. They dislike the west for stopping them massacring the other lot of Moslems.
Exactly. Why do East African Muslims hate the British? Because the British destroyed the slave trade. Why do Pakistanis hate the British? Because the British stopped 5 million muslims ruling 95 million Hindus. It's a basic lack of imagination to think that people hate us for the same politically correct reasons leftists imagine.
I thought it eventually led to some sort of dinosaur.
Some people don't believe in Dinosaurs though... However, i'm sure Majis does, but i see no need to debate the history when we have a perfectly decent identifiable source of blame for the invasion of Iraq. To talk about the history often derails a perfectly good argument.
So are you saying that if we hadn't intervened to get rid of Saddam Hussein then they wouldn't have bombed London?
We invaded Iraq because of a Dodgy Dossier which had been "sexed up", which claimed, amongst other untruth's, Saddam had WMD's and could launch within 45 minutes.
Yes i'm saying if we hadn't invaded on a false pretense it's likely that we'd not have had 7/7. I hasten to add, if the 7/7 bombers hadn't been murdering sons of b's we also wouldn't have had 7/7
Iraq was invaded because every major intelligence service - from the KGB to Mossad - believed it had WMD. Iran ,and Saddam's generals, both thought it had WMD.
At the time I read something that said Saddam was playing a bluffing game with the West - acting as if he was hiding weapons he no longer had - but by invading that effectively called that bluff.
The objecive factor that pushed invasion forward was a realistic fear of terrorism in the US itself post 911, and the anthrax attacks in the US that followed 911. That merged a terrorist threat , with a WMD threat. Elininating WMD threats rose up the agenda. At the same time, the existing UN sanctions on Iraq , to achieve that ,were becoming untenable. - ironically because Russia and France were behaving like moneygrabbing capitalists. If the sanctions regime wouldn't hold to contain Sadddam - because Russia and France wanted their money back, and new deals with Saddam - some new policy was needed. .
It is worth noting that unlike France, the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy - the US had prior to 9/11 a sustained terrorist campaign on it's soil - that meant when a terrorist action did happen the response was that much harder - not withstanding that 9/11 was the biggest terrorist action in terms of people killed. When Bush was informed of 9/11 it was reported his first reaction was Iraq - despite no love being lost between Saddam and Bin Laden making it highly unlikely that they would work together.
The trigger was then personal. Saddam was seen as unfinished family business by Bush, and then was found to be behind an assassination attempt on Bush senior, on a visit to thegulf. You can take out Rumsfeld, Cheney can vanish earlier with his heart problems, and you are still left with a son, who is very angry that Saddam has tried to kill his father.
This I think is the biggest reason going for Bush wanting to over throw Saddam Hussein.
The Sunni generals behind ISIS by he way are not angry about us invading per se. They are angry because the consequence was they lost their power and money in iraq , and were forced to move, from palaces in Iraq, to villas in Syia and Lebanon. The Sunni terrorist foot soldiers are deluded westerners, Sunni who were attacked by the Assad's gas and bombs ,and Shia Iraqis , and some very nasty types who dream of restoring their power in Iraq, and slaughtering the Shia and Kurd majority.
This being the reason why ISIS now exists - nor do I think that it is any accident that the antipathy that existed between Saddam and Bin Laden continues between ISIS and AQ (which is a mear shadow of it's previous power)
We invaded Iraq, got rid of its strong leader and that allowed the extremists to fill the void such as the Daesh.
Saddam Hussein during his reign killed more people than Daesh have so far killed. And the Daesh leadership were officials in the Baath party of Iraq part of Saddam Hussein's regime.
But then we end up in a chicken-egg situation. And we all know that leads nowhere.
I'm isolating 2003 for the simple fact that the cause is well documented and agreed upon - False claims of WMD's. As we know every cause has an effect, so let me ask you what do you think the effect of these false claims were from a muslim perspective?
But why are you isolating 2003 - is everything that went before that irrelevant?. As for the false claims, they only turned out to be false after the war - if they had turned out to be real do you think that the Muslim response would have been different?
If not oil then what? If not WMD's then what? What was so urgent that we had to invade Iraq?
Well there was a view that it was unfinished business from GW1 and that removing a vicious dictator was a good idea. There was also a lot of false intelligence flying around at the time.
To be honest (and it sticks in my throat agreeing with Livingston) He does have a point. Attacking Iraq justified by what turned out to be lies re-enforces the idea that the west is attacking Islam
Does he f**k have a point. >:(
Were we attacking Islam in the Balkans only a few years earlier or saving muslims from acts of genocide? When we decided to intervene in Libya was it or was it not supposedly for humanitarian reasons to prevent a probable massacre in Benghazi?
Selective f-in memories and equally selective and stupidly one sided/blinkered comments like Ken's simply add credibility to the selectively spun BS groups like ISIS use to brainwash people in the first place.
Were we attacking Islam in the Balkans only a few years earlier or saving muslims from acts of genocide? When we decided to intervene in Libya was it or was it not supposedly for humanitarian reasons to prevent a probable massacre in Benghazi?
Selective f-in memories and equally selective and stupidly one sided/blinkered comments like Ken's simply add credibility to the selectively spun BS groups like ISIS use to brainwash people in the first place.
I am glad at least you had the good grace to preface that with "supposedly"! ;-)
Saddam Hussein during his reign killed more people than Daesh have so far killed. And the Daesh leadership were officials in the Baath party of Iraq part of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Gaddafi was a brutal despot who backed terrorists and had attempted repeatedly to develop nuclear weapons.
These despots were not better than Daesh.
Yes Gaddafi backed terrorists back in the 1980s but in the early 2000s he started to cooperate with west, such as handing over the Lockerbie bombers.
By 2004 Gaddafi gave up his weapons of mass destruction fearing a similar fate to what Saddam suffered. He met with Blair and Obama. Libya was at peace.
Under Gaddafi, Libya was the richest country in Africa and financed many schemes in sub Saharan Africa to alleviate famine and poverty. Many foreign aid schemes in places like Zaire, Zimbabwe etc were financed by Libya, not the west. Without Gaddafi all these good things are gone.
With Libya under Gaddafi we could have really strengthened our links to fight terror. Southern Africa would be benefiting from Libyan aid and a strong African Union that could unite Africa. That was Gadaffis dream. No thanks to the west and the Daesh we have lost Gaddafi. AFRICA has lost Gaddafi!
Were we attacking Islam in the Balkans only a few years earlier or saving muslims from acts of genocide? When we decided to intervene in Libya was it or was it not supposedly for humanitarian reasons to prevent a probable massacre in Benghazi?
We were exceptionally tardy when it came to rescuing muslim enclaves. In one instance Dutch troops who were supposed to be protecting a Muslim enclave let it completely open to one of the worst massacres of the Balkan Wars
Yet when it comes to a Muslim led countries we are like an over eager child shouting 'Please sir! Please sir! Can we join the war'.
That is what has allowed the narrative that the West is fighting a war against Islam.
Under Gaddafi, Libya was the richest country in Africa
Oil revenue of up to $50 billion a year and a population in 1969 when Gaddafi took power of less than 2 million, and 6.5 million when he lost power. It was rich due to oil.
financed many schemes in sub Saharan Africa to alleviate famine and poverty. Many foreign aid schemes in places like Zaire, Zimbabwe etc were financed by Libya, not the west. Without Gaddafi all these good things are gone.
Yes Libyans enjoyed a rising standard of living and healthcare and education and he did fund projects that benefited people in other parts of Africa too. But best hope you did not catch the eye of the elite, or fall foul of the secret police, or openly dissent. He oversaw a reign in Libya where dissent was a crime and people were monitored by the secret police. In the early years he imposed his vision of socialist "utopia" through fear and the barrel of the gun, mass nationalization of private businesses and executing all vocal opposition and leaders of any dissent. And during his reign he and the rest of his elite raped, tortured and murdered with impunity. Libya under his rule fought wars against Chad and Egypt and backed revolts and civil wars across Africa in some cases backing all sides. Being directly or indirect via financial backing and supplying weapons for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. And as mentioned earlier backed terrorists. And faced with a popular revolt he at least according to the nations that bombed Libya was about to engage in large scale mass murder. And since his fall from power his son has been convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Last week we had Jeremy Corbyns stop the war people blaming the French for the recent attacks in Paris
This morning Ken Livingstone is blaming Tony Blair for the London bombings
And we've had McDonnell praising IRA terrorists
So now it's all our own fault?
Whilst the terrorists are responsible for their dreadful actions and behaviour, you cannot deny that decades of 'our' meddling in the Middle East in particular has contributed big time to the situation we now face. An 'Iraq Part 3' will simply result in more of the same sadly. We (The West) never learn.
The underlying narrative is that the west is evil and Allah is good. Tony Blair invading Iraq on a false pretense supports the narrative. That much seems undeniable to me.
Isis, as far as i'm aware came into being as a result of a power vacuum left by Saddam's absence so
A. we had no just cause to invade Iraq, killing 1000's of military and civilians
as we went.
B. As i direct consequence of our invasion we encouraged anti-west sentiment amongst Muslims.
All predicted before we invaded Iraq, yet we still invaded. Ok but unintended consequences arise from that. Blame may not be the right word but humility is due. Enough humility to recognize are own part in all of this.
Absolutely right on all fronts. Of course years back, 'we' created Iraq and other countries out there and in Africa (hence all the straight borders). Then there is our support for Israel for decades...
Indeed so best just to leave them alone and get on with it. We cannot bolt Western Democracy onto an Arab country the concepts of democracy are totally different.
Yes I saw Question Time last night too. Terrorists are grown adults, individuals responsible for their own actions. 52 people died in London e because 4 men chose to blow themselves up in the name of Allah. 132 people were murdered in Paris because a group of violent people decided to be violent.
They will always think of an excuse, but the choice lies squarely with the individual.
And over a hundred thousand died in Algeria, killed by a military dictatorship armed by France. The people who died in Paris this month didn't deserve it, but it could be described as chickens coming home to roost.
But why are you isolating 2003 - is everything that went before that irrelevant?. As for the false claims, they only turned out to be false after the war - if they had turned out to be real do you think that the Muslim response would have been different?
Well there was a view that it was unfinished business from GW1 and that removing a vicious dictator was a good idea. There was also a lot of false intelligence flying around at the time.
There's a lot of false intelligence now, most of it coming from Parliament.
We have tried doing nothing. Still they kill, still they cry jihad and try to recruit our young. You cannot appease terrorists any more than you can reason with them.
Violent people will always find excuses to be violent.
They need to be stopped.
Bang on. There were two Al Quaeda attacks on the World Trade Centre before the invasions of either Iraq or Afghanistan.
I have a friend who was involved in the 2003 invasion. His job was to investigate government computers after a building had been cleared of Iraqis. His view was that there were WMD in Iraq which were shipped out before the invasion and that the weapons programmes were all ready to restart had the coalition troops gone away.
The idea that there were never any weapons just because none were found when we went in is a complete non sequitur.
Comments
Exactly. Why do East African Muslims hate the British? Because the British destroyed the slave trade. Why do Pakistanis hate the British? Because the British stopped 5 million muslims ruling 95 million Hindus. It's a basic lack of imagination to think that people hate us for the same politically correct reasons leftists imagine.
Some people don't believe in Dinosaurs though... However, i'm sure Majis does, but i see no need to debate the history when we have a perfectly decent identifiable source of blame for the invasion of Iraq. To talk about the history often derails a perfectly good argument.
We invaded Iraq because of a Dodgy Dossier which had been "sexed up", which claimed, amongst other untruth's, Saddam had WMD's and could launch within 45 minutes.
Yes i'm saying if we hadn't invaded on a false pretense it's likely that we'd not have had 7/7. I hasten to add, if the 7/7 bombers hadn't been murdering sons of b's we also wouldn't have had 7/7
At the time I read something that said Saddam was playing a bluffing game with the West - acting as if he was hiding weapons he no longer had - but by invading that effectively called that bluff.
It is worth noting that unlike France, the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy - the US had prior to 9/11 a sustained terrorist campaign on it's soil - that meant when a terrorist action did happen the response was that much harder - not withstanding that 9/11 was the biggest terrorist action in terms of people killed. When Bush was informed of 9/11 it was reported his first reaction was Iraq - despite no love being lost between Saddam and Bin Laden making it highly unlikely that they would work together.
This I think is the biggest reason going for Bush wanting to over throw Saddam Hussein.
This being the reason why ISIS now exists - nor do I think that it is any accident that the antipathy that existed between Saddam and Bin Laden continues between ISIS and AQ (which is a mear shadow of it's previous power)
Well, that's the IS position.
I'm no supporter of Corbyn etc but there is some truth in what he says.
We invaded Iraq, got rid of its strong leader and that allowed the extremists to fill the void such as the Daesh.
We bombed Gaddafi s forces in Libya, now Libya is falling to the Daesh
We have supplied weapons to Sunni terrorists in Syria many of whom formed the Daesh.
Had the west not got involved non of this would be happening.
The only irony is that the Daesh instead of bombing us they should be thanking us
These despots were not better than Daesh.
But why are you isolating 2003 - is everything that went before that irrelevant?. As for the false claims, they only turned out to be false after the war - if they had turned out to be real do you think that the Muslim response would have been different?
Well there was a view that it was unfinished business from GW1 and that removing a vicious dictator was a good idea. There was also a lot of false intelligence flying around at the time.
Now present us with an even longer list where Islamic extremists pursue a goal of dominance without any help or hindrance from the West.
Does he f**k have a point. >:(
Were we attacking Islam in the Balkans only a few years earlier or saving muslims from acts of genocide? When we decided to intervene in Libya was it or was it not supposedly for humanitarian reasons to prevent a probable massacre in Benghazi?
Selective f-in memories and equally selective and stupidly one sided/blinkered comments like Ken's simply add credibility to the selectively spun BS groups like ISIS use to brainwash people in the first place.
I am glad at least you had the good grace to preface that with "supposedly"! ;-)
Yes Gaddafi backed terrorists back in the 1980s but in the early 2000s he started to cooperate with west, such as handing over the Lockerbie bombers.
By 2004 Gaddafi gave up his weapons of mass destruction fearing a similar fate to what Saddam suffered. He met with Blair and Obama. Libya was at peace.
Under Gaddafi, Libya was the richest country in Africa and financed many schemes in sub Saharan Africa to alleviate famine and poverty. Many foreign aid schemes in places like Zaire, Zimbabwe etc were financed by Libya, not the west. Without Gaddafi all these good things are gone.
With Libya under Gaddafi we could have really strengthened our links to fight terror. Southern Africa would be benefiting from Libyan aid and a strong African Union that could unite Africa. That was Gadaffis dream. No thanks to the west and the Daesh we have lost Gaddafi. AFRICA has lost Gaddafi!
Yes he does
We were exceptionally tardy when it came to rescuing muslim enclaves. In one instance Dutch troops who were supposed to be protecting a Muslim enclave let it completely open to one of the worst massacres of the Balkan Wars
Yet when it comes to a Muslim led countries we are like an over eager child shouting 'Please sir! Please sir! Can we join the war'.
That is what has allowed the narrative that the West is fighting a war against Islam.
however true or false that maybe.
Whilst the terrorists are responsible for their dreadful actions and behaviour, you cannot deny that decades of 'our' meddling in the Middle East in particular has contributed big time to the situation we now face. An 'Iraq Part 3' will simply result in more of the same sadly. We (The West) never learn.
Absolutely right on all fronts. Of course years back, 'we' created Iraq and other countries out there and in Africa (hence all the straight borders). Then there is our support for Israel for decades...
The chances of it happening would have been much reduced, yes. Saddam held Iraq together. Gadaffii held Libya together.
How did they hold those countries together?
By crushing any opposition using military might.
Just like what our government is proposing now.
Indeed so best just to leave them alone and get on with it. We cannot bolt Western Democracy onto an Arab country the concepts of democracy are totally different.
And over a hundred thousand died in Algeria, killed by a military dictatorship armed by France. The people who died in Paris this month didn't deserve it, but it could be described as chickens coming home to roost.
There's a lot of false intelligence now, most of it coming from Parliament.
Bang on. There were two Al Quaeda attacks on the World Trade Centre before the invasions of either Iraq or Afghanistan.
The idea that there were never any weapons just because none were found when we went in is a complete non sequitur.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fjzzgzZJns