who is responsible for the London attacks?

[Jazzz]

But Jo/Joe didn't say what he think happened, and neither have you!

For someone that demands others commit themselves, it's rather strange that you are so reluctant to yourself! In fact, I don't think I've ever known you to commit yourself to a position, ever, except that conspiracy theorists are evil witches that should be eradicated from your nice clean boards in true McCarthy spirit.

 

[mears]

I don't often post on these boards. I read and learn. Offer information if I have it. But sometimes, I just have to reply and its usually to one of your posts - because you are so willfully stupid.

I can't claim to know much about the world and although I can make a good educated guess about the people who planted the London bombs, I can't tell you who or what they were. I can tell you, however, that you are not going to beat them militarily.

How do I know? Because I lived through 20+ years of terrorist bombing in my country and I watched my government attempt to beat republican violence by employing more violence. It failed. Every Brit with two or more brain cells to rub together can tell you that. What succeeded was a genuine attempt to understand the root causes of the terrorism. The Catholics of Northern Ireland had been living under a regime which had removed their right to vote, benefit from social housing, receive equal treatment from the police, or even find a job. Having looked at those grievances, we found that they were actually quite reasonable. So, we "gave in to the terrorists" and we now do not fear republican bombs.

So, what did these terrorists claim is their motivation for this attack? Well, if the only people who are claiming it are the actual bombers, then their reason is:OBL gave Palestine and the sanctions regime in Iraq as his reasons for 9/11. And I have to say that British and American intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine have been disastrous. So it would seem that these terrorists' aims for US/UK foreign policy are very similar to mine - to let the people of the Middle East and Central Asia get on with their lives without the fear of being shot from an f16.

Brits have more experience of living with and solving terrorism than you could ever know, wallowing in your self-pitying narcissism after 9/11. This experience is real and affects our views as a nation. It has been explained to you before, many times - by myself amongst others. But you willfully continue to accuse people of either supporting terrorism or capitulating to it out of cowardice. I would suggest, at this time, that you keep such sentiments to yourself

So you favor a western policy of isolationism in the Middle East. Good stuff mate. Kind of like the hands off approach taken with Afghanistan after they drove out the Soviets. You could just say you favor an isolationist policy and leave out the beauty pagent writing. Save you a little time.

Its all about Iraq and you people know it. The EU should pour money and expertise into the region. If Iraq fails it will be an open sore for you to deal with. Its Europe that can't assimilate its immigrants, not America and Canada.

Islamic terrorism is a bigger problem for Europe than it is for us in North America, 9-11 aside. If you don't help to provide a democratic government to Iraq and the fundamentalists win you are in for big trouble.

But fuck it Right? Maybe Islamic terrorism will just go away....

 

[mears]

ny

 

[mears]

Mears - can you name a precedent for dealing with terrorism that worked (stopped the terrorism).

I would say Britian has done a good job of dealing with the IRA.

 

[fela fan]

The world is turning mad ...

You're not wrong there mate.

But the good news is that it is only the world of politicians and media sorts that is going mad. You can drop off that world of insanity by ignoring the media. That way you get rid of the politicians too...

 

[fela fan]

So you favor a western policy of isolationism in the Middle East. Good stuff mate. Kind of like the hands off approach taken with Afghanistan after they drove out the Soviets.

[and unleashed the taliban...]

This explains neatly why people can get exasperated by what you say. Because everything you say is based on this fundamental error, thus flawing every single one of your arguments.

Get this mate: the US, nor the UK, have any fucking right whatsoever to even be anywhere near iraq or afghanistan. So by not being there you just cannot claim this to be a 'policy of isolationism', coz you have no fucking right to be there anyway.

Your position that the US do have a right to militarily invade countries as they wish when they wish (subject to getting 'permission' from their electorate) reflects a person with a voice of extreme arrogance. Your claim that they go there to give these countries democracy is so absurd it goes beyond being laughable. Even if it were that they were giving democracy, again, a question for you mears:

Who the fuck are you thinking the world is your personal playground, there to be completely fucked up bit by bit, including this latest result of US and UK foreign policy? For you can be sure that if we had wise leaders (instead of war criminals), then those people in london and new york would still be alive.

Like i said at the beginning, you simply don't get it coz you're under the unbelievable illusion that you have a god-given right to march into any country when you wish. The world at the dog end of american foreign policy has a message for you mate:

Fuck off back to your own country and deal with your own shit. Including bunging your insane murderous president in the slammer.

 

[Loki]

Nice rant there, fela fan. * buys fela a cold crisp bottle of Chang *

 

[fela fan]

Nice rant there, fela fan. * buys fela a cold crisp bottle of Chang *

Very good of you mate, but i still manage to avoid beer until at least the afternoon. oj is more inorder at the mo. But the brain's nice and clear and refreshed after a good kip. Talking sense like you know it always does...

 

[Loki]

OK. * buys fela three litres of OJ and tries to get a refund for the Chang *

Happy now?

 

[mears]

[and unleashed the taliban...]

This explains neatly why people can get exasperated by what you say. Because everything you say is based on this fundamental error, thus flawing every single one of your arguments.

Get this mate: the US, nor the UK, have any fucking right whatsoever to even be anywhere near iraq or afghanistan. So by not being there you just cannot claim this to be a 'policy of isolationism', coz you have no fucking right to be there anyway.

Your position that the US do have a right to militarily invade countries as they wish when they wish (subject to getting 'permission' from their electorate) reflects a person with a voice of extreme arrogance. Your claim that they go there to give these countries democracy is so absurd it goes beyond being laughable. Even if it were that they were giving democracy, again, a question for you mears:

Who the fuck are you thinking the world is your personal playground, there to be completely fucked up bit by bit, including this latest result of US and UK foreign policy? For you can be sure that if we had wise leaders (instead of war criminals), then those people in london and new york would still be alive.

Like i said at the beginning, you simply don't get it coz you're under the unbelievable illusion that you have a god-given right to march into any country when you wish. The world at the dog end of american foreign policy has a message for you mate:

Fuck off back to your own country and deal with your own shit. Including bunging your insane murderous president in the slammer.

Sorry if I pissed you off Fela but you know where I stand. Hope all is well in Thailand.

 

[fela fan]

Sorry if I pissed you off Fela but you know where I stand. Hope all is well in Thailand.

You've not pissed me off mate, but it wouldn't matter anyway coz i'm just a nobody and thailand is the place man! I think my rant stands, but it's a general one aimed at many americans and the same often goes for britons. You just got in the way. Only my opinion of course, but you know i'm right...

 

[fela fan]

OK. * buys fela three litres of OJ and tries to get a refund for the Chang *

Happy now?

I'll have that beer now mate...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

[and unleashed the taliban...]

This explains neatly why people can get exasperated by what you say. Because everything you say is based on this fundamental error, thus flawing every single one of your arguments.

Get this mate: the US, nor the UK, have any fucking right whatsoever to even be anywhere near iraq or afghanistan. So by not being there you just cannot claim this to be a 'policy of isolationism', coz you have no fucking right to be there anyway.

Your position that the US do have a right to militarily invade countries as they wish when they wish (subject to getting 'permission' from their electorate) reflects a person with a voice of extreme arrogance. Your claim that they go there to give these countries democracy is so absurd it goes beyond being laughable. Even if it were that they were giving democracy, again, a question for you mears:

Who the fuck are you thinking the world is your personal playground, there to be completely fucked up bit by bit, including this latest result of US and UK foreign policy? For you can be sure that if we had wise leaders (instead of war criminals), then those people in london and new york would still be alive.

Like i said at the beginning, you simply don't get it coz you're under the unbelievable illusion that you have a god-given right to march into any country when you wish. The world at the dog end of american foreign policy has a message for you mate:

Fuck off back to your own country and deal with your own shit. Including bunging your insane murderous president in the slammer.

Well put Fela.

 

[oi2002]

So you favor a western policy of isolationism in the Middle East. Good stuff mate. Kind of like the hands off approach taken with Afghanistan after they drove out the Soviets. You could just say you favor an isolationist policy and leave out the beauty pagent writing. Save you a little time.

Its all about Iraq and you people know it. The EU should pour money and expertise into the region. If Iraq fails it will be an open sore for you to deal with. Its Europe that can't assimilate its immigrants, not America and Canada.

Islamic terrorism is a bigger problem for Europe than it is for us in North America, 9-11 aside. If you don't help to provide a democratic government to Iraq and the fundamentalists win you are in for big trouble.

But fuck it Right? Maybe Islamic terrorism will just go away....

I largely agree with that and if Yanks would stop wittering on about freedoms glorious march and appeal to European self interest they might be more succcessful. Europeans should be pissed about DC's arrogant blunder but Iraq is now cruicial to our security.

The chaos in Iraq presents a growing danger to Europe; that danger existed before Iraq was invaded but was of a scale our security people could deal with. The Iraq war has given the Jihad a coherent emotive cause. A radicalised a segment of our very large Muslim population is taking up the Jihad. This is just as analysts in Langley and French intelligence predicted before the invasion.

I'm not that hopeful that it will look very democratic or even avoid catestrophic failure. Even if we don't give a stuff about Iraqis we should consider the consequences. If it continues to fail as a state a bombing like Thursdays may become a routine annoyance.

 

[bigfish]

... Europeans should be pissed about DC's arrogant blunder but Iraq is now cruicial to our security.

The chaos in Iraq presents a growing danger to Europe; that danger existed before Iraq was invaded but was of a scale our security people could deal with. The Iraq war has given the Jihad a coherent emotive cause. A radicalised a segment of our very large Muslim population is taking up the Jihad. This is just as analysts in Langley and French intelligence predicted before the invasion.

I'm not that hopeful that it will look very democratic or even avoid catestrophic failure. Even if we don't give a stuff about Iraqis we should consider the consequences. If it continues to fail as a state a bombing like Thursdays may become a routine annoyance.

What a pile of steaming cack!

You are making this shit up as you go along.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

We have ordinary working class people being blown to bits, due to a festering problem created by the incompetent actions of leaders, who are sitting safely in their nice security bubble and talking to us about "resolve" and "sacrifice"

We alll knew this was going to happen and we all know that this won't be the last time. We all also know that it won't be our leaders making the sacrifices.

I don't mind making sacrifices if I think the cause is a good one, nor do most people here I suspect. This cause isn't a good one though. None of this has been done in the interests of the ordinary people who will pay its price and those who will benefit are isolated from the consequences of their actions in proportion to the amount of benefit. Your average right-wing American is isolated by distance from this sort of thing, Cedar Rapids is unlikely to be a target any time soon. So they can enjoy their SUV and their war-gasms.

The real big winners are totally isolated from these consequences though, not just by probability and distance, but by layers of impenetrable security.

Any attempt to continue under the present leadership is, in my opinion, doomed to failure. They have already created this backlash and bungled almost everything they could bungle. No Iraqi government supported by US force of arms is ever going to be able to achieve legitimacy. Bush and Blair have no credibility as being able to deal with the problems they've created.

I can see the argument for "you broke it, you bought it" but it is untenable with the present approach. With different leadership, different approaches, different organisations e.g the UN instead of US unilateralism, it might perhaps be workable. Even then I'm unconvinced that the outcome would be significantly better than simply pulling out while something resembling democracy still has a fighting chance of emerging.

 

[Loki]

I'll have that beer now mate...

* Sells off a litre of OJ and buys fela a bottle of cool crisp Chang *

 

[Rocket Romano]

Gonna blame Galloway

Just because he's a bandwagon jumping, money laundering, bribe taking, PR shit

 

[oi2002]

...I can see the argument for "you broke it, you bought it" but it is untenable with the present approach. Different leadership, different organisation e.g the UN instead of US unilateralism. Even then I'm unconvinced the outcome would be significantly better than simply pulling out unilaterally.

You're not wrong there.

Back on topic. There is now some informed speculation that we are looking at a small crude self starting Jihadi orgainisation.

Oxford Analyitica

...This indicates that the London attackers were less sophisticated than the Madrid attackers, the Moroccan Islamic Combat Group, and may have a far looser connection (if any) to the al Qaeda leadership. The perpetrators are most likely to have been small in number and to have included one or more veterans from an overseas jihad, who imperfectly mimicked the tactics of the Madrid attack.
...
While another attack in the U.S. remains the key al Qaeda objective, the U.K. will continue to be a major target due to its close support of U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as its longer-term colonial legacy and immigration ties with many present-day Islamist recruiting grounds. The Blair government will intensify its efforts to include more soft power elements in the war on terror, but U.K. foreign and security policy, including that towards Iraq, is unlikely to be substantially altered by the bombings.

On point #3 they seem to be wrong the Met are now saying the explosions were simultaneous. It's not hard to set a timer. The bombs seem to have been crude with mechainical timers and commercial explosive the
se people don't look expert to me.

John Robb

...Unfortunately, what we may find is that this group had few, if any, direct ties to known al Qaeda entities. In fact, it is likely to be an operation accomplished completely by terrorist entrepreneurs that are using it to gain entry (through contribution) into al Qaeda.
...
The reason this is a likelihood is that al Qaeda is not a cohesive organization anymore. Their network has given way to an even looser but more potent form of development: open source warfare. In this model, autonomous groups arise, innovate, plan, and act locally without central direction. Al Qaeda merely serves as the final arbiter of the attack's efficacy to the articulated war plan -- endorsement of the action and the group, comes after the operation is accomplished. Success, in this model, is the only barrier to entry.

As a security problem that is a nightmare. One pissed of Mosque football team is all it takes.

 

[Stibs]

[and unleashed the taliban...]

This explains neatly why people can get exasperated by what you say. Because everything you say is based on this fundamental error, thus flawing every single one of your arguments.......

......Fuck off back to your own country and deal with your own shit. Including bunging your insane murderous president in the slammer.

Big round of applause......

 

[Stibs]

I would say Britian has done a good job of dealing with the IRA.

And how did we do that then, mears? Was it Mrs. Thatcher's shoot to kill policy? Was it internment without trial? Was it torture?

Or was it negotiation and the settling of reasonable grievances?

Do tell us, mears. You are, after all, a greater expert in terrorism than those people who lived with it all of their lives and witnessed its conclusion.

 

[Stibs]

Any attempt to continue under the present leadership is, in my opinion, doomed to failure. They have already created this backlash and bungled almost everything they could bungle. No Iraqi government supported by US force of arms is ever going to be able to achieve legitimacy. Bush and Blair have no credibility as being able to deal with the problems they've created.

I can see the argument for "you broke it, you bought it" but it is untenable with the present approach. With different leadership, different approaches, different organisations e.g the UN instead of US unilateralism, it might perhaps be workable. Even then I'm unconvinced that the outcome would be significantly better than simply pulling out while something resembling democracy still has a fighting chance of emerging.

Until recently, I queasily accepted the idea that we were responsible for the mess we have made in Iraq. I thought that we should stay. Even though I had shouted "Not in my name" as loud as I could.

But, then I was recently reminded by a news story just who it was that was running Iraq.

My bottom line now is that this vermin needs to be removed from his position. Whilst this torturer and murderer of Fallujan children is still in charge, no decent person can support leaving British troops under his control.

I also think that it would be a clever policy for any party wishing to argue for withdrawal from Iraq to argue the case upon the basis that we are being put in danger by the incompetence of the clowns in the Bush junta.

I noticed, in the list of polling figures on Iraq that you posted, that the worst figures for Blair are not concerned with the rights or wrongs of going to war (which in themselves are disastrous) but on the running of the war. 2/3 of the public are unhappy with the way Iraq is being administered, rather than just over 50% who believe invading Iraq was wrong and stupid.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Iraq is becoming a breeding ground, either directly or indirectly, for terrorism, some of which will spill onto our streets and it could get significantly worse.

Current policies are encouraging this situation. Oil revenues are basically just vanishing from Iraqi. Criminal gangs roam the streets at will, the government can't perform its most basic functions without massive security cover in much of the country and the US effectively ignores the concerns of ordinary Iraqis.

We need a completely different approach and one which will lead rapidly to a state that is entirely legitimate in the eyes of ordinary Iraqis. They have to deal with what has happened here just about every day.

Bush and Blair simply cannot deliver this for a whole series of reasons: Abu Ghraib to pick just one. What Iraqi could possibly see a government propped up by the forces who did the stuff in those photos as a legitimate Iraqi government? Even if the oil revenue wasn't vanishing, they had jobs, it was safe to walk the streets and the water and electricity were working?

Our leaders are demonstrably incompetent and due to their actions, toxic in any attempt to resolve the situation. Iraq is only one example of this. Pretty much everything they've done has reduced our security and freedom while claiming to protect it.

 

[mears]

And how did we do that then, mears? Was it Mrs. Thatcher's shoot to kill policy? Was it internment without trial? Was it torture?

Or was it negotiation and the settling of reasonable grievances?

Do tell us, mears. You are, after all, a greater expert in terrorism than those people who lived with it all of their lives and witnessed its conclusion.

The IRA didn't attack people on all continents. They didn't run planes into buildings. They didn't slit throats to get exposure on the teley.

They were a sideshow on the world stage.

Islamic terrorism is the next war North America and Europe must face together.

Who is an Islamic terrorist we should negotiate with, Osama Bin Laden?

And Arabs are responsible for their own mess. Africans are poorer and face the same shitty totalitarian governments, but they are not killing civilians around the globe.

Bush and Blair are not to blame, Arabs themselvs are to blame.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Arabs themselvs are to blame.

Fuck off.


Psycho murderous death cult fanaticists are to blame, not 'Arabs'.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It would appear the message on the US right is that we shouldn't wonder why a gang of murderous fanatics would want blow up ordinary Londoners.

It's just something that "all arabs" or "all muslims" can be expected to do because they "hate our way of life". It's intended as thought-stopping cliche presumably, but it's a really unpleasant one, because it leads to pogroms.

Like that neo-nazi who blew up the Admiral Duncan and Brick Lane market, it seems to me that these people are angling for a race war, not for solutions.

 

[oi2002]

Just looking at the case for abandoning the Iraqi adventure. Purely from the point of view of selfish European security interests.

Mears is generally arguing from the standpoint that DC has certain duties (duties is a better word than rights) as world policeman it's how most traditional Yanks rationalize their nations foreign policy. This isn't a popular position with Europeans as it's reminisent of our own sneaky justifications for imperial greed but it reflects a reality in US politics.

Dick Clark the former Whitehouse terrorism wonk was taking a broad, and scary, look at the costs of staying commited to Iraq for DC's role in the world.

...The implications for the all-volunteer military are significant. With almost every unit in the Army on the conveyor belt into and out of Iraq, few units are really combat-ready for other missions. If the North Korean regime that is often called crazy were to roll its huge army the few kilometers into South Korea, significant American reinforcements would be a long time coming. This raises the possibility that the US may have to resort to nuclear weapons to stop the North Koreans, as has been contemplated with increasing seriousness since the last Nuclear Posture Review in 2002.
...
Maybe it is time to at least begin a public dialogue about ''staying the course.'' Opponents of an ''early'' departure of American forces say it would result in chaos in Iraq. Yet we already have chaos, and how sure can we be that sectarian fighting will not follow our departure whenever we leave? Is it unpatriotic to ask if the major reason for the fighting in Iraq is that we are still there?

So there is a big strategic downside and that may involve the US nuking its way out of unexpected troubles.

You can argue a quick millitary withdrawal from Iraq would actually defuse the Jihad there by removing its main hate figure from the stage and so would reduce the threat in Europe.

"By withdrawing militarily from Iraq, the United States will be broadcasting to the world - in particular the Arab and Muslim worlds - that the United States has no plans to take control of Middle East oil or to otherwise impose its will on the people of the region," Preble wrote on Cato's Web site. "Such a message would seriously undermine the terrorists' tortured claims."

link

But the Jihad in Iraq has already assumed a sectarian Anti-Shi'ite charecter and looking back at Afghanistan in the 20th century the Arab Jihadis did not leave when the Soviets did. Many of them had sat out the conflict on the fringes waiting for the power vacum. Bin Ladin did this; he only had one defensive encounter with the Red Army and the Spetznaz came looking for him. The Afghans themselves did most of the fighting. After 8 years of war the Soviets pulled out and the Jihadis involved themselves in on the ISI backed fundamentalists side and fought to destroy the traditional Afghan tribal power structures. In the end they carved out a safe haven under the reactionary Taliban. Substitute the Saddam's former Fedayeen for the ISI and the Yanks for the Red Army and Iraq looks worrying similar to me.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Just looking at the case for abandoning the Iraqi adventure. Purely from the point of view of selfish European security interests.<snip> Substitute the Saddam's former Fedayeen for the ISI and the Yanks for the Red Army and Iraq looks worrying similar to me.

What you say is interesting and I'd like to discuss it further but maybe we should do so on another thread?

 

[mears]

It would appear the message on the US right is that we shouldn't wonder why a gang of murderous fanatics would want blow up ordinary Londoners.

It's just something that "all arabs" or "all muslims" can be expected to do because they "hate our way of life". It's intended as thought-stopping cliche presumably, but it's a really unpleasant one, because it leads to pogroms.

Like that neo-nazi who blew up the Admiral Duncan and Brick Lane market, it seems to me that these people are angling for a race war, not for solutions.

Its a problem Arabs must deal with. Most Arabs are law abiding, good people in my opinion. As are most people in our world. But they have a cancer amongst some of their people. One that is intolerant to other non-Muslim religions and women. They blow up barbershops, and tell women they can't drive a car for instance. They have governments resembling Tsarist Russia.

They are holding themselves back, not the west.

And besides, talk about poor and bad governing systems, just look at Africa.

But as I keep saying Africans are not engaged in world wide terrorsim.

Why are some Arabs?

 

[bigfish]

Its a problem Arabs must deal with. Most Arabs are law abiding, good people in my opinion. As are most people in our world. But they have a cancer amongst some of their people. One that is intolerant to other non-Muslim religions and women. They blow up barbershops, and tell women they can't drive a car for instance. They have governments resembling Tsarist Russia.

They are holding themselves back, not the west.

And besides, talk about poor and bad governing systems, just look at Africa.

But as I keep saying Africans are not engaged in world wide terrorsim.

Why are some Arabs?

Its a problem Americans and the rest of the world must deal with. Most Americans are law abiding, good people in my opinion. As are most people in our world. But they have a cancer amongst some of their people. One that is intolerant to other non-Christian religions and poor people. They blow up whole cities like Fallujah, and tell poor people they can't eat for instance. They have governments resembling the Al Capone Gang in Chicago.

They are holding themselves back, not the rest of the world.

And besides, talk about poor and bad governing systems, just look at Mexico.

But as I keep saying Mexicans are not engaged in world wide terrorsim.

Why are some Americans?