to stripping away more and more of the western world's civil rights.
The boarders to the US, a country built on immigration, are now controlled tighter than ever before. There are draconian measures to make the people of the UK, a country that suffered terrorist attacks most weeks for the last three decades from Irish terrorists, so that they carry identity cards and have to report to the state about where they live.
Whilst we all must realise that there is a terrorist threat it is not a danger like we are led to believe. Al Queda is not a far ranging terrorist organisation but a way of thinking, the irony being that the translation "the base" a solid reliable place has become a metaphor for the extreme Muslim outlook. he base is not in the hills of Afghanistan but in the heads of those followers of Bin Laden. There is also no structure, Al Queda is made up of those who wish to be members of Al Queda, if a group of people adopt it's way of thinking and it's particular way of looking at the teachings of the Koran (or Quraine if you prefer). If I and 3 or 4 friends started going to a mosque and believing what Bin Laden believes we would be just as authentic a member of Al Queda as any of the terrorists who have killed in it's name. I find this more scary than any alleged WMDs in Iraq or anywhere else.
Those who would claim that there is a threat and it is growing will also normally be those people who are 100% behind the war in Iraq. These people have a right to this view but if you look at the amount of people taking up arms against the soldiers of the west (and the Iraqis who cooperate with them) you see that the more who are killed the more seem to appear. The majority of news networks seem to be making out that these "insurgents" are crawling out of the woodwork as though they have been to terrorist training camps and have been hell-bent of evil since long before the Iraq war, in truth these are people who will have had no beef with the west before the Iraq war but the deaths of their family, loved-ones, friends and fellow countrymen and led them to rise up and take action in much the same mindset that the French resistance had in WWII. The one problem the "Coalition of the willing" have is not conquering Iraq but pacifying its population.
So why did we go in to Iraq? As we speak Slobodan Milosovic is in a court in the Hague facing a war crimes tribunal for the atrocities that troops under his control committed in the former Yugoslavia, whatever they did was against international law if not the laws of the country they were in. Not many people will say they he doesn't deserve to be there and I think I speak for the majority when I say I hope he rots in whatever hell hole he is thrown in to. The "Coalition of the willing" went in to Iraq to rid it of weapons of mass destruction despite the evidence of there being was simply ridiculous. Colin Powell have a presentation to the Un that was so ridiculous that there was sniggering at the back. Tony Blair released a dossier of Iraq weapons that turned out to be a students university paper. No weapons turned up.
Soon we didn't go in for WMDs, oh no we freed the Iraqi people! How heady the free air must have tasted other then the smell of bullet cordite and burning civilian bodies.
Now here is the fun part, while George Bush was making the usual mushy speeches on the way to his re-election (some may argue with that) he had just invaded a country for regime change which is prohibited by international law. Slobodan also violated international law. Both had armies in countries they shouldn't, killing people they shouldn't.
In fighting the war against terror the west has managed to scare its own people, create 10 times as many "terrorists" as there were and plunged huge amounts of its reserves in to a war that the UN defines as illegal.
The question that I don't understand is are its leaders stupid or did they want it that way?
The boarders to the US, a country built on immigration, are now controlled tighter than ever before. There are draconian measures to make the people of the UK, a country that suffered terrorist attacks most weeks for the last three decades from Irish terrorists, so that they carry identity cards and have to report to the state about where they live.
Whilst we all must realise that there is a terrorist threat it is not a danger like we are led to believe. Al Queda is not a far ranging terrorist organisation but a way of thinking, the irony being that the translation "the base" a solid reliable place has become a metaphor for the extreme Muslim outlook. he base is not in the hills of Afghanistan but in the heads of those followers of Bin Laden. There is also no structure, Al Queda is made up of those who wish to be members of Al Queda, if a group of people adopt it's way of thinking and it's particular way of looking at the teachings of the Koran (or Quraine if you prefer). If I and 3 or 4 friends started going to a mosque and believing what Bin Laden believes we would be just as authentic a member of Al Queda as any of the terrorists who have killed in it's name. I find this more scary than any alleged WMDs in Iraq or anywhere else.
Those who would claim that there is a threat and it is growing will also normally be those people who are 100% behind the war in Iraq. These people have a right to this view but if you look at the amount of people taking up arms against the soldiers of the west (and the Iraqis who cooperate with them) you see that the more who are killed the more seem to appear. The majority of news networks seem to be making out that these "insurgents" are crawling out of the woodwork as though they have been to terrorist training camps and have been hell-bent of evil since long before the Iraq war, in truth these are people who will have had no beef with the west before the Iraq war but the deaths of their family, loved-ones, friends and fellow countrymen and led them to rise up and take action in much the same mindset that the French resistance had in WWII. The one problem the "Coalition of the willing" have is not conquering Iraq but pacifying its population.
So why did we go in to Iraq? As we speak Slobodan Milosovic is in a court in the Hague facing a war crimes tribunal for the atrocities that troops under his control committed in the former Yugoslavia, whatever they did was against international law if not the laws of the country they were in. Not many people will say they he doesn't deserve to be there and I think I speak for the majority when I say I hope he rots in whatever hell hole he is thrown in to. The "Coalition of the willing" went in to Iraq to rid it of weapons of mass destruction despite the evidence of there being was simply ridiculous. Colin Powell have a presentation to the Un that was so ridiculous that there was sniggering at the back. Tony Blair released a dossier of Iraq weapons that turned out to be a students university paper. No weapons turned up.
Soon we didn't go in for WMDs, oh no we freed the Iraqi people! How heady the free air must have tasted other then the smell of bullet cordite and burning civilian bodies.
Now here is the fun part, while George Bush was making the usual mushy speeches on the way to his re-election (some may argue with that) he had just invaded a country for regime change which is prohibited by international law. Slobodan also violated international law. Both had armies in countries they shouldn't, killing people they shouldn't.
In fighting the war against terror the west has managed to scare its own people, create 10 times as many "terrorists" as there were and plunged huge amounts of its reserves in to a war that the UN defines as illegal.
The question that I don't understand is are its leaders stupid or did they want it that way?