So another outrage in Turkey, beatifull young soldiers being slaughtered in Iraq day after day, innocent men women and children bown to bits all over the World, how much longer can this state of affairs be allowed to continue? We and the rest of the World are being held to ransom by these murdering evil scum who hide their depravity behind a cloak of religious respectability.

There is only one solution to this problem, target the mountain area between Afganistan and Pakistan where Osama Bin Laden is hiding and blast it with nuclear megton bombs to get rid of this hate filled insane psycotic once and for all before the whole World descends into the battle of Armaggeden and that will be the end.

Wilst the World allows him to dictate his terms and leaves the initiative to him, everyone in the world is living in fear. We must have the courage to do something about Bin Laden NOW!!!!

Unfortunately Bush and Blair are too busy getting their collective underwear in a knot about Iraq at the moment to pay attention to Al Qaida....

Pfft... Bush and Blair, sitting in a tree...

Helevan, prepare yourself for a backlash of major proportions from all the loonie lefties..... sorry, better make that intelliegent people who know better than we do, actually.

Nuke terrorists! How dare you? Better for them to carry on murdering innocent people as most of these are from the lower social orders and expendable.

Originally posted by halevan
So another outrage in Turkey, beatifull young soldiers being slaughtered in Iraq day after day, innocent men women and children bown to bits all over the World, how much longer can this state of affairs be allowed to continue? We and the rest of the World are being held to ransom by these murdering evil scum who hide their depravity behind a cloak of religious respectability.

There is only one solution to this problem, target the mountain area between Afganistan and Pakistan where Osama Bin Laden is hiding and blast it with nuclear megton bombs to get rid of this hate filled insane psycotic once and for all before the whole World descends into the battle of Armaggeden and that will be the end.

Wilst the World allows him to dictate his terms and leaves the initiative to him, everyone in the world is living in fear. We must have the courage to do something about Bin Laden NOW!!!!

Whist I have no time for terror tactics at all, it seems to me that you could well be a speech-writer for George Bush or Jack Straw.

In my view, the biggest threat to any kind of world peace is George Bush and his cohorts.

Originally posted by Carlwarker
Whist I have no time for terror tactics at all, it seems to me that you could well be a speech-writer for George Bush or Jack Straw.
There you are Halevan. Has that put you in your place or what? I think they missed out the bit about you being a racist, but that'll come soon no doubt!!

ps. Again, in my view, anyone who advocates the dropping of nuclear bombs, of any size, is, by definition insane.

Originally posted by Carlwarker
ps. Again, in my view, anyone who advocates the dropping of nuclear bombs, of any size, is, by definition insane.

Well, of course, that goes without saying. Terrorists, on the other hand, are completely sane.

Originally posted by Houdi
There you are Halevan. Has that put you in your place or what? I think they missed out the bit about you being a racist, but that'll come soon no doubt!!

I am not a 'they'. If you bothered to read individual posts, before jumping in with both feet, you'd realise that I, for one, have my OWN views on topics - sometimes they co-incide with others and sometimes they don't. If you'd ever lived in a war zone, or had the experience of 'being bombed' - then you wouldn't be in such a hurry to wish it upon others. I suspect that the nearest you've been to 'being bombed' is coming from the local pub.

Originally posted by Carlwarker


In my view, the biggest threat to any kind of world peace is George Bush and his cohorts.

Definitely. Any man that tries to rid the world of terrorism is clearly a big threat to the civilised world, obviously more so than all of the terrorists and dictators put together. He should learn to not stand up to bullying terror tactics and pray that they then leave the Western world alone.

Originally posted by Houdi
Well, of course, that goes without saying. Terrorists, on the other hand, are completely sane.

Please read ALL of a post - don't take things out of context just to support your own violent views.

Originally posted by Carlwarker
If you'd ever lived in a war zone, or had the experience of 'being bombed' - then you wouldn't be in such a hurry to wish it upon others.

If you'd ever lived under a brutal, dictatorship regime (and I don't mean the Sheffield Forum), and had the experience of fearing for your life day in, day out, constantly under the threat of beatings, torture, and murder, then you wouldn't be in such a hurry to wish it upon others.

Originally posted by Carlwarker
I am not a 'they'. If you bothered to read individual posts, before jumping in with both feet, you'd realise that I, for one, have my OWN views on topics - sometimes they co-incide with others and sometimes they don't. If you'd ever lived in a war zone, or had the experience of 'being bombed' - then you wouldn't be in such a hurry to wish it upon others. I suspect that the nearest you've been to 'being bombed' is coming from the local pub.
Sorry, never learned to read as I went to a dumb-arse secondary school. Also, can't jump in with both feet as I got a leg blown off in Belfast. Not sure if that counts as a war zone or not???

Originally posted by Carlwarker
Please read ALL of a post - don't take things out of context just to support your own violent views.
Sorry, already said i can't read. Too thick (played truant a lot).
Of course I've got violent views. I'm a football hooligan. haven't you heard?

Originally posted by Houdi
Sorry, never learned to read as I went to a dumb-arse secondary school. Also, can't jump in with both feet as I got a leg blown off in Belfast. Not sure if that counts as a war zone or not???

And you are still in favour of war?

Again, let me state again what was implied and stated in my first post on this thread. I am against terrorism in any shape or form AND I am against the dropping of bombs on ANYBODY.

ps. shouldn't this thread be in General Chit-Chat?

Originally posted by Carlwarker
ps. shouldn't this thread be in General Chit-Chat?

If you ask me it should be in 'monumental wind-up', but I doubt if certain people would catch on even then!!

You can't nuke the Afghan mountains because the fallout would affect neighbouring countries. I think only extreme vigilance on the part of the West and a mistake on the part of Bin Laden will lead to his capture, and be captured I'm sure he will be. Same goes for uncle Saddam. As for Islamic terrorists attacking the west, I think that this will be a permanent fixture from now on. I read in the paper today (the Mirror) that the world's police are constantly foiling such terrorist attacks; it'll only take one security lapse to allow a catastrophic attrocity to take place. There's talk of releasing poison into the London underground, gunning down people in cinemas and lord knows what else. In my opinion, this new kind of war will be a war without end.

And on that note, Merry Christmas everybody!! Almost advent calendar time! :(

Originally posted by halevan
So another outrage in Turkey, beatifull young soldiers being slaughtered ... innocent men women and children bown to bits all over the World, how much longer can this ... be allowed to continue? We ... held to ransom by these murdering evil scum who hide their depravity behind a cloak of religious respectability.

... one solution... target the mountain area ...where Osama Bin Laden is hiding and blast it with nuclear bombs to get rid of this hate filled insane psycotic once and for all Wilst the World allows him to dictate his terms and leaves the initiative to him, everyone in the world is living in fear.

a)why don't you ask his close accociates, the Bush family where he is?

b)nuclear weapons not only send everyone to hell at the impact point, but confer a toxic pall for 50 years or more. Notwithstanding the international treaties to which we are a party that prevent us from using them offensively.

c)If you killed OBL with an overspecified nuclear attack on a fledgling state, do you think the level of hatred and fanaticism will, generally speaking, rise or fall in the eastern and arab moslem states?

These terrorist have multiple cells in just about every country in the world. Whilst I like the idea of destroying them all with a single nuclear bomb, I'm not sure how we get them to all stand in the same place at the same time in order to achieve it.

I'm afraid there is no quick fix to the terrorism problem the world faces.

In responding to this particular stupid comment, it is not worth the using of precious mental energy and why is it that such psychopathology has a place here at all? It is a pity that what should not even be a consideration does emerge and contaminates. Those who (1) advocate the deployment of nuclear weapons (2) actually deploy them, ought to be displayed, in the manner of Mussolini et al, as the worst insult to nature and to humanity.

Indeed. And anyway, what does Iraq have to do with Al Quaida? Never quite got that one myself... The best way to 'depose' Bin Laden would be to plant an assassin in his organisation and make it look like an inside job. That would cause civil war amongst the Al Quaida group and remove the possibility of his being martyred. I'm presuming that our top military people have already considered this, though, as that's what they're paid to do...

Originally posted by Agent Dan
Indeed. And anyway, what does Iraq have to do with Al Quaida? Never quite got that one myself... The best way to 'depose' Bin Laden would be to plant an assassin in his organisation and make it look like an inside job. That would cause civil war amongst the Al Quaida group and remove the possibility of his being martyred. I'm presuming that our top military people have already considered this, though, as that's what they're paid to do...
Spoken like a true secret agent!;)

Originally posted by Zamo
Spoken like a true secret agent!;)

Re-incarnate Reilly.:thumbsup:

re: Al Quaeda and the ever present terrorist threat.

As I understand it, Al Quaeda is actually an umbrella term for all fundamentalist terrorists groups, for when they want to claim responsibility for another murderous atrocity.

To see Al Quaeda as a coherent, well organised outfit is, IMO, a misconception.

To then think that nuking OBL would have any effect at all apart from stoking the fires of fanaticism worldwide is naive IMO.

Even with the demise of Al Quaeda, if such a thing could be engineered, it will not stop terrorism. To do that you need to try and examine the causes of terrorism, which are diverse to say the least.

Until we understand the causes and deal with them in some way, then the symptoms will persist.

Cracking down hard on civil liberties will only cause the terrorists to choose softer, easier more vulnerable targets, less discriminate weapons, and bigger 'bang for their buck' actions (like the Trade Towers Atrocity).

Has anyone read the Atrocity Exhibition by JG Ballard?

I put "Al Quaeda" into google and it reckoned it was spelt wrongly and suggested "Al Qaeda". The BBC seems to think that's the way to spell it too (so I've adjusted the thread title accordingly).

Hmm. Do you think this lot should get a new domain name:

http://www.alquaeda.com/ !!!
:confused:

Nomme

In my view, the biggest threat to any kind of world peace is George Bush and his cohorts.
Absolutely! Every time I see that bloke on TV I think to myself 'Hell, that nutter could order a pre-emptive strike on my council estate any time'. Scary or what!!

Originally posted by Houdi
...as I got a leg blown off in Belfast. Not sure if that counts as a war zone or not???
No, it doesn't, despite the military presence, the UK has always prosecuted terrorists as criminals, which is exactly what they are.

I'm no fan of Maggie Thatcher, but she was right on that one.

Also, as terrorist parallels go, anyone notice that after 25 years of not negotiating with terrorists - a period memorable for pub blasts, the assasination of Mountbatten and nailbombs in Hyde Park - little progress was made

Since the moment negotiations started, bar plenty of slipups and fallbacks, the whole situation has improved immeasurably (although of course the process is far from complete).

I'm not suggesting that anyone tries to negotiate with Al Qaeda (noted Nomme) as there's no evidence it has a clear chain of command like the Provos, but merely that this should not be treated as a military problem that requires a military solution.

Without wanting to pry, how did you lose your leg?

Dont know about you lot, but I would much rather have an alliance with the USA and good old Bush than a Belgian telling me what to do, or worse yet one of the Kinnocks ,welsh windbags who you may have noticed are not elected and seem to have the whole familly working over there.
You might think its o.k. I dont.
And what happens at the first sign of a problem? French crawl under the nearest stone.

Whats new then

Bill

p.s. not ranting,always like this

How confused is this?

You seem to be trying to choose between :
Being an Ally of the United States and
Being Part of a European Federal Superstate(EFS)
Being Ruled By Neil & Glenys

Like all these things are mutually exclusive.

What if UK became part of EFS and then some belgian told you you had to become an ally of the USA, would you refuse, because some belgian was telling you what to do, or would you accept because you want to be an ally of the US.

How does all of this relate to Al Qaeda?

(Can't wait until you do start ranting. :D )

For those of you who missed the first time...

Please quit using this forum for one-to-one conversations - that's what emails, PMs, MSN and even the chat room are for. If you are going to post something then it should be of interest to the rest of the user base, and although some users may enjoy reading a slanging match (for lack of a better description), it's not the reason I created this forum. In addition, anything you post should be relevant to the thread in question. Thanks for your understanding (again).

[Edit: Thread re-opened minus anything not relevant to the topic!]

Seriously though (What me, serious?), I think we have to take a step back and appreciate that sometimes people post statements merely to provoke a reaction (and, yes, I am guilty of this from time to time). I agree that no reasonably sane person would advocate the use of nuclear weapons to combat terrorism. Previously we have been distanced from this type of threat - the IRA were a different type of issue - but now it is on our own doorsteps. People are afraid, and the 'let's nuke 'em' ploy is merely a gut reaction instigated by fear.

I have no particular thoughts on the merits or otherwise of George Bush. I am not all that well-educated, quite the reverse, but, to my mind, any system which elects the likes of Ronald Reagan to be in charge of the most powerful country in the world has to be viewed with an extreme degree of suspicion.

As for Al Qaeda, history is riddled with tales of religious attrocities, killing and maiming to install their beliefs on others (and Christianity is not exept from this!). Thankfully, most societies and religions have moved on, others are still living in the dark ages.

In my own opinion, for what it's worth - and I'm sure many will disagree - I think we can debate this issue until we're blue in the face, but will, ultimately, be unable to produce any reasonable solutions.

In the case of the IRA, this was always a political issue and negotiations were always feasable or, at the very least, hopeful.
How can you hope to negotiate with anyone who is prepared to strap themselves up with explosives and kill both themselves and others in the name of religion?

Religious fanaticism is well beyond my comprehension, I'm afraid.


P.S. I've gone 75/25 in your favour on this one, Geoff!!

Does anyone seriously believe that Al Qaeda is actually a real entity? These recent bombings in Turkey were by Turkish nationals. While the Americans would love to think these Turkish guys were a Al Qaeda "sleeper cell", I tend to believe they just agreed with the principals (whatever they may be!) of what Al Qaeda stands for and decided to pick a local Western taget.

It's so patronising to suggest that Al Qaeda is a world-wide network - it's more a case of people doing things in their name as opposed to a central office issuing orders! But for average Joe, it's much easier just to pretend it will all stop once we remove Al Qaeda...

:loopy:

I have to fess up and admit to being one of those people who reads novels about international terrorism. The concept of an executive level of terrorists is a theme which runs through many of them. There may not be one Al-Qaeda organisation but there are several authors out there writing about one organisation which manipulates all the world's terrorists. In fact the Al-Qaeda network has been written about in many of them and not recently.

IMO we shouldn't be trying to bomb civilization into them rather win their support with hospitals and schools.

I agree with you Max. The West won't ever defeat Islamic terrorism by using brute force alone because the terrorists have far too many supporters. We had to retaliate after September 11th in order to try and bring the perpertrators to justice; to have done otherwise would have been unthinkable. But I believe that we're going to have to listen to their demands eventually. True, there are many many different Islamic terrorist organisations each with their own demands, but we will have to negotiate with some of them or their supporters eventually. We can't shoot them all.

Originally posted by Funky Dave
I agree with you Max. The West won't ever defeat Islamic terrorism by using brute force alone because the terrorists have far too many supporters. We had to retaliate after September 11th in order to try and bring the perpertrators to justice; to have done otherwise would have been unthinkable. But I believe that we're going to have to listen to their demands eventually. True, there are many many different Islamic terrorist organisations each with their own demands, but we will have to negotiate with some of them or their supporters eventually. We can't shoot them all.
Thanks, but I'm not sure what their demands are. IMO the problem is with their own 'governments' who are wallowing in the riches brought about by the accident of oil being where it is. The west needs the oil so we prop up these repressive regimes.

What we're seeing in the mid-east is civilizations at the same level we were at the time of our crusades, imo. There is a feudal type relationship between the rich and poor and the poor are, in the main, illiterate. They live in 3rd world conditions while their rulers live in luxury. The only people who can reach them are the religious fanatics who are subservient to the ruling classes and fund their 'revolution'. Is that too simplistic?

Originally posted by Funky Dave
...We had to retaliate after September 11th in order to try and bring the perpertrators to justice; to have done otherwise would have been unthinkable...

Just as a matter of interest - why did we have to react?

I just wrote a 45 line, well thought out, passionate response to the above post, but my computer crashed when I tried to submit it - I'm fuming!!!:evil:


I'm not writing it again. The main points were:
1) Bin Laden and his fanatics were quilty of mass murder so they had to be brought to justice.

2) The Taliban refused to hand them over, so the US could have either given up (deprive the victims of justice), gone to war, or spent years trying to get hold of them by diplomatic means.

3) Therefore the US had no choice but to attack Afghanistan, and the resulting deaths are the fault of Bin Laden and his murderers, not the US.

4) Iraq is a seperate conflict, September 11th is was just an excuse to oust Saddam. We did not HAVE to do this. Saddam was a cruel murderer, but he was not responsible for 9/11. I am pro-Afghan war but anti-Iraq conflict.

5) If you are asking "Why do we (the Brits) have to fight, it is because, in my opinion, we stand for similar principles to the US, and they are our allies. If they are attacked by an external enemy then it is also a matter for us and vice versa.

My original post was far better. Damn!

Originally posted by Carlwarker
Just as a matter of interest - why did we have to react?
Because IMHO it wasn't an attack on the USA that Bin Laden did on 09/11 it was an attack on the whole western world. We are part of that attack.

He knew there'd be tourists (British too) in those towers, and there were. Many of mine and your fellow countrymen anmd women died that day.

We were right to go to war with the taliban. And IMHO right to oust Saddam (he was killing his people after all), but on the interest of Iraq, the way it has been handled since the official 'end' of the conflict has been very poor.

But on the original subject of 09/11 then yes we did have to react!

If you examine many conflicts it wasn't possible to predict the outcomes very well. It seems that there are a great many issues involved in facing opponents whom are scattered across the world and are continously emerging/changing to accomadate how it/they are thwarted. The point being that the ways so far that have been used in what very basically is a religious conflict appear to have been successful but at massive cost and immeasurable turmoil. This does not mean to say that there really has been success, no matter how you see it. The recent attack in Turkey illustrates this. Americans according to the polls do feel safer by virtue of what has been achieved so far, whether they really are is a good question. Many actions utilized in dealing with threat incite a greater adherence to what motivates the attacks in the first place. However, if people do feel safer, although the danger becomes greater (the true ramifications kept from them and replaced by propaganda to the contrary) does this constitute success? Is living in a deluded safety zone better than living in fear?
>>Second Point. The IRA have been as great a threat to the safety of lives in the UK as have any terrorist group. This is unequivocal. Did the UK attack where they knew these particular terrorists were and still are, or at the supply lines of arms and explosive materials to Ireland coming from supporters in the USA?. No. As far as the latter point is concerned, the UK military knew precisely who was sending arms, (down to the very individuals responsible residing in Boston) how they were and when, but because the UK didn't wish to be seen as an aggressor nation and upset the US, they chose surveillance instead (and still do). Consider if this situation was reversed, how the US would deal with it. Many argue that sending UK troops to invade Iraq was kind of secondary in importance with respect to how they had dealt with real threat in the past, but politics and trade allegiances being what they are, a different course of action was chosen. That of colluding and insisting on a 'special relationship' with the US, which from here appears more to be so by virtue of British insistence, than the other way around.

Originally posted by max
I have to fess up and admit to being one of those people who reads novels about international terrorism. The concept of an executive level of terrorists is a theme which runs through many of them. There may not be one Al-Qaeda organisation but there are several authors out there writing about one organisation which manipulates all the world's terrorists. In fact the Al-Qaeda network has been written about in many of them and not recently.

IMO we shouldn't be trying to bomb civilization into them rather win their support with hospitals and schools.

Can it be so simple, conflict resolution down to the gestures you describe? If you examine the convictions which underlie the 'justifications' for annihilation held by many tyrants of the past and obviously in the present, there seems to be no way of dealing with these justifications. Religious extremists, some argue, are looking past being offered what it is that they detest, to the extent that they want only to see it destroyed in its entirety. Extremists of all pursuasion have entered the USA and have had access to what you say they should be offered, the very fundamental Western institutions and the values which are their foundation. What happened as a result? They didn't join in but were seeking to destroy. OK, you say that there are many whom are not terrorists and who would benefit from such gestures, but these gestures have always been in place.