Roosting

[YKTMX]

This is from my blog (http://parenbas.blogspot.com)


37 are dead and some 700 are injured. The UK has, almost inevitably, experienced "blowback" from our latest imperial adventures. The terrorist attacks are not an attack on our "values", nor are they some apolitical acts of random violence. For the perpetrators, and for us, they have meaning and if we wish to stop further atrocities we need to decipher those meanings and address them. Now, of course, the objective of the politicians and the media will be to disguise the real motivations behind these attacks. We will hear endless accounts of the terrorists hatred of our "way of life" and "values". In this narrative, an attack on London would be just as likely as an attack on Paris or Berlin. In this narrative, the fact that the 3 major post 9/11 attacks have been on Australia (most victims in Bali were Australian) Spain and Britain - 3 of the main backers of the mass slaughter in Iraq - is just a "coincedince", or is merely aimed at "dividing" the "west". Already, we have had heard endless platitudes about Londoners "standing together", which is merely disguised nationalism masquerading as solidarity. You'll hear this, "whatever their diffirences, Londoners will not be cowed by terrorism". It's "us" against the terrorists. Forget our own government's crimes against the population of Iraq and elsewhere, that's not important. Oh, and by the way, who could possibly now be against ID cards?

If we really do want to stop terrorism "resolve" and bombing people will not suffice. Unconditional support for Israel cannot continue; we must remove our hated presence in the Middle east in its entirety; we must stop promoting dictatorship and poverty in all parts of the world. Or, if we wish, we can continue with the disastorous "war on terror" and live to count the bodies and speak the worthless "sorrow" another day.

The choice is ours, the victims of war and terror, they, with their armour plated cars and police escorts, are not fit to take up the challenge.

[TheKingOfMercy]

I'd agree with you, the western powers should remove themselves from the middle east, stop the fake 'war on terror' that the US cooked up.

Then of course, after a few years, the middle east would probably devolve into bloodshed of course, which would take another decade or three to sort out, but these are the prices people pay for thick texans getting power of huge armies.

Your comment about the 'solidarity' for londoners - people will always stand behind the proverbial colours, it gives them a way to vent their frustrations. Not one of those londoners have probably bombed Iraqis, so they can say its them against whoever all they like. If the prime-minister had been blown up, fair enough.

and well ID cards will now be pushed through, and the other civil-liberties reducing acts that tony blair likes to propose. Perhaps next, to go with his soviet motorcades, he'll put red stars on everything and change the name of MI6 to KGB. or GRU.

[novemba]

Ban him now.

If I knew where you lived I would come beat the fuck out of you.

[TheKingOfMercy]

Why exactly ? and the last guy that tried to beat me up got a knife in his balls for his troubles. I do so love self-defence laws.

[Severian]

I agree with YTMX...except who is this "we" and "us" and "our"?

[Bannockburn]

That was a good blog, and I very much agree. Good post!

[Paradox]

Yeah, It&#39;s like Britain&#39;s 9/11 of sorts. Have they already talked about Patriot Act type legislation to "protect against terrorism," like they did here in the u&#036;? Any links about these ID cards that are mentioned? Anyway, shit came back to bite &#39;em in the ass. The majority of people in Britain are already against the Iraq Occupation, correct? So will these attacks have the same effect as in amerika, where anything questioning the government, protests, etc., were seen and portrayed as "unpatriotic (not that I&#39;d care about that)?" And you can already hear them on the news, talking about "why wasn&#39;t fighting global terrorism at the top of the priority list for the G8?," shifting attention away from the horrible conditions in Africa and the conditions which help create conflict and terrorism. <_<

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I agree.

I&#39;m not sure this government wouldn&#39;t sacrifice 37 lives in aid of passing through ID cards without opposition and creating smokscreens in the way of making trade fair, further privatisation of our public services (where were the great BUPA doctors and nurses today one wonders? Or could the nearly dead people not afford to pay them on the spot?) and Iraq. The focus will be taken off these things and onto "defending Britain", George Bush style.

It riles me that the suspicious news readings have already begun, just like after 9/11. Today, on Sky News, I heard, "the second bombing was near Edgware Station, a largely Muslim community". And the need for adding the "a largely Mulims community" comment? It leaves an open page for the viewer. They either think, "bastard muslims". Or they, like most of us, think, "why did they say that? are they saying it was Muslim people&#39;s fault?" to which they would simply be able to reply, "we didn&#39;t say that".

Nobody likes hearing of innocent people being killed though. Let&#39;s leave the politics till tomorrow. Once the smoke clears, we&#39;ll get a better picture of the after-effects of this. The one thing terrorists acheive with their attacks is dividing people in society, despite what Mr. Blair would have us think. In America after 9/11, they went right. In Spain after Madrid bombings, they went slightly left. I don&#39;t think there&#39;s any doubt that people here will look right. Look out for Nick Griffin and your local BNP representative popping up in the press. Listen out for the regular, ignorant old Joe on the street saying how, "we should&#39;ve never let &#39;em in the country". It&#39;s not gonna be a nice time to live in this country.

[novemba]

I agree, and I heard the same thing/ felt the same way about it.

The government doesn&#39;t care about us. That&#39;s the problem. I honestly think 40 people is nothing to them.

Whether it was a set-up or not, it&#39;s to the governments advantage no matter what. It just gives them more excuses.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 7 2005, 07:34 PM
Today, on Sky News, I heard, "the second bombing was near Edgware Station, a largely Muslim community".
Or they could be pointing out that many of those killed or injured were likely Muslim, and the terrorists didn&#39;t seem to care if they killed British Muslims.

Is the British ruling class actively seeking to whip up anti-Muslim hostility? That wasn&#39;t the response of the U.S. ruling class after 9/11, and it would seem to cut across the "national unity" BS which YTMX correctly points out is their main focus.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 07:18 PM
and the conditions which help create conflict and terrorism. <_<
If you&#39;re suggesting poverty causes terrorism, the evidence says otherwise.
link (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/povterror.htm)
More detail-pdf format (http://www.irs.princeton.edu/krueger/terrorism2.pdf)

This kind of bombing is not the response of the exploited.

[Paradox]

If you&#39;re suggesting poverty causes terrorism, the evidence says otherwise.

Not necessarily poverty, but years of neglect from outside control, exploitation, etc.. Take the genocide in Rwanda:


The deep hatred in Rwanda, which culminated in a nearly unfathomable level of genocide, was forged by the Belgians shortly after the League of Nations awarded the tiny country to them following Germany’s defeat in WWI. In order to maintain vast colonial empires, most European nations actively factionalized the native populations and played them against each other. The French-speaking Belgians determined that 99% of Rwanda was composed of just two main ethnic groups, Tutsi and Hutu. Employing racist genetic theories, they concluded that Tutsis, having the more Caucasian-like features, were the superior of the two. For decades the Tutsis, who made up only 14% of the population, were granted special status over the Hutus, receiving education and privilege that were harder for their Hutu neighbors to come by.

By the time independence was granted in 1962, the Belgians had turned Rwanda into a seething cauldron of ethnic tension and fear. Beginning in 1959, massacres by the Hutu majority forced many Tutsis into exile and made life difficult for those remaining. The Hutu government retained the policy established by the Belgians of requiring ethnic identification cards, which often became the difference between life and death for many Tutsis. When the French began exercising influence in the region, following independence, they exhibited no interest in challenging the Hutu government on this issue. In fact, a U.S. ambassador’s suggestion in 1991, that this method of ethnic categorization be dismantled, was met with resistance by the French.

The cozy relationship between France and the Hutu government enabled a series of massacres to take place in the early 1990’s, prior to the genocide of 1994, whose death toll can be counted in the thousands. For their part the Tutsis exiled in neighboring Uganda formed the RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front), a military effort to take control of the country from the murderous Hutu government, which had ruled since independence without the burden of free elections. After a 1991 invasion, the RPF was well positioned and very close to achieving victory over the French-backed Hutus. Despite having signed a 1975 agreement with Rwanda disallowing the introduction of French troops in the country for combat or military support purposes, France did indeed send paratroopers to beat back the resistance and secure the country for the very people who would be responsible for the deaths of so many.

Or in the Middle East, with the British, the French, and others, that with the amerikan coup in Iran, gave birth to the fundamentalist terrorist movement. Or, depending on how you view them, look at the Shining Path, or FARC in South America.

I&#39;m not suggesting poverty in of itself would push people this far. I&#39;ll read the links you provided when I have a bit more time, right now I&#39;m busy reading some books I picked a few days ago.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by New York Times
Poor countries with a tradition of protecting civil liberties are unlikely to spawn terrorists.

Excuse me, but I can&#39;t think of even one poor country with a "tradition of protecting civil liberties".

Quite the contrary: poor countries are all, to a greater or lesser extent, despotisms, in which people outside the ruling "party" (usually a clan of some sort) have no "civil liberties" at all.

Perhaps he was thinking of India or the Union of South Africa...where the middle classes enjoy some limited civil liberties at the discretion of the government.

Otherwise, I can&#39;t even begin to imagine what he&#39;s talking about.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 10:45 AM
Excuse me, but I can&#39;t think of even one poor country with a "tradition of protecting civil liberties".
Try Costa Rica. Or, yes, India to a degree. Even Mexico [b]relative[b] to Guatemala or a number of other Latin American countries.

Of course there&#39;s a correlation between poverty and despotism, or to put it differently, a correlation between wealth and bourgeois democracy. But it&#39;s not one-to-one, so it&#39;s possible to separately measure the correlation between each of those, and terrorism. Repression correlates well with terrorism; poverty doesn&#39;t (if you correct for repression).

Paradox, the issue of civil war is also examined. But that&#39;s a different thing than what has just happened in London.

[Andy Bowden]

My personal opinion, substantiated from reading Al Qaeda by Jason Burke and owning all previous series of 24 on dvd (:P) is that this attack was carried out by home-grown Islamist fundamentalists, probably from a middle-class educated background who became radicalised by what they have seen in Palestine and Iraq. While they carried out this attack in the name of Bin Laden it is highly unlikely Bin Laden had a role in directing it. "Al Qaeda" is an ideology, not an organisation.

[Intifada]

My personal opinion, substantiated from reading Al Qaeda by Jason Burke and owning all previous series of 24 on dvd () is that this attack was carried out by home-grown Islamist fundamentalists, probably from a middle-class educated background who became radicalised by what they have seen in Palestine and Iraq. While they carried out this attack in the name of Bin Laden it is highly unlikely Bin Laden had a role in directing it. "Al Qaeda" is an ideology, not an organisation.

I agree completely.

Jason Burke&#39;s book is brilliant; a must read for anybody interested in gaining real knowledge in the subject of Al Qaeda.

[Morpheus]

There&#39;s no real evidence that Muslims did it. Just some guy on the internet, who misquotes the Koran, making up manifestos and claiming to be part of "Al-Qaeda."

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Severian+Jul 8 2005, 05:16 PM--> (Severian @ Jul 8 2005, 05:16 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 10:45 AM
Excuse me, but I can&#39;t think of even one poor country with a "tradition of protecting civil liberties".
Try Costa Rica. Or, yes, India to a degree. Even Mexico relative[b] to Guatemala or a number of other Latin American countries.

Of course there&#39;s a correlation between poverty and despotism, or to put it differently, a correlation between wealth and bourgeois democracy. But it&#39;s not one-to-one, so it&#39;s possible to separately measure the correlation between each of those, and terrorism. Repression correlates well with terrorism; poverty doesn&#39;t (if you correct for repression).

Paradox, the issue of civil war is also examined. But that&#39;s a different thing than what has just happened in London.
He already mentioned that in India the middle class have some liberties.

Mexico&#39;s a poor example for what you&#39;re saying; you must be aware that the indigenous population are subjected to extreme poverty and violence. They did in recent times form a caste below those of mixed and pure european ancestory.