Skip to main content

Home Made Bombs

I suppose the Extradition laws would not allow John Reid the power to extradite the 118 (mainly) US (mainly) youths who have put videos of their Home Made Bombs on the youtube site - even if he wanted to.

Click on the link above to get a list of the videos of making a home made bomb currently stored on YouTube.

What are the political points:
a) That the extradition laws remain unbalanced
b) That people wishing to make bombs out of fertiliser (cf the IRA) [or other generally available materials] can do so. It is not possible to completely eradicate all potential sources of explosive material (eg Sugar)
c) Security and peace require a reduction in the desire for conflict to a greater extent than a reduction in the ability to progress a conflict.

Hence the government should stop going around winding up the whole world (apart from the US and Israeli governments).

The government sort of recognise this by saying they are fighting for "hearts and minds". Well hearts and minds are an issue of persuasion. You do not persuade someone by shooting their family. That is called cooercion.

Comments

Tristan said…
and the government should stop deliberately inflating fear. that's what terrorists want. Those killed are colateral damage, its the disruption and fear which they seek.
Simon said…
do not persuade someone by shooting their family. That is called cooercion.

Do you think Israel should give in to the demands of Hizboollah and Hamas who use violence to cooerce?
Bob Piper said…
tristan... perhaps the government should just not say anything and pretend that tube trains in London and trains in Spain and offices in Turkey and on, and on and on, don't actually happen. It's called the ostrich view of government. Of course, if they don't warn people there will be people called tristan posting trite comments on blogs bleating... "they should have warned us."
john said…
Simon - of course not.

Bob - security is needed, but is not the whole solution.
shaz said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
shaz said…
Simon - We seem to forget, Israel wasn't exactly established via non-coercive means!
Simon said…
Shaz, aside from the fact that Israel was created by the UN, I would like you to name a state in Europe that was not created (in terms of territory, the establishment of secure borders, civili authority etc etc) via non coercive means.

When you've decided that there probably isn't one (certainly not the UK!), can you explain to me why violence in the past legitimates violence in the present or the future?

John, as ever, I am at a loss as to what you think Israel should do when attacked. Caught between not giving in to extremist demands and not responding, what is left? I suppose just sitting there and taking it? Pretending the threat is not there (cf. Bob Piper)? Both are solutions, I have to confess, that do not appeal to me with our own home grown bombers.
john said…
Oddly enough there is a biblical quotation of "an eye for an eye". This implies a proportionate reaction not a totally disproportionate reaction.

I am not saying that people should not react, but that any reaction should be proportionate and not a massive overreaction. An overreaction heats things up.
shaz said…
Shaz, aside from the fact that Israel was created by the UN,

Not exactly the whole truth, the initial partititon plan was drawn by the UN, but Israel draw it's own borders in 1949 adding 50% more than was alloted by the UN.

Since the intial proposal to Britain to relinquish it's mandate (owing to British Zionist) has the UN been a serious brokering force in the Middle East? Unless it suits Israel? I think the UN argument has long passed it's expiry date!

I would not and have not justified violence due to historical violence in the region, but have observed some disparity in your analysis of the situation which sides with Israel unequivocally.
shaz said…
I would like you to name a state in Europe that was not created (in terms of territory, the establishment of secure borders, civili authority etc etc) via non coercive means.

You're right, can't think of one, which why i think "israel" should have been established in Europe, seen as most of it's inhabitants are European (oh, some Canadians too, but can't class them as European)

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…