More bombs?
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:41:13 +0100 someone who may be Graeme Wall
wrote this:-

As the Australian PM pointed out, Bali was before Iraq, WTC was before Iraq,
Nairobi was before Iraq, Mombasa was before Iraq etc, etc, etc.

And as others have pointed out, the invasion of Iraq is but one
factor. They have also pointed out that before the invasion there
was the "oil for food" programme and the "no fly zones".


And of course the 1991 Iraq war, when the US told Saudi Arabia that
Iraqi troops were massing on their border to get US bases in there, and
after which the US deliberately kept Sadam Hussein in power rather than
help the opposition.

More bombs?
 

Brimstone wrote:
MIG wrote:

As has been mentioned, our own Government and police forces start
repressing us, which is just what the terrorists want. It now seems
that the terrorists have just succeeded in getting the British Police
to institute a shoot-to-kill policy in London.


And?

Can you be sure it was the police?


According to the BBC, the Met have released a statement confirming 1 man
dead at Stockwell. Died at the scene

More bombs?
 

Can you be sure it was the police?


Given that the BBC says it was, probably not, no. Incidently, in my
parting comment, I was really getting at the fact that the denial that
what we are doing is a part of the cause of this terrorisom, backed up
by the excuse that "stuff happened before Iraq", is part of a general
attitude of denial that's putting us at risk.

We have to wake up to our own role. Going into denial is not helping.

More bombs?
 

There is no such thing as a "shoot to injure or disable" policy, if you
(police or armed forces) shoot someone your intention is to kill them.


Fair enough, but it's a phrase often used. Also, as someone recently
pointed out to me, if you carry a loaded gun, it's because you intend
to shoot it.

More bombs?
 

MIG wrote:
Can you be sure it was the police?


Given that the BBC says it was, probably not, no. Incidently, in my
parting comment, I was really getting at the fact that the denial that
what we are doing is a part of the cause of this terrorisom, backed up
by the excuse that "stuff happened before Iraq", is part of a general
attitude of denial that's putting us at risk.

We have to wake up to our own role. Going into denial is not helping.

Quite, but then no one wants to understand the enemy and so fail to realise
that so doing will help to defeat him.

More bombs?
 

In message .com
"MIG" wrote:



Graeme Wall wrote:
[snip]


As the Australian PM pointed out, Bali was before Iraq, WTC was before
Iraq, Nairobi was before Iraq, Mombasa was before Iraq etc, etc, etc.
Iraq is irrelevant to Al Qaeda, where it is Sunni versus Shi'ite in a
civil war that was probably inevitable, however Saddam was removed.

[snip]

Iraq is part of the general policy that results in many, particularly
Muslim, people being killed or having their livelihoods destroyed.

What general policy is that?

The people currently doing the killing in Iraq are nuslims killing other
muslims, a bit like the situation in Northern Ireland.


Nothing can be done about the fanatics, who are beyond redemption.

You're an expert are you?

But on their own, they are not much of a threat.

Tell that to the people of London.

When millions of people are so disaffected by the policies of the West that
they start listening to the fanatics, then we are in trouble.

As has been mentioned, our own Government and police forces start
repressing us, which is just what the terrorists want. It now seems
that the terrorists have just succeeded in getting the British Police
to institute a shoot-to-kill policy in London.

Ypu are talking twaddle as usual. The police policy in the situation that
appears to have obtained at Stockwell this morning has always been shoot to
kill.


So we've got the world we created. Smug comments about what was and
wasn't before Iraq don't count for much.

What was smug about a statement of facts?

I now live and work in a city where the police shoot to kill. Thanks a
lot.


You always have, nothing's changed. You've merely walked round with your
eyes shut before. Don't try and blame me for that.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

More bombs?
 

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:57:55 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Mick"
wrote this:-

Or do we wait to you lose a
loved one before you start to think that something needs to be done.

I forgot to add yesterday. You are creating a distortion of my views
and then attacking that distortion. Not very useful.

The question is whether anything more can be done and if it can be
done whether it should be done. I did not suggest that nothing
should be done.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

More bombs?
 

In message
David Hansen wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:41:13 +0100 someone who may be Graeme Wall
wrote this:-

As the Australian PM pointed out, Bali was before Iraq, WTC was before
Iraq, Nairobi was before Iraq, Mombasa was before Iraq etc, etc, etc.

And as others have pointed out, the invasion of Iraq is but one
factor. They have also pointed out that before the invasion there
was the "oil for food" programme and the "no fly zones".



The invasion of Iraq is largely irrelevant, in fact it has given the
fundamentalists an in to a country they were unable to penetrate before. The
oil for food programme was a UN policy and irrelevant politically to both Al
Quaeda and Dubya. The no-fly zones were irrelevant to everybody as they
didn't cover helos and the Iraquis had no operational fixed wing aircraft
after Desert Storm.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

More bombs?
 

In message .com
"MIG" wrote:

[snip]

And of course the 1991 Iraq war, when the US told Saudi Arabia that
Iraqi troops were massing on their border to get US bases in there,

You mean the Iraquis hadn't invaded Kuwait?

and after which the US deliberately kept Sadam Hussein in power rather than
help the opposition.


"No UN mandate for regime change" The US did what people like you wanted,
got out of Iraq as soon as the UN requirements were fulfilled, which was to
eject the Iraquis from Kuwait.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

More bombs?
 

In message .com
"MIG" wrote:

Can you be sure it was the police?


Given that the BBC says it was, probably not, no.

What a pathetically stupid comment.

Incidently, in my parting comment, I was really getting at the fact that
the denial that what we are doing is a part of the cause of this
terrorisom, backed up by the excuse that "stuff happened before Iraq", is
part of a general attitude of denial that's putting us at risk.

We have to wake up to our own role. Going into denial is not helping.


You are the one that is in denial.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

More bombs?
 

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:12:15 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Fletcher
wrote:


There is no such thing as a "shoot to injure or disable" policy, if you
(police or armed forces) shoot someone your intention is to kill them.

I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a
wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to
the police. Firing at long range with inaccurate weapons there may be
no choice, but firing at short range with reasonably accurate weapons
there is.
Is it to do with fear that the wounded person still might be able to
fight back? Not a fear that you are allowed to consider when using
"reasonable force" to deter an intruder in your house - or your
isolated farm in a well known case.
Don't often stray too far from railways in my posts, so I apologise in
advance!

Guy Gorton

More bombs?
 

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:41:57 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:57:55 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Mick"
: wrote this:-
:
: It is also likely that it will encourage party politicians to do
: what the terrorists want, reduce our freedoms even more.
:
: Interested to know what your solution is then?
:
: Do what Mr Liar said, continue as before.

So stay in Iraq and the WTO?

Ian

More bombs?
 

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:13:56 UTC, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

: 2. He who gives up liberty to gain security deserves neither liberty
: nor security[2].

I've never believed that. Does it mean that, because I have to use a
PIN to get money from a hole in the wall, I deserve to have my account
cleaned out?

Ian


--

More bombs?
 

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:42:03 UTC, Ross
wrote:

: Without extremists, there is no terrorism.

Isn't that because /we/ define terrorists as extremists? The
terrorists themselves may think that what they are doing is quite
reasonable. It would be so much easier if they went around in capes
and black masks carrying spherical bombs with long fizzing fuses...

Ian
--

More bombs?
 

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 06:36:32 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

: However, without Iraq there would be one less grievance that can be
: used to inflame people. The way to deal with terrorism is to drain
: the poison, not to try and look macho with so-called security
: measures and the like.

Absolutely. I'm trying to think of a single case, anywhere, where a
significant terrorist problem has been resolved by force alone, and I
can't.

Ian


--

More bombs?
 

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:41:13 UTC, Graeme Wall
wrote:

: Incidentally he is not Mr Hussein, you shouldn't assume Western norms apply
: in other cultures.

I had need to pass the name "Umesh Patel" over the phone yesterday.
The bloke at the other end asked if I could spell the christian name
...

Ian

More bombs?
 

In message
Guy Gorton wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:12:15 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Fletcher
wrote:


There is no such thing as a "shoot to injure or disable" policy, if you
(police or armed forces) shoot someone your intention is to kill them.

I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a
wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to
the police.

The use of firearms is because the police believe there is imminent danger to
life, if you merely wound an armed man he can still shoot, a suicide bomber
can still set off his bomb, the only way to guarantee safety in these
situations is to kill. Dead men don't shoot back.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

More bombs?
 

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:58:38 UTC, Guy Gorton
wrote:

: I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a
: wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to
: the police. Firing at long range with inaccurate weapons there may be
: no choice, but firing at short range with reasonably accurate weapons
: there is.
: Is it to do with fear that the wounded person still might be able to
: fight back?

I think it's because the police in this country only rarely carry
weapons, and only use them when they believe there to be an immediate
risk to life (OK, that's the theory, and it doesn't always work like
that, but I still prefer it to having routinely armed police who think
"running away" is justification for shooting). In other words, police
guns are only supposed to be fired to stop someone else being killed,
and in that case it is logical to make as certain as possible.

Ian

More bombs?
 

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:35:41 UTC, Graeme Wall
wrote:

: The people currently doing the killing in Iraq are nuslims killing other
: muslims, a bit like the situation in Northern Ireland.

Or like the resistance shooting collaborators?

Ian


--

More bombs?
 

In message cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-d38TNJnTOPOg@localhost
"Ian Johnston" wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:41:13 UTC, Graeme Wall
wrote:

: Incidentally he is not Mr Hussein, you shouldn't assume Western norms
apply in other cultures.

I had need to pass the name "Umesh Patel" over the phone yesterday. The
bloke at the other end asked if I could spell the christian name ..


My point exactly. Even the term 'forename' can be misleading in some
cultures, such as the Chinese.


--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

More bombs?
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
In message .com
"MIG" wrote:

[snip]

And of course the 1991 Iraq war, when the US told Saudi Arabia that
Iraqi troops were massing on their border to get US bases in there,

You mean the Iraquis hadn't invaded Kuwait?

and after which the US deliberately kept Sadam Hussein in power rather than
help the opposition.


"No UN mandate for regime change" The US did what people like you wanted,
got out of Iraq as soon as the UN requirements were fulfilled, which was to
eject the Iraquis from Kuwait.


There was a local rebellion against the regime. They thought the
invading troops would help. They didn't; they shafted them instead.

That wasn't regime change imposed from outside. Unfortunately, that
sort of regime change wouldn't have given Iraq's resources to US and
British companies.

We are straying a bit anyway. Shouldn't this topic be about what kind
of trains they have in Iraq?

More bombs?
 

In message cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-C27MKJWQnhWC@localhost
"Ian Johnston" wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:35:41 UTC, Graeme Wall
wrote:

: The people currently doing the killing in Iraq are nuslims killing other
: muslims, a bit like the situation in Northern Ireland.

Or like the resistance shooting collaborators?


No

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

More bombs?
 

What general policy is that?

The people currently doing the killing in Iraq are nuslims killing other
muslims, a bit like the situation in Northern Ireland.


Your political views are clearly different from mine. However, pretty
much everything predicted over the last few years by those whose views
are similar to mine is coming true.

I don't think the people in Northern Ireland would see it the same way.
One group felt that they were resisting the invading Catholic hordes,
and the other group felt that they were resisting the invading British
Empire. They certainly didn't see themselves as all being the same and
they definitely saw outside influence as a cause of their disputes.

More bombs?
 

In message .com
"MIG" wrote:



Graeme Wall wrote:
In message .com
"MIG" wrote:

[snip]

And of course the 1991 Iraq war, when the US told Saudi Arabia that
Iraqi troops were massing on their border to get US bases in there,

You mean the Iraquis hadn't invaded Kuwait?

and after which the US deliberately kept Sadam Hussein in power rather than
help the opposition.


"No UN mandate for regime change" The US did what people like you
wanted, got out of Iraq as soon as the UN requirements were fulfilled,
which was to eject the Iraquis from Kuwait.


There was a local rebellion against the regime. They thought the
invading troops would help.

Try getting your chronology right, the 'invading troops' had been withdrawn
before the uprising

They didn't; they shafted them instead.

When did the Americans ever do anything else?


That wasn't regime change imposed from outside. Unfortunately, that
sort of regime change wouldn't have given Iraq's resources to US and
British companies.

The rebellion wasn't about regime change but secession from Iraq. The UN
refused to allow support by third countries, not that the US were interested.
The reason Dubya ignored the UN this time was partly because his perceived
view that the UN had deliberatley thwarted his Dad's plans for an
all-American world.


We are straying a bit anyway. Shouldn't this topic be about what kind
of trains they have in Iraq?


Stanier 8Fs I believe.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

More bombs?
 

In message .com
"MIG" wrote:

What general policy is that?

The people currently doing the killing in Iraq are nuslims killing other
muslims, a bit like the situation in Northern Ireland.


Your political views are clearly different from mine.

Are they?

However, pretty much everything predicted over the last few years by those
whose views are similar to mine is coming true.

Given your apparent ignorance of the true state of affairs in the real world,
how can you tell?


I don't think the people in Northern Ireland would see it the same way.
One group felt that they were resisting the invading Catholic hordes,
and the other group felt that they were resisting the invading British
Empire.

So you don't even understand the basics of that dispute?

They certainly didn't see themselves as all being the same and they
definitely saw outside influence as a cause of their disputes.


Did I say they saw themselves as all the same? Presumably you are totally
unable to see a parallel between the conflicts of two subsects of
Christianity and two subsects of Islam?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

More bombs?
 

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:28:43 UTC, Graeme Wall
wrote:

: In message cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-C27MKJWQnhWC@localhost
: "Ian Johnston" wrote:
:
: On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:35:41 UTC, Graeme Wall
: wrote:
:
: : The people currently doing the killing in Iraq are nuslims killing other
: : muslims, a bit like the situation in Northern Ireland.
:
: Or like the resistance shooting collaborators?

: No

How do you think they see themselves, then?

Ian

More bombs?
 

On 22 Jul 2005 12:08:14 GMT, Ian Johnston wrote in
cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-Njxhc0urG6Qh@localhost, seen in uk.railway:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:42:03 UTC, Ross
wrote:

: Without extremists, there is no terrorism.

Isn't that because /we/ define terrorists as extremists? The
terrorists themselves may think that what they are doing is quite
reasonable.

Yes. After all, it's the difference between terrorists and freedom
fighters - it depends on which side you're looking at it from.

I think we *can* class the terrorists (and I'm not just talking about
Al Qaeda) as extremists because they are outside the mainstream of
their own espoused system, they have to distort ("interpret") the
teachings of the system they espouse to justify their actions and
their actions do harm (physical, political or other) to their own
people more than to their enemy.


It would be so much easier if they went around in capes
and black masks carrying spherical bombs with long fizzing fuses...

And wearing name badges showing the organisation to which they
belonged:-

[Al-Qaeda]
[Hi! I'm name]
[Let me help you to paradise]

Sorry, that's probably a bit sick.

--
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

More bombs?
 

Can you be sure it was the police?


Given that the BBC says it was, probably not, no.

The BBC is of course not perfect.

But would you prefer to get so-called "news" and "information" from
Rupert Murdoch and his minions?

More bombs?
 

In message cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-YXUQyXn7rHWv@localhost
"Ian Johnston" wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:28:43 UTC, Graeme Wall
wrote:

: In message cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-C27MKJWQnhWC@localhost
: "Ian Johnston" wrote:
:
: On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:35:41 UTC, Graeme Wall
: wrote:
:
: : The people currently doing the killing in Iraq are muslims killing
: : other muslims, a bit like the situation in Northern Ireland.

Or like the resistance shooting collaborators?

: No

How do you think they see themselves, then?


"My version of whatever religion is the only true religion and anyone
professing to be a true whatever who doesn't agree with me is a worthless
heretic who must be eliminated for the greater good"

Other religions don't count as they are by definition not religions at all.
Means you can carry on fighting amongst yourselves to your hearts content.
An extension of gang warfare. Applies to Catholics-Protestants in NI,
Sunnis-Shi'ites in the Arab world, Arabs-Jews in the Middle East. Al
Quaeda's objective is to widen it to Islam-Christianity. The common factor
is that all the various sects involved are rooted in the Old Testament with
its emphasis on intolerance and its championing of a 'chosen people'.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

More bombs?
 

In message
Ross wrote:

[snip]

And wearing name badges showing the organisation to which they
belonged:-

[Al-Qaeda]
[Hi! I'm name]
[Let me help you to paradise]

Sorry, that's probably a bit sick.


Very sick, I like it.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

More bombs?
 

Andrew Yarnwood wrote:

Can you be sure it was the police?


Given that the BBC says it was, probably not, no.

The BBC is of course not perfect.

But would you prefer to get so-called "news" and "information" from
Rupert Murdoch and his minions?


I think Sky News is wonderful.

In this huge and complex world, Sky manages to condense the news into
a very small number of very simple stories, repeated every 15 minutes
throughout the day with very few of those irritating changes that you
see on other news channels, and which would only confuse the viewers.

;-)

More bombs?
 

MIG wrote: So we've got the world we created. Smug comments about
what was and
wasn't before Iraq don't count for much.

So what about the million or so people Irag citizens had killed in the
run up to the "war"? Certain Muslims who say they are being hard done
by seem to conveniently forget these atrocities.

More bombs?
 

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:20:01 UTC, Graeme Wall
wrote:

: In message cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-YXUQyXn7rHWv@localhost
: "Ian Johnston" wrote:

: On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:28:43 UTC, Graeme Wall
: wrote:

: : In message cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-C27MKJWQnhWC@localhost
: : "Ian Johnston" wrote:

: Or like the resistance shooting collaborators?

: : No
:
: How do you think they see themselves, then?

: "My version of whatever religion is the only true religion and anyone
: professing to be a true whatever who doesn't agree with me is a worthless
: heretic who must be eliminated for the greater good"

So why do you think they are particularly targeting the new Iraqi
police force?

Ian

More bombs?
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
In message .com
"MIG" wrote:

Can you be sure it was the police?


Given that the BBC says it was, probably not, no.

What a pathetically stupid comment.


There was a question about whether I was sure, which I responded to
flippantly, not stupidly. I have no interest in criticising the BBC,
but remember how a couple of weeks ago, wrong information from the BBC
sent loads of journalists to Hackney, interviewing people who had just
missed the bus that got blown up, even though it hadn't gone from
there. The BBC corrected it soon after.

I apologise for calling one of your comments "smug". We have political
differences. I would rather not refer to anyone's comments with words
like "pathetic" or "stupid", when it's unlikely that any of us are
pathetic or stupid and we make our comments as human beings.

So, even if I started it, I would rather we were civil about it now.

More bombs?
 

Tony Polson wrote:

Andrew Yarnwood wrote:

Can you be sure it was the police?


Given that the BBC says it was, probably not, no.

The BBC is of course not perfect.

But would you prefer to get so-called "news" and "information" from
Rupert Murdoch and his minions?


I think Sky News is wonderful.

In this huge and complex world, Sky manages to condense the news into
a very small number of very simple stories, repeated every 15 minutes
throughout the day with very few of those irritating changes that you
see on other news channels, and which would only confuse the viewers.

;-)

You've broken the code!

More bombs?
 

Did I say they saw themselves as all the same?

No, you didn't.


Presumably you are totally
unable to see a parallel between the conflicts of two subsects of
Christianity and two subsects of Islam?


I thought we were agreeing that there could be a parallel. I was
saying that there was a significant perception of outside influence and
a sense of invasion in both cases.

More bombs?
 

In message cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-9UteHribockb@localhost
"Ian Johnston" wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:20:01 UTC, Graeme Wall
wrote:

: In message cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-YXUQyXn7rHWv@localhost
: "Ian Johnston" wrote:

: On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:28:43 UTC, Graeme Wall
: wrote:

: : In message cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-C27MKJWQnhWC@localhost
: : "Ian Johnston" wrote:

: Or like the resistance shooting collaborators?

: : No
:
: How do you think they see themselves, then?

: "My version of whatever religion is the only true religion and anyone :
professing to be a true whatever who doesn't agree with me is a worthless
: heretic who must be eliminated for the greater good"

So why do you think they are particularly targeting the new Iraqi police
force?


Different fight, that's the remnants of Saddam's regime trying to destabilise
the new regime. There are at least 3 different wars going on in Iraq at the
moment with a potential fourth, and more than one external souce acting
either overtly or covertly on more than one side at a time. No wonder the
Americans are confused.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

More bombs?
 

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:44:06 +0100 someone who may be Graeme Wall
wrote this:-

The invasion of Iraq is largely irrelevant,

That is what is being debated.

in fact it has given the
fundamentalists an in to a country they were unable to penetrate before.

That is precisely the point.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

More bombs?
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
In message cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-d38TNJnTOPOg@localhost
"Ian Johnston" wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:41:13 UTC, Graeme Wall
wrote:

: Incidentally he is not Mr Hussein, you shouldn't assume Western norms
apply in other cultures.

I had need to pass the name "Umesh Patel" over the phone yesterday. The
bloke at the other end asked if I could spell the christian name ..


My point exactly. Even the term 'forename' can be misleading in some
cultures, such as the Chinese.


Common terms are "family name" and "given name".

More bombs?
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
In message cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-9UteHribockb@localhost
"Ian Johnston" wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:20:01 UTC, Graeme Wall
wrote:

: In message cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-YXUQyXn7rHWv@localhost
: "Ian Johnston" wrote:

: On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:28:43 UTC, Graeme Wall
: wrote:

: : In message cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-C27MKJWQnhWC@localhost
: : "Ian Johnston" wrote:

: Or like the resistance shooting collaborators?

: : No
:
: How do you think they see themselves, then?

: "My version of whatever religion is the only true religion and anyone :
professing to be a true whatever who doesn't agree with me is a worthless
: heretic who must be eliminated for the greater good"

So why do you think they are particularly targeting the new Iraqi police
force?


Different fight, that's the remnants of Saddam's regime trying to destabilise
the new regime. There are at least 3 different wars going on in Iraq at the
moment with a potential fourth, and more than one external souce acting
either overtly or covertly on more than one side at a time. No wonder the
Americans are confused.


So the Americans are just innocent bystanders? The mind boggles.