Terrorism in London

The worldwide islamist movement controls nation states, Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia (kind of) and one other I forget, and did control Afghanistan. It has powerful 5th columns in other nation states. Not long ago, an islamist 5th columnist in Pakistan, Khan, had control over that nation's nuclear bomb button, and was disseminating nuclear tech to enemies of democracy, like N. Korea, Iran and Libya. Without the support of nation states, bin Laden and al Qaeda would never have been anything worth noting. And they are only one of mnay such Islamist terrorist groups.The Islamists, who very arguably are following the Koran's War Verses to the letter, want to see, first, all islamic nations under their control and ruled according to Sharia Law. Then, they want the same for all other nations. That is why they are actively committing terror and war in a great many nations around the globe, and is why they committed a genocide against Sudanese Christians and now Black Sudanese Muslims, who practise a much more benign form of the Islam. The Islamists hate democracy, and say so flat out, because it is rule of man by man, rather than rule of man by Allah according to Islamic Law (Sharia). They know that it is a competing ideology they cannot defeat, if it is a matter of hearts and minds. We saw that in iraq when they tried to prevent the election from taking place, and now through sustained terror try to undermine its rise.What motivated 9/11 was that the US was in the Islamists' way with respect to their plans to take over islamic nations. They thought they could scare the US out of the Middle East so they'd be freer to march on, as they had been.Iraq is about many things, like, certainly, "preemptive action." That is, as the EU was undermining sanctions against Hussein (because of their secret oil for food and other such scandalous business deals), soon he would have been shorn of them, and able to reaquire nuclear technology, then the bomb. Although he was not an islamist himself, he did have a "the friend of my enemy is my friend" arrangement with them. Sooner or later he would have used the bomb to invade other Arab natuions, and, very possibly, to hand off to Al Qaeda or such islamkst group. the war was also about injecting democracy into the ME as to offer Arabs and others, like Persians, an alternative to military dictatorship and Islamism.For all of the above, Blair was right to support the US in a war to protect democracy. Every free citizen in the world had and has something significant at stake.As i said before, the islamkists are active everywhere in the world, and after gaining control of the Arab and Islamic world - and they were on the way towards achieving that goal - they would have come after us. Being nihilist by nature, and believing that death in teh service of islam assures entry to heaven, they would have used atomic bombs. If you doubt that, consider their suicide bomber cult. Consider the incredible brashness of attacking the US, when it is so much more powerful than they.What happened yesterday was a tragedy. But in the bigger scheme of thngs, the war against islamist (not islamic) terror is akin to having taken on Hitler in the early and mid 30's, before he became too powerful. As you all know, Churchill warned what Hitler was up to, and was laughed off. This time, a few people in power, Bush, Blair, Howard, and a handful of others, were up to the foresight and challenge.If you doubt thatt eh war in iraq is about this, or succeeding, consider the following that has occurred as a result of it:* Much of the Islamist movement has moved its resources there to fight
the US. That means it is far easier to defeat them in this
concentrated area. What's more, we have to ask why they have done
that? The answerr is simple: Democracy is their greatest enemy. An
Iraqi democracy, right in the heart of the Islamic heartland, would
mean their doom. No, it won't be instantaneous. They'll continue to
live on, for a while. But they will have suffered a total ideological
loss. Their military loss will follow (although the nature of the War
Verses and Sharia Law means that a residual Islamist movement will
survive for many years attempting to destroy Islamic democracy,
failingly.)You may argue that the war has been a great recruitment campaign for
them. That is no less wrong than arguing that taking on the Nazis only
recruited more Nazis and fascists worldwide to the cause. The bottom
line is that the winning side recruits the most;the losers the least.
By making the Islamists into the losers, we weaken, then destroy,
their recruitment.* There have been no terrorist attacks on the US, in part because the
Islamists have concentrated their resources in Iraq.*Libya renounces nuclear weapons* Syria leaves Lebanon, which then has elections.* Pakistan closes over 1,000 madrassahs, and gets the islamist Khan
away from the nuclear weapons button. he no longer sends nuclear tech
to iran, North Korea, Libya and to other enemies of democracy.* Iraq has had elections, is forming concensual government, and is a
beacon for democratically minded Muslims everywhere.* Arab intellectuals are no longer afraid to talk about democracy.* Some Arab nations have liberalized and others appear ready to follow.Put all that together, and you the seeds of a revolution that will
defeat islamism.

I believe my post largely answers your points. But i'll reiterate some here in response.No, Iraq was not an islamist state. But hussein was, as i said, playing the enemy of my enemy is my friend game. he was involved in much terror. But that is less important than that America had to show the Arab and islamic world that it would no longer support tryannies, and that, instead, it would offer democracy. There were many reasons justifying Hussein's removal, which made his nation a good entry point for democracy.Hussein, though, was not supported by western powers because he kept the islamists in check - at least, not after the war with iran ended. Rather, the US and britian opposed him. germany, france and Russia supported him because of the truly wicked and utterly cynical oil and and huge business deals arrnaged and pre-arranged for when sanctions failed - due to these same nations undermining them in collusion with hussein.Kahn was still dessiminating nuclear tech. One reason Libya renounced its nuclear weapons program after he was removed, was that it could no longer work with him anyhow. Regardless of that, obviously it is more than important that an islamist was removed from pakistan's nuclear button.You say I justify Hussein's removal based on what he might do. That's partially true. But it's based on what he has done: Invade other nations; gas thousands of his own people; run rape rooms and human grinders, etc. It's obvious what a power-hungry, meglomaniac psychopath will do whenh empowered, especially when he already has exactly that track record.Yes. we drew islamists to iraq as a result of the war. That is good, as it concentrates them in a tighter region where they are easier to defeat.

Yes, i did mean the UN. However, given that prominent members of the EU, France and Germany, were doing likewise, and france was the main reason the UN did, it almost amounts to the same thing.

Arab intellectuals don't have a long history of speaking out against their governments because, first, many have supported their governments, and, second, those who did not had a long histiry of being imprisoned or murdered for speaking out. That is what is changing. Amir tehari, the iranian muslim intellectual and prolific writer has written about this in many columns.(And Daniel pipes is very creditable, which is why prominet Muslim democrats work very closely with him, and express admiration of his work.)

What the US is doing in Afghhanistan is wondeful, but insufficient. That is why iraq was necessary. Bear in mind that iraq is at the very heart of Arabia. What happens there is far more meaningful to Arabs than what happens in Afghanistan.Why not invade Pakistan? First, because it is a nation of hundreds of millions and is a nuclear power. Second, because its government is amenable to a fair degree of cooperation with the US, and is, aside from the 5th columnists within, opposed to islamism. President musharraf has closed over 1,000 madrassahs and has separated Islamists from power. The best example is his removing Khan from the nuclear button, and in so doing also stopped him from continuing to disseminate nuclear tech to democracy's enemies. No, it's not perfect. The Islamists there are influential still and dangerous. But progress is happening. Of course, that is why the islamists have made several attempts to assassinate Musharraf.You ask: "Why would it make sense at all to attack Iraq whose only criteria would be that it was a dictatorship?" Because Huseein gave many reasons to justify an invasion aside from being a brutal dictatorship, including that the US and britian would have had to maintain a permament, very expensive, no fly zone over the Kurdish region so that hussein wouldn't begin a genocide against the Kurds; because a Hussein shorn of sanctions was certain to regain atomic technology and this time complete his efforts at acquiring the bomb; because he would have invaded other oil producing nations again once he had the bomb, creating tremendous instability; because he was cooperating with islamists; because he would have passed some kind of suitcase bomb or worse onto the Islamists; and so on. Then there's that democracy needed to be brought to the ME as an alternative to military dictatorship and islamism, and iraq was the most logical place to start.You doubt that germany, France and Russia were key players in the oil for food scandfal. Have you read Volker's report? Have you not seen that the UN has had no choice but to acknowledge that? No, not completely, but largely. This is simply fact, ugly as it is, and it explains why france and Russia refused to allow a vote in favour of the war. You should also consider that france has forged close ties to the Arab world for several reasons, one of which is to increase its geopolitical power vis a vis the US. How incredibly cynical: france for purely egotistical and short term interests allies itself with enemies of democracy.As for Khan...yes, I'l like to see him face greater consequences. But he did not get off scott free: That he was removed from the button and can no longer disseminate nuclear tech is a very, very big deal. Musharraf is limited in what he can do as he works very carefully to separate the islamists from 5th column power positions. As I said, they're trying to kill him. Because they are everywhere in pakastani society, this is no simple or safe task. (Islamism is a huge global movement that permeates islamic societies everywhere, even in the US.)The US did not help Hussein gas anyone; it was the germans that supplied the gas. Nor does the US condone wrong done in egypt and Saudi Arabia. Bush has radically changed US foreign policy. He has said many times, and Rice reiterated this In Egypt no less 2 weeks ago, that the age of the US supporting tyrannies for stability are passed. Rather, democracy is what the US demands. That created quite a stir in Egypt. And the US is applying pressure on both the egyptians and saudis. However, the US does not want to fight an all out war against all the Islamic world. It must choose its targets carefully, and accomplish as much as possible through diplomacy and pressure.I was not suggesting the US deliberately drew the Islamists to iraq. But that is what happened as they realized that an iraqi democracy would be the beginning of their end. However, that has proved strategically helpful. No, that does not stop them from committing attacks elsewhere. but it sure makes it harder and limits their options.binLaden once said that people are attracted to a "Strong horse." he meant that 9/11 proved his strength adn that of islamism, and, therefore, that would make that movement a greater draw for Muslims. he was right. But he was wrong about the US. he thought it would lose its will and withdraw. Instead, the paper tiger proved to be far more than that.

of course they are not anywhere yet totally defeated. But they are less able to carry out attacks because of many reasons: One is that so much of their money and many of their soldiers are in iraq. Another is that their funding is weaker than it was. Were it not for Iraq, we'd be seeing far more terror from them.I also believe they are afraid of attacking the US. They saw what happened after 9/11. They wonder what nation the US would attack next and convert to democracy if they commit more terror on US territory. In fact, I'd wager that most of the movement is furious with bin laden, because he exposed to the world their plans, and gave the US a chance to fight back long before they were ready. That is, had he not carried out 9/11, islamism would still have Afghanistan, the islamist 5th columnists would be more powerful (and Khan would still have his finger on pakastani bomb and be spreading the technology to islamic states), democracy would not have been introduced as a competing ideology in Afghan and Iraq, and they'd still be on the march. Instead they've been set back. Had they continued, they would have gradually seen islamic states fall to them. That would have created a nuclear armed, islamist empire, with an insane but totally convinced self-view as ordained by Allah to attack us all in an attempt to conquer, subjugate and convert to and rule all the world according Islam.

As you'd expect, i reject such conspiracies. the price of oil has shot to up to what?, three times its pre-war price? All the oil revenue goes to iraq. What control over the international oil market has the US taken from the war? None; absolutely none. the war was about 9/11. That's it.

They (france, germany and Russia) were all undermining sanctions because of their secret oil for food deals, and secret multi-billion dollar business deals set to go into effect after they destroyed UN sanctions against Hussein. That is why they opposed the US war on iraq. That is, a US victory would remove those deals. As it turns out, it was even worse than that: their deals were discovered by iraqis going through hussein's government's papers, and revealed to the world.In the early 70's france, and then germany, made a pact with the Arab world, the point of which being mutual empowerment. Both would gain geopolitical power vis a vis the US, especially the french and germans, who also got first in line for huge multi-billion dollar business deals with arab dictators. The Arabs got, in exchange, mass immigration to Europe (they knew that that would promote islam in the west, rather than democracy at home), Europe to side with them against israel, and European UN voted keeping the US in check.

If you consider france's behaviour, it makes sense. Here's an article on this by the historian Bat Ye'or:October 9, 2002, 9:15 a.m.
Eurabia
The road to Munich...By Bat Yeoreptember 11, 2001 was for millions worldwide a day of sorrow, pain, and profound sadness; a day of solemn solidarity, self-sacrifice, and prayer. For others it was a day of rejoicing, a revengeful exultation, a long-awaited triumphalism born from the death and suffering of thousands of innocent victims. They were saying: That'll teach them! America deserves it and must repent! And many were asking maliciously: Don't you have remorse for your wrongs? Why don't you ask yourself why you are hated? If we hate you, it can only be your own fault. Emerging from the ruin and distress which they had endured, Americans asked themselves: What have we done? We have been vilely attacked, yet we are accused. Why do they hate us?And that's the snare. For iniquity engulfs those who hate, who kill ” and not the hated victim. It is those who hate who are sick: sick from envy; sick from the frustration of having failed to achieve an absolute, pathological domination; sick from a schizophrenic lust for power. To heal these societies one must first diagnose the evil and not mask it under the excuse of "poverty" and "underdevelopment." Terrorism is not a consequence of poverty. Many societies are poor, yet they do not produce an organized criminality of terror. To subsidize societies which nourish ideologies of hate will not suppress terrorism, rather such pusillanimity will reinforce it.America should not choose European ways: the road back to Munich via appeasement, collaboration, and dhimmitude. For decades at the instigation of France, Europe backed Arafat ” the godfather of modern terrorism ” as the champion of liberty, and their hero.After the Yom Kippur War and the Arab oil blackmail in 1973, the then-European Community (EC) created a structure of Cooperation and Dialogue with the Arab League. The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) began as a French initiative composed of representatives from the EC and Arab League countries. From the outset the EAD was considered as a vast transaction: The EC agreed to support the Arab anti-Israeli policy in exchange for wide commercial agreements. The EAD had a supplementary function: the shifting of Europe into the Arab-Islamic sphere of influence, thus breaking the traditional trans-Atlantic solidarity. The EAD operated at the highest political level, with foreign ministers on both sides, and the presidents of the EC ” later the European Union (EU) ” with the secretary general of the Arab League. The central body of the Dialogue, the General Commission, was responsible for planning its objectives in the political, cultural, social, economic, and technological domains; it met in private, without summary records, a common practice for European meetings.Over the years, Euro-Arab collaboration developed at all levels: political, economic, religious and in the transfer of technologies, education, universities, radio, television, press, publishers, and writers unions. This structure became the channel for Arab immigration into Europe, of anti-Americanism, and of Judeophobia, which ” linked with a general hatred of the West and its denigration ” constituted a pseudo-culture imported from Arab countries. The interpenetration of European and Arab policies determined Europe's relentless anti-Israel policy and its anti-Americanism. This politico-economic edifice, with minute details, is rooted in a multiform European symbiosis with the Arab world.German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher expressed the aims clearly in his opening speech to the Hamburg Symposium's Euro-Arab Dialogue of April 11-13, 1983 (at a time when West Germany held the presidency of the European Community) :The Euro-Arab Dialogue would indeed remain incomplete if the political side were to be ignored or not taken seriously. Both parties to the Dialogue, both partners, should always remind themselves of the joint Memorandum issued in Cairo in 1975, the Charter of the Dialogue. The Memorandum contains the following quote: "The Euro-Arab Dialogue is the outcome of the common political will which strives for the creation of a special relationship between the two groups." We Europeans spoke out in a clear and convinced manner for a revival of the Euro-Arab Dialogue in the Vienna Declaration of June 13, 1980. Since then, the various working groups within the Dialogue have become more active and the prospects for the future are more promising.Our Arab partners in the Dialogue have also indicated that they are in favour of continuing and intensifying this Dialogue. Both in the course of this joint venture, our Symposium, and through its outcome, it will become clear that we are determined to give the Euro-Arab Dialogue a new and long-lease of life.Europe's economic greed was instrumentalized by Arab League policy in a long-term political strategy targeting Israel, Europe, and America. Arab economical ascendancy over the EC influenced the latter's policy toward Israel. The EAD was the vehicle for legitimizing the propaganda of the PLO, procuring it international diplomatic recognition, and conferring on Arafat's terrorist movement honor and international stature by supporting Arafat's address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 13, 1974 . Through the labyrinth of the EAD system, a policy of Israel's delegitimization was planned at both the EC's national and international levels. Approved instructions from the highest political, religious, and academic authorities functioned within the EAD's multiple commissions, implicating the media, universities, and diverse cultural activities. The EAD was the mouthpiece which diffused and popularized throughout Europe the defamation of Israel. France, Belgium, and Luxembourg were then the most active agents of the EAD.Strategically, the Euro-Arab Cooperation was a political instrument for anti-Americanism in Europe, whose aim was to separate and weaken the two continents by an incitement to hostility and the permanent denigration of American policy in the Middle East . The cultural infrastructure of the EAD allowed the traditional cultural baggage of Arab societies, with its anti-Christian and anti-Jewish prejudices and its hostility against Israel and the West, to be imported into Europe. The discredit heaped on the infidel Judeo-Christian culture was expressed by the claim of the superiority of the Islamic civilization, at which source European scholars, over the centuries ” it was said ” had humbly slaked their thirst for knowledge. Drowned in this wave of Arab cultural and religious expansionism that was integrated into the cultural activities of the EAD, Europeans adopted the Arab-Islamic conception of history. The obsequiousness of certain academics, subjected to a political power dominated by economic materialism, is reminiscent of the worst periods of the decline of civilizations. The suppression of intellectual freedom imported from undemocratic Muslim countries, attached to a culture of hate against Israel, has recently led to the exclusion and boycott of Israeli academics by some of their European colleagues.The cogs created by the EAD led the EC (later the European Union) to tolerate Palestinian terrorism on its own territory, to justify it, and finally to finance Palestinian infrastructure ” later to become the Palestinian Authority ” and hate-mongering educational system. The ministers and intellectuals who have created Eurabia deny the current wave of criminal attacks against European Jews, which they, themselves, have inspired. They deny the antisemitism, as they have neglected the attacks against the fundamental rights of their own citizens by delinquency and the terrorist threats, which they have allowed to develop with impunity in their countries, in exchange for financial profits. The silence and the negligence of the public authorities faced with this wave of antisemitic aggressions is but the tip of the emerged iceberg of a global policy. The EAD, which had tied Arab strategic policies for the destruction of Israel to the European economy was the Trojan horse for Europe's inclusion into the orbit of Arab-Muslim influence.With the support of parliaments and ministries, the EAD concealed behind the Arab-Israel conflict the global jihad being perpetrated on all continents. Europe's subservience to Arab policy led the EU to give an artificial and absolute priority to the Arab-Israel conflict in international affairs. It could have been solved from the start by the integration of about 500,000 Arab-Palestinian refugees into the Arab League countries, foremost into the Emirate of Transjordan ” created by Great Britain in 1922 from 78 percent of the total League of Nation mandated area of Palestine, the historical Holy Land on both sides of the Jordan river. After the 1947-49 Arab League war against Israel, this territory was increased to 83 percent of Palestine with the occupation of what became the "West Bank" of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.Europe's pathological obsession with the Arab-Palestinian conflict, has obscured the criminal ongoing persecution of Christians and other minorities in Muslim lands worldwide, and the sufferings and slavery of millions from jihad wars in Africa and Asia.The sudden collapse of the World Trade Center's twin towers, the recent threat of an American boycott of what was perceived as an antisemitic Europe, President Bush's ironic criticism of Europe's moral haughtiness, and especially the rise of extreme right parties, brought responsible politicians to their senses. They had been blinded by a Palestinian fantasy ("Jenin-grad"); by racist, genocidal accusations; massive media disinformation arousing hatred on their radios and televisions against small, vulnerable Jewish communities, tracked, aggressed, criminalized, and terrorized ” while the leaders of their countries looked the other way and pretended that Israel was responsible for the violent aggressions against Jews in Europe by Arab-Muslim immigrants. Then they saw criminal bands terrorizing their city suburbs, as well as the terrorist networks and rampant fanaticism, which they had overlooked for decades. Today, the likely war against Iraq has caused shivers throughout Europe, which is trembling at the possible collapse of its Arab alliances, built on foundations that implied a rupture with America and the demise of Israel. Europe had tied its Arab-Muslim friendly alliances and prosperity to a cooperation with Middle East tyrants, and by supporting Yasser Arafat's criminal policies.Hence, the desperate move to save Arafat recently, backed by a widespread and slanderous antisemitic media campaign, together with criminal acts in Europe against Jews, that were neither checked nor condemned. Over 50 years ago the Shoah was the response to Zionism. Today, diaspora Jews and Israel would do well to foresee a possible vengeful reckoning after Saddam Hussein falls and Arafat is marginalized ” an Arafat, who was courted by the EU, which greatly increased its funding to the Palestinian Authority after the Oslo Accords of 1993, without adequate controls. The recent anti-Jewish hysteria in Europe was an advertisement to neutralize diaspora Jews, and the Israeli self-defense mechanism against Palestinian terror, which is why it was so superbly overlooked by the highest authorities. This complacent attitude has scandalized many European friends of Israel, who are much more numerous than the EAD censorship organs and the Euro-Arab terrorist networks would have us believe. Yet the majority of Europeans, who are not antisemitic, are totally unaware of most of the EAD's policy, since its key deliberations are unrecorded. More research and publications are needed in this field.The cracks between Europe and America reveal the divergences between the choice of liberty and the road back to Munich on which the European Union continues to caper to new Arab-Islamic tunes, now called "occupation," "peace and justice," and "immigrants' rights" ” themes which were composed for Israel's burial. And for Europe's demise.” Bat Yeor, born in Egypt. A British citizen living in Switzerland since 1960, she is the author of The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, and Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide.

You're so right about the fact that there were precursor attacks on US targets, from the Iran hostage crisis of 1978 as the first strike, to the barracks in lebanon, to the USS Cole, to the US embassies in Africa, all largely ignored, with both Republican and Democrat presidents responsible. The weakness of US response emboldened the islamists and, probably, made them more attractive within their islamic world.BTW, nice to see another Canadian here.

I don't really want to go on with this, so, briefly only, your interpretation of those people and those events is radically different than my own.Bush is the most idealistic liberal democratic president in a long time, perhaps since JFK. For sure we will disgagree on this: I believe history will record him as one of the greatest of all presidents, because he reminded the world what liberal democracy is and from where it came, and, unlike those who ignored the rising Nazi threat in the 30's (ignoring and laughing at Churchill's pleas), Bush saw and reacted to a comparable threat, islamism, before it got too powerful.

Polls show the majority of iraqis want democracy, and want the US to stick around until the saddamite and islamist (mainly foreigners) are defeated. the most influential man in the country, Ayatollah al sistani, also takes this stand. It is not a war on iraqis; it is a war for Iraqis, and they appreciate that.

All very true. Glad to find others here whose view is the same as mine.

needless to say i see your arguments as anti-Bush talking points, rather than realism.Bottom line, because of iraq:* There have been no terrorist attacks on the US, in part because the
Islamists have concentrated their resources in Iraq, and because they are afraid of what Arab country the US would next transform into a democracy. (Which isn't to say that there won't be any to come. The more desperate the islamists become, and as they get close to losing hope, they'll do anything for the sake of a last gasp and ego boost.)*Libya renounces nuclear weapons* Syria leaves Lebanon, which then has elections.* Pakistan closes over 1,000 madrassahs, and gets the islamist Khan
away from the nuclear weapons button. He no longer sends nuclear tech (note, i say technology, not information)to iran, North Korea, Libya and to other enemies of democracy.* Iraq has had elections, is forming concensual government, and is a
beacon for democratically minded Muslims everywhere.* Arab intellectuals are no longer afraid to talk about democracy.* Some Arab nations have liberalized and others appear ready to follow.Put all that together, and you the seeds of a revolution that will
defeat islamism.

I can't believe you actually accept that iranian "reformers" were elected to anything. The mullahs choose who may run in the elections, and they reject any true reformers. And I can't believe you really believe that reformers run free throughout the islamic world, speaking openly without retribution. The person of whom you speak why was killed is the rule, not the exception. Even a cursory google search will confirm this.I'd suggest you read Amir tehari, perhaps the most prolific Muslim writer on the islamic world - where he writes, safely, from britain.