Actually if you know UK history you'd know that terrorism has been both religious (in the form of Protestant and Catholic conflicts), territorial (in the the form of sovereignty issues with places like Ireland and Scotland), as well as a variety of political intrigues and plots to balance out the power of the monarchy and the people.
Most older folks though remember the IRA bombings[1] as the most recent scourge.
I am familiar with UK History, ChuckMcM. There were really ugly periods. That's why I think that if anyone should actively be against terrorism, it's the UK ! And that's why I was surprized by the passivity of the Government with the likes of Abu Hamza in the streets calling for shedding the blood of the "unfaithful".
ok, I didn't get that from your original post but I understand the question.
My take on it is that the UK has tried a variety of reaction strategies to terrorist threats which have had varying levels of success. And the people have varying levels of trust in their government which then colors their interpretation of the actions a government might take and the reaction to their actions. In many ways I think the UK fears religious persecution more than most governments.
That makes sense. It's a really complex problem, it's really hard.
Here, there was a program for reconciliation. I mean, we've had it good for the last decade. It's really not the same anymore and there is peace, but the sequels are there.
And there are a whole bunch of new problems: What do you do with the children born in those terrorist families (because they lived wives and children in the mountains. These children were endoctrinated. What do you do with them).
The reconciliation program promised amnisty to terrorists who surrender. They were given money, etc, and immunity to start over.. But this brought other problems: When some of them don't have the decency to move away from where they started, and return to the very neighborhood they did some evil actions in. If you ever talk to them, you have big problems. This turned them into "business men" who are untouchable. And I let you imagine the frustration and resentment of the average citizen, especially the poor.
People will think "Heck, it pays to be a terrorist.. I should've killed some people to get those benefits, huh.."
There's also conflict with people in the military who sacrificed their lives and all, who gave an arm, a leg, an eye for the peace and who got nothing, to see these terrorists drive in beamers with immunity...
Not to mention that many who surrendered and who got benefits, money and situation... Eventually constitued back-up and provided supplies for the still-active ones. Some of them get busted, but you can easily make the case that "Once a terrorist, always a terrorist".
This gets contrasted by those who truly surrendered and repented. So you can't throw them all in one bin.
"That's why I think that if anyone should actively be against terrorism, it's the UK"
I hope that the one lesson that we as a country learned from the Troubles in Northern Ireland was that the strategy to deal with terrorists is actually to sit down and find out why they are so pissed off.
While I agree, in the case of NI it wasn't a mystery: an occupying force who enslaved the population [1], installed a settler population and terrorised the natives and ran an apartheid society using religion as a proxy for heritage, leaving in the 20C, an economic and politically disenfranchised majority.
Most older folks though remember the IRA bombings[1] as the most recent scourge.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Ar...