All I am going to say about this attack is that I simply don't understand what the enemy could possibly gain here..There were many sympathizers in England and indeed many more were opposed to the war in Iraq..This could bring on a greater resolve on the part of the English People and to that I applaud..
posted by Howard at
3:09 PM
A Blog with a military slant of been there done that..Defend The American way of life against all odds as we have no other place to go..No One likes us anymore..And that's ok..We can look at them with a jaundiced eye and say So What!!!
Retired govt employee. 77 Yrs old..Ex paratrooper in the 82nd airborne for 5+ yrs..I and My Wife work out three days a week at the gym..I am 5'11" tall and weigh 216 lbs..The more I exercise,the heavier I seem to get..Go Figger
6 Comments:
I believe it will create a greater resolve in the British. The terriosts should read some history. All they have to do is look back 60 years or so to the way England reacted to the blitz of WWII.
They will not throw up thier hands and run as the Spanish did after the Madrid bombings. And they won't try to appease the terriosts as the Germans and French do.
By
sandy, at July 09, 2005 8:22 AM
Violence is never pretty.
The only good that could come of it is that it might remind some of our fellow citizens why we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan! The memory of our own 9/11 seems to have been driven out of many of our countrymen by the continual screeching of the Moonbats.
Awake oh sleepers!
Wide eyed in the Bog,
Kermit
By
Kermit, at July 09, 2005 6:07 PM
"..If you keep on playing the sympathetic weakling you will probably get yours in due time.."
Is that a threat Sir
Sympathetic? sympathetic to whom? al-Quieda? Certainly not. When we Canadians chose not to attack Iraq with you our troops were ALREADY IN Afghanistan! That's where the people who were responsible for 9/11 were! Our troops are still there! I may remind your fellow rhetoric spreading friend "Kermit" that Iraq was NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11 No matter what your President likes to lead you to believe. My God, when are you all going to get it straight? I cannot believe you think that the London attacks were justified. You actually are insinuating that because you feel there were sympathizers there that the attacks were deserved? How sick are you? You perpetuate the arrogant might equals right mentality that Americans are known for. That's "why they hate you". That's why they hate westerners. You personify the belief that if you aren't "for Us" you're "against us" and deserve what you get.
How dare you infer that Canada will probably "get yours". Keep in mind who was first at your aide when you "got yours" at 9/11. Parametics as far away as Toronto were at your side as the second tower fell!
By
Rue, at July 10, 2005 2:33 PM
If you wish to know how I mixed I mixed Canada in with this read my blog. The quote "..If you keep on playing the sympathetic weakling you will probably get yours in due time.."
was this blog owner's response to my post. Get all the facts before you criticize.
as to his post here.
".....There were many sympathizers in England and indeed many more were opposed to the war in Iraq..This could bring on a greater resolve on the part of the English People and to that I applaud.."
I really don't see the logic here. If on the one hand you can call the British your "brothers" and then on the other hand call them opposed to the war in Iraq. Then why do you applaud the attack? If you aren't applauding the attack then what are you applauding?
"and no one believes, nor wants to believe Iraq was responsible in some way for the tragedy of 9/11"
Excuse me? That was exactly the reason why your troops were went there in the first place. It's only been since Iraq's involvement was disproven that the reason have been morphed into this holy act of bringing down the cowards.
"The U.S. stands next to our Britain brothers and sisters, and it is those steadfast allies of which will assist us in inflicting retaliation against the cowards who think they can bring down the free world."
Maybe you should focus you're attack on the place where the retaliation should originate. Afghanistan. Also,Why use the WORD retaliation if this isn't about 9/11? what is it retaliation for? What act, if not 9/11?
By
Rue, at July 10, 2005 5:55 PM
Okay first...this comment
".....There were many sympathizers in England and indeed many more were opposed to the war in Iraq..This could bring on a greater resolve on the part of the English People and to that I applaud.."
I really don't see the logic here. If on the one hand you can call the British your "brothers" and then on the other hand call them opposed to the war in Iraq. Then why do you applaud the attack? If you aren't applauding the attack then what are you applauding?""
Was Geronimo's blog post not yours..you never used the word applaud. So I will disreguard your convaluted response.
"Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives"
Fine but that IS NOT THE REASON YOUR PRESIDENT GAVE FOR GOING THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. The Iraqi people did not ask you to go there and "save them from themselves". No one is saying Hussien was a great person and leader. However, not liking what a leader does and how he treats his people is not reason enough to attack his country. It doesn't matter if we think it should be. It simply isn't.
I don't care if Hussien walked up and HELD HANDS with Osama and you have it on film. It does not prove he had anything to do with 9/11.Your president knew damn well Hussien didn't have any more WMDs because he knew no one was selling them to him anymore...least of all the US!
He went to war on assumptions. He has not found the man responsible for 9/11 and he isn't fighting him hard enough where it is reported BY YOUR OWN MEDIA he is located. No, I don't have to be a telepath to know that .
"On February 26th, 2003, President Bush came before the American Enterprise Institution, "
After the WMDs were not found and after no connection between 9/11 and Hussien could be made. Sorry, but his speach remains suspect.
"Who are we, the free people of this world, to say that an oppressed nation such as Iraq does not deserve the human right to be free? Who are we to deny their civil liberties and continue to grant their unrelenting abuse and torture, under a dictator?"
A fine speach but rhetoric still. This is not a holy war to save Iraq. Making Iraq a democratic country will make it more user friendly for American Oil companies. The fact that (if it is possible) this may make a more livible place for the Iraqi people is a side effect. This adminstration consists of businessmen first.
It's why they are drilling in the Alaskan wilderness right in the middle of Caribou mating grounds which will undoubtedly putting them back on the endangered species list.
It is why (speaking of 9/11) they revoked thier promise of financial aid to the rescue workers at ground zero in NY.
It is why they wrote in those lovely tax breaks for the highest incomes.
It is why there is still no plan to help the poorest of your country with fed or even state wide health care plan.
It is why they did not join in the Kiato treaty and continue to be one the largest polluters in the world.
Hell, your president doesn't believe global warming even exists.
Quoting your Master's speaches proves nothing. It IS rhetoric and propaganda and it is NOT the original reason for the war in Iraq.
If you cannot sentence a man to death for murder with circumstancial evidence alone then you certainly shouldn't be able to start a war based on it either.
By
Rue, at July 11, 2005 6:48 AM
Fox News has just accused Canada of harboring known terrorists. What say you now?
By
Howard, at July 11, 2005 4:17 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home