Can we learn from the Brits?

[lazarus]

Can America learn something from the Brits about how to conduct the war on terror?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,1579158,00.html

It seems that the UK will finally see some closure on the Northan Ireland issue.

Did you see how quickly the Brits discovered details about the July 7 bombings and captured the other suspects from the attempted bombings. Those who perpetrated the Anthrax attacks are still at large. Isn't it time to ask the Brits for help with the war on terror?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Isn't it time to ask the Brits for help with the war on terror?

---

I am a bit confused, Lazurus...I thought the Brits were involved on the 'war on terror' by being in Iraq with us?

Please explain what you mean by this?

[Bravus]

I think part of Laz's point (and he's right) is that the war in Iraq has little/nothing to do with the War on Terror™.

[Neil D]

Ooh...that one missed me...I am sorry......

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Can America learn something from the Brits about how to conduct the war on terror?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

You mean we should shoot Brazilians in the head and ask questions later <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Do we need to use five bullets or is just one good enough? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I think part of Laz's point (and he's right) is that the war in Iraq has little/nothing to do with the War on Terror.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[]http://www.clubadventist.com/ubbtreads/attachments/188747-tn_head-sand.jpg[/]

So who are we fighting over there?

[jasd]

QR window:

I once studied with a Sensei who advised that if strategy could not insulate one from his enemy -- then tactics require that one should get so close to his enemy that, if nothing else…, his breath would kill the blep-blep. Now,

whether this is more Zen than it might otherwise be, --can’t rightly say; then mebbe, the Skull and Bones Society also believes in this principle -- ipso…, Iraq. Now,

where better should our military might be projected in this new developing global demography than at its linchpin.

When strategy fails…:

“Set honour in one eye and death i' the other,

And I will look on both indifferently.” --Brutus

[Bravus]

Actually, the latest reports show that the great majority of the insurgents are Iraqis, not foreign jihadis: you're largely fighting the citizens of the country you invaded.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0927/p01s03-woiq.html

"Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the report says, Iraq has become one of the global centers for the recruiting and training of what Mr. Cordesman and Mr. Obaid term "neo-Salafi" terrorists. These are essentially Islamist fighters that share Al Qaeda's extreme rejection of non-Muslim "infidels" and seek to create Islamic states patterned after the Arabian peninsula of the 7th and 8th centuries."

Another post on the relationship between Iraq and the War on Terror:

http://tinyurl.com/adou9

[lazarus]

If you look into it governments have had only limited sucess when dealing with terrorist groups. This is partly because governments have to be accountable for their actions and terrorist groups by their very nature do not. Its is also virtually impossible to destroy a terrorist entity that has support from the local population. It will have an endless supply of recruits, cover and resources. Of course I speak as one who has had considerable anti-terrorist experience. NOT!

Its interesting to realise that Yitshak Shamir one time leader of the Stern Gang(a terrorist organisation) became Prime Minister of Israel. Nelson Mandela, one time leader of the military wing (terrorist!)of the ANC became the leader of SA. Gerry Adams, who at one time was rumoured to be the leader of the IRA is now fully integrated into the political process.

This may shock you! Terrorism has worked and still works. It is an effective means to achive certain political objectives. Let me add, I don't agree with using terrorism!

The Brits know that intelligence is the key. Military action is only effective in a crisis, short term. Careful police work, intelligence gathering and finally political negotiation is the real solution to the problem of terrorism.

Quote:

---

You mean we should shoot Brazilians in the head and ask questions later Do we need to use five bullets or is just one good enough?

---

If there were suicide bombers running around Dallas we'd probably have everyone shooting and no questions asked ever anytime!

Of course that incident was a gross error but I remember right wingers, sorry moderates, initially praising UK law enforcement and saying we should adopt the same tactics here.

It was an extreme situation that led to a serious error. The bombers, however, were quickly identified, explosives discovered. That particular cell made in effective.

Israel is the best example. They know that the miltary action cannot, in the end provide the climate for peace. Only intelligence, negotiation, sacrifice and forgiveness can.

[Paul Beach]

Margaret Gray responds:

What we can learn from the Brits is that in spite of having a funny accent, they still can't resolve the conflict in Northern Ireland which has been going on for hundreds of years. If the British ran America, we'd still be facing terrorism from the Confederacy and could expect to for the next few hundred years.

[Neil D]

[:"green"] Blair says possible Iran links to Iraq bomb

Reuters

Oct 6, 2005 — By Peter Graff

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Thursday that evidence pointed to Iran or its Lebanese Hizbollah allies as the source of sophisticated explosives used in roadside bombs in Iraq, although Britain did not have proof.

The accusations, first made by a senior British official in an anonymous briefing on Wednesday, have added to tensions between Britain and Iran at a time when London and Washington are seeking UN action over Iranian nuclear programs.

The British official said London believed that Iran and Hizbollah had provided deadly armor-piercing explosives and infra-red devices used to kill British troops in Iraq.

Tehran denies it helps militants in Iraq.

"This is a lie," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told state television. "The British are the cause of instability and crisis in Iraq," he said, adding that it was in Iran's interests to have a stable neighbor.

Hizbollah also rejected any link to the bombs. "The British accusations that the party is the source of the explosives that have targeted the British occupation are lies," the group said in a statement issued in Beirut.

Blair said the accusations were not proven but were worrying. He also said they may have been an attempt by Iran to intimidate Britain over its tough stance in nuclear talks.

"What is clear is that there have been new explosive devices used not just against British forces but elsewhere in Iraq. The particular nature of those devices leads us either to Iranian elements or to Hizbollah," Blair told a news conference after meeting Iraq's President Jalal Talabani.

"However we cannot be certain of this at the present time."

FRIENDLY RELATIONS

Talabani, who is a Kurd, said the Iraqi government would investigate the charges.

However, Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, a Shi'ite Muslim, rejected accusations from other countries that Shi'ite Iran was interfering in Iraq. Saudi Arabia, as well as Britain and the United States, have made such charges. [/]