UK poses biggest terror threat to America

[ShadesWolf]

Scary......


Britain poses a greater terror threat to America than Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan, leading experts on Islamic extremism have warned.

They single out British Pakistanis as a "danger" to the United States, prompting suggestions last night that the system that allows UK passport holders to travel freely across the Atlantic needs to be reviewed urgently.

The explosive allegations come amid growing concerns in Washington about what has been dubbed "Londonistan" - Britain's reputation as a breeding ground for Islamic extremism.

Last night the Foreign Office dismissed the claim as "ludicrous".

An article in the New Republic magazine details how this summer's terror alert has left a question mark in the US over the trustworthiness of young Asians in Britain who trace their roots back to Pakistan and in particular Kashmir.

It highlights how extremists with links to Pakistan have been implicated in a string of attacks and plots against Western targets, often after attending training camps run by terror organisations.

The analysis comes amid mounting calls in Washington for a review of the threat posed by British citizens, who are increasingly being seen as a likely source of terror attacks against the US.

The US administration and its supporters are also worried by signs that so-called moderate British Muslims have used the terror alerts to call for a change in British foreign policy.

Transatlantic flights remain disrupted by intensified security following the revelation of a plot by British-born Muslims to blow up planes from London to the US.

The article, headlined "Kashmir on Thames", declares: "For terrorist organisations like al-Qa'eda - which, in the years since American troops deposed the Taliban, has reconstituted itself in Pakistan - ethnic Pakistanis living in the UK make perfect recruits, since they speak English and can travel on British passports.

"Indeed, in the wake of this month's high-profile arrests, it can now be argued that the biggest threat to US security emanates not from Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan but rather from Great Britain, our closest ally."

It points out that up to 400,000 British Pakistanis travel back to the country each year, and that many of them have links with Kashmir, which has been the target of a violent militant movement designed to end Indian control of the territory.

Its authors, Peter Bergen and Paul Cruikshank, are well-established experts on Islamic extremism, and the New Republic is an influential voice in Washington.

They say: "The danger to the United States of the nexus between British Pakistanis, al-Qa'eda and Kashmir is becoming clear," adding: "Of more concern...is the likelihood that British Pakistanis will continue to target Americans, both in the US and abroad."

Tory security spokesman Patrick Mercer said the system for allowing movement between the US and the UK needed to be reviewed in light of the heightened security situation.

"It has been known for some time that America has viewed the threat emanating from Britain as being the greatest single problem their intelligence agencies have to deal with. This comes hard on the heels of countries such as France referring to us as 'Londinistan'.

"It serves to remind anybody in doubt about the threat we face how seriously it is taken not just here but abroad. Many measures taken by the Government have been a good start but it has failed to deliver crucially on important security measures."

He added: "The whole business of people moving between the US and the UK needs to be reviewed in like of the recent alarms, and not just the visa waiver programme.

"And there can no longer be an excuse for not creating a Cabinet - level minister responsible solely for national security."

A spokesman for the right-wing Heritage Foundation in Washington said yesterday that Americans increasingly viewed the UK as "a hornet's nest of Islamic extremists" and that Washington could respond by imposing travel restrictions.

At risk is the visa waiver programme that allows four million Britons a year to enter the US without having to apply for a visa beforehand.

The publication Investor's Business Daily has called for an end to the programme because it "allows Pakistani Britons to dodge security background checks."

A spokeswoman for the American embassy said: "We're not commenting on the article", but a spokesman for the Foreign Office said: "The suggestion that the biggest threat to the United States emanates from Britain is ludicrous."

Meanwhile, US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called for grater access to information about passengers boarding trans-Atlantic flights.

But he said European privacy concerns had "handcuffed" the US' ability to use all available resources to identify and stop threats.

He wants counterterrorism officials to have access to detailed information routinely collected by airlines and travel agencies when travelers book flights, such as travel itineraries and payment details, to help identify suspected terrorists before they board planes.

[lancelot]

After being in the US when this last round of terror plotting came about I can see why Americans feel this way and Im inclined to agree...its a sad truth but these terrorist idiots greatest weapon is the freedom of movement and privacy we accord them...

[Brenus]

Afghanistan was attacked because it was sheltering terrorist… England is/was? A centre for terrorists, recruitment, propaganda, funds raising and training… Have I to pack the luggage? :sweatdrop:

[mystic brew]

i'm pleased we are still leading the world in something.

but this does put the US in a bind here.
If the US puts restrictions in place on the UK, then support for the US, already fairly thin, is gonna get thinner. justified or no, i think that politically speaking this is totally unworkable.

[Pannonian]

Afghanistan was attacked because it was sheltering terrorist… England is/was? A centre for terrorists, recruitment, propaganda, funds raising and training… Have I to pack the luggage? :sweatdrop:
No, you're thinking of Boston and other Irish-American centres.

[Al Khalifah]

Same way American used to be a big terror threat to Britain.

Maybe there wouldn't be so many extremists in Britain if we didn't keep bombing their homes and regarding their faith as the root of all evil and terrorism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well given the amount of support certain parts on the US gave the IRA I think this is ludicrus. It also ignores the fact that America has a significant Pakistani-Muslim population. Take out your own rubbish before telling your neighbour his is rotten.

[danfda]

We do have large Islamic populations here in America, and for the most part (from my albeit limited perspective and limited information given by the media) most seem to condemn the extremist actions of their brethren across the globe. I *hope* that this is the case in most Western European nations as well. We are supposed to afford those who aren't extremists all of the freedoms and benefits the rest of us enjoy (though those are dwindling rapidly), and persecute the radicals who purport terrorism. But with all that is going on nowadays, how can you differentiate between the two? Islam is not an ethnicity--its a religion, and as such whites, blacks, browns, purples, oranges, and fuschias can follow that faith. So how can you arrest the terrorists in Britian and here in America but still let me and the rest of us peaceniks keep all our freedoms? You can't, really, short of banning Islam. And we all know how well that would go over...

So is this report frightening? You bet. Can we unilaterally say Britian is evil and embargo all trade, and disallow intercontinental travel? No. So really, all this report does is scare more (very malleable) people into overreaching generalizations and stupid ideas that will only make things worse in the long run.

With that said, I have no doubt that blockading the UK, 18th century style, is an idea that George Dubbya would love to follow through on...

[lancelot]

Maybe there wouldn't be so many extremists in Britain if we didn't keep bombing their homes and regarding their faith as the root of all evil and terrorism.

Pfff...oh yea, its all Britain's fault that disgruntled idiots who think they understand their religion so fully at 22 years of age (and then use their religion to justify almost any action) try to board planes full of innocent people with the intention of heroically blowing people up (including children) who probably for the majority dont even agree with the government's foreign policies....nope- dont attack targets of a military nature where there will be resistance to such heroic actions ~:rolleyes:

Worse still, these terrorists are hypocritical enough to make lives for themselves in this country (with all its evil trappings- homes, income, religious tollerence etc etc) and then claim to despise it...guess this country is ok when you want a new mercedes...

Statements such as that dont wash- take some responsibility.

And considering Islamic based terrorism is the main (if not only) source of terrorism in the UK at present the only logical conclusion is- at present certain parts of Islam are indeed the root of terrorism.

[Al Khalifah]

I never said it was the fault was all Britain's. But surely you cannot argue that Britain's foreign policy of the last 5 years has not contributed to a rise in terrorist activity amongst British Muslims? There are many causes for every event some contributing more than others.
It's somewhat hypocritical for British people to gasp in horror at the suggestion that Islamic extremists in Britain are willing to kill civilians and damage their property in order to achieve their aims, while at the same time, the British army is killing civilians and damaging their property in Iraq and Afghanistan. It may be accidental and not their intention but they're still doing it. So no, I don't think the "oh we don't deserve this - the majority of us don't even believe in the Government's foreign policy" argument washes, because we are still violating the sovreignty and rights of Iraqis & Afghans even though "the majority of Muslims do not support the Taliban, Hussain or Al Qaeda" policy.
If we pursue the war in the same half-arsed manor we are now, the number of people supporting the Labour Party foreign policy may well go down - but you can guarentee that the number of Muslims supporting the fundamentalists will only go up.

[lancelot]

I never said it was the fault was all Britain's. But surely you cannot argue that Britain's foreign policy of the last 5 years has not contributed to a rise in terrorist activity amongst British Muslims?

Well I would probably agree that British foreign policy is not helping matters no.


It's somewhat hypocritical for British people to gasp in horror at the suggestion that Islamic extremists in Britain are willing to kill civilians and damage their property in order to achieve their aims, while at the same time, the British army is killing civilians and damaging their property in Iraq and Afghanistan. It may be accidental and not their intention but they're still doing it.

I think 'the British army is killing civilians' is a bit of an overstatement and furthermore there is a world of difference between a soldier (a legitimate military target for reprisals) and destrying property and lives through terror tactics.



because we are still violating the sovreignty and rights of Iraqis & Afghans even though "the majority of Muslims do not support the Taliban, Hussain or Al Qaeda" policy.


In the case of Iraq, which was in clear violation of resolution 1441 was likely to suffer the consequences of violating said resolution up to and including sanctions and invasion to restore said compliance with the resolution...which gives the invasion at least partial legitimacy.

I would point out however, that deposing saddam and forced regime change is well outside the mandate of the invasion and I fully agree that that part of the invasion was illegal...so violation of sovereignty I would argue at least in part is a consequence of failure to comply with Un resolutions.

As for violating the rights of these people, I certainly get the impression that they have more rights now than they ever had...free elections for starters...

[Al Khalifah]

I don't think you can claim legitimacy for the operation from the UN when infact it was the Coalitions flaunting of the UN's authority which is one of the reasons many people opposed the war.

[orangat]

One point slightly OT I'd like to make is that Britain and her close ally US was doing as much damage even before the invasion. The sanctions against Iraq exacted a huge socio-economic toll.

The sanctions allowed the US and Britain to engage in punitive actions under an administrative cover. There were ridiculous bans, restrictions, arbitrary delays in getting very basic and harmless materials like medical journals, school books, _basic_ medical equipment were held up. To put things in perspective a million Iraqi's died, half of them children because of the sanctions.
http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/perspctvs/perspec_jun.pdf

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Britain foriegn policy is not really to blame here. Not that I'm saying the way Iraq has gone down or the way we follow the US like a dog is a good thing.

We attacked Afganistan because the US invoked the NATO treaty, seeing a Bin Laden was supported by the Taliban.

We attaked Iraq for UN violations, the legality is at worst muddy. In both cases regime change was neccessary because you can't attack a bad regime and then leave it in place. Had Saddam been dealth with in the 90s we wouldn't have the problem now.

Neither of these attacks were against Muslims. Afganistan was a retaliation against a terrorist supporting state and Iraq was a largely secular country which happened to have a majoriety Muslim population.

Had both states been Christian I dought many would have called it an attack on Christianity, even if the attacking states were Muslim.

The fact that some Muslims see themselves as Muslim first and foremost isn't compatable with Western Society.

[rotorgun]

Not to worry freinds. Soon the terrorists will be able to enter from anywhere in the world once all of the seaports and airports are outsourced to business from countries that support them. Does the "Dubai Ports" deal ring a bell? If the Al Queda was smart, they would just send a lawyer over to buy the rights to JFK international. Then they wouldn't even have to hijack the planes at all, just buy an airline and there you have it-instant human cruise missles.

Regards,

[Somebody Else]

Simple. Remove the welfare state we have. That way, people will be too busy trying to live, to go around being extremist nut-cases. It's kind of like the idle rich of the old aristocracy playing around, just with more people, and less sense.

[macsen rufus]

IMHO it is Iraq in particular that has radicalised young British Muslims, and also IMHO the whole Iraq invasion was illegal -- everyone knew beforehand there were no WMDs and regime-change was never sanctioned internationally. Trying to point out the lies - the dirty dossier, conflicting evidence from inspectors on the scene, distorting history, rewriting intelligence - before the invasion got you well and truly villified. So much for freedom of speech and democracy in Blair's Britain.

Did Saddam ever have chemical/biological weapons? Only the ones Britain, France and the US sold him. Was Saddam always the enemy? Not whilst he was usefully fighting the Iranians. Who put him into power in the first place??? Like DUH! Who armed him? Who armed the Taleban and Osama? Where did the Iranian Revolution come from? Reaction against the excesses of the Shah and his western backers. Who drew the lines on the map we now call Iraq? Britain, France, America. Who installed the Hashemites? Who set up the current Saudi royals?

Is there actually anything in the past 100 years in this region that has not been the result of the meddling of Western powers? Is it really any surprise that there might be a hint of resentment about all this? Now we have another wave of military intervention dressed up as "bringing democracy" when at best all they offer is a new set of tame (for now) stooges. If people were allowed to live their own lives, yes even make their own mistakes, there would be a lot less radicalisation and extremism. If democracy and freedom of speech were acually respected at home, we might stand some chance of "exporting" them. Hell, if we just came out and said "We want your oil and don't trust you lot to keep it flowing" we'd have more respect on the international stage, for at last we'd be telling the truth.

(Edit: typo...)

[Slyspy]

So the biggest terrorist threat to the US comes from two of its allies, Britain and Pakistan? What now for the war on terror? :laugh4:

[Pannonian]

IMHO it is Iraq in particular that has radicalised young British Muslims, and also IMHO the whole Iraq invasion was illegal -- everyone knew beforehand there were no WMDs and regime-change was never sanctioned internationally. Trying to point out the lies - the dirty dossier, conflicting evidence from inspectors on the scene, distorting history, rewriting intelligence - before the invasion got you well and truly villified. So much for freedom of speech and democracy in Blair's Britain.

As was suspected before the invasion, the action in Iraq translated into action against Britain. Most people understood the initial toppling of the Taleban as revenge for OBL's attack on our ally - we were obligated to do what we did, fair's fair. But there was no similarly just pretext for our attack on Iraq, merely oil-based geo-strategic interests. Many Muslims haven't fully integrated into the British mainstream, but there are are other ethnic minorities who have the same problem, and the northern riots were just the latest in the British tradition of political clashes on the street, nothing exceptional (see Communists v Blackshirts, Orange v Green, Black v Establishment, Poll Tax riots, etc.). Israel/Palestine is an enduring injustice, but few outside Israel blame the British for that. Even when British Muslims were radicalised by the Palestinian conflict, they tended to target Israel, not Britain.

Iraq was the direct cause of British Muslims' violent disaffection with Britain. People warned before the invasion that it would only increase the danger of Muslim terrorism against Britain. As long as we are there, perhaps even as long as there is a link with Blair, the danger will remain, and whatever well-intentioned social programmes we carry out will still fail. What we need to do is withdraw from Iraq ASAP, dump Blair (not necessarily in that order), and have the UK government, whoever is in charge, publicly admit that the whole enterprise was fundamentally mistaken, and that Britain was wrong. That will substantially reduce the Muslim problem and allow for its eventual solution at minimal social cost, but will require immense political courage.

[Pannonian]

So the biggest terrorist threat to the US comes from two of its allies, Britain and Pakistan? What now for the war on terror? :laugh4:
Don't forget Saudi Arabia, who supplied the 9/11 funding and most of its hijackers.

[Slyspy]

So let me get this right....the only nations directly linked to terrorist attacks on the US are amongst it's allies? Why do we fight for freedom and democracy with an authoritarian monarchy and a military dictator? Tell me again why I'm seeing news reports of war and occupation from Iraq and Afghanistan not, say, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? When, for that matter, do I get to see American armour patrolling the streets of Birmingham and civil war raging in Manchester? Hurrah for peace through superior firepower!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Iraq was the direct cause of British Muslims' violent disaffection with Britain. People warned before the invasion that it would only increase the danger of Muslim terrorism against Britain. As long as we are there, perhaps even as long as there is a link with Blair, the danger will remain, and whatever well-intentioned social programmes we carry out will still fail. What we need to do is withdraw from Iraq ASAP, dump Blair (not necessarily in that order), and have the UK government, whoever is in charge, publicly admit that the whole enterprise was fundamentally mistaken, and that Britain was wrong. That will substantially reduce the Muslim problem and allow for its eventual solution at minimal social cost, but will require immense political courage.

The question of whether the invasion was actually illegal has never actually been resolved and I don't recall any Western Power standing up and saying that Iraq didn't have weapons. If everyone knew why didn't they say anything. Lest we forget Saddam was refusing to give weapons inspectors unfettered access and the US wanted a second, clearer, resolution, which France said they would veto.

Regardless we can't pull out of Iraq, we tried that in Africa, remember. We have to find some way of providing at least some stability or Iraq will just become another Bosnia, Congo and Somalia rolled into one.

The current problem is fundamentally one within Islam. Unitl Islam ceases to be a tool for extreme and oppressive opinions the problem will not go away.

[macsen rufus]

If everyone knew why didn't they say anything

Did you not notice a small gathering of 2 million demonstrating in the streets of London? I for one stood in front of US tanks loading up to go overseas. Don't say no-one spoke out.

And as for attitudes to integration in different communities, this says a lot:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5307818.stm


the south London restaurant where the 12 arrests were made was a halal Chinese

:laugh4:


ps any ideology that claims a monopoly on truth can be used as a tool for extremism

[Pannonian]

The question of whether the invasion was actually illegal has never actually been resolved and I don't recall any Western Power standing up and saying that Iraq didn't have weapons. If everyone knew why didn't they say anything. Lest we forget Saddam was refusing to give weapons inspectors unfettered access and the US wanted a second, clearer, resolution, which France said they would veto.

Legality and justice are two separate things. Legality is what the law allows. Justice is what people perceive as what the law should allow. Expelling Iraqi troops from Kuwait was a just cause. Stepping in in Kosovo when there was a clear repetition of the Bosnian experience was a just cause. Retaliation against the Taleban for their friend's attack on our ally was a just cause. Upholding the the UN and our alliances is a just cause. Invading Iraq backed up by the possibility that Saddam may not have cooperated with the UN, when the UN inspectors themselves were adamant this wasn't reason enough, is not a just cause. Pre-war polls were very clear on what the British people saw would be a just cause - a 2nd UN resolution explicitly supporting military action ("all necessary means") would do it, whether or not it was vetoed, as long as it achieved a majority. It wasn't even put to the vote when it became clear it could barely get a third of the UNSC's backing, including the US and the UK.



Regardless we can't pull out of Iraq, we tried that in Africa, remember. We have to find some way of providing at least some stability or Iraq will just become another Bosnia, Congo and Somalia rolled into one.

So? What's that got to do with us? Mark T and his mates tried to "sort out" a certain African country from the goodness of their hearts. That enterprise wasn't too popular either.



The current problem is fundamentally one within Islam. Unitl Islam ceases to be a tool for extreme and oppressive opinions the problem will not go away.
Islam can do whatever it wants as long as it keeps to itself and doesn't involve us. That's what they did until we invaded Iraq. Islam doesn't fundamentally threaten the world, only mildly irritate it with terrorist attacks. The only real danger is if they gain WMDs, and we're going about it the wrong way if we want to stop that danger. Diplomacy and interstate agreements is the most effective way of securing the supply of WMDs, but the Bush administration is uninterested in this. Meanwhile our foreign policy is breeding a generation of British Muslims who want to do the maximum damage they can to us.

If we want to keep our freedoms, we can't guarantee safety from terrorist attacks, however much the government likes to pretend it can. The best thing we can do is remove the catalyst that drives them to attack us.

[Brenus]

“Stepping in in Kosovo when there was a clear repetition of the Bosnian experience was a just cause.” Er, I would contest this. The “ethnic cleansing started AFTER the beginning of the bombing… Operation Horse Shoes never existed… And Pristina Stadium was never used as concentration camp… And the ethnic cleansing of the other minorities by the Albanians under the eyes of NATO went unpunished… So much for the just cause…

“If everyone knew why didn't they say anything”: The UN commission said it. The French, Germans, Belguim, Russian, between others, “said we want to see the proof” because they were too polite to say the US and UK bluntly lied, oops, misinformed their allies…

“2nd UN resolution explicitly supporting military action ("all necessary means") would do it, whether or not it was vetoed, as long as it achieved a majority” Nop, a vet is a veto. That is why all resolution about Lebanon couldn’t be passed because US veto. I still wait the horror yelling from the people who accuse the French to misuse their right of veto. By the way, the French didn’t veto the resolution, because no resolution was presented…

[Pannonian]

“Stepping in in Kosovo when there was a clear repetition of the Bosnian experience was a just cause.” Er, I would contest this. The “ethnic cleansing started AFTER the beginning of the bombing… Operation Horse Shoes never existed… And Pristina Stadium was never used as concentration camp… And the ethnic cleansing of the other minorities by the Albanians under the eyes of NATO went unpunished… So much for the just cause…

Unpunished? IIRC we stepped in at some point to stop the Serbs from being ethnically cleansed by the Albanians, sending in several hundred more troops to enforce the peace. The execution wasn't perfect, but we set out what it was that we disapproved of, and we applied it as best we could to all sides.



“2nd UN resolution explicitly supporting military action ("all necessary means") would do it, whether or not it was vetoed, as long as it achieved a majority” Nop, a vet is a veto. That is why all resolution about Lebanon couldn’t be passed because US veto. I still wait the horror yelling from the people who accuse the French to misuse their right of veto. By the way, the French didn’t veto the resolution, because no resolution was presented…
Did you read what I wrote? Try quoting the whole paragraph instead of just the one line. Come to think of it, try quoting the whole line instead of just the part.

Pre-war polls were very clear on what the British people saw would be a just cause - a 2nd UN resolution explicitly supporting military action would do it, whether or not it was vetoed, as long as it achieved a majority
Meaning it mattered not whether the veto made it technically illegal - a simple majority would have rendered it a just cause in the eyes of the British people. Before you argue about whether or not the British can override the legality of a UN resolution, read again my explanation of the difference between legality and justice, and whom my scenario applied to. Before you refute my argument with "Nope", see if the argument you are refuting is the one I presented, or a strawman you've created.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Legality and justice are two separate things. Legality is what the law allows. Justice is what people perceive as what the law should allow. Expelling Iraqi troops from Kuwait was a just cause. Stepping in in Kosovo when there was a clear repetition of the Bosnian experience was a just cause. Retaliation against the Taleban for their friend's attack on our ally was a just cause. Upholding the the UN and our alliances is a just cause. Invading Iraq backed up by the possibility that Saddam may not have cooperated with the UN, when the UN inspectors themselves were adamant this wasn't reason enough, is not a just cause. Pre-war polls were very clear on what the British people saw would be a just cause - a 2nd UN resolution explicitly supporting military action ("all necessary means") would do it, whether or not it was vetoed, as long as it achieved a majority. It wasn't even put to the vote when it became clear it could barely get a third of the UNSC's backing, including the US and the UK.

I think getting rid of Saddam was a just cause, so long as you replace him with something better. The fact that Pentagon haks would rather destroy the country is besides the point. I believe had it been handled differently we could all be at home by now sipping tea and saying what a good job we did. As things stand unless we cut and run I'll be over there in a few years.


So? What's that got to do with us? Mark T and his mates tried to "sort out" a certain African country from the goodness of their hearts. That enterprise wasn't too popular either.

We eject from Africa = Very bad.

We eject from Iraq = Very bad.


Islam can do whatever it wants as long as it keeps to itself and doesn't involve us. That's what they did until we invaded Iraq. Islam doesn't fundamentally threaten the world, only mildly irritate it with terrorist attacks. The only real danger is if they gain WMDs, and we're going about it the wrong way if we want to stop that danger. Diplomacy and interstate agreements is the most effective way of securing the supply of WMDs, but the Bush administration is uninterested in this. Meanwhile our foreign policy is breeding a generation of British Muslims who want to do the maximum damage they can to us.

There is a current form of Islam which does threaten our Western world and the Muslim population in the West is both growing and increasingly turning to this form. From a purely strategic and logistical point of view it is in the interests of the Western powers to force the approaching conflict sooner rather than later.

That doesn't make war the solution, though.


If we want to keep our freedoms, we can't guarantee safety from terrorist attacks, however much the government likes to pretend it can. The best thing we can do is remove the catalyst that drives them to attack us.

Or we can remove the power base, the access, the ideology. All viable options. They are the aggressors, why should we give any ground. Any form of appeasement will ultimately be neagative.

Lets say we leave the Middle East and withdraw all support from Isreal. Then OBL, just as he said he would, will ask for mass conversions in the West, or Sharia law.

Where does it stop.

[Pannonian]

I think getting rid of Saddam was a just cause, so long as you replace him with something better. The fact that Pentagon haks would rather destroy the country is besides the point. I believe had it been handled differently we could all be at home by now sipping tea and saying what a good job we did. As things stand unless we cut and run I'll be over there in a few years.

Polls showed a large majority of people (70-80%) against an invasion without a 2nd resolution, a similar proportion supporting with. Just about every poll showed similar figures, with sample sizes ranging between 1000 and 5000 (margin +/- 5%).

As for how the war was managed - we should never again shackle ourselves to a war of choice unless we have a significant say in policy. If Rumsfeld reckons he can do without British participation as he hinted before the invasion, good luck to him. Without a degree of control over the direction we take, I don't see why we should commit our troops to something that is none of our business.



We eject from Africa = Very bad.

We eject from Iraq = Very bad.

Bad for them. How is it bad for us?



There is a current form of Islam which does threaten our Western world and the Muslim population in the West is both growing and increasingly turning to this form. From a purely strategic and logistical point of view it is in the interests of the Western powers to force the approaching conflict sooner rather than later.

That doesn't make war the solution, though.

Radical Islam is indeed a problem, but as you say war isn't the solution. Not only that, war actually removes the possibility of some other solutions, and brings the problem to within our borders.



Or we can remove the power base, the access, the ideology. All viable options. They are the aggressors, why should we give any ground. Any form of appeasement will ultimately be neagative.

It's not a matter of appeasement, it's a matter of doing what we should do. The best way of dealing with terrorism is to ignore the terrorists and do what we should have done anyway, whether or not they existed. We shouldn't batter ourselves with a cricket bat simply to spite the terrorists - if wimping out of Iraq is the most prudent move, that's what we should do.



Lets say we leave the Middle East and withdraw all support from Isreal. Then OBL, just as he said he would, will ask for mass conversions in the West, or Sharia law.

Where does it stop.
He can ask for mass conversions in the west if he wants, it doesn't mean anyone will listen.

The Islamists who preach their form of Islam in the west are loons, few take them seriously enough to sacrifice themselves for the cause. For all their religious rhetoric, they need a secular cause to persuade people to go the extra step. Iraq gave them that cause, our palpable role in the invasion giving their recruits a sufficiently concrete reason to act instead of shout. Don't be fooled by the label of the New Islamic terror - despite the different form, it's just another chapter in the anti-imperialist struggle just when we thought we'd given up that lark. The rhetoric may be different, but the motivation for the terrorists is the same - our interference in the affairs of other countries. As I've alluded to above, if we are going to interfere, at least make sure we'll gain something from it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Polls showed a large majority of people (70-80%) against an invasion without a 2nd resolution, a similar proportion supporting with. Just about every poll showed similar figures, with sample sizes ranging between 1000 and 5000 (margin +/- 5%).[/quate]

The general population isn't always right. I believe getting rid of Saddam was a just cause. I believe getting rid of quite a few leaders would be equally just, and yes I recognise the slippery slope that leads down.

[quote]As for how the war was managed - we should never again shackle ourselves to a war of choice unless we have a significant say in policy. If Rumsfeld reckons he can do without British participation as he hinted before the invasion, good luck to him. Without a degree of control over the direction we take, I don't see why we should commit our troops to something that is none of our business.

Agreed. If we can't direct the opperations we shouldn't be involved. Especially when Britain has far more experiance in the field of peace-keeping.


Bad for them. How is it bad for us?

I'm talking about doing the right thing here. Its their problem but its at least partially our fault.


Radical Islam is indeed a problem, but as you say war isn't the solution. Not only that, war actually removes the possibility of some other solutions, and brings the problem to within our borders.

I fear what should happen if radical Islam merely became "Islam" especially with the high-birth rate Muslim immigrant population we have. Such a situation could lead to an idiological, if not strictly religious, war in Europe and across the world. There's a nightmare scenario for you.


It's not a matter of appeasement, it's a matter of doing what we should do. The best way of dealing with terrorism is to ignore the terrorists and do what we should have done anyway, whether or not they existed. We shouldn't batter ourselves with a cricket bat simply to spite the terrorists - if wimping out of Iraq is the most prudent move, that's what we should do.

Again, we broke it, and if we leave now the situation will flare in Civil War, everyone will hate us for bailing and we'll probaly end up with Sunnis murdered and annexation by Iran. Iran would then have a direct border with Jordan and Saudi Arabia, both at least nominally pro-Western.

That's another nightmare scenario.

[Brenus]

“Unpunished? IIRC we stepped in at some point to stop the Serbs from being ethnically cleansed by the Albanians, sending in several hundred more troops to enforce the peace. The execution wasn't perfect, but we set out what it was that we disapproved of, and we applied it as best we could to all sides.” Did we bomb the Albanians? Did we protect the Ashkenalee, the Gorancees, Turks, Croats and others? Why the men who organised this are actually in POWER in Kosovo… Agim Ceku, head of the KLA was involved in the ethnic cleansing against the Serbs in Croatia and of course in Kososvo. No need to sent troops in the mountain, he is every day at his office… Still in office, as commander of the police (Kosovo Protection Corps), being allegedly in charge to protect minorities from attack……

However, I see you are not defending the just cause of bombing the Serbs for an action they started after the beginning of the bombing… Not that what the Serbs did before was nice and shouldn't have been dealt with, but that is another story…

“Pre-war polls were very clear on what the British people saw would be a just cause - a 2nd UN resolution explicitly supporting military action would do it, whether or not it was vetoed, as long as it achieved a majority” No, I read that. However, I answer to the wrong question, I give you that. Still, it was NO majority in the Security Council. Only USA and UK want a war, China, Russia abstained; France wanted to either veto or abstain… Where is the majority?

[Pannonian]

“Pre-war polls were very clear on what the British people saw would be a just cause - a 2nd UN resolution explicitly supporting military action would do it, whether or not it was vetoed, as long as it achieved a majority” No, I read that. However, I answer to the wrong question, I give you that. Still, it was NO majority in the Security Council. Only USA and UK want a war, China, Russia abstained; France wanted to either veto or abstain… Where is the majority?
From my original post.

It wasn't even put to the vote when it became clear it could barely get a third of the UNSC's backing, including the US and the UK.