The terrorist bombings in London were indeed a tragic event. Violence for violence breeds an endless cycle of destruction. But is it not terrorism when the U.S. and Britain launch a "shock and awe" attack on Iraq that leads to the death of over 100,000 civilians? The deaths in London are widely reported and mourned in the U.S. Just days before the London attack though, the U.S. killed 17 innocent civilians in a bombing attack of a village in Afghanistan. Are those tragic deaths reported and mourned with as much fervor in the U.S.? Are those lives any less important? Do the loved ones of innocents in Iraq or Afghanistan not consider their deaths an act of terrorism by the U.S. and Britain? Former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, commented yesterday that, "We've now put a group of terrorists on steroids [in Iraq] and given them training. The easiest place for them to move, and there are signs they are moving already, is Europe." So has the war in Iraq made us more secure? Has the Bush and Blair plan to take the fight to the terrorists worked or have they only succeeded in making a colossal mess of the entire world?
5 comments:
After 9/11 he would have started praying to the East in hopes of keeping his head attached.
***
We need to Nuke the subhuman animals who practice the religion of peace till they glow, then shoot them in dark.
Peace through superior fire power, works every time
But is it not terrorism when the U.S. and Britain launch a "shock and awe" attack on Iraq that leads to the death of over 100,000 civilians
It should be noted that the figure you cite is considered by most to be inflated. But no, the attack on Iraq is not terrorism by definition.
Of course if you DO still consider it so, then by all means include under the definition 'terrorism' that which Saddam inflicted on his own people - somewhere in the range of 300,000 to 400,000. At least per Molly Ivins.
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=19337
Former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, commented yesterday that, "We've now put a group of terrorists on steroids [in Iraq] and given them training. The easiest place for them to move, and there are signs they are moving already, is Europe."
Yet .. the folks who we now think did the deed in London ... grew up in Leeds.
Not just grew up in Leeds - but were born in the UK. And not just born in the UK but of Pakistani origin.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15922382-2,00.html
No doubt these clean cut kids from the middle-class felt solidarity with the Islamic facists murdering children in Iraq.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/12129733.htm
Sure.
I believe that both sides (the U.S. and the extremist factions) have valid points in their justifications for their actions. We should all resolve ourselves to the fact that neither side is ever perfect in a dispute. Especially one with such history.
This is not a bad attitude to have. It starts to break down when one side believes that beheading is reasonable treatment to POWs and 'Death to infidels' a nuanced approach to foreign policy.
My understanding is that polls showed that a majority of the English public were opposed to war in Iraq, and that includes the majority of Blair's own party, which lost seats in Parliament in the recent election as a result.
In the view of many English, the problem is that Blair for a number of reasons does what the US tells him to.
Some English try not to be 'anti-American' just opposed to many aspects of US foreign policy: perhaps those working for Peace in the North Americal continent might try to return the favour?
Post a Comment