More bombs?
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:41:13 +0100 someone who may be Graeme Wall
wrote this:-

As the Australian PM pointed out, Bali was before Iraq, WTC was before Iraq,
Nairobi was before Iraq, Mombasa was before Iraq etc, etc, etc.

And as others have pointed out, the invasion of Iraq is but one
factor. They have also pointed out that before the invasion there
was the "oil for food" programme and the "no fly zones".


And of course the 1991 Iraq war, when the US told Saudi Arabia that
Iraqi troops were massing on their border to get US bases in there, and
after which the US deliberately kept Sadam Hussein in power rather than
help the opposition.

More bombs?
 

Brimstone wrote:
MIG wrote:

As has been mentioned, our own Government and police forces start
repressing us, which is just what the terrorists want. It now seems
that the terrorists have just succeeded in getting the British Police
to institute a shoot-to-kill policy in London.


And?

Can you be sure it was the police?


According to the BBC, the Met have released a statement confirming 1 man
dead at Stockwell. Died at the scene

More bombs?
 

Can you be sure it was the police?


Given that the BBC says it was, probably not, no. Incidently, in my
parting comment, I was really getting at the fact that the denial that
what we are doing is a part of the cause of this terrorisom, backed up
by the excuse that "stuff happened before Iraq", is part of a general
attitude of denial that's putting us at risk.

We have to wake up to our own role. Going into denial is not helping.

More bombs?
 

There is no such thing as a "shoot to injure or disable" policy, if you
(police or armed forces) shoot someone your intention is to kill them.


Fair enough, but it's a phrase often used. Also, as someone recently
pointed out to me, if you carry a loaded gun, it's because you intend
to shoot it.

More bombs?
 

MIG wrote:
Can you be sure it was the police?


Given that the BBC says it was, probably not, no. Incidently, in my
parting comment, I was really getting at the fact that the denial that
what we are doing is a part of the cause of this terrorisom, backed up
by the excuse that "stuff happened before Iraq", is part of a general
attitude of denial that's putting us at risk.

We have to wake up to our own role. Going into denial is not helping.

Quite, but then no one wants to understand the enemy and so fail to realise
that so doing will help to defeat him.

More bombs?
 

In message .com
"MIG" wrote:



Graeme Wall wrote:
[snip]


As the Australian PM pointed out, Bali was before Iraq, WTC was before
Iraq, Nairobi was before Iraq, Mombasa was before Iraq etc, etc, etc.
Iraq is irrelevant to Al Qaeda, where it is Sunni versus Shi'ite in a
civil war that was probably inevitable, however Saddam was removed.

[snip]

Iraq is part of the general policy that results in many, particularly
Muslim, people being killed or having their livelihoods destroyed.

What general policy is that?

The people currently doing the killing in Iraq are nuslims killing other
muslims, a bit like the situation in Northern Ireland.


Nothing can be done about the fanatics, who are beyond redemption.

You're an expert are you?

But on their own, they are not much of a threat.

Tell that to the people of London.

When millions of people are so disaffected by the policies of the West that
they start listening to the fanatics, then we are in trouble.

As has been mentioned, our own Government and police forces start
repressing us, which is just what the terrorists want. It now seems
that the terrorists have just succeeded in getting the British Police
to institute a shoot-to-kill policy in London.

Ypu are talking twaddle as usual. The police policy in the situation that
appears to have obtained at Stockwell this morning has always been shoot to
kill.


So we've got the world we created. Smug comments about what was and
wasn't before Iraq don't count for much.

What was smug about a statement of facts?

I now live and work in a city where the police shoot to kill. Thanks a
lot.


You always have, nothing's changed. You've merely walked round with your
eyes shut before. Don't try and blame me for that.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

More bombs?
 

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:57:55 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Mick"
wrote this:-

Or do we wait to you lose a
loved one before you start to think that something needs to be done.

I forgot to add yesterday. You are creating a distortion of my views
and then attacking that distortion. Not very useful.

The question is whether anything more can be done and if it can be
done whether it should be done. I did not suggest that nothing
should be done.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

More bombs?
 

In message
David Hansen wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:41:13 +0100 someone who may be Graeme Wall
wrote this:-

As the Australian PM pointed out, Bali was before Iraq, WTC was before
Iraq, Nairobi was before Iraq, Mombasa was before Iraq etc, etc, etc.

And as others have pointed out, the invasion of Iraq is but one
factor. They have also pointed out that before the invasion there
was the "oil for food" programme and the "no fly zones".



The invasion of Iraq is largely irrelevant, in fact it has given the
fundamentalists an in to a country they were unable to penetrate before. The
oil for food programme was a UN policy and irrelevant politically to both Al
Quaeda and Dubya. The no-fly zones were irrelevant to everybody as they
didn't cover helos and the Iraquis had no operational fixed wing aircraft
after Desert Storm.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

More bombs?
 

In message .com
"MIG" wrote:

[snip]

And of course the 1991 Iraq war, when the US told Saudi Arabia that
Iraqi troops were massing on their border to get US bases in there,

You mean the Iraquis hadn't invaded Kuwait?

and after which the US deliberately kept Sadam Hussein in power rather than
help the opposition.


"No UN mandate for regime change" The US did what people like you wanted,
got out of Iraq as soon as the UN requirements were fulfilled, which was to
eject the Iraquis from Kuwait.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

More bombs?
 

In message .com
"MIG" wrote:

Can you be sure it was the police?


Given that the BBC says it was, probably not, no.

What a pathetically stupid comment.

Incidently, in my parting comment, I was really getting at the fact that
the denial that what we are doing is a part of the cause of this
terrorisom, backed up by the excuse that "stuff happened before Iraq", is
part of a general attitude of denial that's putting us at risk.

We have to wake up to our own role. Going into denial is not helping.


You are the one that is in denial.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html