Terrorists, what point are they trying to make?

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I just can't wait for Blair to gingerly stroll into "Palestine" and speedily solve the conflict there, somehow evenising the warring, enraged segments with a shake of hands and an agreement that it was all a bit silly really, that Christianity, or a quick switch to forgiving Catholicism was really always the true way.

Yup, unbelievable really. the second guiltiest individual in destabilising the region and bringing death and destruction down on the heads of the British people who opposed his illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq made Bush's envoy = OFFICIAL poodle. No wonder the Arab nations are shaking their heads in disbelief. If ever there was a legitimate target...

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Did you ever face the IRA? The IRA actually developed the technique of setting a bomb and then catching them in a funnel zone as well. I've actually got a mate who was a former IRA sniper (long story!), and he knows from first hand experience (as do I) that this "99.99%" of the time statement is bollocks. They gave late warnings, if they gave them at all, and towards the end when the factions were split, the code words that were used to verify and validate the calls were not always given. The IRA were ultimately stopped because their factions destroyed them. The current opponents do not have that problem - even if they split into factions, they are ALL willing to attack any target and lose some of their own people as they do it. The hardline IRA factions were willing to attack most targets, but not to lose their own people (hence the proxy bombers they used to use.)

Maybe you ended up too close to the story to maintain an objective point of view. IRA policy was not to target the wholesale slaughter of random mainland citizens. On the whole it was 'legitimate targets'. Arbitrary definition of 'legitimate targets' to be sure, but they were not random psychotic maniacs.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Maybe you ended up too close to the story to maintain an objective point of view. IRA policy was not to target the wholesale slaughter of random mainland citizens. On the whole it was 'legitimate targets'. Arbitrary definition of 'legitimate targets' to be sure, but they were not random psychotic maniacs.

Warrington, Bishopsgate, Manchester? Not even close. These were, granted, hardline factions that horrified the mainsteam IRA. The worrying thing was that by trying to blow up gas storage tanks, they were not after "valid" targets at all. If the hardliners had taken over the IRA, then we would have ended up with a completely different outcome. As it was, they split down, lost a lot of power, and ended up at the negotiating table. Luckily.