Should Britain be part of America's "axis of evil?"

[bobbysands81]

According to the White House, America's 'War on Terrorism' makes "no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor terrorists. We are working to disrupt the flow of resources from states to terrorists while simultaneously end state sponsorship of terrorism."

Given that in her recent report, Nuala O'Loan found that the British security forces have supported, harboured and resourced terrorists* and that George Bush has said that " if you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist", should we now open the debate on whether we are going to allow Shannon to be used as a base for air strikes on London by the US Air Force?

It is clear that Britain should now be classed as part of America's "axis of evil".

Britain backs terrorism.



first quote taken from -
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/natio ... index.html (two thirds of the way down the page)

* For examples see pages 133-138 of O'Loan's Report
second quote taken from near the start of http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 406-3.html

[meriwether]

Y'see, there's a small distinction.
When we say the 'state', for instance, there is no evidence whatsoever that the orders for the Loyalist death squads came from the highest echelons of the British state. Special Branch are low ranking echelons.

Now contrast this with Iranian policy regarding funding or foreign extremists.

[Leftfemme22]

Y'see, there's a small distinction.
When we say the 'state', for instance, there is no evidence whatsoever that the orders for the Loyalist death squads came from the highest echelons of the British state. Special Branch are low ranking echelons.

Now contrast this with Iranian policy regarding funding or foreign extremists.

That is ridiculous
Special Branch cannot operate (in any capacity beyond a couple of rogue officers) without the funding/blessing/consent/direct orders of the higher echelons. The same is true of any regime, Iranian or otherwise.

[drbob1972]

well thats dumbest thread title well secured then

[Sidewinder]

"No evidence whatsoever" meri?

The British, at Cabinet level, knew the UDR was riddled with Loyalists in the early 70s. They did nothing to stop it, even encouraged it. On numerous occasions throughout the conflict, various British ministers stood up in the Commons to give nod-and-wink speeches giving the green light to assassinations and renewed campaigns of terrorism - Maudling and Finucane is only perhaps the most famous example. Read the transcript of Ted Heath's phone conversation with Jack Lynch on the night of Bloody Sunday. Read the strange case of the Littlejohn brothers, quietly shipped back to Britain after being caught on the request of the British Government at the highest level. The constant obstruction and downright lying - at Cabinet level - that goes on to this day over the Dublin-Monaghan bombings. There's evidence IIRC of the 1980s South African arms shipments being discussed at Cabinet level. And on and on and on.

The Brits were up to their necks in the conflict. They largely created it, fed it, sustained it over decades, had agents at the highest levels of all the paramilitary groups.

After all that has emerged in recent years, how anyone can still stand there and be wilfully blind to the very active and premeditated role the British Government played in the conflict is beyond me.

[Cael]

Certainly Britain qualifies as a terrorist state according to the US definition, as do the Yanks themselves.

[Akrasia]

Seeing as the U.S. regularly support and harbour terrorists of their own (Luis Posada Carriles, Cuban airline bomber) to name just one, means that they themselves are 'against us'

[farnaby]

Can't fault the logic - though I take bs81's argument more as a reductio ad absurdum argument against GWB's simplistic view of, well, everything than an attempt to influence US policy against Britain. Sometimes making two clear and opposite choices available is a sign of good leadership; sometimes ('with us or against us', terrorist/non-terrorist) it is bone-headed, counter-productive stupidity.

[meriwether]

Y'see, there's a small distinction.
When we say the 'state', for instance, there is no evidence whatsoever that the orders for the Loyalist death squads came from the highest echelons of the British state. Special Branch are low ranking echelons.

Now contrast this with Iranian policy regarding funding or foreign extremists.

That is ridiculous
Special Branch cannot operate (in any capacity beyond a couple of rogue officers) without the funding/blessing/consent/direct orders of the higher echelons. The same is true of any regime, Iranian or otherwise.

Why cant they?
Why cant they go out and shoot someone if they want to?
Whats stopping them?

[Leftfemme22]

Y'see, there's a small distinction.
When we say the 'state', for instance, there is no evidence whatsoever that the orders for the Loyalist death squads came from the highest echelons of the British state. Special Branch are low ranking echelons.

Now contrast this with Iranian policy regarding funding or foreign extremists.

That is ridiculous
Special Branch cannot operate (in any capacity beyond a couple of rogue officers) without the funding/blessing/consent/direct orders of the higher echelons. The same is true of any regime, Iranian or otherwise.

Why cant they?
Why cant they go out and shoot someone if they want to?
Whats stopping them?

Who said they couldn't? But that is hardly the Special Branch acting in a large operational basis now is it.

Special Branch are an instrument of the State. On matters of collusion they could not have continued for as long as they did without State resources and protection.