Explosion heard in London - political part

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


I have no problem in being consider an enemy by YOU. It is only a pity for you.

Christ- rein in your paranoia, sunshine. It's possible to disagree with someone's opinion on an internet forum without labelling them "the enemy".

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Christ- rein in your paranoia, sunshine. It's possible to disagree with someone's opinion on an internet forum without labelling them "the enemy".

I though you labelled me the enemy

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


I though you labelled me the enemy

Remember Trafalgar and Barfleur !!!!



The real enemies are the enemies of free societies- which includes terrorists AND politicians who imagine that they know what is best for us.

I for one am grateful (if a little bemused) by Tory opposition to identity cards- I'm sure it's an idea that Margaret Thatcher would have welcomed when she identified people who opposed her as: 'the enemy within'.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Damn.

I was so hoping that table of statistics would come out properly...

Only two european countries on the list : Spain and France. Most attacks in Spain were made by ETA. In France they were islamist.
The French result is the best with the lowest number of deaths per attack. If the benefit of ID is not appearing in all countries, we can at least recognize that it likely helps when properly used.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Only two european countries on the list : Spain and France. Most attacks in Spain were made by ETA. In France they were islamist.
The French result is the best with the lowest number of deaths per attack. If the benefit of ID is not appearing in all countries, we can at least recognize that it likely helps when properly used.

But the use or existence of identity cards does not necessarily correlate with the prevention of a greater number of deaths or casualties- you would also have to ask what kind of terrorist attacks they were for instance, what kind of explosive, weaponry, what the target was, where the explosion or shooting took place.


And again, given the vagaries of French internal and external politics, there would be a difference between Islamist attacks against 'hard' French (government/military) targets and softer civilian targets- such as the Rue Copernic attack, or the recent spate of arson attacks on synagogues in France.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by molly bloom I for one am grateful (if a little bemused) by Tory opposition to identity cards- I'm sure it's an idea that Margaret Thatcher would have welcomed when she identified people who opposed her as: 'the enemy within'.

that's maybe because unlike the lot we've got in power at the moment the tories care about individual freedom.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by C0ckney


that's maybe because unlike the lot we've got in power at the moment the tories care about individual freedom.

Yeah, right. I remember the 1980s and 1990s all too well, thanks, and never found that to be the case.


" Margaret Thatcher has consistently declared that one of her main aims whilst in government was to decrease the amount of state interference and power that the state exerted over the everyday lives of British citizens. In her apparent attempt to do so, she, in fact, increased her own personal power, and that of her party, at the expense of the liberal freedoms that form a key part of Britain. As the constitutional reform group, Charter 88, put it in a pamphlet published soon after its launch:

"A process is underway, which endangers many of the freedoms we have had... More generally, the government has eroded a number of important civil freedoms...the universal right to habeas corpus, to peaceful assembly, to freedom of information, to freedom of expression, to membership of a trade union...to freedom of movement...By taking these rights from some, the government puts them at risk for all."

This declaration of the dangers of Thatcherism to the rights of the British citizen was no isolated call for change. The signs were clear that the government was overriding an alarming proportion of common civil liberties. Just a few examples include:

Local Government

Over 50 acts, aimed at reducing the independence of local authorities, were passed during Thatcher's residence in Downing Street. These involved financial penalties to local authorities that did not step into line with Government spending plans and policies, including the withholding of Government grants, rate capping, and the eventual abolition of the Greater London Council and the six metropolitan county authorities. As a result, both the independence and powers of local authorities were greatly reduced, leaving a greater concentration of power at the hands of the Government, and, thus, Margaret Thatcher as party leader. This greater power led to the confidence needed for the imposition of the 'community charge', or poll tax, perhaps the least popular attempt at funding the state in the history of democratic Britain. As Lord Jenkins put it in March 1988: "The result of that policy [the abolition of local authorities] has been a degree of civic degradation which it would be difficult to imagine being imposed on any other democratic country."

Civil liberties

There are many examples of the Conservative Government's erosion of civil liberties, some of which are included in the Charter 88 statement printed above. Other examples, such as the extension of police powers, the curb on public protest by requiring notification of any such demonstration at least a week in advance and the Criminal Justice Act, which, among other things, included the infamous clause banning any gathering at which was played "music including a repetitive beat", indicate that the Government desired to limit the freedom to dissent, which is an integral part of liberal democracy. Even the basic rights of the work force, including the right to strike and the right to join a union were attacked, in direct contravention of the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights. In her heavy-handed attempts to deal with the problems presented by unions, Margaret Thatcher was again striking at the very heart of liberal democratic freedom.

Official secrets

The Conservative Government consistently pursued alleged breaches of official secrets legislation, winning the actions against civil servants such as Sarah Tidsall but losing others including Clive Ponting (the MoD official who leaked embarrassing information about the sinking of the Belgrano) and Peter Wright, the author of the infamous book, Spycatcher. MI5 was also put on a legal footing for the first time, and operations by this institution, such as burglary and tapping of phones, were authorised. Thatcher's instinct remained always on the side of an attitude of secrecy and intrigue in Whitehall and against disclosure in the public interest. Freedom of expression and of the press is one of the most important freedoms that we possess in Britain, and these attempted gaggings by the government were one of the most worrying symptoms of the erosion of civil liberties by the Conservative Party. Although I would not argue that a government is never justified in keeping secrets in the national interest, some of the facts, which the Conservatives attempted to conceal from the public, while not harming the state, bruised their credibility as a trustworthy political force. The example given above of the Clive Ponting affair, and the use of the public interest immunity in the attempt to conceal the sale of the 'super-gun' to Iraq are just two cases where this was self-evidently true. The suppression of facts had nothing to do with the well being of Britain but much to do with Margaret Thatcher's standing in the eyes of the public. "

http://www.dulwich.org.uk/per/old/per2001/sellwood.htm

Remember the abolition of metropolitan authorities ? The abolition of the I.L.E.A ?

Democratically elected bodies which were removed by national government fiat.

Leopards and spots, old chum.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by molly bloom



But the use or existence of identity cards does not necessarily correlate with the prevention of a greater number of deaths or casualties- you would also have to ask what kind of terrorist attacks they were for instance, what kind of explosive, weaponry, what the target was, where the explosion or shooting took place.


And again, given the vagaries of French internal and external politics, there would be a difference between Islamist attacks against 'hard' French (government/military) targets and softer civilian targets- such as the Rue Copernic attack, or the recent spate of arson attacks on synagogues in France.

I was commenting the statistics as you published them. You say that no useful comment can be made, except that the French result is due to vagaries of internal and external politics. I wish all nations to enjoy such an efficient use of political vagaries.
For your information, most of the arson attacks on synagogues were not of terrorist origin.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


I was commenting the statistics as you published them. You say that no useful comment can be made, except that the French result is due to waries of internal and external politics. I wish all nations to enjoy such an efficient use of political vagaries.
For your information, most of the arson attacks on synagogues were not of terrorist origin.

I didn't say definitively that the French figures were due to the vagaries of internal politics and foreign policies, although France's colonial role in North Africa and Syria/Lebanon and the presence of large numbers of French born Muslims of North African descent are two factors which would influence both domestic and foreign policy stances and therefore have a likely effect on whether or not France would be a target for Islamist terrorists.


Now I'm not quite sure how you can say that the arson attacks on French synagogues were not of 'terrorist' origin- they are after all 'soft' civilian targets and French government sources said this:

"...the government in Paris argues that the attacks are mainly the work of Muslims of North African origin and must be seen in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "

after things like this had happened:

" About 15 masked assailants smashed two cars into a synagogue in Lyon and set it on fire.

A man fired a shotgun twice at a kosher butcher's shop in a village near the southern city of Toulouse.

Arsonists tried to burn down a synagogue in Strasbourg, in the east, but failed to do serious damage. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1904547.stm

Organisation, the use of arson, terror, and intimidation, a 'political' or 'racial' motivation- sounds like terrorism to me not high spirits.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Submitted without comment (because its vileness stands all by itself):

I don't see much objectively wrong with that statement . It indeed was a good time to buy .

Oh , I forgot that terrorism was not commonplace and a fact of life over there . Sorry , but you'll see what I mean when this sort of thing starts happening on a regular basis - like every day , in some or the other place .

[DAVOUT]

I remember of arson attacks on synagogues and schools : they were made by individual unsatisfied for some reason independently of any terrorist consideration. As for cars set on fire, that cannot seriously be considered as terrorism. And terrorizing a kosher butcher is not equivalent of a terror attack; many retailers are attacked every day; they are victims of armed thiefs, not of terrorists, even if they are terrorized.
It is useless to describe as terrorist the smallest incident which would never have received such a qualification before 9/11.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
I remember of arson attacks on synagogues and schools : they were made by individual unsatisfied for some reason independently of any terrorist consideration. As for cars set on fire, that cannot seriously be considered as terrorism. And terrorizing a kosher butcher is not equivalent of a terror attack; many retailers are attacked every day; they are victims of armed thiefs, not of terrorists, even if they are terrorized.
It is useless to describe as terrorist the smallest incident which would never have received such a qualification before 9/11.

As the article stated about the arson attempts and shotgun attack:

" The earlier attacks all came within 24 hours each hours of each other at the weekend in or near major cities. "


So, coordination, planning, intimidation- not random acts of violence perpetrated against unrelated targets, but deliberate attacks on a particular part of France's citizenry distinguished by their culture, faith or perceived 'race', and believed by the police and French government to be carried out by elements within France's Muslim community in connection with political events elsewhere.

No different in that respect from the kind of violence one saw on a regular basis directed against the Catholic or Protestant communities in the United Kingdom by sectarian terrorists.

[Shi Huangdi]

Actually, the situation in Iraq is a battle between those who want a pluralistic federated republic, or a return to a Sunni authoritarian state, or a Shia Theocratic state, or an independent Kurdish state, and those who want a Taliban style Islamic state.

So far the Sunni Rejectionists and the Islamists are the only ones actively taking arms against us. All of the other groups are cooperating within the framework of the Iraqi government.

[Bereta_Eder]

The editorial of Eleutherotypia (Free Press) (one of the biggest 3) is worth reading.


Death is on patrol

The repulsive crime and the open wounds of London remind to the archterrorists of the globe that it is their own terrorzoid policy, their own hideous crimes that provoke the terrorism of others.... But they insist unrepandant: they intensify their terrorist effort to subjugate the world, preanounce restrictions and terrorlaws and maintain bastions of fire defiying the gloabl public opinion that is, provengly, resisting their logic.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Yeah, right. I remember the 1980s and 1990s all too well...

and don't we just know it!

you know when i said individual freedom, i was talking about the rights and freedoms of...you know...individuals, not some leftie local authorities that got dismantled or whatever.

no one is saying that the tories were perfect (far from it), but you can't seriously be suggesting that they have anything on this lot. i'd love to list every single attack this government has made on the rights of the people, but i've got to be in work in three hours!

we have a wholly illiberal government, who seem to want to control every aspect of people's lives and spend our money doing it. you can't pick up a paper these days without reading about some new 'nanny state' initiative designed to protect us from ourselves at great expense. and it's not just benign, well intentioned, meddling in people's lives either, sometimes the left really hits the jackpot and gets to not only curb people's rights but also to strike a vindictive blow at people who they perceive as having done them some wrong in the past and who will never vote labour, the ban on foxhunting being the best example.