AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Al Qaeda blames Blair for London Attacks
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Quote:Osama Bin Laden's lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahri has warned London will face more attacks because of Tony Blair's foreign policy decisions.

His comments were made in a videotape which was broadcast on Arab satellite channel al-Jazeera.

The al-Qaeda deputy said: "Blair has brought you destruction to the heart of London, and he will bring more destruction, God willing."

Mr Blair denies his policies provoked the 7 July bombs, which killed 56.

Al-Zawahri also warned the US that Iraq would be worse than Vietnam.

Downing Street refused to comment on the latest al-Qaeda tape.

Some critics, including MP George Galloway, said the war in Iraq had helped to spark the attacks on London.

But Mr Blair has said the Iraq war is merely an excuse for those who want to attack the UK.

He has acknowledged Iraq is being used to recruit terrorists, but insisted the roots of extremism were much deeper.

In the tape al-Zawahri - who wore a white tunic with black turban and posed next to a rifle - also warned other nations to leave Muslim lands to avoid further violence.

And he said: "What you have seen, O Americans, in New York and Washington and the losses you are having in Afghanistan and Iraq, in spite of all the media blackout, are only the losses of the initial clashes.

"If you continue the same policy of aggression against Muslims, God willing, you will see the horror that will make you forget what you had seen in Vietnam."

President Bush said al-Zawahri's comments would not prompt the US to withdraw from Iraq.

"We will stay on the offense against these people.

"They're terrorists and they're killers and they will kill innocent people... so they can impose their dark vision on the world," he said.

Police are still investigating the bombings on Tube trains at Aldgate, Russell Square and Edgware Road, as well as a bus in Tavistock Square, and are also holding 15 people over the failed 21 July attacks.

There is a massive police presence on London's streets, with 6,000 officers watching for a repeat of the attacks two and four weeks ago.

A high-visibility police presence in the capital is aimed at making the public feel safe, while undercover officers are mingling with passengers on Tubes and buses trying to spot would-be bombers.

Although police have received no intelligence about another attack, all leave has been cancelled and detectives drafted into uniform.

Extra officers have also been brought in from outside the capital and retired officers persuaded to return to help with the anti-terror work.

Thursday also saw the first person charged over the 21 July attacks appear in court. Ismael Abdurahman, 23, of Kennington, London, is charged with failing to disclose information about suspected Shepherd's Bush bomber Hussain Osman.

He has been remanded in custody for a week.

Al-Zawahri last appeared in a video in June, saying Muslims should not rely on peaceful protests but should also use violence. He also appeared in a video in February.

The Egyptian-born mastermind is thought to be Bin Laden's deputy and to have been hiding in the rugged border areas of either Pakistan or Afghanistan.
Finally. I was waiting for someone to say it. 9/11 was the people of america's fault and the jews totally had it coming back in the 40's.
This ought to make everyone feel real comfortable,the main brain(and he really is that)behind the International Islamic Front is parroting propaganda.

"Hey,leave us alone and we're all can't we all just get along kind of guys"!

Yea,let's leave them alone and trust them in the future.
Benjamin, somehow I don't think that the blame game will resonate well with the average bloke. It is like that earlier example of the good guy/bad guy routine. We all know who's fault it is for the terrorism. And only an English Kook would swallow this rheoteric.
John L Wrote:Benjamin, somehow I don't think that the blame game will resonate well with the average bloke. It is like that earlier example of the good guy/bad guy routine. We all know who's fault it is for the terrorism. And only an English Kook would swallow this rheoteric.

Ok. I wasn't swallowing the rhetoric, I have been uploading these posts to start the topic off, not (obviously) take the side of Al Qaeda. Of course I do not think it is Tony Blair's fault that the bombings took place on 7/7. I clearly quoted the entire article.
Oh, I realize that. If I used the "you" word, it was used in the 'third peron' tense.
Zawahiri has done the left a dis service though. He should keep his mouth shut and allow the European left to voice pretty much this exact same tripe.

Now,what with the leadership of the IIF spouting the same basic line,what are the lefties going to do? Not many are as honest as George Galloway!
benjamin Wrote:....I have been uploading these posts to start the topic off, not (obviously) take the side of Al Qaeda. Of course I do not think it is Tony Blair's fault that the bombings took place on 7/7. I clearly quoted the entire article.
Of course not...Al Qaeda is a crime organisation, which intention is to create chaos and to attack innocent people.
Quote:Al-Zawahri last appeared in a video in June, saying Muslims should not rely on peaceful protests but should also use violence. He also appeared in a video in February.
This person is both, an idiot and a criminal.
I am really not into censorship, but we here in Europe have to do something about. Publication of such nonsense should be banned.
How long do we have to accept such drivel of this brainsick guy?
Quote:I am really not into censorship, but we here in Europe have to do something about. Publication of such nonsense should be banned. ...

Be careful what you ask for.

The latest reforms proposed by Blair do infringe on the freedom of speech seriously, and once you ban "hate speech" there will be people all too glad to expand the definition of hate speech until it includes you. How can you be sure that

Quote:This person is both, an idiot and a criminal.

would not be treated as hate speech next year? How can you be sure that quoting certain passages from Bible would not lead to a mandatory jail sentense in a few years? (there were some interesting cases in Canada already).

It may yet turn out that Blair's reactive solution will cause more harm than good.
Yohan Wrote:Of course not...Al Qaeda is a crime organisation, which intention is to create chaos and to attack innocent people.

I do not agree. It is a terrorist organization, which is more important to differentiate. A criminal organization only requires legal treatment as a criminal. Terrorists are also killers who should be hunted down and killed if possible rather than bringing them to trial.
mv Wrote:The latest reforms proposed by Blair do infringe on the freedom of speech seriously, and once you ban "hate speech" there will be people all too glad to expand the definition of hate speech until it includes you.....
.....
would not be treated as hate speech next year? How can you be sure that quoting certain passages from Bible would not lead to a mandatory jail sentence in a few years? (there were some interesting cases in Canada already).
.....
It may yet turn out that Blair's reactive solution will cause more harm than good.
I know and I agree, that legally this is a very difficult subject.
However there are already existing laws about 'hate speech' like slander...

If you question the DIVERSITY of a democratic country, which is open to ALL religions by calling for violence to create an Islamic Republic and you are a foreigner in my own country - then I see no reason, why my government should not deport you back immediately from where you come from.

I am not against Muslims, who respect the Koran, as long as they do not disturb others with their religious feelings.
It is up to them, not to eat pork, not to play chess, not to look TV and pray 5 times a day.

If you start however to call me an infidel or pagan, because I do not believe in your religious teachings and because I do not pray on Friday in your mosque, if you call my wife a prostitute, because her hair and face is not covered, and you call my family dirty pigs, because we do not respect your recommended food and you think, it is fine to walk around with explosives to kill my family in my own country.....
this is the moment, where we have to kick you out and should you try to enter again, we have to fight you as an enemy, because this is, what you are.

Basic rule: Do not bother the others...
Quite easy to see, where is the difference....
John L Wrote:
Yohan Wrote:Of course not...Al Qaeda is a crime organisation, which intention is to create chaos and to attack innocent people.
I do not agree. It is a terrorist organization, which is more important to differentiate. A criminal organization only requires legal treatment as a criminal. Terrorists are also killers who should be hunted down and killed if possible rather than bringing them to trial.
I think, the difference between a criminal organization and a terrorist organization is somewhat a gray-zone....
Legally, I see only a chance to bring them to trial.

To hunt them down and kill them is possible for the US-armed forces in Iraq or similar, but surely not in a democratic country like in the US or in Europe.
yohan, you are not understanding my point here. During the Clinton years, the terrorists were treated as though this was a law enforcement issue. When you do this, any intelligence information can be used in a court, but also making it privileged information that cannot be passed on to other intelligence units. That is how the courts treated the issue.

If you treat this as a military issue, not a law enforcememt one, then there is the ability to share information. We are at war, not some 'police action'. Sending out an arrest warrant for the terrorists is not acceptable. I say go out and take them out. If they surrender, then milk them for intel. If they don't, then kill them all. Screw the courts. Shock
It's this simple THEY are at war with us,if we take the position we are NOT at war with them,I think it positions us for more death and destruction.

Ever read of an Islamic terrorist arresting someone after posting a warrant and giving them a fair trial?
John L Wrote:....... the terrorists were treated as though this was a law enforcement issue. When you do this, any intelligence information can be used in a court, but also making it privileged information that cannot be passed on to other intelligence units. That is how the courts treated the issue.
If you treat this as a military issue, not a law enforcement one, then there is the ability to share information. ........
There is no question, that any information about terrorists has to be shared - showing up with something like 'privacy protection' is nonsense in my eyes. Yes, we need a much better international network to hunt down such people.
Laws, how to deal with such terrorists, are indeed missing...it is for me something like a new form of a crime.

However to take it away from police and court, not considering to bring them to trial, but to call this a military action, this is not the right way by my opinion, except if a foreign government are supporting and protecting such people, or has even terrorists within their own leadership. . In such a case - Afghanistan is a good example - I have no objection to remove such a leadership by military force.
Yohan,

Let's assume for sake of debate that "they" become a lot more numerous. Your position now takes OUR soldiers out of the field looking for and killing them,into a courtroom. While the soldier KNOWS the man had a gun,can you or he prove the detainee meant any harm? Can our soldier prove he even had a gun when detained? Not likely.

You're asking 18 year old kids to A)Volunteer to fight in America's Army 10,000 miles away from home against the head choppers of Islam with all the exploding cars,etc,that right there is a TALL ORDER.
B) Now,add onto that,you are asking said 18 year old kid to be prepared to release a man he knows just tried to murder him if the "trial" goes against the kid.

How on EARTH can we Americans win this fight with that restriction? We cannot do it.

We never gave German POWs trials.
By my knowledge, US soldiers are paid, young US citizens are not forced to serve in the Army almost free of charge is it is in Europe.
US soldiers however are not paid only by US taxpayers, but also out of German and Japanese money, also Kuwait, and Korea etc. pay for US soldiers presence and action.

Usually USA is doing such risky jobs, which are paid not only by the USA, but also by a good part of money coming from other nations. Such an international dangerous operation should be a kind of business for the USA by my opinion - we all should pay them for our security.

There must be some regulations, simply for the reason to prevent misuse.
Who is a terrorist? and who is not?
Who has to be hunted down, and who is who? This is not so easy to say in the Arab world especially, where everybody has the same name as his neighbor.

As I said, laws...rules... regulations are missing - it is like a new form of crime.
Yohan,

The first part of your response is meaningless to this discussion,it is probably accurate and it just makes me all that much more determined to eventually see the people of my nation wake up and stop doing the fighting of other people.

Anyway,back to this debate about trials.

If we find a guy with a weapon in any battlefield,I would not agree to give him a trial. He's guilty by virtue of his weapon. Here's how I would handle other detainees that we capture and they are not armed or on a specific battlefield,like Iraq or Afghanistan.

I would have the POTUS appoint an imminent and highly regarded group of US jurists who have the responsiblity of deciding if the info the government has is valid enough to hold or execute the potential terrorist.

Most all the time,the evidence is going to be survellance tapes and intercepts or even the detainee's own public statements.

Example would be Bin Laden. He has violated NO known USA laws,we cannot prove in a trial that he even knew of the 9-11 bombings until after the fact. All we can prove is he dislikes us immensely and wants others to harm us under certain conditions. So do many left wing non Muslims,but to date,they are not at war with us,Islam is.