If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Anti-terrorism legislation
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Comments
Just as dangerous as any other terrorist, but apparently aren't treated the same.
Makes a change to agree with you.
Why should a car set on fire be threated the same way as a bomb in London killing innnocent. Who cares about a car anyway.
And the laste sentence of the article said "Detectives suspect animal rights as the motive, a Thames Valley Police spokeswoman said." which means they aren't even sure of it just yet...
So if someone fire bombed your car in your driveway you wouldnt feel at all scared?
On the topic, groups like the ALF potentially cause more economic damage than 'islamic' terrorism yet arent a banned group and arent hunted with anti-terrorism legislation. If someone in a head scarf had done this there would be alleged links to Al-Queda and they'd be in Belmash before you could say Bin Laden.
It was set up to explode when someone got in the car.
It'd do a lot of damage to the lucky sod sat in the car when it blew.
Numbers does not change intent.
These people are terrorist filth, and need to be punished as such.
No I wouldn't, I would find them and blow them up.
I have had more bombs blowing not that far away from me shit loads when I was in holiday in Corsica. They bomb stuff all the time over there, but never inoncent. You piss them off your car will blow up. Well not all the time, but it happend quite often. Even Mc Donalds is not present over there has when they try to built it it was blow up twice before itwas even finish.
Weird I tought I read on the link posted here that it was place in their driveway. Isn't a driveway where you park your car and not a car?
Frankly for me blowing up a car is not terrorism, even so by definition it is.
I still agree that it is not a nice thing to do, but there is a difference between bringing terror to one guy and bringing terror to a all country.
And they aren't really Animal rights Defender if they do place bomb as a bomb will do damages to the echo system a bit and probably kill few insects and shit or even just a cat that could be sleeping under the car.
And if you read the article right, you also have that "The four other people, two men and two women, were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause explosions during a raid on Monday night."
I'm pretty sure they use "suspect" and "supicion of conspiracy" cos they still have not proven it was done by them. So why bitch about something that is not even a fact just yet.
So following those lines of thoughts, someone that give a punch to some one should be threated the same way as someone who send someone to the hospital...
A man that grab a women ass or breasts without her authorisation should be seen as a rapist...
etc...
erm when they bombed the basement of the world trade centre in 1992/1993? there was only a small number of people actually killed
by your reckoning NHM, if theres an attack that fails, and the bomb doesnt go off, or doesnt actually kill anyone, they should be less guilty of a terrorist act?
if you commit an act of terrorism, its exactly that, doesnt matter how many you kill or injury, you cant despute its a terrorist act, and why animal rights activists are getting off lightly is sickening to me
Well there is a difference between attempt of murder and murder, why should it be different here?
There is a difference for every single assaults and abuses possible, so it should be in the case too.
What the hell are you on about?
This is a targeted campaign against anyone who works in a legitimate field of business. The economic destruction caused by this terrorism is immense- it is terrorism, short and simple.
It's not gangland crime, it's organised terror designed to destroy a legitimate and vital area of economic and scientific development.
You're going to sit there and say ETA aren't terrorists next.
A terrorist is a terrorist, whether they kill one person or one hundred. Whether they try to kill one person, or try to kill one hundred. A terrorist uses terror to prevent people from doing their lawful business, that's the definition of a terrorist.
They've been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy because the police suspect they were the people that left the fucking bomb there. The bomb was there, but only a court can prove it was them. Don't try and be a pedant when you don't understand the terms.
Murder and attempt murder attract the same tariff, for the record.
Interesting attitude, I presume then that you favour the death penalty by bombing of terrorists?
Of course, no one was saying that they definitely did it, we dont know. But the bomb was there and it certainly seems likely it has to do with Huntington Life Sciences and therefore people like the ALF.
Or is what the ALF do not terrorism?
It seeks to use state violence to achieve it's ends by being violent on subjects of the state.
The mental gymnastics required to turn your common garden crim into a policeman or terrorist are quite, quite amazing.
Like an MP or civil servant then?
As I said in this thread...
So I am sorry if I do not agree with you, but I think I still have right to have my own opinion and I never said it was not by definition terrorism.
Do you think animals over there are not in a state of terror too?
The human race always think it is so fucking much better than every other creatures living that we are the only fuckers to kill the planet we lived on. And we are the only ones to doomed ourselves.
FFS we even fight and kill each just because of beliefs, race and other crap.
You are just confirming my point by saying it has not be proven yet.
Like the police is never wrong and every things that go to court get proven to be right...
Now what are you smoking?
Haven't smoke in days actually, I am just being objective here.
Or maybe you think the animals are responsible for the state of our planet?
People who suggest that bombing people to "free" animals is alright should be done for glorifying terrorism, if and when Blair gets that law through.
If it's a choice, I'd kill a million monkeys to sort out a drug that cures cancer. People are more important than animals.
So the people in question deserve to have their car fire bombed?
Where did I say it was alright to bomb anyone???
Yeah like those tests that have been done for a drug on animals, they released it to the public and tonnes of babies were born with anormalities because the drug was at no risk for animals at all, all tests were fine, but when given to human it caused problem. Sorry can't remember the name of the drug in question, but it was not the first time and it will not be the last either...
Animals aint human, unbeliveable I know, if you want to find a cure for a human, test a human... But no, tests on humans are just wrong... what a fucking joke... if research are so important to you why don't you offer yourself for testing then?
And be re-assure more than a million monkeys and other animals have already died for your say "research", some even died just so you get a nice and efficient shampoo. Pathetic...
And if you think finding the cure of cancer is what is going to save us all, you are mistaken... It is too late already...
What is the human race obsession with staying alive as long as we can, probaly the fear of death, dying is part of life, you could kill all the animals on this planet you will still die...
We are killing everyone includng ourselves everyday just for the sake of what we like to call "evolution" and "comfort"...
Frankly I don't care if animals or humans dies, make no difference to me, to me we are all already dead...
Never said that. Did I?
You are certainly making it sound like your sympathy is with the bombers and not the scientists.
Of course there are problems, of course there are animal tests with arent perfect, but are you seriously suggesting that a rats life is worth the same as a human?
For me no life is better than an other one, but hey that's me I am not asking everyone to think the same.
And I think we have much more problems to solve in the world before finding a cure for cancer or making shampoo full of chemicals...
Animal testing for cosmetics is banned in the EU and any product sold in the EU cant be tested either.
So we shouldnt try and cure diseases?
That's a good thing, cos for cosmetics I think it was really taking the piss.
I have no trouble with trying to cure diseases, but if you want to cure human diseases use human. Everyone seems to think curring deseases is so fucking important but noone is ready to accept test on human.
I just think it is pathetic, it just show we are not that keen of finding cure as we are not ready to do everything he takes to get there.
Also, just to prove I aint against the scientists, some do put pressure to be able to do test on human and I think that's just great.
Good point, as I said it makes no difference to me, they can kill as much as they want I just think we should test human too.