Thursday, July 21, 2005
London bomb victim quizzes Australian PM on Iraq
An Australian survivor of the London bombings has confronted Prime Minister John Howard from her hospital bed asking whether the attack which left her with a broken neck was linked to the U.S.-led Iraq war.
Sitting on the edge of her bed in a London hospital, Louise Barry surprised Howard with the question, prompting him to defend the military operation in Iraq, which includes Australian troops.
"What do you think? Everyone says its all...because of the Iraq war," asked Barry, her head held tight in a metal brace, after shaking hands with her prime minister
Both Howard and Blair told the world today why the second London attacks happened. They sounded like a broken record.
Other people in Britain seem to be having more interesting Ideas, like London's mayor yesterday:
London mayor Ken Livingstone criticizes Western foreign policy in the Middle East, saying that the Western interference fuelled the Islamist radicalism behind the London bombings.
Livingstone made the remarks Wednesday in a BBC interview when asked what he thought had motivated the four suspected suicide bombers.
He said that the West had for 80 years meddled with Arab lands because of the need for oil, and implemented "double standards" in their Middle East policy.
He believed that extremism would not have prevailed if the West had returned the right of self-determination to the Arab countries after World War I.
Last week, the British Royal Institute of International Affairs said Iraq war made Britain vulnerable to attacks like those of July 7.
Anyway, I hope there were no casualties in today's attacks, and I hope the British, Australian, and other governments taking a part in the US-led coalition in Iraq will pull out their armies from our countries and help us all stop the cycle of violence.
Let the ship of the US foreign policy sink alone.
*****************
We're expecting news from Iraq about my detained brother, our goal is asking the authorities to take him to court...
When my brother is released, we won't forget that thousands of other innocent people are detained in the jails and prisons in Iraq."
"Let the ship of the US foreign policy sink alone."
4 comments:
You know Greta I'm not exactly sure how i feel about this. Do Englanders think that if they had not allied with the U.S that they would never suffer from terrorism, i'm not so sure, I don't really agree with our aggression in Iraq and I'm pretty sure it won't solve a damn thing., but what does the world suggest that the U.S. do about islamic radicals and terror. There is a new movement here in the states for greater isollation from foriegn policy and far more restrictive and closed off nation from the rest of the world who seems to resent everything we do. Is that what the worlds really wants?
You know Johnny, I´ve been dead against this war from the start. I felt the States were going to repeat the same error they did in Vietnam, which has shown to be right. Saddam Hussein and his regime was rotten, of course and had to be removed, I think we can agree on that. But I think the method used was completely wrong. Don´t ask me how it should have been done, but I think the US and British (and of course more nations)intervention has only made things far worse and made the turmoil of violence spread all over the world.
I have no simple answer on how to solve the Gordion´s knot that the whole thing has come to.But armed intervention, I´m quite sure, is not the answer.
I think it´s a big shame if the USA are becoming a closed continent to the rest of the world because of the fear of terrorism.(It used to the USSR that was a closed country, it´s leaders dead scared of capitalism and foreign influence).
I sure hope the States are not going to see a repetition of McCarthyism on the issue of terrorism, back then it was the commies that were the enemies. Am I wrong to be comparing these two things, by what you tell me is happening with you, this new movement?
Is that what the USA really wants?
It seems to me to be utterly yours as a nation to decide, or what nation/nations do you think has the power to meddle in YOUR national affairs, one of most (the most?) powerful and rich nations in the world?
Isn´t it so that it only takes US denial to prevent things happening at the UN that the US doen´t want?
And what about the Kyoto convention?
I'd have to say that the fact of being a world power is exactly the problem. Just the fact that we can intervene in so many facets anywhere in the world we are often expected to do just that, Why ? Is America any more to blame for crisis and unrest around the world , than any other country ? Given that our tactics are far from perfect and sometimes miss the mark, so many times we have gotten involved in the problems and needs of other nations and in turn became the brunt of hatred and ridicule around the world. If we are going to be blamed for always making matters worse then why not save ourselves all of the young lives and money and energy and not get involved at all. At what point do we stop trying to save the rest of the world and tend to ourselves. Yes, it would be nearly ,if not flat out impossible to isolate ourselves completely in this new global community , but even a dog if whipped to many times for trying to protect his master will stop trying eventually ! Sort of like the old saying damned if you do, damned if you don't. Your correct it is ours as a people to decide, but I think in general alot of Americans sort of agree with this mode of thinking. Maybe not the wisest choice , but we for the most part love our country and for all practical reasons must consider our own well being. it does sadden me that this all seems kind of McCarthian, but , our power in the U.n doesn't protect us from radicals and extremist and doesn't give American citizens much peace of mind either. i wish i could proudly speak of our record, concerning the Kyoto treaty, but i'm afraid thats just outright bad politics from our leaders. i really don't agree with many of there positions.
Post a Comment