# What now? Re: London attacks. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 7, 2005, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467 "2005-07-07T16:15:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/21 "2005-07-07T20:16:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Why couldn’t the terrorists strike at some target in the US as easily as in London? They could. They probably will. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/22 "2005-07-07T20:16:33Z")
> [@GomiBoy](#): > > Most Brits did, and still do. I don’t have recent certs, but around this same time last year, it was something like 60% against. But the overriding belief is that the invasion was a bad idea, but very very few seem to support a pull-out I was talking about support for the war _before_ the invasion. Obviously once troops are on the ground, the situation changes. [In Jan 2003](http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,879073,00.html) 81% of Brits wanted a second UN mandate before any attack. > [@Shodan](#): > > I am not sure how this could be definitely established, but how sure is London? 99.9% sure that it was the work of Islamist extremists. However, not so sure that you can directly attribute it to Al Qaeda. You could wipe Osama off the face of the planet, and you’d still have violent fanatics willing to carry out these attacks. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/23 "2005-07-07T20:17:09Z")
OK, here’s a question I’d like to toss out: it’s been (buried) in (the back pages of) the news for a month or so that the Brits are planning to move most of their forces in Iraq over to Afghanistan in the upcoming months, to keep Afghanistan from falling apart. Should they stay with that plan, or should they stay where they are? Those who are advocating that Britain “stay the course,” which would constitute doing so? ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/24 "2005-07-07T20:20:19Z")
> [@](#): > > it’s been (buried) in (the back pages of) the news for a month or so that the Brits are planning to move most of their forces in Iraq over to Afghanistan in the upcoming months, to keep Afghanistan from falling apart. My understanding is that that was a standard rotation that was occuring. I don’t see today’s events affecting our military decisions in any way. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/25 "2005-07-07T20:21:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I am not sure how this could be definitely established, but how sure is London?Why couldn’t the terrorists strike at some target in the US as easily as in London? > > Regards, > Shodan England’s borders with the EU are much more open than any US border… and London’s transport system is a pretty soft target. **RTFirefly** - I think stay the course means exactly that - stay with the plan already established. I hadn’t heard that the Brits were re-deploying to Afghanistan, but if that course of action was pre-decided, then they should stick to it. What they should not do is give the terrorists any indication that their attack here did anything good for them. > [@Avenger](#): > > They could. They probably will. They might, but US borders are a lot harder to penetrate than the UK borders with the EU. That might change… ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/26 "2005-07-07T20:45:08Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > How is it not working, at least with reguard to the US/UK homeland? WHat? You figure for it to be ‘working’ it needs to stop 100% of all attacks? You are dreaming if you figure thats the case. Ever stop to think that this attack was instigated by the very policies that are supposed to prevent them. No? You should, because that certainly appears to be the case. I’ve said and written many times prior to and after the Iraq invasion that retaliation for same was only a matter of time. Again, the point all along remains the same: your current policies are only augmenting the number of radicals willing to perform these attacks. No need to take my word for it, take your own CIA’s: [**Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground --War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report**](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html) > [@](#): > > What more do you suggest? That the UK pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan? You figure that would help? It might…short term. Iraq, certainly. It was and remains an illegal and inmoral invasion; digging in your heels won’t change that basic fact. Then perhaps you’ll have enough troops to finish the job properly in Afghanistan – which is currently wobbling between anarchy and a resurgent Taliban. > [@](#): > > What other help suggestions do you have? Eliminate poverty in the ME? Good luck with that without basically taking out the majority of governments in the ME. While I’d be all for eliminating poverty in the ME and elsewhere, it does not logically follow that I’d be in favor of any method for doing so. For instance, as opposed to starting wars for the purpose of regime change, why not simply stop supporting theocracies and/or dictators simply because you benefit from doing so. SA and Pakistan come to mind. In addtition to that, how about the US take care of its own failings before attempting to convert anyone else to their policies – IOW, stop policing the world under the false pretenses of “moral superiority.” You don’t have any. > [@](#): > > Get rid of the seas they swim in? Again, good luck with that…I’m sure if you just reason with fundamentalists they will see the logic and come around to your way of thinking. It works so well in the US after all with our own brand of fundies. Who ever said you shouldn’t go after OBL and his ilk? Not I. As for your own fundies, you’ve empowered them with your votes in the past two elections. > [@](#): > > Gods know where you are getting the above from. I was merely pointing out that the US went into Afghanistan first (i.e. it was our first reaction after we figured out who done it) not Iraq. I wasn’t attempting to paint you one way or the other as a supporter or non-supporter of Afghanistan. Easy. From your own original comment – in which you failed to mention my main gripe, Iraq, as per my OP. > [@](#): > > Duplictious how exactly? Did I ever claim Spain was important? If you have a quote by me saying so I’ll gladly eat some crow…but I have serious doubts I ever though Spain was anything but a minor player in this little drama. You in the general sense – as in the US when they paraded Aznar in front of the world as representative of the “new Europe.” Seems to me, Spain was a ‘major player’ then. And I said as much in my prior post along with asking a rethorical question as to why that was. Perhaps you should try reading what you’re responding to. > [@](#): > > How Spain is different than the Brits? Easy. The Spanish people never supported the war in Iraq in a majority while the Brits did (though don’t anymore…much like here in the US). Other people have answered this. The majority of the Brits _did not support the war_ prior to it becoming a _fait accompli_, after which, naturally, patriotic feelings took over for some time. > [@](#): > > Spain was never anything but a minor player in this drama…the UK was and is a major participant. As I said in my previous post the Spanish were in an election cycle just prior to the attack…the British are not, so there is not much chance of this attack swaying them to come out in force to depose Blair and Co. That enough differences? That you are all set to read things as derrogatory kind of says something to me. I’ve never been hostile to Spain. I’ve already addressed the first part of your post above. As for the second, the Brits elected Labour _in spite of_ Blair, knowing as they did that The Tories weren’t an option. I think they’ll be watching Blair’s response very carefully this time around – he is on very thin ice as it is. Lastly, as to why I read your remmark as derrogatory, well, it is only because it was. And apparently you knew as much when you wrote it, or else why preface it the way you did? “Not to be harsh”? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/27 "2005-07-07T21:24:33Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Ever stop to think that this attack was instigated by the very policies that are supposed to prevent them. No? You should, because that certainly appears to be the case. I’ve said and written many times prior to and after the Iraq invasion that retaliation for same was only a matter of time. I’ve considered it. I don’t happen to think Iraq is a key issue for the terrorists to be honest…more like an excuse and a place for them to fight thats easier to get too than Afghanistan. I think that the attacks on the west pre-dated the invasion of Iraq, and would have continued reguardless of if we invaded Iraq OR Afghanistan, because I think that many of the more radical elements in the ME want power…and the collective West is in their way of getting it. I think ‘retaliation’ is simply an excuse the terrorists use to do what they want, and they don’t give two shits about Iraq (I DO think they care about Afghanistan though) or the Iraqi people. > [@RedFury](#): > > Iraq, certainly. It was and remains an illegal and inmoral invasion; digging in your heels won’t change that basic fact. Then perhaps you’ll have enough troops to finish the job properly in Afghanistan – which is currently wobbling between anarchy and a resurgent Taliban. Well, we’ll just have to disagree. YOu know my stance on whether or not we (or the Brits) should leave Iraq and why I think we should stay. To my mind you advocate the US/UK pulling out of Iraq because it will score some political points in a game…at the cost, in my own mind, of a hell of a lot of Iraqi civilians. But maybe your motives are purer and you really do think that the principal of the thing, reguardless of the potential huge loss of life is worth it. > [@RedFury](#): > > While I’d be all for eliminating poverty in the ME and elsewhere, it does not logically follow that I’d be in favor of any method for doing so. For instance, as opposed to starting wars for the purpose of regime change, why not simply stop supporting theocracies and/or dictators simply because you benefit from doing so. SA and Pakistan come to mind. In addtition to that, how about the US take care of its own failings before attempting to convert anyone else to their policies – IOW, stop policing the world under the false pretenses of “moral superiority.” You don’t have any. I never said we did old boy. I was just tossing out some possible positions I’ve heard…not necessarily associating them with you per se. > [@RedFury](#): > > Who ever said you shouldn’t go after OBL and his ilk? Not I. As for your own fundies, you’ve empowered them with your votes in the past two elections. And where did I say one way or the other what your stance was on going after or not going after ObL? It was a general claim I’ve heard before advocated by some that we need to eliminate the fundamentalist Islamic ‘seas’ if we are to combat terrorism. My fundie example was merely to demonstrate that this job would be a bit tougher than most of the folks advocating reason as a method to combat these ‘seas’ is a bit unrealistic as it doesn’t even work here…let alone in a place like the ME. > [@RedFury](#): > > Easy. From your own original comment – in which you failed to mention my main gripe, Iraq, as per my OP. Well, I’m not seeing it…I certainly didn’t intend it that way. > [@RedFury](#): > > You in the general sense – as in the US when they paraded Aznar in front of the world as representative of the “new Europe.” Seems to me, Spain was a ‘major player’ then. And I said as much in my prior post along with asking a rethorical question as to why that was. Er…right. So, because GW made some propaganda speeches touting his ‘coalition’ and making Spain into more than they were, you want to associate me with that. Next time don’t use ‘you’…say ‘the US’. Please. > [@RedFury](#): > > Other people have answered this. The majority of the Brits did not support the war prior to it becoming a fait accompli, after which, naturally, patriotic feelings took over for some time. Well, I can’t find any polling numbers in a quick search prior to the war so I’ll just retract the ‘majority’ part. I think my point still stands that more Brits supported the war than Spanish citizens…and that the Spanish citizens were more upset about their countries support than the British citizens. > [@RedFury](#): > > Lastly, as to why I read your remmark as derrogatory, well, it is only because it was. And apparently you knew as much when you wrote it, or else why preface it the way you did? “Not to be harsh”? Maybe. Or, maybe you are just reading it wrong. I gave my answers as to how I think the British public is different than the Spanish when they were attacked…and they didn’t seem derrogatory to me. YMMV of course…or you might be reading way more into what I’m saying than I intend. I put in the ‘not to be harsh’ thing mainly about the election, thats true…but my comments weren’t meant to be derrogatory towards the Spanish (though I’ll be honest…Spain isn’t one of my favorite countries for personal reasons I won’t go into here, but which have nothing to do with Iraq, the war, or Spains relationship to the US). -XT ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/28 "2005-07-07T21:28:46Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > My understanding is that that was a standard rotation that was occuring. I don’t see today’s events affecting our military decisions in any way. Nope, this is a drawing down of troop strength, letting the Shi’ites self-police the Basra end of Iraq, in order to increase troop strength in Afghanistan. I’m headed out from work right now, but I’ll try to remember to dig up a link at home later. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/29 "2005-07-08T00:29:06Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I think that the attacks on the west pre-dated the invasion of Iraq, and would have continued reguardless of if we invaded Iraq OR Afghanistan, because I think that many of the more radical elements in the ME want power…and the collective West is in their way of getting it. If you interpret “in their way” as “continuing to support local dictators, repressive governments, and royal families who promised them cheap oil in return,” then you’d be right. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/30 "2005-07-08T00:42:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I am not sure how this could be definitely established, but how sure is London?Why couldn’t the terrorists strike at some target in the US as easily as in London? I’m sure they could, but you’re sort of assuming “the terrorists” are some centrally organized bunch of guys who fly from the Terrorist Airport to wherever they plan the next attack. What’s much likelier is that the terrorists who executed this attack are, at least in part, made up of guys who’ve lived in the UK for years, who planned this attack while living in the UK, and who assembled the bombs from parts found in the UK. In other words, this was al-Qaida, UK Division, London Outlet. They attacked London because that’s where they are. It’s a lot easier to carry the bomb on a train than it is to get it on a plane. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/31 "2005-07-08T00:43:03Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > If you interpret “in their way” as “continuing to support local dictators, repressive governments, and royal families who promised them cheap oil in return,” then you’d be right. Rrriiiiggghhhhttt. And AQ is fighting the revolutionary fight to install a government of peace and light…right? Yeah, the status quo sucks…but what AQ wants to bring about by ObL’s own writings would be even more repressive. An Islamic fundamentalist superstate without even the democratic trappings of Iran…something along the lines of the Taliban, but not quite that warm and fuzzy. Sounds like a dream come true to me… -XT ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/32 "2005-07-08T01:34:45Z")
Links about Brits doing the Iraq --\> Afghanistan move: [Scotsman, 5/22/05](http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=559872005) [AlJazeera, 6/14/05](http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=9067) Scotsman, 6/26/05 From the last link: > [@](#): > > Britain’s military chief in Kabul last week confirmed that the 8,000-strong UK presence in Iraq would be scaled down to enable more troops to be diverted to the struggle against a resurgent Taliban. > > But despite fears that the security situation in Afghanistan was deteriorating, the Americans have now launched a determined rearguard action to ensure Iraq does not suffer from a switch in Britain’s military focus. > > “The Prime Minister was given a pretty depressing run-down of the prognosis for Iraq while he was in Washington,” one senior Ministry of Defence source said last night. "The Americans are pushing for at least a maintenance of the troop numbers we have there now. Our latest intention is to reduce by at least half the number of our troops in Iraq within a year. [Sydney Morning Herald, 7/6/05](http://smh.com.au/news/world/britain-prepares-to-withdraw-its-troops-from-iraq/2005/07/05/1120329448324.html) > [@](#): > > London: Britain’s Defence Ministry has drafted plans for a significant troop withdrawal from Iraq over the next 18 months and a big deployment to Afghanistan. > > The Financial Times reported that it would be the biggest operational shake-up involving the armed forces since the Iraq war. > > The first stage is likely to take place late this year with a handover of security to Iraqis in at least two southern provinces, the paper said yesterday. > > The plans depended on the ability of Iraq’s security forces to take over responsibility for peacekeeping operations - a job they have so far failed to do in parts of Baghdad and to the north. > > British forces are based in the Shiite-dominated south of the country, where there are fewer rebel attacks compared with the US-monitored Sunni areas in and around the Iraqi capital. > > A withdrawal may coincide with plans to deploy up to 3000 British troops to Afghanistan before the end of the year. “This deployment would take the lead in a NATO force to take over from US troops in the south of Afghanistan,” the paper said. BTW, one excellent place to pick up a lot of news clippings on the war that you might not see in your local paper is the news summaries (with links) on the front page of [Iraq Coalition Casualties](http://icasualties.org/oif/). ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/33 "2005-07-08T10:56:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Should this suspicions prove to be true, how should Blair handle the aftermath of this tragedy? Two basic models come to mind, the Spanish response to the Madrid attacks or Bush’s own to 9/11. Of course, that does not mean you’re limited to the two. Other proposals are welcomed. > > So, what would you do and why? Basically this it how I see the choices. Going one way lets the enemy know that attack their cities and they will do what you want. This is IMHO the wrong way to go and sets you up to be a wimpy government which can be swayed by them whenever they kill a few people. England does not have this pattern historically and usually it just makes them even more determined to wint he war. Which is the other option, the one I think they should take, but should also ramp up their offensive. ---
**Author:** ![Axel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6de8d8/32.png) [@Axel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Axel)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/34 "2005-07-08T11:31:51Z")
What **Jonathon Chance** said. Continue as before. I’d be willing to bet there have been a large number of failed attacks, and this one just slipped through. > [@Shodan](#): > > Has it been definitely established that al-Queda is responsible? And why are they striking at Great Britain instead of the United States? > > Regards, > Shodan The site that’s claimed responsibilty has an al-Quieda name. Doesn’t prove much so far. They struck Britain because - now, bear with me, I’m speaking from the Islamic extremists’ POV, not saying it’s right: if you’re being bullied by two people, and you get the ability to fight back, you go after both of them, not just the biggest one. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/35 "2005-07-08T12:31:59Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I’m sure they could, but you’re sort of assuming “the terrorists” are some centrally organized bunch of guys who fly from the Terrorist Airport to wherever they plan the next attack. This is a valid point. Which leads to my next question, which is “does saying ‘al-Queda did it’ mean that it was part of an overall strategy?” If it was, how does Great Britain combat that strategy? If it wasn’t, how seriously can we take the idea that it was in retaliation for Afghanistan and Iraq? > [@RickJay](#): > > What’s much likelier is that the terrorists who executed this attack are, at least in part, made up of guys who’ve lived in the UK for years, who planned this attack while living in the UK, and who assembled the bombs from parts found in the UK. In other words, this was al-Qaida, UK Division, London Outlet. They attacked London because that’s where they are. It’s a lot easier to carry the bomb on a train than it is to get it on a plane. Is this how you see the 9/11 attacks as well? IOW, is this latest series of attacks in aid of the same “strategy” as 9/11? Or is it new, and genuinely in response to Afghanistan and Iraq? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/36 "2005-07-08T12:56:43Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Ever stop to think that this attack was instigated by the very policies that are supposed to prevent them. No? Ever stop to think that the people who did this would have launched such an attack sooner or later regardless of whatever polices we implement? Try to understand something. The beasts who did this hate non-Muslims in exactly the same way that Nazis hated Jews, and that is not in any way Godwinizing the thread. There is no way to live in peace with these mad dogs. They don’t hate us because of anything we’ve done. They hate us simple because we exist. There is nothing we can do to make them stop hating us, other than to lie down and die. Please do try to understand that these are not rational human beings we’re dealing with. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/37 "2005-07-08T13:25:37Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Rrriiiiggghhhhttt. And AQ is fighting the revolutionary fight to install a government of peace and light…right? Certainly not. But put yourself in the shoes of Joe Oppressed in Saudi Arabia or Egypt. You’ve got a government you hate, and you’ve got no legitimate outlet to voice your disapproval - no fair elections, no ability to protest without being beaten or arrested by secret police, almost zero legal opposition groups, etc. You also know that the reason your government is able to do all this is because of the support of the USA, and you’ve been more or less brought up that the reason the USA continues to do this is because they want to keep Muslims down. Suddenly, on the scene, is al-Qaeda. And they appear to be fighting back. You probably don’t know much about what they actually want to do (aside from nebulous claims like, bringing back Islam and fighting the great Satan), but it doesn’t matter because it’s gotta be better than the status quo, right? So, you’ve got no options and you desperately want change. The only organization appearing to do something is al-Qaeda, they’re at least fighting. Given real options and real opportunity for choice, I doubt the majority of Arabs would vote for a repressive Islamic government. But they don’t and the only organization that offers any opportunity for resistance is radical Islamic groups. It’s essentially the same thing that occurred in Iran. They went from being a fairly secular society to a popular theocracy in the span of 20 years because every opposition group aside from the Islamists was wiped out. The radical Islamists do want power, but right now, the West and the current crop of ME dictators that we support play right into their hands. These guys can’t recruit without an enemy to rail against, and we provide that to them. ---
**Author:** ![gum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bbe5ce/32.png) [@gum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gum)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/38 "2005-07-08T14:34:28Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Ever stop to think that the people who did this would have launched such an attack sooner or later regardless of whatever polices we implement? Try to understand something. The beasts who did this hate non-Muslims in exactly the same way that Nazis hated Jews, and that is not in any way Godwinizing the thread. There is no way to live in peace with these mad dogs. > > They don’t hate us because of anything we’ve done. They hate us simple because we exist. There is nothing we can do to make them stop hating us, other than to lie down and die. > > Please do try to understand that these are not rational human beings we’re dealing with. Jeebus. I agree with a **LonesomePolecat** :eek: 😉 [Here’s the message of the ‘gentlemen’ \](http://images.fok.nl/upload/050707_15449_london_blast_claim_statement.jpg) It says that Allah the merciful thought it a good idea to kill some people because of Afghanistan and Iraq. It warns Denmark and Italy. … The thing that I don’t understand is: Why don’t they mention the Netherlands? ARE WE NOT GOOD ENOUGH, you goat-appreciators? Or have you mixed up your European countries again and will attack Norway later on? Ah…wait… It must be because the Dutch have such a powerful and heroïc army and our borders are so well guarded. 😛 As for ‘What now? Re: London attacks’ I think the Brits are doing great. From a Dutchie: My admiration for such brave and sober people. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/39 "2005-07-08T15:24:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This is a valid point. Which leads to my next question, which is “does saying ‘al-Queda did it’ mean that it was part of an overall strategy?” If it was, how does Great Britain combat that strategy? If it wasn’t, how seriously can we take the idea that it was in retaliation for Afghanistan and Iraq? > > Is this how you see the 9/11 attacks as well? IOW, is this latest series of attacks in aid of the same “strategy” as 9/11? Or is it new, and genuinely in response to Afghanistan and Iraq? The 9/11 attacks did seem like a larger effort than anything else so far, if for no other reason than they needed way, way more foresight and bankroll. You can build a bomb in a day and set it off the next day. Learning to fly a 757 takes a little longer. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467/40 "2005-07-08T16:47:31Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Ever stop to think that the people who did this would have launched such an attack sooner or later regardless of whatever polices we implement? Surely you don’t mean top say that all policies are equally effective in fighting terrorism. Because, essentially, that is what you wrote. > [@](#): > > Try to understand something. The beasts who did this hate non-Muslims in exactly the same way that Nazis hated Jews, and that is not in any way Godwinizing the thread. There is no way to live in peace with these mad dogs. Did you clean the spittle off your keyboard after typing the above? And yes, protestations to the contrary, that is the very definition of “Godwinizing the thread.” Before you dehumanize your enemies in order to justify your actions against them (TWAT), you’d do well to reflect on a number of other issues first: 1-If you think Islamic Fundamentalist can be defeated primarily by military means, you need to identify exactly who they, where they are to be found and stablish clear (military) goals. Current US policy does none of the above. 2-Just as you think their methods are despicable – and I agree – they have every right to consider yours just as atrocious. And I agree with them as well. IOW, as I already mentioned previously, because of your own actions you are in no position to claim the moral highground. 3-While there’s no _justification_ for their actions, there are clear _reasons_ for same. As long as you keep ignoring the latter you’ll continue to make the same mistakes that got us to the present situation. Namely, > [@](#): > > They don’t hate us because of anything we’ve done. They hate us simple because we exist. There is nothing we can do to make them stop hating us, other than to lie down and die. You obviously live in an alternate universe if you think a great number of Muslims hate you because “you simply exist.” Or else you know nothing about American foreign policy in the region going back some fifty years. > [@](#): > > Please do try to understand that these are not rational human beings we’re dealing with. Yes, yes, I get it. No need to keep repeating yourself. These are varmint you’re dealing with and you’re The Exterminator Knights rolling in to save the day. Never seen that movie before. Simple really. :rolleyes: Bonus read: [Britain’s support of U.S. policy seen as motive behind bombings](http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/12078732.htm) > [@](#): > > Robert A. Pape, a University of Chicago political scientist, has made an extensive study of suicide terrorism worldwide since 1980. His new book, “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,” contends that modern-day terrorism, including that of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida, is far less related to Islamic fundamentalism than most observers believe - that it is driven instead by coherent political aims, especially the desire to expel what are perceived as armies of occupation. > > In an interview Thursday, Pape said the lesson of London is that al-Qaida and like-minded groups are alive and well, systematically focused on the clearly defined goal of forcing U.S. and allied troops out of predominantly Muslim countries. > > **"This is just part of the continuing al-Qaida attack," Pape said. "Although many have hoped that al-Qaida had been weakened by American counterterrorist attacks, the facts are otherwise."** > > The London attacks mark the 15th terrorist event since 2002 linked to al-Qaida or associated groups, he said. Those attacks have claimed over 700 lives - more deaths than attributed to al-Qaida in all the years before the Sept. 11 attacks combined. > > **Pape noted that the numbers are even more dramatic within Iraq, a country that had never experienced an incident of suicide terrorism before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.** The number of such attacks totaled 20 in 2003, 48 in 2004 and 50 just in the first five months this year. > > **In his book, Pape details how al-Qaida attacks since Sept. 11 have systematically targeted countries that have allied themselves with U.S. policy in Afghanistan, Iraq or both**. The victims in those attacks, from Bali to Madrid, include citizens of 18 of the 20 countries that bin Laden himself has targeted as U.S. allies. (bolding mine) But hey! You’re welcomed to keep dropping bombs to solve the problem seeing as how well that policy’s working out for you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-now-re-london-attacks/311467.md?page=3)