Anti-Terrorist Tactics from England 1909

[Xue Sheng]

Xue,

All I want to know is why you think any definition of terrorism would make a difference as to weither people arm themselves or not? School or anywhere else. The methods of terrorism are still the same, definition or not.

As the first of this thread showed, even in 1909, an awful lot of people packed heat in England (with no back ground checks or force training) and when anarchist tried to 'terrorize' the good subjects (well is IS England) not only helped the cops but intervened themselves. And compareing that to what happend in Mumbai (Bombay) and the lack of arms for anyone is what the thread is about.

Oh, and BTW, every read what Gen. Carl Spaatz said to Gen. Artur Harris when Harris wanted the USAAF to bomb cities? Spaatz had a rather different definition of terrorism than you apparently have (books or no books.) And 'kamikaze' is very much considered a form of terrorism as any google search will show many links to articles where that is actually caled 'kamikaze terrorism'!

And Xue, the FBI has it's own definition, the U.S. Department of Defense has it's own defintion, the League of Nations Convention Definition of Terrorism, 1937 had a definition, U.S. Law has it's own definition, The
Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism had it's own definition... see where I'm going with this?

Deaf

Yes and you are so convinced you know what it is and the people who actually deal with it can't agree on a definition. That is what I am trying to get at here with you, they don't agree what exactly constitutes terrorism how is it you are so sure you know all there is to know about it.

And will you PLEASE stop trying to make this a gun issue, it is not, and before you ask me one more time about me being against people arming themselves to protect themselves PLEASE point out where I said that.

Read a book on the topic and you might actually learn about what is and is not terrorism. I could call the revolution patriotic terrorism by the definitions but is it terrorism?

You also have said that Terrorism is Terrorism a car bomb is a car bomb a drive by is a drive by (by the way not all drive bys are defined as terrorism) which says you believe in 100 years terrorism has not changed and that terrorism is no different today than it was 100 years ago. Cars have changed, weapons have changed, in 1909 there was no space program, communications has changed, science has advanced, there is a much larger population, we have an internet now, there was no wide spread plane travel in 1909 and yet you want to believe that terrorism has existed in a vacuum and not changed. And an awful lot of terrorist organizations that are around today didn't exist in 1909. You want to lump them into one nice neat category "Terrorist" and give them a common face and that is a rather dangerous point of view if you are honestly concerned about terrorism and safety. But I do feel you are much more concerned about the proliferation of guns than actual safety and people being able to protect themselves. Education is also a great way to protect yourself by the way

You example of a car bomb; Do you have any idea of the number of ways there are to detonate a bomb today as compared to 100 years ago. Do you have any idea of the advancement in explosives since 1909? Are the guns of 1909 the same as today? Is the ammo the same today as it was in 1909?

Now here is something for you that you would get if you read a book or two on the topic. And to be honest I do not expect you to read any of this and your only response will be right back to what do I have against people arming themselves. But maybe some one else will read it.

Terrorist of today study the terrorists that came before and learn from them. They study Michael Collins and Che Guevara and people like that and learn from them. This is one reason (and only one) why terrorism of the 21st century is not the same as terrorism form 1909 as a matter of fact the England of today is not much like the England of 1909.

Last time and them I will stop wasting my time and I will await your inevitable response of "Xue why are you against people arming themselves for protection" (just highlight that and quote it in your next post to save yourself time).

I am not against guns I am not against people getting guns for protection. I am against people that have no training or experience with guns owning a gun because it is at best a false sense of security and likely will get them injured or killed. If someone has been trained or buys a gun and gets training on how to use it then go for it. But handing them out like candy I am not really for, putting them in a box of Cracker Jacks as the surprise inside is not something I would support either.

My absolute BIGGEST issue with the entire post is your complete lack of understanding of terrorism in the 21st century and your continued use of it to justify your agenda. You don’t have much of an understanding as to what is terrorism or what it has become but you are using it to justify your argument and want me to believe you know all about it. You want more guns feel free to post it Ad nauseum and use facts to support it and you will hear nothing from me. But used a flawed view of something as serious as terrorism and I will respond, or at least I did respond, after this I would be letting you waste my time and as I said I am done with that.

Now please feel free to ask me one more time why I am against people arming themselves for protection. Please once again try to make this a pro-gun verses anti-gun issue and do what you will because I am absolutely done wasting my time.

Now since you likely did not read much of what I posted and skimmed is and hit the high points that fit you agenda I will say to any one that does actually want a book recommendation please feel free to PM me I would be more than happy to recommend a few on terrorism that are a bit more reputable than the majority of stuff you find on Google.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Xue,

Where have I posted "Xue why are you against people arming themselves for protection" ? I don't see that in my post. Did I post that anywhere?

And why do you feel I need to read the books you offer? Especilly after I showed you there are so many definitions of 'terrorism'. Is you definition so different from the ones I listed?

Xue, while there are more methods than say 100 years ago, people are also more eductated. I see no reason to think they can keep up with the newer methods, just as the terrorist, as you say, study to come up with new ways.

I would not just give up and, you know, think terrorist have the upper hand ever time they try something.

In fact, Xue, can you give me any places where terrorism has worked and changed the country as they desired it? Did Che succeed? Michael Collins? Has terrorism been a success? The radical Moslims?

Like I said before, they are not supermen. In fact in Mumbai they made several huge errors. Alot of their plan did not work (as the surviving terrorst said himself.)

Deaf