Blair: West not responsible for terrorism

[Uthman]

Tony Blair says there are no grounds for claims western intervention in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East had made the world a more dangerous place.

The former prime minister denied that going to war in Iraq had "provoked" Muslims towards extremism and terrorism.

"The people from those groups that back the Taliban that then go in and plant a car bomb - how are we provoking them to do that?," Mr Blair asked.

"That's what has to be challenged, and actually one of the reasons why we will not defeat this, in my view, until we start challenging this position within Islam and outside of Islam, is because there is no reason why they should do that."

In a wide-ranging interview with the Belief programme on BBC Radio 3, Mr Blair - now envoy for the Middle East quartet - said he did not go a "single day" without reflecting on the responsibility of the decision to go to war.

"I think these decisions are the most difficult you ever take, and you cannot and should not take them incidentally because you believe that you have some religious conviction that's superior to anyone else," he explained.

Mr Blair's former press secretary Alastair Campbell famously said "we don't do God" during Mr Blair's time at No 10.

But since leaving office in 2007 Mr Blair has converted to Catholicism, set up the Tony Blair Faith Foundation and talked widely about his religious convictions.

On the eve of the invasion of Iraq he had been asked whether the Christian faith he shared with then US president George Bush made the conflict easier to view in terms of good and evil.

"I don't think so, no," he replied. "I think that whether you're a Christian or you're not a Christian you can try perceive what is good and what is, is evil."

In the Radio 3 Belief interview, Mr Blair elaborated: "I certainly don't believe that there is a Christian conviction that is superior one way or another on what the right thing to do is."

Source

[Muezzin]

"I think these decisions are the most difficult you ever take, and you cannot and should not take them incidentally because you believe that you have some religious conviction that's superior to anyone else," he explained.

I wish the interviewer had mentioned Mr Bush's 'mission from God' reasoning at this point...

[burdenofbeing]

I don't think the christianity of blair or UK has too much to do with their actions in ME. It's more of a pragmatist approach. Also "Islamic extremists" are as much "threat" to atheist/seculars as they are to christians.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you brother Osman;

Mr Blair's former press secretary Alastair Campbell famously said "we don't do God" during Mr Blair's time at No 10.

I wonder how Mr. Blair would have acted if he had put God first, when deciding about Iraq?

But since leaving office in 2007 Mr Blair has converted to Catholicism, set up the Tony Blair Faith Foundation and talked widely about his religious convictions.

I wonder why Mr. Blair felt he could not be a Catholic and a prime minister at the same time. Although I am grateful he was not a Catholic at the time of the invasion.

In the spirit of searching for God in troubled times

Eric

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Dawud_uk]

i cannot believe blair is this stupid, so either he is a liar or he is deluded or both.

simply put, iraq isnt the only reason for jihad and before it is mentioned history didnt begin on 9/11.

islam has been under attack for a lot longer than this, afghanistan before iraq where the islamic state that was forming was destroyed by the west.

fundementally we wont to be left alone to sort out our own apostate rulers and our own nations, without the west propping up these corrupt kings and presidents and putting in troops whenever they dont like another ruler.

when the west leaves the islamic lands alone and stops their wars and meddling then the terrorism will stop. until they do that there will always be some who will attack the west.

[wth1257]

i cannot believe blair is this stupid.

oh you of little faith



:D

[Dawud_uk]

oh you of little faith



:D

a friend once said something to me which struck me as a true,

he said blair was more like abu sufyan than abu jahil or abu lahab.

if you research the character and lives of these three men you'll see what i mean.

[Uthman]

Greetings Eric H,

I wonder how Mr. Blair would have acted if he had put God first, when deciding about Iraq?

I wonder why Mr. Blair felt he could not be a Catholic and a prime minister at the same time. Although I am grateful he was not a Catholic at the time of the invasion.

The following article might be an interesting one for you to read:

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion...lion-faith-god

Peace

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Mr. Osman; thanks for the link.

I set up the Tony Blair Faith Foundation with the aim of promoting greater respect and understanding between the major religions, to make the case for religion as a force for good, and to show this in action by encouraging interfaith initiatives to tackle global poverty and conflict.

Taken from your link.

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion...lion-faith-god

These are all noble qualities that even atheist can recognise, sadly they did not seem too visible when he was PM; he seemed to have strange ideas on tackling conflict.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

[Keltoi]

I agree with Blair in large part. The terrorism that we see in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc, is a product of an ideology. That ideology has been in place for many, many years. I'm sure that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been helpful for these terrorist groups in recruiting new followers, as its good propoganda, but this ideology would exist in the absence of any American or British intervention in the ME.

[burdenofbeing]

I agree with Blair in large part. The terrorism that we see in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc, is a product of an ideology. That ideology has been in place for many, many years. I'm sure that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been helpful for these terrorist groups in recruiting new followers, as its good propoganda, but this ideology would exist in the absence of any American or British intervention in the ME.

that's pretty ignorant of you. would you mind explaining that ideology you claim to breed terrorism? I hope it's not the belief that one should defened his life and country against threats.

[Keltoi]

that's pretty ignorant of you. would you mind explaining that ideology you claim to breed terrorism? I hope it's not the belief that one should defened his life and country against threats.

It would be ignorant to pretend there isn't an extremist brand of Islam out there that will resort to any atrocity to further its political and religious goals. That is the ideology that I'm referring to.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

There is no other "brand" of Islam as u speak. There is only one Islam. Just cuz ppl cant seem to follow it, doesn't mean there's automatically another version. This claim is faulty.

I'm expecting you to disagree, but I wouldn't be surprised. I still hold to what I said.

[Keltoi]

There is no other "brand" of Islam as u speak. There is only one Islam. Just cuz ppl cant seem to follow it, doesn't mean there's automatically another version. This claim is faulty.

I'm expecting you to disagree, but I wouldn't be surprised. I still hold to what I said.

It seems to be a matter of semantics to me. You say you follow Islam, "there is only one"...but others can't seem to follow it. So what are these others doing? I would assume they believe if you aren't following what they are following you aren't following the correct path. I refer to it as a differing "brand" of Islam...or perhaps a different ideology, and you claim they just aren't following Islam. It seems we are saying the same thing when you get to the point.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I never said I'm following it right or cuz they arent following what im following, they are wrong. Not at all. But if Muslims do things that are obvious according to the Qur'an and Sunnah, whats plain to see thats it's wrong, then its wrong, not that there's a different version of Islam.

[Keltoi]

I never said I'm following it right or cuz they arent following what im following, they are wrong. Not at all. But if Muslims do things that are obvious according to the Qur'an and Sunnah, whats plain to see thats it's wrong, then its wrong, not that there's a different version of Islam.

Do you believe strapping on a bomb and blowing up women and children in a market is part of Islam? If not, I would assume you believe those that do are not representing Islam. The problem is that to them, and those that follow or lead them, they do believe they are following the Qu'ran. Either these are two different understandings of what is in the Qu'ran, or these are two different belief systems.

[alcurad]

keltoi, I see you studiously avoid mentioning Iraq, what started terrorism there?
as for Pakistan/Afghanistan, the soviet invasion and consequent events are the reason why those places lack proper government, a perfect environment for all sorts of criminals.
many if not most despots ruling muslim countries are supported openly by the US especially, with all that implies.
the 'evil' brand is to a great extent the West's doing at this time.

[Uthman]

Have Muslim terrorists ever attempted to justify their actions with Islamic evidences?

[alcurad]

^yes, it doesn't really stand to scrutiny, but the gullible are many.

[Dawud_uk]

Have Muslim terrorists ever attempted to justify their actions with Islamic evidences?

there evidences are actually quite strong, i dont feel it convinces me 100% in all cases but there are many evidences for defensive jihad being valid today, the difference is not everyone agrees with this being carried out here in the west.

[Fishman]

:sl:
I doubt Blair and Bush's actions were responsible for all terrorism, but it is definitely true that they have significantly dented the Muslim world's opinion of the west, spurring more people to commit acts of terror.
:w:

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Then call it as such, not two brands of Islam. There's a DIFFERENCE in saying 2 different understandings or belief systems. When you choose to say "two different brands of Islam" then we have a problem sir.

[Keltoi]

Then call it as such, not two brands of Islam. There's a DIFFERENCE in saying 2 different understandings or belief systems. When you choose to say "two different brands of Islam" then we have a problem sir.

Again, I think you are stuck on semantics. I understand that you believe there is only one Islam. That is a theological argument. I'm speaking politically. There are many self-proclaimed Muslims that justify their acts of terrorism on religious grounds. That has been going on for a long time before the Iraq War or the War in Afghanistan.

[Uthman]

there evidences are actually quite strong, i dont feel it convinces me 100% in all cases but there are many evidences for defensive jihad being valid today, the difference is not everyone agrees with this being carried out here in the west.

Okay. I just thought that they may not have been doing these acts for religious reasons, but if they are, as you say, using Islamic evidences then clearly that is not the case.

[VizierX]

Does anybody actually listen to Bliar anymore?

[Dawud_uk]

Okay. I just thought that they may not have been doing these acts for religious reasons, but if they are, as you say, using Islamic evidences then clearly that is not the case.

there are many people doing terrorism for non islamic reasons, but some are doing it for perfectly good islamic reasons.

even when we get non muslims asking us to condemn someone like sheikh osama i wont condemn him when on the stall, but instead say i dont agree with all of his actions but do agree with his motivation which is to please Allah and defend the muslims.

there are also many people labelled terrorists who are not.

[Uthman]

:sl:

there are many people doing terrorism for non islamic reasons, but some are doing it for perfectly good islamic reasons.

even when we get non muslims asking us to condemn someone like sheikh osama i wont condemn him when on the stall, but instead say i dont agree with all of his actions but do agree with his motivation which is to please Allah and defend the muslims.

there are also many people labelled terrorists who are not.

I see. I'm intrigued to know what their evidences are? I think you mentioned it in another thread but I forget. I just want to get the facts straight from Islam.

Also, do you think it's acceptable to refer to them as terrorists if and when their actions are unislamic? Or do you think we should refer to them as Mujahideen nonetheless because of their intentions?

:w:

[aamirsaab]

Does anybody actually listen to Bliar anymore?

Nope.

[Dawud_uk]

:sl:



I see. I'm intrigued to know what their evidences are? I think you mentioned it in another thread but I forget. I just want to get the facts straight from Islam.

Also, do you think it's acceptable to refer to them as terrorists if and when their actions are unislamic? Or do you think we should refer to them as Mujahideen nonetheless because of their intentions?

:w:

it breaks the rules of the forum i believe to mention, but you could start where all of ahlus sunnah agree on jihad and its obligations and one of the best modern books on this is 'defence of the muslim lands' by sheikh abdullah azzam (may Allah swt accept his martyrdom)

[YusufNoor]

Do you believe strapping on a bomb and blowing up women and children in a market is part of Islam?

me, no

If not, I would assume you believe those that do are not representing Islam.

in my view, you are correct

The problem is that to them, and those that follow or lead them, they do believe they are following the Qu'ran.

that IS correct!

Either these are two different understandings of what is in the Qu'ran, or these are two different belief systems.

that is just plain silly

:sl:

let's follow your reasoning abit here. Catholics say the ONLY Catholics are Christians, Protestants not only don't say that, they confirm that Catholics ARE Christians, despite their obvious idol worship amongst other things. so how can the person DECLARING that you are a kafr, be correct? THAT would be, imho, "two different belief systems"

regarding your question:
a 1st World Major world power US, or it's nephew living under it' protection [Israel], attacks invades a country with the best weapons available, tanks, jets, warships, etc. they attack/ invade a country that has NONE of those armaments. how do you propose they protect/defend themselves?

if you are proposing a FAIR fight, which i assume you mean would be one without suicide bombers, then why doesn't the US or Israel give their opponents an equal number of the armaments that they intend to use and ask to follow a code of ethics during the attack/invasion?

sounds silly, eh?

but YOU are saying that it is OK to attack a 3rd world country, but in order for it to be fair,the 3rd world country must not use 3rd world tactics to defend themselves?

so PLEASE, enlighten me on how you would propose that they DO defend themselves!

as for MY position, i am NOT the one being attacked or invaded. so who gives a crap what i think! ISLAMS position is that they MUST defend themselves! we CAN differ on how to go about it! and if their position is that they have NO OTHER CHOICE, not forgetting they are REQUIRED to defend themselves, how can i say that they are wrong. even if i disagree that is is the best or even correct way. if THEY are using Qur'an and Sunnah to arrive at their conclusion, then even if they are wrong, they are right! and Allahu Alum!

:w:

[Keltoi]

:sl:

let's follow your reasoning abit here. Catholics say the ONLY Catholics are Christians, Protestants not only don't say that, they confirm that Catholics ARE Christians, despite their obvious idol worship amongst other things. so how can the person DECLARING that you are a kafr, be correct? THAT would be, imho, "two different belief systems"

I didn't make any judgement about who was correct, that is beside the point. I believe it to be fairly obvious that there are different interpretations of what is allowed or justified on Islamic grounds. You can call it a difference of opinion...which amounts to the same thing as two different systems of belief.

regarding your question:
a 1st World Major world power US, or it's nephew living under it' protection [Israel], attacks invades a country with the best weapons available, tanks, jets, warships, etc. they attack/ invade a country that has NONE of those armaments. how do you propose they protect/defend themselves?

They could start by actually targeting soldiers.

if you are proposing a FAIR fight, which i assume you mean would be one without suicide bombers, then why doesn't the US or Israel give their opponents an equal number of the armaments that they intend to use and ask to follow a code of ethics during the attack/invasion?

A fair fight? No military in the world is concerned with a "fair" fight. This isn't even about military confrontations. The vast majority of terrorist activity targets civilians.

but YOU are saying that it is OK to attack a 3rd world country, but in order for it to be fair,the 3rd world country must not use 3rd world tactics to defend themselves?

Again, you are claiming the terrorist activity in question is in the context of the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. That isn't the issue here. Yes, suicide attacks in marketplaces and the like occur frequently in these areas...but they aren't directed at Coalition forces, so I don't see your point at all.

so PLEASE, enlighten me on how you would propose that they DO defend themselves!

Again, they could start by actually defending themselves against an armed enemy. Are women and children, police cadets, and funeral observers such a threat to these valiant warriors?

as for MY position, i am NOT the one being attacked or invaded. so who gives a crap what i think! ISLAMS position is that they MUST defend themselves! we CAN differ on how to go about it! and if their position is that they have NO OTHER CHOICE, not forgetting they are REQUIRED to defend themselves, how can i say that they are wrong. even if i disagree that is is the best or even correct way. if THEY are using Qur'an and Sunnah to arrive at their conclusion, then even if they are wrong, they are right! and Allahu Alum!
:w:

Again, if the Qu'ran states in order to defend a country or the religion you must commit suicide to kill civilians as an act of defense....yeah, I don't think that is what the Qu'ran states. By defending such behavior because they claim that it does...that doesn't make alot of sense.

[YusufNoor]

I agree with Blair in large part. The terrorism that we see in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc, is a product of an ideology. That ideology has been in place for many, many years. I'm sure that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been helpful for these terrorist groups in recruiting new followers, as its good propoganda, but this ideology would exist in the absence of any American or British intervention in the ME.

Peace Keltoi,

i was reading back just to see if you last comment

Again, you are claiming the terrorist activity in question is in the context of the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. That isn't the issue here. Yes, suicide attacks in marketplaces and the like occur frequently in these areas...but they aren't directed at Coalition forces, so I don't see your point at all.

was consistent with the thread. i don't believe that to be true, so i'll continue. lets look at:

The terrorism that we see in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc, is a product of an ideology

with regards to Iraq, how many babies died as a result of the Embargo against Iraq? and during this exact time [pre-invasion], how many suicide bombers were there in Iraq?

i know for the 1st part of the question, the answer varies from 300,000 to 500,000. can you answer the 2nd part?

as for:

I'm sure that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been helpful for these terrorist groups in recruiting new followers

there may be some anti Anglo groups whose numbers have grown SINCE THEIR COUNTRIES WERE INVADED! is that really illogical?

this ideology would exist in the absence of any American or British intervention in the ME

are you talking about in the absence of Colonialism and/or the dismantling of the Kaliphate? or the setting up of puppet governments and/or giving land to European Jews to star a new country? are you talking about the toppling of Mossadeq with the assistance of the CIA? are you talking about arming Saddam Hussien with WMDs so he would kill as many Iranians as possible? which of those atrocities should the Muslims in the ME be grateful for?

I didn't make any judgement about who was correct, that is beside the point. I believe it to be fairly obvious that there are different interpretations of what is allowed or justified on Islamic grounds. You can call it a difference of opinion...which amounts to the same thing as two different systems of belief.

how so? you enter a region, rape, pillage and plunder. SOME people think that they should be able to misbehave IN THE SAME MANNER as those who raped, pillaged and plundered them. i might disagree with them, but i also disagree with the ORIGINAL SINS of the ORIGINAL INTERFERERs! [so to speak]

is an American citizen who believes Bush was apiece of shyte who had no right to invade Iraq, less of a citizen who Bush was apiece of shyte who had a right to invade Iraq? and do they BOTH lose their citizenship because some fools actually believe that Bush was a good president?

They could start by actually targeting soldiers.

of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, how many were killed by "suicide bombers" and how many were killed and being killed by US/Allied Artillery and /or Aircraft/unmanned drones?

Again, they could start by actually defending themselves against an armed enemy. Are women and children, police cadets, and funeral observers such a threat to these valiant warriors?

IF you INVADE a country that only has the weapons that you gave them, how exactly are they supposed to "defend themselves" against a Force armed with "the best weapons available, tanks, jets, warships?"

and again, how many "women and children, police cadets, and funeral observers" did these "valiant warriors" kill BEFORE their country was invaded?

Again, if the Qu'ran states in order to defend a country or the religion you must commit suicide to kill civilians as an act of defense....yeah, I don't think that is what the Qu'ran states. By defending such behavior because they claim that it does...that doesn't make alot of sense.

if it actually said it, it would be black and white. no one is saying that it does say it! i am simply stating that they have the obligation to defend their land against invaders! think of like the minute men hiding behind trees while the redcoats marched in open formation down the street. the Americans in the evolutionary War DID NOT follow the same tactics as their British counterparts. it was economics that forced this, just as it is economics that leads some to utilize tactics that may appear brutal to others. i'm sure many were a little perturbed at Kutuzov's scorched earth policy in 1812. and how about the Gulf of Tonkin lie that caused OVER 3,000,000 million deaths?

why is that you think you can declare total war on a poor country and then be upset at any desperate measures taken to deter the enemy?

bit silly, isn't it?

:w:

[burdenofbeing]

Even if there were many gruesome disgusting barbarians that bore the name muslim, it wouldn't be a reason enough to say islamic ideology breeds terrorism. one needs to bring the proof from the ideology, not the followers. only thing islamic ideology breeds in this regard is patriotism (free of nation and race) and resolve to defend themselves, and their rights.

[Keltoi]

Peace Keltoi,

with regards to Iraq, how many babies died as a result of the Embargo against Iraq? and during this exact time [pre-invasion], how many suicide bombers were there in Iraq?

Saddam Hussein would destroy an entire village to rid himself of any percieved threat to his regime. When that regime fell the country was open to anything.

there may be some anti Anglo groups whose numbers have grown SINCE THEIR COUNTRIES WERE INVADED! is that really illogical?

No, it isn't illogical. The issue is that these groups existed prior to the invasion. There were various groups involved in the insurgency. The insurgents involved with the IED attacks for so long were either remnants of the old regime or simply Iraqi resistance groups involved with fighting the occupation. The other major group, which was responsible for the majority of suicide attacks on civilians, was an Al-Qaeda offshoot led by Zarqawi. The Sunni insurgents actually turned on Al-Qaeda and either killed or threw them out of the country. In fact, the Sunni insurgents started tipping the Coalition on where these terrorists were hiding.

are you talking about in the absence of Colonialism and/or the dismantling of the Kaliphate? or the setting up of puppet governments and/or giving land to European Jews to star a new country? are you talking about the toppling of Mossadeq with the assistance of the CIA? are you talking about arming Saddam Hussien with WMDs so he would kill as many Iranians as possible? which of those atrocities should the Muslims in the ME be grateful for?

As I said, the terrorist groups that Blair referred to are the product of an ideology. That ideology has been around for a long, long time. Yes, American and British intervention has usually been counter-productive, and it has not helped to curb the influence of these terrorist ideologies. Nobody would dispute that. The issue is whether the Iraq War or Afghanistan is responsible for it. I agree with Blair that it isn't.

how so? you enter a region, rape, pillage and plunder. SOME people think that they should be able to misbehave IN THE SAME MANNER as those who raped, pillaged and plundered them. i might disagree with them, but i also disagree with the ORIGINAL SINS of the ORIGINAL INTERFERERs! [so to speak]

That might make sense, if raping, pillaging, and plundering wasn't already a major pasttime for these groups before any invasion of Iraq. I might accept that explanation for the moral chaos that existed after the Saddam regime fell, but the organized groups that existed prior to the invasion didn't have a problem with "raping, pillaging, and plundering" all over Afghanistan before the events of 9-11 or the invasion of Iraq.

is an American citizen who believes Bush was apiece of shyte who had no right to invade Iraq, less of a citizen who Bush was apiece of shyte who had a right to invade Iraq? and do they BOTH lose their citizenship because some fools actually believe that Bush was a good president?

Not sure what your point is here

of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, how many were killed by "suicide bombers" and how many were killed and being killed by US/Allied Artillery and /or Aircraft/unmanned drones?

Hard to say. During the middle of the Iraq War there were almost daily major suicide attacks on civilians that usually left at least 20 people dead. There is also another major issue on this topic, which is who was targeting civilians intentionally as a strategy. Clue: It wasn't the Coalition.

IF you INVADE a country that only has the weapons that you gave them, how exactly are they supposed to "defend themselves" against a Force armed with "the best weapons available, tanks, jets, warships?"

and again, how many "women and children, police cadets, and funeral observers" did these "valiant warriors" kill BEFORE their country was invaded?

So...because they don't have M4 rifles and air support their only option is to blow up women and children, ambush police cadets, and bomb funerals? Not sure I buy that.

if it actually said it, it would be black and white. no one is saying that it does say it! i am simply stating that they have the obligation to defend their land against invaders! think of like the minute men hiding behind trees while the redcoats marched in open formation down the street. the Americans in the evolutionary War DID NOT follow the same tactics as their British counterparts. it was economics that forced this, just as it is economics that leads some to utilize tactics that may appear brutal to others. i'm sure many were a little perturbed at Kutuzov's scorched earth policy in 1812. and how about the Gulf of Tonkin lie that caused OVER 3,000,000 million deaths?

why is that you think you can declare total war on a poor country and then be upset at any desperate measures taken to deter the enemy?

bit silly, isn't it?

:w:

The Continental Army did not target British civilians. They did not kill women and children as a tactic of war. They did not send people with explosives tied to themselves to commit suicide attacks on the Boston seaport. They used guerilla warfare, yes, because they did not have the training or numbers to engage in the civilized Napoleonic stand and fire method.

Again, when one is talking about groups such as Al-Qaeda, they are not the result of some resistance to an occupation. They are a terrorist group and they take pride in it.

[alcurad]

al qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before the Anglo-American invasion, the West as a whole was not responsible for creating terrorists, but the Anglo-American interventions continue to be so.
as for Afghanistan, who was it that armed and supported the 'terrorists' as long as they were useful?
but many Arab regimes also bear the sin, terrorism was many an intelligence agency's favored method of deterring opposition, they were responsible for many of 'terrorist' attacks in Algiers, Morocco and Egypt to a lesser extent-not to mention Syria as well as Iran nowadyas-.
it still remains that the terrorist ideology was bred by the West/it's allies, to their own ends, and now that there is blow back, they are condemning and taking action, typical hypocrisy.

[Keltoi]

al qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before the Anglo-American invasion, the West as a whole was not responsible for creating terrorists, but the Anglo-American interventions continue to be so.
as for Afghanistan, who was it that armed and supported the 'terrorists' as long as they were useful?
but many Arab regimes also bear the sin, terrorism was many an intelligence agency's favored method of deterring opposition, they were responsible for many of 'terrorist' attacks in Algiers, Morocco and Egypt to a lesser extent-not to mention Syria as well as Iran nowadyas-.
it still remains that the terrorist ideology was bred by the West/it's allies, to their own ends, and now that there is blow back, they are condemning and taking action, typical hypocrisy.

"alqaeda in Iraq didn't exist before the Anglo-American invasion" is a red herring. The name didn't exist. The people that make up the name, including Zarqawi, were involved in Afghanistan.

As for "arming" terrorists, the covert CIA activity in Afghanistan against the Soviets was about arming any resistance to the communists. That did include elements that eventually became the Taliban...although it was primarily a Pakistani led movement, but also the Northern Alliance. What the U.S. failed to do was help build the infrastructure of Afghanistan after the war had ended. As usual, the U.S. simply left the scene. That left the door open for any group to come and take advantage of the power vaccum.

[Zafran]

Salaam

There realy is no denying that the US and western intervention is partailly to blame for terrorism especially in the Afghanistan and Iraq - arming Bin Laden and his crew wasnt a great idea as it came back horrifically.

Robert Fisk has some good stuff on that.

It was also a mistake in invading Iraq - we still dont realy know why they actaully went in there??? - first it was WMD then it was taking out a dictator now ist a coloanial enterprise to bring democracy to the people - typical lies realy after another one to cover there tracks.

Noam Chomsky is a good person to read about on america and supporting terrorism or shall i say "state terrorism".

About there being a fanaitc wing in Islam - well america supports one fully - the saudi govenrmnet - which is preety fundemental.

Yes it could also be argued that the western support of tyrant leaders may have led to these groups being created. The demands of Bin Landen and his Psycho crew are political.

so if the terrorist "ideology" did exist before the invasions - it was thanks the US and the west playing games in the mid east and backing tyrant leaders/regimes just so they can get what they wanted. Ultimatley it came back at there door step and as usual its the innocent people that have to pay the price.

lets not forget about the democracy in Iran and the shah (the "policeman").

[nocturnal]

Keltoi, this so called militant ideology that apparently poses an existential threat to civilization as we know it is a misnomer. It is inconceiveable to think that there would be no American/British interference in the ME's affairs, as that is an inevitability. These are societies based on capitalist doctrines, and the ME with its vast energy resources will always be the top strategic objective for these nations, and they will expend every effort to bring these regions under their direct or indirect control by installing proxy client regimes. This is a matter of historical fact and can also be inferred through common sense.

With regards to this ideology that you talk about, there is no single unified Islamist militant ideology. Yes, i accept, that there are extremely zealous elements who harbour intense visceral hatred for anything western and are seeking to destroy it. But by and large, we in the Muslim world share one thing with these extreme groups, we want to emancipate ourselves from this yoke of foreign tyranny and oppression. Where we differ is that we want genuinely progressive leadership, independent of interference, striving to serve the interests of its people and not its sponsors in the US and EU, conversely, organisations like Al Qa'ida have a radically different paradigm of what society should be like, and this would no doubt be based on unbridled militarism. Their popularity is only aggrandized by the US and misguided people like yourself who support the very same policies of confrontation rather than engagement.

Keep in mind that these fanatics that you like to concur with Blair about are no more zealous in their beliefs than the murderous, Zionist leadership.

[alcurad]

"alqaeda in Iraq didn't exist before the Anglo-American invasion" is a red herring. The name didn't exist. The people that make up the name, including Zarqawi, were involved in Afghanistan...

As for "arming" terrorists ... was primarily a Pakistani led movement, but also the Northern Alliance. What the U.S. failed to do was help build the infrastructure...the war had ended. As usual, the U.S. simply left ...

no it isn't, those people wouldn't have gone on bombing and killing if not for the invasion and subsequent 'handling' of the country.

Afghanistan was deliberately left after ensuring a civil war between the 'mujahedeen', Zia being assassinated at that time is a clear indicator of the US's intentions for Afghanistan. but this is off topic.

anyway, going back only a few decades, the Brits have been responsible for much misery in the world through their imperial designs, their divide and conquer plays no small role to this day in shaping how their former colonies interact with each other, not to mention the behaviour of the current governments of said previous colonies still acting as colonizers themselves.

currently, their support for the WoT alongside the US is what's creating 'terrorists', there is no denying such matters, but this is besides the point, as long as they don't accept their role in making the world a much more dangerous place through their ill advised crusades, there is not going to be any real solution anytime soon.