Originally posted by OrchidLunar
I feel horribley guilty but on the occasions I have heard europeans,especially Brits laughing about 911
- You'll be sure to point out any of that happening around here, right?
(the mods would be sure to act)
I've replied with"I can't wait til it happens to you!"I know thats a horrible thing to say but I was very angry at the time.
- How sad for you.
Originally posted by BlackOps719
Think so? Really?
- Yes really; IMO the level of threat is nowhere remotely near what it used to be.
The world waited while millions of Muslims staged violent protests across the globe in response to something as harmless and seemingly trivial
as a cartoon printed in a newspaper.
Anyhoo, I think a handful of locations where riots happened (sometimes obviously orchestrated in the 'usual locations' are no substitute for a
confrontation between 2 (or more) ideologically opposed 'powers' threatening to spark off continental or global-wide wars.
Sorry but I don't.
I think that if that situation had not been handled properly it could have triggered a massive conflict between the western world and all
predominantly muslim countries.
- So certain people love to keep telling us (usually on the basis of utterly distorted understandings of the situations where the riots are taking
place - on the one hand they are usually very confined and brief in 'western countries' and in Muslim countries they are hardly unique but again
brief and usually for show).
Then we have Iran and their nuclear threat, which endangers all of us, but especially Israel and the countries that make up the EU. What will
happen if Ahmadinejad and Iran develop the bomb? Do you believe honestly that Israel, the US or the UK will stand back and let a threat like that
emerge? No chance.
- Firstly what "nuclear threat"?
They haven't "threatened" anyone with any nuclear weapons, which they do not now have anyway.
Secondly all this 'pressure' amy be the one way to ensure they try asap to get some......and it may turn out to be beyond the powers of Israel, US
or UK to stop - if Islamic Pakistan were to just give Iran the bomb what then?
However, despite all the noise there is not the slightest evidence Iran has nuclear weapons.
Even if they do get them the usual mechanics of deterrence will come into play.
Iran would face a comparatively massively nuclear armed Israel (backed by the USA and others) and would not be able to 'knock out' Israel's
retaliatory capacity (now we know Israel has submarine launched nuclear missiles).
Even president Chirac of France has made it public knowledge that if Iran aquires nuclear technology there will be immediate action taken.
- Er, he didn't actually.
He said that if France was attacked she would respond in kind (as would anyone; it's hardly ground-breaking news).
Deterrence, you see?
And how many bombs will be detonated by Muslim extremists on British soil before they decide to take this threat seriously?
- What are you talking about?
Sorry but the idea that we don't take the "threat" seriously just because we don't equate this problem as being more serious than WW1 & 2 or the
cold war is just ridiculous.
Quite rightly we aren't going to use the actions of a relatively small handful of extremists to 'tar' a whole huge chunk of the global population
or a minority section of our own population for that matter.
Just as 30years of IRA terrorism (no warning bombs etc etc) did not mean all the Irish the people living in the UK were persecuted or locked up or
expelled from Britain.
A sense of proportion, humanity and plain intelligence is what is required - not a stupid short-sighted unleashing our worst paranoia and nasty
fascist instincts and turning a generally supportive minority population amongst us against us in this.
European citizens have not been through an event like 9/11 yet, but be certain that it is inevitable.
- I'm sorry but this is where it just gets surreal.
9/11 was not the first terrorist event the world experienced, ok?
We in Europe have had terrorist campaigns on-going for decades.
We have plenty of experience of terrorism, the USA is the one that actually does not, despite such an appalling example happening there.
It might never have been almost 3000 people in one go but we know all about the maiming and slaughtering of innocents by violence in pursuit of
For years, decades, on end.
these times hold their share of dangers and should not be laughed off or taken lightly. I am certain that before WWI and WWII there were many
who also believed that the possibility of a world wide war was absurd and unthinkable - until it happened.
- I did not say the world didn't have it's dangers.
I expect it always will be a dangerous place, in places.
But, to equate the periods of multiple tens of millions of dead global war (with over a hundred million maimed and injured) and the threat of a cold
war hotting up into an all-out nuclear exchange with the situation as it is now is a comparison that, IMO, just doesn't hold any water at all.
Personally I am sick of the U.S. playing the role of world police, I too am sick of the bandwagon America bashing
- Maybe if you could see it from other people's point of view?
Many in the world don't see the USA as 'world Police' but merely as selfishly pursuing her own interests whilst claiming to be acting for the wider
good, there is a huge difference.
As for "America bashing"?
Well a lot of what is being labelled as such is actually friends who share basic values saying (as good friends should, surely?) when and where they
think you are wrong.
That's not quite the same as just "bashing".
I would be happy if we pulled out of the middle east, sealed our borders and let the rest of the ungrateful world fend for
- Rather than a silly all or nothing, 'our way or the highway' approach, if your government would try and act much more in cooperation with others
and not so plainly in such clear and obvious self-interest?
The problem you have - as we all do - is that we need to come to terms with a world that is interconnected and interdependent; an impractical,
self-harming and rather silly idea of 'closing borders' is no answer at all.
Just know that as Europeans you will have to deal with these threats eventually, whether it be in a pro-active way in taking the fight to the
enemy, or in a reactive way, as in AFTER your 9/11 takes place.
- Er, we already have had to deal with all sorts of large-scale and murderous terrorist groups over the 6 decades since WW2 ended and from before.
Even WW1 was sparked by a terrorist grouping here, remember.
And I believe the next big move by the terrorists won't be a bomb or a plane, but more than likely biological or worse. Something to look
forward to I guess.
- Well I suppose anyone can speculate and imagine anything terrible if they want.
On the other hand we could set ourselves to trying to resolve the problems that incubate these problems, just a thought?
Maybe if we invested a fraction of the cash we seem willing to pump into endless warfare and 'security' we might not need to have these pointless
and enormously wasteful wars in the first place.
Just my opinion.
- That's just mine.
It's what makes this place great, right?
But to return to topic; if WW3 were to break out I think the ideas of 'sides' in the previously thought of sense would very quickly stop having any
We'd all be completely poked in any real and meaningful sense.
As certain members of my family (in the forces) have said to me on many accasions, even the neutral countries would be taken back to the stone age and
beyond so that a currently minor 2nd or 3rd world country did not emerge as the new super-power once the current ones had exterminated themselves.
Such is the 'capacity' of current planning.
[edit on 4-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]