Curiouser and Curiouser!

Curiouser and Curiouser! on terrorism http://matt.blogs.it/ RSS feed for topic terrorism Copyright 2006 Matt Mower Squib/0.1 self@mattmower.com self@mattmower.com en-gb Russian state continues to murder it's own Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:54:49 +0000 <A href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/europe/2370101.stm">West backs Russia over rescue tactics</A>. The US and Britain rally behind President Putin as controversy continues over his soldiers' tactics in ending the Moscow hostage crisis. [<A href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/default.stm">BBC News | WORLD</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » I have my qualms about the tacits used to rescue the hostages that survived the siege.  But okay I can understand why you break a siege. What I find unconscionable is the Russian authorities refusal to aid the doctors treating the victims by either identifying the gas used or providing an antidote.  The official stating "in normal conditions would not lead to lethal results", well, with over a hundred dead from poisoning so far I would have thought he would choke on his own words.  Why not ship them to a military hospital and treat them there? And what could the security reasons be?  Terrorists already have an arsenal of deadly gases at their commands so it's not them the information is being hidden from.  The only thing I can conclude is that it's a gas that they shouldn't have been using and it would be an embarrassing admission.</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000789.html More bureaucracy? Yeah that'll work. Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:57:38 +0000 <A href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/2494223.stm">Tories push for UK security chief</A>. A new cabinet post of head of homeland security should be created to provide a clear focus against terrorism in the UK¸ say the Tories. [<A href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/default.stm">BBC News | UK</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Why is this necessary?  Why is terrorism not adequately represented by either the home office (MI5) or the department of defence (MI6)?  What does having one extra bureaucrat achieve?</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000834.html Sounds like $40bn well spent Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:01:54 +0000 <A href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/americas/2493929.stm">Congress approves US security body</A>. The US Senate votes decisively in favour of creating a huge new Department of Homeland Security - long advocated by President Bush. [<A href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/default.stm">BBC News | WORLD</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » "The new department will merge 22 agencies with a combined budget of about $40bn to deal with the threat of international terrorism on American soil." Of course merging them all together is bound to create one super-efficient, focused body acting in unison to defeat the threat of anti-American terrorism (it's Homeland security after all). Sounds like $40bn well spent if you ask me.  Wouldn't want to go wasting that money on health care, feeding people or (god forbid) teaching them how many beans make five would you?</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000836.html War against Peace Tue, 07 Jan 2003 09:36:27 +0000 I've recently begun reading articles from the site <A href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/">LewRockwell.com</A>.  I don't remember how I came across the site, nor what drew me to it.  But, as someone who regards himself as an uneducated libertarian, I found something that drew me in. I certainly don't agree with every piece I've read on the site or even with everything said in a piece I broadly agree with.  But I find it interesting and stimulating.  Today I read "<A href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer34.html">The War Against Life</A>" by a gentleman called <A href="mailto:bshaffer@swlaw.edu">Butler Shaffer</A>.  Here is a taster: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> It is interesting to observe so many Americans trying to find "meaning" in the Bush administrations war against an endless parade of "enemies." From Afghanistan to Iraq to North Korea, the state continues to concoct "threats" for the consumption of a public that is neither empirically nor analytically demanding. The media are quick to play their assigned roles, providing state-generated "information" and self-styled "experts" to convince the rest of us that everything the White House tells us is "just so," and that anyone who dissents from or even questions the states purposes or policies is likely an apologist for terrorism!</BLOCKQUOTE> and a summary: <UL> <LI> <DIV align=left>From Afghanistan to Iraq to North Korea, the state continues to concoct "threats" for the consumption of a public that is neither empirically nor analytically demanding.</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>The state's ability to gull most of its citizens into an acceptance of politically defined reality has been made possible by one of the few successful state institutions: the government school system.</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>Contrary to those who look upon government schools as failures, I have long regarded them as shining accomplishments for state purposes: to produce herd-oriented men and women incapable of making independent judgments, and who are thus prepared to submit to external authorities for direction in their lives.</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>While the bald eagle does represent the predatory nature of the state, I believe it is time to adopt a national symbol that more accurately reflects the mindset of most Americans: the parrot!</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>Much of the explanation, I suspect, is to be found in our sense of fear: both of ourselves and others.</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>That question was the subject of inquiry for a book, published in 1967, titled Report From Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace.</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>We must understand all of politics -- no matter in what nation it is practiced -- as a system that wars against the very nature of life.</DIV></LI></UL>   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001040.html I am NOT a terrorist. Please don't treat me like one! Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:58:16 +0000 <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/letter.html">This</A> is a copy of a letter I have faxed to my MP this evening (using the excellent <A href="http://www.faxyourmp.com/">FaxYourMP</A> service).  It is in response to a piece today in <A href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29097.html">The Register</A> about the UK government forcing ISP's to keep a log of every page visited and every e-mail sent by anyone using the net in the UK.  Another bonehead scheme to stop terrorists. Don't get me wrong.  I want to see an end to terrorism but who really believes this is where the solution lies? So from a technical perspective where does it get us? <UL> <LI>Keeping a log of all pages browsed: I guess that the terrorists and I will start using anonymous surfing services hosted in countries that don't have this kind of legislation.  You have to pay, but that's okay the terrorists will probably be using stolen credit cards anyway.  Maybe it will be your credit card?</LI> <LI>Scanning my email headers:  I and the terrorists will use non-local ISP's to forward our mail and we'll find ways of encrypting it.  The terrorists will probably also use anonymous remailers to hide their identities.</LI></UL> Still think this will work? Okay so how do you stop terrorists?  Maybe we should take a lesson from Israel's no-nonsense PM Ariel Sharon?  <A href="http://news.google.com/news?num=30&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=bombings+israel&sa=N&tab=wn">Then again, maybe not</A>. Maybe we should try something radical:  Maybe we should actually figure out what it is these people want, and give it to them. We in the West keep saying the Israeli's should offer the Palestinians "land for peace." Isn't that dealing with terrorists?  And if it is, so what?  Are their grievances not legitimate (even if their methods are to be abhored).  If you take away all hope don't you create a situation in which people do not value their lives but are angry enough to join armed struggle? If we want peace with the world we need to find a way to give these people what they want.  Take away the motivation to blow themselves up and us with them. Just a thought. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001108.html Shrinking liberties... it doesn't wash with me Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:46:47 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://www.smartmobs.com/archives/000692.html">Smart Mobs</A> picks up on a <A href="http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11573&c=39">report</A> by the <A href="http://www.aclu.org/">ACLU</A> which argues that surveillance is increasing, civil liberty guarantees are shrinking, and the combined impact of surveillance data from multiple sources is far greater than the sum of its parts. Although I only follow the issues from the sidelines, I have growing concerns about corporate and governmental prying. The more my life is easily traced by following electronic trails, the more I worry about who is sniffing those trails out. Whether or not my career as a criminal mastermind is tediously pedestrian is beside the point - the fact that I have nothing to hide makes me more concerned about my actions being watched, logged, collated, catgeorised and cross-referenced. Sometimes I take comfort in the thought that the more data the government has, the less it will know what to do with it. Trying to integrate it meaningfully will be way too complicated - trying to see and understand patterns across all the disparate data streams is just a cyber-spook's wet-dream. But then I get back to cold reality. Just because they can't do it, won't stop them trying. The integration may not be meaningful - the patterns may not be understood - but patterns there will be. And in the paranoid world of the cyber-spook, an excess of false positives will be a fair price to pay for tracking down the bad guys. So my real concern is not that they're sniffing my electronic trail. Sure, it's an invasion of my privacy but it's rather an abstract invasion. My real concern is what cock-eyed conclusions someone will draw from matching this parameter with that pattern and what real-life, concrete actions they will take against me (or you, or any of the other millions of people whose profile just doesn't smell right). Paranoid? Maybe. Except, they are watching us... [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0118812/">Making Connections</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> Simon neatly identifies the conumdrum facing most of us in relation to privacy issues.  We see our rights being eroded on the back of claims of this or that (today it's terrorism) but we have no trust in the custodians that they will not betray us. That the government cannot possibly assimilate all the information it eventually hopes to hold does not, however, make me feel any happier.  This is, I think, for two reasons: <OL> <LI>We have seen many times how a single idea (or cluster of related ideas) can revolutionise an industry completely.  Today they may not be able to use the data in aggregate, but they will keep it and, who knows what they will be able to do tomorrow?</LI> <LI>The data may not be useful in aggregate but it will be open to targetted abuse.  That is, if my data is separable somehow from everyone elses then what is to stop corrupt officials from selling it to those who, for their own reasons, would wish to use it against me.</LI></OL> Even if these massive TIA style super-databases are a boon in the fight against crime (and I have yet to see the cogent and persuasive arguments for this) I would, I think, still be find the countervailing arguments for liberty more compelling. Total Information Awareness and it's ilk are sledgehammer solution to the wrong problem.  We should not be asking how to catch more terrorists but how to avoid situations in which terrorists want to kill us. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001196.html The Global War on Justice Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:21:33 +0000 <blockquote><a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/17/military/index.html">"A legal black hole"</a>. In an extraordinary Supreme Court filing, five military lawyers equate Bush's denial of legal rights to the Guantanamo Bay detainees to King George's oppression of the American colonists. [<a href="http://www.salon.com">Salon.com</a>]</blockquote> This piece adequately sums up my fears about what is happening in the US legal system (and what may come our way too in the near future): <blockquote>Amicus embraces the principles affirmed in Reid v. Covert: Slight encroachments create new boundaries from which legions of power can seek new territory to capture. It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure ... We should not break faith with this nation's tradition of keeping military power subservient to civilian authority, a tradition which we believe is firmly embodied in the Constitution. The country has remained true to that faith for almost one hundred seventy years. Perhaps no group in the Nation has been truer than military men themselves.</blockquote> And, further: <blockquote>Unlike earlier wars, the struggle against terrorism is potentially never-ending. The Constitution cannot countenance an open-ended Presidential power, with no civilian review whatsoever, to try anyone the President deems subject to a military tribunal, whose rules and judges have been selected by the prosecuting authority itself.</blockquote> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001829.html Getting Crazy Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:01:17 +0000 <blockquote><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/click/rss/0.91/public/-/1/hi/world/europe/3408511.stm">Envoy questioned over art attack</a>. Sweden seeks answers from the Israeli ambassador after he vandalises a work of art depicting a suicide bomber. [<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/click/rss/0.91/public/-/1/hi/world/default.stm">BBC News | World | UK Edition</a>]</blockquote> Maybe someone can tell me why this is in bad taste? I don't see a call to Jihad but a piece questioning why an intelligent woman would see the culmination of her life being to blow up herself and passers-by. Isn't that a question worth asking? Further I don't understand why this work is anti-semitic. Maybe someone can explain that to me as well. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001835.html Don't grow a beard JRobb Thu, 04 Mar 2004 06:27:47 +0000 <blockquote>An amalgam of transnational terrorism and crime is the dark underbelly of the second superpower.  If so, how big is its economy?  Estimates are that transnational crime and terrorist organizations generate between $1.5 and $2 trillion a year from their activities.  Could terrorists co-opt a large percentage of this economy as a tax?  If so, 20% would yield $400 billion, which is about equal to the US defense budget.  What is unclear is the growth rate of this economy.  I suspect that given globalization and the distraction caused by terrorism, it is growing at a rate an order of magnitude greater than the global economy. [<a href="http://jrobb.mindplex.org/">John Robb's Weblog</a>]</blockquote> JRobb sure is a scary person to be subscribed to these days. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001964.html It is not caving in to the bees to stop poking a stick into their hive. Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:49:34 +0000 I've just read a very powerful <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/spain.html">article</a> by Lew Rockwell which is the first article I've read that resonates with how I feel about this whole pre-9/11, post-9/11, Iraq War, American Empire, Madrid, Terrorism mess we've gotten ourselves into. <blockquote>After the bombing, Spaniards didn't shout: "They hate us because we are good!" or "Spain is Number One!" or otherwise pledge their religious devotion to the consolidated Spanish state. Not at all. Instead, they said: that jerk at the top brought this on, because he sold out the nation to appease the Bush administration. There was no Spanish Patriot Act, no creation of a Department of Homeland Security. Instead, there was a wave of good sense which amounted to the following: let's stop making these people mad by invading and occupying their country.</blockquote> ... <blockquote>Americans have somehow come to believe that all acts of terrorism must result in a bigger government. As a result, we have just come to accept the idea that the government will get away with ever more violations of our liberties. In the Spanish case, however, the terror act may result in diminishing government power. This is wholly justified, just as bee stings should teach a person not to agitate them without reason. It is not caving in to the bees to stop poking a stick into their hive.</blockquote> ... <blockquote>Why didn't Americans respond similarly after 9-11? The intellectual elites of both parties and all approved political ideologies agreed to impose a taboo in the days following the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. That taboo was against discussing the events outside the vacuum of that one day. We were all supposed to pretend that the United States government was 100% pure and innocent and had never done anything to anyone. Incredibly, this was a plausible scenario to many Americans, who had no clue that the US was directly responsible for perhaps a million plus deaths of children in Iraq with its sanctions policies (according to the UN but say it's half that for the sake of argument; it makes no difference). Americans are also famously ignorant of Islamic concerns about Infidels With Guns running around in Mecca.</blockquote> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002011.html Boil me slowly Wed, 24 Mar 2004 06:54:02 +0000 I've just realised I'm a frog. In a pan of water Is it me or is it <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts34.html">getter warmer in here</a>? http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002021.html A long ramble about law & terrorism Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:17:53 +0100 My thoughts this morning were triggered by a piece about the <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts53.html">dissolution of attorney-client privilege in the US</a>.<blockquote>Faced with the threat of being declared uncooperative, KPMG announced that it would pay its employees legal fees only if they waived the attorney-client privilege and "cooperated" with the investigation. Invariably, "cooperation" requires self-incrimination and negotiation of a guilty plea. By making it impossible for a defendant to defend, the government never has to have a real case.</blockquote>I think I've said before that I don't trust my government. It's not that I think the government is actively hostile towards me, but that I think it has no regard for my life, liberty, or prosperity whilst persuing its own agenda. The state, as an entity, is becoming more important than the individuals it's supposed to serve. I think that the way my government has acquiesced to America's actions in Guantanamo Bay clearly demonstrates that.<blockquote>There may be trouble ahead But while there's moonlight and music and love and romance Let's face the music and dance</blockquote>So what is my fear? My fear is to wake up one day in a fascist country. Fascism places the state foremost. The country does not serve the citizen; the citizen serves the country. Fascism does not recognize the idea of the independence of the common man. Now I am not suggesting that the US or UK is a fascist country now or that it's just around the corner. What I am suggesting is that the legal system is a good barometer for detecting this sort of change and I see stormy weather ahead.In the last 12 months I've read a lot about how the American legal system is, and has been, deteriorating. About the ways that "Department of Justice" (sic) with the complicity of the rest of the government has made the USA into a prosecutors paradise. A prime example is the use of the RICO legislation.  Passed in the 1970 the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act was intended to destroy the Mafia. And for about a decade it was used for that purpose. However by the 1990's prosecutors were using RICO against individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations. Because so-called Mafiosos were considered to be murderous and ruthless, RICO was created to be equally ruthless. Those accused under RICO could find their assets seized and be unable to pay for their defence. Used this way RICO is the prosecutorial equivalent of the Hydrogen bomb.<blockquote>There may be teardrops to shed So while there's moonlight and music and love and romance Let's face the music and dance</blockquote>What concerns me is how, in both the US and the UK, the "War on Terror" is being used to hand more power, with less accountability, to the state. "The law is too soft" is the constant refrain from government ministers seeking new, and ever more draconian, powers. Powers which, sooner or later, get pointed at the rest of us. Meanwhile the state continues to act in a way that seems almost calculated to extend the threat of terrorism forever. But anyone who suggests that terrorism is the new communism (i.e. the most direct way of funnelling money to people in the arms industry) must, of course, be parnaoid.I think there needs to ba full debate about what it means to be a citizen in our society. A debate which spells out the freedoms and protections we enjoy and attempts to understand how those can be balanced with the responsibilites we bear. That includes responsibility for the actions of the state. I believe that a sane outcome would be a re-establishment of fairness in law and a severe curtailment of the power of the state to meddle in the affairs of others.  Maybe if we poked less sticks in their hives, we would annoy less hornets. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002356.html You wanna come back don't you? Tue, 19 Apr 2005 09:01:55 +0100 David Weinberger offers some <a href="http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/003874.html">advice to young terrorists</a>. The whole screening program seems like a dull-witted <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan">Leviathan</a> answer to the problem of airborne terrorism to me but what do I know? Has anyone seen any statistics about exactly how many people have been screened since 9/11, how much it has all cost, including the collateral costs (lost business and so forth), how many people have been falsely accused/abused/frightened, and how many bona fide terrorists have actually been caught? Have any credible models been advanced to suggest how the screening system has affected the way in which terrorists operate? What's the supporting evidence? http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002507.html I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your towers down Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:22:36 +0100 I've just read a <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html">thought provoking account</a> of the collapse of the WTC buildings in the wake of the September 11th 2001 attack. It re-examines the evidence for the towers collapsing because of impact and fire damage and suggests that the theory doesn't hold water. It further suggests that the evidence is explained by professional demolition. What's most suggestive to me, if true, is the way in which the aftermath & investigation was handled. Why should such an investigation (which would have consequences for all new building projects and be in the public interest) have all the airs of a cover-up? I have no hesitation in believing that people close to the Bush administration are capable of such acts followed by such a deception. If it is true I wonder how complicit my own government is. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002653.html And I'm sick of the BBC coverage already Thu, 07 Jul 2005 10:38:04 +0100 After about 5 minutes I'm completely sick of the BBC coverage of whatever incidents have taken place today. I just got a phone call from my Mum to make sure I was okay. They'd heard reports of bombs in the centre of London. After assuring her that I was okay I flipped the TV on to see what was happening. I shouldn't have bothered. Beyond the possibility that there has been a bomb on a bus (certainly something happened) and some sort of disruption on the tube they have absolutely nothing to say yet they insist on wittering on about it anyway. You can tell the presenters have been eagerly practicing their waffle and speculation since 9/11. Now is their moment in the sun. If this is the best the BBC can do then I suggest we close down BBC news and save the tax payer some money. Update: The BBC website has, predictably, melted down. I'm switching on the TV every half hour or so to comb the coverage for useful information of which there is very little. My hope is that this is not the precursor to something worse. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002730.html Second thoughts Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:55:03 +0100 I'm questioning (especially after speaking to <a href="http://www.bethlet.net/">Beth</a> earlier) my response to todays bombings. I don't feel about it so much as I think about it. Given that it's now clear that there are at least 4 deaths and dozens of serious casualties, some of them at Aldgate East tube (which I use for college), I wonder if that betrays a lack of empathy on my part. I feel a sort of weary sense of dread. My thoughts are focused on how we identify with this event and how we respond to it. But now is not the time. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002736.html And so it begins Thu, 07 Jul 2005 14:50:09 +0100 Jeez what a load of hogwash:<blockquote>Once buried, it will be time to avenge them.Perhaps the villains' expectation is that the Briton will quail as the Spaniard, reacting to massacre with headlong flight from foreign fields. I think not. About me, I see older Scots with a steely flint in their eyes. The reckoning will come. There is a soul of honor beneath the ribs of death. [<a href="http://www.chrisnolan.com/archives/trevino/2005/07/the_bloody_seventh.html">Josh Trevino</a> via <a href="http://archive.scripting.com/2005/07/07#When:7:57:58AM">ScriptingNews</a>]</blockquote> Irritating prose style aside... have you learned nothing? To talk of vengeance and reckonings while that very scene is playing out? If it weren't so absurb it would make me very angry indeed. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002738.html I'll try harder from now on Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:14:05 +0100 <blockquote>Or if they had considered the American intervention in Lebanon, they would easily have found the following evaluation by their own military of a situation much like that of Iraq. Of the involvement in Lebanon in 19821983, Lieutenant Commander Westra states:<blockquote>"American policy was formulated without adequate consideration of the complexity of the Lebanese conflict or its political and religious antecedents. Additionally, our policy was pursued from a purely American perspective without consideration of the goals and motivations of numerous factions involved in the fighting. As a consequence of these policy shortcomings, American military forces were mistakenly committed as a first resort before all diplomatic and other means had been exhausted.""The key problem of our involvement in Lebanon was that American military forces were mistakenly committed in order to solve a complex set of political problems that had no military solution. By submitting future regional conflicts to a "Lebanon Test," policymakers will have an in-depth model delineating the multitude of considerations and pitfalls affecting policy formulation and the use of military force to secure the objectives of policy in regional conflicts."</blockquote>If many in the military knew better, wouldnt this information reach the President? Mightnt it even seep out to the bloodthirsty editorial writers and thence to the gung-ho public? [<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/rozeff3.html"> Bushs Folly - Michael S. Rozeff</a>]</blockquote> How much more of this imperial folly from the US and British governments are we going to stand for? I think it's a shame more people in the UK didn't reflect on what Blair (and to be fair a raft of previous UK governments) have done and choose to vote against extending his time in office. I think we needed a breather and an opportunity to reflect upon what kind of country we want to be and where our interests lie. I don't believe they lie in interfering with Middle Eastern politics, propping up the Saudi regime, etc... It may be that ceasing to intervene in this area is going to cause us economic turbulence but I think that's inevitable anyway with the policy we are persuing. I also think that all the money being funnelled into Iraq and the War on Terror could be better used. I've heard what I think is a lot of nonsense about why the London bombings occurred. Especially people talking about why they aren't related to the war on Iraq. The usual claim being that 9/11 happened before the war on Iraq so it can't be related. I find it hard to believe that even the people peddling this nonsense really believe it. <blockquote>Question: Why didnt the terrorists strike Switzerland instead of England? After all, the two countries share the same freedom and values, dont they?Answer: The Swiss government didnt attack Iraq. It doesnt meddle in the Middle East. It didnt participate in the brutal sanctions against the Iraqi people. It doesnt maintain an empire of overseas bases. It doesnt go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. The Swiss government minds its own business.Thats why the terrorists did not strike Switzerland.Of course, the same cannot be said of England, whose foreign policy in the Middle East can be summed up as follows: Whatever the U.S. government does, the British government supports and joins. Thus, the British government participated in President Bushs recent war on Iraq a war against a sovereign and independent country that never attacked the United States or England or even threatened to do so. It is a war that has produced the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people not just American and British soldiers, but also Iraqi soldiers and civilians none of whom had anything to do with the 9/11 terrorist strikes in the United States.Thats why the terrorists struck in London instead of Bern.Thats also why the terrorists struck in New York, both in 1993 and 2001, and at the Pentagon.The terrorist retaliations are rooted in anger and hatred not for American and English freedom and values, as President Bush and Prime Minister Blair maintain, but instead in anger and hatred for U.S. and British foreign policy.Why would it be otherwise? Why should foreigners especially radical, violent ones react any differently to the killings and maiming of their family, friends, and countrymen than Westerners do when their family, friends, and countrymen are killed or maimed by foreigners?Consider the torture, rape, sex abuse, and murder scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Why wouldnt Middle Easterners react in much the same way that Americans would react if American men were treated in a similar manner in some foreign prison?What will be the response of government officials to the terrorist strikes in London? You guessed it: more severe government crackdowns on civil liberties to protect us from the terrorists, which not surprisingly was the same position that they were taking before the terrorist strikes in London. [<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger49.html">Terrorism Comes With Empire - Jacob G. Hornberger</a>]</blockquote> As citizens I think we fail to be interested in what our government really does and the effects it has. The world is so interconnected, how can be believe that invading other countries and killing their people, however justified we feel, will not provoke reactions from them and those that empathise with them? On the day of the London attacks I couldn't escape the feeling that if I lived in Iraq I'd probably be so numbed to the concept of bombs going off and people being killed that, unless it was one of my own dead or missing, that I'd shrug and, maybe, hope for a quieter tomorrow. We think we are safe here, so it's obviously shocking to be targeted for an attack. People being killed is terrible but let's seek perspective. Our military, on the orders of our elected government, have been killing people en masse for some time now and, despite the rhetoric about minimizing civillian casualties, there are a lot of dead men, women, and children who didn't sign up for a war in their homeland. I am sorry to the people who have died, here and abroad, that I haven't done more to bring my government to account for it's actions. All I can do is try harder from now on. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002742.html More bombs, More cringeworthy coverage Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:55:18 +0100 Another incident in London. So far it seems as if the scale was not as large as before, or that something went wrong for the attackers. In one case it may be that only the detonator went off. However the BBC news reporting is just as bad as before. This time I have <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/feedback/default.stm">registered a complaint</a> with BBC news:<blockquote>To whom it may concern:I would like to register my anger at the inane reporting by BBC news, around ten to two this afternoon, in response to this 2nd incident. I heard one of your team ask an eyewitness to a device going off "can you tell us how worrying this was?"For goodness sake. If you have nothing sensible to ask an eye witness then please just keep your mouth shut.The BBC coverage of both of these incidents has made me cringe. Your brief should be to *inform*. In my opinion you are failing badly.Regards, Matt</blockquote> Or at least I would have registered my complaint if the BBC servers weren't giving me a constant 503 error. You'd think the BBC would have learned to cope with server load... Finally it went through. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002776.html Today I am a very angry man. Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:32:11 +0100 So, I made the mistake of turning on the news today and hearing all about the wonderful things our security forces are doing to make the world a better place. And all the pundits, talking heads, and common folk with their reactions. So, I'm supposed to get used to armed police on the streets of London for the next 2 decades? I'm supposed to be happy to pay an extra £0.5m, and upwards, per day to pay for this privilege? Oh and more for the mayors armed, plain clothes, policemen on the tube? This is on top of our chunk of the $700 billion the sham liberation of Iraq is costing by the way. I'd like us to consider an alternative. How about we start by throwing Blair to the International Criminal Court in the Hague and make an apology to the sovereign nation of Iraq for illegally invading their country, killing many thousands of their people, and allowing their national treasures and resources to be looted and destroyed. How about that? I'd also like to see any proof anyone has that this enhanced police presence makes us one iota safer? I'm not talking about whether the rubes the BBC interviewed today "feel reassured." I mean really, actually, less likely to be killed in a bombing or other attack. I'm sick of this. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002788.html Verry reassuring Thu, 04 Aug 2005 08:39:13 +0100 Nobody travelling around London at the moment could fail to notice the heavy police presence. Victoria station, Tooting Broadway, even little old Colliers Wood is now a fortress of yellow jackets. Clearly half a million pounds a day well spent. Hmm... but, wait a minute, the police on Victoria station concourse last night were all huddled together chatting for 15-20 minutes. And the two outside Colliers wood yesterday morning looked pretty bored. And as I passed through Fortress Tooting yesterday evening only one entrance was covered by a policeman (who was on his mobile phone). The other entrance was not covered although there was a policeman watching the traffic. (To be fair the policeman at the Victoria tube entrance I came out of were bright eyed and bushy tails. Just off their tea-break maybe?) When questioned on the Channel4 news the other day the met police commisioner, Ian Blair, had nothing credible to say about how the police presence would stop suicide bombers other than that they would be "deterred." Who believes this? And, even if it were true, they will just pick other targets that are not so well defended. Have we learned nothing from Israeli occupation of Palestinian land? But all these bored policemen milling around aren't even pretending to be reassuring so who do I see to get my part of the £0.5m/day back? http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002819.html It's about who we are Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:51:00 +0100 I read today:<blockquote>Even in the Senate, three leading Republican Senators John McCain (AZ), John Warner (VA) and Lindsay Graham (SC) are reportedly upsetting the White House with legislation that would expressly prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees in US custody. Vice President Cheney has tried to convince the three that the amendment undermines the Presidents ability to fight terrorism. Graham released internal memoranda from DoD lawyers concluding that "extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law" as well as military law. McCain has released statements of retired officers, including prisoners of war, that claim the techniques put U.S. soldiers at risk. On the Senate floor, when challenged Sen. Jeff Sessions claim that "they are terrorists," McCain responded this "is not about who they are. It's about who we are." [<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/zeese/zeese12.html">The Incredible Shrinking President</a>]</blockquote>"It's about who we are." I like that. You hear the phrase the American people bandied around quite a lot in one context or another. So, who are you? http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002861.html Leviathan's boys in blue Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:03:38 +0100 Via <a href="http://blog.twowolves.co.uk/">The Two Wolves Weblog</a> comes a version, by the chap himself, of <a href="http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html">one mans story</a> of being arrested as a suspected terrorist for wearing a jacket, carrying a rucksack, and, well, ..., that's about it. <blockquote>The Police eventually decided to take No Further Action (NFA): a decision not to proceed with a prosecution. In a democratic country such as the UK, one would be forgiven for naively thinking that this is the end of the matter. Under the current laws the Police are not only entitled to keep my fingerprints and DNA samples, but apparently, according to my solicitor, they are also entitled to hold on to what they gathered during their investigation: notepads of the arresting officers, photographs, interviewing tapes and any other documents they collected and entered in the Police National Computer (PNC). (Also, at the time of this writing, I still have no letter stating that I'm effectively off the hook and I still haven't been given any of my possessions back.)</blockquote> Maybe I'm an extremist but, if true, this seems piss poor to me. This war on terrorists (necessary, we are told, because of Chairman Blair's eternal war to create as many terrorists as possible in the Middle East) seems too important to leave in the hands of the Met who, although they didn't prevent July 7th or the follow-up did manage to shoot an innocent Brazillian 6 times in the head. [Note I'm not suggesting they could have stopped July 7th, merely pointing out the limits of what we should expect and be prepared to pay for in Anti-Terrorism.] What about reparations for this mans lost time? For the distress caused to him and his girlfriend? What about his possessions that they have stolen from him without just cause? What about the damage they have willfully done to his identity and reputation? How can the police get away with wrongly turning this guys life up and down and then walk away from the incident with an airy No Fucking Accountability? We're definitely in Quis custodiet ipsos custodes territory now. Who is making the police accountable for the powers they are wielding against us? Who is holding them responsible for their mistakes? Who is demanding they make reparations for the wrongs they cause? Who is challenging them to do better and do no harm? Well, me, for one. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002957.html