Following on from the G8 protest thread I thought I'd ask the following:

The G8 summit in Gleneagles will see some of the most powerful leaders in the world meet to discuss, amongst other things, the WAR ON TERROR. What are the opinions of forum members of the methods used in this "war" and how should the terrorist threat be tackled?

I always preferred "The war against terror" , but only because the acronym is better.

What does that make the people who attend "the war against terror summit" then?

I think that about sums up the whole "war" really.......

Originally posted by Saifa
I always preferred "The war against terror" , but only because the acronym is better.

What does that make the people who attend "the war against terror summit" then?

I think that about sums up the whole "war" really.......

LOL. :D

Having a war against terrorism is a pretty brave thing for Bush to declare - it's like having a war against anger, or shouting. Terrorism is the inevitable consequence of an unjust system that impoverishes people and robs them of their dignity. Every oppressive system in history has been the target of violence. Without exception.

The current global tyranny perpetrated by freemarket fundamentalists creates two different parts of the problem - the active sort, people who blow themselves up and shoot at aeroplanes and stuff; and the passive sort, people who sympathise with the bombers and do nothing to hinder them, and who agree with their philosophies, without necessarily going out and destroying anything themselves.

You can't really have one without the other. And you can't get rid of one without getting rid of the other as well. The problem is that the passive supporters of terrorism number in the millions. You can't kill them, or beat or starve or oppress their philosophy out of them. You can only remove the thing against which they are fighting. Terror exists because inequality, tyranny and lawlessness exist.

If our leaders want to get rid of terrorism, then they should tear down the IMF and WTO and replace them with democratic alternatives, stop funding state terror, democratise the UN and help set up (and adhere to the judgements of) a world parliament. Oh sh*te, all those proposals merit a thread of their own....
Edward

Taking a slightly different view, how far should a sovereign state be allowed to go in protecting it's citizens from attack?

Hypothetical situation. A group proven to be bankrolled by, say, Syria uses a nuclear weapon stolen from a 'failed state' against, sake of argument, Edinburgh, during the G8 summit.

The weapon kills a couple of thousand people - it was a low yield tactical weapon. The Syria connection is proved, and it is also proven that the Syrian Government turned a blind eye to this group and has done so for several years. Would the UK be justified in attacking Syria with a nuclear weapon of similar yield?

Thoughts?

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
The weapon kills a couple of thousand people - it was a low yield tactical weapon. The Syria connection is proved, and it is also proven that the Syrian Government turned a blind eye to this group and has done so for several years. Would the UK be justified in attacking Syria with a nuclear weapon of similar yield?

You can sleep soundly, Joe.

I doubt Hezbollah have anything to gain from attacking Edinburgh.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Taking a slightly different view, how far should a sovereign state be allowed to go in protecting it's citizens from attack?

Thoughts?



Joe,

the law of the jungle is "might is right"
And it is becoming more the case in our world with the US unilaterally declaring the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty obslete, and heading a long way that way with the Geneva Convention.

Therefore, the answer to how far can a sovereign nation go to defend itself it is, as far as it wants and is capable of doing (and in the case of most countries that is - as far as the US is prepared to tolerate)

I'm not "anti American", but that is just the way Geopolitics IS.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Taking a slightly different view, how far should a sovereign state be allowed to go in protecting it's citizens from attack?

Hypothetical situation. A group proven to be bankrolled by, say, Syria uses a nuclear weapon stolen from a 'failed state' against, sake of argument, Edinburgh, during the G8 summit.

The weapon kills a couple of thousand people - it was a low yield tactical weapon. The Syria connection is proved, and it is also proven that the Syrian Government turned a blind eye to this group and has done so for several years. Would the UK be justified in attacking Syria with a nuclear weapon of similar yield?

Thoughts?

Joe i wouldnt think so as there would be people there who had nothing to do with the bombing and probably would have objected to it,but i would send in a tactical strike/team to wipe out the government and the bombers

It was a hypothetical - the thing is that we now live in a world of 'force leverage'. A terrorist can inflic massive amounts of damage with a reasonably small outlay in time and money.

The weapons and tactics we've spent 50 years developing are now quite useless.

How would people feel about this as a way of doing things - we list teh folks up we want and say 'OK, we want these people dead or alive, we'll pay big. But please let us have a DNA sample for ID purposes.' Would we have less problems about being open with state sanctioned murder?

There is an interesting historical precedent - IN Beirut in the 1980s the Russians suffered, for a brief period, of having their people kidnapped. So they simply kidnapped the relatives and friends of the terrorists and everytime a Russian was killed they killed one of the innocents. People stopped attacking the Russians. I wouldn't sanction this approach, but would raise the question - do western democracies suffer from terrorism because the terrorists view our attempts at sticking to the rule of law (note I said attempts) as weakness?

Or, should we do what the French did in the early 1960s when carrying out the dirty war against the OAS and the Algerian separatists - they simply got organised crime to help them out with the dirty work. Similar to the way in which the Mafia assisted the Allies in WW2. Again, what about it?

Joe

Originally posted by Yodameister
Joe,

the law of the jungle is "might is right"
And it is becoming more the case in our world with the US unilaterally declaring the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty obslete, and heading a long way that way with the Geneva Convention.


I'm not "anti American", but that is just the way Geopolitics IS.

Isn't that reason enough to become "anti-american"? To demand an end to the current geopolitical state of affairs? If you would rather have the rule of law in your own country than the rule of the jungle, surely you would rather have the rule of law internationally than the rule of the jungle?

As for the fight against existing terrorism, my view is that Martin Luther King worked within the existing legal framework against a system which did not. He won, because his cause was just. We must make our cause just, then extralegal measures will not be necessary in the fight against terror.
Edward

it would on the fae of it seem that legality is irrelevant if a superpower proclaims it so.

We were told Saddam had WMD,s - there is no evidence as far as i am aware which would satisfy the burden of proof and he is therefore an innocent man M,lud. (Innocent til proven guilty)

The kurdish issue is not relevant in the instant case M, Lud as the legal action even if relevant has been brought out of time.

The Kurds did not apply for legal aid and did not bring the case at a time which would reasonably accord with the appropriate legal timescales - It can therefore form no part of the WMD allegation wnich is the sole justification for this war.

The Jury must therefore aquit my Client Mr Hussain and those who sullied his character should hang their heads in shame once they have seperated their crania from their recta.

What we need is a million people to turn up in Edinburgh to see the crankies and practicing the phrase - Bob who ?- Boomtown what ? - I wouldnt understand G8 anyway officer cos i never saw the first 7



blah blah blah - Whats french for - i told u so ?