Large Hadron Collider nuclear scientist charged with terror offences

[Xue Sheng]

Including the Kennedys?

it's not in the past tense btw,there are Americans are still supporting terrorists across here.
http://www.noraid.com/

NAH!!! We didn't do anything to the Bush family for aiding the Nazis why do anything to the Kennedy’s for that, besides we let that whole rum runner thing during prohibition slide so what’s the big deal about funding a terrorist organization anyways

But again historically speaking things get rather touchy with British history and the IRA. But that does not in anyway justify terrorist acts committed by the IRA

And a lot of people from countries all over the world are helping support terrorists.

And can we PLEASE get away from making the US the wiping boy here? Don’t make me pull out historical fact on this stuff the British Empire is far from innocent in any of this.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Including the Kennedys?

Why not? If they gave money to terrorists, then yes.

it's not in the past tense btw,there are Americans are still supporting terrorists across here.
http://www.noraid.com/

Same argument. I do not play favorites with people who support terrorists.

 

[Tez3]

NAH!!! We didn't do anything to the Bush family for aiding the Nazis why do anything to the Kennedy’s for that, besides we let that whole rum runner thing during prohibition slide so what’s the big deal about funding a terrorist organization anyways

But again historically speaking things get rather touchy with British history and the IRA. But that does not in anyway justify terrorist acts committed by the IRA

And a lot of people from countries all over the world are helping support terrorists.

And can we PLEASE get away from making the US the wiping boy here? Don’t make me pull out historical fact on this stuff the British Empire is far from innocent in any of this.

No we aren't blaming the US for what going on, it just seems Bill wants to wipe everyone out who doesn't think the way he does, just sounding out exactly how many people he wants to do away with so don't go getting all defensive.
Don't worry we are paying in full in this country for the many wrongs we have done around the world don't you worry.
I'm not sure who all these people are that clamour for the US to be doing things, it certainly doesn't happen here nor I'll add in Europe, frankly the EU isn't, they want America out of the way so they can empire build. I'm not sure Africa is calling on America either, perhaps your government is saying th the world calls on it?

 

[celtic_crippler]

No we aren't blaming the US for what going on, it just seems Bill wants to wipe everyone out who doesn't think the way he does, just sounding out exactly how many people he wants to do away with so don't go getting all defensive.
Don't worry we are paying in full in this country for the many wrongs we have done around the world don't you worry.
I'm not sure who all these people are that clamour for the US to be doing things, it certainly doesn't happen here nor I'll add in Europe, frankly the EU isn't, they want America out of the way so they can empire build. I'm not sure Africa is calling on America either, perhaps your government is saying th the world calls on it?

So there would be no problem or complaints if we became isolationist again? :boing2: I'm down with that!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No we aren't blaming the US for what going on, it just seems Bill wants to wipe everyone out who doesn't think the way he does, just sounding out exactly how many people he wants to do away with so don't go getting all defensive.

Have I said I want to kill everyone who doesn't think the way I do? At any point? I think perhaps you're exaggerating a tiny bit, hmm?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Why stop there? Why not go out and kill everyone that's ever purchased heroin? I mean...Afghanistan makes more money off of opium than anything else. Hell, kill everyone that's ever paid for an opiate! That includes anyone that's ever taken vicoden, oxycotin, or had morphine during surgery.

Why stop there is because it becomes reducto ad absurdem, is why.

 

[Tez3]

Have I said I want to kill everyone who doesn't think the way I do? At any point? I think perhaps you're exaggerating a tiny bit, hmm?

Huh, I've told you a million times I don't exaggerate!

 

[celtic_crippler]

Why stop there is because it becomes reducto ad absurdem, is why.

Exactly.

 

[Xue Sheng]

No we aren't blaming the US for what going on, it just seems Bill wants to wipe everyone out who doesn't think the way he does, just sounding out exactly how many people he wants to do away with so don't go getting all defensive.
Don't worry we are paying in full in this country for the many wrongs we have done around the world don't you worry.
I'm not sure who all these people are that clamour for the US to be doing things, it certainly doesn't happen here nor I'll add in Europe, frankly the EU isn't, they want America out of the way so they can empire build. I'm not sure Africa is calling on America either, perhaps your government is saying th the world calls on it?

Who you calling defensive, :tantrum:I’m not defensive, and I will defend my stance on the too

Actually I do believe Bill, like many, over simplify exactly what terrorism is, means and how it is organized and funded. Lord knows I use to but after a few courses (damn higher education ) and a state in-service or two (damn those bastards for keeping me informed) …. And many don’t even realize that there is still as domestic terrorism issue in the states as well so over simplifying a global issue as it applies to terrorism doesn’t surprise me in the least.

And I am not defensive actually, just tired with the world in general these days and its propensity for high levels of violent stupidity based on miss understanding and arrogance. Actually the planet would not be such a bad place if it weren’t for all the people.

My main point is here that Britain is actually guilty of some of the things you have thrown towards the US in your discussion with Bill. Did the US or some of its citizens do what you say they did? Yup. Does Britain have its share of folks doing the same stuff? Yup. Are Britain, France and Russia absolved from all guilt in the Middle East and terrorism now that the US is there messing things up? No, history says otherwise as it does in the case of the IRA and the British government as well (admittedly the Kennedys are not helping things). And the EU is not the world by the way; it’s the EU and has its own agenda but there are parts that are not all too happy about us pulling out of the whole missile shield thing and if we put up the shield we are evil, militaristic, controlling, sticking our nose where it doesn’t belong and flexing muscles and if we don’t we are abandoning our allies to the possible evils of Russia and its nuclear and military might.

Do I agree with what Bill is stating as a solution? No, things are way too complicated, as you have shown in your example of the Kennedy family. Terrorist organizations are incredibly complicated to the point were a terrorist cell could be entirely unaware that there is a terrorist cell of the same group just down the street and as for funding who the hell knows who all the people are. So knowing exactly who is aiding and abetting a terrorist organization is next to impossible so unless you are willing to shoot every single person you see then that solution is simply not going to work and it is more than just a little silly. And of course I have not even got into exactly what a terrorist is defined as, go ahead find two major groups in military or law enforcement that agree on a definition, I dare you

As to clamoring, I never said clamoring I said there are those that want us to fix there problems and they are not all terrorist issues, they are medical, monetary, military and there are those that do not want us to do anything as well and there are those that want us to do what they NEED us to do. And in some (not all and most certainly there is no loud conflagration) we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. What happens if we pull our military out of every place it currently is, globally? What happens if we stop all sorts of humanitarian aid, globally? what happens if we stop spending our dwindling US dollar globally on everything from Tourism to goods and service? Just where do you think all these people will turn next to look for help since we stopped? And do you actually want Japan to have a free reign military again? And what happens between China and Taiwan? What actually would occur in the Middle East? How about Korea? And would Africa be better off or worse off if we stopped absolutely everything we do there? South America anyone, they have terrorists and drug cartels we fight from time to time, does the EU want to handle that one?

Basically we are not all bad, or at least we are no worse than any other world power, we are just a whole lot younger.

So examples to show Bill the error of his ways works for me but while you’re throwing in lists of Americans that aide terrorist why not give equal credit to those that are doing the same thing in the British isles. And if you’re going to throw in the history of the US supporting the Taliban (and it did) then you might want to mention the bits about who started this mess in the first place by promising the same land to at least 3 different groups.

And you are absolutely correct we can't absolve your country from the part it played, but then neither can you about yours.

But to be honest I am way to far into the study at the moment than I want to be ... I would much rather go to the nearest pub for a good beer :drinkbeerand forget all this nonsense and if it helps Tez, I'll buy
.

So there would be no problem or complaints if we became isolationist again? I'm down with that!

Sure there would, we be poor broke and destitute when all those countries we owe money to called in the marker

Actually in the world in which we live isolationism can be a very dangerous thing.

 

[Kajowaraku]

well, there's no ill will towards Americans here, but there was considerable resentment to the American administration that tried to shove it's policies down our throats. I'm sure the states are a great country, but we have no need to follow it's every example. Quite happy the way we are, indeed.

Now i'm sensing an awful lot of wild west rhetoric here, which is a bit amusing and frightening at the same time. As for terrorism being a unified enemy, I never said you said this, my reply was more general than just replying to a few of the statements you made, i was referring to the "war on terror" leading to strange consequences such as the invasion of a country lookign for WMD that could be used by terrorists (although that rhetoric changed even more than the one in this thread). What I meant was, you can't eradicate terrorism by waging a war. You simply can't. That generally ensures the next generation of people wanting to kill you will rise. And while I understand your base argument that you want the person that wants you dead to sod off and die, I doubt your name is on their to-do list, so that's a bit of a strange argument. If you intend to turn it to "me as in my general country" than we are back to my (and other's) arguments that violence will only lead to more violence, and like arguments. And no, that's NOT being blase, that's trying to work out a long term solution that doesn't involve guns, cluster bombs and other nifty toys. That'll just get more support for their "cause", and that's exactly what we don't want to happen...

 

[Xue Sheng]

well, there's no ill will towards Americans here, but there was considerable resentment to the American administration that tried to shove it's policies down our throats. I'm sure the states are a great country, but we have no need to follow it's every example. Quite happy the way we are, indeed.

Now i'm sensing an awful lot of wild west rhetoric here, which is a bit amusing and frightening at the same time. As for terrorism being a unified enemy, I never said you said this, my reply was more general than just replying to a few of the statements you made, i was referring to the "war on terror" leading to strange consequences such as the invasion of a country lookign for WMD that could be used by terrorists (although that rhetoric changed even more than the one in this thread). What I meant was, you can't eradicate terrorism by waging a war. You simply can't. That generally ensures the next generation of people wanting to kill you will rise. And while I understand your base argument that you want the person that wants you dead to sod off and die, I doubt your name is on their to-do list, so that's a bit of a strange argument. If you intend to turn it to "me as in my general country" than we are back to my (and other's) arguments that violence will only lead to more violence, and like arguments. And no, that's NOT being blase, that's trying to work out a long term solution that doesn't involve guns, cluster bombs and other nifty toys. That'll just get more support for their "cause", and that's exactly what we don't want to happen...

First who are you directing this at; since it came directly after my post and there is no quote I am not exactly sure.

Second but it does seem that you can apparently do damage to a terrorist organization by freezing its assets

 

[Tez3]

Good grief, I'd already said the British had done a good many things they shouldn't have done, well actually the truth is the British Establishment has, the rest of the UK was very much left out in the cold, something else that the Empire could be blamed for. The home countries have been equally badly treated by the British Establishment which is why we have home grown terrorists,not just the Irish.
The EU has it's hands full with the EU however it does spend a lot of money on aid to Africa and the Far East, it has to, many EU countries had colonies there and feel responsible for those countries still.
Russia is bankrupt at the moment and having had huge losses during the last world war has never been keen to start another war, China isn't interested in taking over the world, Japan isn't either. America is the country that worries us all, it always has starting way back in the 1950s.
I really don't know if you realise how much America scares the world.

Much of the Middle East problems goes back to the end of the First World War when the Allies carved it up to suit themselves.

 

[Tez3]

Talking of terrorists, a bomb went off today in Belfast. One lady injured when the bomb that was put under her policeman boyfriend's car went off. One of several incidents this week.

 

[Sukerkin]

The odd thing is, despite the high level of fear with regard to terrorism that our media does it's best to whip up, the world according to the intelligence arms of the West is less at risk now than it ever has been.

The judgement of MI5 is that a disperate, not very well organised, loose coalition of discontents is a much lower threat on the grand stage than the state sponsored terrorism that preceded it.

People forget very quickly what things were like in the 70's, for example, with all the bombings, hi-jackings and assasinations that went on. The Stern Gang, Red Brigade, IRA, PFLP, Baader-Meinhoff, Libyan's, Armenians, Bulgarians ... the list was immense.

What has happened that is different in recent times is that there was a spectacular atrocity committed on American soil and, as a significant proportion of the global media exists in America, that has become a 'touchstone of terror'. It has been used by self-serving government to put in place measures that can only be sustained if fear is sustained.

Thus, with such an atmosphere, you end up with the cirumstance we have seen in this thread where a scientist in a high-profile establishment is arrested for suspected contact with a terrorist group and the cry goes out as if the man was Dr. Mengele.

As an aside, the worst thing that I've seen in the thread tho' is the re-interpretation of each others words through our own cultural filters. The main pivot for that was when Tez brought up the fact that the IRA has been largely sponsored by American money. To me, that was to give an example that would be tangible for those speaking of the view regarding guilt by association or finance. But it has brought forth quite a bit of protest that hints that such a statement was merely "Yank Bashing" and retaliatory finger pointing at what the Empire got up to.

We are never going to be able to discuss such political matters cogently unless we can overcome such reactions.

 

[Kajowaraku]

First who are you directing this at; since it came directly after my post and there is no quote I am not exactly sure.

Second but it does seem that you can apparently do damage to a terrorist organization by freezing its assets

it was directed more at Mr. Mattocks.

And yes, freezing assets would be more effective than brute force. Still, for long term stability just taking the means away will only slow things down. A person bent on doing harm will find a way, regardless. But it certainly will do damage, with a lot less of a backlash than executions and violence. Still on the long run it would be best to take away the reason or motivation for the terror, where-ever possible. It should at least reduce the terror activity to manageble sizes, making it easier to be dealt with by the regular criminal justice system, which may or may not be assisted by a special task force or investigative branch, preferably international.


And a small reply to you Tezz; you are so right... some aspects of the American foreign policy really had people worried here, a lot less now that "that liberal" is in charge by the way. Most people here consider the change of political direction in the states a very welcome thing. (I can hear you guys thinking: 'but you don't have to LIVE here...', although I personally think he's actually doing alot of good for the states too.)

God, i'm erratic!

 

[Xue Sheng]

Good grief, I'd already said the British had done a good many things they shouldn't have done, well actually the truth is the British Establishment has, the rest of the UK was very much left out in the cold, something else that the Empire could be blamed for. The home countries have been equally badly treated by the British Establishment which is why we have home grown terrorists,not just the Irish.
The EU has it's hands full with the EU however it does spend a lot of money on aid to Africa and the Far East, it has to, many EU countries had colonies there and feel responsible for those countries still.
Russia is bankrupt at the moment and having had huge losses during the last world war has never been keen to start another war, China isn't interested in taking over the world, Japan isn't either. America is the country that worries us all, it always has starting way back in the 1950s.
I really don't know if you realise how much America scares the world.

Much of the Middle East problems goes back to the end of the First World War when the Allies carved it up to suit themselves.

I will post the history references later as to the middle east. But the bottom-line was a British promise to Zionists they could have their homeland back, British Promise to the Muslim world in having control of their own lands when the war was over and of course asking the Palestinians if they minded at all if the Zionist lived with them, and they didn't. However neither the Zionist, Muslims or the Palestinians were aware that the British had made different promises to different groups in return for help during WW I. Afterwards France, Britain and Russia divided the place up much to the surprise of a whole lot of indigenous people. Britain maintained control of the Palestinian lands that the Zionists wanted (Hell it was promised to them after all) and bingo terrorism in the Middle East was born. I believe it was from the Zionist directed at the British, but I will have to check that one.

And I hate to have to ask this out but were in my question about China and Taiwan did you get China taking over the world? China has never been interested in colonization, invasion or take over in anything that it does not consider historically part of China and. And in that part of the world it is not China I am concerned about doing something stupid it is Taiwan. And I do not think Taiwan wants to take over the world either. As far as Japan goes and a military what do you think they would have done a few months back if they had a free military with North Korea, and where would we all be now? (I know it is speculation based on something that did not and could not have happened, but I find that intriguing and a bit scary)

America Scares the world, so globally we are feared which by the way includes Russia and China and a few other places not just the EU. But I do find this interesting that America worries so many, why? What are you worried about the US doing?

I myself was a bit nervous the last administration would get us into WW III but so far all that concerns me about this one is that we will go flat broke and have to lock the doors turn out the lights and put up the America is Out of Business sign.

 

[Sukerkin]

Can we get back on track, ladies and gentlemen?

Other than aiding in indentifying that the roots of todays problems come from actions committed in the past, we're not going to get very far by taking pot-shots at what our respective countries ruling elites have done 'wrong'. For at the end of the day, they acted within the framework that existed at the time and had the aim of bettering their own countries interests (or rather the interests of the wealthy of their countries}.

We, as individuals might abhor or laud those actions but that has no bearing on the matter at hand.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What I meant was, you can't eradicate terrorism by waging a war. You simply can't.

Well, you can, if we wish to parse words cutely. If you kill everyone else, then yes, you've eradicated terrorism. However, I do quite understand that in real terms, killing the entire world is a bit over the top, and yes, making martyrs of terrorists often has deleterious consequences.

That generally ensures the next generation of people wanting to kill you will rise.

True. And likewise if you kiss their arses.

And while I understand your base argument that you want the person that wants you dead to sod off and die, I doubt your name is on their to-do list, so that's a bit of a strange argument. If you intend to turn it to "me as in my general country" than we are back to my (and other's) arguments that violence will only lead to more violence, and like arguments.

The alternative is to tolerate people who give money to terrorist organizations? I'm sorry, I can't. I won't. I'm not interested in winning their hearts and minds. Screw them. If they want me dead, I've got no use for them.

And no, that's NOT being blase, that's trying to work out a long term solution that doesn't involve guns, cluster bombs and other nifty toys.

There is nothing wrong with guns and bombs and etc when used well.

That'll just get more support for their "cause", and that's exactly what we don't want to happen...

I don't care. No, really, I don't. Wild-west or not, if a person states that he wants me dead, and gives money to terrorists to carry that out, I want him dead. If it has a long-range deleterious effect, that's something to be addressed, but as for that particular mope, I want him expunged.

I would love it if the whole world loved Americans. But they do not. Some hate us for no doubt good reasons and some for reasons I don't think are all that valid. But in the end, of those who hate us, some few want to actually kill us, and those represent an immediate threat to the people of my nation. They've demonstrated their abilities.

I am interested in long-term solutions, which include finding and addressing base concerns when they are valid (like 'stop pushing our nation around you big bullies') but when they are not valid (like 'you are not a Muslim, so you must die') then I am not interested in making nice with the latter.

In the meantime and alongside of those efforts, whether they are motivated by so-called 'good reasons' or bad, if they represent a direct threat to the people of my nation, I want them dead, and I will not apologize for wanting that. People who give money to terrorists that try to kill me are such a threat, and I want them dead.

 

[Kajowaraku]

Bill, there's a wide gap between "tolerating people who give money to terrorists" (or kissing their arses for that matter) and killing them. It may be a shade of black and white that doesn't fit your picture, but there are actually other sanctions and measures that could be taken, like: freezing the assets of those contributing significant amounts to a known terrorist organisation, incarceration, hell even pitch and feathers for all I care. This isn't about "execution or a hug."

But I understand your point. All you want to say, is that YOU want those people to die, regardless of long term consequences, although you are not oblivious to them. That, is your good right. You were also absolutely right about the unjustified reasons for terror such as "die heathen, die!" Obviously that sort of fanaticism complicates things immensly. You have some valid points, but we clearly don't share views on how it should be best handled. All the same, this has been an interesting conversation. thank you all.

 

[Tez3]

Kajowaaku, thank you! Is it danke wel or merci btw for you?