Will Denmark be a likely target for terrorists?

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eurohacker

member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
106
Denmark has troops in Iraq.

I am pretty scared about this. I am a Danish citizen, my mom is Danish, I was born in Denmark, half my family lives in Demark, I live very close to Denmark.

Sweden is full of US-hating leftists, the media especially, so one good effect might be that people start shutting the frog up and stop backing islamofascists. I am already seeing it, what with the London terrorism lately.
 
I guess every nation will have to make a decision sooner or later. Do they desire to be left alone and subject to Islamic law, or risk peace and 'security' to stand up to Islamic terrorism?

Pilgrim
 
Last edited:
Are you a moslem living in an islamic country? If not, then you're at risk. The terrorists don't care, or even see a difference, between Denmark or Italy or France or America. To them, we're all the same, a neck waiting for their knife.
 
The terrorists don't care, or even see a difference, between Denmark or Italy or France or America. To them, we're all the same, a neck waiting for their knife.
Click to expand...
I give them more credit than that. They are smart and they are very aware of who their targets are and why. Why Spain? To get Spain to back out of Iraq. Why London now? To weaken the will of the Brits and get them to split with their closest ally. Will it work? It might. The Brits were not overly-enthusiastic for getting involved in Iraq in the first place. Now these memos have come out and we all know that the reasons given for going in were bogus. Now 50 Londoners have died because Arabs are pi$$ed off about the Brits being in Iraq and backing the US. Some Brits will say to that, "that will never weaken our resolve to help the Americans in the hopeless occupation of a foreign country thousands of miles from here." And some Brits will say, "This situation in Iraq is a hopeless mess, we got into it under false information, and we should leave the Americans to clean up the mess that they started." The bombing will push more Brits into the later camp.

So definitely, the terrorists pick their targets with specific goals in mind. They don't kill for the sake of killing. They kill to achieve certain goals. The primary goal of Al Qaeda is to overthrow the Saudi regime. One way to do that is to get the US to stop supporting the Saudis. A secondary goal of Al Qaeda is to get the US out of Iraq and to get the US to stop supporting Israel. This London bombing could go a long way to getting the US out of Iraq.

Here's the chain of events: Brits decide that this Iraq occupation isn't such a good idea after all. When all the conflict is in far-away Iraq and all the British deaths are volunteers, it's easy to accept it. When the casualties are right there in London, that's a different story. So the Brits decide to pull out, or maybe they decide that the US needs a committed timeline. Either way, it means the US has lost the committed support of the Brits.

And if that happens, what do we do? Answer: we need to have a draft. And if a draft happens, the US people will suddenly decide that the war isn't such a good idea after all and we should just pull out of the mess.

I'm sure that the planners of the recent attack in London thought through all of this in detail when they chose when and where to strike. They are planners with goals, not bloodthirsty indiscriminate killers. It is a grave mistake for many Americans to dismiss them as bloodthirsty lunatics who act without reason.
 
To weaken the will of the Brits and get them to split with their closest ally. Will it work?
Click to expand...

I don't think it will work. I think, really believe it will piss off the brits. And when the brits get pissed, well......it could go bad.
 
Are you a moslem living in an islamic country?
Click to expand...
And even then your not safe. All day long innocent muslums are being blown up by suicide bombers in Iraq.
 
I give them more credit than that. They are smart and they are very aware of who their targets are and why. Why Spain? To get Spain to back out of Iraq
Click to expand...

Nope. Investigations have shown that the Madrid bombings were planned and prepared long before anybody even thought of Spanish troops operating in Iraq. The terrorists mentioned the Spanish presence in Iraq when they claimed responsiblity for the bombings but obviously this isn't the true reason.

In the late 90's Algerian terrorists spread terror in France by bombing an underground station and killing a number of passengers.

In 2000 German police stormed a flat in Frankfurt and arrested a couple islamic terrorists. They seized firearms, explosives and documents that showed that these things were supposed to be used to bomb the Strasbourg Christnas Market.

Both countries have opposed the invasion in Iraq. This shows that every western country is a target, no matter which political position its government likes to take.


Regards,

Trooper
 
Why Spain? To get Spain to back out of Iraq
Click to expand...

The Islamic occupation of Andalusia was ended in 1492, when the moorish king surrendered the area to King Fernando and Queen Isabel.

They had ruled the area for 800 years, and ruled more of Spain at times.

They want it back.

Regards.
 
Eurohacker, here's a checklist for you.


1) Are you a Muslim who adheres to the strict, fundamentalist Wahabbist brand of Islam?

2) Do you think all non-Wahabbists, including members of all other faiths, non-Wahabbist Muslims, and especially those polytheistic Hindus, need to be killed in nasty ways merely because they exist?

3) Do you think that all countries on earth should be governed by Sharia, or traditional fundamentalistic Islamic law and that any form of democracy is inherently evil because it represents the will of man, and not the will of Allah?

4) Do you think it's okay for women to do and be anything else other than serve as anonymous, burkha-clad baby factories who are completely and totally submissive to the will of men?



Eurohacker, if you answered "NO" to any of questions 1 through 3, then you are a target for the terrorists.

If you answered "YES" to question 4, you are a target for the terrorists.

Welcome to the party, Eurohacker.

Wake up and smell the jihad...........

hillbilly
 
What's pitiful is this ultra-leftist mentality of trying to 'understand' and sympathize with these people. They have this idea that we 'made them' bomb us, because we may be allies with some country or have a presence in some region. It's like a wife-beating drunkard telling his wife she shouldn't have pissed him off or he wouldn't have had to knock her teeth out with a baseball bat. There is no logic to the insanity.

They prey on the divisiveness of the politics in the US and elsewhere to gain sympathy for their 'plight'. They do it well enough to convince some of these leftist sympathizers that the victims of the attacks 'deserved' it because of some political issue their country has been engaged in for decades. You always hear it from the left, "Well I can understand them, they are mad because we support Israel and Saudi Arabia and blah blah blah so the solution is just to pull out!" Yeah ok, so we can let them know that the effective way to solve problems in this world is to blow up busses, trains, and airplanes full of ordinary people who have nothing to do with these terrorists' mental issues? These people do not even represent the Middle East. We get along fine politically with most of these countries. These terrorists are an extremist faction of islamofascism that need to be dealt with using extreme prejudice.
 
This incredible column appears in a CANADIAN newspaper today.....



Maybe folks are finally beginning to "get it" with these bastards.





http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Calgary/Ezra_Levant/2005/07/11/1125929.html



Terrifyingly simple

West did nothing to deserve this attack

By Ezra Levant -- Calgary Sun


The intellectuals of the left tell us that we need to understand Muslim terrorists if we are going to stop them.

That's true. But the left's idea of understanding is an exercise in hiding from the truth, not seeking it.

We ought not to be so ethnocentric, we're told. We should try to look at things from their point of view. We should ask: Have we done something to provoke them? Have we offended or humiliated them? What did we do to cause this attack?



Why did they think we deserved this -- and what can we do to change our own behaviour so we won't deserve it next time?

Can we meet them halfway? We have heard this refrain a thousand times -- including from Jean Chretien. He told the CBC after 9/11, "you cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliation for the others."

"We're looked upon as being arrogant, self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits," said Chretien, looking thoughtful, imagining he was getting to the root of it.

At the time, Bill Graham said: "I think the prime minister's comments were right on."

Today Graham serves as Paul Martin's foreign minister.

Many leftist pseudo-intellectuals talk that way. The post-modern liberal mind cannot make sense of terrorism -- why would anyone want to kill women and children? What would drive someone to do such things?

Surely, our political system can provide a safe outlet for their grievances. Don't we have departments of multiculturalism? Don't we give foreign aid? Don't we have racial affirmative action?

So: If they're still mad enough at us to bomb us, what did we do wrong?

But that is not getting into the terrorists' mind. That is not emerging from ethnocentrism -- that is burrowing deeper into it, hiding from the reality of things. The post-modern, post-Christian mind does not have the vocabulary to deal with Islamic terrorism.

We do not use the word "evil" anymore, even with apolitical criminals, whose crimes are called sicknesses now, or syndromes, caused by -- what is it this week? society? parents? TV? -- and who need our understanding and accommodation, not our rejection or punishment. All the more so for avowedly political murders like those in London.

Leftists who call for more understanding or dialogue or compromise, are not understanding the Muslim "other." They are projecting themselves onto the terrorists, imagining what it would take to cool themselves off if they were ever that mad about something.

Have a seminar; bring in some professional mediators; do some role playing -- bond.

Such a response does not understand the terrorists. To understand them is simple, if terrifying: Read their writing and listen to their speeches.

They want the world to be ruled by sharia law, where the only constitution is the Qu'ran. They want a theocracy, like Afghanistan was and Iran is, where infidels are killed, or kept in a state of submission, called dhimmitude.

Read Osama bin Laden's speeches, not those of his lawyers and psychologists in the media. Like Hitler's Mein Kampf, bin Laden is plain about his intentions.

There was no half way, no compromise, no win-win possible with Hitler. The Jews didn't do any one thing in particular to him -- he hated their very existence.

The West didn't do any one thing to bin Laden that caused his hate -- other than to live freely and outside his authority.

Sixty-five years ago, Britain understood Hitler was evil, and responded with Spitfires, not psychologists.

Here's hoping Britain today has the same clarity of thought.
 
Sixty-five years ago, Britain understood Hitler was evil, and responded with Spitfires, not psychologists.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Sixty-SIX years ago, Britain thought Hitler could be stopped with a non-agression treaty. Poland changed things.

Eurohacker, how's the Islamic community in Denmark? Big population? Lotsa mosques? Radical imams? If so, then expect terrorist activity.

Regards.
 
The British were very brave in WWII but as stated above that rhetoric about Spitfires was baloney. Does anyone think the UK would have proactively started a preemptive war against Hitler? The Rhineland and Czechoslovakia didn't motivate them. The attack on Poland led to a phoney war in the West until the attacks on Norway, Denmark and France.

Probably the only one who would have done that was Stalin.

In the same vein, if Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor, would we have proactively gone to war to get them out of China, Indochine or the Dutch East Indies? Probably not. We did impose sanctions.
 
I've been reading a book called Jihad vs McWorld (I don't remember the author right now... sand's gotten to my brain). Those views balanced with those offered in The Transformation of War put a slightly different light on the whole terrorism issue. I reccomend both works, but Jihad's been more difficult for me to read while I'm over here... it doesn't describe globalization in a very reassuring manner, and I haven't finished it to see if the author has insight on possible coexistance options.

Using violence to persue pilotical goals isn't new. With America being able to overwhelm any other organized fighting force on the battlefield, the best chances for political assertion through violence to be successful is if it is acted upon civilians or military targets off of the battlefield. It wouldn't matter what the political goals were -- this is the next logical step in global conflict with a superpower.

That being said, what are you going to do about it as a Swede or Dane? Don't waste time being afraid. Save fear for imminent danger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top