What do we have to fear from current "terrorism"?

henbane

I am of the firm belief that government "counter-terrorism" action is worse than any terrorist action might be. For example:

Those chapati flour idiots convicted this week
The fear of binary liquid explosives that is based entirely on viewing of Die Hard 3 but which fúcks all our travel plans
Dhiren Barot's fantasies which were confirmed by the fact that he was allowed to plead guilty to real charges as opposed to being laughed at for being a moron
The recent attacks in London by "Doctors" with a less than pre-pubescent understanding of how explosives work.
The Glasgow attack which only proved their ability to hurt themselves

Yet, we allow government to dictate to us on the back of this rank stupidity on travel and internal policy based on this bollócks. When will we revolt?

I don't take much of this stuff seriously. I think a lot of it is nonsense with the intent of keeping people scared so governments can bring in things like the patriot act and similar legislation that let them invade your privacy in the name of security.

eoin5

Not sure if this thread is in the right place to be honest. Anyways the something awful goons had their say on the current terrorists a few days ago: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/terrorism-training-decline.php

henbane

You would be right. Must make sure I'm in the correct forum before I post in future.

Zombrex

henbane wrote:

When will we revolt?

I agree, I'm sick of the government drumming up nonsense about the threat of terrorism. Its all blown out of proportion to keep us in a state of fear. The people need to rise up and teach this government a lesson. Possibly with some sort of random act of mass violence targeting a large population center, like an airport.

Esmereldina

I think most of the so called counter terrorism measures are rather silly and are there to make it seem as if the government is doing something to protect people rather than actually protecting them.
This is why they put rules in place to prevent attacks of a particular kind after they have already happened/been attempted. Take the ridiculous rules about liquids on planes for example... if I was a terrorist, I would say, fair enough, that didn't work... and move on to devising some different and fiendishly clever way of blowing up a plane. No self respecting terrorist is going to try that one again now that they have all those stupid rules. And the authorities, being silly as they are, will only discover the new method when some terrorist tries to use it... like hiding explosives in their eyelashes or somesuch. And then no one will be able to take their eyelashes on a plane, except that will be no use as the terrorists will have moved on by then.

Ok, I'm ranting, but I'm just bitter as I had to lost my lovely Nars lip pencil in Stansted airport as a result of these lovely regulations. :mad: But I'm sure the world is a safer place now tht I have been separated from it :rolleyes:

I should add that I also think that the terrorist threat is blown out of proportion, and certainly shouldn't be taked as seriously as Sky News would like us to take it!

Marksie

Wicknight wrote:

I agree, I'm sick of the government drumming up nonsense about the threat of terrorism. Its all blown out of proportion to keep us in a state of fear.

An interesting quote:

"The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad."

James Madison, February 23, 1799

metrovelvet

I have come to think that what this does is make everything else, like the economy, education, health, family, etc etc a "luxury issue" so nothing else gets prioritised or accomplished.

GuanYin

metrovelvet wrote:

I have come to think that what this does is make everything else, like the economy, education, health, family, etc etc a "luxury issue" so nothing else gets prioritised or accomplished.

Yeah, remember, the real evil out there is men. Specifically Irish men.

As someone who travels alot, I've long held the view that many of the flight related measures are tokenism at best and that it's no coincidence that most of them have huge money making exploits for clever people.

Firstly, there seems to be a continued singling out of specific ethnics groups, depending on where you are. The dominant attitude seems to be, sure terrorists are easy to spot because they look different to us. If I was looking to get someone to take down a place, I'd be sending the whitest people I could find.

Secondly, what good is limiting liquids to 100mls per container if I can just send 6-7 people each with a 100ml containers to make up the critical volume for whatever it is they think people will do with the liquid. Do they think terrorists don't know simple math???

I read an article recently about the price hikes for bottled water and drinks after the security scans being attributed to the extra work and security in getting them through the airport? That is just about the dumbest lie I've ever heard.

All this and I still no plenty of people who smuggle biological samples in thier toilet bags when flying from place to place in order to cut down on red tape. Mosto fthe samples are harmless, so if they were ever stopped, they could says it's face cream or something, but jesus, I could take a damp cloth in a sealed clear bag with whatever bug I wanted on it and cause chaos on a long haul flight.

Jackie laughlin

You people can't be serious!

Sure there is a danger of policy sacrificing the liberty which it is supposed to defend. Sure, there are incompetent terrorists. Sure, the security industry benefits from anti-terrorist measures and certainly has an interest in overstating the threat.

However, some of the posts above would suggest a huge conspiracy theory when there is litlle or no threat. This is as mad as suggesting that the posts here are part of a conspiracy to weaken our defences so that terrorists would get through and building companies would get lucrative contracts!

Zombrex

Jackie laughlin wrote:

However, some of the posts above would suggest a huge conspiracy theory when there is litlle or no threat. This is as mad as suggesting that the posts here are part of a conspiracy to weaken our defences so that terrorists would get through and building companies would get lucrative contracts!

Who suggested that??

Anyway, politicians are simply doing what they always do, manipulating the situation to their advantage to get elected by appearing to be providing a useful service (Elect me and I will strive to make sure you are not blown up by a terrorist)

10 times the number of people killed in 9/11 die each year on America's roads, yet for some reason America doesn't have a War On Bad Driving. More people die due to lack of health insurance each year in America than died in 9/11, and the cost of the war in Iraq could have provided them with health care a number of times over, yet that ain't much of an issue when people are returning Bush for another 4 years.

These things do not trigger the response of "OH HOLY F**KING S**T!!" (to quote the Onion), so people don't worry that much about them. They do worry about terrorism, despite the fact that they are far far far more likely to be effected by something else. So this is what politicians strive to look like they are tackling.

Its like the way a lot of people panic when getting on an aeroplane, despite the fact that they are 100,000 times more likely to get killed driving to the airport.

humbert

It's a complete farce the motivations are many, but in the end I just fear the day some would be bomber stuffs explosives up his ass, as the drug "mules" do. The security measures wont be fun after that.

For the record the incident that precipitated the prohibition on liquids was actually solid explosives in the base of a lucozade bottle iirc. Very very few liquid explosives, as i said, utter farce.

The thought occurred to me that it might benefit the air travel companies if people had to purchase ant drinks after check-in but I think that overcomes the deterrent to flying that the security measures cause.

So that simply leaves hysteria as the most logical explanation as I see it.

aidan24326

Jackie laughlin wrote:

You people can't be serious!

Sure there is a danger of policy sacrificing the liberty which it is supposed to defend. Sure, there are incompetent terrorists. Sure, the security industry benefits from anti-terrorist measures and certainly has an interest in overstating the threat.

However, some of the posts above would suggest a huge conspiracy theory when there is litlle or no threat. This is as mad as suggesting that the posts here are part of a conspiracy to weaken our defences so that terrorists would get through and building companies would get lucrative contracts!

No-one said anything about conspiracy theories, but there's little doubt we're all being taken for a ride on this whole 'terrorism' thing. It's total hogwash. Sure there are terrorists around, sure there's people out there who'd love to blow up the White House, but the threat is exaggerated imo.

Does al-qaeda even exist? I seriously doubt that any such organisation exists in the way that the US and British governments would like us to believe. They're the boogeyman to be afraid of.

The media propagate the whole 'terror' thing because it's fashionable, in much the same way as aids was the scary fashion of the 80's and 90's. Scaremongering at it's best. Governments and their mouthpieces in the mainstream media are more concerned with what's fashionable (and will get your attention, your money and your vote) than what's actually important.

Esmereldina

Jackie laughlin wrote:

You people can't be serious!

Sure there is a danger of policy sacrificing the liberty which it is supposed to defend. Sure, there are incompetent terrorists. Sure, the security industry benefits from anti-terrorist measures and certainly has an interest in overstating the threat.

However, some of the posts above would suggest a huge conspiracy theory when there is litlle or no threat. This is as mad as suggesting that the posts here are part of a conspiracy to weaken our defences so that terrorists would get through and building companies would get lucrative contracts!

I didn't mean to suggest there was no threat from terrorists. I do believe though that the information that we are fed about it through the media is carefully managed and presented to us according to political needs.* I would suspect that a lot of the security measures have more to do with 'being seen to do something' and are thus part of the media hype about terrorism itself, than with actually combatting terrorism effectively.


As other have pointed people are far more likely to be killed in many other ways such as road accidents, but the terrorism is what always graps the headlines. It is easier to create a sense of national unity and drum up government support if there is an external threat, and takes the focus away from domestic issues, the tackling of which may not seem to produce such exciting resuts as combatting terrorism.

* I don't mean to sound like some kind of mad conspiracy theorist here; ie fat dude sitting in a basement with his computer X Files style... I think this is just common sense It has also been proved to us retrospectively on some occasions. The most obvious example is the phantom WMDs of Iraq...

Esmereldina

Jackie laughlin wrote:

You people can't be serious!

Sure there is a danger of policy sacrificing the liberty which it is supposed to defend. Sure, there are incompetent terrorists. Sure, the security industry benefits from anti-terrorist measures and certainly has an interest in overstating the threat.

However, some of the posts above would suggest a huge conspiracy theory when there is litlle or no threat. This is as mad as suggesting that the posts here are part of a conspiracy to weaken our defences so that terrorists would get through and building companies would get lucrative contracts!

I didn't mean to suggest there was no threat from terrorists. I do believe though that the information that we are fed about it through the media is carefully managed and presented to us according to political needs.* I would suspect that a lot of the security measures have more to do with 'being seen to do something' and are thus part of the media hype about terrorism itself, than with actually combatting terrorism effectively.


As other have pointed people are far more likely to be killed in many other ways such as road accidents, but the terrorism is what always graps the headlines. It is easier to create a sense of national unity and drum up government support if there is an external threat. It also takes the focus away from domestic issues, the tackling of which may not seem to produce such exciting resuts as combatting terrorism.

* I don't mean to sound like some kind of mad conspiracy theorist here; ie fat dude sitting in a basement with his computer X Files style... I think this is just common sense It has also been proved to us retrospectively on some occasions. The most obvious example is the phantom WMDs of Iraq...

Jackie laughlin

Wicknight,
You ask who was offering a conspiracy theory and then immediately offer one.

I've already said that there are people in the security industries who will get rich and who certainly have an interest in scaring the average citizen.

Let's be serious here. Who here is in favour of doing nothing about terrorism?

stovelid

I don't deny that the brouhaha about terrorism can be overstated for the needs of the state, to sell papers or to feed a security industry but I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.

It should be possible to rationally engage the potential threat of terrorism without either overstating the threat or just sitting back and simply mouthing 'conspiracy theory'.

Jackie laughlin

Agreed!

aidan24326

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Wicknight,
You ask who was offering a conspiracy theory and then immediately offer one.

I've already said that there are people in the security industries who will get rich and who certainly have an interest in scaring the average citizen.

Let's be serious here. Who here is in favour of doing nothing about terrorism?

Obviously we'd all like to see terrorism stamped out in all it's forms, but there's a couple of ponts that are important to note.

For a start, where does terrorism come from? Why is there thousands of muslims in the Arab world who hate American and Britain? Who created this situation? Fact is America and it's modern-day lapdog Britain (amongst others admittedly) have created this situation by occupying foreign countries, overthrowing governments, pillaging resources etc.

The whole 'war on terror' is bullsh1t. Stop invading foreign countries and stealing their resources and maybe they won't be as keen to do you harm. And the threat is undoubtedly exaggerated to push a particular agenda, that's undeniable and not 'conspiracy theory'. The major governments of the western world have already proven themselves to be barefaced liars with the whole WMD fiasco, so problem now is we don't really know when they're telling the truth and when they aren't. At this stage I think it's safe to treat anything the likes of Bush and Cheney say with suspicion, if they told you it was sunny outside you'd reach for your raincoat.

Sand

It should be possible to rationally engage the potential threat of terrorism without either overstating the threat or just sitting back and simply mouthing 'conspiracy theory'.

Maybe the threat isnt overstated? Maybe there is a Jihadist idealogical group out there that plans, raises funds and trains for atrocities on targets they consider non-human?

stovelid

aidan24326 wrote:

The media propagate the whole 'terror' thing because it's fashionable, in much the same way as aids was the scary fashion of the 80's and 90's. Scaremongering at it's best. Governments and their mouthpieces in the mainstream media are more concerned with what's fashionable (and will get your attention, your money and your vote) than what's actually important.

Different - if valid - argument to (what I took to be) the original point.


That was: Where is the line between the simulacrum of terrorist threat (WMD, security contracts, Muslims-under-the-bed scapegoating, terrorism as malign counterpoint to the state) and the 'real' threat.

I believe that the cause of Muslim terrorism can be rationalized from a left wing standpoint as above (I accept and agree with it).

I also believe that the (simulacrum of) threat is quite useful to the state, media, and security business. No problem there.

However it is easy (all too easy for the Irish left) to ideologically tie up the causes and historical context of the problem so accurately as to induce a kind of paralysis.

To wit: "We deplore the (very valid) root causes of Muslim terrorism but because of our brutally dialectical mindset, we cannot consider the threat of Muslim terrorism separately as also abhorrent acts and attacks on secular democracy"

The idea that bombing a square full of Israeli shoppers or indeed a tube full of people quite unrelated to your oppression can be totally justified by western oppression of the Arab world is too easy an analysis.

Sand and JL are correct. There is a 'real' threat.

Even if that 'real' threat is obscured or partially comprised by the (simulacrum of) threat.

Smugly pointing out the roots of Muslim terrorism or focusing on the wilder shores of Blair/Bush lies does not resolve that.

fly_agaric

Esmereldina wrote:

As other have pointed people are far more likely to be killed in many other ways such as road accidents

If you want to start comparing road accidents and terrorism, lets imagine a small percentage of the road accidents are actually caused by car companies intentionally engineering in faults (which then result in fatal RTAs...:)) I imagine that might make drivers afraid/cause a big public fuss even if it is far more likely that the loose nut behind the car's steering wheel will cause the accident.

Esmereldina wrote:

, but the terrorism is what always graps the headlines. It is easier to create a sense of national unity and drum up government support if there is an external threat. It also takes the focus away from domestic issues, the tackling of which may not seem to produce such exciting resuts as combatting terrorism.

That may be so, but for the UK and US in particular there is a real internal and external threat.

I think someone else may have mentioned/touched on this already but in a way the governments/security agencies are damned no matter what they do here.
They tell people to be vigilent/introduce new security measures and there is no big succesful attack - they are stoking fear at best unnecessarily and at worse for some nefarious anti-democratic purpose.
They stfu and there is a massive terrorist "spectacular" - the questions are now "Why were you lot asleep at the wheel?/What use are you!" and "Why didn't you warn us of the danger/introduce more security precautions?" And they're just the questions the sane people ask...

nacho libre

There is nothing more effective than a plot slipping under the radar to jolt people from their complacency concerning the danger posed by Islamic extremists. Due to the herculean efforts of the British intelligence services over the last six years there are thousands of people breathing today that otherwise wouldn't be. Right now there are over 40 plots in existence that were they to be successfully executed would result in the death and injury of many thousands of people. In the words of Anthrax: "The threat is real"

mike65

For a start, where does terrorism come from? Why is there thousands of muslims in the Arab world who hate American and Britain? Who created this situation? Fact is America and it's modern-day lapdog Britain (amongst others admittedly) have created this situation by occupying foreign countries, overthrowing governments, pillaging resources etc.

Islamic terror began decades ago and was largely the legacy of Sayyid Qutb
an Egyptian intellecutucal who went to the USA just after the second world war, and left appalled at the "decadence" of his hosts. He decided the only way forwards was pure Islam and that it would have to be exported to save the world. He was politically radicalised when jailed by the Egypt government as part of the Islamic Brotherhood in the 50s.

His ideology acted a siren for pretty much all the far better known Islamic demigods and revolutionary leaders who have been and gone ever since.

Mike.

Nick_oliveri

The power of nightmares. Good documentary. Details the rise of a muslim with crazy ideas and the rise of a neo-conservative leader (ideas also a bit crazy) around the same time. And how al-queda is a most over-rated organisation. I believe you can find it on teh internets.... (youtube,googlevid)

mike65

the Power of Nightmares and The New Al-Qaeda should be watched back-to-back. Between them they contain pretty much all you need to know.

Mike.

InFront

mike65 wrote:

Islamic terror began decades ago and was largely the legacy of Sayyid Qutb
an Egyptian intellecutucal who went to the USA just after the second world war, and left appalled at the "decadence" of his hosts. He decided the only way forwards was pure Islam and that it would have to be exported to save the world. He was politically radicalised when jailed by the Egypt government as part of the Islamic Brotherhood in the 50s.

His ideology acted a siren for pretty much all the far better known Islamic demigods and revolutionary leaders who have been and gone ever since.

Mike.

That's all very well, but the fact is that Sayyid Qutb is irrelevant. Qutb was nothing special. Anyone could have come up with the concept of international terrorism supposedly based on the perpetuation of religious ideals through violent means, the important part is that people responded to it, and the important question to ask is why they responded to it.

Why could I put forward Qutb's brand of Islamism in Dublin today and get a negative response from Muslims (or any individuals), and then go to Iraq or somewhere and get a positively enthusiastic response? Why is that?

Terrorism and its legacy is a soup. aidan24326 is wrong to blame it completely on the Western warmongers and you'd be wrong to give any significant legacy to Qutb as well. Economics, historical events as complete as the Indian-Pakistani conflict and the (still less complete) first world war had major influence over the growth of terrorism. They are less immediately responsoible than the Iraq wars and the Afghan invasion, but they are strong players.

We can't do much to undo the damages of WWI and dead conflicts in the subcontinent, but the least the west, insofar as it exists as a solid bloc, could do, is to stop pulling on the strings of terrorism and stop aggravating the causes of terrorism. If not for the sake of those abroad, then for those at home.

Sand

Why could I put forward Qutb's brand of Islamism in Dublin today and get a negative response from Muslims (or any individuals), and then go to Iraq or somewhere and get a positively enthusiastic response? Why is that?

Massive economic, political, cultural and educational failure? The Middle East is the heir to a great civillisation but pretty much fails dismally on any measure of prosperity, political freedom or education in the modern era. When an idealogy offers to restore the "good old days", then that has to be appealing compared to current conditions.

It is also worth noting that the bed rock of AQ and jihadist idealogy lies outside the middle east, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that AQ has concentrated on unifying dozens if not hundreds of seperate, regional groups under its vision of a global struggle.

InFront

Sand wrote:

Massive economic, political, cultural and educational failure? The Middle East is the heir to a great civillisation but pretty much fails dismally on any measure of prosperity, political freedom or education in the modern era.

Heir? What are you talking about?

I did point out that terrorism has been influenced by economics - wrapped up in that are political and educational failures anyway. I'm not sure if youre of the impression that youre agreeing or disagreeing there.

Nick_oliveri

mike65 wrote:

The New Al-Qaeda should be watched

Ooo i may watch that. Another three parter?

Jackie laughlin

Jihadi thinking originates in the Middle East.

Training of western jihadis is now mainly in Pakistan, though a clampdown there may return it to N.E. Africa.

9/11 predated the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bush and co. have made matters much worse.

The London Transport bombers radicalisation seems to have a lot to do with militant Islam giving them a way out of the patriarchal clan domination of their Pakistani families' origins. (See Prospect issue before current one.)

Terrorism is newsworthy: terrorists, media, the security industry and political opponents of the open society find that useful.

Nick_oliveri

God Al-queda are in Iraq now.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_Insurgents_in_Iraq_same_as_0712.html

Q Sir, on that point, what evidence can you present to the American people that the people who attacked the United States on September 11th are in fact the same people who are responsible for the bombings taking place in Iraq? What evidence can you present? And also, are you saying, sir, that al Qaeda in Iraq is the same organization being run by Osama bin Laden himself?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Al Qaeda in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And, you know, the guys who perpetuated the attacks on America, obviously the guys on the airplane are dead, and the commanders -- many of those are either dead or in captivity, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

nacho libre

Nick_oliveri wrote:

God Al-queda are in Iraq now.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_Insurgents_in_Iraq_same_as_0712.html

political expediency, much?

they are **now**. What he omitted to mention is the insurgency consists of disparate groups with different goals to Al-Qaeda. I'm surprised he didn't mention specifically the Sunni tribesmen who have turned on Al-Qaeda in Anbar. These are the same tribesmen who were attacking American forces up till last year in Anbar and were described as terrorists at that time.

Nick_oliveri

Ah now George Bush never lied. We are spreading freedom throughout the middle east!

Of course theres Al Qeada insurgents in Iraq.....linked to 9/11. They have proof....

Jackie laughlin

Bush's madness/badness is not a reason for believing that Islamic terrorism is not a threat.

Nick_oliveri

Yes we all know that. But we cant fecking tell without the proper intelligence where they shall strike. Political-gain fearmongering does not help the situation and only serves them (polititians) and not us.

As a terrorist, potential gains can be seen with the current climate. Terrorism seems to work because we are scared of it and the media portrays it like its coming now anytime soon, maybe tomorrow....

Now we have simple mechanisms for terror like cars filled with household items (nails etc.) and petrol rather than planes hitting buildings or suicide bombers striking rail systems and buses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhJZqtta3c4

aidan24326

Mike65 and InFront of course I'm not saying all terrorism is Bush and Blair's fault, or that it could ever be simplified as much as that. I'm well aware there are tensions in the middle east that are separate from the current war (if you could call it that).

But, the point is you don't become a terrorist target for no reason. The IRA weren't bombing in England just because they were loonies who liked bombing things. Equally if the USA and Britain today have become terrorist targets it's because they've created a situation (with their warmongering) that has made them widely hated in the Arab world.

The lesson being, if you don't want 'terrorists' to bomb you, don't fcuk around with their country. Don't start illegal wars, don't occupy nations who don't want you there, don't pillage resources(something the English had been doing for centuries)

It's notable that nobody wants to bomb Switzerland, I don't recall any Muslim fanatics blowing anything up in Berne or Basle recently. People can give all the complex reasons they want for terrorism and no doubt many of them may be valid but fact is if you persist in screwing around with other countries (as the US have been doing for decades) you are going to piss off alot of people. Though the whole 'al-qaeda' threat is still undoubtedly exaggerated.

Jackie laughlin

Aidan,
Northern Ireland remains part of the UK but now with IRA support.

The 9/11 attacks pre-dated Afghanistan and Iraq.

I hope you are not wearing any cheap clothing produced in the 3rd world while you are getting hot under the collar about British imperialism.

togster

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Aidan,
Northern Ireland remains part of the UK but now with IRA support.

The 9/11 attacks pre-dated Afghanistan and Iraq.

I hope you are not wearing any cheap clothing produced in the 3rd world while you are getting hot under the collar about British imperialism.

I dont ever remember the IRA supporting continued British control of Northern Ireland. I agree with Aidan often these issues get over analyzed. There is a reason that these terrorist organisations detest america. Its not simply that they don't like their values. America has been meddling in the middle east for many years. I think its support of Israel has alot to do with it. The simple lesson to be learnt is if you don't want to get messed with dont mess with them.

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote:

These things do not trigger the response of "OH HOLY F**KING S**T!!" (to quote the Onion),

Nobody says it like the onion. I think this one sums the whole thing up nicely:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39374

The stupid security measures we see int he airports are to help the idiots of our society believe they are safe. Seriously, it is a sad day when our air safety is based on the terrrorist poor math skills.

MrP

stovelid

togster wrote:

Its not simply that they don't like their values. America has been meddling in the middle east for many years.

One question.

(Not attacking you. I agree about the meddling)

Do you think this dislike of American values would exist if the meddling had not occurred?

togster

stovelid wrote:

One question.

(Not attacking you. I agree about the meddling)

Do you think this dislike of American values would exist if the meddling had not occurred?

To a certain extent yes. However the problem is deeply rooted in american foreign policy and the image of an "all conquering nation". Hatred towards America had been cultivated many years ago in conflicts all around the world and accentuated recently by the invasion of Iraq. The use of the Atomic Bomb in Japan being of notable interest. The "arrogance" perpetuated by such events has created a cemented sense of loathing towards all things American not just by extremists but by many "westerners" too.

Saint Ruth

aidan24326 wrote:

But... the point is you don't become a terrorist target for no reason. The IRA weren't bombing in England just because they were loonies who liked bombing things. Equally if the USA and Britain today have become terrorist targets it's because they've created a situation (with their warmongering) that has made them widely hated in the Arab world.

Of course they have their reasons.

No one gets murdered for no reason, but that doesn't excuse it.

Saint Ruth

What do we have to fear from current "terrorism"?

Getting blow up in an airplane, bus, train, or office block.

Nick_oliveri

The likelyhood of that happening to you is on the verge of being astronomical. Do you live in Ireland Saint Ruth?

What does this nation have to fear is the better question.
Answer: Feck all. Dont believe the hype.

Saint Ruth

Nick_oliveri wrote:

The likelyhood of that happening to you is on the verge of being astronomical. Do you live in Ireland Saint Ruth?

You're right, but I presumed he was talking about the UK as he talking about "that government "counter-terrorism" ?"

I mean, if we're talking only about Ireland, what government "counter-terrorism" is he talking about?

Nick_oliveri

Yes, the standard of "counter terrorism" in the US and UK is insane. As is the fearmongering.

7/7 was one of those days that people wish to forget, but if you are talking about getting blown up, even in a UK sense, its still incredibly unlikely to happen... again the chances are almost astronomical (yes i like that word!! )

People got blown up for years, be it the IRA or whoever. Nothings changed only the way it is portrayed and dramaticised on the media and the security and "terrorist" rights restrictions.

In the UK sense, fear the floods, fear the fearmongering, fear the global warming, dont believe the hype... and eh bring the boys back home.

InFront

Saint Ruth wrote:

I mean, if we're talking only about Ireland, what government "counter-terrorism" is he talking about?

Police here make no secret of the fact that they do carry out surveillance operations in this regard, there have been a significant number of raids on homes of Muslims in Dublin and in fact there are a number of individuals whose homes have been raided on a ridiculously frequent basis. Of course, they've found absolutely nothing in these raids.
I'm not suggesting there shouldn't then be any raids or police searches, it's just that special branch do carry out these activities, and given the fact that nothing has ever been reported to have been found they do seem a bit baseless, and what's more most people don't seem to realise this is happening or that some individuals feel unfairly targeted.

There is a good relationship between the police and the Muslim community as far as I can see, but it's probably not a good idea to be making the same mistake at the British and the French police services, for example, in this regard.

Nick_oliveri

Doing random shakedowns on random Muslims in Ireland or anywhere else is teeth grindingly stupid and tbh it makes me want to kick the f*ck out of whatever knob that orders these shakedowns.

When the world goes to shíte theres always some scapegoat they look for, be it the Jews, (who some still bame for 9/11 lol !!!) Muslims, Russians or whoever else.

Great times we live in altogether.