- This topic has 81 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Today Blair said:
"They will use any issue before Iraq it was Afghanistan, before that it was Palestine. Before all of those things it was America, they will use any issue to recruit people but where does that argument leave you, if you are not careful is you get inside their twisted logic."
What exactly is he talking about?
What were the Arab attacks against America prior to the Palestine conflict?
I also saw Ken Livingstone on ch4 news this evening and thought he was making sense.
One thing he mentioned was that Jewish boys from the Uk can go and fight in the Israeli army and, as a result, kill Palestinians. He can then come back to the UK and there’s no problem with what he did.
However, if a Muslim boy from the UK goes to the Middle East to fight for the Palestinians, he’s branded a terrorist.
Steve
Thanks for posting that up Ian. I do believe that the figures are under the actual toll due to the fact that military losses have been excluded .. what would constitute a military casualty?
After the London Bombings we had two minutes silence for 50 murdered, should we now have a further 1000 minutes silence for the 25,000 murdered, or none at all?
DJ
should we now have a further 1000 minutes silence for the 25,000 murdered
We should perhaps have a 1000 minute silence from the media.
That could be their way for apologising for swallowing and regurgitating the lies for the war in Iraq and its later justifications.
(and for the same for Kosovo)
Steve
There was a photograph on page 2 of the Independent today of a young girl, about eight, totally distraught and at the height of emotion, because she’d just been travelling in a car with her parents and four siblings and her parents had just been shot dead by American soldiers.
This wouldn’t even have BEEN in the paper if it weren’t for the dossier published yesterday.
Yet 56 deaths in a London terrorist attack warrants two minutes silence and several thousand inches of press coverage and reactionary tabloid headlines.
Oddly enough, I don’t think that balances out somehow.
One wonders how many murders Saddam Hussein would have carried out in the same period.
Also the majority of these deaths have not been by our soldiers hands. Yes lets talk to these people by all means, these are people who could not overthrow an evil tyrant, but take pot shots at innocent people like the women and children.
Ian you seem to condone their actions, yet have most of the deaths by your post have come from our or american forces? no. <br>The people you mention who returned to their FREE country have my utmost respect. the ones who shun a democratic process can literally suck my butt.
I think the idea of TWO minutes silence is fair enough, but if it has to be 1000 minutes then on the 11th of the 11th this year, you will of course be quiet for a very long time.
Quote: from Dungheap on 7:18 pm on July 20, 2005[br]
Ian you seem to condone their actions, yet have most of the deaths by your post have come from our or american forces? no. <br>
Dungheap, I truly wish I had an imagination powerful enough to convince myself that every person in that country who has been killed because they walked past the wrong bus or car was merely taking time out to do the daily shop from actively plotting to bring down the Western civilisation, but the fact that I have two brain cells to rub together means I can’t convince myself of that.
The people planting these devices may not be foreign military, but they weren’t blasting the s**t
out of innocent people before we barged in there on false pretenses, were they?Someone has to take responsibility for this, and the repercussions. And given the unbelievable inequality of public sympathy shown between a bus bombing in Iraq and one in London, you cannot deny that there is a serious issue that needs addressing in a way that does not involve someone barging into a country with a gun and a plane stuffed full of explosive devices.
Sorry to wade into somone else’s "fight" but I feel I ought to say something.
I have read the same articles as Ian and I have this to say to Razeen: whilst I usually make an effort to contribute an argument backed up with statistics to support my case, in this instance I feel it’s not necessary as there is plenty of proof on this forum and most people on here have a brain of their own.
Razeen: you’re an idiot. And an insensitive, selfish one at that.
Ian <br>I used the word "seem", I did not say you did.
This action has been very contentious from many points. should we invade a sovereign power, shouldn’t we have finished the job the first time round, arn’t we following a bush knee jerk, should we have refused to go in, is the dislike of this action really a dislike of blair.
The trouble is, it was not a clear cut case. In these issues it never is. The one thing that does stand out is though that Saddam Hussein and his evil regime are not in power. Furthermore Iraq is taking faltering steps towards democracy a thing all of us at TRF take for granted, our road to democracy was littered with many bodies, in the london blitz 18,629 men; 16,201 women; and 5,028 children were killed along with 695 unidentified charred bodies. Aside from the deaths there were 51,000 seriously injured and 88,000 slightly injured.. So whilst deploring the loss of life in Iraq, I can not take a short term view of things. Nor have we usually as a country. The loss of life for equality and freedoms litters history and sometimes the pain involved is great. The future in Iraq given the acts of Saddams two sons who would have surely followed him was bleak at best. The whole of the europe has democracy because of two nations, that democracy has now spread much further, looking at the recent upheavals in countries such as Ukraine was the result finally of WWII. Changes and benefits are often not apparent for gererations to come. the very fact that we come from a generation untouched by war, with our freedoms does not mean that we have to sit on our laurels.<br>I do not think that Bush/Blair did it for the reasons I have stated, but neither did we realise the benefits that WWII would bring to later generations, but overall I think it was the right thing to do.
Yes there are other regimes that are similar to saddams and their turn will come.
Looking after your own, is a nice view on life, but if no one stops the school bully, it will be your turn next. Do you suppose for a minute that if Saddam could have got hold of WMD that he would not have used them against us? I believe he would have and it was a matter of sooner than later.
The saddest thing about this whole issue, is that if we had of not stopped at the border last time, this issue would have never arose, if any PM or president made mistakes it was Bush Senior and Thatcher for thinking that, the bully would learn his lesson.
Zoz yes they were blasting innoccent people before we went in there. these bombers have a particualar view on what the quoran says and the issue is not retribution for Iraq in fact Al Quieda’s actions are to overthrow the saudi princes. this is just a way of getting at the great "satan" the usa.
Finally, I think in many ways many posters on here hate Blair and anything he does, but IMO if Brown or John Smith had been PM’s the outcome would have been the same.
My problem with these new casualty figures are that they will not include Falluja because they weren’t really civilian casualties because they had been asked to leave the city before the murderous ground assault.
Dungheap .. the road to democracy in any country is a path of self determination and not something to be forced on people by an out-side power, whose only concern is to control your own countries resources for their own consumption. Your comparison of Iraq with the London Blitz is a poor one IMO. Firstly, we declared war on Germany, the USA and the gang of bandits declared war on Iraq. Secondly, Germany was trying to invade Britain and impose an alien method of government on us, in the same way that we are doing in Iraq. And lastly, Britain at that time was already a democracy.
I am recently back from holiday in Turkey. I got talking to a bloke out there, a Turk, who had been in the army during the invasion of Iraq. As you know the Turks invaded Iraq from the North, while every one else was going into the country from the South and West. He completely disagreed with the War. His opinion was that there were too many dead children and kids with arms and legs missing just for petrol. I suppose you have to be there to understand what that really means, but I wouldn’t sacrifice my children or anyone else’s, for that matter, for all of the oil in Iraq.
Well dave having been in the Army, I’ll keep my thoughts to myself there.
My comparison was purely to put a perspective on the deaths currently in Iraq, mentioned in the article Ian posted. those deaths were from one city, let alone the rest we lost in WWII.
The statement "gang of bandits" is your choice and believe me I would have preffered that the invasion of Iraq had not happened. But since it has happened (or is ongoing), surely the aim should be to see what the ramifications are and to make the best of a bad job.
But I will not nor will I ever, support talking to or appeasing those that kill civilians or bomb. when they put down their stick i’ll put mine down and talk.
It is easy to condem Blair on a forum such as this and you might have disagreed with his actions at the time.
we were targets after Afghanistan well before we went into Iraq. Yes Iraq make the situation worse.
Sel determism yes as far as it can be done, but it has been proved that supporting side x in a struggle with arms and such like backfires, the taliban are an example. This way may work it may not. But certainly if a democracy survives and works in Iraq then it will give a lead to other countries to overthrow dictators and such like.
It’s happened, we can not undo that, but let us make sure that good comes from it now, not capitulate to insurgants that if allowed would allow Saddam. Wre the people of Iraq controlling their consumption, no a minority was beating the proverbial s**t
out of the rest.When your turkish friend spoke did he talk about all the gassed Kurds in that region years ago? Probably not unless he was from the Iraq border region or was a turkish Kurd.
lets now hope iraq can rebuild itself and become a modern state in a modern world.
History will deal with Blair as history does, the short term IMO never sticks.
Fair points Dungheap … I would also like to see Saddam punished for his crimes as well as Bush/Blair for theirs. The people who supplied Saddam the gas should also be on trial. I spout my views all over place and write to my MP regularly on various subjects, including this one. As the situation in Iraq slowly descends into chaos and a puppet government has been installed, it remains to be seen whether the new regime will be better or worse than Saddam’s. Bearing in mind that the first thing that the new government did when it came into power was re-introduce the death penalty. Like you say Dungheap, time will tell.
Anyway, this is my take on the current situation.
I think the London bombings are a result of the radicalisation of Muslim thought, particularly over the past ten years or so. Blair is currently saying that this so-called ‘war on terror’ is not a war of ideas or a clash of cultures. But this is exactly what it is!
Al-Qaeda is a mythical organisation that does not exist, away from the media circus. What our government would have us believe is that there is an intangible network of muslims hiding in caves plotting to kill innocent people at the behest of their religious leaders. Although this might be a partial truth, the reality is there are people living all over the world who are prepared to die for their cause, uniting under a muslim banner with an anti-capitalist agenda. 9/11, the Madrid and London bombings were not acts of terror but carefully planned attacks designed to create maximum economic damage to those countries. The fact that some innocent people were killed was a co-incidence, that was not the intention of the attacks. For example, 9/11 put around 90,000 people out of a job.
These attacks as have another effect that I believe that the bombers have planned for, and that is the reaction of our own governments. Based on the reaction of Israel to attacks over the years, it seemed logical that the Yanks would behave in the same manner and that would be that everyone from the area where the attackers came from would be held collectively responsibility for the atrocity. The Bombers could only have dreamed at what the Americans have done, especially when they got rid of Saddam, something they wanted to do themselves for years. The up-shot of all of this has been a cost the West billions of dollars. They’ve passed a raft of meaningless laws, started wars they can’t possibly win and damaged their own economies in the process.
As Gordon Brown starts fiddling the figures to balance the books and the costs to our economy starts to grow, we’ll have to see who is going to win the War. <br>
I will not nor will I ever, support talking to or appeasing those that kill civilians or bomb.
Why do I get the impression that this doesn’t include those who dropped bombs (on instructed others to drop bombs) on civilian targets such as Baghdad or Belgrade?
when they put down their stick i’ll put mine down and talk.
That’s a lot more generous than our politicians.
Their offer is "we think you’re evil, but if you put down your stick we won’t beat you to death with our sticks if you do every thing we tell you to do".
(such as allowing us to put our troops in your country, giving us the right to decide if your government is acceptable and selling of the infrastructure of your country at knock-down prices to US multi-nationals)
Steve
steve:- <br>I said "I would have preffered that the invasion of Iraq had not happened. " But once it had, you get the right impression totally.
And the bombers offer is do what we say or we will blow you to ####.
THESE BOMBERS BOMBED BALI AND THE TWIN TOWERS BEFORE THE INVASION OF IRAQ.
THESE BOMBERS BOMBED BALI AND THE TWIN TOWERS BEFORE THE INVASION OF IRAQ
There never was/is or ever will be a connection between the people that carried out those attacks with Iraq, Saddam Hussien or the people of Iraq. In the same way as there was no WMD program in Iraq after 1990.
THESE BOMBERS BOMBED BALI AND THE TWIN TOWERS BEFORE THE INVASION OF IRAQ.
Why start with 9/11 as the beginning of events? 9/11 wasn’t the first Arab attack on the Trade Centers.
Why not start with the US arming and funding Israel’s military? or its vetoing of UN resolutions which were designed to defend the Palestinians?
After all, why should this conflict have to start with an event where the casualties were western?
I said "I would have preffered that the invasion of Iraq had not happened. " But once it had, you get the right impression totally.
So, let’s change your comment that "I will not nor will I ever, support talking to or appeasing those that kill civilians or bomb" to
"I will support talking to or appeasing those that kill civilians or bomb as long as they’re working for us or our allies."
Which takes it back to the sort of double standards that many of us have suggested exist and have fuelled the antagonism between the west and Islam.   <br>
(Edited by stevedvg at 5:12 pm on July 21, 2005)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.