Terrorist attacks in London

[astralp]

Attack On London: Blair Plays The Terror Card
Prison Planet | July 7, 2005
By Paul Joseph Watson

The attack on London represents a brutal attempt to coral the British population behind accepting the introduction of the national ID card, renewing support for the war on terror and reinvigorating trust in a government that had the backing of less than 15 per cent of the country.
RELATED:
Explosions In London
Who Stands To Gain? Israel Warned Before Blast, Cover-up in Progress





Even at this very early stage it is clear that the evidence points to inside involvement.

The statement on a website from an unknown Al-Qaeda group claiming responsibility is exactly what we'd expect after such an event. Santa Claus could post a message saying he was responsible for the attack, does that make it so? Rupert Murdoch's Sky News are busy playing Al-Qaeda training videos with masked militants jumping through flaming hoops. The emotive propaganda is clear, these images are being linked in montages with past images of 9/11, the Bali bombing and the Madrid bombing and injured people crying in the streets.

Even if the police and government back away from the Al-Qaeda claim, which now appears to be the case, pro-establishment Neo-Con media outlets will repeat it like an endless drumbeat until it sinks in.

The key evidence thus far is as follows.

Original Associated Press and Israeli radio reports stated that Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Israeli Prime Minister received a warning before the first explosion that an attack was about to take place. Scotland Yard passed on a warning to the Israeli embassy who forwarded it to Netanyahu. Netanyahu was due to make a speech at a Hotel adjacent to the site of the first blast. He cancelled the speech and remained in his hotel room.

Arutz Sheva sourced Army Radio with the following.

"The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address and economic summit."

For an hour after the first blast, the government and the news media were reporting that the cause was an electrical power surge. If the government knew bombs were going to go off before they did, why did they report for an hour that it was an accident? Were they trying to bide time so they could get their story straight?

Both Scotland Yard and the Israelis have since denied that they had any foreknowledge of the attack.

Since the original report, major TV news networks have been completely silent on the Netanyahu story. They are just repeating claims that there was no prior knowledge.

About an hour after the story broke, Associated Press started altering their online news stories, stating that Netanyahu got the warning after the first blast and not before. It seems as if they are scrambling to co-ordinate their cover story. Either there were no warnings or the warning was after the first blast. The dithering seems to suggest there is some confusion on how to successfully hide the smoking gun, the fact that Netanyahu was warned before the first explosion.

Why didn't the people on the trains and buses get the same warning?

On June 7th, MI5 downgraded the London terror alert from its second highest level "severe general" to a lower category of "substantial".

Why did they do this, was somebody lowering the guard?

The timing of the attack is very suspicious, coming on the heels of the start of the G8 conference. Both Tony Blair and George Bush in their speeches have tried to paint the attack as an assault on globalization and the G8 itself. This means that if you're against the G8 and globalization, then you're with the terrorists! It's a tried and tested method they've used time and time before.

In any crime you look at history and motive, The British government has been caught in multiple examples of carrying out bombings in London which were then blamed on the IRA. They even had one of their own MI5 agents wihin the Omagh bomb squad. Click here for an archive of this evidence.

The British government has also been caught scripting fake terror alerts for political effect. Days before the Queen's speech notable November speech in which she first introduced ID card legislation, ITN news correspondants and government lobbyists got together to cook up a fake terror alert involving planes attacking Canary Wharf. A London Independent article later exposed this as a crass psy-op campaign to get the British people behind the ID card.

From Putin blowing up his own apartment buildings to Israel being behind Hamas, the evidence is consistently clear that large scale terrorism is always state sponsored.

The Madrid train bombing is another example. The bombers were found to be police informants with close links to the Spanish security services. They had access to the most secure areas of the Madrid train system. The Spanish government initially tried to blaim the Basque group ETA for the blast in the hope that the people would rally behind the government and get them re-elected. After ETA denied involvement and the people started saying the government was involved, the Spanish government had to blame Al-Qaeda and kill some patsies by claiming they blew themselves up during a raid.

The wider agenda will become clearer when Blair firmly points the finger at the selected patsies designated to take the fall. But for the moment he's happy to grandstand as the courageous leader who immedately returned to London to take control of the chaos.

BBC polls that were showing 80 per cent plus opposed the ID card will now likely flip back in the opposite direction. Support for the European Union and increased globalization through the G8 will rise. Who stands to gain from all this? Who has the motive?

We will continue to track developments as they occur and keep our readers posted


//www.infowars.com
i dont really trust anything i hear on tv.  I really think that something very bad is going on.

[no_leaf_clover]

Heh, heh. I'm not familiar with that ruling, but, if true - they somehow missed Libya, Syria, Georgia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc., etc., etc.? I guess that says everything you need to know about the World Court's values and what they consider 'terrorism'. No one should pay them any attention.

Some of those countries may have supported terrorist cells, etc., but none of them actually terrorized other countries themselves. That's the difference. The US has never been condemned, for example, for funding and training al Qaeda, which we did. We were condemned for actual terrorism.

The US was condemned for unlawful use of force against Nicaragua, during what I think was the Reagan Administration. We went in and ruined the country, leaving innocents dead, ruining countryside, and leaving the Nicaraguan with a serious political and economic crisis. Then we just left. It was Nicaragua's complaints to the World Court about US action that got the US condemned.

None of the other countries you mentioned ever did any such things to other countries. The last country in the Mid-East to try something like that was Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, and we know what happened in response to that. And just because there are terrorist cells in a country (ie, Afghanistan), does not mean that the country itself is committing terrorist actions. I don't know where you begin associating Iraq with terrorism, either, because all of that junk has been dismissed even by our own 9/11 Commission. It was just propoganda to get us into more war.

So in terms of actual governments, none of those countries are really guilty of terrorizing other countries. The US, on the other hand, was condemned directly for those types of actions itself. It wasn't some extremist group from the US doing that crap to Nicaragua; it was the US doing that crap to Nicaragua.

[esotericus]

Hello,

My prayers and those of my friends go out to London. My condolences to the families and friends of those who have suffered loss of loved ones. Oh God, it's hard to write (sniff...sigh...)

Deepest sympathies

[Gandalf]

In any crime you look at history and motive, The British government has been caught in multiple examples of carrying out bombings in London which were then blamed on the IRA. They even had one of their own MI5 agents wihin the Omagh bomb squad. Click here for an archive of this evidence.

Astralp_

This excuse is often used by supportors of these groups to absolve them of any responsiblility. Yes the government had active agents within the IRA as well as many other groups, often these agents are put in the impossible situation of having to be involved in such attacks even although their ultimate aim is to stop them.. it goes with the counter intelligencve territory I'm afraid.

While there is slim evidence that on occasion blasts were blamed on the ira when it was not them, the fact remains that most if not all IRA bombs were carried out by and with the full support of the IRA, nevermind individual members who may have been counter agents. The Omagh bomb was despicable and was probably the first time all the naive US 'irish' supporters of the IRA movement realised the actual reality of this group, and the bomb blew off all the misty eyed naive romantisism and allowed sympathetic americans to see this group as what it actually was.. a brutal terrorist organisation that claims innocent civilian lives as well as those 'legitimate' targets. btw the omagh bomb was not even unique in its indiscriminate targeting of civilians.. it was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

Then came 9/11 and America realised that terrorism in any form cannot be supported, no matter what the cause. The crazy practice of Ira collection boxes in irish theme pubs in the US largely came to an end as US citizens realised the realities of terrorism... at last.

At least some good has came out of all this.

In the end people have to talk to each other. The Irish republican movement and the UK government eventially realised this and more progress has been made than in years of terrorism.

With islamic fundamentalism it is the same.. in reality they are political movements dressed up in religious trappings.. a dialogue has to be established to bring all this to an end. It is lack of dialogue that leads to such attacks in the first place.

Doug

[Telos]

Those of you who are ready to blame "us" for the problem, I invite you to read Christopher Hitchens' article, "We cannot surrender."

I'm not forwarding any particular view, or replacing my views with his own, but Hitchens often reminds me of many things I just soon forget because it's convenient.

[Frank]

Hi:

There are many people in the world who have moved on from the old us-versus-them constructs and have engaged the actions of compassion, tolerance and restraint. It is unfortunate to note the country best placed to set a strong influence in the adoption of the incoming paradigm is still largely paralysed and blinded by greed and sheer self-interest. The American government are rapidly turning into rampant capitalist fundamentalists who will stop at nothing in their lust for power.

Their engagement in this "war on terror" is sheer lunacy. They are surely insane. They have been blinded by bloodlust in a wretched desire for revenge that has now been linked to their insatiable thirst for cheap oil (representing a fraction under 5% of world population yet consuming 30% of world oil production per year) protected by a seemingly invincible military force.

Their actions are now inflicting real terror on innocent people.

Over 10,000 dead in Iraq alone and rising. Of course, this does not count the sheer misery caused to those who have been maimed, injured or otherwise displaced. Having their homes blown to bits, and all their possessions destroyed by the invading forces. Little wonder that terror attacks from the "other side" are increasing dramatically.

Such flagrant violations of human rights by the American military in their imposition of terror upon others, merely serves to set the stage for elements of those "others" to justify similar actions in return. It appears to perpetually escape the notice of the American administration that the inflicting of terror by military force merely serves to create the very conditions that breed the very "terrorists", which the American government purport to be dead set against.

The more people that are displaced by western military forces, the more likely they will be to engage in the actions of revenge.

These are not soldiers in uniform. These are ordinary men and women with the potential to wreak havoc in any modern-day western city. Such as was seen in London the other day. Just 4 or 5 people, a little high explosive, and a whole city is locked in terror. What's to say they don't do the same next week? The chances of them being caught are next to nil. These are people who wouldn't stand out in a crowd, because to all intents and purposes they are just ordinary people. Yet in that innocent-looking sports bag are a number of pounds of high explosive primed to go off in 10 minutes or so. Just discretely slip it under the seat and get off at the next stop. No one suspects a thing. Later that day they are back living their normal life.

If there is one thing British people learnt from the Northern Ireland situation is you cannot beat determined "terrorists". The British government were eventually forced to negotiate with the IRA and all the other parties involved. A deal was thrashed out and the troubles, i.e. the bombings and the killings, began to subside after some 30 years of violence. Think of it. The relatively small island of Ireland containing a hard-core group of very determined individuals belonging to an outlawed organisation called the Irish Republican Army, or "terrorists" as the British government used to call them. They were pitched against the might of the British MI5, MI6 the British military and the Irish police force, and all on that tiny island. Yet still, they could not be beaten! Even when contained within that small island. Yet the American government believes they can defeat "terrorists" on a world scale. To think that is naïve to the extreme. It is an exercise in insanity that is going to cause the unnecessary deaths of many, many innocent people, and inflict suffering and misery on countless others.

I think that is why British people are progressively withdrawing their support. The current world situation the American administration's actions are fuelling smacks of a Northern Ireland situation raised to a world level.

It's all too easy to claim the Spanish "gave in" to terrorism. When you look at the facts it is clear the Spanish people simply did not want to become embroiled in the issue any more than they had been already. They merely saw the futility of it all and said enough. That, to me, is pure democracy in action. The government tried to pull the wool over their eyes claiming the bombing was an action by a local group "ETA" that have been the focus of a number of terror actions in the past. But the Spanish people saw through the lies and voted them out. And I don't blame them. I just wish British people would decide the same way and somehow force the government to withdraw our military forces before yet more innocent lives are lost in this senseless, fruitless "war".

You can see what these "terrorists" are doing. They are taking selective action to pick off the governments that support the American military action in Iraq and places. I would think their ideal would be to get to a situation where America was isolated and then they'll concentrate their attention on bombing American civilians. Because if they started bombing American civilians now then that would likely reinforce the existing support amongst the other nations. But if America stands isolated when the bombs start going off on their mainland then I'm guessing it will then be seen by Europe and others as an "internal" issue.

If this whole thing escalates, I can easily picture a situation where a bomb a day was going off in trains and places all over America. Because there is no way you can stop it. Just like the situation in Northern Ireland. In fact, it is even worse than Northern Ireland because the whole thing will be spread over a vastly greater area.

Yours,
Frank

[Frank]

Telos:

Thank you for presenting the link. There is one big aspect you have to consider though, and that is, it's the Daily Mirror. :)

Yours,
Frank

[Lente]

Hi:

There are many people in the world who have moved on from the old us-versus-them constructs and have engaged the actions of compassion, tolerance and restraint. It is unfortunate to note the country best placed to set a strong influence in the adoption of the incoming paradigm is still largely paralysed and blinded by greed and sheer self-interest. The American government are rapidly turning into rampant capitalist fundamentalists who will stop at nothing in their lust for power.

Their engagement in this "war on terror" is sheer lunacy. They are surely insane. They have been blinded by bloodlust in a wretched desire for revenge that has now been linked to their insatiable thirst for cheap oil (representing a fraction under 5% of world population yet consuming 30% of world oil production per year) protected by a seemingly invincible military force.

Their actions are now inflicting real terror on innocent people.

Over 10,000 dead in Iraq alone and rising. Of course, this does not count the sheer misery caused to those who have been maimed, injured or otherwise displaced. Having their homes blown to bits, and all their possessions destroyed by the invading forces. Little wonder that terror attacks from the "other side" are increasing dramatically.

Such flagrant violations of human rights by the American military in their imposition of terror upon others, merely serves to set the stage for elements of those "others" to justify similar actions in return. It appears to perpetually escape the notice of the American administration that the inflicting of terror by military force merely serves to create the very conditions that breed the very "terrorists", which the American government purport to be dead set against.

The more people that are displaced by western military forces, the more likely they will be to engage in the actions of revenge.

These are not soldiers in uniform. These are ordinary men and women with the potential to wreak havoc in any modern-day western city. Such as was seen in London the other day. Just 4 or 5 people, a little high explosive, and a whole city is locked in terror. What's to say they don't do the same next week? The chances of them being caught are next to nil. These are people who wouldn't stand out in a crowd, because to all intents and purposes they are just ordinary people. Yet in that innocent-looking sports bag are a number of pounds of high explosive primed to go off in 10 minutes or so. Just discretely slip it under the seat and get off at the next stop. No one suspects a thing. Later that day they are back living their normal life.

If there is one thing British people learnt from the Northern Ireland situation is you cannot beat determined "terrorists". The British government were eventually forced to negotiate with the IRA and all the other parties involved. A deal was thrashed out and the troubles, i.e. the bombings and the killings, began to subside after some 30 years of violence. Think of it. The relatively small island of Ireland containing a hard-core group of very determined individuals belonging to an outlawed organisation called the Irish Republican Army, or "terrorists" as the British government used to call them. They were pitched against the might of the British MI5, MI6 the British military and the Irish police force, and all on that tiny island. Yet still, they could not be beaten! Even when contained within that small island. Yet the American government believes they can defeat "terrorists" on a world scale. To think that is naïve to the extreme. It is an exercise in insanity that is going to cause the unnecessary deaths of many, many innocent people, and inflict suffering and misery on countless others.

I think that is why British people are progressively withdrawing their support. The current world situation the American administration's actions are fuelling smacks of a Northern Ireland situation raised to a world level.

It's all too easy to claim the Spanish "gave in" to terrorism. When you look at the facts it is clear the Spanish people simply did not want to become embroiled in the issue any more than they had been already. They merely saw the futility of it all and said enough. That, to me, is pure democracy in action. The government tried to pull the wool over their eyes claiming the bombing was an action by a local group "ETA" that have been the focus of a number of terror actions in the past. But the Spanish people saw through the lies and voted them out. And I don't blame them. I just wish British people would decide the same way and somehow force the government to withdraw our military forces before yet more innocent lives are lost in this senseless, fruitless "war".

You can see what these "terrorists" are doing. They are taking selective action to pick off the governments that support the American military action in Iraq and places. I would think their ideal would be to get to a situation where America was isolated and then they'll concentrate their attention on bombing American civilians. Because if they started bombing American civilians now then that would likely reinforce the existing support amongst the other nations. But if America stands isolated when the bombs start going off on their mainland then I'm guessing it will then be seen by Europe and others as an "internal" issue.

If this whole thing escalates, I can easily picture a situation where a bomb a day was going off in trains and places all over America. Because there is no way you can stop it. Just like the situation in Northern Ireland. In fact, it is even worse than Northern Ireland because the whole thing will be spread over a vastly greater area.

Yours,
Frank

Do you think it is all bad what america is doing? I mean, don't you think Iraq is going to a better country?

You view is very black and white, I a little surprised.

[Frank]

Hi:

That's the old, "end justifies the means argument".

Yours,
Frank

[Shinobi]

...

[Lente]

Hi:

That's the old, "end justifies the means argument".

Yours,
Frank

And that is not a good thing? The end to saddam by the means of war, seems pretty fair to me!

[Frank]

Hi Lente:

If it sounds good to you then fine. The old dictator has gone, that is a fact.

Bush finally had the pleasure of settling an old score. Problem is the legality of the invasion is highly questionable. Many people in the know, so to speak, steadfastly maintain the invasion was illegal from the start. And it would appear that more and more American people are waking up to that possibility, as they continue to pay the price of Bush's folly with the blood of their countrymen.

The body count rises daily, as do the costs that now run into many billions of dollars. The price of crude oil is going skywards and it is only a matter of time before the world economy feels the squeeze, and a world recession will be looming on the horizon. Not only that, the military actions have had the effect of provoking many millions of Muslims all over the world, and this has helped transform Iraq into an open battleground for training what America and her allies call "terrorists". Iraq was never a breeding ground for "terrorists". It sure is now though!

These "terrorists" are spreading all around the world and engaging themselves in a war that the American administration has declared against them. Little wonder the number of "terrorist" actions worldwide has escalated sharply in the past two years.

The civilian death toll runs into the tens of thousands but no one really knows how many civilians the occupying forces have killed, as the American military publicly declared, "We don't do body counts". Despite this being a clear legal requirement under the Geneva Convention, being the occupying force. I think what they actually meant was, "We fired off several thousand cruise-missiles initially to do the dirty work and we weren't there at each point of impact to know how many civilians were blown apart in the blast."

10,000 civilian deaths is a very conservative estimate. A number of knowledgeable observers estimate up to 100,000 civilian deaths. That is sheer genocide in any language.

The message has been slow getting through to the American people. I guess for a while they were living on that rosy glow they must have felt, watching their boys marching into Baghdad and taking the place by storm. But then time dragged on. The body count started building, costs went through the roof and now two years on with nothing to show for it but seventeen hundred body bags (and rising) with no end in sight.

It wasn't all that long ago that the American people had to face the reality that was Vietnam. And I believe they will have a similar reality to face before not too long in Iraq.

Slowly but surely, the reality of Iraq will dawn. The platitudes are wearing a little thin now, and people are hungry for some real progress. There were no weapons of mass destruction and the only thing coming out of Iraq are the body bags. Plus, there's the billions and billions of dollars spent with nothing to show for it. Very soon, the American people are going to have to entertain the possibility that they have been lied to all along.

Bush appears to be forever asking the American people to, "Stay the course". I guess it wouldn't be too bad if he were to actually specify what this course is, exactly. I'm hoping it will only be a matter of time that the American people will realise that Bush is utterly delusional, and totally out of sync with reality.

Yep, old Saddam has gone alright. Problem is the military actions have had the effect of replacing him with hundreds of tin-pot heroes all running riot with AK47s and bags of Semtex.

Yours,
Frank

[Time Traveler]

Hi:

That's the old, "end justifies the means argument".

Yours,
Frank

The old, "end justifies the means argument" is a very valid argument. How about this? The U.S. entering WWII against Nazi Germany and liberating France. What a different place Europe would be if we would of been cowards and tried to negotiate with Hitler.

Iraq did invade another country and Saddam Hussein did kill thousands if not hundreds of thousands of his own people during his reign. Tell the relatives of some of those thousands that he had killed that the war was not justified.
Lets look at this another way. Say one of your neighbors was becoming violent with other neighbors. Beating and killing them for what ever reason they wanted. It's not your business they are not doing it to you. What do you do? Do you let them continue?  Sometimes someone has to step in.

As for the terrorists there is no negotiating with them. It's not just about the war in Iraq with them. Compared to the world population they are a relatively small group. They are controlled by fanatical people with an ideology hell bent on killing people. I have heard many of their statements that they have released over the years. They want to kill Westerners because they disagree with their religion and way of life. The terrorist attack on 9/11 was prior to the Iraq war..so why did they do that. People and the terrorists will say it's because of our foreign policy. They always need a reason to kill innocent people. It will always be something.

What would you suggest that the world does about fighting or fixing the terrorism problem? In my opinion there will always be terrorism. We have all been killing each other since the beginning of time and it looks like it will always continue. Running from them and meeting their demands will only make them demand more and want to kill more of us.

Brad

[Lente]

Hi Lente:

If it sounds good to you then fine. The old dictator has gone, that is a fact.

Bush finally had the pleasure of settling an old score. Problem is the legality of the invasion is highly questionable. Many people in the know, so to speak, steadfastly maintain the invasion was illegal from the start. And it would appear that more and more American people are waking up to that possibility, as they continue to pay the price of Bush's folly with the blood of their countrymen.

Many people in the know are really just talking bovine excrement, I know that sounds harsh, but they saw themselves as a power and thought they could decide what is legal and what not, however they discovered they couldn't stop America from doing what it wanted. So it would be ridicule's to say these people had any basis for telling the world what is acceptable and what not, because ultimately power decides, that be a good thing or not.

The body count rises daily, as do the costs that now run into many billions of dollars. The price of crude oil is going skywards and it is only a matter of time before the world economy feels the squeeze, and a world recession will be looming on the horizon. Not only that, the military actions have had the effect of provoking many millions of Muslims all over the world, and this has helped transform Iraq into an open battleground for training what America and her allies call "terrorists". Iraq was never a breeding ground for "terrorists". It sure is now though!

OK maybe the Price is getting high, higher than a lot of people find acceptable, but what do you care if you were a oppressed person under Saddam! You wouldn't give a damn about economics and the body count rise is regrettable, but totally worth it in your view.

To my view even the price is "OK", meaning that it is not keeping me awake at night, and I believe it might be worth it, of course my opinion is not set in stone, because 1) And don't know everything about this subject 2) Its still going on, so the price will still rise. If these things change my opinion may change, but for now I believe it might be worth what we pay if a better new Iraq will be build.

As for the terrorist, this is NOT our doing, you can't say we made them attack, for it is their choice to attack, it is their choice to view our action of attack on Saddam as a war declaration to them also. They just take it that way.

These "terrorists" are spreading all around the world and engaging themselves in a war that the American administration has declared against them. Little wonder the number of "terrorist" actions worldwide has escalated sharply in the past two years.

There is no war against "them", there is a war against terrorists, they make themselves fit the description! "They" take it as a war against "them" and they choose to engage America as terrorists, this is not our doing, the choice was and IS whit them!

The civilian death toll runs into the tens of thousands but no one really knows how many civilians the occupying forces have killed, as the American military publicly declared, "We don't do body counts". Despite this being a clear legal requirement under the Geneva Convention, being the occupying force. I think what they actually meant was, "We fired off several thousand cruise-missiles initially to do the dirty work and we weren't there at each point of impact to know how many civilians were blown apart in the blast."

The Geneva Convention counts for nothing, so there is a piece of paper whit some war rules on it, RIDICULES, because apparently no one can enforce those rules, Oh I'm sure it will become important in the politics later on, but NOW when it matters it counts for nothing!

10,000 civilian deaths is a very conservative estimate. A number of knowledgeable observers estimate up to 100,000 civilian deaths. That is sheer genocide in any language.

In any language? Who makes the rules? Is 10,000 acceptable for a better Iraq or 100,000? I can't say yet, but I wouldn't so no yet either.

The message has been slow getting through to the American people. I guess for a while they were living on that rosy glow they must have felt, watching their boys marching into Baghdad and taking the place by storm. But then time dragged on. The body count started building, costs went through the roof and now two years on with nothing to show for it but seventeen hundred body bags (and rising) with no end in sight.

Oh some message will get across, but the right one or the popular one? Damn that war is IN and liberation of oppressed country's is OUT! Its all political play!

It wasn't all that long ago that the American people had to face the reality that was Vietnam. And I believe they will have a similar reality to face before not too long in Iraq.

Not if they stick whit it and make it work! If everyone makes it work, war is a reality now, do you want them to back away now and let everything crash and break apart behind them? How would that be fair?

Slowly but surely, the reality of Iraq will dawn. The platitudes are wearing a little thin now, and people are hungry for some real progress. There were no weapons of mass destruction and the only thing coming out of Iraq are the body bags. Plus, there's the billions and billions of dollars spent with nothing to show for it. Very soon, the American people are going to have to entertain the possibility that they have been lied to all along.

Ha I agree, so you might think I'm pro American or Bush, but no and I think your right here, I'm not saying the war was of pure intent by the politics ( or bush).

Bush appears to be forever asking the American people to, "Stay the course". I guess it wouldn't be too bad if he were to actually specify what this course is, exactly. I'm hoping it will only be a matter of time that the American people will realise that Bush is utterly delusional, and totally out of sync with reality.

I don't actually hate bush like you, but I'm no fan of him either, I'm sure America has better rulers, and I hope they actually choose a better ruler next time.

Yep, old Saddam has gone alright. Problem is the military actions have had the effect of replacing him with hundreds of tin-pot heroes all running riot with AK47s and bags of Semtex.

The War made the (more) Terrorist? No, like I said before, IT WAS THERE OWN CHOICE, besides they had to be somewhere already, they don't just drop out of the sky!

[OrionsDream]

Lente:
"There is no war against "them", there is a war against terrorists, they make themselves fit the description! "They" take it as a war against "them" and they choose to engage America as terrorists, this is not our doing, the choice was and IS whit them! "

Pheraps you are not aware of Bush's coined phrase "The War on Terror"? I think that means we are in a 'war' against 'them' (terrorists). When Bush said we were going to fight the terrorists, I think we can assume, and know bc he said it himself, that we are in a war against them.
WE DECLARED WAR ON THEM. Well not 'we' but Bush, and he, to the world, represents America.
--
I dont think this is a 'genocide'. The otrocities in Darfur is a genocide, (and omg i cant believe it hasn't been posted anywhere here, and it isnt known too widly, bc are dying, and it hasnt even reached the worst stage yet).


"Not if they stick whit it and make it work! If everyone makes it work, war is a reality now, do you want them to back away now and let everything crash and break apart behind them? How would that be fair? "

Why would the people want to stand behind this war we protested from the start?? What kind of message would that send?? 'If bush does something we dont like, we'll help him anyway'? I dont think so.


-I would hardly say that the war in Iraq was worth it. Sure, Saddam was a horrible horrible dictator, but the people did not have to live in fear of bomb threats in their types of churches (mosques, etc.) every single day. I saw videos where we stormed houses, tore apart furniture, and left.

[Lente]

Lente:
"There is no war against "them", there is a war against terrorists, they make themselves fit the description! "They" take it as a war against "them" and they choose to engage America as terrorists, this is not our doing, the choice was and IS whit them! "

Pheraps you are not aware of Bush's coined phrase "The War on Terror"? I think that means we are in a 'war' against 'them' (terrorists). When Bush said we were going to fight the terrorists, I think we can assume, and know bc he said it himself, that we are in a war against them.
WE DECLARED WAR ON THEM. Well not 'we' but Bush, and he, to the world, represents America.
--

You missed my point. Terrorist aren't borne terrorist, people choose to engage in terrorist behavior and become terrorists by CHOICE!

I dont think this is a 'genocide'. The otrocities in Darfur is a genocide, (and omg i cant believe it hasn't been posted anywhere here, and it isnt known too widly, bc are dying, and it hasnt even reached the worst stage yet).

"Not if they stick whit it and make it work! If everyone makes it work, war is a reality now, do you want them to back away now and let everything crash and break apart behind them? How would that be fair? "

Why would the people want to stand behind this war we protested from the start?? What kind of message would that send?? 'If bush does something we dont like, we'll help him anyway'? I dont think so.

But you would want to be sending the message that a america leave the Iraqies on there own (AGAIN) after starting this whole mess!?

-I would hardly say that the war in Iraq was worth it. Sure, Saddam was a horrible horrible dictator, but the people did not have to live in fear of bomb threats in their types of churches (mosques, etc.) every single day. I saw videos where we stormed houses, tore apart furniture, and left.

Well change is hard, but they can have hope, something it think they couldn't have whit Saddam, because dictators don't usually become nice people for no reason!

[patapouf]

Allegory of The Cave

Society of the Spectacle

The Allegory of the Cave setting. Plato's 2500's years old metaphor still represent our ''Modern World'' like never before. In a more modern twist, The Society of the Spectacle can be an analogy to Plato's allegory. Anyway, I'm ''watching the show'' and don't like what I see....

War, what is it good for?

Modern Genocide in Africa:

Sudan (2,000,000 deaths so far)
Ethiopia (1,000,000)
Burundi (475,000)
Congo (2,120,000+)
Uganda (550,000+)
Zimbabwe (20,000)
Equatorial Guinea (50,000)
Nigeria (1,000,000)
Rwanda ( 810,000+)
Somolia (100,000)
Botswana (100+)
Algeria (210,000)
Guinea Bissau (1000+)
Morocco - Western Sahara (1000+)
South Africa (1000+)

Going outside of Africa into other continents, you have...

Americas:

Colombia (upwards of 160,000)
Brazil (upwards of 300,000)
Cuba (1000+)

Asia:

North Korea (2,000,000+)
Burma (115,000+)
India (100,000+)
Nepal (6,000+)
China (35,000,000)
Pakistan (1,561,000)
Indonesia (510,000+)
Philippines (1000+)
Afghanistan (840,000+)
Sri Lanka (1000+)
Cambodia (2,310,000+ to 2,810,000+)
Vietnam (1,110,000+)
Laos (110,000+)

Europe:

Russian-Chechnya (60,000+)
Georgia (100+)

And finally..... the Middle East!

Israel-Palestine (4,000+)
Iraq (190,000 - also continuing to this day)

Kill people and destroy civilizations; no exceptions.

Imagine what are the possible conflicts to come.... It is us, the populace that can change everything but we are stuck in the cave.... The one with the marionnettes (the ''war mongers'') are throwing any kind of manipulative ideologies to make wars, we have the choice to say no (we are the one holding the guns not them) but.... It seems.... we are stuck in there....


Take care,

[Frank]

Hi Time Traveller:

What an unusual mindset, if I may say. Someone who would consider negotiation a cowardly act. Myself I would consider it a very courageous act. Diplomatic negotiation, beating out a deal in the face of all the odds against. There is nothing cowardly about it. In my view, great compassion and great restraint require great courage.

It is always tempting in a debate for a person to present an ideal hypothetical scenario for themselves followed by a number of "what if" questionings. But if your hypothetical arguments are to bear any validity then any hypothetical arguments from myself must bear equal validity. Naturally, in any hypothetical event, I will cherry-pick hypothetical arguments to support my case, in very much the same way as you have chosen to cherry-pick arguments to support yours.

Personally, I would rather deal with the facts of the various matters.

For the sake of completeness, in your hypothetical scenario regarding a couple of my neighbours becoming violent and beating and killing one another... would I step in? No I most certainly would not, as doing so would place myself at serious risk of harm to start with. Moreover, it is not for me to take the law into my own hands. My clear duty would be to immediately inform the proper authority. In this case it would be the Police. But it's all-hypothetical anyway and has no bearing.

It is true that Iraqi military forces invaded Kuwait. But I think we should put aside the deeper questions of how this came about because we'd have to take a little step back to the war previous to that, where Saddam's forces invaded Iran. At the time America and much of the western world was backing Saddam in his invasion-release-war that lasted some 8 years. During which time the Americans were publicly supporting Iraq while secretly selling arms to the Iranians. Ha ha, I can remember old Ollie North giving his testimony like it was yesterday.

Anyhow, following the 8-year war with Iran, Saddam unfortunately got a little carried away with his invasion plans, after being supported and armed to the teeth by western arms companies; under the auspices of the American government and other governments such as the Soviet Union and Britain. Saddam sent his military into Kuwait and the UN Security Council declared it an illegal act, told Saddam to get the hell out and Saddam refused. So, under the auspices of the UN Security Council, a coalition force was organised consisting of around 30 or so countries and they eventually convinced Saddam's military to return to Iraq.

Note: all this was enacted fully in accordance with United Nations' resolutions.

Since that time, old Saddam has been classed as something of a tyrant.

Basically, he went from being best of friends to public enemy number 1, within the space of about 12 months.

After Operation Desert Storm, the American and the British government began to spread all manner of propaganda about Saddam and his alleged activities. Claiming he was stockpiling chemical weapons, killing off millions of Iraqi citizens, and all that jazz. Numbers varied wildly depending on the motives of the people presenting the propaganda. But I clearly remember several official spokespersons from Britain and America claiming throughout the mid to late 1990's that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical weapons and all manner of "nerve agents" together with the long-range delivery systems to basically wipe out half of Europe. Plus, there were all kinds of rumours doing the rounds that he was constructing a nuclear bomb, and all the usual kinds of propaganda blurb.  

This was, of course, all lies.

There have, I agree, been some reports of human-rights abuses coming from Iraq. Reports of detention without trial and torture. But the USA currently holds thousands of people without trial, and torture has been alleged regarding American troops also. So here we have the typical line of pots calling kettles black.

Now, as regards negotiating with Hitler, my memory is a little rusty as it is about 28 years since my last school history class. But as WW2 had quite an impact in Europe, modern history tended to focus on the two world wars fought in the first half of the 20th century. So it is something I learnt about in depth.

The British Prime Minister met with Adolf Hitler a number of times in 1938. Hitler had been engaged for several years taking back territory that had been taken from Germany under the Treaty of Versailles that Germany signed following WW1. Well, they were basically forced to sign, as they had no other choice. Hitler came to power in 1933 and, by 1938, Germany had invaded Austria and had made inroads into Czechoslovakia (as it was called then).

At this stage, Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister and Adolf Hitler, the Chancellor of Germany, met a number of times and came to an agreement - The Munich Agreement - that basically said Germany could keep everything thus far but strictly no more. Anyhow, Hitler went and invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia and the French and the British thought Poland would be next on Hitler's invasion list. So Britain and France agreed that if Hitler invaded Poland it would be war. Hitler invaded Poland on September 1st 1939 and the rest, as they say, is history.

So you see we DID try to negotiate with Hitler a number of times.

There was in fact a specific policy in place allowing Germany several concessions. This was called the Policy of Appeasement, due to the fact that it was generally recognised, by that time, that the rest of Europe had been way too harsh on Germany following WW1 and they were keen to make amends. Unfortunately, by then it was too late. The tyrant had secured something of a power-base. Plus, he had two alliance agreements with Italy and Japan.  

The punitive Treaty of Versailles directly caused the very conditions that led Hitler to getting into power in the first place. Throughout the 1920's Germany suffered hyperinflation, the people were starving, and the country was bankrupted by overly punitive war reparations. Hitler came along and basically said to these people, "Vote for me and I'll rip up the Treaty of Versailles". And so he was voted chancellor of Germany in 1933.

I specifically refute your suggestion that there is "no negotiating" with "terrorists".

Again, I use the Northern Ireland situation.

We had 30 years of fighting. Lot's of bombs, shooting and general unrest in Northern Ireland and the "troubles" as they were called, often spilled out onto the British mainland.

The solution only came when both sides began to "think the unthinkable" as they called it at the time. It was a bit of a masterstroke by Tony Blair I'll grant him that. I'm not a fan but that was brilliant in appointing Mo Mowlam as Northern Ireland secretary, just after Labour kicked out the Conservatives in the 1997 general election. I remember the interview like it was yesterday. She was taking all kinds of flak, and she just said, as straightforward as you could imagine, "To solve this crisis we have to begin to think the unthinkable". No one ever believed it would be possible.

They eventually sat around a negotiating table and thrashed out a deal. It wasn't easy. The talks were stalled on sticky issues time and time and time again. But they darned well got there in the end. It took them several years of arguing it out. But they did it, and effectively ended 30 years of violent uprising.

You say, "Compared to the world population they are a relatively small group." I would invite you to consider that Americans count for a fraction less than 5% of world population. If you carry on this course, at some later stage you could well run the risk of having the whole Islamic world turn against America. We are talking of around 1.3 Billion people, about 20% of world population. That's a heck of a lot of people to have disliking you! The extremists of the Islamic world are already turned against you, and they are recruiting more and more people every day, in the battlegrounds of Iraq particularly.

I would invite you to consider the following report, and I quote:

Estimated Strength of Iraqi Resistance Skyrockets: Because the U.S. military occupation remains in place, the "transition" has failed to win Iraqi support or diminish Iraqi resistance to the occupation. According to Pentagon estimates, the number of Iraqi resistance fighters has quadrupled between November of 2003 and early September 2004, from 5,000 to 20,000. The Deputy Commander of Coalition forces in Iraq, British Major General Andrew Graham, indicated to Time magazine in early September that he thinks the 20,000 estimate is too low; he estimates Iraqi resistance strength at 40,000-50,000. This rise is even starker when juxtaposed to Brookings Institution estimates that an additional 24,000 Iraqi resistance fighters have been detained or killed between May 2003 and August 2004.

---end quote---

Of course, the Islamic Community Leaders in the more moderate countries are still in support of peace. But cracks are beginning to appear.

Unfortunately, throughout history, all we have really seen is the typical knee-jerk reaction of "us" against "them". Problem with that idea is against the background of the Wider Reality, there is no such thing as "us" and "them". It is the very belief construct of "us" and "them" that is the root cause of the problem. Each side points to specific acts of terror the "other side" has inflicted. Then, in a fit of self-righteous anger, one side feels justified in their retaliation against the "other side", with each side calling the other "the enemy". Of course, the Americans feel wholly justified in their actions. But, then again, the other side feel EXACTLY the same sense of justification!

And so it continues.

The simple answer to finding out the motivations behind people's actions is to begin to see the world from their perspective. Then it all starts to become clear. But doing that takes compassion, coupled with quite a large degree of understanding and lots of mental effort. Well, it does with me. But maybe I'm a bit thick and other people would pick it up much quicker.

Violence simply begets more violence. You said yourself that we have always been fighting each other since time began, and I would agree. But does no one actually sit down and seriously think WHY that might be?

Yours,
Frank

[no_leaf_clover]

You missed my point. Terrorist aren't borne terrorist, people choose to engage in terrorist behavior and become terrorists by CHOICE!

That's a totally unfair statement. These people are brought up brainwashed no less than those for the so-called "War on Terror" are here. The main difference is that when those people are brainwashed, they're brainwashed so that they may blow themselves up, etc., rather than just letting their government do it for them.

Do you think anybody in their right mind would blow themselves up, killing both themselves and innocents, unless they believed they were right? That what they were doing was good for their people?

And guess what! We all here believe we are right too (or at least you pro-war guys)! We believe what we're doing is good for our people.

Truth be told, and I would think this is obvious, but both sides are wrong, and all of this is bad for all people

Further, you aren't being told what's really going on in these situations; you can't possibly expect to! Have you guys never heard of something called propoganda? Because if not, I can give you an idea of what it is. It's all of those things the media and government will tell you, that are either misleading, manipulative, or even not true at all, to try to get you to support military action! Propoganda has been used for hundreds of years, in every single major war you can think of. Do you think there is any exception to that today? Do you think that for once in modern history, especially in such a controversial part of history, that our government and media should suddenly come clean during war time and not press propoganda forward? No!

The fact that some of you are arguing the Iraq War was just shows this exactly.

Iraq did invade another country and Saddam Hussein did kill thousands if not hundreds of thousands of his own people during his reign. Tell the relatives of some of those thousands that he had killed that the war was not justified.

Time traveler, there has already been a war, another time, for you to claim this! Since that war, Persian Gulf, I'm sorry but there's been no evidence of any further genocide, any further production of WMD (quite the opposite, as we found out!), and certainly no involvement with al Qaeda.

"Saddam is a bad guy!" is no excuse for this war! Do you see that chart of genocide going on in the world today that Patapouf just posted? If the US was concerned about "bad guys," I have a feeling they'd go after some of the real bad guys. Someone here mentioned Durfur. The Sudan genocides are exactly the kind of thing that the US could easily go in and crush and save millions of lives. Two million have died there so far from that fascist genocide. Saddam only killed about a tenth of that many, ever, and he had much better weapons at his disposal. This should tell you something about the "bad guy" excuse, if you were to ever buy it at all. It's amazing how people forget about all the WMD and al Qaeda stuff Bush was rambling about before the war, once word gets out that he was lying!

But you would want to be sending the message that a america leave the Iraqies on there own (AGAIN) after starting this whole mess!?

That point is totally irrelevant to whether or not this war was just to begin with.

I stick a knife with backwards teeth into someone. If I were to pull it out, it would surely inflict more damage. But I just stabbed someone. "What do you want me to do, pull it out?!?!" That's not the point!

Well change is hard, but they can have hope, something it think they couldn't have whit Saddam, because dictators don't usually become nice people for no reason!

I hate to break it to you but Iraq today is a bigger mess than it was when Saddam was in charge. In fact, more people are dying violent deaths in Iraq today 58 times more often than they were pre-war. Now, 50% of the deaths taking place in Iraq are our fault.



Do you think that those stats make Iraqis very happy? Maybe they were dancing out on the streets when Saddam was removed from power, but something tells me they aren't getting any happier over there now. The only people that are, are those benefitting from all of this. Everyone else is dying, while the fundamental Bushies are over here telling us how good this war is for everyone!

[patapouf]

That's a totally unfair statement. These people are brought up brainwashed no less than those for the so-called "War on Terror" are here. The main difference is that when those people are brainwashed, they're brainwashed so that they may blow themselves up, etc., rather than just letting their government do it for them.

Exactly, this is why every cultures and nations around the world have to watch out to not fall into this trap because the consequences are like a snow ball going down a mountain: ''you pinch me I'll pinch you back''.


As for the ''war of terror'', it is impossible to militarily fight that, the only way they will be able to control this is to use a really strict global surveillance (exactly what those war mongers wants) that would be closely similar to the ''Big Brother'' scenario. Without any surprise, the conflict will escalate in the future creating a lot of stress to many around the world and they will easily put more ''liberties and freedom'' with  rigid laws that will help to prevent war and terror; but again watch out, there is two sides to a coin. Since the society will be in a state of anomie and disorder, the people will think that those rigid ''laws'' will bring them back their old comfortable life, they will accept them immediately without even questioning them.

As for dictators, just analyze how Nicaragua's population tried to get rid of a powerful dictator (not a lot of people heard about that due to the disinformation process) but, since this dictator was a good friend to the Western world, the ''intelligent agencies'' (if we can call them that....) where paying contras (terrorists basically) to put fear on the general population and put them in misery so that they will vote a ''Western represntative''; this is just one story.... We, the Western world, are far from being clean and right like we think we may be.... People have to open their eyes a little.

Again, they probably had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because we sold it to him but not to find one just divide people even more since they will argue against one another (like we do right now)and this is what they want; we only talk but do not do anything constructive.

As for Ben Laden, it is sad to say that we, again, helped with the CIA to let him become as powerful as he is right now, they purposely moved Al Qaeida to the Afghanistan to make an underground war with the Russians, they funded him and the terrorists group for some period of time.... The war mongers knew that their good old friend Ben Laden was, like it is presented in the media, a huge anti-westerner (ex: 1994 World Trade Center missed terrorist attack) but they have waited, just like Pearl Harbor, to be ''pinched first'' so that the population will get shocked so they have a good reason to go in war.... And also, they have clearly shown that the war in Iraq was planned before 9/11....

Chess masters, war mongers..... They can pretend to be communist, capitalist, human rightist, religious extremist, any kind of ideologies masked in the name of what is ''right and the truth'' but always manipulating the little sheeps to play their little games. Destroy to build again to destroy later and rebuild again to.... a cycle that we have to get out of quickly. And this have to be done by every people around the world; only one not doing it may bring down everybody else: when are we going to learn? We have to learn to discuss in a constructive manner instead of pulling out the guns; this is even more important in this new millennium due to the terrible weapons we have built.... How sad it would be to see nuclear weapons being launch to one another; but with how things are going, nobody will be surprised if somebody launch one in the future time to come.... They are like sleeping logs that are waiting to be burned.... We have to really do something folks.

Together we stand divided we fall,

And man.... What the world needs now.... Is love.... Sweet love.....

Take care,

[no_leaf_clover]

Again, they probably had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because we sold it to him but not to find one just divide people even more since they will argue against one another (like we do right now)and this is what they want; we only talk but do not do anything constructive.

You are actually perfectly dead-on with this statement.

About 35 or so shells containing nerve gases were found in Iraq. They were left over from the Iran-Iraq War, making them no grounds for new invasion, and most certainly came from the US. They were not, however, in any position to be used. In fact, a few of them were 'accidentally' triggered and nothing happened.

The alleged WMD program itself, however, was in worse condition than it was after the Gulf War. Iraq was disarming like it was supposed to, and I'm sure Bush knew that. After all, how much intel can you have exactly, showing Iraq is developing WMDs when in reality it was just the opposite? Not much, I'll tell you that.

[Lente]

You missed my point. Terrorist aren't borne terrorist, people choose to engage in terrorist behavior and become terrorists by CHOICE!

That's a totally unfair statement. These people are brought up brainwashed no less than those for the so-called "War on Terror" are here. The main difference is that when those people are brainwashed, they're brainwashed so that they may blow themselves up, etc., rather than just letting their government do it for them.

Do you think anybody in their right mind would blow themselves up, killing both themselves and innocents, unless they believed they were right? That what they were doing was good for their people?

And guess what! We all here believe we are right too (or at least you pro-war guys)! We believe what we're doing is good for our people.

Truth be told, and I would think this is obvious, but both sides are wrong, and all of this is bad for all people

Further, you aren't being told what's really going on in these situations; you can't possibly expect to! Have you guys never heard of something called propoganda? Because if not, I can give you an idea of what it is. It's all of those things the media and government will tell you, that are either misleading, manipulative, or even not true at all, to try to get you to support military action! Propoganda has been used for hundreds of years, in every single major war you can think of. Do you think there is any exception to that today? Do you think that for once in modern history, especially in such a controversial part of history, that our government and media should suddenly come clean during war time and not press propoganda forward? No!

The fact that some of you are arguing the Iraq War was just shows this exactly.

Yes both sides are "wrong" (if anyone can be the judge of that) and in a ideal world we would have to take no action, there would be no war, but that is not reality!

The reality is we take action against those who we think are wrong and do wrong, what the enemy believes or is made to believe is not a consideration, can not be a consideration in the world as it currently is!

Is this my opinion? Yes! Based on propaganda? Partially, yes I wouldn't deny it, I'm not expert in this, I watch TV, so I'm influenced, however I do not believe everything is propaganda, and I still believe Iraq was a bad place live and there is a good chance it will become a better place to live. Non of you told me anything yet to make me believe otherwise.

But you would want to be sending the message that a America leave the Iraqies on there own (AGAIN) after starting this whole mess!?

That point is totally irrelevant to whether or not this war was just to begin with.

I stick a knife with backwards teeth into someone. If I were to pull it out, it would surely inflict more damage. But I just stabbed someone. "What do you want me to do, pull it out?!?!" That's not the point!

Leave it in, get proper help and pull it out in right time. This is what America (and other countries) should do, get proper help, heal the country and leave when the time is right!

Well change is hard, but they can have hope, something it think they couldn't have whit Saddam, because dictators don't usually become nice people for no reason!

I hate to break it to you but Iraq today is a bigger mess than it was when Saddam was in charge. In fact, more people are dying violent deaths in Iraq today 58 times more often than they were pre-war. Now, 50% of the deaths taking place in Iraq are our fault.

I'm not denying that Iraq is a big mess, I'm saying there is a chance Iraq becomes a better Iraq than the old Iraq, if we work on hard. And if that happens it might have been worth it all.

Do you think that those stats make Iraqis very happy? Maybe they were dancing out on the streets when Saddam was removed from power, but something tells me they aren't getting any happier over there now. The only people that are, are those benefitting from all of this. Everyone else is dying, while the fundamental Bushies are over here telling us how good this war is for everyone!

They might be happy later all this happened, might not be, but you judge to soon and view everything black and white! You fail to realize that this war might also bring something good, and you fail to realize the price may after all be worth it!

Consider the possibility! I do consider the possibility that this war will be a great tragedy, but I won't say this before it is really clear (and it is not even if you might think so) and I will never say this in a ultimate sense, discounting the possible good that came out of it anyway!

Just for a moment think outside you "everything is black and white" box and see that it is not all bad! In fact even bush is not all bad, I'm sure there are a few things he done OK.

[Tombo]

Lets not forget the US-Government flow the whole Bin Laden Family out of the US after 9/11! It is proven that  Bin Laden was the friend of US as long as he terrorized the Sowjets for the US in Afghanistan. Plus it is basically proven the Bush does lie to the public on different occasions, the American president lies to the US  citizens! That is a fact! No not all the US does is bad, No the Terrorist are not right. But as Kofi Anan said Fighters for freedom on one side are seen as Terrorists on the other side. How would you feel if your wedding is bombed? It sure would feel like terror to me....
Can you defend human rights by ignoring them? The US ignored the UN-council, the US ignores international law (Guantanamo), the US ignores Human rights they capture People (Terrorist they say) in European Countries and fly them out to Countries in the middle east were they can torture them to gather info's.

Lets not forget that the weaponry industry has sponsored large parts of the US government. Who's is really to believe that the US government Bombed Iraq to make the US citizens saver? common guys! lets get realistic governments all overt the world have deluded People so many times in the past, who is to believe to are not doing it right know? The Swiss government sells tanks to the Arabs despite the 90% of the Swiss People being against it, they simply didn't tell them what they are doing.

there is a power struggle out there for the world, it always has been. Keep the masses dumb is part of the game.

[no_leaf_clover]

From the depth (or rather, lack thereof) of this topic thus far, it would seem Iraq could turn out as a success in the long run, given it got up its own government, etc. That would be wonderful, and given the scope of this thread so far I can see where you're coming from.

However, I have a rather strong suspicion that Iraq will not be the last conflict we will have in the Mid-East, and that stability in that region is only going to get worse. It'll likely continue in a downward spiral, until we stop it at home, or until agendas are fulfilled or hampered by governments themselves, or maybe even until there's just no one left to kill. Rest assured that there are still other goals the Bush Admin has for the Mid-East, though.

It's only a matter of time before we invade either Iran or Syria, or both, or other such countries in the Mid-East. Propoganda campaigns have already started here in the US, with the issues raised with Iran's recently-elected president, and various condemnations of Iranian/Syrian WMDs/harboring of terrorists on the part of the Bush Admin (ie, Rice at the UN), etc. Iran and Syria are both in a rather grave danger of eventual US invasion down the road. The only thing holding the Bush Admin back from doing it now is public disapproval, and all it would take is another big "terrorist attack" like 9/11, and we could be there with a draft even. It's that simple, really. Fear drives the masses.

Most, if not all of the big issues behind these wars revolve around Israel. All these Muslim nations (Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. etc.) are enemies of the state of Israel, which the US has unwaveringly been backing for decades with everything from money to nukes. Israel is the US's foothold in the Mid-East, and whether it be for oil, or spreading "democracy," or any other reason, our government has expressed interest in these Islamic countries in regards to abolishing their governments. Iraq was only one of a set.

And here's where this post turns into a big downer.

If you want to see the onset of a potentially huge, global problem, consider this: Iran, Syria, and the Palestinians are all now being supplied with modern Russian weaponry. Contrary to what you may believe, modern Russian weaponry is not second rate, and is not to be underestimated. In response to economic limitations, they have developed inexpensive, strategic counters to US weaponry. They have anti-tank missiles that can shred Abram tanks for just a fraction of the cost of the tank itself. They have similarly developed missiles for taking out whole aircraft carriers for a fraction of the cost of an actual AC (BrahMos), since they cannot afford to compete with such monsters spawned from our own massive military budget. The scariest part is that several news agencies (do some Google searches if you'd like) have reported that both Iran and Syria are now being supplied with these weapons.

On April 29th of this year, Putin pledged to aid Palestinians fight "terrorism". As WikiNews reported,

"Today in Ramallah Russian President Vladimir Putin promised to aid Palestinians. In a press conference held after talks with Mahmoud Abbas, Putin said that Palestinians cannot fight terrorism with slingshots and stones. He pledged to give airplane equipment, helicopters, communications equipment and to train security forces. The Russian President was cheered by the Palestinian crowd prior to the conference."

The 'slingshots and stones' bit is in bold because this remark does not suggest a reaction to "terrorism", per se. This remark is instead suggestive of Palestinian oppression from Israel. Putin is now arming Palestinians in response to the decades-long US arming of Israel. And, as I've said, various news organizations have recently began reporting that Russia is also arming Iran and Syria. So basically, Russia is now aiding those countries that the US and Israel will be seeking eventual war with, and they're being armed with weapons specifically geared towards countering US tech in a cost-effective manner. These events are unfolding right before us, right here at the present moment. Our eyes are, not surprisingly, turned away from it, but it's happening right now nonetheless; history in the making.

So the situation in the Mid-East right now is tame compared to what it very well could be in a couple years. If we invade Iran and/or Syria in the future and escalate the Mid-East conflicts, it simply won't be another Iraq. We will be facing countries that have been armed with up-to-date military technologies. And unfortunately, both countries sit on rather substantial plots of oil.

It's mind-blowing stuff to me, to see the news of these events suddenly start coming out. I don't support the war in Iraq, or any further war in the Mid-East at all, but honestly I don't know what else can be done at this point in time. We can hope and pray for no more war, but if another 9/11 occurs on American soil, we are genuinely and utterly screwed. I say I'm against these wars, and I am, but honestly I don't think there's anything we can really do about them. We can educate ourselves and hope that enough people come to grips with the seriousness of these events, but I don't think that's very likely anymore, and that's why I don't think there's really anything we can do about it. If everyone were to take to the streets, we could achieve something. Otherwise it would be very difficult, judging by how the hippy protests were dealt with. It's sort of all or nothing from US citizens at this point, I guess.

[chohan]

My sympathies to all those affected by the attack.

As usual, I've learned a bit as I read through these posts.

Arutz Sheva sourced Army Radio with the following.

"The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address and economic summit."

Astralp, imo you're hitting too close to the V-ring. The above was the AP news release that came out of Jerusalem. I haven't heard anyone in the blogs or news mention the fact that Netanyahu appeared on the CNN/Lou Dobbs show here in the US on 8 July. Notice the original report above said the attack resulted in Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than traveling but on the Lou Dobbs interview he gave this response:

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI FINANCE MINISTER: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: Let me first ask you, there are reports, and they surfaced yesterday almost immediately and continued today, that Israeli security forces received advance word of these explosions. Any truth to that?

NETANYAHU: Well, certainly not. If there was any advance notice, then I don't know of any. It certainly didn't get to me.

I was en route to the hotel right above that terminal. And I was stopped by the British security detail, who told my security, my Israeli security detail, that we just had an explosion. So my guys had absolutely no idea that this was about to happen...

DOBBS: You were on your way to the Liverpool Street...

NETANYAHU: And actually, I was on -- yes, to an economic conference right above the place where the first train blew up. So we had no idea this was going to happen.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/08/ldt.01.html

I saw that last one on TV, he was getting a bit tongue tied to say the least.

Then we have this in the Jerusalem Post:

In the aftermath of the attacks, The Prime Minister's Office instructed Israeli officials not to give interviews to the foreign media.

Aye, mum's the word mates. I bet Netanyahu got his arse chewed out by Sharon for stuttering to Lou Dobbs, heh.

Oops, what's this?

Terrorism expert says at least one person tipped off to London attacks
Tom Kenny
Action News 36
Jul 7, 18:25 PM EDT

 
Terrorism expert Tommy Preston of Preston Global in Frankfort, Kentucky, said sources in the intelligence community reported that at least one person in London, England was warned of Thursday morning's terrorist attacks moments before the initial blast.  Preston, citing sources in the intelligence community, said former Israeli Prime Minister and current Finance Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was in London this morning for an economic forum.  "Just before the first blast, Netanyahu got a call from the Israeli Embassy telling him to stay in his hotel room.  The hotel is located next to the subway station where the first attack occurred and he did stay put and shortly after that, there was the explosion," Preston said.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WTVQ/MGArticle/TVQ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783713979

Local Kentucky Station WTVQ

I tend to believe Tommy Preston, you can read about him here:

http://www.uky.edu/PR/UK_News/news112000.html

A native of Carrollton, Preston opened a one-person PR office in Lexington in 1968. From that point, The Preston Group grew into a multi-disciplined firm attracting national and international organizations such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, Dow Corning, the U.S. Selective Service, Occidental Petroleum and the eventual majority whip of the US Senate and former governor Wendell Ford. Preston served four years as Gov. Ford's special assistant, press secretary and commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Public Information.

In the mid-1980s, Preston developed a model for public relations contingency planning and response against terrorism and workplace violence. He formed Preston Global in 1996 to focus on aggressively defiant crises facing corporations, institutions and individuals.

A UK Fellow with a journalism degree from UK, Preston is the only Kentuckian to be elected to the College of Fellows of the Public Relations Society of America. He has received more than 100 state and national communication awards from organizations including the International Film Festival, the International Film and TV Festival of New York, the Gold Camera, the US Industrial Film Festival, PRSA, IABC, the Kentucky Press Association and National Editorial Association

Obviously, the man has some contacts.

When the bombs go off I no longer look around for "evil ayrab islamics",
I just try to pay attention to what's happening in spook-world.

Modern terrorism is a hybrid animal.

cheers,
cho