To all the fucking idiots blaming Bush for the London attack. QUESTION:

YOU ARE WRONG

Britain has dealt with terrorism for over 30 years now.

? March 8, 1973: Two IRA car bombs explode outside London's Old Bailey courthouse and government's agriculture department headquarters, killing one and wounding more than 150.

? Oct. 5, 1974: Two IRA bombs explode in pubs in London suburb of Guildford; five dead, more than 50 injured.

? Nov. 21, 1974: Two IRA bombs in Birmingham kill 19 and wound more than 180.

? July 20, 1982: Two IRA bombs in Hyde Park and Regent's Park in London kill 11 British soldiers and wound more than 40, mostly civilians.

? Dec. 17, 1983: IRA car bomb explodes outside Harrod's department store, killing six and wounding about 100.

? Oct. 12, 1984: IRA targets conference of ruling Conservative Party, killing five and wounding 24, but narrowly missing Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

? Sept. 22, 1989: The IRA bombs the Royal Marines School of Music in Deal, killing 10 soldiers and wounding more than 30.

? Feb. 7, 1991: IRA fires three homemade mortar shells at No. 10 Downing Street, British prime minister's official residence in London. No injuries.

? April 10, 1992: Massive IRA truck bomb in London's financial district kills three and causes hundreds of millions of dollars of damage.

? March, 20, 1993: IRA bomb hidden in garbage can in shopping district of Warrington, northwest England, kills two boys aged 3 and 12.

? Feb. 9, 1996: IRA ends a 17-month cease-fire with a massive truck bomb in London's financial district, killing two.

? Feb. 18, 1996: An IRA bomber accidentally kills himself aboard a London double-decker bus, five injured.

? June 15, 1996: For first time, IRA targets a different English city ? Manchester in the northwest ? with a massive truck bomb, wrecking the central shopping area and wounding about 200.

? Sept. 20, 2000: IRA dissidents fire rocket-propelled grenaded at headquarters of MI5 security agency. No injuries.

? July 7, 2005: Four blasts rock the London subway system and a bus during the morning rush hour, killing at least 40 people, U.S. officials say. More than 360 people are wounded.

YOU ARE WRONG

Britain has dealt with terrorism for over 30 years now.

? March 8, 1973: Two IRA car bombs explode outside London's Old Bailey courthouse and government's agriculture department headquarters, killing one and wounding more than 150.

? Oct. 5, 1974: Two IRA bombs explode in pubs in London suburb of Guildford; five dead, more than 50 injured.

? Nov. 21, 1974: Two IRA bombs in Birmingham kill 19 and wound more than 180.

? July 20, 1982: Two IRA bombs in Hyde Park and Regent's Park in London kill 11 British soldiers and wound more than 40, mostly civilians.

? Dec. 17, 1983: IRA car bomb explodes outside Harrod's department store, killing six and wounding about 100.

? Oct. 12, 1984: IRA targets conference of ruling Conservative Party, killing five and wounding 24, but narrowly missing Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

? Sept. 22, 1989: The IRA bombs the Royal Marines School of Music in Deal, killing 10 soldiers and wounding more than 30.

? Feb. 7, 1991: IRA fires three homemade mortar shells at No. 10 Downing Street, British prime minister's official residence in London. No injuries.

? April 10, 1992: Massive IRA truck bomb in London's financial district kills three and causes hundreds of millions of dollars of damage.

? March, 20, 1993: IRA bomb hidden in garbage can in shopping district of Warrington, northwest England, kills two boys aged 3 and 12.

? Feb. 9, 1996: IRA ends a 17-month cease-fire with a massive truck bomb in London's financial district, killing two.

? Feb. 18, 1996: An IRA bomber accidentally kills himself aboard a London double-decker bus, five injured.

? June 15, 1996: For first time, IRA targets a different English city ? Manchester in the northwest ? with a massive truck bomb, wrecking the central shopping area and wounding about 200.

? Sept. 20, 2000: IRA dissidents fire rocket-propelled grenaded at headquarters of MI5 security agency. No injuries.

? July 7, 2005: Four blasts rock the London subway system and a bus during the morning rush hour, killing at least 40 people, U.S. officials say. More than 360 people are wounded.

You support bombing innocent people in IRAQ in retaliation for what a bunch of Saudi Criminals did---the only connection being that they are all muslims.

Your previous posts in other threads illustrate full well your hatred for ALL muslims (obviously biast from your experience in Israel).

What the fuck are you taking in that University anyways? You seem real dumb.

Your wrong, they dont give a fuck about what you do or dont do, they dont come from Iraq, they dont live in Iraq, they couldnt give a flying fuck about Iraq. They are extremists, if you left Iraq tomorow, it would make no difference, they would still want you dead.

They believe you are their enemy, you can not bargain with them, you can not reason with them, they want you, your family, your country dead.

Listen to them, listen to the messages they send out, they do not think like us, they dont care about fellow muslims, arabs, they dont care about christians, blacks, whites, the want you and all your friends in the marines dead.

Dont you get it yet? They want you dead, they want your family dead, they want everyone you know dead. You are the enemy and they wont be happy until you are dead.

Is this clear enough yet? Thank fuck the U.S, Australia and the U.K have the guts to stand up to people who want them dead. It makes cowards like you and France sleep a little easier at night

exactly, and I'm glad you brought that up.

so in your opinion it's ok for terorrists to dictate countries how they should live and act?

if France is attacked in a couple of months, will you say it is justified because of the head scarf issue?

france is at risk because of this, canada is at risk because of the gay marriage issue, other countries are at risk simply because they're christians and not muslims.

Three pages and I counted only one straight answer to alexg's question.

exactly, and I'm glad you brought that up.


It's ok for the US to dictate how other countries should live and act? If you want to look more intelligent, and gain respect for your enemies, don't act in the same way they do... The more we act like rednecks, the more we play into their hands. They want a war. It's judgement day, my friend.

Life is strange, and a kneejerk reaction to an attack is natural; it's just not rational.

And by the way, learn to spell terrorism if you want to debate it.

Matter of fact is: There was no attacks on the U.K untill today. Where the G8 was being held

everyone knows that it's only a matter of time until "innocent" countries get attacked.

most won't admit they were wrong and probably make up new excuses, such as the "head scarf" issue, or that canada sent 2 soldiers and 4 guns to afghanistan...

The Bush and Bliar failure in the absolute scam what they call War On Terror is that with their incompetence policies in Iraq and Afghanistan they are turning even the more moderate muslims into extremists.
Consequence: Moslim extremism is growing rapidly, even US sources (CIA) are confirming this.

The idiot in the white house and his corporate scamming friends are achieving the complete opposite of what they tell us they want to achieve. And don't even intend to review their ineffective strategies.
Meanwhile his old friend Osama remains free and gets rewarded a new training ground for his terrorists and a nice chance to blow up about 2 US soldiers a day. Time to bring all these fuckers down.

Canada is not an "innocent" country in the eyes of islamic terrorists, why do you keep suggesting that it is? If it got attacked it would be understandable why it happened. Canada was a bad example to use as an "innocent" country.

In November 2002 Canada was specifically mentioned as a prime al-Qaida target by Osama bin Laden.

"What business do your governments have to ally itself in attacking us in Afghanistan -- and I mention specifically Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia," Bin Laden said on an audiotape obtained by Arab Al-Jazeera TV before warning of impending attacks.

By the way, I'm not one of the people that blamed Bush for the London attack, I'm simply replying to the premises in your argument because they're weak and you've used poor examples to support your argument. The premise that Canada is an innocent country is extremely weak.

You may have had a decent point to make (conclusion) in your original post, but you fucked it up because you used an incredibly weak premise to support your conclusion, and it's obvious that you've realized this because your attempts to belittle Canada's contribution to the war in Afghanistan shows the great lengths you're going to attempt to prop up the weakness in your argument. It's a sign of desperation.

Canada is not an "innocent" country in the eyes of islamic terrorists, why do you keep suggesting that it is? If it got attacked it would be understandable why it happened. Canada was a bad example to use as an "innocent" country.

In November 2002 Canada was specifically mentioned as a prime al-Qaida target by Osama bin Laden.

"What business do your governments have to ally itself in attacking us in Afghanistan -- and I mention specifically Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia," Bin Laden said on an audiotape obtained by Arab Al-Jazeera TV before warning of impending attacks.

By the way, I'm not one of the people that blamed Bush for the London attack, I'm simply replying to the premises in your argument because they're weak and you've used poor examples to support your argument. The premise that Canada is an innocent country is extremely weak.

You may have had a decent point to make (conclusion) in your original post, but you fucked it up because you used an incredibly weak premise to support your conclusion, and it's obvious that you've realized this because your attempts to belittle Canada's contribution to the war in Afghanistan shows the great lengths you're going to attempt to prop up the weakness in your argument. It's a sign of desperation.

I know that... it's just that you fail to understand that NO western country is innocent in the eyes of the terorrists.
there will always be excuses, but if canada gets attacked, only the absolute biggest idiots will still justify it and blame it on bush.
Idiots such as Rich probably...

Why do you keep stating that Osama and the President are friends...let alone the other pig shit that you spew forth.

you fail to understand that NO western country is innocent in the eyes of the terorrists

awh they were not old business buddies/family friends? damn! someone needs to sue ALL the news medias

They have never met...let alone being friends.

never did , never were

Bush & Bin Laden - George W. Bush Had Ties to Billionaire bin Laden Brood

never did , never were

Bush & Bin Laden - George W. Bush Had Ties to Billionaire bin Laden Brood

The Bush clan and Bin Laden clan are business partners. That is enough for any intelligent person to make it all a very fishy matter...

Even without regarding the fact that he let all the Bin Ladens and some other Saudi business partners fly out of the country directly after 9/11 in which most hijackers were Saudis and their leader: a Bin Laden.

What's really sad about all this, is that 10 years from now, a bunch of orphaned Iraqi kids are going to grow up hating the West for killing their parents/relatives and possibly strike back at an Allied city. Morons with no sense of history will say "Those bastards! They attacked us because they're jealous of our freedom...yeah, that's it!". Then we'll attack them back (by 'them', I mean the entire country even though it's a select group responsible) and feel all self-rightious.