Iraq war "substantially" increased threat of terrorism for the UK

Darat

Lackey
Staff member
Darat
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
126,004
Location
South East, UK
Interesting testimony yesterday at the inquiry into the Iraqi invasion.

And this isn't just a back office civil servant, this was the former head of MI5 making the claim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10698820

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10693001

Many people have made similar assertions in the past but for it to come from her has to lend it a lot of credence.

And since the idea that was touted at the time of the invasion (by the politicians) was that the invasion would help protect the UK from terrorism it would seem that it totally and utterly failed in its objectives.
 
I don't buy it. It seems to be as complementary as Child's Play 3 causing the murder of James Bulger.

After all, considering the majority of the victims of Islamist violence are other Muslims, it would be puzzling that the murder of Muslims by the British army would lead moderate Muslims into the hands of Islamism.

If you look and listen to their inspiration, from Omar Bakri to Syed Qutb, the desire to spread Islam is superior to any feelings of revenge.

Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer were radicalised long before Iraq and even Afghanistan. Plus, remember the bugging of the fertiliser bomb plotters? They weren't talking about Iraq or Palestine, they were talking about their desire to kill all those 'slags dancing around' in the Ministry of Sound.
 
Last edited:
It's BS. The hatred of Islamists isn't rational. Deposing the murderer of a million Muslims and replacing it with free elections "radicalizes" people? Maybe they're right. Democracy in a Muslim country does make the fanatics red with rage. But they can get stuffed.
 
Darat said:
Interesting testimony yesterday at the inquiry into the Iraqi invasion.

And this isn't just a back office civil servant, this was the former head of MI5 making the claim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10698820

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10693001

Many people have made similar assertions in the past but for it to come from her has to lend it a lot of credence.

And since the idea that was touted at the time of the invasion (by the politicians) was that the invasion would help protect the UK from terrorism it would seem that it totally and utterly failed in its objectives.
Click to expand...


Yes, it's called having balls and standing up to them.

How are your laws against offending Muslims going? I wonder what Pat Condell has to say about this...
 
Undesired Walrus said:
What laws? And explain what you think we can no longer offend them with.
Click to expand...

Probably the laws he read about on a conservative forum, based on rumors excavated from Rush Limbaughs posterior.

Oh, and a general lack of knowledge of our legislative process... A proposed legislation means it will pass. Quite possibly by royal decree.
 
Darat said:
And since the idea that was touted at the time of the invasion (by the politicians) was that the invasion would help protect the UK from terrorism it would seem that it totally and utterly failed in its objectives.
Click to expand...

Well, if you get most of the crazy people to enter Iraq to wage their jihad there, they won't come to the UK, right?:p On a serious note, it would have surprised me if the Iraq war had not increased the danger of whatever sympathisers in the UK to get more than angry.
 
Beerina said:
Yes, it's called having balls and standing up to them.

How are your laws against offending Muslims going? I wonder what Pat Condell has to say about this...
Click to expand...

Berina,you seem to have some "issues" with Muslims.
 
Darat said:
Interesting testimony yesterday at the inquiry into the Iraqi invasion.

And this isn't just a back office civil servant, this was the former head of MI5 making the claim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10698820

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10693001

Many people have made similar assertions in the past but for it to come from her has to lend it a lot of credence.

And since the idea that was touted at the time of the invasion (by the politicians) was that the invasion would help protect the UK from terrorism it would seem that it totally and utterly failed in its objectives.
Click to expand...


Anyone who would turn to violent terrorism after Iraq was always going to be part of the problem. (As they obviously have no respect for democracy, human life, or a sense of loyalty to the UK).
 
Giz said:
Anyone who would turn to violent terrorism after Iraq was always going to be part of the problem. (As they obviously have no respect for democracy, human life, or a sense of loyalty to the UK).
Click to expand...

Are not those who violently invaded, occupied, terrorized and trashed a sovereign country under false pretenses also "part of the problem"?

(As they obviously have no respect for democracy, human life, or a sense of loyalty to the UK).
Click to expand...

See above.
 
JihadJane said:
Are not those who violently invaded, occupied, terrorized and trashed a sovereign country under false pretenses also "part of the problem"?
Click to expand...

The international forces didn't terrorize anyone. The Islamic and Baathist terrorists did. We fought and killed them and taught Iraqis how to fight and kill them.

False pretenses? The guy had a long history of using and seeking more WMD. He had a long history of deceiving, lying and attempting to bribe inspectors. Only a fool would consider the guy kosher on WMD.
 
I think an alternate 2010 in which Hussein would be still in power, along with his crazy sons, would have been just as much a threat to the world than the invasion allegedly fueling terrorism.
 
Virus said:
The international forces didn't terrorize anyone. The Islamic and Baathist terrorists did. We fought and killed them and taught Iraqis how to fight and kill them.
Click to expand...
I know you don't live on Planet Earth, Virus, but now you've placed yourself completely outside the galaxy.

USA and international forces (and private contractors) have engaged in terrorism. There is documentation.

No one, not even the US military pretends that the Iraqi military and police are an effective anti-terrorism force.
 
SezMe said:
I know you don't live on Planet Earth, Virus, but now you've placed yourself completely outside the galaxy.

USA and international forces (and private contractors) have engaged in terrorism. There is documentation.

No one, not even the US military pretends that the Iraqi military and police are an effective anti-terrorism force.
Click to expand...

Oh for goodness sake! When (very small numbers of) US troops have 'terrorized' they have been investigated and punished. The whole modus opperendi of the insurgents is terrorism.

Saying that some US forces have engaged in terror is the feeblest kind of moral equivalence. It's like saying that in WW2 both the Waffen SS and American forces had documented instances of mistreating prisoners, so really what's the difference, who are we to point fingers?

Pathetic.
 
Giz said:
Oh for goodness sake! When (very small numbers of) US troops have 'terrorized' they have been investigated and punished. The whole modus opperendi of the insurgents is terrorism.

Saying that some US forces have engaged in terror is the feeblest kind of moral equivalence. It's like saying that in WW2 both the Waffen SS and American forces had documented instances of mistreating prisoners, so really what's the difference, who are we to point fingers?

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

I don't remember the perpetrators of "Shock and Awe" being investigated and punished.
 
Giz said:
Oh for goodness sake! When (very small numbers of) US troops have 'terrorized' they have been investigated and punished. The whole modus opperendi of the insurgents is terrorism.

......

Pathetic.
Click to expand...
By actually reading Virus' post instead of using your imagination you will find that he claimed nobody was subject to terrorism by the international forces. Thus, citing one example refutes his claim. I engaged in no equivalency efforts whatsoever.

Pathetic.
 
SezMe said:
By actually reading Virus' post instead of using your imagination you will find that he claimed nobody was subject to terrorism by the international forces. Thus, citing one example refutes his claim. I engaged in no equivalency efforts whatsoever.

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

I think it was pretty obvious that Virus meant that terrorizing the civilian population was not a war aim of the coalition and that they took steps to prevent it and to punish it

Trying to pretend otherwise is, IMHO, to replace reasoned argument with pedantic sophistry.

Pathetic x2!
 
SezMe said:
By actually reading Virus' post instead of using your imagination you will find that he claimed nobody was subject to terrorism by the international forces. Thus, citing one example refutes his claim. I engaged in no equivalency efforts whatsoever.

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

What Giz said.

JihadJane said:
I don't remember the perpetrators of "Shock and Awe" being investigated and punished.
Click to expand...

Because Shock and Awe is a military strategy used against enemy forces not the civilian population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom