Peaceful Religion needs chemical warfare protective gear. WHY?

[busybody..]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5893857%5E663,00.html


CHEMICAL WARFARE SUITS WERE FOUND in the Finsbury Park Mosque raid:


BRITISH police investigating a terror plot by Islamic saboteurs have found chemical warfare protection suits in a north London mosque.

The discovery has shocked detectives, who believe the find confirms supporters of Osama bin Laden were planning a poison attack on civilian targets in Britain.

Scotland Yard and MI5 detectives had kept the discovery of the nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) suits secret.

They feared disclosing it would spark panic.

Government ministers have warned any suggestion that the Finsbury Park mosque had been involved would have worrying racist overtones.


...........It would? Why, exactly??????????

 

[modest mouse]

They might be worried because the world has Racists like yourself.

Hey, do you hear that?

I think one of your kids is getting pumped up the ass by a black man named Kareem. And loving it.

 

[zipman]

They might be worried because the world has Racists like yourself.

Hey, do you hear that?

I think one of your kids is getting pumped up the ass by a black man named Kareem. And loving it.

Unfortunately, Busybody's racist and extremist views cause people to react to him, rather than the information he posts.

The discovery in that mosque is relevant information and I think the topic of the governments responsibility to warn and protect citizens versus their responsibility to prevent racism against ethnic/religious groups is indeed a valid one.

If there was a chemical attack, I think the government might have a hard time defending their decision to the rest of the citizens of London.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Cos they're afriad that people will attack them.

 

[modest mouse]

Zip,

i see no reason why finding the suits in a mosque is different than finding them elsewhere. The police would still be concerned about sparking panic and, as you say, torn as to how much info it should provide to protect its populace.

Busybody chose to exploit the fact that the suits were found in a mosque, which has no bearing on the issues you bring up. Thats the racist slant I was adressing.

 

[zipman]

Actually, I think the most logical reason is that they had advance knowledge of the chemical attacks planned for London (Ricin).

But other than that, your post made a lot of sense

 

[modest mouse]

You mean members of a religion may be part of terrorism? Wow. In England no doubt, one of the homes of religios sponsored war.

This is breaking news.

But ya know, still no reason to lump an entire religion into one catch all phrase as busybody tried to do. Now kindly take your rolleyes and blow me.

 

[zipman]

Zip,

i see no reason why finding the suits in a mosque is different than finding them elsewhere. The police would still be concerned about sparking panic and, as you say, torn as to how much info it should provide to protect its populace.

Busybody chose to exploit the fact that the suits were found in a mosque, which has no bearing on the issues you bring up. Thats the racist slant I was adressing.

Considering the fact that there have been lots of hate-filled, anti-western rhetoric eminating from London mosques, the location becomes a legitimate point of discussion. All I am saying is that the decision about sparking panic or alerting the populace to a potential danger is a valid topic. The arrest of the Ricin group seems to be more than a coincidence.

Zip,

You mean members of a religion may be part of terrorism? Wow. In England no doubt, one of the homes of religios sponsored war.

This is breaking news.

But ya know, still no reason to lump an entire religion into one catch all phrase as busybody tried to do. Now kindly take your rolleyes and blow me.

I have spoken out against Busybody's racist rants on more than one occasion Mouse. As you well know, I do not think all Muslims are terrorists. But I do think that these topics can be discussed or disclosed without racist backlash, if it is done carefully.

The rolleyes was for Spinaroonies post, which was the last post I saw before I posted. I meant to quote it but hit the wrong button. I assume that you are not seriously inquiring if I want to perform fellatio on you.

 

[modest mouse]

Zip,

Points taken. Credit my reaction to the rolleyes, its hormonal or something.

Your points are quite valid. its ashame such a topic had to be brought to the board by busybody. Its the most annoying thing about PPMan is that his bashing of the US could much easier be spent on discussion of events in the UK.

Regarding fellatio, best be careful, no telling what a desperate mouse will ask for.

***

The saddest fact in all of this is the Islam, which can be a warm and welcoming religion, has been hijacked(bad pun) by zealots and those with agendas based on ancient hatreds and power struggles.

 

[zipman]

Zip,

Points taken. Credit my reaction to the rolleyes, its hormonal or something.

Your points are quite valid. its ashame such a topic had to be brought to the board by busybody. Its the most annoying thing about PPMan is that his bashing of the US could much easier be spent on discussion of events in the UK.

Regarding fellatio, best be careful, no telling what a desperate mouse will ask for.

***

The saddest fact in all of this is the Islam, which can be a warm and welcoming religion, has been hijacked(bad pun) by zealots and those with agendas based on ancient hatreds and power struggles.

I couldn't agree with you more about every single point you posted with the exception of what a desperate mouse might ask for.

I have on more than one occasion posted to Busybody that he does more damage than good concerning his despicable and racist posts.

Islam has indeed been hijacked, but the main problem is that there are not enough Muslims speaking out against the zealots. There is little to no effort made to either restrain or disavow the comments of the radicals from the mainstream religion.

The reason for this is the issuance of fatwah's (in some cases death sentences) against any who oppose the zelaot clerics.

My post was an attempt to get to the meat of the article and bypassing the usual "I don't agree with Busybody's condemnation of the Islamic religion" disclaimer.

 

[phrodeau]

Are there Christians speaking out against Christian zealots? There's a sound I'd like to hear.

 

[zipman]

Are there Christians speaking out against Christian zealots? There's a sound I'd like to hear.

Actually yes, there are.

I have heard tons of Catholics speak out against the Catholic church and Jewish people speak out against Jewish extremism then that extremism hurts people.

 

[clit_licker30]

They might be worried because the world has Racists like yourself.

The Muslims have made it prefectly clear they are racists. And and they want all non belivers dead.

I have no doubt that the suits were for their own protection from their plot to kill as many nonbeilvers as possible.

I look forward to many terrorist being killed, I don't care what color they are.

 

[busybody..]

You know something folks? This PC shit may very well be the death of us yet!

The police were afraid of telling the public what they found,lest they be percieved racist??????????

Well.......guess what.......

The Muslims/Arabs have told you all openly.......

They wanna kill you in any way they can.......

And you are all afraid that you may OFFEND them!!!!!!!

How silly......HOW DANGEROUS of you........

You all say I am a racist.....WHY??????

Cause I recognize the danger the Muslims/Arabs pose to my way of life?????? That is racist? Or is it because I lump ALL Muslims/Arabs together??????

Dont the Muslims/Arabs lump ALL OF US TOGETHER??????????

Do I want to give any of them the benefit of the doubt?????

What if I pick the wrong one to trust? THEY COULD KILL US!!!!!

Wake up!

 

[Coolville]

Are there Christians speaking out against Christian zealots? There's a sound I'd like to hear.

There must be somewhere. I hope so.
In Israel, a former TV presenter is heading a party that is expected to win a heap of votes.

his platform? Doing away with the influence of the religious right. And people are listening to him and liking what he is saying. He wants - among many other things - public transport to run on the Sabbath, reversing a law forced by the ultras.

In fact, his party runs a bus to ferry young people to and from the bars and clubs on the Sabbath. (Instant popularity! )

He is tired of the influence the religious right has on the government.

Can't remember his name or the party, but saw a documentary about him.

 

[clit_licker30]

Amen. You can appease the terrorist all you want, and they will think you are weak and then kill you anyway.

Kill 'em in a war and let allah sort em out. Whip their ass like Germany and Japan was defeated. Make it where they can't wage war anymore.

Things will start moving fast starting this week. A lot of info will be comming out and things will start happening in the next few weeks.

 

[Coolville]

The saddest fact in all of this is the Islam, which can be a warm and welcoming religion, has been hijacked(bad pun) by zealots and those with agendas based on ancient hatreds and power struggles.

The same applies to Judeism and Christianity. Sad.

 

[clit_licker30]

The same applies to Judeism and Christianity. Sad.

Look for a ban on all religon soon.

 

[Coolville]

Look for a ban on all religon soon.

Won't happen. Too much money in it.

 

[busybody..]

Very good article about the options available to our country in the war on terror......

Do we want to be on the defensive all the time? Do we react to terror and hope for the best? Do we hope if we "play nice" they will learn to love us or leave us alone? Or do we realize that in a war,to be really effective, we must be on the offensive? Do we go after the source?





THE BEST CASE: I've been trying to understand better the groundswell of anxiety about the coming war. Leaving aside the extremists, it seems to me that the undecideds simply hold an assumption I don't share. The assumption is that 9/11 was an isolated event that portended nothing more than itself and only legitimized a police operation in self-defense targeted precisely at the group that perpetrated it. If that's your position, then I can see your point about Iraq. It must be baffling to see the U.S. subsequently (and simultaneously) pursuing a target apparently unrelated to that awful event. I think one of the key points the president must therefore make tomorrow night has to relate to this assumption. He should say: look, there are two ways to approach this problem of international terrorism. The first is roughly the strategy of the 1990s: you tackle groups that specifically attack you. You play defense. You take one group at a time. You don't go after the governments behind them. You try and soothe feelings of resentment around the world and stay out of trouble. You don't go around stirring up hornets' nests of state-sponsored terror. The occasional cruise missile attack or covert operation, combined with a hefty increase in domestic security and tightening of civil liberties, is enough.

THE ALTERNATIVE: The other strategy is to take 9/11 not as an isolated event but as a stark warning. Defense alone won't work. These groups are guided by a philosophy that is not amenable to suasion or deterrence. And they are aided by a complex network of allies - governments and non-governments - throughout the Middle East that share at least some of the same ideology and a lot of the same methods. Worse, new technology means that these groups could very soon perform their evil with weapons far more powerful than anything we have experienced before. 9/11 is therefore best understood as an early tremor before a real earthquake. So the best defense is offense. We cannot wait for catastrophe to strike again. No one disputes Saddam's malign intentions or brutality. No one seriously doubts he has weapons of mass destruction, and may at some point get nuclear weapons if we don't do more than we have done to stop him. The point of remembering 9/11 is not to prove that Saddam did it; but to remind ourselves that some combination of Saddam and others could do far worse in the future. So what should we do? Wait and hope we can keep this thing under control by a series of defensive actions? Or go on the offensive and do what we can to stop, deter and reverse this threat?

TWO BAD OPTIONS: Neither option is without risks. The calm today is deceptive. The risk tomorrow is greater than most of us can imagine. If we do nothing - or worse, we do nothing that looks like something, i.e. fruitless U.N. inspections ad infinitum - then the worst could happen. If we do something, the worst could also happen - the use of such weapons in Iraq, a growing conflict in the Middle East. But by going in, we also stand a chance of seizing our own destiny and changing the equation in the Middle East toward values we actually believe in: the rule of law, the absence of wanton cruelty, the dignity of women, the right to self-determination for Arabs and Jews. We also have a chance to end an evil in its own right: the barbarous regime in Baghdad. We choose Iraq not just because it is uniquely dangerous but because the world has already decided that its weapons must be destroyed. We go in to defend ourselves and our freedoms but also the integrity of the countless U.N. resolutions that mandate Saddam's disarmament. Our unilateralism, if that is what is eventually needed, will therefore not be a result of our impetuous flouting of global norms. It will be because only the U.S. and the U.K. and a few others are prepared to risk lives and limb to enforce global norms. Far greater damage will be done to the United Nations if we do nothing than if we do what we have an absolute responsibility to do.

BUSH'S TERRIBLE BURDEN: And I'm frankly sick of the cheap vitriol directed at this president at this time. God knows the pressure he must be under. To see the shallow and self-interested jockeying in Paris and Berlin at a moment of grave international crisis is to observe politics at its worst. I'm not saying that opposition to Bush and the war policy is illegitimate. Of course not. Much of it is important and helpful. But the coarseness of some of it is truly awful. In some conversations I've had with people who strongly oppose war, I keep hearing this personal demonization of Bush as if he - and not the threat we face as a civilization - were somehow the issue. You hear it echoed in the callow obliviousness of a Maureen Dowd or the brutal lies of Michael Moore or the cheap condescension of the intelligentsia. You see it in the poisonous symbolism of some of the anti-war demonstrators. I keep thinking that this obsession with Bush is a way of avoiding the awful choices in front of us. But the choices are still there. And Bush's speech tomorrow night represents his terrible duty to lead us to the right one.
-

 

[busybody..]

If your beautiful lawn is infested with needs......

You can ignore it......say Well thats part of nature!

You can cut it.....but it will and does come back!

Or you can eliminate the weed at the roots.......

The only way.....

ELIMINATE THE WEEDS AT THE ROOTS!

 

[Coolville]

Gardening tips.
How useful.

 

[busybody..]

US warns that bioterror attack is inevitable
By Brian Groom in Davos
Published: January 26 2003 23:36 | Last Updated: January 26 2003 23:36


The US warned on Sunday night that a bioterrorist attack that could kill thousands was inevitable and urged industrial and developing nations to spend tens of billions of dollars more to gear up medical systems to cope with the threat.


"There is going to be an attack. Whether it is in western Europe, the US, Africa, Asia or wherever, you have got to anticipate that there is going to be a bioterrorism attack and the only way to defend yourself is by getting prepared," said Tommy Thompson, health secretary.

In an interview with the Financial Times, he said the wave of arrests in Britain, France, Spain and Italy, and the uncovering of terrorists' attempts to make the deadly poison ricin, made the issue more urgent. Countries were not doing enough, he said.

Mr Thompson met health ministers and officials from the G20, the leading industrialised and developing countries, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Sunday night to try to step up international efforts in research and vaccine-sharing and agree mutual assistance pacts to support a country that was attacked.

Since the anthrax panic of 2001, the US has increased measures against bioterrorism. Last year it spent $1.1bn (£700m), and is spending $4.5bn this year with a similar amount planned next.

It has purchased enough smallpox vaccine for the entire population, stockpiled antibiotics and other drugs at 12 sites within seven hours' reach of any community, and is seeking new vaccines for botulism, haemorrhagic fever viruses, plague and anthrax.

Mr Thompson said other countries were "light years" ahead of where they were a year ago in preparedness, but still had a long way to go. They too needed to purchase smallpox vaccines and develop comprehensive plans to gear up their health infrastructure to deal with an attack.

"The preparation is difficult, hard, expensive, but the lack of a comprehensive plan can really damage your economy as well as your population. These poisons have the capacity of killing thousands of people," he said.

An attack could come in the form of "a bioterrorism agent, a chemical dispersal or a radiological one". Smallpox was the most devastating threat because of its contagious nature, he said, but poisoning of food with ricin was a great concern.

Although attention has focused on western Europe as a potential target, terrorists could strike anywhere. "Every country is at risk. You do not know whether a suicide bomber is going to be willing to sacrifice his or her own life to damage somebody else's. It is impossible to defend against, so you have got to be prepared," he said.

Mr Thompson said the US was "by far the world's leader" in the fight against bioterrorism but was still in the process of implementing its plans. "Unless you are prepared to react, your community of citizens are going to be severely impacted by deaths and severe illnesses."

 

[crystalhunting]

I couldn't agree with you more about every single point you posted with the exception of what a desperate mouse might ask for.

I have on more than one occasion posted to Busybody that he does more damage than good concerning his despicable and racist posts.

Islam has indeed been hijacked, but the main problem is that there are not enough Muslims speaking out against the zealots. There is little to no effort made to either restrain or disavow the comments of the radicals from the mainstream religion.

Actually there are plenty of Muslims speaking out against the violence in the Western countries,and a decent amount elsewhere as well.

Its just that bad news sells magazines and newspapers...not good news.

One other thing for americans to swallow is that some Muslims draw a distinction between the problems of Palestinians and global terrorism.

and you have to understand that to many it is something else entirely.

We are allowed to have defensive violence,but not offensive,that is in the Holy Quran.

Many see the Isreal/ Palestinian problem as a murky form of defensive warfare in the arab world and elsewhere.

so the distinction is drawn.

I can show you Imans denounceing global terrorism,but on the same point they condon the Palestinian violence as defensive warfare.



CH

 

[Myrrdin]

Profile of the leader of the Finsbury Park mosque.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2668343.stm

This mosque has become a rallying point for radical Islamic extremists in the UK.