HAY-ON-WYE (Reuters) - Prime minister-in-waiting Gordon Brown said on Saturday terrorism could only be beaten by persuading ordinary people not to be seduced by its lure Brown, who takes over from Tony Blair at the end of next month, told an audience of 1,200 people at the Hay-on-Wye literature festival that the battle could not be won solely by military means. "We can only win it at the level of hearts and minds," he said. "We have got to persuade people that supporting moderates is better than supporting people arguing for violence." Blair's support for the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has undermined his popularity after a decade in power. Brown said he accepted responsibility for actions taken by the government he served for 10 years as finance minister but added he wanted Britons to be more involved in decisions on issues such as security and the environment. "There has got to be a new contract between the individual citizen and the government," he said. "People must have a bigger right to be involved in the decisions that affect their lives." Brown said he would propose measures to usher in a "national debate" soon but gave no details. He was at the festival to promote his latest book, "Courage" -- portraits of eight of his heroes, including former South African President Nelson Mandela, U.S. civil rights campaigner Martin Luther King and Myanmar pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
Brown pressed on military action in Iran LONDON (AFP) - Prime minister-in-waiting Gordon Brown refused Saturday to rule out military action against Iran over its programme of nuclear enrichment, the BBC reported. Brown, seen as less hawkish than outgoing premier Tony Blair, said he believed that the Iranian nuclear row could be settled through "multi-lateral pressure." Speaking in Bristol at a hustings event for the Labour party leadership, which he has already won, and deputy leadership, Brown was pressed on whether he would rule out military action. But he would not give such an assurance, the broadcaster said. The Press Association news agency reported Brown had called for a "peaceful settlement" to the situation and replied that multi-lateral action and economic sanctions were the best way forward when asked about the military option. The United States has not ruled out taking military action against Iran over the disputed nuclear programme, while Britain has said that the use of force is not on the agenda. Last week, Washington threatened new UN sanctions after the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency found that despite earlier measures, Iran continues to enrich uranium. Iran denies any suggestion that it wants to develop nuclear weapons and insists its programme is for peaceful purposes. Brown is due to replace Blair, who has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States in neighbouring Iraq, on June 27.
Nothing can defeat beat terrorism. Except maybe the end of the world or something but thats going to defeat us all.
I agree with you there Frost....it is impossible to defeat terrorism without the destruction of the entire planet and human race sadly enough.
Which may come sooner than expected according to doom sayers who predict the world to end in 2012!! I thought it was strange though, some of their reasons. The Mayan Calander ending. Some great particle shifter thing in Europe being fired off in 2012 with the possibility of turning our galaxy into a miniature black-hole. Polar shift. The polar shift amused me the most though; it's said that while this happens it basically becomes so devestatingly uninhabitable on earth that our skin would crumple in seconds etc. But that of course begs the question, why hasnt evolution had to start again every 100,000 years? Heheh. Doomsayers.
oh yay for that then....I think that they need to find something better to do with their lives other than try and predict the future...no one can predict the future, the sooner they realise that the better off everyone will be...
There are always doomsayers, and always will be. And yet, amazingly, the world is still here, imperfect but still struggling forward. Terrorism can no more be eradicated than can murder. As long as there is one sufficiently disenchanted person, and another for him or her to blame, there will always be acts of violence. As long as people attempt to communicate and find a common ground, however, setting aside fear and hate to try to understand one another, there is hope of defusing some of the situations. That, in my opinion, is the best we can strive towards.
Yes but what is the actual possibly of that happening? I mean seriously all they ever seem to think is going to work is irradication, they think with a big boom stick and not rationally with their brains.
Every person who dares to look beyond his or her fear to listen to and try to understand the heart of "the enemy" takes a small step toward peace. You know what they say about a journey of a thousand miles.
Well lets just hope that eventually they begin to start thinking about those kinds of methods for a change. Something that doesn't involve weapons for a change would be good.
The thing is though that they don't want change. It's called terrorism for a reason. The problem is that terrorists don't think like the rest of the world. Terrorists want domination. Terrorists don't want equallity. Generally they dont do negotiations, although Hamaas in Lebanon did for a while, but that was to protect themselves, not Lebanon. In general, terrorists don't want peace. Thats why their terrorists.
Terrorism isn't even effective. I mean, have Al-Qaeda succeeded in protecting Islam? I don't think so, if anything they've made life harder for Muslims all around the world. Terrorists are unwilling to compromise with other groups, and so will never get what they want. They, like a lot of other people, labour under the woefully misguided belief that peace can be achieved by use of weapons.
Thats what Im saying. They're unreasonable, so set in their beliefs. They're just a fact of life now.
Its not fair though on all those people murdered at 9/11 that was horrific and blatant evil yet something at times aspires others to act like on the flight 93 my hat goes off to those who took down that plane knowing that they would die in the cost. But yes terrorists are very evil with no regard to human life they even send their children in with bombs attached to them. Its wrong and because we are dealing with people like that it will go on until the end of time. weapons seem to be our only real protection against these evil people. It scares me that on day i catch a train it will be the last day i draw breath or that some sicko with a sniper rifle takes a pot shot at me or the person next to me or even the person im in love with. its happened before and will happen again. its just not right and its not nice but our governments don't really do anything to protect us more so they do it for themselves.
Sadly a great deal of trouble is when the soldiers go off to stop these terrorists the green lovers start up partitions to stop them and say leave these people alone. myself what bothers me is so there saying yeah leave them alone and let them kill us and bomb us.
I think it is simplistic to label the terrorists evil. They believe that their targets are a theat to their belief system, and are committed to do whatever is necessary to eliminate the threat. Many suicide bombers are manipulated into their acts by leaders who would never sacrifice themselves for "the cause". I could accept a label of evil for those leaders, even though the very word makes me itch. However, I am not at all "green". I have no compunctions about using lethal force against any terrorist. Still, if it were possible to communicate with the terrorist before he or she becomes an iminent threat, I would choose that course instead.
The same could be said of the Nazis and their 'Final Solution'. I don't disagree with you on principle, since I think that evil is a social label which is applied by observers. But I do think that killing people is wrong, unless it can definitely not be avoided.
Killing people is wrong but sometimes its the necessary evil to kill those that would kill others. for eg 9/11 if those hijackers couild have been killed before they got on the plane then a great many lives would have been saved. Sometimes though its the soldiers that receive much of the blame for gunning down the terrorists before they commit but it really is necessary at times to do so. The worst thing is for one human to take another’s life but somewhere we have to make the decision to kill before being killed its horrible but its a fact. If someone was going to kill someone very close to you and the only thing you could do to stop them was kill them before they killed then think would you really leave them to it?
I don't even need to think about that one. I would kill to protect myself and my loved ones. But I also fervently pray I never am in that position. I've been close enough to it as it is.
Well I was once a soldier and i can tell you for fact that it scared me more than anything the thought of taking anothers life. But if i had to i would have. Thankfully i never did. But i still believe that sometimes the only way is to take them before they do the harm. Alot of soldiers in Austrailia and Great Britan take alot of flak for going on peace keeping tours and sometimes they get involved in fire fights that kill children armed with bombs and guns. But bear in mind they do this to prevent a mass loss of life.
