It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
posted by kuhl
A YOUGOV poll of UK for Sky News discovered less than 1 in 10 believe we are winning the war on terror. 77% believe Tony Blair is responsible for making the UK more of a target. Most people have grim fears the future too, with only 7% believing the War on Terror will end in their lifetime. And when asked whether Britain should be involved in any future US military action against Iran, only 16% said 'yes'. Nearly three-quarters (67%) wanted to the UK to stay out of such a conflict. [Edited by Don W]
I have to say as a Britain I disagree and think the War on Terror is a necessary War and helping our American allies has in no way made us a target. We were a target anyway and even if helping our US allies does make us more of a target then so be it, We should not be intimidated by the terrorists, If we are they HAVE already won.
Originally posted by kuhl
Some interesting views Don but Bush 43 as you call him and the U.S.A. did not start the War on terror the terrorists did.
They attacked a number of targets before 9/11 but the catalyst was the Twin Towers,Pentagon and the failed attack on the Capitol building just about 5 years ago today.
They murdered 1000s in a dispicable attack and now we are arguing over the fact that we have to defend ourselves.
Personally I say we need a break from this "war on terror" we've been fighting it for say what 30+ years?
We need time to lick our wounds and get our # together, frankly our lads havent got the gear and it doest look like they will while they sit getting shot at in iraq.
Originally posted by magicmushroom
Kuhl can I ask you what proofs you have to back up the statement that the terrorists started the war on terror. Fact 1. Iraq 1 was fought because of the Kuwait invasion, Fact 2. Iraq 2 was started because of alleged WMD's.
Islam will not be defeated as long as the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood. It is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself.
Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule. Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to “democratise” Muslim nations in the West’s interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so. It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements; and makes Donald Rumsfeld’s assertion in June 2005 that the insurgents in Iraq “don’t have vision, they’re losers” merely foolish. In this war, if there is a war, the boot is on the other foot.
Originally posted by magicmushroom
Dark the simple fact is its not just a hiccup we in the west have been interfering in the Middle East for "centuries" and thats the problem we face today. Are you saying its alright for us to force our ideas and values at the point of a bayonet down peoples throats but we dont like it when they fight back. If Muslims are so dangerous to our way of life then why have not all the western countries not deported them. Whats the point of fighting them abroad when we have millions of them in your own country.
Originally posted by magicmushroom
I dont hold weak liberal views but I believe in defending our country if attacked and that has not happened. What has happened is the people in power have staged terrorist events as an excuse to make war on Muslims and others.
Originally posted by magicmushroomAnd yes the Muslim faith seems to be spreading so whats the solution, the genocide of all Muslims, is that we would need to do to remove the threat.
How about leaving people alone and letting them get on with their lives, and if they attack our countries in an open conflict then we have a right to deal with the aggresor.
Originally posted by magicmushroom
Oh and while I remember as you mentioned Iran did not the American Government of the time have the democratically elected president assasinated in 53 because he was going to nationalise the oil industry. Then we put the Shah in power who insitagted a reign of terror for twenty years which fermented the current religious Goverment. So as I say, if you keep sticking your hand in the fire sooner or later its going to get burnt. Apply the same scenario to America, how do you think that would turn out.
Originally posted by magicmushroom
The UK/USA should not have been showering the Iraqi's/Afgans with bombs we should of been showering them with, food, medicine, health, education, homes and security, when people have something to lose there willing to fight for it when they have nothing there willing to fight for anything.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Yep, the 7/7 bombings sure did the trick.
62% of people suppor the illegial occupation of IRAQ..
even though Iraqi's DID nothing to britans...
and the leader of the group that did the 7/7 bombings was never really publically investigated...
what a joke.