True enough, but they were bombing embassys and flying planes into towers in the US before then.
I don't disagree that Iraq has radicalised many and contributed to terrorism in this country.
And I don't disagree that invading Iraq was a bad idea.
I just don't think the increase in terrorism was the reason it was a bad idea. Likewise I don't think a pull-out will end Britain being a target and even if it did I don't think that's a good justification to pull-out.
I also don't like being bullied by fuckers who blow up buses down the road from my office.
I also don't like being bullied by fuckers who blow up buses down the road from my office.
Which, you have to assume, cuts both ways.
When the Allied military stops going "oh look, it moves, let's bomb it", then we might see a slight reduction in the overall level of anger about Western involvement in the Middle East.
And let's not forget that something like a quarter of respondants to a US survey (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Dec04/Muslim.Poll.bpf.html) supported enforced registration of all Muslims on the grounds that they might be a threat.
It's really not suprising that some of the more hotheaded Muslims are taking matters into their own hands.
Let's not forget that Kristallnacht was an state-engineered response to an act of terrorism by a Jewish extremist.
I think that's an orthogonal question to whether it did motivate the July bombers, and Reid is trying to deflect that question, because it opens the whole question of whether participating in the invasion was a good idea, which I suspect the government would rather like to avoid.
I don't have any kind of vested interest in Khan et al's motivations being any particular thing, but I think people who claim obviously false things in the hope of avoiding difficult and important questions ought not to be allowed to get away with it.
Which is fair enough, playing games with semantics is something I dislike too, unfortunetally there aren't many sucessful politicians who don't.
The implication of the question: "Were the 7/7 bombers motivated by Iraq?" however does have some fairly obvious implications and they're not ones I'm entirely happy with. I'd like Iraq to be judged on events in Iraq and not the bombings in London.
I dislike the idea of attacking the issue from the side, it seems equally dishonest.
No, and I agree that military involvement is not the way to solve the problem alone (and I don't think invading Iraq was about terrorism at all but that's another issue...) I believe that it requires a lot more diplomancy and structural aid. Military action occasionally has its role to play but is far too counter-productive in the long term.
However I don't believe that the threat of terrorism is a reason to stay out of the problem either, the only policy which would have gaurunteed that we'd have been free of terrorism would be total non-involvement in the middle-east, which I don't think is particularly viable or morally upholdable. I suspect that even as peace-brokers we would have been targeted, certainly a lot less but sooner or later I suspect that we'd have been hit.
As for intolerance closer to home, I agree that this is a problem and I'm disapointed there isn't a much more high-profile campaign to reduce it. We're in danger of ghettoising our muslim population futher and I'd like to see that addressed much futher by politicians and the media.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 12:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 12:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 01:00 pm (UTC)I don't disagree that Iraq has radicalised many and contributed to terrorism in this country.
And I don't disagree that invading Iraq was a bad idea.
I just don't think the increase in terrorism was the reason it was a bad idea. Likewise I don't think a pull-out will end Britain being a target and even if it did I don't think that's a good justification to pull-out.
I also don't like being bullied by fuckers who blow up buses down the road from my office.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 01:29 pm (UTC)Which, you have to assume, cuts both ways.
When the Allied military stops going "oh look, it moves, let's bomb it", then we might see a slight reduction in the overall level of anger about Western involvement in the Middle East.
And let's not forget that something like a quarter of respondants to a US survey (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Dec04/Muslim.Poll.bpf.html) supported enforced registration of all Muslims on the grounds that they might be a threat.
It's really not suprising that some of the more hotheaded Muslims are taking matters into their own hands.
Let's not forget that Kristallnacht was an state-engineered response to an act of terrorism by a Jewish extremist.
I just don't think the increase in terrorism was the reason it was a bad idea
Date: 2006-05-12 01:31 pm (UTC)I think that's an orthogonal question to whether it did motivate the July bombers, and Reid is trying to deflect that question, because it opens the whole question of whether participating in the invasion was a good idea, which I suspect the government would rather like to avoid.
I don't have any kind of vested interest in Khan et al's motivations being any particular thing, but I think people who claim obviously false things in the hope of avoiding difficult and important questions ought not to be allowed to get away with it.
Re: I just don't think the increase in terrorism was the reason it was a bad idea
Date: 2006-05-12 01:48 pm (UTC)The implication of the question: "Were the 7/7 bombers motivated by Iraq?" however does have some fairly obvious implications and they're not ones I'm entirely happy with. I'd like Iraq to be judged on events in Iraq and not the bombings in London.
I dislike the idea of attacking the issue from the side, it seems equally dishonest.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 02:09 pm (UTC)However I don't believe that the threat of terrorism is a reason to stay out of the problem either, the only policy which would have gaurunteed that we'd have been free of terrorism would be total non-involvement in the middle-east, which I don't think is particularly viable or morally upholdable. I suspect that even as peace-brokers we would have been targeted, certainly a lot less but sooner or later I suspect that we'd have been hit.
As for intolerance closer to home, I agree that this is a problem and I'm disapointed there isn't a much more high-profile campaign to reduce it. We're in danger of ghettoising our muslim population futher and I'd like to see that addressed much futher by politicians and the media.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 11:02 pm (UTC)