Not again (London Underground) (Merged)
21 July 2005, 11:18 PM
#181
Scooby Regular
The thing is, its all well and good saying we shouldn't have gone to Iraq and that we should have left well alone, but I like to think back to my school days.
If there was a bully in school (Al-Qaeda, Saddam, Bin Laden, whatever in this case) who was going around school and battering people (their own people, New York 9/11, London bombs etc) he wouldnt last very long before some of the bigger and older kids (US, UK) would intervene and give him a good kicking.
Its a simple analogy, but thats how I saw it after what happened at the WTC. We had a few lunatic extremist groups that were not only killing their own, but were causing devastation in the US and now in the UK, and threatening everyone on a global scale.
Who knows how bad they would have got if we hadnt gone into Iraq?
Maybe i'm naive, and I dont know the full facts of what happened before the WTC attacks, but it seems to me that few of the countries in the Middle East/Asia can effectively run their own countries so it needs a little interference from the likes of the US and the UK.
If there was a bully in school (Al-Qaeda, Saddam, Bin Laden, whatever in this case) who was going around school and battering people (their own people, New York 9/11, London bombs etc) he wouldnt last very long before some of the bigger and older kids (US, UK) would intervene and give him a good kicking.
Its a simple analogy, but thats how I saw it after what happened at the WTC. We had a few lunatic extremist groups that were not only killing their own, but were causing devastation in the US and now in the UK, and threatening everyone on a global scale.
Who knows how bad they would have got if we hadnt gone into Iraq?
Maybe i'm naive, and I dont know the full facts of what happened before the WTC attacks, but it seems to me that few of the countries in the Middle East/Asia can effectively run their own countries so it needs a little interference from the likes of the US and the UK.
21 July 2005, 11:20 PM
#182
Well said Suresh and **************.
To me it's not complex, there is one objective from these extremists - Izhaar Ud Deen
Also some have commented on the fact that the US can be friends with someone one day and the next they are enemies because they don't support US policy.
Surely that's been the way of the world since civilisation started - Kings and leaders have been forging and breaking alliances throughout history. Why should that change now.
Secondly someone questioned why trouble had only started in the later half of the 20th centrury, of course the ability to use modern communications and travel have also fuelled this, not just foreign policies.
To me it's not complex, there is one objective from these extremists - Izhaar Ud Deen
Also some have commented on the fact that the US can be friends with someone one day and the next they are enemies because they don't support US policy.
Surely that's been the way of the world since civilisation started - Kings and leaders have been forging and breaking alliances throughout history. Why should that change now.
Secondly someone questioned why trouble had only started in the later half of the 20th centrury, of course the ability to use modern communications and travel have also fuelled this, not just foreign policies.
Last edited by KiwiGTI; 21 July 2005 at 11:24 PM.
21 July 2005, 11:21 PM
#183
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume that you actually mean the Middle East, youre right. Would I be moving too far from my traditional liberal position by suggesting that the world would be a better place if we killed everyone in the Middle East?
21 July 2005, 11:22 PM
#184
BANNED
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dream Weaver
The thing is, its all well and good saying we shouldn't have gone to Iraq and that we should have left well alone, but I like to think back to my school days.
If there was a bully in school (Al-Qaeda, Saddam, Bin Laden, whatever in this case) who was going around school and battering people (their own people, New York 9/11, London bombs etc) he wouldnt last very long before some of the bigger and older kids (US, UK) would intervene and give him a good kicking.
Its a simple analogy, but thats how I saw it after what happened at the WTC. We had a few lunatic extremist groups that were not only killing their own, but were causing devastation in the US and now in the UK, and threatening everyone on a global scale.
Who knows how bad they would have got if we hadnt gone into Iraq?
Maybe i'm naive, and I dont know the full facts of what happened before the WTC attacks, but it seems to me that few of the countries in the Middle East/Asia can effectively run their own countries so it needs a little interference from the likes of the US and the UK.
If there was a bully in school (Al-Qaeda, Saddam, Bin Laden, whatever in this case) who was going around school and battering people (their own people, New York 9/11, London bombs etc) he wouldnt last very long before some of the bigger and older kids (US, UK) would intervene and give him a good kicking.
Its a simple analogy, but thats how I saw it after what happened at the WTC. We had a few lunatic extremist groups that were not only killing their own, but were causing devastation in the US and now in the UK, and threatening everyone on a global scale.
Who knows how bad they would have got if we hadnt gone into Iraq?
Maybe i'm naive, and I dont know the full facts of what happened before the WTC attacks, but it seems to me that few of the countries in the Middle East/Asia can effectively run their own countries so it needs a little interference from the likes of the US and the UK.
and osama is an evil dude no doubt he had no war with the uk he said it himself or any other nation, did he know he loved england, he was educated here and his beloved footie team is arsenal
21 July 2005, 11:25 PM
#185
BANNED
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arsenal Team fan Osama bin Laden tried to annihilate US team
Osama bin Laden financed and supported terrorist attack of US football team during the previous world football championship in France, in 1998. This was reported on Friday by Washington Post newspaper referring to US publicist Adam Robinson, the author of the well known biography of the terrorist number one “Bin Laden: Behind the Mask of the Terrorist.” Robinson states that according to bin Laden’s plan, the terrorist act against the US team should have been realized by Algerian terrorists, though Belgian authorities hindered them, who uncovered the plot and managed to carry out mass arrests three weeks before the start of the championship.
According to Adam Robinson, the terrorist number one likes football very much. It turns out that bin Laden is a fan of London Arsenal team. While being in British capital in the 1990s, bin Laden visited Highberry stadium to watch games of the “gunners” and bought T-shirts with Arsenal emblem for his son Abdullah.
In particular, the terrorist number one saw Arsenal winning a victory over Torino Italian club and Paris Saint Jermain club in Cup Possessors’ Cup Championship in 1994. Bin Laden, according to the eye-witnesses, was literally stricken with the atmosphere in the stadium.
According to Robinson, the Saudi-Arabian visited also such points of interests in London, as the Tower, Royal Armouries, and British Museum.
Bin Laden left London after having been called the main suspect of preparing the 1993 WTC explosion. Though, before it, he had time to base here an Al-Qaeda observation post.
For this football championship unprecedented security measures were taken. In particular, surface-to-air missiles should guard stadiums where the games are planned, while neighbouring areas will be patrolled by military helicopters. The territory will be checked up by specially trained dogs. Around the stadiums, moveable labs are placed to uncover presence of bacteriological or chemical arms.
As for US football team, the Americans decided to take their own guard consisting of 120 people.
--------------------
Fanatical about football
The Northern Alliance still has not tracked down Osama bin Laden, but one place they are unlikely to find him is at Highbury stadium in London.
Premiership giants Arsenal have barred Bin Laden from the ground after discovering that the terrorist leader is a big fan of the club.
"We've seen the reports in the papers. Clearly he wouldn't be welcome at Highbury in the future," said a club spokesman.
According to revelations in a new biography of the world's most wanted man, Bin Laden became fanatical about the team in the 1990s when he was staying in the capital.
Die-hard Arsenal fans in Highbury's famous Clock End could have possibly once sat next to the man who is blamed for the 11 September terrorist attacks.
Kitted out
Bin Laden was apparently on the terraces as the north London side reached the final of the European Cup Winners Cup.
They progressed with wins over Italian side Torino and French team Paris St Germain.
These were the first games that the well-known face of terror had seen since he had taken an interest in football during kickarounds while growing up in the Middle East.
In the new book Bin Laden: Behind The Mask Of Terror, author Adam Robinson even tells of how the terrorist had become so smitten with the team that he bought a replica shirt for his eldest son.
Whether Bin Laden has his own red and white strip remains unknown, but he certainly he will not be popping back to Highbury's club shop to buy one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/funn...me/1650069.stm
Osama bin Laden financed and supported terrorist attack of US football team during the previous world football championship in France, in 1998. This was reported on Friday by Washington Post newspaper referring to US publicist Adam Robinson, the author of the well known biography of the terrorist number one “Bin Laden: Behind the Mask of the Terrorist.” Robinson states that according to bin Laden’s plan, the terrorist act against the US team should have been realized by Algerian terrorists, though Belgian authorities hindered them, who uncovered the plot and managed to carry out mass arrests three weeks before the start of the championship.
According to Adam Robinson, the terrorist number one likes football very much. It turns out that bin Laden is a fan of London Arsenal team. While being in British capital in the 1990s, bin Laden visited Highberry stadium to watch games of the “gunners” and bought T-shirts with Arsenal emblem for his son Abdullah.
In particular, the terrorist number one saw Arsenal winning a victory over Torino Italian club and Paris Saint Jermain club in Cup Possessors’ Cup Championship in 1994. Bin Laden, according to the eye-witnesses, was literally stricken with the atmosphere in the stadium.
According to Robinson, the Saudi-Arabian visited also such points of interests in London, as the Tower, Royal Armouries, and British Museum.
Bin Laden left London after having been called the main suspect of preparing the 1993 WTC explosion. Though, before it, he had time to base here an Al-Qaeda observation post.
For this football championship unprecedented security measures were taken. In particular, surface-to-air missiles should guard stadiums where the games are planned, while neighbouring areas will be patrolled by military helicopters. The territory will be checked up by specially trained dogs. Around the stadiums, moveable labs are placed to uncover presence of bacteriological or chemical arms.
As for US football team, the Americans decided to take their own guard consisting of 120 people.
--------------------
Fanatical about football
The Northern Alliance still has not tracked down Osama bin Laden, but one place they are unlikely to find him is at Highbury stadium in London.
Premiership giants Arsenal have barred Bin Laden from the ground after discovering that the terrorist leader is a big fan of the club.
"We've seen the reports in the papers. Clearly he wouldn't be welcome at Highbury in the future," said a club spokesman.
According to revelations in a new biography of the world's most wanted man, Bin Laden became fanatical about the team in the 1990s when he was staying in the capital.
Die-hard Arsenal fans in Highbury's famous Clock End could have possibly once sat next to the man who is blamed for the 11 September terrorist attacks.
Kitted out
Bin Laden was apparently on the terraces as the north London side reached the final of the European Cup Winners Cup.
They progressed with wins over Italian side Torino and French team Paris St Germain.
These were the first games that the well-known face of terror had seen since he had taken an interest in football during kickarounds while growing up in the Middle East.
In the new book Bin Laden: Behind The Mask Of Terror, author Adam Robinson even tells of how the terrorist had become so smitten with the team that he bought a replica shirt for his eldest son.
Whether Bin Laden has his own red and white strip remains unknown, but he certainly he will not be popping back to Highbury's club shop to buy one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/funn...me/1650069.stm
21 July 2005, 11:26 PM
#186
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Jack City
Posts: 1,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The terrorist threat is a lot more complex than you appreciate. I saw the aussie pm on the news today pointing out that their citizens were targetted in Bali because of aussie intervention in East Timor. Fck all to do with Iraq then, I think you'll agree.
Nobody was expecting a terrorist strike from within in the uk, by British citizens, even though all the signs were there e.g Richard Reid in Dec 2001 (again not about Iraq)
The point is that a load of young hotheads are fed up with the failure of their way of life and want to blame 'the west' for all their problems. It seems that some equally weak-minded individuals are buying the same story. Iraq increased the inevitability for sure, but didn't create the anger of failure that's pointed at the west and incubated by those sympathetic to Al-Q. Regime change was the right thing to do even though the reasons originally given weren't honest.
Regime change is illegal for starters and not up to us but the Iraqi people. To try and impose your way of life on another nation is pure arrogance at the very least. That's not helped by the sheer hypocrisy of still propping up dicators elsewhere in the world because they are our friends. The human rights issue was nothing but a cover story.
21 July 2005, 11:27 PM
#187
exactly the same thing the extremists say about the usa and uk bud, big bullies got a bloody nose, u mind they used that quote after 9/11 and our news channels talked about it too, the extremists thing the biggest bully is the usa and the uk decided to join them
21 July 2005, 11:30 PM
#188
BANNED
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KiwiGTI
Some could say the UK was bullied into it by the US - scared of the financial and trade implications. (The majority of the UK public didn't want it)
US didnt bully the uk, uk had nothing to do with it, it was mr blair and his cronies
i always been so anti EU, keep britain independant, lately i feel so sad coz the usa benefits if the EU cant sort its problems out, i thought us and the eu together will become a superpower but it seems the usa is loving what happened here the last few weeks, but i never ever been an EU fan but it will be nice to be the superpower again for once britain and europe
21 July 2005, 11:31 PM
#189
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Jack City
Posts: 1,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dream Weaver
The thing is, its all well and good saying we shouldn't have gone to Iraq and that we should have left well alone, but I like to think back to my school days.
If there was a bully in school (Al-Qaeda, Saddam, Bin Laden, whatever in this case) who was going around school and battering people (their own people, New York 9/11, London bombs etc) he wouldnt last very long before some of the bigger and older kids (US, UK) would intervene and give him a good kicking.
Its a simple analogy, but thats how I saw it after what happened at the WTC. We had a few lunatic extremist groups that were not only killing their own, but were causing devastation in the US and now in the UK, and threatening everyone on a global scale.
Who knows how bad they would have got if we hadnt gone into Iraq?
Maybe i'm naive, and I dont know the full facts of what happened before the WTC attacks, but it seems to me that few of the countries in the Middle East/Asia can effectively run their own countries so it needs a little interference from the likes of the US and the UK.
If there was a bully in school (Al-Qaeda, Saddam, Bin Laden, whatever in this case) who was going around school and battering people (their own people, New York 9/11, London bombs etc) he wouldnt last very long before some of the bigger and older kids (US, UK) would intervene and give him a good kicking.
Its a simple analogy, but thats how I saw it after what happened at the WTC. We had a few lunatic extremist groups that were not only killing their own, but were causing devastation in the US and now in the UK, and threatening everyone on a global scale.
Who knows how bad they would have got if we hadnt gone into Iraq?
Maybe i'm naive, and I dont know the full facts of what happened before the WTC attacks, but it seems to me that few of the countries in the Middle East/Asia can effectively run their own countries so it needs a little interference from the likes of the US and the UK.
It's because of the interference of the US in the middle east that we are at this stage. Yes, you are incredibly naive if you think that US foreign policy has been about helping others and not about helping themselves.
21 July 2005, 11:39 PM
#191
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by **************
Peter as a nation we haven't gained anything physically, although there will be those who say millions of barrels of oil. What we have done though is remove from power a mass murderer, someone who has a record of using biological and chemical weapons on both his own people and others who he has gone to war with like Iran and who could have used them again to get back at the US for the first Gulf war and any of its supporters.
What I will admit though is that it was mismanged (and yes i know thats the mother of all understatements). I am personally glad that the Taliban are no longer in charge of Afghanistan and that Saddam is no longer in charge of Iraq but the way in which it was undertaken was wrong. If you compare the British troops attitude to their job to that attitude of the US troops then that pretty much shows where I think it all went wrong. The US failed to do a professional job, they were gung ho about it and that has cost everyone dearly. Resentment has arisen from their behaviour. Why was it that UK troops in Basra were treated very differently by the locals than the US troops furhter north. Because the US troops acted unprofessionally.
When looking at the Iraq situation though do you see normal civilian Iraqis blowing themselves up at checkpoints? No, its the work of insurgents and extremists. If it was Iraqi civilians then I would say that pulling out now was the only option. The fact is its not normal Iraqis, its terrorists brought in from surrounding nations such as Syria, Afghanistan, Jordan etc. For example Zarquawi, what business is it of his, he is Jordanian ffs, he is there purely to fight the US for being the US, not because they are in Iraq and he is an Iraqi fighting invaders as so many seem to believe is the cause. I just hope Zarquawi is dead and that his death was excrutiatingly painful and he had no access to medical supplies during his death.
The fact is now its going to take years to get a stable Government in place in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It might be years but when it happens it will be a massive improvement for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq compared to what they would have still had without military intervention.
What I will admit though is that it was mismanged (and yes i know thats the mother of all understatements). I am personally glad that the Taliban are no longer in charge of Afghanistan and that Saddam is no longer in charge of Iraq but the way in which it was undertaken was wrong. If you compare the British troops attitude to their job to that attitude of the US troops then that pretty much shows where I think it all went wrong. The US failed to do a professional job, they were gung ho about it and that has cost everyone dearly. Resentment has arisen from their behaviour. Why was it that UK troops in Basra were treated very differently by the locals than the US troops furhter north. Because the US troops acted unprofessionally.
When looking at the Iraq situation though do you see normal civilian Iraqis blowing themselves up at checkpoints? No, its the work of insurgents and extremists. If it was Iraqi civilians then I would say that pulling out now was the only option. The fact is its not normal Iraqis, its terrorists brought in from surrounding nations such as Syria, Afghanistan, Jordan etc. For example Zarquawi, what business is it of his, he is Jordanian ffs, he is there purely to fight the US for being the US, not because they are in Iraq and he is an Iraqi fighting invaders as so many seem to believe is the cause. I just hope Zarquawi is dead and that his death was excrutiatingly painful and he had no access to medical supplies during his death.
The fact is now its going to take years to get a stable Government in place in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It might be years but when it happens it will be a massive improvement for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq compared to what they would have still had without military intervention.
wouldnt the smart thing to do have been to just shut up and let Bush go it alone?. I mean we would have got the same result anyway. We could have been secretly happy about it like the Norwegians, the swedish, etc.
It just seems really dumb to have follwed them when it would so clearly make terrorism worse for us.
It feels like Bush dragged us into this almost as if to give the terrorists another target, other than America.
God I hate Blair.
21 July 2005, 11:41 PM
#192
Originally Posted by Dream Weaver
The thing is, its all well and good saying we shouldn't have gone to Iraq and that we should have left well alone, but I like to think back to my school days.
If there was a bully in school (Al-Qaeda, Saddam, Bin Laden, whatever in this case) who was going around school and battering people (their own people, New York 9/11, London bombs etc) he wouldnt last very long before some of the bigger and older kids (US, UK) would intervene and give him a good kicking.
Its a simple analogy, but thats how I saw it after what happened at the WTC. We had a few lunatic extremist groups that were not only killing their own, but were causing devastation in the US and now in the UK, and threatening everyone on a global scale.
Who knows how bad they would have got if we hadnt gone into Iraq?
Maybe i'm naive, and I dont know the full facts of what happened before the WTC attacks, but it seems to me that few of the countries in the Middle East/Asia can effectively run their own countries so it needs a little interference from the likes of the US and the UK.
If there was a bully in school (Al-Qaeda, Saddam, Bin Laden, whatever in this case) who was going around school and battering people (their own people, New York 9/11, London bombs etc) he wouldnt last very long before some of the bigger and older kids (US, UK) would intervene and give him a good kicking.
Its a simple analogy, but thats how I saw it after what happened at the WTC. We had a few lunatic extremist groups that were not only killing their own, but were causing devastation in the US and now in the UK, and threatening everyone on a global scale.
Who knows how bad they would have got if we hadnt gone into Iraq?
Maybe i'm naive, and I dont know the full facts of what happened before the WTC attacks, but it seems to me that few of the countries in the Middle East/Asia can effectively run their own countries so it needs a little interference from the likes of the US and the UK.
Iraq was surely a seperate(ish) situation - we supposedly went in there after WMD, which could have fallen into the hands of terrorists - but even if they didn't would have been under the control of Saddam who, as we all know, was more than capable of using them. There seemd to be little chance of Saddam and Al-Quaeda joining forces.
I can see why (as per Moses' later post) why Muslims might see the USA/UK as the bullies, but having said that I very much doubt that we ("The West") are indiscriminately murdering civilans in any part of the world. There are a lot of civilians dying in Iraq but this is at the hand of fellow muslims not us.
Bottom line is I suppose whilst some of our actions may have been suspect both in justification & implementation can they ever justify the cold-blooded slaughter (or attempted slaughter) of ordinary people in London (a large proportion of whom would have been anti war in Iraq and/or Moslems)
21 July 2005, 11:45 PM
#193
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Jack City
Posts: 1,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by moses
gsm my bros were keep on repeating the same stuff everyone in scooobynet, its so boring i stop responding, lets talk about arsenal
I can't help it. I just hate all the ignorance. And it does affect me. Did you know ten Sikh temples have been attacked in the UK since 2 weeks back? My mum wanted to go to the temple today and I told her to forget it, especially after reading the kind of hateful crap on here.What about Arsenal? lol
21 July 2005, 11:46 PM
#194
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by gsm1
Dreamweaver, you make no sense at all. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 etc. Iraq had nothing to do with Bin Laden. Religious extremists were opposed under Saddam Hussein.
It's because of the interference of the US in the middle east that we are at this stage. Yes, you are incredibly naive if you think that US foreign policy has been about helping others and not about helping themselves.
It's because of the interference of the US in the middle east that we are at this stage. Yes, you are incredibly naive if you think that US foreign policy has been about helping others and not about helping themselves.
I am interested to learn more about it though - everyone always mentions "interference of the US with the Middle East" as you have but there are never any examples, please explain.
21 July 2005, 11:48 PM
#195
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by **************
Asif I am in no way a supporter of Blair, but I do agree with the military offensives that took place and why they took place, especially Fallujah. Zarquawi had to be hunted down and thats what Fallujah was about whether it was successful or not.
The attacks on Britain are because we have shown support for the US by assisting them in Iraq and in their global policies. Iraq on its own is not the cause for these bombers, its the fact we supported the US.
Bin Laden hated Saddam and saw him as an infidel as Saddam's way of practicing Islam hardly matched upto Bin Ladens, he has no sympathy for him and what happened in Iraq, it is merely a vehicle for him to stir up hatred agains the US and its supporters.
Americans were being bombed by Al Quaeda well before the Iraq war. Bin Laden and his cronies have been at the US for a long time because of their presence in Saudi and because of their allegiance with the Saudi regime which Bin Laden detests with a passion. They have been bombed in the gulf for a long time, whether it be embassies or war ships or military bases.
Bin Laden has managed to spread his terror network out of the gulf region to all parts which is why we are now seeing attacks outside of the gulf region to Europe and Indonesia where supports of the US can be punished such as Australians in Bali and the Spanish and the Brits on home turf.
Were the Brits hit first? No. Bali and Madrid were. This is not about Blair no matter what his failures are and I agree he has a lot of them. Its about anyone who has shown support for the US.
As for Islam being around so long yet attacks only relatively recently this boils down to the creation of Bin Laden and Al Quaeda and using Islam and its Holy War as an excuse to commit the attrocities they have. All of the attacks that have taken place all lead back to Bin Laden, none of them have been down to Muslim groups showing hatred, its extremist groups using Islam to hide behind to try and gain support for thier cause. Any true Muslim denounces what they have done as it goes against the fundamental principles of their religion.
And I never said send anyone to Iraq for blaming Blair. I said send any sympathisers of the terrorists and their cause should be sent to Iraq.
The attacks on Britain are because we have shown support for the US by assisting them in Iraq and in their global policies. Iraq on its own is not the cause for these bombers, its the fact we supported the US.
Bin Laden hated Saddam and saw him as an infidel as Saddam's way of practicing Islam hardly matched upto Bin Ladens, he has no sympathy for him and what happened in Iraq, it is merely a vehicle for him to stir up hatred agains the US and its supporters.
Americans were being bombed by Al Quaeda well before the Iraq war. Bin Laden and his cronies have been at the US for a long time because of their presence in Saudi and because of their allegiance with the Saudi regime which Bin Laden detests with a passion. They have been bombed in the gulf for a long time, whether it be embassies or war ships or military bases.
Bin Laden has managed to spread his terror network out of the gulf region to all parts which is why we are now seeing attacks outside of the gulf region to Europe and Indonesia where supports of the US can be punished such as Australians in Bali and the Spanish and the Brits on home turf.
Were the Brits hit first? No. Bali and Madrid were. This is not about Blair no matter what his failures are and I agree he has a lot of them. Its about anyone who has shown support for the US.
As for Islam being around so long yet attacks only relatively recently this boils down to the creation of Bin Laden and Al Quaeda and using Islam and its Holy War as an excuse to commit the attrocities they have. All of the attacks that have taken place all lead back to Bin Laden, none of them have been down to Muslim groups showing hatred, its extremist groups using Islam to hide behind to try and gain support for thier cause. Any true Muslim denounces what they have done as it goes against the fundamental principles of their religion.
And I never said send anyone to Iraq for blaming Blair. I said send any sympathisers of the terrorists and their cause should be sent to Iraq.
I agree with absolutely everything you have said in this post.
As you were berating the other guy in your other post, then ended with the bit about supporters dropped off in Iraq etc, I assumed your were inferring he was a supporter and therefore should be dropped off.
I didn't see that he was supporting the terrorists, thats what prompted me to post what I did, perhaps you thought he was supporting them? Apologies if I got my wires crossed.
I think the best thing for todays terrorists (or any) is to be caught and locked up for a very long time, worst possible outcome for them. Even better, if we now catch these guys from today, as they are 100% bona fide terrorists, I have no qualms about sending them to Guantanamo (remember that place??) and let the Americans deal with them there.
The US should be grateful to us as they will be able to say for the first time that they have actually got some real terrorists in captivity.
Asif
21 July 2005, 11:50 PM
#196
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Jack City
Posts: 1,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dream Weaver
I am interested to learn more about it though - everyone always mentions "interference of the US with the Middle East" as you have but there are never any examples, please explain.
See if you can get hold of a recording of 'The Power of Nightmares' which aired on BBC2 earlier this year (I think). There are also transcripts on the net. It's a great insight into 'The War on Terrorism'.
21 July 2005, 11:51 PM
#197
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GC8
I assume that you actually mean the Middle East, youre right. Would I be moving too far from my traditional liberal position by suggesting that the world would be a better place if we killed everyone in the Middle East?
Well done.
21 July 2005, 11:51 PM
#198
Guest
Posts: n/a
Peter yes we could have stayed out of it and to some extent wish we had if the same result could have been achieved in ridding the world of the taliban and Saddam but Bush effectively made us go in with them to try and help justify it. If they had done it on their own it would never have been allowed and secondly all the nations that thought it was a good idea would be cowards for not stepping in and assisting in something they believed in but hiding out the way.
It was another case of Bush saying you are either with us or your not and if your not don't ever expect any help from us from this time on. Blair was never going to shirk the British allegiance with the US no matter what the cost.
It was another case of Bush saying you are either with us or your not and if your not don't ever expect any help from us from this time on. Blair was never going to shirk the British allegiance with the US no matter what the cost.
21 July 2005, 11:54 PM
#199
I know mate. I can't help it. I just hate all the ignorance. And it does affect me. Did you know ten Sikh temples have been attacked in the UK since 2 weeks back? My mum wanted to go to the temple today and I told her to forget it, especially after reading the kind of hateful crap on here.
21 July 2005, 11:54 PM
#200
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Jack City
Posts: 1,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by **************
It was another case of Bush saying you are either with us or your not and if your not don't ever expect any help from us from this time on. Blair was never going to shirk the British allegiance with the US no matter what the cost.
21 July 2005, 11:54 PM
#201
broken record
Originally Posted by gsm1
Regime change is illegal for starters and not up to us but the Iraqi people. To try and impose your way of life on another nation is pure arrogance at the very least. That's not helped by the sheer hypocrisy of still propping up dicators elsewhere in the world because they are our friends. The human rights issue was nothing but a cover story.
Try to be a little less angry then maybe you can think a little straighter!
Nightey night!
21 July 2005, 11:57 PM
#202
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Jack City
Posts: 1,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Suresh
Because you say so? That means nothing.
Try to be a little less angry then maybe you can think a little straighter!
Nightey night!
Try to be a little less angry then maybe you can think a little straighter!
Nightey night!
22 July 2005, 12:00 AM
#203
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gsm1
I know mate. I can't help it. I just hate all the ignorance. And it does affect me. Did you know ten Sikh temples have been attacked in the UK since 2 weeks back? My mum wanted to go to the temple today and I told her to forget it, especially after reading the kind of hateful crap on here.
What about Arsenal? lol
I can't help it. I just hate all the ignorance. And it does affect me. Did you know ten Sikh temples have been attacked in the UK since 2 weeks back? My mum wanted to go to the temple today and I told her to forget it, especially after reading the kind of hateful crap on here.What about Arsenal? lol
Don't talk about Arsenal in this thread, go to the sports forums. Apparently they have made Henry the new Captain? I wonder if his goal scoring will be affected?
A clear sign for me is that all the Gooners at work, without exception, seem to be very pessimistic about this coming season.
Asif
22 July 2005, 12:05 AM
#204
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am interested to learn more about it though - everyone always mentions "interference of the US with the Middle East" as you have but there are never any examples, please explain.
1) Saudi is the home of Islam and where Mecca is. The US have bases in Saudi and to many in the Middle East this is unacceptable having the Worlds no 1 super power having bases in the heart of their relgious land. The Saudi Government is also a supporter and ally of the US which makes them hated by many for allowing this invasion, most of all Bin Laden.
2) Supporting Israeli occupation of Palestine
3) The Afghanistan war with Russia. Bin Laden is the biggest two faced hypocrite on the planet. He was funded by the US to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. He used to be on the USA's payroll. Where was his hatred of them then and his relgious ideals? After the war finished the US fcuked him over and basically turned him against them - typical CIA policy, use your foreign employees and then spit them out once finished with them. He has ever since had an insane hatred for the US. To be able to get backing for his aims he has had to exploit US foreign policy by using anything they do in the Middle East to stir up hatred, ie Israel and Iraq. He only has one aim, to do as much damage to the US and its supporters in anyway he can. His best way forward was to use Islams Jihad as a valid reason for attacking the US. It is from this that anti western feelings have been taken to an extreme.
The above is about as simplistic as it can get but it gives you 3 reasons why the US are hated in the Middle East from way before the Iraq war.
22 July 2005, 12:10 AM
#205
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gsm1
I know mate. I can't help it. I just hate all the ignorance. And it does affect me. Did you know ten Sikh temples have been attacked in the UK since 2 weeks back? My mum wanted to go to the temple today and I told her to forget it, especially after reading the kind of hateful crap on here.
What about Arsenal? lol
I can't help it. I just hate all the ignorance. And it does affect me. Did you know ten Sikh temples have been attacked in the UK since 2 weeks back? My mum wanted to go to the temple today and I told her to forget it, especially after reading the kind of hateful crap on here.What about Arsenal? lol
Sorry just re-read that, very sad indeed and as I have said before, it is playing into the terrorists hands.
Asif
22 July 2005, 12:11 AM
#206
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by gsm1
No problems in siding with the US in helping stop terrorism but there was no need to join and aid them in invading Iraq. Our relationship with the USA would not have been affected. Blair just wanted to be on the world stage with the most powerful man in the world.
22 July 2005, 12:17 AM
#207
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by **************
3 very simplist answers:
1) Saudi is the home of Islam and where Mecca is. The US have bases in Saudi and to many in the Middle East this is unacceptable having the Worlds no 1 super power having bases in the heart of their relgious land. The Saudi Government is also a supporter and ally of the US which makes them hated by many for allowing this invasion, most of all Bin Laden.
2) Supporting Israeli occupation of Palestine
3) The Afghanistan war with Russia. Bin Laden is the biggest two faced hypocrite on the planet. He was funded by the US to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. He used to be on the USA's payroll. Where was his hatred of them then and his relgious ideals? After the war finished the US fcuked him over and basically turned him against them - typical CIA policy, use your foreign employees and then spit them out once finished with them. He has ever since had an insane hatred for the US. To be able to get backing for his aims he has had to exploit US foreign policy by using anything they do in the Middle East to stir up hatred, ie Israel and Iraq. He only has one aim, to do as much damage to the US and its supporters in anyway he can. His best way forward was to use Islams Jihad as a valid reason for attacking the US. It is from this that anti western feelings have been taken to an extreme.
The above is about as simplistic as it can get but it gives you 3 reasons why the US are hated in the Middle East from way before the Iraq war.
1) Saudi is the home of Islam and where Mecca is. The US have bases in Saudi and to many in the Middle East this is unacceptable having the Worlds no 1 super power having bases in the heart of their relgious land. The Saudi Government is also a supporter and ally of the US which makes them hated by many for allowing this invasion, most of all Bin Laden.
2) Supporting Israeli occupation of Palestine
3) The Afghanistan war with Russia. Bin Laden is the biggest two faced hypocrite on the planet. He was funded by the US to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. He used to be on the USA's payroll. Where was his hatred of them then and his relgious ideals? After the war finished the US fcuked him over and basically turned him against them - typical CIA policy, use your foreign employees and then spit them out once finished with them. He has ever since had an insane hatred for the US. To be able to get backing for his aims he has had to exploit US foreign policy by using anything they do in the Middle East to stir up hatred, ie Israel and Iraq. He only has one aim, to do as much damage to the US and its supporters in anyway he can. His best way forward was to use Islams Jihad as a valid reason for attacking the US. It is from this that anti western feelings have been taken to an extreme.
The above is about as simplistic as it can get but it gives you 3 reasons why the US are hated in the Middle East from way before the Iraq war.
Based on point 3, sounds like almost a personal thing between OBL and the USA?
22 July 2005, 12:20 AM
#208
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by **************
But thats what I am saying, it would have been affected. The US couldn't have got away with going in alone. It had to be seen to have International backing and assistance in its goals. Once the UK backed it so did Spain and Australia and Poland. Its first port of call is the UK when ever it needs help. If we had said no then realtions with the US would have gone down hill dramatically. Blair wasn't about to risk that situation.
Now look at it! Whether 11th December or 7th July- its all fcucked!
22 July 2005, 12:23 AM
#209
Guest
Posts: n/a
Your exactly right, it is a personal vendetta Bin Laden has with the USA, it has nothing to do with religion, that is just his excuse to hide behind and drum up support among weak minded groups who believe what he says.
Jihad is an inner struggle with your own demons (or bad desires), its a struggle in the mind not as in the way Bin Laden uses it, to physically attack your perceived enemies and to kill them anyway you can.
Jihad is an inner struggle with your own demons (or bad desires), its a struggle in the mind not as in the way Bin Laden uses it, to physically attack your perceived enemies and to kill them anyway you can.
22 July 2005, 12:25 AM
#210
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by **************
But thats what I am saying, it would have been affected. The US couldn't have got away with going in alone. It had to be seen to have International backing and assistance in its goals. Once the UK backed it so did Spain and Australia and Poland. Its first port of call is the UK when ever it needs help. If we had said no then realtions with the US would have gone down hill dramatically. Blair wasn't about to risk that situation.
The relationship might have been affected, but only at the political level. In fact Blair taking a different stand might have encouraged the US to consider other routes - at least consider them!
And in the longer term Bush would have gone and someone else interested in rebuilding the relationship between the two countries would have stepped in.
We've let Bush's Gung Ho attitude lead us to where we are today, IMO.
Asif