Bombs on planes?

BillieTheBot

So it seems we've had near miss, more people arrested and a plot foiled. I'm certainly happy I'm not planning to fly today.

I'm sure Clan will say its Mossad or similar.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778575.stm

Former Member

Oh dear, that's scary stuff - glad I'm not flying today either.

My parents have two flights today though, they're going to be gutted and probably fill their knickers too :nervous:

Former Member

Im glad this didnt happen when I went on holiday a couple of months ago.

Im just a little suspicious of all the fuss made of it and for 24 or 48 hours there going to be very closly checking everybody, after that of course there isnt a risk.
I just hope its not another cock up, or gross exageration.

Former Member

I bet it was going to happen tomorrow. Being the 11th day of the month and that

[/tinfoil hat].

Former Member

*Patiently awaits the blame being placed upon Blair and Israel.*

Littlejohn couldn't have put it better last week when he wrote that

Every time something goes off in Iraq we're told it will radicalise young Muslims back in Britain. We hear that Tony Blair's failure to call for an immediate halt to the Israeli offensive has put us at imminent risk of another Islamist homicide attack on our streets.

Despite the Hezbollah war on Israel and the mounting casualties -- and the widespread condemnation of Israel in this country -- I've yet to hear anyone warn that young British Jews are queueing to blow up themselves and hundreds of others at Brent Cross shopping centre.

9/11 happened before Iraq, terrorists don't need excuses; they need to be defeated. This is yet another reminder of how violent and warped fundamentalist Islam is.

Former Member

why blow yourself up at brent cross when you can join the IDF

Former Member

My mum and dad are flighting today

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

9/11 happened before Iraq, terrorists don't need excuses; they need to be defeated. This is yet another reminder of how violent and warped fundamentalist Islam is.

There isnt a direct link no. But do you really think our actions in the Middle East have no impact at all? MI5 thought that Iraq would increase the terror threat, they said so before we went.

Perhaps, just perhaps if we didnt keep going round the world and pissing loads of people off we'd have a better standing in the world.

Also Dis, it may not be happening now, but there was a definite Jewish terrorist threat in the past. Its not just Islam that can be dangerous.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20060724.shtml

Former Member

Perhaps we might have a better standing - doesn't mean that the world would be a better place. If we suck up to dictators and fundamentalist lunatics it does reduce our chances of being attacked, but someone pays for it.

Like it or not there is a threat out there from radical Islam which is nothing to do with poverty or the UK's action in Iraq* (though both these events have some effect at the margin) and unfortunately there's only a few countries who are willing to stand up and be counted.

*9/11 was conducted by men who were mainly middle class and way before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions.

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

*Patiently awaits the blame being placed upon Blair and Israel.*

Littlejohn couldn't have put it better last week when he wrote that


9/11 happened before Iraq, terrorists don't need excuses; they need to be defeated. This is yet another reminder of how violent and warped fundamentalist Islam is.

As far as I'm concerned (and I suspect a great many millions of others) when the next bomb goes off Tony Blair will be as guilty as the guy who planted the bomb.

Former Member

But in any case nothing better than having it from the horse's mouth is there? If the 7/7 bombers said they were doing it because of Britain's foreign policy in the Middle East I don't think there can be much doubt as to why they're doing it.

If this plot is real (and it appears to be), anyone who thinks there is no relation between Britain's continuing policy on Iraq and Israel and Britain being a target needs their head examined double quick.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

As far as I'm concerned (and I suspect a great many millions of others) when the next bomb goes off Tony Blair will be as guilty as the guy who planted the bomb.

Really? So if the next bomb is by a racist group or a homphobic group you'll be demanding an end to immigration and gay rights? Or if its by an extremist Jewish group we should provide more support to Israel? Or if its by an animal rights group we should stop eating meat and end animal expirements? And you'll blame Tony Blair becase he's done none of these things?

Former Member

i'm flying to america in november and this has got me worried :nervous:

what exactly are terrorists trying to do? what is their point?

Former Member

No, not quite. But when one engages in illegal acts of war and murder and fully supports similar acts perpetrated by other nations that the immense majority of the population is against it, you can expect a few to take drastic action.

I don't condone by any means British Muslims killing innocent people, but I'm not surprised in the least some of them want to go down that route. Why wouldn't they, seeing the appalling double standards towards their people and their persecution by our oh-so-fair-and-just government?

Former Member

NQA wrote:

Perhaps we might have a better standing - doesn't mean that the world would be a better place. If we suck up to dictators and fundamentalist lunatics it does reduce our chances of being attacked, but someone pays for it.

Like it or not there is a threat out there from radical Islam which is nothing to do with poverty or the UK's action in Iraq* (though both these events have some effect at the margin) and unfortunately there's only a few countries who are willing to stand up and be counted.

*9/11 was conducted by men who were mainly middle class and way before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions.

I'm not suggesting we 'suck up to dictators' and even if we did I fail to see what that would have to do with terrorism.

What I am suggesting is that we actually have a moral foreign policy like Labour said we would from the start. If someone is doing something wrong we should say so, and in strong terms.

And yes, of course, 11th September was by largely middle class engineering graduates, much like Bin Laden himself. But thats not how the current crop seem to be, they are generally loosers, poor disenfranchised angry young men. I'm just suggesting we do a little to reduce this level of anger.

Doing something simple like saying sorry for Iraq might be an idea.

Former Member

Ballerina wrote:

what exactly are terrorists trying to do? what is their point?

Like all terrorists they are basically like a 5 year old having a tantrum, we're not doing what they want, so they are going to shout, stamp their feet and kill us till we either all die, or do what they want.

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

I'm not suggesting we 'suck up to dictators' and even if we did I fail to see what that would have to do with terrorism.

What I am suggesting is that we actually have a moral foreign policy like Labour said we would from the start. If someone is doing something wrong we should say so, and in strong terms.

And yes, of course, 11th September was by largely middle class engineering graduates, much like Bin Laden himself. But thats not how the current crop seem to be, they are generally loosers, poor disenfranchised angry young men. I'm just suggesting we do a little to reduce this level of anger.

Doing something simple like saying sorry for Iraq might be an idea.

Quite.

We shouldn't base our foreign policy on what might happen to us. We should do it on what is right and wrong.

But it simply hurts and angers people twice as much that they should be targeted as a result of the completely unnecessary, unsupported and wrong actions of their government.

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

Like all terrorists they are basically like a 5 year old having a tantrum, we're not doing what they want, so they are going to shout, stamp their feet and kill us till we either all die, or do what they want.

yeah i know....but what is it that they don't like?

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Quite.

We shouldn't base our foreign policy on what might happen to us. We should do it on what is right and wrong.

But it simply hurts and angers people twice as much that they should be targeted as a result of the completely unnecessary, unsupported and wrong actions of their government.

Which begs the question, why is the government still in power?
(And because it the less of 2 evils answer doesn't cut it)

Former Member

Ballerina wrote:

yeah i know....but what is it that they don't like?

It changes depending on who you ask, there are a whole host of political reasons, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. etc. where muslims think they are being targeted because they are muslim.

Then of course there is the reason that we are not a very hardline specific sect of Islam like them.

And of course there is the reason that we're all evil.

See? Its all childish rubbish really.

Former Member

My best friend is cabin crew for Virgin Atlantic... she flew back from JFK this morning... she managed to land this morning at 8am but didn't actually get to leave her aircraft until 11am. Scary stuff.

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

It changes depending on who you ask, there are a whole host of political reasons, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. etc. where muslims think they are being targeted because they are muslim.

Then of course there is the reason that we are not a very hardline specific sect of Islam like them.

And of course there is the reason that we're all evil.

See? Its all childish rubbish really.

if they don't like life then why don't they just put themselves on a plane and blow themselves up? Then everyones happy....they get to die and we don't have to pay the price. :rolleyes:

Werent the london bombings because tony blair got re elected?

Former Member

migpilot wrote:

Which begs the question, why is the government still in power?
(And because it the less of 2 evils answer doesn't cut it)

I suppose it's a combination of

- the alternative being even more of a US puppet and warmonger than Blair, and quite shambolic in every other department as a potential government

- the Poodle on his way out of office anyway, and nobody expecting Brown to be nearly as willing a slave of the US as his predecessor

Former Member

Ballerina wrote:

Werent the london bombings because tony blair got re elected?

Doubtful.

Their anger is a mixture of our involvement in the Middle East and the clash of Western/Islamic ideologies.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

Doubtful.

Their anger is a mixture of our involvement in the Middle East and the clash of Western/Islamic ideologies.

i remember hearing something about a statement from al quaeda saying it was the british publics fault because they re-elected blair or some shit like that

Former Member

NQA wrote:

*9/11 was conducted by men who were mainly middle class .

Do you know who conducted 9/11 ?

Could you tell me their names ?

Former Member

Ballerina wrote:

i remember hearing something about a statement from al quaeda saying it was the british publics fault because they re-elected blair or some shit like that

Dunno, the bombers did release a video prior to the bombings but I'm not exactly sure what they said. Myabe they mentioned that in their speech.

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

I'm not suggesting we 'suck up to dictators' and even if we did I fail to see what that would have to do with terrorism.

What I am suggesting is that we actually have a moral foreign policy like Labour said we would from the start. If someone is doing something wrong we should say so, and in strong terms.

And yes, of course, 11th September was by largely middle class engineering graduates, much like Bin Laden himself. But thats not how the current crop seem to be, they are generally loosers, poor disenfranchised angry young men. I'm just suggesting we do a little to reduce this level of anger.

Doing something simple like saying sorry for Iraq might be an idea.

What you mean moral as in tying to stop dictators who allow their sons to torture members of the football team after a poor showing

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1004174,00.html

Or do you mean moral in supporting a country which has suicide bombs in its bars, buses and resturants killing men, women and children

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1688224.stm

Or overthrowing a regime which tortured people who played cars or watched videos (and had supported a major attack killing over 3000 people in the US)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/30/wtal30.xml

To be honest I'm not sure its an ethical foreign policy you want, but appeasement

Former Member

If memory serves they sure as hell mentioned the government's policy on the Middle East as the reasons for their actions, and the British public being a valid target for re-electing Blair.

Expect warmongers and neocons to claim every single attack past, present and future has nothing to do with their policies though :rolleyes:

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

No, not quite. But when one engages in illegal acts of war and murder and fully supports similar acts perpetrated by other nations that the immense majority of the population is against it, you can expect a few to take drastic action.

I don't condone by any means British Muslims killing innocent people, but I'm not surprised in the least some of them want to go down that route. Why wouldn't they, seeing the appalling double standards towards their people and their persecution by our oh-so-fair-and-just government?

No you don't condone, but you blame the Government? It may not be condoning, but its dangerously ambivalent between an elected Government and unelected terrorists.

Former Member

NQA wrote:

What you mean moral as in tying to stop dictators who allow their sons to torture members of the football team after a poor showing

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1004174,00.html

Or do you mean moral in supporting a country which has suicide bombs in its bars, buses and resturants killing men, women and children

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1688224.stm

Or overthrowing a regime which tortured people who played cars or watched videos (and had supported a major attack killing over 3000 people in the US)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/30/wtal30.xml

To be honest I'm not sure its an ethical foreign policy you want, but appeasement

First and foremost I think you are really presuming my views on Israel - I stated clearly that both sides were to blame for the current conflict and that it was equally vile for both of them to kill civilians.

Anyway - onto the issue at hand.

Iraq - There were far better ways of doing what we wanted, take Libya for example a nasty dictator by any measure but through diplomacy and aid package deals we have got him to partially at least clean up his act.

Afghanistan - I do think we were right to go in, but we have totally failed in our mission because we have wasted time, money and troops on Iraq.

It has nothing to do with appeasement at all, it has to do with picking a strategy that will actually work. Who in their right mind could not see that Iraq was going to be a mistake?!