RIP Chris Kyle

diamount said:
What country would be worse off? The guy was a US sniper and was tasked with dealing with insurgents in Afghnistan and Iraq, it had no bearing on the security of the UK. You should be more afraid of getting struck by lightning than the boogeyman terrorists.
Click to expand...

I disagree as obviously one thing leads to another and I guess that missions carried out abroad would have a bearing on what goes on here regarding national security. It must be linked. It's like during the world wars where operations abroad had a direct Bearing on how safe this country remained etc.
 
diamount said:
What country would be worse off? The guy was a US sniper and was tasked with dealing with insurgents in Afghnistan and Iraq, it had no bearing on the security of the UK. You should be more afraid of getting struck by lightning than the boogeyman terrorists.
Click to expand...

He was a Navy SEAL, sent out by the government. Not a free-wheeling maniac like you may be assuming.

As SEAL's are Very high in food chain there must have been Very dangerous targets, who could (had the potential) to affect the US in a serious way.

Watch the butterfly Effect, Or Looper..

koolpc said:
I disagree as obviously one thing leads to another and I guess that missions carried out abroad would have a bearing on what goes on here regarding national security. It must be linked. It's like during the world wars where operations abroad had a direct Bearing on how safe this country remained etc.
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
koolpc said:
I disagree as obviously one thing leads to another and I guess that missions carried out abroad would have a bearing on what goes on here regarding national security. It must be linked. It's like during the world wars where operations abroad had a direct Bearing on how safe this country remained etc.
Click to expand...

Nope, why do you think cells are created? You don't import manpower you recruit citizens of whatever country you plan to attack, same goes for the actual explosive equipment.. it's all homegrown.
Like I said... occupying these countries makes no goddamn difference hwen it comes to preventing terrorist attacks and that has always been a guise for the ignorant.
 
Doomedspeed said:
He was a Navy SEAL, sent out by the government. Not a free-wheeling maniac like you may be assuming.

As SEAL's are Very high in food chain there must have been Very dangerous targets, who could (had the potential) to affect the US in a serious way.

Watch the butterfly Effect, Or Looper..
Click to expand...

They don't use individuals to take out 'very dangerous individuals', as demonstrated they use predator drones and anyone else caught in the blast is collateral damage.
 
diamount said:
What country would be worse off? The guy was a US sniper and was tasked with dealing with insurgents in Afghnistan and Iraq, it had no bearing on the security of the UK. You should be more afraid of getting struck by lightning than the boogeyman terrorists.
Click to expand...
So what happens if Afghanistan/Iraq is left unchecked, things like 9/11 and 7/7 happen.
 
Nitefly said:
Kind of a weird accomplishment to put to your name, but RIP.
Click to expand...

I think it is an American Patriot thing, not something that I would personally want to revel in, but then the Wars and their participants are seen somewhat differently in the US than they are in the UK.
 
diamount said:
They don't use individuals to take out 'very dangerous individuals', as demonstrated they use predator drones and anyone else caught in the blast is collateral damage.
Click to expand...

Ok, we get it that you are opposed to what this chap did and the wars in which he fought, but this isn't the time to kick off about it and neither is it the forum to show how little you understand operational combat. Let it go, you have made you point, that really should enough.
 
Castiel said:
Ok, we get it that you are opposed to what this chap did and the wars in which he fought, but this isn't the time to kick off about it and neither is it the forum to show how little you understand operational combat. Let it go, you have made you point, that really should enough.
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to anything. Just pointing out that fallacies in the 'lol terroists' argument .
 
Funny how we'd had no Islamist terrorism in the UK until AFTER we went to Afghanistan/Iraq then isn't it? 7/7, the second attempt two weeks later, the attempt on Glasgow Airport etc.

The 7/7 bombers even said our invasions were what motivated them to carry out their deadly attack.

If you're going to argue that our boys (as much as I appreciate what they do otherwise) are 'making us safer' by being over there, you have to concede that their presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is what brought us the heat in the first place.
 
estebanrey said:
Funny how we'd had no Islamist terrorism in the UK until AFTER we went to Afghanistan/Iraq then isn't it? 7/7, the second attempt two weeks later, the attempt on Glasgow Airport etc.

The 7/7 bombers even said our invasions were what motivated them to carry out their deadly attack.

If you're going to argue that our boys (as much as I appreciate what they do otherwise) are 'making us safer' by being over there, you have to concede that their presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is what brought us the heat in the first place.
Click to expand...

Only if you ignore the Black September killing of an Israeli diplomat in London in the 1970s, The Iranian Embassy Siege in the 1980s, The killing of the Israeli Ambassador in London in the 1980s, The Pan Am Lockabie incident in the 1980s, the Car Bomb outside the Israeli Embassy and another at a Jewish Charity and another in a Sikh community newspaper in the 1990s, not to mention the arrests of various Islamists prior to our initial involvement in Afghanistan in 2001 such as Moinul Abedin. This doesn't consider foreign incidents where British or Europeans are targeted or been involved in terrorist activities.

For the UK at least, it is true that 99% of terrorism in this country (and possibly Europe) is domestic (non-Islamist) but that doesn't detract from the position that Islamic Extremism is a Global issue which unfortunately we cannot hide from. We do not live in a sandbox, and while we have an active foreign policy and foreign interests that are seen to be important to the National Welfare, then we need to ensure, where we can, that our interests are protected. Instability and Rogue Nations being one of those risk factors.
 
Last edited:
There is an irony that he was not killed by a 'terrorist' but, by the looks of it, one of 'his own'. He was not on foreign soil but in his home state.

Such is life.
 
Castiel said:
Only if you ignore the Black September killing of an Israeli diplomat in London in the 1970s, The Iranian Embassy Siege in the 1980s, The killing of the Israeli Ambassador in London in the 1980s, The Pan Am Lockabie incident in the 1980s, the Car Bomb outside the Israeli Embassy and another at a Jewish Charity and another in a Sikh community newspaper in the 1990s, not to mention the arrests of various Islamists prior to our initial involvement in Afghanistan in 2001 such as Moinul Abedin. This doesn't consider foreign incidents where British or Europeans are targeted or been involved in terrorist activities.
Click to expand...

Firstly, assassination attempt on political figure(s) != terrorist attack (at least not in the sense that the public were the target which is the only thing relevant to the claim we're discussing here (that we, the public, are safer due to our soldiers killing people in Afghanistan/Iraq).

Lockabie was an attack on American citizens which just so happened to affect people in Scotland because of the timing of the explosion and was a State sponsored attack which we did nothing about (in fact we got cosier with Gadaffi if anything).

None of the events you mention are Al-Qaeda linked, so sorry, the fact remains that until we invaded Afghanistan we were free from Al-Qaeda 'martyrs' willing to blow themselves up in an effort to take out British citizens.
 
estebanrey said:
Firstly, assassination attempt on political figure(s) != terrorist attack (at least not in the sense that the public were the target which is the only thing relevant to the claim we're discussing here (that we, the public, are safer due to our soldiers killing people in Afghanistan/Iraq).

Lockabie was an attack on American citizens which just so happened to affect people in Scotland because of the timing of the explosion and was a State sponsored attack which we did nothing about (in fact we got cosier with Gadaffi if anything).

None of the events you mention are Al-Qaeda linked, so sorry, the fact remains that until we invaded Afghanistan we were free from Al-Qaeda 'martyrs' willing to blow themselves up in an effort to take out British citizens.
Click to expand...

Al Qaeda are not the only Islamist faction in operation. You stated there was no Islamist Terrorism in the UK until after we interceded in Afghanistan/Iraq, this is not true. Islamist terrorist activities were instigated prior to our involvement in Afghanistan and the subsequent Iraq operation. As for poltical assassination, you made no such distinction and political assassinaton can be categorised as one form of terrorism, (the IRA for example carried out various poltical assassination and they were all categorised as Terrorist activity) in any case some of those events were aimed at public offices such as the Sikh Newspaper offices and the Jewish Charity offices. The Lockabie Bombing involved the death of 31 British Passengers so to dismiss their deaths is somewhat ill judged as well.

The simple fact is that Islamist Terrorism has been around since at least the 1970s and the UK has been subject to it during that time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom