It’s been quite interesting reading the lead stories in most of the Sunday press today concerning the alarming prospects for PM Gordon Brown and then comparing these with the BBC. With gloom and doom everywhere as tales emerge of plots and intrigues, Gordon Brown can at least gain small comfort in the re-assuring BBC headline that there is “No appetite to oust Brown as PM.” From Jabba the Hut (Prescott) to Postman Pat (Johnson), the BBC has helpfully provided a forum for those selected to calm Brown’s nerves. It looks to me that the BBC wants to see Brown survive, but only if he moves to the left.
CONTRASTING HEADLINES.
Bookmark the permalink.
“Brilliant from someone who never publishes a single, verifiable fact”
Brilliant from a moron who cannot read – I have published scads of verifiable facts – and who is so ignorant and stupid he thinks the Jews are not a nation.
“we are capable of understanding the point that an attack on the military is not a terror attack”.
Just a slight correction, attacks by illegal combatants,not in uniform or wearing insignia,many of whom are not Even Iraqis,are indeed terror attacks.
Just a slight correction, attacks by illegal combatants,not in uniform or wearing insignia,many of whom are not Even Iraqis,are indeed terror attacks
I disagree, it is the target of the attack that in principle defines terrorism. An attack on the military is not a etrrorist attck, regardless of how the attacker is dressed. However anyone caught attacking a military installation and not wearing uniform should be treated as such.
I agree with Arthur; I was going to say exactly the same thing. The whole idea of ‘legality’ is a red herring to say the least. ‘Legality’ is defined by the more powerful party, hence is not a reliable criterion.
Nonetheless “Illegal/unlawful Combatants” are what applies under the Geneva Conventions.Putting a bomb in the canteen is terrorism.
Yes, but the Geneva conventions are a polite fiction. They are not, despite the terminology used, a set of laws.