1. Welcome to TRD Forums! A community for Toyota, Lexus, and Scion Enthusiasts. To enjoy all the benefits of the site, we invite you to signup.

London Struck by Terrorism this morning.....

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by SkyAce2004, Jul 7, 2005.

  1. Offline

    SkyAce2004 New Member

    Message Count:
    885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    E, can you fix my subtitle to CorollaCarClub.com ?

    back on topic. London got back together pretty quick though. Only parts of the city were shut off for a while while they investigated and cleaned things up. and they are gunna have the olympics there in 7 years.....eek
  2. Offline

    SkyAce2004 New Member

    Message Count:
    885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    London Struck by Terrorism this morning.....

    This fucking sucks, they are saying there were six or more explosions, several on the trains, at least one on a bus. The said as of right now that is a major rescue operation going on in a tunnel. Fucking terrorists. God Bless everyone in London.


  3. Offline

    corollarider19 New Member

    Message Count:
    3,050
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    this just makes the war on terror even more solid
  4. Offline

    Turbo4afe Guest

    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    if you are banned, how can you post?
  5. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD
    He hasnt been banned for over a month now
  6. Offline

    Bishop4695 New Member

    Message Count:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've done a little reading so to say, and looks like the main objective of these "people" are to change our way of life. I'm not saying just to put fear in us, or to make us pull out of our forward deployed operations. Their main objective is to have a muslim world. What I mean by that is, they think all other relegion is false right. Just like the chrisitians think jesus is the son of God, and that in order to be saved you must confess your sins and be a christian. The muslims believe that their is only one God, and everyone else is wrong. But the Koran goes that extra mile in saying (and i read) that the christians and the jews are evil (infidels), and that they wil try to change you (muslims). Your goal is to change them because the Muslim way is right. If they wont change then they must die. That if they must, then kill in the name of Allah to keep them from changing. Seems to me that they want a muslim world. If we give them what they want then they want more. This is just a little cover-up to what they really want. Putting little cells over the world. So tell me what happens if we give them what they want and get out of their countrys. Me...I think they keep going till they take it all. A little too close to this end of the world thing.
  7. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD
    This stuff happens every single day overseas...
  8. Offline

    ratsnrop New Member

    Message Count:
    232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hell Fricken yeah! I just don't know what makes one better than the other. I believe the religion is there to give people FAITH and HOPE. I'm not saying to just turn to religion only when your SOL, but it gives the masses something to believe in... when facts and science can't always explain things. I think that commiting these terrorist attacks are just stupid and wrong on many levels. If they want us to pull out of the middle east, solve your own problems and sell us cheap oil. Do you honestly think that we're going to pull out and stop this damn unnecessary war on terrorist after this last attack? I just feel horrible that another country has to feel all this pain and tragedy that was felt by us.
  9. Offline

    statik New Member

    Message Count:
    1,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thats the truth. We have it good here.
  10. Offline

    Bishop4695 New Member

    Message Count:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    These terrorists just cannot stand the way we live. They think that because they suffer in their own world we should too. So to say, that then we cant possibly ignore if it is in fact in our backyard. Selfish and disturbed is just a little of it. TV and radio propaganda tell the real story of what is going on. The people in these countries cannot stand up for themselves because they are followers. That is what their religion teaches them, to follow. The leaders are the disturbed ones. Followers will believe and do as told. How do you stop that? When you get them to believe the real truth, then we will win this war on terrorism.
  11. Offline

    ratsnrop New Member

    Message Count:
    232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don't get me wrong, I do understand that. I just think that the reasons for them doing this are quite stupid. I feel for this kind of stuff as a whole and as idealistic as it may sound, world peace would be a great thing right now. Again, this is just a man and his ideals...
  12. Offline

    Bishop4695 New Member

    Message Count:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would like to buy the world a CoKe and chill just for a while...
    did you hear what Tony Blair said...they're trying to convert the world to islam.
  13. Offline

    AlaricD Guest

    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And others try to convert the world to Christianity, also with weapons instead of love. It's just as much an act of terrorism.
  14. Offline

    LowRolla Will work for turbo

    Message Count:
    463
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Oviedo, FL (orlando)
    no matter what the reasoning is behind it - whether religiously motivated, or monetarily motivated, or cuz they're just plain crazy - it's fucked up and wrong no matter what, no matter what religion you are. Though I have to say I think that by attacking all these countries they are shooting themselves in the feet. Countries that may have not wanted to bother hunting these fuckers down are gonna be a bit more motivated now that the terrorist cowards are killing THEIR innocent civilians.
  15. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD

    Ah..so you are one with that view I guess
  16. Offline

    AlaricD Guest

    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some of us carefully consider the evidence at hand... Have you read the Downing Street Memo?
  17. Offline

    Bishop4695 New Member

    Message Count:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We also have to ask ourselves: what will the world look like if we don't stop Usama Bin Laden and people like him?

    Usama Bin Laden likes to pretend that he speaks for the Palestinian cause. He likes to pretend that he is driven by faith. Neither of those claims, it seems to me, are true. They are a cover for his real motivation, which is power; power that he wields through terror. The power game that he is playing is to install Taliban-type regimes in other countries. Let nobody believe this is about religious faith, when in the pursuit of his goals he has been willing to murder innocent women and children, including Muslims.

    Usama Bin Laden's real objective is to undermine Muslim Governments who seek world peace and order and replace them with militant regimes who seek chaos. He has already succeeded all too well in Afghanistan. He has claimed to have direct influence over the Taliban Government and there is no reason to dispute that. All reports suggest that he is a real power behind the scenes; and that it was he who organised the assassination of Ahmed Shah Masood, a Muslim hero of the anti-Soviet resistance and the main opposition to Kabul. This was part of his payment to the Taliban for harbouring and supporting him. Usama Bin Laden and the Taliban regime are two sides of the same coin.
  18. Offline

    AlaricD Guest

    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Too bad we stopped looking for Usama bin Laden and invaded Iraq, maybe we could have captured him by now.
  19. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD
    Oh yeah? Then whos my uncle looking for in Afghanistan?
  20. Offline

    Turbo4afe Guest

    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He is looking for Mr. Oil....
  21. Offline

    corollarider19 New Member

    Message Count:
    3,050
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    sad comment
  22. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD
    Its all a matter of interpretation.
  23. Offline

    Turbo4afe Guest

    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and you are one with a different view...

    you might not be right or i might not be right..
  24. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD
    Yes I have, and it didnt change my views.


    This is it:

    SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

    To: DAVID MANNING From: Matthew Rycroft Date: 23 July 2002 S 195 /02

    cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

    IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

    Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

    This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

    John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

    C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

    CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

    The two broad US options were:

    (a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

    (b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

    The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

    (i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

    (ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

    (iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

    The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

    The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

    The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

    The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

    On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

    For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

    The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

    John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

    The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

    Conclusions:

    (a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

    (b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

    (c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

    (d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

    He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

    (e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

    (f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

    (I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

    MATTHEW RYCROFT

    And there are countless websites ANALYZING this, and comparing it to Bush's public responses around the same time.

    The main line that has caused a stir is "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." And there is no proof on when Bush decided to go to war. And Im missing the correlation between this memo and Afghanistan.
  25. Offline

    AlaricD Guest

    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's just an illustration that our saber rattling and invasions of other nations don't always occur in the name of Justice...
  26. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD
    Exactly. Its what they call the Downing Street Memo. It doesnt mean anything.
  27. Offline

    Bishop4695 New Member

    Message Count:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You know I dont even have to read this whole letter you copied and pasted. This is not an official message, letter or transcript. It's not even proffesional. Where did you get it from? Some british enquirer? Not raggin on you but where you got this nonsense from. All it is..a fabricated letter about what was inevitable and the obvious. Por Favor dont believe it. What a joke.
  28. Offline

    Bishop4695 New Member

    Message Count:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Usually when it says BEO than it's governmental passages. Just like NOFORN meaning no foreign eyes. I just used to be in the military and worked at NATO.

Share This Page