Explosive Fertiliser Found in Terrorist Raid

[danielf]

Originally Posted by punky

To be honest mate, if the government ministers appeared on your TV today, tomorrow, or any other time, just to say how to protect yourself, wouldn't you think: "Why are they telling me this now?", at some random point some 3 years after 9/11? I'd think they knew something specific and I guess most other people would. Smuggling it in under the guise of a drama, would make people think: oh they just thought it was a good time to include it. If they were going to run an ad campaign without a drama series to back it up, then they should of attached it to some aniversary. like once a year after 9/11 or something. Without some "excuse" to get it out, I doubt you could warn people without them getting worried.

I really think there should be more education though. Attaching to something I think would be the only way to get it out without worrying people unnecessarily.

Fair point about attaching it to something, but the hunt for ratings may cause the factual info to be attached to the liberal fiction. I think that should be avoided.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by punky

Sorry mate, that "Doesn't help much" wasn't directed at you, or your post. I meant the Anarchists Cookbook doesn't really help (ie in the fight against terror), as it is freely available, and I hear, quite detailed. Sorry.

My bad it was late, I just assumed it was aimed at me.

[zoombini]

So rather than tell us what to do late, its better not to tell us at all??

Does not sound logical to me.

What would you be doing if a bomb went off near you?
Panic'ing or rushing round with the 1st aid kit?
Gicen the lack of what to do info thats been handed out, thats about all I can think of doing.

[Simon Rochelle]

Where kilroy got it wrong was he said all muslims are terrorists, what he should of said was 'not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims'. its not a nice thing to say, however, it is fact, and it is this fact which breeds mistrust among peoples.

Secondly, really, theres no way you can prepare for a terror attack, you can do everything possible to prevent one, primarly be vigilant and rely on our security forces, who have had plenty practice thanks to the likes of the IRA, but thats about all i can see you doing. There's no way to prepare for someone leaving there house as they do every morning, getting on the train to work like they always do, then blowing themselves up with a pile of semtex strapped to them instead of getting of at there usual station.

The only other thing to do, would be stop getting on trains and planes and busses, or leaving your house, 'just incase' something was going to blow up. But then, if we did that, then they have won. We lived under the threat of the IRA for decades, and although this threat is greater as the IRA were primarly a civilised bunch after bloody sunday and the like, and started to call in where the bombs were so civilians could be evacuated. But we still continued our day to day buisness, it is no different now, different war, same threat, and we should not let ourselves cower like the savages want to see us doing.

Originally Posted by Simon Rochelle

Where kilroy got it wrong was he said all muslims are terrorists, what he should of said was 'not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims'. its not a nice thing to say, however, it is fact, and it is this fact which breeds mistrust among peoples.

I think that's not quite as accurate as you portray it. Many terrorists that we hear about *now* may be Muslims is a fact, but there have been many terrorist groups in the past that have no connection with Islam.

Also the word "terrorism" tends to mask the fact that these people are, by their lights, fighting a war against the West, but since they don't have the tanks and bombers etc that we have, they are fighting in the only way available to them.

That is not, of course, to say that I approve of their tactics, but, by the same token, I don't approve of the tactics that we in the West have used either!

Unfortunately we tend to get things shown to us in a very black and white way, we're the good guys, they're the baddies, what we do is right, what they do is wrong, but the fact of the matter is that things aren't as simple as that and just because we disagree with them doesn't mean we have the automatic right to step in and change things to our liking.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Simon Rochelle

Secondly, really, theres no way you can prepare for a terror attack, you can do everything possible to prevent one, primarly be vigilant and rely on our security forces, who have had plenty practice thanks to the likes of the IRA, but thats about all i can see you doing. There's no way to prepare for someone leaving there house as they do every morning, getting on the train to work like they always do, then blowing themselves up with a pile of semtex strapped to them instead of getting of at there usual station.

True, there is not much you can do to prepare for, or deal with a conventional attack, with just explosives, other than vigilance, and offering first aid. What we need preparation for is an unconventional attack. Something like a dirty bomb or chemical/biological attack. That Macintyre bloke did a test on some strangers of what they would do if they were at a building hit by a poision gas attack, and they just made things worse by spreading it. I'm certainly not sure what i'm supposed to do anyway. Cover my mouth and run away from the bomb site in the direction. (I don't think there is anything non-medical personal to help, you have to let the emergency services do it with respirator kits. do it.). I know from America that you are supposed to have a 1 weeks supply of fresh bottled water, and you have to tape up your windows/vents in the event of attack.

The trouble is, after 9/11, the next terrorist attack to succeed in America, (and even here), would logically be even more extreme the last time, which would indicate an unconventional attack. Any rate, their actions can't really be predicted and it woul be best if you prepare for the worst, and hope for the best.

[downquark1]

Fox News Opinion on acting suspeciously

What to you is acting suspeciously enough to warrant reporting?

I would have thought that the best anti terror-tactic is to just get on with life.If we change our way of life too much to accomodate might be's then we have allowed them to win.

[Pyromanic]

You mean like the Spanish changing their goverment?

[edit: the cookbook only stated what was allready being taught in Chemistry lessons anyway. It was just put differently...]

[danielf]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Fox News Opinion on acting suspeciously

What to you is acting suspeciously enough to warrant reporting?

Personally I have to wonder if that event even took place. It sounds more like a witch hunt to me...

But frankly, I wouldn't know what suspiciously enough is...

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Pyromanic

You mean like the Spanish changing their goverment?

The Spanish voted in an election, and that resulted in the ruling party being ousted. The socialist party then announced they would do what they'd been saying for over a year: take the troops out of Irag, as the previous government had supported the war despite an overwhelming majority of the population being against it.

Now I'm not saying that is a wise or right decision considering the circumstances, but I do think you simplify matters a little too much.

[Pyromanic]

I simplyify things only for the benefit of communication, what i meant was their was a radical shift in government right after major terrorist activity. some may say it acheived the desired effect

[Simon Rochelle]

Originally Posted by Graham

I think that's not quite as accurate as you portray it. Many terrorists that we hear about *now* may be Muslims is a fact, but there have been many terrorist groups in the past that have no connection with Islam.

Also the word "terrorism" tends to mask the fact that these people are, by their lights, fighting a war against the West, but since they don't have the tanks and bombers etc that we have, they are fighting in the only way available to them.

That is not, of course, to say that I approve of their tactics, but, by the same token, I don't approve of the tactics that we in the West have used either!

Unfortunately we tend to get things shown to us in a very black and white way, we're the good guys, they're the baddies, what we do is right, what they do is wrong, but the fact of the matter is that things aren't as simple as that and just because we disagree with them doesn't mean we have the automatic right to step in and change things to our liking.

Im not saying there is a right or wrong, and your right in saying that most terrorists in the past probably were not muslim in origion, however, over the recent years, and as globalisation occurs with western ideals and philiosophies becomming more dominant thorugh tv and the internet and communication, the whole conept of Islam has become threatened, as there belief systems can be judged as very archaic by some. As well as the newer generations of Muslim come more into contact with the west, and want to share in western culture. I work with two muslims at work, one goes out and drinks, but hides this from her parents as it is frowned upon, she entered into an arranged marriage where she was abused by her husband, until finally she could take no more and left, which was frowned upon by her family and her community. But it is because she has become more westernised and lived in this country all her life. The other, is a full on Muslim, who prays at all the correct times of the day, has never touched a drop of alcholol in her life and frowns upon the actions of the other one but is much older, married with three children. It is this mixture of cultures which makes them feel so threantened as the west destorys there religion by doing nothing more than existing and influencing the younger generation.

However, as much as they may feel threatened by this, i do not see how they can justifiy a war against us. You might say well we invaded afganistan and iraq, but that was in response to an atrocity against innocent civilians of a magnitude never seen for many decades.

What tatics do you not approve of that we have used in the west, bearing in mind that everything that has happened over the past two-three years has been in response to the slaughter of over 5000 innocent men, women and children by fanatical muslim fundementalist terror groups who have a self stlyed holy war against anything or anyone which does not conform to there beliefs?

I admit the media these days, although independant, is often used as a tool of propaganda. And i know for a fact there are a myriad of reasons that we are in the position we are in today, but at know point do we try and change something because it is different to us, or try and exterminate it to the last man women and child. We may 'step in' but if only to stop those that actually try to do the above, its called a sense of morality, something terrorists have lost a long time ago. Maybe it is our sense of morality which they fight against, as our laws are built on religious beliefs and rulings from as early as 400AD. But you cannot tell me that when we try to stop people killing others, we are wrong to do so?

Originally Posted by Simon Rochelle

(snip)It is this mixture of cultures which makes them feel so threantened as the west destorys there religion by doing nothing more than existing and influencing the younger generation.

I can agree with all of this.

However, as much as they may feel threatened by this, i do not see how they can justifiy a war against us. You might say well we invaded afganistan and iraq, but that was in response to an atrocity against innocent civilians of a magnitude never seen for many decades.

But the point about, for instance, Iraq is that, as has now been well demonstrated, Saddam had *nothing* to do with September 11th which was one of the excuses for the invasion and it is widely seen by Muslim countries as simply an attempt by the West to increase their power in the region and to undermine Islamic cultures.

I admit the media these days, although independant, is often used as a tool of propaganda.

More to the point, big sections of the media are quite content to play that role voluntarily. Fox News comes to mind...

And i know for a fact there are a myriad of reasons that we are in the position we are in today, but at know point do we try and change something because it is different to us, or try and exterminate it to the last man women and child. We may 'step in' but if only to stop those that actually try to do the above, its called a sense of morality, something terrorists have lost a long time ago. Maybe it is our sense of morality which they fight against, as our laws are built on religious beliefs and rulings from as early as 400AD. But you cannot tell me that when we try to stop people killing others, we are wrong to do so?

I'm sorry, but I think you need to take a closer look at colonial history and the rise of Western power over the past two or three hundred years, not to mention events such as the Crusades.

We are quite content, when it suits our purpose, to support "Terrorists" (sorry, we like them, so that should probably be "Freedom Fighters") eg Columbia, Nicaragua, Cuba etc. We are happy to supply weapons (including those of mass destruction: Rumsfeld/ Saddam) to questionable regimes (Chile, Indonesia, assorted African states) or do business with countries that have deplorable human rights records (China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia), not to mention being happy to overlook or stay out of conflicts or countries that have no interest or use to us etc.

To portray us as "White Hats" or "Good Guys" whilst ignoring these facts is to blind oneself to the truth.

[Graham F]

They have arrested a ninth person today abt this as well

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...1&section=news