London 'Terror Attacks'
-
Craster wrote:
is the reaction of government really proportional to the risk to the public that is demonstrated by these failures to k
Yes. The irish started with wfertilizer/sugar bimbs. They had to be massive, and they were. And brutally simple. Given semtex they were very dangerous. Never underestimate an enemy, never fail to take their intent seriously. To do so IS a failure of government.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
So in the past few days, there have been 3 attempted 'terror strikes' in the UK. Two failed carbombs and one distinctly ineffectual flaming car driven at Glasgow airport. Note that the UK Government refers to these as 'foiled attacks' rather than 'failed attacks'. The vowel change is apparently significant, even though security services intervention had nothing to do with the fact that the devices didn't explode. The two carbombs were abject failures, namely down to their inability to fulfill their raison d'etre as a bomb, that being to explode. One of the cars wasn't even anywhere near its intended target - it was parked illegally, so had been towed to an impound. The car on fire left just one person injured - the driver of the vehicle who, on attempting to fuel the blaze with a can of petrol, managed to set his own trousers on fire. The whole thing wouldn't have looked out of place with Benny Hill music playing in the background. In the 80s, the IRA were carrying out a reign of terror marked by carbombs set off with devastating regularity. In the 00s, it seems we are under seige from a battalion of completely retarded incompetents. How many complete failures to make working explosive devices have we had now? If the IRA could do it every single time, how hard can it be, exactly? Without wishing any offence to those who have had friends or family injured or killed in terrorist attacks, is the reaction of government really proportional to the risk to the public that is demonstrated by these failures to kill? Terrorism? I'm not terrified, I'm frankly embarrassed.
Yeah. And can you believe that a dozen people tried to hijack airplanes with box cutters? Can you believe how stupid that is? Box cutters? What kind of idiot thinks they would be able to pull that off? We shouldn't even bother trying to prevent terrorism because those terrorists are so incapable.
-
So in the past few days, there have been 3 attempted 'terror strikes' in the UK. Two failed carbombs and one distinctly ineffectual flaming car driven at Glasgow airport. Note that the UK Government refers to these as 'foiled attacks' rather than 'failed attacks'. The vowel change is apparently significant, even though security services intervention had nothing to do with the fact that the devices didn't explode. The two carbombs were abject failures, namely down to their inability to fulfill their raison d'etre as a bomb, that being to explode. One of the cars wasn't even anywhere near its intended target - it was parked illegally, so had been towed to an impound. The car on fire left just one person injured - the driver of the vehicle who, on attempting to fuel the blaze with a can of petrol, managed to set his own trousers on fire. The whole thing wouldn't have looked out of place with Benny Hill music playing in the background. In the 80s, the IRA were carrying out a reign of terror marked by carbombs set off with devastating regularity. In the 00s, it seems we are under seige from a battalion of completely retarded incompetents. How many complete failures to make working explosive devices have we had now? If the IRA could do it every single time, how hard can it be, exactly? Without wishing any offence to those who have had friends or family injured or killed in terrorist attacks, is the reaction of government really proportional to the risk to the public that is demonstrated by these failures to kill? Terrorism? I'm not terrified, I'm frankly embarrassed.
So you would prefer that they had been successful? You have som unexplained need to be proud of your terrorists? As far as I can tell from the reports, the cars failed to explode because they were discovered before they were due... And as for Glascow, well it looks like it did a fair piece of work on the airport terminal... And you should be embarrassed, but for your post, not your good luck.
-
Craster wrote:
Exactly. Therefore, the correct way to render such an attack impotent is to point and laugh at the incompetance. Hysterical reporting and filling the streets with armed police play right into the hands of those aiming to cause terror.
Yeah, the 9/11, Madrid and London bombings were fucking hilarious, huh? What a riot.
As I stated in my original message, I was not referring to successful terrorist attacks. Those have happened, and were terrible. However, to respond to the failed attacks of amateurs in the same way is in itself a form of terrorism perpetrated by our own media and government.
-
Corinna John wrote:
, but I can see our rights go to hell.
Oh yeah, you're really being oppressed. Poor, poor oppressed you. Just look at how repressive your life has become. You have food to eat, a roof over your head, medical care, heating in the winter, a car to drive, the ability and freedom to criticise your government and it's policies, the ability to speak your mind without fear of retribution, the ability to come and go as you please, you enjoy relative peace and security...oh wait... Gee, I'm sorry, which rights did you lose, exactly? And yeah, the Madrid, London and 9/11 bombings were quite the shows. Did you have popcorn while you watched them? What's it like enjoying nice popcorn and while people die in a subway tunnel explosion? Bet you had a nice evening on those days, right? -- modified at 8:24 Monday 2nd July, 2007 Awesome! I got a '1 vote'! Somebody apparently feels that their government is actually oppressing them! So, vote 1 and tell me what rights you've lost! And by simultaneously voting '1', you've also implied that you thought the Madrid, London and 9/11 attacks WERE indeed good things. Nice person you are!
73Zeppelin wrote:
Awesome! I got a '1 vote'! Somebody apparently feels that their government is actually oppressing them! So, vote 1 and tell me what rights you've lost!
I'm still king of the 1-votes. Bow before your master.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Not on the mainland it isn't.
The UK includes Northern Ireland, and to exclude attacks in NI made by a paramilitary group based in NI is a ridiculous skewing of the numbers.
No it isn't. At its height the conflict in NI was a counter insurgency campaign involving a three way fight between loyalists, the Ira and our army, a totally different situation to the mainland. It will hopefully be a fair few years before Bradford is comparable to Belfast in the 70's.
-
So you would prefer that they had been successful? You have som unexplained need to be proud of your terrorists? As far as I can tell from the reports, the cars failed to explode because they were discovered before they were due... And as for Glascow, well it looks like it did a fair piece of work on the airport terminal... And you should be embarrassed, but for your post, not your good luck.
Rob Graham wrote:
So you would prefer that they had been successful?
No. I would prefer that the scale of response was in some way related to the scale of the threat. We are spending vast sums of money on prevention of terror attacks that are repeatedly failing to materialise. Compare the amount of deaths and injury due to terrorism with the amount of deaths and injury due to dangerous driving, or gang warfare. Then compare the amount of time and money that is being spent on attempting to resolve these issues.
-
As I stated in my original message, I was not referring to successful terrorist attacks. Those have happened, and were terrible. However, to respond to the failed attacks of amateurs in the same way is in itself a form of terrorism perpetrated by our own media and government.
Craster wrote:
As I stated in my original message, I was not referring to successful terrorist attacks. Those have happened, and were terrible.
Yeah, because certainly unsuccessful attacks didn't have the potential to be successful attacks. Yeah, I'm really laughing here about crazed fundamentalists trying to take innocent life and destroy our way of life at whatever chance they can. Ha. Ha. Ha. That's soooo funny.
Craster wrote:
However, to respond to the failed attacks of amateurs in the same way is in itself a form of terrorism perpetrated by our own media and government.
Oh yeah, our Western governments are the evil of all evil. Why, just look at how oppressed we are in the West compared to other nations. I simply have no rights at all. It's terrible living like this. I think I'll move to Ethiopia, or perhaps North Korea. They've got it made in those places.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Dummy bomb, non-working bomb, or real active bomb. Does it matter? What is the different? The basis of terror is just that - TERROR
Exactly. Therefore, the correct way to render such an attack impotent is to point and laugh at the incompetance. Hysterical reporting and filling the streets with armed police play right into the hands of those aiming to cause terror.
Craster, doing what you say is plain wrong. You must always treat with utmost respect the intention of terrorists. Thus armed police etc are necessary. You make it sound like one great big comical theatrical performance. I have news for you, it ain't! It is real. Real to the extent that it could very easily cost somebody their life - possibly yours!
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Awesome! I got a '1 vote'! Somebody apparently feels that their government is actually oppressing them! So, vote 1 and tell me what rights you've lost!
I'm still king of the 1-votes. Bow before your master.
Red Stateler wrote:
I'm still king of the 1-votes. Bow before your master.
I know. You rule the 1 vote demographic. I really can't say more as there's a government mule here telling me to stop speaking my mind. Damned repression...
-
No it isn't. At its height the conflict in NI was a counter insurgency campaign involving a three way fight between loyalists, the Ira and our army, a totally different situation to the mainland. It will hopefully be a fair few years before Bradford is comparable to Belfast in the 70's.
I'm sorry - the IRA attacks were concentrated in NI because that was where the issue was, and that's where the bombers were. When contrasting two sets of terrorists, to ignore the place in the UK where the majority of the bombs were set off under one of those groups totally misrepresents the situation. Unless you just plain don't care about the Irish, of course.
-
Craster, doing what you say is plain wrong. You must always treat with utmost respect the intention of terrorists. Thus armed police etc are necessary. You make it sound like one great big comical theatrical performance. I have news for you, it ain't! It is real. Real to the extent that it could very easily cost somebody their life - possibly yours!
Richard, you're trying to use reason on the unreasonable again... :doh:
-
Craster wrote:
As I stated in my original message, I was not referring to successful terrorist attacks. Those have happened, and were terrible.
Yeah, because certainly unsuccessful attacks didn't have the potential to be successful attacks. Yeah, I'm really laughing here about crazed fundamentalists trying to take innocent life and destroy our way of life at whatever chance they can. Ha. Ha. Ha. That's soooo funny.
Craster wrote:
However, to respond to the failed attacks of amateurs in the same way is in itself a form of terrorism perpetrated by our own media and government.
Oh yeah, our Western governments are the evil of all evil. Why, just look at how oppressed we are in the West compared to other nations. I simply have no rights at all. It's terrible living like this. I think I'll move to Ethiopia, or perhaps North Korea. They've got it made in those places.
Stop trying to be sarcastic, and listen to the point. Of course the unsuccessful attacks have the potential to be successful attacks. However, had those attacks been successful, they would have caused widespread terror and panic. What I am saying is that the same effect is being achieved by the over-hysterical reporting of the incidents. People aren't afraid of leaving their homes because of the failed carbombs, they're afraid of leaving their homes because the media and the home office are telling them they should be afraid.
-
So in the past few days, there have been 3 attempted 'terror strikes' in the UK. Two failed carbombs and one distinctly ineffectual flaming car driven at Glasgow airport. Note that the UK Government refers to these as 'foiled attacks' rather than 'failed attacks'. The vowel change is apparently significant, even though security services intervention had nothing to do with the fact that the devices didn't explode. The two carbombs were abject failures, namely down to their inability to fulfill their raison d'etre as a bomb, that being to explode. One of the cars wasn't even anywhere near its intended target - it was parked illegally, so had been towed to an impound. The car on fire left just one person injured - the driver of the vehicle who, on attempting to fuel the blaze with a can of petrol, managed to set his own trousers on fire. The whole thing wouldn't have looked out of place with Benny Hill music playing in the background. In the 80s, the IRA were carrying out a reign of terror marked by carbombs set off with devastating regularity. In the 00s, it seems we are under seige from a battalion of completely retarded incompetents. How many complete failures to make working explosive devices have we had now? If the IRA could do it every single time, how hard can it be, exactly? Without wishing any offence to those who have had friends or family injured or killed in terrorist attacks, is the reaction of government really proportional to the risk to the public that is demonstrated by these failures to kill? Terrorism? I'm not terrified, I'm frankly embarrassed.
One reason that the IRA were so effective is that so many of them were well trained British agents. Since then the security services have outsourced much of the work to foreign an immigrant cheap labour. The quality of the patsies and the 'fundamantalists' has consequently gone down a lot and has now reached the point where it is as you say embarrassing. It all seems to have started to go wrong when Abu Hamza got his hands cut off while working for the British in Afghanistan and of course when they killed off all the generals who had been in charge of the Northern Ireland mess in that helicopter crash they effectively wrote off most of their best G14 terrorists along with them. Our best hope is to clearly demonstrate that fear doesn't work anymore and we are not fooled. Unfortunately before they get the message they're probably going to kill a lot more people. It's time to stand strong and stay together because the victory over state sponsored terror is in sight.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
One reason that the IRA were so effective is that so many of them were well trained British agents. Since then the security services have outsourced much of the work to foreign an immigrant cheap labour. The quality of the patsies and the 'fundamantalists' has consequently gone down a lot and has now reached the point where it is as you say embarrassing. It all seems to have started to go wrong when Abu Hamza got his hands cut off while working for the British in Afghanistan and of course when they killed off all the generals who had been in charge of the Northern Ireland mess in that helicopter crash they effectively wrote off most of their best G14 terrorists along with them. Our best hope is to clearly demonstrate that fear doesn't work anymore and we are not fooled. Unfortunately before they get the message they're probably going to kill a lot more people. It's time to stand strong and stay together because the victory over state sponsored terror is in sight.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
I'm sorry - the IRA attacks were concentrated in NI because that was where the issue was, and that's where the bombers were. When contrasting two sets of terrorists, to ignore the place in the UK where the majority of the bombs were set off under one of those groups totally misrepresents the situation. Unless you just plain don't care about the Irish, of course.
Craster wrote:
Unless you just plain don't care about the Irish, of course.
You are deliberately ignoring my point and adding an ad hominem? Sweet. It is not simply a question of geography, there were at least 2 opposing groups of terrorists fighting each other in NI. If the BNP starts bombing mosques and the Paras shoot a crowd of Hizb Tarir supporters in Birmingham, get back to me.
-
Richard, you're trying to use reason on the unreasonable again... :doh:
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Our best hope is to clearly demonstrate that fear doesn't work anymore and we are not fooled.
Exactly the point I'm trying to make.
You should ask Matthew if you could borrow one of his foil hats. They help to deflect the government's fear rays.
-
Richard, you're trying to use reason on the unreasonable again... :doh:
-
Stop trying to be sarcastic, and listen to the point. Of course the unsuccessful attacks have the potential to be successful attacks. However, had those attacks been successful, they would have caused widespread terror and panic. What I am saying is that the same effect is being achieved by the over-hysterical reporting of the incidents. People aren't afraid of leaving their homes because of the failed carbombs, they're afraid of leaving their homes because the media and the home office are telling them they should be afraid.