War on Terror-why arn't we winning ?

Because it's a cost of free markets. Were you expecting something for nothing?

USA- fighting to keep the market "free"

 

Ordinary persons, non-government working/non-working citizens, have no authority or power to start wars but can commit criminal acts of violence in support or protest of something their government or a government is doing or trying to do.

Wars are started by those who govern and have the capacity of wielding power over those who actually engage in fighting a war.

It's difficult, if not impossible, to engage in in something and call it a war when you cannot clearly identify those are to be considered the enemy. Those who are committing acts of violence, with few exceptions, remain anonymous until which time they have carried out their acts terrorizing large numbers of persons who then cry out to their government to act protectively, and often are divided in the form of response they call for, which can be retaliation or surrender to the wants of the terrorists. The victims of terrorist acts are simply pawns sacrificed to mobilize other pawns to make demands of their government which comes at a cost both economically and socially.

We have to balance our choices between freedom and safety, neither one be had at no cost, and neither can be achieved totally.

 

Agreed, bad governance is a cause but let us not forget other causes:

So let's not forget the corporate cause of terror also...

 

And you are guilty of giving him moral support and encouragement. That's a moral crime too.

 

Karen_J:

If that's all I said, you would be correct but you've left out context.

You also seem to excuse US terror; we're the guys with the war machine ya know.

QFT

 

I almost wish I could remove the pronoun "we" from the English language. There's nothing the richest and most powerful 0.2% in America would like more than to be able to make whatever decisions are in their own best interest and have the rest of us believing that we are just as responsible for the end results as they are.

The honest truth is, there is no "we", unless you're talking about your own immediate family or closest friends.

 

Summerhill:

Do you see how you completly glossed over the first murder?

You judge the boy who retaliated, but say nothing about "his father being blown up by a US missile."

If we're going to understand the nature of terror, we have to look at the whole picture, not just the parts that fit the corporate media narrative.

 

Summerhill:

It's a good question. An eye for an eye etc.
But lets presume he has a 'right' to retaliate.
If a boy sees his father blown up by a U.S missile who should he blame? ALL Americans? Should he kill any American he feels like, and it is justifiable?
Say he decides to plant a bomb in an American shopping center...
He could kill anybody.

outthere - are presuming this boy has the right to grow up and then fight against American soldiers and kill them? or any American he feels like?

 

These actions seem divorced from any kind of logic. Engaging in "Why?" may be a frustrating and pointless exercise, there is no legitimate reason to target innocents.

Human warfare is normal, from a historical prospective. Not saying its good or logical, just a normal part of human experience ( sadly)

 

Since the boy's father was killed by Americans, the boy has just as much right to kill as Americans.

What can be fairer than that?

Please, no double standards.

Please explain the law that should apply.

 

You begin your argument by stating that the boys Father was murdered,adding that the US were the murderers (via a missile). Your assumption here is this was not the targeting of an enemy combatant-which would not be murder- but a willful act of murder. Why would you assume that?

The son seeks revenge for what he believes was the murder of his Father. He can persue the matter thru the courts to get justice but instead decides to commit an act of terrorism (this is the factual term for his actions-not commisioned in self defence but a random act of revenge).

Being traumatised by his Fathers murder this may in court be accepted as mitigation, he may be judged insane and sentenced accordingly. However, if the court finds that that the son is reasonabley sane and commisioned this murder or murders purely out of revenge,eye for an eye, then he's a murderer . We may 'understand his anger, but there is NO 'justifying' his actions.

 

I can see that it might be justifiable to go after American soldiers, but civilians? I don't think there is anything fair about that. That's collective punishment isn't it? Where does it all end?

 

Understanding is not the same thing as forgiveness. Revenge killing is always morally wrong.

 

by choice.

 

I meant - what did I say that makes me a liar?

 

In my view we need to understand why these people are radicalised and why they are willing to die for their cause and why they are prepeared to kill randomly. As nations (Britain & USA) we need to look at ourselves and understand how the actions of our countries throughout history have impacted on other countries and areas in the World. Then maybe we will understand what we need to be done to bring about some sort of resolution.

I will say this though, you fail to mention in your list above Bloody Sunday, was that not an act of terrorism? Or will you try to justify it by saying the troops were fired on first and thereby perpetrate that particular lie. You also fail to mention the terrible acts of "terrorism" carried out by the British against the Irish people in the history, not just the recent past. In doing so you fail to understand the root cause and will never understand the recent "trouble" in Ireland and will never see the whole picture.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree with all that you say in your first paragraph,if you look at my past posts you'll see that I made similar points.

Again I have mentioned Bloody Sunday in a past post, the actions of the Paras that day are not defensible. They were shameful acts of murder,why do you assume I would justify their actions at all? The Ulster Civil Rights Movement were winning much support on the UK mainland and abroad,especially in USA , greatly embarrasing the British over their oppression of the Catholics ect.

The Paras actions had the added effect of giving the IRA a credability it would never have earned itself- by their murderous behavior. After that tragic day IRA numbers swelled with civilians that saw no alternative to armed conflict.
I had no reason to list the history of British oppresion of the Irish in my discussion with roamy but I believe that I acknowedged it several times if you care to look at my posts. Further, in finding 'faults' in the actions of the IRA Ive been careful to add that the same could said of both Loyalist & British forces actions.
The final three lines of your last paragraph,are, I'm afraid unfair and unworthy of you.

 

I think it was mentioned already about the irrationality.
For e.g: Not every person in Iraq wants to kill anybody and everybody in the U.S and UK.
So, imo, it takes a particular person, a type, if you will.
I imagine we don't negotiate with terrorists because we can't negotiate with terrorists (for the most part, anyway)

 

no winners ? 26counties of Ireland freed of british tyranny in 1916.just 6 more of our 32 ta go.

 

Hi, The quote in your post is actually willy_blues & wrongly ascribed to me.

My belief is that we must find a way to negotiate because there is no alternative. The killing will just go on in a war no one can win. Maybe we have to wait untill conditions similar to those that helped make The Good Friday Agreement possible emerge. And hope that we have the Representatives equal to the task !

 

Yeah,nearly the Centenery of you're last victory !