Explosion heard in London - political part

[Berzerker]

The right wing media is using this to go after left wing media (especially British) for being critical of the ongoing ME conflict.

Hmm... why do so many people use the failures of their idiotic policies as proof we need their idiotic policies expanded? I have a problem accepting advice, much less marching orders, from the people who got us into this because their buddy Saddam (and the Shah, etc) thought we wouldn't mind too much if he behaved like a thug.

[Agathon]

Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, three years ago

"An assault on Iraq will inflame world opinion and jeopardise security and peace everywhere. London, as one of the major world cities, has a great deal to lose from war and a lot to gain from peace, international cooperation and global stability."

No ****.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Agathon
Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, three years ago

"An assault on Iraq will inflame world opinion and jeopardise security and peace everywhere. London, as one of the major world cities, has a great deal to lose from war and a lot to gain from peace, international cooperation and global stability."

No ****.

Yes, ****. That comment was nothing else than a legalisation of any current or future dictators torture chamber (that including saddam's).

[Dr Strangelove]

The group claiming responsibility isn't al-Qaeda, it's something like "The al-Qaeda Allies for the Islamic Jihad in Europe", a previously unheard of organization. Notably their bombs appear to have been timed, so they're not committed to suicide bombing, which means you might eventually trace them. AFAIK they haven't enumerated their demands or complaints.

[Drake Tungsten]

There's legitmate questions about what Al Qaeda even is, exactly. It's often portrayed as some monolithic super-terrorist organization, but it may just be an umbrella organization that provides expertise, ideological guidance and support for a loose network of local Islamist groups that actually carry out attacks. And even that may be going too far...

[pchang]

Perhaps the best thing is to go Roman on terrorists.

[DinoDoc]

One wonders what effect if any Ken Livingston's open embrace of a man (Yusuf al-Qaradawi) who defended this very type of attack on a civilian population will have on his political future.

[Dis]

I said this at CG, and I'll say it here.

If you insist on waging a war (on terror), then you better expect casualties.

That's all that needs to be said.

[Alexander's Horse]

This is pure gold for the coalition.

The extremists have a fundamentally flawed view of Western democracies like Britain. Their actions only give people reasons to support things like the war in Iraq.

I really wish more effort was put into an intelligence led fight against terrorism.

[GePap]

Every time after an attack people start pontificating, and calling for blood, and other nonsense.

This attack does not change anything political, in even the slightest way. The Blair government was commited to Iraq, and this attack won;t change it nor will it make the war in Iraq significantly more popular. Ditto in all other countries. In 2 years this will be at most a date to remember. Heck, even 9/11 (nearly 100 times more deadly) is starting to lose significance, if it hasn;t already.

As for the scale of the attack- there has always been significant lag time between AQ style attacks on Western targets- planning such things are not easy, nor getting the right materials. If it was easier, there would probably be more attacks.

As Doc. Strangelove said, the fact these were not suicide attacks makes the police work easier-though we will see if the perpetrators are caught, or get away, or die (like the Cell suspected in Madrid).

O

[GePap]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
This is pure gold for the coalition.

The extremists have a fundamentally flawed view of Western democracies like Britain. Their actions only give people reasons to support things like the war in Iraq.

How, exactly?

I doubt these attacks have changed a single mind here in poly about the Iraq war. I doubt they will change minds anywhere else.

I really wish more effort was put into an intelligence led fight against terrorism.

And how does one stampt out "terrorism" anymore than one stamps out "drugs"?

The war on terrorism is a well defined and winnable as the war on drugs.

Its been how many decades on the war on drugs?

For a war to be winnable, it needs to be defined. Why don;t we drop the sanctimoniousness and hyperbole and call it the war vs. Internationalist Salafist Extremism?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Dissident
I said this at CG, and I'll say it here.

If you insist on waging a war (on terror), then you better expect casualties.

That's all that needs to be said.

Ehrmm, no. Actually, this is crap because you already has casualities from terror actions - even if you choose to not fight terror, you still get casualities.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

thats crap - how many terrorist attacks has norway sufferd at the hands of middle eastern terrorists? or sweden? or finland? or switzerland? or iceland?

[Dis]

exactly. some countries insist on conducting themselves a certain way (mainly for economic reasons), and tend to step on a lot of toes.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just something to think about.

[GePap]

Terrorism is not simply sadism. It is not based on simply on "they hate us".

All terrorism is political in intent. Groups commiting terrorist acts have political aims in mind. Anyone who ignores or forgets that is bound to lose a "war on terrorism" because they will back wrong-headed actions.