MilitaryForums.co.uk

As long as harry doesn't mind I will contribute.

The phrase 'war on terrorism' seems to describe a campaign exclusively about military action, but it isn't. As we are witnessing it is being fought in many different ways. The danger is that in the process we are creating more terrorists.

The 'war' did not start after the events of September 11 in New York and Washington; it was already well under way. The americans joined it they didn't initiate it. What they did do however was lend their influence and power to step up the campaign.

One of the things that trouble me though is if the terrorist attacks of September 11 didn't happen in America then would they still have got involved? I think not because they haven't done thus far.

For a lot of people and countries around the rest of the world living with and fighting terrorism has been an ongoing battle for many years.

I think it was wrong of President Bush to say that the 'war on terrorism' was the first war of the 21st century. Like I said before it was already going on but (and I don't mean this horribly, just being honest) because of their seemingly blinkered outlook the americans did not care or even know that millions of people were already fighting the battle.

Now they do.

Initially, after the events of September 11, the talk was of total military action, but over time, thankfully, the more levelheaded people brought another dimension and calmed things down. Now the more diplomatic approach was adopted, and through common sense and patience it appears that millions of innocent lives will be spared and the culprits will be sought out, however long it may take. That is another lesson to learn - patience and fortitude.

However, it is amazing how things can be done when they have to isn't it? What I am talking about now is one other dimension of this current campaign against terrorism, where President Bush stated (and acted) that all sources of income and funding for the terrorists would (and have been) seized. This included Bank accounts, investments and bogus companies.

Why did it take the events of September 11 to do that? Why couldn't have those actions been carried out before if they knew of their existence? To me it seems that although the powers that be were fully aware of where and how these terrorists were funded they chose to do nothing about it.

Why?

Before I move on I would like you to consider this -

After the attacks of September 11, President Bush called for all nations to unite and stamp out terrorism, including hunting Bin Laden. Also in a rather 'dictator' type way Bush stated that if a nation didn't side with America then it must be an enemy and therefore a supporter of terrorism (probably making it a justifiable target of military action). No neutralism allowed.

In Bonn, Germany the Kyoto Agreement was finally agreed upon by 180 nations, all except one. One nation didn't want to join; one country didn't want to unite with the rest of the world to cut down pollution and harmful emissions.

America, the world's largest polluter.

President Bush stated he would not agree to the Kyoto Agreement because he thought by doing so would damage the US economy. Hmmm, interesting comment.

Anyway, back to the 'war' on terrorism.

Awareness, education and intelligence are some of the keys to combat terrorism. Those three things I'm afraid the Americans lacked that may have saved them from the attacks.

The Americans weren't aware that there was a global threat from terrorism that they might be subjected to. They certainly weren't aware that so many people hated them as a world power, and the effects of their foreign policies.

Americans are now learning a lot more about what is actually happening in the rest of the world and how they are perceived. They are now also learning how to deal and live with the threat of terrorism.

For some of us it is second instinct. We check our cars, we report suspicious people and/or activities, we report abandoned or suspicious vehicles and we report unattended bags, luggage or packages.

Many of us have accepted that in return for safety and security we have given up a bit of freedom, but if it stops or deters a terrorist incident then it is worth it. I know it shouldn't be that way but being realistic I know terrorism isn't going away over night.

However, one of the biggest victories against terrorism is to carry on. Regroup, consolidate and get on with our lives. Often it isn't the act the terrorists want it is the disruption and panic afterwards that makes their efforts so worthwhile. If you don't give them that satisfaction then the innocent are victorious and the terrorists have been denied their 'pleasure'. Yes, they might try again, but you are ready for them.

We combat the terrorists' 'cause' with our defiance. We will not be beaten, we won't let them defeat us.

The British intelligence service, believe it or not, is one of the best in the world, if not the best, when it comes to counter-terrorism intelligence. We, the British public are part of that intelligence system. All the suspicious people, vehicles and activities I mentioned before that are reported to the authorities often hold pieces of information that to you and I may seem insignificant, but to someone working in that field it may be a vital piece of a jigsaw.

The tactics are similar to tackling and preventing crime and I have seen reported that in the UK alone up to 80% of terrorist attacks are stopped before they start because of intelligence. Yes it might not be perfect and we, as a nation, are still learning, but, when was the last major terrorist attack/incident in mainland Britain?


Military action won't defeat terrorism, Northern Ireland has taught us that, it will only create martyrs of them now and breed a new generation to follow.


Quite simply the war in Iraq is a farce, its about Oil and money not liberating anyone. As soldiers some of you may disagree and feel that it is what you are trained for. I thank God that my country has a force of men who have the courage to fight and die, all to often those who are protected forget those who protect them.

Soon our enemy will bring what we have brought to them to us, so far we have prevailed due to superior forces and technology. Sadly there is no Paratrooper, Marine or SAS man who can stop them when they decide it is our time.

Simon ( No Pies)

Cambridgebloke

That was a brilliant post, thanks..........

To prevent terrorism by dropping bombs on Iraq is such an obvious idea that I can't think why no one has thought of it before. It's so simple. If only the UK had done something similar in Northern Ireland, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today.

The moment the IRA blew up the Horseguards' bandstand, the Government should have declared its own War on Terrorism. It should have immediately demanded that the Irish government hand over Gerry Adams. If they refused to do so - or quibbled about needing proof of his guilt - we could have told them that this was no time for prevarication and that they must hand over not only Adams but all IRA terrorists in the Republic. If they tried to stall by claiming that it was hard to tell who were IRA terrorists and who weren't, because they don't go around wearing identity badges, we would have been free to send in the bombers.

It is well known that the best way of picking out terrorists is to fly 30,000ft above the capital city of any state that harbours them and drop bombs - preferably cluster bombs. It is conceivable that the bombing of Dublin might have provoked some sort of protest, even if just from James Joyce fans, and there is at least some likelihood of increased anti-British sentiment in what remained of the city and thus a rise in the numbers of potential terrorists. But this, in itself, would have justified the tactic of bombing them in the first place. We would have nipped them in the bud, so to speak. I hope you follow the argument.

Having bombed Dublin and, perhaps, a few IRA training bogs in Tipperary, we could not have afforded to be complacent. We would have had to turn our attention to those states which had supported and funded the IRA terrorists through all these years. The main provider of funds was, of course, the USA, and this would have posed us with a bit of a problem. Where to bomb in America? It's a big place and it's by no means certain that a small country like the UK could afford enough bombs to do the whole job. It's going to cost the US billions to bomb Iraq and a lot of that is empty countryside. America, on the other hand, provides a bewildering number of targets.

Should we have bombed Washington, where the policies were formed? Or should we have concentrated on places where Irishmen are known to lurk, like New York, Boston and Philadelphia? We could have bombed any police station and fire station in most major urban centres, secure in the knowledge that we would be taking out significant numbers of IRA sympathisers. On St Patrick's Day, we could have bombed Fifth Avenue and scored a bull's-eye.

In those American cities we couldn't afford to bomb, we could have rounded up American citizens with Irish names, put bags over their heads and flown them in chains to Guernsey or Rockall, where we could have given them food packets marked 'My Kind of Meal' and exposed them to the elements with a clear conscience.

The same goes for Australia. There are thousands of people in Sydney and Melbourne alone who have actively supported Irish republicanism by sending money and good wishes back to people in the Republic, many of whom are known to be IRA members and sympathisers. A well-placed bomb or two Down Under could have taken out the ringleaders and left the world a safer place, or maybe Harry H and a Barrett light .50? Of course, it goes without saying that we would also have had to bomb various parts of London such as Camden Town, Lewisham and bits of Hammersmith and we should certainly have had to obliterate, if not the whole of Liverpool, at least the Scotland Road area, indeed some parts of my own home town of Cambridge - Mill road?

And that would be it really, as far as exterminating the IRA and its supporters. Easy. The War on Terrorism provides a solution so uncomplicated, so straightforward and so gloriously simple that it baffles me why it has taken a man with the brains of George W. Bush to think of it.

So, sock it to Iraq, George. Let's make the world a safer place.

.........and again, brill, the thing is we did not share the same intelligence that Dubya had, satellites, drones, the might of the armed forces, but of course the most intel from Dubya is his own interpretation of foreign policy! I'm OK Jack as long as it is not in my own back yard..........

Good Point Spannerman, recently my companys distributor in the states mentioned a new product that he was rolling out globally, I expressed an interest as I was unaware that he had the resource to follow through.... when quizzed further he exclaimed " by global I meant all 50 states" ho hum.

cambridgebloke, I personally found your post disgusting.
Peace with murders is no peace at all.

Having a uncle wounded in NI and a friend killed in Iraq, I would ask you kindly to shut up.

Ben Chung

I am sorry if I offended you, I too lost a relation to the IRA and have a close friend in Iraq now.

Remember that there is someone on the other side hurting as much as you mate, being bitter is fine I know I would like to cut the balls off the guys who blew my cousin apart, actually I hope that you would help, but feeling bitter wont bring him back.

Maybe if I look back through your posts I will find something that I find disgusting, but I wont tell you to shut up.

Best Regards

Simon

Deleted due to second thoughts.....

He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Cambridge bloke

Ever served? Have looked at your posts with increasing annoyance.

Reading a book about warfare is all well and good but dont you dare start your sanctimonious preaching on this site. It annoys people who have served.

Artist

I feel the whole Iraq war is repugnant. On all sides the killing and maiming is horrific, the TV images coming through is nothing less than disgusting in the images being shown (I tend to turn to another channel). The people to blame for what is happening in Iraq is Saddams regime and his henchmen (They have thankfully been removed, illegally in my opinion but still removed).

The Politicians are as guilty as anyone for letting the forces launder their clothes in public. Blair, Bush and Howard (Oz) had no mandate to do what they have done, they have been proved wrong on the threats posed by Saddam, and are liars.

If the Intel people told the Politicians they had the right information and they didn't then they (Politicians) ought to come clean and put their hands up and say 'sorry we got it wrong', they won't it is against their principles.

I really do not think that anyone on this forum should seek revenge as to the disgusting killings that we have seen and read about on both sides it abhors me as much as anyone. Most on this forum have been in the Military or someway connected with it, I have lost friends and colleagues too like many others, but the Israeli style of revenge is not appropriate, as I said elsewhere my innermost thoughts are just that, innermost.

sanctimonious

I have suffered first hand the horror of warfare yes, I have seen suffering and killing yes. But no I wasn't a soldier - does that mean I am less qualified to talk about it Artist, frankly your concept that only soldiers can talk about wars is arrogant - I helped clean up after some soldiers once, it was not pretty.

I assume you are a peace loving man now though, you are a skilled painter.

Best Regards

Simon

A fair comment Sticky Blue,

Soldiers I have worked with in the past including the SAS and SBS, Navy SEALs and Royal engineers have all been thoughtful thinkers and kind in action, good enough to save my life once.

I will apologise if I have offended you Artist.

I like yourself have no love of people who spout off with no knowledge, you did anger me however when you accused me of the same.

Si

I am replying as an American.
Many of your points, Simon, have been addressed to various extent on these forums. From now on, until after the next election and until current events in Iraq return to some sort of normality - one hopes fervently - I will stop commenting on the political end of said events.
It is too easy to misconstrue my criticism of the administration for a lack of support for the troops we have deployed.
Beware of schadenfreunde, it is easy to dislike president Bush (as I do) and feel some kind of satisfaction from his global policy hitting snags (I do not). The problem is the snags cost lives on all sides, and we are fast approaching the point where almost every American knows someone who is out there in harm's way, or has already paid a price.

But let's put that aside, I know where to find sympathy, between shit and syphilis in the dictionary.

I will not argue or otherwise deny the responsibility the US bears in the rise of terrorism (forgive the vagueness of the expression). But I will say that this point of view implies that the US was somehow in the driver's seat when the car wrapped itself around a tree. It's not that easy a case to make and it is ignoring the level of control and manipulation exercised by terrorists themselves.
Americans are generous in giving to charitable organizations, more so than their government. They tend to believe that the US government gives much more to the rest of the world than it actually does, and if you were to ask the average American, he/she would probably say the US gives something on the order of 10% of its GDP to 'help' the world. Not nearly, of course.
So we give to various organizations and trust the money goes to some good cause. Widows and orphans in Armagh, maybe, or some Christian school near Kandahar. But we have no idea what happens to the money.

Here in the US, you have domestic groups who target young middle-upper class female students specifically, for three reasons: food, shelter and money.
These useful idiots spend their trust funds on the cause, drop out of university (college), to get on the dole (welfare), loan their vehicle to some 'activist' and let him sleep/hide at their apartment.
Food stamps can be traded for anything.
My point is the relationship we in the West (not just the US) have with terror groups is like that of an aging woman to a gigolo who gives her the occasional beating.
The pummeling is really only starting, but this time we're getting our licks in.

More to the point, generalizations about Americans don't bother me at all. In fact I think they tend to work in our favor when we are believed to be ignorant, reactionary, trigger-happy slobs. Because we're also paying attention and learning the distance, as in boxing.