Explosion heard in London - political part

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
and you have to admit that they'd be perfect candidates.

Actually, no. They hate us more than they hate you. We are, after all, atheists.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually, no. They hate us more than they hate you. We are, after all, atheists.

That is true. In the 50's, 60's, and 70's the Us actually encouraged Islamist movements as a counterbalance to communist movements in many ME countries.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by PLATO
The net-net to government coffers is consistent to both. The difference is that Bush leaves it to the free market to determine the most viable sources whereas Clinton put the government in charge of research direction.

Unfortunately the free market often fails at choosing the best or most viable long-term solutions to issues due to the cost and risk of doing so.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explosion heard in London - political part

Originally posted by DAVOUT


This is worth an example :
In december 1994, on the Marseille-Marignane airport, all Algerian terrorists (about 6) threatening to kill all passengers of the Air France plane Alger-Paris, were killed by the GIGN (Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale).
The terrorists were resisting arrest; if I understand the implications of your statement, they should have been send confortably to Londonistan for serious judicial protection.
It is on this example that you justify the refusal of extradition.

Actually the example I had in mind was Khaled Kelkal, but if you want to add more names to the list of suspects killed "while resisting arrest" in France, that's cool.

Secondly, the example you presented is silly. We're not a source of export goods in the form of your terrorists. If they're here, they get due legal process which includes the standard reluctance to return people to life-threatening conditions.

Thirdly- and we return to this point here- how can you attach the description "comfortably" to a decade or more of incarceration in a maximum security prison?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
evidence on deliberate killing of Afghani civilians by people that Thatcher explicityly endorsed?

The Mujahedeen were vile people who engaged in indiscriminate attacks on Afganis living in cities fo the sole purpose of fighting against the liberation of women.

[Thorgal]

Originally posted by OliverFA


But probably they wanted to provoke a political change. After Madrid's bombs they might think that the UK was like Spain. Even if they didn't expected to put public opinion against Blair they probably hoped to provoke the cancellation of the G8 meeting, which would have been a great victory for terrorists. Fortunatelly for the British people (and also thanks to them) they have honoured their well earned fame. They still stand as defenders of the Western Civilization.

Western Civilization? You should know that attacks in London were obviously another ETA´s fine work. Send greetings to Aznarin from us wherever he is.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Unfortunately the free market often fails at choosing the best or most viable long-term solutions to issues due to the cost and risk of doing so.

Bingo.

PLATO, how is it "free market" to give out $27 billion in subsidies to fossil fuel companies (and we're not talking in incentive programs for researching alternatives--that number is down at $4 billion)? If you think Bush is interested in a "free market," you're delusional. He's interested in cronyism for oil and coal companies.

$4000 in a "tax break" for hybrid car owners is hardly a bold, effective means of really encouraging companies to research alternatives and make them viable for the general public.

[Sandman]

The free market will no more solve America's oil dependence than stone heads solved Easter Island's soil degradation.

[Velociryx]

That 27 Billion figure would be spread among...how many companies? (at a minimum, all the major oil concerns, big autos (which is where the main push is, at present), plus a fistful of other hopefuls, looking to cash in on the game).

Even if it were all hurled at one company, you do realize that the sum is chicken feed to the amount that the first company will gain by perfecting, patenting, and marketing a viable alt. fuel source, yes?

That's all the incentive smart money needs.

IMO, the folks who naysay the power of the free market spend too much time looking at the one or two headline making blunders, and not nearly enough looking at the greater bulk of entrepreneurs, quietly and boldly innovating and looking at the big picture.

It's easy to do, but it's also incorrect.

-=Vel=-

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

$4000 in a "tax break" for hybrid car owners is hardly a bold, effective means of really encouraging companies to research alternatives and make them viable for the general public.

Quite right, but the the incentive for car buyers may make a demand that might encourage research.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Dauphin


Unfortunately the free market often fails at choosing the best or most viable long-term solutions to issues due to the cost and risk of doing so.

Do you think that politicians that want's to be reelected make more sane choices ? Due to the anti nuclear power freaks it's very nonPC to even mention that as an alternative to fossile fuels here.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Velociryx
That 27 Billion figure would be spread among...how many companies? (at a minimum, all the major oil concerns, big autos (which is where the main push is, at present), plus a fistful of other hopefuls, looking to cash in on the game).

$27 Billion subsidies to fossil fuel companies compared to how much for alternative fuel resources? Not nearly as much. And in the light of the cost of R&D for alternative fuels, what is given for it is even more "chicken feed" than the oil and coal subsidies.

Why are we giving them any subsidies at all in a "free market?"

IMO, the folks who naysay the power of the free market spend too much time looking at the one or two headline making blunders, and not nearly enough looking at the greater bulk of entrepreneurs, quietly and boldly innovating and looking at the big picture.

You mean how those free market-oriented companies spent years buying up patents for alternative energy engines and destroying them to protect their interests? Yes, call me dubious of the free market approach.

The fact is, all the talk about alternative energy sources today isn't because of the free market. The push towards viable alternatives was seriously made in the 90s under Clinton, and that's the whole reason it's a subject. Carter started mentioning it back in the 70s, and we had large environmental movements in the 80s, but did we see much movement from the free market? Nope. But along came the 90s and we actually had an administration that cared and made an effort.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Quite right, but the the incentive for car buyers may make a demand that might encourage research.

It's a pittance, considering the cost and current inconvenience of hybrids. Certainly not nearly enough to spark any real increased demand.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Bingo.

PLATO, how is it "free market" to give out $27 billion in subsidies to fossil fuel companies (and we're not talking in incentive programs for researching alternatives--that number is down at $4 billion)? If you think Bush is interested in a "free market," you're delusional. He's interested in cronyism for oil and coal companies.

$4000 in a "tax break" for hybrid car owners is hardly a bold, effective means of really encouraging companies to research alternatives and make them viable for the general public.

Simple. The subsidies are mainly to encourage high cost domestic exploration. The more domestic production...the less dependence on foriegn oil...the lower the trade deficiet...the more people employeed domestically...the more taxpayers. Maybe not true free market, but still a worthy goal I am sure even you would admit.

As to the disparity between subsidies of a current in use commodity versus pure research on various paths a 7 to 1 relationship is really not that bad. $4 billion is a lot of money...especially when you couple it with incentives on both the supply and demand sides.

Let's look at the flip side of what your post implies that you want...Let's say that we fund $31 billion in research and nothing to spurring domestic exploration. What is the economic impact of having the percentage of domestically produced oil erode even further? I believe that you are seeing your answer on the spot market everyday.

[Shi Huangdi]

Here is an interesting article on this from the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/international/europe/10qaeda.html?ei=5094&en=b50d65cef3786c79&hp=&ex=1120968000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

For a Decade, London Thrived as a Busy Crossroads of Terror
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
LONDON, July 9 - Long before bombings ripped through London on Thursday, Britain had become a breeding ground for hate, fed by a militant version of Islam.

For two years, extremists like Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, a 47-year-old Syrian-born cleric, have played to ever-larger crowds, calling for holy war against Britain and exhorting young Muslim men to join the insurgency in Iraq. In a newspaper interview last April, he warned that "a very well-organized" London-based group, Al Qaeda Europe, was "on the verge of launching a big operation" here.

In a sermon attended by more than 500 people in a central London meeting hall last December, Sheik Omar vowed that if Western governments did not change their policies, Muslims would give them "a 9/11, day after day after day."

If London became a magnet for fiery preachers, it also became a destination for men willing to carry out their threats. For a decade, the city has been a crossroads for would-be terrorists who used it as a home base, where they could raise money, recruit members and draw inspiration from the militant messages.

Among them were terrorists involved in attacks in Madrid, Casablanca, Saudi Arabia, Israel and in the Sept. 11 plot. Zacarias Moussaoui, the only man charged in the United States in the 9/11 attacks, and Richard C. Reid, the convicted shoe-bomber, both prayed at the Finsbury Park mosque in north London. The mosque's former leader, Abu Hamza al-Masri openly preached violence for years before the authorities arrested him in April 2004.

Although Britain has passed a series of antiterrorist and immigration laws and made nearly 800 arrests since Sept. 11, 2001, critics have charged that its deep tradition of civil liberties and protection of political activists have made the country a safe haven for terrorists. The British government has drawn particular criticism from other countries over its refusal to extradite terrorism suspects, including one man who was convicted for his role in the deadly Casablanca terrorist attacks in 2003.

For years, there was a widely held belief that Britain's tolerance helped stave off any Islamic attacks at home. But the anger of London's militant clerics turned on Britain after it offered unwavering support for the American-led invasion of Iraq. And on Thursday morning, an attack long foreseen by worried counterterrorism officials became a reality.

"The terrorists have come home," said a senior intelligence official based in Europe, who works often with British officials. "It is payback time for a policy that was, in my opinion, an irresponsible policy of the British government to allow these networks to flourish inside Britain."

The terror attacks have heightened the debate here over whether the country needs tougher counterterrorism laws. Thus far the British government has resisted the temptation to rush through emergency measures that could curbs personal freedoms.

The British home secretary, Charles Clarke, for example, is resisting calls for new legislative measures and on Friday argued that the imposition of a personal identity card system would not have prevented the attacks.

Even Queen Elizabeth has weighed in. In unusual remarks on Friday to the staff of a hospital where some of the wounded were being treated, she said, "Those who perpetuate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life."

Investigators examining Thursday's attacks, which left at least 49 dead and 700 injured, are pursuing a theory that the bombers were part of a homegrown sleeper cell, which may or may not have had foreign support for the bomb-making phase of the operation.

If that theory is true, it would reflect the evolution of terror groups around Europe. With many members of Al Qaeda's hierarchy having been captured and killed, a new, more nimble terrorist threat has emerged on the continent, mostly through semiautonomous, Qaeda-inspired local groups that are believed to be operating in France, Switzerland, Spain, Italy and other countries.

"Terrorists are not strangers, foreigners," said Bruno Lemaire, councilor to Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin of France. "They're insiders, well integrated inside the country."

Another senior intelligence official, based in Europe, said the fear was that there would be additional attacks in other European cities by homegrown sleeper cells that are inspired by Al Qaeda and by the attacks in Casablanca, Madrid and now London.

"This is exactly what we are going to witness in Europe: most of the attacks will be carried out by local groups, the people who have been here for a long time, well integrated into the fabric of society," the official said.

Well before Thursday's bombings, British officials predicted a terrorist attack in their country. In a speech in October 2003, Eliza Manningham-Buller, the director general of MI5, Britain's domestic intelligence agency, said she saw "no prospect of a significant reduction in the threat posed to the U.K. and its interests from Islamist terrorism over the next five years, and I fear for a considerable number of years thereafter."

Britain's challenge to detect militants on its soil is particularly difficult.

Counterterrorism officials estimate that 10,000 to 15,000 Muslims living in Britain are supporters of Al Qaeda. Among that number, officials believe that as many as 600 men were trained in training camps connected with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

British investigators say that identifying Islamic militants among the two million Muslims living here, about 4 percent of the population, is especially hard. They constitute the most diverse Muslim community in Europe in terms of ethnic origins, culture, history, language, politics and class. More than 60 percent of the community comes not from North African or Gulf Arab countries, but from countries like Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

Before Sept. 11, 2001, British officials monitored radical Islamists but generally stopped short of arresting or extraditing them. After Sept. 11, the government passed legislation that allowed indefinite detention of terrorism suspects. But last year, it was overturned by Britain's highest court, the Law Lords, as a violation of human rights law.

Complicating Britain's antiterrorism strategy is its refusal or delays of requests for extradition of suspects by a number of its allies, including the United States, France, Spain and Morocco.

Morocco, for example, is seeking the return of the man wanted in the Casablanca case, Muhammad al-Gerbouzi. Moroccan authorities have identified Mr. Gerbouzi as a battle-hardened veteran of Afghanistan who planned the May 2003 attacks in Casablanca, which killed 45 people. He is also a founder of the Moroccan Combatant Islamic Group, identified by the United Nations as a terrorist network connected to Al Qaeda.

An operative in that group, Noureddine Nifa, told investigators that the organization had sleeper cells prepared to mount synchronized bombing attacks in Britain, France, Italy, Belgium and Canada.

In an interview last year, Gen. Hamidou Laanigri, Morocco's chief of security, said that Osama bin Laden authorized Mr. Gerbouzi to open a training camp for Moroccans in Afghanistan in the beginning of 2001. Last December, Mr. Gerbouzi was tried in absentia in Morocco for his involvement in the Casablanca attacks and sentenced to 20 years.

But the British government has no extradition treaty with Morocco and has refused to extradite Mr. Gerbouzi, a father of six who lives in a rundown apartment in north London. British officials say there is not enough evidence to arrest him, General Laanigri said.

Similarly, Baltasar Garzón, one of Spain's investigating magistrates, has requested extradition of Abu Qatada, a radical Muslim cleric living in Britain who received political refugee status in the early 1990's. A Palestinian with Jordanian nationality, Mr. Qatada is described in court documents as the spiritual head of Al Qaeda in Europe. Although Mr. Qatada was put under house arrest in 2002 and then arrested, he was freed in March and put into an observation program.

He is also wanted in Jordan, where he has been given a 15-year prison sentence in absentia for his connection to bomb attacks during 1998.

For 10 years, France has been fighting for the extradition of Rachid Ramda, a 35-year-old Algerian, over his suspected role in a bombing in Paris in 1995 staged by Algeria's militant Armed Islamic Group. Much to the irritation of the French, three years ago, Britain's High Court blocked a Home Office order to hand him over, citing allegations that his co-defendants gave testimony under torture by the French.

Last week, Mr. Clarke, the home secretary, approved the extradition order.

Another prime terrorism suspect who operated in London for years is Mustafa Setmarian Nasar, the suspected mastermind of the Madrid bombings. Although the authorities now cannot find him, he is believed to have visited Britain often and lived here openly from 1995 to 1998.

Officials believe that he tried to organize his own extremist group before Sept. 11, but afterward officials say he pledged loyalty to Osama bin Laden. He lived in north London, and was the editor of a militant Islamist magazine, Al Ansar, which is published here, distributed at some mosques in Western Europe and closely monitored by British security officials.

Across Britain since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly 800 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act of 2000, according to recent police records. Of that number, 121 were charged with terrorism related crimes, but only 21 people have been convicted.

In one of the biggest antiterrorism cases made here, Scotland Yard arrested 12 men and charged them with making traces of the poison ricin inside an apartment in Wood Green, in north London, in January 2003. But 11 of the 12 men were acquitted without trial based on a lack of evidence.

Since the attacks, there have been calls for a crackdown on radical Muslims, including some from Britain's Muslim leaders.

"As far as I am concerned these people are not British," said Lord Nizar Ahmed, one of the few Muslims in the House of Lords, who had proposed a plan to train homegrown Muslim clerics in Britain. "They are foreign ideological preachers of hate who have been threatening our national security and encouraging young people into militancy. They should be put away and sent back to their countries."

He added, "They created a whole new breeding ground for recruitment to radicalism."

Yet even last week's bombings did little to curtail the rhetoric of some of the most radical leaders, who criticized Prime Minister Tony Blair for his statement on Thursday that the bombings appeared to be the work of Islamic terrorists.

"This shows me that he is an enemy of Islam," Abu Abdullah, a self-appointed preacher and the spokesman for the radical group Supporters of Shariah, said in an interview on Friday, adding, "Sometimes when you see how people speak, it shows you who your enemies are."

Mr. Abdullah declared that those British citizens who re-elected Mr. Blair "have blood on their hands" because British soldiers are killing Muslims. He also said that the British government, not Muslims, "have their hands" in the bombings, explaining, "They want to go on with their fight against Islam."

Despite reports for months that Scotland Yard was investigating one of the most prominent radical clerics, the Syrian-born Sheik Omar, and that British officials were considering deporting him, he and others like him remain free.

But Sheik Omar, the leader of the group Al Muhajiroun, is also an example of the double-edged policies in Britain. He is a political refugee who was given asylum 19 years ago and is supported by public assistance. Asked in an interview in May how he felt about being barred from obtaining British citizenship, he replied, "I don't want to become a citizen of hell."

Souad Mekhennet contributed reporting fromLondon for this article, and Tim Golden from New York.