London terrorist attacks

[fragment]

Originally Posted by MooseIBe

Fragment! Fancy seeing you here! :d

Hi! I crawled over from II a couple of weeks back, but I just lurked until yesterday.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by JoeP

All this "this is our deserved punishment for invading" talk suggests nothing should have been done about that.

I might've said something along the lines you're suggesting, but that's not what I meant. You are very possibly right that these cells (assuming this was Al Queda) were in place and on target for years as a result of the American presence in Saudi Arabia et. al., and this isn't retribution for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. But even so, our expansion in the region certainly did nothing to discourage them from proceeding!

Also I have sympathy for everyone who suffers and dies unnecessarily. I've mentioned before how much it sucks that we backed the Taliban when they were committing horrendous human rights violations, then only turned on them after 9/11. But anyway, it occurs to me that trying to make an thoughtful post five minutes after I wake up is a dismal endeavor, so I'll stop now.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by JoeP

I've replied in Leesifer's "glad I'm working from home" thread, but on the subject of sympathy for Iraqis, don't any of you stinking pinko liberals have any sympathy for the tens or hundreds of thousands* of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein's regime? All this "this is our deserved punishment for invading" talk suggests nothing should have been done about that.

* I don't trust the figures I've found on the web. I thought 30,000, from memory; I found claims varying from 290,000 to 400,000 in mass graves alone. Definitive numbers anyone?

Tony Blair claimed 400,000 but later retracted it. So far they have found 5,000 bodies in mass graves from the Saddam era. PM admits graves claim 'untrue' Sunday July 18, 2004.

Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered.

I think something should have been done about Saddam, eventually. But not what was done by Bush and Blair at the time they did it. It has obviously made the situation worse and cost American and British lives in the process, and ran contrary to every principle of foreign relations that was articulated by the west after World War Two. And the timing was wrong because we had another war to fight; we still had not defeated the enemy that attacked the United States in 2001. Finish one job before starting another, that's what my dad always told me.

Personally I do blame Saddam for the Iraqi deaths under the sanctions. He managed to keep his buddies in champagne in caviar, he could have fed his people even without meeting the terms for lifting he sanctions.

[Farren]

Dave I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. I do feel, however, that the sanctions were clumsy. They could have been more finely tuned with less negative effects.

[albert cipriani]

Originally Posted by Morroskye

Excellent & Interesting point. Bush says the same exact thing.

You guys are morons. If that pathetic piece of pablum is “excellent and interesting” cockroaches are sexy.

OK. For you historically illiterate who find such bilge interesting, here’s more British history. Prime Minister Chamberlain, hoodwinked by Hitler, clutching his scrap of paper waving in the airport wind claimed “peace in our time.” And not a bomb dropped on England, though Poland and France were immediately conquered and the Gestapo torture industry got into full swing.

Conversely, Prime Minister Churchill, who took over and promised to save Western Civilization and save England from entering into another Dark Age, was responsible for every major city in England going up in flames under the bombing Blitz. 5,000 Brits were killed per month for 9 months. That was the price paid for Churchill to keep his promise of saving civilization. And you guys represent the last vestiges of that Western Civilization he saved. What a poor bargain! Given who you are, I’d say the price was too high.

See?! Tony Blair is following in the same failed tradition of Churchill! 30 Brits, count them, 30 Brits just lost their lives cuz Blair is fool enough to stand up to today’s Nazis cum terrorists. Doesn’t he realize like you smart folks do that when people stand up and fight for a just cause they will get killed, and getting killed, by definition, is not safe?! Ergo, we should never stand up for anything! You guys are morons. – Disgusted, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[Godless Dave]

But did Churchill proclaim he was going to keep the UK safe from Germany by attacking Switzerland? That's the difference. Blair and Bush's claim is that the best way to fight al Qaeda was to invade and occupy a country that was in no way connected to al Qaeda.

Blair is following the tradition of Chamberlain, not Churchill. Except if Blair had been in Chamberlain's shoes he would have sent British troops into the Sudatenland alongside the Germans in order to preserve Britain's special relationship with Germany.

[Ari]

Ok, someone brought up Nazis, thread over.

Um, the big problem is that you can't really compare a large national war machine with a terrorist war machine. The decentralized organization of terrorists and the way they attack means that trying to occupie a single country wont make the world safe from terrorists. Yes, there is a chance there are fewer terrorists, but this isn't a grunt battle. It only takes a few people to cause a lot of damage, thus we aren't any safer than we were before.

Oh, and it's 50 last time I heard, not 30, with almost 1000 injured.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

30 Brits, count them, 30 Brits just lost their lives cuz Blair is fool enough to stand up to today’s Nazis cum terrorists.

Please explain to me how invading Iraq was standing up to terrorists. That's like standing up to the Chinese by invading Russia.

I am long past sick and tired of Bush apologists accusing Iraq war opponents of not wanting to fight terrorism. I want my country to use the military to fight terrorism. I wish we were, but we're not! Our military is completely tied up in an entirely unrelated war. My point, which you call pablum, is that maybe these attacks could have been prevented if the United States had made a serious effort to attack al Qaeda. Instead, we made a half-assed effort and then abandoned it and committed our military elsewhere. To paraphrase Wes Clark, I'm not criticizing them for fighting terrorism, I'm criticizing them for NOT fighting terrorism. We don't even have enough troops to pacify Iraq, so we can't fight Al Qaeda.

[Godless Dave]

Seriously, Albert, answer the question. Name one thing Tony Blair has done to stand up to terrorists.

As far as I can tell all he's done is give them more recruits and more territory.

[albert cipriani]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Seriously, Albert, answer the question. Name one thing Tony Blair has done to stand up to terrorists.

Duh, like take over Iraq. That country was paying the families of suicide bombers thousands of dollars per hit. Now it is not. Ergo, to the degree a family was motivated to have their sons and daughters bring home the bacon by shredding women and children in pizza parlors, they are no longer so motivated. Now terrorist families must be motivated solely by their worthless cult of hate, ignorance, and unbridled evil.

But you guys can’t do the arithmetic. You guys see Iraq as a country instead of the viper nest of brooding terrorists it was. In short, you guys are blind and arithmetically challenged. – Amazed at Your Willful Stupidity, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Ari]

I would be very curious to see evidence that shows the old Iraqi government was paying money to Al Qaeda bomber families.

Claiming that removing supposed terrorists in Iraq (which so far hasn't been completed) is making the world safer, is like saying that halving our original cold war nuclear weapons stockpile made the world safer. Or that standing next to a 5000 pound bomb is safer than standing next to a 20,000 pound bomb.
By committing our soldiers to hold iraq, it allows terrorists everywhere outside of iraq easier travel. In standard war, a common strategy is to force an army to commit troops to a specific area, to dwindle their supply in other areas. This was used to our advantage in WWII when the Nazis committed troops to Russia allowing an easier victory in europe.

[Morroskye]

Just an observation from a newbie! Seems those clamoring for the "War on Terror" and the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are the very same ones that twitch and wring their hands as they react in shock when the repercussions of these arrogant crusades hits home. The London bombings were a tragedy but how much more tragic than civilians killed by coalition forces? When the correct side of the political coin declares what is wrong with this scenario you are labeled a terrorist sympathizer. Had Bush and his puppy Blair not invaded Iraq under false pretenses there would have been no London bombing. The military should be used to defend our nations from Invasion. To secure our cities and infrastructure. Perhaps if so many British troops and intelligence weren't in Iraq fomenting more terror recruits, London could afford high tech security in it's mass transit. The good old days of the Cold War are over. No more fighting the enemy on 3rd World soil with Moscow & Washington dining over detente in some Swiss chalet. Now the Empire's have long term consequences that result from their actions. Something the US and Britain haven't had to deal with. War on Terror= Peace & Security?? We won't have peace & security until our 1st responders, soldiers and intelligence are in the US doing what should be their jobs: Securing the USA.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

Duh, like take over Iraq. That country was paying the families of suicide bombers thousands of dollars per hit. Now it is not.

That's peanuts when it comes to financing terrorists. Plus, with Saddam gone terrorists are getting far more from Iraq than they did when he was there: weapons and fighters from his disbanded military, plus bases to operate that were previously closed to them. Besides which, those terrorists he supported were not attacking the UK or the US, nor were they involved in yesterday's attack on London.

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

Ergo, to the degree a family was motivated to have their sons and daughters bring home the bacon by shredding women and children in pizza parlors, they are no longer so motivated. Now terrorist families must be motivated solely by their worthless cult of hate, ignorance, and unbridled evil.

And money from Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Iran, and a bunch of other countries we haven't invaded.

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

You guys see Iraq as a country instead of the viper nest of brooding terrorists it was.

Viper nest of brooding terrorists? What alternate history are you taking that from?

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

In short, you guys are blind and arithmetically challenged.

I can do this arithmetic:

Number of Iraqis involved in the September 11 attacks on the United States: 0

Amount of aid given by Saddam Hussein's regime to al Qaeda: 0

Damage done to al Qaeda by invading Iraq: 0

Number of times Iraq attacked the US: 0

Number of times Iraq attacked the UK: 0

Threat posed by Iraq to other countries in 2002: 0.0000000001

So Albert, do you think Churchill should have responded to the threat from Germany by invading Russia? Because that's pretty much the argument you're making here.

[albert cipriani]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Please explain to me how invading Iraq was standing up to terrorists. That's like standing up to the Chinese by invading Russia.

Double Duh! That’s like the Japs standing up to the United States by bombing Pearl Harbor! which wasn’t even part of the United States back then! In fact, that’s like the United States standing up to the Japs by invading the God-forsaken island of Okinawa way the hell off in the South China Sea!

Don’t you know that most wars are fought indirectly? And that’s even when the belligerents are actual countries with real borders. How the hell do you propose we fight against terrorists that aren’t fool enough to claim a country as their own? Don’t answer all at once, now. – Disgusted Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[Ari]

Still waiting for evidence that the original Iraqi government paid Al Qaeda bomber families money.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Ari

Still waiting for evidence that the original Iraqi government paid Al Qaeda bomber families money.

I think you'll be waiting a long time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

<snip>

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

[Morroskye]

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

Double Duh! That’s like the Japs standing up to the United States by bombing Pearl Harbor! which wasn’t even part of the United States back then! In fact, that’s like the United States standing up to the Japs by invading the God-forsaken island of Okinawa way the hell off in the South China Sea!

Don’t you know that most wars are fought indirectly? And that’s even when the belligerents are actual countries with real borders. How the hell do you propose we fight against terrorists that aren’t fool enough to claim a country as their own? Don’t answer all at once, now. – Disgusted Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Al, The only way to defeat terror is to set up a Ceausescu style dictatorship. Install secret police to percolate fear in the forcefully disarmed populace and declare victory. Other than that abort the cause of terrorism by limiting our military escapades to matters of national security and Stop financing rogue states such as Israel. Which sounds more appealing to angry Catholics?

[Ari]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I think you'll be waiting a long time.

Yep. I get the feeling Al is confusing reports of Sadam offering money to the families of soldiers killed attacking Israelis, including suicide bombers. The US provides similar services to families of soldiers killed fighting iraqis. Paying suicide bomber's families for their lives to attack Israelis or even commit terrorist attacks against israel is reprehensible but shouldn't be construed as support for terrorist attacks in the west.
Not all terrorists know each other.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

You guys are morons. If that pathetic piece of pablum is “excellent and interesting” cockroaches are sexy.

OK. For you historically illiterate who find such bilge interesting, here’s more British history. Prime Minister Chamberlain, hoodwinked by Hitler

Blah blah blah. The quote you tried to gainsay is actually spot on target.

Hint: not every situation confronting a bad guy is a replay of Chamberlain-Hitler. For those people who are unsophisticated enough that they only know one model of international affairs, the Chamberlain-Hitler event is a poor one to latch on to.

But then again, if all you know how to do is hammer, then I suppose everything *would* look like a nail to you, Albert.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

Duh, like take over Iraq.

1. But there weren't any AlQaeda terrorists there, prior to the war.

2. Blair didn't take over Iraq anyhow - he went along for the ride, the poodle in the passenger seat, while Dubya and Rummy took over Iraq.

3. Why would Blair want to take over Iraq in the first place? The British were in Iraq for 38 years already. And when they left, Iraq still didn't have a democracy or a market-based economy. So the idea that the USA and the Coalition of the Small and Bribed could bring all that about in a few months is certifiably insane.

That country was paying the families of suicide bombers thousands of dollars per hit.

Source?

Now terrorist families must be motivated solely by their worthless cult of hate, ignorance, and unbridled evil.

Naw. Just being pissed off at US injustices, American support for authoritarian regimes, and Israeli aggressions. That's more than enough.

But you guys can’t do the arithmetic.

Much better than you can do history or politics, apparently.

You guys see Iraq as a country instead of the viper nest of brooding terrorists it was.

We see it that way, because:

(a) it *is* a country; and
(b) there is zero evidence of any terrorists being there prior to Dubya's War for Oil

In short, you guys are blind and arithmetically challenged. – Amazed at Your Willful Stupidity, Albert the Traditional Catholic

In short, you don't know shit about history, international affairs, or the Arab world.

Thanks for playing our game, though. Johnny will tell you about your consolation prize, Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco treat. Now with extra bite-sized communion wafers for all those picky Traditional Catholic eaters!

[albert cipriani]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

"Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq."

Incredible! -- Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[Morroskye]

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

Incredible! -- Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

That rebuttal is about as small as the weenie on your avatar!

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

Incredible! -- Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Yah, it's incredible that you missed the rest of the paragraph, which discussed the independent investigation into such a claimed association.

In other words, the commission didn't have to rely on the words of the 2 bin Laden associates; they had an independent line of investigation that led to the same conclusion.

But that's just waaaaaaay too much reading and analysis for you to bother with, huh?

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

How the hell do you propose we fight against terrorists that aren’t fool enough to claim a country as their own?

Primarily by attacking their bases, training camps, and leadership and secondarily their sources of money, people, and weapons. Iraq qualified as none of those.

I really can't believe at this late date, after every single one of Bush and Blair's justifications has turned out to be false, when the CIA and MI6 say that al Qaeda is stronger now than three years ago, that anyone can still defend the invasion of Iraq much less make the laughable claim that it had anything to do with defending us from al Qaeda.

[albert cipriani]

Originally Posted by Ari

Still waiting for evidence that the original Iraqi government paid Al Qaeda bomber families money.

Well it took our own worthless government 30 years to find “evidence” of organized crime in our own country! Not till Hover was ass-kicked by Robert Kennedy did that happen. So go ahead and wait along with the other willfully blind fools and the happy terrorist families still spending their blood money.

No wonder you guys don’t believe in God. The demonstration of your non-existent thinking skills in such an elementary area as politics, means you’ve got no chance when it comes to theology. God help you. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic