Speak for yourself !!

[amadeus]

A country that has murdered people to get its oil? I think not.

You mean Britain?

 

[Bugfatty300]

You're welcome.

 

[aronnax]

I think America has done more to increase terrorism then reduce it.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I hate this statement, yet so many people use it. Seriously, the quote tries to make it seeem like major terrorist attacks in the US were a regular thing before sept 11. How many major terrorists attack have there been on US soil before sept 11? I can only think of one (1993 wtc plane crash) but there may be more- I don't know everything. I'm sure that there weren't enough to make the "but now we haven't had any terrorist attacks since sept 11th!" argument valid. Besides, it hasn't even been 6 years since sept 11th. And we have had planned attacks, such as the one at fort (the name escapes me at the moment) where a bunch of muslims were stocking up on guns and planning on raiding a military base. I think there were a couple others, but my brain is pretty blank right now.

I like how you so generously ignored the rest of that paragraph, where I admitted that the argument was horribly weak in the first place. However, if it makes you feel big and bad to have put me in my place, then by all means, continue your delusion.

i will agreed with most of everything here.

but the point about the 2 types of terrorism is like.
A) 9/11, hijack of international flight, Madrid train bombing etc etc. These attacks are quite rare and hard to carry out as it involved foreigners traveling to a far location and they could be easily pick out by profiling.
(American has been fairly successful in protecting itself from such attacks. But not so for Spain and Britain. And by attacking Iraq and Afghanistan did very little to prevent such attack also.)

example of
B) will be like the Russian School bombing, Theater hostage situation etc etc. Its mostly domesticated problem and its harder to avoid because the terrorist are within the country itself.
(beside countries like Philippine have benefits by the USA assistance (thou im not sure how the Filipinos couldnt do it by themselves). Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and many more countries still got their own set of problem and i dont see any easy solution or USA assistance.)

I agree that these are two kinds of terror attacks, but I don't see a need to categorize them as mutually exclusive, or as being more "favorable" towards a particular end. I see it to be more indictive of variable levels of extremism; how far is the terror group willing to go to get their message across? In example A, the terrorists are largely suicidal, make no demands, and are simply seeking to incite fear in the hearts of normal civilians by killing them in what seems to them [the civilians] to be a random, "can happen anywhere" fashion.

In the latter example, B, the terrorists have taken a series of people or an important building hostage, and are attempting to negotiate with the police or government to have a series of demands met. While this may become a suicide mission, the terrorists still value their own lives to some degree, seeing as they aren't actively killing themselves in the style they are in Example A. A more civilized method of terror, to be sure, but still fully within the realm of things that just shouldn't happen.

I find both kinds to be equally hard to detect and prevent.

 

[Masquerouge]

IMO it gets repaid when, say, a hurricane hits New Orleans and the rest of the world forgets all about Iraq War #2 and extends humanitarian aid.

Eh. Quite true.

 

[Eukaryote]

Hey, we saved your butts in WWI and WWII

WWI, oh please... you guys did very little in that war. Canada was the real hero.

 

[Eukaryote]

I think America has done more to increase terrorism then reduce it.

ditto and 10

 

[ComradeDavo]

Brown sucking up to the US like this looses him votes at home. Foolish political strategy. He's got a boost by simply not being Blair, so why start risking this by doing what everyoe hates Blair for?

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Strange... I could swear that it was Britain who fought the IRA for countless years...

Brown sucking up to the US like this looses him votes at home. Foolish political strategy. He's got a boost by simply not being Blair, so why start risking this by doing what everyoe hates Blair for?

I concur. If I were Brown, I wouldn't like to start treading a path that would land me in the lead role for the sequel film to The Blair Ditch Project.