Terrorist Attack on London

[Tim Gratz]

This just in from the AP:

Be aware that the French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from Run to Hide.

The only two higher levels in France are Surrender and Collaborate. The rise was precipitated by a recent fire which destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing their military.

[John Simkin]

This just in from the AP:

Be aware that the French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from Run to Hide. The only two higher levels in France are Surrender and Collaborate. The rise was precipitated by a recent fire which destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing their military.

This joke is in poor taste. I know the far right in America are very hostile to France for refusing to be bullied by George Bush into agreeing to an illegal invasion of Iraq. I only wish Tony Blair had shown more backbone.

I see you have posted this nonsense in the London bombing thread. It is of course noticeable that the cities of Paris and Berlin are not currently suffering from suicide bombers. We are indeed paying a high price for Tony Blair acting as George Bush’s poodle.

As far as history is concerned, I am highly critical of French foreign policy in the past. However, they have at least learnt from their disastrous imperialistic adventures. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the governments in the UK and the USA.

When you talk about putting up the white flag, are you referring to the French in Vietnam in 1954? If so, what did you do in Vietnam in 1973?

[David Clark]

When Tony Blair says we should not "give one inch" to the terrorists, what he really means is that he isn't prepared to give one inch to those who say he blundered by invading Iraq. It's difficult to respect a prime minister who is prepared to put his own hunger for vindication before a serious attempt to understand where the war on terror is going wrong, but it's hard to see what else he could do. To admit an error of such magnitude would leave him in an untenable position. If we are stuck with Blair we are stuck with his policies, however detrimental they may be to our security.

Revulsion at the London bombings has produced a rallying effect that has insulated him from criticism, but this may prove to be short-lived. It is surely only a matter of time before admiration for Blair's presentational skills in moments of crisis gives way to sober reflection on the rather more weighty matter of how we got into this crisis in the first place. Iraq is not going away. If anything there are valid grounds for believing that the worst is yet to come.

The first of these is the escalating violence in Iraq itself. It didn't take long for the bubble of euphoria that accompanied the Iraqi elections in January to burst and make a mockery of Dick Cheney's claim that the insurgency was "in its last throes". In the first half of July alone there were more than 40 suicide bombings in Iraq. This suggests a campaign of extraordinary regenerative force. Whereas most terrorist organisations view the loss of members as an occupational hazard, those driving the violence in Iraq embrace it willingly in the knowledge that more volunteers will always be available. It also suggests that leadership of the insurgency has passed from disaffected Ba'athists to the most extreme Sunni Islamists led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1540028,00.html

Edited August 1, 2005 by David Clark

[Robert Baer]

I was in Baghdad at the end of the second Gulf war. You could see the US military had destroyed every piece of armour the Iraqis owned. Not only armour but museums, too, cultural looting, the destruction of all infrastructure. It was a war against the Iraqi state, against an Arab country. That creates the humiliation and anger which fuel suicide bombing attacks. If you keep it up, you're going to get hit. You can't go randomly kill Muslims and not expect a reaction here.