**** Terrorists

It's pretty lucky that the terroists are about as competent as the Chuckle Brothers.

Is it politically correct to call them terrorists when their devices fail?

Maybe it should be Tyro-ists

quote:

Is it politically correct to call them terrorists when their devices fail?

It's certainly legally correct (assuming they're guilty) given that thought or deed counts.

quote:

Originally posted by John G.:
Is it politically correct to call them terrorists when their devices fail?

How about "members of the bombing community"?

Rich

I have to say that trying to bomb Glasgow airport on the weekend that the summer holidays start is a remarkably bad idea.

I wouldn't try to get in the way of them and their 2 week holiday. Get your head kicked in big time, let alone terrorists.

Roy.

Two car bombs that did not go off, but
were "discovered" just in the nick of time.

One was towed for a parking violation
before it was discovered!

Total incompetence or another bogus 'terrorist' attack to keep us all fearful and show the new PM's stamp of 'quiet authority'? More civil liberty erosion to come methinks.

I doubt if the guy with third degree burns from the jeep thinks it was bogus. Trust me, I'm a doctor....

seems they could be doctors.. OMFG.

quote:

Originally posted by davie1967:
seems they could be doctors.. OMFG.

Perhaps that was the problem....one of them provided handwritten instructions for the gang and there wasn't a pharmacist amongst them to decipher them!

They've released the name of one of the attackers in Glasgow.... Singe Majeep.

Tony

PS. I'll get my coat.

quote:

Originally posted by markah:

Personally, if I had been at Glasgow Airport with a container of petrol

Isn't it great that the English Legal Tradition has evolved? Treats all thugs the same - even vigillantes...

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

Originally posted by markah:

Personally, if I had been at Glasgow Airport with a container of petrol

Isn't it great that the English Legal Tradition has evolved? Treats all thugs the same - even vigillantes...

Just the sort of response I expected. You live in new zealand so haven't been subjected to the same atrocities as us. The Warrington bombing by the IRA was particularly pertinent to me, for reasons I won't (or need to) go in to. What do you expect "us" or me to do - treat these persons as normal human beings? As I said they were quite willing to give up their own lives. As a generous loving person I just offered to help them on their way. Please don't let OUR "English Legal Tradition" bother you from thousands of miles away. By the way, I am not a thug.

I stand for a free society where all peoples can live in peace and harmony. I am in no way racist or prejudiced. Except when disillusioned scumbags think they can disrupt the society I live in and disrespect everything my dad and granddad fought for.

Mark

human rights i guess

quote:

Originally posted by markah:

Just the sort of response I expected. You live in new zealand so haven't been subjected to the same atrocities as us.

What a load of bollocks. Are you suggesting that subjecting people to your kind of atrocity will sort out the kind that you've been subjected to?

And your dad and granddad fought for lawlessness and vigillantism did they?

[/QUOTE]

What a load of bollocks. Are you suggesting that subjecting people to your kind of atrocity will sort out the kind that you've been subjected to?

And your dad and granddad fought for lawlessness and vigillantism did they?[/QUOTE]

No I'm not. There isn't an easy answer to that but I don't see why we should "care" for these people. I'm not a vigilante, nor do I condone it, and in my words I appear to have over-reacted but it was trying to get over a sense of frustration and injustice. What do you suggest in way of treatment for these terrorists?

My dad and granddad fought for me to live in a country where I wouldn't have to suffer the worries of terrorism and invasion that I now endure. The threat in those days was from a different front but the principle still stands.

Mark

Dear Deane,

I think it is fair to say that your perpective will be very different because of the geography. In my view if that burnt man was conscious he should have been questioned immediately, and damn his human rights. He gave them up the moment he tried to kill those people - some no doubt completely innocent of any serious sin - inside the airport.

I am begining to think that where there is no doubt as the intention or the identity that the firing squad is the answer!

Apologies to the faint hearted, but this is something that has to be countered, in my view.

Sincerely, Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Deane,

I think it is fair to say that your perpective will be very different because of the geography. In my view if that burnt man was conscious he should have been questioned immediately, and damn his human rights. He gave them up the moment he tried to kill those people - some no doubt completely innocent of any serious sin - inside the airport.

I am begining to think that where there is no doubt as the intention or the identity that the firing squad is the answer!

Apologies to the faint hearted, but this is something that has to be countered, in my view.

Sincerely, Fredrik

Ditto

If someone is a member of an organisation that attempts to kill and mutilate innocent men, women & children to a maximum extent, and they have been caught during their deed with no doubt as to their intention or identity, then it is illogical to put their welfare, rights and comfort first when information could be gained to foil similar simultaneous attempts and save tens, or maybe hundreds of innocent lives.
I think Deane, it boils down to priorities. It doesn’t take a genius to conclude that in the heat of an attack of this kind the human rights of the attacker should take a lesser importance to the rights of many more innocent public lives, unless of course you are a sympathiser or a promoter of terrorism yourself. It also doesn’t take a genius to work out that your sneering illustrates your complete ignorance to the sensibilities of those over here that fear for the lives of their children and families in the face of this evil.
If you have no compassion for the innocent and frightened at this sensitive time, then it might be better to not illustrate your shortcomings in this department to all of us here.

quote:

Are you suggesting that subjecting people to your kind of atrocity will sort out the kind that you've been subjected to?

Try also to spot the difference between intent and rhetoric.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

unless of course you are a sympathiser or a promoter of terrorism yourself.

That's the best you can do Rasher? Black and white? If you're not for us then you're definitely against us?

Much as you would like to think otherwise, terrorists are human beings and if they're in your jurisdiction then they get the same rights as you. It's notional equality.

Oh, and my comment about the English Legal Tradition was rhetoric too. Did you spot it?

quote:

If you have no compassion for the innocent and frightened at this sensitive time, then it might be better to not illustrate your shortcomings in this department to all of us here.

From just exactly where in my post were you able to find any basis to extrapolate that I have no compassion for the innocent and frightened?

Deane,

The bigger the whole you did for yourself the more it is apparent that your have absolutely no idea what the point is that is being made about the current spate of terrorism in UK. When these terrorists are attempting to blow people up in NZ in the same way and [and even succeeding on previous occasion] you may adopt a more pragmatic posotion. Whilst yours is a valid view point it is not one which chimes with an increasing view in UK and other places where terrorism is real in its implication for peoples' life and safety.

I don't think anyone is talking of linchings here, but certainly if that burnt man had information about another imminent attack he should certainly have been questioned immediately even at the risk of his death shortly afterwards. He forfeited his rights by his actions and intentions, and disregard for his own responsibilities within society...

Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

unless of course you are a sympathiser or a promoter of terrorism yourself.

That's the best you can do Rasher? Black and white? If you're not for us then you're definitely against us?

If you read the whole sentence you will see it was applied to qualify the standpoint on the rights of the attacker, not directed personally. You are distorting my point.
"..human rights of the attacker should take a lesser importance to the rights of many more innocent public lives, unless of course you are a sympathiser or a promoter of terrorism yourself."
Substitute "one is" for "you are".

quote:

Much as you would like to think otherwise, terrorists are human beings..

Oh, really?

quote:

Oh, and my comment about the English Legal Tradition was rhetoric too. Did you spot it?

No

quote:

From just exactly where in my post were you able to find any basis to extrapolate that I have no compassion for the innocent and frightened?

In the insensitivity of your approach.

Fredrik

quote:

I don't think anyone is talking of linchings here, but certainly if that burnt man had information about another imminent attack he should certainly have been questioned immediately even at the risk of his death shortly afterwards. He forfeited his rights by his actions and intentions, and disregard for his own responsibilities within society...

Amazing, this sounds just GWB's rationale when he justified Guantanamo Bay. So what's the next step? Torturing murderers to get a confession, cutting the hands of thieves so they won't do it again....where do you draw the line in the removal of human rights?

Don't you think that perhaps the police did try to question him? Don't you think that, since he is in a critical condition, he may not be able to talk at this point? Don't you think the fact that caught another terrorist at the same time and then very quickly made subsequent arrests all over the UK and now Australia tells you that they got information from the men, their belongings, information in the house they rented?

It seems that everyone on here is an expert and wants to tell the real experts what to do and how to do it.....but I suppose it is an internet forum after all POV's are valid....except the ones that are wrong of course.

Regards

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Exiled Highlander:
.....but I suppose it is an internet forum after all POV's are valid....except the ones that are wrong of course.

You mean ours?

quote:

So what's the next step? Torturing murderers to get a confession, cutting the hands of thieves so they won't do it again....where do you draw the line in the removal of human rights?

Just as a reminder also, we have over 60 million people here in a very small space, so have a far more concentrated problem here.
That is the population of California, Arizona & Florida all in a space 60% the size of California alone. You come from the Highlands and now live in Illinois. I don't want to say you don't know what it's like, but you don't know what it's like.
I draw the line at the removal of human rights at the point it needs to be drawn in order to protect the people that live here. We've lived the PC thing here for the past 15-20 years now and we have discovered that it has led us into a lot of problems and chaos, so we are now coming out of that ethic thankfully. We're growing up fast here, together, multi-race, multi-religion, and it's the perfect model for a country if we can rid ourselves of those that want to alienate communities and set one group against another. We've done with PC crap, it's over. Noddy & Bigears were not gay. We took our eye off the ball and, fuck me, we're paying for it.