"We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such warnings." – GG. Cocklord.
Fausto Bertinotti’s comment on the same page, on the other hand, is a model of a civilised, left-wing anti-war response.
Lord, that man is tiresome. Surprised he didn’t manage to bring Israel into it.
Indeed, he may be a cocklord but his statement has some truth in it.
The British security services were warning of an increase in terrorism, and the CIA have already confirmed this.
If his cocklordism derives from the fact he is making such a point now, just hours after the attacks, well, fair enough.
But it does not derive from a lack of truth in his statement – there is definately some.
Of course that does not make him right.
But as Ken Livingstone said its the working class of London who are paying the price.
No surprise there – the working class in any war bears the heaviest bloody burden.
If his cocklordism derives from the fact he is making such a point now, just hours after the attacks, well, fair enough.
As does yours Benji, just for once in your usless life shut the fuck up and have some dignity.
Solidarity
Thankfully you know nothing about my life, and long may that remain.
At the I am trying to get through to my relatives in London.
As the stream of posts on this blog and others shows, shutting up about these events is unlikely. So let’s be realistic hey? As for me, I have hardly commented on the events, apart from the post above.
Spare me your sanctimony.
And I know its fashionable, but ad hominem over reason is kinda get rather dull after a while? To examine the basis of a man’s comments is no bad thing.
It’s just the rather depressing pre-prepared nature of the thing. We haven’t actually had any claim of responsibility for anything yet. I was not hugely impressed with Blair’s version either since he rather shoe-horned in a number of references to himself. The only politician who really did himself justice was Ken. Charlie the Safety Elephant didn’t do too badly either.
Galloway’s verbal turd is just a subset of the reaction of the British hard left. Check this out from the British Socialist Workers Party.
Heartfelt concern from Canada…
To be honest, any spirit that moves one to get annoyed at the SWP for exploiting the bombings to promote their political agenda, is also going to move one to get annoyed at people like you whose first reaction is to exploit it to slag off the SWP.
"The only politician who really did himself justice was Ken. Charlie the Safety Elephant didn’t do too badly either."
I didn’t think David Davis did himself any harm either. Galloway could do with losing his script on occasions like this, as could Blair.
dsquared, yes I thought Ken Livingstone’s statement was very good too.
Also he mentioned the working class. Yes, those precise words. I have not heard those words in public from a mainstream British politician for yonks.
Anyway, just to report I finally tracked down my relatives, and all’s okay.
Thoughts for those less lucky too, of course.
The bombings are a political act – the correct response is a political one. What George Galloway said wasn’t merely partially correct. It was exactly right. This is exactly what happened. The intelligence services did warn that attacking Iraq would put Britain’s citizens at risk. The antiwar movement said the same. Frankly, it was fucking obvious.
John, I feel you’re under the whip of the pissy moralists a bit.
As an American citizen that witnessed 9/11, the 1993 attack on the WTC, 1998 Khobar towers and 2000 USS Cole, attacks that were perpetrated long before Afghanistan or Iraq, I must say that Galloway’s comments and Benjamin’s are both rubbish.
Unless you don’t read your own news, what can one say about the terrorist cells that were rolled up after 9/11 and prior to Iraq? False reports?
You are living in a world of fantasy. If it was’t Iraq or Afghanistan it would be Israel-Palestine, England-jordan or England and apostate Saudi Rulers, buying their oil, your commercial prospects, your military in any port or base that has major Islamic populaces for which they could claim you were suppressing them.
It is incredibly short sighted for any to claim the war in iraq is the direct harbinger of this attack. you were bound to be attacked because you are Britain. It was your government from centuries ago that helped create the mandates of the ME, the Balfour Declaration and any number of other historical and current actions that make you "an enemy of Islam". You were set on this path over a century ago and you cannot avoid it unless you bring all your ships and troops home from anywhere remotely Muslim and stop doing any business in those same places and begin paying tribute to the barbary pirates again (sarcasm there if you don’t recognize it) for traveling the Suez Canal or passing through the south China sea.
You understand that this is not about Iraq or Afghanistan, but the entirity of Islamic nations. They are beheading folks in Thailand, they are kidnapping people and blowing up hotels in Indonesia, they are attacking in the Philipines. I could go on. You are just one more on a list of places that will go on being a target as long as you have any interaction with Islamic nations that are not limited or strictly guided by islamic law. As long as you do business with any ruler that is not "Islamic" enough for them.
If you withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan, tomorrow it will be Bahrain, Qatar and Jordan. After that it will be Egypt that they demand you withdraw and stop doing business with. name a country and you will be in danger, now and tomorrow. You cannot escape because England cannot stop doing business with the global world anymore than America or France or Germany.
Does Benjamin or Galloway get any international news? Read history? Anything?
They are rolling up terrorist cells in France and Germany. They are not in Iraq. What is to blame for these cell’s existense or planning in these nations?
Galloway and Benjamin, completely illogical.
My apologies for making such comments on such a terrible day for England when I should be only offering my condolences and wishes for the well being of the citizens of England.
I did tell you he was a wanker….
Kat, the case for Islam-as-Satan has been made by brighter lights than yourself, and isn’t getting any more persuasive. As a fellow American I must respectfully urge that you please pipe down for at least a day.
As an American citizen that witnessed 9/11, the 1993 attack on the WTC, 1998 Khobar towers and 2000 USS Cole
If you witnessed all four of those, I would say that you’re a fucking jinx.
All I am saying is that there is some basis to his statement, it is logical. You may disagree with his overall argument.
But it was what the intelligence services were saying, and what the CIA recently confirmed.
And, like Lenin, I think it is rather obvious that terrorism have increased, increased the threat.
Whose suffering?
The working class, of course.
_ The bombings are a political act_
That’s a bit of self-parody, right? Or do you genuinely see a link to the General Formula for Capital and the anti-imperialist struggle?
Or maybe you meant to write "The bombings are an act of mass murder. Galloway, by bringing his political hobby horse to the show before the corpses had even been counted, was shown for the opportunistic wanker he is." If Clarke had mentioned ID cards we’d have been going spastic. Same rules.
Political Act- Surely it is a religous act (in the minds of the perpetrators anyway. Sorry, old chaps, you are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it his divine duty to kill you.
Typical of the Loony Left though, the enemies of George Bush are my freinds. Be carefull of the freinds you choose.
PS: Sorry to sound like your dad. Especially as you Loony Lefties probably have "issues" with your parents, that manifests itself in childish politics.
Bob: that’s just as stupid as what Galloway said. These people aren’t anyone on the left’s friends. They’re bloodthirsty murderers, utterly pointless bastards who can’t win.
Get lost, Bob. No-one here has said that the bombers are their friends. That is petty slander.
The attack, as with all terrorist attacks, is a political act, with, we presume, the aim of producing political consequences. If this is not the case, then this is not a ‘terrorist’ attack in our common understanding, but rather a sophisticated serial killer. To say it is a political act is not to condone it, but simply to categorise it. I do not understand the moral objection to this irrefutable statement.
Kat-Mi, if, as you imply, our actions cannot affect the number of people willing to join terrorist groups or the number of terrorist attacks, then there is no way to fight a war on terror. Of course, the idea that this is true is patently absurd. Our actions can and do affect the level of terrorism around the world. This is not to say that we are morally responsible for every one of these effects, simply that we cannot disentangle ourselves from this causal web. But if our own security services warn our leaders that a War in Iraq will raise the level of the terrorist threat, then the increased risk of an attack such as that yesterday was implicitly considered a price worth paying. To some degree, there is a level of responsibility that must be placed on the people who decided that the attack should go ahead in spite of this increased threat. Now, if you take the opinion that the War in Iraq was wrong, then it is perfectly reasonable to damn our leaders for launching an illegitimate war that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, and now is killing tens of Britons.
This is not to side with the bombers. Nor is it to appease the bombers. But if we are fighting a ‘War on Terrorism’, then we have an aim in sight. This aim, surely, is the reduction in the level of terrorist threat, while at the same time safeguarding our liberties and rights. If you are so blinded by some irrational ‘moral code’ that you demand action that increases the risk of terror, erodes our liberties and removes our rights, then you have already lost the battle and you slip into the mind-set of neverending war, not simply contingently as a result of the nature of the enemy, but necessarily as you have lost sight of what these actions were intended to achieve.
But, if you would rather keep on killing and being killed in order to look strong and steadfast, in order to not look like an appeaser, then you are the enemy of western civilization as much as al Queda.
Incidentally, Harry’s Place does not seem to grasp this. They argue that to take into account what will actually increase or decrease the risk of terrorism when making political choices is to allow the terrorist to make our decisions for us.
I do not think that this is the case. But making decsions with the intent of reducing the risk of terrorism without reference to the evidence and expert analysis, indeed, willfully pursuing a course of action in a ‘War on Terror’ that will increase the risk of terrorism is so irrational as to border on the insane.
And these are the people who brand others ‘cretins’ and claim to be defenders of the Enlightenment.
Andrew; to be fair, I don’t think HP have actually argued this. I wouldn’t be surprised if one or two of them believed it, but your post implies that they’ve made this argument in the immediate aftermath of the bomb which they haven’t.
I was referring to their ‘Paying the Price’ post this morning. The extension of the argument they make in that post seems to me to result in this sort of irrationalism in fighting terrorism.
Andrew Bartlett
From the (Ex) Darling of the Left, Christopher Hitchens….
"after September 11, 2001, …quite a bit of the left—people who thought jihadism was in some way an expression of anti-imperialism. There was the reflexive view that somehow the jihadists must represent a grievance or protest against poverty or oppression. Everybody knows what the grievances of the jihadists arethey’re very easy to identify. They grieve for the loss of the caliphate. They’re not anti-imperialists—they’re pro-imperialists. There’s an empire they lost and want back. They’re offended—deeply, grievously offended—by the sight of an undraped woman or the existence of a Shiite Muslim, or a Christian, or a Jew. These things they consider to be offensive. They believe God gives them the right to erase these things. Let’s not understate the fact that they do have deep-seated grievances. But to hear this ventriloquized on the left as some sort of perverse populism was too much for me."
George Galloway is one of these people. Anyone who defends him is one of these people. It is not a political act, even red ken said it was not a political act, it was mass murder. These people do not have a grievance that can be settled through politics, they are religous nutters.
Bob, you’re a fucking idiot. It is irrefutably a political act. It is also mass murder. The two are not incompatible. I presume, when you suggest the ‘not political’ analysis you forswear ever again referring to terrorists as driven by an idoelogy, as having an aim outside personal gratification etc. Instead, you must lump them in with Peter Sutcliffe and the like. Which is fine, if you are a fucking idiot, because that is an analysis which is not only astoundingly stupid in that it doesn’t help us understand why there is terrorism, but one that is totally impractical in that it offers us no solutions, or even the potential of a solution, to the problem of terrorism.
The idea that something being a political act implies that it can be resolved through the operation of democratic politics is a phenomally stupid fallacy. The bombings were a political act, just as Kristallnacht was. There was no democartic political solution to the problem of German anti-semetism in the 1930s. That does not mean that the acts and events that make up the narrative of German anti-semetism in the 1930s were not political.
Hitchens, incidentally, labours under the misunderstanding of the meanings of the word ’cause’. There are two meanings at work in his damning of the left as seeking to address the causes of terrorism; it can be defined as "the producer of an effect, result, or consequence". It can also be "a goal or principle served with dedication and zeal".
Now, there are causes of terrorism, with cause having the meaning of the first definition. This is indisputably true, unless you live in an acausal universe, in which case stop worrying as anything you do is futile. If we are going to defeat terrorism, then we must address these causes. There ought be nothing controversial about this, it is the simple operation of reason.
There is also the cause of the terrorists, with cause having the meaning of definition two. This is the stated reason for committing acts of terror. This may, or may not, overlap with cause having the meaning of definition one. Whether it does or does not has no great significance in ‘excusing’ or legitimating the terrorism, which is a subject for moral and ethical deliberation.
The problem is, to many, addressing the ’causes’ of terrorism sounds like capitulating to cause that the terrorist adheres to. And this ‘many’ are enemies of the Enlightnment, to employ the meme of the ‘decent left’, as they are stupid, ignorant and unreasonable idiots.
Of course, as I said, sometimes the cause of terrorism and the causes of terrorists do overlap. An example would be the War on Iraq, where, to cut a long discussion of the topic short, our aggressive actions, which have, we must remember, killed thousands of innocent people, have been a contributing cause of attracting people to the cause of Islamic terrorism.
I don’t think Hitchens is confused by the word ’cause’ at all. I think that he is happy to confuse others (a tremendously anti-democratic act) with his misleading argument. If Hitchens really thinks that we are ‘at war’ with an ideology, then he has to address the causes that result in the acceptance and adherence to this ideology (not capituate to the ideological cause). The only other option is a neverending war of mass-murder, where the causes that result in the recruitment of new people to the ideology remain unaddressed, so that they kill more of ‘us’ and we kill more of ‘them’. Ad infinitum. He is an utter prat, he is a second-rate writer and a third-rate thinker.
"War is an extension of politics by other means"
As true in Von Clausewitz’s time as it is now…
BTW Yesterday’s events were an act of war from the perpetrators perspective if you believe, as I do, that there was another aim beyond purely killing people as many people as possible
So Galloway’s a "wanker" for "exploiting" this tragedy to promote his political agenda (troops out of Iraq), whilst John is a top geezer and excellent funnyman for "exploiting" this tragedy to promote his political agenda (bashing the Daily Mail). How does that work?
(Both Galloway and John are right, by the way: the Daily Mail needs bashing, and this is no time for sanctimonious priggery over a good joke; and the troops need to come out of Iraq, Galloway’s analysis being absolutely correct.)
Bob – cheers for reminding us all of one of the most stupid statements Hitchens has ever made. It’s always a pleasure to find someone responding to a well-made argument, like Andrew Bartlett’s, by retreating behind supposed authorities – regardless, in this instance, of the blind ignorance and screaming self-justification of the supposed "authority" involved. Would you care to deal with Bartlett’s points all by yourself now?
Yes, Galloway’s a wanker for not being able to offer any sort of *unqualified* condemnation without mentioning Blair and Iraq within one sentence. And the SWP condemnation too. Pathetic weasel words. Of course there’s a reasonable debate about whether being in Iraq has made us safer/not safer in the short/long term. Or whether violent Islamism on ths streets of Europe has much/anything/everything to do with Iraq. I’d tend to wait til the blood was cleaned off the streets first. If Galloway didn’t want to play by the rules of decency, he should have kept his trap shut.
As you say Meaders, John’s was a joke. Big difference.
What points?
Jarndyce – "…pathetic weasel words…": I could express the same thought about Blair’s statement. These bombings are the product – the entirely predictable product – of his war. This is blowback – predictable blowback – on a horrendous scale. A statement on the bombing by a politician that failed to make this point would be "pathetic weasel words" of the first order.
Meaders
This is a blowback from the appeasement of terrorists. Bin Laden believes that the West is weak. He formed this opinion when spineless governements were in power, in particular, the American retreat from Mogadishu.
Then presumably the 3’000 dead in Afghanistan and the 100’000 dead in Iraq – not to mention the suffering of Palestians and Chechens – are not sufficient proof of Western strength and the lesson needs to be stamped out again and again in the blood of the innocent.
James O
Are you saying that we should have not invaded Afghanistan? You are one of the few people I have come across who believes this. Tha Afghanis have been able to elect their own representatives.
Iraq- is more debateable, and is still in the balance but I believe it will come good. Saddam killed over 100,000 in one year.
Chechneya- I do not fully know the history, but Stalin did them a great injustice.
There are no easy options. Unless you have a magic wand? Or you could be a typical moaner/idealist- picking fault but not offering alternatives.
Bob, he’s trying to say that blaming the Clinton administration for terrorism in 2005 is fucking stupid.
John S
Have you read Jason Burkes book on Al Queda?
Andrew Bartlett
You pathetic little pratt (and you Meaders). I am presuming you are only young boys, if you are adults I would be extremely worried and would loose faith in my fellow human beings. I presume your both safely tucked up in bed by this time of night.
Yes. I do define anyone who cannot settle things through democracy as a terrorist, since by definition they cannot persuade the masses you must terrorise them. So I, and quite a few people would consider, for example, the Nazism to be a religeon. Indeed Rudolf Hess’s son could not perceive a coherent Nazi idealogy. He asked his father what National Socilaism was, he replied:
"National Socilaism is the will of the fuhrer, pure and simple"
Quite a few people also consider Communism to be the most "popular religion" of the 20th century. Yes Stalin was a terrorist, as was Che Guevara.
But this debate about religion and politics is a little arcane. The point is that we do know what these nutters want:
1. Osama Bin Ladens first video called for the return of the first Caliphate and the return of Andalucia (now part of Southern Spain).
2. The destruction of Israel (not a two state settlement)
3. Full beards, no music, no alcohol, no pre- marital sex (Though I suspect you two are not getting much anyway.
In order to do this they:
They attack Red Cross personnel.
2. They murder people working for the UN.
3. They kidnap and kill care workers.
4. They bomb holiday-makers, in nightclubs.
5. They blow up people travelling on trains – civilians.
6. They target people on buses – civilians.
7. They take civilian hostages.
8. They decapitate them.
9. They murder trade unionists.
10. They kidnap diplomats.
11. They kill people for being… barbers.
12. They fly aircraft full of civilians into skyscrapers where people are at work.
13. They take schoolchildren hostage and murder them.
14. They bomb synagogues.
15. They kill people shopping in a market.
16. They kill people queuing at a medical clinic.
17. They murder children in Baghdad.
18. They murder people on their way to work in London.
(And what have I forgotten?)
However, I do like your allusion to the Nazis. Though comparison to the Nazis is often overdone (usually by loony left wingers such as yourself). Given that the terrorists want to install a totalitarian regime and exterminate the jews, it is probably the only sensible thing you said.
So given that, these similarities between today and 1936, what do you want to do? Here’s a hint, we tried appeasement last time, strangely enough we found you could not give in to fanatics.
You two think you are more persuasive than Christopher Hitchens. Don’t make me laugh
Have you read Jason Burkes book on Al Queda?
I’ll read it right now if that will get you to fuck off.
"…these similarities between today and 1936…"
I will treasure this particular gem for some time. Bob, I salute you.
John S
Like your intellectual argument. Very powerfull.
Meaders
Does your mum know you are up?
Meaders should that not be:
"I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem]."
Bob, none of what you say has the result of making yesterday’s attacks non-political events.
You write: "Yes. I do define anyone who cannot settle things through democracy as a terrorist, since by definition they cannot persuade the masses you must terrorise them. So I, and quite a few people would consider, for example, the Nazism to be a religeon."
One. I didn’t say that these people were not terrorists. I said that these attacks were political events. I did not say that they were democratic events. Furthermore, the line, "So I, and quite a few people would consider, for example, Nazism to be a religeon", implies that this is a result of the fact that they terrorise people rather than persuade them. That is an odd definition of religion. And, we should note, that something is religious does not make it not political.
You have made the leap (because you are thick or because you are dishonest, take your pick) from me saying that these events were political events to your implication that I had asserted that these were ‘democratic’ events, or that they were areligious events. None of this is the case, so why to you persue this line of argument? Well, I would guess because as I said, these events were indisputibly political, and so, to remain in debate with me, you must choose a different tack.
I did not compare these events with those of 1936. What I did was offer an uncontesable example of an event that fell well outside of democracy but was, without question, a political event.
Furthermore, I did not say that I was more persuasive than Hitchens. But then Hitchens is quite clearly less persuasive than Hitler, so what does that say? Rather, I ask you to examine my argument for flaws, not criticise the ability of a turn of phrase or a misleading metaphor to sway your judgement towards the irrational.
Oh, and Bob, fuck off. Your personal insults are based on the fact that you cannot address any of my points. When I call you thick, it is because I am in the process of taking your ill-thought argument to peices. One is justified by the evidence of our debate, the other is a petty reaction. But then, wouldn’t it be good if I was 12. Then your mental age would be substantially less than that of a pre-pubescent child.
Now now Andrew:
If you think you have taking my argument to pieces I think you are delusional. You also think you have even taken Christopher Hitchens argument to pieces. Come on, joking aside, Christopher Hitchens is one of the great political essayists of his time, you are Andrew Bartlett.
Seriously how old are you, I would guess you were under 25?
thankfully, not on the same planet.
Think about it.
Go on Bob, tell me why these events were not political.
Tell me, seriously, that attacks on the left’s critique of the War on Terror do not, by and large, confuse the word to cause, as in be the ‘object’ producing an event, with the word cause, as in an a goal or principle.
Tell me why you slipped sideways from saying that these events were not political, to asserting that they were not democratic. Of course they are not democratic. No-one disagrees with you on that one. And that, you see, is a persuasive style of argument, shifting from debating with your opponentw to debating with statements that your opponents has not made. And this is why persuasiveness alone is not the mark of a good mind, often, rather, a cynical and manipulative one.
My age makes no difference to my points. Debate with them, or fuck off. Your only argument was that these events were not political. That is absurd. To hold to this statement you need to explain why these events, in light of the fact that these attacks had political ends, and were committed by people aware of the political implications of these events, do not fall into the category of the political. And do not tell us that they are not democratic. This is not synonymous with political. Do not tell us that these were religious. This is not antithetical to political. Do not blabber on about how I am on the ‘looney left’, or that I am a child. These have no bearing on my argument. And beside, as I said before, are you seriously saying that you cannot argue with a child without having to stick your fingers in your ears and shout ‘nah-nah-nah-nah’?
Yes, he is Christopher Hitchens, I am Andrew Bartlett, and you are Bob. Now debate.
John S
Seeing as though it is a long book, I thought I would save you the trouble of buying the book.
page 180
"Operation infinite reach (a cruise missile strike on Afganistan ordered by Clinton to deflect attention from the Lewinsky affair) showed that bin laden was not, as many had previously thought, not merely a snowboarding rich kid…This conversion to cult status dramatically emphasized the symbolic and material advantages that an alliance with Bin Laden would bring"
Moreover the Saudis had done a deal with the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden, they did not actually like him at first, a team of Saudi special forces was in mid flight to pick up Bin Laden, who was under house arrest. Clintons missile strike angered the Taliban and when the Saudi plane landed they refused to handover Bin Laden.
If only Michael Moore would make a film about Clinton, it would be hilarious, you could not make it up. Imagine if you had seen that on Fahrenheit.
Well there you go John S, you called me fucking stupid, I think perhaps that accolade best goes to Big Bill Clinton?
I haven’t called you stupid, though you’re headed that way rapidly. And your habit of questioning your opponents’ ages is hardly more dignified than anything I’ve said. I’ll now bow out in hopes that you will actually address Andrew Bartlett’s point.
See you next Tuesday, Bob.
‘Are you saying that we should have not invaded Afghanistan? You are one of the few people I have come across who believes this. The Afghanis have been able to elect their own representatives’
I believe, like RAWA (Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan), that only the Afghan people could produce democracy in Afghanistan. Outside Kabul, the warlords of the pre-Taliban era have been reinstated by the US and both human rights and women’s rights are in as bad a state as they were under the Taliban.
‘Iraq- is more debateable, and is still in the balance but I believe it will come good. Saddam killed over 100,000 in one year’
Ah, so youre using Saddam Hussein as your moral compass. Well, even if we use lower estimates of the death toll, the numbers of civilians killed in Iraq by the coalition are vastly more than the victims of retail terror in the US and Europe. The Ba’ath regime was responsible for the massacre of many thousands of Iraqis, the vast majority in 1980-90 when it was backed politically, financially and nilitarily by the US government.
‘Chechneya- I do not fully know the history, but Stalin did them a great injustice’
Well, thats hardly surprising. Advocates of the war on terror have a remarkable ability to avoid inconvenient facts. Between 15-25’000 Chechens have been killed in the war re-started by Blair’s ally Putin in 1999.
‘There are no easy options. Unless you have a magic wand? Or you could be a typical moaner/idealist- picking fault but not offering alternatives’
Let’s go back to the point I made; Since 1998, each act of retail terror from Al-Quada, it’s allies or sympathisers, has been met with a corresponding act of state terror, beginning with Clinton’s 1998 bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. The number of attacks from retail terror has also increased during the same period, culminating in yesterday’s horrific attacks in London. Using your ropey definition of ‘appeasement’, no government has been engaged in anything of this kind for several years. The fact that you had to go back to 1993 to find an example shows the weakness of your argument.
Bob quotes fromJason Burke’s book : –
"Operation infinite reach (a cruise missile strike on Afganistan ordered by Clinton to deflect attention from the Lewinsky affair)…"
Now Bob, is the bit in brackets a quote from the book?
Dave HEasman
YEs, the bit in brackets is from the book. Page 180. Though it is a paraphrase the book actually says
"leading to the obvious charge that Clinton was attempting to distract attention from his personal affairs"
James O
“I believe, like RAWA (Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan), that only the Afghan people could produce democracy in Afghanistan”
You’ve still not answered the question was it correct or not to invade Afghanistan?
“The Ba’ath regime was responsible for the massacre of many thousands of Iraqis,”
Well done, you have got one thing right
“the vast majority in 1980-90”
Were are you getting your figures from on Iraqi deaths in the period, the UN, Human Rights Watch? Are you including war casualties? By the way did you not criticise me for going back to 1993?
“when it was backed politically, financially and nilitarily by the US government.”
There may have been a period when the US saw Sadam as preferable to Iran in the Iran- Iraq war (1980- 88). This was not just the position of the US, but also the policy of most of the Middle East, except for Syria which backed Iran. However, US support was relatively limited, and relations between the US and Iraq deteriorated when the US condemned Iraq for using chemical weapons during the conflict. Of course there was then the little matter of Gulf War 1, when essentially the US turfed Saddam out of Kuwait. Certainly, the biggest suppliers of military hardware to Iraq were Russia, China and France. Indeed in 1975 Jacques Chirac personally sold two nuclear reactors capable of enriching weapons grade plutonium to Iraq. The Israelis launched airstrikes in 1981 to destroy the plants. Tariq Aziz has said that it was Sadams biggest regret, invading Kuwait before developing a nuclear weapons capability.
“Well, thats hardly surprising. Advocates of the war on terror have a remarkable ability to avoid inconvenient facts. Between 15-25’000 Chechens have been killed in the war re-started by Blair’s ally Putin in 1999.”
Yes. I agree that Chechneya does seem to be a genuine grievance for the muslim world and hence the “Islamic fascists” who committed Wednesdays attacks. Though why the mistreatment of the Chechens by Stalin and more latterly by Putin should cause them to attack London are beyond me. If Chechneya is their grievance do you not think that the terrorists are a bit, well racist or religionist or whatever the correct term is, fanatical is the best term I think? Those Christians/Crusaders have attacked us in Chechneya, so we will blow up London? Do you think that it is legitimate to do this?
”Let’s go back to the point I made; Since 1998, each act of retail terror from Al-Quada, it’s allies or sympathisers, has been met with a corresponding act of state terror, beginning with Clinton’s 1998 bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan.
OK, lets assume terrorist attacks have gone up and there has been no “appeasement” by Western governments. I am not picking fault with spelling, as mine is none too good, but I am assuming that “retail” terror is “retaliatory” terror rather than the bombing of shops. So you are implying that Al Qaeda are only responding to some “injustice” done to them, and therefore all we have to do is remove these causes of “injustice”. Call me old fashioned, but I do not think it wise to “appease” anyone, because they have managed to plant 4 bombs on the underground. If it is known that this guy is a religious fanatic, I am even less inclined to give into them. Also, if it is known that this chap does not listen to music, watch tv, drink alcohol or even look at his sister in law because she is not covered up, then I am even less inclined. He sounds a bit of a weirdo to me, rather than someone you can sit down and negociate with. Also if OBL, or people inspired by him, supports the 19 activities I posted above, including the assassination of barbers for shaving of beards, I would be loathe to compromise with him. Now I admit that so far this is a personal view and you might well want to work with such individuals to bring “peace”.
However, moving on from my personal view on the merits of talking to such an individual, It might be worth looking at what is causing OBL to engage in “retaliatory” bombings. Burke suggests that, realistically, nobody knows what is inside the head of OBL, though he clearly wants an Islamicist state he has been pretty incoherent in actually what an “Ismamist state is”.
Let us take, what I think is your argument, the “America deserves it”, approach, which lets face it is quite common amongst the Loony Left. This argument goes America “supported” tyrannical regimes (e.g Saudi Arabia, ). I do not personally accept this argument, but obviously OBL believes it. Surely, there is now a problem with this argument, America and those nasty Neocons have installed democracy in Afghanisan where Afghan people, including the members of Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan are free to choose their own leaders. Why does OBL not like this? And why is he trying to kill them?
Moreover, given that there has been an election in Iraq and 60% of the electorate turned out to vote, why does OBL try to kill them. Is it because the people do not believe him or want him and that therefore he needs to terrorise them. They are “unbelievers” (Kafir ), who should be killed? In all sincerity, what is OBLs reason to ‘retaliate’ against these people?
You may think I am crazy, for my opinions, but I do not want to kill you for not agreeing with me. I just think you are incredibly misguided. OBL is a crazy fanatic, he is not retaliating to injustice, he wants to enforce his own religion on his fellow countrymen, personally I would consider that an injustice.
Andrew
Apologies for the delay. I was on a liquid crusade against the tee- total Taliban last night.
“The attack, as with all terrorist attacks, is a political act, with, we presume, the aim of producing political consequences. If this is not the case, then this is not a ‘terrorist’ attack in our common understanding, but rather a sophisticated serial killer. To say it is a political act is not to condone it, but simply to categorise it. I do not understand the moral objection to this irrefutable statement.”
If you want to carry on the somewhat “studenty” debate about politics versus religion, to have any sensible debate you should perhaps define what you mean by politics, as there are a number of definitions. Whereas, this is little academic for me, it may be helpful.
My point is simply this. Al Qaeda (OBL) are driven by religion first and foremost. In particular they want to create an Islamacist state, with Sharia law. Apparently, applied fully, the Shariah is a code for living that all Muslims should adhere to, including prayers, fasting and donations to the poor. Shariah is the totality of religious, political, social, domestic and private life.
1. RAWA were opposed to the Taliban, the 2001 US invasion and subsequent rule of the Warlords. Since I support their position, I should think it’s fairly obvious what my own opinion is.
2. The three major bloodlettings of the Hussein period occurred in the campaign against the Southern Shi’ites in C. 1983, the campaign against the Kurds in 1988-9, and the suppression of post-Gulf war uprising of 1991. Of these, the first two were directly aided by the US, and the third was indirectly aided by the US which preferred Hussein remain in power to the alternative of a popular uprising. This is particularly relevant since the members of the Reagan-Bush government were many of the same individuals in the Bush 2 government whom declare their love of freedom and democracy.
3. The US did not condemn Iraq for the use of chemical weapons; It blamed Iran, and continued aiding the B’ath regime until the invasion of Kuwait.
4. It’s well known that other countries supplied Iraq with weaponry during the Iran-Iraq war; however this does not alter the facts of the US support, which was extended from aid to direct military participation in 1987-8, in which the US Navy intervened against that of Iran. One consequence of this involvement was the shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner by the USS Vincennes, with the deaths of all aboard.
5. I did not suggest the Chechen war was a motive in the perpetrators of the London bombings. It’s relevant in that it was an analogous war waged in response to ‘terrorism’ which killed vastly more Chechen civilians than Russian civilians were killed by retail terror. Putin is a long-standing ally and arms recipient of the Blair government, and was inducted into the ‘war on terror’ by the US following the 9/11 attacks.
"retail” terror is “retaliatory” terror rather than the bombing of shops.
Youre unfamiliarity with the basic terminology of the terrorism debate is obvious here. Retail terror is the targeting of civilians by non-state groups, as opposed to state terror which is the targeting of civilians by the state.
To reiterate my argument again: Your point was that the Al-Quada campaign was motivated by Western weakness, and the closest example you could find for this policy was 12 years ago. Since 1998, the Western governments targeted by Al-Quada, or similar groups have responded with force in each instance. In fact – and one of the many reasons the Left oppose terrorism of this kind – terrorist attacks frequently make governments more aggressive since they create a domestic consensus in favour of force and marginalise dissent. This is exactly what happened in post-9/11 America. Given that retail terror has continued and took far more European, Australian and American lives in the post-98 period than before, we can conclude that either your ‘appeasement’ thesis is wrong, or that it has had no effect on Al-Quada and similar groups.
* or that it (the war on terror) has had no effect on Al-Quada and similar groups.
James O
1. RAWA were opposed to the Taliban, the 2001 US invasion and subsequent rule of the Warlords. Since I support their position, I should think it’s fairly obvious what my own opinion is.
Sorry, I must be thick, please help me out, by spelling it out a simple yes or no would suffice. Or are you afraid that you know one of OBLs stated claims of “injustice” is the liberation of Afghanistan? Something that you supported and feel is just presumably. So exposing a rather obvious flaw in your argument that OBL is merely retaliating to injustice.
2. The three major bloodlettings of the Hussein period occurred in the campaign against the Southern Shi’ites in C. 1983, the campaign against the Kurds in 1988-9, and the suppression of post-Gulf war uprising of 1991. Of these, the first two were directly aided by the US, and the third was indirectly aided by the US which preferred Hussein remain in power to the alternative of a popular uprising. This is particularly relevant since the members of the Reagan-Bush government were many of the same individuals in the Bush 2 government whom declare their love of freedom and democracy.
I cannot find any reputable source for your claim in 1983 and 1988. Please point me to the right literature so I can educate myself. Indeed Christopher Hitchens, a long time supporter of the Kurdish cause (one of the reasons he supported the Iraq war- after he realised he was being a hypocrite- moaning when the US took action and moaning when they did not) has noted that Americas sins were saying that they were with the curds but then abandoning them by failing to provide military support. From Mr Hitchens:
‘I was bouncing around in a jeep with some Kurdish guerillas at that point. And on my side of the windshield, there was a big laminated picture of George H. W. Bush. And I said to them, "Look, comrades, do you have to do this? For one thing, I can’t see out of my side of the windshield. But for another, I know quite a few reporters in this area and might run into one of them at any moment. And I don’t want them seeing me in a jeep that has this guy’s image on it. So do you have to?" And they said, quite soberly and solemnly to me, "No, we think we should have this picture because we think, without him, we would all be dead, and all our families would be dead, too." And from what I’d seen by then in that region, I thought, that’s basically morally true.’
3. The US did not condemn Iraq for the use of chemical weapons; It blamed Iran, and continued aiding the B’ath regime until the invasion of Kuwait.
I believe you are wrong here. The US did condemn the use of chemical weapons, it is a matter of historical record. It blamed Iran for what? What did the US supply in the run up to the invasion of Kuwait, source please, I am really interested to learn.
4. It’s well known that other countries supplied Iraq with weaponry during the Iran-Iraq war; however this does not alter the facts of the US support, which was extended from aid to direct military participation in 1987-8, in which the US Navy intervened against that of Iran. One consequence of this involvement was the shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner by the USS Vincennes, with the deaths of all aboard.
What is your source for this, I would really be interested to check it out.
5. I did not suggest the Chechen war was a motive in the perpetrators of the London bombings. It’s relevant in that it was an analogous war waged in response to ‘terrorism’ which killed vastly more Chechen civilians than Russian civilians were killed by retail terror. Putin is a long-standing ally and arms recipient of the Blair government, and was inducted into the ‘war on terror’ by the US following the 9/11 attacks.
Wow, given that Russia is the worlds fourth biggest arms exporter I am surprised that Mr Blair is exporting to them. Coals to Newcastle I think, as a matter of interest what have we sold to them?
If I had a solid all encompassing religious belief in a cause and added to that a solid all encompassing desire to stop a military force from maiming and killing my religious and/or cultural bretheren, I would be passionate and angry and that objective would be a driving impulse.
If it was then impossible to achieve this I think I would become more angry, more driven and look for all possible ways to achieve it.
Would I take to attacking soft targets, killing unsuspecting defenceless humans? I say absolutley not but I then how could I know. I have none of the criterior.
HoweverI do know something else. Any attacks on soft targets, however continuous, ferocious and to whatever end, will not nor never have reduced the suffering of the the people they fight for nor of the land or religion they stand for.
Reasons are there for the terrorism but nothing will ever be satisfied by it; no logic, no rage, no end, no goal and no need. Nothing.