searching for nostalgia?
What will it take to open the eyes of those that are asleep? perhaps one of these bastards will detonate a bomb with a biological agent in it during post-work traffic in the heart of London?
wake up! It is cool to be diverse, it is cool to go against the grain but sometimes you are better off leaving some things alone...
we need to be united on this.
first, I have never posted anything here condoning or supporting acts of terrorism on your soil. So, I get real aggravated when I read that you respond apathetically or in some cases supportively of what happened over here on the 11th.
Second, no SINGLE act that has ever been done by the P.I.R.A or similar terrorist organizations on your soil has achieved the carnage and death toll of the WTC/Pentagon attack.
Thirdly, some of your own citizens have died in this attack. Accordingly it does concern the UK.
So I can't believe what I am reading here. You have assholes saying; "America got what it deserves...". I donot know of any Americans that say "those women and kids got what they deserved" when your own terrorists get kill them.
Some have said there is a similarity between us here. Innocent citizens of the UK have been killed by terrorists because their Government has imposed their will on those that want to be free.
Now it is said that we have had our innocents killed because we impose our will on the people of the mid-east. By the way, your government's hand are dirty in that as well...
In either case, I believe both of those theories are wrong. I hope most of you do as well.
It seems that many oppose the said war declared by president Bush at least on this forum anyways. I doubt the sentiment is the same across england.
Is it rampant liberalism? Do you hate your goverment? If you don't like Blair, we can send you Clinton...
Or is it a combined hatred and fear of the military? You good people don't do conscription anymore do you?
Well Englanders, this is a war, it is a World war, it affects us all. It is a shame it took so long to begin a stopping of this.
Unfortunately, I think this war has claimed more of your citizens lives than ours, as you have been fighting terrorism on your soil much longer than us.
I still can't understand the anti-war sentiment I read here, it is reminiscent of the US 1960's vietnam-era homefront. Do you really feel justified as being a pacifist or are you searching for nostalgia?
What will it take to open the eyes of those that are asleep? perhaps one of these bastards will detonate a bomb with a biological agent in it during post-work traffic in the heart of London?
wake up! It is cool to be diverse, it is cool to go against the grain but sometimes you are better off leaving some things alone...
we need to be united on this.
0
Comments
but you have to accept that there are also people all over the world who have grave and justifiable concerns about the effect world war will have.
So we differ in our opinion - that doesn't mean we should all agree to agree with you!
I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, just stating a fact.
I don't want a war,
I don't think we have seen any firm evidence to say that Attacking Afghanistan is the right thing to do (in retaliation for the hijacks)
Show us the evidence and maybe my attitude will shift somewhat but at the moment I fear world war and I will not personally fight in one -
This is not a cause I believe in enough to die for.
My choice - make your own, but don't tell me I have to agree with you just because you want me to.
I am certainly not saying those people in the WTC/Pentagon deserved to die, no way - but there are wider issues here, particularly why these fundamentalists (whoever they are) had such belief in what they did, and how we can help to stop it happening again.
I completely agree with you on this one. It sickens me reading articles that say 'Its not nice what happened to the people in the WTC BUT THEY KINDA DESERVED IT'
Sorry but I can almost guarentee that the kids in the day care centre in the WTC or the cleaners or even the financial analysts, stock brokers etc didnt have a damn thing to do with setting US policy any more than I have anything to do with the UK policy in N.Ireland. These attacks are inexcusable.
Notice its EXACTLY the same people who say the US got what it deserved that complain about the bombing of dresden and japan in ww2..This is the EXACT same thing, the innocent civilians were killed because of the actions of their government and its just not on.
Rage, you can be assured that the people on this forum do not accurately protray the UK public. Despite what some liberal wishy washy types in here say, MOST people in the UK support the US and support military action.
byny,
Nobody 'wants' a war but unfortunately its the only option.
We elect governments to make such decisions for us. If our govt says they have seen evidence then I believe them. NATO has also seen the evidence. Since when were you privy to the top levels of international security? Bottom line, its not your decision.
A car bomb outside your place of work doesnt distinquish. You may not get a choice.
"If our govt says they have seen evidence then I believe them"
Your being a little Nieve arn't you?
and the UN has seen the evidence too, and in their oppinion its inconclusive.
Nope, it also satisfies NATO. I take it you know some reason why our government would lie about the evidence?
Can you provide a source for that? I find it a little strange that NATO deems the evidence worthy but the UN doesnt. Considering both organisations are run by similar people I find it odd. Please show me an article backing up what you just said.
PS. its good that we dont agree..Its fun to argue <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">
And about the gov. have you got any reason to trust them completly? They have lied in the past, why not again. It's not completly stupid to assume that they just want to go along with popular oppinion. Thatcher used the falklands to boost her ratings, and as blair isn't the most popular fellow why not go along the same path?
I'm not saying that they don't have any evidence but I'm also not saying that they do just because they say so.
Any way your wrong I'm right <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif"> (wink wink nudge nudge)
Dont get me wrong here. I know Tony Blair to be a lying toerag, same as pretty much every PM..BUT this evidence has convinced all the NATO countries. I dont believe for a minute that they would all agree on something if it werent completely compelling.
"Politicians are the lowest form of life on the earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician" George Patton
NATO members:
Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain,
Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
(19 members)
UN members:
There are 189 members so the list is alittle long. If all ninteen members of NATO are in the UN (they proberbly are but I havent checked) then then the UN is made up of aprox. 10% NATO, which isn't much, hence different conclusions.
(its interesting to note that because the UN members list is in alphabetical order Afganistan is at the top!)
info from: www.nato.int
and www.un.org
The scale shouldn't make much difference, a single killing is as unforgivable as a thousand. I think you'll find the deaths you suffered are greater than the Irish troubles have managed in 30 years. It should make no difference wether UK citizens were killed. "America deserves it" is most definately not the same as "the women and kids deserve it"
Ona side issue, do you think the men deserve to die in "our" terrorist problem, I just wondered because you didn't include them. you think we don't know?
"But John Bull did it too," isn't that great a defence.
About 70% are in favour. which I find surprising given the amount of manipulation that has been going on. I guess we might have a hope after all. I'd hardly describe it as liberalism, let alone rampant. I don't hate the government, it is bad in places, especially when it comes to being accountable to parliament. Popularism is a blight on our representative democracy, but it is the cost of allowing just about anyone to vote.
The attack, although well planned was an attrocity. The terrorists must be punished, and in this case a trial is not appropriate. "you've killed 8000 people, how do you plead?".
I think a war is the only answer, if it is conducted properly then within a few years terrorists around the globe will be thinking that their line of buisness is a little extinct.
I think, that it is ok to question governments, but at times like this the average citizen on the street is not able to make an informed decision. We rely on the government to do it for us, the government is there to serve our best interests. If they say it is in our best interest to make a pre-emptive strike on terrorists before they make one on us, then I'm all for it. Why would the government take us into a war if they thought it would be the end of us?
I think the pacifists have got to step back and think, what happens if there isn't a war. What happens if the terrorists decide to up the ante and bomb one of ourcities? Despite what CR said, the terrorists are quite capable of creating, or finding someone who can create a weapon of mass destruction. Do you not think that because the attack in Tokyo went wrong they might not learn from it? It went wrong because the terrorist shieled the blast slightly with his coat. What would you do if a similar attack happened on the tube? Have you ever been down there and felt the blasts of air as trains push it from one station to another? How long do you think it would take an airborne virus to spread from station to station and out onto the streets? 3 million people use the underground everyday, a successful attack would claim about 80% casualties, that's a lot of people. I think you need to do what Bush said, you either with us or against us. And if you're against us then you are no better than them.
So for example the Afghans should rely on the Taliban to make informed decisions for them?
What you are saying is I think the goverment is right and so should all the rest of the country!!
Tell you what - let's get rid of the 2 party system and just have the same people running the country for ever shall we, no recourse, no questions, no votes nothing - we'll just accept it all as the right thing - there'll be no corruption, no unfairness because it's all RIGHT
Hurrah!
What rubbish
[This message has been edited by byny (edited 04-10-2001).]
If not then you and all the other people who didn't turn up should have no say in how the government makes it's decisions. You had your chance, lost it and now you do not have the right to criticise their decisions.
As for comparing our government to the Taliban, a bit extreme don't you think? If our government was like the Taliban then you wouldn't even be able to state your point of view on a board such as this, so be grateful.
I admit that Blair is acting a bit like a dictator, but at times like these time is of the essence. It is far too time consuming to recall parlimant and discuss the whoe thing, and in times like this the Prime Minister has emergency powers. At the end of the day, despite what parliment say, he is still in charge. He doesn't have to listen to what the opposition say if he doesn't believe it to be in our best interests.
And I ask again Byny, why would the government not want to serve our interests? Without us then there is no government in this country.
I have voted in every election since I became old enough to do so.
I am not one of these people who thinks by not voting I am making a stand, or changing anything.
I was not comparing our government to the Teleban - just pointing out that if people accepted everything that was done in their country, or the world because the government decided it was OK then nothing would ever be changed.
The arrogant pr*ck actually said he was the most powerful man in England..he could be heading for a fall.
in Russia!
I can't see why you think a trial isn't appropriate. I can only think that you must beleive that punishing the people responsible isn't enough, but that you must also punish their countrymen, or perhaps the idea that because there may not be compelling evidence in the end nobody would punished galls?
Personally I'm not convinced it wasn't the American government, or at least that they didn't allow it to happen I don't believe conventional war can hurt terrorism, but I know it makes people feel better, that something is being done, that others are paying for the hurt done.
I fully support effective action against terrorism, I'm even prepared (but unwilling) to accept that killing terrorists might be the only option, I reject costly publicity stunts and the idea that you can stamp out terrorism. So if the government deciding that entering the EuroZone was the right thing for eceomic reasons... it wouldn't be. Physically we are collectively safe - the terrorists might at best kill a few hundred thousands before running low on materials. Morally, however, such actions are agrave risk.
what happens if you do have a war. Apart from the opportunity for nations to work off their fear and anger, what do you hope to achieve. That would "up" the ante how? After America, the UK! Given how difficult countries find it I have to disagree. Biological weapon delivery is exceeding difficult to get right, assuming you can transport the agent safely
I'm sure you don't mean that 80% of the 3 million would be killed, which is how the carelessly thrown together statistics might read, and I assume it is a chemical attack that you are talking about. Given the choice of being on the side of those calling for war or being on the side of the terrorists, then I would very reluctantly have to support the likes of Bin Laden.
In general, people issuing such an ultimatum are on shaky ground. I'm not with you, and I'm not with them.
Cause not know, no indication of on-board problems. Some military practice in the area
The terrorists (in simple terms) want us to be scared and to kill us.
Bush et al (still in simple terms) want to scare them and kill them.
Not much difference there then.
HUGE fucking difference.
The 'us' in question is every man, woman and child in the western world who is not a Muslim (and even those who are Muslim, and not eth 'ture' Mslims which the Taliban see themselves as).
The 'them' is the people who orchestrated, financed and carried out the attack on the WTC. Not EVERY one who lives in those countries...
"Perhaps my best years are gone, but I wouldn't want them back. Not with the fire in me now." - Samuel Beckett
So what is the 'Third Way'?
"Perhaps my best years are gone, but I wouldn't want them back. Not with the fire in me now." - Samuel Beckett
Like you said, to sit on the fence like a wuss. To those people who would sit on the fence, you do know what happened in heaven don't you? There was a war, those who sat on the fence waiting for a winner were exiled. It's the same as saying "I think I believe in God, but he needs to prove it". You can't sit in the middle on an issue like this, especially if you can't think of a reasonable alternative. And dont say diplomacy, that angle has worn a bit thin.
in fact, correct me if i'm wrong, but some of the sternest anti-war posters we have here are from the US. so it isnt just us.
i agree with your point that we have to act, but i dont agree with your sentiment that the UK has suddenly become pacifist. ffs, blair is more enthusiastic about this damned coalition than bush is!!!
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Actualy he didn't. It was you that was the rude fucker.
"you do know what happened in heaven don't you"
nope, because I don't beilive in god.
Can I get one thing strait please. Why the fuck am I 'sitting on the fence' or 'taking the third way' because I don't agree with Bush? I don't agree with Bush pulling out of Kyoto, I don't agree with Bush throwing the chemical weapons treaty down the toilet eather. Does that mean I am sitting on the fence, does that mean I am taking the third way? I never said, nothing should be done I said this shouldn't be done.
Oh by the way, the 'third way' and 'sitting on the fence' mean two completly fucking diffrent things.
Not to the enemies of same, they don't. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif">
as for sitting on the fence, the only time i tried to do that was a bit of a disaster. it was electric, and it nearly fried my bollocks off. so i dont do it anymore.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
But that's what I implied, I just missed the 'wuss' bit. Wuss. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">
No, not because you don't agree with Bush, but because "I'm not on eather side" - hence sitting on the fence.
Out of interest, there are many areas in which I do not agree with bush. Killing terrorist and their supporters isn;t one of them.
The heaven analogy was a good one. The christians believe that there was a fight in heaven, which (naturally)God won. He then banished all those who had sat on the fence waiting to see who had won. The theory being that if you didn't fight for Him, then you were against Him (if only a small part).
In this case we are suggesting that either you support the fight against terrorism or you don't. If you cannot decide then a part of you supports the terrorists, and you may as well be kissing Bin laden's feet.
Aye. What I was looking for was your opinion on what the alternatives are. I was trying to give you the opportunity to get off the fence...
"Perhaps my best years are gone, but I wouldn't want them back. Not with the fire in me now." - Samuel Beckett
[This message has been edited by Man Of Kent (edited 07-10-2001).]
eather side" - hence sitting on the fence."
-There can be more than one side to an argument. A bit like in a
triangle. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif">
"Out of interest, there are many areas in which I do not agree with
bush. Killing terrorist and their supporters isn;t one of them"
-Don't get me wrong I won't shed a tear if Bin laden and the rest are
eliminated, but do remember that sections of the US community support
terrorism ie. the IRA. And that the US/ British gov. supported none
other than UBL a few years back.
And what exactly is a terrorist? Nelson Mandella? he was certainly
though of a one for quite a while.
Thats exactly what Bush and Blair have been doing: "hand over Bin Laden
or else..."
"In this case we are suggesting that either you support the fight
against terrorism or you don't."
-OK, I don't support this fight.
"If you cannot decide then a part of
you supports the terrorists, and you may as well be kissing Bin laden's
feet."
-Well I did decide. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif">
"Aye. What I was looking for was your opinion on what the alternatives
are. I was trying to give you the opportunity to get off the fence..."
-I've already said that I don't belive that I'm on the fence. As for
my oppinion on the alternatives, turn their people against them. Don't
make UBL the hero that he isn't. Don't fire up the surrounding Muslim
countries. Pakistan is a ticking time bomb, if the people over throw
the gov. then we will have a 'rogue state' with nuklear capabilities.
The aid bags with USA written across them would have been a good start, because then they would have realised that may be the USA is
not such a monster. These people don't have accses to radio let alone
TV. They aren't going to think about why the outsiders are doing this
they are just going to want to protect their country... blah blah...
blah... <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif"> etc. etc.