And why are the British Government blaming UK muslims for the problem it caused ?
2007-12-08 08:31:48 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
America used Napalm in Fallujah Iraq and gas on innocent civillians, so who is the Terrorist define Terrorism ? Bombing Iraqi people how can this be called freeing the Iraqi people, and shooting them, do they think we muslims are stupid, BUSH = SADDAM
2007-12-08 08:45:25 · update #1
THE WAR ON TERROR TO ME IS WAR ON ISLAM, there is no real reason why America should Bomb the **** out of Iraq.
2007-12-08 08:47:35 · update #2
I agree with you.
Excellent question.
I think the Government of England, like the Government of The U.S... and some other Governments are neo-colonialists who have an agenda. Colonialism did not end...it only mutated!
Their agenda is very similar to the agenda of The Israeli Government.
It is to dominate and control others... it is to deny the basic human right of self determination to others- including Muslims and Non-Muslims.
Please, don't get me wrong...I think that their agenda is indeed anti-Islamic. But, it seems that they are doing-and have been doing- to non-Muslim peoples (some countries in Central America and South America..for example) many of the same atrocities that they are perpetrating on us Muslims.
2007-12-08 19:55:15 · answer #1 · answered by Rebecca 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well British Intelligence, the CIA, and the NSA both compiled reports in which they believed Saddam had WMDs. They were wrong. Both Bush and Blaire believed the reports, and that is why we are in Iraq.
The radical Muslims feel this is a Holly war, nobody else. Bush isn't against Islam, I'm not against Islam, nobody is against Islam. What I am against is a bunch of loons flying planes into buildings. Do you really want another 9/11?
And as for oil, if we pull out now the prices will only rise!
To sum up everything I said, the reason why the British went into Iraq is because they thought they had WMDs. Same as the US.
2007-12-08 09:06:08 · answer #2 · answered by Chris Hansen 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why could we the country that started out the attack not could desire to teach they have WMD? if that they had WMD do not you think of they could have used it on us mutually as we've been attacking Baghdad? Use your ordinary experience. the actual reason is to earnings administration of the oil. Saddam had fairly some say in OPEC, actually he replaced into very in charge for the oil disaster of seventy 3 and consistently pushing for Arab cohesion exceptionally in oil producing international locations. Why is that perplexing to have faith? We as a rustic are very based on oil (how do you get to artwork, in a automobile with OIL) and after Saudi Arabia that is believed Iraq has the 2d best oil reserves. Plus how is it straightforward to Iraq for the U. S. to assert that Iraq won't be in a position to have planes over their very own freakin' land! How hegemonic is that attitude. Then on suitable of that we had sanctions against Iraq for 10 years; babies could not get drugs from different international locations because of the fact of it, or heat clothing or issues like that. it is tousled.
2016-12-17 11:31:19 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It could have been for a number of reasons.
Some say it was Bush finishing Daddy's work.
Some say it was for control of the oil fields.
Some say it was to deliberately de-stabilise the region and strengthen the Zionist cause.
Some say it because Saddam had WMDs that could be launched in 45 minutes. Considering that we had been spying on him and bombing him since the first gulf war, this was a ludicrous claim.
2007-12-08 09:41:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Britain attacked Iraq because its government was supporting and financing world terror.
Nobody can blame most Muslims for this. A few militants are engaging in terrorism, and many more support it, but not most. Some UK are involved, but not most. How many UK Muslims support terrorism? A small minority, I hope, but still a significant number.
2007-12-08 08:43:32 · answer #5 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Perhaps it was Blair's way of trying to exert some moderating influence, and some restraint, on what might have been a bigger bloodbath if Bush had gone in alone. Bush was going to invade regardless.
Whether Blair succeeded in moderating Bush's intentions we may never know.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the second part of the question.
2007-12-08 09:00:17 · answer #6 · answered by timelord 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Saddam Hussein did have & used WMD on his own people.
Either he buried them in the desert or passed on to others.
The British government is not blaming all UK muslims.
But they are suspicious of any which seem to sympathize.
Muslims have not stepped forward to blame the terrorists.
2007-12-08 08:38:37 · answer #7 · answered by Robert S 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Because Tony Blair was George W. Bush's bitchboy.
2007-12-08 08:35:09 · answer #8 · answered by Michael N 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because we needed a reason to get rid of a Dictator...
it all turned out nice in the end ,everyone is happy.
2007-12-08 08:35:41 · answer #9 · answered by Hit the ground running 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because they believed W and his faulty intelligence. And they blame UK Muslims because they have to blame someone.
2007-12-08 08:34:15 · answer #10 · answered by theadamone 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋