.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Geronimo

Thursday, July 07, 2005

England attack

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..

9 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 Blogger 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 Blogger 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 Blogger Rue, at July 10, 2005 2:33 PM  

  • He did not say that the London attacks we’re justified, and no one believes, nor wants to believe Iraq was responsible in some way for the tragedy of 9/11. It is folks like yourself that always bring that up, and it is utterly ridiculous. May I remind you Rue, that indeed, there were people in London, like there were in the Middle East, cheering on 9/11. How you mixed Canada in this mix, I have no idea. You should really take a step back away from your extreme rhetoric, and realize the contempt of which you wrap it in. 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.

    - Tetracide

    By Blogger The Political Crossfire's Republicans, at July 10, 2005 4:58 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 Blogger Rue, at July 10, 2005 5:55 PM  

  • Can someone say paranoid?

    I applaud the English men and women for their resilience in this time of attack. Emergency services, that were setup and had no been used, were very effective, and I applaud their efforts and their initial response to the terrorists act. Can I say that without being blamed as a war monger and hypocrite?

    Secondly, I hope that you’ll read a posting on my blog of which I’ll paste at the bottom of this response (sorry for advertising Mr. Davis). Iraq and the war of which Saddam asked for, had plenty of reasons, all of which remain intact, and none of which involve direct links between Iraq and 9/11.

    “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?”

    Unless you’ve developed a keen sense of telepathy, and have the ability to read the minds of terrorists, I have no idea where you are coming up with the idea that these terrorists, and all terrorists for that matter, originate in Afghanistan. Strategic and exhausted operations continue in the country, and terrorists are being caught or killed as they should be.

    Moreover, your jump on the term retaliation is premature. I was referring to the attacks on London, and the British government, next to her allies in the “evil” west, will retaliate for those attacks.

    Get all YOUR facts before you criticize.

    http://myviewoftheleft.blogspot.com/2005/02/multiple-reasons-were-stated-and-are.html

    - Tetracide

    By Blogger The Political Crossfire's Republicans, at July 10, 2005 7:41 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 Blogger Rue, at July 11, 2005 6:48 AM  

  • The first quarter of your post is just a show of your immaturity, so I wont even comment further.

    “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’.”

    As I’ve said, plenty of reasons were stated, they include;

    (1) Saddam Hussein's Development of Weapons of Mass Destruction
    (2) Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
    (3) Saddam Hussein's Repression of the Iraqi People
    (4) Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism
    (5) Saddam Hussein's Efforts to Circumvent Economic Sanctions

    Weapons of mass destruction were one of the prominent and deal-sealing arguments that the media presented (due to their flare for the dramatic). Intelligence from a variety of different nations brought forth the same information, which lead hundreds of high ranking officials from each country to believe Iraq did indeed not give up his WMD program after 1991. The United States and her many allies that assisted in this operation would rather have acted on intelligence, than the word of a brutal dictator. And that brings me to these comments you made.

    “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.”

    So now we understand each other. You would sit back and watch a mad man kill hundreds thousands of his own people via chemical weapons, rape rooms, and secret police, yet, myself, and I assume Mr. Davis, would prefer to take action to not only free millions of which many have thanked us for, but also to develop an offensive against terrorists in the area. It’s called the War on Terror, which continues till this day in Iraq.

    If you can find me a quote by President Bush, or anyone in the Administration for that matter that declared Saddam Hussein had a direct connection with 9/11, I will concede, but no such admission is out there – you know, I know it, and Mr. Davis knows it, so why play this game? It doesn’t help your argument any.

    “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.”

    Absolutely disgusting. Not only is your spelling atrocious, but you pull conspiracy theories to back up your already flawed arguments. If the argument is that this war is aimed at installing a pro-American regime more inclined to grant oil contracts to American and British rather than French and Russian oil firms, then it invites a similar charge that France and Russia are against war primarily to protect their cozy economic relationships with the existing Iraqi regime. Regardless, only one or two American or British firms in this scenario would "win" economically while the rest would lose because increased production would lower global oil prices and thus profits. Because no one knows who would win the post-war contract "lottery," it makes little sense for the oil industry (or the politicians who supposedly cater to them) to support war. The argument that the war with Iraq is fundamentally about oil doesn't add up.

    ”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.”

    That’s the difference between you and me. I care more about my country than the Caribou.

    “Quoting your Master's speaches proves nothing. It IS rhetoric and propaganda and it is NOT the original reason for the war in Iraq.”

    And to sum up this whole argument, you have proven that your argument holds no water, nor will you accept facts when they are right in front of you. Before you go off and denounce this war and my government, you should really grow up.

    You’re through.

    - Tetracide

    By Blogger The Political Crossfire's Republicans, at July 11, 2005 2:09 PM  

  • Fox News has just accused Canada of harboring known terrorists. What say you now?

    By Blogger Howard, at July 11, 2005 4:17 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home