Identify your local neighbourhood facist

[Park Life 70]

Im back from work so I can finally voice my views on some of the shit written on here.

 

Does supporting the BNP, make you any less able to do your job? No.

 

Does supporting the BNP make you racist? Does it bollox.

 

If you are worried immigration, crime and positive descrimination, who else are you go to be a member of?

 

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE BNP.

Even though its Dannyb i agree

 

Not if you are on the radio, which is the key marker here.

[Guest Stevie]

I don't think Stevie is a bigot or racist. Remember, this is the bloke that doesn't want people from outside the NE1 postcode to be allowed into St. James Park so his prejudices aren't just down to race, creed or colour. Stevie just likes himself and hates everybody else.

Nah son. That would mean I couldn't go neither.

[Renton 17926]

As I've said before my boss is Indian, I shagged a black lass when I was 21 and I can speak Italian so how the fuck can I be racist?

I slept with a lass once, doesn't mean I'm not a raging hom.

 

True of a lot of people.

 

Don't worry Fop, some day you'll chance upon a drunken young lady passed out down an alleyway and you can finally get rid of that pesky '50 year old virgin' tag.

 

Am I 50 or 18? Or just immortal?

 

 

Also, that article is six years old and the government has taken steps to stop the likes of Hamza from preaching their disgusting, twisted versions of Islam. So it's not that relevent really is it?

 

The problem was they allowed it for more than 10 years before that.

I couldn't agree more. Lots of mistakes were made although part of living in a democracy like ours is that the boundaries of acceptable freedom of speech are tested all the time. It's also one of the good things about the UK in a way though.

What was being said was always well beyond the acceptable boundaries of freedom of speech, the only difference was that it was more politically convenient to just ignore it, until it started coming home to roost.

I agree btw. I think most people would have found it totally unacceptable. It wasn't just a case of political convenience though, it was way off the radar before 9/11 too.

 

It wasn't under the radar (under the public and media's radar, maybe), for example police investigated Finsbury Park mosque several times in the 90's they were always told to back off and leave it alone, even though there was more than enough evidence to convict a lot of people spewing their bile there.

 

Much like integrated transport policy they knew they had a problem by didn't want to deal with it because they knew it would be a political shitstorm that they'd at best gain little out of in the end and at worse lose a lot.

 

Have you any decent links to support this then, or is this just another general dig at politicians? I find it hard to believe the security forces, or politicians, would have sat on their hands if they considered it a serious threat. 9/11 cahnged everything.

There have been several investigations into that (and attempted cover ups too) - although in fairness it was probably a risky one for the police as the dispatches episode showed, but considering you didn't know about a universal flu vaccine I can see how you wouldn't know about them either.

 

The thing that 9/11 changed was they realised that monitoring it and doing nothing about it wasn't likely to just allow the status quo to go on.... and in fact that they had a raft of new anti-terror legislation to play with.

 

 

9/11 didn't change anything. THe illegal and lie peddling invasion of Iraq did. Especially as there was a case to have a look at Afghanistan and an even stronger case to look into the Afg/Pakistan border territories.

 

9/11 didn't change the threat level from 'Al Queda' terrorists and fundamentalist nutters in general? I beg to differ.

 

Didn't the invasion of Afghanistan precede the invasion of Iraq? What are you on about tbh?

[2bias 3]

Im back from work so I can finally voice my views on some of the shit written on here.

 

Does supporting the BNP, make you any less able to do your job? No.

 

Does supporting the BNP make you racist? Does it bollox.

 

If you are worried immigration, crime and positive descrimination, who else are you go to be a member of?

 

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE BNP.

Even though its Dannyb i agree

 

Not if you are on the radio, which is the key marker here.

Yes i see what your saying but im not

[Fop 1]

Hence why I said it wasn't that much like it. You could have chosen virtually any political decision. I don't quite see the relevance of transport policy to this debate though. Anyway, it's another agree to disagree thing I think.

Because the integrated transport policy is something that's been around for years without anything really being done about it (there was even a yes minister episode about it ).

 

It's just a good example of something a politician might want to fix, but at best blows hot air out of their ass about it, so it hangs around like a bad fart instead for vast periods of time.

 

9/11 didn't change anything. THe illegal and lie peddling invasion of Iraq did. Especially as there was a case to have a look at Afghanistan and an even stronger case to look into the Afg/Pakistan border territories.

 

Domestically it did. Not only did it allow sweeping new powers, but it made politicians panic. A 7/7 attack pre-Iraq would have been much more devastating politically than what actually did occur (by the time it did occur, it was probably almost seen as a relief politically due to the quagmire they'd got themselves into).

[Park Life 70]

Question?

 

How many Muslims live in the U.K.?

 

How many have been convicted of terrorism or insightment to violence?

 

 

How many Mulsims live in the U.S.?

 

How many Muslim Americans have been convicted of terrorism or insightment to violence?

[ewerk 26669]

Question?

 

How many Muslims live in the U.K.?

 

How many have been convicted of terrorism or insightment to violence?

 

 

How many Mulsims live in the U.S.?

 

How many Muslim Americans have been convicted of terrorism or insightment to violence?

260 million according to Fop.

[Guest alex]

Hence why I said it wasn't that much like it. You could have chosen virtually any political decision. I don't quite see the relevance of transport policy to this debate though. Anyway, it's another agree to disagree thing I think.

Because the integrated transport policy is something that's been around for years without anything really being done about it (there was even a yes minister episode about it ).

 

It's just a good example of something a politician might want to fix, but at best blows hot air out of their ass about it, so it hangs around like a bad fart instead for vast periods of time.

 

9/11 didn't change anything. THe illegal and lie peddling invasion of Iraq did. Especially as there was a case to have a look at Afghanistan and an even stronger case to look into the Afg/Pakistan border territories.

 

Domestically it did. Not only did it allow sweeping new powers, but it made politicians panic. A 7/7 attack pre-Iraq would have been much more devastating politically than what actually did occur (by the time it did occur, it was probably almost seen as a relief politically due to the quagmire they'd got themselves into).

That would make it make it different to this then, no? Given politicians kept quiet about it, according to you. Then only did something about after 9/11.

[Happy Face 29]

As I've said before my boss is Indian, I shagged a black lass when I was 21 and I can speak Italian so how the fuck can I be racist?

I slept with a lass once, doesn't mean I'm not a raging hom.

 

True of a lot of people.

 

Don't worry Fop, some day you'll chance upon a drunken young lady passed out down an alleyway and you can finally get rid of that pesky '50 year old virgin' tag.

 

Am I 50 or 18? Or just immortal?

 

 

Also, that article is six years old and the government has taken steps to stop the likes of Hamza from preaching their disgusting, twisted versions of Islam. So it's not that relevent really is it?

 

The problem was they allowed it for more than 10 years before that.

I couldn't agree more. Lots of mistakes were made although part of living in a democracy like ours is that the boundaries of acceptable freedom of speech are tested all the time. It's also one of the good things about the UK in a way though.

What was being said was always well beyond the acceptable boundaries of freedom of speech, the only difference was that it was more politically convenient to just ignore it, until it started coming home to roost.

I agree btw. I think most people would have found it totally unacceptable. It wasn't just a case of political convenience though, it was way off the radar before 9/11 too.

 

It wasn't under the radar (under the public and media's radar, maybe), for example police investigated Finsbury Park mosque several times in the 90's they were always told to back off and leave it alone, even though there was more than enough evidence to convict a lot of people spewing their bile there.

 

Much like integrated transport policy they knew they had a problem by didn't want to deal with it because they knew it would be a political shitstorm that they'd at best gain little out of in the end and at worse lose a lot.

 

Have you any decent links to support this then, or is this just another general dig at politicians? I find it hard to believe the security forces, or politicians, would have sat on their hands if they considered it a serious threat. 9/11 cahnged everything.

There have been several investigations into that (and attempted cover ups too) - although in fairness it was probably a risky one for the police as the dispatches episode showed, but considering you didn't know about a universal flu vaccine I can see how you wouldn't know about them either.

 

The thing that 9/11 changed was they realised that monitoring it and doing nothing about it wasn't likely to just allow the status quo to go on.... and in fact that they had a raft of new anti-terror legislation to play with.

 

 

9/11 didn't change anything. THe illegal and lie peddling invasion of Iraq did. Especially as there was a case to have a look at Afghanistan and an even stronger case to look into the Afg/Pakistan border territories.

 

9/11 didn't change the threat level from 'Al Queda' terrorists and fundamentalist nutters in general? I beg to differ.

 

Didn't the invasion of Afghanistan precede the invasion of Iraq? What are you on about tbh?

 

9/11 was the result of the threat, not a trigger for it.

 

9/11 may have inspired some people in very small numbers. The greater converter of regular citizens into terrorists are things such as illegally invading Iraq (as Parky says), spending billions on non-iraqi contractors to fuck up the most basic reconstruction work in their country and leaving more people in poverty over there than ever before, while westerners live it up in the green zone.

[Renton 17926]

As I've said before my boss is Indian, I shagged a black lass when I was 21 and I can speak Italian so how the fuck can I be racist?

I slept with a lass once, doesn't mean I'm not a raging hom.

 

True of a lot of people.

 

Don't worry Fop, some day you'll chance upon a drunken young lady passed out down an alleyway and you can finally get rid of that pesky '50 year old virgin' tag.

 

Am I 50 or 18? Or just immortal?

 

 

Also, that article is six years old and the government has taken steps to stop the likes of Hamza from preaching their disgusting, twisted versions of Islam. So it's not that relevent really is it?

 

The problem was they allowed it for more than 10 years before that.

I couldn't agree more. Lots of mistakes were made although part of living in a democracy like ours is that the boundaries of acceptable freedom of speech are tested all the time. It's also one of the good things about the UK in a way though.

What was being said was always well beyond the acceptable boundaries of freedom of speech, the only difference was that it was more politically convenient to just ignore it, until it started coming home to roost.

I agree btw. I think most people would have found it totally unacceptable. It wasn't just a case of political convenience though, it was way off the radar before 9/11 too.

 

It wasn't under the radar (under the public and media's radar, maybe), for example police investigated Finsbury Park mosque several times in the 90's they were always told to back off and leave it alone, even though there was more than enough evidence to convict a lot of people spewing their bile there.

 

Much like integrated transport policy they knew they had a problem by didn't want to deal with it because they knew it would be a political shitstorm that they'd at best gain little out of in the end and at worse lose a lot.

 

Have you any decent links to support this then, or is this just another general dig at politicians? I find it hard to believe the security forces, or politicians, would have sat on their hands if they considered it a serious threat. 9/11 cahnged everything.

There have been several investigations into that (and attempted cover ups too) - although in fairness it was probably a risky one for the police as the dispatches episode showed, but considering you didn't know about a universal flu vaccine I can see how you wouldn't know about them either.

 

The thing that 9/11 changed was they realised that monitoring it and doing nothing about it wasn't likely to just allow the status quo to go on.... and in fact that they had a raft of new anti-terror legislation to play with.

 

 

9/11 didn't change anything. THe illegal and lie peddling invasion of Iraq did. Especially as there was a case to have a look at Afghanistan and an even stronger case to look into the Afg/Pakistan border territories.

 

9/11 didn't change the threat level from 'Al Queda' terrorists and fundamentalist nutters in general? I beg to differ.

 

Didn't the invasion of Afghanistan precede the invasion of Iraq? What are you on about tbh?

 

9/11 was the result of the threat, not a trigger for it.

 

9/11 may have inspired some people in very small numbers. The greater converter of regular citizens into terrorists are things such as illegally invading Iraq (as Parky says), spending billions on non-iraqi contractors to fuck up the most basic reconstruction work in their country and leaving more people in poverty over there than ever before, while westerners live it up in the green zone.

 

The threat wasn't known before 9/11 though was it? Not imo anyway.

 

I'm not going to disagree with you re: Iraq, I've always been an outspoken critic, but we did invade Afghanistan first, did we not? I agreed with that invasion.

[Fop 1]

Question?

 

How many Muslims live in the U.K.?

 

How many have been convicted of terrorism or insightment to violence?

 

 

How many Mulsims live in the U.S.?

 

How many Muslim Americans have been convicted of terrorism or insightment to violence?

260 million according to Fop.

I think you'd better go an check the figures.

 

 

Hence why I said it wasn't that much like it. You could have chosen virtually any political decision. I don't quite see the relevance of transport policy to this debate though. Anyway, it's another agree to disagree thing I think.

Because the integrated transport policy is something that's been around for years without anything really being done about it (there was even a yes minister episode about it ).

 

It's just a good example of something a politician might want to fix, but at best blows hot air out of their ass about it, so it hangs around like a bad fart instead for vast periods of time.

 

9/11 didn't change anything. THe illegal and lie peddling invasion of Iraq did. Especially as there was a case to have a look at Afghanistan and an even stronger case to look into the Afg/Pakistan border territories.

 

Domestically it did. Not only did it allow sweeping new powers, but it made politicians panic. A 7/7 attack pre-Iraq would have been much more devastating politically than what actually did occur (by the time it did occur, it was probably almost seen as a relief politically due to the quagmire they'd got themselves into).

That would make it make it different to this then, no? Given politicians kept quiet about it, according to you. Then only did something about after 9/11.

 

No, because without 9/11 it would have still been festering away, quietly ignored, now.

[Park Life 70]

As I've said before my boss is Indian, I shagged a black lass when I was 21 and I can speak Italian so how the fuck can I be racist?

I slept with a lass once, doesn't mean I'm not a raging hom.

 

True of a lot of people.

 

Don't worry Fop, some day you'll chance upon a drunken young lady passed out down an alleyway and you can finally get rid of that pesky '50 year old virgin' tag.

 

Am I 50 or 18? Or just immortal?

 

 

Also, that article is six years old and the government has taken steps to stop the likes of Hamza from preaching their disgusting, twisted versions of Islam. So it's not that relevent really is it?

 

The problem was they allowed it for more than 10 years before that.

I couldn't agree more. Lots of mistakes were made although part of living in a democracy like ours is that the boundaries of acceptable freedom of speech are tested all the time. It's also one of the good things about the UK in a way though.

What was being said was always well beyond the acceptable boundaries of freedom of speech, the only difference was that it was more politically convenient to just ignore it, until it started coming home to roost.

I agree btw. I think most people would have found it totally unacceptable. It wasn't just a case of political convenience though, it was way off the radar before 9/11 too.

 

It wasn't under the radar (under the public and media's radar, maybe), for example police investigated Finsbury Park mosque several times in the 90's they were always told to back off and leave it alone, even though there was more than enough evidence to convict a lot of people spewing their bile there.

 

Much like integrated transport policy they knew they had a problem by didn't want to deal with it because they knew it would be a political shitstorm that they'd at best gain little out of in the end and at worse lose a lot.

 

Have you any decent links to support this then, or is this just another general dig at politicians? I find it hard to believe the security forces, or politicians, would have sat on their hands if they considered it a serious threat. 9/11 cahnged everything.

There have been several investigations into that (and attempted cover ups too) - although in fairness it was probably a risky one for the police as the dispatches episode showed, but considering you didn't know about a universal flu vaccine I can see how you wouldn't know about them either.

 

The thing that 9/11 changed was they realised that monitoring it and doing nothing about it wasn't likely to just allow the status quo to go on.... and in fact that they had a raft of new anti-terror legislation to play with.

 

 

9/11 didn't change anything. THe illegal and lie peddling invasion of Iraq did. Especially as there was a case to have a look at Afghanistan and an even stronger case to look into the Afg/Pakistan border territories.

 

9/11 didn't change the threat level from 'Al Queda' terrorists and fundamentalist nutters in general? I beg to differ.

 

Didn't the invasion of Afghanistan precede the invasion of Iraq? What are you on about tbh?

 

9/11 was the result of the threat, not a trigger for it.

 

9/11 may have inspired some people in very small numbers. The greater converter of regular citizens into terrorists are things such as illegally invading Iraq (as Parky says), spending billions on non-iraqi contractors to fuck up the most basic reconstruction work in their country and leaving more people in poverty over there than ever before, while westerners live it up in the green zone.

 

The threat wasn't known before 9/11 though was it? Not imo anyway.

 

I'm not going to disagree with you re: Iraq, I've always been an outspoken critic, but we did invade Afghanistan first, did we not? I agreed with that invasion.

 

 

It was known from the botched bombing attempt in 1993.

 

"The ’93 case, like the 2001 case, was quickly cracked. Mohammad Salameh, one of the alleged bombers, had repeatedly gone to the Ryder rental office in Jersey City and demanded that Ryder refund his $400 deposit for the van, which he claimed to be stolen. Why didn’t he just confess and ask to be arrested? You remember Mohammed Atta conveniently left a suitcase, in a Maine airport, full of documents in Arabic, maps, plans to destroy buildings, along with wills of fellow conspirators. Also, Atta’s passport miraculously surfaced from the smoldering debris at Ground Zero, shouting look at me, look at me.

 

Of course back in ’93, ‘law enforcement’ agents had already figured out from fragments at the WTC that the van was the bomb delivery vehicle. Salameh was shuffled off to jail and the FBI quickly snared other plotters. Similarly, the FBI identified almost immediately after the 9/11 hits the 19 Muslim perpertrators and declared that planes were the sole instruments of death. In the first case, Time magazine in all its wisdom, announced that the FBI “looked supremely capable in speedily rounding up suspects in the World Trade Center bombing.” Hurrah, and let’s get back to those basketball and football games."

[Guest alex]

Question?

 

How many Muslims live in the U.K.?

 

How many have been convicted of terrorism or insightment to violence?

 

 

How many Mulsims live in the U.S.?

 

How many Muslim Americans have been convicted of terrorism or insightment to violence?

260 million according to Fop.

I think you'd better go an check the figures.

 

 

Hence why I said it wasn't that much like it. You could have chosen virtually any political decision. I don't quite see the relevance of transport policy to this debate though. Anyway, it's another agree to disagree thing I think.

Because the integrated transport policy is something that's been around for years without anything really being done about it (there was even a yes minister episode about it ).

 

It's just a good example of something a politician might want to fix, but at best blows hot air out of their ass about it, so it hangs around like a bad fart instead for vast periods of time.

 

9/11 didn't change anything. THe illegal and lie peddling invasion of Iraq did. Especially as there was a case to have a look at Afghanistan and an even stronger case to look into the Afg/Pakistan border territories.

 

Domestically it did. Not only did it allow sweeping new powers, but it made politicians panic. A 7/7 attack pre-Iraq would have been much more devastating politically than what actually did occur (by the time it did occur, it was probably almost seen as a relief politically due to the quagmire they'd got themselves into).

That would make it make it different to this then, no? Given politicians kept quiet about it, according to you. Then only did something about after 9/11.

 

No, because without 9/11 it would have still been festering away, quietly ignored, now.

Hence the difference because although not a lot is done (arguably) about transport it's never been 'off the radar' in my lifetime. Politicians never stop talking about it and neither do the public.

[Happy Face 29]

As I've said before my boss is Indian, I shagged a black lass when I was 21 and I can speak Italian so how the fuck can I be racist?

I slept with a lass once, doesn't mean I'm not a raging hom.

 

True of a lot of people.

 

Don't worry Fop, some day you'll chance upon a drunken young lady passed out down an alleyway and you can finally get rid of that pesky '50 year old virgin' tag.

 

Am I 50 or 18? Or just immortal?

 

 

Also, that article is six years old and the government has taken steps to stop the likes of Hamza from preaching their disgusting, twisted versions of Islam. So it's not that relevent really is it?

 

The problem was they allowed it for more than 10 years before that.

I couldn't agree more. Lots of mistakes were made although part of living in a democracy like ours is that the boundaries of acceptable freedom of speech are tested all the time. It's also one of the good things about the UK in a way though.

What was being said was always well beyond the acceptable boundaries of freedom of speech, the only difference was that it was more politically convenient to just ignore it, until it started coming home to roost.

I agree btw. I think most people would have found it totally unacceptable. It wasn't just a case of political convenience though, it was way off the radar before 9/11 too.

 

It wasn't under the radar (under the public and media's radar, maybe), for example police investigated Finsbury Park mosque several times in the 90's they were always told to back off and leave it alone, even though there was more than enough evidence to convict a lot of people spewing their bile there.

 

Much like integrated transport policy they knew they had a problem by didn't want to deal with it because they knew it would be a political shitstorm that they'd at best gain little out of in the end and at worse lose a lot.

 

Have you any decent links to support this then, or is this just another general dig at politicians? I find it hard to believe the security forces, or politicians, would have sat on their hands if they considered it a serious threat. 9/11 cahnged everything.

There have been several investigations into that (and attempted cover ups too) - although in fairness it was probably a risky one for the police as the dispatches episode showed, but considering you didn't know about a universal flu vaccine I can see how you wouldn't know about them either.

 

The thing that 9/11 changed was they realised that monitoring it and doing nothing about it wasn't likely to just allow the status quo to go on.... and in fact that they had a raft of new anti-terror legislation to play with.

 

 

9/11 didn't change anything. THe illegal and lie peddling invasion of Iraq did. Especially as there was a case to have a look at Afghanistan and an even stronger case to look into the Afg/Pakistan border territories.

 

9/11 didn't change the threat level from 'Al Queda' terrorists and fundamentalist nutters in general? I beg to differ.

 

Didn't the invasion of Afghanistan precede the invasion of Iraq? What are you on about tbh?

 

9/11 was the result of the threat, not a trigger for it.

 

9/11 may have inspired some people in very small numbers. The greater converter of regular citizens into terrorists are things such as illegally invading Iraq (as Parky says), spending billions on non-iraqi contractors to fuck up the most basic reconstruction work in their country and leaving more people in poverty over there than ever before, while westerners live it up in the green zone.

 

The threat wasn't known before 9/11 though was it? Not imo anyway.

 

I'm not going to disagree with you re: Iraq, I've always been an outspoken critic, but we did invade Afghanistan first, did we not? I agreed with that invasion.

 

 

Bin Laden was on America's 10 most wanted prior to 9/11. He was added in 1999.

 

Ramzi Yousef first attacked the WTC in 1993.

[Renton 17926]

As I've said before my boss is Indian, I shagged a black lass when I was 21 and I can speak Italian so how the fuck can I be racist?

I slept with a lass once, doesn't mean I'm not a raging hom.

 

True of a lot of people.

 

Don't worry Fop, some day you'll chance upon a drunken young lady passed out down an alleyway and you can finally get rid of that pesky '50 year old virgin' tag.

 

Am I 50 or 18? Or just immortal?

 

 

Also, that article is six years old and the government has taken steps to stop the likes of Hamza from preaching their disgusting, twisted versions of Islam. So it's not that relevent really is it?

 

The problem was they allowed it for more than 10 years before that.

I couldn't agree more. Lots of mistakes were made although part of living in a democracy like ours is that the boundaries of acceptable freedom of speech are tested all the time. It's also one of the good things about the UK in a way though.

What was being said was always well beyond the acceptable boundaries of freedom of speech, the only difference was that it was more politically convenient to just ignore it, until it started coming home to roost.

I agree btw. I think most people would have found it totally unacceptable. It wasn't just a case of political convenience though, it was way off the radar before 9/11 too.

 

It wasn't under the radar (under the public and media's radar, maybe), for example police investigated Finsbury Park mosque several times in the 90's they were always told to back off and leave it alone, even though there was more than enough evidence to convict a lot of people spewing their bile there.

 

Much like integrated transport policy they knew they had a problem by didn't want to deal with it because they knew it would be a political shitstorm that they'd at best gain little out of in the end and at worse lose a lot.

 

Have you any decent links to support this then, or is this just another general dig at politicians? I find it hard to believe the security forces, or politicians, would have sat on their hands if they considered it a serious threat. 9/11 cahnged everything.

There have been several investigations into that (and attempted cover ups too) - although in fairness it was probably a risky one for the police as the dispatches episode showed, but considering you didn't know about a universal flu vaccine I can see how you wouldn't know about them either.

 

The thing that 9/11 changed was they realised that monitoring it and doing nothing about it wasn't likely to just allow the status quo to go on.... and in fact that they had a raft of new anti-terror legislation to play with.

 

 

9/11 didn't change anything. THe illegal and lie peddling invasion of Iraq did. Especially as there was a case to have a look at Afghanistan and an even stronger case to look into the Afg/Pakistan border territories.

 

9/11 didn't change the threat level from 'Al Queda' terrorists and fundamentalist nutters in general? I beg to differ.

 

Didn't the invasion of Afghanistan precede the invasion of Iraq? What are you on about tbh?

 

9/11 was the result of the threat, not a trigger for it.

 

9/11 may have inspired some people in very small numbers. The greater converter of regular citizens into terrorists are things such as illegally invading Iraq (as Parky says), spending billions on non-iraqi contractors to fuck up the most basic reconstruction work in their country and leaving more people in poverty over there than ever before, while westerners live it up in the green zone.

 

The threat wasn't known before 9/11 though was it? Not imo anyway.

 

I'm not going to disagree with you re: Iraq, I've always been an outspoken critic, but we did invade Afghanistan first, did we not? I agreed with that invasion.

 

 

It was known from the botched bombing attempt in 1993.

 

"The ’93 case, like the 2001 case, was quickly cracked. Mohammad Salameh, one of the alleged bombers, had repeatedly gone to the Ryder rental office in Jersey City and demanded that Ryder refund his $400 deposit for the van, which he claimed to be stolen. Why didn’t he just confess and ask to be arrested? You remember Mohammed Atta conveniently left a suitcase, in a Maine airport, full of documents in Arabic, maps, plans to destroy buildings, along with wills of fellow conspirators. Also, Atta’s passport miraculously surfaced from the smoldering debris at Ground Zero, shouting look at me, look at me.

 

Of course back in ’93, ‘law enforcement’ agents had already figured out from fragments at the WTC that the van was the bomb delivery vehicle. Salameh was shuffled off to jail and the FBI quickly snared other plotters. Similarly, the FBI identified almost immediately after the 9/11 hits the 19 Muslim perpertrators and declared that planes were the sole instruments of death. In the first case, Time magazine in all its wisdom, announced that the FBI “looked supremely capable in speedily rounding up suspects in the World Trade Center bombing.” Hurrah, and let’s get back to those basketball and football games."

 

That's an opinion piece more than anything. The full extent of the threat wasn't known, it's easy to suggest it was in hindsight though.

[Park Life 70]

Bin Laden was on America's 10 most wanted prior to 9/11. He was added in 1999.

 

Ramzi Yousef first attacked the WTC in 1993.

 

 

©Nicos

[Park Life 70]

All white all terrorists all American.

 

Timothy McVeigh & Terry Nichols and their white, married accomplices Michael and Lori Fortier

 

Theodore Kaczynski the Unabomber

 

Eric Robert Rudolph

 

Samuel Bowers

 

Michael Bray

 

Richard Grint Butler

 

Robert Edward Chambliss

 

David Lane

[Guest alex]

Was the story (that did the rounds on the net) about Bin Laden having a kidney transplant with the full knowledge of the CIA regarding his location etc. ever verified? This was post-being place on the most wanted list but pre-9/11 supposedly.

[Park Life 70]

Was the story (that did the rounds on the net) about Bin Laden having a kidney transplant with the full knowledge of the CIA regarding his location etc. ever verified? This was post-being place on the most wanted list but pre-9/11 supposedly.

 

 

He works for them innit.

[Guest alex]

Was the story (that did the rounds on the net) about Bin Laden having a kidney transplant with the full knowledge of the CIA regarding his location etc. ever verified? This was post-being place on the most wanted list but pre-9/11 supposedly.

 

 

He works for them innit.

I knew I shouldn't have asked

[Happy Face 29]

Was the story (that did the rounds on the net) about Bin Laden having a kidney transplant with the full knowledge of the CIA regarding his location etc. ever verified? This was post-being place on the most wanted list but pre-9/11 supposedly.

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/kidney.asp

[Park Life 70]

There are roughly 20 million American Muslims and 1.5 Million British Muslims.

 

Without spending a day looking up transcripts I'd venture if you put both countries convictions of Muslim nationals together it would come easily to less than 2/3 dozen.

 

We are talking about a tiny tiny minority of nutters and people ought not to use them to taint a whole section of the population. That is known commonly as RACISM.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Park Life

[Guest alex]

There are roughly 20 million American Muslims and 1.5 Million British Muslims.

 

Without spending a day looking up transcripts I'd venture if you put both countries convictions of Muslim nationals together it would come easily to less than 2/3 dozen.

 

We are talking about a tiny tiny minority of nutters and people ought not to use them to taint a whole section of the population. That is known commonly as RACISM.

Source?

[Park Life 70]

There are roughly 20 million American Muslims and 1.5 Million British Muslims.

 

Without spending a day looking up transcripts I'd venture if you put both countries convictions of Muslim nationals together it would come easily to less than 2/3 dozen.

 

We are talking about a tiny tiny minority of nutters and people ought not to use them to taint a whole section of the population. That is known commonly as RACISM.

Source?

 

Obama.

[Fop 1]

Question?

 

How many Muslims live in the U.K.?

 

How many have been convicted of terrorism or insightment to violence?

 

 

How many Mulsims live in the U.S.?

 

How many Muslim Americans have been convicted of terrorism or insightment to violence?

260 million according to Fop.

I think you'd better go an check the figures.

 

 

Hence why I said it wasn't that much like it. You could have chosen virtually any political decision. I don't quite see the relevance of transport policy to this debate though. Anyway, it's another agree to disagree thing I think.

Because the integrated transport policy is something that's been around for years without anything really being done about it (there was even a yes minister episode about it ).

 

It's just a good example of something a politician might want to fix, but at best blows hot air out of their ass about it, so it hangs around like a bad fart instead for vast periods of time.

 

9/11 didn't change anything. THe illegal and lie peddling invasion of Iraq did. Especially as there was a case to have a look at Afghanistan and an even stronger case to look into the Afg/Pakistan border territories.

 

Domestically it did. Not only did it allow sweeping new powers, but it made politicians panic. A 7/7 attack pre-Iraq would have been much more devastating politically than what actually did occur (by the time it did occur, it was probably almost seen as a relief politically due to the quagmire they'd got themselves into).

That would make it make it different to this then, no? Given politicians kept quiet about it, according to you. Then only did something about after 9/11.

 

No, because without 9/11 it would have still been festering away, quietly ignored, now.

Hence the difference because although not a lot is done (arguably) about transport it's never been 'off the radar' in my lifetime. Politicians never stop talking about it and neither do the public.

It makes a few guest appearances every now and then, but no one seriously tries to do anything about ITP, unintegrated transport policy much more so, but then that's part of the point and issue.

 

But again islamofascist issues were never off the political and security radar (although they may have been underestimated), they were on the radar, but quietly ignored.