Posted on 09/07/2015 7:00:29 PM PDT by naturalman1975
BRITISH forces launched a drone strike in Syria to kill three Islamic State terrorists who had plotted to kill the Queen and other members of the royal family by detonating a huge bomb at the country’s VJ Day celebration, Prime Minister David Cameron has revealed.
“There was a terrorist directing murder on our streets and no other means to stop them,” Mr Cameron said about the lethal Aug. 21 drone attack — the first UK military action in the Syrian civil war.
Two of the cutthroats were Britons, he said, who had helped hatch the twisted scheme to assassinate Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles and likely hundreds of others by blowing up the 70th anniversary VJ Day celebration in Whitehall on September 15.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
What's not to like?
You see of him what the media chooses to show you. You don’t see what they don’t show.
Yes, but they've had Charles I since then, and Parliament chopped his head off. Henry VIII was very close to an absolute Monarch (he still needed Parliament for some taxes). The system has changed a lot since then, and Parliament is now where most power is. The Queen's only real powers can only be invoked if Parliament exceeds its authority - as long as it stays within those limits she can do very little. But that alone has been a brake on Parliament at times.
I don’t have to be given a caricature. It’s plain from his own mouth that he’s a complete captive of the global warming scam and a total hypocrite - living the high life while advocating abstinence for everyone else.
Well meaning or not, he’s a blight on society.
He certainly does live the high life in a lot of ways - but he doesn't suggest anybody else shouldn't. Just that even if you are, there are still things that can be done.
I’m sorry, but all this does is prove how hypocritical he is - he can afford to do all that. What about the seniors sitting in the cold because they can’t afford to turn the heater on?
Cheap power is the basis of all comfort, not to mention industry. What does Chuck lose by being so environmentally conscientious? Absolutely nothing! It’s others who suffer when power costs are pushed up through subsidies for uneconomic “renewables”. If anything, Charles profits from it as a major landlord.
two were from England. You’re right. The only answer is to bring in millions more to europe.
Merkel is a bigger jerk than i thought.
Hungary folded, unfortunately.
and EVERY SINGLE article listed on google says US isn’t donig enough. I dont want any here.
ISIS’ plan all along was to get into europe and US.
I dont see it impossible that an attack on Italy can happen in the next five years.
Either way, it will be the murder of the pope, the queen, or another president or prime minister to ignite this whole thing.
Either that or Russian and American fighters dancing above Syria.
He doesn't set power prices and he'd be totally against the idea that these people can't afford power. That's probably why he thinks it's people like him who should be making the changes, not the people with nothing.
If you want to make him a scapegoat for every stupid idea somebody else has come up with, feel free. I'll judge him on what he does and what he says and what he advocates - not on what other people do.
He advocates uneconomic renewables the inevitable outcome of which is higher power prices. He doesn’t have to say a thing. Every lunatic mandate for power usage will do it for him.
Actually what he advocates is that people like himself who are worried about the issue and can afford to, invest and fund the research that will hopefully eventually lead to these technologies becoming affordable. He doesn’t advocate them being forced on anybody but most new technologies are expensive to begin with and become cheaper over time with further study and investment.
I have had to sit through dinners where I’ve had this explained to me (that also showed off the products of his sustainable agriculture, some of which were really very nice).
Good work all round. Cameron made the right call. If I remember correctly, the Queen and the Prince of Wales attended separate events on VJ Day. The Queen was at St Martin-in-the-Fields Church for a special service, while Prince Charles was at Horse Guards for a drumhead service with veterans and senior military figures. I wonder if that was always the plan, or whether this threat required a tinkering with the schedules.
In any case, the assassin’s politics were confounded and their knavish tricks frustrated, and Queen Elizabeth II moves ever closer to beating Queen Victoria’s record as Britain’s longest reigning monarch in history.
Wednesday September 9th will be an historic moment for the Queen, but I’m sure in her own mind, it will be business as usual.
It wouldn't surprise me - neither would have been willing to make a major change to the plans which were centred around Whitehall, but they might well have agreed to be at separate events at separate times.
It's worth mentioning that David Cameron also attended the events which is an act of not inconsiderable courage and confidence on his own part in the circumstances. He's no Churchill or Thatcher, but at least he still understands that you cannot hide yourself away.
Nothing irrelevant about it at all, because the question did hinge on the man himself. It also hinged on the Founding Fathers, whose basis for establishing the independent United States was not on George III’s status as a king—the Declaration of Independence did make that clear, enumerating the many violations of English law that selfsame king undertook (the same laws that the Constitution re-established in either original or new forms); many of those violations are not unlike what the left-wingers of today engage in.
Parliament’s exceeded its authority a number of times recently in the name of leftism and attacks on society, and the Crown didn’t stop it but rather gave assent. Some on here defended that with some nonsense about the people revolting against the monarchy if those moves toward libertinism were not given blessing, which shows them to be libertines themselves.
Link?
This has not happened. It was an idea briefly mentioned in one interview twenty years ago.
though, nor is his habit of wearing the keffiyeh while in Saudi Arabia.
A normal part of Royal diplomacy for decades and something the Foreign Office asked him to do.
No, unfortunately it hasn't. It's done nothing it doesn't have the constitutional power to do. Just because we don't like it, doesn't make it unconstitutional or beyond its powers. The Parliament has the power.
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.