Posted on 07/15/2005 2:46:34 AM PDT by mal
ONE aim of the terrorist is to force people, friend and foe alike, to define themselves vis-a-vis his action. So let us consider the interpretations of last week's terrorist attack in London. Broadly speaking, they fall into two categories: stoic and confused. The stoic interpretation has come in the form of the determination with which Londoners, and with them most Britons, decided to take the whole thing in stride and not allow the attack to derail normal life. Much reference has been made to the "spirit of the Blitz," a reminder of how Londoners stood fast against Hitler's bombing of their city during the Battle of Britain.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
ONE aim of the terrorist is to force people, friend and foe alike, to define themselves vis-a-vis his action. So let us consider the interpretations of last week's terrorist attack in London.
Broadly speaking, they fall into two categories: stoic and confused. The stoic interpretation has come in the form of the determination with which Londoners, and with them most Britons, decided to take the whole thing in stride and not allow the attack to derail normal life. Much reference has been made to the "spirit of the Blitz," a reminder of how Londoners stood fast against Hitler's bombing of their city during the Battle of Britain.
There are, of course, some similarities: Hitler dreamed of conquering Britain and much of the world for his Aryan "master race." The current terrorists, for their part, wish to rule the world in the name of "the only true faith," that is to say their perverted version of Islam.
Yet there are also big differences. At the time of the Blitz, Britain was facing an identifiable enemy in the context of a conventional, and symmetrical, war. That allowed Britain, and later her allies, to take the war to the territory of the enemy and destroy the physical structures that sustained his war machine.
The current enemy, on the other hand, has no easily identifiable territorial base and fights an asymmetrical war. It now seems the terrorists were British citizens, three of them born in Britain, and the attack planned and put together inside the United Kingdom itself. One must thus assume that these terrorists enjoy a broader support inside Britain than Hitler did in 1940 with Oswald Moseley's small Fascist Party.
There is another big difference. As the clouds of war gathered over Europe in 1939, Britain started to prepare itself morally and intellectually to fight. Today, however, there is no sign of such moral and intellectual preparation.
To be sure, Britain is playing a key role in both Afghanistan and Iraq. But popular support for that role was never as high as it was for the fight against Hitler, and has been falling over the past year.
This does not mean that the British are going to do what the Spanish did over a year ago — abandon their allies to win brownie points from the terrorists. But it is equally clear that no war could be fought effectively unless it enjoys massive and solid popular support.
And this brings us to the second reaction — the confused one.
This comes from people who, although often atheists, are hooked to the concept of the original sin. Whenever Britain or any other Western democracy is attacked, they recall all the real or imagined wrongs that the West did to others as a justification for whatever wrongs that others may do in return.
These are the same type of people who are always on hand to justify a bank robber who has also murdered the bank clerks with the assertion that he had an unhappy childhood marked by poverty.
To these people, it is enough to claim some grievance and pose as a victim to obtain a licence for imposing on others the worst kind of tyranny — the tyranny of the underdog. And when, as is the case of Islamist terrorists, the killers come from well-to-do families and countries, our apologist plays another tune: The murderers must be admired because they abandoned a life of luxury in order to fight for a cause that, in practice, means destroying the lives of innocent people.
As T.S Eliot put it: Blood of children must be spilt/ To atone for the fathers' guilt.
The daily The Independent (which opposed the wars to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq) reminded its readers the day after the London attack of what Osama bin Laden had said a year ago: "If you bomb our cities, we shall bomb your cities." The writer added: There you go!
Was the confused writer referring to Afghanistan and Iraq?
If yes, did he not know that bin Laden could under no circumstances claim ownership of either Afghanistan or Iraq? No one in either nation, including those who might hate the West for whatever reason, would regard the Saudi-born fugitive as a compatriot, let alone a spokesman.
Twenty-four hours later, Ayatollah Imami Kashani used the Independent article in his Friday prayer sermon in Tehran to support the claim that the British deserved to die in large numbers.
Even more scandalous was the claim by a maverick member of the British Parliament that the terrorists represented the feelings of the global Muslim community.
Certainly, many Muslims have real or imaginary grievances against the West and against one another, but few would regard bin Laden and his emulants as fellow-believers, let alone leaders.
Afghanistan and Iraq now have elected leaders who can, and do, speak on behalf of their peoples with authority. In both Kabul and Baghdad, the attack in London has been condemned in no uncertain terms. But would the Independent quote Presidents Hamid Karzai and Jalal Talabani rather than bin Laden? Not a chance.
While the stoic response may be the right one in the short run, it could lull Britain into believing that this is one brief storm that may soon blow over. Well, it is not. This is an existential threat by a force that cannot stop unless stopped by stronger moral, political and physical forces.
The comparison with the Irish Republican Army (IRA) is both foolish and dangerous. The IRA resembled a man who comes to your neighborhood every now and then to break a few of your windows, raise a scare and then establish contact to demand concessions. In time, the IRA became satisfied with jobs for its political front-men and a free hand from the British police for its clandestine cells to continue whatever racketeering they engaged in.
The Islamist terrorists, however, want to wipe out the existing society so that they can create their utopia in its place. They are not content with breaking a few windows or even murdering your son or daughter on their way to school or work, and would not be content with ministerial jobs and official limousines.
Acknowledging that an event has really happened is only the first step. What matters in the end is the way we understand it.
Iranian author Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
A strange, yet typically smug article.
To bring out George Galloway and an Islamic nutter as representative of the British people is not only bizzarre but offensive.
It would be interesting to your reaction if a British paper saw Howard Dean and Ward Churchill as the typical American reaction after 9/11.
The old "Britain doesn't get it" stuff is factually wrong. Does America have the powers to lock up American muslims who they know are about to commit terrorism but cannot prove it? Britain can!
LOL
?....the British Evolutionist's Who's god is 'Charles Darwin'...LOL
that...............'bird' religion won't fly!
LOL.......
......Britain BP gas prices are really hurting their U.S. colony?
/sarcasm?
I am not sure what you mean; could you reapeat your point in English please?
Much reference has been made to the "spirit of the Blitz," a reminder of how Londoners stood fast against Hitler's bombing of their city during the Battle of Britain.
These present day Brits are not of the same caliber of that of their forebearers during World War II, so being "stoic" will not be enough to face the present day threat of death from out of nowhere with no warning and makes no sound by their stealth and determination.
So save the bragging for a better time and for a better reason.
It's going to be a long haul without a glint of victory and no "stiff upper lip" mentality to show to the world nor to an enemy who does not value life more than death!
We live in a totally different environment and soon it will be everyone for himself
No father, no mother and no uncle Sam to come to their rescue.
France and the rest of our used to be friends are next on the list of this sub-human culture.
From the New York Times, July 10, 2005:
Before Sept. 11, 2001, British officials monitored radical Islamists but generally stopped short of arresting or extraditing them. After Sept. 11, the government passed legislation that allowed indefinite detention of terrorism suspects. But last year, it was overturned by Britain's highest court, the Law Lords, as a violation of human rights law.
Complicating Britain's antiterrorism strategy is its refusal or delays of requests for extradition of suspects by some allies, including the United States, France, Spain and Morocco.
Hitler's 2 SS Divisions made up completly of Muslim's assigned to the Final Solution
The only question is how many of we westerners will die before this happens. 10,000? 10,000,000?
When the black rock is turned to gas by a blazing stroke from the sky, we will be free of this scourge.
(steely)
WILL BRITAIN FACE THE THREAT?
____________________________________________________________
Yes.
Brits do not liked to be bombed, they hate it even more when our own citizens do it. The main problems will stem from Politicians not the UK population. If teh citizens of the UK had their way then immigration would be none existence. The opinion of the average brit are quite extreme in the majority (although with a fascination for social welfare).
I expect tough action in the future.
Note: Pelase agnore atrociosus spalling and phrausing.
No hugh or series damage done.
Is this the quality of journalism you have? No wonder you are badly misinformed.
Britain imposed the "Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005" in March which does exactly what I say. Will you give me an apology? ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Act_2005#Compromise
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4100536.stm
Control orders can impose a number of restrictions on terror suspects, including electronic tagging, curfews and limits on who they can meet and allow into their homes.
We're talking home detention here -- wow, "curfews," even. Draconian. /sarc
Your response is amazing. We are not talking about locking up foreign nationals here.
The British government can place Britons under COMPLETE house arrest without a trial if they know they are terrorists but cannot prove it, and yet America cannot and you are still being sarcastic?!
Do you get it? If America knows American Muslims are terrorists, but only know through CIA/FBI classified info, you have to tell the court and general public what that evidence is, go through all the procedural cr@p and then let that classified info be known to a court and public. You therefore endanger CIA/FBI lives but also blow their cover.
We can lock them up and still keep our personnel (spies) and secret info classified. You cannot. If American Muslims are terrorists you still give them the rights of a victim. We don't. Who is weaker then?
I am still due an apology for you being a smart-*** when you really didn't have a clue.
All the best
Coop
From the TimesOnline:
UNDERCOVER police sniper squads are tracking as many as a dozen Al-Qaeda suspects because security services fear they could be planning more suicide attacks, writes David Leppard.The covert armed units are under orders to shoot to kill if surveillance suggests that a terror suspect is carrying a bomb and he refuses to surrender if challenged.
The deployment of the teams in the past week signals the huge “intelligence gap” that has opened up since the London bombings.
Police fear the suspects could be planning a further wave of attacks but do not have enough evidence to arrest them, or place them under the government’s new anti-terror control orders.
Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, warned last week that there was a “very strong possibility” of more terrorist bombings.
Scotland Yard and MI5 say there may be more “bomb factories”. However, officers admit that they have no idea which suspects could be planning the next attacks so they are deploying the sniper squads as an emergency measure...
Look, I really don't have time for this tit-for-tat nonsense, and the matter is far too serious for verbal jousting. If I had a few hours to spare, I could compile links to perhaps 50 or more sources published during the last few weeks explaining the deficiencies in Britain's handling of home-grown jihadists -- the London bombings, and the British government's response, simply focused the microscope on what security experts around the world have known to be true for quite some time.
As far as your request for an "apology," truth needs no apology. It's regretable that you can't seem to accept the truth, no matter how many sources or facts support it. This isn't a matter of comparing our countries' responses to Islamism within our borders -- certainly the U.S. is also hampered by the PC-multi-culti, self-hating left in its efforts -- rather, it's a matter of survival, and as it stands now, Britain is on the fast track to succumbing to Islamism unless the attitude of its government toward domestic jihadists changes drastically, and soon.
If it makes you feel better, or safer, to believe that your government's efforts are adequate, then that's your choice, but it simply doesn't match the reality of the situation.
Once again you are wrong and are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
The can only issue a control order if they have proof that they are terrorists, but that proof would leak information to the public and put the intelligence personnel and classified information into the public domain, which would happen in America.
It amazes me that you are spending so much time trashing the UK when America has LESS powers.
How many American citizens are being tracked on a shoot-to-kill policy? How many American citizens can be issued control orders without trial?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.