Graham

And that's a bad thing? We seem to be trying to export "Western Culture" all over the world which is also "very different" from the indigenous cultures. Is that also a bad thing and should be stopped?

Or is it a case of "Us: Good. Them: Bad"?

What about all those British ex-Pats out in the Middle East etc who want to drink alcohol against Islamic law? Somehow the Muslim communities seem to have come to an accommodation with them, why can't we do the same with the Muslims here?

You mean like not being locked up without charge? The right to challenge evidence in court? The right not to be restricted in your own home on the say-so of a politician...???

Care to back that claim up with anything? Yes, there are areas which have high levels of black occupancy, but we're not talking about "no go" areas for whites or "ghettos".

It was a belated response to a comment that I meant to make earlier but forgot, so it got tagged on this message.
__________________

I do. It's called "Intelligence based Policing" ie using intelligence (in both senses of the word!) so you don't end up harassing innocent people based solely on what they look like or how they dress or where they pray.

The point is you don't "pick on" *any* group. If you have *reasonable* grounds for stopping someone, that's a different matter from "he looks suspiciously Muslim".

It seems clear that you can't figure it out because your last paragraph is nonsensical.

Of *course* it can't work that way, but neither can it work, as I keep pointing out, that you simply stop someone based on their religion, looks, clothes etc!

And once again I have little doubt that Osama Bin Laden and friends are sitting in their caves, watching satellite TV and laughing as we throw away the liberties that make our society *FREE* and which they hate so much.

I'm sure you would, but once again I point out, *YOU* are unlikely to be stopped or harassed, so again it seems a case of "I'm alright, Jack, it's ok to hassle people who aren't *me* so long as *I* feel safe".

Yes, because what happened was sheer, cold blooded murder, nothing else.

If these people were *known* IRA terrorists (which they were, as you admit) and they were on UK soil (which, again, you admit they were) they could have been *arrested* for being members of an illegal organisation.

Yet the *excuse* the SAS gave was that "they thought they were going for a gun or a detonator" when challenged, but that simply smacks of incompetence because it would have been possible to isolate and detain all of the victims with proper planning and manpower had they *really* wanted to arrest them.

You appear to think that it's ok to blast people down on the street simply on suspicion, yet if the SAS had been following them for as long as they said, they could have isolated the possible threat of a car bomb and taken the suspects into custody instead of gunning them down.

Who said anything about the SAS being "racist"? The Gibraltar murders had nothing to do with race at all. Please don't suggest that they did and please try to stay on topic.
__________________

This is an interesting one because searching on this gives results varying from there were "no explosives found" to "no explosives but another car had the equipment to make a detonator" to "140 lbs of high explosives were found".

I don't know about you, but when I go out to buy a loaf of bread, I *already* have some idea of what sort of bread I am going to buy, eg Brown Wholemeal.

I don't go into the bakers and examine *EVERY SINGLE* loaf of bread before I decide "hmm, I'll take this one" and I think the baker would get rather annoyed were I to handle and examine and taste each one...!
__________________

Answered by PM to keep the discussion on topic.