There has been an independent research group in Britain that is affirming, without doubt, that the Iraq War is making the world less safe wrt terrorism.
Academics writing for the respected independent research group Chatham House - formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs - concluded that there is "no doubt" that the invasion had enhanced propaganda, recruitment and fund-raising for al-Qaeda.
Frank Gregory, of the University of Southampton, and Professor Paul Wilkinson, of the University of St Andrews, the report's authors, also said that Britain's efforts to combat terror had been hampered by its closeness to America.
How do the politicians respond? By treating us like fools...
Exhibit "A": The British Secretary of Defense, John Reid.
"The idea that somehow by running away from the school bully then the bully will not come after you is a thesis known to be completely untrue by every kid in the playground. And it's refuted by every piece of historical evidence that we have.
"It's going to be a long and hard struggle, it's an international problem, the terrorists will kill anyone who stands in the way of their own perverse ideology.
"So when this report says that we have made ourselves more of a target because of our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and our efforts to tackle al Qaeda, what alternative it is proposing?
"That we should stand back while others take on the terrorists? I do not think this is what the British public would want."
No, Mr. Reid. We should NOT be invading countries whose leader was not involved with the attack on 911. Indeed, we should not be creating a huge valuable new training ground for these terrorists (where there was never one before) who are using the unjustified and discredited premise of this illegal war to recruit many more.\
THE 911 BULLY, MR. REID, WAS NEVER IN IRAQ!!!
And I haven't closely looked at the Chatam House report, but does anyone know if they even mention Afghanistan as being a place where an attack was unjustified?
At least Mr. Reid wasn't as blatantly absurd as the American response. Here's Mr. Rumsfeld taking us as fools once again -- in a more eggregious way:
"I think that people who think that terrorists pick and choose discriminately don't understand how it works. The United States had done nothing on September 11 when it (the attack on America) was done,"
On second thought, your right Rummy. YOU SURE AS HELL DID NOTHING!!!! The President did nothing, either -- except continue to read a storybook to children. But alas, that's another diary.
Now, let's talk specifically about the London Bombings and the influence the Iraq war had on the bombers. For this, I direct you to the comments of some friends of one of the bombers:
Shahzad Tanweer, the 22-year-old son of a Pakistani-born affluent businessman, turned to Islam, the religion of his birth, a few years ago. The transformation was gradual, but then his relentless reading of the Quran and daily prayers became almost an obsession, his friends told The Associated Press. He became withdrawn and increasingly angry over the war in Iraq, according to those who knew him best.
The U.S.-led war was what likely drove him to blow himself up on a subway train last week, said his friends.
Nah, there's no connection.
Government rejects Iraq link to London bombs - Reuters
Iraq 'made UK a terror target', claims report - Times Online
London Bombers Were Angered by War in Iraq - The Guardian
Since DHinMI, JJB, and Plutonium Page have made it an issue in this diary:
I politely ask that we refrain from any further discussion about the "quality" of this diary, or leaving any further "snotty" messages to that effect. It is truly amazing to me that these same people -- some of them so-called "respected front-pagers" can behave this way. I'm trying to add to the discussion on these and other topics as best as I can -- and yes, there are many other diaries that are far above the quality of this one. However, is it too much to ask for people to write productive comments without being "hecklers"?