NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, we all know they're just immigrants who were just talking shit on the Internet, and perfectly good people who haven't been convicted for anything, so they're perfectly innocent, and there's no such thing as al-Qaeda - that's just bullshit...

NOT....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6755797.stm

Seven men have been jailed for up to 26 years over an al-Qaeda-linked plot to kill thousands in the UK and US.

Woolwich Crown Court heard they were in a "sleeper cell" led by Dhiren Barot, who is already serving a life sentence.

Barot planned attacks including blowing apart a London Underground tunnel and bombings using an explosives-packed limousine and a dirty radiation device.

Six of the men admitted conspiracy to cause explosions and a seventh was found guilty of conspiracy to murder.

Yes, we all know they're just immigrants who were just talking shit on the Internet, and perfectly good people who haven't been convicted for anything, so they're perfectly innocent, and there's no such thing as al-Qaeda - that's just bullshit...


And the award for most pointless rant at beginning of OP goes to...

they where immigrants :confused:

they where immigrants :confused:

if not immigrants, then "poor oppressed Muslims who were hapless victims of racism on the part of the security services..."

they where immigrants :confused:

Mohammed Naveed Bhatti, 27, of Harrow in north London, was jailed for 20 years; Junade Feroze, 31, of Blackburn, received 22 years and Zia Ul Haq, 28, of Wembley in north London, got 18 years.

Abdul Aziz Jalil, 24, of Luton, was jailed for 26 years; Omar Abdur Rehman, 23 of Bushey in Hertfordshire, was jailed for 15 years and Nadeem Tarmohamed, 29 also of Wembley, received 20 years. Qaisar Shaffi, 28, of Willesden, north-west London, was sentenced to 15 years.

It appears not, seem to be british citizens one and all.

if not immigrants, then "poor oppressed Muslims who were hapless victims of racism on the part of the security services..."

awww you think your making a good point?

It appears not, seem to be british citizens one and all.

what happened to the days of blowing up parliament? :(

So... does this mean we shouldn't complain if our rights are restricted so that we can be protected or something? Because I don't think anyone believes that there aren't terrorists out there. The extent of the threat could be debated though. I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make with that rant of yours.

So... does this mean we shouldn't complain if our rights are restricted so that we can be protected or something? Because I don't think anyone believes that there aren't terrorists out there. The extent of the threat could be debated though. I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make with that rant of yours.

Especially in the UK. Ah the good old days of the gentlemen terrorists calling in the locations of bombs

So... does this mean we shouldn't complain if our rights are restricted so that we can be protected or something? Because I don't think anyone believes that there aren't terrorists out there. The extent of the threat could be debated though. I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make with that rant of yours.

There seem to be those on this forum who believe:

a. there's no al-Qaeda
b. these people are just being railroaded by the security services
c. the "war on terror" doesn't exist because sleeper cells, terrorists linked to international groups, etc., don't exist

There seem to be those on this forum who believe:

a. there's no al-Qaeda
b. these people are just being railroaded by the security services
c. the "war on terror" doesn't exist because sleeper cells, terrorists linked to international groups, etc., don't exist

Really? Who?

Really? Who?

A fair number of you.

There seem to be those on this forum who believe:

a. there's no al-Qaeda
b. these people are just being railroaded by the security services
c. the "war on terror" doesn't exist because sleeper cells, terrorists linked to international groups, etc., don't exist
Mind providing links to show where people have said such things?

Yes, we all know they're just immigrants who were just talking shit on the Internet, and perfectly good people who haven't been convicted for anything, so they're perfectly innocent, and there's no such thing as al-Qaeda - that's just bullshit...

So are you saying we should stop Hindus from immigrating into the UK in case they join Al-Qaeda?

A fair number of you.

Do you have any names, or can you provide a link that shows someone stating something similar? It seems rather farfetched that someone would not believe in the existence of terrorists.

There seem to be those on this forum who believe:

a. there's no al-Qaeda
b. these people are just being railroaded by the security services
c. the "war on terror" doesn't exist because sleeper cells, terrorists linked to international groups, etc., don't exist

I'm sure they are guilty of something, whether the threat they represented was anything serious is something I question, there have been "threats" in the past that were simply pathetic yet the government makes them sound like genius plotters. Some ARE railroaded though which is the problem, as they are swept up along with the guilty.

There seem to be those on this forum who believe:

a. there's no al-Qaeda
b. these people are just being railroaded by the security services
c. the "war on terror" doesn't exist because sleeper cells, terrorists linked to international groups, etc., don't exist
I want a link to posts that prove that, on multiple occasions and multiple established members (not puppets) for each one.

Yes, we all know they're just immigrants who were just talking shit on the Internet, and perfectly good people who haven't been convicted for anything, so they're perfectly innocent, and there's no such thing as al-Qaeda - that's just bullshit...

NOT....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6755797.stm

Kindly stick this in a memo and entitle it "Shit we already know."

I want a link to posts that prove that, on multiple occasions and multiple established members (not puppets) for each one.

Sorry.

First, we could take anyone who supports the Democratic Party.

It's their official position that there's no such thing as a "war on terror".

Sorry.

First, we could take anyone who supports the Democratic Party.

It's their official position that there's no such thing as a "war on terror".

Backpeddaling is fun :)

Sorry.

First, we could take anyone who supports the Democratic Party.

It's their official position that there's no such thing as a "war on terror".

That's like arguing that because there isn't an elephant hunt, there are no elephants.


Huh? Are you claiming that the war on terror predates the existence of terrorists? This makes no sense.

Gongratulations! Who'd a thought that if you detained every concievable terrorists, a few might actually be one, Brilliant!

What do you know, you can give terrorists a trial. If only the US would learn that about Gitmo.

Sorry.

First, we could take anyone who supports the Democratic Party.

It's their official position that there's no such thing as a "war on terror".

There is no such thing as a "war on double-parking".

Some people double-park.

It's no fun when it's that easy.

I view this as a victory for the British justice system

Evidence gathered BEFORE arrest

Defendents given legal representation

Trial in (an open as possible) court

Clear verdict with suitable sentences

Not an orange jumpsuit in sight:)

Sorry.

First, we could take anyone who supports the Democratic Party.

It's their official position that there's no such thing as a "war on terror".
Well done on making a completely erroneous and fatuous statement while failing to back it up with any evidence whatsoever and when called on it, making an equally ridiculous and fatuous statement in an attempt to gloss over the fact you've been talking out of your butt.

What next? Going to do the classic Corny post of claiming you have a life outside of NS, you need to do stuff right this instant, and thus don't have the time to back up your claims?

edit:
whoah. What a surprise. Within minutes of me posting the stuff above and having several other users call him up on his inane partisan hackery comments, I see RO has indeed gone off-line. Can't stand the heat/kitchen and all that.
Just waiting for him to come back in a few hours and use the above claim as his defense why he couldn't respond.

There seem to be those on this forum who believe:

a. there's no al-Qaeda
b. these people are just being railroaded by the security services
c. the "war on terror" doesn't exist because sleeper cells, terrorists linked to international groups, etc., don't exist
You know, this is really very nifty.

Jolt could break down completely for months and you could still have your own little arguments on word pad with the imaginary crazies you're always delivering right with the opening statement.

But of course word pad is never enough, is it? :(

Yes, we all know they're just immigrants who were just talking shit on the Internet, and perfectly good people who haven't been convicted for anything, so they're perfectly innocent, and there's no such thing as al-Qaeda - that's just bullshit...

NOT....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6755797.stm

your sidebar reads "Forum Boredom"
maybe you should just stop trolling then....

Sorry.

First, we could take anyone who supports the Democratic Party.

It's their official position that there's no such thing as a "war on terror".
Ah, my apologies. I mistook this thread for one for, you know, reasoned debate, rather than chest beating and partisan hackery. In any case, are you seriously trying to claim that Democrats (since you've shifted the goal posts from posters on this forum to Democrats) deny AQ exists because they don't believe in a war on terror?

Oh, and since you've yet to substantiate both your claim about 1)other posters on this forum and 2)Democrats, I'll take your ramblings as conceding the point.

Gee, last I checked, I was a democrat who felt that al qaeda and the war on terror existed....

You need stop sticking words into people mouth. That's about as ridiculous as claiming that Gore said he invented the internet. At least go with something plausible (http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/piehigher.asp).

First, we could take anyone who supports the Democratic Party.

It's their official position that there's no such thing as a "war on terror".
I try not to sully my thoughts with the infighting in American politics, so I have no real frame of reference for a reaction to this, but is this true? Do they deny that such a thing is taking place, or do they just deny the need for such a thing? Or what?

"War on terror", like "War on drugs", is just a handy little soundbite - a lovely quoteable little phrase to slip into speeches and to worm its way into the consciousness of the population, so that the majority come away with the impression that everything is in hand and the good ole government of the day will look after them.

Does anyone honestly believe that there was no effort to combat terrorism prior to Bush coining the phrase? Or that terrorism only became an issue after 2001?

Governments should not need these tabloid labels to be carrying out synchronised pro-active counter-terrorism operations with other nations.


EDIT:
I try not to sully my thoughts with the infighting in American politics
As I read what I'd posted, I realised that this could be interpreted as some kind of anti-American slur. It's not meant that way... I try to avoid as much of the poo-flinging nonsense as possible in my own country too, as well as all the others.

There seem to be those on this forum who believe:

a. there's no al-Qaeda
b. these people are just being railroaded by the security services
c. the "war on terror" doesn't exist because sleeper cells, terrorists linked to international groups, etc., don't exist

i've never seen any such assertions being made.

i've never seen any such assertions being made.

Wikipedia sez: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw%20man)
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.


RO sets up and tilts at straw men with more gusto than any I've yet seen.

RO sets up and tilts at straw men with more gusto than any I've yet seen.

what's interesting is how frequently the straw men win

i've never seen any such assertions being made.

They've been made, but not by any poster who could even be considered semi-credible.

i've never seen any such assertions being made.

Don't mind him, he thinks we are all evil liberals out to destroy America by coddling terrorists. He can't help himself in making baseless statements with no basis in reality.

what's interesting is how frequently the straw men win

/thread.

is it just me or is RO seeming to become more and more unstable as the days move on?

what's interesting is how frequently the straw men win

LOL! that does take some doing :D

Yes, we all know they're just immigrants who were just talking shit on the Internet, and perfectly good people who haven't been convicted for anything, so they're perfectly innocent, and there's no such thing as al-Qaeda - that's just bullshit...

You must own a fucking straw farm, and a factory beside it. :rolleyes:

Yes, we all know they're just immigrants who were just talking shit on the Internet, and perfectly good people who haven't been convicted for anything, so they're perfectly innocent, and there's no such thing as al-Qaeda - that's just bullshit...


So what do you suggest? Some sort of pogrom? Or just a good ol'-fashioned lynching of anyone who might be an immigrant?

Dickhead.

you know there are a few posters that I would just LOVE to get a glimpse inside their heads, South Lizasauria is one, I'd love to see how the world looks to that kid.....

But what I'm really interested in is what sort of mental process that goes on in the mind of people like RO when they post something like this. Do they get filled with some sort of righteous indignation, a sort of "this will show them!" grandeur that somehow manages to displace any vetages of logic and common sense?

I really just don't understand it, I can't grasp what goes on there. I try to imagine what it must be from his perspective and I just can't do it. Does he think that somehow he'll "win", that someday we'll all miraculously agree with him? That he'll show us the error of our ways by posting shit after shit after shit?

Try as I might I just can't grasp the mindset of someone who thinks that posting this drivel is a good idea.

Sorry.

First, we could take anyone who supports the Democratic Party.

It's their official position that there's no such thing as a "war on terror".

Sadly, most Democratic politicians do still talk about a war on terror, even though the construction is a meaningless one, but I'm sure you can find proof of this "official position" if you look hard enough. Can't you?

you know there are a few posters that I would just LOVE to get a glimpse inside their heads, South Lizasauria is one, I'd love to see how the world looks to that kid.....

But what I'm really interested in is what sort of mental process that goes on in the mind of people like RO when they post something like this. Do they get filled with some sort of righteous indignation, a sort of "this will show them!" grandeur that somehow manages to displace any vetages of logic and common sense?

I really just don't understand it, I can't grasp what goes on there. I try to imagine what it must be from his perspective and I just can't do it. Does he think that somehow he'll "win", that someday we'll all miraculously agree with him? That he'll show us the error of our ways by posting shit after shit after shit?

Try as I might I just can't grasp the mindset of someone who thinks that posting this drivel is a good idea.

its called TROLLING.

he does it every day.

he continues it because he catches otherwise smart posters every single time.

if you learned to ignore it, he would go find someplace else to play.

its called TROLLING.

he does it every day.

he continues it because he catches otherwise smart posters every single time.

if you learned to ignore it, he would go find someplace else to play.

see, here's the thing. I don't think so. I think he honestly, truly believes this shit, and honestly, truly thinks he's being smart.

see, here's the thing. I don't think so. I think he honestly, truly believes this shit, and honestly, truly thinks he's being smart.

And in some parts of the internet world, he's no doubt hailed as a deep thinker. Ever read the mouth-breathers over at the Free Republic? RO's a freaking Hobbes compared to them.

One of the reasons I love this place is that it takes all comers, and no one is tossed simply for not toeing an ideological line, which does happen in various parts of the blog world, left, right and in between.

is it just me or is RO seeming to become more and more unstable as the days move on?
I've noticed that myself...

When I saw the thread title, I thought RO was going to finally admit he is WL/DK/SierraBHTP/EO, etc. I mean...he's as much as admitted it, but I thought this might be his grand unveiling.

see, here's the thing. I don't think so. I think he honestly, truly believes this shit, and honestly, truly thinks he's being smart.

not this one. not today.

he does post a few things that he believes but he posts them as outrageously as possible.

even when he doesnt, y'all post as if he did.

he did post something odd the other week about being not one person but 5 (not all in the same body, i think) so some are probably better than others.

this thread was pure trolling. you should learn to recognize it.

Sadly, most Democratic politicians do still talk about a war on terror, even though the construction is a meaningless one, but I'm sure you can find proof of this "official position" if you look hard enough. Can't you?

Nazz, don't be a nitwit. This is America, where the "war" concept has developed its own meaning in our vernacular. It no longer has the necessary connotation of violenace, rather it has come to mean any concerted, driven effort. We've waged wars on drugs, poverty, crime and racism in the US, now we're doing it with terrorism.

he did post something odd the other week about being not one person but 5 (not all in the same body, i think) so some are probably better than others.

Yeah, that was weird, wasn't it? He did that (the time I saw) when he was outed while posting as Eve Online...went on this weird rant about how he and some other buddies had been trolling NS for ages.

Don't you love the soap opera that is NSG?

Too be honest though, life here would be sad without some 'villains'.

Nazz, don't be a nitwit. You've got some foam on your chin there :P

Yeah, that was weird, wasn't it? He did that (the time I saw) when he was outed while posting as Eve Online...went on this weird rant about how he and some other buddies had been trolling NS for ages.


Surely that violates some kind of rules, no?

Nazz, don't be a nitwit. This is America, where the "war" concept has developed its own meaning in our vernacular. It no longer has the necessary connotation of violenace, rather it has come to mean any concerted, driven effort. We've waged wars on drugs, poverty, crime and racism in the US, now we're doing it with terrorism.

With mixed results. The original war on poverty was pretty successful, dropping the rate to around 14%, where its hovered for the last 35 years or so. Racism has been hit or miss--I think it's undeniable that race relations are better now than they were in 1965, and that discrimination is rarer, though sadly still prevalent. But the "wars" we've waged on drugs, crime and terrorism are either unquestionable failures or sophistic pipe dreams.

Nazz, don't be a nitwit. This is America, where the "war" concept has developed its own meaning in our vernacular. It no longer has the necessary connotation of violenace, rather it has come to mean any concerted, driven effort. We've waged wars on drugs, poverty, crime and racism in the US, now we're doing it with terrorism.

yeah i remember back in '77 when we bombed detroit in an effort to curtail poverty. those were the good old days!

and in '89 when we invaded juarez in the war on drugs. classic military maneuvers.

in other words, the war on terror is not analagous to the war on poverty.

yeah i remember back in '77 when we bombed detroit in an effort to curtail poverty. those were the good old days!

and in '89 when we invaded juarez in the war on drugs. classic military maneuvers.

in other words, the war on terror is not analagous to the war on poverty.

But the war on drugs is analogous to the war on terror--both are ineptly waged, and both are going after the wrong thing. Both focus on the thing and not the cause.

Kindly stick this in a memo and entitle it "Shit we already know."

...dammit... What the hell is that from? I heard it the other day...

Gongratulations! Who'd a thought that if you detained every concievable terrorists, a few might actually be one, Brilliant!

Yes, and this totally justifies every non-terrorist "detainee," every innocent harassed, every right abridged. Ya know, sorta like how in WWII, some of the Jews killed by the nazis were actually criminals (thiefs, rapists, murderers... statistically this must be true). Hence the concentration camp idea was a good one after all, ha ha ha.

RO, you're a joke. Every point you make has one obvious and clear goal, and that's to piss off people with stupid douchebaggery that insults the intelligence of anyone reading it.

It appears not, seem to be british citizens one and all.

Aye, but they could still have been imigrants that have gotten citizenship...


*Ignores the rest of RO's made-up bullshit*

But the war on drugs is analogous to the war on terror--both are ineptly waged, and both are going after the wrong thing. Both focus on the thing and not the cause.

well i suppose i could concede that the war on drugs does involve killing people in other countries.

but the war on terror is so much more than that. its the justification for invading countries that never did anything to us, the picking up of innocent people off the streets in other countries and sending them to places to be tortured for information they dont have, the interning of children in guantanamo bay, the curtailing of our civil liberties, the destruction of good will toward our country from all over the world, well, you know.

and yeah, it IS inept and is not making us safer.

A fair number of you.

I have evidence that you're actually the leading mastermind of Al Qaeda. Nobody needs to see that evidence because my say so is enough.

Go away RO. Your brainless McCarthyism isn't fooling anybody.

Yes, we all know they're just immigrants who were just talking shit on the Internet, and perfectly good people who haven't been convicted for anything, so they're perfectly innocent, and there's no such thing as al-Qaeda - that's just bullshit...

NOT....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6755797.stm

Hey look! A sustained police investigation turned up results! Who'd have thought it?

As it is, they will be released within a matter of decades. They should, of course, be publically hung.

As it is, they will be released within a matter of decades. They should, of course, be publically hung.

Mmm, fresh martyrs.

There seem to be those on this forum who believe:

a. there's no al-Qaeda

Never seen that one here. If it does occur, its a fucken rarity.


b. these people are just being railroaded by the security services

Its only been raised in one or two cases where theres been FBI informers involved.


c. the "war on terror" doesn't exist because sleeper cells, terrorists linked to international groups, etc., don't exist

No, the "war on terror" never existed because it implies a level of activity and threat that just isn't there, traditional methods sufficing for what is.

As it is, they will be released within a matter of decades. They should, of course, be publically hung.


And bring back flogging (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40033000/jpg/_40033793_tory_boy.jpg)

When I saw the thread title, I thought RO was going to finally admit he is WL/DK/SierraBHTP/EO, etc. I mean...he's as much as admitted it, but I thought this might be his grand unveiling.

Doesn't have to. The grinder sounds the exact same no matter what name he's fed through under......

Never seen that one here. If it does occur, its a fucken rarity.



Its only been raised in one or two cases where theres been FBI informers involved.



No, the "war on terror" never existed because it implies a level of activity and threat that just isn't there, traditional methods sufficing for what is.
Don't bother. He seems to have fled the scene (He's posted in other threads after being called in this one).

its called TROLLING.

he does it every day.

he continues it because he catches otherwise smart posters every single time.

if you learned to ignore it, he would go find someplace else to play.

That's why we don't ignore it. Because he would leave.

Let's face it, trolls suck, but they're the most entertaining thing on the forum... LG aside.

Don't bother. He seems to have fled the scene (He's posted in other threads after being called in this one).

As usual.


I wonder, is questioning "Just who is Al Qaeda anyway" counted as denying they exist?

They should, of course, be publically hung.
TBC; partying like it's 1799.

Hey look! A sustained police investigation turned up results! Who'd have thought it?

You mean they didn't just round people up without any kind of proof? Shocking.

There seem to be those on this forum who believe:

a. there's no al-Qaeda
b. these people are just being railroaded by the security services
c. the "war on terror" doesn't exist because sleeper cells, terrorists linked to international groups, etc., don't exist

Mighty RO the strawman slayer. All hail RO!

Yes, we all know they're just immigrants who were just talking shit on the Internet, and perfectly good people who haven't been convicted for anything, so they're perfectly innocent, and there's no such thing as al-Qaeda - that's just bullshit...

NOT....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6755797.stm

Let's see.

1. You don't know if they were immigrants or not.

2. They have been convicted. Six of the seven men admitted their guilt. This is unlike cases you normally cite where the slightest sniff of suspicion is treated as the same as a conviction.

3. Of course al-Qaeda exists.

What were you saying about bullshit?

No, the "war on terror" never existed because it implies a level of activity and threat that just isn't there

So there isn't any threat from terrorism?

So there isn't any threat from terrorism?

That's not what he said, he said 'the "war on terror" never existed because it implies a level of activity and threat that just isn't there therefore implying that the threat was overstates, but still in existence. :)

That's not what he said, he said therefore implying that the threat was overstates, but still in existence. :)

So hes saying that Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations who have shitloads of members/funding/equipment, and whos main aim is to see the destruction of the west, is not a threat worth doing anything about. And that national security/the military has done little to try and stop this threat?

So hes saying that Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations who have shitloads of members/funding/equipment, and whos main aim is to see the destruction of the west, is not a threat worth doing anything about. And that national security/the military has done little to try and stop this threat?

Not what I said at all. I suggest trying again, with finger 'gainst screen if need be. A 'Grown-Up' to assist, if that fails.

Haven't the vast majority of "plotters" caught by the US in the US been citizens and "copycats", btw?

Not what I said at all. I suggest trying again, with finger 'gainst screen if need be. A 'Grown-Up' to assist, if that fails.


How am I suppost to know what you mean when you say "a certain level of", how much is that?


Haven't the vast majority of "plotters" caught by the US in the US been citizens and "copycats", btw?

It's much easier to monitor people inside your country then to monitor the Al Qaida itself.

So there isn't any threat from terrorism?

No--there isn't. There are threats from individuals who use terrorism as a tactic, but there is no threat from terrorism.

No--there isn't. There are threats from individuals who use terrorism as a tactic, but there is no threat from terrorism.
There is a threat from terrorism, sure, as much as there is a threat from being run down by a car, or contracting malaria.

One would be wise to be aware of the threats of malaria, cars and terrorism, but it would be foolish to become paranoid of them.

No--there isn't. There are threats from individuals who use terrorism as a tactic, but there is no threat from terrorism.

But thats what you mean when you say a threat from terrorism.

Seven men have been jailed for up to 26 years over an al-Qaeda-linked plot to kill thousands in the UK and US.

Woolwich Crown Court heard they were in a "sleeper cell" led by Dhiren Barot, who is already serving a life sentence.

Barot planned attacks including blowing apart a London Underground tunnel and bombings using an explosives-packed limousine and a dirty radiation device.

Six of the men admitted conspiracy to cause explosions and a seventh was found guilty of conspiracy to murder.

Guantamo Bay. Minus the torture. The torture at Guantanamo Bay is wrong.


Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Thers yer answer right there.

There is a threat from terrorism, sure, as much as there is a threat from being run down by a car, or contracting malaria.

One would be wise to be aware of the threats of malaria, cars and terrorism, but it would be foolish to become paranoid of them.

I agree I mean I think your chancees of being attcked by a terrorists are about the same as being attacked by a couger. Rather low, but quite possible. I don't fear cougers (then again I live in a city not in the middle of the Appalacians)so well I don't fear getting attacked by dogs either. yet there are thousands of stray and domesticated dogs around and the it is quite possible I may be attacked. If your paranoid about terrorists be paranoid of dogs and cougers too.

If your paranoid about terrorists be paranoid of dogs and cougers too.
Especially if you live in Britain....

:p

I agree I mean I think your chancees of being attcked by a terrorists are about the same as being attacked by a couger. Rather low, but quite possible. I don't fear cougers (then again I live in a city not in the middle of the Appalacians)so well I don't fear getting attacked by dogs either. yet there are thousands of stray and domesticated dogs around and the it is quite possible I may be attacked. If your paranoid about terrorists be paranoid of dogs and cougers too.

Using that sort of statistic to measure a threat is flawed IMO, for instance how many times do large comets smash into the earth a year? 0.0000001? Does that mean that we should not worry about the threat of a comet? Of course not.

But thats what you mean when you say a threat from terrorism.

No--that's what you mean when you say it perhaps. I say there is no threat from terrorism, because I try to be more exact in my use of language, and I try to be more exact because asshole politicians are deliberately imprecise in order to fool saps into voting for them.

Terrorism is not the threat. Al Qaeda is a threat--and a limited one at that, to people living in the US. Al Qaeda would be a threat which uses terror as a tactic. If they had an army, they might use something else as a tactic. The difference is significant.

-snip-

But what else could it possibly mean?

But what else could it possibly mean?

It's really an issue of being clear about what you're talking about.

When crossing the street, is there a threat of careless driving, or a threat of being hit by careless drivers?

While driving, is there a threat of drunk driving, or a threat of being hit by drunk drivers?

One says more, and is clearer and more precise, than the other.

How am I suppost to know what you mean when you say "a certain level of", how much is that?


I never said "a certain level of". This is what I said, copied and pasted.
No, the "war on terror" never existed because it implies a level of activity and threat that just isn't there, traditional methods sufficing for what is.