« Home | Peru elects worst president ever » | WTF? Friday Part II » | WTF? Friday » | From nut-job liar to presidential ear » | Oh, Get a Life.... » | 'nuff said... » | Faculty Blood Feuds: Your Assurance of a Great Edu... » | Bike auction this Saturday » | An update on the Haditha massacre » | Mark June 12th on your calendar »

This is how to fight terror

Solid police work. It works much better than fear-mongering, war-making, and fostering racism at home. Take notice, George.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1149460818253&call_pageid=970599119419
be carefull about blindly supporting this, even the newsmedia is strating to dought it was nothing but a show, bush did it the same way to promote the disilusion of some basic rights..

Anonymous . . . The first mistake you made is quoting the Toronto Star. Everybody knows what kind of reporting they do.

Second. If these individuals had managed to bomb the parliament building or the CN Tower, you would have been up in arms because the government didn't do anything to prevent it. Why are you so quick to take the side of accused terrorists.

And here's what you won't read in the Toronto Star.

Mrs. Khadr and Aly Hindy were in the courtroom supporting the accused. Who are they? Mrs. Khadr whose husband was a friend of Osama Bin Laden was killed fighting for al-Qaeda and whose sons were accused of being terrorists said on CTV that she admired suicide bombers. Why would a woman like that be there supporting "innocent" Muslims. And Aly Hindy said that all Jews over the age of 18 were legitimate targets for suicide bombers. Plus most of the accused attended his mosque.

So ask yourself, if the accused are so innocent, why were these 2 people in the courtroom?

Okay people - back to your corners.

Anonymous, your post refers to one article in one newspaper - that hardly constitutes "the newsmedia", so lets at least try and be precise here, okay? Besides, looking at the article it consists, for the most part, of defence attorneys saying their clients are innocent, big whoop - defence attorneys always say their clients are innocent - that's why they're called Defence attorneys.

Second Anonymous (OH FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! Would you two grow a pair, and actually put your names down!) - playing the 'Guilt by Association' game doesn't prove anything - as far as I know, the accused don't get to have any say as to who sits in the courtroom.

Let's all try a new and bizarre game here folks - it's called 'Let the Facts Unfold' before we go jumping to any foregone conclusions as to guilt or innocence.

Anonymous the second,
Do you have a reference pointing to who was in the courtroom?

Not that it matters a damn, I would just like to see the assertion supported.

And if you're still reading, ask yourself this - what does it matter who is in the courtroom? Those that go to trial will be tried on the evidence as it pertains to the case, not on the quality or quantity of gawkers the case generates.

Yeah right. Only if you overlook the obvious police failures that resulted in the 9/11, 7/7 and 3/11 terrorist attacks (amongst many others)would you arrive at the conclusion that police work is how you fight terrorism.

So Sean,
What would work better? Pre-emptive war? Mass arrests without charge? Suspension of civil liberties?

But they did work in this case, or did that minor detail escape your keen grasp of the obvious? So basically what you're saying is 'It worked - let's scrap it and try something else'

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link