.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Saturday, July 09, 2005

London Bombings: Who Is Responsible?

The following is by mrssatan contributor T. James Edwards

We are beginning to hear the usual claptrap about Bush's aggressive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq being responsible for European bombings. This is a muddled stretch of the Bush-hating imagination, and here's why:

1984: (17 years before Bush): Muslims bombed US embassy in Beirut, Lebanon
1985: (16 years before Bush): Muslims bombed restaurant in Madrid, Spain; Muslims hijacked TWA flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome; Muslims hijacked cruise ship Achille Lauro; Muslims bombed airports in Rome and Vienna
1986: (15 years before Bush): Muslims bombed TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens; Muslims bombed a disco in Berlin
1988: (13 years before Bush): Muslims bombed passenger jet above Lockerbie, Scotland
1993: (eight years before Bush): Muslims bombed the World Trade Center
1995: (six years before Bush): Muslims bombed Paris subway
1996: (five years before Bush): Muslims bombed barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
1998: (three years before Bush): Muslims bombed embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
2000: (one year before Bush): Muslims bombed the USS Cole in Yemen

This list above is hardly complete. It begins well before 1984, and continues through this day. Doubtless, it will keep going into the future. To get a complete picture of terrorism, visit the Terrorism Knowledge Base, one of the word's largest and most comprehensive databases chronicling the cruel deaths of innocent people.

The fact is, for more than 30 years, Muslims (the extreme variety) have deemed it acceptable and somehow productive to slaughter innocents as they travel to and from work, to shopping malls, and while sipping espresso at sidewalk cafes. Their cowardice has killed women, children, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Americans, Italians, French -- you know the drill. Characterizing this very old menace as something Bush is responsible for is an absurdity Anton Chekhov would fully appreciate. Bush is the first world leader to fight back in earnest, and that's why he twice earned my vote. Bill Clinton's errant guided missiles and full retreat from Mogadishu only resulted in an environment making 9/11 possible. And the puzzling responses to terrorism partially explains John Kerry's defeat.

The big question for American liberals and worldwide Bush-haters: Is it never okay for us to fight back?

And a suggestion for the same crowd: Review the list above, browse the Terrorism Knowledge Base, and then couch your irrational hatred of Bush. It's misplaced, and it's getting old.
© 2005

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker



Web Site Traffic Counters
Alabama Internet

Listed on BlogShares

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

This site uses photographs and material from other sources in strict
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.

Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.