That’s why I said “as seperate as possible,” and not just “seperate.” Obviously there’s going to be some overlap, but it’s frustrating when one discusses counter terror measures only to have the discussion drowned out by the ususal yelling about Iraq.
Also, the AQ connection was only one of the reasons the Admin gave for the Iraq war.
The first WTC bombing
The attack on the Cole
Khobar towers
Bali
Madrid
Why is it that when you’re doing the killing it’s called “collateral damage,” but when it’s done to you it’s “barbaric”?
I mean, is this not barbaric enough* for you?
*Warning: pictures of collateral damage.
OK, I undersand what you’re saying about this. Blame is not a finite quantity, and you don’t have to take some from A in order to give it to B.
But for legal purposes we surely do. No?
I don’t disagree with any of that. But in the end, people can freely choose evil or good (again, assuming no one else is forcing the person to choose evil).
Wise words to live by, but not useful in placing blame unless the folks in front put the stone there to purposely trip those behind.
Larry, both Bali and Madrid came after the Iraq invasion and there is a solid case to be made that they happened as a direct result of Australian and Spanish support of same.
From here
I might not have understood what Axelwas asking.
It would be somewhat a general (but note very slight) blame, because I have heard of little public outcry in the US against those who raised money for th IRA. Also I should note I feel far more need to praise USA in general for the way that America has helped in the peace process within the Nothern Ireland talks.
On more appropriate to the OP notes.
I blame UK and USA for a lot of the problems within the middle east, and so blame myslef in part (as a UK citizen) for those problems. Though those problems undoubtedly effect the existance of Islamic terrorist attacks, I do not see any link of blame feeding back to UK USA and hense myself.
An off topic example of what I am trying to say. Imagine Bob was active in making Simon’s childhood unhappy, if Simon became a murderer I would not consider there any blame for the murder falling on Bob. Bob’s only blame is for making the childhood of Simon unhappy even if that unhappyness was somehow considered a factor in Simon becoming a murderer.
I hope that makes sense, and I hope this does not lead to any form of hyjack of this thread (for which I would blame myself 
)
I think it’s a question of justified risk. We knew that going into Afghanistan entailed a risk of retaliation, but we could justify it because of 9/11. Our action in Afghanistan was responsive, not aggressive. The risk of retaliation was justified by the necessity to respond to 9/11.
In Iraq, there was no necessity. The risk of reprisals against not only us but against our allies was not justified by any defensive urgency. Iraq is not the “mob” in this case. It wasn’t doing anything to the US. Going into Iraq was the equivalent of the police chief in your analogy blowing up the house of someone who had no connection to organized crime at all but just happened to be Italian (to try to make it somewhat more analogous, let’s say the guy also had a history of beating his wife and children and who had a long criminal record, but who was currently under probation and was not currently known to be involved in criminal activity. The police chief claims he got a tip that the guy had a bunch of guns and coke in the basement but nothing is found and it later comes out that the chief had a grudge against the person and had long been vowing that he was going to get the guy no matter what).
Sometimes a risk of retaliation is justified and sometimes it isn’t. In Iraq, it was not. If Iraq had attacked us, obviously we would be justified in attacking bak. It would be self-defense, but i find your question to be somewaht tautological. Essentially you’re asking if invading Iraq would have been justified if it had been justified.
This is about the zillionth time I’ve heard the “lap-dog” thing and I want to say how much it irks me.
To discount Britain’s participation in the Iraq war as being due to Tony Blair’s perceived inability to stand-up to the U.S. is just nonsense. Blair argued eloquently and forcefully for the war in Iraq. Much more eloquently, I might add, than George W. Bush did. Blair was under no obligation to support Bush in the war, in fact much of Europe didn’t. Additionally, the people of the U.K. reelected Blair even after he sent troops to Iraq. To dismiss the whole thing as simple toadyism is to abdicate Britain’s responsibility for it’s own actions.
I don’t think I’m making myself clear. I’m purposely not trying to make exact analogies to Iraq because I’m trying to understand where the bounderies are in your philosophy of responsibility. I understand why you think we’re responsible for the current situation, but I’m trying to understand in which situations we would not be responsible.
I’m talking about blame, not justification. I’m not asking you whether or not the invasion was justified, but if we have some blame in the terror attacks that followed (presumably because of the invasion) depending on the level of justification that existed.
Are you saying that there is no blame if the risk is justified, or are you saying that the blame is acceptable[/U ]if the risk is justified?
I enumerated some earlier, all of which took place before the current conflict with Iraq and thus couldn’t be blamed on it.
If you like, I could add to that list I gave. I didn’t mention the six people killed in the first WTC bombing. And I didn’t mention at all the people killed in Israel as a result of Palestinian terrorism, which would up the death toll considerably, wouldn’t you think?
It can be debated strongly exactly what connection Palestinian terrorism has with other flavors of Islamic terrorism, so I won’t press this point too much. So why don’t you just address those thousands of people killed in 9/11 and other terrorist attacks before the Iraq war, per my earlier post, and explain why this attack is substantially different than those ones.
By this logic then Al Qaeda, should have no reason to attack the U.S. Well, let me put it this way, the Iraq war should have no bearing on Al Qaeda’s decsion to attack the London or New York or wherever.
For the zillionth time too: the re-election of Tony Blair and Labour was not an endorsement of their war tactics. They did well in lots of other areas, and the only viable opposition was also committed to staying in the war.
If we had instead voted Blair out and brought the right-wing Tories in, people would be saying that we were supporting the war by voting in a new pro-war party. :rolleyes:
To OP:
NO!!!
Amen. Everything doesn’t revolve around the US.
It’s suprising how you hear that Bush is an idiot who can’t tie his own shoes, and yet he can somehow convince Tony Blair (a man of no small intellect) to support a war against his (Tony’s) wishes, and against the wishes of a large chunk of Britain, too. Cognitive dissonance is alive and well.
Bali and Madrid took place after the war in Iraq started, not before.
You shouldn’t have mentioned it in the first place. Using the Palestinian’s action to suggest that Muslims are violent is pretty twisted.
Attacks against military targets do not count as ‘terrorism.’
The WTC is your only example. You were saying that there was ‘a huge deathtoll from terrorism committed by Islamic militants’ and ‘Islamic terrorism has been a problem for quite a while now.’ The WTC attack was despicable, but it’s one attack.
Bali was before the war.
Bali and Madrid took place after the war in Iraq started, not before.
You shouldn’t have mentioned it in the first place. Using the Palestinian’s action to suggest that Muslims are violent is pretty twisted.
The rest of your examples are military. Technically and practically, attacks against military targets do not count as ‘terrorism.’
The WTC attacks (including the small one in 1993) are your only real examples. You were saying that there was ‘a huge deathtoll from terrorism committed by Islamic militants’ and ‘Islamic terrorism has been a problem for quite a while now.’ The WTC attacks were despicable, but pretty isolated.
If one was of the mindset to do it, would be so very easy to come up with a longer list of civilians attacked by US troops.
Actually, I’m blaming it for giving Hitler the rhetoric to fire up enough people to get Facists elected, thus giving the opportunity to completely take over.
Now this may be opinion, but not one held solely by me. The Versailles Treaty, in effect, was little more than kicking a dog while it’s down. Keep in mind this was pre-Marshall Act days.
The way wars and treaties were handled all the way through WWI was the losing country was pretty much sacked and pillaged by the winners to pay for losses. The losing country just had to deal with the aftermath and try to pick up the peices. There weren’t co-ordinated releif efforts to rebuild.
So Hitler takes the economic climate at the time (in shambles), the social climate (Germany not only defeated, but pretty much not allowed to have a military and other restrictions) and uses the VT as a rallying cry for injustice and need for Facism. Not to mention the VT was arguably the biggest thing to piss him off in the first place. Well, before the Holocaust nightmare anyway.
Does that clear up what apparently everyone else got from my much mopre condensed mentioning of it?
Ah, okay, I think I see why we’re talking past each other. I’m not talking about things from a legal perspective; I’m talking about things from a moral perspective and a making-wise-decisions perspective.
From a legal perspective, the line must be much more conservative; I fully agree. (I still think good samaritan laws are a good thing).
Daniel
Do we know who committed the bombings? If not, how can we know who is to blame?
We can say that the bombers and anyone who helped them are to blame. It’s entirely possible that the US helped them (in indirect ways). The less direct the ways, the less direct the blame. If I give a homeless man a sandwich and that gives him the strength to mug people, that isn’t my fault. If I give him a knife and point him toward some tourists, well, that’s a little hard to defend. If I give him a sandwich and someone mugs him for it, that isn’t my fault. If I give him a bundle of cash and then stand on a soapbox and announce that he has it, well, that’s a little hard to defend.
John Mace, I’d say the “illegal” nature of the war in Iraq could have a strong bearing on our responsibility for repercussions.
Say I set up a boobytrap in my house. A thug breaks in and gets caught in the trap. Morally, dude had it coming.
Say I set up a boobytrap in my house. A cop with a warrant breaks in and gets caught in the trap. Morally, my fault entirely.
My neighbors defend me against the thief. Morally, dude had it coming.
My neighbors defend me against the cop. Morally, their fault entirely.