trident

do you acctually beleve any of your own shit ???? not just last week the Al-Q were throwing threats at france the biggest opposers to the war's

and do you really think if the wars were ok by the UN that Al-Q would not still target the west ???

jihad is againt the western non belivers that includes UN officials

you recon??? how ?

this is the most stupidest thing i have heard you say so we just thought one day i know ! we'll start a war and wait to see who comes crawling out the wood work, C'mon your havin a bubble

the target IS THE WEST and it is well documented that we as THE WEST are targets just cos weponds cant reach here from there, dosn't mean that if they had them they wouldn't use them! , you KNOW that if they had the capability to strike the UK and EUROPE they fuckin would so why not stop them before they are capable ? like i said before if you were in a scrap in toon would you wait for the lad to pick up a broken bottle then try and take it off him or would you rather neutrilise the threat beforehand? i know what i would do ?

not 100% true, but the hasty knee-jerk reactions of western powers has inflated tensions and given rise to islamic fundamentalists to preach their views to a wider audience that are now more likely to sympathise. the new wave of terrorists will be from our own doing... many radical clerics were just that, radical. now their views are inspiring more hatred, because to a muslim it must look like the west is against them.

the "war on terror" is a western invention that has been convenient in so many ways whether you believe conspiracy theorists or not. the government has some very useful anti-terror laws that can be used and the pipeline accross afghanistan with oil from iraq is a nice little side effect for the west.

the war in afghanistan was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. and while i support the removal of the taliban and al-qaeda training camps, with hindsight the timing and role of the UN should have been considered more carefully. same with iraq, it was war based on lies... saddam was evil and persecuted many of his own people but had no means with which to attack us, as has been proved. if the war was fought as a liberation i would have been more in favour, but that would mean we would have to invade countless other rogue nations. both wars have created a stink and arguably led to an increase in terrorism and anti-western feelings amongst muslims.

firstly the russians were our enemies for decades and they DID have weapons that could reach us yet we never went to war... i have the ability to punch or stab someone yet that is no basis for an arrest just as having weapons is no basis for a war.

if you knew anything about the situation you would realise al-qaeda might not like britain, america etc, but they would have NO interest in attacking us in our own countries. al-qaeda (as bin laden has made clear several times) want the removal of foreign military personel and bases from holy soil, namely the american basis in saudi arabia (bin ladens homeland)... bin laden even offered america a truce if they would take their troops off muslim soil. if tomorrow the americans upped and left then by their own admission al-qaeda would have fulfilled their main goal.

the middle east is much more complex than a punch up in the bigg market and it is precisely why the west has to tread very carefully. i dont agree with certain parts of islamic teachings or certain laws but they dont agree with many of ours, and some of our foreign policies leave a lot to be desired and some are downright wrong. there are bridges to be built and it will take a long time but its worth persevering with peace, not war mongering. i've had enough of wars fought in my name.

Both are unstable nations that could easily witness a regime change, both nations are vociferously opposed to British values and both nations have a legacy of irratic actions.

I'm impressed that you can speak with such authority on how sensibly they'll use their nukes

Didn't the twin towers provoke the war on terror!?!?!?

But with the current global market this is impossible, England have troops in Germany but Germans aren't flying planes into Big Ben.

i'm not casting an opinion on whether bin laden is justified, if pushed i'm far more likely to lean away from his reasoning and certainly his actions. but i can see how he objects to foreign military on holy soil, land that is apparently sacred to a religion, i can get that...

im sure i would be aggreived if there was a presence i objected to on soil which i cherished (toon players at the riverside stadium anyone? ).

seriously though, surely the differences between germany and al-qaeda are massive. for one germany was a beaten western nation which did share many western ideals with britain despite ww2, there is little of the mistrust and hatred of ww2 left and both britain and germany have had very strong links, wars in the west are different to how we conducted ourselves for centuries in the middle east.

al-qaeda is a terrorist organisation that is not tied to one nation, islamic culture is vastly different to western culture and certain muslims object to our interference and/or presence. i dont see how comparisons (barring extremely generalised and vague ones)can be made regarding military bases on german and saudi soil when the two regions and mindsets differ significantly.

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

Refreshingly intelligent as ever Smog

This is the essence of the mess we now find ourselves in - the war in Afghanistan was and is almost certainly justifiable in most people's eyes - the removal of the terrorist training camps and the need to capture high profile Al-Quaeda members was probably of sufficient importance to us that the war was legal. You could also argue about drug production and the role of the Taleban but to a lesser extent.

However, the reason it's such a problem was the failure of the US to incorporate the UN properly in the initial invasion...

It's due to the failure to correctly estimate the scale of the resistance in both Iraq and Afghanistan that we now find ourselves overstretched in both, and unable to meaningfully 'threaten' the likes of North Korea.

Had we involved a more multinational force from the start, we'd be less internationally isolated, less specifically targeted by extremeists and less overstretched certainly in Afghanistan - whether or not we could have mustered the same support for Iraq is doubtful though, but then in my opinion we shouldn't have gone in at all.

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?