Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Looks like I may have spoken too soon. This isn't the fault of the terrorists! It's the fault of the Americans, just like every other problem on earth! :rolleyes:

    I knew that it was only a matter of time before people started blaming the US for the attack. From the pages of the Guardian:

    "And in the privacy of their extensive suites, yesterday's atrocities should prompt heart-searching among some of those present. President Bush is given to justifying the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that by fighting terrorism abroad, it protects the west from having to fight terrorists at home. Whatever else can be said in defence of the war in Iraq today, it cannot be claimed that it has protected us from terrorism on our soil."
    Well, could you explain to me how that Guardian quote is incorrect?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Looks like I may have spoken too soon. This isn't the fault of the terrorists! It's the fault of the Americans, just like every other problem on earth! :rolleyes:

    I knew that it was only a matter of time before people started blaming the US for the attack. From the pages of the Guardian:

    "And in the privacy of their extensive suites, yesterday's atrocities should prompt heart-searching among some of those present. President Bush is given to justifying the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that by fighting terrorism abroad, it protects the west from having to fight terrorists at home. Whatever else can be said in defence of the war in Iraq today, it cannot be claimed that it has protected us from terrorism on our soil."
    The Times yesterday had an article criticising George Galloway for his opinions on the situtation, followed by an article penned by one of their journalists saying exactly the same things as Galloway!

    When a country suffers such atrocities they naturally close ranks against anyone they consider in the slightest way responsible - even if it's the USA!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Looks like I may have spoken too soon. This isn't the fault of the terrorists! It's the fault of the Americans, just like every other problem on earth! :rolleyes:

    I knew that it was only a matter of time before people started blaming the US for the attack. From the pages of the Guardian:

    "And in the privacy of their extensive suites, yesterday's atrocities should prompt heart-searching among some of those present. President Bush is given to justifying the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that by fighting terrorism abroad, it protects the west from having to fight terrorists at home. Whatever else can be said in defence of the war in Iraq today, it cannot be claimed that it has protected us from terrorism on our soil."
    I thought perhaps these attacks might have made people think, but after the 48hours of solidarity, the same people are back to the same narrow minded arguments.

    Perhaps the Guardian would like to tell me how,

    i) We can defend against terrorism 100% of the time, from the safety of our shores. Any ideas? Because our government and security services havent got any.

    ii) We stop rogue nations with chemical and biological materials giving Al-Qaeda something so nasty that 500 or 5000 or 50000 could have been the number of dead on thursday.

    Of course, The Guardian like many others CHOOSE TO BELIEVE AL-QAEDA, a set of murdering terrorist fanatics, when they tell us this is because of Iraq. Perhaps Al-Guardian would like to tell me why Al-Qaeda is murdering Iraqis and Arabs because they support democracy? Or Al-Qaeda has threatened Madrid and Paris?

    Will The Guardian explain to the British people why, because, contrary to the UN belief that Saddam had chemical and biological agents, we didnt go into Iraq, we never disarmed, we never enforced the will of the international community and as a result 5,000+ Britons are dead and Greater London is radioactive. Or will they ask, "Why, when presented with a choice, Tony Blair listened to them and the likes of George Galloway"?

    Bush and Blair are more right than ever.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Hey, i wrote down this in another post but i need an answer quick! Why did the terrorists attack now? If you think about last year's Madrid bombings, they bombed before the general elections, possibly in the hope that another more anti-war government would emerge; and it did. So why did they attack London now, AFTER the general election?
    Please can someone answer this!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexandra010588)
    Hey, i wrote down this in another post but i need an answer quick! Why did the terrorists attack now? If you think about last year's Madrid bombings, they bombed before the general elections, possibly in the hope that another more anti-war government would emerge; and it did. So why did they attack London now, AFTER the general election?
    Please can someone answer this!!
    We dont know. Possibly linked to G8, but I dont see what they were hoping to do. My personal opinion is that they dont care and this was just an opportune moment in terms of security.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Of course, The Guardian like many others CHOOSE TO BELIEVE AL-QAEDA, a set of murdering terrorist fanatics, when they tell us this is because of Iraq.


    Bush and Blair are more right than ever.
    You don't believe it's because of Iraq? The Aussies had troops there, then we had Bali, Spain had troops there, then Madrid. Now this, and Berlusconi makes a date for Italian troops to withdraw. Bush and Blair may well be right about Iraq in the long run, yet our government, namely Jack Straw at Gleneagles, still doesn't have the guts to be honest and say that the decision they made about Iraq may put us at risk of terrorism(in the short term at least). To me it's another example of how they make all the right noises to the public, but they don't really have any respect for us whatsoever, otherwise they would be honest with us.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexandra010588)
    Hey, i wrote down this in another post but i need an answer quick! Why did the terrorists attack now? If you think about last year's Madrid bombings, they bombed before the general elections, possibly in the hope that another more anti-war government would emerge; and it did. So why did they attack London now, AFTER the general election?
    Please can someone answer this!!
    I can think of two reasons:

    -It may have been too difficult to launch attacks right before elections. People were expecting an attack before the elections in the US and our guard was up, probably making it more difficult for Al-Qaeda to launch an attack. Maybe that's why they waited to attack London. Al-Qaeda is unpredictable.

    -Citizens of Spain choose to appease the terrorists by voting against their government. The UK isn't Spain. I don't think the voters would have responded the same way they did in Spain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    You don't believe it's because of Iraq? The Aussies had troops there, then we had Bali, Spain had troops there, then Madrid. Now this, and Berlusconi makes a date for Italian troops to withdraw.
    Of course, and they say its because of Iraq, but what are Al-Qaeda doing in Iraq now?! How can you say this is revenge on behalf of Iraqis, muslims and arabs etc. when on the morning of the bombings, Al-Qaeda chopped the head off an Egyptian ambassador to Iraq?
    They WANT people to think its because of Iraq, because then people apply the pressure to our governments.

    We cannot sit at home and defend ourselves with laws or plans of action, its impossible. In Paris we have 'vigipirate', an alert system that signifies extra vigilance. Its nonsense. There is nothing the French government can do. These alert systems are just gestures to make the people feel safe or to show that the government is doing something. If I wanted to take a bomb on the metro, I could do it now without a problem. Anyone living in London knows how easy it would have been to cause those explosions on Thursday.

    Forget Iraq for a moment.
    You are the Prime Minister. You, in liason with international leaders, see that rogue nation x has chemical, biological and nuclear material and when asked refuses to declare or disarm. Rogue nation X is known to fund terrorist groups and has links with them. Al-Qaeda has just killed 3,000 people in the US. They tell you this is because of the US policy in the middle east. Youre intelligence says that they are planning something in the UK.

    Do you a) listen to those who say we should NOT take action and provoke another attack
    b) anticipate that they will attack, realise that it would be impossible to prevent such an attack, 100% of the time, and thus demand that rogue nation x disarm immediately.

    Bush and Blair may well be right about Iraq in the long run, yet our government, namely Jack Straw at Gleneagles, still doesn't have the guts to be honest and say that the decision they made about Iraq may put us at risk of terrorism(in the short term at least)
    You are making the assumption that Al-Qaeda wouldnt have attacked us if we hadnt gone into Iraq. The French didnt go into Iraq, but Al-Qaeda found something else to threaten Paris with. Sooner or later they would have found something else, because at the end of the day, we oppose their aims and thus we must be destroyed. These justifications are just smoke screens to shake the will of the government through the people.

    Jack Straw doesnt believe Al-Qaeda are telling the truth, neither do I. Sooner or later they will attack us when we say 'No' to their ultimatums. Id rather say No when we have removed 75% of their leaders, destroyed the possibility of them using chemical weapons and restrict them to local, homegrown operation. Thankfully for the French, this is what the US and UK are willing to do.

    Imagine if we had taken the French way: Al-Qaeda would be intact as an international network, all of its leaders emboldened and strengthened, recruitment up, unfettered access and resource across the world, black market deals with rogue nations, chemical, biological and nuclear power. And what damage could THAT Al-Qaeda do if it decided to strike?

    Jack Straw and myself knew this was going to happen but recognise that because of the action we took, this was a much smaller operation than 9/11.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LC01)
    Give blood video
    One of the affects of this will be an increase in the BNP vote(well i think so anyway) since we have been the ones warning about this for a number of years now.
    What exactly are you referring to as "this"? Trying to claim that the BNP have been the ones warning against the possibility of a terrorist attack in London? Really? What foresight. No one else had even considered that this may happen! :rolleyes:

    And if, what seems the more likely possibility, you're referring to "this" as Muslims in general.. well, Muslims in general throughout the UK were not the London bombers.

    So either way, you are once again speaking from your bovril-spout.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)

    Jack Straw and myself knew this was going to happen but recognise that because of the action we took, this was a much smaller operation than 9/11.
    What exactly are you referring to when you say "the action we took"?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Vienna, you're an ostrich.

    The 'Islamists' say they want us out of Iraq - and they do want us out of Iraq. They say terrorist actions are motivated by a desire to punish us for being in Iraq - again obviously true. Their wider agenda is not being denied, why are you denying that Iraq and Afghanistan are also part of their justification.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    What exactly are you referring to when you say "the action we took"?
    Legislation domestically but also military action abroad in concert with foreign governments.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Of course, and they say its because of Iraq, but what are Al-Qaeda doing in Iraq now?! How can you say this is revenge on behalf of Iraqis, muslims and arabs etc. when on the morning of the bombings, Al-Qaeda chopped the head off an Egyptian ambassador to Iraq?
    They WANT people to think its because of Iraq, because then people apply the pressure to our governments.

    We cannot sit at home and defend ourselves with laws or plans of action, its impossible. In Paris we have 'vigipirate', an alert system that signifies extra vigilance. Its nonsense. There is nothing the French government can do. These alert systems are just gestures to make the people feel safe or to show that the government is doing something. If I wanted to take a bomb on the metro, I could do it now without a problem. Anyone living in London knows how easy it would have been to cause those explosions on Thursday.

    Forget Iraq for a moment.
    You are the Prime Minister. You, in liason with international leaders, see that rogue nation x has chemical, biological and nuclear material and when asked refuses to declare or disarm. Rogue nation X is known to fund terrorist groups and has links with them. Al-Qaeda has just killed 3,000 people in the US. They tell you this is because of the US policy in the middle east. Youre intelligence says that they are planning something in the UK.

    Do you a) listen to those who say we should NOT take action and provoke another attack
    b) anticipate that they will attack, realise that it would be impossible to prevent such an attack, 100% of the time, and thus demand that rogue nation x disarm immediately.



    You are making the assumption that Al-Qaeda wouldnt have attacked us if we hadnt gone into Iraq. The French didnt go into Iraq, but Al-Qaeda found something else to threaten Paris with. Sooner or later they would have found something else, because at the end of the day, we oppose their aims and thus we must be destroyed. These justifications are just smoke screens to shake the will of the government through the people.

    Jack Straw doesnt believe Al-Qaeda are telling the truth, neither do I. Sooner or later they will attack us when we say 'No' to their ultimatums. Id rather say No when we have removed 75% of their leaders, destroyed the possibility of them using chemical weapons and restrict them to local, homegrown operation. Thankfully for the French, this is what the US and UK are willing to do.

    Imagine if we had taken the French way: Al-Qaeda would be intact as an international network, all of its leaders emboldened and strengthened, recruitment up, unfettered access and resource across the world, black market deals with rogue nations, chemical, biological and nuclear power. And what damage could THAT Al-Qaeda do if it decided to strike?

    Jack Straw and myself knew this was going to happen but recognise that because of the action we took, this was a much smaller operation than 9/11.
    I don't have a problem with any of that. But why couldn't the British government told us that, rather than bringing in crap about WMD? And I don't know if this has been asked before but links between Al Qaeda and Saddam? Last time I checked, OBL was calling Saddam an infidel.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Vienna, you're an ostrich.

    The 'Islamists' say they want us out of Iraq - and they do want us out of Iraq. They say terrorist actions are motivated by a desire to punish us for being in Iraq - again obviously true. Their wider agenda is not being denied, why are you denying that Iraq and Afghanistan are also part of their justification.
    Im denying that they are punishing us for our attack on Iraq, which shouldnt be confused with their desire to see us out of Iraq so they can destroy democracy and pluralism by bombing innocent Iraqis. A democratic Iraq and Middle East is the death to their project. The latter demonstrates the real motivations of these people. Such a motivation is relevant to us whether it be now in the months and years ahead.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    I don't have a problem with any of that. But why couldn't the British government told us that, rather than bringing in crap about WMD?
    They did tell you that. Ive got statements from Blair and Bush seared into my brain with those justifications. The presence of biological, chemical or nuclear material is WMD.

    And I don't know if this has been asked before but links between Al Qaeda and Saddam? Last time I checked, OBL was calling Saddam an infidel.
    Firstly, I dont think we are talking about a legal, above board arms transaction. This material could be acquired through several sources, all of which being denied by both parties. If you choose to believe Saddam thats your decision.
    Secondly, he might have called him an infidel, but this doesnt really fill me with confidence that he would not be tempted to buy this material to use against the US.
    Thirdly, he might be an infidel now, but when Saddam decides to sell and OBL is willing to overlook their differences, it will be far too late.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    They did tell you that. Ive got statements from Blair and Bush seared into my brain with those justifications. The presence of biological, chemical or nuclear material is WMD.
    Why couldn't the weapons inspectors find those that could have attacked us in 45 minutes? Why did it need "sexing up" when the threat was bad enough? Why were the weapons inspectors not believed? Were they lying?

    Firstly, I dont think we are talking about a legal, above board arms transaction. This material could be acquired through several sources, all of which being denied by both parties. If you choose to believe Saddam thats your decision.
    Secondly, he might have called him an infidel, but this doesnt really fill me with confidence that he would not be tempted to buy this material to use against the US.
    Thirdly, he might be an infidel now, but when Saddam decides to sell and OBL is willing to overlook their differences, it will be far too late.
    I don't believe Bush anymore than I believe Saddam. Everything you have said is just speculation. And war, in my opinion, cannot and should not be based on speculation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ive replied to these points hundreds of times before, but for your benefit.

    (Original post by zaf1986)
    Why couldn't the weapons inspectors find those that could have attacked us in 45 minutes?
    There was nothing in the dossier that suggested such a thing. The 45 minute reference was made in regard to battefield munitions.

    Why did it need "sexing up" when the threat was bad enough? Why were the weapons inspectors not believed? Were they lying?
    There was no sexing up and no lying as multiple parliamentary reviews and judicial enquiries have demonstrated. Some intelligence has proven to be wrong.

    I don't believe Bush anymore than I believe Saddam. Everything you have said is just speculation. And war, in my opinion, cannot and should not be based on speculation.
    Speculate or die. When youve got 60million people to worry about, Im glad Tony Blair made the right decision.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Im denying that they are punishing us for our attack on Iraq, which shouldnt be confused with their desire to see us out of Iraq so they can destroy democracy and pluralism by bombing innocent Iraqis. A democratic Iraq and Middle East is the death to their project. The latter demonstrates the real motivations of these people. Such a motivation is relevant to us whether it be now in the months and years ahead.
    Agreed. The justification we create by being in Iraq and Afg. will be a motivation relevant for years too.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Speculate or die. When youve got 60million people to worry about, Im glad Tony Blair made the right decision.
    And now ordinary Britons such as myself become targets for terrorism. I'm not saying we wouldn't have been had Iraq was not invaded, but this has hardly helped.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Agreed. The justification we create by being in Iraq and Afg. will be a motivation relevant for years too.
    You might have to elaborate on the latter sentence.
 
 
 

5,606

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.