Share Poll

Poll link

Copy

Embed Widget

Widget width

500 px
350 px
250 px
Custom
Copy
Preview

Embedded widget preview:

Width - px Height - px

Close preview
! You are using a non-supported browser Your browser version is not optimised for Toluna, we recommend that you install the latest version Upgrade
We may place cookies on your computer to help us make this website better. To find out more about the cookies and select the types of cookies that you accept see our Privacy Policy

carisacoley is using Toluna to create cool content and you can too by signing up now.


carisacoley

22 months ago

something none of our political parties have explained to my satisfaction.
Closed

Al Qaeda linked groups the world over are referred to as 'terrorists'. Apart from Syria, where they are referred to as rebels who need our support against Assad.

Any opinions?
Reply

pennytuson

  22 months ago
none
0 comments

nuttall38

  22 months ago
no
0 comments

nuttall38

  22 months ago
no vommemtd.
0 comments

carisacoley

  22 months ago
there is a difference between what the press are saying and what the politicians are saying. The press have reported AQ and Islamist involvement, atrocities and possible use of nerve gas (UN report from May) which the politicians simply choose to ignore. I find it incredible that we are prepared to help and (if the UN allows it) carry out airstrikes in support of groups backed by the perpetrators of 9/11, 7/7, Madrid and many other terrorist acts.
4 comments

bobgrason

  22 months ago
its true, Al Qaeda linked groups the world over are referred to as terrorists unless our government wants them to win, or at least take power. When Iran and Iraq went to war in the last century, the American ambassador, although nominally supporting Iraq, made it clear that the ideal situation would be that they both lose. When one looks at the western European and American attitude to the so called Arab spring a very similar idea is in evidence. Particularly in Egypt, although broadly supporting the removal of Hosni Mubarak, in no way could they support the Muslim brotherhood, Mussi was therefor on borrowed time from the beginning. In Tunisia and Libya the jury is still out. As for Syria the world waits with bated breath, but should it be a pro-Islamic anti western government that emerges then it will be branded a terrorist, or terrorist inspired rogue state and treated accordingly
0 comments

macmac3

  22 months ago
no you have got it wrong if you listened to what has been reported then you would have notest that the original uprising was started by the people then was taken over by the brotherhood a terrorist group linked to al Qaeda this has allways been reported hence we have a problem if we arm the people of Syria then we arm the terrorists groups that have flocked to Syria , that then may use are own arms on us
0 comments

arrietypod

  22 months ago
Perhaps the Syrian rebels are not actually linked to Al Qaeda?
0 comments

flossiefrompike

  22 months ago
Yes it is confusing. Since Al Qaeda here are amongst the mob indirectly opposing the bad guys Russia and Iran, then they naturally become the good guys and we've got to send them as much money and weapons as poss., much like we did for them a few years back when Russia was having its own go at Afghanistan. Course all this subtlety is lost on these guys themselves, or anybody come to that, since they would cheerfully bop anybody within bopping distance but preferably anybody not of a muslim persuasion. So it's a short lived popularity and once we've satisfactorily done away with Iran or anybody else who's got something we want or even looks a bit fishy, they'll presumably get to be be the good old bad guy terrorists again and we can all start blowing up somewhere else. A sort of grizzly perpetual motion that just keeps feeding itself, probably only ending when somebody realises who the real bad guys are. Not just anybody can be a diplomat juggling world intrigues though, you've got to go to a special school and have loads of influential friends. Anything between the ears an optional extra
0 comments

trevjohn

  22 months ago
There's a periodic definition flip-flop re- freedom fighter vs terrorist by predator states who feel they'll gain favour from regime change. They then often gang-up to facilitate their ambition.
.
For an excellent analysis potted in an 8 minute TV interview, in his show 'Double Standards' (at PressTV.ir) Afshin Rattansi interviewed Pepe Escobar, a well seasoned Brazilian reporter and author.
.
The programme aired around Jan 20 2013. I have it recorded, but there's still a transcript here: http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/285701.html
0 comments

LizWindsor

  22 months ago
Politicians call rebel groups' terrorists' if they want us to hate them and 'freedom fighters' if they want us to support them, other than that there's no difference. It's about the way they use language to try and control the way we think. Another example is the way foreigners legally living & working here are 'immigrants' but British people doing the same abroad are 'ex-pats'.
0 comments

Related polls and topics


Closed

Share by email

Add contacts


Cancel
Send

You’re almost there

In order to create content on the community

Complete your registration
Verify your Email / resend
No thanks, I’m just looking

OK
Cancel
We're working on it...
When you upload a picture, our site looks better.
Upload
Maybe Later...