The terror threat is real :eek:
15 April 2005, 12:24 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CrisPDuk
As first time impartial reader of this thread,I have to say the indications are that the bigotry is emanating from your posts not brihoppy's.
I'm afraid I fail to see how suggesting that successive government's failure to clamp down on irish terrorists, in order to keep the yanks sweet is a bigotted view.
By contrast, your apparent belief that the IRA's actions were somehow justified, solely on the basis of the UDA's behaviour being worse, is reprehensible.
FWIW my personal opinion is that our own press had (and still has) far to many sympathisers and appeasers within their ranks who, more than anyone else, effectively restrict the security services' operations against any form of terrorist threat, witness the outcry following the Gibraltar executions, or the alleged (and, if true, entirely justified) 'shoot to kill' policy being operated by the RUC.
I'm afraid I fail to see how suggesting that successive government's failure to clamp down on irish terrorists, in order to keep the yanks sweet is a bigotted view.
By contrast, your apparent belief that the IRA's actions were somehow justified, solely on the basis of the UDA's behaviour being worse, is reprehensible.
FWIW my personal opinion is that our own press had (and still has) far to many sympathisers and appeasers within their ranks who, more than anyone else, effectively restrict the security services' operations against any form of terrorist threat, witness the outcry following the Gibraltar executions, or the alleged (and, if true, entirely justified) 'shoot to kill' policy being operated by the RUC.
and just quickly, in response to an earlier post...i will admit that i have no hard evidence that it was pressure from the US that prevented a hardline approach, like most subjects of this nature a certain amount of reading between the lines is necessary, but IMO it is almost undeniable that the US administrations of the 70s, 80s and early 90s relied heavily on the 'irish' american nationalist/republican sympathisers, who simply would not have voted (somewhere in the region of 20 million?) the right way had the president condoned hardline action by the british in ulster...
there are so many factors that contributed, and still do, to the troubles, and quite honestly i have great sympathy for those that have lost loved ones, in all cases, and have great empathy for the people commited to peace in the province...i really could talk about this all day...!!!
15 April 2005, 12:27 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CrisPDuk
CrisPDuk,
Can I sort out a few possible misunderstandings here?
I'm afraid I fail to see how suggesting that successive government's failure to clamp down on irish terrorists, in order to keep the yanks sweet is a bigotted view.
I hadn't picked on that point, as far as I can remember....
By contrast, your apparent belief that the IRA's actions were somehow justified, solely on the basis of the UDA's behaviour being worse, is reprehensible.
I never said that the IRA'a actions were justifyable, I've stated more than once that there is no place for terrorism - regardless of who is responsible.
FWIW my personal opinion is that our own press had (and still has) far to many sympathisers and appeasers within their ranks who, more than anyone else, effectively restrict the security services' operations against any form of terrorist threat, witness the outcry following the Gibraltar executions, or the alleged (and, if true, entirely justified) 'shoot to kill' policy being operated by the RUC.
I'm not disagreeing with you on this point, either, I was only making the point that what sort of government thinks it acceptable to work together with a terrorist organisation which ends up committing acts of terrorism against people with no terrorist involvement. And if you are going to have a Shoot to kill policy (IMHO not entirely justified), against terrorists, because let's all agree, terrorism has no place in our society, a terrorist is a terrorist, so shoot to kill 'em all, and clean the place up twice as fast
15 April 2005, 12:33 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by celticpilgrim
[/I]
I'm not disagreeing with you on this point, either, I was only making the point that what sort of government thinks it acceptable to work together with a terrorist organisation which ends up committing acts of terrorism against people with no terrorist involvement. And if you are going to have a Shoot to kill policy (IMHO not entirely justified), against terrorists, because let's all agree, terrorism has no place in our society, a terrorist is a terrorist, so shoot to kill 'em all, and clean the place up twice as fast
I'm not disagreeing with you on this point, either, I was only making the point that what sort of government thinks it acceptable to work together with a terrorist organisation which ends up committing acts of terrorism against people with no terrorist involvement. And if you are going to have a Shoot to kill policy (IMHO not entirely justified), against terrorists, because let's all agree, terrorism has no place in our society, a terrorist is a terrorist, so shoot to kill 'em all, and clean the place up twice as fast
15 April 2005, 12:46 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by brihoppy
hmmm, men-tal-ist...!!!
you just can't win with some folks, I suppose.....
15 April 2005, 01:01 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Jack City
Posts: 1,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This idea that you can identify terrorists, wipe them out and solve the problem overnight is pure guff. And it's nothing to do with 'do-gooder' liberals and the press either. No one is born a terrorist. You shoot one terrorist and you recruit umpteen more and more sympathy for their cause. Shoot to kill and trying to silence the IRA did nothing to solve the NI problem.
15 April 2005, 01:38 PM
#36
BANNED
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ozzy
Does it really matter that one side killed more than the other? What is the acceptable body count difference between both sides?
I'd say no, and none. The point is any terrorist activity shouldn't be accepted. IRA are w@ankers, UDA are w@nkers and some elements of the RUC and British Armed Forces were w@nkers too.
It is Ironic that the Americans sold weapons to the IRA and supported them financially yet they get on their high horse about terrorism today.
I'd say no, and none. The point is any terrorist activity shouldn't be accepted. IRA are w@ankers, UDA are w@nkers and some elements of the RUC and British Armed Forces were w@nkers too.
It is Ironic that the Americans sold weapons to the IRA and supported them financially yet they get on their high horse about terrorism today.
olly i just got banned from a republican forum , been a member their for ages
and i get banned it was for pro irish people from all over the world
and i got banned coz i said the i.r.a members who killed robert mccartney should be beheaded and their families butchered, for killing an innocent man and i critisized them for doing **** all for catholic irish now , old days are gone and i called them a b@stard mafia who dont give a f*** about the irish community but the power and the money they can make
and i get banned for telling the truth
it hurts alot u cant even tell the truth anymore
19 July 2005, 11:57 AM
#39
Originally Posted by Suresh
Bumping this one as reminder of pure naievity on SN just a couple of months back... 
This one's for you UB!!
Suresh
This one's for you UB!!
Suresh
Its saddening that I was wrong.
Hardly a big AL-Queda plot though.
Just goes to show that if individuals or groups wish to carry out attacks undected, they can quite easily.
Many of those arrests previously were a load of tosh.
Bob
19 July 2005, 12:27 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ozzy
It is Ironic that the Americans sold weapons to the IRA and supported them financially yet they get on their high horse about terrorism today.
Just like the fact they were happy to sell arms to both Iran and Iraq during the war. Just like the Chemical Weapons used against the Kurds were US supplied.
19 July 2005, 03:30 PM
#41
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by moses
and i got banned coz i said the i.r.a members who killed robert mccartney should be beheaded and their families butchered, for killing an innocent man
Blimey Moses, think about what you are saying!
Geezer
11 August 2006, 08:27 AM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOB'5
Its saddening that I was wrong.
Hardly a big AL-Queda plot though.
Bob
Hardly a big AL-Queda plot though.
Bob
It appears that recent events have echoes of an attack which had been planned for 1995 by a guy by the name of Ramzi Yusuf. Ramzi, now in prison, was behind a number of terroristr attacks including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre before his arrest in 1997.
(His father was a Pakistani engineer who worked for Kuwait Airways, and his uncle is Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, the operational architect of 9/11)
In 1995, he planned an operation to destroy 11 aircraft in flight whilst inbound to the US, using liquid explosive and commonly found electrical components, all of which could easily be concealed in hand luggage.
Ring any bells?
11 August 2006, 08:35 AM
#44
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Diablo
Arguably it was.
It appears that recent events have echoes of an attack which had been planned for 1995 by a guy by the name of Ramzi Yusuf. Ramzi, now in prison, was behind a number of terroristr attacks including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre before his arrest in 1997.
(His father was a Pakistani engineer who worked for Kuwait Airways, and his uncle is Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, the operational architect of 9/11)
In 1995, he planned an operation to destroy 11 aircraft in flight whilst inbound to the US, using liquid explosive and commonly found electrical components, all of which could easily be concealed in hand luggage.
Ring any bells?
It appears that recent events have echoes of an attack which had been planned for 1995 by a guy by the name of Ramzi Yusuf. Ramzi, now in prison, was behind a number of terroristr attacks including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre before his arrest in 1997.
(His father was a Pakistani engineer who worked for Kuwait Airways, and his uncle is Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, the operational architect of 9/11)
In 1995, he planned an operation to destroy 11 aircraft in flight whilst inbound to the US, using liquid explosive and commonly found electrical components, all of which could easily be concealed in hand luggage.
Ring any bells?
[5 nano seconds later]
987,347,645 Hits...............
Oh dear..............
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sam Witwicky
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
17
13 November 2015 10:49 AM