• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Terrorist Attack in Glasgow

#83
cowsgomoo said:
and yet some people argue that the attempted attacks on English cities like Glasgow :rolleyes: are absolutely NOT connected with our support for the war in Iraq... and you'd be a fool and a liberal to make that connection

but why is England being attacked and not, say, Sweden, New Zealand or the Netherlands? any ideas, burk?
Click to expand...

Then Why did they attack the US BEFORE Afghanistan and Iraq? Remember their was the 93 WTC bombing with an Iraqi trained bomb-maker, who we captured during the invasion. Also the two African Embassy attacks and the USS Cole. This doesn't include the foiled attacks on the space needle and the LA airport.

Since 9/11 their have been terror attacks in the Philippines, Bali, Pakistan, and Indonesia. Along with the terrorist homicide of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands. Along with the self described infitada in France, where Paris took over from Detroit for the car burning capital of the world.:D And two foiled attacks in Canada (they were against Iraq).

Jihadhist believe that any land that Moslems occupy is Moslem land. And a Moslem can not be governed by an infidel. Therefore any land that a large group of Moslems lives in, or use to control must at some point be ruled by the Caliphate. OBL's own writings consider France, Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, India, Philippines, Israel and about half of Russia to be "Moslem lands". Those who say that US or western policy with Israel or the invasion of Iraq causes jihad are sadly misinformed. France and Spain are considered just as much "occupied land" to the Jihadhist as the West Bank and Gaza.

These are not the beliefs of all Moslems. But these are most certainly the beliefs of the Wahabi Salafist Imans which speak for the extremist element in Islam. The west changing it's policies in the middle east might delay an attack but the fact is a withdrawal or pullback is considered weakness by Jihadhist. Again OBL's own writings speak clearly to the US withdrawal from Somalia as an invitation to attack.

The Jihadhist believe they have already defeated one superpower (the USSR in Afghanistan) and in their writings they claim Allah was responsible for the fall of the USSR and he will help them defeat the other superpower (the US). They believe, the only nation that stands between them and setting up the Caliphate. Our current middle east policy is of little interest to them. They hate us because of our influence, because we aren't lynching our gays, because we have loud music, and filthy cinema, and lewd women in short skirts. And because we are corrupting the world to be like us.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
#84
cowsgomoo said:
and yet some people argue that the attempted attacks on English cities like Glasgow :rolleyes: are absolutely NOT connected with our support for the war in Iraq... and you'd be a fool and a liberal to make that connection

but why is England being attacked and not, say, Sweden, New Zealand or the Netherlands? any ideas, burk?
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. I thought we just made it clear that Scotland is not England. Isn't Salmond an opponent of the war? Didn't he try to have Blair impeached over it?
 
#86
Toasted said:
Just assume he ment GBR. That's much easier.
Click to expand...

So why the different standards? Shouldn't someone who lives in England really know better? In all sincerity, you were all over me for not acknowledging the difference in my original post. Now someone who lives in England makes the same faulty analogy and you appear to want to cut him some slack?:hmm:
 
#87
ffs, I'd heard you lot had no concept of irony but I assumed it was an ironic myth

yes, I KNOW Glasgow isn't in England... you get to pick up snippets of info such as that when you've lived in the UK for 30 odd years

and even if I hadn't worked it out by the time I started reading this thread, surely the dozen or so posts pointing out that it's actually in Scotland would have meant that it might just possibly be said in irony...?

the little rolling-eyed smiley ( :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ) should have clued you into the 'subtle' joke I was making at the expense of whoever thought Glasgow was in England then tried to bs through it by saying 'well you don't have to show your passport, so it must all be England, probably' :)

if you're going to pontificate on the conduct of world affairs, knowing the basic geography of your supposed closest allies (and knowing what the word 'analogy' means) is a great place to start

it was also to wind up the Scots on the board.. they love jokes like that :)
 
#92
Mark Latimour said:
So the only acceptable reaction to a terrorist attack on home soil is to run around with your hands in the air and then spend the rest of your days living in fear?

From what I have observed that's just not how things are done in the UK. YMMV.
Click to expand...

When did I say or imply that? All I was saying was that it was sad that the government was so impotent to protect it's people that bombings are the norm.

Maybe if they went back to private healthcare they could afford to beef up their law enforcement..............













......KIDDING KIDDING KIDDING KIDDING.
 
#96
Historically, it's always been hard to strike at terrorists, for all too obvious reasons. But on the rare occasion when the chance occurs, it seems to me that the UK can do a pretty good job. It's a while ago now, but those of us who can remember the 1980 Iranian hostage situation in London will know all about that.
 
#97
Mark Latimour said:
For who?

I would rather live my life and not worry about such things (given that you just never know what can happen) than live in fear. Apparently you feel differently, but those living in fear are the ones for whom, IMO, it is "too bad".
Click to expand...

Man, again I'm not saying you should live in fear. I'll repeat myself - What's too bad is that the it appears that the people you (meaning people in the UK) pay taxes to aren't able to do a better job protecting it's people on a day to day basis. THAT'S what's too bad. People being blown up by terrorist bombs as an every day occurance is sad. The same way it's too bad that in the US we have people who starve to death on the street. The same way it's too bad that we haven't been able to catch the master mind behind 911. Etc etc.
 
#98
bassturtle said:
Man, again I'm not saying you should live in fear. I'll repeat myself - What's too bad is that the it appears that the people you (meaning people in the UK) pay taxes to aren't able to do a better job protecting it's people on a day to day basis. THAT'S what's too bad. People being blown up by terrorist bombs as an every day occurance is sad. The same way it's too bad that in the US we have people who starve to death on the street. The same way it's too bad that we haven't been able to catch the master mind behind 911. Etc etc.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I get what you are saying now. However, I am not sure where you get the idea that the police arn't doing a good job. Yes, there were a lot of terrorist bombs courtesy of the IRA, but IIRC there were usually low numbers of casualties because the IRA usually gave warnings before they went off (although not saying that there wern't casualties).

I would have thought that on a "successful actual attempts" vs "stopped actual attempts" basis, the UK police force would be further ahead of the pack than any other police force in the world.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back