08 terrorist threat?

[Libertarian]

Without seeming like a doom monger has anyone given any thought to the possibility that Liverpool could be a terror target in 08? Has any work been done to prevent this?

[Gerard]

Its not something I've given much thought to lately..

Sorry Sub mate..yer asked for this..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

[Ernie]

:PDT_Aliboronz_24:Should imagine so, St Annes police station is a training
centre for anti terrorism.
Ernie.

[Kev]

..have we been given the money yet to top-up the 08 money? Mr Brown better get his hand in the pocket.

[Max]

I hope they blow up the Echo Building.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

But not before I snap a pic of the building to show the shame of a poor designed building.

[Cadfael]

There are plans in place for any event in Liverpool, not just for 2008 when something major happens. People in the Council who aren't normally at the front line of the news deal and prepare for any problems, from buildings that have partly fallen down to mass bomb alerts.

[SteveFaragher]

Terrorists will not be able to target any events as Im not sure anyone knows when and where things are going to happen.

I suppose there will be yet another (the third I think) launch in November, so if I go I will be looking out for suspicious characters trying to find out what's going on in 08, although there is a good chance they might be from the culture company.

In reality if alquida want to target 08 if the warning phone call mentions the word "community" then the CC might want to put up a marquee and do the catering.

[snappel]

I doubt it. Hardly anyone I've talked to outside Liverpool seems to know what 'Capital of Culture' is, let alone the names of either of the cities that hold the title in 2008.

I think the Olympics is more likely to be targetted, but then again, maybe not, as terrorists will know that security there is top notch.

[Paul D]

The Mersey Tunnels seem an obvious target to me,I hope I'm wrong.

[SteveFaragher]

The Mersey Tunnels seem an obvious target to me,I hope I'm wrong.

there was this alQuaida terrorist who tried to blow up the 08 bus and burnt his mouth on the exhaust pipe.

So whats so wrong with recycling 70's IRA jokes then

[chippie]

nothing at all Steve, but watch out for Kevin on the prowl, he might give your hand a slap for such jokes.:shock:

[Howie]

Without seeming like a doom monger has anyone given any thought to the possibility that Liverpool could be a terror target in 08? Has any work been done to prevent this?
A Reader's Digest survey conducted last year claimed that none of the UK's major cities is fully ready to deal with a major disaster or a terrorist attack on the scale of the 7 July bombings and concluded that Liverpool was the least-prepared.

[iain]

Let's hope the powers-that-be took some notice of that survey.

[Howie]

Let's hope the powers-that-be took some notice of that survey.
I understand the concerns were around the incompatibility of communication systems used by the various emergency services and the explanation of the city's emergency evacuation plan. The 'powers-that-be' appeared dismissive of the reports findings.

[shank]

i feel sorry for ordinary Muslims in this country the stigma they suffer must be bad i know they say not all Muslim's are not terrorists but the sad fact is in this present time all terrorists are Muslim's.

[A.D.W]

Maybe, just maybe if the Western Armies left Iraq there would be fewer 'terrorist' attacks in Blighty?

[Max]

Maybe, just maybe if the Western Armies left Iraq there would be fewer 'terrorist' attacks in Blighty?

How? Terrorists were attacking places before Iraq and Afghanistan.

[A.D.W]

How? Terrorists were attacking places before Iraq and Afghanistan.

Maybe they were, but they have a 'good excuse' so long as we remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, Max.

[Max]

And we have an excuse to stay If they keep setting bombs off at airports also.

[A.D.W]

And we have an excuse to stay If they keep setting bombs off at airports also.

Could be in for a long 'war' then, Max!!

:PDT_Xtremez_42:

[ChrisGeorge]

Maybe, just maybe if the Western Armies left Iraq there would be fewer 'terrorist' attacks in Blighty?

We'd be targets anyway, let's not kid ourselves. The Iraq intervention has not helped matters but it's not the reason we are being attacked.

Chris

[A.D.W]

We'd be targets anyway, let's not kid ourselves. The Iraq intervention has not helped matters but it's not the reason we are being attacked.

Chris


The reason being what exactly?

[Max]

Maybe one reason Is that they can't accept our way of life maybe?

[marie]

Without seeming like a doom monger has anyone given any thought to the possibility that Liverpool could be a terror target in 08? Has any work been done to prevent this?

WHAT WAS CELEBRATED IN NEW YORK, MADRID AND LONDON, THE DAY OF THE LAST BOMBS?? Nothing was celebrated, was one more day for the people. There is NO REASON to believe that a celebration attracts a terrorist.

Liverpool with its 800 anniversary. It is not celebrate any political summit. The same fear they have my parents in the city of Saragossa. Next year is the Universal Exposition 08, and they are afraid of the same thing. Besides Saragossa is an important religious point, for the Cathedral of Pilar. Sincerely, I do not look like to me motives for thinking about an attempt ...

I do not believe that this city is an aim. If a city is objective, it is London. Besides for political reasons, it is much easier.

On the safety in Standted's airport, it seems to me to be ridiculous. An endless wait, which does not use as anything. I providing that I have travelled for a few days, have taken my baggage with me and they have never said to me at all for taking a bag of bathroom.

[marie]

Maybe one reason Is that they can't accept our way of life maybe?

MAX or anybody:

A question, why they place bombs? With this I do not want to justify theirs actions, theirs murders... Simply to think, with that the good ones, sometimes are not so good...

The people without culture, are very manajable. Persons who have born in a place with a strong rooting to the religion, without access to a free education, without access to Internet, without access to channels and foreign books...

For me, they are not fewer victims than the murdered ones in theirs attempts. They were marionettes. A person was indicate with the finger and they shot... The guilty only ones are the persons that they re prohibiting an education and are teaching them to hate, in order to be of benefit economically...

[MarkA]

EDITED *I shouldn't be discussing this subject on an open forum where people can read threads without registering*

[marie]

They do it because they're stupid enough to brainwashed into believing that they'll be rewarded in Heaven for their actions. If they didn't have anyone to blow up they'd just have to behave like lemmings and throw themselves off cliffs.


I do know that lemmings don't actually throw themselves off cliffs but it's a good analogy

I am sorry! but I am not agree. I think that they are not stupids... I think that they re victims too.

If u or me, were born in a small village of Afghanistan, surely were proud of that our son was dying in an attempt.

The guilty only ones are the persons who prohibit them to have access to a culture, to books, to Internet, to television, to radio, to press, etc. independent.

The same persons are those who work out benefited economically from this, live in palaces, and do not spend hunger...

[marie]

Please, if someone is interesting in trying to understand their actions, not to justify them! I recommend this book...

Tittle: BURNT ALIVE (QUEMADA VIVA)
Autor: SOUAD

The first testimony of a victim of a crime of honor:
Souad was seventeen years old when it could only a pregnant woman without being married; in her country it means the death. While she was washing the clothes in the court of her house it saw terrified how her brother-in-law was approaching him, it was spraying it with petrol and was igniting a match. Jacqueline Thibault, cooperating of the Swiss foundation To arise, her helped to go out of her country with her baby and to overcome her drama.
Souad is a fictitious name, a personality invented for a woman cisjordana that was burned alive. Forever it will be marked by wild scars in her body and her soul.

She speaks on her culture. She counts since she was understood that they wanted to kill her, for that it had dishonored to her family. She understood that her mother was murdering her children, for whom she did not need any more hands to help in house...

What more I am overawed it is this: When she was in the hospital in Switzerland, and she sees a nurse with white garment and the free hair, speaking with a man I shout him: she is going to die, she must die...
Now she itself scares, of since age capable of thinking that one...
With this I want to say, that if you have not seen another thing, for which nobody has given you an opportunity to see beyond, which happens around you, it is the correct thing.

They are victimes in all that...

[MarkA]

EDITED *I shouldn't be discussing this subject on an open forum where people can read threads without registering*

[snappel]

Or living under a regime of fear. Fear of the authorities, fear of punishment in the afterlife. Through this fear, newer generations are indoctrinated in the same fear and so it perpetuates. Religion is forced on these people, they're made to pray and totally absorbed in it. You'd have to be very brave and very free-minded to live somewhere like Iran as a native and not practice Islam.

The West is an enemy of Islam, not because of the war in Iraq, Afghanistan or the foreign policies of the US and UK, but because they abhor the things we embrace. Free speech, freedom of choice in the religion we do/do not practice, sexual freedom, alcohol. The list goes on, and so we're seen as a threat to Islam.

Look at all the fuss about Salman Rushdie. The Pakistan religious minister said the honour justified suicide bombings in retaliation. This is what we're up against!

Anyone who things that if it wasn't for Iraq and our involvement with the US we would be free of these kinds of terrorist attacks is deluding themself.

[Ged]

Maybe they were, but they have a 'good excuse' so long as we remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, Max.


What was their 'good excuse' beforehand then or did they just have a 'bad excuse' :)

[snappel]

Yeah, what was the excuse for 9/11 then ADW?

I think it's shocking to hear British citizens excusing the actions of these people. In effect, you're making their aim of unsettling the British population a **** sight easier.

[A.D.W]

Yeah, what was the excuse for 9/11 then ADW?

Maybe Palestine was their excuse.


I think it's shocking to hear British citizens excusing the actions of these people. In effect, you're making their aim of unsettling the British population a **** sight easier.

I am not excusing their actions at all. Just putting a point of view across.

[Max]

What would be the point In merely just bombing us back just because our army did something wrong In somewhere like Palestine?

Apparently two doctors are held as suspects!:eek:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6261076.stm

[A.D.W]

What would be the point In merely just bombing us back just because our army did something wrong In somewhere like Palestine?

If I were an Iraqi, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms-never-never-never.

The above are a play on words from my old mucker William Pitt.

[Max]

That would only apply If we were defending our country from Invading armies not doing a counter attack.

Were talking about terrorist attacks and why they do It.



The above are a play on words from my old mucker William Pitt.

???

[A.D.W]

That would only apply If we were defending our country from Invading armies not doing a counter attack.

I doubt that in a milion years Saddam would have ever invaded this country. Therefore I fail to see why we invaded Iraq and why we are still there many years later.

[Max]

I couldn't see Saddam Invading us either but thats not really much of a reply towards terrorists excuses and motives to bomb the west.

I was for getting him out of power though. Depends on whether they were Sunni's and Shiites on wether they wanted Saddam out of power too.

Don't you see a reason for getting rid of dictators though?

[PhilipG]

I couldn't see Saddam Invading us either but thats not really much of a reply towards terrorists excuses and motives to bomb the west.

I was for getting him out of power though. Depends on whether they were Sunni's and Shiites on wether they wanted Saddam out of power too.

Don't you see a reason for getting rid of dictators though?



Dictators are leaders who do just what they want, without listening to anybody else.

Rather like Tony Blair and George Bush.

[Max]

:eek:Bush and Blair don't murder their own people though when someone opposes their ways.

Just because they do things that people disagree with doesn't mean they dont listen to their advisor's and party.

[snappel]

I doubt that in a milion years Saddam would have ever invaded this country. Therefore I fail to see why we invaded Iraq and why we are still there many years later.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. He was a threat to Western democracy, WMDs or not. Look at what's happening now - North Korea, Iran, Pakistan - lots of Middle Eastern countries want nuclear arms. I reckon if old Saddam was around he'd be dipping his fingers in the pies. He was a liability who tortured and murdered his own with reckless abandoned, starving his nation just like Mugabe. He had to go, and I'm glad he has. I hope that if the UK ever becomes like Saddam-regime Iraq with a sh1t-head dictator*, a load of gung-ho Yanks come and kick him out for us.

WMDs, or no WMDs.

EDIT: *And by the way, if you use this to make a stupid, boring, predictable cheap shot at Blair or Bush and call them sh1t-head dictators, worse than Saddam, then you really are caught up in the 'illegal war' hysteria.

[A.D.W]

Unfortunately it's not that simple. He was a threat to Western democracy, WMDs or not.

A threat to Western democracy? Oh aye! Saddam had plans to invade Britain and kill thousands of British people. Whoops! That's what we did to Iraq.


Look at what's happening now - North Korea, Iran, Pakistan - lots of Middle Eastern countries want nuclear arms.

I see you didn't mention Israel there.


I reckon if old Saddam was around he'd be dipping his fingers in the pies. He was a liability who tortured and murdered his own with reckless abandoned, starving his nation just like Mugabe.

Guantanamo Bay.


He had to go, and I'm glad he has. I hope that if the UK ever becomes like Saddam-regime Iraq with a sh1t-head dictator*, a load of gung-ho Yanks come and kick him out for us.

Indeed so. And I'll be one of those that fight the American invader.

:)

[marie]

7 Spanish, Catalan and Basque tourists, have died in an attempt in Yemen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6262302.stm


Rest in peace, Goian bego

[PhilipG]

Unfortunately it's not that simple. He was a threat to Western democracy, WMDs or not. Look at what's happening now - North Korea, Iran, Pakistan - lots of Middle Eastern countries want nuclear arms. I reckon if old Saddam was around he'd be dipping his fingers in the pies. He was a liability who tortured and murdered his own with reckless abandoned, starving his nation just like Mugabe. He had to go, and I'm glad he has. I hope that if the UK ever becomes like Saddam-regime Iraq with a sh1t-head dictator*, a load of gung-ho Yanks come and kick him out for us.

WMDs, or no WMDs.

EDIT: *And by the way, if you use this to make a stupid, boring, predictable cheap shot at Blair or Bush and call them sh1t-head dictators, worse than Saddam, then you really are caught up in the 'illegal war' hysteria.


Oh, dear me. I didn't know I said that.
What a vehement response to a half-joke. :shock:
(If you weren't referring to me, then I apologise).
Blair and Bush took us into Iraq, ignoring the majority of their advisors, which was certainly not a democratic action.

[snappel]

Nah, wasn't intended for you Philip...

[AK1]

I agreed with the military action taken on Iraq and still do. It doesn't matter if Saddam was a threat to us or not, he was a threat to his own people and was commiting mass murder. How can we just sit back and let this happen. Diplomatic channels where used countless times before military action was taken. If we had someone like Saddam running our country, I would want other countries to intervene and help.
The problem with todays society is that alot of people have the attidude of ' it doesn't affect me, so I don't care '. This is the wrong attitude to have. People fail to see the bigger picture and fail to think outside of their own little world. We are all human at the end of the day, and we should all look after eachother, no matter what country we are from. Dictators like Saddam and Mugabe etc should not be tolerated. If we where more united and less divided, the world would be a much better place.

[Ged]

The only thing I would say about that is, there are plenty of other dictators around the world, Iran, N.Korea, East Timor and all that - It looks hollow and like it is just for oil if we pick and choose which dictators to remove, the ones where it's in our interests.

[A.D.W]

Don't you see that whoever's doing it is trying to give us a taste of what it must be like to be an Iraqi?

Most of us seem to think we should continue unthinkingly supporting or putting up with have a government that pointlessly messes up other people's lives because we do not like their ruler.

Terrorising us is the only way the only language some of us will ever understand to convey the enormity of the crime that has been perpetrated against the Iraqi people.

It is an attempt to make the unquestioning and the unthinking question and think, in my humble opinion.

Do the means justify the ends? If you are British and previously safe you might not think the same as an Iraqis who were previously relatively safer and who are now daily terrorised, maimed and killed by car bombs. I have no doubt that some of them would like us to see THEIR point of view, for a change.

Look carefully, and you will find "how would you like it if you had a taste of your own medicine?" messages contained in the cars of these terrorists.

I have no doubt one or the other: Labour and Tory - who both supported the war - will be voted in again at the next election. This is after all the glorious system of democracy that we are all so proud of. We would not change it for the world, would we?

[PhilipG]

Getting rid of Saddam wasn't the reason for invading Iraq, and it was just a lucky stroke that he was found (almost by accident) in a hole in the ground.
If they hadn't found him, we wouldn't be hearing this lame excuse about 'regime change'.

[AK1]

I agree, although I think it's more the U.S. who is interested in the oil, and military action is not an option with some countries such as N.Korea who have the means to retaliate.
I do think though that it's time for a change with what we are doing in Iraq. The military action worked in getting rid of Saddam and crippling his regime, but all this fighting is getting us nowhere anymore. I think a cease fire should be called and we should begin talks with some of the Iraqi groups.
I know that some of them are blatant terrorists who simply want to kill and obtain power, but some of them are genuinely misguided and have the belief that we are actually trying to take over and rule their country which is completely wrong.
These are the groups we should talk to and try to develop some sort of agreement where we both have a simple goal to make Iraq democratic and self sufficient and to get rid of the extremists which would be alot easier if we work together.
I am speaking from a purely British point of view and believe that the U.S shouldn't be involved anymore. They have a nack for making things worse and they are far less trustworthy than the U.K.

[snappel]

If they hadn't found him, we wouldn't be hearing this lame excuse about 'regime change'.
Whether he was found or not, he wouldn't be in power now, he'd still be hiding in a whole. So lame or not, the 'regime change' reason/excuse would still stand.

I doubt it's all about oil. The Middle East has about 20% of the World's oil or something doesn't it? Bearing in mind the shear cost and effort of repairing the facilities, getting the oil out and giving the Iraqis a payment, I shouldn't think it would be worth the billions spent on the war effort just for that. Besides which, I reckon your average Iraqi would benefit more from the oil being sold/extracted by the Yanks than when Saddam did it.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi all

It's also a matter of the United States believing it can shape the future of the Middle East (as misguided as that might be) and of having a base of operations in the region. It's still unclear whether the U.S. will get permanent bases in Iraq out of their venture into that country, but there is a strong line of thought that the intervention in Iraq was partly done to have such bases. A partial U.S. withdrawal would likely leave American bases in Iraq, ostensibly to continue to train Iraqi military and police. It is probable that whether the world likes it or not, the U.S. will retain an interest in Iraq unless turfed out by a new strongman or a regional war.

Chris

[marie]

Hi all

It's also a matter of the United States believing it can shape the future of the Middle East (as misguided as that might be) and of having a base of operations in the region. It's still unclear whether the U.S. will get permanent bases in Iraq out of their venture into that country, but there is a strong line of thought that the intervention in Iraq was partly done to have such bases. A partial U.S. withdrawal would likely leave American bases in Iraq, ostensibly to continue to train Iraqi military and police. It is probable that whether the world likes it or not, the U.S. will retain an interest in Iraq unless turfed out by a new strongman or a regional war.

Chris

Chris, Do u know Fort Bliss in El Paso, Tx?

[ChrisGeorge]

Chris, Do u know Fort Bliss in El Paso, Tx?

Hi Marie

I don't know Fort Bliss but I have been around or on a number of other U.S. Army bases in the United States.

Chris

[Sloyne]

Unfortunately it's not that simple. He was a threat to Western democracy, WMDs or not. Please explain how he threatened "Western democracy"? Thank in advance.

[Sloyne]

It is probable that whether the world likes it or not, the U.S. will retain an interest in Iraq unless turfed out by a new strongman or a regional war. Initially, maybe, but I believe the Iraqi resistance will expel them regardless of a strongman or not. The Americans have become the most hated of the occupiers and even the most moderate Iraqi want them out. A look at BBC and Canadian TV news broadcasts shows the depth of feeling against the US occupiers by the "ordinary" Iraqis. US TV news broadcasts are highly sanitized and the average American are receiving a false picture. The US military are the most powerful on the planet, from 35,000 feet and a thousand miles at sea. Face to face with a highly motivated enemy on it's own turf, the GI is just another enemy soldier and not a superman.

[ChrisGeorge]

Initially, maybe, but I believe the Iraqi resistance will expel them regardless of a strongman or not. The Americans have become the most hated of the occupiers and even the most moderate Iraqi want them out. A look at BBC and Canadian TV news broadcasts shows the depth of feeling against the US occupiers by the "ordinary" Iraqis. US TV news broadcasts are highly sanitized and the average American are receiving a false picture. The US military are the most powerful on the planet, from 35,000 feet and a thousand miles at sea. Face to face with a highly motivated enemy on it's own turf, the GI is just another enemy soldier and not a superman.


Hi Sloyne

I agree that the average American is being misled as to the nature of the situation in Iraq. The American public has been fed the line by Bush and Co. that it is mainly a war against Al Queda and the people who attacked the World Trade Center. They are not being told that the U.S. is trapped in an unwinnable civil war. I also agree that there is a myth about the invincibility of the U.S. armed forces. In this situation, they can't win because they are fighting an undefined enemy in a hostile country.

Chris

[marie]

Hi Marie

I don't know Fort Bliss but I have been around or on a number of other U.S. Army bases in the United States.

Chris

My English is not good and it is difficult to explain the situation, if you do not know Fort Bliss.
When I visited for the first time Fort Bliss, El Paso, and thanks to a veteran familiar...
Aside the colony of City Juarez, hundreds of broken houses accumulated, without light, without water... to another side of the border, machines destroying new houses in Fort Bliss.
When I asked porqué, the response was: they need to spend the budget, in order that to the next year, they do not reduce it.
Till now we have been speaking about deads.
I now raise the money that the armies become exhausted. Money that is mine, yours and of all people, when I have not chosen to go to a war. Money that is stolen to other departments, education, health...

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Marie

What you describe is true. I have been to El Paso but not Fort Bliss, and I agree the contrast between the poverty of Juarez and the prosperity of the United States is shocking. I passed over the border just for the experience of doing so (I was on a cross-country bus trip some twenty years ago) and the young people holding out styrofoam cups on the Mexican side proved an eye-opener to me, as well as the shacks visible on that side of the river. The military-industrial complex is one of the biggest industries in the United States, and when the budget calls for demolition of new housing that is what will happen.

Chris

[Sloyne]

I agree that the average American is being misled as to the nature of the situation in Iraq. The American public has been fed the line by Bush and Co. that it is mainly a war against Al Queda and the people who attacked the World Trade Center. They are not being told that the U.S. is trapped in an unwinnable civil war. I also agree that there is a myth about the invincibility of the U.S. armed forces. In this situation, they can't win because they are fighting an undefined enemy in a hostile country. The blueprint for this war was drawn up in Korea and has been followed, with only slight modification, everywhere the US has invaded since Korea. The US seems to be a prisoner of it's own propaganda when it comes to military action. An often used, but failed, tactic is that of pacification and the British experience in Malaya is often held up as a shining example of this tactic, forgetting of course that the British were fighting Chinese communist "insurgents" and not native Malayans. The majority of the native population in Malaya, Muslims, where as averse to communism, no matter what stripe, as were the British capitalists. This, and this fact alone, led to the success of the pacification policy.

US foreign policy has been, for the most part, a disaster ever since the Monroe Doctrine declaration. The only thing American foreign policy seems to accomplish is the fostering and festering of long term hatred of that country and, by extension, it's citizens. Who would blame Syrians, Lebanese, Sudanese, Saudis, etc hating Americans. It is the US that keeps despotic dictators, like the Saudi Royal family, in power and bombs them from 30,000 feet and sends cruise missiles from a thousand miles at sea. And when they do happen to dislodge a dictator, like the Iranians did the Shah in 1948, the US CIA returns him to the throne to continue his despotic rule. The same can be said for the countries of the Caribbean, Central and South America. The US kept despotic criminals in power for the sake of the investments of United Fruit, IT&T and ALCOA. They, the US, are doing the same in the Middle East for Israel, Exxon-Mobil, Texaco et al. Who was it who said; "What you shall sow, so shall you reap"?

[AK1]

I have a genuine belief that if the U.S. wasn't involved in this war, then everyone would be in a much better position today. They might have one of the biggest military forces in the world but they are poorly trained compared to other countries and their foreign policy is awful. They will only get involved in a conflict if it directly threatens America or will have some sort of benefit to them, as was the case in WW2.
I think that Europe and other countries should take control of the situation in the middle east with the U.S. taking a back seat, although I can't see this happening. They make situations worse with their trigger happy nature and fail to realise that shooting at everything doesn't solve problems, it creates them.
They have a very out dated military in terms of it's size. There is no need for huge military's in todays world as terrorism is the main threat to a country not invasion.They focus too much on quantity and not quality. Small agile forces and technology are the way forward.

[Sloyne]

There is no need for huge military's in todays world as terrorism is the main threat to a country not invasion.They focus too much on quantity and not quality. Small agile forces and technology are the way forward. Staying out of other peoples business, not supporting despots and dictators, attending to the interests and needs of ones own average citizen and not just the powerful wealthy few with special interests would, in my opinion, go a long way in combating terrorism. Solve the root cause of terrorism and you won't have terrorism or, you won't have it on the scale we have today. Just look at the Northern Irish situation, who would have thought a decade ago that we would now have a coalition in Stormont and, uneasy though it is, peace in the province? The catholic grievances have been, to a certain extent, answered satisfactory.

It is more complex in the Middle East with the Israeli situation, and the Wests slavish compliance with Israeli and US dictats for the region, at the root problem but, IMHO, it can be done and should be done.

[ChrisGeorge]

I have a genuine belief that if the U.S. wasn't involved in this war, then everyone would be in a much better position today. They might have one of the biggest military forces in the world but they are poorly trained compared to other countries and their foreign policy is awful. They will only get involved in a conflict if it directly threatens America or will have some sort of benefit to them, as was the case in WW2.
I think that Europe and other countries should take control of the situation in the middle east with the U.S. taking a back seat, although I can't see this happening. They make situations worse with their trigger happy nature and fail to realise that shooting at everything doesn't solve problems, it creates them.
They have a very out dated military in terms of it's size. There is no need for huge military's in todays world as terrorism is the main threat to a country not invasion.They focus too much on quantity and not quality. Small agile forces and technology are the way forward.

Well yes. What you say is generally true but it doesn't take account of the fact that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (not that I am any fan of his) thought he could win the 1993 war against Iraq mainly through an air war: Shock and Awe, etc. He and his team were mostly right about that in that the Iraqis were pummeled and made ready for the invading U.S. troops who took over without much substantial opposition. It is in the mistakes that have been made since -- with the U.S. winning the war but not the peace -- that has put us in the position we are in today.

Chris

[snappel]

Staying out of other peoples business, not supporting despots and dictators, attending to the interests and needs of ones own average citizen and not just the powerful wealthy few with special interests would, in my opinion, go a long way in combating terrorism.
Yes, but you'd still have terrorism and jihad. Besides, would you trust countries that support suicide bombings to have nuclear weapons? Or are you suggesting that if we (UK and US) weren't so offensive then they wouldn't need them?

[Max]

Don't you see that whoever's doing it is trying to give us a taste of what it must be like to be an Iraqi?

Most of us seem to think we should continue unthinkingly supporting or putting up with have a government that pointlessly messes up other people's lives because we do not like their ruler.

Terrorising us is the only way the only language some of us will ever understand to convey the enormity of the crime that has been perpetrated against the Iraqi people.

It is an attempt to make the unquestioning and the unthinking question and think, in my humble opinion.

Do the means justify the ends? If you are British and previously safe you might not think the same as an Iraqis who were previously relatively safer and who are now daily terrorised, maimed and killed by car bombs. I have no doubt that some of them would like us to see THEIR point of view, for a change.

Look carefully, and you will find "how would you like it if you had a taste of your own medicine?" messages contained in the cars of these terrorists.

I have no doubt one or the other: Labour and Tory - who both supported the war - will be voted in again at the next election. This is after all the glorious system of democracy that we are all so proud of. We would not change it for the world, would we?

Why can't they put their point of view another way Instead of being retards and driving cars Into Airports or suiciding buildings? Our governments the one sending the army to war not the citizens so why should we have to be attacked? I know your not saying It justifies It though.

We shouldn't have to put up with attacks because of governments they should see that.

Right, say If the Iraq war was only started for liberations purposes would you support It then? Aren't we supposed to care about the rest of the world?

Errmm no theres many who would understand whats happening, we don't need terrorising. Most of these terrorist groups don't come across as very bright. They go off religion most of the time to justify attacks too.

I remember you saying once that why go to another country when you have what you need here, did that apply for holidays too?

At least Labour wouldn't only be Interested In only helping White British citizens and that there not for the death penalty.

[Sloyne]

Yes, but you'd still have terrorism and jihad. Besides, would you trust countries that support suicide bombings to have nuclear weapons? Or are you suggesting that if we (UK and US) weren't so offensive then they wouldn't need them?
I am saying if you are a bully and bullying me, then yes, I will take measures to protect myself. And yes, the US want's to be the only nation with nuclear weapons. Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, China, Russia, United Kingdom and France have nuclear weapons, they, the US, are the only ones to date who have used these weapons in anger. That is a fact.

[marie]

I see that nobody thinks like I, nobody thinks that they also are victims...


military intelligence is a contradiction in terms
- Groucho Marx

[Bevy]

Breaking news:)

http://www.b3tards.com/u/d81a83cf6d5a93144ba7/thirddoctor.jpg

[kat2]

Dam NHS, I will never trust another doctor again
that one certainly looks dodgey *lol* I didnt even know he was dead.
kat
springing up all over the place now!
next it will be the dentists *ewwwwww*
lookout for the tooth fairy too *eeeeeeww*
dam paranoia..:shock:

[Paul D]

with the U.S. winning the war but not the peace -- that has put us in the position we are in today.


I read an article in the Daily Mail yesterday and the said the U.S were losing the war in Iraq and Bush is too pigheaded to admit it.Everyone is turning against him now and he still wont back down.It said there are American Commanders in Iraq today,tormented by the awareness of failure and of what this will mean to Iraqis who have fought beside them,on the losing side.These people are the first to be butchered when the Americans and British cut and run.

[Paul D]

I don't think we face a terrotrist threat in 2008,I think we face one every day now thanks to our country's failed foreign policy.You can't impose your will on other people,it just doesn't work.These people still bury women up to the elbows and throw rocks at their heads for committing adultery,small ones at first to inflict as much pain as possible,they still live in the middle ages,they don't think like we do.