• Al Qaeda Plotting New Massacre In Britain
    81 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;46891553]No, but is it even that unlikely?[/QUOTE] Er, yes?
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;46891553]No, but is it even that unlikely?[/QUOTE] Yes. Extremely unlikely. What a disgusting thing to suggest
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;46891553]No, but is it even that unlikely?[/QUOTE] Except the National Front has gained far more voters in the last few years already on the back of far-right sentiment surrounding the threat of Islamic extremism in France without an extremely improbably planned false flag operation to speed up something that already seems to be in motion? Are you mad, lmao? [editline]10th January 2015[/editline] Idk how I got from the Paris thread to this one, so that post doesn't fit, but it doesn't really matter because that's absolutely ridiculous fundamentally.
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;46891452]It's the government trying to push for more powers and leeching of the fear from Paris.[/QUOTE] 'It's a conspiracy duuuuuuuuuuude!' Really do have anything to support this?
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;46891661]Except the National Front has gained far more voters in the last few years already on the back of far-right sentiment surrounding the threat of Islamic extremism in France without an extremely improbably planned false flag operation to speed up something that already seems to be in motion? Are you mad, lmao? [editline]10th January 2015[/editline] Idk how I got from the Paris thread to this one, so that post doesn't fit, but it doesn't really matter because that's absolutely ridiculous fundamentally.[/QUOTE] I never said it was a false flag, I'm just saying I think they are piggy backing off the Paris attacks,
[QUOTE=Appox;46891654]Yes. Extremely unlikely. What a disgusting thing to suggest[/QUOTE] Because government has never done anything disgusting to gain power? Do we live on the same planet?
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;46891799]I never said it was a false flag, I'm just saying I think they are piggy backing off the Paris attacks,[/QUOTE] Okay, that makes marginally more sense. But, considering that the current government of the UK is under threat by parties like UKIP and Britain First who aggressively talk about the threat, specifically, of muslims in their country, don't you think it might be a bit daft for the coalition to agitate those groups and basically take votes away from themselves for some nebulous short-term policy gain?
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;46891815]Okay, that makes marginally more sense. But, considering that the current government of the UK is under threat by parties like UKIP and Britain First who aggressively talk about the threat, specifically, of muslims in their country, don't you think it might be a bit daft for the coalition to agitate those groups and basically take votes away from themselves for some nebulous short-term policy gain?[/QUOTE] Well Mi5 would still have the same people in charge regardless of who is in power. Maybe in my original post I should have said Mi5 instead of the government.
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;46891844]Well Mi5 would still have the same people in charge regardless of who is in power.[/QUOTE] [I]oh[/I]
[QUOTE=RobbL;46890999]maybe all the terrorist organistions should do battle in the middle of nowhere to see who is best[/QUOTE] It's called Syria.
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;46891844]Well Mi5 would still have the same people in charge regardless of who is in power. Maybe in my original post I should have said Mi5 instead of the government.[/QUOTE] So MI5 is going to leech off sentiment relating to the Paris attack to gain powers to do its job properly? I see multiple problems with your logic here...
[QUOTE=David29;46891955]So MI5 is going to leech off sentiment relating to the Paris attack to gain powers to do its job properly? I see multiple problems with your logic here...[/QUOTE] Not that I agree with the guy, but MI5 in the past few days was given an extra 100 million specifically to hunt lone wolf type shooters.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;46891811]Because government has never done anything disgusting to gain power? Do we live on the same planet?[/QUOTE] Fair enough in history or some other places today. But this is the UK we're talking about, not North Korea, the worst most politicians can do is give only a beggar a 2p coin.
[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;46891974]Not that I agree with the guy, but MI5 in the past few days was given an extra 100 million specifically to hunt lone wolf type shooters.[/QUOTE] And this is bad?
[QUOTE=David29;46892114]And this is bad?[/QUOTE] Where did I suggest that? You're saying that MI5 get nothing out of this when that's just blatantly untrue.
[QUOTE=loopoo;46889873]Piss off, you barbaric cunts.[/QUOTE] This is exactly how I imagined a British citizen would react. 10/10
Oh piss off you bloody wanker terrorists. If you manage to make any one of my days worse than they already are, I fucking swear I'll send my foot right up someone's arsehole.
[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;46892212]Where did I suggest that? You're saying that MI5 get nothing out of this when that's just blatantly untrue.[/QUOTE] That isn't what I'm saying at all. Pepsi-cola's original comment heavily implied that the government was going to milk this whole thing purely for the sake of becoming more powerful. He then clarified that he was actually referring to MI5. I'm saying that MI5 hasn't leeched off anything, and that it receiving new powers/funding so that it can do it's job is not a bad thing.
[QUOTE=dookster;46890174][IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RNAQXl7UVv8/T8d3jNTAhpI/AAAAAAAACx4/BX2Ga6MosSg/s1600/I-kicked-burning-terrorist-so-hard-in-balls.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Implying these fucks have balls to kick.
[QUOTE=PieClock;46892402]Implying these fucks have balls to kick.[/QUOTE] That's right. Hurting innocent/Defenceless people is for pussies
[QUOTE=pac0master;46893484]That's right. Hurting innocent/Defenceless people is for pussy.[/QUOTE] Can't tell if bad reading or bad wording
[QUOTE=Irockz;46893592]Can't tell if bad reading or bad wording[/QUOTE] Maybe both, I ain't english. How should I rephrase it properly? plus, it was a joke*
[QUOTE=pac0master;46893611]Maybe both, I ain't english. How should I rephrase it properly? plus, it was a joke*[/QUOTE] I [I]suppose[/I] what you were trying to say was pussies, "for pussy" implies they're doing it to get women.
fuck off al qaeda you're shit at being muslims [editline]9th January 2015[/editline] islam's about peace and love and shit if y'all wanna come over here and deface the name of your own religion can you at least let me eat my fucking bacon and eggs in peace
[QUOTE=dookster;46890174][IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RNAQXl7UVv8/T8d3jNTAhpI/AAAAAAAACx4/BX2Ga6MosSg/s1600/I-kicked-burning-terrorist-so-hard-in-balls.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] This guy was awarded a medal from the queen.
[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;46890804]Saying we're an unarmed police force is a bit rich when there's been problems up here in Scotland with firearms officers going out on patrol with their weapons.[/QUOTE] I believe these were Armed Response Officers who were put on patrol due to manpower constraints instead of sitting around in the station on stand-by doing nothing.
Better safe than sorry. I remember a couple of months ago Norway was on high alert, police everywhere etc. To this date nothing seriously bad happened, so it must have been effective; let's hope it stays that way. Be safe everyone.
[QUOTE=Irockz;46893942]I [I]suppose[/I] what you were trying to say was pussies, "for pussy" implies they're doing it to get women.[/QUOTE] My bad, Corrected it*
[QUOTE=David29;46891483]Do you have even a shred of evidence to support that claim?[/QUOTE] It's not untrue. After any sort of attack or even something like a natural disaster, governments use it as an excuse to increase their power.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46900417]It's not untrue. After any sort of attack or even something like a natural disaster, governments use it as an excuse to increase their power.[/QUOTE] The only situation this may be the case is if they need to in order to fulfil their obligation to provide national security - and they can't be criticised for that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.