Bombs in LOndon

Following up to Padraig Breathnach

Try to understand your enemy, and why he his your enemy. Then you
might have a chance of dealing with the problem. If you do not try to
understand, then you have no claim to moral superiority.

read this and lean
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

Following up to Andy Pandy

to clarify, Blair is not directly elected other than to his
constituency, the majority party select him from within
themselves, many of us hope he will stand down in favour of
gordon Brown.

But that's just pedantic. Voting Labour meant voting for Tony Blair as leader of
the country.

no, not that simple.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

Following up to Andy Pandy

For those who are a bit more sophisticated and understand that absolute
certainty about the afterlife isn't in the cards, no. No one's ever
come back to let us know for sure.

Jesus did. If you're a Christian.

fantasy
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

In article , Padraig
Breathnach wrote:

"dae" wrote:

"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
.. .
"dae" wrote:


What a load of ********! At least Bubba knew that Al Qaida was a
threat, and attempted (admittedly without significant success) to deal
with it.

When Bush took over, his people dismissed the threat, and didn't even
read the files.

As for your "Bedroom Bill" crack, it's off-target. He did it anywhere,
including an ante-room to the Oval Office. But all he screwed was a
willing intern. Bush screws whole nations.

Did Dubya also say something about catching people? Where is Osama? He
caught Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11.

Bedroom Bill had several opportunities to catch Bin Laden but let him loose
as he didn't listen to his advisors and didn't feel he was a threat. When
Bush took over the first thing he had to deal with was the downing of the
Navy Patrol aircraft by the PRC. This took a month off his schedule. The
planning for 9-11 took longer than Bush was in office, only less than nine
months. I believe you also need to look at the facts and then come up with
your plan to deal with what is going on.

This makes no sense to me. Bush's people did not take the Al Qaida
threat seriously. The fact that there were other live issues at the
time is not relevant: the President does not deal personally with
everything.

What are you talking about, former President Clinton is on the record
about both the Sudanese offer and was in on the decision loop to NOT
send tomahawks at OBL.


jay
Thu Jul 07, 2005





It seems all the U.K. has
questions, but no answers other than "Blame Bush".

So? I'm not British.

Bush won the last
election because the Weenie who ran against him wasn't an effective Senator
for his 20 some years and a bogus war hero in Vietnam.

No need to peddle the propaganda any more. Bush's superior war record
won him the election.

The one before him,
Gore was not an effective V.P. either. So, give me some answers from the
U.K. and quit bitching at the wrong enemy.

I don't give answers from or for the UK. You attempted to fix
responsibility on Clinton, and exonerate Bush. That's simply rubbish.

Bush is not your stiff upper
lip, gentlemanly diplomat, as it should be clear by now.

Do you think I didn't notice?

When he talks, he
means what he says.

Sure he does. Even when what he says is a load of rubbish. He and his
people built a false linkage between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein, and
an amazing number of American people bought it.

Get used to it. In three years and five months we'll
elect another leader. I don't think we need you to dictate to us who or
what kind you would like us to elect.

Unfortunately, as so many Americans, including the President and his
team, seem to believe that the US has a role outside its borders, and
unrelated to international organisations. I'll butt out of having
opinions on American foreign policy when American foreign policy has
no effect on my world.

We aren't a Colony of your Empire
anymore you know.

Brendan the Navigator was a peaceful visitor, and never claimed the
land for himself or his king.

Go Fig wrote:

In article , Padraig
Breathnach wrote:

"dae" wrote:

"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
.. .
"dae" wrote:


What a load of ********! At least Bubba knew that Al Qaida was a
threat, and attempted (admittedly without significant success) to deal
with it.

When Bush took over, his people dismissed the threat, and didn't even
read the files.

As for your "Bedroom Bill" crack, it's off-target. He did it anywhere,
including an ante-room to the Oval Office. But all he screwed was a
willing intern. Bush screws whole nations.

Did Dubya also say something about catching people? Where is Osama? He
caught Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11.

Bedroom Bill had several opportunities to catch Bin Laden but let him loose
as he didn't listen to his advisors and didn't feel he was a threat. When
Bush took over the first thing he had to deal with was the downing of the
Navy Patrol aircraft by the PRC. This took a month off his schedule. The
planning for 9-11 took longer than Bush was in office, only less than nine
months. I believe you also need to look at the facts and then come up with
your plan to deal with what is going on.

This makes no sense to me. Bush's people did not take the Al Qaida
threat seriously. The fact that there were other live issues at the
time is not relevant: the President does not deal personally with
everything.

What are you talking about, former President Clinton is on the record
about both the Sudanese offer and was in on the decision loop to NOT
send tomahawks at OBL.

I did say that he had no significant success.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


The Reids wrote:

Following up to Rita
My heartfelt condolences... the elation of the "Games" to this very low
point.


As a New Yorker, my condolences as well. I love London and hearing about
the destruction, deaths, injuries and the fear
that Londoners will experience as a result for a long time
to come makes me ill. I know people there will respond with
courage, just as New Yorkers did to 9/11.


thanks both. I remember posting same on 9/11 or 11/9 as we would
call it, its a pity that the solidarity the west felt at that
moment has dissipated to some extent.

Yeah, thanks to our incompetent president, whose moronic reaction to this
latest outrage was to say the perpetrators have "evil in their hearts"!
(IMO, ALL fanaticism is "evil", be it Moslem, Christian or whatever.)


Diva,

Chirac didn't say that.

Don

In article , Padraig
Breathnach wrote:

Go Fig wrote:

In article , Padraig
Breathnach wrote:

"dae" wrote:

"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
.. .
"dae" wrote:


What a load of ********! At least Bubba knew that Al Qaida was a
threat, and attempted (admittedly without significant success) to deal
with it.

When Bush took over, his people dismissed the threat, and didn't even
read the files.

As for your "Bedroom Bill" crack, it's off-target. He did it anywhere,
including an ante-room to the Oval Office. But all he screwed was a
willing intern. Bush screws whole nations.

Did Dubya also say something about catching people? Where is Osama? He
caught Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11.

Bedroom Bill had several opportunities to catch Bin Laden but let him
loose
as he didn't listen to his advisors and didn't feel he was a threat.
When
Bush took over the first thing he had to deal with was the downing of the
Navy Patrol aircraft by the PRC. This took a month off his schedule.
The
planning for 9-11 took longer than Bush was in office, only less than
nine
months. I believe you also need to look at the facts and then come up
with
your plan to deal with what is going on.

This makes no sense to me. Bush's people did not take the Al Qaida
threat seriously. The fact that there were other live issues at the
time is not relevant: the President does not deal personally with
everything.

What are you talking about, former President Clinton is on the record
about both the Sudanese offer and was in on the decision loop to NOT
send tomahawks at OBL.

I did say that he had no significant success.

But he was personally involved with these decisions, as it should be.

The U.S.'s 911 Commission made it clear that President Bush and his
administration was in the planning stage of a complete overhaul of the
procedures to deal with terrorism... but it was not defined by 9/11.

The administration clearly was not acting with the immediacy that it
required. The Clinton administration did not pass on the sense of
immediacy either... but just 4 months prior to Bush's inauguration, USS
Cole was attacked... that should have put Bush on personal notice about
the immediacy of the situation.... the luxury of hindsight....

The primary responsibility of the U.S. Federal Gov is to defend her
people... it fell very short of that primary mission.

jay
Thu Jul 07, 2005

wrote in message
ups.com...


Andy Pandy wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Just a shame how such incidents bring out some peoples' bigotry.

whose, George Bushes ? Tony Blairs ? the Terrorists ?

The kind of bigots who will try to blame Muslims in general, or
Americans in
general, etc.

By all means blame our leaders, or those who voted for them, or the
terrorists
themselves. Then you are blaming people for their actions - not
blaming them
because of who they are.

I blame the people who put us in this situation.
The Americans in general voted for George Bush.
The British in general voted for Tony Blair.

No they didn't. They were both elected by a minority of the adult
population.

My point is Tony Blair was elected (by whichever method) and made the
decision.

They lied to us about the war, giving rise to the people who planted
the bombs. And they in all probability were Muslim.

Who only have the backing of a tiny minority of Muslims.

I agree. Most people on the planet are not interested in blowing other
innocent people up. But then I never made any mention of how many
Muslims backed this action (perceived or otherwise).

Or how many Christians have backed up the people who
are interested in blowing innocent Arabs up.


Please let me know if you think any of these statements are incorrect.

You don't seem to understand the difference between blaming an entire
nation/religion and blaming the individuals whose actions caused the
problem.

I do, but its difficult to name every person who thought invading Iraq
was a good idea, hence the Americans and the British will suffice.
Which is the perception in the Muslim world. Their axis of evil is
USA/UK/Israel.

Rita wrote:
On 7 Jul 2005 13:31:32 -0700, wrote:

Actually, reading r.t.e. and the relevant Lonely Planet forum
throughout the day one of the most striking things was the general lack
of hysteria

I saw no emotionalism on any news channels as well.

One of the most striking things here, from a UK perspective, is that on
this occasion we seem, broadly, to have leaped over the post-Di maudlin
stage and gone straight to rationality.

I hear, though, that heaps of flowers have been left outside the
British embassy in Warsaw! (This is third-hand, but from reliable
sources, as they say.)

In article ,
says...


From: Rita
Organization: Road Runner - NYC
Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:04:22 GMT
Subject: Bombs in LOndon

Do you think France will be exempt from this kind of attack since it
did not participate in the Iraq war? Seems Denmark and Italy have
been warned.

No. For the Islamists there are plenty of issues to go around. The banning
of the Islamic veil in the schools here still rankles with the Islamist
fanatics. And the French are in Afghanistan, an Islamic country, fighting
alongside the rest of the Europeans who are there.

For the sake of its own security shouldn't France pull out of
Afghanistan, then?