Did I just hear on the news that two other, undetonated, bombs have been found?
If so, it’s probably not too surprising.
Let’s see: For starters, one was designed to minimize civilian casualties and the other to maximize civilian casualties. That’s just for starters.
I leave it as an excercise for the reader to decide which is which.
I think it’s bleeding obvious that the attack was a retaliation for England’s involvement in Iraq. Speculation about other motives is just disingenuous, IMO.
It may be disingenuous if I agreed with you on this point. I don’t however, as I don’t think Iraq is the obvious reason for this attack.
-XT
How is that a legal difference? We had no right to take ANY casualties (not that I believe we made any genuine attempt to minimize civilian casualties).
Why don’t you take a guess as to who has killed more civilians, GWB or Osama bin Laden?
If things are bleeding obvious, then it’s bleeding obvious that Britain invaded Iraq, not just England.
And as I’ve been saying repeatedly in all sorts of places all day, Britain has always been a prime target for Islamist extremism. Long before the Iraq invasion, and long before 9/11.
Hmm…let me think here. Could it be the one that caused many, many more civilian casualties?
Can’t imagine which other than it starts with S and A.
How are we measuring this exactly? I’m assuming you don’t mean personally…if you do then ObL wins easily. Do Iraqi civilians killed count towards ‘Bush’ or towards ‘Osama bin Laden’? I’d say that since 9/11 sparked this entire conflict a case could be made that ALL the deaths ultimately lay at ObL’s feet…legal and illegal deaths included. After all, without 9/11 there would have BEEN no invasion of either Afghanistan OR Iraq. Also, we’d need to count civilians killed due to ObL’s financing of the first Afghan wars. I’d say that by just about any measurement Bin Laden will win in the ‘more civilians’ killed category off the top of my head. However, I’d like to know exactly how YOU are measuring the score thats on ‘Bush’s’ plate and that which is on ‘Osama’s’ plate.
-XT
Woops.
Should have been 'Do Iraqi civilians killed (by insurgent/terrorists) count towards ‘Bush’ or towards ‘Ossama bin Laden’? Do Afghani civilians killed by insurgent/terrorists count towards ‘Bush’ or ‘ObL’? What about Saudi civilians killed? How about those Spanish civilians? The Brits? How about those killed by AQ or by AQ associated terror groups in Africa, in Asia, in…well, you get the picture. How exactly are we counting here?
-XT
They dare to invoke God’s name for this atrocity. Then they have the gall to call this a “military operation”, when it is outright murder. I can not think of any curse horrible enough to put on them.
Funny, I don’t recall disputing such a patently obvious truism. What I recall disputing was your assignment of “blame” to “Americans for the London bombings.” “Blame” and “consequences” are hardly identical concepts. The former is an assignment of moral responsibility; the latter is a simple matter of causal connection. If your idea of moral responsibility includes every conceivable consequence of one’s actions, no matter how far from or contrary to the actor’s intentions, then you have rendered the concept of “blame” totally meaningless.
And trying to “blame Americans for the London bombings” is, to this particular American, pretty damn repugnant.
No right? Look, you refuse to acknowledge that a legal argument to invade Iraq was made. That’s your opinion, not a fact. But it’s something that reasonable people can argue about.
What there can be NO argument over is that whoever set off the bombs in London had no legal argument in their favor. None. N-O-N-E.
Bleh. We killed more civilians in WWII than bin Laden has today. Your comparison is not relavent.
What evidence do you have that OBL has had anything to do with the insurgency in Iraq? We know Bush bears some responsibility for the insurgency. We don’t know that OBL does, do we?
9/11 did not justify invading Iraq, so Bush gets no slack on Shock and Awe and OBL gets no blame.
I would credit Bush with any and all civilan deaths caused by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will atrribute to OBL anything which he can be PROVEN to be responsible for. Shock and Awe alone killed more than 7000 civilians. That’s more than twice the number killed on 9/11, in case you can’t count, and that was only in the first month.
At least OBL had a REASON to kill civilians.
Dio: I don’t want to minimize the horror of civilian deaths under any circumstances. But are you arguing that this is a mathematical issue, with no moral dimension at all? Clearly you’re not, so let’s not make this about body counts. Civilians are ALWAYS killed in war. If you are going to say that kiling civilians invalidates the legitimacy of a war, then you are saying that NO war is EVER legitimate.
I’ve never said that a legal argument wasn’t made, just that the argument was a lie. It is a fact, not an opinion, that the only justificaction for an attack on the sovereignty of another nation is dself-defense. It is a fact, not an opinion that the invasion of Iraq was non-defensive, was done in defiance of the UN and that it was therefore illegal. We had no legal right to take any casualties in Iraq. Fact, not opinion.
I didn’t say they did. My position is that both actions are equally illegal*, not that either one is legal. I’m not letting the London bombers off the hook for anything, I’m just saying that the US shares some culpability.
Many of the US actions against civilians in WWII were completely reprehensible but at least WWII was a real war with a legitimate defensive purpose. There is no justification at all for our actions in iraq.
The possiibility of retaliatory actions for our unlawful and immoral invasion of Iraq was a completely forseeable and predictable result of that action. We therefore had a moral responsibility to make sure that we did not take such an action without being sure that the necessity for it justified the risk of retaliatory responses against civilians. We failed to do so. We were arrogant pricks who didn’t think the rules applied to us and now we have to accept some moral responsibility for the forseeable results of our actions.
Are Americans responsible for the invasion of Iraq? Is it ever fair to say that Americans collectively must accept moral responsibility for the actions of its elected leaders?
Would you think it less repugnant if I said that I think BUSH shares some culpability for the bombings rather than “Americans” collectively?
I’m saying that if the war is not legitimate, then killing civilians is not legitimate.
It’s not just Bush killed civilans in a war, it’s that he killed them as the aggressor in an unnecessary war.
I take exception to that. Any reason that binLaden had to kill civilians would not have been legitimate.
The high ground was abandoned by both sides long ago. binLaden’s terrorism does not excuse Bush’s illegal and immoral war. Bush’s illegal war does not excuse the Madrid and London bombings. Each side uses excesses of the other as excuses for themselves.
To state that the Iraq war caused the London bombings is tenuous at best. Given the similarities between New York, Madrid, and London and that one of the three happened prior to Iraq, one cannot rule out that the rationale for 9/11 could just as easily have applied to London.
Terrorism is a permanent part of modern life. We need to accept that. No matter how many John Wayne movies you watch, there is never going to be a final battle that knocks it out. The terrorists will never be able to match the west in military might, the west will never be able to match the capacity of the terrorists to kill the innocent indiscriminately. The two sides will never fight the same war. The only rational course of action is to protect, prevent, and intercept as much as possible.
This is fascinating. Osama bin Laden, who intentionally targetted and murdered civilians, at least had a reason. Bush, on the other hand, who whether you agree the war was justified or not attempted to avoid civilian casualties, did not have a reason for killing them.
Perhaps Bush did not have a reason because he did not seek them out for death.
I agree. I didn’t say he had a legitimate reason.
Once again, I’m not saying the London or the Madrid bombers should be excused for anything or that they were justified, I’m only saying that Bush has some moral culpability as well.
Does the UK have troops in Saudi Arabia?
I think by far the most likely motive for the London bombings was the UK’s complicity in Iraq. That doesn’t mean the bombings were justified, only that they were probably avoidable if Bush hadn’t lied Britain into Iraq with him.
No arguments here.
I’m not buying the argument that he tried not to target civilians. If he didn’t want to kill civilans, he wouldn’t have invaded Iraq in the first place. The bottom line is that if the invasion was unjustified, the civilian deaths were just as unjustified as if he had targeted them intentionally.
Not only that, but we also know that 70-90% of the prisoners tortured (and sometimes murdered) at Abu Ghraib were innocent civilians, so he must not have been trying very hard not to hurt them.
I think it is entirely possible to be 100% against the war and still support the troops. But for me the distinction is that, oncce they are over there, in harms way, you either dupport them mission or you don’t.