Yet another war of dubious legality?
Doug
"Britain and the US have joined forces to tackle the "evolving threat"
from Islamist groups in Yemen and Somalia, Downing Street has
announced..."
"...On Tuesday, Yemen's Foreign Minister Abu Bakr al-Qirbi told the
BBC that Yemen had the will and ability to deal with al-Qaeda, but
needed more support from the West.
"We need more training," he said.
"We have to expand our counter-terrorism units and this means
providing them with the necessary training, military equipment, ways
of transportation - we are very short of helicopters."..."
More:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8437757.stm
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.
Ret.
> And yet again neither the People nor Parliament are consulted.
>
> "Britain and the US have joined forces to tackle the "evolving threat"
> from Islamist groups in Yemen and Somalia, Downing Street has
> announced..."
>
> "...On Tuesday, Yemen's Foreign Minister Abu Bakr al-Qirbi told the
> BBC that Yemen had the will and ability to deal with al-Qaeda, but
> needed more support from the West.
>
> "We need more training," he said.
>
> "We have to expand our counter-terrorism units and this means
> providing them with the necessary training, military equipment, ways
> of transportation - we are very short of helicopters."..."
What on earth are you talking about? The West is not going to ware against
The Yemen. Yemen's government is requesting Western assistance with dealing
with the terrorist threat in its midst. (Al Qaeda is reforming within the
Yemeni borders). Yemen is a collapsing country with oil running out and
shortages of water. If it *does* collapse then it will undoubtedly become a
hotbed of terrorism. Is that what you want to see?
Kev
Norman Wells
You forget. The articles Doug quotes mean what he wants them to mean, not
what they say.
'Twas ever thus.
Richard
In common with corporate media propaganda....................currently
we are having to endure a ridiculous pantomime costing many millions
of pounds, which has been staged to excuse the deaths of 1 million
people, and squandering billions of ££s in order to make these deaths
come about!
Doug
attacks by not invading other countries and by not killing thousands
of innocent civilians there.
Do you ever stop to think why people want to bomb us?
Theodore Dice
So who did the US invade to bring about 9/11 ?
Or put it another way, exactly how much do you want the western world
to bend over
for the Islamic world?
Ret.
Of course - because the want a Muslim world with a global sharia rule...
Kev
Nightjar
> On 3 Jan, 12:16, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>> On 3 Jan, 08:56, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> And yet again neither the People nor Parliament are consulted.
>>>> "Britain and the US have joined forces to tackle the "evolving threat"
>>>> from Islamist groups in Yemen and Somalia, Downing Street has
>>>> announced..."
>>>> "...On Tuesday, Yemen's Foreign Minister Abu Bakr al-Qirbi told the
>>>> BBC that Yemen had the will and ability to deal with al-Qaeda, but
>>>> needed more support from the West.
>>>> "We need more training," he said.
>>>> "We have to expand our counter-terrorism units and this means
>>>> providing them with the necessary training, military equipment, ways
>>>> of transportation - we are very short of helicopters."..."
>>> What on earth are you talking about? The West is not going to ware against
>>> The Yemen. Yemen's government is requesting Western assistance with dealing
>>> with the terrorist threat in its midst. (Al Qaeda is reforming within the
>>> Yemeni borders). Yemen is a collapsing country with oil running out and
>>> shortages of water. If it *does* collapse then it will undoubtedly become a
>>> hotbed of terrorism. Is that what you want to see?
>> What I want to see is for our government to stop provoking terrorist
>> attacks by not invading other countries and by not killing thousands
>> of innocent civilians there.
A bit late for that now. However, as Kev points out, in this case the
government of Yemen is simply asking for help in training and equipment.
>> Do you ever stop to think why people want to bomb us?
>
> So who did the US invade to bring about 9/11 ?
Terrorists like easy targets and the USA was an easy target because,
unlike Europe, they did not take the threat of terrorism seriously
before that, despite previous attacks on the WTC.
If Blair had not had his head so far up Bush's arse that, as he has
admitted on TV, he would have invaded Iraq even had he known for sure
that there were no WMDs, we would be much less of a target.
Colin Bignell
Richard
The US is the worlds No1 terror state, and is the only nation on earth
to be accused of terrorism by the international court!
In regard to 9/11 there still remain numerous unanswered questions,
and while finance for the attack most certainly came from sources very
close to the Saudi government, it seems highly unlikely the demolition
of the buildings could have been achieved successfully without the
close co-operation of US agencys (most probably on of those set up
specifically for this type of operation).
Norman Wells
> Do you ever stop to think why people want to bomb us?
Do you ever stop to think why motorists want to ram cyclists?
If you're suggesting we remove the cause, why doesn't that apply to
cyclists?
Theodore
Mentalguy2k8
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:b75cf979-056e-4b4d...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Jan, 08:56, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>
> Do you ever stop to think why people want to bomb us?
Maybe they think we're a nation of Dougs. In which case they'd be well
within their rights to wipe us off the map, and I'd help.
Ret.
LOL!!
Kev
Doug
Persian Gulf War? Connivance with Israel?
For USA warlike nature see
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineuswars.htm
>
> Or put it another way, exactly how much do you want the western world
> to bend over
> for the Islamic world?
>
Chicken and egg. I suppose it all started with the Crusaders, then
there were the various empire builders. There seems to be a natural
tendency for powerful nations to invade weak nations and then whinge
endlessly on and repress their People when the weak try to get their
own back with a fee home-made bombs.
Of course, there is absolutely no excuse for religion ever to be used
as a justification for terrorism or war.
What really gets to me is the way USA/Brit wars seem to be cycling
around various countries as each is accused in turn as being the home
of Al Qaeda. With the obvious exception of nuclear or oil-rich nations
like Pakistan or Saudi, thought to be mainly responsible for 9/11.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
Doug
foreign help as a last resort.
>
> >> Do you ever stop to think why people want to bomb us?
>
> > So who did the US invade to bring about 9/11 ?
>
> Terrorists like easy targets and the USA was an easy target because,
> unlike Europe, they did not take the threat of terrorism seriously
> before that, despite previous attacks on the WTC.
>
bombs? I seem to remember also something about 'reds under the beds'.
>
> If Blair had not had his head so far up Bush's arse that, as he has
> admitted on TV, he would have invaded Iraq even had he known for sure
> that there were no WMDs, we would be much less of a target.
>
suppose a few terrorist home-made bombs is a small price to pay for
the protection we get and the energy security. Also terrorism is an
excellent excuse for government by fear.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > Do you ever stop to think why people want to bomb us?
>
> Do you ever stop to think why motorists want to ram cyclists?
>
>
> If you're suggesting we remove the cause, why doesn't that apply to
> cyclists?
>
force and being allowed to get away with it.
--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"
Big Les Wade
During the 1990s, for example, they installed USAF bases in Saudi Arabia
(after the first Gulf War). And Kuwait of course.
Previously they had also attacked targets in Sudan, Libya and elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the US client state Israel has occupied Palestine, invaded
Lebanon and attacked Syria and Iran.
>Or put it another way, exactly how much do you want the western world
>to bend over
>for the Islamic world?
To the extent of not attacking and occupying them, killing their
civilian inhabitants, destroying their political order, and
requisitioning their oil.
--
Les
If by creating a police state we can save just one child, then it will all have
been worthwhile.
Norman Wells
> On 3 Jan, 13:09, "Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Do you ever stop to think why people want to bomb us?
>>
>> Do you ever stop to think why motorists want to ram cyclists?
>>
> Yes and I know the answer, because cyclists get in their way.
>>
>> If you're suggesting we remove the cause, why doesn't that apply to
>> cyclists?
>>
> Er, the cause is similar, the powerful trying to dominate the weak by
> force and being allowed to get away with it.
Cyclists irritate motorists just as we as a nation apparently irritate those
who want to bomb us. You suggested we should stop irritating the bombers as
a solution to the bombing problem. On the same basis, I'm suggesting we
should stop irritation to motorists by removing cyclists. Did you not
understand?
Nightjar
It is them or Al Qaeda. I suppose, given your support for terrorists,
you would prefer the latter.
>>>> Do you ever stop to think why people want to bomb us?
>>> So who did the US invade to bring about 9/11 ?
>> Terrorists like easy targets and the USA was an easy target because,
>> unlike Europe, they did not take the threat of terrorism seriously
>> before that, despite previous attacks on the WTC.
>>
> You must be joking. What about the IRA
You mean the organistation that was heavily financed by Americans?
> and before that anarchists with
> bombs?
I think that was in St Petersburg
> I seem to remember also something about 'reds under the beds'.
They were not terrorists. Indeed, many of those percutued were not even
Reds.
The point I was making is that, had the USA had the same sort of airport
security that was then routine in Europe, thanks to the IRA,
Bader-Meinhof, the Red Brigade et al, 9/11 would not have been possible.
Colin Bignell
Francis Burton
Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Theodore Dice <theodo...@googlemail.com> posted
>>So who did the US invade to bring about 9/11 ?
>
>During the 1990s, for example, they installed USAF bases in Saudi Arabia
>(after the first Gulf War). And Kuwait of course.
>
>Previously they had also attacked targets in Sudan, Libya and elsewhere.
>
>Meanwhile, the US client state Israel has occupied Palestine, invaded
>Lebanon and attacked Syria and Iran.
>
>>Or put it another way, exactly how much do you want the western world
>>to bend over
>>for the Islamic world?
>
>To the extent of not attacking and occupying them, killing their
>civilian inhabitants, destroying their political order, and
>requisitioning their oil.
Yes, but the US has the right (and arguably a duty) to do those
things to further its perceived interests.
Francis
Cynic
>>To the extent of not attacking and occupying them, killing their
>>civilian inhabitants, destroying their political order, and
>>requisitioning their oil.
>
>Yes, but the US has the right (and arguably a duty) to do those
>things to further its perceived interests.
And no doubt terrorists are just as entitled to the same justification
for *their* acts.
--
Cynic
Doug
a lot happier if USA stopped interfering all over the world, as
revenge against terrorism while provoking even more terrorism, and
paid extra attention to its own borders instead.
>
> >>>> Do you ever stop to think why people want to bomb us?
> >>> So who did the US invade to bring about 9/11 ?
> >> Terrorists like easy targets and the USA was an easy target because,
> >> unlike Europe, they did not take the threat of terrorism seriously
> >> before that, despite previous attacks on the WTC.
>
> > You must be joking. What about the IRA
>
> You mean the organistation that was heavily financed by Americans?
>
>
> > and before that anarchists with
> > bombs?
>
> I think that was in St Petersburg
>
including Irish nationals.
>
> > I seem to remember also something about 'reds under the beds'.
>
> They were not terrorists. Indeed, many of those percutued were not even
> Reds.
>
>
> The point I was making is that, had the USA had the same sort of airport
> security that was then routine in Europe, thanks to the IRA,
> Bader-Meinhof, the Red Brigade et al, 9/11 would not have been possible.
>
around the world killing innocent people they are bound to try to get
their own back. The best thing USA can do for itself and everyone else
is stay within its own borders and stop making us Brits help with its
illegal wars.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > On 3 Jan, 13:09, "Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> Do you ever stop to think why people want to bomb us?
>
> >> Do you ever stop to think why motorists want to ram cyclists?
>
> > Yes and I know the answer, because cyclists get in their way.
>
> >> If you're suggesting we remove the cause, why doesn't that apply to
> >> cyclists?
>
> > Er, the cause is similar, the powerful trying to dominate the weak by
> > force and being allowed to get away with it.
>
> Cyclists irritate motorists just as we as a nation apparently irritate those
> who want to bomb us.
>
weak.
> You suggested we should stop irritating the bombers as
> a solution to the bombing problem.
>
Indeed though I would use the word 'provoking' instead.
>
> On the same basis, I'm suggesting we
> should stop irritation to motorists by removing cyclists. Did you not
> understand?
>
I understand that we should reduce the risk to cyclists by reducing
the source of danger.
If, for example, our streets were filled with packs of rabid wolves
would we encourage safer cycling instead of culling the wolves?
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Theodore
wrote:
And the US should stop ALL foreign aid and whenever any country needs
help, even humanitarian, they should tell them to fuck off.
Doug
resources and assume State control should be discouraged. Leave it to
the NGOs instead, who are already doing good work without actually
killing innocent people with bombs or guns.
Norman Wells
> On 4 Jan, 09:20, "Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 3 Jan, 13:09, "Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> Do you ever stop to think why people want to bomb us?
>>
>>>> Do you ever stop to think why motorists want to ram cyclists?
>>
>>> Yes and I know the answer, because cyclists get in their way.
>>
>>>> If you're suggesting we remove the cause, why doesn't that apply to
>>>> cyclists?
>>
>>> Er, the cause is similar, the powerful trying to dominate the weak
>>> by force and being allowed to get away with it.
>>
>> Cyclists irritate motorists just as we as a nation apparently
>> irritate those who want to bomb us.
>>
> You are confused. Motorists and nation powerful, cyclists and bombers
> weak.
No, I'm not confused at all. _Your_ point was that if people didn't
irritate others then there would be no need for violence in retaliation. If
we didn't irritate muslims, they wouldn't bomb us, so we shouldn't.
The same applies to cyclists. If they didn't irritate motorists, motorists
wouldn't feel compelled to ram them. The solution is simple. If cyclists
won't stop doing what they do, they have to be eliminated.
It's _your_ logic, Doug.
Nightjar
Americans, not the USA.
>>> and before that anarchists with
>>> bombs?
>> I think that was in St Petersburg
>>
> Nope.
That will come as something of a surprise to the inhabitants of St
Petersburg, who are under the distinct impression that they have built a
church on the site of an anarchist bomb attack.
> Several in London in 1800s if you bother to study your history,
> including Irish nationals.
Well, if you want to include random bomb throwing anarchists, then don't
forget that the Great War was started by them. However, I don't see how
they are at all relevant to my statement that, at the beginning of the
21st century, the USA did not take terrorism seriously. Even after the
Oklahoma City bombing, they did nothing to improve airport security, on
the grounds that it might discourage people from travelling.
>>> I seem to remember also something about 'reds under the beds'.
>> They were not terrorists. Indeed, many of those percutued were not even
>> Reds.
>>
> Indeed but they were treated in much the same way as terrorists.
I don't recall aircraft passengers being searched to see if they were red.
>> The point I was making is that, had the USA had the same sort of airport
>> security that was then routine in Europe, thanks to the IRA,
>> Bader-Meinhof, the Red Brigade et al, 9/11 would not have been possible.
>>
> Something like 9/11 is always possible, one way or another.
Obviously, 100% security is unattainable. However, the airport checks
that were then routine in Europe would almost certainly have
significantly reduced the chances of success of the 9/11 attacks.
Colin Bignell
Doug
>
> >>> and before that anarchists with
> >>> bombs?
> >> I think that was in St Petersburg
>
> > Nope.
>
> That will come as something of a surprise to the inhabitants of St
> Petersburg, who are under the distinct impression that they have built a
> church on the site of an anarchist bomb attack.
>
> > Several in London in 1800s if you bother to study your history,
> > including Irish nationals.
>
> Well, if you want to include random bomb throwing anarchists, then don't
> forget that the Great War was started by them. However, I don't see how
> they are at all relevant to my statement that, at the beginning of the
> 21st century, the USA did not take terrorism seriously. Even after the
> Oklahoma City bombing, they did nothing to improve airport security, on
> the grounds that it might discourage people from travelling.
>
>
> >>> I seem to remember also something about 'reds under the beds'.
> >> They were not terrorists. Indeed, many of those percutued were not even
> >> Reds.
>
> > Indeed but they were treated in much the same way as terrorists.
>
> I don't recall aircraft passengers being searched to see if they were red.
>
>
> >> The point I was making is that, had the USA had the same sort of airport
> >> security that was then routine in Europe, thanks to the IRA,
> >> Bader-Meinhof, the Red Brigade et al, 9/11 would not have been possible.
>
> > Something like 9/11 is always possible, one way or another.
>
> Obviously, 100% security is unattainable. However, the airport checks
> that were then routine in Europe would almost certainly have
> significantly reduced the chances of success of the 9/11 attacks.
>
Thanks to our involvement in USA reprisals we are all at risk.
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > On 4 Jan, 09:20, "Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 3 Jan, 13:09, "Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> Do you ever stop to think why people want to bomb us?
>
> >>>> Do you ever stop to think why motorists want to ram cyclists?
>
> >>> Yes and I know the answer, because cyclists get in their way.
>
> >>>> If you're suggesting we remove the cause, why doesn't that apply to
> >>>> cyclists?
>
> >>> Er, the cause is similar, the powerful trying to dominate the weak
> >>> by force and being allowed to get away with it.
>
> >> Cyclists irritate motorists just as we as a nation apparently
> >> irritate those who want to bomb us.
>
> > You are confused. Motorists and nation powerful, cyclists and bombers
> > weak.
>
> No, I'm not confused at all. _Your_ point was that if people didn't
> irritate others then there would be no need for violence in retaliation. If
> we didn't irritate muslims, they wouldn't bomb us, so we shouldn't.
>
>
> The same applies to cyclists. If they didn't irritate motorists, motorists
> wouldn't feel compelled to ram them. The solution is simple. If cyclists
> won't stop doing what they do, they have to be eliminated.
>
>
> It's _your_ logic, Doug.
>
Nightjar
> On 5 Jan, 13:45, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>> Americans, not the USA.
>>
> Semanticist
It is important to differentiate between a State and the people
inhabiting that State. For example, disliking the people of Israel is
anti-Semitic, but disliking the State of Israel need not be.
...
>> Obviously, 100% security is unattainable. However, the airport checks
>> that were then routine in Europe would almost certainly have
>> significantly reduced the chances of success of the 9/11 attacks.
>>
> Unlikely, given the aircraft bombed here and in Europe over the years....
Even though they were probably dummies, some of the terrorists were
carrying what appeared to be and were claimed to be suicide bombs. I
think it highly likely that those would have been detected.
Colin Bignell
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > On 5 Jan, 13:45, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
> ...
> >> Americans, not the USA.
>
> > Semanticist
>
> It is important to differentiate between a State and the people
> inhabiting that State. For example, disliking the people of Israel is
> anti-Semitic, but disliking the State of Israel need not be.
>
on several nations and at the same time required our involvement..
> ...
>
> >> Obviously, 100% security is unattainable. However, the airport checks
> >> that were then routine in Europe would almost certainly have
> >> significantly reduced the chances of success of the 9/11 attacks.
>
> > Unlikely, given the aircraft bombed here and in Europe over the years....
>
> Even though they were probably dummies, some of the terrorists were
> carrying what appeared to be and were claimed to be suicide bombs. I
> think it highly likely that those would have been detected.
>
181, etc? Clearly airport checks anywhere are difficult to almost
impossible. The best way for USA governments to avoid terrorism is for
it to stop trying to terrorise the rest of the world with its attacks
on civilians and enforced democracy. But of course that would mean it
losing control, especially on its own citizens. Much the same goes for
our own governments and their war on terrorism.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Nightjar
> On 5 Jan, 18:54, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 5 Jan, 13:45, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Americans, not the USA.
>>> Semanticist
>> It is important to differentiate between a State and the people
>> inhabiting that State. For example, disliking the people of Israel is
>> anti-Semitic, but disliking the State of Israel need not be.
>>
> OK then. USA governments over the years have instigated and waged war
> on several nations and at the same time required our involvement..
>> ...
>>
>>>> Obviously, 100% security is unattainable. However, the airport checks
>>>> that were then routine in Europe would almost certainly have
>>>> significantly reduced the chances of success of the 9/11 attacks.
>>> Unlikely, given the aircraft bombed here and in Europe over the years....
>> Even though they were probably dummies, some of the terrorists were
>> carrying what appeared to be and were claimed to be suicide bombs. I
>> think it highly likely that those would have been detected.
>>
> 181,
You are simply quoting some of the incidents that caused Europe to
improve its airport security.
Colin Bignell
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > On 5 Jan, 18:54, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 5 Jan, 13:45, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> Americans, not the USA.
> >>> Semanticist
> >> It is important to differentiate between a State and the people
> >> inhabiting that State. For example, disliking the people of Israel is
> >> anti-Semitic, but disliking the State of Israel need not be.
>
> > OK then. USA governments over the years have instigated and waged war
> > on several nations and at the same time required our involvement..
> >> ...
>
> >>>> Obviously, 100% security is unattainable. However, the airport checks
> >>>> that were then routine in Europe would almost certainly have
> >>>> significantly reduced the chances of success of the 9/11 attacks.
> >>> Unlikely, given the aircraft bombed here and in Europe over the years....
> >> Even though they were probably dummies, some of the terrorists were
> >> carrying what appeared to be and were claimed to be suicide bombs. I
> >> think it highly likely that those would have been detected.
>
> > 181,
>
> You are simply quoting some of the incidents that caused Europe to
> improve its airport security.
>
the only defence against terrorists is to stop provoking them by
invading their nations. OTOH there is probably no defence against
religious terrorism so that is something one must just learn to live
with and not let your government use it as a handy excuse to control
you and erode your human rights.