They could. They probably will.
I was talking about support for the war before the invasion. Obviously once troops are on the ground, the situation changes. In Jan 2003 81% of Brits wanted a second UN mandate before any attack.
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.
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?
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.
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.
They might, but US borders are a lot harder to penetrate than the UK borders with the EU. That might change…
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
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.
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.
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.
Easy. From your own original comment – in which you failed to mention my main gripe, Iraq, as per my OP.
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.
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.
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”?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, I’m not seeing it…I certainly didn’t intend it that way.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Links about Brits doing the Iraq --> Afghanistan move:
Scotsman, 5/22/05
AlJazeera, 6/14/05
Scotsman, 6/26/05
From the last link:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Regards,
Shodan
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.
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.
Jeebus. I agree with a LonesomePolecat :eek:
Here’s the message of the ‘gentlemen’ <insert pukey smiley>
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.
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.
Surely you don’t mean top say that all policies are equally effective in fighting terrorism. Because, essentially, that is what you wrote.
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,
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.
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
But hey! You’re welcomed to keep dropping bombs to solve the problem seeing as how well that policy’s working out for you.