Very sorry to hear it

Quite right, after all being the tyrannical despot he surely was, when invasion became an imminent reality he opened the arsenals and armed the general population whereas in the UK we prosecute people who defend themselves.
Reply to
Chris Wilson
Loading thread data ...
Pre war the CIA were saying that it could just have easily have been the Iranians, they didn't become certain until some time *after* the war ... once the non existent womd couldn't be found.
It might also interest you to know that around 1/3 of the heroin imported to the UK to poison our young people is kindly provided by the Kurds.
Reply to
Chris Wilson
I take it that you go in for minimum-space shunting layouts? ;-)
Reply to
Enzo Matrix
"Chris Wilson" wrote
So then maybe we should be sorting out the Iranians too, and they've got some oil to boot! ;-)
And much of the rest by the Afghans. It's not obligatory to take drugs, and maybe we should be suppressing demand by banging drug dealers away for life. Draconian I know, but not as bad as gassing entire Kurdish villages - whoever did it!
John.
Reply to
John Turner
Saddam was doing all that from 1978 until 2002 with the US's (and Britain's) blessing. The point of intervention should _not_ be the moment when oil supplies on the open market fall to the level where oil prices begin to rise, nor should they be _after_ the first two million innocent civilian casualties.
Regards, Greg.P.
Reply to
Greg Procter
With all the advantage of hind-sight :^( one has to question why the main protagonists _supported_ Hussein through his first million or so mass murders.
Regards, Greg.P.
Reply to
Greg Procter
Yeah, we're perfect! (I wish)
Regards, Greg.P.
Reply to
Greg Procter
Fair point, but for those of us who are from outside the UK, "terrorist" is ambiguous.
Reply to
Greg Procter
Having sold them some Class 141s, would it really be a surprise if the Iranians had a grudge against us...?
I think uk.current-events.terrorism is ^^^ that way (on my screen, anyway)
Reply to
Arthur Figgis
Whether the powerful nations should be regarded as "the good guys" is a matter of opinion and I suspect opinions change depending on the circumstances however in my book a terrorist is someone who exploits a situation such as political history of how the middle east was divided up by politian's who are long dead or why a prime minister who was elected on a home agenda of education and health care should feel fit to lead his nations armed forces into a quagmire to target INNOCENT CIVILIANS in such a way as to deliberatly maim, kill and strike fear into the mass populus.
I fear no matter how history of the middle east had evolved or whether george bush and his poodle felt it necessary to target a dictator who's influence stretched little outside the borders of his own nation there would still be angry young men and women driven by rage and manipulative elders who twist religion and history to cause mayhem and destruction.
The Nazi's were terrorists, they targeted civilians in their ethnic cleansing and looting of occupied countries. Allied forces, be it Western Europe in 1944 or Afganistan or Iraq in 2002 to present are not terrorists as to my limited knowledge they have not deliberately targeted civilians but their target was the regime and the armed forces of the target regime. Unfortunately civilian casualties are a by-product of war despite best intentions however I fail to remember the last time Allied Forces deliberately targeted busy commuter trains or buses in Iraq or Afgansitan with the intention of nuking some of the locals.
Terrorism has never worked, the IRA got nowhere by killing civilians in Northern Ireland or mainland Britain, any concessions republicans have won have come through the careful manipulation of the media and ultimately the political process by their political representatives. As a Briton who suffered from the almost daily bomb scares and disruption caused by the IRA's 1990's bombing campaign and having been too close for comfort at the Birmingham 2001 bombing I never felt it necessary to go and blow up a packed commuter bus or train in Dublin in retaliation of the latest IRA outrage...
Its all too easy to gloat "you had it coming" from the other side of the world. Four bombs or a thousand bombs in London will not make a jot of difference to UK foreign policy, the terrorists ought to have researched the Blitz to find that out. I for one will carry on using the tube and London buses, I will carry on voting for the political party who I feel best suit my needs and I will continue to support the men and women of our armed forces whether their political masters may take them. As a public transport employee we are all aware of the significant risk these bastards pose and we are all determined to do our bit to thwart more attacks on the innocent.
If the oppressed have an axe to grind against the oppressor then they should take it up with those doing the oppressing, the armed forces, in crude terms the military are paid to shoot and be shot at. However for everyone person who feels oppressed by the Allies in Iraq or Afganistan there are two people who feel liberated making the terrorists justifications for attacking the civilian populus of those who they perceive to be oppressors even more obscure and irrelevant.
The terrorists may also use Britain's past actions in their particular corner of the world as justification for todays attrocities, sorry it doesn't wash, I'm not denying Britain (along with just about every other Western nation) has been awful to the "little guys" in many parts of the world as part of the quest for world domination however at what point do we make amends? Should we hoist the white flag over buck palace? Should all Briton's go and repent and seek forgiveness from those who feel hard done by by history? Do people seriously think whatever the modern Britain does now will make a jot of difference to the evil bastards who use history to justify current day attrocities?
The terrorists shall not prevail and there shall never be justification of targeting civilians. Justice will be dealt on those who commit such crimes however a war on terror will probably never reach a natural conclusion.
Reply to
Lost Control
...
And the Persians and the Christians and the Marsh Arabs and the Jews and yes all the other dozen or so notable ethnic/religious groupings?
I think perhaps before we start down that route we ought to perhaps test the theory, perhaps on a smaller nation where the consequences won't be so dire if we get it wrong. There a place in teh South Pacific I know, a couple of major island and a shed load of minor ones. About a centaury or so ago invaders from far of lands attempted to wipe out the indigenous population but they didn't quite succeed. The indigenous peoples are still regarded as second class citizens in their own homelands though (even if the law says differently).
Perhaps we could try our experiment there. Firstly we could give each tribal grouping its own land back setting them up as wholly independent entities although of course they may wish to form a federation of some sort because of course we'd had to set aside some land for the descendants of the invaders to live in and some sort of federated approach to the reservations would make some sort of sense.
The moral of the story is folks who live in glass houses shouldn't through bricks. ;-)
Reply to
Chris Wilson
Er not quite, HMG simply made it clear that it was no longer for sale.
Reply to
Chris Wilson
At the time the Falklands conflict broke out the Royal Australian Navy was negotiating - very seriously - to purchase the aircraft carrier HMS INVINCIBLE, which Mr Nott had declared "surplus to RN requirements". Once it was clear that the RN needed the ship, the Aussies terminated negotiations.
Reply to
David Costigan
And we flogged Hermes to the Indians after we decided she was no longer needed. What's the point here ?
Cheers, Martyn
Reply to
M Roberts
We would seem to have a lot more "muslim terrorism" today than we had when Hussein ruled Iraq.
You deliberately bombarded Basra while knowing there were civilans present and that the destruction of homes and businesses would turn large numbers of innocent civilians into dependant refugees.
The "regime" was eliminated in the first few weeks after your invasion. Every military action since has been an indication that you got it wrong.
The "war" was to remove Saddam - he's been in custody for over two years now.
"Terrorism" is the use of fear/terror tactics to manipulate political ends - it doesn't matter whether the "terrorists" wear uniforms or not, whether they create terror with knapsacks of explosives or use the latest guided missile technology to create explosions in unexpected places.
If bombs in buses is the only retaliation you've got against foreign occupation of your homeland, wouldn't you use it, or would you just roll over and die?
There's no gloating.
Perhaps you should do the same sort of research before invading other countries.
British braveness is legendary, but that legend is largely in Britain. I'm sure Iraqis have similar legends.
You're doing the paying of that military, and foreign occupation forces have never been particularly noted for being great listeners.
Well, that's a great statistic, but I wonder where it comes from. If you were a "terrorist" in or from Iraq, exactly how would you know that 67% of the population was happy to have their country occupied by foreign armed forces, and how would that change your opinion? It's not exactly a democratically elected foreign occupation force.
I think the terrorists are more likely using your actions today as justification for their actions.
Any time would be good. Realistically, you can't make amends because Britain's past accendancy was based on taking other nation's assets and resources, and you've since lost/squandered all you stole.
That's up to you - recognition is probably all that's required.
Which "evil bastards" are using history to justify present day attrocities? You're carrying out attrocities today to steal Iraq's resources.
I agree that nothing justifies targetting civilians.
I don't think you should hope for or wait for "Justice" - stopping your war of terrorism now would be much better!
Reply to
Greg Procter
Ok, but I guess that would make the atlas cartographers jobs rather busy - better to maintain the status quo and the repression of Iraq.
You're confusing us with Australia.
That's being done.
I think you've been reading too much "Biggles".
The point of the "Treaty of Waitangi" was that it gave Maori exactly the same rights as all British Subjects. Sure, there were a few disagreements over things like putting railway lines through sacred sites and the gifting of land for schools etc etc and currently some debate as to whether racial differences such as Maori being more liable to contract diabetes should result in extra health funding or not. (extra funding for need being seen as racism by some)
I'm actually commenting on your brick throwing and your reaction to getting one thrown back.
Regards, Greg.P.
Reply to
Greg Procter
In message , Enzo Matrix writes
LOL
:-)
Reply to
James Christie
"Greg Procter" wrote
Isn't NZ an Australian protectorate? ;-)
< VBG >
John.
Reply to
John Turner
"Chris Wilson" wrote
Why not? Countries are fairly arbitary things, and I don't recall Iraq being a particularly long-standing entity. Much of Africa, for example, would be far more sensibly divided along tribal lines, rather than the current national divisions which were made primarily to split up the continent between the colonial powers.
And, shooting off at a tangent, wasn't Kuwait once part of was is now Iraq?
John.
Reply to
John Turner
"Greg Procter" wrote
Now that is something we can agree on.
John.
Reply to
John Turner

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.