An apparent well coordinated terrorist attack on London's transport system has been unfolding this morning. Not much news on casualties yet. The Irish Republican Army has not bombed London in over a decade and never set off so many bombs at once when it did. It is easy to imagine Al Qaeda may be responsible.
London Attacked
Comments to "London Attacked":
The Real Bill | July 7, 2005, 7:31am | #
Horrifying, but, sadly, not surprizing.Terrorism..
Libertarianism dosn't have an answer to this medieval mentality.
Jennifer | July 7, 2005, 7:47am | #
I tried to get the news from the BBC, but it kept timing out on me. Were their offices affected, do you think? Or is is just an increased number of people trying to access their site?Libertarian plug: apparently the million surveillance cameras across London didn't do a thing to prevent this travesty.
Agammamon | July 7, 2005, 7:49am | #
You're right, but before we cut the plug on 'em, lets see if they're useful in identifying the culprits in the aftermath.If they aren't useful even for that then they should be scrapped wholesale.
I got on to the BBC. It says an "Islamist Website" has claimed responsibility.
Isaac Bartram | July 7, 2005, 8:02am | #
Jennifer, I listened to reports on the BBC World Service from 5 til 6 ET this AM. But that was on my local NPR station.They're on the air, but there may be disruptions in some of the feeds.
Reports indicate 3 or 4 explosions on the Underground and 3 buses (at least one crowded) an one unofficial report of an unexploded bomb at another station. One guy the Beeb interviewed said he saw 5 dead (he thought) at one site and that he gave first aid to a couple of others (As near as I could tell he was just some guy on the street not a cop or anything).
Possibly planned around G8 meeting. A lot of London's security and Emergency services had been moved north. Possible Olympic connection??? If another city had been chosen it might have been the target(???) (pure speculation, I think more likely G8)
NPR reported that the the cell phone system was completely overloaded.
Isaac Bartram | July 7, 2005, 8:04am | #
Jennifer,You posted while I typed. Thanks for that. I have no access to Beeb at work.
John M. Joy | July 7, 2005, 8:28am | #
Libertarianism dosn't have an answer to this medieval mentality.The answer is, was, and remains noninterventionism. Bat the hornet's nest, and expect to get stung.
JMJ
Coordinated around the G8? Very possibly. Coordinated around the announcement of London as Olympic 2012 host? Extremely unlikely. This type of timed coordination did not get thrown together in a day.
While I'm not a complete noninterventionist, there are smarter and dumber interventions. The argument that intervening in Iraq to concentrate terrorism there instead of the West has joined WMDs on the graveyard of W justifications. All we have left is "Saddam was bad, m'kay?"
Things are pretty calm here right now. There were sirens and noise for a few hours this morning but now everyone is getting on with work.
As I was coming to work my bus was evacuated and turned around. However, I pushed on toward work by foot. So far as I could judge a large proportion of others did the same. People walking in to central London out numbered those walking out by maybe a hundred to one, at least by the main route I was taking.
I take that as a good sign - people think the appropriate response is let it affect their lives as little as possible.
For the rest, there is still some speculation and rumour. We don't yet know the number killed. Somewhere between a dozen and few hundred looks likely. Thankfully it appears that not all the bombs went off - possibly even due to efficient police action rather than terrorist incompetence.
Near as anything of this sort is certain, I can tell you this was not the IRA.
As I was coming to work my bus was evacuated and turned around. However, I pushed on toward work by foot. So far as I could judge a large proportion of others did the same. People walking in to central London out numbered those walking out by maybe a hundred to one, at least by the main route I was taking.
I take that as a good sign - people think the appropriate response is let it affect their lives as little as possible.
For the rest, there is still some speculation and rumour. We don't yet know the number killed. Somewhere between a dozen and few hundred looks likely. Thankfully it appears that not all the bombs went off - possibly even due to efficient police action rather than terrorist incompetence.
Near as anything of this sort is certain, I can tell you this was not the IRA.
Tristan Mills | July 7, 2005, 8:37am | #
Al Qaeda look most likely, rumours of a suicide bomber (for the first time in the UK).4 blasts been confirmed so far with the maximum number mentioned being 7 but I think that includes some double counting due to blasts in the tunnels between stations.
The challenge for us over here is to stop the governmnet using this as an excuse to further erode liberty. ID cards would never have prevented this.
The only answer I can give is that freedom for all and prosperity and lack of the alienation which drives people to this are the only way to minimize this.
Jennifer | July 7, 2005, 8:40am | #
JK-According to the BBC website, the number of deaths is 2. But I fear that number may grow.
Tristan Mills | July 7, 2005, 8:42am | #
Phone networks are down, reportedly due to being switched off in case more bombs were to be triggered using phones, or possibly to be used soley by emergency services.Edgeware Road has been totally evacuated and seems to have lead to relatively few casualties and Royal London are not expecting more casualties from Liverpool Street/Aldgate.
I think the worst scene will be the Kings Cross/Russell Square. There's talk of two trains being caught up in it and its a deep line which will be more difficult to get to.
Isaac Bartram | July 7, 2005, 8:49am | #
chthus at July 7, 2005 08:29 AMYes, I thought most likely planned around G8 too.
Libertarian plug: apparently the million surveillance cameras across London didn't do a thing to prevent this travesty.
Statist response. We won't know, until we see what use law enforcement is able to make of the tapes in tracking down the perps.
Adam | July 7, 2005, 8:57am | #
There's no libertarian response?How bout this: Hunt the motherfuckers down in every corner of the globe and kill them and everybody and anybody who is helping them and demand cooperation and overthrow any government that refuses to police their own people or shows any likelihood of supporting terrorists.
Nevermind - I'll just re-register as a Republican. They may not "get it" with sex, drugs or rock 'n roll, but at least Bush has a spine and a brain when it comes to dealing with these motherfuckers. I'd rather get arrested for smoking dope than watch my sister get beaten when her burqa slips off her face.
grylliade | July 7, 2005, 8:58am | #
Libertarianism dosn't have an answer to this medieval mentality.Well, except for tracking down the people responsible and punishing them, or (preferably in my book) killing them. Not getting bogged down in a sideshow in Iraq might be a good move, too.
I'd guess a libertarian response would be to hunt down the guilty parties, NOT hunt down the people whose complexions or religions are identical to those of the guilty parties.
dhex | July 7, 2005, 9:03am | #
"I'd rather get arrested for smoking dope than watch my sister get beaten when her burqa slips off her face."if you're lucky, you might get to see both.
hope all the reasonites in london are reasonably ok.
Mike H. | July 7, 2005, 9:04am | #
Hunt the motherfuckers down in every corner of the globe and kill them and everybody and anybody who is helping them and demand cooperation and overthrow any government that refuses to police their own people or shows any likelihood of supporting terrorists.Sounds good to me.
Mike H. | July 7, 2005, 9:06am | #
NOT hunt down the people whose complexions or religions are identical to those of the guilty parties.Yeah, because so many are advocating this course of action... WTF?
Jennifer | July 7, 2005, 9:10am | #
Mike H.-It was an oblique reference to invading Iraq in response to an attack planned in Afghanistan (and possibly Iran) with Saudi backing. Y'know--"Some Ay-rabs done attacked us; let's us kill every Ay-rab we see! Invade them, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity!" Etc. etc. If you're not with us you're with the terrorists. And so on.
Evan Williams | July 7, 2005, 9:17am | #
"Hunt the motherfuckers down in every corner of the globe and kill them and everybody and anybody who is helping them and demand cooperation and overthrow any government that refuses to police their own people or shows any likelihood of supporting terrorists."Good luck on that one. We see how well our current "war on terra" is doing. Terrorist attacks around the world have gone up since the "War" started.
I especially like the bit about waging a bloody war on any country that even shows a "likelihood" of supporting terrorists. Shoot first, confirm later. While we're at it, why don't we just execute anyone who shows a "likelihood" of BEING a terrorist? And if we're wrong, and they're just innocent civilians, well, I guess we can send a fruit basket to their family.
Oh, sorry. A couple hundred people died somewhere in the world this morning. This has never happened before. I am freaking out! I want to kill, kill, kill! Because if I didn't want to kill so bad, then I would get so scared that I would wet myself. Kill!
Surely there's some middle ground between "being arrested for pot smoking" and "being killed for not wearing a burka." Any Dutch posters here to suggest what that middle ground might be?
Adam | July 7, 2005, 9:20am | #
Since obviously this has already deteriorated into a rehash of Iraq and Bush's terrorism policy, I'll take a moment to repost Clinton's Justice Department indictment of bin Laden, 1998:In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
So who wants to be the first to stick their fingers in their ears and yell, "I'm not listening! I'm not listening!!!"?
Mr. Nice Guy | July 7, 2005, 9:21am | #
"I'd rather get arrested for smoking dope than watch my sister get beaten when her burqa slips off her face."Unfortunately the Republicans have plenty of their own mullahs who seek to dominate peoples' minds, bodies, and souls.
I don't believe in non-intervention, either. I support the notion of going over to the middle east to kick them around, because, unfortunately, the only thing some of these people understand is violence.
Yes, it is an enlightened view that violence begets violence, but I can't see a passive solution to a bus gutted by a bomb. The only real solution is to make the people responsible very, very sorry.. enough that they'll think twice before they try to pull this again. A stern letter from the UN is not going to do it.
We need to get in a position where we are holding most if not all the cards. Then we can focus on altruism and ideals.
Mike H. | July 7, 2005, 9:21am | #
Surely there's some middle ground between "being arrested for pot smoking" and "being killed for not wearing a burka." Any Dutch posters here to suggest what that middle ground might be?Perhaps Van Gogh's surviving relatives might have some ideas?
Jennifer | July 7, 2005, 9:22am | #
Mike H.-Are you suggesting that Dutch legalized marijuana was responsible for Van Gogh's murder?
I know this is cynical but nothing would help Bush more than a similar attack on american soil. Yes it would invalidate his argument that "we're fighting t'rrer in Eye-raq so we don't have to fight it here," but most of the american sheeple would "rally behind the flag" and Bush would get a bump in the polls. Maybe it'll happen closer to the midterm elections? Also it would give him more power to curtail freedoms at home, just as his black little heart desires. Who knows maybe he could impose the draft afterwards?
Dave W. | July 7, 2005, 9:24am | #
make the people responsible very, very sorry(Emphasis added)
We have a winner.
Maybe Theo van Gogh would like to share some Dutch thoughts on the subject. Oh, wait - that's right, another Muslim monster murdered him in cold blood.
tros | July 7, 2005, 9:26am | #
Nevermind - I'll just re-register as a Republican. They may not "get it" with sex, drugs or rock 'n roll, but at least Bush has a spine and a brain when it comes to dealing with these motherfuckers. I'd rather get arrested for smoking dope than watch my sister get beaten when her burqa slips off her face.How would you like it if your sister gets raped and then has to have the baby because abortion is illegal? Fancy having a nephew raised in a Faith Based Orphanage, you fucking fascist?
temujin334 | July 7, 2005, 9:27am | #
DrewI think you typed the wrong address in your browser, you're looking for democraticunderground.com.
PS You forgot to mention Karl Rove
joe | July 7, 2005, 9:30am | #
"So who wants to be the first to stick their fingers in their ears and yell, "I'm not listening! I'm not listening!!!"?"Um, the 9/11 Commission?
Can Adam or Mike PLEASE explain to me the connection between legalized Dutch pot and Muslim terrorism on Dutch soil? I mean, hell, pot's illegal here, but that didn't stop 9-11.
Adam -
"Hunt the motherfuckers down in every corner of the globe and kill them and everybody and anybody who is helping them and demand cooperation and overthrow any government that refuses to police their own people or shows any likelihood of supporting terrorists."
Well the first bit's OK. Demanding co-operation from governments is another matter. It sounds good, especially when you have in mind an example like the Taliban. But here's my experience in the UK: the government is introducing biometric passports on the basis that they have been demanded by the US. I have no doubt our government is quite authoritarian enough to pass such measures all by itself. But by referring to US requirements it can side step debate. And I have to say, visiting the US recently it did make me just a little uneasy to have my fingerprints scanned to get in to the country. In the back of my mind the balance tipped just a little further toward the sense that the US was abandoning liberty in the hope of gaining security.
Now consider the impact in less civilised parts of the world that the UK. The very best thing that the West, and in particular the US, has going for it in the fight against terror is that for all its flaws it is most libertarian. Sure, it is necessary to militarily defeat some terrorists. But in the long run the only guarantee of victory is that most people are on your side.
Every time a government justifies authoritarian measures, from imposing ID cards through to tortue, by pointing to US demands in the War on Terror it gets harder to win over the people we need. The more those justifications of authoritarianism look like the truth, the more they hurt.
Yes, we should demand that other governments fight terror. But we also need to remember that while sacrificing our own liberty for security is merely cowardly, sacrificing other people's liberty for our own security is criminal.
"Hunt the motherfuckers down in every corner of the globe and kill them and everybody and anybody who is helping them and demand cooperation and overthrow any government that refuses to police their own people or shows any likelihood of supporting terrorists."
Well the first bit's OK. Demanding co-operation from governments is another matter. It sounds good, especially when you have in mind an example like the Taliban. But here's my experience in the UK: the government is introducing biometric passports on the basis that they have been demanded by the US. I have no doubt our government is quite authoritarian enough to pass such measures all by itself. But by referring to US requirements it can side step debate. And I have to say, visiting the US recently it did make me just a little uneasy to have my fingerprints scanned to get in to the country. In the back of my mind the balance tipped just a little further toward the sense that the US was abandoning liberty in the hope of gaining security.
Now consider the impact in less civilised parts of the world that the UK. The very best thing that the West, and in particular the US, has going for it in the fight against terror is that for all its flaws it is most libertarian. Sure, it is necessary to militarily defeat some terrorists. But in the long run the only guarantee of victory is that most people are on your side.
Every time a government justifies authoritarian measures, from imposing ID cards through to tortue, by pointing to US demands in the War on Terror it gets harder to win over the people we need. The more those justifications of authoritarianism look like the truth, the more they hurt.
Yes, we should demand that other governments fight terror. But we also need to remember that while sacrificing our own liberty for security is merely cowardly, sacrificing other people's liberty for our own security is criminal.
Julian Sanchez | July 7, 2005, 9:36am | #
joe-You've missed the memo. The preposterously thoroughly debunked Iraq-Al Qaeda "connection" meme is having a renaissance.
Jennifer | July 7, 2005, 9:40am | #
But we also need to remember that while sacrificing our own liberty for security is merely cowardly, sacrificing other people's liberty for our own security is criminal.The most beautifully succinct denunciation of our foreign policy I've ever seen.
Evan Williams | July 7, 2005, 9:41am | #
Jules: say huh? What the hell? It's like the excuses for the war are on a repeating cycle. What do you mean, "renaissance"?Isaac Bartram | July 7, 2005, 9:41am | #
The challenge for us over here is to stop the governmnet using this as an excuse to further erode liberty. ID cards would never have prevented this.Unfortunately I think that is one of the certainties. Blair's cabinet seems to have a few ministers who seem comfortable with authoritarian solutions. And as for Blair himself his only rivals in the slimy opportunism department are George Bush and Bill Clinton.
We have always been at war with Saddaam Hussein! LONG LIVE KING TOOL!
world historical hubris | July 7, 2005, 9:45am | #
"We need to get in a position where we are holding most if not all the cards. Then we can focus on altruism and ideals."Steaming, stinking bullshit. We've been holding most if not all the cards for fifty years now.
joe | July 7, 2005, 9:46am | #
Dammit, people, you're supposed to CC me!I suppose it's only a matter of time before I'm threatened with an Iraqi mushroom cloud again.
Jennifer | July 7, 2005, 9:50am | #
Joe-If you keep making these hippy-dippy leftist posts, Iraqi mushroom clouds will bloom over America and it'll all be your fault.
And possibly mine, on account of that bowl I smoked last weekend.
Isaac Bartram | July 7, 2005, 9:51am | #
Comment by: JK at July 7, 2005 09:32 AMExcellent post.
For our current situation see:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HobsonsChoice
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?MortonsFork
Good luck over there.
M1EK | July 7, 2005, 9:53am | #
Adam, you're an idiot.The Republican response to 9/11 was a half-assed invasion of Afghanistan (at least half right); followed by a completely irrelevant invasion of Iraq which effectively ended what progress had been made in Afghanistan. Oops.
You want to go after the people who are responsible for this? Try SAUDI FUCKING ARABIA. But your Republican buddies won't GO THERE, because it would require an ACTUAL SACRIFICE.
PintofStout | July 7, 2005, 9:54am | #
Imagine you're waking up in the morning to some coffee and your morning paper. Suddenly a bomb falls on your neighbors house, destroying half of your house in the process. Your children, who were unfortunately asleep in the destroyed half of your house, are now dead and burning. As you run out of your burning house to get a grasp of the situation, a Humvee drives by firing a machine gun at you.Sound like terrorism? It has been happening in Iraq for probably a decade now, and several other countries around the globe probably. The people who are antagonizing these events are never effected by the blowback. They are simply hurt (or sadly, actually helped) in the opinion polls and allowed to keep their jobs, where they will continue with increased vigor to terrorize.
Don't look now, but the sky is falling, THE SKY IS FALLING....again.
Ryck Barton | July 7, 2005, 9:56am | #
The Israelis did it.drf | July 7, 2005, 10:00am | #
*Moment of silence for the Victims of this cowardly act*In the wake of profundly tragic shared events, people often use the event as an emotional release. They can use the event to confirm or reject parts of life. We will see people use these events to justify their POV on Iraq - "you see? terrorists. they said this is in response to iraq! terrorists are linked with iraq! we were right! ha ha!"
and doves will use it for their ends, too.
In the meantime, a little honest self reflection about why one was for or against can't hurt. For the knee jerkers out there: please be honest with your emotional reasons for the reason you were either for or against. then look at the costs.
Sympathy to the families.
drf
R C Dean | July 7, 2005, 10:00am | #
Jennifer, I think the point of the van Gogh references was that the Dutch aren't exactly a shining paragon of how to manage radical Muslim immigrants, regardless of how much pot they smoke. The pot is irrelevant; the deleterious effects of unassimilated radical Muslim populations are increasingly obvious.For you non-interventionists: Ah, I don't even know where to start.
If you don't understand by now that the "intervention" that drives these Mohammedan nutballs around the bend is primarily the export of American culture and ideas into their backward countries, then there is no hope for you.
Jennifer | July 7, 2005, 10:03am | #
RC-Yes, and the point *I* was making was that, previous posts to the contrary, there IS indeed a middle ground between "arresting the pot smokers" and "arresting the non-burka wearers." The Muslim terrorists are evil, yes, but that doesn't mean that ANYBODY who claims to oppose them is automatically good in everything they do. Nor does this mean that any action should be excused if the one doing it says "But I'm doing it to fight the terrorists!"
Oh and RC--the main "intervention" that makes people hate us isn't importing our ideas into their culture, but supporting the dictators who oppress their culture, and dropping the bombs that kill the people who live there.
Perhaps somebody can explain to me the moral difference between dropping bombs on an Iraqi city and planting bombs in a London subway.
PintofStout | July 7, 2005, 10:07am | #
If by culture you mean high explosives, weapons and money for the people who rule over them, and just plain manipulation of their political systems via assisted coups and the like, then I would rather not be associated with our culture. They hate us for our freedom.drf,
Self-reflection is always good. It's just a pity we sometimes need somethinng so aggregious to trigger it. Hopefully we can reflect on how we are responsible for our government and have failed miserably at keeping it in check.
Evan Williams | July 7, 2005, 10:09am | #
"If you don't understand by now that the "intervention" that drives these Mohammedan nutballs around the bend is primarily the export of American culture and ideas into their backward countries, then there is no hope for you."Yeah, it's got nothing to do with us building US military bases on Muslim holy lands. Nope. I'm sure they get more riled up over seeing a McDonalds in their hometown than they do waking up to American tanks firing rounds into their house.
M1EK | July 7, 2005, 10:09am | #
RC Dean,The interventionalists in your world apparently support attacking the completely irrelevant Iraqis instead of taking care of the country who was REALLY responsible for 9/11, and probably this latest attack as well. No thanks.
I supported bombing the crap out of Afghanistan. I didn't support attacking Iraq. There is, however, a country I'd support attacking right now for continuing to pay the bills for these nihilists. Why won't you pansy Republicans use our war machine for good for once?
You know, all this talk about "they hate us for our freedom" and "they hate us for our freedom" or "they hate us for our culture" reminds me of this one bitchy girl whom we all--geeks and jocks alike--hated back in high school. But despite what she said, we didn't hate her because she was rich or because she was pretty--we hated her because she was a RUDE FUCKING BITCH with NO CONSIDERATION FOR ANYBODY BUT HERSELF, and her claims that we hated her because of her beauty didn't get to the root of the problem; they only served to flatter herself more. Same thing with Americans running around screaming, "The only reason anybody hates us is because we're just SO fucking fabulous." Right, sure--our callous treatment of others, and view that the rest of the world can be sacrificed to keep us comfortable, doesn't have a damned thing to do with it.
drf | July 7, 2005, 10:10am | #
If you're looking for morality, a libertarian site is the wrong place to be ;)Sure - how about the morality of bombing Dresden etc etc etc. Those comments won't change RC's, Dan's, etc view on what they're for. It won't bring up any intelligent debate, and even though I was a skeptic about the Iraqi war (I had the wait-and-see attitude about the WMDs - if they were there, I would have understood the reasons. I cannot fathom why we did, based on such flimsy non-evidence), I find that kind of smug "gotcha" questioning to be rather silly.
Damn. You remind me of christian conservatives trying to get a "gotcha" on Gay individuality or one of those silly fucking Roskilde assholes trying to justify why "all things red euro" are superior. Combining that with your misunderstanding of what "small government" was shorthand for, I'm gonna need another coffee. This time a "Warren Special".
theOneState | July 7, 2005, 10:19am | #
Would someone please release Judith Miller so she can do some reporting from London?Sheesh!
TJIT | July 7, 2005, 10:19am | #
Jennifer,I think Mike H's comment was not blaming pot for Van Gogh's murder. He was pointing out that the Dutch had an open tolerant society (the middle ground you had mentioned) and that was not enough to protect Van Gogh from being murdered for expressing views that angered radical muslims.
Jennifer | July 7, 2005, 10:24am | #
TJIT-It's still irrelevant, unless anyone can show that a society which legalizes pot is therefore incapable of handling threats to domestic security.
I'd even go further and say that NO free society (and probably no dictatorial one, either) can make it impossible for people to commit random on-the-street murders, like Van Gogh's, which is a very different matter from organized terrorist bombings.
drf | July 7, 2005, 10:25am | #
MikeH, TJIT:Dutch society = open and tolerant??? You have got to be kidding. Tolerant to certain things, sure. But the underlying racism was huge and conspicuous every time I've been there.
mtm | July 7, 2005, 10:27am | #
drf,Melissa's question is not at all 'silly' whatever her motives in posing it. It is, in fact, the fundamental question.
Dakota | July 7, 2005, 10:27am | #
Melissa,With out defending or justifing being in Iraq. The answer is targets. UN forces don't target rush hour trains full of only civilians in finacial districts. The UN forces target combatants who seek to topple the newly recognized legitimate govenrment of Iraq. Earlier they targeted to topple the dictator.
Feel free to take exceptions to the legitimacy of the action in Iraq, I do.
dhex | July 7, 2005, 10:29am | #
"I'd even go further and say that NO free society (and probably no dictatorial one, either) can make it impossible for people to commit random on-the-street murders, like Van Gogh's, which is a very different matter from organized terrorist bombings."yes, but jennifer, that puts holes into the whole "if we kill the right people we will be safe" vs. "if we hug the right people we will be safe" thing.
Melissa | July 7, 2005, 10:30am | #
Dakota:When one drops a bomb on a city, it kills indisrimanately no matter whom one claims to be targeting.
I heard that if the national ID cards in England work well, they're going to issue mandatory toothbrushes as well.
drf | July 7, 2005, 10:36am | #
Hi MTM!I approach that question cautiously - it may indeed be a (the) fundamental question, but it can be posed as a "gotcha" with the intent to drive you down a slippery slope to a gotcha. It can be posed without thought, but answered only with massive thought. I feel it is akin to Dave's comment #16 in the post above - the same style of post pointing out that these acts demand more violence.
I know people who feel that the US involvement in Afghanistan is wrong - but they refuse to point out what happened on 11. Sept was wrong. We have people who quickly denounce Israel's violence without making it equally clear that the PLO shares in violent deeds.
While I appreciate your sentiment about war potentially being a last resort (apologies if I misread you or am putting words in your mouth), I have no quick and easy answer.
(To wit: I have an easier time answering this with the tit-for-tat on torture, however. So, FWIW, confusion reigns here)
kwais | July 7, 2005, 10:38am | #
Jennifer,"the main "intervention" that makes people hate us isn't importing our ideas into their culture, but supporting the dictators who oppress their culture, and dropping the bombs that kill the people who live there."
I think you are wrong.
I think that if you look at the people who would be opposed to us supporting dictatorships, wouldn't they be more upset about the biggest dictators of all, ie a Taliban type government.
Mr. Nice Guy | July 7, 2005, 10:45am | #
"Steaming, stinking bullshit. We've been holding most if not all the cards for fifty years now."We're holding all the cards on controlling and destroying terrorism and radical Islam? Thanks, I feel better. I can ride the DC metro home today with a peaceful mind.
mtm | July 7, 2005, 10:45am | #
drf,Basic moral questions tend to be annoying and, if they are put forward by annoying people who think they have the answer, they become doubly annoying. That doesn't mean they can be dismissed. That was my sole point. Confusion reigns here as well.
drf | July 7, 2005, 10:47am | #
Hi Kwais, hi Jennifer:the US is the biggest dog on the block. It is the most visible. Its entertainment business is visible to the entire televised world. Music, movies, baywatch. People use those as symbols for whatever they love, hate, fear, loathe, desire, etc.
This also makes us a lightning rod for everything. We see justification for many actions, beliefs, policies, and deeds clad in this symbolism.
We see Norwegian and Danish politicians wanting to stop US tv in their countries because it causes their young populations to become obese. We get blamed.
Anything that happens is going to cause these nutbags to blame us for things.
As long as these miserable individuals pander to a willing audience (that may or may not have good information, but do trust these leaders based on misunderstood observation), we will be blamed. I don't know what we can do about it, but I don't think either of your reasons contradict the other's.
kwais | July 7, 2005, 10:51am | #
M1EK,I support the invasion of Iraq. I think that it was the only sensible thing to do. Invading Afghanistan alone would be a half measure and doomed to fail. It may yet still fail, but I like to think that it wont.
Intervention in Saud Arabia is a stupid idea. Are you only pushing the idea because you like to push buttons, and accuse Republicans of being hypocrits, or do you really think that it would be a good idea?
If you really do think that it would be a good idea to invade Saudi Arabia, I can explain in detais why you are wrong, and why invading Saudi Arabia would be a bad idea.
If your response to the above is that you can explain that invading Iraq was wrong, hold it.
drf | July 7, 2005, 10:52am | #
sorry for the double post hereAgreed, MTM! I was dismissing the question posed by a specific individual whose motives I felt were not open to discussion. And was ignored, too. It is the ideal Reason world: two individuals freely expressing themselves, both free to take or ignore as desired!
TJIT | July 7, 2005, 10:52am | #
M1EK,You are right the Saudi's are one of the major drivers of the terror problem. They have been and will continue to use their petro dollars to support terror activities across the globe. Even worse they have been using that money to support mosques and madrasses to grow cultures that incubate terrorism.
However, on the surface they have said the right things and not broken any major international law by say invading one of their neighbors. So it would be difficult to justify much more then using diplomacy to urge them to clean up their act.
Iraq had invaded neighbors, used WMD, attempted to hide their WMD program from UN inspectors, and were still interfering with the inspectors prior to the start of the the second war.
Iraq has a lot of surface area to inspect and if they were not willing to give free and unfettered access to the inspectors there was no way to assure they did not have WMD materials stored or in development. Saddam was not allowing unfettered inspections and the only way to be sure Iraq did not have or develop WMD was to invade.
Given there were not any WMD found I am amazed that Saddam did not just open the doors and let the inspectors in. Had he done that chances are very good he would still be in power and the war would have never started. Then again his war with Iran and invasion of Kuwait shows he may not have been the most rational leader the world has ever seen.
My 2 cents, I'm sure there are reasonable people who don't agree.
CAT_Violations | July 7, 2005, 10:54am | #
If you don't understand by now that the "intervention" that drives these Mohammedan nutballs around the bend is primarily the export of American culture and ideas into their backward countries, then there is no hope for you.Nonsense. 70-80% of the world has (and is willing to export) porn, beer, scantily clad models, etc. The fundamentalists could keep most of the "culture" out if that is what they are concerned with. (That's what many of them do already.)
The fundamentalists are nutjobs, but don't believe the hype. They're not coming after you because you're having a beer and watching Girls Gone Wild.
And no, I'm not miminalizing what happened today, that was a tragedy.
Dave W. | July 7, 2005, 10:56am | #
1. Dropping bombs on Iraqi cities is done with government approval.2. Bomb on the train was without government approval.
3. Number 1 is okay, so long as the government is basically good folks. Number 2 is bad because there is no government approval. You must get government approval to do legitimate bombing. Otherwise everybody would bomb everything and all the fields and cities would be overbombed. A tragedy of the commons. A market failure. Since bombing cannot be fairly allocated by private ordering, it becomes a legit gov't function.
R C Dean | July 7, 2005, 10:56am | #
When one drops a bomb on a city, it kills indisrimanately no matter whom one claims to be targeting.This is wrong, given competent targeting and modern technology. Modern bombing is highly accurate and as discriminating as the soldier who pulls the trigger.
In any event, there is a moral difference between engaging in an activity with a risk of killing non-combatants, and intentionally targeting non-combatants.
Yeah, it's got nothing to do with us building US military bases on Muslim holy lands. Nope. I'm sure they get more riled up over seeing a McDonalds in their hometown than they do waking up to American tanks firing rounds into their house.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't recall seeing American tanks firing rounds into the houses of Saudis, Iranians, or Syrians, yet somehow these countries produce disproportionate numbers of terrorists. No correlation, no causation.
The non-interventionists who believe that if we had no military presence in the mid-east we would be of no interest to the Mohammedan fanatics, overlook the fact that these fanatics hate what our culture and ideas are doing to their societies more than anything else.
As their cordial relations with Saddam Hussein and the Assads show, they have no problem with secular dictators that have piled up truly impressive Muslim body counts, so I don't think oppression of their Muslim brothers by the godless really bothers them all that much.
It must something other than the presence of non-devout governments on Mideast soil that riles them up.
M1EK | July 7, 2005, 10:57am | #
kwais,if you think "invading Iraq" helped the war on terror, you're not worth any further breath.
For both you and TJIII:
Saudi Arabia was the main culpable actor in the 9/11 attacks and further terrorist activity, once Afghanistan had been dealt with. If ANYBODY deserved the heavy hand of American justice, it was those evil sons of bitches. They've bought off their own people by funding terror against us; and a regime more interested in the safety and security of the US than winning votes in the next election would have taken it to them immediately after 9/11 with the same deal we offered Afghanistan, namely:
"Cut it out right now, or the army's coming."
The current sorry crop of Republicans won't mess with the Saudis because they know the suburban voter is their bread and butter. Suburban voters vote economics, especially when its their beloved SUVs which can't be fueled for short of $100 (which, of course, would be a temporary result of saber-rattling towards the Saudis).
But is that an excuse to do nothing? HELL NO. We RATIONED gas during WWII. We put up posters saying "if you drive alone you drive with Hitler". WHY THE HELL WASN'T THE SAME SACRIFICE JUSTIFIED AFTER 9/11?
drf | July 7, 2005, 10:58am | #
Hi TJIT:the myth of awesome power was another tool SH used to stay in power. He probably needed his close enemies to believe that he was armed. He misread the US even worse than the US misread him.
CAT: I like your analogy. The funny thing, Denmark is on the list to be attacked, too. And I've read in some of their papers that they were worried that their porn industry might have some part of the blame!
My point is that terrorism seems to be the weapon available to the weaker side of a conflict. If they had planes, I'm sure they would be happy to drop their bombs rather than plant them. We can call them barbarians, but is their barbarity any worse than ours? I don't pose this question to be annoying. I think it's an important question.
Danimal | July 7, 2005, 11:05am | #
Seriously, we need to stop thinking of our enemy as a bunch of "nutjobs".They're not - they know what they're doing, and they obviously understand us a whole lot better than we understand them.
M1EK | July 7, 2005, 11:07am | #
RC Dean,Why are you such an appeaser toward the Saudis? Do you drive an Expedition or somesuch gashog?
wellfellow | July 7, 2005, 11:11am | #
M1EK,That's brilliant. It's the SUV owners that are responsible for this mess!
kwais | July 7, 2005, 11:12am | #
M1EK,I do indeed believe that invading Iraq helped the war on terror.
I believe it is essential in the war on terror.
I believe that anything else would have been a half measure and doomed to failure.
I believe the alternative would be to accept that their attack on us is justified and to surrender to them. The alternative is to stick your head in the sand and hope that the problem goes away that someone else will take care of the problem. But no one else will. We are the solution that all the Europeans with their heads in the sand are counting on whether they know it or not.
M1EK | July 7, 2005, 11:13am | #
wellfellow,Not responsible for the mess, but responsible for blocking efforts to clean it up.
Pretty much ALL arguments against bringing the Saudis back in line rest on the premise that it would hurt our economy to lean hard on the only major oil-producer with surplus producing capacity.
kwais | July 7, 2005, 11:16am | #
Melissa,Either we are fighting them and we are better than them. And we believe it and fight as such.
Or it is simply us vs them. And every thing goes.
If we resort to the latter, God help them. (maybe God help us too for what we would do)
Either way we are fighting them. Whose side are you on?
joe | July 7, 2005, 11:18am | #
"Given there were not any WMD found I am amazed that Saddam did not just open the doors and let the inspectors in. Had he done that chances are very good he would still be in power and the war would have never started"The Director of British Intelligence would seem to disagree with you - he realized, after talking to the American principles, that the administration was determined to go to war months before the invasion began, and that the WMD excuse was merely a pretext, with the intelligence being fixed around it. The bombing campaign to soften up Iraq for invasion, he stated in the Downing Street Memo, had already begun.
Of course, a fairminded observer would have realized that the administration was determined to invade Iraq based on Donald Rumsfeld's September 14, 2001 memo (yes, you read that date correctly), stating that the attacks gave us an excuse to attack "not just OBL, but SH" as well.
Taking Melissa's point a step further, I'm not even sure what the moral difference is between targeting civilians and targetting soldiers who wouldn't be targetting your soldiers (and therefore wouldn't be "combatants") if your soldiers hadn't started targetting them first. Oh well, I guess one could invoke the fact that the soldiers' leader was an unelected psycopathic asshole with a mass murderous history. And I'm serious, there's some logic in that. But then, to the Islamist terrorists, there's just as much logic in striking back, since they believe we started it and we're not justified. That they're targetting civilians is a convenient distinction to make for those whose side has the ability to take out military targets. But as long as each side is convinced of the righteousness of their cause, I don't see how targetting civilians is distinctly worse. Maybe it's worse by degree, maybe not. It's certainly not that one is okay and the other is evil. Killing those who would not kill you is just that regardless.
temujin334 | July 7, 2005, 11:20am | #
M1EKExplain your logic to me. The main arguments against the Iraq War are 1) Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11, 2) He didn't have WMDs, 3) he posed no immediate threat to the US.
You state that if someone believes the Iraq War was the correct move they are "not worth any further breath". Then you say that Saudi Arabia should be the one we should have gone after. Which of the above arguments applies to Saudi Arabia? Is there a direct link to 9/11? One that would with stand up to investigation after investigation? Do they have WMDs? Are they an immediate military threat to us?
I am not an apologist for them at all, I know they have bred anti-Americanism for decades and are not our friends. I also think we should be leaning on them much harder than we seem to be. What is your ironclad justification for going at them when the Iraq situation is so open and closed?
kwais | July 7, 2005, 11:23am | #
M1EK,Right now the Saudi govt is mostly helping us out. Right now they are more effective at finding and killing terrorists than we are. They have many flaws, as they have people inside their government that are more with the terrorists than with us. But they also are more effective when hunting terrorist, they do not have qualms about killing the bad guys, or using torture to get information from the bad guys.
If the Saudi govt overtly helps the terrorist and turns agains us, by all means lets go in.
Not the case right now.
Dakota | July 7, 2005, 11:23am | #
Melissa,Terrorists specifically target civians not combatants. What is so hard to understand about the moral differnce?
fyodor | July 7, 2005, 11:25am | #
joe,I agree that there's good evidence that the Bush admin was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. That doesn't necessarily mean that they would have done it without one. We'll never know that for sure.
Saddam was once quoted as saying that he'd prefer a military defeat to a political one. Perhaps that's one time we can take him at his word. Doesn't justify taking him up on it, of course. Reminds me of Grace Slick saying why don't the people who want to fight wars just do it themselves and leave the rest of us out of it.
CAT_Violations | July 7, 2005, 11:32am | #
drf-CAT: I like your analogy. The funny thing, Denmark is on the list to be attacked, too. And I've read in some of their papers that they were worried that their porn industry might have some part of the blame!
Well if you have the information as to why they have been targeted I'd be happy to have a link. I haven't seen any terrorist press releases that state "we're going after the Danes for all that high grade Danish porn they send our way".
R C Dean-
One of the reasons I've seen given by several experts on the middle east is that we support some of the totalitarian regimes in the area. You know, such and such a wacko is OK as long as he is our wacko. This is very different from what you state.
Dave W. | July 7, 2005, 11:32am | #
One that would with stand up to investigation after investigation?We don't know. Those pages of the report were secret (whited out).
Crushinator | July 7, 2005, 11:35am | #
We already have all of the tools we need to end this type of terror - they only need to be applied correctly.First we need to raise the alert level to "Fuchsia". Connect jumper cables to some A-rab testicles, have W flash his smirk on the BBC, drop some napalm on Fallujah, require all bus riders to remove their shoes, declare terrorism to be "interstate commerce", sieze some Afgani caves by eminent domain, post the Ten Commandments in more courtrooms, jail some more journalists, scotchgard all American flags, and (most importantly!) find out what is the thread count of Michael Jackson's sheets.
Round up the usual suspects!
TJIT | July 7, 2005, 11:41am | #
These attacks once again show that almost no amount of police / surveilance state tactics can make a society safe or stop attacks like this.Dave W.
The problem is that with modern technology a couple of hundred dead today could easily be a 10,000 or more dead tomorrow.
world historical hubris
We have held a lot of cards for the past 50 years. However for at least 35 of those years the soviet union held a lot of cards too. And for some portions of those 35 years it looks like they had the winning hand. Don't let that fact go to far down the memory hole.
M1EK | July 7, 2005, 11:41am | #
"Which of the above arguments applies to Saudi Arabia? Is there a direct link to 9/11?"Yes.
Indirect financial support; insufficiently strong prosecution; direct ideological support.
drf | July 7, 2005, 11:41am | #
CAT:it was mentioned after the Iraq war started and after Madrid in Berlingske Tidende and Politikken. It was in the context of "analysis". And it was as I represented it.
I never claimed their analysts were smart.
M1EK | July 7, 2005, 11:45am | #
And for those aghast at the idea of attacking Saudi Arabia, I say again: any security argument you use to justify attacking Iraq applies tenfold to Saudi Arabia.Financial support for terrorists? Huge from the Saudis, nearly zero from Iraq.
Financial support for the 9/11 terrorists? All from the Saudis; none from Iraq.
Ideological support for the 9/11 terrorists and alQaeda in general? Saudis, Saudis, Saudis.
The ACTUAL ATTACKERS? Saudis, Saudis, Saudis.
Threat to OUR COUNTRY? Saudis, Saudis, Saudis.
Attacked US ON OUR OWN SOIL? Saudis, Saudis, Saudis.
Anybody smart enough to read Reason who fell for the smokescreen thrown up by the neocons which linked Iraq and 9/11 is engaged in one serious case of cognitive dissonance.
History's going to look back at our response to 9/11 and wonder why the hell we wussed out at going after those who were really responsible.
moral nihilist | July 7, 2005, 11:48am | #
Perhaps somebody can explain to me the moral difference between dropping bombs on an Iraqi city and planting bombs in a London subway.I sympathize more with the world-view of those who bomb Baghdad than those who bomb London.
joe | July 7, 2005, 11:50am | #
"I agree that there's good evidence that the Bush admin was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. That doesn't necessarily mean that they would have done it without one."Correct. The cooking of WMD intelligence, and the easily-refuted accusations that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, mean they went to war without a good excuse. If they had a good reason to begin a war, they wouldn't have had to make up so many bad ones.
Mike H. | July 7, 2005, 11:50am | #
Can Adam or Mike PLEASE explain to me the connection between legalized Dutch pot and Muslim terrorism on Dutch soil? I mean, hell, pot's illegal here, but that didn't stop 9-11.No I can't, because that's nowhere NEAR the point I was making, Jen. I made an oblique reference of mine own, specifically to the loony nature of Islamist ideology.
BTW, I'm a big fan of mj legalization.
Left Wing Puritan | July 7, 2005, 11:51am | #
Unfortunately the Republicans have plenty of their own mullahs who seek to dominate peoples' minds, bodies, and souls.
Comment by: Mr. Nice Guy at July 7, 2005 09:21 AM
Unlike the Democrats, who don't seek to dominate peoiple's minds, bodies, and souls.
Dakota | July 7, 2005, 11:54am | #
To further my point on legitimacy of terrorist actions. Factor out the state actor as the only legitimate source of war making. If the group that executing the bombings in London today had planted bombs in a military recruiting office, an embassy, or even a UK government facility it there would be an argument that it is a legitimate attack. Just as there is a difference in shooting an enemy combatant in battle rather then shooting him while he is laying down with a white flag flying, or already in custody.A point and case might be the IRA. Although many civilians died in IRA attacks they usually targeted specific people or state actors. Sometimes this line was blurred when they went for officers clubs or pubs frequented by UK military forces. Although the morality of that as a military tactic can be argued it is simply immoral on the most fundamental level of military and social morality to target commuters. The lack of morality extends beyond reprehensible when you time the attack it to expose the maximum number of people.
drf | July 7, 2005, 11:55am | #
LWP:you bet. and when they're in power and abusing their platforms in hypocritical ways, we go after them, too. And I think MNG's ironikality (sic) was that both sides of his comparison contain a vocal group of fundamentalists.
fyodor | July 7, 2005, 12:00pm | #
joe,Agreed. Still, Saddam could have possibly kept them from plausibly cooking the WMD evidence had he been more forthcoming with his own, which was my point (not sure if you were attempting to refute that or simply make your own point building on mine, which in turn was built on yours).
That said, I've often wondered if Saddam's apparent lack of forthcomingness was a product of incompetence rather than intention.
Dakota | July 7, 2005, 12:09pm | #
"I sympathize more with the world-view of those who bomb Baghdad than those who bomb London."This statement misses the point. World view would go to the legitimacy of the war, not the legitimacy of the tactics. Huge distinction. I can believe the US lacked a moral foundation for invading Iraq, but used legitimate tactics of war.
What I believe you are trying to suggest is that the terrorists have the moral legitimacy to strike back at the people who have "attacked" them. Which is fine if you want to argue that. But the tactics they employ to achieve what you might perceive as legitimate, are morally bankrupt.
fyodor | July 7, 2005, 12:10pm | #
Dakota,I can see your point, up to a point. I guess there's degrees of vileness. At the same time, it seems to me that any unprovoked killing is just that, whether the target was wearing a uniform or not. And, by saying: "If the group that executing the bombings in London today had planted bombs in a military recruiting office, an embassy, or even a UK government facility it there would be an argument that it is a legitimate attack," are you making that argument? Seems to me it would still seem pretty vile. It would certainly still be labeled "terrorism," as was the attack on the USS Cole. And regarding the state as the only "legitimate source of war making," I believe it's most practical to invest the state with that function, but that doesn't mean it affects the morality of violence that it was done by an organization recognized as a state.
joe | July 7, 2005, 12:12pm | #
"Still, Saddam could have possibly kept them from plausibly cooking the WMD evidence had he been more forthcoming with his own..."To which my hawkish alter ego replies, "Big country. Size of Texas. Could be anywhere. Buried in the sand. No paperwork. Big land area."
And, in fact, Hans Blix (remember when it was funny to rag on him for suggesting that Iraq might not have an active weapons program? Ha ha ha, now there are 100,000 people dead) stated repeatedly that the inspectors had the access and equipment they needed to do their job.
Thomas Paine's Goiter | July 7, 2005, 12:26pm | #
How would you like it if your sister gets raped and then has to have the baby because abortion is illegal? Fancy having a nephew raised in a Faith Based Orphanage, you fucking fascist?Only in American politics can a discussion about Terrorist bombings in London end up as an abortion fight.
I think the supreme court should ban people that talk about abortion.
Dakota | July 7, 2005, 12:31pm | #
Fydor,"are you making that argument?"
I am not making the argument that an attack today on a recruiting office would be legitimate. I wanted to point out that there was no goal to "strike back" at the UK government or "war machine". The terrorists who attacked today are attempting to use citizen death tolls as their political capital. No one can see that as morally justified, no matter whose "side" you were on.
To me it might be an apt metaphor to look at it like 1st 2nd 3rd degree murder. Clearly if you plan out an attack with death as the intended result it is the most immoral act. But if you commit an negligent act that inadvertently leads to someones death it is less morally reprehensible, despite the same result.
I think basic morality of the state lies in non-intervention, respecting violence is a tool last resort when the natural state of man in being threatened.
" I believe it's most practical to invest the state with that function, but that doesn't mean it affects the morality of violence that it was done by an organization recognized as a state"
I agree with your statement. I just wanted to factor out today's attacks were committed by non-state actors and deal with the morality of the act on its face.
Stretch | July 7, 2005, 12:33pm | #
I still can't figure out why SH was playing games with the weapons inspectors. Maybe he thought that the US worked like Iraq and that Clinton would be in power forever. Oops.As far as Saudi Arabia goes, neither party would have attacked them after 9/11 and neither party is likely to attack them anytime soon. They give too much money to both parties, and at the moment have increased their utility.
Islamic fundamentalists hate us, period. Would removing our presence from the ME help? Sure. Would significantly weakening the US economy help? Sure. Would removing all support from Israel help? You bet. Maybe if all these things happened, they'd leave us alone. Maybe. But they'd still hate us just the same. Nothing will ever change that, so the only question is how do we most effectively limit their ability to cause harm?
The admin seems to think that a democratic ME will do the trick, and while I believe that there will be many benefits if such a thing actually happened, it will not change the fact that we just aren't muslim.
Thomas Paine's Goiter | July 7, 2005, 12:40pm | #
This is great. London is attacked, and instead of discussing the attack, the effects on the Brits, the effects on British policy, the effect on Europe, the effect on G8, thread devolves into the same fucking Iraq War pissing match that has been going on for the last 3 years.Good on all of you.
Jennifer | July 7, 2005, 12:44pm | #
TPG-Bush's first response to the attack was to say that this justifies what we're doing in Iraq. Good on him too, huh?
Thomas Paine's Goiter | July 7, 2005, 12:50pm | #
So you're using George Bush for intellectual equivalence? And that from someone that has decried forms of equivalence in the past.Good on him and you.
fyodor | July 7, 2005, 12:54pm | #
I wanted to point out that there was no goal to "strike back" at the UK government or "war machine".The terrorists lack the ability to mount any militarily effective attack. Any attack they had made, regardless of whether it was on military personnel or civilians, would have only had value to them for its terror.
Question for you. If someone were to point a gun at me, and if for whatever logistical or psychological reasons I deduced that my best means of self-defense were to point a gun at a third (and innocent) party dear to my aggressor, would that be inherently illegitimate? Would that be closer to collatoral damage or to targetting civilians? Should I forego such an option in the name of self preservation? Is the third party entirely innocent if he or she might have been able to talk my aggressor out of pointing the gun at me? I agree that there are levels of vileness and targetting civilians for political capital is probably on top of the heap. But I don't think there's clearcut lines between legitimate and illegitimate means of making war, nor that the reason for making war is an entirely independent issue, since it is only a good reason (self-defense) that makes any violence legitimate.
Seamus | July 7, 2005, 12:55pm | #
"If the group that executing the bombings in London today had planted bombs in a military recruiting office, an embassy, or even a UK government facility it there would be an argument that it is a legitimate attack."It would only be a legitimate attack if they also had been wearing uniforms when they did so and had borne their arms openly, instead of skulking around in civilian clothes.
Rhywun | July 7, 2005, 1:00pm | #
it will not change the fact that we just aren't muslim.Japanese (for example) aren't Muslim either - I don't see much terrorist activity there.
The simple truth is that we rely on Middle East oil. That is the only reason we are there. Their stated goal is for us not to be there. Yet we are unprepared to accept the changes that would have to take place if we got out ("The American way of life is non-negotiable.").
dhex | July 7, 2005, 1:00pm | #
"It would only be a legitimate attack if they also had been wearing uniforms when they did so and had borne their arms openly, instead of skulking around in civilian clothes."sometimes i get the feeling we're all stuck in a kenny loggins-scored movie about one man (ex cia, ex navy seal) who's fighting against all odds to defeat evil with a capital VIL, bureaucrats and due process be damned, because he IS due process.
like don't you guys understand this yet? he is motherfuckin' due process!
Whose side am I on? What a supid question. If it comes to my family's life or an Iraqi family's, I prefer that mine survive. This is clearly a war, albeit an asymetrical one. But given the number of Iraqi civilians killed by our bombs, I don't think we should delude ourselves about the nobility or moral superiority of our side. Optimism about our species and all our utopian dreams is a hard sell.
Jennifer | July 7, 2005, 1:07pm | #
[bombing a military target] would only be a legitimate attack if they also had been wearing uniforms when they did so and had borne their arms openly, instead of skulking around in civilian clothes.Not at all sticking up for the terrorists here, but comments like this, or criticisms of Iraqis using sneaky roadside bombs to strike at Americans, make me think of that "King of the Hill" episode where Bobby, the unathletic nerdy kid, is picked on by a bunch of bullies. His father enrolls him in a how-to-fight course, but by accident Bobby ended up in a women's self-defense class, where he learned the basic knee-to-the-balls maneuver, and found that it was indeed effective against the boys who picked on him. His father, the manly ex-football hero, was horrified: "Bobby, you can't go around kicking guys in the fellas!" And Bobby's response? "Dad, they're bigger than me. They outnumber me. And you're saying I shouldn't do the ONE THING I'm actually capable of doing?"
I also consider that our own Revolutionary War was, by today's definitions, fought mostly by terrorists (though at least Washington's men didn't single out civilians, I'll grant that).
Dave W. | July 7, 2005, 1:13pm | #
TJIT,10,000 dead is an awfully small war. How about we divert the Iraq War funds to energy research. Then we can hopefully avoid the big war where casualities are measured in the 100s of millions.
Good post, Jennifer. Seamus's post reminded me of comments made by many in the Arab world that Americans were cowards because we bomb from the air. Also of comments that Bush is a coward because he was scared to fight Saddam in hand-to-hand combat.
joe | July 7, 2005, 1:24pm | #
kwais,"I believe the alternative would be to accept that their attack on us is justified and to surrender to them." Surrender to who? The Iraqis? Seriously, you can't see any alternative to invading Iraq than to surrender to Al Qaeda?
"The alternative is to stick your head in the sand and hope that the problem goes away that someone else will take care of the problem." Well, we stuck your ass in the sand, hoping you would take care of the problem. It's not working, regardless of the fact that you're (plural) doing your job very, very well.
Goiter, the central political devate in this country for the past three years