The Fog of War is thick over London today, after officers shot and killed a man on the Tube for fear that he was a suicide bomber. Some eyewitness reports say the man had wires hanging out of his belt (note to self…) and that police shot him after he ignored their repeated commands to stop, while others say that he was carrying nothing remotely bomb-like and that the police shoved him to the ground before shooting him five times at point-blank range. Obviously, there’s a slight difference there. So far as I can tell, it’s simply too early to know what the hell actually happened, or to jump to any conclusions, either favorable or unfavorable toward the police officers. More here.
It is certainly not too early to say, however, that Australian Prime Minister John Howard is exactly right in responding thusly to the notion that the Brits and Aussies could extricate themselves from this whole terrorist mess simply by giving Germany the Sudetenland withdrawing their troops from Iraq:
Once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it’s given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.
Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.
And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.
Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia’s involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn’t have done that?
When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan? …
The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.
Amen. The Anchoress makes the same point graphically; Oliver Roy points out that “In justifying its terrorist attacks by referring to Iraq, Al Qaeda is looking for popularity or at least legitimacy among Muslims. But many of the terrorist group’s statements, actions and non-actions indicate that this is largely propaganda, and that Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are hardly the motivating factors behind its global jihad.” (Read the whole thing.)
But while those arguments are certainly persuasive, I think the utter wrong-headedness of the “it’s because of Iraq” argument is best expressed (albeit unwittingly) by Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, a radical Muslim cleric in England who notoriously praised the 9/11 attacks (and who is, at best, an apologist for Islamist terrorism generally). He tries to blame Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war for the recent attacks in London, but then adds: “I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world.”
That is what we are dealing with here. The Islamist radicals don’t just want us out of their backyards — they want to take over ours. Just like we were foolish to ignore Hitler’s long-term goals for “Greater Germany” and pretend that he would be satisfied with a few incremental concessions here and there, we are foolish to ignore the Islamists’ long-term goal of a worldwide Islamic state.
Withdrawing from Iraq for fear of further attacks would not stop them — it would not even slow them down. On the contrary, it would encourage them, because it would show them that they can convince us to change our policies by terrorizing us. It would give them reason to hope that, with a few more attacks and a few more surrenders, maybe they really will be able to see the Islamic flag flying over the whole world. We must not feed that fantasy.
That’s not to say the Iraq war is necessarily justified — that’s a separate debate, but the debate must be conducted on our terms, not theirs. Whatever else might be said about Iraq, the terrorists’ ire is NOT a valid reason to consider withdrawing. Appeasement is not the answer.
Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. –Winston Churchill
July 22nd, 2005 at 4:57:58 pm
Bravo, Brendan, it’s always good to be reminded on occasion of what should be consensus opinion.
July 22nd, 2005 at 5:01:24 pm
You brought up Nazis! GODWIN’S LAW!! GODWIN’S LAW!! Ahem. Sorry. Right. I mean, comparing authoritarian maniacs to authoritarian maniacs? Who does that?
To be more serious - or at all serious in the first place - I’m reminded of a conversation with a college friend. I paraphrase, but he said something like, “If somebody gets on a bus and screams ‘End racism!’ just before he blows himself up, does that mean we do nothing about racism to spite him? No!”
July 22nd, 2005 at 5:14:56 pm
I’m reminded of a conversation with a college friend. I paraphrase, but he said something like, “If somebody gets on a bus and screams ‘End racism!’ just before he blows himself up, does that mean we do nothing about racism to spite him? No!”
Agreed. Hence my very careful wording: “Withdrawing from Iraq for fear of further attacks would not stop them — it would not even slow them down.” Notice that I did not foreclose the possibility that withdrawing from Iraq might be the right thing to do; I certainly don’t think it is, but as I said, “that’s a separate debate, but the debate must be conducted on our terms, not theirs. Whatever else might be said about Iraq, the terrorists’ ire is NOT a valid reason to consider withdrawing.”
So I do not disagree with your college friend in the slightest. I do, however, strongly disagree with those, like George Galloway, who think we should withdraw from Iraq because it will make the terrorists less mad and thus cause them to attack us less often. Other arguments for withdrawing may be valid, but that one is not.
July 22nd, 2005 at 5:27:42 pm
Jonah Goldberg adds:
And then there’s the problem of saying that an effort isn’t worthwhile if murderers oppose it. Nobody ever says it’s not worth prosecuting the mob after mobsters murder policemen or judges in an attempt to intimidate them. And yet, even Blair is buying into the argument that if it were true that the London bombings were the result of the Iraq invasion, then the Iraq invasion would have been wrong. By this logic, it was wrong to declare war on Hitler because of the Blitz.
Sure, the invasion of Iraq was supposed to - and will - make us safer. But few said it would make us safer right away, and those who suggested otherwise were foolish for doing so. But why anybody should be shocked or outraged that terrorists are striking back even as they lose the war is beyond me. The only shock and outrage should be over their willingness to murder innocent civilians indiscriminately. And, perhaps, a little shock and outrage is called for in response to those who think such terrorism is justified at all.
July 22nd, 2005 at 7:31:51 pm
Goldberg’s a Jew, he’s just trying to trick us into supporting Israel against the Muslims. ;-)
July 22nd, 2005 at 7:43:01 pm
“Did you know the Jews sunk the Titanic?”
“The Jews? I thought it was an iceberg!”
“Iceberg, Goldberg, what’s the difference?”
July 22nd, 2005 at 9:20:35 pm
Right now the Jews have enough on their hands just fighting the Jews, oy. :>
July 22nd, 2005 at 9:57:58 pm
Bravo, Brendan, it’s always good to be reminded on occasion of what <i>should be</i> consensus opinion.
July 22nd, 2005 at 10:01:24 pm
You brought up Nazis! GODWIN’S LAW!! GODWIN’S LAW!! Ahem. Sorry. Right. I mean, comparing authoritarian maniacs to authoritarian maniacs? Who does that?
To be more serious - or at all serious in the first place - I’m reminded of a conversation with a college friend. I paraphrase, but he said something like, “If somebody gets on a bus and screams ‘End racism!’ just before he blows himself up, does that mean we do nothing about racism to spite him? No!”
July 22nd, 2005 at 10:14:56 pm
<i>I’m reminded of a conversation with a college friend. I paraphrase, but he said something like, “If somebody gets on a bus and screams ‘End racism!’ just before he blows himself up, does that mean we do nothing about racism to spite him? No!”</i>
Agreed. Hence my very careful wording: “Withdrawing from Iraq <b>for fear of further attacks</b> would not stop them — it would not even slow them down.” Notice that I did not foreclose the possibility that withdrawing from Iraq might be the right thing to do; I certainly don’t think it is, but as I said, “that’s a separate debate, <b>but the debate must be conducted on <i>our</i> terms, not theirs</b>. Whatever else might be said about Iraq, the terrorists’ ire is NOT a valid reason to consider withdrawing.”
So I do not disagree with your college friend in the slightest. I do, however, strongly disagree with those, like George Galloway, who think we should withdraw from Iraq <i>because it will make the terrorists less mad and thus cause them to attack us less often</i>. Other arguments for withdrawing may be valid, but that one is not.
July 22nd, 2005 at 10:27:42 pm
<a href=”http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20050722.shtml”>Jonah Goldberg adds:</a>
<i>And then there’s the problem of saying that an effort isn’t worthwhile if murderers oppose it. Nobody ever says it’s not worth prosecuting the mob after mobsters murder policemen or judges in an attempt to intimidate them. And yet, even Blair is buying into the argument that if it were true that the London bombings were the result of the Iraq invasion, then the Iraq invasion would have been wrong. By this logic, it was wrong to declare war on Hitler because of the Blitz.</i>
<i>Sure, the invasion of Iraq was supposed to - and will - make us safer. But few said it would make us safer right away, and those who suggested otherwise were foolish for doing so. But why anybody should be shocked or outraged that terrorists are striking back even as they lose the war is beyond me. The only shock and outrage should be over their willingness to murder innocent civilians indiscriminately. And, perhaps, a little shock and outrage is called for in response to those who think such terrorism is justified at all.</i>
July 22nd, 2005 at 10:40:57 pm
Updated reporting re the guy shot by London police:
…Heavily armed officers patrolled the British capital with clear instructions to stop suicide bombers — if necessary, with a shot to the head. The patrols were an unusual sight in London, where most officers, or bobbies, [also, formerly & from the same derivation, peelers / ~ the Commenter :] are normally seen with little more than a whistle and truncheon.
“If you are dealing with someone who might be a suicide bomber, if they remain conscious, they could trigger plastic explosives or whatever device is on them,” said Mayor Ken Livingstone. “Therefore, overwhelmingly in these circumstances, it is going to be a shoot-to-kill policy.”
The shooting took place about 10 a.m., when jittery commuters spotted a man, who witnesses said appeared to be a South Asian, wearing a padded coat in the Stockwell subway station in south London. Police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him in the head and torso, an eyewitness said.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair said the shooting was “directly linked” to the investigation.
“The man who was shot was under police observation because he had emerged from a house that was itself under observation because it was linked to the investigation of yesterday’s incidents,” police said in a statement. “He was then followed by surveillance officers to the station. His clothing and his behavior at the station added to their suspicions.”…
July 22nd, 2005 at 11:37:34 pm
“who witnesses said appeared to be a South Asian”
It bothers me that, all morning, the BBC and other sources were referring to him simply as “Asian.” I don’t know if that’s just the information they were getting from police or what, but somebody along the way was clearly engaging in some euphamism-speak. The word “Asian” is totally unhelpful — that could mean Japanese, Chinese, Pakistani, Indonesian, Siberian… and the fact is that IT MATTERS when we’re talking about an issue where terrorism, racial profiling, etc. are possibly relevant issues. The difference between “South Asian” and, say, “Japanese-looking” is ENORMOUS.
July 23rd, 2005 at 12:20:20 am
Brendan - it’s more complicated than that, since it’s the *current* UK meaning of “Asian” that is being used, and that is something potentially different from “Japanese-looking” (which would have been “Oriental” 30 years ago in the UK) …
At a guess, “South Asian” may well be sorta equivalent to “Sub-Tropical-Oriental Briton” aka clumsy PC-speak …
Joe - on a side-note, “where most officers, or bobbies, [also, formerly & from the same derivation, peelers / ~ the Commenter :] are normally seen with little more than a whistle and truncheon.” - you seem potentially not yet aware that, as an indicator that said Constable On Patrol is On-Duty, He will also be wearing His Regulation Helmet or Cap … (and other parts of His Uniform, of course) …
July 23rd, 2005 at 12:31:51 am
Goldberg’s a Jew, he’s just trying to trick us into supporting Israel against the Muslims. ;-)
July 23rd, 2005 at 12:43:01 am
“Did you know the Jews sunk the <i>Titanic</i>?”
“The Jews? I thought it was an iceberg!”
“Iceberg, Goldberg, what’s the difference?”
July 23rd, 2005 at 2:20:35 am
Right now the Jews have enough on their hands just fighting the Jews, oy. :>
July 23rd, 2005 at 3:40:57 am
<a href=”http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/ats-ap_top11jul22,0,5037349.story?coll=hc-small-headlines-breaking”>Updated reporting</a> re the guy shot by London police:
<i>…Heavily armed officers patrolled the British capital with clear instructions to stop suicide bombers — if necessary, with a shot to the head. The patrols were an unusual sight in London, where most officers, or bobbies,</i> [also, formerly & from the same derivation, <a href=”http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/peel_sir_robert.shtml”>peelers</a> / ~ the Commenter :]<i> are normally seen with little more than a whistle and truncheon.
“If you are dealing with someone who might be a suicide bomber, if they remain conscious, they could trigger plastic explosives or whatever device is on them,” said Mayor Ken Livingstone. “Therefore, overwhelmingly in these circumstances, it is going to be a shoot-to-kill policy.”
The shooting took place about 10 a.m., when jittery commuters spotted a man, who witnesses said appeared to be a South Asian, wearing a padded coat in the Stockwell subway station in south London. Police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him in the head and torso, an eyewitness said.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair said the shooting was “directly linked” to the investigation.
“The man who was shot was <b>under police observation because he had emerged from a house that was itself under observation because it was linked to the investigation of yesterday’s incidents</b>,” police said in a statement. “He was then <b>followed by surveillance officers to the station.</b> His clothing and his behavior at the station added to their suspicions.”…</i>
July 23rd, 2005 at 4:37:34 am
“who witnesses said appeared to be a South Asian”
It bothers me that, all morning, the BBC and other sources were referring to him simply as “Asian.” I don’t know if that’s just the information they were getting from police or what, but somebody along the way was clearly engaging in some euphamism-speak. The word “Asian” is totally unhelpful — that could mean Japanese, Chinese, Pakistani, Indonesian, Siberian… and the fact is that IT MATTERS when we’re talking about an issue where terrorism, racial profiling, etc. are possibly relevant issues. The difference between “South Asian” and, say, “Japanese-looking” is ENORMOUS.
July 23rd, 2005 at 5:20:20 am
Brendan - it’s more complicated than that, since it’s the *current* UK meaning of “Asian” that is being used, and that is something potentially different from “Japanese-looking” (which would have been “Oriental” 30 years ago in the UK) …
At a guess, “South Asian” may well be sorta equivalent to “Sub-Tropical-Oriental Briton” aka clumsy PC-speak …
Joe - on a side-note, <b>”where most officers, or bobbies, [also, formerly & from the same derivation, peelers / ~ the Commenter :] are normally seen with little more than a whistle and truncheon.”</b> - you seem potentially not yet aware that, as an indicator that said Constable On Patrol is On-Duty, He will also be wearing His Regulation Helmet or Cap … (and other parts of His Uniform, of course) …
July 23rd, 2005 at 8:38:27 am
Finally, Brendan, you are quoting Chruchill.
This is where we should have been from the begining.
July 23rd, 2005 at 1:38:27 pm
Finally, Brendan, you are quoting Chruchill.
This is where we should have been from the begining.
July 25th, 2005 at 5:11:28 pm
I do, however, strongly disagree with those, like George Galloway, who think we should withdraw from Iraq because it will make the terrorists less mad and thus cause them to attack us less often.
Brendan, I think you’ve made a straw man out of Galloway’s views here. The point isn’t that we’ve made a bunch of nutbags more angry than they already are–the point is that we’ve angered and humiliated people who weren’t nutbags to begin with, but who are now fodder for nutbag recruitment. You’re a smart guy–I’m sure you can understand the distinction.
July 25th, 2005 at 10:11:28 pm
<i>I do, however, strongly disagree with those, like George Galloway, who think we should withdraw from Iraq because it will make the terrorists less mad and thus cause them to attack us less often.</i>
Brendan, I think you’ve made a straw man out of Galloway’s views here. The point isn’t that we’ve made a bunch of nutbags more angry than they already are–the point is that we’ve <a href=”http://craiggie.blogspot.com/2005/07/studies-say-most-terrorism-in-iraq-was.html”>angered and humiliated people who weren’t nutbags to begin with</a>, but who are now fodder for nutbag recruitment. You’re a smart guy–I’m sure you can understand the distinction.
July 26th, 2005 at 12:51:26 pm
Asian in the British lingo refers to Pakis and Indians. Chinese and other East Asians are referred to as East Asians, but more typically they are just referred to by their national origin.
July 26th, 2005 at 5:51:26 pm
Asian in the British lingo refers to Pakis and Indians. Chinese and other East Asians are referred to as East Asians, but more typically they are just referred to by their national origin.
July 27th, 2005 at 2:00:02 am
As to the rightness of the U.S. presence in Iraq being a different issue (than the appeasement question), yes, it is. As to the matter of the U.S. attack on and entry into Iraq and that angering a lot more Iraqis and creating a new breeding ground for terrorists, that is yet a THIRD issue. It, too, must be differentiated here. Though whatever our thoughts on this latter, I submit we now have a lot more angry Iraqis and a new breeding ground for terrorists.
July 27th, 2005 at 7:00:02 am
As to the rightness of the U.S. presence in Iraq being a different issue (than the appeasement question), yes, it is. As to the matter of the U.S. attack on and entry into Iraq and that angering a lot more Iraqis and creating a new breeding ground for terrorists, that is yet a THIRD issue. It, too, must be differentiated here. Though whatever our thoughts on this latter, I submit we now have a lot more angry Iraqis and a new breeding ground for terrorists.