/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Now officially recognised; “Iraq led to London bombings”



DaSangarTalib
04-02-2006, 12:32 PM
SPY chiefs warned the British Prime Minister Tony Blair that joining the United States in its unwise decision to unjustifiably invade Iraq has made Britain more vulnerable to terror attacks “for many years to come.”


But first time it’s being officially recognized that the Iraq war motivated the four four-British-born men of Pakistani descent, accused of carrying out the brutal bombings that hit the British capital in July 2005 was by the government in a major report into the 7 July attacks, according to The Observer.

According to The four-page memo, entitled International Terrorism: Impact of Iraq), Iraq war has “exacerbated” the threat by radicalizing people provoking them carry out anti-western attacks, and inspiring the four bombers who are responsible for the July incident.

A top-secret memo released by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), the senior intelligence body in Britain responsible for issuing assessments of the extent of threats to Britain’s national security, contradicts the British Prime Minister’s public speeches, and attempts by Downing Street to play down suggestions that the conflict has made Britain a target for terrorists and that the invasion of Iraq has instigated a war against Britain.

“It has reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the West and motivated others who were not,” said the memo, approved by Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, John Scarlett, the chief of MI6, and Sir David Pepper, head of GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping centre.

“Iraq is likely to be an important motivating factor”

The Home Office inquiry into London bombings concluded that the attackers were inspired by UK foreign policy, mainly the decision to join the United Stated in attacking Iraq.

Shortly after July attacks in London, Blair blamed an “evil ideology”, not the war, for motivating the bombers:

“If it is Iraq that motivates them, why is the same ideology killing Iraqis by terror in defiance of an elected government?” the British PM said.



In a separate speech he dismissed suggestions that London bombings were inspired by Iraq war:

“What they want us to do is to turn round and say, ‘Oh it’s all our fault’.”

“The people who are responsible for terrorist attacks are terrorists.”

Also, Charles Clarke, the home secretary, following the attacks in London, accused those who said that the war lead to the bombings “serious intellectual flabbiness”.

The findings of the report, written in April last year and circulated to Blair and other senior ministers before the July attacks, will prove highly embarrassing to the British Premier, who boasted at the beginning of Iraq war that invading the country would make Britain safer.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Rabi'ya
04-02-2006, 12:39 PM
idiot!!(tony blair - not u brother)

his comments are almost as comical as Bush

:w:

Rabi'ya:rose:
Reply

Genius
04-02-2006, 12:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Rabi'ya
idiot!!(tony blair - not u brother)

his comments are almost as comical as Bush

:w:

Rabi'ya:rose:
He is not an idiot, he is actually a very clever guy.

You'd be suprised homicidal maniacs tend to be quite intelligent.
Reply

DaSangarTalib
04-02-2006, 01:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genius
He is not an idiot, he is actually a very clever guy.

You'd be suprised homicidal maniacs tend to be quite intelligent.
bro that is just your opinion; the sister is entitled to have her own opinion too, and many ppl think he is in fact a complete idiot! and not all of them are Muslims.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
Genius
04-02-2006, 01:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fight&Die4Allah
bro that is just your opinion; the sister is entitled to have her own opinion too, and many ppl think he is in fact a complete idiot! and not all of them are Muslims.
Ok if you believe if he was sincere in his intentions when he launched his genocide of the Iraqi people then yeh he is an idiot.

If you believe he deliberately lied and manipulated evidence to lauch his genocide of the Iraqi people then he is actually a very clever guy. It takes a very clever guy to fool millions in to supporting an illegal war, granted they're pretty stupid anyway.
Reply

aamirsaab
04-02-2006, 09:52 PM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by Genius
Ok if you believe if he was sincere in his intentions when he launched his genocide of the Iraqi people then yeh he is an idiot.

If you believe he deliberately lied and manipulated evidence to lauch his genocide of the Iraqi people then he is actually a very clever guy. It takes a very clever guy to fool millions in to supporting an illegal war, granted they're pretty stupid anyway.
Genius speaks the truth.
Reply

Knut Hamsun
04-03-2006, 02:56 AM
Genius:
Ok if you believe if he was sincere in his intentions when he launched his genocide of the Iraqi people then yeh he is an idiot.
evidence to lauch his genocide of the Iraqi people then he is actually a very clever guy.
Genius, Two issues:

1) Language is important. We use it to make moral distinctions, founded or not, in nearly every sentence. Please humour me and do the following:
Look up the legal definition of the momentously weighted term "genocide". Post your results from any 3 credible sources, here in this thread (please include the UN as one of such).
Following those definitions, explain how your comments(above) deserve even being debated, never mind taken seriously. Now, we both know that there are some very impressionable, young minds absorbing most of what is written here. You have a duty, for truth's sake, to not use such language as is so evidently false and even libelous. So either rationally explain yourself, or please retract your statements.

It takes a very clever guy to fool millions in to supporting an illegal war, granted they're pretty stupid anyway.
2)Please explain your LEGAL GROUNDS for calling the Iraq war "illegal". Not your opinion, as you did not state it as such. Please also cite, if available, any ongoing litigation against this so called "illegal war". Your statement is beyond irresponsibile. You are at university and have no excuse for such blatant lying and abuse of our common language. Thank-you.
Reply

akulion
04-03-2006, 03:00 AM
The Iraqi war is illegal because it was not backed by the UN firstly

Secondly there was no justifiable grounds to attack a sovereign nation which was threatning USA

Thirdly the US govt lied to the world

Furthermore in Iraq the very Iraqi people who are supposed to be getting liberated are now termed "insurgents" and "terrorists" why?

Because they stand up for their rights.

This war is not for freedom - it is supression and indeed a genocide of the people there to get rid of people who want Islam and only leave people who are willing to kiss the american and british shoes in place.
Reply

knuckles
04-03-2006, 03:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by akulion
The Iraqi war is illegal because it was not backed by the UN firstly

Secondly there was no justifiable grounds to attack a sovereign nation which was threatning USA

Thirdly the US govt lied to the world

Furthermore in Iraq the very Iraqi people who are supposed to be getting liberated are now termed "insurgents" and "terrorists" why?

Because they stand up for their rights.

This war is not for freedom - it is supression and indeed a genocide of the people there to get rid of people who want Islam and only leave people who are willing to kiss the american and british shoes in place.
It doesn't have to backed by the UN to be deemed illegal. Operations against Milosovich wasn't sanctioned by the UN yet no one called that illegal. Secondly Saddam Was not obeying the rules of the 1991 ceasefire so right there is a casus belli for attacking Iraq. Third the US govt didn't lie to the world. Even the UN deemed Iraq was not fully complying and there was doubt if Saddam had truelly destroy his WMD's.
Reply

Genius
04-03-2006, 04:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Knut Hamsun
Genius:



Genius, Two issues:

1) Language is important. We use it to make moral distinctions, founded or not, in nearly every sentence. Please humour me and do the following:
Look up the legal definition of the momentously weighted term "genocide". Post your results from any 3 credible sources, here in this thread (please include the UN as one of such).
Following those definitions, explain how your comments(above) deserve even being debated, never mind taken seriously. Now, we both know that there are some very impressionable, young minds absorbing most of what is written here. You have a duty, for truth's sake, to not use such language as is so evidently false and even libelous. So either rationally explain yourself, or please retract your statements.



2)Please explain your LEGAL GROUNDS for calling the Iraq war "illegal". Not your opinion, as you did not state it as such. Please also cite, if available, any ongoing litigation against this so called "illegal war". Your statement is beyond irresponsibile. You are at university and have no excuse for such blatant lying and abuse of our common language. Thank-you.
I'm not a lawyer here to discuss the legality of the war based on UN charters, my religion is not the UN.

It is my opinion as a member of this forum, not a lawyer or a politician; that the murder of Iraqis constitutes genocide. The war was illegal purely because it killed innocent people. Whether or not it was illegal under non muslim law is really not my concern.
Reply

imaad_udeen
04-03-2006, 05:06 PM
Since when does the motivation of a murderer lessen the evil of his crimes?

The terrorist attacks in London were just that, terrorist attack, whether the excuse if Camp Delta, Iraq, Afghanistan or those Danish cartoons.

These men planned it and then they went out and murdered innocent people.

End of story.
Reply

Skillganon
04-03-2006, 09:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Since when does the motivation of a murderer lessen the evil of his crimes?

The terrorist attacks in London were just that, terrorist attack, whether the excuse if Camp Delta, Iraq, Afghanistan or those Danish cartoons.

These men planned it and then they went out and murdered innocent people.

End of story.
Let's play my fav game, word swap.

"Since when does the motivation of a murderer lessen the evil of his crimes?

The terrorist attacks in IRAQ by america were just that, terrorist attack, whether the excuse if 9/11 (this being a controversial issue) or London Bombing.

America planned it and then, with the help of some western goverment, they went out and murdered innocent people.

End of story"
Reply

Wahid
04-04-2006, 03:18 AM
^haha good one bro,
Reply

Knut Hamsun
04-04-2006, 05:41 AM
Jenius:
I'm not a lawyer here to discuss the legality of the war based on UN charters, my religion is not the UN.
If you can't back up what you say, don't say it. Your unwillingness to argue this, above, contentious issue shows your very shallow understanding of geopolitics. And I didn't ask you to "discuss based on UN charters". Read it again. My problem is with your reckless use of the term "genocide". In no way does it apply to the war in Iraq. IN NO WAY. I am disgusted that you would bring that word into this debate.

It is my opinion as a member of this forum, not a lawyer or a politician; that the murder of Iraqis constitutes genocide. The war was illegal purely because it killed innocent people. Whether or not it was illegal under non muslim law is really not my concern
.

On what grounds do you support such a ridiculous statement (the part about genocide)? You are sad.

And "non-muslim law" should concern you, seeing as you live in the west where, thankfully "non-muslim law" (do you mean islamic law? Because "muslims" are different from "the law of islam", as the tired old line goes) is THE LAW. I really expected a bit of reason from you. I was wrong.
Reply

Eric H
04-04-2006, 06:14 AM
Greetings and peace knuckles;
Even the UN deemed Iraq was not fully complying and there was doubt if Saddam had truelly destroy his WMD's
There are rumours that America and Britain have WMD.

Should Iran and Korea invade Britain and the US.

In the spirit of putting an end to unjust wars

Eric
Reply

Muslim Knight
04-04-2006, 07:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace knuckles;

There are rumours that America and Britain have WMD.
These are not rumours but known facts.
Reply

Ghazi
04-04-2006, 10:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by muslim knight
These are not rumours but known facts.
Salaam

So true, they're just don't want any compatition
Reply

HeiGou
04-04-2006, 11:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
There are rumours that America and Britain have WMD.

Should Iran and Korea invade Britain and the US.

In the spirit of putting an end to unjust wars
Well it is hard to work out just how silly this is. Let us accept that the US and Great Britain have WMD. Can we all also accept that, on the whole, they have been responsible, but not perfect, WMD owners? That is, they have not used them to any great extent since 1945.

Would it be reasonable to say that others who have had WMD have not been as responsible owners? Egypt has used them in Yemen. Iraq in Iraq and Iran. To take just two examples. Does anyone care to dispute that some other people have been worse owners of WMD?

Would it be reasonable to say that some other countries have also shown themselves to have less than perfect human rights records? Indeed I am happy to admit neither Britain or America is perfect in this respect, but that some countries are manifestly worse abusers of human rights? I point to North Korea which may have killed a fifth of its population in man-made famine since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Anyone dispute that neither North Korea not Iran are particularly good role models and give no assurance that they would not commit gross human rights abuses if they had WMD by, for instance, using them?

Is it, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the fewer people have WMDs the better and in particular the fewer bad states that have them the better? I point in particular to North Korea and Iran. That is, the more states that have them, the more likely they are to use them, the more likely they are to have accidents and so on. This applies especially to poorer technologically backward countries such as North Korea and Iran. Anyone dispute that?

So while recognising the double standards that apply here, does anyone think that it is not in the entire world's best interests to restrict nuclear weapons in particular but WMDs in general to as few states as possible, preferably those that have good track records on not using them, and especially out of the hands of human rights abusers with records of mass murder? Anyone dispute that?

So in so far as any war to restrict the spread of WMDs is by definition a war to prevent the likely use of WMDs, how can such a war be unjust? If my colleague Eric here opposes American efforts to restrict WMDs, he will bear the responsibility when those weapons spread and are inevitably used. No matter how many people have died in Iraq so far, orders of magnitude more would die if Iran and Iraq squared off with nuclear weapons. It is utterly irresponsible not to support efforts to restrict such technology and the people who do oppose such efforts will bear the responsibility when it is used on civilians.
Reply

Genius
04-04-2006, 12:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace knuckles;

There are rumours that America and Britain have WMD.

Should Iran and Korea invade Britain and the US.

In the spirit of putting an end to unjust wars

Eric
It's relieving to know not all non muslims here have come with an anti islamic agenda.
Reply

Light Of Life
04-04-2006, 03:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
So in so far as any war to restrict the spread of WMDs is by definition a war to prevent the likely use of WMDs, how can such a war be unjust?
Salam HeiGou,

Considering that, at the moment, there is no such war taking place, it is hard to work out just how silly this is. Eric was not speaking of hypothetical wars, I believe.
Reply

HeiGou
04-04-2006, 03:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Light Of Life
Considering that, at the moment, there is no such war taking place, it is hard to work out just how silly this is. Eric was not speaking of hypothetical wars, I believe.
Actually there is such a war going on - in Iraq and at the UN. There may be one in Iran soon too.
Reply

Light Of Life
04-04-2006, 03:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Actually there is such a war going on - in Iraq and at the UN. There may be one in Iran soon too.
At the UN?

As for Iraq, the prior claims of WMD are no longer a motive for the war. As of now, the war in Iraq signifies the war against terrorism. It has also evolved to become a war for spreading the vision of democracy to the Middle East.
Reply

HeiGou
04-04-2006, 03:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Light Of Life
At the UN?
Well perhaps struggle is better than war.

As for Iraq, the prior claims of WMD are no longer a motive for the war. As of now, the war in Iraq signifies the war against terrorism. It has also evolved to become a war for spreading the vision of democracy to the Middle East.
Claims that Iraq had WMD are no longer part of the motives for fighting on. But the war has neatly stopped the Iraqi WMD program and guaranteed that Saddam could not restart it once sanctions were gone. I think they have given up on that vision thing, but of course that too would have restricted the spread of WMDs.
Reply

Skillganon
04-04-2006, 04:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
So while recognising the double standards that apply here, does anyone think that it is not in the entire world's best interests to restrict nuclear weapons in particular but WMDs in general to as few states as possible, preferably those that have good track records on not using them, and especially out of the hands of human rights abusers with records of mass murder? Anyone dispute that?

So in so far as any war to restrict the spread of WMDs is by definition a war to prevent the likely use of WMDs, how can such a war be unjust? If my colleague Eric here opposes American efforts to restrict WMDs, he will bear the responsibility when those weapons spread and are inevitably used. No matter how many people have died in Iraq so far, orders of magnitude more would die if Iran and Iraq squared off with nuclear weapons. It is utterly irresponsible not to support efforts to restrict such technology and the people who do oppose such efforts will bear the responsibility when it is used on civilians.
Is one cross eyed, to miss the fact that those state, that are lobbying the restriction of WMD are the very one over the History responsible for the worse atrocities, the use of those weapon on civilian and people, and the worse abuser of human right!

America effort is not to restrict WMD, but to keep in power over the world. Is one suffering from cataract?:?

Hey, and not to mention the fact the whole war on IRAQ was over a LIE, the biggest hoax pulled over the mass population of the world.

And you are speculating over Iran and Iraq! One that in the past been spurred on notably by America, your biggest hope of democracy, or is it demonizing.

Peace!
Reply

Light Of Life
04-04-2006, 04:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Claims that Iraq had WMD are no longer part of the motives for fighting on. But the war has neatly stopped the Iraqi WMD program and guaranteed that Saddam could not restart it once sanctions were gone. I think they have given up on that vision thing, but of course that too would have restricted the spread of WMDs.
This is a genuine question and I don't mean to sound hostile. I apologise if it comes off that way, however: Do you have any credible evidence to suggest that Saddam was in possession of or developing weapons of mass destruction? I'm curious because the general consensus appears to be that, since nothing significant was found until now, he was not in possession of any WMD.
Reply

HeiGou
04-04-2006, 08:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Light Of Life
This is a genuine question and I don't mean to sound hostile. I apologise if it comes off that way, however: Do you have any credible evidence to suggest that Saddam was in possession of or developing weapons of mass destruction? I'm curious because the general consensus appears to be that, since nothing significant was found until now, he was not in possession of any WMD.
I didn't think you sounded hostile and I apologise if I gave that impression.

I think we are all agreed that he was not in possession of WMDs at the time of the invasion. But he had a history of building them and using them. He wanted other people to think he had them. No doubt had the sanctions been lifted he would have gone back to making them if not using them. No he can't. With a bit of luck any new government won't either but that is, I am afraid, a little too optimistic.
Reply

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-27-2010, 04:19 PM
  2. Replies: 49
    Last Post: 03-19-2007, 12:23 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2006, 10:50 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-10-2006, 12:25 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-04-2006, 12:00 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!