POLICE investigating two attempted car bomb attacks in London are keen to rule out of their inquiries four men who absconded from control orders imposed under anti-terror laws.
The men - three of them believed to be from North Africa and described by former Home Secretary John Reid as “dangerous” - have been on the run for some months.
Algerian brothers Lamine and Ibrahim Adam, and Cerie Bullivant have been missing since May. A fourth man, Zeeshan Siddiqui, a former London Underground worker, went missing last year.
On Friday, two car bombs - packed with petrol, gas cannisters and nails - were found in London, prompting new fears that the UK is about to face a fresh wave of terror attacks.
Police believe the bombs to have been part of an “al-Quaeda inspired” attack on London nightclubs, which could have killed large numbers of revellers. The design of the devices left near Tiger Tiger, say experts, is similar to bombs used by insurgents in Iraq. …"
yes, we need to surrender to al qaeda immediately and sign a non aggression treaty with as many terrorists as possible and begin to pay extortion… or simply kill all the terrorists.
Forgive me for asking, as I have been away for a while now… but I didnt see anyone in the article you linked advocating surrender to Al Qaeda. Is it a position someone here has taken?
“Surrender” is the rhetorical buzzword used by people who support the war to belittle the suggestion that troop withdrawal is a part of a viable change of strategy. As in this case, it is seldom accompanied by any argument, or rather it is accompanied by the red herring that, if there is a global problem (such as terrorism), surrender won’t solve it. But, as I said, this is besides the point, because no one is actually suggesting that we surrender, only that we withdraw, recoup, and come up with a new plan.
The article contains no new information except that the police are looking to eliminate these four from their list of suspects. So no proof of Al Qaeda involvement, yet again. Just the juxtaposing of a reminder about these runaways with a description of the failed car bombings in London, in the hope that people will assume the connection is there without any evidence.
Even the PM couldn’t give a fuck about his responsibility to not prejudice an investigation. Two days into the new job and he’s already copying Blair’s reaction to 7/7 - lots of mentions of Al Qaeda, not even a hint that someone else could be responsible. Clearly the police aren’t concerned with investigating that possibility either. This whole thing is a sham. Like the Guildford Four, Birmingham Six, Maguire Seven…
Not if by “surrender” you mean “give up”, which it seems you do. You may be confused because, in some instances, “surrender” can be used to mean “abandon” or “relinquish”, and in these instances withdraw can be used as a rough synonym. However, the connotation of surrender is different from the word withdraw. The problem I think your running into is that both words have more than one definition, and so they can function differently in syllogisms (see equivocation).
However, if you have a source where someone actually supports the idea of surrendering, actually using the word ‘surrender’, that would be a different issue. Do you have such a source? If not, arguing against a policy of surrender is all well and good, but irrelevant to the discussion of policies that have actually been proposed (see straw man).
the “plans” that have been proposed by the socialist totalitarians from the left have been to stop all military spending. cutting the troops completely off and withdrawing from iraq.
you don’t want to call that surrender? fine. call it total victory.
Well, when they phoned in a warning before blowing something up they effectively claimed responsibility for those bombings by giving a warning. But sometimes it took much longer. In the case of the Guildford four, who were wrongly convicted because the police fabricated evidence against them and lied in court, they were sent to prison in 1975 but it took another two years before members of the Balcombe Street gang stated in court that they were responsible during their own trial for a series of shootings and bombings. It then took another 13 years before the four were released, and another fifteen before they got an official public apology from the highest level (then PM Tony Blair).
Now, I’m not saying this is exactly what is happening now, simply that many bombings in the UK have resulted in police corruption, terrible investigations, wrongful convictions or no conviction whatsoever. The Birmingham Six were another bunch convicted wrongly, again due to the police forcing confessions and telling lies in court. To this day we don’t know who was actually responsible for those two pub bombings.
So, with regard to the foiled car bombs in London and the car crashing into Glasgow Airport, I have no great faith in the police and the judicial system’s ability to investigate, and no faith at all that the intelligence services didn’t have prior information (as they did about 7/7, for example, which they lied about before the French, the Saudis and the US intelligence services all confirmed that they’d given detailed warnings to MI5 and MI6 which described almost to the letter what actually happened).