But perhaps there might be a way of doing this without putting so many people in harms way. If you want to put it into those terms, terrorists have had major successes for little cost – 9/11, Madrid, London etc. Conversely, British and American forces have had less success at far greater cost.

Well I think you have to look at the reasons why ‘terrorism’ exists. Terrorism targets the most venerable parts of the huge infrastructure of a state and achieves maximum physical damage, and more importantly, physiological impact (amplified by the very efficient modern media) with a few motivated individuals and a tiny amount of improvised equipment.

To defeat terrorism you either have to protect everything, which is clearly impossible, or you have to locate and arrest a few terrorists, who up until that point are probably potential terrorists (without even a criminal record), who are hiding in a (possibly sympathetic) population of millions. Not so easy.

Surely the onus is on our respective Governments to find a way of eliminating terrorists without having to put so many troops on the ground.

Well so far they seem to be looking in the wrong place…

…the terrorists who attacked London were from Leeds and the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia although they were resident in the US at the time.

…the Richard Widmark movie where they are stalking a Soviet sub around the ice pack.

‘The Bedford Incident’. 😉

#105 🙂

It depends on what you mean by winnable.

So far I’ve heard the following from British politicians:

‘To protect Britain from terrorist attacks.’ Well how does that work then? Three of the 7/7 bombers were born in Britain, and one in Jamaica and none of them had significant criminal records before the attacks. The attacks were a response to the perceived persecution of Muslims by British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

‘To prevent Afghan produced opium reaching Britain’. The single most effective influence on this was the Taliban, who would kill any Afghan cultivating opium, so removing the Taliban was about the worst thing that could have been done.

‘To bring democracy to Afghanistan’. Why? When did choosing the system of government of any country become the responsibility of any other country? Ask yourself this, if every other country in the world was ruled by the Taliban would we in Britain be happy to change our way of life or would we fight tooth-and-nail to eject the Taliban invaders?

So what are the aims of the war anyway?

Hearts and minds went out years ago.

Then the coalition, or Britain, should pull-out now…..because the war is unwinnable.

The trouble is that for that to happen a politician will actually need to demonstrate some courage, the courage it takes to admit that he was wrong, and that the lives that have been lost and the money that has been spent have all been squandered for an aim that was unclear…..but clearly unachievable.

I don’t think many British politicians have got the guts for that. In their view it is better to keep spending the tens-of-millions of pounds, and losing two-or-three lives, every week until there is an election and then they don’t have to take the responsibility any more.

The Soviet Union gave-up after ten years and the Coalition has been there eight; how much longer?

I thought ‘Bomber’ (rather than Butch) Harris was a good red-herring and I didn’t think many people would recognise Nancy Bird-Walton…

…(I didn’t :o)…..but I obviously didn’t catch you out!

Well done! 😀

…the walk through tour of the WW2 Alliance class submarine is a real eye opener…

Sore point…..I’ve been meaning to go for…..er…..fifteen years now…..how time flies! 😮

Do you mind if I jump the queue Benyboy?

#100 🙂