http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4745639.stm
Osama Bin Laden's lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahri has warned London will face more attacks because of Tony Blair's foreign policy decisions.
The al-Qaeda deputy said: "Blair has brought you destruction to the heart of London, and he will bring more destruction, God willing."
Mr Blair denies his policies provoked the 7 July bombs, which killed 56.
Some critics, including MP George Galloway, said the war in Iraq had helped to spark the attacks on London.
But Mr Blair has said the Iraq war is merely an excuse for those who want to attack the UK.
In the tape al-Zawahri - who wore a white tunic with black turban and posed next to a rifle - also warned other nations to leave Muslim lands to avoid further violence.
And he said: "What you have seen, O Americans, in New York and Washington and the losses you are having in Afghanistan and Iraq, in spite of all the media blackout, are only the losses of the initial clashes.
"If you continue the same policy of aggression against Muslims, God willing, you will see the horror that will make you forget what you had seen in Vietnam."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4745639.stm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above raises the question who should decide the foreign policy in a country: the democratically elected government or an extremist group who is trying to blackmail the country with terrorist attacks ?
Blaming Blair for the London Bombings is a well-known strategy used by people who like to turn things upside down. Such an approach produces its own logic: "THEY are to blame for everything and WE are innocent."
Who of you guys holds the opinion that if the allies will give in to the terrorists and leave every Muslim country the Jihadist terrorist blackmail will stop ?
I personally do not think it will stop. Why should they leave behind a policy that proved to be so extremely successful ? .... of course they will continue to blackmail the free world with new atrocities if we start giving in to them.
What is your opinion ?
I think exactly like you, the only way the terrorist bombing will
stop is if there are no more terrorists. Personally I don't think
even the flushing out of Bin Laden will stop it, I think his money
has spread to other cells and killing Laden will only make him
a martyr to their sick cause.
Originally posted by sonhouseSonhouse: " ... Personally I don't think even the flushing out of Bin Laden will stop it, ... "
I think exactly like you, the only way the terrorist bombing will
stop is if there are no more terrorists. Personally I don't think
even the flushing out of Bin Laden will stop it, I think his money
has spread to other cells and killing Laden will only make him
a martyr to their sick cause.
I agree. Bin Laden has become more or less a symbol for what is happening. If they would catch him it wouln't change much. It might even trigger more blackmailing terrorist attacks demanding to set him free.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou should work for the White House. That kind of political spin would make even Karl Rove jealous. 🙂
I agree. Bin Laden has become more or less a symbol for what is happening. If they would catch him it wouln't change much. It might even trigger more blackmailing terrorist attacks demanding to set him free.
So we shouldn't prosecute murderers because their followers might seek revenge? I thought we were at war with these people. Are you saying we should back off on Osama because it might lead to (gasp!) violence?
Originally posted by wibRemember the story that Shelby Foote told about Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee in Ken Burns' Civil War production? They were surveying damage done by Union Troops and Lee said, "General, what are we to do about those people?" And Jackson immediately answered, "Kill 'em! Kill 'em all!" Of course it wasn't long after that Jackson was mortally wounded by friendly fire but since that doesn't exactly help make the point I guess I'll just leave it out.
You should work for the White House. That kind of political spin would make even Karl Rove jealous. 🙂
So we shouldn't prosecute murderers because their followers might seek revenge? I thought we were at war with these people. Are you saying we should back off on Osama because it might lead to (gasp!) violence?
Originally posted by DelmerYa lost me Del. But I do appreciate the Civil War reference. 🙂
Remember the story that Shelby Foote told about Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee in Ken Burns' Civil War production? They were surveying damage done by Union Troops and Lee said, "General, what are we to do about those people?" And Jackson immediately answered, "Kill 'em! Kill 'em all!" Of course it wasn't long after that Jackson was mortally woun ...[text shortened]... iendly fire but since that doesn't exactly help make the point I guess I'll just leave it out.
Originally posted by DelmerAh, gotcha. Agreed on Jackson. 🙂
LOL! Just pointing out that Gen. Jackson's sound bite on fixing the terrorist problem would most likely be: "Kill 'em! Kill 'em all!"
Again I see only two possible solutions to the "terrorist problem":
1. (The Jackson solution) Kill every terrorist, suspected terrorist, every family member and pet of a suspected/proven terrorist, and shoot all of their close and not so close friends in the head. Burn down their homes, confiscate all their worldly goods, then dig an enormous pit, bury all their ashes, set fire to the ashes, and cover the whole thing with concrete. Or...
2. Leave'em alone. In every way possible.
Did those Muslim countries ppl have A CHOICE whether or not to get bombed to crap by us Westerners? NOPE!
This is the way I see it, our countries should be free to make decisions and follow democracy as much as they want, but they shouldn't dicide for others.
Why do you think murder is illegal? Does not making murder illegal interfere with your choice of murdering and freedom? The reason why murder is illegal is because the victim has no choice, they are dead, you took away their freedom and right to live, I see Iraq and Afghanistan in the same light.
We are murdering ppl's families, then they murder our families back in anyway they can (they don't own big guns like we do), and then we whine how it's not fair for them to poorly suicide bomb our civilians because we have the right/choice to invade their countries, sorry guys, it doesn't work that way, murder is murder, and no, we don't have the right to invade whoever we want and expect nothing bad to happen, and no, I don't think we are superior to the rest of the world or have earned such a title.
Originally posted by wibWib: "[b]You should work for the White House. That kind of political spin would make even Karl Rove jealous. 🙂
You should work for the White House. That kind of political spin would make even Karl Rove jealous. 🙂
So we shouldn't prosecute murderers because their followers might seek revenge? I thought we were at war with these people. Are you saying we should back off on Osama because it might lead to (gasp!) violence?
Thanks Wib ..... 😏 😵
Wib: "So we shouldn't prosecute murderers because their followers might seek revenge? "
Noooo .....
Wib: " ... Are you saying we should back off on Osama because it might lead to (gasp!) violence?
No, I certainly do not apply Maraudian logic ! 😉
Originally posted by ivanhoe[/b]LOL! "Maruadian Logic". 🙂
Wib: "[b]You should work for the White House. That kind of political spin would make even Karl Rove jealous. 🙂
Thanks Wib ..... 😏 😵
Wib: "So we shouldn't prosecute murderers because their followers might seek revenge? "
...[text shortened]... iolence?
No, I certainly do not apply Maraudian logic ! 😉
Ok, I'll let it go then. I'm not going there.
This reminds me of a story concerning President Kennedy. JFK, in the first few months of his administration, had approved the insane Bay of Pigs operation were it was assumed that 1200 Cuban exiles would simply land in Cuba and all the support for Castro would magically melt away. Then the exiles would march to Havanna amid cheering crowds and install a Western-friendly government (sound familiar?).
Anyway, when the operation went disasterously wrong and the exiles were on the verge of defeat, some members of the administration and military tried to convince JFK that he now needed to use the full force of the US military to save the invasion and overthrow Castro. Their arguments were similiar to Ivanhoe's: a defeat for "freedom" in Cuba would enbolden the Communists who, of course, were a united group attempting to take over the entire world. It would damage US "credibility". JFK refused to send good money after bad and stuck to his long held position that US forces must not be part of the invasion of Cuba (by doing this, he may have averted WW III as the Soviets were seriously considering seizing Berlin in retailation for a full scale US invasion of Cuba, according to Soviet documents revealed in the last 10 years). JFK said:
"We may get kicked in the can for a few weeks, but that won't change the main business."
He was, of course, proven right. A US withdrawal from Iraq, like our similar withdrawal from Vietnam, will not lead to the fall of the entire world to some vague totalitarianism; it will be a simple admission of an error. The Islamic Fundamentalists will lose their no1 recruiting tool and moderate, progressive Muslim elements will be strengthened (just not pro-Western puppets). In the end, it is the inevitable result anyway; political pressure is building for a withdrawal in the US as the losses mount with no end in sight. The question is not whether, but when, the US withdraws without imposing a pro-Western government in Iraq - the sooner it happens the less dead people there will be.
Originally posted by no1marauderYour comparisons, in this case an example from the Cold War, are always so confusing ..... the situation now is so different now that any comparison with such a situation then will only raise more questions and most of them will be quite irrelevant to the present situation ..... for instance the relations JFK had with the Army and the CIA were .... shall we say "more complex" than the relations Bush has with them.
This reminds me of a story concerning President Kennedy. JFK, in the first few months of his administration, had approved the insane Bay of Pigs operation were it was assumed that 1200 Cuban exiles would simply land in Cuba and ...[text shortened]... n Iraq - the sooner it happens the less dead people there will be.
.... and please could you also adress the subject of this thread .... Thank you 🙂
Originally posted by ivanhoeI submit the analogy is apt. The right wingers argued then, as now, that the West faced an enemy that wanted to take over the entire world and that if we didn't stop them in X (Korea, China, Vietnam, Cuba: you name it) they would succeed. They also argued, as you have, that the West could not ever admit defeat anywhere as that would encourage our enemies. The right wingers were wrong; the fall of certain countries to indigenous Communist movements had no effect at all on the security of the West. The fall of the entire Middle East to Islamic Fundamentalists, an entirely implausible scenario made possible only by Western interference which has strengthened the IFs, would still not endanger the West in any way. If there was some benefit to the vast majority of people in the West for supporting repressive regimes in the Middle East, then possibly, POSSIBLY, your little holy war might be worth fighting. However, neither you or anyone else in these forums has ever given me a reason why this policy is worth hundreds of thousands of people getting killed. Care to give it a shot?
Your comparisons, in this case an example from the Cold War, are always so confusing ..... the situation now is so different now that any comparison with such a situation then will only raise more questions and most of them will be quite ir ...[text shortened]... d you also adress the subject of this thread .... Thank you 🙂
Originally posted by wibI don't mean to be unduly picky, WIB, but perhaps you inadvertantly editorialized just a tad when stating the Jackson position. I'm sure it was not intentional on your part.
Ah, gotcha. Agreed on Jackson. 🙂
Again I see only two possible solutions to the "terrorist problem":
1. (The Jackson solution) Kill every terrorist, suspected terrorist, every family member and pet of a suspected/proven terrorist, and shoot all of their close and not so close friends in the head. Burn down their homes, confiscate all their worldl ...[text shortened]... ver the whole thing with concrete. Or...
2. Leave'em alone. In every way possible.