I dread to think. Increased racism. Hatred. Where will the blame go? Blair? Islam? IRA? G8? Anyone non-white? We will be bulldozed into ID CARDS,Black people will still be victim of racism though the attention will shift from very black man like Chris Eubank to light skinned like Rio Ferdinand
I am not looking forward to this.

................................................

By the way dont believe the HYPE about AL QAIDA as they are not that stupid to misquote Quran in like the group that claimed responsibility yesterday Secondly AL qaida would have done a huge damage than those idiots yesterday which brings in the theory that they might be HOME GROWN amateur guys

I don't know if anyone saw the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 but one of the interesting things that was mentioned was the fact that whenever a government want to control people and lead them in any paticular direction, the best way is to create a CLIMATE OF FEAR.

When you have brother verses brother neighbour against neighbour and religous contention and war, people will naturally turn to their leaders for guidence and direction. People in this state are easily molded and shaped and hatred is a powerful weapon to promote and utilise.

This is how a few white men in South Africa were able to control millions of black people.

Cause a little internal strife.Divide us up into sections Blacks, Coloureds etc... Give one section a little more than the other section, then sit back and watchus kill each other instead of fighting you.

What we all have to do isresistthis indoctrination that allows us to be turned into sheep, or should i say lambs to the slaughter...

There is a lot of damage done now, decades of it, and the escalation of it in recent years isn't making it any better. Violence begets violence.
Until the foreign policy stops and until the Arabs are treated fairly (lots of elements to this) there isn't a chance in hell of fixing it now. As long as the USUK keeps attacking, there will be counter attacks.
These radical groups have always existed but they had almost no following until people got more and more fed up with the USUK.

FORGET Farenheit9/11

POWER OF NIGHTMARES WAS THE BIG DEAL

why do you think many pople dont trust politicians anymore?

by the way I am dreading for those ID CARDS

I hear you loud and clear COLTRANE...respect bruv...

But hear dis...Everything about us as individuals they already know

The IdentityCard ting is a distraction... Rightnow this government is in the finalprocess ofputting together a Central Medical Computer System. This system will contain your medical records which will be available to anyone whohas authorised access.

Authorised Access...that's a joke..

On your medical records will contain a world of info such as medical illnessess, race, hobbies,sexual habits etc... in fact every aspect of your entire life...

So don't worry bout IDENTITY CARDS... that is the least of our problems.



June 30, 2005
Medical database is huge security risk and freedom threat, say doctors
By Sam Lister, Health Correspondent


PLANS to put health records on a central computer risk exposing millions of people to data theft and will be a greater infringement of personal freedom than identity cards, doctors said yesterday.

Delegates at the British Medical Association conference gave warning that the £30 billion programme, which is being introduced in the NHS, could have a catastrophic effect on the confidential relationship between a doctor and patient.

Fears were raised at the conference in Manchester over ways in which the electronic system, being developed by NHS Connecting for Health, might be misused by the Government and computer hackers.

The programme will allow doctors to access patient records remotely. Doctors said that, at a time when everyone was talking about ID cards, the health records system was in the process of being implemented with little public knowledge about it.
A poll of almost 2,000 patients by the BMA found that 75 per cent had concerns about the security of their information, although the same proportion said that they did not object to their health information being held on a central record system.
Eleanor Scott, a GP in Barnet, said that the health records system, which is expected to cost at least four times more than ID cards, could see sensitive, confidential information, such as whether someone has HIV or a mental illness, fall into the wrong hands. She said that the “spine� of the records system would be used to provide statistics drawn from unencrypted patient records.
“Here we are arguing about national ID cards and this is far beyond that,� she said. “This is the only single record that contains just about everything on a patient — religion, occupation, hobbies, the kind of family and friends you have, where you have been. There’s no other database like that.
“For a government department to get access to that could be absolutely horrendous.�
Initially only demographic information, such as a person’s name and where they live, will be included on the record, with plans to list more information, such as medication and other health details, in the future.
Dr Scott warned delegates that the Data Protection Act could be overruled by the Government if it believes that an emergency has arisen, including during times of civil unrest or heightened security.
“Under these circumstances the entire spine’s information would be shared between government departments, including the MoD, Home Office, Treasury and police,� she said.
Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA’s head of science and ethics, admitted that the system could be open to abuse, and that doctors and the public needed to lobby ministers to ensure its security.
Simon Eccles, joint clinical leader for the Department of Health’s National Programme for IT, said that database records would not include any conditions that patients might consider stigmatising, such as mental health problems and sexually transmitted diseases.
“There will be absolute and total separation of national care records from all other government computer systems. The NHS is sacrosanct and separate. Absolutely no information that patients do not wish to have shared will be shared.�
Barbara Wood, co-chair of the BMA’s Patient Liaison Group, said that patients recognised the value of centrally held health records but were concerned about who would have access to it.
“Patient groups must be consulted in a meaningful way about the project as it develops if it is to stand any chance of being accepted by the public,� she added.

then again dont forget this government is notorious in COCK-UPS when it comes to IT projects Like:

NHS

CSA

JOB CENTRE PLUS

DWP (before they combined it with Jobcentre)

DVLA

MOD

and many more government QUANGOS

so what makes you think they wont COCK-UP the ID CARD scheme?

@mods

can u plse merge the below thread with this SPECULATIONS thread

http://www.blackchat.co.uk/theblackf...topic_id=13866

[align=left]Clarke set to rush through emergency arrest powers
Possessing A-Z of London a terrorist offence[/align]
[align=left]London Independent | July 8 2005[/align]
Ministers are expected to rush through measures to arrest and detain suspects accused of acts associated with terrorism as an immediate reaction to yesterday's bombings.

A draft Bill outlined in the Queen's Speech in May set out plans to create offences to bring more terror suspects before the courts and is expected to lead to convictions for those accused of acts preparatory to terrorism.

Yesterday's attacks on London will also make it more difficult for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to oppose the introduction of identity cards.

But lawyers and civil rights groups urged the Government not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Peter Carter QC, chairman of the Bar's human rights committee, said he feared the Government would adopt emergency powers that would cause further resentment in Muslim communities but not make Britain a safer place to live.

Mr Carter said: "History has shown us that it is never good to rush through legislation. The laws passed to combat the IRA in the 1970s and 1980s proved a political and a legal disaster."

Mr Carter said the police and security services already had sufficient powers to deal with the threat posed by al-Qa'ida, including an offence of possessing items that were of potential use to a terrorist. Such items, he said, could include an A-Z of London.

Those arrested in the inevitable police raids that will follow yesterday's atrocities are expected to be detained under the toughest powers at the security forces' disposal.

Under the terms of the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act, the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, has the option of using house arrest to detain terror suspects.

Mr Clarke told Parliament in February that he was considering introducing the offence of "being concerned in the commission preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".

In a statement to the Commons, he said: "Some believe that the absence in this country of a terrorist outrage such as 9/11 or Madrid means that the terrorist threat has passed us by or failed to materialise. That view is short-sighted, complacent, ignorant of the facts and potentially cavalier in the disregard of the safety of this country."

[align=left]London Terror Mystery:
What did Bibi know – and when did he know it? [/align]
[align=left]Justin Raimondo | July 8 2005[/align]
London's Terror Thursday establishes three realities beyond the shadow of a doubt: (1) the West is losing the "war on terrorism," (2) in our present strategic mode, we are essentially defenseless against al-Qaeda's offensive – I agree with Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit and author of Imperial Hubris, who said on National Public Radio that this is undoubtedly al-Qaeda's grisly work, and (3) there are more than two sides in this war.

With the G-8 meeting being held in Scotland, security measures in the United Kingdom were at an all-time high – and yet, despite that, al-Qaeda pulled off a fairly complex operation, involving four separate bombings, three underground trains and one bus, which was peeled away from its chassis like an opened can of beans, as one witness described it. Indeed, the London attacks have opened up a very big can of worms for Blair's government, and in Washington too, where they're realizing that the "fly trap" tactic they've been employing in Iraq has backfired rather badly.

If the Brits couldn't prevent such a sophisticated and highly coordinated attack at a time like this – when the meeting of the G-8 had British security on high alert – then one can only conclude, along with Scheuer, that the terrorists held back, and could have caused far more damage and taken many more lives if they so chose. Perhaps that thought is meant to sink into the British consciousness. The terrorists' message is clear enough: your government can't protect you. This much seems beyond dispute.

The second message may be gleaned from the statement of responsibility for the attacks, which appeared on a jihadist Web site that has been utilized by al-Qaeda on previous occasions to make announcements. Here is screenshot of the message posted shortly after the attacks, and here is a translation, courtesy of Wikipedia:

"In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, may be upon the cheerful one and undaunted fighter, Prophet Muhammed, God's peace be upon him.

"Nation of Islam and Arab nation: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters.

"We have repeatedly warned the British government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid.

"We continue to warn the governments of Denmaark and all the crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused.

"God says: 'You who believe: If ye will aid (the cause of) God, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly.'"

Bin Laden's message to Muslims is that the West, far from being invulnerable, can be defeated. His primary target remains the U.S., not Britain or any of the other countries mentioned in the claim of responsibility, and his chief objective is to get us out of the Middle East. The jihadist mindset is eerily similar to that of our own leaders, and their neoconservative amen corner, who continue to advance the proposition that we must fight "the terrorists" in the streets of Baghdad so we don't have to do battle in the streets of London, Rome, and New York City. Bush declares that "we are going on the offensive," but, as I pointed out only last week, so are they:

"The President gloats that 'we're on the offense' – and explicitly justifies this on the grounds that we have to go after them before they go after us. Yet why it is impossible for them to attack the U.S. [Ed: or the UK] anyway, even while fighting American troops in Iraq, no one seems to know."

For every action there is an equal and opposite www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/ae/books/reviews/2632805+qana+bamford&hl=en]reaction[/url]: while the Islamists cannot begin to bring the sort of firepower that we wield in Iraq to bear in the streets of London, they can, over time, create conditions where a stiff upper lip is not enough. At that point – or, hopefully, well before then – the Brits, and indeed all of us in the West, are going to have to make a cold calculation of the costs and the benefits of invading the Middle East. Is it worth the high price we must pay, or is it time to come up with a strategy a bit more sophisticated than shaking the tree in which the hornets' nest sits – in the hope that it will eventually fall to the ground?

If the answer is yes, it is worth it, then we must be prepared to do what the War Party has been urging since 9/11: abolishing for the durationmany of the freedoms we now enjoy and signing on to a foreign policy of perpetualwar against much of the Muslim world. Aside from taxing ourselves into penury and instituting a military draft, this means basically shutting down the relatively free society we have been living in and replacing it with a garrison state, one in which freedom of movement, of privacy, of the right to not be tracked by the government 24/7 goes the way of the horse-and-buggy, spats, and the music of Tommy Dorsey.

To answer "no," however, is to take the path of what the War Party derides as "appeasement" – in spite of the reality that our present policy is an invaluable aid to bin Laden and his cohorts. Against the tidalwave of emotion – a good deal of it cheap histrionics – the advocates of a rational foreign policy will have to fight an uphill battle, at least for the moment. However, when the dust clears, and common sense sets in, the backlash against the Blair government is sure to rise up: after all, the Israelis claimed – at least at one point – that the Brits warned them of the attack "minutes" in advance. The British authorities, for their part, deny any such warning – as the Israelis are now doing, at least offically.

The first Associated Press story about a warning received by former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu said this:

"British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before Thursday's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said. Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had planned to attend an economic conference in a hotel over the subway stop where one of the blasts occurred, and the warning prompted him to stay in his hotel room instead, government officials said. …

"Just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the Israeli Embassy to say they had received warnings of possible attacks, the official said. He did not say whether British police made any link to the economic conference. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the nature of his position."

In subsequent versions of the same story, all references to the call from Scotland Yard have been scrubbed, and we are told that Netanyahu received the warning after the blasts. This instant revisionism was duly noted by the blogosphere. It took them a while to get their story straight – and I'm not talking about the Associated Press.

So when did Netanyahu receive his warning – and who warned whom? Stratfor.com circulated an interesting analysis shortly after the first stories began to come out: Although several news reports had Netanyahu on his way to the conference, Stratfor avers that he simply stayed put. Also noted is Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom's denial that Scotland Yard informed the Israeli Embassy of the attacks in advance, with the Brits echoing this "clarification," but Stratfor has the supposed scoop:

"Contrary to original claims that Israel was warned 'minutes before' the first attack, unconfirmed rumors in intelligence circles indicate that the Israeli government actually warned London of the attacks 'a couple of days' previous. Israel has apparently given other warnings about possible attacks that turned out to be aborted operations. The British government did not want to disrupt the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, or call off visits by foreign dignitaries to London, hoping this would be another false alarm.

"The British government sat on this information for days and failed to respond. Though the Israeli government is playing along publicly, it may not stay quiet for long. This is sure to apply pressure on Blair very soon for his failure to deter this major terrorist attack."

I would also point out that Stratfor, with its passion for reiterating the obvious, stated in its summary that "there has been massive confusion" over the warning – confusion generated by whom, and to what purpose, is best left to the fertile imaginations of my readers.

The Stratfor piece puts the best spin on this story, at least from the Israeli point of view. If word that Netanyahu had a warning got out, then the best way to salvage it – and even score a few brownie points in the process – is to float the story that the warning was received not minutes but days before the attacks, and that the recipient of those warnings was not Netanyahu but the British government. Taking the focus off the eternal "war on terrorism," and trying to solve the problems of world poverty