Disney Count support may be spotty from here. We apologize for the inconvenience.

who you gonna believe?

Ayman al-Zawahri: "The London bombs are in retaliation to UK presence in Iraq"

Rumsfeld: "The London bombs are not a retaliation to the war in Iraq"
Permalink thompson_gunner 
August 5th, 2005
Since Zawahri is probably behind the bomb-planting, I'd believe him.

Rumsfeld has his head up his butt.
Permalink Dana (formerly Blue State Bitch) 
August 5th, 2005
Neither.
Permalink Rick Tang 
August 5th, 2005
Zawahri has as much to do with it as I do.

There is no organised movement, it would be a lot easier to deal with if there was.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 5th, 2005
Maybe Zahwarhi didn't order the bombing, but I'd think he'd have his finger on the pulse of the insurgent movement in Iraq.

If a bunch of soldiers were occupying your country, I imagine one of the top reasons for attacking them might be to get them to leave. But that's just me.
Permalink Dana (formerly Blue State Bitch) 
August 5th, 2005
>Zawahri has as much to do with it as I do. There is no
>organised movement, it would be a lot easier to deal with
>if there was.

Zawahri was instrumental in providing the propaganda and the ideals that recruited the London bombers.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 5th, 2005
Both of them have an agenda to lie, so I'd say the jury is still out.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
August 5th, 2005
Oh, c'mon Philo. Of course the jury's still out, but what's your sense of this, your gut reaction?
Permalink Mongo 
August 5th, 2005
That's an unfair question - of course I'm going to guess "Rumsfeld", but my thinking is that whoever did it, al-Zahwahri is going to take credit - why shouldn't he?

I'm not going to assume it's related to Iraq just because Rumsfeld issues an opinion - knee jerk reactions like that drive /., not me.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
August 5th, 2005
I'd say without the Iraq war this particular attack wouldn't happen.
Permalink Rick Tang 
August 5th, 2005
>> That's an unfair question - of course I'm going to guess "Rumsfeld", but my thinking is that whoever did it, al-Zahwahri is going to take credit - why shouldn't he?

Sure it's an unfair question, but it's interesting nonetheless.

My own reaction leans about the same the other way. I'm not sure what that says about me, except I'm so conditioned now I just assume if anyone's lips in the current administration are moving that he's lying.

I'm pretty much at the point of "a pox on both their houses", I suppose.
Permalink Mongo 
August 5th, 2005
> Both of them have an agenda to lie, so I'd say the
> jury is still out.

I'd say Rumsfeld has got more of an agenda to lie and al-Zawahiri has more of an agenda to tell the truth.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 5th, 2005
agenda to tell the truth?

Well, I guess you could say that but that doesn't sound right.
Permalink Rick Tang 
August 5th, 2005
If the London bombs are _not_ in retaliation to UK presence in Iraq, then what are they for?
Permalink Mongo 
August 5th, 2005
Afghanistan?
Permalink Rick Tang 
August 5th, 2005
Why not say so, then? What's gained by lying about this?
Permalink Mongo 
August 5th, 2005
>Well, I guess you could say that but that doesn't
>sound right.

Despite what your government may tell you, not every word out of a Muslim fanatic's mouth is a lie.

This may be blasphemy, but actually I do think that some of the things bin Laden has said are valid points.

*proceeds to listen to muppet berating me for saying that 'terrorism is okay'*
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 5th, 2005
"Despite what your government may tell you, not every word out of a Muslim fanatic's mouth is a lie."

No, but let's do an honest analysis of the pragmatism involved.

- Large scale bombing in London.
- Evidence surfacing that perpetrators were not Irish.
- No group has taken credit after a number of weeks.

So - take credit for the bombings and get "free press" - what's the downside? Some other group later says "No, it was us protesting systematic harassment of arabic-looking people on London tubes"? Heck - that'll be page 12 news.

And to be honest, I'm not sure what, really, Rumsfeld gains by lying about the bombings, if he did, other than theorizing that he's lying again?

It's a big fuzzy mess, but if one side has to be lying (which makes sense, given the statements), I think logic favors al-Zahwahri being the liar, only because his lying makes the most sense.

Though I'm not sure this analysis does. :)

Philo
Permalink Rev. Philo 
August 5th, 2005
I mean telling the truth shouldn't be an 'agenda'.
Permalink Rick Tang 
August 6th, 2005
Colm - I wouldn't worry about it - his view a month ago was that it was only to be expected and we only had ourselves to blame. I was quite irritated if you remember.

Ok big question - if we promised to be good boys and withdraw would they stop?...or would we have to promise to cut the end of our dicks off, convert to their very individual branch of god-bothering, bring in the laws that they want, accept their edicts as gospel <contd. p94>

Bollocks. As far as they're concerned this started over 1000 years ago. They got really pissed off at us when we put Infidel troops on Moslem soil. Invading Iraq has acted as a recruiting aid for silly bastards wanting to get to heaven (and the angelic tarts) a bit quicker - but they had them previously.

And while I'm about it Rumsfeld's talking self-serving bollocks too...
Permalink a cynic writes... 
August 6th, 2005
My vote goes to Rummy.
Permalink Steve-O 
August 6th, 2005
...because his salad cream is so yummy.
Permalink Steve-O 
August 6th, 2005
Rumsfeld, as a member of the current administration and supporter of the Iraq war, has an agenda that includes increasing public support for the war and minimizing information that suggests the war is/was a bad idea or that it is not going well. Therefore, the idea that a city that had not previously suffered mass transit bombings was now having them as a result of the Iraq war would run against the image Rumsfeld wants to portray.

That's his reason to lie about it.
Permalink  
August 6th, 2005
>Ok big question - if we promised to be good boys and
>withdraw would they stop?

They might find it more difficult to recruit willing suicide bombers, but in essence the damage is done now.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 6th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: August, 2005 Other topics: August, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics