Terrorism Thread. The terror of another nembo kev thread

Current Affairs
222

[QUOTE=“Il Bomber Destro, post: 1068624, member: 2533”]They killed innocent people in cold blood because they were the butt of a joke.

I don’t believe the IRA ever went in and opened fire on a media establishment because they were mocked.[/QUOTE]
We’ve a great sense of humour to be fair.

223

[QUOTE=“Il Bomber Destro, post: 1068624, member: 2533”]They killed innocent people in cold blood because they were the butt of a joke.

I don’t believe the IRA ever went in and opened fire on a media establishment because they were mocked.[/QUOTE]
aim of the bombings was to cause terror and provoke a response

aim of the shootings today was to cause terror and provoke a response

224

[QUOTE=“caoimhaoin, post: 1068626, member: 273”]No, I think it makes me a realist.

It’s terrible and sad, but to every action there is a reaction. You can try to undermine my character all you like cos I rattled your cage this week, but to be honest I’m completely comfortable with my views and more importantly my honesty and balance.[/QUOTE]
“To every action there’s a reaction.” Classic Kev. Meaningless drivel borrowed from one context and applied incorrectly as a sweeping generalisation to something entirely different.

225

So satire and the likes should only be reserved for people who can take a joke? If not you risk getting your head blown off? How do we know who we can aim our jokes at? Will whole countries have to sign up to a satire pact?

226

Not according to Kev.

227

@caoimhaoin is right in the sense that newspapers are afraid to re publish the cartoons. These lads did it and enjoyed a level of notoriety for doing it. It carried a risk and they paid the price. Was it worth it?

big test of editors cojones tomorrow to republish the cartoons in their papers - would be a good reaction I think.

228

[QUOTE=“TheUlteriorMotive, post: 1068629, member: 2272”]aim of the bombings was to cause terror and provoke a response

aim of the shootings today was to cause terror and provoke a response[/QUOTE]

No, the aims of the vast majority of the bombs were to inflict military and economic damage on the British.

229

I think he is saying if you joke about an extremist group you take a risk and is that a risk worth taking if it costs you your life.

230

come off it - the IRA never had a chance of defeating Britain militarily

Economics - I will give you that but what effect do you think today has on tourism in Paris?

231

[QUOTE=“Il Bomber Destro, post: 1068611, member: 2533”]These rag heads killed 10 innocent civilians in cold blood because they were the butt of the joke.

The IRA targeted commercial and military targets with bombs, usually aided by warnings to force the oppressive British occupation of Ireland.[/QUOTE]
Today was at the very least a strategic target from the terrorists viewpoint. Whether you consider it legitimate or otherwise it was quite an obvious source of repeated anger for the Islamists, to deny this is plain silly.
Those who died knew the dangers they were engaging in, it’s not like there were no warning signs. They elected to carry on and were killed standing up for free speech, a noble death to be sure and one, on all known evidence, they believed worth dying for. fair fucks to them.

Bombs are less viable in the West as a military option for terrorist/freedom fighter types as they were in the Ra’s heyday, easier to detect

232

[QUOTE=“Il Bomber Destro, post: 1068624, member: 2533”]They killed innocent people in cold blood because they were the butt of a joke.

I don’t believe the IRA ever went in and opened fire on a media establishment because they were mocked.[/QUOTE]
If you think it’s just because it was the butt of a joke them you are as in touch with your spiritual side as much as you think you are.
And you are pretty poorly read on the subject.

233

The Provos were sound compared to these durka durkas.

234

[QUOTE=“Lazarus, post: 1068647, member: 286”]Today was at the very least a strategic target from the terrorists viewpoint. Whether you consider it legitimate or otherwise it was quite an obvious source of repeated anger for the Islamists, to deny this is plain silly.
Those who died knew the dangers they were engaging in, it’s not like there were no warning signs. They elected to carry on and were killed standing up for free speech, a noble death to be sure and one, on all known evidence, they believed worth dying for. fair fucks to them.

Bombs are less viable in the West as a military option for terrorist/freedom fighter types as they were in the Ra’s heyday, easier to detect[/QUOTE]
Ah here, I don’t think we know enough to say they believed it was worth dying for their beliefs. They weren’t contemplating death when deciding to publish the cartoons.

235

[QUOTE=“caoimhaoin, post: 1068626, member: 273”]No, I think it makes me a realist.

It’s terrible and sad, but to every action there is a reaction. You can try to undermine my character all you like cos I rattled your cage this week, but to be honest I’m completely comfortable with my views and more importantly my honesty and balance.[/QUOTE]

Would you not consider it an enormously disproportionate reaction?

236

[QUOTE=“caoimhaoin, post: 1068649, member: 273”]If you think it’s just because it was the butt of a joke them you are as in touch with your spiritual side as much as you think you are.
And you are pretty poorly read on the subject.[/QUOTE]

It was because they were the butt of a joke, it’s the very reason that magazine was targeted. The Muslims don’t like it up them.

237

[QUOTE=“caoimhaoin, post: 1068528, member: 273”]Absolute bollix.
Not knowing your enemy or it’s capabilities or maybe then doing so and still antagonizing them is stupid.

Stupidity shouldn’t lead to such violence generally, but I think everyone knows at this stage, it can.

You have completely missed what I was saying, and I ain’t going back over it.[/QUOTE]
Same logic here as saying that a rape victim had it coming as she was wearing skimpy clothes.

238

[QUOTE=“TheUlteriorMotive, post: 1068640, member: 2272”]@caoimhaoin is right in the sense that newspapers are afraid to re publish the cartoons. These lads did it and enjoyed a level of notoriety for doing it. It carried a risk and they paid the price. Was it worth it?

big test of editors cojones tomorrow to republish the cartoons in their papers - would be a good reaction I think.[/QUOTE]
It was a satirical magazine with a long history. They published an awful lot of satirical cartoons on an awful lot of topics. I don’t think their purpose was to gain notoriety, it was to challenge the status quo - in this case the status quo of fear of mocking a Muslim icon.

239

I see you are avoiding the hard questions. Does it conflict your mind that much or are you busy googling looking for some smart response in relation to the 'RA in Britain.

Maybe cos you are a parent now your mind has waived on the “Troubles”. Either way you seem conflicted. Otherwise you’d have answered straight away.

240

It’s not a theory I’m trying to show, it’s a reasoning.

241

I’d imagine they were people of higher than average intelligence and would have considered the possible consequences of what they were doing many times before today.