« June 2005 | Main | September 2005 »

July 27, 2005

Cause and effect

According to Tony Blair, when it comes to the terror attacks of 11th Sep 2001 and subsequent bombings in Bali, Madrid and London to name but three:

BBC - Blair: Iraq no excuse for terror
"We are not going to deal with this problem, with the roots as deep as they are, until we confront these people at every single level - and not just their methods but their ideas," he added.

"11 September for me was a wake up call. Do you know what I think the problem is? That a lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again."

Now why is it that so many people seem to think that 11th Sep 2001 was the moment when this all kicked off?

I have a history book here that contains many useful facts and dates, just picking a relevant selection at random:

28 June 1919 - British and French mandates in the Middle East established under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Note that the League was the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States.

4 February 1942 - In Egypt, the British forced King Farouk to appoint a pro-Allies cabinet. On February 4, the British drew up a tank battalion in front of the Abdin Palace and forcibly installed a Wafd ministry presumed to be pro-Allies in sympathy. The Egyptian government was thus reduced to puppet status, subordinated to the British in an openly humiliating way.

21 August 1953 - Shah Mohammed Reza returned to Iran on the wings of a coup engineered by the American CIA and organized by Kermit Roosevelt (Teddy Roosevelt's grandson who also had a hand in the Egyptian revolution of 1952). The Shah was flown back to Tehran aboard a CIA airplane.

23 January 1980 - President Carter in his State of the Union speech said, "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

So certainly American (and British) involvement in the Middle East goes back more than 80 years before 11th September 2001.

Robert Pape, associate professor of political science at the University of Chicago, has looked into the underlying causes, hoping to find evidence of the perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam that Tony Blair holds responsible.

Details of Pape's findings can be found in the article Poisonous Misinterpretations, which is well worth reading.

In summary, it would seem that the core motivating factor behind suicide bombers is a response to military occupation by a foreign power. For example, Iran has yet to be occupied and in spite of the Ayatollahs' criticisms of U.S. culture there have been no suicide attacks. Such attacks were unheard of in Iraq before 2003. Indeed Osama Bin Laden only got arsey with the U.S. after American forces arrived for Desert Storm in 1990.

Now as long as our leaders insist on a perversion of Islam as being the trigger for terrorist acts rather than admitting their own complicity, the war on terror will continue with neither side achieving victory. The problem is that such an acknowledgement of the reality of the situation is unlikely to occur, and so all parties continue to indulge in an ever escalating pissing contest, sacrificing innocent lives whilst watching to see who blinks first.

Such a campaign is seen as manna by many vested interests in the West. An unending war on terror provides numerous opportunities to sell arms and munitions to both sides. For the defence industries of the U.S. business is booming. Not to mention the opportunities that arise from being an occupying power.

At the end of the day, only by understanding the reality of the situation, getting to grips with the fundamental causes and saying enough is enough, can this futile conflict be brought to a close. And to those who believe that attempting to understand the other side is tantamount to condoning their actions, I'll leave you with a quote from the late Alec Nove (courtesy of Ken MacLeod):

To understand is not to forgive. It is simply better than the alternative, which is not to understand.

Posted by Clive at 11:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

An inevitable consequence?

On Monday I made the comment

How long before we hear calls for the introduction of capital punishment for terrorists? How long before the first demands for internment camps are heard?

Today the Guardian makes a chilling point:

The Guardian - The 5 per cent solution The most important of these is Mr Blair's persistent and reflexive support for draconian legal powers against terrorists for which a case has not yet been made and which may cause as many problems as they solve. The best current example of this is his support for the police call for the power of 14-days detention for questioning of terrorist suspects to be extended to three months - temporary internment by any other name. But Mr Blair also made clear yesterday that he wants to revisit the issue of indefinite detention of foreign suspects - on which the law lords ruled against the government last year.

Yup, once again indefinite internment for terrorist suspects is back on the agenda. Only this time, the definition of terrorist is much wider. Where previously it applied to people directly supporting proscribed organisations (albeit through aid supplies to refugees), in future the net will be cast wider.

The Independent - New anti-terror laws will target 'indirect incitement'

Legislation outlawing "acts preparatory to terrorism" will make it a crime to plan or prepare for a terror act, including accessing terrorist websites. The offence would also cover people with intent to acquire chemicals or with instructions on how to produce a bomb.

Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, said an offence of acts preparatory to terrorism would help police intervene early to protect the public. He said, "This may mean the precise details of the planned terrorist act are not known, indeed the terrorists themselves may not have decided exactly how they will act."

If the government has its way, not only can you be shot dead simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time wearing the wrong clothes, but soon you could be indefinitely detained without trial for viewing the wrong websites, buying the wrong things from the chemist or committing acts of what can only be called Thoughtcrime.

While you're fretting about that, remember that these policies are being introduced by a government most of you didn't vote for, as a consequence of a war most of you didn't want, the relevance of which Tony Blair remains in a fickle mind about.

The terror acts will continue, perpetrated by both sides (state and terrorist) until such time as our leaders are prepared to accept responsibility for their actions and the consequences thereof. Only then will there be an opportunity to break the vicious cycle of death and destruction, not through appeasement or atonement, but through realisation that constructive foreign policy doesn't bomb the shit out of innocent civilians, doesn't supply weapons to oppressive and dictatorial regimes. Above all, doesn't view other countries as simply providing resources and markets, but instead treats indigenous populations as human beings of equal worth.

Related comment can be found at Bloggerheads and Perfect.co.uk

Posted by Clive at 10:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 26, 2005

ICIGSITBOTH - In Case I Get Shot In The Back Of The Head

It's a tough world out there today. So tough that the East Anglian Ambulance NHS Trust have started a campaign entitled ICE - In Case of Emergency.

But is it enough?

In my opinion, no. An emergency is just too generic. People will use it for minor accidents like a twisted ankle on the football pitch or a touch of whiplash after a minor accident. All better dealt with by ambulance chasing scum.

So for anyone with a dark complection, a fondness for heavy coats or a fear of being mugged, Bloggerheads is proud to bring you ICIGSITBOTH - In Case I Get Shot In The Back Of The Head. Think of your mother's stomach or your husband's feelings and join the campaign yourself. The UK Today is.

--------

Posted by Clive at 6:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 25, 2005

State of Terror

My understanding is that the purpose of terror attacks is to achieve a set of objectives through the application of apparently random acts of violence against the civilian population, thus causing the aforementioned population to exert pressure upon its leaders to comply with the terrorists goals.

Alternatively.

The purpose of terror attacks is to fundamentally change the nature of the society being attacked, the application of terror creating a state of fear in society and an acceptance of a degradation in the quality of life and the reduction of freedoms.

If the terrorists responsible for 7/7 and last Thursday's failed attacks are trying to follow the first approach then they're setting themselves up to fail miserably. Blair and co have a proven track record of completely ignoring the desires or demands of the British people, so are unlikely to change track now.

Even the Madrid bombings last year were a failure in this respect. Aznar's defeat owed more to his government's bungled handling of the attacks than it did to Spanish involvement in Iraq.

So it is pretty obvious that no matter how many bombs go off, no matter how many members of the public are killed or injured, our political leaders are going to continue with their plans for Iraq.

But that second objective, the fundamental change in society for the worse, is more easily attained.

Parliament has already accepted the yet to be proven need for ID Cards, regardless of cost or effectiveness. And with their introduction will come an inevitable erosion of our civil liberties, more easily done in this country with no written constitution or bill of rights to enshrine our freedoms, and thus at least make their revocation more obvious.

And now we find the Police adhering to a shoot-to-kill policy with regards to suspected suicide bombers.

The FT - Met adopted secret shoot-to-kill policy in the face of a new and deadly threat Senior police officers said guidelines giving armed officers specific instructions on how to deal with suspected suicide bombers were circulated secretly for the first time, though never published, in 2003. A Met team had visited Israel and Sri Lanka and produced a confidential report on tackling an al-Qaeda threat in the UK. Instructions, to be followed only with approval from an operational senior officer, are thought to have covered disabling the nervous system with a shot to the head and firing on the driver of an approaching vehicle thought to contain a bomb.

Hear that wooshing noise? It's the sound of more of your hard won freedoms being stripped from you.

These security measures are being introduced for one reason, to protect the State. Not to protect individuals such as you or I, nor society, but simply the State. Against this need, your freedoms, the nature of society, these are mere trivia to be discarded or trampled upon when they conflict with the percieved needs of the State.

Shoot-to-kill is the meting of instant justice without appeal, without recourse to debate or the presentation of legal argument. It turns long-held principles on their head. Be in the wrong place at the wrong time, act in the wrong manner and you will find yourself found guilty, with no presumption of innocence, no recourse to the law or right to appeal your sentence. Each of those bullets pumped into Jean Charles de Menezes' head was also fired into the heart of our society.

How long before we here calls for the introduction of capital punishment for terrorists? How long before the first demands for internment camps are heard?

Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrorist victim, killed by a State that seems happy to use whatever means necessary to ensure its security. A State that outlaws peaceful protest from its own citizens.

In the War on Terror with each passing day both sides become less distinguishable. Tony Blair, in a recent speech, stated that:

We must be clear about how we win this struggle. We should take what security measures we can. But let us not kid ourselves.

In the end, it is by the power of argument, debate, true religious faith and true legitimate politics that we will defeat this threat.

It means championing our values of freedom, tolerance and respect for others.

Yet in London today freedom is stifled, debate suppressed, tolerance and respect reserved for a minority.

By our government, not Al Qaeda.

--------

Posted by Clive at 9:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 12, 2005

According to MIT...

--------

Posted by Clive at 6:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

State of mind

I resisted the temptation to comment on the London bombings of last week, partly because others such as manic had already covered some of the issues in a most eloquent manner, and partly because I was trying to work out where we go from here.

It seemed tragically ironic that on the same morning as our security forces were praised for their skill in preventing terrorist attacks, such an atrocity should take place. Perhaps it was inevitable. As the IRA stated in their message after the bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton 20 years ago:

[Today we were unlucky, but remember] we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always.

Now, less than a week later we have news of the Police searching houses in Leeds and making arrests. Of itself this appears to be good news, though it raises an interesting question of just how the police were able to make such a quick breakthrough. As I see it, there are possibilities:

1. The security forces have got lucky.
2. The terrorists didn't cover their tracks very well.
3. The security forces were already aware of the plot (to a greater or lesser degree), but were caught out by the timing.

More disturbing is how the Government will react. Charles Clarke has already managed to give out a mixed message on ID cards:

BBC - ID Cards wouldn't stop attack
Asked by BBC Radio 4's Today programme if ID cards could have prevented Thursday's atrocity, Mr Clarke said: "I doubt it would have made a difference.

But in almost the next breath he comes out with the statement that ID cards had helped officials identify the perpetrators of last year's bomb attacks on packed commuter trains in Madrid.

In which case today's searches and arrests have shown that ID cards aren't that necessary as an aid to detection.

And in a further move that impinges on our civil liberties, Jack Straw is pushing for a Europe-wide rule for retaining emails and telephone records.

BBC - Straw presses MEPs on e-mail data The costs of forcing firms across Europe to keep phone and e-mail records is worth paying to stop terror attacks, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said.

Mr Straw told the MEPs: "I believe that provided there are proper safeguards that no one's civil liberties are threatened by retention and access to data, but the protection of everybody is more greatly enhanced."

And there's that key phrase again, provided there are proper safeguards.

To be honest, I don't trust any government to behave in a responsible manner on such matters. If there is an opportunity to abuse or misuse such powers, a government will eventually do so. Maybe not tomorrow, next week or even next year, but a some point the temptation will become irresistible.

--------

Posted by Clive at 5:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 7, 2005

Terror

There have been reports of a number of explosions on London buses and underground trains. Initial reports blamed a power surge for the initial tube problems, although apparently the power company concerned has stated that they did not experience any such issues. BBC - Several hurt in Tube 'explosion'

Several people have been injured after explosions blamed on a power surge led to the whole London Underground network being closed down until further notice.

British Transport Police said some of the power surges had caused explosions.

Police have confirmed an explosion on a bus in Tavistock Square.

There could be any number of people or groups responsible, given the timing of the incidents falling during the G8 summit and the day after the announcement that London will host the 2012 Olympics. It could be anti-globalisation protestors, terrorists or even disgruntled French Olympic campaigners.

Unfortunatly, this will undoubtedly be used by the Government to further the cause of ID cards.

I suggest checking the BBC and London-based blogs for more information as it come available.

UPDATE 11:05 - Bus explosion confirmed. BBC - Several injured in London blasts

UPDATE 13:02 - European group with links to Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility. Live blogging from Perfect, Nosemonkey and Tim Worstall

UPDATE 13:17 - The statement published on http:www.qal3ati.com, a website often used by Al Qaeda (translation and link from Back to Iraq)

Jamaat al-Tandheem Al-Sierri (secret organization group)
Organization of Qaeda't al-Jihad in Europe

In the name of God the most merciful...

Rejoice the nation of Islam, rejoice nation of Arabs, the time of revenge has come for the crusaders' Zionist British government.

As retaliation for the massacres which the British commit in Iraq and Afghanistan, the mujahideen have successfully done it this time in London.

And this is Britain now burning from fear and panic from the north to the south, from the east to the west.

We have warned the brutish governments and British nation many times.

And here we are, we have done what we have promised. We have done a military operation after heavy work and planning, which the mujahideen have done, and it has taken a long time to ensure the success of this operation.

And we still warn the government of Denmark and Italy, all the crusader governments, that they will have the same punishment if they do not pull their forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

So beware.

Thursday 7/7/2005
Jamaat al-Tandheem Al-Sierri (secret organization group)
Organization of al Qaeda't al-Jihad in Europe.

--------

Posted by Clive at 10:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 4, 2005

Democracy

It's been two months since the General Election, two months since Blair said he would "listen and learn". With Labour gaining a 67 seat majority on 36% of the vote (or more damningly, 22% of the electorate), the campaign for electoral reform once again to the fore. The Independent is continuing to run its campaign and the Electoral Reform Society are trying to keep the pressure on.

So, in light of the campaigning and Blair's promise, not to mention previous manifesto commitments, you'd expect to start hearing some constructive noises from the Labour government.

Instead, what we get is Geoff Hoon suggesting that voting be made compulsory:

The BBC - Hoon suggests compulsory voting
People could face fines if they fail to vote in British General Elections, under plans outlined by Geoff Hoon.

The Commons leader says a move towards compulsory voting is necessary to reinvigorate UK democracy.

Yeah right, as if that's really going to make the electorate feel empowered. Once again this Government appears to be attempting to criminalise a section of society, this time the substantial group who feel that none of the political parties truly represent their desires and aspirations.

However, at least Hoon is prepared grant the electorate a further option:

Asked if the ballot would include a box for "none of the above" politicians, Mr Hoon said: "I think that's absolutely vital.

"People do in effect abstain by spoiling their ballot papers."

I'm at a loss to understand what Hoon is hoping to achieve. All this compulsion will achieve is to force people to actively abstain or face a fine. It certainly won't go anyway to addressing the disconnect between politicians and the electorate.

Still, not all senior Labour figures are so out of touch with reality as Geoff Hoon. In The Independent, Robin Cook makes the case for getting the public involved in the current review of PR being carried out by civil servants.

Mr Cook called on the public to "demand ... that that review is opened up" and "made more transparent".

He said the review should "take evidence and meet in public" and " publish its reports so that the people who are involved in choosing the House of Commons are people who themselves have a say in this review and the way in which it [the Commons] is elected."

Unfortunately I suspect that necessary, fundamental electoral reform is dead under New Labour. After two landslide victories and an historic third term, New Labour is treating the electorate with the sort of disdain that we came to expect from Margaret Thatcher. In reality we will probably see PR placed on Labour's back-burner until such time as they are voted out of office. It is incumbent on those of us who believe in a truly representative democratic process to keep up the pressure.

--------

Posted by Clive at 3:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack