PDA

View Full Version : True Motives for the London Attack



NewsGuy
07-09-2005, 05:44 PM
The Muslim terrorist group that perpetrated the London attack explained that they did it to avenge the British involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In both those places, American and British forces accompanied by a considerable coalition of troops from other countries, are still sacrificing their lives to bring freedom and democracy to Muslim countries. Of course, freedom and democracy are antithetical to the true desire of the terrorists, which is to impose a brutal Muslim-based dictatorship on the entire world, known as “Sharia”.

Under such a regime, non-Muslims would be permitted to exist as a second-class group of “Dhimmis,” which are granted a level of civil rights that falls somewhere between the ruling-class Muslims on the one hand and street dogs, on the other hand.

Non-Muslims who object to the terrorist Sharia plan would be slaughtered by the thousands, and perhaps by the millions, depending on the mood of the head Muslim spiritual leader at the time.

So, why would the terrorists get specific about their desire to see Christians (dubbed Zionist Crusaders) out of Afghanistan and Iraq? Because that is much more palatable to the European Leftists than being notified that the true goal is a Jihad-genocide against all Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc.

The Leftist Europeans, exemplified by the likes of anti-American politician George Galloway who was implicated in the Iraq oil-for-food scandal, are already spreading the terrorist’s message that if only Christians left Afghanistan and Iraq, Christian countries would be free of Muslim terrorism. This, of course is a delusional false hope planted by al Qaeda’s psychological warfare division.

It is easy to forget that Osama bin Ladin was plotting the Jihad-genocide war against America long before 9/11 – long before Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time, al Qaeda claimed that the Jihad was to be fought over the American military protection of Saudi Arabia, which bin Ladin had been trying to take over for decades.

At the time, the word “occupation” was not yet in vogue by the Leftists and their Muslim allies, so bin Ladin explained that the problem was that Christians were “dirtying” the Muslim land merely by the Christians (i.e., American troops) being present there. That was the reason stated over and over again by al Qaeda – to remove Christian “impurity” from Muslim land.

By the time 9/11 happened, al Qaeda was claiming that in addition to removing Christians from Muslim land, they would also act on behalf the Palestinians in mass-murdering American civilians. After all, there was a great degree of cooperation between Great Satan (America) and Little Satan (Israel), and both must be the targets of Jihad-genocide.

Well, as soon as the Palestinians caught wind of the connection being drawn between their own terrorist Jihad, which was tolerated by the world, and al Qaeda’s Jihad, which was not tolerate by the world, the Palestinians panicked. All of a sudden, the world was no longer cheering at the sight of blood-stained streets as the results of Muslim terrorism. So, the Palestinians terrorist Authority begged al Qaeda to fight its own terrorist Jihad and to leave the Palestinian Jihad alone.

At the time, bin Ladin was a protected guest of the Sharia-style Taliban regime and when they refused to hand over bin Ladin or to curtail al Qaeda’s operations, the U.S. and certain of its European allies invaded Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban and al Qaeda. This is why the terrorists who perpetrated the London massacre are demanding the British receive a revenge-punishment for their role in fighting al Qaeda.

The invasion of Iraq was not a popular one in Britain. Full of Leftists and their Muslim allies, many (if not most) Brits opposed their country’s role. They feared that bringing democracy and freedom to the Middle East was not their responsibility and they feared that the war would result in a terrorist counter-strike as has happened. They felt that the civilized world had no moral or legal authority to remove a regime that murdered nearly 500,000 of its citizens and stuffed them in mass graves.

Others simply felt that it was better not to stir up a hornet’s nest for fear of being stung. Instead, they would be safe from a radical Muslim attack, if they sat quietly at home. They were wrong. Long before the second Iraq war, al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorist groups were planning a Jihad against several European countries.

From Jerusalem to New York, to Bali, to India, to Chechnya, to Spain, to China, to Malaysia, and nearly everywhere in between, the Muslim terrorists have been acting on their true dream of a Jihad war against all non-Muslims that would result in an oppressive, global Taliban-style Muslim regime.

The London attack had nothing to do with Afghanistan and Iraq. It had everything to do with global religious warfare.

MGB8
07-09-2005, 05:54 PM
Well written, Newsguy, and I agree.

I quible about one point. I do believe that they are serious about Afghanistan and Iraq. And then they would be serious about the West leaving SA and Kuwait and Qatar. And then they would be serious about abandoning Israel. And then they would be serious about Spain and the Balklans and Chechnya. And they'd be serious about "Muslim rights" in growing communities in Europe, while at the same time now having the world economy by the Balls, and maybe having a nuclear weapon or ten... and thus even greater demands...

There are battles, and there are wars. I think the point to be made is while they can point to wanting to win specific battles as motivation, this doesn't change that they are trying to win the war.

wellofvow
07-10-2005, 01:02 AM
Thank you both.

However, what positively chills me is how Blair seems not to be able to work up a case of indignation, much less outrage, at Moslem terror killing London civilians.

Blair: Address terrorism causes

Saturday, July 9, 2005 Posted: 1252 GMT (2052 HKT)

LONDON, England (AP) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair said it is crucial to address terrorism's underlying causes, which he identified as deprivation, lack of democracy and ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

Thursday's bomb attacks on London demonstrate the pressing need for world leaders to tackle problems like poverty, he told BBC radio.

"I think this type of terrorism has very deep roots," Blair said. "As well as dealing with the consequences of this -- trying to protect ourselves as much as any civil society can -- you have to try to pull it up by its roots," he said.

That meant boosting understanding between people of difference religions, helping people in the Middle East see a path to democracy and easing the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, he said.


Right. And World War II was - of course - motivated by Germans who wanted back "their" land, and who were poverty-stricken by the harsh terms of losing World War I, so WWII was justified??.

Blair is starting to sound like terrorist-apologist Hanan Ashrawi, and that is scary.

Yes I UNDERSTAND that he is afraid of offending the many Moslems in Britain. What I do NOT empathize with is all Brits, including British Moslems, tolerating Blair's appeasement of terror in London streets by blaming Israel. The only explanation I can find is basic, deep-rooted - not poverty! - antisemitism. As in pre-war Nazi Germany, and the Germans who went along with Nazi fanatic antisemitism out of a basic, rooted hatred of Jews, the Brits will also be sucked in ultimately to great national tragedies with their deep-rooted antisemitism if they allow their leaders to continue with this line.

Luke90
07-10-2005, 05:42 AM
The invasion of Iraq was not a popular one in Britain. Full of Leftists and their Muslim allies, many (if not most) Brits opposed their country’s role. They feared that bringing democracy and freedom to the Middle East was not their responsibility and they feared that the war would result in a terrorist counter-strike as has happened. They felt that the civilized world had no moral or legal authority to remove a regime that murdered nearly 500,000 of its citizens and stuffed them in mass graves.
Bringing democracy and freedom to the Middle East wasn't really used as a justification over here in Britain. Blair based his case almost entirely on WMD.
Regime change was a very, very minor part of the argument so it doesn't really make sense to give that as the reason why Brits opposed the war.

Luke90
07-10-2005, 05:48 AM
However, what positively chills me is how Blair seems not to be able to work up a case of indignation, much less outrage, at Moslem terror killing London civilians.
Did you even see his press conference after the attacks. He looked genuinely angry and upset.


What I do NOT empathize with is all Brits, including British Moslems, tolerating Blair's appeasement of terror in London streets by blaming Israel.
He didn't blame Israel in any way, shape or form and it's a ridiculous accusation.

Aviva
07-10-2005, 12:36 PM
Did you even see his press conference after the attacks. He looked genuinely angry and upset.

He didn't blame Israel in any way, shape or form and it's a ridiculous accusation.

I wouldn't trust Blair's reaction to anything, as he's a proven liar. That's not to say he wasn't honestly angry and upset but I still wouldn't base my assumptions on him from his performance in front of the cameras.

No, he didn't directly mention Israel - things aren't as simplistic as that. However, he did say the G8 would be giving money to the Palestinians in one of his speeches. He's appeasing terrorists when he should be blankly refusing to speak to those regimes who allow their causes to be represented by terrorists.

All it shows the terrorists is that terrorism ultimately pays off in the end - people will pity you, appease you and indulge you. The war to destroy Israel is being faught by these methods.

Luke90
07-10-2005, 01:55 PM
I wouldn't trust Blair's reaction to anything, as he's a proven liar. That's not to say he wasn't honestly angry and upset but I still wouldn't base my assumptions on him from his performance in front of the cameras.
Fair enough, but Wellofvow was suggesting that Blair wasn't showing any emotion about it but he clearly was (play-acting or not is irrelevant).

NewsGuy
07-10-2005, 05:35 PM
Bringing democracy and freedom to the Middle East wasn't really used as a justification over here in Britain. Blair based his case almost entirely on WMD.
Regime change was a very, very minor part of the argument so it doesn't really make sense to give that as the reason why Brits opposed the war.
Same here in the US. But I wrote about a few reasons the British opposed the Iraq war:

"Others simply felt that it was better not to stir up a hornet’s nest for fear of being stung. Instead, they would be safe from a radical Muslim attack, if they sat quietly at home."

In any event, already there are many who believe that if only the British stop fighting for freedom and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Muslim terrorists would spare Britain. They are, of course, wrong.

The Muslim terrorists will continue to slaughter Europeans by the busload if only given half the chance. The main goal is not only to stop Christians and other infidels from "dirtying" Muslim lands, but to impose a Muslim theocracy on what they hope will become Eurostan -- a Caliphate populated by Dhimmis and newly converted Muslims.

minusthejihad
07-10-2005, 07:13 PM
I was preparing a post saying how disappointed I was in Tony Blair, for implying that the London terror attacks were an outgrowth of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Turns out Tony Blair never said this. The Associated Press and the BBC fabricated it. Correction: Bombings-Blair Story (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050710/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_britain_bombings_corrective_1).


LONDON - In a July 9 story about Prime Minister Tony Blair’s comments on overcoming global terrorism, The Associated Press erroneously reported that he spoke of easing the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Blair did not specifically mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his interview with the British Broadcasting Corp.

Mira
07-10-2005, 09:01 PM
Motives for this particular attack? There are all sorts of possible motives. These types of attacks are to break down trust in British society. Make people not trust their public transportation, make people questions their neighbors, etc...I don't know how you can be certain without verified claims as to what the larger goals are. The people who orchestrated the attack and the people who carried it out may not even completely agree on what the larger goals are.

Mediocrates
07-11-2005, 06:01 AM
The UK is revisiting it's Iraq deployment plans as we speak. Blair indicated that the plan to draw down Iraqi deployment which was already on track for a partial reduction by the end of the year will be expanded to include a larger number of troops. Of course total UK deployment is tiny, 8000 troops I think, but that number will be reduced to less than 3500. Similarly every other European contingent in Iraq is, as of today, on track to be reduced to near-zero by the end of the year. So while the physical import of the Italians, Poles, etc. is symbolic at best, we can expect that the physical presence of the 'coalition' will actually cease to exist by the first half of 2006. If the plan is to politically isolate the US then it was a rather clever program.

NewsGuy
07-11-2005, 08:32 PM
I don't know how you can be certain without verified claims as to what the larger goals are. The people who orchestrated the attack and the people who carried it out may not even completely agree on what the larger goals are.
I can be certain about the motives of the Jihadists because they themselves are not shy at all about expressing their motives.

They are slaughtering "Crusders" and Hindus and "Zionists" and everyone else around them because they believe it is their duty as instructed by the Quran to impose an Muslim theocracy on the world.


I take them at their word, which is backed up by their deeds.

RichardP
07-12-2005, 09:48 AM
Exactly, yet, the Brit authorities giving a new conference this afternoon, would not state, the tag terrorists or mention Islam by name. This, of course, is to, not offend the sensibilities of the large Muslim community. The UK is in for a hell of a fight, if they continue to elude the truth.

I am more than sure that the Brits are much too arrogant, to approach Israel for some sound advice. To me at least, the UK is indicative of what plagues the western-Democracies: political correctness.

When there is similar bombing in Israel, the mainstream media, would never give it the airtime afforded the London bombing.

Mediocrates
07-12-2005, 10:02 AM
To be fair, today's bombing in Netanya has appreciable coverage on CNN given the endless wall to wall coverage of London.BTW there is a great deal of new news re: London today. An arrest in Leeds, 4 possible suspects id'd (1 of whom is know to be a suicide bomber in the attack) and a car which was conficated and detonated. Good to see them kicking in doors.