London Bombings

[Fortunata]

So is the solution to duck and cover and hope it all goes away? I say no. I say it's time to right the wrongs that have been done to the Middle East,

IMV, you don't right wrongs by killing untold amounts of innocent people. That is just another wrong that the domestic population will want righted someday by killing untold amounts of innocent people. And the cycle continues.

and that a good first step in that direction is to establish working democracies, so that the people of that region can decide their own fate. And if they want a theocracy, or a thug dictatorship, or communism, or something else of their own devising, then they can choose that for themselves.

A good first step is keeping our noses out of other people's business. These people did choose their own type of government and yet, we are there, telling them what they have to do. Iran just chose a hard-line religious regime (again) and we are saying, no, no, there MUST be democracy. There was. It just wasn't our type of democracy (or GWB's type) so we completely discount that choice. It's total hypocrisy and yet, all yous just buy into it.

[Hugo]

Have you guys ever heard of this thing called "history"? It turns out, some of the present day's circumstances stem from stuff that happened in the past, some of which was beyond the Western world's control... I say it's time to right the wrongs that have been done to the Middle East, and that a good first step in that direction is to establish working democracies

WWI was a war fought to end all wars, make the world safe for democracy etc. What it did was create the perfect scenario for a far greater and far more destructive war only 20 years later. In this regard Fortunata is exactly right: violence creates further violence, and attempting to end violence with violence does not make any sense.

There's more to it than just a bunch of greedy capitalists sending poor people overseas to kill foreigners and interfere in their perfect way of life.

There was quite a long period in history where the Middle East was far more cultured, learned and wealthy than the West. We were primitive, barbaric and warlike by their standards. Part of the cause of the Renaissance was a flow of Islamic scholarly and artistic works into the West. Many modern economic and medical ideas, for instance, can easily be traced back to medieval Islamic societies. The Laffer Curve is basically Ibn Khaldun's theories revisited, and modern medicine and Christian theology owe a lot to Ibn Sina (Avicenna), a key influence behind St. Thomas Aquinas.

The causes of the stagnation of this society are complex but a lot of alarming parallels can be drawn with the modern West: the entrenchment of the ruling class, increasingly heavy taxation and statism, expansion of the culture by war and conquest rather than by peaceable means (religious conversion, trade and the spread of artistic and scholarly work), the power of the military over the State, etc.

[Argus]

I don't want to get into semantics. We all know what terrorism is. Refering to the US and UK actions as terrorism is sophism.

Sure: we all know what terrorism is: it's what they do to us, never what we do to them. That's the working definition. But if one looks at the actual definition of terrorism, (the following: "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." is as good as any) then states (including your simon-pure stalwarts the US and UK) can and are as guilty of terrorism as Al Qaeda

I suppose some find it of value to use semantics to stretch the definition out of all common recognition and remove all moral sense from the term. Myself, when the US starts bombing Syrian buses out of spite I might agree. But even when they were bombing Iraq in the war they were pretty careful to go for military, government targets, not just drop high explosives on everyone in sight.

[Argus]

Britain no more provoked the attack than did our decision to make gay marriages legal.

Remind me again how putting armed personnel in the streets of another nation is analogous to legalizing gay marriage in your own nation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uhm... don't we have armed personnel in the streets of another nation?

[Argus]

As to the "they hate our way of life" nonsense, I've said this before but it bears repeating:

If they hate secular capitalism and wealth, why aren't they bombing Hong Kong, Singapore or Taipei? If they hate Christianity, why aren't they bombing the Vatican?

Because they're stupid and ignorant? Just a guess.

Why does the Arab world go ape shit when a Palestinian gets killed by a Jew but shows no interest when hundreds of Muslim womena and children are slaughtered in brutal Indian riots? It doesn't have to make sense.

Like it or not, your average goat herding Arab doesn't even know that Singapore is even a country, let alone where it is or what kind of economic structure they have. To them, New York, and to a lesser extent London represent world capitalism, as well as the heart of those backing the evil Israelis.

The reason for this Islamic terrorism is clear: it's because they do not want Western (particularly US) troops in the Middle East interfering in the affairs of their homelands. Perhaps they want to turn these countries into theocracies, but it's hard to make the claim that that's any of our business.

I dunno, Hugo. Ask me when gas is $15 a gallon because the CIA stops interfering in OPEC and the oil exporters get together to enforce huge price increases. Ask me when the great caliphate of Allah on Earth starts shipping nukes out in suitcases to the lands of the infidels.

Furthermore, is setting off a bomb on a bus that you are reasonably sure will kill civilians that much different from dropping a bomb from a stealth fighter that you are reasonably sure will kill civilians?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would depend on the reasons behind the bombing. Are you killing civilians because you hate them, or are you incidentally killing civilians because you think destroying the target you're after will help prevent many deaths among your people?

[Argus]

A good first step is keeping our noses out of other people's business.  These people did choose their own type of government and yet, we are there, telling them what they have to do.  Iran just chose a hard-line religious regime (again) and we are saying, no, no, there MUST be democracy.  There was.  It just wasn't our type of democracy (or GWB's type) so we completely discount that choice.  It's total hypocrisy and yet, all yous just buy into it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't kinda think the mullahs refusing to allow anyone to run in the election who wasn't a religious wacko might have some impact on the validity of this "democratic" exercise? Or the total government control of the media? And who got to count the votes anyway? Not neutral observers. Not bipartisan groups. Votes are counted by the Interior Ministery under supervision of the Guardian Council (the mullahs).

And if I read you right we should stop "interfering" with Iran's desire to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Right? When nukes start going off in New York and London, well then, we can roll up our sleeves and look into the matter, eh?

[Riverwind]

And if I read you right we should stop "interfering" with Iran's desire to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Right? When nukes start going off in New York and London, well then, we can roll up our sleeves and look into the matter, eh? 

Before the Iraq war there was a chance to convince the Iranians that they did not need nuclear arms to protect themselves since the international system was stable enough to ensure that they would not be invaded. That opportunity is now lost and we will likely see nuclear arms in the hands of the gov't of Iran in the future. However, I think a more likely source of a nuclear attack on the US will not come from Iran but from Russia where way too many inadequately guarded weapons are sitting around.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Uhm... don't we have armed personnel in the streets of another nation?

Reread August's post, apply a little bit of thought, and then try to respond again.

[Hugo]

Why does the Arab world go ape shit when a Palestinian gets killed by a Jew but shows no interest when hundreds of Muslim womena and children are slaughtered in brutal Indian riots?

I don't know that this is the case. Do you have any proof? Are you also aware that India has a lot of problems with Muslim terrorism as well as Israel?

Like it or not, your average goat herding Arab doesn't even know that Singapore is even a country, let alone where it is or what kind of economic structure they have. To them, New York, and to a lesser extent London represent world capitalism, as well as the heart of those backing the evil Israelis.

I don't think they do represent world capitalism. I think they represent the hearts of the nations that have put thousands of troops on their soil to interfere with their politics and back up the sheikhs who obstruct and prevent natural captalistic wealth formation from the natural resources they have. They may not think of it in those terms, of course, just as you probably don't realise the economic nature of the actions you take every day.

I dunno, Hugo. Ask me when gas is $15 a gallon because the CIA stops interfering in OPEC and the oil exporters get together to enforce huge price increases.

Why would gas reach $15 per gallon when the USA gets most of its oil from Alaska and Canada? If the price of crude reached that height, what makes you think that reserves in Texas, Canada, Siberia and the Urals would not be exploited? What makes you think that more attention would be fixed upon alternative fuels like methanol, and upon extracting oil from other sources, like shale? When oil becomes scarcer, why would our attentions not be turned to reducing our use of this now-expensive resource?

In short, why do you think that the whole history of human progress and development would suddenly be abandoned and reversed just because of OPEC? You seriously think that humans have never faced a shortage of anything ever before? The Earth just offered up her bounty for all to take their fill? What?

Ask me when the great caliphate of Allah on Earth starts shipping nukes out in suitcases to the lands of the infidels.

Why would he do this? They presently have no interest in infidels that aren't interested in them. In fact, they generally like doing business with them. It even says in the Koran that one does not have to fight the infidel but can live at peace.

I think the real danger of suitcase nukes lies in the continuance of current policy, not the abandonment of it.

Perhaps, for instance, it has occurred to you that without the backing of the USA and Western European nations, Saddam Hussein would probably have been overthrown by his own people a long time ago?

Are you killing civilians because you hate them, or are you incidentally killing civilians because you think destroying the target you're after will help prevent many deaths among your people?

If the consequences of your actions will include innocent deaths, do you think that means one should or should not undertake that action?

I would like to direct your attention to Hong Kong and Taiwan. The influence of these offshore, capitalist islands on the Chinese mainland has been immense and has contributed greatly to the liberalisation of the Chinese economy and polity, as Chinese have travelled to these places for business and training and as offshore capital has flowed into the mainland.

Compare this with the dimwitted American policy of embargo and encirclement, which led to the entrenchment of dictators in Iraq and Cuba, and to more crackdowns, more brutal rule and more misery for their people. Taiwan and Hong Kong didn't kill Mao, but they did help ensure that his successors have been progressively more liberal.

[Melanie_]

Why does the Arab world go ape shit when a Palestinian gets killed by a Jew but shows no interest when hundreds of Muslim womena and children are slaughtered in brutal Indian riots? It doesn't have to make sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I doubt that there isn't reaction to these slaughters; do you really believe that people, regardless of where they live or what religion they practice, would not be outraged by those riots? We in the West see what the media wants us to see, and it supports the stereotypical Western view of the "average goat herding Muslim" (as you put it) when they portray a stronger reaction to Isreal's actions than India's. The demonization of the entire religion, rather than the just the extremists, feeds into the resentment that fuels people to join Bin Laden et al.

[Cameron]

Meaning what, exactly?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure the American military doesn't intentionally attack buses full of people. These people know what they are targeting and who they are going to kill.

[Black Dog]

I'm sure the American military doesn't intentionally attack buses full of people. These people know what they are targeting and who they are going to kill.

As was stated before, but obviously bears repeating, there's little moral distinction between setting a bomb off on a bus with the intention of killing civilians and dropping a bomb or firing a tank shell into a civilian area knowing that civilians will die as a result.

An Iraqi civilian who's family is gunned down by trigger happy Marines, or blown to bits by a bunker-buster doesn't really care if the perpatrators really had the best interests of freedom and democracy in mind: they just know the pain of losing a loved one and the desire for revenge on those responsible.

As long as western people cling to the attitude that good intentions should somehow mitigate acts of violence and gross inhumanity, the problem of terrorism will only grow.

[August1991]

As was stated before, but obviously bears repeating, there's little moral distinction between setting a bomb off on a bus with the intention of killing civilians and dropping a bomb or firing a tank shell into a civilian area knowing that civilians will die as a result.

Once again, we see so-called moral equivalence and in effect the Leftist self-hatred for Western civilisation.

During the Cold War, many Leftists argued that the Soviets and Americans were basically the same. "Vietnam, Afghanistan, same difference," or so the argument went.

Now, we get the argument that the US military is no different from Bin Laden. "They both kill innocent civilians," or so the argument goes.

If you can see no difference between the kind of society the US wants to foster and the kind of society the Soviets wanted or bin Laden wants, then you are either willfully blind or your judgment is seriously in error.

[Riverwind]

During the Cold War, many Leftists argued that the Soviets and Americans were basically the same.  "Vietnam, Afghanistan, same difference," or so the argument went.

When you look at these kinds of actions there are many different layers that need to be analyzed.

The most basic layer would deal with the individuals who use the weapons that do the actual killing. At that layer there is absolutely no moral equivalence: American soldiers are in a war zone and dealing with people who are trying to kill them. Even if you think the US soldiers have no business being in Iraq you should not deny that self-defence is a partial explanation for the civilian deaths. Cowards who sneak into subways and plant bombs are cold blooded murders period. I think most 'leftist' would agree with that distinction.

What 'Leftists' refer to when they talk about moral equivalence is the justifications used by the political leadership for military action. There is absolutely no 'moral' difference between the invasion of Iraq and Vietnam, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the Chinese invasion of Tibet - all were exercises in imperialism.

I did not include the American invasion of Afghanistan in that list because the US was fully justified going in and removing the Al Qaeda bases after the sovereign gov't refused to deal with the problem. The idea that invading Iraq was justified by an imminent threat to the US is a fantasy that only the most hardcore Bush supporters cling to.

The last moral layer would have to do with what the respective superpowers were planning to do after the fighting stopped. In this layer, the US probably has the moral high ground because they truly do want to set up democratic institutions and let the people run their own affairs. It is an insult to all Americans to suggest that a democratic and free Iraq is not a sincere part of the US plan.

That said, the Bush administration constantly undermines its commitment to a democratic Iraq by playing 'favourites' with Iraqi politicians and trying to prevent Shia fundamentalists from being democratically elected. They also seem to be intent on forcing a democratic Iraq gov't to allow the US to maintain military bases in the country.

[I Miss Trudeau]

It is an insult to all Americans to suggest that a democratic and free Iraq is not a sincere part of the US plan.

They also seem to be intent on forcing a democratic Iraq gov't to allow the US to maintain military bases in the country.

So are you insulting Americans here, or only half insulting them?

[Riverwind]

So are you insulting Americans here, or only half insulting them?

I don't see your point - americans really want iraq to democratic and free - I don't believe they are being hypocrites when they say that. However, you could argue they have some strange ideas about free means if they think that they can decide that certain elected politicians are not acceptable and keep their bases in the country.

[August1991]

What 'Leftists' refer to when they talk about moral equivalence is the justifications used by the political leadership for military action. There is absolutely no 'moral' difference between the invasion of Iraq and Vietnam, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the Chinese invasion of Tibet - all were exercises in imperialism.

That's where I disagree. I see a great difference between the US intervention in Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

[I Miss Trudeau]

So are you insulting Americans here, or only half insulting them?

However, you could argue they have some strange ideas about free means if they think that they can decide that certain elected politicians are not acceptable and keep their bases in the country.

Thats kind of the point. They can't really say "We're working towards a free and democratic Iraq," and then turn around and limit the candidates and demand that their military presence be permitted into the future. That makes for a less than free and democratic Iraq. That would make Iraq more like an occupied colony.

[Riverwind]

Thats kind of the point. They can't really say "We're working towards a free and democratic Iraq," and then turn around and limit the candidates and demand that their military presence be permitted into the future. That makes for a less than free and democratic Iraq. That would make Iraq more like an occupied colony.

I agree the contradiction exists, the difference is that I attribute the contradiction to naivety rather than Machiavelli.

That's where I disagree. I see a great difference between the US intervention in Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

I would be interested to hear why. The soviets went in to Afghanistan in order assert Soviet hegemony in Central Asia. The US went into Iraq to assert US hegemony in the Middle East. You must remember that every rational/excuse the US gave for the Iraq invasion has been shown to be false and in some cases, deliberately manipulated to justify the invasion. The only redeeming virtue of the US invasion is (as I mentioned above) that the US plans to set up a democracy in Iraq, however, setting up a democracy does not justify the invasion in the first place when you consider how many other countries in the world need a democracy but do not get the special attention that Iraq got.

[Argus]

And if I read you right we should stop "interfering" with Iran's desire to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Right? When nukes start going off in New York and London, well then, we can roll up our sleeves and look into the matter, eh? 

Before the Iraq war there was a chance to convince the Iranians that they did not need nuclear arms to protect themselves since the international system was stable enough to ensure that they would not be invaded. That opportunity is now lost and we will likely see nuclear arms in the hands of the gov't of Iran in the future. However, I think a more likely source of a nuclear attack on the US will not come from Iran but from Russia where way too many inadequately guarded weapons are sitting around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you suggesting that the Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons started because of the Iraq war? Because my understanding is they've been at it for quite some years now, with dispersed, underground research and development labs.

And convincing the mad mullahs of Iran of anything is no easy endeavour.

[Argus]

Uhm... don't we have armed personnel in the streets of another nation?

Reread August's post, apply a little bit of thought, and then try to respond again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was responding to you, not August. If your post was shallow and thoughtless don't blame me for making an obvious response.

[Argus]

Why does the Arab world go ape shit when a Palestinian gets killed by a Jew but shows no interest when hundreds of Muslim womena and children are slaughtered in brutal Indian riots? It doesn't have to make sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I doubt that there isn't reaction to these slaughters; do you really believe that people, regardless of where they live or what religion they practice, would not be outraged by those riots?

When was the last time an Indian embassy or consulate was attacked by Arabs in other countries? When was the last time Muslim terrorists who were not Indians blew up Indian planes or tried to attack Indian tourists?

No, they have become fixated on Israel, to the exclusion of all else. I'm reminded of an issue of the Toronto Star from many years ago, during apartheid. The big, black, bold front page headline spoke of two black men killed in Soweto. Well inside, on page thirty nine or something, in a small square box, was the story of five thousand tutsis killed by Hutus in tribal warfare.

If protestors are shot down in the streets of Damascas, the Muslim world shrugs. if Muslims activists are killed by security police in Indonesia, nobody cares. But let one Palestinian protestor trip on his shoelaces while throwing a rock at an Israeli checkpoint and bloody his nose and the Arab world rocks with outrage.

[Black Dog]

If you can see no difference between the kind of society the US wants to foster and the kind of society the Soviets wanted or bin Laden wants, then you are either willfully blind or your judgment is seriously in error.

The issue, again, isn't how I see it, but how those directly affected by 500 lbs of good intentions dropped from an F-16 see it.

[Riverwind]

Are you suggesting that the Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons started because of the Iraq war? Because my understanding is they've been at it for quite some years now, with dispersed, underground research and development labs.

Of course not. My point is that the only way to truly stop a country with lots of oil money from gaining nuclear weapons is to convince the leaders that they do not need nuclear weapons. Before Iraq it might have been possible to convince the Iranians that friendly diplomatic relations with Europe and the US is worth the price of giving up nukes. After Iraq it will be impossible to make that case. A similar problem now exists in North Korea.

Furthermore, both China and Russia are not happy about the US presence in central Asia and could decide that it is in their strategic interest to give Iran nulclear technology. This risk is most credible with China who really wants to secure access to as much oil as possible.

In other words, the US invasion of Iraq has undermined the nuclear poliferation treaty and you will see more and more states acquire the technology to protect themselves from US attack.

[Argus]

Like it or not, your average goat herding Arab doesn't even know that Singapore is even a country, let alone where it is or what kind of economic structure they have. To them, New York, and to a lesser extent London represent world capitalism, as well as the heart of those backing the evil Israelis.

I don't think they do represent world capitalism. I think they represent the hearts of the nations that have put thousands of troops on their soil to interfere with their politics and back up the sheikhs who obstruct and prevent natural captalistic wealth formation from the natural resources they have. They may not think of it in those terms, of course, just as you probably don't realise the economic nature of the actions you take every day.

They think of New York and London as the heart of Western capitalism and culture - which is correct. And they think of them as the heart of the people who support their hated enemies, not the sheiks, but the Israelis. The Soviets and Chinese interfered with and continue to interfere with local politics and no one is trying to bomb them, well, except locals. Incidentally, the Chinese treatment of their Muslim minority is murderous, but draws no condemnation from the Arab world or the Muslim 'street". And the US and UK have no troops in any streets except Afghanistan and Iraq. And no one sane can argue the US has oppressed either people in comparison to what was there before. Iraq, in fact, would be a virtual paradise today were it not for the mad Islamists blowing themselve up all over the place, and the US and UK troops would largely be gone

I dunno, Hugo. Ask me when gas is $15 a gallon because the CIA stops interfering in OPEC and the oil exporters get together to enforce huge price increases.

Why would gas reach $15 per gallon when the USA gets most of its oil from Alaska and Canada? If the price of crude reached that height, what makes you think that reserves in Texas, Canada, Siberia and the Urals would not be exploited? What makes you think that more attention would be fixed upon alternative fuels like methanol, and upon extracting oil from other sources, like shale? When oil becomes scarcer, why would our attentions not be turned to reducing our use of this now-expensive resource?

I like the way you make it sound about as complex and damaging as switching from one internet provider to another. Never mind the massive economic chaos and dislocation which would first result, or the fact that before additional reserves become profitable to exploit the price of energey would have to rise far higher than at present, or what that represents to economies or individuals.

In short, never mind my actual point, which was that what the US was doing was good for the entire Western capitalist world, and that had they not done it we'd have a considerably weaker economy than at present.

Ask me when the great caliphate of Allah on Earth starts shipping nukes out in suitcases to the lands of the infidels.

Why would he do this? They presently have no interest in infidels that aren't interested in them. In fact, they generally like doing business with them. It even says in the Koran that one does not have to fight the infidel but can live at peace.

Not everything is about money, Hugo, especially to religious wackos.

I think the real danger of suitcase nukes lies in the continuance of current policy, not the abandonment of it.

Suppose you tell us what policy they're to abandon - specifically? Abandon Israel? Run away and leave the Afghan and Iraqi governments to fall and ignore the resulting bloody civil wars? What?

Perhaps, for instance, it has occurred to you that without the backing of the USA and Western European nations, Saddam Hussein would probably have been overthrown by his own people a long time ago?

No, because it wouldn't have. If by backing you mean selling weapons he would have found other sellers. If by backing you mean backing him against Iran it was a good idea. Use one enemy to kill another enemy.

Are you killing civilians because you hate them, or are you incidentally killing civilians because you think destroying the target you're after will help prevent many deaths among your people?

If the consequences of your actions will include innocent deaths, do you think that means one should or should not undertake that action?

As I said, that depends on the purpose of your actions.