Back
to top
Why you can't blame Tony Blair and George Bush for ongoing terrorism
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
This could be a long read, but I'd love to hear your opinions.
Firstly, for many centuries Islamic countries have always been at war for a long time now, it goes right back to the Ottoman Empire. This involved Islamic countries invading non-Islamic countries and religious wars such as the Crusades, similar wars have gone on for centuries, literally centuries. The modern world is seeing nothing new, but it seems worse because of the media.
Secondly, Iraq and Iran continued to have conflict between each other. In the late 20th century Iraq invaded Kuwait(because of oil theft, Iraq didn't recognise Kuwait as a territory and that there was no defence from Kuwait at the time) as a result fellow Islamic countries called for intervention from the US. The US therefore intervened upon request in which it all kicked off again, but had the US not intervened Iraq would've been able to invade many more countries and even more countries would be made into warzones. The eventual death of brutal leader Saddam Hussein saved many lives as well as prevented a much worse civil war in Iraq, due to human rights being constantly violated. He may have never let become Iraq as it is now, but there was heavy risk of invasion hence we had to invade Iraq in order to kill him. It was the only way we could prevent this, other Arab countries didn't seem very comfortable with him in charge either.
Thirdly, the first non-Islamic country to invade a Islamic country was the Soviet Union, in 1979 so even then you can't blame the US without blaming the Soviet Union.
This is my reasoning, happy to be proven wrong.
Firstly, for many centuries Islamic countries have always been at war for a long time now, it goes right back to the Ottoman Empire. This involved Islamic countries invading non-Islamic countries and religious wars such as the Crusades, similar wars have gone on for centuries, literally centuries. The modern world is seeing nothing new, but it seems worse because of the media.
Secondly, Iraq and Iran continued to have conflict between each other. In the late 20th century Iraq invaded Kuwait(because of oil theft, Iraq didn't recognise Kuwait as a territory and that there was no defence from Kuwait at the time) as a result fellow Islamic countries called for intervention from the US. The US therefore intervened upon request in which it all kicked off again, but had the US not intervened Iraq would've been able to invade many more countries and even more countries would be made into warzones. The eventual death of brutal leader Saddam Hussein saved many lives as well as prevented a much worse civil war in Iraq, due to human rights being constantly violated. He may have never let become Iraq as it is now, but there was heavy risk of invasion hence we had to invade Iraq in order to kill him. It was the only way we could prevent this, other Arab countries didn't seem very comfortable with him in charge either.
Thirdly, the first non-Islamic country to invade a Islamic country was the Soviet Union, in 1979 so even then you can't blame the US without blaming the Soviet Union.
This is my reasoning, happy to be proven wrong.
0
reply
Report
#2
(Original post by BrianMcEgg)
This could be a long read, but I'd love to hear your opinions.
Firstly, for many centuries Islamic countries have always been at war for a long time now, it goes right back to the Ottoman Empire. This involved Islamic countries invading non-Islamic countries and religious wars such as the Crusades, similar wars have gone on for centuries, literally centuries. The modern world is seeing nothing new, but it seems worse because of the media.
Secondly, Iraq and Iran continued to have conflict between each other. In the late 20th century Iraq invaded Kuwait(because of oil theft, Iraq didn't recognise Kuwait as a territory and that there was no defence from Kuwait at the time) as a result fellow Islamic countries called for intervention from the US. The US therefore intervened upon request in which it all kicked off again, but had the US not intervened Iraq would've been able to invade many more countries and even more countries would be made into warzones. The eventual death of brutal leader Saddam Hussein saved many lives as well as prevented a much worse civil war in Iraq, due to human rights being constantly violated. He may have never let become Iraq as it is now, but there was heavy risk of invasion hence we had to invade Iraq in order to kill him. It was the only way we could prevent this, other Arab countries didn't seem very comfortable with him in charge either.
Thirdly, the first non-Islamic country to invade a Islamic country was the Soviet Union, in 1979 so even then you can't blame the US without blaming the Soviet Union.
This is my reasoning, happy to be proven wrong.
This could be a long read, but I'd love to hear your opinions.
Firstly, for many centuries Islamic countries have always been at war for a long time now, it goes right back to the Ottoman Empire. This involved Islamic countries invading non-Islamic countries and religious wars such as the Crusades, similar wars have gone on for centuries, literally centuries. The modern world is seeing nothing new, but it seems worse because of the media.
Secondly, Iraq and Iran continued to have conflict between each other. In the late 20th century Iraq invaded Kuwait(because of oil theft, Iraq didn't recognise Kuwait as a territory and that there was no defence from Kuwait at the time) as a result fellow Islamic countries called for intervention from the US. The US therefore intervened upon request in which it all kicked off again, but had the US not intervened Iraq would've been able to invade many more countries and even more countries would be made into warzones. The eventual death of brutal leader Saddam Hussein saved many lives as well as prevented a much worse civil war in Iraq, due to human rights being constantly violated. He may have never let become Iraq as it is now, but there was heavy risk of invasion hence we had to invade Iraq in order to kill him. It was the only way we could prevent this, other Arab countries didn't seem very comfortable with him in charge either.
Thirdly, the first non-Islamic country to invade a Islamic country was the Soviet Union, in 1979 so even then you can't blame the US without blaming the Soviet Union.
This is my reasoning, happy to be proven wrong.
0
reply
Report
#3
For me what sums it up is 9/11 happened before Bush & Blair started going war mad so yea there was obviously huge problems already.
didn't even read the title...
(Original post by IronicalMan)
mmm Couldn't be bothered to read that but Tony Blair and George Osborne are self serving ***** that deserve their heads cut off over any army soldier any day... so who gives a flying **** about them lmao?
mmm Couldn't be bothered to read that but Tony Blair and George Osborne are self serving ***** that deserve their heads cut off over any army soldier any day... so who gives a flying **** about them lmao?
0
reply
Report
#4
I agree with the majority of your post.
Apparently Bin Laden got upset because American forces were based in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War. But if the Coalition hadn't intervened in 90/91 then perhaps Saddam would have marched in Saudi Arabia.
I do think it was foolhardy to invade Iraq while ISAF were still very much committed in Afghanistan. After 2002, Afghan was relatively secure but then resources were focused on Iraq. To make matters worse, when the Taliban did surface again they used the same tactics rebels in Iraq were using which were causing casualties to coalition troops.
I believe that if the Iraq war hadn't have happened, perhaps Afghanistan wouldn't have blown up quite so much in our faces either as ISAF would have had more resources & the Taliban would have had less support & would have been slower/less likely to learn new tactics off of the Iraqi insurgents.
Apparently Bin Laden got upset because American forces were based in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War. But if the Coalition hadn't intervened in 90/91 then perhaps Saddam would have marched in Saudi Arabia.
I do think it was foolhardy to invade Iraq while ISAF were still very much committed in Afghanistan. After 2002, Afghan was relatively secure but then resources were focused on Iraq. To make matters worse, when the Taliban did surface again they used the same tactics rebels in Iraq were using which were causing casualties to coalition troops.
I believe that if the Iraq war hadn't have happened, perhaps Afghanistan wouldn't have blown up quite so much in our faces either as ISAF would have had more resources & the Taliban would have had less support & would have been slower/less likely to learn new tactics off of the Iraqi insurgents.
0
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by skeptical_john)
didn't even read the title...
didn't even read the title...
0
reply
(Original post by IronicalMan)
mmm Couldn't be bothered to read that but Tony Blair and George Osborne are self serving ***** that deserve their heads cut off over any army soldier any day... so who gives a flying **** about them lmao?
mmm Couldn't be bothered to read that but Tony Blair and George Osborne are self serving ***** that deserve their heads cut off over any army soldier any day... so who gives a flying **** about them lmao?
1
reply
Report
#7
What it did was create a chaotic environment that terrorists could thrive in and kicked up a hornets nest.
1
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by IronicalMan)
mmm Couldn't be bothered to read that but Tony Blair and George Osborne are self serving ***** that deserve their heads cut off over any army soldier any day... so who gives a flying **** about them lmao?
mmm Couldn't be bothered to read that but Tony Blair and George Osborne are self serving ***** that deserve their heads cut off over any army soldier any day... so who gives a flying **** about them lmao?
I'm no fan of the Tories but that's a bit OTT.
0
reply
Report
#9
It's obviously not Tony or George's fault, they're not the ones who made the terrorists follow islam.
0
reply
Report
#11
The fact that the Crusades and the schism in Islam both predate the Otttomon Empire(the latter by 600 years) shows that the OP is talking ****.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karbala
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karbala
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire
0
reply
Report
#12
While it's true Blair and Bush can't be blamed 100% for current ongoing terrorism, they do take quite a significant amount of culpability and I'm not sure anybody could ever quantify it.
Firstly, I don't think you can make comparisons between the ancient empires of the Islamic world which acted in the context of imperial and colonial competition to terrorist militias today. Secondly, it was right to push out Iraqi forces from Kuwait and I'm sure nobody cries about the removal of Saddam either. But, it was what happened after Saddam's presidency ended which really sowed the seeds for the creation of ISIS. The "De-Baathification" process ended up punishing millions of ordinary Sunni Iraqis by removing them from posts of public prominence even though most Baath Party members weren't even ideologically committed but joined out of expediency. The Coalition Provisional Authority pursued a deliberately sectarian policy which pitted Iraqi Shias against Iraqi Sunnis, causing sectarian strife. A Shiite led government took hold in Iraq and began to form militias which carried out mass extra-judicial killings against Sunnis under the pretense of anti-terror WHILST British and American forces occupied Iraq. This anger eventually formed the Islamic State of Iraq, which spread into Syria when the Syrian civil war happened. So incompetence by Bush and Blair with regards to the future of a post-Saddam Iraq really did contribute to the current mess.
Firstly, I don't think you can make comparisons between the ancient empires of the Islamic world which acted in the context of imperial and colonial competition to terrorist militias today. Secondly, it was right to push out Iraqi forces from Kuwait and I'm sure nobody cries about the removal of Saddam either. But, it was what happened after Saddam's presidency ended which really sowed the seeds for the creation of ISIS. The "De-Baathification" process ended up punishing millions of ordinary Sunni Iraqis by removing them from posts of public prominence even though most Baath Party members weren't even ideologically committed but joined out of expediency. The Coalition Provisional Authority pursued a deliberately sectarian policy which pitted Iraqi Shias against Iraqi Sunnis, causing sectarian strife. A Shiite led government took hold in Iraq and began to form militias which carried out mass extra-judicial killings against Sunnis under the pretense of anti-terror WHILST British and American forces occupied Iraq. This anger eventually formed the Islamic State of Iraq, which spread into Syria when the Syrian civil war happened. So incompetence by Bush and Blair with regards to the future of a post-Saddam Iraq really did contribute to the current mess.
0
reply
Report
#13
Some classic leftist ******ation on display here. Blame the West for Islamic terror - we 'provoked' them.
0
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by ATW1)
Some classic leftist ******ation on display here. Blame the West for Islamic terror - we 'provoked' them.
Some classic leftist ******ation on display here. Blame the West for Islamic terror - we 'provoked' them.
0
reply
Report
#15
(Original post by BrianMcEgg)
This could be a long read, but I'd love to hear your opinions.
Firstly, for many centuries Islamic countries have always been at war for a long time now, it goes right back to the Ottoman Empire. This involved Islamic countries invading non-Islamic countries and religious wars such as the Crusades, similar wars have gone on for centuries, literally centuries. The modern world is seeing nothing new, but it seems worse because of the media.
Secondly, Iraq and Iran continued to have conflict between each other. In the late 20th century Iraq invaded Kuwait(because of oil theft, Iraq didn't recognise Kuwait as a territory and that there was no defence from Kuwait at the time) as a result fellow Islamic countries called for intervention from the US. The US therefore intervened upon request in which it all kicked off again, but had the US not intervened Iraq would've been able to invade many more countries and even more countries would be made into warzones. The eventual death of brutal leader Saddam Hussein saved many lives as well as prevented a much worse civil war in Iraq, due to human rights being constantly violated. He may have never let become Iraq as it is now, but there was heavy risk of invasion hence we had to invade Iraq in order to kill him. It was the only way we could prevent this, other Arab countries didn't seem very comfortable with him in charge either.
Thirdly, the first non-Islamic country to invade a Islamic country was the Soviet Union, in 1979 so even then you can't blame the US without blaming the Soviet Union.
This is my reasoning, happy to be proven wrong.
This could be a long read, but I'd love to hear your opinions.
Firstly, for many centuries Islamic countries have always been at war for a long time now, it goes right back to the Ottoman Empire. This involved Islamic countries invading non-Islamic countries and religious wars such as the Crusades, similar wars have gone on for centuries, literally centuries. The modern world is seeing nothing new, but it seems worse because of the media.
Secondly, Iraq and Iran continued to have conflict between each other. In the late 20th century Iraq invaded Kuwait(because of oil theft, Iraq didn't recognise Kuwait as a territory and that there was no defence from Kuwait at the time) as a result fellow Islamic countries called for intervention from the US. The US therefore intervened upon request in which it all kicked off again, but had the US not intervened Iraq would've been able to invade many more countries and even more countries would be made into warzones. The eventual death of brutal leader Saddam Hussein saved many lives as well as prevented a much worse civil war in Iraq, due to human rights being constantly violated. He may have never let become Iraq as it is now, but there was heavy risk of invasion hence we had to invade Iraq in order to kill him. It was the only way we could prevent this, other Arab countries didn't seem very comfortable with him in charge either.
Thirdly, the first non-Islamic country to invade a Islamic country was the Soviet Union, in 1979 so even then you can't blame the US without blaming the Soviet Union.
This is my reasoning, happy to be proven wrong.
The Iraq Wars were the aftermath of the Cold War as Saddam Hussein was precisely one of the last Arab leaders that belonged to this ideology (the last one being Assad). It resulted in a political vacuum in the area, where Islamist groups flourished.
At this time, the enemy was Communism; Islam wasn't seen negatively, on the contrary: Muslims weren't communist. We now pay the price.
We could also blame the two colonial powers (namely France and the UK) for the borders they drew in the area.
0
reply
Report
#16
Well, Blair and Bush entered into Iraq without a clear plan and they 'lied'. The consequence was a disastrous several years either hundreds of thousands of deaths and refugees and the proliferation of extremist Sunni and Shia groups.*
This led to two effects,the first was *the weaponisation of many extremist elements in Iraq, Syria and etc. *The second was that the West is now too afraid to remove Assad due to public backlash.
Would terrorism exist? Yes. Would it be as bad ? Who knows. Did they make it worse? Absolutely
Having said all of that Muslims and the middle east need to accept some self responsibility for the situation. We can keep on going backwards in history to the Ottamons and British but that doesn't explain the ongoing barbarism in the region and the suicide bombings of Muslim and Non Muslim targets
*
This led to two effects,the first was *the weaponisation of many extremist elements in Iraq, Syria and etc. *The second was that the West is now too afraid to remove Assad due to public backlash.
Would terrorism exist? Yes. Would it be as bad ? Who knows. Did they make it worse? Absolutely
Having said all of that Muslims and the middle east need to accept some self responsibility for the situation. We can keep on going backwards in history to the Ottamons and British but that doesn't explain the ongoing barbarism in the region and the suicide bombings of Muslim and Non Muslim targets
*
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
