What is the Criteria for ‘Intervention’ on Terrorism? Crude Oil?

Montage of the War on Terror.

Image via Wikipedia

Look into the eyes of this man… through the shades and past the balaclava.

He is not Muslim. He is supposedly ‘Christian’.

This is the REAL face of the terrorism in the UK.

Northern Ireland terror threat at ‘severe’ level.I think it is official. The needle has stuck in this record.

I’m sorry to say I don’t take things like this as seriously as I should, having grown up here and heard this on an almost daily basis. However, that said. I know the threat is real.

So, it angers me to think that the USA are so quick to get involved in the Middle East and the so called ‘war on terror‘ but since Bill Clinton have not bothered their asses with the real threat geographically closer to home.  Now, I don’t want the USA to get their weapons out and march on Northern Ireland – far from it – but you get my point. How can they decide the level of threat to intervene?

You might argue, well the Middle East (to be generic) is more of a global threat to terrorism. I disagree. The dissident IRA are not a force to be taken lightly. They are too caught up in localities to widen their reach, but they have the potential…. isn’t that pretty much all the Middle East did..? Look also at the Spanish dissidents ETA. The USA haven’t been too interested when there have been flare ups there either.

So my question here is, what is the ideal criteria for ‘intervention’ on terrorism?

Northern Ireland have been subject to civil war and dissident terrorism for decades longer than I have been alive, yet it seems to be just brused under the carpet. I don’t think forcible intervention is the solution here, the closest anyone has come to a well meaning attempt to ‘fix’ things have been the Clintons with their attempt at diplomacy – real diplomacy, but Bush followed that through with a swift sideline to ‘larger terror forces’ and suddenly it’s as if the problems never existed.

Clearly this ‘case by case’ scenario approach is not working.

That’s right… we cant fix it easily, or by bombing an allied force, so lets just pretend it’s not happening.

Score USA… score.

Source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/06/northern-irish-terror-threat-severe

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Categories: Beliefs, Morals, Events, Politics, Law

Author:Lou

Digital and Comms nerd working in an INGO. PhD researcher (technology / gender / International development / fragile and conflict affected states / South Sudan). Bibliophile. Writer. Musician. Views my own.

Subscribe to Intentious

Be notified by email whenever new pieces are posted by the blogging team tackling controversial current events or issues.

3 Comments on “What is the Criteria for ‘Intervention’ on Terrorism? Crude Oil?”

  1. February 7, 2011 at 10:20 am #

    So true. And what about the genocide and terrorism all over Africa, leading to swarms of immigration. Happy to let that slide. Yet if the US or any so-called “peace protecting” nation steps in and intervenes in the IRA, what would happen? IRA dissidents worldwide would start sending “warnings” to the rest of the West by bombing targets outside Northern Ireland, just like Muslim extremists are doing. I think the US have a secret cable somewhere on the Middle East that says “we majorly fucked up, but it’s too late to back out. Lets never fuckin’ get publicly involved in another terrorist organisation again… unless they have oil”

  2. February 7, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    Hey Lou,

    Nice reminder that there are many different terrorist groups in the world, not just Islamist ones. When the Red Army Faction were terrorising the living daylight out of West Germany during the cold war, the authorities did all they could to keep the group secret and out of the public eye. Likewise the FBI were so embarrassed by their inability to catch the Weather Underground in the USA they’d rather people not know that they only arrested them because they turned themselves in after being on the run for 20 years! What is different about this “war on terror” is that it is being used by governments to scare the electorate while they actually aren’t trying very hard at all to get to the root cause of the ‘new’ terrorism. In the past governments were all action about fighting terrorists (communist terrorists that is) but seldom did they talk about them as much as Bush did because talking about them only encouraged them because it scared the public to see them taken so seriously by politicians.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Tweets that mention What is the Ideal Criteria for ‘Intervention’ on Terrorism? « Intentious -- Topsy.com - February 7, 2011

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Åñďŗēŵ, Lou. Lou said: What is the Ideal Criteria for 'Intervention' on Terrorism?: http://t.co/duwKpWQ […]

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: