Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Of course Gaza could be taken over by Egypt at any time.

The West bank could be taken over by Jordan at any time.

Neither country wants these guys. They make a big show of support but don't actually support them. They don't want those nutters in their own country, else they'll have to wipe them out like Syria did.

Frazzled wrote:

Its strange though. Bush has been out for at least a week. Yet terrorists are still attacking us, most recently a thwarted attack in Yemen. I'm shocked, I thought it was all Bush's fault?

why would terrorist stop attacking just because Bush has been out? So what if Bush's fault?


did anyone offer negotiation ? no

What happend to the mentality of terrorist killed 1 american, in return we'll kill 1000 of them back?

Wont they think similar? or thoughts of revenge / retaliation only applies to USA?

Im not siding with terrorist or anything, but for gods sake, their actions would make more sense if you guys
start accepting they are human beings too.

No thats completely not right. we were told that its all Bush's fault, and once he was out everything would be excellent again. I'm confused.

Not aware of anyone saying that on here. Well, not in this thread. However, I am relieved that a less aggressive President (well, thus far) has been elected.

Bush may not have caused the problems (decades of US Foreign Policy saw to that) BUT his response, particularly with Iraq pissed off a lot of people. I actually found his 'with us or against us' speech incredibly insulting, seeing as donations from US based organisations to the IRA had funded many an attack against the British populace on the mainland. But hey, soon as America is attacked, THEN International Terrorism is a problem to be sorted.

Not saying this is or was the opinion of every US Citizen, but I hope you can see now why a lot of people are happy/relieved to see Monkeyboy go....

Edited for sake of clarity and to take out an ambiguous statement in favour of a more accurate one!

Reagan bombed Libya back in the 80s. We've been fighting terorists for awhile, just took a break during the Clinton adminstration, and did a poor job generally.

Lets just say it's an extraordinary coincidence that the IRA decommisioned in the aftermath of 9/11...

I thought it was before that. My IRA knowledge is minimal though. In a land filled with Guinness who has time for terrorism?

Blech. Guinness. Nasty nasty stuff. Gimme a pint of Hobgoblin Ale *anyday* of the week. I had 5 last night, and now want Thursday night drinkies to hurry up and arrive!

http://www.wychwood.co.uk/ Hurrah for Wychwood!

Frazzled wrote:I thought it was before that. My IRA knowledge is minimal though.

ish. The peace process started before that-- that's one of the things Clinton was doing instead of randomly bombing places.

They make a big show of support but don't actually support them.

QFT here. You'll note that despite the howls of protest and vast sums of cash swimming around many countries in that area they aren't as quick as they could--should ?-- to provide £/$ support for their "brethren".