Al Qaeda

[Carlwarker]

Originally posted by Zamo

Spoken like a true secret agent!

 

Re-incarnate Reilly.

[Phanerothyme]

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?

[nomme]

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/ !!!

 

Nomme

[Houdi]

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!!

[Phanerothyme]

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?

[billyblade]

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

[Phanerothyme]

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. )

[Geoff]

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!]

[Houdi]

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!!

[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...