Explosion in London Underground

[Thierry]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

I was talking about whether the people felt good knowing that their city was about to be bombed and watching while their heroic defense forces move most of their anti air artillery into civilian areas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm, isn't it logical to protect the city with anti air artillery on places it needs to protected?

No point in placing the protection way outside the city or in the outskirts where there's nothing to protect...

[Gordon Comstock]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thierry:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

You really think the people are happy with their government's methods of defending them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some are, some aren't, just like in Europe.

It's a common mistake from Western civilisation to think democracy is the best way to go, so we try to force it to all the countries around the world.

News flash: perhaps other people want different stuff? There are plenty of people in Asia who feel comfortable with their current situation. If all Iraqi people wanted a democracy, it would have been peace by now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>the power vacuum created in Iraq has allowed a very small group of insurgents to wield an abnormally large amount of power - it's a rare situation that isn't comparable to European politics, in my opinion.

[TheCranker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thierry:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

You really think the people are happy with their government's methods of defending them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some are, some aren't, just like in Europe.

It's a common mistake from Western civilisation to think democracy is the best way to go, so we try to force it to all the countries around the world.

News flash: perhaps other people want different stuff? There are plenty of people in Asia who feel comfortable with their current situation. If all Iraqi people wanted a democracy, it would have been peace by now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was talking about whether the people felt good knowing that their city was about to be bombed and watching while their heroic defense forces move most of their anti air artillery into civilian areas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they recognise this as being the best form of defense then I doubt they'd have too much of a problem.

[Sir Bert Preast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thierry:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

I was talking about whether the people felt good knowing that their city was about to be bombed and watching while their heroic defense forces move most of their anti air artillery into civilian areas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm, isn't it logical to protect the city with anti air artillery on places it needs to protected?

No point in placing the protection way outside the city or in the outskirts where there's nothing to protect... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is only one reason they put military into civilian areas - to maximise their own casualties. If we were to do the same thing, the civilians would be evacuated.

[Andrew K]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thierry:

Some are, some aren't, just like in Europe.

It's a common mistake from Western civilisation to think democracy is the best way to go, so we try to force it to all the countries around the world.

News flash: perhaps other people want different stuff? There are plenty of people in Asia who feel comfortable with their current situation. If all Iraqi people wanted a democracy, it would have been peace by now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say popular sovereignty is a basic human right. If people desire to be ruled by a dictator they can just keep electing one into power, ala Japan for 40+ years after the war.

[Daaaaave]

ahahahaha moving defense networks into civilian areas the smart thing to do. someone thinks missile command is a tactical trainerl

[Sir Bert Preast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker:

Depends what logic you're using. If you're using the "asking for it" logic then yeah sure. I'm not though. If you're using the "fighting the optimal way to to achieve victory" then 5 guys attacking the London Underground is going to have a much greater effect than if the same 5 guys stood in front of the combined might of the UK and USA force and fighting them on the battleground. It wouldn't be optimal for us to fight their way because our society recognises that we can win wars without aiming at civilians (although if some are wandering around who gives a ****, omlettes eggs and all that). Each side is fighting for the same thing irrespective of what our leaders may tell us. We're engaged in an ideological war. The problem is that the average man on the ground doesn't realise this so can't understand why we're being attacked. It's that whole lack of understanding thing that got us in this mess in the first place. You can't force a way of life on people as you implictly make their reason for existing meaningless and people with no meaning in life are pretty dangerous. As we found out yesterday. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're using the "fighting the optimal way to achieve victory" does that licence us to intern or deport all muslims and nuke areas where they like to burn our flags? Surely, it at least gives us licence to kill everyone in Guantanamo bay, then sew 'em up in pigskins and fire them into deep space? That is one thing that'd have the jihadis rattled - their lives are not entirely without value, it all depends how they meet their end.

[TheCranker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thierry:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

I was talking about whether the people felt good knowing that their city was about to be bombed and watching while their heroic defense forces move most of their anti air artillery into civilian areas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm, isn't it logical to protect the city with anti air artillery on places it needs to protected?

No point in placing the protection way outside the city or in the outskirts where there's nothing to protect... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is only one reason they put military into civilian areas - to maximise their own casualties. If we were to do the same thing, the civilians would be evacuated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If maximising their civilan casualties is the only possibility of victory then it's a valid option. Similar to America targetting civilians at the end of WWII because targetting civilians was the optimal way of ending the war and our morality at the time allowed it.

[Thierry]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

There is only one reason they put military into civilian areas - to maximise their own casualties. If we were to do the same thing, the civilians would be evacuated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good that you know it all, almost didn't know that.

Kill all your compatriots

[Sir Bert Preast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker:

If maximising their civilan casualties is the only possibility of victory then it's a valid option. Similar to America targetting civilians at the end of WWII because targetting civilians was the optimal way of ending the war and our morality at the time allowed it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So all really IS fair in love and war?

[Sir Bert Preast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thierry:

Originally posted by Bert Preast:

Kill all your compatriots </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't - they're all 1500 miles away.

[TheCranker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker:

Depends what logic you're using. If you're using the "asking for it" logic then yeah sure. I'm not though. If you're using the "fighting the optimal way to to achieve victory" then 5 guys attacking the London Underground is going to have a much greater effect than if the same 5 guys stood in front of the combined might of the UK and USA force and fighting them on the battleground. It wouldn't be optimal for us to fight their way because our society recognises that we can win wars without aiming at civilians (although if some are wandering around who gives a ****, omlettes eggs and all that). Each side is fighting for the same thing irrespective of what our leaders may tell us. We're engaged in an ideological war. The problem is that the average man on the ground doesn't realise this so can't understand why we're being attacked. It's that whole lack of understanding thing that got us in this mess in the first place. You can't force a way of life on people as you implictly make their reason for existing meaningless and people with no meaning in life are pretty dangerous. As we found out yesterday. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're using the "fighting the optimal way to achieve victory" does that licence us to intern or deport all muslims and nuke areas where they like to burn our flags? Surely, it at least gives us licence to kill everyone in Guantanamo bay, then sew 'em up in pigskins and fire them into deep space? That is one thing that'd have the jihadis rattled - their lives are not entirely without value, it all depends how they meet their end. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No because it isn't the optimal way to achieve victory. We're defending a way of life and that way of life has a bearing on how we fight. Fighting purely to kll the enemy and then the actual fight destroying our way, would be pointless and inefficient. War doesn't exist in a moral vacuum.

[TheCranker]

Originally posted by Bert Preast:

Originally posted by Thierry:

Originally posted by Bert Preast:

I was talking about whether the people felt good knowing that their city was about to be bombed and watching while their heroic defense forces move most of their anti air artiller

[TheCranker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker:

If maximising their civilan casualties is the only possibility of victory then it's a valid option. Similar to America targetting civilians at the end of WWII because targetting civilians was the optimal way of ending the war and our morality at the time allowed it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So all really IS fair in love and war? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope.

[Sir Bert Preast]

"Leading Lebanese Shia Muslim scholar, Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, voiced outrage. "These crimes are not accepted by any religion. It is a barbarism wholly rejected by Islam," he said."

Not bad, for an ayatollah. You see, this is what's required - absolute and unqualified condemnation from respected religious leaders. Unfortunately, he's the only one I've found so far.

[Sir Bert Preast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker:

No because it isn't the optimal way to achieve victory. We're defending a way of life and that way of life has a bearing on how we fight. Fighting purely to kll the enemy and then the actual fight destroying our way, would be pointless and inefficient. War doesn't exist in a moral vacuum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it's fine for them to use any means, because what they're fighting for is a load of **** anyway?

[JonnyZuko]

I dont think pulling troops out of Iraq is an option.

I mean there was no forces in Iraq or Afghanistan when al-qaeda placed a car bomb outside The WTC in 93, they also hit an embassy somewhere i cant remember and a US aircraft carrier. Al-qaeda want the forces moved out of Afghanistan because they want to go back to the good old days of having a country to train their troops.

[Daaaaave]

morals are slippery things. I bet a convincing argument could get a majority of americans to think it perfectly moral and just to turn the middle east into a "glass parking lot"a

[Sir Bert Preast]

Thank christ Daaaaave's gone back to vowels.

[Daaaaave]

I think I saw a sigma in there the other day? At least I think it was a sigma? Which one is it that looks like a u with a vertical line of the left? F*cking physics..

[TheCranker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker:

No because it isn't the optimal way to achieve victory. We're defending a way of life and that way of life has a bearing on how we fight. Fighting purely to kll the enemy and then the actual fight destroying our way, would be pointless and inefficient. War doesn't exist in a moral vacuum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it's fine for them to use any means, because what they're fighting for is a load of **** anyway? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty much. You're trying to apply our morality which is shaped by our environment to a completely different environment. It's like the old "should we have bombed Japan" question which is ludricous because it's trying to apply our current morality to a completely different environment. Actions can only be judged relative to their environment or the reference point becomes bóllocks so the judgement becomes bóllocks.

[Phreaky]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

I think I saw a sigma in there the other day? At least I think it was a sigma? Which one is it that looks like a u with a vertical line of the left? F*cking physics.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe its "mu"

[Daaaaave]

then it should also be transitive to the target. f*ck them, they're all a bunch of amoral animals now suddenly legitimate. only apply your morals to people who hold the same values as you. basically a common thread throughout human history. ›

[Daaaaave]

stupid muh

[Daaaaave]

ahahahahahahahahahaha muh

[Sir Bert Preast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker:

Pretty much. You're trying to apply our morality which is shaped by our environment to a completely different environment. It's like the old "should we have bombed Japan" question which is ludricous because it's trying to apply our current morality to a completely different environment. Actions can only be judged relative to their environment or the reference point becomes bóllocks so the judgement becomes bóllocks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can accept that. In no way would I condone our resorting to their tactics. We have to start doing something mind, but what? My personal preference is to intern or deport those in the UK who make no effort to hide their fundamentalist sympathies - then I'd like to see us making martyrs of those religious leaders who preach their hatred of us. Wherever they are.

[Sir Bert Preast]

I think that yesterday was a ****up for AQ, really. They have no chance of changing UK foreign or domestic policies, and though their London effort may have won them a few recruits and kudos I hope it also won us a few recruits of the type we need - first and second generation immigrants who are prepared to try to infiltrate the fundamentalists' networks.

[TheCranker]

If it being transitive to the target destroys what we're fighting for then it's pointless. If the target begins to have a more negative impact on what we're fighting for than it would if it was transitive to the target then so be it. We don't seem capable of knowing where that point is though and that's part of the problem.

[Thierry]

Can't we just leave them alone and let them sort out their own problems?

[ericcantona7]

I think they'd have lost a lot of support, certainly from British arabs at least, and the only way they'll win it back is if we go and bomb the **** out of someone in revenge.

[Sir Bert Preast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker:

If it being transitive to the target destroys what we're fighting for then it's pointless. If the target begins to have a more negative impact on what we're fighting for than it would if it was transitive to the target then so be it. We don't seem capable of knowing where that point is though and that's part of the problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know - there are many examples in history of countries forgetting their morals when backed up to the wall but swiftly putting them back into place when the danger has passed. Not that our backs are anywhere near the wall yet.

[Sir Bert Preast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thierry:

Can't we just leave them alone and let them sort out their own problems? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let them kill each other or die from starvation and plague, then go in and take over you mean? I like it - it's a scorcher.

[Daaaaave]

I think you're being far too static in your thinking, cranky. morals and "what we're fighting for" are not absolutes for a single person, much less an entire society/nation.

after all, absolute morals would make actively doing nothing in rwanda far far more abhorent than killing a few civilians saddam used as human shields. h

[Guest Chunky Ledson]

YNWA to all those involved...

[TheCranker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker:

If it being transitive to the target destroys what we're fighting for then it's pointless. If the target begins to have a more negative impact on what we're fighting for than it would if it was transitive to the target then so be it. We don't seem capable of knowing where that point is though and that's part of the problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know - there are many examples in history of countries forgetting their morals when backed up to the wall but swiftly putting them back into place when the danger has passed. Not that our backs are anywhere near the wall yet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The backs up to the wall part is the important bit and exactly where our back is at any given time and what it is we're backing up to. This is the bit I think we're struggling with. The added complexity is that other people's opinion where our backs are and what we're backing up to differs from our own and effects their opinions of where their backs are and what they're backing up to.

[Sir Bert Preast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker:

The backs up to the wall part is the important bit and exactly where our back is at any given time and what it is we're backing up to. This is the bit I think we're struggling with. The added complexity is that other people's opinion where our backs are and what we're backing up to differs from our own and effects their opinions of where their backs are and what they're backing up to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quality gibberish.

[MattyT]

Kim Petersen on znet (long):

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

The London Underground was hit today by a series of dastardly terrorist bombings during rush hour. At least 37 fatalities have been confirmed and more than 700 hundred wounded. A visibly shaken UK Prime Minister Tony Blair quickly enveloped himself and his country in the cloak of victimhood and responded with a stern warning.

Blair considered it "particularly barbaric that this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty in Africa, and the long term problems of climate change and the environment," as if there were a day on which such an attack would not be barbaric. Blair tried to draw the listener's attention away from the obvious question: why did they bomb London? It is ludicrous to insinuate that there was any connection between the bombings and the agenda of the G8 Summit. The purpose of the bombings at the G8 Summit must be interpreted to demonstrate to the western leaders who wreak terrorism from afar that they are also vulnerable to attack. This is the message that rang out loud and clear from the London bombings.

Yet Blair defiantly stated, "It is important however that those engaged in terrorism realize that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world." One wonders what kind of values have permitted the killings of 100,000 Iraqi civilians in the last just over two years? One wonders about the approximately 1 million Iraqis that were allowed to perish under the western-backed UN sanctions on Iraq from 1991 to 2003.

Addressing further the British values, one wonders if these values condone the arbitrary detention of its citizens without charge? Do British values condone the incarceration of British nationals without charge in the gulags of its ally? Do British values condone the torture of its citizens by its ally? Do British values condone the commission of atrocities by its troops?

Alluding to the Clash of Civilizations, Blair said, "We know that these people act in the name of Islam, but we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims, here and abroad, are decent and law-abiding people who abhor this act of terrorism every bit as much as we do."

Should not the "decent and law-abiding" Christian people of the UK also abhor the terrorism being wreaked on innocent Iraqis? Did the British populace not elect the party of the war criminal Blair despite the leak of the Downing Street Memo that indicated the launching of aggression on Iraq was motivated by illegal regime change?

Said Blair, "It is through terrorism that the people that have committed this terrible act express their values, and it is right at this moment that we demonstrate ours." This is transparent sophistry. Blair can choose this moment to express his values, but the fact is that British government values were already displayed when Iraq was invaded and occupied in 2003. The London bombings come over two years after the US-UK invasion, followed by a brutal occupation that has continued to wreak terror into the lives of the humiliated and immiserated Iraqis.

Blair claimed insight to the terrorist motives. "I think we all know what they are trying to do -- they are trying to use the slaughter of innocent people to cower us, to frighten us out of doing the things that we want to do, of trying to stop us going about our business as normal, as we are entitled to do, and they should not, and they must not, succeed." The bombings are meant to terrorize Britons and other countries that are supporting the occupation of Iraq. This is clear. But are Iraqis going about their business as normal? Are they not entitled to? Are Afghanis going about their business as normal? Are they not entitled to? Why should the western imperialists be allowed to succeed in disrupting the lives of other peoples?

Blair stated, "When they try to intimidate us, we will not be intimidated." This would seem to be the exact message the London-bombing terrorists are sending to the western terrorists.

Blair continued, "When they seek to change our country or our way-of-life by these methods, we will not be changed." The terrorists are obviously trying to change a way-of-life of the British. The British have historically pursued an aggressive expansion of empire through which they terrorized and exploited many lands. This imperialism, now in the service of the hyperpower, is clearly what the terrorists desire to end.

Other G8 leaders joined in the tendentious condemnation of the bombings. US war President Bush declared, "We will not yield to these people; we will not yield to the terrorists. We will find them and bring them to justice."

The question is when. Bush's Defense [sic] Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has already indicated that this phase of the never-ending war on terrorism will perhaps require a dozen more years in.

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin asserted, "The London bombings are an unspeakable attack on the innocent and on a way of life."

UK Respect Member of Parliament George Galloway (who delivered a scathing rebuke to the Senate hearings in Washington, which was deleted from the records) was not surprised by the "despicable" attacks. Galloway considered that Londoners had "paid the price" of the increased likelihood of terrorist attacks for the UK government's role in the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Blair displayed an abysmal ignorance of history when he brayed, "We will show, by our spirit and dignity, and by our quiet but true strength that there is in the British people, that our values will long outlast theirs." This war of values dates back over a millennium. Therefore, to boast of some questionable British Christian values outlasting questionable Muslim values is risible.

The London bombings are terrorism and as such the actions are deplorable. But terrorism is terrorism no matter who is carrying it out. The numerous bombs, cruise missiles, cluster bombs, and napalm rained down on Iraqi civilians is no less terrorism and the horror and mayhem experienced by Iraqis no less than that experienced by Londoners. Western leaders who refuse to deplore and denounce the terrorism of the western world carry little moral dignity in condemning the London bombings.

The bombings are a sad day for all peace-loving people. But when the response to terrorism is further terrorism, people of peace can only mourn the lack of humanitarian values in their society.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[MattyT]

Bert, you have confirmed my initial impression that you are a moron, and a patronising one at that.

[TheCranker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

I think you're being far too static in your thinking, cranky. morals and "what we're fighting for" are not absolutes for a single person, much less an entire society/nation.

after all, absolute morals would make actively doing nothing in rwanda far far more abhorent than killing a few civilians saddam used as human shields. h </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'll have to explain that one in more detail for me because I thought I was saying something similar.

[xbilly]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MattyT:

Bert, you have confirmed my initial impression that you are a moron, and a patronising one at that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bert Preast BLAZED !

[Sir Bert Preast]

Oh damn, damn, damn.

[Jeroen Thijssen]

do we have a genius amidst us?

[merry_miller]

Haha think you've been p0wned there

[Wasma]

Did anyone hear condi rice saying the people who died in London didnt die in vain?

[mr.moustache]

These discussions all seem to focus on one side aiming to be the eventual 'winner'. I don't think there has been a winner of any of the wars in the 20th century, feelings have simply festered, and blown up into other problems. Surely the only way to start appeasing both sides is to look at what causes the problems in the first place, and then start to apply morals to those problems. Rounding up random arab's and telling the world it's the fault of these few people is never ever going to solve any problems. Neither for that matter, is trying to turn this into a fightable war. imo.

[BoroPhil]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mr.moustache:

These discussions all seem to focus on one side aiming to be the eventual 'winner'. I don't think there has been a winner of any of the wars in the 20th century, feelings have simply festered, and blown up into other problems. Surely the only way to start appeasing both sides is to look at what causes the problems in the first place, and then start to apply morals to those problems. Rounding up random arab's and telling the world it's the fault of these few people is never ever going to solve any problems. Neither for that matter, is trying to turn this into a fightable war. imo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spot on. We can't win this war unless we sink to their level and not care about human lives. We have to address the issues.

[Philip Rolfe]

13 dead on the #30 bus, all bodies now removed from that site.

[Sir Bert Preast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BoroPhil:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mr.moustache:

These discussions all seem to focus on one side aiming to be the eventual 'winner'. I don't think there has been a winner of any of the wars in the 20th century, feelings have simply festered, and blown up into other problems. Surely the only way to start appeasing both sides is to look at what causes the problems in the first place, and then start to apply morals to those problems. Rounding up random arab's and telling the world it's the fault of these few people is never ever going to solve any problems. Neither for that matter, is trying to turn this into a fightable war. imo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spot on. We can't win this war unless we sink to their level and not care about human lives. We have to address the issues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How?

[mr.moustache]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BoroPhil:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mr.moustache:

These discussions all seem to focus on one side aiming to be the eventual 'winner'. I don't think there has been a winner of any of the wars in the 20th century, feelings have simply festered, and blown up into other problems. Surely the only way to start appeasing both sides is to look at what causes the problems in the first place, and then start to apply morals to those problems. Rounding up random arab's and telling the world it's the fault of these few people is never ever going to solve any problems. Neither for that matter, is trying to turn this into a fightable war. imo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spot on. We can't win this war unless we sink to their level and not care about human lives. We have to address the issues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My sarcasm detector isn't great, but I'm guessing that wasn't an actual agreement to my post? If not, I'm not in any way suggesting human lives are meaningless. I'm saying that in order for everybody to co-exist, we need understanding. We do have to address the issues.

[Sir Bert Preast]

Your sarcasm detector is indeed malfunctioning badly.