Multiple blasts paralyse London

[mharky]

So if they intentions are in the right place it's fine eh?

Their intention was to make a country whos society was different more like our western bullshit excuse for civilisation, and to maintain oil supplies for the US can keep on polluting the planet. Everyone else joined in on the gangbang because they are scared of the US (note, not George Bush as he is a puppet president who has no power over the running of his contry)

[Guest88]

The objective of the terrorists is not to cause death, destruction and terror - it is to get U.S and U.K to stop f**king around in the Middle East and f**k off.

You may or may not agree with their objective, just as you may or may not believe that the objective of the U.S was regime change rather than oil.

But I've thought about this long and hard and I couldn't see that I could logically agree with the U.S / U.K right to try and achieve their objective by the means open to them, and the rights of Al Qaeda and their many many supporters from many countries to try and achieve their objectives with the means open to them.

btw, I meant to say "with the backing of the united nations" not "unilateral action", in the last paragraph of my last post.

[Guest88]

Sorry -it's late, that meant to say "and not the rights of Al Qaeda".

[Braddie]

Guest 88 - I have just read your post and it is slightly confusing. I agree that the objective of the terrorists is to get the US and the UK to leave the Middle East, but this is accomplished by causing death, destruction and terror.

Also, it is all well and good to opine and theorize about a subject, as humankind is wont to do, but when moral posturing is replaced by an honest assessment of the data, the result is often a new, surprising insight.

[fish]

guest 88 was posting (I think) in response to the idea that the terrorists had a principal aim of death and terror. Whereas in fact (as guest88 says) they have a larger goal.

we have to / should take account the damage caused in Iraq to civilians when we think about foreign policy. In fact the US led foreign policy really doesn't have great long term vision. To believe western democracy should be pushed on everyone is just plain daft. And as asian says all the aspects to be taken into account make it a complex issue.
I think we may underestimate Bush if we see him as a puppet (as I did to start with) the scary thing is he has very very strong views and an ideological background that really puts him on the christian right, and lends much weight to his policy.

Out of interest what is the honest assessment of the data????

But aside from the philosophising, thoughts obviously go to those affected by the recent bombings, and more generally those caught up in conflict through no choice of their own.


Fish

[Mr. Furness]

just something i think is relevant:

after the bombing in madrid, spain blamed eta- the basque organisation, despite the fact that it was clearly not them. the government at the time duly lost the election, and the new government came straight in and removed all its troops from iraq. that is not definitely due to a link, more as a part of the parties election manifesto. however- this means that the bombers would probably associate that as some kind of victory as a result.

of course you can appreciate that the bombings could have been different groups, etc, but if not? in a way i think this agrees with what guest88 says, the above case maybe highlights how the terrorists imagine it working in the longer run.

[Matt L]

the above case maybe highlights how the terrorists imagine it working in the longer run.

I believe you are probably right. However such thinking is flawed. Spain is now widely thought of and treated as a coward; they gave in to the terrorists' wishes, gifting them a victory. The British people, and more specifically Londoners, are not cowards and will not allow themselves and the values they hold dear be destroyed by such atrocious acts of terror. So Britain will not, and more to the point politically cannot, give in to the demands of terrorists.

As for the terrorists' aim suggested previously, namely that Western nations should cease involvement in the Middle East, this is quite likely true. However its being true does not mean that it is the right course of action for us to take. These acts are carried out by extremists; they are not representative of the Middle East as a whole, or even just Iraq or Palestine. Indeed, if we were to leave Iraq now, it would be impossible for the government to maintain order and guard against an even greater number of attacks. It is vital that coalition forces remain until such a time when the Iraqi government's own security forces are adequately trained to maintain stability.

[Guest88]

But I can put those same words back at you....

Maybe the people in the Middle East are not cowards, and will not allow themselves and the values they hold dear be destroyed by such atrocious acts of terror (as have been committed by U.S. and U.K. without support of United Nations).

This is the view of many people in the Middle East, anti-US sentiment is very strong in many countries there.

So some of them feel the need to fight back....but how????. it is not as if they can go sail a boat and invade the United States.

[Guest88]

>Braddie

Yes, the objective for the terrorists is to get U.S. / U.K. out of the Middle East - and one of their means to achieve that objective is violence....not that different from the U.S. / U.K. having an objective and one of their means to achieve that objective is violence....both end up with dead civilians.

I don't say that either is right, just if you oppose one, you should oppose the other....imho.

Btw, if you haven't all watched Farenheit 911, I recommend it - even if you take into account that it is produced by democrat supporters, it is very sinister / worrying....

[Mrs H.]

All this rhetoric is all well and good - but it is important to remember we can only move forward from the point we are at now - not pre-London bombings, pre-9/11 or pre-Iraq war. Whatever the rights and wrongs of what has already happened we have to find a solution to the current situation. A unilateral and immediate withdrawal from the middle east may create more problems than it solves. so how can the best possible solution which will benefit the maximum number of ordinary people be achieved from our current standing point? You can work into that as many home rule/ local determination factors as you like - as long as they move the siutation forwards from the current situation not some point in history!

[guesty guesty]

it's also important to remember that whatever we may think, we can have no influence on what's going on regarding this country's foreign policy, partly due to the failings of our so-called democratic system, but mainly because our elected spiritual leader is at the beck and call of somebody else who we did not elect.

so all that is left is to rhetorise, ignore or sulk

[Guest88]

In answer to Mrs H, I wouldn't advocate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, as I don't think you can take out an administration and then suddenly disappear out - so they need to put in place a government, and only leave when the situation is stable, however long this may take.

[mharky]

it's also important to remember that whatever we may think, we can have no influence on what's going on regarding this country's foreign policy, partly due to the failings of our so-called democratic system, but mainly because our elected spiritual leader is at the beck and call of somebody else who we did not elect.

so all that is left is to rhetorise, ignore or sulk

what about continual assasination of leaders until there is one we like. or overthrow the government. the people of iraq probably thought there was no way they could change their governemt. hey, maybe we can get the comunists to come in for a regime change!