NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/25/nterr25.xml

It should be obvious that Western Civilization and radical Islam are at war. The radicals don't care who they kill as long as it advances their goals.

Part of the story:
"The number of British-based Islamic terrorists plotting suicide attacks against "soft" targets in this country is far greater than the Security Services had previously believed, the government paperwork discloses. It is thought the plotters could number more than 2,000.

Under the heading "International Terrorism in the UK", the document - seen by The Sunday Telegraph - states: "The scale of al-Qaeda's ambitions towards attacking the UK and the number of UK extremists prepared to participate in attacks are even greater than we had previously judged."

It warns that terrorist "attack planning" against Britain will increase in 2007, and adds: "We still believe that AQ [al-Qaeda] will continue to seek opportunities for mass casualty attacks against soft targets and key infrastructure. These attacks are likely to involve the use of suicide operatives.""

I have no doubt other European countries, especially France have the same problem with terrorists in their county and the US is not imune from home grown radical Islamic terrorists either.

Somehow I doubt how "secret" this document is.

Not to mention:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/02/25/nterr25a.jpg

lol

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it meant that Britain was the worst terror threat since 9/11. It wouldn't surprise me if the U.S. Government started telling people that now that Britain is withdrawing troops from Iraq...

Oh noes! Hide under teh bedsheets!

Oh noes! Hide under teh bedsheets!

Indeed. This report has succeeded in keeping me scared and in line. *cowers*

Terrorists want to attack Britian. Really? I hadn't noticed.

In other news the earth revolves around the sun

In other news the earth revolves around the sun

water continues to flow downhill

water continues to flow downhill

Holy Crap.

Somehow I doubt how "secret" this document is.

Not to mention:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/02/25/nterr25a.jpg

lol
It's like a caricature, but real.

and the US is not imune from home grown radical Islamic terrorists either.
*Government officials jump out from behind buildings and wave their fingers and yell "terrorism!"*

Indeed. This report has succeeded in keeping me scared and in line. *cowers*

Though not a Brit, I too feel the urge to tow the line and cease asking questions. Also, men with beards now make me uncomfortable.....

Though not a Brit, I too feel the urge to tow the line and cease asking questions. Also, men with beards now make me uncomfortable..... Ever wonder the real reason Blunkett left?

Ever wonder the real reason Blunkett left?

You that story about his ego not being able to fit in the building wasn't true...????!!!????

I swear I won't question the government again! You can take away all my rights just round up all those dirty evil Muslims and keep them away from us good Christian folk! Clearly they are all out to get us! Anyone who protests is obviously a terrorist sympathizer! Kill them! Kill them! :mp5:

Really now, if there were 1600 "identified" individuals plotting in Britain, why are they not being arrested?

Ever wonder the real reason Blunkett left?

'cause he looked like a blind white Saddam Hussein with less guts?

I swear I won't question the government again! You can take away all my rights just round up all those dirty evil Muslims and keep them away from us good Christian folk! Clearly they are all out to get us! Anyone who protests is obviously a terrorist sympathizer! Kill them! Kill them! :mp5:

Really now, if there were 1600 "identified" individuals plotting in Britain, why are they not being arrested?

Because they don't have any evidence to convict them

Aiiieeeee!!!!!

Terrorists? In our fair land?

Sounds like ample reason to remove civil liberties and renew Trident!

It should be obvious that Western Civilization and radical Islam are at war.

Wow, no one here challenges this statement.

Okay, so define "radical" Islam. Define "Western Civilization."

The radicals don't care who they kill as long as it advances their goals.

Yeah, the same can be said of the US government. Only you like their goals more, so you hold a double standard when it comes to killing innocents.

I have no doubt other European countries, especially France have the same problem with terrorists in their county and the US is not imune from home grown radical Islamic terrorists either.

You know what else we're not immune from? Fascism, religious and ethnic persecution, and becoming the Nazi Germany of the 21st century.

Because they don't have any evidence to convict them

This is what I figured. Which means that if they don't actually have any proof against these 1600 people than the entire article is bullshit.

Wow, no one here challenges this statement.

Okay, so define "radical" Islam. Define "Western Civilization."

Probably because we know the statement is so abstract that it's silly to even parse it out. We expect that of Celtlund's threads on this subject.

Probably because we know the statement is so abstract that it's silly to even parse it out. We expect that of Celtlund's threads on this subject.

Really, I haven't seen many anti-Islamic threads started by Celtlund. Not like some others around here.

I rather think it's just people have an apathetic attitude about it all so we let stupidity reign unchallenged. I.E, the entire united states government.

Given the lack of explosions I can only assume that the 2,000 plotters in question are either astoundingly incompetent or too busy holding committees to be much of a threat. Is anyone else thinking 'The Popular People's Front of Judea'? ;)

Its the Judean People's Front............... Splitter!:D

Given the lack of explosions I can only assume that the 2,000 plotters in question are either astoundingly incompetent or too busy holding committees to be much of a threat. Is anyone else thinking 'The Popular People's Front of Judea'? ;)

Its the Judean People's Front............... Splitter!:D

"So, apart from free speech, economic prosperity, freedom of religion, and state funded Islamic schools, what have the British ever done for us?"

I think the best way to counter this threat would be to pass a law which decreed that all terror-groups must be led by John Cleese. :)

Wow, no one here challenges this statement.

Okay, so define "radical" Islam. Define "Western Civilization." Don't play around with definitions. You can recognise both when you see them, chiefly by their separation from each other.

Yeah, the same can be said of the US government. Only you like their goals more, so you hold a double standard when it comes to killing innocents. So according to you Americans make no effort whatsoever to spare innocents and kill people in multiple calculated attacks for the sheer sake of fomenting terror? Get real. If you think Zarqawi and Bush are moral equals, evidently Western Civ passed you by.

You know what else we're not immune from? Fascism, religious and ethnic persecution, and becoming the Nazi Germany of the 21st century. Aw, that's cute. Touchingly naive. And was 9/11 the Reichstag fire?

You know who are more like the nazis? Yep. The Muslim radicals. Especially when it comes to women, yids, and the kuffar.

I don't agree with Bush's foreign policy and his breaches of freedom, but you're taking things to an almost zombietime-like level.

Oh yeah and we've been on "highest terror alert" since how many months ago? Do they keep on adding a level or something? One for each Home Secretary!

Don't play around with definitions. You can recognise both when you see them, chiefly by their separation from each other.
Right here, you've basically acknowledged that you're building a straw man, so the rest of your argument is meaningless.

Oh yeah and we’ve been on “highest terror alert” since how many months ago? Do they keep on adding a level or something? One for each Home Secretary!
I believe we are at Brown Trouser Alert Level by now.

Right here, you've basically acknowledged that you're building a straw man, so the rest of your argument is meaningless. Given that the rest of my argument did not even pertain to that point, I think not.

Given that the rest of my argument did not even pertain to that point, I think not.
If you're not going to define the basis of the entire discussion, i.e. radical Islam and western civilization, then you are indeed engaging in what could be called, at best, mental masturbation.

So according to you Americans make no effort whatsoever to spare innocents and kill people in multiple calculated attacks for the sheer sake of fomenting terror?


That, and the bombing of North Vietnam, Cambodia, sponsorship of the contras, various latin American regimes etc and so on.

Don't play around with definitions. You can recognise both when you see them, chiefly by their separation from each other.

Right. Why bother defining terms in a conversation, argument or debate. Apparently, everyone is omniscient and in universal agreement on all premises!

:rolleyes:

So according to you Americans make no effort whatsoever to spare innocents and kill people in multiple calculated attacks for the sheer sake of fomenting terror? Get real.

What a lovely strawman you built. Too bad you burned it and thought that was an argument.

Americans do make an effort. An effort (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/23/america/NA-GEN-US-Iraq-Rape-Slaying.php) to rape and murder 14 year old girls, for example.

Now maybe you're going to tell me this is an aberration, it doesn't matter. Try to dismiss it, ignore it, bury it in garbage about "fomenting terror." Maybe you'll blurt out some canned media-response, like "tragedy" or "regrettable." But the only thing that is clear from any of that is this: you don't care who dies, so long as your goal of "eliminating terror" is, in your eyes, being achieved.

If you think Zarqawi and Bush are moral equals, evidently Western Civ passed you by.

What a good argument. Yes, Western Civ must have just passed me by. Hey, maybe I'm a Muslim Terrorist myself!

Aw, that's cute. Touchingly naive. And was 9/11 the Reichstag fire?

Please tell me what is naive about the possibility of becoming a nazi Germany. Why don't you "touchingly" give me solace and assure me that it can never, ever, ever happen no matter what. Why don't you point out the fundamental, unrepeatable differences between 1930's Germany and modern (and future) America.

You know who are more like the nazis? Yep. The Muslim radicals. Especially when it comes to women, yids, and the kuffar.

I don't agree with Bush's foreign policy and his breaches of freedom, but you're taking things to an almost zombietime-like level.

Yeah - actually you do. You agree with a war on Islam. You think Muslims are the enemy. Sure, you'll backpedal and make sure you said "radical" Muslims, to maintain the pretense of civility.

You even think they're like Nazis - LOL. That's hilarious. Nazis didn't rise to power in some third-world shithole nor did they use a major world religion as the basis of their recruitment. Nor did they come to power by (gasp) immigrating to foreign countries and becoming "terrorists" there. Read some history and get back to me, kay sugarpie?

I don’t understand those of you who do not take this sort threat seriously. You make light of the terrorist threat and when something does happen you are the first ones to say, “Why weren’t we warned? Why didn’t the government do something?” :rolleyes:

This is not a question of “if” there is another attack, it is a question of “when.” Maybe, just maybe if people know and understand how big and real the threat is they can help prevent another attack.

I don’t understand those of you who do not take this sort threat seriously. You make light of the terrorist threat and when something does happen you are the first ones to say, “Why weren’t we warned? Why didn’t the government do something?”

No, we aren't.

I don’t understand those of you who do not take this sort threat seriously. You make light of the terrorist threat and when something does happen you are the first ones to say, “Why weren’t we warned? Why didn’t the government do something?” :rolleyes:

This is not a question of “if” there is another attack, it is a question of “when.” Maybe, just maybe if people know and understand how big and real the threat is they can help prevent another attack.

I would actually argue that another terrorist attack on US soil is a virtual certainty. Someone will get through and will set off some sort of bomb--we can't catch everyone. But I refuse to live my life in fear of the possibility--there are other, more real, more immediate dangers to face. I mean, I'm in more danger driving to work than I am of being caught in a terrorist attack, but I still get in my car.

Here's the thing. Part of the reason for that increased threat? Our foreign policy over the last five+ years. We've made the world less safe all the way around by being stupid in the Middle East. We could have gone into Afghanistan with overwhelming force, built that country up technologically and economically and left the populace with a society they had a stake in, and the desire to join the first world. Instead, we half-assed it, and then went into Iraq and half-assed that as well. We didn't go after the root causes of extremism, which are poverty and despair--we went in thinking we could just kill them all and take their shit. No wonder the world's more dangerous now.

I don’t understand those of you who do not take this sort threat seriously.

What do you mean? You mean like how none of us believe that terrorists exist, and we just sorta make fart and poop jokes while giggling girlishly?

How about you take what people say seriously instead of ignoring everything they say (as you just did) and then filling in your own blanks as to what people are or aren't taking seriously. I'm not joking around here, are you? If you aren't going to read what others write, why bother posting on a forum - just so others who are apparently more open-minded than you will indulge your need for attention?

You make light of the terrorist threat and when something does happen you are the first ones to say, “Why weren’t we warned? Why didn’t the government do something?” :rolleyes:

I don't. I know the government, in general, doesn't really care about saving lives, so when the government takes actions that lead to death and destruction it doesn't surprise me. Any more strawmen you'd like to burn in lieu of actual conversation?

This is not a question of “if” there is another attack, it is a question of “when.” Maybe, just maybe if people know and understand how big and real the threat is they can help prevent another attack.

You JUST SAID that a terrorist attack is inevitable. Then you turn around and say that, gosh, if us goofy kids just stop making fart jokes, we can prevent an inevitable terrorist attack. Look, it's either preventable or it's not, you can't have it both ways.

Please note that I am doing you a favor by pretending what you wrote was some sort of argument when really all it is is just mindless ranting only vaguely relevant to the flow of communication.

I don’t understand those of you who do not take this sort threat seriously. You make light of the terrorist threat and when something does happen you are the first ones to say, “Why weren’t we warned? Why didn’t the government do something?” :rolleyes:

This is not a question of “if” there is another attack, it is a question of “when.” Maybe, just maybe if people know and understand how big and real the threat is they can help prevent another attack.

Personally, growing up with the constant knowledge that I could be reduced to vapour on a moment's notice has left me somewhat jaded and cynical. Look, the world's a dangerous place - in case you were labouring under the mistaken impression that we're all of us fated to be born, live and die in some sort of idyllic, pastoral setting completely divorced from reality, here's your reality check:

We stop living if we hide under our bedsheets, for fear of pianos falling on our heads when we hit the sidewalks. I'll risk the piano while you can safely cower - no problem. But don't think for a minute I want to join you, or to have some authority figure build, on someone's presumed behalf, a bedsheet big enough to hide a nation.

*Edit: and I'm never one to to say, “Why weren’t we warned? Why didn’t the government do something?”

Here’s the thing. Part of the reason for that increased threat? Our foreign policy over the last five+ years. We’ve made the world less safe all the way around by being stupid in the Middle East. We could have gone into Afghanistan with overwhelming force, built that country up technologically and economically and left the populace with a society they had a stake in, and the desire to join the first world. Instead, we half-assed it, and then went into Iraq and half-assed that as well. We didn’t go after the root causes of extremism, which are poverty and despair—we went in thinking we could just kill them all and take their shit. No wonder the world’s more dangerous now.
Never mind invasion, with the good will shown to the US immediately after 9/11, an effective, determined international criminal investigation, similar to Germany’s handling of the Red Army Faction in the late 1980’s, could have saved resources, time an most importantly lives.

But no, let’s invade two countries with tenuous links at state level to any feature of 9/11, then wonder at why people get angry and blow themselves up....

Never mind invasion, with the good will shown to the US immediately after 9/11, an effective, determined international criminal investigation, similar to Germany’s handling of the Red Army Faction in the late 1980’s, could have saved resources, time an most importantly lives.

But no, let’s invade two countries with tenuous links at state level to any feature of 9/11, then wonder at why people get angry and blow themselves up....
Well, I doubt that anything short of invasion was going to roust Bin Laden and Mullah Omar from Afghanistan--and it's obvious that a poor invasion didn't even accomplish that much--but an international focus on building that country from the stone age to first world status was certainly possible, and we didn't even attempt that.

I don’t understand those of you who do not take this sort threat seriously. You make light of the terrorist threat and when something does happen you are the first ones to say, “Why weren’t we warned? Why didn’t the government do something?” :rolleyes:

This is not a question of “if” there is another attack, it is a question of “when.” Maybe, just maybe if people know and understand how big and real the threat is they can help prevent another attack.

Because, put simply, I refuse to live by fear. I refuse to change my life just because some militants decide to wage a terror campaign. I will still fly, use public transport, visit big cities and landmarks. The moment I stop doing any of these things because of the "ebil terrrrrsts" then, to steal a conservative phrase, the terrorists have won.

Well, I doubt that anything short of invasion was going to roust Bin Laden and Mullah Omar from Afghanistan--and it's obvious that a poor invasion didn't even accomplish that much--but an international focus on building that country from the stone age to first world status was certainly possible, and we didn't even attempt that.

Well since when did we ever think about anything but ourselves? I mean the focus is to be on catching or killing terrorists. Helping a country get itself out of poverty to combat the creation of future extremists is too long term for most people who want results NOW. So, do almost nothing to make the country a better place to live, just concentrate on the killing. A news report of a dozen dead Taliban fighters is satisfying, talking about new schools, or seeds given to grow crops (instead of opium) is much more of a yawner to the media and the American people.

That, and the bombing of North Vietnam, Cambodia, sponsorship of the contras, various latin American regimes etc and so on.

Not to mention the US run "School of Assassins" where South American thugs were taught to use terror, brutality, and torture to bust unions and left wing groups.

Right. Why bother defining terms in a conversation, argument or debate. Apparently, everyone is omniscient and in universal agreement on all premises!

:rolleyes: So, can you or can you not recognise Western civilisation? Is Greece different to China?

What a lovely strawman you built. Too bad you burned it and thought that was an argument.

Americans do make an effort. An effort (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/23/america/NA-GEN-US-Iraq-Rape-Slaying.php) to rape and murder 14 year old girls, for example.

Now maybe you're going to tell me this is an aberration, it doesn't matter. Try to dismiss it, ignore it, bury it in garbage about "fomenting terror." Maybe you'll blurt out some canned media-response, like "tragedy" or "regrettable." But the only thing that is clear from any of that is this: you don't care who dies, so long as your goal of "eliminating terror" is, in your eyes, being achieved. Qualitative difference: this was not a command issued from on high, nor is it part and parcel of the fabric of the "war on terror". Blowing up people to foment panic is part and parcel of Islamic terror. The reason being, it's terrorism.

Please tell me what is naive about the possibility of becoming a nazi Germany. Why don't you "touchingly" give me solace and assure me that it can never, ever, ever happen no matter what. Why don't you point out the fundamental, unrepeatable differences between 1930's Germany and modern (and future) America. Last time I checked… America was not blaming its every shortcoming and the failure of the Vietnam war on a Muslim "stab in the back", or equivalent.
Many, many of the high-up politicians in America consistently remind us that Islam is a "religion of peace" and make overtures to Muslim groups. Hardly behaviour characteristic of a murderous tyranny.
America has a very effective Constitution.
The current chimp steps down next year.
America has a huge, spread-out and diverse population. With guns.
America does not have a system conducive to centralised government.
Fascism is not in vogue. Neoconservatism is not fascism.

Yeah - actually you do. You agree with a war on Islam. You think Muslims are the enemy. Sure, you'll backpedal and make sure you said "radical" Muslims, to maintain the pretense of civility. No, I don't think we should be in Iraq at all, and possibly not even Afghanistan, although that's debatable. A war on Islam? War with over 1 billion people? Ridiculous, and unworkeable. I think communism and fascism are bad things, but I don't want to go around stamping them out of existence around the world.

Wouldn't want a large amount of fascists to begin flowing into my country, of course.

You even think they're like Nazis - LOL. That's hilarious. Nazis didn't rise to power in some third-world shithole nor did they use a major world religion as the basis of their recruitment. Nor did they come to power by (gasp) immigrating to foreign countries and becoming "terrorists" there. Read some history and get back to me, kay sugarpie? Perhaps I should have clarified. The ideology of many radical Muslim groups is akin to naziism in pertinent ways - not their methodology. Except Hezbollah, who want to "burn the Jews" and state that this would be like Hitler.

By the way, I don't think Islam allows willy-nilly terrorist acts and bombings of random civilians. This doesn't mean I buy into the "religion of peace" lark hastily foisted on us by the various electronic mind-moulders.

I don’t understand those of you who do not take this sort threat seriously. You make light of the terrorist threat and when something does happen you are the first ones to say, “Why weren’t we warned? Why didn’t the government do something?” :rolleyes:

This is not a question of “if” there is another attack, it is a question of “when.” Maybe, just maybe if people know and understand how big and real the threat is they can help prevent another attack.

We in the UK are more used to terrorism that much of the US as we still remember the sustained IRA bombing campaign. Yes, we do and should take reasonable precautions but there's no point in being silly about it.

More than 3,000 children drown every year in American swimming pools but nobody's advocated banning swimming pools, have they?

Terrorism will continue. Because it works, and because the US supports it.

Terrorism will continue. Because it works, and because the US supports it.
What the....????? You are officially retarded.
I completely agree with Soluis. I know Muslims and I am friends with them. There is a Nazi group in the U.S. Guess what? NO ONE IS SUPPORTING THEM!!!!! The K.K.K. paraded in a town a few years ago. Guess what? THE POLICE HAD TO CONTROL THE VILLAGERS FROM HURTING THE K.K.K. MEMBERS! I don't see any Terrorist or Nazi group having a foothold in America. And guess what? Communism can't take the U.S. because the United States banned it. It is still possible that the U.S. will become "Nazi", but that would take hundreds of years if anything could happen. By then, the U.S. would probably not be the strongest nation. So just shut up, you paranoid anti-American people!

So, can you or can you not recognise Western civilisation? Is Greece different to China?

Is Germany different to Mexico?

If I accept your rather simplistic "Western Civilization" model, I answer no like a dumbass.

Well anyway - apparently Western Civilization is defined by you as Greece not being the same as China. So how is Radical Islam defined by you - a Mosque being different from an M1A1 Abrahms?

Qualitative difference: this was not a command issued from on high, nor is it part and parcel of the fabric of the "war on terror". Blowing up people to foment panic is part and parcel of Islamic terror. The reason being, it's terrorism.

Oh, OK. It's OK if atrocities are committed, just so long as they aren't "issued from on high." Individual terrorists are morally OK as long as they're just using their own initiative.

Blowing up people IS a part and parcel of the "war on terror." It is a part and parcel of any war. And that war was ordered "from on high" (from God, apparently. According to his divine messenger on earth, GW Bush).

I know you're trying real hard to make this distinction between Western Civilization and Radical Islam, but I'm just not seeing it. It's OK to blow up people as long as it only UNINTENTIONALLY kills civilians, destroys nations, "foments panic?" How is it logically possible to support a war - an invasion, conquest and occupation of foreign nation(s) - yet disavow yourself of any ethical responsibility for those slain in the pursuit of your goal? It isn't.

I said it before and I say it again. The US government, as with terrorists, doesn't care who dies as long as the goal is pursued. And the only reason our military even bothers trying not to hit innocent people is because too much of that damages the pursuit of those goals - i.e, gets the American public really annoyed, and then they might actually go out and vote or something.

Last time I checked… America was not blaming its every shortcoming and the failure of the Vietnam war on a Muslim "stab in the back", or equivalent.
Many, many of the high-up politicians in America consistently remind us that Islam is a "religion of peace" and make overtures to Muslim groups. Hardly behaviour characteristic of a murderous tyranny.
America has a very effective Constitution.
The current chimp steps down next year.
America has a huge, spread-out and diverse population. With guns.
America does not have a system conducive to centralised government.
Fascism is not in vogue. Neoconservatism is not fascism.

Congratulations, you can make largely irrelevant distinctions between 1930 Germany and modern America. But they do not support the notion that America can commit large-scale atrocities and political repression is impossible or "naive" to believe is possible. It is very possible, psychologically, and socially.

Yes, neoconservatism is not strictly speaking fascism - what are the differences that mean one concept lends itself to nazi-esque changes and the other is impossible to? Yes, Bush steps down next year. So? America's population is armed, yes - but does that really make a difference when having a gun is absolutely no real defense of civilians against modern military forces? The population is huge and spread-out - yes? So?

The effectiveness of the Constitution? Ha. Patriot Act. Let alone the Sedition Act. Both of these are still legally defended, despite the "effective" Constitution which you'd think would serve as legal defense against their incursions. I wouldn't put too much trust in a piece of paper in a museum - legally, the precedent is already there for removing individuals of life, liberty and happiness based on little to no pretext.

The US doesn't have the prewar German "blame" need, no. But again, that isn't necessary. Your problem is that you think every exact condition has to be the same - it doesn't. The underlying problem is a sociological one, one in which people accept the actions of their government with little to no thinking involved. And the nature of those actions.

You say we're not "characteristic" of a tyrannical, murdering power - I think we are. Abeer Qassim al-Janabi certainly might agree that US actions are murder - if she were alive, I mean..

Bush made overtures to Islam, yes. Think that'll stay the same if and when there's another 9/11? Let's say there's a nuke that destroys NYC, and "Islamic Radicals" are held accountable. How long do you think those "overtures" will prevent violence - legal or physical - against Muslims? You yourself say our entire "civilization" is at "war with radical Islam." Without even defining what makes a member of the religion "radical" or not, how comforting do you think this "war" is to, for example, members of the religion who live in "Western Civilization?" What about the likelihood of members of "radical Islam" not only living in, but thus constituting a part of, "western civilization" itself? Then you have not a traditional war, but a "civil" war, one in which the "enemy" is defined by religion.

No, I don't think we should be in Iraq at all, and possibly not even Afghanistan, although that's debatable. A war on Islam? War with over 1 billion people? Ridiculous, and unworkeable. I think communism and fascism are bad things, but I don't want to go around stamping them out of existence around the world.

Right. Just a war on "Radical" Islam. Divide and conquer, I guess... more efficient.

Perhaps I should have clarified. The ideology of many radical Muslim groups is akin to naziism in pertinent ways - not their methodology. Except Hezbollah, who want to "burn the Jews" and state that this would be like Hitler.

Many ideologies are akin to naziism in a pertinent way.

While we're on the subject, I define Nazi Germany as being part and parcel of "Western Civilization." So you'll forgive me if I, still lacking your definition, do not think that "Western Civilization" is some lovely thing that represents Goodness while "Radical Islam" is the Evil I am supposed to hate and fear like a true patriot.

I don’t understand those of you who do not take this sort threat seriously. You make light of the terrorist threat and when something does happen you are the first ones to say, “Why weren’t we warned? Why didn’t the government do something?” :rolleyes:

This is not a question of “if” there is another attack, it is a question of “when.” Maybe, just maybe if people know and understand how big and real the threat is they can help prevent another attack.

Well, as you've just proven that the so-called War on Terror isn't working - it's actually counterproductive - what do you suggest is done?

Oh, and I hope you don't believe that whole "as long as we're fighting them over there, we won't have to fight them over here"-line of crap. If the terrorists were really commited to attacking inside of the US they would have done so. It's not that difficult, and it doesn't have to be a huge 9/11 kind of attack to create terror. One person with a belt of explosives inside a mall or one car-bomb at a strategic location - or a lone sniper.

I don’t understand those of you who do not take this sort threat seriously. You make light of the terrorist threat and when something does happen you are the first ones to say, “Why weren’t we warned? Why didn’t the government do something?” :rolleyes:

This is not a question of “if” there is another attack, it is a question of “when.” Maybe, just maybe if people know and understand how big and real the threat is they can help prevent another attack.
What do you expect us to do exactly? Build a bunker in my bedroom? Use mirrors to look round corners before venturing into the street? Become a paranoid, gibbering imbecile? Because I'm already there, mate.

What the....????? You are officially retarded.

Ad hominem. Not a true one either. Even if he was retarded, your arguments are false and fallacious.


I completely agree with Soluis. I know Muslims and I am friends with them.

I guess they are not "radical" then. Maybe YOU can define just what makes a Muslim "radical" enough for us all to be "at war with" them?

There is a Nazi group in the U.S. Guess what? NO ONE IS SUPPORTING THEM!!!!!

Obviously some people support them, otherwise there wouldn't be a "them" in the first place.

But this is a strawman... nazism doesn't require the specific German National Socialist Party to exist.

The K.K.K. paraded in a town a few years ago. Guess what? THE POLICE HAD TO CONTROL THE VILLAGERS FROM HURTING THE K.K.K. MEMBERS!

Is this an argument against the possibility of nazi-ism? Because you know, "villagers" being violent against other citizens is a hallmark of political violence of any sort. As is a worship of authority and government leadership viz a viz police forces...

Communism can't take the U.S. because the United States banned it.

News to me (http://www.cpusa.org/)

It is still possible that the U.S. will become "Nazi", but that would take hundreds of years if anything could happen.

Why would it take hundreds of years? It took just 20 years for the rise of the nazis in Germany. And we've had decades to become the ultimate, politically-correct, "democratic" replacement-power.

So just shut up, you paranoid anti-American people!

Ah yes. We just are "anti-American" and should "shut up." Maybe we're "traitors" and we should be punished by the fatherland, does that sound about right to you?

What the....????? You are officially retarded.

You must be one of the people who think the only terrorists in the world are Al-Qaeda and other Islamic types. Allow me to introduce you to the Contras.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_(guerrillas)

Also, we did support Islamic terrorists when they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan back in the 80s.

You must be one of the people who think the only terrorists in the world are Al-Qaeda and other Islamic types. Allow me to introduce you to the Contras.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_(guerrillas)

Also, we did support Islamic terrorists when they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan back in the 80s.

And of course there's always the IRA...

Seriously, you guys allowed private citizens to finace those buggers to blow up chunks of London. No freezing of assets, no nothing. Hell I think Gerry Adams got invited to the St Patricks celebrations at the White House more than once.

They even tried to assassinate the Prime Minister FFS. (OK so it was Thatcher so most brits'll let you off that but still...).

Well, as you've just proven that the so-called War on Terror isn't working - it's actually counterproductive - what do you suggest is done?

Oh, and I hope you don't believe that whole "as long as we're fighting them over there, we won't have to fight them over here"-line of crap. If the terrorists were really commited to attacking inside of the US they would have done so. It's not that difficult, and it doesn't have to be a huge 9/11 kind of attack to create terror. One person with a belt of explosives inside a mall or one car-bomb at a strategic location - or a lone sniper.

The point he is trying to make I believe is that we should allow the government to do whatever it wants and we should allow them to do it. For our own good. Asking questions after all, is just what the terrorists want and will use this critiquing to somehow blow us all up.

Clearly we hate the same freedom that we should just let Bush take from us. Go figure.

Its a police state . I'm being unfairly targetted :p

And of course there's always the IRA...

Seriously, you guys allowed private citizens to finace those buggers to blow up chunks of London. No freezing of assets, no nothing. Hell I think Gerry Adams got invited to the St Patricks celebrations at the White House more than once.

They even tried to assassinate the Prime Minister FFS. (OK so it was Thatcher so most brits'll let you off that but still...).

Yup, now that I really think about it, theres also the Estonian nationalist guerillas we funded, trained, and equipped to fight the Soviets. We also used H'mong terrorists in that little ah..."conflict" in Laos during the Vietnam war.

Its a police state . I’m being unfairly targetted :p
White Supremicist humour, dearie me...

Yup, now that I really think about it, theres also the Estonian nationalist guerillas we funded, trained, and equipped to fight the Soviets. We also used H'mong terrorists in that little ah..."conflict" in Laos during the Vietnam war.

Yeah , I definatley remember buying a arsenal of weapons and a training ground on ebay so I can equip and train some geurrillas for me.:rolleyes:

White Supremicist humour, dearie me...

Its not WS humour i'm just copying what British muslims say .
Anyway what does me saying that have to do with a persons race?

Yeah , I definatley remember buying a arsenal of weapons and a training ground on ebay so I can equip and train some geurrillas for me.:rolleyes:
:confused:

Uh, the "we" I was referring to was the Government of the United States of America. As you are neither American nor a government, this is a little bit confusing.

:confused:

Uh, the "we" I was referring to was the Government of the United States of America. As you are neither American nor a government, I'm a little confused at your statement.

If we take your statement literally than not only did he fund those terrorists but so did you! :eek:

I'm shocked Pyotr, I really am. :p

Its not WS humour i’m just copying what British muslims say .
Anyway what does me saying that have to do with a persons race?
What you say has nothing to do with a person’s race, nor has it anything to do with humour.

Your idiotic place of location however, reeks of WS poo.

Build a bunker in my bedroom? Use mirrors to look round corners before venturing into the street? Become a paranoid, gibbering imbecile? Because I'm already there, mate.

No of course not. When I refer to people not taking the threat seriously I'm refering to the type of attitude expressed below.

Oh noes! Hide under teh bedsheets!

Indeed. This report has succeeded in keeping me scared and in line. *cowers*

Terrorists want to attack Britian. Really? I hadn't noticed.

In other news the earth revolves around the sun

water continues to flow downhill

Holy Crap.

The point he is trying to make I believe is that we should allow the government to do whatever it wants and we should allow them to do it. For our own good. Asking questions after all, is just what the terrorists want and will use this critiquing to somehow blow us all up.

Clearly we hate the same freedom that we should just let Bush take from us. Go figure.

What do you mean, he had a point? :confused:

:p

:confused:

Uh, the "we" I was referring to was the Government of the United States of America. As you are neither American nor a government, this is a little bit confusing.

You shouldn't use a "we" when your talking about the goverment...

What you say has nothing to do with a person’s race, nor has it anything to do with humour.

Your idiotic place of location however, reeks of WS poo.

Actually White nationalistic which isn't racist.

What pronoun should I use?

Or rather than a pronoun you just say its the goverment your talking about.

You shouldn't use a "we" when your talking about the goverment...

What pronoun should I use?

A government represents its people. The "we" seems entirely appropriate because of that.

Well it doesn't really represent me , I never voted for the current goverment and i rarely agree with its decisions . I'm sure when people voted for the goverment they never wanted them to do some of the things they're doing.

You shouldn't use a "we" when your talking about the goverment...

A government represents its people. The "we" seems entirely appropriate because of that.

What do you mean, he had a point? :confused:

:p

I am making an assumption that that was his general drift. Other than BE AFRAID THE MUSLIMS ARE AFTER US!!!!

Actually White nationalistic which isn’t racist.
No, not at all. Promoting the idea of a nation-state that only benefits those with less melanin in their skin isn’t racist.

And neither is labeling multi-ethnic Europe as “desecrated” and “poisined”. Nope. Definetly not racist.

Well it doesn't really represent me , I never voted for the current goverment and i rarely agree with its decisions . I'm sure when people voted for the goverment they never wanted them to do some of the things they're doing.

It really doesn't matter if you chose the government. Since you live in its territory, it still speaks for you. So like I said, the "we" is appropriate.

No, not at all. Promoting the idea of a nation-state that only benefits those with less melanin in their skin isn’t racist.

And neither is labeling multi-ethnic Europe as “desecrated” and “poisined”. Nope. Definetly not racist.

How dare you! I'm sure he has many Muslim friends...

There is, naturally, a fear-mongering inherent to media portryal of Islamic terrorism that magnifies the threat beyond all proportions. However, what ought to disturb more is the nationality of the attackers themselves; certainly, within the UK, the July 7 Bombers, and those foiled two weeks later, were homogenously British. That government policy, or lack thereof, has allowed for the radicalisation of a significant proportion of young Islamic Britons is an issue that should be remedied.

How dare you! I'm sure he has many Muslim friends...

I have a friend who is a muslim but he says he's only a muslim because his parents want him to be.

No, not at all. Promoting the idea of a nation-state that only benefits those with less melanin in their skin isn’t racist.

And neither is labeling multi-ethnic Europe as “desecrated” and “poisined”. Nope. Definetly not racist.

What makes you think i was reffering to Europe being desecrated and poisoned becuase of it being multi-ethnic? Europe has plenty of problems that desecrate and poison it not including it being "multi-ethnic" .
I may be WN but if i were to create a nation-state what makes you think i'd only help White Europeans?

You assume to much .

There is, naturally, a fear-mongering inherent to media portryal of Islamic terrorism that magnifies the threat beyond all proportions. However, what ought to disturb more is the nationality of the attackers themselves; certainly, within the UK, the July 7 Bombers, and those foiled two weeks later, were homogenously British. That government policy, or lack thereof, has allowed for the radicalisation of a significant proportion of young Islamic Britons is an issue that should be remedied.

And whats your solution to that problem? I have a feeling I know the answer given your history...

There is, naturally, a fear-mongering inherent to media portryal of Islamic terrorism that magnifies the threat beyond all proportions. However, what ought to disturb more is the nationality of the attackers themselves; certainly, within the UK, the July 7 Bombers, and those foiled two weeks later, were homogenously British. That government policy, or lack thereof, has allowed for the radicalisation of a significant proportion of young Islamic Britons is an issue that should be remedied.
And still Reid and Blair claim that foreign policy had no impact on the July 7th bombers.

Eejits.

What makes you think i was reffering to Europe being desecrated and poisoned becuase of it being multi-ethnic? Europe has plenty of problems that desecrate and poison it not including it being "multi-ethnic" .
I may be WN but if i were to create a nation-state what makes you think i'd only help White Europeans?

That pretty much is in the definition of white nationalism. Government of white people, by white people, for white people.

Nationalism sucks.

And whats your solution to that problem? I have a feeling I know the answer given your history...

Starts with a "D", rhymes with "Reportation"

And whats your solution to that problem? I have a feeling I know the answer given your history...

Actually, you might be wrong. I would reintroduce capital punishment, but I'd do that anyway, so that's moot anyway.Reform and advancement of education, so as to preclude the influence of fundamentalist clerics, would also be effective, as would actually giving de and proper consideration to foreign policy before prosecuting illegal wars.

Equally, yes, I would get really nasty with attempted suicide bombers.

ah yes, the telegraph... it's what daily mail readers buy when they want to look smart.

There's a terror threat? You mean, people could be going about their daily lives and then die? Holy crap, that never used to happen before terrorism! Let's all panic and surrender our freedoms!

Or not.

ah yes, the telegraph... it's what daily mail readers buy when they want to look smart.

I'm sorry, but have you ever read the Telegraph, beyond the cliched "oh aren't they anachronistic right wingers" links posted on NSG? Granted, it is a genuinely right wing paper, but equally, the Guardian is similarly inclined to the left.

As for the Daily Mail comment, that's low. I have a Telegraph delivered daily, and have never picked up either the Mail, or the Sun.

I am making an assumption that that was his general drift. Other than BE AFRAID THE MUSLIMS ARE AFTER US!!!!
Well, I'm just waiting for him to come back and comment on the posts that debate the OP.



...















Still waiting.











*Looks at watch*










*Sighs*


There's a terror threat? You mean, people could be going about their daily lives and then die? Holy crap, that never used to happen before terrorism! Let's all panic and surrender our freedoms!

Or not.
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Smilies%20and%20animated%20stuff/ohnoesiy6.gif

And of course there's always the IRA...

Seriously, you guys allowed private citizens to finace those buggers to blow up chunks of London. No freezing of assets, no nothing. Hell I think Gerry Adams got invited to the St Patricks celebrations at the White House more than once.

They even tried to assassinate the Prime Minister FFS. (OK so it was Thatcher so most brits'll let you off that but still...).

Gerry was only asked over after the ceasefire, and its two pms - they just missed John Majors "war" cabinet during gulf one with mortars, if you might remember. One might ask what the British Government were doing refusing to crack down on the UDA for over three decades, as well as why MI5 and RUC special branch were colluding with the UVF and UDA, particularily in regard to the Dublin/Monaghan bombings....


Actually White nationalistic which isn't racist.....

Is there are a tall building within view of where you are?


I would reintroduce capital punishment,.....

I take it all back. You're a fucking genius. The ultimate deterrent to the suicide bomber and their martyrdom culture will be capital punishment. Christ, why the fuck did nobody else think of that......

I take it all back. You're a fucking genius. The ultimate deterrent to the suicide bomber and their martyrdom culture will be capital punishment. Christ, why the fuck did nobody else think of that......

Anything better? Have a "life sentence", be released in 30 odd years, and then continue attempting to radicalise the young? Thats just moronic. At least capital punishment resolves the issue, and saves the tax payer money.

In any case, if capital punishment is counter-productive, doubtful I contend, bring it on.

I'm sorry, but have you ever read the Telegraph, beyond the cliched "oh aren't they anachronistic right wingers" links posted on NSG? Granted, it is a genuinely right wing paper, but equally, the Guardian is similarly inclined to the left.

As for the Daily Mail comment, that's low. I have a Telegraph delivered daily, and have never picked up either the Mail, or the Sun.

they're just as reactionary and scare-mongering as the daily mail, they just use more intelligent language and a superior tone. my gran buys the telegraph, so it's what brings me the news whenever i'm visiting her. basically if you scale down the threats presented by a factor of at least 100 you might get a real idea of how much danger the world is in from terrorists or left wingers or single mums on welfare or brown people.

they're just as reactionary and scare-mongering as the daily mail, they just use more intelligent language and a superior tone. my gran buys the telegraph, so it's what brings me the news whenever i'm visiting her. basically if you scale down the threats presented by a factor of at least 100 you might get a real idea of how much danger the world is in from terrorists or left wingers or single mums on welfare or brown people.

That last comment beggars belief. Regular reading of the comment pages reveals relatively little discussion of "threats to society" or the like, and, incidentally, upon such occassions as they are discussed, the articles are reasoned and intelligent. Not an eloquent Daily Mail.

Anything better? Have a “life sentence”, be released in 30 odd years, and then continue attempting to radicalise the young? Thats just moronic. At least capital punishment resolves the issue, and saves the tax payer money.
Resolves the issue? It fulfills the martyrdom these individuals are aiming for.

Beyond the obvious fear-mongering by the usual suspects (right wingers and assorted xenophobics and islamophobics)...Britain does have a problem with at least a certain section of its muslim citizens. Given the extent to which Britain has contributed to islamist killing of infidels in this century...I must say that I find the situation of islamists threatening Britain...rather amusing in a chicken-home-roost way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6426339,00.html

That last comment beggars belief. Regular reading of the comment pages reveals relatively little discussion of "threats to society" or the like, and, incidentally, upon such occassions as they are discussed, the articles are reasoned and intelligent. Not an eloquent Daily Mail.

I like how he isn't contesting the reactionary accusation. :D

Anything better? Have a "life sentence", be released in 30 odd years, and then continue attempting to radicalise the young? Thats just moronic. At least capital punishment resolves the issue, and saves the tax payer money.

In any case, if capital punishment is counter-productive, doubtful I contend, bring it on.

And isn't death what these fanatics are seeking? To be martyrs to their cause? Besides, capital punishment does absolutely nothing to stop "ordinary" criminals, it certainly won't deter terrorists. All it does is possibly sate your own blood lust.

*Government officials jump out from behind buildings and wave their fingers and yell "terrorism!"*
Rhymes with "Boogey boogey boogedy boogey!"

This thread from the guy who gives money to ultra-Conservative whackos who make t-shirts calling Hilary Clinton a "communist", advocating murdering journalists, and advocating nuking Mecca, murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people in an allied country of the US... :rolleyes:

They even tried to assassinate the Prime Minister FFS. (OK so it was Thatcher so most brits'll let you off that but still...).

We'll never forgive them for failing. ;)

And isn't death what these fanatics are seeking? To be martyrs to their cause? Besides, capital punishment does absolutely nothing to stop "ordinary" criminals, it certainly won't deter terrorists. All it does is possibly sate your own blood lust.

Once more, what do you propose? A negligable term of internment, followed by release?

In regard to ordinary criminals, who cares? Were prison to be made perjorative in character, it would be a genuine deterrent.

We'll never forgive them for failing. ;)

I stand corrected :p

Once more, what do you propose? A negligable term of internment, followed by release?
Why not the shocking alternative of -Gasp- a non-negligible term of internment? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Why not the shocking alternative of -Gasp- a non-negligible term of internment? :eek: :eek: :eek:

You keep using that brain and not the knees trusty jerking mechanism and you'll end badly, mark my words.

Why not the shocking alternative of -Gasp- a non-negligible term of internment? :eek: :eek: :eek:
Because that wouldn't involve the right wing vitriolic shit that TBC regurgitates here.

You keep using that brain and not the knees trusty jerking mechanism and you'll end badly, mark my words.

So my mother keeps telling me http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/gen055.gif