Public awareness foiled UK bomb plot: PM

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Public-awareness-foiled-UK-bomb-plot-PM/2007/06/30/1182624219074.html

A foiled car bombing plot in London proves that anti-terrorism public awareness campaigns work, Prime Minister John Howard says.

London ambulance officers alerted police after they thought they saw smoke inside a green Mercedes parked outside a London nightclub.

Mr Howard said the discovery proves that community awareness programs, like his government's heavily criticised "be alert, not alarmed" campaign, are worthwhile.

"It's a great tribute to the vigilance of those ambulance officers. That sends a very strong message that these community awareness programs work."

Mr Howard said there is no reason for concern in Australia, but the discovery should be a reminder to continue guarding against potential terrorist threats.

terrorism exists where muslims exist.
The more muslims, the more terrorism.
Nil muslims = minimal terrorism.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/UK-bombing-victim-tells-of-hate-mail/2007/07/01/1183228933692.html

Australian Gill Hicks has revealed she receives hate mail for her refusal to direct anger at the suicide bombers who took her legs.

Hicks, 39, lost both her legs in the July 7, 2005, terrorist bombings in London which killed 52 commuters.

Now an ambassador for Peace Direct, Hicks has told ABC TV's Enough Rope hosted by Andrew Denton that she is regularly sent hate mail from people angry that she doesn't seek retribution for her injury.

"I think overall it's been a sense of, um, how could I be so liberal? How could I be so tolerant?" Hicks says on Monday's series return of Enough Rope with Andrew Denton.

She said there were groups who were furious that she hadn't demanded some form of retaliation, such as military action against countries which are deemed to be the source of terrorism.

"Which for us would mean blowing up the UK, because these were, you know, British-born terrorists," she said.

Hicks said the most hurtful comment came from a person asking if she'd feel the same if her child was killed by a terrorist act.

"That was the most horrible comment we had, actually, yeah," she said.

"There are ordinary people who, in their own way, are as intolerant of our society as the terrorists that did these acts."

Sure, discriminating against a religion never caused any problems, right?

So you have away to get rid of a religion that would not cause any problems?

Isn't that a contradiction sprint?

I thought you were a fan of freedom of thought? And anyway, how would you enforce this ban on thinking inappropriate thoughts? How would the Liberal and Labor party juggle accepting each other's beliefs on an issue while at the same time opposing them? What if a belief stated that it accepted one other belief, which differed from itself in a trivial manner, but would not accept any other beliefs? Should that be banned too? What if a belief thought that all other beliefs, bar one, were acceptable. Should it be banned? Suppose a NAMBLA member joined up to OzPolitic. If you did not accept his beliefs, should I ban you?

freediver wrote on Jul 1^st, 2007 at 6:12pm:


Yep. thorough deportation.