Explosion heard in London - political part

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

You think Poly is a representative sample of public opinion do you?

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?

stop ranting. I don't think its a war. Its fundamentally a police, security and intelligence matter. This is basically the difference between how the issue is seen in the USA and how its seen in Europe. I agree with the European view.

These groups are small and easy to infiltrate and monitor if you are patient and know how to apply the resources correctly. Many insurgent and terrorist groups have been mopped up this way. The advantages they are have are they tend to be law abiding otherwise and their members have a deep ideological commitment, which makes it harder to buy them off. But anyone can be bought or compromised if you know what buttons to press.

The difference with drugs is there is a market for drugs and a big gap between community attitudes and the law. This doesn't apply to terrorism, which most people abhor.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
You think Poly is a representative sample of public opinion do you?

At least I have a sample set, as opposed to a non-subtantiated assertion.

stop ranting. I don't think its a war. Its fundamentally a police, security and intelligence matter. This is basically the difference between how the issue is seen in the USA and how its seen in Europe. I agree with the European view.

These groups are small and easy to infiltrate and monitor if you are patient and know to apply the resources correctly. Many insurgent and terrorist groups have been mopped up this way. The advantages they are have are they tend be law abiding otherwise and their members have a deep ideological commitment, which makes it hard to buy them off.

Tsk, tslk, tsk, Obviously Horsie is "weak on terror" :

The difference with drugs is there is a market for drugs and a difference between community attitudes and the law. This doesn't apply to terrorism, which most people abhor.

And yet the "terrorism" problem is more than a century old. There certainly does seem to be a "market" for it, of a kind.

[BlackCat]

Oh, I hadn't seen it that perspective - if your neighbours house get robbed, the teenage girl raped etc, then it's none of your concern - it does not happen to your house.

I guess that some can live that way.

Edit : AH and Gepap got in between.

[Frankychan]

Watching the news today, there was an interview with a British official that really struck me. One of the American interviewers asked the British official about American views. The British guy said that the US thinks ONLY force can solve things....but Bush's speech today using "hope" and other likeminded words as a possible change in our thinking of the war on terror.

Sure, we gotta use force on the terrorists. But, at the same time we gotta look at the social conditions that brew the hate and change that too....adequate health, food, and living conditions would help curtailing these potential terrorist "incubators".

Bring the hammer down, then use it after to help build a better society. Expensive now, but invaluable in the future.

[Alexander's Horse]

terrorism is age old - it was practiced from ancient times

There's a wealth of intelligence out there. I don't think these Islamists cover their tracks very well. It will take a while but I have every confidence they'll be shut down - just like almost every other terrorist group you care to name.

The big issue is twofold and related - Iraq and states which allegedly sponsor terrorism like Syria, Iran and North Korea. If terrorists have sanctuaries they are harder to extirpate. Add WMD into the mix, particularly from sponsors or failed states like the USSR, and the urgency of getting on top of this problem becomes crystal clear.

Avoiding actions which inspire terrorism and addressing the underlying causes are also fundamental.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Oh, I hadn't seen it that perspective - if your neighbours house get robbed, the teenage girl raped etc, then it's none of your concern - it does not happen to your house.

I guess that some can live that way.

This gives a fundamentally wrong view of why terrorists attack. It's not random violence, and they don't go after "whoever is there." They attack for specific reasons in specific countries.

As GePap said, failure to understand their true motives will only lead to failure in dealing with the problem.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


This gives a fundamentally wrong view of why terrorists attack. It's not random violence, and they don't go after "whoever is there." They attack for specific reasons in specific countries.

As GePap said, failure to understand their true motives will only lead to failure in dealing with the problem.

My comment was actually aimed against the views that countries that not had experienced terror attacks shouldn't interfere.

Otherwise I agree that fighting terror involves several things including understanding their true motives, but if one of those motives are to destroy the society I live in, I guess that I have the right to fight back.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
thats crap - how many terrorist attacks has norway sufferd at the hands of middle eastern terrorists?

Norway shocked by 'al-Qaeda' threat

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The puppet masters in the ME need a villain to maintain control, and we're it, no matter what we do.

So there's only one response.

When they push, we push back harder.

And the leaders of the Islamic fundamentalists thank you for helping them recruit.

[DAVOUT]

Re: Explosion heard in London - political part

Originally posted by BlackCat


A DR correspondent in London has been out talking with people in the area of one of the explosions - he called it Londonistan (Londoners, is that his own invention or are there an area called that ?).

Londonistan was the name given in Europe to London, in recognition of the British policy which made of London a sanctuary for extremists islamists. Under this policy the aim of which being to prevent terrorists attacks in GB, UK refused until the current year to transfer to the French Justice the guy who organized the attack of Métro St-Michel in 1995.

The martial attitude adopted by Blair against the terrorism is quite recent; until the 11 September 2003 he did not give a damn of the terrorism on the continent.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Flubber

Does it really take that much in the way of a hideout for someone to leave a small bomb on a commuter train?? I would imagine its only a matter of getting the necessary materials together and then anyone could carry it while looking like any student or tourist

The difficulty is getting the explosives really. If you have to make them yourself, then you need some space where you won't be disturbed.

[axi]

whose teachings have no basis in day-to-day life and living

Aren't you the one who writes a fantasy novel, Vel?

[axi]

I think that the real difficulty in having frequent bombing attacks is actually finding the people to commit the acts, setting their minds to it, deciding all the details and choosing the most suitable time, while being extra cautious. It's pretty much like planning a surprise party, with the difference that you have to surprise not just one person, but the whole country. The attackers are human beings like we are and they have their ordinary lives, which they hesitate to compromise as well as we do. Even if noone ever goes after them, their lives will be changed for good.

OTOH, if these attackers are not caught soon ,they will probably want to strike again and they will do so more frequently after each success. I believe that such acts are like armed robberies; once they get the hang of it, they are going to keep on until they're caught or dead (unlss AQ has a really tight control over them and holds their reins). That's why suicide attacks are inherently flawed; the death of the attacker negates the possibility of a series of strikes and wastes all the original effort put into preparing the perpetrator of the act. So, in theory, they should not be used as the primary means of waging a war, but as a special weapon when there is need to reverse really unfavorable odds and as a psychological attack.

[Ramo]

It's hard to imagine any significant foreign policy shift. Spain of course had very particular circumstances with Aznar trying to shift blame to the ETA, etc.

But I do imagine there will be more stringent restrictions on civil liberties, constraints on immigration, etc. Possibly on both sides of the Atlantic. There's also going to be a shakeup of MI5/6 (which actually lowered the terror alert level just prior to the G8), just as there has been a shakeup of the FBI/CIA over here.

[Solly]

constraints on immigration

That's just closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. We could have thousands of al-Qaeda sympathisers already here.