Friday, June 02, 2006

Telegraph | News | London bombings 'wouldn't have happened without Iraq war'

I wonder if, in the history of chivalry, anyone was ever less worthy of the gentle name of "knight" than the odious, mealy-mouthed, weasel-worded Iqbal Sacranie? To say that the 7/7 bombings were "consequences" of the Alliance invasion of Iraq is, if not an exculpation, at least a mitigation of the murderers' acts. The invasion may or may not have been a well-judged part in the war on Islamic terror, but it provides no excuses for the 7/7 bombers - or any other terrorists.

He is free to speak as he pleases, but I am free to say that whoever recommended this man for a knighthood let his nation down.

Telegraph | News | London bombings 'wouldn't have happened without Iraq war'


Bag said...

Not wanting to defend these guys but I must disagree with your article. Nobody should never attack someone else, either Iraq or 7/7.

In human history it has always been a case of the mighty rule the weak. Eventually there is a few wimpy leaders who give the weak some power and they band together and set up a functioning society with a believe that they control their own destiny.

Along comes someone who does not conform to their rules and attacks them, 911 springs to mind, as a retaliation we invade Iraq and Afghanistan to get our revenge.

Now, nobody, IMO, believes that Iraq had anything to do with 911. So substitute Invade Iraq for 911 and Invade Iraq and Afghanistan for attack the invaders in the sentence above and it still makes sense.

However, it does become acceptable when you are defending yourself. The best bit in this whole sorry story is both parties are defending themselves and it’s all because we lashed out to meet an agenda rather than to deliver justice.

Put yourself in these guys’ shoes. They see us invading a country for no valid reason and are fighting for that. Some people see something on the back of a cereal box and are prepared to put their lives on the line for it. People willing to kill and, more importantly, die for their beliefs. So when they say they are doing it for this cause or that cause why should we not believe them? After all they are making a point and want us to know why.

So no excuses just reasons.

Only history will sort out the good from the bad and not always correctly.

Tom Paine said...

You cannot surely be serious when you say "...nobody should never attack someone else..." Assuming you didn't intend the double negative (!), then this seems to say that no pre-emptive strike could ever be justified. It seems to say that invading Iraq during Gulf War I to secure the liberation of Kuwait was wrong. That the D-Day landings were wrong, etc. etc.

If you are a full-on pacifist, then good luck to you. Stick to your non-guns by all means and die a martyr's death with honour. Meanwhile, in this real world, I fear that military action - when all other means are exhausted - is sometimes necessary. Sometimes (rarely) it's even noble. Bush and Blair lied and screwed up too much for nobility to be attributed to them, but the "war for oil" slur is nonsense. If we wanted Iraq's oil it would have been cheaper to drop the embargo (or cheat on it, like France and Russia). The "revenge" idea is also implausible. The Taliban did shelter Bin Laden and Afghanistan was a "terrorist state". The world is a safer place for the Allies' actions there. Iraq is another matter. If Bush wanted revenge, then he is not exactly getting it, is he? Bin Laden's credibility is being enhanced worldwide by criminally-indisciplined elements of the Marine Corps. No-one can have wanted what is happening now (except Bin Laden). It's a SNAFU, tragic and bloody (albeit not as bad as Al Beeb would have us believe).

Iraq is not the heart of Islamic darkness, that's true. Saudi Arabia is. Most terrorist funding originates there. Most of the 9/11 killers came from there. It has fostered the most extreme Muslim sect and promoted it throughout the Arab world. It was irrational to invade Iraq while treating Saudi Arabia as an ally. Once the WMD were found not to exist, the whole thing became an embarrassment (particularly when it become apparent how little thought had been put into how to win the peace). But the Allies could not (and still cannot) withdraw without making serious attempts to ensure that they are not simply handing decent Iraqis back to the Baathists - as we did (to our eternal shame) in Gulf War I.

If, as many of us suspect, Tony Blair knew full well that the intelligence reports of WMD were too weak to be believed, then he did wrong and should pay for it. But the British people who supported the war (and the many who did not) were not to blame and it is ludicrous that Sacranie suggests they were "suffering the consequences" of the Allies' actions. I can (with difficulty) put myself in "these peoples" place but I still conclude they have no more justification for what they did than the 9/11 bombers.

ContraTory said...

The Islamic terrorists were bombing and killing people they disapproved of and attacking Western targets well before the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq and the London or New York atrocities. The truth is that the bombings were coming our way eventually whatever we said or did. Sacranie is right that 7/7 would not have happened without the West's adventures in the Middle East, but his inference that if we had not provoked it, nothing would have happened, ever, is palpably false. We do not bow to the Prophet and our Faith is Liberty, so sooner or later, one way or another, we had it coming.

Bag said...

Oops sorry about the grammar. My grammar are bad. (Joke) I meant ‘Nobody should attack someone else’ It was an incomplete edit.

I don’t believe in preemptive strikes as you say but I don’t see Iraq 1 as a preemptive strike. The D day landings were hardly preemptive etc. etc. By first strike I mean something like us now deciding to invade Australia because Blair just decides to do so. Clearly not a continuation of something. Arguably Saddam initiated Iraq 1.

I can assure you I am not a pacifist. I believe in crime and punishment. I believe that the punishment should make the crime too risky. Clearly not the case at the moment.

As far as Iraq 2 is concerned. Why we all think it started could be debated forever. It all comes down to what you want to believe now. What I was referring to was the fact that it is now recognized that Iraq was not involved in 911, any more than any other ME country, bar as you say SA. Therefore its invasion was unjustified. IMO. Whether or not Bush got his revenge or not is irrelevant. He could have had that as a reason. You know yourself the best laid plans and all that. And this wasn’t even well planned.

As far as withdrawing from Iraq. It won’t be a withdrawal we will be asked to leave. Then the pot will boil and what comes out will bear no relationship to what we want. Be it Baathists, Shiite, Kurds etc. And they won’t class us as their friends that I am sure of.

This thread all started when Iqbal Sacranie made his comments about 7/7. I believe that myself. Blair won’t face any punishment whatsoever. The people who could punish him want to be able to do what they want without risk of punishment. Plus we are suffering the consequences. We have restricted freedoms, fear of terrorism and it will only get worse. Just as Iraqis are suffering the consequences of our attack.

The truth of the matter is that these nutters were retaliating against the UKs involvement in the Iraqi invasion. Iqbal Sacranie is stating his opinion. That’s all it is and he is not the only one who thinks it. That doesn’t mean to say he agrees it should have happened.

You say ‘I can (with difficulty) put myself in "these peoples" place but I still conclude they have no more justification for what they did than the 9/11 bombers’. That’s the problem I don’t believe you can. Neither can I to be honest. Otherwise we would be willing to die for these causes. Regardless of what we think. 911 was retaliation by fanatics against the US’s actions on the world stage. Perceived or not. 7/7 was retaliation for the UK invading Iraq alongside the US. Would the US have gone in without us?

It’s all perceptions and opinions. Iqbal has his, you have yours and I have mine. They all differ. SO who are we to decide that attacks of this nature are not justified. If one person thinks so and does it it is done.

Tom Paine said...

That's all fine and dandy, but in the situation we face now - with a world dividing along civilisational fault lines, not ideological ones - that kind of moral relativism can bring your civilisation to its final days. Rome fell to barbarians unworthy to tie the Romans' sandals. All they had going for them was rage, no culture to distract them from battle and Roman complacency. The West can fall too.

I am furious with Bush and Blair for screwing up in Iraq. Now that we know with hindsight what they knew all along - it wasn't the right place to continue the war begun in Afghanistan (or on 9/11 if you like) and now it will be more difficult to continue it. They played their hands badly. Blair was mainly posing - as usual - anyway. Iraq is not an aberration on his part, it's the most dramatic example of how he will do anything for a good, "tough" headline tomorrow, without a thought for the day after.

The worst thing about it is that the West's hands are tied now in relation to Iran - which seems determined to build and use nukes. Until it does, the Left, the Islamofascists and the surrender monkeys will remain as smug and superior as they are at this - excruciatingly embarassing - moment

Bag said...

I agree. The West however is more likely to fall due to internal disputes. Caused by the actions of our leaders not by the actions of other countries. Actions that are taking place today.

I also agree that the Wests hands are tied over Iran. Again both parties see themselves in the right. Legally, I think both are.

The best we can do is make it plain that we will exact a terrible revenge if we, or our allies, are attacked with weapons developed by Iran, or others, and mean it. Let us set up plans to turn Iran into a sheet of glass. And then lets go to the UN. Say we accept Iran's assurances that they are not going to develope nukes and follow the NPF. But also say this is what we are going to do if the worse happens. Iran will never manage to develop enough weapons to wipe out the West. We already have them. Plus we could use Mr Clean. Remember him, nutreon bombs with little fallout. Oh and when we go we will take out the lot, Syria, Iran, Libya. Bombs every 25miles across the whole country so nothing, and I mean nothing, lives. OK. That might be a bit drastic but it sounds like a punishment that suits the crime.

Bottom line is that any country can supply weapons to a third party and deny all knowledge. The US and USSR did it all the time back in the later half of the 20th century. Now of course, having shown the world how to get someone else to do your dirty work it is a problem for them now. The genie is out of the bottle. We need to make the enemy too scared to do it. Similar principle to MAD. I'm sure this could be refined with the US, Europe, china, USSR etc.