Site Search


Tuesday, 17 July 2007


I am sure that the vast majority of people born, raised and living in the UK abhor the violence and devastation left by extremist. car bombs, burning cars etc are all bad things that nobody should have to endure.

But, there is one burning question that has been in my head for a long time and I have asked many people who should know the answer but as yet have not been given a reply that makes any sense. Nor an answer that has an ounce of truth in it.

I will state categorically, I abhor any violence. Terrorist activity or wars. I am in no way condoning these actions nor the groups involved.

The I.R.A who during the 70's and early 80's raged terrorist activities against mainland Britain caused much worse damage then the current terrorist activity and yet today there is billions of pounds being spent on infiltrating, getting to know and hopefully stopping todays terrorists. This money is more, much much more than what was spent on doing the same back in the 70's and 80's. Why?

The carnage and devastation caused by terrorists back then was much worse than anything we have seen in recent years and yet we have spent much more money on curbing these recent atrocities. Why?

I will say it again.

In terrorist terms recent events have no been a patch on those of the 70's and 80's in terms of devastation and carnage so, why the sudden raise in monies?

I can make assumptions but they are probably way off base and could be seen as being from someone who is paranoid. Neither of which are true or correct.

The question is simple and yet no one who should be able to offer an answer does so which makes it look like they are building up defenses on the back of something that is really, in terrorist terms, no threat but in the name of safety of our citizens we shall remove a few freedoms.

And that is what I think all this boils down to. Curtailing freedoms. Not anti-terrorism.


Anonymous said...

Follow the money is the formula that often reveals the truth.

Jeepster said...

Yes. That is probably correct.