Terrorism in every day life affects many like in England where the irish cause terrorism on streets and should they ban St patricks day and other gathering to hault terror caused by terrorist's.What is your view on this subject.Should bans be placed on certain nationalities to stop terror.

Unfortunately Mattermotor, terrorism is not restricted to certain nationalities. It is present in almost every society. It's a continum, it starts off innocently enough, a view,an objection, a perspecive or a belief. When nobody listens it progresses to say, political lobbying, then perhaps peaceful protest, then often dissruptive or violent protest. After that you might see sabotage, e.g when some animal rights organisation in Australia poisions stock feed to prevent live animal exports, resulting in massive financial penalties and possible employment reduction for the live animal exporter. After that anything goes, Right to Life activists have placed bombs and shot doctors at abortion clinics in the US.

We have terrorism in our own societies so how can we place bans on others?

I lived and worked in London from 1978 to 1983, when the IRA were bomb and murdering in London.

I worked in Bond St, which runs between Piccadilly and Oxford St… there the IRA regularly planted bombs which killed any shoppers near them when they exploded. On the day of my interview to come to Australia, the IRA blew up the Bandstand in Green Park and also the Horse Guards and horses in the Serpentine,

I also got caught in a warning in a swimming pool where we had to evacuate the building still dripping wet and any number of trains were delayed or cancelled for IRA bombs on the railway line…

And all that because some selfish thugs, who had not been elected to power, had decided they were more “entitled” to force their will upon everyone else.

The IRA are absolute scum. The reason they negotiated in the end was because their domestic and US support base had turned against them and their income from drug dealing was not properly developed

The only thing to do with terrorists is hunt them down and kill them.

Like Israel did with those who killed the athletes in Munich in 1972
The Italians did with a lot of the Red Brigades,
The UK SAS did in the Iranian embassy siege in London
Etc
Rather than what the Yanks did when they made the mistake by imprisoning them to Guantanamo.

Like Margaret Thatcher said
“All attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail. It must be business as usual.”

And she was a regular target who knew what she was talking about.

I would disapprove of banning certain “nationalities”. That just presumes the innocent are as culpable as the guilty but banning certain organization which people are free to join is fair enough (Hamas and Hezbollah spring to mind).

But I do believe you should never negotiate until they have been decimated, are on their knees and crawling to the table. Otherwise you are merely giving them the oxygen of publicity for their cause.

The comment that " the Irish cause terrorism on the streets of England " is about as accurate as saying that the English caused terrorism on the streets of Northern Ireland in the many killings by the English forces during the period from 1969 until the recent peace in that part of Ireland . The most egregious example was the killing by English forces of 13 unarmed Irish civil rights demonstrators on 29 January 1969 [ " Bloody Sunday " ]in Londonderry .

The killing and mass rape by US forces of peaceful villagers at My Lai during the US aggression against Vietnam was another notorious example of terrorism . Yet , many of the contributors to online and print media can see terrorism only when it is committed by persons other than government - controlled forces .

The word " terrorism " has become so debased by biased usage that it is now meaningless and should no longer be used .

Col,

Could you please tell me more about Margaret Thatcher.

Houellebecq “Could you please tell me more about Margaret Thatcher.”

My knowledge of her is limited to that of an British elector and past member of the UK conservative party.

Margaret Thatcher was the daughter of a middle class family, her father was (I think) a retail shop owner.

The better source to learn from can be sourced from

http://www.amazon.com/Downing-Street-Years-Margaret-Thatcher/dp/1559948477

However, briefly,

She was someone who was very secure in herself and her ability to make decisions,Unlike the Krudd practice of refering everything to a committee of no-bodies to delay decision making.

She took on the corrupt UK coal mining union movement and won as did the liberals on the wharfs here

She privatized the nationalized industries before, Hawke, Keating and the liberals did here,
Thus she reduced the charges on the public purse and shook the inefficiencies out of the union strangled and moribund sheltered-workshops of the steel, telecomm, transport and a host of other nationalized industries

When an Argentinean Dictator decided to claim the Falklands, she sent British troops to repel them, where as the socialists said it should be left to the UN, in which case the illegal Argentinean invaders would still be there today.

Prior to becoming the first female Prime Minister of UK, she was in various cabinet posts and was responsible for introducing comprehensive schools and was also an early supporter of a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.

Her stoicism terrified the USSR… who named her the “Iron Lady”, a title which she warmed to…

She was an absolute believer in the right of people to aspire to their potential.

She was hated by the incompetent left

Her legacy includes a renegotiation of the British entry to the EU, which was bungled by the incompetent socialists who preceded her Prime ministership, a renegotiation which has resulted in a reimbursement of EU levies which have funded a lot of Major, Blair and Brown government spending programs since.

She was an IRA target but she never faltered from her resolve to defeat them.

She was exceptional as a person and political leader.

She sounds like an extraordinary woman Col. I'll bet she would never attempt socialism by stealth!

One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. While I agree that the word “terrorist” has been changed since Sept 11, like most things it’s how you look at history that defines it. America could very will performed an act of terrorism against the British at the Boston tea party. Is there a difference between a war crime and a terrorist act? Most people view a terrorist act as killing unarmed civilians, which would mean Allies carpet bombing Germany and Japan during WW2 also were act’s of terrorism. No matter what the view of terrorism is to each person it’s the same end result. Never before have the lives of so many been affected by the actions of a few men one day in 2001.
My personal view is that terrorism and terrorist have become “buzz words” for mainstream media and it now works. Very few people when they hear the word terrorist these days would ever think about Ireland or white Muslim in Chechnya, the word and the picture of an Arab now go hand in hand. It does not really concern me to be honest, I just want to get rid of them all so I no longer need to take my shoe’s off and throw away my nice bottled water before every flight!

http://www.ozpolitico.com

I commend the article "The War on Terror is a Hoax" by Paul Craig Roberts at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21906.htm http://911blogger.com/node/19290

Here is some of it:

According to US government propaganda, terrorist cells are spread throughout America, making it necessary for the government to spy on all Americans and violate most other constitutional protections. Among President Bush’s last words as he left office was the warning that America would soon be struck again by Muslim terrorists.

If America were infected with terrorists, we would not need the government to tell us. We would know it from events. As there are no events, the US government substitutes warnings in order to keep alive the fear that causes the public to accept pointless wars, the infringement of civil liberty, national ID cards, and inconveniences and harassments when they fly.

The most obvious indication that there are no terrorist cells is that not a single neocon has been assassinated.

...

Neocons do not have Secret Service protection. Dreadful to contemplate, but it would be child’s play for al Qaeda to assassinate any and every neocon. Yet, neocons move around freely, a good indication that the US does not have a terrorist problem.

If, as neocons constantly allege, terrorists can smuggle nuclear weapons or dirty bombs into the US with which to wreak havoc upon our cities, terrorists can acquire weapons with which to assassinate any neocon or former government official.

Yet, the neocons, who are the Americans most hated by Muslims, remain unscathed.

The “war on terror” is a hoax that fronts for American control of oil pipelines, the profits of the military-security complex, the assault on civil liberty by fomenters of a police state, and Israel's territorial expansion.

---

I was surprised to learn that Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary to the Treasury during Ronald Reagan's administration.

The "War on Terror" is no less a hoax in this country than it is in the US.

Terrorism takes many forms its not all bombs and suicide missions. Simply put Terrorism is the act of inflicting terror or fear into another. Bullying in schools is a form of terrorism along with many other examples through to the fanatical extremists. Why do people inflict terror on a victim? To make themselves feel big, superior.

Our much loved Greenpeace is openly committing acts of terrorism, sinking whaling ships in harbour all in the name of saving our planet (but what about the contaminants they put into the water by sinking the ship, oil, fuel etc) What spurs them on? Recognition. This recognition comes through media.

Australia Day riots in Gold Coast Burleigh Heads, the teens involved have promised it will be bigger and BETTER next year and it was advertised by every media avenue in Australia and many overseas. Next year will definitely be bigger with such advertising.

Fanatical extremists with middle eastern religious backgrounds are getting their own free advertising through the media, with advertising comes funding, more bombs, more guns and more recruits.

The effects of keeping media out? During the Apartheid years, how many of us new what was going on in South Africa? It was media lockdown and censoring.

With the free society we have a media lockdown wont take place, but a government enforced directive towards more responsible journalism is needed. It is not every australians right to be informed of how easy (and fun) it is for a hundred teenagers to riot(as in Burleigh Heads Australia Day) in a blatant act of disrespect, disrespect for the Police trying to control the crowd, disrespect for the many families who just wanted a peaceful day out, disrespect for the SurfLifesavers who selflessly do their job on public holidays for the good of the community, disrespect for Australia and what Australia stands for. In instances like this the media should stay away and let the police deal effectively with rioters, with necessary force without repraisal due to video footage shown to outrage by national media.

Fanatical Terrorism reports around the world should also be dealt with by the appropriate authorities without the media glorifying the extremist cause.

The terrorism supporting doctor who was charged, deported, exhonerated and handed cash settlement and allowed to reapply for entry, whats up with that? Send the Federal Police in and arrest, get what info out of him as necessary and send him back never to return. Keep the media out, dont allow justice to be swayed by a misinformed public

As for the debacle in the media over Mufti and his anti-australian comments, why was that ever published? Why didnt the Federal Police walk straight in and arrest the S.O.B. then send him back to the country he loves rather than let him stay in a country he obviously hates.

AUSTRALIA = LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!