trident

just cos we created a name for what we are doing (much the same as their Jihad) dosnt mean we are wrong, there was obviously some threat felt by western governments, And these were confirmed that fateful day in new york. so you tell me are they or are they not a threat ?????

I too can see the point you are making but I don't see that this has any relevance. seeing as when the Russians were having a go, Bin Liner and the Al-Q crew were loving the fact the Americans were there feeding them weapons and all the training they needed , they weren't arsed that the Americans were there AT ALL, then all of a sudden (out of convenience IMO) they suddenly think hold on I want em off now, we've had your weapons now fuck off or we'll kill you all for not believing in our god !!! fuck off people like that see any sign of weakness and try and work on it , like now they see the media as the west's weakness why do you think you see all the dead children being carried on al-jiz TV . shock tactics of the media kind .

jihad is an ancient term for a holy war, not a political or media description.

in theory the "war on terror" is not a bad thing. removal of terrorist threats should be supported and championed, however the way which it has been conducted hasn't been successful... far from removing terrorist threats it has bred more people willing to walk on a bus and blow themselves up... whether that be in israel, bali, istanbul, new york or london...

we knew about bin laden for years (he was supposedly funded and trained by the cia against the soviets). he had attacked american targets before yet we never fought a nation over it.

he should have been neutralised before he had the chance to become so infamous, now he has support and sympathy and with that a lot of influence... the west is now paying the price for immoral foreign policy and its highly unfortuante that innocent people in both the west and the middle east are paying the price.

so to clarify your point, no the west was not wrong to conduct a war on terror... but it could have been thought out a tad more in my opinion.

I too can see the point you are making but I don't see that this has any relevance. seeing as when the Russians were having a go, Bin Liner and the Al-Q crew were loving the fact the Americans were there feeding them weapons and all the training they needed , they weren't arsed that the Americans were there AT ALL, then all of a sudden (out of convenience IMO) they suddenly think hold on I want em off now, we've had your weapons now fuck off or we'll kill you all for not believing in our god !!! fuck off people like that see any sign of weakness and try and work on it , like now they see the media as the west's weakness why do you think you see all the dead children being carried on al-jiz TV . shock tactics of the media kind .

fair point well put


i knew the jihad meaning im just saying they have a name for it as well

fair points and some truths in them, al-qaeda do use certain things to their benefit when it suits them (eg support against israel - which is not their fight at all), but then they are not reasonable and prone to erratics.

however be careful when generalising not to over-simplify... factors that were in place at the time of the soviet and mujahadeen conflict are not neccessarily in place now... times change as do alliances, politics and rhetoric spouting madmen!

also, al-qaeda, as i explanied before, do not (or should not) want to spread islam by force (if they do then they go against qu'ranic teachings but we wont go into those complexities here!), their goal is for the holy land to be cleared of foreign troops etc. of course some individuals will want to impose islam on others (as christians and other groups have done) or enforce dhimmitude and other restrictions but al-qaeda is not solely about those aims.

good debate

and the same can be said of your post

i think a lot of the british public are now realising (if they hadn't earlier) what a mess we are in.

the lies of the iraq war were the nail in the coffin for me, having to some extents supported a war that turned out to be based on fabrications is insulting. as i said, a liberation war would have possibly been a more moral war and also make the deaths of soldiers more paletable, for want of a better word.

the lies have made a dreadful situation unbearable... if wmd's had been located in iraq and al-qaeda and the taliban removed from afghanistan then the authorities could claim justification, however all we are left with is two war-torn nations and high anti-western sentiment... a lot of people wont care as they dont see it directly affecting them, but one more bad decision could see us all affected terribly.

we need to tread very carefully and help rebuild nations as well as rebuilding shattered trust... the problem i see is that it will take a long time and there will be more terrorist atrocities down the line, i just hope there wont be any more quick fix solutions to situations that really need long term perseverance.

If north Korea or Iran were suddenly to launch a nuclear strike on England out of the blue just because they were unstable or run by madmen (even typing that makes me realise how far from the real world this debate can stray) but if they did, does it mean that we should then rain Trident missiles down on their civilians murdering millions of them and rendering large parts of the globe uninhabitable for thousands of years?

Is this REALLY what we would do?

Would you be glad to have this happen in your name?

and Smog and Andy you are right about the war on terror. If we considered an anti terror programme rather than a 'war' we might be able to make some progress.

Do you understand what the word deterrent means?

I find it astounding to hear you defend Al-Qaeda's actions, the US has military bases throughout the world (as do many western nations) - this isn't a justification for the sloughter of thousands.

We're not persueing peace, we're securing our nation!

You can only seek peace if your neighbour is willing to engage in the process... Iran and North Korea will stockpile weapons regardless of whether or not we have a nuclear arsenal.

However if our nation had a nuclear arsenal it would make potential threats reconsider how willing they would be to launch an attack on us.... It also acts as a psycholigcal aid in any potential conflicts.... I don't fancy taking orders from tehran

Is one of their goals not to stop the spreading of western values through islamic lands?

Can you name me a conflict the UN has successfully resolved?

That's the best example you could come up with?!?!? The war hasn't ended! Hizbu'llah still seek the destruction of Israel and Israel still seek the destruction of Hizbu'llah.

And the UN didn't sort shit, the Americans did... the UN ground troops still haven't been deployed.

again this can be attributed to the US - the UN tried to manage liberia for 5 years... it wasn't until the US stepped into the frame that peace was found.

The UN has a legacy of ineffectiveness.

history would disagree

you think the US has a legacy of effectiveness??????? vietnam. somalia. alienated most of south america. fucked up Iraq. Fucked up Afghanistan. fucked up Haiti (twice) cuba.partitioned korea. and that's just off the top of my head
you watch too many US war films my friend

The UN is the only forum for world peace that has a hope of success. It may be corrupt it may be bureaucratic but it's all we got.

i said i wasn't justifying bin laden quite clearly in my post if you care to re-read it.

however i will play devils advocate somewhat but in no way could i ever defend al-qaeda and bin laden. it doesn't mean i have to agree wholeheartedly with US and british foreign policy or the progress of the "war on terror". its one of the perks of a democratic society

i think that falls under expelling western military and western influences from the gulf. other goals include: capturing jerusalem for islam (despite a low profile of al-qaeda in israel) and overthrowing un-islamic states... however, the rhetoric spouted by bin laden has said many times that the removal of troops from the gulf is paramount, hence the truce offered and his regular references to the removal.

however i am under no illusions, if al-qaeda had the power to overthrow un-islamic nations then im sure they would have a go. but i think as a realistic goal its far far away if ever possible, and the upper echelons on al-qaeda know this.