StarGateWars Forums

your point is a joke. you think the uk government allows terrorists to kill our citizens. fool. terrorism is real. its been around since mankind became 'civilized' in one form or another.

I dont think the UK 'allows' it, i think they cause it, from beginning to bombing.

no its not easy to walk into london with a 'nuke.' very few briefcase size nukes exist and you cant buy them on ebay. they are not used by any military i know of. they are not realistically available to terrorists.

I disagree, the availability of dangerous materials be it a nuke (extreme and rare yes, but an example) to high explosive or any other form of bomb be it chemical, nuclear or conventional explosive could be simply driven into london, ive driven into london on several occasions and i saw no way anyone could possibly detect an innocent looking bomb carrying car. And the materials ARE available, maybe not to the likes as you and myself but to those with the intent to kill with contacts then they could easily get hold of the materials.

im from the uk and ive had to deal with terrorists all my life. if you want i can arrange pictures of bomb damage near my home. that you believe terrorist attacks are created by those in power is a joke. its shameful. people have died and you come up with some stupid conspiracy theory. you are a disgrace.

I am also from the UK and yes i do believe that our government is willing and capable of killing its own civilians. To them we are a number, nothing more.

you say terrorism is used as a government tool? what did the uk government gain from the tube bombings? nothing. they were seen in a bad light for letting it happen. what does the uk gain from afganistan? nothing. i know soldiers who have fought there and many others have died there. theres no benefit to the uk from troops being there other than for our own security.

I too know soldiers in afghan aswell as relatives who have served out there recently though luckily they did not get injured but you cannot play the 'we have men dying out there godammnit!' card, for centuries leaders have thrown troops into situations where lives will be lost for alternative gains (i.e. other than winning the battle there and then).

One example is the US ship which was bombed, they called for aid and the US fleet very near by didnt respond. The US knew the loss of life upon that boat would result in full out war which ofcourse followed shortly after (this isnt conspiracy, look up in google for the mission report, its now open to the public as it was more than 30 years ago).

What gains you ask? Im not sure of the gains but i assure you our forces wouldnt be there if there wasnt a very good reason that will benefit us greatly. If our government seriously wanted to save lifes and spread freedom they could simply walk into the majority of africa and save hundreds of millions of people starving with less amount of money than that used to wage war.

so new laws take away some rights from the public. im innocent so i dont care if im spied upon to a minor extent if it helps prevent further attacks.

Some rights?!?!? I strongly advise you look up what rights you are sacraficing! I personally consider the rights we have and will continue to give up to be far to extreme considering the gains the new laws offer.


Thanks for pointing out what you have, they are very good and real points, especially the loss of life you have described via these bombings. But this loss of life only enrages me further, if you really care for those that have lost their lives then i strongly advise you too look deeper into the situation that arises around us and not always believe what they tell us on the TV.

Don.

Don Lewis wrote:

your point is a joke. you think the uk government allows terrorists to kill our citizens. fool. terrorism is real. its been around since mankind became 'civilized' in one form or another.

I dont think the UK 'allows' it, i think they cause it, from beginning to bombing.

Well they would have to "allow" it if they are the ones causing it

-----

Don Lewis wrote:

no its not easy to walk into london with a 'nuke.' very few briefcase size nukes exist and you cant buy them on ebay. they are not used by any military i know of. they are not realistically available to terrorists.

I disagree, the availability of dangerous materials be it a nuke (extreme and rare yes, but an example) to high explosive or any other form of bomb be it chemical, nuclear or conventional explosive could be simply driven into london, ive driven into london on several occasions and i saw no way anyone could possibly detect an innocent looking bomb carrying car. And the materials ARE available, maybe not to the likes as you and myself but to those with the intent to kill with contacts then they could easily get hold of the materials.

You do realize there are Government agencies thats sole purpose is to uncover Terrorists or wrong-do'ers that would purchase bombs, that is the reason all the laws have been made that you before mentioned. I doubt you could buy a Nuke without alerting, for example (in the USA), the CIA or even FBI especially Homeland Security...

Lets not get stuck on the definition of 'allow'...

And yes i understand a nuke would be very difficult to get hold of, but it was just an example. I was refering to the many forms of 'dirty' bombs readily available. Anything ranging from a chemical attack, to crude nail bombs, im just saying if terrorist were active then there would be far more attacks than there currently are, whatever form of attack that is.

Also, i once saw a documentary where a BBC reporter traveled to russia with the intent of finding out what he could buy with 1million pounds. On the top of the list was a very crude nuclear bomb which could come in two forms, on the end of a missile or in a rather large but easily carryable briefcase. He then bought a handgun, placed it in a same sized briefcase and caught the train to piccadily station, on the other side he walked up to a police officer and showed him the handgun.

The point of this experiment was that it COULD be done, with the right contacts and cash it was possible and could have done a massive amount of damage to london. Granted this was about 2 years ago but the principle is still the same. So it isnt impossible, just very difficult and expensive.

Please lets not get stuck on what form of attack, or what weapon would be used. The point of what im saying is: If the terrorists really wanted to do damage and inflict terror they could carry out attacks on a far more frequent basis with much more damage. Which is possibly the main reason i dont believe they are as much of a threat as the news implies.

Edit: Forgot to add;

I understand that there are many agencies dedicated to counter-terrorism, but they cannot possibly uncover each and every potential attack. And the way terrorists work (according to the news) in splinter cells where one isnt related to another making it very difficult to catch anymore than a small group at one time.

So even with all the counter-terrorism agencies out there there would still be a frequent series of attacks being made, they simply cant have the capacity to stop them all.

Don.

Don Lewis wrote:Lets not get stuck on the definition of 'allow'...

And yes i understand a nuke would be very difficult to get hold of, but it was just an example. I was refering to the many forms of 'dirty' bombs readily available. Anything ranging from a chemical attack, to crude nail bombs, im just saying if terrorist were active then there would be far more attacks than there currently are, whatever form of attack that is.

Also, i once saw a documentary where a BBC reporter traveled to russia with the intent of finding out what he could buy with 1million pounds. On the top of the list was a very crude nuclear bomb which could come in two forms, on the end of a missile or in a rather large but easily carryable briefcase. He then bought a handgun, placed it in a same sized briefcase and caught the train to piccadily station, on the other side he walked up to a police officer and showed him the handgun.

The point of this experiment was that it COULD be done, with the right contacts and cash it was possible and could have done a massive amount of damage to london. Granted this was about 2 years ago but the principle is still the same. So it isnt impossible, just very difficult and expensive.

Please lets not get stuck on what form of attack, or what weapon would be used. The point of what im saying is: If the terrorists really wanted to do damage and inflict terror they could carry out attacks on a far more frequent basis with much more damage. Which is possibly the main reason i dont believe they are as much of a threat as the news implies.

Its easier to quote your whole post but I will not be addressing all of it.

If you were a terrorist would you not want to inflict the biggest possible amount of "terror" and damage? If all you do is set of a nail bomb or small home-made device with a simple blast radius of what... 30 feet? (I made that up), then your mission is an EPIC fail. Your gonna wait when the BEST opportunity presents itself, and your gonna have to wait a LONG time for something good enough for you to kill yourself for (suicide bombers) or at the least life imprisonment.

IMO, the two biggest terror attacks on the US were the Oklahoma City bombings and 9/11 attacks, look at how much time was between those two attacks. Also maybe notice that since 9/11 there has been pretty much NO Terror attacks in the US?

To address your Russia comments about that BBC dude. It was Russia, no offense to Russians... but that country is rapidly becoming a third world country (just an expression really), most of the country lives in poverty except the few major cities they have. So I am not surprised that you can buy anything there from a handgun or a small nuclear device.

**EDIT**

I believe my post still addresses your new comment about all the agencies and splinter cells.. etc.

Again, please dont focus on the weapon used. A nail bomb could easily be placed somewhere critical in london and kill 20+ people, if done on a frequent basis would effectively inflict terror. Imagine a pound of high explosive in a tube station at rush hour...

And yes i would wait for the right time, but the right time is everyday, a person willing to hit soft civilian targets have endless easy kills available to them, every day in london and many cities around the UK there are soft spots that could be hit day in day out.

Imo if someone were to set off a small explosive, in key targets say once a week or every two weeks, killing up to 100 people each time. That would inflict much more terror and would drastically effect the day to day workings of the city much more than setting off 1 big bomb killing 1000 people. Even hitting a symbolic building such as big ben imo wouldnt cause as much fear and terror as hitting a small number of people on a frequent basis.

To summarise on this one small point:

Regardless of the weapon used, terrorists could be striking far more frequently, causing far more damage than what they are doing. And if terrorists are as dangerous as the news potrays them to be then they WOULD be carrying out these such attacks but they arent, which drastically changes my opinion on the danger risk of these terrorists and indeed if they actually exist.

Don.

Edit:

As for russia now becoming 3rd world (even though your wrong, they are now growing in economic strength once again, just slowly) then that would mean such weapons would be more available as when the country becomes more povertised (is that a word??) then these weapons would become easier to steal or w/e. Remember that russia has/had a massive amount of inter continental weapons which as they are decommisioned will no doubt travel through the wrong hands at some point.

The black market for these such goods does exist, and will continue to do so.

I'm gonna try and make this a short reply


If there were enough Terrorists around I am sure that they would strike as you said, but the fact is there aren't a lot of them around... They are rather crazy... If they all went on suicide bomb runs, like is the apparent most effective method, then there would be none left after a few of these said nail bomb explosions in key places in London.

I s'pose that they could just place the bomb and walk away and their life would be saved for another day, but then they would be ruthlessly and relentlessly hunted down by every available Government agency and eventually caught and jailed for life or executed. You aren't giving these government agencies enough credit, they are rather good at what they do, or I am sure that as you say small incidents like this would be happening quite frequently.

If they DID just place the bomb in some random location like a train/subway station then I am SURE someone would either notice it or the person doing that and either stop them or get the bomb. Ya know?

BUT, this is really off topic from your real beliefs isn't it ? That terrorists don't exist and it is all a hoax of the Government so that they can instill fear in its people and have its control over them by saying "Look at the Terrorists!!! If we make these laws that take away your freedoms but give us more power over you, they can be all gone .". Which IMO, is ... well I just don't believe it

Well that wasn't short at all...


**EDIT**

Oh and I just thought of.. These frequent Terrorist attacks that you say don't exist, because its the government faking things and not really the terrorists or else they would be attack more devastatingly and more frequently. Well they are happening, in Iraq. Nigh daily attacks happen their against key government buildings and etc, by "Terrorist Insurgents". I guess you could call these military attacks but.. whats the military? It's not the Iraqis attacking themselves.. its Terrorists...

You make a very good point, so my reply will be short.

You say i dont give enough credit to the agencies who combat the terrorists. Imo you dont give enough credit to the terrorists, they arent simple camel jockey's running around the desert hiding in caves.

That is ofcourse if they exist :S lol

Now i really need to sleep

Don.

P.s. Please debating this with you

Im kinda tired to .. but not going to sleep lol

Don Lewis wrote:P.s. Please debating this with you

That don't make sense

i didnt want to have to respond.

chemical weapons arent practical. you cant simply get the ingrediants for said weapons without exposing yourself to scrutiny. as for nuclear weapons the best terrorists can do atm would probably be a 'dirty bomb' using material from the former ussr. weapons of mass destruction are NOT easy to come by.

you have 'driven into london on several occasions?' i live here. terrorist cars are not innocent or easily overlooked. thats why they are found (remember the cars outside a nightclub). they are suspicious.

if nuclear materials were easily available the terrorists would have used them. they would not be waiting for some random reason. they would want a public mass casulty event as soon as possible. and you cannot get the materials required in the uk without being noticed. i worked somewhere where terrorists attempted to buy fertilizer. we denied them the chance and contacted the police. why buy ingrediants for a fertilizer bomb if high explosives were as easily available as you make out. why did they train bombers use home made bombs and not high explosive? the reason is because they couldnt get it. this isnt something you can make in a shed with whats handy.

if you are in fact a uk resident that upsets me. you should be deported to afganistan to live with your mates. see how well you last with them and then tell me theres no terrorism and that they love us. and the fact that you say you have relatives fighting adds to your shame.

im not in possession of the facts about the 'boat' bombing incident (btw it wasnt a boat. a boat is a submarine) so i'll not fabricate points based around that.

and defeating al queda (correct spelling involves opening another tab) directly benefits the uk. thats why we are in afganistan. spending untold billions and many lives there is certainly not a benefit.

our governments main aim is to safeguard life. thats the fundamental right. if some right are bruised to achieve this then so be it.

and where would the uk government walk into africa to help? zimbabwe perhaps (correct spelling = another tab again)

i draw my information from many sources and from many countries. im not a slave to what i hear on tv. it appears you are a slave to what you read on several radical, unproven conspiracy websites. i suppose you believe man has never been to the moon. seen big foor recently? what, bigfoot was riding the loch ness monster while shooting jfk?

btw theres a massive list of things which if purchased, raise a giant flag above the buyers head. so its not easy to accumulate materials for terrorism. personally i think the security services have done a great job on protecting us. sadly even you warrent protection from these make believe terrorists. i only hope that if there is another terrorist event (which i sincerely hope there isnt) that you feel the carnage yourself.

i conclude in saying you are an idiot and only my restraint restricts me from expressing how much i really despise your way of thinking. looking for conspiracy that doesnt exist and making light of those who have been victim to terrorism. go back to chasing UFOs you sad little man

All I gotta say to that post is , I aint reading all that

meh makes no differance to me mate. jus getting my point across as best i can at 5am.

i request that admin lock/delete this thread. it has no revelance or sense to it

I... disagree?

Im not gonna reply to your whole post as you are simply repeating yourself. All i will say is:

You say im a slave to conspiracy tapes blah blah blah, yes ive watched many tapes of this kind, ranging from if man was on the moon (maybe he was maybe he wasnt it has no real effect on my life so i dont care) all the way to who shot jfk (it was actually the squirrel people!) but i do not follow other peoples opinions blindly, i form my own opinion from what ive seen, read and watched so dont be calling me a slave.

You clearly dont understand how to debate decently as you have constantly brought my personal integrity into the argument so id like you not to post here anymore unless you are going to raise up new points and not constantly ridicule what i believe.

Don.

P.s. Mods dont lock this, i still hope to have a decent debate with other people.

So your telling me, a western government(s) hired the Arab's regarding the Munich Olympics in 1972?

Tl;dr

Okay i cant beleive your seriously having the debate about "does terrorism exist". Theres the IRA bombings, the tamal tigers shootings in India, Yakusa bombings in Japan... I could go on. These actions take place to invoke fear ALL OVER THE WORLD. I think DOn is mostly upset about the fact he beleives his freedoms are being taken away, which they are(the patriot act is an irresponsible, big government piece of legislation that puts to much power in the governments hands). For being a republican George Bush sure seems to f**K up like democrat. But you honestly believe the government let the attacks occur or even helped orchestrate them.. PLZ.

There is a tone of evidence connecting Fundamentalist Islam groups too the attacks and their is a definitive timeline of the events that led up to it (ill post sources if you like). You know what caused the 9/11 and London attacks. The Administrations Unwilling to head advice from advisers and macho bulls**t egos that didn't listen, and were to busy fleaxing their muscles to use their heads. Combine that with inaction from the administration when the mess got out of hand over in Afghanistan and Pakistan (Mostly because they were too fat headed to fix their mistakes) and you got a bunch of pist off muslims who just went through forty years of war, famine and hard times willing to turn to any nut job that could promise to give them what they wanted ( which was security and infrastructure).

That's how these terrorist groups got a foothold. Out of the chaos of The cold War where the US and Soviet Union fought proxy wars over there, so they could bear little expense and gain all the glory. It came as a result of people thinking too much with their C**KS and not enough with their heads. And then after the s**t hit the fan they were too cowardly and irresponsible to clean up the mess.

ITs like you went over to your friend and said "hey, you do A for me, ill give you B. But no one can know your doing A for me". Then your friend did A but you decided not to give B because your afraid The rest of your friends will find out you helped him do A and that might get you in trouble( or you just decided to screw him) Now your friend is pissed and you might just have gained an enemy but you definitely lost that friend for awhile.