| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Ah yes. The "we've just killed a Head of State contrary to International Law" celebration.Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi
Once their lawyers had told them that sanctioning an air strike to murder an acting Head of State would be bad press they decided to outstay their welcome in Iraq.
America **** yeah....butchers.
Which head of state was this?
The start date seems to try and make sure America are in the list whilst the end date seems to have omitted last year possibly to keep Europes figures low?
I don't know, could be it was first published a year ago.
Even with last year Europe's numbers would be low.
7/7 and Lee rigby would be included though. Even combined paris and Brussels wouldn't make that list.
Of course it wouldn't, but America being in the list would make it feel like Europe is doing well in comparison.
Take out 9/11 and what would the USA have then?
The rest of the countries in the list have massively unstable regions, hence why I believe they deliberately went to 2001.
As for the Lee Rigby killers, they killed one person. Not sure why you'd expect them to omit that?
I'm getting deja vu.
You can say that again.....
This is world war ****ing 3 mate believe
It's just the start of the NWO mate, Ultimately, it comes down to a deal like this - "we will make you secure from terrorists, if you allow us to set up the omnipotent, surveillance state". The hidden trade off is that you give away most of your freedom in exchange for a dubious security, The name of the game is fear.
RIP those who lost their lives.
"Two men are facing life imprisonment after being convicted of plotting to kill police or soldiers in a shooting inspired by so-called Islamic State.
Suhaib Majeed, 21, of west London, was convicted of conspiracy to murder and preparation of acts of terrorism.
Ringleader Tarik Hassane, 22, of west London, had admitted the same charges.
Two men who provided a gun were cleared of conspiracy to murder and preparing terrorist acts by an Old Bailey jury, but admitted firearms offences.
Nyall Hamlett, 25, and Nathan Cuffy, 26, had admitted their role in handing over a gun to Majeed and Hassane but denied knowing what it was going to be used for."
Targets were alleged to be the Police, members of the Armed Services and the general public.
Even if they omitted the USA by starting in 2002 say, it wouldn't really lessen the impact of the graphic.
I would have thought that 2001 was chosen as that represented the beginning of the Islamic terrorism being the dominant form of terrorism in the West. Prior to that groups like the IRA and ETA were far more prevailant as the other chart shows.
If the chart had started in 2002 you'd have been complaining that it was designed to make the USA look better ?!
I'm assuming Lee rigby was included, can't see why he wouldn't be.
Clearly it isn't, the chart shows it is a lot safer here these days than it was in the 1970s and 80s. Was it world war ****ing 3 then?
Does that make this world war ****ing 4?
World War I: Over 17 million deaths
World War II: Over 60 million deaths
Some people need to get a sense of proportion, it seems.
All those bloody Catholics as well, bombing Birmingham
I'm not "complaining" simply pointing out that most people from Western Europe can't and won't associate with most of those countries in the list, but that they will with America. If they weren't there would it lessen the impact? I think so personally. At least to Western Europeans.
As for the Rigby thing, I'm not sure why Croesy Blue even mentioned it.
Tbh I hadn't even noticed USA on there when I first read it.
It's also worth considering that in the other regions shown the figures only includes deaths by "terrorism" I'm guessing civilians killed by local government forces or Western intervention aren't included, and would probably push USA way off the chart if they were.
I wonder when some people will see we have a real problem, Paris and Brussels must point that we have a problem in Europe
I guess some will only see it when they have someone stood in front of them with a detonator in hand shouting Allahu Akba
That's the only time you would have a problem, your chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are minimal don't be ruled by fear that's what they want.
There's a problem that needs to be addressed but there are hardly constant massacres going on.
The problem is years of bad decisions by Western governments (mainly France, Britain, USA) that have lead to this
I think we all realise there's a problem, largely one of our own making. But what is needed now are solutions to that problem.
Interesting looking at the data, that the overall level of today's terrorism is lower than the "separatist" terrorism of the 1970s and 1980s, but that the loss of life in individual attacks seems higher, just that there are a lot less occurring.
Perhaps it is because counter terrorism is pretty good now, so a high proportion of attacks will be foiled, so in order to mount a campaign of fear the individual actions need to be more shocking?
Or perhaps the attacks these days are aimed at civilians more often making large loss of life easier, as I remember the 70/80s attacks being more focussed on security forces in general. Presumably that is because many of the terrorists see them as retribution of civilian losses at the hands of Western forces.
There are 2 distinct groups of Islamic terrorism the AL quaida attacks , and then almost 10 years later the i s attacks, the roots of which can easily be traced to events in the middle East, this, and the complete absence of Islamic terrorism prior to this suggests that a reaction to percieved assault on Islamic people is a far bigger driver for terrorism than the teachings of Islam itself.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote