As usual, I can’t find much new to say in response to the latest terror attack, this time in London. Our thoughts will be with those killed and injured, and their families and friends.
46 thoughts on “Another terror attack”
Comments are closed.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Ken Livingstone, London’s mayor, said it best:
“This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at presidents or prime ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old.
“It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.”
Elizabeth, while I agree with his sentiments, I also think it is a rich coming from him. Islamic terrorism has always been about attacking those who hold liberal values (rich, poor, atheist, Muslim or non-Muslim etc.) In fact what they especially hate are the more liberal aspects of western culture equality for women and freedom to criticise religion etc. Far too many people on the left (Pilger, Robert Fisk, Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, etc) have sought to portray these lunatics as having some kind of just cause (opposing the war in Iraq, supporting the destruction of Israel etc). Maybe the Livingstone’s of this world will now really get it.
Michael, maybe you should read again what red ken said. It doesn’t sound like you truly agree with his sentiments.
Michael, I think it has hit Livingstone pretty hard, from the media conference footage I saw, as he was waiting for his plane in Singapore.
Livingstone (like Pilger, Robert Fisk, Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, etc) was a vehement pro-jihadist sympathiser.
The fact, however, that this event has occured in his town, on his watch so to speak, will hopefully bring home to the radical left that ‘my enemies’ enemy, is not my friend.’
I think it more appropriate to remember the dead, pay tribute to the emergency services and work to ensure that this sort of thing gets less and less frequent.
The difficulty is that we disagree on how to do that.
I’m from the left or liberal wing of society.
I can’t see how being against the invasion of Iraq is siding with the pro-Jihadists.
I opposed the support the Reaganites gave to Saddam in his war against Iran, (whilst at the same timethe US enjoined everyone else to boycott Iraq).
I also oppose the US and allied support of the disgraceful Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia which it will be recalled was the home nation of the great majority of the 9 September participants. The official theology of the Saudi regime is Wahabism which is a “Puritanical Saudi Islamic sect … which regards all other sects as heretical”. The principals of the Coaliition of the Willing seem to facilitate the promulgation of this fundamentalism by allowing the Saudis to fund mosques, schools etc anywhere they care to.
It is not just us liberal/lefties that need to do something about the mote in our eyes.
Well said Elizabeth.
Albatross, I am also from the left or liberal wing of society and I also do not approve of the US supporting the Saudi regime (although pragmatism in international politics is often necessary) or of its past support for Islamic forces in the past.
However, being a left liberal in my book means spending more time criticising Islamic fascism than one spends criticising western governments, siding with the more liberal minded elements of the Islamic world (e.g. Iraqi schoolteachers etc who are being murdered by the insurgents), and highlighting issues such as domestic violence against women and children in western Islamic communities (and not ignoring the issue for political correct reasons).
It also means engaging constructively in debates over proposed anti-terrorism laws. If civil libertarians and others continue to be obstructive rather than constrictive we will either end up with laws that are either too weak to deal with the terrorist threat (which next time could involve a WMD) or alternatively laws that are far too authoritarian and end up being used against a wide range of people.
In response to “Albatross”, I would have to say that the Left’s position on the War on Terror has been pathetic.
Back in the days when some in the Left still possessed some virtue, George Orwell pointed out that the 1930s position of the “pacifists” was objectively pro-Fascist. So it is with the contemporary anti-war Left; it is objectively pro-Islamist.
Through their tireless media work, the Fisks, McGeoughs, Pilgers, Moores et al, together with their acolytes on the Left, seek to undermine the resolve of the Anglosphere to fight for the (imperfect) values of Western Civilisation in whatever theatre is currently most advantageous for us.
The Left provides succour to our enemies. It encourages them to believe that with a few more bombings, a few more kidnappings, a few more murders, we will get tired of it all and abandon the field to them, like we did in Vietnam.
Now they’ve bombed my home town. “Fuck you” is the only valid response.
If any good is to come of this, perhaps it will be a wake up call to Blair, Bush et al that the tactics they are using to fight terrorism are not working. Fighting Iraq is not fighting terror. It’s a simple enough truth, if inconvenient.
Then again, pigs might fly. History will provide the red badges of failure that these self-serving hypocrites have earned.
Nemesis – didn’t Bali and 9-11 occur before the intervention in Iraq?
I urge all those affected to remain calm, particularly those tasked with the Defence of the Realm. May I suggest, if I may presume to offer advice to Her Majesty’s Ministers, that the UK does not, in retaliation, attempt to regime-change a large Arabic looking nation in the Middle East.
If Al Quaeda did this then it represents the first jihadist counter-attack on the Homeland of a front-line “Coalition of the Willing” state. If so it will more or less sink any hope of putting moral buyoancy into Blair’s political legacy. It also means that Howard’s Australian is probably next in line for a bombing. Be alarmed, not just alert!
Michael, while I agree with your comments about the Left failing to support the liberals across the Mulims world (which is an extremely important point) I must disagree with your earlier comment about Islamist terrorism being against those with liberal values. This is far too simple.
Algerian Islamists slaughtered poor, conservative villagers because they were related to the ruling military junta. Most of the victims in Iraq these days are deeply conservative Shiites. And I refuse to describe those politicians who launched a war of aggression and murdered thousands of Iraqi civilians as holding liberal values. They clearly do not represent our liberal and civilised society. We must oppose what they did in our name – just as we have to support liberalism in any nation ruled by dictators.
Craig, I think its the US Administration and the top military in the US who are the ones encouraging Iraqi insurgents to think they can win. The US launched a badly conceived war with little regard for the inevitable civil war it would generate. On top of that, they have taken valuable resources away from fighting the a**holes who work in league with al-Qaeda. They ignored the threat throughout the 90s in Sudan, Algeria and Europe and have committed far too little in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is where the battle has to be fought.
Nemesis Says: July 8th, 2005 at 11:40 am
Nemesis you are being over-wrought, but understandably so. I felt the same cold vindictive outrage after 911, since New York has always been a spiritual mecca for me.
But it is untrue and unfair to blame Howard’s policies for any blowback in the War on Terror thus far. Elements within INDON’s militant Islamic and nationalistic political community inspired and conducted the terror attacks on Bali and may have organized the sinking of the SIEV-X. Both outrages were payback for (Howard’s) ADF intervention in Timor, a military expedition supported by both the Right and the Left.
The Clash of Civilizations is a clash within, not just between, sectarian and secular elements throughout “Christendom” and “Islamia”. Howard’s key role in liberating ETIMOR set the stage for democratizing INDON. This has been the most stunning victory in the War on Terror, since it defeated militant sectarian and militaristic nationalist elements in the TNI.
So there is no political mileage to be gained out of scapegoating “deputy-sherriff” Howard just yet. Although his Coalition of the Willing Iraq chickens may yet come home to roost.
Jack,
I agree with some of what you said, but I disagree that this is a clash of civilisations – to me this is a war within Islam, in which we are a form of collateral damage.
The reason for my opinion is that, to me, the militant’s thinking runs like this:
The muslim ‘world’ has demonstrably fallen behind the ‘West’, at least since the retreat from Vienna in 1683.
It is impossible that following the Holy Koran could be the reason for this as it is perfect in all ways.
Therefore, it must be that we have failed to follow the Holy Koran correctly for this to have happened.
Our leaders must have failed us by not following the Holy Koran.
The Holy Koran mandates continuing Jihad until all the world accepts Islam, and there is no evidence of a Jihad occuring against the West – our leaders are not doing it, therefore we must both replace the leaders and restart the Jihad.
Therefore, regardless of what we do, it is our comparative success that makes us a target. Simply retreating into our shells and trying to defend what we have will not do the trick. We can either choose to beggar ourselves or prove that the Jihad will not work.
Islamic fundamentalists are primarily fighting a war against their own people. For centuries the common people of arab states were unaware that their lot in life was slipping further and further behind the freedoms and prosperity of their counterparts in the West. In the last few decades the secret is out – in a world of mass communications, internet, mobile phones etc an awareness of this has become widely apparent and the Muslim people have shown that they have a taste for the freedoms of the West viz; the mass migrations of Muslim people to better economic regions. The current wave of terror is the last gasp of the rigid, extremist world of Islamic clerics who are desperate to hang on to their power and control of the masses. Each act of terror is, in fact, an admission that their war is already lost. The Muslim nations will reform themselves from within. The world of Islam will survive but in a more secular way that will permit its citizens to enjoy liberty and prosper. Timescale? Maybe less than you think.
Imagine for a moment the Administration after 11/9.
AQ has come and not only attacked us but killed innocents as well.
Let no resource go unfunded as we find them and eliminate them!
Instead what did theses fools do but invade Iraq which lead AQ to believe the West is not serious in chasing them and gave them a large number of terrorists at the same time.
Well done fellahs the West salutes you.
Shorter Michael Burgess:
Only those who share my exact worldview are allowed to be outraged by the outrageous.
as at 2.18pm, the Greens have still yet to make a public statement! http://greens.org.au/news
Bill, I think Elizabeth’s comment sums it up well. The Greens etc are quick to criticise the US and other western government’s but far less so to criticise atrocities committed by extremists. In this world view, the more loutish members of mainstream western society telling a bad taste joke about gays is worse than stoning gays or women to death.
The people responsible for this atrocity must be hunted down and killed.
More on red Ken. While Livingstone condemned the Thursday attacks as “mass murder,” he has in the past labeled Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi a “man of peace” and a “moderate. This is despite the fact that Al-Qaradawi has supported suicide bombings and the targeting of America and its allies and is anti-gay etc. In one sermon, on March 7, 2003, delivered at the Umar Bin-al-Khattab mosque in Doha, Al-Qaradawi stated: “O God, destroy the Zionist, the American, and the British aggressors. O God, shake the ground under them and protect us from them.”
Following Al-Qaradawi’s arrival in London on July 7, 2004, BBC TV2 aired an interview in which he said Islam justifies suicide bombings in Iraq against the U.S. military and in Israel against women and children.
Again let us hope Livingstone and his fellow travellers, who bring such discredit to social justice causes and allow the right to dominate by being so stupid, get the message. Maybe some of the commentators to this blog will only appreciate just how ideologically out to lunch they have become when their own friends and relatives get blown up in Australia by a terrorist bomb.
As usual, pundits of all persuasions are using this event as clear justification of their existing positions and proof of the moral turpitude of their usual targets.
I thought that this class of event had been placed in both the highly likely and the virtually unpreventable categories by real security analysts. No one seemed to take it very seriously, in public anyway. It’s different when asymmetric warfare lands in your lap. Hopefully, the UK response might end up a little more thoughtful than the US response was.
Life’s a circle…
In the early evening of 17th May 1974 three car bombs exploded in the city of Dublin, Ireland. A little later another car bomb exploded in Monaghan. Some thirty-three people died in these terrorist attacks. No prior warnings were given.
Where I was working in South Leinster Street (http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/southcity/leinster_street/images/coyle_hamilton_group.jpg) had all the windows in the front of building blown out and one of my colleagues a young woman waiting for her fiance to pick up her up was sliced in half by a pane of falling glass.
No one has ever been charged with these crimes. However there has been a lot of evidence since collected to show that the bombings were carried out by Loyalist paramilitaries form Northern Ireland with the support of RUC/UDR members and at least the connivance of the British security forces.
Note these bombings were carefully planned, out of the blue and virtually simultaneous.
Later in 1974 the Guilford and Birmingham outrages lead to the goaling of “Guildford Four” and “Birmingham Six” – members of an ethnic and religious group the authorities and MSM wanted to demonise. After many years these people were to be found innocent.
The real bombers of Guildford and Birmingham have never been brought to justice.
Jim Birch could you please provide some examples that may show how the “….UK response might end up a little more thoughtful than the US response was”?
Is it worth remembering, that Britain’s asylum laws were relavatively quite lenient. For example, there are numerous Jihadists that have been given political, and state sponsored santuary (welfare for eg) in the UK (particuarly residing in London) and who have not been handed over to legal authorities in Morocco, Algeria and France (and other part of Europe) on the grounds of protecting their civil liberties, while continuing to preach contempt and hatred. Please read Michael burgess’s post @ 3.18 for an example.
Jill, like the cowardly Spanish response you mean or the French blame the anglo response.
Andrew Reynolds Says: July 8th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
No Andrew, you appear to agree with pretty much all of what I said. I will say it again, for the gazillionth time although it beats me why so many people misread it (empahsis added):
To elaborate: The current War on Terrorism can be viewed as part of a longstanding Clash between Civilizations, setting “Jihadists” against “Crusaders” that goes back to the fall of Constantinople. But it is also, more importantly, a Clash within Civilizations, setting militants (eg Al Quaeda) against moderates (eg Sistani) in the Middle East. Within the West there are obviously sectarian militants (eg Red State Christian Evangelicals) and secular moderates (Blue State liberals).
The outcome of the Clash between Civilizations is a no-brainer since theocrats of all denominations have no positive program for modernity. But their nihilistic program can be aided by blunders that occur as part of the Clash within either Civilization. That is the hope for the Helter-Skelter elements, particularly in Al Quaeda.
And that is what happened after 911, when secular moderates in the within the West got mad and supported Iraq attack, which led to a strengthening of the sectarian militant hand in Islamic societies. They “got religion” and then got caught up in the old Jihadist-Crusader conflict (between Islamic and Christians).
Apologies: to my earlier post I should have added the following link to Slate http://slate.msn.com/id/2069991/ which should make further, worrying reading.
“Apologies: to my earlier post I should have added the following link to Slate http://slate.msn.com/id/2069991/ which should make further, worrying reading.
Yeah a three year old article. In “Slate”. Really worrying.
In the meantime think about the extraterritoriality imposed on the Australian legal system by the US which has seen US citiizens charged with murder and attempted murder in Australia removed to US jurisdiction and then allowed to walk. That’s a worry.
Albatross, do I misunderstand you, or are you suggesting that yesterday’s attacks were carried out with “at least the connivance of” British authorities, and will be unjustly pinned on “members of an ethnic and religious group the authorities and MSM want to demonise”?
There is a chance, given the circumstances, that these murderers might yet be caught, thereby allaying the need “to hunt down and kill” others who may be terrorists, or more likely innocent bystanders.
Elizabeth, it has been argued that the US response to their AQ attacks of invading Iraq to eliminate terrorists who were somewhere else and neutralize doubtful and ultimately nonexistant WMD’s lacked in basic clear thinking. I’d agree. But this has been discussed elsewhere, at length. If you believe that the US response to 911 was perspicacious, so be it.
“Maybe some of the commentators to this blog will only appreciate just how ideologically out to lunch they have become when their own friends and relatives get blown up in Australia by a terrorist bomb.”
Michael, it’s one thing to argue long and loud that the Left has turned a blind eye to things of which it should be far more critical, but this remark goes way beyond the bounds of taste and reason. I think – FWIW – that you should put up or shut up: either name the comment(ator)s you had in mind or withdraw the remark.
The question is, what are the victims of AQ-style terror willing to pay to end these episodes of spectacular atrocity?
The post 911 era has already cost many in the west appreciable elements of civil rights. Perhaps intrusions into privacy, habeus corpus and regulation of air travel etc., have prevented some atrocities but they patently did not prevent this atrocity. Does this mean that it may be appropriate to undermine further civil rights? What are the justifiable limits of those erosions? If you like the idea of giving up rights think about how your political enemies might use those powers when voted into office.
The Iraq War, justified by its apologists as “the central front in the War on Terror”, has cost billions of dollars, the lives of tens of thousands of non-combattants, and the sympathies of millions in the Muslim and Arab world. Blind faith in a military solution, it seems, was foolish. Yet the Bush clique under-resourced the execution of this policy. Simply stated, Bush tried to win the war on the cheap. COW embarrassment in Iraq, trumpeted as a triumphant exercise in “shock and awe” has in reality exposed the weakness and irresolution of the West. There is no more effective recruitment poster for AQ than the anguish of US troops bogged down in Baghdad. It is unlikely that the COW has at their disposal sufficient forces to make the vital politico/military point in Iraq. But the mistakes of the COW have made AQ’s job in promoting the sick glamour of terror all the easier. The COW can neither advance nor retreat in Iraq without reaping appalling consequences.
The west must therefore brace itself for more attacks. We should not allow these attacks to justify unacceptable erosion of civil liberties. The west must recognise that only Muslims will, in the end contain and then eradicate Islamist violence. The way ahead is difficult and will take a long time and will be accompanied by the shedding of innocent blood and there are likely to be many wrong turns and false dawns. And it likely to be expensive. But the major task is the careful and sensitive cultivation of Muslim sympathy and support for, initially, perhaps only modest steps towards civil society.
via coturnix John McGowan at Michael Berube’s blog.
Katz, you stated above that “The post 911 era has already cost many in the west appreciable elements of civil rights”.
I have not had any of my civil rights eroded in any way. Please provide specific examples what “appreciable elements of civil rights” have been eroded.
If you want to win the war on terror, then instead of using words like ‘Islamic’, ‘extremist’ and ‘uncivilised’ you should use words like ‘compassion’, ‘negotiation’ and ‘equality’. Terrorism is the symptom of the disease of inequality, not religion. Inequality cannot be resolved by bombing and occupation.
24 hours later, and still the Greens have not put out a formal statement condemning the London terrorist attacks.
I see, that explains the lack of Christian terrorists: no Christian suffers from inequality.
Who said there was a lack of Christian terror? Nearly every survivalist gun nut cum cult siege in the US has had an element of Christian beliefs behind it. The Branch Davidians started out as a bible study class and ended at Waco, however the class of individual that joined the cult was predominantly poor and ill-educated (the victims of an unequal society).
If inequality cant be resolved by bombing Alpaca what do you think is al Qaida’s motive?
Frankly I am all over compassion negotiation and equality with militant Islam.
When will Islam be accountable for its own actions? And when will (those in) the West stop excusing Islam’s actions?
And Waco was a massacre of innocent bystanders how? Even Oklahoma was not a religious act. It was an anti-federal-government act.
Islamic terrorists are the primary practitioners today of mass-murder of innocent bystanders in the name of religion. Inequality does not respect religious boundaries, but mass murder in the name of religion is currently confined largely to practitioners of Islam.
Well, I can’t speak for the motives of al Qaida, but if I were to make a guess it would be somewhere along the lines of killing as many non-Islamics as possible while spreading a radical, militant message of violence and hate to the impoverished masses of the Middle East. Al Qaida uses suicide bombers and planes, the west uses B-2s and M1A2s.
Now, let me try to persuade you why compassion, negotiation and equality are important. Compassion is necessary because we (the west) hold all the cards. We’ve got the economic power, we’ve got the technology, we’ve got dance music… everything. By contrast, most Islamic countries don’t have this. They need a hand.
Negotiation is the tool with which to do this. Changing hearts and minds is done with both words and actions. Negotiations cannot be done with bullets and regime change. The rejection of negotiation leads to at best impasse and isolation, at worse violence and hate.
Equality is the key to everything (sounds like it’s from a self-help motivational video, I know). Equalitiy is the only way to give poor nations an alternative to fanaticism.
I’m not totally 100% sure of what you mean by holding Islam accountable for its actions… do you mean those who preach fundamentalist acts and perpetrate them, or Islamic society in general?
Now… onto Waco and the Branch Davidians. I would argue that the zealots in charge committed acts of terror against their own members and critics of the cult.
Next, to repeat myself, terrorism occurs due to inequality, not religion. Yes, the Oklahoma city bombings were not religiously motivated, and I would suspect that the impoverished upbringing of Timothy McVeigh had a part to play in his membership of anti-federal groups.
Oh please…. This is the typical “everyone is a victim and not responsible for their own actions” mentality that we hear all the time from the left. It is a complete load of unmitigated crap.
There are good poor people and bad poor people. Good wealthy people and bad wealthy people. Excusing ORGANIZED ACTS of MASS MURDER due to poverty, inequality, or from a “pity the perpetrator, he must be a victim of something” position is to be an apologist for those very acts. It makes me ill just to read it.
Well to be honest Anon, looking at what I posted with all its gramatical errors (and a few times going on spelling safari), I was a little ill too. But I do stand by the gist of what I’m saying.
I don’t think I’m necessarily being an apologist. I haven’t posted anywhere that the violent acts that we’ve been commenting on were justified or anything other than heinous and unproductive. I’ve put forward a *reason* for *why* they may have occurred.
Count me as depressed. Many (not all) of the comments above seem more concerned with scoring points than with any serious response. I’m closing comments on this thread now, and reopening the discussion under new rules in the Weekend reflectionsthread.