Jihad attacks 2003 - Jan 2007
Posted on 06/30/2007 12:24:22 PM PDT by HAL9000
“yeah.. but its not the same is it... the other groups just wanted stuff.. these Muslims just want you dead.”
Bombs are bombs, they’ll kill you whether the people that set them want just ‘stuff’ or want you dead!!!
“i hope you’re right about your countrymen... the impression we get over here is that the PC-rot is quite entrenched.”
Isn’t it strange that Brits have the same impression of the US and your countrymen....
“They have too much experience of such things in the past to let it trouble them....”
According to some, our experience only started post 9/11....
man, if it’s one thing i learned , you people in the UK sure are sensitive to having the PC grip over there being commented on... i have had almost every brit counter with “well it’s worse in the US”
well, woopty do... this is a thread about Britian i believe.
in any case, dont blame me for that impression.. blame all the writers who describe what the French coined as Londonistan... Britians blind-eye to 2 decades of jihadi networking in its capital with the naive understanding that the jihadis would attack everyone except the brits.
well, sow what you reaped,i guess.
> I would hate (actually I’d love) to think what OUR
> response would have been to bus and subway bombings such
> as happened in London. I daresay no mosques would have
> been left standing within 72 hours.
If 3000 dead in one hour, Lower Manhattan and the Pentagon being reduced to smoking holes, all of which were hit with hijacked airliners filled with innocent people, didn’t do it, than a little subway and bus bombing won’t do it, either.
Oh, and after those attacks, the overarching sentiment was not to wreak vengeance upon the mosques, but to seek to mollify them.
Our president even called Islam a “religion of peace”.
Islam is no such thing.
Benjamin Disraeli said, “The borders of Islam are bloody.”
That was an understatement.
It’s more like, where ever Islam goes, there is strife, and bloodshed, and misery, and oppression.
That’s because Islam was founded by a man who was a pirate, a pedophile, a plunderer, a brigand, a murderer, a rapist, a jew-hater, and a treacherous liar.
Depending upon which boast in the Hadiths you believe, Mohammad personally beheaded between 600 and 900 Jews.
Nice guy.
Contrast Mohammed’s life with the life of Jesus.
But the Western politicos and media haven’t figured that out yet.
And if they haven’t figured that out given the history of Islam and its founder Mohammed, and after all these years of bombings, and hijackings, and beheadings, and tortures, and murders, and rapes, they never will.
“man, if it’s one thing i learned , you people in the UK sure are sensitive to having the PC grip over there being commented on... i have had almost every brit counter with “well it’s worse in the US””
I have always seen Britain as an anomaly. For a nation that is generally right of centre, we sure do love electing govts. that are left of centre. Perhaps that’s the sub-conscious, confrontational character of the average Brit coming through. Electing someone that you agree with all the time is no fun at all....
“well, woopty do... this is a thread about Britian i believe.”
And who better to comment on the situation in the UK than Brits.....!
“.....in any case, dont blame me for that impression.. blame all the writers who describe what the French coined as Londonistan...”
Yes, the French...I rest my case M’Lud!!!
To be honest, for someone that doesn’t live in Britain, you claim an awful lot
“Britains blind eye to 2 decades of Jihadis networking in its capital”
???
Please don’t tell me that this info also came from the French, Who, I might add, have a bigger problem, and rather than stand up to them like the UK have, ran away with their tails between their legs.
In those 2 decades, Britain had a real enemy knocking on it’s door bombing London business and disrupting, a real enemy that warranted main priority. Can you imagine how pi**ed the British public would have been at the time had the Gov said “sorry, although you’re being bombed left right & centre, our priorities lay with people that aren’t gonna actually bomb you, just yet!”
Have you lived in the UK for any period of time in the last 2 decades?
If so, you would understand what I mean.
The legacy is there to be seen from those 3 decades that Brits were being bombed. There are no refuse bins at any London underground station, there’s a ring of ‘steel’ around the financial district of London, A Brits average day away from home sees them off a CCTV camera for no longer than 4 mins, the rest of the time is caught on CCTV, road blocks in the City of London, concrete slabs strategically placed in roads in the City to act like chicanes and control traffic, etc. etc.
Yes the tactics of the terrorists have changed in the UK (and elsewhere), but so will the tactics to deal with them. During the last terrorist crisis this country went through, Britain was slagged off about the supposed ‘shoot to kill’ policy. I’m sure you’ll agree that this is a policy that should be adopted as a matter of course, by all western countries dealing with terrorists?
So why did Britain have to suffer condemnation - by the US, among others - of using such a policy. When the bombs are falling on a weekly basis and your soldiers are being shot at on a daily basis, the only thing you can do is ‘shoot to kill’.....
After 17 yrs service with the British army, i’m a bit long in the tooth. I agree that they should all be sent to their 72 virgins, however i’d prefer to shoot them all than nuke em!
I love the US and I love Americans. I have friends in the US and try to visit your wonderful country as often as I can. I’ve been on exchange programs with the US army both in the UK and US, and also served alongside your soldiers & Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The point i’m about to make, most people won’t agree with but it is my belief and opinion nonetheless. When I travel to the US, at the airports I get an underlying sense of panic that I don’t get at UK airports. I always feel uneasy at US airports, and feel much safer when at UK airports.
The Jihadis are a problem for Britain at the moment, which is much more an indictment of the Brit policy for dealing with them in the past, than supposedly ignoring them (which I don’t agree was the case, but we can agree to disagree). Britain has always seemed to take the view that it is easier to surveil someone in your own yard than have to go to their yard and look over the fence. Like I said in an earlier post, I don’t know whether this approach is right or wrong, it remains to be seen....
To answer your final comment. I assume you mean reaped what we sowed (not vice versa), this would actually suggest we asked for this, and that’s just silly. If the same logic is applied, something similar would be to say that you asked for 9/11, but I don’t believe that one iota....
“...As pathetic as our stance is toward the enemies among us, still, I would hate (actually I’d love) to think what OUR response would have been to bus and subway bombings such as happened in London. I daresay no mosques would have been left standing within 72 hours.....”
Were there any mosques left standing after 9/11?????
...............
“To answer your final comment. I assume you mean reaped what we sowed (not vice versa), this would actually suggest we asked for this, and that’s just silly. If the same logic is applied, something similar would be to say that you asked for 9/11, but I don’t believe that one iota....”
I was taken by my emotions and wrote that late at night.. it was wrong of me to say that and I’m sorry.
...
Regarding the rest...
I was merely making observations, i wasn’t “judging” Britian. I haven’t been there and would love to go.
Point taken...
When these things happen in the UK, although never reported in the media, the natives do take a very dim view and resort to violence, personal attacks against Muslims and vandalism of mosques generally do go up.
I mean, when you consider that when England lost to Portugal in the soccer world cup, very few Portuguese restaurants were left standing the day after.....
No, I stand by what I said. And I am the LAST person to praise the way our “pursuit” of bloody Islam has progressed. My point (maybe it was just implicit) was that precisely BECAUSE we were already attacked so dramatically
from the air, by people WHO HAD ALSO BEEN LIVING HERE, but who had managed to conceal who they were or what their ultimate intentions were, we were MUCH LESS LIKELY to adopt the Brit stance of “tolerance” toward their “homegrown” terrorists. Britain has had the mouthiest and most agressive Islamists in all of Europe, and now they have suffered for their tolerance at least as dramatically as anyone in Europe except perhaps Spain. My point was to imply that if what happened in Britain were to happen here AFTER 9-11, then in that scenario indeed, there would be an unstoppable taking of the law into our own hands, as soon as we saw the official response would be “same old, same old” as it was basically after 9-11.
You both know as well as I how much of the old Frontier spirit is still alive in millions of us, and how willing we are to fight and die for what we hold sacred. You talk about the cautious way things were handled post 9-11, and we all agree it’s not the way any of us would have done it.
But it is the way George Bush did it, and the way any American Administration would have done it, even LESS effectively.
Bush’s way of going about it was particulary irritating because it’s so schizophrenic and so contradictory and “counter-intuitive” in the way it picks its targets and enemies. The first one I would have gone after was Saudi Arabia-—the first one the Bush Administration went after was Afghanistan, because presumably, that’s where the “real enemy” , Osama binLaden, was hiding out, and where “AlQaeda” could have been destroyed decisively. BULLSHIT.THIS is exactly like looking for your lost wallet at the nearest corner where there is a streetlamp shedding light, even though you think you might have left it at a restaurant a mile away, but now closed. It should tell you something that going into Afghanistan is the ONE thing that both War supporters AND Opponents “agree” was necessary. Nonsense. We should have gone after EVERY Islamic country that had anything to do with fomenting Islamic Jihad and hit them with targeted infrastructural strikes, week after week, while informing them in no uncertain terms WHY we were doing it, and WHY we would CONTINUE doing it UNTIL THEY CHANGED THEIR WAYS. That is, stopped funding, fomenting, or supporting in any way the overall plans for destabilization if not DESTRUCTION of Europe, the US, and the West. There would have to be a point where forces as far flung as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt , Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, etc etc would get the picture, and would come to the table rather than watch their cultures get the kind of apocalyptic ass-kicking that would change the face of History once and for all.
That, of course is NOT the way things have transpired in the last 5 1/2 years, and that will be to our eternal shame and regret. I can’t say any more. I’m already too pissed off> IF these last 5+ years have shown us anything, it has been only to highlight just how COMPROMISED our “leaders” have made us on the World Stage: they have basically not positioned us to be anything other than VICTIMS.
Your post was awesome.. too bad those in power are more ignorant than we are.
Which ANGERS ME... WHY DO I KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS CRAP THAN OUR LEADERS.. I’M NO ONE SPECIAL!
grrrr
“....I’m already too pissed off> IF these last 5+ years have shown us anything, it has been only to highlight just how COMPROMISED our “leaders” have made us on the World Stage: they have basically not positioned us to be anything other than VICTIMS....”
Agree with everything you say. Future Historians will look back and wonder.....
Your last point is the best one. The best way to get an impression, and admitedly a short trip can still give the wrong impression, is to visit a place. Batco has plenty of time in the states and by your own admission, you don’t have any time in the UK.
I really wish more people would travel abroad. Of course, with the pound hitting a 20 year high (imagine paying $11 - $12 for a meal at McDonalds), it would have to be a really short trip! Of course, coming to the states for batco would be like going to a 50% of sale!
well thank you for assuming i’m some untraveled hillbilly.
I lived in hong kong,, i’ve spent time in Israel and visited family who live in Italy.
Great post from someone who has obviously seen and done more than most in his life!
Two points:
U.S. airports: The U.S. is very new at the whole terrorism thing. I’ve flown across the country twice over the last month and I can’t say that I’ve felt unsafe, but I don’t have much to contrast it against either!
While it is true that it is probably more effective to watch within your own borders (CCTV), there is something about it gives many Americans a bad feeling. We are slowly evolving that way for better or worse. All it will take is a couple of terrorist attacks within our borders. It is actually amazing that we haven’t been attacked in a major way since 9/11.
Next time you’re on your way back from Italy and Israel you can stop by the UK.
I didn’t assume anything. You posted your impressions of the UK and then admitted you’ve never been there.
i gave my reasons for my opinions.
i just listened to melanie philips on the radio with laura ingraham this morning.. she said everything i’ve heard before about the rampant PC in UK.
does that mean the US doesn’t have PC problem.. no it doesn’t.
i stand by my impression... the left has a death grip on the culture of britian and that vacuum is being filled by jihadists.
Interesting that you choose a radio personality over a fellow UK Freeper who has 17 years of military experience and has trained with numerous Armies all over the world. Oh well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.