where did it start?
before i start, i do not and will not agree with terrorist actions, but one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. eg. when the Checen (that place Russia keep fighting with) terrorists took over a hospital, killed patients and doctors then people in the street, the BBC reported them as Checen freedom fighters. and if that isn't terrorism what is?
alas i digress. just curious you said that the british press have become blaise (yeah i spelt it wrong too) about terrorism. they haven't and never will, becuase no newspaper/TV station can resist sensationalism to sell papers. every reporter, editor, newspaper, TV station, every person has a motive too. otherwise why would there even be terrorism. why else would they refer to troops as 'innocent troops'. i'm not saying it is good to kill troops but no soldier is ever innocent, they are an implement of war. calling troops innocent is the same as calling terrorists innocent, it's just your view point on it.
thr troubles in Northern Ireland look like they are comming to an end (the IRA said they were decomissioning this evening). but everyone forgets the reason Northern Ireland is such a hot bed. it dates back to the British invasion of Ireland, the subsequent occupation, war of independance, and then division of the country. the modernday IRA, are not the IRA, the modern IRA are terrorists and aren't worth the soles of the shoes of the men who fought for an independant Ireland. yet the orriginal IRA are terrorists to Britain, let me ask you this are the Americans who fought for the independance of America considered terrorists (sorrt American's i don't know the names of the organisations). the answer is no, the British press labled them terrorists because it suited them. the real terrorists were sponsered by the British (eg the Blackened Hands and the Auxilaries). and i bet they don't mention them in the British history books.
but getting back to 9th of the 11th. that was caused because of Israel (i know i spelt it wrong, sorry). this is probably the hardest question of our times, what to do with the middle east. does the west back Israel even tho a very aggressive leader is in palce (there is no arguement, Sharon is stirring it up at the moment) or does it back the repressed people of Palestine. it's a hard choice and i'm glad i'm not making it.
but a little bit of info. Muslims in Britain demand the right to build Mosques, i have no problem with this, there is more than enough room in Britain for them. but it is ILLEGAL to spread christianity in the Muslim countries, be that churches or whatever. so how is that fair? and another thing, people like the man on Channel 4 news a few weeks ago saying that he will make Britain a Muslim country are really good at p***ing off the majority of the population. fianally do the assylm seekers in Callais (yea i spelt it wrong) really expect to be tollerated if they stab a French Red-Cross worker who asked them not to celebrate the attacks on WTC.
final point, i promise. America and Britain aren't that wonderful either. America tried to exterminate the Native Americans, the British tried the same in the Irish famine (don't try to deny this because Queen Victoria said that an Irish man on the banks on the Shannon will be as rare as an Indian on the banks of the Hudson (or some other big American river)) Middle ages Europe also brutally attacked the Muslim world, the Crusades.
i'm not trying to judge any country here, and i feel everyone's point is valuable, but everyone has to be taken into account, after all we live in (semi, for Britain) democracy. and before you attack me for not supporting the strikes in Afghanistan, i do support them and i think the people of the US and UK should back up their men and women out there. but you have to let the anti-war people have their say too (just don't let hard liner Muslims hi-jack your next rally, CND
)
keep friendly, keep tollerance, keep 'balling
