About half the letters to the AJC today were people saying that the London bombing is Bush and Blair's fault, and we need to pull out of Iraq and negotiate, and it will all be over.
These people are morons. Apparantely they forgot about all the terrorist bombings that went on before Iraq. Starting with the slaughter of the Israeli wrestling team at the Munich Olympics, Islamic terrorists have killed and killed and killed and it has nothing to do with Iraq. Did they kill those wrestlers because of a war that wasn't going to happen for 30 years? DId they throw that wheelchair-bound American off that boat in the Mediterranean because of war that wasn't going to happen for 20 years? Did they start the Second Intifada because of a war that wasn't going to start for two years?
Karl Rove was exactly right when he compared liberal and conservative reactions to 9/11 last week, and I saw the same thing happen yesterday, though there are exceptions, of course. Liberals blamed Bush and Blair and want to appease and counsel. Conservatives want to find the people behind the bombings and make sure they can never do it again. I'll go with group two, as it's the only plan with a chance of succeeding. Some might decry such a response for continuing a death spiral, but that's certainly better than just giving up and being at the mercy of Islamic fundamentalists.
4 Comments:
If people truly think that pulling out of Iraq will stop terrorism, then I fully agree with your moron assessment. Nevertheless, Bush and Blair do share a high amount of responsibility for yesterday's attacks, since they made a conscious choice to divert valuable military resources to overthrow Saddam rather than to cut off Al-Qaida's head by hunting down Bin Laden, and working their way down. Al-Qaida is unquestionably the root cause of the most horrific and deadly of all terrorist attacks. Since Iraq had little, if anything, to do with Al-Qaida, what better opportunity for those animals to reorganize and gain strength when the most powerful military in the world is bogged down in an endless and unrelated war in Iraq, while using the same situation as propoganda to recruit more. I too, want to hunt down the perpetrators and make them pay. Unfortunately, they are not in Iraq, or at least they weren't before we invaded. Bush and Blair do share some responsibility for the London bombings as well as any terrorist attack that might be carried out by Al-Qaida in the future, not because we invaded Iraq, but because of what might have been accomplished if we had not. Everybody knows what happens when you take your eye off the ball.
To think that taking out Osama would ahve ended all fo this is nuts. What connection does he have to Hamas, for instance? They've been responsible for FAR more suicide bombings than Osama, and not all of them just in Israel. We'd be seeing the same emergence of fundamentalist elements in London if we'd taken Osama out. Would I like him out of the picture? Yes, but there was little more we could do. He wasn't in Afghanistan anymore. They think he was in Pakistan and they wouldn't let us deploy our army there to hunt him down. Are you advising that we invade yet another sovereign country? Anyway, I think you are naive to think that if we had just stuck with Afghanistan then there wouldn't have been a bombing in London. Osama declared war on the West in the 90's, and him being killed or captured wouldn't have stopped his soldiers and fellow extremists from carrying out that war. His declaration of Jihad came years before Iraq and if we hadn't invaded Iraq, he or his subordinates would still be planning more attacks. You, like many others, seem to think that all we need to do is talk to these people. Sorry, these are cold-blodded murderers who vow to kill women and children with no sadness on their way to dominating the world through Jihad. They've said so many times. Why don't you listen? You're like the Europeans with Hitler. He told them he wanted domination, but they refused to believe him. The only time they did belive him was hwen he said he would stop if they'd just give him one more thing. That didn't work, and not invading Iraq wouldn't have made a difference to anyone, except all the Iraqis that wouldn't be free. Aren't you lefties supposed to care about others? Why no compassion for all the Iraqis that would be dead but aren't because we took Saddam out of power?
I am not sure what part of my comment suggested to you that I think that "all we need to do is talk to these people". Was it the part that I wanted to cut-off the head of Al-Qaida and work my way down? And thanks for bringing up the Hitler reference, Dick Durbin. Looks like you have taken lessons from the liberal press that you constantly bitch and moan about.
Certainly, there could have been more attacks by Al-Qaida had we pursued that track rather than invading Iraq, but the chances would have been less, and at least Bush could honestly stand there and say we have done all we can against the war on terror. Saddam was a crazy brutal dictator who didn't deserve to be in power, but he was not an immediate threat the the United States. I did not envy Bush and the number of choices he had to make after 9/11, as there were many dangers looming, but in the whole order of dangers to Americans on our soil, Saddam was definitely not on top of the list. Life is all about priorities, and Bush had his out of order. I am sure the Iraqi people thank you for your concern.
The Iraqi people do thank Americans for their concern. You can see them do so almost every day on alternative media outlets. And yes, I did bring up a Hitler reference, but there's a big difference between me comapring historical situations of how to handle agressors, and Durbin calling comparing people to Hitler. Did I compare anyone to Hitler? No. Is what is happening anything like that? No, except in that there is an agressor and there are different ways of handling them. There's nothing wrong with referencing history. There's only a problem when you make ridiculous comparisons. Saying American actions are like Hitler is wrong, because they are nothing like Hitler. Saying that people want to handle an agressor the same way they unsuccessfully handled Hitler is a different and acceptable animal. If you can't understand the difference, that's not my problem.
Remember, whatever the press tells you, the connections between Saddam and Al-Qaida are clearly stated in the Kay report, and the 9/11 commission report. Since you'll probably attack me for that, there was no known connection between Saddam and 9/11, but the connections between Saddam and various terror organizations are quite clear.
As long as the Israel situation provides an excuse, Osama and his ilk will continue to attack, Iraq invasion or not. I'm not willing to throw Israel to the wolves, and would rather be killing terrorists in Iraq than in Florida.
Post a Comment
<< Home