Terror Plot Foiled

Sumanji · 11 Aug 2006 at 13:03

Sleepy said:
Two of those arrested are said to be converts to Islam - Abdul Waheed, previously known as Don Stewart-Whyte, and Ibrahim Savant, who changed his first name from Oliver. Sky News

Is it just me, or is the change from "Don" to "Abdul" just rib-crackingly hilarious.

Von Smallhausen said:
Russia, a more technically advanced country, seems to have lost track on a lot of it's old equipment and weapons decomissioned since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That weighs thousands of tons.

Yeah that scares the crap out of me... God knows how many random warheads, WMD's, and other goodies floating about making their way into the hands of shady organisations

Jet · 11 Aug 2006 at 13:05

Borris said:
The Taleban was a sovereign power in a sovereign state (I think that I may be overusing that word this morning) - Military action was sanctioned there for the implicit reason of self-defence.

Iraq was a different affair altogether, and there was no sanction / legality to the invasion.

Hussein's status as a despotic tyrant is irrelevant in that context, as was the level of support that he received (although he received a fair amount, and some of it from the West).

I'm not saying that the invasion of Afghanistan was based on the fact that the Taliban had taken over 90% of the country and forcibly removed the government. It was, i agree, based on self-defence but I think we could have entered the country on that basis and it would have been a good move morally.

I don't know if the Iraq war was legal or not and don't particularly care. I don't think you need laws to tell you what's right. Morally I feel removing SH was undoubtedly correct. Just as we don't need laws to tell us murder is bad, etc.

SH's position is probably not wholly relevant in deciding the legality of war but I think greatly influences whether it was right to invade. And in my personal view was the only reason needed.

I don't doubt that oil was in the minds of the leaders and how much it influenced the war in Iraq we will never know.

Sleepy · 11 Aug 2006 at 14:21

3 Suspects 'Are Converts'

Sky News

3 Suspects 'Are Converts'

Three of the men arrested on suspicion of plotting to blow up a series of transatlantic planes are reported to be converts to Islam.

Ibrahim Savant, from Walthamstow, east London, changed his first name from Oliver when he converted, according to neighbours. The 25-year-old student, whose Muslim wife is reportedly pregnant, was arrested at his family home in Folkestone Road. He is believed to have taken his Iranian father's name when he converted and to have immersed himself in religious books.

Another suspect, Don Stewart-Whyte, 21, from High Wycombe, reportedly changed his name to Abdul Waheed when he converted to Islam just six months ago. He was arrested during a raid on a house in Hepplewhite Close, High Wycombe. According to neighbours, the property belonged to a white man whose behaviour had altered when he took up the religion.

An 18-year-old local, who did not want to be named, said: "He converted to Islam about six months ago and grew a full beard. "He used to smoke weed and drink a lot, but he is completely different now." There are reports that he is the son of a former political agent for the Conservative Party.

The third suspect believed to have converted to Islam is 28-year-old Umar Islam [Brian Young], who was also arrested in High Wycombe.

Borris · 11 Aug 2006 at 14:28

Jet said:
I don't know if the Iraq war was legal or not and don't particularly care.

There is no doubt that the war is illegal.

How, then, can we expect to rely on those same laws when it comes to other international obligations?

Such as enforcing trade treaties, human rights treaties or environmental treaties, to name but a few?

Even the ethical / moral legitimacy of the war is unquestionably questionable - The regime change excuse was touted as one of many, and as with the others, dropped like a stone as it became apparent that it was based on fiction.

The current death toll among Iraqi citizens is comparable to that of Iraqq under Hussein at his most oppressive.

cleanbluesky · 11 Aug 2006 at 14:33

Borris said:
There is no doubt that the war is illegal.

I don't think that's been authoritatively proven.

The current death toll among Iraqi citizens is comparable to that of Iraqq under Hussein at his most oppressive.

Not what I've read. Care to provide statistics as it seems the current death toll is 1/10th of what Saddam would do in a single year IIRC

VIRII · 11 Aug 2006 at 14:43

Von Smallhausen said:
Oh, and best wishes to all VIRII. I would think that little VIRII will be a regular debater here as well.

Thankyou

"Mini Vee" is just bossy and "mini mini Vee" is also known to be female (going to have that double checked when she's born though, need sons) so I expect she'll be bossy too. Women = bossy. I dread the future. In 12 years time this house will be awash with oestrogen. Pity me.

Borris · 11 Aug 2006 at 14:50

cleanbluesky said:
I don't think that's been authoritatively proven.

The only authority would be the ICC.

To which authority the US has not subscribed.

Insofar as legal arguement goes, the consensus from practising international lawyers and academics is that there is no doubt as to the illegality of the war.

Additionally, old Kofi has been on record stating as much.

The US Secretary of State's legal council has stated as much (and ignored for saying as much).

The UK Attorney General has been uable to verify the legality of the war (the whole advice +7 days becoming a contingent view).

cleanbluesky said:
Not what I've read. Care to provide statistics as it seems the current death toll is 1/10th of what Saddam would do in a single year IIRC

Shh - hyperbole don't work when questioned.

[Edit]

30k is the US number, ranging to 100K from the Lancet.

I'm not familiar with the total deaths due to Hussein.

@if ®afiq · 11 Aug 2006 at 15:02

cleanbluesky said:
Not what I've read. Care to provide statistics as it seems the current death toll is 1/10th of what Saddam would do in a single year IIRC

Actually you'll find that during the four/five years preceding the invasion SH wasn't really kiing that many. I think AI did a report on it and it came to a couple of hundred a year at most.

VIRII · 11 Aug 2006 at 15:03

@if ®afiq said:
Actually you'll find that during the four/five years preceding the invasion SH wasn't really kiing that many. I think AI did a report on it and it came to a couple of hundred a year at most.

So a thousand people isn't that many .....

@if ®afiq · 11 Aug 2006 at 15:21

VIRII said:
So a thousand people isn't that many .....

Considering that the Democratic Forces have killed 1000 times as many in just three years - then no it is not a lot - especially for an evil brutal dictator.

Sleepy · 11 Aug 2006 at 15:22

VIRII said:
Pity me.

Pity my brother he's got 3 daughters

Sleepy · 11 Aug 2006 at 15:26

Borris said:
The only authority would be the ICC.

Or a UN tribunal ALA post WWII

Insofar as legal arguement goes, the consensus from practising international lawyers and academics is that there is no doubt as to the illegality of the war.

I don't believe that their is agreement on this issue. I do beleive that some lawyers are vocal in saying that its illegal however thats not exactly conclusive especially given that politics is an obvious influence on their declaiming their views.

Additionally, old Kofi has been on record stating as much.

Frankly my dear I dont give a damn what that fool says.

Sleepy · 11 Aug 2006 at 15:28

@if ®afiq said:
Considering that the Democratic Forces have killed 1000 times as many in just three years - then no it is not a lot - especially for an evil brutal dictator.

Thats one argument for supporting tyranical mass murderers: Things might get worse if we deal with them.Better to attempt a lofty deed.

VIRII · 11 Aug 2006 at 15:34

@if ®afiq said:
Considering that the Democratic Forces have killed 1000 times as many in just three years - then no it is not a lot - especially for an evil brutal dictator.

A thousand times a thousand eh? Somehow I think that's a slight exaggeration.

@if ®afiq · 11 Aug 2006 at 15:37

Sleepy said:
Thats one argument for supporting tyranical mass murderers: Things might get worse if we deal with them.Better to attempt a lofty deed.

lol...that's funny!

The mass murder we replaced was only an amatuar(sp?) compared to the Democratic Forces for Freedom.

Can you not see that the Democratic Forces for Freedom have killed 1000 times more civilians in three years than SH did in 5 - but he is still a mass murder and we are bringers of peace - interesting logic.

As for the lofty deed bit - do you honestly believe that we have invaded and continue to occupy Iraq in order to bring democracy to a bunch of "sand *******"?

Anyway, this is all going OT so I'll stop.

Sleepy · 11 Aug 2006 at 15:47

@if ®afiq said:
Can you not see that the Democratic Forces for Freedom have killed 1000 times more civilians in three years than SH did in 5 - but he is still a mass murder and we are bringers of peace - interesting logic.

er you do know that the vast majority of the innocents killed in Iraq since the fall of SH are vicitims of fellow Iraqis, killing on behalf of their vision of the religon of peace

Borris · 11 Aug 2006 at 15:56

Sleepy said:
Or a UN tribunal ALA post WWIII

That is the ICC, isn't it?

Sleepy said:
don't believe that their is agreement on this issue. I do beleive that some lawyers are vocal in saying that its illegal however thats not exactly conclusive especially given that politics is an obvious influence on their declaiming their views.

The politics should be involved in the making of the rules and laws, and the actions of the various councils. Thenceforward, it should have no part in application and interpretation.

Sleepy said:
Frankly my dear I dont give a damn what that fool says.

I won't discount him, as you have, although I would agree that his opinion is not strictly authoritative.

Sleepy · 11 Aug 2006 at 16:15

Borris said:
That is the ICC, isn't it?

Nope the ICC was created by treaty, not through the offices of the UN

The politics should be involved in the making of the rules and laws, and the actions of the various councils. Thenceforward, it should have no part in application and interpretation.

In the application of law yes, but lawyers pronouncing on the legality of a governments actions surely is at least partially a political act.

Sleepy · 11 Aug 2006 at 17:12

Brit Terror Suspect Named

Sky News

Brit Terror Suspect Named

Pakistan has named a British national arrested there over the plot to blow up passenger jets and officials say there are signs of an "Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda connection".

According to Associated Press, Pakistan has said Rashid Rauf was arrested there ...

Security officials say two British nationals of Pakistani origin were among seven people arrested in Pakistan prior to the discovery of the plot ... They were seized about eight to 10 days ago ...

There are claims the attacks were to be carried out on Wednesday, August 16, after a dry run, possibly over the weekend.

Sleepy · 11 Aug 2006 at 17:22

Terror Suspect 'met Galloway'

The Sun

Suspect 'met Galloway'

TERROR suspect Waheed Zaman met controversial MP George Galloway many times, his sister said last night.

Safeena, 24, said of her 23-year-old brother: “He saw it as his duty to stand up for his community and that’s what led him to know George Galloway. He has a lot of respect for him and has met him many times.”

A spokesman for MP Galloway, above, said: “Waheed Zaman is not a name that George is familiar with. He is not known to him on a personal level.”

There is no suggestion Galloway is an associate of Zaman.