|
Terrorists Attack London's Transportation System (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TranceGrooves |
IRSHAD MANJI is a SHE :eyes:
..... fooled me by them pics i saw of her. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
^^^^
Should I be scared if you quote yourself??:wtf: :nervous: |
|
|
| iLLnaDa |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGrooves
IRSHAD MANJI is a SHE :eyes:
..... fooled me by them pics i saw of her. |
She's an Ismaili Lesbian ...and a devout one too hehhehee |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Clinton did jack .
He may have made nicey-nicey with some countries but terrorists were still attacking all over the place.
Clinton's response?
A cruise missile that hit some camel in the ass and took out an aspirin company...
[EDIT]some support for above arguement
>> Source <<
NK pursuit of a nuclear program and Bush being president at the same time is a corelation that doesn't hold water; merely coincidence.
NK's political agenda was always their own; they're too proud (blind?) to admit basing thier policies based on anyone else's... |
I dont understand what does the failure to capture Osama Bin Laden by Clinton have to do with strained relations around the world today between Bush and the world. First of all, failure to capture Bin Laden is more complex than you think. You make it sound as THE ENTIRE world terrorist organization is run by Osama, while in reality there are worse organizations that killed more people. Osama has been overhyped by Americans and lately used by many world governments to blame for their own terrorist attacks (example, Russia). NKDR had earlier during Clinton's presidency agreed to let inspectors in a landmark deal to make sure they dont build nuclear program for economic help and good relations, which was a great agreement. When Bush came to power, he denounced the NKDR rule and a bunch of bull like that, and subsequently the consenquences came ... |
|
|
| iLLnaDa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
^^^^
Should I be scared if you quote yourself??:wtf: :nervous: |
ooops mistake :P |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
I dont understand what does the failure to capture Osama Bin Laden by Clinton have to do with strained relations around the world today between Bush and the world.
|
Um... a lot?
It's a pretty easy connection really.
Osama was held out on a silver plater before 9/11 for Clinton who did (you guessed it) nothing.
| quote: |
First of all, failure to capture Bin Laden is more complex than you think. You make it sound as THE ENTIRE world terrorist organization is run by Osama, while in reality there are worse organizations that killed more people. Osama has been overhyped by Americans and lately used by many world governments to blame for their own terrorist attacks (example, Russia).
|
I don't disagree with you at all here but I never made a connection between "THE ENTIRE world terrorist organization" being Osama and his henchmen.
However, Osama's organization is global reaching while others are regionalized to a particual area or country.
How many IRAs bombing have we seen outside UK, or Tamal Tiger incidents outside Sri Lanka, for example?
| quote: |
NKDR had earlier during Clinton's presidency agreed to let inspectors in a landmark deal to make sure they dont build nuclear program for economic help and good relations, which was a great agreement. When Bush came to power, he denounced the NKDR rule and a bunch of bull like that, and subsequently the consenquences came ... |
If NK was even serious about helping their own people they wouldn't have jepordized that agreement, all in the name of making a worldly political statement. I'm sure the starving people of NK will understand.
NK has an inferiority complex and have basically shown us through their own actions that they're willing to take months of negotiations and collapse them like a house of cards if and when they want.
Kutos to Clinton for his efforts but the end result shouldn't be surprising. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
what happens to this thread if it's determined that Islamic extremists are not responsible ??
|
Who else right now has any kind of beef with Britain or British forces, etc? It's not the IRA...at least they aren't actively trying to kill civilians these days. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Um... a lot?
It's a pretty easy connection really.
Osama was held out on a silver plater before 9/11 for Clinton who did (you guessed it) nothing.
I don't disagree with you at all here but I never made a connection between "THE ENTIRE world terrorist organization" being Osama and his henchmen.
However, Osama's organization is global reaching while others are regionalized to a particual area or country.
How many IRAs bombing have we seen outside UK, or Tamal Tiger incidents outside Sri Lanka, for example?
If NK was even serious about helping their own people they wouldn't have jepordized that agreement, all in the name of making a worldly political statement. I'm sure the starving people of NK will understand.
NK has an inferiority complex and have basically shown us through their own actions that they're willing to take months of negotiations and collapse them like a house of cards if and when they want.
Kutos to Clinton for his efforts but the end result shouldn't be surprising. |
Well, as for Osama Bin Laden and his 'henchmen' around the world. I've been closely following the Chechen conflict in Russia for quite some some. It has already been proven that Chechen rebels themselves are not connected to Osama Bin Laden's network, as both the Russians and their allies suggest, but rather islamic radicals and jihad supports and their financiers in Middle East. Chechen warlords would send reps to middle east for funds for their 'jihad'. It has been documented before by the Russian secret forces themselves. With the Americans present in almost every single country in the Middle East (well, sort of), it would be hard for Osama to run his camp by hiding himself in the first place.
However, Osama Bin Laden has inspired countless Muslims around the world, for some even to commit terrorist acts against sometimes innocent civilians, and they often claim to be part of Al Qaeda (my opinion).
As for former IRA and other organizations members being involved in terrorism around the world - the answer is plain and simple - its because those people are called MERCENARIES, and they will travel the world to do what they are good at. |
|
|
| BrownTA4Life |
| quote: | Originally posted by iLLnaDa
MAN u seriously got issueS!! IRSHAD MANJI IS a f'in TOOL!!!
Irshad Manji is a NO BODY! SORRy!! SHE IS NOT AN ACADEMIC...
ACADEMICS DISREGARD HER WORK!! and Im speaking of Candian, AMerican and Islamic academics....She came to Queen's last year for a speech hahahaha she had to walk around with ESCORTS !!!! she's better off promoting QUEER T.V not writing BULL ABOUT ISLAM AND WOMENA ND SHE HAS NO IDEA....she belongs to the Ismaili Sect of Isam, therefore IMO she doesn't even represent the major voice of Sunnis the Major sect of Islam!! I DISLIKE HER ...HER PROPAGANDA BASED BULL NOVEL....Its not surprising she's banned from many Muslim countries and that she consistently gets death threats !!!
stay at Queer T.V IRshad!! don't be writing any books on Islam ...puhleeeeez! |
LMAO
thats wat my dad was saying ten minutes ago:nervous: |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
With the Americans present in almost every single country in the Middle East (well, sort of), it would be hard for Osama to run his camp by hiding himself in the first place.
|
You pretty much hit the nail on the head.
I was just reading something today about the, 'flypaper' theory.
It goes something like this:
| quote: |
the whole premise behind the "flypaper theory" is that the more blood and treasure that Al-Qaeda spends in Iraq, the less they'll have to use in attacks against the US and our allies. Al-Qaeda does not have unlimited resources & it's to our advantage to see them used against Coalition and Iraqi forces rather than buses and airplanes full of civilians in the West. Were it not for the conflict in Iraq, all the suicide bombers, money, and manpower Al-Qaeda is using there would be free to go elsewhere...for example to London, New York, Rome, LA, Canberra, & Chicago among other cities
|
| quote: |
However, Osama Bin Laden has inspired countless Muslims around the world, for some even to commit terrorist acts against sometimes innocent civilians, and they often claim to be part of Al Qaeda (my opinion).
|
Don't doubt that.
Every terrorist wants to make a statement, might as well emulate/affiliate with the most popular right?
| quote: |
As for former IRA and other organizations members being involved in terrorism around the world - the answer is plain and simple - its because those people are called MERCENARIES, and they will travel the world to do what they are good at.[/COLOR]
|
There's probably mercenaries in every terrorist organization though.
Opportunistic followers with no believes of their own; devoid of morals and probably worse slugs than the people who hired them. |
|
|
| tamk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
Anyway...this is just an observation but isn't it odd that Middle Eastern society contributed so much to world history and culture in the beginning (ie 2500 years ago) but since largely converting to Islam 1200 years ago, haven't really given anyone...anything? |
dude go read your history books...that was one of the most ignorant statements ever, i feel embarrassed for you. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Firestarter, then we agree! :disbelief That was easy :D
You know your politics too, good to know.:D
Poor innocent victims of the London bombings. It is hard for any country to prevent bombings like that though. No matter how much security you have to protect your country from outside, its hard to keep an eye on 56 million people to see if some of them are planning an attack and where. This is where this 'paper theory' that you are talking about is far-fetched. Iraq right now is not a very well protected (borders) country. I am quite sure hundreds if not thousands militants have slipped in there during the initial panic in the change of the government. 100,000 or so Americans is not enough to guard the borders. I am quite sure the corruption is a factor too, and some of the fanatics pay to get in. Its harder to do that in the west, and its easier for the militants to make their statement in the Middle East. And dont forget, the Saddam's militia was NEVER fully defeated or fully captured, it is in some form still fighting and helping the militant attacks in Iraq. There are still many big names unaccounted for in the former Iraqi government.
Unfortunately, the British muslims will bear the biggest grunt of this entire attack - from their own non-Muslim neighbours who will sometimes show anymosity towards them as a result of these attacks. Those sons of byatches who were behind the attacks are only making their own cause for Muslim liberation, or whatever some people would like to call it, a harder goal to achieve.
Right now I believe people in England are reconsidering or refocusing their views on the war in Iraq, just like it happened in the USA almost 4 years ago. From the mostly anti-war citizen base there will almost certainly be people who will denounce the attacks and call for punishing those who did it. And those who will call for an even quicker withdrawal of troops from Iraq. I wonder which group will win.
I certainly hope the British government had nothing to do with these bombings to win many anti-war British citizens on their side, cause before the bombings the view on the war was strongly opposing. Hopefully we'll find out the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
