The Political Thread

[COMMANDO FORCES]

As for the troubles. British armed forces carried the infamous white card which stated when we could fire upon the IRA. One of the best parts was when it said, when you are fired upon, which doesn't give you much of a chance now does it. As Buttonman stated, we seem to love to follow rules and like to fight with one arm tied behind our backs, as we are nice amid obviously the good guys

It seems the evil West go out of their way to invent killing machines that try to take out the target with pinpoint accuracy and spend billions doing so. Sadly there will always be the death of innocent people but until politicians fight wars, then this is the way hit will be. I suppose we could walk into mosques and markets wearing suicide vests and kill only the innocent but as far as I'm concerned that is done by truly evil people and people who may have been brainwashed.

[JOE SOAP]

It seems the evil West go out of their way to invent killing machines that try to take out the target with pinpoint accuracy and spend billions doing so.

While the private-sector earns billions in the global arms-trade selling them to allies/future-enemies and creating new wars to fight in.

[COMMANDO FORCES]

That's the private sector being helped by the public sector. Now who says that they can't work together

[TordelBack]

That's the private sector being helped by the public sector. Now who says that they can't work together

I award this round to the man in the blue corner!

[JOE SOAP]

That's the private sector being helped by the public sector. Now who says that they can't work together

Tru dat but I wished they'd share the profits.

[Richmond Clements]

because the SAS ain't thousands upon thousands strong. It ain't the movies you know!

And how many active members do you think the IRA had at any one time?

[Old Tankie]

Depends how you would define "active", if you're talking about the people who pulled the trigger or made the bombs, at the height of "the Troubles" you'd be talking about the low hundreds.  But, if you're including the guys and girls that hid the weapons and explosives, supplied safe houses and hides, contributed money towards the weapons, passed on information about the security forces, did reconnaissance, and who travelled Europe buying weapons, etc., etc., you'll be up there in the low thousands.  And, if you include the INLA, OIRA, the UVF, the UDA, etc., etc., the numbers just keep going up and up.

[JOE SOAP]

Not to forget those individuals high up in paramilitaries actively meeting with the respective governments unbeknownst to their organisations at the time. The final solution arguments rarely work.

[Zarjazzer]

And let's not forget the internecine warfare, beatings and murder amongst such "freedom fighters" as some would see them.

States have to be wicked as there are such wicked people in the world.

[Modern Panther]

When you use the same lowly tactics as the people you're fighting against, then what are you fighting for?

[Zarjazzer]

To win.

[Modern Panther]

Win what?  Most conflict might hide behind an ideological battle, but when it comes down to it any war is about who is in charge, which individuals get to call the shots.  if you can't distinguish your own tribe from the enemy tribe by your actions, then why fight them at all?

Suppose, that in order to "win" the "war on terror" we use the same  methods as terrorist groups - indiscriminate mass murder.  Fear makes our enemy more likely to grow in number, more desperate, as it already has in Afghanistan and Iraq...so we match them massacre for massacre.  We become more entrenched, more fearfull and more brutal.  We might have the resources and drones to ensure that we don't have to strap bomb vests to our children, but it won't make us any more free.  In the end, we get a repressive and brutal leadership whether we win or loose.

[Jim_Campbell]

Win what?

Precisely. One does not 'win' the war on terror with draconian security legislation and the erosion of civil liberties, one wins every single day on an individual level by simply refusing to be terrorised.

Cheers

Jim

[Zarjazzer]

War is between nation states. Terrorism is by non state groups or even  individuals the use of violence with a political end,(which would include the usual suspects the Taleban,PIRA,ETA,Red Army Faction and even of course the CIA and dear MI6), what we have in Afghanistan is the usual Western early 21st century muddle, a limited "war" with what objective? No one seems to know. Limited wars don't work.

And we must in the end negotiate with an enemy,(presuming you cannot destroy them utterly as say Rome did or Genghis Khan), so all you high moralists are ready to shake hands with the Taleban (unless they try and murder you, you infidel) with the people who torture and murder female teachers and students?

Where's your morals now?

It's a wicked world. And it always will be.

[Richmond Clements]

Depends how you would define "active", if you're talking about the people who pulled the trigger or made the bombs, at the height of "the Troubles" you'd be talking about the low hundreds.  But, if you're including the guys and girls that hid the weapons and explosives, supplied safe houses and hides, contributed money towards the weapons, passed on information about the security forces, did reconnaissance, and who travelled Europe buying weapons, etc., etc., you'll be up there in the low thousands.  And, if you include the INLA, OIRA, the UVF, the UDA, etc., etc., the numbers just keep going up and up.

Indeed. And it is the folks that provide safe houses, allow weapons to be stored in there houses or give money are the ones that, I suspect, Mr Obama is blowing up with such glee.
Imagine if this tactic had been used in NI - imagine dropping a bomb on, say, a wedding in the Bogside in Stroke City because the bride or groom had once allowed a few guns to be stored in their house (probably under pain of death).