War on Terror-why arn't we winning ?

Of course, I didn't mean to imply it was a necessity.

 

roamy

I doubt since you walked and talked, but I'll let the whimsy go...
How can you trace YOUR roots back 10,000 years?
Is there some type of DNA test you have taken that suggests YOU are 'pure' (as it were)?
I don't think it is likely 'your people' moved on mass and none of 'your people' were left behind.
I doubt 'your' people saw the ice break and all jumped over into 'Ireland'.
It just doesn't make sense.

“the tuath is thus a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes and the sum total of the landed properties of its members constituted its territorial dimension."

Makes more sense to me.

You'll be happy to know it all ended with the : '...brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century.'

It's all very complicated

I guess I was more puzzled by the fact you called all Germans Nazi's.

' Lets not forget that within Nazi Germany, there were many native Germans who opposed the regime, there was simply not enough of them. You can read a very long list of distinguished Germans of that time who helped free a lot of the Jewish people at their own risk and sometimes death. '

I agree.

 

you clearly have no idea of the meaning of the word culture.what makes you think people of different cultures have any desire to not continue living in their own cultural ways no matter where they move to.their are people of different cultures all over the world.some living in their homeland cultures.others living elsewhere but still handing down their cultural tradition heritages ta their own children.and no one should try and impose anything on anyone.thats what the racist war here tryed ta do.ta stop people living their own culture.the invaders here even shot on sight any of my people speaking their own homeland language.but hidden hedgeschools were formed and our language still lives today.they tryed ta impose and destroy a nation an the culture an traditions but they did'nt win.irish people are irish.british people are british thats the difference.but of course you already know that. always have.one of the other main differences as you also know is not just a difference in accent or race.we have our own language.english my second language.not my first.brits main language is english.we have our own everything.everyone knows that all human beings have common genetic origin as we are all from the human being species biologically speaking.but.but if you had any education on chromozone strains ,you would also know that they can prove an have done scientificall exacthy what part of europe all umans originally originated from.are you sure about your irish links.it is possible that your people may not have been irish at all.they may have been british people that left ireland.the reason i mentioned that is that surely you'd know more bout irish culture if they had been and history.especially if they were the few that survived the british genocide here on the irish who also survived the coffin ships ta reach america.can't understand how you would'nt know that if you had any irish ancestory.maybe the were all british.you should check it out.cos there seems ta be something big a miss.no everyone knows that to, that nationality has no genes,nothing ta do with biology.ta do with homeland.long live the tricolour.

 

we loved the picts mel.the pics are the true scots and we always be family ta us to in our hearts.we come from two different indigenous tribes.but we linked biolodgically back in the hunter gathere joined together back in the hunter gatherer days.you are right that they were the first settlers here,though not the first people.my peoples tribe was here the irish tribe before they came.my people walked here.the pics came later before the brits came here.at first their was a few battles ,but no war between us.they loved our country our beautiful emerald isle,but were told though they were welcome as visitors that eire was already spoken for.both tribes clashed from time ta time but our major respects of either of our courageous tribes sealed our respects of each other.the picts thought so highly of the irish that they took many irish ladys for wives and they wanted all their future kings ta be the sons of their irish wives.both passionate and brave biologys joined together.the picts were not our enemies or us theirs.there were the few clan clashes from time ta time,but we were always unified against the brits.the sad thing bout the picts is there is very little documentation on all the beauty of their culture like our own.but that was the british influenze.the only people who remembered ta give them a mention in litrature was the irish.the brits wanted ta pretend they never existed cos just like us they fought them back.but their existence will die ta us.the picts came an went with their irish wives and settled mainly in orkney.in our language we called them the cruithne people.cruithe means the painted ones.they were covered is beautifully tatoos.we will always be linked in spirit an biology.the picts still in scotland are the ones who still want an fully independent scotland from britain.we fought with them ta help free their country.

 

Okay, thanks roamy for the lecture in the virtues of racial purity & celtic legend, doubtless Brigadoon exists too. The thread IS about Terrorism & is intended for real world discussion. Please, create a thread of your own to discuss your feelings about the Brits & associated oppresive tribes & your take of ancient history OR contribute to the topic at hand but don't try to merge both,please.

 

A recent post of mine referred to a post of odonIIs & one of yours ,that both asked or tried to discern, the motives for terror attacks. I stated that it seems typical of todays groups that they don't,routinely, even claim responsibility let alone give 'reasons' for there actions. Nor do we know what their demands are or what their terms of settlement might be.

Shortly after the 'declaration' of the 'War on Terror', I recall a Blair speach in which he claimed that the 'war' was not simply about western military action in countries sympathetic to Islamic Terrorism but that it must be fought,using reasoned argument,in the Mosques & in communities that might be persuaded by the terrorist cause. Following the murder of the young soldier Lee Rigby on a London street there has been a groudswell of of anti extremist sentiment from the British Muslim community.

In the past Ive mistakenly referred to Al Qaeda as a francise,or an umbrella organisation for disparate groups. It isnt even that,its a method, a tactic,highly adaptable in supporting & motivating the untrained spontainious,off the radar, loner as the well equiped practiced Action Unit.

Though I would certainly like to be wrong in this, I'm coming to the belief that there is no negotiable end to this situation,at least in the forseeable future. That the 'Holy War' against the West has no end for the Jihadists unless it is the complete Islamifacation of the West to the degree of the Terrorists own beliefs.

Historically there have been other periods of violent Islamic extremism & its likely that,given time, this one too will burn itself out. To hasten that end,I feel, that the west has to end its interference in Middle Eastern affairs,even its blinkered support for Israel,or this war will drag on.

 

It's a simple conclusion that should have been made decades ago by the US state department.

Nice to see you didn't abandon HF Summerhill :cheers2:

 

I was with you till this part. I'm sure I have said something like this before...
Remember that groups such as Al Qaeda don't just have a grudge (lets say) against 'the west' they have a 'grudge' against Christians, Jews and any other Muslim that doesn't support their cause.
Do you think that all the people being killed in Iraq, and more widely, the Middle East, is because 'the west' has some contact with the countries there?
Why should one group, that you say doesn't have a clear voice (etc), dictate the policies of 'the west' AND Middle Eastern countries?
OBL was quite happy to be part of the Mujahideen (with 'western' backing) - until it didn't serve his purpose or his purpose changed.

 

Or you can say America has no problem sponsoring terroist and their activities, providing that they'll terrorize for the US, and not for their religion. (Die for Uncle Same, not for your beliefs, or your God; die for the paycheck.)

The US government even supports dictators who rape and murder providing they're willing to play along with the west.

And also, The Middle East hates us, because we're constantly killing their civilians and claiming it's for "freedom."

It also doesn't help that we stole israel to give it to the Jews, and gave them WMD's, and treated them like our little Baby Country that we have to nurture and feed.

 

StpLSD25

The motives for terror attacks - is what we were talking about.

You are confusing 'public opinion' with governmental relations, military co-operations (Iraqi/Afghan army, for e.g).

Remember that groups such as Al Qaeda don't just have a grudge (lets say) against 'the west' they have a 'grudge' against Christians, Jews and any other Muslim that doesn't support their cause.

Nice try trying to spin the conversation around.

 

I'd like to jump in and point out that 'The Middle East' is a pretty fucking big area made up of a lot of different people from all different cultural and religious backgrounds, and to group them all together is ridiculous.

 

Nice try trying to spin StpLsd's statement; you have not proven his statement false.

You only stated your opinion.

 

A generalizing statement as 'the middle east hates us' is hard to take seriously for the reason eggsprog mentions above.

 

Yes. Good point.

 

I think the London Olympics were marvelous - especially the opening ceremony.

 

No, I accept that folk are being killed across the Middle East for a variety of reasons,not least sectarian feuds & political/historical rivalries that the West has no part in.
Given that Al Qaeda is a tactic,method or an approach to facilitate terror against its enemies (as per your list) it does,in practice function,to us in the west,like an umbrella organisation, with a wide range of disparate groups assuming affiliation (& drawing on its credability). Anyone with a grudge against the west,can 'join' AlQaeda! Its not one Group thats trying to dictate to us.
Historically the wests involvement in the Middle East has been a mess. My notion is that the West should reconsider its entire range of foriegn policies in that area. My understanding is that for some years now the west has been attempting back-channel negotiations with the terrorists but progress could take many years.
I hope this answers the points you raise.

 

Yes eggsprog. I agree with your statement in the strictest sense.

But please let me ask you this: why have so many "acts of terrorism" been carried out by people of Middle-Eastern decent?

Is Michael Scheuer being ridiculous for grouping them together?

 

As far as I am aware, with the Taliban.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/w...ks-to-end-afghan-war.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

If there is a call for there to be a policy change with regards to say Afghanistan, as in, removing all trace of Nato troops, or a complete halt to any engagement with the Afghan government - what happens if the Afghan Government says something like: 'No Deal.'
Which is what I think it's current position is.
A similar situation in Iraq.
The point remains: Why should one group, that you say doesn't have a clear voice (etc), dictate the policies of 'the west' AND Middle Eastern countries?

'Bin Laden's overall strategy against much larger enemies such as the Soviet Union and United States was to lure them into a long war of attrition in Muslim countries, attracting large numbers of jihadists who would never surrender.'

So on the one hand it's telling us to get lost, and the other hand drawing us in.

 

He isn't.

 

Exactly:

In his book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, Michael Scheuer is highly critical of the Bush Administration's handling and characterization of the War on Terrorism, and of its simplistic portrayal of Bin Laden as "evil" and "hating freedom." The book is notable in criticizing the idea that Islamist terrorists are attacking Western societies because of what they are rather than for their foreign policies. Scheuer writes: