What now for Iceland - The Terrorist Nation

mjmal51

Babycakes wrote: »

So what next for Iceland? They have proven to have no integrity and no regard for British savers.

They have had anti-terrorist laws to freeze their assets in the UK. Good on you Gordon Brown - I really think you have become a first class prime minister in the last day!

They have not sent out a single clear or consistent message.

Lets treat them with the contempt they deserve. Dirty scoundrels that they are.

Yes Mr Icelandic PM - that means you.

Totally agree. Would love to read the full story of the goings on behind the scenes over the last week re. Icesave and Kaupthing. The British Government have done a first rate job in protecting the money of its own citizens and full marks to them, there are many relieved people on this forum who were having sleepless nights earlier this week.
Seems like a Financial SAS were sent in to seize everything before Iceland could steal it to prop up their currency. Maybe one of the quality Sunday newspapers will have the full story?

oldwiring

OT and probably will not be appreciated, The Icelandic finances are a mess and many people have been hurt. However they are not monsters, far from it from what I saw in a recent hol there. I bet the ordinary folk are suffering there too.

For your own sakes try to remember that, and be forgiving.

JimmyTheWig

cordelia0507 wrote: »

You can hardly even farm there - the weather is quite harsh.

Oh, I didn't think that was true? I was led to believe that the Vikings named Iceland and Greenland in that way to steer people away from Iceland so that they could have it all to themselves.

Comfortably_Numb

MrExample wrote: »

I don't know about anyone else, but, while I'm very pleased to be getting my money back, the (ab)use of so-called anti-terrorism laws in this way is quite scary, and seems very wrong to me.

The Act they used does not just deal with terrorism, and the part required for this action has nothing to do with terrorists.

The headline makers are making mischief with this, and many people seem to believe them.

Seajays

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Oh, I didn't think that was true? I was led to believe that the Vikings named Iceland and Greenland in that way to steer people away from Iceland so that they could have it all to themselves.

Farming was the mainstay for a long time (mid 19th century 70-80% lived off farming). In 2002 it was only 3.9%.

When the Vikings got there there was 60% coverage of vegetation. They now have a big desert (third of the country), and massive problems with soil erosion etc. Most of the farming is sheep (and some cattle), with some vegetables etc in geothermally heated greenhouses (it being the sub-arctic and all).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4737743.stm
http://www.iceland.is/economy-and-industry/agriculture//nr/29

movilogo

This is a case, unlike other, when I truly support Brown's action. At least he has shown that Britain has backbone to freeze Icelandic assets.

Well done GB. Shame on you Iceland.

savvy

Comfortably_Numb wrote: »

The headline makers are making mischief with this, and many people seem to believe them.

Don't they always :rolleyes: I've always maintained that it's the media that controls this country.

f_@_w_y

TRUSt_NO_1 wrote: »

Leave your central heating on 24/7 for 6 months and melt their country !

it will be good for them if we melt their ice.... the iceland is all covered with white, where they cant do anything....

they will be glad if we melt their ice and give them more land to use our deposits!!!:rotfl:

MrExample

Comfortably_Numb wrote: »

The Act they used does not just deal with terrorism, and the part required for this action has nothing to do with terrorists.

The headline makers are making mischief with this, and many people seem to believe them.

Well, the only facts we have show this to be the case, and no one is gov't has denied it. In fact, someone is quoted as having said it just happend to be where the power was.

That's the trouble with terrorism laws, they are too wide and vague. Being able to freeze the assets of a private company on a whim is crazy. Maybe we should lock up all Icelanders in the UK for 42 days until we get our money back?

What I'm wondering is this: was the freeze a consequence of the Icelandic PM's actions, or the cause of it? Knowing what Mr Brown and co. are capable of, it wouldn't surprise me at all if this was another blunder in disguise.