London Bombings

[Black Dog]

Oh great. Is this the newest Chomskyism meant to insult the US and UK

So what is terrorism, then?

[Muddyw67]

If this is the work of al Qaeda, then Britain is completely innocent of imperial machinations. Britain no more provoked the attack than did our decision to make gay marriages legal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't see a connection between Britains involvement in the war on Iraq and this alleged retailation by al Qaeda?

[I miss Reagan]

Oh great. Is this the newest Chomskyism meant to insult the US and UK

So what is terrorism, then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

You don't see a connection between Britains involvement in the war on Iraq and this alleged retailation by al Qaeda?

Of course but Islamo-terrorists also hit Spain and claimed it was in retaliation for actions over 500 years ago. These same terrorists attempted to hijack planes in France and fly into the Eiffel Tower. And France seems to be on their side. And if you think us boy scouts in Canada are safe just because we distance ourselves from "the Great Satan", just read the CSIS web site to review the threats. CSIS prime concern right now are "Sunni Muslim Terrorist groups".

[Muddyw67]

You live in Moscow August?

For the past few weeks, on business.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They have a cool subway eh? Pretty majestic decorating. Tough to figure out where you are in that thing though.

If this is the work of al Qaeda, then Britain is completely innocent of imperial machinations.  Britain no more provoked the attack than did our decision to make gay marriages legal.

I understand the Al Queda group claiming responsibility is bringing up the crusades again. I always have to laugh when the usual suspects claim that the terrorism would stop if weren't for US/ British foreign policy. These thugs will always have a grude and an excuse to attack us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And why is that do you think? Are they just genetically programmed to attack us for no reason? Just crazy ARabs? I personally have no love for radical Literalists Islamists any more then I do for radical Literalist Christians or Jews. I suspect the majority of Muslims Christians and Jews feel the same. But we in the west create the right conditions for these thugs as you call them by supporting Israeli's brutal policies against the Palestinians and propping up corrupt regional governments like the Saudi's who oppress their own people. It wasn't that long ago remember that the same thugs in the white House were playing pac man and knocking back a few beers with Saddam while he was engaged in oppressing and massacring his own people. Our hypocrisies are as evident to the people of the middle east as theirs are to us.

[Melanie_]

Blair continues to parrot the nonsense about it being 'an attack on all civilized nations and upon freedom', when we all know this is absolute rubbish. Even the terrorists admit to the action and the motive! How much plainer do they have to be!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the kind of "Bush Bombast" that alienates those who would otherwise be supportive. This was a nasty, horrible, unjustifiable act of terror on Britain. Not on all civilized nations, not on freedom. The Bush/Blair version of freedom, perhaps, which they are trying to convince the rest of the world they have defined and perfected.

But, having said that, this isn't a day to bash Tony Blair. Whatever the politics might be, 37 people (the last time I checked) got up this morning and went about their daily routine, and are now dead; they are the ones to focus on, along with the hundreds injured. The people responsible need to be hunted down and brought to justice, and the less political posturing and bombast involved the better.

[Black Dog]

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.

As for semantics: semantics are important. Language use, the way ideas are constructed and expressed, has enormous power.

If you're going to dispute something, you should be prepared to back it up.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Melanie,

The people responsible need to be hunted down and brought to justice, and the less political posturing and bombast involved the better

I have to agree.

For those that haven't seen this, here is the message from the 'terrorists' they posted after the bombing...

"In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, may peace be upon the cheerful one and undaunted fighter, Prophet Muhammad, God's peace be upon him.

Nation of Islam and Arab nation: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters.

We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid.

We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused.

God says: 'You who believe: If ye will aid (the cause of) Allah, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly.'"

from globalsecurity.org

[Muddyw67]

Blair continues to parrot the nonsense about it being 'an attack on all civilized nations and upon freedom', when we all know this is absolute rubbish. Even the terrorists admit to the action and the motive! How much plainer do they have to be!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the kind of "Bush Bombast" that alienates those who would otherwise be supportive. This was a nasty, horrible, unjustifiable act of terror on Britain. Not on all civilized nations, not on freedom. The Bush/Blair version of freedom, perhaps, which they are trying to convince the rest of the world they have defined and perfected.

But, having said that, this isn't a day to bash Tony Blair. Whatever the politics might be, 37 people (the last time I checked) got up this morning and went about their daily routine, and are now dead; they are the ones to focus on, along with the hundreds injured. The people responsible need to be hunted down and brought to justice, and the less political posturing and bombast involved the better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Compassionate sentiments Melanie and I second them... now how many Iraqis or Afghans got up this morning and went about their daily routines and are now dead or injured? Do we know? Or care? Or does our compassion only extend to "our people"? I agree with you-the people responsible for the on going carnage in Iraq- Blair and Bush should be hunted down and dragged to a War Crimes tribunal for crimes against humanity and punished. Since Bush enjoyed dispatching people to the electric chair so casually as Governor of Texas that this method of punishment should be reserved for him.

[Melanie_]

Please don't misrepresent my post. I didn't say to hunt down Bush and Blair. Their crimes may be abundant, but they didn't plant those bombs today. In no way am I disrespectful of the suffering of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and certainly this escalation is part of the bigger picture, but if you are going to agree with me, make sure you are agreeing with what I actually said.

[I miss Reagan]

But, having said that, this isn't a day to bash Tony Blair.

Ya how long will it take for Canada to start blaming the victims like they now do with 9-11. There was a lot of shock and compassion on the day of, but soon turned to the "they asked for it mentality". It appears some on the board have already skipped right to it.

I agree with you-the people responsible for the on going carnage in Iraq- Blair and Bush should be hunted down and dragged to a War Crimes tribunal for crimes against humanity and punished. Since Bush enjoyed dispatching people to the electric chair so casually as Governor of Texas that this method of punishment should be reserved for him.

Please don't degenerate this into this type of crap *exasperation*

As for semantics: semantics are important. Language use, the way ideas are constructed and expressed, has enormous power.

Said William J. Clinton...

Come on just admit that you want to take the conotation of a negative term and project it on the US and UK because you despise them. How about we just call Bush a "freedom fighter" or an "insurgent" how's that?

[Black Dog]

ome on just admit that you want to take the conotation of a negative term and project it on the US and UK because you despise them. How about we just call Bush a "freedom fighter" or an "insurgent" how's that?

Which perfectly demonstrates my point that terminology is subjective. Even Bush is now making the distinction between "terrorists" and "insurgents" in Iraq. So for you to state that referring to the US and UK's actions as terrorism is sophism (regardless of how closely they may meet the definition thereof) is, frankly, bogus.

Unlike you, I'm asking for a universal standard: you're just prevaricating.

[Argus]

Of course brutal attacks by terrorists against innocent civilians is to be condemned as a outrage and an affront against human kind-in Baghdad as well as London. Its pretty disingenuous of that coward and hypocrite Blair to...

Yeah, I was kind of waiting for the first "They got what they deserved!" post.

Figures it'd be you.

[Argus]

Rage! I feel terrible for our friends the British.   I don't really know what else to say right now, but whatever happens, we stand with Britain always.

I can only wonder what the impact will be once the focus shifts from recovery to finding those responsible.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is truly awful that innocent Brits have to pay with their lives for the imperialist machinations of Blair a man of unbelievable mediocrity and a war criminal for leading his country into a an unnecessary war in Iraq. I do not stand with the British government nor do I wish our government to stand with them. They are war mongers and have the blood of thousands of innocent Iraqis on their hands.

Do you believe for one minute this attack would have occurred if Britain hadn't assume its old role of gunboat diplomacy and keeping the wogs in their place? Britain more then any country is responsible

This just a repeat of what you already posted - to wit "They got what they deserved!"

[Argus]

Compassionate sentiments Melanie and I second them...

I rather suspect your sentiments are pro forma only. Why would you care that evil capitalist imperialists were killed by the 'freedom fighters" of the Muslim world (who, despite your contempt for religious people, appear to garner nothing but sympathy from you)

now how many Iraqis or Afghans got up this morning and went about their daily routines and are now dead or injured?

Most of them killed by the people you appear to sympathise with.

[Cameron]

Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray

South Pacific, Walter Winchell, Joe DiMaggio

Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Studebaker, television

North Korea, South Korea, Marilyn Monroe

Rosenbergs, H-bomb, Sugar Ray, Panmunjom

Brando, "The King and I" and "The Catcher in the Rye"

Eisenhower, vaccine, England's got a new queen

Marciano, Liberace, Santayana goodbye

CHORUS

We didn't start the fire

It was always burning

Since the world's been turning

We didn't start the fire

No we didn't light it

But we tried to fight it

Joseph Stalin, Malenkov, Nasser aand Prokofiev

Rockefeller, Campanella, Communist Bloc

Roy hn, Juan Peron, Toscanini, dacron

Dien Bien Phu falls, "Rock Around the Clock"

Einstein, James Dean, Brooklyn's got a winning team

Davy Crockett, Peter Pan, Elvis Presley, Disneyland..........

All of it is just f-king stupid, a waste of life, time and money. No matter what you do or say it will never end untill these people are standing in your front yard asking for the keys to your house.

[Hawk]

Rage! I feel terrible for our friends the British.   I don't really know what else to say right now, but whatever happens, we stand with Britain always.

I can only wonder what the impact will be once the focus shifts from recovery to finding those responsible.

One thing to remember in the aftermath: The primary objective of these kinds of terrorists is to provoke democratic states into over reacting to their attacks. Al Queda succeeded beyond their wildest expectations when the 9/11 attacks provoked the US into invading Iraq.

I am sure that a whole host of people will call for further restrictions on the freedom of citizens in order to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again. We must resist such attempts - turning our society into a police state due to fear of terrorism would simply hand victory to the terrorists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What, are you an informant for the Terrorists or something? You seem to know everything about their plans and how it succeeded etc. Wow, or maybe you are just rehashing what the Liberal media has been spraying out for months now?

As for this attack, its not nearly so bad as 9/11 so don't compare it. It is terrible though, as are all Terrorist attacks. The ones responsible should be hunted down, something the pansey left-wing is literally afraid to do. Its good the British are backed by the USA, at least they know how to stop terrorism. Kill them all.

[Argus]

deleted

[I Miss Trudeau]

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?

[Advocat]

The problem with the public mindset when the term "War on Terrorism" is mentioned this that they reflexively think of WWII conventional warfare; if they see troops in combat then to their minds the "war" is being prosecuted. What the public hasn't quiet realized yet is that the face of war is changing. Fighting a group like al Qaeda involves intelligence, military, paramilitary, law-enforcement, political and economic components. Simply saying "go get them" is rather like ordering the military to start punching fog.

I should also point out that the use of economic and political means includes both isolating and cutting off financial, material and psychological support for terrorists, as well as using money/persuasion to help improve the political/economic/social condition of potential recruits, thereby cutting off a source for new members.

Using old tactics of massive movement of troops and equipment against non-national movements which hide within the borders of friendly nations, which use terror tactics designed to have maximum civil and economic effect (rather than military effect), which uses the strengths of a society against itself, will be ineffective and may indeed play into the hands of the terrorists. The public must be educated so they can demand their leaders use the full range of their nation's power to fight.

How has warfare changed? From The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation (the seminal work on this topic)

First generation warfare reflects tactics of the era of the smoothbore musket, the tactics of line and column. These tactics were developed partially in response to technological factors — the line maximized firepower, rigid drill was necessary to generate a high rate of fire, etc.— and partially in response to social conditions and ideas, e.g., the columns of the French revolutionary armies reflected both the élan of the revolution and the low training levels of conscripted troops. Although rendered obsolete with the replacement of the smoothbore by the rifled musket, vestiges of first generation tactics survive today, especially in a frequently encountered desire for linearity on the battlefield. Operational art in the first generation did not exist as a concept although it was practiced by individual commanders, most prominently Napoleon.

Second generation warfare was a response to the rifled musket, breechloaders, barbed wire, the machinegun, and indirect fire. Tactics were based on fire and movement, and they remained essentially linear. The defense still attempted to prevent all penetrations, and in the attack a laterally dispersed line advanced by rushes in small groups. Perhaps the principal change from first generation tactics was heavy reliance on indirect fire; second generation tactics were summed up in the French maxim, "the artillery conquers, the infantry occupies." Massed firepower replaced massed manpower. Second generation tactics remained the basis of U.S. doctrine until the 1980s, and they are still practiced by most American units in the field.

While ideas played a role in the development of second generation tactics (particularly the idea of lateral dispersion), technology was the principal driver of change. Technology manifested itself both qualitatively, in such things as heavier artillery and bombing aircraft, and quantitatively, in the ability of an industrialized economy to fight a battle of materiel (Materialschlacht).

The second generation saw the formal recognition and adoption of the operational art, initially by the Prussian army. Again, both ideas and technology drove the change. The ideas sprang largely from Prussian studies of Napoleon's campaigns. Technological factors included von Moltke's realization that modern tactical firepower mandated battles of encirclement and the desire to exploit the capabilities of the railway and the telegraph.

Third generation warfare was also a response to the increase in battlefield firepower. However, the driving force was primarily ideas. Aware they could not prevail in a contest of materiel because of their weaker industrial base in World War I, the Germans developed radically new tactics. Based on maneuver rather than attrition, third generation tactics were the first truly nonlinear tactics. The attack relied on infiltration to bypass and collapse the enemy's combat forces rather than seeking to close with and destroy them. The defense was in depth and often invited penetration, which set the enemy up for a counterattack.

Military analysts define modern terrorism using three specific descriptors:

- Terrorism (the use of violence to create terror for political ends)

- Asymmetric Warfare (war where one of the protagonists is either much larger/powerful than the other)

- Fourth-Generation Warfare (war not between nation/states as has historically occurred, but between a nation/state and an amorphous group/organization located in multiple countries).

Al Qaeda is defined as a group/movement using forth-generation, asymmetric warfare and terrorism to achieve political goals.

A few more articles of interest on these topics include:

Fourth Generation Warfare - How the Tactics of the Weak Confound the Strong

Thinking Asymmetrically in Times of Terror

Unconventional Forces for an Unconventional War

Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW)

Asymmetries and Consequences

[Black Dog]

Yeah, I was kind of waiting for the first "They got what they deserved!" post.

Figures it'd be you

No surprise, too, who weighed in with the first egregious strawman post. They are, after all, your stock-in-trade.

What, are you an informant for the Terrorists or something? You seem to know everything about their plans and how it succeeded etc. Wow, or maybe you are just rehashing what the Liberal media has been spraying out for months now

Or maybe he, unlike you, has been paying attention to the terrorists stated goals, as oppossed to the "they hate our freedoms" bunk spewed out by the SCLM.

As for this attack, its not nearly so bad as 9/11 so don't compare it. It is terrible though, as are all Terrorist attacks. The ones responsible should be hunted down, something the pansey left-wing is literally afraid to do.

Right. We think they need therapy.

Give your head a shake, man. No one is saying the perpatrators should not be brought to justice. Where the left and right differ are the methods and means of prosecuting anti-terrorism.

Its good the British are backed by the USA, at least they know how to stop terrorism. Kill them all

Yeah, good thing there's a finite supply of "terrorists" and they all come so clearly labelled. Again, give your head a shake.

Also, if the Americans and Brits (now in the fourth year of the "war on terror") are so good at stopping terrorism, why are terrorists still able to strike the very heart of their nations?

[Cameron]

I would love to see the reaction of some of the members if it was their family members that were attacked in London or New York....I'd put money down it would be different. And don't forget the fact that they are spitting out comments nice and safely behind their computers...

Also, if the Americans and Brits (now in the fourth year of the "war on terror") are so good at stopping terrorism, why are terrorists still able to strike the very heart of their nations?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because "we" tend to play by the "rules". They don't.

[Black Dog]

I would love to see the reaction of some of the members if it was their family members that were attacked in London or New York....I'd put money down it would be different. And don't forget the fact that they are spitting out comments nice and safely behind their computers...

Just like all the "kill 'em all" types are doing. What's your point?

Because "we" tend to play by the "rules". They don't.

Meaning what, exactly?

[Hugo]

Well, for one thing I'm getting tired of people constantly asking me if any of my friends or family were hurt in the attacks. They might mean well, but the odds are strongly against it and it's kind of insensitive - it implies that if one of my friends or family were hurt or killed in a terrorist attack I'd just be sitting in the office like I didn't have a care in the world.

It is truly awful that innocent Brits have to pay with their lives for the imperialist machinations of Blair a man of unbelievable mediocrity and a war criminal for leading his country into a an unnecessary war in Iraq.

Indeed. My point here is that it's a sad fact that politicians never pay for their own mistakes. The Enron executives, for instance, made some very bad and fraudulent decisions, but the people who paid for that were those executives and shareholders who bought stock of their own free will. But the price of the decision of American and British politicans to interfere in the Middle East was borne not by them, but by innocent people in the WTC and in London. It's sad, and it isn't just.

Britain has a lot of experience dealing with terrorists in a measured way.

What, like shooting 13 unarmed civilians to death and wounding more in Derry, Ireland? Or, going back a bit further, shooting at least 1500 unarmed civilians in Amritsar, India?

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?

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. As above, there are many places that lead a much more secular, consumerist, wealth-driven or Christian lifestyle than we do and have not aroused the ire of Islamic terrorism.

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?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Well, for one thing I'm getting tired of people constantly asking me if any of my friends or family were hurt in the attacks. They might mean well, but the odds are strongly against it and it's kind of insensitive - it implies that if one of my friends or family were hurt or killed in a terrorist attack I'd just be sitting in the office like I didn't have a care in the world.

I totally agree, this tack is borderline trolling. Besides, of course the .00002% directly affected would feel slightly different than the rest in any given case.

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

Well said, yes, some do want theocracies, (and if the majority supported it in a 'democratic election, could the 'west' have a leg to stand on in protest?) and as to 'none of our business', the old (half) joke on Capitol hill is "What's our oil doing under their sand"? It isn't all about oil, of course, but western economic interests have indeed led to meddling in the affairs of others, often for exclusive western benefit.

The sooner the US/UK 'MasterBuilders' acknowledge the truth, the sooner things can change. Change isn't likely the way things are handled now.

[BHS]

Dear Hugo,

Well, for one thing I'm getting tired of people constantly asking me if any of my friends or family were hurt in the attacks. They might mean well, but the odds are strongly against it and it's kind of insensitive - it implies that if one of my friends or family were hurt or killed in a terrorist attack I'd just be sitting in the office like I didn't have a care in the world.

I totally agree, this tack is borderline trolling. Besides, of course the .00002% directly affected would feel slightly different than the rest in any given case.

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

Well said, yes, some do want theocracies, (and if the majority supported it in a 'democratic election, could the 'west' have a leg to stand on in protest?) and as to 'none of our business', the old (half) joke on Capitol hill is "What's our oil doing under their sand"? It isn't all about oil, of course, but western economic interests have indeed led to meddling in the affairs of others, often for exclusive western benefit.

The sooner the US/UK 'MasterBuilders' acknowledge the truth, the sooner things can change. Change isn't likely the way things are handled now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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. 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.

It's true: some of the things we did in the past, some of the regimes we've supported, turned out to be wrong. Some of these mistakes have come back to bite us in the ass. To assume that these mistakes were made because of evil and greedy motivations is to completely ignore the geopolitics of the time they happened in.

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, 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.