This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Londoners Pay Heavy Price for Blair's Deception

I just read this article so thought why not share it with u guys, what do u think of this article?

source: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07082005.html

Do you feel safer now that George Bush's and Tony Blair's barbaric attacks on Iraq have brought barbaric attacks to London?

Coordinated attacks on London's transport system have apparently killed 38 and injured 700. It is a terrible thing but hardly surprising. Did Londoners really think that the British people would not be held accountable for electing and reelecting Tony Blair--a war criminal under the Nuremberg standard--who aided and abetted George Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq on false pretenses?

Did Londoners really believe that Muslims would have no response to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the slaughter, torture, and detention of Muslims?

Blair and Bush are on their high horses claiming the morality of "civilized nations" and denouncing the retaliation they have provoked as "barbarism."

Their hypocrisy plays poorly in the world. Far more innocent Iraqi civilians, especially women and children, have been slaughtered than British and Americans. Why do Bush and Blair believe they should be praised for slaughtering civilians and only Muslims denounced?

Why do Americans think it is heroic and honorable for our troops to massacre Iraqis with bombs, missiles, gunships, tanks, and heavy machine guns, but cowardly and barbaric when our victims fight back in the only way they can?
The US and Britain started this fight, not Iraq. We should be ashamed that Bush and Blair deceived us, tricked us into a pointless and unjust war, and that innocent people on both sides are paying with their lives and limbs for Bush's and Blair's lies. Our real anger should be directed at Bush and Blair who are responsible for the deaths and destruction.

The American and British people had better wake up, depose their immoral leaders, and put a halt to this war.

There are 1.3 billion Muslims. The Iraqi insurgency has proved that Muslims are not intimidated by a "superpower." Unless the American and British people want a 30-year or a 100-year war with domestic police states for "security" reasons and a draft that will bleed their populations dry, this war needs to be wound up quickly with due apologies and reparations.

No more bluster and heroic talk from the two war criminals. The war is breeding terrorism and cannot be won. Only an even-handed diplomacy that breeds trust and ceases to rule Muslims with puppet governments can isolate and reduce terrorist acts. Muslims are not a few scattered Indian tribes with no place to hide who can be exterminated. America has no chance of imposing its will on the Muslim world. Muslims have their own will.

As long as Bush continues to operate with Mao's belief that power comes out of the barrel of a gun, terrorism will prosper and people will die for no reason except their refusal to hold corrupt leaders accountable.

Reply 1

saz_1989

2

A small correction: the number of confirmed dead is at 49 as of my last radio-listening, and is believed to rise as more bodies are discovered underground.

I'm not scared. Where I live, some of the locals are more dangerous than terrorists. We can't be scared. This isn't our fault, this isn't Tony Blair's fault. The people at fault are those wicked criminals who did this.

Reply 2

halloweenjack

1

That has to be the most biased article i have ever seen. He seems hell bent that Iraq is the cause of all this, which completely neglects the fact that al-qaida attacked western targets long before it. So really the whole basis of his article that "british support for the war in iraq" means we were targetted is short sighted, yet stereotypical of this type of authors mindset.

Ignore the facts....just link up the dots and throw the war in iraq into argument.

/golfclap

absolutely pathetic

Reply 3

L i b

19

che guevara

Do you feel safer now that George Bush's and Tony Blair's barbaric attacks on Iraq have brought barbaric attacks to London?

Did Londoners really believe that Muslims would have no response to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the slaughter, torture, and detention of Muslims?

Yet the War in Iraq has actually removed a secular leader and the new western-installed democratic process is probably going to end with a religious nutjob in office... just what those terrorists are after, I'd have thought.

It is a coward who does not do what he thinks is right because someone may react violently to it.

who aided and abetted George Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq on false pretenses?

Care to refer me to the Act of Parliament or a case in point that states that the invasion of Iraq was illegal?

Blair and Bush are on their high horses claiming the morality of "civilized nations" and denouncing the retaliation they have provoked as "barbarism."

Their hypocrisy plays poorly in the world. Far more innocent Iraqi civilians, especially women and children, have been slaughtered than British and Americans. Why do Bush and Blair believe they should be praised for slaughtering civilians and only Muslims denounced?

The United States and British armies have never once targeted civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan. This bomb targeted no one other than civilians. If you consider that a pedantic point, or getting on a moral high horse, I advise you take a very good look inside yourself.

Why do Americans think it is heroic and honorable for our troops to massacre Iraqis with bombs, missiles, gunships, tanks, and heavy machine guns, but cowardly and barbaric when our victims fight back in the only way they can?

The only way they can? Here's a suggestion - fight properly, not like cowards and terrorists. The IRA have been doing the same for decades. It's sick and it's pathetic.

It's honourable because they believe they have a noble cause and because they, again, are not targeting civilians.

There are 1.3 billion Muslims. The Iraqi insurgency has proved that Muslims are not intimidated by a "superpower." Unless the American and British people want a 30-year or a 100-year war with domestic police states for "security" reasons and a draft that will bleed their populations dry, this war needs to be wound up quickly with due apologies and reparations.

I assume that means, for you, putting Saddam Hussein back in power? Yes, then we will indeed have something to apologise for.

No more bluster and heroic talk from the two war criminals.

No one is a criminal unless they are found guilty of a crime.

Messrs Bush and Blair have neither committed any such crimes or been convicted of them.

Oh and BTW, way to capitalise on a tragedy for political gain...

Reply 4

yawn

17

LibertineNorth

The only way they can? Here's a suggestion - fight properly, not like cowards and terrorists.

Should they just stand out in the middle of the open - put their arms into the air and say, "here I am, kill me" - whilst the 'legal' terrorists crouch behind the cover of an armoured tank, killing with their high sophisticated killing machines?

Which one's are the cowards?

Reply 5

halloweenjack

1

I really worry about some people on this forum...i really do. Its no wonder this world is turning to **** with opinions like the one above. :eek:

Reply 6

Alexdel

10

When people give links to certain right-wing sites they say it's a valid opinion yet this is being bias..

Reply 7

L i b

19

yawn

Should they just stand out in the middle of the open - put their arms into the air and say, "here I am, kill me" - whilst the 'legal' terrorists crouch behind the cover of an armoured tank, killing with their high sophisticated killing machines?

Which one's are the cowards?

If one want to fight, fight. Don't kill civilians.

From this, and previous posts, I am fast coming to the conclusion that you have no moral fibre whatsoever. The balaclava isn't the same as the beret.

Reply 8

L i b

19

che guevara

The American and British people had better wake up, depose their immoral leaders, and put a halt to this war.

We will not surrender our democracy to the whim of some foreign chav with a bomb strapped to his body.

Reply 9

Lawz-

14

Alexdel

When people give links to certain right-wing sites they say it's a valid opinion yet this is being bias..

When have I ever linked a right wing site?

Reply 10

Lawz-

14

yawn

Should they just stand out in the middle of the open - put their arms into the air and say, "here I am, kill me" - whilst the 'legal' terrorists crouch behind the cover of an armoured tank, killing with their high sophisticated killing machines?

Which one's are the cowards?

So because you cant kill your enemy effectively you can justify taking out your frustration on innocents?

The "real terrorists"???

PLEASE - they dont try to kill as many civilians as they can ...

Fact of the matter is that if Bush really hated all Muslims, and wanted to kill as many as possible he could nuke the entire ME and turn it into a holiday resort.

Fact is he doesnt ... reason being he doesnt desire the death of civilians.

Reply 11

soulsussed

1

yawn

Should they just stand out in the middle of the open - put their arms into the air and say, "here I am, kill me" - whilst the 'legal' terrorists crouch behind the cover of an armoured tank, killing with their high sophisticated killing machines?

Which one's are the cowards?

I know where you're coming from. You can't just go into a country and take it over with all your big weapongs and gun ships and expect nothing back. The terrorists are just trying to hit back, you wanted a war, well this is their way of fighting, they don't have big weapons for a full scale war.

The thing that is really annoying me about it is those who have died and those with love ones dead could have been part of a protest against the war. In other words innocent people who wanted nothing to do with it are paying for it, rather than people like Blair and Bush who should be taking the consequences for the decisions they made. If it'd been the publics way we wouldn't have gone to war, yet they are the ones paying for it.

Reply 12

soulsussed

1

Lawz-

So because you cant kill your enemy effectively you can justify taking out your frustration on innocents?

The "real terrorists"???

PLEASE - they dont try to kill as many civilians as they can ...

Fact of the matter is that if Bush really hated all Muslims, and wanted to kill as many as possible he could nuke the entire ME and turn it into a holiday resort.

Fact is he doesnt ... reason being he doesnt desire the death of civilians.

The thing is, we killed alot of innocents in Iraq and some how we expect those people to be be quiet about the fact hundreds of their people and loved ones are dead. You can't expect people to die quietly, yet when they fight back they're the baddies.

I'm not justifying any of it, but I think we're as bad as they are, you can't justify what we did either. And I hate using the term 'we' because its not, most weren't for the war.

Reply 13

Vienna

12

soulsussed

The thing is, we killed alot of innocents in Iraq and some how we expect those people to be be quiet about the fact hundreds of their people and loved ones are dead. You can't expect people to die quietly, yet when they fight back they're the baddies.

Hang, Al-Qaeda is BLOWING UP IRAQIS who want DEMOCRACY. Al-Qaeda IS BLOWING UP ANTI-WAR SPANIARDS WHO WANT DEMOCRACY. Al-Qaeda IS BLOWING UP BRITONS WHO WANT DEMOCRACY.

What part of their reasoning do you not understand?

You are playing played for a fool by the terrorists. They know people were opposed to Iraq, so they justify these bombs accordingly in order to split opinion. Its amazing that this is accepted at the same time, on the same day, Al-Qaeda is beheading an Arab ambassador for Iraq because he supports DEMOCRACY.

I'm not justifying any of it, but I think we're as bad as they are, you can't justify what we did either. And I hate using the term 'we' because its not, most weren't for the war.

We can justify it because, we, like the UN thought Saddam had Sarin, Anthrax and VX nerve gas, we found little of what we expected but we found evidence of those materials. If WE HAD NOT gone in to Iraq, and those materials had been part of the bombs on Thursday, WHAT EXCUSE WOULD TONY BLAIR HAVE?

Reply 14

Lawz-

14

soulsussed

The thing is, we killed alot of innocents in Iraq and some how we expect those people to be be quiet about the fact hundreds of their people and loved ones are dead. You can't expect people to die quietly, yet when they fight back they're the baddies.

We didnt kill them deliberately ... we didnt WANT to kill innocent civilians - it was not the PURPOSE. There is a pronouncd difference.

As ot dying quietly and their "loved ones"... how much do you want to bet that the attackers in London, are neither Iraqi nor have they suffered in the Iraq war?

soulsussed

I'm not justifying any of it, but I think we're as bad as they are, you can't justify what we did either. And I hate using the term 'we' because its not, most weren't for the war.

1) Actually the country was eveny split at the start of the war - this notion that the Iraq war was contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of th epublic is simply false.

2) We are as bad as they are? They deliberately target innocent civilians "we" do not. Hardly even close to being equivilent.

Reply 15

Gaz031

15

I voted conservative in the general election but I stand by Mr Blair with his anti-terror actions...
The article is composed entirely of nonsense.

Reply 16

yawn

17

Lawz-

So because you cant kill your enemy effectively you can justify taking out your frustration on innocents?

The "real terrorists"???

PLEASE - they dont try to kill as many civilians as they can ...

Fact of the matter is that if Bush really hated all Muslims, and wanted to kill as many as possible he could nuke the entire ME and turn it into a holiday resort.

Fact is he doesnt ... reason being he doesnt desire the death of civilians.

My response was to the poster who asked why 'they' don't come out and fight, instead of being cowards.

That is it - plain and simple. It is not an indication that I agree with what has/is being done on both sides. Rather it is a logical reason for why one side cannot compete with the other on a level playing field.

Don't imply that there is any more to it than what I wrote. And that goes for the other posters who denigrated me for making a comparison. I chose your post Lawz, to respond to, as I respect your intelligence! :wink:

Reply 17

Tonight Matthew

2

Lawz-

We didnt kill them deliberately ... we didnt WANT to kill innocent civilians - it was not the PURPOSE. There is a pronouncd difference.

Whilst I agree with the difference you've noted, how far do you think this difference would serve as consolation to those who have lost friends and family?

Reply 18

Vienna

12

Tonight Matthew

Whilst I agree with the difference you've noted, how far do you think this difference would serve as consolation to those who have lost friends and family?