The fallacy of 'Fighting Terrorism'

[Clive Waters]

It is quite obvious to anyone who witnessed the carnage of the London
bombings this week, that the only people to blame are those who insist
that we can fight terrorism on a global scale. There will certainly
be more bombing in the future if we don't start now to end the insane
policies of the USA loving Blair government. We need to see the
problem is not the Muslim people, whom have chosen to live their life
as they wish, but it is our absurd belief that forced democracy will
somehow change them into something they are not.

We cannot retaliate against anyone but ourselves for the destruction
we witnessed. The only way out of this vicious cycle of violence is to
refuse to play the game. If they want to continue to bomb us, then
they will, we, however, should not respond in kind. In less than a
decade we can turn this whole thing around, they will see us as the
peaceful people we all wish to be, and we can then all live in harmony
together.

Loading Image...

[Fatha-Jack]

FUCK OFF!

Post by Clive Waters
It is quite obvious to anyone who witnessed the carnage of the London
bombings this week, that the only people to blame are those who insist
that we can fight terrorism on a global scale. There will certainly
be more bombing in the future if we don't start now to end the insane
policies of the USA loving Blair government. We need to see the
problem is not the Muslim people, whom have chosen to live their life
as they wish, but it is our absurd belief that forced democracy will
somehow change them into something they are not.
We cannot retaliate against anyone but ourselves for the destruction
we witnessed. The only way out of this vicious cycle of violence is to
refuse to play the game. If they want to continue to bomb us, then
they will, we, however, should not respond in kind. In less than a
decade we can turn this whole thing around, they will see us as the
peaceful people we all wish to be, and we can then all live in harmony
together.
http://vikingphoenix.com/blog/Europe-2015.gif

[h]

Post by Fatha-Jack
FUCK OFF!

SECONDED!

Post by Fatha-Jack

Post by Clive Waters
It is quite obvious to anyone who witnessed the carnage of the London
bombings this week, that the only people to blame are those who insist
that we can fight terrorism on a global scale. There will certainly
be more bombing in the future if we don't start now to end the insane
policies of the USA loving Blair government. We need to see the
problem is not the Muslim people, whom have chosen to live their life
as they wish, but it is our absurd belief that forced democracy will
somehow change them into something they are not.
We cannot retaliate against anyone but ourselves for the destruction
we witnessed. The only way out of this vicious cycle of violence is to
refuse to play the game. If they want to continue to bomb us, then
they will, we, however, should not respond in kind. In less than a
decade we'll all be fucking mozzies.

[Zaphod]

Ah, don't you just love rational rhetoric ripost.

Post by Fatha-Jack
FUCK OFF!

Post by Clive Waters
It is quite obvious to anyone who witnessed the carnage of the London
bombings this week, that the only people to blame are those who insist
that we can fight terrorism on a global scale. There will certainly
be more bombing in the future if we don't start now to end the insane
policies of the USA loving Blair government. We need to see the
problem is not the Muslim people, whom have chosen to live their life
as they wish, but it is our absurd belief that forced democracy will
somehow change them into something they are not.
We cannot retaliate against anyone but ourselves for the destruction
we witnessed. The only way out of this vicious cycle of violence is to
refuse to play the game. If they want to continue to bomb us, then
they will, we, however, should not respond in kind. In less than a
decade we can turn this whole thing around, they will see us as the
peaceful people we all wish to be, and we can then all live in harmony
together.
http://vikingphoenix.com/blog/Europe-2015.gif

[M***@privacy.net]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:53:03 +0100, Clive Waters

Post by Clive Waters
It is quite obvious to anyone who witnessed the carnage of the London
bombings this week, that the only people to blame are those who insist
that we can fight terrorism on a global scale. There will certainly
be more bombing in the future if we don't start now to end the insane
policies of the USA loving Blair government. We need to see the
problem is not the Muslim people, whom have chosen to live their life
as they wish, but it is our absurd belief that forced democracy will
somehow change them into something they are not.
We cannot retaliate against anyone but ourselves for the destruction
we witnessed. The only way out of this vicious cycle of violence is to
refuse to play the game. If they want to continue to bomb us, then
they will, we, however, should not respond in kind. In less than a
decade we can turn this whole thing around, they will see us as the
peaceful people we all wish to be, and we can then all live in harmony
together.
http://vikingphoenix.com/blog/Europe-2015.gif

The reason the "war on terror" is unwinnable is because there's too
many of them. There's a billion Muslims in the world. USA can't invade
every one of their countries, and when they try it only makes things
worse viz Iraq.

There's comparatively not many Irish Catholics and look what they did
for thirty years. You want the Arabs bombing you for the next thirty
years?

[Martin Milan]

Post by M***@privacy.net
The reason the "war on terror" is unwinnable is because there's too
many of them. There's a billion Muslims in the world. USA can't invade
every one of their countries, and when they try it only makes things
worse viz Iraq.

Yes, there's a billion muslims in the world. I don't have a problem with
that, because the overwhelming majority of them are not interested in
terrorism, and just wnt to be left to live their lives, thank you very
much...

Post by M***@privacy.net
There's comparatively not many Irish Catholics and look what they did
for thirty years. You want the Arabs bombing you for the next thirty
years?

No I don't. A good start might have been made by not bombing the hell
out of civillians in Baghdad, but it's a little late for that now. Our
response now should be to wipe out the terrorists, but improve our own
game as well...

[what scum is this]

Post by Martin Milan

Post by M***@privacy.net
The reason the "war on terror" is unwinnable is because there's too
many of them. There's a billion Muslims in the world. USA can't invade
every one of their countries, and when they try it only makes things
worse viz Iraq.

Yes, there's a billion muslims in the world. I don't have a problem with
that, because the overwhelming majority of them are not interested in
terrorism, and just wnt to be left to live their lives, thank you very
much...

Converted now Martin?

Post by Martin Milan

Post by M***@privacy.net
There's comparatively not many Irish Catholics and look what they did
for thirty years. You want the Arabs bombing you for the next thirty
years?

No I don't. A good start might have been made by not bombing the hell
out of civillians in Baghdad, but it's a little late for that now. Our
response now should be to wipe out the terrorists, but improve our own
game as well...

A bit bloodthirtsy Martin, keep your cool now boy, no sense in saying
such dumb things when you know it will wipe out all Iraq, that sort of
talk makes you look like Adolf Hitler....and what do you mean by
improve our game....you talking about better quality lies, the things
Brits do well....I should ahve to say no to that sort of bullshit, how
about giving back all that the Brits took from Iraq....and saying sorry

[Martin Milan]

Post by what scum is this

Post by Martin Milan
Yes, there's a billion muslims in the world. I don't have a problem
with that, because the overwhelming majority of them are not
interested in terrorism, and just wnt to be left to live their lives,
thank you very much...

Converted now Martin?

No, but I know a ploy when I see one. There is nothing the terrorists would
love more than for Britain to tear it's multi-cultural heart out fighting
amongst ourselves. Well bugger 'em - I ain't gonna play.

Post by what scum is this

Post by Martin Milan
No I don't. A good start might have been made by not bombing the hell
out of civillians in Baghdad, but it's a little late for that now.
Our response now should be to wipe out the terrorists, but improve
our own game as well...

A bit bloodthirtsy Martin, keep your cool now boy, no sense in saying
such dumb things when you know it will wipe out all Iraq, that sort of
talk makes you look like Adolf Hitler....and what do you mean by
improve our game....you talking about better quality lies, the things
Brits do well....I should ahve to say no to that sort of bullshit, how
about giving back all that the Brits took from Iraq....and saying sorry

It's not blood thirsty at all - it's practical. There's no negotiating to
be had with the kind of people who are so warped in the head that they are
prepared to conduct suicide bombings. I hate Bush, and I'm less than fond
of Blair. They're right about one thing though - like it or not, we are at
war. It's a war that they started though (Bush + Blair)...

[John of Aix]

Post by Martin Milan
No I don't. A good start might have been made by not bombing the hell
out of civillians in Baghdad, but it's a little late for that now. Our
response now should be to wipe out the terrorists, but improve our own
game as well...

There isn't the slightest chance of wiping out terrorists, not the
slightest, there never is. The only way to stop terrorism is to remove
its cause, the reason for their reaction. That reason is perfectly
clear, there is no doubt at all about it, and until Blair withdraws
British troops from Iraq, thus respecting the wishes of the British
people as he should, then the British people will remain in the firing
line.

[Fat Freddy's Cat]

Post by John of Aix

Post by Martin Milan
No I don't. A good start might have been made by not bombing the hell
out of civillians in Baghdad, but it's a little late for that now. Our
response now should be to wipe out the terrorists, but improve our own
game as well...

There isn't the slightest chance of wiping out terrorists, not the
slightest, there never is. The only way to stop terrorism is to remove
its cause, the reason for their reaction. That reason is perfectly
clear, there is no doubt at all about it, and until Blair withdraws
British troops from Iraq, thus respecting the wishes of the British
people as he should, then the British people will remain in the firing
line.

Ahem,
sorry to burst your bubble, but the 'cause' for these terrorists is *your*
non-islamic beliefs.
Thats what these extremists believe - they are on a war to destroy all
non-muslims.
Iraq is just one part of their reason.

So, stop being naive and thinking you'll be just fine by lying down to them,
because they'll just stomp all over you.

They have a warped understanding/interpretation of what their scriptures
tell them, no more, no less and they consider you lower than the shit of an
animal.

g.

[Scott]

Post by Fat Freddy's Cat

Post by John of Aix

Post by Martin Milan
No I don't. A good start might have been made by not bombing the hell
out of civillians in Baghdad, but it's a little late for that now. Our
response now should be to wipe out the terrorists, but improve our own
game as well...

There isn't the slightest chance of wiping out terrorists, not the
slightest, there never is. The only way to stop terrorism is to remove
its cause, the reason for their reaction. That reason is perfectly
clear, there is no doubt at all about it, and until Blair withdraws
British troops from Iraq, thus respecting the wishes of the British
people as he should, then the British people will remain in the firing
line.

Ahem,
sorry to burst your bubble, but the 'cause' for these terrorists is *your*
non-islamic beliefs.
Thats what these extremists believe - they are on a war to destroy all
non-muslims.
Iraq is just one part of their reason.
So, stop being naive and thinking you'll be just fine by lying down to them,
because they'll just stomp all over you.
They have a warped understanding/interpretation of what their scriptures
tell them, no more, no less and they consider you lower than the shit of an
animal.

You've been reading too many tabloids, worse still you actually believe
them. You're being controlled by fear, fear of Muslims, fear of
terrorists, fear of anything, because that's how you control a
population. That's how you bring people together to unite around their
political masters. It's a politicians dream, they can be as tough as
they like and people will willingly surrender power and freedom for the
illusion of safety.

[Cynic]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:46:02 +0100, "Fat Freddy's Cat"

Post by Fat Freddy's Cat
Ahem,
sorry to burst your bubble, but the 'cause' for these terrorists is *your*
non-islamic beliefs.
Thats what these extremists believe - they are on a war to destroy all
non-muslims.
Iraq is just one part of their reason.
So, stop being naive and thinking you'll be just fine by lying down to them,
because they'll just stomp all over you.

Ahem. Sorry to burst *your* bubble, but you are regurgitating a
propaganda line designed to prevent anyone considering the options.

The footsoldier planting the bombs may well have views that are very
extreme, but the people who sent him have far more limited objectives.

[Martin Milan]

Post by John of Aix

Post by Martin Milan
No I don't. A good start might have been made by not bombing the hell
out of civillians in Baghdad, but it's a little late for that now.
Our response now should be to wipe out the terrorists, but improve
our own game as well...

There isn't the slightest chance of wiping out terrorists, not the
slightest, there never is. The only way to stop terrorism is to remove
its cause, the reason for their reaction. That reason is perfectly
clear, there is no doubt at all about it, and until Blair withdraws
British troops from Iraq, thus respecting the wishes of the British
people as he should, then the British people will remain in the firing
line.

I think you'll find a few SAS daytrips would, in the final analysys,
prove more effective in combatting terrorism than just rolling over and
playing dead. It's a shame that it should come to this, and I don't
revel in violence, but I don't think you can negotiate with people like
this.

[Richard Miller]

Post by Martin Milan
I think you'll find a few SAS daytrips would, in the final analysys,
prove more effective in combatting terrorism than just rolling over and
playing dead. It's a shame that it should come to this, and I don't
revel in violence, but I don't think you can negotiate with people like
this.

You can't; but neither can you ever hope to identify all of them.

That is why as well as targeting as many of the actual perps as you can,
it is essential to tackle the causes that persuade people to condone or
even join the terrorists. Clearly our killing of thousands of innocent
Iraqis in their own homes is one such cause, as the young Moslems on BBC
Breakfast this morning made clear. The least we could do is stop doing
that.

[The Todal]

Post by Richard Miller

Post by Martin Milan
I think you'll find a few SAS daytrips would, in the final analysys,
prove more effective in combatting terrorism than just rolling over and
playing dead. It's a shame that it should come to this, and I don't
revel in violence, but I don't think you can negotiate with people like
this.

You can't; but neither can you ever hope to identify all of them.
That is why as well as targeting as many of the actual perps as you can,
it is essential to tackle the causes that persuade people to condone or
even join the terrorists. Clearly our killing of thousands of innocent
Iraqis in their own homes is one such cause, as the young Moslems on BBC
Breakfast this morning made clear. The least we could do is stop doing
that.

The George Bush approach would be to announce to Leeds that unless it hands
over all its bombers, we will drop bombs on Leeds or bombard it with
artillery shells.

Even if the "city fathers" (whoever they might be) were deliberately
sheltering bombers, it is self evidently barbaric to attack an entire city
to punish it for the activities of the few. But that is what we have done in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and we continue to do it in Iraq even though it is a
country we are occupying.

Then there is the doublethink. Bush and Blair condemn the fundamentalists
for trying to change our way of life and make us live our lives as they want
us to - the implication being that they want us to have an Islamic culture.
It is a big lie, but the irony is that *we* are trying to impose our
democracy and our western values (free enterprise, franchises and bacon
double cheeseburgers) on unwilling Islamic people.

[Paul Rooney]

Post by The Todal
The George Bush approach would be to announce to Leeds that unless it hands
over all its bombers, we will drop bombs on Leeds or bombard it with
artillery shells.
Even if the "city fathers" (whoever they might be) were deliberately
sheltering bombers, it is self evidently barbaric to attack an entire city
to punish it for the activities of the few. But that is what we have done in
Iraq and Afghanistan

No it isn't. Bombing has been incredibly well targetted and precise.
Of course, there's collateral damage - but that's very different from
deliberately attacking civilians.

Post by The Todal
, and we continue to do it in Iraq even though it is a
country we are occupying.
Then there is the doublethink. Bush and Blair condemn the fundamentalists
for trying to change our way of life and make us live our lives as they want
us to - the implication being that they want us to have an Islamic culture.
It is a big lie, but the irony is that *we* are trying to impose our
democracy

Quite right too. It's the only fair system.

Post by The Todal
and our western values

They are the correct values. If they need to be imposed, so be it.

Post by The Todal
(free enterprise, franchises and bacon
double cheeseburgers) on unwilling Islamic people.

If they are unwilling, it is because they need to be educated.

[TD]

Post by Paul Rooney

Post by The Todal
The George Bush approach would be to announce to Leeds that unless it hands
over all its bombers, we will drop bombs on Leeds or bombard it with
artillery shells.
Even if the "city fathers" (whoever they might be) were deliberately
sheltering bombers, it is self evidently barbaric to attack an entire city
to punish it for the activities of the few. But that is what we have done in
Iraq and Afghanistan

Fallujah, 'City of Mosques':1/5 of the buildings destroyed, half to two
thirds significantly damaged; just under half of the 350,000 inhabitants are
now displaced; 600 civilians killed in April 2004, for 1200 insurgents
killed and 1000 captured reported in November 2004; reported use of white
phosphorous grenades by US troops; little electricity, water or other
utilities.

Post by Paul Rooney
No it isn't. Bombing has been incredibly well targetted and precise.

How do you know?

Post by Paul Rooney
Of course, there's collateral damage - but that's very different from
deliberately attacking civilians.

Exploding a bomb on a target is a deliberate action. Exploding a bomb on a
target means everything in the area will suffer the effects of the
explosion, including civilians. It is moral cowardice to pretend civilian
deaths are accidental or unintentional. We make the choice to bomb the
target, and shouldn't act all surprised when civilians get annoyed about it.

No official figures of civilian casualties in Iraq.

Post by Paul Rooney

Post by The Todal
, and we continue to do it in Iraq even though it is a
country we are occupying.
Then there is the doublethink. Bush and Blair condemn the fundamentalists
for trying to change our way of life and make us live our lives as they want
us to - the implication being that they want us to have an Islamic culture.
It is a big lie, but the irony is that *we* are trying to impose our
democracy

Quite right too. It's the only fair system.

Post by The Todal
and our western values

They are the correct values. If they need to be imposed, so be it.

Post by The Todal
(free enterprise, franchises and bacon
double cheeseburgers) on unwilling Islamic people.

If they are unwilling, it is because they need to be educated.

...or be killed.

It seems you are blind to irony.

A foundation of democracy is choice. Democracy cannot be imposed, it must
be chosen.

[Paul Rooney]

Post by TD

Post by Paul Rooney

Post by The Todal
The George Bush approach would be to announce to Leeds that unless it hands
over all its bombers, we will drop bombs on Leeds or bombard it with
artillery shells.
Even if the "city fathers" (whoever they might be) were deliberately
sheltering bombers, it is self evidently barbaric to attack an entire city
to punish it for the activities of the few. But that is what we have done in
Iraq and Afghanistan

Fallujah, 'City of Mosques':1/5 of the buildings destroyed, half to two
thirds significantly damaged; just under half of the 350,000 inhabitants are
now displaced; 600 civilians killed in April 2004, for 1200 insurgents
killed and 1000 captured reported in November 2004; reported use of white
phosphorous grenades by US troops; little electricity, water or other
utilities.

Post by Paul Rooney
No it isn't. Bombing has been incredibly well targetted and precise.

How do you know?

I used my eyes.

Post by TD

Post by Paul Rooney
Of course, there's collateral damage - but that's very different from
deliberately attacking civilians.

Exploding a bomb on a target is a deliberate action. Exploding a bomb on a
target means everything in the area will suffer the effects of the
explosion, including civilians. It is moral cowardice to pretend civilian
deaths are accidental or unintentional. We make the choice to bomb the
target, and shouldn't act all surprised when civilians get annoyed about it.
No official figures of civilian casualties in Iraq.

Post by Paul Rooney

Post by The Todal
, and we continue to do it in Iraq even though it is a
country we are occupying.
Then there is the doublethink. Bush and Blair condemn the fundamentalists
for trying to change our way of life and make us live our lives as they want
us to - the implication being that they want us to have an Islamic culture.
It is a big lie, but the irony is that *we* are trying to impose our
democracy

Quite right too. It's the only fair system.

Post by The Todal
and our western values

They are the correct values. If they need to be imposed, so be it.

Post by The Todal
(free enterprise, franchises and bacon
double cheeseburgers) on unwilling Islamic people.

If they are unwilling, it is because they need to be educated.

...or be killed.
It seems you are blind to irony.
A foundation of democracy is choice. Democracy cannot be imposed, it must
be chosen.

What I said before.

[Cynic]

Post by Paul Rooney

Post by The Todal
Even if the "city fathers" (whoever they might be) were deliberately
sheltering bombers, it is self evidently barbaric to attack an entire city
to punish it for the activities of the few. But that is what we have done in
Iraq and Afghanistan

No it isn't. Bombing has been incredibly well targetted and precise.
Of course, there's collateral damage - but that's very different from
deliberately attacking civilians.

Even if what you say were true (and it isn't), there is no real
distinction between targetting a place that contains only civilians
(e.g. TV station, electricity or water station etc) because *in your
opinion* it is a legitimate military target, and targetting a place
containing only civilians because the effect of their death is itself
your desired military objective.

The TV station is blown up in full knowlege that civilians are going
to be killed to prevent media broadcasts that you believe would be of
detriment to your side, whilst the terrorist's objective is to create
media broadcasts that he believes will benefit his side. Both
objectives involve killing civilians.

Post by Paul Rooney

Post by The Todal
, and we continue to do it in Iraq even though it is a
country we are occupying.
Then there is the doublethink. Bush and Blair condemn the fundamentalists
for trying to change our way of life and make us live our lives as they want
us to - the implication being that they want us to have an Islamic culture.
It is a big lie, but the irony is that *we* are trying to impose our
democracy

Quite right too. It's the only fair system.

Post by The Todal
and our western values

They are the correct values. If they need to be imposed, so be it.

In that case, is it OK if I come into your house and start imposing
*my* values onto *your* family? Because for me, my values are
correct. They work for me, so they should work for you as well.

When will you arrogant SOB's learn that different cultures *must* have
different values? And if you insist that the whole World must have a
single culture, then perhaps you should consider using the democratic
system you think is so great and choose the culture that has the most
people.

[Paul Rooney]

Post by Cynic

Post by Paul Rooney

Post by The Todal
Even if the "city fathers" (whoever they might be) were deliberately
sheltering bombers, it is self evidently barbaric to attack an entire city
to punish it for the activities of the few. But that is what we have done in
Iraq and Afghanistan

No it isn't. Bombing has been incredibly well targetted and precise.
Of course, there's collateral damage - but that's very different from
deliberately attacking civilians.

Even if what you say were true (and it isn't),

It is.

Post by Cynic
there is no real
distinction between targetting a place that contains only civilians
(e.g. TV station, electricity or water station etc) because *in your
opinion* it is a legitimate military target, and targetting a place
containing only civilians because the effect of their death is itself
your desired military objective.

Oh, yes there is.

Post by Cynic
The TV station is blown up in full knowlege that civilians are going
to be killed to prevent media broadcasts that you believe would be of
detriment to your side, whilst the terrorist's objective is to create
media broadcasts that he believes will benefit his side. Both
objectives involve killing civilians.

Post by Paul Rooney

Post by The Todal
, and we continue to do it in Iraq even though it is a
country we are occupying.
Then there is the doublethink. Bush and Blair condemn the fundamentalists
for trying to change our way of life and make us live our lives as they want
us to - the implication being that they want us to have an Islamic culture.
It is a big lie, but the irony is that *we* are trying to impose our
democracy

Quite right too. It's the only fair system.

Post by The Todal
and our western values

They are the correct values. If they need to be imposed, so be it.

In that case, is it OK if I come into your house and start imposing
*my* values onto *your* family? Because for me, my values are
correct. They work for me, so they should work for you as well.

Try it. I'll impose proper values on you, geek.

Post by Cynic
When will you arrogant SOB's learn that different cultures *must* have
different values? And if you insist that the whole World must have a
single culture, then perhaps you should consider using the democratic
system you think is so great and choose the culture that has the most
people.

No-one 'must' have different values. It's due to ignorance of real
values.

[Arfur Million]

Post by Paul Rooney

Post by The Todal
The George Bush approach would be to announce to Leeds that unless it hands
over all its bombers, we will drop bombs on Leeds or bombard it with
artillery shells.
Even if the "city fathers" (whoever they might be) were deliberately
sheltering bombers, it is self evidently barbaric to attack an entire city
to punish it for the activities of the few. But that is what we have done in
Iraq and Afghanistan

No it isn't. Bombing has been incredibly well targetted and precise.
Of course, there's collateral damage - but that's very different from
deliberately attacking civilians.

Perhaps a good time to remember that during the bombing of Serbia in
1999, NATO pilots *deliberately* targeted railway stations and moving
civilian trains. I wonder if this was why the BBC was confused about
whether or not to call the perpetrators of the London bombings
"terrorists".

Regards,
Arfur

[Martin Milan]

Post by The Todal

Post by Richard Miller

Post by Martin Milan
I think you'll find a few SAS daytrips would, in the final analysys,
prove more effective in combatting terrorism than just rolling over
and playing dead. It's a shame that it should come to this, and I
don't revel in violence, but I don't think you can negotiate with
people like this.

You can't; but neither can you ever hope to identify all of them.
That is why as well as targeting as many of the actual perps as you
can, it is essential to tackle the causes that persuade people to
condone or even join the terrorists. Clearly our killing of thousands
of innocent Iraqis in their own homes is one such cause, as the young
Moslems on BBC Breakfast this morning made clear. The least we could
do is stop doing that.

The George Bush approach would be to announce to Leeds that unless it
hands over all its bombers, we will drop bombs on Leeds or bombard it
with artillery shells.
Even if the "city fathers" (whoever they might be) were deliberately
sheltering bombers, it is self evidently barbaric to attack an entire
city to punish it for the activities of the few. But that is what we
have done in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we continue to do it in Iraq
even though it is a country we are occupying.
Then there is the doublethink. Bush and Blair condemn the
fundamentalists for trying to change our way of life and make us live
our lives as they want us to - the implication being that they want us
to have an Islamic culture. It is a big lie, but the irony is that
*we* are trying to impose our democracy and our western values (free
enterprise, franchises and bacon double cheeseburgers) on unwilling
Islamic people.

What can I say - you're right.

[t***@hotmail.com]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:14:38 +0100, Richard Miller

Post by Richard Miller

Post by Martin Milan
I think you'll find a few SAS daytrips would, in the final analysys,
prove more effective in combatting terrorism than just rolling over and
playing dead. It's a shame that it should come to this, and I don't
revel in violence, but I don't think you can negotiate with people like
this.

You can't; but neither can you ever hope to identify all of them.
That is why as well as targeting as many of the actual perps as you can,
it is essential to tackle the causes that persuade people to condone or
even join the terrorists. Clearly our killing of thousands of innocent
Iraqis in their own homes is one such cause, as the young Moslems on BBC
Breakfast this morning made clear. The least we could do is stop doing
that.

I never saw that program but I disagree with your conclusion. Many
people of different religions and beliefs live in this country
peacefully. There is a war in Iraq and very often in the confusion of
war the wrong target gets hit. Many British non moslems in this
country do not agree with what is happening in Iraq but they are not
murdering people to make their point. No, if a British Moslem doesn't
like what this country does because it is against his/hers religious
belief then they should leave this country not stay here and accept
hospitality from infidels. There are native British born Moslems whose
families are completely British for decades and if they feel the same
way they should leave too. Many countries will take them without
question but they will not get free NHS or even a reasonably lawful
country to live in. So these people should make their choice if they
cannot stomach what british soldiers are doing go away and do
something about it like honourable people. Those who were on TV today
that you post about should leave this country if they find it so
distasteful.
pete

[The Todal]

Post by t***@hotmail.com
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:14:38 +0100, Richard Miller

Post by Richard Miller

Post by Martin Milan
I think you'll find a few SAS daytrips would, in the final analysys,
prove more effective in combatting terrorism than just rolling over and
playing dead. It's a shame that it should come to this, and I don't
revel in violence, but I don't think you can negotiate with people like
this.

You can't; but neither can you ever hope to identify all of them.
That is why as well as targeting as many of the actual perps as you can,
it is essential to tackle the causes that persuade people to condone or
even join the terrorists. Clearly our killing of thousands of innocent
Iraqis in their own homes is one such cause, as the young Moslems on BBC
Breakfast this morning made clear. The least we could do is stop doing
that.

I never saw that program but I disagree with your conclusion. Many
people of different religions and beliefs live in this country
peacefully. There is a war in Iraq and very often in the confusion of
war the wrong target gets hit. Many British non moslems in this
country do not agree with what is happening in Iraq but they are not
murdering people to make their point. No, if a British Moslem doesn't
like what this country does because it is against his/hers religious
belief then they should leave this country not stay here and accept
hospitality from infidels.

What if they don't like what this country is doing because it is unlawful
and a breach of human rights? Are you saying that everyone who takes that
view should emigrate, if they have another country that will have them?

That would certainly help to bolster Blair's majority.

I would (of course) agree with you that if a person's religious beliefs do
not permit him to eat pork he has no right to insist that the entire country
stops eating pork. I don't think the Muslims are actually saying that we
should all adopt their religious beliefs, though. They are trying, some of
them, to speak up about the slaughter of Muslims. And I am glad that most of
us spoke up against the Bosnian Serbs when they were persecuting Muslims.
Sometimes you just have to do the right thing, regardless of whether violent
terrorists happen to be singing from the same hymn-sheet.

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by The Todal

Post by t***@hotmail.com
I never saw that program but I disagree with your conclusion. Many
people of different religions and beliefs live in this country
peacefully. There is a war in Iraq and very often in the confusion of
war the wrong target gets hit. Many British non moslems in this
country do not agree with what is happening in Iraq but they are not
murdering people to make their point. No, if a British Moslem doesn't
like what this country does because it is against his/hers religious
belief then they should leave this country not stay here and accept
hospitality from infidels.

What if they don't like what this country is doing because it is unlawful
and a breach of human rights? Are you saying that everyone who takes that
view should emigrate, if they have another country that will have them?

Yes TT if they feel strongly enough about that issue then emigrate and
renounce their British citizenship if they cannot live with it without
killing their fellow countrymen. We have a crazy system in this
country where folks are allowed to vote for some part or other and the
main party which gets less of the total vote wins. That is the British
way and I do not like it so I do not vote. But I am not going to go
and kill folks who do like the system that governs me. It has long
been a British tradition when a conscience is troubled to go and live
somewhere else just like loonies on the Mayflower.
pete

[The Todal]

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by The Todal

Post by t***@hotmail.com
I never saw that program but I disagree with your conclusion. Many
people of different religions and beliefs live in this country
peacefully. There is a war in Iraq and very often in the confusion of
war the wrong target gets hit. Many British non moslems in this
country do not agree with what is happening in Iraq but they are not
murdering people to make their point. No, if a British Moslem doesn't
like what this country does because it is against his/hers religious
belief then they should leave this country not stay here and accept
hospitality from infidels.

What if they don't like what this country is doing because it is unlawful
and a breach of human rights? Are you saying that everyone who takes that
view should emigrate, if they have another country that will have them?

Yes TT if they feel strongly enough about that issue then emigrate and
renounce their British citizenship if they cannot live with it without
killing their fellow countrymen.

Yes, we agree on that. Either emigrate or check into a psychiatric ward, I'd
say.

We don't yet know what motivated those four - three of Asian descent, one
(seemingly) of Jamaican descent - to plant bombs. Were they seduced by a
preacher in an extremist mosque or by political activists in a political
pressure group, or did they encourage each other, based on what they read in
the mainstream press? We may never know for sure. But I'm sure we all wish
that they had emigrated instead.

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by The Todal
We don't yet know what motivated those four - three of Asian descent, one
(seemingly) of Jamaican descent - to plant bombs. Were they seduced by a
preacher in an extremist mosque or by political activists in a political
pressure group, or did they encourage each other, based on what they read in
the mainstream press? We may never know for sure. But I'm sure we all wish
that they had emigrated instead.

They were motivated by the particular branch of their religion they
belonged to. Just as there are hundreds of different strains of
christianity so there are as many if not more branches of Islam. The
branch of Islam that can affect young men is Whahabi, the branch that
Osama Bin Laden now follows. However while we can see Muslim leaders
on a TV screens saying how misguided these 4 young men were in this
case, they would have praised them if they had gone to Israel and done
it. Suicide bombing is an accepted tool of Islamic people and stuff
like this started long before the Iraqi war. Young muslim men are
being led along the path of extremism by the very leaders we see on TV
condemning what happened in London and last night one even admitted it
on Newsnight and yet he was presented as being a leading muslim. The
catholics of long ago had the unbelievers tortured other religions had
their disbelievers declared witches and burnt them at the stake. Islam
is a very young religion and is going through the same stuff various
christian religions did 500 years ago. When we fought Germans we got
bombed and the same happens when we fight in a Muslim country except
this time we are not imprisoning our fifth columnists or even
recognising we are at war. We are even making excuses for them by
acknowledging many of us dislike the war in Iraq. By heck you may as
well help them strap on the explosives if you are going to support
them and their cause by agreeing with their excuse. We are at war and
none of the bombers were mentally ill either TT. They believed in what
they done just as christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead and
all that bollocks.
pete

[The Todal]

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by The Todal
We don't yet know what motivated those four - three of Asian descent, one
(seemingly) of Jamaican descent - to plant bombs. Were they seduced by a
preacher in an extremist mosque or by political activists in a political
pressure group, or did they encourage each other, based on what they read in
the mainstream press? We may never know for sure. But I'm sure we all wish
that they had emigrated instead.

They were motivated by the particular branch of their religion they
belonged to.

You may be right but at present the evidence about those particular
individuals and their religious fervour, is thin.

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Just as there are hundreds of different strains of
christianity so there are as many if not more branches of Islam. The
branch of Islam that can affect young men is Whahabi, the branch that
Osama Bin Laden now follows. However while we can see Muslim leaders
on a TV screens saying how misguided these 4 young men were in this
case, they would have praised them if they had gone to Israel and done
it.

That strikes me as a very good point, and I think it is important that
Muslim leaders should be seen to condemn all terrorism, not merely that
which is directed at London. If they hesitate and equivocate and say that
Israel is a different matter, then they are encouraging terrorism against
all of us. I have not heard any of them do so.

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by The Todal

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by The Todal
We don't yet know what motivated those four - three of Asian descent, one
(seemingly) of Jamaican descent - to plant bombs. Were they seduced by a
preacher in an extremist mosque or by political activists in a political
pressure group, or did they encourage each other, based on what they read in
the mainstream press? We may never know for sure. But I'm sure we all wish
that they had emigrated instead.

They were motivated by the particular branch of their religion they
belonged to.

You may be right but at present the evidence about those particular
individuals and their religious fervour, is thin.

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Just as there are hundreds of different strains of
christianity so there are as many if not more branches of Islam. The
branch of Islam that can affect young men is Whahabi, the branch that
Osama Bin Laden now follows. However while we can see Muslim leaders
on a TV screens saying how misguided these 4 young men were in this
case, they would have praised them if they had gone to Israel and done
it.

That strikes me as a very good point, and I think it is important that
Muslim leaders should be seen to condemn all terrorism, not merely that
which is directed at London. If they hesitate and equivocate and say that
Israel is a different matter, then they are encouraging terrorism against
all of us. I have not heard any of them do so.

Gavin Essler put this point to a Muslim leader on newsnight last night
because this Muslim leader had said just that in the past and last
night he tried to justify it. That is the ideology that has to be
fought and people who come to this country or who are born in this
country and want to make religious wars abroad should be locked up and
if that mean re-educating all Moslem scholars and leaders then so be
it. The same goes for other religions too as none is any better than
the other. One of the worst being Dubyas religion which leads him to
believe he is on a crusade in the Middle East.
pete

[Alex Heney]

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Islam
is a very young religion and is going through the same stuff various
christian religions did 500 years ago.

It isn't young enough to be suggested it is "very young" in comparison to
Christianity. It is over three quarters of the same age.

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by Alex Heney

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Islam
is a very young religion and is going through the same stuff various
christian religions did 500 years ago.

It isn't young enough to be suggested it is "very young" in comparison to
Christianity. It is over three quarters of the same age.

Precisely. What were christians doing to non believers 500 years ago
Alex? Burning them at the stake as witches and all that nonsense about
the inquisition? That wasn't even 500 years ago!
pete

[Alex Heney]

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Alex Heney

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Islam
is a very young religion and is going through the same stuff various
christian religions did 500 years ago.

It isn't young enough to be suggested it is "very young" in comparison to
Christianity. It is over three quarters of the same age.

Precisely. What were christians doing to non believers 500 years ago
Alex? Burning them at the stake as witches and all that nonsense about
the inquisition? That wasn't even 500 years ago!
pete

What relevance is it what Christians were doing 500 years ago?

Islam was doing many similar things then. The world was a different place
then.

And Islam in the guise of the Ottoman Turks ruled probably more of the
world than Christianity did then.

You appear to be suggesting that Islam is going through a violent phase
just because Christianity did so when it was the same age.

Which is total nonsense.

First, by no means all religions go through the same phases, and certainly
not a similar ages.

Second, Islam as a whole is not responsible for these outrages. Unlike
with the inquisition and purges and similar that went on in the name of
Christianity in the middle ages, these attacks are NOT official policy of
Islam.

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by Alex Heney

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Alex Heney

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Islam
is a very young religion and is going through the same stuff various
christian religions did 500 years ago.

It isn't young enough to be suggested it is "very young" in comparison to
Christianity. It is over three quarters of the same age.

Precisely. What were christians doing to non believers 500 years ago
Alex? Burning them at the stake as witches and all that nonsense about
the inquisition? That wasn't even 500 years ago!
pete

What relevance is it what Christians were doing 500 years ago?
Islam was doing many similar things then. The world was a different place
then.
And Islam in the guise of the Ottoman Turks ruled probably more of the
world than Christianity did then.
You appear to be suggesting that Islam is going through a violent phase
just because Christianity did so when it was the same age.
Which is total nonsense.

Not exactly but close. I was pointing out that christianity went
through a violent period before it matured or in some way died and
that maybe Islam is going through a similar period to that.

Post by Alex Heney
First, by no means all religions go through the same phases, and certainly
not a similar ages.
Second, Islam as a whole is not responsible for these outrages.

All these outrages are in the name of Islam.

Post by Alex Heney
Unlike
with the inquisition and purges and similar that went on in the name of
Christianity in the middle ages, these attacks are NOT official policy of
Islam.

There is no official policy of Islam. Each branch interprets the Koran
and Hadiths in its own way and there are many different branches of
Islam. It doesn't have a Pope figure or even a national figure such as
Archbishop of Canterbury.
pete

[Alex Heney]

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Alex Heney

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Alex Heney

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Islam
is a very young religion and is going through the same stuff various
christian religions did 500 years ago.

It isn't young enough to be suggested it is "very young" in comparison to
Christianity. It is over three quarters of the same age.

Precisely. What were christians doing to non believers 500 years ago
Alex? Burning them at the stake as witches and all that nonsense about
the inquisition? That wasn't even 500 years ago!
pete

What relevance is it what Christians were doing 500 years ago?
Islam was doing many similar things then. The world was a different place
then.
And Islam in the guise of the Ottoman Turks ruled probably more of the
world than Christianity did then.
You appear to be suggesting that Islam is going through a violent phase
just because Christianity did so when it was the same age.
Which is total nonsense.

Not exactly but close. I was pointing out that christianity went
through a violent period before it matured or in some way died and
that maybe Islam is going through a similar period to that.

OK.

I disagree, but that is a more reasonable argument than what I thought you
were saying.

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Alex Heney
First, by no means all religions go through the same phases, and certainly
not a similar ages.
Second, Islam as a whole is not responsible for these outrages.

All these outrages are in the name of Islam.

But disavowed by pretty close to the whole of it.

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Alex Heney
Unlike
with the inquisition and purges and similar that went on in the name of
Christianity in the middle ages, these attacks are NOT official policy of
Islam.

There is no official policy of Islam. Each branch interprets the Koran
and Hadiths in its own way and there are many different branches of
Islam. It doesn't have a Pope figure or even a national figure such as
Archbishop of Canterbury.

There are equivalents to our archbishops, in the Ayatollahs. Obviously not
exactly the same, but close.

And Christianity has no single head either. The Pope is only the head of
the Catholic church. there are many other branches of Christianity which do
not recognise his authority.

But the point is that these terror attacks are not the official policy of
*any* major branch of Islam.

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by Alex Heney

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Alex Heney

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Alex Heney

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Islam
is a very young religion and is going through the same stuff various
christian religions did 500 years ago.

It isn't young enough to be suggested it is "very young" in comparison to
Christianity. It is over three quarters of the same age.

Precisely. What were christians doing to non believers 500 years ago
Alex? Burning them at the stake as witches and all that nonsense about
the inquisition? That wasn't even 500 years ago!
pete

What relevance is it what Christians were doing 500 years ago?
Islam was doing many similar things then. The world was a different place
then.
And Islam in the guise of the Ottoman Turks ruled probably more of the
world than Christianity did then.
You appear to be suggesting that Islam is going through a violent phase
just because Christianity did so when it was the same age.
Which is total nonsense.

Not exactly but close. I was pointing out that christianity went
through a violent period before it matured or in some way died and
that maybe Islam is going through a similar period to that.

OK.
I disagree, but that is a more reasonable argument than what I thought you
were saying.

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Alex Heney
First, by no means all religions go through the same phases, and certainly
not a similar ages.
Second, Islam as a whole is not responsible for these outrages.

All these outrages are in the name of Islam.

But disavowed by pretty close to the whole of it.

Only to infidels or for the benefit of infidels. Rather like Germans
during the last war not knowing about the final solution.

Post by Alex Heney

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Alex Heney
Unlike
with the inquisition and purges and similar that went on in the name of
Christianity in the middle ages, these attacks are NOT official policy of
Islam.

There is no official policy of Islam. Each branch interprets the Koran
and Hadiths in its own way and there are many different branches of
Islam. It doesn't have a Pope figure or even a national figure such as
Archbishop of Canterbury.

There are equivalents to our archbishops, in the Ayatollahs. Obviously not
exactly the same, but close.

Nowhere near close. There are thousands of Ayatollahs and Grand
Ayatollahs too.

Post by Alex Heney
And Christianity has no single head either. The Pope is only the head of
the Catholic church. there are many other branches of Christianity which do
not recognise his authority.

Just as there are even more branches of Islam that have their own
leaders and very often that is a source of importance too and very
relevant to controlling the Mosque committees who in turn control the
Imams and what they say.

Post by Alex Heney
But the point is that these terror attacks are not the official policy of
*any* major branch of Islam.

Wrong. Completely wrong. It is the policy right now of the Wahabis.
pete

[Graham Murray]

However while we can see Muslim leaders on a TV screens saying how
misguided these 4 young men were in this case, they would have
praised them if they had gone to Israel and done it.

Which, after the new religious hatred laws come into effect could get
them into serious trouble.

[t***@hotmail.com]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:24:37 +0100, Graham Murray

Post by Graham Murray

However while we can see Muslim leaders on a TV screens saying how
misguided these 4 young men were in this case, they would have
praised them if they had gone to Israel and done it.

Which, after the new religious hatred laws come into effect could get
them into serious trouble.

Yeah and it would probably get me into trouble too for posting about
it.
pete

[a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk]

Post by Graham Murray

However while we can see Muslim leaders on a TV screens saying how
misguided these 4 young men were in this case, they would have
praised them if they had gone to Israel and done it.

Which, after the new religious hatred laws come into effect could get
them into serious trouble.

Let us hope that the same new laws would apply to people joining the
IDF (Israeli Defence Force).

Axel

[Cynic]

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by The Todal
We don't yet know what motivated those four - three of Asian descent, one
(seemingly) of Jamaican descent - to plant bombs. Were they seduced by a
preacher in an extremist mosque or by political activists in a political
pressure group, or did they encourage each other, based on what they read in
the mainstream press? We may never know for sure. But I'm sure we all wish
that they had emigrated instead.

They were motivated by the particular branch of their religion they
belonged to.

More likely that the religion they belonged to was used as a tool to
motivate them.

Blaming the religion is similar to blaming the knife when it is used
to commit a murder. A mistake that our government makes with alarming
frequency.

[joe parkin]

In article <***@4ax.com>, cynic_999
@yahoo.co.uk says...

Post by Cynic

Post by t***@hotmail.com
They were motivated by the particular branch of their religion they
belonged to.

More likely that the religion they belonged to was used as a tool to
motivate them.
Blaming the religion is similar to blaming the knife when it is used
to commit a murder. A mistake that our government makes with alarming
frequency.

Our knives do not scream kill kill kill until we are brainwashed enough
to do it. Likening a knife to a religion is like likening chalk to
cheese.

[Cynic]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:11:18 +0100, joe parkin

Post by joe parkin

Post by Cynic
Blaming the religion is similar to blaming the knife when it is used
to commit a murder. A mistake that our government makes with alarming
frequency.

Our knives do not scream kill kill kill until we are brainwashed enough
to do it.

Nor does religion. The people using it as a tool are the ones that do
that.

[joe parkin]

In article <***@4ax.com>, cynic_999
@yahoo.co.uk says...

Post by Cynic
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:11:18 +0100, joe parkin

Post by joe parkin

Post by Cynic
Blaming the religion is similar to blaming the knife when it is used
to commit a murder. A mistake that our government makes with alarming
frequency.

Our knives do not scream kill kill kill until we are brainwashed enough
to do it.

Nor does religion. The people using it as a tool are the ones that do
that.

Point conceded.

[Richard Miller]

Post by t***@hotmail.com
I never saw that program but I disagree with your conclusion. Many
people of different religions and beliefs live in this country
peacefully. There is a war in Iraq and very often in the confusion of
war the wrong target gets hit. Many British non moslems in this country
do not agree with what is happening in Iraq but they are not murdering
people to make their point. No, if a British Moslem doesn't like what
this country does because it is against his/hers religious belief then
they should leave this country not stay here and accept hospitality
from infidels. There are native British born Moslems whose families are
completely British for decades and if they feel the same way they
should leave too. Many countries will take them without question but
they will not get free NHS or even a reasonably lawful country to live
in. So these people should make their choice if they cannot stomach
what british soldiers are doing go away and do something about it like
honourable people. Those who were on TV today that you post about
should leave this country if they find it so
distasteful.

I don't get that argument at all.

The young Moslems I saw this morning were saying exactly what I and many
others have been saying on this newsgroup, and what 2 million people
marched to protest about: that the war in Iraq was unjustifiably killing
thousands of innocent people, and we want it to stop.

I find that every bit as distasteful as these young Moslems did. I would
far rather see warmongers like Blair leave this country than them.

I don't for one moment condone the actions of the bombers in London; but
I have a hard time distinguishing it at all in moral terms from what is
being done in our name in Iraq.

[t***@hotmail.com]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:30:02 +0100, Richard Miller

Post by Richard Miller

Post by t***@hotmail.com
I never saw that program but I disagree with your conclusion. Many
people of different religions and beliefs live in this country
peacefully. There is a war in Iraq and very often in the confusion of
war the wrong target gets hit. Many British non moslems in this country
do not agree with what is happening in Iraq but they are not murdering
people to make their point. No, if a British Moslem doesn't like what
this country does because it is against his/hers religious belief then
they should leave this country not stay here and accept hospitality
from infidels. There are native British born Moslems whose families are
completely British for decades and if they feel the same way they
should leave too. Many countries will take them without question but
they will not get free NHS or even a reasonably lawful country to live
in. So these people should make their choice if they cannot stomach
what british soldiers are doing go away and do something about it like
honourable people. Those who were on TV today that you post about
should leave this country if they find it so
distasteful.

I don't get that argument at all.
The young Moslems I saw this morning were saying exactly what I and many
others have been saying on this newsgroup, and what 2 million people
marched to protest about: that the war in Iraq was unjustifiably killing
thousands of innocent people, and we want it to stop.
I find that every bit as distasteful as these young Moslems did. I would
far rather see warmongers like Blair leave this country than them.
I don't for one moment condone the actions of the bombers in London; but
I have a hard time distinguishing it at all in moral terms from what is
being done in our name in Iraq.

It is completely different. We are at war in Iraq and people who want
to fight our troops get killed or imprisoned. In Britain we have a
right to protest and we do so but we do not have the right to
denigrate our own country while living within the protection of it and
while others are dying to guarantee our safety to protest about what
they do on our behalf. That is the limit unless enough people want to
take up arms and change things and risk the consequences. As you well
know I am pro-war in Iraq and not a particularly law abiding citizen
of this country but there is a limit to what is acceptable and still
accept this country's hospitality. The protestors should remember that
too. Protest but do not denigrate not that you do of course and I do
not wish to give that impression about your good self at all.
pete

[PeteM]

Post by t***@hotmail.com
It is completely different. We are at war in Iraq and people who want
to fight our troops get killed or imprisoned. In Britain we have a
right to protest and we do so but we do not have the right to
denigrate our own country while living within the protection of it

We certainly do have that right, if by "denigrating our country" you
really mean "denigrating the actions of the British state".

Post by t***@hotmail.com
and
while others are dying to guarantee our safety

Which "others" are you referring to here? British soldiers in Iraq? They
are most certainly not dying to guarantee *my* safety.

Post by t***@hotmail.com
to protest about what
they do on our behalf.

Nobody is doing anything on my behalf except where I have consented to
it beforehand. If I have not consented, then I most certainly *do* have
the right to protest in whatever terms I choose.

Post by t***@hotmail.com
That is the limit unless enough people want to
take up arms and change things and risk the consequences. As you well
know I am pro-war in Iraq and not a particularly law abiding citizen
of this country but there is a limit to what is acceptable and still
accept this country's hospitality.

I'm not accepting anybody's hospitality. I'm British and have every
right to express whatever political views I choose, including demanding
that the entire Cabinet should be tried for war crimes.

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by PeteM

Post by t***@hotmail.com
It is completely different. We are at war in Iraq and people who want
to fight our troops get killed or imprisoned. In Britain we have a
right to protest and we do so but we do not have the right to
denigrate our own country while living within the protection of it

We certainly do have that right, if by "denigrating our country" you
really mean "denigrating the actions of the British state".

Yes of course we do by law. What I meant although I said it badly was
it is wrong to denigrate our country in favour of another country or
religious force. Yes we have that right by law but it is not correct
to use or abuse that right while British troops are fighting and
dying.

Post by PeteM

Post by t***@hotmail.com
and
while others are dying to guarantee our safety

Which "others" are you referring to here? British soldiers in Iraq? They
are most certainly not dying to guarantee *my* safety.

If you are a British non muslim then they are fighting and dying to
protect your safety.

Post by PeteM

Post by t***@hotmail.com
to protest about what
they do on our behalf.

Nobody is doing anything on my behalf except where I have consented to
it beforehand. If I have not consented, then I most certainly *do* have
the right to protest in whatever terms I choose.

I disagree with you strongly. If you are a part of this country then
you have consented by staying part of this country and retaining your
citizenship. What is happening now is being done by an elected
government of this country who many people support.

Post by PeteM

Post by t***@hotmail.com
That is the limit unless enough people want to
take up arms and change things and risk the consequences. As you well
know I am pro-war in Iraq and not a particularly law abiding citizen
of this country but there is a limit to what is acceptable and still
accept this country's hospitality.

I'm not accepting anybody's hospitality. I'm British and have every
right to express whatever political views I choose, including demanding
that the entire Cabinet should be tried for war crimes.

Yes you have that right in law as you have the right in law to be
protected from anyone who disagrees with you and might like to knock
your block off but it behaves you to stay within reasonable borders
while protesting about the soldiers who are fighting and dying to
protect the life of you and your relatives even if you do not
understand why or do not like the why and wherefore of what is taking
place in your name. This is a legal ng and there are many laws I do
not agree with desperately but I doubt I would get very far here if I
was to advocate breaking those laws.
pete

[Cynic]

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Yes of course we do by law. What I meant although I said it badly was
it is wrong to denigrate our country in favour of another country or
religious force. Yes we have that right by law but it is not correct
to use or abuse that right while British troops are fighting and
dying.

What rubbish! If I do not believe that something is right, then why
should I not be able to say so? What the soldiers are doing in Iraq
is making me *less* safe,not more safe.

Post by t***@hotmail.com
I disagree with you strongly. If you are a part of this country then
you have consented by staying part of this country and retaining your
citizenship. What is happening now is being done by an elected
government of this country who many people support.

Let's see how well that translates to other areas. Paramedics and
ambulance staff are sometimes killed in the course of their duty.
They are certainly fighting to "keep us safe" more than the soldiers
in Iraq. Does that mean that anyone who is making use of the NHS
services does not have any right to complain about that service or the
behaviour of its employees unless they go elsewhere for their medical
treatment?

Or people in council houses have no right to criticise the council?

Same principle.

[a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk]

Post by Cynic

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Yes of course we do by law. What I meant although I said it badly was
it is wrong to denigrate our country in favour of another country or
religious force. Yes we have that right by law but it is not correct
to use or abuse that right while British troops are fighting and
dying.

What rubbish! If I do not believe that something is right, then why
should I not be able to say so? What the soldiers are doing in Iraq
is making me *less* safe,not more safe.

Indeed. The logical extension of Turtill's argument is that once
at war it would be wrong to ever make peace unless the enemy had
been totally defeated.

Axel

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk
Indeed. The logical extension of Turtill's argument is that once
at war it would be wrong to ever make peace unless the enemy had
been totally defeated.

No. Unless the enemy had stopped fighting and were no longer a danger.
If that means the same thing as fighting till the other side was
totally defeated mind you then yes that would be my argument.
pete

[a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk]

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk
Indeed. The logical extension of Turtill's argument is that once
at war it would be wrong to ever make peace unless the enemy had
been totally defeated.

No. Unless the enemy had stopped fighting and were no longer a danger.

Well, Iraq is no longer a danger to the UK... nor has ever been so.

Post by t***@hotmail.com
If that means the same thing as fighting till the other side was
totally defeated mind you then yes that would be my argument.

Why? Surely we should attempt to cause as few casualties as possible.
When the UK fought against Argentina over the Falklands, it was not a
war to the death. And if Rudolf Hess had been listened to, perhaps
peace might have been made.

Axel

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk
Indeed. The logical extension of Turtill's argument is that once
at war it would be wrong to ever make peace unless the enemy had
been totally defeated.

No. Unless the enemy had stopped fighting and were no longer a danger.

Well, Iraq is no longer a danger to the UK... nor has ever been so.

That was a war of conquest. The danger was that Saudi would fall and
Iraq would then became the only base suitable for the merkins and for
supplying oil. It will remain a danger until the insurgents/freedom
fighters can be stopped/appeased and the oil starts to flow again.

Post by a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk

Post by t***@hotmail.com
If that means the same thing as fighting till the other side was
totally defeated mind you then yes that would be my argument.

Why? Surely we should attempt to cause as few casualties as possible.

Yes as long as that can be done without cost to our own troops.

Post by a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk
When the UK fought against Argentina over the Falklands, it was not a
war to the death.

That was a different type of war. We were weak and had to fight
according to the merkins instructions. If we had still been a great
military power we would have gone to Argentina first.

Post by a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk
And if Rudolf Hess had been listened to, perhaps
peace might have been made.

Maybe, I don't know anything about that issue.
pete

[PeteM]

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by PeteM
We certainly do have that right, if by "denigrating our country" you
really mean "denigrating the actions of the British state".

Yes of course we do by law. What I meant although I said it badly was
it is wrong to denigrate our country in favour of another country or
religious force. Yes we have that right by law but it is not correct
to use or abuse that right while British troops are fighting and
dying.

"When our boys are dying ..." is just a mantra that people use to try
and close down political discussion.

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by PeteM

Post by t***@hotmail.com
and
while others are dying to guarantee our safety

Which "others" are you referring to here? British soldiers in Iraq? They
are most certainly not dying to guarantee *my* safety.

If you are a British non muslim then they are fighting and dying to
protect your safety.

No they aren't. What risk to my safety did Iraqis ever pose?

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by PeteM

Post by t***@hotmail.com
to protest about what
they do on our behalf.

Nobody is doing anything on my behalf except where I have consented to
it beforehand. If I have not consented, then I most certainly *do* have
the right to protest in whatever terms I choose.

I disagree with you strongly. If you are a part of this country then
you have consented by staying part of this country and retaining your
citizenship.

Absolute nonsense!

Post by t***@hotmail.com
What is happening now is being done by an elected
government of this country who many people support.

And most do not. And those who do not have the *absolute* right to
criticise government policy at any time and place, irrespective of
whether troops are "fighting and dying". This is clearly even more true
when the criticisms are of the government's decision to wage war in the
first place.

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by PeteM

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by PeteM
We certainly do have that right, if by "denigrating our country" you
really mean "denigrating the actions of the British state".

Yes of course we do by law. What I meant although I said it badly was
it is wrong to denigrate our country in favour of another country or
religious force. Yes we have that right by law but it is not correct
to use or abuse that right while British troops are fighting and
dying.

"When our boys are dying ..." is just a mantra that people use to try
and close down political discussion.

Not at all especially when people of reasonable intelligence are part
of the audience.There is nothing wrong with politically disagreeing
with the war and there is a law to ensure you have that right too but
it is indecent to back the other side by giving them comfort of
knowing they are making an impression on the general public.

Post by PeteM

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by PeteM

Post by t***@hotmail.com
and
while others are dying to guarantee our safety

Which "others" are you referring to here? British soldiers in Iraq? They
are most certainly not dying to guarantee *my* safety.

If you are a British non muslim then they are fighting and dying to
protect your safety.

No they aren't. What risk to my safety did Iraqis ever pose?

Saddam would have been in a position to strangle our oil supply if the
Saudis turned off their taps. That would have been more than just a
risk to your safety it would have forced you to think about your
survival. Saddam is an Iraqi.

Post by PeteM

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by PeteM

Post by t***@hotmail.com
to protest about what
they do on our behalf.

Nobody is doing anything on my behalf except where I have consented to
it beforehand. If I have not consented, then I most certainly *do* have
the right to protest in whatever terms I choose.

I disagree with you strongly. If you are a part of this country then
you have consented by staying part of this country and retaining your
citizenship.

Absolute nonsense!

Meaningless exclamation.

Post by PeteM

Post by t***@hotmail.com
What is happening now is being done by an elected
government of this country who many people support.

And most do not. And those who do not have the *absolute* right to
criticise government policy at any time and place, irrespective of
whether troops are "fighting and dying". This is clearly even more true
when the criticisms are of the government's decision to wage war in the
first place.

That may be true of you. I believe differently and I never voted for
Blair and never will either. It is IMO treacherous to give comfort to
an enemy when others of ones country are dying at their hands. Quite
obviously at least one person in the world has lower standards than
me.
pete

[Cynic]

Post by t***@hotmail.com
That may be true of you. I believe differently and I never voted for
Blair and never will either. It is IMO treacherous to give comfort to
an enemy when others of ones country are dying at their hands. Quite
obviously at least one person in the world has lower standards than
me.

So if your mate did something that you found morally reprehensible
(raping a child, for instance), you would stand up for your mate's
actions and criticise the child?

[a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk]

Post by t***@hotmail.com
It is completely different. We are at war in Iraq and people who want
to fight our troops get killed or imprisoned. In Britain we have a
right to protest and we do so but we do not have the right to
denigrate our own country while living within the protection of it and

Yes... we do... it is called freedom of speech.

Or perhaps you do not believe in that?

Post by t***@hotmail.com
while others are dying to guarantee our safety to protest about what
they do on our behalf.

They are not dying on to guarantee our safety... Iraq *never* threatened
the UK.

If you think otherwise, please post evidence.

Axel

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk

Post by t***@hotmail.com
It is completely different. We are at war in Iraq and people who want
to fight our troops get killed or imprisoned. In Britain we have a
right to protest and we do so but we do not have the right to
denigrate our own country while living within the protection of it and

Yes... we do... it is called freedom of speech.
Or perhaps you do not believe in that?

Yes I believe in freedom of speech providing that freedom is not
giving comfort to an enemy. Then it becomes treachery.

Post by a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk

Post by t***@hotmail.com
while others are dying to guarantee our safety to protest about what
they do on our behalf.

They are not dying on to guarantee our safety... Iraq *never* threatened
the UK.

Iraq was and will again be a major oil supplier to the world. If Saudi
stops producing oil then we need Iraqi oil to survive and in todays
world you do not wait until you have been wounded before you start
preventative action. Saddams actions just made it easier for us to do
that. It is not about right or wrong or goodies and badies. Life isn't
always very fair so you have to give it a hand sometimes.
pete

[Mrs.Smicker-Abacha]

In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@hotmail.com
says...

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk

Post by t***@hotmail.com
It is completely different. We are at war in Iraq and people who want
to fight our troops get killed or imprisoned. In Britain we have a
right to protest and we do so but we do not have the right to
denigrate our own country while living within the protection of it and

Yes... we do... it is called freedom of speech.
Or perhaps you do not believe in that?

Yes I believe in freedom of speech

Peter dear, you do not believe in freedom of speech unless it is your freedom,
how many times have you told usenet posters that unless they recant or stop
telling the truth about you, you will attempt to have their connection shut
down.

Post by t***@hotmail.com
providing that freedom is not giving comfort to an enemy. Then it becomes
treachery.

So if it is your enemy then it is alright to curtail their freedom of speech,
okay, good that you cleared that up.

[Richard Miller]

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Richard Miller
The young Moslems I saw this morning were saying exactly what I and many
others have been saying on this newsgroup, and what 2 million people
marched to protest about: that the war in Iraq was unjustifiably killing
thousands of innocent people, and we want it to stop.
I find that every bit as distasteful as these young Moslems did. I would
far rather see warmongers like Blair leave this country than them.
I don't for one moment condone the actions of the bombers in London; but
I have a hard time distinguishing it at all in moral terms from what is
being done in our name in Iraq.

It is completely different. We are at war in Iraq and people who want
to fight our troops get killed or imprisoned.

The only difference is that we chose to be at war, they didn't. We have
little right to object that someone is now fighting back.

[a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk]

Post by Richard Miller

Post by t***@hotmail.com
I never saw that program but I disagree with your conclusion. Many
people of different religions and beliefs live in this country
peacefully. There is a war in Iraq and very often in the confusion of
war the wrong target gets hit. Many British non moslems in this country
do not agree with what is happening in Iraq but they are not murdering
people to make their point. No, if a British Moslem doesn't like what
this country does because it is against his/hers religious belief then
they should leave this country not stay here and accept hospitality
from infidels. There are native British born Moslems whose families are
completely British for decades and if they feel the same way they
should leave too. Many countries will take them without question but
they will not get free NHS or even a reasonably lawful country to live
in. So these people should make their choice if they cannot stomach
what british soldiers are doing go away and do something about it like
honourable people. Those who were on TV today that you post about
should leave this country if they find it so
distasteful.

I don't get that argument at all.
The young Moslems I saw this morning were saying exactly what I and many
others have been saying on this newsgroup, and what 2 million people
marched to protest about: that the war in Iraq was unjustifiably killing
thousands of innocent people, and we want it to stop.

Indeed. We can say that. It does not make much difference. I cannot
see that the UK population is ever going to be allowed any say
with regard to much. When so many people demonstrated... it
became apparent that their voices were totally disregarded.

Post by Richard Miller
I find that every bit as distasteful as these young Moslems did. I would
far rather see warmongers like Blair leave this country than them.
I don't for one moment condone the actions of the bombers in London; but
I have a hard time distinguishing it at all in moral terms from what is
being done in our name in Iraq.

The UK, as you point out, has no moral interest in Iraq.

Maybe many years ago... when Churchill gassed Kurds, but no longer
and that interest was immoral.

Axel

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk
The UK, as you point out, has no moral interest in Iraq.

The UK has a moral duty to protect the future of it's citizens and
that is what this is all about.
pete

[Martin Milan]

Post by Richard Miller

Post by Martin Milan
I think you'll find a few SAS daytrips would, in the final analysys,
prove more effective in combatting terrorism than just rolling over and
playing dead. It's a shame that it should come to this, and I don't
revel in violence, but I don't think you can negotiate with people like
this.

You can't; but neither can you ever hope to identify all of them.
That is why as well as targeting as many of the actual perps as you can,
it is essential to tackle the causes that persuade people to condone or
even join the terrorists. Clearly our killing of thousands of innocent
Iraqis in their own homes is one such cause, as the young Moslems on BBC
Breakfast this morning made clear. The least we could do is stop doing
that.

I'm right with you on that one.

I don't like Tony's war any more than you do.

[Cynic]

Post by Martin Milan
Yes, there's a billion muslims in the world. I don't have a problem with
that, because the overwhelming majority of them are not interested in
terrorism, and just wnt to be left to live their lives, thank you very
much...

The fact that there are indeed a huge majority of peace-loving
innocent people who otherwise share *exactly* the same characteristics
as the terrorist means that it is extremely difficult to identify who
is and who is not a terrorist. It is that fact that makes it
virtually impossible to win against terrorists.

[Alan Hope]

Post by Martin Milan
Our
response now should be to wipe out the terrorists, but improve our own
game as well...

Can anyone come up with an example of a 'war' against some 'terrorist'
group that was ever won? Other than by the terrorists, I mean.

Seems to me the only way terrorists ever stop is when they become the
government. But if anyone has a counter-example, I'd love to hear it.

[Cynic]

Post by Alan Hope

Post by Martin Milan
Our
response now should be to wipe out the terrorists, but improve our own
game as well...

Can anyone come up with an example of a 'war' against some 'terrorist'
group that was ever won? Other than by the terrorists, I mean.
Seems to me the only way terrorists ever stop is when they become the
government. But if anyone has a counter-example, I'd love to hear it.

Last time I researched the issue (being involved in a terrorist war
myself at the time) was 30 odd years ago. I recall that there have
been exactly *two* cases in history when terrorists were successfully
defeated, which represents an extremely tiny fraction of the number of
terrorist wars that have taken place. I'll have to motivate myself to
look up the details again, but I recall that the situations were both
pretty exceptional. IIRC in the one case it involved an action where
the number of terrorists were small and geographically contained, and
were all wiped out. In the other, the reason for the terrorism was
changed by external events that had nothing to do with the terrorists'
acts, and so they stopped because they no longer had a cause to fight
for.

But I may have misremembered the details.

[John Anderton]

Post by Cynic

Post by Alan Hope

Post by Martin Milan
Our
response now should be to wipe out the terrorists, but improve our own
game as well...

Can anyone come up with an example of a 'war' against some 'terrorist'
group that was ever won? Other than by the terrorists, I mean.
Seems to me the only way terrorists ever stop is when they become the
government. But if anyone has a counter-example, I'd love to hear it.

Last time I researched the issue (being involved in a terrorist war
myself at the time) was 30 odd years ago. I recall that there have
been exactly *two* cases in history when terrorists were successfully
defeated, which represents an extremely tiny fraction of the number of
terrorist wars that have taken place. I'll have to motivate myself to
look up the details again, but I recall that the situations were both
pretty exceptional. IIRC in the one case it involved an action where
the number of terrorists were small and geographically contained, and
were all wiped out. In the other, the reason for the terrorism was
changed by external events that had nothing to do with the terrorists'
acts, and so they stopped because they no longer had a cause to fight
for.
But I may have misremembered the details.

Didn't the original IRA lose the Irish Civil war ? OK, their political
leadership later won power through democratic means but the military
campaign was defeated.

Cheers,

John

[Cynic]

Post by John Anderton
Didn't the original IRA lose the Irish Civil war ? OK, their political
leadership later won power through democratic means but the military
campaign was defeated.

And you *seriously* believe that the two were in no way connected?

After a solution to a conflict has been decided, the negotiators then
decide what public pronoucement to make. The public pronouncement
will not necessarily reveal the crux of the matters that swung the
deal. Public announcement will state what the result of the deal is,
but the reasons given will be more to do with face-saving and
maintaining credibility.

The same applies to lots of political decisions.

[bigbrian]

Post by Cynic

Post by John Anderton
Didn't the original IRA lose the Irish Civil war ? OK, their political
leadership later won power through democratic means but the military
campaign was defeated.

And you *seriously* believe that the two were in no way connected?
After a solution to a conflict has been decided, the negotiators then
decide what public pronoucement to make. The public pronouncement
will not necessarily reveal the crux of the matters that swung the
deal. Public announcement will state what the result of the deal is,
but the reasons given will be more to do with face-saving and
maintaining credibility.
The same applies to lots of political decisions.

Of course, if you take a long enough perspective, you can try and
establish cause and effect in pretty much anything, but that doesn't
mean its there. In reality, there are many other variables that come
into play over time. The Berlin Wall didn't fall because of a
sustained terrorist campaign. It came down because its time ran out,
and the world had moved on.

I don't for a second believe that the IRA's terrorist campaign brought
forward any change in the political make up of the country - most
likely quite the reverse. But the most significant factor in reducing
violence in Northern Ireland - and I speak as a pro united Ireland
Irishman, although not pro IRA - was simply time. It would have
happened anyway, and arguably sooner than it did. To equate that to an
argument that the terrorism was successful because ulttimately its
aims were achieved is absurd

Brian

[Cynic]

Post by bigbrian
Of course, if you take a long enough perspective, you can try and
establish cause and effect in pretty much anything, but that doesn't
mean its there. In reality, there are many other variables that come
into play over time. The Berlin Wall didn't fall because of a
sustained terrorist campaign. It came down because its time ran out,
and the world had moved on.

I prefer to look at events and timings and decide whether causal
effect is likely or not. You are almost certainly correct wrt the
Berlin wall, but the IRA situation favours the view that there was
causality between the terrorist attacks and the political appeasment.

Post by bigbrian
I don't for a second believe that the IRA's terrorist campaign brought
forward any change in the political make up of the country

Whilst I have very little doubt that it led to political dialogue and
decisions that would never have happened otherwise.

[John Anderton]

Post by Cynic

Post by John Anderton
Didn't the original IRA lose the Irish Civil war ? OK, their political
leadership later won power through democratic means but the military
campaign was defeated.

And you *seriously* believe that the two were in no way connected?

Yes. I believe that people eventually voted for De Valera and his
followers because they liked what they said, not because they waged a
terrorist campaign against the government.

I'm fairly sure De Valera would have become President of the Republic
regardless of whether the civil war had taken place or not. In fact
resorting to terrorist tactics probably harmed his cause rather than
helped it.

Post by Cynic
After a solution to a conflict has been decided, the negotiators then
decide what public pronoucement to make. The public pronouncement
will not necessarily reveal the crux of the matters that swung the
deal. Public announcement will state what the result of the deal is,
but the reasons given will be more to do with face-saving and
maintaining credibility.

What sort of deal was struck after the civil war then ? AFAIK it was
pretty much along the lines of "Oh well, we'll go back to the way we
were before we started this nonsense"

Cheers,

John

[JVB]

The RAF Red Army Faction (or fraction, were a group of misguided
intellectuals who thought they in the vietnam period could solve the worlds
problems.
Each week / month I noticed whilst serving in west Germany the BKA posters
displays mudshots of these freedom fighters, with a red cross though the pic
as and when no longer a threat, ;-)))

When eventually they were caught, they bickered and blamed each other during
their trial, sacking their defence lawyers, what a sad bunch.

Ulricke Mienhof even gave up her twin daughters to pursue her terrorism,
completely lost the plot and hung herself in stannheim prison on mothers day
1976, how apt!!. Of the other 4, 3 topped themselves, 2 shot in the back of
the head (no powder burns ??), 1 hung herself, the other tried to stab
herself and Failed??

These were the core members dubbed The Baader /Meinhof Gang by the German
springer press.
The leftovers simply whimpered out of existence, due to the diligence of the
Bundeskriminalamprt shoot to kill policy, yes it does work.

It is quite clear this bunch came to the end of the wrong road.

John

Post by Cynic

Post by Alan Hope

Post by Martin Milan
Our
response now should be to wipe out the terrorists, but improve our own
game as well...

Can anyone come up with an example of a 'war' against some 'terrorist'
group that was ever won? Other than by the terrorists, I mean.
Seems to me the only way terrorists ever stop is when they become the
government. But if anyone has a counter-example, I'd love to hear it.

Last time I researched the issue (being involved in a terrorist war
myself at the time) was 30 odd years ago. I recall that there have
been exactly *two* cases in history when terrorists were successfully
defeated, which represents an extremely tiny fraction of the number of
terrorist wars that have taken place. I'll have to motivate myself to
look up the details again, but I recall that the situations were both
pretty exceptional. IIRC in the one case it involved an action where
the number of terrorists were small and geographically contained, and
were all wiped out. In the other, the reason for the terrorism was
changed by external events that had nothing to do with the terrorists'
acts, and so they stopped because they no longer had a cause to fight
for.
But I may have misremembered the details.
--
Cynic

[Stephen Horgan]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:53:03 +0100, Clive Waters

Post by Clive Waters
It is quite obvious to anyone who witnessed the carnage of the London
bombings this week, that the only people to blame are those who insist
that we can fight terrorism on a global scale. There will certainly
be more bombing in the future if we don't start now to end the insane
policies of the USA loving Blair government. We need to see the
problem is not the Muslim people, whom have chosen to live their life
as they wish, but it is our absurd belief that forced democracy will
somehow change them into something they are not.

Islamic terrorists are against the current Middle Eastern governments,
not some hypothetical future democracies.

Post by Clive Waters
We cannot retaliate against anyone but ourselves for the destruction
we witnessed. The only way out of this vicious cycle of violence is to
refuse to play the game. If they want to continue to bomb us, then
they will, we, however, should not respond in kind. In less than a
decade we can turn this whole thing around, they will see us as the
peaceful people we all wish to be, and we can then all live in harmony
together.

Letting an enemy kill you does not lead to peace. It leads to
oppression.
--
Stephen Horgan

"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"

[John of Aix]

Post by Stephen Horgan
Letting an enemy kill you does not lead to peace. It leads to
oppression.

And you wonder why there have been bombs in London? So far the deaths in
Iraq are estimated to pass 100,000. Whatever people think of the Muslim
world and Iraq, people there aren't stupid enough to let themselves be
bombed willy-nilly by Bush and his bum boy and not fight back, and no
one has the slightest right to complain about what happens from then on.
Take away the cause and you'll take away the effects.

["The IT Man Baby"]

"John of Aix" <***@libertysurf.fr> wrote in message news:42d1a883$0$22306$***@news.wanadoo.fr...
-snip-

Post by John of Aix
Take away the cause and you'll take away the effects.

Take away the pacifist and you have a fight.

The IT Man Baby!

[They call me 'Red']

Post by Stephen Horgan
Letting an enemy kill you does not lead to peace. It leads to
oppression.

Yes, Londoners let themselves be blown up!.

Red

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[anonimulo]

Post by Clive Waters
It is quite obvious to anyone who witnessed the carnage of the London
bombings this week, that the only people to blame are those who insist
that we can fight terrorism on a global scale.
[more crap snipped]

Yet another sock puppet, after "Steve Greene" and "Bazzer".

It's a shame the person behind them hasn't got the courage of his/her own
convictions to either post in their own name or maintain a consistent
alias.

Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!news-out.newsfeeds.com!propagator3-LAX.newsfeeds.com!news-in.usenet.com!news.alt.net!usenet
From: Clive Waters <***@bungienet.invalid>
Newsgroups:
uk.local.nw-england,uk.local.yorkshire,uk.legal,free.uk.talk.sheffield,uk.politics.misc,uk.local.london,alt.politics.british,uk.misc
Subject: The fallacy of 'Fighting Terrorism'
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:53:03 +0100
Organization: Peace Through Surrender
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Xref: uni-berlin.de uk.local.nw-england:72518 uk.local.yorkshire:338903
uk.legal:983231 free.uk.talk.sheffield:5581 uk.politics.misc:1629283
uk.local.london:373442 alt.politics.british:1111955 uk.misc:1114215


Path: uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!news.glorb.com!news.alt.net!usenet
From: Bazzer <***@nowhere.no>
Newsgroups:
uk.local.isle-of-wight,uk.local.birmingham,uk.local.yorkshire,uk.local.geordie,uk.local.southwest,uk.local.glasgow,uk.local.nw-england,uk.local.east-anglia
Subject: >> Joke <<
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:04:35 +0100
Organization: BD
Lines: 5
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Xref: uni-berlin.de uk.local.isle-of-wight:52682 uk.local.birmingham:80743
uk.local.yorkshire:338700 uk.local.geordie:81540 uk.local.southwest:198176
uk.local.glasgow:92755 uk.local.nw-england:72475 uk.local.east-anglia:84802


Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!newshub.sdsu.edu!msrtrans!msrn-in!news.alt.net!usenet
From: Steve Greene <***@hotmail.com.invalid>
Newsgroups:
uk.local.nw-england,uk.local.yorkshire,uk.legal,free.uk.talk.sheffield,uk.politics.misc,uk.local.london,alt.politics.british
Subject: Islamic Group Claims Attack
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:58:07 +0100
Organization: SG
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-No-Archive: yes
Xref: uni-berlin.de uk.local.nw-england:72469 uk.local.yorkshire:338672
uk.legal:981931 free.uk.talk.sheffield:4947 uk.politics.misc:1625624
uk.local.london:372182 alt.politics.british:1109833

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Post by anonimulo

Post by Clive Waters
It is quite obvious to anyone who witnessed the carnage of the London
bombings this week, that the only people to blame are those who insist
that we can fight terrorism on a global scale.
[more crap snipped]

Yet another sock puppet, after "Steve Greene" and "Bazzer".
It's a shame the person behind them hasn't got the courage of his/her own
convictions to either post in their own name or maintain a consistent
alias.

Well, allow me to spell it out, using my own name (Dirk Bruere).
The Iraq war was sold to us on, at best, false premises and at worst outright
lies. The leaked memo indicated that this war was going to happen no matter what
the UN did or did not find in Iraq, and irrespective of the level of Iraqi
co-operation with the UN. Now it has tunred into an unlimited occupation to prop
up a puppet government.

It's not just me who thinks the true motivations were control of oil prices and
securing supplies as well as knocking over the first of Israel's enemies. If you
recall Bush had a whole list. Next up was Syria to be followed by Iran.

So I can quite understand why Moslems in general and AQ in particular feel
somewhat peeved at that, and especially the gutless UK population that
re-elected Bush's poodle even knowing all the above.

The whole AQ thing has arisen over the past two decades from a number of
different causes, and in all of the the West has had a huge hand. There is the
'realpolitik' of US (and British) support for vicious dictatorships in the ME
from the Shah to Saddam (until he mistakenly bit the hand that fed him). Then
there is the US pretending to be 'honest broker' in the ME over the Palestinian
issue while acting as a client state for Israel - they can do not wrong in US
eyes. Then we have Bin Laden's pet hate - the House of Saud. Another nasty
little dictatorship with whom, in the words of Thatcher "we can do business".

Our hands are far from clean in these matters and when it comes right down to it
we have killed far more innocent people in pursuit of this shortsighted
'realpolitik' than AQ could ever dream of.

[h]

Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax

Post by anonimulo

Post by Clive Waters
It is quite obvious to anyone who witnessed the carnage of the London
bombings this week, that the only people to blame are those who insist
that we can fight terrorism on a global scale.
[more crap snipped]

Yet another sock puppet, after "Steve Greene" and "Bazzer".
It's a shame the person behind them hasn't got the courage of his/her own
convictions to either post in their own name or maintain a consistent
alias.

Well, allow me to spell it out, using my own name (Dirk Bruere).
The Iraq war was sold to us on, at best, false premises and at worst
outright lies. The leaked memo indicated that this war was going to happen
no matter what the UN did or did not find in Iraq, and irrespective of the
level of Iraqi co-operation with the UN. Now it has tunred into an
unlimited occupation to prop up a puppet government.
It's not just me who thinks the true motivations were control of oil
prices and securing supplies as well as knocking over the first of
Israel's enemies. If you recall Bush had a whole list. Next up was Syria
to be followed by Iran.
So I can quite understand why Moslems in general and AQ in particular feel
somewhat peeved at that, and especially the gutless UK population that
re-elected Bush's poodle even knowing all the above.
The whole AQ thing has arisen over the past two decades from a number of
different causes, and in all of the the West has had a huge hand. There is
the 'realpolitik' of US (and British) support for vicious dictatorships in
the ME from the Shah to Saddam (until he mistakenly bit the hand that fed
him). Then there is the US pretending to be 'honest broker' in the ME over
the Palestinian issue while acting as a client state for Israel - they can
do not wrong in US eyes. Then we have Bin Laden's pet hate - the House of
Saud. Another nasty little dictatorship with whom, in the words of
Thatcher "we can do business".
Our hands are far from clean in these matters and when it comes right down
to it we have killed far more innocent people in pursuit of this
shortsighted 'realpolitik' than AQ could ever dream of.

Well said Dirk and welcome back:-))

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Post by h

Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax

Post by anonimulo

Post by Clive Waters
It is quite obvious to anyone who witnessed the carnage of the London
bombings this week, that the only people to blame are those who insist
that we can fight terrorism on a global scale.
[more crap snipped]

Yet another sock puppet, after "Steve Greene" and "Bazzer".
It's a shame the person behind them hasn't got the courage of his/her own
convictions to either post in their own name or maintain a consistent
alias.

Well, allow me to spell it out, using my own name (Dirk Bruere).
The Iraq war was sold to us on, at best, false premises and at worst
outright lies. The leaked memo indicated that this war was going to happen
no matter what the UN did or did not find in Iraq, and irrespective of the
level of Iraqi co-operation with the UN. Now it has tunred into an
unlimited occupation to prop up a puppet government.
It's not just me who thinks the true motivations were control of oil
prices and securing supplies as well as knocking over the first of
Israel's enemies. If you recall Bush had a whole list. Next up was Syria
to be followed by Iran.
So I can quite understand why Moslems in general and AQ in particular feel
somewhat peeved at that, and especially the gutless UK population that
re-elected Bush's poodle even knowing all the above.
The whole AQ thing has arisen over the past two decades from a number of
different causes, and in all of the the West has had a huge hand. There is
the 'realpolitik' of US (and British) support for vicious dictatorships in
the ME from the Shah to Saddam (until he mistakenly bit the hand that fed
him). Then there is the US pretending to be 'honest broker' in the ME over
the Palestinian issue while acting as a client state for Israel - they can
do not wrong in US eyes. Then we have Bin Laden's pet hate - the House of
Saud. Another nasty little dictatorship with whom, in the words of
Thatcher "we can do business".
Our hands are far from clean in these matters and when it comes right down
to it we have killed far more innocent people in pursuit of this
shortsighted 'realpolitik' than AQ could ever dream of.

Well said Dirk and welcome back:-))

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm posting frmm uk.local.london
However, I may deign to grace UKPM soon... :-)

[h]

Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax

Post by h

Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax

Post by anonimulo

Post by Clive Waters
It is quite obvious to anyone who witnessed the carnage of the London
bombings this week, that the only people to blame are those who insist
that we can fight terrorism on a global scale.
[more crap snipped]

Yet another sock puppet, after "Steve Greene" and "Bazzer".
It's a shame the person behind them hasn't got the courage of his/her
own convictions to either post in their own name or maintain a
consistent alias.

Well, allow me to spell it out, using my own name (Dirk Bruere).
The Iraq war was sold to us on, at best, false premises and at worst
outright lies. The leaked memo indicated that this war was going to
happen no matter what the UN did or did not find in Iraq, and
irrespective of the level of Iraqi co-operation with the UN. Now it has
tunred into an unlimited occupation to prop up a puppet government.
It's not just me who thinks the true motivations were control of oil
prices and securing supplies as well as knocking over the first of
Israel's enemies. If you recall Bush had a whole list. Next up was Syria
to be followed by Iran.
So I can quite understand why Moslems in general and AQ in particular
feel somewhat peeved at that, and especially the gutless UK population
that re-elected Bush's poodle even knowing all the above.
The whole AQ thing has arisen over the past two decades from a number of
different causes, and in all of the the West has had a huge hand. There
is the 'realpolitik' of US (and British) support for vicious
dictatorships in the ME from the Shah to Saddam (until he mistakenly bit
the hand that fed him). Then there is the US pretending to be 'honest
broker' in the ME over the Palestinian issue while acting as a client
state for Israel - they can do not wrong in US eyes. Then we have Bin
Laden's pet hate - the House of Saud. Another nasty little dictatorship
with whom, in the words of Thatcher "we can do business".
Our hands are far from clean in these matters and when it comes right
down to it we have killed far more innocent people in pursuit of this
shortsighted 'realpolitik' than AQ could ever dream of.

Well said Dirk and welcome back:-))

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm posting frmm uk.local.london
However, I may deign to grace UKPM soon... :-)

Of course your Royal Highness we only stand and wait:-)))