aeonblueapocalypse, yes I was assuming he was talking about Iraq. The only direct mention was about the coalition of the willing, but even now I find it hard to accept that Iraq wasn't the underlying issue. I don't know how references to appeasement, conciliation and facing Al-Qaeda head on would otherwise fit; unless a naturally doomed military only solution was being advocated. Similarly for a lack of cooperation with Islamic nations, which in my opinion is essential to a successful end. The fundamentalists don't care if we look weak because they will keep trying anyway, but the sympathisers will look at our aggression and find a need to support extremist groups.


Boaz, I wasn't expecting you to be so happy with my post, considering my general indictment of conservatism. As redneck put it elsewhere, Islam is a complete social system and hence mere statements of principle wouldn't be enough. Would you deny a similarity here with Mosaic law?

I have actually done some study relating to the sources of Muslim law, enough to know that there is a large amount of diversity among Sunnis alone, and that the number of accepted hadiths varies among the schools. In places of relatively poor hygiene and education the toilet-hand rule is rather useful, and remember it is a hadith, ie. not the word of god but a tradition of the prophet. The Koran may be all of God's direct communication, but that doesn't mean it is exhaustive. Is Islam in need of reform? Yes, is it fundamentally different from other religions before their modern changes? No.

In this atheist's view you overestimate the power of religion to affect behaviour significantly and en masse, ignoring other cultural factors and individual ideology/psychology. I think your views on the the presence of liberal minded people is rather askew, they can't all be conservatives, relatively speaking. Liberals may not be the current "agenda drivers", but things change and they would not be without influence. For all we know, drastic underlying social change is occuring, but its nature limits description & publication here in the west.

BUSH, BLAIR AND HOWARD LIED TO GET THEIR WAR IN IRAQ!

Admit it people, they LIED!

Remember the endless reports of nukes, biological and chemical weapons that could be launched in 45 minutes resulting in the "smoking gun" mushroom clouds. All lies!

Every so called "irrefutable" fact that was produced to prove that we had to invade has been subsequently ridiculed as preposterous.

When Clinton lied about receiving fellatio from an intern the American media fell over itself in its haste to support impeachment. Now Bush has been outed as misleading the world into invading a country which obviously had no WMD's and had nothing to do with 9-11 (his admission!) and this results in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, we don't hear SQUAT!

Imperial aggression and occupation of Middle Eastern countries is the underlying cause of hatred towards the Western world.

We've been Neo-conned!

As usual the left continues to cloud, and misjudge what should be such a simple issue. Useless peripheral arguments about the war in Iraq, have done more to distract attention from terrorism than the war itself.
Firstly the war in Iraq has not encouraged terrorism. Al Qaeda and associated organisations get all their encouragement from extreme, bigoted, and fundamentally flawed readings of Islamic law. They exploit their religion to justify enforcement of their own beliefs on others. The United States, U.K, and Australia by standing up to this nonsense have undoubtedly antagonised Al Qaeda but what was the other option-appeasement?
Secondly if commentators wish to start talking about the illegality of wars perhaps they should get their facts straight. Any objective public international law expert will tell you the war conducted in Afghanistan was far more dubious legally than the one in Iraq. As a person with a legal background myself I am happy to admit that the law often finds itself in a static, unreactive state in any case. What happened in Iraq and Rwanda for that matter, as well as what is happening in Darfur only prove this case in fact.
Thirdly how can anybody seriously suggest that Sadam Hussein, and terrorism were not inextricably linked!? The man sponsored suicide bombers in Palestinian Territories, was closely linked with the Sudanese radicals while Bin Laden trained there, and had Zarqawi treated for injuries in Iraq after he was injured in Afghanistan! With all the fixation about weapons of mass destruction (Iraqi Kurds can testify to their existence at some stage anyway) the left has conveniently overlooked these facts

"They exploit their religion to justify enforcement of their own beliefs on others."
And you don't think the Iraq war has made this much easier?

"Thirdly how can anybody seriously suggest that Sadam Hussein, and terrorism were not inextricably linked!?"
Inextricable: So intricate or entangled as to make escape impossible. Difficult or impossible to disentangle or untie. Unavoidable; inescapable. (From dictionary.com)

This is no minor contention, and is a standard far higher than simply support for terrorism. Your three assertions meant to provide a connection aren't enough to bolster that claim. Saddam was not alone in supporting Palestinian terrorists, or more correctly the families of suicide bombers, and that is not the same form of terrorism that threatens the West.

Perhaps you can explain exactly what you are referring to re: Sudanese radicals, because you seem to be saying that he knew some guys from Sudan when Bin Laden was there; which shows absolutely nothing.

"Zarqawi treated for injuries in Iraq after he was injured in Afghanistan!"
US intelligence now seems to have doubts about that event, and it does not show a government connection to Zarqawi.

"With all the fixation about weapons of mass destruction (Iraqi Kurds can testify to their existence at some stage anyway) the left has conveniently overlooked these facts"

It wasn't the left that made WMDs the focus of the war, and let me also point out that there is evidence that the Kurds were actually gassed by Iran, but yes we know Iraq once had WMDs. (Queue picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam.) I'm not saying that Saddam has never sought some connections with terrorists, rather that he had no real active connection or WMD risk and that hence Iraq was not a terrorist problem until the US made it one.

When someone can tell me who elected Osama Bin Laden into office, will I think he has something to say.

Until then El Qaeda deserves all the sustained attacks on its bases, manpower and resources until it influence is completely erased from the face of the earth.

Just like

The Red Brigades,
Baeder Meinhoff,
IRA,
US or African or Asian based militias,
Palestinian and Israeli supporters of butchery

and every other criminal organisation who thinks that "their way" is divine and paramount and above the voting box.

Only when a person is prepared to debate their view and accept the decision of democratic processes, do they gain the authority to act.

On a recent Lateline programme an American commentator gave the real reason for the shocking human relations now existing between Christianity and Islam. He pointed out that in many ways religion has very little to do with it. He did not mention the term “blowback” but the term itself was originated by the CIA who warned that their tactics against Middle East nations, and certain Third World countries could cause international friction in the future.

The above would not surprise anyone studying International Relations in our universities. As the US commentator pointed out, most Islamic terrorism has been carried out not by poor or destitute Muslims but by the more intellectual and priveleged. Such was proven in 9/11 as well as the recent London bombings, and of course, every one knows bin Laden is related to the most respected of Saudi-Arabian families. .

Many people desperately fed-up with news of Islamic attacks, would say either to close down the Humanities areas of our universities or put the curriculums under surveillance, as was done in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

However, this would not get to the core of the problem, but only make it worse, because former students who had learnt in the universities about “blowback” and “payback” might also need to be quietened down with a warning they could be penalised.

On the other hand, this could give certain of our more zealous leaders a kind of satisfaction that the mention of a car-boot holding a bomb far bigger than one to fit a haversack, might keep our public more patriotic and forced to respect those already in power.

As intimated by the American commentator - part of the answer could be for both America and Britain to get out of Middle East territory admitting they’d only been in there since WW1 mostly for oil and strategem. But such thoughts could be only pipe dreams, and we can now be concerned about the well-publicised US promise of a New World Order as well as the Project for the New American 21st Century (PNAC).