London Police Disrupt Terrorist Plot to Blow Up Aircraft in Mid-Flight [title chngd]

[Navy Seal Patriot]

Really? Why don't you educate us and give us some names from the past 25 years.

LOL. Why don't you educate yourself and realize the US isn't just 25 years old. I said US Domestic terrorism, IRA doesn't come close. Yes, muslim terrorism is the big threat--and many threads have talked about the why and resolve of that. That still doesn't erase US white christians killing, maiming, destroying property of other US citizens in amount$ or total loss of life vs. jihad muslims.

McVeigh, while being religious, didn't commit his deed in the name of "God" and he didn't seek to punish for sins.

What McVieigh really believed on this issue was hard to say for anyone; and to believe that every Muslim terrorist just does it in the name of Allah would be a misnomer also. Though that culture of thought does help him.

 

[Captain America]

I returned from Mexico not too long ago and had to go through Customs on my return at O'Hare. I was wearing a "Slammed I am" T-shirt with a big Dr. Seuss character tokin' on a tall bong. Thought for sure I'd get searched. (I wasn't worried about it because I was as clean as a whistle. They walked right past me. No problem. :rofl

But I sure did hate dumping the fat sack I picked up in Mexico in the trash before I departed. Ever seen a grown man cry?

 

[Gill]

LOL. Why don't you educate yourself and realize the US isn't just 25 years old. I said US Domestic terrorism, IRA doesn't come close. Yes, muslim terrorism is the big threat--and many threads have talked about the why and resolve of that. That still doesn't erase US white christians killing, maiming, destroying property of other US citizens in amount$ or total loss of life vs. jihad muslims.

Yep, didn't think you could.

Hint: Ancient history has zero relevance to today's terror threats. I'm really not worried about Catholic inquisitors coming after me or my family.

 

[MSgt]

What McVieigh really believed on this issue was hard to say for anyone;...

Say's who? The Oklahoma bombing was an act of revenge and warning against the government...nothing more. Anything else was secondary. His act was "practical." Now, if he chose to blow up a Wal-Mart out of devine revenge against the government, then we would be talking about an "Apocalyptic" act. Further, if masses of Christians cheered him on as preachers preached on his good deeds for "God," then we would be talking about a failing society.

....and to believe that every Muslim terrorist just does it in the name of Allah would be a misnomer also. Though that culture of thought does help him.

And why would you believe this? This certainly isn't what I typed. Many Muslim terrorists only use "God" to wage death and destruction for revenge. Osama Bin Ladden is such a Muslim. When men seek to use their religions and adhere to the most violent passages written, they always create splinter religions (read about John Brown, Phillip II, Thomas Muntzer, etc.) However, it is the uneducated, futureless, and impoverished underneath him that find comfort in seeking favor and salvation by seeking blood offerings for his "god."

This is "apocalyptic." Their visions are not worldy. They can make all the worldy demands they want, but they are not interested in a compromise and they are not interested in peace unless it is their peace. If they were interested in anything worldy, they would not make such rediculous demands that neither America nor Israel could ever meet.

 

[aquapub]

Given the huge scope this leads us. The police would have a huge amount of potential to arrest people who are no threat. Not to mention the fact this law could easyly be exploited to limit free speach.

Britain already has laws against racial hate speech. Why is it that limiting free speech is only ok unless it's liberal free speech?

It is simply ridiculous for Britain to sit there while Muslim fanatics encourage, enable, and create terrorists with virulent hate speech right there in London. Western culture was partially founded on the right to dissent from the government, yes, but the right to practice blatant sedition and openly recruit people to mass murder British civilians?

That's just ludicrous.

 

[Red_Dave]

Britain already has laws against racial hate speech. Why is it that limiting free speech is only ok unless it's liberal free speech?

It is simply ridiculous for Britain to sit there while Muslim fanatics encourage, enable, and create terrorists with virulent hate speech right there in London. Western culture was partially founded on the right to dissent from the government, yes, but the right to practice blatant sedition and openly recruit people to mass murder British civilians?

That's just ludicrous.

Who says im in favor of the law against racial hate speach? Although it does give me great pleasure to see the likes of the BNP threatend with jail sentences ild be weary of anything that limits free speach no matter what your saying. Although racism is appaling Im not sure the state has a right to determine what you can and cant say as if its some benine parental figure.

That said i could be convinced to support laws against condoneing terroism if they where more specific. I.E laws against condoneing killing inocent people for political reasons are perhaps ok, laws against condoneing illegal actions against governments are not.