London Hit By Terror Attacks (What is the appropriate response?)

Great Debates
101

No, I was pointing to what might be done in the U.S.(where I live) as opposed to England.

I’m all for focusing on KNOWN terorist organisations. But because we are not aware of all terrrorist organization, we need to cast a wider net. And how do we know their Mulsims? Hmmm, that’s going to be hard. If only…if only they looked different or dressed differetnly, or there was a place where they all went to the non-Muslims didn’t. If only such a place existed…

Where’s the insult, Mr. Muhammad? And I’m with you, if they do not want to withstand additional scrutiiny when flying, fine, don’t let them fly. I am of darker complexion and have a beard. I’ve been scrutinized and I’m happy to help. Why? Because it is not unreasonable to mistake someone of Italian descent for a lighter skinned person of the middle east and I am advocate of the airplanes being modes of safe transport, not vessels that are hijacked and turned into missiles. Howe about you?

In my book breathing rights supercede civil rights. Newsflash: if you’re dead you have no civil rights! And, no, I have no problem stigmatizing people who do not want to cooperate with a governementas responsibility to ensure the safety of it’s people. If Muslims are interested in not being stigmatized as murdering extremists let them stand up and join the fight against them. In fact the quicker and diligently they do this, the more effeective securtiy efforts will be and the sooner it would make sense to not stigmatize them.

102

Sure, it’s impossible to completely seal the boarders, just as it is impossible to prevent all disasters. Still, we could be doing a hell of a lot better than we are. The Mexican border, for example, is ridiculosly porous, and the political will simply does not yet exist to have greater restrictions of illegal (read: untraceable) immigration. That will had better materialize.

103

Completely sealed? You’re right. But the way to get them to be as sealed as possible is to aim for them to be completely sealed. The reality will always fall short, so the answer is aim as high as you can.

104

As may be (both of you!) but where does the money come from? Where does the manpower come from?

There’s simply no will in the country (not only political will) for that sort of effort. Even if it could be attempted the extra cost would force either an increase in taxes (substantial) or extra bonds to be issued which has long-term consequences.

Non-starter. There will be continuing lip-service to security but no really effective action.

Short of a repeal of the second and fourth amendment I see no effective means of preventing such attacks inside the US.

105

In order to answer that question we need to find out what is fuelling their hatred. I don’t buy that they just hate us because we live in free and democratic countries. They hate us because of past and present interference in their region and lives. With one hand we arm leaders; with the other we demand disarmament. At times we support rebels, at others we’re the ones fighting them. Our foreign policy has been such a mess with regards to Middle Eastern group and regimes for so long now.

Some people will hate us regardless but they still need recruits. Our past and present foreign policy has provided them those recruits. We have been frustrating people for decades. These are the kind of people ripe for recruitment, their frustration turned to blind rage and hatred by nothing short of charismatic murderers. Through propaganda or religion manipulated, it matters not as the seed is already there.

Part of the solution might be to stop arming and supporting people whose acts we would never dare mimic. Stop attempting to control the balance of power unless the result would leave us in imminent danger. Stop inventing imminent dangers. Cease using conventional warfare to combat unconventional enemies. They hide amongst innocent citizens for a reason. They want us to target them and kill as many innocent people as possible, swelling their ranks.

The last thing we should do is start showing our intolerance by lashing out at those not responsible. That can not have any positive long term benefits. Sure, a full body search of all Muslims at airports might stop terrorists but it would also increase ill feeling and hatred towards us. Eventually someone will get through. England also has a massively multi race/faith population so you run the risk of creating terrorists within your own borders by treating them as such.

We need to accentuate our positives so that those potential recruits might begin to question the lies put in front of them. Actually give freedom and justice to all and don’t just make an empty claim. Treat everybody as equal, innocent until proven guilty under the law. This does not mean that we can never show aggression towards such an enemy. We just need to be damn sure of the reasons and consequences beforehand. Stop trying to crush a fly with a hammer, especially while it’s sitting on a window.

I live 45 minutes (by train) from the centre of London. I’ve been watching this horror unfold on BBC News as it’s happened. Despite this I can’t help but worry about our reaction. Our possible reaction to this atrocity worries me more than the pictures I am watching on TV and THAT scares the shit out of me.

106

If you’re argument is money, we’ll find it. This is a legitimate use of tax dollars. Bonds? Fine. I’m no economist, but money is not the problem.

As you rightly point out, the problem is will, mainly political. I remember when Giuliani was elected. The pathetic state of that city was accepted as the nature of the city. But Rudy came in, had vision which aimed higher than anyone thought was reasonable, and the will to attempt to achieve that vision, and voila: the New York City of today.

I’m not sure how the Second Amendment Tthe right to bear arms) is a problem. The Fourth, I understand, but I would point to the word “unreasonable”. Theoretically, if there is a high 95+% correlation between terrorist acts and muslims, and all muslims and only mulims go to mosques, I don’t think it is “unreasnable” to look to mosques in the effort to stop terrorist attacks.

107

Okay, time for a fun timeline. See if you can tell me where I’m incorrect, in your view.

  1. 9/11 attacks.
  2. US’s manly reaction in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
  3. Madrid bombings.
  4. Spain’s wusstastic withdrawl from Iraq.
  5. Londom bombings.

Now, according to you OBL had a big old smiley face because of #4.

Simple cause and effect. So you say.

However, #2 in reaction to #1 was…what, ignored by OBL? I know. The US’s asskicking reponse was exactly the medicine needed, and therefore #3 and #5 were just bad dreams?

So…where’s the cause and effect between the USA’s actions and, well, anything else? If the USA’s actions had been successful (rather than some insane thrashing around) why did Madrid, Bali, and London happen?

Contort that, Jimmy.

-Joe

108

I figure we preserve folk’s civil rights for a start.

109

Meaning no disrespect at all I agree that you’re no economist. While it’s true that, should we wish to have amount $XXX we can produce it (through taxes, bonds, or inflationary printing) the net effect of that sort of policy is already beginning to limit the effectiveness and responsiveness of government. For 2003 just the interest on the federal debt (that is interest on previously issued and spent bonds) was 7.1% of the federal budget. That totals 153.08 billion dollars. That’s more than Transportation. That’s more than Education and Training.

Here’s the chart.

But my main objections aren’t budgetary (though politically they’re the 900 pound gorilla in the room)…but effectiveness. I don’t believe that a free society can effectively combat terrorism without becoming an unfree society.

The second amendment comes into play because the easiest form of terrorism around is simply to walk into a mall or other crowded spot and begin firing. It would be easy to chalk up 10 dead in 5 minutes that way.

110

For the long term, I’m with you. Let’s find out why they hate us. In the short term–now–I don’t care why they hate us, or if they hate us. I say they can hate us all they want. Just stop blowing people up.

If you wait until a danger is iminent you’ve waited too long. Your “Stop inventiing imminent dangers.” I assume is an allusion to Bush’s often misquoted 2003 State of the Union speech. He rationale was to act “before” the threat was imminent:

“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

As far as your point about unconventional enemies, I agree. We need to fight the war differetnly. But that also means we need to treat the terrorist threat off the battlefield differetly, too. That is precisely my point.

But it would reduce the risk of them getting through. I’m sure your understanding of England is right. But I don’t think any country should have to apologize or tip toe around a policy that states. We are against people blowing up our citizens. You are either with that progrm or not.

I think where we disagree is that you think that civil rights are sacrosanct. I don’t. I think life is sacrosanct, and at times civil liverties have to be dialed back. As I pointed out elsewhere, President Lincoln understood this when he suspended habeas corpus during the civil war. We might just have to agree to disagree on that.

Oh, after more people have been blown up?

Wow. You are really more worried about people being profiled or mosques asked to (or mandated) that they cooperate than you are of more of your innocent countrymen an-women being blown up. WOW! You and I are just not going to see eye-to-eye on very much.

[/QUOTE]
I live 45 minutes (by train) from the centre of London.

[QUOTE]

I wish you, your family, and your countrymen have seen the last of these attacks.

111

I think that the freedom and democracy thing is (mostly) bullshit as well, but I also disagree with your reasoning regarding interference. The western world has interfered (and still is) with a hell of a lot of areas of the world. Yet the major problems appear to be coming from those that are Islamic.

This isn’t the typical bash on Islam. I understand that there are different subsections (just like almost any religion) that interpret the religion differently. But I do believe that for the terrorists, and fundamentalists, hate is not necessarily the right word. I think we disgust them. I think that our consumerism, open sexuality, attempts at full gender equality, media, and other things that make up our culture and society revolts them.

I also believe that is something we are not going to easily resolve.

112

I’m certainly willing to live in a soiciety that’s a little less free if it means fewer innocent people being blown up.

Good point. But that’s not what is being done. And the extra scrutiny I reccommend would help us identify individuals who might have plans to do that as well.

113

Sometimes the posts just write themselves…

Essentially, magellan01, what you’re discussing is the dismantling of large portions of the Constitution of the United States, here.

(Aside: I’m passing up the Animal House reference here.)

If, indeed, what the terrorists hate most is our freedom and democracy then by repealing some of that freedom and democratic process aren’t we giving them exactly what they want?

114

How about we preserve their lives first? No life, no civil rights.

115

No civil rights, no life worth living.

Enjoy,
Steven

116

Very very correct…

I was thinking of this today… imagine if the response to terrorist attacks were only police and investigative work. Terrorists being hunted down without great military shows. Simple straight international cooperation. By downplaying or giving little fuss to terrorist attacks… terrorists action would reap much less response. By creating panic and fear the western government have raised Al Qaeda onto a pedestal… helped create a greater myth of Bin Laden.

Terrorists want attention… and attention has been amply given. Their causes highlighted.

117

Except it probably won’t.

118

Your response is too easy and doesn’t begin to answer the hard questions. You don’t have anything to offer at all?

119

Oh really. But my guess is that the victims, and their families, of 9/11 and todays bombings in England would disagree with that assertion. As would I.

120

But who created that first panic and fear? Western governments? Or western media?

I think your response is the sane and rational one; downplaying the effects and stating that such attacks simply have to be accepted as part of life in a free society.

The question is- with the western media constantly showing images of the attacks, ramping up their ratings with “IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU!” fear tactics, and interviewing widows and widowers to talk about this horrible tragedy THAT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU AND YOUR GOVERNMENT ISN’T STOPPING IT!, how do you expect any government to stay in power afterwards?