Terror.

1. intense, sharp, overmastering fear: to be frantic with terror.

2. an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causing terror: to be a terror to evildoers.

3. any period of frightful violence or bloodshed likened to the Reign of Terror in France.

4. violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism.

Terrorist.

n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

Is it only people with brown skin, the poor and the subjugated, that are potential terrorists or are the terrorists really much closer to home?

O.K., O.K., O.K., FS. I PM'd you and offered an explanation in private along with an olive branch. I let you know up front in no uncertain terms that you're misinterpreting me and to desist in claiming that you know my intentions better than I do myself. Yet you didn't have the balls to reply. You will do so in public, though. Fair enough. Challenge accepted. No smilies offered here. But you will walk out of this topic with your tail between your legs.

Good to see others chimed in, too. This particular topic is near and dear to my heart and for once I'm happy to see a serious Bedlam topic not disintegrate into bullshit.

It's now obvious to me that what FS took great exception to was my terming people's thinking as being flawed. And most likely also for then coming off as thinking myself somehow superior as well since my terming seemed to imply that my thinking was not. So I'll be more than happy to not only clarify but to expound on my thoughts. And to all. Thanks to Robski for being kind enough to offer me the benefit of the doubt.

Here's a great revelation then: we all have flawed thinking. Myself included. I'll put myself at the top of any list that anyone cares to come up with. Does anyone on this board claim to be all knowing? If so, speak up now. Well, then, if no one can own up to being almighty then is it such a strain on anyone's mind to conceive that what they hold as truth, in all cases, just might not be true? And if it is the case where someone happens to have a particular belief that does not reflect reality should they feel chagrined for learning otherwise? Are we so ashamed to admit our own ignorance? Have we been brainwashed so well from birth that it's a sin to be wrong? Are we so fearful to look ourselves in the mirror and find fault? Or flaws?

I admit to being flabbergasted by people's inability to communicate differing ideas without then attempting to kill themselves if their thoughts and beliefs don't match. I'm speaking in general, here, and not of anyone on this particular board specifically, so let's all stay in our seats for the moment. We're all dealing with a world of ideas and yet people resist, and very much venomously at times, an open, non-confrontational interchange of ideas. Why? That's a good <deleted> question, IMHO. And a telling one, too.

There aren't two people in all the world who share the same knowledge. The utterly apparent diversity that is who we are is so vast as to make that an impossibility. Can we learn from each other, then? Can we share divergent thoughts, beliefs, ideas while simultaneously maintaining respect for each other? Can we afford each other deserved honor in the process? <deleted>, yeah, we can. At least I will try my dam_nedest.

If anyone here feels I intentionally slighted them I'll offer not only my deepest sympathies but also as huge and sincere an apology as I can muster as well. Otherwise, let those with sensitive skins depart. And forgive me for being a bit harsh with the above but I do have an expectation of dealing with people who feel enough self-security where they don't feel the need to bawl and lash out with unrestrained emotional sensitivity at the slightest imagined slight. FS, exit any time you like.

Now, to get back on topic I'll happily, and humbly, offer up my pearls of wisdom, or at least what I believe to be my pearls of wisdom, regarding terrorism and the never ending security measures instituted to counter these acts of unspeakable violation towards fellow human beings.

Since I'm assuming that no one here on this board, or elsewhere in the world for that matter, can claim omnipotence then it's fair to then assume that what people claim to believe as truth, however fervently, may or may not be rock-bed reality. And since we are above all rational creatures we might then assume that all thought constructs are logic based. All thought constructs, regardless of how twisted they may appear to another. You may, at this point, begin to agree or disagree with my assumptions.

And now I have to go. Sorry, but I have a flight to catch this evening and too many other things I need to attend to before I leave. I might not be back for another four to five days but I will be back to continue. Unless someone decides to hold a poll on whether or not anyone cares that I return to this topic and I lose by a landslide. In which case I'll blame it all on Kayo.

But I already have.

For Christ's sake, I hope people still have their sense of humour.

TAWP:

"You cannot win a fight against 'those that hate our freedom' by removing it yourself.

You will still have lost."

You said it better and more eloquently than any of us.

In my opinion of course.

Well this has all become a tad academic for a simple soul like myself. However, I do not agree with the above as it is in journalist terms " broadening " a serious issue.

The OP started off with a specific example to debate. I have chimed in with a few useless by all accounts ideas, but they were based on the specifics of the OP's Post..Do we as a collective body think we have lost " our freedom " if we are subject to arrest for further enquiries ( not charge, not torture not throwing away the key ) if we are specifically linked to an act of terror conducted against members of the public be they man , women or child going about their daily business?

I hope not. There is always a tendency for a small section of society to do a Mel Gibson ( Not an anti-Jewish rant.................but a Brave-heart moment ) when their perceived freedoms are taken away. IMHO their freedoms only exist because people in the very near history have stood toe to toe and fought for the Brave-hearts to retain them.

From WW2 to the eventual wonderful sight of the Berlin wall coming down. Men and women behind the scenes have done things which taken in isolation, I totally agree are morally wrong. But what if they hadn't ? In today's world we can debate as much as we like the academic causes of the problems of terrorism, but the terrorists are with us. They will kill us if they can and holding up an anti-Bush/Blair sign with I'm with you my Muslim brothers, would not have got you very far in London or Madrid.

By all means hold the academic debate. Find the causes. By using your democratic vote if you lucky enough to be in a country where some poor sod has died for your right to have it regardless of your race , colour or creed, vote out the corrupt Governments we have to day. But in the short term get used to a minuscule minority backed by some pretty impressive religious fundamentalist cash, trying to bomb the shit out of you until you grow a beard, ladies on Walking Street cover their heads, and you are happy that little children are held down while a ten ton truck is driven over their arms for stealing a cookie out of the cookie jar.

Bah Humbug.............more beer.

SORRY LIMPY, this was meant to be the next post after Tippy's. It is written in response to Tippy, not your post above mine:

TO TIPPY

Well... WE HE-HE-HE-He- eeeeeLLLLLLLLLL Now... Since I've already been blamed, and my last few "sensible posts" on this thread have been pretty much ignored (except Rain & Robbo, the latter who also kissed me when I was Pished)...

I WILL now be the first to reply.

Tip: I'll put myself at the top of any list that anyone cares to come up with.

First list that springs to mind is, "Those taking this far too seriously and personally (for we ain't gonna solve the worlds probs in this thread)"

1. Tippy
   
2. FalangPuud
   
3. Limp-a-lot
   
4. Robbo (although more in thought than in posts )
   
5. Kayo
   
6. Everybody else.
   

As for the rest of it, Tippy, mate; I think that what Farangsay was perhaps meaning to say (Oh shi1t, I'm getting involved in a p1ssing contest between two others...) was this:

What about your own opinions?

I've replied (surprisingly honestly and openly) to your intriguingly put questions and change of directions, but I've received no acknowledgement, no debate whatsoever. Now, maybe I'm blind and stupid and so far off topic that I don't even realise it, but I thought my previous several posts have been fairly directly answering your tacks of direction with my own opinions.

Yet I see none of yours. Not in relation to your directional posts, nor in response to anybody elses replies.

So I think - I THINK (it's sporadic, that.) - that although you've posed some interesting questions, you've not really given us any opinions yourself. Including in your MEGA post just now, where you clearly state that "I'll happily, and humbly, offer up my pearls of wisdom, or at least what I believe to be my pearls of wisdom, regarding terrorism and the never ending security measures instituted to counter these acts of unspeakable violation towards fellow human beings."

yet rest your words upon the values and differences of man.

-which, by the way, you put very eloquently, but regrettably have only an inkling to do with this thread.

Now, if for example you were to take your eloquent description of the differences of men and their all too often inability to agree with eachother in relation to the state of today's terrorism and all related fears, perhaps we could get back on topic.

By the way, and this too all men on board tv and around the world as a whole anybody who's had a woman in their life, or shared a house, or even sat next to somebody on a long haul journey...-

it ain't to hard to say, "I agree, okay, whatever!" from time to time. Choose your battles, etc...

Humans greatest mistake was inventing words and speech to go with Ego.

to Limpy,

Your post deserves a reply,

but expectin me to post two serious posts in one day - especially this late 01:00 - is asking far too much.

Edit: did anyone else notice: I unwittingly used to, two, and too, correctly in one sentence

to Limpy,

Your post deserves a reply,

but expectin me to post two serious posts in one day - especially this late 01:00 - is asking far too much.

Edit: did anyone else notice: I unwittingly used to, two, and too, correctly in one sentence

Sorry mate.

I didn't notice as i have that sort of trouble myself. They invented a great long word for people like us who find it impossible ( and I mean impossible) to spell or punctuate. But over time in my case, I have come to the realization I am just thick.

yer not thick! The above (your post) was perfectly punctuated and grammatically correct, as have most of your recent posts/ Maybe my skill is rubbing off on you?

Heaven preserve me from manic cartoon characters.

Heaven preserve me from manic cartoon characters.

Oi !! . I resemble that remark !

There was a snippet on CNN just now mentioning that , in the UK , "suspects" in a terrorism related case can now be held for 28 days without charge and security elements now consider this not long enough.

What do they have in mind ? 2 months ? 6 months ? 6 years (Gitmo) ?

Couple this with the possibility of detaining somebody for something which is not in itself a criminal act and you have the crux of my original point.

I know there are some Latin buffs on this forum so what's the past tense of "habeus corpus" ?

Huh?

A Habeas Corpus is a legal writ that protects an individual against arbitrary imprisonment by requiring that any person arrested be brought before a court for formal charge. If the charge is considered to be valid, the person must submit to trial; if not, the person goes free. When the law is suspended, then individuals can be imprisoned indefinitely and without charge.

Tense, what tense? .... the literal translation is 'you may have the body' ..... 'you have had' or 'you will have' would be variations of the tense, but Habeas Corpus is an accepted legal term.... tense free.

I am failing to see what you wanted to achieve in this discussion by asking that question.

Huh?

A Habeas Corpus is a legal writ that protects an individual against arbitrary imprisonment by requiring that any person arrested be brought before a court for formal charge. If the charge is considered to be valid, the person must submit to trial; if not, the person goes free. When the law is suspended, then individuals can be imprisoned indefinitely and without charge.

Tense, what tense? .... the literal translation is 'you may have the body' ..... 'you have had' or 'you will have' would be variations of the tense, but Habeas Corpus is an accepted legal term.... tense free.

I am failing to see what you wanted to achieve in this discussion by asking that question.

Now I wasn't going to bother my butt posting any more in this thread but your post does require an answer.

Plus the fact that I don't have a tail to put between my legs (no it is NOT a tail).

The point I was trying to make , I suppose , was that since 9/11 "western" security forces have found a mantra to hide behind (anti-terrorism) to cover their incompetence without sufficient public scrutiny.

In this particular case :

The original charge was apparently based on the information that the doctor's sim card had been discovered in the burning jeep at Glasgow airport. It is now known that it was actually in Liverpool and the British authorities provided false information to their Australian counterparts. Whether this was incompetence or malice I cannot judge.

The doctor was granted a bail hearing , and granted bail. Firstly the Australian authorities offered as a piece of "evidence" that he failed to give a "valid reason" for his departure to India. A leak of his initial interview revealed that he mentioned a wife and baby in India he wished to see. Whether police evidence crossed the bounds to perjury I cannot judge.

When he was granted bail the immigration minister promptly revoked his visa and had him taken into immigration custody.

Finally , when it could no longer be suggested that the doctor was guilty of anything at all the Australian authorities announced they were abandoning the case as there was "insufficient evidence to assure a conviction". Maybe this is face-saving code for no evidence at all but I find it disgraceful.

Maybe you still fail to see the point I have tried to make , but that is your problem not mine.

PS I find your Latin translation suspect but am not confident enough to challenge it. (There's a 5' de la Salle brother turning in his grave when I admit that).

This is my take on this subject. I think western governments are so far behind the eight ball with respect to having reliable intelligence to prevent terrorist acts, that they sometimes overreach and trample on some peoples civil rights. I believe they believe the justification is that the cost to the society of being wrong, is greater than the accumulated cost of the individuals temporary loss of rights. I think they're scared shitless and really have no idea how to stop terrorist acts, so they urge for stronger measures that further limit individual rights. It would seem it's early days in this battle and I would hope an enlightened policy is introduced. That stands a better chance if strong adviocates from both sides of the spectrum continue to advance their views.

The point I was trying to make , I suppose , was that since 9/11 "western" security forces have found a mantra to hide behind (anti-terrorism) to cover their incompetence without sufficient public scrutiny.

I agree, and that is a better statement to make a valid point.

And in this particular case, they couldn't make anything stick, because there wasn't anything that stuck. The 'authorities' then faff around making excuses in the hope that they can just finish on a mumble and hope everybody forgets the incident.

Isn't that the real problem. If I was accused of something that I know I haven't done and then saw the headlines in the Daily Mail (whatever) of "We've got him"..... I would feel mightily aggrieved.

Since 911 a true secret service has ceased to exist...... it's now mouth before brain mostly, and definitely mouth before evidence.

The pendulum has swung too far one way, maybe it'll swing back eventually, too far, back to the clandestine cloak and dagger days, when people used to go missing and stay missing when they couldn't be nailed for anything ...... that would be nice, not.

I'm going to quote myself now.

"If I was accused of something that I know I haven't done and then saw the headlines in the Daily Mail (whatever) of "We've got him"..... I would feel mightily aggrieved."

Damm right I would ...... but I would be waiting for the retractions and the accompanying compensation.

P.S. Re the Latin stuff, My best mate in the UK is a barrister (he's got the white wig and black gown, the full ensemble) I usually run latin legal phrases past him before I make any comment..... with that one, I didn't need to

alright, I'll bite.

As a lifelong expat, I've often tried to stay out of local affairs wherever possible and mind my own.

The reason: I'd rather not have any backlash and instead live in peace and even have the support and respect of local residents in my quest to live in their land.

So....

How much terrorism would there be in this day and age if, say, Thailand had given back the three southern provinces back when they gave Malaysia back their (current northern) provinces.

I agree with your philosophy of staying out of local politics when abroad.

I disagree with your statement about the three southern provinces.

There was no 'Malaysia' when Thailand took them under the Thai borders, surely? There were various Sultanates and these were brought together by the British colonial rule. That they are basically of Muslim faith is one thing, but there is a strong Buddhist leavening as well. The problem is not the faith so much as the poverty and lack of aid from the Thai central government, which has allowed mainly arab (not malay) 'teachers' into the religious educational establishment there. Malaysia does not want these provinces - it would cost them too much in grants and aid to support them. They are suffering from neglect and the only people to show interest in them are the terrorist organisations.

Somewhat off-topic, but still has some relevance.

I work in Saudi. I have spent a large part of the past 30 years in the Middle East, the remainder mostly in SE Asia.

Up until my last couple of postings (job placements) I have been accustomed to giving people a lift when they are standing on the highway. There are very long distances involved when driving from Jeddah to Riyadh; Benghazi to Tripoli; Ruwais to Abu Dhabi. And in temperatures of 35 to 40 degrees C it is no fun to be out in the sun.

Nowadays I do not give a lift to anyone. Nor do I allow the car cleaners to clean inside my car. When I go into an oil refinery or office block, I check my car with the security guards, I do not let them open the boot unobserved.

I am currently working on a site with 35,000 men living in little wooden barracks. Mostly Muslims. Every Friday they are harangued by the local god-botherers (or is it Allah-b's?) and I do not know what is being said. Now out of 35,000 semi-literate construction workers there will be one or two nutters (I am probably one, myself). So things could get ugly at any time.

One of the Brits working with me has worked in Saudi for many years. A few years ago he was working in Yanbu for Lummus. He went on leave and while on leave a couple of nutters went into his office block and shot-up everyone. Eight dead. He would have been #9 except for the leave cycle.

The Saudis were a slave-owning culture until the 1960s, when slavery was officially abolished. They now have to pay their slaves a wage, but the mentality is still that we are less value than their goats (so we are only slightly above their wives in value). They will do very little to counter terrorism that is not directed against them. But in the Kingdom a lot of terrorism IS directed against the current ruling class, as being seen to be too secular, too appreciative of the good life.

This is a war of the haves' against the have-nots'. Unfortunately most of the have-noots are muslim and are have-nots because the religious teaching keeps them that way. It keeps them from any learning outside the Koran. It keeps women subservient to men. It preserves the status quo (even preserves the Royal Family in Saudi - Allah has put them in charge). But all Koranic learning for the masses is like schooling in Thailand - it is learning by rote. "Repeat what I say long enough and it becomes the truth." So the teachers in the madrasseh become mind controllers and feel the power.They (the teachers) have no ability to change the world they live in - dominated by non-elected cabals of an Arab ENArque, so they look to outside influences and blame Western values and Western commercial enterprise for the poverty of their people.

As this is not wholly untrue, it takes hold. How to break free of these influences? Destroy. Destroy. Destroy.

This will be with us for many many ages to come. We can try to stop it by treating everyone as if they hold the same values as we do. But then we have lost not just the battle, but the war.

We must be hard on this subject - we are not dealing with a burglar who wants to steal the week's takings, nor with the drug-addict trying to get enough money for his next fix.

We are dealing with people who have watched their brothers starve to death, their fathers die at forty, who live in a corrugated sheet shack with three other families. Until these conditions are changed, there will be volunteers to die for their families, friends and fellow-sufferers. And the leaders of these people do not want things to change - neither their despised rulers nor their mentors. All have their power by leaping on the backs of the massed poor.

So how to stop this? I do not have a clue.

Must we stop it? Most definitely - and by any means possible.

Somewhat off-topic, but still has some relevance.

I don't think any of that was off-topic at all, I have never been subdued to what you witnessed, but I have no problem with understanding how what you have experienced will affect the rest of the world.

So how to stop this? I do not have a clue.

Must we stop it? Most definitely - and by any means possible.

I don't have a clue either, it would take a major upheaval in the culture and beliefs of a particular section of society to even begin to make a dent in the problem.

The last five words of the quote...... I find it so sad that I agree with you, unfortunate but true.

This is, let's face it, a war .... the west have strict rules of war, this falls down when the opposition don't abide by those rules, it isn't a level playing field anymore ...... to have any chance of winning a game like that you have to play to the lowest common denominator.

Sod all the human rights acts, "I want to live with my wife" ..... "fine go ahead" ...... "I want to kill people because they are different to me" ....... Bang.

Find a gang of gun-toting militants roaming the streets of Baghdad and shoot a couple of them, fewer of them will show up the next day..... tell Hasbro (intentional typo) that for every one missile they send over the border, five larger ones will be returned.

If we had started doing that 15 or 20 whatever years ago, there wouldn't be such a commotion about a rouge mobile sim card and we would all be a good deal safer.

Yes, it's a really lousy world to bring up kids now.

I have a ten-year-old and a six-year-old, plus grand-kids of roughly the same age.

I am really concerned for their future, more by this than by the global warming problem.