July 21, 2005
Why London again?
On 9/12/01, there were few in America that weren't looking for some ass to kick. Some of my most liberal friends and co-workers were ready for war. The eerie calm of NY was terrifying. Streets were closed, there were cops everywhere, no one had gone to work. We weren't yet bombarded with 'why do they hate us?' editorials. American flags were everywhere. We had not come close to collecting all our dead. The thing we were most afraid of, the reason that cops shone their flashlights into every single car getting off and on bridges or going through tunnels, was another attack. We seemed so off-balance that another attack would've been easy. We were all so terrified. But it never came.
I think the reason we didn't have another attack is because of the overwhelming anger and feelings of vengeance felt by Americans. You can laugh or criticize my vengeful ways but knowing someone will get revenge is pretty scary, especially when that someone is the most powerful someone around.
I did not criticize Britain's response to their last attack. I don't think there is a 'proper' way to react, everyone is different and will see these attacks through their own ideologies and philosophies. One commenter, Nick Saunders, immediately blamed the attack on Britain's support of Iraq. However, a year ago, he commented on this site that we should look at the fact that Britain hadn't had an Islamic terrorist attack as proof that American support for Israel had caused the attacks here. He wrote
'Well lets examine somethings shall we.
Number of terror attacks on Britain by AQ: ZERO
Number of terror attacks on France by AQ: ZERO
Number of terror attacks on Germany by AQ: ZERO
Number of terror attacks on Spain by AQ: ONE
could this have anything to do with the fact that the nations above have tried to push for a FAIR solution to Israel/Palestine?'
Yaron took him down with the argument that Bali had had an attack, yet was no friend to Israel.
My point isn't to attack Nick, but to show that we have to stop blaming ourselves. Or, more to the point since most Americans aren't the ones blaming themselves, you have to stop blaming yourselves. It's not because of support for Israel, it's not because of the Iraq war. They hate you for who you are and how you live. The sooner you get it, the sooner you want to destroy them the way they want to destroy you, the better it will be for the free world. I really think this second attack, if by Al Qaeda and not a copycat, happened because they saw the self-criticism that happened after the last attack. These terrorists respond to weakness. They respect strength. Europe didn't like Bush's 'we will get you' talk after 9/11 but that's exactly what's needed now. You've done the protesting, the hating Blair, the editorials blaming yourselves. Now's the time to promise death to whomever is associated with these attacks. Now's the time to look and act tough and show that fucking with you was the wrong thing to do.
Posted by Karol at July 21, 2005 02:34 PM | TrackBackTechnorati Tags: British+Attacks London+Bombing London+blast London+explosion
I concur. Fully.
Posted by: curtis at July 21, 2005 03:34 PMWELL SAID, KAROL!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: rachel may d. at July 21, 2005 03:57 PMI really like your posts over the past few days. Karol is kicking into "Toughass broad, possibly with Russian mob ties" mode.
It's hot.
Posted by: Jay at July 21, 2005 04:18 PMIt's the chips. They hate fish and chips.
Posted by: ken at July 21, 2005 05:06 PMEurope didn't like Bush's 'we will get you' talk after 9/11 . . .
Which I absolutely loved.
I really like your posts over the past few days. Karol is kicking into "Toughass broad, possibly with Russian mob ties" mode.
Yeah! I watched Law & Order. Well, I use to. But, the cheap shots post 911 were/are too much to take.
Posted by: ll at July 21, 2005 08:13 PMJay, it's the red hair. One of my personal rules is never piss off a woman with red hair.
Posted by: Shawn at July 21, 2005 08:36 PMKarol:
It seems obvious that terrorists are targeting Britain because of the UK's foreign policy. Terrorists usually have a real world political grudge. As long as Britain (and the US) occupy and interfere in Muslim lands, Brits and Americans are likely to be the targets of terrorism. It is not a matter of 'blaming' anybody. It is a matter of understanding cause and effect. If the West wants to avoid Islamic terrorism, it should have as little as possible to do with Muslims.
Dan
Posted by: Dan at July 21, 2005 09:15 PMDan, try to understand this cause and effect. As long as Islamist terrorists try to kill us, we will shove out "interference" so far up their asses that it won't matter one bit what their reasons are anymore.
- Jason
P.S.: You might be surprised by how much some of us already understand cause and effect.
Posted by: J.Kende at July 21, 2005 09:52 PMI don't think foreign policy really matters Dan.It's western civ that the extremist Muslims hate. Sure a laissez fair policy wouldn’t piss them off as much but it doesn’t really matter when their end game is a world dominated by strict Muslim law.
You can let them be and sooner or later the likes of Iran will have a nuke and take out Israel...for starters.
Jason:
I think we would be better off if fewer Muslims wanted to kill us. I do not think American (or British) foreign policy should be to look for trouble.
Scott:
I don't think you are factually right about Al Qaeda. There is a new book out called "Dying to Win : The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" by Robert Pape that provides support for the argument that suicide bombers are usually driven by secular and political aims.
I also think the argument that Iran would use nukes on Israel is kind of ridiculous. Israel has a large nuclear arsenal of its own and could wipe out all of Iran if they were attacked with nuclear weapons. The mullahs of Iran may be devout Muslims, but they are not suicidal.(Note that suicide bombers never seem to be the leaders of countries)
Posted by: Dan at July 21, 2005 11:55 PMIf the West wants to avoid Islamic terrorism, it should have as little as possible to do with Muslims.
Wow, it's encouraging to know that some people believe it's still the 19th century out there, and that thousands of miles can still separate civilizations.
Why see realitry if you have Pat Buchanan? Reality is complicated, messy, and violent. The world of Pat Buchanan, on the other hand, is predictable and conforms to our grandfathers' textbooks. Maybe I should choose Pat Buchanan, too.
Posted by: Ivan Lenin at July 22, 2005 12:08 AMOn 9/11/2001, I was volunteering at a hospital,coordinating a blood drive. Two weeks -- even two months -- later, I and many, many other New Yorkers were still focused on helping those around them and on healing a severely wounded city. I had no thoughts of vengeance in those weeks.
Yes, we were angry, but mostly we were banding together, supporting each other emotionally, physically, economically . . . New York City in the wake of 9/11 was not a vengeful place.
So, when you write: "I think the reason we didn't have another attack is because of the overwhelming anger and feelings of vengeance felt by Americans," it feels wrong to me, because that is not how I remember the aftermath.
But more importantly, I can't agree with you because it doesn't make sense. How did "overwhelming anger and feelings of vengeance" prevent another attack? Were there another 1 or two dozen Saudi suicide-bombers waiting in the wings, ready to spring on September 25, who turned to each other and said, "Hey, let's call it off. These folks are pissed. Who knows what they will do to us in retaliation if we kill ourselves in a fiery explosion? I for one fear recrimination in the wake of my suicide, and will not follow through with our plan. Besides, I TIVO'd the Sopranos." ?
"Now is the time to promise death to whomever is associated with these attacks." Which part of "suicide bomber" do you not understand?
If anything, under your rubric Britain has taken a tougher stance than the US. Nobody attacked them, and they still went into Iraq. They were being very proactive in the fight against terrorism (that is why we invaded Iraq, isn't it?). So why did they get attacked again? Because they "blamed themselves"?
Please.
Posted by: Rick Who? at July 22, 2005 03:08 AMI couldn't even be bothered dignifying Karols post with a response - at best patronising, at worst insulting.
Thanks Rick. Well said - particularly the last paragraph.
I think it is a bit to easy to say that there motive is the fact they hate you for who you are and they way you live. Especially because the london attack were Brits living the good life.
No I think their anger rests in the fact that they have a superiority complex because of they're inaptetude to gain any progress in their own goals. Be it being beaten by Israel a couple of times in wars, Kashmir, not being able to stop Saddam themselves etc. This is then compared to the western standard where living is good and they can handle their own problems and deal with problems in the ME.
So although the reason for a terrorist attack can be the west the blame is ceratinly not. I think to deny this is not understanding the terrorists twisted thinking. I think it is like saying that Nothern Ireland being part of the UK is not the reason of IRA terrorism. Of course it is. That doesn't mean England is to blame.
Posted by: Vincent at July 22, 2005 05:25 AMA friend of mine from Universtiy regularly reads this site. Am expecting therefore a needling message about my being quoted on a conservative weblog. oh the shame of it.
I can't argue with your quote as it seemed to be accurate. As for the point of your post it is bollox pure and simple.
1. Europe had no problem with Bush's we will get you talk after 9/11. I know FOX probably doesnt mention it but there are European troops in Afhganistan. Why? They went in in support of America.
2. If they hate our way of life fine but everytime we respond to an attack by cracking down or giving the police powers they shouldnt have in a democracy we devalue our way of life. the PATRIOT ACT, Britains Anti Terrorism laws and Belmarsh. Those acts and institutions are contrary to the American and British way of life. Everytime we rant and rave about islamofascism as some dickhead labelled it we piss off the more moderate muslims in the world and make it less likely that we can engage them in the solution.
I am afraid Karol that force does not always reuslt in good things. "Violence begets violence,peace begets peace" That should look familiar.
people dont wake up one morning and decide I hate culture i have never seen or experienced so i am going to strap c-4 to my chest and blow sdome people up. They by and large are young poorly educated and want to avenge a crime or slight, actual or perceived. WHY? Because there are people out there who preachto them, desecrate Islam (and radical if you are reading this and planning a towel or rag head response shut the f..k up!!!) and inculcate them with the view that their actions are in response to something.
You take away the grievance you take away most of the problem. Britain was attacked, because of Israel? probably not. because of what we did and do? Most bloody definitely!!!!
Posted by: Nick Saunders at July 22, 2005 06:22 AMMaybe we should go after the suicide bomber parents, sisters and brothers to act out our revenge like Karol suggested in an earlier post (the one that got 180 hits). I mean even so their families have condemned the attack and all why should that stop us. That will certainly learn them. We could start by bulldozing parts of Leeds.
Posted by: Graeme at July 22, 2005 06:45 AMHow did "overwhelming anger and feelings of vengeance" prevent another attack?
Because it was clear that unlike after the Cole, the Embassy bombings, after the first World Trade Center bombing that this time we were coming for them. Do you seriously believe that suicide bombers have no help or guidance? Really? Is that what it takes to maintain a liberal position on this? That these men act all on their own and lookey here they're all dead so let's go home and watch tv?
Urbane, I don't know what's patriotizing about my post. Like I wrote, I know there is no proper reaction but I feel like the introspective 'what did we do to deserve this' only encourages the terrorists that you might be easy to break. Tell me what I wrote that is so bad.
people dont wake up one morning and decide I hate culture i have never seen or experienced so i am going to strap c-4 to my chest and blow sdome people up.
Nick, they lived in the Britain, I think they knew the culture very well.
Graeme, yes their families publicly condemned the attack. In my world that would save their houses from demolition. But someone like Atta's father who came out publicly in favor of Jihad and his son's actions, well he'd be houseless in Karol-land. You can mock the Israeli policy of demolishing houses of families of bombers but it works. Some people can not care about their own lives, but everyone cares about their mom.
Posted by: Karol at July 22, 2005 10:21 AMOh and Rick, on 9/11/01 I too went to donate blood. Unfortunately, there was no need, everyone was dead. That made me a little angry, I don't know what it did for you.
Posted by: Karol at July 22, 2005 10:22 AMUgh. I remember photos of people making all those stretchers to carry out the injured. No need.
Posted by: ll at July 22, 2005 11:28 AMKarol:
1) Do you seriously believe that suicide bombers have no help or guidance?. Of course not. I was for the invasion of Afghanistan, and I really wish we hadn't got distracted by Iraq and had actually captured or killed Osama bin Laden (remember him)? I also believe we should have taken serious steps to address Saudi Arabia's role in the attack (and in funding terrorism worldwide). But whom do you propose the Brits should invade to prevent further bombings?
2) Oh and Rick, on 9/11/01 I too went to donate blood. Unfortunately, there was no need, everyone was dead. That made me a little angry, I don't know what it did for you. I don't even know how to respond to this. I stood outside Lenox Hill hospital for 6 hours on 9/11, watching the wounded being brought in as hospitals further downtown filled up. There was a blood shortage for months after the attack. There was a huge need, and your anger and thirst for vengeance, righteous though it may have been, did not help those in need.
Posted by: Rick Who? at July 22, 2005 11:46 AMVengeance motivated support for the war in Afghanistan. Many people believed that the war in Iraq was unjust because Iraq wasn't directly involved in 9/11. Most of our concepts of war & justice are based on vengeance. Without it, we'd be Sweden, and Sweden is a mess.
But whom do you propose the Brits should invade to prevent further bombings?
The Brits should invade the local offices of Hizb al-Tahrir, Al Muhajiroun and the Muslim Association of Britain. Their members have very publicly stated that there will be more attacks. There are tens of thousands of known supporters of al Qaeda in Britain.
..and while we're at it, we should all be planning an invasion of the Sudan, whose army is trained and staffed by al Qaeda.
There was a blood shortage for months after the attack.
From data collected by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study (REDS):
"While the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon forced us to stare into the face of evil, the nation’s response to the attacks gave us faith in the restorative powers of kindness. Among the many acts of compassion was an upsurge in the number of people who donated blood.
As expected, the number of blood donations in the weeks after the September 11, 2001 attacks was markedly greater than in the corresponding weeks of 2000 (2.5 times greater in the first week after the attacks; 1.3–1.4 times greater in the second to fourth weeks after the attack).
The number of first-time donations increased 5.2 times in the week after September 11, 2001 compared to the four weeks preceding the attacks (22,700 donations compared to 4000); repeat donations increased 1.5 times during this period, to 26,400 donations during the week after the attacks compared to an average of about 16,400 during the four weeks before the attacks.
...
Are all of your comments this well researched?
Posted by: mary at July 22, 2005 03:31 PMAre all of your comments this well researched?
Mary, your comment suggests that what you quote is in some way inconsistent with what I said (and, as I re-read my comment and think back, I can't be sure whether there was a continuous shortage for months after 9/11), but I never said people weren't giving blood -- quite to the contrary. People were giving blood in such record numbers because it was needed. And I didn't need to do any "research", dear, I was there, at Lenox Hill on the day of the attack, and afterwards volunteering for the New York Blood Center. Not only were New Yorkers coming out in huge numbers to give blood, blood was being shipped into NYC from accross the nation in the wake of the attacks.
All your "research" shows is the incredible stupidity of Karol's "they were all dead" comment.
Posted by: Rick Who? at July 22, 2005 04:12 PMRick, we were turned away from giving blood being told they did not need any, most survivors walked out of the buildings alive.
Posted by: Karol at July 22, 2005 04:22 PMmost survivors walked out of the buildings alive
I haven't researched the issue (maybe Mary can help), but I'm pretty sure there were very few dead survivors. Also, only the living need blood transfusions.
BTW, I don't know where you were on 9/11 that you were turned away. Certainly, Mary's tens of thousands of donors were not turned away. We didn't turn anyone away at Lenox Hill, and there were enough seriously wounded people that they were being brought through the hordes of people clogging the streets and fleeing northward to Lenox Hill (at 77th) from way downtown.
Posted by: Rick Who? at July 22, 2005 04:29 PMTwo quotes from Rick who?
"There was a blood shortage for months after the attack."
"as I re-read my comment and think back, I can't be sure whether there was a continuous shortage for months after 9/11"
In other words, your first comment was wrong, a fact backed up by this from the same study:
"Not surprisingly, the weeks immediately following the attacks of September 11 saw a surge in the number of blood donations. Among the most striking characteristics of these donors was the number of people who were donating blood for the first time-without a significant impact on blood safety.
More concerning was the lack of first-time donors who returned within one year for a repeat donation..
Their estimated donations were not as high as expected after one year. That was the shortage reported.
If you can't be sure of the information in your own head, how can you be expected to understand input from outside sources?
And yes, people were being turned away:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rival blood donor programs are sending mixed messages to thousands of Americans who are finding long lines as they do the only thing they can think of to help.
Independent blood centers, including the New York center, say they have plenty of blood right now and suggested donors come back in a few days to avoid long lines and the possibility of being turned away.
But the American Red Cross continued to actively encourage donations, saying any extra units can be frozen and arguing that now is the time that shocked and saddened Americans are motivated to help.
Some centers turned people away, some didn't. Because of this, you get abusive? Why don't you spend some rage on the Saudis who paid for the attacks. It might be more productive.
At times, there is an acute shortage of blood. Otherwise, there is *always* a shortage of blood. However, due to the response of the public, and the sad fact that there were few survivors, this wasn't one of them.
Much Sept. 11 blood discarded
Associated Press
Posted on 9/10/2002
WASHINGTON - More than 200,000 units of blood had to be thrown away in the weeks after Sept. 11, five times the amount that typically expires before it can be used, congressional auditors report.
Their assessment of blood wasted is far higher than previous estimates and significantly greater than what blood bankers report.
Shaken by the terror attacks, people across the country lined up to give blood, doing one of the few things they could think of to help. Nearly 600,000 pints above normal collections were donated in September and October, the General Accounting Office estimates in testimony being delivered to a House subcommittee Tuesday.
With few survivors, however, little extra blood was needed. All totaled, fewer than 260 units were used to treat victims of the attacks. Donated red cells last only 42 days before it goes bad.
Posted by: ll at July 22, 2005 05:03 PMOh, that Karol! She so smart!
Posted by: ll at July 22, 2005 05:11 PMYes, Mary, I admitted I was wrong. So there's really no need for a long post jumping up and down harping on that fact. Especially when blood donation statistics have nothing to do with the point I was making: that what I saw around me post-911 NYC was a banding together to help and heal, not a cry for bloody vengeance.
Instead of responding to the substance of my comment, you picked a tiny and irrelevant piece of it out of context and blew it up into a major controversy that proves I am an incompetent liar. A familiar tactic, but hardly an admirable one.
Posted by: Rick Who? at July 22, 2005 05:21 PMEspecially when blood donation statistics have nothing to do with the point I was making: that what I saw around me post-911 NYC was a banding together to help and heal, not a cry for bloody vengeance.
And what you were doing, as you call it, to help and heal, was so damn futile. Can you back pedal any faster?
Posted by: ll at July 22, 2005 05:42 PMCan you back pedal any faster?
LOL. Rick, I also discussed other parts of your argument, but you chose to ignore that. Not that I'd be rude enough to make a fuss about that "familiar tactic"
Posted by: mary at July 22, 2005 05:46 PM11, it was far from futile. What were you doing on 9/11?
Posted by: Rick Who? at July 22, 2005 06:05 PMMary, I didn't ignore it, it just made up a tiny portion of what you wrote. And I agree with some of it. London should go after known al Qaeda supporters. But invading the Sudan, or anywhere else, is not going to help Londoners protect their subways any more than invading Iraq has made Americans safer. And I also agree with Nick Saunders when he said "You take away the grievance you take away most of the problem."
Posted by: Rick Who? at July 22, 2005 06:12 PMWhat were you doing on 9/11?
Not making futile gestures and years later trying to claim I'm ghandi and everyone else is full of hate.
How did "overwhelming anger and feelings of vengeance" prevent another attack?
It drove us to send an army and airforce to blow the fucking taliban and fucking al queda out of their fucking caves. It drove us to go after orgnizations in this country that supported terrorists abroad. It drove us to tell other countries to clean out their snakepits or we would do it for them. hth
Posted by: ll at July 22, 2005 06:54 PMIt drove us to send an army and airforce to blow the fucking taliban and fucking al queda out of their fucking caves. It drove us to go after orgnizations in this country that supported terrorists abroad. It drove us to tell other countries to clean out their snakepits or we would do it for them.
And how's that working out for us?
Posted by: Rick Who? at July 22, 2005 07:01 PMAnd how's that working out for us?
The Afghans were happy to see the Taliban die. They spat on Taliban bodies that were left to rot by the side of the road. The Iraqis do the same to the "insurgents". Why don't you go talk to them about the futility of vengeance?
invading the Sudan, or anywhere else, is not going to help Londoners protect their subways any more than invading Iraq has made Americans safer
Yeah, but it might keep thousands from being killed, starved, branded, raped, etc. And the Sudan is where Saudi al Qaeda gathers to relax. But who cares about them? If saving millions of Sudanese doesn't make you feel safer, what's the point?
You said that you supported the war in Afghanistan. Is this another one of those backtracking things?
Posted by: mary at July 22, 2005 09:03 PMpeople dont wake up one morning and decide I hate culture i have never seen or experienced so i am going to strap c-4 to my chest and blow sdome people up.
Nick, they lived in the Britain, I think they knew the culture very well.
I heard they were 2nd generation (born and raised in Britain).
Posted by: Shawn at July 22, 2005 10:10 PMIs this another one of those backtracking things?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: Rick Who? at July 22, 2005 11:42 PMKarol,
to answer your question what is so bad.
You imply that the pervasive attitude here has been self blame. From talking to people, and indeed the media, I do not get this at all.The editorials (which I think we call opinon pieces here) that you selectively link to are not representative. Besides, when in the U.S. exactly a year after 9/11 I was pleasantly surprised at the amount of debate and dissenting voices there. The truth is, criticism of govt is no more prevelant in the U.K. than in the U.S. Remember that almost half the country did not vote Republican. To suggest that the attempted second bombing was because of the terrorists sensing weakness is completely ill founded.
"The sooner you get it, the sooner you want to destroy them the way they want to destroy you, the better it will be for the free world."
The sooner we "get it". The mother of all patronising remarks ! Get what ? What is there not to get about indiscriminate killing. So you think our security forces are just scratching their a**es. Of course they have to go after them. Graeme makes a good point about your blood and hellfire approach.
Britian has had to deal with terrorists for years. Ireland still has it's problems, but no one can deny the progress that has been made. The bombs on the mainland stopped years ago.
That is the reality, but let's take a fantasy Karol-Land approach to Ireland 30 years ago. Huge swathes of Catholic Republican Belfast are bulldozed. So do you think this solved things, or legitimised the "struggle" to many more Irish catholics, and indeed their willing contributors (including members of the NYPD)?
There were 35 years of shit in Ireland, and the British govt did bend the rules occaisionaly (Diplock courts, plastic bullets, shoot on sight etc), but the majority of N.Irish Catholics, my flatmate included, are not hate filled anger merchants. I somehow think that things would have been different using your approach.
To suggest that we are somehow niave about terrorism here just beggars belief.
Okay, if the Jihadists all lived in a single village with no one else, and made themselves obvious, then yeah, the bulldozers could be broken out. Unfortunately the nature of this enemy is different. The governments immediate reaction is to target the organisations in the UK preaching Jihad, and further afield in Pakistan. Just because we are not collectively screaming for blood does not mean that we don't get it, or are showing weakness.
Posted by: Urbane McMeercat at July 23, 2005 06:39 AMWhat you seem to be missing is that the Islamist terrorists and their supporters do not want the same kind of world as the IRA terrorists, or the ETA terrorists, or just about anyone else. They divide the world into the house of war and the house of Islam, and will stop at nothing until the entire world is living within the house of Islam. Their interpretation of that house doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to the goals of the IRA or of ETA. Yes, the means used are similar, but the scale and the goals matter tremendously.
Posted by: J.Kende at July 23, 2005 07:46 PM
