Attacks on Iraq = attacks on London?

Question

Propane, nails and remote detonators are, according to ITV, the same materials often used in bombs in Iraq. Has Tony Blair put Londoners at risk by attacking Iraq?

susandiane, I don't mean to frame things dishonestly--i am watching ITV as I write this, and the newscaster is directly saying the attempted bomb is likely to be related to Iraqis.

But that's ITV. What do Londoners think?

Answer 1

To be honest, I always have doubts as to the veracity of anything 'terrorist' related that happens in London. Remember the big deal at Heathrow? It had 'agent provocateur' written all over it. It seems just so amazing that these TWO bombs were foiled 'just in time' and that there were no others that detonated. Also, the MI5 has been implicated in planting bombs and blaming the IRA....why not the same for 'Islamic' terrorists?
Anyhow, to answer your question, I sure don't feel any safer since the Iraq attack. Thanks, Tony. What a legacy!

Answer 2

Tony Blair did not attack Iraq although he did support the U.S. military efforts in that region. But that doesn't mean that London deserves to be attacked

Quit dishonestly framing the issue!

So do you think if Britain had completely stayed out of Iraq, there would be no threat of terrorists attacks? The terrorists use the situation in Iraq as a convent excuse for their actions . Don't you think they would just come up with another justification(in their minds) for attacking western targets if Iraq had been left alone after 9-11? If you review the long list of terrorist attacks by radical Muslims in the last 40 years, you know that we've been supposedly "pissing" them off for a long time.

If this does turn out to be a foiled terrorist attack, it could have been very well related to Rushdie being knighted or an attempt to spoil the upcoming Princess Diana related celebration. Remember two years ago, the attacks on the London buses and subways happened the day after London found out it was chosen to host the Olympics. .

Answer 3

When Spain was attacked a couple of years ago was it because they invaded Iraq? Or did 9/11 happen because of Iraq? Is every terrorist act for the next century going to be because of Iraq? Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists seek to destroy Western Civilization, period. Not an opinion, it is their doctrine, you can read that online. There have been many times in history when countries tried to appease and be friends with countries and people that operate on hate and radicalism. Look at England's attempt to be Hitler's friend in the late 1930's, or just look at Bill Clinton's attempt to handle terrorism. Terrorists operate on fear, and the line of thinking the leads to the question, "If country A hadn't done this or that then terrorists wouldn't try to hurt and kill our people right? They would be our friends right?" What ifs, logic and rational thinking doesn't work, this isn't the Cold War, there isn't anyone on the other side of the table to negotiate terms or peace with. Those people are hiding in shadows, killing innocent people in Iraq or in a cave somewhere. This line of thinking means a small group of crazy radical murderers have achieved their goal, they have created fear.

Answer 4

The Muslim extremists are attacking Britain because the US is so hard to get at now. It's a matter of opportunity. It's much easier to get across Europe into Britain than into the US, so they will choose the path of least resistance. If it were not for Tony Blair, England would have had a major event like 9/11, I'm firmly convinced. The only way for all this to end is for the moderate Muslims to rise up and tell the extremists they are taking back ownership of Islam, which the extremists have decimated.

Answer 5

Iraq isn't able to attacking something precise now. even in spite of the incontrovertible fact that it rather is possibly that Al-Qaeda will attack a militia, monetary or government aim interior the subsequent 10 years, probable with sleeper cells interior the U. S. already. by fact the eastern US is extra obtainable, nearer to the place maximum US muslims stay and the abode of extra objectives, it rather is extra possibly to get attacked. As for Buffalo, you're all advantageous. Al-Qaeda only stops at something end there on a thank you to bomb different stuff.

Answer 6

The US was attacked long before the Iraqi war so no I don't think that is the root cause of the averted attack on London.

Answer 7

No.

"We" fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here.

Extrapolating logically, these perpetrators CAN'T be terrorists because "we" are fighting them THERE so we don't have to fight them here.

See? All of the terrorists are in Iraq because THAT'S WHERE WE ARE FIGHTING THEM.

This is called State Logic.


Why are you laughing?