British Expatriate Network

I guess the topic comes about, part due to Lebanon situation and part to do with our mind set. How would the world like any country to fight terrorist groups???

Seems that if you go in with jets and bombs and try to totally destroy them, then the world see's it as total over kill.

If you go in small groups, special forces and get them the world codems you (death on the rock).

So how do you do it. Is it had bags and feather pillows at noon? or what.

No one likes all the killing and stuff but no one has come forward to say hay lets do this and where does it stop? You are always gonna have nutty groups out there that you can never met their demands. Maybe we should just meet everyone's demands and be done with it.

Criminal cartels in south america, build hospitals and schools for the local people and so did the mafia. This builds up local support etc so people say hay these guys are nice.

So how would you solve these problems if you was in the hot seat???

A good talking point I hope lol

I don't believe any of us would act differently if we were to be in a position of power. It's all about survival.

It's always been that way and even though we may claim to be more civilised, that need to protect ourselves results in violence, whether its between nations or your next door neighbour.

It doesn't seem to matter if it's a rich or poor nation, the result is always the innocent that die. The only difference is that when rich nations retaliate the deaths are usually instant and violent. People in poorer nations die in larger numbers and mostly through starvation and disease.

The UN was supposed to be an organization that settles disputes peacefully.

Maybe the question should be more "why are there terrorists"

One of the things I can't help seeing is a connection between those who have power as the bullies and those that are labeled terrorists as the ones being bullied and trying to stick up for themselves and others who are being trampled on by the bullies.

Would there be terrorists if there wasn't greed? Would we have terrorists if the rich in this world weren't so greedy? Would there be terrorists in this world if people were more considerate of other people's feelings.

It’s a good talking point as far as I am concerned. First, I agree with Ben and Keith, both to some extent. Many of the terrorist organizations are now, not what they started out to be, so it is of limited help to look back at the original causes for their existence.

I think we must also admit that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. Most such organizations grow out of a need for some kind of action; it may be to relieve a poor population from peonage, or foreign occupation. Sometimes, it is just to climb above the general population.

The IRA started out with the justifiable aim of removing an occupier, but after it had succeeded, (the six counties voted to stay with the crown, they were not “occupied”) they looked around for some way to exercise their acquired skills and continued the fight. In South America, the ruling classes were all of European descent, and kept the indigenous peoples in peonage or poverty. The drug gangs need the help of the locals or they would be caught, so they pump part of the money into good works. Freedom is a great ideal, but you have to eat and have medical attention to survive; if limited in your choices, you let the freedom go, freedom isn’t worth much without food and support.

The Mafia started out as a fraternal organization that sought to throw off the occupation and peonage situation.

Many of these organizations had to become tough, they had to obtain money to run the operations. The more resistance to them, the tougher and rougher they became, they had to extract running money from the people they were trying to uplift. When they had achieved the original objective they had become oppressors themselves. The excuse was that they must stay strong to prevent the old oppressor from returning. The situation in the Middle East has a few added wrinkles. The Palestinian situation is now, in reality, a proxy war.

It is said that nature abhors a vacuum; I think that many of these organizations started because there was a need for them, there was a nitch to be filled.

That is in the past and is only instructive of how not to cause new such organizations to come into existence.

At this point, it seems to make sense to talk to them, to pretend that they are not real players is ridiculous. In this case, Israel, Bush and the poodle won’t even talk to the people who talk to Hizbollah, Iran and Syria. To think that they can eradicate Hizbollah is ludicrous; Hizbollah gains support across the Muslim world as each day passes, as each child is mangled. We don't see the pictures, our news sources don't have the guts to show them, the Muslim countries do see them. Hizbollah loses men and armament, but they will be more than replaced. I don’t know what progress is possible by talking, but it has to have a better chance than the present action. Perhaps Hizbollah, or at least, the members in Lebanon, could be incorporated in the Lebanese forces. It won’t happen though, if no one talks to them.

Was Robin Hood a terrorist, or a patriot fighting off an oppressive government?

All very good answers.

But surely the fact that these organizations place them selfs and operate amongst the general population, puts the people they say they are defending at a greater risk.

Many of these groups tend to start out with good intent but get taken over by greed and power themselves, just look at solmalia for that.

I agree with the talking, but when they start and will not move from I don't want you here at all and we want to kill you, it makes it real hard to move forward.

If you look at the middle east the arab countries are just as bad as the Israelis in the treatment of the palestenian people, infact they tend to use them as weapons for their own goals.

There are always going to be poor countries and people there is no way to really change that. We have poor people that are in this country, infact sometimes when I have passed through these area's you would think you are in some under developed country.

Is it a human mind set to favour the under dog???

Is it we don't really care when some african country goes at it, cuz they both can only afford to fight with AK 47's.


I did not hear any out cry when the French done some really bad thinks in africa. Surely all things being equal they should have been slamed in the press as well.

The UN was meant to stop such things happening, but all they seem to be able to do is site there and watch. Last time they fought in any way was Korea. Ever since then it really just an expensive club.

How to fight terrorists? Well, good question Goose. First, I agree with Ben and Londonsquare on their answers. Most organizations start fighting for some ideal and some are sponsored by bigger governments. I have just finished reading a book called Inevitable Revolutions- The United States in Central America by Walter LaFeber and it seems that the U.S. foreign policy was to support with weapons those "freedom fighters" groups, when it was in the U.S. interest to do so. Another example, I took this from this web site: "1985 Despite 120,000 Soviet troops, U.S.S.R. unable to establish authority outside Kabul. Afghan freedom fighters (mujahedeen) begin receiving weapons and training from the U.S."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/na...story.html

As you can see, this country has a long history of supporting "now so called" terrorist organizations around the world. America should stop getting involved in conflicts and let the UN have a more prominent role. They have financially supported terrorist organisation from Central America to South America. This country has caused military coupe in many countries, so no wonder why people question American foreign policy - and we should do so. Don't forget that the IRA was funded by American money - I was there and near the Brighton Hotel bombing in 1983, I will never forget this day, I was driving by when it happened.

How to fight terrorists? First, don't fund them, don't be "friends with them", don't be one sided on conflicts, and let the UN have a more prominent role. Abide by UN resolutions, make sure to implement those. Involve other countries that are less aggressive to the table to help in the peace process. Don't arm one side to the teeth and expect the other not to revolt. I could say more, but I am angry at this situation and sad to see that 37 kids were killed today in Qana.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...ebanon.xml

From the Council of Foreign Relations, very interesting...

http//www.foreignaffairs.org/20060701faessay85406/philip-h-gordon/the-end-of-the-bush-revolution.html

Agree with your points posh and yes is said what happened today. Should never happen.

Countries do get involved in other countries affairs. Its just not an american thing, Everyone single country gets involved. You said about doing what the UN said. Again I agree, but everyone keeps saying US this or that. I do not here those people saying hay what happened with the oil for food stuff, Russia, france and germany were all involved in do underhanded deals on the side breaking the UN ruling . Iran doing deals on the side with Terrorist groups, Lebanon not disarming said groups as per the UN.

All countries play this game, but no one says to much about that. Did not see to much of an international out cry when the French sunk the rainbow warrior. Lasted all off a day or two.

Its not an easy topic to get an answer to, but if we are going tackle the things like this then we have to have a game plan.

If we say that we wil never be involved with other countries problems then I guess we would be ok about watching someone like Hitler just much off and do his stuff.

All good answers so lets keep the questions and answers going.

I see that Bush and the 'Midwife from hell" ("What we're seeing here ... are the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do, we have to be certain that we are pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old one.") have blinked and prodded Israel into stopping the air war for forty eight hours.

Unfortunately, they did not go through with the 48 hour cease fire. To see the photos of babies and children with their dummies and pajamas dead, churns my stomach. And call it whatever you may wish, but this is not far from genocide.

Unfortunately, they did not go through with the 48 hour cease fire. To see the photos of babies and children with their dummies and pajamas dead, churns my stomach. And call it whatever you may wish, but this is not far from genocide.

Before we can deal with terrorists, we need to define what a terrorist is.
Of course a quick Google search reveals that this is no simple task (not to mention a whole different thread).

On the issue of how terror groups 'diversify' from their core political objective into common criminality... such groups need considerable amounts of money if they are to sustain themselves. With the IRA (just as a classic example) this meant extortion, drugs, counterfeiting and a whole variety or other things.
Unfortunately this corrupts the core activity and becomes a reason in itself. The money finds its way into the hands, pockets and bank accounts of the volunteers, who 'earn' incomes far and above what they would receive otherwise. Peace equals a substantial reduction in lifestyle.

In the early 90's I was in Eire and discussing potential ceasefires with some Republicans there. One woman put the problem very sucinctly "do you think they are going to give up the holiday's in Australia?"

As you can see, the focus on financial transactions by the US govt. and others is not so silly.

So to get on point. Maybe this is the way to fight terrorists.

No disagreement Rob. I don't think of Hizbollah as only a terrorist organization, it is a state within a state. In south Lebanon, it fulfils the duties of government; it provides a better safety net than is found in most middle eastern countries; it provides administration, policing and a real army, and it is not corrupt.

However, Israel and supporters pretend that it is not a legitimate player and must not be addressed directly. Hizbollah is more of a player than the official Lebanese government. I'll bet that if you were to take a survey, more people there would trust Hizbollah than would trust the government.

I can't say whether this Hizbollah is or is not corrupt. However it receives substantial funding, mostly from Iran.
Curtailing this would probably have a more significant impact that 1000 Israeli bombs.
Its popular support (pre the the current conflagration) was based on the various services it provides and you refer to. Hamas does the same in Gaza. The argument goes that if you cut the funds and thus its ability to provide such services, you undermine its popular support and its ability to rely on that support.

That's the crux of it. No way Iran is going to stop. Hizbollah is it's proxy in the conteast with the USA block.

None of these local conflagrations should be considered on it's own merits. It is like a huge chess game except that each square is anothe chess game, not necessarily played by the same players.

On the one side you have Syria and Iran, plus, on the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" basis, Al Quaeda and other loosely related organizations. But they are only unified in there "war" against the "Great Satan" - the USA and hangers on. On both sides, the group members are pulling in somewhat different directions.

So the Hizbollah incident was okayed by Iran to draw the US attention from the nuclear issue. In the past, these prisoner swaps were done not often but were routine, the Israelis always made sure that they had a good stock of palestinians to trade for, they were arrested for trade goods. Israel would like the US to deep six the Iranian nuclear plant so they didn't play ball this time.

The USA and the willing poodles should understand that the Iranians are prepared for some pain, and if they come down hard, Iran might slow the flow of oil. Again, on the "My enemies enemy" theory, the Iranian people will support their government against the Great Satan.

The way to stop the support for Hizbollah is to cut a deal to let Iran have its nuke in return for ditching it's proxy.