<p>islamic extremists/terrorists attacked london today.
i was so shocked..... how can we wipe out those terrorists???</p>
<p>i think this is a bigger issue than anything else right now...</p>
<p>... He you know w hat? I think everyone has read just about enough of this. </p>
<p>But I guess incase not everyone was interrupted while watching TV or got the news from people like you who think you are the first to get information, I suppose this is okay... v_v"</p>
<p>You can't "wipe" them out. THere is always goign to be someone out there dedicated. Do you want to bomb all the world just to get rid of them?? BEsides, I'm sur eyou'll feel better knowing their main goal isn't to kill people. Its to **** up the country's economy.</p>
<p>Wow I... can't type...</p>
<p>I wouldn't like to envolve politics but their main goal (extreme islamic org.) is too impose Islam upon the world, that's by weakining the westertn world which symbolizes the oposite of many of the extreme Islam principles. Western world (by that i mean all modern and civilized countries) DO need to wipe them out, but it's suppose to be, as i said, WESTERN WORLD, and not just the US, GB and Japan, Europe should Join... anyways, enough politics for this college forum - I just could't help out clearifying quitejaded's stuff, at least according to my point of view.</p>
<p>We're in the world of 1984. The war is against terror. There is no way to completely eradicate terror. Thus, we are fighting a never-ending war against an enemy without a face.</p>
<p>the worst part is our current admin will use this as pretext for more war</p>
<p>The first thing we need to do is stop <em>making</em> terrorists by doing things like invading Iraq and pulling out of Afghanistan. If we had kept a large number of troops in Iraq and truly built up the government so that it would have a stable government, a secure border, and strong economy than foreign nations would see that our intentions were true.</p>
<p>Our European friends can do things like admit Turkey to the EU once it has met all requirements, showing that a moderate Muslim nation is warmly embraced by the West and that both can live and work in harmony.</p>
<p>Fighting a battle to see which side can kill more will never win. And we must also accept that terrorism can never be truly eradicated, but we can definitely erode the means for which people seek to harm such nations' civilians as the United States, Spain, and the United Kingdom.</p>
<p>dude im not a republican, and im not a muslim hater
maybe i was upset when i heard the news, and that was why i used the word "wipe out"
but really, nobody feels secure anymore, and what terrorists are doing is bad for muslims cuz many muslims will be the targets of hate crimes, and what bush/blair/ allies have been doing will be justified. i dont know whether it can be justified or not, but really we gotta get rid of terrorism</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wouldn't like to envolve politics but their main goal (extreme islamic org.) is too impose Islam upon the world
[/quote]
That is false</p>
<p>One cannot "make" terrorists by doing anything, and one cannot avoid "making" terrorists by not doing any number of things. The people who are willing to commit these atrocities are evil. Their aim is to slaughter innocents because that is how they best achieve an eternal reward. They hate us not just because of what we do, but because of who we are. Rational, civilised humanity would never even so much as contemplate carrying out such acts regardless of what offenses they have with others. </p>
<p>We are <em>not</em> dealing with rational, civilised people.</p>
<p>MatthewM04,</p>
<p>ask those ~dozen Navy Seals who just died in Afghanistan if they think we pulled out.</p>
<p>there are a large number of troops in Iraq</p>
<p>a secure boarder? The US/Mexico boarder isn't even secure, and you expect us to be able to secure the boarder of an entire country on all sides? We are doing our best.</p>
<p>hello,</p>
<p>no, that is true. That is what their goal is, to have a world that shares the beliefs that they do. Chew on this:</p>
<p>During an official meeting on Islamic-Christian dialogue, an authoritative Muslim person, speaking to the Christians participating, at one point said very calmly and assuredly: "Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you."</p>
<p>We did pull out way too many troops from Afghanistan--that is exactly why the Taliban continues to exist and shoot down our helicopters. We have approximately 12,000 troops in Afghanistan, which is roughly 10% of what we have in Iraq. Frankly, we don't have anywhere near the troops we need in Iraq to secure that country. And yes, securing the American border is a prime goal which Republicans should definitely support--not because they're anti-immigration, but because if we have porous borders then it makes it easier for terrorists to sneak in. We need several hundred thousand more troops to finish the job of nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq and America only makes the problems worse when it doesn't commit enough troops to do it. I'm against the draft and I'm against illegal invasions of countries, but we should not start such a tremendous task of nation-building if we're not going to do the job right.</p>
<p>As for DanielJ's comments, they're defeatist and only meant to justify the utter failure of the Bush Administration's increase in the number of terrorists in Al Qaeda, its spread, and the rise in terrorist attacks worldwide over the last two years. By continuing to perpetuate the conditions that spawn terror and creating them anew, we only worsen the fight for future generations. Terrorism can <em>NOT</em> be defeated by sheer military might and occupation--Israel is a half-century testament to that.</p>
<p>And if you think its just the radical Muslims who want everyone to think like them, just look at the United States: the 43rd president has enacted policies that are based on fundamentalist Christianity, including opposition to homosexuality, teaching evolution, not educating youth about contraception, have monuments on government property relating directly to his religion, and trying to get laws changed to reflect his religion's views on abortion and euthanasia.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for DanielJ's comments, they're defeatist and only meant to justify the utter failure of the Bush Administration's increase in the number of terrorists in Al Qaeda, its spread, and the rise in terrorist attacks worldwide over the last two years. By continuing to perpetuate the conditions that spawn terror and creating them anew, we only worsen the fight for future generations. Terrorism can <em>NOT</em> be defeated by sheer military might and occupation--Israel is a half-century testament to that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, what would you have us do? Appease them?</p>
<p>And you find it "defeatist" to respond with force against brutal terrorist murderers?</p>
<p>I find it defeatest to think that we can't possibly do anything to stop terrorism from being appealing to people. Of course we should not appease them, but we must choose our battles carefully.</p>
<p>Notice that Spain and the UK have been attacked for their role in Iraq. Notice <em>no country</em> has ever been attacked for invading Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a legitimate target because it knowingly held and refused to surrender the admitted terrorist leader of the group which committed the 9/11 attacks (Osama bin Laden). America assembled the <em>largest coalition in history</em> and invaded Afghanistan in under a month from 9/11. However, by mostly pulling out, not to mention the huge drop in troops actively looking for Osama bin Laden (Pakistan stopped searching months ago), allowing the Taliban to regroup, and not providing security for a stable transititional government (several leaders have been assassinated over the years) and parliamentary elections have been delayed from April 2004 to October 2004 to April 2005 to September 2005, it shows that our commitment is nowhere near as strong as we claimed it would be. If Iraq <em>was</em> a legitimate target, and we had a military force of 500,000 troops that could come into the country, RESTORE electricity and running water, help make jobs, and basically be based on the principle of <em>real results, fast</em> to have a new government ready to go within 12 months of invasion, then that would have shown that we were there to help, not be occupiers for an endless war against Islam.</p>
<p>They say the road to hell was paved with good intentions. President Bush and his administration may have thought they were doing the right thing when they illegally invaded Iraq and plan to occupy the country for years without end, but it is seen in the Middle East as a war against their religion. THAT is what is hurting the cause more than anything.</p>
<p>People who resort to terrorism are barbarians bathed in cold blood. The burden is not on <em>us</em> to discourage their bent towards terror. What they "admit" is irrelevant. Their grievances are irrelevant. They have no legitimacy. They have no just cause. Although it may be true that the UK and Spain were attacked because of their participation in Iraq, the USA was attacked <em>before</em> either Iraq or Afghanistan. Terrorism only "appeals" to the killers because they stand for the annihilisation of our civilisation. Period. </p>
<p>And regarding the "illegality" of the war in Iraq, I have to wonder - "illegal" according to whom or what? The edicts of the United Nations should never transcend the laws of the United States. Anyway, as it is, Saddam Hussein made such a mockery of the United Nations that I'm glad some countries actually stood up to take him down. That man was one of the worst serial killers in modern history. His government should never have been taken seriously in the first place. </p>
<p>As for the war being against religion, it is an interesting proposition. I'm not sure whether I believe that is entirely true, but I would (cautiously) say this - I do believe that there must be something fundamentally wrong with Islam as a religion if it continues to breed all of this chaos. Several months ago, Muslims in Spain issued a fatwa against Osama bin Laden. They called for other Muslims around the world to issue a similar response. Well, where is the response? The leaders of Islam and Islamic countries should be the <em>first</em> ones to put this nonsense to a stop. Rather, many encourage it.</p>
<p>You cant get rid of Terroism. Impossible.</p>
<p>Sad to say these terrorists are just smarter than whites in general.</p>
<p>These are not random idiots who will kill themselves for what they belive in.</p>
<p>These are Men and Women who are Engineers and some who even Have PHD's from top world universities who are doing this.</p>
<p>Lets just say its a prerequisite for a person to at least have a Engineering degree, to join one of these terror cells.</p>
<p>So they aint stupid, but the majority of Middle eastern and Asian people are smarter than Americans and Europeans.</p>
<p>if this is what they beleve in, are they really wrong.</p>
<p>I say no, not at all.</p>
<p>also America was not relaly the first and only one to be attacked,</p>
<p>remeber japan was also in the early 90's with Nerve gas in the subways.</p>
<p>Bush deserves not only to be impeached but should be tried for war crimes against humanity in the Hague. Is it any surprise that the places which suffered the most in 9/11 (Washington D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania) voted overwhelming for John Kerry as president in November 2004?</p>
<p>It is most certainly our duty to respond to the causes of terrorism because WE are the victims of said attacks. Unaware to me, this is exactly what Prime Minister Tony Blair said today after I posted my first message (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/09/london.attacks.blair.ap/index.html)%5B/url%5D">http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/09/london.attacks.blair.ap/index.html)</a>.</p>
<p>International law supersedes national law, just as federal law supersedes state law. If the United States does not respect the United Nations, then how can be so hypocritical to say that Iraq must?</p>
<p>Members of christianity are responsible for several atrocities throughout history (the Crusades, witch burnings, and abortion clinic bombings). Just because <1% of a religion's people cause an action should you attack the religion itself.</p>
<p>Responding to Romo1, the more bloodshed we cause the more we breed terrorism. Executions won't stop anything, only make us look like the barbarians in which we fight. If we don't take the higher road now, than we doom ourselves to reap the whirlwind.</p>
<p>Terrorism must be stopped at its roots. First, all the mosques that breed terrorists need to be identified. Then, the leaders of those mosques must be publically executed. Furthermore, the actual buildings need to be destroyed. A clear message needs to resound around the world, that terrorism will not be tolerated.</p>
<p>MatthewM04</p>
<p>your wrong,</p>
<p>Repunlicans get things done and can atleast admit the truth/</p>
<p>Democrats lie to people to amke theselves sound better, which makes them jackasses.,</p>
<p>I live in bronx, NY and voted for Bush. and am proud to have.</p>
<p>Bush is doing a Great Job.</p>
<p>"International law supersedes national law, just as federal law supersedes state law. If the United States does not respect the United Nations, then how can be so hypocritical to say that Iraq must?" </p>
<p>The United Nations is corrupt as hell and everyone knows it. The oil for food scandal investigation shows that many leaders like Chirac, Putin, and Annan were involved in directly in smuggling millions of dollars to the relatives of these leaders. When an organization is corrupt, it is the duty of its members to change it or to revolt.</p>
<p>"Is it any surprise that the places which suffered the most in 9/11 (Washington D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania) voted overwhelming for John Kerry as president in November 2004?" Do you really think you've stumbled upon some brilliant realization? What do D.C., NY, and Pennsylvania have in common? They are all major cities or are dominated by major cities. For who knows how many years it has been a known fact that major cities are generally very liberal. Furthermore, that part of the country has voted for democratic candidates since the 50's.</p>