Read the below before posting.

Following a conversation at work i'm interested in many views.

This isn't whether you actually support the war or not, this is whether your opinion has changed. Do you
1/. Support the War in Iraq/Afghanistan more
2/. My opinion hasn't changed
3/. Support has declined
4/. Dont care!

For example you can fully support the war and still do but support it lesser so now (vote 3). On the other side you may be totally against the war and are still so, however can now understand certain sentiments for the war. (then vote 1)

I supported the war before, but belive more than ever now that tony blair made the correct choice.. the attacks would have come anyway regardless of the wars

Mod. Note

Just a quick reminder that if this thread gets abusive or we have postings inciting violent or abusive behaviour towrdas particular groups, folks will be banned and postings will be pulled.

But apart form that - interesting and valid survey - thanks for posting it.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard

Mod. Note - interesting and valid survey - thanks for posting it.

Joe



Hang on a minute, the fact that the alquada network actually were responsible for 9/11 is under very serious scrutiny.

Blair says Muslims in a speach and the papers say similar.

The experts say this is no time for speculation, and we just swallow the bitter pill and talk about War ?

I do not support the BNP, but why is Nick Griffin in court for inciting racial hatred and not Tony Blair also ?

Poll on supporting the War my armpit.

Originally posted by venger
Hang on a minute, the fact that the alquada network actually were responsible for 9/11 is under very serious scrutiny.

Blair says Muslims in a speach and the papers say similar.

The experts say this is no time for speculation, and we just swallow the bitter pill and talk about War ?

I do not support the BNP, but why is Nick Griffin in court for inciting racial hatred and not Tony Blair also ?

Poll on supporting the War my armpit.

This isn't about whether you support the war or not but just whether you views have changed. It's as simple as that.

We all have different views on what is going off Venger, but i for one have trust in the government on this matter.

Originally posted by honeyplanet
I supported the war before, but belive more than ever now that tony blair made the correct choice.. the attacks would have come anyway regardless of the wars

I second that :mad:

Originally posted by venger
Hang on a minute, the fact that the alquada network actually were responsible for 9/11 is under very serious scrutiny.

Blair says Muslims in a speach and the papers say similar.

The experts say this is no time for speculation, and we just swallow the bitter pill and talk about War ?

I do not support the BNP, but why is Nick Griffin in court for inciting racial hatred and not Tony Blair also ?

Poll on supporting the War my armpit.

In what way has Tony Blair incited racism?

I get tired of the constant confusion between a religion and a race.

You can be Muslim from any race whatsoever.

The Al Qaeda doctrine seeks to change Islam and is not representative of that religion,

Alastair

I didn't support the war and still don't. However now that forces have gone in I do believe that it is in everyone's best interests that they see it through and wouldn't like to see them pulled out prematurely due to terrorist attacks.

Originally posted by youwhatref
This isn't about whether you support the war or not but just whether you views have changed. It's as simple as that.

We all have different views on what is going off Venger, but i for one have trust in the government on this matter.

The same Government that lied to you about why we went to War.

40 minute treat of attack.

Weapons of mass destruction.

Both lies.

It cost Dr David Kelly his life.

Difference between you and I is that I look at the popular news like you but also look at the less popular which you clearly do not.

So when you read between the lines, you are implying already that it was a Muslim group that carried out the attack.

Hence your poll, No?

Originally posted by venger
The same Government that lied to you about why we went to War.

40 minute treat of attack.

Weapons of mass destruction.

Both lies.

It cost Dr David Kelly his life.

Difference between you and I is that I look at the popular news like you but also look at the less popular which you clearly do not.

So when you read between the lines, you are implying already that it was a Muslim group that carried out the attack.

Hence your poll, No?

I sometimes wonder about this 'less popular news'. I do believe Venger that we dont always get the correct facts but i still repeat that i trust this goverment relating to this matter and respect that you dont.

Regradless of who is to blame for the attacks, this poll relates to our war on terror. Not on Muslims. I understand abnd respect that people have differenting views on this matter

I didn't support the war before, and I support it even less now. I can't help but think that it was a major contributing factor to the bombings yesterday.

Originally posted by PottShrigley
In what way has Tony Blair incited racism?

I get tired of the constant confusion between a religion and a race.

You can be Muslim from any race whatsoever.

The Al Qaeda doctrine seeks to change Islam and is not representative of that religion,

Alastair

You're absolutely right, of course. You can try to point out that Islam is a religion and not a race until you're blue in the face and the PC forum police will simply ignore you and continue to jump on any negative comments like a dog on a bone

I don't believe that going to war in Iraq had anything to do with Terrorism, and I don't believe what happened in London had anything to do with Iraq.

Just as I don't believe that identity cards have got anything to do with preventing Terrorism.

9/11 was used as justification to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq without any decent amount of evidence being produced showing alink, and the attacks on London will be used as an excuse to bring in ID cards, all manner of further electronic surveillance, and who knows what else.

In Spain, the public had the sense to kick out a weak leader who wanted to get in Americas good books by blindly supporting whatever George Bush wanted him to, unfortunately we don't have a serious alternative here at the moment, as the Tories would back Bush even more vigorously than Blair does.

I don't particularly blame Tony Blair for what happened, he's been in a very difficult position ever since Bush came to power, because he knows that the Tories would mercilessly exploit it if there was the slightest amount of daylight between Bush and Blair.

I'm very proud of the way our emergency services have responded to the events, and we can be thankful that there were not far more people killed.

Originally posted by Yodameister
I don't believe that going to war in Iraq had anything to do with Terrorism, and I don't believe what happened in London had anything to do with Iraq.

Just as I don't believe that identity cards have got anything to do with preventing Terrorism.

9/11 was used as justification to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq without any decent amount of evidence being produced showing alink, and the attacks on London will be used as an excuse to bring in ID cards, all manner of further electronic surveillance, and who knows what else.

In Spain, the public had the sense to kick out a weak leader who wanted to get in Americas good books by blindly supporting whatever George Bush wanted him to, unfortunately we don't have a serious alternative here at the moment, as the Tories would back Bush even more vigorously than Blair does.

I don't particularly blame Tony Blair for what happened, he's been in a very difficult position ever since Bush came to power, because he knows that the Tories would mercilessly exploit it if there was the slightest amount of daylight between Bush and Blair.

I'm very proud of the way our emergency services have responded to the events, and we can be thankful that there were not far more people killed.

I agree with most of what you say except that what happened in London is not a result of what happen in Iraq.

As people in the news keep trying to remind everyone - Al Qaeda is a general term. Whilst it obviously has its leaders, it's not a structured organisation like the military (certainly not since 9/11). They don't sent orders and plans down the line for front line troops to carry out. They simple splurt their bile and hatred through recordings and websites and hope it will be picked up by misguided sympathisers, who will form groups and act on their wishes. Britsih security services warned TB that invading Iraq would raise the terror risk and indeed it has - in fact it is no longer just a risk it is a reality.

On a final positive note, I agree with your assessment of the emergency services yesterday. I was truely amazed. And who says we can't plan and organise anything [Olymipic knockers]!

Originally posted by venger


I do not support the BNP, but why is Nick Griffin in court for inciting racial hatred and not Tony Blair also ?


because its one rule for the government and others, and one rule for the members of the uk public


yesterdays events happend but i bet the government hardly do a thing about it, yeah they might catch the people involved or responsible

but the uk security and government are useless, they will continue letting anyone in the country without doing major checks on them.


this in my eyes is just the beggining..

once the news tells the uk exactly who was responsible i think alot of riots will kick off.....

Originally posted by PottShrigley
In what way has Tony Blair incited racism?

I get tired of the constant confusion between a religion and a race.

You can be Muslim from any race whatsoever.

The Al Qaeda doctrine seeks to change Islam and is not representative of that religion,

Alastair



yes but the majority of muslims are asians, iraq's, afganni etc etc...

Originally posted by venger
I do not support the BNP, but why is Nick Griffin in court for inciting racial hatred and not Tony Blair also ?


Unlike the rantings which appeared very quickly on the BNP website yesterday morning blaming Islam in general and immigrants for the bombings, Tony Blair was quick to stress that although the bombings are suspected to have been carried out by people claiming to be muslims, the majority of muslims are law abiding.

There can be no realistic comparisons between what Griffin is alleged to have said and what Tony Blair said.

On the original question, the bombings haven't changed my views on the war. I was in favour of getting rid of Sadam Hussain and still do think it was the right thing to do. The 9/11 attacks were apparently being planned before Bush was elected and I think that Britain would have been a target even if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

Originally posted by paulprh
yesterdays events happend but i bet the government hardly do a thing about it, yeah they might catch the people involved or responsible
Is anyone actually naive enough to believe that you can stop terrorist acts by trying to prevent people from entering the country (either as an immigrant or as a visitor)? That sounds similar to the deeply flawed logic behind ID cards...

Sorry, had to go off-topic as it would appear I've already voted in this poll without knowing it - guess the wife has been using my computer again! :)

edit - quote fixed, now please put your toys back in the pram venger

It seems quite obvious that Al Qaida (or what was originally) are a small number of people with political ideologies and are using Islam to recruit a tiny minority of naive/ignorant muslims who simply don't know better....then again, Bush did a very similar thing by starting a 'war on terror' which is obviously purely being used as an excuse to gain geo-political and economic ground (the two things an 'empire' needs to expand) and more of a strangle-hold on his own people. The problem is that as 'westerners' we don't tend to question the doctrine being spewed out to us, and those of us that do are regarded as unpatriotic by those who really do fail to read between the lines!

So as you can see I never supported the 'war' in the first place and certainly don't now and said from day 1 that this would only increase our chances of being the subject of a terrorist attack - which is why I went on all the anti-war demos.

Funnily enough I happen to live 10min walk from K.Cross and do often get the 30 bus to work, so this is a subject that hits close to home.

All credit to the security services who responded brilliantly yesterday to prevent further panic and assist those who needed it most, even though they were under staffed.

Originally posted by rich951
Is anyone actually naive enough to believe that you can stop terrorist acts by trying to prevent people from entering the country (either as an immigrant or as a visitor)? That sounds similar to the deeply flawed logic behind ID cards...

Sorry, had to go off-topic as it would appear I've already voted in this poll without knowing it - guess the wife has been using my computer again! :)

I did not write this:

Originally posted by paulprh
[QUOTE]Originally posted by venger
yesterdays events happend but i bet the government hardly do a thing about it, yeah they might catch the people involved or responsible

Please romove the mistake or I will have to report it, sorry!

My understanding, severely limited though it is, is this.

The people who carry out terrorist acts against the West, or against western targets in the East, are not particularly concerned about one issue, be it the war in Iraq, or the Palestinian conflicts etc.

Their hatred is of the West, full stop.

They hate our liberalism, our way of life. The fact that we dress in what we want, drink alcohol, go to parties, watch violent movies, have casual sex and generally behave in ways that they think demonstrates poor moral fibre.

They want a world where women are all covered up and do what their men say and no-one drinks or loses control etc, like the way the Taliban were running things in Afghanistan.

Conversely, for thousands of years the West has tried its best to impose western "civilisation" on the East. The West has gone to enormous lengths for thousands of years to subdue the East (think of the crusades for instance and then the Raj).

Now some people either from, or with a love for, the East (and their moral stance) are hitting back at us.

I am not taking sides, just explaining it how I see it.

I think the war in Iraq might have converted a few waiverers to the cause, but I see this as part of something lasting thousands of years, not something that can be laid at the door of any particular man on either side of the divide (eg Bin Laden, Bush or Blair.)

In some respects it is business as usual

There is something you are all missing that's so fundamental to this it's unreal.

Iraq was run by Saddam Hussein.

Al Quaeda as a group are philosophically opposed to Saddam's acceptance of Westernism.

Therefore the war against Hussein was not against Al Quaeda, in fact they may very well have supported it.

If the bombing in London was caused by Al Quaeda, why would this have any relation to the Iraq war? True it may have links to Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

Originally posted by Belle
My understanding, severely limited though it is, is this.

The people who carry out terrorist acts against the West, or against western targets in the East, are not particularly concerned about one issue, be it the war in Iraq, or the Palestinian conflicts etc.

Their hatred is of the West, full stop.

They hate our liberalism, our way of life. The fact that we dress in what we want, drink alcohol, go to parties, watch violent movies, have casual sex and generally behave in ways that they think demonstrates poor moral fibre.

They want a world where women are all covered up and do what their men say and no-one drinks or loses control etc, like the way the Taliban were running things in Afghanistan.

Conversely, for thousands of years the West has tried its best to impose western "civilisation" on the East. The West has gone to enormous lengths for thousands of years to subdue the East (think of the crusades for instance and then the Raj).

Now some people either from, or with a love for, the East (and their moral stance) are hitting back at us.

I am not taking sides, just explaining it how I see it.

I think the war in Iraq might have converted a few waiverers to the cause, but I see this as part of something lasting thousands of years, not something that can be laid at the door of any particular man on either side of the divide (eg Bin Laden, Bush or Blair.)

In some respects it is business as usual

Absolutely - the Al Quaeda manifesto statement said very clearly that their anger was purely a backlash against the invasions and attempted indoctrination of Western ideals. They hate our hedonism and want to protect their own culture without interference, most of it seems very fair to be honest, their ideals. It's just the means that are terrible.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
There is something you are all missing that's so fundamental to this it's unreal.

Iraq was run by Saddam Hussein.

Al Quaeda as a group are philosophically opposed to Saddam's acceptance of Westernism.

Therefore the war against Hussein was not against Al Quaeda, in fact they may very well have supported it.

If the bombing in London was caused by Al Quaeda, why would this have any relation to the Iraq war? True it may have links to Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

OK, so let us say you are an Iraqi student studying in London. The Americans go marching into your country in order to impose their Western ideologies on your backward culture. One night a bomb accidently drops in a civillian area and your entire family are wiped out. Are you going to be thinking that because Saddam (who you never supported) is in jail it was a price worth paying? Of course not. You're going to be angry and bitter... ****ing angry and bitter. You'll want revenge.

The fact that Iraq did not support Al Qaeda is neither here nor there. The fact is that the West invaded an Islamic country, killing 100,000 people in the process, and this has resulted in thousands of ordinary people (probably for a thousand different reasons) turning into Al Qaeda supporters, if not activists. This is why people make the connection between what has happened in London and the invasion of Iraq.

Nobody is saying there wasn't a problem before... just that the way the US and UK governments have conducted their "war on terror" has actually made the situation far worse. They were warned this would happen and I therefore hold them accountable for the aftermath.

Originally posted by rich951


edit - quote fixed, now please put your toys back in the pram venger

Blow me! That was a strong statement that I disagree with, to me that matters.

The bombings in London have not changed my opinion on the so-called 'war on terror'. I still find the war to be a sham based on lies and deceit of and perpetrated by those at the highest level.

if you change your stance on the war due to the bombings then you let terrorists win.

this has nothing to do with the war but to do with terror.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
There is something you are all missing that's so fundamental to this it's unreal.

Iraq was run by Saddam Hussein.

Al Quaeda as a group are philosophically opposed to Saddam's acceptance of Westernism.

Therefore the war against Hussein was not against Al Quaeda, in fact they may very well have supported it.

If the bombing in London was caused by Al Quaeda, why would this have any relation to the Iraq war? True it may have links to Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

Bin Laden real wish is to bring down the house of Saud and get all American involvement out of Saudi Arabia.

He also hates the States over the entire Afghanistan/Russia war debacle.

the Iraq war was another spur for anti western groups to have a go at the west. Used as an example of Western interference in Middle Eastern affairs.