Major Terror Attack On The Uk

[spillmind]

So what do you suggest? Sit back and just accept the hits as they come? Before "W" took office the US was, on average, hit about every two years by Muslim terrorists since the 80's. Under "W" we were hit once on 911 and not since. I see a pattern here... why don't you?

to assume there will never be another attack is niave at best, and hardly a compelling arguement.

 

[USViking]

The major problem I have is that what you have described, sounds eerily like the Stasi.

In numbers only, and much fewer numbers as a percentage of our population.

Stasi was under no threat at any time of terrorism of any kind that I am aware of. Their sole purpose was to ensure the totalitarian repression of the East German people.

The force am advocating would preserve the rights you know damn well you have enjoyed all your life, and still enjoy.

My major problem is with people who, unable to mount any kind of decent argument, resort to smearing.

 

[GotZoom]

Utter rubbish! sure al quaida will do more damage but if you think the IRA killed the odd 6 or 7 your dead wrong. They bought down an entire hotel in 1983 in an attempt to kill Thatcher etc.... they killed women, children andeven chucked a missile at the home of the prime minister.

Having said that one death to terrorism is to many.

Just to keep score:

A chronology of major IRA terrorist attacks in England over the past three decades.

• March 8, 1973: Two IRA car bombs explode outside London's Old Bailey courthouse and government's agriculture department headquarters, killing one and wounding more than 150.

• Oct. 5, 1974: Two IRA bombs explode in pubs in London suburb of Guildford; five dead, more than 50 injured.

• Nov. 21, 1974: Two IRA bombs in Birmingham kill 19 and wound more than 180.

• July 20, 1982: Two IRA bombs in Hyde Park and Regent's Park in London kill 11 British soldiers and wound more than 40, mostly civilians.

• Dec. 17, 1983: IRA car bomb explodes outside Harrod's department store, killing six and wounding about 100.

• Oct. 12, 1984: IRA targets conference of ruling Conservative Party, killing five and wounding 24, but narrowly missing Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

• Sept. 22, 1989: The IRA bombs the Royal Marines School of Music in Deal, killing 10 soldiers and wounding more than 30.

• Feb. 7, 1991: IRA fires three homemade mortar shells at No. 10 Downing Street, British prime minister's official residence in London. No injuries.

• April 10, 1992: Massive IRA truck bomb in London's financial district kills three and causes hundreds of millions of dollars of damage.

• March, 20, 1993: IRA bomb hidden in garbage can in shopping district of Warrington, northwest England, kills two boys aged 3 and 12.

• Feb. 9, 1996: IRA ends a 17-month cease-fire with a massive truck bomb in London's financial district, killing two.

• Feb. 18, 1996: An IRA bomber accidentally kills himself aboard a London double-decker bus, five injured.

• June 15, 1996: For first time, IRA targets a different English city — Manchester in the northwest — with a massive truck bomb, wrecking the central shopping area and wounding about 200.

• Sept. 20, 2000: IRA dissidents fire rocket-propelled grenaded at headquarters of MI5 security agency. No injuries.

Now...Al Qaeda attack today.

• July 7, 2005: Four blasts rock the London subway system and a bus during the morning rush hour, killing at least 40 people, U.S. officials say. More than 360 people are wounded. CNN, FOX and other major news sources are stating that over 700 people are injured.

Totals:

IRA over 30 years: 75 Dead. 779 Injured.
Al Qaeda in one day: 40 Dead (so far). 700 Injured (so far).

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050707/ap_on_re_eu/explosions_glance_1

 

[freeandfun1]

to assume there will never be another attack is niave at best, and hardly a compelling arguement.

Who said that? I just pointed out that under Clinton US interests were hit every two years on average whereas under Bush we were hit once. Pattern? yes. But you won't see it. You're too biased.

 

[archangel]

My contention is that an actual army-sized intel-police addition of several hundred thousand in the US alone, and several hundred thousand more worldwide would get us up to a pretty high level of security and enforcement, even if not 100%.

From your experience, what do you think?





Is there any evidence at all that any government was complicit in these attacks?

It may well be that all we have suffered has been the result of private funding and recruitment, even if there are governments which applaud the attacks.

I would not support such action in the absense of such evidence, and by evidence i mean much better information than we used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Bombing mosques would surely radicalize huge numbers of Muslims, whose private resources would probably be enough to fund further attacks, even if the terrorists did not get a dime from any government.




Killing every single person in Saudi Arabia would still leave a billion or so enraged Muslims, including a fifth column of several million in the Free World.

however increasing the size of intelligence does not eliminate the threat...just advises of it's presence...and as for appeasment...sorry your cheerleading attempt falls on this vets deaf ears...Golly gee Mr.Wizard...Billy Clinton did just this...did he not try to appease the Muslims in Serbia...what did that get us...well let's see...911 ring a bell? The only thing radical Islam understands is power...anything less falls on deaf ears with them...end of story! :spank3:

 

[spillmind]

Who said that? I just pointed out that under Clinton US interests were hit every two years on average whereas under Bush we were hit once. Pattern? yes. But you won't see it. You're too biased.

you don't have an arguement. it doesn't prove a single thing.

at what point in time do you realise the chimp's policy on the 'war on terror' has not only failed to achieve its objective, but in fact made the situation worse and start rethinking the tactics? you probably never will. you're too biased.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

you don't have an arguement. it doesn't prove a single thing.

at what point in time do you realise the chimp's policy on the 'war on terror' has not only failed to achieve its objective, but in fact made the situation worse and start rethinking the tactics? you probably never will. you're too biased.

How do you know the goal is not to keep the radical Islamists pre-occuppied in the Middle East (Iraq and Afghanistan) and Europe...not on US soil.

Seems that you may not know what the goal is....nor do any of us who are not in the "inner circle" of the administration or the PNAC.

I do not see a failure of the US's policy regarding a "war on terror." There have been no acts of terrorism on US soil since the declaration, hence, a success by that measure, wouldn't you agree?

 

[freeandfun1]

you don't have an arguement. it doesn't prove a single thing.

at what point in time do you realise the chimp's policy on the 'war on terror' has not only failed to achieve its objective, but in fact made the situation worse and start rethinking the tactics? you probably never will. you're too biased.

Only to a liberal moron such as yourself would it mean nothing. You can't see beyond your nose because your bias runs so deep. Failed? As mentioned, US interests have not been hit since 911. Compare that to Clinton's terms in office.

You are such an idiot. Do you really believe all this spiel you spiel?

 

[freeandfun1]

There have been no acts of terrorism on US soil since the declaration, hence, a success by that measure, wouldn't you agree?

Not only on US soil, but any soil! No US Embassy bombings (which, I know, technially US Embassy's are US soil), no ships attacked - NOTHING! The only casualties are those of the soldiers that are willing to die OVER THERE so that idiots like Spill can spiel OVER HERE.

 

[OCA]

I dont think we will defeat terrorism whilst we hang onto our western morale standards.War is ugly.We need to get ugly or get used to terrorist attacks.

Ok mate this I agree with wholeheartedly. I've been asking this for months now.....when will we take off the fucking gloves?

 

[OCA]

LMFAO i don't see you contracting and supporthing this cause you are so shamelessly plugging.

2½ years and 200,000,000,000.00 dollars. do the math.

btw, bush failed to kill zarqawi when had the chance, but that's a tangent at best. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

the policy to date has been a failure. look at the fruits of the labor. as i have said, without a solid coalition of countries, including muslim countries, the war in iraq will never end. the bombings will never. i just hope when the suitcase bomb hits, it hits your town, not mine.

I see, you have no clue as to what to do but you can sure as hell piss and moan! No big coalition is needed, only tactics need to be changed. Take another hit off the pipe.

 

[OCA]

to assume there will never be another attack is niave at best, and hardly a compelling arguement.

Anything Spilly doesn't agree with he just dismisses as weak or non-compelling, very weak debating technique in the majority's opinion.

 

[Avatar4321]

you ever stop to consider that people might support your 'cause' more if you weren't shamelessly plugging tragedy to justify your means? it's dispecable and almost impossible to get respect with your finger pointing at 'libs'. just a word of advice dude. everyone knows what the situation. it's beyond insulting that people think like this.

Who the heck cares about liberal respect. Liberals are the ones undermining our effort to stand up to terrorists. Stop trying to appease these freaks and join with us to take them out and reform the middle east. So we can educate these people how to be free.

Wake up and join us in stopping these people before we are all dead. Stop using this tragedy to blame American and justify your cowardice.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I dont think we will defeat terrorism whilst we hang onto our western morale standards.War is ugly.We need to get ugly or get used to terrorist attacks.

British liberals should be able to draw a parallel between the Nazis and the Islamofascists now.
They are both bloody murdering bastards who have attacked and bombed London.

I agree with you - war is war is war. Bloody, bad, and beastly. It is time to take the gloves off and bring out the air power in Iraq and bomb the hell out of the "insurgents" as a response to this travesty.

My heartfelt condolences to Britain for your losses.

 

[USViking]

however increasing the size of intelligence does not eliminate the threat...just advises of it's presence...

I have said that police as well as intel is needed, in order to track down the threats exposed by intel.

Please answer this specific question:

Do you think 150,000 additional US intel agents and 150,000 additional US police agents and at least an equal number of other Free World agents would help significantly, or not?

and as for appeasment...sorry your cheerleading attempt falls on this vets deaf ears...

I have not made any statement which could be described as appeasement.

What specificly has given you that impression?

Golly gee Mr.Wizard...Billy Clinton did just this...did he not try to appease the Muslims in Serbia...what did that get us...well let's see...911 ring a bell? The only thing radical Islam understands is power...anything less falls on deaf ears with them...end of story! :spank3:

I am not aware of any involvement by the Balkan Muslims in 9/11, or any other terrorist act. Wanna fill me in on what I've missed here?

Furthermore, the Balkan situation is in fact a rare case where relatively helpless Muslims were in mortal danger from aggressors, and the entire operation seems to have panned out quite well so far.

 

[spillmind]

Only to a liberal moron such as yourself would it mean nothing. You can't see beyond your nose because your bias runs so deep. Failed? As mentioned, US interests have not been hit since 911. Compare that to Clinton's terms in office.

You are such an idiot. Do you really believe all this spiel you spiel?

why don't you get off the playground name calling tip and tell us what exactly you are saying with this point you are trying to make? i'm sure we'd all love to hear it in your own arrogant ignorant words.

 

[GotZoom]

Mine's bigger.

 

[spillmind]

Who the heck cares about liberal respect. Liberals are the ones undermining our effort to stand up to terrorists. Stop trying to appease these freaks and join with us to take them out and reform the middle east. So we can educate these people how to be free.

Wake up and join us in stopping these people before we are all dead. Stop using this tragedy to blame American and justify your cowardice.

stop using tragedy to shamelessly whore our failed effort in iraq. the insurgency is as strong as ever and the bombing continue. what exactly are you saying is making your case stronger? you aren't taking them out, they are getting more polarized and stronger.

it's a damn good thing you aren't a general.

and come to my house and call me a coward, buddy. you're really got some nerve. and you certainly aren't convincing anyone either.

 

[spillmind]

How do you know the goal is not to keep the radical Islamists pre-occuppied in the Middle East (Iraq and Afghanistan) and Europe...not on US soil.

Seems that you may not know what the goal is....nor do any of us who are not in the "inner circle" of the administration or the PNAC.

I do not see a failure of the US's policy regarding a "war on terror." There have been no acts of terrorism on US soil since the declaration, hence, a success by that measure, wouldn't you agree?

until the threat is gone, i wouldn't call it a success. and to say that it justifies our policy to date is innaccurate, arrogant and/or ignorant. besides, what exactly is it saying to our britain that we haven't had an 'attack' on our soil since 9/11? (and europe, where you have stated you want them there and not here)

especially when we started this war? gee, i wonder why it's so tough to garner support and strengthen the 'coalition'? what a mystery.

 

[freeandfun1]

why don't you get off the playground name calling tip and tell us what exactly you are saying with this point you are trying to make? i'm sure we'd all love to hear it in your own arrogant ignorant words.

Why don't you stop the liberal tactic of ignoring what doesn't support your suppositions? I have been very clear in my points. Regardless of what YOU think, the WoT has prevented further attacks against US interests. As I have said several times now, under Clinton and his program of appeasement, we (the USA) was attacked on average once every two years by AQ. Since 911 and the start of the WoT we haven't had another attack on US interests. That is quite a substantial point if one will take off their blinders, ditch their preconceived biases and evaluate the results with an intellectually honest mind. You however have proved that you will not. You already have your preconceived biases and you are going to stick with them come hell, high water or a Islamofacist detonated nuclear bomb. You better get your head out of your ass and see the light because your ignorance is keeping you blind.