So criminal activity, even such taht undermine British security, is acceptable so long as it is thought to undermine Israel.
The Left-Islamic alliance wins again.
1 posted on
07/01/2010 4:35:55 PM PDT by
rmlew
To: rmlew
WTF? This is like bizarro world stuff.
To: rmlew
3 posted on
07/01/2010 4:39:03 PM PDT by
MontanaBeth
(Born Conservative)
To: rmlew
Then the guys that blew up the buses in London on 7/7 should be acquitted and released immediately!
4 posted on
07/01/2010 4:50:59 PM PDT by
Dallas59
(President Robert Gibbs 2009-2013)
To: rmlew
I used to think it was a tyrannical Gov that was bringing the EU down, it's not.
It's the citizens who want total Gov control, and these jury actions prove it.
6 posted on
07/01/2010 4:54:19 PM PDT by
MaxMax
(Conservatism isn't a party)
To: rmlew
It’s garbage such as this that’s going to make me not really care when formerly Great Brittan becomes (more of) a Third World islamic cesspool...
7 posted on
07/01/2010 4:58:49 PM PDT by
piytar
(Obama keeps going to golf courses instead of the Gulf. Maybe he's too stupid to know the difference?)
To: rmlew
So I would be justified in burning down a Mosque in order to prevent it from being used as a suicide bomb factory.
8 posted on
07/01/2010 5:00:10 PM PDT by
Pontiac
To: rmlew
The judge highlighted the testimony by Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, that "all democratic paths had been exhausted" before the activists embarked on their action. So the MP is in favor of this too?
Wow.
Fodder for the Sheehan types, who, having "exhausted" their "democratic paths", decide that it's not good enough...
10 posted on
07/01/2010 5:02:05 PM PDT by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; blueyon; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; ...
The five admitted they had broken in and sabotaged the factory, but argued they were legally justified in doing so. They believed that EDO MBM, the firm that owns the factory, was breaking export regulations by manufacturing and selling to the Israelis military equipment which would be used in the occupied territories. They wanted to slow down the manufacture of these components, and impede what they believed were war crimes being committed by Israel against the Palestinians.
15 posted on
07/01/2010 7:31:23 PM PDT by
SunkenCiv
("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
To: rmlew
SSDD
16 posted on
07/02/2010 4:36:57 AM PDT by
Diogenesis
(Article IV - Section 4 - The United States shall protect each of them against Invasion)
To: rmlew
Hell in a handbasket. That’s the UK.
17 posted on
07/02/2010 8:23:00 AM PDT by
dervish
(I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself)
To: rmlew
They believed that EDO MBM, the firm that owns the factory, was breaking export regulations by manufacturing and selling to the Israelis military equipment which would be used in the occupied territories. WHAT? That is nonsense! Even if that allegation were true, surely that is a matter for the relevant export authorities? Since when did they get the right to enforce public law?
18 posted on
07/03/2010 2:01:42 AM PDT by
Vanders9
To: milford421; WestCoastGal; Velveeta; PGalt
21 posted on
07/05/2010 4:31:25 AM PDT by
nw_arizona_granny
( garden/survival/cooking/storage- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2299939/posts?page=5555)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson