Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Twin terror attacks hit Turkey

Nov 20, 2003 5:42AM PST

The British Foreign Office in London has issued the following number for people to call for information about those who may have been involved in the blasts: +44 (0)20 7008 0000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3222608.stm

Seems to me, Al Qaeda just proved the "Islamic jihad" claim is a load of codswallop, since Turkey is predominantly Muslim, and it is mostly Turks who got hurt. I also hate to shake their tree, but (soto voce) technically HSBC isn't British - it's actually owned by the Chinese. Oops, they goofed.

Hmm, no doubt if it was US overseas sites being attacked, this news item would have top place in this forum. But hell, it's only the British, so who cares anyway?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Dale ,it was you who ordered me not to even try responding
Nov 21, 2003 3:43AM PST

So it is you who should have the good sense to apologize.

- Collapse -
Re:So it is you who should have the good sense to apologize.
Nov 21, 2003 4:04AM PST

roflol

*porcines aloft*

- Collapse -
I recall hearing somebody saying...
Nov 20, 2003 7:55AM PST

that if they only bombed the sh*t out of Afghanistan and Iraq the terrorism would stop. It hasn't even decreased but INCREASED! B & B are certainly doing a great job!

OTOH I do feel extremely sorry for the victims of this horrible attack!

- Collapse -
Re:Twin terror attacks hit Turkey
Nov 20, 2003 11:41AM PST

Hi, Dale.

Al Qaeda is now clearly targeting Muslims who aren't fundamentalist. And it's backfiring, because it's finally forcing moderate Muslims to see the fundamentalists as being evil, not just Muslims who are a bit extreme in their approach to nonbelievers.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Let's hope that is the perception that occurs.
Nov 20, 2003 12:14PM PST

Did you happen to see the column in the back of Time, Nov 10?

Their web page links were not working last time I tries, but appear to now.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031117-538977,00.html

I realize you'll probably disagree, but just posting the link in a side related issue regarding to others and their perception of us.

A bit unusual column, and contributor for that matter, for the back op-ed of Time, it's often very liberal column, at least a lot of what I remember reading. Some mix, not accusing them of being exclusively liberal, but more often than not.

roger

- Collapse -
Re:Let's hope that is the perception that occurs.
Nov 20, 2003 1:06PM PST

Hi, Roger.

That column is BS. He's a Bush apologist trying to deflect the well-deserved criticism that in three short years Bush has squandered largely pro-American sentiment in much of the world and turned it profoundly negative. It started going down almost as soon as he was elected, but the 9/11 sympathy restored us to mostly favorable. But as soon as he started beating the war drums against Iraq, it's been sliding steadily downhill. This isn't an impression -- in the old forum, I linked to a (Pew?) poll that asked people in about 20 countries their impression (positive negative or neutral) of America, and of Bush. Bush is uniformly negative everywehere but here now; America is still slightly positive in Britain and Australia, negative everywhere else the polled.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Bush has betrayed the American people
Nov 20, 2003 7:33PM PST

He has used the tragedy of 9/11 to further his own internal attacks on privacy, freedom and basic rights. He has also used the deaths of 6000+ innocents to propagate his global expansionist attiude.

He hides behind the fear of terrorism, to dupe the American nation into believing he cares about them, and has their interests in mind. The UK has lived with terrorism and its threat for decades - even before Bloody Sunday in 1969, but never responded like this, even though we could have done many times over.

Bush is a traitor who has done your country a grave disservice, and frittered away the support and sympathy of that day. In my opinion, if Clinton faced impeachment calls for letting a cheap floozy suck his jolly roger, Bush should definitely be impeached without dissent for what he has and is doing.

- Collapse -
his jolly roger???
Nov 21, 2003 12:11AM PST

I need to read more since I've never heard it put this way before.

One of the things that concerns me greatly is that if any of us think along the lines as you do, we are branded as being UN-patriotic. That is utter hog wash.

- Collapse -
Re:his jolly roger???
Nov 21, 2003 3:27AM PST

I was assuming they have word filters in place, but it gave the right image. as for unpatriotic, that is subjective. Was a time when patritism meant love and loyalty for one's country, seems these days the Bush administration defines it as love and loyalty to Bush, not to the United States.

I know he's only an uneducated redneck, but even he can't be so dense to not realise there is a massive difference between the two. Or maybe he can, and is. Ah well, never mind, if poor little George ever gets lonely, he always has an eager bedfellow waiting for him in London.

- Collapse -
Remind me, Dave Konkel...
Nov 21, 2003 9:12AM PST

Dave K., remind me. In this post somebody from England calls out current President "uneducated redneck" and in his post just previous to this he called him a "traitor".
I remember a post that you made in the past. Why was it that we were not supposed to criticize his precious Queen? The reason slipped my mind.

- Collapse -
Hmmm, ok,about the response I expect, (part 1)
Nov 20, 2003 11:37PM PST

And fair enough, that's you opinion.

I don't necessarily agree with it a 100%, but I do feel some parts are relevant. I believe that the criticism did start before we invaded Iraq, so that action is not the answer to every question.

And the catch 22 situation is valid I think -

"The Europeans, Ajami astutely observes, disdain us for our excessive religiosity (manifest, they imagine, by evolution being expelled from schools while prayer is ushered back in)--while the Arab world despises us as purveyors of secularism."

And as pointed out, the al-Qaeda declared war on us even as the last administration was being most concilatory world wide to about everyone. Or do you feel that is proproganda too. The Iraq war is a subject for debate, and differences of opinons. But the Anti-American sentiment in the world seems to have only briefly subsided after 9-11, and I do agree it had started to resurface and increase again before we invaded Iraq.

- Collapse -
Hmmm, ok,about the response I expect, (part 2)
Nov 20, 2003 11:38PM PST

I never agreed 100% with all the speeches and claims of the current administration, and I think I've mentioned it before I had reservations about provisions of the patriot act. And I have difficulties with some of the uses I forsee, even that are already occurring with the special rules for investigation and detaining of accused terroists. I don't think everything out of Bush's mouth is a lie as some seem to do.

As in most things, I think both sides are too far their way. I don't think appleasement is a valid foreign or domestic policy. I don't think ignoring everyone else is either. So some will think me a wimp of fence straddler or whatever.

Even though your reaction is not unexpected, the first 2 lines of your post, IMO, clearly indicate you are as anti-anything Bush as much as (in your opinion) Krauthammer is "a Bush apologist".

I guess posting that link will be regarded as inflammatory and even get me accusations of baiting from some.

So be it.

roger

- Collapse -
Fence sitters
Nov 21, 2003 3:21AM PST

Hi, Roger,

IMO, your post(s) reflect how most middle-of-the-roaders feel. Sometimes sitting on a fence is the only way to see both sides of issues. Although this also makes for being a good target for those on each side, it is a vantage point .

Fence-sitters are criticized for "not taking a stand" or "not standing up for anything". But a fence sitter has the advantage of seeing both sides, so can determine which issues merit their efforts.

Good posts, Roger!

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Thx, but my problem often is some days I feel one way
Nov 21, 2003 2:05PM PST

and other days other way.

Or more accurately, my opinions on some things are seen as very right of center. But then on other things, not necessarily very far in context, I'll find my self siding with the left of center.

The problem is, I can't see how to fix problems and help people without it being corrupted and misused and abused and hurting someone else.

And that's just in this coutry, forget about the people on the other side of the world who hates because they were raised being taught the USA was satan incarnate. Or the ones who sneer at our "redneck ways" while eagerly taking anything they can get from us.

roger

- Collapse -
BTW, re
Nov 21, 2003 2:01PM PST

I've heard that before, but other than mixed in with general mudslinging, I don't remember any reason for it to start when he was elected, before he'd even done anything.

Or was it just because it was figured the totally apologitic stance of the last 8 years was going to change?

Apologies are good when needed, but they can be overdone as easily as under expressed.

roger

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Nov 20, 2003 7:55PM PST
- Collapse -
That made me remember, Dave....
Nov 20, 2003 12:47PM PST

Dave, your post brought to my mind something from the past that seems to have a rough parallel in some ways, the cocaine cartels in Colombia. Not only in Colombia, but also in the U.S., not only would cartel agents attack the police, but kill people who just happened to be in the area of some of their violence.
Eventually in Colombia, they started attacking each other in their quest for power.
The main figure eventually developed to be Pablo Escobar, and it took the law enforcement 499 days to finally catch him when he escaped and hid out in Colombia. For those who may not remember, he decided to fight it out with them and was killed.
I can't help but notice similarities. Of course, that might raise questions, like should law enforcement both in Colombia and here have "caved in" to the violence and let the cartels go unchecked? or Were the Colombian police to be criticized for taking 499 days to finally corner Pablo Escobar?

- Collapse -
Re:That made me remember, Dave....
Nov 20, 2003 1:59PM PST

499 days? I think he was "King of the Hill" for a lot longer than that! And fought it out with who? The Columbian Police (ha, ha) or the DEA?

- Collapse -
499 days...
Nov 20, 2003 2:41PM PST

He was in a prison (if you could call it that, more like a private hacienda) and "escaped". (Probably just walked out).
It took 499 days to hunt him down after that. You mentioned something about the time that he was "King of the Hill? Was that supposed to relate to that 499 day time period?

- Collapse -
Re Arrests made
Nov 21, 2003 1:57AM PST
- Collapse -
Lot of groups and individuals claiming responsibility. Sound like
Nov 21, 2003 12:54PM PST

.
confessions to me. Arrest them all, stuff them in a cell and throw away the key. Gosh durn if they know who the terrorist are, even by name by golly, why not go after them instead of destroying a whole country and causing terrorist acts in others?

Can't be that simple can it?
.

- Collapse -
Re:Twin terror attacks hit Turkey Graphi Pictures
Nov 22, 2003 9:54PM PST