Iceland a terrorist state.

pumpndump

Babycakes wrote: »

i agree - iceland is a terrorist nation.

Get them all into orange suits and send them to Guantanamo.

I agree. We need to pull some troops out of Iraq, and get them into Iceland, seize their assets, and round up the swabs who are responsible for this fiasco. It would liberate their people: if it wasn't for the cold climate and the smell of fish, it would be a banana republic.

iamesbo

greeny12 wrote: »

I think you want to get off your hobby horse about Icesave and get on with the rest of your life.

Iceland started this with all their "rules are changed now and it's everyone for themselves" bravado. Our govt called them out on it, on behalf of all the UK citizens about to get royally f***ed in the backside as a result, and I don't think you'll find too many people who disagree with their 'any means necessary' approach....

Ah...so you think people who lost money in Iceland and were complaining should have gotten off their hobbie horse and "got on with their lives" too?

Funny how people attitudes change when they have been bailed out and can say "I'm alright Jack sod he rest of you."

You pretty much sum up the double standards I have been talking about.

I can't say it is anymore than I expected though. :rolleyes:

greeny12

iamesbo wrote: »

Ah...so you think people who lost money in Iceland and were complaining should have gotten off their hobbie horse and "got on with their lives" too?

Funny how people attitudes change when they have been bailed out and can say "I'm alright Jack sod he rest of you."

You pretty much sum up the double standards I have been talking about.

I can't say it is anymore than I expected though. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you can point to someone - ANYONE - on here who has been caught up in the Icesave fiasco and who has had the attitude of "sod the rest of you" now it looks like things are going to work out for us.

There's a big, big difference in worrying about the very real possibility of losing your hard-earned life savings and somebody who basically has nothing to do with this process (i.e. you) beefing on about how unfair it is that our government has stood behind their fellow citizens, the vast majority of whom are a long way from being 'fat cats'.

If you can't see that difference then more fool you....

going2die_rich

iamesbo wrote: »

The point is it is illegal, they are not terrorists by any stretch of the imagination, therefore the gov has acted unlawfully. They are using the laws illegally to oppress people who are not terrorists. Terrorism is being used to take ordinary people rights away which is a dangerous step.

As someone said on another post, it's financial war. And in times of war, you do what you have to, to protect your people.

going2die_rich

greeny12 wrote: »

There's a big, big difference in worrying about the very real possibility of losing your hard-earned life savings and somebody who basically has nothing to do with this process (i.e. you) beefing on about how unfair it is that our government has stood behind their fellow citizens, the vast majority of whom are a long way from being 'fat cats'.

To be fair, anyone who doesn't even have savings in icelandic banks (like me) who pays taxes (like me) IS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. We as a country now have to pay more taxes (in the long term) to cover any additional expenses/coverage from this if the government can't recoupe the costs from Icelands assets.

I agree with the government putting right what Iceland hadn't, but to guarantee amounts even over £50k was a step too far. It was a much smaller percentage with that amount and if they were stupid enough to risk have more savings in one place than the guarantee covered, they knew the risks so should have faced the harsh reality of that loss.

Hopefully this is the last time the government wastes it's time covering idiots who put more than £50k in one place. As once is bad enough.

beaujolais-nouveau

I don't think it is putting it too strongly to say that Iceland's reaction - holding onto everyone's money, and even taking back funds that were transferred out as long ago as last Friday - is an extremely hostile act. Who can say, given the amounts involved (and that it includes local council investments, too), that this act did not threaten the UK's national security?

The UK Govt would have been failing the British electorate and taxpayer, if it had just rolled over and not seized Iceland's assets in the UK. I didn't have any money in any Icelandic bank, and I am not happy with the breadth of the anti-terrorism powers - and am strongly opposed to extending the time that a suspect can be detained without charge - but in this instance I believe that the Govt has done the right thing: prevented civil unrest, even.

Seajays

thumshie wrote: »

The actual act is "Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act", so is being used for financial security of the country.

I think you are right. It would appear to be Part 2 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 that has been used, which gives the Government the power to enact "Freezing Orders", in certain (quite wide) circumstances - this power is not specifically tied to the requirement for 'terrorism' to be taking place:

4 - Power to make order

(1) The Treasury may make a freezing order if the following two conditions are satisfied.
(2) The first condition is that the Treasury reasonably believe that—

(a) action to the detriment of the United Kingdom’s economy (or part of it) has been or is likely to be taken by a person or persons, or
(b) action constituting a threat to the life or property of one or more nationals of the United Kingdom or residents of the United Kingdom has been or is likely to be taken by a person or persons.

(3) If one person is believed to have taken or to be likely to take the action the second condition is that the person is—

(a) the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or
(b) a resident of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_2#pt2

More info also here: http://chiefofficers.net/888333888/cms/index.php/news/risk_professional/risk_professional_uk_uses_anti_terrorism_sanctions_against_iceland

going2die_rich

baby_boomer wrote: »

It's a great example of why anti-terrorism laws need to be carefully drafted and scrutinised. The one thing we can be sure of is that they always giver government more power.

It's a good job the government had that act in place, else we as taxpayers would be covering the bill, or we'd have had to have told the savers they are on their own.

XXXX

beaujolais-nouveau wrote: »

The UK Govt would have been failing the British electorate and taxpayer, if it had just rolled over and not seized Iceland's assets in the UK.

Indeed if let Iceland to walk free, it would only open a floodgate to other foreign banks alike, to make a mess of us here without suffering consequences. :j

mobfant

Babycakes wrote: »

i agree - iceland is a terrorist nation.

Get them all into orange suits and send them to Guantanamo.

Or maybe close Gitmo and send all the terrorist suspects to Iceland? Plus the weather is more of a punishment to terrorists. America's world image is restored, the terrorists are cold, and Iceland is a pariah state. Everyone wins.