http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

Hm

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html

Is it true they didn’t have plane tickets and some not even passports?

I’ve been cooped up for days so I really don’t know. Tell me if you can

Cheers

TFI

ha ha

WHAT WAS THE USA’S REACTION TO 9/11 ALL ABOUT THEN? oh right we’ve slightly tweaked our ‘Foreign Policy’- (we are now going to bomb Afghanistan- such a minor point) to RESPOND to the situation – we cannot let the terrorists think we will ‘sit and do nothing’.

ah yes! chortle chortle indeed.

I think they are responsing to events such as 9/11 … i.e. wow is than’t cool that one of our brothers can so drastically attack the world’s superpower.

And let’s not forget that, by their own admission, they do it in the name of Islam.

What do you think is more likely, Bush reading this blog, or some jihadi wanna-bee ?

The people making the bombs are british, never forget that. They are not alien or strange, they are responding to political currents within this country.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=400605&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

Leon, we have different opinions we can agree to disagree. I’m only incensed because you claimed that “I play into their hands perfectly” by calling them by the name the English Language defines for them: terrorists.

Meanwhile I hope by now you have read the intelligent discussion on appeasement on Sunny’s thread “Letter by Muslim MPs and organisations” as opposed to this politically correct “lets see if we can change the spelling of ‘terrorist’ to make them seem less nasty and dangerous” thread which you have featured here.

I hope that you have taken the time to read what Shahid Malik wrote in the Times this morning.

Don’t you think that “I view things in terms of power, who has it and how it’s (ab)used.” is a rather over simplistic view of the world that dumps all actions at the feet of those that YOU decide “has power”, while ignoring the actions that don’t have power even if their aspiration is to obtain it?

It is good that you think that you would critique Iran if you lived there, but your self proclaimed understanding of geo-political realities must appreciate that if you did live there, you don’t have the freedom to do so.

Its clear to me that you see the world in dangerously narrow way defined by “I only see power” and that preffer to blind yourself to current realities you don’t like that leads to you being dangerous uninformed.

TFI

I call you a hypocrite because I believe that you are very keen to demonise Bush and Blair and not so keen to demonise those that attempt to launch an attack on our own country as “terrorists”.

I’m sorry but that’s bollox! But for the hard of reading I’ll repeat; I view things in terms of power, who has it and how it’s (ab)used.

I live in this country so of course it’s natural I’m more concerned with those I (and others) have a better chance of influencing. If I lived in Iran I’d probably be about as critical (while recognising the geo-political realities of the world) of the regime there.

Like I say just because someone critises one side doesn’t automatically mean they support the other. Accusing people of this (as I said above) is a tedious debating tactic.

But anyway, it’s clear you’d prefer to go around in circles so I think i’m spent with this one…

I haven’t stopped laughing since seeing your response.

You’re welcome to wallow in your own interpretation of what I wrote.

I notice you don’t pick up on the point that it is being used to control people and in the example I gave you, how the US was promoting its use.

Nor do you appreciate how like all judicial systems do you understand its their to be abused if you have the power.

I can understand your reactions – well established through being overfed in the hive that is Jihad Watch.

Did you appreciate my opposition to all forms of ‘corporal’ punishment right up to executions?

As for disturbing the peace – its anything that the law (and for your benefit) British law says is disturbing the peace.

You want to commit adultery – go right ahead, nothing to do with me. Drink? Be my guest. Do I care – no I do not. But understand this, should you commit a crime or harm your neighbour whilst under the influence then you will be punished. Call it what you like – Sharia or whatever.

As for those in power committing crimes – do you want to draw up your own list: Here are some clues, they sit in the Middle East, they sit in South Asia, they sit in the White House and he sits in Downing Street.

Keep looking for the clues – but don’t forget to also see what is actually right there in front of you.

My view of Sharia is very simple – if its controlling people then it can’t be any good for you. If its encouraging a peaceful and just society then that’s good. This is of course true of any judicial system.

What is Sharia? Sharia essentially mandates very harsh physical punishments for slights against the society or others.

Amputation for stealing, as an example, is an outrage especially when the circumstances may have more to do with the offender’s need, say, out of poverty. And as a society it is of no use at all – how is the amputee then supposed to earn a living. The alternative then of course is falling back on the resources of the state.

You can’t pick and choose. Sharia is barbaric. Face it.

Death sentence under Sharia itself has the same problems as it does in every other system – what if you got it wrong. One of my strongest reasons for opposing the death penalty.

What if you get it right Refresh? You commit the ‘evil’ known as adultery – you get stoned to death. Nice. What about the ‘evil’ of drinking alcohol? What if you did do it?

If a society is at peace, anyone and I mean anyone should be punishable for disturbing the peace. If I can put it like that.

And here folks is another clue to the ‘thinking’ of Refresh. What would you define as “disturbing the peace”? And what would be the punishment?

Of course I know that you were joking.

That was a point about the implication that by not critiqueing both sides your somehow supporting another.

By refusing to label terrorists as terrorists you aren’t critiqueing both sides. You are giving moral stature to them.

I call you a hypocrite because I believe that you are very keen to demonise Bush and Blair and not so keen to demonise those that attempt to launch an attack on our own country as “terrorists”.

I’m not keen on Blair, I disagree with many of his policies. However we have a democratic progress for removing leaders that we don’t like and its not called Civil War.

Those people in Britain that believe that violence should be directed at the British public to change the direction of the governmental body are in danger of sparking the flames that could start a civil war.

These people are traitors (to the Queen if you like), terrorists and should be treated with complete distain and are UNBELIVABLY dangerous. Rebranding them as something more cuddly so that people that agree with them in principle don’t have to come to terms with the fact they are fuelling civil unrest is the height of naivity.

This entire thing reminds me of an discussion I had with Izzy on another board. He stated that he would like to see Islam return to its fundementals, when I suggested that must make him a fundementalist. He then rejected that because it had the wrong connations despite admitting that he fitted the defination in every way.

We have words for certain things, the reason why the label “terrorist” is a strong emotive word, it is because they are associated with killing innocent people and prompting civil wars.

TFI

Leon, you are a hypocrite that weasles with words and smears those that disagree with him.

TFI

That was a point about the implication that by not critiquing both sides your somehow supporting another.

Haha! Shamefully I’m starting to agree, bring on Blairs statue announcment! [so that we can shoot him]

I can clearly see that you see both sides of an argument and keep a level head.

Review: Leon thinks that Tony Blair should be shot, and that Islamist terrorists should be rebrand them to been in a more positive light.

My debating ‘style’ is to point out when people are being hypocritical.

You, Leon, are a hypocrite.

TFI

He was created by, if anyone, the Iraqi Arab nationalists and the WP. The WP made huge efforts with him to draw him into their sphere of influence without realising he thought he had his own. Either that or they just needed to shift a shitload of arms.

Personally, I think as soon as a leader erects a statue of themselves, it’s okay to shoot them.

Haha! Shamefully I’m starting to agree, bring on Blairs statue announcment!

Rumsfeld did not create Saddam. All he did was treat him civil and then give him several chances to mend his ways. Which is how most people think it should be done.

Personally, I think as soon as a leader erects a statue of themselves, it’s okay to shoot them.