The terrorists have won

[stockGURU]

people will never be more scared of the government than they are of incompatible immigrants.

I think you're speaking for youself here. "Incompatible" immigrants - whatever that means - don't bother me as long as they are law abiding. However I do worry about the misuse of government power to trample on the civil liberties of its citizens.

 

[--B--]

i find it quite ironic that the opening post claims the terrorists have won and achieved their aim of creating fear, when it appears to me that the post itself was designed to do just that?

claims that our civil liberties have been eroded and as a population we are living in fear are, to me, ridiculous.

i fully agree the media propagates fear through their relentless campaign of promoting the "war on terror" however in my opinion, this does not reflect the true attitudes of ordinary people.

it is without a doubt fundamental islamic extremists exist and for various reasons wish to inflict terror on western countries, through different means. to ignore this threat as minor and therefore not worthy of appropriate action is, to me, irresponsible.

 

[juw177]

it is without a doubt fundamental islamic extremists exist and for various reasons wish to inflict terror on western countries, through different means. to ignore this threat as minor and therefore not worthy of appropriate action is, to me, irresponsible.

Replace extremist with communist and the story plays out the same.

 

[wayneL]

i find it quite ironic that the opening post claims the terrorists have won and achieved their aim of creating fear, when it appears to me that the post itself was designed to do just that?

claims that our civil liberties have been eroded and as a population we are living in fear are, to me, ridiculous.

i fully agree the media propagates fear through their relentless campaign of promoting the "war on terror" however in my opinion, this does not reflect the true attitudes of ordinary people.

it is without a doubt fundamental islamic extremists exist and for various reasons wish to inflict terror on western countries, through different means. to ignore this threat as minor and therefore not worthy of appropriate action is, to me, irresponsible.

A ludicrous straw man argument, absolute nonsense. You obviously have not read:

we have the capabilities to fight that successfully without some of the absurd measures put in place, which I argue actually detract from our effectiveness in that aim.
Yesterday 09:44 AM

When people willingly forgo civil liberties our fathers and grandfathers fought and died for, people are scared.

Islamist terrorism has been around since 1948.. what's different now? Media and the pollies beating it up is what.

 

[disarray]

Islamist terrorism has been around since 1948.. what's different now? Media and the pollies beating it up is what.

and a mass migration of humanity to the west. and a period of global economic development unrivalled in human history. and mass communication letting people instantly exchange information over vast distances instantly. and a single world superpower enforcing their will wherever they want without a superpower counterbalance. the world has never been like it is now.

now you want to claim government policy is absurd and the internal threats can be dealt with much more effectively. please elaborate.

oh and stockguru, an example of incompatible immigrants for you.

 

[trading_rookie]

Islamist terrorism has been around since 1948.. what's different now?

It wasn't at our doorstep in 1948 and in the 70's and 80's the PLO and similar organisations were focusing on Israel, not the west. Recall the Black September attack in West Germany, their aim was to kill Israeli athletes and officials, not 'westerners'.

 

[chops_a_must]

It wasn't at our doorstep in 1948 and in the 70's and 80's the PLO and similar organisations were focusing on Israel, not the west. Recall the Black September attack in West Germany, their aim was to kill Israeli athletes and officials, not 'westerners'.

So when the Zionists were killing westerners and brits in the late 40s, how did we deal with the problem then?

 

[wayneL]

now you want to claim government policy is absurd and the internal threats can be dealt with much more effectively. please elaborate.

The current level of legislation forces the authorities to take their eye off the ball. For instance, airport security is pedantic and ridiculous. Concentrating on how much toothpaste you have is completely asinine, founded upon a fabricated threat and dodgy chemistry. The really logical things are not being done at all.

The Haneef situation could have been handled with pre-existing laws without problem.

 

[disarray]

The current level of legislation forces the authorities to take their eye off the ball. For instance, airport security is pedantic and ridiculous. Concentrating on how much toothpaste you have is completely asinine, founded upon a fabricated threat and dodgy chemistry. The really logical things are not being done at all.

... like racial profiling

 

[wayneL]

... like racial profiling

Well, I don't think racial profiling is kosher, but certainly cultural and/or nationality profiling should perhaps be considered.

For instance during "the troubles", an Irishman was the most likely perpetrator of terrorism. This is not a racial distinction.

 

[trading_rookie]

So when the Zionists were killing westerners and brits in the late 40s, how did we deal with the problem then?

Firstly, chops I'm pretty sure besides the Brits, no other 'westerners' were killed by the Zionists' nor their enemy the Palestinian national socialists' over some 'white paper' proposed by the Brits and despised by both sides.

At the end of the day, it was brillant campaiging by the Zionists to get the necessary support from the UN and US by lobbying them, even though neither was in favour of more Jewish migration to then Palestine.

What could the Brits do?, economically and militarily they were a spent force with WWII ending and now trying to keep the extreme Zionists and Arabs from culling one another as well as protecting themselves...sounds like the losing battle they faced in Northern Ireland before they realised only recently that power sharing appears to be the answer over military force.

The fact that the Brits stopped two ships full of European Jewish refugees from landing in Palestine causing them to sink with nearly all onboard drowning also won the Zionists and moderate Jews public sympathy. To think, they've survived an horrific ordeal the Holocaust, only to be let down once again. Of cource this adds to public pressure for supporting the Jews and abandoning the white paper.

The Palestinians did themselves no favours by not coming to the negotiating table when the discussion turned to partitioning Palestine between Jewish and Arab enclaves and the fact they wouldn't abandon their nazi puppet Amin al-Husayni thus lacking any real and creditable leadership...has anything changed today?

 

[chops_a_must]

At the end of the day, it was brillant campaiging by the Zionists to get the necessary support from the UN and US by lobbying them, even though neither was in favour of more Jewish migration to then Palestine.

It's always interesting to see how the words, "murder" and "terrorism" (which in fact is credited to being developed by zionists) are so easily substituted for the word "campaigning" depending on what side you are on.

Like you say, "has anything changed today?"

 

[juw177]

THE TRUTH ABOUT TERRORISM

0: People killed in the USA by terrorism/WMD in 2006.
(Thousands killed by the US and its allies in foreign countries.)

0: People killed in the UK by terrorism/WMD in 2006.

0: People killed in the USA by terrorism/WMD in 2005.

52: killed in the UK by terrorism/WMD in 2005 (all on "7/7").

0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2004.

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2004.

0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2003.

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2003.

0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2002.

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2002.

2,752: in USA killed by terrorism in 2001 (all on "9/11").

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2001.

0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2000.

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2000.


WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD

1.2 MILLION: People in killed in road accidents EVERY YEAR.

430,000: Americans killed by cigarettes EVERY YEAR. (The equivalent of 9/11 repeated every two days forever.) Bush's response to a real threat? His election promise to stop the Justice Department's law suit against the tobacco industry.

400,000: Americans die each year from obesity (while much greater numbers around the world starve to death).

11,000: the people killed in America every year by guns, a human tragedy equivalent to a new 9/11 every 3 months.

 

[trading_rookie]

Zionists' were 'campaigning' the UN and US on their ground...pretty sure they left their 'murdering' and 'terrorism' devices at home. To think if the Arabs had done the same the outcome could have been different...

Thanks for clearing up the origins of 'murder' and 'terrorism'...I'm pretty sure every historian will be quite pleased to know it was them and not the 11th century secret Islamic order the 'assassins' who too murdered and harassed their enemies...

 

[--B--]

THE TRUTH ABOUT TERRORISM

While your post is bordering on the completely irrelevant, i note with amusement that you omitted the many many dead in Madrid and Indonesia. but hey, whatever suits your argument...

not to mention the 1000's more killed by islamic extremists in middle eastern countries..

not to mention all that is done to combat road deaths..

not to mention the fact that plenty is done to combat health related deaths - which are mostly all self-inflicted.

are you saying that we shouldnt do anything about islamic extremism?

 

[wayneL]

Zionists' were 'campaigning' the UN and US on their ground...pretty sure they left their 'murdering' and 'terrorism' devices at home. To think if the Arabs had done the same the outcome could have been different...

Thanks for clearing up the origins of 'murder' and 'terrorism'...I'm pretty sure every historian will be quite pleased to know it was them and not the 11th century secret Islamic order the 'assassins' who too murdered and harassed their enemies...

Pulleeeze!

As if every gu'mint, since Adam was a boy wasn't doing the same... and still does.

 

[trading_rookie]

Sorry Wayne, think you're missing the point...that being the zionist 'successfully' campaigned, the Arabs did not.

ps - meeting to attend so no one think I'm bailing this one!

 

[wayneL]

While your post is bordering on the completely irrelevant, i note with amusement that you omitted the many many dead in Madrid and Indonesia. but hey, whatever suits your argument...

not to mention the 1000's more killed by islamic extremists in middle eastern countries..

not to mention all that is done to combat road deaths..

not to mention the fact that plenty is done to combat health related deaths - which are mostly all self-inflicted.

are you saying that we shouldnt do anything about islamic extremism?

The typical straw man argument is trotted out yet again that balanced argument is somehow supporting the Islamists. That Bill O'Reilly stuff getting a bit worn out mate.

The truth is B, that statistically, there is more risk of being killed by the local nut-case than any terrorist attack. The impingement of civil liberties is simply not warranted by the actual threat and actually does SFA to stop the terrorism anyway.

 

[chops_a_must]

Thanks for clearing up the origins of 'murder' and 'terrorism'...I'm pretty sure every historian will be quite pleased to know it was them and not the 11th century secret Islamic order the 'assassins' who too murdered and harassed their enemies...

The content of the brackets pertained to the latter term.

The Irgun is credited with being the first group to use "terrorism" in a fashion in which we know it today. Kind of hypocritical isn't it?

Quote from the much maligned wikipedia lol:

Irgun was a clandestine militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine from 1931 to 1948. In addition to smuggling Jews into Palestine, the Irgun began in 1936 a policy of responding to acts of terror against Jews by committing terrorist attacks against random Arabs. These attacks were intended to instill fear in the Arab side, in order to cause the Arabs to wish for peace and quiet. These "retaliation and revenge" acts continued until the formation of the State of Israel in 1948.

In addition to the terrorist acts against Arabs, the Irgun also was involved in fighting against the British rule of Palestine. Their goal was to respond against British policies they disagreed with, and ultimately, to force the British to grant Jews the right to form their own nation in Palestine, Their most famous attack was the bombing of the King David Hotel which was the centre of the British administration in Palestine. In 1948, the group was formally dissolved and its members integrated into the newly formed Israeli Defense Forces.

How does "successful" use of terrorism, validate it as a campaigning tool? Who knows? Under this criteria, current Islamist terrorists are just "campaigning" IMO. It's this sort of discrepancy in evaluation which rightly leads Muslims to assess the west as racist.

 

[Kimosabi]

I came across this really interesting documentary on Terrorism, it goes into great depth as to who is REALLY behind most of today's TERRORISM...

Terrorstorm ==> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=6885277369482418431