Further thoughts on today

[azekeil]

So, here are some things I believe:

• The war in Iraq was entered into for the wrong reasons.
• Until recently, I felt the prospect of our troops staying in Iraq (and Afghanistan) was not certain, and that withdrawing them as soon as appropriate would be wise.

There are many other things, but this is the crux of it for the point I wish to illustrate. I was talking with kissycat1000 who helped me to realise that the 'statement' claiming that al-Qaeda are responsible for the attacks sets off the following chain of events:

1. Any nation threatened by terrorism must adopt the position that the terrorists' position will not be benefitted by their actions. To do otherwise sets a dangerous precedent.
2. Blair as expected lays down this message in response to the attacks.
3. As a result, Britain must now not pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan any time soon, nor in a way that could be construed to be complying with the 'statement'.

The terrorists must know that by bombing and releasing their 'statement' that this would be the outcome:

• ..and are so wrapped up in their method and principle of the matter rather than the outcome that they don't care
• ..or they actually believe there is some other way we will respond despite the obviousness of the above.

I don't believe the terrorists believe the latter.

The only other option (and my hope) is that their 'statement' is falsified by dumb extremists on our side wishing to pin the attacks on 'the enemy', hoping to garner public support for the war.

The crux of the matter is it may be the case that al-Qaeda carried out the attacks but by specifically mentioning the reasons they are carrying out the acts of terrorism in their 'statement' they are effectively ensuring those reasons continue to exist.

All logical outcomes are therefore very depressing thoughts.

Comments

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

That's allowing terrorism to affect our judgement and I don't agree.

True, but I feel the situation in Iraq will be changed by the attack, meaning we need to change our response - whether or not this was caused by the terrorists it's still an effect that needs to be dealt with.

One would hope however in your example that the Iraqis would deny the allegations and not allow it to descend into a worse mess than it already is.

I think my main point is that I can see no logical way that the situation as it stands can be alleviated, or that any good can come of the policies everyone is following.

[easternpromise.livejournal.com]

One would hope however in your example that the Iraqis would deny the allegations and not allow it to descend into a worse mess than it already is

How can they deny an allegation which doesn't directly implicate them in an attack? They've been used as the pretext, sure, but the group doesn't claim to be Iraqi. How can Iraq deny that it has been cited as a factor in compelling a group of people to formulate a terrorist attack? It's a fact, not an allegation, surely?

I have to say I agree with aoakley in that we can't allow our foreign policy to be dictated to by terrorists. As it stands, we were already planning on sending more troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in any case, and this does to some extent strengthen the requirement for that to happen, but if we had been due to pull out altogether a terrorist attack shouldn't change our decision to do that.

I think my main point is that I can see no logical way that the situation as it stands can be alleviated, or that any good can come of the policies everyone is following.

There's little hope for it being alleviated. One would hope that once Iraq is stable and settled then that may take away some of the impetus for attacks of this nature, as a peace deal in Palestine might also go some way to doing, but I have my suspicions that these terrorists will then just come up with some other excuse. It seems to me they enjoy making trouble and any kind of pretext is 'a-ok'. Fact is, no government can bow to terrorism - it just invites more...