Existing Users: Because of an update to the forum software you will need to reset your password. Please use the "Forgot?" link on the sign in form to do so. If that doesn't work, send me an email at feedback@forzaminardi.com and I'll sort you out!
What the hell is going on over there? Roll call!
I think it is time to unleash the soccer hooligans.
Comments
sounds like SOMETHING happened
Alright, permission to PANIC.
No, really, it's fine. Small bombs, unsure of link to the bigger ones two weeks ago - most failed to go off but sort of co-ordinated.
There'll be more ...
[Edited on 21/7/2005 by viges]
Sorry for all London residents, dont worry we are with you as a country suffered from TERRORISM for many years.
Terror must be condemned no matter who does it !!!
ALL TERROR must be condemned, both "legal" and "illegal"!
if u mean that?
In Neil_sease "Legal" terrorism is any US foreign policy he and his ilk decree to be so.
Today policemen shot a man that was on the floor and eventually found out he had no explosive as it seemed.
That's what terrorists want.
Scenario A. The terrorists in Iraq see the error of their ways, millions of young, idle, angry young Muslims come to love the occupation and appreciate the selfless sacrifice of Americans. The mosques echo with praise for the allied liberators and the great truth that comes with democracy, western values, an uncensored internet and new educational programs which open men and womens minds to the merits of freedom.
Miraculously, terrorism becomes history, the new world becomes free of crime, exploitation, fear and envy. Christianity and Islam exist side by side with all giving up their guns, with mutual respect and acceptance; Christians accepting abortion and, Muslims accepting their Christian neighbours and welcoming miniskirts, shorts, bikinis, alcohol and pornography.
Scenario B. Terrorism increases, The US and Britain experience the new terror and vulnerability of petrol, LPG and chemical tankers being blown up in populated areas, Terrorists become increasingly skilled in executing escalating events triggered by a single or few individuals placing themselves at any of thousand of places which would cause immense harm and fear.
Bush, Cheney and Blair maintain that all they had to do is have backbone and go after the terrorists wherever they are. The terrorists manage to cover themselves so that whenever they are attacked they take innocent people with them.
Security specialists, community think tanks and the public at large plead for reviews of US and British positions which leave the western powers open to criticism from those who want to see a fair and peaceful world. These views are rejected out of hand by the familiar and rather banal emphasis on the inability to influence the committed terrorists mind. Men of wisdom try to explain that it is the breeding areas for terrorists that we need to educate and persuade by example. George, Dick, Tony and (yes) Johnny Howard refuse to be distracted from their self righteous path.
Terrorism worsens till the current players are all replaced by politicians who recognise the need for a different mix of strategies.
Finally, policies which have angered much of the world through exploitation, manipulation and arrogance are modified as a means to unite rather than divide, to build rather than destroy, and a tired exhausted world begins to renew. All think why did it take so long and cost so may lives.
What I would like to see is Scenario C. Blair takes a lead and commits the UK to a wide ranging review of foreign policy to be conducted by an eminent panel of statesmen, jurists and community leaders. This is not to pre-empt or admit shortcomings but to provide a mechanism to identify if deficiencies may exist and when they do to initiate public debate with a view to provide fair solutions.
London shows that the best defence against terrorism involves:
• treating terrorists as criminals
• policing carried out by a popular police force
• maintaining the support of the public
• politicians concentrating on running their own country better
• treating citizens with respect
• recognizing the need to understand and communicate with those who may be influenced to become suicide bombers
• no tolerance for torture or human degradation
The British provide subtle adjustments to their activities in Iraq, aimed at earning respect for their approach to human rights, and rigorously striving to avoid any negative activity.
At the next US elections, the new US President and enlightened administration work with Congress and the Senate to provide a US version of the British model which has seen growing respect from former critics.
Which is more likely?
Good Doctor: wise words, as always. I would 'spin' the likely course as a 'Downgraded B', if you will.
MI5 and MI6 infiltration has been rather good, until this month. The failed attacks yesterday mean the bombers are now in the open and so are their methods. That'll do for now.
re: politicos changing their spots - well, the lesson from British history is the bombers tend to strengthen unity. At some point in the future secret negotiations will take place but I don't feel that's likely this time - no recognised leadership, no obvious compromise.
i see nothing in any of your scenarios that has them modifying their behavior - even to the point of a LONG overdue reformation.
The convert or die clause is something that i just can't suppport.
Fiasco in london,
the guy whose shot by police was innocent!!!
Skynews
***
who shot by sorry....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706787.stm
He opened his shirt and looked down then people realised what he was and tried to give him a kicking but he ran off.
Think hel 'go to heaven and be promised virgins' now he failed???
Please keep in mind that I live and work with many Muslims, not only in Malaysia but also Indonesia and the Middle East.
None of these gentlemen or ladies have ever tried to convert or threaten me.
Many westerners, and muslims too, are misinformed on Islam and no amount of "telling the Islamic community" that they need to change, when the west is perceived as bad or even flawed, is going to do anything other than inflame the situation.
The remedy has to place emphasis on treating terrorists as criminals but subject to laws which can be respected, and
working to educate people and improve the models for democracy.
I'm afraid the current western leadership is seen as trying to force change which suits its own ends and being pre-occupied with force based on flawed, clandestine
"intelligence". Does the US understand that its current government is not setting a very appealing example of democratic or free society? It's not winning it's own declared War on terror either, thus the need for urgent change.
"Backbone" in this matter should follow brainpower not substitute for it.
Regarding "The convert or die clause". Have you been reading too many websites? If you want to quote from the extremists and misinformed, be careful not to generalise.
I'm not here to defend Islam but I understand that the Prophet according to the Quran spoke otherwise, calling for tolerance and stating that there is no compulsion in religion.
Thinking Muslims, also encouraged by the Prophet to learn, do need to spread understanding of true Islam among their believers. That won't happen if a wrongly directed "war on terror" unites Muslims against the west.
Other religions have passages in their history where "convert or die" sentiments were expressed and practised. Greater enlightenment over many generations led most of these groups to eventually abandon that way.
"Learning without thinking is useless, and thinking without learning is dangerous" - Confucius
Ask a Sudanese Christian.
If they are still alive.
What to do, kill them all?
If you want war, look to the war zones, if you want peace, look to the countries which have achieved peace, not only on their own shores but wherever they operate.
Britain wasn't doing too badly, until Blair painted himself into a corner.
Tony Blair is an intelligent guy, smarter than most politicians but a little too arrogant in thinking he could influence Bush directly to help guide the response to 911.
Blair now knows better but won't admit his errors of judgement. Meanwhile, the professionals in London are approaching the current problems as well as can be expected.
I have no problems with the police shooting a suspect fugitive in those circumstances. I do have a problem with people failing to realise the scale of the current sympathy for suicide terrorists, and the factors we can change and those we cannot.
To those who say that 911 preceded the Iraq invasion, as if the terrorists started this so therefore we are vindicated in any further killing, I got into the threat assessment field in 1980 in the days of Bader Meinhoff, the Japanese Red Army and others.
But let me quote Paul Wilkonson of the St Andrews University Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence:
"I think that in certain countries, there has been a tendency to sacrifice basic civil liberties in the cause of combating terrorism. And my work, over decades now of studying the problems of democratic response, has convinced me that it is possible to respond effectively against terrorism, without sacrificing the rule of law and democracy.
....as far as Al Quaeda is concerned, we have a long struggle ahead of us, because the organization’s ability to survive and adapt in the face of all the international security efforts has been underestimated. They are still in business, they’re still dangerous. And I believe we need to win the intelligence war, and the battle of ideas, essentially, if we’re going to unravel that dangerous network. And I believe we can do it, but it’s going to take time. On the broader question, of the future of terrorism in all its forms, I think we need to pay more attention to the important task of addressing the political roots of conflicts, which have spawned serious terrorism. And I’m thinking particularly of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but one could also look at the Kashmir conflict as another example. And in those cases, what we need is a much greater international effort to bring about a conflict resolution that wouldn’t necessarily of course totally end terrorism - you’d always have some maximalists, dogmatists who believe that their aims have been somehow betrayed - but the majority of people would go along with a sensible settlement of those conflicts. And that would dry up the reservoir of people who could be recruited into suicide attacks and so on. And that would have an enormous effect in helping the peace processes to survive. You can’t have peace processes prospering when high levels of terrorism are undermining public trust and confidence. A good example of that is of course in the Israel-Palestine conflict. So we need to address the security problem, and the political and diplomatic resolution of the conflict simultaneously. " CBC World Feb 2004.