Does the US share some blame for the London Bombings?

Sorry, hit post by mistake, was going to let it post and then my geriatric computer was so slow I thought it hadn’t posted. :smack:

Gorillaman: You’re right, I was going on what someone else said rather than checking it on my own, which is foolish. Bali was after Afghanistan, but before Iraq.

So that’s 3 attacks, then, 1 of which was tiny.

*John Mace, are my posts invisible to you?

There was no referendum over going to war. It is a very atypical Labour action. Blair is very good political friends with Bush. There was no viable anti-war party to elect in the last elections. These are all facts. Yet somehow all British people are pro-war because we didn’t vote Blair out. That deserves another :smack:

Which is why I didn’t mention them at the time. Follow along now.

Now, please explain how these attacks were brought on by us in any way? I’m still waiting for someone to answer this to my satisfaction.

And, if these attacks were unprovoked attacks, wasn’t the London attack similarly unprovoked? What has changed between then and now, to spread some blame our way?

Islamic terrorists have been attacking Western targets for a long time now, and it is clear that they will continue to do so whether we fight back or not, give in or not. Personally, I’d just as soon not give in and fight, but that’s just me.

Oh, and the Bali bombing took place in 2002, before the Iraq war.

I’m saying that moral culpability for the consequences of an action only exist if the action cannot justify those consequences.

In other words, I’m asserting the former part of your question.

Ultimately, attacking Iraq was not about guilt of anybody. The point was merely to topple an Arab (Afganistan is not) state, and Iraq was perfect, both politically and goegraphically, suited for it.

I don’t recall it saying anything about us not having the power either. In any case, there are no war crimes. Only victor’s justice. I’m not so benighted as to think that Nuremburg was anything but. And everything since then is the same. In any case, the UN has no right to stop us, morally or otherwise. And neither did anyone else.

In any event, your point is predicated on your prejudices, Dio, and has no force beyond them. I believe that your way of doing things will lead, in the end, to the dissolution of the untied states and domination of fear and terror across the world. It would be the victory of Islam or even Islamists, mind you. They would die by the millions. But it would also be the death of everything I believe is worth fighting for, and I’m not prepared to sacrifice America for them. I would personally kill every man, woman, and child in Iraq, Saudia Arabia, and all the other hell-holes of Islamism before losing America.

Fortunately, we’re winning. But then, that was always the issue, wasn’t it. You don’t evenm acknowledge what I believe is the true battlefield.

Hmm, are you? He’s saying (in an attempt to clarify) there’s no blame if the risk is justified. You’re saying, I think, there’s no blame if the action is justified. Justifying a risk can simply mean that the potential gains are worthwhile. Justifying an action would mean proving that the action was ethical.

Or am I misunderstanding either or both of you?

Irrelevant. None of that amounts to either a moral or a legal justification.

It’s in the UN Charter.

We ratified a treaty with the UN explicitly stating that we would not attack the sovereignty of any other nation unless it was in self defense. Should the US honor it’s treaties or shouldn’t it?

The UN had EVERY right to stop us, both morally and legally.

What prejudices would those be? Thata we shouldn’t start wars for no reason? I plead guilty. I am definitely biased against unnecessary wars.

What is “my way” of doing things, exactly? Please enlighten me because I have no idea what you’re talking about.

We’re winning what?

I have no clue what you’re talking about. Could you please elaborate?

You seem to be asserting that I am opposed to “winning” something, but I have no idea what, nor do I have any idea WHY you think I’m opposed to “winning” whatever it is that I supposedly don’t want to “win.” Explication, please.

Oh…and what do you mean by “the real battlefield?” Are you saying that Iraq is tyhe “real battlefield” for our rhetorical “war on terror?”

You’ve been watching too many Bush speeches.

No, I’m kind of jumping around a bit-- it’s my fault, and I take full responsibility for that!

I wasn’t speaking about the legal aspect in all my posts, just that one where I specifically asked about it. Sorry for the confusion. I’ll try to make a clear distinction in the future, but I think we can assume that we’re talking about moral responsibility for the most part here.

Axel: I’ll try to address your posts in a bit. I’ve had lots of debates with some of the folks in this thread, and I tend to focus on those guys more. Sorry. But I’m not saying that Brits are pro-war because they didn’t vote out Blair. I understand the multidimesionality of elections. Whether or not the Brits voted for or against Blair isn’t central to my argument anyway. Blair chose to go to war, Bush didn’t force him to. If there’s any blame to be had (and I don’t think there is) it’s Blair, not Bush, who should shoulder it.

I’m speaking ethically. There is no moral blame if the action is ethically justified or necessary. Potential “gains” in a material sense justify nothing.

That’s what I thought you meant. I don’t think that’s what the first half of John’s question was, though.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke has said there is no evidence the attacks on London were carried out because of the UK’s role in the Iraq war.

jsgodess: It gets a little confusing because we’re not always using the same terminology, but Dio did answer my question, and I understand what he’s saying.

Gosh that is very silly thing to say… second guessing what the bombers where about. If it wasn’t Iraq or Afghanistan what was it ? Just for kicks ?

As for the OP I think Dio is kind of on the right track. Bush is in part responsible. Maybe in an indirect way. Blair though made the calls…

Maybe the attack would have happened anyway ? Yes… but Blair went for the ride probably due to the way Bush conducted his reckless “diplomacy” and due to bad intel which might have come from Americans.

It may have something to do with intent to kill or injure. You know, if I’m building a house, and accidentally hit you with a 2x4, you probably do not have the legal or moral right to kill me, where as if I intentionally target you and swing it at your head, you might.

Or, for example, my neighbor, who was driving too fast and hit my car by accident. However, what does it matter to me if it was by accident? It’s the same thing as if he had driven into me intentionally in an attempt to kill me, right?

I honestly hope you do not apply your logic to other places in life, lest you kill innocent people in response to unintentional or otherwise innocent acts that affect you.

Well gee RM, I don’t know. What exactly was 9/11 for? Kicks? Or did they attack knowing that in the future we’d invade Afghanistan/Iraq? What was the first WTC bombing about? These guys have a magical time machine or something? How about the embassy attacks in Africa that happened long before 9/11? How about the other myriad attacks that occured in other countries by muslim extremists prior to the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions? Kicks? Magic time machine?

Bush and Blair are to blame for their actions and the actions they pushed our respective countries into. They are to ‘blame’ for the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. If these decisions were wrong, if we should not have invaded, then history will put the blame where it belongs. However, trying to blame the US and Bush, or even the UK and Blair for the bombings of terrorists in London is just wrong. The invasion of Iraq is an EXCUSE for terrorists to do what they would do anyway. Afghanistan is probably more of a sore point and real issue, but even there its an excuse to do what they HAVE been doing anyway…murdering innocent civilians.

-XT

Would you say that Iraq and Afghanistan figure in no way in the decision to bomb the Bus and London Tube trains ? “No evidence” is what the home secretary says… when in fact there is a lot of evidence and statements by AQ and AQ wannabe that say the contrary. Naturally it might be just an “excuse” like you said… but there is a connection.

It just seems the guy is trying to defend the war on Iraq in some way… wierd…

Lovely spam

Got anything else?

I’d say Iraq has very little (or nothing) to do with the bombing at all. Afghanistan might have a bit more…but still not much. As I said, these same terrorist groups were attacking innocent civilians in foreign countries long before the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was more than a gleem in GW’s eye. These terrorists obviously had an agenda long before either invasion…and that agenda seems to me to be to make the various western powers stay at home and give these guys a free reign to create their Islamic superstate paradise on earth. Iraq and Afghanistan are just incidental…a good excuse to use when blowing appart civilians. However, they were blowing appart civilians before they had either excuse and I’ve seen nothing at all to indicate that had we not invaded either country this would have prevented them from pushing on to kill other civilians. Perhaps instead of London it would have been Paris…or maybe some other country. But with or without Iraq/Afghanistan civilians would have been murdered.

You figure these foreign fighters are going to Iraq to DEFEND it?? If so, they have a funny way of doing it since they seem to spend more time lately blowing away innocent Iraqi civilians instead of hated Americans or British…no? I mean, were I going to help you defend your house from attack RM, I’d say you’d expect me to fight the guys attacking you…not blow up your wife and kids and take pot shots at you.

Besides all the above take a look at a map some day. You’ll see that fighting Americans/British is a lot easier in Iraq than it is to travel all the way to Afghanistan…or the UK/US. Simply put they are ‘defending’ Iraq because they want a fight with us…and its the easiest place for them to go about it.

-XT

The chairman seems to be defending the War on Iraq