| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:18 am Post subject: Frank Gaffney - Already trying to use London to stop the Gaz |
| Neocon Israel firster Frank Gaffney is at it yet again (he is mentioned in the following 'Men from JINSA and CSP' article that appeared in 'The Nation'):
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Frank Gaffney - Already trying to use London to stop the Gaza Withdrawal
I'm sure you remember Frank Gaffney from the PNAC Group where he's famous
for working on "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and other such documents. Now he's
trying to pull the plug on the Gaza withdrawal over the London bombings...
Mik
http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200507071128.asp
July 07, 2005, 11:28 a.m.
War Footing
The attack in London is a stark reminder of what we must do to prevail.
The wave of bomb attacks that shattered the morning rush hour in London today should also destroy the complacency with which many Americans had come to view the war being waged against us by terror-wielding foes. The death and destruction in the subway system known as the "Tube" below ground and on a bus above is a vivid reminder of a central reality of our time: While we have been spared such horrors here for nearly four years, anyone who thinks we can safely divert our attention from this threat is kidding himself, and putting the rest of us at grave risk.
At this writing, not much is known about the extent — let alone the detailed nature or specific perpetrators — of the bloodletting in London. What is clear, however, is that the attackers exhibited the sort of calculation and ruthlessness that has come to be associated with the ideology at the heart of the war on terror: Islamofascism. Synchronized attacks on public infrastructure and spaces with a view to murdering as many civilians as possible and timed to interrupt or otherwise influence national or international events is a hallmark of those we have been fighting since 9/11 in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the globe.
It is surely premature to draw too many lessons from this latest terrorist incident before the dust has settled, literally. Still a few conclusions seem unavoidable:
First, the determination of our enemies to destroy as many of us as possible remains a threat to all Western democratic societies. Notions that the Free World can safely disengage from this war or any of its fronts — including Iraq — should be put to rest along with the unwarranted sense of security born of the absence of deadly post-9/11 attacks here at home.
Second, the nature of those Western societies — in particular, their openness, their civil liberties, and the freedom of movement they encourage — makes them particularly susceptible to such attacks, as well as the object of the enemy's malevolence.
Third, infrastructure like public transportation are obvious targets for our foes. They are difficult to protect, have many exploitable vulnerabilities, and if attacked can almost guarantee sizeable casualties and extensive economic dislocation. Like the pre-election bombings in Madrid's train system last year, those today were timed to capitalize upon and affect a major political event: the G-8 summit meeting being hosted by Britain at Gleneagles, Scotland.
Fourth, for the authorities to have any hope of contending with such threats, they are going to have to engage the public to a far greater extent than has been done to date. Vastly multiplying the eyes and ears alert to potential attacks — and to those involved in their planning or execution — is essential in free societies. In particular, the U.S. government must make a redoubled effort to enlist and empower the American people in this and other aspects of the war effort, notwithstanding the protests to be expected from anti-war and civil liberties activists.
Fifth, governments, like their publics, must remain seized with and give priority to countering terrorists and their state-sponsors. While Tony Blair's stated determination to have the G-8 meeting remain focused on the priorities he had previously set — specifically, debt relief and other aid for Africa and initiatives meant to affect global warming — is understandable, the reality is that the focus on agenda items that are unrelated to waging and prevailing in this war is a distraction we cannot afford at the moment. To be sure, that Islamofascism is advancing in sub-Saharan Africa argues for devising strategies for countering that menace. Those should not be confused, however, with feel-good measures that are likely to prove, at best, to be undisciplined and probably counterproductive.
Sixth, whether Islamists prove to have been responsible for today's attacks in London or not, concerted efforts are in order to counter and defeat their ideology. This requires not only military measures aimed at disrupting their operations and denying the safe-havens from which they are prepared and launched. In addition to denying the terrorists funding and material support, we must also engage in political warfare of the type that previously de-legitimized and helped undermine Soviet communism. Our natural allies in such a strategy — and its principal focus — should be non-Islamist Muslims. After all, they are as much at threat from the Islamofascists, who seek to dominate them, as are the rest of us.
Finally, steps that will reward Islamofascists for their terrorism while weakening the West's ability to defend against them should be urgently reconsidered. The most imminent of these is the creation of a new state-sponsor of terror in the Palestinian territories — the inevitable result of Israel's planned surrender of the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank under present, and foreseeable, circumstances. Islamists in those areas, notably Hamas, are making clear their conviction that it is their terror that will be responsible for "liberating" such territories and that they will use the latter to further the liberation of other, still-"occupied" lands. This is hardly a perception we wish to reinforce, or an outcome we wish to facilitate.
Britain was not the only nation attacked today. Of course, it has borne the blow. But it is the Western world — of which the United Kingdom is a critical part — that has been shown once again to be in the crosshairs of terrorists. Applying preliminary insights like the foregoing will help all of us counter and, in due course, defeat the foes that use terror against us.
— Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is an NRO contributor and president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traitorous Israel firsters Frank Gaffney are mentioned below:
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within."
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within."
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear."
Cicero Marcus Tullius - Born on January 3, 106 BC and was murdered on December 7, 43 BC.
"If the imperial state itself was divided and some sectors were not convinced of the need to go to war, which group was able to overcome that resistance, by-pass established intelligence channels (and create its own circuit), fabricate its own “intelligence and successfully lead the US to war? If war was not promoted by and in the interests of the US oil companies, and contrary to military doctrine of fighting two wars simultaneously, in whose geo-political interests was the war?
The War and the Israel-Zionist Hypothesis
The hypothesis which most fits the data is the Israel hypothesis – specifically that the principal architects and theoreticians of US world supremacy and the principal promoters of sequential wars, particularly in the Middle East, were influential Zionists in the top echelons of the Pentagon, National Security Council and in well-connected research centers “advising” the government while acting on behalf of the expansionist interests of the State of Israel.
The key author of the strategic doctrine of undisputed US world power was Wolfowitz, back in the first Bush Administration (1991). He joined with other influential Zionists like Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and a host of pro-Israel extremists to prepare a strategy paper for the Israeli state (1996) in which the Palestinians were to be physically driven from all of Palestine and Israel would become the regional power in the Middle East. Both Feith and Wolfowitz, early in their public careers were accused and chastised for turning US government documents over to the Israeli government. For at least twenty years they have been actively collaborating over Israeli policy and, in and out of government, they have worked intimately with Israeli officials in the United States and Israel."
The meaning of war: A heterodox perspective by James Petras, March 13, 2005
(An abridged version of this long treatise)
http://www.livejournal.com/~mparent7777/825272.html
Last edited by Alpha on Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:10 pm; edited 2 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:06 pm Post subject: London Terrorism=More Intensive War |
| From: "Stephen Sniegoski" <hectorpv@comcast.net>
To: "Sniegoski, Stephen" <hectorpv@comcast.net>
Subject: London Terrorism=More Intensive War
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:27:22 -0400
Friends,
London Terrorism=More Intensive War
The terror attack in London is being used to justify a more intensive war in the Middle East. Tony Blair is presenting the war in Churchillian terms to justify stiffer resolve. (First article) In the second article (from the Jerusalem Post) ex-Mossad chief Halevy uses the London bombing to stress the world war scenario for the "war on terror," which the neocons have been styling World War IV. (See my article on Halevy's promotion of an American Pax Americana--http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_halevy.htm)
It is easy to notice that the Anglo/American war in the Middle East is justified no matter what the actual realities. It has been justified on the grounds that the US must fight the Islamic terrorists in Iraq in order to prevent attacks on the West. An actual attack on the West, however, is used to justify a more intensive war in the Middle East. Of course, the attack on Iraq initially was sold as a cake-walk but the actual intense resistance there has been used to prove the existence of terrorist hatred of America and the West that must be fought.
Of course, critics of the war from the very outset pointed out that the attack on Iraq would generate greater hostility to the West and those Arab governments friendly to the West. As Robert Fisk wrote in May 2002, "There is a firestorm coming. And we are blissfully ignoring its arrival; indeed, we are provoking it." http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk0527.html The firestorm is becoming reality, and is simply used by the war crowd to justify more war--which will provoke more terrorism, ad infinitum.
All of this fits the Likudnik strategy to destabilize the Arab/Islamic Middle East. It does nothing to help America or Britain but instead gives them serious problems that they could easily have avoided by a policy of non-intervention.
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050707/w0707146.html
Blair waxes Churchillian in call for unity, defiance of terrorists
08:37 PM EDT Jul 07
JILL LAWLESS
LONDON (AP) - For British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the high of winning the 2012 Olympics was followed by the devastating low of deadly bombings in the heart of London.
He rose to the occasion Thursday, delivering an almost Churchillian appeal for unity and vowing to defeat terrorism and root out the perpetrators.
In a solemn rallying cry, Blair said it was "a very sad day for the British people but we will hold true to the British way of life."
While those who set off the explosions "act in the name of Islam," he said, "we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims here and abroad are decent and law-abiding people who abhor those who do this every bit as much as we do."
Blair was hosting a summit of G8 leaders in Scotland when the attacks struck, killing close to 40 people on three subway trains and a bus. He rushed back to London and after meeting with ministers and officials, delivered a televised address from 10 Downing Street.
"It is through terrorism that the people that have committed these terrible acts express their values and it is right at this moment that we demonstrate ours," said a sombre Blair.
Blair has long shown a sure rhetorical touch in times of crisis. When Diana, Princess of Wales. was killed in a car wreck in 1997, the newly elected Blair delivered a memorable speech dubbing her the "people's princess."
Hours after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, Blair promised Britain would "stand shoulder to shoulder with our American friends in this hour of tragedy and we, like them, will not rest until this evil is driven from our world."
Blair has a talent for bouncing back from adversity. Just two months ago, he had appeared a spent political force after British voters returned him to office for a third term but with a sharply reduced majority.
But the chance to host the G8 summit and his recent assumption of the rotating EU presidency as the bloc struggles for a direction appear to have reinvigorated him. And Blair's poised performance on Thursday once again proved he is a leader who thrives in times of crisis.
In his address, Blair harkened back to the "Blitz spirit" that saw Londoners through the dark days of Nazi bombing during the Second World War - and, by association, to wartime prime minister Winston Churchill, whose determined, moving speeches helped steel the resolve of Britain and the Empire.
"There will, of course, now be the most intense police and security service action to make sure that we bring those responsible to justice," Blair said.
"I would also pay tribute to the stoicism and resilience of the people of London who have responded in a way typical of them."
Blair promised "the most intense police and security service action to make sure that we bring those responsible to justice."
He said Britain would show "by our spirit and dignity" that "our values will long outlast theirs (terrorists)".
"The purpose of terrorism is just that. It is to terrorize people and we will not be terrorized."
Text of British prime minister's statement on attacks in London
British Prime Minister Tony Blair issued a pair of statements Thursday after explosions in the London transit system caused deaths and injuries; the first was an initial account of what happened, the second issued with other G8 leaders at their summit in Gleneagles, Scotland.
Blair's first statement:
I'm just going to make a short statement to you on the terrible events that have happened in London earlier today. And I hope you understand that at the present time we're still trying to establish what has happened. There's a limit to what information I can give you. And I'll simply try and tell you the information as best I can at the moment.
It's reasonably clear there have been a series of terrorist attacks in London. There are, obviously, casualties, both people that have died and people seriously injured. And our thoughts and prayers, of course, are with the victims and their families.
It's my intention to leave the G8 within the next couple of hours and go down to London and get a report face to face with the police and the emergency services and the ministers that have been dealing with this, and then to return later this evening.
It is the will of all the leaders at the G8, however, that the meeting should continue in my absence, that we should continue to discuss the issues that we were going to discuss and reach the conclusions which we were going to reach.
Each of the countries around that table has some experience of the effects of terrorism. And all the leaders, as they will indicate a little bit later, share our complete resolution to defeat this terrorism.
It's particularly barbaric that this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty in Africa and the long-term problems of climate change in the environment.
Just as it is reasonably clear that this is a terrorist attack, or a series of terrorist attacks, it's also reasonably clear that it is designed and aimed to coincide with the opening of the G8.
There will be time to talk later about this.
It's important, however, that those engaged in terrorism realize that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world.
Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilized nations throughout the world.
Thank you.
-
Blair's G8 statement:
We condemn utterly these barbaric attacks. We send our profound condolences to the victims and their families.
All of our countries have suffered from the impact of terrorism. Those responsible have no respect for human life. We are united in our resolve to confront and defeat this terrorism that is not an attack on one nation but on all nations and on civilized people everywhere.
We will not allow violence to change our societies or our values, nor will we allow it to stop the work of this summit. We will continue our deliberations in the interests of a better world.
Here at this summit, the world's leaders are striving to combat world poverty and save and improve human life. The perpetrators of today's attacks are intent on destroying human life.
The terrorists will not succeed. Today's bombings will not weaken in any way our resolve to uphold the most deeply held principles of our societies and to defeat those who would impose their fanaticism and extremism on all of us.
We shall prevail and they shall not.
© The Canadian Press, 2005
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1120702711778&p=1074657885918
Rules of conflict for a world war
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efraim Halevi, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 7, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place today on the London transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope. They have come a long way since the two attacks of the year 1998 against the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam, and the aircraft actions of September 11, 2001.
There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution. We are faced with a deadly and determined adversary who will stop at nothing and will persevere as long as he exists as a fighting terrorist force.
One historical irony: I doubt whether the planners knew that one of the target areas, that in Russell Square, was within a stone's throw of a building that served as the first headquarters of the World Zionist Organization that preceded the State of Israel.
It was at 77 Great Russell Street that Dr. Chaim Weizmann, a renowned chemist, presided over the effort that culminated in the issuing of the Balfour Declaration, the first international recognition of the right of the Jewish people to a national home in what was then still a part of the Ottoman Empire.
We are in the throes of a world war, raging over the entire globe and characterized by the absence of lines of conflict and an easily identifiable enemy. There are sometimes long pauses between one attack and another, consequently creating the wrong impression that the battle is all over, or at least in the process of being won.
Generally speaking, the populations at large are not involved in the conflict, and by and large play the role of bystanders. But once in a while, these innocents are caught up in the maelstrom and suffer the most cruel and wicked of punishments meted out by those who are not bound by any rules of conduct or any norms of structured society. For a while, too short a while, we are engrossed with the sheer horror of what we see and hear, but, with the passage of time, our memories fade and we return to our daily lives, forgetting that the war is still raging out there and more strikes are sure to follow.
It cannot be said that seven years after this war broke out in east Africa, we can see its conclusion. We are in for the long haul and we must brace ourselves for more that will follow. The 'Great Wars' of the 20th century lasted less than this war has already lasted, and the end is nowhere in sight.
There will be supreme tests of leadership in this unique situation and people will have to trust the wisdom and good judgment of those chosen to govern them. The executives must be empowered to act resolutely and to take every measure necessary to protect the citizens of their country and to carry the combat into whatever territory the perpetrators and their temporal and spiritual leaders are inhabiting.
The rules of combat must be rapidly adjusted to cater to the necessities of this new and unprecedented situation, and international law must be rewritten in such a way as to permit civilization to defend itself. Anything short of this invites disaster and must not be allowed to happen.
The aim of the enemy is not to defeat western civilization but to destroy its sources of power and existence, and to render it a relic of the past. It does not seek a territorial victory or a regime change; it wants to turn western civilization into history and will stop at nothing less than that.
It will show no mercy or compassion and no appreciation for these noble values when practiced by us. This does not mean that we can or should assume the norms of our adversaries, nor that we should act indiscriminately. It does mean that the only way to ensure our safety and security will be to obtain the destruction, the complete destruction, of the enemy.
MUCH HAS been said in recent years about the vital need for international cooperation. There is no doubt that this is essential. Yet no measure of this will suffice and it cannot replace the requirement that each and every country effectively declare itself at war with international Islamist terror and recruit the public to involve itself actively in the battle, under the direction of the legal powers that be.
In the past, governments have been expected to provide security to their citizens. The responsibility is still there, in principle. But in practice, no government today can provide an effective 'suit of protection' for the ordinary citizen. There can be no protection for every bus, every train, every street, every square. In these times the ordinary citizen must be vigilant and must make his personal contribution to the war effort. Private enterprise will have to supplement the national effort in many walks of life.
The measures that I have outlined above will not be easily adopted
overnight. When the US entered World War Two, Congress approved the momentous decision by a majority of one vote. Profound cultural changes will have to come about and the democratic way of life will be hard-pressed to produce solutions that will enable the executive branch to perform its duties and, at the same time, to preserve the basic tenets of our democratic way of life. It will not be easy, but it will be essential not to lose sight of every one of these necessities.
This war is already one of the longest in modern times; as things appear now, it is destined to be part of our daily lives for many years to come, until the enemy is eliminated, as it surely will be.
The writer, who heads the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is a former head of the Mossad.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1120702711778&p=1074657885918 | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:33 pm Post subject: LONDON BOMBS: AL-QAEDA FIGURE WARNS OF SCORE TO SETTLE |
| LONDON BOMBS: AL-QAEDA FIGURE WARNS OF SCORE TO SETTLE WITH BERLUSCONI
London, 8 July (AKI) - One day after the attacks in London, a leading member of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia has warned that they still have a score to settle with Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. The threat, signed by Lewis Atiyallah - well-known for his contributions to the Saudi al-Qaeda magazine Sawt Al-Jihad - comes in a document entitled: 'Blair, this is an epic war', published on the Internet on Friday.
It follows another statement on Thursday from a previously unknown group, the Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe, which said it was behind the blast, and threatened both Italy and Denmark.
"Yes, Blair is right, it is an epic battle and not partial, as your American allies claim" Atiyallah's statement reads, "and if you want proof, look at the new weapon used by the mujahadeen in Iraq, who kidnap your children and Western followers." The message goes on to mention "when the mujahadeen kidnapped four Italians", referring to the four security guards kidnapped in Iraq in April 2004, one of whom, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, was killed by his captors.
"One of their [the kidnappers] requests was that Berlusconi should apologise for the violation of the rights of Islam and Muslims. This is an old debt that Berlusconi still hasn't paid: on that occasion the Iraqis decided to talk in the name of Islam and Muslims to make Berlusconi pay his debts for the blood of their children spilt by Italians. This is an example to show how the epic war and Iraqi situation will settle many scores."
While the four Italian security guards were being held hostage, via statements issued on the Internet the suspected kidnappers called on the Italian premier to apologise for his controversial comment following the September 11 attacks in America, that Western civilisation is superior to Islam.
"Without any help or prompting, or leadership and logistical support the mujahadeen carried out the plan fearlessly," Atiyallah also said in the statement, which hypothesises the war in Iraq as the reason for the London attacks. "The next [attack] to come will be worse," Atiyallah threatens, announcing that there will be "a huge explosion". He goes on to say, "The American generals consider the situation under control, while Tony Blair affirms that this is an epic battle: this is true and the moment has come to settle scores with the whole of the West over Iraq."
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.185108467&par=0
_________________ | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:47 pm Post subject: Robert Fisk: The reality of this barbaric bombing |
| Robert Fisk: The reality of this barbaric bombing
If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us think insurgency won't come to us?
By Robert Fisk
08 July 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp
"If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, "we will bomb yours." There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.
And it's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush - and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali.
It is easy for Tony Blair to call yesterdays bombings "barbaric" - of course they were - but what were the civilian deaths of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the children torn apart by cluster bombs, the countless innocent Iraqis gunned down at American military checkpoints? When they die, it is "collateral damage"; when "we" die, it is "barbaric terrorism".
If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us believe insurgency won't come to us? One thing is certain: if Tony Blair really believes that by "fighting terrorism" in Iraq we could more efficiently protect Britain - fight them there rather than let them come here, as Bush constantly says - this argument is no longer valid.
To time these bombs with the G8 summit, when the world was concentrating on Britain, was not a stroke of genius. You don't need a PhD to choose another Bush-Blair handshake to close down a capital city with explosives and massacre more than 30 of its citizens. The G8 summit was announced so far in advance as to give the bombers all the time they needed to prepare.
A co-ordinated system of attacks of the kind we saw yesterday would have taken months to plan - to choose safe houses, prepare explosives, identify targets, ensure security, choose the bombers, the hour, the minute, to plan the communications (mobile phones are giveaways). Co-ordination and sophisticated planning - and the usual utter ruthlessness with regard to the lives of the innocent - are characteristic of al-Qa'ida. And let us not use - as our television colleagues did yesterday - "hallmarks", a word identified with quality silver rather than base metal.
And now let us reflect on the fact that yesterday, the opening of the G8, so critical a day, so bloody a day, represented a total failure of our security services - the same intelligence "experts" who claim there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when there were none, but who utterly failed to uncover a months-long plot to kill Londoners.
Trains, planes, buses, cars, metros. Transportation appears to be the science of al-Qa'ida's dark arts. No one can search three million London commuters every day. No one can stop every tourist. Some thought the Eurostar might have been an al-Qa'ida target - be sure they have studied it - but why go for prestige when your common or garden bus and Tube train are there for the taking.
And then come the Muslims of Britain, who have long been awaiting this nightmare. Now every one of our Muslims becomes the "usual suspect", the man or woman with brown eyes, the man with the beard, the woman in the scarf, the boy with the worry beads, the girl who says she's been racially abused.
I remember, crossing the Atlantic on 11 September 2001 - my plane turned round off Ireland when the US closed its airspace - how the aircraft purser and I toured the cabins to see if we could identify any suspicious passengers. I found about a dozen, of course, totally innocent men who had brown eyes or long beards or who looked at me with "hostility". And sure enough, in just a few seconds, Osama bin Laden turned nice, liberal, friendly Robert into an anti-Arab racist.
And this is part of the point of yesterday's bombings: to divide British Muslims from British non-Muslims (let us not mention the name Christians), to encourage the very kind of racism that Tony Blair claims to resent.
But here's the problem. To go on pretending that Britain's enemies want to destroy "what we hold dear" encourages racism; what we are confronting here is a specific, direct, centralised attack on London as a result of a "war on terror" which Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara has locked us into. Just before the US presidential elections, Bin Laden asked: "Why do we not attack Sweden?"
Lucky Sweden. No Osama bin Laden there. And no Tony Blair. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 3:55 pm Post subject: Nobody Attacks Civilization |
| http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=6596
Nobody Attacks Civilization
by Charley Reese
British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush went into their standard routine after the London bombings. This was an attack against civilization and all civilized nations, they said.
That's bosh and hokum, and it does a disservice to the people. The first step always in solving any problem is to define the problem correctly. There are no terrorists anywhere in the world whose goal is the destruction of civilization, Western or otherwise.
The terrorist attacks against the U.S., Great Britain and Spain are motivated exclusively by Western policies toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the presence of Western military forces in Islamic countries. Al-Qaeda, the ideological source of these attacks, has always been crystal-clear and specific about its reasons for declaring war against the United States.
You can't win a war unless you know who your enemy is, know why he is your enemy and know what his objectives are. Only then can you properly direct your military and political forces to combat him successfully.
Unfortunately, very early on, President Bush decided to create a mythical enemy of vague and ambiguous proportions and irrational motives. This was done to give carte blanche to the government to pursue policies that really had nothing to do with fighting al-Qaeda – e.g., invading Iraq, putting North Korea and Iran in the "axis of evil" and including groups on the enemies list that were in fact not our enemies.
The confusion this causes was illustrated by television coverage of the London attacks. Several commentators lumped together the terrorist attacks against public transport in Moscow, Madrid and London. However, the Moscow attack had nothing to do with the attacks in Madrid and London, or with us. Moscow is fighting Chechen rebels who want independence for Chechnya. Chechen attacks against Russia, like Palestinian attacks against Israel, are not directed at us. They are motivated by specific political objectives. Chechens and Palestinians have no desire to destroy civilization; they simply wish to take their place in the family of nations as independent countries.
You can't have a war against terrorism because, as many people have pointed out, terrorism is a tactic employed by people who have no real military power. It is not an entity. There is no worldwide terrorist organization.
Terrorist tactics work because we live in a wired world. Ten or 12 people can set off a few bombs in London, and the world turns its electronic eyes on the story and chats, discusses and shows video clips until some other event distracts it. The media attention and the inflated rhetoric of politicians magnify the terrorist act far beyond its actual import.
These attacks – pinpricks, really, in terms of any damage they do to national power – cannot be completely stopped. A few malcontents inspired by someone's rhetoric can get together and set off a bomb or two or shoot some people. Terrorists should be considered criminals, and their acts as ordinary crimes. Physically dealing with terrorists is properly ordinary police work. There is no war involved.
What the United States should be doing, instead of invading and occupying countries, is re-examining its foreign policy vis-à-vis the Islamic world. There is no natural conflict between the West and Islam. The followers and true believers of Osama bin Laden are a tiny minority. The best way to cut the ground out from under him is to develop and pursue policies that treat all of the Islamic countries with fairness and respect.
We don't do that at the present time. Because of the power of the Israeli lobby to skew our policy to benefit Israel, our Middle East policies are riddled with double and triple standards and reek of hypocrisy. Because of that, we are the best recruiter Osama bin Laden has.
But in the meantime, remember that terrorist attacks are primarily media events. You still have more to fear from the flu or accidents than you do from terrorists. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
