In message .com
"MIG" wrote:

[snip]


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.


How on earth did you come up with that? I said the Americans were confused
not innocent. They are one of the external sources referred to above. I
think even you would have to agree with ne that they are acting both overtly
and covertly in Iraq. What they can't cope with is the idea that others are
doing the same thing.

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

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

[snip]


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.


How on earth did you come up with that? I said the Americans were confused
not innocent. They are one of the external sources referred to above. I
think even you would have to agree with ne that they are acting both overtly
and covertly in Iraq. What they can't cope with is the idea that others are
doing the same thing.


If you meant that the Americans were among the external forces you
referred to, then I've got no dispute with that. I interpreted the
last statement as referring to them separately from the external
forces.

I am not sure that they are so much confused as not interested. They
don't need to understand the detail as long as the civil wars they are
helping to cause give them an overt excuse to stay in Iraq.

In message . com
"MIG" wrote:

[snip]

I am not sure that they are so much confused as not interested. They
don't need to understand the detail as long as the civil wars they are
helping to cause give them an overt excuse to stay in Iraq.


Why would they want an excuse to stay in Iraq? Politically it would be much
more advantageous for them to be able to pull their troops out of Iraq, say
just in time for next year's congressional elections.

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

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:01:34 +0100 someone who may be Ross
wrote this:-

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

Indeed. Some of the older members of my family were treated with
great respect for their acclivities, which included blowing people
and things up, shooting people, stabbing them and killing people
with their bare hands. Most of their activities were less
spectacular though, including the railwaymen who smuggled things
around the country, the police officers who hid people by locking
them in the cells, the people who appeared to be Quislings but were
not and those who conveyed messages. They were on the winning side
and so thanked.

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

Sorry, that's probably a bit sick.

But still an excellent example of robust humour.


--
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.

Adam Funk wrote:

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!


No, I've been indoctrinated. When I'm at home, I leave Sky News on
all day, interrupting it only to watch Neighbours.

Why can't Neighbours be rescheduled to end before 2:00 pm?

The 2:05 finish means I miss the Sky News Headlines at 2:00, and I
can't remember what the headlines were at 1:30, so I have to wait
until 2:15. Lovely Sky. Naughty BBC.

I will never forgive the BBC for poaching the gorgeous, pouting
Natasha Kaplinsky (for it is she) from Sky News.

;-)

"grid58 (Paul)" wrote:

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.

You appear to have conveniently forgotten the 1.2 million Iraqis who
died during the period of sanctions enforced by the US and UK between
1991 and 2002, most of whom were children.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:36:55 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

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.

The trouble with Sky News is that it is Murdoch press, which tends to
report his opinions and not always the facts. It is also too
sensationalist and flashy.

I by far prefer BBC News 24.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On 22 Jul 2005 12:06:03 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
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?

No, of course it doesn't. How does using a PIN infringe on your civil
liberties?

It isn't an absolute statement, anyway. The point is that I would
prefer to live in a society where unpleasant things happen
occasionally, and where if/when caught the perpetrators of said
unpleasant things are punished suitably[1], than in a police state.

(Similarly, I applaud the 15-year-old who overturned a curfew order
recently. Punish those who do cause trouble, and do it harshly, but
do not impinge on the freedoms of the innocent. I do not believe in
collective responsibility of that type).

[1] Difficult with suicide bombers, of course. That said, the
security measures some people are suggesting might stop people being
blown up in Tube trains. It won't stop them being blown up while
waiting in a queue for security outside a busy Tube station, for
example, and it won't stop a suicide van bomb in the middle of Oxford
Street on a Saturday afternoon. If one avenue is closed to the
terrorists, they'll simply find another.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

(Neil Williams) wrote:

The trouble with Sky News is that it is Murdoch press, which tends to
report his opinions and not always the facts. It is also too
sensationalist and flashy.

I by far prefer BBC News 24.


So do I. I was joking, Neil!

;-)

(Neil Williams) wrote:
[1] Difficult with suicide bombers, of course. That said, the
security measures some people are suggesting might stop people being
blown up in Tube trains. It won't stop them being blown up while
waiting in a queue for security outside a busy Tube station, for
example, and it won't stop a suicide van bomb in the middle of Oxford
Street on a Saturday afternoon. If one avenue is closed to the
terrorists, they'll simply find another.


Football matches, cinemas, department stores, supermarkets,
restaurants, educational institutions ... they are all easy targets
for terror.

Slightly less easy, but very vulnerable to small airborne attacks with
light aircraft are ... our nuclear power stations.

Plus there are dirty bombs - nuclear devices that release massive
radiation rather than powerful explosions, chemical and biological
weapons of all kinds. They can be detonated almost anywhere.

So was it worth going to war in Iraq, Mr Bliar?