| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:17 pm Post subject: Terror 'is the price we paid for going to war' |
 |
|
By Andrew Sparrow and Anton La Guardia
(Filed: 18/07/2005)
Tony Blair's support for the war in Iraq has "proved costly" in increasing the terrorist threat to Britain, a leading think-tank says today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UDF5FTFYDSQ2NQFIQMFSM5OAVCBQ0JVC?xml=/news/2005/07/18/nterr18.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/07/18/ixportaltop.html
| Quote: |
| A report from the Royal Institute for International Affairs says that the invasion gave a lift to al-Qa'eda's recruitment and that as a result there were "particular difficulties for the UK". |
The RIIA (sometimes referred to as Chatham House) is an independent body with no political affiliations.
And many "Man-in-the-street" have said the same thing since Mar 2003. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Al-Qaeda camps 'trained 70,000'
Some 70,000 people received weapons training and religious instruction in al-Qaeda camps, German police say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4146969.stm
This was before the Iraq war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, Joo, I think you have mentioned that before. 
It does not change the probability that the risk of terrorist attack has been almost certainly been increased by the invasion of Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buymybook
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Location: Telluride
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangja wrote: |
Yes, Joo, I think you have mentioned that before.
It does not change the probability that the risk of terrorist attack has been almost certainly been increased by the invasion of Iraq. |
Correct or not what now would you suggest is done to appologize to all those saintly souls?
Maybe Bushe could ask them what they want(maybe a new house, and hell why not buy you and everyone in Korea/Syria/Jordan etc... one while he's at it?) and pull out of Iraq, free Saddam H. and allow Bin Laden to rule the Taliban in Afganistan.
That would probably decrease the chance of terrorism aye? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangja wrote: |
| It does not change the probability that the risk of terrorist attack has been almost certainly been increased by the invasion of Iraq. |
Probably, but one can hardly argue that Britain would be safe if they had abstained from the war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Wangja wrote: |
| It does not change the probability that the risk of terrorist attack has been almost certainly been increased by the invasion of Iraq. |
Probably, but one can hardly argue that Britain would be safe if they had abstained from the war. |
That is why the OP didn't ever make that assertion, no one is safe from terrorism, no one ever said that - the argument is, the British People, and more likely anyone who is related to the British People are at a greater risk of terrorism from external forces now then they were prior to the engagement in Iraq.
It is an open ended statement since there is no argument or position in it - Britain would not be safe from terror if they had of abstained from the war, they are definitely not safe from terror since they entered the war, this being shown in the bombings in London. The only argument here is whether they are safer for being part of the coalition or not. I am of the position that they are not - because the facts speak for themselves... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
The idea of not imposing your preferable form of government on others isn't so simple because quite often these adventures are combined with humanitarian impetuses. Canada can proudly say they don't intervene where they aren't wanted by a group with a loud voice but they are also on record on turning their backs on Rwanda and Sudan.
The USA did that as well and I'm not comfortable about it. Admitedly, these adventures aren't easy, they often get very messy ie Somalia but the idea that we don't assist anymore due to political correctness is disturbing.
Oh, this is a suggestion on the issue of whether Britian would be safe if they weren't part of the coalition but its an argument that is applied in many other areas as well.
There are two camps
One say that an individual act, ie The Iraq War, caused the London bombings.
I call these folks the "Our fault" camp.
The other says a tidal wave of Jihad is sweeping th world and the attacks would come regardless.
I call these folks the "Their fault" camp.
This might be a way to stem the dozen or so responses that give an assertion, an example a refutation etc in every thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw slammed the report.
"I'm astonished that Chatham House is now saying that we should not have stood shoulder to shoulder with our long-standing allies in the United States," Straw in Brussels before chairing a European Union foreign ministers meeting.
"The time for excuses for terrorism is over," Straw added. "The terrorists have struck across the world, in countries allied with the United States, backing the war in Iraq and in countries which had nothing whatever to do with the war in Iraq."
|
Totally ignores the point. Chatham House is not excusing the actions of terrorists. It is trying to explain them.
Of course the only reason that seems to be acceptable is "THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dulouz wrote: |
The idea of not imposing your preferable form of government on others isn't so simple because quite often these adventures are combined with humanitarian impetuses. Canada can proudly say they don't intervene where they aren't wanted by a group with a loud voice but they are also on record on turning their backs on Rwanda and Sudan.
The USA did that as well and I'm not comfortable about it. Admitedly, these adventures aren't easy, they often get very messy ie Somalia but the idea that we don't assist anymore due to political correctness is disturbing. |
Although I agree that there have been monumental failures in the area of international assistance in the past, I disagree that it came about due to political correctness. In the end the failures of Somalia and Rwanda, and the continuing ignorance of the Sudan, came and is coming about due to the fact that the more powerful nations within the UN saw/see very little point in continuing to fight and die for an African cause. The humanitarian impetuses of Rwanda, Somalia, and the Sudan were/are much more imparative than those that existed in pre-war Iraq, yet war was instigated there, under false and ambiguous pretenses.
I would go further still to say that more often than not, we, the nations in position to help in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies choose or choose not to help out of political incorrectness and based upon the possibility of gain in some form or another due to interventions. Rwanda I think was the prime example - little or no resources, a very dangerous situation, and they were African in origin. The basis of the decision not to intervene in force in time to prevent the genocide was based on beuracratic consideration of loss-gain and an inherent tradition of racism within the governing bodies of the UN.
One interesting point that the actual report from Chatham House points out is the fact that British intelligence agencies realized that London had evolved into base for many terrorist orginizations, however, since these terrorists were only involved in the planning of attacks and support of terror outside the UK - they were ignored...
Now that there is a "definite" threat - all too apparrent, the government is now in the process of installing stronger laws, increased power to police and intelligence agencies, and stricter control on the freedom of speech within the UK.
British Seek New Laws to Confront Terror
| Quote: |
LONDON, July 17 - After the shock of the London bombings, British authorities are readying new laws that would give the police stronger powers to try to pre-empt terror attacks and to silence clerics regarded as what the police call "preachers of hate."
Lord Charles Falconer, the government minister in charge of the judiciary, said Sunday that the proposed legislation would have three aims - to outlaw "indirect incitement" to commit terrorist acts, to prevent "acts preparatory" to terrorism and to prevent "providing or receiving training" in terrorism.
Lord Falconer told the BBC that the proposed laws would permit the imprisonment or deportation of people "attacking the values of the West" or "glorifying the acts of suicide bombers." It would also make it illegal for Britons to go to camps known for training in terrorism techniques or to help other people go to such places for such training.
|
Like a knee jerk, now that they see that these cells, which where previously ignored are dangerous, there is a move to limit not only the freedom of Terrorists, but non-involved Brittons as well. Though one cannot argue that preaching suicide bombing is morally wrong, how can one define "the values of the West"?
In the heat of the moment - the laws will pass and because of past indifference and the insanity of this ideological war, there will be less freedom for those who have nothing to do with the problems.
Last edited by bignate on Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
well apparently joo....about 21-23000 iraq civilians have died.
That's what...a solid 30% of the 70grand trained.
That's alright.
bignate...i agree with what you sy in the 1st paragraph... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alias wrote: |
| Quote: |
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw slammed the report.
"I'm astonished that Chatham House is now saying that we should not have stood shoulder to shoulder with our long-standing allies in the United States," Straw in Brussels before chairing a European Union foreign ministers meeting.
"The time for excuses for terrorism is over," Straw added. "The terrorists have struck across the world, in countries allied with the United States, backing the war in Iraq and in countries which had nothing whatever to do with the war in Iraq."
|
Totally ignores the point. Chatham House is not excusing the actions of terrorists. It is trying to explain them.
Of course the only reason that seems to be acceptable is "THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM!" |
They hate our freedom but that is not why they did the bombings.
However the anti war movement is wrong when they think Al Qaida will stop attacking if west just does a few things that they want. Al Qaida and it supporters do not accept the idea of coexistence with the west.
| Quote: |
Both men, eloquent, better educated and better off than most in their community, are also among the more politically motivated. They have embraced one of the more conservative, if not militant, Islamic movements in Britain today - Hizb ut-Tahrir, or Party of Liberation.
The party's stated goal is to rebuild the Caliphate - the Muslim state dissolved with the fall of the Ottoman Empire - to displace corrupt dictators in the Muslim world, and to instill Islamic mores and Islamicize almost every aspect of daily life.
The group has drawn about 10,000 members to its recent annual meetings, its members say, and includes chapters abroad in places like Uzbekistan. It is a controversial movement, even among British Muslims, and its members have become emblematic of the shift of Muslims born in Britain to more conservative and outspoken expressions of their faith. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/16/international/europe/16muslims.html?hp&ex=1121572800&en=7b1f44fe6658c193&ei=5094&partner=homepage
AS I SAID BEFORE THE LEFT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHY AL QAIDA FIGHTS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
well apparently joo....about 21-23000 iraq civilians have died.
That's what...a solid 30% of the 70grand trained.
That's alright.
bignate...i agree with what you sy in the 1st paragraph... |
and if you want to charge the US with the deaths of those killed by the insurgents then the US ought to get credit for all the lives that were saved by containing Saddam and then taking Saddam down
Remember Saddam would have done worse if he had gone free. and lets remember is sons where coming up next. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
However the anti war movement is wrong when they think Al Qaida will stop attacking if west just does a few things that they want. Al Qaida and it supporters do not accept the idea of coexistence with the west.
|
It is not about "doing what AQ wants". It is about not putting ourselves in those situations. Let the ME dictators deal with them. The only reason the West got involved in the region in the first place was for natural resources. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
and if you want to charge the US with the deaths of those killed by the insurgents then the US ought to get credit for all the lives that were saved by containing Saddam and then taking Saddam down
|
credit...it's not a bank guy.
This is what HAS happenned.
I'm not arguing things would have been better under Saddam.
But if we DO give credit for those (forever "x" number) of lives, can we also charge against the US, the number of people who are dying (or have died) under OTHER tyrants? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alias wrote: |
| Quote: |
However the anti war movement is wrong when they think Al Qaida will stop attacking if west just does a few things that they want. Al Qaida and it supporters do not accept the idea of coexistence with the west.
|
It is not about "doing what AQ wants". It is about not putting ourselves in those situations. Let the ME dictators deal with them. The only reason the West got involved in the region in the first place was for natural resources. |
But AQ wants to throw the region that means that the if the US does any business with anyone that AQ doesn't like then they will call it "an attack on Islam".
furthermore , AQ doesn't have goals just in the mideast but in South Asia , South East Asia and Africa.
As I said they probably did the Bali Bombing cause of Timor.
And AQ doesn't stop there. they have accused the US of supporting Russias' crackdown on Cheneya which isn't true. And even they have accused the US of helping China suppress its muslim poplulation which is compeltely false. What they mean is that the US trades with China. AQ wants a veto over the US. After we give in to them on the mideast the next thing they will say is not to trade w / India cause they fight w/ Pakistan over the Kashmir.
But it doesn't stop there Bin Laden has complained that low oil prices are an attack on Islam - it wouldn't be shocking if he would come out an say that alternative energy is a plot of make muslims poor.
But even if they got there veto they would still fight cause they don't accept the right of other relgions or cultures to exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
