The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/ 06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html
Now why would anyone want to hide something like that, eh ?
Now why would anyone want to hide something like that, eh ?
Page:
Practical Magic wrote:
>by and large, the UK's
> security services are somewhat more subtle than in the US, and are
> adept at avoiding the press.
---
This is the sort of thing that makes people snigger at you Bell...where is your proof? Where are examples of them being "adept at avoiding the press"?
Do you, and I'm not being sarcastic here, have moles within the intelligence community that mean you are privvy to top-secret anti-terrorist actions that never make the press?
Or is this reasoning gleaned from Tom Clancy novels and from watching "Spooks"?
A sweeping statement like "and are adept at avoiding the press" is almost as chucklesome as Insane Bartender's suggestion that I was under surveillance by hidden-snipers when I wandered freely all over RAF Brize Norton.
>by and large, the UK's
> security services are somewhat more subtle than in the US, and are
> adept at avoiding the press.
---
This is the sort of thing that makes people snigger at you Bell...where is your proof? Where are examples of them being "adept at avoiding the press"?
Do you, and I'm not being sarcastic here, have moles within the intelligence community that mean you are privvy to top-secret anti-terrorist actions that never make the press?
Or is this reasoning gleaned from Tom Clancy novels and from watching "Spooks"?
A sweeping statement like "and are adept at avoiding the press" is almost as chucklesome as Insane Bartender's suggestion that I was under surveillance by hidden-snipers when I wandered freely all over RAF Brize Norton.
Practical Magic wrote:
> My original thing behind saying "why would you hide that ?"
> is that, if there was no intention to ever use, it why keep it ? Why
> not destroy it, or hand it over to UN inspectors so no one could use
> it as evidence of anything ?
Why keep it? Because of this "climate of fear" that was promoted by the press and Blair/Bush. "These people are afraid to live, they cannot exist under such a way of life" - one of the (after-the-fact) reasons given for the invasion.
You are a lowly scientist, you are told to hide this componentry. You do so. Under a rose bush in your garden....
There may have originally been a nuclear programme, but the testimony offered by International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei states that no nuclear programme had been worked on, intitiated or promoted since 1991, the previous Gulf War.
Another simpler reason to prove this? The parts were left under a rose bush for over 12 years, not needed or requested. By your own logic of implying these parts are integral to a nuclear programme, the fact that they have remained buried for 12 years pretty much screams from the rooftops that no work has been carried out since the previous war.
>Why have there been no terrorist attacks in the UK since Iraq ?
There never were any before. At all. At any point. Ricin? Algiers. Gunman at Heathrow arrested by tanks? Grenada.
In fact Bell, as well you know, Iraq has never been behind any terrorist activity in any nation at all, let alone the UK.
>The very fact there were no attacks, and have been none in a
> Western city since 9/11, proves that the war is slowly being won.
I think you're getting confused here Bell. Bali bombing? Al-Queda possible, hardline Muslim extremist definitely. No link to Iraq, as Iraq has zero links to Al-Queda. The "war on terror" is a misnomer as far as Iraq is concerned, because the charges of terrorism cannot be intelligently levelled at Iraq. Dictatorship? Sure. Oppression? Without question. Hideous abuse of civilians? Absolutely.
But terrorism and all the catchments of fear and hatred that go with terrorism and this blanket term "war on terror" and "axxis of evil" cannot nor should not be applied to Iraq.
Hussein is a bad person, but so is Mugabe. Yet he's invited to summits in Paris. So was Pinochet, yet he was allowed over here for medical visits.
A dictator is not something we should support, but neither should we lump a despot in with murderous terrorist organisation.
Why?
Because, once again, Iraq has not at any point been responsible for any acts of aggression towards any Western country.
In fact, despite being invaded in 1991, continual bombing campaigns for the past decade, sanctions and the latest removal-through-violence, Hussein has shown remarkable restraint in hostile actions towards The West - namely no aggression at all until he is attacked.
I don't like Hussein for one single second and I am glad he has been removed, but you cannot link him to terrorism. That is lazy thinking and you know better.
And whilst I am happy that he has been removed (at least for now), I do not agree with the deceptions used to topple a once-friendly dictator that is solely in power because of our assistance.
> My original thing behind saying "why would you hide that ?"
> is that, if there was no intention to ever use, it why keep it ? Why
> not destroy it, or hand it over to UN inspectors so no one could use
> it as evidence of anything ?
Why keep it? Because of this "climate of fear" that was promoted by the press and Blair/Bush. "These people are afraid to live, they cannot exist under such a way of life" - one of the (after-the-fact) reasons given for the invasion.
You are a lowly scientist, you are told to hide this componentry. You do so. Under a rose bush in your garden....
There may have originally been a nuclear programme, but the testimony offered by International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei states that no nuclear programme had been worked on, intitiated or promoted since 1991, the previous Gulf War.
Another simpler reason to prove this? The parts were left under a rose bush for over 12 years, not needed or requested. By your own logic of implying these parts are integral to a nuclear programme, the fact that they have remained buried for 12 years pretty much screams from the rooftops that no work has been carried out since the previous war.
>Why have there been no terrorist attacks in the UK since Iraq ?
There never were any before. At all. At any point. Ricin? Algiers. Gunman at Heathrow arrested by tanks? Grenada.
In fact Bell, as well you know, Iraq has never been behind any terrorist activity in any nation at all, let alone the UK.
>The very fact there were no attacks, and have been none in a
> Western city since 9/11, proves that the war is slowly being won.
I think you're getting confused here Bell. Bali bombing? Al-Queda possible, hardline Muslim extremist definitely. No link to Iraq, as Iraq has zero links to Al-Queda. The "war on terror" is a misnomer as far as Iraq is concerned, because the charges of terrorism cannot be intelligently levelled at Iraq. Dictatorship? Sure. Oppression? Without question. Hideous abuse of civilians? Absolutely.
But terrorism and all the catchments of fear and hatred that go with terrorism and this blanket term "war on terror" and "axxis of evil" cannot nor should not be applied to Iraq.
Hussein is a bad person, but so is Mugabe. Yet he's invited to summits in Paris. So was Pinochet, yet he was allowed over here for medical visits.
A dictator is not something we should support, but neither should we lump a despot in with murderous terrorist organisation.
Why?
Because, once again, Iraq has not at any point been responsible for any acts of aggression towards any Western country.
In fact, despite being invaded in 1991, continual bombing campaigns for the past decade, sanctions and the latest removal-through-violence, Hussein has shown remarkable restraint in hostile actions towards The West - namely no aggression at all until he is attacked.
I don't like Hussein for one single second and I am glad he has been removed, but you cannot link him to terrorism. That is lazy thinking and you know better.
And whilst I am happy that he has been removed (at least for now), I do not agree with the deceptions used to topple a once-friendly dictator that is solely in power because of our assistance.
The fact that anything to do with a nuclear device, no matter how small or old, is a bit suspicious. But Iraq is invaded now. One thing is certain however, Saddam Hussein was a nutcase. When a proper government is installed in Iraq, then the people will have better lives. He was dangerous and oppressive. Good riddane.
As for terrorism, the Tokyo subway attack was after 1995 was it not? Don't forget the anthrax, terrorism doesn't need to be bombs and guns.
The problem with fighting domestic terrorism however is that it is completely unpredictable. Timothy Veigh was a psycho. He had not shown signs of being about to murder 260 odd people. He just did it. Sure, he did have a past, he was at that place with the funny name, begins with L, that the FBI had to storm. But there were many others there that day who survived too. And they just went back to normalish lives.
I don't know if Bin Laden will ever be cought. But at least his organisation is being whittled away. As Tesco say "every little helps". Every lieutenant of Bin Laden's that is killed or cought makes the world just a wee bit safer.
I admit, I don't walk the streets in fear of being bombed. But then neither did the New Yorkers pre 9/11.
The more evil taken out of the world the better for us all. We just have to make sure that we don't oppress others in doing that. If they have no voice, and they don't get educated then eventually they will rise up in a way never seen before. "They" could be Muslims or they could be any other group.
When I said educated above I meant that people are shown that discussion and legal means of pressure can solve problems. Democracy is a better way of solving peoples problems than killing 1000's of other people.
As for terrorism, the Tokyo subway attack was after 1995 was it not? Don't forget the anthrax, terrorism doesn't need to be bombs and guns.
The problem with fighting domestic terrorism however is that it is completely unpredictable. Timothy Veigh was a psycho. He had not shown signs of being about to murder 260 odd people. He just did it. Sure, he did have a past, he was at that place with the funny name, begins with L, that the FBI had to storm. But there were many others there that day who survived too. And they just went back to normalish lives.
I don't know if Bin Laden will ever be cought. But at least his organisation is being whittled away. As Tesco say "every little helps". Every lieutenant of Bin Laden's that is killed or cought makes the world just a wee bit safer.
I admit, I don't walk the streets in fear of being bombed. But then neither did the New Yorkers pre 9/11.
The more evil taken out of the world the better for us all. We just have to make sure that we don't oppress others in doing that. If they have no voice, and they don't get educated then eventually they will rise up in a way never seen before. "They" could be Muslims or they could be any other group.
When I said educated above I meant that people are shown that discussion and legal means of pressure can solve problems. Democracy is a better way of solving peoples problems than killing 1000's of other people.
Belldandy, you're just getting laughable now. You're doing your old trick of saying entirely irrelevant things and thinking you've done well. Plus the other thing you're good at, which is throwing the argument back at the person you're talking to.
I could go into that last post, but it just results in a mass quote war, with each post becoming longer and longer. It all gets very boring and you get more and more irrelevant with each try. So I won't. I don't know why I still try to talk to you sometimes...
I could go into that last post, but it just results in a mass quote war, with each post becoming longer and longer. It all gets very boring and you get more and more irrelevant with each try. So I won't. I don't know why I still try to talk to you sometimes...
Blank wrote:
> I of course I know of the peace process, but it didn't, and hasn't,
> stopped terrorism straight away. There are still attacks going on,
> there are still terrifically unsafe neighbourhoods.
Name the last mainland attack on England. Name the last major attack in Northern Ireland. You probably can't because you're just using the problems there as an example. The troubles have only ever actually been rooted in a small minority of neighbourhoods, which were not actually unsafe for those living in them, it was people coming into them which cause the problems in that scenario.
> Incidentally, the last terrorist attacks of note in the USA prior to
> 9/11 were 1995 in Oklahoma, and that was domestic terrorism.
>
> Ohhhh. So we're fighting all forms of terrorism EXCEPT domestic? I get
> it now.
In America the Secret Service, FBI and domestic police are all tasked in fighting domestic terrorism, whilst MI5, the NCS and domestic police are all tasked with that in the UK, alongside military elements. It's not that we don't have any domestic terrorists, just that they don't get the headlines because, by and large, the UK's security services are somewhat more subtle than in the US, and are adept at avoiding the press.
> Let me guess, we also got the girl and came home in time for tea?
> You're believing every piece of propaganda thrown at you. It's not as
> if bin Laden is now a lonely little man and scared to come out his
> hole for fear of beating - he still has many supporters, and even if
> he didn't he could acquire more.
Sure, sure, that's why we've attacked his forces in Afghanistan, brought about regime change in Iraq, and arrested tons of his people worldwide with no major attack since 9/11.
> And I'd like to know how. He can execute plans without seeing
> daylight, so the notion that "We'll find him one day" is
> shamelessly optimistic. Sure, we may find him, but it's by no means a
> definite. And after him there'll always be someone else.
Sure, it may surprise you but to do what Bin Laden did required money. We're getting that money, and even if someone does step up to fill his shoes there is little to take over now, Bin Laden has set himself up as Mr Invincible, and one day we'll prove that he's wrong on that as well. You cannot say we won't find him, you have no evidence at all to say that, no one does.
> Yeah, sure. What you have to realise is that the "coalition"
> is not the infinitely heroic being it makes itself out to be. It's not
> a completely different existence for the people of these countries -
> not least because a lot of the people actually agree with the rulers.
> There have been accounts of Afghanistani women who for them nothing at
> all has changed.
Which women are these then Blank ? Where's the evidence nothing has changed ? People agreed with Hitler, didn't stop the allies invading Germany, so that's a frankly crap reason why no action should be taken.
> Take this example. If a group of nudists came to this country, bombed
> government buildings, removed Blair etc, and said "Now you are
> free of the tyranny of clothes!", what would happen to the people
> who then walked around naked? Do you think they would be accepted by
> everyone else?
Crap reasoning again. I'm not even going to begin to rip it apart because it's not worth doing. Fact is you come across as a person who was happy to let Saddam remain in power, safe in the knowledge that you yourself, tucked up in a nice warm home, were convinced you would never be threatened by him, in fact that you'll never be threatened by any of the many enemies that exist today. Well you're wrong.
> I of course I know of the peace process, but it didn't, and hasn't,
> stopped terrorism straight away. There are still attacks going on,
> there are still terrifically unsafe neighbourhoods.
Name the last mainland attack on England. Name the last major attack in Northern Ireland. You probably can't because you're just using the problems there as an example. The troubles have only ever actually been rooted in a small minority of neighbourhoods, which were not actually unsafe for those living in them, it was people coming into them which cause the problems in that scenario.
> Incidentally, the last terrorist attacks of note in the USA prior to
> 9/11 were 1995 in Oklahoma, and that was domestic terrorism.
>
> Ohhhh. So we're fighting all forms of terrorism EXCEPT domestic? I get
> it now.
In America the Secret Service, FBI and domestic police are all tasked in fighting domestic terrorism, whilst MI5, the NCS and domestic police are all tasked with that in the UK, alongside military elements. It's not that we don't have any domestic terrorists, just that they don't get the headlines because, by and large, the UK's security services are somewhat more subtle than in the US, and are adept at avoiding the press.
> Let me guess, we also got the girl and came home in time for tea?
> You're believing every piece of propaganda thrown at you. It's not as
> if bin Laden is now a lonely little man and scared to come out his
> hole for fear of beating - he still has many supporters, and even if
> he didn't he could acquire more.
Sure, sure, that's why we've attacked his forces in Afghanistan, brought about regime change in Iraq, and arrested tons of his people worldwide with no major attack since 9/11.
> And I'd like to know how. He can execute plans without seeing
> daylight, so the notion that "We'll find him one day" is
> shamelessly optimistic. Sure, we may find him, but it's by no means a
> definite. And after him there'll always be someone else.
Sure, it may surprise you but to do what Bin Laden did required money. We're getting that money, and even if someone does step up to fill his shoes there is little to take over now, Bin Laden has set himself up as Mr Invincible, and one day we'll prove that he's wrong on that as well. You cannot say we won't find him, you have no evidence at all to say that, no one does.
> Yeah, sure. What you have to realise is that the "coalition"
> is not the infinitely heroic being it makes itself out to be. It's not
> a completely different existence for the people of these countries -
> not least because a lot of the people actually agree with the rulers.
> There have been accounts of Afghanistani women who for them nothing at
> all has changed.
Which women are these then Blank ? Where's the evidence nothing has changed ? People agreed with Hitler, didn't stop the allies invading Germany, so that's a frankly crap reason why no action should be taken.
> Take this example. If a group of nudists came to this country, bombed
> government buildings, removed Blair etc, and said "Now you are
> free of the tyranny of clothes!", what would happen to the people
> who then walked around naked? Do you think they would be accepted by
> everyone else?
Crap reasoning again. I'm not even going to begin to rip it apart because it's not worth doing. Fact is you come across as a person who was happy to let Saddam remain in power, safe in the knowledge that you yourself, tucked up in a nice warm home, were convinced you would never be threatened by him, in fact that you'll never be threatened by any of the many enemies that exist today. Well you're wrong.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Er, Blank, there's this little thing called the Peace Process in
> Northern Ireland, admittedly it's not been a smooth ride, but it
> exists so you might want to read up on that. Even during the IRA and
> other group's more active times we waged a rather effective, and often
> covert, war against the groups involved. Even so, interest in the IRA
> in England amongst the public was only ever really during the mainland
> bombings, the rest of the time it warranted a headline if there were
> no other stories or just a minute story in other times.
I of course I know of the peace process, but it didn't, and hasn't, stopped terrorism straight away. There are still attacks going on, there are still terrifically unsafe neighbourhoods.
> Incidentally, the last terrorist attacks of note in the USA prior to
> 9/11 were 1995 in Oklahoma, and that was domestic terrorism.
Ohhhh. So we're fighting all forms of terrorism EXCEPT domestic? I get it now.
> We haven't found him, but we've killed scores of his supporters,
> captured more, destroyed support mechanisms, destroyed supplies,
> removed those governments which provided support, arrested his cells
> around the world, foiled every plot there has been before it was
> enacted, seized money and other finances.
Let me guess, we also got the girl and came home in time for tea? You're believing every piece of propaganda thrown at you. It's not as if bin Laden is now a lonely little man and scared to come out his hole for fear of beating - he still has many supporters, and even if he didn't he could acquire more.
> The guy is on the run, and one day we'll get a shot at him.
And I'd like to know how. He can execute plans without seeing daylight, so the notion that "We'll find him one day" is shamelessly optimistic. Sure, we may find him, but it's by no means a definite. And after him there'll always be someone else.
> What is more, now that two regimes
> have been destroyed with overwhelming force, the message to any
> country which would support Bin Laden's followers or any terrorism at
> all is clear: We'll come for you and we'll remove you.
Yeah, sure. What you have to realise is that the "coalition" is not the infinitely heroic being it makes itself out to be. It's not a completely different existence for the people of these countries - not least because a lot of the people actually agree with the rulers. There have been accounts of Afghanistani women who for them nothing at all has changed.
Take this example. If a group of nudists came to this country, bombed government buildings, removed Blair etc, and said "Now you are free of the tyranny of clothes!", what would happen to the people who then walked around naked? Do you think they would be accepted by everyone else?
> Er, Blank, there's this little thing called the Peace Process in
> Northern Ireland, admittedly it's not been a smooth ride, but it
> exists so you might want to read up on that. Even during the IRA and
> other group's more active times we waged a rather effective, and often
> covert, war against the groups involved. Even so, interest in the IRA
> in England amongst the public was only ever really during the mainland
> bombings, the rest of the time it warranted a headline if there were
> no other stories or just a minute story in other times.
I of course I know of the peace process, but it didn't, and hasn't, stopped terrorism straight away. There are still attacks going on, there are still terrifically unsafe neighbourhoods.
> Incidentally, the last terrorist attacks of note in the USA prior to
> 9/11 were 1995 in Oklahoma, and that was domestic terrorism.
Ohhhh. So we're fighting all forms of terrorism EXCEPT domestic? I get it now.
> We haven't found him, but we've killed scores of his supporters,
> captured more, destroyed support mechanisms, destroyed supplies,
> removed those governments which provided support, arrested his cells
> around the world, foiled every plot there has been before it was
> enacted, seized money and other finances.
Let me guess, we also got the girl and came home in time for tea? You're believing every piece of propaganda thrown at you. It's not as if bin Laden is now a lonely little man and scared to come out his hole for fear of beating - he still has many supporters, and even if he didn't he could acquire more.
> The guy is on the run, and one day we'll get a shot at him.
And I'd like to know how. He can execute plans without seeing daylight, so the notion that "We'll find him one day" is shamelessly optimistic. Sure, we may find him, but it's by no means a definite. And after him there'll always be someone else.
> What is more, now that two regimes
> have been destroyed with overwhelming force, the message to any
> country which would support Bin Laden's followers or any terrorism at
> all is clear: We'll come for you and we'll remove you.
Yeah, sure. What you have to realise is that the "coalition" is not the infinitely heroic being it makes itself out to be. It's not a completely different existence for the people of these countries - not least because a lot of the people actually agree with the rulers. There have been accounts of Afghanistani women who for them nothing at all has changed.
Take this example. If a group of nudists came to this country, bombed government buildings, removed Blair etc, and said "Now you are free of the tyranny of clothes!", what would happen to the people who then walked around naked? Do you think they would be accepted by everyone else?
Blank wrote:
> And when was the last one BEFORE Iraq? Probably IRA, who haven't been
> stopped at all.
Er, Blank, there's this little thing called the Peace Process in Northern Ireland, admittedly it's not been a smooth ride, but it exists so you might want to read up on that. Even during the IRA and other group's more active times we waged a rather effective, and often covert, war against the groups involved. Even so, interest in the IRA in England amongst the public was only ever really during the mainland bombings, the rest of the time it warranted a headline if there were no other stories or just a minute story in other times.
Incidentally, the last terrorist attacks of note in the USA prior to 9/11 were 1995 in Oklahoma, and that was domestic terrorism. Prior to 9/11 the FBI, CIA, NSA, MI5, MI6, SOCOM and a whole host of other groups had all requested and warned of the danger of terrorism following the Cold War's end, and nobody gave a damn who was in charge because the public believed terrorism ws that thing that happened somewhere else.
Between 9/11 and now I don't think there has been anything in America or the UK.
> Yes, OR possibly there would have been none anyway. The last major
> attack I can remember was the one in the mid-nineties (I think), and
> that was also Bin Laden. And have we found him, stopped him, made him
> incapable of doing worse next time?
We haven't found him, but we've killed scores of his supporters, captured more, destroyed support mechanisms, destroyed supplies, removed those governments which provided support, arrested his cells around the world, foiled every plot there has been before it was enacted, seized money and other finances. The guy is on the run, and one day we'll get a shot at him. What is more, now that two regimes have been destroyed with overwhelming force, the message to any country which would support Bin Laden's followers or any terrorism at all is clear: We'll come for you and we'll remove you.
> And when was the last one BEFORE Iraq? Probably IRA, who haven't been
> stopped at all.
Er, Blank, there's this little thing called the Peace Process in Northern Ireland, admittedly it's not been a smooth ride, but it exists so you might want to read up on that. Even during the IRA and other group's more active times we waged a rather effective, and often covert, war against the groups involved. Even so, interest in the IRA in England amongst the public was only ever really during the mainland bombings, the rest of the time it warranted a headline if there were no other stories or just a minute story in other times.
Incidentally, the last terrorist attacks of note in the USA prior to 9/11 were 1995 in Oklahoma, and that was domestic terrorism. Prior to 9/11 the FBI, CIA, NSA, MI5, MI6, SOCOM and a whole host of other groups had all requested and warned of the danger of terrorism following the Cold War's end, and nobody gave a damn who was in charge because the public believed terrorism ws that thing that happened somewhere else.
Between 9/11 and now I don't think there has been anything in America or the UK.
> Yes, OR possibly there would have been none anyway. The last major
> attack I can remember was the one in the mid-nineties (I think), and
> that was also Bin Laden. And have we found him, stopped him, made him
> incapable of doing worse next time?
We haven't found him, but we've killed scores of his supporters, captured more, destroyed support mechanisms, destroyed supplies, removed those governments which provided support, arrested his cells around the world, foiled every plot there has been before it was enacted, seized money and other finances. The guy is on the run, and one day we'll get a shot at him. What is more, now that two regimes have been destroyed with overwhelming force, the message to any country which would support Bin Laden's followers or any terrorism at all is clear: We'll come for you and we'll remove you.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Why have there been no terrorist attacks in the UK since Iraq ?
And when was the last one BEFORE Iraq? Probably IRA, who haven't been stopped at all.
> The very fact there were no attacks, and have been none in a
> Western city since 9/11, proves that the war is slowly being won.
Yes, OR possibly there would have been none anyway. The last major attack I can remember was the one in the mid-nineties (I think), and that was also bin Laden. And have we found him, stopped him, made him incapable of doing worse next time?
> Why have there been no terrorist attacks in the UK since Iraq ?
And when was the last one BEFORE Iraq? Probably IRA, who haven't been stopped at all.
> The very fact there were no attacks, and have been none in a
> Western city since 9/11, proves that the war is slowly being won.
Yes, OR possibly there would have been none anyway. The last major attack I can remember was the one in the mid-nineties (I think), and that was also bin Laden. And have we found him, stopped him, made him incapable of doing worse next time?
My original thing behind saying "why would you hide that ?" is that, if there was no intention to ever use, it why keep it ? Why not destroy it, or hand it over to UN inspectors so no one could use it as evidence of anything ?
Why have there been no terrorist attacks in the UK since Iraq ? Because security upgrades and new laws have displaced the attacks to other less protected areas of the world. Riyadh (wrong spelling I suspect...) was just one such example. In addition we have no way of knowing how many attacks have been stopped or thwarted by various agencies. The very fact there were no attacks, and have been none in a Western city since 9/11, proves that the war is slowly being won.
Why have there been no terrorist attacks in the UK since Iraq ? Because security upgrades and new laws have displaced the attacks to other less protected areas of the world. Riyadh (wrong spelling I suspect...) was just one such example. In addition we have no way of knowing how many attacks have been stopped or thwarted by various agencies. The very fact there were no attacks, and have been none in a Western city since 9/11, proves that the war is slowly being won.
Isn't Campbell taking legal action against the BBC now? Claiming they said something about the Iraq business which wasn't true.
I heard something about it on BBC news this morning, which was quite funny. "Alistair Campbell is taking legal action against the BBC for saying something they did not say". How the hell are they meant to be unbiased?
I heard something about it on BBC news this morning, which was quite funny. "Alistair Campbell is taking legal action against the BBC for saying something they did not say". How the hell are they meant to be unbiased?
Page: