(UK) Sports stadia alerted to threat from al-Qa'eda

The Sunday Telegraph ^ | November 17, 2002 | David Bamber

[Happygal]

I'm not suggesting you 'get worked up about it'.
I'm just suggesting that they aren't a very noble example of the 'might of the British' in terms of self defence.

[MadIvan]

I'm just suggesting that they aren't a very noble example of the 'might of the British' in terms of self defence.

As previously stated, love - it's an example of Al Qaeda having a death wish - nothing more, nothing less. ;)

Love, Ivan

[Happygal]

it's an example of Al Qaeda having a death wish

And I am disagreeing. I'd class these 'hooligans' as moral cowards. They'd crap themselves (pardon the French) at the thought of having to take on someone their own size.

[MadIvan]

And I am disagreeing. I'd class these 'hooligans' as moral cowards. They'd crap themselves (pardon the French) at the thought of having to take on someone their own size.

I don't know about that, darling...these are people who like to get into fights. Enough cheap lager, and well...

Love, Ivan

[Happygal]

I think England would be better served, putting her hopes on people who don't go around bullying innocents.

[MadIvan]

I think England would be better served, putting her hopes on people who don't go around bullying innocents.

Well MI5 did bust the Tube plotters.

Love, Ivan

[uncbob]

These animals are going out of their way to provoke us to the extent we will go medieval on them. The rack, drawing and quartering, and heads on spikes sounds better all the time.

Well when I read posts of British homewners prosecuted for defending themselves against buglars and home invaders it makes me wonder just what the character of today's British citizen really is
In addition when I read polls that the majority of British citizens think president bush is the greatest threat to world peace it makes me wonder even more

I really started having had my doubts when I saw how the Brits were deprived of the right to bear arms without a wimper( Still remember reading how Britain asked Americans were asked to donate any extra rifles and shotguns so the citizens could be armed in case the Germans mounted an invasion in 40)

Unfortunately there are many signs the US people are not far behind Britain but I hope not

[MadIvan]

I really started having had my doubts when I saw how the Brits were deprived of the right to bear arms without a wimper

Hyperbole. We can own shotguns and rifles. We're not allowed to own handguns and there is no concealed carry. I suspect this puts us in gun terms, more like some of your Northeastern states. Not great, but not as bad as you suggest.

One final thing, I am getting sick of people fretting and heaving sighs and oohing and ahhing about Britain's gun ownership laws and saying we're not free. The fact that freedom extends out of the barrel of a gun is an American concept, a product of your history in which the gun represented the ability to get one's food, shoot hostile natives and so on. Britain's roots are different in this regard. We regard freedom extending out of having our press being hostile and critical of the government. And as the Daily Telegraph proved during impeachment, our press is probably more free, and certainly more diverse than America's.

Having guns is all well and good. Yes, it's useful to shoot criminals. But days have changed since Patrick Henry was around and you could overthrow a government with a sufficient number of armed citizens. That was before tanks, aircraft, missiles and the FBI. If those potential instruments of repression fell into Hillary's hands, for example, I think you'd find that gun ownership wouldn't necessarily prevent freedom from being eroded.

Regards, Ivan

[uncbob]

The fact that freedom extends out of the barrel of a gun is an American concept, a product of your history in which the gun represented the ability to get one's food, shoot hostile natives and so on. Britain's roots are different in this regard. We regard freedom extending out of having our press being hostile and critical of the government. And as the Daily Telegraph proved during impeachment, our press is probably more free, and certainly more diverse than America's.

1. So how come Britain had to ask American citizens to send them arms before WWII
2.I suggest you learn more about your own history on BEARING ARMS and on American history as you are mistaken in both cases. America's 2nd Amendment and Right to bear Arms is inherited and based on British law . BTW the 2nd Amendment was written so the American people could fight off a tyranical federal goverment
3. So how come yesteday you talked about using your Cricket Bat . Americans would talk about strapping on their 45s etc. as some are now doing in the SW to protect their lands from the invasion from Mexico. After 911 there was a surge in gun sales in the USA . What do you think would happen if terror hit Britain
4.You didn't address the other points I made about President Bush and homeowners being prosecuted
5. Freedom of the press is wonderful for maintaining freedom as long as the government allows a free press>
6. He who owns the guns makes the laws and if only the governemnt is armed guess what.
Our little to do starting at Lexington and Concord was because of the King trying to drive that point home to the colonists

[MadIvan]

As for the British asking for guns during World War II - read up, we were short on EVERYTHING back then. Guns, food, you name it, we needed it - we were unprepared for the war, it's length, it's expense and it's duration.

Yes, our gun ownership laws are too restrictive, but the gun is not considered as central to our liberties as they are to yours because of the differences in history I describe. You just don't want to see that, do you?

You also fail to address my point - suppose Hillary took power tomorrow and she decided to shut down the Freedom of the Press. What chance do private citizens armed with guns have against say, the Army, the FBI, and other instruments of repression? As I say, you are applying a concept from Patrick Henry's time which worked when citizens had flintlock rifles, and the government had flintlock rifles. Now the government has tanks, bombers, surface to air missiles, tear gas, and so on. Under these circumstances, how could being armed with a handgun and a rifle possibly be a bulwark against tyranny? Remember what happened at Waco, for example.

I agree gun ownership is a bulwark against criminals - and a damn fine one too. It's even a bulwark against terrorists on the ground. But against the government?

No, what a real bulwark against the government would be, would be a crusading newspaper that said "Hey, those people at Waco didn't do anything wrong" and sought Bill Clinton and Janet Reno's heads on a platter.

Regards, Ivan

[uncbob]

Yes, our gun ownership laws are too restrictive, but the gun is not considered as central to our liberties as they are to yours because of the differences in history I describe. You just don't want to see that, do you?

Sorry Ivan as I stated Our laws are based and inherirted from English law.
Starting just before 1900 British laws were being modified to slowly dimish your right to own and bear arms . I suggest you try and find a good source of history and read up on it as you don't get it. It is no coincidence that sliding into socialism and being disarmed go hand in hand>

It is true what you say about the government being more heavily armed but they are far outnumbered and look what ONE sniper can do
In addition ever wonder why the left wingers are so steadfast in trying to disarm the people. They must fear something

No argument about the fact that a truely unbiased media in this country would have brought down Clinton and Gore long ago etc etc

[MadIvan]

I know my own country's history; you would be unwise to challenge me on that aspect.

Oh the reason why the left wants you disarmed is very simple - it's more to do with the idea of individuals fending for themselves, at least in terms of self-defence. In case you hadn't noticed, the left wingers are ALWAYS against people fending for themselves, unless of course they're rich and white and been taxed to death.

One sniper was able to spread terror among innocent civilians. It is hard to imagine that paradigm working in relation to the government.

Regards, Ivan

[TopQuark]

Thanks for the post. Please include me in your list, Ivan.

[no need for a name]

"Now the government has tanks, bombers, surface to air missiles, tear gas, and so on. Under these circumstances, how could being armed with a handgun and a rifle possibly be a bulwark against tyranny? Remember what happened at Waco, for example."

Great question. I think this is a question very few here would have a great answer for.

As for bearing arms being the be all and end all against terrorists, how would being armed with a sidearm prevent a gas attack on the London underground?
Just shoot the nearist Arab?

The game has changed since 18th century.
A gun vs a burglar, no problems with that.
Vs a sneeky terrorist who , funnily enough is not about to declare his intentions?????
And against repressive goverments tanks & armour & airforce...........

[areafiftyone]

Jeeze - They never stop do they. Yesterday they already said they were going to distroy New York and Washington D.C. if we didn't convert to Islam - can you believe that? Yea right - I have to get my burkha out of the closet and get it dry cleaned </sarcasm>. Maybe Tony Blair and Bush should start making threats to them now and air it on Al JERKzeera. We need to start getting radical with them. We need to start protesting them in the streets and burning their flags. We should start scaring them for a change instead of sitting back and taking all this.

[uncbob]

WACO was an isolated group in the middle of nowhere not an irate general population
People can win because they greatly out number any government force But the question is do they have the will and that is the real problem and the government would not become repressive overnight
Wiil they not resisting early enough

The actual practical aspect of the Brits being diarmed and completely dependent on the government for their protection is that it is a symptom of the character of the people who have been weakened by socialism

[uncbob]

I know my own country's history; you would be unwise to challenge me on that aspect.
Well you probably have no interest in the area of the history of British rights in the area of keeping and bearing arms

As far as Britain being short of evrything before in 1940 ( due mainly to the German submarine warfare ) that has nothing to do why private citizens needed donations from Americans in the way of firearms. It was because they didn't have them to begin with

[David Hunter]

That's nothing to be proud of. Some of those football hooligan thugs are every bit as bad as the terrorists. Indeed, some of them are a brand of terrorist in their own right. I'm sorry, but all of those National Front blokes turn my stomach quite frankly.

The NF had a march over in Sunderland last year supposedly to protest against asylum seekers in the North East. They deliberately timed it to coincide with the end of a large football game. There are about 500-1,000 hard core football hooligans among the Sunderland crowd and the Police believed that the NF were going to join up with them and start a race riot in Seaburn, where some asylum seekers are being housed. Apparently, many of the football hooligans' ringleaders are members of the NF. The Police managed to get a banning order on the march and instead the NF had a rally in front of the main Sunderland Police station.

Apparently, some NF members were shouting slogans like "kill the Pakis" and were directing them at local asian people. The 9/11 attacks were also used by them as justification for their march. They were deliberately trying to direct local people's outrage over the attacks at asylum seekers and local asian people.

Earlier this year a bunch of Newcastle football hooligans had a big street fight with some of their Sunderland counterparts. They actually arranged the venue and the time of the fight in advance by telephone! Two people were killed, several were seriously injured and one was permanently brain damaged. Although, he might have been brain damaged to start off with :-). If we could only find a way to let the NF/football hooligans and al Qaeda nutters fight it out among themselves. They'd probably enjoy the experience!

[Happygal]

I got a stomach full of the NF/British football hooligans a couple of years back when they ran riot at Landsdowne Road.

While a fair weather soccer supporter myself, my brother and his friends have travelled the world supporting the Irish soccer team since the European Championships in the mid 1980's. They have always come home from an international with good stories about the places they stayed, and phone numbers of new friends they've made across the globe.

The English football hooligans give a good game a bad name :-)

[David Hunter]

The actual practical aspect of the Brits being diarmed and completely dependent on the government for their protection is that it is a symptom of the character of the people who have been weakened by socialism,

Not all of us Brits agree with the government's weapons ban. Personally, I'd be happy to carry a pistol and use it on a terrorist or a violent criminal. The main people responsible for the statist brain washing of the British people are the BBC. They'd piss away all our rights if they had a good excuse and they are funded by a compulsory "license fee" which makes them completely unaccountable to the British people. The BBC has to be reformed before Britian can do away with its statist dogma.