War on Terror-why arn't we winning ?

*fixed

It was a general point about terrorism. But you are right about that particular type of terrorism. I would not preclude negotiation (why I said 'for the most part, anyway'). It's difficult to negotiate with a group such as Al-Qaeda as their 'remit' includes such wide ranging demands and so-called grievances. They seem to have an issue with 3/4s of the world. Good luck negotiating your way out of that paradigm.

 

You can see why I had a little bit of an issue ^ :dizzy2:

 

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.[/QUOTE]willy blue speaks truth.get over it!

 

My assumption is that this is the targeting of an "enemy combatant" as you put it.

If there is "just cause" for war- I'd agree with you, it would not be murder. However, the "war on terror" is not just cause for military action. US military action today is for maintaining hegemony. It's a term used to give legitimacy to US military aggression.

So, in this case, the targeting of an "enemy combatant" is murder. The boy's father was murdered with no trial and no justice. I asked you why the boy is required to forgive his terrorizers and have not heard a response. Why should the boy be required to forgive?

I was assuming civil breakdown since we are talking war and terror and all, kind of like for instance, the US occupation of Afghnistan. The boy's father gets blown up and the boy has to pick himself up by his own bootstraps. Considering Afghanistan, that's not so far-fetched.

Ok, that's fair and just.

I guess we just disagree.

 

1) Too much blind patriotism.

2) Nation-States

 

I may die,but the republic of 1916 will never die.Onward to the Republic and liberation of our people.

Bobby Sands

R.I.P. :love: :2thumbsup:

 

odonII:

Of course every person in Iraq does not want to kill everybody and anybody in the the U.S and UK. That reasoning makes nothing irrational.

Willie's quote makes perfect sense to me. If we have an honest assessment of ourselves, our countries and histories, we would be in a better position to understand what to do next.

What's irrational about that?

 

Don't even say it! I hope you're around for a long time

 

Somehow we've got to stop these countries that use things like bombs and other devices of mass destruction to kill innocent civilians. It just seems almost like hypocrisy when you go and use bombs on them. In one instance I believe an innocent wedding was bombed.

 

While outthere2 and I usually disagree with one another quite frequently, he has simply presented a point of view which is probably held in silence by a great many others, especially those who commit acts of terrorism.

Who among us is capable of defining moral values in absolute terms? Are we on a path leading us to begin criminalizing the 'act' of sharing our thoughts?

 

Using the word 'we' is little different from your attempt to isolate blame on what you are calling 'the richest and most powerful 0.2% in America'. Both cases result in collectively placing blame, and creating an enemy, with little or no justification.

 

Do, or should, the people who live in the 6 counties have any say in this?

 

That's really worth discussing.

 

Is it the land or the people you claim should be liberated?

 

So it's the 'land' and not the 'people' who own and live on it that needs to be liberated?

 

Well, I did go on to say: 'It was a general point about terrorism. But you are right about that particular type of terrorism. I would not preclude negotiation (why I said 'for the most part, anyway').'

If we are being specific (The 'troubles' in Ireland)- '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 prepared to kill randomly.'

There is an element of irrationality when people are killed (by others) who have done nothing wrong other than be 'not one of their own'. And the retaliation isn't down to a personal tragedy, but more to do with: 'You killed my people, I'm going to kill your people'. That also is slightly irrational.
It's fair to say that governments should be mindful of what they do - but it is impossible to prevent all reasons why people are 'radicalised'.

The e.g of Iraq is that the people who are killing UK and US troops (for e.g) are also killing anybody that they feel is 'the enemy' - which includes others other than US and UK troops (for e.g).

It's a lot more complicated than simply naval gazing. As it is not simply 'our' fault.

 

I don't think the OP question could be answered any more succinctly than that.

 

Thank You.

I do think I am the only person who has said (to paraphrase):
Do you know what, it's not always 'our' fault.

Sometimes - perhaps more times that we like to admit - it simply has no solution.

I think there has been somewhat of a consensus here that suggests 'the terrorists' have well defined grievances, and the solution (for 'us') would be to rectify those grievances by taking total responsibility.

rjhangover said:

But does not mention:

Al-Qaeda is also responsible for instigating sectarian violence among Muslims.
Al-Qaeda is intolerant of non-Sunni branches of Islam and denounces them by means of excommunications called "takfir".
Al-Qaeda leaders regard liberal Muslims, Shias, Sufis and other sects as heretics and have attacked their mosques and gatherings.
Al-Qaeda ideologues envision a complete break from all foreign influences in Muslim countries, and the creation of a new world-wide Islamic caliphate.
Among the beliefs ascribed to Al-Qaeda members is the conviction that a Christian–Jewish alliance is conspiring to destroy Islam.
As Salafist jihadists, they believe that the killing of civilians is religiously sanctioned, and they ignore any aspect of religious scripture which might be interpreted as forbidding the murder of civilians and internecine fighting.
Al-Qaeda also opposes man-made laws, and wants to replace them with a strict form of sharia law.

I'm quite sure there are others.
Anybody is free to add some more or point out what might not be right.

So, if it was as simple as UK and US governments looking at what they do - then how are they supposed to also solve the myriad of other issues stated above?

There definitely seems to be a culture of 'it's all our fault' in this thread.
I believe that simply is not true.

I agreed with scratcho...

But then he said:

I agreed with Willy Blue...

But then he goes onto say...

If only the problem was that simple and fair, and the solutions that easy.

Even if it was, the point is -
- there has been 'peace and reconciliation' -
- governments and interested parties do try and talk peace.
But there are also groups/people that simply do not want that.

There will always be people who think any 'peace and reconciliation' is a traitorous act. And their views are so entrenched it's impossible to reconcile.

 

Oh please lets try to have some realism in the debate. If you're seriously saying that we keep & nurture grudges for stuff that happend hundreds of years ago then theres no hope for anyone.
Obviously no one condones what Oliver Cromwell did , the man was a psycopath, but to use his & his kinds actions as any kind resonable justification for terror in the present is...mad!

I have some Scottish ancestry. Some of my ancestore fought & died at Culloden & during the attrocities perpetrated by the English in the years thereafter. I was cultural extermination. The destruction of the Highland way of life & it was more recent (mere 250 years ago) than some of Irelands woes. It has never crossed my mind to 'avenge' my ancestors. Ridiculous argument.