Would the bombings in Turkey have occured

[pinkpops]

If Iraq had not been invaded?

[JailBush]

1. Probably not.

And they probably wouldn't have occurred at this particular time if George W. Bush had not ventured to London in search of photo-ops.

They should be designated Bush-Al Qaeda terrorist attacks.

[BurntIceCubeTray]

2. Why was the WTC bombed during Clinton?

To honestly examine the collusion between bombings we have to be honest.

Is there any connection between the two?

[alcuno]

3. Welcome to DU, BurntIceCubeTray.

It's like asking why the US was attacked on 9/11 while during *. Sometimes there are connections and the bombings in Istanbul were likely a message to the Israelis and the British.

[gulliver]

4. Well, I think ...

... it has its roots in our oil consumption requirements and the socially and politically careless way our oil companies and government go about satisfying them. The root of the problem is non-partisan.

But then you have to get to the solution and choose a direction. That is where Bush has made catastrophic mistakes. After a good start in Afghanistan, he started to go haywire. From the middle of the war in Afghanistan until now, Bush has made disastrously foolish moves.

He didn't try to address the root of the problem, oil and good neighborliness with the Muslims. Instead, he sent mixed messages, ironically under the guise of being clear-spoken. He "clearly" said that the people attacking us "hate us for our freedoms." Now that is clear all right -- clearly wrong. The word "plain-spoken" is applied to Bush, but "bald-faced" is more appropriate.

Bush was even "less clear" than usual about why we were going into Iraq. Rather he was clear in what he said, but what he said was wrong. And the things he didn't say, such as the intent to re-engineer the Middle East, turned out to be half-baked. And it is because he didn't say his real motives that he now finds himself (and we find ourselves) in the expensive and deadly pickle we are in. Had Bush not spoken of WMDs, a nuclear threat, and an Al Qaeda link, there would have been no war.

The proof of a president is in the pudding. Under Clinton, we never had anything remotely resembling the kind of daily carnage we are now seeing under Bush. I don't think it is possible to argue otherwise. Could Clinton have tried to improve things in the Middle East more than he did? Possibly. But he definitely tried hard, and he definitely had the problem under far better control than Bush now has.

Unlike Bush, Clinton did not have a 9/11 attack to wake up America to its danger in the Middle East. Had 9/11 happened under Clinton, he would have used its lesson much more wisely than Bush. And, yes, the attack that happened in Turkey today would not have happened.

[tabasco]

6. Due in large part to Bush I placing US military in Saudi Arabia

That was always a big beef of Al Qaeda. Bush II has fixed that for Osama, however.

[htuttle]

5. They blew up a British bank HQ (HSBC) and a British consulate

Given that Britain has been the #1 partner in the invasion of Iraq, I'd say they were related.

Why in Turkey?

It's nearby. It's convenient.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. possibly they're also going for Muslim countries

that have closer links with the West - Turkey (in NATO, wants to join EU, was willing to send troops to Iraq); the Bali bombing (Muslim country, though Bali is mainly Hindu; tourist destination for Australians); Morocco (again, popular tourist destination for Europeans). Do the bombers want to discourage ties between Islam and Christianity/secular west?

[Yupster]

8. Another thing going on in Turkey

is the recently elected president was from the religious party. However, he has not changed Turkish policy from its western orientation, and that is causing bitter disappointment among the fundamentalists there.

I'm sure they flipped out when he visited the synogougues after the bombing and expressed support for the Jewish minority there.

So the world doesn't always revolve around us. Countries have their own dynamics going too.