Something to brighten the thread:
Regarding Al queda terrorism coming out of the middle east, then I think that this is not always the case.
The core persons carrying out the 9-11 attack were from Hamburg. (They were of middle east origin though).
Londonstan as a refuge for extremists is prolly dead now.
Islamic terrorism didn’t start on 9/11. It was simply elevated to new heights as a response to unstable leadership in the West.
The election in 2000 signaled a new strategy for the militant wings of the various groups in the Mid-East. They keenly saw the U.S. elect an administration with little respect for international law and diplomacy.
The brazen/blind-leading-the-blind mentality of the Bush machine pushed the militants and stirred up a hornets nest. The terrorists see a super-power willing and able to step on them and they are retaliating in the only way they are able. Diplomacy is dead.
It was well-known prior to 9/11 that Bush (i say Bush, but in reality i don’t think he has knowledge of most of the decisions coming out of the White House) had every intention of taking military action in the Mid-East.
If the current administration had listened to reason prior to war in Iraq, we would not be in ths mess. There was more than one resolution put forth in bi-partisan fashion in Congress prior to the start of the attacks. These resolutions would of certainly brought about a truly international effort to root out terrorism. Instead, with all due respect to the Brits, we are now fighting this thing essentially alone. The 27 Honduran and the 70 Albanian troops are not exactly going to make Osama/Saddam loyalists nervous.
Please don’t misinterpret my posts, i am not a supporter of the terrorists…i simply think that far too many people are blinded by the well-orchestrated campaign of mis-information via the Bush administration.
We will not win the war on terror if we continue down our current path.
Our enemy has nothing to lose.
I am not certain what the solution is, but i am sure the answer won’t come from the idiots in the big casa on Pennsylvania Ave.
Yeah, it started when Mohammed led his army to slaughter thousands of innocents in Medina in the 7th century.
I Googled and here is what I found at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rels/002/lectures/lecture21.html
[quote]As time passed, Muhammad became a leader in Medina. The Muslims came to be known as the Umma (the Community)…The Umma experienced increasing increasing friction with the Jewish community of Medina. Up to this time, Jews and Muslims had prayed together facing Jerusalem…The Muslims were involved in several battles with Meccans. In 627 (A.H. 5), about 10,000 Meccans marched on Medina. The Medinans mustered 3,000 – but they built a trench for defense, and were able to hold off the Meccan attack…the Medinan Jews had made a secret alliance with the superior Meccan forces. They planned a rear attack. When Muhammad found out about this plot, he had all the male Jews in Medina killed; the women and children were sold into slavery.
Muhammad became the most important power in Arabia[/quote]
Now, if the Jews in Medina had peace treaties with Mohammed (as info from other sites has led me to understand), and then made a secret alliance with Mohammed’s enemies to attack from the rear, this would appear to me to be an act of treachery, deserving of retribution. The issue is likely more complex than presented here, and the Jews there may have had valid reasons to try to undermine Mohammed, I don’t know. But (without condoning the barbaric nature of the retribution) I don’t at this point see how this was an act of terrorism per se, nor the beginnings of “Islamic” terrorism.
This is not intended to begin a long digression in the London Attack thread, but rather merely as a rebuttal to the above post. If there is interest in a real thread exploring the roots of modern terrorism, let’s continue it elsewhere, not here pls. 
All US troops stationed in the UK have been banned from entering London - something to do with the terror attacks - not sure why though (Obviously off duty because they can’t leave their bases on duty).
Anyone have any news on this? I heard it on the internet radio from a reliable source but can’t find anything in writing on the net.
[quote=“Hondu Grease”]Islamic terrorism didn’t start on 9/11. It was simply elevated to new heights as a response to unstable leadership in the West.
The election in 2000 signaled a new strategy for the militant wings of the various groups in the Mid-East. They keenly saw the U.S. elect an administration with little respect for international law and diplomacy.
The brazen/blind-leading-the-blind mentality of the Bush machine pushed the militants and stirred up a hornets nest. The terrorists see a super-power willing and able to step on them and they are retaliating in the only way they are able. Diplomacy is dead.[/quote]
So, how do you account for the first attempt to topple the WTC (in 1993) while Clinton was President?
[quote=“Dangermouse”]All US troops stationed in the UK have been banned from entering London - something to do with the terror attacks - not sure why though (Obviously off duty because they can’t leave their bases on duty).
Anyone have any news on this? I heard it on the internet radio from a reliable source but can’t find anything in writing on the net.[/quote]
Here’s a story
I’m sure it must be a temporary thing until things get sorted out.
No, I think Al Qaeda merely got better at orchestrating massive attacks.
I don
[quote=“Richardm”][quote=“Dangermouse”]All US troops stationed in the UK have been banned from entering London - something to do with the terror attacks - not sure why though (Obviously off duty because they can’t leave their bases on duty).
Anyone have any news on this? I heard it on the internet radio from a reliable source but can’t find anything in writing on the net.[/quote]
Here’s a story
I’m sure it must be a temporary thing until things get sorted out.[/quote]The Londonders have had enough to deal with lately, This can only help. My sister will be safe now, she lives within the M25.
[quote=“Dangermouse”]All US troops stationed in the UK have been banned from entering London - something to do with the terror attacks - not sure why though (Obviously off duty because they can’t leave their bases on duty).
[/quote]
Standing shoulder to shoulder… not giving in… living life normally…
Thanks for the support whichever fuckwit general it was that came up with this ridiculous over-reaction. What a slap in the face for Londoners! I am sure that there are many US service men stationed in the UK who will feel embarassed by this.
Thanks Richard.
I thought the order may have come from some sort of intelligence pending an attack specifically targeting American militatry personnell. It’s obviously a knee jerk reaction from someone.
Whether “standing shoulder to shoulder” or not, it sends the wrong message to the terrorists.
“In this difficult hour, the people of Great Britain can know the American people stand with you” - George W. Bush. Just that they’ll be standing with us from from a distance
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4673987.stm
I would feel perfectly safe going to London right now and riding on the tube.
Yeah it does seem a shame that while the British government is trying to encourage people to return to their normal lives in London, the US government issues this order.
There’s a certain hypocrisy here, when they always slag other governments who pull out of Iraq to protect their soldiers (and countries), or pay ransoms to release captives.
I know it’s not on the same scale, but I still think the principle is the same.
I sympathise with BFM and Irishtu’s view, but I suspect the order-giver is worried about an attack specifically on US troops that could also kill Brits, creating a backlash against the US.
Then again, the troops would be in mufti so that couldn’t be it.
So yeah, it seems hypocritical.
Well in the midst of the usual USA/Bush bashing, one might also consider the point made by Sandman.
Targeting off-duty, civilian clothed US troops is a quite common tactic. Happened in Germany, Panama, Philipines, Greece and a host of other nations.
Who can deny that terrorists or their collaborators are not and have not been watching the movements of these troops in preparation for this attack or planning future assaults.
If an attack on off-duty troops did occur, I imagine the outrage would flow freely about the “Lack of concern of the US Commanders in allowing US troops back into the area” and the “Obvious hypocrisy and uncaring display of arogance shown by the US in ‘provoking another attack’ by not keeping US troops on their bases.”
So its a no win situation. Better to err on the side of safety.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Well in the midst of the usual USA/Bush bashing, one might also consider the point made by Sandman.
Targeting off-duty, civilian clothed US troops is a quite common tactic. Happened in Germany, Panama, Philipines, Greece and a host of other nations.
Who can deny that terrorists or their collaborators are not and have not been watching the movements of these troops in preparation for this attack or planning future assaults.
If an attack on off-duty troops did occur, I imagine the outrage would flow freely about the “Lack of concern of the US Commanders in allowing US troops back into the area” and the “Obvious hypocrisy and uncaring display of arogance shown by the US in ‘provoking another attack’ by not keeping US troops on their bases.”
So its a no win situation. Better to err on the side of safety.[/quote]
Yeah, thanks for the moral support. Chickens. What an insult! Maybe be we should “err on the side of safety” and poll out of Iraq and leave you to it. The implication that you value the lives of Americans more than ours is more than a tad irritating. Most Brits don’t like Bush anyway and this cowardly instruction playing right into the hands of the terrorists is really going to endear us to you lot :wanker:
CNN has just reported that US forces are being brave again are allowed to go shopping “shoulder to shoulder” with their close British allies. About 5 minutes ago.
Be careful boys.
=================================================================
FYI:
A general thread on the “Reasons Behind Terrorism”, including the London bombings, has been created here:
[Reasons Behind Terrorism?
[quote=“sheepshagger”]
Yeah, thanks for the moral support. Chickens. What an insult! Maybe be we should “err on the side of safety” and poll out of Iraq and leave you to it. The implication that you value the lives of Americans more than ours is more than a tad irritating. Most Brits don’t like Bush anyway and this cowardly instruction playing right into the hands of the terrorists is really going to endear us to you lot :wanker:[/quote]
I guess it hasn’t occurred to you that many government and non-government organizations in Britain asked their employees not to go into London so as to avoid burdening the transportation system, seeing as how parts of the tube are down. I’d also be curious to see the actual order. Was it specific to London, or were troops confined to base or at least the areas around the base? Is it really so strange that in the few days following an attack on the capital of a host country, the commander of US forces in that country would want to keep his troops ready to react to any further developments? Besides, except for a couple of military attache people in the embassy, there are no USAF personnel working in London.