SubJeff on 1/2/2007 at 11:50
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6318735.stm)
Call me a cynic but I smell BS. The last 2 or 3 terror "plots" that have been "foiled" have all been "alleged", and there has been at least one that was a complete mess-up resulting in an innocent man being shot (he survived).
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5053542.stm)
In fact we are so used to hearing it on the news that it's another meaningless word. Well, almost. What it means to me is that there is no real proof of anything but by running the story and tagging it on the general populace can be manipulated into fearing these "terrorists" without any possible backlash. "Oh, was there no plot? Oh, ok - we
did only say alleged so we didn't lie."
Whatever.
Scots Taffer on 1/2/2007 at 11:53
BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation? Get over it, more like Big Brother Cooperation.
Kolya on 1/2/2007 at 12:02
What's your point?
Do you expect the police to catch convicted terrorists only? It's "alleged" in the news as long as they haven't been.
Vivian on 1/2/2007 at 12:49
Much as I'd like to say 'what a bunch of crap', the Forest Gate screw-up was pretty dismal, especially the way they proceeded to laughably try and pin the guy for kiddy-porn afterwards. There's nothing more sinister than occasional incompetence going on though - what would anyone have to gain by arresting small numbers of muslims? You think they're starting a collection?
Bebop on 1/2/2007 at 14:27
The articles say more about western-eruope's problem with immigration. They are trying to cope with their muslim population that keeps increasing. The problem is that they are using loaded words like: immigration, problem, muslims. The government is already alienating them and they must feel unwanted by the larger community so they cluster together, leading to suspicion from the government, in a never-ending circle of agitation and suspicion, until finally (fed up with being accused of something they aren't) a pair of them plot to blow something up and then the whole community is pegged as "possible terrorists". Refueling the cycle of agitation and suspicion, until it is in fact a problem, but a self-inflicted problem.
SubJeff on 1/2/2007 at 14:48
I think the government benefit from the climate of fear tbh. It makes it easier for them to push through many new laws, is most certainly beneficial for the ID card idea, and is used as justification for the Iraq war. My point with the "alleged" is that these stories are never confirmed. Months later, post-investigation, they remain "alleged". Should that be "we got it wrong"?
Bebop on 1/2/2007 at 15:10
Agreed, the atmosphere of fear (whether or not it's true) is definitely beneficial to the government and their agenda, but I think their agenda is misguided, because they are creating an atmosphere of suspicion/fear and we, as human beings, do not like to live in fear, which is ultimately bad for the government.
Paz on 1/2/2007 at 15:20
Quote:
My point with the "alleged" is that these stories are never confirmed. Months later, post-investigation, they remain "alleged". Should that be "we got it wrong"?
As Morrissey says, these things take time. We're only now seeing a trial for (what seems very much to have been) an actual-terrorist-attempt-that-luckily-failed in July 2005. There was also an actual-terrorist-attempt-that-sadly-succeeded in that month.
I think the events you have in mind took place after these things, so that they remain "alleged" at this stage may not come as too much of a surprise.
It's difficult to avoid the suspicion that our authorities enjoy sustaining a climate of fear for their own irresponsible ends, but it's important to remember that they're not basing this on
complete fabrication. There was a successful terrorist attack. It seems highly likely there was another one shortly afterwards, which failed. Whilst it's helpful to remain sceptical, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that other "alleged" incidents are grounded in reality.
What is frustrating is the failure from all parties to address what may have prompted the events of July 2005. Their responses are purely reactionary, rather than seeking to examine the symptoms.
Until you work out "why will a dude feel so strongly about something that he'll blow himself up, and take others with him?" you're pretty much fucked. In fairness to those in power though, I don't know the answer to that question either - it's incomprehensible to me. Reductionist attempts like "oh I guess he was evil" or "well he HATES FREEDOM" solve nothing. They don't, I suspect, even scratch the surface.
And then there's the biggie: it's utterly impossible to conceive of a world where there is no possibility of terrorism. All the time, you're really only talking about how to minimise it (unless you get into sci-fi territory and societies which are 100% controlled, etc etc - but those are always a far worse prospect than living with a tiny risk of being blown up on your way to work, horrific though that chance is).
SD on 1/2/2007 at 15:45
Quote Posted by Paz
There was a successful terrorist attack. It seems highly likely there was another one shortly afterwards, which failed.
At the end of the day, the guys behind the failed bomb atempt paid the price for trying to blow things up with pancake mix.
Quote:
Until you work out "why will a dude feel so strongly about something that he'll blow himself up, and take others with him?" you're pretty much fucked.
Well, when someone believes he'll get a one-way ticket to paradise to be serviced by 72 virgins, that probably softens the blow of losing your life somewhat.
It'd be unfair of me to place
all the blame at the door of extremist religion though, so let's add ghettoisation, discrimination, foreign policy failure and governmental ignorance to the mix too.
Vivian on 1/2/2007 at 16:28
And beards. Don't forget beards.
