-----Original
Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Karen Watters
Cole
Sent: Thursday, July 7,
2005 4:20 PM
To:
futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: RE: [Futurework]
More thoughts on the London attacks
It didn't take
long for the shadow of world terror to be raised here. Speaking at
the end of a BRAC hearing (base closure plan) in Virginia, with a huge
flag backdrop, Sen. Warner (R-VA), senior GOP on the Armed Services
Committee, said that "this morning we awoke" to reminders of "why we
must keep our military strong" and ready to defend us.
No doubt Sen.
Warner and those applauding sincerely feel that a strong military deters
homeland attacks. I just wish they would put the same effort into
considering the offensive posture that has put us in more danger than
before. You won't hear many in the GOP mention the underlying
causes why terrorist attacks increased since 9/11, or how we are
expected to man those platoons and keep our vast Navy
afloat.
I agree with you
that a large attack here would backfire on extremists, who don't want
America solidly behind GW Bush and the warhawks; however, my earlier
comments were directed at the romantic and fearful notion that our only
defense is further militarization of our
society.
The downside to
this of course is that the main subject at the G8 meetings has already
been deflected from addressing global poverty and environmental health
to terrorism. Maybe some of the other leaders can get through to Bush
and help him understand that there are other alternatives besides
perpetual warfare, but I suspect his initial reaction will be to dig in
his heels to appear 'resolute' and exhibit
'leadership'.
But my guess is
that over here, there will be many taking up the pen and in the streets
to protest the failure of the Bush Doctrine and demand a realistic
course, regardless of the bluster we shall hear in the short term.
Karen
-----Original
Message-----
From: Keith Hudson
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 07,
2005 12:36 PM
To: Karen Watters
Cole
Cc:
futurework@scribe.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: RE: [Futurework]
More thoughts on the London attacks
Karen,.
At 10:03 07/07/2005
-0700, you wrote:
Keith, first, let me say for
everyone that we hope that fatalities and
injuries will be minimal,
under the circumstances. I now see the headlines
have updated the
fatalities to 33 and injuries around 1000. The phrase
"worst attack
in London since WW2" has been used.
The fatality figure has yet to
be topped up with the number who died in the tourist bus -- something
the authorities refuse to talk about yet. Obviously, it's a more
sensitive figure than any others and, in any case, they may not be sure
how many have died yet -- body parts having been well scattered
around.
They have changed their minds here
and raised the terror alert to Orange on
mass transportation.
I'm so glad you mentioned the IRA experiences, because
one of my
first random thoughts was that it's "a good thing" this happened
in
the UK, already tested for their response to bombings on their
home
territory. An attack like this in the US would be seized
as justification
for increased militarization, bring out the crazies
(many fully armed) and
abused for all its worth politically
(again).
For that reason I don't think
there'll be another organised Al Qaeda attack on the American mainland.
It would be counter-productive and swing popular opinion firmly behind
Bush again. There may be one or two individual events, of course.
On that note, did I read that
recent elections in Spain reversed or turned
back the last
post-Madrid bombing elections?
Not sure what you mean here.
As far as I'm aware there have been no elections since the one
immediately after the Madrid
bombing.
It isn't as clear to me as you
think that the attacks were aimed at sullying
Bush per se; it would
seem that if planned in advance they could easily have
been timed to
discredit Blair for being Bush's 'co-pilot' on the Iraq war
faked
intelligence and military
offensive.
I'm not adamant about it being
mainly an anti-Bush event but I don't think Al Qaeda have anywhere near
the same animus against Blair. But, from their point of view, the G8
Conference was a happy conjunction that could aim at both. The more I
think about the attack the more I think that it was very carefully
planned so that it would create as much economic damage to this country
as possible. It was no coincidence that it was a tourist bus that was
blown up and also that it was carried out at a particular time of the
day (9.00am) when it would catch commuters only. No children have been
killed.
I think the pressure on Blair from the international
business community in London (as well as the UK tourist industry and the
London retail trade) to bring back British troops from Iraq will be
considerable -- though privately expressed -- from now onwards and is
likely to be successful in the coming months.
I wonder how coincidental it is
that I found a headline today stating that
"there were nearly 3,200
terrorist attacks worldwide last year, a federal
counterterrorism
center said yesterday, using a broader definition that
increased
fivefold the number of attacks the agency had been
counting."
(numbers include Iraq) *
As Blackmore was
speculating earlier this morning, one has to wonder what
reaction
governments take towards immigration. The EU is launching and the
US
reinstituting one-way airplane flights to deport illegal aliens.**
We
like to think that we've made significant progress here against
racism, but
events like this force us to examine just how shallow or
real those changes
are in the face of fear, real and
manufactured.
The anti-immigration trend was
already in full spate in the last two or three months and the Labour
government followed the Tory Party in taking this on board because of
the growing success of the British National Party. The idea of a
biometric identity card was actually introduced two months ago as an
anti-terrorist measure and the government almost succeeded in getting
the support of the Tories -- and of public opinion generally. But the
opposition to it grew surprisingly quickly and the Tories took advantage
by turning against it also. It was then that government ministers
started talking about the identity card being able to prevent welfare
benefit fraud -- in other words, immigrants -- which is what the public
feel most strongly
about.
In my readings and writings about
the separation of church and state, in
pointing my shame finger at
religious cultural wars, I keep thinking how
much goodwill it might
generate if the President attended church in
different faiths,
perhaps quarterly (to allow the Secret Service to
prepare). It could
allay much of the suspicion in the Muslim world that
American
imperialism is really a jihad against Islam, and it would
discourage
or at least quiet the zealots of Christianity from the language
that
has been used to justify imperialism. It wouldn't deter
real
terrorists, of course, but advance the image of traditional
American values
promoting diversity and
democracy.
I rather think attempts like
this are seen through -- whether they are sincere or not.
Unfortunately, if these were just
photo ops to counter sagging polls, the
message would be superficial
at best. Mr. Bush has a credibility problem
with too many of us that
even his reasonable, comforting statements are no
longer taken
seriously.
They say we are revealed by our reaction to events.
Bush has been running on
one track since 9/11 but the 'political
capital' has been running low. His
response to this and events
unfolding in the next 6 weeks will tell us
whether or not the summer
of 2005 will become what the summer of 1968 was
for another earlier
troubled Republican president. It'll be interesting to
see how
Blair/Brown respond, as well.
I think that secret talks
between extremist Sunnis and the CIA/State Department have been
extensive for a long time (probably originally organised by Negroponte
when he was there) but the sticking point is the retention of long-term
American bases in Iraq even if the bulk of the troops go home -- which I
think Bush would gladly do at the drop of a hat otherwise. I see that
Iran, since the last election, is now raising this very pointedly.
Another problem in Iraq which is now rearing its head is that between
the Basra Shias and the Shia-dominated 'government' in Baghdad. Sunnis
are now being persecuted in Basra in the same way that they are in the
Kurdish region and what is a de facto independent
Shiastan (as the de
facto Kurdistan) might well become a de jure one if Ayatollah
Sistani can't hold the ring for much longer or dies.
Keith
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
