Posted on 07/07/2005 2:20:43 PM PDT by smoothsailing
July 07, 2005, 3:20 p.m.
Londonistan No More
A new Finest Hour?
By John F. Cullinan
As London copes with the aftermath of Thursday morning's terrorist bombings — and braces for the possibility of fresh attacks — some sobering thoughts on causes and effects come immediately to mind.
After the Madrid bombings in March 2004, London's senior police official revealed that British security services had thwarted several major terrorist attacks targeted against London. But he grimly acknowledged that "there is an inevitability that some sort of attack will get through." "This is not just about the railways, the underground," he added with eerie prescience. "It's about buses, roads, pubs, nightclubs and the like."
TARGET CHOICE
Britain's special relationship with the United States — broadened and deepened since the 9/11 attacks and its shoulder-to-shoulder collaboration in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — certainly makes the British capital a prime target for jihadists. But there are deeper causes at work, beginning with the long-time status of "Londonistan" (see here and here) as the principal mecca for various Middle East exile groups that were allowed to set up shop on condition that their activities remain focused elsewhere. Among their ranks is the extremist Egyptian cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, whose trial for incitement to murder and other terrorist offenses began this week.
A less openly acknowledged cause for concern is deep disaffection among portions of Britain's Muslim population (about 2 million of 60 million Britons). A 2002 Daily Telegraph poll found that "one in five British Muslims feels little loyalty towards Britain." As for Osama bin Laden, the same poll found that 13 percent regarded his attacks against Western targets as justified, 11 percent had no opinion one way or the other, and 26 percent denied bin Laden's responsibility. It is from this particular subgroup that nearly all of Britain's homegrown terrorist suspects have emerged, including the group arrested last August and charged with plotting attacks in London as well as in New York, Newark, and Washington.
Also relevant is the Labor government's equivocal and inadequate responses to the patent threat of Islamist terror. To take just one example, the British governing class has tied itself in knots over the fate of eleven foreign nationals detained without charges as "terrorists" engaged in "international terrorism" under the Anti-Terrorist, Crime and Security Act of 2000. It was a classic Catch-22 without any possibility of (a) prosecution under British law (without exposing intelligence sources and methods in open court); (b) deportation to the suspects' home countries under applicable European and international law (given "substantial grounds" for believing torture might ensue); or (c) deportation to third countries, with none willing to accommodate these individuals.
Britain rightly sought to justify the unsatisfactory expedient of detention without charges for this handful of manifestly dangerous men by opting out of the relevant provisions of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, which the Blair administration unwisely incorporated into domestic law in 1998. That convention expressly permits suspension of certain rights "in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation."
Last December Britain's highest court ruled these detentions — which the liberal chattering classes had likened to Guantanamo — incompatible with the ECHR and therefore invalid. According to one of the judges, "Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al Qaeda.... The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these."
So far Lord Hoffman, author of these irresponsible and insouciant remarks, has not been heard from in the wake of this morning's murderous attacks.
HOW WILL BRITAIN RESPOND?
Initial commentary has focused on Britain's Finest Hour, the stalwart response to the Luftwaffe Blitz. But a more relevant precedent may be the reaction to the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings (21 killed, 182 wounded), when the Irish Troubles first spilled over onto the British mainland. Parliament responded almost instantly with the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act, which set a modern record for enactment within 48 hours of its initial introduction.
Look for Tony Blair to sever the Gordian knot manufactured by Britain's Law Lords and to take the fight to the enemy. Britain is not Spain, which responded to the Madrid attacks with surrender and appeasement. Last week Britain celebrated the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar, which turned the tide against Napoleon's totalitarian project. It is to be hoped that Blair will rise to level of Nelson's exhortation that "England expects that every man will do his duty."
— John F. Cullinan formerly served as a senior foreign policy advisor to the U.S. Catholic bishops, focusing on international law, human rights, and the use of force.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/cullinan200507071520.asp
The British response to the attack on their soil, if there is any response, will be weak and ineffectual. All the Anglo-Saxon/British cojones reside in the New World now.
It is always a temptation
to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--
we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation
for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you,
we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested
to pay up, or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --
"We never pay anyone Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game
is oppression and shame,
and the nation that pays it is lost!"
- Rudyard Kipling -
God bless our brothers and sisters in England.
For now, we should not worry about their march to Socilaism but rather embrace them as our close cousins and the only other real fighter in the WOT.
I feverently wish that the pedophile moon-god worshipper muhammed (may he burn in hell between 2 pigs for eternity) and his evil adherents all meet the REAL GOD who will provide the infinite justice we are so afraid to speak of.
"The British response to the attack on their soil, if there is any response, will be weak and ineffectual. All the Anglo-Saxon/British cojones reside in the New World now."
I'm trying to type a non-abusive response, but having trouble. Your snide patronising drivel is very unwelcome today.
Thanks for the post,KP!
agreed
Don't underestimate the Brits. They've got more grit than the Spaniards did--excepting their imported terrorist community, of course.
" I don't judge an anti-terror policy by how many suspects are arrested after the fact."
"How would you judge it?"
By preventing terrorist attacks and killing terrorists.
"I doubt Al Qaeda wanted them to continue to hunt their leaders."
That's a really weak argument. Just because the Spanish haven't entirely abandoned their own domestic security means the terrorists didn't win?
When you allow your attacker to choose your government, you have surrendered. Period.
"their imported terrorist community"
I think that will be the lesson of these bombings. 9/11 was a security lapse, but this was an inside job. I think we will soon be hearing that the bombers (or at least their accomplices) were British citizens or legal residents.
George Galloway recently got elected to parliament with some of the pro-terrorist campaign I've ever seen in a western country... and people didn't think that would have implications for Britains security?
"their imported terrorist community"
I think that will be the lesson of these bombings. 9/11 was a security lapse, but this was an inside job. I think we will soon be hearing that the bombers (or at least their accomplices) were British citizens or legal residents.
George Galloway recently got elected to parliament with the pro-terrorist campaign I've ever seen in a western country... and people didn't think that would have implications for Britains security?
it was my pleasure, and surely seems appropriate to the hour.
Why don't you just go ahead and shut your word-hole, Newbie.
Socialists in their own trap. They get votes for power struggle by promising to steal your neighbor's money for your kid's college, and then they try to avoid involving themselves in power pride struggle arguments using PC.
It's total hypocrisy that is not lost on the enemy's mind.
..........................................
The Brits should use eminent domain to take the mosques in greater London. Space may be needed for the Olympic games, after all.
I do hope I am wrong.
"By preventing terrorist attacks and killing terrorists."
Yeah that's what I figured. But by that standard, Spanish involvement in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq evidently did not prevent the attack on Madrid. Analysis of the Spanish elections is pretty subjective, my analysis was that the main effect of the attack was to boost turnout. The extra turnout was liable to be people who were anti-Aznar, but were motivated to vote by the attacks and his reaction to them.
"That's a really weak argument. Just because the Spanish haven't entirely abandoned their own domestic security means the terrorists didn't win?"
It's a pretty weak argument to say that the Spanish government took one decision (which was one the people wanted all along) which you define as surrendering to terrorism, ignoring all the other steps they continue to take to fight terrorism. As weak as arguing that the US decision to withdraw bases from Saudi Arabia (as demanded by Osama bin Laden) constitutes a surrender.
Islamic Isles of the North Sea?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.