Why Britain and not the U.S.?

The Seattle Times ^ | Saturday, July 7, 2007 | By Matthew Schofield

[CGblue]

Why Britain and not the U.S.?

By Matthew Schofield McClatchy Newspapers

LONDON — From the moment that emergency workers spotted the bomb-laden car a week ago in London's crowded West End, it was clear that for the fourth straight year — and third straight summer — this city was being readied for a major terrorist attack.

Yet England isn't the Great Satan to al-Qaida extremists. Terrorism experts all agree that for al-Qaida operatives and sympathizers, the preferred villain is the United States.

So why do attacks keep happening here? And why, since the horror of Sept. 11, has America avoided another assault?

[Sherman Logan]

Good luck.

[free_for_now]

I think it has to do with isolating the US. One by one they will try to strip us of our allies and friends. These men are no fools, and they play the propaganda game extremely well. They have basically defeated Bush in Iraq through propaganda alone (with the help of our treasonous press. They simply play into the Vietnam quagmire mindset that the press already had, and the MSM does their job for them, trying to convince the American people that WE are the villains oppressing the poor downtrodden Arabs in order to put money in the pockets of Big Oil.

It frustrates me to no end. I’m just a restauranteur, but the mistakes this administration has made as far as winning the war of words blows my mind. I honestly don’t think I flatter myself to think that I could have done better, and considering my limited abilities, that is sad indeed.

[himno hero]

lets..okay..lets..not..try..tab.

tabbing..kicks..me..into..the..tagline..field

thanks..anyways..for..the..suggestion

[Northern Alliance]

Why Britain and not the U.S.?

Ask me a hard one. That's because these people already consider the UK as theirs so they are infuriated that they don't have Sharia law and have to tolerate living with non-believers.

[Panzerlied]

“sorry,..no..space..bar”

Sad..to..hear..that!

[donna]

Becasue no one in America has told the “no” yet.

[himno hero]

no..one..has..to..oppress..the..downtrodden..islamics

the..cavemen..philosophy..of..islam..does..it..by..itself..and..when..they..do..have..a..success,..their..violent..schizoid..arm..has..to..destroy..it..for..being..western

the..fools

[himno hero]

But,,I..will..try..to..be..the..first..to..get..one.opened

[elhombrelibre]

I believe Britain has been more indulgent of these cranks. For example, there was the hook-handed mad Mullah who was on the dole while preaching sedition and mass murder in the name of Allah. Then, you have the example of Spain where it was seen that a successful attack could lead to the policies al Qaeda wants. I don’t believe that’d work in the UK, but al Qaeda does. Ultimately, it’s a case of no good deed going unpunished. Britain has been receptive and generous with many people from her former colonies. They work hard to be PC. Their intellectuals hold their history up for scorn. In gratitude, some of these immigrants despise England and intend to harm its people.

[SauronOfMordor]

The US has been hit harder than Europe in terms of the number of fatalities. The two attacks against the WTC and the one against the Pentagon plus the crash of the plane in PA, killed 3000 people.

Consider the relative effects of attacks. On 9/11, they took down two of our towers, we responded by taking down two of their countries (Iraq and Afghanistan)

What consequences has the UK imposed upon the Muslim world over 7/7?

It's a mugger psychology. They will attack a target that they are confident will not hit them back, but instead will cower and appease them

[prognostigaator]

And on Friday, a Bolton man was sentenced to nine years for keeping a “terror library” on his computer, much of it downloaded from a password-protected al-Qaida Web site

[gcruse]

“making it hard for terrorists from outside to get into the country.’

No, I don’t think that’s why. What a maroon.

[free_for_now]

You said:

Why not the United States? Well, gee, how about the simple reason that the Muzzies know that the negatives would far out-weight the positives of such an attack on the U.S. It would weaken their allies in the U.S. (that would be the Democrat Party), and would piss off the American people (who already seem to be forgetting about 9/11).

My thought:

To attack here would go against their goal of convincing the American public that the Dems are right, and that the threat of Islamo-fascism is overblown. Once we pull out, expect continued (indeed, increased) attacks on Americans abroad, especially in areas where the majority of the population is Islamic. They want to chase us from the world stage first, and separate us from our allies. They won’t be coming for us until they have taken over Europe. We should be allying with China and non-Muslim India.

Having given this a lot of thought, the only way I see this conflict ending with Western values surviving is if the people of Islam reject the text of their religion which calls for the conversion of nonbelievers by force or, barring that the outlawing of Islam.

[gcruse]

Using tab for space just skips you around your GUI.

[Sig Sauer P220]

Because Britain is more overrun with Muzzies. Give us time, we’ll catch up with the open door policy.

[Lazamataz]

I...actually...like...your...writing...style...it’s...much...more...deliberate...and...measured...
I...think...I...will...adopt...it...as...my...own.

[kabar]

Consider the relative effects of attacks. On 9/11, they took down two of our towers, we responded by taking down two of their countries (Iraq and Afghanistan)

It just wasn't us. The UK played an important role in Iraq and NATO invoked article 5 of the Charter and joined us in Afghanistan. If fact, today the operations in Afganistan have become a NATO-run operation. And we have lost an additional 3000 personnel in Iraq and spent hundreds of billions of dollars responding to the actions of 19 men who turned commerical airliners into weapons. Before crowing about our accomplishments in Iraq and Afghanistan, let's see how it plays out long term. It could be a Pyrrhic victory.

What consequences has the UK imposed upon the Muslim world over 7/7? It's a mugger psychology. They will attack a target that they are confident will not hit them back, but instead will cower and appease them. .

The UK is our second largest coaltion partner in Iraq and they are also with us in Aghanistan. They are killing the enemy along with us. What else would you want them to do in terms of the "Muslim world?"

[gcruse]

You’ll...never...catch...me...doi-— Goddammit!

[halfright]

you wrote >> I suggest that we stop patting ourselves on the back about the lack of attacks and realize that we are still the number 1 target of AQ. The first attack on the WTC took place in 1993 and was followed up eight years later. AQ is noted for its careful planning and multiple attacks. I have no doubt that they are planning another spectacular attack against the US. That is the reason why we have not been hit again—yet.

Bingo! We have a winner!! WE are NEXT!

[Lazamataz]

just skips you around your GUI.

That sounds so gay.