Multiple Bomb Blasts in London

growler

Al qaeda and it's franchisees for a global islamic state have been after the US for years , long before the first missile hit Afghanistan. Their only objective is to create a war between muslims and everyone else. Sitting around waiting for them to think up ways of killing westerners is hardly the best defensive strategy.

The war on terror has backfired to some extent in that the terrorists have been better able to use propaganda to get support than the US or UK have been, therefore more polarised opinions, more recruits, more bombs.

However selfish it may be, I glad that most of the "war" is being fought over there rather than in the streets of NY and London.

jman0

in this article a author spells it out a little better:

In an interview Thursday, Pape said the lesson of London is that al-Qaida and like-minded groups are alive and well, systematically focused on the clearly defined goal of forcing U.S. and allied troops out of predominantly Muslim countries.

"This is just part of the continuing al-Qaida attack," Pape said. "Although many have hoped that al-Qaida had been weakened by American counterterrorist attacks, the facts are otherwise."

The London attacks mark the 15th terrorist event since 2002 linked to al-Qaida or associated groups, he said. Those attacks have claimed over 700 lives - more deaths than attributed to al-Qaida in all the years before the Sept. 11 attacks combined.

Pape noted that the numbers are even more dramatic within Iraq, a country that had never experienced an incident of suicide terrorism before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. The number of such attacks totaled 20 in 2003, 48 in 2004 and 50 just in the first five months this year.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/12078732.htm

Pretty much clears it up. Westerners killing muslims in their own countries is the problem. Al'Q is just the response.

pablo321

growler wrote:

Al qaeda and it's franchisees for a global islamic state have been after the US for years , long before the first missile hit Afghanistan. Their only objective is to create a war between muslims and everyone else. Sitting around waiting for them to think up ways of killing westerners is hardly the best defensive strategy.
/QUOTE]

They have been at "war" with the US. But this is their first attack on UK interests. This is directly related to the Iraq and Afganistan wars.

They are at war with the US for a number of reasons, but really the US forgeign policy if the fuel to Al-Qaeda fire.

The post sept 11 attack on their ranks has changed the organisation. They have out-sourced their terror to more local groups, supplying knowledge and money, but steping back from day to day operations. Except around Pakistan/Afganistan/ Kashmir were they still have a solid base and organisation.

Pablo

bonkey

jman0 wrote:

Westerners killing muslims in their own countries is the problem. Al'Q is just the response.

There's a part of me which disagrees with this, because it believes that this is actually more of a case of the tail wagging the dog.

AQ suckered the US into invading ME nations. Next, they have to sucker them into leaving said invadde nations. The resultant power-vacuum, and the massive unrest in teh meantime (as already evidenced) are both ideal situations for fundamentalist, extremist Islam to gain in strength.

After all, who would the fundamentalists want to "take care of" first...their errant (in their eyes) fellow Muslims, or the infidel?

The infidel may just well as be used as a tool....with the ideal solution being that the West hands fundamentalism some large slice of the Muslim world. whilst getting a bloody enough nose that its going to live with the results of its intervention once the retaliation stops.

But maybe I'd need a different hat to go further with that idea. A shineh one

jc

jman0

I don't understand your first line:

bonkey wrote:

AQ suckered the US into invading ME nations. Next, they have to sucker them into leaving said invadde nations.
jc

What are you refering to..?
USA invaded Iraq in 91 for their own selfish reasons, not because of Al'Q

civdef

USA invaded Iraq in 91 for their own selfish reasons, not because of Al'Q

Interesting opinion, what do you base it on? What were the selfish interests?

jman0

civdef wrote:

Interesting opinion, what do you base it on? What were the selfish interests?

Oil, and a permanent military presence in the ME.
I base it on the lies they launched the war with:
Namely that after invading Kuwait (whom the US had no treaty with) that Iraq was massing his troops along the border with Saudi Arabia (whom both US and UK had treaty's with).
This was a lie.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/50586247.html?MAC=dc7dd3787b458f60363a4e2b706ce17f&did=50586247&FMT=FT&FMTS=FT&date=&author=&pub=&printformat=&desc=Photos+don%27t+show+buildup

I could also mention the "babies in incubator" propaganda but that has already been thoroughly rubbished.

Wheely

growler wrote:

Al qaeda and it's franchisees for a global islamic state have been after the US for years , long before the first missile hit Afghanistan. Their only objective is to create a war between muslims and everyone else. Sitting around waiting for them to think up ways of killing westerners is hardly the best defensive strategy.

The war on terror has backfired to some extent in that the terrorists have been better able to use propaganda to get support than the US or UK have been, therefore more polarised opinions, more recruits, more bombs.

However selfish it may be, I glad that most of the "war" is being fought over there rather than in the streets of NY and London.

Im sorry I just had to respond to this! The idea that al queda and its...im sorry..."franchises" are tryin to achieve to achieve a global islamic state is ridiculous!! They have threatened this action in Europe as a direct result of european involvement in middle eastern countries-those words came from the mouth of the all-encompassing evil that is bin laden himself. What ur saying sounds like more of the sam ecrap the world was fed throughout the cold war that communism, which is nothing more than a political ideology, was inherntly evil and was coming to get you. Of course after the collapse of the USSR and with nothing to scare the kids into line, they would try and have us beleive that Islam, which is nothing more than a religion same as judaism, christianity, hinuism, is inherently evil and is coming to get us!!! Its unbelieveable that people are actually succumbing to this joe mccarthy style bull all over again, whatever happened ti learning from our mistakes. For those who think european involvement has nothing to do with terrorist attacks in europe let me put it in an Irish context-remember after bloody sunday Ivan Cooper came on live TV and told the British govt that they had given the IRA its biggest ever victory, that the civil rights movement was dead and that all over NI young men were joining the IRA. Replace the brits with the "coalition of the willing" replace the IRA with AL-Queda and its "franchises". The only difference is bloody sunday can be replaced by fallujah, guantonamo, afghanistan, west bank, gaza strip, the list goes on and on and on..... When will people realise that hatred and violence breeds hatred and violence....someone has to stop sometime.....

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Out of curiosity, what are you basing this on?

The UK publics reaction to the IRA for one, and most of the interviews I've heard since yesterday.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

The UK publics reaction to the IRA for one, and most of the interviews I've heard since yesterday.

Wishful thinking i'd say, have to pity them really.

civdef

Namely that after invading Kuwait (whom the US had no treaty with) that Iraq was massing his troops along the border with Saudi Arabia (whom both US and UK had treaty's with).

There was however of course, a full UN mandate to remove Iraq from Kuwait.

There is also the point that the invasion was of very short duration, in essence following up on the destruction of the Iraqi army, and only of limited extent.

jman0

civdef wrote:

There was however of course, a full UN mandate to remove Iraq from Kuwait.
There is also the point that the invasion was of very short duration, in essence following up on the destruction of the Iraqi army, and only of limited extent.

Oh sure "a UN mandate", after the yanks had massed a huge army on the battlefield and Bush Snr was busy drawing lines in the sand and setting unilateral deadlines. The US Congress and the UN were pretty well politically cornered by then.

But that is besides the point, Saddam checked with the yanks before partaking the Kuwaiti excursion and he wasn't exactly told no.

Edit: also, it didn't turn out to be short duration now did it?
The yanks were unilateral Pirates of the Meditraenan Sea and bombing Iraq on a nearly daily basis for about 10 years, whilst starving their children via the sanctions regime.

Nuttzz

jman0 wrote:

Oh sure "a UN mandate", after the yanks had massed a huge army on the battlefield and Bush Snr was busy drawing lines in the sand and setting unilateral deadlines. The US Congress and the UN were pretty well politically cornered by then.

China and Russia decided not to use their veto, they cant be cornered you know... I love the way the anti US camp can claim that the current war was illegal because it didnt get a UN mandate and at the same time blame the US for the war in 91 even though they had a UN mandate.

The multinational force back in 91 had plenty of arab nations contributing to it, as well as France & Germany, how were all these cornered too?

The biggest mistake the US made back in 91 was not finishing the job off, had the supported the rebellions against Saddam in the north and south of they country, instead of stupid "no fly zones" they wouldnt be in the mess they are now.

jman0

Nuttzz wrote:

The biggest mistake the US made back in 91 was not finishing the job off, had the supported the rebellions against Saddam in the north and south of the country, instead of stupid "no fly zones" they wouldnt be in the mess they are now.

Getting rid of their Strongman Saddam you mean?
I think you'll be finding a key member of the Coaliton rather adamant against such, namely Turkey.
Just think of how far advanced the Iraqi Terrorist Haven would be today?

Nuttzz

jman0 wrote:

Just think of how far advanced the Iraqi Terrorist Haven would be today?

it didnt happen so theirs no point debating it

since when was Saddam the strong man of a lot of the countries in the mutlinational force, Turkey wasnt against getting rid of Saddam they were opposed to an independent Kurd nation on their border

jman0

Nuttzz wrote:

since when was Saddam the strong man of a lot of the countries in the mutlinational force, Turkey wasnt against getting rid of Saddam they were opposed to an independent Kurd nation on their border

It's long been argued (Bush Snr himself infact) that Saddam shouldn't be removed because he's the only person capable of preserving the territorial integrity of Iraq. Turkey was always against getting rid of Saddam because to do so, means unstabiltiy along their border. Theres nobody to replace him, not then and not now.

Nuttzz

jman0 wrote:

Theres nobody to replace him, not then and not now.

So if he had of stayed in power, what would of happened when he died? Another Kim Jong Il setup????

jman0

Nuttzz wrote:

So if he had of stayed in power, what would of happened when he died? Another Kim Jong Il setup????

i dunno Nuttzz but i believe it would be entirely a matter for the people of Iraq to decide.

Essey

jman0 wrote:

i dunno Nuttzz but i believe it would be entirely a matter for the people of Iraq to decide.

Isnt that the U.S point?

dathi1

What do you mean it hasn't worked. Al'Quaeda has been committed to attacking the UK for years and this is the best they could muster. Hopefully the perpertators will be caught and the intelligence used to capture some more cells in the UK. Since all the training camps in Afghanistan have been destroyed it's going to be extremely hard for Al'Quaeda to keep training there recruits the way they have in the past thus it'll be extremely hard to destroy us - the infidels

I don't believe London was a prime target until the Iraq invasion. I stress the word prime.
As for destroying camps in Afghanistan...Its the mindset that's gives these people oxygen you have to destroy. This isn't cold war bader meinhoff style terrorism. This is Islamofacisim which is fed directly by the situation in the middle east. One of the camps you refer too was "destroyed" last week by US marines in retaliation for the downed Chinook. Turns out they wiped out a whole village of innocent people.
Destroying camps in Afghanistan???
How about at G8 on the middle east. How about sorting UN res 242 in Palestine. How about handing Iraq back to the Iraqis as quickly as possible with war damages. How about a lesson being learnt by all us here in the west..that Invasion or occupation under whatever guise feeds more Jihadisim. And I'm sorry for bringing it up at this time..from a security point of view how about some controls on immigration so we know whos in here. I don't doubt for one minute these Jihadists will always have their gripe with us but I don't like seeing polls in the UK post sept 11th stating that the majority of young Muslims support Osama Bin Laden because of the west's colonial escapades in the Muslim world.

jman0

Essey wrote:

Isnt that the U.S point?

Not bloodly likely, that is thier propaganda.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

It's long been argued (Bush Snr himself infact) that Saddam shouldn't be removed because he's the only person capable of preserving the territorial integrity of Iraq.

A bit like Breznev the USSR and her satelites I suppose...

The other thing that puzzles me is where all the oil in Bosnia went,there must have been some right?

Essey

Really? I thought the bombing in London may have been related to the Madrid bombings. If you hit them at home they will run. Haven't they now threatened Denmark and Italy with the same treatment? Where will that end? Is the problem of the Middle East completely the result of western interference? Or can the governments and people of those nations hold at least some responsibility for there own plight? Al Quida had issues with the west (or at least the US) prior to Iraq namely the USS Cole & Kenya bombings. We ignored those and in return we received 9/11. Its easy to sit here and debate the "evils" of Bush but do you have any logical solutions????? (FYI - the globe isn't that big - we'll fall off the edge if we run too far)

dathi1

Its easy to sit here and debate the "evils" of Bush but do you have any logical solutions?????

logical solutions as stated above

steviec

It was the Spanish Governments bad handling of the situation and blaming it on ETA that resulted in them losing the election. It's not going to happen in Britain, it's going to have the opposite effect and strengthen Blair's position if anything judging by the various interviews and reactions so far, which isn't too surprising.

Nuttzz

what about Kosovo, how dare the imperialist american and british forces invade that provence to protect people from being slaughtered.

ionapaul

steviec wrote:

It was the Spanish Governments bad handling of the situation and blaming it on ETA that resulted in them losing the election. It's not going to happen in Britain, it's going to have the opposite effect and strengthen Blair's position if anything judging by the various interviews and reactions so far, which isn't too surprising.

To be honest, I can't believe the perpetrators of yesterday's attack actually believed the event would made the British public demand an end to their nation's support for the War on Terror or occupation of Iraq. They can't have been that stupid - anyone with any grasp of history or knowledge of the British character would know the attack would bring out the 'British bulldog' instinct. Further attacks on Britain, America or Australia will just serve to strengthen public resolve against the terrorists. I can only assume the terrorists had a different objective in mind.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

A bit like Breznev the USSR and her satelites I suppose...

The other thing that puzzles me is where all the oil in Bosnia went,there must have been some right?

Are you trying to change the subject Earthman?
Puleeze.
If you wanna talk Bosnia, lets do it, but are you sure you didn't mean Kosovo?

jman0

Nuttzz wrote:

what about Kosovo, how dare the imperialist american and british forces invade that provence to protect people from being slaughtered.

Maybe you're forgetting the sequence of events.
For one, the Kosovars were not being "slaughtered" they were being expelled.
But remember, they were not being expelled until after NATO started bombing, because that was the Milesovic threat.

growler

Wheely wrote:

Im sorry I just had to respond to this! The idea that al queda and its...im sorry..."franchises" are tryin to achieve to achieve a global islamic state is ridiculous!!



What ur saying sounds like more of the sam ecrap the world was fed throughout the cold war that communism, which is nothing more than a political ideology, was inherntly evil and was coming to get you. .....

Al Qaeda has stated many times that it wants to achieve a single islamic Caliphate that unites the muslim world, it is also a core belief of all these nutcases that all infidels should be converted to islam.


Political ideology, yes it is a political ideology, just not mine theirs. me saying what they hope to achieve, and it is a pretty straightforward strategy, to polarise the muslim world living in the west ( with the consequences I mentioned earlier), does not equate to me endorsing or suggesting any kind of cold war nonsense. The cold war had two (equally paranoid) sides, I don't think you can accuse the west of trying to isolate the entire muslim world, just the terrorist / fanatic elements.