Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Wounded Knee/Reign of Terror

Posted By: Lurker on 2005-08-30
In Reply to: At Wounded Knee, two federal agents were shot to death. sm - sm

 I think you are confusing The Siege at Wounded Knee beginning in February 1973 with the Reign of Terror as it was called by the indians the following three years. During those 3 years 64 tribal members were unsolved murders, 300 harassed and beaten and 562 arrests made of which only 15 were convicted. The seige ended after 71 days. In 1975 the FBI was following a red pickup truck to the Jumping Bull ranch where many AIM members as well as nonmembers were present..AIM having been asked there by the family for protection. What ensued ended in the death of 2 Federal Agents and 1 indian man. The red pickup truck was never seen nor heard of again. What happened is sketchy at best. Three indian men were tried in the deaths of the Feds. Two were acquitted and Leonard Peltier has been in prison for 27 years, although there is little evidence to support his incarceration...or I guess I should say, there was evidence at the time of the trial but at least 4 of the witnesses have recanted their testimonies. They state they testified out of fear. If nothing else, Peltier deserves a new trial and that has been proven and reproven, yet he does not get it.  During the 1973 Wounded Knee, 2 AIM members were killed and 12 others disappeared. There is quite a bit of information on this topic available for your perusal. Aho.


 


P.S. The reason indians (traditional) would rather be called indians than Native Americans is because the land we lived on was not America until the white man came. Indians called this place Turtle Island. The Native Americans were, in fact, the first Europeans to arrive and name this place America, ergo, they were the first or Native Americans. We are the indigenous peoples, the indians.




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

When you say Wounded Knee is nothing to be proud of....
You primarily mean the original Wounded Knee, right?
No, I was talking about the recent Wounded Knee. sm
It would be an insult to say that the original Wounded Knee was nothing to be proud of.  It was a ghastly tragedy, one of a long line, against the American Indian. History books don't do justice to the injustice and horror of the original Wounded Knee.  
At Wounded Knee, two federal agents were shot to death. sm

One was killed while going for his gun after being shot at.  The gun was so high powered, it severed his hand. He was married and a father.  I don't think Wounded Knee is anything to be proud of. 


Bush speech on terror, followed by *surprise* terror alert. Whaaaaaaaaat?

Bush took to TV cameras again to try to sell his Brooklyn Bridge of a war, this time tossing around buzz words like *communism* and *fascism.*  (Yawn)


But wait!!


Within a couple hours, during a televised news conference with Mayor Bloomberg, it was announced that evidence of a bomb threat specific to place, time and method had been received and that the source was very credible. (First thought: *But I thought were were fighting them there so we don't have to fight them HERE.*  Second thought: *This is bad.  We've been warned in advance of this.  Look what happened when we were warned in advance about Katrina?!*)


Yikes!


But wait!


Shortly following that news conference with Mayor Bloomberg, the powers that be in Washington issued a statement that the  threat has doubtful credibility.


Oh.


Okay.  Just another terror warning in America......or not.



"The reign in Spain falls mainly on McCain".
nm
We have never failed our wounded before.
Federal disaster relief has arrived within hours at every other national catastrophe as far back as 1912. All they had then was wagons and horses and a lot of strong backs - and they did far better than Bush and his cohorts with all their (our) money and modern machinery. There's nothing wrong with America or Americans - what's wrong sits squarely in the White House, a big rotten sore on the otherwise healthy fruit.
Halliburton to wounded employee: You'll get a medal - if you don't sue.
Halliburton to Wounded Employee: You'll Get a Medal -- If You Don't Sue

Halliburton will help its combat-zone employees get the honors and recognition they deserve -- if they promise not to sue the company. That's according to new documents released today by Senate Democrats.


Ray Stannard was a truck driver in Iraq for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. In 2003, he was part of a fuel convoy that was ambushed by insurgents. Seven Americans died in the attack and 26 were injured, including Stanner. He is suing the company.


His company knew the convoy's route was dangerous and unprotected, he says, but sent the convoy through anyway. What they did was murder, Stannard told CBS News recently. And I stick by that.


The circumstances of his injuries qualified Stanner for the U.S. Defense of Freedom medal, the civilian equivalent to a soldier's Purple Heart. In offering to forward Stanner's medical records to the Department of Defense so they could confirm and appove his award, KBR required him to sign a release form. (You can see the document here.)


The document, sent to Stannard in November 2004, appears to be boilerplate -- but for one curious paragraph that appears to indemnify KBR from any wrongdoing that may have led to Stanner's injuries:


. . . I agree that in consideration for the application for a Defense of Freedom Medal on my behalf that. . . I hereby release, aquit and discharge KBR, all KBR employees, the military, and any of their representatives. . . with respect to and from any and all claims and any and all causes of action, of any kind or character, whether now known or unknown, I may have against any of them which exist as of the date of this authorization. . . . This release also applies to any claims brought by any person or agency or class action under which I may have a right or benefit.

Stannard didn't sign the form. He received the medal. And he filed suit against the company the following May.


Republicans want amnesty for terrorists who killed or wounded US troops.

The following is a compilation of Senate Republicans defending the proposal to give amnesty to terrorists who have killed or wounded US troops. These statements were made on the Senate floor yesterday.


TED STEVENS - IF THAT'S AMNESTY, I'M FOR IT: I really believe we ought to try to find some way to encourage that country to demonstrate to those people who have been opposed to what we're trying to do, that it's worthwhile for them and their children to come forward and support this democracy. And if that's amnesty, I'm for it. I'd be for it. And if those people who are, come forward... if they bore arms against our people, what's the difference between those people that bore arms against the Union in the War between the States? What's the difference between the Germans and Japanese and all the people we've forgiven? - Sen. Ted Stevens



MCCONNELL SUGGESTED A RESOLUTION COMMENDING IRAQIS FOR GIVING TERRORISTS AMNESTY. ...might it not just be as useful an exercise to be trying to pass a resolution commending the Iraqi government for the position that they've taken today with regard to this discussion of Amnesty? - Sen. Mitch McConnell



ALEXANDER COMPARED IRAQI AMNESTY FOR TERRORISTS TO NELSON MANDELA'S PEACE EFFORTS. Is it not true that Nelson Mandela's courage and his ability to create a process of reconciliation and forgiveness was a major factor in what has been a political miracle in Africa...Did not Nelson Mandela, win a - the co-winner of - a noble Nobel Peace Prize just for this sort of gesture? - Sen. Lamar Alexander



CORNYN: IRAQI AMNESTY DEBATE IS A DISTRACTION. It makes no sense for the United States Senate to shake its finger at the new government of Iraq and to criticize them... it really is a distraction from the debate that I think the American people would want us to have. - Sen. John Cornyn



CHAMBLISS: AMNESTY IS OK FOR EX-INSURGENTS AS LONG AS THEY ARE ON OUR SIDE NOW. Is it not true today that we have Iraqis who are fighting the war against the insurgents, who at one time fought against American troops and other coalition troops as they were marching to Baghdad, who have now come over to our side and are doing one heck of a job of fighting along, side by side, with Americans and coalition forces, attacking and killing insurgents on a daily basis? - Sen. Saxby Chambliss




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/15/gop-senators-defend-propo_n_23083.html


Knee-Jerks
Quoting a biased article reveals only mimickry and calls for absolutely no knowledge (parrot). You'd be more credible if you had actually read the plan. I suggest that instead of inciting, you investigate.

Seems that there is an underlying agenda on your part. I'd bet a month's salary that you're a bitter, middle-aged Caucasian Republican, more than a little ticked off at the outcome of the election for non-altruistic reasons.
Now there's a knee-slapper if I ever heard one!
Hard to convey sarcasm in a written message!
That's a real knee-slapper. Thanks for the chuckles.
x
Let's add knee-jerk Bible quotations to that definition.
ns
Pathetic is knee-jerk support of a concept
just as long as you think it will serve some sort of political gain. If you can't defend you, your party of its candidate can't explain or defend their viewpoints, how then can they expect to win an election. I'm pathetic because I am calling you and the rest of the posters here to simply explain what it is they are endorsing? NOT.
We have good reason, kind of a knee jerk reaction. LOL.

We're constantly visited by the *compassionate conservative* trolls from the other board who come here only to be spew hatred, personally attack posters and to generally cause trouble, despite constant requests from the monitor that they not do that. 


I've always been in favor of stem cell research.  I believe in science progressing and helping people live longer.  I don't believe in forcing the personal religious beliefs of some down the throats of every American. 


In all honesty, though, here lately it's hard for me to get excited if I see America making progress in any area because it doesn't matter what bill Congress introduces, votes in favor of and presents to the President.  Bush will dismiss what he doesn't like and issue yet another of hundreds of his famous *signing statements.*  I don't know why we even bother to have a Congress any more.  They've been rendered impotent by King George.


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14976584.htm


I apologize if you feel you were being treated negatively.  If you're someone who is legitimate and sincere about debate, then welcome to our board. 


But if you're only here to start trouble, like most of the elephants in donkeys' clothing invading this board lately, then I'd prefer that you just go away.  I won't feed any more hatred because I'm just tired of it all.  I've climbed down to their level too many times in the last few months, the stench way down there is just terrible, and I no longer wish to engage in their kind of communication.


What are your thoughts on the issues I've mentioned?  Please respond.  Thoughtful, intelligent debate, without the use of degrading personal insults, is very welcome here.


The typical knee-jerk (wrong) reaction. No one's been talking censorship.
nm
The war on terror is a war without end
It can never be "won," and will not be effective without drastic revamping that will involve global cooperation among many countries, not some "bring 'em on" cowboy mentality.

If we want to regain ANY of the respect we have lost over these last 8 years, we must start with walking the walk and talking the talk...with consistency. Without that, there will be no credibility.
War on terror --

Am I the only one to find this statement absurd:


  • Terror: Asked in a TV interview why he hasn"t used the oft-repeated "war on terror" phrase coined by the Bush administration, President Barack Obama said he believes the United States can win over moderate Muslims if he chooses his words carefully.

  • He wants to make friends with people who have taken the lives of so many Americans without conscience? 


    I'm not pro-McCain or pro-Bush and I'm not pro-Obama.  I'm pro-American.  I can't believe this guy thinks we should be trying to "win over" terrorists. 


    War on terror
    I agree 100%. You can't make friends with these people. They are committed to killing all of us. That is part of their religion.
    May God help us all if we get another terror attack.

    This president has ignored every single thing ever suggested to him, even as it regards terrorism.  I wonder what the terrorists will be planning for us in the future and how much information and knowledge they've learned from this about our weak spots.  They must see American frustration with Bush's incompetence, and they must really be enjoying that.  This is AMERICA.  We're supposed to have our act together.


    Yes, they have acknowledged the war on terror,
    but the world has not declared war on terror.  Terror isn't coming from Iran alone.  I think the president is premature in even mentioning a world war.  I am fairly convinced that the most of the middle eastern countries, whether friendly to the US or not, already have the knowledge for building nuclear weapons, it just a matter of getting the material, which sounds like they may get from Russia before the end of Putin's term.
    terror is an emotion

    How do you have a war against an emotion.  We have a discrete group of enemies we need to contain - not "fight a war on terror."  Slogans are for advertising, not world relations.


     


    Or another terror attack. Or a

    biological attack.  Or a flu pandemic.  Lots of scenarios available for his use. 


    I share your fears 100%.


    Wish I could move out of terror country
    Sweetheart, if I knew I could move to another country and get a job, even minimum wage, live in peace without knowing I live in the major terrorist country of the world with the most low IQ dufus president America  has ever had..you bet I would be out of here in a NY heart beat..
    Foiled Terror Attacks...sm
    http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/britain-thwarts-plot-to-bomb-us-bound/20060810015209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
    Admin...we have someone codoning terror on this board


    US attack on Iran may prompt terror













      MSNBC.com

    U.S. attack on Iran may prompt terror
    Experts say strikes on nuclear facilities could spark worldwide retaliation


    By Dana Priest


    Updated: 12:16 a.m. ET April 2, 2006



    As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.


    Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.


    U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter is consuming a lot of time throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. It's a huge issue, another said.


    Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives.


    Bigger threat than al-Qaeda?
    But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah -- to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.


    The Iranian government views the Islamic Jihad, the name of Hezbollah's terrorist organization, as an extension of their state. . . . operational teams could be deployed without a long period of preparation, said Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism.



    The possibility of a military confrontation has been raised only obliquely in recent months by President Bush and Iran's government. Bush says he is pursuing a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but he has added that all options are on the table for stopping Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.


    Speaking in Vienna last month, Javad Vaeedi, a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator, warned the United States that it may have the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States wants to pursue that path, let the ball roll, although he did not specify what type of harm he was talking about.


    Rise in tension raises stakes
    Government officials said their interest in Iran's intelligence services is not an indication that a military confrontation is imminent or likely, but rather a reflection of a decades-long adversarial relationship in which Iran's agents have worked secretly against U.S. interests, most recently in Iraq and Pakistan. As confrontation over Iran's nuclear program has escalated, so has the effort to assess the threat from Iran's covert operatives.


    U.N. Security Council members continue to debate how best to pressure Iran to prove that its nuclear program is not meant for weapons. The United States, Britain and France want the Security Council to threaten Iran with economic sanctions if it does not end its uranium enrichment activities. Russia and China, however, have declined to endorse such action and insist on continued negotiations. Security Council diplomats are meeting this weekend to try to break the impasse. Iran says it seeks nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.


    Former CIA terrorism analyst Paul R. Pillar said that any U.S. or Israeli airstrike on Iranian territory would be regarded as an act of war by Tehran, and that Iran would strike back with its terrorist groups. There's no doubt in my mind about that. . . . Whether it's overseas at the hands of Hezbollah, in Iraq or possibly Europe, within the regime there would be pressure to take violent action.


    History of reprisals
    Before Sept. 11, the armed wing of Hezbollah, often working on behalf of Iran, was responsible for more American deaths than in any other terrorist attacks. In 1983 Hezbollah truck-bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241, and in 1996 truck-bombed Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. service members.


    Iran's intelligence service, operating out of its embassies around the world, assassinated dozens of monarchists and political dissidents in Europe, Pakistan, Turkey and the Middle East in the two decades after the 1979 Iranian revolution, which brought to power a religious Shiite government. Argentine officials also believe Iranian agents bombed a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994, killing 86 people. Iran has denied involvement in that attack.


    Iran's intelligence services are well trained, fairly sophisticated and have been doing this for decades, said Crumpton, a former deputy of operations at the CIA's Counterterrorist Center. They are still very capable. I don't see their capabilities as having diminished.


    Both sides have increased their activities against the other. The Bush administration is spending $75 million to step up pressure on the Iranian government, including funding non-governmental organizations and alternative media broadcasts. Iran's parliament then approved $13.6 million to counter what it calls plots and acts of meddling by the United States.


    Given the uptick in interest in Iran on the part of the United States, it would be a very logical assumption that we have both ratcheted up [intelligence] collection, absolutely, said Fred Barton, a former counterterrorism official who is now vice president of counterterrorism for Stratfor, a security consulting and forecasting firm. It would be a more fevered pitch on the Iranian side because they have fewer options.



    Agencies mum on true threat
    The office of the director of national intelligence, which recently began to manage the U.S. intelligence agencies, declined to allow its analysts to discuss their assessment of Iran's intelligence services and Hezbollah and their capabilities to retaliate against U.S. interests.


    We are unable to address your questions in an unclassified manner, a spokesman for the office, Carl Kropf, wrote in response to a Washington Post query.


    The current state of Iran's intelligence apparatus is the subject of debate among experts. Some experts who spent their careers tracking the intelligence ministry's operatives describe them as deployed worldwide and easier to monitor than Hezbollah cells because they operate out of embassies and behave more like a traditional spy service such as the Soviet KGB.


    Other experts believe the Iranian service has become bogged down in intense, regional concerns: attacks on Shiites in Pakistan, the Iraq war and efforts to combat drug trafficking in Iran.


    As a result, said Bahman Baktiari, an Iran expert at the University of Maine, the intelligence service has downsized its operations in Europe and the United States. But, said Baktiari, I think the U.S. government doesn't have a handle on this.


    Facilities make difficult targets
    Because Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered around the country, some military specialists doubt a strike could effectively end the program and would require hundreds of strikes beforehand to disable Iran's vast air defenses. They say airstrikes would most likely inflame the Muslim world, alienate reformers within Iran and could serve to unite Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, which have only limited contact currently.


    A report by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks cited al-Qaeda's long-standing cooperation with the Iranian-back Hezbollah on certain operations and said Osama bin Laden may have had a previously undisclosed role in the Khobar attack. Several al-Qaeda figures are reportedly under house arrest in Iran.


    Others in the law enforcement and intelligence circles have been more dubious about cooperation between al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, largely because of the rivalries between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Al-Qaeda adherents are Sunni Muslims; Hezbollah's are Shiites.


    Iran certainly wants to remind governments that they can create a lot of difficulty if strikes were to occur, said a senior European counterterrorism official interviewed recently. That they might react with all means, Hezbollah inside Lebanon and outside Lebanon, this is certain. Al-Qaeda could become a tactical alliance.


    Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.


    © 2006 The Washington Post Company




    src=http://c.msn.com/c.gif?NC=1255&NA=1154&PS=69717&PI=7329&DI=305&TP=http%3a%2f%2fmsnbc.msn.com%2fid%2f12114512%2f

    src=http://msnbcom.112.2o7.net/b/ss/msnbcom/1/G.9-Pd-R/s53651515372730?[AQB]&ndh=1&t=2/3/2006%2011%3A47%3A43%200%20360&pageName=Story%7CWorld%20News%7Cwashington%7C12114512%7CU.S.%20attack%20on%20Iran%20may%20prompt%20terror%7C&g=http%3A//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12114512/from/ET/print/1/displaymode/1098/&ch=World%20News&v1=12114512%7Cfrom%7CET&c3=Dana%20Priest&c4=World%20News&c5=washingtonpost.com%20Highlights&v5=12114512%7Cfrom%7CET&c7=handheld&c8=N&c15=12114512&c16=Story&c18=00&c20=12114512%7Cfrom%7CET&c24=12114512%7Cfrom%7CET&c39=ON&pid=Story%7CWorld%20News%7Cwashington%7C12114512%7CU.S.%20attack%20on%20Iran%20may%20prompt%20terror%7Cp1&pidt=1&oid=javascript%3AprintThis%28%2712114512%27%29&ot=A&oi=631&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=644&bh=484&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE]

    © 2006 MSNBC.com




    URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12114512/from/ET/


    Time.com: Toying with Terror Alerts .... sm
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1211369,00.html
    More from the British media on the terror alerts...sm
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/15/world_trade_center/

    I wonder if Bush and Blair Force One are reading any of this. Would love it if Stewart and Colbert join in.
    Don't close Guantanamo until terror war ends
    We DO NOT want to give terrorists the same rights as American citizens......


    Excerpt from this article:

    "Once you go out and capture a bunch of terrorists, as we did in Afghanistan and elsewhere, then you've got to have some place to put them," he said. "If you bring them here to the U.S. and put them in our local court system, then they are entitled to all kinds of rights that we extend only to American citizens. Remember, these are unlawful combatants.



    http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4BE6T120081215
    They lie to perpetuate the war on false terror, and control with fear.nm
    z
    He wants to talk to Ahmadinejad....state sponsor of terror.
    He said so. Has he changed his mind?
    British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat sm
    British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat
    You're either with us, or you're with the babies.

    British government security advisors and the national media are doing their level best to strike rampant irrational paranoid terror into the hearts of UK citizens by identifying the latest targets of the war on terror as pregnant women and toddlers.

    Absurd delirious fearmongering continues in the British media with the Sun tabloid, Britain's most braindead and unfortunately also most popular newspaper screaming, HATE-filled mums willing to sacrifice themselves and their BABIES are being hunted in the war on terror.

    Yes that's right you haven't slipped into an upside down parallel universe - pregnant women and mothers with young babies are the new Al-Qaeda.

    The evidence?

    The nightmare is that mums carrying tiny tots would provide “very good cover” and not raise suspicions among even the most alert security guards.

    The Sun cited a senior Government security adviser as their source.

    So let's ignore that guy with the turban who looks like Mohammed Atta and instead focus our magic screening wand on Mrs. Smith and her newborn infant.

    Extra pat downs for young mums and making toddlers take their shoes off - boy do I feel safer now.

    What's the next threat? Barney the purple dinosaur?

    Of course we know what this is all designed to accomplish - it's about broadening the terrorist definition to the point where everyone's a suspect and everybody's behavior is under preposterous and suffocating scrutiny.

    The implication that the most benign, harmless and innocent members of our society could in actuality be terrorist suicide bombers is a sick ploy crafted to ensure that absolutely no one is allowed to escape the self-regulating stench of being under suspicion.

    It is also intended to brainwash the population that terrorists are potentially hiding under their beds, that they are everywhere and that only by a system of reporting suspicious behavior and unquestionably trusting the government will they too avoid the accusing finger.

    This is classic Cold War style behavioral conditioning and the Neo-Fascist architects know exactly what they're doing.

    Despite the status of alert returning to previous levels in both the US and the UK, ridiculous restrictions on travelers remain in place. Every time a new bout of fearmongering washes over a stupefied public, they are more pliable to new ways of being shoved around by government enforcers, even after the alleged plot has been foiled.

    The fearmongering never subsides, it is always ratcheted up another peg in anticipation for future manufactured threats.
    The future of airport security?

    Why don't they just ban any luggage, clothing or personal accessories whatsoever and have done with it? Better yet - why not strap every passenger into a straight jacket from the moment they enter the airport?

    In Knoxville, TSA officials are testing a biometric scanner device which interrogates passengers about their 'hostile intent' by asking a barrage of questions. If you thought the current delays and blanket 'everybody's a criminal terrorist' attitude were annoying enough, you ain't seen nothing yet.

    In a similar example to the mothers and babies mindlessness, the London Guardian reports that located in the tranquil and peaceful rural surroundings of the British Lake District and Yorkshire Dales are terrorist training camps where Al-Qaeda devotees are preparing for their next big attack.

    What's next? Bomb making factories under the Atlantic Ocean? Islamo Fascist brainwashing schools at the North Pole?

    The sheer stupidity implicit in the Guardian article is bewildering. If the police haven't even questioned the alleged terrorists, allowing them to gather evidence of terrorist activity, because they're conducting covert surveillance of the group then why in God's name have they told a national newspaper, who in turn have splashed the story all over their front page?

    If these supposed terrorists didn't know they were under surveillance before then they sure do now!

    I live on the edge of the Peak District nearby the kind of areas being fingered as terrorist training areas. The closest thing to Al-Qaeda like activity up here is when a discourteous rambler leaves a farm gate open.

    Again, it's about people who live in the country being smothered with the same raving paranoia and cockamamie fearmongering city-dwellers are subjected to. Woe betide anyone living in a converted barn house in the middle of miles and miles of wilderness think they can escape the war on terror - it applies to anything!

    Baby formula, lip gloss, mothers and toddlers included.




    But, the war on terror concerns all countries. Other countries
    acknowledge the war on terror as concerning the world, so it is essentially a World War.