I would like to argue something pretty important to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Great!!!

Now that I have time (since there alot that agree with Jonno), I will explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonno

Yes. You're showing you are afraid.Showing weakness.

---

By having security?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonno

I'll bring it down in scale a bit, you get into a fight and you hit the other guy.
If he then got all his mates to stand in front of him ,you'd think him a coward, next time you see him you wont be afraid of him because he backs down and is weak and needs protecting (often like leader bullies in schools)
If on the other hand, you hit him and he stands there blank face, you would instantly think to yourself he's a tough guy and you gonna have to hit him harder than that, or maybe don't mess with him cos you gave him your best shot and he just smilied at you.

---

Bullshit. In the real world and not this movie shit, if a fella had people protecting him, I would think him a coward. However, if I hit him and he smiles, I'm still going to fuck him up. Besides all-o-dat, none of that has shit to do security in a country. You are supposed to take measures to protect yourself. Terrorists want ruin America by destroying monuments, people, infrastructure, and markets. They will not stop due to us smiling and moving on. If anything, reduction in security will encourage it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonno

Now bring the scale back up.

They hit Isreal and it posts a centry on every corner.
That statement says "We are afraid of you and we need protecting"

Usa, Uk and several others get hit and we clean up, mourn our lost and carry on as normal.
That statement says "You can hit us as hard as you like but we wont be forced to live in fear from you"

---

Ya see, 9/11 because of lack security. A passive attitude does not relieve problems and actually will encourage it.

By your post, I think we should eliminate the Metro cops from the subway system.

In essence, WE DO NEED PROTECTING. duh. :1eye: ...and it can be done without too much harassment.

Otherwise, you curl up and die. For many folk, if ya don't pick up a weapon to arm yourself and turn your back, they will shoot you anyway.

Your post was full of the most liberal bullshit rationale I have ever heard, and I'm considered liberal. :dry:

---

Why are we supposed to take measures to protect ourselves? Are we expecting to be attacked at every turn? I'm not. If you are, then you prove the entire point I've been trying to make. That terrorism causes fear. You choose to give in to that fear and feel the need to protect yourself against something that may or may not happen again. I choose to go about my life the same as before. I'm not naive, I'm aware of what can happen. I choose not to let it run my life, as I've said before.

I remember what things were like after 9/11. People being harrassed for no other reason than having an Arabic last name. It was like that here as well, my stepkids are of Arabic descent and took a lot of crap at school because of their dark skin. It was a sad state in countries that pride themselves on being multicultural. That's the way we want to live? In constant suspicion?

I don't believe in just fighting a disease. I think it's more important to find a cure. As manker said earlier, eye for an eye only escalates the problem. Maybe it's time to look at why it happens instead of just increasing security and sending back a "proportionate response".

---

At this point, why it happens is cultish.

Remember there are no amount of concessions that will appease the bad apples. However, you can influence those that aren't already drawn in.

What you are talking about regarding harassment is an entirely different matter. For instance, here we have increased security sans the harassment.

I'm talking more bodies patrolling the areas and not making everyone open their bags on any little whim.

If we had armed guards on the subways, I couldn't give a rat's ass. For the most part security should be mostly transparent but ever changing it it's visibility. It makes potential terrorists harder to get a beed on making concrete plans but gives Joepublic the sense of being more secure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Great!!!

Now that I have time (since there alot that agree with Jonno), I will explain.


By having security?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonno

I'll bring it down in scale a bit, you get into a fight and you hit the other guy.
If he then got all his mates to stand in front of him ,you'd think him a coward, next time you see him you wont be afraid of him because he backs down and is weak and needs protecting (often like leader bullies in schools)
If on the other hand, you hit him and he stands there blank face, you would instantly think to yourself he's a tough guy and you gonna have to hit him harder than that, or maybe don't mess with him cos you gave him your best shot and he just smilied at you.

---

Bullshit. In the real world and not this movie shit, if a fella had people protecting him, I would think him a coward. However, if I hit him and he smiles, I'm still going to fuck him up. Besides all-o-dat, none of that has shit to do security in a country. You are supposed to take measures to protect yourself. Terrorists want ruin America by destroying monuments, people, infrastructure, and markets. They will not stop due to us smiling and moving on. If anything, reduction in security will encourage it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonno

Now bring the scale back up.

They hit Isreal and it posts a centry on every corner.
That statement says "We are afraid of you and we need protecting"

Usa, Uk and several others get hit and we clean up, mourn our lost and carry on as normal.
That statement says "You can hit us as hard as you like but we wont be forced to live in fear from you"

---

Ya see, 9/11 because of lack security. A passive attitude does not relieve problems and actually will encourage it.

By your post, I think we should eliminate the Metro cops from the subway system.

In essence, WE DO NEED PROTECTING. duh. :1eye: ...and it can be done without too much harassment.

Otherwise, you curl up and die. For many folk, if ya don't pick up a weapon to arm yourself and turn your back, they will shoot you anyway.

Your post was full of the most liberal bullshit rationale I have ever heard, and I'm considered liberal. :dry:

---

Why are we supposed to take measures to protect ourselves? Are we expecting to be attacked at every turn? I'm not. If you are, then you prove the entire point I've been trying to make. That terrorism causes fear. You choose to give in to that fear and feel the need to protect yourself against something that may or may not happen again. I choose to go about my life the same as before. I'm not naive, I'm aware of what can happen. I choose not to let it run my life, as I've said before.

I remember what things were like after 9/11. People being harrassed for no other reason than having an Arabic last name. It was like that here as well, my stepkids are of Arabic descent and took a lot of crap at school because of their dark skin. It was a sad state in countries that pride themselves on being multicultural. That's the way we want to live? In constant suspicion?

I don't believe in just fighting a disease. I think it's more important to find a cure. As manker said earlier, eye for an eye only escalates the problem. Maybe it's time to look at why it happens instead of just increasing security and sending back a "proportionate response".

---

:01: :01: :01:

The Met just admitted that since the Iraqi conflict, they estimate 3000.. yes, i said 3000, people in the UK are now sympathetic with the Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists.

I really dont want my world being made safer that way.

I still remember when everytime i heard an Irish accent I was looking with suspicion, when i was in a pub taking my turn as lookout...

I didnt want coppers to have guns then, i still dont.

I'd rather live free thanks, without every nutter (and i wouldnt trust some of our soldiers with guns, never mind our police) being able to carry firearms.


Nikki, you forget busymans culture where the guns are freely available and everyone has a few... Its different to ours.

I'm sure if i'd been brought up in a place where they were visible all the time, were freely available and every petty thief is armed, i'd feel different.

---

...and isn't it sumthin'?

We still live our lives as happy as can be. :)

Many of you still miss the point.

Being passive with no protection is fucking stupid.

You can secure yourself almost transparently.
I hear extremes to prove a point when those extremes aren't necessary and for me, don't exist. :dry:

Well RF brought to light about your culture.
Explains quite a bit, like I said ealier in this or in another post , why do you need to protect yourself with steel bullets?
IF you REALLY are that afraid that you need weapons to feel safe, why do you have to have weapons that kill with the squeeze of a trigger?

In the uk you got no chance of getting a gun, not legally anyway.
Hell , there are only a couple of places where police carry more than a batton and pepper spray in the uk.
We feel safe, the threat is still there with your armed guards, cept you are showing fear.

Places like Isreal have busses exploding and shit like that far too frequently.
Why??
What good are these guards doing?

Show me proof these Guards are making people feel safe and actually making the country a safer place.

Personally I find the thought that pretty much anyone can own a gun rather disturbing.
Jesus christ you can't even own a powerful catapolt here.

Do we moan about national saftey?

No

So like I said, prove me wrong.

Jonno :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon L. Obscene

Well RF brought to light about your culture.
Explains quite a bit, like I said ealier in this or in another post , why do you need to protect yourself with steel bullets?
IF you REALLY are that afraid that you need weapons to feel safe, why do you have to have weapons that kill with the squeeze of a trigger?

In the uk you got no chance of getting a gun, not legally anyway.
Hell , there are only a couple of places where police carry more than a batton and pepper spray in the uk.
We feel safe, the threat is still there with your armed guards, cept you are showing fear.

Places like Isreal have busses exploding and shit like that far too frequently.
Why??
What good are these guards doing?

Show me proof these Guards are making people feel safe and actually making the country a safer place.

Personally I find the thought that pretty much anyone can own a gun rather disturbing.
Jesus christ you can't even own a powerful catapolt here.

Do we moan about national saftey?

No

So like I said, prove me wrong.

Jonno :cool:

---

Remove your entire police force then.

.....and why do they need pepper spray and a batton?

And yes you do moan about national safety.

You'd be some dumbfucks not to change something in your security measures on your subway system. This does not have to include harassment.

I heard that you had a very good camera system.

Regarding guns, I chill in my backyard. Sleep in my hammock at night.

Yet I own guns. STFW. My ownership is transparent...until I need to use it.

Coz even a limey petty thief can pick up a stick :P

Oh ffs, I'm sorry but there's a world of difference between pepper spray and a gun.
The police is different, they are there to inforce laws, normal household laws.
The police's main concern is not terrorism, it's drunken disturbances.
And the police are a deterant to law breakers.

Placing an armed (with automatics guns) guard on every bus train and cafe door is a little different from a local bobby plodding the drunken beat.

So don't even try and interconnect the 2 because that arguement holds no wieght whatsoever in this discussion.

Jonno :cool:

Edit: wait.......by your comment of you used to beat after 10pm, does that mean you were a copper?
That would also explain your views, you see things only from a coppers pov, not joe publics pov and you always will, I'm not taking the piss here I'm serious. It is programmed into you to protect and serve.......what were you protecting and serving from?
Did you know where a drug deal was gonna go down? did you know about drive by shootings? or did you get there AFTER the event?
So by your logic there should be a copper on guard 24/7 on every street in the world. Cos that would make people feel safe would'nt it :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon L. Obscene

Oh ffs, I'm sorry but there's a world of difference between pepper spray and a gun.
The police is different, they are there to inforce laws, normal household laws.
The police's main concern is not terrorism, it's drunken disturbances.
And the police are a deterant to law breakers.

Placing an armed (with automatics guns) guard on every bus train and cafe door is a little different from a local bobby plodding the drunken beat.

So don't even try and interconnect the 2 because that arguement holds no wieght whatsoever in this discussion.

Jonno :cool:

---

Neither does yours. You keep bringing up armed guards with automatic guns on every bus, train and cafe when the only person that seems to embrace that is tralalalalalala.

You've proven my point. Police are a deterant to law breakers. WTF does the stepped up security do? :dry:

Not having stepped up security encourages more 9/11's. I'm sure the hijackers took awhile due to planning....planning on how to get past security measures (and learning to fly).

If the London subway security remains static then I'm sure there will be a repeat performance of that atrocity.

What pisses me off about our security is that it is reactive. After your subway bombing then we had stepped up security. Great!!...what about all this stepped up shit after 9/11? :angry:

Quote:

---

Neither does yours. You keep bringing up armed guards with automatic guns on every bus, train and cafe when the only person that seems to embrace that is tralalalalalala.

---

:huh: So you're agreeing with me now?
You make no sense man.

Isreal hav'nt stepped up security, they are a military state pretty much.
I was arguing against Rafi's point of armed guards in isreal is good, wtf have you been talking about? :huh:

Jonno :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon L. Obscene

Quote:

---

Neither does yours. You keep bringing up armed guards with automatic guns on every bus, train and cafe when the only person that seems to embrace that is tralalalalalala.

---

:huh: So you're agreeing with me now?
You make no sense man.

Isreal hav'nt stepped up security, they are a military state pretty much.
I was arguing against Rafi's point of armed guards in isreal is good, wtf have you been talking about? :huh:

Jonno :cool:

---

Now? Check post #97. :dry:

Ah, you're arguing my point that heavy security makes you look week.

Well I'm sorry but to me a person or place that needs heavy security at their own home is showing fear, if you don't live in fear, why do you need the security like that?

Jonno :cool:

The police here carry guns. And it is legal for citizens to have guns. However, to buy a gun, you must first be trained, and then licensed. The types of guns available to the public is much more limited than it is in the US. Only certain individuals may carry concealed weapons, and it is very, very difficult to obtain a license for that - Private investigators, personal bodyguards, highly trained persons. Storage of weapons here is very specific. All weapons must have trigger locks as well as safety mechanisms. They may not be stored loaded. They must be stored in a locked compartment - and ammunition must be stored separately and also locked away. So they are available, but not freely.

That said, the number of gun related deaths in Canada is relatively low in comparison with the US. I'm not sure of exact statistics in this area, so I won't give exact quotes.

I personally don't own a gun. Don't want one, don't feel a need for one. I know very few people who do, most of those are used for deer/goose hunting. I rarely lock my door, though I have had the occasional drunk wander in. I still feel safe.

I don't feel that being passive with no protection is stupid. I don't feel the need for protection, that's the whole point. There IS a police force, yet crime still happens. There IS security in the subways, yet people still get pushed onto the tracks. There IS an intelligence agency in the states, and yet 9/11 happened. You can't prevent everything. Deal with what happens as it happens. Punish the offenders accordingly. Move on. You can't live your life worrying about what might happen - that's no way to live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

There IS a police force, yet crime still happens. There IS security in the subways, yet people still get pushed onto the tracks. There IS an intelligence agency in the states, and yet 9/11 happened. You can't prevent everything. Deal with what happens as it happens. Punish the offenders accordingly. Move on. You can't live your life worrying about what might happen - that's no way to live.

---

That's!! what I was trying to say :lol:

I can add nothing more to that, perfectly said :)

Jonno :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon L. Obscene

Ah, you're arguing my point that heavy security makes you look week.

Well I'm sorry but to me a person or place that needs heavy security at their own home is showing fear, if you don't live in fear, why do you need the security like that?

Jonno :cool:

---

Hmmm.....no security makes you look weaker. Maybe banks should take your advice.

Since me owning a gun is transparent, I don't "look" weak or strong.

If you call that heavy security (simple ownership)...well it sounds kinda wussy.

Our banks have no security guards, only alarms and shutters.

Jonno :cool:

Edit: Ok Busyman you got me, I actually am now not sure what it is you're dissagreeing with.
We are talking about the difference between Isreal and countries like the us and uk. And my pov is that all the extra security Isreal is pouring onto it's streets makes it look weak and that the best way to battle terrorism is to show no fear, you cannot prevent, it's impossible to fight an invisible enemy. So rather than show fear by upgrading security by giving every bobby an ak-47, we/I think it's a better policy to try to find the people responsible and get to them that way, eventually you will briong them down from the inside, meanwhile we show they have no effect on our lives and we continue to live not in fear........but just simply in our own lives.

I would like to reply to a couple posts a few pages back (I would have replied earlier but the bloody board went offline... typical.. :lol:).

So this is what I was gonna write:

@RioDeLeo:

I pronmise one thing to you: If you take statements from a Muslim article, you will always see the Israeli guy as "the bad guy". It's a fact. Sky News in Britain always seem to show Israel as the "bad people", same with the BBC.
People always want to show how bad Israel is all the time, when they do not even consider looking at the situation from the Israeli guys side. These people hate us. We want peace, but quite a few of them don't. We offer a portion of land which is definately enough (as Israel is the only Jewish state, whereas the Palestinians could not just live in Palestine, but in 20 other countries too, so please..).

An Israeli would see a terrorist as a person looking to cause fatalities for this reason: He wants to.
Not all Arabs are terrorists, in fact, only a small percentage of them are, but unfortunately that small percentage reflects the big picture too. The same if you took a class of 30 kids. 3 kids cause havoc in every lesson. Teachers say the class is screwed up.
Small things have big reflections too you know...


@Nikki:
All houses demolished were of the families of the terrorists (i.e their mom and dads house, or their own house if they had one - most of them were too young for one of their own.......).

In todays world, we need to catch these people seeking to kill us and get them first. How do we do that? catch 'em hot handed. The other option: Invading their countries from which they operate and get them from there. The problem: Too many people will condemn that, so it wouldn't work.
Alas, the winning option is more security to catch them.

In Israel, we have lots of guards everywhere so we can walk in the streets not worrying about terrorists, as they are being caught on their way by our guards who PROTECT US. I know it sounds odd, but none of you have lived in such a country surrounded by hatred, needing to protect itself in a very big sort of way.
That is why we are not a police state.
In fact, if we could actually get peace here please god, we may not need to have compulsory army service anymore, but maybe just a minor service (like 1 year instead of 3).


Yes, I think Muslims also want a nice world, but as I wrote above, a little splurge can ruin the whole picture....


Now to the newer replies:

Nikki:
You say lets leave the armed guards, forget 'em. I'd rather be open to attacks than be protected by guards. You'd be gone within a month of that change in Israel.

Jonno:
Your example with the punch up is not a good one and unlike Busy who summed it up in 2 words :lol: I'll tell ya why in more detail:

A punch up - I hit someone. He brings backup - I stop hitting him cos I'm worried he and his backup men will hit me.
Terrorism is different. They will try and hit you even if you do have backup.
And, as Busyman said - If I hit someone and he smiles back at me, I'll make his smile fractured within a matter of 2 punches and a boot.. :lol:

Countries are different, in countries you need to have someone on the watch to make sure there is no havoc, no casualties, no fatalities.
I wouldn't call myself a coward for enjoying the fact that I am safe.

You said someone with excessive guards is weak and paranoid.
I'm not weak. My mum and dad and brother aren't weak.
My friends are not weak. We are also not paranoid.
We live a perfectly normal life, just like you up untill that attack, and yes, we live like you do PLUS we are SAFE as well.

That is why I would call me a precautiose person rather a fearful and weak person.
If we had no guards and security like we do, the chances of me perishing in one of these attacks would be so much higher..!!
Could you imagine losing me Jonno, could you??????!!!!!!!!?!?!?!

I know, I sound mad, and I sound afraid of being kiled, but infact I am not. I am more afraid of losing my family and friends abroad as a result of lack of security. Forget Israels security - that's a different story - we have had too much experience in that feild unfortunately, but now we got hit, we have our backup, and it is now more difficult to hit us back.



Rafi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

The police here carry guns. And it is legal for citizens to have guns. However, to buy a gun, you must first be trained, and then licensed. The types of guns available to the public is much more limited than it is in the US. Only certain individuals may carry concealed weapons, and it is very, very difficult to obtain a license for that - Private investigators, personal bodyguards, highly trained persons. Storage of weapons here is very specific. All weapons must have trigger locks as well as safety mechanisms. They may not be stored loaded. They must be stored in a locked compartment - and ammunition must be stored separately and also locked away. So they are available, but not freely.

That said, the number of gun related deaths in Canada is relatively low in comparison with the US. I'm not sure of exact statistics in this area, so I won't give exact quotes.

I personally don't own a gun. Don't want one, don't feel a need for one. I know very few people who do, most of those are used for deer/goose hunting. I rarely lock my door, though I have had the occasional drunk wander in. I still feel safe.

I don't feel that being passive with no protection is stupid. I don't feel the need for protection, that's the whole point. There IS a police force, yet crime still happens. There IS security in the subways, yet people still get pushed onto the tracks. There IS an intelligence agency in the states, and yet 9/11 happened. You can't prevent everything. Deal with what happens as it happens. Punish the offenders accordingly. Move on. You can't live your life worrying about what might happen - that's no way to live.

---

One should always strive for perfection even though you can't achieve it. Did Canada change any security measures after 9/11? Probably so. Why do ya think?

Obviously a security hole was exploited so a passive attitude towards that type of thing is stupid. Plain and simple.

If you have young kids and rarely lock your doors, I consider that stupid.

I like you gun laws btw. ;)

And might I add the post I missed whilst typing my previouse one:

Nikki: Punishing the offenders is not enough, you need to punish the future ones too.
We can catch them.
We should catch them.
We need to catch them.

If we get hit, and look at who hit us, then walk away, why should that stop him from hitting again??

:lol: yet again missed posts.....

Nikki: Rarely locking your doors with kids in the house is a silly thing to do... What IF someone came in and nicked your TV? What IF someone came in and (GOD FORBID) attacked you or kids?
In that case, why not leave you're car open at all times, in fact, what's the need for keys anymore?

9/11 Happened, probably, because of someone sort of missing an eye, not taking it seriously.
That's how the 1973 Yom Kippur war (where Israel was attacked at the same time by Jordan, Egypt and Syria) started, and Israel lost many lives - over 2000. All because of someone who thought nothing's gonna happen, so let's pass on it..

As they say: Better safe than sorry.

And I think that sums it up don't you?




P.S: EDIT: We also have those same gun rules. Only after trained and licensed may you handle a gun publicly.

@Rafi...... dude I never said YOU'RE weak, I'm talking about the apperence your country gives.
And this crap about if you hit someone and he smiled you'd break his face, omg get out of terminator mode both of you, if you hit me and I smiled you would not be thinking you're gonna break my face. I've seen it happen, it casts fear. You hit someone as hard as you can and they smile at you, what you gonna do? hit em again so they smile at you again?
Thing to think about is.......what is happening while they are smiling at you?

It makes perfect sense, we've always called bullies weak becase they will be 1 big lad protected by others, take his mates away and he's weak, whereas people like me will stand alone and stand his ground.

It's just a scale thing.

Jonno :cool:

Oh and Rafi.......Living your life by "What if's" is no good, what if I fall of my bike today? what if I get hit by a car today? what if I slip in the shower and hit my head today?

Again, put it all into scales: Safety from terrorists is far more "bigger" shall we say, than falling in the shower.
Terrorism is something people do to you. The other examples you gave were just bad luck that happens to you.

You can generally control you're life by living it, as wild as can be, but making sure you don't get into dodgy "zones", and by that way, making the "Better safe than sorry" phrase a well placed one.

I'm so so sorry but I think I'm gonna retire to bed..... its Midnight here and I need to get up tomorrow at 7:30 to go help out at ma wee brothers camp.....

G'night all, don't let the bed bugs bite!! :)


Man this has become one heck of a discussion eh? Let's keep it going this way!! :)


G'night once again,
Rafi *yawn*

What if I get jumped on my way to work and beaten for no reason?
What if a fight breaks out and I interfere and get stabbed?

It's all what if's and life's not like that.
Besides, you said what if someone steels her tv etc, thats a bit less important than me getting hit by a car would'nt you say?

You can not control terrorism with more guns, you get more guns so they have to out do you and get more themselfs, to teach you a lesson.

You do not fight fire with fire, you can't wn that battle.
Attacks cannot be predicted.
All they do now if they can't get on a bus is get in a taxi, or just leave a car parked.
Tell me again what good it does to have so many armed guards?

Jonno :cool:

Edit: Night dude :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

One should always strive for perfection even though you can't achieve it. Did Canada change any security measures after 9/11? Probably so. Why do ya think?

---

Yes, some measures changed. Airport security for one - you now have to go through the same security checks for domestic flights as for international. Loved ones cannot see you through to the gate anymore, they cannot come past security. The types of things that are allowed in carry on luggage has changed. All in all though, not that noticeable a difference to the average Canadian, other than an extra hour at the airport to fly to within borders. There is also now a sky marshall on each flight, though they are plain clothed and unnoticed. (so far as my mother says, I haven't been on vacation since 2000 cause I can't afford it :cry: :lol: )

Other than that, I couldn't tell you what changes have occurred here. If they have, they are not blatantly obvious to me.

Quote:

---

Obviously a security hole was exploited so a passive attitude towards that type of thing is stupid. Plain and simple.

---

Now, that statement would be true, if, the government knew that terrorists planned to fly airplanes into buildings and did nothing about it. And if that is the case then the flaws are not with this "passive attitude" but with your government itself. If they knew this for a fact, and knew there were security holes at airports, and stood by and did nothing, then the blame lies with them, not with society's passive attitude. National security is the responsibility of the government, it is not the responsibility of the everyday citizen to arm themselves. When that happens, you enter the realm of martial law, and that is a dangerous place to be.

Quote:

---

If you have young kids and rarely lock your doors, I consider that stupid.

---

Don't get me wrong, at night, if I'm alone with the kids, I lock the door. I'm little. During the day though, it's open, and yes, there are times when I forget, or fall asleep on the couch with it open. At the same time though, I figure locked or unlocked, if someone wants to break in badly enough, they will.

Quote:

---

I like you gun laws btw. ;)

---

They've gotten better these last few years. :)

I flew into Prestwick Airport from Dublin the same day as the G8 leaders arrived at Prestwick. I saw an old man with a walking stick going through the security at Dublin. That walking stick might have been a 'plastic' gun. I had to take my shoes off. Bet they dont ask me to do that again.:lol:

Hundreds of police with guns and dogs etc at Prestwick. I am used to that kind of reception wherever I go.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tralalala

I would like to reply to a couple posts a few pages back (I would have replied earlier but the bloody board went offline... typical.. :lol:).

So this is what I was gonna write:

@RioDeLeo:

I pronmise one thing to you: If you take statements from a Muslim article, you will always see the Israeli guy as "the bad guy". It's a fact. Sky News in Britain always seem to show Israel as the "bad people", same with the BBC.
People always want to show how bad Israel is all the time, when they do not even consider looking at the situation from the Israeli guys side. These people hate us. We want peace, but quite a few of them don't. We offer a portion of land which is definately enough (as Israel is the only Jewish state, whereas the Palestinians could not just live in Palestine, but in 20 other countries too, so please..).

An Israeli would see a terrorist as a person looking to cause fatalities for this reason: He wants to.
Not all Arabs are terrorists, in fact, only a small percentage of them are, but unfortunately that small percentage reflects the big picture too. The same if you took a class of 30 kids. 3 kids cause havoc in every lesson. Teachers say the class is screwed up.
Small things have big reflections too you know...


@Nikki:
All houses demolished were of the families of the terrorists (i.e their mom and dads house, or their own house if they had one - most of them were too young for one of their own.......).

In todays world, we need to catch these people seeking to kill us and get them first. How do we do that? catch 'em hot handed. The other option: Invading their countries from which they operate and get them from there. The problem: Too many people will condemn that, so it wouldn't work.
Alas, the winning option is more security to catch them.

In Israel, we have lots of guards everywhere so we can walk in the streets not worrying about terrorists, as they are being caught on their way by our guards who PROTECT US. I know it sounds odd, but none of you have lived in such a country surrounded by hatred, needing to protect itself in a very big sort of way.
That is why we are not a police state.
In fact, if we could actually get peace here please god, we may not need to have compulsory army service anymore, but maybe just a minor service (like 1 year instead of 3).


Yes, I think Muslims also want a nice world, but as I wrote above, a little splurge can ruin the whole picture....


Now to the newer replies:

Nikki:
You say lets leave the armed guards, forget 'em. I'd rather be open to attacks than be protected by guards. You'd be gone within a month of that change in Israel.

Jonno:
Your example with the punch up is not a good one and unlike Busy who summed it up in 2 words :lol: I'll tell ya why in more detail:

A punch up - I hit someone. He brings backup - I stop hitting him cos I'm worried he and his backup men will hit me.
Terrorism is different. They will try and hit you even if you do have backup.
And, as Busyman said - If I hit someone and he smiles back at me, I'll make his smile fractured within a matter of 2 punches and a boot.. :lol:

Countries are different, in countries you need to have someone on the watch to make sure there is no havoc, no casualties, no fatalities.
I wouldn't call myself a coward for enjoying the fact that I am safe.

You said someone with excessive guards is weak and paranoid.
I'm not weak. My mum and dad and brother aren't weak.
My friends are not weak. We are also not paranoid.
We live a perfectly normal life, just like you up untill that attack, and yes, we live like you do PLUS we are SAFE as well.

That is why I would call me a precautiose person rather a fearful and weak person.
If we had no guards and security like we do, the chances of me perishing in one of these attacks would be so much higher..!!
Could you imagine losing me Jonno, could you??????!!!!!!!!?!?!?!

I know, I sound mad, and I sound afraid of being kiled, but infact I am not. I am more afraid of losing my family and friends abroad as a result of lack of security. Forget Israels security - that's a different story - we have had too much experience in that feild unfortunately, but now we got hit, we have our backup, and it is now more difficult to hit us back.



Rafi

---

Whoa whoa whoa... families of terrorists????? WTF???? So now should we go out and punish murderers by tearing down the houses of their families too? That is guilt by association, and it simply wrong.

I seriously doubt that you get an unbiased view on what happens there from the Israeli media Rafi. I should think that the BBC or the SkyNews are probably closer to the truth of the matter.

You cannot possibly punish future offenders - there is no way of knowing with any certainty who they are without punishing the innocent as well. Sending someone to jail because they might set off a car bomb is totally unjust.

(had to do that quick cause I gotta run and make dinner... so it might not make sense.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Yes, some measures changed. Airport security for one - you now have to go through the same security checks for domestic flights as for international. Loved ones cannot see you through to the gate anymore, they cannot come past security. The types of things that are allowed in carry on luggage has changed. All in all though, not that noticeable a difference to the average Canadian, other than an extra hour at the airport to fly to within borders. There is also now a sky marshall on each flight, though they are plain clothed and unnoticed. (so far as my mother says, I haven't been on vacation since 2000 cause I can't afford it :cry: :lol: )

Other than that, I couldn't tell you what changes have occurred here. If they have, they are not blatantly obvious to me.

---

....and that's what I'm talking about.....transparency ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Obviously a security hole was exploited so a passive attitude towards that type of thing is stupid. Plain and simple.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Now, that statement would be true, if, the government knew that terrorists planned to fly airplanes into buildings and did nothing about it. And if that is the case then the flaws are not with this "passive attitude" but with your government itself. If they knew this for a fact, and knew there were security holes at airports, and stood by and did nothing, then the blame lies with them, not with society's passive attitude. National security is the responsibility of the government, it is not the responsibility of the everyday citizen to arm themselves. When that happens, you enter the realm of martial law, and that is a dangerous place to be.

---

We are all obviously talking about the government and whether we agree with certain tactics. I hear this passive attitude towards security yet you seem cool with the changes Canada made. :huh:
The security hole on 9/11 was whether people made it on the plane with weapons (and tracking folks that aren't supposed to be here anymore). This is not known for a fact but is likely.

Security holes should be plugged without offensive crap like our Patriot Act. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon L. Obscene

Our banks have no security guards, only alarms and shutters.

Jonno :cool:

Edit: Ok Busyman you got me, I actually am now not sure what it is you're dissagreeing with.
We are talking about the difference between Isreal and countries like the us and uk. And my pov is that all the extra security Isreal is pouring onto it's streets makes it look weak and that the best way to battle terrorism is to show no fear, you cannot prevent, it's impossible to fight an invisible enemy. So rather than show fear by upgrading security by giving every bobby an ak-47, we/I think it's a better policy to try to find the people responsible and get to them that way, eventually you will briong them down from the inside, meanwhile we show they have no effect on our lives and we continue to live not in fear........but just simply in our own lives.

---

It's pretty easy. I disagreed with post 103.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

....and that's what I'm talking about.....transparency ;)

We are all obviously talking about the government and whether we agree with certain tactics. I hear this passive attitude towards security yet you seem cool with the changes Canada made. :huh:
The security hole on 9/11 was whether people made it on the plane with weapons (and tracking folks that aren't supposed to be here anymore). This is not known for a fact but is likely.

Security holes should be plugged without offensive crap like our Patriot Act. :dry:

---

And with that I agree.

That has not changed my life to any visible extent. There were always security measures in airports, they have just been extended to include domestic flights. There was always a police detachment at the airport. What Rafi proposes however, is placing armed guards in malls (which are not present here now), on streets, in parking garages, on public transportation. This would cause a visible change. If I were to be stopped on the street and a guard asked to search my car or person, I would be livid, and probably ask to see a search warrant. :lol: That is the kind of protection I'm saying I don't want or need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tralalala

@Nikki:
All houses demolished were of the families of the terrorists (i.e their mom and dads house, or their own house if they had one - most of them were too young for one of their own.......).

---

Whoa whoa whoa... families of terrorists????? WTF???? So now should we go out and punish murderers by tearing down the houses of their families too? That is guilt by association, and it simply wrong.

---

hmm. well, people seem fond of repeating the idea that muslims are on a completely different track from "us"... whole different idea of whats ethical/moral/true/false... and that they simply cannot be measured by "our" ethical standards. tralala's statement, and eye-for-an-eye and sins-of-the-fathers sort of stuff, makes me wonder if the same is no less true of israel. might it be a mistake to assume that just because israel's aligned to the west & supported by it, that israel's "moral compass" is pointed anywhere near the rest of ours? when someone commits a crime in my country, my first thought certainly isn't "okay, let's round up the family, knock their house down and punish them"; any culture that considers this logically & ethically acceptable is alien to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

hmm. well, people seem fond of repeating the idea that muslims are on a completely different track from "us"... whole different idea of whats ethical/moral/true/false... and that they simply cannot be measured by "our" ethical standards. tralala's statement, and eye-for-an-eye and sins-of-the-fathers sort of stuff, makes me wonder if the same is no less true of israel. might it be a mistake to assume that just because israel's aligned to the west & supported by it, that israel's "moral compass" is pointed anywhere near the rest of ours? when someone commits a crime in my country, my first thought certainly isn't "okay, let's round up the family, knock their house down and punish them"; any culture that considers this logically & ethically acceptable is alien to me.

---

Well said.

@ Tralala: l think you are well named, you obviously live in LalaLand.

This statement ..

Quote:

---

These people hate us. We want peace, but quite a few of them don't. We offer a portion of land which is definately enough (as Israel is the only Jewish state, whereas the Palestinians could not just live in Palestine, but in 20 other countries too, so please..).

---

.. is typical of your sort.

1. You hate them as much as they hate you.
2. Many, many Israelis DON'T want peace, they want all Muslims\Arabs out of "Greater Israel".
3. The "portion" of land you offer them is already theirs, along with the rest of it you stole.
4. Jews can and do live in every country in the world, they don't all have to live in Israel any more than all Catholics have to live in the Vatican.

Your earlier answer to NikkiD about terrorists houses was ably answered by 3RA1N1AC, so l will only concur with what he said.

I'm sorry Rio but that post of yours is out of order.

"is typical of your sort". Your sort?? Now you talking to me as if I'm some alien or something?!
Israel is the only country where Jews can live, and not be worried about antisemetism which is growing more and more.
The Palestinians can live in any other Arab countrywithout worrying about antisemetism, don't you think?

How can you say I hate them? I don't like them for what that small portion of them do, but I do not hate the majority, they are good people.
Many Israelis? You've been watching Al-Jazeera again right?
That portion of land I was talking about is the land that was used by the settlers, and currently is held by Israel (though I think it should'nt be held by us).
Yes, Jews may well live anywhere, but their home is in Israel, land of the Jews, and you cannot change that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tralalala

Yes, Jews may well live anywhere, but their home is in Israel, land of the Jews, and you cannot change that.

---

Funny, I could have sworn that part of the world used to be called Palestine ... :huh:

So basically you want to drive all the Palestinians out of their ancestral home, and hope that other countries such as Syria, Jordan and Egypt will take them in as refugees. Sounds a bit like ethnic cleansing to me.. Sounds alot like religious persecution too, you know, sort of like that anti-semetism you were bleating on about..

I think that solving this problem will take a long while.

If you are a Jew then you believe that this is your promised land.

If you are a Palestinian then you believe that the land is yours.

If you are Islamic then you back the Palestinians, or appear so to do.

If you are non religious then you look at the facts.

When I was a young boy the Jews were the terrorists, killing British soldiers.
People tend to forget this fact. Or were they 'freedom fighters' depending on which side of the fence you were on.

Now the Palestinians are the terrorists, or are they 'freedom fighters'.

A very tricky situation. When you start talking about 'promised lands' The British 'promised' this land(and a lot of other land) to the Arabs for their help in the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire in that area. Lawrence Of Arabia and all that. The british were forced to renege on that promise by the intervention of WW2 and the League Of Nations Mandate on Palestine.

I would not even attempt to try and take sides in all that mess. Who is right and who is wrong. I dont know.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

I would not even attempt to try and take sides in all that mess. Who is right and who is wrong. I dont know.:(

---

To the victor goes the spoils, unfortunately. In this case the haves are in the wrong and the have-nots are in the right, because it's the haves who are denying the have-nots what is rightfully theirs.

@ Tralala, you have a hide calling my post out of order, and judging by the comments here you are convincing no-one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RioDeLeo

In this case the haves are in the wrong and the have-nots are in the right, because it's the haves who are denying the have-nots what is rightfully theirs.

---

Most indubitably.:blink:

Right,

colin: Where would we go if we were to give "Palestine" in it's whole back to them?
You need to understand that Israel is more than wiling to offer land to the Palestinians to live in. It is up to them to decide if they want it or not.
They strive for more, we can't afford to give more... We are 6 million, they are 1 million.
There is a difference.

No I do not want them out of here, that would be impossible and wrong. I want them to live peacfully next to us.
Israel was called Palestine by the Greeks... Go figure...
Jews have always lived in that land, so have Arabs, but the thing is we will never manage to decide "who was there fisrt".
The fact is today both are still here.
At the 1948 war of independance, straight after the UN decided Israel would become a state for the Jews, what happened? All arab states (Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq and most importantly - the what we now call Palestinians or Israeli-Arabs), started to attack the newly born country simply because they did not want us to live here.
We won.
They lost.
Many fled and today they want to come back.
This is impossible - there would be a demographic explosion if they did.

@BB:
The Jews helped the Brits in WW2.
The Brits promised to let Holocaust survivors to come live in Israel.
They never let more than some 2000 in legally.
That is why some Jews started to attack the Brits - they did not do what they promised to do, leaving many Jews on ships doing nothing, waiting.
Yes, the Palestinians are fighting their war of independance, they will get a state.
They will NOT get all of Israel, that will never happen.

@Rio:
I am only trying to convine people that Israel are not what they see. Don't beleive everything people tell you... (A good example on that is "Yes Minister".. watch it).
And by that odd statement of yours I'm taking that once again you are telling that Israel are wrong, the Arabs are right eh?
Well, THEY FLED THE COUNTRY IN 1948.
THEY NEVER RETURNED.
NOW THEY SUDDENLY WANT TO COME BACK TO GIVE US A HARD TIME.
NO WAY ARE ISRAEL OUT OF ORDER HERE.

Israel is NOT rightfully theirs, never was, never will be.
Israel belongs to the Jews, and has done for 57 years, and thousands of years prior to that.

And another thing Rio and colin:

Do you support sending the Jews out of Israel and leaving them out?

If not, what do you support in that term then???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tralalala

And another thing Rio and colin:

Do you support sending the Jews out of Israel and leaving them out?

If not, what do you supposr in that term then???

---

It just doesn't occur to you to try and find a way to peacefully co-exist with each other, does it?

To be fair, it's not just you, it appears to me that it doesn't occur to any of the involved parties.

Enjoy your military service... ;)

EDIT: Seems I'd better put this back, as Tralalala already replied to it.. However, I apologise in as much that I missed something Tralalala said in the post above the above post... (if that makes any sense)

Whaaaaa???

You think we don't want to co-exist? We want peace, I WANT PEACE....

That's what I've been saying since I started this thread.......
And what do you mean by "another way to co-exist"..??

Enjoy your military service, whats that supposed to mean!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tralalala

Whaaaaa???

You think we don't want to co-exist? We want peace, I WANT PEACE....

That's what I've been saying since I started this thread.......
And what do you mean by "another way to co-exist"..??

Enjoy your military service, whats that supposed to mean!?

---

Apologies, I did not read all of your previous post. :blushing: