trident

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?

How can you say he's defending the actions of Al-Quaeda.....the first line of his post explicity states that he opposes them?

You've, in the past, spoken plenty of Western imperialism abroad and the shared responsibility of the US for the 9/11 attacks - trying to understand the reason behind a group such as Al Quaeda doesn't make you a sympathiser (and particularly not when you've directly criticised their actions).

I don't think anyone is trying to justify their actions.

The UN stopped the Israel/Hezbollah war for starters. Whether or not you regard it as 'successful', given the amount of time it took them, and the numbers who needlessly died before they did, is another matter.

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.

What was a conflict with senseless civilian toll on both sides is now not seeing that same slaughter, immediately following a UN resolution on the issue.

You don't regard this as a success?

There are plenty of examples of successful peace keeping missions, Wikipedia is your friend eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNMIL

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.

It's a UN force - the US wouldn't be able to sustain the expenditure to keep its troops in all the places UN forces are.

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.

maybe we should sent the nucastle club board council seeing as they're so efficient

have you never aske your self why they want westerners out of the middle east though ???

if we're not there to keep an eye out who knows what the fuck would happen

there are reasons for them to want western influences removed or restrained, some understandable to a degree, some completely unreasonable.

either way its highly unlikely... they need wastern money etc but maybe if foreign policy and certain other problems were addressed then the terrorists and fanatics wouldnt have much of an argument.

i dont like some outside influences interfering in my affairs... many people dont like the EU raining down legislation, many muslims object to westeners controlling parts of their nations assets and the ordinary citizens not seeing any of the money.

i feel some of the reasons are understandable but the actions are deplorable.

your acctually an intelligent guy when you aint being obnoxous




ha ha fair points dude but do you you still not think they would use the advantage of no western security services being there to gain a bigger army to attack the west ? i think they would

haha i've had a break and come back with some inner peace

the western security forces are not there to deter an attack, and remember that the governments of many of these nations are classed as allies... its the often civilians that have a problem because of the corrupt governments pandering to the west.

the nations often arent our enemies, but outside influences and corrupt governments are creating more and more hatred against the west as the people are the casualties.

also there are different types of muslims, for example al-qaeda probably arent heavily involved in the palestinian problem because palestinians are shia'a muslims and al-qaeda are sunni muslims. other islamic and arab states are allies to the west and welcome westeners (such as the UAE) wheras others alienate us (eg iran).

they will never all "join forces" against us for a whole host of reasons that i've only very briefly touched upon.