Irwin Stelzer has a good gripe about Obama's all round muzzliness in The Telegraph, but then can't resist showing that stuck-in-a-rut old right-wingers can rewrite history as well as the Lefties with this sentence:
Obama now has to explain to his pacifist Democratic Left why he is sending tens of thousands of troops into Afghanistan when his Nato allies, equally threatened – witness terrorist attacks on Madrid and London – won't.
IIRC, Nato invaded/enabled an uprising in Afgh in late 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks, which were sponsored by Al-Qaeda/The Taliban, who more or less ruled that country. Fair enough.
The attack in Madrid (which may or may not have had some sort of Al-Qaeda link, who were no longer in charge in Afgh by that stage) was in 2004 and the one London (which was carried out by four UK resident Islamist mass murderers, who also may or may not have trained in Al-Qaeda sponsored terrorist camps which may or may not have been in Afgh or neighbouring Pakistan) was in 2005. These attacks have little or no connection with Afgh and happened years after the Taliban regime had been replaced with the current regime.
If the UK is going to go round willy-nilly attacking countries with some vague connection to terrorist attacks in the UK, then why not attack Ireland and the USA (sponsors of the IRA), Pakistan or indeed, attack itself?
Twat.
Luxury Crackpottery
1 hour ago
6 comments:
"If the UK is going to go round willy-nilly attacking countries with some vague connection to terrorist attacks in the UK, then why not attack Ireland and the USA (sponsors or the IRA) or indeed, attack itself?"
Because the threat is from Islamic terrorism, and the US and Ireland are not Islamic countries?
Twat.
Without wishing to downplay Islamic terrorism, they have killed 50-odd people in the UK, as against 3,000-odd killed in the UK by the IRA.
Twat.
What was his point? That it's brave and heroic to go round attacking some shithole of an Islamic state more or less at random? Why not attack (or refuse to buy oil from) the Saudis who fund the whole terrorism thing in the first place?
Apart from liberal use of the word 'Twat' you haven't actually made any point whatsoever.
Th more often I read froedn Irwin the more I get irrated. He was a cherleader for Brown, now he's reinventing himself. I agree. Twat.
Given the woeful ignorance shown by Americans of all things foreign ( eg England = UK = GB ) I could see Irwins point about Obamas difficulty. He goes home with no money to show and no supporting troops from his allies in what is percieved to be a common war against a homogeneous enemy.
IEBOC, well spotted. Seen from the point of view of such an American, it might just about make sense. But I still think that Stelz is parading his own ignorance rather than making fun of Americans.
Or Obama could just go with the 'pacifist Democratic Left' and withdraw the troops?
Post a Comment