This board has been a little to quiet for while.

Is it time that Bush and Blair who is a close friend and confidant of Bush were tried for War Crimes?

Do you think the use by the American Administrations of renditions are War Crimes and committed with full knowledge of American and British leaders ie. Blair and Bush and they are ultimately responsible?

Also in the aftermath of the illegal invasion of Iraq are should their action seen to be as the provocation for the rising toll of British, American and Iraqi deaths.

As a result of the military intervention in Iraq do you think you are safer in Britain to-day?

Do you think one should expect government leaders and ministers who have been responsible for massive foreseeable casualties should visit the hospitals to meet the casualties they have produced directly or indirectly by their actions?

Do I think i am any less safe in Britain today?
No.
Is Iraq a reason, or an excuse? that may be a more pertinant question.
Alan

Iraq was a major provocation to militant Islamic Fundamentalism.

As Bush, Blair and his henchmen were advised before, but for their own reasons did not assess or accept the probable results intelligently. Probably beyond them in their simplistic view of politics.

They were to conceited to accept advice about the post war management Iraq and we see the consequences.

Unfortunately, this duo with the help of the present Israeli administration by their criminal actions in Lebanon have endangered World Peace and provoked World Terrorism throughout the world, especially in Britain and America.

No, we are not safer since the War on Terrorism speeches by the duo and we will waste many years and much money trying to suppress the "terrorists" who are seen by many "Arabs as Freedom Fighters".

At the end of the day it will come back to negotiation by those participants left sitting around a table.

Well, I'll plump for excuse.
Had it not been Iraq, it would be Afghanistan, or Israel or even a few cartoons in a Danish newspaper.
He who seeks terror will find it. Al Qaida had already warned of deaths but they had blamed 3 of the 4 points i have just mentioned. Israel is nothing at all to do with us. It is a local battle between Hezbollah and the Israelis. It is not within our power to do anything about it except invade and end it by force of arms. Afghanistanis are relieved beyond belief that the years of the Taliban are passed. the only ones unhappy are the Taliban. We have done to death the Iraq argument, and I still believe we were right to do as we did. The danish newspapers are out of our control and yet we had threats of mass murder on Londons streets because of it.
And to those who point to countries who were not involved in the Iraq war and say, look how safe they are. think India, Think Indonesia. Think Australia. Your point loses validity.
No. Iraq is an excuse for purveying a perverted view of religion and instilling fear and terror across the world, for nothing more than the grandisment of Osama Bin Laden. These things would happen with or without that war.
Alan

H6 You are entitled to plump for the terminology, which supports your cause.

A little time ago I think you seemed to advance the opinion that the invasion of Iraq by America and Britain was a successful and that the aftermath would also be a success. To many this would appear not to be so.

We are involved in the Israeli Lebanese conflict due to Blairs close association with Bush and his permitting of WMD passage through this country to support Israel in yet again another criminal and futile war.

Remember America has supplied Israel with much of its weapons of mass destruction as they did Saddam when he used to suppress his own countrymen and to enter a war with Iran etc..

Blair is responsible in that he is not condemning the criminal actions of Israel in the disproportionate use of force in Lebanon. The Arab States and the world had noted his and America reluctance to do so. I think, one of the reasons for not doing so (amongst other factors,) is due to the large financial backing that the Jewish community gives to the political parties in America. (The Jewish Lobby.) Similar pressure may be being exerted on Blair, especially some of his previous actions may be leading to the bankruptcy of the Labour Party.

The majority of people through out the world see the actions of America and Britain in invading Iraq, coupled with the criminal disproportionate force use by Israel in Lebanon as provoking and probably leading to further conscription to the various groups of Militant Islamic Fundamentalists.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, I do not feel we are in receipt of true information as yet of the real state of that conflict. I hope that the intervention may lead to a peaceful stage in that countrys history and lead to its independence and national development. But I think a claim that the war against drugs and the Taliban is successful is still in doubt.

I think if you check Australia was involved in Iraq. It would be reasonable to consider whether there are other factors of disagreements between the Indonesians and Australia.

Also, it may be reasonable to check the background motivation for the terrorist actions in India and Indonesia. We are labelling them terrorists, but indigenous populations many see them as Freedom Fighters.

It seems to be reasonable to consider the forced settlement of borders by British governments on Pakistan, Kashmir and India as part of the problem. This is part of the underlying disagreements and the resort to violence there.

Before condemning the terrorists for the use of violence and murder I think it would be reasonable to examine the violent examples demonstrated by America, Britain and Israel over recent years.

Also, one should recognise the attempts by America, to diminish the authority of the United Nations and yet ultimately call on them to bail them out and to police the chaos they have created and allow them to go home.

The United Nations with all its weaknesses would still seem to the route to decent world society.

Religion is often the flag under or around which the discontented congregated to voice their discontentment.

The way to deal with deal with these situations is to address the underlying grievances

As you say, fred, one of the wonderful things about our fair country is the ability to express ourselves as we wish and disagree freely. I still believe iraq will turn out right, just as I believe, and have stated in the past, the yanks are entirely the wrong people to be there now.
The startling thing about it all is that in Iraq, people are happy to throw facts and figures around, opinions and statistics and quote from any and every source to support their argument. When it comes to the more clear cut areas, the reasoning descends to "we are not in receipt of true information yet". If I put that to support my stance then you would, quite rightly, shoot me down in flames!!
The words disproportionate force are bandied around over Israel, and to be fair, i know not how one defines disproportionate. Acts of war are committed and Israel retaliates. Who stuck first is one even historians cannot agree on, for it goes back millenia. The problem is that Israel is a country, and those committing an act of war have a higher alleigance. Where then, do israel retaliate in order to remove the threat to their innocent civilians? if you agree that the first responsibility of any government is the defence of its nation, it must have that right.
Terrorists are cowards who, as you say, use religion as a flag to hide behind, but we must not let this succeed,lest anarchy reign worldwide. We must look beyond the flag of convenience and root them out.
I am no great fan of Israel, nor am I of Lebanon or the surrounding Arab states that perpetuate the idea that there must be no jewish state in the region. If I knew the answers there then I would be a great world leader, but I do defend the right of any nation to defend itself.
Australia may well have been very lightly connected with the Iraq war, I am not certain. I am certain, however,that Indonesia was not directly linked. Indonesia is also a Muslim state, so to claim that Al Qaidas cause is an Islamic one is false. It is one of global terror and domination. it is a fear and repugnance of western values.
The splitting of India / pakistan was wanted by the various religions of that continent. The argument is over the precise nature of the border. Wherever it was put, there would be dispute. We have seen this even in our ancient isle, over the precise nature of places like berwick-upon-Tweed and Todmordon. To blame a government and a nation some 50 years later is a little rich.
we come back to the age old question. How do we, and the Israelis, fight global terrorism. We have witnessed first hand that unpredictable things like harmless cartoons can lead to death threats and terrorism. We know that the demands of the terrorists are impossible for us to comply with and they refuse entirely to negotiate on the demands. What then is left, other than to hunt them down and remove them from society?
To go down the path of appeasement means no more Israel. No more UN. No more Nato. No more freedom within our own country. To negotiate means that we encourage every minority group, every disenfranchised handful of people and every group who disagree with an alternative view of life to take up arms. In short we make a bad situation worse. Any show of weakness is to encourage this.
Finally, I would submit that it was not the USA who diminished the authority of the UN. It was those couple of countries who vetoed the demands of the majority of the UN. Those couple of countries who, when the chips were down, did not have the courage to sanction the action that the majority of the UN had voted in favour of. They took the easy option of hoping it would go away rather than take tough decisions, and now the world pays the price.
There is no defence for terrorism. War is justifiable. terrorism is not. It is cowardly and despicable and I will not act as an apologist for the Bin ladens of this world. The right and proper way to create changes is through debate, reason and the ballot box. This has not worked for the extremists. it never does. I would welcome the forces of Al qaida to present a party, with manifesto and candidates in every nation across the globe. they will not because their beleif is not for democracy, but for the rule of fear. Where they do hold sway, there is no political movement. there is no debate. Disagreement means torture and death. so how do we negotiate with these people and find out what their grievences are? We cannot. And do you really think that withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan and stopping any support for Israel would appease them and make us safe? Of course not. They would move on to the next demand, bouyed by the knowledge that we would give them whatever they ask for.
As you said fred. We are all entitled to our opinion, and I respect yours, but I cannot agree with it.
alan

And just to add to that, I read this morning that a UN resolution to end hostilities has been unanimously passed. The only waverer was Lebanon!! They damanded that the UN drop the clause that sends 15000 UN peacekeepers to the area to ensure no more violence.
One might even think that it does not suit Lebanons purpose to see an end to violence. Perhaps they wish only an end to israeli violence and be left free to continue terrorism the othe way.

Alan,
Again, what you are seeing is an attempt to impose the will of America on Lebanon.

It is right for them if they think the impositions suggested that they object.

America in this case is the puppet of Israel and is attempting to override general Arab opinion.

I believe there was a suggestion by America and the United Nations that a United Nations force should be used in Northern Ireland to imposed a "peace". It was rejected by the British government at the time.

It is also to be recognised that in spite of this agreement at the United Nations that Israel has continued with it criminal actions and murder of children and other non active participants.

As far as terrorists being cowards, I feel you must be a far braver than I am. To give up my life for a cause I believe in would seem to me extremely courageous. Misguided it may be.

I think it would be far more cowardly to sit in a cockpit of a plane playing video games with real rockets and real people etc.. (Perhaps, Blair and Bush had a childhood diet of video games, which accounts for their lack of understanding and reality.) Cowboys and Indians all over again.

America and Britain are still attempting to impose their will over the Arab states and other underdeveloped nations of the world, by doing so disregard the will of those people.

They eventual will fail and pass into history. The only problem is the unnecessary misery they have caused.

I personally cannot see them failing eventually as they will never, ever take on a power that has the capability to send them into history. Their sheer military might can, I believe, suppress the will of Many Arab states.
And when we need Oil like America does now then I think we can predict that more of these skirmishes will break out in the future in a battle for resources not peace.

And by the way if any of you have a feeling like 'this is the end', then three or so years back the Bible code put forward a prediction that in 2006 there will be a nuclear holocaust which begins in Jerusalem. Uh oh.

Fact, muslim men kill more muslim women and children every year, by a factor of ten to one.....

The strike in Indonesia was in Bali which is a Hindu country and presumably an easy way to attack Australians (who supported Iraq invasion) since it is a very popular holiday destination. India too sent some troops.

It may indeed be, to some extent, 'facile' (Kim Howells today in response to letter from various MPs and peers) to suggest a direct correlation between invasion of Iraq and latest attempt to blow up planes. That's the same in many areas of life - hard to prove cause and effect directly. Al-Qaida/other Muslim extremists may have got round to delivering something nasty to us given their fanaticism, but that possibility has clearly been accelerated by Blair's stance with Bush, provided easy excuses for further terror and a rich recruiting ground for disaffected British Muslim radicals easily brainwashed. Up until Iraq, Al-Quaida hand their hands full thinking of ways to deal with America, Israel and Egypt.

The Iraq war has failed to achieve a single American foreign policy objective. It has not made the USA safer, it has not advanced the war on terror, it has not made Iraq a stable state, it has not spread democracy to the Middle East and it has not enhanced US access to oil. Sadly, such an excellent summary is not mine but that of Peter Galbraith, former US ambassador and expert in the region, in his recent book The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End.

A lot of the book deals with the disastrous foreign policy of the West in the region since 1921. The only beneficiaries of Washingtons (and ours) current policy are Al Qaeda, the Iranians and their ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons.

Everyone outside the Whitehouse knows we are in a mess, even Amercican soldiers, and crucially that a unified Iraq is not a possibilty. The brutal conclusion is for the US and Britsh forces to leave; to attempt to create an independent Kurdish state and let the Shiite and Sunni factions settle matters for themselves. We have done this in the past many times by pulling out of our imperial nations conquered. The sooner we quit the better. What follows may be bloody but that is the case now.

Here is Max Hastings (not exactly noted for liberalism) in The Sunday Times today, reviewing Galbraiths book: Bushs adventures in Iraq, with Blairs enthusiastic and impertinent support, has inflicted a catastrophe on Western foreign policy in the Islamic world: The Wars architects believed they could change the Middle East. And so they did. For decades to come, while the two great statesmen enjoy richly upholstered retirements, the rest of us will have to live with the consequences of their folly and cultural conceit.

IF YOU'RE A MUSLIM - IT'S YOUR PROBLEM



WHEN will the Muslims of Britain stand up to be counted?



When will they declare, loud and clear, with no qualifications or quibbles about Britain's foreign policy, that Islamic terrorism is WRONG?



Most of all, when will the Muslim community in this country accept an absolute, undeniable, total truth: that Islamic terrorism is THEIR problem? THEY own it. And it is THEIR duty to face it and eradicate it.



To stop the denial, endless fudging and constant wailing that somehow it is everyone else's problem and, if Islamic terrorism exists at all, they are somehow the main victims.



Because until that happens the problem will never be resolved. And there will be more 7/7s and, sometime in the future, another airplane plot will succeed with horrific loss of innocent life.



Equally important, those British politicians who have seemed obsessed with pandering to, and even encouraging, this state of denial, must throw off their politically-correct blinkers and recognise the same truththat Muslim terrorism in Britain is the direct responsibility of British Muslims.



If only they would follow the lead of Home Secretary John Reid, whose tough, pragmatic, clear-sighted approach has been a breath of fresh air. Only then can they properly work out how to tackle it.



For instance, every airport in Britain is in chaos over the plane bomb-plot alert as every passenger is subjected to rigorous security checks. Why? They take lots of time, lots of staff, and are extremely expensive.



I'm a white 62-year-old 6ft 4ins suit-wearing ex-copI fly often, but do I really fit the profile of suicide bomber? Does the young mum with three tots? The gay couple, the rugby team, the middle-aged businessman?



No. But they are all getting exactly the same amount and devouring huge resources for no logical reason whatsoever. Yet the truth is Islamic terrorism in the West has been universally carried out by young Muslim men, usually of ethnic appearance, almost always travelling alone or in very small groups. A tiny percentage, I bet, of those delayed today have such characteristics.



This targeting of airport resources is called passenger profilingthe Israelis invented it and they've got probably the safest airports and airlines in the world.



In all my years at the front line of fighting terrorism, one truth was always clear communities beat terrorists, not governments or security forces. But communities can't beat terrorism unless they have the will to do so. My heart sank this week as I saw and read the knee-jerk reaction of friends and neighbours of those arrested in this latest incident, insisting it was all a mistake and the anti-terrorist squad had the wrong people.



I have no idea whether those arrested are guilty or not. But neither have those friends and neighbours. They spoke as if it was inconceivable such a thing could happen in their community; that those arrested were all good Muslims; that Islam is a religion of peace so no Muslim could dream of planning such an act.



But we heard the same from the family and friends of the 7/7 bombers, didn't we?



And the two young British Muslims who died as suicide bombers in Israel. Then there are the British Muslims known to have become suicide bombers in Iraq.



There is currently a huge, long-running and complex alleged Islamist bomb plot being tried at the Old Bailey. And a fistful of other cases of alleged Muslim terrorism plots such as the 21/7 London Underground case are also awaiting trial.



All this would suggest the blindingly obviousthat terrorism is a major problem for the Muslim community of Britain. Of course, there will be instant squealings that this is racism. It's not. It's exactly the same as recognising that, during the Northern Ireland troubles that left thousands dead, the IRA were totally based in the Catholic community and the UVF in the Protestant.



And that, most importantly, IRA terrorism only began to draw to a close when that Catholic community it was based in decided as a whole that it was no longer prepared to back violence as the only way forward. Interestingly, it was Catholic revulsion over republican terrorist atrocities such as Enniskillen and Omagh that fuelled that change.



Well, Muslim terrorism in Britain is based in, has its roots in, and grows in, our Muslim community. The madmen of 7/7 and other suicide bombings didn't hide among the Hindu communities, worship in the Sikh temples, recruit at Catholic churches, did they? It may be true that events in Iraq have angered sections of the Muslim community. I have no doubts, whatever Tony Blair says, that it was a catalyst. I also think it's entirely fair for Muslims, if they wish, to vocally oppose Britain's continuing involvement there.



I can recognise, too, that recent events in Lebanon inflame some people, and they want their voices of protest heard. The absolutely unacceptable problem is that this opposition is used by too many to turn a blind eye to, or excuse, terrorists in their midst.



Blasting a passenger airliner out of the sky, killing hundreds of innocent men, women and children, is NEVER acceptable. Under any circumstances. There is NEVER an excuse.



A terrible tragedy costing Muslim lives in Lebanon or Iraq or Afghanistan is never ever an excuse for terrorism here.



It is totally unacceptable, totally wrong. What one party perceives as a wrong, no matter how strongly they feel, does not, in turn, justify another wrong being done to avenge it.



And until every single member of the Muslim community believes that and preaches thatfrom an ordinary parent to imam or madrassa teacherterrorism can't be beaten.



Politicians must accept this truth, and do something about it. One example would be to tackle this chaos at our airports and the passenger profiling I described earlier. Another must is to reconsider ID cards. The importance of knowing whether someone really is who they say they are has never been higher.



This must be combined with improved border controls, logging exactly who goes OUT of the country as well as who comes in should also be reconsidered, whatever the politically correct among us may say. The time terrorism suspects are kept in custody before charge has also caused dissent. Currently the maximum is 28 daysit may well be this should be reconsidered and, if necessary, raised again to, say, 42 days.



Plainly, Muslim terrorism isn't going away. We need to consider everything in our battle to defeat it. But that's the responsibility of all.



Not least the community where, sadly for them, it is festering.

Barwoni,
you have stated with great eloquance what the silent majority feel very strongly to be the case.
I wholeheartedly support much of your view, and also believe that the tide of ridiculous political correctness that has swept this country for 20+ years, has hamstrung simple common sense as a way to deal with our nations problems. To not use profiling is to ask police to interview women as suspects in rape cases and babes in arms as drug dealers.
Many may think this as a racist approach. I think of it as a realist approach.
Alan

good speach barwoni, I agree with everything you say - but put yourself as an Iraqi living in England when you hear that British troops have destroyed your village, some anger will be provoked, and they have very few ways to fight back.
If their was a reversal of roles and my country was the one being destroyed then I certainly wouldnt 'vocally' raise my concerns, Id do something about them.
Dont take this as me saying that killing Innocent lives is right as I am strongly against any attack on people not directly responsible, but it is their cowardly way of attacking Britain as a whole and I cant see this changing any time soon until our own radical solution is put in place - we're going to have to live with it.

Barwoni,

How many women and children have the American and Israeli boys killed by their planes bombing and rocketing Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza?


How many of those families are going to harbour grievances for years to come. They will be the breeding ground for future terrorism.

I think some might be interested to read the article written by Simon Jenkins in the Sunday Times today.

I always thought Simons Jenkins a right winger but this evaluation of American British policy is I think similar to moderate opinion throughout the world.

I don't think you can erase terrorism by killing terrorists. It is necessary to "attack" the cause of terrorism which the terrorists feed off.

I wondered if this was being discussed.

Suggest viewing of the following may be of interest.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1219021.ece

Random thoughts on terrorism.
I think it fair to say that iraq is not the cause of terrorism. Neither is Afghanistan or Israel. They are excuses.
I also think it fair to say that terrorism is crime on a global and catastrophic scale.
What is it that really feeds crime, especially one where financial gain is not the motivation?
Many may argue that being disenfranchised is the basic cause. There is a flaw right there. The recent terrorism acts have been attempted by those who have been treat very well by the society they seek to destroy. they even have democracy weighted in their favour and all powerful bodies to ensure they are no disenfranchised. In support of this I point you to the Muslim parliament and the numerous race relation laws and government bodies.
Some may argue that it is retaliation. Perhaps so, but this is not justification. if you came around and murdered my wife i would not have the right to murder you. That would be anarchic. (In truth I would probably take you out for a drink and help you dispose of the body). The state has a right, if they wish to execute you, I don't.
my own belief is that it is perpetuated by those who try and justify it, and in doing so, provide propaganda and succour to those who carry it out.
For many years we, in this country, have sought to explain away criminal elements on the basis of being outcasts, unlucky, peripheral to society, and it is societys fault. we have taken thoroughly nasty criminals and sought to excuse their actions. we now do the same with terrorists.
It's because we did this, its because we didn't do that.
No. I disagree. It is merely the way any minority tries to impose its will on a majority. it must not be allowed to succeed.
Hand wringing liberals and amatuer social workers justify and excuse and ask the majority to change society to fit the minority. This is the wrong way around. We must ensure there is no place in society for such a violent minority.
Re-education is one answer, but this would be slammed instantly by the same apologists as racist and disallowing people their own culture. No it would not. All Muslims tell us that Islam is a culture of peace and love.
Complete removal from society is another way.
I am no racist, and I am not proposing the ridiculous "send 'em all back" argument. But how about the UAE model of immigration control?
All non nationals of whatever creed or colour are never allowed to gain nationality. They are very welcome, and nobody is turned away, but they must have work to go to and they must re-apply for a visa on a continuous basis. Their children never qualify for nationality either.
The reason this works so well is that any wrongdoing at all leads to expulsion. No-one seeks to justify it or change society to accomodate it. They simply remove it. Crime in any form is almost unheard of. The indiginous population fear the law as they know it is not merciful, and the country prospers.
Alas it changes, with the influx of foreign property investors and tourists, and a creeping attitude that succes demands a more liberal approach.
We allow almost anything and justify and excuse the terrible. the terrorists gain the feeling they are winning the hearts and minds of a weak population and that success is close, they can force a change in policy. We must send them the signal that there is absolutely no chance ever of terrorism changing policy or attitude. We must send them the signal that our way of life, our culture and our moderate society are dear to us and will not be watered down. To do so would be to remove the end aim of the terrorists, to give them no hope of ever achieving their aims. This would serve to bring about a down scaling of the problem (terrorism will always exist).
To send the opposite signal, to excuse and justify, to blame ourselves, to change our society to fit, to give homes forever to those who seek to destroy us is a recipe for prolonging an agonising battle that will cost many more lives yet.
I will take the racist accusations on the chin. I am not racist. Iwelcome everyone of any race or religion to our Isles. I just wish to reserve the right to tell them that when they plot carnage, they are no longer welcome, whoever they are. i also wish for a day when the home grown elements fear the law, without the support of an army of apologists behind them.
Then we may be free(er) of the fear that grips us, when we fly, catch the tube, walk in the dark, go to a pub or park our car in a multi storey.
Alan

It is unlikely that I would murder your wife. It is far more likely I would commiserate with her!

8-)

Hewitterlan6
Much of what you say is true, -did you see the brief interview with an American terrorism expert on "Newsnight" just after the Airport closures?
He reminded us that since 1980 no terrorism outrage has been claimed to be for Religious purposes, invariably it is because attacts are being taken to the door of an agressor - some group that has 'inveded' land that they consider to be "theirs"
....I'm not sure of the facts he claims but it fits in with much we understand of the middle east and now in UK/USA...even though I believe "we" went into the middle east with the best intentions....it just happened that Saddam Hussain did controll a lot of oil....but he had been a tyrant against his own people for years.

I think the UK's "problem" is largely one of our own making - immigation is seen in terms of people "like us" and that's why we cosset the wrongdoers with excuses such as they have a British Passport - well, so have I and I can't say it holds much pleasure that my Government is operating a hate campain against the young and the elderly. If people that wqnt to visit the UK (permanently, or not) had to agree to maintain our Laws and honour the Queen as head of State, then I can't see why they shouldn't stay here and contribute to the British Nation. However, we have plenty of rougues and manipulators of the truth here already, witness a few MP's Company Directors, Accountanats and Estate Agents (to name but a few that have that Public perception..). If we can't jail company directors that falsify figures, debts, borrowings, loans and a handful of other scams that have (or will) come to light, then it really is time our Consitiution was put on paper (like the American Declaration, as a "foundation" accepted in the US for years).
John Reid has said that discussing Imigration must not be called racist - there is a real problem brewing with criminals (already here)/- comming from countries that don't have our history and whose citizens see the UK as a land of milk and honey - ripe for plunder. These 'outcasts' must never be allowed in.
If they come here to study, to help, to add to our prosperity technically or artistically - that's no problem...provided they behave "....better than the English(!)..."
For all J.Reid's faults (and maybe Opportunistic tendencies-oops!), he appears for now to be speaking some sense and maybe we should have these debates, but don't let's be suckered into believing that ID cards will do the job - the recent troubles and 7/7, 9/11 would not have been prevented by ID cards - Passports are far more difficult to forge and yet these people manages to go undetected for so long.