Re: Terrorism warning
- From: sid <blank@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 12:21:22 +0100
On 19/05/11 07:49, Dex wrote:
On 18/05/2011 19:50, sid wrote:On 18/05/11 07:19, Dex wrote:
So a 30 minute warning about a bomb going off somewhere in a town, when
it goes off 17 minutes later, is more civilised than no warning at all?
Sorry mate, a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack.
I'm not making any point about whether it's civilised or not, I have to
live here, and have ended up nearly driving into a crater when the road
was missing after one went off.
Well boo hoo!!. Good job you're not one of those who has had a close
relative killed in The Troubles, otherwise you'd really get annoyed. ;)
Annoyed isn't the term I'd use. Everyone here who lived here before the peace process has lost someone, I don't think I know anybody who has not had a friend or relation injured or killed or otherwise traumatised.
on the other hand just want to kill randomly anyone who happens to
non muslim, in any country they deem to be a target. Quite a lot more
So why only one in this country so far? If your statement was anywhere
near true we'd get several terrorist attacks here and in America a
Hell, every single country that doesn't follow Sharia law, like Tibet.
Tibet is hardly a target, it's mainly the US and associated countries
for what is perceived to be their imperialism or anti islamic
But you said they "just want to kill randomly anyone who happens to be a
non muslim". That include the people of Tibet. A vast majority of other
people and nations too.
Yes, when they plant a bomb in a western country, I think that is aimed at randomly killing non muslims. I'm assuming they think no muslims will be killed, but maybe they don't care.
I do hope your not humanising the terrorists, saying they do it to exact
revenge, like most of us feel like doing on occasion.
I don't understand what you mean by humanising, they are humans and have motives, even if they are doing things I object to and I don't agree with their motives.
or Russia because of friction with regions in Caucasus
mountains. Or even Denmark, because they dared to print a cartoon the
muslims took exception to.
Oops, you did.
Tibet itself is under occupation, and the
only time I know of Tibetans tried to have a war with anybody was when
they were resisting that occupation.
Like certain Iraqis when the US invaded, which they called terrorist.
Only one in what country? There have been several attempts in Britain,
fortunately most of them were discovered before they got past the
A plan then, not an attempt.
London bus bombings, tube bombings, glasgow airport car bomb (if you can call it that). English shoe bomber on flight to US.
I'm sure there are others.
I'm sure they would love to try harder in the US but the
US is not an easy target, they have probably the biggest budget in the
world to spend and the best technology, to stop the extremists.
All it takes is a few pounds of explosives in a rucksack, or wrapped
around the waist, a busy location and... BOOM!!!
But so far all they've done is send supporters or those financing their
enemies to Guantanamo.
There was some guy with explosives stopped in NYC wasn't there?
They don't just send people to guantanamo, they blow them up with drones, or other more direct methods.
same extremists seem to (the ones we hear about anyway) be a bit amateur
in a lot of cases, looking things up online and getting themselves
caught. Let's hope they don't evolve, i'm sure the UK has a good handle
on stopping them without the same budget as the US. I imagine part of
the reason we are relatively safe in Europe is because of assistance
from the US.
Or perhaps it's the government and media creating scare stories to make
it look like they're doing something.
Yes I agree they do that, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the whole thing is made up. There certainly are people wanting to attack the UK.
Someone was arrested for trying to stab a Danish cartoonist or editor not long ago. Over a cartoon, I think that person is as mad as the bulgarian in tenerife.
I think they've killed more Muslims (although that's like saying
dissident republicans are Christians killing Christians) than
Dissident republicans are not concerned with are you christian or not,
or even what religion you are (excepting perhaps if you're in the
So how many Protestant members of the IRA were/are there? Same goes for
Ulster Defence Association and Catholics?
If you read about the history of Ireland you will see some of the most
venerated republicans were protestants. The ethos of republicanism has
always been stated to be non sectarian.
So name well known Protestant IRA members that have been 'converted' to
There are streets in Dublin named after protestant republicans, the idea that irish republicans must be catholic is the total opposite of history. Wolf Tone was a protestant, Charles Stuart Parnell is buried in a catholic cemetery, but was a protestant. It's not a case of being "converted", unless you think they convert religiously as well.
The UDA certainly are sectarian, but they were only concerned with
attacking people within NI (apart from the early 70s in Dublin and
Monaghan). Hardly the same thing as hijacking aeroplanes.
Whether you kill by aeroplane, bullet or roadside bomb they're just as
dead and it is an act of terrorism.
Right, but some would say the UDA are primarily a sectarian criminal gang, since their activities are confined to NI and have no real purpose except to control their criminal empire.
Plus those nutters who suicide themselves cannot do it again, whereas
Irish terrorist are usually involved in more that one act.
That's certainly true, but I don't see what point you are making, do you think the muslims have not cottoned on to the fact economic disruption is easier than blowing themselves up?
muslims certainly do kill other muslims, but the targets that seem
the most sought after are in non muslim countries and therefore must be
aimed at non muslims.
Is that why only 56 people were killed in what is essentially the only
terrorist attack in this country by them?
If they only wanted to kill muslims then they
would be attacking Saudi and similar states.
Why would they? What have Saudi Arabia and the Bahrain military done to
Part of Osama's mission was to rid Saudi of the Al Sauds,
He also hated Saddam Hussein. Probably more glad the Americans got rid
of him than they were, as al-Qaeda membership sky-rocketed after he fell.
The same will probably happen in Libya, kind of like manufacturing a new problem to justify continuing a 'war on terror'. Saddam was against al qaeda, yet one of the reasons being repeated over and over (although I don't remember it being said much at the time) for going to war with Iraq was that he was supporting al qaeda. As you say, now he is gone the place is in a mess and full of them.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia al qaeda began as a dissident anti
royal/government group. Another grievance against them was for allowing
foreign troops into the kingdom in preparation for invading Iraq. The
Saudis have a problem too with al qaeda, and have had a few incidents
Once again I quote "[they] just want to kill randomly anyone who happens
to be a non muslim". Therfore any non Muslim is an automatic target.
It seems to me that yes they are, the attacks so far seem pretty indiscriminate and chosen by location. I don't think they randomly attack muslim countries just because they are muslim, the bombing in bali was not aimed at muslims.
I'd like to see some
statistics about how many more muslim victims there were, but in any
case I think the fact they attack populated areas in pakistan is not
only because it's easier due to lax security, it's because that's where
a lot of them are based.
But what about Iraq and Afghanistan? Wasn't much lax security there, in
fact they took on heavily armed forces, they even had our troops on the
run at one point.
The taliban did yes, as I said, that's where most of them are based.
No shit Sherlock, they were running the country before 9/11.
Bit of a circular argument.
there are still areas that are quite lawless, it's nothing like trying
to cause explosions in the UK or other western states, they have far
more freedom there to set up things and attack people.
Plus more left over unexploded ordinance.
Being under military occupation does not mean there is tight security.
spent a long time there and never managed to bring it under control.
The British army in Afghanistan was massacred in 1842 as well. I hope
history doesn't repeat itself.
It's never going to work over there, history is repeating itself. It's just a huge expenditure and loss of life for nothing. Leave them to it, they want to live in the stone age. If there wasn't a need to build a pipeline across Afghanistan I don't think the Americans would care about that part of the world at all.
It's a totally different situation, that's why attacks by them (the
extremists) in the west are so far mostly unsuccessful.
Hook hands Hamza and his bunch are extremist. Anjem Choudary and his ilk
are just sad misguided twats who should be laughed at.
Misguided twats indeed, but unfortunately even more misguided twats listen to them and go and blow themselves up.
- Re: Terrorism warning
- From: Dex
- Re: Terrorism warning
- Prev by Date: Re: Clarke-ism
- Next by Date: Re: Eurozone blooming: Germany and France Surprise With Strong Growth
- Previous by thread: Re: Terrorism warning
- Next by thread: Re: Terrorism warning