Blair rejects blame for terrorism

[white-anglo-reactionary]

What a clever little Machiavellian Mastermind you are!

Made Iraq safe for AQ? BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAA...ok...I guess if you consider being more likely to be blown up by an allied air attack then maybe you have a point

A little light bulb has just gone on - so the 2003 invasion was a trap, to suck the evil no-good-doers of al-Queda into a confined space, where they could be subjected to the righteous might of the the avenging angel that is the U.S.Airforce.

You speak for us all! Find a random Musselman and show him the iron fist - punish him for his actions in Darfur against our Christian brothers. Raise the banner, light the powder! We are waiting. Send us the signal and we will follow.

[wendigo100]

OF course we could always adopt a Mr Nevil Chamberlain approach and just fold like a pack of french made spanish playing cards couldnt we?

Then again...here's a thought, lets go after the f8ckers instead of holding a piece of paper in the air proclaiming peace in our time (or aimlessly lobbing a couple cruise missiles in to sudanese farm land).

Nah...thats not right...we hold the moral ground...we are meant to be the good guys arent we?

Terrorism existed long before TB and will be around a heck of a lot longer after he is gone. The only deceitful people around here are those who would hoist the surrender flags without a fight (not that Im looking at you W ).

Mailman

My point has gone right over your head Mailman

I am not advocating pulling out. I am commenting on Blair's insistence that his adventure in Iraq has not made terrorism worse, when plainly it has.

If he hadn't made up that dossier he would not have got a parliamentary mandate to invade Iraq, and al qu'eda would be fighting Saddam Hussein over there, not us. And he was a lot better at it than we are.

However, we are there now and we have to deal with it. Feck knows what we do though. The situation seems to get worse and worse, with no end in sight.

If we do stay there, I'd be interested to know what others here think we should do to turn it around. Sensible answers.

[Ardesco]

Try out our latest nuclear wepon on iraq and level the place. Blame the Americans and refuse to help them as the islamic world goes on all out assault with them and watch all of our middle east/american problems dissapear in a great big mushroom cloud

[zathras]

And which rights are these? You talking about protesting? Sheeet, you can still protest (even outside Parliament or Number 10).

Actually you can't. It is illegal to protest within 1 mile of the Palace of Westminster which also takes in Number 10 Downing Street

Habeus Corpus - the right to a trial in front of a judge and jury or even to be charged with a crime. Originally one could only be held for 7 days, then it was 14. Now it is 28 days. They still want to increase it for 90 days. Heck you can run someone down, kill them and still get less than that!

Free Speech

As I have already pointed out protesting is already restricted around Westminster. The introduction of ASBO's has also been used to curtail the right of people to speak freely.

It was no accident the Irish didnt start bombing London or it was no accident the Germans didnt start bombing London until after the English declared war on them either.

There is no correlation between the Irish troubles and Iraq. The origins of the troubles goes back as far as Cromwell at least, and anyway Northern Ireland was part of the UK and not a seperate soveriegn nation at the start of the troubles. The argument is not that the invasion of Iraq caused Islamic terrorism, which is at least as old as the Wahadi sect which is at the root of most Islamic terrorism, it is that the invasion gave substance to the claim that the West was attacking Islam and thereby encouraged more to the extremist side.

[quote]What, a person was shot twice or two people shot once? [/quote

You may find that funny but I doubt those in the Forest Gate raid or the family of a certain Brazilian electrician appreciate the funny side.

Nor do I suspect will those imprisioned without charge after the raids to stop some supposed attempt to blow up planes (which would help but none actually had tickets and the practicality of the plot has been rubbished in loads of places and by those better qualified than me).

you do realise that if a middle ranking civil servent deems an emergency anywhere in the world as sufficient he or she can declare that people should stay in there houses, or removed from them and shot if they try to fight it. With no judicial comeback on those involved.

[Ardesco]

You may find that funny but I doubt those in the Forest Gate raid or the family of a certain Brazilian electrician appreciate the funny side.

Well you have to admit that the twat in the forest gate raid was asking for it, he charged down the stairs and tried to attack an armed copper whose gun went off. WTF did he expect? If he had just put his hands up and stayed where he was he wouldn't have got shot.

[Mailman]

Actually you can't. It is illegal to protest within 1 mile of the Palace of Westminster which also takes in Number 10 Downing Street

Actually you can protest outside westminster and number 10. All it takes is a bit of organisation on your part if you want to hoist the red flag of communism.

Habeus Corpus - the right to a trial in front of a judge and jury or even to be charged with a crime. Originally one could only be held for 7 days, then it was 14. Now it is 28 days. They still want to increase it for 90 days. Heck you can run someone down, kill them and still get less than that!

Wrong again, you get a trial...just that it takes a few days longer to get there. A "right" that has been upheld by the law lords themselves.

So try again...what laws are you talking about?

There is no correlation between the Irish troubles and Iraq.

Actually, yes there are. The corrolation is this, if England just gave what them irish terrorists wanted in the first place they wouldnt have been detonating bombs across London.

Same thing again, if the government just gave what them peace loving terrorists want when ever they demanded it (like them staunch and brave spanish did) then them peave loving terrorists wouldnt be detonating on public transport.

You may find that funny but I doubt those in the Forest Gate raid or the family of a certain Brazilian electrician appreciate the funny side.

Speaking of which, what ever happened to that "innocent" islamic who got arrested on child porn charges?

Nor do I suspect will those imprisioned without charge after the raids to stop some supposed attempt to blow up planes...

The law allows them to be held for a certain period of time before they are either charged or released. So there is no issue here. Obviously investigations of this type take time, time judges so far have agreed the police can have.

you do realise that if a middle ranking civil servent deems an emergency anywhere in the world as sufficient...

What do you call a "middle ranking civil servant"? Sounds like alarmism to me

Mailman

[wendigo100]

Try out our latest nuclear wepon on iraq and level the place. Blame the Americans and refuse to help them as the islamic world goes on all out assault with them and watch all of our middle east/american problems dissapear in a great big mushroom cloud

I rather like Americans, and America.

[white-anglo-reactionary]

More fighting talk from the kiwi...

mailman, does New Zealand actually have an army of its own, or does it just naturalise loads of burly South Sea islanders? (like you do with your rugby team)

[Bagpuss]

There was an security services report in the news not 2 days ago, disputing that the 'world is a safer place' thanks to Tony and George. Of course it's been burried faster than a 2 week old corpse.


oh here it is


US report says Iraq fuels terror

The violence in Iraq shows little sign of abating
The New York Times newspaper has published what it says are the findings of a classified US intelligence paper on the effects of the Iraq war.
The document reportedly blames the three-year-old conflict for increasing the threat of terrorism and helping fuel Islamic radicalism worldwide.

The BBC's defence correspondent Rob Watson says this is not the first time the US intelligence community has said that the war in Iraq has made the problem of Islamist extremism worse.

Indeed it had warned that might happen even before the US-led invasion in 2003.
Many have been inspired by al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden
But, our correspondent says, this latest finding, known as a National Intelligence Estimate, is the most comprehensive report yet, based on the considered analysis of all 16 of the US intelligence agencies.

According to the New York Times, which has spoken to officials who have either read it, or been involved in drafting it, the report says the invasion and occupation of Iraq has spawned a new generation of Islamic radicalism that has spread across the globe.

It also warns that Islamic militants who have fought in Iraq could foment radicalism and violence when they return to their home countries, much as returning Jihadis did after the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s.


It reportedly concludes that, while al-Qaeda may have been weakened since the 11 September 2001 attacks, the radical Islamic movement worldwide has strengthened with the formation of new groups and cells who are inspired by Osama Bin Laden, but not under his direct control.

But White House spokesman Peter Watkins hit back at the newspaper's report, saying: "Their [terrorists'] hatred for freedom and liberty did not develop overnight, those seeds were planted decades ago.

"Instead of waiting while they plot and plan attacks to kill innocent Americans, the United States has taken the initiative to fight back."

However, the report will make uncomfortable reading at the White House, our correspondent says.

In a series of recent speeches, President George W Bush has been portraying the war in Iraq as the central front in the war on terrorism. This report implies while that may be true, that it is a front of America's own making.

In the past, Mr Bush has dismissed such reasoning by arguing that Islamic militants had hated the US long before it invaded Iraq, or even Afghanistan for that matter.

[Dundeegeorge]

Well, almost agree

Terrorism has existed for many years before Tony Blair was a twinkle in his mother's eyes, it will still be around many years after he has turned to dust.

When history looks back on the Blair/Bush years it will seem like the Western Liberal demoncracies actually lost ground. That is because our liberal rights are being curtailed as a means of dealing with terrorism. Terrorism, which is to force political change through the use of terror, has therefore succeeded as rights are curtailed to deal with them.

By going into Iraq he has provided a spark which has encourged many to flock to the terrorist cause. By reducing our rights he has encouraged them to act by reacting to each terrorist act.

It can be no accident, that the first suicide bombings on the UK mainland occured after Iraq.
Prove it.

The terrorist can be dealt with by not allowing their barbarity to force change.
I agree with that. Nuking their homeland into glass might be a better way to deal with terrorists, wouldn't you say?

With proper investigation of terrorist attacks so that those responsible will be brought to justice in an open and fair way
Piss off, headshoot the bastards on live TV.
, in front of a judge and jury of their peers.


What we have is a curtailment of habeus corpus, the right to free speech, innocent people being shot (twice).

But that has little to do with terrorism. I accept that the control-freaks will claim that it is necessary because of terrorism, but we both know that's not true. It's much more to do with controlling your subjects than terrorism.