If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
The IRA is what you should be shitting your undies over. They're only a hop over the water. Al Queida? Pffft. So tehy made ONE big scale attack against America? The IRA have done more! And the yanks fund the IRA, so be scared of them if anything.
Al Queida is a load of bullshit, tbh.
There is probably a good argument for saying that terrorism is a fact of life in a "civilised" society (like, say road traffic deaths) and all that can be done is reduce it's effects.
Shame no one is making it where it counts.
We are all a people blighted at times by the actions of the few but that benefit by the understanding of many.
in fact, madrid bombings apart (bearing in mind ETA is hardly new), there haven't been any major terrorist incidents in 4 years? that's quite a long time...........and that's inspite of the u.s. pissing off the middle east, i for one am amazed.........but i do expect one to happen fairly soon, possibly in the u.k.............just to keep up appearances, call me cynical............exactly what is al qaeda doing?........is one terrorist attack enough for us to surrender our civil liberties out of fear? the majority of the population must be fooking dumb, i daresay the ira posed a greater threat in their day, but we carried on living our life..........what's changed? i'm not scared of some arabs with boxcutters hiding in caves, i'm more worried about all these bills passing right under our noses.
Whilst serverly pissing off NOT ONLY the middle east, but the rest of the world.
Russia and us here in the UK have learnt, by living next to terrorist homelands, (Ireland and Checnya), that going in with brute force does little to solve it. It takes more than that.
The US will pay for its inability to learn from others mistakes. It nothing but their own fault... the very nature of Terrorism is that this tactic cannot stop it. It is NOT a centralised network you can attack. It is invisible.
Except that they've admitted responsibility for the attacks. That's what you really meant to say, right?
Are you saying ETA carried out the madrid train bombings?
they seem to be winning quite comfortably in that respect
not necessarily, although I have my doubts that al qaeda were responsible, it hasn't been proven.........my point is spain have had their own terrorist problems in the past, so whats changed, why is everyone in a panic now?........
The Islamic terrorists are different - there aim is to kill as many people as possible. And the trouble with them is unlike the IRA or ETA the various groups we place together under the title Al-Qadea don't neccessarily have the same political aims and objectives. The European Country probably most at risk is France who suffered several terrorist attacks in the 90's due to their support for the military junta in Algeria against the Islamic militants.
1) In a democratic country what is the minimum level at which 'government' would need to be in on the conspiracy?
2) What would be the repercussions of being caught out (given the fact that government is normally known for its incompetence rather than competence)?
3) Is this really the most likely explanation?
I was on nights when the twin towers were destroyed, so i woke up and watched the whole thing unfold like a bad movie. We went from "towers have been attacked" to it was "Al- Quaeda" in a day.
What proof? Where and when have "they" admitted responsibility? As far as I know we had one grainy homevideo with no date and a voiceover from the whitehouse.
Good points, GoS. While I can see where you are coming from, whether the "government" created the attacks or not, they are definitely being used to usher in a new wave of anti-civil liberties legislation.
1) Democratic country?
2) Governments are very very good at killing things. They tend to be incompetent at doing things to look after people. I have stated elsewhere on the forum I think that's on purpose so they can carry on existing. If you don't get caught, nothing happens.
3) It doesn't sound likely that you can find 19 men willing to commit suicide at the same time. Or that a group of men with no passenger jet experience can steer them so accurately. The whole damn thing is unlikely whichever way you look at it.
Yes...and this is an important point because Tony Blair will eventually lose his position as leader and become one of us again. What then prevents him from being the victim of whatever draconian powers lurk in the shadows?
I actually view it as rather a spoilt position to suggest we don't live in a democracy (however flawed) unless you've spent some time living in a proper totalitarian regime. Saudi Arabia is a real eye-opener.
They may be good at killing things, but how good are they at covering them up? If the Iraq debacle is anything to go by, not very.
To you maybe. But I'm presuming you have no experience as a religious fanatic? There have been instances of far greater mass suicides for far stranger reasons (remember that UFO cult where they thought that committing suicide as a certain comet passed the Earth, would get them aboard an alien spaceship?).
Steering a passenger jet is fairly easy in fact and as a number of people have pointed out, practice on a domestic flight-simulator would be enough to allow you to achieve a reasonable level of competence.
As I understand it the difficult bits (and why we pay airline pilots a lot of money) are taking off and landing and what you do if something goes wrong. Given modern navigational aids flying an aircraft in the direction you want it to go is pretty simple.
Well, yeah. How does that make us a democracy exactly? Choosing which hand slaps you once every five years puts limits on what they will do, but it's not an actual democracy. We have elected dictatorship at the moment which does limit the dictator for the reason you say.
"They may be good at killing things, but how good are they at covering them up? If the Iraq debacle is anything to go by, not very."
Tell that to David Kelly.
"To you maybe. But I'm presuming you have no experience as a religious fanatic? "
Not really, unless you count the cult called "government". Lots of people keep telling me they have seen things that aren't there, as an example, or that yellow lines "mean" something.
I got the jet thing wrong though, I assumed it would be harder than a quick google tells me it is. The whole thing is still damn unlikely whichever view you take of it.
Still no proof from "Al - Quaeda" though, I notice.
Yes. Explaining why is a little like explaining that the sky is blue. I can keep pointing at it but if you don't want to know then I can't convince you. Just try living in Saudi (or perhaps North Korea...never been there though).
No. What you have described is democracy. It is commonly misunderstood to mean that we vote for what we want but that is impractical because different people want different things. Instead we vote for the people who we think will do the best job for us (in theory) and who have views which mostly coincide with our own.
Why? Are you making the assumption that he was killed? Using the speculation that he was killed as evidence that governments cover things up isn't a very strong argument.
I'll take that as a 'no' as we've done your problems with abstract ideas, to death.
I realise you haven't covered my point about precedent for mass suicide and you've conceded that flying a plane is pretty simple and yet still you consider it unlikely?
That wasn't my contention. I was under the impression that it was Ansar Al-Islam that had claimed responsiblity. They are one of the loosely affiliated organisations that the US put under the umbrella term 'Al-Qaeda' (which btw is the common spelling - useful if you're going to Google for them).
Democracy is one man one vote on any given issue. "Elected dictatorship" isn't my term it's what I was taught doing "Politics" in uni all those years ago and is what currently operates. It's commonly misrepresented by those elected dictators.
I am making the assumption that David Kelly made known his reservations publicly and when his bosses didn't like it forced him before a committee to give the "right" story. Whether the Dr. with enough knowledge of deadly chemicals to kill half the globe would top himself using aspirin and a knife I have no idea.
It was said at the time that the governments liason with the media and top weapons inspector to unfriendly regimes was a shy and private man who loathed confrontation and would obviously be mentally unblalanced after the worst was over and his life could get back to normal. It's merely convenient that he is no longer around for some people. Lucky them.
Lol.
There is plenty of precedent for mass suicide, but mass suicide+homicide is pretty rare. Equally, there are many examples of governments doing this sort of thing in the past. My point is that either explanation is full of holes, and theres no proof for either, either.
Things like shooting Arch dukes, marching troops with false uniforms into your own country and so on are all in a days work. The british government is known to have hired republican terrorists in the past for example, and the US regularly sponsors terror against south american states it doesn't like much.
Most of the cold war was spent fighting wars by proxy in far away lands. It's not like either side is incapable.
Oh, and while you have got sick of "my problem with abstraction" you have never really answered any of the points I raised about it. I see that you admit that a country is an "abstraction".
When you say known could you provide some evidence for this (by Republican I'm assuming you mean Irish Republican). Or are you getting the word 'known' muddled up with the words 'I suspect' or 'I think' or 'a friend down the pub told me'
Rather impractical don't you think? We'd have to stop and take a vote every time anybody wanted anything...
Not really. It gives people like you a stick to beat them with.
That's because there would be little point in mass suicide using practically any other means. Mass suicide bombing, for example, would be pretty futile if the first bomb blew all of his comrades away.
There might be proof to support both sides, but there's definitely not 'no proof for either'.
None of which is really comparable with 9/11. The Archduke was killed by a grenade thrown by a Serbian student. The second example was perpetrated by a proper dictator...he also had a lot of people killed I seem to remember (are you suggesting that would be possible under our form of government?). The last example was considered justified means by much of the public...I rather doubt many would see 9/11 that way. The penultimate example rings no bells with me.
Far away lands being the operative word. People have a much greater tolerance for that kind of thing.
Never said I was sick of it. I said it was done to death...as in we have paradigmatically opposed views and no amount of argument will change that. A country is, in many ways, an abstraction, but even abstractions have existence.
Yep, but you are wrong about calling us a democracy, which was what I was addressing.
A stick to beat them with? Better than jail, mate. And most foks would put me in the "nutter" category just for suggesting it, so that's no problem.
So, you can't roll seperate trucks in seperate locations at the same time? Bunnies!
The same ruse was used by the British in Queen Vics day - look up "Jubilee plot" on google.
Being justified by much of the public doesn't stop it being terrorism, any more than capital punishment isn't murder. Mnay of the people over in the Arab world might have approved of 9/11, does that make it ok?
"A country is, in many ways, an abstraction, but even abstractions have existence."
Yeah, but abstractions aren't facts. Courts are supposed to use them to make their judgements.
I don't think so. The definition of democracy (according to Websters, via dictionary.com) is: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"...the latter part being relevant to this discussion from my point of view, the former from yours.
For suggesting that it's the most likely explanation based on little evidence, I imagine they would.
Nope. Still can't make any sense out of that.
That seems to be based on a single book. Even if true we're still not in anything like a 9/11 scale. At worst getting found out would result in a few ministers getting the boot.
Capital punishment, by definition, isn't 'murder'. Murder is 'unlawful killing' whereas capital punishment, however immoral, is definitely lawful.
In this context, it makes it okay for them but not for us. There are no absolutes in this kind of thing imho. I was more talking about what governments can justify to their people anyway.
Why aren't abstractions facts? Numbers are abstractions. As are laws I suppose.
There are different degrees of freedom around the world and whilst many countries governments still invest in torture and breaches of the human rights act (which we don't... of course
The fact is we don't live in Saudi Arabia, we live here and we're experiencing what is going on in our own environment day in, day out. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion about it, wanting to make changes.
As for the original point of terrorism. I am not scared, my friends are not scared and one day my children will go to school alongside Muslims and hopefully not be afraid of them for the way in which the media demonises them.
Still, horror stories sell don't they.
I agree with everything you've said, but you misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that it's wrong for the guy with the dodgy knee to look at the paraplegic and say, "we're in the same boat, mate"...which appears to be what some people are trying to do.
Numbers aren't facts and neither are laws. They are, or can be, useful fictions. No two things can ever be more than vaguely similar.
The act of killing another human has the verb murder attached to it. If you imagine, just for a moment, that the men and women of "government" are just a group of men and women like any other then "lawfully sanctioned" means bugger all. Murder is murder.
It's impossible to hold power "indirectly" in exactly the same way as you can't hold a glass of water "indirectly". You are either free to manage your own affairs or you aren't.
Oh and while Webster's might be considered an authority on words etc, it's still only the opinion of those people.
i think you get too wound up on philosophy...like what makes something true...yes you could probably wirte a 10,000 word thesis but you'd still get nowhere near where you want to be...the truth is
Well that's the thing, IRA/ETA's goals are clear..........whereas all we are told about al qaeda is that some fanatical muslims are on a 'jihad against the west'...........sounds like a pretty vague and unattainable goal, you'd think they'd be causing chaos left right and centre, you dont need to be crashing planes into buildings everyday, look at the palestinian suicide bombers in israel..........if al qaeda were really serious don't you think we would all know about it by now?.............if there was some massive threat worth surrendering all our civil liberties then am i missing something?............where are all the terrorists? and don't say the increased security has prevented anymore attacks, cos that's completely absurd.........i was travelling round london on the trains all day today, its quite obvious to see if anyone wanted to do some damage it would be ever so easy..........are they biding their time? for what?......