I really hope Britons will not succum to pro-war hysteria.

[Cascadian]

I read an article from the Dallas Morning News via the Seattle Times. They reported an expert that said that the terrorist attacks may give Tony Blair popular support among the British people and for the war in Iraq. Unlike some Americans who would believe anything Bush would say as the pathetic excuse for a media here, I give Britons some credit for not supporting Blair's misguided and illegal invasion of Iraq. I hope that this attack will fuel Britons to intensify the pressure on Blair to bring their troops home or resign.

The article I mentioned above is linked here....


http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=loniraq08&date=20050708&query=brits+quit+iraq


If the British people do swing their support for Blair and Bush, I really hope they think long and hard at what Blair has gotten themselves into. I am convinced that had Blair not gone along with sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, there would not have been any terrorist attacks on Thursday in London. The terrorists have targeted in America (9/11/01), in Madrid (3/11/04), and now London. Also it must be mentioned that Australians in Bali were attacked as well. The thing in common is that the U.S., the U.K., and Australia are all partners in this so-called "Coalition of the Willing". Spain was a partner until elections changed the government and subsequently withdrew it's troops from Iraq. You do not hear of any attacks on Canada, Germany, France, or Sweden. Neither of those countries supported the U.S. in Iraq's invasion. This coalition of the willing is only going to create more violence for all people involved.

Let's not forget that Blair echoed Bush's statements that the World is "safer" because of the Iraq war. I really hope those words are just enough to haunt Blair in the light of the horrible events of Thursday.

The British people should be admired for their stoicness and bravery in the face of this tragedy. I hope that same spirit will not be mispent in supporting an already proven unjustified and pointless war.

John

[BattyDem]

1. I saw some Brits interviewd on the evening news ...

and I must say, I was very impressed with them! They refused to be afraid and they decided that they need to go on living their lives and not worry about what may happen. I don't think Blair will be able to manipulate them like * has manipulated us for one very simple reason: the UK has a REAL press!

[marmar]

2. I doubt it...

Brits tend to think much more globally than Americans do and seem to be better able to see through B.S.

[David Dunham]

3. The Brits will very likely rally around Blair. That's bad for Gordon Brown

In times of crisis, the British people do rally around their prime minister, just as Americans rally round their president.

[Cha]

4. Have you seen this..

snippet~

"John Aravosis on AmericaBlog has an incredible editorial
on today's events and the way the London people are handling it. I think what struck me most was what the policeman outside Buckingham Palace said...

"Perhaps the most surprising was a cop in front of Buckingham Palace who, when asked by my friend why he thought today happened, the cop responded: "Because some people just want to be free." Pretty interesting words from a cop guarding Buckingham Palace on the day the flag is at half mast for the second time in history (Lady Di's death being the first time).

It's amazing how the rest of the world undestands that there are consequences for attacking, occupying, killing and torturing people. I urge everyone to go to www.americablog.org and read the whole story. We could learn a lot from the people of London."


More at..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4045243

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. The brits are pretty stoic compared to Texans.

Texans (especially the right-wing property rights type) are braggarts and whinny. Brits will do their own thing in their own time, but they will do it in a sensible mature manner. Emotions will be tethered and it will be a logical process which will convince the nation of whatever action they will take. Not emotional shit stirring, like our right-wingers do.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Really, they have much more experience dealing with terrorism.

Sadly, these sorts of incidents have happened much more frequently for quite a while for them. But because of that, I think they're less succeptable to be panicked into something rash and unrelated to fighting terrorism the way it happened here.

[David Dunham]

7. Brits are pretty nasty toward terrorists -- just ask their IRA detainees

[the_spectator]

8. (You might want to add a "b" to that "s"-word of yours)

Without it, this seems kind of like a sex thread.
A particularly grossenating one at that.
:shrug:

[Cascadian]

10. ?

Not sure I follow you. What sex thread?

John

[the_spectator]

11. "succum"? No, "succumb" -

Sorry, it was just me being the spelling police last night!
Sorry for the confusion!

[damnthetorpedoes]

15. haven't you heard?

Correcting spelling -- even in a top level post -- is considered elitist around here. Prepare to be abused.

[Cascadian]

16. Nobody can be an expert wordsmith.

If I could edit it I would be too late now.

:eyes:



At least I can say internet, not INTERNETS!

[McCamy Taylor]

9. More likely they will swing towards Galloway.

[tenshi816]

17. That won't happen.

The Respect party is far, far too small to win a general election over here - there are a total of 646 members of Parliament, and George Galloway is the only member of the Respect party in Parliament (seriously, it's a small party). Also, despite being a highly gifted orator, George isn't hugely popular in Britain.

In any event, even if there was a huge swing in support towards George Galloway, it wouldn't make any difference. The Labour party is in power until the next election. Even Tony Blair's resignation wouldn't change that, nor would sudden massive support for any another party.

Edited for clarity.

[Benbow]

12. No sign of Brits becoming pro-war - rather the opposite

I listened to a BBC Radio 4 programme this afternoon - "Any Answers" - which is the listeners' opportunity to have their say on the topics discussed on the related "Any Questions?" programme broadcast on Friday nights. Just about everyone who got on the show said that we were bombed on Thursday because of the war in Iraq.

[flpoljunkie]

13. from today's Guardian: "Blair Put Us in the Firing LIne"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1524752,00.html

Blair put us in the firing line

The war on Iraq made the attack on London inevitable

Faisal Bodi

Saturday July 9, 2005

Guardian

Amid all the punditry about whether there was an al-Qaida connection to Thursday's attacks on London commuters, it should not be forgotten that the bloody trail of blame leads straight to 10 Downing Street. The prime minister's early return to Westminster was a fitting response to the carnage unleashed on the capital. It was the only hint of personal responsibility for our entanglement in a war that has made prime targets of innocent Britons.

The fury generated by Tony Blair's decision to coat-tail George Bush into what only the blind still call a justified war has put us all in the firing line. When Blair led us into the war on terror, he knew that a country with which Islamist networks had no immediate axe to grind would be drawn into their sphere of hate as a consequence.

That is why we have had tightened anti-terrorism laws, public scares and training exercises for emergency services. They were all premised on the inevitability of blowback for Blair's foreign exploits. In the calculation that staked our security against some ill-conceived national interest in occupying Iraq, our government has turned us all into expendable pawns, in the same way it did Ken Bigley and Margaret Hassan.

Not that this outrage is likely to shock us into realising we have become involuntary martyrs for Blair in the service of his master's imperial cause. In the politics of fear, attacks like Thursday's rarely lead to awareness beyond the most immediate danger. Those further down the chain of causation usually escape censure in the resulting wave of revulsion.

So it came as little surprise to see Blair trotting out the same tired juxtaposition of our civilisation and their barbarism. Those responsible have no respect for human life, he said. At such times of high emotion we can perhaps forgive him for losing a sense of perspective. It might serve him well to remember our conduct in a conflict waged without rules and mercy. Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and the bombing of innocent Afghans in their homes might conjure up images of US brutality, but our policies and military action ever since the first Gulf war, including sanctions and the use of depleted uranium, have maimed and wiped out hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, whose only crime was to live under a tyrant of our making - not theirs.

more...

[City Lights]

14. Excellent commentary.

It deseserves its own thread.

[deadparrot]

18. I would think the opposite...

granted, I'm far from British, literally and figuratively, but I would tend to think that the British will see this attack as a result as their allegiance with the United States.

:shrug:

[tenshi816]

19. I don't think there will be a shift to a "pro-war" mentality.

As another poster says on this thread, if anything it's likely to become the opposite. Yes, everyone here is in agreement that the bombings were an outrage, but it doesn't follow that all of a sudden the country is going to become full of gung-ho war supporters. Britons don't generally have knee-jerk reactions like that.

The bombings were a wake-up call. What I expect to happen is that people will start rousing themselves from the apathy there's been for a while here, and start asking Tony Blair some hard questions about how he proposes to extricate Britain from the mess it's in.

[Karenina]

20. Brits ain't Amis

NO, they are NOT like you lot. THEY have experienced bombs dropping on their heads and KNOW what war really means. They also KNOW what blowback from IMPERIALISM means. Check out their exit from Afghanistan oh-so-many decades ago.

[Cascadian]

21. Yes. They did have an Empire didn't they?

The powers that be in Washington, D.C. really should read up more on their history. Many empires and superpowers have come and gone. They never last. America MUST take note of this and quit acting like the masters of the planet.


John