Hezbollah say to Ireland "you're our friend or our enemy"

Zambia

Gurgle wrote:

How quickly we forget.

Terrorist has become synonymous with Islamic fundamentalists.

You don't have to go to the middle east to find hundreds if not thousands of people who would love to see the Republic of Ireland burn from coast to coast.

Travel north of our capital for a hundred miles and you will find them there, barely held in check by their 'leaders' political ambitions, distracted by their own feuds.

tbh, if I hear on the news that Heuston station has been bombed, I will be looking north first for answers.

Gurgle your going to go Off topic but this is not the case.

I will have to agree with the attitude a ramp up of security in light of these facts is flawed it would cost far out weighing the gain. If Irish Military Inteligence proved otherwise well then maybe there would be a case for it.
Hezbollah themselves are a scant threat to the UK never mind the Irish Republic. Al queda could hurt everyone, but if Ireland treats its muslim citizens better than we do I dont see the problem. As it has been mentioned all our bombers where British made.

Judt

The 'Iraqi Army' is seen as illegitimate by some Iraqis, therefore puts Jordan in the firing line.

So, if some see something that we do that they don't like, that's reason enough to bomb us? And we should change our ways for that? Wow, we really should just bend over to this lot.

I am referring to Judt claims that Islamic Extremeists (namely al qieda) attack countries for merely being western.

Look at the examples being cited here and read the speeches AQ heads release every now and again. They seem to have no confusion on the matter.

Gurgle, last time I looked 99% of major terrorism carried out on Ireland's close European allies, let alone worldwide, were related to Islamic terrorists. Whether you like the idea of a "War on Terror" or not, the Islamic fundamentalists certainly seem to be of the mind that they're fighting a Jihad on the West in general. Most of the P-IRA and their opponents are currently duking it out in a political election campaign, where we'd rather see them methinks.

Our own home grown terrorists are not gone, particularly in the crime segment, but if someone blows up a commuter train in Ireland then it's most certainly more likely to have been an Islamic terrorist than an Irish / British one.

Now tell me the consequences of this for Ireland: Say we get bombed before election day, throw some eejits into power and find ourselves in the heat of the moment either A. Throwing our lot in with the Americans and going to town on this war on terror or B. Make anti-Americanism a state policy, blame them for the attacks and completely shag ourselves in the process.

Neutral countries have the obligation to be able to defend themselves from foreign threats. In this case we need to invest money back into security. We don't need regiments of tanks, we need effective intelligence apparatus aimed at counter-terrorism beyond NI, and we need effective disaster response in place.

As it is, if we get into serious trouble you will see British troops on the streets, British intelligence agents in Garda HQ and British aircraft overhead. All at the request of the Irish government. Screw Shannon, that's a blow to our neutrality; not to mention the fact that a lot of Irish people would be dead by the time anything got fixed.

oscarBravo

Judt wrote:

...if someone blows up a commuter train in Ireland then it's most certainly more likely to have been an Islamic terrorist than an Irish / British one.

By your use of the word "certainly" you've moved from the realm of speculation into claiming known facts, so: can you provide a detailed breakdown of the source of all recent security alerts (bomb scares, etc) in Ireland, citing whether the perpetrators were Irish, British or "Islamic".

Note that I have an issue with the distinction between Irish/British and Islamic, but I'll hold that in reserve.

I'm also still waiting for the list of nuclear wars you've studied to arrive at your detailed conclusions in another thread.

bonkey

Judt wrote:

So, if some see something that we do that they don't like, that's reason enough to bomb us? And we should change our ways for that? Wow, we really should just bend over to this lot.

Were you not earlier in this thread talking abotu how we already need to change our ways in case they might someday decide to do something to us?

Is it not a bit extreme to be encouraging a change of ways because of the potential existence of a threat, whilst at the same time suggesting that changing our ways is "bending over".

Gurgle, last time I looked 99% of major terrorism carried out on Ireland's close European allies, let alone worldwide, were related to Islamic terrorists.

99%??? YOu think that Islamic terrorism outweighs other terrorism by a factor of almost 100-to-1? So if I can name one non-Islamic-originating terrorist action in any given recent timeframe, you can find 99 Islamic-originating ones to offset it? If I can name 2, you can name 198?

I suggest you are exaggerating.

Whether you like the idea of a "War on Terror" or not,

I think it would be a bad idea. Fortunately, there is and can be no such war, so it doesn't much matter.

the Islamic fundamentalists certainly seem to be of the mind that they're fighting a Jihad on the West in general.

Strangely, it seems to be the Western media who is telling us this. When we see anything directly from teh Jihadists themselves, they claim otherwise.

but if someone blows up a commuter train in Ireland then it's most certainly more likely to have been an Islamic terrorist than an Irish / British one.

When you say "certainly more likely", I assume you mean "more likely, in my opinion"....or can you actually show why this certainty exists?

Now tell me the consequences of this for Ireland: Say we get bombed before election day, throw some eejits into power and

Hold on there...tell me how we throw some eejits into power as a reaction? Last time I checked, the most we could do is not give FF a workable majority, resulting in the possibility of a FF-excluded coalition. We could give some minority parties a bit more presence then they currently have, perhaps to the point where they'd have a realistic chance of getting included in a coalition because of their numbers....but we still wouldn't be putting them into power.

either A. Throwing our lot in with the Americans and going to town on this war on terror or B. Make anti-Americanism a state policy, blame them for the attacks and completely shag ourselves in the process.

Because they're the only two options, right? Its a binary situation, where these are the only two paths we could choose? I think you oversimplify, just as I think you exaggerate the nature of the threat to Ireland in the first place.

In this case we need to invest money back into security. We don't need regiments of tanks, we need effective intelligence apparatus aimed at counter-terrorism beyond NI, and we need effective disaster response in place.

Nice broad sweeping statements there. Maybe you could identify the specific weaknesses in our system rather than just suggest they exist? What intelligence capabilities do we need but are missing? What is our current capability and where are you suggesting it needs to go? What disaster scenarios should we be looking at? SHould we follow the Swiss example and mandate nuclear-bunker space for the entire population? Or maybe only worry about smaller disasters like a chemical-weapons attack on a population centre? Or maybe only the *tiny* disasters like a train wreck?

At the end of the day, the last thing anyone needs is more "security theatre" to remind us all of how scared we're supposed to be, but which doesn't really make us any safer.

As it is, if we get into serious trouble you will see British troops on the streets, British intelligence agents in Garda HQ and British aircraft overhead.

Really? Based on what definition of "serious"? And even if it were the case...what exactly would the problem be with having someone else agree to help us?

that's a blow to our neutrality;

No, sir. That would be a blow to our neutrality were it to occur.

However, for it to occur, someone would have had to initiated a significant action against our nation, showing that they did not honour our neutrality in the first place, making the entire issue moot.

Judt

Chaps,

I think this whole idea of "Do you have any facts that they're planning to attack?" is moot. The whole idea of a terrorist attack is that you don't know it's coming until people are dead. People. Human beings. Dead, because people prefer to bury their heads in the sand and cry about evil America and their allies than face the fact that we have an enemy who doesn't like us. If they see us as a soft target, then they will attack us. Neutrality, being nice and having a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow has nothing to do with it.

How would you feel if Islamic terrorists did murder Irish people? Hmm? They already have murdered Irish people. Islamic radicals have already said that we're a target, and there's a whole lot of these idiots born and bred in Britain who are a ferry ride away.

But hey, let's stick our heads into the sand. It's easier that way.

Were you not earlier in this thread talking abotu how we already need to change our ways in case they might someday decide to do something to us?

I mean to change our security apparatus to account for the new threats which exist. That's different to changing our way of life, which is what these fascists want.

Security doesn't change your way of life, it protects you from fascists blowing up a school bus, or a train, or a pub. They've been murdering people across the globe, and whether you like it or not these Islamic fundamentalist fascists hate you, they hate me and they'd not blink at blowing up something in Ireland if they see how many ostriches they can scare into line here.

Bonkey, stop being a pedantic.... Ahem.... There are 52 dead and over 200 injured in London, as well as pending attacks stopped shortly thereafter. 191 dead and 2,050 injured in Madrid. 202, mostly foreign nationals, killed in the first Bali bombing, 209 injured. 12 people killed, 150 injured in the Mariott Hotel bombing in 2003. 57 people killed in the 2003 Istanbul bombings. 10 people killed in the Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta. 20 people killed in the second Bali bombing, 129 injured. 61 people killed, 92 injured in the Delhi bombings. 60 killed, 150 injured in the Amman bombings in 2005. At least 28 killed and 101 injured in the Varanasi bombings. 209 killed, over 700 injured in the Mumbai train bombings.

Those are some of the attacks since 9/11, which itself killed 2,992 people and injured an unknown number of thousands. Nearly 3,000 people. Human beings, some of them Irish... They hate you, and they hate me and I don't know how terrible you'd feel if these SOB's did murder someone you know, or cripple you in a suicide bombing.

It just makes me incredibly angry to think that Ireland is so lazy - there's no other word for it - that we rely on a country we love to hate to defend us and are so concerned with our material lives that nobody could give a damn about making sure that Irish people are not murdered in their own country by what is, if you'll ask the couple of thousand dead people I've listed above, quite a credible global threat.

No, sir. That would be a blow to our neutrality were it to occur.

Did you take a look up into the air on September 12th 2001 and notice the patrolling aircraft? Do you notice the RAF units which regularly land at Baldonnel and train to protect Irish airspace? It is happening, it has happened and what more are we than somebody elses pony anyways? Screw Shannon, at least if Ireland were attacked we wouldn't ask the passing American troops to gear up and go patrol our streets for us.

bonkey

Judt wrote:

But hey, let's stick our heads into the sand. It's easier that way.

I would argue that the only sticking of our heads in the sand being done is where we deny that any of our actions have anything to do with whether or not we are more or less likely to be targetted. And yes...I agree...when we do so, it is easier that way, because it means we don't have to face up to the harsh reality that the more we throw our support behind the powers we'd like to see control the world, the more we inevitably align ourselves against those who are likely to target us.

I mean to change our security apparatus to account for the new threats which exist. That's different to changing our way of life, which is what these fascists want.
Security doesn't change your way of life, it protects you from fascists blowing up a school bus, or a train, or a pub.

In theory, yes.

In practice, I defy you to show me a nation where security has not been perceived to have been achieved without accompanying losses of personal freedom and other associated changes of "our way of life".

Indeed, the closer you look at it, the more you should find that the so-called security that has been purchased by these sacrifices is, in fact, merely the pretense or illusion of security - security theatre as Schneier refers to it - which serves a limited purpose only.

They've been murdering people across the globe, and whether you like it or not these Islamic fundamentalist fascists hate you, they hate me and they'd not blink at blowing up something in Ireland if they see how many ostriches they can scare into line here.

Thats your take on it and you're perfectly entitled to it. I think you should make it clear, however, that you're only expressing an opinion here and not a statement of fact...because thats all it is. You believe they hate us, and you think they would do this. You don't, however, have anything beyond that to show that there is a reason to believe it, do you?

Nearly 3,000 people. Human beings, some of them Irish...

And if we ignore the nationalities and compare it to the dead which fighting this so-called war on terrorism has directly led to, we should immediately see that our cure is far worse, far more horrific, and showing just about the same level of success in achieving its goals (i.e. none whatsoever).

Maybe its time that someone started thinking that perpetuating the cycle of violence, whilst trying to make sure there are easier targets than yourself is not the way to a solution.

Becasue, you know, thats what your argument boils down to. If we should beef up our security to make us harder to be attacked, all thats really saying is that we make sure there are more attractive targets than ourselves.

If the terrible loss of human life is what your concern, then simply making someone else a preferable target isn't going to alleviate that at all.

They hate you, and they hate me

You can keep repeating it, but all that you're making clear to me is that you hate them, rather than that you're actually correct on this point.

It just makes me incredibly angry to think that Ireland is so lazy - there's no other word for it - that we rely on a country we love to hate to defend us

Speak for yourself - I don't love to hate England. I don't hate them at all. I'm happy to see our nation move on and build closer ties with our closest cultural and geographical neighbours, especially where they can offer us a surity for a far lower financial cost than we could provide the equivalent ourselves.

Maybe you'd prefer to sacrifice some notional pride for the millions/billions that it would cost to remove this issue, but for someone who claims that we're a target for being western rather than for being close friends with the major aggressors, and who claims that we need to improve our security, I see no benefit whatsoever in suggesting that we should also sacrifice anything cost-effective like our agreements with our neighbours.

are so concerned with our material lives that nobody could give a damn about making sure that Irish people are not murdered in their own country by what is, if you'll ask the couple of thousand dead people I've listed above, quite a credible global threat.

If the number of people killed each year is whats significant, then the US military is a more credible global threat. The smoking industry is a more credible global threat. The weather is a more credible global threat, as is poverty, any number of illnesses, the coal industry, the automobile industry and any number of other things.

They're just as dead as the 3000 you listed, and if you asked them what was really important, I'm sure global terrorism wouldn't be at the top of their list.

As an appeal that this is where we need to spend our money, the cost in huiman lives - whilst regrettable - could be far more readily and cost-effectively reduced in other areas. So please...lets drop the "won't someone think of the human cost" because thats not really the issue here.

Still...I agree that what we should be doing is seeking to reduce the numbers who are killed through global terrorism. Where I disagree is that the belief that "they hate us" coupled with the combines rememdy of warring against them and their nations, imposing our western values on them, and making sure there are softer targets than ourselves will actually achieve anything.

Did you take a look up into the air on September 12th 2001 and notice the patrolling aircraft?

We had friendlies in the skies, willing to try and keep us out of harm's way. Did I care what nationality they were? No, I didn't. THey could have been Russian for all I cared.

Screw Shannon

I had a friend who lived in the Middle East when Shannon was made available for use by the Americans en route to/from Iraq. Her first-hand account was that the reaction locally was very much one that Ireland ceased to be an honourable nation who stayed out of things, and became, instead, a supporter of the US in its War on Islam (if you can misname it as a War on Terror. By her account, Bertie had effectively put her life directly in danger through his actions, reactions shifted that much.

Now...I can believe someone like her, who was in the Middle East, who's reaction I received first hand....or I can believe people who tell me to trust them and that we were always hated and are in as much danger sitting on the sidelines as we were any other way and who insist its because of some unproven assertion that "they hate us" because, well, thats what the leaders of Western aggression have told us and thats whats been repeated enough to become part of the public consciousness.

I'll take the un-spun first-hand account.

oscarBravo

Judt wrote:

How would you feel if Islamic terrorists did murder Irish people? Hmm?

Pretty much the same way I feel when Irish terrorists murder Irish people. I don't see how their religion makes it any worse.

kmick

Hezbollah can shag off for themselves. Who cares what they think. They cant even land a rocket accurately in Israel no mind plant a bomb over here.

Dontico

combat terrorism. hug a muslim today.

to Judt.
america isnt a democracy. thus not a "western democracy".
if you actually look at the issues that idlamic terrorists have with america, you will see why they are doing it. i see the issue as fixable by the west.
look irans histort from around 1950+.

KerranJast

Dontico wrote:

to Judt.
america isnt a democracy. thus not a "western democracy".

Liberal democracy is a representative democracy (with free and fair elections) along with the protection of minorities, the rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name liberal) of speech, assembly, religion, and property.

The United States was the world's first liberal democracy and meets the above conditions. I don't seen many Theocracies ticking all those boxes. There's no where else in the world where you are more free to practice what ever religion you like than the USA.

Sand

I had a friend who lived in the Middle East when Shannon was made available for use by the Americans en route to/from Iraq. Her first-hand account was that the reaction locally was very much one that Ireland ceased to be an honourable nation who stayed out of things, and became, instead, a supporter of the US in its War on Islam (if you can misname it as a War on Terror. By her account, Bertie had effectively put her life directly in danger through his actions, reactions shifted that much.

Two points

Do you think the average Irish person can name the regional airports of the middle east? Its a crying shame if we cant, because apparently the average middle eastern citizen are experts on Irish aviation policy.

Secondly, there has been absolutely no change in Irish policy regarding the US use of Shannon in decades. Bertie took no action, he simply left things as they always have been - that people who pay their way can use our airports, including the civillian contractors that fly US troops to bases all across Europe and the Middle East.

And as for the concept of an honourable nation as one "who stays out of things..." There is just so much wrong with that.

Now...I can believe someone like her, who was in the Middle East, who's reaction I received first hand....or I can believe people who tell me to trust them and that we were always hated and are in as much danger sitting on the sidelines as we were any other way and who insist its because of some unproven assertion that "they hate us" because, well, thats what the leaders of Western aggression have told us and thats whats been repeated enough to become part of the public consciousness.

Given Chiracs opposition to the Iraq War, one wonders why these guys got shot then. Surely, being French and everyone knowing how hostile the French were to the Iraq war they should have been feted through the streets by your reckoning?

They apparently machinegunned them from quite a distance so its hard to claim they simply gave the wrong answers to some politics quiz. Though, who knows, maybe the tourists in question supported the US use of Shannon.

Zambia

Sand wrote:

Two points
Do you think the average Irish person can name the regional airports of the middle east? Its a crying shame if we cant, because apparently the average middle eastern citizen are experts on Irish aviation policy.

Well put. The Royal Irish has served in both Iraq and Afganistan nobody in the North even gives the possiblty of a terrorist attack from Al queda Fundamentaliists a second thought. we have airports freely availible to US Military aircraft in fact if you looked around you would even find US service men here and there.

Anyone who thinks different just does not like the fact that US planes use Shannon and is hoping for somebody to blow something up so they can say "Something along the lines of I told you so didnt I".

Judt I see where your coming from but mate the threat is just not there...

Every now and again this thread comes up. The day that Irish troops land in Iraq or Afganistan without Fashionable blue outfits is the day you should worry.

marco murphy

Given Chiracs opposition to the Iraq War, one wonders why these guys got shot then. Surely, being French and everyone knowing how hostile the French were to the Iraq war they should have been feted through the streets by your reckoning?

They apparently machinegunned them from quite a distance so its hard to claim they simply gave the wrong answers to some politics quiz. Though, who knows, maybe the tourists in question supported the US use of Shannon.[/quotes]
Depends who shot them sir.
An Irish journalist also got killed a while back if Iam not mistaken.
Saudi Arabia would'nt be my first choice for a holiday. France also has a bit of ''banning the burqah'' case on it's shoulders.
Al Qieda are intent on destabilising Saudi Arabia, I'd say its almost a personal thing with Bin Laden.

Victor

Judt wrote:

Gurgle, last time I looked 99% of major terrorism carried out on Ireland's close European allies, let alone worldwide, were related to Islamic terrorists. Whether you like the idea of a "War on Terror" or not, the Islamic fundamentalists certainly seem to be of the mind that they're fighting a Jihad on the West in general. Most of the P-IRA and their opponents are currently duking it out in a political election campaign, where we'd rather see them methinks.

Judt wrote:

Bonkey, stop being a pedantic.... Ahem.... There are 52 dead and over 200 injured in London, as well as pending attacks stopped shortly thereafter. 191 dead and 2,050 injured in Madrid. 202, mostly foreign nationals, killed in the first Bali bombing, 209 injured. 12 people killed, 150 injured in the Mariott Hotel bombing in 2003. 57 people killed in the 2003 Istanbul bombings. 10 people killed in the Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta. 20 people killed in the second Bali bombing, 129 injured. 61 people killed, 92 injured in the Delhi bombings. 60 killed, 150 injured in the Amman bombings in 2005. At least 28 killed and 101 injured in the Varanasi bombings. 209 killed, over 700 injured in the Mumbai train bombings.

Unless south Asia has been redisignated as part of Europe, I think you are bloating your figures.

Sand wrote:

Given Chiracs opposition to the Iraq War, one wonders why these guys got shot then. Surely, being French and everyone knowing how hostile the French were to the Iraq war they should have been feted through the streets by your reckoning?

Actually Chirac said he would join the 2003 invasion if WMD were found.

But in practice, isn't your connection between the Iraq war and this attack naive? Yes, the Iraq war happened in part because the Americans needed to get out of Saudi Arabia so as to placate / not further infuriate Sunni radicals. However, I suspect in this attack, the victims were merely seen as generic non-Muslims trespassing in the Holy Land, available to be oppurtunistic targets.

Zambia232 wrote:

Every now and again this thread comes up. The day that Irish troops land in Iraq or Afganistan without Fashionable blue outfits is the day you should worry.

Didn't that happen in 2004?

KerranJast wrote:

Liberal democracy is a representative democracy (with free and fair elections) along with the protection of minorities, the rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name liberal) of speech, assembly, religion, and property.

The United States was the world's first liberal democracy and meets the above conditions. I don't seen many Theocracies ticking all those boxes. There's no where else in the world where you are more free to practice what ever religion you like than the USA.

So remind me when women got the vote, segregation was abolished and ethnic-Japanese citizens weren't interned and Sihks weren't killed because they were mistaken for Muslims?

Zambia

Victor wrote:

Didn't that happen in 2004?

Did it ??? Must look that up thanks.

However if so no-one blew anything up over that either.

dathi1

It just makes me incredibly angry to think that Ireland is so lazy - there's no other word for it - that we rely on a country we love to hate to defend us and are so concerned with our material lives that nobody could give a damn about making sure that Irish people are not murdered in their own country by what is, if you'll ask the couple of thousand dead people I've listed above, quite a credible global threat

Makes me incredibly angry the suggestion that 2 nations specifically the US and the UK who are responsible for the whole middle east fiasco since the foundation of a Zionist state that somehow we have to prop up their wars abroad and in this case condemn an organisation which has been the first to defeat its fascist aggression since 1942 last summer. Roll on Hizzbolah. (Just stay out of Ireland )

KerranJast

Victor wrote:

So remind me when women got the vote, segregation was abolished and ethnic-Japanese citizens weren't interned and Sihks weren't killed because they were mistaken for Muslims?

Apart from the last case which I have never heard of, those events happened over a half a century ago. Almost a full 100 years in the case of universal suffrage. The statement was made that the USA is not (note the PRESENT TENSE) a democratic society when by modern standards it is one of the most free countries in the world.

Zambia

KerranJast wrote:

Apart from the last case which I have never heard of, those events happened over a half a century ago. Almost a full 100 years in the case of universal suffrage. The statement was made that the USA is not (note the PRESENT TENSE) a democratic society when by modern standards it is one of the most free countries in the world.

Its going Off topic but the US is a democracy. Granted I think they dont vote wisely but it is a democracy...

Victor

KerranJast wrote:

Apart from the last case which I have never heard of,

Post September 11th.

those events happened over a half a century ago. Almost a full 100 years in the case of universal suffrage.

Your statement was that "The United States was the world's first liberal democracy". I contend that many of the conditions for a liberal democracy weren't present until the 1950s, not the 1780s.

KerranJast

You are considering the absolute definition of a liberal democracy which is from a 21st Century viewpoint. In the 1780s, compared with the other nations of the world the US was the closest thing to a modern liberal democracy. Anyway Zambia's right this is getting a bit off topic.

Manic Moran

In fairness, back in 150BC, the Athenians had the closest thing to a Liberal Democracy that existsted at the time..

NTM

Sand

But in practice, isn't your connection between the Iraq war and this attack naive? Yes, the Iraq war happened in part because the Americans needed to get out of Saudi Arabia so as to placate / not further infuriate Sunni radicals.

Not my connection actually - I completely doubt that relatively minor political moves by Ireland [leaving Shannon as is] or France [opposing the invasion of Iraq] impact the mindset of extremist jihadist groups. Their idealogy and attacks predate the Iraq war afterall. To their mindset, the liberal and secular West is a threat to their theocratic utopia - and theyre right. Western adherence to human rights, promoted through western dominance of global culture and information, is incompatible with their own vision.

I suspect in this attack, the victims were merely seen as generic non-Muslims

I fully agree - they were targets on the basis of their western identity. Didnt mean a thing that France did its best to stop the Iraq war, so the argument that stopping the US using Shannon would make us safer is weak to say the least.

marco murphy

Just remember, I would'nt say Hizbollah kills people on their ''western'' status.

Zambia

Poblachtach wrote:

Just remember, I would'nt say Hizbollah kills people on their ''western'' status.

Well unless you went to the west bank and waved your ipod at them

Hogmeister B

Judt wrote:

Now tell me the consequences of this for Ireland: Say we get bombed before election day, throw some eejits into power and find ourselves in the heat of the moment either A. Throwing our lot in with the Americans and going to town on this war on terror or B. Make anti-Americanism a state policy, blame them for the attacks and completely shag ourselves in the process.

Don't be silly. Firstly, there is noone fielding candidates in the election, with the possible exception of the shinners (who will never, ever, win a majority no matter who blows up what), who would be completely incompetent if elected. Secondly, no matter what your point of view the only people here- out of us, the US and the bombers- the Americans are the only ones who could not be blamed (unless we all went off our collective rockers) for such an attack. It was us that let them in- we didn't have to. Ergo, WE take responsibillity for the consequences.