Terrorism in London

So we should base our decisions around the fact that a minority of non-British people might be very unhappy about something? We went to war, it's not a big shock that a couple bombs get set off around the country. I've never heard that self-defence rationale used by anyone, including Blair...it can't have been used a lot. The only reason I heard surrounded the whole 'we have to finish the job or Iraq is knackered' lines. It wasn't the worst terrorist attack on Britain. In terms of fatalities, the Lockerbie disaster was worse, in terms of property damage, the Manchester bomb was worse. In terms of terror, the IRA was worse. If Britain's enemies found him weak, why wait until the majority of Britain's security were concentrating on Scotland to attack London? Maybe Blair should resign - but not because of this, the British people are more upset about the Iraq affair and the thousands of civillians dead there, or the Africa affair where thousands die every day, than they are about fifty unlucky people killed by some nutters.

I don't know how this is being reported in the USA, but I think you might be being getting a very skewed 'Americanised' version. I've seen a few minutes of American news, and they have totally sensationalised it, you should check out the British news. This is the current climate in Britain, as immortalised in this email forward making its way around:

quote:

---

There has been a widespread outbreak of grumbling and tutting today in London, along with a large number of people going home instead of to work, with a certain amount of guilty pleasure.

​

Sorry, bad guys. We've been bombed before, and we just adjust our day to account for it. This is London calling.

---

The risk that was put forward with regards to Iraq was that they might fund terrorists, create WMDs and generally do nasty things. Whether or not that risk was present of course is irrelevant. We were never told by Blair that we should attack Iraq to prevent some small time crooks letting off some home made bombs on public transport. Obviously it wasn't. The pretext was that Iraq had WMDs or was being generally nefarious. It was not to prevent terrorists attacking London. If I remember rightly, the probability of 'vengeance' strikes by terrorists was openly discussed in parliament before the vote to go to war was made. As I said, this idea that a front for terrorists was certainly not something that was massively pushed as an idea, even if it did come up. The biggest thing that pushed in the build up for was the 45 minute thing. There was plenty of commentary that the war in Iraq would probably help create more terrorists, but it wasn't about fighting terrorism, it was about preventing Saddam getting hold of WMDs. I believe that it is worst only in 'injuries', as far as deaths go, it pales. I find it odd that they limited to 'ground targets' and 'England'. Putting bombs on planes and them crashing into a Scottish village (killing over three times as many the London bombs did) doesn't count as the worst terrorist incident? Its a fine criteria, but it is odd. I agree, that it is probably the worst incident to happen to England but it is not the worst to happen to Britain...and I find it a little odd that one would discount Scotland and Wales, since they are both on the mainland. I understand that. However, few people in Britain that voted for Labour in the first place would agree with you (I didn't vote for Labour and I don't agree with you). There has been zero talk of getting Blair to resign here.The point of attacking Iraq was not to make Britain safer from al-Qaeda but to make the West safe from Iraq and Saddam Hussein's WMD. Since Iraq has not attacked the UK, Britain, or England, and Hussein is behind bars...there isn't a problem. The fact that no WMDs were found has been politically dealt with.The war on terror was designed to make Britain safer from al-Qaeda, and more attacks have been thwarted by security measures than have not. To be honest, nobody I've spoken with, and no paper or news report I've seen, or 'people on the street' chats have mentioned anyone considering this a failure of Blair's. If he should have resigned it was after the WMD failure. If anyone, Charles Clarke should be the one to resign If I misunderstood, I apologize, I had read through the thread, and thuoght I had a grasp of what you were saying. I hold my hands up if I was wrong. In truth the principle reason I replied was to remind you of Lockerbie.This message has been edited by Modulous, Sat, 09-July-2005 04:06 PM

There were only 11 ground fatalities, and 259 on the plane. It also produced a specific result. I simply don't understand the reasons for discounting it. I have understood this to be your position since I started this discussion. The point of contention is whether or not this means some policies have not been working, and this event is tragically symbollic of those failures. The department in charge of 'homeland security' is the home office, and the person in charge of that is Charles Clarke. He is the one that is responsible for policing and security. If this is anyone's error it is his.Can we agree that Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq wasn't to prevent terrorists operating in Britain (even as a retrospective reason)? If it was, then Blair failed a long time ago - since we have known there are terrorists in Britain for a long time. Which is silly. I think the argument is totally absurd and I'm going to need to see some sources at this point. I would be amazed if Blair said, (or supported the saying) that going to war in Iraq (post hoc or otherwise) would 100% prevent people setting bombs off in Britain.A decent leader would certainly not step down at this point. If he did say the things you claim he did, a good leader would apologize. Blair has got a lot more things to do right now than just homeland security. He is extraordinarily popular at the moment and the people of Britain don't want him to resign, so it would be bad leadership for him to do so.This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 10-July-2005 02:28 PM

Yes, you made it clear what the rationale was, I still find it unusual that one would discount air terrorism when discussing terrorism. The rationale that the attack was thought to be primarily aimed at American targets is an acceptable and valid reason for discounting it, or at least playing it down from a British terrorism discussion. That's fine - it is indeed an acceptable criteria for discounting it. That wasn't the original criteria you were proposing which was 'England not Britain' and 'ground not air', which to me is a totally crazy criteria. Sure, something failed somewhere. The failure was in intelligence on the homeland (Clarke's area). Blair's (apparantly stated) plan to hold up terrorists in Iraq to prevent them attacking Britain wasn't what failed. You think that saying that Blair failed already because there have been terrorists in Britain for ages (but only now pulled off an attack) is silly too? Heh. Seriously though, it is silly. You expect an anti-terrorism push, to be 100% effective? Let's be honest here, the attack was fairly pathetic. The statement we have at the moment says that strenuous efforts went towards assuring that the attack was succesful. If that's the best they can do with careful planning and strenuous efforts, then I consider the anti-terrorism push to have been a success.Every leader in history has failed to prevent murder. OK, I'm not amazed. So Blair has said that Iraq has become a front line of the battle against terrorism. He didn't say "By fighting terrorism in Iraq we have by default won the fight against terrorism in Britain". He has not said we have won the fight against terrorism and we will no longer have any problems with terrorism. I've never got that impression from him. That terrorists exist still is a given, since we are fighting them. Terrorists, by definition, engage in terrorism. That we still see terrorism is indiciative that we have not yet defeated terrorists. Milestones maybe, but does Iraq look stable? I don't know if they look demoralized, I've never met them. Demoralized people can still organize a bombing...and to go from an attack that causes thousands of deaths, costs millions (billions?), grounds air traffic for days, changes the way a country looks at itself and shocks the entire world for weeks. Then to an attack a year later in Bali which killed 202, and caused maybe millions of dollars in damage down to the Madrid bombing killing 190, and now the London bombing which killed about 50 people.It certainly seems like terrorism is becoming harder work, and s seeming to do less damage. The emergency services had prepared for the attack, and worked with speed and efficiency and everything panned out very well. Add that to the fact that the public transport system was only marginally affected and terror seems to be at a minimum. The failure is really the terrorists, not the war on terror. Sounds crazy to me. I wouldn't do that, since I didn't assume you were wrong, I just assumed you were exagerating what these people were saying since it seemed a very specific and career damaging thing to say for a politician. It turns out that I believe I was right. So far you have just shown that Blair and Bush have shifted the Iraq rationale to democracy and terror fighting, with no indication that it would guarantee that we would not have retaliatory strikes against Britain. Of course I don't think that. Gordon Brown for a start. However, in a democracy popularity is a vital thing. But that's a debate for another time. If you want to, I am certainly defending Blair since I don't think that the London bombing reflects any mistake he has made, nor any symbol of any mistake. However, I am critical of many of Blair's decisions and I generally vote against Blair (of his three terms, I only voted labour once).

It wasn't my position, I was characterizing yours, and I did follow it up with a 'heh' and a 'But seriously'. This is the integral point. Did Blair risk something big? Yes, he made a risk by going to war in Iraq, wars are risky. Parliament agreed that the risk was worth it. However, if we going to continue with this analogy then you are wrong. We were attempting to hinder a specific murderer (Saddam/Iraq) from killing (acquiring or using WMDs). We have successfully hindered this 'murderer' and this has the advantage of demonstrating that murdering people will not be tolerated and that the governing body will take actions against it. And now someone else (al-Qaeda) murders (murders) somebody the attempt to hinder isn't necessarily a failure, its just not 100%...especially given that the hindering attempt has not been completed. Huh? You said that Blair claimed that fighting in Iraq guaranteed no attacks on Britain, there was one in Britain therefore Blair's tactic has failed. That is a brief of your position isn't it? I've yet to see any evidence that Blair said, or agreed with someone else who said this. One battle, the main battle. Not the only battle, just the front line. There are other lines. I think we both can agree there is more terrorist action going on in Iraq than there is in Britain. Indeed and one cannot go to war against terrorism, drugs, drink driving, poverty or anything else. Its metaphorical. Discussing a front line, is just extending that metaphor. Agreed, politics stinks. But you didn't. You just said that Blair said Iraq was the front line in the war on terror. He didn't say that by fighting in Iraq Britain was protected against terrorist attacks. Perhaps I did, I don't know. I'm sure I kept an open mind about it. You presented evidence that some rationale shifting occurred. Is it bad that I accept that? I'm fairly sure I didn't say that. I believe I said I would be amazed if he backed Bush's claims of 100% security by remaining in Iraq.
If I did say that (it seems uncharacteristic of me to make such absolute statements), it seems I've changed my mind in light of evidence. I do that sometimes. And I said I'd be amazed if he guaranteed anything, you said prepare to be amazed. Anyway, if he didn't guarantee anything then where is the failure. (Un)fortunately we'll never know if more attacks would have occurred in Britain had we not been in Iraq, especially given this hasn't come to a conclusion yet. So whether or not it security has increased in Britain due to all the terrorists being somewhere else in the long run, or otherwise we'll never know. I'm quite offended by your accusation of goal post moving. Please back this up. Please show your working. There is no need to be so antagonistic, I was trying to keep this friendly......................................................................
AbeHere are the things you have been saying: You haven't shown this has been said. Nevertheless, it hasn't been claimed that all AQ and associated terrorists would go to Iraq. Perhaps it was claimed that much of AQ's resources and planning would be concentrated in Iraq, but I doubt it was claimed that all of their resources would be.Indeed Blair has openly stated that there are AQ terrorists in Britain, not that they are all, or would all go to Iraq. Perhaps it has, in the long run, alleviated the risk of attacks. Was it claimed that it would irradicate the risk? No, so how has this mechanism not worked? How many attacks would there have been, past present and future had Iraq not been made into some perfect shining beacon? And what evidence is there that this has not protected us against AQ attacks? How many attacks were there in the parrallel universe where we didn't do the Iraq thing?So that's my position. It is impossible to know how many attacks AQ would have mustered had we not been in Iraq. Perhaps none, perhaps 10. Since we do not know, we cannot say for certain either way that the 'whilst we're in Iraq, we're tying up the majority of terrorist's resources, protecting everyone from terrorists' line is bullshit or actually right.Blair has never said "We won't get attacked whilst we're in Iraq", so the fact that we did, doesn't demonstrate any failing of any tactic of Blair's.This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 11-July-2005 12:00 AM

I did that? I didn't mean to. When did I do that? Right the IF Blair did x to prevent y, and y happened then Blair failed. However, Blair didn't do x to prevent y. I was being humourous. I tried to make this clear with 'heh' and 'but seriously. I said "its silly to say x" and you said "Thanks, for supporting my position", and I say "So you think x is silly?". Obviously you didn't, and I carried on assuming that you weren't saying x is silly. uh-huh. Understood. It doesn't clearly show that at all. Re-read it, what it clearly shows is that "I've never heard that self-defence rationale used by anyone, including Blair". I was totally open to it having been used. I was trying to demonstrate that the self-defense rationale hasn't been particularly championed in the UK...he certainly failed to reach me with that message, and I do tend to keep my eyes open. Prepare to be darned Blair's rationale to be in Iraq wasn't to prevent terrorists coming to Britain, it was that the Iraq war would hinder their activities due to having to fight on multiple fronts, and that Britain wasn't the front line, but Iraq was. OK, Blair never said 100%. To me, prevent seems to be a fairly 100% thing, perhaps there lies our confusion? If a vaccine prevents me from getting a disease, I won't (or would be very unlikely to) get it. However, a condom only helps prevent STDs. Let me try to unravel this pretzel logic for you that stems from my twisted mind.You suggested that Blair should resign.
Why, was asked.
Because, you said, this is evidence of yet another mistake in a long line of mistakes.
Huh?
Well, you replied, Blair said that being in Iraq has the advantage of protecting us from terrorist acts because it acts as a front line.Now, this leaves one of two options.1. You imply that Blair's idea was that by being in Iraq we won't be attacked by terrorists (the 100% idea)2. Attacks are not likely to have the full resources put behind them (like with 9/11) so they will either a) be less frequent, b) be less effective or c) more likely to be apprehended by intelligence agents.If option number 2 is the option then the fact that one single event got through is not indicative of any failures. If we suffered more terrorism type attacks than Iraq, then you'd have a point. Since number two seems like a dead end options I figured you must have been implying the first, which you have quite clearly denounced as being bollocks.So now we have to establish the number 2 affair.So, given Blair has not stated that Britain is 100% safe from terrorist attacks, why should he resign now that a terrorist attack has been made against Britain? What failing of his should merit a resignation? Not true. Look at the exclusive 'or' in the definition:

quote:

---

the most advanced, responsible, or visible position in a field or activity

---

Iraq is the most visible position in the war on terror. It is a 'front line'. Fighting can (often does) occur behind the front the lines (Britain would be behind the front line that is Iraq). Indeed, Iraq would be the front line, the USA the second, and Britain the third. Britain was distracted with several big events and it got attacked. How does this show that? How many attacks would Britain had suffered (including the long term future) had we not done the Iraq thing?
All it shows is that Iraq doesn't divert 100% of resources...which we both agree on anyway. Well, I don't believe we can really have a war on terror in the literal sense of the word. However, we can have a highly visible and important battle which could be characterized as being a 'front line' in a 'war on terror'. I agree with everything up to the point of 'without having divert any resources'. Maybe its true, can you show me how this is true? Are you sure? How can you tell? Do you have access to AQ's books and resources and human management records? Right so there were no AQ assets before the invastion. Are there any now? If there are, would they be there if we weren't?If there were none before, and some afterwards, that seems like a decent indication that at least some resources were diverted to Iraq.When the frontline thing was being discussed Blair was basically saying two things:1. "And that is why, in a very real sense, because al Qaeda and other terrorists groups are actually there in Iraq now"(meaning, there is a physical direct battle with terrorists in Iraq)2. "The fact is, if Iraq becomes a stable and democratic country... that is a huge blow to the propaganda and to the effort of the extremists."(meaning, another aspect of warfare is going on, the attempt to suppress propananda efforts)Do you agree that there are AQ terrorists in Iraq? If you do, you agree with Blair. Do you agree that the majority of physical fighting with AQ is occurring in Iraq? If so, you agree with Blair. Point number two is very debatable of course. If we make Iraq a Shangri-La then perhaps that would show the futility of the efforts the terrorists are going through, possibly making it difficult to convince them to give up their lives for a lost cause. It wouldn't mean all terrorists would give up, but it might make recruitment more challenging. OK, I've not seen anybody trying to say "The reason why we went into Iraq was to divert 100% of AQ resources". All I've seen is "Iraq has become a front line in the war on terror". Terrorists moved in to Iraq, since they moved to Iraq, they are moving out of other places...they need to spend money on bombs and weapons and probably wages, food, bribes etc for operations in Iraq. That money is not being spent on operations in the west. I'm fairly sure I thought the idea that a politician would stand up and say an absolute statement like "Doing x will guarantee 100% y", where lives are on the line was silly. If said politician did do that, and y happened, he would have to resign.This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 12-July-2005 11:01 AM

We call everyone from Turkey to India 'Asian' (though of late a tendency to differentiate has arisen so "Middle Eastern" and "Indian". People from China/Japan/Vietnam/Korea etc are referred to as Oriental.Americans get really upset about calling people Oriental, however it doesn't have the same connotations here. Those who don't call them Oriental, might opt for the less diplomatic "Chinese".

Well, that is certainly a possible way of looking at it, but it seems to take an absolute approach. I was simply not aware that an argument had been used. I didn't think I was right or wrong. If you told me that there is a small tribe of men called the Umbombogos living in Africa who ate lions for supper, and you showed me their constitution, pictures, and a book that details their life. It would be a bit strange to say "And you thought Umbombogos didn't exist!".Basically, being ignorant of a fact, and thinking a fact isn't so are different things, with different implications.However, this is all pointless nitpicking. There is another possibility other than a strawman. People are very sensitive about opponents creating strawmen, and use any misunderstandings as evidence that your opponent is being somehow dishonest. Strawmen creations are deliberate. We are attempting to communicate our ideas with one another so that we understand what we are trying to say. In order to make sure that I am understanding your position, I try and reiterate what I think you are saying so you can understand my objections, and correct me if I am not understanding you.Rather than cry strawman everytime your opponent does not seem clear on your position, perhaps take it as a sign that a communications failure of some kind has taken place. I think I'm a bright guy, you're a bright guy, lets not accuse one another of things.I don't really want to go through the effort of trying to discuss this with you, if the discussion isn't going to be friendly, and we start down the road of nitpicking, semantics, and accusations of unfair play.

Why not read it again. You'd find that the counter argument was actually that I hadn't heard it so it doesn't seem likely the rationale was a principle thing that Blair was trying to convince us of. I am not constructing a strawman, nor am I misrepresenting your position. I have to have discuss what I think is your position. If I think your position is something other than what it is, that is not misrepresentation (I am not saying Holmes claims this, which is clearly wrong). I thought I had made it clear I understand your point re: that Blair shouldn't resign because of this, but because of previous mistakes. My own opinion is that if Blair should have resigned, it should have been for the actual mistakes and issues such as going to Iraq in the first place, not after some symbollic terrorist attack.Since the mistakes happened before the last election, and his party elected to keep him as their leader, and we gave Labour the most seats. Blair has paid the political price for his actions (he lost a crap load of seats) and that is the end of it. No new mistakes have been since the price was paid, life goes on. In many eyes he has redeemed himself massively in the past month (including the situation surrounding the bomb) and it would be bad form of him to resign (after all that would 'giving the terrorists what they want' and so could possibly boost AQ morale and encourage further attacks.Thus, if Blair resigned, it might be decent as a person, but it would characterize him forever as an awful leader of people. Some people think that already of course, but even some of his supporters would join that camp if he bowed out now.

Of course, reading the original comments you'll find it wasn't really presented as a counter argument, just commentary. It wasn't like Blair was trying to convince us we were safe because of Iraq, if he was, then I'd be more inclined to agree that a resignation would be decent. Clearly whether or not it would be good for Britain to have Blair resign is a matter of opinion. If it would be good for the country, then he (edit for clarification: 'he' meaning the a hypothetical perfect leader) would leave regardless of what was popular, much like Cromwell should have insisted in his refusal to lead. Surely, if the PM gets upset when his country suffers an attack, that's a good thing? It's better than Bush's immediate response to Sept 11 I would like a PM who is clearly upset but resolute. Despite the fact that I disagree with much of Blair's style, I have to accept that I am glad to have him rather than Howard at this time. Still, I reckon Gordon Brown would have dealt with this better, but what are you gonna do?This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 12-July-2005 11:16 PM

Actually, no he wasn't. Which is what I have been trying to say. He has clearly stated that it would make us safer, not safe. And he has indicated (as I have mentioned) that this refers towards the mid to long term.