Terrorism????...Blame America!!!!

Actually, I don't. However, this is a forum, which can be enjoyed actively and passively. Your repulsive views prompted me to participate more actively.

Once again, you don't seem willing to have your position challenged and make no attempt to respond.

Still, at least you "made your point fairly well" :LOL::LOL:.

Well it would be good if you took the subject matter to hand rather than attack the person who holds the view.

You grind your axe away I'm sure you will be using it again... ;)
 
Well it would be good if you took the subject matter to hand rather than attack the person who holds the view.

You grind your axe away I'm sure you will be using it again... ;)

I have gone through your somewhat lengthy post taking each point in turn - none of which you have responded to. Instead you claim that I am attacking the person, after two posts which consist mainly of you telling me I have a chip and an axe to grind.

Does this not strike you as a trifle absurd?
 
I have gone through your somewhat lengthy post taking each point in turn - none of which you have responded to. Instead you claim that I am attacking the person, after two posts which consist mainly of you telling me I have a chip and an axe to grind.

Does this not strike you as a trifle absurd?

You basically have taken the arguement all over the place - mis-quoted me out of context as well as hurling lots of accussations eg: I advocate murdering innocent people :eek:.

Maiden next time Arabian has a get together come down if you can and we'll discuss this over some food and drink. We'll iron out the world's problems and fix it good and proper. (y)
 
You basically have taken the arguement all over the place - mis-quoted me out of context as well as hurling lots of accussations eg: I advocate murdering innocent people :eek:.

Maiden next time Arabian has a get together come down if you can and we'll discuss this over some food and drink. We'll iron out the world's problems and fix it good and proper. (y)

If I have misrepresented your views in any way then I apologise unreservedly.

I thought you advocated killing certain members of society (namely those who are elderly, who have a very poor quality of life and no prospect of recovery, and who lack the means to pay for their care) without their consent. I also thought that you were prepared to advocate the same fate for severely handicapped people. Killing such people would certainly be murder.

Perhaps you could explain how you disagree with the view I have outlined above, and give me the chance to apologise for my misquotes and misrepresentation. If not, you might perhaps explain how killing innocent people who have expressed no wish to die is not murder. I would be very interested indeed to read such an argument.
 
If I have misrepresented your views in any way then I apologise unreservedly.

I thought you advocated killing certain members of society (namely those who are elderly, who have a very poor quality of life and no prospect of recovery, and who lack the means to pay for their care) without their consent. I also thought that you were prepared to advocate the same fate for severely handicapped people. Killing such people would certainly be murder.

Perhaps you could explain how you disagree with the view I have outlined above, and give me the chance to apologise for my misquotes and misrepresentation. If not, you might perhaps explain how killing innocent people who have expressed no wish to die is not murder. I would be very interested indeed to read such an argument.

Ok first of all - killing and putting to sleep are different approaches with different connotations. So if you want to discuss the subject seriously don't twist my words. The objective should be trying to extract the meaning and idea not to personally attack me.

If you wish to ask "do you mean kill them?" I would reply no. And then we may expand on discussing the alternatives.

If you respond by saying I'm talking crap and to you that is effectively killing - then that is fine by me. However, my interpretation of your response would be that you have a narrow definition for ending life. You may well be right but not by my approach. If somebody ended my life saving me from the later stages of a terminal illness that too me would be compassionate act of mercy. To you it may be a killing or murder. Can you comprehend the point I am trying to make here?

Few of examples - have you seen anybody die at home from cancer? I have and it is not a pretty sight. Towards the end I was asking my self why is all this suffering so extended letting it run its full course. Why not just give double or triple dose of morphine and end it in a dignified way. Everybody was suffering without a doubt. Aunty, uncle, cousins relatives neighbours - everyone. The body was littered with bruises. Bed sheets constantly being soiled. Constant pain. Everybody sitting around for it to end. Then finally, one night the body can't take much more and passes away in their sleep. When someone has 6 months to live the last couple of months are not good.

Consider dementia... One of my uncles had it. Condition deteriated quite badly. Once again after some time he didn't even remember his own children. Aunty tearing her hair out. Can't be left alone as they can become confused and endanger their life... Once again the bodilly functions go and they start pooing in their pants like a baby. However, with grown-ups changing and washing is not like changing nappies on a baby. You can imagine. After a while it is obviously unbearable situation. Cousins confused and heart broken on how to help aunty who is also old and unable to cope. Cousins busy looking after their own families and children. Aunty is force to move uncle to an old peoples home. The end is predictable with many more complications and unless there is very strong close family support - the person wastes away usually alone once again in pain and unable to recognise or acknowledge those around him. As for loved ones looking on it is just very painful. You feel pain for not visiting. And you feel more pain when you visit and see the poor soul.

Now in my opinion - of the many different types of illness, these two are quite common and not as bad or withdrawn as few others. There is worse when one person may be bed ridden or wheel chair bound with reduced mental state or communication.

With an aging popullation - these are going to grow in number significantly.

In these circumstances if we as a society were to openly discuss the end of life and various ways of finishing it then quite a lot of suffering can be avoided.

I was not suggesting people be put to sleep against their will screaming and shouting as you seem to imagine. It should be a choice or an option to be considered. I think it may take time for our acceptance and opinions to change but I know from personal experience it would be a route desirable for me in such circumstance. I see no shame or offence in the path being made available or in the option suggested as an alternative.

You see this is what I'm trying to say. At no point did I suggest to Splitlink that he should end his life because he has some back pain - as you did. The moment you get all high and mighty with your morality and twisting my words the blogging turns from discussion to a farce.

As for costs in looking after the aging popullation with limited resources available to the council authorities - are they better off spending monies on elderly people homes or support for young children? Now there is a dilemma??? If you check your council bill you'll find elderly peoples homes take up a disproportionate amount of monies as it is very resource intensive.

As the working popullation declines so will taxes. Aging popullation costs will rise in health and pensions.

What would your solution or proposition be to this impending problem??? Calling me names is not an option.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if anyone has considered that diseases kill people who don't exactly want to die...?

I guess diseases are murderers and should be put in jail immediately.
 
I wonder if anyone has considered that diseases kill people who don't exactly want to die...?

I guess diseases are murderers and should be put in jail immediately.

Regrettably Nipple_Tassel I think that a disease would not qualify. Actus reus by all means, but I cannot imagine how the condition of mens rea would be satisfied. I believe this objection to be insurmountable.

Nonetheless, a useful and considered contribution to the debate, for which all should offer their thanks.

The interesting (but sadly, I fear, purely hypothetical) question of whether diseases should be incarcerated were a guilty verdict to be returned in a murder trial is a large one, and perhaps best postponed until such time as there is no observable wet paint.
 
Well, technically diseases are mother earth's ninja's, so I think it'd be hard to prosecute them anyway.

At least we ruled out that probability.

I like your cute nick names for me. I'm glad to have a #1 fan :)
 
If I have misrepresented your views in any way then I apologise unreservedly.

I thought you advocated killing certain members of society (namely those who are elderly, who have a very poor quality of life and no prospect of recovery, and who lack the means to pay for their care) without their consent. I also thought that you were prepared to advocate the same fate for severely handicapped people. Killing such people would certainly be murder.

Perhaps you could explain how you disagree with the view I have outlined above, and give me the chance to apologise for my misquotes and misrepresentation. If not, you might perhaps explain how killing innocent people who have expressed no wish to die is not murder. I would be very interested indeed to read such an argument.

Interesting article about prolonging life and dignified endings...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8692488.stm

Sanitised words...

But the Alzheimer's Society said the issue of dementia in terminally ill patients, an increasingly common occurrence, had not been adequately addressed.

"'People with dementia have specific end of life care needs and too many are subjected to an undignified and unnecessarily painful death.

"We need dementia-specific guidance for clinicians if we are to ensure people with dementia get the dignity they deserve at the end of their lives."
 
10 more soldiers dead!
Do these bloody politicians care about the Human life!
just withdraw, and just NUKE the terrorists hide out and finish them once and for all
 
STOP the BLOODY WARS

There is much talk on TV again re: more deaths and sacking over Afghanistan.

More deaths continue and now some little more talk about the cost of the war. I understood last year we were going to be training their troops to take over and we'd be leaving. Seems not.

Obama seems to think and believe it is important for Afghanistan to have a stable government so that attacks cannot be launched on to the US. UK broadcasts the same old Bull **** in tow.

Any attack on US or UK soil will not come from Aghanistan! This is a fact!

They will come from a terrorists much nearer home if not home soil. So it beggars belief these so called elite politicians and world leaders trumpet this same old garbage.

Whether these operations are planned in a cave in Aghanistan or some tea party in Bradford or a Cafe in Paris makes no difference to the operation.

So all that effort into Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent terrorists is UTTER BULL ****.

Soldiers still dying in Afghanistan as well as the greater numbers in wounded soldiers with missing limbs.

I still hold the view our Politicians are bent fockers. Any military or intelligence officer can tell you the same story. Ofcourse for stepping out of line they will be dealt with one way or another - as witnessed over General Stanley McChrystal or World leading weapons inspector David Kelly.

After 7 years - billions of money and millions of lives on all sides Bull **** continues to be propogated by the likes of Obama on his justification for sacking a great general for merely telling it like it is.

I repeat the question why Germany - France - Italy or Spain do not have these problems that US and UK does for some profound reason???
 
Re: STOP the BLOODY WARS

I repeat the question why Germany - France - Italy or Spain do not have these problems that US and UK does for some profound reason???

simple si baat hai yaar! LOL

USA needs to have dollar supremacy so that it can continue to buy the goods for free, the only way they can do this is by fear > use of military. Yes it costs Billions, but who the fock has paid for it??? Not americans, cos they just print the money

Britain join them cos, they need the american support to susatin the economy, if US support stops then britain becomes a third world country
 
Re: STOP the BLOODY WARS

Thoughts of a British Muslim 7/7 & Me

I think that very day the identity of the suicide bombers had finally been established and it was clear that they were not terrorists sent from abroad but home-grown British Muslims who wished to kill their countrymen. All of us recognised how terrible this was and the potential for a backlash against the British Muslim community.

There is a saying that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and then as farce. Two weeks later on Thursday 21 July I was driving between meetings in Bradford and Blackburn. I stopped at the motorway services for lunch and as I did so was listening to the BBC Radio 4 news at 1300. This reported the failed bombings in London that day. While greatly relieved that nobody had been hurt, I had to smile at the ineptness of this particular gang of terrorists. Sadly the following day tragedy struck again with the catastrophe of the mistaken killing by the police of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Since then, there have been many other terrorist plots by Muslims. Fortunately, all have been successfully prevented by our security services, or like the attack on Glasgow airport, have failed. The consequences for the British Muslim community if these attacks had succeeded would have been terrible, as we would have seen an anti-Muslim backlash. Sadly that is one of the key goals of these terrorists, to divide British Muslims from other British citizens, and to cause us to tear our country apart, the way that some other countries have been nearly destroyed by internal strife. I do not want to see British Muslims being interned like the Japanese residents of the United States during World War II or being expelled. However nothing would please the terrorists more.

Stepping back and reflecting over the last five years, the following points come to mind. Some Muslims are in complete denial. They simply do not accept that the 7/7 bombings were carried out by Muslims. Instead they believe in conspiracy theories such as pinning the blame on the British government (to provide an excuse for government anti-Muslim policies) or pinning the blame on outfits like Mossad (since Mossad would like to blacken the image of Muslims). Sadly people are always ready to believe in conspiracies. They never go through the logical thought process of asking how many people inside the British security services and government would need to know about an official government plot to murder its own citizens, and the likelihood that every one of these people would remain silent.

Another sector of the community accept that the bombings were carried out by the individuals named, Mohammad Sidique Khan and others, but somehow don't regard them as Muslims. It is true that setting off bombs on the Underground is a very un-Islamic thing to do. However, if you had been able to observe the lifestyle of these individuals prior to 7 July 2005 you would have seen them reading the Qur’an regularly, praying regularly, fasting and doing everything else that you see Muslims do. Accordingly, in my view you have to accept that these people were Muslims by any objective measure. This applies even if your view theologically is that once they formed the intention to commit mass murder they had distanced themselves from God and turned away from everything that Islam stands for.

The most common thing I hear from the Muslim community is that the bombers did it because of our country's foreign policy, especially Britain's unbalanced support for Israel and our country's invasion of Iraq, which almost all British citizens now recognise to have been utterly misconceived. It is clearly true that those were the reasons why these people chose to kill, since they have told us that in their suicide videos. However, stopping the analysis at that point is seriously incomplete. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of Britons who feel equally strongly about issues such as Palestine and Iraq who do not become suicide bombers. Almost all of the British Muslim community feels strongly about Palestine and Iraq but apart from a tiny minority of terrorists, British Muslims confine themselves to lawful opposition and political protest. What was different about the bombers?

Looking at the suicide videos, the bombers clearly believed that the bombings they were about to carry out would be a good deed in the eyes of God. It is clear to me that these individuals did not expect to go to hell as a consequence of their actions but instead expected to go to heaven. If they had believed that they were going to hell, they would not have carried out their actions. Many brave people are willing to give up their lives for their religious beliefs in order to serve God with the hope of entering paradise. However I cannot conceive of anyone who is religious wanting to promote a political cause on earth, if this means consciously defying God and consciously choosing to be cast into hell for all eternity.

However, while there is no problem with Islam, there is a problem with some Muslims which we need to face up to. While I believe that if I were to kill a random collection of Londoners God would sentence me to hell for all eternity, there are some Muslims who think that such conduct would be a passport to heaven. Such people are dangerous because once they believe that God has given them permission to kill British citizens they will try to do it unless our country subordinates its policies to their view of the world. Today it is our foreign policy in any one of a number of places; tomorrow it will be our country's policy of allowing people to drink alcohol or to wear miniskirts.

What we need is a clear and consistent message from all Muslim leaders, repeated regularly, that killing other people except in self-defence or in a legally declared war is a crime against the law of God which will result in you being sent to hell. Only when this is accepted by all British Muslims will we be free from the threat of terrorist acts being committed by misguided Muslims.

I occasionally think about how I might feel after discovering that one of my sons or daughters had become a terrorist. Apart from the shock, I think the overwhelming reaction would be one of guilt, to ask “Where did I go wrong; what did I fail to teach him or her?” Fortunately, my own children have been brought up in an atmosphere where they were encouraged to think independently, and show no signs of religious extremism. Nor have they encountered the problems I hear about from other Muslims such as repeated stop and search which can cause people to become less supportive of the police. The key vaccines against becoming a religiously motivated terrorist are a true understanding of one’s religion and real appreciation for our society and the way that it governs itself.



dd
 
Terrorism: One giant rort

"A two-year investigation by the Washington Post newspaper says the effectiveness of the system designed to keep the US safe is impossible to determine."

.
.

"The newspaper says there are now more than 1,200 government organisations and more than 1,900 private companies working on counter-terrorism, homeland security and intelligence in 10,000 locations across the US.

"It also says a whopping 50,000 intelligence reports are produced each year, a number so large that many are routinely ignored."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/20/2958555.htm
 
Re: Terrorism: One giant rort

"A two-year investigation by the Washington Post newspaper says the effectiveness of the system designed to keep the US safe is impossible to determine."

.
.

"The newspaper says there are now more than 1,200 government organisations and more than 1,900 private companies working on counter-terrorism, homeland security and intelligence in 10,000 locations across the US.

"It also says a whopping 50,000 intelligence reports are produced each year, a number so large that many are routinely ignored."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/20/2958555.htm

Sounds crazy, and a system that needs serious work. But in fairness, how many major terrorist attacks have there been in the US post-9/11?

Where they have failed I don't think it was a failure of intelligence. For example, Major Hasan slipped through simply because of deliberate PC blindness.

They could do it better but they are doing something right.
 
Top