Government handling of terror attacks (1 Viewer)

[chookyn]

If only Bush's brain had evolved past that of a caveman's, he would realise that eye-for-an-eye has never worked and never will work, that retaliation is not an acceptable answer to a terrorist attack, and unfortunately it looks like Britain will make the same mistake again. No lessons have been learned and terrorism is still present because these leaders would rather surround us with fear, fill us with pride, and put an end to the progression of humanity.

I am shocked at the direction in which they have taken and continue to take with this whole issue. Vowing to stop terrorism and not identifying why terrorism occurs, do they not know that you can't fight an invisible enemy? Without a change from this policy there can be no end to terrorism, it is a dead end because there is no potential for a result, and it is only a matter of time until people realise the bullshit their government has caused them and the rest of the world. Terrorism is going to keep occurring until they choose to react differently.

well said - i completely agree!!

 

[DooGseY]

We choose to isolate and fight them, because if we "see the rattle snack rear its head, we don't wait till it bites". (ok, I can't remember the exact quote).

What exactly are you talking about? Perhaps that would be justification for a war against Iraq if there really were WMDs, but for terrorism? No. Terrorists occupy every part of the globe and they can't be seen. How exactly do you stop that? It is a dead end and a "war on terror" will accomplish nothing. Like I said, they've been looking for Bin Laden alone for 10 years. It's not something that can be fought, it has to be understood to be defeated, and the current policy is to completely react against it. The past few years up until and including yesterday have shown us that just does not work. Going in with the same tactics time and time again will only bring the same result; lost lives, money and time.

if you havent realised terrorism is a business, america and the uk earns heaps out of it. iraq creates employment big bucks a good examplei douglas wood is he rich or wat?

Yes, that is true, but it does not give leaders the right to bring death upon their own people and the people of other nations, especially when you consider Bush was blowing his own horn just yesterday about how compassionate he is towards other humans and what a great guy he is. If you asked someone walking down the street "Would you rather end terrorism or would you rather hear about it on the news?" I think you know what the answer would be. We don't want terrorism but it is clear our leaders aren't going to help bring about the end of it.

invading iraq was clearly the opposite of what should have happened

Exactly, they can't just keep blowing things up and expect everything to be okay. When people wake up and notice the war on terror is not working, whenever that will be, our leaders will have lost the only followers they have left, and who knows what might happen then... Anarchy perhaps.

 

[HotShot]

the history of america relating wars is quite interesting, they have only to gone to war for economic reasons. In the WW1 they didnt partcipate till the last year of the war, they supplied arms, resources to both countries germany and britain and made plenty of money. Similar in WW2 which they actually partcipated but were not directly affected no attacks on their home land (apart form pearl harbor) and thus unlike britain, france , germany didnt get hammered and were economical thriving. Vietnam would have to be the greatest failure, but i think they were econmocally better off once again did not affect them directly (no attack son their homeland), similar case for the gulf wars. Interesting... why go to war? for money!

 

[White Rabbit]

Off the track a little, but Bush and Blair are to very different people, which was highlighted in their speeches following London.

Blair was clearly distraught and shocked, on the verge of tears - his biggest city and business centre had just been attacked and he reacted like a human being, offering support and hope for his people.

Then we have Bush, who might as well have been rubbing his hands together in glee at another terrorist attack. He jumped straight on the band wagon, pushing war in the Middle East, pushing the war on Terrorism and of course, latter draging attaention back to the US, instigating fears they may be attacked again.

It may have just been me, but I think that the London attacks highlighted the differences between the two men and allowed us to see them as to separate people rather than one alliance.

 

[DooGseY]

Where do you think the terrorists come from? They originate from the violence that we do in the regions which they live (or the regions that we otherwise "interfere" with).

Most arabs aren't going to get up and say "ALLAH AHKBAR LETS KILL EVERY WESTERNER" it would take being exposed to some "injustice" to make them go that way.

Of course they're not, so why are you of the opinion that fighting terrorism by attacking countries that harbour them is the right way to go? It will only cause more tension and bring more attacks, that is why it needs to stop if we want to get anywhere. Secondly, the War on Terror was not pro-active as you have claimed it to be, it was very much a reaction. Bush only launched it after they were majorly attacked, as opposed to the reasoning for going to war against Iraq, which was justified by the threat of WMD's.

It may have just been me, but I think that the London attacks highlighted the differences between the two men and allowed us to see them as to separate people rather than one alliance.

I agree somewhat, but in policy they are still the same and I guess that's what is most important.