mirror Posted July 27, 2005 Author Report Posted July 27, 2005 Maybe the British have made a breakthrough in their search to find the July 21 people who attempted to bomb the London transportation system. Let's hope so: Anti-terror police hold four men Quote
mirror Posted July 27, 2005 Author Report Posted July 27, 2005 'Six further terror cells are poised to strike' I can understand Canada being lax about terrorism here, but I am actually quite surprised that the British would have lowered their guard the way they apparently did. Hopefully the people fighting this Al Quaeda organization, whatever it is, are doing the painstakely slow work that really would be involved in bringing them down, and that is by infiltrating their ranks. That means that our best chance of success is to have other Muslims find out who they are, and to turn them in. Quote
mirror Posted July 27, 2005 Author Report Posted July 27, 2005 Well the war on terror is not working so: In recent days, senior administration figures have been speaking publicly of "a global struggle against the enemies of freedom", and of the need to use all "tools of statecraft" to defeat them. The shift in terms comes at a time when the US public is increasingly pessimistic about the war in Iraq - and sceptical about its links to the fight against terrorism. Quote
mirror Posted July 28, 2005 Author Report Posted July 28, 2005 Maybe this is why he ran: Shot Brazilian's visa 'had expired' The student visa of Jean Charles de Menezes expired more than two years before he was shot by police, a Home Office spokeswoman has said. The Government also issued a cautiously-worded statement which appeared to indicate Mr de Menezes had a forged stamp in his passport. The spokeswoman said: "Mr de Menzes ... applied for leave to remain as a student. This was approved on October 31, 2002, and he was granted leave to remain until June 30, 2003. Quote
cybercoma Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 8 posts in a row, really? I wonder if this is some kind of record. Sorry for breaking it up. Quote
err Posted July 29, 2005 Report Posted July 29, 2005 When you were little, and you found a bee's nest in the forest... didn't your mom or dad tell you not to touch it.... If you go poking at the beehive with a stick, the bees are going to come out and sting you. If you really want the honey, and do some serious damage to the beehive, you can bet them bees will be "mad as hornets" and will fly all over stinging anyone who comes (or came) near the nest.... Now Canada, (Paul Martin), lead by Hillier is saying "I'm coming to get you scumbag bees... you better watch out"... Well, the way I see it, the bees will see him coming, and want to sting him... The moral of the story is that if you poke at bees nests with sticks, expect to get stung.... And if you hang around with the guy with the stick, they might sting you too.... Coles Notes for Cybercoma: (Honey = Oil) (Bees nest = Middle East) (Hillier = bigmouth trying to attract bees) Quote
Argus Posted July 29, 2005 Report Posted July 29, 2005 When you were little, and you found a bee's nest in the forest... didn't your mom or dad tell you not to touch it.... If you go poking at the beehive with a stick, the bees are going to come out and sting you. If you really want the honey, and do some serious damage to the beehive, you can bet them bees will be "mad as hornets" and will fly all over stinging anyone who comes (or came) near the nest.... Now Canada, (Paul Martin), lead by Hillier is saying "I'm coming to get you scumbag bees... you better watch out"... Well, the way I see it, the bees will see him coming, and want to sting him... The moral of the story is that if you poke at bees nests with sticks, expect to get stung.... And if you hang around with the guy with the stick, they might sting you too.... Uhm, I don't know about you, pal, but if I find a bees nest on my property I burn it out. Even if the bees haven't stung me already the presence of the nest is a danger to me and to everyone who comes on my property and I want it gone. Most people have pretty much the same feelings. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
SirSpanky Posted July 29, 2005 Report Posted July 29, 2005 The nest isn't on your property, its in the forest. (forest = place where you have zero jurasdiction) Quote
Argus Posted July 29, 2005 Report Posted July 29, 2005 The nest isn't on your property, its in the forest.(forest = place where you have zero jurasdiction) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fine. It's in the woods out back. Me and my neighbours are worried that the kids will be stung. So what are we going to do? We're going to get together and burn the damned thing out. And if it's on someone else's property? What's going to happen? You know. That person's neighbours will start putting pressure on him to get rid of the damned nest. If he refuses he'll have a lot of angry neighbours, and one dark night someone will take action on his own. Now if it's too far away to cause us any damage we won't worry. But I put it to you that 911 taught a lot of people that even if the nest is halfway around the world the bees can still get here. And so the nest must still be burned out. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
SirSpanky Posted July 29, 2005 Report Posted July 29, 2005 So why arbitrarily go after the bees? What about the hornets and yellowjackets that are gonna put up a bigger fight? If you're gonna be an idealist, be an idealist. I have no problem about going in to burn the bees out, as long as you're not trying to fool people as to your reasons for doing so. (I'd like to think up a clever analogy for that, but its the long weekend and I gots other things on my mind ) Quote
BHS Posted July 29, 2005 Report Posted July 29, 2005 This analogy has outlived it's usefulness. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
mirror Posted July 29, 2005 Author Report Posted July 29, 2005 Great news, as four suspected July 21 London bombers have been captured. That must be a relief to the Brits although other attacks may occur down the road. Hopefully the people of Iraq will find peace one day soon. Quote
mirror Posted July 29, 2005 Author Report Posted July 29, 2005 Police arrest fifth London bomb suspect Someone's talking...........who could it be? Quote
cybercoma Posted July 29, 2005 Report Posted July 29, 2005 When you were little, and you found a bee's nest in the forest... didn't your mom or dad tell you not to touch it.... If you go poking at the beehive with a stick, the bees are going to come out and sting you. If you really want the honey, and do some serious damage to the beehive, you can bet them bees will be "mad as hornets" and will fly all over stinging anyone who comes (or came) near the nest.... Now Canada, (Paul Martin), lead by Hillier is saying "I'm coming to get you scumbag bees... you better watch out"... Well, the way I see it, the bees will see him coming, and want to sting him... The moral of the story is that if you poke at bees nests with sticks, expect to get stung.... And if you hang around with the guy with the stick, they might sting you too.... Coles Notes for Cybercoma: (Honey = Oil) (Bees nest = Middle East) (Hillier = bigmouth trying to attract bees) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> what do you do when there's a bees nest on your property and your child was stung to death? Quote
cybercoma Posted July 29, 2005 Report Posted July 29, 2005 Nevermind, looks like argus stomped on that one.. Quote
mirror Posted July 30, 2005 Author Report Posted July 30, 2005 what do you do when there's a bees nest on your property and your child was stung to death? On and on it goes. Even the British police experts acknowlege that the British presence in Iraq contributed to the London bombings. Quote
cybercoma Posted July 30, 2005 Report Posted July 30, 2005 what do you do when there's a bees nest on your property and your child was stung to death? On and on it goes. Even the British police experts acknowlege that the British presence in Iraq contributed to the London bombings. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Once again, of course it did, what's your damn point? Smashing a bees nest is going to piss off some bees. Quote
mirror Posted July 30, 2005 Author Report Posted July 30, 2005 Everyone knows by now that the Iraq invasion had not a damn thing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Instead of focusing on Al Quaeda, we have lost valuable time in Iraq. As a result these bombers have had a change to regroup, and viola, the recent London bombings. Quote
cybercoma Posted July 30, 2005 Report Posted July 30, 2005 Everyone knows by now that the Iraq invasion had not a damn thing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Instead of focusing on Al Quaeda, we have lost valuable time in Iraq. As a result these bombers have had a change to regroup, and viola, the recent London bombings. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, it had more to do with making sure a murderous despot didn't have control over one of the world's most crucial resources; as well as trying to turn a middle eastern nation into a democratic society that other middle eastern people could look up to. Hopefully some day this will happen and other people in the middle east will fight back against their governments and demand what Iraq has. Right now those other middle eastern nations have too much to lose if Iraq becomes a western-style democracy, so why not encourage some peons to go blow themselves up and cause as much disruption as possible. Quote
mirror Posted July 30, 2005 Author Report Posted July 30, 2005 I'd be much more likely to accept what you are saying if the US showed anywhere the same interest in dictatorship countries where there were no resources fro the Americans to exploit. At least be honest in why the US is really there. Quote
mirror Posted July 30, 2005 Author Report Posted July 30, 2005 Quite the contrast between this: Subtle techniques are now needed to nail suspects and this: Wash. Post: "Truth about Abu Ghraib" Quote
BHS Posted July 30, 2005 Report Posted July 30, 2005 Everyone knows by now that the Iraq invasion had not a damn thing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Instead of focusing on Al Quaeda, we have lost valuable time in Iraq. As a result these bombers have had a change to regroup, and viola, the recent London bombings. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Every indication is that the London bombers were raised in Britain, and until recently were living a relatively normal middle-class British life. They didn't "regroup" from anything. If you're going to go on insisting that Iraq is the main "root cause" of the London bombings at least get the details straight. These guys couldn't have been captured before they acted, because they weren't involved in any previous Al-Qaeda activities. Their own families claimed not to know, and frankly I believe them. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
Argus Posted July 30, 2005 Report Posted July 30, 2005 Everyone knows by now that the Iraq invasion had not a damn thing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Tsk. I'm really going to have to keep this in a file and simply re-post it every time someone gets into this. I'm sure some of you have read it before as I've posted it on this web site at least a few times. Curiously, no one has ever disputed it. It can be said that Islamism is, in part, an outgrowth of the miserable conditions and lack of freedom in the Muslim world, particularly the Arab world. There are no other outlets for political expression, and Islam has always been a religion which not only teaches personal values but also includes an entire framework for government. Thus with no other political options it's clear why so many would embrace radical Islam as an opposition to the reigning tyrants of the middle east. Invading Iraq could be a means to address that, to get to the "roots" of the problem, as so many have demanded. If the US can turn Iraq, a miserable dictatorship of oppression, into something resembling a stable, representative democracy it will be something like a beacon in the Arab world. Iraq is perfectly positioned for this, right smack in the middle between Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Their citizens could not possibly fail to notice such a form of government if it functions well. And we've already heard the cry in Lebanon "If Iraqis can vote why can't we!?" which led to an election there. And that's with the current mess in Iraq. Imagine how effective the message would be if Iraq was stable. In addition, having Iraq as an ally allows the US considerably more leeway in putting pressure on Saudi Arabia - the true centre and origin of Islamist terrorism in the world. Having control of Iraq oil would allow them to put intense pressure on the house of Saud to reform and stop subsidising radical Islamic schools and clerics around the world, or face the consequences. Now maybe this won't work. But you can see that it certainly could be a strategy for curtailing Islamism as a growing phenomenom, and Islamic terrorism, which seems otherwise certain to grow and spread and become more powerful. It won't work in the short term, of course, but in the medium to long term it could be highly effective. So you can see why the Islamists are fighting tooth and nail to make sure Iraq does not become a democracy, and why neighbouring dictators are turning a blind eye to border incursions, to groups of foreign radicals passing through their territory on their way to Iraq. Now would anyone care to dispute the logical basis behind any of this, or suggest an alternative strategy short of surrender which seems more likely to do more to address the "root causes" of Islamism? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
BHS Posted July 30, 2005 Report Posted July 30, 2005 Quite the contrast between this:Subtle techniques are now needed to nail suspects and this: Wash. Post: "Truth about Abu Ghraib" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not sure if I get your point here. Are you saying that the British are going to be more humane than the Americans with whichever techniques they use to break the bombers down and get them to talk? The first article is an opinion of what the Brits should do, not what they are doing. It's wishful speculation and isn't backed up by anything. I can imagine that if the bombers continue to carry out attacks, and these guys continue not talking, the techniques used will become harsher. I'd also like to reiterate, for the record, that nudity and humiliation and threatening dogs aren't torture in the same way that hacking off fingers and pushing people off of buildings are. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
mirror Posted July 30, 2005 Author Report Posted July 30, 2005 Quite the contrast between this:Subtle techniques are now needed to nail suspects and this: Wash. Post: "Truth about Abu Ghraib" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not sure if I get your point here. Are you saying that the British are going to be more humane than the Americans with whichever techniques they use to break the bombers down and get them to talk? The first article is an opinion of what the Brits should do, not what they are doing. It's wishful speculation and isn't backed up by anything. I can imagine that if the bombers continue to carry out attacks, and these guys continue not talking, the techniques used will become harsher. I'd also like to reiterate, for the record, that nudity and humiliation and threatening dogs aren't torture in the same way that hacking off fingers and pushing people off of buildings are. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually the Brits record all their interviews with the prisoners. A little bit of information for you, so stop destorting things about which you have no idea what you are talking about. Even a former president of the US has condemed the American treatment of the US prisoners. But of course you know better! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.