Angry Yank does a 9/11 type plane attack on the Texas IRS Tax service

[arista]

He left notes
they are on Fox News now,
he got a small plane and got a Direct Hit on the Offices that were , in his eyes,
wrecking his life.


So in America
it ain't just Muslims that are the problem
Normal Working Yanks are so bitter in this Depression
they will use the same tactic as those Evil Saudi's that bombed NYC 9/11.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/18/article-1252040-085B4552000005DC-761_634x381.jpg
Impact: Smoke billows from the seven-storey
office building in Texas today after a plane slammed into it

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/18/article-1252040-085B6AC7000005DC-512_634x478.jpg
Evacuation: FBI agents stare in awe at what appears
to be the mangled tail of the plane. Law enforcement
officials are investigating claims the pilot flew
deliberately into the building following a domestic dispute

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1252040/Plane-slams-building-Texas.html#ixzz0fv8E2uNQ


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Piper-Cherokee-Aircraft-Flies-Into-Internal-Revenue-Service-Offices-In-Austin-Texas/Article/201002315552486?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_A rticle_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15552486_Piper_Cherokee_Aircraft_Flies _Into_Internal_Revenue_Service_Offices_In_Austin%2 C_Texas



See we can not trust the Yanks
they are bonkers.
Utter Fact.

[Wildcat!]

Holly craap!!
That is crazy!
How many casualties?

[arista]

Holly craap!!
That is crazy!
How many casualties?


I sorry to tell you his
But America is Crazy.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/18/article-1252040-085B8B3F000005DC-10_634x418.jpg


He even knew which offices to hit.




They must have been ona Donut Break
2 taken to hospital.

And the Crazy Yank Joseph Stack burnt up.


They sent out F16 planes at first,
as they did not know who did it.

[ElProximo]

So in America
it ain't just Muslims that are the problem
Normal Working Yanks are so bitter in this Depression
they will use the same tactic as those Evil Saudi's that bombed NYC 9/11.


Well I don't think anyone has ever suggested the only people who ever commit murder-suicides are Muslims.
It just so happens that the vast majority of the 'body count' goes to Muslims.

This has actually happened a few times before with planes (suicides) but this one is eerie that he specifically picked a building and like you said - seemed to even know what specific offices to aim for.

Americans are kinda crazy although in fairness they do have about 400 million people and like to 'go big' at whatever they do.
In the UK someone would have done an arson that resulted in 2 being killed by smoke inhalation - then gone home and drank himself to death.
Not as dramatic for the cameras but yeah.

Yep, crazy world

[Twilight]

OMFG thats crazy:0
has anyone died?

[arista]

OMFG thats crazy:0
has anyone died?


Yes the Crazy Biiter Yank the flew his plane into that building.

And another body found
more could be found dead.

[ElProximo]

Yanks are a bit crazy but they also come up big for dramatic rescue type of stuff too.. check this dude out - driving by, has a ladder on his truck, climbs in and takes people out:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586682,00.html

It does seem like Americans can do either extremes - huge damage and drama but also huge wins and great acts.
This guy was a hero.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Well suprises me it made the news as hes not muslim lol

[arista]

Well suprises me it made the news as hes not muslim lol


The Evil 9/11 Saudi Muslims
Inspired this Bitter Yank.
Fact.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Ahh thought you might find a way of blaming them lol...must be why it made the news...grrrr muslims inspire terrorist act

[ElProximo]

Ahh thought you might find a way of blaming them lol...must be why it made the news...grrrr muslims inspire terrorist act


Nah, you could say the Muslim Jihadis got there idea from Americans. Which makes sense as almost evert invention, technology or any skills they use come from Western or other cultures.
Yep.. this has happened before and before 9/11 but this is the first time I remember anyone actually being inside the building and getting killed by a pilot 'ending it all'.

A few years ago one crazy yank actually armour-plated his backhoe (tractor) and just destroyed an entire small town including any of his enemies buildings heh.
I really don't remember anyone was actually killed though..beside him eventually.

but yeah he probably was inspired by the more recent Muslim attacks on the Jews in the Trade Center.

[arista]

No the Evil Muslim got there Idea of 9/11
from what Japan was doing in 1944- 45.

[ElProximo]

No the Evil Muslim got there Idea of 9/11
from what Japan was doing in 1944- 45.

Yeah that is a good point - the suicide bombers back then were epic. If you get over to the Manchester museum of flight they have this insane Japanese Kamikaze plane.. like.. imagine a bomb with wings and a tiny seat.. I guess this one failed heh.
It had only enough fuel to GET TO the target so.. yeah. Use it or lose it.

but yeah.. you might even find on the internet one dude in NYC went crazy, got in a 'Ultralight' airplane, a rifle (i think a .22) and flew THROUGH the buildings of New York.
Like between buildings shooting at people.
No joking I remember people saying "Wow.. can you imagine if someone did that with a big plane.. the damage you could do".
I always wondered if that 'sparked' the imagination of Al Quaida people.

[WOMBAI]

Well suprises me it made the news as hes not muslim lol

fgs - if people are suspicious of Muslims - blame the Muslim terrorists for that - not ordinary people who, understandably, feel concerned.

[NettoSuperstar!]

fgs - if people are suspicious of Muslims - blame the Muslim terrorists for that - not ordinary people who, understandably, feel concerned.

understandably... given the media sensationalism and lack of perspective yah

[ElProximo]

understandably... given the media sensationalism and lack of perspective yah

In fact, the media downplays the number of islamic terror attacks and often bends over backwards trying to over-emphasise how (name attack) is NOT condoned by Muslims in general.

Sensationalize what.. that of the last 10,000 humans beings murdered in terrorist attacks - almost ALL of those are from Muslim Jihadis.
Nearly EVERY terrorist attack in the last 10 years - Muslims.
Of the most-wanted terrorists almost EVERY person on that list is a Muslim.

Media doesn't make it sensational - thousands of Muslims are making it sensational.
Especially the 'sensations' of bombs exploding innocent civilians.

[WOMBAI]

In fact, the media downplays the number of islamic terror attacks and often bends over backwards trying to over-emphasise how (name attack) is NOT condoned by Muslims in general.

Sensationalize what.. that of the last 10,000 humans beings murdered in terrorist attacks - almost ALL of those are from Muslim Jihadis.
Nearly EVERY terrorist attack in the last 10 years - Muslims.
Of the most-wanted terrorists almost EVERY person on that list is a Muslim.

Media doesn't make it sensational - thousands of Muslims are making it sensational.
Especially the 'sensations' of bombs exploding innocent civilians.

If those figures are correct - good post! :thumbs:

[Niamh.]

How did a Thread about an American end up being about Muslims?

[NettoSuperstar!]

In fact, the media downplays the number of islamic terror attacks and often bends over backwards trying to over-emphasise how (name attack) is NOT condoned by Muslims in general.

Sensationalize what.. that of the last 10,000 humans beings murdered in terrorist attacks - almost ALL of those are from Muslim Jihadis.
Nearly EVERY terrorist attack in the last 10 years - Muslims.
Of the most-wanted terrorists almost EVERY person on that list is a Muslim.

Media doesn't make it sensational - thousands of Muslims are making it sensational.
Especially the 'sensations' of bombs exploding innocent civilians.

Rubbish wheres those figures from...your friendly anti islam site?

FBI figures and data from europol (over the last 10 years) suggests that 4-6% of attacks are committed by islamists:

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/

And dont include bomb attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, they wouldnt be happening if we werent there

massive Lol @ the media downplaying the attacks, they are given disproportionate attention compared to terrorist attacks by others since 9/11

[Niamh.]

Yeah, maybe he did copy the 9/11 attack but If that hadn't happened he would have copied something else.

andyman your sig is killing me, I'm starving!

[andyman]

Has nothing to do with 9/11.. The guy had a huge problem with government and mental health issues.. We get them here aswell, don't we arista? :p

[andyman]

Nia wants meh chips!

[Niamh.]

Infact, had he not copied the 9/11 attack strategy and done it the "old fashioned, I'm pissed off with ye, ye ruined my life, you basterds" way and just walked in there with a shotgun he probably would have killed more people!

[Niamh.]

yes andyman and your chicken!

[arista]

How did a Thread about an American end up being about Muslims?



When it was first Reported Live
they do not know if it was Muslims
they sent up in the air F16 fighter planes
in case any more.


Later they found out it was a Tax problem
of a Bitter Yank.


Sign Of the Times.

[ElProximo]

Rubbish wheres those figures from...your friendly anti islam site?

FBI figures and data from europol (over the last 10 years) suggests that 4-6% of attacks are committed by islamists:



Your figures are rubbish. They are numbers games and definition games and they carefully select what nations,
and,
don't even address the whole 'body count' (what REALLY matters) that I went for.
Here you can say that Islamofascists are only responsible for 75% of the planes flown into buildings.
As of today - 25% of those are domestic 'IRS' terrorists.
See the game?

In fact, Islamic 'holy duty' terror attacks (and these we mean are FOR the purpose of causing terror to others) but these are actually much more rare in the USA and Europe compared to many other places.
Indonesia, China, Pakistan.. the astonishing number of murders committed in the name of Allah boggles the mind.

Here is last weeks contribution from Islam:
Feb 06 - Feb 13
39 Dead Bodies
114 Critically Injured

2010.02.18 (Yala, Thailand) - Industrious Islamists shoot a civilian to death in one district and set off a motorcycle bomb in another.
2010.02.18 (Khyber, Pakistan) - Thirty people are incinerated by a Shahid suicide bomber at a rival mosque.
2010.02.18 (Orakzai, Pakistan) - Fourteen patrons at a cattle market are dismembered by an Islamic bomb.
2010.02.18 (Baghdad, Iraq) - A Fedayeen suicide bomber sends over a dozen Iraqis to Allah.
2010.02.17 (Mosul, Iraq) - Another young Christian is shot to death by Muslim extremists.
2010.02.17 (Narathiwat, Thailand) - Religion of Peace advocates behead two government soldiers trying to guard teachers.

With your type of game-playing we can agree that the 'worst terror attack' in Canada was in the 1970s when the FLQ Crisis saw 1 politician murdered,
however,
we are now actually a helluva lot more worried about the dozen and more young Muslims who came TOO CLOSE to carrying out horrific violence that would have murdered hundreds if not thousands of innocent canadian citizens and brutally mangled more.
Since 9/11

But hey.. Islam's body count for January wasn't even their worst yet:
145 Jihad Attacks spanning 16 different countries and across 5 different religions...

Dead Bodies: 683

Critically Injured: 1251

That was this January alone.

Have no idea what Islam contributes to peace or safety and I really don't see boatloads of Muslim Relief Groups made up of volunteers from Mosques going to Haiti or anywhere else to build homes or donate rebuilding efforts.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Your figures are rubbish. They are numbers games and definition games and they carefully select what nations,
and,
don't even address the whole 'body count' (what REALLY matters) that I went for.
Here you can say that Islamofascists are only responsible for 75% of the planes flown into buildings.
As of today - 25% of those are domestic 'IRS' terrorists.
See the game?

In fact, Islamic 'holy duty' terror attacks (and these we mean are FOR the purpose of causing terror to others) but these are actually much more rare in the USA and Europe compared to many other places.
Indonesia, China, Pakistan.. the astonishing number of murders committed in the name of Allah boggles the mind.

Here is last weeks contribution from Islam:
Feb 06 - Feb 13
39 Dead Bodies
114 Critically Injured

2010.02.18 (Yala, Thailand) - Industrious Islamists shoot a civilian to death in one district and set off a motorcycle bomb in another.
2010.02.18 (Khyber, Pakistan) - Thirty people are incinerated by a Shahid suicide bomber at a rival mosque.
2010.02.18 (Orakzai, Pakistan) - Fourteen patrons at a cattle market are dismembered by an Islamic bomb.
2010.02.18 (Baghdad, Iraq) - A Fedayeen suicide bomber sends over a dozen Iraqis to Allah.
2010.02.17 (Mosul, Iraq) - Another young Christian is shot to death by Muslim extremists.
2010.02.17 (Narathiwat, Thailand) - Religion of Peace advocates behead two government soldiers trying to guard teachers.

With your type of game-playing we can agree that the 'worst terror attack' in Canada was in the 1970s when the FLQ Crisis saw 1 politician murdered,
however,
we are now actually a helluva lot more worried about the dozen and more young Muslims who came TOO CLOSE to carrying out horrific violence that would have murdered hundreds if not thousands of innocent canadian citizens and brutally mangled more.
Since 9/11

But hey.. Islam's body count for January wasn't even their worst yet:
145 Jihad Attacks spanning 16 different countries and across 5 different religions...

Dead Bodies: 683

Critically Injured: 1251

That was this January alone.

Have no idea what Islam contributes to peace or safety and I really don't see boatloads of Muslim Relief Groups made up of volunteers from Mosques going to Haiti or anywhere else to build homes or donate rebuilding efforts.


They're official stats for Europe and USA, thats where we're at threat no?

More worldwide stats:

"The so-called International terrorism -- anything that involves America becomes "International"— perpetrated by Al-Qaeda has killed less than 5000 people. The war against this terrorism-either directly by US attacks or as a result of attacks by "insurgents" fighting American invaders in Iraq, has killed more than one hundred thousands of innocent Muslims. But for America, only their own people are innocents; their hearts bleed at every single American killed, but their eyes do not shed a drop of tear for thousands of Muslim innocents who lost lives just because a Super Power wanted to dominate their country"

http://terrorismcounter.blogspot.com/2007/09/terrorism-statistics.html

Nah you wouldnt see any good things A/ you dont want to B/ They rarely get reported...I told you not to bother including Iraq etc#

On Haiti:

Bahrain: The government has donated $1 million to relief efforts.

Jordan: A Jordanian air force plane carrying a military field hospital and 6 tons of food and supplies left Amman on January 14. A second plane carrying Jordanian medics left the following day.

Iran: Iran's Red Crescent society sent 30 tons of humanitarian aid, including food, tents and medicine, on January 16.

Kuwait: Kuwait donated $1 million to relief efforts; the Red Crescent is preparing 100 tons of food, medical supplies, tents and blankets to fly to Haiti.

Lebanon: Lebanon is loading a plane with 25 tons of tents and 3 tons of medical supplies; it leaves tomorrow.

Morocco: Two planes carrying 24 tons of aid left the city of Kenitra on January 16. The Moroccan government has pledged $1 million in aid to Haiti.

Qatar: A Qatari C-17 aircraft loaded with 50 tons of aid left for Port-au-Prince on January 14. The Qatari government also sent a rescue team to set up a field hospital; the Red Crescent will sent another $100,000.

Turkey: Three cargo planes -- carrying search-and-rescue teams, a mobile hospital and aid materials -- left for Haiti on January 16. Another two planes left yesterday. Turkey has also donated $1 million in cash.

United Arab Emirates: The UAE sent two planes loaded with tents, and a team from the UAE's Red Crescent will arrive in the Dominican Republic tomorrow to buy $500,000 worth of supplies and truck them to Haiti. Another 50 tons of emergency supplies will be air-lifted from Abu Dhabi tomorrow.

And these are just the countries in our area of interest -- I didn't include majority-Muslim countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, which have also made contributions. Oh, and the Islamic Society of North America set up a fund for Haiti, too.


• Saudi Arabia donated $50 million to the UN Flash Appeal.

• Syria has airlifted 30 tons of humanitarian aid.

• Tunisia pledged $1 million to the UN Emergency Fund for Haiti....


http://www.themajlis.org/2010/01/18/muslim-countries-are-in-fact-helping-haiti

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=87760

http://www.imana.org/

"Muslim Aid, which launched a £250,000 aid campaign and donated £75,000, said its teams were installing purification units to provide clean drinking water and setting up a mobile field hospital" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8462895.stm

http://www.muslimsforhaiti.org/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/46853781@N04/sets/72157623402041112/show/

On Peace:

"Wars in last 150 years

1860-65: American civil war (360,000)
1886-1908: Belgium-Congo Free State (3 million)
1899-02: British-Boer war (100,000)
1904: Germany Vs Namibia (65,000)
1904-05: Japan Vs Russia (150,000)
1910-20: Mexican revolution (250,000)
1911: Chinese Revolution (2.4 million)
1911-12: Italian-Ottoman war (20,000)
1912-13: Balkan wars (150,000)
1915: the Ottoman empire slaughters Armenians (1.2 million)
1914-18: World War I (8 million)
1917-21: Soviet revolution (5 million)
1928-37: Chinese civil war (2 million)
1931: Japanese Manchurian War (1.1 million)
1934: Mao's Long March (170,000)
1936: Italy's invasion of Ethiopia (200,000)
1936-37: Stalin's purges (13 million)
1936-39: Spanish civil war (600,000)
1939-45: World War II (55 million) including holocaust and Chinese revolution
1946-49: Chinese civil war (1.2 million)
1946-49: Greek civil war (50,000)

1947: Partition of India and Pakistan (1 million)
1948-1973: Arab-Israeli wars (70,000)
1948-: Kashmir's civil war (40,000)
1949-: Indian Muslims Vs Hindus (20,000)
1950-53: Korean war (4 million)
1954-62: French-Algerian war (1 million)
1958-61: Mao's "Great Leap Forward" (30 million)
1960-90: South Africa Vs Africa National Congress (?)
1961-2003: Kurds Vs Iraq (180,000)
1962-75: Mozambique Frelimo Vs Portugal (?)
1964-73: USA-Vietnam war (3 million)
1965: second India-Pakistan war over Kashmir
1965-66: Indonesian civil war (200,000)
1966-69: Mao's "Cultural Revolution" (11 million)
1966-: Colombia's civil war (31,000)
1967-70: Nigeria-Biafra civil war (800,000)
1968-80: Rhodesia's civil war (?)
1969-79: Idi Amin, Uganda (300,000)
1969-02: IRA - Northern Ireland's civil war (2,000)
1969-79: Francisco Macias Nguema, Equatorial Guinea (50,000)
1971: Pakistan-Bangladesh civil war (500,000)
1972-: Philippines Vs Muslim separatists (120,000)
1972: Burundi's civil war (300,000)
1972-79: Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's civil war (30,000)
1974-91: Ethiopian civil war (1,000,000)
1975-78: Menghitsu, Ethiopia (1.5 million)
1975-79: Khmer Rouge, Cambodia (1.7 million)
1975-89: Boat people, Vietnam (250,000)
1975-90: civil war in Lebanon (40,000)
1975-87: Laos' civil war (184,000)
1975-2002: Angolan civil war (500,000)
1976-83: Argentina's military regime (20,000
1976-93: Mozambique's civil war (900,000)
1976-98: Indonesia-East Timor civil war (600,000)
1976-: Indonesia-Aceh (GAM) civil war (12,000)
1979: Vietnam-China war (30,000)
1979-88: the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan (1.3 million)
1980-88: Iraq-Iran war (1 million)
1980-92: Sendero Luminoso - Peru's civil war (69,000)
1980-92: El Salvador's civil war (100,000)
1980-99: Kurds Vs Turkey (35,000)
1982-90: Hussein Habre, Chad (40,000)
1983-2002: Sri Lanka's civil war (64,000)
1983-2002: Sudanese civil war (2 million)
1987-: Palestinian Intifada (4,500)
1988-2001: Afghanistan civil war (400,000)
1988-2004: Somalia's civil war (550,000)
1989-: Liberian civil war (220,000)
1989-: Uganda Vs Lord's Resistance Army (30,000)
1991: Gulf War - large coalition against Iraq to liberate Kuwait (85,000)
1991-97: Congo's civil war (800,000)
1991-2000: Sierra Leone's civil war (200,000)
1991-: Russia-Chechnya civil war (200,000)
1991-94: Armenia-Azerbaijan war (35,000)
1992-96: Tajikstan's civil war war (50,000)
1992-96: Yugoslavia's civil war (200,000)
1992-99: Algerian civil war (150,000)
1993-97: Congo Brazzaville's civil war (100,000)
1993-: Burundi's civil war (200,000)
1994: Rwanda's civil war (900,000)
1995-: Pakistani Sunnis Vs Shiites (1,300)
1995-: Maoist rebellion in Nepal (10,000)
1998-: Congo/Zaire's war - Rwanda and Uganda Vs Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia (3.8 million)
1998-2000: Ethiopia-Eritrea war (75,000)
1999: Kosovo's liberation war - NATO Vs Serbia (2,000)
2001: Afghanistan's liberation war - USA & UK Vs Taliban (25,000)
2002-: Cote d'Ivoire's civil war (1,000)
2003: Iraq's liberation war - USA, UK and Australia Vs Saddam Hussein (14,000)
2003-: Sudan Vs Darfur (70,000)
2003-: Iraq's civil war (100,000)


Out of the total number of around 160 million dead, more than 135 million have been killed in or by countries that are now the five big powers of the world, namely China, the US, the UK, France and Russia. The killings by or in Muslim countries form a very small percentage of the total killings, despite the fact that Muslims form about one fifth of the world population."
http://terrorismcounter.blogspot.com/2007/09/terrorism-statistics.html



...and as Stick Man would say


(your) Source?

[ElProximo]

On Haiti:

Bahrain:
Jordan:
Iran: Iran's Red Crescent society sent 30 tons of humanitarian aid, including food, tents and medicine, on January 16.

"Muslim Aid, which launched a £250,000 aid campaign and donated £75,000, said its teams were installing purification units to provide clean drinking water and setting up a mobile field hospital" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8462895.stm

...and as Stick Man would say


(your) Source?

No.
We already know that those countries have to put up something near the neighbourhood of other countries.

So don't bother 'one-upping' with that because you still DO NOT SEE boatloads of volunteers from mosques going over donating time and effort and aid.
You don't.

If you wanted to play the numbers game you could not only list all nations donating that much,
but,
NON MUSLIM USA and GERMANY FAR FAR OUT CASHED Tsunami relief when INCLUDING THE ISLAMIC NATIONS.
WAY MORE Actual CASH MONEY from them than from the Islamic nations,
AND,
.... getting back to the original point and problem you want to answer:
- The NON-Muslim nations didn't just give MORE MONEY,
but,
There was actually a 'problem' with far too many Christian mission groups (not government money here) but people ALSO paying their own ways, paying their own boats and supplies,
and,
standing around asking if they could spend months rebuilding.

Thousands of Christian youth group members.. often in Muslim regions in addition to the money and aid already supplied by their governments,
yet,
Where were thousands of Muslim youth?

- Training to murder civilians in Jihad training camps.
- Exploding enemies in suicide bombings.
- A few videotaped themselves 'moaning sexually' as they sawed off the head of a living person with kitchen knives saying 'praise Allah'.

[NettoSuperstar!]

LoL...ok mate ignore the relative stability of a lot of muslim countries, proportion, proximity, and various social and economic factors involved...I'll ignore the ridiculous bollocks at the end of your post

http://www.muslimsforhaiti.org/HaitiShelterProject.html

http://www.muslimsforhaiti.org/DoctorsMedicalCamps.html

http://www.muslimsforhaiti.org/AllPicturesFromHaiti.html

For you to SEE

[InOne]

America has had a few cases like this, when asked why one guy commited a mass slaying he said "Because I wanted to be remembered"

[Tom4784]

The only reason why it seems Muslims are behind every attack is because the media aren't giving much focus to many other attacks by non-Muslims as it doesn't fit into their image of terrorism that they want to portray. The face of Terrorism used to be the IRA and then in America in the 90's it was white supremacists. Nowadays the posterchild for Terrorism is Islam, I think it was last year when a white supremacist suicide bomber bombed a street in America but it got nearly no press coverage since it didn't fit in with the current image of terrorism. The only reason this attack's recieved so much attention is because people probably thought it was a Muslim Extremist behind it at first.

The media plays most people like fools, they'll focus on terrifying the public into buying Newspapers or watching the news to get the next piece of the story. Look at Swine Flu and Bird Flu, we were all meant to be dead by now :laugh: The media relies on narrative and worst possible scenarios to keep the public interested and most people fall hook line and sinker for it.

[Sticks]

Side point, as this happened in Texas, you do not call anyone born south of the Mason - Dixon line a Yankee - It's a civil war thing and they get really upset if you get this wrong. I have been told this by a Texan. It is like calling a Geordie a Maccum and visa versa but worse.

[ElProximo]

.... a Yankee

But it is a Cockney 'Yank' and not their sense of 'Yankee'.

Besides.. they came up with 'Canuck' and yeah I think its probably what it sounds like.. Can... *uck.

[Jords]

Shocking! :/

[NettoSuperstar!]

^You've been given figures from the FBI and Europol and various other factual based sources and still you dont want to believe...that is why your a bigot

[James]

Stop using insults in this thread.

Edit. Posts deleted.

[Shasown]

By the way - do you have some figures - from a respected reliable source - than confirm what you say that most terrorist attacks are not carried out by Muslims? Without such figures - your remarks are simply opinion - like the rest of us - and do not justify your arrogant, pompus comments. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't - but the fact is that most/or all of the recent attacks that affect us - have been! Or is that just hype too?

Define "recent" and define "terrorism".

Since the late 60's the greater number of terrorist attacks in or on the UK has been as a result of Irish Nationalism. In the 1970's the Army Council of the Provisional IRA decided to bring the war against the British Government to the UK mainland and the number of terrorist attacks on mainland UK since that date committed by Irish nationalists far excedes the number of Muslim terrorist attacks, also bear in mind the that operations were conducted still in Northern Ireland and the Republic during those times. There was a lot of sectarian violence, a form of terrorism. Northern Ireland being part of the UK still has the occassional little burst of it. But the total number of terrorist incidents from the unrest over there is phenomonal if you include punishment beatings, sectarian violence, riotings etc.

Bear in mind the list on the following link only gives attacks and aborted attacks that were publicised:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain

Separatism be it Basque, Palestinian or any other has also lead the field from the 1960's through till the 2000's in Europe and the Middle East.

The rise in Islamic terrorism can be seen from the early 1980's internationally.

Due primarily to the situation in and around the Middle East. In the early 80's Israel invaded Southern lebanon to attempt to prevent the PLO from launching attacks against her people. Syria also sent troops into Lebanon. The PLO concentrated most of its troops in and around Beirut, Violence then erupted between Muslim and Christian fundamentalists. The US led a multinational peace keeping force into Lebanon whose mission was to evacuate the PLO to Syria, and then they withdrew, The PLO who had established refugee camps around Beirut started filtering their fighters back into them.

On the evening of September 16, 1982, Christian Phalangists swept into the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps outside Beirut and slaughtered hundreds of Palestinian civilians. Eyewitness reports and subsequent Israeli inquiries established that Israeli commanders permitted the Christian militia to enter the camps. Sharon himself later testified that he had approved of the men going into the camps in order to detain PLO guerrillas. But he also insisted that he had no advance knowledge that a massacre of civilians would take place. Regardless of intent, the massacre caused a significant shift in the balance of power in Lebanon, one with important implications for the emergence of Hezbollah.

The US led another peacekeeping force back into Lebanon, however the local Shi'ites simply looked upon it as another occupying force. The Israelis had been able to use artillery on civilian villages and town with impunity during the last peacekeeping mission.

Complicating matters, the newly installed Khomeini regime in Iran had sent 1,000 Revolutionary Guards, the regime's elite fighting force, to southern Lebanon at the conclusion of the Israeli siege. The Revolutionary Guards provided military training for the existing Shiite militia and helped form Hezbollah, a new, more radical Islamic faction.

Then we had the bombings of the US embassy(Islamic Jihad) and the Marine barracks in Beruit in 1983 producing over 300 fatalities. Whilst not forcing the US to leave, the American led peacekeeping force withdrew in 1984. The terrorists believed this was due to them. This was a key factor in future Muslim Fundamentalist belief.

Obviously since the early 80's a lot of misguided young men have been led astray in the cause of Islam. There are hundreds if not thousands of incidents since the 1980's involving muslims.

There are numerous terrorist incidents in Latin America, Africa and Asia every year but most fail to gain any mention in the UK media, mainly because it doesnt directly impact on us as a nation.



Try this link for terrorism worldwide, again you have to bear in mind lots of attacks were thwarted in the early stages were not included on the various lists, eg August 1988 Gibraltar, an IRA ASU were terminated in their planned attack on a military parade, during their preparation phase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

[WOMBAI]

^You've been given figures from the FBI and Europol and various other factual based sources and still you dont want to believe...that is why your a bigot

And so are you!

"A bigot (in modern usage) is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different ethnicity, race, or class."

The term is equally applicable to you!

[Tom4784]

And so are you!

Do you know what bigot even means?

[arista]

Stop using insults in this thread.

Edit. Posts deleted.



Please
James will Lock Thread this soon
and I would prefer some debate without Insults.
It can be done.

[WOMBAI]

Do you know what bigot even means?

More than you I suspect!

[Tom4784]

More than you I suspect!

In fairness she got her information from a more valid source then anyone in this thread and has made the best points. She's put across a good case and bigoted to deny that (if we're gonna use that word in a pedantic sense).

Wombai, you never did manage to argue against my post....

[WOMBAI]

In fairness she got her information from a more valid source then anyone in this thread and has made the best points. She's put across a good case and bigoted to deny that (if we're gonna use that word in a pedantic sense).

Wombai, you never did manage to argue against my post....

Yes I did - a nice long reply for you to read - but James deleted it! Very unfairly so I think!
Had you really managed to convince yourself that I didn't have one! It was after all a complete load of nonsense from someone deluded enough to think their arguments are always superior to their opponents!

[Tom4784]

Yes I did - a nice long reply for you to read - but James deleted it! Very unfairly so I think!
Had you really managed to convince yourself that I didn't have one! It was after all a complete load of nonsense from someone deluded enough to think their arguments are always superior to their opponents!

Well I never saw it but please try again, I'd love to see what your counter argument for the media's use of hysteria and narrative is. Probably 'SEXIST PIGS! RAWR!!!!!'

[WOMBAI]

Well I never saw it but please try again, I'd love to see what your counter argument for the media's use of hysteria and narrative is. Probably 'SEXIST PIGS! RAWR!!!!!'

WRONG! I never mentioned or implied sexism at all - wasn't going to give you the excuse of attempting to divert attention on to that! Unfortunately, can't remember what I put - it was about 6 hours ago - and really can't be bothered to think about it again. The very last paragraph was quoted at the beginning of Shasown's post - the rest you will have to ask James for!

[InOne]

This thread has nothing to do with terrorism, he was a mentally ill man who flew a plane into a building. To some degree it could be classed as that, but not the same kind as you lot were on about.

[Tom4784]

WRONG! I never mentioned or implied sexism at all - wasn't going to give you the excuse of attempting to divert attention on to that! Unfortunately, can't remember what I put - it was about 6 hours ago - and really can't be bothered to think about it again. The very last paragraph was quoted at the beginning of Shasown's post - the rest you will have to ask James for!

Oh so yesterday you're denying you called me a sexist ***** for not agreeing with your point? You didn't mention it at all......

If you're not gonna bother trying to prove me wrong don't attack me in the first place in the future.

[Tom4784]

This thread has nothing to do with terrorism, he was a mentally ill man who flew a plane into a building. To some degree it could be classed as that, but not the same kind as you lot were on about.

True but the original ideas that it could have been terrorism and the methods used link in to my point about media hysteria.

[WOMBAI]

Oh so yesterday you're denying you called me a sexist ***** for not agreeing with your point? You didn't mention it at all......

If you're not gonna bother trying to prove me wrong don't attack me in the first place in the future.

I did prove you wrong - you idiot! And when did I call you the 'c' word - resorting to out and out lies now - to try and 'out-do' me! That is a word I never use - more class thanks! Come on - show me where I said that!

[Vicky.]

Dezzy, she didnt call you a sexist *******

She called you a patronizing t*** because you said that she was just influenced by the media...


And can this bickering stop please?

[Tom4784]

Dezzy, she didnt call you a sexist *******

She called you a patronizing t*** because you said that she was just influenced by the media...


And can this bickering stop please?

oh okay I apologise for mixing it up but still, she did accuse me of sexism I remember because I did a post saying that it's a card she relies on too often.

All I want is for her to try to answer my point since she's attacked me for more then I her in this thread.

[WOMBAI]

oh okay I apologise for mixing it up but still, she did accuse me of sexism I remember because I did a post saying that it's a card she relies on too often.

All I want is for her to try to answer my point since she's attacked me for more then I her in this thread.

Ask James to put the post back then - I made my reply - people would have read it and part of it was in another's post - so stop trying to imply I didn't and therefore couldn't respond to your post!

[Tom4784]

Ask James to put the post back then - I made my reply - people would have read it and part of it was in another's post - so stop trying to imply I didn't and therefore couldn't respond to your post!

I'm not denying it's existence I just wanna know what it is so I can continue the debate. Here's my original statement that you branded nonsense in the last post. At least summarise your previous arguments so you can defend your recent remarks that I'm deluded and don't know what I'm talking about.

The only reason why it seems Muslims are behind every attack is because the media aren't giving much focus to many other attacks by non-Muslims as it doesn't fit into their image of terrorism that they want to portray. The face of Terrorism used to be the IRA and then in America in the 90's it was white supremacists. Nowadays the posterchild for Terrorism is Islam, I think it was last year when a white supremacist suicide bomber bombed a street in America but it got nearly no press coverage since it didn't fit in with the current image of terrorism. The only reason this attack's recieved so much attention is because people probably thought it was a Muslim Extremist behind it at first.

The media plays most people like fools, they'll focus on terrifying the public into buying Newspapers or watching the news to get the next piece of the story. Look at Swine Flu and Bird Flu, we were all meant to be dead by now :laugh: The media relies on narrative and worst possible scenarios to keep the public interested and most people fall hook line and sinker for it.

[Shasown]

Ask James to put the post back then - I made my reply - people would have read it and part of it was in another's post - so stop trying to imply I didn't and therefore couldn't respond to your post!

You havent responded to my post asking you to define "recent" and "terrorism" could you also define what you mean by "recent attacks that affect us ".

You see those are very subjective terms. the pilot flying into the tax office could be classed as a domestic terrorist attack, (whether he was or wasnt part of a larger group). He intended to produce terror in those he considered his enemy.

[WOMBAI]

I'm not denying it's existence I just wanna know what it is so I can continue the debate. Here's my original statement that you branded nonsense in the last post. At least summarise your previous arguments so you can defend your recent remarks that I'm deluded and don't know what I'm talking about.

That wasn't the one I responded to - yours was deleted as well!

I am not re-writing it again - it's clearly not as important to me as it is to you!

Maybe James can U2U to you - ask him!

[Tom4784]

That wasn't the one I responded to - yours was deleted as well!

I am not re-writing it again - it's clearly not as important to me as it is to you!

Maybe James can U2U to you - ask him!

Well that's the post I've always referred to so perhaps it's best if you delete those posts calling me deluded and such if you misunderstood me.

[WOMBAI]

You havent responded to my post asking you to define "recent" and "terrorism" could you also define what you mean by "recent attacks that affect us ".

You see those are very subjective terms. the pilot flying into the tax office could be classed as a domestic terrorist attack, (whether he was or wasnt part of a larger group). He intended to produce terror in those he considered his enemy.

Just had to read the Daily Mail first before I could respond - as apparently that is where my opinions come from! :hugesmile:

I don't doubt any of the information you have given - but my primary concern, as seems to be that of most ordinary Brits, understandably, is the more recent attacks on Britain, America and our forces in Afghanistan etc in the last few years - going back to 9/11.

They are Muslin attacks and they are what affect us most at this point in time - and we are all well aware that the situation is going to continue, and may well get worse - and that is why many, including myself, have the views we have - not because of what we read in the Daily Mail.

[WOMBAI]

Well that's the post I've always referred to so perhaps it's best if you delete those posts calling me deluded and such if you misunderstood me.

I didn't misunderstand you - they were all linked! You did rather arrogantly try to imply that anyone who disagrees with you on this - has no mind of their own and has just been influenced by the media. Yes dear. You, of course, are far too well informed and in the know to have fallen for it like the rest of us gullible idiots! :hugesmile:

[Shasown]

Just had to read the Daily Mail first before I could respond - as apparently that is where my opinions come from! :hugesmile:

I don't doubt any of the information you have given - but my primary concern, as seems to be that of most ordinary Brits, understandably, is the more recent attacks on Britain, America and our forces in Afghanistan etc in the last few years - going back to 9/11.

They are Muslin attacks and they are what affect us most at this point in time - and we are all well aware that the situation is going to continue, and may well get worse - and that is why many, including myself, have the views we have - not because of what we read in the Daily Mail.

Thats understandable, as most of the current terrorist attacks that do affect us or are publicised seem to be perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists.

Incidentally a larger proportion of the intelligence budget allocated to MI5 is spent on non-Islamic intelligence operations. there are still ongoing operations against Provisional splinter groups such as the Real IRA and Continuity IRA.

The reasons for this primarily are, domestic terrorism generally does not meet with the same international co-operation as international terrorism. there is also the amount of resources available. For example because certain groups do have training camps on or near operational areas for the armed forces, special forces can be tasked to act in an intelligence operation with less red tape than on a domestic operation.

[Tom4784]

I didn't misunderstand you - they were all linked! You did rather arrogantly try to imply that anyone who disagrees with you on this - has no mind of their own and has just been influenced by the media. Yes dear. You, of course, are far too well informed and in the know to have fallen for it like the rest of us gullible idiots! :hugesmile:

Oh dear, once again you misunderstand which is alarmingly is becoming a regular occurence. The reason I said that you were a Daily Mail sheep was not because I didn't agree with you it's because most of your opinions are shared with the sheep and that you fit right into a demographic, Parents are (but of course not always) affected most by moral panics and media related hysteria because newspapers and other media formats tend to prey on the parent's primal urge to protect their children. That is all, I profiled what I knew of you and that is what my conclusions came to.

Also unlike you who brands everyone that disagrees with her sexist or an ignorant girl I haven't called anyone on this topic or anywhere else a Daily mail sheep. Only You. So get your facts right.

Ironically all through today when we've been arguing you could have prevented all of this by simply just trying to counter argue my original day yet you spent the whole day branding me arrogant and deluded amongst other things, in that time you could have just done a small summary of your counterpoint that got deleted but you've chosen to keep this hostile while I've done my best to keep my composure unlike you.

Finally I AM too informed to be taken in by most media techniques, I've studied it for years and have qualifications in the matter, I'm not saying I'm perfect and I never have but I know enough not to take everything I see and read at face value as well as the techniques they use to create a successful story. At the end of the day if a person knows where to look for traps then they're not as likely to get caught in one and this rings true for media techniques amongst things in life.

Now you have 3 choices;

1. Simply do not reply and end the matter here.
2. Argue my point on Media narratives and Hysteria and then we can bring it back to being a debate.
3. Insult me and start this sorry repetitive matter all over again.

Your choice.

[WOMBAI]

Oh dear, once again you misunderstand which is alarmingly is becoming a regular occurence. The reason I said that you were a Daily Mail sheep was not because I didn't agree with you it's because most of your opinions are shared with the sheep and that you fit right into a demographic, Parents are (but of course not always) affected most by moral panics and media related hysteria because newspapers and other media formats tend to prey on the parent's primal urge to protect their children. That is all, I profiled what I knew of you and that is what my conclusions came to.

Also unlike you who brands everyone that disagrees with her sexist or an ignorant girl I haven't called anyone on this topic or anywhere else a Daily mail sheep. Only You. So get your facts right.

Ironically all through today when we've been arguing you could have prevented all of this by simply just trying to counter argue my original day yet you spent the whole day branding me arrogant and deluded amongst other things, in that time you could have just done a small summary of your counterpoint that got deleted but you've chosen to keep this hostile while I've done my best to keep my composure unlike you.

Finally I AM too informed to be taken in by most media techniques, I've studied it for years and have qualifications in the matter, I'm not saying I'm perfect and I never have but I know enough not to take everything I see and read at face value as well as the techniques they use to create a successful story. At the end of the day if a person knows where to look for traps then they're not as likely to get caught in one and this rings true for media techniques amongst things in life.

Now you have 3 choices;

1. Simply do not reply and end the matter here.
2. Argue my point on Media narratives and Hysteria and then we can bring it back to being a debate.
3. Insult me and start this sorry repetitive matter all over again.

Your choice.

As I said before - you have far too high an opinion of yourself - and the arguments you present simply do not back up that inflated opinion. You are totally transparent - in your pathetic attempts to constantly undermine my self-confidence and create self-doubt by constant put-down remarks such as embarrassing and misunderstand - when such remarks are clearly more appropriate and applicable to you. I don't misunderstand my dear - you just speak a load of incoherrent twaddle!

What points exactly do you think you made so eloquently! That everyone barr you is taken in by media hype (particularly us gullible, over-protective parents) - bully for you! Well you fit into your own little demographic - of those that like blowing their own trumpet -and spout nought but utter bull****e!

I argued my point in the deleted post - not that there was much to argue - as I said before - ask James to send it to you, if it is so important to you - me thinks you are getting a bit hysterical about this!

Your opinions mean little to me as your arguments have no substance, just opinionated drivel. You harp on about facts - when you produce none yourself - just repeatedly tell us how well informed and well qualified on the subject you are! Really!

Definition of facts:

"Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact - your suposition that I read the Daily Mail is not!

b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case." - You have failed to prove that you are an expert on the subject!

10/10 for effort - but, in the end, your comments are simply opinion - nothing more.

We are all aware of media hype - do you really think that knowledge is exclusive to you, with all your qualifications on the subject? But believe it or not - some of us are able to form our own opinions regardless!

As for your immature 3 choices - I wonder :rolleyes:- which have I made! :hugesmile:

[Tom4784]

As I said before - you have far too high an opinion of yourself - and the arguments you present simply do not back up that inflated opinion. You are totally transparent - in your pathetic attempts to constantly undermine my self-confidence and create self-doubt by constant put-down remarks such as embarrassing and misunderstand - when such remarks are clearly more appropriate and applicable to you. I don't misunderstand my dear - you just speak a load of incoherrent twaddle!

What points exactly do you think you made so eloquently! That everyone barr you is taken in by media hype (particularly us gullible, over-protective parents) - bully for you! Well you fit into your own little demographic - of those that like blowing their own trumpet -and spout nought but utter bull****e!

I argued my point in the deleted post - not that there was much to argue - as I said before - ask James to send it to you, if it is so important to you - me thinks you are getting a bit hysterical about this!

Your opinions mean little to me as your arguments have no substance, just opinionated drivel. You harp on about facts - when you produce none yourself - just repeatedly tell us how well informed and well qualified on the subject you are! Really!

Definition of facts:

"Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact - your suposition that I read the Daily Mail is not!

b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case." - You have failed to prove that you are an expert on the subject!

10/10 for effort - but, in the end, your comments are simply opinion - nothing more.

We are all aware of media hype - do you really think that knowledge is exclusive to you, with all your qualifications on the subject? But believe it or not - some of us are able to form our own opinions regardless!

As for your immature 3 choices - I wonder :rolleyes:- which have I made! :hugesmile:

I don't have an inflated opinion of myself it's just I know more about the subject then you and it offends me when you disregard any points I made to just call me arrogant and transparent, how about stick to the points I made instead of getting so personal by insulting me constantly. If you're not gonna bother debating this properly do not reply to me because I'm sick of your dirty tactics, you do nothing but call me a tw*t, arrogant, sexist, transparent yet you've made no valid point in this topic for a day at the least. All you've done is been completely insulting and immature.

You're saying I'm the one throwing out the insults constantly? Look at your posts! You've done nothing but insult me constantly. It's tiresome really.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten what I wrote in brackets when it came to my points about parents, you should read my posts before you throw out the insults. Parents ARE more likely to be swayed by the media I've said why in my previous post so I'm not gonna repeat it, just read it. I'd say my points are well presented, If you think it's incoherent then it's your problem because it's written very clearly.

I'm starting to think you've not really read my posts as I said I don't know everything about media but I don't take anything it presents at face value. I'm not saying everyone is an idiot as I'm not perfect myself but as with the part about the parents you've CONVENIENTLY forgot that point.

At the end of the day my posts have been more informative then yours for a while. You never address my points only try to insult me, I was very kind in my last post considering, throughout this topic the worst I've called you was a sheep while you've attacked me, my education and everything I've tried to put points across but you've only been concerned with attacking me. Which makes your point about me being hysterical hilarious considering you've constantly been attacking both me and the exclamation mark button.

I've never stated any of my opinion as fact, I've simply stated what I know so you can forget about trying to put words in my mouth. Finally, I never tried to make out that I'm the sole person who is 'immune' to the media, I've just been saying what I was taught for 3 years. Now are you gonna insult me again or are we going to to debate this? I'm tired of the arguing so don't bother replying to me if you're just gonna insult me again.

If you want to debate this properly, here's my two main posts with the important points highlighted.

The only reason why it seems Muslims are behind every attack is because the media aren't giving much focus to many other attacks by non-Muslims as it doesn't fit into their image of terrorism that they want to portray. The face of Terrorism used to be the IRA and then in America in the 90's it was white supremacists. Nowadays the posterchild for Terrorism is Islam, I think it was last year when a white supremacist suicide bomber bombed a street in America but it got nearly no press coverage since it didn't fit in with the current image of terrorism. The only reason this attack's recieved so much attention is because people probably thought it was a Muslim Extremist behind it at first.

The media plays most people like fools, they'll focus on terrifying the public into buying Newspapers or watching the news to get the next piece of the story. Look at Swine Flu and Bird Flu, we were all meant to be dead by now :laugh: The media relies on narrative and worst possible scenarios to keep the public interested and most people fall hook line and sinker for it.
Oh dear, once again you misunderstand which is alarmingly is becoming a regular occurence. The reason I said that you were a Daily Mail sheep was not because I didn't agree with you it's because most of your opinions are shared with the sheep and that you fit right into a demographic, Parents are (but of course not always) affected most by moral panics and media related hysteria because newspapers and other media formats tend to prey on the parent's primal urge to protect their children. That is all, I profiled what I knew of you and that is what my conclusions came to.

Also unlike you who brands everyone that disagrees with her sexist or an ignorant girl I haven't called anyone on this topic or anywhere else a Daily mail sheep. Only You. So get your facts right.

Ironically all through today when we've been arguing you could have prevented all of this by simply just trying to counter argue my original day yet you spent the whole day branding me arrogant and deluded amongst other things, in that time you could have just done a small summary of your counterpoint that got deleted but you've chosen to keep this hostile while I've done my best to keep my composure unlike you.

Finally I AM too informed to be taken in by most media techniques, I've studied it for years and have qualifications in the matter, I'm not saying I'm perfect and I never have but I know enough not to take everything I see and read at face value as well as the techniques they use to create a successful story. At the end of the day if a person knows where to look for traps then they're not as likely to get caught in one and this rings true for media techniques amongst things in life.

Now you have 3 choices;

1. Simply do not reply and end the matter here.
2. Argue my point on Media narratives and Hysteria and then we can bring it back to being a debate.
3. Insult me and start this sorry repetitive matter all over again.

Your choice.

[WOMBAI]

On your first highlighted point - to be honest - I think I more or less covered that in a post to Shasown - when I said that I am most concerned, like many others, with recent events going back to 9/11 in Britain, America and Afghanistan - I am not taking about history - no I don't know enough about that - I am talking now - and how the terrorism threat from Muslims is affecting us now - and hence my opinions - not from the Daily Mail - that was quite offensive you know. You feel I have insulted you, I feel you have insulted me - tit for tat I guess.

Of course there is a lot of media hype - but these things still occured and the threat is still there - that is not just hype. I do have some issues with the Muslim religion - and have never made any secret of that - but that is with the religion - not a race issue - and I am sick of people trying to win an argument by implying I am racist. I am not.

I certainly don't consider myself a hysterical person - and feel your suggestion of that was unfounded - so of course I was likely to hit back at that. I feel I am entitled to express my opinions, without the constant criticism I receive from some when I do. If people don't agree with my opinions - fine - but I will express them - popular or not - and will defend myself against unecessary accusations of racism. People do need to distinguish between race and religion - I am talking generally here, not necessarily about you.

[Tom4784]

On your first highlighted point - to be honest - I think I more or less covered that in a post to Shasown - when I said that I am most concerned, like many others, with recent events going back to 9/11 in Britain, America and Afghanistan - I am not taking about history - no I don't know enough about that - I am talking now - and how the terrorism threat from Muslims is affecting us now - and hence my opinions - not from the Daily Mail - that was quite offensive you know. You feel I have insulted you, I feel you have insulted me - tit for tat I guess.

Of course there is a lot of media hype - but these things still occured and the threat is still there - that is not just hype. I do have some issues with the Muslim religion - and have never made any secret of that - but that is with the religion - not a race issue - and I am sick of people trying to win an argument by implying I am racist. I am not.

I certainly don't consider myself a hysterical person - and feel your suggestion of that was unfounded - so of course I was likely to hit back at that. I feel I am entitled to express my opinions, without the constant criticism I receive from some when I do. If people don't agree with my opinions - fine - but I will express them - popular or not - and will defend myself against unecessary accusations of racism. People do need to distinguish between race and religion - I am talking generally here, not necessarily about you.

I do agree that on the scale of terrorist threats, Al Queda and Islamic extremists do rank high but terrorism exists in many forms, The afforementioned only gets the most coverage because it's the posterchild. Which is surprising as we do have the potential for trouble closer to home with the resurgance of the IRA but that will not got much coverage due to the fact it doesn't bode well with the carefully built image of terrorism that the media has created.

Look at the American Man at the heart of thread, he's not really been considered a terrorist although his methods are similar to one, would it have been different if it was a muslim flying that plane? Definitely but like my example of the White Supramist last year (which wasn't covered much), They weren't covered or treated like terrorists because they weren't Al Queda or Extremists and thus the media wasn't interested in branding them so.

It's nothing new though back in the 80's and 90's then the UK and America had the threat of the IRA and radical White Supramicists respectively, Al Queda threats were put on the back burner. The best way to think of it is that the media works almost in fads, When it comes to Terrorism Islamic extremism is the 'in' thing, if there's an attack by another group then they'd become the new major threat.

I've never called you racist but I agree with you that it's a card that shouldn't be used in this instant as religion is not race exclusive and I don't really believe you are a racist anyway.

[Shasown]

Did anyone hear a loud bang in Newry last night?

[arista]

Did anyone hear a loud bang in Newry last night?


Yes but No Deaths.


It is all about the number that Die.



Like in the Illegal Invasion of Iraq
all those Public people murdered in Cold blood
by Carpet Bombing from Evil GW.Bush.
Backed by Evil New Labour.

[ILoveTRW]

this story says everything about the modern day media. The fact that this was not reported outside of texas is absolutely outstanding. This would of been reported every where if the guy was a Muslim

<3 Austin btw

[setanta]

this story says everything about the modern day media. The fact that this was not reported outside of texas is absolutely outstanding. This would of been reported every where if the guy was a Muslim

<3 Austin btw

That's not a bad old point you've brought up to be fair.