Suspected terrorist attack in London 4 dead including the attacker

[hot enough]

44 minutes ago, Rue said:

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 say it's not canned then you can it once more. 

As has been pointed out, terrorist responses are responses to terrorism/war crimes/crimes against humanity/the theft of trillions in wealth/the rapes/the torture chambers, all of which has been going on for a good long time, long before the people of the Middle East ever thought of retaliating. 

And again, the retaliation for these century plus long evils has been so scattered, so infrequent considering the potential that it could very likely be another Operation Gladio. 

Remember, science says, clearly, that the seminal event for all this is a fraud. 

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Lol.

How old are you, Rue?

Edited March 27, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Cheney in fact refuted arguments favouring invasion as SecDef in the early 90's.

That was because the US still had hopes that all the money they had spent on their vicious right wing dictator could be somehow saved. 

[-TSS-]

Londoners who grew up in the 80's had a lot of experience of terror-alerts by the IRA. Hence the Londoners seem to be less hysterical about terrorism than Americans are.

 

[kactus]

6 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Londoners who grew up in the 80's had a lot of experience of terror-alerts by the IRA. Hence the Londoners seem to be less hysterical about terrorism than Americans are.

 

Indeed....IRA was quite nasty back in those days...

[bcsapper]

7 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Londoners who grew up in the 80's had a lot of experience of terror-alerts by the IRA. Hence the Londoners seem to be less hysterical about terrorism than Americans are.

 

There is that, but then, we didn't have an incident on the level of 9/11, with terrorists flying aircraft into buildings and causing deaths in the thousands from the one incident.  A little hysteria (I'd call it concern) is understandable under those circumstances.

[kactus]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

There is that, but then, we didn't have an incident on the level of 9/11, with terrorists flying aircraft into buildings and causing deaths in the thousands from the one incident.  A little hysteria (I'd call it concern) is understandable under those circumstances.

It is for the very reasons that the US has no experience dealing with terrorism that had to endure the tragic events of 9/11....

[bcsapper]

Just now, kactus said:

It is for the very reasons that the US has no experience dealing with terrorism that had to endure the tragic events of 9/11....

Well, they did have the bombing in the same location a few years earlier, and there was the Oklahoma bombing too.  I think 9/11 came as a surprise to everyone.

[overthere]

29 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Well, they did have the bombing in the same location a few years earlier, and there was the Oklahoma bombing too.  I think 9/11 came as a surprise to everyone.

I don't think it was a big surprise for the Saudis.

[bcsapper]

2 minutes ago, overthere said:

I don't think it was a big surprise for the Saudis.

I see your point, but I think even they would have been surprised at the result.

[overthere]

Just now, bcsapper said:

I see your point, but I think even they would have been surprised at the result.

I'm not a conspiracist, but all the people involved  and all the money for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia.  SA is a totalitarian state, and it boggles the mind to think that a project of this scope happened without some state knowledge-at minimum.  They might have been surprised at the near-total success of 9/11, since only  Flight 93 did not complete its mission. 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, marcus said:

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.\

And you are trying very hard to blame it on western imperialism and intervention in the middle east, and to excuse Islam of any responsibility.

And this is not a discussion about the motivation of terrorists. It's about a specific terrorist, British born and British raised. In fact, someone who converted to Islam, which means that all the sob stories about Syrian children and the like is irrelevant.

THIS terrorist was British. What motivated HIM would be a legitimate discussion. But you all veer away from that because the only thing which could have motivated him to murder his fellow British citizens is that he was a Muslim who clearly felt a lot more kinship for his fellow Muslims in other countries than he did for his fellow citizens. And that sort of discussion leads to a dangerous question with regard to the loyalties of Muslims in western countries, and where that loyalty goes. THIS Muslim, like other homegrown Muslim terrorists in Canada and the US and France and Belgium decided his overriding loyalty was to his co-religionists in foreign lands, so overriding he was willing to declare war and die in order to murder his own countrymen.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

As has been pointed out, terrorist responses are responses to terrorism/war crimes/crimes against humanity/the theft of trillions in wealth/the rapes/the torture chambers, all of which has been going on for a good long time, long before the people of the Middle East ever thought of retaliating.

Irrelevant. This is a British man born in Kent. He has no family in the middle east.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

1 hour ago, kactus said:

Indeed....IRA was quite nasty back in those days...

If you put them alongside middle east terrorists they were the gentlest and most pacifistic of people. They rarely set off bombs in civilian areas, and when they did they virtually always called in warnings so people could be evacuated. Anyone ever heard of Al Quaeda or Isis doing that?

 

[hot enough]

37 minutes ago, overthere said:

I'm not a conspiracist, but all the people involved  and all the money for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia.  

Yes, you most assuredly are a conspiracist, as are all the folks discussing various conspiracies with you. When you discuss the US official story you are also a conspiracy theorist, because that is not only a theory, it is a completely unproven theory, it has been shown to be a Golconda of lies.

[overthere]

Just now, hot enough said:

Yes, you most assuredly are a conspiracist, as are all the folks discussing various conspiracies with you. When you discuss the US official story you are also a conspiracy theorist, because that is not only a theory, it is a completely unproven theory, it has been shown to be a Golconda of lies.

You forgot to blame The Joos.

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, overthere said:

You forgot to blame The Joos.

And you avoided the issue, as is your wont. So many of you continue to blame people who are blameless, completely avoiding the issue - who were/are the biggest liars surrounding the events of 911, after 911 and before 911. 

Why did this man do what he is suspected of doing?

Edited March 27, 2017 by hot enough

[Argus]

51 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Why did this man do what he is suspected of doing?

That is a very strange question. How can you ask why he did it if you don't even accept that he did it?

[Altai]

Ho ho hooo, here what I found now. 

So appearently Britain responses CIA's London attack with Cincinati attack.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2017/03/26/cameo-nightclub-shooting-what-we-know-now/99661248/ 

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

That is a very strange question. How can you ask why he did it if you don't even accept that he did it?

Yours is even stranger. It illustrates your deep desire to avoid addressing such complex issues.

In our grand system of justice, a person is considered not guilty until such time as it is determined beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed said crime. What does our great news media call the suspect? Could you put your name on the list of never to be called for jury duty people?

[Altai]

Hooo hoo hooooooo, what I found now. 

British dictatorship's Prence's helicopter been harrashed by an unmanned air vehicle. 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3179851/prince-williams-horror-as-drone-comes-within-half-a-second-of-hitting-his-air-ambulance-in-shocking-near-miss/

[Altai]

So first of all an attack happens in Britain.

Then another attack happens in US. 

Then suddenly British official's helicopter was forced to crash by a drone.


Countries communicates like wild animals. 

[overthere]

Does this guy have any access to therapy?

[kactus]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

If you put them alongside middle east terrorists they were the gentlest and most pacifistic of people. They rarely set off bombs in civilian areas, and when they did they virtually always called in warnings so people could be evacuated. Anyone ever heard of Al Quaeda or Isis doing that?

 

The point was and remains that the UK faced terrorism activities from much earlier days and therefore more familiar how to deal with it than 9/11 attack on US soil. And since we are on that subject why is it that US is so friendly towards a country like the SA that everyone knows was the mastermind behind the attack. Harbours terrorist groups from Al Qaeda to Boko Harram to ISIS???

Wait they are the phoney ally that we have on war on terror and yet responsible for all tgese terrorist groups. Then what gives the West the moral equivalency to talk about ethics and human rights when we so miserably fail on these basic standards?

[marcus]

12 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

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:

 

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.

 

Not sure where you're getting your quote from, but I can't find it anywhere.

The Defense Minister is already on record saying that this was not about regime change.

Also, Secretary of State, Albright said this:

Clinton administration officials said the aim of the mission was to "degrade" Iraq's ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction, not to eliminate it. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked about the distinction while the operation was going on:

"I don't think we're pretending that we can get everything, so this is – I think – we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. […] [W]hat it means is that we know we can't get everything, but degrading is the right word."

What U.S. did in Iraq gave no indication that they wanted 'regime change' or to remove Saddam. They just wanted to weaken Saddam and his military. This is exactly what their actions showed.