It's not telling you to remained frightened.
You might be but I'm not.
As someone who knows one of Lee Rigby's family members I'll pass on your jovial attitude to the threat of terrorism to them.
Please do, and while you are at it you might want to point out that you used his tragic death at the hands murdering madmen to score a 'cheap point' in an internet forum, you might also point out that YOU brought his name into the discussion not I,
Now unlike you, I am not privileged enough to personally know any of his family members, but I will take a wild guess that if asked, if they would rather his death at the hands of those murdering thugs caused us all to live our lives in fear,
OR that we choose to deal with the attempts of those who think they can frighten us into their way of 'thinking' by carrying out acts of murder and terror, by refusing to be frightened and to take the piss out of them, I could be wrong, but I think I might have a wild guess which of those two options they might prefer,
HEY why not, (while you are running to tell his family about someone on the internet who you though was being disrespectful)
ask them about those two options? would they prefer us to live in fear of those that carry out such barbaric behaviour? or would they prefer us to take the piss out of them?
I can imagine them thinking you're not even half the man he was.
and so could I to be honest, because firstly I never claimed to be "his equal" or a "better man than him" and they have never met me, anyone would no doubt say exactly the same when given such an option about a member of ones own family or a total stranger,
So it's hardly rocket science to be certain what they would say is it,?
in fact, I never even mentioned him until YOU brought him into the argument to attempt a rather underhand bit of 'point scoring'
I would share their disgust.
Yes somehow I feel you would, but know that I feel rather disgusted that someone would use his name to score a cheap 'point' and I sort of think his family might agree with me too.
Please do, and while you are at it you might want to point out that you used his tragic death at the hands murdering madmen to score a 'cheap point' in an internet forum, you might also point out that YOU brought his name into the discussion not I,
You seem to have a short memory when it comes to terrorism so you need reminding of past atrocities. I'll throw in 7/7 as well just to jog your memory a little more.
[QUOTE=OLD HIPPY GUY;74526040
Now unlike you, I am not privileged enough to personally know any of his family members, but I will take a wild guess that if asked, if they would rather his death at the hands of those murdering thugs caused us all to live our lives in fear,
OR that we choose to deal with the attempts of those who think they can frighten us into their way of 'thinking' by carrying out acts of murder and terror, by refusing to be frightened and to take the piss out of them, I could be wrong, but I think I might have a wild guess which of those two options they might prefer,
[/QUOTE]
Who exactly told you to be frightened? The threat level has been raised, that's all. No need for you to scurrying behind your settee or change your way of life.
Yes somehow I feel you would, but know that I feel rather disgusted that someone would use his name to score a cheap 'point' and I sort of think his family might agree with me too.
I can assure you, there's nothing about your views on this subject they'd find agreeable.
You seem to have a short memory when it comes to terrorism so you need reminding of past atrocities. I'll throw in 7/7 as well just to jog your memory a little more.
There is nothing at all wrong with my memory thanks, although I fail to see the relevance of listing past terrorist atrocities.
Who exactly told you to be frightened? The threat level has been raised, that's all. No need for you to scurrying behind your settee or change your way of life.
Don't recall saying anyone has, indeed I was rather trying to get the exact opposite point across, as in DON'T let the terrorists win by allowing them to scare you into changing your way of life or feeling afraid.
It would be laughable if you tried to.
But I haven't and wouldn't, didn't I just say that? Ahh yes here it is,
because firstly I never claimed to be "his equal" or a "better man than him" and they have never met me, anyone would no doubt say exactly the same when given such an option about a member of ones own family or a total stranger,
So it's hardly rocket science to be certain what they would say is it,?
I can assure you, there's nothing about your views on this subject they'd find agreeable.
Really? you can assure me that they wouldn't agree with views I haven't even expressed? like for example I think that those bastards who murdered their son are a pair of cowardly scumbags who should never see the light of day again, you can "assure" me they wouldn't agree with those views? or my guess that they would rather we mocked and took the piss out of these terrorist lunatics than allow them to achieve their aims by being frightened all the time? they wouldn't agree with those views?
personally I think you just want to be outraged and used Mr Rigby as an attempt to imply that I was in some way being disrespectful towards him, when the truth is I never mentioned him or his family, and I certainly would never have used him as an attempt to score a cheap point or two on an internet forum,
I suggest we leave it at that out of respect for the man and his family.
Anyone thought to ask why all of a sudden the threat level was raised to severe yesterday. Apparently Islamic state weren't such a big threat last week - leaving time for Dave to go surfing - but within 24 hours of Rotherham/bad immigration figures/Carswell all of a sudden the news agenda is changed to a raising of the threat level.
Sorry if I am a cynic - but what precisely changed in 24 hours that wasn't blindingly obvious before?
Anyone thought to ask why all of a sudden the threat level was raised to severe yesterday. Apparently Islamic state weren't such a big threat last week - leaving time for Dave to go surfing - but within 24 hours of Rotherham/bad immigration figures/Carswell all of a sudden the news agenda is changed to a raising of the threat level.
Sorry if I am a cynic - but what precisely changed in 24 hours that wasn't blindingly obvious before?
Good post and why are we putting up out threat level but America aren't . Btw yes there is a threat from terrorism we all know that .
Anyone thought to ask why all of a sudden the threat level was raised to severe yesterday. Apparently Islamic state weren't such a big threat last week - leaving time for Dave to go surfing - but within 24 hours of Rotherham/bad immigration figures/Carswell all of a sudden the news agenda is changed to a raising of the threat level.
Sorry if I am a cynic - but what precisely changed in 24 hours that wasn't blindingly obvious before?
So pretty much the minute David Cameron gets back to work, the terrorist threat suddenly rises....
Isn't it obvious? David Cameron is the terrorist threat!! It all makes so much sense, and thinking about it, he is in far more of a position to completely wreck this country than a few scruffy, Muslim neckbeards running around in Iraq with AK47s.
The Time Is Ripe For A False-Flag Attack On American Soil
Government engineered false-flag terrorism is a historically established fact. For centuries, political and financial elites have been sinking ships, setting buildings on fire, assassinating diplomats, overthrowing elected leaders, and blowing people up, then blaming these disasters on convenient scapegoats so that they can induce fear in the public and transfer more power to themselves. Skeptics might argue whether certain calamities have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be false-flag events, but no one can argue that such tactics have not been used by the establishment in the past. Governments have openly admitted to creating bloody and catalyzing tragedies under false pretenses, like Operation Gladio, a false-flag program in Europe supported by European and American covert agencies which lasted decades, from the 1950's to the 1990's.
Gladio utilized well-paid and trained rogue groups and agents as well as patsies, compartmentalized and controlled, who would commit atrocities against the European public. These atrocities would then be blamed on “left wing extremists”, galvanizing the citizenry and political representatives towards the false East/West paradigm. The superficial motivation given by whistleblowers was that Gladio was to be used to keep the right wing in power. However, the broader and deeper goal was clearly to manipulate Europeans into accepting a unification mindset, paving the way for the eventual centralization of Europe into the EU supranational block. Gladio, is only one well documented example of false-flag terrorism being exploited by governments to mold mass psychology towards greater collectivism.
It is therefore vital that the public question the legitimacy of EVERY so-called “terrorist attack” or geopolitical incident, otherwise, we may find ourselves duped into supporting wars and unconstitutional actions that only end up poisoning our society and elevating tyrants.
Interesting article and it's certain the worlds population is being softened up for something. Stories about threats and dangers, new radical groups and the old enemy being portrayed as somehow a warmonger prepared to take on the world,
One could argue MH17 was one. That was big on rhetoric but woefully short on facts, even to the point of Ukraine ATC recordings and data not even being requested. It's also been dropped like a hot potato when the claims didn't match the evidence; and the definite lack of evidence from the west. It also allowed Israel to do it's biennial lawn mowing whilst the world looked elsewhere.
ISIS are an extremely well funded, well organised and well connected group. They are also extremely lucky in finding hundreds of millions of dollars in cash in banks, plenty of American weaponry and even luckier to have unimpeded access to all this. We are meant to believe some 35000 well armed and trained troops ran away from a couple of thousand in pick up trucks with guns. Seems unlikely, unless that was what they were meant to do?
The UK propaganda is in full overdrive, with anyone of Muslim faith who is young and disgruntled being fair game for a terrorist supporter. Raising the threat level just makes the public less suspicious when something does happen, it was of course those pesky terrorist types. Whilst all this goes on, bear in mind the state of the worlds financial system and the levels of debt around the world that has to be paid back or nullified. Some $18 trillion in the US alone let alone the derivatives and precious metals markets. War is a great leveller and profitable for some, it just needs a good enough reason to start one...
You seem to have a short memory when it comes to terrorism so you need reminding of past atrocities. I'll throw in 7/7 as well just to jog your memory a little more.
Good post and why are we putting up out threat level but America aren't . Btw yes there is a threat from terrorism we all know that .
Because Obama was elected on a platform of ending all those "unnecessary" wars. His left wing support still want to do nothing, he's never been very interested in doing much about foreign affairs, and he doesn't want the agenda for the November elections being about how he made the threat bigger than ever. He's also not doing anything about a tide of illegal immigrants - because he thinks they will vote Democrat and Hispanic voters support loose immigration controls - that means its difficult for him to talk about a terrorist threat, without people attacking him for having an open border letting them in. .
He also believes in a fairy tale world - where you make speeches and everyone sees how wise you are and agrees. He's spent a term and a half pretending he has beaten the al queda threat , so he's having difficulty admitting something bigger is out there and needs very nasty, drastic action to eliminate it. He's also chronically indecisive and habitually finds a reason to not go with any foreign policy - because he doesn't realise that all options have risks and issues.
So you get what you have. Its actually exactly what Hillary Clinton and the Republicans both predicted you would get back in 2007. The phone rings, and no one answers. The US has no policy because the President has no policy. The defense Department ends up talking about a massive threat, and plans a suitable response - but Obama just allows them to drop a dozen or two bombs a day to stop really bad headlines.. The US Congress, and even much of the US media , seem to have spotted that ISIS drawing in militants, and establishing a state puts them into an ideal killing ground - but the Commander In Chief is more interested in theNovember elections, and his golf.
The UK faces a bigger domestic threat because we have a larger number of militant fundamentalists , and have not dealt effectively with our terrorists, with the left wing, human rights lobby ensuring most are left on the streets. We have more angry delusional people, and may have real data on whats being plotted.
Our politicians are not much better though. Cameron seems to understand the problem, and says the right things, but he's not doing anything about killing the ISIS threat where it can be eliminated. His defence cuts also mean we have very little capability to do anything anywhere about ISIS , let alone Putin on the rampage. The police and fire brigade cuts mean we would have more difficulty meeting the sort of attack an intelligently run terrorist campaign might mount. Clegg has his head perpetually in the sand, and sees CND and left wing voters deserting him if he approves of killing anyone. . And Milliband's suggestion - that we deradicalise our terrorists, must be the most childish and inept statement by any Labour leader. Is he next going to suggest we treat the Yorkshire Rippers and release them ? Are we going to tell terrorists that their religion is silly? Are we going to believe them when they say they now agree with moderate Imam A, and not ISIS recruiter B? Its a case of extreme danger, and no one in charge of dealing with it, who really appreciates how big it is.
Threat of election defeat for uk government raised to severe
Joking aside, is this related to the alleged discovery of a laptop in Syria, the contents of which suggest the likes of ISIS are attempting to weaponise bubonic plague?
(aka black death/black plague)
Nevermind how many months ago those in possession obtained it
Threat of election defeat for uk government raised to severe
Joking aside, is this related to the alleged discovery of a laptop in Syria, the contents of which suggest the likes of ISIS are attempting to weaponise bubonic plague?
(aka black death/black plague)
Nevermind how many months ago those in possession obtained it
The plague!!! I better make sure I've got some anti-biotics available!
Good post and why are we putting up out threat level but America aren't . Btw yes there is a threat from terrorism we all know that .
Because America doesn't turn a PC blind eye like we do and let as many young Muslim boys get indoctrinated into the crazy nutcase organization IS or become radicalised.
Threat of election defeat for uk government raised to severe
Joking aside, is this related to the alleged discovery of a laptop in Syria, the contents of which suggest the likes of ISIS are attempting to weaponise bubonic plague?
(aka black death/black plague)
Nevermind how many months ago those in possession obtained it
Possibly. Or something else. And you wonder what briefings the other major party leaders have had too.
The problem though is more obvious. We have thousands of EU passport holders in the most barbaric gang of fundamentalists seen yet. We also have direct threats made to attack the UK and US, and the pope, and by implication other religious leaders . We also have gangs of rioters emerging already as a response to recent Hamas attacks on Israel. and the Israeli reply. You have a pool of individuals, a certain amount of hysteria among ISIS supporters, and some current causes to recruit for, motivate or excuse attacks. Add to that, you now have 110, and counting, attacks by the US on ISIS - which may have killed several hundred ISIS militants already.
The danger is that the terrorists may have learnt what doesn't work that well , and what might. Its also that they may have now the manpower to mount a sustained campaign, and - because we have liberal judges and lords, and left wing pro terrorist lawyers - much of that manpower is not locked up, There's also possibly too many to keep under adequate surveillance , and fewer police now to guard, watch, or respond to the threat. Strategically, old Liberals like Ashdown are conditioned by the experience of the past terrorist campaigns like those of PIRA. Terrorists in the past have usually gone for attacks that made a point, threatened further escalation for political ends, caused limited damage, or threatened what might follow with big bombs that didn't go off. There were odd mass casualty attacks by psychopaths, nuts, and incompetents in the past, and al queda added sporadic mass casualty attacks to the mix. but ISIS may just be interested in sustained slaughter.
According to the newspaper, the fatwa says Muslims have a "moral obligation" to help those in war-torn Syria and Iraq, but that they should do so "without betraying their own societies".
This I like. We should call Briton's fighting in foreign wars what they really are traitors and I am glad that Cameron is going take away their citizenship. That should be the penalty for treason even if it makes people stateless. We should dump them on South Georgia until some other country agrees to take them.
The danger is that the terrorists may have learnt what doesn't work that well , and what might. Its also that they may have now the manpower to mount a sustained campaign, and - because we have liberal judges and lords, and left wing pro terrorist lawyers - much of that manpower is not locked up,
Where did you get the idea that we have "left wing pro terrorist lawyers"? Lawyers don't decide the outcome of cases in any case.
This I like. We should call Briton's fighting in foreign wars what they really are traitors and I am glad that Cameron is going take away their citizenship. That should be the penalty for treason even if it makes people stateless. We should dump them on South Georgia until some other country agrees to take them.
Does that include UK nationals fighting for the IDF in Israel?
Possibly. Or something else. And you wonder what briefings the other major party leaders have had too.
The problem though is more obvious. We have thousands of EU passport holders in the most barbaric gang of fundamentalists seen yet. We also have direct threats made to attack the UK and US, and the pope, and by implication other religious leaders . We also have gangs of rioters emerging already as a response to recent Hamas attacks on Israel. and the Israeli reply. You have a pool of individuals, a certain amount of hysteria among ISIS supporters, and some current causes to recruit for, motivate or excuse attacks. Add to that, you now have 110, and counting, attacks by the US on ISIS - which may have killed several hundred ISIS militants already.
The danger is that the terrorists may have learnt what doesn't work that well , and what might. Its also that they may have now the manpower to mount a sustained campaign, and - because we have liberal judges and lords, and left wing pro terrorist lawyers - much of that manpower is not locked up, There's also possibly too many to keep under adequate surveillance , and fewer police now to guard, watch, or respond to the threat. Strategically, old Liberals like Ashdown are conditioned by the experience of the past terrorist campaigns like those of PIRA. Terrorists in the past have usually gone for attacks that made a point, threatened further escalation for political ends, caused limited damage, or threatened what might follow with big bombs that didn't go off. There were odd mass casualty attacks by psychopaths, nuts, and incompetents in the past, and al queda added sporadic mass casualty attacks to the mix. but ISIS may just be interested in sustained slaughter.
Does that include UK nationals fighting for the IDF in Israel?
It does in my opinion, yes.
War tourism should be illegal.
If they want to fight abroad but not as a part of the British forces, they need to obtain new citizenship elsewhere first - not dual citizenship - and do it via the British authorities.
If they want to fight abroad but not as a part of the British forces, they need to obtain new citizenship elsewhere first - not dual citizenship - and do it via the British authorities.
So the folk fighting for the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War should have obtained Spanish citizenship from the people they were fighting against.
Presumably you also want to ban Commonwealth or Irish citizens being members of the UK armed forces.
Comments
Please do, and while you are at it you might want to point out that you used his tragic death at the hands murdering madmen to score a 'cheap point' in an internet forum, you might also point out that YOU brought his name into the discussion not I,
Now unlike you, I am not privileged enough to personally know any of his family members, but I will take a wild guess that if asked, if they would rather his death at the hands of those murdering thugs caused us all to live our lives in fear,
OR that we choose to deal with the attempts of those who think they can frighten us into their way of 'thinking' by carrying out acts of murder and terror,
by refusing to be frightened and to take the piss out of them, I could be wrong, but I think I might have a wild guess which of those two options they might prefer,
HEY why not, (while you are running to tell his family about someone on the internet who you though was being disrespectful)
ask them about those two options? would they prefer us to live in fear of those that carry out such barbaric behaviour? or would they prefer us to take the piss out of them?
and so could I to be honest, because firstly I never claimed to be "his equal" or a "better man than him" and they have never met me,
anyone would no doubt say exactly the same when given such an option about a member of ones own family or a total stranger,
So it's hardly rocket science to be certain what they would say is it,?
in fact, I never even mentioned him until YOU brought him into the argument to attempt a rather underhand bit of 'point scoring'
Yes somehow I feel you would, but know that I feel rather disgusted that someone would use his name to score a cheap 'point' and I sort of think his family might agree with me too.
[QUOTE=OLD HIPPY GUY;74526040
Now unlike you, I am not privileged enough to personally know any of his family members, but I will take a wild guess that if asked, if they would rather his death at the hands of those murdering thugs caused us all to live our lives in fear,
OR that we choose to deal with the attempts of those who think they can frighten us into their way of 'thinking' by carrying out acts of murder and terror,
by refusing to be frightened and to take the piss out of them, I could be wrong, but I think I might have a wild guess which of those two options they might prefer,
[/QUOTE]
Who exactly told you to be frightened? The threat level has been raised, that's all. No need for you to scurrying behind your settee or change your way of life.
It would be laughable if you tried to.
I can assure you, there's nothing about your views on this subject they'd find agreeable.
Don't recall saying anyone has, indeed I was rather trying to get the exact opposite point across, as in DON'T let the terrorists win by allowing them to scare you into changing your way of life or feeling afraid.
But I haven't and wouldn't, didn't I just say that? Ahh yes here it is, Really? you can assure me that they wouldn't agree with views I haven't even expressed? like for example I think that those bastards who murdered their son are a pair of cowardly scumbags who should never see the light of day again, you can "assure" me they wouldn't agree with those views? or my guess that they would rather we mocked and took the piss out of these terrorist lunatics than allow them to achieve their aims by being frightened all the time? they wouldn't agree with those views?
personally I think you just want to be outraged and used Mr Rigby as an attempt to imply that I was in some way being disrespectful towards him, when the truth is I never mentioned him or his family, and I certainly would never have used him as an attempt to score a cheap point or two on an internet forum,
I suggest we leave it at that out of respect for the man and his family.
Sorry if I am a cynic - but what precisely changed in 24 hours that wasn't blindingly obvious before?
So pretty much the minute David Cameron gets back to work, the terrorist threat suddenly rises....
Isn't it obvious? David Cameron is the terrorist threat!!
Government engineered false-flag terrorism is a historically established fact. For centuries, political and financial elites have been sinking ships, setting buildings on fire, assassinating diplomats, overthrowing elected leaders, and blowing people up, then blaming these disasters on convenient scapegoats so that they can induce fear in the public and transfer more power to themselves. Skeptics might argue whether certain calamities have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be false-flag events, but no one can argue that such tactics have not been used by the establishment in the past. Governments have openly admitted to creating bloody and catalyzing tragedies under false pretenses, like Operation Gladio, a false-flag program in Europe supported by European and American covert agencies which lasted decades, from the 1950's to the 1990's.
Gladio utilized well-paid and trained rogue groups and agents as well as patsies, compartmentalized and controlled, who would commit atrocities against the European public. These atrocities would then be blamed on “left wing extremists”, galvanizing the citizenry and political representatives towards the false East/West paradigm. The superficial motivation given by whistleblowers was that Gladio was to be used to keep the right wing in power. However, the broader and deeper goal was clearly to manipulate Europeans into accepting a unification mindset, paving the way for the eventual centralization of Europe into the EU supranational block. Gladio, is only one well documented example of false-flag terrorism being exploited by governments to mold mass psychology towards greater collectivism.
It is therefore vital that the public question the legitimacy of EVERY so-called “terrorist attack” or geopolitical incident, otherwise, we may find ourselves duped into supporting wars and unconstitutional actions that only end up poisoning our society and elevating tyrants.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-29/time-ripe-false-flag-attack-american-soil
Links to source in article, as always.
Interesting article and it's certain the worlds population is being softened up for something. Stories about threats and dangers, new radical groups and the old enemy being portrayed as somehow a warmonger prepared to take on the world,
One could argue MH17 was one. That was big on rhetoric but woefully short on facts, even to the point of Ukraine ATC recordings and data not even being requested. It's also been dropped like a hot potato when the claims didn't match the evidence; and the definite lack of evidence from the west. It also allowed Israel to do it's biennial lawn mowing whilst the world looked elsewhere.
ISIS are an extremely well funded, well organised and well connected group. They are also extremely lucky in finding hundreds of millions of dollars in cash in banks, plenty of American weaponry and even luckier to have unimpeded access to all this. We are meant to believe some 35000 well armed and trained troops ran away from a couple of thousand in pick up trucks with guns. Seems unlikely, unless that was what they were meant to do?
The UK propaganda is in full overdrive, with anyone of Muslim faith who is young and disgruntled being fair game for a terrorist supporter. Raising the threat level just makes the public less suspicious when something does happen, it was of course those pesky terrorist types. Whilst all this goes on, bear in mind the state of the worlds financial system and the levels of debt around the world that has to be paid back or nullified. Some $18 trillion in the US alone let alone the derivatives and precious metals markets. War is a great leveller and profitable for some, it just needs a good enough reason to start one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWQyQX9CK2g
What do you make of that?
Because Obama was elected on a platform of ending all those "unnecessary" wars. His left wing support still want to do nothing, he's never been very interested in doing much about foreign affairs, and he doesn't want the agenda for the November elections being about how he made the threat bigger than ever. He's also not doing anything about a tide of illegal immigrants - because he thinks they will vote Democrat and Hispanic voters support loose immigration controls - that means its difficult for him to talk about a terrorist threat, without people attacking him for having an open border letting them in. .
He also believes in a fairy tale world - where you make speeches and everyone sees how wise you are and agrees. He's spent a term and a half pretending he has beaten the al queda threat , so he's having difficulty admitting something bigger is out there and needs very nasty, drastic action to eliminate it. He's also chronically indecisive and habitually finds a reason to not go with any foreign policy - because he doesn't realise that all options have risks and issues.
So you get what you have. Its actually exactly what Hillary Clinton and the Republicans both predicted you would get back in 2007. The phone rings, and no one answers. The US has no policy because the President has no policy. The defense Department ends up talking about a massive threat, and plans a suitable response - but Obama just allows them to drop a dozen or two bombs a day to stop really bad headlines.. The US Congress, and even much of the US media , seem to have spotted that ISIS drawing in militants, and establishing a state puts them into an ideal killing ground - but the Commander In Chief is more interested in theNovember elections, and his golf.
The UK faces a bigger domestic threat because we have a larger number of militant fundamentalists , and have not dealt effectively with our terrorists, with the left wing, human rights lobby ensuring most are left on the streets. We have more angry delusional people, and may have real data on whats being plotted.
Our politicians are not much better though. Cameron seems to understand the problem, and says the right things, but he's not doing anything about killing the ISIS threat where it can be eliminated. His defence cuts also mean we have very little capability to do anything anywhere about ISIS , let alone Putin on the rampage. The police and fire brigade cuts mean we would have more difficulty meeting the sort of attack an intelligently run terrorist campaign might mount. Clegg has his head perpetually in the sand, and sees CND and left wing voters deserting him if he approves of killing anyone. . And Milliband's suggestion - that we deradicalise our terrorists, must be the most childish and inept statement by any Labour leader. Is he next going to suggest we treat the Yorkshire Rippers and release them ? Are we going to tell terrorists that their religion is silly? Are we going to believe them when they say they now agree with moderate Imam A, and not ISIS recruiter B? Its a case of extreme danger, and no one in charge of dealing with it, who really appreciates how big it is.
Joking aside, is this related to the alleged discovery of a laptop in Syria, the contents of which suggest the likes of ISIS are attempting to weaponise bubonic plague?
(aka black death/black plague)
Nevermind how many months ago those in possession obtained it
The plague!!! I better make sure I've got some anti-biotics available!
Alcohol makes a good disinfectant, so stock up! But the new Autumn/Winter look for the truly paranoid?
http://th07.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2013/185/b/1/plague_doctor_hat_by_tombanwell-d6bzaad.jpg
Because America doesn't turn a PC blind eye like we do and let as many young Muslim boys get indoctrinated into the crazy nutcase organization IS or become radicalised.
Possibly. Or something else. And you wonder what briefings the other major party leaders have had too.
The problem though is more obvious. We have thousands of EU passport holders in the most barbaric gang of fundamentalists seen yet. We also have direct threats made to attack the UK and US, and the pope, and by implication other religious leaders . We also have gangs of rioters emerging already as a response to recent Hamas attacks on Israel. and the Israeli reply. You have a pool of individuals, a certain amount of hysteria among ISIS supporters, and some current causes to recruit for, motivate or excuse attacks. Add to that, you now have 110, and counting, attacks by the US on ISIS - which may have killed several hundred ISIS militants already.
The danger is that the terrorists may have learnt what doesn't work that well , and what might. Its also that they may have now the manpower to mount a sustained campaign, and - because we have liberal judges and lords, and left wing pro terrorist lawyers - much of that manpower is not locked up, There's also possibly too many to keep under adequate surveillance , and fewer police now to guard, watch, or respond to the threat. Strategically, old Liberals like Ashdown are conditioned by the experience of the past terrorist campaigns like those of PIRA. Terrorists in the past have usually gone for attacks that made a point, threatened further escalation for political ends, caused limited damage, or threatened what might follow with big bombs that didn't go off. There were odd mass casualty attacks by psychopaths, nuts, and incompetents in the past, and al queda added sporadic mass casualty attacks to the mix. but ISIS may just be interested in sustained slaughter.
This I like. We should call Briton's fighting in foreign wars what they really are traitors and I am glad that Cameron is going take away their citizenship. That should be the penalty for treason even if it makes people stateless. We should dump them on South Georgia until some other country agrees to take them.
Where did you get the idea that we have "left wing pro terrorist lawyers"? Lawyers don't decide the outcome of cases in any case.
Does that include UK nationals fighting for the IDF in Israel?
Just like it's founder and financier, America...
It does in my opinion, yes.
War tourism should be illegal.
If they want to fight abroad but not as a part of the British forces, they need to obtain new citizenship elsewhere first - not dual citizenship - and do it via the British authorities.
I wonder what people expected?
Wonder what his legal advice on this was?
So the folk fighting for the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War should have obtained Spanish citizenship from the people they were fighting against.
Presumably you also want to ban Commonwealth or Irish citizens being members of the UK armed forces.