Another terrorist attack still possible

Victorvectra · #1 July 11th, 2005, 12:18 PM

I have seen these pictures in a site and liked to showthem to YOU

CanadianGordon · #2 July 11th, 2005, 01:01 PM

Am I the only one who finds THIS absolutely fucking DISCUSTING?

It makes me so very very angry.
Canadians may be looked upon as peace loving people, but I'm ready to smash someone's head in.
I don't find this very amusing at all.
What was your intent to show these to us?
G.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victorvectra

I have seen these pictures in a site and liked to showthem to YOU

http://www.w6w.net/upload/09-07-2005...2815af797d.jpg

http://www.w6w.net/upload/10-07-2005...164f125049.jpg

http://www.w6w.net/upload/09-07-2005...05422eed1b.jpg

http://www.w6w.net/upload/10-07-2005...17ee640739.jpg

http://www.w6w.net/upload/09-07-2005...303e0cb8f5.jpg

CelticMuscle · #3 July 11th, 2005, 01:30 PM

In an interview on BBC News 24, an terrorism expert reviewed those files and called them "FAKE"

Marco_ukmus · #4 July 11th, 2005, 01:43 PM

Yeah, I recon they're just done by some sick bastand! or someone whom is clearly supporting the wrong side. Unfortunately, sick perverted evil minded people are all around us. These pics are nothing short of completely dicusting, but i guess that (obviously) was his intention (assuming it was a male whom created them).

Bazorba · #5 July 11th, 2005, 02:22 PM

Moderators/Administrators,

Please lock and remove this post from the forum for it's extreme bad taste

Whoever posted this should be ashamed of themselves!

puxa-ferro · #6 July 11th, 2005, 08:07 PM

there s no need to remove this thread, guess it s good information, though it s clearly in the wrong section.
In my opinion, must be published in the "Off-topic discussion " section.-

calling em "sick perverted evil minded" could sound as a normal opinion for american standards, but this forum has members from all over the world, so RESPECT OTHER PEOPLE S OPINIONS.

glammaman2000 · #7 July 11th, 2005, 08:39 PM

VERY"off-topic".Unneccessary.Odd.But very"off-topic".

optimusx · #8 July 11th, 2005, 09:32 PM

It's been moved to the off-topic section where it belongs... sorry for the delay.. didn't know I had that ability

I didn't close it or delete the thread... I'll leave that to Flexodus if he so chooses...

Do I personally believe that violence really solves anything? Nope. It never does. Any type of peace formed under a violence is but a temporary one until the opressed can revolt. True peace comes through finding common ground, building on it and learning to live with the differences we each have.

Life would be pretty boring if everyone's house looked the same, everyone dressed the same, and we all thought the same. It might be safer, but we'd all die of bordem. It's the differences between us as people that makes life interesting. It's also one of the reasons people have been able to survive war after war, plague after plauge, and genocide after genocide... we don't wish our individuallity/heritage to perish. So we struggle and continue to live, becoming stronger through our diversity.

Scott

brent · #9 July 12th, 2005, 01:42 PM

While I do find the pics in the first post in very bad taste, and I'm not sure how these got on when our pics can't be posted, I do see his point I think. The U.K. made a conscious decision to go after Iraq for constantly changing reasons, resulting in the brutal deaths a thousand fold of what London saw the other day, instead of going after Al-Qeada. This has allowed the UK's defensive forces to be depleted, earned it new enemies over seas, and and it has allowed Bin-Lauden and his Saudi friends to regroup. The same applies for the US as well.

While I find any and all attacks to be tasteless, and foul, no US or UK citizen should feel that their leaders are working to keep them safe. However the original poster needs to remember that just as he's against the violence in Iraq, the violence in the UK is just as tasteless and grotesque. IMHO, both sides should feel ashamed of themselves, and their leadership.

I know that I feel much less secure today, than I did with Clinton. Add to this that I feel I now live & work in a major target area. However, I refuse to allow small-minded fuckheads effect my life. I think I backed that up by flying home the earliest I could after 9/11.

optimusx · #10 July 12th, 2005, 03:26 PM

I think the reason those pics are showing up is that there is an option to show pics that are hosted remotely. It seems to come and go (right now it looks like I have the option as I compose this reply) Granted, I would much rather those pics at the top be links (esp since you shouldn't expect to see pics like that on a muscle growth site), but I don't have moderation functions enabled for this subforum....

Scott

brent · #11 July 12th, 2005, 06:55 PM

So they aren't wasting MGS's bandwidth? Good. Although I like to challenge people to consider all perspectives, I know I find them to be nearly offensive (and that isn't easy to achieve...)

glammaman2000 · #12 July 12th, 2005, 08:28 PM

...what was the poster's intent?To WARN us?That implies a certain lack of imagination on our part,but thanks.To SCARE us?Sorry.This is as scared as I get.Hope you're enjoying it.g.

Marco_ukmus · #13 July 13th, 2005, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puxa-ferro

calling em "sick perverted evil minded" could sound as a normal opinion for american standards, but this forum has members from all over the world, so RESPECT OTHER PEOPLE S OPINIONS.

Erm, i'm assuming your joking! I mean, i always respect peoples opinions, with a few exceptions, this being one of them. If someone or some group of people wanna kill another group of people for the shear hell of it, would you respect them? (respect being an understatment) Of course they say this is all due to religion but muslims are generally peacefull people, so thats merely a smoke screen! Admitidly, they want us out of Iraq, and personally I don't think we should have ever gotten involved. I dunno if you guys saw all the events over here at the time when we were deciding whether or not to goto Iraq, but numerious scientists and experts said there appears to be no evidence of any bombs of mass destruction. One guy David Kelly who stated that there was no such evidence infact died suspisiously around the enquiry. I personally believe someone killed him in order to allow the UK to go to war by not allowing him to shed more evidence as to why we should not go. I'd say 90% of the English population think we should not have gone to war. Obviously, if we had evidence of bomb making, then fair enough, but we all saw that nothing was found, but yet, MR Blair still went ahead with it. Some say George Bush wanted to go to war because of the oil in Iraq. The USA is so very dependant on gas, we are too to an extent. But uk is much more open to using environmentally friendly fuel even if the uk tax payer has to pay more for it. Whereas, as far as i'm aware, America is not so willing to help with saving the enviroment and using enviromentally friendly fuel, in part because people simply won't pay the extra. Further more, america is quite protective of its jobs, far less out-sourceing than the UK. On the other hand I completely understand, everything here in the UK seems to be getting out-sourced partically manufacturing (which we basically dont do much of any more, like farming), call centres, and even my perfession (I.T.) has been hit vry hard. I think therefore Mr Bush is exceptionally protective of the american ecconmy, but on the other extreme, the UK seems (well the government) to frankly, not give a toss if more and more jobs leave the country. Anyway, think i've got somewhat off topic, I've had my rant now...

Marc
P.S. Hope i have to offended anyone with these comments. I don't have anything against anyone, except for a few extremists here and there. Obviously, the way the american and UK governments interact and the decisions they make annoy me (to say the least), but hey, I guess you can't please everyone.

Peace!

ethernet_jock · #14 July 13th, 2005, 06:47 AM

agreeing with marc... this goes WAY above respect for opinion.

Puxa - next time I see you walking down the street I'm going to step right up and punch you square in the nose as hard as I can... why? because I don't like you and the things that you stand for.

Then I'm going to demand that you respect my opinion about you.

puxa-ferro · #15 July 13th, 2005, 08:30 AM

Thats exactly what Mr Bush , Blair and Berlusconi have been doing for a long time EJ.
It s a political choice for the more powerful countries, but must realise that it has its consequences, cant do it for free.

(feel sorry for all the american and british people that didnt support the Invasion and claimed for peace... must be hard for em too, specially after Bushs and Blairs re-election)

ethernet_jock · #16 July 13th, 2005, 08:41 AM

so you would respect my feelings about you even after I broke your nose?

Mdlftr · #17 July 13th, 2005, 09:15 AM

EJ and Puxa,
I think the point that you are both alluding to is that the principle of free speech concerns people being able to express their respective opinions, despite disagreement with others. There is NO requirement anywhere that the CONTENT of that free speech has to be respected or endorsed by others.

That's why for instance, U.S. courts ruled that it could be permissable for a group of neo-Nazis to be issued a permit to hold a parade through a predominantly Jewish neighborhood (Skokie, IL) because the neo-Nazis were entitled to freedom of expression. The courts were not endorsing the content of the speech, but the right to express it.

HOWEVER, the right to freedom of expression is not unrestricted. You do not have a fundamental right to jump up and falsely claim, "There's a fire!" and cause a riot. Reasonable restrictions can be placed upon speech. Similarly, if an incendiary zealot wanted to appear before a hostile crowd and seek to agitate them, reasonable restrictions could be placed upon the time, place and manner of that speech so as to ensure public safety.

No where does it say that opponents have to respect the CONTENT of the speech, which is what you guys are discussing. The fact that Puxa can voice his opinion, and EJ can voice a contrasting opinion, is an example of free speech.

In the context of this discussion, trying to understand why people would willingly blow themselves up so as to kill other people and create chaos boggles the mind. When you strip away the political invective against the respective leaders of the various countries involved, you are still left with the basic question: What possibly justifies blowing up innocent civilians on their way to work? No warning was given, no reason was given, no objective was stated.

If civilization is mankind's answer to chaos and destruction, then bombers like this, acting against the mass of humanity, with no stated reason or objective, should be treated like the aberrant beings that they are, and stopped.

Mdlftr

Marco_ukmus · #18 July 13th, 2005, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puxa-ferro

(feel sorry for all the american and british people that didnt support the Invasion and claimed for peace... must be hard for em too, specially after Bushs and Blairs re-election)

Well, yes I was extremely surprised that Mr Blair got back in, and Bush as well. As far as i was aware, a lot of americans thought he was simply un-suitable for another term. Mr Blair being re-elected was a huge surprise. I like many others did not vote for him, and it has shown what with him loosing a lot of seats in parliment. Ok, he's great on TV, he's great doing all his press and facing the public, but he's simply not that good at deeling with home issues. We have countless issues in the uk. The hottest being immagration at the moment and border control (our lack of). Politicians have been avoiding this issue for years, but the more they leave it the more the british public get pissed off about it. So I think they are realising they have to do some thing now. Obviously electing the BMP would solve this problem, but the BMP are extremists and would no doubt kick out every law abiding non native english person out of the country, which obviously none of us (except the extremists) want. I think a multi-cultural society is a great thing, as there is much to be learnt and shared from living together. However, the word has spread that the UK is frankly an easy ride so far as immagration is concerned and now even the muslims here want the government to urgently improve immagration control. In my oppionion immagration is one of those things that once controlled solves a lot of different problems we have here. If we sort out immagration we lesson the issue of not having enough housing for people, we relieve future burden and stress on the Health service, police service, and all the other public services, as well as, hopefully not allowing people whom just wanna blow them selves and others up into the country. Don't get me wrong, if there is a crisis on, as you know, the UK and its citizens are ALWAYS happy to help, but some people simply looking for a better life just keep coming here. Anyway, i thought people whom are in danger of life should claim aslyum in the first safe neigbouring country... which is ironic since... is the UK neigbouring to most countries... erm, no (obviously), but people still by pass the whole thing, go through perfectly safe countries, and still come here.

Anyway, Blair seems far more interested in licking Mr Bushes ass and going to Iraq. Like i say, if there was evidence of bombs of mass destruction, then everyone (most people) would have backed him up. But there was not, and they ignored so many third party reviews and advice. If you ask me, I personally believe both the involvement of the USA and the UK to go to Iraq was/is all for a hidden adgenda (most likely oil). Ok, we all know Sadam was an evil person, but if he was not a threat now (no evidence of bombs) then why did both our countries choose this moment to take him out? You see, there is much more to this than meets the eye...

Sorry, I can go on for ages about politics...

Peace!

Marc

glammaman2000 · #19 July 13th, 2005, 06:06 PM

...is that Bush,the republicans&fundamentalist christians will all LIE LIKE A RUG to get their own way!Bush was after Saddam BEFORE 9/11 to avenge his daddie.Even if his daddie thought it was a dumb idea(evidently,he did)I'm old enough to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis.Although I was only a tiny tot at the time(OK,jr.high)I remember the U.N.testimony&evidence of missiles from the U.S.ambassodor.Pretty convincing.When I saw the U.N."evidence"of weapons of mass destruction,I thought;"this doesn't prove shit!"(Evidently,Colin Powell thought the same thing)YOU CAN'T TELL ME that spy sattelite&espionage techniques have gone BACKWARDS over the last 40yrs!So,the leader of the free world is a lying goofball backed up by the greedy&the stupid.&we have a genuinely dangerous enemy.So.

brent · #20 July 16th, 2005, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco_ukmus

...
If you ask me, I personally believe both the involvement of the USA and the UK to go to Iraq was/is all for a hidden adgenda (most likely oil).
...

I think the oil was a diversion. Bush's Saudi friends are perfectly happy with us depending on them, which we do if we can't buy from Iran & Iraq. I think the real reason was to bankrupt the US Social Security system, and its UK equivalent. Bush quickly crashed the economy after getting in, then restarted deficit spending. Now he's spending the Social Security bankroll on Iraq. Also, most of it goes to daddy's company.

Victorvectra · #21 July 21st, 2005, 11:54 AM

Mr Blair pull out of iraq & stop this

Marco_ukmus · #22 July 21st, 2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victorvectra

Mr Blair pull out of iraq & stop this

If he does, we have given into bullies. We will pull out once the country is in order and their government is able to cope. At the mement, there is still much work to do there. Hence why the US and the UK are still present there.

glammaman2000 · #23 July 21st, 2005, 06:15 PM

...if you give the extremists some of what they want;they'll just say,"Hey,it's working!More suicide bombers!"Which is why you need an immoral,brutal,corrupt dictator like saddam to run these places.They want us all out of there so they can go back to killing each other,as god intended.Now we're stuck.(thanks!)London may be the crucible where this gets straightened out.(sorry)You can't kill civilians in London without killing muslims.I have Malaysian friends who say muslims are OK until they hit a majority.Then it's"our rules!"(we have the same problems with orthodox jews in parts of NY)

omelissokomos · #24 July 22nd, 2005, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brent

I think the oil was a diversion.

That won't stop them from rolling in the dough in the meantime.

Oil industry awash in record levels of cash

?This is the mother of all booms,? said Oppenheimer & Co. oil analyst Fadel Gheit. ?They have so much profit, it?s almost an embarrassment of riches. They don?t know what to do with it.

Marco_ukmus · #25 July 22nd, 2005, 01:21 AM

Bear in mind also that the USA and the UK and all the other countries that have troops involved now have an obligation to finish the job completely. If we simply pull out, we will have had the war and then abandoned the civilians that so need us to help them re-build their country. Iraq's (in the main) want a democratic society. So we must continue to help them rebuild there country and bring order there despite continous attacks that we are likely to recieve. They won't stop us, we owe it to the Iraqy cavillians to help get their country back in order.

deetrakt · #26 July 22nd, 2005, 05:46 AM

Most of you are far more circumspect about the idea of blaming someone other than terrorists for their actions than I am.

The idea that terrorists (who are often pathetic, marginal nothings who think dying in "glory" will somehow validate their otherwise meaningless lives) and the demagogues who cynically use them would restrain themselves if we only capitulated is preposterous. You may remember that periodically since 9/11 some have referred to the horrific attacks as "cries of protest" or the civilian victims as "enemy partisans". Equally absurd.

Before World War II the Brits and Yanks both toyed with the idea of appeasing the Nazis before rightly concluding that evil is evil and must be dealt with accordingly. It was the right choice then and the right choice now.

omelissokomos · #27 July 22nd, 2005, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deetrakt

It was the right choice then and the right choice now.

But they sure are going the wrong way about it starting with outright lying to everyone just what was involved (Downing Street Memo, PlameGate), grossly underestimating the number of troops needed on the ground (and now are paying the price for their arrogance), and curbing civil liberties in the name of fearmongering to maintain a false mandate.

I agree, the terrorists should be wiped out, but thanks to the Abu G

winning the war of ideology is much harder with Abu Gharib and Gitmo.

There will always be terrorists, and they will be dealt with accordingly.

omelissokomos · #28 July 22nd, 2005, 06:30 AM

Argh, no edit button. What I meant to say was:

I agree, the terrorists should be wiped out, but thanks to Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, winning the war of ideology is much harder to do now as new terrorists are being made.

deetrakt · #29 July 22nd, 2005, 06:40 AM

No one is less happy with the Bush Administration than those of us who supported his opponent, voted against him and have to live under it anyway. However, certain elements of the left spend all of their time finding fault with the frequently flawed policies of the West and exhibit no outrage or even dismay at the heinous behavior of terrorists and dictators.

It would be easier to listen to their criticisms if they displayed anywhere near the degree of balance toward Western democracies that they do toward Jihadists. Where does their empathy go when they see people massacred in skyscrapers or blown away at a bus stop? Answer: they care more about ideology than they do about innocent human victims.

omelissokomos · #30 July 22nd, 2005, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deetrakt

Where does their empathy go when they see people massacred in skyscrapers or blown away at a bus stop? Answer: they care more about ideology than they do about innocent human victims.

For "certain elements of the left", yes, this is unfortunately the case.

Anyway, back to reading about Rove and Libby. I'm sure the other guys here will have their say.

deetrakt · #31 July 22nd, 2005, 12:18 PM

...with the Rove, Libby story.

It's very hot and humid in NYC today, and what with water bottles being closely examined to ensure that they're not bombs when you enter the subway or an office building, even the possibility of those bastards being prosecuted counts as good news!

Mdlftr · #32 July 22nd, 2005, 01:09 PM

As a frequent traveler, I have to say that the security at airports, train stations and on the street is a constant reminder of how 9/11 and its aftermath have changed the world.

I agree that appeasement is not the answer, and that we need to maintain and use, overwhelming force when necessary and appropriate.

Where I think there is some substantial room for improvement in the efforts of the respective world governments is in addressing the root causes of terrorism.

What is it that makes people from middle class families blow themselves up as suicide bombers? Why do young, religiously oriented men embrace violence against complete strangers? To What end? What is the point? Nihilism? Sheer destruction? Why is this happening now?

Regardless of one's political affiliation: Labour/Tory; Republican/Democrat, terrorists affect everyone. No matter who won the last election, we'd still have this problem of global terrorism. The question is: What do we do about IT? How do we address it, and how do we stop it before it starts?

Mdlftr

glammaman2000 · #33 July 22nd, 2005, 04:46 PM

Birth control,birth control,birth control,birth control,birth control,birth control,BIRTH CONTROL!!!We should be airlifting the stuff to poor countries,instead of cutting off funds.Watching the children they can't afford suffer is fueling all this hatred.Also;there's nothing good on arab television(they're bored).&they're nuts(devoutly religious).

deetrakt · #34 July 22nd, 2005, 05:15 PM

I'm sure the Bushies, who no doubt plan to move on to outlawing contraception after they pack the Supreme Court and reverse Roe v Wade, will be enthusiastic about your novel idea! Perhaps we can get poor Moslem families to practise abstinence instead.

glammaman2000 · #35 July 22nd, 2005, 08:25 PM

The Bushies cut off international family-planning funds pre-9/11.(Got to keep the anti-sex brigades on our side!)This appalled our European allies;who graciously made up the difference.&this is what makes ALL faith-based societies so dangerous!THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAKE ANY SENSE!

puxa-ferro · #36 July 25th, 2005, 07:26 AM

"...to finish the job completely" ?
"...civilians that so need us.. " ?
"re-build their country" ?
"continue to help.." ???
"....we owe it to the civillians" ?

GIME ME A BREAK !!!!!!!!!!!

Marco_ukmus · #37 July 25th, 2005, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puxa-ferro

"...to finish the job completely" ?
"...civilians that so need us.. " ?
"re-build their country" ?
"continue to help.." ???
"....we owe it to the civillians" ?

GIME ME A BREAK !!!!!!!!!!!

Ok so your saying its perfectly ok to come into a country, relieve an evil bloke, and then simply leave without helping get their country back in order with the country in cival war?