Notes from the Underground

A series of mini-explosions in London's transportation system, exactly two weeks after a series of major bombings, have produced some of the same panic but not, it seems, anything like the large casualties seen there. So what's going on? A hoax? A series of duds? A warning: "We could do a big one again anytime if we wanted to"? Or—far more disturbing—an attempt to disperse some kind of chemical or biological agent with a delayed effect? Whatever it was, the BBC has set up a kind of reporters' blog with regular updates.

Comments

[Baylen]

I had the same chemical/bio thought, too. Obviously, let's hope not.

[joe]

A cascading electrical problem? The three terror bombs could have caused damage to the systems.

[Number 6]

Most chemicals act fairly quickly (mustard agents being the biggest exception), and explosions are a pretty poor way to disseminate pathogens.

Still, when I hear about small explosions in confined areas, I tend to think bio/chem.

[Brett]

Last I heard before leaving the house this morning was that there might have been a number of duds. Detonators going off (making gunshot-like noises?) but not triggering the explosives.

[Number 6]

The decon spray mentioned in the blog is a standard precaution, btw.

[Jeff]

I in no way want to make light of the situation, but the BBC timeline for today's events featured the following line:
"1430: UK Government's emergency-response team Cobra meets at Downing Street."
I picture guys in matching jumpsuits arriving by jetpack...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4703853.stm

[Brian]

So far it sounds like a poorly-executed copycat attack.

[rob]

"Take that Cobra!"
- American liaison officer to UK counter-terrorism unit, code-named "GI Joe"

Seriously, I think this will turn out to be a terro tactic, rather than an actual attack.

[Jeff]

Three hours into this and Fox News is telling us how the London Stock Exchange is responding to the blasts.

[Alla]

What's your point Jeff? Attacks like this tend to have some aim at crippling the economy. So what's wrong with noting the effectiveness?

[Jeff]

Sorry, I should put that in context:
They've just shown an hour of aerial footage that looks like some vaguely British neighborhood, the talent has nothing new to add, so they throw to BBC coverage, which also has nothing new to add.
Fox, trying not to clutch at straws, is burning time with anyone they can find. I don't think the finacial reporter they threw to was expecting questions about the London Stocks.
In the meantime, nothing else will get reported today.

[R C Dean]

Fox, trying not to clutch at straws, is burning time with anyone they can find

Yeah, you'll never catch CNN doing that.

[Alla]

ok, makes more sense in context--that would be funny to watch

[joe]

Jeff, before attributing Fox's "How with this effect people with stock portfolios?" reaction to the possible murder of Londoners by terrorists to boredom and a lack of programming, it might be worth remembering that Fox's top dog anchorbot, Brit Hume, stated that his first thought upon hearing about the London bombings last time was "Time to buy stocks."

[Mr. Nice Guy]

The London mayor "Red Ken" recently made comments that the attacks were a simple response to western aggression, particularly the U.S.

Yes, there are many valid points to be made, but in the face of a vicious, murderous enemy there cannot be any equivocation. None. The only focus should be the weeding out and extermination of those who are behind this.

[Hakluyt]

Dostoevsky is rolling in his grave.

The FTSE took a hard smack, though the CAC40 and the DAX recovered quickly.

[Jeff]

I'm sure ALL the news networks are doing it. I work at a Fox station, so we have to keep the Fox News feed monitored at all times.
As a 24 year vet in television, I am still stunned at how bad news has become. I pray nightly that the ghosts of Huntly, Brinkley, and Chancellor arise to drive all news editors mad.

[joe]

Ken Livingston's America-aggression-blaming, equivocating, non-terrorist blaming quote:

"I know that you personally do not fear to give your own life in exchange for taking others. That is why you are so dangerous. But I know you do fear that you will fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society. I can show you why you will fail. In the days that follow, look at our airports, look at our seaports, and look at our railway stations. And even after your cowardly attack you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners, to fulfill their dreams and achieve their potential. They choose to come to London as many have come before because they come to be free. They come to live the life they choose, they come to be themselves. They flee you, because you tell them how they should live."

[joe]

OK, it's pretty unlikely that cascading electrical problem would extend to a bus.

Three subway bombs, and one a bus, again. Earlier speculation was that the bomb on the bus on 7/7 went off prematurely (or that the bus was late), because it was the only one that wasn't on a subway car, it was placed on the upper deck (when a bomb inside would have done more damage), and because the apparent bomber was seen fiddling frantically inside his pack just before it went off.

This certainly throws a wrench into that.

[nidetzky]

Jeff, Cobra's just a location with the communication equipment for a crisis squad meeting

COBRA -- Cabinet Office Briefing Room A

[rob]

Uh, joe, where is what livingstone actually said quoted in your defense of him? Not that he hasn't also said what you posted, but from what I've seen, the quote was more along the lines of this:

"You've just had 80 years of western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the western need for oil. We've propped up unsavoury governments, we've overthrown ones we didn't consider sympathetic," he told Radio 4.

"In the 1980s, Americans recruited and trained Osama bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians and drive them out of Afghanistan."

The United States, he said, was reaping its own harvest as "they didn't give any thought to the fact that, once he'd done that, [bin Laden] might turn on his creators".

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1658982005

I don't really have a dog in this fight - other than I think it's depressing that London elected this wanker - but it seems odd how people are springing to Linvingstone's defense as tho he said something other than what he said by claiming it was out of context, when Livingstone hasn't said anything about being OOC'd (out of contexted).

[joe]

rob, the quote I took was Livingston's statement to the press after the bombings.

When asked about the global situation, he commented on the global situation. When making a statement about the bombings, he condemned the terrorists, sand the praises of his city, and assured them that they won't win.

[cm harris]

Everyone has a dog in this fight.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I have asked joe kindly not to engage anything I say but he's apparently not going along.

Here is background to my claim, and people can decide for themselves:

http://go.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=796674&section=news&src=rss/uk/topNews

[joe]

Here's Livington's statement in it's entirety. Pretty stirring stuff.

"I want to say one thing specifically to the world today. This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.

"It is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder and we know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other.

"This was a cowardly attack, which has resulted in injury and loss of life. Our thoughts are with everyone who has been injured, or lost loved ones. I want to thank the emergency services for the way they have responded.

"Following the al-Qaeda attacks on September 11th in America we conducted a series of exercises in London in order to be prepared for just such an attack. One of the exercises undertaken by the government, my office and the emergency and security services was based on the possibility of multiple explosions on the transport system during the Friday rush hour.

"The plan that came out of that exercise is being executed today, with remarkable efficiency and courage, and I praise those staff who are involved.

"I'd like to thank Londoners for the calm way in which they have responded to this cowardly attack and echo the advice of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair - do everything possible to assist the police and take the advice of the police about getting home today.

"I have no doubt whatsoever that this is a terrorist attack. We did hope in the first few minutes after hearing about the events on the Underground that it might simply be a maintenance tragedy. That was not the case.

"I have been able to stay in touch through the very excellent communications that were established for the eventuality that I might be out of the city at the time of a terrorist attack and they have worked with remarkable effectiveness. I will be in continual contact until I am back in London.

"I said yesterday to the International Olympic Committee, that the city of London is the greatest in the world, because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack. They will stand together in solidarity alongside those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved and that is why I'm proud to be the mayor of that city.

"Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.

"I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.

"In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.

"They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves.

"They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.

[rob]

Ok... I guess I was just thrown off by you attributing that as

"Ken Livingston's America-aggression-blaming, equivocating, non-terrorist blaming quote:"

So do we agree that there WAS a quote that was pretty crappy, and blamed America & Britain's foreign policy for the attack, but that the one you used was not it?

A bit confused... maybe I just need more caffeine.

[joe]

Oh, by the way, I'm asking you all kindly not to contradict or in any way argue with anything I post.

[rob]

cm harris - The fight I'm referring to is the argument over Ken Livingstone. I don't have a dog in that one. But I agree that we all have one in the current war, whether we admit it or not.

[rob]

joe - So Livingstone had his Rudy Giuliani moment, amidst a series of otherwise bone-headed statements? Well, it's good to see he can get ir right occasionally. But I still think he's a wanker for his other comments.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

rob:

I'll give that link again on the Livingstone flap:

http://go.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=796674?ion=news&src=rss/uk/topNews

I'm curious what you think.

[joe]

I think the confusion, rob, stems from the fact that you presented quotes Livingston made two weeks after the attacks, during a discussion of the causes of the bombings, as a parallel to the statements made on Fox a few minutes after the most recent set of bombings.

The quote Livingston actually made in the immediate aftermath of the bombings would be a better parallel for Fox's stock-centered reaction in the immediate aftermath. A Fox commentator's statements last night that the terrorists hate our freedom would be a better parallel for the comments you quoted from Red Ken.

[Julian Sanchez]

I don't see anything wrong with Livingstone's quote; it's basically accurate. Look, there are two fairly obvious truths about the current situation:
(1) The terrorists themselves bear full reponsibility for the awful things they do, and we should be commited without reservation to finding and punishing or killing them.
(2) There are a whole bunch of background conditions that contribute to the emergence of people prepared to do these awful things. Many of them have nothing directly to do with the West's foreign policy. Some of them do--Operation Cyclone; support for despots we perceived as friendly. It's worth paying some attention to what those conditions are and thinking about how not to go about recreating them any more than necessary.

Some people seem to think that (1) and (2) are incompatible, that asserting (2) entails rejecting (1), and that we have to choose. Can't we just say that both are pretty self evidently correct?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Julian:

No arguments, mate. I say in my original post that there are many valid points. But I argue that now isn't the time for a mayor to be doing any soul-searching and equivocation. His initial comments were focused soley on the murderers and I think he should've stuck with it.

[Rhywun]

"... 80 years of western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the western need for oil ...

... Americans recruited and trained Osama bin Laden, taught him how to kill ...

... [bin Laden] might turn on his creators ...

These are all true statements. Yet "Red Ken" is not allowed to express them? WTF? Once again, if terrorism stems purely from the minds of the lunatic killers, then where are the attacks on, oh, New Zealand? Or Iceland? I'm so sick of this bullshit posturing that requires us to pretend that these attacks are some sort of random occurrence.

[mediageek]

Oh come off it Julian.

Everyone knows that they hate us for our freedom.

Sheesh.

[Number 6]

Can we agree that noting that the attacks are motivated by a set of greivances is not the same as condoning the terrorists goals and actions? Perhaps we should set aside the intellectual sloth and think carefully.

[Twba]

From Mr. Nice Guy's link: The government has insisted the bombings have no link to its foreign policy, particularly its decision to invade Iraq alongside the United States.

The bombings are definitely related to British soldiers in Iraq.

The bombers want the infidels to withdraw from Muslim lands so true Muslims may create an Islamomarxist wonderstate, with flowery meadows and rainbow skies and rivers made of chocolate, where the children dance and laugh and play with gumdrop smiles.

[rob]

Ok, now I'm tracking where the confusion comes from, and I think joe's right about that. But I also (still) think Ken Livingstone's a wanker.

Julian and Rhywun - When you arm and bankroll someone to be an ally based on common goals does that mean that you should be surprised when they eventually go their own way? I don't think so.

When you go your separate ways after accomplishing those goals, even to the point of becoming enemies, does that mean it didn't make sense to ally yoursleves when you held common cause? Again, I don't think so.

[Tom Crick]

"I'm so sick of this bullshit posturing that requires us to pretend that these attacks are some sort of random occurrence."

I think there's a distinction between Al Qaeda types and the people in the Muslim street who support them.

...Surely the loonies would have found someone to murder regardless, but surely such loonies would enjoy less support in the Muslim street were it not for popular perceptions of the west's foreign policy.

[Rhywun]

Rob,

Those are good points, and I don't have an answer to them, other than that part of me wishes the US had been much more isolationist. It seems that every time we engage in the outside world to our supposed benefit, it comes back to bite us in the ass.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Rhywun:

"It seems that every time we engage in the outside world to our supposed benefit, it comes back to bite us in the ass."

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

"These are all true statements. Yet "Red Ken" is not allowed to express them? WTF?"

I don't dispute the validity of these expressions, but the timing. Livingstone was highly lauded for his focused response immediately after the attacks, but then breaks down barely a week later. The message got muddled. I paraphrase: "Yes, these are murderous thugs, BUT.." There should not be any "BUT".

First, one should smoke out the rats, kill them, plug up the holes. THEN it is time for personal reflection and change. The victims murdered in 9/11, Barcelona, and London, deserve nothing less.

[joe]

rob, "Red Ken is a wanker" is a perfectly legit criticism, albeit one I disagree with.

However, "Red Ken's response to the terror attacks was self flagellation and soul searching," if that was the point you were making, is dishonest. Apologies if I attributed that sentiment to you wrongly.

And I actually do have a problem with Ken's statement that the US armed Bin Laden. As I understand it, his group did not seek aid from the US when fighting the Soviets, for ideological reasons. This point was often made in the aftermath of 9/11, when the irony of mujahadeen operating from Afghanistan attacking America was often being pointed out. However, contradicting this assertion seems to have fallen off of the Right's talking points - right about the same time that a Saddam/Al Qaeda link was being used to justify the latest spendid little war. Hmmmmm.....

[Abiola Lapite]

Surely the loonies would have found someone to murder regardless, but surely such loonies would enjoy less support in the Muslim street were it not for popular perceptions of the west's foreign policy.

Funny then that the latest Pew Survey shows a decline in worldwide Muslim support for terrorism since that evil neocon warmonger Chimpy McHitler set off on his rampage against the poor little lamb of Tikrit ...

[BarryV]

I'm not a fan of Ken Livingstone, but his comments were valid. He's not George Galloway and he doesn't delight in seeing terrorism and he doesn't use terrorism as an excuse to forward his own agenda the Galloway does.

[stubby]

It seems that every time we engage in the outside world to our supposed benefit, it comes back to bite us in the ass.

Or, apparently, when we engage the outside world for their benefit as well.

We can argue forever about whether arming the muhajadeen in Afghanistan was a smart or a stupid thing to do, but let's try to remember that the Soviet invasion and occupation of that country was brutal in the extreme and at the time, lots of people thought we were doing the right thing, even apart from the Cold War by proxy angle. No one at the time could predict the future, or that OBL's guys would turn on us. It just wasn't an issue at the time, and KL can take his 20/20 hindsight and shove it up his ass. And, BTW, and appropos of nothing - George of Arabia Galloway supported the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan - he was all for it at the time. So screw 20/20 hindsight.

Secondly - yes, the oil companies made billions off ME oil, and yes, they "controlled" it for a long time. But good fucking grief - does anyone remember that ME countries, prior to the discovery of oil, were desperately poor? They had no resources, no exports, no economies. It wasn't as if they could locate, drill for, produce, refine and sell the shit themselves. Oil has been as much a curse as a blessing for those countries, but they needed it - their people are, in a strictly economic and material sense, much better off today than they were pre-oil. In fact, OBL would not have his millions of dollars to fund his jihad if petroleum had not transformed that region.

Yes, oil has made the ruling hereditary elites of those countries disgustingly disproportionately rich, and the fact that many of those countries are abominably governed and basically run as fiefs of thousands of "princes" is likewise disgusting. But oil improved the lot of the entire population, and their backwards ass governments are not entirely our fault; the region does not have a tradition of great human rights and individual liberty. We might just as well blame T.E. Lawrence for backing Ibn Saud, and Gertrude Bell and Sykes Picot and all those other European imperialist idiots who drew lines in the sand and called them borders. And I do, in fact.

We should have disengaged from S.A. a long, long time ago, and should do so now - and I'm wondering what's behind the sudden "retirement" of Bandar Bush. But - it's real easy to sit around and castigate ourselves for our dependence on oil. What's the current alternative? Petroleum runs the world, not just the US and not just our SUVs.

We did not steal that oil from those countries, we did not take it at gunpoint, and while the oil companies took advantage of the economically uneducated Arabs at the beginning, that situation was turned around decades ago.

For Livingstone to lecture us about aid to the Afghans or 70 years of business with the Middle East is just so much bullshit. Every action we take, as people or as nations, has myriad unknown potential consequences. In order to avoid unpleasant unknown potential consequences we would have to sit still and do nothing - that's not practical.

And why does everyone act as if the rightness or wrongness of an action should be judged solely on whether it will piss someone off or not?

Sorry. I'll shut up now.

[the regulator]

I work at a Fox station

Jeff -- I am trying not to laugh out loud knowing that. A libertarian type at the "METHWATCH" station! You aren't the guy who writes the lead-ins for every story that go "...and it may be meth-related" are you? 🙂

My only direct experience with that station was when some news thing looked like it would pre-empt "24" and I sent up an email to the news director, shortly after which the talking head said "24 will be seen after this..." or something like that.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

A "Bush knew" friend of mine once used the argument that if "the Arabs" really were behind 9/11, there would have been a host of smaller followup attacks. "Just think how much panic they could have caused just by blowing up a hand grenade outside Wall Street! They could have shut the whole country down!" And so on.

My reply-beyond noting that the anthrax mailings and the El Al shooting certainly seemed to qualify as smaller, non-country-shutting-down followups-was that a smaller attack after the most spectacular attack in history would violate the most important law of terrorism-the aesthetic law. Ezra Pound said the only artistic sin is to do less well what somebody's already done, and I think you're seeing that in practice today. I hope the one injured person has a speedy and full recovery.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

stubby:

Great post. I find it strange that, given then current perspective, that nomatic desert-dwellers were affectionately portrayed in 80s movies. I remember one (I forget exactly which) where a bunch of fun-loving Taliban-types roll in on camels to the tune of "Freaks come out at night". "Jewel of the Nile", maybe??

[Tom Crick]

I won't argue with that Abiola, but surely you'll concede that groups like Al Qaeda do enjoy the support of some Muslims.

...There's no doubt that many Muslims disagree with the terrorists tactics, even if they agree with Al Qaeda's latest list of grievances, and, furthermore, there's no doubt that many Muslims disagree with Al Qaeda on both tactics and their stated list of grievances.

...but of the Muslims out there that, however passively, do support both the stated aims and tactics of Al Qaeda, surely their number would be smaller were it not for the street's perceptions of the west's foreign policy. No?

[Tom Crick]

...that came out wrong.

Of the Muslims out there that, however passively, support the stated aims of Al Qaeda, surely their number would be smaller were it not for popular perceptions regarding the west's foreign policy.

[stubby]

OK, one more. I just ran across this at Harry's Place:

?After all, the African embassy bombings happened before Iraq,? Mark Urban, the diplomatic editor of the BBC program ?Newsnight,? said. ?The I.R.A. had a political arm, and a political goal, however unreal: they killed to get people to the table. What is there to negotiate with these people? An end to the American presence in Saudi Arabia? All right, we?ll consider it. The elimination of the State of Israel? Hmm, that may be a bit more difficult. The restoration of a universal Islamic caliphate? It may be a bit of a deal-breaker, that. This is not a program, really. It?s a wraparound justification for a violence whose real end is the expiation of shame through massacre.?

"The expiation of shame through massacre." I think that's brilliant.

[gaius marius]

I don't see anything wrong with Livingstone's quote; it's basically accurate

thank you, mr sanchez, for exuding some reason.

i'm constantly amazed at how the first reaction to these events among so many is to deny that any of us ever did anything wrong -- ever. there's a massive amount of repressed cultural insecurity in that reaction, imo.

But I argue that now isn't the time for a mayor to be doing any soul-searching and equivocation.

so, mr nice guy, we should deny the truth in the face of a threat as a means of dealing with it? how does that not effectively destroy the value of an open society in bringing forward the full scope of the problems we are faced with?

[gaius marius]

It?s a wraparound justification for a violence whose real end is the expiation of shame through massacre.

that's merely a trite dismissal of many material problems by a person who doesn't want to address the painful issues that might expose our own culpability on some level, mr stubby. people who react in this way to what we are dealing with are the ones who can find no response but circuitous suicide to the challenge.

the primary (and clearly stated) goal of islamist groups attacking the west is to end the western military and cultural incursion into the east. i don't know if we can completely reverse that centuries-old process, but we can surely address it.

anyways, its only a matter of time before we concede. ask the british. they remember the king david hotel. they remember the ira. the lessons of imperialism are what they know by bitter experience and we have yet to learn. and that's what informs livingstone's comments, more than anything.

[joe]

Abiola,

It is certainly true that "the latest Pew Survey shows a decline in worldwide Muslim support for terrorism since that evil neocon warmonger Chimpy McHitler set off on his rampage against the poor little lamb of Tikrit ..."

and yet, actual deaths from terrorism have tripled worldwide since the beginning of Our Forthright and Farsighted President initiated his Really Great Idea That Couldn't Possibly Go Wrong.

What are we to make of these seeming contradictions?

[gaius marius]

yes, the oil companies made billions off ME oil, and yes, they "controlled" it for a long time. But good fucking grief - does anyone remember that ME countries, prior to the discovery of oil, were desperately poor? They had no resources, no exports, no economies. It wasn't as if they could locate, drill for, produce, refine and sell the shit themselves. Oil has been as much a curse as a blessing for those countries, but they needed it - their people are, in a strictly economic and material sense, much better off today than they were pre-oil. In fact, OBL would not have his millions of dollars to fund his jihad if petroleum had not transformed that region.

mr stubby, you make the (common, here at least) mistake of equating economics with universal improvement. that isn't true even in the west -- and it surely isn't true in the east, where western capitalism is often seen as a mechanical interloper enveloping a proud and productive islamic civilizational heritage. history holds many examples to illustrate that wealth or poverty makes extremely little difference to people who feel forcibly dislocated from their birthright.

you seem to believe that, if they experience what you would call "success" as a result of our machinations, regardless of what they were, they should be "happy". that's an extraordinarily obtuse worldview.

[Tom Crick]

"What are we to make of these seeming contradictions?"

I'd like to point out that I was saying that whatever the level of support for Al Qaeda is presently, it would be less were it not for the perception on the street of the west's foreign policy. It's entirely possible for support for Al Qaeda to be on the decline even as core supporters become increasingly radicalized. ...I'm not saying that's what's happening, just pointing out that it's possible.

...On a related and, probably, more controversial topic, one might suppose that there must have been a point in every suicide bomber's life when he was still within our reach. ...Can we not presume as much regarding others who would passively support Al Qaeda as well?

[gaius marius]

Funny then that the latest Pew Survey shows a decline in worldwide Muslim support for terrorism since that evil neocon warmonger Chimpy McHitler set off on his rampage against the poor little lamb of Tikrit ...

because muslims are peace-loving and decent people, of course. but that in no way can be conflated with a reduction in the hatred felt for the united states -- indeed, more people in the mideast than every before would like to see america suffer and fail horribly, even as they despise terrorism. that is a result of their interactions with us in recent years.

if we continue as we have, you can be assured that, in desperation, more and more will seek some way to address the issue with the united states -- and, if we give them no other path for redress, violence will become far more common and widely supported. this is a well-established lesson of the western experience in the context of european empires.

[Jason Ligon]

"and yet, actual deaths from terrorism have tripled worldwide since the beginning of Our Forthright and Farsighted President initiated his Really Great Idea That Couldn't Possibly Go Wrong."

I agree that the original poll in question doesn't necessarily tell us much, but this is an even more facile response. Clearly, the counter argument has something to do with short term vs long term numbers. Just as clearly, we will never know for sure.

I am unsure how to address this whole mess. I can't help but think the argument that "if it makes terrorists mad, it is obviously the wrong solution," is a tad too easy. What is the theory there? Are we making them mad because now we have greater presence in the middle east, or are we making them mad because we are crapping on a power play whose basis is that Islam will defeat the west? Is the answer different for the suicide bomber and the guy who sent him?

For the bomber: If this is about poverty for him, and we want to get growth started to aleviate that incentive to blow things up, how do you endorse growth over the long run with homicidal power hungry tin pots and clerics running the show? Are we saying that we really just have to keep taking it on the chin until they can establish their own environment for growth?

For the guys who send the bombers: It is possible that they are entirely interested in policy. If we leave the middle east, everything will be just fine. I don't happen to believe that is the case. They are motivated to demonize the west for the same reason Kim Jong Il is - to deflect responsibility and consolidate power in the face of an enemy. In that view, leaving them alone doesn't really help you very much.

[B.P.]

"the primary (and clearly stated) goal of islamist groups attacking the west is to end the western military and cultural incursion into the east. i don't know if we can completely reverse that centuries-old process, but we can surely address it."

And to express outrage at getting booted out of Spain in 1492. And lots of other nonnegotiable, wackadoo stuff. But I guess that was writings from many outrages ago.

[Jason Ligon]

gaius:

If you feel your birthright is to live a self determined life and I feel my birthright is to convert you at the sword and shroud your wife, I am not sure your best course of action is to allow me my birthright in the name of peace.

[mediageek]

the primary (and clearly stated) goal of islamist groups attacking the west is to end the western military and cultural incursion into the east.

Ending western "cultural incursion" is completely impossible. Know why? Because the majority of the people who live there want what we've got.

Most people in the Middle East, especially of the younger generations want McDonald's, shopping malls, Levi's and Jerry Bruckheimer movies.

Gaius, you and the Islamist theofascists may want to live in some sort of luddite-induced backward era, but that doesn't mean the rest of us do, Middle Eastern or American.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

For the bomber: If this is about poverty for him, and we want to get growth started to aleviate that incentive to blow things up, how do you endorse growth over the long run with homicidal power hungry tin pots and clerics running the show?

If anything is obvious beyond argument, it's that contemporary terrorism is not about poverty. I hate to team up with gaius, but as long as we continue thinking in terms of socioeconomic root causes, we'll not only be mealymouthed John Lindsay liberals, we'll continue to be wrong.

Orwell has been pretty much drained of meaning in the last couple years, but refer to his comment at the start of World War II: that liberals can't comprehend the rise of fascism because they can't imagine why people with good salaries, proper nutrition, improving arts, and adequate birth control could ever be unhappy.

Terrorism is filling a spiritual need for these guys that western civilization can not fill. I differ from gaius in believing western civ should not be trying to fill that need, but he's right about one thing: The argument that these cultures were backward and struggling before we started pumping the oil is so beside the point it's not even worth addressing. Read Cities of Salt. Get My Son the Fanatic from Netflix. Man does not live by bread alone. Or by porn alone or booze alone or nice cars alone. The Russians have all of those now, and they're in the grip of a massive Stalin-nostalgizing national-greatest fever.

[kwais]

This was just sent to me by a friend;

"Koran (9:11) - For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a
> fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the
> lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair
> still
> more
> rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and
> there was peace.
>
> (Note the verse number!) Hmmmmmmm?! God Bless you all Amen !"

I will have to look in the Koran to see if that is for real.

It sounds about right though.

[rob]

joe - It seemed to me that you were saying that KL's quote was his Giuliani moment. I'm happy to agree that he said something both inspiring at one point and totally wanker-ish the next.

As for the argument about bin Laden being armed and trained by the CIA, if joe says that isn't the case. Stunningly, without doing any research, I too assumed that he had been. Funny... But I'd like to see the dots connected on why this has fallen from the talking points.

As for the back and forth between gaius and stubby, I think stubby's got it right. Because the bottom line here is that it doesn't matter what someone's grievance is or whether it is legitimate or not. What's even less important is the opinion Tom Crick/Ken Schultz is so worried about - that of the so-called "Arab street." (A particularly bad metaphor, in my opinion.)

What's important is that when people try to kill you and yours you do the sane thing: Defend as best as you can, and then retaliate with overwhelming force against those who have attacked you. Past foreign policy mis-steps are beside the point when you're fighting a war.

I tend to prefer isolationism, unfortunately it doesn't seem to work, based on past examples. Particularly not when you're the biggest single power on the planet. When you are the biggest power, people will hold bloody grievances, no matter how good you are to them or whther or not you engage them.

In summation, then, to hell with them. We'll do what's in our best interests as best we can figure it at the time. If you then start trying to kill us, we'll hunt you down and kill every last one of you if that's what it takes. Sadly, that's the sane approach, in a world that has been this crazy since Cain bludgeoned Abel.

The not-so-sane approach is to start whining about what we should have done differently, or as Kerry put, it fight "a more ... thoughtful, ... more sensitive war on terror."

Because thoughtfulness and sensitivity are exactly the response people who want to kill you and yours are looking for - whether they're mugging you in an alley or trying to hijack the jet you're on. Your thoughtful, sensitive response is an asset to someone trying to kill you.

A sincere commitment to sending them straight to hell, regardless of their "grievances" - is exactly the opposite reaction they're hoping for - and for good reason.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Not even close, kwais:

"9.11": But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know.

[Herman]

kwais-
That is supposed to be an urban legend.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/religion.asp#religion

[stubby]

Gaius: No, I don't think economic improvements made them, or should have made them, "happy." I do think those economic improvements made them healthier and longer lived and better fed and more numerous. To pretend that the western presence in the ME has resulted in absolutely no postive effects is just absurd, and I don't believe the majority of the people there would argue that. Whether the positive effects outweigh the negative effects is another question.

And you seem to assume, as do a lot of other people, as if most people in the Middle East agree with OBL and the jihadis that the western presence and its attendant "cultural incursion" has been wholly evil. I disagree with you. Many of the citizens of that region are very Westernized; they like and they want what the technology of the West has to offer - cultural, medical, scientific, recreational. If they could unwrap the dead hands of their governments from around their necks, they'd partake of it more. They are not children or naive primitives, they were not duped or forced into westernizing. If they were "forcibly dislocated from their birthright" - whatever that means - do you mean their culture? their traditions? a birthright is individual, not collective - it was not wholly the west, and certainly not wholly America, that did the forcing. They weren't raped - if they have mixed emotions about no longer being virginal, well, lots of people do. But I'd venture to say that not all, probably not even most, share OBL's longing for a return to the 7th - not even the 15th - century Caliphate.

Yes, the Islamic civilizational heritage is very proud. Unfortunately, it hasn't been productive for several centuries - hence the stagnant economies, hence the repressive regimes, hence the almost total lack of scientific or technological advancement or innovation, hence the powerlessness, hence the shame.

Your comments sound not far removed from the noble savage school of thought - our dusky brethren are a noble, simple, spiritual people who want no part of our polluted culture; Arabs can't do democracy; capitalism is icky; etc. etc. That is obtuse in the extreme.

We have no "culpability" in these suicide bombings, whatever our sins vis a vis the ME might be. I am not arguing that we've done no wrong, committed no misdeeds, in the past. But if we abandoned the Middle East completely and tomorrow, the jihad would not be cancelled.

And I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that we will "concede." The British would have acquiesced to the establishment of Israel without the Kind David bombing; European Holocaust guilt made it inevitable.

I didn't realize that the UK had withdrawn from Ulster. How remarkable.

I have no idea what "circuitous suicide is."

[kwais]

Tim C,
Sure poverty is not the issue. But having a middle class with rights can' hurt either.

Also what I got from the post about the improvement that has come as a result of oil companies; was that the criticism from the left stating that terrorism is a result of oil companies robbing them and as a result of our buisness over there is bogus.

Sure man generally has a need for spirituality. Here we have guys that have science fairs that try to prove the world is only 6000 years old.

There they have a guy with a bomb to win his argument, that contrary to popular belief the answers (covering such topics from Darwinism to Britney's boobs) are not in the west.

[mediageek]

Terrorism is filling a spiritual need for these guys that western civilization can not fill.

That is a deeply disturbing thought. People with massive quantities of faith aren't likely to be swayed by logic.

Just look at the stuff that Ronald Bailey is reporting on from the Creation Mega-Conference. He's at a place packed wall-to-wall with people that have chosen to stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and yell "LA-LA-LA-LA."

If terrorism is indeed filling some sort of perceived spiritual need for these people, what are our choices? Obviously you can't reason with them, and will leaving them alone cause them to back down, or simply embolden them?

I really, really hate to ask these sorts of questions, because the more I continue to think about it, the more I begin to think that nothing we do will ultimately change the situation.

[Tom Crick]

"What's even less important is the opinion Tom Crick/Ken Schultz is so worried about - that of the so-called "Arab street." (A particularly bad metaphor, in my opinion.)"

There seems to be a suggestion that I used the term "Arab street", but I didn't.

The distinction between Muslims who support the stated goals but not the tactics of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda itself seemed important to me.

...So what?

[kwais]

OK, I guess the Koran quote is urban legend. How very dissapointing.

[Rhywun]

For Livingstone to lecture us about ... 70 years of business with the Middle East is just so much bullshit.

OK, first we stamp out the problem (however we go about doing that... invading Iraq doesn't seem to be accomplishing it, IMHO) and then we worry about causes and such. I can get down with that. What I can't abide is the whole "our way of life is non-negotiable" 'tude we pull while demanding our god-given right to 1/4 the earth's major resource. The US has done next to nothing to reduce our need to deal with the Middle East. In fact, one look at the ex-urban landscape we've built ourselves in the last twenty years makes it clear we're going to rely on them for ever higher oil imports.

[Tom Crick]

"I really, really hate to ask these sorts of questions, because the more I continue to think about it, the more I begin to think that nothing we do will ultimately change the situation."

Many of us are uncomfortable with ideas that weren't arrived at by way of quantitative analysis, but people who believe such things are not beyond our reach.

...People are swayed by moral appeals. Moral appeals and logic are not incompatible.

[rob]

"People are swayed by moral appeals. Moral appeals and logic are not incompatible." - Tom Crick

Sure, and if we all just sit down and talk this whole crazy thing out, we can come to a sensible accord. Sure. I hope that if I ever decide to impose my will on someone, it's someone who thinks exactly like that...

As for not invoking the Arab Street, well, this quote definitely made me think that's what you were referring to: "I'd like to point out that I was saying that whatever the level of support for Al Qaeda is presently, it would be less were it not for the perception on the street of the west's foreign policy." My bad.

[Jason Ligon]

Tim:

If you are right, we are well and truly screwed. If there is, in the act of bombing, a spiritual need that is fulfilled, and that need is the primary motivator ... yikes. We are dealing with irrational actors primarily motivated by blowing us up. Contra gaius, we can't address that need. Does that need really go away when we leave Iraq and Saudi Arabia?

[Dynamist]

Jason: We might not be able to fulfill such spiritual need, but we could possibly offer substitute fulfillments. For some (sociopaths) there may be no substitute. For most, I believe that imperfect substitutes are available. I see most of my USA neighbors as spiritually dormant, but well-pacified by feeling family connections and legacy through offspring, and by watching reality TV.

What serves my neighbors might not exactly serve the jihadi recruitment pool, but if all humans have similar essential needs, I think we could come up with something. Then, we have to remain engaged in the ME to be able to offer whatever satisfying substitutes we come up with. Pulling out removes our ability to influence them away from killing us.

[Ali G]

Why don't we just, ya know, take an empty building and say to the TERROrists "Here, blow up this empty building, we weren't gonna use it anyway?"

RESPEK

[stubby]

So they love what we have to offer materially, they hate what we offer, or don't offer, spiritually. I can understand that. But we can't do anything about it. The West is kind of a post-spiritual place these days. As a (gay lovin, evolution believin, upright walkin)Christian, I find that sad sometimes. But I find it interesting that Tim brings up the spiritual void issue - I think he's right, but this website is not noted for its respect for religion. (And yeah, spirituality is different from religion, but most of the people I know who embrace their spirituality while disdaining anything as backward and red state as religion turn out to be your basic new age freaks.)

And I think Rob is right - when you are the biggest power on the planet, everyone will pin their grievances on you. Which is why I disagree with with the last sentence here:

indeed, more people in the mideast than every before would like to see america suffer and fail horribly, even as they despise terrorism. that is a result of their interactions with us in recent years.

No, that's a result of their own failings, frustrations, fears, poor self-esteem, and their leaders' using us as a necessary distraction to keep them - the people - from cutting off those aforementioned dead hands.

We've fucked up plenty in the ME, but American actions are not the sole cause for jihad and American actions couldn't possibly quell it either.

[Tom Crick]

"Sure, and if we all just sit down and talk this whole crazy thing out, we can come to a sensible accord."

I don't think that was the point mediageek was tryin' to make, but maybe I'm wrong.

[gaius marius]

Because the majority of the people who live there want what we've got.

Most people in the Middle East, especially of the younger generations want McDonald's, shopping malls, Levi's and Jerry Bruckheimer movies.

are you quite sure about that, mr mediageek? because i've been convinced of the view that they want to choose what aspects of what we've got that they'd like to have, and reject others, regardless of what we'd like to see them take -- and it is being forced to accept any part of it against their will that they hate us for.

now we're addressing not a handful of nuts but the massive popular base that provides them sympathy and makes their insurgency workable. and virtually none of them want to be westernized. ask them. i've seen them asked, and to a man they do not want it. they want to be able to choose, at their own pace, of their own volition, in their own time. and they want us to back off in the meantime and mind our own business.

[gaius marius]

If you feel your birthright is to live a self determined life and I feel my birthright is to convert you at the sword and shroud your wife, I am not sure your best course of action is to allow me my birthright in the name of peace.

the birthright most muslims seek is nothing of the kind, mr ligon -- read the manifestos, and the common thread is that they want us to leave them alone and in peace to be self-determined muslims. that is a material, pragmatic and approachable demand. more importantly, that is the point by which the radicals are granted the widespread sympathy of the arab peoples.

all this ridiculousness that they want to convert us or reinstall the abbasaid caliphate is western panic/propaganda, and reasonable people aren't dumb enough to subscribe to such drivel being an important part of the interaction of the western and islamic civilizations, imo. truth be told, they have far greater reason (given the proximity of our armies) to believe we're assimilating them -- i think we may be projecting our thoughts onto them, frankly.

[gaius marius]

I hate to team up with gaius

hey! 😉

[Eric the .5b]

I am curious about how we're supposed to prevent "cultural incursions" into the MidEast. Hide?

[Eric the .5b]

the birthright most muslims seek is nothing of the kind, mr ligon

And most Muslims are not planting bombs or flying planes into buildings. Our problem doesn't stem from most Muslims.

[mediageek]

are you quite sure about that, mr mediageek? because i've been convinced of the view that they want to choose what aspects of what we've got that they'd like to have, and reject others, regardless of what we'd like to see them take -- and it is being forced to accept any part of it against their will that they hate us for.

According to my ex-girlfriend who worked in Kuwait for a year as a contractor, yes. Heck, if they really didn't want our products they wouldn't buy them and there'd simply be no reason to even attempt to export them to the ME. I am, of course, painting with a rather broad brush, but then so are you. The acceptance of the products of western culture certainly varies from one country to the next, and is more dominant among young people than the older generations. Surely in that there's a vibe of "Look at these kids these days, they're all a bunch of lazy, hedonistic good-for-nothing ne'er do-wells."

[gaius marius]

I do think those economic improvements made them healthier and longer lived and better fed and more numerous. To pretend that the western presence in the ME has resulted in absolutely no postive effects is just absurd, and I don't believe the majority of the people there would argue that.

again, are those things the wellspring of contendedness? is life "better" with them? and is it better enough an end for them to overlook the means?

Yes, the Islamic civilizational heritage is very proud. Unfortunately, it hasn't been productive for several centuries - hence the stagnant economies, hence the repressive regimes, hence the almost total lack of scientific or technological advancement or innovation, hence the powerlessness, hence the shame.

and here the same reasoning applied in the other direction. are these things inconsistent with contendedness? or do they merely seem to to a decadent capitalist -- who happens also to be seeing a shrink w/r/t that persistent, undefinable aimless feeling that gnaws at him day and night?

i see nothing savage in islamic culture -- but i do see a different standard of satisfaction at work which has much less to do with material pursuit and a lot more to do with spirituality.

But if we abandoned the Middle East completely and tomorrow, the jihad would not be cancelled.

i utterly disagree -- although there's a boatload of fear propaganda out there intended to have us believe that these people are like romero's zombies. again, what they desire is self-determination -- and they detest the west because we've ben interfering in their self-determination for over a hundred years. the brits marched into mesopotamia in 1914, and the west hasn't left it alone since. that is why they are upset.

i wouldn't think that would be hard for the libertarian set to understand -- but then, some libertarians are so self-involved as to be incapable of putting themselves in another man's shoes.

Contra gaius, we can't address that need.

mr ligon -- what they detest is the western notion that we somehow have to fill that need for them. the paternalistic arrogance of the west is probably the most aggravating feature for the average muslim. the constant blather about how primitive islam and islamic society is must drive them wild -- what an indictment of western stupidity and ignorance those statements are! and we repeat them again and again -- comtemptible statements like mr stubby's

that's a result of their own failings, frustrations, fears, poor self-esteem, and their leaders' using us as a necessary distraction to keep them - the people - from cutting off those aforementioned dead hands.

sincerely, i think a lot of us are forced to paint them barbaric because of the deep-seated cultural insecurities that are now pevasive in the west. the aimlessness. the moral decay. the futility. the irony. many people are decrying these people as A Perfect Simple Enemy because it allows us to ignore a lot of internal problems and divert the blame/guilt/anxiety.

[gaius marius]

I am curious about how we're supposed to prevent "cultural incursions" into the MidEast. Hide?

withdrawing the armies would be a big step, mr .5b. calling off our global jihad for democracy and western values would be another.

i don't think we yet realize what a massive mistake invading afghanistan and iraq was. it essentially confirmed all the worst fears of islamic society fed by the radical right. we could have done nothing else so effective to feed the fire that burns against us, i suspect.

[gaius marius]

Our problem doesn't stem from most Muslims.

i think it does -- or rather, the solution to our problem does. islamist radicals are few, but their support is widespread. if the lines of sympathy between radical actors and the mainstream could be severed, we would i think see real action within islam against these radicals in a way the west simply is not capable of pursuing by force.

so we invade and make osama look like a prophet. and make the problem that much worse. silly thing to do.

still, withdrawal of american armies and a real solution in palestine could perhaps still recitfy these problems over a generation or two. a refusal to address their concerns, however, and i suspect an essentially permanent emnity will set in, and whole generations will be born and raised to destroy us. and all our idiotic patriotic blather will seem very stupid and hubristic to our great-grandchildren in retrospect.

[stubby]

Gaius - I don't intend to be mean - honestly - but I sometimes find your prose, as well as your points, to be incomprehensible. I don't think it's me - I think it's you. And your antipathy to capitalization is offputting.

Anyway. You apparently know the mind of Osama better than the man himself does, as he's been talking about reconquest of former Muslim lands and worldwide conversion to Islam for years now. And you apparently know the minds of millions of Muslims as well - how impressive. Or condescending, or presumptuous, but whatever. I forget sometimes how utterly disgusted you are with the west, and everyone and everything in it. As Buzz Lightyear said, you're a strange, sad little man, and you have my pity.

[rob]

"massive popular base that provides them sympathy and makes their insurgency workable" - gaius marius

Hmmm... I just don't think that's the case. I don't think the insurgency has a massive popular base, I don't think it's what enables Iraqi insurgents to operate, and in the long run I doubt that the insurgency is workable.

Of course, I don't see this as the end times for Western civilization, either, so I think we're starting from polar opposite perspectives and basic truths as well.

As for whether it's stubby or gaius marius who is making condescending generalizations, um... Well, I think it's clear that stubby is only talking about people who are trying to kill us in simplified terms. (Something I agree with. If you turn yourself into an objective threat, don't be surprised if you are objectified by those you are a threat to.)

gaius seems to speak of what he believes of all Arabs - who aren't all devout followers of Islam, don't all blame the US for their problems, don't... well, obviously that's a never-ending list.

But just as a base-line for diverging viewpoints on the so-called "Arab street," there are plenty of Iraqis and Kuwaitis who are awfully glad to see the U.S. and its coalition partners in their country. Plenty who look forward to greater freedoms, more representative gov't, greater economic opportunity, etc.

To claim that this is not the case, is simply too great a generalization for me to let pass without comment.

I think it is only slightly less ridiculous to claim that resentment by certain segments of those who claim to follow the Islamic faith will go away if we simply retreat to Fortress America.

Moral of the story: Just because the ostrich puts its head in the sand doesn't mean it won't get eaten by a pack of wild jackals.

[mediageek]

i see nothing savage in islamic culture -- but i do see a different standard of satisfaction at work which has much less to do with material pursuit and a lot more to do with spirituality.

Hmmm, in many ME nations women are forced to be covered head-to-toe in public, a woman who commits adultery can be stoned to death, thieves have their hands chopped off, men who shaved their bears off were likely to be imprisoned, ancient, irreplacable Buddhist statues were destroyed for being against Allah, and their system of government is inextricably tied to a book written by a pre-medieval epileptic.

Nothing barbaric there at all, nope, not a thing.

Don't misread this as action supporting the current administration's actions. Quite frankly, I'm ambivalent about the whole thing. However, for all of those who think that if we were to simply just leave them alone, I have to wonder, where in the historical records has the Middle Eastern culture backed down from a slight, perceived or real?

[Jason Ligon]

gaius:

Your view that the greatest desire of jihadist is to be left alone strikes me as a titanic load of BS unless by 'left alone' you mean left alone on the whole planet. Consider Spain, for example. I guess we could agree that all they want is to be self actualized muslims with control of Spain. I would note that we don't send troops to Bhutan, and all they want is to be left alone, free from outside interference. Yes, oil is a factor. So is the fact that the Bhutanese don't 'strike at the heart' of western civilization on a regular basis.

Further, lets grant for a moment that what motivates the jihadist is the presence of the west in the east. What about arabs who don't agree? Do we have to see a fall of Lebanon, for example? That is awfully western. Does the guy who blows up the buildings get to dictate to everyone what they have to do? There is no self determination in the whole of the middle east. Some jackass with enough thugs decides for everyone how to live or he will shoot them in some places, and some jackass with a psychotic reading of his favorite book and a suicide bomber indoctrination camp decides for everybody in other places. I submit that the cleric fears more than anything else the self determination of his flock and that is what he is determined to prevent. Just as Kim Jong Il's domestic popularity teaches us, control of information is a powerful thing.

[Dynamist]

I submit that the cleric fears more than anything else the self determination of his flock and that is what he is determined to prevent;

Bingo!

Maybe the unmet needs idea works thusly: Some individuals don't want to think for themselves, and any strong leader meets the need to limit personal responsibility and guilt. Leaders need power and a feeling of effectiveness, satisfied by control of followers. There's no particular culture or religion in that description. It seems applicable to nearly all of human history.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

London police just did a Dirty Harry on some guy:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050722/ap_on_re_eu/britain_underground

A passage:

"Passengers said a man, described as South Asian, ran onto a train at Stockwell station in south London. Witnesses said police chased him, he tripped, and police then shot him.

"They pushed him onto the floor and unloaded five shots into him. He's dead," witness Mark Whitby told the British Broadcasting Corp. "He looked like a cornered fox. He looked petrified.""

For once I'll keep my mouth shut until more details come out. But an interesting development.