“Britain has already accepted curtailments of civil liberties, freedom of speech, and even such basic human rights as habeas corpus and the ability to travel without hinderance that were not considered necessary during the Irish Republican Army campaign on the mainland, and which would not then have been tolerated by the electorate.”

The British people haven’t accepted anything of the sort, they have merely looked on, disempowered as ever by the farcically undemocratic system we labour under, while an authoritarian government imposed restrictions which would have been totally unnecessary had it been sufficiently principled, or sufficiently responsive to majority public opinion, to refuse to participate in the US empire’s illegal wars which have alienated millions of people and unnecessarily created enemies right across the world.

Interestingly enough I’ve been on the NW flight from Detroit – Amsterdam. Probably given that a lot of muslims live in Michigan there seemed to be a lot of middle-eastern people on board. Our friendly Christmas Day bomber would have taken them out too.

You say Dave that we need close monitoring of Islamic radicals, apparently closer than we do now. Is not that what is called for by writers in the Mail and the Telegraph. You “translate” their comments into meaning more, then essentialy say the same thing they actually say yourself.

domestic extremist – you say the people have just looked on while liberties have been removed. Most people accepted them as neccesary. The IRA comparison is invalid since most of its terrorism is technicaly domestic. And the police, army and intelligence services carried out significant anti-terror activities for years.
The rambling about the US illegal wars is just that. Can anybody actually define an illegal war. The military actions undertaken by coalitions of nations were just that, UK didnt have to participate but did. As for your nonsense about alienating millions – you mean the same millions who hated the west when Clinton was President and Major was Prime Minister. They hate the west and no amount of appeasment will change it except obedient conversion to orthodox Islam.

It is difficult to think of passenger security improvements that would reduce the risk of being a victim of terrorism on an aircraft much below the current probability of ‘infinitesimal’.

We could adopt El Al’s procedures across the board but I suspect many people would find them too onerous – arrive 3-4 hours before departure, possible lengthy interrogation, possible strip search, very thorough checking of luggage (to the extent that you may need to re-wrap your Christmas gifts)…

The IRA comparison is invalid since most of its terrorism is technicaly domestic.

Why on earth would that make a difference?

Poor lad’s burnt his cock off so a modicum of sympathy should be applied – hee hee hee.

John B:

>> The IRA comparison is invalid since most of its terrorism is technicaly domestic.
> Why on earth would that make a difference?

Not sure what Dave had in mind – but maybe that the IRA fed form a small number of people in a small part of our country, and was relatively small scale: a bombing or two per year.

Whereas Islamic terrorism is fed by people from all over the world, different nationalities: and the worldwide news reports 2 or more bombings per week.

But nearly all Islamist terrorist attacks are domestic – Iraqis in Iraq, Palestinians in Palestine, Saudis in Saudi, Afghans in Afghanistan, Brits in the UK.

The 9/11 hijackers, Richard Reid, and Abdulmutallab are rare exceptions.

Domestic Extremist – This has diddly squat to do with Iraq, nor Afganistan for that matter. Just pause, and think a bit, World Trade Centre in September 2001, invasion of Afganistan in October 2001 and the dimwit shoe bomber failed to blow himself up in December 2001.
He wasn’t ‘provoked’ by the invasion of Afganistan he was allready sitting in London waiting to fly to the USA.
For crying out loud don’t be so accepting of the narrative which says the US/West are bad and had it coming as a result of the response to the bombing of the World Trade Centre and US actions thereafter.
I hope that the pants bomber has burnt his nuts off. He’ll have nothing to offer the virgins next time round.

I am viscerally, palpably, nauseated and scared by the comments on that Daily Telegraph article. Froth-mouthed wingnuts swing effortlessly between an innate ‘evil’ of the faith, the ‘evil’ of historical empire building and an ‘evil’ sub-class waiting to breed us out then deprive good Christian folk of the vote, hopping between each as the pendulum swings back their way.

I can only assume, from selective quoting of the Qu’ran, that they’re copying and pasting from other out of context websites, failing to take into consideration that much of the Qu’ran is based on the Mosaic Law. The argument seems to be when you quote from the Bible (especially Leviticus 20:9. “Anyone who curses their parents should be put to death”) that Jesus came and got rid of all that nonsense. Even ignoring Matthew 5:18, where Jesus said that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until heaven and earth pass away (although he didn’t say anything about adding to it) that must mean that the Jews should get the same level of oppobrium.

One commentor says in one breath that Islam needs a reformation, but that until it can sort itself out it should stay in its own country, ignoring the whole fact that exposure to Western values is the very thing that will create a reformation.

Still, at least the frothing wingnuts will be shoving their votes to the BNP and UKIP, thus making way for a hung parliament built on consensus rather than roughshod hooves.

Dave O: “Britain has already accepted curtailments of civil liberties…”

domestic extremist: “The British people haven’t accepted anything of the sort…”

Sorry, domestic extremist, but European citizens have sat back and endured the futile “security checks” that have been imposed upon us. If you want to fly, don’t make a fuss.

I could bore you with a four hour lecture about how it is improbable (to the extent of near impossibility) to construct a bomb from liquids carried onto an aircraft. You could just about make enough explosive to blow off your fingers during construction, assuming that nobody became suspicious about your prolonged occupation of the WC.

Alternatively, in ten minutes, I could teach you how to get a knife onto a plane.

Hermenuticals: “Can anybody actually define an illegal war?”

One definition is any attack which is in breach of the UN Charter ban on the use of force by member state/s against any other state, except where military action is specifically sanctioned by the Security Council in order to keep the peace. Clearly this is what Kofi Annan had in mind when he explicitly described the Iraq invasion as illegal after the USA launched its attack despite having failed to secure a Security Council resolution legitimising military action against Iraq.

By thus spectacularly showing its contempt for the system of collective security which had been in place since the end of the second world war (reasonably successfully for as long as the Soviet Union existed to exercise a balancing role on the international scene), the USA in effect served notice that it considered itself at liberty to invade any other sovereign state. Only knee-jerk “Atlanticists” could fail to be alienated by such arrogance. Millions of other people across the world and in Britain too, only some of them adherents of Islam, were appalled by the dire prospects for world peace the Iraq invasion opened up, which is why there were massive and widespread protest marches and demonstrations.

Rumpypumpy: “think a bit, World Trade Centre in September 2001, invasion of Afganistan in October 2001 and the dimwit shoe bomber failed to blow himself up in December 2001. He wasn’t ‘provoked’ by the invasion of Afganistan he was allready sitting in London waiting to fly to the USA.”

If you want to identify what provokes Islamic terrorism, there’s no point in nitpicking over the precise sequence of events in the opening years of the present century. For decades the USA, intent on controlling other nations’ oil resources by installing military bases and compliant dictatorial regimes, has interfered in the Middle East, creating enemies in the process. The squalid record stretches at least from the CIA’s installing the Shah as a US puppet in 1953, via first supplying arms to Saddam Hussein for the purpose of attacking Iran and then mounting an invasion of Iraq, up to Washington’s complicity, as Israel’s leading supplier of armaments and unswerving diplomatic aid and comfort, in the slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza in late 2008.

Precisely which of these circumstances, and others which could have been mentioned, constitutes a tipping point for any individual jihadist is neither here nor there. The point is that if we in the UK want to become as unlikely a future jihadi target as Switzerland or Brazil (both provokingly non-Islamic countries which curiously, have not been attacked by these allegedly Caliphate-obsessed religious lunatics, unlike US allies like Spain, Australia and ourselves), the lesson is clear. Ditch the US alliance, and keep out of its provocative wars.

Boycotting trade with Israel and putting Blair on trial for war crimes could also help to make a start at rebuilding our relationships with the Islamic world. And at a personal level it might be wise to go easy on flying to the USA – especially on US airlines.

domestic extremist. Perhaps accept accepting of a world wide caliphate would help? Prehaps Israel should have accepted defeat in the Yom Kippur War? After all it was the victory by Israel which led the Muslim Bertheren saying the rulers of Egypt and Syria had turned against Islam.

11. domestic extremist – “One definition is any attack which is in breach of the UN Charter ban on the use of force by member state/s against any other state, except where military action is specifically sanctioned by the Security Council in order to keep the peace.”

Sorry but where in the UN Charter, or any other piece of International law, is the UN Security Council given the power to decide what is or is not a legal war? It seems to me that Article 51 actually specifically says otherwise. Because the UN Charter does not ban the use of force by member states and it doesn’t say anything at all about the UNSC specifically sanctioning anything at all.

12. domestic extremist – “If you want to identify what provokes Islamic terrorism, there’s no point in nitpicking over the precise sequence of events in the opening years of the present century.”

I agree. And in a way you show precisely what causes Islamist terrorism – lies. You create a massive, hate-filled, untrue sequence of conspiracies and plots that enables you to blame everything on the West, and in particular the Americans, and so absolve the terrorists and their enablers of any responsibility. This is the problem. Not America’s involvement in the region.

“For decades the USA, intent on controlling other nations’ oil resources by installing military bases and compliant dictatorial regimes, has interfered in the Middle East, creating enemies in the process.”

Except this is not true. Almost without exception the non-Gulf Governments are the creation of the enemies of the West and in particular America. In virtually every case the slight-less-anti-Western Government was ousted by a more anti-Western regime. We did not create these Governments. We tended to support the losers. America did not install a single compliant dictatorial regime. Indeed the more anti-Western a regime is, the more oppressive it is likely to be.

Needless to say the rest is fantasy too. America has the fewest number of military bases in the region for any part of the world. It always has. There is no evidence of this conspiracy based on the desire to control oil.

“The squalid record stretches at least from the CIA’s installing the Shah as a US puppet in 1953, via first supplying arms to Saddam Hussein for the purpose of attacking Iran and then mounting an invasion of Iraq”

Again this shows the problem perfectly. The CIA did not install the Shah as a US puppet in 1953. They provided some minor help to the Shah, who was installed by the Soviets and the British in a coup in 1942 (odd how no one ever blames them for that isn’t it?), overthrow his own Prime Minister. The coup would have happened anyway. They did not supply Saddam with any weapons qua weapons and certainly not before his invasion of Iran. Nor did they encourage his invasion. This is all a baseless conspiracy theory little better than claiming the Elders of Zion secret run the world. Why do you believe it?

“up to Washington’s complicity, as Israel’s leading supplier of armaments and unswerving diplomatic aid and comfort, in the slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza in late 2008.”

Given there was no slaughter and the US is not so much complicit as it is standing by an ally, this is irrelevant.

“Precisely which of these circumstances, and others which could have been mentioned, constitutes a tipping point for any individual jihadist is neither here nor there.”

I agree. It is the climate of hate produced by the never-ending sequence of lies that is the cause. The actual events are irrelevant because most of them are utterly baseless and untrue.

“The point is that if we in the UK want to become as unlikely a future jihadi target as Switzerland or Brazil (both provokingly non-Islamic countries which curiously, have not been attacked by these allegedly Caliphate-obsessed religious lunatics, unlike US allies like Spain, Australia and ourselves), the lesson is clear. Ditch the US alliance, and keep out of its provocative wars.”

Yes. Well appeasement and pre-emptive surrender are never particularly good options as they will get around to us in the end. This is the lesson the Jews tried before 1939. It didn’t work for them. Nor do you explain why Indonesia, Thailand, Argentina, China, Russia, and any number of Muslim countries have been hit.

“Boycotting trade with Israel and putting Blair on trial for war crimes could also help to make a start at rebuilding our relationships with the Islamic world.”

Yes. All we have to do is kiss the hand of the Cossack and maybe the pogrom will stop. Good plan. How did that work out by the way?

Charlie2: “the UN Charter does not ban the use of force by member states”.

I think you’ll find it does, unless you want to draw jesuitical distinctions between banning the use of force, and requiring states to refrain from using force.

UN Charter, Article 2, subsection 4:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Sorry Charlie 2, that last one was my response to So Much for Subtlety.

Domestic Extremist,

It’s time to zip it. Messages 10, 13, 14 and 15 have clearly explained how you are deluding yourself with regard to this subject.

15. So Much for Subtlety: Since you are even prepared heroically to deny that Palestinians were slaughtered as recently as late 2008 (and early 2009) during Operation Cast Lead, it’s difficult to see if anything is to be gained by debating historically more remote questions such as the role of the CIA in Iran in 1953. But you have made it abundantly clear where you are coming from. Thank you for your post. It’s quite diverting to read an account of Islamic terrorism which denies that the USA seeks control of Middle Eastern energy resources (Alan Greenspan: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil”), and edits Zionist terror out of the record.

Domestic Extremist,

There’s no need for subtlety if your default position is that it’s all the fault of nasty Americans and Zionists (Jews – is what you really mean to say).

Happy New Year to you.

20. rumpypumpy: “it’s all the fault of nasty Americans and Zionists (Jews – is what you really mean to say)”

If you’ll stop trying to tell me what I “really meant” to say, I won’t tell you that I could hardly imagine a more embarrassingly crude attempt at an anti-semitic smear.

Domestic Extremist,

Don’t get in a hump.
When people, such as yourself, write long winded emails about the plight of Palestinians on one hand whilst talking about Zionist terror on the other the meaning is quite clear – even if it’s uncomfortable to be identified as highly suspect, to say the least.

Were you to talk about Israel or the actions of the Israeli government and it’s clear you would like a grown up discussion, however start spouting off about ‘Zionist terror’ and it sounds like your thinking about those pesky money leanders with horns.

Were you to talk about Israel or the actions of the Israeli government and it’s clear you would like a grown up discussion, however start spouting off about ‘Zionist terror’ and it sounds like your thinking about those pesky money leanders with horns.

Quite right; there are Protocols, after all. But that’s Zinoviev that.

The difference between Zionism and the State of Israel is the difference between the government of the USA, and the idea of Manifest Destiny, which meant that pioneers could slaughter buffalo and shoot ‘injuns’ because God gave them that land. The administration of Israel contains many moderates who have compassion for the Palestinians, encourage religious diversity within the population. and actively seek a two state solution. Zionists claim that they were given the land by God 2,000 years ago (despite no actual reliable maps existing from then marking territory) and that non-Jews have no right to inhabit the land.

16. domestic extremist – “I think you’ll find it does, unless you want to draw jesuitical distinctions between banning the use of force, and requiring states to refrain from using force.”

No it does not. Any State can use force in self defence for instance. The UN Charter clearly allows this. It also allows the use of force that does not threaten the territorial integrity or political independence of any state as long as it is consistent with the principles of the Charter. You were wrong.

So Much For Subtlety…

Nor do you explain why Indonesia, Thailand, Argentina, China, Russia, and any number of Muslim countries have been hit.

There’s no dominant motivation behind “terrorism“; the “hit[s]” you describe have a lot to do with localized events. Violence in China will likely be influenced by the repression of the Uyghur; violence in Russia can be placed in the context of the struggle for Chechen independence.

The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan evidently made a lot of Iraqis/Afghans/neighbouring Arabs so angry that they hit upon violence as a solution. It’d hardly be surprising if some particularly immoral ones decided that – instead of fighting, as so many have, within their own/nearby borders – they’d strike their apparent enemy closer to home.

That doesn’t mean that “terrorism“‘s necessarily motivated by wars; for some, it might have much more to do with religion; others might be so brainwashed that they don’t really have a coherent motivation. Whipping up violence, though, which very well spread back to your own people, is an obvious by product/risk of military intervention.

Well appeasement and pre-emptive surrender are never particularly good options as they will get around to us in the end.

1. Who’s “they“?
2. Why is “keep[ing] out of [the US's]…wars” appeasement?
3. How is Britain – with its armed forces, array of missiles, nuclear capacities etc. – in any way comparable to the Jews of 1939?

Indeed the more anti-Western a regime is, the more oppressive it is likely to be.

Yet Chavez and Castro are significantly less oppressive than, say, Abdullah and Karimov (which isn’t to say that they’re not authoritarian, but that they don’t lop people’s hands off and boil their opponents alive).

Ben

25. BenSix – “There’s no dominant motivation behind “terrorism“; the “hit[s]” you describe have a lot to do with localized events. Violence in China will likely be influenced by the repression of the Uyghur; violence in Russia can be placed in the context of the struggle for Chechen independence.”"

Sure. Why not deny the problem exists? It might work. There are undoubtedly local reasons why individuals adopt a particular ideology. But that ideology still counts. To draw a parallel, the 1960s saw an explosion, if you will forgive the expression, of Marxist-Leninist terrorist groups. But the only ones that survived and thrived there those that adopted ethnic and racial grievances, not class ones. The PIRA and ETA in particular. The Red Brigades and the RAF failed. That does not mean that ethnic clashes caused the PIRA. After all, non-Leninist (and these days non-Islamist) groups do not engage in terrorism worth a damn. Whatever the provocation.

“The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan evidently made a lot of Iraqis/Afghans/neighbouring Arabs so angry that they hit upon violence as a solution. It’d hardly be surprising if some particularly immoral ones decided that – instead of fighting, as so many have, within their own/nearby borders – they’d strike their apparent enemy closer to home.”

There is next to no evidence of that at all and it is irrelevant. Yes some Islamists in neighbouring states went to join the Jihad in Iraq. Some are funding terrorists in Afghanistan. But the pre-existing condition is the Islamism. There are no angry liberal democrats killing people in Iraq. There are no passionate socialists either. They were Islamists before. Not to mention that all the evidence seems to be that the Islamists’ violence is causing a massive decline in their support and popularity in the Arab world.

Nor do I recall all that many attacks “closer to home” since the liberation of Iraq. 9-11 was not caused by the liberation of either country. What is more they seem to be spending a lot of their time in Iraq killing Shia, not Americans.

“1. Who’s “they“?”

Any extremists who have taken our measure and know that we will give them whatever they want if they just threaten us enough.

“2. Why is “keep[ing] out of [the US's]…wars” appeasement?”

That was not what was suggested. What was, was doing nothing in the hopes that we would not be attacked.

“3. How is Britain – with its armed forces, array of missiles, nuclear capacities etc. – in any way comparable to the Jews of 1939?”

I did not say it was. Besides, those weapons are not very useful in the modern world and they are useless if we lack the spine to defend ourselves. And as we can see with the pirates in Somalia, we do lack the spine to do so.

“Yet Chavez and Castro are significantly less oppressive than, say, Abdullah and Karimov (which isn’t to say that they’re not authoritarian, but that they don’t lop people’s hands off and boil their opponents alive).”

Actually I would tend to think Castro is more repressive than Karimov. Abdullah? Which one? But even then, Karimov is a former enemy of the West. He is a product of the USSR. As is the regime in Egypt. In both cases our not-so-former enemies have inherited viciously repressive states and they have made them slightly less repressive. But not by much. We can buy these people off but they are not our friends or allies.

19. domestic extremist – “Since you are even prepared heroically to deny that Palestinians were slaughtered as recently as late 2008 (and early 2009) during Operation Cast Lead, it’s difficult to see if anything is to be gained by debating historically more remote questions such as the role of the CIA in Iran in 1953.”

Well people in the Reality Based community tend to do that sort of thing. But of course there is nothing to gain. You have no basis on which to make your argument at all. After all, the history of the Middle East is rife with coups. Syria used to have one a year until the Baath Party sided with the USSR. No one cares. Coups brought the Shah to power. A coup brought his Father to power. No one cares. Nasser came to power in a coup against Neguib who was a front man for the previous coup. No one cares – or if they do, they approve. People like you only care when they can blame the West. It is like thinking Jews are to blame for everything – simplistic, historically absurd and hate-filled.

This is why we have terrorism. Just as Ezra Pound did not gas Jews but he did contribute to an intellectual environment where Jews could be gassed.

“It’s quite diverting to read an account of Islamic terrorism which denies that the USA seeks control of Middle Eastern energy resources (Alan Greenspan: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil”), and edits Zionist terror out of the record.”

I am glad to be of service. Greenspan is not God. He has his views. That does not make them correct. Especially as the US is walking away without any oil at all. Hard to believe that was their intent.

So Much For Subtlety…

Why not deny the problem exists?

Why not misread me?

Yes, radical Islamism is a motivation for violence/terrorism – and, indeed, whole organisations – but it’s not necessarily the dominant factor. So, it would be horribly clumsy to see a struggle between, say, Russia and Radical Islamism,

The PIRA and ETA in particular. The Red Brigades and the RAF failed. That does not mean that ethnic clashes caused the PIRA.

I’m mildly confused: are you implying that the attacks of the PIRA were motivated by Marxist-Leninism?

After all, non-Leninist (and these days non-Islamist) groups do not engage in terrorism worth a damn. Whatever the provocation.

No? How about the LTTE?

But the pre-existing condition is the Islamism. There are no angry liberal democrats killing people in Iraq. There are no passionate socialists either. They were Islamists before.

Well, military leaders hold that most of “[their] opponents are Iraqi Nationalists, and are most concerned with their own needs“. Similarly, experts have suggested that much of the violence in Afghanistan is carried out by people who are “motivated by a variety of grievances such as foreign occupation, anger over civilian casualties and humiliation“. This is not, incidentally, to say that the violent are right, or that there aren’t a lot of Islamist fanatics as well.

But, it seems, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan – contra you in comment 15 – have motivated violence. My speculation – which is, happily, just speculation – is that this could spread back to Britain or the US, through an aggrieved individual’s own rather tortured ingenuity, or through those who are “coerced or duped into carrying out such operations“, as the UNAMA suggested is happening in their country.

Any extremists who have taken our measure and know that we will give them whatever they want if they just threaten us enough.

Names would be helpful.

I did not say it was.

My mistake.

You did seem to imply that we have similar treatment/enemies coming our way. Again, it’d be useful to specify what/who.

Actually I would tend to think Castro is more repressive than Karimov.

Really? Well, it would be a rather nauseous debate to have, but I’m not sure that Castro rips his opponents fingernails out, boils them alive and, as Karimov’s alleged to, has them raped with broken bottles.

Abdullah? Which one?

*.

Ben