Terrorism

I was thinking that after Friday's attacks the markets would fall. But no they have risen. Weird or what.
Who benefits from terrorism ?
1. Security. Policemen and private companies
2. Small arms manufacturers
3. Arms dealers, particularly black market.
4. The media having a new story to report.
5. Drug and people smugglers.
8. Organisations like Al Quaida. ISL, Boko Haram etc.
9. Builders repairing the damage.
10. Insurance companies.
11. Swiss bankers.

Those that suffer
1. People caught up in the violence
2. Property damage.

Might be some time before the wild ones get tired of this phase imho

Would you believe it I forgot The Undertakers. C'est incroyble
 
You've left out key drivers - Oil and Gas industries.

You need to see beyond the tip of your nose! :cheesy:


The only positive I can see is the coming together of old enemies to squish ISL lunacy. Atilla the Hun, Gengis Khan etc. were much of the same and disappeared when they ran out of steam. One day the " good guys " will reach deep into Arabia and pull out those spreading fear and destruction but until then it is going to be mindless massacres I expect.
 
Last edited:
Terrorism is a barbaric and dramatic strategy for any group to adopt, but it all too easily leads us to be looking the wrong way.

Terrorism isn't the most significant and immediate threat to (our) civilisation: it remains - as ever - global war between major powers. (maybe climate change is an equally serious threat but not I think one that could be triggered in the next 40 minutes)

Terrorism on a major scale has so far achieved only either huge retribution on its sponsors - see Libya, Syria, Afghanistan - or polarisation towards the target of the terrorism - see Cuba and Iran. This has led some of those sponsors to become ineffective military powers in their own regions, reducing their capacity for waging aggressive cross-border war, reducing the likelihood of regional military escalation, reducing the likelihood of wider conflict on a potentially global scale. In this regard, US foreign policy has arguably lowered the true risk quotient we all face.

I don't wish to paint terrorism with a complacent and rosey glow, but it can't work.
 
Only way to defeat terrorism is by infiltration.
Why do you think the govt has announced a massive recruitment programme for the intelligence services.
Not rocket science is it !
 
The only positive I can see is the coming together of old enemies to squish ISL lunacy. Atilla the Hun, Gengis Khan etc. were much of the same and disappeared when they ran out of steam. One day the " good guys " will reach deep into Arabia and pull out those spreading fear and destruction but until then it is going to be mindless massacres I expect.

The Romans butchered far more than the Huns or anyone else in their life time for that matter. The Huns only took from the land and people what they needed and only attacked the biggest power that they came across not little villagers. Villagers usually joined their ranks and swelled Atilla's army as they went to take on the real barbaric Romans.

Pretty much everyone despised the Romans for their cruelty. Ceaser's empire was stamping out all other cultures that did not yield to their vision and values (much like ISIL's principals one may add).

Both men above united many factitious tribes and only did to grow an empire much the same as everyone else in their lefe time.

As for barbarian - that was the word labelled to anyone who could not speak the Roman language (Greek and Latin) because they were referred to as babbling or blabbering. In those days that was referred to as speaking in the bar bar language. So for your information - a Barbarian was anyone who could not speak Roman.

So your history is pretty skewed imo. As they say history is written by the victors!


The terrorists are obviously having the desired effect on you as much like the cowboys you are ready to shoot and ask questions later.

I have no idea why if the Russians and Syrians are already fighting ISIL we don't simply help them?

Why send troops in?

How will we manage to bomb the **** out of ISIL any better than the Syrians or Russians?
 
And the Archbishop of Canterbury..........

The archbishop said: "Saturday morning, I was out and as I was walking I was praying and saying: 'God, why - why is this happening? Where are you in all this?' and then engaging and talking to God. Yes, I doubt."

About as much use as a wet sock !
 
I forgot that tourism has suffered plus all the many people that rely on it.
 
And the Archbishop of Canterbury..........

The archbishop said: "Saturday morning, I was out and as I was walking I was praying and saying: 'God, why - why is this happening? Where are you in all this?' and then engaging and talking to God. Yes, I doubt."

About as much use as a wet sock !

I think that God will forgive me for agreeing with you. I think that he is trying to make us believe that he is as big a sinner as us --- just another one of of the boys, in fact.

He was not put on top of the heap to be of the boys, but to be the most devout of us.
 
And the Archbishop of Canterbury..........

The archbishop said: "Saturday morning, I was out and as I was walking I was praying and saying: 'God, why - why is this happening? Where are you in all this?' and then engaging and talking to God. Yes, I doubt."

About as much use as a wet sock !


I saw this story but I'm afraid I just don't take the Archbishop's reported thoughts seriously. I can't believe that a true believer can doubt there is a God simply because some people who may or may not be believers do things which are contrary to the ways of his faith.

So for me he either was never a strong believer (but I discount this) or he is consciously play-acting as if himself a weak or partial believer in order to boost the convictions of others on the edge of the faith and to keep them within the flock. I don't think that kind of deception reflects well on the Archbishop and I would hope he could find ways with more integrity to shore up the beliefs of wavering members of his congregation.
 
How far would the terrorists have got if the US gun lobby had their way over here ? Maybe 20 dead instead of 170+. Should anyone be allowed to carry weapons on the street or just those that have undergone psychological and weapons training i.e. licenced ?

Wasn't it some do-gooding Govt. that disarmed the nation a few years ago. Now only criminals, police and terrorists have guns. The rest of us are gunned down like sheep.
 
Good to see the Chinese are warring too against ISL but only after some of their nationals are murdered.
 
Last edited:
Looks like the laborious business of taking ISL held towns may begin sometime. They are all standing behind anyone who does want to accept casualties. After you buddy.

The US and others could show off their new r/c robots and drones and take no casualties ?
 
Looks like the laborious business of taking ISL held towns may begin sometime. They are all standing behind anyone who does want to accept casualties. After you buddy.

The US and others could show off their new r/c robots and drones and take no casualties ?

And none of those war toys are any use without intelligence....and the only way to make them effective is by infiltrating IS ranks.....turning their own, if need be.
 
And none of those war toys are any use without intelligence....and the only way to make them effective is by infiltrating IS ranks.....turning their own, if need be.

Um after you.
I would suggest the town is given 24 hrs notice after being surrounded to quit the town before the attack starts.
Drones in the sky and mini tanks on the ground moving in.
 
Um after you.
I would suggest the town is given 24 hrs notice after being surrounded to quit the town before the attack starts.
Drones in the sky and mini tanks on the ground moving in.

:LOL: No, not after me at all.
For my part, I pay my taxes just like everyone else and what I want to see is competent government control of the situation, unlike the last disastrous Labour govt's efforts. As for the current Labour outfit....aren't we lucky they are not in power !
 
About the only thing that may be fairly certain is that the politicians will make a complete Horlicks of it as usual. Especially if the Yanks are in charge.

As a first step I would suggest that the Turks give the Kurds their independence. Much better to have a friendly neighbour than a civil war.

Step 2. In Europe train and arm up enough suitable volunteer civilians to carry concealed weapons until the emergency is over.
 
Last edited:
George Osborne's remedy is to cut funding for the already overstretched police in the UK. Which side is he on ?

Cameron wants 4 more Trident submarines. ISL probably hasn't much of a navy to warrant this huge expenditure AND now wants a new brigade of land forces. Clearly crackers. And just where is all that money coming from ? More cuts ?

Corbyn ? Yikes, are we led by the usual donkeys or some new form of lunacy ?

Pandering to Washington as ever ( hi Tony, alright mate ? ) who are bought and paid for by the Israel/Jewish Lobby.
 
Just seen Turkey has downed a Russian jet ! Well that should ratchet up the heat. Will Putin attack Turkey who will call on NATO or what.

Welbey ( the wet sock ) should be making calming noises to world leaders for a peaceful resolution not just admiring the scenery.
 
Just seen Turkey has downed a Russian jet ! Well that should ratchet up the heat. Will Putin attack Turkey who will call on NATO or what.

Welbey ( the wet sock ) should be making calming noises to world leaders for a peaceful resolution not just admiring the scenery.

I haven't read the news but the Turks did warn them some time ago and the Russians said that it would not happen again.

So, Hollande is going to Moscow and, now, this happens! Whose side is anyone on?

All this, is what Isis wants, of course.
 
Top