Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 68

Thread: Blair's bombs

  1. #1
    Things Change Member JAG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    London, England.
    Posts
    11,058

    Default Blair's bombs

    John Pilger often writes a lot of sense, but I really enjoyed this article and I think it sums up the whole dire situation very well.

    No point posting a link to the article as it is off my New Statesman subscription, so I shall just post the article.

    In all the coverage of the bombing of London, a truth has struggled to be heard. With honourable exceptions, it has been said guardedly, apologetically. Occasionally, a member of the public has broken the silence, as an east Londoner did when he walked in front of a CNN camera crew and reporter in mid-platitude. "Iraq!" he said. "We invaded Iraq and what did we expect? Go on, say it."

    Alex Salmond tried to say it on Today on Radio 4. He was told he was speaking "in poor taste . . . before the bodies are even buried". George Galloway was lectured on Newsnight (BBC2) that he was being "crass". The inimitable Ken Livingstone contradicted his previous statement, which was that the invasion of Iraq would come home to London. With the exception of Galloway, not one so-called anti-war MP spoke out in clear, unequivocal English. The warmongers were allowed to fix the boundaries of public debate; one of the more idiotic, in the Guardian, called Blair "the world's leading statesman".

    And yet, like the man who interrupted CNN, people understand and know why, just as the majority of Britons oppose the war and believe Blair is a liar. This frightens the political elite. At a large media party I attended, many of the important guests uttered "Iraq" and "Blair" as a kind of catharsis for that which they dared not say professionally and publicly.

    The bombs of 7 July were Blair's bombs.

    Blair brought home to this country his and George W Bush's illegal, unprovoked and blood-soaked adventure in the Middle East. Were it not for his epic irresponsibility, the Londoners who died in the Tube and on the No 30 bus almost certainly would be alive today. This is what Livingstone ought to have said. To paraphrase perhaps the only challenging question put to Blair on the eve of the invasion (by John Humphrys), it is now surely beyond all doubt that the man is unfit to be Prime Minister.

    How much more evidence is needed? Before the invasion, Blair was warned by the Joint Intelligence Committee that "by far the greatest terrorist threat" to this country would be "heightened by military action against Iraq". He was warned by 79 per cent of Londoners who, according to a YouGov survey in February 2003, believed that a British attack on Iraq "would make a terrorist attack on London more likely". A month ago, a leaked, classified CIA report revealed that the invasion had turned Iraq into a focal point of terrorism. Before the invasion, said the CIA, Iraq "exported no terrorist threat to its neighbours" because Saddam Hussein was "implacably hostile to al-Qaeda".

    Now, a report by the Chatham House organisation, a "think-tank" deep within the British establishment, may well beckon Blair's coup de grace. Published on 18 July, it says there is "no doubt" the invasion of Iraq has "given a boost to the al-Qaeda network" in "propaganda, recruitment and fundraising" while providing an ideal targeting and training area for terrorists. "Riding pillion with a powerful ally" has cost Iraqi, American and British lives. The right-wing academic Paul Wilkinson, a voice of western power, was the principal author. Read between the lines, and it says the Prime Minister is now a serious liability. Those who run this country know he has committed a great crime; the "link" has been made.

    Blair's bunker-mantra is that there was terrorism long before the invasion, notably 11 September 2001. Anyone with an understanding of the painful history of the Middle East would not have been surprised by 11 September or by the bombings of Madrid and London, only that they had not happened earlier. I have reported the region for 35 years, and if I could describe in a word how millions of Arab and Muslim people felt, I would say "humiliated". When Egypt looked like winning back its captured territory in the 1973 war with Israel, I walked through jubilant crowds in Cairo: it felt as if the weight of history's humiliation had lifted. In a very Egyptian flourish, one man said to me, "We once chased cricket balls at the British Club. Now we are free."

    They were not free, of course. The Americans resupplied the Israeli army and they almost lost everything again. In Palestine, the humiliation of a captive people is Israeli policy. How many Palestinian babies have died at Israeli checkpoints after their mothers, bleeding and screaming in premature labour, have been forced to give birth beside the road at a military checkpoint with the lights of a hospital in the distance? How many old men have been forced to make obeisance to young Israeli conscripts? How many families have been blown to bits by American-supplied F-16s using British-supplied parts?



    The gravity of the bombing of London, said a BBC commentator, "can be measured by the fact that it marks Britain's first suicide bombing". What about Iraq? There were no suicide bombers in Iraq until Blair and Bush invaded. What about Palestine? There were no suicide bombers in Palestine until Ariel Sharon, an accredited war criminal sponsored by Bush and Blair, came to power. In the 1991 Gulf "war", American and British forces left more than 200,000 Iraqis dead and injured, and the infrastructure of their country in "an apocalyptic state", according to the United Nations. The subsequent embargo, designed and promoted by zealots in Washington and Whitehall, was not unlike a medieval siege. Denis Halliday, the United Nations official assigned to administer the near-starvation food allowance, called it "genocidal".

    I witnessed its consequences: tracts of southern Iraq contaminated with depleted uranium, and cluster bomblets waiting to explode. I watched dying children, some of the half a million infants whose deaths Unicef attributed to the embargo - deaths which the US secretary of state Madeleine Albright said were "worth it". In the west, this was hardly reported. Throughout the Muslim world, the bitterness was like a presence, its contagion reaching many young British-born Muslims.

    In 2001, in revenge for the killing of 3,000 people in the twin towers, more than 20,000 Muslims died in the Anglo-American invasion of Afghanistan. This was revealed by Jonathan Steele in the Guardian but never became news, to my knowledge. The attack on Iraq was the Rubicon, making the reprisal against Madrid and the bombing of London entirely predictable: this last "in response to the massacres carried out by Britain in Iraq and Afghanistan", claimed the Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda in Europe. Whether or not the claim was genuine, the reason was. Bush and Blair wanted a "war on terror" and they got it. Omitted from public discussion is that their state terror makes al-Qaeda's appear minuscule by comparison. More than 100,000 Iraqi men, woman and children have been killed not by suicide bombers, but by the Anglo-American "coalition", says a peer-reviewed study published in the Lancet, and largely ignored.

    In his poem "From Iraq", Michael Rosen wrote:

    We are the unfound
    We are uncounted
    You don't see the homes we made
    We're not even the small print or the bit in brackets . . .
    because we lived far from you . . .
    because you have cameras that point the other way . . .

    Imagine, for a moment, you are in the Iraqi city of Fallujah. It is an American police state, like a vast penned ghetto. Since April last year, the hospitals there have been subjec- ted to an American policy of collective punishment. Staff have been attacked by US marines, doctors have been shot, emer-gency medicines blocked. Children have been murdered in front of their families.

    Now imagine the same state of affairs imposed on the London hospitals that received the victims of the bombing. When will someone draw this parallel at one of Blair's staged "press conferences", at which he is allowed to emote for the cameras about "our values outlast[ing] theirs"? Silence is not journalism. In Fallujah, the people know "our values" only too well. And when will someone invite the obsequious Bob Geldof to explain why his hero's smoke-and-mirrors "debt cancellation" amounts to less than the money the Blair government spends in a week, brutalising Iraq?

    The hand-wringing over "whither Islam's soul" is another distraction. As an industrial killer, Christianity leaves Islam for dead. The cause of the current terrorism is neither religion nor hatred for "our way of life": it is political, requiring a political solution. It is injustice and double standards, which plant the deepest grievances. That, and the culpability of our leaders, and the "cameras that point the other way", are the core of it.

    On 19 July, while the BBC governors were holding their annual general meeting at Television Centre, an inspired group of British documentary film-makers met outside the main gates and conducted a series of news reports of the kind you do not see on television. Actors played famous reporters doing their "pieces to camera". The "stories" they reported included the targeting of the civilian population of Iraq, the application of the Nuremberg Principles to Iraq, America's illegal rewriting of the laws of Iraq, and theft of its resources through privatisation, the everyday torture and humiliation of ordinary people and the failure to protect Iraqis' archaeological and cultural heritage.

    Blair is using the London bombings to further deplete our rights and those of others, as Bush has done in America. Their goal is not security, but greater control. The memory of their victims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and elsewhere demands the renewal of our anger. The troops must come home. Nothing less is owed to those who died and suffered in London on 7 July, unnecessarily, and nothing less is owed to those whose lives are marked if this travesty endures.
    GARCIN: I "dreamt," you say. It was no dream. When I chose the hardest path, I made my choice deliberately. A man is what he wills himself to be.
    INEZ: Prove it. Prove it was no dream. It's what one does, and nothing else, that shows the stuff one's made of.
    GARCIN: I died too soon. I wasn't allowed time to - to do my deeds.
    INEZ: One always dies too soon - or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are - your life, and nothing else.

    Jean Paul Sartre - No Exit 1944

  2. #2
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,670

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Both New York and Bali were attacked prior to Iraq... Because I do not agree with a police state does not mean I agree with appeasement.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  3. #3
    Member Member Efrem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    414

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    If you think London was only bombed due to the war in Iraq you are insane. sept 11th and Bali were pre Iraq and Britain is just as Anglo as America and Australia.
    Viva La Rasa!!!

  4. #4

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Terriost were hitting The UK before, Remember "carlos the jackal" or something like that.
    Formerly ceasar010

  5. #5
    Lord of the House Flies Member Al Khalifah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Golden Caliphate
    Posts
    1,644

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    While we are uncertain of the likely cause of the bombings on the 7th of July, I suspect that one of the most likely reasons for the attack was the UKs participation in the Iraq War, but since Blair believes going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do, he should not blame himself for these terrorist attacks.

    I didn't think going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do, but I wouldn't blame Tony Blair for the terrorist attacks either.
    Cowardice is to run from the fear;
    Bravery is not to never feel the fear.
    Bravery is to be terrified as hell;
    But to hold the line anyway.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    If some one wrecks a car into you. Do you blame the company (blair) that made the car??? Of course not you blame the driver (terrorist) who ran into you.

    For some reason it seems like jag wants to blame the car company though
    Formerly ceasar010

  7. #7
    Senior Member Senior Member Ser Clegane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Running in circles in the white tower
    Posts
    6,604

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by ceasar010
    If some one wrecks a car into you. Do you blame the company (blair) that made the car??? Of course not you blame the driver (terrorist) who ran into you.

    For some reason it seems like jag wants to blame the car company though
    Actually sometimes you are blaming the company as well (see Ford)

    (sorry - that just was an open invitation for me to make a smart-ass comment)
    Last edited by Ser Clegane; 07-25-2005 at 12:54.

  8. #8
    Member Member Efrem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    414

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    This attack or something similar would have happened if Britain hadn't gone into Iraq. You were already a target. So please tell me how this is possibly Blair's fault??
    Viva La Rasa!!!

  9. #9
    The Sword of Rome Member Marcellus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Oxford/London
    Posts
    1,103

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by Efrem
    This attack or something similar would have happened if Britain hadn't gone into Iraq. You were already a target. So please tell me how this is possibly Blair's fault??
    Although it was quite likely that we would be attacked before Iraq, I think that the war significantly increased the likelihood of attack. However I don't think that Blair can be blamed directly for the acts of terror, only the terrorists can. I still believe that the war was wrong, anyway.
    Last edited by Marcellus; 07-25-2005 at 19:00. Reason: Clarification
    "Look Iíve got my old pledge card a bit battered and crumpled we said weíd provide more turches churches teachers and we have I can remember when people used to say the Japanese are better than us the Germans are better than us the French are better than us well itís great to be able to say weíre better than them I think Mr Kennedy well we all congratulate on his baby and the Tories are you remembering what Iím remembering boom and bust negative equity remember Mr Howard I mean are you thinking what Iím thinking Iím remembering itís all a bit wonky isnít it?"

    -Wise words from John Prescott

  10. #10

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    People are acting like london was never hit before by Any one but the nazis and the IRA. But what about carlos the jackal and all those people.


    Extremism was already attacking london long before july.
    Formerly ceasar010

  11. #11
    Member Member PyrrhusofEpirus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ioannina, Epirus, Greece
    Posts
    99

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Laden sent a message before US elections and he was asking something like this : "If Al queda hates western freedom, why does not attack Sweden?"
    Think about that. Don't get blind. Britain suffers from terrorists attack mainly because of Blair's participation in Iraqi war.
    Ούτε γαρ άρχειν Ούτε άρχεσθαι εθέλω

  12. #12

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    If any one pulls out of iraq then the terrorist have won. We need to stay there until it can some what defend itself like Israel.
    Formerly ceasar010

  13. #13
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,546

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    I think attack against Iraq wasnt a brightest of options.But listening to Al-Qaida would the most stupid thing to do.Al-Qaida is not some organization you can negotiate with.They are extremist madmen,and they should be dealt swiftly and mercylesly.
    Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.

  14. #14
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    So Blair is to blame for Terrorist attacks in England now is he. Let's see the authories in England believe that the individuals who did the act were citizens of England - not Iraq citizens.

    Great Logic being protrayed by the author of this article.

    Next he will be saying that the planes being flown into the WTC is Bush's fault and the Bali Bombings were the fault of the Aust. PM.

    So sad that its laughable.

    THe blame for the bombings of 7 July lays soley on the individuals that set off the explosions. Don't kid yourselves about the rest of it.

    One will first have to explain how individual who are British Citizens decided to set off the explosives - when its not even their nation that was invaded. Yep again the sterotypical logic on the part of the far left.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  15. #15
    Member Member PyrrhusofEpirus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ioannina, Epirus, Greece
    Posts
    99

    Unhappy Re: Blair's bombs

    If any one pulls out of iraq then the terrorist have won.
    Can anyone recall WWI? Can anyone recall the fanaticism of that age? The rival governments were saying exactly the same thing at the beginning of the war: "Yes the war is bad some people are killed, but if we compromise, the enemy will win. We can't accept that!" After two years of war, with over 6 million deads and many more blinded and invalids, everybody had comprehended the meaningless of the slaughtery.Only the paranoiac governments, blinded by their pride, was saying the same nonsense: "Yes the war is bad, some people are killed, but if we compromise, the enemy will win. We can't accept that!"(!!!). Finally, in 1918, Europe's people made the final account: 8 million deads and a totally destructed continent, because of that.
    Ούτε γαρ άρχειν Ούτε άρχεσθαι εθέλω

  16. #16

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by PyrrhusofEpirus
    Can anyone recall WWI? Can anyone recall the fanaticism of that age? The rival governments were saying exactly the same thing at the beginning of the war: "Yes the war is bad some people are killed, but if we compromise, the enemy will win. We can't accept that!" After two years of war, with over 6 million deads and many more blinded and invalids, everybody had comprehended the meaningless of the slaughtery.Only the paranoiac governments, blinded by their pride, was saying the same nonsense: "Yes the war is bad, some people are killed, but if we compromise, the enemy will win. We can't accept that!"(!!!). Finally, in 1918, Europe's people made the final account: 8 million deads and a totally destructed continent, because of that.

    You canít back down unless you want them to send more suicide bombers We need to win this war. It IS a war but most of the American people wonít treat it like one. They already made!@#$ing TV show about it
    Formerly ceasar010

  17. #17
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by PyrrhusofEpirus
    Can anyone recall WWI? Can anyone recall the fanaticism of that age? The rival governments were saying exactly the same thing at the beginning of the war: "Yes the war is bad some people are killed, but if we compromise, the enemy will win. We can't accept that!" After two years of war, with over 6 million deads and many more blinded and invalids, everybody had comprehended the meaningless of the slaughtery.Only the paranoiac governments, blinded by their pride, was saying the same nonsense: "Yes the war is bad, some people are killed, but if we compromise, the enemy will win. We can't accept that!"(!!!). Finally, in 1918, Europe's people made the final account: 8 million deads and a totally destructed continent, because of that.
    Lots more to WW1 then just that. It was the dying age of Imperialism in Europe. Nations that had great power in the previous century were on the decline and where willing to do anything to maintain their power. It wasn't just about gaining power - it was for many about maintaining what power they had.

    It was an age of old alliances and old hates between nations - nations that had been warring back and forth across the contient of Europe since the beginning of record history. FIrst as groups of people, then tribes of people and then finally as nations. Old hates and wrongs came to a bloody fruitation during this war. New age technology and old age military stragety. Brillant military tactics by some - slaughter tactics by others. An age rife with all kinds of things - not just fanatisicm.

    The war to end all wars has an interesting and fatally flawed build-up to esclation of warfare - however it was not quite what you are attempting to allude to here.

    Nor was it anything close to how this author is attempting to blame Blair for the actions of terrorists - home-grown at that - since they were British citizens in the first place.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  18. #18
    Member Member PyrrhusofEpirus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ioannina, Epirus, Greece
    Posts
    99

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Redleg,
    you are talking about the reason of the war and you are quite right about that. I'm talking about the effect to the Europe's people. The millions who died for a couple of hectares in swamp lands.
    Ούτε γαρ άρχειν Ούτε άρχεσθαι εθέλω

  19. #19
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,546

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by PyrrhusofEpirus
    Redleg,
    you are talking about the reason of the war and you are quite right about that. I'm talking about the effect to the Europe's people. The millions who died for a couple of hectares in swamp lands.
    But you know Pyrrhus of Epirus.Al Qaida wants us dead whether we are in Iraq or not.
    Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.

  20. #20
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by PyrrhusofEpirus
    Redleg,
    you are talking about the reason of the war and you are quite right about that. I'm talking about the effect to the Europe's people. The millions who died for a couple of hectares in swamp lands.
    That is not what you stated -

    Can anyone recall the fanaticism of that age? The rival governments were saying exactly the same thing at the beginning of the war: "Yes the war is bad some people are killed, but if we compromise, the enemy will win. We can't accept that!" After two years of war, with over 6 million deads and many more blinded and invalids, everybody had comprehended the meaningless of the slaughtery.Only the paranoiac governments, blinded by their pride, was saying the same nonsense.
    Fanaticism is not an effect of war on people. Fanaticism is an effect of the culture of the people that can cause conflict - or can stem from the conclusion of conflict. However notice the bold part of your intitial statement - you stated at the beginning of the war - so its not the effect of the war on the people - but how the people's and nation's desires effected the course to war. Major difference how people effect war - and how war effects them.

    Futhermore your conclusion is flawed because you are now attempting to state that it was an effect of war. No the effect of the war was the deaths - not the fanaticism. The effect of the war on the people's of Europe lead to the conditions of the raise of Facism in some nations, Communism in others, National Socialists in another - and basically all three forms falling into the traps of individual egomanics that became dictators - who then lead their nations into another conflict.

    And if you think WW1 was over a couple hectares of swamp land - your knowledge of history is indeed soley lacking - and the discussion is mote because you don't have the basis of knowledge to make the comparision that you just attempted between todays events and those events leading up to and thru WW1.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  21. #21
    Member Member PyrrhusofEpirus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ioannina, Epirus, Greece
    Posts
    99

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Fanaticism ammong with nationalism were running high in the begining of war. Deads was the effect of the war.
    Ούτε γαρ άρχειν Ούτε άρχεσθαι εθέλω

  22. #22
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by PyrrhusofEpirus
    Fanaticism ammong with nationalism were running high in the begining of war. Deads was the effect of the war.
    In that you are correct that death is the effect of war. As stated already fanaticism is just one of many contrubiting (SP) factors that lead to WW1. Besides nationalism and fanaticism can be and are often different things.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  23. #23
    Arena Senior Member Crazed Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Between the Mountain and the Sound
    Posts
    11,074
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    As I recall from the other thread, the fanatical religious leaders in Palestine hate Britain because Britain helped establish Israel.

    Bin Laden lists the Turk's defeat at Vienna (500 years ago, give or take) as a reason to destroy the west.

    Appeasement will not work. The US has tried it for almost 20 years, from 1983, and the terrorists did not cease attacking us. The terrorists want the complete and utter destruction of the west. Fools such as the author only serve to give credence to those who do nothing know, in the futile hope that, if the terrorists win, they won't destroy them too.

    Crazed Rabbit
    Ja Mata, Tosa.

    The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter Ė all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder

  24. #24
    Member Member Azi Tohak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Smallville USA.
    Posts
    971

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Bad Crazed Rabbit! Don't you see! It is your fault they keep attacking, not the terrorists. If only Reagan had followed JAGs advice and done whatever the terrorists wanted, I'm sure the world would be a much better place.

    No poverty, rainbows everywhere, Africa's largest export would not be terrible diseases...you know...all the things conservatives like me hate.

    Edit: Bin Laden is angry about something Vienna? Holy crap! I want more info on this!

    Azi
    "If you don't want to work, become a reporter. That awful power, the public opinion of the nation, was created by a horde of self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditch digging and shoemaking and fetched up journalism on their way to the poorhouse."
    Mark Twain 1881

  25. #25

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    If only Reagan had followed JAGs advice and done whatever the terrorists wanted, I'm sure the world would be a much better place.
    What do you mean Tohak ?
    Reagan was supporting and aiding these bastards back then .

  26. #26
    Corporate Hippie Member rasoforos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    2,713

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Great Article...


    I hate the way Blair is using this country as cannon fodder just to please Bush. What did we gain from all of it? What did we lose? As the article says these people would be alive now...


    And lets think for a bit what makes a terrorist. Is it a suicide mission or the weapons he will use? Not really... Its the blind violence and the intention to subdue people through fear.

    So what why is a GPS bomb that destroyed a residential area and killed hundreds less of an instrument of terror than a suicide bomber who killed the same amount in London? Is a Palestinian suicide bomber more or a terrorist than an Israeli tank sent against children armed with...rocks? Isnt Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay terrorism?

    There hasnt been a largest terrorist attack than what the US did to Iraq. What the US tried to do is make an example out of Iraq, towards its path of world domination. They are failing and losing day by day but this is another story. Isnt trying to scare people into submission terrorism? Of course it is...


    So, couldnt we see it coming? Couldnt we see that by attacking Iraq we would create a new global and almighty Al Qaeda and that we d give it millions of sympathisers and thousants of activists? Are we complaining because they do not immitate our tactics and use suicide bombs instead?...is that what makes us legal and them terrorists?

    Our terrorism has by far surpassed theirs. Hundreds of thousants died in Iraq, being killed directly by US and UK weapons or indirectly by the huge infant mortality rise and life expectancy drop... Yet only WTC is considered a tragedy by some.

    The week the London attacks occured, more than double this amount of people died by terrorism...11 people were detained inside a small track by the US troops until they died ( it barely made small print news ), innocent people who have to live in this hell state we created for them to 'liberate' them. Arent they humans as well? Or are they just numbers? Because its like numbers that we are treating them.....thus why do we call terrorists ' inhuman' and 'having no regard for human life' when they do the same? Are we more 'human' than the Iraqis?

    I sympathise the same for every victim of blind violence and I feel the same pain anguish and desperation about all victims, no matter if they died in New York, Iraq or London. Some people should try this too...it might change their life...

    ...and before someone smart tells me that I wouldnt say that if I wasnt there; well, I was. I was at Kings Cross station at the same moment the 4 terrorists arrived, If I was 10 minutes late I d be in the tube.
    Αξιζει φιλε να πεθανεις για ενα ονειρο, κι ας ειναι η φωτια του να σε καψει.

    http://grumpygreekguy.tumblr.com/

  27. #27
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    Yeha. Everyone knows the CIA was paying off the hostage-takers in the Iran Hostage thingamajig to not let them go, and then all of a sudden, not a day after Reagan is in office, he SOMEHOW manages to get the hostages free. BS. And, of course, Bush Sr. was in charge of the CIA at the time.
    Everyone knows - oh boy lets get the tin foil and duck tape.

    Don't believe me? More than one hostage was let out via separate negotiations with civilians who just wanted their family/friends/whatever back. Reagan was nothing but a corrupt power-monger, along the same vein as George W.
    This actually proves nothing other then that on the surface the government refused to negotate with kidnappers and terrorists. SO the corrupt power-monger charge will have to have more information and evidence to actually be proven. Don't let the hate for George W, cloud your ability to reason.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  28. #28
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by rasoforos
    Great Article...


    I hate the way Blair is using this country as cannon fodder just to please Bush. What did we gain from all of it? What did we lose? As the article says these people would be alive now...
    Laughable - and I seriousily doubt Blair is doing it just to please George Bush.

    And lets think for a bit what makes a terrorist. Is it a suicide mission or the weapons he will use? Not really... Its the blind violence and the intention to subdue people through fear.
    Yes indeed - probably the only thing that you have stated that makes absolute sense.

    So what why is a GPS bomb that destroyed a residential area and killed hundreds less of an instrument of terror than a suicide bomber who killed the same amount in London? Is a Palestinian suicide bomber more or a terrorist than an Israeli tank sent against children armed with...rocks? Isnt Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay terrorism?
    You might want to check into what terrorism is a little more.


    There hasnt been a largest terrorist attack than what the US did to Iraq. What the US tried to do is make an example out of Iraq, towards its path of world domination. They are failing and losing day by day but this is another story. Isnt trying to scare people into submission terrorism? Of course it is...
    Where is the tin foil and duct tape?

    So, couldnt we see it coming? Couldnt we see that by attacking Iraq we would create a new global and almighty Al Qaeda and that we d give it millions of sympathisers and thousants of activists? Are we complaining because they do not immitate our tactics and use suicide bombs instead?...is that what makes us legal and them terrorists?
    Then explain why the bombers of 7 July were British Citizens?

    Our terrorism has by far surpassed theirs. Hundreds of thousants died in Iraq, being killed directly by US and UK weapons or indirectly by the huge infant mortality rise and life expectancy drop... Yet only WTC is considered a tragedy by some.
    Again we need more tin foil and duct tape.

    The week the London attacks occured, more than double this amount of people died by terrorism...11 people were detained inside a small track by the US troops until they died ( it barely made small print news ), innocent people who have to live in this hell state we created for them to 'liberate' them. Arent they humans as well? Or are they just numbers? Because its like numbers that we are treating them.....thus why do we call terrorists ' inhuman' and 'having no regard for human life' when they do the same? Are we more 'human' than the Iraqis?
    We the west are no more human then anyone else. You actually answered your own question.

    I sympathise the same for every victim of blind violence and I feel the same pain anguish and desperation about all victims, no matter if they died in New York, Iraq or London. Some people should try this too...it might change their life...
    You might want to go preach at the center in England where the terror bombers of 7 July went to worship.

    ...and before someone smart tells me that I wouldnt say that if I wasnt there; well, I was. I was at Kings Cross station at the same moment the 4 terrorists arrived, If I was 10 minutes late I d be in the tube.
    And yet you want to blame Blair for the actions of british citizens in bombing and conducting terror attacks on their own country.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  29. #29
    Senior Member Senior Member The Black Ship's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Fl. † † USA
    Posts
    1,771

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    Yeha. Everyone knows the CIA was paying off the hostage-takers in the Iran Hostage thingamajig to not let them go, and then all of a sudden, not a day after Reagan is in office, he SOMEHOW manages to get the hostages free. BS. And, of course, Bush Sr. was in charge of the CIA at the time.

    Don't believe me? More than one hostage was let out via separate negotiations with civilians who just wanted their family/friends/whatever back. Reagan was nothing but a corrupt power-monger, along the same vein as George W.
    Ahem, Bush was director of the CIA from Jan. 1976 to Jan. 1977. Care to guess what year the hostages were taken?
    All we are saying....is give peas a chance - Jolly Green Giant

  30. #30

    Default Re: Blair's bombs

    What the US tried to do is make an example out of Iraq, towards its path of world domination.

    Oh yes thats exactly what we want to do. Jag can be kaiser's slave.


    That article is nothing but propoganda.
    Formerly ceasar010

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO