Terror Plot Foiled

Sleepy · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:48

Zip said:
There is a lot of surveillance that goes into these things. Im sure they would know.

Forest Gate, why won't you accept that police act on informantion that is not clear cut. We do not want another innocent man being shot by police.

dirtydog · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:48

Zip said:
There is a lot of surveillance that goes into these things. Im sure they would know.

There was a lot of surveillance on Jean Charles de Menezes...

fozzybear · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:49

Visage said:
Isnt it funny how, when the government says 'The NHS is in a good state', this forum is full of people willing to say they're lying, based on their (insignificant in the wider scheme of things), personal experiences, but when the government says 'We're at risk of being attacked' its treated as Holy Writ, not to be doubted under any circumstances.

I never thought I'd see so many of the usual suspects shouting down people who doubt what the government says.

Jeez, get that chip off your shoulder.

Of course this country is in danger of being attacked at any time, more so in this day and age. I can't see how anyone can doubt that. :confused:

MookJong · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:49

Sleepy said:
Forest Gate, why won't you accept that police act on informantion that is not clear cut. We do not want another innocent man being shot by police.

Yeah but Zip made up his own evidence (backpack etc) on that...so it's ok

Zip · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:50

Sleepy said:
Forest Gate, why won't you accept that police act on informantion that is not clear cut. We do not want another innocent man being shot by police.

I Dont mean like these things.
I mean like the 21 guys they caught today that clearly had intent of taking down the planes.

If its not so clear then they should get a trial.

But todays seems to be as clear as day and night

TheMightyTen · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:52

Locrian said:
IIRC There has been talk for a long time of giving up trial by jury because its a waste of time. Why give uneducated, inexperienced people the right to pass scentance?

No there hasen't :rolleyes:

it's been sugested that in complicated financial fraud cases that juries are done away with as in most cases the average man on the street can not grasp the complicated nature of the cases.

The right to trial by your piers is without doubt one of the most precious rights we have and I will fight to grave if ever a government attempts to take it from us.

Sleepy · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:52

Scotland Yard press conference

Suggested plot blow up passenger craft in flight by concealed explosives in hand luggage. Built in the UK and depart from the UK

Investigation allready several months old.

Unprecedented Surveillance travel, spending asperations, including abroad

Plot has global implications

McBain · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:53

Quite clearly there are a lot of perfect people posting in this thread, who never make a mistake, and always act correctly in all circumstances regardless of situation.

Cuchulain · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:55

Zip said:
I Dont mean like these things.
I mean like the 21 guys they caught today that clearly had intent of taking down the planes.

Clearly had intent? So far all I've read is suspected this, believed that, where did you get this evidence that not even the security forces seem to have from?

WIBSBOT · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:56

Zip said:
I Dont mean like these things.
I mean like the 21 guys they caught today that clearly had intent of taking down the planes.

If its not so clear then they should get a trial.

But todays seems to be as clear as day and night

I can't work out if you are just trolling or really believe what you are saying ? :confused:

Please explain because it sounds like the reasoning of a 4 year old.

Zip said:
But todays seems to be as clear as day and night

I doesn't sound clear at all - as far as I am aware we have had no details about the alleged plot at all which is probably why this thread keeps getting derailed by discussions about Israel etc.

Sleepy · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:56

Zip said:
I Dont mean like these things.
I mean like the 21 guys they caught today that clearly had intent of taking down the planes.

If its not so clear then they should get a trial.

But todays seems to be as clear as day and night

How can you justify that comment, th police are investigating, they've just said there's months more work to do. If the police think they've got that much work to do, then there is definetely not enough evidence to justify quasi legal execution

TheMightyTen · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:57

Zip said:
There is no harm
But i dont see the need to if you catch them in the process

Shoot to kill Policy, Gibralter, 6 March 1988 is all I can say to that. The IRA Cell should have been put on trial not executed out of hand, it ended up causing more trouble than it solved.

If you want to know more do a google for 'Operation Flavius'

cleanbluesky · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:57

I wonder whether a 'black ops' approach such as that which Zip has suggested would be effective to fight terrorism. It is only that the threat of terror is ambiguous in the first place that it is effective, perhaps similar tactics to counter would be effective.

anksta · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:57

I've not read all 12 pages of this thread but my mum is flyin to germany today with my 9 year old sister, I wouldnt mind a couple of reassurances here.

Shes flying from manchester, her flight was sposed to be this mornin but I presume it has been delayed.

chesterstu · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:58

There is a good side to this. Wait for the BA late deals, there should be good deals. Think i may go to Vegas in September now

Zip · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:59

Cuchulain said:
Clearly had intent? So far all I've read is suspected this, believed that, where did you get this evidence that not even the security forces seem to have from?

Just wait a few days, They will more then likely release more info on these guys.

I believe that if they have enough reason to cause so much trouble and interruption of the Air lines and cause so much panic and lose of money and falling shares then they must have really struck across something big.

They wouldn't have done all that if it was on an Assumption

McBain · 10 Aug 2006 at 11:59

anksta said:
I've not read all 12 pages of this thread but my mum is flyin to germany today with my 9 year old sister, I wouldnt mind a couple of reassurances here.

Shes flying from manchester, her flight was sposed to be this mornin but I presume it has been delayed.

Sky news reporter at Manchester airport said 40-90mins delay at the moment.

Sleepy · 10 Aug 2006 at 12:01

cleanbluesky said:
I wonder whether a 'black ops' approach such as that which Zip has suggested would be effective to fight terrorism. It is only that the threat of terror is ambiguous in the first place that it is effective, perhaps similar tactics to counter would be effective.

Yet when tried in reality it never works. Without transparcy in the process you cannot have trust in a judicial system, without trust you create distrust. Exactly the opposite feeling you need to engender to fight terrorism

dirtydog · 10 Aug 2006 at 12:02

Zip said:
loss of money and falling shares then they must have really struck across something big.

FTSE down 1%, BA down 5% is nothing to write home about.

Zip · 10 Aug 2006 at 12:03

I would like to ad that they shouldnt be executed right away.

They should get as much information out of them as possible before they do