Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Rasker on February 03, 2005, 09:28:03 PM
-
Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German
publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering
attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily newspaper,
against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the
Islamic threat.
EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE
(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)
A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag,
"Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase
you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly
true.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives
as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and
hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to
be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the
Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of
Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive,
murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically
correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in
Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing
mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated,
and were still debating when finally the Americans had to
come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again,
and do our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East,
European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word
"equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in
Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to
ignore nearly
500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery
and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the
peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George
Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics
of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no,
TENS of billions, in the corrupt U. N. Oil-for-Food
program.
And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of
appeasement...
How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by
Islamic
fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting
that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.
I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction
of our
(German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed,
the German people, actually believe that creating an
Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from
the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.
One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain
waving the
laughable treaty signed by Adolf Hitler, and declaring
European "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the European public and its
political
leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an
especially
perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by
fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against
our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western
Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than
any of the great military conflicts of the last century -
a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by
"tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on
by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always
be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.
Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed
for
anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.
His American critics may quibble over the details, but we
Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald
Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German
people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery.
And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair,
acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the
Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will
have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic
self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of
defending liberal society's values and being an attractive
center of power on the same playing field as the true
great powers, America and China.
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in
contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World
Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior
Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why?
Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so
materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge
amounts of
additional national debt, and a massive and persistent
burden on the
American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe,
Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of
America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we
timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it!
It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our
35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of
paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the
need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and
forgive".
These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with
shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of
jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a
neighbor's house.
Appeasement? Europe, thy name is 'Cowardice'.
-
I find this simply amazing.
Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, is incredibly arrogant. Clearly, he is uneducated and a fool.
Beyond that he is most assuredly a CIA plant, is in the pay of the US and probably had an American mother or father.
-
The guy is not european. No way. No how. NO European would say such stuff.
I would like a dna test done on the guy before I am exposed to suck vile spewings on this BBS.:lol :lol
-
The average european (ie: wimp) does not want to piss off the average suicide bomber. I guess you cant blame the poor bastards.
Muahahaha :rofl
-
Yeager,
Are you saying that France actually triumphed in WW2 and has made the rest of Europe into it's own image????
:p
-
Wow...! Just when I was starting to think nobody over there 'Had a Clue'.... this guy comes out of nowhere....
-
We should remember that several European governments other than special ally Britain came in with us in liberating Iraq, and public opinion in liberated former Communist states is a world away from what you find in Western Europe Perhaps instead of blanket condemnation of the entire continent, we should talk about appeasers, "Quislings" or "Vichyites", or maybe use Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" term.
-
I should remember that some (not all) have jelly in the skull.
It's Döpfner not Dapfner.
This article is several month old (at least 2).
-
So letme get this straight.
Most Europeans are the same in your American eyes yeager ie wimps!?
I think you will find quite a few of us over here would disagree.
What me might agree on however that such a statement shows that all yeagers are pratts! ( with the exeption of Chuck of course! )
:rolleyes:
-
Bet all those British soldiers, sailors and airmen over in Iraq would really appreciate being called wimps.
In fact..... i would pay to see you go up to a Royal Marine Commando and call them a wimp.
-
Heh Finnish wimps at Golan heights received grenade fire from Israel while US was using its veto in SC and delivering more ammo to Israelis to shoot Bluebarets.
F...ing *******; Why didn't you bomb UN positions yourself ?
-
Instead of going after Yeager, or correcting the spelling of the authors name, or ignoring the article because it's 2 months old, why don't you guys address the heart of the article?
Is Europe soft of Terror?
That's the question that needs to be asked.
Though I respect individual Europeans and think each country has wonderful attributes and deficits, including the US, I am of the opinion that, yes, European governments appear soft on Terrorists.
-
*Some*, not all, European governments appear soft on terrorism and/or Islamo-fascism. It could be that Theo Van Gogh's murder has become a sort of wake up call tho.
-
Rasker... URL to that article?
-
Here's one of several urls that shows up when you google the article's title: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16565
The german original appears on or linked to one or more of those url's.
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
Instead of going after Yeager, or correcting the spelling of the authors name, or ignoring the article because it's 2 months old, why don't you guys address the heart of the article?
Because they're afraid to. ;)
-
Toad, didn't you say the Iraq war was not worth it?
-
I think he means France and Germay not ALL of Europe.
To a point I agree with him.
I personally don't think ALL French or Germans are wimps but it seems like the ones in charge are.
At least on the surface they appear to be but like any other politician(USA included) they have their agendas that sometimes are hidden so they only appear to be cowardly.
My dislike of the French Govt. goes back many years and is not tied to just one incident but many. The Germans I never really had a problem with till the Iraq war.
Do I blame the people because of their leaders?
No more than I do the people of my country who voted for Slick Willy for a second term.
-
Nuke, I'm tempted to tell you to get your head out of your anal vent.
I've replied to this every time you toss it out. I've given you multiple links to my position.
Here they are again:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=129668&highlight=wmd
or
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119654&highlight=wmd
If you're still confused, I just can't help you.
MY position on Iraq has nothing to do with how I view the validity of Dapfner's commentary. He speaks mainly of European "appeasement", a clear refrence to the appeasement of an earlier time. He does not directly address this with Iraq as the sole reference point. Note well the reference to the Palestinians and the proposed "Muslim holiday" and the "Islalmic war against democracy". It's an overall condemnation, not directly tied to Iraq. That's the point from which I comment.
-
Toad, I'm off to work.
Just didn't read your links yet. I seem to recall that, since no WMD where found, you didn't think the war was worth it.
Would it kill you to just give a brief answer rather than make me dig through a thread?
-
we have here some bush supporter too, yes why not ?
but thanks god they are only a small fraction.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
we have here some bush supporter too, yes why not ?
but thanks god they are only a small fraction.
So you're of the opinion that Europe has the correct stance on Terrorism?
Please elaborate.
-
"muslim day" yeah... that should do it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Would it kill you to just give a brief answer rather than make me dig through a thread?
Yes, for two reasons.
It's not a subject that gives itself to a "brief answer".
I've given in-depth answers to you about 5 times.. .seems like 50 times.
Anything worthwhile is worth working for; if you really want to remember what I already told you, do a little digging.
-
Thomas L. Friedman: Cut oil prices and tyrants will fall (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1332221/posts)
I think THIS is a really good view of the present situation and it touches on what Dapfner's article highlights, presenting another scenario to get things done.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
So letme get this straight.
Most Europeans are the same in your American eyes yeager ie wimps!?
Typically, most Americans are the same in the eyes of Europeans, so why wouldn't you find this acceptable?
dago
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
So you're of the opinion that Europe has the correct stance on Terrorism?
Please elaborate.
i'm sure its not how you say "correct" but in my opinion
compared to what bush is doing, hey its much much "correcter".
-
Lazs2 ? What are you on about?
As for Terrorism. I think those of us in the UK know quite a lot about that. IRA terrorism has killed quite a few of us. Part financed by our American cousins!!!!
So please don't tell us that the Europeans are soft on terrorism.
Even the Germans had to deal with terrorism. Asw i recall they did their bit. Ever heard of The red army brigade ( think thats what they were called) or the Bader Meinhoff gang? Oh then theres ETA in Spain too.
Terrorism doesn't just come from Islamic countries.
Thats way too simplistic an idea. States support or sponsor terrorism as its called if it is expedient. Ask people in El Salvadore, Nicaragua, etc. I recall the USA supported some pretty atrocious regimes there too. Infact as i understand it the USA were rather keen on Pinochet too!
But hey you have a simplistic president so we shouldn't expect much else I suppose.
Just don't preach too Europeans or accuse us of being wimpy or soft on terrorism. We've had enough to last a lifetime you guys are just starting to find out how that feels.
:mad:
-
you have a simplistic president
====
Im willing to bet he is more complex than you are.
-
"fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting
that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany."
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yes, for two reasons.
It's not a subject that gives itself to a "brief answer".
I've given in-depth answers to you about 5 times.. .seems like 50 times.
Anything worthwhile is worth working for; if you really want to remember what I already told you, do a little digging.
Well, Im at work now and leaving for a little trip to Tucson, so I'll check out your threads.
It seems like it would be a simple answer though. Do you think the war was worth our efforts and loses it? Seems simple to me.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Lazs2 ? What are you on about?
As for Terrorism. I think those of us in the UK know quite a lot about that. IRA terrorism has killed quite a few of us. Part financed by our American cousins!!!!
So please don't tell us that the Europeans are soft on terrorism.
Even the Germans had to deal with terrorism. Asw i recall they did their bit. Ever heard of The red army brigade ( think thats what they were called) or the Bader Meinhoff gang? Oh then theres ETA in Spain too.
Terrorism doesn't just come from Islamic countries.
Thats way too simplistic an idea. States support or sponsor terrorism as its called if it is expedient. Ask people in El Salvadore, Nicaragua, etc. I recall the USA supported some pretty atrocious regimes there too. Infact as i understand it the USA were rather keen on Pinochet too!
But hey you have a simplistic president so we shouldn't expect much else I suppose.
Just don't preach too Europeans or accuse us of being wimpy or soft on terrorism. We've had enough to last a lifetime you guys are just starting to find out how that feels.
:mad:
Once again, attack the US but do not defend your position.
You believe Europe has taken the proper stance on Terrorism?
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
Instead of going after Yeager, or correcting the spelling of the authors name, or ignoring the article because it's 2 months old, why don't you guys address the heart of the article?
Is Europe soft of Terror?
That's the question that needs to be asked.
Though I respect individual Europeans and think each country has wonderful attributes and deficits, including the US, I am of the opinion that, yes, European governments appear soft on Terrorists.
I can : I disagree with him ,I think he is full off S*** like in all the articles he wrote in the past.
And finally Döpfner is wimp aslo being Euro , if he don't agree with the poliltic of his country he can either be elected or leave.
-
No mate I was responding to the general view that has been expressed in this thread that we in Europe are soft on terrorists and wimpy!!!
That makes me a tad angry yes.
And it is a fact that US senators put money into the IRA and sponsored right wing armies in Central and south America.
but yes before you say it the UK govt has in the past been guilty of supporting terrorism in its broadest sense too.
All I'm saying is get off your high moral bloody horse regarding Europe and take a more balanced view.
Oh and don't tell us we know nothing about terrorism. You insult us by doing so.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
No mate I was responding to the general view that has been expressed in this thread that we in Europe are soft on terrorists and wimpy!!!
That makes me a tad angry yes.
And it is a fact that US senators put money into the IRA and sponsored right wing armies in Central and south America.
but yes before you say it the UK govt has in the past been guilty of supporting terrorism in its broadest sense too.
All I'm saying is get off your high moral bloody horse regarding Europe and take a more balanced view.
Oh and don't tell us we know nothing about terrorism. You insult us by doing so.
Understood.
So my question to you is, what policies do you believe Europe is correct on in regards to Terrorism, and which would you like to see improvement on?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting
that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany."
lazs
Why not we have tons of christian hollyday I don't care of ,it will just be another hollyday I don't care.
-
The French anti-terrorist forces have been a whole lot more sucessful than the Americans recently.
Osama Bin missing for a while now.
-
straffo... I don't care either but find it a laughable solution.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Lazs2 ? What are you on about?
As for Terrorism. I think those of us in the UK know quite a lot about that. IRA terrorism has killed quite a few of us. Part financed by our American cousins!!!!
So please don't tell us that the Europeans are soft on terrorism.
But hey you have a simplistic president so we shouldn't expect much else I suppose.
Just don't preach too Europeans or accuse us of being wimpy or soft on terrorism. We've had enough to last a lifetime you guys are just starting to find out how that feels.
:mad:
I would have to say that the UK does NOT know how Terrorism feels. Unless you live in and around Northern Ireland. I had a Counter-Terrorism class in college and the Professor was from the Scotland Yard dealing with the NRA. Even he said most British and Irish people haven't the slightest clue, unless they were close to Northern Ireland.
Europe IS soft on Terroism. You sat back, pissed, moaned, groaned long enough to allow the WMD's to be shifted to other countries (Syria, Jordan, and possibly Iran). Spain is screwed because of the increasing Algerian population, they know how it feels.
You have the balls to harp on Bush, when the Georgian PM was declared "killed by a Natural Gas attack"? Take your arrogant, "I never should have replied to this in the first place" a** to the Pub and drink some more.
I get along with everyone.
I'll replay this incident at the 2003 Con in Indianapolis. DmdBen is from Germany, so DamnKeg and I are right near by talking about pistols, when all of a sudden DmdBen started turning red. Here's this twit ripping on him because A.) he is from Germany, B.) ripping on Helmut Kohl. I told the guy (forgot his name)to take his opinions elsewhere and have fun at "THE CONVENTION". So now, Loser (Canadian), DamnKeg kind of enter the fray, DamnKeg is fluent in German so he was now translating. This a**hole, is still going on about "9/11", blah blah blah. I finally told him that it wasn't Ben's fault the "People of Germany" put Helmut Kohl in power. They guy finally left.
I love the United States of America. I'm sick and tired of others putting it down. I usually ignore them, but in your case, you are so hell bent on trying to be GScholz II that you missed the boat.
BS, you've had enough to last a lifetime.
Karaya
-
Can't speak for the other nations but here in the UK
Under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCSA), the home secretary can indefinitely detain, without charge, a foreign terrorist suspect
One MP's views quoted from BBC website
"Most people agree that global-reach terrorism presents a very real, and daily, threat to us all.
Few demur from the view that the home secretary's principle role is to preserve our democracy by defending us against that threat.
While no measures can remove risk altogether, these measures, albeit in extremis, will play an important part in ensuring that risk is kept to a minimum.
The question for us all is whether Charles Clarke's new anti-terrorist proposals strike the balance he himself seeks, between assuring our individual freedoms and protecting our lives.
It is fundamental that we should all be concerned about that balance - get it wrong and we risk the very democracy we're trying to protect. And of course there are no easy answers.
But the facts are that Mr Clarke's proposals are neither out of whack with our historical responses to grave national threats, nor disproportionate in their effect on our liberties.
And crucially, while no measures can remove risk altogether, these measures, albeit in extremis, will play an important part in ensuring that risk is kept to a minimum.
World War II internment
Let's consider where we are now, and how we got here.
Facing Hitler, we introduced internment. It was harsh and inevitably involved detaining perfectly innocent ice-cream salesmen from Streatham and teachers from Truro.
It was very sad for all who knew them, but most people at the time, and even reflecting upon it now, accepted it as a necessity. Frederick Forsyth has forgotten all of this.
Indeed, so tough were we then on refusing entry to the UK to those we considered possible threats, many of whom were running in fear, that we subsequently signed up to the very 1951 United Nations convention at the heart of our present dilemma.
Charles Clarke's solution [is] humane, accountable and measured. Not nice, for sure - but necessary.
Eric Joyce
All sovereign states today have the right to refuse entry to, or remove, anyone they think may harm their citizens. Trials don't come into it.
Equally, we agree that we can't extradite our own citizens. But many states, like the UK, also agree not to extradite anyone to anywhere they may be mistreated and the small number of Belmarsh detainees all come from such places.
The House of Lords has ruled that while citizens have rights non-citizens do not. In effect we are bound by our own constitution not to extradite the detainees, so we are therefore breaching the convention not to discriminate and must find a new solution.
Trials 'not an option'
So what next?
Judges have accepted that the present detainees present a serious threat to us but that the intelligence which convinces them of this is inadmissible as evidence in court.
Trials, ideal of course, are therefore not an option.
We could dissent from our present agreements and extradite people we believe to be dangerous anyway, and leave them to their fate. But that would be inhumane and wrong.
So should we therefore simply let these people go unchecked and accept the risk they pose - the direct consequence of Frederick Forsyth's position? Of course not.
That would be a dereliction of the government's most profound duty.
Our only practical options are therefore to work with some of the possible countries of destination to secure a safe return for some detainees, and to ensure we know exactly where those who remain in the UK actually are, and exactly what they're up to. "
I would say that detention without trial and surveilance is pretty tough! Wouldn't you?
I think the point is that to defeat terrorism Govts need a sophisticated approach. One that looks at threat wherever its from not just focussing on Islamic terrorism.
In addition you need to make a real effort to understand what motivates the terrorist and seek to try and remove the conditions that motivate such action. Tackling poverty in Africa and other continents. ( something the UK govt is commited to but the US seems to have rejected ) Working to broker a real middle east peace settlement. One that recognises the Palistinians very real plight. To name two causes of terrorism.
Going in guns blazing is not the solution. Seems even Condy Rice recognises this as she's just been on the radio saying diplomacy is the answer re Iran, not military strikes.
-
Now Masherbrum
Thats is tosh. I live in Birmingham a city badky attacked by IRA in the 70's so bad that it is still a source of tension and sorrow now. londoners have been attacked. Over and over again. My girlfreind lived in Ealing when a bomb went of there a few years ago.
Mate it seems your education was a pile of pants. Your comments are ignorant and a little insulting!
-
Sorry Ghost, most Germans are worried about themselves then about anybody else. Fat Dumb and Happy comes to mind.
OTOH , I work very close with the German law enforcement authorities - nothing but praise, very professional in all the help we get from them. You would be surprised the info passed between the two countries.
Of course most average Germans wouldn't know or care to know that.
They would rather come back with:
Scheiß BOOSCH ..........ya, whatever. Ask yourself what your Gov't has done for you in the past 6 years.
"Clean in front of your own house, before you look at mine."
-
Originally posted by Furball
Bet all those British soldiers, sailors and airmen over in Iraq would really appreciate being called wimps.
In fact..... i would pay to see you go up to a Royal Marine Commando and call them a wimp.
How much would you pay?.....if you are paying enough it would be worth the butt kicking. :D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Thomas L. Friedman: Cut oil prices and tyrants will fall (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1332221/posts)
I think THIS is a really good view of the present situation and it touches on what Dapfner's article highlights, presenting another scenario to get things done.
Sry toad, but this part of the article is just naive.
"You give me $18-a-barrel oil and I will give you political and economic reform from Algeria to Iran. All these regimes have huge population bubbles and too few jobs. They make up the gap with oil revenues. Shrink the oil revenue and they will have to open up their economies and their schools and liberate their women so that their people can compete. It is that simple."
This is basically an embargo situation. Look at Cuba, its been starved and laid back decades from the US embargo. Result? The government and officials in charge live up the good life, the rest of the population lives in poverty. And how long has this been going on? many decades.
Another example? North Korea. It may not be under an embargo but its economy is screwed up so bad the population suffers greatly both socially and economically. The leaders live the good life there too.
Cuba and N. Korea are both societies where women arent subjected to such extreme supression via social and religious ideologies.
Cuba and N. Korea dont have their societies under the thumb of religious teachings nor are their governments intertwined with the clergy.
To think that making the economies of Iran or any other arab nation dependant on oil take a plunge will make the population rise in revolt or undergo a social change is just ridiculous and naive. It wont happen.
The iranian gov will just blame the whole of their problems on europe and the USA. So will the rest of the affected arab nations. That will only result in a huge breeding ground for more terrorrists...and those will now be armed with the covert support of those goverments. So bio/chem/nuke technology will be easier for bin laden to get, and hiding places and training camps plentiful.
The economic sanction approach has never worked. Social change is only effective when its the people affected that take action. And in those arab nations you have politics, law, religion and social and cultural traditions all intertwined.
Just look at Saddam Hussein. He maintained control while being a brutal dictator. The iraqui people didnt reach the critical point to rebel against him as a nation or as a people.
The author of that article is basing his conclusions on how a western society would behave. the US fought england for independence, south american nations fought spain, some euro nations have had entire ethnic/social groups rise up and try to claim the region they lived in as their own country...
not so in the middle east.
-
OIO she looks about 15!!!!!!:eek:
-
Originally posted by Monk
OTOH , I work very close with the German law enforcement authorities - nothing but praise, very professional in all the help we get from them. You would be surprised the info passed between the two countries.
whats your problem then ?
this was before bush and it will be after him too.
But what have this to do with Bushs way of fighting Terror
and disagreeing with him?
but go on bash further the "average german", have fun.
R
Gh0stFT
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
but go on bash further the "average german", have fun.
R
Gh0stFT
What goes around comes around, I guess.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I would have to say that the UK does NOT know how Terrorism feels. Unless you live in and around Northern Ireland. I had a Counter-Terrorism class in college and the Professor was from the Scotland Yard dealing with the NRA. Even he said most British and Irish people haven't the slightest clue, unless they were close to Northern Ireland.
Karaya
Just to follow up on Zulus response, here are some highlights from the last 27 years. Its clear someone doesn't have the slightest clue and I think its your Professor.
BBC Television Centre, Shepherd's Bush, March 2001 Officers were carrying out a controlled explosion on a bomb in a taxi when it went off yards from the front door of BBC Television Centre. Staff had already been evacuated after police received a coded warning. A London Underground worker suffered deep cuts and some damage was caused to the front of the building.
MI6 spy headquarters, central London, September 2000 A rocket launcher device was used in an attack on the MI6 spy headquarters in central London. The missile shattered an eighth floor window on the southern side of the building, but there were no casualties. Dissident Irish republicans were the main suspects.
Ealing Broadway, July 2000 Police destroyed a bomb left near railway tracks near Ealing Broadway tube station. Dissident republican terrorist group the Real IRA was understood to be behind the attack.
Hammersmith Bridge, June 2000 A high grade bomb exploded underneath the bridge without warning. No one was injured but the blast caused traffic chaos. Dissident republican terrorist group the Real IRA was believed to be behind the attack.
Aldwych bus, February 1996 IRA man Edward O'Brien was blown up and killed by his own bomb when it accidentally detonated and ripped apart the bus on which he was travelling as it passed along Aldwych, central London.
Docklands, February 1996 The IRA signals the end of its first ceasefire with the bombing of South Quay in London's Docklands, killing two people and injuring many more.
Israeli Embassy, July 1994 14 people injured by a 30lb bomb at the embassy near Kensington Palace. A second bombing struck Balfour House in Finchley, north London, home of an Israeli charity, 12 hours later. Four people were slightly hurt. Islamic extremists were blamed.
Heathrow Airport, March 1994 The IRA launched a series of mortar attacks on the airport, partially paralysing the capital's main air route.
Bishopsgate, April 1993 An IRA truck bomb devastated the Bishopsgate area of London's financial centre, killing one and injuring 44, as well as causing damage running into hundreds of millions of pounds.
City of London, April 1992 Three killed when IRA bomb exploded outside the Baltic Exchange.
Downing Street, February 1991 The IRA fired mortar bombs at Downing Street during a Gulf War Cabinet meeting presided over by the then Prime Minister, John Major. No one hurt.
Harrods, December 1983 Six killed, three of them police, and 90 injured in IRA bombing.
Hyde Park, July 1982 Eleven soldiers killed and 50 people injured in attacks on Household Cavalry in Rotten Row and at the band stand in Regent's Park.
Dorchester Hotel, June 1982 A gunman linked to the notorious terrorist Abu Nidal, leader of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, shot and crippled Shlomo Argov, Israel's 53-year-old ambassador to London, in an attack outside the hotel in Park Lane.
House of Commons, March 1979 Airey Neave MP, the then shadow Northern Ireland Secretary and a close friend of Tory leader Margaret Thatcher, was killed by an Irish National Liberation Army car bomb in the Commons' car park.
Europa Hotel, Mayfair, August 1978 An El Al air hostess was killed and six fellow crew members injured in a gun and grenade attack, carried out by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), on a coach outside the hotel in Mayfair. One of the bombers also died.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
The average european (ie: wimp) does not want to piss off the average suicide bomber. I guess you cant blame the poor bastards.
Muahahaha :rofl
Shame the US didn't want to piss off the IRA and their gun running collecting not too long ago. Dealing and greeting terrorists..... how things haved changed since then.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I would have to say that the UK does NOT know how Terrorism feels. Unless you live in and around Northern Ireland. I had a Counter-Terrorism class in college and the Professor was from the Scotland Yard dealing with the NRA. Even he said most British and Irish people haven't the slightest clue, unless they were close to Northern Ireland.
Europe IS soft on Terroism. You sat back, pissed, moaned, groaned long enough to allow the WMD's to be shifted to other countries (Syria, Jordan, and possibly Iran). Spain is screwed because of the increasing Algerian population, they know how it feels.
Karaya
Yeah, really soft.... from a country that allowed terrorists to go there for weapons, collect money..... do as they will, then all of a sudden they woke up after 9/11.
As for the UK not knowing about terrorism. Is that the same as no US person knowing about terrorism if they're not from NYC?
During the height of terrorist activity in the UK, it wasn't just the attacks that affected the public but all the bomb scares. Often the terrorists would report false bombs to cause major disruption. It doesn't take much to bring a city to a standstill. Of course they'd then follow up some time later with a real bomb to keep everyone on their toes. You see, it's not always about actual bomb attacks but the constant threat and scares, a la terrorism! No bags, etc., were allowed to be left unattended at any public transport building and if they found one then it's automatically a security threat. Actually it wasn't until 1997/98 that military personnel were allowed to wear military uniform in public (unless they were on actual duty). This was because they were a soft target for terrorists. During heightened activities all personnel would check their vehicles for car bombs which was a popular weapon of the IRA. All military 'civilian style' vehicles had their military number plates removed to stop them being targetted. Of course, you couldn't say where you worked either.
I've been to both Loyalist and Nationalist areas in Northern Ireland and of course it was more prominent there. But where I worked and lived in the UK there were many military bases and the threat was always there. The nearest attack to where I lived was at military careers information office in a city, not at a base. It was in a shopping centre and they blew a lorry up outside the building. Even now all military bases have their security alert based on terrorism and I can't even remember a time when the alert wasn't at its lowest. Again, any unclaimed/unidentified bag/object is blown up as a security threat.
-
Originally posted by Rasker
*Some*, not all, European governments appear soft on terrorism and/or Islamo-fascism. It could be that Theo Van Gogh's murder has become a sort of wake up call tho.
well i didnt note that somebody compare Islamist militants with facist over here.
Facist were about to implement their ideas to the neighbour countries and whole world..... Like Bush
but anyway.... in Europe we are not pushed to belive that Militants=terrorist=islam=must be annihilated.
We have some history and we know very well that not every information is true.
Specialy when its publish by some "hiden, reliable" with arogant attitude source.
I think that only people who never ever travell abroad the world can separate other by their nationality, origin, race or continent.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I find this simply amazing.
Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, is incredibly arrogant.
Well ... he is just some COE.. there are hundreds of thousands like he in europe.... so what ?
Shall we lick your nose, coz he wrote his opinion ?
-
Originally posted by Rasker
Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German
publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering
attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily newspaper,
against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the
Islamic threat.
EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE
As I have said all along to the Euros. I couldn't agree more with Mr. Dapfner. You are also going to be out bred of your countries those moslems procreate like roaches when they aren't having pedophilic homosexual encounters. :D
-
Originally posted by lada
Shall we lick your nose, coz he wrote his opinion ?
Aaaaah..? Could you run that through the Translator again....?
-
hey Toad, I went throught both threads.
I conclude that you feel the invasion of Iraq was not worth the loss of life because WMD have not been found. Would have been pretty easy to just say that rather than make me dig through all that garbage again.
-
Well, Nuke, it would have been even easier for you to remember the answer you got the first sixteen times you asked me the question.
After all, as you say, it's pretty simple. Although you have summarized my position incompletely and somewhat incorrectly in the above post.
-
Well, you never gave an answer that I saw. I saw a lot of different opinions, but the common theme that I saw was from the second link, where you said many times, basically, that you where for the war when you thought there might be WMD, then after we had not found them, you where opposed to it, would not vote for Bush and stated that the war was not worth the 800+ lives because no WMD where found.
That's what I got as your overall view.
And since you didn't care to answer currently or definitavely, that's all I can go on.
Now, if you had asked me the same question, I could answer you faster than it would take to look up and post a link to my past posts.
-
And Toad,
I brought the whole thing up because it's amazing to me that you read the article posted here and then comment on it as though you support the portrayed views of American resolve against tryanny and genocide.
-
Storch you are racist in your post! Hope that was tounge in cheek and if it wasn't my response to you would get binned by the administrator. ( pity your post didn't ) at the very least it was inflamatory idiot nonsense.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Now Masherbrum
Thats is tosh. I live in Birmingham a city badky attacked by IRA in the 70's so bad that it is still a source of tension and sorrow now. londoners have been attacked. Over and over again. My girlfreind lived in Ealing when a bomb went of there a few years ago.
Mate it seems your education was a pile of pants. Your comments are ignorant and a little insulting!
Insulting? Seems you should follow the examples you spew. :aok
Education? I went to a Private College. I apologize, but why is it every person says the 9/11 attacks were an attack on the US? It was an attack on The World. It seems to be a good wake up call for the US and some other countries. However, there are a few other countries that have yet to see the light of day.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Well, you never gave an answer that I saw.
Your question is "was it worth it".
My answer, in absence of finding WMD, is clearly "NO".
I can't see how you missed this. From one of our MANY past exchanges:
Toad:
Yes, I supported Bush's decision to go to war based on what our government was saying and what some friends still in the biz were telling me.
Still, I also said upfront those WMD had to be there to justify invading a sovereign nation. I'm sure you can do a search and find my posts that mention that.
So, tell me now, over a year after the invasion and SH, the WMD-meister himself in our custody for 6 months or so......
The WMD
A) were non-existent and never were there
B) are still there but we don't know where they are
C) are in Syria, where the government is very chummy with known Islamic terrorist organizations
Which is it? After picking your answer, explain how that justifies invading a sovereign nation and losing 800+ of your finest citizens while saying "mission accomplished".
Because this mission was always about WMD. That was the entire thrust of the UN discussion.
Thanks in advance.
What can be confusing about that? What part don't you understand?
-
You just said that because we found no WMD , the war was not worth it. Easy to understand. Thanks.
Why was it so hard for you to explain? One sentence would have answered my question.
-
That exactly what I said the other 150 times you asked. I haven't said a single thing I didn't say before numerous other times. Note I quoted myself.
-
Well, I noticed you number for the "times I have asked " keeps growing, yet your answer was always pretty vauge.
How hard is it to simply state an answer? In fact, I summerized your view as:
the war was not worth it because we have not found any WMD, yet you then stated that I simplified your stance......then you came back here and verified that that was indeed your stance.
I don't get it.
The reason I'm jumping on you is because you seem to be "European" as presented in the article which began this thread.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Although you have summarized my position incompletely and somewhat incorrectly in the above post.
??
I said that because we found no WMD, you thought the war was not worth it.
Then you came back here and verified that that was what you meant.
So, we wasted all this time getting back to this simple idea of yours.....which claimed I had over simlified......then later verified as what you had meant to say.
-
Aw.. you caught me. OK, I exaggerated the number of times you keep asking me the same question. But maybe you'll remember the answer next time you're wondering.
It isn't that simple.
I doubt you recall an extensive discussion of Just War Theory that I participated in pre-war.
It's not a simple concept but I think we shouldn't be involved in any war that doesn't meet the criteria.
Beyond that, I don't think US boys should be doing for Iraq what Iraqi boys should have done and should be doing for themselves. We had that discussion too? Do you remember that?
If you think I seem Euro as presented in the article, then that's your perception. You're wrong, of course. But little details like Just War Theory enter into it.
Ask some of the Ameristalkers if they think I'm Euro as described in the article. I bet they don't share your perception.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Aw.. you caught me. OK, I exaggerated the number of times you keep asking me the same question. But maybe you'll remember the answer next time you're wondering.
It isn't that simple.
I doubt you recall an extensive discussion of Just War Theory that I participated in pre-war.
It's not a simple concept but I think we shouldn't be involved in any war that doesn't meet the criteria.
Beyond that, I don't think US boys should be doing for Iraq what Iraqi boys should have done and should be doing for themselves. We had that discussion too? Do you remember that?
If you think I seem Euro as presented in the article, then that's your perception. You're wrong, of course. But little details like Just War Theory enter into it.
Ask some of the Ameristalkers if they think I'm Euro as described in the article. I bet they don't share your perception.
Boiled down to the statements you have made, you basically said that because we found no WMD, the war was not worth it.
That's what you said.
-
Play semantics with yourself all you like. Simplify it until you're personally comfortable with what you think I said.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Play semantics with yourself all you like. Simplify it until you're personally comfortable with what you think I said.
I'm going by your actual statements, not semantics.
You even verified it in this thread. Do I need to quote someting you said in the past 30 minutes?
-
"You just said that because we found no WMD , the war was not worth it. Easy to understand. Thanks.
Why was it so hard for you to explain? One sentence would have answered my question."
Originally posted by Toad
That exactly what I said the other 150 times you asked. I haven't said a single thing I didn't say before numerous other times. Note I quoted myself.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Aw.. you caught me. OK, I exaggerated the number of times you keep asking me the same question.
Actually, I'd like you to list more than three times I have asked you if you thought the Iraq war was worth it.
-
And, as I pointed out, that is not nearly ALL of what I said on the subject.
Without the rest of it, it's an oversimplification which YOU made.
Are you having fun arguing about nothing?
-
Originally posted by Toad
And, as I pointed out, that is not nearly ALL of what I said on the subject.
Without the rest of it, it's an oversimplification which YOU made.
Are you having fun arguing about nothing?
Whatever. You refuse to answer a simple question, then agree with me on your answer, then backpeddle and say I'm arguing about nothing?
Make it simple. Answer this once and for all: Do you think it was worth it for the US to invade Iraq?
Pretty damn simple question. Ask me and I will answer, no hesitation.
-
Did we invade a sovereign nation?
Did we go in to remove the WMD?
Did we find the WMD?
Have we lost >1300 soldiers while not finding what we went in to find?
Pretty simple alright. Unless you're simple minded.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Did we go in to remove the WMD?
Did we find the WMD?
Have we lost >1300 soldiers while not finding what we went in to find?
Pretty simple alright. Unless you're simple minded.
Toad, you are the simple minded. You are the one who supported the war based on the evidence of the time, then pulled your support after WMD had not been found.
You are a 20/20 hindsight supporter.
And by the way, 1.5 tons of VX nerve gas has never been acounted for. Did it vanish in thin air?
I guess you are more Euro than you would care to admit.
You should have never commented on the article that began this thread, because you look rediculous.
-
If you recall... or should I hand deliver another link... I always stipulated that WMD would have to be found to justify the attack on a sovereign nation. Otherwise, I would withdraw my support. I posted that long before the invasion. It's that Just War Theory thing.
I'm sure you remember that. My position has been consistent from day one.
And by the way, 1.5 tons of VX nerve gas has never been acounted for. Did it vanish in thin air?
So, was it
1) Destroyed a long time ago and not recorded
2) Still hidden in Iraq
or 3) Moved someplace?
So, just what was accomplished again if it is 1, 2 or 3?
Somebody looks rediculous but I don't think it's me. But then, it must be a familiar feeling for you.
-
Originally posted by Toad
If you recall... or should I hand deliver another link... I always stipulated that WMD would have to be found to justify the attack on a sovereign nation.
Hey, that's easy enough for me.....
Why would you make such a fuss about saying that to begin with? Why evade the simple question? Why evade and post links instead of simply answering?
Why post in support of the article in this thread when you really have no belief in anything presented in the article?
-
Did we find the WMD?
We didnt find actual weapons. We did find that Saddam's WMD programs were still functioning. Although they were functioning on a much smaller scale than they were pre-Gulf War 1.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Hey, that's easy enough for me.....
Why would you make such a fuss about saying that to begin with? Why evade the simple question? Why evade and post links instead of simply answering?
Why post in support of the article in this thread when you really have no belief in anything presented in the article?
Why don't you remember what you read? Is it too much to expect after we've had this same discussion multiple times?
Why do you ASSume that I don't believe anything in the article?
BTW, please show me where the author specifically endorses our invasion of Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
We didnt find actual weapons. We did find that Saddam's WMD programs were still functioning. Although they were functioning on a much smaller scale than they were pre-Gulf War 1.
Any evidence but plain words ?
May be evidence were those 160T of explosive whitch disappeared :D
-
Originally posted by Curval
The French anti-terrorist forces have been a whole lot more sucessful than the Americans recently.
Osama Bin missing for a while now.
Has it ever occured too anyone we may already know where Bin Laden is and can get him whenever we please?
Bin Laden himself, is just a small partof the equasion. And his death or capture alone will do little to win the war on terror.
Kinda like a Dandelion if you cut the floweer off it will just grow a new one.
It may make more sence to monitor him for a while. And give him a false sence of security and allow everyone to gather the kind of intel that would widen the scope of the net that can be used to capture or thwart future attacks.
If your at war would you rather kill a general whom would most certainly be replaced by a new one or be made privy to the generals plans, know what the general knows. force composition. Location of forces etc?
Im not saying thats how it really is. But it very well could be.
Capturing /killing Bin Laden would make great headlines. But in the end would by itself accomplish very little
-
I think that if they knew where Osama Bin Liner was they would knab him as this would be seen as a major blow to terrorism by the media fed masses. It would probably get G W elected for a 3rd time (despite your constitution/law thing about the presidents term in office).
However, you're right about the fact that it wouldn't really make that much difference to the activitys of terrorists. The British intelligence had the same view in combating the IRA and other para-military organizations in Ireland, it was easier to keep an eye on those they knew than to try and find out who the new members were.
The laws that are currently on the table in the UK are sufficient and tough enough in my opinion and I don't believe that the UK is soft on terrorism. The ability to jail people without charge is about as severe as you can get, short of executing them.
btw Masherbrum, does being 200 yards away from the 2001 bomb blast in Ealing and being in a pub in Wembley 50 yards away from an assassination of a recruiting officer by the IRA count as experience of terrorism first hand?
-
Originally posted by Staga
Heh Finnish wimps at Golan heights received grenade fire from Israel while US was using its veto in SC and delivering more ammo to Israelis to shoot Bluebarets.
F...ing *******; Why didn't you bomb UN positions yourself ?
now now... heres a tissue.. feel batter?
*i am not making fun of the poor UN soldiers*
-
Hey Scaevola.
Here here.
Sorry masherbrum but you were wrong this time. We have had terrorism and it is a little galling to hear America telling us that they are under attack etc etc. The Twin towers were a tragedy. But please you are not the only nation to have suffered from terrorism as the many posts by Brits on this subject have hopefully shown.
-
I would have to say that the UK does NOT know how Terrorism feels. Unless you live in and around Northern Ireland. I had a Counter-Terrorism class in college and the Professor was from the Scotland Yard dealing with the NRA. Even he said most British and Irish people haven't the slightest clue, unless they were close to Northern Ireland.
Europe IS soft on Terroism. You sat back, pissed, moaned, groaned long enough to allow the WMD's to be shifted to other countries (Syria, Jordan, and possibly Iran). Spain is screwed because of the increasing Algerian population, they know how it feels.
Tell that that 12 year old kid killed in Warrington, or those killed in the Birmingham pubs.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
BTW, big thanks to the US for the IRA fundraisers. I particularly liked the 'Lemonade for nail-bombs' concept.
-
Mr. Toad,
When you are finished in your pow-wow with NUKE, I have a question for you! :D
I see that you feel that only if WMD were present was there a justification for war. Fair enough. But turning back to 1991, once Kuwait had been liberated, would you have supported an initiative to depose Saddam at that time, given that GB1 was telling us all about Saddam's quest to build arms (and nuclear arms at that) ??