London rush hour terror attacks

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Hundreds of casualties in London rush hour terror attacks

WILL SPRINGER

TERRORIST bombs targeted London's rush hour this morning with at least four explosions on the Underground and bus system.

Reports from CNN say at least 12 people were killed, including ten at King's Cross station and two at Aldgate East station. Officials say about 300 were injured. One train passenger said he saw several bodies in the wreckage. At midday, three hours after the start of the attacks, people were still trapped in the Underground.

• Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, told the House of Commons that there had been at least four explosions, with attacks on the Tube system between Aldgate and Liverpool Street; Russell Square and Kings Cross; and at Edgware Road station; and on a bus in Woburn Place. The first blast was reported at 8:49am.

The entire Tube system, used by three million people a day, was closed while bus services in the centre of London have also been cancelled.

Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, had earlier said there had been at least six explosions, but said the picture was still "very confused" and expressed concern that this was "a co-ordinated attack." A Scotland Yard official said traces of explosives had so far been found at two of the blast sites.

- news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=754412005

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Rush hour terror blasts kill at least 33 in London

By Philippe Naughton, Times Online

More than 33 people were killed today when London was hit by an al-Qaeda-style series of bomb blasts targeting rush-hour commuters in Tube trains and on a double-decker bus.

The death toll was given this afternoon by Britain Paddick, Assistant Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who said: "This clearly was a callous attack on purely innocent members of the public deliberately designed to kill and injure innocent members of the public."

Mr Paddick said four blasts hit London shortly before 9 am. Seven people were killed in the first blast in a tunnel near Moorgate station in the City, 21 were killed in a second near King’s Cross and another five died at Edgware Road station in west London.

There were a still unknown number of fatalities on a double-decker bus that was blown up Tavistock Place in Bloomsbury. Overall, hundreds of people were injured in the blasts, of whom 45 were seriously or critically injured.

An unknown al-Qaeda cell in Europe claimed responsibility within hours in an internet claim that could not be verified, saying: "Britain is now burning with fear." But Mr Paddick said that it was too early to say whether the explosions were the work of suicide bombers, saying only that police believed that "four devices" were responsible for the chaos.

Scotland Yard did not receive any warning before the blasts and no group has officially claimed responsibility for the attack, he added

- tinyurl.com/asr56

[mic]

Very sad news.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Bastards!

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

July 07, 2005

London: a new and bloody chapter for al-Qaeda?
By Richard Beeston, for Times Online

An unknown al-Qaeda cell in Europe claimed responsibility for the attacks in London today on the al-Qal’ah - or Fortress - internet site. The Times Diplomatic Editor assesses this claim and the wider implications

It is impossible to know whether the claim of responsibility made on the internet is genuine, unless the group offers some proof that it was responsible.

Far more telling are the facts emerging from the bombings, which have all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda attack and are similar to the deadly rush-hour bombings by al-Qaeda terrorists against commuters in Madrid last year.

First the bombs were synchronised to go off at the same time and cause maximum terror. The same method was used by al-Qaeda against the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es-Salaam, against the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington on September 11, 2001, against nightclubs frequented by Australian tourists in Bali, and against the British consulate-general and the HSBC bank in Istanbul.

Unlike previous terrorist attacks by Irish republican groups, al-Qaeda never issues a warning and the intent is to kill and injure as many people as possible, as happened to the rush hour commuters today.

The other circumstantial evidence is that British intelligence has been expecting an attack on London for the past four years.

Tony Blair has been George Bush's closest ally in his War on Terror, sending British troops to Afghanistan and Iraq and collaborating closely with pro-Western Arab regimes, whose overthrow al-Qaeda is committed to.

More than one senior intelligence source has told me in the past that "it is not a question of whether but when". They claim to have thwarted past attempts at exactly this sort of attack.

If today's claim is genuine it raises a disturbing new twist to the campaign of violence. The group specifically linked the operation to Iraq and warned Italy and Demark to pull their forces out or face the same threat of terror.

Previously, it was assumed that Britain was on al-Qaeda's hit list for all the reasons I mentioned above. But the original al-Qaeda group headed by Osama bin Laden is much weakened by the overthrow of the Taleban regime in Afghanistan and the killing or capture of its followers.

The real power now resides in Iraq with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist leader responsible for the worst acts of violence by the insurgency in Iraq over the past two years.

His group is supported by hundreds, possibly thousands of mujahidin volunteers from across the Arabic and Islamic world, including British citizens. His followers are well trained and ruthless. If they have decided to launch a campaign in Britain it could be the start of a long and bloody conflict.

- tinyurl.com/8k4vd

[duster]

The sad part about this, over and above the dreadful toll in London, is the backlash that is likely to happen throughout Britain which has a very large Muslim population. No one wins.

I think AQ may find out that Britain is not the U.S or Spain. Many individual Arabs and most Arab governments look up to the British in a way. Non-Arab Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Iran do as well since a good number of their intelligentsia were educated there.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

duster said:

The sad part about this, over and above the dreadful toll in London, is the backlash that is likely to happen throughout Britain which has a very large Muslim population. No one wins.

I think AQ may find out that Britain is not the U.S or Spain. Many individual Arabs and most Arab governments look up to the British in a way. Non-Arab Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Iran do as well since a good number of their intelligentsia were educated there.

I think you're right, Duster. Discrimination and racial bigotry is everywhere. I also think that any degree of backlash, regardless of how small or large, would be fodder for these Muslim extremists to try and convince their brethern of Christian intolerance towards their faith (which is used as a security blanket to substantiate everything they do; right or wrong).

It hasn't worked out exactly the way these extremists had hoped. But, if they convert only a few at a time, they're satisfied I guess.

Cheers.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

duster said:

The sad part about this, over and above the dreadful toll in London, is the backlash that is likely to happen throughout Britain which has a very large Muslim population. No one wins.

Sadly, I must agree—hooliganism will experience an upsurge.

I think AQ may find out that Britain is not the U.S or Spain. Many individual Arabs and most Arab governments look up to the British in a way. Non-Arab Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Iran do as well since a good number of their intelligentsia were educated there.

Ironically, these "corrupt, Westernized" Muslims are part-and-parcel of the "problem" as far as extremist groups like al-Qaeda are concerned.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Britain had this coming

July 12, 2005

IT'S a quiet, ho-hum, run-of-the-mill day in Iraq. Just a few bombs will explode in Baghdad. Only a few dozen will be killed or maimed. Fifty or 60 max. With the victims predominantly locals - only a couple of US soldiers among the casualties - they'll hardly rate a mention. Won't crack it for the Nine Network or ABC news. Perhaps a brief para in tomorrow's broadsheets.

Oh, almost forgot. There'll be about 20 kidnappings today. This has been a big racket in Iraq for a year or more with thousands of locals snatched off the streets. Nothing political about it, nothing religious. Just a grab bag of businesspeople and schoolchildren to be held for ransom. So many children are kidnapped these days that parents are keeping them home.

Will these incidents be reported in the US, Britain and Australia? No, they won't. Not news. Just further symptoms of a totally dysfunctional society. Unless, of course, if one of the kidnapped is one of us. Then all media hell will break lose.

Yes, what happened last week in London was appalling. But it happens every day in Iraq. It has since the coalition of the willing, of which Australia was such a willing member, came thundering in more than two years ago.

Things were crook before but have been far worse since. Pinned down by sanctions, inspections and fly-overs, still licking his wounds from the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein's greatest crimes were long behind him. The mass graves were history. But since the coalition? Cemeteries are booming again.

Mind you, you don't read much about the local death toll. The body count for Iraqi troops, let alone Iraqi citizens, is censored. Washington allows us to know -- and then reluctantly -- only that nearly 2000 Americans have died.

Unlike those humdrum bombings in Baghdad, the slaughter in London was big news. And let's be clear about it: the people who died in the subway tunnels and on the bus were victims of the Iraq war. They died because of Blair's London Bridge, the one he built from the Thames to the Euphrates.

Had he not misled his nation into that murderous folly of an invasion, the people would have walked off the trains instead of being carried off on stretchers. Or had their body parts collected in bags.

Blair's response? The same rhetoric, the same mock-heroics, a renewed commitment to the political and strategic idiocy of George W. Bush. You can hear his spin doctors thinking: "If we play this right, we'll improve in the polls."

You can hear the same thoughts from John Howard's people, who will rely on the new political correctness of conservatism: that it's uncouth to link terrorist attacks in London, Madrid or possibly Sydney with the chaos unleashed in Iraq. As many in Britain are pointing out, they didn't need some Islamist loonies to focus attention on Blair's sorry role in the Iraq fiasco, that a clear majority have long deplored his duplicities, his misleadership. His bridge too far. But No.10 still says the same things, day in, year out, as if hoping through Pavlovian repetition to wear down the public.

Ditto here, as our Prime Minister and Foreign Minister try to blur the linkages with Iraq. They stress that Islamists are attacking our values, our way of life, our love of freedom in these murderous stunts.

And everyone, most of all Howard and Alexander Downer, knows this is twaddle. The selection of targets is largely based on involvement in, and enthusiasm for, Bush's new world order. The PM tells the truth when he says he cannot promise that our cities are safe from terrorism. He tells the truth when he confirms that an attack on Australia within Australia is not only possible but probable. But he lies when he denies that it is his foreign policies that have made our lives more dangerous.

The great divide between those who supported the invasion of Iraq and those of us who opposed it is as wide as ever. We seem to live in different universes, with both sides using the London bombings to support their positions.

The pro-war forces in politics and the media look at the mayhem and say: "Told you so." The critics of the war and the way it was conflated with the war on terror say: "Told you so", too.

They say the latest brutalities prove their case, that the Iraq war had to be fought to light the flame of democracy in the Middle East and that our efforts must be renewed. We say that what's happening in Baghdad and now London is inevitable, that the invasion has not liberated democratic forces but detonated more hatred, much of it directed against US hegemony and hubris.

And against those countries, such as Britain and Australia who rushed to Washington's colours. But Howard can't see it. He can't afford to.

- tinyurl.com/cq8n7

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan spoke at the conference. "I do not believe Canadians are as psychologically prepared for a terrorist attack as perhaps we should be," said McLellan, who is also minister of public safety and emergency preparedness.

Canada was included in a list by Osama bin Laden as one of five countries that would be attacked. Others on the list, which included the U.K., the U.S. and Spain, have since been hit.

The list also included Australia, and most security experts believe that the 2002 Bali nightclub bombing was meant to target mainly Australian tourists. That leaves only Canada."CSIS and the RCMP ... have made it plain that there exist in this country those who might very well choose ... to do harm," McLellan said.

The fact Canada didn't participate in the war on Iraq doesn't prevent us from becoming a target, McLellan said. "We should never want anyone to live their life in fear, but we do want them to be prepared and understand the context in which we live."

- tinyurl.com/cxt3w

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Globe and Mail article:

From nobody to somebody: the terrorists next door

By MARGARET WENTE

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 Page A13

What's your mental picture of a terrorist? Perhaps it involves a wild-eyed, bearded foreigner. If so, think again. Your average terrorist is likely to look and sound a lot like the guy next door. Which may be what he is.

John Stevens, Britain's former top police officer, describes the London subway bombers as clean-cut, clever -- and almost certainly British. It's very likely, he said on the weekend, that they are "apparently ordinary British citizens, young men conservatively and cleanly dressed. Highly computer literate, they will have used the Internet to research explosives, chemicals and electronics."

His comments drew heated protests from several Muslim leaders, who accused him of whipping up racial tensions. But the 9/11 terrorists were Westernized and middle class, too. Ahmed Omar Sheikh, the man convicted of murdering American journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, was born in Britain and attended the London School of Economics. Sajid Badat, convicted earlier this year of conspiring to blow up an airplane with a shoe bomb, was a quiet, studious British boy who was educated at a prestigious Church of England school.

A government briefing paper prepared for Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2003 delved at length into the problem of homegrown terrorism. The paper, Young Muslims and Extremism, was leaked to The Times of London, and it makes for fascinating reading: "Most young extremists fall into one of two groups: well-educated undergraduates or with degrees and technical professional qualifications in engineering or IT; or under-achievers with few or no qualifications and often a criminal background."

Many of them weren't particularly religious before they were radicalized. And while people who turn to terror are a tiny proportion of British Muslims -- less than 1 per cent in a population of 1.6 million, if that -- there are enough of them to fuel trouble for a long time to come.

The secret briefing paper struggles as best it can to identify the root causes of terror, in hopes they can be addressed. It offers up the familiar laundry list. Muslims are poorer and more poorly integrated into British life. Forty per cent have no professional job skills. Many Muslims suffer from perceived discrimination and Islamophobia. There is also widespread discontent with the foreign policy of Western governments, which are perceived to be targeting Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir and Afghanistan. The paper warns that Britain's role in the Iraq conflict may have pushed thousands of young people to extremism.

Yet, the root-causes analysis winds up explaining nothing. After all, millions of people bitterly oppose Western foreign policy. Even rooting for Osama bin Laden doesn't make you a terrorist. In a Guardian poll last year, 13 per cent of British Muslims said they thought another attack on the United States would be justified -- probably about the same result you'd get if you asked all Britons, or French, or, for that matter, Canadians. But it's a long way from that to blowing up innocent civilians in the subway.

What makes someone turn to terror? Young Muslims and Extremism struggles gamely (but rather lamely) with this essential point. "For some, extremist organizations/ideologies offer panaceas to all the problems of the Muslims," the briefing paper says. "For young Muslims looking to rebel against their taught values, the wider community or the government, these groups can provide a cathartic and vocal 'pressure valve' for anxieties, frustration and helplessness."

A blunter answer comes from Marc Sageman of the University of Pennsylvania. He studied hundreds of al- Qaeda recruits. Most, he found, were upper or middle class, in their mid-20s, and alienated from society. For them, radical extremism supplied an answer to the problem of identity. "They become separated from traditional bonds and culture, and drift to the mosques more for companionship than for religion." Extremists offer them an all-encompassing explanation for their feelings. "They hear this narrative, this script, about the corruption of the West, and it seems to make sense to them." Terrorism turns them from a nobody without a purpose to a somebody with a destiny.

This script should sound familiar. It's the same one that drove the people who once joined the Baader-Meinhof gang, the Weathermen, the Red Brigades. Muslims have no monopoly on terrorism. And Britain's middle-class jihadists are joining a long and terrible tradition of educated, clean-cut young people who are ready to kill without mercy.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

As I posted a couple of years ago:


« Thread started on: Mar 23rd, 2003, 2:01pm »

The actual occupation, if and when it occurs, ought to be a morass to rival Vietnam. But hey, in the Nintendoland (courtesy Japan Inc) of North America, who thinks ahead that far realistically (and then decides on what course of action to take)?

The silver bullet is a myth.

America now is not what America was (despite the unconscious and sometimes legal absorption of past experience). The question is: "What are you doing to me now (and how will it affect *my* [insert appropriate region of the world] future)?"

It is fascinating, and frightening, to see the Oedipal saga of father and son Bush played out on the world stage. Beware ancient Greek playwrights .

*

« Reply #21 on: Mar 24th, 2003, 09:39am »

Actually the point I made was contained in my summary paragraph, and is as follows:

"I stand by my original assertion that the war won't be the worst of what is to come for this region. Though the war will have served to provoke the impending crisis. The United States with its typically ignorant "my-way-or-the highway" blundering in far corners of the world will be stirring up a hornet's nest."

As for the assertion that I have ignored the present or past: that is laughable. The articles themselves are a synopsis of past and present conditions in the area. I used them as a basis for making my prediction that the region will be far more unstable once Saddam is gone, thanks to the Bush Power Vacuum.

Yugoslavia - Tito = Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo, Muslim, Christian.

Iraq - Saddam = Kurds, Sunnis, Shia, Baath party supporters, religious fundamentalists, clans, and possibly outsiders (Turks and Iranians).

Rebuilding will be a long, painful process.

*****

Embassy, July 6th, 2005

By Gwynne Dyer

The Light At The End Of The Tunnel

If mere rhetoric could bridge the gulf of credibility, President George W. Bush might have turned the tide with his nationally televised speech on the evening of June 28. As usual, he strove to blur the distinction between the "war on terror" (which almost all Americans still see as necessary) and the war in Iraq (which they are finally turning against), and promised the viewers that all would end well if they only showed "resolve". But the audience has heard it too many times before.

A majority of Americans now understand that the terrorist attacks in Iraq are a result of the U.S. invasion, not a justification for it. Many have also see the leaked CIA report that concluded that Iraq is producing a new breed of Arab jihadis, trained in urban warfare, who are more numerous and deadlier than the generation that learned its trade in Afghanistan. So they don't believe the war in Iraq is making them safer -- and they see no light at the end of the tunnel.

Since Vice-President Dick Cheney boasted in early June that the insurgency in Iraq was "in its last throes," more than eighty American solders and about 700 Iraqi civilians have been killed. On June 27 the new Iraqi prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, declared that "two years will be enough and more than enough to establish security" -- but the previous evening U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld mused aloud on US television that the insurgency in Iraq might last for "five, six, eight, 10, 12 years."

Even more than casualties, the American public hates defeat, and it can sense panic and confusion among the president's allies and advisors.

The latest polls show a huge swing against the Iraq war in American public opinion, with around 60 per cent now opposing the war and refusing to believe that the Bush administration has a clear plan for winning it. But that doesn't mean that U.S. troops will actually be leaving Iraq any time soon. There is still the question of saving face.

People forget that American public opinion turned against the Vietnam war in 1968, but that the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops was not completed until 1973. The intervening five years (and two-thirds of all American casualties in the war) were devoted to the search for a way to get U.S. troops out of Vietnam without admitting defeat. At the very least, there had to be a "decent interval" after the U.S. left before the victors collected their prize.

In the end, the humiliation was far greater than if the United States had simply walked away in 1968 -- the roof of the American embassy in Saigon in 1975 is among the best-known images of American history ­ and the U.S. army became so demoralized that it was virtually useless as a fighting force for a decade afterwards. But we are dealing with human psychology here, so the pattern is likely to repeat.

The current administration in Washington has identified itself with the Iraq adventure so closely that it would have great difficulty in just walking away -- especially since Mr. Bush is loyal beyond reason to the neo-conservative ideologues whose obsessions landed him in this mess. There will be mid-term elections to Congress in only sixteen months, but it stretches belief that U.S. forces could be extracted from Iraq so quickly without having a negative effect on Republican chances in that vote.

The real deadline for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is the three and a half years that the Bush presidency has left. Keeping control of the White House will be the most important consideration for American Republicans in 2008, so there must be some resolution of the Iraq problem by then. What might it be?

There is the happy-ever-after ending, constantly promised by the Bush administration and its Iraq collaborators, where all the Iraq communities reconcile, the insurgency dies down, and a genuinely democratic government begins to deliver security and prosperity to the exhausted Iraqis. Such an outcome is not impossible in principle, but it is unlikely to occur while U.S. troops are still occupying the country and goading both Islamists and Arab nationalists into resistance.

There is also the roof-of-the-embassy scenario, but that is equally unlikely. The Sunni Arab insurgents in Iraq, drawn from a solid block of 20 per cent of the population occupying the heart of the country, have the power to thwart any peace settlement that excludes them. But they cannot drive US troops out, and they cannot reestablish their political domination over the Shia Arabs and the Kurds even if the Americans leave.

The real problem in securing a "decent interval" that would allow a dignified American withdrawal from Iraq is that the insurgents cannot deliver it -- because they are too weak and divided. The foreigners among them answer to no state authority, and the Iraqi majority are overwhelmingly drawn from the Sunni Arab minority whose leadership was decapitated by the American invasion. They are all over the map, in dozens of little organizations, and American negotiators can't even figure out the key people to talk to.

So it's going to be messy, and it's even possible that U.S. troops won't be out of Iraq three and a half years from now. In which case the next U.S. president will be a Democrat.

- tinyurl.com/9zumt

[franko]

From the National Post

Listen to the imams
Jonathan Kay
Tuesday, July 12, 2005

From listening to CBC Radio's Cross Country Checkup on Sunday, it was clear who was responsible for Thursday's terrorist attacks in London: George W. Bush and Tony Blair.

The bombings, a Korean war vet declared, were payback for "white people beating up on dark-skinned people and stealing their stuff." Another caller agreed, and said the West should not miss this opportunity to "appease" terrorists' demands.

Daniel from Montreal cited the theories of Robert Fisk, a rabid U.S.-loathing British pundit, in support of the argument that Canada should protect itself from terrorism by emulating Sweden and embracing isolationism.

A caller from B.C. phoned in to thank Jean Chretien for keeping Canada out of the Iraq war because, had Stephen Harper gotten his way, Canada would be getting blown up as well. He also opined, in somewhat contradictory fashion, that the London bombings were probably the work of the Mossad and the CIA. (Host Bernard St-Laurent offered the cutting comeback, "really?", and thanked him for the call.)

During the whole show, I don't think I heard a single voice denounce the bombings without some anti-"white-people" caveat thrown in. And since these were callers spouting off, not the host, I can't blame it on left-wing CBC media bias.

But amidst all this nonsense, there is some hope: The "dark-skinned people" themselves are rejecting this sort of terrorist apologism.

In the past, as David Frum writes on the pages following, major Islamic organizations have typically refused to condemn Islamist violence, or have done so while (a) focusing blame on alleged "root causes" (i.e. Israel); (b) sliding into conspiracy theories; or (c) dwelling obsessively on their fears of an anti-Muslim backlash.

This time around, we're observing a healthier response: frank acknowledgment that murder in the name of Allah is a disgrace to Islam.

Exhibit A: Tariq Al-Humayd, editor-in-chief of London-based Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, the world's most influential Arab newspaper, responded to Thursday's bombings with an editorial accusing British Muslims of ignoring radicals in their midst. "In London, we have seen, and are seeing, the money being collected in the streets, and the conventions under various titles, and everyone is inciting jihad in our Arab countries and cursing the land of unbelief in which they live," he wrote, according to a translation provided by London's Sunday Telegraph.

"Has freedom no responsibility?" he asked, echoing Frum. "For the sake of [the] freedom of all of us, stop the ones who are attacking our freedom."

Here in Canada, a survey of Friday's mosque sermons demonstrates a similar response. At the Jame Makki mosque in Brampton, Ont., for instance, Sheikh Aslam Nakhuda challenged his congregation to show him anything in the Muslim tradition justifying terrorism.

Tarek Fatah, co-founder of the Canadian Muslim Congress, wrote that the war in Iraq and the occupation of Palestinian lands may be objectionable, but that "to my Muslim brothers and sisters, I say, the number one enemy of Islam today is al-Qaeda and those who invoke Islam to hold on to power; be it in Saudi Arabia, Iran or your local mosque."

Even Canadian Islamic Congress national president Mohamed Elmasry, who can usually be counted on to blame every Muslim setback on Bush and Ariel Sharon, ultimately felt compelled to say something sensible. Immediately after the bombing, he'd published a hysterical press release fretting that Canadian Muslims might "pay the guilty-by-association price." But after being soundly ridiculed on these pages by Robert Fulford, he changed his tune. In a Friday statement, Elmasry acknowleged that the bombing had been claimed by a Muslim group, and said "We condemn the bombings. We send our condolences to all those who suffered the loss of a loved one; a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, a sister, a brother or a grandparent."

Terrorist apologism follows a pattern: The farther away observers are from the bombs, the more likely they are to ascribe the carnage to fashionable political theories. And since Canadians have not yet been hit in a serious way by Islamist terror, we are among the worst offenders.

But Muslims don't have that sense of distance. Every day, they watch their religion being shamed by murderous nihilists. The fact Thursday's bombing didn't take place here doesn't matter: For those who identify with Islam as a peaceful faith, it is a shame that crosses borders.

I never thought I would be writing this about terrorism. But if I could say one thing to the CBC's audience, it would be this: Listen to the imams.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

From the Toronto Star:

Jul. 14, 2005. 01:00 AM

No point fearing terror attacks we can't stop

JIM COYLE

What a lot of unhelpful blather has been uttered lately by Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan.

Canadians are not as "psychologically prepared" for a terror attack here as they should be, she says. Canada is "not immune" from the mayhem wrought elsewhere in the world, she warns. "I think we have, for too long, thought that these are things that happen somewhere else."

None of this does very much to enhance the safety of Canadians. None of it provides any practical guidance for citizens, or much insight into the security and emergency plans of government. None of it, on reflection, even makes much sense.

Perhaps Canadians have tended to regard such attacks as things that "happen somewhere else" for the perfectly logical reason that, so far at least, they have.

Perhaps it's not, as McLellan suggests, that Canadians think they're immune to terrorist attack — global events make the vulnerability of large cosmopolitan cities like Toronto, with their easy targets of packed and accessible public places, fairly clear. Perhaps it's the case that, either by instinct or conscious calculation, Canadians have merely reached certain conclusions about what they can and can't do to prevent it.

Perhaps Canadians simply understand that there is no way to be "psychologically prepared" for events that are, by definition, sudden, shocking and beyond anything in most people's personal experience.

Could it be that Canadians are not living in a fool's paradise but, rather, have simply paid attention to world events and come to the only rational conclusion available?

That being that since there is no such thing as immunity, since there is no reliable way of knowing when evil will strike, since mere chance determines who's in harm's way and who's not, the best course of action is an alert business-as-usual, the worst a lapse into paranoia and paralysis.

If the investigation into last week's terror attack in London makes anything clear, it is how little can be done to prevent those bound on murder from murdering if they are willing to spend their own lives in the process.

In London, they'd long expected such an attack. Leaders had said so publicly. It was not if, they warned, but when. Yet they could not stop it.

The British capital is a city with just about the highest level of camera surveillance in the world. But it turns out those cameras were chiefly of benefit not in deterrence — consequences are of little concern to those intent on suicide — but only in investigation after the fact.

Even then, what the cameras make clear more than anything is how easily those who would destroy society can fit in and travel through it. What did police ultimately find on the screens? The image of four men meeting at King's Cross subway station carrying backpacks. And what did it look like?

"You would think they were going on a hiking holiday," a security source reportedly told Sky News. And what could be more English than that?

That's what it must have looked like — if they noticed at all — to the throngs bustling through the station that morning, their minds on work, or a marital spat, or holiday plans, or rumoured premiership transfers, or the pint (or several) waiting at day's end.

In the busyness of a metropolitan centre — where the range of normal is wide — much is inevitably missed. In the avert-the-gaze culture of big-city life much is judiciously ignored. In traumatic events like this, the import of what was seen is often significant only in retrospect.

As it happens, a man who got off the bombed bus just before the blast would later tell Associated Press he had noticed another passenger, a man, fiddling anxiously with a bag.

"This young guy kept diving into this bag or whatever he had in front of his feet," the man said.

But what did he think that morning? Probably just that the chap was checking to make sure he hadn't forgot his squash racquet. Or that he was a run-of-the-mill urban oddball. Nothing, apparently, that prompted an emergency call to police.

Maybe McLellan sells Canadians short. Maybe they've simply — as people do daily in all kinds of ways — done their private sums, their risk assessments, their cost-benefit analysis about where they must be and how best to get there.

After all, this is an age famous for fearing the wrong things. We're terrified of crime, when rates are actually dropping. We obsess about teen violence, and ignore the victims of poverty. We warn against creepy strangers, when most harm done to children is carried out by those they know. It might be, however, that on the terrorism front Canadians have kept things in just about the right perspective.

As horrifying as the prospect is, terror attacks rank well down the list of things likely to kill them. They're more likely, statistically speaking, to die in a car crash on a trip to the cottage. They're more likely to die of stroke or heart disease, or prostate or breast cancer. They're probably more likely to be hit by lightning.

As always, fear itself is one of today's bigger hazards.

McLellan should take pains not to spread it.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

It's always easy and cheap to blame others.
It's Burger Kings fault I got fat.
It's Imperial Tobacco's fault I contracted cancer.
It's McDonalds fault I scaulded myself with hot coffee when I was driving.
It's the United States fault the terrorists are suicide bombing.

It's not!
The suicide bombers have demands.
The US doesn't accept those demands.
We don't live in isolation with our head in the sand and hope we won't be attacked.
We defend ourselves. We actively defend ourselves. That includes proactive actions.
We are arrogant. You are right. The US is much more arrogant than, say Canada; but that is our cultural identity.
We are not loved. You are right. We never expect the Arab/Muslim/(fill in the blank___) to love us, no matter what we do. We accept that. If we are not loved, we will be respected. We won't change our way of living. We won't be told that our women must cover themselves up, they can't drive cars or give air traffic directions to Arab pilots. We won't be told that an author who writes a book called "Satanic Verses" must be killed.
My personal opinion is that we are very tolerant of others, but we won't be told how to live. We go after Khadafi, Hussein and Kim, not Trudeau or Thatcher. We go after bad people. IT"S NOT ALL ABOUT OIL, but yes, we are much more concerned about places that have oil than we are about Tahiti.
We won't be deterred by terrorists and we will strike decisively when we have no other choice.

[mic]

habsfaninla said:

It's always easy and cheap to blame others.

But of course that's not what you do in every second thread on this board.

It's not!
The suicide bombers have demands.
The US doesn't accept those demands.
We don't live in isolation with our head in the sand and hope we won't be attacked.
We defend ourselves. We actively defend ourselves. That includes proactive actions.
We are arrogant. You are right. The US is much more arrogant than, say Canada; but that is our cultural identity.
We are not loved. You are right. We never expect the Arab/Muslim/(fill in the blank___) to love us, no matter what we do. We accept that. If we are not loved, we will be respected. We won't change our way of living. We won't be told that our women must cover themselves up, they can't drive cars or give air traffic directions to Arab pilots. We won't be told that an author who writes a book called "Satanic Verses" must be killed.
My personal opinion is that we are very tolerant of others, but we won't be told how to live. We go after Khadafi, Hussein and Kim, not Trudeau or Thatcher. We go after bad people. IT"S NOT ALL ABOUT OIL, but yes, we are much more concerned about places that have oil than we are about Tahiti.
We won't be deterred by terrorists and we will strike decisively when we have no other choice.

I don't know where I should begin. You apparently live in a bipolar world which doesn't exist for over ten years now. Us against them. The rest of the world against us. Perhaps you should study some history in order to make a opinion which actually resists to facts. "You" go after "bad" people ? That's certainly not a constent in "your" recent history. Morality is definitly not the point here, even if you obviously want to believe that. Who wants to waste time for being good ? Who wants to be loved ? Nobody. It won't make you reelected. And that's the same in every state.

Decades of humiliation has made the islamic world agressive. Lack of integration in Europe has made things worse. Do we have to accept that ? Certainly not, and nobody would argue that, despite what you seem to think. Terrorits have very few supporters. The difference is between different approaches to the issue. So what's the answer ? Making more martyr and giving the radical movements a validity they didn't had ? That was a very bad plan and indeed it looks as a failure so far. Mr. Bush's cabinet should have studied a bit more lessons in state-building, because almost everything that could have been made wrong has been done wrong. The bill is going to be pretty huge for the USA. In fact, it looks like that the anti-terror programm has brought more problems than relief.

The USA have lost influence in the whole world. How will you achieve the very ambitious targets you wrote above (continuing to live like before, preventive strikes, etc.) ? The USA will have to cooperate with the rest of the world. And forget about "arrogent" politic.

[duster]

habsfaninla said:

We are not loved. You are right. We never expect the Arab/Muslim/(fill in the blank___) to love us, no matter what we do. We accept that. If we are not loved, we will be respected. We won't change our way of living. We won't be told that our women must cover themselves up, they can't drive cars or give air traffic directions to Arab pilots. We won't be told that an author who writes a book called "Satanic Verses" must be killed.
My personal opinion is that we are very tolerant of others, but we won't be told how to live. We go after Khadafi, Hussein and Kim, not Trudeau or Thatcher. We go after bad people. IT"S NOT ALL ABOUT OIL, but yes, we are much more concerned about places that have oil than we are about Tahiti.
We won't be deterred by terrorists and we will strike decisively when we have no other choice.

With all due respect,

Please show me in this diatribe where you are tolerant? It's clear that tolerance in your opinion is applicable only to people who have American values...or seemingly aspire to them.

If you are after the bad guys, why aren't you in Sudan protecting villagers from the Janjaweed? Or where were you during the Rwandan genocide? Why aren't you advocating leadership change in Zimbabwe? Why aren't you assisting the millions that face starvation in Niger? Why are you opposed to a democratically elected Chavez in Venezuela? Isn't democracy what your President is trying to enforce at the end of a gun while seriously compromising your country's financial health?

May I suggest you read Clausewitz... I'm sure it's available in the U.S...for now. If you have time and the inclination, Margaret MacMillan's "Paris 1919" or Barbara Tuchman's " "Stillwell and the American experience in China"

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Posting on Habs-R-US in non-hockey can prove counter productive.
Most people have strong feelings and prejudices.
Most people have developed their positions over years and are unlikely to change no matter what is written. (on both sides)
Most people like to agree with those who share their opinions and vent venom against those who don't.

My argument is synthesized into a few principles, I believe them and probably won't change, others who disagree probably won't change either.

1. The security of my life, the lives of my family and my neighbors is of paramount importance. (I think most people agree with this)
2. In a world where guns and bombs are readily available and suicide bombers and mentally disturbed people exist, we have to sacrifice some personal freedom in favor of security. (soon neuclear and biological threats will be available too)
3. I will not be coerced into capitulation by radicals who are bent on the destruction of my way of life.

Now we diverge:

4. I will take whatever premtive action is necessary to minimize the danger to myself and my family. This is an option to be used only as a last resort when security is threatened.

The US is not out to steal anybodys oil, enforce slavery, torture, occupy other countries or see our own young men killed for no purpose. We don't want war, we want peace. War is the last resort, but when faced with no other choice, we must engage in war and strike swiftly and decisively.

Don't want to enrage anyone, but that's how I see it.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

7 July 2005

London: Not Exactly the Blitz

By Gwynne Dyer

Tony Blair flew down from the G8 summit in Scotland especially to
be with Londoners in their time of trial, and you can hardly blame him for
that. It's not that we needed him to take charge -- it was only four
smallish bombs, and the emergency services were doing their job just fine
-- but the tabloid newspapers would have crucified him if he hadn't shown
up and looked sympathetic in public.

No doubt he was feeling sympathetic, too, but the words he used
rang false. The accent was British, but the words were the sort of thing
that comes out of the mouth of George W. Bush -- all about defending
British values and the British way of life. He didn't mention God, so he's
still British under it all, but I'm pretty sure I even heard him use Mr
Bush's favourite words, "freedom" and "resolve". I'm also pretty certain
that this cut very little ice with most Londoners.

This is a town that has been dealing with bombs for a long time.
German bombs during the "Blitz" in September-December 1940 killed 13,339
Londoners and seriously injured 17,939 more. In 1944 this city was the
first in the world to be hit by pilotless cruise missiles (the V-1s or
"buzz-bombs"), and later that year it was the first to be struck by
long-range ballistic missiles (the V-2s, which carried a tonne of high
explosive).

During the whole of the Second World War, about 30,000 Londoners
were killed by German bombs and three-quarters of a million lost their
homes. Then, between 1971 and 2001, London was the target of 116 bombs set
by various factions of the Irish Republican Army, although they only killed
50 people and injured around 1000. And not once during all those bombs did
people in London think that they were being attacked because of their
values and their way of life.

It was quite clear to them that they were being attacked because of
British POLICIES abroad, or the policies of Britain's friends and allies.
The people who organised the bombs wanted Britain out of the Second World
War, or British troops out of Northern Ireland, or the British army out of
the Middle East (or maybe, in this instance, the whole G8 to leave the rest
of the world alone). Nasty things, bombs, but those who send them your way
are usually rational people with rational goals, and they almost never care
about your values or your way of life.

Londoners actually understand that, and it has a remarkably calming
effect, because once you have grasped that basic fact then you are no
longer dealing with some faceless, formless, terrifying unknown, but just a
bunch of people who are willing to kill at random in order to get your
government to change its policies. We don't even know which bunch yet. It
could have been Islamist terrorist, or some breakaway faction of the IRA
(that's been waiting to happen for while), or even some anarchist group
trying to make a point about the G8. But that doesn't matter, really.

The point is that they are only terrorists, and they can't hurt all
that many people. In a large city the odds are very much in your favour:
it will almost always be somebody else who gets unlucky.

This knowledge breeds a fairly blase attitude to bombs, which was
much in evidence this morning when I had to go in to Harley Street at noon
to pick up my daughter from school. (They didn't let school out early; it
was just the last day.) The buses and the underground weren't running and
a lot of streets were blocked off by the police, but everybody was finding
ways round them, on foot and in cars. You pull over to let the emergency
vehicles pass, and then you carry on.

I do recall thinking, however, that it was a good thing that the
bombs had gone off here, not in some American city. Even terrorist bombs
in London will be used by the Bush administration as an argument for
locking people up indefinitely, taking away Americans' civil liberties, and
perhaps even for invading some other unsuspecting country. One bomb in an
American city, and it would have a free run down to 2008.

Whereas in London, it doesn't work like that. In fact, maybe it was
my imagination, but I thought that I could even hear a number of Londoners
muttering under their breaths: "Bloody terrorists. Always get it wrong. If
only they'd done this two days ago then we wouldn't be lumbered with the
bleeding Olympics."
___________________________________

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles
are published in 45 countries.

- tinyurl.com/babyr

[franko]

habsfaninla said:

The US is not out to steal anybodys oil, enforce slavery, torture, occupy other countries or see our own young men killed for no purpose.

You know, I actually am swayed to this . . somewhat. I'm 50/50 (more or less) on the "we didn't invade for oil" claim; and I'm definitely on line with the "don't want to see our own young men killed for no purpose" claim.

We don't want war, we want peace. War is the last resort, but when faced with no other choice, we must engage in war and strike swiftly and decisively.

But here is where we part company. I'd go so far as to say that the majority of the people in the US don't want war but peace . . . but munitions is big business, and big business has big influence, and big influence leads to big action.

I'll grant the hunting of Osama and the reasoning behind it (though it would have been much better if Bush had taken a deep breath before pushing the "rally the troops" button). Saddam . . . unnecessary. Worse, the war/offensive/whatever you may want to call it may have had a swift strike, but it most certainly hasn't been decisive (who'da thunk that the Iraqis would have such long-lasting spunk?).

And that's my piece on the matter and I won't be drawn in further (of course, I'll be too busy on the HOCKEY boards. But if you want to talk religion . . .

[Cranky]

franko said:

habsfaninla said:

And that's my piece on the matter and I won't be drawn in further (of course, I'll be too busy on the HOCKEY boards. But if you want to talk religion . . .

Do hockey club owners believe in God?

There, that should keep you busy for a while..........

[franko]

habsaddict said:

Do hockey club owners believe in God?

There, that should keep you busy for a while..........

Right about now I think that hockey club owners think they are gods . . . they are the ones with power, and the mere mortals players are under their thumbs, quivering and quavering for the gods' attentions, especially after the sacrifice of a Jubilee year in which the gains made over the past have mostly sort of been returned.

Let me rephrase that: the hockey club owners think they are lesser gods, bowing down to their one true god who has made hockey in his image (bland and boring), the one who has vanquished the evil one . . . All Hail Lord Gary and his dictated word, the new CBA.

Time will tell if this is just another false religion or if the masses return to the shrines to worship.

Perhaps a better question: does God care about the hockey club owners? About NHL hockey? Does He love the people of Tampa Bay more than the people of Calgary in that he answered their prayers for a Stanley Cup victory? And why didn't He answer mine, to smite both Gary and Bob so that a season would have taken place last year?

[duster]

habsfaninla said:

Don't want to enrage anyone, but that's how I see it.

My regrets HFLA...It is an emotional subject. I should know better.

To paraphrase Danton, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to my dying breath your right to say it"

Cheers.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

franko said:

habsfaninla said:

The US is not out to steal anybodys oil, enforce slavery, torture, occupy other countries or see our own young men killed for no purpose.

You know, I actually am swayed to this . . somewhat. I'm 50/50 (more or less) on the "we didn't invade for oil" claim; and I'm definitely on line with the "don't want to see our own young men killed for no purpose" claim.

We don't want war, we want peace. War is the last resort, but when faced with no other choice, we must engage in war and strike swiftly and decisively.

But here is where we part company. I'd go so far as to say that the majority of the people in the US don't want war but peace . . . but munitions is big business, and big business has big influence, and big influence leads to big action.

I'll grant the hunting of Osama and the reasoning behind it (though it would have been much better if Bush had taken a deep breath before pushing the "rally the troops" button). Saddam . . . unnecessary. Worse, the war/offensive/whatever you may want to call it may have had a swift strike, but it most certainly hasn't been decisive (who'da thunk that the Iraqis would have such long-lasting spunk?).

And that's my piece on the matter and I won't be drawn in further (of course, I'll be too busy on the HOCKEY boards. But if you want to talk religion . . .

I must be very naieve, but I can't imagine any capitalist, so greedy, that he would start a war to profit selling bombs. Sure, the major stockholders of Northrop Grumman or Raytheon make profit selling missles, but to dliberately start a war to sell your products? These guys are powerful enough, but they can make money selling communications satelites, or conventional passenger planes. I'm not saying that there are no bad people in the world or bad capitalists, but if this can be proven, the perpetrators should be shot.
Haliburton will sell food to the army if they are in Iraq or Germany. They will be profitable without a war. If a conspiracy really started just to increase profits by 25%, I'd be all for taking everything they own away!

Religeon;

I don't believe, but I think those who do have a right to their beliefs, and they make up the majority.
Religeon generally makes for good citizenship although there are lots of exceptions among those who use religeon to further clandestine goals.
Most of the wars and trouble in the world has it's roots in religeous intolerance.
Religeon has no place in affairs of state.
There is nothing wrong with a Christmas decoration on the front lawn of city hall or a cross on a coat of arms.
Women deserve a right to choose medical treatment for their own bodies.
Stem cell research holds promise for great advances in medical research.
Jesus didn't start the Crusades and Mohammud didn't wear a suicide bomb.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

duster said:

To paraphrase Danton, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to my dying breath your right to say it"

Da bomb!

[Disgruntled70sHab]

London Hit Again,

Initial reports have one person injured right now. Here's the skinny from BBC.com

London blasts cause chaos on Tube

The Tube has been plunged into chaos and several stations evacuated after minor blasts on three trains and a bus.

Met Police chief Sir Ian Blair said only three Tube lines were still suspended and it was time London started to return to normal.

The minor explosions - just two weeks after blasts killed 56 - involved detonators only, a BBC reporter said. There was only one injury.

A blast was also reported on a Number 26 bus in Bethnal Green.

There were no injuries and the bus suffered no structural damage.

more

[Cranky]

These attacks are most probably far right skin heads trying to create anti-Muslim hate.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

habsaddict said:

These attacks are most probably far right skin heads trying to create anti-Muslim hate.

Yep, that was what I was thinking as well.

[franko]

From the National Post

Online, Muslims claim London bombings were 'staged' by West
Canadians among theorists
Stewart Bell
Thursday, July 21, 2005

The outline of the 7/7 bombings is by now well established: Four British Muslims detonated backpacks laden with high explosives aboard the London underground and a double-decker bus.

Fifty-six commuters died in what police believe were co-ordinated suicide bombings inspired by radical Islamic beliefs; investigators are trying to determine how young men from Leeds became homegrown terrorists.

But just two weeks after the attacks, the history of Britain's worst bombings since the Second World War is already being rewritten. In the version now circulating on some Muslim Internet sites, the bombings were not a terrorist attack by jihadists; they were an "inside job" staged by government agents to discredit Muslims and justify the war on terror.

Britain called the allegations "insulting and ridiculous" when they were broadcast by a powerful Iranian politician last week, but the conspiracy theories continue to circulate -- and some of those helping to spread them are Canadians.

Several Canadian Internet sites have begun posting articles claiming that Britain's MI5 security service, the "far right" and Israel were behind the July 7 attacks.

"Tony Blair Ordered the London Bombings," asserted a headline featured prominently on the home page of a Montreal Muslim website yesterday.

Another article on the same website claimed the men named as the bombers were innocents who had been "framed" as part of a police "cover up."

The bombings were "staged," it claimed, to justify the deportation and internment of Muslims in concentration camps as well as "an unstoppable wave of hate crimes."
"Far right-wing British terrorists may have been behind London bombings," says yet another headline, above an article claiming the attack was an attempt to stir a backlash against British Muslims.

Conspiracy theories began appearing almost immediately after the bombings, but they gained credence last Friday when Ahmad Janati, chair of Iran's Guardians Council, said in a nationally broadcast sermon that the British government might have carried out the killings to justify its military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. The British Foreign Office called the statement "irresponsible."

But conspiracy theories are still flourishing. A posting on the home page of the Arabic broadcaster Al Jazeera (under the heading Conspiracy Theories) claims the "London bombings were either an MI5, CIA, or Mossad operation."

An Internet site run by activists seeking to free Mohammed Harkat, Hassan Almrei and other foreign terrorists arrested in Canada claims the bombings were an "inside job: another staged 9/11 to intensify the war on Islam."

Some Canadian sites have tried to link Israel to the attack. One says the Israeli embassy in London "was warned before the attack." Another claims the bombings were done "with the knowledge of some pro-Israeli elements in Scotland Yard."

Terrorism expert John Thompson said conspiracy theories are part of a propaganda war that aims to undermine the West and spread the message that "we're the good guys, they're the bad guys and we're going to win."

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Who's to say what really happened is what I'm reading from this, Franko. It reminds me of the Balkan fiasco of the early-90's. Some sides were bombing their own and blaming it on the other.

In this day and age we can't dismiss any theory. One thing is for sure. The second group of bombers certainly didn't want to be anywhere near the blast area. The fact that they don't want to be martyrs may suggest that they are ill-trained or, as Mr. Cranky has suggested, another sect trying to lay blame onto the Muslims.

Coming full circle on you, the photos I've seen of the suspected bombers suggests that they may indeed be from Middle East countries. Was this staged? Were there skinheads involved? Were the photos produced so as to give the viewer a biased focus?

Don't know. But, I do care.

Cheers.