Remember a few months ago we were all told that the world was going to end with the plan for 12 planes to be blown up by these darn terrorists using liquid bombs? Well after all the inconvenience caused to passengers is there any surprise that we hear this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6175427.stm What is the betting that there will be no charges brought against anyone arrested for this impossible plot? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs http://dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Petras25.htm
*blink, blink* So -that's- why we were limited to such small amounts of liquids. I thought the security administration was worried about chemical warfare, not liquid bombs. Good to know.
Why do you always have to be such a wanker GTech? The link I posted was referring to Rashid Rauf, Pakistan has no extradition treaty with the UK. As for the ones arrested in the UK some of them didn't even have passports, but that's OK right GTech, when it comes to bullshit and passports anything is possible. http://www.stormfront.org/solargeneral/library/www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/10/WTC_BlackBox.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1546927.stm It's a miracle.
hope you aren't a stormfronter.. anyway, here's the real link: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/10/WTC_BlackBox.html
I don't root for terrorists or those who seek to diminish what they do, plan for or hope to carry out. Just pointing out an observation.
Nice. I feel the same way you do GTech, the main difference between us on this particular topic is that I think this liquid bomb threat lacked any credible evidence, just like many others (the Fake Ricin Story and the Forest Gate shooting where Mohammed Abdul Kahar was shot in his pyjamas by some trigger happy dickhead policeman.) We'll never agree on anything 100% because I feel you are a blinkered man, we're both on the same side against terrorism so don't keep saying I support it, makes you sound like a bit of a tit to be honest mate.
You know I love you, in a "Bud Light" kind of way When it comes to the safety of people, our respective law enforcements should always work on the side of caution. I didn't get the perception there was no evidence for the group, but that a Pakistani Judge (I'm sure, quite a different judicial process than the UK), for whatever reason, did not find enough for ONE SUSPECT held in Pakistan. I was left with a different impression from what your first post said, compared to the source used. Our differences are far and wide in relation to terrorism. I believe in giving credit to those who commit such crimes against humanity, where I get the impression you give their credit to various governments, as conspiracy plots. I'm not personally comfortable with sweeping the actions of terrorists under the carpet, or finding alternative sources to give their credit to.
Thanks for that, but I don't drink US beer as it tastes like piss. I've always had you down as a Molson man.
Not a chance, mcfox! The only way I could lose is if the legal system there is absolutely incompetent. Maybe that's what you are banking on?
You forgot to mention the possibility of innocence. Actually, what I'm banking on to win the bet is the usual 'big fuss' about 'terrorist arrests' and the quiet dismissal of all charges afterwards because the charges were entirely without foundation. Did you know only 4% of people arrested in the UK under anti-terrorism laws are actually convicted of a terrorism-related offence? That means I have a 96% chance of winning this bet.
I'm not banking on innocence. I believe most are still behind bars, correct? After the sweep, they weeded out the innocent (those who they had no reason to hold) and kept those they had reason to hold. I'm not aware of the percentages mentioned, but I am aware of the ongoing problem there. I hope it's something the leadership there can get under control.
LOL mcfox, I don't got no idea what you guys are betting on. If it's about how the media spreads lies all the time to hoodwink people like GTech then I'm in. In GTechs world anyone with dark skin, a moustache, a turban, a foreign accent, lives outside of the USA, prays to Allah or has more than 5 children is a terrorist. I think all in all GTech is probably a nice guy, it is just that his own government has got him so fucking spooked he's seeing all of this. And therefore he is a prime example of just how easy it is to manipulate people. He could even be the FOX News mascot.
Ah, but then you've lost already, as your vision of Iraq is identical to that of the media. Apparently they have "hoodwinked" you Although incorrect, one could similarly argue that anyone that does commit terrorists acts will be afforded protections, aid and comfort, and general pleasantries by you, by giving their credit to government conspiracies. It's all a matter of perspective (and integrity)