well there is a guy i have known for about 7/8 years. he is afghani and fought the russians. reckons he met bin laden when he was younger. swears he died 4 years ago did you watch that documentary of the operation to kill him? for me raised more questions than it answered. definately the language changed. the aim was to kill. obama made it sound like one of those 'vote me' broadcasts also with all the noise, helicopter crash etc its a suprise everybody stayed in bed, which was the initial story. for a hardened terrorist leader its a suprise he lived at all
OK. Let's go back to the fact that certain posters on here believe that they are involved in a war against the UK. Isn't it reasonable for the UK to use the best weapons it has available to win that war? I don't believe we've got anything better than nukes.
so by that note 9/11 was ok? the 19 believed they were at war with america, so used the best weapons they had. themselves
tbh if people did not get on their high horse/start being abusive and pedantic these things would make a really good debate
Are you sure about that? How many IRA men/women did the US extradite to the UK? Did you know that the US made the UK sign an agreement that the UK would not ask for any IRA people to be extradited as part of the Good Friday Agreement? If that is an ally I would not like to see your enemys
I think what the Brit-haters need to remember is that ruling the Irish is not necessarily a "British" decision. Has it ever been put to referendum? No. And yet still normal British people have been killed because of a conflict many of us British don't agree with. Why not consider that when slagging off us Brits as a whole?
First of all they are talking bollocks as the people waging this 'war' are terrorists plain and simple. However, to use something like nukes as you suggested would be wrong because the terrorists are a minority and the majority of people do not take part in the 'war' let alone condone it.
They represent a small group who are at war. I don't agree with what they did but they and their supporters did. The USA should have hit back not pussyfoot around in Iraq and Afghanistan. The guys who did this were muslims -> the USA should nuke all muslims. It ain't nice but ask anyone, you never get anywhere being nice.
That guy end up coming back? He's been over there decades and Britains 'allies' wouldn't send him back. If I had friends like that Rebs....
not sure that applies all the time/in some situations tbh the iraq/afghanistan wars could produce an attack that would be called a terrorist attack. but is it? usa/uk (and others) are at war with these countries, so for some of them to take the battle on to the shores of these countries to me is reasonable also by all accounts the success of the rebels in libya is down to UN air power and weapons on the ground. yet officially there is no war so would an attack be 'terrorist' or a result of war? and as usual we may end up down the 'gaddafi is a ****' route, but thats not the issue
The vast majority of Irish people wanted a Republic back in 1918. The British carved Ireland up so as to give a 'majority' to those who wanted to stay in the UK their own wee bit of land. Akin to the people of the North West of England being allowed to break away as there is a pre defined majority there who want it.
might have been said already but im pissed and couldnt be bothered readin allthe replys so : are the freedom fighters in libya terrorists ? if they are why is brityain supporting terrorism ?
