« AWOL | Home | More on Roberts and the (other) Feds »

August 4, 2005

So why did London get bombed?

The (parallel) world according to Rumsfeld:

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Thursday rejected as “nonsense” the notion that recent terrorist attacks in London were retaliation for the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
“Some people seem confused about the motivations and intentions of terrorists and about our coalition’s defense of the still young democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Rumsfeld said in a speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.
“They seem to cling to the discredited theory that the recent attacks in London and elsewhere, for example, are really in retaliation for the war in Iraq or for the so-called occupation of Afghanistan,” he added. “That is nonsense.”
In a videotape broadcast earlier Thursday, the second-in-command for the al-Qaida terrorist network, Ayman al-Zawahri, threatened more destruction in London, saying that British Prime Minister Tony Blair would be to blame.

Let me get this straight. Rumsfeld really wants us to believe that if Blair hadn’t supported Bush every step of the way in Iraq, the July 7 London suicide bombings would still have taken place?

I don’t think so.

Posted by Stephen at 5:02 PM in Terrorism | War | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


I scrambled the last couple of sentences; hopefully the post now makes more sense. Sorry :(

But if that wasn't the issue, then I'm not sure I understand your question. The only developed countries that have been targeted by Islamic extremists are those that have supported Bush's adventurism; Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have made it very clear in statement after statement that Britain is a target precisely because of its leading role in the Iraq war. Assume Blair had stayed out of this fight: would 7/7 have happened? Nope.

Posted by: Stephen at August 4, 2005 11:41 PM

why don't you think so?

Posted by: nope at August 4, 2005 9:41 PM