Attack in London Today

Suppose we thought of their "clerics" as a class.We had that once.

Would that class not see western influence as undermining their power and eventually reducing them to a laughing stock as we have.And one can easily tell that Islamic clerics are not the sort to tolerate being laughed at.The Ayatollah of Dibney eh?I think not without strenuous persusion.The treatment VIZ hands out to the Archbishop of Caterbury is unsuitable for this forum and VIZ is on sale in shops.It says on the front NOT FOR SALE TO MINORS but we all know that's just a formality.
From what I have heard about Islamic clerics,as a class,they don't use methods which were common in Europe for a few hundred years to maintain their hegemony.

The fundamental flaw in a great deal of discussion is the idea that the world only exists in our own lifetime and this naturally leads to impatience.I would hold that this impatience when translated into political action makes the task of our leaders more difficult.

Scared out of our minds


By Nassim Nicholas Taleb The New York Times

TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005



GLASGOW I was visiting London last Thursday when a second wave of attacks hith is that neither human beings nor modern societies are wired to respond rationally to terrorism. Vigilance is easy to muster immediately after an event, but it tends to wane quickly, as the attack vanishes from public discourse. We err twice, first by overreacting right after the disaster, while we are still in shock, and later by under-reacting, when the memory fades and we become relaxed.  
Terrorism exploits three glitches in human nature, all related to the management and perception of unusual events. The first and key among these has been observed over the last two decades by neurobiologists and behavioral scientists, who have debunked a great fallacy that has marred Western thinking since Aristotle and most acutely since the Enlightenment. That is to say that as much as we think of ourselves as rational animals, risk avoidance is not governed by reason, cognition or intellect. Rather, it comes chiefly from our emotional system.  
Patients with brain lesions that prevent them from registering feelings even when their cognitive and analytical capacities are intact are incapable of effectively getting out of harm's way. It is largely our emotional toolkit, and not what is called "reason," that governs self-preservation. 
Second, this emotional system can be an extremely naïve statistician, because it was built for a primitive environment with simple dangers. That might work for you the next time you run into a snake or a tiger. But because the emotional system is impressionable and prefers shallow, social and anecdotal information to abstract data, it hinders our ability to cope with more sophisticated risks.  
For example, the death of an acquaintance in a motorcycle accident would be more likely to deter you from riding a motorcycle than would a dispassionate, and undoubtedly far more representative, statistical analysis of motorcycles' dangers. You might avoid Central Park on the basis of a single comment at a cocktail party, rather than bothering to read the freely available crime statistics that provide a more realistic view of the odds that you will be victimized.  
This primacy of the emotions can distort our decision-making. Travelers at airports irrationally tend to agree to pay more for terrorism insurance than they would for general insurance, which includes terrorism coverage. No doubt the word "terrorism" can be specific enough to evoke an emotional reaction, while the general insurance offer wouldn't awaken the travelers' anxieties in the same way.  
In the modern age, the news media have the power to amplify such emotional distortions, particularly with their use of images that go directly to the emotional brain.  
Consider this: Osama bin Laden continued killing Westerners after Sept. 11, though indirectly. How? A large number of travelers chose to drive rather than fly, and this caused a corresponding rise in casualties from automobile accidents. Yet these automobile accidents were not news stories - they are a mere number. We have pictures of those killed by bombs, not those killed on the road. As Stalin supposedly said, "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." 
The third human flaw, related to the second, has to do with how we act on our perceptions, and what sorts of behavior we choose to reward. We are moved by sensational images of heroes who leap into action as calamity unfolds. But the long, pedestrian slog of prevention is thankless.  
How can we act on our knowledge of these human flaws in order to make our society safer?  
The audiovisual media, with their ability to push the public's emotional hot buttons, need to play a more responsible role. Of course it is the news media's job to inform the public about the risk and the incidence of terrorism, but they should try to do so without helping terrorists achieve their objective, which is to terrify.  
Television images, in all their vividness and specificity, have an extraordinary power to do just that, and to persuade the viewer that a distant risk is clear and present, while a pressing but underreported one is nothing to worry about. 
Like drug companies, the news media should study the side effects of their product, one of which is the distortion of the viewer's mental risk map. Because of the way the brain is built, images and striking narratives may well be necessary to get our attention. But just as it takes a diamond to cut a diamond, the media should find ways to use images and stories to bring us closer to the statistical truth. 

Here's a couple of editorials that don't bode well for the appeasement crowd.

..."In all of these examples, then, the "trigger" for terrorist action was not any newly adopted Western posture of force and defiance. Rather, it was a deepening of the targeted public's wish to deal with terrorism through avoidance and accommodation, a mass descent into the psychological belief, so often disproved by history, that if we only leave vicious attackers alone, they will leave us alone. It is hardly surprising that by actively trying--or merely indicating that they wished--to bury their collective heads in the sand, the societies were led not to peace but to more violent attacks. Al Qaeda and terrorist groups in general have tended to press their campaigns of violence against civilians in areas where they have sensed disunity and a lack of forceful opposition. In the manner of clinical sociopaths, they seem to "smell fear"--and to find in it, not any inspiration to show mercy or accept accommodation, but a compulsion to torment all the more vigorously those who exude it."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006989




"Estimating how many potential terrorists reside in one's country is a highly inexact business, but there's a striking correlation between a British government report recently leaked to London's Times and a new opinion survey commissioned by the Daily Telegraph.

Drawing on unidentified "intelligence," the government report (analyzed by me at "The Next London Bombing") finds as many as 16,000 "British Muslims actively engaged in terrorist activity."

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2797

Two-thirds of Muslims consider leaving UK

Vikram Dodd
Tuesday July 26, 2005
The Guardian

Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have thought about leaving Britain after the London bombings, according to a new Guardian/ICM poll.The figure illustrates how widespread fears are of an anti-Muslim backlash following the July 7 bombings which were carried out by British born suicide bombers.The poll also shows that tens of thousands of Muslims have suffered from increased Islamophobia, with one in five saying they or a family member have faced abuse or hostility since the attacks.

Police have recorded more than 1,200 suspected Islamophobic incidents across the country ranging from verbal abuse to one murder in the past three weeks. The poll suggests the headline figure is a large underestimate.The poll came as British Islamic leaders and police met to try to boost recruitment of Muslim officers, improve efforts to protect Muslims from a backlash, and improve the flow of information from Muslims to the police about suspected terrorist activity.

Nearly two-thirds of Muslims told pollsters that they had thought about their future in Britain after the attacks, with 63% saying they had considered whether they wanted to remain in the UK. Older Muslims were more uneasy about their future, with 67% of those 35 or over having contemplated their future home country compared to 61% among those 34 or under.

Britain's Muslim population is estimated at 1.6million, with 1.1million over 18, meaning more than half a million may have considered the possibility of leaving.

Three in 10 are pessimistic about their children's future in Britain, while 56% said they were optimistic.

Nearly eight in 10 Muslims believe Britain's participation in invading Iraq was a factor leading to the bombings, compared to nearly two-thirds of all Britons surveyed for the Guardian earlier this month. Tony Blair has repeatedly denied such a link.

Muslim clerics' and leaders' failure to root out extremists is a factor behind the attacks identified by 57% of Muslims, compared to 68% of all Britons, and nearly two-thirds of Muslims identify racist and Islamophobic behaviour as a cause compared to 57% of all Britons.

The general population and Muslims apportion virtually the same amount of blame to the bombers and their handlers, with eight in 10 or more citing these as factors.

The poll finds a huge rejection of violence by Muslims with nine in 10 believing it has no place in a political struggle. Nearly nine out of 10 said they should help the police tackle extremists in the Islamic communities in Britain.

A small rump, potentially running into thousands, told ICM of their support for the attacks on July 7 which killed 56 and left hundreds wounded - and 5% said that more attacks would be justified. Those findings are troubling for those urgently trying to assess the pool of potential suicide bombers.

One in five polled said Muslim communities had integrated with society too much already, while 40% said more was needed and a third said the level was about right.

More than half wanted foreign Muslim clerics barred or thrown out of Britain, but a very sizeable minority, 38%, opposed that.

Half of Muslims thought that they needed to do more to prevent extremists infiltrating their community.

· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,005 adults aged 18+ by telephone on July 15-17 2005. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
-------------------------------------

A few might leave. Two-thirds? No way, not happening.

Based upon the statistics it would appear that there is a sizable pool of potential bombers in Britain. As far as leaving they are just blowing smoke. Where would they go back to the lands they ran from? Not a chance.

Certainly one must add the members of IRA (between 1,000 and 1,500 according to Irish officials), Real IRA (about 150 members) ... etc etc , which aren't only potential but REAL bombers.

Walter wrote


And this is supposed to what? Temper the actions of the islamic suicide bombers?

How did you get that?

I thought, I wrote in a rather understandable English that members of IRA etc must be added as real bombers to the number of potential bombers.

Sorry, if my response sounded confusing.

Walter
Sorry I misunderstood.

Define "the appeasement crowd". Havent got a clue what it means; normally only ever come across a term like that in posts by McG, Lash c.s., as a purely rhetorical tool to mean "those who dont agree with us".

See anyone say, "hey lets meet the London terrorists halfway, see if that'll stop the violence" lately?

To my unending surprise, I agree with Finn.

Islam historically (and thats what you're talking about when you talk of things "going back to its origins") has not been more oppressive to women, abusive of children or had more of a streak of intolerance and violence than other religions - if anything, less so at many times.

Current Arab culture, however, surely is among the most oppressive cultures in the world where it comes to womens' rights.

The same goes for other noted abuses. Women's genital mutilation is at its most brutal in the Horn of Africa - which has everything to do with culture, and very little with Islam.

I'm no fan of Islam, by the way, nor of any religion. But I am for sorting things correctly.

With a sample that size, the margin of error could run as high as 8%.

thanks for that clarification nimh, i had no idea what finn was on about

but i still contend there is an intolerant and violent thread within islam which can be traced back to its beginnings,

kharjiites, (then various other sects i forgot) wahhabits muslim brotherhood, bin ladenism

i am the first to admit my knowledge of the history of islam is poor, but if itsn ot islam which influences arab culture, what is it?

"Blair said the group intends to "be able to talk to the Muslim community and confront this evil ideology, take it on and defeat it by the force of reason.""

well said Tony (boy do I have mixed feelings about that bloke)

thirdly

I am liberal/social democrat

i believe in tolerance and respect for the "other"

in peace time

but this is wartime

we have to employ every technological, psychological, sociological and every other logical means we can to defeat these bastards.

because if we dont have the basic human right of going about our daily business in safety, free from the risk of being ripped to pieces, the other freedoms and rights count for nothing.

So, I reckon there are about 16.000 young active male muslims who are BY THEIR BELIEFS positively dangerous. But via recent census returns we know approximately who they are and where they live.

Therefore if they will not renounce violence in the name of Islam, we must intern them.... and chip them.

I think nimh and finn, though I have no doubt they have very good intentions, are incorrect about the Islam v Arab culture = violence, abuse against women, etc argument...

It is not to say these horrid aspects of Islam are universal--but Arab culture is shaped by Islam. Islam runs through that culture in such a way that the two cannot be separated.

Islam does have a strain (or more than one) that advocates these horrible actions by some adherents. Wahhabism is one. Read Bernard Lewis, Zakaria, Thomas Friedman. They aren't ideologues. They are lifetime student of the Middle East.

However, if you can disprove their (and my) theory, I'd really like to see your evidence. Sincerely.

I'm more with Cherie Booth, QC, who said: "What the case makes clear is that the government, even in times when there is a threat to national security, must act strictly in accordance with the law."

Speaking in Malaysia, Cherie Booth said it would be "all too easy" to fight back in a way "which cheapens our right to call ourselves a civilised nation".

And Tony Blair has defended these comments ... made by his wife.

That is not in conflict with what I said.

I can easily agree with what she said. That statement, at least.

PM Blair dresses down MSM

Just a sample - Read the whole thing...
---------------------------------------------------------

Question:

More civilians have been killed by the Americans and the British than have been killed by these attacks.

Prime Minister:

Excuse me. First of all - I don't accept that at all incidentally - but secondly there is all the difference in the world in us taking action against these terrorists and as will happen when military action is taken innocent civilians get killed. We deeply regret every one of those lives. They don't regret the loss of innocent, civilian life. They rejoice in it, that is their purpose. And all the instability in Iraq would stop tomorrow if these terrorists and insurgents stopped. And my point to you Adam is, I am making a more fundamental point because I actually don't think the public is in quite the position that you think they are. Yes, it is true that of course they see these issues as linked in some way. Yes they do. But they also know perfectly well that we cannot give these people any shred of justification for what they do. And when people say, and I have read this over the past few days, people talk about this as if we are doing this in Iraq, they are doing this here. There is more or less an equivalent. Until we get rid of this frankly complete nonsense in trying to build some equivalence between what we are doing helping Iraqis and Afghans get their democracy and these people going in deliberately killing wholly innocent people for the sake of it, until we eliminate that we are not going to confront this ideology in the way it needs to be confronted and my point to you is this, it is time we stopped saying OK we abhor their methods, but we kind of see something in their ideas or maybe they have got a sliver of excuse or justification. They have got no justification for it.

And one other thing I want to say whilst I am on this subject if I might, neither have they any justification for killing people in Israel either. Let us just get that out of the way as well. There is no justification for suicide bombing whether in Palestine, in Iraq, in London, in Egypt, in Turkey, anywhere, in the United States of America. There is no justification for it period and we will start to beat this when we stand up and confront the ideology of this evil. Not just the methods but the ideas. When we actually have people going into the communities here in this country and elsewhere and saying I am sorry, we are not having any of this nonsense about it is to do with what the British are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan, or support for Israel, or support for America, or any of the rest of it. It is nonsense, and we have got to confront it as that. And when we confront it as that, then we will start to beat it.