Suspected terrorist attack in London 4 dead including the attacker

[Rue]

4 hours ago, kactus said:

Depriving people from their privacy is something to consider too.

UK has a legacy in his area. Rupert Murdoch scandal in the light of the knowledge he had from phone hacking the MP's conversations.

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-british-scandal-murdoch-20150611-story.html

 

Nothing to do with the thread and another example of someone trying to legitimize a terrorist attack by changing the subject of the thread to suggest the UK deserves to be attacked by terrorists. This is precisely the kind of terrorist cheer leading some of us have come to expect on this board.

[Rue]

14 hours ago, hot enough said:

Wow! The "logic"!

Yes this coming from someone who draws moral equivalents from terrorist actions and military actions to justify terrorist actions.

This coming from someone who suggests if he believes a country's actions are terrorist ones, terrorists then attacking innocent civilians elsewhere is justified.

Your apology for what the terrorist did is there for all to see. Don't lecture anyone on logic.

Also you'll find an English translator won't be able to understand the difference between a sarcastic comment and a literal one.

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

17 hours ago, Altai said:

Britain called terror attacks as "bomb blast" and "attack" which were happened in Turkiye in recent months.  They didnt call it "terror", because Britain itself is a terrorist country.
 

 

10 hours ago, hernanday said:

Yup, just like the kids of terrorist killed by US missile strikes.  The assumption was guilt by association.

What you and Altai and Kactus and Hot Enough have done is to argue that since you feel the US or the UK or the West is evil, terrorism is justified.

Its there for all to see. You apologize for  and defend terrorism.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Rue

[Guest]

5 hours ago, kactus said:

Depriving people from their privacy is something to consider too.

UK has a legacy in his area. Rupert Murdoch scandal in the light of the knowledge he had from phone hacking the MP's conversations.

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-british-scandal-murdoch-20150611-story.html

 

I disagree.  In situations where it is warranted, the authorities should be able to access all sociall meia/smart phone apps, etc.

Hacking is different from a legal intrusion.

[kactus]

16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Hacking is different from a legal intrusion.

These two are not mutually exclusive as the evidence suggests....

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Its there for all to see. You apologize for  and defend terrorism.

If that were true, [your typical false accusations, with your typical spurious reasoning], it would find us guilty of defending a level terrorism that is vastly eclipsed by the volume of terrorism that has seen the US/UK/... engage in murderous terrorism on a scale that makes Nazi Germany pale into nothingness.

Remember the USA has been doing this deeply evil terrorism for well over a century, the UK goes back how many centuries? 

 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, kactus said:

These two are not mutually exclusive as the evidence suggests....

I don't see how the one should prevent the other.  You don't need to hack something if a court order forces a company to give you the data.

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

Nothing to do with the thread and another example of someone trying to legitimize a terrorist attack by changing the subject of the thread to suggest the UK deserves to be attacked by terrorists.

Another canned Rue response.

[marcus]

15 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Actually, Iraq had been attacked long before

 

The objective was not to push aside Saddam and 'regime change' when those relatively minor attacks happened.

That was initiated when Cheney came to power, after 9/11 and after the WMD fabrication.

[Argus]

20 hours ago, hot enough said:

Yup, the UK is number two, right behind the USA.

Demonstrable nonsense born of ideological extremism from the far left.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

If that were true, [your typical false accusations, with your typical spurious reasoning], it would find us guilty of defending a level terrorism that is vastly eclipsed by the volume of terrorism that has seen the US/UK/... engage in murderous terrorism on a scale that makes Nazi Germany pale into nothingness.

You don't actually know anything at all about Nazi Germany, do you?

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Argus said:

Demonstrable nonsense born of ideological extremism from the far left.

But as always from Argus, nothing in the manner of demonstration.

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

You don't actually know anything at all about Nazi Germany, do you?

That underlined word made all the difference in your eloquent argument. 

[Argus]

Just now, hot enough said:

That underlined word made all the difference in your eloquent argument. 

I'm glad I was able to communicate with such clarity even you could understand it.

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, marcus said:

The objective was not to push aside Saddam and 'regime change' when those relatively minor attacks happened.

That was initiated when Cheney came to power, after 9/11 and after the WMD fabrication.

 

Nope...as along with the UK, the purpose of the attacks was to decapitate Saddam's regime and any remaining military capability to resist  US/UK enforcement of the inspection and offensive weapons demil program.   "Regime change" was made a matter of public law in the United States under Bill Clinton.   Cheney in fact refuted arguments favouring invasion as SecDef in the early 90's.

UK support for invasion developed in parallel with U.S. frustration over Saddam's rejection of UN weapons inspectors.   Domestic protests over PM Blair's complicity with U.S. policy no doubt contributed to home grown terrorists long before ISIL.

[marcus]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nope...as along with the UK, the purpose of the attacks was to decapitate Saddam's regime and any remaining military capability to resist  US/UK enforcement of the inspection and offensive weapons demil program.   "Regime change" was made a matter of public law in the United States under Bill Clinton.   Cheney in fact refuted arguments favouring invasion as SecDef in the early 90's.

UK support for invasion developed in parallel with U.S. frustration over Saddam's rejection of UN weapons inspectors.   Domestic protests over PM Blair's complicity with U.S. policy no doubt contributed to home grown terrorists long before ISIL.

Not really. The neo-cons wanted a full on invasion but they couldn't get it in the 90's despite a lot of lobbying. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were part of that push.

There is a difference between weakening Saddam's regime and going in there and removing him. Going in there and removing him could only be achieved after 9/11 and after fabricating the WMD so-called evidence.

[Rue]

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

If that were true, [your typical false accusations, with your typical spurious reasoning], it would find us guilty of defending a level terrorism that is vastly eclipsed by the volume of terrorism that has seen the US/UK/... engage in murderous terrorism on a scale that makes Nazi Germany pale into nothingness.

Remember the USA has been doing this deeply evil terrorism for well over a century, the UK goes back how many centuries? 

 

Of course its true. I said you have argued that since you believe theUS-UK are evil what this terrorist in London did is excusable. You just repeated that line of reasoning again with the above response. Lol.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, marcus said:

Not really. The neo-cons wanted a full on invasion but they couldn't get it in the 90's despite a lot of lobbying. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were part of that push.

There is a difference between weakening Saddam's regime and going in there and removing him. Going in there and removing him could only be achieved after 9/11 and after fabricating the WMD so-called evidence.

 

Yes really....regime change in Iraq was the purpose and intention of "Desert Fox" and subsequent actions by the Clinton administration.  Terrorist attacks in the UK were dominated by the IRA and "The Troubles" until the early 2000's, then the radical Islamists took over.

[Rue]

7 minutes ago, marcus said:

Not really. The neo-cons wanted a full on invasion but they couldn't get it in the 90's despite a lot of lobbying. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were part of that push.

There is a difference between weakening Saddam's regime and going in there and removing him. Going in there and removing him could only be achieved after 9/11 and after fabricating the WMD so-called evidence.

Nothing to do with the thread, not a damn thing, again an example of  trying to change the topic from a terrorist attack to trying to piss on US foreign policies. This deflection does not address what the terrorist did or justify what the terrorist did. It is however a classic example of people whose agenda is to come on this board and justify and apologize for terrorism by trying to state that the US is evil. The terrorist did not attack innocent civilians because of Rumsfled or Wolfowitz or so called fabricaton of the WMD which is that this individual is trying to suggest. Its a classic example of trying to legitimize terrorism by arguing its justified since he US in this responder's opinion is evil.

It is illogical and it apologizes for terrorism.

[Rue]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

Another canned Rue response.

Its not canned. Its overt and in direct response to your continuing attempts to justify terrorism by depicting all people of the US and the UK and the West as deserving being attacked by terrorists since they are in your opinion terrorist.

You spew on cue, I respond.

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Rue

[kactus]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

Nothing to do with the thread and another example of someone trying to legitimize a terrorist attack by changing the subject of the thread to suggest the UK deserves to be attacked by terrorists. This is precisely the kind of terrorist cheer leading some of us have come to expect on this board.

I started this thread and I don't need you to tell me what/ how I should think. Obviously you have this preconceived template in your head that whatever is said by others is legitimising the attack. This is absurd.....This is precisely why this kind of behaviour and accusation does not result in any constructive dialogue some of us have come to expect in this board. FYI....Getting access to the social media such as WhatsApp is a very big topic in UK post the terror attack. Maybe you ought to read more about this before jumping the conclusion and accuse me of legitimising such attack! You have no idea about my views about this and to come here and accuse me is quite premature.

[kactus]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

 

What you and Altai and Kactus and Hot Enough have done is to argue that since you feel the US or the UK or the West is evil, terrorism is justified.

Its there for all to see. You apologize for  and defend terrorism.

Absolute BS rue and you know it....I dare you to show me a single post on this thread where I have defended the actions of the terrorist. I opened this thread in good faith that there will be some gross constructive arguments. And you were doing just fine until you started with your god damn smearing and labelling me apologiser for this terrorist activity. Go on knock yourself out...

The only reason you mention me here is because you know too damn well I have not condoned the damn apartheid policies of the Israeli government in other posts....And that's what is getting into you. You cannot accept that and use any excuse to attack other posters who disagree with you....

[marcus]

38 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes really....regime change in Iraq was the purpose and intention of "Desert Fox" and subsequent actions by the Clinton administration.  Terrorist attacks in the UK were dominated by the IRA and "The Troubles" until the early 2000's, then the radical Islamists took over.

No, the purpose of Desert Fox was not regime change. This is simply not true.

This time the purpose is to force Saddam Hussein to change his policy. "We do not have as a goal the toppling of Saddam Hussein," said William Cohen, the US Defence Secretary

link

Edited March 27, 2017 by marcus

[marcus]

31 minutes ago, Rue said:

Nothing to do with the thread, not a damn thing, again an example of  trying to change the topic from a terrorist attack to trying to piss on US foreign policies.

You are wrong Rue.

This is what happens when you are in a debate. You cannot always talk about a topic without looking at the context. There is a discussion about the motivation of terrorists. You are trying very hard to blame this on the religion. Some others are saying that we need to look at the West's foreign policy to understand the motive.

You simply cannot talk about terrorism without talking about the cause and effect. 

All you and some others want to do is for people to accept your perspective that this is all about a religion and it's the religion that motivates people to go over the edge. Many don't agree with that and they are giving their reasons why.

[bush_cheney2004]

11 minutes ago, marcus said:

No, the purpose of Desert Fox was not regime change. This is simply not true.

Then the aim was to throw the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, something which could done by destroying its ability to fight. This time the purpose is to force Saddam Hussein to change his policy. "We do not have as a goal the toppling of Saddam Hussein," said William Cohen, the US Defence Secretary

link

 

Getting off topic, but then President Clinton addressed the U.S. public with a nationally televised speech before "Desert Fox", outlining his goals and purpose for Saddam and Iraq:

Quote

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

 

The very term "regime change" came into popular usage after UK/US efforts to topple Saddam were ramped up in the 1990's, long before the Bush Administration's invasion in 2003.   Several major terrorist attacks occurred against U.S. and other allied interests long before 911...long before Bush.

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by bush_cheney2004