Giving in to terrorists?

[sealybobo]

The United Kingdom's highest court today provided new details of how the Saudis pressured British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government to shut down a politically embarrassing bribery investigation two years ago that implicated the Saudi ambassador to Washington.

But the former prime minister, the court found, acted out of good faith: he and his advisers were genuinely worried that, if the Saudis followed through on their threats, it could lead to another "7/7"—British shorthand for the devastating July 7, 2005, terrorist bombings in the London subway system that killed 52 commuters and injured 700.
"The threats to national and international security [are] very grave indeed and ... British lives on British streets would be at risk," the British ambassador to Riyadh warned the Serious Fraud Office, the British unit conducting the probe, according to the court ruling.

How Saudis Pressured the U.K.?s Blair Government | Newsweek Voices - Terror Watch | Newsweek.com

So why is the central front on terrorism in Iraq again? Why are we focusing on Iran?

 

[sealybobo]

No one finds it interesting that the British are cowering and caving in to terrorist threats?

And I find our position on Iran hypocritical when you consider the way we have paid N. Korea with money, electricity, energy assistance, and "economic co-operation in the fields of energy, trade and investment".

And Iran said they would stop trying to build weapons grade nukes. So did Korea. Most people on these boards don't believe Iran but somehow want to give N. Korea the benefit of the doubt?

 

[editec]

I see some of you are unfamiliar with the golden rule.