Attacks on UK will continue, radical cleric says

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21141139.htm

Attacks on UK will continue, radical cleric says

LONDON, July 22 (Reuters) - Militant Islamists will continue to attack Britain until the government pulls its troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the country's most outspoken Islamic clerics said on Friday.

Speaking 15 days after bombers killed over 50 people in London and a day after a series of failed attacks on the city's transport network, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said the British capital should expect more violence.

"What happened yesterday confirmed that as long as the cause and the root problem is still there ... we will see the same effect we saw on July 7," Bakri said.

"If the cause is still there the effect will happen again and again," he said, adding he had no information about future attacks or contacts with people planning to carry out attacks.

<</SNIP>>

[Midlodemocrat]

1. No. No.

Bush said the war in Iraq made the world safer!!! Didn't this guy get the memo?


:sarcasm:

[Bellamia]

2. Over where?

Didn't Bush say we'd fight them"over there instead of here." Did he mean England?;>)

[cliss]

3. This is a disaster for England.

Just imagine what this will do for tourism. As long as this country is turned into a war zone, people will leave.

I was in England last summer. I guarantee; if this was going on last summer, I would cancel my travel plans and go somewhere else. And Blair knows it.

He may be feeling good about the "killer deal" he struck with Bush and his cronies, but no way will it make up for the losses in revenue from people and businesses leaving.

[Kelvin Mace]

5. I am wondering how much longer

Blair will be able to hang on.

British intelligence botched stopping these folks when they had the chance (with help from His Chimperial Majesty) and he is trying to keep an investigation from being launched into this failure.

[BooScout]

6. I'm still moving to the UK.....

This hasn't changed my plans and I know of several people still planning trips there this summer (although one couple is now planning to avoid London and travel instead to Edinbugh).

Tony needs to go. I hope Gordon Brown will take over and the sooner the better.

[Village Idiot]

4. I don't understand why the RW does not understand this.

All I hear on News is how these bombings have NOTHING to do with Iraq and Afghanistan....how these extremists "hate our freedoms" and "hate our culture..."

Here's a pretty picture that explains a LOT:

Shepherd's BUSH
WARren Street
OVAL

These were NOT picked at RANDOM, obviously...

Why can't these fuckards just TELL THE TRUTH FOR ONCE???

[mike923]

10. There were bombings long before...

the wars in Afganistan and Iraq. In the 80's it was hi jackings, in the 70's it was the Olympics. In the 90's it was the first WTC attack, the attack on the US Cole, the embassy bombings.

To say that terrorism is solely induced by Bush and his wars is short sighted in my opinion.

Note, i have no good idea on how to stop the bombings, although i would suggest getting our military bases out of the region could help.

[K-W]

11. That is a deceptive argument.

"To say that terrorism is solely induced by Bush and his wars is short sighted in my opinion. "

Nobody said this, so rest easy.

First off, terrorism isnt induced by anything. Terrorism is a general category of violence.

People are talking about specific attacks, not terrorism in general which couldnt possibly have a specific cause. The attacks on London, England are in fact a direct response to British involvement in the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. And it is fairly obvious that this is the case.

[mike923]

17. I think we are in agreeance.*

[Laughing Mirror]

13. Getting military bases out would be a good start

But stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, and stop bombing them and killing them and oocupying them and stealing their wealth.

These are all necessary things to do, essential if US wants to remain a rogue imperialist state or wants to settle down and try to get along with the rest of the world without having to grab up everything in its path for itself. It worked before, but it just ain't workin' no more.

[One_Life_To_Give]

7. Afghanistan?

Iraq and Afganistan are like Apples and Oranges.

[Laughing Mirror]

9. They are not

Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq attacked the US, but the US attacked them, with a little help from our business partner friends, and is occupying them.

Attacking a country that has not attacked you is against universal law. The US et al. broke that law. We are now suffering the blowback from that. And as someone said here on one of these threads, "Blowback is a bitch."

Whether you want to face up to the reality of it or not is entirely up to you. But just ask Chalmers Johnson, if you don't believe me. Because it is a fact.

[Imajika]

14. Give me a break...

"Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq attacked the US, but the US attacked them, with a little help from our business partner friends, and is occupying them."

Afghanistan did indeed "attack" us. The Taliban and al-Queda in Afghanistan were operating as one. The Taliban harboured and openly supported al-Queda. To believe otherwise is pure foolishness. It is also naive to the extreme to believe the Taliban would have ever actually extradited bin Laden and ejected al-Queda elements from Afghanistan. They share the same religious philosophy, fought as one routinely against the Northern Alliance (in fact it was al-Queda suicide bombers whom killed Ahmed Shah Masood) and were otherwise so intertwined that it would have been folly trying to divine where the two elements actually diverged. Oh, and please don't give me the pipeline conspiracy theories as the reason we really went into Afghanistan - lets keep this discussion out of fantasyland.

Attacking Afghanistan was the right thing to do, and infact no sitting US President could have survived in office had he or she not responded to 9-11 by attacking Afghanistan and removing the Taliban and wiping out the al-Queda terrorist training centers in that country. Virtually all elected Democrats, the UK, NATO and the UN were absolutely right to have supported, and continue to support these efforts. Infact, if we leave now the entire world will blame the US for having abandoned Afghanistan the way we did previously once the Soviets were driven out.

Iraq is a different story altogether, that was an unnecessary war complete with a failing nation building effort. The two are completely different issues.

These terrorist go after the UK for a whole host of reasons, not just because Britain was part of the coalition in Iraq.

It seems as if your strategy is to surrender to the demands of these terrorists, and hope that once we do they won't attack us. Your not alone, lots of people who haven't the slightest idea about what Islamic fundamentalists actually believe and what it is that they are trying to impose on populations everywhere, sound just as clueless. Terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals are happening throughout the world, it's just that the news rarely reports much of what doesn't directly effect the West. Southern Thailand, towns and villages in Indonesia, the Phillippines, significant swaths of Africa - all plagued by terrorist brutality at the hands of radical Islamists who couldn't give a damn what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan or Israel.

Imajika

[K-W]

16. Well, thats not even close to being accurate.

I will refrain from exposing all of the bullshit in that rant and focus on my favorite part.

"It seems as if your strategy is to surrender to the demands of these terrorists, and hope that once we do they won't attack us. "

You and Karl Rove both need to take reading comprehension lessons if you think this is anyones position.

[Imajika]

18. So you can't refute what I say...

"I will refrain from exposing all of the lies in your little rant and focus on my favorite part."

Go ahead, expose away.

First, you should fly to Southern Thailand. There you will find Islamic radicals beheading Bhuddist monks, school teachers, policemen and street vendors. Infact, southern Thailand is probably more terrorist plagued than almost anywhere else. The Islamists here don't give a crap what is happening in Afghanistan or Iraq, nor do they care what Israel does. These Muslim fundamentalists are about imposing shari-a law on the population and destroying anything unIslamic.

Perhaps you think the Thai government should negotate with such murderers within their own country?

On your way, perhaps you should zip off to Africa where Islamic extremists are attempting to impose Shari-a law in every region and nation they infect - very often slaughtering anyone un-Islamic. The results of the attempted introduction of Shari-a in Nigeria has led to the deaths of thousands upon thousands. Additionally, tens of thousands of moderate muslims have been murdered at the hand of Islamic extremists in Algeria. The list goes on and on.

Islamic terrorism is a real, significant and growing problem. It has virtually nothing whatever to do with the "haves" vs the "have-nots". It can not be blamed on Bush, Blair or the West in general.

This problem is largely of Saudi origin. The Saudi's have used their oil money to fund radical madrassas, organizations and individuals throughout the world. Unfortunantly, even if we blockaded and shut the Saudi's down today, their handywork has already sewn the seeds of death and destruction throughout the world.

Imajika

[K-W]

19. I guess since I didn't bother refuting it it must be true,

your logic remains impeccable.

I dont have to go visit these places to know that your argument is bogus.

Nor do I have any interest in trying to debate someone so closed minded and disrespectful they would suggest thier opponant wants to appease terrorists and sit back because they dont buy into your worldview.

[Laughing Mirror]

20. Who could say no to the good old USA?

Well people are starting to say no to the ferocious, despicable predatory uncontrollable capital criminal mob that has taken over the USA, and people are fighting back, even Islamic terrorists.

You do not attack a country that has not attacked you. Yes, we've done it many times and always gotten away with it. We have had our way with the world. The US has (or had) the UN in its pocket, and could do whatever it wanted, back in the day.

As we know, if 9-11 had never happened, the US still would have attacked Afghanistan anyway. Our great leaders would just have had to dream up another pretext. The great PR propaganda machine was there for them to help raise the fear in the country to a fever of cataclysmic terror and bloodthirsty revenge, a fever I hope has not infected you. The war against Afghanistan was a foregone conclusion long before 9-11. Dick Cheney was all ready set to go in, for the reasons you know about already. 9-11 was the perfect cover.

If US went to Security Council to get the green light to attack Afghanistan because some of the alleged attackers were said to have lived there at one time or another, why isn't the UK going to the Security Council to get a resolution to attack the UK, where the alleged London bombers are said to have lived as well?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, we used to say. And it still is true.

[One_Life_To_Give]

21. No Chenny and Shrub wanted Iraq

Immediatly after 9/11. They kept saying it was Iraq. It's in the 9/11 commision report and the testimony from the former head of anti-terrorism at the time.

[Laughing Mirror]

23. But to get the big prize Iraq

First they had to knock down Afghanistan, show everybody how tough they were, get everybody on their side. Now was the time for the hostile takeover of pathetic devastated Afghanistan, no match for anybody, let alone the USA, but gateway to Asia or Central Asia, I think it was, and very important in plans for domination of that part of the world, and a potentially great place to do business and so better to have it under your control. Maybe they were right. I am not a businessman, I don't know. But the poppy business, if that is any indication, has expanded some 800% I think I read, since George Bush took over. So that is one example of booming business.

Brzenzinski, great lover of Afghanistan, had the takeover of Afghanistan mapped out years before, since 1997, I think. It was just a matter of time.

[Igel]

8. He must be a prophet.

"But he split from the group in 1996 and set up al Muhajiroun, which won notoriety in 2001 for celebrating the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon which killed nearly 3,000 people."

Obviously, it's about Afghanistan and Iraq. After all, he wants the liberation of his homeland, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And Sa'udi Arabia. Which expelled him.

Of course, he's Syrian, so 'liberation of his homeland' here has a technical meaning unrelated to the usual meanings of either 'liberation' or 'homeland.'

[DemExpat]

12. International Herald Tribune article about this...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/22/news/sheik.php

[shadowknows69]

15. that some of these smaller attacks haven't happened here yet

Just tells me that someone is saving something really special for us. It certainly isn't because homeland security is keeping us safer. And here's a newsflash. there's no way in hell they'll try this shit on our subways because they know were profile searching. its a diversion.

[seriousstan]

22. Some more of his RANTINGS!!......

In an interview with Reuters, Bakri described Osama bin Laden, leader of the radical Islamist network al Qaeda, as "a sincere man who fights against evil forces."

Bakri said he would like Britain to become an Islamic state but feared he would be deported before his dream was realized.

"I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world," he said.