Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Don’t think my comments were aimed at you GH.
But you said "so long as it pertains to terrorist suspects who are assuredly exactly that – terrorist suspects." and it is very difficult as I and others have said, in the heat of the moment, to be sure what is what. One has to assume that the officers concerned thought their action was right at the time. What we do not need is a witch hunt, but a cohesive discussion that hopefully will stop the same situation arising again.
<br> <br>
Interestingly the investigative inquiry, has not happened as yet, but of course the anti blair dogs are out gathering their packs and howling, now of course what ever comes out of the enquiry, they will see it as a cover up.
Does anyone believe for a moment that the police just killed the guy in cold blood, that they were not fearfull, for their lives or for the public around them?
Hey so your an armed cop, an you suspect someone is about to blow themselves and others to kingdom come, in the microseconds you have to make the decision, what are your actions going to be.?
I suggest before the tirade starts you consider, or ask someone who has fired weapons in anger, what it feels like when you have to make the decision.
The police in question had to make a decision, unfortunately that decision is harder to make, involves life or death and has to be made. Unlike the stuff in your simple lives.
If the guy resigns, they are guilty before the inquiry, wether or not it was a mistake. After the inquiry, that is a different proposition.
Lets wait until we have both sides of the arguement before we make stupid speculative assumptions.
I find your remarks offensive Steve DG, in fact that offensive that if you died tommorrow……need I say more!!
fish and chips roast beef sunday pint before dinner a highland wedding cornish game of euchre queing not spitting politeness fair play irish craic welsh legends vaux beer eels and liquor stiff upper lip…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
there are many and varied and culture is like the dictionary says a collective thing. But my remarks were more towards our respect for other people and their religeons, tolerance and a sense of fair play.
this<br>culture
• noun 1 the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively. 2 a refined understanding or appreciation of this. 3 the customs, institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or group. 4 the cultivation of plants, breeding of animals, or production of cells or tissues. 5 a preparation of cells grown in an artificial medium containing nutrients.<br>
It astonishes me that there are adults in this country who on the one hand loudly proclaim their allegience to English culture, but who have no idea what it means.
Arndale I think you mean BRITISH culture and BRITISH history.
Whilst not supporting the "racist right-wing clap-trap to me" as NV so eloquently puts it. I do think that in some ways, there is an arguement for immigrants being given an "induction" to the country they arrive in. I believe France do this, teaching them french, french culture and history. This seems logical to me, allowing the immigrants to intergrate faster and to have an input into society faster. However, I do not think it is a "magic wand" that would solve all the problems. I do think that the major rather than the minor onus is on the immegrant/s integrating rather than transferring their total culture some of which can be at odds with their destination country.
the problem is Steve, that regardeless of which political persuasion is in power, IMO we will be along with the USA for the forseeable future. So we will have to lump that. <br>It is not just an "arab" problem nor is it solely a straightforward "muslim" problem. There are other religeons to consider and two mainstream muslim groups (similar to protestants and catholics). In Iraq for instance the majority group actually welcomed the invasion. Africa and Asia (guess) probably have a larger muslim population than the middle east.
There are large muslim groups who feel its not how the west have dealt with the middle east and arabs, but feel aggrieved how the west has dealt with the Muslim faith. From the crudades onwards they have felt that we wish to opress and obliterate their faith.
In the UK, we had these stuggles in the middle ages and slowly we have realised that politics and beliefs do not mix. I respect anyones right to their beliefs, but not to have their beliefs thrust upon me.
The muslim belief is in god first then everything else, this unfortunatly means that until their peoples have evolved and realise that religeon will not further the world and themselves we reach an impasse.
So, we have to simply decide on either containment as we do now, or face the issues head on. The latter IMO has to happen eventually, but its type, time and outcome, I personally can not see, nor do I see it in my lifetime. <br>There is only one road out IMO and that is education (not just our ideas but a world mix) and open communication coupled with free trade. Because our world is founded on trade. Education will remove the nationalistic thoughts, communication will allow us to see how others think and act then allow us to understand. Trade over the years, has opened up the world, though it has caused conflicts but in the long run is IMO the best way forward.
In the short term IMO there is no answer to stop, what is happening, because we can not please all of the people all of the time.
I believe the best way to deal with this legitimate anger in the long run is to replace the rule that "the 5 permanent UN Security Council members can do what they want without repercussion" with a proper, enforcable international law.
I totally agree with, however IMO until we have a one world goverment it will never happen. Furthermore until the the security council themselves put people before the sale of arms it will never happen.
The Bin Ladens are always going to be with us, because if we please them someone else will be just as p####d off and will be blowing things or people up.
SteveDg<br>I did mean what was posted simple as that. there were no caveats left out.
By the same logic in Egypt yesterday the attack was aimed at whom exactly?
I have said on here steve that I disagreed with american and british actions in palestine. but by and large the Jewish nation has been given leeway for the atrocities committed against it during WWII. I believe that is slowly coming to an end.
The mandate of non conformation was never rescinded by the UN Hussein had not complied with it.
You are obviously fixated with Iraq and Blair/Bush and as I said you do not look at the broader canvas.
The wests conduct in the middle east, has never in my view been near perfect, and a lot of the problems come from the cold war with USSR. Where the USSR and the USA fought over countries like two dogs over a bone. If there are failings it was not allowing these countries to self determine post cold war. The problem then arises how to let them change over a period time. Just pull out, let anarchy reign as it has in Iran and afghanistan? There is no simple answer, by you, me or the Leaders of the western world.
They may feel that, they have no way of speaking, but do you support their methods of killing innocent non Military people?. The IRA in most cases gave warnings to raise their cause by terrorism. Not these people. <br>there is no way on earth I nor any sensible person can find support for their actions in any way, I can possibly sympathise with their objectives. But they will not even listen, because quite simply, they have no morals IMO with regard to human life, please do not give me the Iraq guff again, as we minimised non military targets as far as was possible whether or not it was an agreeable or disagreeable action.
Steve I do not and will not condone action of this kind by anyone for any reason whatsoever. If you find you can thats your call and if that is so IMO misguided.
Your points whilst excellent are fundementally flawed, to whit democracy is not democracy until religeon is taken out of the equation. And who will pay for the subsequent policing.
My proposal is quite simple, if both sides come and talk, but like yours the problem is that the current terrorists are not interested in free democracy but as I said Talibanesque prohibitive states. So until they are stopped or decide they are not getting anywhere the fight will go on.
There is no simplistic answer to all of this, each continet in turn has or will sort(ed) out its mastery. Until a one world government exists the these things will happen, even if a new world police force is created.
Well the origins of a christianity versus muslim conflicts certainly go back beyond the middle ages.
SteveDG:- No lets not change my comment, my words are want I want to say, your words are what as you put it are "la la la I’m not listening" because if you read my comments, I have said "I would have preffered that the invasion of Iraq had not happened." furthermore the aims of these bombers have little to do with Iraq as has been said by me and others, this conflict started before Iraq.
So we now have what would have been a second wave of bombings on the day, London was supporting its dead. So these people (and some of you) can find justification for that? We have armed police on the street, with a kill first policy can you find justification in their actions for that? Unfortunatly (which incidentally I deplore) some people are targeting mosques and Asians, can you find justifications in their actions for that?.<br>These people are from our country, most it seems born and bred here, in this country our system is to lobby, stand for parliment, raise issues not bomb and blow your point across, all they will do is strengthen national resolve against their causes, no matter how laudable or stupid their causes are. If they win then reasoned arguement can never win. Because these bombers have left no reasons why they did it, many of them their family did not know of their feelings, yet they feel that blowing people up indescriminantly for their cause is justified. these people are beyond talk. Their dream are Talibanesque countries where any other religeon, equal rights or the freedom of speech and election are not even considered. Sorry i am just not interested.
Many of you here disagree with our actions on Iraq, in fact you seem so focused on that issue, that the broader canvas passes you by. Furthermore, the same people seem obsessed by their dislike (and it seems hatred of Blair), as I have said I would have preffered Iraq had not happened, not do I personally like Blair, but I will not be blinkered by those thoughts. Our voting system which has worked for many years now has elected him and again I will say that, it is history that will show wether he was right or wrong.
steve:- <br>I said "I would have preffered that the invasion of Iraq had not happened. " But once it had, you get the right impression totally.
And the bombers offer is do what we say or we will blow you to ####.
THESE BOMBERS BOMBED BALI AND THE TWIN TOWERS BEFORE THE INVASION OF IRAQ.
Well dave having been in the Army, I’ll keep my thoughts to myself there.
My comparison was purely to put a perspective on the deaths currently in Iraq, mentioned in the article Ian posted. those deaths were from one city, let alone the rest we lost in WWII.
The statement "gang of bandits" is your choice and believe me I would have preffered that the invasion of Iraq had not happened. But since it has happened (or is ongoing), surely the aim should be to see what the ramifications are and to make the best of a bad job.
But I will not nor will I ever, support talking to or appeasing those that kill civilians or bomb. when they put down their stick i’ll put mine down and talk.
It is easy to condem Blair on a forum such as this and you might have disagreed with his actions at the time.
we were targets after Afghanistan well before we went into Iraq. Yes Iraq make the situation worse.
Sel determism yes as far as it can be done, but it has been proved that supporting side x in a struggle with arms and such like backfires, the taliban are an example. This way may work it may not. But certainly if a democracy survives and works in Iraq then it will give a lead to other countries to overthrow dictators and such like.
It’s happened, we can not undo that, but let us make sure that good comes from it now, not capitulate to insurgants that if allowed would allow Saddam. Wre the people of Iraq controlling their consumption, no a minority was beating the proverbial s**t
out of the rest.When your turkish friend spoke did he talk about all the gassed Kurds in that region years ago? Probably not unless he was from the Iraq border region or was a turkish Kurd.
lets now hope iraq can rebuild itself and become a modern state in a modern world.
History will deal with Blair as history does, the short term IMO never sticks.
Ian <br>I used the word "seem", I did not say you did.
This action has been very contentious from many points. should we invade a sovereign power, shouldn’t we have finished the job the first time round, arn’t we following a bush knee jerk, should we have refused to go in, is the dislike of this action really a dislike of blair.
The trouble is, it was not a clear cut case. In these issues it never is. The one thing that does stand out is though that Saddam Hussein and his evil regime are not in power. Furthermore Iraq is taking faltering steps towards democracy a thing all of us at TRF take for granted, our road to democracy was littered with many bodies, in the london blitz 18,629 men; 16,201 women; and 5,028 children were killed along with 695 unidentified charred bodies. Aside from the deaths there were 51,000 seriously injured and 88,000 slightly injured.. So whilst deploring the loss of life in Iraq, I can not take a short term view of things. Nor have we usually as a country. The loss of life for equality and freedoms litters history and sometimes the pain involved is great. The future in Iraq given the acts of Saddams two sons who would have surely followed him was bleak at best. The whole of the europe has democracy because of two nations, that democracy has now spread much further, looking at the recent upheavals in countries such as Ukraine was the result finally of WWII. Changes and benefits are often not apparent for gererations to come. the very fact that we come from a generation untouched by war, with our freedoms does not mean that we have to sit on our laurels.<br>I do not think that Bush/Blair did it for the reasons I have stated, but neither did we realise the benefits that WWII would bring to later generations, but overall I think it was the right thing to do.
Yes there are other regimes that are similar to saddams and their turn will come.
Looking after your own, is a nice view on life, but if no one stops the school bully, it will be your turn next. Do you suppose for a minute that if Saddam could have got hold of WMD that he would not have used them against us? I believe he would have and it was a matter of sooner than later.
The saddest thing about this whole issue, is that if we had of not stopped at the border last time, this issue would have never arose, if any PM or president made mistakes it was Bush Senior and Thatcher for thinking that, the bully would learn his lesson.
Zoz yes they were blasting innoccent people before we went in there. these bombers have a particualar view on what the quoran says and the issue is not retribution for Iraq in fact Al Quieda’s actions are to overthrow the saudi princes. this is just a way of getting at the great "satan" the usa.
Finally, I think in many ways many posters on here hate Blair and anything he does, but IMO if Brown or John Smith had been PM’s the outcome would have been the same.
One wonders how many murders Saddam Hussein would have carried out in the same period.
Also the majority of these deaths have not been by our soldiers hands. Yes lets talk to these people by all means, these are people who could not overthrow an evil tyrant, but take pot shots at innocent people like the women and children.
Ian you seem to condone their actions, yet have most of the deaths by your post have come from our or american forces? no. <br>The people you mention who returned to their FREE country have my utmost respect. the ones who shun a democratic process can literally suck my butt.
I think the idea of TWO minutes silence is fair enough, but if it has to be 1000 minutes then on the 11th of the 11th this year, you will of course be quiet for a very long time.
