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

EVieira wrote:

ArmouredKitty wrote:

Besides, in the UK there isnt really that much to worry about. Sounds silly but...who had 9/11? where were the planes going to be blown up above? America. So many nations think that the Capitalist USA is a major problem, but heres something to make you confused:

Not to worry???? After 9/11 the two major terrorist attacks were in Spain and UK. Why is that? Because they are allied with the US. You think they chose the planes flying from UK for no reason? Why not get planes from France, Italy, heck even Mexico, Brazil or Canada?

If the UK wasn't extremely worried about terrorist attacks on their soil, they probably wouldn't have thwarted the recent plots. And we'd have alot of Americans and a good deal of English dead.

Edited for spelling

So the two Bali bombings - which in total cost almost 300 lives - don't rate as 'major'?

Spark wrote:

EVieira wrote:

ArmouredKitty wrote:

Besides, in the UK there isnt really that much to worry about. Sounds silly but...who had 9/11? where were the planes going to be blown up above? America. So many nations think that the Capitalist USA is a major problem, but heres something to make you confused:

Not to worry???? After 9/11 the two major terrorist attacks were in Spain and UK. Why is that? Because they are allied with the US. You think they chose the planes flying from UK for no reason? Why not get planes from France, Italy, heck even Mexico, Brazil or Canada?

If the UK wasn't extremely worried about terrorist attacks on their soil, they probably wouldn't have thwarted the recent plots. And we'd have alot of Americans and a good deal of English dead.

Edited for spelling

So the two Bali bombings - which in total cost almost 300 lives - don't rate as 'major'?

It didn't happen in the "civilized" world so no one gives a damn. Hell, no one in America gives a damn over what happened in Spain, or London for that matter. They'll care about this for a short while, then forget about it and remain afraid though they don't exactly recall why.

For fuck's sake, that useless terror alert has never gone below yellow.

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

better question would be, when have you denounced any of these attacks, and stood up in support  to make sure that Islamic radicals never do it again?

When has there been an appropriate situation?  If somebody got into a discussion about the Bali bombings and started praising them, I'd tell him he's a fuckwit.  To the best of my knowledge, nobody has.  Your logic is flawed: of not condemning them implies support, then not condoning them ought imply opposition, and I have done neither.

not hardly bubbalo, If you can't find it in yourself to speakout against acts of terror such as 911, or Bali or Spain or London, and all yo can to do is explore the reasons why these countries might have deserved it. You have chosen a side in my opinion.

Last edited by lowing (2006-08-12 05:02:58)

Bubbalo wrote:

When have I ever said they deserved it?  I have said, and believe, that people do not simply wake up one morning and decide to kill someone.  There must be a reason, and that reason may be related to immoral actions by the countries we live in.

Having said that, the reason I often criticise those attacking terrorists and rarely the terrorists themselves is that there are plenty of people fighting the "terrorists are evil" fight, so I don't need to get into it.  There are few, however, who defend my viewpoints on the West, and therefore I must assist in the argument.  If you cannot understand that there is more use in arguing a point which is disagreed than one which there is already consensus on, you are either blind or a fool.

LOL.like I said.....you chose a side. I said it in one sentence, you dance around in a paragragh to say it.

lowing wrote:

LOL.like I said.....you chose a side. I said it in one sentence, you dance around in a paragragh to say it.

Uh, no, you've said that I've sided with the terrorists.  As I was very careful to say:

I DO NOT support the terrorists.

Nor do I support the US and it's allies.

Israel fits both of those descriptions, IMHO.

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.

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??

Spark wrote:

EVieira wrote:

ArmouredKitty wrote:

Besides, in the UK there isnt really that much to worry about. Sounds silly but...who had 9/11? where were the planes going to be blown up above? America. So many nations think that the Capitalist USA is a major problem, but heres something to make you confused:

Not to worry???? After 9/11 the two major terrorist attacks were in Spain and UK. Why is that? Because they are allied with the US. You think they chose the planes flying from UK for no reason? Why not get planes from France, Italy, heck even Mexico, Brazil or Canada?

If the UK wasn't extremely worried about terrorist attacks on their soil, they probably wouldn't have thwarted the recent plots. And we'd have alot of Americans and a good deal of English dead.

Edited for spelling

So the two Bali bombings - which in total cost almost 300 lives - don't rate as 'major'?

Thanks Spark, had forgotten about that one. So let me correct myself: The three major attacks after 9/11 where in Spain, UK and one in Bali which targeted Australian tourists. Why is that? Its because they are allied with the US.

So, you still think the UK or any other US ally shouldn't be worried about terrorism?

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control."

please tell me what in this definition taken from dictionary.com does not describe the terrorists efforts toward the jews

Okay.  That does not describe the terrorist's efforts towards Jews.  Nor, more to the point, does it describe their efforts against Israelis.  The wish to force a withdrawal, which has nothing to do with anything you said.

Ah the wish to force a withdrawal has nothing to do with Israel's kicking the shit out of them, I suppose. I wonder what kind of withdrawal Hezzbolah would be seeking if Israel were on its knees.
and yes it does describe the terrorists wishes about Israel

Bubbalo wrote:

Nope.  It describes a particular type of government, whereas Hizballah don't care about the government type, but rather the government composition and attitude.

I only partially will agree to that....No govt. is acceptable to them if it is Jewish....and Iran?? Syria??

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

I only partially will agree to that....No govt. is acceptable to them if it is Jewish

Which is what I said, I apologise if I was unclear.

lowing wrote:

and Iran?? Syria??

What about them?

you would not describe their govts. as fascist by the defintion above?

Last edited by lowing (2006-08-13 11:36:00)

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

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.