bomb alerts and stuff

I'm making the point that "focusing on the threat" has now replaced "running Britain fairly and efficiently" as the raison d'etre of the government. And that "focusing on the threat" might well mean "creating the threat". Maybe the retired Blair can turn the EU or the UN into big "threat focus groups", devising new threats for us all to focus on?

Did they ever say that?

aren't they all on holiday for the whole of August?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2005050000-2003410036,00.html

what's he implying here then?

Responding to threat

CONFRONTED with the threat of ongoing terrorism, the security services and the police are both going to face enormous challenges. It therefore behoves the entire community to recognise the dangers and to accept that we may all suffer inconvenience because of the enhanced security that is now necessary. Nowhere is this more true than among the ethnic minorities within the United Kingdom, who are going to face proportionally more stop-and-search measures than the rest of the community.

Is this fair? The answer must be yes as there needs to be a recognition that resources are finite and therefore those resources must be targeted in the most efficient manner in order to protect the maximum number of people. As clearly the main threat is centred as coming from people from the ethnic minority population then nobody can complain when the security services and police concentrate, although not exclusively, on this section of the population.

This is not a new tactic as many Irish people living in London will confirm, having experienced the same tactics when the IRA atrocities were at their height some years ago.

I have already read complaints from some who think this is unfair but this is not correct as it is in the overwhelming interests of the entire community, irrespective of racial background, that this terrorism is successfully defeated as quickly as is possible. Nothing could do more harm to race relations in this country than for the indiscriminate bombing to continue, with the culprits being continually traced back as being of ethnic minority origin.

Already completely innocent and decent Asians are being viewed with suspicion and distrust because of the actions of a few extremists and although this is unfair on these people it is a natural and human reaction to the fear associated with these terrorist actions and will be impossible to halt if the bombings continue.

For those living within the UK illegally the dangers in running away from a police instruction to stop have already been demonstrated and again those people of minority ethnic origin who are living here as legal British citizens would be wise to co-operate with the authorities in identifying those who are living here illegally, as this is a growing problem and is also causing enormous resentment and damaging good race relations.

Although Britain is currently the centre of the terrorist debate, this is a worldwide problem, as the bombings in Egypt illustrate, and all governments face the problem of how best to face the threat. There are no simple answers and what is certain is that catching the terrorists will be difficult and will involve disruption and inconvenience for everyone.

Ia1n M Lawson, honorary consul in Scotland, Republic of Estonia, 27 B3n Lu1 Drive, Paisley.

Wait, let me get this straight, because we had 7/7 we need to learn from... the country that had 9/11?

CONFRONTED with...inconvenience...ethnic minorities...are clearly the main threat...police atrocities...at their height...is in the overwhelming interests of the entire community, irrespective of...terrorism...Nothing could do more harm to race relations in this country than...completely innocent and decent Asians...suspicion and distrust...is a natural and human reaction...the dangers in...police instruction...have already been demonstrated and again those people of minority ethnic origin who are living here as legal British citizens...is a growing problem and is also causing enormous resentment and damaging good race relations.

Although Britain is...simple...catching the terrorists...will involve...inconvenience.

9/11 and the previous WTC bomb demonstrated that terrorists were clearly starting to take it to the source...but considering tube bombs could've happened at any time before or after 9/11 i don't think the UK was considered such a 'worthy target' until the Iraq occupation/it's aftermath (being the final straw) - one of the bombers having already effectively confirmed this (unless of course you assert that he is fibbing).

So the general 'no Iraq intervention = no London bombs' point still holds AS MUCH currency as the denial as this - you can't be any more sure of one than the other really, but to call it as to see it etc.

Are you getting your ideology straight from Jack Straw?

momus, fuck off, are you getting yours from saddam hussein?

didn't these all follow the Afghanistan occupation though? (forgot to throw Afghanistan in with Iraq). Not that I'm condemning the way in which the situation with the Taliban was handled.

Interesting!

momus in populism shock!

xpost

surely the question is not 'are they linked?' but 'how relevant is the obvious linkage wrt how Blair has handled Iraq situation?'

xp exactly stevem.

Yes, I was just thinking, it's probably in the 80s now, after Osman's explicit statement from Rome.

If you really want to know what caused Hitler, then it was the shooting of Franz Ferdinand, because otherwise there would have been no WWI and Hitler would in all probability have expired as a penniless wino in the gutters of Vienna, which he was on the road to doing before being called up.

You should write to the Guardian - I hear they're looking for a replacement for Aaronovitch.

xpost

In other words, why do you want 7/7 to be a question of the personal responsibility of terrorists, but not a question of the personal responsibility of politicians?

this isn't entirely whati think, given i have said that the ubjective motivation of the individual bombers isn't very important. but atthe same time the people who set off the bombs are more respobnsible than the politicians who failed to stop them!

in your paragraph there's an 'is' part and an 'ought' part. i disagree that by asserting that 'is' i am somehow like jack straw. but i disagree with most of the 'ought'.

It's not just that politicians failed to stop the bombers, it's that they framed the whole context in which the bombers are operating. The politicians are themselves bombers: they bomb from 15,000 feet, but they still bomb. That's why Blair refused to condemn bombing when he condemned suicide bombing last week.