{OT} Who is next on Terror list?

claudek · Post by **claudek** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:06 pm

Who do you think will be the next country to be hit by terror?

louZ · Post by **louZ** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:08 pm

where's Holland?

hoffman2k · Post by **hoffman2k** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:11 pm

Top 10 reasons for being Belgian:

You get to speak three languages, but none of them intelligibly.
If other countries want to fight a war, they will do in your county.
You can brew drinks out of fruit, and still call it beer.
You are either:
like the dutch, just less efficient
like the french, just less romantic
like the germans
Decent fries. Real mayonaise. Great choclate. The best beer. Need I say more?
No one knows anything about you, except for the dutch and french. And they make fun of you.
More scandals in a week than any other country in a decade.
You can drive like a maniac on the road and nobody cares
All you famous countrymen are either imaginairy, or sex-offenders
Face it. It's not really a country, is it?

ikeaboy · Post by **ikeaboy** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:16 pm

Wheres Iraq? That would be my vote

Livewire · Post by **Livewire** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:22 pm

iraq is being bombarded everday by terrorists. car bombs ring a bell? people are dieing all the time there. its not even funny. damn stuborm iraqi need to accept the fact that americans are only there to help...and take some oil while theyre at it.

john gordon · Post by **john gordon** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:29 pm

Livewire wrote:iraq is being bombarded everday by terrorists. car bombs ring a bell? people are dieing all the time there. its not even funny. damn stuborm iraqi need to accept the fact that americans are only there to help...and take some oil while theyre at it.

us helping?they were better off when saddam was in power.

claudek · Post by **claudek** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:38 pm

Yes, Holland could be on there..
I'd say most likely economic famous places that cause some news..
Rome or somehwere like Tokyo. Sad this is reality..but it will happen.
US next attack will not be small scale European style attack...
USA gets the biggest wammy.Why??..as they are most hated by this terror network for obvious, political issues.
History shows each attack in US has been larger each time.
Where in USA? Now that is a good ?.I'd gamble on L.A. or NYC or Washington.. again.

conny · Post by **conny** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:56 pm

... (useless) ... (no bets) ...

// C

anonymouse · Post by **anonymouse** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:40 am

man, if you get this prediction correct, you'll have a van parked outside your home within minutes and all your emails will be read.

I don't want to even try to predict this.

One point I'll make - I disagree with the word "terrorist" and even moreso "insurgent". Can the media not say "fundamentalist guerilla angered by meddling/occupying foreign superpowers"?

Labelling every thorn in the side of G8 mega-economies a "terrorist" is one step away from calling the world good & evil; much too Hollywood. It just angers the activists further when they are not recognised for their cause. The media has done much to unify and inspire previously disparate groups in order to spin a story about "good vs evil".

hitherto · Post by **hitherto** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:52 am

john gordon wrote:
Livewire wrote:iraq is being bombarded everday by terrorists. car bombs ring a bell? people are dieing all the time there. its not even funny. damn stuborm iraqi need to accept the fact that americans are only there to help...and take some oil while theyre at it.
us helping?they were better off when saddam was in power.

No shit...I mean 99% of their population would vote for him in elections when he was in power.

Right....how many Kurds did he gas and kill? They love Saddam for that.

At least now the people of Iraq are dieing for their freedom.

hitherto · Post by **hitherto** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:58 am

anonymouse wrote: One point I'll make - I disagree with the word "terrorist" and even moreso "insurgent". Can the media not say "fundamentalist guerilla angered by meddling/occupying foreign superpowers"?

I often wonder the same thing. Why did Ableton call their software "Live"? It should be called "totally awsome real-time sonic manipulation software for all stages of production, from initial conception to final master".

"Live" is such a simplified description that doesn't come close to describing the power and depth of the product.

Livewire · Post by **Livewire** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am

yea america isnt doing to well of a job in iraq. they arent even supposed to be there. iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. but they got rid of saddam which is good. but now iraq is even in worse shape. both americans and iraqis need to work together in order for things to work out or god forbid it turns out like another vietnam. they better not back out.

and this thread isnt funny. no one should have fun predicting where there will be another mass of people dieing for no just reason.

anonymouse · Post by **anonymouse** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:28 am

Livewire wrote:yea america isnt doing to well of a job in iraq. they arent even supposed to be there. iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. but they got rid of saddam which is good. but now iraq is even in worse shape. both americans and iraqis need to work together in order for things to work out or god forbid it turns out like another vietnam. they better not back out.

and this thread isnt funny. no one should have fun predicting where there will be another mass of people dieing for no just reason.

It already is another Vietnam. In Vietnam 39% of the American casualties were from friendly fire; this time round the American killing technology is much better. The toll on Iraqi nationals is growing (175,000? who knows, that is just a red cross estimate), but currently the official toll of American lives in Iraq is 1730. I am not sure how many soldiers from the rest of the coalition have perished.

I wonder would Saddam have killed this many people had he stayed in power? Would a small secretive task force not have managed to clinically assasinate him by now had the "war" never started?

sqook · Post by **sqook** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:38 am

Livewire wrote:yea america isnt doing to well of a job in iraq. they arent even supposed to be there. iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. but they got rid of saddam which is good. but now iraq is even in worse shape. both americans and iraqis need to work together in order for things to work out or god forbid it turns out like another vietnam. they better not back out.

Agreed. You know, I was almost willing to accept the gratiutious lies made by our politicians when I saw sadaam's statue fall. I know that even though we were in there for the wrong reasons, we had a chance to bring some type of stability to this region of the world. However, we've completely worn out our welcome by now, and although it seems totally illogical to those in charge, I think that we should remove all military personnel. If bush and his cronies really cared about "nation building", he'd just leave the engineers and the statesmen to actually help build iraq. Having a military presence there means that there's gonna be a war; pulling them out will end the violence, but I don't think that most people would agree with me on that point. Oh, well.

and this thread isnt funny. no one should have fun predicting where there will be another mass of people dieing for no just reason.

I don't think it was intented to be funny. If it was, "Antarctica" would be on the list. Which is what I would have voted for, btw. Those damn ter-rists are everywhere, doggonnit!

clipperer · Post by **clipperer** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:30 am

one of my mates thinks that those terrorists seek for attention, which television and newspapers and even this forum gives for them, they want to be remembered, theyre searching for a place in history..
maybe if wed just ignore them, theyd stop doing what they do.