We have yet to see the responses to the terror attacks on Great Britain. 9/11, 3/11, 7/7-- whatever you want to call them, they are indeed a repulsive instance of the early 21st century. It sickens me to think that somewhere people live their lives only to bring this sort of carnage to innocent people. Yet the responses to this attack must be more precise than those in the past.
We are told that we must fight terrorism abroad so that we don’t have to fight it at home. But London is home. It’s home to millions of people, home to our greatest ally and home to many Americans. It’s wrong to assume that people, nations, countrymen are either with us or against us. This world is not divided into two categories of terrorist fighters and terrorist sympathizers like Bush would have us to believe, simply because the terrorists are not concerned with either side...
If anything, this attack on Britain has demonstrated that this so-called war on terrorism, and especially the war in Iraq, has not centralized anything. The terrorists do not need a central location. True they have been disrupted heavily since 9/11 but their ability to threaten any place in the world that they so desire has been diminished none. They attack at their own choosing, at their own discretion and Iraq only gives them more of a reason to do so.
Nearly a hundred bombs a day explode in Baghdad with hundreds dying every week. This has been going on for over a year, and yet London now belongs in the same sentence. Now tell me again why Iraq has centralized this war.
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and he had nothing to do with the terror attacks on London. Bin Laden is responsible for both. President Bush turning our attention away from bin Laden and Afghanistan and towards Saddam and Iraq so quickly was a mistake. The man responsible for so many deaths roams free while our troops are burdened with a chaotic ill-planned occupation of a country that has absolutely nothing to do with the prevention of future attacks.
Invading another country with no connections to the attack on London would be entirely catastrophic to the world. The best response will require greater international cooperation (amazingly the G8 Summit had nothing on the agenda concerning terrorism), which requires allies not being shrugged off, a greater military presence in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan, preferably a larger NATO presence greater than 100,000 soldiers to where bin Laden will be found, and probably most importantly an increased integration of the Middle East into this globalized world instead of the insistence of military action to cure all their troubles. This war will not be won with the military alone. We have visibly seen that today.
Furthermore, Europe has been attacked twice since 9/11. The EU must wake up to the reality that their complacency will not shelter them from the bloodshed of a global war on terror. We are all in this together. Big sized Texas talk of smoking out bad guys and a black and white vision of the world will not do anything to combat terrorists or prevent this from happening again.
This has to be the end of the Bush doctrine way of dealing with terrorism and the beginning of a new response that will defeat not only the ability to terrorize innocent people but also the desire. We cannot afford to turn our attention again.
7.07.2005
A Response to Terrorism
Posted by Chris at 7:29 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
I ask you, is this a criminal act or a act of war? Because the answer to that question is at the heart of the policy that the world must take. If anyone had a narrow scope that no attacks would take elsewhere other than Iraq, then they are only fooling themselves.
Bush has said repeatedly that yes, this war if fought on foreign soil so that we need not fight it here, but that we are still under the warning of future attacks, why else for the color warning system.
The truth is this, and I am sorry you don't see it, you can't sit at a table with terrorists and negotiate peace, that is not what they want. They look for one thing, the total and complete destruction of the Western world, all of it and it's influence.
I see only two avenues in which to take, and perhaps that is because my scope is too narrow, but I see it like this; we either assimilate into Muslims, which even in itself does not guarantee peace, or eliminate those who wish us harm.
The prior does not seem likely, and the latter is not easy. So where does that leave us? When that question is answered completely and coherently, then the debate of changing policies becomes viable.
Well, glad for your visit.
The first question you pose is pointless. Of course it's an act of war. And yes any attack, because of international law, is also criminal. The response, our response, should not be based on an answer to that question.
I have not a clue about the narrow scope of Iraq that you mention.
The color warning system is to generate fear and is only upheld by unfortunate and careless attacks on countries that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
Where in this essay do I ever mention sitting at a table with terrorists to negotiate? I call for an expanded military role in Afghanistan or Pakistan, or both, which is where bin Laden is still hiding and still orchestrating attacks like the one today. You must borrow the idea that anyone who opposes George Bush is a terrorist sympathizer only wanting to counsel those involved. That's a sad way to see.
I agree that we should eliminate those who wish us harm. Hence my greater military role in Afghanistan and not countries that have nothing to do with the attacks. Our current policy is on a crash course with itself.
Thanks for reading. But I just have to entirely disagree.
What I'd like to see is a stronger and serious lobbying effort on the part of the Western world to bring the governments of the ME and CA nations to take a solid stand against the terrorist cells in their own nations. Whether it's Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Pakistan or any other, the governments of those country must, for lack of a better phrase, shit or get off the pot. Either stand before their people and declare war against the terrorists or quite frankly there's nothing anyone will be able to stop another rediculous land invasion that won't tackle the actual problem (Iran I'm looking in your direction).
By the same token, if the Arab/Muslims gov. actually pick a side and stay there, the Western world has to do all it can to back up said governments against a large mass of people sympathetic to the terrorists cause. That of course means we end up continuing to support despots but I offer this, do we go with the devils we know, or the devils we don't know.
Frankly, given a choice I'll take the Saudi Royal family over Mullah Bin Laden at this juncture.
Arab Special Forces and Intelligence agencies need to be working hand in glove with Western Special Forces and Intelligence services. There's really no other way to do this. Full scale war is overkill and a legal investigation is first too time consuming versus how much will actually get accomplished and second, it simply sends the wrong message. We are at war. There's no doubt about that. But gone are the days of carpet boming cities into the stone age while massive waves of foot soldiers lay siege to everything and everyone the bombs missed. What is called for is precision. Information needs to flow freely from the spies in the field to the Special Forces so they can respond in a time fashion. That can't happen unless we have complete cooperation from said Arab/Muslims governments. Right now such cooperation is half-assed at best and non-existent at worst.
MJ, what we're doing in Iraq is a "good deed" for mankind. I can live with that as it is. But in addition to your proposals to get more militant in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I think we need to go into Saudi Arabia as well, and liberate those people also. Good post!
Mark, I must say that you are awesome. Long winded, but awesome :)
I agree that the intelligence must get better and I also agree that we don't stand a chance at winning this war if the "said" countries themselves do not also take responsibility. Like I said, "we are all in this together."
GTL, thanks for reading man. I'm not sure I entirely agree though. Just for my own conscience, I must say that I supported and still support the invasion of Iraq. I just think that it was rushed and we were ill-prepared for the occupation. I also think it's a "good deed," that can be lived with; however, thousands are dying with it. To me that all goes back to Bush's rush.
If we should liberate Saudi Arabia also, certainly we shouldn't use Iraq as the model. Currently there is anything but a liberation in Iraq. We still have a long way to go there, and I would have to support Mark's mullah bin Laden concept.
Thanks to both of you for reading.
Mark did indeed have an very good post, I don’t agree in with the GTL on the "good deed" and believe quite frankly that this “good deed” will bring only more terrorism unless we do much as marking says.
We have no control over the Arab/Muslim governments as out best bet is to do what we can not to alienate them further, sorry this is a fact. We certainly can't do if alone but what we are doing is and has been ineffectual.
Time to get out of the leather chairs and put down the cigars boys.
I actually didn't understand Craig’s post at all but it has been a long day and "i'm a girl".
Thanks Alice. It's always good to have "a girl" around.
I think it was a "good deed" had it been done with better planning, or really with any planning. Iraq is not what we were promised. It's certainly not the story I bought into.
Hey Craig, sorry if my reply sounds so jumpy. I was in the middle of downloading some porn and typing it out at the same time and I thought I screwed up my porn download :)
Turns out everything is okay, but my reply was more direct than I wanted. However, I'll send you the porn to make up for it.
What I get no offer of porn?
Oh no Alice, you are "a girl" and that just wouldn't be right for me to do :)
First of all, after paging through tons of blogs where 14 year olds are writing poetry to their friends, this space is a welcome relief. Thank you!
Anyhoo, I agree Iraq could have been a good deed if we had done it better, plus it could have won us some friends in that area of the world. But we have been there so long, and handled things so clumsily. It's just making everything worse at this point.
Bush has lost his way in the "war on terror", and I'm frightened by his administration's refusal to deviate from a plan they came up with years ago. My fear is that until we can get out of Iraq, we will be powerless to deal with those who are a real threat to us and our allies. And since the whole world sees this as "our" fight, these bombings in Europe could further isolate us, if people feel like they are being punished for our actions.
Maybe we can just send in the A-Team. Mr. T isn't busy.
I think we'll find in the next while that the murderers have been living in Britain for quite some time and are acting on their own, but under the ideology of Bin Laden. To think that his capture would stall this type of attack is narrow minded, if anything it will fuel more anger.
You cannot have an act of war against a non-existant entity. Al-Quaida/Qaeda/Queda does not have a country, a base, a home. You cannot fight them with military, you must address the cause of them. They are not acting because they hate 'our way of life' (even though they may) it is a response to a grievance (whether it is concieved or true).
To wage war on Terror is just to falsely justify the death of innocents, with probably no result, other than exacerbating the carnage.
This new and bloody attack is yet another example of the ordinary people caught in the cross fire of a war of ideologies. While Bin Laden and those that identify with him fight their murderous campaign, Blair fights his own, without the support of his people. However it will always be those with little or no influence that will bear the brunt of the punishment for the whims of those with power.
Condemnation and Justice
You'll have to excuse the language, this londener is understandably angry.
A Letter To The Terrorists, From London
July 07, 2005
londonskyline.jpg
What the fuck do you think you're doing?
This is London. We've dealt with your sort before. You don't try and pull this on us.
Do you have any idea how many times our city has been attacked? Whatever you're trying to do, it's not going to work.
All you've done is end some of our lives, and ruin some more. How is that going to help you? You don't get rewarded for this kind of crap.
And if, as your MO indicates, you're an al-Qaeda group, then you're out of your tiny minds.
Because if this is a message to Tony Blair, we've got news for you. We don't much like our government ourselves, or what they do in our name. But, listen very clearly. We'll deal with that ourselves. We're London, and we've got our own way of doing things, and it doesn't involve tossing bombs around where innocent people are going about their lives.
And that's because we're better than you. Everyone is better than you. Our city works. We rather like it. And we're going to go about our lives. We're going to take care of the lives you ruined. And then we're going to work. And we're going down the pub.
So you can pack up your bombs, put them in your arseholes, and get the fuck out of our city.
http://www.lnreview.co.uk/news/005167.php
Dav,
I am not sure there will ever be answers to why or are we doing the right thing in Iraq or other areas of the country. I am more confused now than ever with the policies, the enemy and our administration. I agree that it's always the middle innocent folks who sacrifice. That's the way it's always been. Rich folks use us to fight there wars. Politicians use our loss to gain support from the people. By showing up days after the OKC bombing, Clinton's approval in the Southwest skyrocketed. I don't think he visited Oklahoma before as a president.
I don't have the answers, and I don't think I can even provide a solid debate to combat anything you said, MJ. I just wonder when will all this stop. How can we fight people we can't see? Do we posts guards at every door? Are we creating more enemies with every action in Iraq? I just don't know. But I do know that I am tired of good people getting killed by the hands of terrorists. The one thing I find ironic is that when something like this happens, we question ourselves.
MJ,
There is never a need for a apology when porn is involved, and by the way, my email must have messed up because I didn't get it yet. For those who don't know, MJ and I grew up together and I consider him a great friend. And though we disagee on several issues, I trust his word beyond anyone else.
I don't see how many different choices we could have made in Iraq. Let me give you analogy. When you go to a water park and decide to take a ide in the "tube", you make a decsion before you enter on how you will take the ride, feet first on your back, face first on your belly, feet first on your belly, and some will chose head first on your back. Once you commit to that position, you aer going to have to remain that way until the end. You may be able to flip, or turn if your small and limbe enough, but more than likely your path is laid out.
I see that with Iraq, we committed ourselves to a plan, and now we must see that plan out. We can make slight adjustments to that plan, but for the most part, we have to wait until the end. Questioning is normal, but working together to accomplish our goal wil bring our troops home sooner.
Then again, that's how I see it.
MJ,
Excellent commentary. I'll be linking.
Mike
Excellent article, and great comments - I admit to being angry as hell and having a bit of Dav's attitude - London has had more than its share of attacks by more than one group - I was living there in '85 when there was a lot of that - so Londoner's are actually better equipped at saying NO to anyone trying to instill a culture of fear into them like they attempt to do with us in the U.S. - and I think better able to say, "Everyone is better than you. Our city works. We rather like it. And we're going to go about our lives. We're going to take care of the lives you ruined. And then we're going to work. And we're going down the pub." I cheer that anger. As far as placing our attention strictly on fundamentalist extremist Muslims is short sighted when we seem to grow our red white and blue terrorists pretty well if anyone chooses to remember Tim McVeigh, the folks at Waco, Unibomber, etc) - I firmly believe the only way to erradicate the violence is to erradicate poverty - but people would rather kill and die than have a level playing field.
First let me say that I have some of the smartest readers in all of blogland. You guys are great. You are thoughtful, intelligent and civil-- and that's all I ask.
There is a wide range of spectrums represented here and so far it has not turned into the obscene shouting matches that thicken the media outlets. We all may disagree on certain things, but we still respect the right of comment by others. Dav and Jack started what is now a Political Notio classic with The Debate for Iraq:
http://politicalnotio.blogspot.com/2005/06/debate-for-iraq.html
And I appreciate all your efforts.
If anything, I started this blog to generate discussion. I don't care if it's scholarly or not, but the conversation is the goal. You guys do a terrific job of keeping this site going.
Thank you to everyone for reading and commenting.
Frst...
As soon as we eliminate poverty, then people will kill for greed and power. People are people, and as Maslow said nobody is ever truly satisfied. That's why we kill for more or to disrupt those who have more. I hate this fact, but it's so true.
Secondly, I have to answer some of the comments :)
Kims, glad to see you around. You are welcome any time. Thank you for commenting. I will check your site out later today.
Promoter, thanks for reading. Your questions are very philosophical. Should we kill? The right answer is no. And the wrong answer is no. I'm not sure where to go from there. I will visit the blog you link to today.
Dav, it's always good to have the Irish around. You're a tough one buddy. Since most of the comments mention being narrow or narrowness in general, let me first say (to everyone) please do not narrow my essay either.
I never said that the capture of bin Laden would stall or stop anything. That's why I call for not only greater military action, but also a greater integration of the Middle East into the community of nations. That's why I also call for greater cooperation between nations in order to combat terrorism. Military action is but one part of fighting terrorism. That's why I also call for Europe to wake up. And that's why I agree with Mark that until the countries inciting terrorism take responsibility themselves we don't stand a chance. I also believe that we must address the causes as well.
I must argue, however, that the capture of bin Laden is a must. A public trial on par with the Nuremberg Trial is a necessity. And I think bin Laden should be tried by Muslims and those he has attacked.
I do like the letter that you posted, but I'm confused at how we should only be angry without fighting back. And again, fighting back means military as well as all the others I have mentioned.
Sminky, good to see ya. If anyone knows anything about Iraq it's Sminky. I don't have all the answers either and I don't pretend to. But I do think we have to question things and sometimes that means questioning our own actions. The man responsible for inciting both attacks on America and Britain is still at large. I think we have to go from there and do what we need to do in order to capture him and stop this madness. I also do strongly believe that we cannot afford to turn our attention away from those responsible for these attacks ever again.
Yes Saddam had to go. Yes he is a terrorist also. Yes a post 9/11 world would not tolerate him in power. I agree and support all that. Now I'm ready to kick the ass of the guy that's really responsible for all this. I think it's more than time. Thanks for reading big guy. You are very well spoken.
I am going to have to continue this in another comment.....you guys are awesome.
Thanks again.
Craig, the porn vid was just too big to send by email. I'll have to let you watch it next time you come over for some beer. Thanks for the kind words also.
Iraq is Iraq. A plan for the occupation would have made a world of difference. Again, I have to say that I'm not against us being in Iraq. I think because of the chaos, which is our fault, it has given extremists more of a reason to hate us and more motivation to attack us again. The latest CIA report about Iraq concludes that the situation in Iraq has done more to incite terrorist attacks than stop them. Bush has been wrong about Iraq.
Now I'm ready to go after al Qaeda.
Mike, thanks for reading and thanks for linking. I always love the humor on your site.
Frst, I agree. Poverty is a huge matter when dealing with terrorism. In Palestine it's more of a struggle between the have's and have nots. They look across the street and see people with everything and look at themselves and see misery. Poverty is the number one crisis facing the world. Yes, I said number one :)
I don't think eradicating poverty will end all wars or all struggles but it will about 90% of them. So I do agree with Smink some also.
Okay, I gotta take a break now.
It is quite obvious al Qaeda is what is being labeled as an "umbrella" organisation, i.e. people acting 'individually' under a shared ideology.
The reason why the letter writer doesn't make a case for combating such, is that he believes that the attack was provoked by Britains involvement in the Iraq war.
After 9/11 ABC journalist John Miller stated that bin Laden had listed his top three grievances in an interview several years earlier. These were: "the US military presence in Saudi Arabia; US support for Israel; and US policy toward Iraq."
I don't understand why Saddam cannot be part of a post 9/11 world, he was part of it before 9/11. Even regimes like Uzbekistan, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Haiti etc all recieve western support post 9/11. Stop linking 9/11 to Iraq, Iraq was planned well before 9/11 and therefore, if you want, you can say Saddam could not have been part of the world when Bush/Blair are in power.
Dav, I'm going to throw out a number here: At least a thousand times on this site I have said that Iraq/Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. I am the last person that needs to be told to quit linking the two together.
According to those assuming responsibility for the attacks in London, one of their reasons was Britain's support and involvement in the American led invasion and occupation of Iraq. So yes, that is one of the reasons why they did what they did. So if that reason is taken away, then the attacks would not have happened, or would their other reasons sufficed enough to warrant an attack?
I also agree that Bush wanted Saddam gone well before 9/11. That is why I say that a post 9/11 world could not tolerate him. Also, Saddam is a terrorist, and when America is attacked every terrorist sponsoring state should be on the look out, including all the ones you mention.
I agree with you more than you want me to. But I am also more of an Americanist than you like. My support for the removal of Saddam is firm. I just think it was rushed and Bush has done a terrible job of managing things. Plus our attention was turned to Saddam way too soon.
Iraq was not attacked because it was a 'terrorist supporting state', it was attacked for entirely different reasons. If this was the case, the real link to Bin Laden would have been attacked. Saudi Arabia.
Once you accept this you see how the War on Terror is simply a vehicle for greater hegemony.
Dav, I don't accept it, and probably never will. Call it narrowed minded if you like, but I could also say the same for you.
Actually the real link to bin Laden is Ronald Reagan. He is entirely responsible for creating him. Not only is there a money link between Reagan and bin Laden, but also Reagan armed, helped train his men, gave him intelligence and support. That's the link I'm looking for.
I agree with you about Saudi Arabia. But Bush gets all that oil money from the Saudi's, which goes back to Reagan. Instead of focusing on a nation with real ties to bin Laden, Bush attacks Saddam. Doesn't make sense to me either. However, I will contend that Saddam is a terrorist. Maybe that's not enough reason for you to justify an invasion, but it is for me.
Further hegemony, yeah you are probably right on that point. Because how else can anyone explain turning our attention to Iraq so quickly.
Now Dav, don't make me take back my civil comment :)
"To think that his capture would stall this type of attack is narrow minded,"
which you responded with:
"I never said that the capture of bin Laden would stall or stop anything."
Where civility was jepordised I don't know.
You're well aware of the CIA's helping hand in creating the monster that is Bin Laden and therefore I presume you are aware of many other relevant things, such as Bush seniors ties to multi-nationals profiting in Iraq, cheney's ventures etc. All nicely linked into one massive money spinner. War is hell, but it's also very good for private bank accounts.
Maybe I'm wrong but I think the term terrorist does not accurately portray Saddam, I think Chomsky's description, despotic dictator, is more apt. Saddam remains outside the Terror circle. He was around before and was not considered a threat until he stopped playing ball.
Now that we have concluded that Bin Laden is partly a product of super power war, it is important to understand what motivates these people. As i quoted "bin Laden had listed his top three grievances in an interview several years earlier. These were: "the US military presence in Saudi Arabia; US support for Israel; and US policy toward Iraq.""
Therefore, insane as he is, this terrorist is raising violent support against imperial aggression, not our 'way of life'. But he doesn't just hate the way western governments do business. After the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, Bin Laden offered to raise a Mujahaden army to protect Saudi Arabia. He was turned down and US troops turned up.
Firstly the murderers of more than 50 people in london must be found and brought to justice.The important thing is not to allow Blair to use this to bring about further support for this terrorism. Then if we are to prevent further attacks, we have to stop the support structure. We need to show the impressionable that western countries not only care about arab countries, but that our support for the dictators that suppress will stop and we will not seek to profit from their situation. (Iraq was a huge step in the wrong direction. The Israel/Palastine situation is also a big hurdle.) Whether this can be concieved in the capitalist system is unknown.
This is typical of what one is up against:
During Fox News' coverage of the July 7 London bombings, Washington managing editor Brit Hume told host Shepard Smith that his "first thought," when he "heard there had been this attack" and saw the low futures market, was "Hmmm, time to buy."
SMITH: Some of the things you might expect to happen, for instance, a drop in the stock market and some degree of uncertainty across this country -- none of that really seen today, and I wonder if the timing of it -- that it happened in the middle of the night and we were able to get a sense of the grander scheme of things -- wasn't helpful in all this.
HUME: Well, maybe. The other thing is, of course, people have -- you know, the market was down. It was down yesterday, and you know, you may have had some bargain-hunting going on. I mean, my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy." Others may have thought that as well. But you never know about the markets. But obviously, if the markets had behaved badly, that would obviously add to people's sense of alarm about it. But there has been a lot of reassurance coming, particularly in the way that -- partly in the way the Brits handled all this, but also in the way that officials here handled it. There seems to be no great fear that something like that is going to happen here, although there's no indication that we here had any advance warning.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070007
Dav, I think my smiley-face civility remark was more to do with you demanding that I quit linking Iraq to 9/11-- which I have never done.
I agree with about 98% of what you write. It's that 2%, however, I don't that you want to focus on. Like I have said before, maybe I'm just too much of an Americanist.
I'm glad you agree on my Reagan comments. I do not understand why the terrorism debate cannot include Reagan. When I'm traveling around and I mention something like that, people just get furiated with me. I think the Dems have to do a much better job defining debates, and until they do, they will never have a majority.
Thanks for the Fox News update. I was reading about those comments on Think Progress. It's sad that's not only the mindset, but that Fox News allows such stupidity to be broadcasted.
I do not watch Fox News. When I'm at the gym working out is about the only time I catch a glimpse of it. Yesterday I saw where Fox News had a big banner at the bottom that read: Iraq Link? Of course referring to the London attacks. Looks like Iraq is going to get blamed for this one too.
Dav, again, thanks for reading and contributing.
Post a Comment