National Terrorist Threat Level Raised

[recycled]

good john as someone said earlier in australia if you do not like it here get out .so when british people moved to africa and did not like what they saw,why did they force the natives to speak their language, eat their own food and learn british culture? . hy did they not just go away?
If hitler captured london and the south east. The british army would have dissapeared and a resistance underground movement would have been formed . no uniforms ,no id. would they be terrorists ?
before we move any further we have to define a terrorist.
mandela can never be compared to osama .
mandela fought for equality and justice for his people and did not force his way of life on others.The apartheid party forced their way of thinking on the south africans
Osama is just a lunatic trying to force his way of life on others.
Maybe our generations think differently but i have hated occupying powers anywhere in the world.
The vietcong if i remember where called terrorists as well.
Method of going about it is irrelevant. you fight with what you have.
Innocent people getting killed? We have killed more innocent people than mandela and osama bin laden combined. Remember the kurds and dresden?
Borneo.india, palestine, kenya
How can you negotiate with a party that has more planes bombs and warships than you?

 

[IBIZA]

Mrs Thatcher stopped Sein Fein getting publicity in the mid '80's. Maybe we should stop anyone who mentions anything that supports these despotic acts. Once the mouth pieces have been closed and there is no mileage in doing this, then perhaps they may all grow up.

Time for the government to control the media i think.

The idea of the government having greater control on the media risks our not seeing the lows some of the sleazebags we voted in are capable of reaching. The recent bribes to Saudi Arabia springs to mind.

However the preventing Sinn Fein members voices being heard on TV quickly became a farce when it was realised someone with a very similar voice could do a voiceover and it was entirely within the law.

Its a pity that no one showed the insight of getting John Inman or Lilly Savage to do the voice over to dampen the hard terrorist image!

In the run up to Christmas 1975, a relative was shot dead in London having offered a reward for the capture of IRA terrorists responsible for other shootings and bombings that year in the south east. At the time the USA was offering to negotiate between the UK and IRA, but at the same time were their main source of funding.

When the planes flew into twin towers and the "war on terror" started, I called up the US embassy, and they did not seem particularly impressed when I offered to negotiate with the perpetrators for them.

These things are not won by invasions or violence, as one side's retaliation creates the other side's new recruits. People with no interest in these conflicts can quickly cross the line if innocent members of their family become statistics. Invasions and terrorist acts don't normally differentiate between those behind their grievance or women and children.

While it is obviously easy to criticise the potential attrocities avoided at the weekend, the real solution lies in trying to understand what fuelled the hatred instigating the actions in people whose education level would not point to their being mindless, easily led, idiots.

When we manage this - then the world becomes a more peaceful place.

 

[Brett]

On Scottish news this evening, man in hospital has 90% burns and is not expected to survive.

 

[andy_k]

On Scottish news this evening, man in hospital has 90% burns and is not expected to survive.

oh dear, what a pity, never mind

 

[frog1520]

Was Martin McGuinness a terrorist?

Yes

 

[glojo]

Hi recycled,
I would love to debate your points but unfortunately this excellent thread is going way past the rules of what is acceptable on this forum

I strongly believe there are a number of members who are quite capable of having a very interesting, sensible, mature debate on these types of issues, but as been demonstrated in the last few days, we have a few members incapable of communicating without hurling insults.

Regarding your points I will simply and respectfully suggest that Jaw, Jaw, not war, war MUST apply to both sides, and those that commit atrocities to get jaw, jaw are criminals\murderers and terrorists. I am NOT going to get into specifics as that will go too far into the political\religious no no areas.

Yours sincerely
John

 

[glojo]

On Scottish news this evening, man in hospital has 90% burns and is not expected to survive.

This was reported the mornining after the fire, certainly not a pleasant way to die.

I see someone has now been arrested in Australia having just arrived at Brisbane airport. He also appears to be a member of the medical profession

John

 

[scotth_uk]

Local coverage:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/terror-plot-second-doctor-quizzed/2007/07/03/1183351169435.html

 

[glojo]

I think IBIZA has raised some very good points but perhaps we are guilty of being too simplistic? I am not educated enough to debate this point in a full fair manner, but IF one side of any conflict were to allow full media access and the opposing side were to ban any media coverage then the one sided press coverage is quite capable of influencing the public conception of the conflict. Seeing soldiers badly injured is NOT a pretty sight, conflicts are not like the war films we see on the TV, they are brutal, ugly, gory, incidents that are not pretty. The rights and wrongs of conflicts are a separate issue and like the majority of civilised folks I am totally against those we are currently involved in, however I FULLY support our troops and the media must NEVER dictate how a conflict is fought. Of course jaw jaw is the only proper way to conduct ourselves but when this breaks down do we roll over? Wars are usually a result of failure by our politicians, but on the rare occasion when we are simply faced by a bully... Should we roll over, or turn a blind eye? The media are good kids when it comes to criticising but where are they in Chechnya, Tibet, or the numerous African states? It is easy to criticise a civilised nation that allows the media a certain degree of lee-way during a conflict, but the protest against states that are not so obliging are not being shouted from the rafters?

John

 

[GRAV888]

Hi recycled,
I would love to debate your points but unfortunately this excellent thread is going way past the rules of what is acceptable on this forum John

Yes it is.
It is becoming political and that is not allowed.
Please keep on topic, or there's a danger of this thread being closed.

 

[IBIZA]

I drove through Pollokshields in Glasgow about 5AM - there was I would guess over 100 police there and numerous fire engines and ambulances.

Its an area with mainly asian immigrants, and the police had said there was an explosives team there too - but from what he said it implied it was an attack on asians.

I lived locally for years in Strathbungo and until a murder about three years ago there was no racial tension.

 

[recycled]

Hello john
Well terrorism is a political issue and as that is not allowed on the forum,then i shall be signing off on this topic. I think i have made my point anyway.
have a good day
john

 

[R2e]

Sorry, but how is terrorism a political issue and what happened to my post from this morning, it was bang on subject?

 

[GRAV888]

Sorry, but how is terrorism a political issue and what happened to my post from this morning, it was bang on subject?

Your post was removed as your comments towards other communities are not acceptable on this forum.

 

[IBIZA]

I have taken the definition of politics employed in (the ban in) the forum to mean advocating party politics, or politican policies underpinning one party sufficiently to identify that party alone, to be the undersirable entity.

I justify this as obviously politics is sufficiently inherent in life, especially in heavily legislated areas such as driving, transport, roads, travel and the associated taxation, safety and environmental issues which it is obvious will discussed in a forum centred on an aspect of motoring.

Moreover, the current terrorist activity has had me diverted three times and stuck in a traffic queue for hours, so it is fairly difficult not to address.

So would anyone object to the definition of 'banned' politics only be that of party politics, rather than relevant political issues?

 

[GrahamC230K]

So would anyone object to the definition of 'banned' politics only be that of party politics, rather than relevant political issues?

Yes.

The original post was a high interest topic worthy of the News section. The post deserves to be able to stay as that so others can read it.

Replies of about the status changes as changes occur, airport delays etc would have been fine.

A POLITICAL "discussion" on the ins and outs of terrorism is not acceptable.

It just creates work for a moderation team who vlunteer for a Mercedes Forum not the natioanl debating society. We don't care and we don't have time, but we will NOT tollerate material we deem unsuitable to be left on the forum. Hence the ban.

Grav has been very good and given plenty of warnings. Thread now closed.