At first glance, Thursday’s lunch-hour explosions in London looked designed more to alarm than to kill and destroy, as if terrorists were trying to tell Londoners their increased vigilance is futile. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, “They’re done to scare people, to frighten them and make them worried.” Still, it seems as if the West had better get used to this new tactic. And the hope that such smaller-scale terrorists won’t similarly target American cities is seeming more hollow all the time. Will all those new homeland security dollars protect us?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Politico on Too many exemptions
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
32 Comments
Just think where we could be today had President Bush, instead of tax cuts, chosen to beef up American infrastructure the same way we’ve built up and lost and built up and lost and tried again to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure.
By now we could have had buried power/optic lines all across the country; rational and effective barriers to illegal immigration installed from San Diego to Brownsville and from San Juan Island, Washington, to Wherever, Maine; port and harbor infrastructure modified to minimize the impact of nuclear terrorism, etc. And done by hiring American contractors only who in turn would have been required to hire American citizens only.
After all, standard, boilerplate fiscal policy says that, in times of recession, tax incomes should be less than transfers (spending). You can create a deficit by decreasing tax rates only, by increasing spending only, or a combination of both. My plan is the second, Bush chose the third.
My plan would have stimulated the economy, created jobs, made America safer, and united the country. Bush’s stimulated the economy, depressed wage levels for non-CEO’s, made part of his base better off financially, and (together with the war in Iraq) bitterly divided the country.
Of course there is no perfect solution to terrorism prevention, but had we begun this program on about 9/12/01 I’d certainly feel more comfortable on 7/21/05.
The British have a long history of dealing with terrorism. I notice that when they got hit, their economy didn’t collapse, and they didn’t let their government stampede them into giving up their rights. I wonder what will happen here when we get hit next time? I can see Patriot Act 3 coming.
D A Rider,
Did you also notice that the buildings housing our main financial institutions were hit and 3,000 killled?
Comparing the two is a bit far fetched the way you do.
The British people opposed the war in Iraq, but Blair went in anyway.
They know that when the British pull out, the bombings will stop.
Islamic militants attacked Russia when it invaded Afghanistan. When it pulled out, they left it alone.
It’s as simple as that, but Bush/Blair insist that we’re fighting to preserve western civilization.
Heh, yeah, right . . .
Being targeted by terrorists is part of the price we pay for being, well, Americans. What’s the alternative….become French? No thanks.
Being targeted by terrorists is just part of being “infidels”. Even if we pulled out, we are still “infidels”.
Being targets is the price we pay for occupying other countries militarly.
We sent troops to Saudi Arabia in 1991, and Al Qaeda attacks started and continued from that point.
They never attacked us before and we were just as “free” and just as “infidel” as we were after 1991.
The most exhaustive and definitive has just come out by author, David Pape, “Dying to Win–The Strategic Logic of Suicide Bombing”
Here’s Pape’s bottom line: the primary motivation to commit terror attack is not from religious belief but “to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland.”
This explains the Chechyns, the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the old Irish Republican Army, the Algerians against the French etc. etc.
The myth that “they hate us for our freedoms” is a self-righteous justification to do nothing about considering the real cause of terrorism against us.
Nathan, thank you for your kind and courteous reply to my post. Like everyone else on these pages, I’m so thankful to have you to guide all of our footsteps onto the paths of rightousness as defined by you, who consider yourself the chosen of God.I just can’t imagine where we’d be if we didn’t have you to set such a shining example of how we should live, think, and act. I think we should all be thankful that you have given us the benefit of your obviously superior intellect and wisdom. Your selfless pride and high-minded leadership are a model of what we all should strive for, so that we too, may be as perfect as you.
People, can I get an AMEN?!?!?
Ah heck – let’s talk about something exciting – like today’s front page picture of people in front of an adult bookstore. From the looks of em, they probably never had or never will have had sex :)
I wonder if we wouldn’t be better off investing our money in securing America rather than fighting in Iraq? Some say we’re fighting the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them here. I’ll bet the British thought that, too. It doesn’t seem to have worked that way. I wish we could find the funds to do something about securing our ports, transportation systems, and southern borders. Seems like homeland security should be at least as important as foriegn wars and tax cuts.
My biggest worry, Malcolm, is that it’s too late to do all of that and do it in a fiscally responsible manner.
I think that President Bush missed the best, most recent opportunity to do it up right. What I mean is that Bush missed a chance to kill two birds – recession and improved national security – with one stone, deficit spending (2001).
I also think that President Bush can’t do what’s needed because what’s needed – your list, and mine as well – is not what his base wants out of political domination.
And that is not to say they want the US to be harmed badly (or at all). What I mean is that his base wants tax cuts no matter what, a federal government that will only just pass constitutional muster (with a just barely non-established state religion), and a guaranteed shot at the financial rewards involved in solving security needs in the pursuit of American foreign policy. Any improvement in our national security must benefit these goals, or President Bush feels he’s not being “loyal to them what brung him.”
In other words, they simply can’t get us there from where their power is.
Here at the end of my five years of Bush watching, I think the Bush administration is more effective at ensuring the long-term exercise of raw domestic political power than with ensuring long-term national security.
If I’m correct then President Bush and his administration are myopic, and that’s the best I can say for them.
I also strongly suspect that certain constituents of President Bush, very influential constituents, are far more concerned with his presidential legacy than President Clinton ever was.
But flike, if we don’t do these things and more, wouldn’t it follow that at some point, it’s going to happen again? And wouldn’t it also follow that those who wasted our resources and didn’t do what is basic to secure our safety would have to answer to the American people? I would think that the safety of the country would trancend political affiliation. Republicans bleed just as red in a terrorist attack as Democrats.I think I heard that we spend 18 billion a year on air transportation, but just over 200 million on public transportation (subways, trains, buses). And that doesn’t even begin to address the interstate highway system. Consider for a moment what is being transported on our highways.I think you may have a point about it being too late. Between federal and trade deficits, I don’t know where the money would come from. I understand the idea that tax cuts might stimulate the economy, but I wonder if it’s worth the risk of missing another attack? From the standpoint of cost effectiveness, It just doesn’t make sense to give tax breaks to a few while our security languishes. And I just don’t see how the war in Iraq is serving any purpose. I know we’re stuck there now, but it sure doesn’t seem to be gaining us anything. I hope we don’t find out in the near future that we made a terrible mistake. Wouldn’t our resources have been better used tracking down bin Laden and Co?
You really think Halliburton cares about Bush’s legacy ?
Thank you for your kind words DA Rider.
I think you are exagerating a bit, but thank you for the effort.
God Bless
Another nail in the coffin of multiculturalism!
Go away Ian, I thought you were dead.
We sent troops to Saudi Arabia in 1991 because the Saudi’s ask us to send them. It was all about oil, and always has been (at least to us).Islamic radical fundamentalists (terrorists) do not represent the Muslim population of any country.We were occupying no Muslim country when Al Qaeda attacked the United States.Terrorists represent no religion, and are nothing more than murderers.Invading Afghanistan was wrong. Surgical strikes would have been more effective, and resulted in less loss of lives, and less condemnation on the world stage.Invading Iraq was wrong. The reasoning was a joke that is still killing people, ours and theirs. There are despots and dictators everywhere. Do we go after all of them?Most Americans still don’t, and probably don’t want to, understand the Muslim religion, or its followers.London dealt with WW2 bombings on a daily basis. They are infinitely more prepared to deal with terrorism than we are. Comparing the response of the two countries to the bombings is like comparing apples to rocks.Bush’s idea of security is in dropping the Bill of Rights and the Constitution; not my idea of security. Protect our borders and deliver our mail. Guess what? The price he wants is too high.
The bottom line and ugly truth is that the evil leftist ideology and notion of multiculturalism must be smashed before the war on terror can even be fought let alone won! Muslims and blacks are maorally, intellectually and cultrurally INCAPABLE of contibuting to Western Christian Civilisation.
Assimilation is immposible, the only answer is repatriation, with as much force as is necessary!
I don’t believe in abortion, Ian, but in your mother’s case, I would have made an exception. You’re about as Christian as Fred Phelps, and I’m pretty sure you’ll consider that a compliment.
Damoon, I think, at least I hope he’s spoofing. I’d hate to think there’s anyone around here that thinks that way. Well, there’s Fred Phelps, et al, and oh yeah, that Reverend Fox guy. And then there’s….uh, Damoon, forget I said anything.
Dag
I am a real Christian, I am SSPX Catholic to the core! I am not one of those kosher, masonic, mainstream idot catholics who pay lip service to race-mixing, “gay” marriage, abortion, and vote for evil leftists such as Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry!
In fact jewish influence and White leftism are akin to hiv-aids to Western Christian Civilisation! Its is muslims, blacks,wetbacks etc; they are merely the opprtunistic infections so to speak!
Read about their handywork below:
Terror on the doleBy David Cohen, Evening Standard20 April 2004Four young British Muslims in their twenties – a social worker, an IT specialist, a security guard and a financial adviser – occupy a table at a fast-food chicken restaurant in Luton. Perched on their plastic chairs, wolfing down their dinner, they seem just ordinary young men. Yet out of their mouths pour heated words of revolution.
“As far as I’m concerned, when they bomb London, the bigger the better,” says Abdul Haq, the social worker. “I know it’s going to happen because Sheikh bin Laden said so. Like Bali, like Turkey, like Madrid – I pray for it, I look forward to the day.”
“Pass the brown sauce, brother,” says Abu Malaahim, the IT specialist, devouring his chicken and chips.
“I agree with you, brother,” says Abu Yusuf, the earnest-looking financial adviser sitting opposite. “I would like to see the Mujahideen coming into London and killing thousands, whether with nuclear weapons or germ warfare. And if they need a safehouse, they can stay in mine – and if they need some fertiliser [for a bomb], I’ll tell them where to get it.”
His friend, Abu Musa, the security guard, smiles radiantly. “It will be a day of joy for me,” he adds, speaking with a slight lisp.
As they talk, a man with a bushy beard, dressed in a jacket emblazoned with the word “Jihad”, stands and watches over them, handing around cups of steaming hot coffee. His real name is Ishtiaq Alamgir, but he goes by his adopted name, Sayful Islam, meaning “Sword of Islam”. He is the 24-year-old leader of the Luton branch of al-Muhajiroun, an extremist Muslim group with about 800 members countrywide, who regard Osama bin Laden as their hero.
Until recently, nobody took the fanatical beliefs of al-Muhajiroun too seriously, believing that a British-based group so brazenly “out there” could not be involved in something as “underground” as terrorism. The group is led by the exiled Saudi, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad, from his base in north London. Yesterday, in a magazine article, Bakri warned that several radical groups are poised to strike in London.
For all its inflammatory rhetoric, al-Muhajiroun has never been linked to actual violence. Yet, with the discovery last month of half-a-tonne of ammonium nitrate fertiliser – the same explosive ingredient used in the Bali and Turkey terror attacks – and with the arrest of eight young British Muslims in London and the South-East, including six in Luton, extremist groups such as al-Muhajiroun are under the spotlight like never before.
Detectives fear that the “enemy within”, the homegrown extremists leading apparently normal lives in suburbia, now pose the greatest threat to security in Britain. Sayful and his friends fit this “homegrown” profile: three were born here, two came as young children from Pakistan; all were educated in local Luton schools; and they grew up in families of full employment – one of their fathers is a retired local businessman, two are engineers, and two worked in the local Vauxhall car plant.
The question is: how worried should we be? Is al-Muhajiroun nothing more than a repository for disaffected Muslim youths who have adopted an extreme interpretation of Islam – perhaps to cock a snook at the white establishment – but who are essentially posturing? Or does the group also perform a more sinister function, sucking in alienated young men and brainwashing the more impressionable into becoming future suicide bombers?
Although none of the arrested Muslims – aged 17 to 32 – appear to be current al-Muhajiroun members, rumours have circulated of informal links to the group. Moreover, parents of the arrested men have spoken anxiously of the “radicalising influence” of al-Muhajiroun militants who ” corrupt” their children at mosques.
Nowhere has this public confrontation between radicals and moderates been more apparent than in Luton, which has the highest density of Muslims in the South-East – 28,000 out of a total population of 140,000 – and has long been regarded as a hotbed of extremism.
Sayful Islam, for one, is particularly proud of his contribution to Luton’s hardline reputation. His exploits include covering the town with ” Magnificent 19″ posters glorifying the 11 September suicide bombers. “When I joined al-Muhajiroun four years ago, there were five local members,” he says. “Now there are more than 50 and hundreds more support us.”
The strange thing is that four years ago, Sayful Islam was a jeans-clad student completing his degree in business economics at Middlesex University in Hendon, north London.
The son of a British Rail engineer who came to this country from Pakistan, Sayful grew up in a moderate, middle-class Muslim family in Luton. At the local Denbigh High School, he is remembered as one of the smartest kids, and was selected to attend a science masterclass at Cambridge University. He would go on to marry, have two children and find work as an accountant for the Inland Revenue in Luton. He was thoroughly uninterested in politics.
THEN he met Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad at a local event. Within two years, he had swapped his decently paid job as an accountant for an unpaid one as a political agitator. What turned him into an extremist? And how far is he prepared to go to achieve his aims?
Prior to seeing the group at the fastfood restaurant, Sayful meets me at his semi-detached rented home in Bury Park, Luton’s Muslim neighbourhood. He no longer works, even though he is able-bodied, he admits, preferring instead to claim housing benefit and jobseeker’s allowance. He smiles sheepishly and says the irony is not lost on him that the British state is supporting him financially, even as he plots to “overthrow it”.
“I made a decision that I wanted to follow what Islam really said,” Sayful begins, sitting on his sofa in his thowb (a traditional robe) and bare feet. “I went to listen to all the local imams, but I found their portrayal of Islam was too secularised. When I heard Sheikh Omar [the leader] of al-Muhajiroun speak, it was pure Islam, with no compromise. I found that appealing.
“At the same time,” continues Sayful, “wars were happening in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Afghanistan. People were being oppressed simply because they were Muslim. Although I had never experienced racism in the UK, it opened the eyes of a lot of Muslims, including mine.”
But it was the events of 11 September that crystallised Sayful’s worldview. “When I watched those planes go into the Twin Towers, I felt elated,” he says. “That magnificent action split the world into two camps: you were either with Islam and al Qaeda, or with the enemy. I decided to quit my job and commit myself full-time to al-Muhajiroun.” Now he does not consider himself British. “I am a Muslim living in Britain, and I give my allegiance only to Allah.”
According to Sayful, the aim of al-Muhajiroun (”the immigrants”) is nothing less than Khilafah – “the worldwide domination of Islam”. The way to achieve this, he says, is by Jihad, led by Bin Laden. “I support him 100 per cent.”
Does that support extend to violent acts of terrorism in the UK?
“Yes,” he replies, unequivocally. “When a bomb attack happens here, I won’t be against it, even if it kills my own children. Islam is clear: Muslims living in lands that are occupied have the right to attack their invaders.
“Britain became a legitimate target when it sent troops to Iraq. But it is against Islam for me to engage personally in acts of terrorism in the UK because I live here. According to Islam, I have a covenant of security with the UK, as long as they allow us Muslims to live here in peace.”
HE USES the phrase “covenant of security” constantly. He attempts to explain. “If we want to engage in terrorism, we would have to leave the country,” he says. “It is against Islam to do otherwise.” Such a course of action, he says, he is not prepared to undertake. This is why, Sayful claims, it is consistent, and not cowardly, for him to espouse the rhetoric of terrorism, the “martyrdom-operations”, while simultaneouslylimiting himself to nonviolentactions such as leafletting outside Luton town hall.
He denies any link between al-Muhajiroun and the Muslims arrested in the recent police raids. But, as I later discover at the fastfood restaurant, not everyone attaching themselves, however loosely, to al-Muhajiroun draws the same line. Two members of the group – Abu Yusuf, the financial adviser, and Abu Musa, the security guard – scorn al-Muhajiroun as “too moderate”.
“I am freelance,” says Abu Yusuf, fixing me with his piercing brown eyes. What does that mean? I ask.
“The difference between us and those two,” interjects Abu Malaahim, pointing to Musa and Yusuf, “is that us lot do a verbal thing, [but] those brothers actually want to do a physical thing.”
Referring to the latest truce offered by Bin Laden, and Britain’s scathing rejection of it, Abu Malaahim adds: “He tried to make a peace deal. When terrorism happens, you will only have yourselves to blame.”
How far are you prepared to go? I ask.
“You want to know how far I will go,” says Abu Musa, his high-pitched lisp rising an octave. “When Allah said in the Koran ‘kill and be killed’, that’s what I want. I want a martyr operation, where I kill my enemy.”
Are you saying, I probe, that you are looking to kill people yourself ? “Yes,” Abu Musa says, “to kill and to be killed.” He emphasises each word.
What’s stopped you doing it? “As you know from watching the news,” intones Abu Yusuf, “there are brothers who do leave the country and do it.” He is referring to the four Muslims from Luton who died fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the two British Muslims, said to have had ties to al-Muhajiroun, who last April left to become suicide bombers in Israel. “In-shallah [ Godwilling], there will be a time to go.”
It is hard to know whether Musa and Yusuf are deadly serious or just pumped full of misguided, youthful bravado. Though I see coldness – even ruthlessness – in their eyes, I sense no malice. Both young men agree, perhaps foolishly, to be quoted using their real names, though they decline photographs – thus illustrating their uncertainty of which way to jump.
Muhammad Sulaiman, president of the Islamic Cultural Society, the largest of the 14 mosques in Luton, dismisses al-Muhajiroun as “verbal diarrhoea”.
“They are an extreme Right-wing group – the Muslim version of the BNP,” he says disdainfully. “They think Muslims should dominate, just like the BNP thinks whites should dominate. They use Islam as a vehicle to promote their distorted beliefs, particularly to unemployed young bloods who are vulnerable.”
ALTHOUGH unemployment in Luton is just six per cent, the rate among Muslim youths is estimated at 25 per cent. “They are no more representative of our Muslim community than the BNP are of the white community.”
Sulaiman insists that Sayful Islam and his crew are not welcome at the mosque. He cannot prevent them praying there, but he will never give them a platform. “I’ve told Sayful to bugger off and ejected him many times,” he says brusquely. “Even Sayful’s father, who I know well, thinks his son has been brainwashed.”
But Sayful and his friends laugh at the idea that they are local pariahs. “The mosques say one thing to the public, and something else to us. Let’s just say that the face you see and the face we see are two different faces,” says Abdul Haq. “Believe me,” adds Musa, “behind closed doors, there are no moderate Muslims.”
They also mock the idea that they are attracted to al-Muhajiroun because they have suffered alienation from white society. “Do we look like scum?” they ask. “Do we look illiterate?”
As they call for the bill, Abu Malaahim flicks open his 3G mobile phone and, with a satisfied grin, displays the image, downloaded from the internet, of an American Humvee burning in Iraq.
Abu Yusuf says: “That’s nothing. I downloaded the picture of the four burnt Americans hanging from the bridge.” It’s oneupmanship, al-Muhajiroun style.
Sayful, the only married one in the group, prepares to go home to his wife and children. Before he departs, he says he has a message to deliver.
“I want to warn that the police raids – if repeated – could create a bad situation.
“Islam is not like Christianity, where they turn the other cheek. If they raid our homes, it could lead to the covenant of security being broken.
“Islam allows us to retaliate. That would include” – he tugs his “Jihad” coat tight against the night air – “by violent means.”
Top of page©2005 Associated New Media | Terms | Privacy policy
Ian, since you don’t know who or what you’re talking about, Please leave the Masons out of your idotic rambling.
David “Cohen” has a lot to say. “Terrorism the Farce” is in big trouble, so expect more of the same. { ©2005 Associated New Media | Terms | Privacy policy } is suppose to sound like the Associated Press, but, you see, not even close………What will “they” think of next? Reuters.stienberg?
Iran is a theocracy which holds elections for a president. The Jews gripe that is not a democracy. Israel is a Jewish State which elects a new chief Butcher every now and then, but they insist that they are a democracy, not a theocracy. If a Jew Citizen marries a non-Jew, his spouse can not be a voting citizen or citizen period. Our Idiot President wants to spread “democracy, so why not start with the “Butchers.” They’re not an Ally or a Democracy. He’s got his work cut-out for himself, so maybe nuking them would be a good place to start. First nail their stash of Nukes then go after the theocracy. Sounds like a good way to rid the world of “terrorism,” destroy some nukes and save a bunch of money all at the same time. Win, win, win.
Bush can ride the “nuke” waving his cowboy hat all the way down to Tel Aviv, screaming woooopeeee. {two birds with one of them there “super daisey-cutters.” } Hey….this is the way we spread democracy, isn’t it?
Jeebus, Ed. That was good…spread democracy. How thin do you suppose we could spread Bush?
It is so simple.
If you kill Arabs, then they will kill you back.
And they will hunt you down, all the way home to kill you.
So, if you don’t want to get killed, then stop killing them.
If you are a Jew, you can call being killed terrorism.
If you are a neocon you can call being killed Jihad.
If you are a crackpot Christian you can call being killed Muslim extremism.
If you are a crackpot evangelical you can call being killed Islamic extremism.
If you are stupid and watch Zionist TV you can call being killed The War on Terrorism.
If you really want to piss them off, then they will kill you by cutting off your head.
If you really really want to piss them off, then your family will have a hard time finding all of your pieces after they kill you by blowing you up.
Best advice: Do not kill Arabs.
Not killing Arabs will stop the Jews deal about terrorism and cost them money.
End Transmission.
Don’t kill Arabs because they may kill you back? Ed, sometimes you have a talent for getting right to the heart of things.
We get so aggitated when some poor guy gets his head cut off, but in the Middle-East, that’s a perfectly acceptable means of dealing with your enemies. If we don’t want people getting their heads cut off or blown up; if we don’t want them coming over here to kill us, maybe we should stop supporting people and policies that kill Arabs.
Amen, Hammer!!!
Thank you kindly, Mam.
Hammer: “Jeebus, Ed. That was good…spread democracy. How thin do you suppose we could spread Bush?”
How thin hammer? So thin Bush will only have one side.
And that would be his “bad side”?
hahahahaha!