Here is an essay I wrote about the London train bombings: In an effort to push Britain out of Iraq, a group claiming to be a branch of al Qaeda, the Secret Organization Group of al Qaeda of Jihad in Europe has attacked four mass transit systems in London. First, al Qaeda will be discussed. The SOGAJE (Secret Organization Group of al Qaeda of Jihad in Europe) took responsibility for the attacks on their website. The claim was first spotted on http://www.islamic-minibar.com/forum/. Other al Qaeda addresses include http://www.alneda.com and http://www.drasat.com. The terrorists claimed the reason for the attack was to force Great Britain to withdraw from Iraq. This starts to bring us into the war in Iraq, which will be covered later. In a statement Tony Blair made on the day of the accident, he said, "It is important that those engaged in terrorism realize that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world." Mr. Blair held that the purpose of the attack was to "impose extremism on the world". The reason the terrorists attacked was because they wanted Britain out of Iraq (they said that in their claim). As of the day of the attack, about 24,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed in the war. Britain has a little more than 8,000 troops in Iraq (America has more than 50,000 troops in Iraq). When the number of civilian deaths in Iraq is compared to the number of civilian deaths on 9/11, there is a substantial difference. About 3,000 Americans were killed on September 11, and we launched two wars over it! Of course 3,000 is a very significant loss, but when we have 24,000 dead civilians (all of whom we murdered) in a country and you do not expect them to retaliate; you have made a terrible mistake. Of course, the justification for the attack is twisted into more freedom hating, they hate freedom, they can't stand the freedom that we Americans enjoy, and so on. Of course Bush is staying at the summit, only saying a few words about the incident. On 9/11, Tony Blaire rushed to give a lengthy apology and followed Bush into war. Now back to the war. A document that has recently been released, The Downing Street Memo, points to a war that was inevitable even before 9/11. In the memo, it says, "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification of force." To any average reader, it would seem that the Allies were searching for a justification to use force. The Downing Street Memo also said, "No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in U.S. minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Also, if anyone ever wondered if the administration had thought of an exit strategy for Iraq, here's another quote from the memo: "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." As everyone knows, the president told the American people that Iraq was in part responsible for 9/11 ("you can't distinguish between bin Laden and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror") and that Iraq had WMD's (weapons of mass destruction). Here's a timeline that shows the Administrations changing opinions on WMD's:
1. Iraq has not acquired WMD's. "I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box". "[Saddam] is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States." -Colin Powell, Secretary of State
2. There is no doubt Iraq has acquired WMD's. "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" -Dick Cheney, Vice President
3. The U.S. has detailed and specific information about Iraq's WMD's. "...It [Iraq] is seeking nuclear weapons. The [Iraqi] regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons...." "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof-the smoking gun-that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." President George Dubya Bush
Of course, there were no weapons of mass destruction. They (the Administration) decided to rush into a war they wouldn't know how to end, they lied about the justification for the war, they lied about Saddam's involvement in 9/11, they've murdered thousands of Americans and Iraqis, and now they are saying that the reason the terrorists attacked the subway system was that they had "a desire to impose extremism on the world". They say the terrorists can't stand freedom; however the government could seize the computer I am using now without a warrant, and if they decided to, could label me an "enemy combatant" and jail me indefinitely without a trial, all courtesy of the patriot act.
[This message was edited by Katelyn on 07-12-05 at 12:28 AM.]
Hi Phil I. Buster, Welcome to QL! While your essay is very thought-provoking, I think it has more to do with the Iraq war and 9/11 than it has to do with the London bombings (of course, you start and end with the bombings, but the bulk of your essay seems geared more towards Iraq). That being said, it seems (correct me if I am wrong) that you are arguing that the Iraq war is unjustified (what with the death toll, the WMD issue, etc)?
Either way, to help clarify things and get your debate rolling, it would help us if you would post a clear argument (you know, just a statement of the main idea you want to argue here which can then lead into your essay) and to let me know (within your post or by email) what you would like your title changed to in order to make it more relevant.
Thanks and again, welcome to QL!
**Note, you can also post this essay in the Workshop forum if you want feedback on your writing
------------------------- "The sleep of reason produces monsters." ~Francisco de Goya
Posts: 3489 | Location: United States | Registered: 03-17-02
ok..my opinion is that the war in iraq is unjustified. the reason i covered the iraq war in my essay was because that the london bombings were the effect of Britains involvement in the war in iraq, or "operation iraqi freedom". Thanks for your comments.
Hey, can't you take a hint when it's thrown in your face? The slaughter and mutilation of my fellow Britons was no "accident', pal, it was slaughter and mutilation!
(How many threads is this going to be given?)
Posts: 1372 | Location: England | Registered: 07-14-02
I feel bad for all of those who's countries innocent civilians have been killed in the last few years.
US 9/11 - 3000 civilians killed, no accident.
London - 37 plus civilians killed, no accident.
Iraq - 20,000 plus civilians killed, no accident.
When it come to innocent lives, it doesn't matter what race, religion, or what cause contributes to the death of people who have no bearing on the events taking place. I find it disgusting no matter how it occurs. And the sad fact of the matter is, the way things seem to be going, its only going to get worse.
Posts: 4940 | Location: my enchanted forest | Registered: 09-14-02
Ive never felt so...lost, before, after seeing these events on the news.
Despite the remorse, I also feel a niggling feeling that there are many more people dying around the world (particularly in the middle east) than just in these publicized first-world events.
I am fanatically against the Iraq-war...but as Afenton says, the murder of innocent people is unjustifiable.
Just heard in the news that the bus explosions were actually not Al-Quaeda's initial intention...it was an interesting story.
Another repurcussion (an ongoing one, anyway) is the impact of Islamism on Islam. I'll bet you a lot more people are eyeing muslims a lot more suspiciously now, despite the media's attempts to allay such stereotypes.
F*** fundamentalism.
October, and the trees are stripped bare...of all they wear. Kingdoms rise, and Kingdoms fall, but you go on and on.
Posts: 3774 | Location: Disputed Zone | Registered: 01-10-05
Saddam had used chemical weapons on numerous occasions in the past. He had the means to produce more chemical weapons. He was not being coperative with the inspectors. If we did nothing and he used those chemical weapons, wouldn't you then blame America for standing by? Saddam's regime needed to be removed. Yes, it is a tragic loss of life but can you say that less people would have died had we not gone in and removed Saddam?
Also, if you look at the quality of Iraqi life. Prior to Saddam, Iraq was actually a fairly wealthy country with a developing economy. That is no more. The wars that Saddam was constantly causing had destroyed any hope economic development that Iraq had. They were under severe embargo's which could not be lifted with out plunging Iraq once again in to a massive scaled war costing tens of thousands of lives. Now, once it is settled back down, it will become like the rest of the occupied American territories (S. Korea, Japan, Germany). As long as we left it the way it was, there was no real hope for a better life for the people of Iraq.
Posts: 659 | Location: yokosuka, Japan | Registered: 01-01-05
I think Sentra is the only one who really hit the nail on the head...'Our Fellow Britons' was no mistake...then again, a US airstrike hitting an iraqi village was no mistake either.
October, and the trees are stripped bare...of all they wear. Kingdoms rise, and Kingdoms fall, but you go on and on.
Posts: 3774 | Location: Disputed Zone | Registered: 01-10-05
Hey guys, Hopefully with the title more relevant now (and Phil I. Buster, if you can think of a more creative one I will be glad to change it), we can focus in on the main topic of whether the war in Iraq is justified. However, the London bombings were horrific and merit discussion too, so if one of you wants to, you could also start a debate specificly about the London bombings (and of course, there is also the thread in GD to support and pray for London if you'd rather post something along those lines).
And afenton, First, I'm glad to see you back on the boards. Second, I am deeply sorry for what you and your friends/family/neighbors/fellow Britons have suffered. But try not to let Phil I. Buster get you too riled up, eh? I can only imagine how offensive his choice of the word "accident" must be to you, but I really think it must have been a careless mistake on his part in choosing such a word. I don't think anyone would try to downplay the tragedy of the bombings or to dismiss the fact that they were brought about by the malicious actions of others. I'll wait on his final clarification of that, though...
------------------------- "The sleep of reason produces monsters." ~Francisco de Goya
[This message was edited by Katelyn on 07-12-05 at 12:54 AM.]
Posts: 3489 | Location: United States | Registered: 03-17-02
quote:Originally posted by Beacon-of-Hope: I think Sentra is the only one who really hit the nail on the head...'Our Fellow Britons' was no mistake...then again, a US airstrike hitting an iraqi village was no mistake either.
And even more horrifying for sheer statistics, the "more than 100,000 Iranian soldiers. Dead. Victims of Saddam Hussein's Chemical and Biological weapons during the eight-year war with Iraq. Iran today is the world's top afflicted country by Weapons of Mass Destruction, only after Japan.
The official estimate does not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans. Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 90,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions. Many others were hit by Mustard gas."
And not forgetting the people of Halabja who on March 16th, 1988 suffered "the worst chemical attacks committed by the Iraqi regime. On that day, 5,000 innocent civilians, 75% women and children, immediately perished. This was not the only chemical attack ordered by Saddam, it was just the worst."
"After he was captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad in 2003, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, who ran Saddam's nuclear centrifuge program until 1997, handed over blueprints for a nuclear centrifuge along with some actual centrifuge components, stored at his home — buried in the front yard — awaiting orders from Baghdad to proceed. He said, "I had to maintain the program to the bitter end." In his book, "The Bomb in My Garden," the Iraqi physicist explains that his nuclear stash was the key that could have unlocked and restarted Saddam's bombmaking program."
If Saddam had seen the light and reformed his ways, and no longer harboured any dreams of old, then yes, there would be no justification for taking out his regime. Does anyone really and truly believe that?
Posts: 3724 | Location: Brisbane, Australia | Registered: 07-26-02
Option 1, let saddam continue his reign of terror unchecked and let tens of thousands of people die.
Option 2, leave the heavy embargoes that were imposed on Iraq indefinately, making the population suffer significantly and tens of thousands more people die of starvation, most of which were children.
Option 3, take military action to remove saddam and attempt to rebuild Iraq in to a more stable and healthy economy and living environment.
Which do you think we should have done Ladon or do you have another solution?
Posts: 659 | Location: yokosuka, Japan | Registered: 01-01-05
Ladon, I read through that post, and, call me a biased fundamentalist if you want, but I didnt see the 'christian-factor' in that...I think her hinduism has nothing to do with the matter, or what she said.
October, and the trees are stripped bare...of all they wear. Kingdoms rise, and Kingdoms fall, but you go on and on.
Posts: 3774 | Location: Disputed Zone | Registered: 01-10-05
It is possible that recent young recruits to al Qaeda have been drawn to the justifications propagated by radical Islamic clerics that cite the Iraq as a validation for labelling the UK as Dar ul-Harb [land of war] as Omar Bakri Mohammed did so six months prior to 7/7.
However, 9/11 and the Bali bombing both preceded the war in Iraq and the former preceded the war in Afghanistan.
Make no mistake about this, the real 'justification' for the atrocities committed in the West is in the name of a counter-philosophy that upholds and, "embrace[s] the medieval principles of unquestioning faith, obedience, sacrifice and death as the standard of value." (The Scotsman, Letters).
David Aaronvitch writes ironically:
"So, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, hadn't invaded Afghanistan, hadn't allowed Israel to be established, hadn't had feminisim and whorehouses, hadn't been rich, hadn't been democratic, then maybe, maybe, we wouldn't have been bombed."
The Times 9/7/05
Get your chronology sorted and for God's sake, stop confusing your own anti-Bush-at-all-costs ideas with radical Islamic propaganda.
Hippo.
Stella Splendens December 22, 1985 - March 27, 2003 RIP ...Always.
Posts: 1773 | Location: Devon, England | Registered: 02-04-02
quote:Originally posted by Beacon-of-Hope: Ladon, I read through that post, and, call me a biased fundamentalist if you want, but I didnt see the 'christian-factor' in that...I think her hinduism has nothing to do with the matter, or what she said.
EE is a christian, as far as I know. I think the St. Augustine quip was lost on all of you. It's actually pathetic seeing people discuss just war theory without knowing the man who first wrote a coherant Just War Theory (at least in the western world. Do you see the irony now....a christian justifying war?
![[ACLU Execution Watch Counter]](https://www.aclu.org/graphics/dpcounter.gif)
