Libruls, It's YOUR fault, damnit!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

financeguy

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Dec 4, 2004
Messages
10,122
Location
Ireland
I think it's pretty clear that the libruls are to blame for today's attacks.

Libruls, face up to facts, you hate freedom!



PS Irony intended
 
Oh for fucks sake, it will begin from now on, I have no doubt that the blame will be leveled at Bush and Blair and they will be savaged for the deeds of terrorists.
 
MaxFisher said:
I was on a BBC message board and people were already blaming Bush and Blair for the attacks.

Well, one wonders whether London would have been attacked in this way if Mr Blair had not ordered his military into Iraq, ignoring the misgivings of his own military top brass and members of his own cabinet.
 
Terrorists are going to perpetrate their evil regardless, then hang their hats on whatever reason they deem fit at the given moment. Do you really think Iraq and Tony Blair have anything to do w/ this? I don't.

What purpose does it serve to blame anyone other than the people who carried out these acts?
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
What purpose does it serve to blame anyone other than the people who carried out these acts?

I said nothing of 'blame'. But in my view rational analysis, cool heads, these are what is required at this time.
 
u2bonogirl said:
well it makes you wonder why he was so eager to leave for scotland right before it happened
conspiracy!
:rolleyes:

Stop the bus. Who said anything about conspiracy?

Now I ask you: do you think that London would have been targetted if Britain was not involved in the invasion of Iraq.

Yes or no?
 
I just don't see how there can be rational analysis of such irrational human beings and comepletely senseless acts. Blaming Bush and Blair in my mind serves no rational purpose.
 
financeguy said:

Now I ask you: do you think that London would have been targetted if Britain was not involved in the invasion of Iraq.

yes, because it's a major city w/ plenty of opportunities to carry out horrible acts

And it's no coincidence that it happened during the G8 obviously- that has nothing to do w/ GB being in Iraq
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
I just don't see how there can be rational analysis of such irrational human beings and comepletely senseless acts. Blaming Bush and Blair in my mind serves no rational purpose.

I repeat again, I am not apportioning 'blame' to Bush or Blair.

However it is now abundantly clear that all who opposed the war have been, sadly, vindicated.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
yes, because it's a major city w/ plenty of opportunities to carry out horrible acts

OK, so why hasn't Paris been attacked?

Or Berlin?

Or Cologne?

Or Toronto?

Need I go on?
 
MrsSpringsteen said:


yes, because it's a major city w/ plenty of opportunities to carry out horrible acts

I completely disagree with you, Mrs. Springsteen.

Look at the cities where attacks have taken place and you will see that they are all clearly linked to the Iraq's invasion.

I am not saying that Bush and Blair are to blame. These terrorists do not deserve any pardon and should be found, judged and imprisoned until the end of times. However, both Bush and Blair knew that by supporting campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, they significantly increased the possibility of attack in their own countries.
 
you cannot seperate the issues in a meaningful manner and that makes this type of speculation pointless.

'britain was attacked by terrorists.' 'britain is in iraq.'

it is difficult for me to accept 'britain was attacked by terrorists because britain is in iraq' as being the conclusion of sound, rational analysis.
 
Last edited:
MrsSpringsteen said:
I don't agree. Terrorism doesn't vindicate anything or anyone

No, you have misread my post, either unintentionally or otherwise.

The ongoing situation in Iraq is, in and of itself, a vindication of those who opposed the war. The bombing of London may or may not be related but even before the bombing, I think it was already clear, 2 years on, that Iraq is no better off than it was under Saddam, and in some ways possibly worse.
 
financeguy said:
Or Toronto?

Need I go on?

i can only speak of the canadian experience. but real threats have existed, and in some cases thwarted, against toronto, montreal, vancouver and primarily ottawa.
 
This link that A_Wanderer supplied has the terrorists putting Afghanistan on the list of grievances as well. Marinate in that for a bit.
 
financeguy said:

However it is now abundantly clear that all who opposed the war have been, sadly, vindicated.

They have not been vindicated. They may have been proven correct in their assessment that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased the threat of terror attacks at home, but that in itself does not prove the moral invalidity of those wars. Big difference.
 
financeguy said:

No, you have misread my post, either unintentionally or otherwise.

Can you tell what my intentions are? I oppose the war in Iraq so there's no need to go there really w/ me :)

This is what you said, so it really wasn't all that clear what you meant by "it" and "sadly" I don't think it's a stretch to *think* you might have meant what happened today, it was kind of easy to interpret it that way

However it is now abundantly clear that all who opposed the war have been, sadly, vindicated

I don't know why you seem so angry and seem to be trying to start some sort of "fight" w/ me over this
 
Good post Speedracer!:up:

Simply predicting that there would be more attacks due to focused attempts by the US and UK to eradicate terror takes no real insight.

Staying the course despite setbacks and hardships takes true resolve and courage.
 
MaxFisher said:
Good post Speedracer!:up:

Simply predicting that there would be more attacks due to a focused eradication of terror takes no real insight.

Staying the course despite setbacks and hardships takes true resolve and courage.

OK, I get it.

The terror attacks on London are actually a post-hoc vindication of the invasion of Iraq. Now we need 'resolve and courage' to finish the job, so I guess we should just invade Iran or something, it's the only langauge they understand, isn't it?

To quote 1984, 'War is peace.'

'Tis a truly Orwellian world in which we live today!
 
Last edited:
Well my friend, if we want to go down that road, fine.

There were no links with Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda. Period.
The Bush administration has admitted this.
 
The Bush Administration told us that Iraq had Chemical weapons, none were found. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were
wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, none were found. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that Iraq had aerial craft capable of reaching the US, none were found. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that Iraq had missiles that could reach its neighbours, none were found. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9-11, to this day, no connection has been found. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that they didn't know how long the war in Iraq would take, but it certainly wouldn't take 2 years. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that Iraqis would greet us with open arms, not small arms. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that we were bringing democracy to Iraq. And then they closed down Baghdad's largest newpaper. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that we would go to war as a last resort. And then Bush told the weapons inspectors to get out of Iraq. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.

The Bush Administration told us that Saddam was cruel to his people. And after we invaded Iraq we needed to build 2 more prison camps in Iraq. Seems Saddam didn't have enough prisons to suit the 'liberators'. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom