mooslimes in england

I was saying comments like this dont help, because we dont want to minimize even idiots, because they can do damage, but to be fair to deadcandance, i agree we dont run like chickens with our heads cut off. Sorry for my mistake mate.


I've never, not once said terrorism wasn't a problem. I was the dude saying we should be focused on al qaeda, wahhabi jihaddists, pakistan, and loose nukes in russia, rather than chasing after a secular, socialist tinpot dictator in iraq who was not allied, nor collaborating with al qaeda.

I'm for being smart about addressing terrorism. And I was also calling attention to the fact that these two morons in scotland are not something to panic about.
 
I am not implying that you said terrorism wasnt a problem, but when you say these two are morons, what if the cell, these two idiots belongs too are not morons?, that is what worries me about your statements. I think we have to take every potential terrorist seriously, i mean, how smart do you need to be to have someone put a bomb on you?.

I understand your point, about top tier terrorists, professional, and those we spend the most time on, but even second and third tier terrorists, can kill people, even if they are morons.

Bottom line: i think we agree....

and are getting caught up in wording, fair enough?

i mean, I respect you, i think you know what youre talking about, cool?


I've never, not once said terrorism wasn't a problem. I was the dude saying we should be focused on al qaeda, wahhabi jihaddists, pakistan, and loose nukes in russia, rather than chasing after a secular, socialist tinpot dictator in iraq who was not allied, nor collaborating with al qaeda.

I'm for being smart about addressing terrorism. And I was also calling attention to the fact that these two morons in scotland are not something to panic about.
 
this is the problem with liberalism, you minimize terrorism and its effect because we got lucky and nobody died. Terrorism, eventually will come to america, but not before islamo-nazi's take over europe. If you and other liberals like you dont take terrorism seriously, then it will be the death of america.

You need to ask yourself why this attack took place after Tony Blair left office and after Gordon Snow became Prime Minister. I for one find it interesting that this attack did not occur while Tony Blair was Prime Minister as his strong support of the United States and of Iraq would have given them reason to do so but now that Gordon Snow who is generally opposed to the war and is not as openly friendly towards us becomes Prime Minister and appoints out-spoken critics of the Iraq war to cabinent positions there is an attack. :eusa_shhh: Don't tell anyone but I smell a rat. :eusa_naughty:
 
Given that the Brits had years of terrorism inflicted on them by the IRA I would think they'll take this in their stride. They're not stupid or apathetic, but they're realistic. I did hear on the BBC that Lord Stephens (former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police) is now warning that AQ is attacking Britain. That may be so but these events sound like they're the work of disaffected locals, possibly British-born Muslims.

I'm reminded of the race riots in Britain during the 1980s. Much aggression was directed at Pakistani youths by white skinheads. The Pakistanis were portrayed as being quiet and meek. I'm wondering if a generation of British Muslim youths have now grown into adulthood and have a major chip on their collective shoulder.
 
I am not implying that you said terrorism wasnt a problem, but when you say these two are morons, what if the cell, these two idiots belongs too are not morons?, that is what worries me about your statements. I think we have to take every potential terrorist seriously, i mean, how smart do you need to be to have someone put a bomb on you?.

First, I question who these men actually worked for since it is obvious that they were not helping the cause that we claim they represent and that the timing of this attack benefits us more while at the same time is harmful to the interests of those whom we claim were behind the attack. Why would anyone want to wait to committ a terrorist attack until someone who was opposed to the Iraq war and whose relationship with ua became Prime Minister? That simply does not make any sense! Yet, when you place this attack in context it is obvious that its affect is beneficial to our interests. I suspect that this was a covert U.S. operation and that it was planned to minimize the cost to life while maximizing the amount of fear generated by the attack. Strategically speaking, this attack benefits us and is harmful to the interests of the terrorists. Also, the nature of the attack would lead me to believe that it was intended to minimize the loss of live as opposed to maximizing it which would again lead me to believe that terrorists were not behind it. One news article explained it this way, "The new terror threat presents Prime Minister Gordon Brown, a Scot who took office on Wednesday, with an enormous challenge and comes at a time of already heightened vigilance one week before the anniversary of the July 7 London transit attacks, which killed 52 people."

Now that is very interesting! First, the attacks occured at a time when the new Prime Minister has shown his opposition to the Iraq war and his policy towards the United States is not what we would like it to be. Now, what is it about this attack then raises even more eyebrows? It took place in Scotland where Gordon Brown is from. :eusa_naughty: Why Scotland? Why now? Why so few lives lost? Gordon Brown needs to put passion aside and look at this logically and question the President and the United States about any possible role we may have played in these attacks because it is obvious they were designed with the intent for no lives to be lost and to have the greatest possible impact on the new Prime Minister.

I understand your point, about top tier terrorists, professional, and those we spend the most time on, but even second and third tier terrorists, can kill people, even if they are morons.

I do not doubt that there are terrorists and that they have led coordinated attacks against us but I do think your point about second and third tier terrorists is ridcolous since such attacks often amount to nothing more than criminal acts. If we begin to label domestic criminals as terrorists then we have a problem instead we should acknowledge that acts of terrorism is an international problem and that the criminal acts of individuals is not terrorism. There must be some planning, and some coordination behind it before we begin to label it an act of terrorism.
 
we need to stop terrorism first, which means disabling liberalism, which is terror's enabler.
 
Given that the Brits had years of terrorism inflicted on them by the IRA I would think they'll take this in their stride. They're not stupid or apathetic, but they're realistic. I did hear on the BBC that Lord Stephens (former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police) is now warning that AQ is attacking Britain. That may be so but these events sound like they're the work of disaffected locals, possibly British-born Muslims.

I'm reminded of the race riots in Britain during the 1980s. Much aggression was directed at Pakistani youths by white skinheads. The Pakistanis were portrayed as being quiet and meek. I'm wondering if a generation of British Muslim youths have now grown into adulthood and have a major chip on their collective shoulder.

I am not sure that I agree with your assessment. I do not believe that any people will "take this in their stride." The IRA notwithstanding because people do not become jaded to violent acts of terrorism or the acts of criminals or thugs. They don't become immune to the feelings that are created by such attacks. I am also not inclined to believe that these were just the acts of disaffected Muslims in Britain. They would have to be really stupid Muslims if they think attacking Britain at a time where the policy of Britain is likely to change in their favor is a good idea. It simply does not make sense to think that these attacks were the planned terrorist acts of dedicated terrorists or the acts of disaffected individuals. It appears to me that thsese attacks were staged and that the U.S. government is most likely behind them (i.e., loss of life was kept low and we receive the most benefit)
 
I am not sure that I agree with your assessment. I do not believe that any people will "take this in their stride." The IRA notwithstanding because people do not become jaded to violent acts of terrorism or the acts of criminals or thugs. They don't become immune to the feelings that are created by such attacks. I am also not inclined to believe that these were just the acts of disaffected Muslims in Britain. They would have to be really stupid Muslims if they think attacking Britain at a time where the policy of Britain is likely to change in their favor is a good idea. It simply does not make sense to think that these attacks were the planned terrorist acts of dedicated terrorists or the acts of disaffected individuals. It appears to me that thsese attacks were staged and that the U.S. government is most likely behind them (i.e., loss of life was kept low and we receive the most benefit)

No, I don't think people become jaded or believe they're immune. Perhaps they have a sort of internal risk management assessment which tells them they're more likely to get hit by a big red bus than get blown up in a terrorist incident.

Brown has already indicated a willingness to get out of Iraq (but not, I think, Afghanistan). I don't think that British foreign policy will be swayed by these actions.
 
I am not implying that you said terrorism wasnt a problem, but when you say these two are morons, what if the cell, these two idiots belongs too are not morons?, that is what worries me about your statements. I think we have to take every potential terrorist seriously, i mean, how smart do you need to be to have someone put a bomb on you?.

I understand your point, about top tier terrorists, professional, and those we spend the most time on, but even second and third tier terrorists, can kill people, even if they are morons.

Bottom line: i think we agree....

and are getting caught up in wording, fair enough?

i mean, I respect you, i think you know what youre talking about, cool?

Fair enough. Thanks.

These two guys were obviously inept morons. I don't discount that there could be cells of real, professional terrorists in england.

I'm just calling for perspective. Fear and panic make people do stupid things - like invading a country that had nothing to do with al qaeda and did not pose a significant threat to the U.S. (i.e., Iraq). Fear and panic make people do things that are not smart - like deciding that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are optional; a quaint relic of the past.

Remaining calm, realistic, and resolute, is the best way to intelligently deal with radical terrorists that threaten america.
 
we need to stop terrorism first, which means disabling liberalism, which is terror's enabler.

Partly, but neither modern conservatism nor modern liberalism will take the steps necessary to protect the West. Both are essentially non-nationalist. Neither wants to be seen as "racist," so they will both continue to allow open immigration, the building of mosques, etc. Stopping all that would help stop terrorism. Essentially this means targeting brown bodies for removal from the premises. Until we get the guts for that, the debates are a waste of air.
 
I dont like the hostile, angry and aggressive way he says things.

You can make your point, without attacking others.



It's not the idea that I'm criticizing, it's the way he says things.

He can only be one of three things:

(1) Dumb

(2) Drunk

(3) A Liberal pretending to be a Conservatives to make them look dumb.

Take your pick.
 
See...if he was just a troll and an asshole that would be one thing...but he obviously has a lot of positive rep...so some idiots on this board agree with his tripe. If he is a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad, its working.
 
Everyone needs a place to vent, so im not sure banning him is the right thing to do. What is the difference betwen a troll, and angry person who likes to vent.

Im just asking, im not familiar with trolling, or what troll really means, other then pissing people off.

See...if he was just a troll and an asshole that would be one thing...but he obviously has a lot of positive rep...so some idiots on this board agree with his tripe. If he is a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad, its working.
 
Everyone needs a place to vent, so im not sure banning him is the right thing to do. What is the difference betwen a troll, and angry person who likes to vent.

Im just asking, im not familiar with trolling, or what troll really means, other then pissing people off.

Then he can take his shit to the "Taunting Arena". If he wants to vent, he can do it there.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top