Is this pay-back?
Quite a few listeners have texted Talk Back programme to suggest that today's thwarted terrorist attacks are "pay-back" for Britain's support of the US in the war against terror. Some were more pointed still: Tony Blair's support of George Bush's foreign policies opened the door to attacks of this kind. Others suggested that the Prime Minister's policy on Lebanon is partly to blame.
The Home Secretary, , has told us that the were in connection with an investigation over some weeks and months. If so, we can rule out any suggestion that the events in since July 12th were a motivating factor in the terrorist plot that has been thwarted today.
Nevertheless, few would doubt that Britain's support of the United States in the war against terror will have attracted the interest of the kind of people willing to carry out .
For his part, President Bush says the plot is a that "Islamic fascists... will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom". (The President might have been better advised to use the term "Islamist", rather than "Islamic".)
The hidden shield of the security services has thankfully been successful in this case. Yet, even though the plot was uncovered and an attack averted, the across the UK (including airports in ) is a reminder of the capacity of terrorism (even a failed terrorist operation) to unsettle and disrupt a nation. The of the plot is now beginning to emerge, but this is nothing by comparison with the death-toll we would be reporting had the operation succeeded. Nevertheless, we now face increased security at airports, with new worries about carry-on luggage and concerns about whether passengers should be permitted to bring fluids on board any flights. That must bring some satisfaction to those behind this terrorist operation; just as they will, no doubt, claim a victory every time they disrupt normal life and add to the public's .
Comments
Another Freudian slip from President Bush - he cant tell the difference between a religion and a terrorist group. It's IslamIST - not Islamic. Awful.
I doubt very much if President Bush knows enough grammar to even notice a difference between '-ic' and '-ist' endings on words, much less know that the difference could mean something, so I don't think it was a slip of Freudian nature...
My biggest complaint with Bush's comments was the "Ameri-centric" focus. An attack originating in Britain to blow up carriers which would be flying people from Britain and all over the world to destinations in the United States should not be seen as an attack only on the US. Every single passenger was a target. And all of the Western world was a target.
Yes Jill, awful, isn't it? Awful - he should probably be impeached on that alone, don't you think? For the love of God.
Perhaps support of the war is just right, whether or not it will open up the UK to this sort of attack? I know it's terribly untrendy to say that, and I'd be kicked out of every university group in Britain for saying it. America believed it was right to participate in WWII, even though it would mean that they suffered for it. Didn’t Al Qaeda attack all free nations on 9/11? Or is it just America now that must fight these lowlifes?
What a contemptible, shameful, milksopping attitude.
William asks: "Is this Pay-Back?"
No. It's terrorism.
SG
I think it is pay-back. But I also thing the UK is right to stand against terrorism in the world. If that stand reaps this consequence, that's very regretable. But we can't stand apart from the realities of the world we inhabit. We were right to go into Afghanistan in response to 9/11. We were right to remove an evil dictator in the person of Saddam Hussein. Of course we need to deal with the injustices in the middle east - particularly in the Palestinian territories - that fuel terrorism; that should be accepted by everyone. And I believe the UK's policy on Lebanon was partly mistaken. We should have put pressure on Israel earlier to move things towards a ceasefire faster. Let's not forget what happened in Israel, though. Hezbollah attacked on 12 July. They thought they would get away with it and use the hostages to gain prisoner releases. Israel's new PM - untested in battle - proved he is not a push-over and he rightly responded. The level of the military response was disproportionate. And the civilian casualities have been utterly unacceptable. Part of that responsibility rests with Hezbollah's practice of locating rockets and forces within civilian built-up communities. Nevertheless, Israel over-reacted. And the UN under-reacted. Part of the UN's problem is America's disdain for it; and Blair could work harder to deal with that and strengthen the UN's hand across the world. The solution is a UN-led stabilisation force in southern Lebanon to match an agreed ceasefire. But we can't keep lecturing Israel about the need for a ceasefire without dealing with Hezbollah's behaviour in southern Lebanon. Fair's fair.
Stephen G:
It's terrorism. AND it's pay-back.
John you're missing something important when you dismiss the difference between "Islamic" and "Islamist" - namely, the perception of law-abiding Muslims. They are experiencing abuse often because of a mis-perception that "Islamic" means "terrorist". I accept that President Bush doesn't believe that; but he misspoke here, just as he did when he used the word "crusade" after 9/11. These kinds of words have consequences, they affect how the Muslim community HEARS what's Bush and Blair are saying. Islamophobia is one of the reasons why some young Muslims are prepared to take part in violence. No one can condone or defend that violence; but let's watch what we say and avoid marginalising or caricaturing others.
David (Oxford)-
Your post was refreshing - I couldn't disagree with any of it. My sentiments exactly.
Ben- Again I find myself agreeing with you. It's just frustrating to when the most consequential comment someone can make on an issue like this is to attack Bush over a deficiency in the guy's public speaking duties - it's getting more than a little tiring. I do, of course, accept your point that the difference is important to the Muslim community, and that isn't a minor point either (although I'm not convinced that Jill Hails had that particular point in mind...)
Thanks for the discussion guys. I've got to get back to work!
John says America thought it was right to fight in WW2. Hmmm. Think so? Took em long enough to get involved, didn't it? If they'd joined the war two years earlier, a million lives would have be saved. I'm not antiAmerican - just being historically accurate.
There is far too much sympathy for terrorism - violence targetted at civilians for political ends. It seems just about all media would choke before describing a terrorist attack on Israel just that.
However, if there was a professional body to hold the war planners to account for Afghanistan and Iraq there would be a few heads rolling too.
David, ref post 5. I am not sure most of us have a full handle on what "injustices" in the Palestinian terrorities means.
When Israel was created, with UN backing, the Arab world expelled about the same number of Jews as were made homeless in Israel/Palestine. Where else were those Jews supposed to go but Israel and who is backing their calls for justice for all they lost? Related UN resolutions were drafted to call for justice for both groups of people.
If the foriegn aid poured into Palestine was used properly and not to attack Israel or in corruption the people would be so much better off.
PB
John Wright, ref post 3.
I used to pigeon-hole you as a pinko-liberal but I can see I have been gravely mistaken ;-)
Seriously though, on the one hand America seems to have been so sophisticated with terrorists in Ireland while so blunt in dealing with them elsewhere.
But also, I think many of you might be just a little hasty in presuming our Western liberal ideas like discussion, debate, conflict resolution, and compromise are valid in the eyes of Islam.
It seems to me that any state with a Muslim majority totally repudiates such things. Israel is on our wavelength here (only middle east state with Western standards of freedom of speech) but it a nation of infidels as far as the muslim states are concerned and they have a track record of trying to wipe it out.
I have had extended discussions with Muslims in N England and I can tell you, there is no room for compromise with Islam. Yes there are nice moderates, but they never run the show, it appears.
Muslims have full rights in "Christian" countries but what rights do Christians have in Muslim states?
That appears to be the true nature of what we are dealing with, sadly.
PB
Pb I'm not going to reply to your postings here, since I'm limited all responses in future to those who engage coherently in intelligent discussion about these issues. That may sound insulting; but your comments on a variety of issues in previous threats are infuriatingly thoughtless and utterly bizarre, so for the sake of my own mental health I won't be replying again to you.
dave
Well David, is the following coherent?
"I'm limited all responses in future to those who engage coherently"
Possibly more coherence would be achieved if you used the word "I've" instead of "I'm" Probably better would be "I will limit......"
By the way, I thought PB was quite coherent. You might not agree with him but try not to impugn his linguistic abilities.
As for the Jewish state created after World War II. It was on land already populated by Palestinian Arabs, not an
empty desert. It would not have been created but for the Nazi persecution of European Jewry. The unfortunate Palestinians and Lebanese are paying the price for European and American guilt.
The home-grown terrorists are alienated and angry people who are confused about who they are and where they belong. If it wasn't their perception of 'victimised Islam' fuelling their alienation and anger, they would find something else to give them an excuse to lash out.
Ian, you might want to read what Pb has written about everything from slavery in the Bible to his generalisations about Muslims before your dismiss David Oxford's concerns. Life is short: better to debate with people who are prepared to limit their arguments to those that follow the rules of logic.
Great article.
Milksop- Love the screen-name. ;-)
Dave
By the way, I was thinking all day that I should have written this as the introduction to my post 11.
"David, your post 5 is a conspicously balanced and comprehenisve summary of all the issues in this discussion which I have not seen anywhere else up until this point. However on the issue of the injustices in the Palestinian terrorities...."
Also, Milksop, I should further emphasise the qualification in my post 12; I said in the last line this "APPEARS" to be what we are dealing with, ref Islam.
I would suggest it is a moral failure and intellectual cop-out to malign my observations/opinions without taking the trouble to engage with or challenge them. How lazy, or is it fear?
These are only my opinions/
observations and I am not here to impose them on anyone, but as my previous postings explicitly say, to learn from you guys and your alternative views. That is 100% my track record.
And if you notice on the earlier posting "Lot's Sin" the highly intelligent Stephen D, who very kindly took the trouble to travel with me through my observations (though at times angry with me) later commended my integrity and thoughfulness (I also hereby sincerely commend him in both regards too).
Sincerely
PB
PS Ian Mac: high five! ;-)
Ian Mac, post 14
FYI, I don't believe Israel can do or has done no wrong in the middle east (thought the standards applied to its behaviour are rarely applied to its enemies).
You say Israel was not formed on desert "but land already populated by Palestinian Arabs".
I realise almost everything you can read on this now is likely heavily influenced by revisionism, one way or another.
However the 1911 edition of Encyclopaedia Brinttanica (Palestine) was written long before 1948 and must have some validity.
It says;
1) Arabs made up 2/3 of the population in the area and Christians and Jews the other 1/3. 50 different languages were spoken by Jerusalem residents.
2) There was no actual territory/state/border for Palestine at that time but the approx area was considered part of Syria.
3)There had been an "extraordinary development of Jewish colonisation" since 1870 which affected "a revolution in population in some parts of the country, notably Jerusalem" with Jewish colonies in "Palestine" reviving "numerous" vineyards and the wine industry.
These entries suggest not only Arabs but also Jews were present in the land before 1948 and that it might not be 100% strictly accurate to define the Arabs as "Palestinian". It appears they would first have been Syrian and secondly Palestinian, in a general sense, as "Palestine" appears not to have been a concrete entity at that time.
Interested in your thoughts Ian Mac - and to know more about reliable sources on this!
Sincerely
PB
Dear Milksop (screen name for who??)
ref my "generalisations" about Muslims, in post 12, I have picked out a few of my phrases you seem to have missed;
"Might be..."
"It seems to me..."
"Yes there are nice moderates..."
"Appears to be..."
Those are clear rejections of my certainty and invitations to submit a better analysys than mine, fyi.
If I am so unintelligent and illogical then my betters here should be able to refute everything I have said in 60 secs flat.
However, if they are afraid to even entertain the possibility that their worldviews just might need some corrections, then that would explain their refusal to address head-on any points that concern them.
In these scenarios I suspect the culprits revert to smears simply to cover their own shortcomings...maybe!
PB
PB, for the love of God.
Ssssshhhhhh!
John Wright
My sincere intention is not to be rude, but if I said "put up or shut up" would you catch my drift better?
;-)
Sincerely
PB
Whoa there PB, In Lot's Sin I accepted that you are genuine, open and honest but I also said that I thought you were prone to using faulty logic, inconsistent methods and making invalid assumptions. You can be genuine and misguided at the same time.
Does anyone here posting all these posts about Palestiians know any Palestinians in real life? Have you met a Palestinian? Have you been to Palestine.Or is all your knowledge from books written by westerners?
I think we in the west tend to be a little over opinionated about the reality on the ground in the Arab regions.
It's OK to be an Arab...It is OK to not be American or Western...It is OK to not agree with our "warped" concept of democracy which seems to forget the freedoms and liberties of the underdogs in our own societies..It is OK as Westerners to say "We do not understand the Other...
When are we Westerners going to learn that the Arab World and peoples have a right to exist according to their own way of existance...'those who have houses made of glass should not throw stones'.Who said that the Western ways were better?..Wait..of course it must be we Westerners who made that judgement.
I am presently posted in the Lebanon...have been for a while..believe me when i tell you one westerner to another...i have often jumped out of my seat becasue of Israeli air activity in Lebanese air space at low altitudes which leave buildings shaking.I know its hard for us to believe, but Israel does a pretty good job of justifing the need for a resistance organisation in Lebanon. Dont get me wrong...i am not pro-either side...but i think it would really give credit to our Western Principles if we could just try to be a little bit more objective in our analysis.
Stephen D, as usual, you make a fair point.
But my real point was that Dave said my postings under Lot's sin were "infuriating thoughtless and utterly bizarre" which I will leave you to comment on if you wish.
Incidentally, I have added another posting for you in Lot's Sin.
PB
The Other
All fair points you make. I have known an Arab Israeli and a Jewish Israeli fairly well. And I have known 3-4 British Muslims quite well too.
And you?
PB
PS The Other
Am I correct in saying that Israel is the only middle eastern country in which you can be safely openly gay and how does this impact your view of Arab culture?
Peter Tatchell has lambasted the Palestinian intolerance of homosexuality and regular executions of gays while supporting Global World Gay Pride Day in Jerusalem...
PB
I want to take advantage to talk about the US Conglomerate CBS is doing a new version of their Reality TV Station "Survivors: Cook Island".
This new version wants to segregate contestants on the basis of race, and ethnicity.
This will inflame racial and ethnic tensions in America and I cannot remain silent. The USA has not learned from the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, and Bosnia.
According to Simon Wisenthal, "in order to avoid genocide, the root of its etiology must be identified and erradicated."