The West can only contain not defeat militant groups such as al-Qaeda, the head of the UK's armed forces has said.
General Sir David Richards, a former Nato commander in Afghanistan, said Islamist militancy would pose a threat to the UK for at least 30 years.
But he told the Sunday Telegraph newspaper a clear-cut victory over militants was not achievable.
The BBC's Frank Gardner said the comments reflect a "new realism" in UK and US counter-terrorism circles.
Our security correspondent said such an admission five years ago might have been considered outrageous and defeatist.
Gen Richards, 58, took over as chief of the defence staff last month, after a spell as head of the British army. ...
In his Sunday Telegraph interview, Gen Richards expressed confidence that al-Qaeda could be contained to such an extent that Britons could lead secure lives. ...
via BBC News - West cannot defeat al-Qaeda, says UK forces chief.
Link number two right now after a Google search for "who created al qaeda" says that "the West" is responsible, not only for creating al-Qaeda during the Soviet-Afghan war and for training the mujahideen to fight the Soviet Union, but also for continuing collaboration. Michel Chossudovsky, an economics professor at the University of Ottawa in Canada who thinks the US will start WWIII by attacking Iran, has this to say:
"Blowback is when an intelligence asset goes against its sponsors.
That viewpoint s incorrect because in the course of the 1990s there’s ample evidence of links between al-Qaeda and the U.S. administration, during the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration, leading up in fact to 2001. There’s evidence of active collaboration between al-Qaeda paramilitary groups in the Balkans and senior U.S. military advisers." - link
This conspiracy theory could just be the result of the difficulty for CIA in handling the monster it created. I suspect the truth is both dirty and complicated, but if Chossudovsky happened to be correct when you boil it all down, the UK forces chief would be saying above that the West can not defeat itself... An amusing inside joke.
World War III would really suck. Let's not do that.
2 comments:
When I first read Michel Chossudovsky, I thought, Wow! this guy is way off! But, the more I read him and the more I compared what he said to other thoughtful writers (not entertaining TV politicians and political pundits), who I know, respect and depend, I've come to the conclusion that Chossudovsky is probably correct.
I don't think, we'll have a WWIII immediately after U.S., U.K., and allies attack Iran, but it will be a war, nonetheless. It will be a nuclear war, at the very least from the use bunker busters. The U.S. has already stockpiled 300+ of these small nucs in the Middle East in the preparation for war. How far the war progresses after the initial phase, depends on how Iran responds.
However, because Iran is no puppy in the Middle East and because it has made alliances, of a sort, with Russia and China, as well as Venezuela etc., the U.S., Israel and U.K. may initiate their attack with a large nuclear weapon in an attempt to offset Iran's et al. response.
Actually, what we see today is not only the results of terrorists that the U.S. help create, as Chossudovsky pointed out. It has deeper, but less sinister roots as in the way all evil things begin. It goes back much further. It is the result of the business of making profit from war, the industrial-military-complex that President Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address to the nation in the 1950s.
Please Pray, whatever you want, for Peace. The world can do with whole more of it. (Besides that nothing could be worse than war for an already environmentally dying planet.)
as al-Qaeda is a bit threat for culture but i think they are not the only problem for human being. American gogernment should be more peaceful.
Post a Comment