"Complex" plot of blow up UK airlines foiled

[Toby Rowe]

Chegitz,

That is a poor comment.

Achieving a (re)-united Ireland is a world away from these blokes- they simply wish to visit death upon all around them.

As a British man I also want a united Ireland, just like many in of us do in the UK. That is a aim, an objective that will be realised in good time, and will be more quickly realised upon the natural death of Ian Paisley.

It's tangible, it has a goal, an objective: how can you lump the two together? Your simply trying to score Brownie points from the other author and in very poor taste.

Toby

Just realised what I said, so to make clear: the murders that the IRA/UDR etc unertook of innocent civilians in Northern Ireland and the UK were unacceptable, as were the murders of soldiers sent initially to protect the Catholic population from attacks by protestants.

Only one thing mattered during that time- the attitude of the British and Irish governments. As an old Irish girlfriend commented at the height of the troubles, "our government doesn't want them, we couldn't cope"....
Now they could, couldn't they?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Ummm... you are aware that emabssies are US soil.

The attacks on the embassies didn't originate on American soil, thuis making it very difficult for them to be tracked and stopped. All of the attacks against the U.S. launched from foreign soil that we know of we stopped by foreign agencies, with the exception of the millenium, where we got lucky because the terrorists were stupid and got caught by a customs agent.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Chegitz,

That is a poor comment.

It was twenty years ago and you had a fascist government then.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
as were the murders of soldiers sent initially to protect the Catholic population from attacks by protestants.

The same ones that slaughtered Catholic protestors?

[Toby Rowe]

Can't change history mate,

The decision to send troops in was to protect the Catholic area's from violent attacks by protestants.

How that changed is another matter, I'd prefer to read a history of it by a non-Brit, non-Irish author. (but non a Yank- apparently 70% think they are decended from Irish, whilst 70% also think they are desended from native americans, weird you don't all look like native american-Irish......

If only the US people looked back a bit further in the family tree they might find English first, along with Cornish, Welsh and Scots even.........

Guess what, In the modern UK we're all mixed up together, I've got Irish and Scottish in my family, but I was born in England and so I'm English, simple as that.

Toby

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Can't change history mate,

The decision to send troops in was to protect the Catholic area's from violent attacks by protestants.

And they were initially welcomed. It wasn't the IRA that started the fighting.

[Toby Rowe]

Originally posted by NeOmega


I just love you neo-cons. Simple little minds running around in your little mind-boxes, thinking everything and everyone plays by rules you have written.

Who cares if the Syrian government is cooperating? Who cares if the Egyptian government is cooperating? Hell, The Iraqi governmentis cooperating pretty well I bet, but doesn't something seem wrong to you?

Don't you get it? Why are drugs still pouring across our southern and Northern borders? Both governemtns have strong anti-drug laws, and cooperate on a grand scale?

It's not the big governemnts that control or watch these things. The big government just does the paperwork and interviews of the small government guys. The local governments are the ones whose sympathies we need.

You neo-con overlords think you can just rule the world with bombs, and to hell with popular opinion, as long as you have their governments shaking in fear, we have nothing to fear. Not only is it inhuman and pollutive of our city on the hill, it is also just plain sophomoric and counter-productive. You would think you guys had some sense of assymetric warfare by now, but nope, you guys keep thinking in old WW II style geo-politics. And that is your real failure of thought, you all think this conflict, this global war on terrorism is akin to World War II, when it isn't even close.




So what, they knew their money was being tracked. You guys throw red herrings all over the placve. It's not that we object to terrorists being tracked, it's that we object to everyone being tracked. Why are you guys so afraid of warrants? What is so hard about getting a warrant?


I'll tell you what. The Bush adminsitration has seen this war on terror as a golden political opportunity from the get-go. Cheneys little "Lamonts victory is helping Al-Queada" speech after this incident was just another stupid statement in a long line of stupid neocons saying stupid things and showing they have no problem exploiting the peril our nation faces for political gain.

Im out.

This is one of the best posts I've seen about the entire sorry saga of the Bush era, I swore blind on the net about 10 years ago that I'd never comment on a nations internal affairs, but would of Foreign affairs.

This man forced an army (the US army) into a war that had a proven track record of making the civilian population very hostile to them in a very short space of time. To compound it he made them go to war when they weren't ready either. (lack of engineers due to bombed infrastucture by the Airforce).

Now the UK since the Falklands war has had the same problems with politicians increasingly interfering with military operations, never mind sending them in the first place. (In the Falklands Thatcher decided the Commander of HMS Conquerer should sink a WWII Cruiser rather than the aircraft carrier theatening future shipping movements to the Falklands- how stupid was that?)

Still, if only Generals would tell Politicians to stick to their jobs, whilst they'll also do the same.......nah! I live in a dream world.

Toby

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In the 1980s, it wasn't against the law.

Sure. There's also the moral aspects you'd have to consider of buying bombs that were used to murder civilians that beg to be considered though.

[chequita guevara]

Given that I was an American and that my tax dollars were being used to massacre hundreds of thsouands of peasants, what's a dead Brit soldier or two?

[Toby Rowe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Can't change history mate,

The decision to send troops in was to protect the Catholic area's from violent attacks by protestants.

And they were initially welcomed. It wasn't the IRA that started the fighting.

So who did? The protestants?The Army?

Bloody Sunday is seen as a seminal time in that period yet the troops were fired upon, unfortunately the troops had one idiot of a commander that day- The Parachute regiment were and still are are sharp edge of our Army and I question whether sending either the Para's or the Royal Marines (the other "sharp edge") to such a problem was a wise decision at a time in history when we had untold other soldiers available for the task. (our Army is currently just 90,000 strong BTW).

Nonetheless, Ireland will become one in time, and that's all she needs- time. It will right a wrong and I'll be happy, and any Protestant unhappy will be free to live in the UK just as all citizens of both the North and South have always been able to do- without a passport...even!!!

Toby

[chequita guevara]

Thr troops fired first. The Catholics fired back in self-defense.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by NeOmega


Bush said he was tracking them. Surely you remember the quotes in this forum, or need I remind you again?



Oh yeah, what law states that? remember, the executive does not have authority to pass laws, so tell me, which law states a warrant is only needed for intrusive searches.... ooops, caught you making up stuff again.



See above, and why you wasted your time typing this. Irrelevant.

First of all I'm advocating a policy not describing one. This is what the word "should" is meant to convey.

Secondly it is the fourth ammendment to the US constitution that is primarily invoked when complaints are made that it was illegal for the government to have learend something because a warrant was not obtained prior to obtainig the information.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In my post I intended to advocate a position based on the idea that unreasonable searches and seizures should include only intrusive searches.

I am painfully well aware that the judicial has been using a far less sensible interpretation.

If it's acceptable for you to condemn the actions of the executive don't be surprised if someone else takes issue with the actions of the judicial branch of government.

Originally posted by NeOmega

Do you not know the difference between a warrant and an officer witnessing a crime?

The line between 'witnessing a crime' and 'search' is quite fuzzy.


But you missed my point. You had asked us what was so hard about getting a warrant. I provided an example of a law enforcement activity in which the information is obtained without the need for a warrant and asked you to consider how much harder it would be if warrants were required. You then replied that a warrant was not required to obtain the information in the example I selected as a case in which warrants are not required.

I'm sorry if I was somehow unclear but I get the distinct impression that you don't want to understand which points people are attempting to make but are instead trying to play chess with the forum or something. Please let us know if that is the case.

[Toby Rowe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Given that I was an American and that my tax dollars were being used to massacre hundreds of thsouands of peasants, what's a dead Brit soldier or two?

Don't see the point of this post.
A massacre of any people is wrong, and as for a few dead British soldiers- well don't join the army if you don't accept death as an occupational hazard, don't "join up" as we say in Britain. Never stopped Miners, Steel workers, blah, blah etc etc.
What are you trying to say?

Toby

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It was twenty years ago and you had a fascist government then.

What definition of fascist do you use?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
what's a dead Brit soldier civilian or two?

Fixed.