storm1977

Maybe you missed my earlier statements that this would be OK during times of War... Or maybe you just forgot. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Patrick Henry famously said, "Give me liberty or give me death." Now it's been shifted 180, "We'll take your liberty or you'll be dead." Somehow, it seems to me to be anathema to the American ethos... I disagree.... Put a gun to someones head and ask them what they want? Say.... I will not kill you, but you have to give up some of your liberties. Or you can choose to die right now. I have money on the fact that more than 95% of americans given that choice will choose life. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

No wendy I disagree with Darius.... I HATE EVERYONE ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Looks like the terrorists are accomplishing exactly what they want. Are they? Lincoln Changed Liberties during the Civil war. Woodrow Wilson Criminalized Free speech if it was negative toward the US during WWI. In times when the Government needs to protect the LIVES of its people, sometimes Liberties may be infringed. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

I don't know if you believe this bill, but I have never seen any star wars movie.... I loved ET though :-) ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

No because I didn't see O'reilly last night, however, I did listen to his radio show yesterday and he had some one on discussing this issue. So maybe Bill should Credit the caller as should I. I would not feel the need to credit him anyway for a question or an Idea. If he had done work or research and had concluded something, they maybe I should. But merely listening to a radio broadcast and agreeing with a caller then asking people in "My circle" there opinion hardly warrents credit. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Sounds to me like the Patriot Act.... I think it is a great Idea. In a time of war sometimes liberties need to shrink a bit in order to protect Lives. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

LONDON, England (CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Tuesday that much of the world had dropped its guard to the threat of terrorism after the "wake-up call" of the 9/11 attacks of 2001. Blair was speaking after meeting opposition leaders to discuss anti-terror legislation set to be introduced in the wake of this month's London bombings. He said Britain would not give "one inch" to terrorists and said it was time to confront them "on every single level." "September 11 for me was a wake up call. Do you know what I think the problem is? That a lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again," he said. "We are not going to deal with this problem, with the roots as deep as they are, until we confront these people at every single level. And not just their methods but their ideas," Blair said. While rejecting suggestions he had claimed the London bombings had nothing to do with Iraq, Blair said there was no justification for terrorism. "Let us expose the obscenity of these people saying it is concern for Iraq that drives them to terrorism," Blair said. "If it is concern for Iraq then why are they driving a car bomb into the middle of a group of children and killing them?" Blair said. "They will always have a reason and I am not saying any of these things don't affect their warped reasoning and warped logic. "But I do say we shouldn't compromise with it. Whatever justification these people use, I do not believe we should give one inch to them." "There is no justification for suicide bombing whether in Palestine, Iraq, in Egypt, in Turkey, anywhere." Blair once again praised Londoners for their behavior in the aftermath of the July 7 attacks on the London transit system that killed 52 people plus the four bombers, and the failed bomb attacks of July 21. "I'm not standing here and being absurd about it in the sense of saying people should not be concerned; of course they are going to be concerned and worried," he said. "But I do think the way Londoners have responded has been magnificent ... because they have not allowed their worry and concern to overcome their determination to carry on with their lives. I think that's the best attitude." Following his talks with Conservative Party leader Michael Howard and Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, Blair said he hoped final details of the anti-terror proposals would be presented to opposition parties in September. Proposals under discussion included measures that would allow authorities to close down extremist Web sites and extend the period for holding terror suspects. "I am very pleased that the cross-party consensus on the way forward is continuing," Blair said. "I think when the main political parties present a united front then you send an important signal to the terrorists of our strength, our determination, our unity to defeat them." Howard said that whatever measures are put before the House of Commons when it reconvenes in the autumn, they must be consensual proposals. "There's a great desire, at a time when the country faces such great danger, to work together. We're all in this together, and we all believe it's very important to show that the country is united in response to the danger we face, and we hope that it will be possible to reach agreement on further measures that will enable us to deal with this threat more effectively," Howard told reporters. "One of the principle objectives of the terrorists is to divide us, one from another. So far ... they have failed in that objective. It's important that they continue to fail in that objective. That's why we believe it is so important that we approach these difficult issues in a spirit of consensus, with the objective of reaching agreement wherever we possibly can," Howard said. The opposition leader said his party is concerned about the proposal to increase the period of detention for suspects related to terror investigations from the current two weeks to three months. "We see very considerable difficulties in that; that's a long time to hold someone without charge," Howard said. He said that other items discussed were a proposal that would make intercept evidence admissible at trials and authorities ability to close down extremist Web sites. Kennedy voiced concern that basic civil liberties might be compromised in the push to pass new anti-terror legislation, and also questioned the extension of detention proposal. "How far that extension might or might not go, I think is something that will require further evidence," Kennedy said. Proposed legislation put forth by the government also includes outlawing indirect incitement or the glorifying of terrorism, and making it illegal to prepare to commit terror acts and provide or receive terror training. Other measures, including increased use of phone taps and other intercept evidence in court, are being considered. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Seriously though.... 40 yrs of terrorist in Isreal, the IRA in England and Ireland (the list goes on) and the world body is deciding today to "DEFINE" terrorism. Not vow to stop it, just define it!!!! Wow, I am almost speechless.... (almost) ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

With this new Definition do you think the BBC will be able to call the "Bombers" Terrorist now? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

OK serious question.... Since I can't find anything on the subject maybe someone else can. Since 9/11, What is the UNs stand on terrorism? Have there been any resolutions? Has there been any mention? The most anyone has seen them do is put up road blocks out side their buildings so they don't get blown up? I wonder now that it is not just the Isrealies and Americans problem if the UN will say or do something. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

If you read the energy Bill you will see, there are measures to get new technologies for alternative energy. However, as the article says... Senetors and Represenatives are ripping this thing apart. I would guess it is due to Special Interest groups and lobbiests. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

I think Gravity said best what I am trying to say. You me and the next guy all have suspitions or assumtions about people we know. If we have one amongst us who seems to be going to those "Radical Clerics", who seems like an angry person... Maybe the one around them need to look more closely at what is going on behind the scenes. The same is true of the Columbine kids.... The difference is they were NOT from a close nit community or family. Their parents had no idea what was going on because they weren't involved and didn't care to look. The fucking kids had pipe bombs under his bed at his parents house. I don't blame the parents as much as the kids. The kids carried out the attacks after all, however, the parents need to be more involved. And that is all I am saying about the Muslim community. They seem to be a close nit group that is going to get a bad reputation soon if things don't change. That's a fact. If bombing continue in London, people are going to start looking at every Middle easterner with suspicion..natural reaction. So, for the best interest of their community, it is important the Muslims start looking after their own. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Most Muslim communities in England are just that. Primarily close nit 90% + muslim. In that community, if there are a few bad apples, the people there (For their own good) should be actively working with the police to try get rid of the ones giving them a bad name... THat is my point. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

people just don't get it.... They same ones opposing some of the measures in the bill are the same ones who 4 years ago were ranting on how we needed to cut ties with the middle east. (Granted most of our oil isn't from there but still) ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

I agree with a lot of what you say. I am an american, and proud of it. Proud of the Laws of my country and the liberties the Constitution alots me. As I am sure you are of France's. However, I am willing to allow the rules to be bent and some of my liberties pushed to the side in the name of Defense of the country. I really do feel there is going to be a big shift in European thinking. It has already started in the US, but in my opinion, the US's problem isn't nearly as large as Europes when it comes to the muslim community. It's sad truthfully..... I have a feeling that this is going to get worse before the people finally get fed up and take strong action. I for one would support it. Has there ever been another group of people in History that has used the tactic of blowing themselves and innocent people up to get what they want? (Not the Kamakazi(sp?) either... they attacked military targets) What does it say about these people? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

If the poll was done scientifically, then yes, I think 1005 people would be a large enough sample to make the assumption that it is around 5% across the board. I am not really sure why this surprizes you. An article I posted earlier makes a few great points that seem to hit home. THere has been terrorism and suicide bombers in Isreal for years. We in the US, though allied with Isreal, really did nothing to help them stop this. In fact, we negotiated with Arafat and other terrorist to reach some sort of peace deal. But the terrorist kept attacking. Europe and the US told Ireal they needed to stop attacking the palastinians, and that they couldn't build the wall. Meanwhile the attacks kept coming. But here in the US we felt all cozy in our beds knowing it was happening there and not here. Then there was the first WTC attack in 93, then the USS cole attack, then embassy bombings then 9/11, and we realized it wasn't just Isreal with the problem. Meanwhile, Europe, who has been trying their best to align themselves with anything Non-american felt they were safe. But what happened.... First the Madrid bombing... So in a weak cowardly way Spain pulled out of Iraq because they thought that was the cause. Then what? More plots were hatched against Spain... So what was the reason now? Then the London Bombing.... It will go on and on until people realize who the problem is. This war on terror will end with the Muslims loosing. All muslims even innocent ones if they do not wake up and see they have a vested interest in helping to cut this shit out in their community. The Muslims in Europe and the US need to be actively reporting those among them who see to be on the radical outskirts of their society. The Dutch are already taking action on deporting citicens who are muslim but involved with radical Mosques. Pretty soon it will be all muslims if they don't start calling out there own. THere is going to be a very large shift in the EUropean view pretty soon if this shit doesn't stop. The enemy has infitrated Europe because they allowed him to. They let him preach hatred in the streets and pass out fliers about Death to America. Europeans felt it wasn't there problem, but now, for their own selfish causes, some of them are turning on the countries which gave them everything they have. When Bin Laden Declared war on the west it was because of: Isreal, then because of troops in Saudi (Which were protecting them BTW) Then because of Afganistan Then because Iraq. People need to realize it is none of those things.... It is a failed civilization afraid of democracy, afraid of change. A society that sees the west as the cause of their own mess. Until they realize they are the problem, there is no solution, except to destroy them. Because they are pretty content with trying to destroy us. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

http://www.nationalreview.com/...nson200507220816.asp ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

The british police has taken full responsability of the mistake, and had offer an apology to the family of the deceased. I am yet to see the american government take responsability for anything done ( i mean, something negative, you guys take responsability for all the good deeds around the world, done by you or not) or even apologize for their actions. (Well, you can not apologize for something you take no responsability, so i guess that is okay) Big diference. Now, if british police where killing innocent on a daily basis, i would be the first to scream murder. I know you wish that were true my friend, but making statements like that only proves one thing..... You boviously don't read to many newspapers, or watch the new for that matter. It doesn't surprise me. Now, back to the subject at hand. It is ironic that so many people, especially non americans, criticized the US Patriot act because it changed or bent some of the rules of the US constitution. But now there is a cop in London with Blood on his hand for MURDERING[/] some one in cold blood. Also, let it be know that in times of war laws and even the constitution can and has been bent. It is needed. If a country can not protect its people, what can it do? During WWI President Wilson (Suspend the freedom of speech in the USA) During the Civil War Licoln suspend Habias Corpes in Border States. So letting the FBI see what I checked out of the Library is no BFD to me. I think my Sig says enough. IMO - It is time we follow the "Liberal Dutch" Yes I can't believe I am saying that. They are going to begin DEPORTING Dutch Citicens (muslim) who are running their mouths with Hate speech in their Mosques. Until the Muslim Community Will start to point out the bad apples, whether its for fear or allegence, we need to take action to find and destroy the enemies among us. read this and think about it! http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200507220816.asp ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

July 22, 2005, 8:16 a.m. And Then They Came After Us We’re at war. How about acting like it? First the terrorists of the Middle East went after the Israelis. From 1967 we witnessed 40 years of bombers, child murdering, airline hijacking, suicide murdering, and gratuitous shooting. We in the West usually cried crocodile tears, and then came up with all sorts of reasons to allow such Middle Eastern killers a pass. Yasser Arafat, replete with holster and rants at the U.N., had become a “moderate” and was thus free to steal millions of his good-behavior money. If Hamas got European cash, it would become reasonable, ostracize its “military wing,” and cease its lynching and vigilantism. When some tried to explain that Wars 1-3 (1947, 1956, 1967) had nothing to do with the West Bank, such bothersome details fell on deaf ears. When it was pointed out that Germans were not blowing up Poles to get back lost parts of East Prussia nor were Tibetans sending suicide bombers into Chinese cities to recover their country, such analogies were caricatured. When the call for a “Right of Return” was making the rounds, few cared to listen that over a half-million forgotten Jews had been cleansed from Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, and lost billions in property. When the U.N. and the EU talked about “refugee camps,” none asked why for a half-century the Arab world could not build decent housing for its victimized brethren, or why 1 million Arabs voted in Israel, but not one freely in any Arab country. The security fence became “The Wall,” and evoked slurs that it was analogous to barriers in Korea or Berlin that more often kept people in than out. Few wondered why Arabs who wished to destroy Israel would mind not being able to live or visit Israel. In any case, anti-Semitism, oil, fear of terrorism — all that and more fooled us into believing that Israel’s problems were confined to Israel. So we ended up with a utopian Europe favoring a pre-modern, terrorist-run, Palestinian thugocracy over the liberal democracy in Israel. The Jews, it was thought, stirred up a hornet’s nest, and so let them get stung on their own. We in the United States preened that we were the “honest broker.” After the Camp David accords we tried to be an intermediary to both sides, ignoring that one party had created a liberal and democratic society, while the other remained under the thrall of a tribal gang. Billions of dollars poured into frontline states like Jordan and Egypt. Arafat himself got tens of millions, though none of it ever seemed to show up in good housing, roads, or power plants for his people. The terror continued, enhanced rather than arrested, by Western largess and Israeli concessions. Then the Islamists declared war on the United States. A quarter century of mass murdering of Americans followed in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, East Africa, the first effort to topple the World Trade Center, and the attack on the USS Cole. We gave billions to Jordan, the Palestinians, and the Egyptians. Afghanistan was saved from the Soviets through U.S. aid. Kuwait was restored after Saddam’s annexation, and the holocaust of Bosnians and Kosovars halted by the American Air Force. Americans welcomed thousands of Arabs to our shores and allowed hundreds of madrassas and mosques to preach zealotry, anti-Semitism, and jihad without much scrutiny. Then came September 11 and the almost instant canonization of bin Laden. Suddenly, the prior cheap shots at Israel under siege weren’t so cheap. It proved easy to castigate Israelis who went into Jenin, but not so when we needed to do the same in Fallujah. It was easy to slander the Israelis’ scrutiny of Arabs in their midst, but then suddenly a few residents in our own country were found to be engaging in bomb making, taking up jihadist pilgrimages to Afghanistan, and mapping out terrorist operations. Apparently, the hatred of radical Islam was not just predicated on the “occupation” of the West Bank. Instead it involved the pretexts of Americans protecting Saudi Arabia from another Iraqi attack, the United Nations boycott of Iraq, the removal of the Taliban and Saddam, and always as well as the Crusades and the Reconquista. But Europe was supposedly different. Unlike the United States, it was correct on the Middle East, and disarmed after the Cold War. Indeed, the European Union was pacifistic, socialist, and guilt-ridden about former colonialism. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims were left alone in unassimilated European ghettoes and allowed to preach or promulgate any particular hatred of the day they wished. Conspire to kill a Salmon Rushdie, talk of liquidating the “apes and pigs,” distribute Mein Kampf and the Protocols, or plot in the cities of France and Germany to blow up the Pentagon and the World Trade Center — all that was about things “over there” and in a strange way was thought to ensure that Europe got a pass at home. But the trump card was always triangulation against the United States. Most recently anti-Americanism was good street theater in Rome, Paris, London, and the capitals of the “good” West. But then came Madrid — and the disturbing fact that after the shameful appeasement of its withdrawal from Iraq, further plots were hatched against Spanish justices and passenger trains. Surely a Holland would be exempt — Holland of wide-open Amsterdam fame where anything goes and Muslim radicals could hate in peace. Then came the butchering of Theo Van Gogh and the death threats against parliamentarian Hirsi Ali — and always defiance and promises of more to come rather than apologies for their hatred. Yet was not Britain different? After all, its capital was dubbed Londonistan for its hospitality to Muslims across the globe. Radical imams openly preached jihad against the United States to their flock as thanks for being given generous welfare subsidies from her majesty’s government. But it was the United States, not liberal Britain, that evoked such understandable hatred. But now? After Holland, Madrid, and London, European operatives go to Israel not to harangue Jews about the West Bank, but to receive tips about preventing suicide bombings. And the cowboy Patriot Act to now-panicked European parliaments perhaps seems not so illiberal after all. So it is was becoming clear that butchery by radical Muslims in Bali, Darfur, Iraq, the Philippines Thailand, Turkey, Tunisia, and Iraq was not so tied to particular and “understandable” Islamic grievances. Perhaps the jihadist killing was not over the West Bank or U.S. hegemony after all, but rather symptoms of a global pathology of young male Islamic radicals blaming all others for their own self-inflicted miseries, convinced that attacks on the infidel would win political concessions, restore pride, and prove to Israelis, Europeans, Americans — and about everybody else on the globe — that Middle Eastern warriors were full of confidence and pride after all. Meanwhile an odd thing happened. It turns out that the jihadists were cowards and bullies, and thus selective in their targets of hatred. A billion Chinese were left alone by radical Islam — even though the Chinese were secularists and mostly godless, as well as ruthless to their own Uighur Muslim minorities. Had bin Laden issued a fatwa against Beijing and slammed an airliner into a skyscraper in Shanghai, there is no telling what a nuclear China might have done. India too got mostly a pass, other than the occasional murdering by Pakistani zealots. Yet India makes no effort to apologize to Muslims. When extremists occasionally riot and kill, they usually cease quickly before the response of a much more unpredictable angry populace. What can we learn from all this? Jihadists hardly target particular countries for their “unfair” foreign policies, since nations on five continents suffer jihadist attacks and thus all apparently must embrace an unfair foreign policy of some sort. Typical after the London bombing is the ubiquitous Muslim spokesman who when asked to condemn terrorism, starts out by deploring such killing, assuring that it has nothing to do with Islam, yet then ending by inserting the infamous “but” — as he closes with references about the West Bank, Israel, and all sorts of mitigating factors. Almost no secular Middle Easterners or religious officials write or state flatly, “Islamic terrorism is murder, pure and simple evil. End of story, no ifs or buts about it.” Second, thinking that the jihadists will target only Israel eventually leads to emboldened attacks on the United States. Assuming America is the only target assures terrorism against Europe. Civilizations will either hang separately or triumph over barbarism together. It is that simple — and past time for Europe and the United States to rediscover their common heritage and shared aims in eradicating this plague of Islamic fascism. Third, Islamicists are selective in their attacks and hatred. So far global jihad avoids two billion Indians and Chinese, despite the fact that their countries are far tougher on Muslims than is the United States or Europe. In other words, the Islamicists target those whom they think they can intimidate and blackmail. Unfettered immigration, billions in cash grants to Arab autocracies, alliances of convenience with dictatorships, triangulation with Middle Eastern patrons of terror, blaming the Jews — civilization has tried all that. It is time to relearn the lessons from the Cold War, when we saw millions of noble Poles, Romanians, Hungarians, and Czechs as enslaved under autocracy and a hateful ideology, and in need of democracy before they could confront the Communist terror in their midst. But until the Wall fell, we did not send billions in aid to their Eastern European dictatorships nor travel freely to Prague or Warsaw nor admit millions of Communist-ruled Bulgarians and Albanians onto our shores ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Crozby.... Please explain how this HOME GROWN terrorist was caused "BUSH AND BLAIR's" war. London-born Richard Reid has been sentenced in the United States after admitting trying to blow up a commercial flight using bombs hidden in his shoes. The son of an English mother and Jamaican father, so-called "shoe bomber" Richard Reid was born in 1973 in the London suburb of Bromley. I was not there to give him the love and affection he should have got Richard Reid's father It is hardly a natural breeding ground for dissidents - the borough's schools are among the UK's best, and street crime is half that in smarter areas such as Kensington and Chelsea. The young Reid is said to have attended Thomas Tallis secondary school in Blackheath, south-east London, from 1984 to 1989. His father, Robin, told BBC News he had been in prison for most of Richard's childhood. "I was not there to give him the love and affection he should have got," he said. His son fell into a life of petty crime and in the mid-1990s was jailed for a string of muggings, for which he served sentences in a number of prisons, including Feltham young offenders' institution in west London. It was while at Feltham that Reid is said to have converted to Islam. Worship After his release, he followed the path taken by many other Muslim prisoners, to Brixton Mosque, in south London. The place of worship has a reputation for attracting converts and helping ex-offenders re-adjust to life in the outside world. Inmates at Feltham Reid said to have converted to Islam at Feltham young offenders' institution Initially he fitted in well. Taking the name Abdel Rahim, he became known for his willingness to get involved in the workings of the mosque and to learn Arabic. But at some point Reid began to get involved with extremist elements, says the chairman of Brixton Mosque, Abdul Haqq Baker. Reid was "tempted away" by "individuals who set up a few years ago away from the mosque", Mr Baker says. "Their teachings were a lot more militant." He says extremists worked on "weak characters" and believes Reid was "very, very impressionable". Reid attended external classes and started to question the peaceful philosophy of his teachers. Change in appearance His appearance also changed, says Mr Baker. He went from wearing western clothes to the traditional Islamic thobe - a loose, long-sleeved, ankle-length garment - with a khaki combat jacket on top. Abdul Haqq Baker outside the Brixton Mosque Abdul Haqq Baker: "Reid was very impressionable" There is speculation that at some point during his drift to a more extreme philosophy, he may have met Zacarias Moussaoui, who has been charged in the US with conspiracy over the 11 September attacks. Mr Moussaoui, a Frenchman of Moroccan origin, also attended the Brixton Mosque during the 1990s but was expelled for his extreme views and his attempts to impose them on the younger, more easily influenced members. Towards the end of 1998, Reid ceased worshipping at the mosque and is thought to have moved to Pakistan. He reportedly sent several letters written in Arabic to friends in London. His mother, Lesley Hughes, who is separated from Reid's father, also believed he was in Pakistan. But mother and son eventually lost contact and in summer 2001 Ms Hughes telephoned Brixton Mosque seeking news. About the same time, Reid is believed to have embarked on an extensive travel programme, which saw him visit seven countries including some of the world's so-called "terror capitals". Gone missing He is thought to have spent time in Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and possibly Afghanistan. Zacarias Moussaoui Moussaoui: Charged with conspiracy over 11 September attacks Commentators have suggested he may have used some of these excursions to test the security arrangements on various airlines, before boarding American Airlines flight 63 from Paris to Miami on 22 December 2001. He was overpowered by passengers and crew on the flight after trying to set light to a fuse connected to the explosives. It has also been reported that a computer allegedly used by al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan contained files with details of a "scouting" trip Reid is believed to have carried out to identify targets to attack. The computer files describe an operative known as Brother Abdul Ra'uff who travelled to the same countries Reid is believed to have spent time in. Like Reid, the operative travelled on a British passport and was closely questioned by Israeli security. As a result of the files the United States Government laid new charges against Mr Reid, including attempted murder. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

One thing to note.... You have had other terrorist which were "Homegrown" If I recall correctly, Richard Ried the Shoe bomber, tried to blow up a plane to the USA. Also, I believe that was Pre-Iraq. So, statements earlier by Croz don't add up. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

no, there aren't enough facts, but this we do know based on police and witness reports. THe man was wearing a big jacket. He was not carrying a backpack of any type. He tripped and was tackled to the ground. He was then shot 5 times. He was not in posession of a bomb (Police statement). I am trying not to change the subject of the thread, but i will bet money, certain people on DZ.com would be shouting murder right now if this happened in America. Or even (as ron said) on a war battlefield. It is a really nice double standard. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

You are right we may never know the answers, however, one only needs to look across the pond to see Pre- 9/11 the same situation. There are "Sleepers" in many nations in the West I am sure. THe 9/11 hijackers had been here for a while. Also, the first WTC bombing took place in 1993, 8 yrs later they hit it again. It is very plausible to argue that "Homegrown terrorist" aren't exactly "Homegrown". These people are obviously delusional, but it must be pointed out that these people in London spent time in terrorist training camps in Pakistan. Their loyalty is NOT to England... Their loyalty is to their religion no matter where they live. Fact, more muslims are killed by muslim terrorist every year then anyone else. These extremists are loyal to no one other than Allah (misguidedly). They have no concern of the UK, the USA, or other muslims not willing to accept their form of radical islam. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

The IRA are TERRORIST... you are missing the point. I was saying; Look at all these attacks, and this list doesn't even include the IRA. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty