England: Al-Qaeda's next target?

[Last_Knight]

Yes, you can never blame W. Bush for the events. He does not show cowardice and in fact what he has done is the opposite of cowardice. It's not the fact that he attacked Iraq, it's the fact he has shown everyone that with little support he can go against the U.N and really they can't do anything about it. They can only stand back and complain.
Churchill was the greatest thing this country could of had in 1940. Tony Blair is nothing compared to Churchill. Tony is the voice of Americas cause. He is quite clearly better spoken than George W. and more convincing because of it. When it comes to action, he can't act independtly he always has to be stood slightly behind America shouting in a much more convincing and well spoken manner.
Saying 'We must attack Iraq for our own safety' as opposed to Bush Jnr. saying 'Heh Heh we should bomb those Iraqis'
I still wouldn't say Tony Blair is a socialist.

[voltaire]

Did you actually read my post?

1) Clinton repeatedly attempted to redirect funds into counter-terrorism. Often in the face of opposition from congressional GOP'ers.

2) He commissioned a detailed - and tough - plan to finish Al-Qaeda. The Bush administration had not put this into effect before 9/11.

Now, until you've adequately answered those points, no amount of "Bush is a patriot, Clinton's a coward" rheotric will stand up to scrutiny...

Ball is in your court, old boy.

V

[voltaire]

Originally posted by Ronbo

I like Blair's stand against the terrorists, however, the man is leader of the British Labour party which is socialist and whose members until recently addressed one another as "Comrade."

Yeah but that was before he turned bad

V

[Shevchenko]

Originally posted by voltaire
Did you actually read my post?

1) Clinton repeatedly attempted to redirect funds into counter-terrorism. Often in the face of opposition from congressional GOP'ers.

Probably because the US taxpayer pays enough to the military already!
Clinton, along with Blair, in 1999 gave financial and military support to the worst terrorists in Europe.
They are still carrying out genocide today.
To our liberal left, a ground war based on imaginary WMD is terrible, but a cowardly and illegal bombing campaign justified by imaginary genocides (of 10,000, or 250,000, or 60,000 or 100,000 Kosovo Albanians) seems fine.

Originally posted by voltaire
2) He commissioned a detailed - and tough - plan to finish Al-Qaeda. The Bush administration had not put this into effect before 9/11.

Now, until you've adequately answered those points, no amount of "Bush is a patriot, Clinton's a coward" rheotric will stand up to scrutiny...

Ball is in your court, old boy.

V

The 1999 NATO campaign was the most cowardly in military history. It was for the benefit of, and ordered by, Clinton.
I know a lot of child-rapists, neo-nazis, and terrorists also gained, but I would suggest their victims may not be as forgiving of Clinton's and Blair's bootlicking of terrorists as you are.
Terrorists attack those they perceive to be weak, and no-one has made the US military act in a more weak and cowardly way than Clinton.

Mind you, if anyone in the Pentagon had an ounce of courage, they would have refused his orders.

[Edited by Shevchenko on 21st March 2004 at 15:02]

[Shevchenko]

By the way, on June 27 2001, Bush issued an executive order, condemning the actions of the terrorists, restricting access to funding to the terrorist groups (including the NLA) and forbidding entry to the U.S. to some known terrorists (including most of the leaders of the NLA and KLA).

The text of it is here:
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/eotff...20010627a.html

When faced with this, the Clinton-&-terrorist-loving CNN decided to tell outright lies, and claimed "The White House did not release a list of those covered under the president's executive order and travel restrictions."
(John King, CNN Senior White House Correspondent)
It is still there:
http://europe.cnn.com/2001/US/06/27/...nia/index.html
- even though the list of Albanian terrorists is on the US Government's website.

With such mentally-retarded crap in the Western media, it comes as no surprise that Clinton's and Blair's treasonous bootlicking of terrorists is airbrushed from most people's minds.
Though it was touching of Clinton to pay a death-bed visit to the nazi war criminal and murderer Izetbegovic, before stopping off to have his arse licked by British Socialists at the Labour conference

[Marmaduke]

Shevchenko,

in you anxiety to lable anything done by Clinton as an act of appeasement to terrorists (although I do actually agree with your claims about the NATO lead bombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia) you seem equally adept at 'air brushing' history as those you seek to criticise. A close look at Bush's advisors and appointees will show an alarming number closely connected with the illegal Iran-Contra affair of the late 1980s (another Reaganite success on terrorism). We might also add that it was under Reagan that the very factions that became al Q'aeda were financed and then abandoned when Afghanistan had become Russia's Vietnam as had been intended.

Secondly, it might prove interesting to discover the true motives of the Whitehouse evacuating a number of the Saudi royal family and Bin Laden family) within days of 911 when there was a prohibition on all such flights. This included a member of the Bin Laden family who was classified as a terrorist and know to have assisted the finance of al Q'aeda. Like Bush's much delayed and obfuscated enquiry into the events leading to 911- I guess we will never discover the real reasons behind it either.

The claim that Clinton reduced the size of the US military was simple a response to the declining threat following the end of the Cold War, not an act of cowardice you present it as being. The fact that Bush seeks to increase the size and influence of the US armed forces will have negligible effect on its actual campaign on terrorism- as the increase in such attacks has shown.

I also fail to see how you have addressed any of the points Voltaire raised- other than ****ing the argument to an entirely different issue that avoids you having to answer the points he raised here. That might be becuase Bush is no better than Clinton, and his increase in military expenidture (all with 'borrowed' money in an act of fiscal irresponsibility)is little more than a populist ploy that plays to the crowd who think having a massive army (and debt to match) is going to protect them from terrorism, rather than concentrating on the less glamourous but more effective solution of intelligence and international cooperation in tracking and eliminating terrorists.

You may recall in the days after 911 the CIA were pleading for more Arab speakers to assist them in their work- as they had insufficiently qualified staff (as a result of Bush's own cutbacks on the intelligence services in favour of the army). He prefers to spend absurd amounts of money on 'Star Wars II' which would be of no use what-so-ever in preventing another terrorist attack than in adequate funding of real anti-terrorist measures (and in doing so, shifting the budget for dealing with the respose to such attacks to individual states who can ill aford it).

Bush, like Blair, seems to believe that bluster and rhetoric will succeed in the war on terrorism, rather than adequately fuding the intelligence and emergency services which are pathetically ill equiped to deal with an attack in this country.

[Shevchenko]

Originally posted by Marmaduke

Shevchenko,

in you anxiety to lable anything done by Clinton as an act of appeasement to terrorists (although I do actually agree with your claims about the NATO lead bombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia)

I pointed out that Clinton was responsible for the worst act of military cowardice in history, and that he gave financial and military support to terrorists, and as you yourself say this is accurate, your first sentence "in you anxiety to lable anything done by Clinton as an act of appeasement to terrorists" is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Marmaduke

you seem equally adept at 'air brushing' history as those you seek to criticise. A close look at Bush's advisors and appointees will show an alarming number closely connected with the illegal Iran-Contra affair of the late 1980s (another Reaganite success on terrorism). We might also add that it was under Reagan that the very factions that became al Q'aeda were financed and then abandoned when Afghanistan had become Russia's Vietnam as had been intended.

I have never claimed otherwise.
We could also add the US's humiliating retreat from Beirut after the attacks by Hizbollah, the bombing of Libya for terrorist attacks on Americans which were actually backed by the far-too-scary Syria, and running away from Somalia.
I have already mentioned, on the lefties thread, the treacherous betrayal of the Iraqi Shias in 1991 by Bush snr and Powell.

As for

Originally posted by Marmaduke
The claim that Clinton reduced the size of the US military was simple a response to the declining threat following the end of the Cold War, not an act of cowardice you present it as being.

You are mistaking me for someone else.
I presented Clinton's cowardly killing of civilians by illegal bombing as acts of cowardice, not his reduction of the military.

Originally posted by Marmaduke

I also fail to see how you have addressed any of the points Voltaire raised- other than ****ing the argument to an entirely different issue that avoids you having to answer the points he raised here.

That is because I have no problem with most of Voltaire's points because a lot of them are accurate, other than the ridiculous suggestion that Clinton had a better record at fighting terrorism than Bush, when Clinton's financial, political and military support of terrorists was extreme and inexcusable.

Bush is as incompetent at fighting terrorists as you say, but he cannot be blamed for the gutlessness and criminamity of Clinton, daddy Bush, Colin Powell, Reagan, the Pentagon and the CIA etc as he inherited all the these.
Although I think his retaining of discredited idiots from Daddy's days like Powell and Rumsfeld must be something he regrets.

Bush, when was campaigning, was an isolationist, and still would be were it not for the attacks on the US in 2001.

If only his predecessors were.

[Edited by Shevchenko on 21st March 2004 at 18:13]

[Shevchenko]

I've only just got to this bit (I'm a slow reader with a hangover):

Originally posted by Marmaduke
Shevchenko,
Bush, like Blair, seems to believe that bluster and rhetoric will succeed in the war on terrorism, rather than adequately fuding the intelligence and emergency services which are pathetically ill equiped to deal with an attack in this country.

That is spot on.

[voltaire]

Originally posted by Shevchenko
Clinton, along with Blair, in 1999 gave financial and military support to the worst terrorists in Europe.
They are still carrying out genocide today.
To our liberal left, a ground war based on imaginary WMD is terrible, but a cowardly and illegal bombing campaign justified by imaginary genocides (of 10,000, or 250,000, or 60,000 or 100,000 Kosovo Albanians) seems fine.

I suppose on this basis, I could ask you the same question that the pro-war right always ask those who opposed the Iraq war (with reference to Saddam Hussein):

"Yes there were problems with the military intervention in ex-Yugoslavia. But would you prefer Slobodan Milosevic still to be in power?"

V

[Shevchenko]

Voltaire, that point would only be valid if the bombing of women and kids removed Milosevic - it did not.

The bombing was to force Milosevic to sign the Rambouillet treaty, which contained two clauses unacceptable to Serbia (or any other sovereign nation).
1. Kosovo to have an election over its sovereignty (and for the Serbs ethically cleansed from Kosovo to have no say, obviously)
2. An occupation of Serbia by NATO troops who would be immune from arrest for any crime committed.

The treaty violated international law and its only historical precedent was the ultimatum given by the Nazis to Czechoslovakia - quite appropriate when you remember that the Kosovan Albanians joined the SS to kill Serbs in WW2.

After ten weeks of bombing NATO capitulated on both demands and went grovelling to Russia to save their faces and pressure Milosevic into allowing troops into Kosovo.

Milosevic was removed by the US spending over $100million on stealing the election to put in place their now-departed puppet Djindjic.
This could have been done without any bombing.

Whether Milosevic should have been removed is none of my business, as I'm not a Serb, but should not be for terrorist-worshipping cowards like Clinton or Blair to decide.

Though if Milosevic was that bad, why has the show-trial in the Hague been unable to find any real evidence of it?
I've been following the "trial", if anyone's interested the transcripts are here:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm
and the often brilliant discussion forum is here:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/boards/mi...chiveindex.php

[Marmaduke]

Originally posted by Shevchenko
I've only just got to this bit (I'm a slow reader with a hangover):

I know the feeling

[Ronbo]

Originally posted by Last_Knight
Yes, you can never blame W. Bush for the events. He does not show cowardice and in fact what he has done is the opposite of cowardice. It's not the fact that he attacked Iraq, it's the fact he has shown everyone that with little support he can go against the U.N and really they can't do anything about it. They can only stand back and complain.
Churchill was the greatest thing this country could of had in 1940. Tony Blair is nothing compared to Churchill. Tony is the voice of Americas cause. He is quite clearly better spoken than George W. and more convincing because of it. When it comes to action, he can't act independtly he always has to be stood slightly behind America shouting in a much more convincing and well spoken manner.
Saying 'We must attack Iraq for our own safety' as opposed to Bush Jnr. saying 'Heh Heh we should bomb those Iraqis'
I still wouldn't say Tony Blair is a socialist.

HERE! HERE!

BTW, Bush models himself on Sir Winston Churchill and has read all of his books and speeches!

[Last_Knight]

I still wouldn't say Bush is like Churchill, although he's more of a match than Blair.

[Shevchenko]

Uzbekistan was "next" target, not England.

Still, back here they've arrested some lads in possession of a suspicious amount of fertilizer, including people in my homeland of the Islamic Republic of Luton (Luton hit by huge terrorist outrage! Blast causes millions of Pounds of improvements!), so maybe England was second on the list.

I'm a bit upset about the Uzbek bombings, I've met a lot of Uzbeks, OK only through being a customer in their cafes, and I liked all of them.

[Ronbo]

Originally posted by Last_Knight
I still wouldn't say Bush is like Churchill, although he's more of a match than Blair.

What I meant to say was that Bush was much influenced by Churchill's career...But clearly Bush is not Churchill who was quite the intellectual and produced many works of high quality.