If you agree with terrorist raids, then you must agree with the Iraq war.

[XerxesVargas]

They also differ in one other respect: the operation in Forest Gate was carried out in accordance with the law of the UK. The invasion of Iraq was (certainly arguably) NOT in accordance with international law.

Indeed. "Certainly arguably" not needed.

I notice there has been little from Greenboz. Probably sitting at home wondering how this clever sophist trap fell apart so rapidly.

 

[greenman]

Until we discover that the Police raid was conducted on the basis of the "evidence" of some years-old academic thesis in order to put in a hose to nick the house's gas supply to heat the local nick, and establish a permanent Police post in the attic to watch that the neighbours do not evict an adjoining house of tooled up squatters, then there is no correspondence between the two events.

 

[Streathamite]

Yet is was wrong to invade Iraq on the suspicion that Saddam was manufacturing chemical weapons?

.

yes, because
a) the man in charge of Iraqi militarization i.e. WMDs for much of the 90s told british intelligence, on the occasion of his defection, that he'd got rid of them all, including chem weapons.
b) there was no other concrete proof thrown up by intensive surveillance and other intelligence that saddam had them at all

 

[northernhord]

Logic is a shite tool to use when discussing real human events that are perpatrated by irrational illogical human beings, logic is a whore and can be applied to anything to conjure up feesability.

Into the Bin with this piece of poo please.

 

[Azrael23]

How can someone be so ridiculously naive.

You think Bush is telling the truth about the war? You think the war had to happen and that only Saddam could have stopped it.... but he didn`t so he is evil.

Do you watch fox or something?!

They`ll start WWIII, and they`ll use the threat of terrorism to turn you all into slaves. It isn`t much different here either.

 

[Azrael23]

yes, because
a) the man in charge of Iraqi militarization i.e. WMDs for much of the 90s told british intelligence, on the occasion of his defection, that he'd got rid of them all, including chem weapons.
b) there was no other concrete proof thrown up by intensive surveillance and other intelligence that saddam had them at all

Scott Ritter anyone? Saddam had no weapons, fabricated war for proft and power. Try not to act too suprised like.