BS: London Buses V Terrorism

Subject: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 04:21 AM

On another thread one contributor was suggesting that the terrorist threat was a good reason for Americans not to visit Europe. Personally I consider this to be scaremongering at it's worst.

I suggested that these things should be put in perspective and put forward the argument that more people are killed or injured by London Buses every year than were killed by the terrorist attacks in Brussels and Paris.

You can see the figure for yourself in the attached report.

London Bus Report

So to my American cousins I hope you will be wary of buses when you visit our cities.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 04:52 AM

Don't know who suggested that Americans should not visit Europe, but the treat of terrorism does not simply involve the tragic loss of life or injury.....The security involved in combatting the threat has a horrendous effect on our economy and way of life and to equate terrorism with public transport accidents is extremely misleading.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 05:07 AM

I am merely pointing out that there are many other factors in our daily life that can lead to fatal consequences. To suggest that tourists should not visit because of a terrorist threat is simply scaremongering.

By demonstrating that that over 300 people per annum are killed or injured by Greater London Transport alone helps to put the threat in perspective.

I am sure if I could obtain the figure for people killed or injured by ALL public transport some people would suggest we should ban buses and trains.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 05:20 AM

Public transport is a necessity. Terrorism is a disease.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 05:29 AM

.......... and your point is?




Actually public transport is not strictly speaking a necessity. As a well known Luddite I'm a little surprised you should suggest it is.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 05:45 AM

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 07:03 AM

When I were a little lad, living in one of the poorest neighbourhoods just outside Manchester, parents thought nothing of letting the kids play out all evening in summer and there were always lots of people about. In Italy, families with all the kids turn out for an evening stroll to a local bar or something like that and the streets are always heaving with people, even at ten or eleven in the evening. They even have a name for it, la passeggiata. The same thing happens in Spain (paseo). Everybody is safe, there's never any trouble and it's all very pleasant. Our towns and streets belong to all of us and we should not let a small minority of screwballs make us afraid to take possession of them. If we give it to that we turn the places we live in into bandit country.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 07:12 AM

"Don't know who suggested that Americans should not visit Europe"

It was The Trump. Reported widely in the UK media, including BBC News.

Pretty funny, coming as it does from a man who embraces gun-culture, and who aspires to the presidency of a country where c. 11,000 of its citizens are shot to death every year by fellow Americans, and where, in 2015, there were at least 265 people shot by children!

Or rather, it would be funny if it wasn't so sick.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 07:46 AM

Sorry, I went to Europe (Ireland, France, Germany) twice last year. I have to save some money before heading back again!

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 07:50 AM

Backwoodsman, The Op was in response to a poster on this forum not Trump.

Cheers

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 08:42 AM

Terrorists hijack London Buses and crash them into prominent city landmarks....

Somehow I can see many practical reasons why this could fail to achieve the intended terror impact.
So not really much to worry about this ever happening...

I can however, imagine well frustrated and impatient terrorists waiting in a bad tempered queue for a bus to turn up...

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 08:48 AM

I would warn our European friends against visiting the U.S. on account of dogs.

In 2015, 26 persons in the U.S. were killed by "Islamic" terrorists, while 30 were killed by dogs.

Be very afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 08:57 AM

It would be the people with all those guns that would bother me most.

Sheesh ..............

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 09:49 AM

Yeah, I have a kid trying to do a year abroad and when he suggested Turkey, I though ooh, safety, and then rethought well, it's not like England or France or Germany (you know, Old Europe) is any safer right now, but they are still safer from gun violence than in the US so fine.

Who gets the "old Europe" reference?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 10:29 AM

I wonder how many people fast food joints have killed.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 10:34 AM

Then there's horses and cows- which together kill about 45 people plus or minus in the U.S. annually.

It just ain't safe out there!!!

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 10:45 AM

Do we have rattlesnakes & scorpions in London...???

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 10:51 AM

"Backwoodsman, The Op was in response to a poster on this forum not Trump."

Raggy, please read the thread - I was responding to Akenaton, 30 Mar 16 - 04:52 AM.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 10:54 AM

And choose carefully where you might want to be an innocent civilian in Vietnam, Kosovo, Lebanon and a good few other places. There are cluster bomblets lurking in the undergrowth everywhere in some locations. Naturally, none of them were left there by "terrorists..."

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 11:09 AM

Terrorism is not a laughing matter, a handful of dedicated terrorists can have enormous effect on a high technology economy.

Look what they have done to the travel industry.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 11:15 AM

Anything & Everything can be a laughing matter...

What about the great british tradition of laughing in the face of adversity & tragedy..

Scoffing at evil..

If you don't laugh, you'll cry ..etc.. ???

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 11:23 AM

one contributor was suggesting that the terrorist threat was a good reason for Americans not to visit Europe.

The OP referred to me, but I did not say it "was a good reason."
The risk to an individual is indeed dwarfed by everyday risks.

I merely pointed out that any country that suffers a terrorist attack also suffers a drop in visitors.
Brits have stopped visiting Tunisia and Egypt following single attacks.

The UK government advised Brits not to visit Belgium for several days last week.
Scaremongering?
UK government and security forces say an attack here is "highly likely."
Scaremongering? No. A rational assessment, but the result is that people will choose to take their families elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 11:27 AM

Backswoodsman, I think you and I have got crossed wires somewhere.

When Ake suggested he didn't know who had suggested Americans should not visit Europe perhaps he was trying to deflect criticism away from the mudcat poster who did suggest such a thing.

I'm not sure how Trump came into the discussion. I think I'm confused AND I've not been drinking .............. yet.

You will note I have not mentioned that mudcat poster as I'm on my best behaviour!

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 11:34 AM

That's what I'm trying to indicate Keith. It is NOT rational.

You could be run over by a little old lady on a mobility scooter and killed, you could trip over the cat and kill yourself but the chances are minimal, as are the chances of being caught up in a terrorist attack.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 11:42 AM

It is the effects of their actions on the economy and society that motivates these people, not the actual numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 11:42 AM

Keith, I deliberately didn't mention any name, you know no names no pack drill and all, that so why do you want to make it known to all and sundry. Why does it have to be personal with you at every opportunity.

Sheeesh !!

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 11:43 AM

Look what they [terrorists]have done to the travel industry.

And then there's bees, wasps and hornets which kill 58-60 people annually in the U.S.

STAY AWAY!!!

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 11:44 AM

Greg, how many people are killed by buses :-)

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 11:45 AM

That's what I'm trying to indicate Keith. It is NOT rational.

We are agreed that it is irrational to avoid Europe, but people's assessment of risk is irrational.

People told that a terror attack in a country is highly likely, or imminent, will take the kids somewhere else, Trump or no Trump.
He is just saying what people are already thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 11:58 AM

Earthquakes, floods, twisters, deserts, frozen mountain ranges, swamps, deadly fauna..

.. they certainly can't be accused of not earning their salaries in the USA tourist board...

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: keberoxu
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 12:29 PM

Where oh where are Flanders and Swann when you need them!

Earth has not anything to show more fair
Any more fares Any more fares Any more fares?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 12:58 PM

Raggy, I'm not interested in fights with Ake, Keith, Steve, you or anyone else. I simply stated, in response to Ake's question about who suggested that Americans should not visit Europe, that the Trump has, in very recent days, advised Americans not to travel to Europe because it's 'unsafe', and I pointed out how obtuse it was, coming from a gun-culture supporter who is running for the presidency of a country with a hugely disproportionately high rate of gun-deaths.

That's all, nothing more, nothing less.

My wires are perfectly uncrossed. Hope you get yours sorted soon! 👍 😄

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 01:15 PM

"Not interested in fights", eh? Put up yer dukes, pal! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 02:10 PM

Backwoodsman, Trump was never part of this discussion. I don;t know why he was brought into the discussion. My initial observation was that someone one THIS forum had propounded a theory that I considered erroneous.

Simple as that. Why other people have choosen to include a third party is beyond me.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 02:27 PM

Greg, how many people are killed by buses :-)

Hell, Rag, more Americans were shot and killed by toddlers in 2015 than were killed by Islamic terrorists.

Don't even get me started on the busses! ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 02:37 PM

Bare statistics prove little or nothing.

According to the department for transport 15% of all fatalities in road accidents involved at least one driver who was over the drink drive limit.

It doesn't mean that if there was one drunk driver & one sober driver that it was automatically the drunk driver that was at fault, but that would be the usual assumption.

Even if accidents involving one drunk & one sober driver are all caused by the drunk driver, it still means that 85% of fatalities are caused by sober drivers!

"Oh, and it makes me wonder . . ."

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 05:20 PM

Raggy, I have no idea why you're attacking me for simply providing what I consider a reasonable answer to a question someone else asked. You have no authority on this forum to make rules about what can or cannot be posted.

Now knock it off.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 09:02 PM

Rag,
My initial observation was that someone one THIS forum had propounded a theory that I considered erroneous.

Your initial observation was wrong.
No-one on this forum had proposed a theory "that the terrorist threat was a good reason for Americans not to visit Europe."

Least of all me.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 10:07 PM

I visited my sister in Egypt in May 2012, just before Mohamed Morsi was elected President after over a year of unrest following the January 25 Revolution of 2011. My brother-in-law had a Fulbright fellowship to teach at the University of Alexandria for a year, and I visited at the end of their year there.

It was a very good time to visit Egypt. There were no crowds anywhere, and prices were cheap. There were a few people killed during a disturbance in Cairo while we were there, but we saw no sign of it.

I had lived in Berlin in 1972-73, during the days of the Baader-Meinhof Group, so maybe I don't notice terrorism as much as some people do. We'd get bombed and then have a couple of weeks of heightened security, and then all was forgotten until the next bombing.

But for the most part, life goes on. Most of the time, terrorism has very little effect compared to normal crime. Statistics say American travelers are far safer in most places during this age of terrorism, than they are in their own neighborhoods in heavily-armed America.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 03:48 AM

As I stated earlier Keith this thread is not about you or your incessant need to be the centre of attention. I am not going to be drawn into a public discussion with you.

I will repeat my OP.

On another thread one contributor was suggesting that the terrorist threat was a good reason for Americans not to visit Europe. Personally I consider this to be scaremongering at it's worst.

I suggested that these things should be put in perspective and put forward the argument that more people are killed or injured by London Buses every year than were killed by the terrorist attacks in Brussels and Paris.

You can see the figure for yourself in the attached report.

London Bus Report

So to my American cousins I hope you will be wary of buses when you visit our cities.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:56 AM

On another thread one contributor was suggesting that the terrorist threat was a good reason for Americans not to visit Europe.

No they did not.
That is a fact.
Nothing personal about it.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 06:13 AM

Go away you silly man. This is not about YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:48 AM

It was MY post you referred to in the OP.
It stood alone. Everyone else ridiculed the notion.
You and others responded to it, and the OP was responding to it again albeit dishonestly.

Nothing personal at all.
You put your views and I put mine.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:52 AM

I didn't make it personal Professor, I said a mudcat contributor.

You, once again, are determined to be the centre of attention. Me, Me, Me all the time like a bloody record that' stuck Me, Me, Me.

Frankly I don't give a flying **** what you want.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:58 AM

I was that contributor, and everyone on that thread knew it.
Naming me would not have made it more or less personal.

Had you not lied about what I said, I would not have had to repeat myself here at all!

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 08:06 AM

Me, me ,me I want people to notice me, me, me. Yes that's right poor little me, me me.

Give it rest professor, it's extremely boring.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 08:11 AM

Right, back to the thread.

Ladders are dangerous.

In 2009 47 people died from falling off ladders and another 351 died from falls off steps or stairs.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 08:18 AM

Yes, but were they MUSLIM ladders and/or did Muslims push them off the steps?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 08:29 AM

What if a terrorist placed a banana skin on a roller skate at the top of a flight of stairs greased with vaseline and turned the lights off....???

They are tricky bastards those terrorists....

I'm definitely not going to any cities with flights of stairs,
and I advise you all to be as equally cautious..... 😱

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jack Campin
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 09:15 AM

A lot of American visitors find the idea of public transport alien and terrifying. In a place like London, where it's the normal way to get around, they think that if they use the Tube they're going to be killed and spit-roasted in the platform by gangs of homeless people. So telling them that public transport is more of a hazard than Muslim terrorists may not communicate the intended message.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 09:32 AM

Don't spoil the fun Jack.
The point is, that the whole developed world is mobilising against "terrorism", not "buses"......now why do you think that strange state of affairs has been arrived at?

Could it be that "terrorism" has it in its power to bring huge highly developed societies to their knees? When that happens who get hurt first and worst......the poor people who don't have anything to do with foreign wars or exploitation.....terrorism is classless and it's coming to a street near you very soon

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 09:53 AM

Could it be that "terrorism" has it in its power to bring huge highly developed societies to their knees?

No. If it had, it would have happened.

Oh, sorry. Should have realised it is "terrorism" and not ordinary terrorism. Must be something I missed...

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 10:09 AM

In my world Dave there are many different types of "terrorism", economic sanctions can be viewed as such....and they always hurt the poorest.
"terrorism" used to be practiced HERE, in a discussion forum, to hinder free speech and victimise individuals who did not conform to the will of the bullies.
The "terrorism" under discussion now is Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombing and its effect on our society.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 11:11 AM

.now why do you think that strange state of affairs has been arrived at?

Because a large segment of the population both here [U.S.] and abroad are idiots easily manipulated by scaremongers and demagogues, perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 11:36 AM

No, I don't think that's right Greg, our rulers don't give a stuff about what the population think except at election time.

They are worried that the whole financial house of cards collapses due to the actions of these people.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 12:00 PM

No need for "scaremongers and demagogues!"
People are notoriously bad at putting risks into perspective.
They will stay away from any country that has suffered a terror attack, or whose security forces warn an attack is "highly likely" (UK), or "imminent" (Belgium and France."

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 12:11 PM

In my world Dave there are many different types of "terrorism"

There is no arguing with that. As I have quoted before in similar situations...

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all."

― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 02:20 PM

...don't give a stuff about what the population think except at election time.

Well, as I've said before, Pharoah, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

HINT: in the U.S. at least, it IS election time.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 04:29 PM

Jack Campin says: A lot of American visitors find the idea of public transport alien and terrifying.

Well, I admit that I find the idea of driving in Europe to be terrifying. When I lived in Berlin in 1972-73, I went for two years without driving. I made up my mind that I would never drive in Europe. When I moved back to the U.S. and had to start driving again, THAT was terrifying. But half a year later I had to drive on the job in Los Angeles, and I learned to handle anything.

I still love taking public transportation in Europe. The only hassle is that sometimes I don't know what to do with my suitcase. I found myself walking around London one day at hours when Chateau Micca was not yet open, wheeling a suitcase behind me. There were no wheeled suitcases in the 1970s and my ex-wife liked to travel heavy and use me as a pack horse, so it was a real hassle back then.

I also had problems at 6 am in Warsaw one morning, when I couldn't figure out how to buy a streetcar ticket (they were at the shops that sell cigarettes).

Reasonable public transportation is finally becoming a reality in the U.S., although there are some places where buses run only once an hour and it can take half a day to get somewhere if you have to transfer.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 04:32 PM

The so called "War on Terror" has been going on for years Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 04:36 PM

Yup. George W. Bush started his War on Terror by attacking Iraq. I'm still trying to figure out why attacking Iraq was a good thing to do. I suspect it is what has led to an endless and worldwide conflict with Islam that should have been avoided at all costs.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 04:43 PM

Aye you're dead right Joe and the attack on Libya made things even worse.
We are now up shit creek. Good job Putin had the balls to stop ISIS by assisting the Syrian government. If they had not done so Syria would be in the same state as Libya right now.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:12 PM

Never thought I#'d see economic sanctions described as "terrorism" - much better to have allowed Apartheid to run its course and have another few more Sowetos and Sharpvilles rather than upset the economy of he regime eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:25 PM

Well, even economic sanctions must be used wisely. I'm not so sure U.S. sanctions against Cuba were a good thing.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 06:41 PM

Gee, Amenhotep, I thought the Libya exercise was a NATO operation, and now I find - thanks to you - that it was concieved and executed entirely by Hillary Clinton alone.

Who Knew?

Putin had the balls to stop ISIS by assisting the Syrian government\

Yup - propping up another dictatorship. Some folks never learn. "Stopping ISIS"? what parallel delusional universe do you exist in, Pharoah? .

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:48 PM

Greg, it appears that you are the first one to mention Hillary Clinton in this thread. I tend to oppose all military actions, and then grudgingly accept a few of them after the fact as possibly being necessary. I just don't know about Libya, but it did seem like a good idea at the time. Same with the killing of Osama bin Laden, but I have some doubts...

I think it would be more civil and peaceable if you were to refer to akenaton by his chosen user name.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 03:46 AM

ISIS is being pushed back at last in this universe Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:11 AM

I don't think Greg is really the big bad wolf that he pretends to be Joe, I don't mind that sort of "name calling" and I'm sure I would like him in real life. He's not twisted and you get what you see

and he sometimes makes me think twice.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:14 AM

I'd recommend packing in your job if you're still working. Nearly 150 people died last year in work related accidents.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:24 AM

"I'm not so sure U.S. sanctions against Cuba were a good thing."
Of course they weren't - they were being used to further the interests of the US
Economic sanctions, when used to oppose oppressive states such as South Africa or Israel , may hurt the poorest in the short term, but they can force despots o re-think their despotism (out of economic grounds, if nothing else) and in the long term, it is the poorest who benefit - they are a rational alternative to violence and to doing nothing.
The Western alternative is to sell arms to despotic regimes to keep these States in 'a safe pair of hands'.
Those who oppose economic sanctions are invariably in favour of keeping things as they are - they seldom, if ever, come up with an alternative of their own, as here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:49 AM

Regardless of whether or not they are effective against what WE consider oppressive regimes(Cuba)....economic sanctions are still "terrorism"....their function is to deprive the very poorest of the necessities of life, so encouraging revolt against the proscribed regime.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 06:37 AM

terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
noun
noun: terrorism

    the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

No idea what "terrorism" may be but if we are all allowed to make words mean different things then I should comment that some people on here are talking complete "bollocks"

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 07:55 AM

"economic sanctions are still "terrorism"."
By what definition?
Is taking industrial action terrorism?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 09:58 AM

Jim, who is talking about "industrial action"?

Dave, the clue is in the word "intimidation" :0)

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 10:20 AM

So, a manager intimidation his employees is a terrorist?

We will never sing off the same hymn sheet until we use a common language, ake. Sanctions are not terrorism. Chinese burns are not terrorism. Lifting your kilt and showing your arse is not terrorism. Terrorism is already a well defined term. Why on earth apply it to things that are already well defined elsewhere?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 10:33 AM

"Jim, who is talking about "industrial action"?"
You are describing economic sanctions as terrorism on a thread that is about terrorists blowing up bus passengers - I find that appalling
I asked you if you thought industrial action was terrorism.
Basically, economic actions are the equivalent to industrial sanctions writ large - applying economic pressure to oppressive states rather than employers.
I asked for yur definition of terrorism - and answer, came there none.
I have pointed out that those who oppose economic sanctions are invariable those who are happy that things stay the same - response, came tere none.
I also pointed out that these people never come up with an alternative of their own - your silence on the matter confirms that.
I ask again, what is your definition of terrorism that includes economic sanctions.
It's nice to know that the you believe U.N., Oxfam, Amnesty International, human Rights Watch, the Anti Apartheid movement.... and numerous other international bodies are all terrorist organisations - all have called for economic sanctions to be taken against human rights abusers at one time or another.
I really can't believe that anybody would compare a nutter with a suicide bomb to somebody fighting to end Apartheid.
Jeremy Corbyn has just called for economic sanctions against banks and countries funding Isis - is he a terroris
Obama callled for economic sanctions against Russia and Cameron backed him - supporters of terrorism, no doubt?
Economic sanctions are workable alternative alternative to violence - they can in no way be described as terrorism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 10:35 AM

I think a change of medication may be in order ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 10:40 AM

My mum who is a month older than ___ has been put on a 12 month trial of Donepezil tablets.
Depending on the type of onset dementia diagnosed, they can in some cases positively slow down the symptoms & decline...

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 10:48 AM

" they(economic sanctions) can in no way be described as terrorism.

Yes they can, I have just done so. They are a means of intimidation which always hurt the poorest sections of the targeted society, with the intention of causing unrest and violent overthrow of the targeted regime.

I thought a socialist might understand the machinations of capitalist governments......are you really in favour of hurting and starving people "for their own good"?

Now where have I heard that idea expounded before?   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 10:54 AM

What I was trying to indicate with this topic was that terrorism should not be a reason not to travel to another country.

There are many others every day activities that could end up with our being killed. We accept these as everyday activities and get on with the rest of our lives.

We do not worry about them constantly even though the figures would suggest they are more deadly than terrorism.

We need to put the terrorist threat, although real, into perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 10:56 AM

BTW....Economic Sanctions can only be applied by governments.

Pressure groups can and do mouth whatever nonsense they think will gain them further publicity and money.

"Obama callled for economic sanctions against Russia and Cameron backed him - supporters of terrorism, no doubt?"

:0) For f's sake Cameron and the US have been supporting terrorism in Libya and Syria for years!!

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 11:03 AM

Raggytash, put the terrorist threat into perspective and it will frighten the shit out of you. Think "dirty bombs"?..."Something in the water"? "Computer warfare"? "Biological warfare"?......each requiring only a tiny handful of dedicated people to send society into meltdown......and not an AK47 in sight!

You do talk such nonsense at times, do you really think that these tactics will not be attempted at some point?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 11:06 AM

Raggytash, put the terrorist threat into perspective and it will frighten the shit out of you. Think "dirty bombs"?..."Something in the water"? "Computer warfare"? "Biological warfare"?......each requiring only a tiny handful of dedicated people to send society into meltdown......and not an AK47 in sight!

You do talk such nonsense at times, do you really think that these tactics will not be attempted at some point?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 11:10 AM

"Yes they can, I have just done so."
Then you eed to justify that scurrilous statement
"They are a means of intimidation which always hurt the poorest sections of the targeted society"
"They are a means of intimidation which always hurt the poorest sections of the targeted society"
The populations of those countries targeted - such as South Africa, are already being hurt - sanctions are a way of putting pressure on states to end that hurt - what alternatives do you propose?
Sanctions played a major part in bringing the Apartheid regime in South Africa down
Had sanctions been applied to the Assad regime, as suggested by fleeing former government members, Assad may have been stopped and Isis would have had no breeding ground to build on.
My point again - are U.N., Oxfam, Amnesty International, human Rights Watch, the Anti Apartheid movement, Obama, Cameron and Corbyn supporters of terrorism - a simple yes or no will do?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:19 PM

In case he does decide to venture back to respond to the questions:
"BTW....Economic Sanctions can only be applied by governments."
Not true - the boycott on buying South African ran for years in Britain.
The strike of the Dunne's employees when the management refused to stop stocking South African goods is legendary - there's a statue to them on the Mayo pass from Linane to Louisbourg, in Mayo (hope to visit it next week, weather permitting).   
he same with boycotting holidays in Fascist Spain, Turkey, and Greece after the coup.
Students have begun boycotting Israeli lecturers
Any decent family, organisation or individual can support a boycott - not as effective as government boycotts, but at least you have some sort of voice.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Thompson
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 03:19 PM

You only have to look at the origin of the term 'boycott' to see that it's a fair and equitable non-violent weapon.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 03:41 PM

Akehaton, I do realise what it is you are trying to say, but fretting about it day and night ain't going to change it one iota.

I'm sure if I decided to be a homicidal maniac I could probably manage to bop off dozens of people before the local armed police could get anywhere near me.

It isn't going to happen. I'm not a homicidal maniac (I think) but you or Fred next door nor the state could do sweet FA about it.

I am not saying as a state we should not make strenuous efforts to ensure it doesn't happen but they is absolutely no point in causing daily panic in the population at large.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 02:10 AM

Further on boycott - there's a difference between boycott, where people voluntarily agree not to buy from or deal with a person or group, and 'sanctions', where governments agree to close off trade to a country.

The main difference is that the 'sanctions' often deprive ordinary people of jobs and food, while making no difference to the sale of arms to the disapproved-of country.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 03:30 AM

President Obama yesterday,

Obama said no group had succeeded in obtaining (nuke) bomb materials but that al Qaeda had long sought them, and he cited actions by Islamic State militants behind recent attacks in Paris and Brussels that raised similar concerns.

"There is no doubt that if these madmen ever got their hands on a nuclear bomb or nuclear material, they would certainly use it to kill as many innocent people as possible," he said. "It would change our world."

Obama hosted more than 50 world leaders for his fourth and final summit focused on efforts to lock down atomic materials to guard against nuclear terrorism, which he called "one of the greatest threats to global security" in the 21st century.
(Reuters)

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 03:56 AM

PANIC !! PANIC !!! EVERYONE !!!

YOU NEED TO GO AND DIG A FALL-OUT SHELTER IN YOUR GARDEN NOW !!!

DO IT NOW !!!!

OH WEEPY WAILY !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 04:03 AM

"There is no doubt that if these madmen ever got their hands on a nuclear bomb or nuclear material, they would certainly use it to kill as many innocent people as possible," he said. "It would change our world."

Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

Just saying...

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 05:13 AM

"Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Just saying..."
Alamogordo, Bikini - Just singing
Not a lot of people remember that!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 07:29 AM

I think obtaining and delivering a nuclear weapon would be beyond most terrorist organisations.....and why would they want to, when economic terrorism is so easy.
Personally I think the next move will be Smallpox or similar infection delivered by two or three travelling terrorists.
Subways, airports, cruise ships, office buildings.

It is so simple, cant understand why these madmen haven't tried already.   As I have said, terrorism is not a laughing matter, or a matter to be treated lightly.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 07:42 AM

Quite agree Akenaton, but by the same token some contributors are to my mind are panicking about some thing we, the public, have little control over and making a mountain out of a molehill.

I could suggest that where a terrorist group resort to using chemical weapons the repercussions would be massive and perhaps they are well aware of this.

Just a thought.

(how did I manage to post as a guest?)

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 07:46 AM

"As I have said, terrorism is not a laughing matter, or a matter to be treated lightly."
Nor is it a subject to be distorted by labeling everything that doesn't fit your own particular outlook in life "terrorist" (such as human rights groups and international peace organisations).
That's just doing the terrorist job for them by drawing the attention away from actual terrorism.
Some terrorist states and those who have track records of abusing human rights already have nuclear weapons - one actually tried to encourage Apartheid South Africa, a fact that should be borne in min in the squabble about who should and should not have them.
Where oh where is C.N.D. when you need it most (or is that another terrorist organisation)?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 12:27 PM

No contributor has said anything that could be construed as panic or irrational fear.

I quoted Obama because he is not known as a scaremonger on these matters, and is at least as well informed as any of us here.

Looking at the coverage given to that meeting of world leadrs, only here on Mudcat have I seen it rubbished and dismissed.
Perhaps we are erring towards complacency?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 12:36 PM

Once again it's ME, ME, ME !!!

Again professor I mentioned a contributor, no names, no pack drill.

Once again you have to try and gain attention by saying THAT WAS ME, poor old little ME. I crave attention he must be talking about ME.

Grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 12:37 PM

ok..if we are diddling about with definitions....

I can now confidently claim that my irritable bowels are 'terrorists'...

They commit arbitrary surprise attacks and atrocities which leave me housebound,
fearful of venturing out on public transport or venturing into public places... 😬

Even if the last act of terrorism was months ago, the fear still persists and affects moral and behaviour...

How do I even know UK security intelligence agencies are not already aware of this too close to home threat
and keeping watch through covert surveillance...????

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 12:40 PM

Oh yes, I can understand that ............ I've had colitis several times.

Not good, not good at all .............

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 01:44 PM

"No contributor has said anything that could be construed as panic or irrational fear."
Ake said we're totally surrounded by terrorist; even ones who don't plant bombs who (we thought) were fighting to make the world a better place.
Sounds like panic-mongering to me (unless, of course, he is right).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 04:07 PM

Sensible people, who I believe are in the majority in the UK, understand that any threat there may be from would-be terrorists is comparatively remote (that's 'remote' as in "You're more likely to be hit by a vehicle when you're crossing a city street than you are to be involved in a terrorist attack"), but they understand, too, that they need to be aware of, and alert to, that threat in exactly the same way as they need to be aware of, and alert to, the danger of being run over when crossing the road.

Being aware of, and alert to, a danger is not the same thing as shitting bricks with fear of that danger. Normal people understand the difference, and simply go about their lives - albeit with an enhanced awareness and alertness - despite the fact that the gutter-press, e.g. The Sun and The Daily Mail, constantly squeal about 'imminent terrorist attacks' and fascist, racist politicians like The Trump tell their public that certain countries are 'not safe' to travel to.

My wife travels frequently within Europe for work...her itinerary hasn't changed one jot in the aftermath of the Brussels attacks. She tells me she will, as always, be observant and careful, but she will not be deterred from travelling. Business as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 04:54 PM

Jim, I have never said that "we are surrounded by terrorists".

In fact, I said that the crux of the problem is, that horrible consequences can result from the actions of a mere handful of determined terrorists who's lives mean nothing to them.
That is what we are facing, the average person travelling round is in very little immediate danger of being killed, but our society is in real and immediate danger.

If that happens the consequences should be apparent even to you.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 04:59 PM

Our society is in real and imminent danger of all sorts of things. Learn to live with the things things you cannot do anything about and do something about the things you can. In the meantime stirring shit.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 04:59 PM

...does nothing to help anyone!

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 05:03 PM

There is much we can do to improve security.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 05:11 PM

Well, do it then and stop whinging. Seemples

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 05:22 PM

Ahhhhh. By doing things to improve security does that mean stopping immigration by any chance. Sorry, just got it. Should have realised...

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 04:00 AM

"Jim, I have never said that "we are surrounded by terrorists"."
You have described the Anti Apartheid regime and everbody who has ever supported economic sanctions as supporters of terrorist - I have known a hell of a lot of supporters of terrorism in my time.
If you were a member of the C.P. for as long as you say you were, (which I find extremely hard to believe, you must have been surrounded by them at every meeting you attended - it was official policy for years.
You really need to think before you post Ake; to describe such activities as "terrorist" is not only stupid, it's highly irresponsible in the present circumstances.
AS for your contempt for human rights groups. and people's rights in general - beyond belief!
I really don't think any sentient or thinking person can believe such nonsense - not even you.
Your behaviour sometimes reminds me of that of an attention-seeking child running around shouting "willie" and "poo" to shock the adults.
If you do believe such things, you need to justify your statements.
"Terrorist!!!" - you have to be joking - and a very poor taste in humour at a time when people are being slaughtered by real terrorism.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 04:07 AM

It is true that the risk to any individual is insignificant, but who is supposed to be telling us otherwise as you all claim?

BWM,
The Sun and The Daily Mail, constantly squeal about 'imminent terrorist attacks' and fascist,

I think that they just quote government and security services. That is the status in Socialist France and Belgium, and both have the army on the streets because of it.
UK status is "attack highly likely" and large increases in armed police are being rushed through. Of course that is reported, and by all the media not just the populist press.

People do avoid countries that suffer attacks without needing Trump's advice. He just voices their existing irrational fear.

Immigration Dave? Our (UK)terrorists have all been home grown.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 04:21 AM

Jim, you are attempting to equate "industrial action" with economic sanctions against another country.
Industrial action, or withdrawal of labour, mainly involves hardship to those who instigate such action, not people who are not involved in the dispute.
Economic sanctions are a weapon of terror which act against a broad swathe of mainly poor people who often have no interest in the dispute or any voice in government.

In most cases people should be allowed to determine their own form of government, and that usually involves decades of political evolution.

I repeat, who are we to determine what is "good" for other cultures and that they must suffer to obtain our version of how they should live.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 04:29 AM

Most of our interventions economic and military, have been disastrous, even the African Continent does not seem to be the "shining democratic jewel" that we supposed. Were we too hasty in abandoning people and resources for whom we had no further need, or was it all done through kind-heartedness?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 04:50 AM

"Jim, you are attempting to equate "industrial action" with economic sanctions against another country."
So what - Economic sanctions and other methods of political pressure are the only peaceful alternatives to sending in troops to stop despotism.
If Britain had used either against Assad at the time when his snipers were slaughtering the people of Homs, Isis would have never got a toe-hold in Syria.
The fact that our country is tied into these despots, politically and economically through trade, mainly oil and arms, has started a conflagration in the Middle East which has spilled over into the rest of the world.
I said earlier that people putting forward arguments like yours never come up with a solution of their own - and haven't you just proved me right.
Your argument, that we should wash our hands of the whole thing and let them get on with it is immoral, inhuman and it is self-defeating.
We need to take responsibility for the harm we have helped cause by concentrating on what it is all about - human rights and the desire of ordinary people to better their lot.
That doesn''t mean driving way refugees, or continuing sell arms to the monsters, or even just fighting terrorism on the home front.
It's always been a matter of winning the hearts and minds of the ordinary citizens of these countries - not sucking up to their oppressors because it suits our own well-being to do so.
Your contempt for human rights and those who would seek to win them has become legendary.
Far from offering a solution, your arguments are the problem.
Just as a basic poin - how would you feel if Britain had turned away the Jews in the thirties and forties because "there was no room" - would thaaa have made you happy?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 05:51 AM

Sorry Jim, you are just not making sense your ideology is "king"; you are simply trying to make everything "fit in"......mostly it doesn't.

If Economic sanctions are not a weapon, why are they always directed towards any society which dares to bring in socialist economics?
Cuba, Venezuela, etc etc.   They are used to starve and terrorise the population......or is fear of poverty and starvation not REAL terror in your little black book?

Your concentration on personal rights betrays a lack of political understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 06:19 AM

"why are they always directed towards any society which dares to bring in socialist economics?"
They aren't "always", though they often are.
And they can be used to terrorise and exploit.
Beside the point - you have written them off as "terrorist" because it i the poor that suffer - the old Tory argument.
I am talking about them being used to bring down despots - against regimes like those in South Africa, Syria, Israel.... - "terrorism by your blanket definition - economic boycott as a principle, not as an instrument of oppression.
By describing it as "terrorism" you hasvr made it a no-go area.
I have never used the term "personal rights" - they are an ideal anyway
In the meantime, as ordinary, powerless citizens, they are all we have to protect us from big business and corrupt and incompetent politicians - do away with tham and we have nothing (except a classic fascist state).
You refuse to specify which rights should go - our rights to organise as workers has all but gone - would you say that is a right worth fighting for?
How about free medical care - you seem to think we have abused and misused that - should that one to go?
How abut security of tenure - worth fighting for?
Security in employment - the right to work and to be given reasonable notice and compensation - yes or no?
You've made your opposition to medical privacy quite clear - not worth the paper it's written on
How about te sus laws - shold they o or should the police have the right to stop and search us when they feel like it.
Exactly what rights are we entitled to in your book - any?
And one more time - would you be happy in Britain would have turned away fleeing Jews because "there was no room" - exactly how far does your "charity begins at home go?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 06:21 AM

"BWM,
The Sun and The Daily Mail, constantly squeal about 'imminent terrorist attacks' and fascist,

I think that they just quote government and security services. That is the status in Socialist France and Belgium, and both have the army on the streets because of it.
UK status is "attack highly likely" and large increases in armed police are being rushed through."

And their policy of demonisation of Muslims and refugees is, of course, a deliberate ploy in their role as mouthpieces for the Conservative propaganda machine. The hyping-up of 'terrorist threats' is all part of the methodology of taking people's eyes off the all-to-real threats and problems resulting from their disastrous policies that actually do affect most of us every day of the year.

Only the feeble-minded could fail to see that.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 07:34 AM

Only the feeble-minded could fail to see that.

I fail to see any authority or knowledgeable commentator who agrees with you.
Senior Labour folk?
Can you identify any?
One?

Is Obama a " mouthpieces for the Conservative propaganda machine?"
Really?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 07:49 AM

Backswoodsman, did you have any particular feeble minded people in mind. If you're stuck I can probably help out.

Cheers

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 08:20 AM

Obama is a conservative, as are many "senior labour folk"
Their conservationism may come with a hint of liberalism and humanity, but none of them wish to change the status-quo and all are politicians who wish to remain in power and are willing to use any means to do so.
One of the great ploys to stay in power has always been the race-card and none are adverse to use 'the threat to our way of life and our safety" to do so, so quoting them as examples of how things really are is nonsense - they go with the flow.
The greatest threat to our safety is alienating British Muslims by making them 'the enemy within' and bringing their communities on board in the fight against terrorism is one way of defeating it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 08:53 AM


One of the great ploys to stay in power has always been the race-card

Really?
And Obama?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 08:57 AM

Rag,
did you have any particular feeble minded people in mind. If you're stuck I can probably help out.

Good luck with that.
Will you name them this time and produce an actual, honest and genuine quote?

That would be a novelty Rag!

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 09:08 AM

I think most people who study the subject are agreed that Islamic Fundamentalism allied to "liberalism" is the biggest threat to our society.
These people will not be converted into democrats by listening to the personal rights hogswash expounded by insincere politicians like those who inhabit the parliamentary rump of the Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 09:19 AM

President Putin has lately demonstrated how the problem MUST be dealt with. He has been successful in bolstering the Syrian Army against the terrorists....."good" ones and bad ones.

"Liberal" interventions in similar circumstances have failed miserably and dangerously (Iraq, Libya, and if it had been possible Syria).....If the recognised government of Libya had been supported against the terrorists, the situation in the Middle East and North Africa would now look completely different.
I am amazed that you STILL think support for "the Rebels" and the removal of Assad would have provided a different outcome than what was to befall the people of Libya......incredible!

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 09:21 AM

I think you will find my post was addressed to Backwoodsman, professor.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 09:33 AM

"I think most people who study the subject are agreed that Islamic Fundamentalism allied to "liberalism" is the biggest threat to our society."
On what grounds are they "agreed" - do you have any evidence for yet another solo flight?
Your hatred of liberalism is pretty well equal to that of peoples' rights, on which you remain remarkably coy in disclosing which of these we would lose if ever you became supreme leader.
The biggest threat to our society is corporate greed and political compliance, which allows despots and human rights abusers to thrive and prosper from their despotism.
"Really?"
Yes really.
"And Obama?"
Obama, who seems to be a half-decent human being, it totally neutralised by the system he defends and believes in- it's why Americans still go around shooting other at will because of their 'wild-west-frontier gun laws.
The election of a black man into The White House should have made a difference, yet things remain the same for the poor blacks in
America and situation of the poor whites continues to deteriorate.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 09:52 AM

"Your hatred of liberalism is pretty well equal to that of peoples' rights"
I don't "hate" them, I just think they are an incredibly stupid way of confronting an evil the likes of which has not been seen in my lifetime.
Should we has confronted The German Third Reich with teams of social workers and behavioural psychologists?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 10:02 AM

Who exactly, apart from yourself thinks that liberalism is in any way "the biggest threat to our society?"
You keep making these statements yet refuse to substantiate them.
As I said; The biggest threat to our society is corporate greed and political compliance, which allows despots and human rights abusers to thrive and prosper from their despotism.
DO You really consider this unworthy of comment (even to support corporate greed and political compliance - - it would at least tell us where you stand.
Do yu have any evidence that anybody is proposing to confront terrorism with "teams of social workers and behavioural psychologists?" or is this just another of your makie-ups?
I do know somebody who would very much benefit from the assistance of both, mind you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 10:05 AM

Why not ?.. you could actually be onto something there Ake...

.. young bitter self pitying Adolf may well have benefited from timely interventional art therapy sessions... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 11:03 AM

"I fail to see any authority or knowledgeable commentator who agrees with you."

I don't rely on 'authority or knowledeable commentators' to tell me what to think, Keith. I'm intelligent, very well-educated, I read very widely, I've been on this planet since 1947 and lived through a period of huge upheaval and change in socio-economic structure and national and international fortunes. I've worked in industry and commerce at a senior level for fifty years.

In short, I form my own opinions based on careful observation and long experience.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 11:04 AM

I fail to see any authority or knowledgeable commentator who agrees with you.

But what do ALL THE HISTORIANS have to say about it, Professor?

You do, indeed, fail to see.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 11:37 AM


I don't rely on 'authority or knowledgeable commentators' to tell me what to think, Keith.

Me neither, but when I can not find any support for my views from other well informed folk, I question that I am as well informed as I think I am.

I'm intelligent, very well-educated, I read very widely,

I merely ask what in your wide reading supports your view, or why you assume it is all wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 12:08 PM

I feel no need to try to justify my opinions to you, or, for that matter, anyone else.
You have your opinions, I have mine. We disagree.
End of.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 12:46 PM

Yes, but on what knowledge is your opinion based?
Why do you believe that governments and security forces are hyping the threat of terrorism for political reasons?
Why would they?
Where beside Mudcat can I see this view expressed?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 12:54 PM

Not here!
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/07/isis-planning-enormous-and-spectacular-attacks-uk-counter-terrorism-chief-warns

"Isis planning 'enormous and spectacular attacks', anti-terror chief warns
Britain faces threat of bigger and broader attacks as Islamic State attempts to wage war on western lifestyle, says Met officer."
Guardian 4 weeks ago.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 12:56 PM

That was after Paris but before Brussels.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 01:08 PM

Oh everybody panic, run round like a headless chicken, we're all done for, pray to god and then panic some more!!!

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 01:20 PM

Give up BWM. Honestly, you will never win. If your opinion does not coincide with Keith's it cannot possibly be right.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 01:38 PM

Now the Professor is chanelling our old buddy Doug R:

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 02:26 AM

Dave, the secret of how to deal with an OCD-sufferer is to refuse to indulge his OCD.
He may not be psychologically equipped to comprehend "I feel no need to......end of." In my previous post, but I certainly do.

Let him argue with himself, I grew up over fifty years ago, and I've got more wick in my lamp than to allow him to drag me into his playground games. I've actually got a life.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 02:57 AM

Missing a like button again :-)

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 03:29 AM

Please people don't start reversing the good that has come about by Max's intervention, you are starting to behave like those we lately got rid of.
There is no call for ridicule, Keith is making salient points without demeaning you in any way.
If you cannot answer him on what is an extremely serious issue don't post.

Dave, why are you posting to this thread, you obviously have no interest in the subject, 90% of your posts are snide personal comments. That is my definition of trolling.

Lets keep things peaceful if you want to have fun open a joke thread or a nonsense thread

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 03:50 AM

Ake, My answers are in my several posts above, beginning with 02 Apr 16 - 04:07 PM. If your chum is incapable of understanding what I've said, that's his problem.
I am not prepared to be chased around in a stupid playground game by him, you, or anyone else. That may work with others, it won't work with me, because I don't have the deep-seated, desperate need to 'win' the way some of you do.

So, as I said to Keith - we disagree. End of.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 03:59 AM

"Dave, why are you posting to this thread, "
Dave's comments are fairly harmless - if there isn't room to crack the occasional joke because it is aimed at your friend, we may as well all pack our bags and go home.
It really isn't up to you to tell anybody whether they can post to this thread and how to conduct themselves.
If you want a serious discussion on a serious subject - how about justifying some of your claims - that would show a commitment to the subject.
Once again:
The biggest threat to our society is corporate greed and political compliance, which allows despots and human rights abusers to thrive and prosper from their despotism.
Do You really consider this unworthy of comment (even to support corporate greed and political compliance - - it would at least tell us where you stand.
Do you have any evidence that anybody is proposing to confront terrorism with "teams of social workers and behavioural psychologists?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 04:06 AM

Ake. Two things wrong with your point about me. 1. It is simply not true and 2. Even if it was, you have nothing to do with the moderation of the forum.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 04:59 AM

Jim although we mostly disagree, you address the issues and your contributions are of value, Dave has a long history of trolling.

If we want to have a forum where civil discussion of serious or controversial subjects is possible, there is simply no room for trolls.
Regarding Keith, he and I are usually opposed politically, but I admire the way that he conducts himself in debate, accurate, sourced and focussed on the issue.

We have cleaned up the forum let's keep it that way

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 05:08 AM

Rag,
Oh everybody panic, run round like a headless chicken, we're all done for, pray to god and then panic some more!!!

Why?

Greg,
THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

No it is not.

My case,
"It is true that the risk to any individual is insignificant, but who is supposed to be telling us otherwise as you all claim?"

No-one.

It was claimed that only the Mail and Sun write about the threat.
That is simply not true.
You find exactly the same stories in the Guardian, BBC, etc.

Instead of ascribing my views to mental illness, identify anything I have said that is not factual.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 05:23 AM

Jim I have believed since I was a young man that the Capitalist system was extremely bad for society. It permeates every strata not just big business or corporations. Most of society at the moment see financial aspiration as a valid driving force to deliver a healthy socio/economic system.......I do not concur with "most of society".
I believe that we require some new driver which shifts the emphasis from personal gain to the construction of better public services and education, even if that means a fall in living standards for a large percentage of our middle classes. This state of affairs will take many decades to come into being.....a long steady learning curve, revolution is impossible.

However it should be obvious that the gravest immediate danger to the wellbeing of our society are the maniacs of Islamic Fundamentalism assisted by the "useful idiots" of unbridled "liberalism", who are in the business of excusing every new atrocity and burying their heads in the sand over the dangers of unregulated immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 05:33 AM

So, ake, how do you justify your comment that you obviously have no interest in the subject, 90% of your posts are snide personal comments when it is simply not true? Save you looking it up, here is a summary of my posts on this thread

31 Mar 16 - 09:53 AM - Pointed out that terrorism has not brought anyone to their knees

31 Mar 16 - 12:11 PM - Objecting to your changing the definition of terrorism

01 Apr 16 - 06:37 AM - Provided the official definition of terrorism

01 Apr 16 - 10:20 AM - Again, trying to enlighten you as to what terrorism actualy is

01 Apr 16 - 10:35 AM - Reply to a post so offensive that it has now been deleted

02 Apr 16 - 04:03 AM - Pointing out that madmen had already used the atomic bomb

02 Apr 16 - 04:59 PM - Highlighting that we are in danger of all sorts of things. As is the purpose of the thread.

02 Apr 16 - 05:11 PM - You said things could be done. I said do them.

02 Apr 16 - 05:22 PM - Realised that the things you said should be done could hinge around immigration.

03 Apr 16 - 01:20 PM - Honest advice to Backwoodsman

04 Apr 16 - 02:57 AM - Liking Backwoodsmans reply

04 Apr 16 - 04:06 AM - Repudiating your claim that 90% of my posts are snide personal comments.

12 posts, most of which address the issue and none of which containing 'snide personal comments'. Which brings us up to this one. Come on then , ake. Let's see you do as as you say and stick to facts. Let's see you address the issues instead of making things up about the people who disagree with your views.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 05:43 AM

"I believe that we require some new driver"
Driver - fuherer, charismatic figure - dictator - what exactly?
Putting our fate in the hands of one individual is just what we need at the moment - I don't think!!!!
But nice of you to put you position as plainly as you have.
None of which justifies any of your outrageous claims of course.
Political meaningless waffle
By the way - one of the criticisms f our past behaviour has been our digging up old posts and using them instead of arguments.
Dave, to my recollection, has never trolled, nor does he indulge in hit and run arguments, as some here have.
What Dave has done or not done in the past is beside the point, so leave it out - you are nt an adjudicator.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 05:58 AM

I didn't mean a bus driver Jim, I mean a valid ideal it could be Socialism or Christianity they seem to have a similar base....to me.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 06:19 AM

Still no qualification for your accusations and contempt for people's rights - but didn't expect one
Christianity??????
Who's going to reform the reformer - or is that ideal already in your view?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 06:47 AM

"My case,It is true that the risk to any individual is insignificant ..........."

I am so pleased that you agree with what I've been saying from the outset.

But be careful on the buses.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 09:48 AM

So, are we all agreed then, that:-

1) There is a heightened threat, to Europe and the UK, of attacks by terrorist groups.

2) The threat, although classed as 'severe' (or some such descriptor) by the authorities, is unlikely to result in any kind of involvement of the vast majority of the population going about their daily lives.

3) In view of 1) and 2) above, people need to be alert and aware when out in public places, entertainment venues etc., but should not be deterred from going out and about, travelling, doing all the things they do in their normal everyday existences.

4) Attempts by the gutter press and other media elements to focus people's attention on a perceived imminent threat to their personal safety should be seen for what they are - a politically-motivated ruse, designed to take people's eyes off other issues which are equally serious and, from a social and economic standpoint, just as dangerous.

If we agree that's a reasonable summary, then it would seem that further 'discussion' serves little purpose? Perhaps we can all turn our backs on this subject, and bugger off for a nice cup of tea and a slice of cake?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 10:07 AM

Sounds about right Backwoodsman. I'll have the Coffee & Walnut Cake please.










And mind out for those buses.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 10:07 AM

Rag,
I am so pleased that you agree with what I've been saying from the outset.

That is also what I have been saying from the outset Rag.
You just pretended I said the opposite.

BWM, I agree 1,2 and 3, but not 4.
I see no evidence at all of the whole media being involved in a conspiracy to divert people's attention from other issues.
What makes you believe such an unlikely thing?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 10:14 AM

Pretend did I? Well bugger me .......... no that wasn't an invitation.

Perhaps one day we will all write and understand a common language









...................... but I somehow doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 10:19 AM

I agree BWM. Kaffee und Kuchen all round I think. Or is that too European for some of our brethren?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 10:22 AM

Read my first post on this Rag.

"The risk to an individual is indeed dwarfed by everyday risks."

No justification for your ridiculous PANIC posts Rag.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 10:23 AM

It won't work, Keefie. I'm a grown-up. You'll need to find some other daft kid to join in your schoolyard game.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 05:03 PM

Still no explanation of your peculiar statistics regarding my posts then, ake? Why, when confronted with facts, do you go strangely silent?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 04:17 AM

Is it unreasonable to ask a grown up what his opinion is based on?

If you search "terror threat" with either "Mail" "Guardian" or "BBC" in front, you find the very same stories.

Why will you not tell us why you think there is " a politically-motivated ruse, designed to take people's eyes off other issues which are equally serious and, from a social and economic standpoint, just as dangerous?"

It is an extraordinary theory.
What is behind it?
Anything?
Nothing?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 10:12 AM

Give it up, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 01:38 PM

There's a perfect example of the Tory gutter press's practice of trying to take feeble-minded readers' eyes off the ball today, in the Daily Express.

The morning after it was revealed that David Cameron's family have been involved in hiding their wealth in offshore Tax-Havens in order to avoid paying tax, and Jeremy Corbyn is calling for Cameron to be called to account, the Daily Express considers walnuts and an actresses route to stardom as being of greater importance. In fact, it places so little importance on the Prime Minister's family's financial immorality that it makes no mention of it on its front page at all.

My case rests, My Lord.

http://www.express.co.uk/ourpaper

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 02:01 PM

The issue we were discussing was the terror threat.
Neither Express nor Guardian put Cameron on front page.
The Mail did.

You have not supported your theory at all.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 02:15 PM

For some reason I am reminded of the Jez Lowe song "Mike Neville Said It (so it must be true)"

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 02:23 PM

Actually the Guardian did give part of its front page to Cameron, but so did the Sun.
The Mail devoted the whole front page to Cameron.

No evidence of a media conspiracy about terrorism so far.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 03:47 PM

None are so blind as they who will not see.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 05:31 PM

Giveit up, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 03:06 AM

No -- why don't you give up telling people to give it up, Mr Gregory F Know·It·All!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 05:02 AM

Give it up, Mike! 😄😜

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 05:07 AM

Careful Backwoodsman, MGM can post some appalling statements. What was it you said the Dave the Gnome Michael?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 05:56 AM

Not much, Rags -- it was he who kept telling me to Fuck Off, for reasons I still haven't quite fathomed -- tho the concept of "reason" in any of its senses is surely misplaced with regard to that particular - ah, um, er - personage.

Anyhow, I did not fuck off, and have no immediate intention of doing so: so tough ɷɷ to all you massed ranks of Michael-haters lying in wait out there — to quote yet again my favourite maxim: Just coz I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out all to GET me.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 06:12 AM

Yet another example of your dual standards. Although I have to say it is the worst post I have ever seen on Mudcat. That it came from you should be no surprise really.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 06:25 AM

Isn't it interesting how all these massed detractors & denunciators of mine hide behind pseudonyms, while my identity is open & patent to all:-

in case anyone out there doesn't know, the user-name MGM·Lion is that of Michael Grosvenor Myer, longtime, tho now mainly retired, folk & theatre critic & general feature-writer for various journals;

while who may be concealing their true identities behind such ingeniously unidentifiable sobriquets as Ill·Trimmed·Whiskers or David·The·Leprechaun remain mysteries which will no doubt be exercising scholarly researchers for millennia to come!

≈Michael Grosvenor Myer MA FRSA OLP≈

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 06:31 AM

A feeble attempt to divert attention away from a despicable post, eh Michael.

Would you care for me to post it again?

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 06:56 AM

Post it to ∞ till you are blue in the face, my dear little fellow: & very funny you will look.

Can't see what difference it would be supposed to make to me. But then, you do not strike me as the most hyalinely logical thinker in the entire history of the universe, at that, Mr Stragglibeard.

Meanwhile, continue to enjoy yourself with your one-✍ed posting from which you are evidently deriving some most incomprehensible form of satisfaction.

And we all hope it keeps fine 4U...

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 07:02 AM

Oh, hello. That didn't take long did it! Was it only last Friday that it had gone forever? I suppose age and an over inflated ego does odd things to some. Feel free if you want, Raggy, but to be honest it is not worth kicking again. You will only end up scraping the shit off your shoes and, I suspect, it will just go off crying again.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 07:05 AM

It would seem that logic does not fit well with you either Michael. Since when did Raggytash equate to Stragglibeard.

However, it does not detract from the fact that your post regarding Dave the Gnome was the most despicable I have ever read on Mudcat.

I would have thought an abject apology would be the least thing you could provide, not only for Dave, but for the rest of the Mudcat community.

I wouldn't hold my breath though, you don't seem to have the balls.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 07:27 AM

Stop fighting please.....you will get the thread closed.

If you WANT to fight, open a thread to do it in.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 07:36 AM

I agree, and I repeat my POV, that the best way to deal with OCD-sufferers is not to engage with them.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 07:40 AM

I am sorry, Raggytash -- genuinely. But I have not the remotest notion as to which post you refer. I have no recollection of any such. If you would have the goodness to remind me -- by PM, perhaps? -- then perhaps I might engage in this one-sided conversation. But till then, I remain completely mystified as to what on earth you might be on about.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 07:47 AM

It was, presumably, a response to Mr Gnome's repeated injunction to me, for no reason that I could fathom at the time, that I should "fuck off"; the motivations for which still remain entirely opaque to me... Or was he responding to something I had posted previously, which is what now entirely eludes my recollection?.... Or what?

Oh dear -- this is getting very complicated. I think I shall go & eat a Tesco's smoked salmon & king-prawn sandwich, which I finds quite effective as tranquillisers.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 08:37 AM

BWM,
None are so blind as they who will not see.

There is nothing to see!

The telegraph today gives its whole front page to the Cameron issue.
The Mail did yesterday, and a two page inside spread today.
Both Sun and Express have Cameron on front page but Guardian does not.

There is no discernible difference in the coverage for the Cameron issue or terrorism.

The is nothing whatsoever to suggest that the right wing press are attempting to play down the Cameron issue or play up terrorism.

Your wild, improbable theory remains devoid of any foundation.
It is just Left Wing paranoia.

Also, the press has much less influence than it used to have.
Most people today do not read any newspaper.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 10:02 AM

Give it up, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 11:08 AM

... and before this mudcat pantomime goes even more bonkers...




It's a shame the cast of On The Buses are all gone.. [except for sex kitten Olive..]

I'd like to see an episode where the Bus Station crew have to deal with a muslim terrorist threat...

Blakey confronts a suicide bomber on the double decker..

I can just imagine how the script might go............

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 01:52 PM

Or perhaps, Tashititz, it occurs to me, you were distressed by the little ditty I composed in response to old Unohoo's pertinacious & unprovoked importunities to me to "fuck off", satirically wishing him certain organic discomforts. Well, blimey, is that all! Don't you know what they say about heat & kitchens?... If that's it, some people had better go back to the nicely upholstered drawing room & wait for the parlourmaid & footman to emerge from the kitchen to wait upon them —— especially if they happen to be the ones to have piled the anthracite on to the kitchen-range in the first place.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 02:37 PM

Certain organic discomforts ............... you are a disgrace humanity.

As someone who hails comes from a group of people who have been victimised throughout history I find it astonishing that you could wish such misfortune on any other human being.

As I say a disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 04:56 PM

That's right -- throw up the old origins. Racist little heap!

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 04:58 PM

...which you only know because I don't hide my identity like you, you pathetic pusillanimous little coward.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 05:17 PM

I think if you would care to put your brain in gear you will find that I was trying to indicate that some sections of our community have been very badly treated throughout history.

Your dealings with Dave the Gnome and the fact you told him you wished he would get Testicular Cancer and die a painful death is but the first step on the ladder.

There is NO justification for that at all.

Subject: RE: BS: London Buses V Terrorism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 05:56 PM

Michael, please knock it off. This is not real life and there is no point to this. The place is improving. Sign the pledge.

---

OK, OK, I think it's time to close this one off. I won't bother trying to figure out who's to blame.
As I used to tell my kids - I don't care who started it, I just want you all to stop fighting.
-Joe Offer-