You can live in fear of your own shadow of you wish. The only illogical, unsupported opinion here belongs to you.
Terrorist Attack in Copenhagen, Denmark
- Thread starter StriderX
- Start date
You can live in fear of your own shadow of you wish. The only illogical, unsupported opinion here belongs to you.
Quite. It was shown that in the United States in 2013, you were more likely to be shot and killed by a toddler than die in an Islamist terrorist action...and this was the year of the Boston bombing.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
The chief of MI5 has already said they have disrupted 34 plots since 7/7 and a few aimed at mass casualties which would have been bigger than 7/7. I was up close to the airport when the attack happened in Glasgow 2007 and it didn't feel like some far flung destination on the news then. Go to an airport through security checks and they aren't worried of the JDL blowing the plane up.
You're being disingenuous for reasons unknown, but it doesn't change anything.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,589
- Location
- Bucks
Religion has been the driving force behind killing people since we as humans started walking the earth. This is just the new more media facing version of it. Well to the west that is, theres **** going down in Africa that is makes ISIS look like a bunch of amateurs.
People should stop getting so worked up about it, killing in the name of religion is never going to go away. We can only try and prevent it as best as possible.
People should stop getting so worked up about it, killing in the name of religion is never going to go away. We can only try and prevent it as best as possible.
I was in London when the IRA bombed Several places in the 90s and 00s. No one is disputing vigilance against terrorism or violence of any kind. Also airport security is not on,y there to combat the threat of terrorism, it is mainly used to combat international crime, illegal immigration and drug smuggling which accounts for the majority of instances of action at airports and border terminals.
I think it's the other way around...but your reasons are transparent. And, no it doesn't change anything, the data and statistics shown prove that.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
The security services are doing their job to stop people being attacked. You saying don't worry about it and pointing to a stat is fine for you as you aren't part of the apparatus trying to stop it. You can't have it both ways saying don't worry when the only reason there aren't more is because we have people worrying about it and screening and other precautions.
As I said, disingenuous.
I was, for 18 years a part of that apparatus in fact. Also those stats come from the very law enforcement agencies who are doing the job.
You are repeating yourself, and it makes no more sense than the other times you've said it, I'm not sure you really know what the word means.
Last edited:
This is a good read about why you can't always believe the various claims about attacks averted by the actions of security agencies where they can't provide any evidence about it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/3662a707-0af9-3149-963f-47bea720b460
Don't put too much thought into it because Adam Curtis is slightly crazy, but it makes some good points.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/3662a707-0af9-3149-963f-47bea720b460
Don't put too much thought into it because Adam Curtis is slightly crazy, but it makes some good points.
I love how this kind of stuff is being written like it's a sudden revelation. People think the CIA, for example, are super powerful, with unlimited resources to do what they want and know what they want about whoever they want in the world. Reality check, they don't. If anyone believes our security services can do anything more than meander through the chaos that is our world then they're in for a shock. It's chaos theory and it applies to everything, particularly our governments, our medical advisors, our political experts. Everyone is fudging it all together to make it work, there is no all powerful illuminati meeting up in secret back rooms pulling strings to run the world.
The Chief of MI5 wants more money for his department, and more power to do what he wants. To quote the late Mandy Rice-Davies: "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he." The trouble is, no-one else outside the group wanting to increase government powers gets to see the data. What sort of plot? Had they actually bought the ingredients for a bomb, or were they just boasting that they had a copy of The Anarchists Cookbook? (Hey, MI5, I've read that book. This must be a plot you can disrupt.) Worked out the best times to start shooting, or just told a mate that your friend Mohammed could totally get a gun if he tried? I'll bet money that every last chat about a vaguely terroristy subject becomes a "plot" so that it can be "foiled" in he weekly report he gives to the Cabinet. Just before he asks for a bigger server farm for all that metadata.
Perhaps MI5 are using the same tactics as the US.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ents-directly-involved-us-terror-plots-report
"In one such incident, the initial basis for a material-support case alleging a man provided "military gear" to al-Qaida turned out to be waterproof socks in his luggage."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ents-directly-involved-us-terror-plots-report
"In one such incident, the initial basis for a material-support case alleging a man provided "military gear" to al-Qaida turned out to be waterproof socks in his luggage."
I, fortunately, can separate people from their beliefs. I have no issues at all with Muslims. I do have issues with Islam which I've mentioned previously.
For a bit of background to what I'm blabbering on about - my initial work started during the Bangladeshi floods of 2010. In order to help people trapped in isolated villages I designed a number of cheap, easily manufactured food and water purification solutions - Solar Ovens and Solar Stills. They were designed to pack flat so they could easily be transported by air or even air-dropped. They were cheap, obviously to enable charities to supply them. And more importantly low-tech so they could be assembled quickly by anyone. I even gave my designs to a number of charities for them to use to manufacture at their will.
These were also supplied to areas as Pakistan that had been subjected to heavy flooding and then later on to areas of Africa.
I've already mentioned in previous threads about the usefulness of the items - although in Africa they were generally destroyed by the locals or used for other tasks sadly.
I'll have my OBE now please
You have issues with Islam or Islamism? There is a significant and important distinction to be made, particularly as you say you can separate Muslims from their beliefs...as not all Muslims are Islamists, but all Islamists are Muslims, although some Muslims would disagree that Islamism should be associated with Islam at all.
This is the issue in these discussions, people cannot seem to separate extremist and Islamist views from the broader religion, it's akin to saying all Christians are creationists and evangelical conservatives when quite clearly they are not, or saying all Jews are zionists, which again is patently untrue. If we can separate the wheat from the chaff in all these other examples, why do people seem unable to do so whenever the word Muslim is mentioned?
For a bit of background to what I'm blabbering on about - my initial work started during the Bangladeshi floods of 2010. In order to help people trapped in isolated villages I designed a number of cheap, easily manufactured food and water purification solutions - Solar Ovens and Solar Stills. They were designed to pack flat so they could easily be transported by air or even air-dropped. They were cheap, obviously to enable charities to supply them. And more importantly low-tech so they could be assembled quickly by anyone. I even gave my designs to a number of charities for them to use to manufacture at their will.
These were also supplied to areas as Pakistan that had been subjected to heavy flooding and then later on to areas of Africa.
I've already mentioned in previous threads about the usefulness of the items - although in Africa they were generally destroyed by the locals or used for other tasks sadly.
I'll have my OBE now please
Which is commendable, but I don't see how that gives background to your anti-Islam opinions.
Last edited:
I have issues both with Islam and Islamism. My issue is that one all too often leads to the other. In part due to the religious structure (or lack thereof) and methods of interpretation available with the Quran. It is used by many as a tool to justify oppression and hatred. I'd prefer that such tools were not available. Even so called 'moderate' Muslims exhibit oppression between the sexes, they can't not, it's part of their scripture.
Also the background was on the work that I did. Obviously Bangladesh and Pakistan being two Muslim majority countries.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 24,295
- Location
- London
The only good thing I can see to come out of all this is, by dragging other countries in to the equation across the globe (Japan, France, Denmark as opposed to just US and UK) these Fundamentalist terrorists are making more enemies and this might finally mean that taking action will be agreed on by a coalition spanning the globe, rather than just the UK and US.
Fixed that for you.
Unfortunately it's not just religion that causes problems, it's ideology in general; whether that be a Norwegian killing a load of kids because of his hatred of immigration, some nutters shooting people drawing cartoons or a charismatic speaker leading a nation to war.
It seems you are equating commonly held human and societal prejudices to be limited to a specific religion, one which I suspect you don't fully understand.
Religion in general is often used as a tool for oppression and hatred, but then so are other ideologies, including atheism (as an example) and political and social ideologies. We see it in this thread with some posters justifying their hatred of an entire population simply based on the actions of a few, and what they assume to be commonly held beliefs. Islam doesn't lead to Islamism, political and economic radicalism, oppression, disenfranchisement, poor education, historical cultural and tribal hatreds, and any number of other causes lead to extremist ideologies such as Islamism, Zionism, Stalinism, Puritanism and any number of other -isms we can care to mention.
Welcome to the human condition.
It's probably telling that most/all of the terrorist convictions in the last couple of years have been based off physical slip-ups by would be terrorists, whether that be police pulling over a speeder with weapons in the boot, stopping someone that happens to have the address of Tony Blair in their wallet or the GF of the potential perpetrator calling the police after being told what was "going" to happen by the perpetrator themselves.
Unless of course there are lots of secret trials.
An awful lot of cases never get anywhere near a court because of disclosure.