Originally posted by AlfredJPruffock
The only difference here is that the terrorist is happy to take themselves out as well.
The thing here is that while our freedoms are being curtailed. The right to protest restricted (you cannot protest within 1 mile of the Palace of Westminster), Habeus Corpus is being weakened. More and more security decisions are being moved into the hands of middle ranking civil servents (just look at the Civil Contingencies Bill), there are equlally nasty things in the Regulations of Investigative Powers Act. They are not dealing with the terrororists and those who conspire and incite others.
That to me gives away the lie to this war on terror. Terrorism is being whipped up so that we will agree to our freedoms being curtailed. A common thing under socialist governments because with freedom comes responsibilty and the ability to act outside a fairly narrow set of parameters defined by the socialist doctrine.
To put it into context and with due defference to those who lost family and friends on the Tube bombings. There are 3 million journeys made in London per day. The odds on you being on one of those journeys that were hit are therefore exceptionally narrow.
If that was not enough the labour party was consistant in opposing anti-terrorism legislation while in opposition.
Given the PNAC aims where achieved post 9/11 it makes one wonder if there is something else to the events that September morning. A marked reluctance for it to be independently investigated.
The people now questioning the official line are not geeks or the ignorant arm-chair expert - they have Phd's and years of experience.
The events of 9/11 do not stand up to close scrutiny, the evidence of Saddam's WMD does not stand up to close scrutiny. The total inactivity of Western liberal governments in dealing with those who are inciting others to violence seems non-existant, while the zeal in which ancient freedoms are curtailed seems hasty at best.
Leave a comment: