Well, whoever would have thought?
Discussion
Daily Wail link I know, but nonetheless.
Election on May 6th? Are you sure?
Election on May 6th? Are you sure?
The Daily Mail said:
Britain on 'dirty bomb' alert: Threat of terror attack using nuclear or chemical weapons is rising, says Home Office
The threat of a terrorist attack using nuclear or chemical weapons is rising - and significant gaps have been identified in Britain's ability to prevent it or cope with the aftermath.
Security minister Lord West made the chilling assessment as he published the first counter-terrorism strategy to prevent a 'dirty bomb' attack in this country.
The Home Office warned that the threat of terrorists spreading weapons of mass destruction is 'more realistic' than ever.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259960/Br...
They wouldn't dare. Would they? The threat of a terrorist attack using nuclear or chemical weapons is rising - and significant gaps have been identified in Britain's ability to prevent it or cope with the aftermath.
Security minister Lord West made the chilling assessment as he published the first counter-terrorism strategy to prevent a 'dirty bomb' attack in this country.
The Home Office warned that the threat of terrorists spreading weapons of mass destruction is 'more realistic' than ever.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259960/Br...
s in downing street
bonsai said:
tangent police said:
This is all paranoid rubbish! Get a grip! It won't happen.
And that's quite a statement coming form you. You who thinks CMD doesn't want to win the election and is secretly trying to sabotage it.If there is no evidence for CMD operating at less than full throttle, I am very much mistaken.
I wouldn't go as far as actively sabotaging it, I'd say not trying hard enough IMO.
Do you disagree with me?
tangent police said:
bonsai said:
tangent police said:
This is all paranoid rubbish! Get a grip! It won't happen.
And that's quite a statement coming form you. You who thinks CMD doesn't want to win the election and is secretly trying to sabotage it.If there is no evidence for CMD operating at less than full throttle, I am very much mistaken.
I wouldn't go as far as actively sabotaging it, I'd say not trying hard enough IMO.
Do you disagree with me?
Edited by bonsai on Tuesday 23 March 09:47
5unny said:
Sounds a bit like the tinfoil hat mob who were saying Bush would stage something then use the patriot act to stay in power when he was coming to the end of his term.
Except that Bush couldn't serve more than 2 terms anyway.TBH I don't think the government would try to do this. I could backfire massively if people feel that they're not getting their chance to vote.
"Labour wouldn't be making us panic about al-Qaeda ahead of an election. Would it?"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/10...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/10...
George Pitcher said:
It’s really very scary that a Government report has warned that al-Qaeda presents a growing threat of launching a nuclear attack on London. Apparently they might float a dirty bomb up the Thames estuary and detonate it outside Westminster.
Really? Obviously I don’t want to be atomised in such an attack. I don’t even want our MPs to be irradiated, because they may not now be able to claim the subsequent chemotherapy in private clinics on their expenses. But is al-Qaeda, never the most organised of para-military groups and now with its management structures in tatters, according to many of the same people who produced this report, really poised to launch a nuclear strike?
It might be as well to remember that there has been no “spectacular” on American soil since the 9/11 atrocities in 2001; and our own 7/7 bombers in London in 2005 were home-grown, radicalised lunatics. And much of the credit for our relative safety from attack during this period has been down to good, anticipative work on the part of our intelligence services, which have prevented further plane bombings.
But a nuclear bomb? Call me Lord Complacent, but doesn’t that sound the tiniest bit like fear-mongering? No, hush my mouth, it can’t be. The very idea that the Government, which under Gordon Brown has dropped all that Bushie-Blairy rhetoric about the “war on terror”, would want to stir up public concern, even panic, ahead of an election, reminding voters of who has been protecting them from al-Qaeda all this time and who it was who stood up to the terrorists in the first place, is absurd and unworthy. Isn’t it?
Really? Obviously I don’t want to be atomised in such an attack. I don’t even want our MPs to be irradiated, because they may not now be able to claim the subsequent chemotherapy in private clinics on their expenses. But is al-Qaeda, never the most organised of para-military groups and now with its management structures in tatters, according to many of the same people who produced this report, really poised to launch a nuclear strike?
It might be as well to remember that there has been no “spectacular” on American soil since the 9/11 atrocities in 2001; and our own 7/7 bombers in London in 2005 were home-grown, radicalised lunatics. And much of the credit for our relative safety from attack during this period has been down to good, anticipative work on the part of our intelligence services, which have prevented further plane bombings.
But a nuclear bomb? Call me Lord Complacent, but doesn’t that sound the tiniest bit like fear-mongering? No, hush my mouth, it can’t be. The very idea that the Government, which under Gordon Brown has dropped all that Bushie-Blairy rhetoric about the “war on terror”, would want to stir up public concern, even panic, ahead of an election, reminding voters of who has been protecting them from al-Qaeda all this time and who it was who stood up to the terrorists in the first place, is absurd and unworthy. Isn’t it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff