Them bloody immigrants...

Former Member · March 2005

Diesel?

Worth looking back about a month or so. A thred by Globe. It turned out that he was white supremecist who, in the past, had plotted to kill MLK...

Former Member · March 2005

klintock wrote:

lol. Leaving aside what I reckon about "countries" a fit man or woman can swim here from France. They'll do anything but admit they can't do a damn thing if someone is determined to get here.

I like the comment about terrorists. As everyone from the Sun's toilet cleaner to my gran has been through the house of commons with an imitation bomb in the last 18months, I think it's fair to say there is no big terrorist threat here. Even if there were a couple of hundred flattfoots wandering the coastline won't stop em.

Pure "vote for me" shamelesness.

Why do you say there's no terrorist threat here?

We're at war with al-Queda and an international alliance of other Islamic extremists...rightly or wrongly, that's irrelevent. So long as the UK is supporting Bush's foreign policy in the middle east etc...we are a target, that's patently obvious. Al-Queda would love to strike here, there can be no doubt of that.

Former Member · March 2005

There have been no terrorist attacks in the uk, and plenty of evidence to show how easy they are to do - conclusion - there is no threat or we would have been bombed already. We assume we are much more important in the world than we are, for good an ill. The "US" would be the target, always, just like the IRA wouldn't bomb the Isle of Man if it could do something in London/

Further concliusion - terrorist attacks are impossible to stop.

It's also why the poor bastards from Belmarsh aren't being given trials etc.

Their defence is more than likely to be - "What Al-Quaeda?"

As there is no proof that it exists outside the minds of those currently ushering in a police state, they would have to let them go.

There has still been no proof of who did the 9/11 attacks. A video of someone who vaguely resembles a terrorist? Get real, how do you know there wasn't some US general pointing a gun at him in a cell in Alabama?

Former Member · March 2005

klintock wrote:

There have been no terrorist attacks in the uk, and plenty of evidence to show how easy they are to do - conclusion - there is no threat or we would have been bombed already. We assume we are much more important in the world than we are, for good an ill. The "US" would be the target, always, just like the IRA wouldn't bomb the Isle of Man if it could do something in London/

Further concliusion - terrorist attacks are impossible to stop.

It's also why the poor bastards from Belmarsh aren't being given trials etc.

Their defence is more than likely to be - "What Al-Quaeda?"

As there is no proof that it exists outside the minds of those currently ushering in a police state, they would have to let them go.

There has still been no proof of who did the 9/11 attacks. A video of someone who vaguely resembles a terrorist? Get real, how do you know there wasn't some US general pointing a gun at him in a cell in Alabama?

That comment is so retarded I had to laugh. Do you have any idea how many terrorist attacks our security services have blocked?

Please, stay to the Sex and Drugs board :thumb:

Former Member · March 2005

Nope. How many please?

Since the IRA packed it in and the rabbit huggers stopped blowing up world of leather, I am wanting the amount of "Al - Quaeda" terror attacks that have been prevented.

Former Member · March 2005

Man Of Kent wrote:

Diesel?

Worth looking back about a month or so. A thred by Globe. It turned out that he was white supremecist who, in the past, had plotted to kill MLK...

what a prick.

Former Member · March 2005

klintock wrote:

Nope. How many please?

Since the IRA packed it in and the rabbit huggers stopped blowing up world of leather, I am wanting the amount of "Al - Quaeda" terror attacks that have been prevented.

are you sure you would be told aboutevery foiled attack?

Former Member · March 2005

klintock wrote:

Nope. How many please?

Since the IRA packed it in and the rabbit huggers stopped blowing up world of leather, I am wanting the amount of "Al - Quaeda" terror attacks that have been prevented.

There was a Norwegian research insititute i read about a while back, they put the number of foiled terrorist attacks in Europe at around 15.

Obviously we would be the premier target in Europe of al-Queda.

I seriously don't know how you can say

there is no threat or we would have been bombed already

, there have been reports of arrests related to possible terrorist activity and reports of plots themselves being foiled.

Just because a successful attack hasn't yet been launched against UK targets doesn't mean it won't happen at some point in the future. Remember what happened in Spain?

On the current course of foreign policy - we are a target. British troops troops are occupying Iraq along with the Americans, and our troops come under attack just the same as the yanks...American or British, we're the same target to al-Queda as long as we occupy areas of the middle east.

Former Member · March 2005

Spliffie wrote:

There was a Norwegian research insititute i read about a while back, they put the number of foiled terrorist attacks in Europe at around 15.

Obviously we would be the premier target in Europe of al-Queda.

I seriously don't know how you can say , there have been reports of arrests related to possible terrorist activity and reports of plots themselves being foiled.

Just because a successful attack hasn't yet been launched against UK targets doesn't mean it won't happen at some point in the future. Remember what happened in Spain?

On the current course of foreign policy - we are a target. British troops troops are occupying Iraq along with the Americans, and our troops come under attack just the same as the yanks...American or British, we're the same target to al-Queda as long as we occupy areas of the middle east.

how comes noone been charged and found guilty even if in a protected court

Former Member · March 2005

British police have so far arrested more than 700 people under anti-terrorist legislation since the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.

Of these, 17 have been convicted of terrorist offences, about 120 have been charged under anti-terrorism legislation and 135 have been convicted under other laws.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4388863.stm

Former Member · March 2005

NQA wrote:

British police have so far arrested more than 700 people under anti-terrorist legislation since the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.

Of these, 17 have been convicted of terrorist offences, about 120 have been charged under anti-terrorism legislation and 135 have been convicted under other laws.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4388863.stm

itd be good know what terroist offences theyve been found guilty under

and not just "found guilty of being wanted by the home offce to be seen to be doing something"

Former Member · March 2005

wheresmyplacebo wrote:

itd be good know what terroist offences theyve been found guilty under

yeah but if we were told that then "the terrorists would win" :rolleyes:

Former Member · March 2005

wheresmyplacebo wrote:

itd be good know what terroist offences theyve been found guilty under

Yes because they were just sitting in their homes watching Corrie with a cup of hot tea when evil, rebel British militia burst through the front door murdered the kids and wife and dragged them (screaming) to a gulag - never to be seen again.

Our intelligence and ‘Secret’ services are employed to protect us, not to round up innocent Muslims so as to be seen doing something. Are some completely innocent of all charges? Perhaps, but that is unlikely, especially where the British are concerned. We are not blinded by hate and fury as we are yet to witness a 9/11 in England. The threat from terror is very real, more then you care to realise.

Former Member · March 2005

"itd be good know what terroist offences theyve been found guilty under"

Having Irish accents in the wrong part of town?

700 arrests to detain 17 people? laughable.

The guy in the article was guilty of having a soldiers address. I mean for fucks sake, what sort of crime is that? You could arrest half of most barracks towns on that basis. :eek2:

Former Member · March 2005

Very few people will be convicted under anti-terror laws, the main purpose of which is actually to hold people for longer periods of time than under normal criminal laws.

Most people arrested under anti-terrorism laws will be then charged and convicted under normal laws (eg conspiracy to murder, firearm offences, explosive offences).

Those charged will include some people who've been found innocent, but will also include many whose cases have not yet come to court. Some of them will have their charges converted to normal criminal ones.

Despite having a strong Irish accent I've never been arrested under anti-terrorism, so I suspect it needs more than that. And he wasn't charged with just have a soldiers address, but "possessed a document, namely a piece of paper, containing the name and home address of a UK soldier - information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" which is actually quite different.

Former Member · March 2005

NQA wrote:

And he wasn't charged with just have a soldiers address, but "possessed a document, namely a piece of paper, containing the name and home address of a UK soldier - information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" which is actually quite different.

which happened to be a newspaper cutting.......

:rolleyes:

Former Member · March 2005

'information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism' is the relevant bit for being charged under the legislation.

Former Member · March 2005

NQA wrote:

'information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism' is the relevant bit for being charged under the legislation.

yes, the man is charged with having a newspaper clipping .......

:grump:

Former Member · March 2005

I'm going to start carrying in my wallet a piece of paper reading: T. Blair, 11 Downing St., London W1, and see if I too end up behind bars.

What a sad state of affairs... :no:

Former Member · March 2005

NQA wrote:

'information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism' is the relevant bit for being charged under the legislation.

so arrest the editor of the news paper for endangering the life of the soldier while your at it :yeees:

Them bloody immigrants...

Comments