mr2mk1g

Well they're not the same thing. You're taking a negative to try and prove a positive. If he said all deprived people become suicide bombers then of course we need to examine why on earth he thinks that. If that were true all one would need to create a whole bunch of suicide bombers is a deprived neighborhood. As you point out there would be home grown US suicide bombers because there are deprived neighborhoods in the US. He didn't say that though. He said people who are not in a deprived situation don't go on to become suicide bombers. That really is quite a different thing. Now according to this statement people in deprived neighborhoods might go on to become suicide bombers or they might not. Thus US citizens in deprived neighborhoods might become suicide bombers - they might not. As, according to his statement, they don't automatically become suicide bombers, there's no sense in your challenge to him that he show why they have not - he never said they would. Conversely he has said that all you need to do to prevent someone becoming a suicide bomber is to ensure they're not in a deprived situation. Why don't you examine that? That’s what he said.

He didn't say people in dire situations become suicide bombers - he said people who aren't in dire situations don't become suicide bombers. The two aren't synonymous.

The IRA was not the only terrorist organization in NI. Off the top of my head I can think of the IRA, PIRA, CIRA, TIRA, CAC, Cumann na mBan (ok, I had to look the spelling of that one up), Fianna na hEireann (yeah and that one), the INLA, IPLO, LVF, the Orange Volunteers, Red Hand Commando, Red Hand Defenders, Saor Eire, UDA, UFF, UVF, the RIRA and finally Sinn Fein who while we currently deal with them as a political party were until 1994 classified as a terrorist organization. Those are just the one's I can think of, there were many more. I havent got anything like the time required to go look up the demands of each of them. In addition to this, the violence in Ireland wasn’t limited to being carried out by people who aligned themselves with terrorist organizations per-say. Individual Protestants killed Catholics because they were Catholic and individual Catholics killed Protestants because they were Protestant. As for torture, yes there was a hell of a lot of that going on. They were generally referred to as "punishment beatings" where people would be dragged outside their front door at midnight and mutilated in front of their family. There were also a lot of knee-cappings. This (if you're not familiar with the procedure) involved taking a sawn off shot gun, placing it in direct contact with the subjects knee cap and pulling the trigger. The subject either lost their leg from the knee down or suffered permanently disabling injuries to the structure of the knee. Again, this was traditionally done at midnight on the subjects doorstep in front of their young family. The best bit is, this wasn't even torture with a goal in mind such as the extraction of evidence – it was simply to show people just how fucking horrible they were illicit fear in the community and generally generate terror.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,863786,00.html http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/21/1040174437915.html?oneclick=true You really need to read up on the problems in Northern Ireland (past AND present) if you seriously believe it's all to do with getting the Brits out of NI. A huge amount of the violence there is Protestants killing Catholics because they are Catholics and Catholics killing Protestants because they are Protestants. It is most certainly a Christian sectarian conflict.

hmmm... See this link for more info: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm I didn't think we had plain clothed armed police in this country?? Sounds more like security services to me (MI5 / MI6). Not too sure how well bunlding him to the ground and then firing 5 shots into him is going to go down... still if he's got a bomb how else are you going to deal with him?

You are being fed lies and you are repeating them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4680000/newsid_4680100/4680125.stm

Nice one - they gonna give you a harley?

as I've previously pointed out the BBC is most certainly not averse to using the term "Terrorist". Don't forget you're talking to people who wake up to BBC news, watch BBC tv and drive home listening to BBC radio.

Good catch - I hope people can get the point non-the-less. I used the term to mean strongly anti-jew.

Thankfully not at any of the DZ's I've been to.

The majority of terrorist attacks coming out of the Middle East / muslim extremists can in one way or another be traced back to the west's involvement in Palestine. That's Britain's "bad". It was part of our Empire and after the war we withdrew in 1948 leaving those living there to kick off open warfare between themselves. We made two promises to the people of the region. 1. that the Arabs would be left to their own devices. 2. that we would set up a nation for the Jews. We did #2 (for which the anti-Semitic Arabs will never forgive us). We didn't exactly try too hard with #1, especially when it came to stopping the new Jewish nation we'd just set up from riding rough over them. Again, this created hatred against us in Arab culture. Since then we've been meddling in their affairs ever since in the same way the Americans have. Even though we're doing this for good, they tend to get a bit pissy about it... especially when we side with the Israelis.

Nothing - that's the point. Going into Iraq was never going to stop terrorist attacks. There is an argument to say it would prevent terrorist getting hold of some rather nasty munitions... but it certainly never had the potential to reduce the number of attacks. As far as the War on Terror is concerned our invasion of Iraq is something of a sideline. As for Britain being safe if it didn't attack Iraq - nah -our involvement in Iraq simply underlined the word "Britain" on the terrorists list of targets, it didn't put it there. Britain was on that list years ago and it was already in bold.

I think he's excluded IRA bombings because they generally have very little to do with the Middle East while the present terrorist threat does. Just how far back that threat goes can be illustrated by looking at past terrorism stemming from the Middle East. Irish attacks, even those funded by Americans, aren't relevant to that assessment.

They already took a pretty hard hit in Bali with 88 dead.

Or someone who lived through the IRA campaign and adopted some of their tactics... like a British born terrorist. Tin hat on again Dave. Looks like this time some of the cunt's got away alive. Can't imagine they'll be free for long.

I hope that's right that these are only intended to scare rather than kill. edit: Actually sounds like someone fucked up and they were intended to kill. Wonder why no one pounced him to beat the crap out of him. from: http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-072105-jmn-london_underground.1982327f.html

Seems like they're at it again. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/21/world/main710566.shtml http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-072105-jmn-london_underground.1982327f.html http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B22EE45B0-53B1-4F08-9627-B64FF2AE541B%7D&siteid=google Again this is happening as I post so still sporadic info with little confirmed. Scuttlebutt involves a nail bomb on the tube (possibly three), a bomb on a bus and the tube net's gone down again.

I don't think anyone could give a politician a harder time than the UK papers do... hell the "fatty-two-jags" nick name was coined by a writer for the Sunday Times! - one of the worlds most respected papers. Our tabloids tend to be rather less succinct. I guess the name caught on so well because it's just so apt and the man is almost universally held in such low esteem that we need something horrid to call him. I'm amazed he's still about to be honest, other than being a walking homage to Britains working class who the Labour party is supposed to represent. How else could a politician get away with punching a protester out during a campaign walkabout?

I guess the image of Fatty-two-Jags sat on the edge of a wooden raft, his trouser legs rolled up to the knee, trying to paddle the thing across the sea while it's pilled high with munitions and barrels of "anti-terror-measures" and Tony's perched high on a rickety crow's nest trying to spot an Al Qaeda pirate ship on the horizon, is kinda funny... in fact it sounds very much like that should be a Punch cartoon.

I don't get it... why's that funny? You do realise a perfectly valid definition of "raft" is: A great number, amount, or collection, right? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=raft

Yes - freeflyers have it bad. I have friends who are into CRW and they won't let me join in. I say: if a freeflyer can dock on an RW formation in freefall they should be allowed to dock on a canopy formation in freefall. Not allowing it is blatant discrimination! It's sickening. Now that the FAI rules don't require docks to be held for 3 seconds, there's simply no excuse anymore!

Put banana's on top of the filing cabinet. It keeps the monkeys off your desk.

Nac started to only turn up occasionally a few months back and said at the time he had started working overseas IIRC. I guess that's where he is now.

That's because most skydivers are intelligent enough to realize that when the cost of a barrel of crude oil goes up the cost of Jet A will go up... it being made from oil and all.

Weston is the same I think. £30 for the year but £5 weekend membership. Note though that with only weekend membership tickets are more expensive by a couple of quid. No idea if SC has a weekend membership or anything... they're only £10/year anyway though...