Terrorism: Cause And Effect

[P.K.]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I quoted them as leaders who have been assassinated due to their policies. Or do you mean in isolation that the UK political leadership led to the recent bombings in London?

Oh dear  PK

Wow big leaps off assumptions, re read please----the people WEvote for, ie that we are responsible for electing and whilst you gather numbers, compare uk losses from 1966 of non combatent civilians to politicians, you may well find a disparity.

No im not being obtuse, your point is poorly made and shallow.

 

 

What did you think the helicopter gunship was for, crop spraying? Think oil think money think mercenaries employed to attack a sovereign state, do you think the population would not be terrorised by these actions a coup is generally executed by nationals within the country not by playboy millionaires

 

 

Re your terrorist training thing, dont bother with the rumours, read the facts

 

America trains terrorists.

 

Try an original input of your own and lets have a pick at that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What utter rubbish. With 646 elected Members of Parliament guarded by a world class police and security service compared to a general population of 60 million I'm going to find a disparity in terrorist casualties between them am I?

 

Really?

 

Gosh - who would have thought it.....

 

Just what point are you trying to make?

[Rog]

Re your terrorist training thing, dont bother with the rumours, read the facts

 

America trains terrorists.

 

Try an original input of your own and lets have a pick at that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are the American trained personnel instructed as part of their training to target civilians as a deliberate policy? Are they deployed with instructions to do so?

 

If so, then “terrorists” is an appropriate title.

 

If not, then “Special Forces” is the correct title to use.

[mollag]

Begin bragged that he invented urban terrorism  see king david hotel

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You obviously do not know the story behind the bombing of the King David hotel and equally very obviously know little of Begin nor the Irgun.

 

Nor I suspect the antics of the British in the region from the point that they were given the mandate over the part of the destroyed Ottoman empire that they were until they were rightly kicked out during the restoration of the land of Israel.

 

I always have a problem with British history.

 

On the one hand I am a patriotic Britain (I class the Isle of Man as being a part of Great Britain by virtue of it being one of the British Isles), and yet I do recognise that GB has certainly undertaken some pretty dam awful and even some downright wrong things in the past.

The way that I feel on this is probably a bit like the way that I might feel watching my mother-in-law drive my new car over a high cliff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Roq

 

Surpisingly i am very familiar with the time and events, my interest stems from my chidhood when my father would talk of his time there as a soldier during the handover. I have read in depth on the troubles there from all aspects of participants including Begins. My most recent read was Hotel Tiberius by sebastian hope, a combined history of a german religious enclave in palestine, and a biography of Gen Sir john hackets time there.If, as i do, you have a particular interest in that era, then you may well enjoy this book, i loved it!Do you recall when M Begin came to visit england in the, i think, late 70's he was due to meet the queen. Snag was there was still a warrant out for his arrest which caused some problems. King David Hotel, officers wives and children mainly hurt although the target was a comms room within the Hotel, did you see the recent bbc documentary which interviewed surviving members of the attack team?, good program.

 

I avoided going into detail as the topic can quickly run off on the israel/palestine thing and away from the causes of terrorism.

 

To make my point plainly, i think the term terrorist is subjective. Those who can see them as patriots and martyrs then have no problem supporting them.

[Rog]

I avoided going into detail as the topic can quickly run off on the israel/palestine thing and away from the causes of terrorism.

 

To make my point plainly, i think the term terrorist is subjective. Those who can see them as patriots and martyrs then have no problem supporting them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I won’t go into what I know about events in Israel nor how I know them and I did avoid going into the detail about the KD and the related British stupidity that resulted in so many civilians being killed and injured, or about the disgusting behaviour of the British forces at the time, or even about the British duplicity surrounding the mandate or even for that matter Lord Balfour, as I also didn't want the thread to go down a well trodden route.

 

But ---

 

In your view if an irregular force that wages war on a military force but does not deliberately attack civilian non-combatant populations, is it a terrorist force?

[mollag]

Re your terrorist training thing, dont bother with the rumours, read the facts

 

America trains terrorists.

 

Try an original input of your own and lets have a pick at that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are the American trained personnel instructed as part of their training to target civilians as a deliberate policy? Are they deployed with instructions to do so?

 

If so, then “terrorists” is an appropriate title.

 

If not, then “Special Forces” is the correct title to use.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Try this link Roq, there is a lot of detail out there on the School, including senate comitee hearings and yes they trained personel in targeting civilians, assasination, kidnapping etc. This is not a school for US army personel but the staff are regular US army.http://www.soaw.org/new/

[The Old Git]

(I class the Isle of Man as being a part of Great Britain by virtue of it being one of the British Isles)

 

Weren't you very good at geography at school or do you also class Nothern Ireland and Southen Ireland as being part of Great Britian?

 

If the IOM is part of GB and GB is part of the UK and the IOM is not part of the UK then you have some problems

 

Perhaps it just demonstrates that sometimes your opinion bears no resemblence to the facts

[Rog]

Try this link Roq, there is a lot of detail out there on the School, including senate comitee hearings and yes they trained personel in targeting civilians, assasination, kidnapping etc. This is not a school for US army personel but the staff are regular US army.http://www.soaw.org/new/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So the now closed SOA provided training for the forces that kept down communism in predominantly South American countries.

 

And that’s BAD?

 

Taking into account the global situation during the Cold War, actually a very hot war but a war fought by proxy between Capitalism and Communism and the need to minimise the likelihood of a third front being opened in South America I think that the SOA in providing training for government agencies in these countries did a dam fine job and fulfilled a much needed niche.

 

Terrorism? That was done by the agencies of the SA governments, not by the US and in any case the very nature of communism and socialism is that it is frequently community based and so a situation can and frequently does exist that what is notionally a civil population is in fact radicalised and forms a support environment for activists.

 

But consider this. Over the years I have made a considerable sum form investments in arms manufacturers when they from time to time formed part of my stock portfolio. As a part time and part owner of companies making weapons and various munitions that undoubtedly killed and maimed many people, should I feel any guilt? I certainly don’t, the guilt lies with those who bought and used the devices.

Similarly the SOA provided training. How that training was used was not their responsibility.

 

In any case the SOA closed in 2000.

[Rog]

(I class the Isle of Man as being a part of Great Britain by virtue of it being one of the British Isles)

 

Weren't you very good at geography at school or do you also class Nothern Ireland and Southen Ireland as being part of Great Britian?

 

If the IOM is part of GB and GB is part of the UK and the IOM is not part of the UK then you have some problems

 

Perhaps it just demonstrates that sometimes your opinion bears no resemblence to the facts

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Great Britain comprises of the British Isles. Eire is a separate country on the separate island of Ireland, and Ulster is a British province on that island. Ireland is not one of the British Isles other than in broad geological terms.

 

BTW – never mind geography which I was simply quite good at, I was exceptionally good at politics..

[The Old Git]

Great Britain comprises of the British Isles.

 

Nonsense, Great Britian is England, Scotland and Wales.

 

The United Kingdom is Great Britian plus Northern Ireland

 

Eire is a separate country on the separate island of Ireland, ....  Ireland is not one of the British Isles other than in  broad geological terms. 

 

Unfortunately it is Rog. The British Isles is a geographical area which describes "The archipelago off the West coast of continental Europe" comprising of all of these islands including Ireland, the IOM and the Channel Islands

 

Unfortunately UK politicians, either through ignorance or arrogance, muddy the waters with some of the tems they use. The UK government often debate "Britian in Europe", are they going to leave Northern Ireland behind?

[Lonan3]

I was exceptionally  good at politics..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So... where did it all go wrong?

[Rog]

Great Britain comprises of the British Isles.

 

Nonsense, Great Britian is England, Scotland and Wales.

 

The United Kingdom is Great Britian plus Northern Ireland

 

Eire is a separate country on the separate island of Ireland, ....  Ireland is not one of the British Isles other than in  broad geological terms. 

 

Unfortunately it is Rog. The British Isles is a geographical area which describes "The archipelago off the West coast of continental Europe" comprising of all of these islands including Ireland, the IOM and the Channel Islands

 

Unfortunately UK politicians, either through ignorance or arrogance, muddy the waters with some of the tems they use. The UK government often debate "Britian in Europe", are they going to leave Northern Ireland behind?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

.Ulster, or more properly the remaining 6 counties of Ulster as much part of Great Britain as Kent, something that Bleah should remember before trying to give a part of the country of which he is PM to the foreign power of Eire.

 

I wonder of he would be so well perceived if he tried to give Kent to France. Same difference.

[The Old Git]

.Ulster, or more properly the remaining 6 counties of Ulster as much part of Great Britain as Kent,

 

But they quite plainly aren't, otherwise the "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" wouldn't make any sense, would it?

 

There's a good expalnation of all of the terms at Wikipedia

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_isles

[Rog]

.Ulster, or more properly the remaining 6 counties of Ulster as much part of Great Britain as Kent,

 

But they quite plainly aren't, otherwise the "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" wouldn't make any sense, would it?

 

There's a good expalnation of all of the terms at Wikipedia

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_isles

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hey! Cut me some slack! I'm biased!

[Jacqueline]

You are also wrong.

 

But yes - I can see that to you that 'biased' might be the same thing.

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

To find out the reason for the recent terrorism, ask Osama Bin Laden.

 

From 1997 onwards he has had one simple message.

 

"Get America Troops out of Saudi Arabia"

 

Because that country is the Holy Land of the Arab world, and the presence of Americans (the infidel) on their land is a real and serious affront which most Arabs take seriously.

 

Hard to find an analogy, but imagine if the Chinese Army decided to set up camp on Tynwald fairfield and Hill. (and at the same time milked our main financial asset)

 

We would not be happy.

 

Before and after 11th September that was the reason given for attacks on America. Nothing else.

 

He now has even more justification with American attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq being a secondary reason.

 

 

(And just to head everyone off at the pass, the attacks in Spain, Bali, Indonesia, Turkey, Casablanca etc were ALL aimed at American and British embassies, or their supporters in the war.)