Should there be a war on terror and how/who should it be fought?

you really fell into a trap here Carol, Yes london has been a target of terrorists in the past,and not just london,places like Manchester,Birmingham and even little ol Doncaster have been bombed by the IRA PIRA or all new and spangalyIRA . Trouble is,we in the UK are painfully aware that the IRA recieved the bulk of its funds from irish american citizens with the tacit approval of the US treasury department who made sod all attempts to intercept the money.

nope.. not one war on an idea has ever been won.. war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror, war on obecity.. not one of them has been won and never will be.. what a waste..

celinski.. ignoring them is the best policy, imho.. because if anything "they" are actually winning.. how, you say? did you have to have a passport before 01 to travel outisde the country? did you have to give up your blood type just to open a bank account before 01??? do you know where i am going with this?.. what a waste..

and what the hell are we doing in iraq then if we have this war on terror we need to be conducting? all while OBL is walking around free and having a ball.

Could be a new rap in the making...???

..........and what about all the terrorists the USA have supported eg Contras etc.
What about all the democratic countries the USA are supporting terror in now.

Ya I like it. lol kinda pesstimistic though. How about,

ya ya ya... I'm not fat I beat the war on obecity... I hit lotto and now I'm rich...la la la ..... ect ect..



When I read up on this, USA is not the only ones that have been in this position. It is a question in itself.

Carol

I think the original comment was made to be about the human race beating those things not one single individual.

Yeah, isthatu is right, there were no interception attempts. OK, individual situations require independent treatment but the USA actually helped the terrorists. What a triumph for conflict resolution!! I say terrorists as commonly understood, I supported what the IRA was trying to achieve, i.e the liberation of Ireland from Brits, but not through terror.

A lot of people accepted that what the IRA was after was reasonable but obviously not through terror. Sometimes we can see what the terrorists want is reasonable. I can't say that about al qaeda or the Taleban.

I also know that during the time of the IRA campaign I felt safe enough travelling through and staying in various hotels in England. Nowadays I have a certain hesitance when travelling throughout UK. The extremism is a different kind of terrorism because there is no reasoning with the terrorists.

The biggest threat now is Borat.

Again,the myth,I used to buy it as well. What about all the Northern Irish(the majority if im not mistaken) who want to be part of Britain and dont want to be unified with,what was back then practicaly third world southern ireland. So define "liberation", there are two sides to the story of Ulster,not just the "romantic" boyos of the freedom loving,blo ody british empire hating,IRA but all the Unionists (who bred their own terrorist scum to be sure) and people who couldnt be ar sed who governed them as long as bombs wernt going off and kids getting vapourised in market towns.

Of course, ignoring terror doesn't work.

Then again, instigating it is even worse.

America's foreign policy, including funding to the mujihadeen, to autocratic governments in the Arab world, and to Israel all have brought terrorism upon us.

I don't hate the British empire either, liberation in the sense of unification. Again, fighting terror through political bias is no way to do it. Diplock courts, internment (detention without trial) and other measures were effective to some level but grossly unfair. Depriving sb of their liberty without trial is just wrong and the majority of those put in were just rubber stamped, without a proper checking of the evidence. Again, it comes back to intelligence and the need to make it as good as possible and act on it

You mean Falklands?

Couldnt agree more,Im sure it contributed to a few more years of bloodshed.But,again;

Yes,but only a minority wanted/wants this,so why should the majority have rolled over and joined another country.This isnt liberation this is forcible attachment to another state.

It seems penility for crimes have always been used as a deterant. It's not like we can threaten a bomber with the death penitily. With the countries that knowingly sponsor terrorists a financial penitily imposed on the country may alter the methods of using this as a means to achive a goal. Seeing bombers posters on streets like they are hero's of a cause seems rather barbaric.

Personally, I have a hard time thinking of this as nothing but a cowardly waste of human life. How can a goverment hold this much power over their people? Maybe someone that has seen this can give me insight as to how the young men and woman are this convinced they are doing right, they give their lifes? Carol

I was led to believe that it was the other way around, that NI wanted to join EIRE

Sorry,I didnt think we were discusing the present US administration......

You were led wrong then mate,if that had been the case,who would have stopped them? When ireland was partitioned in the 20s it was because the majority of the people of northern ireland didnt want to be come part of the free state.

Haha. And I thought you could be smart enough to answer a question vs. changing the subject. In the future if the question is not one you can answer just ignor it.
Carol

Maybe I was given a copy of IRA Weekly then, hehehe. Ur point makes sense as the Stormont Parliament was created in the 20's, 1926 to be exact. They give their lives because they don't question the US administration as much as they should. In America more than other countries, big corporations maybe don't take the key decisions but they certainly have a huge influence on what happens. Ur average American agrees. These are not the days of revolts by peasants for example. Constitutional provisions preside more, esp in the US. The reality is that the American govt has huge control over its people

??????????
you refer to a govt holding power over its people and encouraging them to give up their lives for a cause.This would be the US administration,because,unless you hadnt noticed ,there isnt a government of Terroriststanibad.
But, to read between the lines,and knowing you a bit now Carol.
The kids who can give up their lives ,do so because they dont see an alternative,how else do they fight such armies as the US or IDF,its as simple as that.


I think a lot of us were,lets just say,it was never one sided,bad deeds were done all round and best left in the past,discuss them,yes, reinvent history,no. If it had been a case of the entire population of NI wanted to suddenly turn catholic and irish nationalist then there wouldnt have been a problem.

The men are convinced that if they die in jihad,they will join heaven where 72 virgins will serve them for the eternity.

Yeah, I agree isthatu, deprivation of liberty was the scandalous part. The benefit of terrorism (almost a paradox/oxymoron I know) is that it often forces the hand of the other party. I've grown to REALLY dislike talks about the Middle East. Overpaid twats discussing intractable problems where the stubborn don't budge. OK, the other option of bloodshed is not so palatable either but I don't like people profiteering excessively when they know b4 entering the talks that they'll MAYBE extract the merest of concessions from the other side, only

This is not Bush's war because he is just a marionette. His intellectual potential seems to be too poor to even think about such possibility. Neocons (and probably many Democrats as well) supported by some big business just take advantage from this situation at best. Politics are dirty not only in the US.



This is not my point. If they would declare "war against extremists" this would not make a difference. Why? Because the enemy still is undefined. You go to war, chase undefined extremists and such war would never end. Who would define whom are the extremists and where are they ? Politicians supported by some agenda. If this agenda make profits from such conflict then this is not in their interest to finally finish the job. Countless number of extremists rising (even by natural way).

As I have write before, if the US would declare the war against for example Iran. The enemy is defined, everything is clear from the start to the end.

Everything Lesser said in the last posting is spot on. War games run riot and profits stack up

And you guys laugh at Bush. I thought it was more for the family being taken care of. Carol

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." Guess who? Mr Champion of Democracy and Saddam killer

Actually, I agree with you. I just didn't put it well. Of course the enemy is undefined yet people are fooled into thinking it is by saying that the Taleban or al qaeda/Bin Laden are the enemy.





This "war" never will end. The US declared war on Iraq and Saddam but what difference has the past few years really made? Still suicide bombs carry on, thousands are killed and British and US (and from many other countries) troops are going to spend even more years in Iraq, Afghanistan. To declare on Iran is to define an enemy but who will be next after them?

Syria is said to be harbouring terrorists. I met a Syrian guy who rejected that outright but America hasn't followed through on that one. They could be next in line.

The point is that the US never declared a war against Iraq. They fight WOT. Saddam's Iraq was a supposed danger. Saddam is removed, Iraq lost, new dependent regime is installed. Americans admitted that Iraq haven't weapons of mass destruction. The troops should be withdrawn, this is not American business how Iraqis will resolve their own problems.

Syria is a jewish target,not an american one.

Anyway it is obvious that Bush regime used the 9/11 attacks to fulfill plans which were set a decade earlier.