Can someone "explain" because I think I'm "missing" something..........

[converted_democrat]

Something keeps rolling through my mind, that I am trying hard to understand. Could you help me understand it? I woke up this morning and saw the awful news about London. It really made me sad. Then I started thinking about what happened in Madrid, Spain a few years back. The attacks are similar, both countries were attacked after major talk in each country to withdrawal from Iraq. Am I missing something? Both countries were wanting to leave Iraq and they got attacked?

[HockeyMom]

1. You can look at it two ways

Either, the attack was the final push needed by a people already considering pulling out of Iraq, or, and this is the more sinister I believe, it was orchestrated to PUNISH them for wanting to leave.

[TwilightZone]

2. Since when is the British military "wanting" to leave Iraq?

I've seen that assertion several times this morning, though I have seen nothing to support it. The British military is neither withdrawing now nor has it any intent of withdrawing in the foreseeable future.

The public may want them to pull out, but the British government will give that roughly the same consideration as ours does.

[converted_democrat]

6. They announced it a few days ago.........

They are pulling out of Iraq to "focus" on Afghanistan. It was all over the news.

[TwilightZone]

15. Sorry -- my bad.

I ignore the news for a couple of days, and the situation changes.

Gee, focusing on Afghanistan seems rather counter to Bush's claim that we "won" there already.

[flyarm]

18. focusing on afganistan frees up our troops for * es war on iran!! n/t

[xynthee]

7. Financial Times Article

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a1384df4-ecbc-11d9-9d20-00000e2511c8.html

[evermind]

8. There was a story in the Financial Times

about the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) having plans to pull out significant numbers of troops from Iraq over the next 18 months, and place them in Afghanistan

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/fabbdb4a-ecf1-11d9-9d20-00000e2511c8.html

In what would represent the biggest operational shake-up involving the armed forces since the Iraq war, the first stage of a run-down in military operations is likely to take place this autumn with a handover of security to Iraqis in at least two southern provinces.

Defence officials emphasised that all plans for Iraqi deployments were contingent on the ability of domestic security forces to assume peacekeeping duties from UK troops. Iraqi forces have so far proven unable to take over such roles in areas where the insurgency is most intense, and progress has disappointed coalition officials.

But senior UK officers believe the four south-east provinces under UK command, which are largely Shia and have not seen the same violence as more Sunni-dominated areas north of Baghdad, may be ready for a handover earlier than those under US command.

Any reduction of UK troops could be timed to coincide with plans being developed to deploy a total of up to 3,000 troops to Afghanistan before the end of next year. This deployment would take the lead in a Nato force to take over from US troops in the south of Afghanistan.

[TwilightZone]

12. Wow, I must have missed that. My bad.

Apologies to the OP.

[evermind]

3. I'm not sure Spain was intending to leave Iraq under the

then serving government. In the election following the Madrid bombing, the party which had run on a policy of withdrawal was elected, and they did largely withdraw, I think.

So if you're saying the Madrid bombing was intended to prolong Spanish involvement in Iraq, then it was a grave miscalculation.

However, I think it's a tin hat too far to think that this was the intention. Assuming the bombing was perpetrated by sympathisers with the Iraqi resistance/"insurgency", they plainly do want coalition forces out of there - that is what their whole campaign is about is it not?

[ultraist]

11. No, it's not what their whole campaign is about

Of course they want the illegal occupation of Iraq to end, but this campaign started long before the Iraq war.

[evermind]

13. The insurgency started before the war? (n/t)

[me b zola]

4. Blair isn't going anywhere

Blair is getting ready (the decision has already been made) to send thousands of troups to Afghanistan.

[xchrom]

5. look the fundies of any stripe crazy, murdering loons.

but bush/blair USE THEM for their own ends.

it's what defines their evil political tenure --

actually let get off my high horse -- you're not missing a thing.

[Toots]

9. Why would you automatically tie this to Iraq?

I doubt very much if any Iraqis were involved in the explosions. It is just a sign of the times. If it has anything at all to do with Iraq it is because England attacked Iraq with the USA which could be considered an attack on Arabs and Muslims.

[evermind]

16. By his support of the disastrous Bush policy on Iraq, Blair has

put Britain in the firing line. Simple as that - there's no other reason to attack Britain which comes anywhere the significance of our involvement in Bush's stupid war.

[Toots]

26. And you know for a fact this is not IRA or another group and not Arabs

:shrug: We are quick to jump to conclusions it seems.

[evermind]

27. Nope, I don't know it for a fact, but like I said, no other UK

policy comes anywhere near our support of Bush's war in its likelihood to provoke an attack of this type.

(On edit: even if this should prove to be unrelated, what I said still holds: Blair has put us in the firing line, and it's quite likely that a related attack would follow at some point.)

[converted_democrat]

20. I think your missing my point........

Both countries had announced plans on leaving Iraq. They both got attacked. Why would they get attacked if they had made plans on leaving? Who would be most upset by their leaving?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[evermind]

28. Can you substantiate that Spain had plans to leave? It seems

that I'm not alone in remembering it as the plans coming about AFTER the Madrid attack, when the new government got in. The old government was running for election on the policy of staying in the war, wasn't it?

I may be wrong, but that's how I remember it..

What reason do you have for thinking that Spain was discussing leaving before Madrid.

[converted_democrat]

29. Here's what I'm thinking.......

Spain was coming up on elections, they were starting to get hot about the coalition mess. They wanted out of it. They were attacked. Britain wants out of Iraq. Now they are attacked. Could it be possible that both were attacked for wanting out? Who would want to scare the Jesus into countries for wanting to leave? Who would be trying to scare them back into the fold? Who would benefit from scaring the crap out of them? Do you think Britain will leave Iraq now, or are they going to be more willing to to stay for now to help out * and his war?

[evermind]

31. Well, one might think that assuming it was as you say in Spain, the

perpetrators might have learned their lesson, since the result in Spain was to hasten their withdrawal.

I wouldn't care to predict the effect in the medium term on the UK presence in Iraq. It's not too much to hope, I think, that once the short-term hysteria has died down people here may be more inclined to take a long hard look at the insanity of the current policy, but that is a hope rather than a prediction.

[melissinha]

10. Confusing

See.. there are the reports from the Britts that terrorists wanted Bush to be reelected... so that the war would continue.. yet they say that they are punishing Brittain and Spain for taking part...


AHHH I get it. They are jsut like Bush, they say they don't want war when thats precisely what they are after. Saddam and Osama are totally different people one is a secular leader the other is fundamentalist..Osama wanted us to attack Iraq to start the whole holy war... he got what he wanted... and we are taking out a secular leader that he didn't like... we are falling into their hands....


Lets make one thing clear: the choice of location was based upon the UK's participation in the Coalition of the Sheeple, BUT the reason is to keep the Holy War going not solely as punishment.

[BurtWorm]

14. Madrid was attacked before the election.

It was only after the election that Zapatera was able to decide to withdraw Spanish troops.

[shraby]

17. Also, it was speculated that Zapatera

would lose because of the bombings which would have caused Spain to stay in Iraq.

[sadiesworld]

25. Because Aznar chose to blame the ETA...

the premise, i.e., that the Spanish people would turn hawkish in Iraq if bombed by terrorists, was never disproven.

[flyarm]

22. no he ran on pulling them out..and unlike americans

the spanish were not fooled by the cabal who wants the oil in iraq!

[sadiesworld]

23. But wasn't it well known prior to the bombing that Zapatera's

position was that Spain should pull out of Iraq?

[PATRICK]

19. Both countries

were involved in a controversy where the public was turning noticeably against the war. Are WE there yet? maximum for a recalcitrant nation and leadership was successful in pushing the situation over the edge in the terrorists' favor(and also in favor of the majority popular will for a change). While Cheney raged that this was giving the terrorists what they want, in fact people like Cheney and Blair had ALREADY given them a turned off populace through their lies and corrupt focus on secret agendas. All the people are supposed to buck up and pay for the leaders' sins for the "greater good" they themselves have betrayed in horrendous fashion. The war crowd had already drawn a line and dared them to attack the unsecured population. And then handled security with less enthusiasm- if with equal aplomb- than the gaffe war in Iraq.

We are caught in a crossfire of evil not resolutely facing outward toward an "axis". Bushco gets what it wants. The terrorists get what they want and flourish. No matter what we do we die and get punished by one hypocritical side or the other, never focusing on the perps and causes of how we found ourselves in war against the Mideast and Islam.

The terrorists have to play their role to get goals inconceivable against legitimate, honest governments. Bushco of course is less conscience ridden than MacBeth. It will stay the course to the last drop of our blood. But the minority manipulators know that the ones who CAN change their actions and the game itself are the people, who unfortunately perform as if on script as if they had no choice, no knowledge, no power except on the rare occasions when democracy can be exercised.

The terrorists are surely looking for some significant push point to inflict maximum shock and pain(awe is for idiots). And supposedly WE know they are looking- but with the "look the other way at the gold" goons in charge, who knows? Anyway, Bush is perfectly prepared to react as he always does in a crisis. Use it for his own purposes while people are reeling with compassion and pain.

Apparently the Bush people have not sufficiently destroyed our homeland security enough to attract the daring or sent out enough clear signals of the fact. The truth is, if the people who were against the war could not barely stop their governments from the blatant injustice and murder, what would they do here? And when?

[leftofthedial]

24. boils down to what you believe "al Qaeda" to be in reality

Islamist terrorists?

agents of western state coercion?

[converted_democrat]

30. Thank you, you get it!!!!