[Eeyore]

"London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005
were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their
vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'.

"They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were
fantasists".

.................................................. .................................................. ..................................



There is no "war on terror" on the streets of Britain, the most senior criminal
prosecutor, the Director of Public Prosecutions has said.

Sir Ken Macdonald said those responsible for atrocities like the 7 July bombings
were not "soldiers" in a war, but "deluded, narcissistic inadequates" who should
be dealt with by the criminal justice system.

He warned against allowing the threat of terrorism to trigger a "fear-driven and
inappropriate" security response which damaged Britain's traditions of freedom.

In what will be seen as a swipe against government measures, Sir Ken called for
a "culture of legislative restraint" to deal with terrorism.

His comments to members of the Criminal Bar Association put him at odds with
Prime Minister Tony Blair and Home Secretary John Reid, who have justified
tighter security laws on the grounds of the threat posed by a new kind of
terror.

Instead of viewing terrorism as a "war" threatening the very life of the nation,
it should be dealt with as an issue of law enforcement, said Sir Ken, who leads
prosecutors in England and Wales as head of the Crown Prosecution Service.

One of the "primary purposes" of attacks by supporters of international Islamist
terror was to tempt countries to "abandon our values".

He continued: "London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on
July 7 2005 were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in
their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'.

"They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were
fantasists".

His comments come as a study on attitudes by the National Centre for Social
Research today shows a significant majority of British people believe that some
curbs on terror suspects' civil liberties are a "price worth paying" for
security.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And here are the comments from the public so far.....

If the perpetrators claim to be fighting a war against their 'own country', I
assume they are British citizens, are then they not guilty of treason?

- W.G. Luck, Reading UK

About time someone had some common sense and said it. The whole war on terror is
nothing but an excuse for politicans to use ever more desperate powers in their
own interests, to quieten dissent, (arrest people under anti-terrorisum laws for
peaceful protest), in there efforts to force even more strict control on the
people of this country. The reason why goverment policies don't make sense is
because they're written to force obedience on us rather than protect us from
terrorists. Congrats to Sir Ken Macdonald for standing up for us.

- Stephen Wright, Braintree

A voice of common sense at last. The last time we heard this was under Thatcher
when the IRA were reduced to a bunch of criminals rather than so called freedom
fighters. Blair gave these Muslim criminals an excuse to try and justify their
actions and subsequently he has used their crimes as an excuse to pass draconian
and unnecessary legislation. As the DPP has hinted at, laws were already in
existence which could have been used more effectively had the political will
been there. The real agenda for these new laws is to allow Blair, Clarke and
Reid to name a few fascists in New Labour, to create a police state in which the
populace can be monitored 24/7 in all their activities.

- Mike, Alicante,Spain

Hurrah for the DPP and some common sense.

By talking of a "war on terror" this simply gives an excuse to the terrorists
who can see themselves as soldiers instead of criminals.

Let's treat terrorists as the criminals that they are. For those with British
citizenship surely it's actually treason?

- Graham, St Albans, Herts


It's a right-leaning newspaper too Scott !

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie raved:

"London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005
were not victims of war.

Keep this off-topic crap out of the audio newsgroups or face a TOS complaint
to your provider.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

On Jan 24, 6:52 am, Eeyore
wrote:
"London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005
were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their
vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'.....

This "war" will not be won by armies on a battlefield in England.
So you can argue about the semantics all you want and their
implications to your politicians and lawmakers.
What you call it matters little to me, what you do to prevent the
loss of your country and your culture is what matters.

Part of your struggle will be to separate truth from BS.
Start here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSYgu4moeng

ScottW

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

On Jan 24, 6:52 am, Eeyore
wrote:
"London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005
were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their
vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'.....

This "war" will not be won by armies on a battlefield in England.

It won't be won by armies *anywhere*.


So you can argue about the semantics all you want and their
implications to your politicians and lawmakers.
What you call it matters little to me, what you do to prevent the
loss of your country and your culture is what matters.

That's well in hand.


Part of your struggle will be to separate truth from BS.
Start here.

Evasiveness seems to be part of their culture.

Graham

[ScottW]

On Jan 24, 11:48 am, Eeyore
wrote:
ScottW wrote:
On Jan 24, 6:52 am, Eeyore
wrote:
"London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005
were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their
vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'.....

This "war" will not be won by armies on a battlefield in England.It won't be won by armies *anywhere*.

Maybe not won but there have clearly been and will be wars that play a
part
in this conflict.


So you can argue about the semantics all you want and their
implications to your politicians and lawmakers.
What you call it matters little to me, what you do to prevent the
loss of your country and your culture is what matters.

That's well in hand.

Is it? With guys like Abu Usamah still preaching
in your mosques I am not so sure.


Part of your struggle will be to separate truth from BS.
Start here.

Evasiveness seems to be part of their culture.

and religion.

ScottW

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote:
"London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005
were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their
vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'.....

This "war" will not be won by armies on a battlefield in England.It won't be won by armies
*anywhere*.

Maybe not won but there have clearly been and will be wars that play a
part in this conflict.

A largely irrelevant part.


So you can argue about the semantics all you want and their
implications to your politicians and lawmakers.
What you call it matters little to me, what you do to prevent the
loss of your country and your culture is what matters.

That's well in hand.

Is it? With guys like Abu Usamah still preaching
in your mosques I am not so sure.

That'll be the next issue that needs sorting.


Part of your struggle will be to separate truth from BS.
Start here.

Evasiveness seems to be part of their culture.

and religion.

Not the religion per se. No.

Graham

[ScottW]

On Jan 24, 12:30 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
ScottW wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote:
"London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005
were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their
vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'.....

This "war" will not be won by armies on a battlefield in England.It won't be won by armies
*anywhere*.

Maybe not won but there have clearly been and will be wars that play a
part in this conflict.A largely irrelevant part.

So you can argue about the semantics all you want and their
implications to your politicians and lawmakers.
What you call it matters little to me, what you do to prevent the
loss of your country and your culture is what matters.

That's well in hand.

Is it? With guys like Abu Usamah still preaching
in your mosques I am not so sure.That'll be the next issue that needs sorting.

Part of your struggle will be to separate truth from BS.
Start here.

Evasiveness seems to be part of their culture.

and religion.

Not the religion per se. No.

Are you sure?

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/69288

ScottW

[ScottW]

On Jan 24, 12:30 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
ScottW wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Evasiveness seems to be part of their culture.

and religion.

Not the religion per se. No.

Evidence mounts. Is there any muslim group in Britain
admitting to problems revealed by the documentary?

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/2...n-lane-mosque/

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 26, 3:05 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
On Jan 24, 12:30 pm, Eeyore
wrote:

ScottW wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Evasiveness seems to be part of their culture.

and religion.
Not the religion per se. No.

Evidence mounts. Is there any muslim group in Britain
admitting to problems revealed by the documentary?

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/2...n-lane-mosque/

The evidence mounts... at 'hot air dot com." LMAO!

What did they say on "your head up ass dot net"?

Moron.

[paul packer]

On 29 Jan 2007 12:26:35 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:



On Jan 26, 3:05 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
On Jan 24, 12:30 pm, Eeyore
wrote:

ScottW wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Evasiveness seems to be part of their culture.

and religion.
Not the religion per se. No.

Evidence mounts. Is there any muslim group in Britain
admitting to problems revealed by the documentary?

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/2...n-lane-mosque/

The evidence mounts... at 'hot air dot com." LMAO!

What did they say on "your head up ass dot net"?

Moron.

How would he have read it? :-)

[ScottW]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On 29 Jan 2007 12:26:35 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:



On Jan 26, 3:05 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
On Jan 24, 12:30 pm, Eeyore
wrote:

ScottW wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Evasiveness seems to be part of their culture.

and religion.
Not the religion per se. No.

Evidence mounts. Is there any muslim group in Britain
admitting to problems revealed by the documentary?

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/2...n-lane-mosque/

The evidence mounts... at 'hot air dot com." LMAO!

What did they say on "your head up ass dot net"?

Moron.

How would he have read it? :-)

I have eyes in the back of my head . Anyway, guess I'll
answer my own question.

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/View...icleID=2002631

Interesting read.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 29, 6:19 pm, (paul packer) wrote:
On 29 Jan 2007 12:26:35 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:

On Jan 26, 3:05 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
On Jan 24, 12:30 pm, Eeyore
wrote:

ScottW wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Evasiveness seems to be part of their culture.

and religion.
Not the religion per se. No.

Evidence mounts. Is there any muslim group in Britain
admitting to problems revealed by the documentary?

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/2...n-lane-mosque/

The evidence mounts... at 'hot air dot com." LMAO!

What did they say on "your head up ass dot net"?

Moron.How would he have read it? :-)

LOL

I think toopid intuits these things, as his head is *always* up his
ass.:-)