Unsurprising developments.

[azekeil]

As dennyd points out, even though Charles Clarke admits ID cards wouldn't stop attacks, they're still planning on being introduced because... er, well, we don't know. They probably wouldn't help in the aftermath investigations. Actually, we're thinking we could just use them to introduce infringements on civil liberties in the name of public safety. Great. I think this is what people have been afraid of.

At least he admits that he wouldn't want to live a life of security checks etc.

However, the second bit is he feels there is no evidence that invading Iraq lead to the attacks on London.

I don't believe that for a second. This is an incredibly dangerous position to adopt. I hope he finds evidence to swiftly change his mind.

I would like to think that we might learn that invading a country may have repercussions we don't like.

Comments

[dj-pooka.livejournal.com]

From all the reports I've seen so far he's right - there's no evidence to point towards the UK involvement in Iraq. Until such time as we know who did it, is it really wise to speculate on the why? At the end of the day, for all we know it could be the french reacting to us winning the olympic bid, it could be the IRA (or one of a number of different offshoots of them), it could be al queida (or however it's spelt!), or it could be the Mars Liberation Front; at the moment there's no proovable evidence one way or another. At the end of the day all we have is that it was smilar to other Al Queda bombings and one statement on a website somewhere; hardly conclusive proof one way or another....

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

No - I believe the statement constitutes evidence. It may turn out to be poor or falsified evidence, but it's evidence nonetheless.

Proof, on the other hand, has not been proven.

It's very definitely my gut feeling that I'm going with here, based on (admittedly) flimsy evidence. But on the other hand - who else has attempted to claim the attacks? Who has decried them and who has supported them?

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Proof has not been proven? Um. Sorry. :)

[dj-pooka.livejournal.com]

Lol it's ok - I didn't say I disagreed, I was just pointing out the fact that there isn't really proof, and I can't accept the statement that was given on the internet because of the number of times that terrorist incidents get claimed by different groups, when it turned out someone completely different did it.

Yes, I do think it's to do with the war, but given a lack of any credible evidence I'm keeping the proverbial options open.

[omylouse.livejournal.com]

It probably was related to the war, but I think it is rather dangerous to jump to conclusions over who did it & why when we have no evidence (if I missed the fact that we have evidence I apologise). Especially given the levels off racial hatred that will come of a result of such a statement. It is important to remember how narrow-minded & bloody stupid the general public can be!