NationStates Jolt Archive

UK Airports were closed down. We can take that as official.

The suspects are in all probability Pakistani. We can take that as official.

The suspects are in all probability muslims. We can take that as official.

The suspects are in all probability terrorists. We can take that as official.

and:
People are free to discuss the subject again, without getting sidetracked into using racially pejorative terms, and sizing up each others' bigotry.
Let's take that as offical too.

So much for that whole "we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" claptrap.

You racist bigot!

/jk

So much for that whole "we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" claptrap.

And so much for 'we don't have to fight them at all'-claptrap.


This is a global war - it is a real war, it is global, and the front is everywhere.

So much for that whole "we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" claptrap.
I have the feeling more of them would be over here years ago if we weren't killing them over there.

BTW, links for the Pakistan connection:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/08/the_anatomy_of_.html

More than 20 suspected terrorists were arrested in England by early Thursday morning, in an operation that involved British intelligence, Scotland Yard and assistance by a number of other law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including those in Pakistan.

ABC News has learned that two "significant arrests" in Pakistan in recent days may have significantly accelerated the pace of the investigation.

Many of the alleged terror plotters appeared to be of Pakistani descent. It appears that they were probably "homegrown" terrorists with strong links to al Qaeda and Pakistani operatives. This new generation of terrorists have figured significantly in plots in the U.S., London and Canada in recent months.

Nazz, maybe we should have invaded Pakistan instead. After all, they really did have WMD.

And so much for 'we don't have to fight them at all'-claptrap.

Whose been saying that now?

So much for that whole "we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" claptrap.
Thing is, over here is the right place to do it. Criminal justice is the way to go, and the environment is more familiar, suspects more easily detected, far fewer potential false positives. Fighting terrorism overseas with conventional military force is a waste of time, money and above all is counterproductive, making the job more difficult precisely where it matters.

Nazz, maybe we should have invaded Pakistan instead. After all, they really did have WMD.
But the Pakistani military dictatorship is our friend - at least, Blair seems to think so.

Whose been saying that now?
I've heard plenty say that:

a. we should fight no war with any of them, and treat everything as a police matter only AFTER an attack
b. we should not investigate any of them prior to an attack, because that would be a violation of their privacy rights or profiling or some heinous civil rights abomination

So much for that whole "we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" claptrap.

I think that's something your George has said, I don't think that our Tony ever said that ^^

So much for that whole "we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" claptrap.
As far as I understood it, a number of the men involved are Muslim British citizens of Pakistani origins. We are fighting none of these things anyway.

Thing is, over here is the right place to do it. Criminal justice is the way to go, and the environment is more familiar, suspects more easily detected, far fewer potential false positives. Fighting terrorism overseas with conventional military force is a waste of time, money and above all is counterproductive, making the job more difficult precisely where it matters.I agree completely. For all the chest-puffing and tough-talking from the likes of DK and BogMarsh, the fact is that we've made the middle East more unstable since we tried to "wipe 'em out" than we ever did by handling terrorism as a criminal problem.

Whose been saying that now?


Ask that Pole in the old thread who insists that Al Qaeda does not exist at all.

Ask any of the 42 or so percent who insist it's about Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, or little green men.

Ask anyone who sings that banality of giving peace a chance.

But the Pakistani military dictatorship is our friend - at least, Blair seems to think so.
Well, after hearing Aryavartha speak on the matter on this forum, I am convinced that in combination with Afghanistan it would have been a better choice:

1. We would have gotten Bin Laden.
2. We would have removed actual nuclear weapons from an Islamic nation.
3. We would have the chance to shut down a lot of radical madrassas.

Yes, we would be stuck there, just like we are in Iraq. But if you're going to get stuck, it might as well be for the biggest reward.

I agree completely. For all the chest-puffing and tough-talking from the likes of DK and BogMarsh, the fact is that we've made the middle East more unstable since we tried to "wipe 'em out" than we ever did by handling terrorism as a criminal problem.
Actually, we were exercising considerable restraing in the Middle East.

If we were trying to "wipe them out", their lands would be radioactive wastelands right now.

I've heard plenty say that:

a. we should fight no war with any of them,
I haven't heard that. Care to provide a quote?

and treat everything as a police matter only AFTER an attack
You mean criminalising the act? Works more effectively than treating it like a military operation.

b. we should not investigate any of them prior to an attack, because that would be a violation of their privacy rights or profiling or some heinous civil rights abomination
*shrug*
Thats why we have baggage checks/sniffer dogs/cameras/increased security presence/et al at airports I thought.

Fuck it. What can you do? They can inconvenience every traveler on earth, but they get caught and they get disposed of like the trash that they are. No sense getting all angry about it.

I've heard plenty say that:

a. we should fight no war with any of them, and treat everything as a police matter only AFTER an attack
b. we should not investigate any of them prior to an attack, because that would be a violation of their privacy rights or profiling or some heinous civil rights abomination
And you've heard that from....right-wing commentators who claim that's what everyone on the left is thinking without quoting a single one of them. That's my bet, anyway.

Ask that Pole in the old thread who insists that Al Qaeda does not exist at all.

Ask any of the 42 or so percent who insist it's about Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, or little green men.

Ask anyone who sings that banality of giving peace a chance.
Pssst I would bet about 95 percent of thoes other votes were purposly trying to fuck with a poll they felt did not correctly fit their viewpoint on the matter

I agree completely. For all the chest-puffing and tough-talking from the likes of DK and BogMarsh, the fact is that we've made the middle East more unstable since we tried to "wipe 'em out" than we ever did by handling terrorism as a criminal problem.

It was a stable Iraq that sent troops to fight Israel in several wars.
It was a stable Iraq that invaded Iran on dubious claims.
It was a stable Iraq that gassed the Kurds.

Who needs a stable Iraq?

A similar thing goes for just about every single country in the Levant:
when stable, things are at their worst.

It was - after all - an ever so stable Syria that used artillery to deal with the troubles in Homs. Let me add here that I don't blame Syria for it.

At the end of the day, I'd rather put up with a little more inconvenience at the airports and be safer whilst flying, than be able to get my flight when I'd originally planned.

Ask that Pole in the old thread who insists that Al Qaeda does not exist at all.
*shrug*
As a perceived single headed organisation bent on world conquest I'd agree.

Ask any of the 42 or so percent who insist it's about Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, or little green men.
I believe the word 'pisstake' goes hand in hand with that thread.

Ask anyone who sings that banality of giving peace a chance.
Fuck hippies.

All UK Airports or just heath row?

Ask any of the 42 or so percent who insist it's about Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, or little green men.
Somehow I don't think they were being serious. The Mel Gibson jokes were a bit of a giveaway. (I voted for little green men - ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.)

I haven't heard that. Care to provide a quote?

You're being deliberately obtuse. It's been said so many times already. Look at Tactical Grace's post to see an example.

You mean criminalising the act? Works more effectively than treating it like a military operation.
Most of the same also propose never investigating them in advance. If we weren't investigating them in advance, we would have found out about the current plot after 10 airliners blew up and killed about 3000 people. I'll put you down for credit for that excellent and sanguine idea.


*shrug*
Thats why we have baggage checks/sniffer dogs/cameras/increased security presence/et al at airports I thought.
Easy enough to evade, especially if you're forbidden to profile Muslims, Arabs, Chechens, Iranians, Indonesians, and Malaysians (and a few others).

At the end of the day, I'd rather put up with a little more inconvenience at the airports and be safer whilst flying, than be able to get my flight when I'd originally planned.
Yes, but that, and waging war on the Middle East, do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.

At the end of the day, I'd rather put up with a little more inconvenience at the airports and be safer whilst flying, than be able to get my flight when I'd originally planned.
Depends how you define "a little more inconvenience". If it routinely takes hours and hours to get on a plane most people won't bother. I think plenty of people would rather take a small risk of being blown up than wait all day to board their flight. I mean, when you get on a plane you accept a certain level of risk that you will die screaming and possibly on fire as you free fall to earth.

You have to find the exact spot to strike the balance or the airlines will go out of business.

And you've heard that from....right-wing commentators who claim that's what everyone on the left is thinking without quoting a single one of them. That's my bet, anyway.
No, unfortunately, there isn't some uberconspiracy for right wing people with a list of talking points in hand spend their days posting here.

I've read that sort of tripe right here. I don't have to see anything else (except Democratic Underground, or the Randi Rhodes forum) to see that sort of bullshit.

Most UK airports are now functioning normally, albeit at a higher state of security (no hand luggage, every person searched, etc). Heathrow is now open for inbound short-haul traffic, but closed for inbound long-haul. Outbound traffic is unaffected.

There are some routes to the US from various airports which I believe are non-operative at the moment.

*shrug*
As a perceived single headed organisation bent on world conquest I'd agree.


I believe the word 'pisstake' goes hand in hand with that thread.


Fuck hippies.


I don't think so.
I think we're dealing with individuals who try every trick to avoid calling a spade a spade.
We can take it for granted that those 21 or so suspects were indeed muslims, and of no other religion whatsoever.
Calling it anything else is - and I'll repeat Irshad again - a deliberate cop-out.

Yes, but that, and waging war on the Middle East, do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.
Depends on how you wage war.

No one fucked with the Mongols until Baybars came around.

Hey - I never mentioned the Middle East. I'd just personally have that extra buffer of safety right now than not have it.

2. We would have removed actual nuclear weapons from an Islamic nation.
Given Pakistan and India's sabre-rattling over Kashmir a few years back, I think de-nuking one without doing the same to the other would be disasterous. It was the threat of mutually assured destruction (highlighted by the UN report estimating casualties in the millions if they went to war) that finally brought them to the negotiating table.

It was a stable Iraq that sent troops to fight Israel in several wars. That was quite some time ago.
It was a stable Iraq that invaded Iran on dubious claims. Yeah, as our proxy army. We should have thanked Saddam for that one.
It was a stable Iraq that gassed the Kurds.Better that Kurds die than Americans. The US should look out for it's own before looking out for Kurds.

Who needs a stable Iraq? The coalition would really like one.

A similar thing goes for just about every single country in the Levant:
when stable, things are at their worst.

It was - after all - an ever so stable Syria that used artillery to deal with the troubles in Homs. Let me add here that I don't blame Syria for it.

You're being deliberately obtuse. It's been said so many times already. Look at Tactical Grace's post to see an example.
I'm honestly not:D
You mean this?
Thing is, over here is the right place to do it. Criminal justice is the way to go, and the environment is more familiar, suspects more easily detected, far fewer potential false positives. Fighting terrorism overseas with conventional military force is a waste of time, money and above all is counterproductive, making the job more difficult precisely where it matters.

Thats doesn't say anything about: 'we don't have to fight them at all'. That says, "you're fighting them the wrong way."



Most of the same also propose never investigating them in advance. If we weren't investigating them in advance, we would have found out about the current plot after 10 airliners blew up and killed about 3000 people. I'll put you down for credit for that excellent and sanguine idea.
I've got no problem with investigating in advance. I have a problem in treating a criminal situation like a military one. It gives them more legitimacy and authority that what they're doing is 'righteous'.


Easy enough to evade, especially if you're forbidden to profile Muslims, Arabs, Chechens, Iranians, Indonesians, and Malaysians (and a few others).
Fuck it. Profile everyone at that rate.

Given Pakistan and India's sabre-rattling over Kashmir a few years back, I think de-nuking one without doing the same to the other would be disasterous. It was the threat of mutually assured destruction (highlighted by the UN report estimating casualties in the millions if they went to war) that finally brought them to the negotiating table.
And if the US was occupying Pakistan instead of Iraq, why would India attack?

Somehow I don't think they were being serious. The Mel Gibson jokes were a bit of a giveaway. (I voted for little green men - ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.)



So, in alls seriousness, would you testify that they were NOT muslims?
Would you swear so under oath?
Would you state so for the Throne of God?

Morale: if it idn't the truth as you would proclaim it in front of a God ( who might have PMS and a bad temper for all you know ), then it is a damnable lie.

Fuck it. Profile everyone at that rate.
I actually think that all Muslims, and anyone from a state that the US believes is a state sponsor of terrorism, should be required to register with the US government if they live in the US or visit here.

Anyone on that list should get strip searched everywhere they go.

Thing is, over here is the right place to do it. Criminal justice is the way to go, and the environment is more familiar, suspects more easily detected, far fewer potential false positives. Fighting terrorism overseas with conventional military force is a waste of time, money and above all is counterproductive, making the job more difficult precisely where it matters.
Fighting terrorism at all has always been the sole providence of the police rather than the army. A sustained local strategy on the part of the western powers would have silenced radicals long before they ever managed to gain a voice.

But will that really work now? We are currently stuck in a spiral of extremist ideological warfare thanks to the poor decisions made by our leaders, and it is difficult to see how simply stopping it when it shows its face is likely to improve the psychological aspect of this global tension.

I have noticed in the immediate aftermath of this news breaking that the liberals and the authoritarians have drifted yet further towards the poles of radicalism. And each time an attack is stopped, this trend is likely to continue, especially while the warfare continues.

How long can we last without intervention?

And if the US was occupying Pakistan instead of Iraq, why would India attack?
Last time I checked Bush wasn't planning on occupying Iraq for all eternity. I presume the same would apply to any other country invaded, and I don't see how you would get a democratic government in Pakistan that's willing to give Kashmir to India - a change of government isn't going to make this problem go away.

I actually think that all Muslims, and anyone from a state that the US believes is a state sponsor of terrorism, should be required to register with the US government if they live in the US or visit here.

Anyone on that list should get strip searched everywhere they go.

My god, you'll be saying they should be wearing patches on their arms in the shape of a crescent next.

I've heard plenty say that:

a. we should fight no war with any of them, and treat everything as a police matter only AFTER an attack
b. we should not investigate any of them prior to an attack, because that would be a violation of their privacy rights or profiling or some heinous civil rights abomination

Where have you seen/heard this said by "plenty"?

I actually think that all Muslims, and anyone from a state that the US believes is a state sponsor of terrorism, should be required to register with the US government if they live in the US or visit here.
Let's not just restrict it to Muslims - how about all the Catholics too? And hey, the US turned a blind eye to IRA fundraising in America for decades, so they can go on our list of state sponsors of terrorism.

My god, you'll be saying they should be wearing patches on their arms in the shape of a crescent next.
Look how many there are running around making plans.

On one hand, you complain that we should be doing more to stop them, and on the other hand, you decry profiling, surveillance, etc. - to the point where there aren't any methods usable to contain the threat.

Tell you what, do to them what we did to the Japanese in WW II - put them somewhere in the Western US desert until this conflict is over.

I bet that would eliminate Islamic terror acts in the US.

Where have you seen/heard this said by "plenty"?
You're being deliberately obtuse. On this forum.

Look how many there are running around making plans.
Out of a BILLION you have a few hundred, at most a few thousand. OUT OF A BILLION.


Tell you what, do to them what we did to the Japanese in WW II - put them somewhere in the Western US desert until this conflict is over.
That was an abhorrent and immoral act then, and it is one today. Defending it and exhorting it sinks you to a new low.


I bet that would eliminate Islamic terror acts in the US.
I bet it would inflame it.

You're being deliberately obtuse. On this forum.

Come on now, even you should know you can't make blind claims without someone calling you to back them up.

Not that I expect you to, it's not your thing.

Anyway, I want "plenty" of quotes (in context, and with links), from plenty of people, stating that:
a. we should fight no war with any of them, and treat everything as a police matter only AFTER an attack
b. we should not investigate any of them prior to an attack, because that would be a violation of their privacy rights or profiling or some heinous civil rights abomination

Otherwise I will call on you to retract your statement.

Look how many there are running around making plans.

On one hand, you complain that we should be doing more to stop them, and on the other hand, you decry profiling, surveillance, etc. - to the point where there aren't any methods usable to contain the threat.

Tell you what, do to them what we did to the Japanese in WW II - put them somewhere in the Western US desert until this conflict is over.

I bet that would eliminate Islamic terror acts in the US.

Why not, we could tattoo them as well, you know, just to make it easier for us to keep track of them. Maybe we could use them for free labour to help the war effort against the terrorist overseas. We'd have to confiscate their property to help fund the war and, after all, they're from a state that sponsor terror so who knows what could happen if we let the own property.

Look how many there are running around making plans.

On one hand, you complain that we should be doing more to stop them, and on the other hand, you decry profiling, surveillance, etc. - to the point where there aren't any methods usable to contain the threat.

Tell you what, do to them what we did to the Japanese in WW II - put them somewhere in the Western US desert until this conflict is over.

I bet that would eliminate Islamic terror acts in the US.

You are making the fatal assumption that all muslims are terrorists or share the same ideals as terrorists. Which of course is untrue.

Out of a BILLION you have a few hundred, at most a few thousand. OUT OF A BILLION.

There aren't a billion in the US.

That was an abhorrent and immoral act then, and it is one today. Defending it and exhorting it sinks you to a new low.
You're saying FDR was a bad man?


I bet it would inflame it.

So what? If there aren't any here in the US, how can there be a terrorist attack in the US by Islamic radicals?

Perhaps a better idea than invading Iraq...

sinks you to a new low.
You can't really say that about DK. He's more like the ethical Centre of the World, relative to which the standard of lowness is judged.

Come on now, even you should know you can't make blind claims without someone calling you to back them up.

Not that I expect you to, it's not your thing.

Anyway, I want "plenty" of quotes (in context, and with links), from plenty of people, stating that:
a. we should fight no war with any of them, and treat everything as a police matter only AFTER an attack
b. we should not investigate any of them prior to an attack, because that would be a violation of their privacy rights or profiling or some heinous civil rights abomination

Otherwise I will call on you to retract your statement.


You use the search function. We've had entire threads where people opposed profiling, NSA wiretaps, and fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you can't see them, you're blind.

1 - Chances are that the reason these people are commiting attacks are due to the presence of our militaries (US & UK) on the Arabian penensula...it is considered holy ground and many Arabs and Muslims (please note that not all Muslims are Arabs) consider that to be desecration. If you expect rationality from a religion...well...I can refer you to many other instances outside of Islam.

2 - Yes they call themselves Muslims. David Koresh called himself a Christian. Religions have a tendency to reveal the loonatic amongst us.

3 - These are (reportedly) British born or residing Pakistani's. As with the London bombers there was no direct connection with AQ. I suspect the same to be true for this bunch of nutcases who wanted to blow up a bunch of aircraft heading towards the US.

4 - 4 my dinener is burning!!!

brb

Why not, we could tattoo them as well, you know, just to make it easier for us to keep track of them. Maybe we could use them for free labour to help the war effort against the terrorist overseas. We'd have to confiscate their property to help fund the war and, after all, they're from a state that sponsor terror so who knows what could happen if we let the own property.
Implanting RFID tags into their bodies would probably be better than a tatoo. That way we could assign them each a number and read the tag at a distance with the proper equipment. We could theoretically track each and every one of them every day.

So what? If there aren't any here in the US, how can there be a terrorist attack in the US by Islamic radicals?
Container ship + hidden nuke = pretty explosion.

You can't really say that about DK. He's more like the ethical Centre of the World, relative to which the standard of lowness is judged.
I tend to think that I don't have any delusions of morality.

Strictly survival.

Thing is, over here is the right place to do it. Criminal justice is the way to go
ROFLMAO!!! You have to go be kidding right? I mean after all, it appears that the ACLU and other groups are hell bent on destroying law enforcements ability to fight on our own soil.

I mean using law-enforcement was really a great way to prevent 9-11 afterall.:rolleyes:

Container ship + hidden nuke = pretty explosion.
That's avoidable too.

You see, locking them up in the US and preventing their movement removes a great many options, thereby reducing the number of options they have, and the number of options we have to defend against.

There aren't a billion in the US.
There are a few hundred to a few thousand (most probably the latter) 'running around' the world 'making plans' Out of a global population of a billion.


You're saying FDR was a bad man?
Yes. I don't beleive because the bad a man does is offset by the good he does and the good wipes the slate clean.


So what? If there aren't any here in the US, how can there be a terrorist attack in the US by Islamic radicals?
The Embassy bombings spring to mind. Hitting US doesn't have to hit the mainland.

Perhaps a better idea than invading Iraq...
Sockpuppet theatre is a better idea than invading Iraq.

Implanting RFID tags into their bodies would probably be better than a tatoo. That way we could assign them each a number and read the tag at a distance with the proper equipment. We could theoretically track each and every one of them every day.
Good idea.

I would also monitor all of their Internet usage, cell phone conversations, and any other communication.

As with the London bombers there was no direct connection with AQ. I suspect the same to be true for this bunch of nutcases who wanted to blow up a bunch of aircraft heading towards the US.


By the way, it has been confirmed that the people who wanted to blow up all the aircrafts did have strong conections with AQ.

Come back Enoch Powell, all is forgiven!

I mean using law-enforcement was really a great way to prevent 9-11 afterall.:rolleyes:
Yes, it was. Duh.

The Embassy bombings spring to mind. Hitting US doesn't have to hit the mainland.


So you're saying that we should solve things like the Embassy bombings by law enforcement methods? Ridiculous.

We should have covert operations overseas to constantly identify and assassinate members of overseas cells, including their families and friends. Instead of invading a country, we should keep their operations off balance by constantly having them wonder when they're going to wake up dead.

By the way, it has been confirmed that the people who wanted to blow up all the aircrafts did have strong conections with AQ.
I TOLD YOU SO

MODEDIT: Font size error fixed.

Good idea.

I would also monitor all of their Internet usage, cell phone conversations, and any other communication.

Come on DK, me and you. I'll come over to the US and we can start implimenting these great idea ourselves. No need to worry about waiting for the govenment to catch up with our forward thinking, we'll be shining lights guiding the sane amongst the population.

I know this place that rents out these really snazzy black unifroms and everything.

Good idea.

I would also monitor all of their Internet usage, cell phone conversations, and any other communication.
Well yeah, that goes without saying. If you're going to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue, you should get pretty serious about law enforcement. If wiretaps work for suspected mafia members, I can't see why you wouldn't use them on suspected terrorists, who are much more of a threat to society than a guy running a chop shop.

So you're saying that we should solve things like the Embassy bombings by law enforcement methods? Ridiculous.
No, you're saying the Embassy bombings would have been solved by throwing all domestic US Muslims into concentration camps...oops, 'detention centers'. That is ridiculous.


We should have covert operations overseas to constantly identify and assassinate members of overseas cells, including their families and friends. Instead of invading a country, we should keep their operations off balance by constantly having them wonder when they're going to wake up dead.
Riiight. Its that easy.

You use the search function.

You made the claim, it's up to you to back it up.

Do it, or retract the claim. Your call.

So much for that whole "we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" claptrap.
What time did the last suicide-bomber detonate in either Great Britain or the United States?

That's right. Never.

Can that clap-trap nonsense until you have something to complain about.

By the way, it has been confirmed that the people who wanted to blow up all the aircrafts did have strong conections with AQ.
Well it was basically the whole "Bojinka" plan all over again, only based in England instead of Manilla.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplan_Bojinka

What time did the last suicide-bomber detonate in either Great Britain or the United States?

That's right. Never.

Can that clap-trap nonsense until you have something to complain about.

2005.

Yes, it was. Duh.
The only way law enforcement could be totally effective would be to allow the NSA to do stuff we aren't willing to allow. That is why law-enforcement would fail. While I agree with the Patriot Act, groups like the ACLU tie our arms behind our backs so we can't fight terrorism.

England has gotten itself in a problem by allowing the radicals to do as they please. They will really have to crack down on some of those extreme Mullahs. After all, the London attacks were also carried out by home-grown terrorism. That means that the extreme elements that are allowed to exist must be shut down.

No, you're saying the Embassy bombings would have been solved by throwing all domestic US Muslims into concentration camps...oops, 'detention centers'. That is ridiculous.
Maybe I should have qualified - all Islamic terrorism within the US by Islamic people who traveled to be in the US or were born here.


Riiight. Its that easy.

We're already doing it. We even capture some and render them through Europe. Still haven't found those centers, have you?

What time did the last suicide-bomber detonate in either Great Britain or the United States?

That's right. Never.

Can that clap-trap nonsense until you have something to complain about.

7/7/2005 London

2005.
That was the UK. How many in the US?

What time did the last suicide-bomber detonate in either Great Britain or the United States?

That's right. Never.

Can that clap-trap nonsense until you have something to complain about.

You must have missed those suicide bombs in London last year, then.

What time did the last suicide-bomber detonate in either Great Britain or the United States?

That's right. Never.

Can that clap-trap nonsense until you have something to complain about.

Hmm. This reminds me of the "tiger repellent" argument.

That was the UK. How many in the US?
And? Myrmidonisia included the UK (well, Great Britain, so not really the UK) in his post.

Still waiting on those sources DK. You going to show yourself to be the spineless weasel we all know you are, or are you going to grow some balls and admit you were making it up?

What time did the last suicide-bomber detonate in either Great Britain or the United States?
7th July 2005.

Edit: misread original post, sentence removed.

The only way law enforcement could be totally effective would be to allow the NSA to do stuff we aren't willing to allow. That is why law-enforcement would fail. While I agree with the Patriot Act, groups like the ACLU tie our arms behind our backs so we can't fight terrorism.

England has gotten itself in a problem by allowing the radicals to do as they please. They will really have to crack down on some of those extreme Mullahs. After all, the London attacks were also carried out by home-grown terrorism. That means that the extreme elements that are allowed to exist must be shut down.

No it doesn't. You attack the freedoms of the extremists then you have to attack the freedoms of the rest of us. I would rather take the risk and rely on the security services than give up my rights.

Maybe I should have qualified - all Islamic terrorism within the US by Islamic people who traveled to be in the US or were born here.
I know. That doesn't stop issues such as the Embassy bombings from happening. Nice and safe tucked up at home in the 50 States, but sucks to be you if you're working in/for a US institution outside it.



We're already doing it. We even capture some and render them through Europe. Still haven't found those centers, have you?
Working like a charm I may say. I feel safer already.

No it doesn't. You attack the freedoms of the extremists then you have to attack the freedoms of the rest of us. I would rather take the risk and rely on the security services than give up my rights.
I don't want to give up my rigths. That's why we have to fight them on foreign shores instead of within our own borders.

And? Myrmidonisia included the UK (well, Great Britain, so not really the UK) in his post.

Still waiting on those sources DK. You going to show yourself to be the spineless weasel we all know you are, or are you going to grow some balls and admit you were making it up?
I'm not making it up.

You must have missed those suicide bombs in London last year, then.
Seems to work for the US, eh?

That was the UK. How many in the US?
2001.

I don't want to give up my rigths. That's why we have to fight them on foreign shores instead of within our own borders.

But that obviously doesn't work. We've just arrested 21 guys in the UK.

So much for that whole "we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" claptrap.


In my opinion, there would be far more attempts at acts of terrorism in the UK and the US if we werent vigorously hunting and investigating them elsewhere.
Many of their supporters may have distanced themselves from terror groups when they see that thier property and bank accounts can be siezed and they could be locked up. Some may believe they could be grabbed and tortured in some secret locations in Europe.

I feel we should step up our efforts- more pressure, increase rewards on individual's heads, and relentlessly arrest and interrogate everyone they are known to associate with.

The bogus charities right here in the US funneling money to terrorists have to be obliterated too.

I'm not making it up.

Prove it. As I've asked you to already.

Links, quotes, from plenty of people who espouse the ideas you claim they do, saying without doubt that is what they believe.

Go on.

But that obviously doesn't work. We've just arrested 21 guys in the UK.
It seems to work for the US. While AL Qaeda still exists and has cells in the US, the destruction of Al Qaeda leadership has severly hampered their ability to strike the US. While they can easily replace foot soldiers who are lost, they can't replace the irreplacable experience and operational knowledge of people like Mohammed Atef, Kalid Sheikh Mohamed, and Zarqawi.

And? Myrmidonisia included the UK (well, Great Britain, so not really the UK) in his post.

Still waiting on those sources DK. You going to show yourself to be the spineless weasel we all know you are, or are you going to grow some balls and admit you were making it up?


you are kidding, right ? Thats way out of line.

Seems to work for the US, eh?

I refer you to that Franklin quote we should all be so familiar with...

Prove it. As I've asked you to already.

Links, quotes, from plenty of people who espouse the ideas you claim they do, saying without doubt that is what they believe.

Go on.
Why don't we ask The Nazz and Gymoor if they thought we should have gone to war in Iraq? Stephistan? CanuckHeaven?

Why don't we ask Ocean Drive if we should be fighting Muslims at all?

Mmm?

Or are you reading this forum so infrequently that you miss the at least weekly posts along those lines?

It seems to work for the US. While AL Qaeda still exists and has cells in the US, the destruction of Al Qaeda leadership has severly hampered their ability to strike the US.
Sooo, because they haven't hit you yet in the 5 years since Sept. 11..... its working?

They only hit you twice- 1993 and 2001. There is no timeline to go "Ok, we're safe now. Its been XX number of years since the last attack"

I refer you to that Franklin quote we should all be so familiar with...
I prefer this one:

Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle.

- Lenin.

The bogus charities right here in the US funneling money to terrorists have to be obliterated too.

NORAID seems to be doing quite fine...or is it just the bogus charities funneling money to terrorists the US doesn't like that have been obliterated?

Sooo, because they haven't hit you yet in the 5 years since Sept. 11..... its working?

They only hit you twice- 1993 and 2001. There is no timeline to go "Ok, we're safe now. Its been XX number of years since the last attack"

Oh, that sounds like my argument. "They still exist and breathe air, so the threat still exists."

you are kidding, right ? Thats way out of line.
Why? I have yet to see a back up to this claim:
'we don't have to fight them at all'

"Them" being terrorists.

NORAID seems to be doing quite fine...or is it just the bogus charities funneling money to terrorists the US doesn't like that have been obliterated?
When the IRA blows up a major building in the US with a couple of airliners, I'll be right over to help invade.

Buy you a beer when I get there.

Oh, that sounds like my argument. "They still exist and breathe air, so the threat still exists."
No, it sounds like the "tiger amulet" argument.

Why don't we ask The Nazz and Gymoor if they thought we should have gone to war in Iraq? Stephistan? CanuckHeaven?

Where did they say they don't want to go to war with any of them and that we should treat it all as a Police matter after an attack? And what relevance does the war in Iraq have to do with catching terrorists in the US or the UK?

Where did they say that none of them should be investigated?

Come on, links, quotes, no more empty claims. Show yourself.

Why don't we ask Ocean Drive if we should be fighting Muslims at all?

Since when was Ocean Drive "plenty" of people?

Mmm?

Or are you reading this forum so infrequently that you miss the at least weekly posts along those lines?

On the contrary, I would put it to you that you are the one who has a dreadfully skewed idea about this forum, and the ideas of many of its members.

Why? I have yet to see a back up to this claim:


Ocean Drive, for one. Anyone who has posted that we shouldn't be doing kidnapping and rendition. Anyone who has posted that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Anyone who has posted that we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan (Ocean and Stephistan).

Sooo, because they haven't hit you yet in the 5 years since Sept. 11..... its working?

They only hit you twice- 1993 and 2001. There is no timeline to go "Ok, we're safe now. Its been XX number of years since the last attack"
The threat is still there, but there is no denying the fact that losing operational knowledge has severly hurt Al Qaeda's ability to plan intricate plots such as the 9-11 attack. Experience is irreplacable. It is the greatest asset Al Qaeda has lost in this war.

NORAID seems to be doing quite fine...or is it just the bogus charities funneling money to terrorists the US doesn't like that have been obliterated?


I dont know anything about NORAID. Bogus charities supporting terrorists the US doesnt like-yeah-If the US doesnt like them,I want them sorted out, shut down and prosecuted. Or whatever other action is appropriate.

England has gotten itself in a problem by allowing the radicals to do as they please. They will really have to crack down on some of those extreme Mullahs. After all, the London attacks were also carried out by home-grown terrorism. That means that the extreme elements that are allowed to exist must be shut down.
There wouldn't be any radicals in the UK were it not for what has happened abroad. Extremism travels at exactly the speed of Bad News, which is far faster than bullets. We can only maintain a purely local defence against political crimes for so long; a global detente is needed to support this if we are to stand any chance of a permanent solution.

When the IRA blows up a major building in the US with a couple of airliners, I'll be right over to help invade.

Buy you a beer when I get there.

Carnivorous Lickers said nothing about only terrorists who were flying planes into buildings having had their bogus charities obliterated. He said terrorists. With no qualifier. Do try to keep up.

(And let's not forget that the IRA is a terrorist organisation that attacks/attacked what is essentially the US's only actual friend these days.)

The threat is still there, but there is no denying the fact that losing operational knowledge has severly hurt Al Qaeda's ability to plan intricate plots such as the 9-11 attack. Experience is irreplacable. It is the greatest asset Al Qaeda has lost in this war.
5 guys, the internet and homemade materials.

BAM. There's the bomb, a plan and the way to carry it out. No experience necessary.

Ocean Drive, for one. Anyone who has posted that we shouldn't be doing kidnapping and rendition. Anyone who has posted that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Anyone who has posted that we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan (Ocean and Stephistan).
Objecting to some form of action against terrorists is very different from objecting to all action against terrorists, which is what the phrase 'we don't have to fight them at all' would mean.

5 guys, the internet and homemade materials.

BAM. There's the bomb, a plan and the way to carry it out. No experience necessary.
Oh yes that's an attack, but it's a much smaller attack. It is quite minor compared to desroying the WTC or Brooklyn Bridge. We can't prevent those little attacks, but the major attacks can easily be prevented. Our actions have hurt Al Qaeda's ablity to carry such attacks out.

I dont know anything about NORAID. Bogus charities supporting terrorists the US doesnt like-yeah-If the US doesnt like them,I want them sorted out, shut down and prosecuted. Or whatever other action is appropriate.

NORAID is the charity front for the IRA (who trained an awful lot of terrorist outfits worldwide) in the USA. (Once supported by McDonalds, I believe.). It still operates.

There was me thinking "terrorism is bad", now it's just "some terrorism is bad, some is OK, even if it attacks our closest ally".

Our actions have hurt Al Qaeda's ablity to carry such attacks out.
I'm pretty sure that has been said an awful lot in the past 5 years. Didn't prevent Casablanca, Madrid, London, Bali, Sharm el Sheik, Istanbul.....

Why? I have yet to see a back up to this claim:


"Them" being terrorists.


I didnt see anywhere that being right or wrong justified name calling.

If that were the case, I would be justified in calling each of you whatever names I felt like.

Oh yes that's an attack, but it's a much smaller attack. It is quite minor compared to desroying the WTC or Brooklyn Bridge. We can't prevent those little attacks, but the major attacks can easily be prevented. Our actions have hurt Al Qaeda's ablity to carry such attacks out.
Lots of little attacks do much more damage then a few big attacks - if a sniper can kill 10 people before getting caught (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_sniper), you won't need to recruit too many people to end up which many more bodies than after the 11th September attacks.

Objecting to some form of action against terrorists is very different from objecting to all action against terrorists, which is what the phrase 'we don't have to fight them at all' would mean.
Ocean objects to ALL action against any Arab or Islamic terrorists. In fact, he won't even consider them to be terrorists.

I didnt see anywhere that being right or wrong justified name calling.

If that were the case, I would be justified in calling each of you whatever names I felt like.
"Being a weasal is the only thing that seperates us from the animals.......except the weasal." :D

Carnivorous Lickers said nothing about only terrorists who were flying planes into buildings having had their bogus charities obliterated. He said terrorists. With no qualifier. Do try to keep up.

(And let's not forget that the IRA is a terrorist organisation that attacks/attacked what is essentially the US's only actual friend these days.)

Well, IMHO, the bogus charities need to be eliminated. Because I don't believe that any terrorist organization should be allowed a "political wing" to justify its existence and raise money under cover.

Oh, and don't forget the money from Schick, or that dreadful program in the 1960s, "Up With People", where they actually sang IRA songs in public to raise money.

NORAID is the charity front for the IRA (who trained an awful lot of terrorist outfits worldwide) in the USA. (Once supported by McDonalds, I believe.). It still operates.

There was me thinking "terrorism is bad", now it's just "some terrorism is bad, some is OK, even if it attacks our closest ally".


Nadkor- I'm not going to speculate about them-I know little or nothing at all about them.
Except, unfortunately, I think the IRA has roots and support from people here in America.

"Being a weasal is the only thing that seperates us from the animals.......except the weasal." :D
Eagles may fly, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

Eagles may fly, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
I used to have that as my sig. :D

Well, IMHO, the bogus charities need to be eliminated. Because I don't believe that any terrorist organization should be allowed a "political wing" to justify its existence and raise money under cover.

Oh, and don't forget the money from Schick, or that dreadful program in the 1960s, "Up With People", where they actually sang IRA songs in public to raise money.

I seem to remember something in the paper here about Coke also sponsoring NORAID...

as a soap it let you believe in security,adding a little peper.
you have people like us
beeing fucked all along.

Eagles may fly, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Nor do the eagles when all the planes are grounded. Now that'd be a different slogan for the WWF: "Save an eagle - support a terrorist attrocity".

Thing is, over here is the right place to do it. Criminal justice is the way to go, and the environment is more familiar, suspects more easily detected, far fewer potential false positives. Fighting terrorism overseas with conventional military force is a waste of time, money and above all is counterproductive, making the job more difficult precisely where it matters.

Yea, Bill Clinton tried it that way. That plan sucked too. 1993 WTC bombings, USS Cole bombing, Bombings in embaiesses. We also almost had Osama bin Laden but Bill let him go because we had "nothing" on him. Yea, that plan sucked more than Paris Hilton on a Friday night.

Yea, Bill Clinton tried it that way. That plan sucked too. 1993 WTC bombings, USS Cole bombing, Bombings in embaiesses. We also almost had Osama bin Laden but Bill let him go because we had "nothing" on him. Yea, that plan sucked more than Paris Hilton on a Friday night.
He didn't try hard enough. In fact, he didn't know what was happening.

He didn't try hard enough. In fact, he didn't know what was happening.

Well the point is we tried the "criminal" way and it failed, miserably. So now, we're trying the militatry way, and I gotta say I am impressed with the results.

and why the fuck should we wait till after an attack to go after these people?? The key to a good defense is a good offense.

Well the point is we tried the "criminal" way and it failed, miserably. So now, we're trying the militatry way, and I gotta say I am impressed with the results.
Guided bomb camera footage and AC-130 gun footage of fleeing insurgents being individually picked off with oversized weaponry is far more impressive than seeing Moussasoui in the dock gibbering like an idiot.

Well the point is we tried the "criminal" way and it failed, miserably. So now, we're trying the militatry way, and I gotta say I am impressed with the results.

I'm not.

I'm not.
You have to admit the gun camera footage is more exciting than watching the occasional terrorist on trial.

You have to admit the gun camera footage is more exciting than watching the occasional terrorist on trial.

Yes, however. I don't think it has helped much.

Why the fuck should we wait till after an attack to go after these people?? The key to a good defense is a good offense!

Why the fuck should we wait till after an attack to go after these people?? The key to a good defense is a good offense!
ever heard of "conspiracy to commit..." charges? We can get after them before an attack the criminal way. We don't have to go the military way.

Guided bomb camera footage and AC-130 gun footage of fleeing insurgents being individually picked off with oversized weaponry is far more impressive than seeing Moussasoui in the dock gibbering like an idiot.
THATS WHO YOU REMIND ME OF!

I get it now.

Top Gun:[watching a video of planes being shot down]
Wolfman: This gives me a hard on.
Hollywood: Don't tease me.


:D :D :D :D

ever heard of "conspiracy to commit..." charges? We can get after them before an attack the criminal way. We don't have to go the military way.

But we still need to strike them at their base, their base is in the Middle East. In Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Iran.

But we still need to strike them at their base, their base is in the Middle East. In Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Iran.
I fail to see how it could not be achieved without an invasion.

Besides, their base is the money flow. Cut their money flow and they'll fall over like a paper tiger. Guess where that money is coming from? That's right, all over.

Why the fuck should we wait till after an attack to go after these people?? The key to a good defense is a good offense!
And this approach is precisely what was wrong with the notion of the War on Terror from the very start.

You're using offensive action as an excuse to skimp out on creating a defensive strategy.

And this approach is precisely what was wrong with the notion of the War on Terror from the very start.

You're using offensive action as an excuse to skimp out on creating a defensive strategy.
If you're willing to spend the money, I'm willing to do both.

Subjugate all of the troublemaking Arab nations.
Keep them under US rule for 100 years, re-educating their children.

And rounding up every Muslim in the US, and keeping them in camps.

And instituting a tight system of surveillance on everything in the US.

But we still need to strike them at their base, their base is in the Middle East. In Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Iran.
You mean..."In Pakistan, Saudi Arabia...."

Your allies, right?

Guided bomb camera footage and AC-130 gun footage of fleeing insurgents being individually picked off with oversized weaponry is far more impressive than seeing Moussasoui in the dock gibbering like an idiot.

Would that be guided bomb footage of a building full of children or footage of a 78-year old farmer getting hosed down because the gunner was bored?
You know, the advantage of using the justice system is you actually get to punish the guilty people rather than tens of thousands of innocent people. I would have thought that that would have been patently obvious by now.

Why the fuck should we wait till after an attack to go after these people?? The key to a good defense is a good offense!

Ah yes, and I know just where they are...over there...somewhere...um, anyway, they won't look like us so just kill everyone who looks different...oh, hang on, some of them do look like us...shit...hang on, I've got it. If we just kill everyone who isn't you or me then we will be totally safe and the world won't have to live in fear...

oh, hang on...

*edited with apologies to Wilgrove (stupid cut n'paste)*

Would that be guided bomb footage of a building full of children or footage of a 78-year old farmer getting hosed down because the gunner was bored?
You know, the advantage of using the justice system is you actually get to punish the guilty people rather than tens of thousands of innocent people. I would have thought that that would have been patently obvious by now.

I can link to the film. It doesn't appear to violate the TOS.

No blood and gore. And, BTW, no innocent civilians. And no survivors.

I would have thought it was obvious now that the US seems to have a distinct ability to radically minimize collateral damage, compared to any previous war by any other nation under similar mixes of civilians and combatants.

Of course, you're free to believe that the US has never killed a single actual combatant, and that we've been killing only babies and old people whose only crime was standing there.

Tell that lie often enough, and maybe most of the Democratic Party will believe it.

I can link to the film. It doesn't appear to violate the TOS.

No blood and gore. And, BTW, no innocent civilians. And no survivors.

Definitely, insurgents? And by insurgents I mean people who were actively carrying out, or directly involved in activities that would harm the interests of their country or their government?

I assume you can also link the evidence that would be needed to prove it in a court of law?

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with insurgents being killed in certain situations but I think that a targeted strike supported by excellent information is far more effective than seeing fighting terrorism solely through the sights of a gun. I am far happier that police have arrested the terror suspects in the UK. It means that they can find out if they have the right people, they can interogate them for information to aid further security efforts and they can effectively control how the suspects are used on a PR front. Far more useful in my opinion.

I would have thought it was obvious now that the US seems to have a distinct ability to radically minimize collateral damage, compared to any previous war by any other nation under similar mixes of civilians and combatants.

Of course, you're free to believe that the US has never killed a single actual combatant, and that we've been killing only babies and old people whose only crime was standing there.

Tell that lie often enough, and maybe most of the Democratic Party will believe it.

Not quite sure what you are driving at here?:confused:

If you're willing to spend the money, I'm willing to do both.

Subjugate all of the troublemaking Arab nations.
Keep them under US rule for 100 years, re-educating their children.

And rounding up every Muslim in the US, and keeping them in camps.

And instituting a tight system of surveillance on everything in the US.
So to defend ourselves from the enemy, we must become them?

If you're willing to spend the money, I'm willing to do both.

Subjugate all of the troublemaking Arab nations.
Keep them under US rule for 100 years, re-educating their children.

And rounding up every Muslim in the US, and keeping them in camps.

And instituting a tight system of surveillance on everything in the US.
I had missed this earlier.

Comedy Gold :D

Would that be guided bomb footage of a building full of children or footage of a 78-year old farmer getting hosed down because the gunner was bored?
You know, the advantage of using the justice system is you actually get to punish the guilty people rather than tens of thousands of innocent people. I would have thought that that would have been patently obvious by now.

Actually I never said that qote, I think DK did, so please don't put words in my mouth.


Ah yes, and I know just where they are...over there...somewhere...um, anyway, they won't look like us so just kill everyone who looks different...oh, hang on, some of them do look like us...shit...hang on, I've got it. If we just kill everyone who isn't you or me then we will be totally safe and the world won't have to live in fear...

oh, hang on...

You do realize that we know where the sleeper cells in the USA are, and we also know where they are over in the Middle East. However to just go in destory the base and get back out isn't good enough. They can just rebuild the base and we'll be back to square one. What we need to do is remove the reason for them to attack us, and we're making headway in Iraq by giving them elections, giving them their own government. Another way to do it is to just nuke the whole damn place.

So to defend ourselves from the enemy, we must become them?

Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.

Sorry just sprung to mind

Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.

Sorry just sprung to mind
Appropriate.

Actually I never said that qote, I think DK did, so please don't put words in my mouth.
Indeed you didn't. My deepest apologies. I have changed the post to reflect your justified concern.

What we need to do is remove the reason for them to attack us, and we're making headway in Iraq by giving them elections, giving them their own government. Another way to do it is to just nuke the whole damn place.
I am not sure if we are removing reasons for people to attack us in Iraq. If anything, I suspect we are provoking people more than if we had just waited another few years for Saddam to keel over.

Yes, we could employ nukes. But that would be really stupid.

Firstly, I have one more implorance; shoot them, execute their families, and approriate their properties, assuming they are indeed guilty.

Secondly, no shit. Irrespective of all the politically correct "It could be any number of groups" line, the entire planet was fully aware of who was culpable.

Firstly, I have one more implorance; shoot them, execute their families, and approriate their properties, assuming they are indeed guilty.

Secondly, no shit. Irrespective of all the politically correct "It could be any number of groups" line, the entire planet was fully aware of who was culpable.
Who?

5 guys, the internet and homemade materials.

BAM. There's the bomb, a plan and the way to carry it out. No experience necessary.
Not that easy. Some recipies on the internet are likely to blow you up while mixing them. Many explosives need a charge of a small, fast explosive, like a blasting cap, to set them off. Making that detonator is kind of dangerous. The safest formula I know may easily mangle your hands if you mess up. But yeah, it is technically possible.

If you're willing to spend the money, I'm willing to do both.

Subjugate all of the troublemaking Arab nations.
Keep them under US rule for 100 years, re-educating their children.

And rounding up every Muslim in the US, and keeping them in camps.

And instituting a tight system of surveillance on everything in the US.

You are George Bush and I claim my £5

:rolleyes:

Hurray liquids are banned on all flights for god knows how long!
This includes sealed commercial containers and drinks bought in the fucking airport.

Yea, Bill Clinton tried it that way. That plan sucked too. 1993 WTC bombings, USS Cole bombing, Bombings in embaiesses. We also almost had Osama bin Laden but Bill let him go because we had "nothing" on him. Yea, that plan sucked more than Paris Hilton on a Friday night.
When did he almost have Bin Laden? When they saw him in Afghanistan on the camera of an UNARMED drone? What should they have done? Spin up a couple of Tomahawks and hit the place Bin Laden had been about a Nearly an hour before?

Hurray liquids are banned on all flights for god knows how long!
This includes sealed commercial containers and drinks bought in the fucking airport.

Well they DID hide the bombs in Sport Drinks bottle....

When did he almost have Bin Laden? When they saw him in Afghanistan on the camera of an UNARMED drone? What should they have done? Spin up a couple of Tomahawks and hit the place Bin Laden had been about a Nearly an hour before?

There's a reason we have special ops.

Well they DID hide the bombs in Sport Drinks bottle....
That is totally different than a sealed water bottle or a closed coke can, or a sealed wine bottle, all of which are banned from flights.
It is called overreacting.

When did he almost have Bin Laden? When they saw him in Afghanistan on the camera of an UNARMED drone? What should they have done? Spin up a couple of Tomahawks and hit the place Bin Laden had been about a Nearly an hour before?
Actually, the Sudanese offered to hand him over to the United States, but the brilliant Madeline Albright refused on the grounds that the United States had no legal reason to hold him. This conclusion was reached even though Bin Laden was suspected of the Cole bombing, as well as having been implicated in the 1993 bombing of the WTC. This was, of course, not Bill Clinton's fault.

That is totally different than a sealed water bottle or a closed coke can, or a sealed wine bottle, all of which are banned from flights.
It is called overreacting.
Since when has it been the official policy of the government not to overreact?

I know I feel safer [/sarcasm]

There's a reason we have special ops.
Yeah. So we have a reason to make movies like Delta Force and Navy Seals.

Actually, the Sudanese offered to hand him over to the United States, but the brilliant Madeline Albright refused on the grounds that the United States had no legal reason to hold him. This conclusion was reached even though Bin Laden was suspected of the Cole bombing, as well as having been implicated in the 1993 bombing of the WTC. This was, of course, not Bill Clinton's fault.
Wow, I didn't know that.

I don't think so.
I think we're dealing with individuals who try every trick to avoid calling a spade a spade.
We can take it for granted that those 21 or so suspects were indeed muslims, and of no other religion whatsoever.
Calling it anything else is - and I'll repeat Irshad again - a deliberate cop-out.

Notice how this has nothing at all to do with what he was quoting.

Since when has it been the official policy of the government not to overreact?

I know I feel safer [/sarcasm]
Now I'm positive the bottle of water the gun just bought out of the refridgerator isn't going to blow up.

And why would putting it in the undercarriage be safer? Like any idiot couldn't get two liquids to mix when they wanted them to.

Good idea.

I would also monitor all of their Internet usage, cell phone conversations, and any other communication.

You know, come to think of it, I have a much simpler solution. We just shoot them all. And anyone that complains about it. (Terrorist sympathizers obviously). Then we nuke the Middle East into a sheet of glass to get rid of the source. After a couple of years with no terrorist activity in the US, other countries will see how effective it was and follow our example.

Bada-boom, no terrorists.

Wow, I didn't know that.
Thus the ubiquitious charge of liberal bias in the media. Bias by omission, but bias none the less.

Now I'm positive the bottle of water the gun just bought out of the refridgerator isn't going to blow up.

And why would putting it in the undercarriage be safer? Like any idiot couldn't get two liquids to mix when they wanted them to.
That's why remote controls are prohibited. No little key fobs that unlock the car from a distance. I'm wondering when cell phones will be banned.

Thus the ubiquitious charge of liberal bias in the media. Bias by omission, but bias none the less.

Source it.

I'm not saying it's not true, but I want a source. Oh, and proof that every news source that did not run that story did so because of liberals.

Proof that the war hase expanded to include the surrogates of terror .


We must destroy them ...or surrender .

Wake the fuck UP .

Now, the people who said they weren't Muslims, please tell me if this is Muslim enough for you:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/08/abc_exclusive_t.html

Brian Ross Reports:

Three of the alleged ringleaders of the foiled airplane bomb plot have been identified by Western intelligence agencies involved in unraveling the plot.

Two of them are believed to have recently traveled to Pakistan and were later in receipt of money wired to them from Pakistan, reportedly to purchase tickets for the suicide bombers.

Sources identify the three, who are now in custody, as:

--Rashid Rauf

--Mohammed al-Ghandra

--Ahmed al Khan

NORAID is the charity front for the IRA (who trained an awful lot of terrorist outfits worldwide) in the USA. (Once supported by McDonalds, I believe.). It still operates.

There was me thinking "terrorism is bad", now it's just "some terrorism is bad, some is OK, even if it attacks our closest ally".

You are right. The entire NORAID thing is pathetic, and I've pointed that out to people before when they beat their chests and talk about the US being against terrorism.

Unfortunately nothing will be done about NORAID, the right in the US doesn't care (or is trying to court that constituency) and the left actively protects it. For example the recent shite in congress over the extradition treaty with the UK. (Which I believe you guys have suspended, thank you very much Chris Dodd).

You are right. The entire NORAID thing is pathetic, and I've pointed that out to people before when they beat their chests and talk about the US being against terrorism.

Unfortunately nothing will be done about NORAID, the right in the US doesn't care (or is trying to court that constituency) and the left actively protects it. For example the recent shite in congress over the extradition treaty with the UK. (Which I believe you guys have suspended, thank you very much Chris Dodd).
Like I said, take it up with Ted Kennedy.

Maybe some wealthy Irishman should take up a collection, and do what George Soros does, and pay for someone to run against Ted Kennedy.

Like I said, take it up with Ted Kennedy.

Maybe some wealthy Irishman should take up a collection, and do what George Soros does, and pay for someone to run against Ted Kennedy.

I'm well aware that the NORAID thing is 90% democrats. It's also pathetic that no-one else wants to do anything about it.

I'm well aware that the NORAID thing is 90% democrats. It's also pathetic that no-one else wants to do anything about it.

Oh, that means in the upcoming election, Republicans could point out that not only are Democrats "soft on terrorism" (whatever that might mean), but point out that they actually solidly support a terrorist organization.

I have the feeling more of them would be over here years ago if we weren't killing them over there.

You think that there would be daily fighting on the streets and car bombings if Iraq had not been invaded? Really? Do you seriously think this would happen?

Ask anyone who sings that banality of giving peace a chance.
Why does it have to be a dichotomy of "no they're not Muslims you racist, how dare you say that!!" or "let's go to war, everywhere!"

Can I not say, "Muslim terrorists are plotting to blow up planes, but the security forces are doing a good job", without then going on to say, "and that is why we should wage war on "?

Yes, we would be stuck there, just like we are in Iraq. But if you're going to get stuck, it might as well be for the biggest reward.
It would be much worse than Iraq. Some 150 million people live in Pakistan, and religious terrorism is already a national sport there.

It was a stable Iraq that sent troops to fight Israel in several wars.

This is the first I've heard of it.

It was a stable Iraq that invaded Iran on dubious claims.
None of our concern.

It was a stable Iraq that gassed the Kurds.
None of our concern. Of what interest to us is the survival of the Kurds?

Who needs a stable Iraq?
We do. Despite all these things, Saddam was quelling Islamist terrorism, not making Iraq the terror-haven it is now.

Since when did you start thinking of the Iraq war as a good idea?

Let's not just restrict it to Muslims - how about all the Catholics too? And hey, the US turned a blind eye to IRA fundraising in America for decades, so they can go on our list of state sponsors of terrorism.
I don't think the IRA ever attacked the US.

You use the search function. We've had entire threads where people opposed profiling, NSA wiretaps, and fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you can't see them, you're blind.
Here's an idea. How about you copy and save your claims from this thread, and next time you see plenty of people saying what you say that they are, re-post it.

I tend to think that I don't have any delusions of morality.
Why not just abandon Christianity then?

So you're saying that we should solve things like the Embassy bombings by law enforcement methods? Ridiculous.

We should have covert operations overseas to constantly identify and assassinate members of overseas cells, including their families and friends. Instead of invading a country, we should keep their operations off balance by constantly having them wonder when they're going to wake up dead.
So now you're [I]against using invasions to combat terrorism?

What time did the last suicide-bomber detonate in either Great Britain or the United States?

That's right. Never.

Moron. 7th July 2005. 11th September 2001.

Why stop at Britain or America?

How about Spain, or Indonesia?

Here's a real list:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2005.htm

So much for your "small government" Iraq invasion programme.

Why don't we ask The Nazz and Gymoor if they thought we should have gone to war in Iraq? Stephistan? CanuckHeaven?

Why don't we ask Ocean Drive if we should be fighting Muslims at all?

So being against the war in Iraq = not wanting to confront the terrorist threat, and opposition to pre-emptive investigations?

When the IRA blows up a major building in the US with a couple of airliners, I'll be right over to help invade.

Funny, I oppose the IRA, but if the US invaded Ireland I would probably take up arms to oppose your invasion. I'm starting to understand how the Lebanese feel.

Ocean Drive, for one. Anyone who has posted that we shouldn't be doing kidnapping and rendition. Anyone who has posted that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
Bullshit! This doesn't match your original claim.

Ocean objects to ALL action against any Arab or Islamic terrorists. In fact, he won't even consider them to be terrorists.
Firstly, everyone knows OceanDrive to be a moron and possible anti-semite. In any case he's not "plenty of people".

Yea, Bill Clinton tried it that way. That plan sucked too. 1993 WTC bombings, USS Cole bombing, Bombings in embaiesses. We also almost had Osama bin Laden but Bill let him go because we had "nothing" on him. Yea, that plan sucked more than Paris Hilton on a Friday night.
There seem to have been more Islamist attacks in the world... outside of Iraq and Afghanistan ... between 2001 and 2006 than between 1993 and 2001.

Oh, that means in the upcoming election, Republicans could point out that not only are Democrats "soft on terrorism" (whatever that might mean), but point out that they actually solidly support a terrorist organization.

They won't though of course, because they are more interested in pandering that community themselves.

They won't though of course, because they are more interested in pandering that community themselves.
Someone needs to give Karl Rove a call.

Source it.

I'm not saying it's not true, but I want a source. Oh, and proof that every news source that did not run that story did so because of liberals.
I needed a chuckle. Thanks.

Meath Street:

Re: Iraq sending troops across the Jordan:

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel )

Following the State of Israel's establishment, the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq joined the fighting and began the second phase of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War )

The Six-Day War (Hebrew: מלחמת ששת הימים transliteration: Milkhemet Sheshet HaYamim, Arabic: حرب الأيام الستة transliteration: ħarb al-ayam as-sita), also known as the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Six Days' War, or June War, was fought between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria.

This is, of course, without counting the Gulf War.

Why does it have to be a dichotomy of "no they're not Muslims you racist, how dare you say that!!" or "let's go to war, everywhere!"

Can I not say, "Muslim terrorists are plotting to blow up planes, but the security forces are doing a good job", without then going on to say, "and that is why we should wage war on [insert Middle Eastern country]"?
On the basic principle that you don't defeat hornets by swatting them ( not that you ever forfeit a chance to make a hornet go SQUISH ) - but by burning their nest. The real nests, I should add, are not a collection of countries, but a collection of madrassas.

None of our concern.


Quote:
It was a stable Iraq that gassed the Kurds.

None of our concern. Of what interest to us is the survival of the Kurds?


Quote:
Who needs a stable Iraq?

We do. Despite all these things, Saddam was quelling Islamist terrorism, not making Iraq the terror-haven it is now.

Since when did you start thinking of the Iraq war as a good idea?

Apart from humanitarian considerations, the survival of Kurds is very much our geopolitical concerns, pursuant a proper periphery-strategy vis-a-vis a restive Arab Levant. Furthermore, we have continuously expressed our concern for them, and casting aspersions on that policy undermines our prestige as well as our ability to compell others to take our concerns as a very serious matter indeed.

I do not, did not, and will not recant from my view that Iraq was a strategic mistake ( wrong country, wrong mission) . Meanwhile, strategic errors should never be compounded by tactic errors.

That's why remote controls are prohibited. No little key fobs that unlock the car from a distance. I'm wondering when cell phones will be banned.

IIRC, cell phones already are banned in order to prevent interference with onboard GPS devices... unless they lifted that restriction in the last 12 months, that is. I'll have to check.

Of course, banning remote controls as carry-ons means nothing if terrorists manage to use said remote controls as timed detonators in luggage...

At some point, I think that humanity will realize that we have to either accept a certain level of risk when flying or implement draconian measures that will make flying a traveler's nightmare. The question is, when?

IIRC, cell phones already are banned in order to prevent interference with onboard GPS devices... unless they lifted that restriction in the last 12 months, that is. I'll have to check.

Of course, banning remote controls as carry-ons means nothing if terrorists manage to use said remote controls as timed detonators in luggage...

At some point, I think that humanity will realize that we have to either accept a certain level of risk when flying or implement draconian measures that will make flying a traveler's nightmare. The question is, when?
I carry mine all the time. The ban is on in-flight use.

Timer-detonated explosives are always a threat. Here, again, we put our trust in technology to detect explosives in the checked bags.

I carry mine all the time. The ban is on in-flight use.

Timer-detonated explosives are always a threat. Here, again, we put our trust in technology to detect explosives in the checked bags.

In that case, I'm inclined to describe the new restrictions as "probably excessive" and "very, very stupid". If the government is going to impose more restrictions on air travel in the name of security, then I'd prefer that they do it right - after all, at least one major terrorist bombing used cell phones as detonators (Madrid definitely, can't remember what was used in London).

Then again, I'm expecting intelligence out of people that concluded that there were no major terrorist targets in New York City...

In that case, I'm inclined to describe the new restrictions as "probably excessive" and "very, very stupid". If the government is going to impose more restrictions on air travel in the name of security, then I'd prefer that they do it right - after all, at least one major terrorist bombing used cell phones as detonators (Madrid definitely, can't remember what was used in London).

Then again, I'm expecting intelligence out of people that concluded that there were no major terrorist targets in New York City...
I don't know if excessive is the right word. Misguided always seems more appropriate when we talk about government policy. I'd like to run an airline where we could all take our chances with our fellow passengers and just bypass all the TSA nonsense. Of course, we would profile our passengers and each of my employees would be armed and trained to use those weapons.