Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 19:26 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> > John Fields wrote: > >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> >In any case they'd have to overthrow EU and UK law first. > >> >> > >> >> --- > >> >> No big deal. You've never heard of martial law? > >> > > >> > Martial Law can only be imposed by a conquering army or whatever. > >> > >> Not true. Already in the UK the government have floated the idea of using > >> soldiers to provide police (RMP) in Garrison towns. > >> > >> The surveillance team which assisted the shooting of the Brazillian were > >> partly military. > >> > >> Soldiers and AFVs have deployed to Heathrow as security. > > > > I don't recall any mention of Martial Law there. > > > > There wasn't, however as the rest of my post said it is the thin end of the > wedge. Currently there is perfect, legitimate, policy for the use of > Military Aid to the Civil Power where soldiers can be deployed to enforce > government legislation. The fact it hasn't been used in that capacity > doesn't mean it isn't there. > > Military Police patrolling civilian towns is not normal... The fact the idea > was even suggested is shocking and I am ex-Army. What was the idea behind the use of MPs ? Graham
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 19:27 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452593DD.FA64F1AC(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> >> >> > What does the USA get out of it ? Apart from terrorist attacks ? >> >> >> >> Well, my personal feeling is that changing your foreign policy as the >> >> result of terrorist attacks is _always_ wrong. >> > >> > You'd be insane to ignore the reasons ! >> >> What reasons? >> >> If you mean countries should adjust their policy at the whim of bombers >> then >> I hope you never run for political office. > > Like I said. You'd be insane not to consider the why of it. Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean the "why of it?"
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 19:28 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452594B9.D430B664(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> > John Fields wrote: >> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >In any case they'd have to overthrow EU and UK law first. >> >> >> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> No big deal. You've never heard of martial law? >> >> > >> >> > Martial Law can only be imposed by a conquering army or whatever. >> >> >> >> Not true. Already in the UK the government have floated the idea of >> >> using >> >> soldiers to provide police (RMP) in Garrison towns. >> >> >> >> The surveillance team which assisted the shooting of the Brazillian >> >> were >> >> partly military. >> >> >> >> Soldiers and AFVs have deployed to Heathrow as security. >> > >> > I don't recall any mention of Martial Law there. >> > >> >> There wasn't, however as the rest of my post said it is the thin end of >> the >> wedge. Currently there is perfect, legitimate, policy for the use of >> Military Aid to the Civil Power where soldiers can be deployed to enforce >> government legislation. The fact it hasn't been used in that capacity >> doesn't mean it isn't there. >> >> Military Police patrolling civilian towns is not normal... The fact the >> idea >> was even suggested is shocking and I am ex-Army. > > What was the idea behind the use of MPs ? Civilian police were too undermanned to provide a suitable presence at weekends and it was thought that most of the drinkers would be local soldiers.
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 19:29 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> > Kurt Ullman wrote: > >> > > >> >> So, we just all capitulate and become Muslim states? > >> > > >> > Since when was that an option ? > >> > >> It has always been an option. It will always be an option. > >> > >> Is is the option with the highest chance of sucess for those who think > >> life > >> is more important than way of life. > > > > Who's threatening my way of life aside from the USA ? > > The UK government. You mean Blair and his Blairites ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 19:30
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > T Wake wrote: > > > >> Planes to the US are becoming a joke now, all because of four domestic > >> flights being taken over. How many flights take off each day? > > > > Taken over ? > > > > I don't think a single one has been 'taken over'. > > Hmm. Pedantry again. What terminology would you use to describe the actions > of the terrorists who flew the planes into the world trade centre? > > Did they not "take over" the plane? Was it not a domestic flight? > > I may be mistaken, and I often am. You said 'to the US' not 'in the US' so I took it to mean international flights. Graham |