Aparantly the bloke they shot was a brazilian businessman who had nothing to do with terrorism, well done cops! Another pointless fatlaity in the war on terror.

My thoughts are with his family

i know many of my friends are being radicalised by the terrorisum, the consensis now seems to be, distroy religion, doesnt matter what faith it is they all have to go. burn the chruches and the mosques, everything. Religion is becoming hated by my generation.

accept that they were plain clothes police and he didnt understand what they were saying... to me it just looked like some guys with guns were chasing me...

Then he'd better learned the language of the place he went to.

The *least* thing (as I can see the learning of a language is not that easy, escpecially if you have to go into a foreign country unplanned) is to turn around and to have one phrase ready: "Sorry, I don't yet speak your language."

I perfectly agree in the point that the blame must be divided to both parts, but due to the fact the victim of this accident actually didn't obey orders and tried to escape I see the reason for him being shot as the risk of more terrorist attacks is too high. Though, each live that is lost in that barbarian terrorist war (no matter who, no matter what, no matter why) is one live too much anyway.

To be fair he did come out of a house being monitered. It wasnt as if they just saw someone at random and decided he looked like a terrorist, plus he didn't obey orders and he ran. i also heard he did speak english. Its a tragic accident but it looks like its another terrorist victim rather than police abuse.

I hope this is some sort of joke that hasn't translated well onto the web. I know ive heard racist comment before that were made in jest and no one was stupid enough to actually believe and act on the stereotypes in them.

If not then its really quite ironic. There you go critisizing pakistan for its worsting approach to christianity (and mis representing it at that) and then you want to do the same if not worst to the minor religions in this country.

I didn't know that, actually. Sounds very tragic, but still it seems understandable from a british point of view. (I know, the British don't like Germans to take their perspective, but what else should we do to understand what's going on? And what, yeah right what should we think about the racist tendencies apparently breaking out there right now???)

Racism is sadly to be expected Just look at the U.S. now! It was very worrisome to think that there might be a serious backlash against our Islamic community (and there was.....is), but the government tried to keep it from getting too bad.

That is one thing I really appreciate about Blair, the way he has been meeting with high-level clerics and urging tolerance. After all, he is correct, we cannot allow terrorists to fundamentally change who and what we are, otherwise they win.

Sadly, it seems that the rapid legislative flurry to 'protect our ______ (insert security risk here)' is just that: a series of major changes in how we as a culture operate and view other cultures. Every change is usually divisive, costly, and ususally ineffective. Furthermore, it is exactly what the terrorists want us to do; freak out, and change everything to make us 'safer'

[incoherent scream of irritation, frustration, anger, etc., at terrorists, media, and government (but mostly government)]

A wise man once said:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The speaker was Benjamin Franklin (back when the U.S. actually had wise people), and it is a sentiment that we often forget in this era. Terrorists want us to change as much as possible, to become afraid of everyday life, to box ourselves in with new security regulations, defense spending, curtailed freedoms, etc. Even when we do defeat this wave of terrorism, what will be left of Western civilization after the 'National Security State (take 2)' has run its course?

Quite frankly, I am more afraid of what our governments will do to prevent terrorism than actual terrorists. Our constitution is being shredded as we speak, civil liberties are in tatter for the forseeable future ('in times of war, of course we have to make sacrifices'.....but what about a perpetual war that will probably never end?), the international laws and conventions of civilized behavior that maintain stability and structure througout the world are being tossed into waste extraction, and we are behaving no better than the terrorists. Our leaders need to watch a little Star Trek and engage in some healthy idealism.

Don't give Bush and CompanyTM an excuse to 'increase security', right-wing chickenhawk media support, and even let him in the same room as our Constitution (unless he wants to grovel for forgiveness before it)

Although i'm not a religious person, making racist jokes ie. lets burn down the mosques is undoubtably wrong whether you mean it or not and i would be ashamed of people who do it

I perfectly agree in what you say, Jarok. The statement, that comes to the crucial point is your sig:

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

The greatest victory over all terrorists out there is to hold up our flags of liberty and freedom, instead of denying it.

Ever thought of being a politrician Jarok that was brill

I agree, but sadly enough in our "modern" times politicians seem to have a different characteristics Jarok is missing: They like to tell the poeple what they want to hear. A politician who tells the thruth, and the poeple don't like it is (politically) dead actually. Sad but true.

In the U.S., we have term limits, which makes two types of politicians almost tolerable:

1. the idealistic 'freshman' who don't understand the realities of politics, and are willing to do what is actually right, until they learn some hard lessons about popularity....after about a week.

2. those who are ending their final term. They no longer care what is thought of them.

As soon as politicians become more interested in keeping their jobs than doing what's right, you get politics as usual.

The real problem is when the public (rightly) wants immediate action, and the media (rightly) gets on the bandwagon, like you said, the people want results, and politicians tell them what they want to hear rather than actually work to solve the problem. Their careers depend on looking 'tough', and suddenly that reelection is more important than actually reading what they do. (ex. the USA PATRIOT ACT)



EDIT:
So I say, "Picard for President!"
(campaign slogan: 'Make it so!')

Interesting debate, I used to think that the world is black and white but its not. The world is mearly shades of grey. When it comes to ideology/points of view there is no right or wrong no better or worse no good or bad. It comes down purely what the masses or ( for the cynics) the few agree on at the time. so fundementally no way of life is 100% right because being human we have flaws thus our ideologies are flawed. So on the point of ideolical superiority of beliefs; all are good and bad.
I think people should forget the idelogical aspect of the situation. People are focussing too much on that they are muslim. It is fundementally immaterial (although many of you will disagree) what wrapper these terrorists come in. They are just criminals using an ideology to be cruel and evil. All I'll say is anyone who preys on the weak for criminal or politically criminal reasons are cowards and should be punished.
The problem comes where no matter what politicians do, it will never be right or correct. If they do nothing, people cry the government isnt protecting its citizens. If they react, people moan that they are shreading civil liberities. So the happy medium will never be found; people will make opinions.

My closing stattemnt. Before you get on your high horses about which ideology is good or bad, upside down, back to front or inside out you should think:-

1) No ideology is perfect,(do you see utopias?)
2) All because you dont follow it doesnt mean its neccessarily wrong.
3) Most ideologies unless quite perverse have agreed beliefs that killing innocents is wrong.

Loki

I disagree. The only way to avoid terrorism is to _understand_ what makes them feel they would have to do this. (This needs to be extended to the motivations of those fundamentalists brainwashing their bombing puppets in behind, of course.)

If you understand their reasons, you can change something. It will be rather unusual, but sometimes the measures emerged from their motivations may be the same as they actually had demanded with their acts of terrorism. This includes from my point of view the right of self-determination of individuals, and of whole peoples indeed.

I admit this is a very idealistic point of view based on Kant's ethics. Though I think the US (and of course no other state of the world) simply must not be allowed to interfere in the inner affairs of any country. That's indeed a fact that is to be adjudged. This doesn't justify terrorism, but it is a key to understand _why_ they do it. We should not concentrate on hunting terrorists down, as we can never catch them all. Instead we have to do everything possible to avoid them becoming terrorists, and that simply means to question _our_ motives and appearance in the arabic (generally everywhere, but basically there is the point we have to start from) countries. From this point of view Blair's dialogue with the muslim leaders is a necesarry point but still less effective as there are *not* the spiritual leaders picking bomb-backs and goe to the London underground. It's the western civilization after all who provoked this "war" itself as we did not tolerate their culture when we first needed their oil. We have to overcome the pride to be different and tell them _why_ we are different. The key to this issue is the understanding "we" are different, if we have a dialogue. If you say "we are" different it's much more positive than saying "you are different" as this has a negative touch in their interpretation.

Before anyone calls that weeny-liberal-appeasement, I'd have to say I agree for the most part.

Like Loki said, no ideology is perfect, otherwise we'd be gods, which we are not (to quote Riker). Unfortunately, even trying to understand an enemy's motivation is deemed un-patriotic or seditionist in today's world. Even though the value of understanding what motivates your enemy has been known for millenia (Sun-Tzu, anyone?). Logic and pragmatism have no place in modern politics, sadly.

The biggest problem might be that we are unwilling to trust our enemy. That is of course understandable, and I share the skepticism. So how are we to expect that if we give something the terrorists want they will stop? They would probably just find something else to oppose. Take the common complaint against the U.S. by al-Quaeda; which is the deployment of troops in Saudi Arabia, a desecration of their holy land. Unfortunately, that same brand of extremism that feeds terrorism could easily re-invent itself even if we withdrew. To true fundamentalists, the very existence of Western civilization at all is a desecration on the world.

However, this does not mean that the conciliatory ideal doesn't have merit. Quite the opposite, understanding is still far better than the alternative of randomly bombing muslim-looking countries, and is also better than doing nothing. Rather than reject terrorist demands out of hand, government should take a hard look at what they want, and if the policy in question is necessary at all. If it is not needed, then why leave it in place? Terrorists are both unreasonable and determined, but they are convinced their cause is just. We naturally have a contrary opinion, but this does not inherently invalidate theirs. Something must seem very important for an intelligent person to strap on explosives and sacrifice their own life for it. It is logical to find out what that is, and to reduce the impact of that concern. If there is less pressing motivation for terrorists, there is less terrorism.

We would be fools to assume that terrorism will ever go away for any reason. The best we can do is work to minimize the occurance by mitigating the problems that breed terrorists, to deny them the impression that their methods work, and to deny them the political attention they crave. The way the terrorists' plans will ultimately work is when to combat terrorism we spend and legislate ourselves into ruin, and sacrifice the ideals of our cultures.

Before I tell you that I'm really happy to read there indeed are intelligent people that do not actually share their so-called "leaders" black-white stereotyping of what's going on I have to praise Firefox' google toolbar, which allows to to translate a single word by simply marking it in the browser. Though I'd rate my English as well (enough ), I'm very happy to have this option in case there are words I can't translate myself (or simple never heard of before ^^). I had not noticed the use of it before I read (and posted) in this thread

I'd prefer to hear the truth rather than half and half. A prime example is Tony Blair and George Bush they tell people what they want to hear.

I can concur with much that has been said.

Being that I'm an old fart , I have heard this story for a long time.
Reason for Terrorist attacks? = America, UK. France (Yuk) Germany, Japan and a few others control how the worlds economy flows and ebbs. Sad to say but Mostly My own U.S. As far as the actual attacks go. These have been happening for a long long time. I'm talking over 200+ years. You Can trace it back through history. From the Greeks, Romans, China, England, United States. (U.S. Being the youngest) Middle Eastern countires have set attacks against all these countries over time. In Recent times (If your wondering about who started what according to history) attacks first started aganst Saudi Royals and other Middle Eastern Rulers, ect. Aslo including African Countries. Regelious Sects (Breakaways) of Muslum Religion draw the poor and twist the Koran to fit thier individual needs and angers. (This has also happened with Christian and Buddists Religions and Beliefs)

Amasing part of this.. those So Called leaders, are all Weathly. Or come from Familes of Wealth. Most were disposed due to thier own actions against thier own people. They set Blame not on themselves, but on Outsiders such as the U.S. and Friends. I.E. super powers of the world economy.

Show the peoples of those countries the truth and let them understand what is happening. We need to give them hope. Hope the leaders they have hide away in treasure troves of cash while the poor starve.

To kill away the terrorists. Change the way the Powers of those countries treat thier own people. Good Luck though.... Greed is a powerful ememy.

Hard to beat.


Thats my thoughts.

Winterhawk.

You're right, the terrorists arent' going away anytime soon. Sad but brutally true. If you get people fanatical and desperate enough, they will resort to non-military violence against whoever is convenient or will get the most attention to them.

All we can realistically do is try to make ourselves safer within reason while also (and most importantly) retaining as much liberty and freedom as possible. Those are, after all, what we're really trying to protect, isn't it? If we become some sort of police state or 'national security state', the terrorists win even if they dissappear and never hurt anyone again. The only way to lose to them is to change who and what we are, and what we stand for.

I'm not a liberal in the sense of political correctness or "turn the other cheek". It is my belief that every person has the right to live thier own lives if thier own way as long as it does not cause harm or problems for other people. If people could emphersize more with others we wouldnt get so many problems. I believe in justice just like the next person, I just don't tar people with the same brush.

To be honest, could we ever truely understand the minds of these terrorists? To me it is like trying to comprehend infinity as a quantity or trying to discribe colour to someone. If a leader said "if your strap some explosives to yourself and kill x people you'll go to heaven and be rewarded" we'd tell them to take a long walk off a very short peer.

Its quite a puzzle....

Loki

I kina lost track of what you were saying.... Could you clarify what you meant plaese?

Also, it was brough up earlier why the Brazillian guy was shot in the head and not the chest. I heard is described on the radio that the chest is where the bombs are at. So, if they shot the guy in the chest and he did have a bomb on, the bullets could have made it detonate.

If any one else lost track of that please could you let me know because I dont think its to hard to get. I can't express it in its entireity in any otherway. But It relates to your comment on whats worse; torturing terrorists or having them blow stuff up. I was simply clarrifying that interigation is fine as long as its legal and it isnt at the moment, although my origional post goes into more depth.

Also just so we alll know. i hear the word liberalism being used a bit here, i think its used in a different context in the states to uk. I remeber during the US election campaing it was bounded about on ABC as thoug it was an insult and an accusation as if it meant you never made your mind up and flopped when it came to hard decissions. Its different in the UK we actually have a liberal party who simply have some less orthodox views on certain issues (like hash and criminals).

It can mean the same in the UK as in the US. Depending on the context. The liberal party in the UK is supposed to be centralised compared to Labour (which is supposed to be left) and the Conservatives (Which is supposed to be right) However each party is infact polarised meaning they're all centred. Labour can be seen quite right wing vice versa with the Tories/Conservatives.

But like you guys in the US liberal also means bloody doo gooders who try and appease everybody(or minorites who dont need appeasing..) but infact appease noone.

Loki