According to Strawman terrorism is likely to be Britains top priority well into the next decade. Britain will actively seek to address any threats of terrorism across the globe.

Could this be a duplicitous way of suggesting more wars are on the horizon?

I've attached a link to the story below.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=469530

ps - The final paragraph looks intriguing.

I doubt that.
You will never end terrorism unless the terrorists decide to call a truise themselves.
I think Britain has to be vigilant and i have a feeling that this country, maybe not London is going to wake up to another September 11.
Sorry to be pessimistic but just trying to face reality.

Interesting article.

I think I said this before, but just imagine what would happen if someone managed to release a VX (or similar) gas in London. People would panic and rush to get out of the city - helping spread the attack further. London would have to be sealed off for weeks while hundreds, if not thousands of people died. I'm not saying September 11 wasn't scary, but the prospect of what one bio/chemical bomb could do is mind boggling.

The problem is, it's virtually impossible to stop this from happening.

Happy stuff eh? :P

I've read that pipsqueek Straw has threatened those responsible for the latest bombings in Iraq with retaliation. They must be quaking in their boots ........ with laughter. :D :hihi:

I mean, what's he going to do? Headbutt them. I suppose he practices enough everytime Blair speaks in the commons. Nod Nod Nod. :nod: :nod: :nod:

The 'war on terrorism' thing seriously worries me - the US / UK foreign policy at the moment seems to be - find wasps nest - stir with big stick - act all surprised when stung. Not entirely sure where this fits in with an 'ethical foreign policy'? Not only that but the the very nature of counter terrorism activities makes them very secret which makes a very effective screen for the government of the day to bring in practically any power the feel like and invoking the mystic phrase 'war on terrorism'. I have visions of waking up in a police state!

Originally posted by Lickszz
I've read that pipsqueek Straw has threatened those responsible for the latest bombings in Iraq with retaliation. They must be quaking in their boots ........ with laughter. :D :hihi:

I mean, what's he going to do? Headbutt them. I suppose he practices enough everytime Blair speaks in the commons. Nod Nod Nod. :nod: :nod: :nod:

Call it intuition, but something tells me you don't like Jack Straw! There's really no need to labour (pun intended) the point in every post, we get the message

You will continue to read posts contrary to your point of view, that, you will like or LUMP. :P

Originally posted by Lickszz
You will continue to read posts contrary to your point of view, that, you will like or LUMP. :P

Who said they're contrary to my "point of view"? I hold no brief for Jack Straw.

Originally posted by Lickszz
According to Strawman terrorism is likely to be Britains top priority well into the next decade. Britain will actively seek to address any threats of terrorism across the globe.

Could this be a duplicitous way of suggesting more wars are on the horizon?

I've attached a link to the story below.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=469530

ps - The final paragraph looks intriguing.

The problem of combating World Terrorism will be with us for the next one hundred years, unless a World Hydrogen War wipes out the human race first.

theres no way of stopping terrorists, its always been there and always will be.If Al queda was stopped there would just be some other group ready to take its place. thats the problem, you can think of the worse possibly imaginable thing to do to a human being, and you will always find someone somewhere in the world who is sick enough to do it.

get on with your lives, its getting irratating hearing about people living in fear of what will probably happen, only jst recently become aware of ti because of September 11

Originally posted by mojoworking
Who said they're contrary to my "point of view"? I hold no brief for Jack Straw.

Why else would you exaggerate about me attacking Straw? I don't just pinpoint Straw. I've mentioned Straws name but few times out of all my posts. Some of the times when I have mentioned him its been generic. If I don't like how he carries out his job then I should (along with anyone else) have the right to criticise him. Is that ok with you?

Originally posted by Lickszz
Why else would you exaggerate about me attacking Straw? I don't just pinpoint Straw. I've mentioned Straws name but few times out of all my posts. Some of the times when I have mentioned him its been generic. If I don't like how he carries out his job then I should (along with anyone else) have the right to criticise him. Is that ok with you?

Like I said, I hold no brief for Straw, you can say what you like about him. Just as I have the right to comment on your posts.

What prompted my observation was your writing style, plus the unnecessary addition of 10 smileys punctuating almost every line.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Like I said, I hold no brief for Straw, you can say what you like about him. Just as I have the right to comment on your posts.

What prompted my observation was your writing style, plus the unnecessary addition of 10 smileys punctuating almost every line.

That is very nice. I think you are a very confrontational character. All the forum is interested in is your view on the particular thread not your view on my view of the thread.

Smilies are for emotions/humour/banter. Some of my posts may be tongue in cheek. Of course if you disagree with these there is always the facility to disable them but, it would seem that you prefer to complain about them.

Originally posted by Lickszz
That is very nice. I think you are a very confrontational character. All the forum is interested in is your view on the particular thread not your view on my view of the thread.

Smilies are for emotiions/humour/banter. Some of my posts may be tongue in cheek. Of course if you disagree with these there is always the facility to disable them but, it would seem that you prefer to complain about them.

Interesting response. I'd watch that paranoia if I were you.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Interesting response. I'd watch that paranoia if I were you.

I think 'Get knotted' is a fair response to that Pal. :P

You haven't the faintest idea of what you are 'objecting' to. You are simply being disruptive. And IMO silly. ;)

This has now drifted way off topic so in the interest of the Sheffield Forum I am choosing to end correspondance with you on this thread. Incase you attempt to accuse me of 'ducking' out I shall read your corrupted response but remain silent. :o ;) :P

I do hope you appreciate the extensive usage of smilies for your benefit.

Originally posted by Lickszz
I think 'Get knotted' is a fair response to that Pal. :P

You haven't the faintest idea of what you are 'objecting' to. You are simply being disruptive. And IMO silly. ;)

This has now drifted way off topic so in the interest of the Sheffield Forum I am choosing to end correspondance with you on this thread. Incase you attempt to accuse me of 'ducking' out I shall read your corrupted response but remain silent. :o ;) :P

I do hope you appreciate the extensive usage of smilies for your benefit.

What a strange and aggressive character you are Lickarszz.
It's just a pity you didn't remain silent a long time ago