London bombs

[slum_goddess]

ok, AFAIC, everyone's opinion and initial reactions are valid now. coincidentally, i was just reading Digby who quotes yesterday's Andrew Sullivan: '...But this war has now struck home - in one of the most diverse and liberal and dynamic cities in the world. May the lion roar back.'

DIgby: 'I would dearly love to know exactly what this "roaring back" would entail. Britain has already been, as he points out, roaring in Afghanistan. And it has been roaring in Iraq. It has roared in tandem and on command to everything the Bush administration asked of it.

I'm genuinely curious about this. Who should the coalition of the willing attack in retaliation for this? Where should we invade? How do the Brits go about "rousing itself to a fuller committment" ... and to what?

They helped us gin up phony evidence to invade Iraq and were with us all the way. They helped us invade Afghanistan to topple the government that supports al Qaeda. They have turned a blind eye to abduction, rendition, imprisonment and torture of suspected terrorists. They support our decision employ the most coldhearted realpolitik imaginable in propping up friendly dictators in places like Uzbekistan and necessary military dictators in Pakistan.

What exactly is the macho, codpiece wielding "roaring back" plan this time? What, pray tell, is our next military move in the global war on terror?' from here

[DudeAsInCool]

I certainly am not a fan of Bush or Blair's policies, but they are not the blame for everything. There are a lot of religious fanatics who are filled with hate and dont care who they destroy to get their way and they are a problem for everyone. We just cant just sit back and hope they stop taking innocent people's lives...

[slum_goddess]

WE'RE NOT AFRAID (send your pics)

[slum_goddess]

we're tuned to BBC News since about 5,30 and they've been running US TV news programme bits from yesterday. i think the difference in tone is striking: the amerikan ones all have this dramatic, urgent, kind of sci-fi/disaster-film type voice-over (e.g., 'an ancient evil has returned') w/the pounding, dramatic music in the background while the Brit ones are very calm and matter-of-fact. hey! i'm just sayin' :)

moving right along, i'm w/Billmon:

'…The cold blooded murder of Londoners is no more horrifying than the murder or New Yorkers or Madrilenos – or Baghdadis. But today’s target still has a special hold over my emotions. If your mother tongue is English, and you loved stories as much as I did as a child, then London is the city of your imagination, of Mary Poppins and David Copperfield, of London-bridge-is-falling-down and the prince and the pauper. And if you’ve been there, and visited the places you dreamed about as a boy, and ridden the tube to Picadilly Circus, and climbed the stairs of the Tower of London, and strolled through Hyde Park in the morning fog, then what happened today hurts more than maybe it should, logically.

‘We are all New Yorkers, we are all Madrilenos, we are all Baghdadis. But I was a Londoner from the time I learned how to read. I know it shouldn’t make any difference, but it does.’

a very close friend drives a double-decker bus...we were just dying here yesterday morning, a lot of people phoned to ask and posted looking for him (one all the way from Mississippi), very sad and nervous as he dint get back to any of us and then he finally phoned me. there's still two more we haven't heard from yet. :nope:

[method77]

I just don't get it. Why is it when everyone mentions "terrorist" he/she always attaches the word "Islam" next to it?

The propaganda seems to be working ok here...

[DudeAsInCool]

I just don't get it. Why is it when everyone mentions "terrorist" he/she always attaches the word "Islam" next to it?

You mean in Greece, the media, or on this thread?

[method77]

no

in Greece they know that religion or race has nothing to do with terrorism. Media are mostly clear as far as these issues are considered.

I mean all forums and foreign media and especially American. They give the impression to people that all muslims are terrorists so everytime someone hears the word Muslim or Islam, they immediatelly think of terrorism. The mass at least does.

[Malicious Intent]

Perhaps because "fundamentalist" takes too long to type :P

The second thing Tony Blair said after the attacks was that Islam is not evil and that it is a tiny minority who would support such an attack. He seems eager to stop any sort of backlash.

I love the posts Slum.

What is really killing me is seeing the politians, despite claiming to not know who was behind it, are still saying that it is probably a group part of the al-qaeda terrorist network who have been in a sleeper cell for up to 5 years waiting for orders. The resulting attack proves this, that and the other. The politicians are already claiming that the attacks would have happened even if we hadn't gone to Iraq.

Next you get on an independent security expert who says that if they are islamic fundamentalists, then they are probably only using al-qaeda as a brand name with no real connections. Furthermore, they say, chances are that they are home-grown and pissed off about Iraq.

I dont see how this can ever be resolved until the politians admit that al-qaeda is a name used by small, independent groups of fundamentalists looking for a name. There is no central point to strike.

Leads back to your story Slum.

[DudeAsInCool]

I mean all forums and foreign media and especially American. They give the impression to people that all muslims are terrorists so everytime someone hears the word Muslim or Islam, they immediatelly think of terrorism. The mass at least does.

I dont believe this

[slum_goddess]

I love the posts Slum.

thank you, MI. what makes me very angry is stuff i found out this morning, that (of course) even in the security department, bu$hCo is all bullshit, all talk, no action. things like:

'For years now, experts have begged the Bush administration to adequately fund key homeland security priorities - but they have been rejected at almost every turn. Instead, the White House has knowingly left our ports, our borders, and yes – our transit systems – totally vulnerable to terrorist attacks because they have refused to spend adequate resources, even as they have insisted on cutting taxes for the wealthy and plunging us into a war in Iraq. When Democrats have tried to reduce those tax cuts to pay for critical homeland security needs, they have been voted down. Meanwhile, GOP leaders in Congress have gone along: for instance, just a few weeks ago they gutted funding for transit security…’ (all points made have inner links at David Sirota), just disgusting.

I dont believe this

i've seen it as well, Dude.

[Shawn]

I mean all forums and foreign media and especially American. They give the impression to people that all muslims are terrorists so everytime someone hears the word Muslim or Islam, they immediatelly think of terrorism. The mass at least does.

I dont believe this

I'd agree with him. Islam is the new communism rattled in front of the children's faces to remind them how beautiful they have it here.

[Malicious Intent]

Tony Blair has promised no rushed laws, no extra security laws, admits that ID cards would not have helped in this case, says the ID card debate will continue only on immigration and crime grounds.

From the BBC:

Mr Blair said the terrorists would have won if the UK became an illiberal society.

Instead, it was proud of being open, liberal, multi-racial and multi-religious, with strong restrictions on government powers.

He says that no amount of extra surveillance could have stopped this.

:)

Looks like the memories of those killed will not be abused.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4666311.stm

Blair's party may not be the one we voted for, but I'm strangely proud of Blair ATM. Since the Iraq invasion, there has been lots of ticks in the positive column.

Cross: ID Cards

Cross: Indefinate detention of terror suspects without trail (although later reduced to house arrest for a maximum of 6 months without a judge review) and ability to arrest on terrorist evidence as flimsy as carrying an A-Z map (not sure if this was pre- or post-iraq).

Tick: UK rebate from the EU and attacks on CAP (farm subsidises)

Tick: Role in getting the Olympics for London - rumoured to have actually changed votes, where no single person before him has done more than sway a vote.

Tick: Reaction to the London bombs.

Tick: Leading what is thought to be the most sucessful G8 summit on some of the toughest issues.

Tick: Strong economy with unprecedented employment and low inflation.

As long as he keeps using his charm for good, at this rate it will be sad if Tony Blair keeps his promise to stand down at the next election.

[method77]

Good job to Mr Blair. Unlike The american leader, he handles it pretty good. Saam goes for the spanish goverment after the bombings in Madrid.

[slum_goddess]

Good job to Mr Blair.

:) :good job: i just love it that people refuse to be scared here and London is back on its feet ASAP.

[slum_goddess]

the talent show: 'Oh. my. god. This comment is so wrongheaded it even seems too stupid and insensitive for Bush:

"After returning from the summit on Friday, Bush visited the British Embassy in Washington and signed a book of condolence and laid a wreath in front of the ambassador's residence. Bush said the London attacks were a reminder of the "evil" of the Sept. 11 attacks and underscored that the United States and its allies were fighting a "global war on terror."

"We will stay on the offense, fighting the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them at home," Bush said."

'Gilligan and Gomer Pyle have nothing on this ignorant piece of shit. I still can't believe this moron is the most powerful man on Earth. Please wake me up from this nightmare.'

[method77]

I dont believe this

There are some excellent articles and editorials about this in the Herald Tribune this weekend. I will try to find them online and post. I would scan but don't have a scanner

[rainbowdemon]

So Bush said something stupid. Why does this surprise anyone?

:wha':

[slum_goddess]

w/me, i think it's the amount of insult and the insensitivity, it's all been piling up and each extra stupid thing adds to the outrage. it's like 'you're a world-leader, motherfucker. at least pretend to be intelligent'

[rainbowdemon]

it's like 'you're a world-leader, motherfucker. at least pretend to be intelligent'

Even that's a reach for Bush.

:psychofun:

[Warflower]

I just wanted to pop in and apologize for what I said last week that we should start bombing mosques to get some kind of reaction/help from the Muslim population...it was an unbelieveably uncaring, irrational thought and if I hurt anyone...I am truly sorry. Please forgive me.

-- Patrice

[DudeAsInCool]

I dont believe this

There are some excellent articles and editorials about this in the Herald Tribune this weekend. I will try to find them online and post.

Probably so. Perhaps the reason I don't see or hear slanted news is that I dont read or listen to crappy stuff...

[Kooperman]

I just wanted to pop in and apologize for what I said last week that we should start bombing mosques to get some kind of reaction/help from the Muslim population...it was an unbelieveably uncaring, irrational thought and if I hurt anyone...I am truly sorry. Please forgive me.

-- Patrice

I think everybody realized the remark was made in the heat of high emotion and anger at yet another cruel and heartless slaughter of innocent people. We all have knee-jerk reactions in times like that. Sometimes we make the mistake of verbalizing them...I've done the same thing in the past.

[Malicious Intent]

I guessed it was a heat of the moment thing Warflower, that's why I ignored the comments. Not like I've exactly been level headed in this thread :) Glad to see it confirmed with an apology though :)

As for news on this subject, the centre of Birmingham, the 2nd(?) largest city was completely evacuated in an unprecedented move. Birmingham was the scene of one of the worst IRA attacks, which killed 21 people. Authorities have said it was because of a real and specific threat. They have been criticised for acting irrationally after the London bombs, but have defended their actions.

Meanwhile, home secretary Charles Clarke has been going semi-against Blair's promises. Although not rushing through new laws, he wants to take advantage of the dead to push through controversial laws which have been blocked in civil liberty grounds in the past. I guess it sticks to the promise of no /new/ laws :angry:

The one positive note is that he is waiting for everyone to take a breath. Discussions on the anti-terror bill will not start until the Autumn. The problem is the content - enough to make your stomach turn. There are proposals to reduce the standard of proof in terrorist trails, use specially vetted barristers and judges and even effectively create a thought crime of thinking about planning a terrorist attack.

Interesting section from the Daily Telegraph:

Now, though, the real political test will begin. A prime minister who has been shown powerless to protect the people who elected him could feel tempted to use the one power he has - the law - to try to prove that he is in control. A government that has already shown a scant regard for civil liberties might want to force through ever more Draconian legislation on the back of the London bombs.

In fact, perhaps surprisingly, Mr Blair seems to be moving in the opposite direction. Charles Clarke admitted, bravely, on Friday that ID cards would almost certainly not have prevented last week's terrorist outrage. It is a statement of the obvious that the Government's controversial new control orders did nothing to stop the bombers, so there seems little point in beefing them up. The Tories' proposal for a minister for homeland security would, of course, be equally ineffectual. What is needed is a new kind of intelligence.

In his statement today, the Prime Minister will be practical rather than prescriptive. The Government has already announced its intention to bring forward some anti-terrorism legislation in the autumn, but there are no plans to rush out new measures before then. Although the Home Secretary will use a meeting with other European interior ministers this week to press for e-mail and mobile phone records to be stored and shared, this is in fact a proposal that has been on the table for some time.

"We're not going to bounce anybody into anything," a Number 10 official said yesterday. A Cabinet minister who is close to Mr Blair told me he detected no pressure for urgent legislative reform. "There isn't a political wave pressing for great and immediate action," he said. "I haven't detected any fizzing anger; we knew we were living under this threat. Now it's happened, it's awful, but we've got the ability to survive it without fundamentally changing the way we live our lives."

There has been a growing awareness in the Labour Party since the election that the Government has already, as one minister put it, "pushed the boundaries" on civil liberties. The Islington types who went off Mr Blair over Iraq, and whom Labour must woo back from the Liberal Democrats before the country next goes to the polls, are not going to be won over by the introduction of ID cards, the abolition of jury trials or the imposition of house arrest.

Gordon Brown and Jack Straw are among the senior members of the Government who have made clear their opposition to identity cards. And I have been surprised by how many normally loyal ministers privately express their concern about the control orders that have already been put in place. "We've gone as far as we can and should, if not further," a Cabinet minister admitted yesterday.

Mr Clarke is instinctively a less gung-ho Home Secretary than David Blunkett. One Cabinet minister recently expressed concern to me that the current Home Secretary had ironically, almost by default, ended up introducing more authoritarian measures than his predecessor. "Charles is much more balanced," the same minister said.

"It can be politically useful to have an aggressive Home Secretary but the world has changed and now balance is the issue."

Mr Blair says he wants to defend our way of life. If anything differentiates us from the terrorists it is a commitment to freedom, democracy and tolerance. Yesterday, the BNP was handing out leaflets in east London claiming that the attack had been caused by the "multi-racial society". "More blood on Tony Blair and New Labour's hands," said the caption under a picture of the Prime Minister next to the bombed-out bus. But as the photographs of those killed in London show, it was the victims, rather than the aggressors, who were truly "multi-racial". Introducing tougher immigration controls will not make us any safer than ID cards or house arrest.

Last week's outrage was caused not by a clash of civilisations between Christianity and Islam but by a clash of values between fundamentalism and tolerance. If the Prime Minister wants to defend the British way of life, he must stand up for liberty.

Read the full article: http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion.../ixopinion.html

[slum_goddess]

good article, MI. i especially dig this: "We're not going to bounce anybody into anything," a Number 10 official said yesterday. A Cabinet minister who is close to Mr Blair told me he detected no pressure for urgent legislative reform. "There isn't a political wave pressing for great and immediate action," he said. "I haven't detected any fizzing anger; we knew we were living under this threat. Now it's happened, it's awful, but we've got the ability to survive it without fundamentally changing the way we live our lives."

take note, bu$hCo! oh wait...too late.

[Malicious Intent]

The question is Slum, what is their definition of fundamental change compared to ours?

I bet Bush wouldnt say he has changed people's lives fundamentally.