Blair rejects blame for terrorism

[wendigo100]

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."

By destroying an ally against al qua'eda!

(I shouldn't laugh)

[BoredBloke]

When has Blair and the rest ever taken responsibility for something which went tits up?

[Joe Black]

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

An extremely presumptious remark don't you think?

Bit like saying that it can be no accident that 9/11 occured after the crusades or it's no accident a few million jews will killed after they decided to hang Jesus.

[zathras]

An extremely presumptious remark don't you think?

Bit like saying that it can be no accident that 9/11 occured after the crusades or it's no accident a few million jews will killed after they decided to hang Jesus.

No. We had terrorism in this country for a long time before Iraq. Some was Irish, some was Animal Liberation, but very little if any Islamic terrorism on our soil before Iraq.

Although our political masters deny it, even the security services admit that foreign policy regards Iraq has radicalised a large proportion of the Islamic society. Unlike some, I've actually bothered to read the Koran. Including those bits which talk about defending the religion.

So to me there is an obvious link between ~Iraq and the subsequent bombings. That's not to say that Saddam Hussein was an evil man who needed dealing with. It's just that invading the country, and bombing it almost to the stone age, is not the best way of doing it.

The fact that I believe the Iraq invasion to not only be unwise, but potentially but does little to help the international community to deal with rogue states and their leaders as an international community.

[expat]

...Anyone who thinks that Iraq will emerge as a functioning democracy is deluded.....

Iraq a functioning democracy?

Joining what list of functioning democracies outside the Western world or former British colonies?

[AlfredJPruffock]

Well done George'n'Tony another fine mess !!


I had long predictated that the Iraq invasion would be a catastrophe ... and my prediction has been vindicated.


Senior military officers have been pressing the government to withdraw British troops from Iraq and concentrate on what they now regard as a more worthwhile and winnable battleground in Afghanistan.


They believe there is a limit to what British soldiers can achieve in southern Iraq and that it is time the Iraqis took responsibility for their own security, defence sources say. Pressure from military chiefs for an early and significant cut in the 7,500 British troops in Iraq is also motivated by extreme pressure being placed on soldiers and those responsible for training them.

"What is more important, Afghanistan or Iraq?" a senior defence source asked yesterday. "There is a group within the Ministry of Defence pushing hard to get troops out of Iraq to get more into Afghanistan."

Military chiefs have been losing patience with the slow progress made in building a new Iraqi national army and security services. Significantly, they now say the level of violence in the country will not be a factor determining when British troops should leave.

The debate has been raging between different groups in the MoD and has involved the chiefs of staff as well as the permanent joint headquarters, based in Northwood, north-west London, defence sources say. Army chiefs have expressed concern about opinion polls showing the increasing unpopularity of the war and the impact on morale and recruitment.

Political arguments, including strong US pressure against British troop withdrawals, have won, at least for the moment. US generals in Iraq privately made it clear they were deeply unhappy about British talk of troop reductions and complained that the British seemed interested only in the south of the country.

The debate within the MoD is unusual: arguments about the size and shape of the defence budget are common, but arguments about the merits of military deployments overseas are much rarer.

The fierce debate at the highest military and political levels in the MoD is reflected in a passage of a leaked memo written by a staff officer at the Defence Academy, an MoD thinktank.

It reads: "British armed forces are effectively held hostage in Iraq - following the failure of the deal being attempted by COS [chief of staff] to extricate UK armed forces from Iraq on the basis of 'doing Afghanistan' - and we are now fighting (and arguably losing or potentially losing) on two fronts."

The MoD, which is downplaying the significance of the memo, said yesterday it was written by a naval commander, the equivalent of a lieutenant colonel in the army, and that it was reporting views from a variety of military sources.

Hopes for early and large cuts in the number of British troops deployed in southern Iraq have been dashed repeatedly. A year ago, the MoD predicted that the number of British troops there would have fallen by now to 3,000, fewer than half the current total.

Military commanders now accept that the number of British troops in southern Iraq will probably stay at their present level, at least until early next year. Major General Richard Shirreff, the new commander of British troops there, was determined to launch what may be the last major operation in Iraq by British troops. He launched Operation Sinbad, with Iraqi forces, in a move designed to rid Basra of serious criminals and corrupt officials. The operation, involving about 3,000 British troops, is expected to continue until February.

A significant cut in Britain's military presence in Iraq could coincide with the run-up to the election of a new British prime minister. "We can and will run both [Iraq and Afghanistan] - for a period of time," a defence official said last night.

The defence secretary, Des Browne, has recently stressed the importance the government attaches to Afghanistan and to beating the Taliban and a growing number of jihadists there. Speaking before a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Slovenia, he said yesterday Nato had to "step up to the plate to meet our collective commitment to support the government and people of Afghanistan". Britain has nearly 5,000 troops in the country.

The Nato ministers agreed on a plan to donate surplus military equipment to Afghanistan's armed forces but their offers of extra troops did not meet Nato commanders' target of 2,500, officials said.

[Troll]

The endless and largely cynical blather about a “Global War on Terrorism,” “Islamic extremism,” “Islamofascism,” etc. has served more to obscure than to reveal the strategic situation the West now faces. Islam is, and always has been, a religion of war. What has changed in recent times is that after about 300 years on the strategic defensive, following the failure of the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683, Islam has resumed the strategic offensive. It is expanding outward in every direction, and much of its expansion is violent, if not initially then once new Islamic bridgeheads are strong enough to sustain violence.

The most critical question, and it remains an open question, is whether what remains of Christendom will defend itself or simply roll over and die. Most Western elites, and almost all Western political leaders (including those who call themselves conservatives), accept and live according to the dictates of cultural Marxism, the Marxism of the Frankfurt School known commonly as “multiculturalism” or “Political Correctness.” Because cultural Marxism’s primary objective is the destruction of Western culture and the Christian religion, its adherents see Islam as a useful if somewhat troublesome ally. They will even go to war on behalf of Moslems against Christians, as the Clinton administration did twice in the Balkans. It is improbable, to say the least, that any Western political leader will rally Christendom to defend itself.

Recently, Pope Benedict XVI seemed to do exactly that. In a speech at Regensburg, Germany, the Pope told the truth about Islam. Moreover, he did so by quoting a Byzantine Emperor, Manuel II Paleologos.
“The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,” the Pope said.

“He said, I quote, ‘Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.’”

What the Emperor, and the Pope, said is precisely correct. If you read the Qur’an, you will find it is mostly a pastiche, some elements taken from Judaism, some from Christianity, some from the pagan polytheism common in Arabia before Mohammed (Allah was the name of the leading god of the pantheon, the equivalent of Zeus or Jupiter). The main ingredient Mohammed added to this stew was endless condemnations of “unbelievers,” including repeated calls for violence against them, e.g., “slay them in every kind of ambush.” It is not surprising that from its birth Islam has been at war with every other religion. The Qur’an mandates exactly that.

By telling the truth about Islam, the Pope appreared to offer Christendom the leader in its own defense that it must find if it is to survive Islam’s latest onslaught. More, quoting a Byzantine Emperor, he suggested that defending Christendom was his intention. The Byzantine Empire was the Christian world’s first line of defense against Islam for centuries. Its fall to the Turks in 1453 was a catastrophe, but by then the modern age was beginning in the West. Modernity soon gave Christendom a decisive advantage over Islam and all other cultures that endured until the 20th century, when the West fought three civil wars that largely destroyed it. (Another Pope bought the West the time it needed—by assembling the Christian galleys at Lepanto.)

The elevation of Cardinal Ratzinger to the Papacy brought joy to traditional Christians everywhere, Roman Catholic or not (I’m not). With his Regensburg address, Pope Benedict SVI signaled he might do more than defend traditional Christianity against the heresies that beset it sorely. He might give the West a fighting leader, and a fighting chance, in a Fourth Generation world where wars between cultures will mean far more than wars between states.

The Islamic world responded predictably to the Pope’s speech, proving the truth of the Emperor’s words. In Somalia, a Moslem shot a Catholic nun in the back four times, killing her. In the West Bank, Christian churches were burned. Crowds rioted, and Islamic clerics and governments demanded the Pope retract his words.

Sadly, it appears that the Pope crumbled. According to the AP, he said, “This in fact was a quotation from a medieval text, which does not in any way express my personal thought.” Yet what the Emperor Manuel II Paleologus said is plain fact, fact as clear as day to anyone who reads the Qur’an or knows the history of Islam.

[stackpole]

20% of mozzies are vermin, they want the whole world under sharia law. The other 80% are won't stop them.

[Mailman]

20% of mozzies are vermin, they want the whole world under sharia law. The other 80% are won't stop them.

haha

Mailman

[TheMonkey]

Inaction is as bad as action. They are 100% vermin and should be culled.

World War 3 is the world vs Islam. I reckon the chinese will **** them right up.