Terror tourists

[Wile_E_Coyote]

So they're better than Congo, hurrah for them! Personally I'd be deeply ashamed if my country was even ON that list, let alone topping it... Fact of the matter is that the self proclaimed fighters of freedom and democracy systematically breaks a lot of international human rights laws. Hypocricy thy name is America.

 

[nath]

Did anyone find the fact that the program seemed to refer to all palestinian people as the enemy pretty offensive? It was totally pro israel bullshit tbh.

 

[whipped]

Semi off-topic, but I liked Sean Lock's description of America on Room 101 last night.

"America is like Milton Keynes, with no pies"

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Wile_E_Coyote
... a lot of international human rights laws.

These are the "laws" that classify a 6' 2" 12st drug dealer with a gun as a "child" right ?

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by xane
These are the "laws" that classify a 6' 2" 12st drug dealer with a gun as a "child" right ?

I was 6'2 and 13 stone when i was 15

 

[Shocko]

Originally posted by Damini
You guys are such arseholes about the americans sometimes. Some of these people are just going on that course because they're terrified, and that's the media's fault for creating that climate.

I'm sorry, but these people are dangerous fools. Yes, the course was about teaching people to fight terrorists. The very fact that:
a) Americans believe they will need to fight terrorists personally
and
b) Americans believe that in a terrorist attack some they would actually be able to use their "training" to do anything other than get themselves killed

is the entire problem. I hate Americans

 

[Damini]

They probably don't absolutely believe they will have to fight the terrorists personally, but they would like to believe it. Nobody wants to be truly passive in the face of something that terrifies them. If it helps them to believe that when The Time Comes (as many of these people live in dread that it will) they'll be able to do something to protect themselves and their families, rather than just accept the reality of them being blown to smithereens by a suicide bomber/planted bomb whilst chewing idly on their lunch, not realising what was impending, then you can understand why people do it.

And it's not just this thread. Lots of threads were all americans are retards who masturbate furiously to the flag, have subnormal IQs, and are generally there to be mocked. I just find the pseudo hostility a bit tired.

 

[whipped]

Do we all have a go at the French now then

 

[doh_boy]

Originally posted by Damini
They probably don't absolutely believe they will have to fight the terrorists personally, but they would like to believe it. Nobody wants to be truly passive in the face of something that terrifies them. If it helps them to believe that when The Time Comes (as many of these people live in dread that it will) they'll be able to do something to protect themselves and their families, rather than just accept the reality of them being blown to smithereens by a suicide bomber/planted bomb whilst chewing idly on their lunch, not realising what was impending, then you can understand why people do it.

In my experience the 'common man' will not do anything they will do everything they're told to do. when the manchester arndale bomb went off I was in piccadilly gardens (5-10mins walk from epicentre) and took the last bus in (stupidly enough wasn't told anything of bombs). When the bomb went of everyone ran away from the blast. Which, as I've said, was a bit away. I stood still, from shock and the fact that I knew it was coming. Watching everyone run away from me and scramble over people is a very wierd experience. Also before it went off me and a friend walked down market street (towards where the bomb was) and got down to almost the street it was on. Ok so we should have guessed something was up when we were the only people walking in that direction. The policeman told us to go down a side-street and wait there. This was, pretty much, a building away from the bomb, not really a nice place to be. The only reason we left was my friends bowels. Anyway the point is no matter how much training you're given you'll still panic when the time comes. It's best to concern yourself with preventative measures.

 

[Damini]

I don't deny that at all. But this training isn't really to do with coping in that situation in my opinion - it's to do with coping with the inability to know when/where/how an attack will take place. It's to do with wanting to protect yourself and your family, and not knowing how to, because you're not sure what you are protecting them from. It's to do with meida frenzy over terrorist attacks, with government advice to store bottled water and tape to seal out poisonous gas. Sitting around waiting for a situation when you don't know how or when it's going to happen is bad enough, but terrorist attacks are really impossible for the average Joe to defend. So I see these courses as a way for people to try and defeat that feeling of helplessness, or just waiting. Of course, it's fucking useless in actuality, but it's main purpose isn't so you can ninja kick a hi-jacked plane from the sky, it's main purpose is so you don't live your life in terror, feeling helpless up until that attack hits. You'll die just as fast as the next man, sure, but man's always had a use for placebos.

I don't believe this course has an use in reality, lets face it, there aren't going to be terrorist armies marching down the streets, but the whole purpose of terrorism is the climate of terror, and these courses make people feel less vulnerable.

 

[Insane]

Originally posted by Damini
I don't believe this course has an use in reality, lets face it, there aren't going to be terrorist armies marching down the streets

speak for yourself

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by Damini
I don't believe this course has an use in reality, lets face it, there aren't going to be terrorist armies marching down the streets, but the whole purpose of terrorism is the climate of terror, and these courses make people feel less vulnerable.

Slighty on topic.

In this era of "terroism" and people such as above going on courses to learn to die like a hero, why in gods name are we the British cutting defence spending?

Sorry reorganisation was the term used which for you and me means less tanks, planes and older ships. Fair enough. But the reliance on the US for the heavy ordinance and general everything?

Our armed forces are small enough as it is and bar the mass recruitment drive (God im gullable) noone is helping it to do its job any better. Protecting the everyday person from terroist attack. Screw teaching some yanks how to disarm a nutter with an AK. Yes they will sleep better knowing they will get bombed, but bombed knowing how to fire a Small Handgun.

Seriously thats what worries me more then anything, all this properganda about WMD and the global terroist threat and then cutting spending?

 

[lynchet]

I think the general idea is that if your enemy is now largely going to be the single terrorist with hidden bomb etc then a big f**k off battleship isnt really much use against that - its an area, conventional war, weapon.

Im not saying I agree with the cuts as I think its rather stupid and shortsighted to assume we will never need a certain type of force again (1930's anyone) - but I can see we need people trained in anti terrorism and the gear to do that job.

 

[doh_boy]

1) Less money on military spending means less chance of us getting into another stupid war on our own again.

2)Terrorist attacks are usually bombs or some other situation where having a gun will be at best useless at worst dangerous.

3)As of today there has been no, WMD biological or chemical weapons found in Iraq. The only weapons found were those sold by the uk, us or russia.

Also the chancellor is, apparently, looking at a very big (and embarassing) hole in the budget and needs all the money he can get.

 

[Testin da Cable]

Originally posted by Deadmanwalking
Protecting the everyday person from terroist attack.

aha, the very crux of the matter! than god for the people who do that very thing, for imo Randolph P Average will never ever see am AK yielding terrorist anywhere else than the news / the movies, and if they do manage to come into contact with a terr, or terr's work then imo they won't know it (or will die worst case).

there will be no heroic dis-arming of the terr; there will be blindly walking by. if one was so unfortunate as to actually see sinister masked figures schlepping a large cannister labled "anthrax - this side up" into whitehall or where ever then the singlemost non-stupid thing one can do is inform the authorities and get the hell out of the way. all imo ofc heh.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by doh_boy
1) Less money on military spending means less chance of us getting into another stupid war on our own again.

2)Terrorist attacks are usually bombs or some other situation where having a gun will be at best useless at worst dangerous.

3)As of today there has been no, WMD biological or chemical weapons found in Iraq. The only weapons found were those sold by the uk, us or russia.

Also the chancellor is, apparently, looking at a very big (and embarassing) hole in the budget and needs all the money he can get.

1) Eh, no just no. Friad it doesn't work like that.

2) To be honest with you i would rather have action ready well trained troops around then not.

3) As for WMD, at this moment there are going to be 2 general types of conflict. The full blown nuclear war (Very unlikely) in which case nothing will help us, no tanks etc. Or the smaller scale but still dangerous terroist networks and associates.

While i agree that the way forward is well trained anti-terroist troops (Hell im becoming one) there is also a need for "the heavy stuff".

Without sounding rude... All that anti-war in iraq stuff was dated and copied when it was first meant for real. This far down the line and after all the fashion anti-war protesters have got their mits on it means little

That and the fact the war is over as such.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by Testin da Cable
*snip*

1) Whats happened to your posting, like reading DAOC forum

2) Yes, and that is my very point. These courses learning to disable an armed terroist assailant are as good as hiding under a table during a nuke fight

 

[xane]

Originally posted by doh_boy
The only weapons found were those sold by the uk, us or russia.

The UK did not sell NBC weaponry to Iraq.

During the 1980's Iraq was a signatory to the conventions for Nuclear Non-proliferation and banning Biological and Chemical weapons use in combat, therefore they were allowed to investigate the technology openly like any other country, on the assumption and trust it was to be used for defensive purposes only.

Components of NBC weapon manufacture obtained by Iraq came from all over the world, the UK included. It was only during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war that it was confirmed what a lying bastard Saddam was with his willingness to use NBC weapons, and any technology concerned with NBC was banned, this was further enforced by the 1991 resolutions after Gulf War I.

Certainly there were companies, some from the UK, who circumvented the ban and have been investigated and prosecuted, but that is a mile away from saying that the UK armed up Iraq with ready-made NBC weapons.

You can take it either way, most America critics do tend to distort and soundbite the reality, just like the Amnesty article alledging it is somehow wrong to execute a 17yo who is obviously mature enough to murder someone and their two young children.

This all leads to Damini's claim, of which I agree, that America seems to be the sole exponent of the world's problems, the precise tune the terrorists seem to sing.

 

[Jonaldo]

A larger defense budget and military force can not and will not do anything to improve our chances in the war against terrorism. America has tried and failed to kill Saddam Hussein twice now and Osama Bin Laden with brute force tactics and they are still no closer to finding them than if they would have sent Austin Powers or something.

You would like to see fully trained troops.. where? on the streets every day? Wandering around town centres? A bit like Middle-Eastern countries? Why?
If you say no then I don't see how they will help against terrorists either. When a completely unexpected man, woman or child walks into a building and detonates a bomb strapped to them I'm not quite sure what an army of expert gunman will do. Nor even in a modern day war.

Miltary situations are won with long range missile attacks, bombardments and then small task forces clearing up what is left. Not several hundred thousand ground troops marching over land á la World War I & II. Times have changed drastically and so has the face of modern day warfare and tactics. And with the advancement in robotics, radar and imaging technology there is an ever decreasing need for human reconnaissance. I know of two people that were sent the middle-east during the conflict (not going to lie and say I was good friends but this is just what I've heard) neither saw any action whatsoever, no gunfights, no dramatic missile attacks and this apparently was quite common. It was a huge percentage of the marines that actually were needed to penetrate and clear out Baghdad, most were securing a passive city from safe encampments outside.


We still have an adequate military force. However we have lots of ships, submarines and planes that are very old and loaded with out-dated technologies. These are being decomissioned and quite rightly so, as it is the tax payer who foots the bill for these and over the last 15 years the amount of action these things have seen in no way justifies the cost.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should get rid of our armies and that there will be no wars but you're making it sound like we're under impending threat if our military got any smaller and this just isn't the case. They are all recruiting constantly (army, marines, navy, air force) but this is mainly because people retire constantly more than the desperate need for more troops.

I say relax a bit, the only things we're under even minimal threat from are things that a large army couldn't defend against (nuclear/chemical/biological attack, individual bombings or small suprise attacks).

Of course, I might be wrong..

 

[doh_boy]

1) The idea is to rely on our allies in europe. The more we do that the less chance of being coerced into a war that had very little good reason for starting. The strength of close-knit terrorist networks is that they cannot be easily found and broken apart. There is good reason that al-queda are being persued by intelligence services and police (well FBI, interpol and people like that). As has been said over and over again, you cannot fight terrorists conventionally. The best way to rid ourselves of this is to combat the reasons for anger at our country and reliance on intelligence. Even then it has been said that there were warning prior to 9/11 from the cia and others.

2) The only real use for the army in this situation would be something along the lines of royal engineers. My point was more the idea of training civilains to use/carry weapons 'just in case' which I thought you were aluding to.

3)It wasn't meant to be an anti-war statement but it still stands that Iraq has no WMD and even less chance or impulse to use them. No country close enough to cause any of us harm has wmd or an emnity towards us.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by doh_boy
No country close enough to cause any of us harm has wmd or an emnity towards us.

France ?

 

[doh_boy]

Originally posted by xane
The UK did not sell NBC weaponry to Iraq.

This all leads to Damini's claim, of which I agree, that America seems to be the sole exponent of the world's problems, the precise tune the terrorists seem to sing.

My point was that the claim that Iraq was developing many weapons itself has proved to be false. Thus far of course, I may be proved wrong in the future (unsurprisingly) .


As for america being the sole exponent in the worlds problems, I disagree that my tone indicated that. The many references to the us government are due to it being the major exponent of the war and warnings of terrorist threat (to support the war).

 

[doh_boy]

Originally posted by xane
France ?

The best they got is stale cheese imho!

 

[Tom]

I was going to comment but then I realised that I know pretty much nothing about the reasons behind a terrorist's thinking, and foreign policy.

<directed generally but not to Xane or Damini or Jonaldo etc>

What I do know, is that for the last 50 years we've had an army that was originally there to patrol an empire, an empire that we no longer have. I also know that democracies tend not to declare war on each other, so you can forget any parallels to the 1930's, it just won't happen. I also know that many people here are guilty of racial stereotyping. Calling Americans 'thick' or 'dumb' just because you've been reading the ignorant rantings of some kiddies forum related to cs, hardly makes 'you' correct. My advice is to go over there, meet some Americans, experience their culture, then perhaps you'll be able to form an educated opinion. The USA is a great country, populated by really nice (and educated) people.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

This the point where i start saying "It's my opinion?" and then add lots of patronising and ? If not please tell me when.

Originally posted by Jonaldo
You would like to see fully trained troops.. where? on the streets every day? Wandering around town centres? A bit like Middle-Eastern countries? Why?
If you say no then I don't see how they will help against terrorists either.

Streets? When and where did i mention troops on the streets?

So saying that because they are not in direct conventional combat as such shooting and killing people, they must be useless? Right. Laws work on the idea of prevention, they exist to discourage people from commiting crimes and to punish those that do. On the whole this works, now lets take to armed forces? Without armed forces able to react quickly and effective what stops countries more openly supporting terroism and other such lovely things? Goodwill? Love of humanity? .... i think not.

Originally posted by Jonaldo
However we have lots of ships, submarines and planes that are very old and loaded with out-dated technologies. These are being decomissioned and quite rightly so, as it is the tax payer who foots the bill for these and over the last 15 years the amount of action these things have seen in no way justifies the cost.

They dont justify the cost? So if we were in the middle of an allout war and they saw action on a daily basis, they would be ok? And if you think that them cuttin back on numbers of tanks etc means a substantional cut in costs, you are kidding yourself. All these new hi-tech weapons and forces they are on about cost, they cost alot. Not to mention the time from design/planning stage to actual rollout is huge when it comes to weapons. (Eurofighter anyone?)

Originally posted by Jonaldo
Miltary situations are won with long range missile attacks, bombardments and then small task forces clearing up what is left.

You what? Clearly unsure about the realties of war here. But lets say you are right. Who then stays in the country afterwards, to keep some form of peace/order. To act as the law and police while everything is sorted out? A high tech unmanned drone?!

Originally posted by Jonaldo
I say relax a bit, the only things we're under even minimal threat from are things that a large army couldn't defend against (nuclear/chemical/biological attack, individual bombings or small suprise attacks).

As i mentioned further up its all about deterrent, also the basis on which WMD exist in most countries.

*Deep breath*

Oh and tom get off the soapbox

 

[Jonaldo]

I know several Americans, have had visitors over here stay and I myself spent Christmas 1999 and New years Eve 99-2000 in North Carolina staying with a friends family for three weeks and was treated brilliantly and never met any of your stereotypical Americans. Unfortunately it the noisy minority that people seem to hear and go along with and this distorts our views of most foreign countries.

Never-the-less, nothing worth worrying about with our military size just yet...



Until the rise of the machines..

(Terminator 3 turned up through the post on dvd today, guess me old man ordered it)

 

[Jonaldo]

I won't get into an argument with you DMW as it won't get anywhere. I just worry about the impending all out world war that you seem to know about that I've not seen anything of on the news yet.

I'll just blink a few times, shake my head and leave the room. (knowing I'm right)

 

[doh_boy]

Most of your argument dmw is what the UN is for, the idea is for 'everyone' to join in, in taking action against the said country. Also funding/supporting terrorism usually makes you unpopular within the global community and thus not many people do it.

Everyone assumed, well I did and I'm pretty sure xane as well, that you inferred that you would feel safer from terrorist threats with a bigger army. we replied that the way terrorists carry out their actions prevents direction action from the army. Thus the only thing to have them do it a vaugely police-like role.

/edit

Also laughing at american people being stupid doesn't mean that we think all american people are stupid. This sort of humour is very popular in the uk and has been for a while. Home-video shows, beadles about, <that dom jolly one>, more new ones coming out now.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

No not bigger. Just not a hell of alot smaller.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by Jonaldo
I won't get into an argument with you DMW as it won't get anywhere. I just worry about the impending all out world war that you seem to know about that I've not seen anything of on the news yet.

I'll just blink a few times, shake my head and leave the room. (knowing I'm right)

Well i hope you have a better outlook on life then the shit you post here

Good luck to you.

Oh and by the way, the british never touched baghdad ... just for your information.

Edit: Almost forgot