230873 Second Subaltern Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, Auxiliary Territorial Service
Posted on 01/13/2008 3:16:02 PM PST by naturalman1975
LONDON: A plot by al-Qa'ida operatives to kill the Queen during a state visit to Uganda less than two months ago was foiled by security services.
The terrorists had planned to hide inside two broadcast vans owned by the Ugandan Broadcasting Corporation and then set off bombs during the Queen's visit to Kampala last November.
London's Sunday Express reported the vans were seized after a tip-off from intelligence agents.
As a result, the broadcaster was unable to transmit live pictures of key summit events, including the Queen's historic address to the Ugandan parliament on November 22.
The Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Charles and his wife Camilla travelled to the east African nation's capital for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, attended by more than 30 world leaders. Australia was represented by Richard Alston, the High Commissioner to London.
Uganda's Internal Affairs Minister Ruhakana Rugunda said several suspected terrorists were arrested.
"We received information that a terrorist group linked to al-Qa'ida, the Allied Democratic Forces, was planning to carry out terrorist activities at the Commonwealth meeting," he told the Sunday Express.
"The security services in Uganda neutralised these threats."
Dr Rugunda refused to comment on the exact nature of the intended attacks or reports that Ugandan armed forces had seized a speedboat loaded with arms and homemade bombs.
A number of suspected ADF guerillas aboard the boat on Lake Victoria are believed to have been taken into custody, the Sunday Express reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
All they really want is to be left alone.
Give Muslims more land in England and complete control over it, and I’m sure they’ll not bother trying to kill the Queen again.
After all, they’re the original “Religion of Peace”!
Can you explain Charles?
“Can you explain Charles?”
See #52 above.
Thank you, Naturalman for your input on this thread. What you say is very interesting, and is the kind of unexpected insight I so love finding on FR threads. We have such a vast array of collective knowledge on this website. How invaluable.
Yes, I can.
The Prince of Wales is a fairly intelligent, educated man, who has had to spend his entire life waiting to do a particular job, having to be ready to step into that role at any moment.
For this reason, he hasn’t felt free to become engaged in any long term projects that would be incompatible with his constitutional role. He’d like to be politically active, but he can’t be politically active in very many areas at all, so he’s had to limit his activities to a few areas when he can’t cause major controversies - architecture, farming, etc.
As a future Monarch, he must, broadly, support the ‘party line’ of Her Majesty’s Government whenever he speaks. This means that sometimes he’s forced into saying things he thinks are important enough that they have to be said, in a way that doesn’t actually oppose government policy. It’s lead to some odd constructions of phrasing over the years.
I’ve seen Prince Charles as a schoolboy standing in a group of friends, one of the crowd - and knowing that he can never be sure any of the rest of us aren’t just trying to toady up to him.
I’ve seen him in uniform, trying to serve his country, while dealing with the fact that his Commanding Officer looks at him and doesn’t just see a young Lieutenant, but sees his future sovereign Lord.
I’ve stood within a few metres of the man as somebody ran out of a crowd towards him firing a pistol, and watched the Prince stand there calmly and unflinchingly. And then make a speech a few minutes later where he joked about what happened.
I can explain Charles. What I can’t explain is why so much of the media seems to want to portray him so differently than he is.
WOW - just WOW.
Thank you so much for your personal insight into the Royal Family.
I never thought of his roll in the manners/terms of how you describe it, but after readinging you descriptions one gets a better understanding about the “manner” of Charlies.
Put into a very crass American sense of it, the poor dude has been primed all his life to wait for his mother to die. What a Catch-22 scenario. Without her death he won’t be King, and with it he loses his mother.
Sheesh.
You can't? Well today I can.I stood in a long line at the grocery store today buying a couple of bottles of juice to get myself hydrated after a long run this morning. And I had more than enough time to look at the covers of the countless by now gutter magazines and weekly newspapers. I didn't have to open them up to see what's inside, the slime was all on the covers! And that's where you explanation lies. We live in a gutter culture of peeping into famous people's lives. Peeping tomism, voyeurism, have become as acceptable as being 'gay', which I, alone perhaps in this land and certainly on this forum, still call pederasty. Why, I know all the travails of Britney and LiLo and Paris myself. Go ahead try to avoid it!We are all slumming!
I’ve been fascinated by the ‘two little princesses’ all my life from the time you would see them in the same coat and hair cut. But my fascination turned into respect for then Princess Elizabeth when she was escorting her mother, the Queen, on some inspection. I believe the princess was in the UKWAC at the time. The Queen’s shoes were a problem, so the princess took hers off, gave them to her Mother, and then proceeded in stocking feet, -— with great grace!
I’m happy that intelligence was aware of this plot, and I hope the failure deters others.
The Queen is a lovely lady.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.