London 'Terror Attacks'
-
Red Stateler wrote:
leftist traits
Next time you find yourself enjoying your weekend, find out why weekends came about.
Red Stateler wrote:
3. War: Rather than stand up for your country, we should allow others to dictate our politics.
But you start the wars! Have a listen to "Cops of the World" Paul Ochse (I think) from the early 60s, he puts it rather well and he's one of yours to boot.
Red Stateler wrote:
They don't view themselves as men...But instruments of the collective society. But that's just a guess. I really don't get it.
Instruments no, definitely members of a collective society; but as you've said you really don't get it.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Next time you find yourself enjoying your weekend, find out why weekends came about.
In America they exist because private companies allow them to. America isn't so pathetic that we need the government to regulate such trivialities.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
But you start the wars! Have a listen to "Cops of the World" Paul Ochse (I think) from the early 60s, he puts it rather well and he's one of yours to boot.
Hmmmmm...If I recall, Islamic fundamentalists did on 9/11. But your apologetic self-destructionism won't allow you to admit that. Somehow it has to be our fault. You'll twist and turn every fact and lie to yourself as much possible to come to that conclusion.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Instruments no, definitely members of a collective society; but as you've said you really don't get it.
I said I don't understand the reasons...As in the psychology behind them. Collectivism certainly does view individuals as instruments of the state. There's no denying that. I'm just not sure if your self-destructive attitude is derived from that fact.
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
The problem is with fundamentalism; be it Christian or Islamic.
Yeah, those Christian fundies. Man, when they bombed that.... oh, hmmm. I mean, when they killed all those...uh, hmmm, Uh, yeah all those Christians who want to institute their will and laws... oh, wait.. Gee, maybe you can remind me of the last act of terrorism by Christians? I can't seem to remember it...
AndyKEnZ wrote:
"Confessions of an Economic Hitman"
:laugh::laugh::laugh: Perkins is a turd. He expects me to believe that he took a 500,000 dollar "bribe" to not publish a book that could have made him a millionaire multiple times over IF IT WERE TRUE? Of course he took the bribe - because all that he writes is a FABRICATION. I know it's false because I'm in the industry and I know better than to believe the slop he's offering. What you (and that Matt Faithfull guy) don't seem to understand is that conspiracy stories are just that - conspiracy STORIES. They're all like designed with an agenda. Take Perkins - he makes a lot of money, but nothing ever comes of his allegations. Why? Because they're not true...where are the investigative committees? The judicial hearings? The international outcry? Not there. All lies... I'm surprised at how gullible you are.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
you might just see why there is anger against your rule.
I didn't know I was in charge! Last I checked (and I'm not even American) I wasn't being ruled by any Americans... I really don't get this communist, Islamic fundamentalist apologetics agenda you're pushing here...if you think it's so great and the West is so evil, why don't you move to Iran/North Korea/Venezuela/China, etc... and write a book extolling the great and wonderful virtues of these societies and cultures so that we all may be enlightened! Do it man! Do it! Make great things happen! Viva la revolucion! -- modified at 10:40 Monday 2nd July, 2007
73Zeppelin wrote:
Perkins is a turd.
So he never was an economic hitman then? Sounds like he knows a fair bit about the game. I doubt whether he's made 500k from his book, but he has got his message across which was probably more important to him personally.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Take Perkins - he makes a lot of money, but nothing ever comes of his allegations. Why?
i doubt whther he's made a lot of money with this book and also because in the world of corporate press he and his book do not exist, I'm surprised you've heard of him at all and would appreciate any constructive factual criticism of his book.
73Zeppelin wrote:
is that conspiracy stories are just that - conspiracy STORIES.
Shall we start a DUMB thread? Deep Underground Military Bases? Or is that conspiracy theory too? Come on dood the toppling of Allende in Chile by the CIA was labelled a conspiracy theory in the day, now you can read all about on the CIA website!
73Zeppelin wrote:
I really don't get this communist, Islamic fundamentalist apologetics agenda you're pushing here...if you think it's so great and the West is so evil, why don't you move to Iran/North Korea/Venezuela/China, etc... and write a book extolling the great and wonderful virtues of these societies and cultures so that we all may be enlightened!
Maybe you're reading too fast and missing things. Try reading and moving your mouth at the same time, you'll look stupid but perhaps it'll stop you attributing opinions that I have not expressed.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I wonder if lets say Switzerland suddenly pulled out of the World Bank and the UN and declared the US a rouge state and an enemy whether you would claim the Swiss were all commies or that they'd all converted to Islam.
Not being commies or Islamic, they wouldn't do that. But if the UN declared the US a rouge state, I'm sure we'd all better start putting rouge on our cheeks before they issued paperwork condemning us. If they considered us a "rogue" state, we'd just sell their headquarters in NYC for a bunch of money and stop funding them. Then we'd put all their ambassadors in prison for ignoring their parking tickets. Then we'd turn our European mind control satellites from the "control" setting to the "cook" setting and watch the fun.
-
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.
Craster wrote:
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 siege from a battalion of completely retarded incompetents.
Todays MI5 agents need to learn a lot. Too much knowhow has been lost in the last 20 years. And now young, inexperienced secret servicers are sent out to provide reasons to the neoliberals/neocons reigning caste to take away our civil rights. They are only able to set their trousers on fire. No one would ever believe there is something like a Al-Quaida attack going on. Fanatics have their pride, as you won't get 17 virgins just for dying from burning trousers. Thank you for listening to my conspiration theory.
Failure is not an option - it's built right in.
-
Craster wrote:
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 siege from a battalion of completely retarded incompetents.
Todays MI5 agents need to learn a lot. Too much knowhow has been lost in the last 20 years. And now young, inexperienced secret servicers are sent out to provide reasons to the neoliberals/neocons reigning caste to take away our civil rights. They are only able to set their trousers on fire. No one would ever believe there is something like a Al-Quaida attack going on. Fanatics have their pride, as you won't get 17 virgins just for dying from burning trousers. Thank you for listening to my conspiration theory.
Failure is not an option - it's built right in.
-
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.
It could be also a proof that anti-terrorist police actions are efficient enough to block bombing needing some organization.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard :laugh:
Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life.
Seeing to what extend the fanatics (Muslim and Christian) succeeded to turn our liberal western democracies into oppressive dictatorships, I really believe the leaders (like our local minister for domestic affair Mr. Schäuble) pray for more attacks. I the UK, as I have heard, you already can't have a pub license without a camera scanning all customers using face recognition. That is exactly Orwells '1984'.
Failure is not an option - it's built right in.
-
Craster wrote:
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 siege from a battalion of completely retarded incompetents.
Todays MI5 agents need to learn a lot. Too much knowhow has been lost in the last 20 years. And now young, inexperienced secret servicers are sent out to provide reasons to the neoliberals/neocons reigning caste to take away our civil rights. They are only able to set their trousers on fire. No one would ever believe there is something like a Al-Quaida attack going on. Fanatics have their pride, as you won't get 17 virgins just for dying from burning trousers. Thank you for listening to my conspiration theory.
Failure is not an option - it's built right in.
-
I am not convinced that self-destruction and/or self-loathing is the exclusive domain of the left. But in terms of population, this planet can only support so many. You can indeed attempt to eliminate hunger throughout this world but if the population continues, with the effect that cities will ever grow, the countrysides just will not be able to furnish us with our daily dietary needs and hunger followed inevitably by death can only be the result. After all, if there are good quantity of antelopes, cheeters will flourish, but if the rains fail, the antelope will not breed, consequently, the cheeters will die from hunger etc. So shouldn't the same kind-of analogy be applied to us humans? In terms of immigration, I like the (misquoted) premise of "when in Rome..."
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
the countrysides just will not be able to furnish us with our daily dietary needs and hunger followed inevitably by death can only be the result.
With greatest respect, bollocks :) Starvation in the modern world is caused by politics and war, not for want of the ability to grow food. There is a hard population, but it's one hell of a lot higher than our current population figures.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
o shouldn't the same kind-of analogy be applied to us humans?
Not since the invention of agriculture, no.
-
Being not a native speaker, I had to look the words up. By now, you are still entitled to have your own opinion. At least about most themes. Modified from the original: "Being not a native speaker, I take this as meaning "Your theory is completely rubbish!". Correct?"
Failure is not an option - it's built right in.
-
Being not a native speaker, I had to look the words up. By now, you are still entitled to have your own opinion. At least about most themes. Modified from the original: "Being not a native speaker, I take this as meaning "Your theory is completely rubbish!". Correct?"
Failure is not an option - it's built right in.
-
Being not a native speaker, I had to look the words up. By now, you are still entitled to have your own opinion. At least about most themes. Modified from the original: "Being not a native speaker, I take this as meaning "Your theory is completely rubbish!". Correct?"
Failure is not an option - it's built right in.
-
Sure. I have seen all of "Smiley's People"!
Failure is not an option - it's built right in.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
the countrysides just will not be able to furnish us with our daily dietary needs and hunger followed inevitably by death can only be the result.
With greatest respect, bollocks :) Starvation in the modern world is caused by politics and war, not for want of the ability to grow food. There is a hard population, but it's one hell of a lot higher than our current population figures.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
o shouldn't the same kind-of analogy be applied to us humans?
Not since the invention of agriculture, no.
You are partly correct. Politics and war plays an important role. But the land and the oceans can only provide so much of our foodstuffs. There is a cut off point where production is maximised. I don't know how close we are to that point after which, how are all of the people to be fed?
-
You are partly correct. Politics and war plays an important role. But the land and the oceans can only provide so much of our foodstuffs. There is a cut off point where production is maximised. I don't know how close we are to that point after which, how are all of the people to be fed?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
You are partly correct. Politics and war plays an important role. But the land and the oceans can only provide so much of our foodstuffs. There is a cut off point where production is maximised. I don't know how close we are to that point after which, how are all of the people to be fed?
We're nowhere near it. However, we hit a population inflection point about 6 years ago. If population follows a logistic curve, as it usually does, then population will max out at about 12 billion people.
-
Of all the places on earth to try to scare Glasgow has got to be the dumbest. I noticed there was no shortage of passers by who put a boot in. Probably the only reason they put the men out was so they could continue beating ten bells out of them. I guess we're seeing the down side of suicide bombing. It looks like the stock of competant bombers has run a little low. The serious ones must have gone to Afganistan or Iraq. Strangley this was part of the western strategy: If they want to fight better it's on their land. One thing that really bemused me was the use of gas canisters. There is NO WAY that surrounding them with pertrol would cause them to explode. They're built to withstand that. You would have to strap a good amount of explosive to the side of one to get that effect.
Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life.
TClarke wrote:
Of all the places on earth to try to scare Glasgow has got to be the dumbest. I noticed there was no shortage of passers by who put a boot in.
That's very true. You don't want to inconvenience a Glaswegian. On day-to-day basis in a fight between a Glaswegian pedestrian and a double decker bus, it would be the bus that comes off worst.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Mock Objects, SQL Server CLR Integration, Reporting Services, db4o, Dependency Injection with Spring ... "I wouldn't say boo to a goose. I'm not a coward, I just realise that it would be largely pointless." Ready to Give up - Your help will be much appreciated. My website
-
Seeing to what extend the fanatics (Muslim and Christian) succeeded to turn our liberal western democracies into oppressive dictatorships, I really believe the leaders (like our local minister for domestic affair Mr. Schäuble) pray for more attacks. I the UK, as I have heard, you already can't have a pub license without a camera scanning all customers using face recognition. That is exactly Orwells '1984'.
Failure is not an option - it's built right in.
jhwurmbach wrote:
I the UK, as I have heard, you already can't have a pub license without a camera scanning all customers using face recognition
That is utter bollocks. I've been in plenty pubs that don't have CCTV. And the reason is becuase they don't attract binge drinkers who will wreck the place.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Mock Objects, SQL Server CLR Integration, Reporting Services, db4o, Dependency Injection with Spring ... "I wouldn't say boo to a goose. I'm not a coward, I just realise that it would be largely pointless." Ready to Give up - Your help will be much appreciated. My website
-
Don't you think that there might be supporters from within the Airport staff on this attack? Otherwise the car-on-flames might not have crossed that many hurdles/security barriers and reached the place where it collapsed.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage Tech Gossips
In most airports I have been to, you can get dropped off right outside the door.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
AndyKEnZ wrote:
The problem is with fundamentalism; be it Christian or Islamic.
What about atheist fundamentalism[^]?
im not theology expert or anything but arent the mormans basically christian?
-------------------- If modern science was founded by the Catholic Church, why do Christians believe Jesus is magic?
-
im not theology expert or anything but arent the mormans basically christian?
-------------------- If modern science was founded by the Catholic Church, why do Christians believe Jesus is magic?
VonHagNDaz wrote:
im not theology expert or anything but arent the mormans basically christian?
Mark Hoffman was raised a Mormon, but became an atheist as a teenager. He sought to bring down the Mormon Church in the name of atheism by forging church documents and killing a couple people along the way. He was an atheist fundamentalist terrorist.
VonHagNDaz wrote:
If modern science was founded by the Catholic Church, why do Christians believe Jesus is magic?
Is this an actual quote from somebody? Because it's pretty dumb.