Attack in London Today

Brandon9000 wrote:

What if they use biological or nuclear weapons someday? Might you not wish you had been a little proactive?

This is so idiotically absurd, that it would be side-splittingly funny, coming from Mr. "OMG They're going to saw my head off as I scream"--were it not so tragically stupid.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, putative lead of "al Qaeda in Iraq" only became a part of al Qaeda because we invaded Iraq. A fanatical killer who ranted about Israel and the United States, he was nobody. You're nobody till somebody hates you--the invasion of Iraq was a gift to him. It gave him a career, it gave him international visibility--because it gave him a focus and a target.

Some of the monsters we face, and these days very likely most of them, we created ourselves when the criminal idiots in the White House cynically used the September 11th tragedy to forward the selfish and short-sighted, and idiotically inept, political agenda of the PNAC. We'll likely be paying the price for a long time to come.

0 Replies

TTF, I think you can be forgiven. It won't be long until the "question of Iraq" will be out in the open with this discussion. In fact, I have already a few articles on BBC where the Iraq war has already been mentioned. When something been the subject for most of the world for two or more years and the subject has been "has the war in Iraq made the world safer?" And then something like the tragic event in London happens, it is going to be on people's minds even if they feel crass in bringing it up for the few weeks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4663313.stm

I am not agreeing Mr. Galloway as all the evidence has not been in yet since this just happened just yesterday. Also, I don't think Iraq has anything directly to do with any terrorist actions as terrorist actions have been happening before Iraq and will continue to happen. I just don't think the Iraq has done too much good at deterring world wide terrorism. This sentiment is probably going to be the elephant in the room for a while.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Do we know the loss of life in London? Did they plan it to screw up the G-8?

How many explosions?

It's all in this thread: major incident in London

(The thread was started at the very first news of something having happened - way before the scope was clear - hence the name of the thread)

0 Replies

Hey ENDYMION

I think you will find if you reread my last post that I am not endorsing attacks on minorities. Hell, I'll quote myself so you don't have to go back

[/QUOTE]"Now I am not suggesting blanket oppression of minorities or people of other faiths and I am not suggesting creating new draconian laws."

Quote:

Do you really believe that Abu Hamsa and his ilk should be left alone?
Are you one of those liberal, apologists who pander to the evil beasts who plan and commit these crimes?

Just because I'm not an apologist it doesn't mean I'm a gunho neocon

0 Replies

Quote:

Are you one of those liberal, apologists who pander to the evil beasts who plan and commit these crimes?

Actually that would be me. I'm a panderer from way way back, you know, from before they changed the water by putting flouride in it. It ws the commies that did that and the world has never been the same.

0 Replies

Well, the British voted for war when they re-elected Blair, and now they've got it, not merely as spectators but as participants.

In my opinion, both the U.S. and England will be subjected to terror attacks so long as we occupy land in the Middle East. That the U.S. hasn't been attacked since 9/11 probably isn't so much because of deterrents by the Bush administration but because they haven't planned another attack. Bush's defenses are meagre at best; they could march an army across the Mexican border, and we wouldn't know it, and maybe they have already.

0 Replies

mark

0 Replies

Terror's collateral damage: the world's poor and chances to do something about climate change might end up victimised as well.

Quote:

Radio Netherlands Press Review Service

[..] Looking at the impact of the terrorist attacks on the G8 summit in Scotland, the Volkskrant reports, "The poverty and climate summit suddenly became a terrorism summit," and the paper says African leaders have expressed concern that they will indirectly be the victims of the London attacks. "And yet," says the Volkskrant, "it would be especially meaningful if the G8 were to translate into something tangible the 'ideology of compassion' that President Bush cites as an indispensable weapon in the war on terrorism."

On a similar note, the Algemeen Dagblad hopes that political leaders prevent terrorism "from pushing everything else off the international agenda, at precisely the moment when world leaders are finally taking a serious look at poverty and climate change".

0 Replies

Apparently, many still do not get it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/08/AR2005070800483_pf.html

"While all editorials condemned the onslaught, some linked it to Britain's part in the Iraq invasion or its backing for a U.S.-declared "war on terror," which, they said, ignores the injustice of occupation fueling militancy in the Middle East.

The Friday prayer preacher in Tehran said Britain, which has said Thursday's attacks bore the hallmarks of al Qaeda, should remember that Osama bin Laden's group was a U.S. creation."

Huh??? So it the Americans fault???? The terrorists were justified?????

0 Replies

Quote:

Thursday, July 7, 2005 1:55 p.m. EDT

John McCain: We Must Take the Fight to the Enemy

Sen. John McCain told Fox News today that the reason Americans should pay very close attention to what happened today in London is because "This is a grim reminder of the war that we continue to fight against people who want to destroy everything we and our friends across the Atlantic stand for and believe in."

Regarding our own homeland defenses, McCain told interviewer Shepard Smith, "We have made progress, we have a long way to go, and if we fail to take the fight to the enemy, the enemy will take the fight to us."

Smith pointed out to the senator that if someone wanted to take a weapon in a backpack onto any subway in the U.S., there would be no way to stop it. So, he asked, how do we remedy this?

McCain said that there is more we can do at our ports and rail stations, "but the moral of the story is, you can't fight them here.

"You've got to go where they're bred, and that happens to be in these madrassahs that are funded by the Saudis, where the [terrorists] are taught to hate and destroy the West and everything we stand for.

"We've got to go where these terrorists breed ... in the Middle East, with the followers of extreme Islamic fundamentalism.

"We can take preventive measures, but the best way to prevent these attacks is to go after them where they breed."

McCain also defended current U.S. foreign policy that is pushing democracy all over the world, saying, "Repressive and oppressive governments also provide the incentives for this kind of extremism and that's why we're fighting hard for Democracy in the Middle East, whether it be in Egypt or Iraq or any of these other Middle Eastern countries - that's why Afghanistan was so important."

McCain also doesn't believe the convoluted notion that we are somehow creating more terrorists by fighting them.

"These people were bent on our destruction [before] September 11 ... we had not had a war in Iraq at that time. ... It's clear that there is a breeding ground of radical Islamic extremism that predates anything the U.S. has done."

He added, "If you believe that Iraq is a breeding ground, then we should do everything we can to further the process of democracy and stability in Iraq."

0 Replies

John McCain wrote:

"If you believe that Iraq is a breeding ground, then we should do everything we can to further the process of democracy and stability in Iraq."

I haven't the least doubt of Mr. McCain's sincerity. He states, however, that radical Islamic extremism predates anything the U.S. has done. This ignores the entire history of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iran. We overthrew the democratically elected Persian government and installed a hated Shah who had been driven from the country. We propped up a two-bit, puppet King in Afganistan. When a democratically elected government overthrew that King, we supported the opposition, and the long-suffering Afghans have been in a state of civil war since 1963. When that resulted in a Marxist government, and the Soviets invaded, we funded bin Laden's "base"--al Qaeda--and trained his operatives. Since the successful revolution in Iran, we've done everything we could to demonize and destabilize the Persians. We funded Hussein to make war against them, and we created yet another monster.

If anyone believes that Iraq was a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism before we invaded, that anyone has not been paying attention. While the cowboy idiots in the White House bungle the military operations and make a sick joke of creating democratic stability in Iraq, bin Laden and al Qaeda go about their business, unmolested by us. We are reaping now what we've sown for more than half a century of short-sighted and greedy interference in the nations of southwest Asia. And the clowns in the White House have nothing on their agenda but the simple-minded and ill-considered agenda of the PNAC, which seems to think we can ride up San Juan Hill like Teddy Roosevelt, win a war in weeks and impose a Pax Americana on a grateful middle east, yearning for American style democracy and a consumer economy, which we will of course, sell to them at highly profitable rates.

Again, i consider Mr. McCain sincere, but i suggest that either he hasn't been paying attention, or he is more interested in forwarding the Party agenda.

0 Replies

it sounds like McCain might be running for president, you think?

0 Replies

I'd actually vote for him if he did, but then, i've always been cynical about the motives politicians have for what they say, and give little credence to their public positions. It's how they behave in office that counts.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

The Friday prayer preacher in Tehran said Britain, which has said Thursday's attacks bore the hallmarks of al Qaeda, should remember that Osama bin Laden's group was a U.S. creation."

Huh??? So it the Americans fault???? The terrorists were justified?????

Am I missing something here? That Iranian preacher was surely overstating his case on it being America's fault, but I see nothing here that says, suggests or implies that "the terrorists were justified".

The remark, I would assume, refers to how the US funded/supplied the group Osama was part of, back when it was still fighting Najibullah in Afghanistan. It overstates this reference by saying the US "created" Osama's group, but it's certainly true that the US boosted him a bit back then, in those crucial incipient days. I woulda thought that observing that wouldn't be more than a commonplace.

Meanwhile, if an Iranian preacher says Osama's group was a US creation, that's pretty much the opposite of justifying its actions, innit? I mean, Iranian preachers dont like the US much. So f anything its a way for him to repudiate the group.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:
McCain also doesn't believe the convoluted notion that we are somehow creating more terrorists by fighting them.

Heh. Nice bit of objective news reporting by Newsmax there.

(Objective would of course be: "McCain also believes the notion that we are somehow creating more terrorists by fighting them is convoluted".)

0 Replies

"We are reaping now what we've sown for more than half a century of short-sighted and greedy interference in the nations of southwest Asia."

"The remark, I would assume, refers to how the US funded/supplied the group Osama was part of, back when it was still fighting Najibullah in Afghanistan."

What a load of "huey". These types of comments lend jusitification to the actions of these cowards, as if we deserved it.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
McCain also doesn't believe the convoluted notion that we are somehow creating more terrorists by fighting them.

Heh. Nice bit of objective news reporting by Newsmax there.

(Objective would of course be: "McCain also believes the notion that we are somehow creating more terrorists by fighting them is convoluted".)

I would grow weary pointing out similarly "objective" comments in other MSM.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

"We are reaping now what we've sown for more than half a century of short-sighted and greedy interference in the nations of southwest Asia."

"The remark, I would assume, refers to how the US funded/supplied the group Osama was part of, back when it was still fighting Najibullah in Afghanistan."

What a load of "huey". These types of comments lend jusitification to the actions of these cowards, as if we deserved it.

So do you deny that the U.S. gov't supported bin Laden in the 1980s? Or that we supported Hussein at one time? Or that we've been long involved in supporting the House of Saud?

Do you deny that the history of U.S. involvement in the region is not one that has fostered a movement toward democracy?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

"We are reaping now what we've sown for more than half a century of short-sighted and greedy interference in the nations of southwest Asia."

"The remark, I would assume, refers to how the US funded/supplied the group Osama was part of, back when it was still fighting Najibullah in Afghanistan."

Oh great. Now we're pasting quotes to make them look like they referred to something completely different.

My remark (the second paragraph above) obviously referred to THIS here:

Quote:

The Friday prayer preacher in Tehran said Britain, which has said Thursday's attacks bore the hallmarks of al Qaeda, should remember that Osama bin Laden's group was a U.S. creation."

The preacher's assertion is that Osama's group is "a US creation". I think thats overstating it, but the US did fund/supply the group Osama was part of, back when it was still fighting Najibullah in Afghanistan.

<shrugs>

Anyway, apparently that Iranian preacher wants nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, considering how he's describing them as a US creation. Him not wanting to have anything to do with it is a good thing in my book. But we knew as much already, of course - Osama aint popular in Iran.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

woiyo wrote:
"We are reaping now what we've sown for more than half a century of short-sighted and greedy interference in the nations of southwest Asia."

"The remark, I would assume, refers to how the US funded/supplied the group Osama was part of, back when it was still fighting Najibullah in Afghanistan."

What a load of "huey". These types of comments lend jusitification to the actions of these cowards, as if we deserved it.

So do you deny that the U.S. gov't supported bin Laden in the 1980s? Or that we supported Hussein at one time? Or that we've been long involved in supporting the House of Saud?

I don't deny any of that. At that time, this govt felt is was the correct thing to do. Just as we allied with Russia in WW2.

Yet, it appears you use this ancient history as justification for the cowardly actions of the Islamic extremests today. By your twisted logic, maybe the Forme East German citizens should start blowing things up in Russia.

0 Replies

Attack in London Today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know