BF2S Forums Major terrorist event foiled by UK police...

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

What do they have to do with the topic at hand?

I lump hezzbolah, the govts. of Iran and Syria, Al Quada..... etc, all in the same pool. Fascist

You know, by that wide definition you provide you could argue:

"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator" - That certainly seems to be the trend these days.  *cough*wiretaps*cough*

"stringent socioeconomic controls" - You mean like subsidising the agriculture and weapons industries?  Remember that National Socialism in Germany (Nazism) was all continued economic growth, and that seems to the buzzword of the century in the states.

"suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship" - They hate our freedom, anyone who disagrees must be a terrorist and will be destroyed.  Vetting and control of the media.  Terror alert levels.  I don't need to go on.

"typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism" - Love or leave it and blaming the "towel heads", you mean?

"A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government." - Yep, and it's packaged so well it just seems... normal. 

"Oppressive, dictatorial control." - Yep, that'd sum it up nicely.

Wiretapping suspected terrorist probably saved thousands of lives last week, and countless more on previously foiled attacks. If it hadn't I know you would have been first in here BITCHING UP A STORM about Bush. Sucks don't it? I mean if all of this terrorism keeps getting uncovered, you may have to abandon your wire tapping argument all together!! Well cheer up, maybe next time the terrorists might pull it off. <sarcasm>

Economic growth in Germany was geared toward world domination. Stop trying to compare Bush to Hitler it is a pathetic and reaching attempt to say the least.

I do not remember saying we need to destroy anyone that hates our freedom, but if you don't think we should have a right to seek out those responsible for acting on that hatred?

There is no control over the media by the govt. If there was, how were you able to uncover that plot by the White house, Boeing, American Airlines, United Airlines, and all of the willing victims of 911, on the internet?? Bravo for that fine outstanding google search by the way. Sherlock Holmes woulda been proud.

No, love it, or leave it, in the sense that, stop bitching about EVERYTHING American, then stay here and continue to leech all the benefits from it's capitalist beliefs. Do you really NOT see the hypocrisy in that behavior?

the last two you just said "yup" with no explanation, so I won't touch them

Last edited by lowing (2006-08-13 20:25:31)

lowing wrote:

Wiretapping suspected terrorist probably saved thousands of lives last week, and countless more on previously foiled attacks. If it hadn't I know you would have been first in here BITCHING UP A STORM about Bush. Sucks don't it? I mean if all of this terrorism keeps getting uncovered, you may have to abandon your wire tapping argument all together!! Well cheer up, maybe next time the terrorists might pull it off.

Thank the ACLU. 3k could be dead in order to protect you from having information on what kind of toppings you like on your pizza "monitored".

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-15 00:46:37)

and when wat the last time you went on a march against terrorism, british white boy?

lowing wrote:

Wiretapping suspected terrorist probably saved thousands of lives last week, and countless more on previously foiled attacks. If it hadn't I know you would have been first in here BITCHING UP A STORM about Bush. Sucks don't it? I mean if all of this terrorism keeps getting uncovered, you may have to abandon your wire tapping argument all together!! Well cheer up, maybe next time the terrorists might pull it off. <sarcasm>

Now, when did I say that wiretapping suspected terrorists was the issue? It's the consolidation of power into an individual (dictator) acting outside the normal legal safeguards, by allowing warrant-less wiretaps.  Next thing will be trial-free executions for suspects, and you'll be telling people to 'stop bitching'.  And the number of lives saved is still in question, for all we know right now they just nicked a load of Muslims and pinned a decade old plot on them.  Let's wait for the trials before we pass judgment... or is it 'guilty until proved innocent' in your world?

lowing wrote:

Economic growth in Germany was geared toward world domination. Stop trying to compare Bush to Hitler it is a pathetic and reaching attempt to say the least.

I'm not the only one to make that comparison.  The links actually run deeper than you might think, and anyway my point was not to make that comparison, merely to point out the 'stringent socioeconomic controls' which your criteria specified.    Nice dodge attempt.  And the implication that economic growth in America isn't geared towards world domination is strange, given that it's the main result.

lowing wrote:

I do not remember saying we need to destroy anyone that hates our freedom, but if you don't think we should have a right to seek out those responsible for acting on that hatred?

Again, not the point I was making.  I was referring to the fear and distortion present in the media, if it's not the case then why don't they give two minutes to ask some of the valid questions you mention in your next paragraph:

lowing wrote:

There is no control over the media by the govt. If there was, how were you able to uncover that plot by the White house, Boeing, American Airlines, United Airlines, and all of the willing victims of 911, on the internet?? Bravo for that fine outstanding google search by the way. Sherlock Holmes woulda been proud.

Oh right, those are mainstream media sites are they?  Sorry, must have missed the CNN 'Bush is a terrorist' special.  [/sarcasm]  And I just think there are questions needing answers anyway, and the failure of the America mainstream media to do so is either a massive oversight, or indication of censorship.  You can choose the former if you want, but I think many people would tend towards the latter.  And the whole reason I've posted is to show that the criteria you have specified are perspective based depending on who you ask, just like your interpretation of "hezzbolah, the govts. of Iran and Syria, Al Qaeda". 

lowing wrote:

No, love it, or leave it, in the sense that, stop bitching about EVERYTHING American, then stay here and continue to leech all the benefits from it's capitalist beliefs. Do you really NOT see the hypocrisy in that behavior?

LOL! Great faith you have in democracy.  Capitalism is essentially like a political party, if people want to speak out against it then why the fuck shouldn't they.  There are such things as degrees, and wanting the pursuit of wealth to take a lower priority than improving life for all is no less valid than it's reverse (every man for himself, money, money, money).  Talking about hypocrisy, people bitch about communism and still get all the benefits like trade unions and state education.  And the current administration clearly relies heavily on nationalism and some of the policies it pushes are definitely interpreted by some as racist.

lowing wrote:

the last two you just said "yup" with no explanation, so I won't touch them

You want some more depth:

"A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government." - Yep, and it's packaged so well it just seems... normal.  The points mentioned above indicated that there are many people who actually agree that consolidation of power in an individual, censored media, belligerent nationalism/racism, stringent socioeconomic controls and military action to ensure continued economic growth for the continued aim of dominating the world economy is all a good and positive thing.  Hence it is a movement advocating that form of government (fascist).

"Oppressive, dictatorial control." - Yep, that'd sum it up nicely.  Here's why:

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=oppressive wrote:

Oppressive: marked by unjust severity or arbitrary behavior; "the oppressive government"; "oppressive laws"; "a tyrannical parent"; "tyrannous disregard of human rights"

I'd say that the Bush policy of "American Rights > Human Rights" fits the bill. Not to mention the occupations, regime changes and Gitmo.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dictatorial wrote:

Dictatorial: authoritarian: characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty; "an authoritarian regime"; "autocratic government"; "despotic rulers"; "a dictatorial rule that lasted for the duration of the war"; "a tyrannical government"

Dodged a multi-million dollar class action for negligence surrounding the events of 9/11 on the grounds of 'sovereign immunity'.  If that doesn't show 'absolute sovereignty' then what the hell does?

Anyway, I don't expect you agree with my perspective and couldn't care less, I'm just pointing out that depending on viewpoint and the information considered, the criteria you used could be applied to most countries to some degree.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

Wiretapping suspected terrorist probably saved thousands of lives last week, and countless more on previously foiled attacks. If it hadn't I know you would have been first in here BITCHING UP A STORM about Bush. Sucks don't it? I mean if all of this terrorism keeps getting uncovered, you may have to abandon your wire tapping argument all together!! Well cheer up, maybe next time the terrorists might pull it off. <sarcasm>

Now, when did I say that wiretapping suspected terrorists was the issue? It's the consolidation of power into an individual (dictator) acting outside the normal legal safeguards, by allowing warrant-less wiretaps.  Next thing will be trial-free executions for suspects, and you'll be telling people to 'stop bitching'.  And the number of lives saved is still in question, for all we know right now they just nicked a load of Muslims and pinned a decade old plot on them.  Let's wait for the trials before we pass judgment... or is it 'guilty until proved innocent' in your world?

lowing wrote:

Economic growth in Germany was geared toward world domination. Stop trying to compare Bush to Hitler it is a pathetic and reaching attempt to say the least.

I'm not the only one to make that comparison.  The links actually run deeper than you might think, and anyway my point was not to make that comparison, merely to point out the 'stringent socioeconomic controls' which your criteria specified.    Nice dodge attempt.  And the implication that economic growth in America isn't geared towards world domination is strange, given that it's the main result.

lowing wrote:

I do not remember saying we need to destroy anyone that hates our freedom, but if you don't think we should have a right to seek out those responsible for acting on that hatred?

Again, not the point I was making.  I was referring to the fear and distortion present in the media, if it's not the case then why don't they give two minutes to ask some of the valid questions you mention in your next paragraph:

lowing wrote:

There is no control over the media by the govt. If there was, how were you able to uncover that plot by the White house, Boeing, American Airlines, United Airlines, and all of the willing victims of 911, on the internet?? Bravo for that fine outstanding google search by the way. Sherlock Holmes woulda been proud.

Oh right, those are mainstream media sites are they?  Sorry, must have missed the CNN 'Bush is a terrorist' special.  [/sarcasm]  And I just think there are questions needing answers anyway, and the failure of the America mainstream media to do so is either a massive oversight, or indication of censorship.  You can choose the former if you want, but I think many people would tend towards the latter.  And the whole reason I've posted is to show that the criteria you have specified are perspective based depending on who you ask, just like your interpretation of "hezzbolah, the govts. of Iran and Syria, Al Qaeda". 

lowing wrote:

No, love it, or leave it, in the sense that, stop bitching about EVERYTHING American, then stay here and continue to leech all the benefits from it's capitalist beliefs. Do you really NOT see the hypocrisy in that behavior?

LOL! Great faith you have in democracy.  Capitalism is essentially like a political party, if people want to speak out against it then why the fuck shouldn't they.  There are such things as degrees, and wanting the pursuit of wealth to take a lower priority than improving life for all is no less valid than it's reverse (every man for himself, money, money, money).  Talking about hypocrisy, people bitch about communism and still get all the benefits like trade unions and state education.  And the current administration clearly relies heavily on nationalism and some of the policies it pushes are definitely interpreted by some as racist.

lowing wrote:

the last two you just said "yup" with no explanation, so I won't touch them

You want some more depth:

"A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government." - Yep, and it's packaged so well it just seems... normal.  The points mentioned above indicated that there are many people who actually agree that consolidation of power in an individual, censored media, belligerent nationalism/racism, stringent socioeconomic controls and military action to ensure continued economic growth for the continued aim of dominating the world economy is all a good and positive thing.  Hence it is a movement advocating that form of government (fascist).

"Oppressive, dictatorial control." - Yep, that'd sum it up nicely.  Here's why:

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=oppressive wrote:

Oppressive: marked by unjust severity or arbitrary behavior; "the oppressive government"; "oppressive laws"; "a tyrannical parent"; "tyrannous disregard of human rights"

I'd say that the Bush policy of "American Rights > Human Rights" fits the bill. Not to mention the occupations, regime changes and Gitmo.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dictatorial wrote:

Dictatorial: authoritarian: characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty; "an authoritarian regime"; "autocratic government"; "despotic rulers"; "a dictatorial rule that lasted for the duration of the war"; "a tyrannical government"

Dodged a multi-million dollar class action for negligence surrounding the events of 9/11 on the grounds of 'sovereign immunity'.  If that doesn't show 'absolute sovereignty' then what the hell does?

Anyway, I don't expect you agree with my perspective and couldn't care less, I'm just pointing out that depending on viewpoint and the information considered, the criteria you used could be applied to most countries to some degree.

Bottom line, what I can not stand about you and people like you is exactly what I have been saying all along. You are the poster child for hypocrasy to speak out against everything American, then live here and take advantage of it all. You can speak out against capitolism all ya want. But to have any merit whatsoever, ya might wanna practice what ya preach and stop LIVING IT.

You hide under the blanket that you have the right and freedom to act in such a manner ( and you do) but it is the epedimy of hypocrasy non the less.

My comments on the media and the govt. control I will let stand. As long as there is a free internet and free press, you have nothing to support your opinion

Your ass is NOT oppressed by this govt. nor is anyone elses. You are merely playing the drama queen to try and bolster your view point.  Since this war began the only inconvience to your life is a longer wait at the airport.

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

I do not support the current military action being taken, because I believe it is both immoral and plays right into the terrorist's hands.

Then tell me the third option, you don't want to defend and you know there is no negotiating with terrorists, so tell me your grand master plan. Sue them??

Who said there's no Negotiating with terrorist? Because from my understanding is majority of the kidnappings they do is to negotiate??

lowing wrote:

Bottom line, what I can not stand about you and people like you is exactly what I have been saying all along. You are the poster child for hypocrasy to speak out against everything American, then live here and take advantage of it all. You can speak out against capitolism all ya want. But to have any merit whatsoever, ya might wanna practice what ya preach and stop LIVING IT.

You hide under the blanket that you have the right and freedom to act in such a manner ( and you do) but it is the epedimy of hypocrasy non the less.

My comments on the media and the govt. control I will let stand. As long as there is a free internet and free press, you have nothing to support your opinion

Your ass is NOT oppressed by this govt. nor is anyone elses. You are merely playing the drama queen to try and bolster your view point.  Since this war began the only inconvience to your life is a longer wait at the airport.

I don't live in America.  I live in the UK.  And talking about my 'taking advantage of capitalism' I don't own shares in the 'means of production' so you are wrong to assume that I am benefiting from it.  Many of the so-called luxury goods are manufactured in communist countries, so that must make you a commie, right?  It doesn't take a genius to see that there are plenty of problems with a purely capitalist economy, and a suitable balance between public and private services can help to offset them. 

Just because you believe that everyone who doesn't say "isn't it great that the super-rich can dodge their taxes" must want everyone to live in the old USSR, doesn't make it true.  In fact, the higher cost of living in the uk (much like America) is escalating at a faster rate than wages, forcing many to take second jobs simply to survive. 

It's funny how much you complain, when the system is already rigged towards your views and it's clear that people like you are clearly only looking out for number 1.   In my experience many people who share my views are much more community minded.  But whatever, you have the right to support a system which gives more rights to the rich, that's your prerogative.  You might support corporations having greater rights than individuals, fine by me.  But I don't.  Get used to it.

You mention hypocrisy, isn't it amusing that you constantly whine about the fact that people exercise the freedom you bleat on about protecting.  Hypocritical and ironic, love it.  If it bothers you so much then why not stop claiming to protect them?  It's clearly going to knock 10 years off your life cos I can see your blood pressure rising from here

alpinestar wrote:

So what happened about this "MAJOR TERRORIST EVENT" See how quickly it vanished ?
People still buy this shit......

Um, it was prevented......

And what was the Liquid that they were going to use? I can't think of a stable enough explosive in liquid form that could be used for this plot?

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bottom line, what I can not stand about you and people like you is exactly what I have been saying all along. You are the poster child for hypocrasy to speak out against everything American, then live here and take advantage of it all. You can speak out against capitolism all ya want. But to have any merit whatsoever, ya might wanna practice what ya preach and stop LIVING IT.

You hide under the blanket that you have the right and freedom to act in such a manner ( and you do) but it is the epedimy of hypocrasy non the less.

My comments on the media and the govt. control I will let stand. As long as there is a free internet and free press, you have nothing to support your opinion

Your ass is NOT oppressed by this govt. nor is anyone elses. You are merely playing the drama queen to try and bolster your view point.  Since this war began the only inconvenience to your life is a longer wait at the airport.

I don't live in America.  I live in the UK.  And talking about my 'taking advantage of capitalism' I don't own shares in the 'means of production' so you are wrong to assume that I am benefiting from it.  Many of the so-called luxury goods are manufactured in communist countries, so that must make you a commie, right?  It doesn't take a genius to see that there are plenty of problems with a purely capitalist economy, and a suitable balance between public and private services can help to offset them. 

Just because you believe that everyone who doesn't say "isn't it great that the super-rich can dodge their taxes" must want everyone to live in the old USSR, doesn't make it true.  In fact, the higher cost of living in the uk (much like America) is escalating at a faster rate than wages, forcing many to take second jobs simply to survive. 

It's funny how much you complain, when the system is already rigged towards your views and it's clear that people like you are clearly only looking out for number 1.   In my experience many people who share my views are much more community minded.  But whatever, you have the right to support a system which gives more rights to the rich, that's your prerogative.  You might support corporations having greater rights than individuals, fine by me.  But I don't.  Get used to it.

You mention hypocrisy, isn't it amusing that you constantly whine about the fact that people exercise the freedom you bleat on about protecting.  Hypocritical and ironic, love it.  If it bothers you so much then why not stop claiming to protect them?  It's clearly going to knock 10 years off your life cos I can see your blood pressure rising from here

Sorry I got you confused with Marconious, same form of basic govt though, so the rest stands. Except, I think the US has a good balance of socialism and capitalism. We have a ton of programs aimed at helping others less fortunate. Grants and loans for college etc..... The only thing that you and I seem to disagree on is how it is distributed. I say free hand outs should not happen. I say our taxes SHOULD only go to those willing to help themselves. You seem to think that everyone deserves a free ride.

the fact that people are having to take two jobs, has nothing to do with personal financial responsibility does it?? Or is it the govts. job to plan your finances as well?

Asa matter of fact I DO LOOK OUT FOR NUMBER 1, MY FAMILY!!. I do not support a system where I have more rights than someone else. I don't even know where you got that idea. We all have the same opportunities. Are you going to deny that some people are more ambitious than others?? Maybe those that work for it should get what ever their efforts allow. Why should they have to share with those that have not done a thing for themselves?? I just got caught up in lay-offs from my airline, because of my professionalism and work ethic I had another job ( yes at less pay for now ) in short enough time as to not feel the financial pressure and headache of being furloughed. Who do I owe for that. I will take credit for making myself marketable.
Bottom line. I am more than willing to help anyone that helps themselves.No free handouts to those who do not work for it in some sort of measure.

No actually, very rarely do I get upset on here.  I find this kinda entertaining, and enlightening at times. sad though it may be.

I do not whine on here, I make observations that it is stupid to bite the hand that feeds you.

Last edited by lowing (2006-08-16 17:24:25)

lowing wrote:

Sorry I got you confused with Marconious, same form of basic govt though, so the rest stands. Except, I think the US has a good balance of socialism and capitalism. We have a ton of programs aimed at helping others less fortunate. Grants and loans for college etc..... The only thing that you and I seem to disagree on is how it is distributed. I say free hand outs should not happen. I say our taxes SHOULD only go to those willing to help themselves. You seem to think that everyone deserves a free ride.

the fact that people are having to take two jobs, has nothing to do with personal financial responsibility does it?? Or is it the govts. job to plan your finances as well?

Asa matter of fact I DO LOOK OUT FOR NUMBER 1, MY FAMILY!!. I do not support a system where I have more rights than someone else. I don't even know where you got that idea. We all have the same opportunities. Are you going to deny that some people are more ambitious than others?? Maybe those that work for it should get what ever their efforts allow. Why should they have to share with those that have not done a thing for themselves?? I just got caught up in lay-offs from my airline, because of my professionalism and work ethic I had another job ( yes at less pay for now ) in short enough time as to not feel the financial pressure and headache of being furloughed. Who do I owe for that. I will take credit for making myself marketable.
Bottom line. I am more than willing to help anyone that helps themselves.No free handouts to those who do not work for it in some sort of measure.

No actually, very rarely do I get upset on here.  I find this kinda entertaining, and enlightening at times. sad though it may be.

I do not whine on here, I make observations that it is stupid to bite the hand that feeds you.

The fact is that some people won't be able to get a job, and will need help.  There is only so much to go around, and due to the capitalist system of private individuals owning the means of production, more and more often labour is sourced out to wherever it is cheapest.  I'm not going to deny that some people work harder than others, but let's just think about the larger picture:

Take your industry, for example.  Planes are very mobile, and require regular maintenance.  Maintenance performed in the USA is more expensive than it would be overseas.  As more and more companies make massive savings by getting the maintenance done overseas those who take a more ethical stance will be unable to compete, and will have to do likewise or lose market share due to higher prices.  Eventually there will be so few jobs that you will be faced with a choice:  relocate your family or retrain in another field.  Some people will be unable to afford to do either.  Should they get help or not?  I think that they are a victim of capitalism, and it's only fair that some of the taxes on the profits of the company they worked for should go towards helping them survive.  Remember it's not even income tax that goes towards helping these people, the entire income tax collected in the states is just used to pay off the interest on the loans the government took out to create more economic growth... growth which competition forces overseas in all but name (e.g. the companies stay registered in the states, but most of the workforce is overseas).

And there aren't really any 'handouts' over here in the UK:

-You can get Disability Living Allowance if you are physically or mentally unable to work. 

-Unemployed?  To claim jobseekers allowance you need to be actively looking for work and improving your chances.  Even if you are you won't get the money unless you need it to survive. 

-Perhaps by handouts you mean supporting people who have fallen victim to drug addiction?  That's a illness which requires treating as far as I'm concerned, just like alcoholism.  It would come under a disability and if they want to claim money they should be forced to attend programs to treat their addiction.  Quite simple.  That's why we pay National Insurance, so if we get ill we get treatment.  Although recently the quality of treatment is declining at quite a rate, due to various factors.

-As for convicted criminals, contributing towards rehabilitation is going to benefit everyone in the long run.  Training schemes in prison and a decent minimum wage are worth it, given that if they can earn a decent living they are less likely to reoffend.

-Single mothers?  They are going to need support because even if they work, the childcare will cost more per hour than most of them will ever earn.  I don't begrudge giving their children a chance to be well fed and housed enough to get a chance of doing well in the education I don't begrudge being provided for them.

-Victims of crime and asylum seekers?  Some people are irreversibly damaged by conflicts which they are fleeing and probably lost much of their family in.  Some people are victims of criminals or suffer great abuse.  They are the exception to the rule, and I believe there is a duty of care, be it to the international community or closer to home. 

I don't think our views are much different really, because I don't think people should be given money unless they really need it.  People can choose to be homeless or whatever... but there should help available with the problems which caused them to lose faith in themselves to get them back on their feet.  How little does it cost for such basic requirements really?  People are more than welcome to drop out, but if they want shelter, food and help to get back on top then if companies have to pay a bit more tax to support this then I won't lose any sleep about it.  It's easy to forget how little is required to sustain life in this world of inflated property prices and overpriced luxury food.  If one click on this website (http://www.thehungersite.com) can provide 1.1 cups of staple food for the less fortunate, then why is it unreasonable to expect these most basic of requirements to be met?

It might be stupid to bite the hand that feeds you, but asking the entity attached to the hand to give more consideration to the some of the other people who need help is a sign of a social conscience.

Needing two jobs simply to afford to be alive is a sign that the minimum wage has not risen in line with the cost of living, and should be increased.  In that respect it is the job of the government to "plan your finances".

alpinestar wrote:

Ok I will restate it again, All the plots uncovered right ?
Well where the fuck is the suspects & evidence ?

I doubt we'll find out for months.  Things like this usually take years in the UK.  If it isn't quietly swept under the carpet, that is.

Government scare tactics.......

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

alpinestar wrote:

Ok I will restate it again, All the plots uncovered right ?
Well where the fuck is the suspects & evidence ?

?!?!?!? Government scare tactics, cmon, *Play X-Files Theme*

The suspects are in custody in the UK.......Unless you can provide a more specific point as to why or how it could be "made up" than I am really confused.

You said it... Suspects... What are their names ? could be the same people that flew into the WTC towers and are still living in pakistan *end of x files theme*?

Last edited by alpinestar (2006-08-17 11:59:37)