Al-Qaeda video threatens Melbourne as next bomb

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:54 pm

psoTFX wrote: And still you respond to text I've not written! Let me spell it out for you:

People chose their own paths

I have never denied that. It is not, however, relevant to the point I'm making.
They can either:

1) Choose a path of intelligence discussion, work out their grievances ... it may take years, it often does ... but it can be achieved,
2) Choose a path of hate and destruction ... a path that typically gets everyone nowhere and which every single religion on this fine blue planet of ours detests.

Neither party has chosen path #1. Few countries ever do. Instead, they apply a combination of bribes, military force, sabre-rattling, and other kinds of meddling in order to get what they want. I have never heard of a major country politely discussing issues with other countries when it could get what it wanted through coercion.
Screw U.S. policy, screw British/French/Belgian/Russian meddling in their former Empires, screw the Wests desire to see democracy. None of this gives anyone a legitimate reason to choose route 2.

I never said that it did. I only said that the roots of this conflict go back farther than the first shot fired. Please see the "road rage" example that I gave earlier.
Am I making myself clear yet?

Yes. Unfortunately, you keep acting as though I'm saying the terrorists' behavior is legitimate, when I have said no such thing.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

User avatar
bad driver
Registered User
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 2:11 pm
Location: north east england
Contact:

Post by bad driver » Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:36 pm

Darth Wong wrote:
psoTFX wrote:And still you respond to text I've not written! I have never heard of a major country politely discussing issues with other countries when it could get what it wanted through coercion.
Bollox, england politley discussed things with ireland for years, for those of you across the pond that dont know, britain and part of ireland were pretty much at war for years, england was subject to terror attacks frequently, hundreds have died and countless have been injured yet england never engaged them in a proper battle. es we could easily of wiped them out but we chose that it was best to peacefully negotiate until the fighting stopped. Just a few days ago this mini war started to flare up again with riots in the streets of belfast and this is decades on, not a few years like it is since 9/11 etc.
So please listen to the above, everyone has a choice.

the rat
Registered User
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:58 pm
Location: The UK

Post by the rat » Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:59 pm

psoTFX wrote: 1) Choose a path of intelligence discussion, work out their grievances ... it may take years, it often does ... but it can be achieved,
2) Choose a path of hate and destruction ... a path that typically gets everyone nowhere and which every single religion on this fine blue planet of ours detests.


Let me answer that with the following statement.

I live in a part of the UK that was bombed by IRA terrorists. Now, I condone all violence but I do know that to stop violence we have to learn why people do it. I learnt, I researched and I found something interesting.

The UK Government executed several innocent Irish catholics in the Bloody Sunday massacre.

So yes, people have that choice you gave above but you are speaking from the point of view of a person who can expect justice. If a foreign force came into your town, executed men, women and children and simply got away with it... how would you feel? As you are burying your children who exactly do you have an intelligence discussion with? Who do you go to to work out your grievances? Afterall, the people who did this have just told the world that they have killed armed terrorists. But they didn't. They killed your child.

That's what generates hate. Let me show you a picture...

Image

Do you think that this child's parents like America? The country that bombed them and brought their child this amount of suffering? While we are killing and injuring innocent people (weather they are targets or not) we will generate hate and fear amoung people who would have great difficulty finding someone with which to air their grievances.

And before anyone says anything... I am not condoning violence. I hate all violence. But I understand that just as violence towards us brings about Iraq and Afghanistan then our violence against them brings about suicide bombers, 9/11 and the London bombings.

Let's face it, we're not looking to air our grievances or have an intellegent discussion, are we? We're invading countries. Yet you complain when they try to do it to us.

the rat
Registered User
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:58 pm
Location: The UK

Post by the rat » Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:03 pm

bad driver wrote: england politley discussed things with ireland for years


Actually, when discussion got onto the table (Mo Mowlem) the problem got solved. Up until then the country was at war with the IRA. The British Government have even issued an apology and now admitted that it was innocent people killed on Bloody Sunday and not the "terrorists" as was said for all these years.

In fact, Thatchers way of dealing with the IRA was to try and wipe them out and look at the violence that led to. It only started turning around when people starting talking to them.

Riamus
Registered User
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:40 pm

Post by Riamus » Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:13 pm

Darth Wong wrote: Neither party has chosen path #1. Few countries ever do. Instead, they apply a combination of bribes, military force, sabre-rattling, and other kinds of meddling in order to get what they want. I have never heard of a major country politely discussing issues with other countries when it could get what it wanted through coercion.


I'd say that is a third option, and one that is generally accepted as okay. Option #1 would be best, but you are correct that it's rarely done between countries.

The problem is that terrorists choose terrorism rather than peaceful negotiations, or your option of coercion. There are much better ways to get what you want other than terrorism. (I don't doubt that you agree with that).

As far as where this started... it cannot be put solely at the feet of the West. As mentioned previously in this thread, other countries have done much more throughout the centuries, and it didn't lead to terrorism [in most cases]. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group and they would be around even if there wasn't a West. They'd just find some other cause to justify their attacks. They'd find other ways to whip up hate.

Yes, the war gives them extra cause. That doesn't mean that they have a right to do it. That reason alone doesn't make the war wrong (I'm not saying it's right, just that the reason of it increasing the "cause" of terrorism isn't a reason to call the war wrong).
Kakkoii Translation Team
格好いい 翻訳

ÇäM|3Ðņ
Registered User
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:04 am

Otherwise Intelligent Folk

Post by ÇäM|3Ðņ » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:35 pm

Do you otherwise intelligent folk believe every crummy backyard-produced video you see?

ScionCrow
Registered User
Posts: 3621
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:59 am
Location: Darkness

Re: Otherwise Intelligent Folk

Post by ScionCrow » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:37 pm

ÇäM|3Ðņ wrote: Do you otherwise intelligent folk believe every crummy backyard-produced video you see?


We do not need comments like these. Please keep the discussion to an acceptable level. If you don't have anything worthwhile of discussion, then don't post at all.
No longer supporting phpBB. PM or email me regarding support and you will be ignored. I'm fully done with phpBB and everything.

phantomk
Registered User
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:32 am
Location: Canada Eh?
Name: Daniel Lee
Contact:

Re: Otherwise Intelligent Folk

Post by phantomk » Wed Sep 14, 2005 1:13 am

ÇäM|3Ðņ wrote: Do you otherwise intelligent folk believe every crummy backyard-produced video you see?

No, but I live by this philosophy.

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."

Thier was advanced warning of the 9/11 attacks, but they were not considered a "threat".

PS-See a previous post, it talks about the quality of the video and the production values are the same as Al-Quaeda's previously submitted "tapes of doom"

User avatar
CTCNetwork
Former Team Member
Posts: 15424
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:50 am
Location: In that Volvo behind you!
Contact:

Post by CTCNetwork » Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:42 am

bad driver wrote: Bollox, england politley discussed things with ireland for years, for those of you across the pond that dont know, britain and part of ireland were pretty much at war for years, england was subject to terror attacks frequently, hundreds have died and countless have been injured yet england never engaged them in a proper battle. es we could easily of wiped them out but we chose that it was best to peacefully negotiate until the fighting stopped. Just a few days ago this mini war started to flare up again with riots in the streets of belfast and this is decades on, not a few years like it is since 9/11 etc.
So please listen to the above, everyone has a choice.

Politely discussed?
Was this after they left hundreds to die during the potato famines?
Was this after the black and tans ravaged the irish countryside like a gang of murdering thugs?
Was this after the diliberate division of an irish county to ensure a protestant majority in "ulster" (which backfired on them as irish catholics breed like rabbits!)?
Or indeed after their troops fired on innocent civilians on a peace march??
According to the book Lost Lives between 1966 and 1999 the UVF and an affiliate group, the Red Hand Commando, killed 547 people. Many were killed in high profile attacks. In December 1971 they planted a bomb at McGurk's bar in Belfast killing 15. By the mid-70s a vicious UVF unit known as the Shankill Butchers was engaged in horrific sectarian killings. In May 1974 they planted bombs in Dublin and Monaghan killing 33 people and in 1975 they shot dead three members of the Miami Show Band.

And these were the people the british were "protecting"?

Hmm...

When all other avenues have been tried and you still get nowhere. Then, maybe... you start considering the alternatives...


BTW: I remember reading that the aircraft use in the 11/9 attacks were not able to manoeuver and bank as steeply as they did.. At least not when being controlled from the cockpit?? They could only have carried out the pre-crash manoeuvres if remotely flown... ?

Des. . .
Density:- Not just a measurement~Its a whole way of Life.! ! !
| Welcome! | RTFM!!! | Search! It's Easy! | Problem? | Spam? | Advice! |

Pit
Security Consultant
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2001 8:17 pm
Location: kµlt øƒ Ø™
Contact:

Post by Pit » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:51 am

CTCNetwork wrote: BTW: I remember reading that the aircraft use in the 11/9 attacks were not able to manoeuver and bank as steeply as they did.. At least not when being controlled from the cockpit?? They could only have carried out the pre-crash manoeuvres if remotely flown... ?

I'm sorry, would you clarify where you're going with this? Everyone loves tinfoil hats, and I'm sure you've got plenty to share. Just use clean tinfoil, please, not greasy stuff off the grill. Image
Image
super fun rainbow colour sig

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:52 am

Riamus wrote: As mentioned previously in this thread, other countries have done much more throughout the centuries, and it didn't lead to terrorism [in most cases]. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group and they would be around even if there wasn't a West. They'd just find some other cause to justify their attacks. They'd find other ways to whip up hate.

So, even if they had none of these "oppression of Muslims" incidents to put in their recruiting videos, these videos would be just as successful? I don't really see how that follows. Or were you unaware that Al-Quaeda recruiting videos largely consist of images of Muslims being killed by American and/or Israeli forces? How do you justify your claim that these groups would be just as influential without their main raison d'etre?
Riamus wrote: That reason alone doesn't make the war wrong (I'm not saying it's right, just that the reason of it increasing the "cause" of terrorism isn't a reason to call the war wrong).

Why not? If you start a war with the stated purpose of making the world safe and you end up only fuelling the enemy's strength because he thrives on misery and hate, why does that not count as a reason against the war? Let's compare this to the American Prohibition era back in the early 20th century. Did Al Capone have the "right" to commit criminal acts in pursuit of contraband alcohol sales? Of course not. But that doesn't mean his criminal enterprise was not immensely enriched by Prohibition, or that Prohibition was not a bad idea as a result.
CTCNetwork wrote: BTW: I remember reading that the aircraft use in the 11/9 attacks were not able to manoeuver and bank as steeply as they did.. At least not when being controlled from the cockpit?? They could only have carried out the pre-crash manoeuvres if remotely flown... ?

I would love to know what physics principles are used in order to determine that an aircraft would be more maneuverable when piloted remotely. Do its control surfaces become bigger when the cockpit is empty?
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

phantomk
Registered User
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:32 am
Location: Canada Eh?
Name: Daniel Lee
Contact:

Post by phantomk » Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 am

Riamus wrote: As far as where this started... it cannot be put solely at the feet of the West. As mentioned previously in this thread, other countries have done much more throughout the centuries, and it didn't lead to terrorism [in most cases].

If you want to take into account pre-globalization, as in before the radio, television, and all of mans modern inventions. It has not, and the reason for this is simple. Terroism relies on reaching as many people as possible within a short amount of time. Because of this, the actions taken by groups during pre-modernization could be percieved as terrorism, just not in the way we see it today.

User avatar
CTCNetwork
Former Team Member
Posts: 15424
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:50 am
Location: In that Volvo behind you!
Contact:

Post by CTCNetwork » Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:09 am

Hi,
Pit wrote: I'm sorry, would you clarify where you're going with this? Everyone loves tinfoil hats, and I'm sure you've got plenty to share. Just use clean tinfoil, please, not greasy stuff off the grill. Image

Maybe, just maybe, our muslim friends were not wholly responsible for 11/9?

But I digress.... :D

Des. . . :wink:
Density:- Not just a measurement~Its a whole way of Life.! ! !
| Welcome! | RTFM!!! | Search! It's Easy! | Problem? | Spam? | Advice! |

User avatar
CTCNetwork
Former Team Member
Posts: 15424
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:50 am
Location: In that Volvo behind you!
Contact:

Post by CTCNetwork » Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:36 pm

Hi,
Darth Wong wrote:
CTCNetwork wrote:BTW: I remember reading that the aircraft use in the 11/9 attacks were not able to manoeuver and bank as steeply as they did.. At least not when being controlled from the *beep*?? They could only have carried out the pre-crash manoeuvres if remotely flown... ?

I would love to know what physics principles are used in order to determine that an aircraft would be more maneuverable when piloted remotely. Do its control surfaces become bigger when the cockpit is empty?

Nothing to do with the physics of the plane. All to do with that the planes onboard computer will allow a user to do.
Different profile for the on board user (pilot) and another for a remote user (whoever that may be?)...
Think like a Linux user account and the root account or windows Admin account/user and a basic account.

Des. . . :wink:
Density:- Not just a measurement~Its a whole way of Life.! ! !
| Welcome! | RTFM!!! | Search! It's Easy! | Problem? | Spam? | Advice! |

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Wed Sep 14, 2005 1:12 pm

CTCNetwork wrote: Nothing to do with the physics of the plane. All to do with that the planes onboard computer will allow a user to do.
Different profile for the on board user (pilot) and another for a remote user (whoever that may be?)...

And what evidence do you have that this remote-control interface exists at all, never mind having carte blanche to do things that the onboard computer would not normally allow, or the suppressed premise that the aircraft is even physically capable of doing things that its onboard computer would not normally allow? Not to mention the fact that all of the videos of the plane only show it in the final stages of a power dive, with no significant maneuvering in evidence?
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”