Terror Plot Involves Islamic Extremists

[GenX]

"British police have a "crystal clear" picture of the man who drove the bomb-rigged silver Mercedes outside a London nightclub, and officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com he bears "a close resemblance" to a man arrested by police in connection with Officials say the suspect had been taken into custody in connection with the case of al Qaeda operative Dhiren Barot (pictured), who was convicted of orchestrating a vehicle bomb plot involving targets in London, New York, Newark, N.J. and Washington, D.C.

Officials say a surveillance camera caught the suspect "staggering from the Mercedes" shortly after parking it outside the Tiger Tiger nightclub."

LINK (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/terror-plot-inv.html)

"officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com he bears "a close resemblance" to a man arrested by police in connection with another bomb plot but released for lack of evidence"

A perfect example of how the Left puts us in more danger by using their faux condemnations of "rights" and "abuse" concerning terror suspects in custody. We even have people on here that lament over the 'lack of rights' for terror suspects in custody, and demand they be let go. Well, if this guy had succeeded in his plan to blowup a nightclub in London then we'd have hundreds of dead and wounded today, some of whom paid with their lives for the Left's obsession of criticizing every move in the War on Terror.

Oh, and another thing: is this just Bush issuing a fake news story just to keep the Patriot Act and all alive? That seems to be the knee-jerk reaction of our resident Lefties whenever a terror plot is discovered.

[Hans]

This is a prime example of how you twist everything into a fight between left and right.

Let me tell you something. For a country that proclaims to be the land of the free, they also proclaim terrorists can be denied the basic rights anyone else receives under their justice system.
So either you are the land of the free and everyone receives the same basic rights, or either you are not the land of the free and not everyone receives the same basic rights.

Whatever you decide, it can not be both.

And before you start jumping to conclusions that "the left" is demanding terrorists in custody are let go, I should inform you that is not the intend. And it's clear the US Supreme Court realizes this, and realizes it goes against the basic principles the US was founded on to hold someone indefinitely in custody.

I fully agree that terrorists should be brought to justice, but I do not agree that such justice should take place swiping all justice rules aside and making up new rules as fit, in order to make sure the verdict is "guilty and in jail for life".

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For a country that proclaims to be the land of the free, they also proclaim terrorists can be denied the basic rights anyone else receives under their justice system. </div></div>

That quote is breathtaking in its idiocy, simply breathtaking.

[GenX]

Hans, a person's "rights" end when they begin to impose on another person's rights.

Aiding those that would like to create death and destruction in our cities is certainly taking your rights to a point where they rob others of their rights, not the least of which is the right to LIVE.

Terrorists have NO RIGHTS!!

[GRUMPY]

Who decides who a terrorist is?
If your chum Buba had his way you could grab anyone you wanted and slap a terrorist sticker on them. I agree that terrorist should lose their rights but lets make sure they are first.

[Hans]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hans, a person's "rights" end when they begin to impose on another person's rights.

Aiding those that would like to create death and destruction in our cities is certainly taking your rights to a point where they rob others of their rights, not the least of which is the right to LIVE.

Terrorists have NO RIGHTS!! </div></div>

So by that token, since they have no rights, why don't you just execute them all and be done with it?

[The Berean]

Indeed Parrot. Lets have a clear definition of what a terrorist is.

[GenX]

Anyone involved in the act of terrorism, or anyone aiding and abetting a would-be terrorist.

[Hans]

But where do you draw the line between a terrorist act, and a non terrorist act?
I am thinking here about Iraq. The people that do the bombings are referred to as insurgents.
When someone does a bombing in the US, they are called terrorists. Sometimes they are given specific names, like the unabomber. Sometimes they are just called bombers.

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone involved in the act of terrorism, or anyone aiding and abetting a would-be terrorist. </div></div>

Circular reasoning.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But where do you draw the line between a terrorist act, and a non terrorist act?
I am thinking here about Iraq. The people that do the bombings are referred to as insurgents.
When someone does a bombing in the US, they are called terrorists. Sometimes they are given specific names, like the unabomber. Sometimes they are just called bombers.
</div></div>

You're just doing your semantics dance, like usual.

Who gives a sh** what name the media gives the person doing the act of bombing????

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone involved in the act of terrorism, or anyone aiding and abetting a would-be terrorist. </div></div>

Circular reasoning. </div></div>

Uh, okay.

[The Berean]

You make me sorry I used the word reasoning.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Speedy as usual you are proving yourself anti-semantic, which I find disgusting.

[GenX]

I'm an anti-Semantite, what can I say.

[Hans]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But where do you draw the line between a terrorist act, and a non terrorist act?
I am thinking here about Iraq. The people that do the bombings are referred to as insurgents.
When someone does a bombing in the US, they are called terrorists. Sometimes they are given specific names, like the unabomber. Sometimes they are just called bombers.
</div></div>

You're just doing your semantics dance, like usual.

Who gives a sh** what name the media gives the person doing the act of bombing???? </div></div>

So you are stating they are all terrorists and can be locked up indefinitely without possibility of a trial or appeal?

Edited to add that is under US law, other countries have different provisions.

[GenX]

Dear lord, allow me the patience to continue...

[Hans]

Well, can they or can they not?