27 replies to this topic

[DGP]

DGP - do you really believe we are more at risk from terrorists?  That is not meant as a rude question, just an honest one.  Personally, I have not seen or heard any sign of terrorist activity for quite some time, only the garbage churned out by politicians about a 'global war on terror', I believe there is a massive amount of propoganda all helping to justify some wrong decisions - I recon they are just keeping us on our toes so we believe we are at risk.

Yes, I do believe that we are at more risk.

The threat from a sophisticated terrorist network is probably less. However, I believe that the extremist Muslim community feels more aggrieved with the UK than it did before.

I doubt, at least I hope, that a terrorist can no longer hijack a plane and crash it into Westminster. But it is not difficult for an unsophisticated to become a suicide bomber with a crude device.

It is an inevitability that we will be the target of an attack. Although the loss of life and property will be minimal, the threat of terror it will create will be significant.

[Christian]

In 1945 Germany was put through De-nazisfication which by and large was successful, today all the politicians can come up with is 'Win hearts and minds' whilst ignoring the fact that there isn't one enemy but several different groups (Pro- Saddam Bathist's, Mercenaries, Bin Laden Cronies and all) who are able to turn and control local populations.

I don't think anybody minds that Saddam has been removed. I will not go into wether the war was justified in the first place or not, but as much as the de-nazification of Germany was successful there is a major difference:
Germany had been bombed to peaces, the population was tired of the war AND of the regime, they just wanted to be left alone and to survive! NOTHING was working - in 1945 and 1946 thousands of Germans starved or froze to death! That was a whole different situation. In Iraq there was a, more or less, intact and working society where people didn't have to starve.

I have the feeling that althoug the war (the campaign) had been well planned nobody had planned post war / peacetime..........

[YazzyB]

now this is most sickening for those who are not aware of the devestating and horrific injuries this weapon can cause it is in its own rights a wmd

FALLUJAH NAPALMED

Nov 28 2004


US uses banned weapon ..but was Tony Blair told?

By Paul Gilfeather Political Editor


US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah.

News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun governments around the world.

And last night Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.

Outraged critics have also demanded that Mr Blair threatens to withdraw British troops from Iraq unless the US abandons one of the world's most reviled weapons. Halifax Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "I am calling on Mr Blair to make an emergency statement to the Commons to explain why this is happening. It begs the question: 'Did we know about this hideous weapon's use in Iraq?'"

Since the American assault on Fallujah there have been reports of "melted" corpses, which appeared to have napalm injuries.

Last August the US was forced to admit using the gas in Iraq.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use of napalm against civilians - after pictures of a naked girl victim fleeing in Vietnam shocked the world.


America, which didn't ratify the treaty, is the only country in the world still using the weapon.

original story sunday mirror



damn you bush

Edited by trilux, 29 November 2004 - 01:30 PM.