I can give you the details later if you like or you can find it out there, the Libyan man jailed for the Lockerbie bombing is having his case referred back to the British courts as it has emerged there is hard evidence that his case was a miscarriage of justice. Apparantly there also is good evidence as to who did carry out the bombing and he was Syrian. Why did they convict a Libyan? Because of political pressure from the US and British Governments, the Uk police knowingly falsified evidence, a terrible situation in itself, but that conviction was then used to bomb Libya, whilst maintaining relations with Syria for some other nefarious dealings. Limpy, Jet and Thadeus you are so sure of the integrity of western security services yet time and time again they are shown to spin a web of deceit to further their own agenda at the expense of individual human rights. When people like you maintain the rights of governments to take away our liberties in the name of security you are not only doing the rest of us a disservice by supporting the 'party' rhetoric, but you are helping to sow the seeds of all our downfalls.

Trouble is the security forces are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. Everyone whinged and whined when the LAG's rules came in. People started doing home grown hotch potch analyses whether a bottle of liquid explosive would bring a plane down or not. But if the authorities had the intelligence regarding the original plot and did nothing and just one airliner was blown out the sky all these same people would be screaming for resignations of security chiefs, politicians and anyone else they could think of.

It is a dangerous world out there and yes, any one of us may at any time be taken in for questioning. As long as we have nothing to hide and give all the information they ask for completely truthfully then, in the majority of cases, we will walk free. Of course there will be miscarriages of justice just as there have always been but I think the chances of you being locked up for giving a sim card to a member of a terrorist cell are remote unless it can be proved you knew they were.

Limpy, Jet and Thadeus you are so sure of the integrity of western security services yet time and time again they are shown to spin a web of deceit to further their own agenda at the expense of individual human rights. When people like you maintain the rights of governments to take away our liberties in the name of security you are not only doing the rest of us a disservice by supporting the 'party' rhetoric, but you are helping to sow the seeds of all our downfalls.

My you're feisty today Rob.

I hardly think that comparing leaving a SIM card around with the Lockerbie bombings is hardly fair. Same playground, different game,

As Phil says, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

What if he knew what the SIM card was going to be used for? What then? (Now I don't know if he did know but they were close family, so its not exactly beyond the realm of possibility)

If you know or suspect someone is going to commit an act of terror, you must report it, it's your duty. If you knowingly provide something that helps them to achieve their goals then I think you should be considered to be a part of that terrorist cell and treated as such.

Harsh? Perhaps, but so was Bali, 9-11, 7-7, Madrid and the rest of those events. Your life may be peaceful (at the moment) but make no mistake this is war and they consider you and innocents to be valid targets.

There is no middle ground here. Helping them, even just by turning a blind eye to potential threats, is IMHO as bad as pushing the button.

"The Australian newspaper today reported police had written the names of overseas terror suspects in Dr Haneef's personal diary before asking the Indian doctor during an interview if he had written the potentially incriminating notes himself."

Latest news is denials all round.

Good to hear the countries in safe hands.

To "sow the seeds of our downfall", is to do nothing.

Utopia is a reality that exists in myth. You have to give a little bit of your freedom to achieve a true freedom where we can all live in relative peace. It sounds great to say that the "man " has interfered yet again in some obscure case and life as we know it is forfeit. Rubbish.

Get real. Humans are an aggressive nasty species. If we wish to live in relative harmony, this aggression must be countered. Not pretty, not something you wish to get involved in unless you have to, but necessary all the same.

Terrorism and measures to counteract it are indeed some thought provoking issues. A case that causes two very worthy desires to conflict and come head to head against each other - the desire for personal safety pitted against the desire for total liberty and freedom.

No matter what stance anyone here takes please be aware that I hold respect for people either way since they both argue for rather noble desires. My thoughts are that, though the desires themselves are all well and good, the ideas surrounding one or the other, as applies specifically to the case of terrorism and security, may be a bit flawed. Perhaps a different line of questioning is required in order to find which ideas are flawed and which are not.

Anyone have any ideas on a different line of questioning? Or should I start?

Come on, folks. Pour your hearts out. Put your thinking caps on. Bedlam isn't all B.S. We've got a bad reputation for the inane. Well . . . . ???????

alright, I'll bite.

As a lifelong expat, I've often tried to stay out of local affairs wherever possible and mind my own.

The reason: I'd rather not have any backlash and instead live in peace and even have the support and respect of local residents in my quest to live in their land.

So....

How much terrorism would there be in this day and age if, say, Thailand had given back the three southern provinces back when they gave Malaysia back their (current northern) provinces.

Or England had stayed out of Ireland.

The US out of the middle east/palestinian territories.

Chechnya... was that really worth it, for the Russians?

etc etc...

Of course, often the reason is "easy money" , but then... We could all rob banks by that logic.

It's all very well to defend a nations own territories and freedoms, and it's all very well for a nation to have cutural/trade ties with another nation, but to impose their will upon a (often) far away territory and expect no backlash is just blatant and un founded optimism. And, as we have seen in England many times, and the States has found out a few years ago... It's the gov't policies that have put their own citizens in jeapordy. Now we are supposed to trust said gov'ts to protect our freedom.

As far as I'm concerned, the Gov'ts can F* Off.

Well Tip , I was going to reply earlier but thought better of it because it was Chang time but if you're going to stamp your little foot and throw hissy fits .......

I started this thread because I was somewhat disquieted by the way administrations have used "terrorism" as a scare factor to pass legislation which would never have passed in saner times.

I did get a rise (pun intended) out of Limpy earlier in this thread.

I do accept that he sincerely believes he is (or was) a centurion in the forces of light.

But what if he wasn't ?

Let's get paranoid and conspiratorial and alien anal probing here.

9/11 happened and it was a heinous act.

According to the Bushnicks whatsisname was responsible and he was based in Afgo (and is still there or in Pakistan).

So make a token efffort in Afghanistan and then fabricate reasons to invade Iraq.

The Palestinian situation had run it's course as far as provoking terrorism so we need something else to liven them up a bit.

Sure worked didn't it ?

Mutilated bodies everywhere (except in the US).

OK there are GI's coming home in boxes but they "died for their country" and we'll stop the media covering the arrival of the coffins and anyone who questions our actions is on the side of the enemy.

What if this isn't a battle between light and darkness ?

What if it is between two forces of darkness and they have a non-verbal conversation going on here ?

So we should accept being held without charge for a day/week/month if necessary.

It is for the protection of our democratic freedoms.

Yep, same as what Kayo and Farangsay said.

Ah Rob.. always copying me...

Well you do make a lot of sense... sometimes

Let's get paranoid and conspiratorial and alien anal probing here.

9/11 happened and it was a heinous act.

According to the Bushnicks whatsisname was responsible and he was based in Afgo (and is still there or in Pakistan).

So make a token efffort in Afghanistan and then fabricate reasons to invade Iraq.

exactly how I feel about whats happening in south thailand...and the military increasing their budget allocation citing suppression of violence in the south, or trying to get their hands on even more money from other sources like TOT to buy surveillance equipment, or requesting rewards for their top executives assigned to ISOC, just to name some obvious financial benefits that these people have claimed for themselves as a result of the violence that exist....

people are less likely to question these moves as every one wants to see the problem resolved.

and these are just the things known in public....what about other hidden agenda/benefits that the military or those in power are likely to have ......

Actually agree with a lot of what's been said ( except the centurion bit...............I've seen the Life of Brian, but that's as far as it goes ).

No such thing as black or white with human nature, money and greed will usually rule the day.

Surprised the Saudis' have not yet been mentioned. A veritable cash point machine of a nation for the Western powers. However, scratch a terrorist and underneath you will often find a Saudi in drag or at least their guiding hand.

Only thing I will say, is you have to make a conscious decision to do something to protect your freedom. You guys may not agree with my choice of careers ( yes plural I've been a sucker more than once.........but never a Roman ) or the methods which reluctantly I support. But ask yourselves what have you done to protect the society you live in?

In order to remain honest. I have seen Ben Hur and a number of other Gladiator movies. However, after watching Airplane, I was reluctant to come clean.

Sorry...........................................

As I mentioned earlier, I think it's obvious that there is a great deal of flawed thinking going on regarding these issues. Flawed in this sense. Various thoughts are assembled together in a logical fashion to produce a view, or perspective, of reality which is then held to be true. Of the thoughts chosen to produce this seemingly water-tight, logic-based line of reasoning with which to support a particular view of reality there exist many other thoughts which are discarded, or not used. Why? Because they don't fit. The inclusion of them would necessarily show the flaws in the logic and the pretty little picture created of the world would then tumble like a house of cards.

Suiging, forgive me if I use you as an example, but you made the following statement: "You have to give a little bit of your freedom to achieve a true freedom where we can all live in relative peace." This is your belief. And your belief is, no doubt, grounded in logic. Thoughts assembled which, given only those thoughts mind you, lead to a conclusion which then forms a picture of reality assumed to be unchangable truth. Is that belief representative of absolute truth? And if not then why? What other thoughts are out there which, if included in the mix, would show your belief to be simply a belief and not the way reality truly works?

The different line of questioning I had in mind was to ask what are the main, or prime beliefs, thoughts and ideas which are ultimately at the basis of both terrorist acts and the push for security? If emotions follow thought then what emotions do these thoughts produce which then become the driving force of either side?

Again, thinking caps required.

As I mentioned earlier, I think it's obvious that there is a great deal of flawed thinking going on regarding these issues. Flawed in this sense. Various thoughts are assembled together in a logical fashion to produce a view, or perspective, of reality which is then held to be true. Of the thoughts chosen to produce this seemingly water-tight, logic-based line of reasoning with which to support a particular view of reality there exist many other thoughts which are discarded, or not used. Why? Because they don't fit. The inclusion of them would necessarily show the flaws in the logic and the pretty little picture created of the world would then tumble like a house of cards.

Well done Tip , you've succeeded in insulting everyone who has posted in this thread.

Suiging, forgive me if I use you as an example, but you made the following statement: "You have to give a little bit of your freedom to achieve a true freedom where we can all live in relative peace." This is your belief. And your belief is, no doubt, grounded in logic. Thoughts assembled which, given only those thoughts mind you, lead to a conclusion which then forms a picture of reality assumed to be unchangable truth. Is that belief representative of absolute truth? And if not then why? What other thoughts are out there which, if included in the mix, would show your belief to be simply a belief and not the way reality truly works?

Why are you picking on Limpy. If anything his admitted involvement in the area in question renders his viewpoint relevant and I've seen nothing from him to suggest he is locked into some blinkered mindset.

The different line of questioning I had in mind was to ask what are the main, or prime beliefs, thoughts and ideas which are ultimately at the basis of both terrorist acts and the push for security? If emotions follow thought then what emotions do these thoughts produce which then become the driving force of either side?

Am I alone in finding this smacks of pseudo-intellectual waffle.

Again, thinking caps required.

If YOU have a real opinion , please air it. But please cut the condescending poseur act.

As for insulting everyone who's posted I would hope not, FS, as it's certainly not my intention in the least to insult anyone on this board. To be honest, I can't quite figure what in the above post, or in my previous posts, has given you such a rise. Reread this quote: "No matter what stance anyone here takes please be aware that I hold respect for people either way since they both argue for rather noble desires." If you've read that please explain how've you've misread the sincerity or the intent.

I could run down each of your comments but I hate turning any thread into a personal pissing match. Not my style. It's obvious that something I've said pissed you off to the max. Feel free to PM if you'd like to clear the air.

The different line of questioning I had in mind was to ask what are the main, or prime beliefs, thoughts and ideas which are ultimately at the basis of both terrorist acts and the push for security? If emotions follow thought then what emotions do these thoughts produce which then become the driving force of either side?

did I not cover that (my opinion of that) in the very first post following your request for another line if thought?

And I thought F/S echoed it. And robski too.

Tippy, here's one you and I and many others will see something into:

I used to have a g/f. I had NO Doubt in my mind that she loved me very much and would never do anything to hurt me.

Well, she did a lot of sh1t behind my back to hurt me.

THat's what superpower gov't do.

And we're expected to trust them?

(Jaysus... did I just compare an ex-gf to a superpower gov't?)

SO... Trust gets numbed and dumbed down, desire to participate in said democracy vanishes, and the drive to move somewhere else and be a humble guest increases. Somewhere where the grass is pretty and the girls are green.

In furtherance to this reply:

You may or may not have followed the exploits of my return to the UK in the Migration to other countries forum: #

Because of the paranoid state of our nation, I - a fully registered British Citizen - following a ten year stint abroad, can now NOT legally open a bank account, register with a letting agent for a decent rental house, apply for anything under the sun.

When I state that I have worked extensively, earned money abroad, ahve bank accounts in Thailand, France, Guatemala and Amsterdam, I am considered a potential terrorist-risk until proven otherwise. In my OWN country.

I have to work here as a semi-legit foreigner (I signed up to a Temping agency staffed mostly by eastern europeans) in order to earn money and pay taxes (on a temporary national insurance number)

So, exactly how much of my freedom should I sacrifice?

Which is why I consider my return to the UK a mistake. And although temprarily stuck here for lack of finance, I will be leaving to return to being a guest elsewhere as soon as I am able.

F.uck this sh1t.

Someone in Immigration read the thread that called for your crucifiction followed by burning !!

Jesus, Kayo - it's really that bad? Hope to (insert deity) I don't have to go back. I'll be 80 before I'm trusted enough to be a UK citizen, again...

I'm moving to yours luv.

You're welcome anytime. Bring some booze, will ya?

course I will... Ever known me without booze?

As for insulting everyone who's posted I would hope not, FS, as it's certainly not my intention in the least to insult anyone on this board. To be honest, I can't quite figure what in the above post, or in my previous posts, has given you such a rise. Reread this quote: "No matter what stance anyone here takes please be aware that I hold respect for people either way since they both argue for rather noble desires." If you've read that please explain how've you've misread the sincerity or the intent.

I could run down each of your comments but I hate turning any thread into a personal pissing match. Not my style. It's obvious that something I've said pissed you off to the max. Feel free to PM if you'd like to clear the air.

You're doing it again !

If you are posing as somebody smart why can you not understand that attributing flawed logic to people who have expressed a viewpoint and implying they have closed minds is insulting ? Reread the paragraph under which I made this comment ! Caveats count for nothing.

As for "running down each of your comments" - DO IT. Disagreeing with a comment in a thread is not a "personal pissing contest". I'm a big boy. I can take it. Might involve you in putting forward an opinion though.

Maybe you took the directness of my comments as a sign I was pissed off. Nah. It's just my reaction to condescension. When I see a balloon full of hot air I can't resist throwing a dart (maybe even a set or two).

So if you have a contribution to make to the thread which mere mortals might understand offer it up. It might enlighten us all.

Get YOUR thinking cap on.

As I mentioned earlier, I think it's obvious that there is a great deal of flawed thinking going on regarding these issues. Flawed in this sense. Various thoughts are assembled together in a logical fashion to produce a view, or perspective, of reality which is then held to be true. Of the thoughts chosen to produce this seemingly water-tight, logic-based line of reasoning with which to support a particular view of reality there exist many other thoughts which are discarded, or not used. Why? Because they don't fit. The inclusion of them would necessarily show the flaws in the logic and the pretty little picture created of the world would then tumble like a house of cards.

Suiging, forgive me if I use you as an example, but you made the following statement: "You have to give a little bit of your freedom to achieve a true freedom where we can all live in relative peace." This is your belief. And your belief is, no doubt, grounded in logic. Thoughts assembled which, given only those thoughts mind you, lead to a conclusion which then forms a picture of reality assumed to be unchangable truth. Is that belief representative of absolute truth? And if not then why? What other thoughts are out there which, if included in the mix, would show your belief to be simply a belief and not the way reality truly works?

The different line of questioning I had in mind was to ask what are the main, or prime beliefs, thoughts and ideas which are ultimately at the basis of both terrorist acts and the push for security? If emotions follow thought then what emotions do these thoughts produce which then become the driving force of either side?

Again, thinking caps required.

I must admit that when I read this post I did feel it rather superficial, no offence meant Tip I just couldn't see what point you were trying to make.

Perhaps you would like to condense or rephrase your post to help clarify your point.

Most 'terrorist laws' are <deleted> - anything a terrorist can do [that should be prevented] is already illegal. But yet many countries found the need to invent a new blanket-crime called 'terrorist offense' and made it possible to hold people without lawyers or knowledge of what they are detained in regards too - and without time limit or due diligence!

You cannot win a fight against 'those that hate our freedom' by removing it yourself.

You will still have lost.

TAWP:

"You cannot win a fight against 'those that hate our freedom' by removing it yourself.

You will still have lost."

You said it better and more eloquently than any of us.

In my opinion of course.