|
|
7/7 – Putting it in perspective
As Britain emerges slowly from a state of shock, the usual questions are being thrown about: Why did it happen? What could have been done to prevent it? What more can we do? Ever since Britain joined the United States in the so-called “War on Terror”, it was taken as a given that Britain would be the second most important target for Al Qaeda. And we also knew that if Al Qaeda wanted to attack Britain, London would be the favourite destination. London is the nerve centre of global finance and strategically it is more important than New York because London’s finance “industry” is more international. So in every way, an attack on London was predictable. Her Majesty’s Government responded to the increased threat perception by massively increasing the powers of the state. At a moment’s reflection, it is not difficult to see how far we have come from the time of Labour’s first election victory in 1997. As Britain often follows American trends, this too was perhaps inevitable. America witnessed (even by its remarkable standards) phenomenal growth in Government power (not merely Government size) after 9-11. So when the attack finally happened, it should have come as no shock to anyone. As I recall day before yesterday morning’s fateful events, I remember the sense of disbelief being all pervasive – despite the fact that the attack was inevitable. The attacks did not appear to be devastating enough to merit the Al Qaeda suspicion initially. Certainly, 9-11 and Madrid did not leave anyone in a moment’s doubt about the fact that it was terrorism. Day before yesterday’s attacks still seem, in hindsight, to have been on a much smaller scale than New York and Madrid. But a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack. Whether it kills 3000 people or 300 people, the effects are still devastating. Which brings us to the following question: were the attacks preventable? We were certainly not sleeping in blissful ignorance like the Americans before 9-11. As mentioned earlier, the Government introduced all kinds of new measures, and to be fair to the Government, some attacks appear to have been thwarted as well. But despite all that, 7-7 still happened. For all the powers of British Intelligence, new police powers, and an increase in the volume of surveillance by an order of magnitude unthinkable in the nineties, we could not prevent it from happening. This leads us to a frightening conclusion: no matter what extra measures the Government now introduces, it is inconceivable that there simply won’t be another atrocity at some hypothetical point in the future. One cannot see what else the Government would do to eliminate the possibility of another attack. There were two fundamental causes for the attacks, both of which the Government, the mass media and other assorted members of Britain’s political and economic elite will not recognise. They will go around in circles and keep screaming from the roof-tops about ID cards, about more surveillance cameras, about more telephone tapping (as if every single telephone conversation in this country isn’t already under surveillance), about getting rid of plastic guns that children play with and so on and so forth. Iraq Recognising that aligning ourselves with that most foolish of American misadventures in the Middle East was an important factor in making London a terrorist target would be the first and most important step in reducing the terrorist threat. Endless blather about “Extremists” (actually, not “extremists” but Muslims) hating our “freedoms” will get us nowhere. There is something remarkably endurable about bad ideas and misinformation in our time. That an idea so patently absurd forms the purported basis of our elite’s worldview speaks volumes either of their dishonesty or their delusion (or both). But it is a fact that Al Qaeda attacked us because we attacked Iraq. Immediately after the attacks, the following appeared on a web site:
They have never shied away from stating their motives. And we should not shy away from recognising them. If we refuse to do so, we shall continue to suffer grievously in the future. It is a fact Tony Blair will not acknowledge, however. Still deluded with visions of his “legacy” as that “great statesman” of the 21st century – who brought the light of “democracy” to the Arabs and “eliminated” poverty in Africa (!), he will cling stubbornly to his policies. But whether Blair is or isn’t remembered five years from now ought to be of less concern to us than whether London gets hit by terrorists again. Blair’s “legacy” may well be forgotten (and the sooner the better perhaps) but whether it is or isn’t, the Labour Party (if it has a semblance of good sense left in it) ought to pave the way for Tony Blair’s exit very soon. What might count against it? Tony Blair has a bevy of powerful backers. At the risk of being labelled a “Jew-basher” by the usual suspects, I shall speak the truth here – as did Tam Dalyell (soon forgotten) just after the Iraq invasion. Blair’s army of supporters include a large number of extremely wealthy Zionists all of whom stood behind their Leader in plunging this nation into the mess of Iraq. There is no doubt that Israel benefited from Iraq and there is no doubt that Israel was the keenest and most vocal nation in favour of the war. But Israeli/Zionist influence runs deep not only in the corridors of American power but also in the British government. And we have paid dearly for letting these powerful factions gain a significant toe-hold in this country’s foreign policy. But what is the alternative? The Conservatives were also in favour of the war – Michael Howard’s late flip-flopping notwithstanding. The only major party that opposed it was the Liberal Democrats, and voting for them would be out of question for the overwhelming majority of Conservatives. Whatever happens, a major debate on the question of pulling out of Iraq ought to occur now. This argument should not be limited to the likes of George Galloway to be dismissed casually as the concern of cranks and clowns. But while Iraq served as the catalyst for it, there have been other more important forces gaining enormous ground in this country over several decades that allowed the instigation of Iraq to work.
Open Borders I argued persuasively on this blog less than a year ago that Blair is essentially a Neoconservative. And the basic tenet of Neo-conservatism is “Invade the world, Invite the world”. If men are to be judged by their actions and not by their words alone, Tony Blair is a Neoconservative to the core. His loosening of Britain’s immigration and asylum restrictions (in practice) and blissful disregard for the massive spike in immigration were all part of the same agenda that made him attack Iraq. Open Borders is a key tenet of New Labour’s agenda. And it is one principle they have stuck to with greater consistency than any other. But immigration policy disasters in this country did not begin with Blair. If one were to be honest about it, one cannot but help going all the way back to the 1950s and the loosening of this country’s immigration in the post-war era. It is quite possible that the Muslims who carried out this attack were second or third generation “Britons”. If that is the case, Tony Blair despite his efforts at destroying this country, would not be responsible for their presence in this country. Indeed, the chief culprit would perhaps be Ted Heath for the manner in which Heath and his wing of the Conservative Party banished Enoch Powell for speaking sense in 1968. The political isolation of Powell paved the way for endless immigration and eventually for the unstoppable increase in the Moslem population within our borders through mass immigration. As long as we continue to have a large Muslim presence in this country, a terrorist attack shall remain a possibility. Terrorism is remarkably easy to engage in. It doesn’t cost much (which is why elaborate rules aimed at utterly undermining the confidentiality of Banker-Customer relationships are useless), it only requires a small number of motivated people willing to plot and carry out attacks and a significant population of fifth columnists to hide the attackers within the country. And since this fundamental aspect of British society will not change any time soon (because it is something we all hold “dear” - according to our masters), future attacks will remain a very real possibility. There isn’t a country in the world that has successfully eliminated terrorism. Once a terrorist problem is created, it festers for years on end. The US may not have seen another attack since 9-11, for example, but it must live in a state of perpetual fear of the next one. And even then, the next one may happen anyway. We have now happily positioned ourselves with the Americans and the Israelis as the most inviting target for Islamic terrorists. UPDATE: 1. Learning to live in Perpetual fear. 2. Terrorism works.
Posted by Phil Peterson on Saturday, July 9, 2005 at 11:30 AM in War on Terror Comments:2
Posted by Phil on July 09, 2005, 01:19 PM | # Geoff, On the question of “division”, it is clear to me that the US Government and the Likud Government agree almost 100 percent on ME issues. That being so, it is dangerous for any European government to align itself with the US. I wish the US would change. But if it doesn’t, its not very sensible for us to be seen standing shoulder to shoulder with the US Government in every insane new initiative the US foreign policy establishment comes up with. 3
Posted by Geoff Beck on July 09, 2005, 01:28 PM | # > US Gov’t As you know, Phil, I am totally at odds with ?my? gov’t. It is a beast, a monster. You know how I feel: I hate it, hate it, hate it. The US Gov’t is the greatest enemy of the people. But it is not just Bush, this imperial madness has been going on since the cold war. The US Gov’t is out of control. 4
Posted by Phil on July 09, 2005, 01:32 PM | # The US Gov’t is out of control Geoff, You are not alone in feeling this way. There is a total “disconnect” between ordinary people and the elites. 5
Posted by Phil on July 09, 2005, 01:34 PM | # In a strange sort of way, we are in the same boat. My Government has been drifting away from the opinions of ordinary people in this country for some time now. 6
Posted by Kubilai on July 09, 2005, 01:51 PM | # Excellent post Phil and right on the mark. Something about this whole thing, the US especially, troubles me and not just a little bit. The troubling aspect is how convenient the “war on terror” found a perfect enemy at the right time for the Bush administration. I can see the World Trade Center bombing, Bali, Madrid, and London as simpleton terrorist attacks because we are dealing with simpletons. However, I am not convinced of 9/11. 9/11 was quite a well orchestrated event and to think a bunch of primitive camel f**kers were able to pull off such a precise and devastating attack makes my mind wonder. The whole thing smells of conspiracy and I am not usually a conspiracy nut. 7
Posted by Andrew L on July 09, 2005, 02:44 PM | # Yep , Phill, this is an exillent reprisentation of events, already on some other sides of the coin, The blame is been leveled at Guess, Israel, the acusations are they new, and warned the Finance Minister to stay in his Hotel, and the other part is That Mossad had informed MI 5 some three days before of the pending attack, so by the time the Arabs have their say , George Bush, Tony Blair and Aeriol Sharon were the bombers, and Islam would never do such a thing, well, Hard to realise what the next step is, when the deputy commissioner of London Metro police states the same horrible Cultural marxist statement that Islam is not the culprit, it is the victom, There lay the key words, “Victom”, so The State has not, and will not learn, so now the State must become irrelivant, It is the Problem and is testomonial of the purile ignoranse of supposid world leaders, Words can kill,when the actual meanings become Orwellian and for the past thirty years, the language and Marxis,sized facts have been reorranged to make people believe in the Lie, The lie must end and truth must triumph, Enoch Powel and the river of blood speach, yes , and look at the dates.Constituens Blinded by political Ideology and Professionalised pig ignorance, We hate to say, You WERE TOLD . 8
Posted by Geoff Beck on July 09, 2005, 03:54 PM | # Kub, American Dynasty : Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush ? It is indeed strange that these attacks and the war culminated when Bush was president. His family has been deeply involved in the international arms business, oil, and finance. BTW, the dynasty doesn’t start with Bush I, but way back into the 19th Century with George Herbert Walker, and Prescott Bush - WWI was an important event for the Bush clan. The Bush famly also has deep connections with British business interests as well as Saudi/Bin Laden familes. Sorry, to wrench this thread to the topic of America and Bush. But it is related. 9
Posted by onetwothree on July 09, 2005, 04:22 PM | # Thank goodness for Andrew L’s unique punctuation style. It allows me to just skip right by his posts, with hardly more than a second wasted. Oh, why do you bother, Andrew L? 11
Posted by Matra on July 09, 2005, 04:38 PM | # to think a bunch of primitive camel f**kers were able to pull off such a precise and devastating attack makes my mind wonder But they weren’t “primitive camel f**kers”. They were mostly middle and upper class professionals, including some engineers, or at least engineering students, trained right here in the hated West. We let them in, educate them, shower them with privileges, and even after they slaughter our people on our own streets we still won’t countenance the idea that multiculturalism might not be such a good thing. Instead we get Blair and Bono going on about world poverty being the root cause of everything nasty in the world. The Islamists must be shaking their heads in disbelief at how stupid we are. 12
Posted by Geoff Beck on July 09, 2005, 05:07 PM | # > But they weren’t “primitive camel f**kers”. That’s right. And that is why summary deportations are required. Left in their own environment they are less harmful to the West. Instead of killing us, they kill each other. Frankly, I’m quite happy to leave them completely unmolested in their pitiful hovels. The interventionist policies of Bush and immigration are causing these attacks. 13
Posted by Kubilai on July 09, 2005, 05:29 PM | # Geoff, thank you for the link. I went out and bought it when I was running some errands. Should be a real eye opener. Matra, I understand your point however after dealing with more than a few “als”, as in al-sheik and al-habib in my day through my formal schooling, I have no doubt in my mind that no matter the level of education, they are nearly ALL “primitive camel f**kers”. 14
Posted by Phil on July 09, 2005, 05:41 PM | # Geoff, Thanks for the link to Phillips’ book. Sounds very intriguing. 15
Posted by gay homosexual on July 09, 2005, 08:49 PM | # “Matra, I understand your point however after dealing with more than a few “als”, as in al-sheik and al-habib in my day through my formal schooling, I have no doubt in my mind that no matter the level of education, they are nearly ALL “primitive camel f**kers”.” how so? what was so bad about the ones you met? i don’t know many arabs, what were the ones you knew like? 16
Posted by Kubilai on July 09, 2005, 10:10 PM | # It is their mentality, Gay. They had the same mentality as the unwashed ones you see on TV dancing in the streets whenever something bad happens to the west. The ones I had the pleasure of meeting “knew” when to shut up about certain topics and were more polished in discussing them yet they all believed the same damn thing. We were infidels and our women were whores. 17
Posted by Amman on July 09, 2005, 10:22 PM | # ...and our women were whores. Let’s face it, can you really blame them for thinking that way? You only have to look at “respectable” celebrities such as, say, Paris Hilton or Britney Spears to get that impression. Even walking down the street, you get that idea—I can barely begin to count how many “nice” white girls I’ve seen wandering around with “juicy” stamped across the buttocks of their ridiculously tiny shorts, or “hot-stuff” smeared (in garishly bright pink glitter) across the chests of their flimsy, nearly see-through tank-tops. Unfortunate as it may be, I think these Arabs may not be far off the mark in their less-than-glowing perceptions of American women… And out of curiosity, were all the Arabs you knew Muslim? Most of the Arabs I know are Christian, and they’re some of the nicest folks I’ve met. I wonder whether pathological Arab behavior is more a function of Islam than genetics… 18
Posted by Geoff Beck on July 09, 2005, 10:26 PM | # > I think these Arabs may not be far off the mark in their less-than-glowing perceptions of American women… Who can argue with that? True. I don’t want my daughter to be a slut, I can’t stand how women and girls dress today. Still, it is our problem. I have no problem with the Arab and his culture - in the proper environment. The Arab’s environment is not Europe, America, or Canada, Australia, or NZ. The Arab does not belong here. He must go. 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 09, 2005, 10:54 PM | # “Let’s face it, can you really blame them for thinking that way? You only have to look at ‘respectable’ celebrities such as, say, Paris Hilton or Britney Spears to get that impression. Even walking down the street, you get that idea—I can barely begin to count how many ‘nice’ white girls I’ve seen wandering around with ‘juicy’ stamped across the buttocks of their ridiculously tiny shorts, or ‘hot-stuff’ smeared (in garishly bright pink glitter) across the chests of their flimsy, nearly see-through tank-tops. Unfortunate as it may be, I think these Arabs may not be far off the mark in their less-than-glowing perceptions of American women…” As Geoff says, this observation of Amman’s cannot be disputed: he’s absolutely right. The Arabs and other Moslems who call white women who behave like this names are morally unassailable. 20
Posted by Geoff Beck on July 09, 2005, 10:57 PM | # > The Arabs and other Moslems who call white women who behave like this names are morally unassailable. But let them make their denunciations in their own God forsaken lands, not ours. 21
Posted by Andrew L on July 10, 2005, 12:29 AM | # My wife just last week refused the sale of a propert of ours, because the ones who were offering were Middle East Tea Towl heads, She then told the real-estate no,no and no.We will not do any buisiness transaction of any kind with them regardless of any offer. Although an Infidel my lovely wife if she had her chance would make Crockadile snack out of them, only after 9/11 when they all were dancing and celebrationg in the streets. Not a bloody politition or cop or agent or media did a bloody thing. So the Infidels can do something in our home lands, and try make it a cammel free zone. How was that 123. 22
Posted by Geoff Beck on July 10, 2005, 12:35 AM | # Andrew, I also refuse to converse and do business with Mexicans and Arabs. And yes, I make it known, that I don’t like them. To hell with politeness, they are in my land and they are not welcome. If we want to keep our land - we better start acting like it - dammit! Good for you! We need to start standing up like men, instead of cowering like wimps. 23
Posted by Matra on July 10, 2005, 01:08 PM | # I think these Arabs may not be far off the mark in their less-than-glowing perceptions of American women… Imagine what they must think of European women! In Europe Americans are seen as sexual puritans. Even in supposedly conservative Ireland returning male expats and guest workers tell their friends stories about prudish American women who expect you to take them on bizarre things known as “dates” before you get to roger them! 24
Posted by Kubilai on July 10, 2005, 02:54 PM | # I disagree with some of you guys regarding Amman’s statement. These are OUR women in OUR countries and OUR responsibility to guide them back into some degree of sanity after decades worth of indoctrination. Be they perceived as whores or not by others is not our or their concern. They can and SHOULD stay in THEIR homelands if they are so “appalled” at our “infideledness”. Simple as that. 25
Posted by ben tillman on July 12, 2005, 12:08 PM | # BTW, the dynasty doesn’t start with Bush I, but way back into the 19th Century with George Herbert Walker…. Interesting bit from Edward Rothstein in the N.Y. Times, on the brother of a direct ancestor of the President: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E2DE1139F937A1575AC0A9629C8B63
Next entry: Robert Pape Previous entry: Where is the Anger? |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) angemsRag commented in entry 'The Jewish decade in post-war Poland' on 05/23/12, 02:27 AM. (go) (view) insaleenvency commented in entry 'British General Election 2010' on 05/23/12, 01:38 AM. (go) (view) alexaesjiong commented in entry 'Seeking Chinese Nationalist For Majority Radio Guest Spot' on 05/23/12, 12:43 AM. (go) (view) Luxury British Watches commented in entry 'Europe 2015' on 05/23/12, 12:28 AM. (go) (view) Luxury British Watches commented in entry 'Precious Williams' on 05/23/12, 12:22 AM. (go) (view) Luxury British Watches commented in entry 'The Bear’s Lair: The immortal Smoot' on 05/22/12, 11:53 PM. (go) (view) HoroSmutS commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/22/12, 11:48 PM. (go) (view) Luxury British Watches commented in entry 'Fair shares all round it is, then' on 05/22/12, 11:22 PM. (go) (view) Lise27 commented in entry 'A reply to Happy Cracker' on 05/22/12, 11:14 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) seite commented in entry 'Fair shares all round it is, then' on 05/22/12, 09:26 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) HoroSmutS commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/22/12, 09:09 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Elubbibbott commented in entry 'British General Election 2010' on 05/22/12, 08:14 PM. (go) (view) CHENALEXANDRIA33 commented in entry 'The Mysterious Influence on the US of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus' on 05/22/12, 07:56 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) insaleenvency commented in entry 'British General Election 2010' on 05/22/12, 07:09 PM. (go) (view) QuottevoM commented in entry 'This thread business' on 05/22/12, 07:07 PM. (go) (view) Aborhoorstusa commented in entry 'Ladies against feminism' on 05/22/12, 06:53 PM. (go) (view) Sarws23ls commented in entry 'Thread Wars' on 05/22/12, 06:07 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) rmmshzrbpvi commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/22/12, 05:37 PM. (go) (view) Graistetrisog commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/22/12, 05:18 PM. (go) (view) ovephorie commented in entry 'It's politics. And it's KMD.' on 05/22/12, 05:14 PM. (go) (view) Glurarieepife commented in entry 'Charlene Downes - a murder too far for the MSM' on 05/22/12, 04:56 PM. (go) (view) rarlencourl commented in entry 'Jews: jewish hand-wringing at recent high' on 05/22/12, 04:23 PM. (go) (view) Lifsappoift commented in entry 'Those nasty Christian concentration camps' on 05/22/12, 03:16 PM. (go) (view) winstrol commented in entry 'Was Churchill an antisemite and a Fascist?' on 05/22/12, 02:47 PM. (go) (view) DateSoaxiaDot commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/22/12, 12:58 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Geoff Beck on July 09, 2005, 01:09 PM | #
> it is quite possible that the Muslims who carried out this attack were second or third generation “Britons”.
If this is true the gov’t and media will squelch the story.
> We have now happily positioned ourselves with the Americans and the Israelis as the most inviting target for Islamic terrorists.
Europe (GB) is the target. It is obvious Al Qaida wishes to separate you from us. They may succeed.
> Tam Dalyell
If a permanent wedge is driven between Europe and the US we know,
in part
, who is responsible.
Phil, you tied many loose ends together.