Do I hear gloating? Sad to say, but yes, I'm pretty sure that's what I hear. The wild, wild Left is full-swing into their "I told you so agenda" before the bodies are even cold. Those Islamic terrorists are canny - hit the weak links with bloodshed and the terror will spread like a virus to the smaller nations. They already succeeded in Spain, with very little effort. They must have imagined that the Lefties in England would start running at full tilt away from the war in Iraq. They weren't wrong.
Demands for Britain's withdrawal from the "immoral" war in Iraq are mounting (here, and here), and fear is spreading among the Coalition allies.
In Britain, George Galloway surrenders and urges others to do likewise:
We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically, Londoners have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such warnings.
The Socialist Worker Party, never one to miss an opportunity to promote their agenda:
London is a centre of peace, the most multiracial city in Europe and a global centre of opposition to the war and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. A majority of those killed and wounded will have opposed the war in Iraq; some will have joined the huge marches for peace.
The British government cannot avoid its responsibility for these terrible attacks, which are a consequence of its support for war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The best way to ensure that there are no more such terrible attacks is for British troops to be withdrawn from there immediately.
You can read the drivel in its entirety here, but don't bother trying to find any mention of big, bad terrorists. There is no such thing, apparently - it's all us. And you certainly won't see one single word about finding and punishing those responsible. Not one...single...word.
In Canada, next on the list of "Crusader countries", the National Democratic Party (read: Socialist) leader Jack Layton, is worried:
I join with Prime Minister Blair, Prime Minister Martin and the other G-8 leaders in strongly condemning these acts of terrorism. We will not allow it to undermine Canadian society, our institutions or our beliefs in democracy, human rights, tolerance, and equality. Indeed, we must go forward today with greater determination to build a world that embraces these ideals.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - king kong
there is no difference between neo - con and neo nazis.
2 - mcguirk
Retaliate against who exactly and how ? The people responsible for this are an underground network not a country. When you say hit them hard do you mean finding the individuals responsible and bringing them to justice legally ? Because it sounds more from your comments like you mean starting a war against someone else ?
3 - Eric Olsen
King Kong - um, neocons and neo-Nazis would be about EXACT opposites
very find roundup HE!D!, thanks and welcome! I'm not sure who to retaliate against at this point, though.
4 - Dr. Tristan, M.D.
BUT~~~
to this instant--there is not a single shred of PROOF that any particular group or individuals committed this last bombing in London........
Most people commenting are ASSUMING that this was done by Muslim Extremists...
ANYBODY can make a post to a website and "claim responsibility" for ANY ACTION----that is FAR from PROOF that they did the action.......
For all anyone KNOWS---the IRA or any of a thousand other groups could have done the London Bombing~~~
OR ---for that matter---for all we know it could have been the Parisians upset that London won the site for the 2012 Olympics over Paris~~~!!!!!!
It's soooo easy to jump on the popular bandwagon and ASSUME that whoever we don't "like" at the time DID THIS~~~~ but that is not PROOF at all.
It's much easier to just act like a parrot and echo what you have heard ---
than to think and analyze for yourself based upon facts and evidence.
5 - SFC Ski
Realistically, it would take a lot of solid police and intelligence work within England to find out who was behind this and deal with them appropriately.
6 - Mark Saleski
correction:
i only wear red dresses, bein' a commie & all.
7 - Ed
There is a huge difference between an intelligent, hard response to an incident compared to childish outbursts and misguided anger directed at innocent parties that just perpetuates the problems.
By all means punish those responsible, but make sure that you are targeting the responsible parties, not some other poor innocent people because they follow a particular religion, or because they look different.
Thoughtless rants like these are of no help whatsoever.
8 - Dawn
Sure lefties are squawking about it being the U.S.'s fault, and of course Canadians are wimpy liberals willing to take it on the chin.
It's easy to be relaxed and have a laissez-faire attitude when you bask in the shadow of the U.S. under its vast and sweeping protection, but the small island of Great Britain knows all too well the cost of war and the price of being re-active as opposed to pro-active.
I truly feel (and have said this before) that while Iraq may not be seen as a pleasant undertaking and currently is perceived as a mistake, it is overall going to be in the best interest of the world as far as the long-term war on terrorism goes. We will need an Arab-Muslim nation as an ally to defeat the ideology of islamic fundamentalism - if we do it right, Afganistan, and of course, Iraq could be those allies.
We waited too long to come to GB's aid during WWII and look at the costs. I think the U.S. has a moral obligation to fight this battle on many fronts and we are deeply in debt to GB's allegiance and their willingness to be
warriors and targets in the long struggle of that will most certainly result in more bloodshed. They are sharing the world's burden with us, their grown-up distant child.
Rest assured, there will be additional terrorist strikes in the U.S. and abroad - and make no doubt that whether we were to back down or forge ahead in our task of defeating terrorism, terrorists will still seek to destroy our way of life.
I for one, would rather die fighting, than die wimpering in the dark like a coward.
We have much to be grateful to Britain for, they have set a fine example of courage in the face of tyranny - and I am not talking about yesterday's tragic events.
Let us not be distracted by those who fear further terror because of our confronting these savages head on - all epic struggles have naysayers and detractors. No battle of good and evil was ever won through inaction and diplomacy.
The devil cannot be reasoned with OR trusted, he can only be fought and hopefully vanquished.
9 - Shark
"RETALIATE!"
What good, meaningless, macho advice!
Call us when you figure out who, where, and how.
Otherwise, your blowhard screed is just an empty gesture -- aimed, I might add, only at your fellow Americans who happen to be to the 'left' of yer deaf-dumb-and-blind John Wayne kinda ass.
PS: Here's an "I told you so":
Invading Iraq didn't do doodley-squat to combat/control Islamic terrorists; as a matter of fact, it had the opposite effect.
10 - Big Time Patriot
Sounds to me like the Right are the ones who are gloating...
Some of them seem to believe that this latest attack means America can stop that analyzing what our policies are doing and just go back to following our "war time president".
This ain't a junior high playground.
The war on Iraq is a whole
different issue than the war on terrorism. The idea that pulling out of Iraq will encourage terrorists is complete crap.
Let's look back on another great theory that said America just HAD to continue an unpopular war. It was called, "The Domino Theory". Conservatives loved this, we could NOT leave Viet Nam because it would encourage communist rebels and all the other countries in asia would ineveitably become communist countries.
Good Macho theory, eh? No retreat, no surrender, eh? Manly stuff.
But the reality? We left Viet Nam and almost all of the other countries in Asia are NOT communists.
If you don't remember the war justifications of the past, you are doomed to follow other faulty logic in the future.
11 - Nancy
Latest theory: Karl Rove did it. He's keeping his hand in for 2008.
12 - Shark
BTP: "...Sounds to me like the Right are the ones who are gloating..."
What's ironic is that a lot of the latest BC "entries" on the London bombings take it as an opportunity to bash the dreaded "leftists" and "liberals".
-- Which tells you who these dicks thing the enemy really is.
13 - Dawn
Vietnam, while on the surface may seem like a good analogy to Iraq, but if one were to look deeper at the underlying reasons for each, you would see two completely different wars.
It's certainly true that we were not under direct attack from Iraq before we went in, but this was hardly some sleepy, backwards nation adopting a government style we didn't like.
Iraq is in the center of a part of the world that is notoriously resigned to converting by force and terror their way of life at all costs, they also had a leader known for invading other countries and stealing their valuable resources, who just so happened to hate the U.S. and at various points had access to and used banned weapons against allies of the U.S. AND its own people.
Few would disagree that Vietnam was a costly and bloody war that we gained almost zero for - but Iraq and Vietnam are not one in the same and the excuses for going to war in Iraq may have been dubious in the beginning, I do believe that the intention was the correct one.
14 - Eric Olsen
I don't have the sense that ANYONE is gloating other than the terrorists, and they shouldn't be because I think the result of this will be exactly the opposite of what they sought
15 - no milk
Ok, I'm not sure who you mean that we should retaliate against. Are you saying that these terrorists are from Iraq? If so, shouldn't our current war there have prevented this London bombing including that of Madrid? I thought we were winning the War on Terror?
Is there a specific plan that you have in mind to retaliate or do you mean just continue on with the war in Iraq? Is there another country you want to start a war against? Please be specific.
16 - DrPat
exactly the opposite of what they sought
Yes. If the terrorists (hereinafter referred to as "they" or "them") were hoping for a Spain-type reaction, they miscalculated entirely. Exactly as they micalculated the U.S. response to 9/11's attack.
And the fact that these creeps hide in the shadows and wear mufti instead of uniforms is precisely why we need to pursue all terrorists, their organizations, and the states that support them as if they are a single enemy.
They are.
And we are at war with them, not hiding in our houses waiting for "the police" to find and "charge" them with a crime.
17 - td
You know why Canadians hate american conservatives. Because you're ungrateful morons.
We didn't go into Iraq because we didn't believe it was the best way to fight terrorism and because most of our troops were already in action. Where were they? They took over command in afganistan so that American troops could be moved to Iraq.
SIDE NOTE: And while i'm at it, you can take you're 'protection' shit and stuff it. I can't stand american's who come off like Canada would be invaded immediately if we were not their neighbours. How many times has Australia been invaded in the past 50 years? Anyways, maybe you should check how many succesful campaigns America has fought without our help before commending on our military ability.
Back to Iraq....Guess what. We were right. Iraq hasn't decreased terrorist activity one bit, in fact it has been used as one giant promotional tool/training ground for Al Queda recuits that are mostly comming from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Iran and Palestine.
Stop equating being anti-Iraq with anti-war on terrorism. Do you really think that every person who disagree's with Bush's plan is willing to allow radical islamic fundamentalism to continue festering in the middle east?
I don't like it any more than you do. But terrorism will continue to exist until the rich Middle Eastern countries live under democracies for several generations. And this will not happen while America is dependant on them for Oil, because so long as this is the case you have nothing to pressure them to change with.
If their are entire countries acting as bases like Afganistan then sure, hit them. But until you spend the kind of money you spent on the Iraq implementing an alternative energy source to replace oil the middle east will continue to say that they condem these type of acts, but do nothing to stop the radical mosques that pump out extremists, and nothing to stop the flow of funding from Oil into the hands of terrorist groups.
18 - Temple Stark
Some are getting Spain confused again. The winner, Zapatero, had already said he would pull the forces out before the train bombing . And he won.
Facts are all that we have. Portraying allies - France in World War II and Spain in 2004 - as weak cowards is not a classy way to go. It seems portraying the enemy as barbaric cowards would make much more sense.
>>Iraq is in the center of a part of the world that is notoriously resigned to converting by force and terror their way of life at all costs,
I think it's fair to say they learned a lot of this from colonial powers. However, that doesn't mean "they" shouldn't have the power and the will to stop themselves and look for much better solutions.
19 - Dawn
I whole-heartedly agree with you td about the oil issue, we need to find alternate energy sources so that we don't have to pander to those who harbor and support terrorists, unfortunately that takes time to wean us off of that particular fossil fuel.
As for your assertions about Canada NOT enjoying U.S. protection, to that I say respectfully, "bullshit".
Most of the western world enjoys the freedom from defense spending and being a target of attack because of the protection the U.S. and GB offer - like it or not, that's the facts.
20 - Dave Nalle
>>A majority of those killed and wounded will have opposed the war in Iraq; some will have joined the huge marches for peace.<<
Wow, what a completely unsupportable generalization. The SWP has no idea how those people would have come down on the Iraq issue. Typical self-serving socialist spin.
I bet English public opinion is much more likely to swing pro-war as a result of this rather than anti-war. English culture - and even all those immigrants have signed on for the culture - is characterized by not liking to get pushed around.
Dave
21 - Melissa
Once more ,'terrorist attacks' come at such a convenient time for war obsessed governments.Once more they can say 'see I told you do' This is probably another inside job by the government , for the government and against the people. When are citizens going to wake up and see who the real terrorists are?
22 - Dave Nalle
Melissa - try selling crazy somewhere else.
Dave
23 - DrPat
Melissa: ...probably another inside job by the government
Yes, terrorist attacks are so convenient for all, and such a boost to the economy and the sitting government. [/sarcasm]
Citizens who are already awake are perfectly aware of who the "real" terrorists are, lady - we might not have their names and addresses yet, but "by their actions you will know them."
Go ahead, offer your opinion personally, face-to-face, to Londoners who are dealing with those "convenient" attacks. (I recommend you duck...)
24 - td
Yes, well....I guess someone has to hold the nukes.
Anyways, the basic problem I have with the Iraq plan as it relates to terrorism is that there is no realistic end game. This notion that Iraq is going to be a democratic catalyst for the rest of the region is ridiculous. Once the troops pull out Iraq is still going to be a political mess, and even if it does remain democratic, it will be far from able to lead by example in the middle east.
And as I explained in the previous post, what's the incentive for others to change? They're rich, people are satisfied with the lifestyle, so why change.
The war in Iraq will hopefully be good for Iraq. And getting rid of Saddam does increase stability in the region. However, was spending a few hundred billion on Iraq the most cost efficient way to decrease terrorism? I don't think it was.
You say that it's going to take time to wean the US of Oil. I agree, but it's also going to take money. And not all of that money needs to be spent on technologies that are not yet available. How many public transit systems could have been built or improved upon with that money. Maybe instead of China buying up American energy resources like Unical, the US could be buying up non-middle eastern foriegn resources. And certainly more money invested into hydrogen technology, tar sands refinment, etc, etc, would not have slowed down the waiting period for alternative energy.
This is where I have a problem with Bush, because he is not laying out for the average Joe how terrorism is really going to be defeated. (And don't get me wrong, the Democrats wouldn't do it either). But the war against terrorism is going to take many decades, it's going to require significant cultural and political changes across the middle east, and it's going to piss off a lot of the current states who are currently considered alies....namely Saudi Arabia.
Which is why I call Iraq a war of conveniance. You can reason that it might effect terrorism. It didn't piss off many other Middle Eastern states because Saddam was an ass to everyone. Politically it made it look as if the War on Terrorism was been fought with all the guns the US could muster. And most importantly, it was a war that could be fought with negligable sacrifice to the economy and the american people.
There are more ways to win a war then just blowing up shit. Look at the fall of communism in russia. Having a big army and nukes worked as a deterent to military conflict, but in the end it was capitalism and the power of the western economny that defeated them.
25 - Dawn
Agreed td, but the ideological difference with Russia and the fundamentalist terrorist is that Russians DO love their children, and the terrorist don't.
Sometimes you do have to "blow shit up" and I would rather blow their shit up than my own.