Cheerful prediction

[Ocean11 0]

Based on Spain's example, I wonder if the following could happen here.

 

Muslim terrorists strike in Tokyo to avenge Japan's participation in Iraq. Does anybody doubt they can do it?

 

As a result of a horrific death toll, Japanese come to question their relationship with the US and the government that has maintained it unchanged. In the subsequent election, the LDP goes down forever.

 

Terrible road. Promising direction.

[egglesby 1]

Yet another good reason to get out of the city...

[7-11 2]

Very cheerful... you think Japan is fairly high on the list?

[Ocean11 0]

Japan might be low on the list due to a comparatively low profile participation in Iraq, and also probably because the Muslims living here are probably not the most politicized.

 

But in terms of demonstrating the extent of the terrorist reach, and in terms of soft targets? There's nowhere better.

 

Japan's domestic flights and especially its railway network are wide open. I used to ride a train packed with people that passed another train hauling fuel oil. They passed in a long tunnel. Just imagine...

 

And Japan doesn't haven't a very good record of preventing attacks - for example, the North Korean kidnappings or the big AUM attack which had actually been predicted. Do they have SWAT teams at their nuclear facilities?

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised too if the 'Al Qaida' operatives that strike Japan are Indonesian or Philippine rather than Middle Eastern.

[Plucky 0]

I remember reading a story when the war broke out about how Japan was considered a soft target and likely to experience an attack. With what has happened in Spain, I don't wonder if Japan isn't next on the hit list.

 

I totally agree that Indonesia or the Philippines would be where the attacks come from. There's been a lot of discussion about that up here.

 

I also wonder if Japan's big sweep regarding people of middle eastern descent may have had something to do with this (see imigration thread). Racist? yes. Proactive? quite possibly. Japan is allowed to act that way because that's how they work.

 

Let's just hope nothing comes of it.

[Fattwins 0]

Yeah plucky we know japan is racist in many ways but america requires alot of arabs to be finger printed and various other stuff the world is not going in the right direction at the moment.

 

My question is why do we hate each other so much?

Not an easy question way to vague but an honest question.

[Plucky 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Fattwins:
Yeah plucky we know japan is racist in many ways but america requires alot of arabs to be finger printed and various other stuff the world is not going in the right direction at the moment.

My question is why do we hate each other so much?
Not an easy question way to vague but an honest question.

I don't think my comment came off how I meant it. I was talking of the policy itself, not trying to state that all of Japan was racist. I disagree with a lot of what the US is doing also and agree that it is also racist (picking on particular groups of people). Sorry that came out wrong.

[Ocean11 0]

> My question is why do we hate each other so much?

 

I think the answer to that is that our governments don't really represent us, and do mean and senseless things in our name. This applies as much to the UK as to Japan, as to Saudi Arabia, although with striking differences in degree. This leads to an appearance of hate.

 

Of course as individuals we do things that contribute, such as voting for people who are not our first choice, and by putting our comfort before ethical considerations and so on.

 

Until developed nations find alternative sources of power and get out of the Mideast, we will continue to feel fear when we go anywhere. This may ultimately mean that our governments will have to stop doing such mean and senseless things. And that's something that I've always wanted the UK government to think about.

[RayInJapan 0]

Here Here OC, Here Here...

 

You're 100 percent right - nobody, can do anything bad on a large scale unless a government somewhere backs em up. That includes both terrorists, and leaders of governments as well...

[mogski 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:
Until developed nations...get out of the Mideast...

While I agree wholeheartedly with your other commments, I do feel this to be rather finger pointing. I do not beleive the main reason for the problems we are seeing is because of the Mid East. Sure it has a big part in the whole picture, but it is not the only part.

The Mid East is developing and on a business level wish for cooperation from developing nations to develop their own nation.

Like you say the govt are not correctly representing the people and this is where the developing nations get a bad rap in teh Mid East because the govt peoples are those who own the business whom reap the profits from the cooperation of developing nations. The people aware or not because of the PR machine of many Mid East govt's then have nowhere to direct their dissatisfaction but to the innocent(I use this lightly) party being the developed nation offering the assistance.

I beleive that education in under developed nations should if necessary combine religion but strongly allow for a more free thought process. It must be offered to all levels of society fairly and equally so as to avoid a vacuum where non-educated except for religiously educated through family value peoples are allowed to have one path of thought.

Unfortunately I see religion being used to leverage the poorer sectors in having hope of a better existence, while shorwding the reality of social control and reinforcing the levels of heirachy that should not exist in a society.

Just some poorly sonstructed comments for thought.

[Ocean11 0]

Our (in Japan and America) reliance on ME oil leads to support of unsavoury regimes in the ME. These have hitherto provided 'stability', or in other words, stagnation in the region.

 

When I say 'get out of the ME', I mean to say, find alternative sources of energy so that we don't need to support the stagnation, and leave the nations to find their own way without unwanted interference. The 'War on Terror' just postpones this.

[miteyak 0]

But it goes further... the states needs the ME to sell oil, so the ME can keep lending to the U.S. govt and secure the burgeoning deficit.

 

Unfortunately it's not just about oil, it's about maintaining the supremacy of the dollar and the liquidity of the U.S. Without oil, America risks losing both.

 

Too bad for world peace and environmental progression...

 

On the motion put forward, Japan is a fair target for another reason... it's weak yen strategy is practically paying for the war in Iraq

[Ocean11 0]

Indeed.

 

And from today's news;

 

"In Japan, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said he foresaw no change in plans to deploy 1,000 Japanese military personnel in the Persian Gulf region to assist in Iraq's reconstruction.

 

"Japan's (political) situation is different from Spain's," Kyodo News agency quoted him as saying."

 

Japan's situation is different from Spain's in that elections in Spain result in noticeable changes in the life of the country. Since that doesn't happen in Japan, Koizumi can confidently assert that without fear of contradiction. But, as in Spain, devastating bomb attacks might just be a force driving greater movement.

[quattro 1]

What ever your view of the war was is all kind of irrelevant now. We all have to live with the aftermath of it. IMO pulling troops out of the region is the worst thing that could happen. The area is way to unstable to just up and leave.

By Spain pulling out the terrorist could perceive this as a victory. The end result being they now step up their terror campaign by trying to persuade other countries by using the same tactics. Sounds kind of grim. How many other countries are on that list?

Unfortunately the US is the only supper power left and it’s easy to point a finger at. I’m not saying its perfect but it’s the old adage dam if you do dammed if you don’t. They probably could support their own oil needs by opening up a full blow oil production program in Alaska. But that would be environmentally not good. The list goes on.

Until the US, the World stops it reliance on oil from the Middle East and else where, we are doomed to all walk down the path were on. Considering most countries get their oil from the Middle East we all are doing our part to support some of the regimes in power there now.

As for the Middle East they’re not exactly innocent either. Consider this almost all the oil profit of Saudi Arabia goes to the royal family. While the average person on the street lives in squalor the elite few are living life rather large. Iraq and Iran all the same story just take one look at one of Sadam’s palaces. The only exception to the rule maybe Kuwait. These countries are sitting on some incredible wealth yet they cant or won’t provide for there people. Instead they place all the blame on the west.

Anyway just my two cents for what its worth.

[Ocean11 0]

> What ever your view of the war was is all kind of irrelevant now

 

No it's not. That's just what you're supposed to think.

 

> I’m not saying its perfect but it’s the old adage dam if you do dammed if you don’t

 

No it's not. That's mawkish.

 

> They probably could support their own oil needs by opening up a full blow oil production program in Alaska

 

No they couldn't.

 

> Instead they place all the blame on the west.

 

No 'they' don't.

 

Your 2 cents comes with a lot fallacy...

[mogski 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by quattro:
They probably could support their own oil needs by opening up a full blow oil production program in Alaska. But that would be environmentally not good. The list goes on.

But it's environmentally and humanely okay to go and blast the crap out of someone elses land to get the oil?

[mattlucas 0]

Its called

 

Not In My Back Yard

[miteyak 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by quattro:

Unfortunately the US is the only supper power left and it’s easy to point a finger at. I’m not saying its perfect but it’s the old adage dam if you do dammed if you don’t. They probably could support their own oil needs by opening up a full blow oil production program in Alaska. But that would be environmentally not good. The list goes on.

Alaskan oil? As mentioned earlier, it's not just about the oil, but where it comes from.

The only super power? maybe when it's no longer a super power the world can start living more by consensus and democracy. When will that start to happen? when mid east oil stops flowing... well, that would be a start.

 Quote:

Originally posted by quattro:


While the average person on the street lives in squalor the elite few are living life rather large.

ironic, no?

No one country can dictate world affairs, and the day the U.S. and Britain realize that having the biggest gun doesn't make one the moral authority, the world can move forward.

Food for thought (or the starving, perhaps), the cost of the Iraq invasion could have provided enough development aid to lift several small countries from street living squalor to newly developed nation status!

[Markie 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by quattro:

Unfortunately the US is the only supper power left

I hope this isn't true because though I do like American food, I would like to have more choices for my evening meals.

[Ocean11 0]

Already in the media you can see the claim that 'Spain is backing down in the face of terrorism', and that is exactly how the US govt wants everybody to think.

 

But there are plenty of other good reasons for adopting an independent policy and opting out of the 'War on Terror'. But those reasons will be willfully ignored in the media.

 

Pursuing policies that cause terrorism then pretending that 200 people killed in a day can just be brushed off is completely irrational. More so when the leader of the 'War on Terror' refuses even to consider reducing dependence on oil.

 

Notice how many of these countries in the 'coalition of the now slightly unwilling' are calling for UN authorization. The US wants the UN dead, but just like terrorism, it won't die.

[miteyak 0]

The biggest question is however, why, after all this time, are we still refering to the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror

 

As far as I've heard, the Spanish govt is still commited to the war on terror, but has decided to remove it's forces from policing Iraq...

 

let's say the bomb and Iraq are linked. The Spanish people didn't want to go in the first place. They thought it was wrong. The retaliation was also wrong.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, but it takes a bigger (wo)man to undo the first wrong than to escalate a cycle of revenge.

 

Not bowing down to terrorism means bringing them to justice, not continuing a tenuously connected course of action against the overwhelming will of your people.

[Markie 0]

Hate to disagree with both Ocean and Miteyak. However, I do feel that if Spain withdraws from Iraq it will be viewed as victory for terrorists and their methods and is likely to encourage more similar actions in the future.

[miteyak 0]

Markie, actually I think you're right, it will encourage terrorists, but whether they will act more because of it... I get the feeling that they already do what they can when they can.

The terrorists probably know that not all countries will react like Spain, do that in the UK and watch the soldiers grow...

 

The consequences are not always the issue, however, when pursuing the right course of action. The difference between terrorists and the law has to be how one achieves one's aim.

[Ocean11 0]

Markie, that's a trap that was set by the 'War on Terror' people.

 

The Spaniards may have elected a new govt anyway - God knows, they didn't approve of their current PM. But because the issue of their legitimate disgust for his policy is completely ignored, all it comes down to is 'bowing to terrorism' in public discourse, however distorted this view is. As predicted at its outset, the 'War on Terrorism' plays into the hands of terrorists. Just as Islamic fundamentalism took the collapse of the Soviet Union as a triumph of its own making (in Afghanistan), so Muslim terrorists and everybody else are being encouraged to believe that they have swung the vote in Spain. Nice going.

 

And anyway Markie, if you hadn't noticed, terrorists don't need any encouragement. They even regard discouragement as encouragement.

 

miteyak, 'The War on Terror' can be a very inclusive trademark.

 

Some good points there.

[Markie 0]

Interesting points. They sound very plausible and you are obviously not just shooting your mouth off. I can't say I disagree completely. However, the part about terrorists not needing encouragement, I have reservations. I am sure there are many hard-liners who are just cold-blooded murderers. They relish all the blood and misery they cause and the only thing preventing them from doing more is their own ability to do so.

However, I recognize that there are still a lot of fanatics who are not cold-blooded barbarians and who want to avoid bloodshed but see this as their only recourse. Trying to take an objective view, a lot of these people are suicide bombers willing to sacrifice themselves as well as other innocent people to achieve what they think is a greater goal. They consider themselves martyrs and even the other victims are martyrs as well. It is these people I refer to. If they think terrorism is ineffective, they will not want to make the sacrifice. It is these people I don't wish to be encouraged. The other crazies you refer to, I agree, will continue on their ways irrespective of everything else.