UK airplanes plot an attempt at 'mass murder'

Ok, two things:
1. Your point is stupid. It is very rarely liberals that arm up and start wars... following your logic - you'd be supporting Hitler (he's no namby pamby liberal!!).
2. Learn some English and spelling. There are plenty of pointers on this site and many others: it's "nazis"; "you're" , "confront", "appeasement". Did Bush really call Churchill a warmonger?
 
I think it was meant that, Neville Chamberlain, a liberalist, called Churchill a warmonger because he was the opposition. But yes I do not see Bush as a liberal. Monica’s Bill Clinton but not Bush.

Some useless information

1938 – Realizing that the British Air Force secretly under construction is not yet big enough to challenge Nazi Germany, Neville Chamberlain lets the Nazis invade North Czeckoslovakia, giving some wimpy public excuse about "peace in our time". This buys Britain time to build more airplanes but gets Chamberlain kicked out of office.
 
This is 'terror to go' - a formulae - similar to mcdonald's - talk about a great marketing plan - put a formulae out there (how to be a muslim terrorist) - and let 'extremists' use at will (and maybe help them along a bit, as necessary - like the recent case with the fbi.) Who could have come up with such a plan? Some guy living in a cave in Afghanistan who's really plugged into the great datasphere - yeah, right. I no longer believe anything these 'creeps' tell me - how convenient... hundreds (thousands?) dead in an invaded country... Uum now what would be a good counter opinion maker? ... Especially as I just read 2 seconds ago - blair (or anybody else) has yet to call for an unconditional ceasefire. Maybe you should all read Mind Games (the weaponisation of information) -.
 
Last edited:
Like Bush you called Churchill a "Warmonger"
Click to expand...
The liberals called Churchill a warmonger (same as they call bush a warmonger) - was the point.
 
Sorry about the poor spelling and the bad grammar. I meant to say Bush has been called a warmonger, as was Churchill in his time.
 
I have had a stressfull few days and little sleep.:mad:

Maybe tomorrow I'll clear up my point and fix any spelling errors.
 
I'm sorry tibby, but I need to call you out on your remarks in this thread, simply because yours is an incredibly biased and flawed viewpoint.

tibby.dude said:
1005 people killed in Lebanon is also mass murder.
Click to expand...
Lets start with this one.
A couple of differences between the foiled UK plot and Lebanon:
- If the plot had succeeded, more than a 1000 people would have died simultaneously and with no warning.
- The conflict in Lebanon has taken weeksto reach the 1000 death toll, the people killed were living in a war zone, and in most cases are given warning to leave the area through Israeli pamplet drops.

But a short answer to your implied question is yes, the death of innocent civilians anywhere in the world can be considered murder.
However the tone of your other posts imply that its OK for anyone travelling between the UK and US to die (regardless of their actual nationality or beliefs), because people in another part of the world are dying.
That's an incredibly narrow-minded view to have.

tibby.dude said:
Mass murder is currently being committed in Lebanon but the West esp that Bush lapdog the UK is doing nothing about it and stalling a resolution by the UN.
I have very little sympathy for people and esp their govts when they turn their morality on and off like a switch when it suits their political agenda.
And let's not forget these UK and USA ****ers (Reagan and Thatcher) were the ones who nourished and supported the Apartheid regime in their repression and in their dying days when everybody else in the world turned their backs on them.
Their ****ty modus operandi is rather familiar.
Click to expand...
Wow. You like to paint matters with an incredibly wide brush stroke.

So by your logic, any government (and by implication the people of that country) that allows thousands of people to be slaughtered deserves to be the victim of fanatical terrorism?

OK, so let take your logic a bit closer to home:

Tens of thousands of people have died in Zimbabwe in the past 10 years at the hands of Robert Mugabe. The SA government has provided the Mugabe government with resources (electricity, fuel, by some accounts weapons), and in fact has quietly stalled any progress in bringing real democracy and freedom to that country. This same government has "turned its morality on" to denounce the Lebanon conflict, whilst it turns a blind eye to the mass murder occurring on its doorstep.
And so by your own logic above, SA then deserves to be targeted for terrorist attacks of a large and deadly scale by Zimbabwian freedom fighters? According to you, the people of SA - due to their part in electing a government that has "nourished and supported" a "regime in their repression" - should die horrible and unnecessary deaths.

Oh, you wouldn't like that would you? Gee why not? I mean its exactly the same thing? Oh wait.
That would mean YOU might actually be at risk because of actions you don't necessarily support, by a government you don't even vote for...
Its very easy to sit on the fence and decide which groups of innocent civilians deserve to die when you aren't at risk of being one of them.
 
Last edited:
lewstherin said:
Tens of thousands of people have died in Zimbabwe in the past 10 years at the hands of Robert Mugabe.
Click to expand...

And where did you suck this figure out from ???.

I heard nothing in the UN or AU or the Commonwealth being mentioned about these alleged atrocities except for very sad footage from Carte Blanche about white farmers being kicked of their land and inflaming lots of people on this forum.

Yes we all know about the state repression and intimidation of political opponents by the Mugabe regime and the infamous "cleanup" campaign that left people homeless but there is no systematic cold blooded murdering or bombing of people going on.

The UK people should ask themselves very clearly why they are being made targets along with the Yanks ... it because of their American lapdog foreign policies in the Middle East.

They can thank Blair for that.
 
And where did you suck this figure out from ???.

I heard nothing in the UN or AU or the Commonwealth being mentioned about these alleged atrocities except for very sad footage from Carte Blanche about white farmers being kicked of their land and inflaming lots of people on this forum.
Click to expand...
Granted my tens of thousands figure does not have an official news link - its an educated guess based on the conditions over there.
Probably about as educated as the Lebanese death count I'd argue.

If you want to suggest that less people have died in Zimbabwe than in Lebanon since 2005, you need to get your head examined.
When you're the one killing your own people, you are far less likely to volunteer stats. Also, last time I checked independant media were not allowed into Zimbabwe...so how is the world supposed to know what's going on there?

To me, mass murder of innocents does not necessarily mean dropping bombs on people. Most evil regimes have in fact had better death counts from policies resulting in systematic starvation and widespread denial of rights.

However have a look at the following links as a starter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Murambatsvina
http://www.sokwanele.com/articles/sokwanele/deathtollmountsforopmurambatsvinavictims_25no2005.html

Yes we all know about the state repression and intimidation of political opponents by the Mugabe regime and the infamous "cleanup" campaign that left people homeless but there is no systematic cold blooded murdering or bombing of people going on.
Click to expand...
a.) Let me guess, the Zimbabwians aren't muslims, so who cares right?
b.) Systematic, cold blooded murder is a fact of life in Mugabe's Zimbabwe - didn't you see the farmers getting murdered by war veterans? What of the children run over by bulldozers during the "cleanups".
c.) I see, just because the media can't get into Zim, obviously everything must be going fine there.

The UK people should ask themselves very clearly why they are being made targets along with the Yanks ... it because of their American lapdog foreign policies in the Middle East.

They can thank Blair for that.
Click to expand...

By that reasoning, if Zimbabwian terrorists were to start blowing up SAA flights, then you shouldn't be surprised. It would be because of the SA government's support of Mugabe that ordinary Saffas become targets, and you could thank Thabo for that.

See here's the key troll boy. A government's policy is never unanimously endorsed by its people. However you seem to think that any member of the populace deserves to die due to political actions until the politicians change their policies.
That's not rational, that's terrorism.

And aside from questioning my stats, you haven't actually given a successful reason for why your logic should only apply to situations that involve the US and UK.
Your position is one particularly suited to your personal bias, but it unravels completely under any kind of logical scrunity.
 
Last edited:
Time to clear up the point I made yesterday. It is my opinion that what we are seeing today has a strong resemblance to what happend 70 years ago. If we don't confront (:o) the threats now we will pay the price later.

I seem to have struck a raw nerve. Appeasement (:o ) wasn't liberalism's finest hour.

I apologise if there is any poor spelling or grammar in this post. :p
 
Is anyone else as confused as I am?

I am, in general, somewhat sympathetic to Muslims, especially with regards to the situation in Palestine. But on hearing this news about a new terrorist plot, my sympathy evaporated in an instant. That was my immediate emotonal reation.

Then I thought about who stands to gain from this latest news of an uncovered terrorist plot. Bush and Blair both stand to be exonerated for their war actions of the past few years. Bush and Blair stand to increase their political popularity. People in the UK and USA must be near frightened to death by this latest news, and when citizens are scared they willingly hand over their freedoms, thus more power passes to the government. Furthermore, it suits the USA just fine to be in a perpetual state of war. Economically, it's one of the best things for the USA.

On thinking more about this, I started to question the reliability of this information. I know it sounds radical to suggest this, but how can we even trust that this 'terrorist plot' was real? I mean, the leaders of the USA (and UK) knowingly lied about Iraq and WMD. They have covered up details surrounding Sept 11. The whole Sept 11 thing, when viewed holistically, raises numerous questions for which Bush and Blair have not yet been able to answer. What's to say we should trust them now? Is the terrorist threat real, or is it overstated and simply being used as a political tool?

Bush and Blair have been ducking and diving political bullets from the rest of the world on issues such as tightening restrictions on civil liberties, Guantanemo Bay, torture, the Geneva Convention, the democratic right of the accused to a trial, etc etc. Something like this comes along and suddenly these dispicable actions from the supposed leaders of democracy somehow seem justified. People could stop asking questions and put blind faith in Bush and Blair, giving them carte blanche for all out war. Maybe that is what they want?

But then again, maybe I am misguided and the terrorist threat is as real and bad as it is made out to be.... I don't know what to think. Even though I have a severe distrust of Bush and Blair, at the same time it has become near impossible for me to see Islam as a religion congruent with peace and democracy.

I don't trust either side, and I for one am scared and very very confused about who to trust and who to defend.

I keep thinking, "has Bush been right all along?" I don't know.
 
Debbie: I think you're on the right track. Unfortunately I do think the terrorist plot may have been real, but in the same vein maybe exaggerated to mould into the US and UK gvt objectives.
 
Debbie2 said:
Is anyone else as confused as I am?

On thinking more about this, I started to question the reliability of this information. I know it sounds radical to suggest this, but how can we even trust that this 'terrorist plot' was real? I mean, the leaders of the USA (and UK) knowingly lied about Iraq and WMD. They have covered up details surrounding Sept 11. The whole Sept 11 thing, when viewed holistically, raises numerous questions for which Bush and Blair have not yet been able to answer. What's to say we should trust them now? Is the terrorist threat real, or is it overstated and simply being used as a political tool?
Click to expand...
Your are absolutely right Debbie, how do you trust these people again?
 
Selective quoting, you really are a troll/seagull are'nt you...
 
In 1939 people were saying "has Churchill been right all along?".

I hope this helps illustrate my point more clearly.
 
Debbie. My advice is to believe governments that operate in an open democracy, open to scrutiny from their populace and press. I would be inclined to doubt information that comes from "closed" regimes such as those of Iran, Syria, etc.
 
One thing about Syria/Iran is that they are always threatening war with USA/Israel, saying they will destroy them, I would rather believe the western goverments who do not make threats the whole time against other countries (well at least not publicly with war, they make economic threats.)

But hey, thats just me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X