major incident in London

Takes at least two sides to get a fight going. I've never said mistakes weren't made. Nothing justifies tyranny and terror tactics, and by nature, tyrants and terrorists are not prone to accommodative, solution-seeking dialogue. They're thew ones who reject compromise - for them its do-or-die. Their call. We do what we can to accommodate.

Izetbegovic, who was by no means a radical at the beginning of the war, turned progressively more so. I would definitely regard him as a conservative Muslim nationalist now, yes. No problem on that count.

But what is this stuff about "but his deputies are still running the show"? What do you even mean by that?

You seem to have integrally ignored my post above here - or any of the facts therein on Bosnia-Herzegivina's government.

Paddy Ashdown is, in the end, "running the show" in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and he is a Brit. And he wants to know it too - he's fired government officials whenever he thought they didn't keep to the peace agreement's conditions.

On a state-wide level, a shared Presidency is running the show that consists of all three ethnic groups. Even within the Muslim-Croat Federation, the government is shared between the late Izetbegovic's SDA, the Croat HDZ and a moderate Muslim party founded out of dissatisfaction with Izetbegovic's line. It has a Catholic, Croat President, a Serb vice-president! What is this stuff about "fundamentalists running the show", then?


True to a large degree - especially where it concerns the economy, housing, etc, and more so on a local level. But that, then, goes for the Serb-held territories there as much as for the Albanian (in Kosovo) and Muslim-Croat (in Bosnia) held territories.

It also doesn't prove that "fundamentalists are running the show". At the most it shows a return to pre-war traditions of local clan/family power, especially in Kosovo. The foreign mujahedeen definitely fall outside those structures, in any case.


An action that happened to collectively chase out half of Kosovo's population, hundreds of thousands of people who fled to Albania and Macedonia to escape the tanks and militias burning their houses, killing villagers at random and raping their wives and daughters.

I think the Kosovo Liberation Army guerrilla was a shadowy operation, a group with little scrupules, engaged in mafioso-like crime. But then they were marginal for many years, ignored by the Kosovar mainstream that joined, instead, Rugova's strategy of non-violent civil disobedience, and an underground society, education etc. Only when ten years of that yielded nothing but increasing arbitrary state repression did the KLA get the upper hand.


To stop the largest slaughter in Europe since WW2.


Huh? Bosnia-Herzegovina is an independent, federal state, made up of two constituent territories, the Serb Republika Srpska and the shared Muslim-Croat Federation.

The Muslim-Croat federation has no interest whatsoever in declaring independence and splitting from Bosnia-Herzegovina, since it houses many refugees from the Republika Srpska, and their chances of going back home would instantly become zero if it would.


Yes - ethnic identity as self-identification. Pretty much standard definition by now.


You said nothing was done to hunt terrorists. If you dont mind me equating "war criminals" with "terrorists", I'd like to again point out the numbers of Muslims and now Albanian-Kosovars, too, apprehended to be tried by the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague.


[The bit below is an EDIT because I had first thought "parole" meant "pardon". My bad.]

Yes he's out on bail now. He's not allowed to travel outside a defined area, awaiting his trial, which is scheduled for 2007.

And yes, the irony is that Haradinaj, the war criminal, was also, by the time he became PM, one of the most reasonable politicians around in the province - hence many internationals' ambiguity about his arrest. But justice goes before strategy - good.


That is, let me put it cautiously, a highly dubious assertion, not supported by most of those who observed events first-hand or researched it afterwards. Ethnicity and politics rather than religion were the root of the war, is the consensus opinion.


Yes, and I studied East-European history and worked for an organisation running projects in Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia. Two of my direct current colleagues were in Kosovo and Bosnia. And a close friend of mine had to flee from the Krajina when the Serbs burnt her (multi-ethnic) family's house. She was just a young teen, was separated from her parents, living in a refugee camp.

And?

Even people "who were there" can easily get things wrong. <shrugs>


I'd rather just like you to stop presenting unsubstantiated assertions as fact - they dont become any more fact because you were there.

The Bosnian Serb police already arrested four suspects. Nothing's wholly impossible, but my hunch is that if they had been Muslims, they would have been eager to say so ...

I find it quite amusing whenever someone makes a bold and/or outrageous statement and then disavows all logical conclusions that flow from such a statement.

It's a neat way to have your cake and eat it too.

I've reread my comments and I don't see where I've claimed you've said anything other than what you actually wrote. I'm not sure why some find it so offensive to have their words taken for what they seem to mean. I try and credit the majority of A2K posters with a level of intelligence and literacy that supports the notion that they have, with some measure of care, deliberately chosen the words they have written.

Take this comment for example





I'm not sure how it is possible to read this statement and not construe that you believe the Bush administration is, in no small way, responsible for the London bombings. And there's no need to make this personal, because you are by no means the only American who holds this view.

I will grant you that it was simply a poor choice of words that suggests that you also meant that you were gratuitously expressing sympathies while really feeling some sense of shame, guilt or anger about the policies of the Bush Adminstration. I'm sure your sympathies were indeed heart felt and that what you meant to say was that you left out something else you were feeling and thinking. I point this out only to indicate how someone intent on parsing each and every one of your words might proceed.

My response centered around your clear implication that the Bush Administration carries a significant degree of blame for the London bombings.

I admit I did make the assumption that you felt of the two invasions, only the one on Iraq was outside the War on Terror and clearly not worth any possibility of terrorist reprisals. Of course I could be wrong and you might also feel the invasion of Afghanistan was uncalled for, but since 7/7, I have heard numerous critics of the Bush Adminstration express support for the invasion of Afghanistan while decrying the invasion of Iraq and suggesting that it alone is manufacturing new terrorists. So again, my response was a bit broader than to you personally.

My point concerning the use of both locations by the self-proclaimed perpetrators in justifying their actions is this: Clearly they do not distinguish between Afghanistan and Iraq, and without Iraq there is no reason to believe they would not have committed these attacks. In fact, there is not reason to believe that they would not have committed these attacks without Iraq and Afghanistan.

What were the justifications for:

NYC (WTC) 1993
Riyadh 1995
Dharan 1996
Nairobi 1998
Dar es Salaam 1998
Yemen (USS Cole) 2000
NYC 9/11/2001
Arlington 9/11/2001
Shanksville 9/11/2001

Except for 9/11, all took place prior to the Bush Administration

Between 1993 and 2001, there were 3231 international terrorist attacks around the world. Obviously not all of these were committed by the same people, although, arguably, they were committed by the same type of people. I suppose you believe all or a large part of these attacks were due to the belligerence of one government or another.

In your first posting you lay a measure of the blame for the London bombings at the feet of the Bush Administration.

In your response you've moved to less precise but no less certain terms



If a mass murderer escapes while being transported from one prison to a more secure facility, and then goes on a killing spree, what degree of blame for these murders would you place on the prison authorities?

Should someone apologize for the British Government to those Londoners killed by the IRA?

Should someone apologize for the American Government to those Oklahomans killed by Timothy McVeigh?



It seems clear that you are simply dismissing the invasion of Iraq as an oil grab, and perhaps you are dismissing the invasion of Afghanistan as simply an act of revenge.

Putting aside whether vengeance serves any critical purpose, there is a fairly large school of though that suggests that 9/11, among other terrorist attacks, might not have occurred if Al Qaeda did not have a strong, extensive, and protected base of operations in Afghanistan. Since the Taliban would not assist us in eliminating this base of operations what were we to do? Leave it be and allow it to perpetrate additional attacks? While, I'm sure millions of Americans experienced a sense of vengeful satisfaction while reading of and witnessing attacks on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, it would be facile at best to suggest the primary motivation for the attack was revenge.

There is also a fairly large school of thought that contends the invasion of Iraq was precisely what you call for, "a dedicated attempt to improve the lives of people living under tyrants all over the world," and not just in Iraq.

At what point is it acceptable to use violence to defeat violence? When there is a liberal president in office (Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan)?

We do know that there is a very long and very recent history of the utter futility, and very real danger of appeasement.

If the UK pulls out of Iraq as a result of these attacks (and I seriously doubt it will), it might secure some short term protection from Islamic terrorism, but it will assure additional attacks elsewhere, and eventually they will return to the UK when it does something they don't like.

Edited post re: Bosnia above because I had at first mistakenly taken "parole" for "pardon".

Just adding here: the case is still in the pre-trial stage - he is charged on the basis of individual criminal responsibility (Article 7(1)) with: Crimes against humanity (Article 5), Violations of the laws or customs of war (Article 3);
Initial indictment was on 24 February 2005, initial appearance on 14 March 2005, pleaded "not guilty" to all counts.

Does anyone know if there's a list of the names of the dead?

They'll definately not do so until they recovered all victims, which can last "days more" according to British Transport Police.

<sigh>

I have an acquaintance who is in London for a month. He said he'd only have spotty internet access, but hasn't yet returned my email. Just a tiny bit concerned.

Sorry that I wasn't any help, but I'm sure, he will be alright!

Still major item an all news bulletins here.

No worries, Walter.

I'm a little dismayed at how quickly news moved on - not to mention how quickly A2Kers moved on.

I think the after-shock has hit the Brits now that more is known of the number of injuries and deaths. It is heartbreaking to see friends and relatives posting pictures of those who haven't yet been found.

Yes, the news does move on here in the States. There were a couple of remarks on Fox News that were a bit stunning in their crassness:

David Sirota Fri Jul 8,12:01 AM ET

Media Matters points out that Fox News' top anchorman, Brit Hume, gave us a glimpse into just how cynical, greedy and disgusting the right-wing's outlook on the world is:

"My first thought when I heard - just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, 'Hmmm, time to buy.'"
- Fox News's Brit Hume, 7/7/05

That's right - his first thought after hearing about the awful terrorist attack in London today wasn't "how tragic," or "let's say a prayer for the dead," or "how can I help the victims" - his first thought was, there was a terrorist attack, how can I personally profit off it? In fact, his impulse to use the bloodshed to make himself money was so intense, he actually voiced it on national television (FYI - in case you'd like to voice your displeasure, Brit's email address is [email protected] and his office number is 202-824-6300).

Of course, this was only the worst example from Fox. Earlier in the day, Fox reporter Brian Kilmeade seemed to cheer on the attack because he said "it works to our advantage." Meanwhile, Fox's Stuart Varney was genuinely excited that the attack will mean other progressive issues will now be knocked out of the public debate. "It takes global warming off the front burner," Varney frothed. "It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again."

Remember, these people are using the public's airwaves to spew out this bile. To call these people nauseating is an insult to nausea.

You may not like what they said, Dianne, but ask yourself this: did they speak the truth?

The events of 7/7 did present a tremendous buying opportunity, on both North American and European exchanges - a bit less pronounced, perhaps, but also on the Asian and Pacific Rim exchanges.


Taking Kilmead's "Our" to represent the US antit-terror initiative and the US-allied opponents of global terrorism, events following 7/7 indicate his postukate appears to have been on the money.

And, as Varney expressed, it is, whether measured by column inches or airtime, the lead story globally (though rivalled in the US by the hurricane)

I don't see anything objectionable about the truth - about the pragmatic acknowledgement of conditions as they are. No one cited by you endorsed any malign agenda, no one celebrated the event, no one deprecated its despicable nature. All simply called it as they saw it, they all appear to have seen it accurately, they all are within their 1st Ammendment rights to espouse their views (as are you, mind you), and the venue from which they assayed their observations is a private, for-profit, advertiser-supported (and handsomely so) entity, also protected by the 1st Ammendment, an entity which pays not only substantial licensing fees but also significant taxes for the use of the public airwaves, an entity which has acquired a major market presence through its practice, an entity endorsed by a huge segment of The American Public, which owns those airwaves that entity licenses and employs within all applicable laws and regulations.

Some folks seem to have difficulty when truth is not comforting, entertaining, and in accord with their own particular agenda. They don't want to hear it, they don't want anyone to hear it.

littlek, They're not giving out any names until they find all of them. As of yesterday, they were estimating that there are still about two dozen people still missing.

I understand that while the families of some of the recently confirmed-as-identified victims have been notified, there is a general press blackout. Thats understandable.

Nimh

We are obviously never going to agree on the Balkans but that does not invalidate the main thrust of my argument which is that the Bosnian Muslims and the UCK have close links with elements of the Al quaeda network and very little is being done about it by the international community even though we have ground troops in the region.

Do you not find that concerning? I do.

British police are evacuating Birmingham England.

Fox News.

says BBC-Birmingham and the West Midland Constabluary.

Police evacuate Birmingham centre