State of British Security

[kayleyt]]

That's how I read it too.

The point we're arguing as I see it is what makes someone a terrorist, and what ChoconutJoe and I were saying is that Governments can be guilty of acts of terrorism just as much as individuals or organisations can. And even a government fighting a just war, like our government in WW2, can still be guilty of carrying out what are strictly speaking acts of terrorism, like carpet bombing civilian targets.

The way I see it, war forces ordinary blokes to do some pretty horrible things, which in civilian life they wouldn't even contemplate. That doesn't make them terrorists. It's the guys at the top who give the orders who have to carry the moral can for the big decisions. But everyone from the top down has a certain level of responsibility for the decisions which they can make. It would be naive to think that on 'our side' no-one ever committed a war crime, which could be as simple as some squaddie mistreating his prisoners. But whatever it is, it doesn't mean that all the other guys on their side should get tarred with the same brush.

I am certain that no-one is implying anything untoward about your relatives who fought in WW2. Chances are that most of us had family who served.

 

[VeronicaB]

That's what threads tend to do!

To answer your original question: yes, it awful isn't it?

 

[cindyloo]

wcrevdonner,
As far as this stink of American idealism and arrogance is concerned all I can say is get yourself a clothespin or shove your index fingers in to the third knuckle because we aren't going anywhere. Everyone likes to have good time talking trash about the US idealism and arrogance until they need something. Then it is all "Hey you guy have the money and resources to solve all kinds of problems, you have a responsibility to the rest of the world, you guys are the only superpower blah, blah, blah) Talk about arrogance, take a look around you man. Our idealism that is one of the reasons that we are the (current) world superpower.

I get my information on the Middle East from my Sensei; he is from the Middle East and travels there extensively with his band. He has helped me understand the issues by introducing me to his friends from many of the countries involved. Although we still disagree on many issues I always come out of these discussions with a better understanding. I also don’t have to listen to garbage like “The stink of American arrogance”. They seem to understand what is at stake if we fail. They have no love for their governments either; they just want it to be changed without force. Unfortunately that’s not always possible.

Now I totally agree with you on the subject of messing around with other governments. There has been a long history in the world of small groups of people from every corner of the globe doing great damage and we are no exception. I would hope that the rest of the world does their part to offer help in addition to their critisism

You hit the nail on the head when you said that eastern and western cultures clash. Let me ask you this: Do you really want to see the alternative to what is happening now. Let us for a moment imagine if Saddam was the guy with all of the power that George Bush now holds, and America was of the stature of Iraq. Do you think that this type of government would have behaved in the same fashion? Do you think that he would be trying to stabilize the US and strive to put power in the hands of the people? Would he be building the infrastructure? Would he have consulted the UN? I don't think so. Do you really want these folk with H-bombs?

Who do you want in the hot seat? The leader of America who is replaced on a regular basis depending on their performance? Or a brutal dictator, how about a group of clerics that want nothing more that Shira law?

I know that the people of the Middle East are good people, I know that they are being manipulated by their governments with this twisting of the idea of Jihad. I NEVER said that all Muslims were terrorists. I said "most terrorists today are Muslim".

Snob

 

[JJ20]

Erm.... sorry to be pedantic but in your initial post you didn't stipulate 'today', only that 'almost all terrorists are Muslim'. Since then I think we've established that this statement, as it stands, is not true, but do you see why people have taken the impression that you are biased against muslims and people from the middle east? Also, your other statement implies that you are in favour of people being arrested and held on terrorist charges with no evidence other than their race or religion. I'm not trying to nit-pick here, or accuse you of anything, just maybe explain why some people have reacted towards that.

 

[PinkHearts]

(To MASnob)

First off, my apologies. I wrote that in a state of agitation, came back and edited it. (After the idea of saying that Iran/Libya/etc should clean up their own back yard!!) I hope the reworded version is more suited to the tone of discussion.



My sentiments entirely; added with not leaving the country with in a state of economic depression, and a vacum of power that can only be filled by the militia who has the largest army/generates the most fear.
And don't get me wrong, Britain is just as responsible.



Again, I agree with you, hence the part about understanding, and communism. And it goes a lot farther than that; sometimes todays society dictates that certain situations could not be resolved any other way. But your east-west viewpoint sounds simplistic when you bring in examples of Saddam Hussain and the American President. None of those two represent concrete examples of a typical western nor eastern viewpoint. However, Im sure you know this, and understand the fundamental idea that their approaches to society is the problem, which is exacerbated by fundamentalist religions, be they Christianity/Islam/etc. (Both extreme interpretations of 'Gods rules' on earth, an inexcusable stupidity.)



This is what I don't agree with; it is inflaofftopictory, (not all people are intelligent enough to realise that the reverse of this statement is not true, even though you stated it, people won't read it right) nor is it taking into account the number of terrorists elsewhere that are not Muslim.
Plus, I have a feeling some media influences will jump on the islamic terrorist bandwagon and label most terrorist attocities in todays societies a result of a muslim backlash, and not the real reason for the attacks. (Palestine is a good example - fight over land, but in the news they will always mention terrorist, and islam, people put two and two together from general assumptions made, without understanding the real reason.) Plus imho, the term 'muslim suicide bomber' is, (I think) called an oxymoron, since Im am so sure that a prime rule is not to kill innocents, hence a muslim terrorist cannot necessarily exist. Putting a religious term in front of the word terrorist shoehorns most people into boxes, when it should be the minorities of those religions that are shoehorned.



Only those that are obviously associated with extreme clerics, since yes, common sense would dictate that they are more likely to commit an offence than the average Joe.