Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

Can someone tell me?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Before the London bombings, what was the last attack on Britain by Islamic terrorists? Or before 9/11 if you want, since I don't think there was one in between. I've tried Googling (without putting much effort in tbh), but I couldn't find anything.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lockerbie disaster?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Where they islamic? Or just lebanese?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not that familiar with the circumstances surrounding the Lockerbie disaster (i.e. all the politics at the time), but as I understand it, it was an attack on a plane set for America, and most of the passengers were American, so it could be argued that it wasn't actually an attack on Britain at all. Not in the same way that IRA bombings or the London bombings were explicitly targetting Britain, for example.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Where they islamic? Or just lebanese?

    Dunno, it's the only non-IRA terrorist attack I can think of that affected the UK.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Where they islamic? Or just lebanese?
    He's actually Lybian.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lockerbie, as the last terrorist attack. But that wasn't meant to hit Lockerbie, that plane was meant to sink without trace.

    As for civil disturbance, take your pick from the 2001 riots, the 1997 riots, and the 1992 riots. All blamed on the nasty white racist and/or the defamer of Islam, and not some shitty scrotes who should be deported.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He's actually Lybian.
    Sorry, got confused.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lockerbie wasn't actually the work of Lybia at all, but that's another story*.






    (*It was the work of Palestinian terrorists paid by Iran and it was revenge for the destruction of an Iranian airliner by an US warship, which mistook it for 'enemy' aircraft. Plenty of facts and evidence can be found in the Lockerbie report by Paul Foot published by Private Eye).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So based on this, would people say that there wasn't actually a single Islamic terrorist incident before the UK invaded Iraq? :chin: Interesting.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So based on this, would people say that there wasn't actually a single Islamic terrorist incident before the UK invaded Iraq? :chin: Interesting.

    Where exactly are you going with this? :chin:

    :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote:
    Where exactly are you going with this? :chin:

    :p
    Where it goes, nobody knows. :p

    I did genuinely want to know, because in America, they always point to the original WTC bombings and other terrorist acts as a sign that the Islamic terrorists "started it" so to speak. Was just wondering if there was an equivilent argument to be made about Britain?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Where it goes, nobody knows. :p

    I did genuinely want to know, because in America, they always point to the original WTC bombings and other terrorist acts as a sign that the Islamic terrorists "started it" so to speak. Was just wondering if there was an equivilent argument to be made about Britain?

    Doesn't matter really.
    Because of the "special" relationship, US's enemy is UK's enemy and vice versa.
    So basically any attack on the US is an attack on the UK.

    It's fair to point out that using the term "islamic terrorists" is wrong. Instead, the correct term is "islamic extremists".
    If the media were actually a little more careful and if people listened carefully, than maybe more people would be less scared.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote:
    Doesn't matter really.
    Because of the "special" relationship, US's enemy is UK's enemy and vice versa.
    So basically any attack on the US is an attack on the UK.
    So the bombings in London are an example of the effects of our 'special relationship' with America? You know, it get's less and less special every time I hear about it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote:
    Doesn't matter really.
    Because of the "special" relationship, US's enemy is UK's enemy and vice versa.
    So basically any attack on the US is an attack on the UK..


    Really?

    I don't remember the Americans sending fighter planes and warships to Argentina to support the UK in the falklands?

    Got any details ...?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Really?

    I don't remember the Americans sending fighter planes and warships to Argentina to support the UK in the falklands?

    Got any details ...?

    I thought the exact same thing when I wrote that.:thumb:

    However it's 24 years later, the cold war is over (well Cold War I anyway) and I believe that if the UK asked for help the americans would oblige.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote:
    I thought the exact same thing when I wrote that.:thumb:

    However it's 24 years later, the cold war is over (well Cold War I anyway) and I believe that if the UK asked for help the americans would oblige.


    Did the US even really involve itself in World War 2?

    It pretty much stayed out of it leaving the UK and rest of Europe to fend for themselves, UNTIL the attack on Pearl Harbour, only then did it really start supporting the UK

    The US / UK Relationship you talk about it very much a one way relationship.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't remember the Americans sending fighter planes and warships to Argentina to support the UK in the falklands?

    In the conflict the US had military treaty obligations to help both parties, the UK as a member of NATO and debatably to Argentina as a signatory of the Rio Pact. (Although, the Falkland Islands do lie outside the geographical area of the NATO treaty and since Argentina was the aggressor the Rio Pact was perhaps not valid). Regardless, while even some junior figures in the White House were sympathetic to the Argentinean cause, Defence Secretary Casper Weinberger's decisive influence was crucial and the US ultimately threw its support behind Britain and it proved vital. Thatcher thanking Weinberger said that without the use of US spy satellites, US intelligence information and the latest AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles from the US Britain could have never got back the Falklands. And the US did actually offer use of an American aircraft carrier but a request was never made.

    The US didn't send warships to Argentina, Britain did not get involved in Vietnam but the special relationship has survived. And anyway the special relationship is about more than defence and foreign policy, the UK-US business relationship arguably underlying the special relationship is the largest economic partnership between any two countries. Britain remains the largest investor in the US and the US is the largest source of foreign investment to the UK economy. The result of this, something critics of the special relationship fail to understand is that US and UK interests often coincide.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Did the US even really involve itself in World War 2?

    What a twat. :rolleyes:

    There were over 400,000 American casualties in World War II. Was the US really involved in WWII? Why do you think there are WWII cemeteries in Europe with the graves of thousands of American soldiers?
    The US / UK Relationship you talk about it very much a one way relationship.

    Had the US remained isolationist and Britain (and Europe) been left to face fatal threats from Nazi Germany and the USSR alone the results would have been catastrophic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What a twat. :rolleyes:

    There were over 400,000 American casualties in World War II. Was the US really involved in WWII? Why do you think there are WWII cemeteries in Europe with the graves of thousands of American soldiers?



    Had the US remained isolationist and Britain (and Europe) been left to face fatal threats from Nazi Germany and the USSR alone the results would have been catastrophic.


    Why don't you read the poster's FULL statement before taking what they've written out of context and then calling them all sorts of names.

    They quite clearly stated that the USA didn't get very involved in World War 2 UNTIL AFTER Pearl Harbour.

    i.e. that they really didn't do all that much to help the UK during the war UNTIL after Hawaii had been bombed.

    http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/depwwii/wwarii/wwarii.html

    http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_become_involved_in_World_War_2
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If we're talking about numbers of dead Disillusioned, you should look up how many Russians died before the USA even got involved. It's a staggering number.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why don't you read the poster's FULL statement before taking what they've written out of context and then calling them all sorts of names.

    They quite clearly stated that the USA didn't get very involved in World War 2 UNTIL AFTER Pearl Harbour.

    i.e. that they really didn't do all that much to help the UK during the war UNTIL after Hawaii had been bombed.

    http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/depwwii/wwarii/wwarii.html

    http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_become_involved_in_World_War_2


    Well apart from help escort convoys across the Atlantic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reuben_James_(DD-245)

    oh and lend lease
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    If we're talking about numbers of dead Disillusioned, you should look up how many Russians died before the USA even got involved. It's a staggering number.

    Yes, but if we're talking about what they did before they were attacked (to give a comparison to what the USA did) the USSR was doing this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i.e. that they really didn't do all that much to help the UK during the war UNTIL after Hawaii had been bombed.

    Well they provided arms, food, machinery, and services to Britain without immediate cost...And even after Pearl Harbor they gave priority to beating Nazi Germany. Regardless of the timing of US involvement to use WWII as an instance of the special relationship being a 'one way street' is a baseless argument. US support was vital and without it the consequences would have been frightening. Britain would not have emerged from WWII a free democracy without the US. The special relationship; which in many ways was a product of British American co-operation in WWII was a product of the war. To use WWII to support a claim about the special relationship being a 'one way street' doesn't make sense, you could make that argument using other post WWII events but not WWII itself.

    You not got anything to say on the Falklands now then?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Yes, but if we're talking about what they did before they were attacked (to give a comparison to what the USA did) the USSR was doing this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact
    yes, I know about it.

    On the "special relationship" I think it's more damaging than helpful at the moment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    On the "special relationship" I think it's more damaging than helpful at the moment.

    Luckily Tony Blair, David Cameron and even Gordon Brown disagree.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Well apart from help escort convoys across the Atlantic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reuben_James_(DD-245)

    oh and lend lease
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease


    Governments can buy stuff from anywhere .. and since major countries can't actually go bust most other countries aren't afraid to lend you stuff, espacially since in the lend lease situation the USA got access to setup numerous miltary bases in Europe in exchange.

    What I'm talking about is one nation standing side by side with another, sending their own ships and troops in and fighting with you side by side.

    When the US went to war in Iraq the UK supported them and fought side by side with them, whether you think the UK was right to do so they supported the US by actually getting directly involved, in the falklands war the US didn't send it's warships to backup the British ..

    If the US got involved in World War 2 from the very beginning, sending it's own ships and miltary in to fight with the UK and other countries to defeat Hilter instead of waiting 2 years how many lives could have been saved? How much sooner could the war have been over?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well they provided arms, food, machinery, and services to Britain without immediate cost...
    ?
    without immediate cost ...i love that bit.
    did you know that in 1985 ...we finaly paid our bill to the yanks ...for the first world war?
    did you know ...america was on the verge of an economic disaster bigger than the great crash of the twenties ...the president pushed manufacturing companies to start producing bullets and bombs etc for england in 1941 ...if england had surrendered or signed agreements that were on offer at the time ...america would have gone bust.
    american industry had spent there last dollars on getting ready for mass production that was going to cost this country dear.
    they do it for money ...nothing more ...nothing less.
    have we finnished paying for the second world war yet ...i can't remember.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Governments can buy stuff from anywhere .. and since major countries can't actually go bust most other countries aren't afraid to lend you stuff, espacially since in the lend lease situation the USA got access to setup numerous miltary bases in Europe in exchange.

    No they can't. For obvious reasons we were unable to buy weapons from Germany, occupied europe, Japan and Russia. Which kind of just leaves the US of A. And what bases in Europe are you talking about in return for lend lease?

    What I'm talking about is one nation standing side by side with another, sending their own ships and troops in and fighting with you side by side.

    And why would they? They weren't in any alliance with the UK and the Special Relationship is generally regarded as only coming into being during WW2. Pre WW2 the US actually had War Plans for the invasion of Canada and for a war against the UK.
    When the US went to war in Iraq the UK supported them and fought side by side with them, whether you think the UK was right to do so they supported the US by actually getting directly involved, in the falklands war the US didn't send it's warships to backup the British ..

    They offered to provide an aircraft carrier. Thatcher refused. they did supply us with intelligence and weaponary though
    If the US got involved in World War 2 from the very beginning, sending it's own ships and miltary in to fight with the UK and other countries to defeat Hilter instead of waiting 2 years how many lives could have been saved? How much sooner could the war have been over

    But why would they? if the British and French had upped their defence spending Germany wouldn't have been able to succesfully attack France. if the Soviet Union had not signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Germany would have been too worried about bringing them into the war early to invade Poland.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    ....what bases in Europe are you talking about in return for lend lease?

    The US got more access to their UK airbases, also In exchange for "naval and military equipment and material" the US was granted land for the establishment of naval or air bases, on ninety-nine-year rent-free leases, on:

    * Avalon Peninsula
    * South and eastern coasts of Newfoundland
    * Great Bay of Bermuda
    * Eastern side of the Bahamas
    * Southern coast of Jamaica
    * Western coast of St. Lucia,
    * West coast of Trinidad
    * Gulf of Paria,
    * Antigua — Antigua Air Station
    * British Guiana within fifty miles of Georgetown.

    The US were allowed all the rights, power, and authority within the bases leased.

    The US accepted the "generous action… to enhance the national security of the United States" and immediately transferred fifty United States Navy destroyers "generally referred to as the twelve hundred-ton type" (also known in references as "flush-deck" destroyers, or "four-pipers" after their four funnels) Forty-three went to the Royal Navy and seven to the Royal Canadian Navy.


    http://www.answers.com/topic/destroyers-for-bases-agreement

    The US didn't help Britain for nothing, the locations of those bases gives the US a greater reach into the rest of the world from which to launch an attack or defence

    The US helped provide supplies to help the UK keep on fighting, but the UK was pretty much left to fight on their own, until after Pearl Harbour.

    should read tis link for lots of interesting thoughts on lend lease

    http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWlendlease.htm
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The US got more access to their UK airbases, also In exchange for "naval and military equipment and material" the US was granted land for the establishment of naval or air bases, on ninety-nine-year rent-free leases, on:

    * Avalon Peninsula
    * South and eastern coasts of Newfoundland
    * Great Bay of Bermuda
    * Eastern side of the Bahamas
    * Southern coast of Jamaica
    * Western coast of St. Lucia,
    * West coast of Trinidad
    * Gulf of Paria,
    * Antigua — Antigua Air Station
    * British Guiana within fifty miles of Georgetown.

    The US were allowed all the rights, power, and authority within the bases leased.

    None of them are in Europe.

    The US accepted the "generous action… to enhance the national security of the United States" and immediately transferred fifty United States Navy destroyers "generally referred to as the twelve hundred-ton type" (also known in references as "flush-deck" destroyers, or "four-pipers" after their four funnels) Forty-three went to the Royal Navy and seven to the Royal Canadian Navy.



    http://www.answers.com/topic/destroyers-for-bases-agreement

    The US didn't help Britain for nothing, the locations of those bases gives the US a greater reach into the rest of the world from which to launch an attack or defence

    Of course they didn't help for nothing - in 1939 the US didn't have a Special Relationship with the UK, that came about due to WW2 and a shared interest in defeating communism in the post-war world.

    The Special Relationship even now is based on mutual self-interest, you're not pointing out anything new.
    The US helped provide supplies to help the UK keep on fighting, but the UK was pretty much left to fight on their own, until after Pearl Harbour.

    Well apart from Canada, India, Australia, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, new Zealand etc, etc.
Sign In or Register to comment.