Already I've hear any number of people, including Ann MacCullen, and Ontario Security fascist Fantino, warn us that we are on the AQ top 6 hit list.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but not only was that list that named Canada as a top 6 terrorist target not confirmed, but had several experts state with some confidence that the tape with that mesasge was a fake.

I've been listening to CFRB (right wing talk radio in Ontario) and even the most right wing of the hosts (Bob Carrol) had to put his foot down and tell the people calling in that he would take no more rascist talk, and that if another caller slipped into that mode he would interrupt the caller, make fun of them, call them racist and hang up on them.

I've posted this before, but a little after 9-11, i was walking down the street with my son in a stroller, he was maybe 18 months at the time and this white guy passed by me, stared at us, and after he was a few feet away, shouted 'go back to fucking iraq' - I think he meant to say afghanistan but had a poor grasp of geo-politics or maybe he was part of bush's inner circle- although he really didn't look the part.

Well, i have had people shout racist slurs at me quite a few times before this, mostly when i was a child and I had never ever responded mostly because of shame and fear. But this time was different- I was older and a parent and enraged- so in the middle of a busy street in TO in broad daylight, i shouted back 'go to fucking hell asshole' after which i felt a whole bunch of different emotions, fear cause i thought the guy
would retaliate with violence and i was with my baby and also pregnant at the time. I was also embarassed that i was standing on the street shouting profanities at a stranger and swearing in front of my son. Finally, just sad that my baby had to be exposed this type of shit.

[ 07 July 2005: Message edited by: periyar ]

And with the growing unpopularity of the US, maybe AQ would prefer to attack friends of the US, so it will get blamed?

[ 07 July 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by solarpower:
McLellan was just on saying Canada was one of 5 countries named.
So I guess she doesn't know the list is a fake?

---

I guess she is just like a lot of people too lazy to think for themselves or do a simple search for the right information.

There was also a so-called security expert I heard today telling us the same nonsense, including that of the top 5 (Canada being number 5) we are the only country to still be hit.

The list included The USA, Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia.

I'm sure that there are embittered people wondering why we should suddenly be so heartbroken over innocents in one place when so many of us pay almost no attention to the slaughtered innocents elsewhere.

That's not my view, since I'm not into justifying anyone's murder, but I see why people driven to the edge would think that way.

hey, I'd have done this at this time, it makes excellent sense... Spain had the wits to pull out of Iraq after their trains were bombed and Spain hasn't been hit since...

If Britain pulls out of Iraq there might well be no more bombings of this kind. If Blair continues to help slaughter innocents in Iraq other innocents in Britain will be slaughtered...

It's a grim, sad and ugly way to make a politican statement but it seems as if ALL political statements when analyzed are sad and ugly. "Foreign Aid" is really just another way to oppress the helpless and it is sad and ugly.

quote:

---

Britain has supported Dubya's Iraqi invasion,

---

The British people have not. Not ever. Not before the invasion, and not since. (And God, I pray: not now.)

It is true -- unfortunately -- that the damned Tony is likely to become even more frothy than he has been, but I think that the people will react very much as the Spanish did.

quote:

---

If Al Queda thought that they'd get the response from the British public that they got from the Spanish public, then they are even more ignorant of Western culture and history than we are of theirs.

---

I think they care as much about as western public opinion as Bush and Blair care about liberating the Iraqi people. In other words, not one bit.

In fact, a backlash from the West serves their purpose. In the way that we will point to this incident as proof as to why the so-called "war on terror" is necessary, they will point to any reprisal as proof that the "crusader" only wants to kill Arabs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I think I disagree with you, Tommy P.

It is true -- unfortunately -- that the damned Tony is likely to become even more frothy than he has been, but I think that the people will react very much as the Spanish did.

Levels of hostility to the Bush government are very high in Britain, very high. That isn't going to change overnight. I think that more people are still likely to hold Bush responsible for what has happened than not, which is pretty much what the Spanish did.

---

Well, I have the advantage of having had a War Bride for a Mother and knowing more than a few Britishers. The fight is now the thing; and the English will not stomach walking away or losing.

quote:

---

In fact, a backlash from the West serves their purpose. In the way that we will point to this incident as proof as to why the so-called "war on terror" is necessary, they will point to any reprisal as proof that the "crusader" only wants to kill Arabs.

It is a bloody spin cycle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
It seems to me support in Britain for the Iraq war was probably at an all time low before this morning. All these bombings will do is encourage the British public to rally to the Iraq war cause.

If Al Queda thought that they'd get the response from the British public that they got from the Spanish public, then they are even more ignorant of Western culture and history than we are of theirs.

---

I think the goal of AQ is pretty obvious. They don't want to sap our will to fight them. They aren't interested in damaging our economic health, at least not as a main goal. What they want is to force our governments (with the help of the right wing parasitic cowards that infest democratic societies) to erode our human rights rights and democracies to the point where we normal citizen rise up and recognize that while we are all comfy here hiding behind our thin vail of democracy, our leaders and corporate elites out there exploiting whatever of the worlds poor they can, and murdering the rest. Once we lose the illusion of living in a society of human and democratic rights, then we will be able to see the truth of what our governments are inflicting on the rest of the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

The British people have not. Not ever. Not before the invasion, and not since. (And God, I pray: not now.)

Tony Blair dragged his people into the invasion. But the opposition in Britain has been sky-high from the start, I think higher than in any other European nation except Spain.

---

I have to call bullshit on that. The British people re-elected Bliar so the majority of British people (at least to an outsider) do in fact support his policies, including the US led invasion of Iraq.

Al Queda is tighting the screws on the lesser members of the coalition in attempt to pressure the US to withdrawl. Sadly, Bush is too pig headed to do that even after no WMDs were found.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

Well, I have the advantage of having had a War Bride for a Mother and knowing more than a few Britishers. The fight is now the thing; and the English will not stomach walking away or losing.

Ever argue with an Englishman, or woman, Skdadl?

---

I think Skdadl is Scotish. Arguing with the English is a a sacred duty, not just a pass time.

Frankly the British do not associate themselves with this war the way they did in WW2 when the Nazis made it everybodies business. In case you hadn't notice the British spnet most of the last century cutting and running from their oversease commitments as the first sign of trouble. Hell Ghandi didn't even make any bombs and they ran from him.

If he British are going to get tough with anyone it will be Tony Blair.

[ 07 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I can't attend daily, but If I'm wrong, I'll push a virtual peanut across the thread with my nose.

I just might be the first person in history to wager on English stubborness and lose a bet.

Ha...just occurred to me...first since George the III.

[ 07 July 2005: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

To me, that was defiance. Simply reacting emotionally to an attack is not defiance. The Spanish thought through what had happened and made the tough choice.

quote:

---

The British people re-elected Bliar so the majority of British people (at least to an outsider) do in fact support his policies

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yukoner:

I have to call bullshit on that. The British people re-elected Bliar so the majority of British people (at least to an outsider) do in fact support his policies, including the US led invasion of Iraq.

---

Well, I call bullshit on that. The British people re-elected Labour party members because they didn't have a hell of a lot else to do, given the alternatives.

The polls on the attitudes of the British people -- of most Europeans, for that matter -- have been consistent since before the invasion. Huge majorities are opposed. Spin that however you want, but people are opposed. The Poles are opposed. Everybody's opposed!

quote:

---

I think the goal of AQ is pretty obvious. They don't want to sap our will to fight them. They aren't interested in damaging our economic health, at least not as a main goal. What they want is to force our governments (with the help of the right wing parasitic cowards that infest democratic societies) to erode our human rights rights and democracies to the point where we normal citizen rise up and recognize that while we are all comfy here hiding behind our thin vail of democracy, our leaders and corporate elites out there exploiting whatever of the worlds poor they can, and murdering the rest. Once we lose the illusion of living in a society of human and democratic rights, then we will be able to see the truth of what our governments are inflicting on the rest of the world.

---

The reaction they are concerned with is not our own; they are rather concerned with "domestic consumption" of their own. Look who they address in their broadcasts: fellow believers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:

That's a stretch. It could be they just didn't see any viable alternative.

---

Absolutely. Blair stole the tory thunder. The Tories would have been in this war in a second, and everyone in Britian knows it.

You have a pro-war Labour party and a pro-war Tory party. Therefore the British electorate voted on the basis of things in which there were policy differnces, immigration the EU etc.

Look at how massively George Galloway smashed the incumbent Labour MP in his riding on his anti-war stance.

[ 07 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

The fallout...

---

With respect to how the Brits will react, it should be noted that the states/regions most affected by 9/11--New York, Pennsylvania, Washington DC--all voted democrat in the most recent US election. It's not as if the US used to be this hotbed of liberal thinking. It's akin to alcohol, that loosens up things that were already inside you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by beluga2:
NoYards: I strongly disagree. Al-Qaeda scum like bin Laden couldn't give three-fifths of a flying fuck about the sufferings of the poor and oppressed. His concern is that it's not him, and those who think like him, doing the oppressing. Remember, this is a guy who wants to overthrow the government of Saudi Arabia because it isn't fundamentalist enough. Apparently, they aren't beheading enough thieves or stoning enough adulterers for his liking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glacier76:
My condolences to London and the rest of the UK.

With respect to how the Brits will react, it should be noted that the states/regions most affected by 9/11--New York, Pennsylvania, Washington DC--all voted democrat in the most recent US election. It's not as if the US used to be this hotbed of liberal thinking. It's akin to alcohol, that loosens up things that were already inside you.

What will likely occur is a greater resolve in one's viewpoints--if you were against Blair and the invasion, you'll REALLY be against it. If you were for him and the invasion, you'll REALLY be for it.

---

I think that that is psychologically acute, glacier.

quote:

---

Originally posted by glacier76:
My condolences to London and the rest of the UK.

With respect to how the Brits will react, it should be noted that the states/regions most affected by 9/11--New York, Pennsylvania, Washington DC--all voted democrat in the most recent US election. It's not as if the US used to be this hotbed of liberal thinking. It's akin to alcohol, that loosens up things that were already inside you.

What will likely occur is a greater resolve in one's viewpoints--if you were against Blair and the invasion, you'll REALLY be against it. If you were for him and the invasion, you'll REALLY be for it.

---

I tend to agree with your observation here ... if this were a case of an unprovoked attack I could see the Brits resolve strengthening, but I think most Brits are intelligent enough to ask themselves the question "what would I do if there were what was preceived to be a vastly superior invading Muslim army setting in the middle of London?" They may. like Spain, come to the conclusion that they might respond in the same way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

Well, I call bullshit on that. The British people re-elected Labour party members because they didn't have a hell of a lot else to do, given the alternatives.

---

...so why isn't there an alternative? If people were that pissed don't you think there would be an alternative? What would it take for there to actually be an alternative?

Any-who, I believe I used the phrase 'to an outsider' in my post.

Put yourself in the terrorists shoes for a second. Your job is to create 'terror' right? The fact you just killed 33 people is small potatoes to that fact that you scared an entire city shitless. You sent shockwaves throughout the globe. You elevated the 'terrror alert' in the US.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yukoner:
Why was London attacked? I think we all know
the answer to that.

---

That's the only theory that makes sense to me, since the bomb sites certainly don't.

On this one score, though, I probably agree with Tommy P: Londoners are very unlikely to react by being terrorized in the sense that they would stop going to work, travelling about, etc. They won't do that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
Bin Laden has very clear aims; and they are terrible.

---

So are "our" aims. But it's not the Muslims that are occupying the centre of London.

quote:

---

hey, I'd have done this at this time, it makes excellent sense... Spain had the wits to pull out of Iraq after their trains were bombed and Spain hasn't been hit since...

---

quote:

---

Remember Al-Qaeda considers all of Andalucia to be "al-andaluz" and they won't stop until Spain evacuates 10 million people from the southern third of Spain and invites Bin laden to rule over it.

---

Al-Quaeda is a vicious bunch. They are unconcerned that their attacks target ciovilians, as opposed to soldiers, police, and other legitimate military targets.

Still, I do not think that Al-Quaeda has any intention of invading long-lost territories. I think they are most concerned about the historic lands of the prophet, especially Saudi Arabia and the near-Middle East.

Bin Laden originally claimed that 9-11 occurred because of US military bases in Saudi Arabia itself, the holy land of Islam. It was a "defilement", etc. etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Al-Quaeda is a vicious bunch. They are unconcerned that their attacks target ciovilians, as opposed to soldiers, police, and other legitimate military targets.

Still, I do not think that Al-Quaeda has any intention of invading long-lost territories. I think they are most concerned about the historic lands of the prophet, especially Saudi Arabia and the near-Middle East.

---

Actually, they have been taking the long view. Start with the holy land, move on to reclaim old territories, including the Iberian peninsula, the old Ottoman empire, the middle east, India, Indonesia etc. Basically put Islam back in the global drivers seat.

That's the lunatic fringe that are behind this sort of thing. They apparently think the best way to do that is to provoke attacks on Islamic countries and peoples, to unify Islamic people. That has been a very effective strategy so far.

That eing said, I don't think the Brits actually have much more capacity to increase their involvement, so this may be more in the line of 'keeping the fight going' than provoking further attacks.

One of my friends lives in London and normally she is on at very specific times. We're hoping that our thoughts are just morbid fascinations...But still. She commutes every day and...I really hope that I'm wrong even thinking this

edit:: She moved back to Sheffield last month and forgot to tell us.

Still, I feel so bad for those 40 (or more) who have lost their lives.

[ 07 July 2005: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jeff house:

Al-Quaeda is a vicious bunch. They are unconcerned that their attacks target ciovilians, as opposed to soldiers, police, and other legitimate military targets.

Still, I do not think that Al-Quaeda has any intention of invading long-lost territories. I think they are most concerned about the historic lands of the prophet, especially Saudi Arabia and the near-Middle East.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, they have been taking the long view. Start with the holy land, move on to reclaim old territories, including the Iberian peninsula, the old Ottoman empire, the middle east, India, Indonesia etc. Basically put Islam back in the global drivers seat.

---

I think Al Qaeda's claims about wanting Muslims to dominate Europe and beyond are a little like Kim Jong Il's speeches about wanting to liberate the international working class. The kind of stuff you say to sound tough and rally the faithful, but nothing that you would actually devote any serious amount of consideration to.

And anyway, isn't the stuff about getting Andalusia back based on a misquote? I read somewhere that what bin laden actually said was that he lamented the loss of Andalusia, not that reclaiming it was one of his goals.

[ 08 July 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

The US is all "oranged alerted" (while the UK gets back to relatiev normality almost right away no more talk about unimportant issues like treasonous exposure of CIA operatives, far right wing Supreme Court nominees; terrible numbers for the Bush government; Africa aid has been pushed off the G8 table the way Bush wanted.

quote:

---

I thought that the Spanish people were magnificently stubborn.
To me, that was defiance. Simply reacting emotionally to an attack is not defiance. The Spanish thought through what had happened and made the tough choice.

---

I think a lot of people are forgetting what actually happened in Spain last year. The reason that voters turfed the pro-US Popular Party was not as a reaction against Spain being part of the war in Iraq. In fact up until the bombing, they were crusing to an easy re-election despite 95% of Spaniards being anti-war. They made the fatal mistake of immediately trying to blame the bombing on ETA the Basque terrorists and it quickly became apparent that they did this for propaganda purposes and they tried to cover-up evidence of it being Islamic terrorism.

The cover-up was clear right from the start and the Spoanish people voted them out because of the cynical attempt to exploit the situation politically etc...

quote:

---

The PSOE had already been on a slow upward trajectory, Aznar's idiocy of blaming ETA for the attacks only caused that to spike.

---

That's my understanding as well. Zapatero suddenly drew votes from other left groups who would not have supported him before, the only reason he wouldn't have been elected before.

Aznar didn't have anything like majority support. Zapatero just needed a more united opposition, and he got it.

[ 08 July 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:
...it looks like none of the explosions were suicide bombings.

The US is all "oranged alerted"... no more talk about unimportant issues like treasonous exposure of CIA operatives....

Anyone else getting a whiff of something rotten here?

---

YES.

[ 08 July 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ]

He also claimed that the 9/11 hijackers came from Canada.

He is just as stupid as the rest of the American neo-con establishment.

Another example, Anne Coulter:

"Canada sent Canadian troops to Vietnam"