One year has past and solemnly we recognize the attacks that took place in the London Underground. As a New Yorker, who works right next to “Ground Zero”, I am reminded 5 days a week of the trying times we live in. I am also reminded of the “scum bucket” politicians who distort and twist the occurrences to manipulate public opinion for their own political advantages. They are just as disposable
as the fiends they claim to be protecting us from.
But the I want to acknowledge the wisdom and courage of the British people who did not allow themselves to be manipulated and did become as visceral and paranoid as my countryman have become.
Be proud of what you did not become.

I wouldn't be too optimistic on this one, James...

One year has past and I don't see the political deteoriation as I do in the US.

Because the US media, like the UK media, does not report the astonishing level of apathy now felt toward politics and politicians, especially new effing bloddy Labour, and the high level of cynicism felt by the elctorate.
Those who are not apathetic lean towards the cynicism since it is clear that the diffferences once so clear between Labour and Conservative no longer exists.

You have only to look at the abysmal turnout figures for elections to realise that there is a political deterioration going on. The British electorate will turn on Blair with all the determined visciousness of a dead sheep at the next general election.

The actual level to which Britons, who never, never, never shall be slaves, have got to in terms of apathy will be determined by how willing they are to embrace Bliars plans for biometric ID cards. He could insist that every Briton be implanted with a subcutaneous implant and people would still blow things up.

Interview with Milan Rai author of "7/7: The London Bombings, Islam, and the Iraq War".

http://www.radio4all.net/pub/files/talking...17-062306mr.mp3

http://www.j-n-v.org/London_Blasts/MEDIA%2...view_051015.htm

Are his views Anti-Western and Anti-Iraq war by any chance?

I presume so, otherwise i doubt you would have linked them.Might give them a listen,when i got an hour spare.

You're right to be confused, KLF. Be very confused. Like you, I no longer have the patience to deal with the small minds who are opposed to War in Iraq. As such, I have an important announcement to make -- and I very much hope you find it heartening... I am now officially Pro-Iraq War. I've also seen the light and have come full-circle with regard to what the Left call "really bad human ailments" and I'm now pro-wandering spleen and pro-gout.

Sweet Jesus that feels good.

This is kind of worrying. MI5 has been infiltrated by incompetent twats.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6610209.stm

I always liked the lines from "This is Stephen Lander" (the funniest thing Stephen Fry ever did):

"Investigative journalist: "Was he the worst traitor in the history of the British Secret Services?"
Chief Spook "Well, I'd certainly put him amongst the top one hundred".

But they are somewhat overstretched are they not? The logistics of keeping tabs on so many people must be nearly impossible. 2000 I heard.
How many people fly to Pakistan and back every year? The average stay I heard someone on the radio say, was 40 days. Plenty of time to meet the relatives, then nip off for a bit of explosives training (if that's what someone wants to do).

Why does anyone think MI5 know what they are doing? They told us there were WMD's in Iraq if you recall.

Full of James Bond wannabes like David Shayler.

Big fucking deal. It's their job to do that. If they're no good they should be sacked. It's what happens to shop workers or miners. And on top of that, how long have other services been doing their jobs for them? How many times have you been searched by airport staff when you're getting on a plane? It's not the volume that's at issue, it's the sheer incompetence (or arrogance?) of not using a photograph taken because it was taken by the police. FFS.

On top of that, every fucker who speaks in interviews about MI5, 6 or whatever has a mouthful of broken dice. Are they all public school educated knobheads? George Smiley my arse. More like Kim Philby and all those others out for an easy time after being rogered by some fucking prefect at Eton who feels bad about it so gives him a job years later. Whether he's qualified or not. Secret Service? More like Secret Seven.


Ah. You can't beat a good rant.

If what AndyL says is true, that MI5 and MI6 are totally useless, then we have a big problem. Because it will mean that soon one of these plots to blow up a shopping center or nightclub are going to succeed.
And I don't know if the wider public will stay passive about it as they generally have so far. Another trial starts today, this time the 15 people accused of trying to blow up airplanes last year. More names and photgraphs of young muslims in the papers for the next twelve months.
Michael Mansfield must be raking it in

The US is thinking of making all British people get visas before they go to the states. You can see why they'd be worried, but it would be an unpopular move here.

Fuck me, Damon, there must be people all over the middle east wondering when an American or British bomb is going to land on their shopping centre. Just exactly what do you think terrorism is?

I don't really get your point Andy. A couple of these plots succeding in the UK, or even just more trials and convictions like we saw last week, will not be good for community relations.
It would increase suspicion and paranoia. Leontien said things had got bad in Holland. I don't want to see that happen here.
That things are a million times worse in Iraq, lessens the gravity of blowing up the Bluewater Center?

I have no wish to see bombings in Britain, nor do I wish young people to be involved in such plots. However, if MI5 or MI12 or whatever the fuck they're called are involved, what do you want them to do? Murder the perpetrators of such crimes or bring them to justice? I just think that they're i) not democratic (which raises many questions about state security and the role of secret services) and ii) not very good in this last case. Nor in the case of De Menezes for that matter. But I did hear people in government saying that you couldn't hold secret services to account for that "slip up." In other words, there is still a "shoot to kill" policy.

I also think that it's all very well for us in the affluent West to make noises about "community relations" but what about "community relations" in Iraq? Or Iran? Or Burma? Or South Africa? I simply don't think that the ruling class gives a flying fuck about "community relations." They want to protect their wealth. You and I care about where we live and the welfare of others: they don't care about us at all. If you want evidence for that, just look at the hoo-hah when one of the inbreds was possibly going to be sent to Iraq.

Apart from the fact that we live here, why is an attack on Bluewater worse than an attack on a crossroads in Baghdad? Or Beirut? Or anywhere else?

The security services are now more open than they ever have been; if you compare the way the current security threat has been dealt with and compare it to the way that the IRA campaigns were policed (and spied on), the difference is immense. The BBC couldn't even show "Murder on the Rock" without a fight.



That's rubbish; the secret services haven't actually shot anyone. The De Menenzes case involved the police acting on bad intelligence in a way that was chaotic and badly coordinated.



So does that mean we should forget about community relations in Britain? And how do you explain the interest of the Ruling Class in community relations in Northern Ireland? Or the emphasis that the monarchy placed on diversity during the jubilee celebrations?



The loss of life is equally tragic wherever it occurs. But to equate attacks on people because they shop at Bluewater, or go to the football, or the Ministry of Sound, or worship at a synagogue, in moral terms, with attacks that are aimed at combatants from Hizbollah or one of the Iraqi militias is absurd.

Of course not. That would be ridiculous. I don't know of any Ruling Class interest in Northern Ireland. Everything that's gone on there seems to have been done by the government. It was a very good publicity stunt that the inbreds pulled during the jubilee business. Consolidated their status nicely with the subjects didn't it.

I think you are being a bit disingenouos here JB.

I think it entirley appropriate that a market bomb in Baghdad should be compared to an attack on Bluewater - they are the same thing.

The difference here is that we have security. Something our allies in this stupid war denied the Iraqis.

Too right, citizen.

I was arguing that there was no comparison between attacks that only target civilians (which include a lot of those committed by the various insurgent groups in Iraq) and those that are aimed at military or terrorist targets and which lead to the loss of civilian life due to errors. If Andy L was not equating the two then clearly I misunderstood.

However, we should not lose sight of the fact that there was precious little security for many people in Iraq before the invasion (depending on their ethnicity/religious affiliation and their attitude to Saddam). Nor should the fact that it is communal violence that might well have been unleashed however Saddam's regime fell that is behind most of the violence now.

If the "ruling class" is actually politically powerful, then it must have, at the very least, some influence on government. If not, then, by definition, it isn't a "ruling class" at all...

If (going back to the republicanism thread) the monarchy has any political meaning (which I don't believe it has) then surely it is part of the "ruling class"? In which case it must have influenced the NI peace process.

The reality is that the House of Windsor left it up to the elected politicians, as it does with everything else.

Power in this country resides with elected politicians to a (surprisingly limited) extent, with the highest echelons of the Civil Service to a greater extent and to those in the highest positions within commercial institutions most of all. That is undemocratic and the major obstacle to socialism, but it doesn't mean that all of those in power behave in consistently oppressive and reprehensible ways.

Whilst what you say is possibly true, your desire to paint the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent warfare as liberal interventionism is a little worn.

Presenting what is patently a (failing) imperial adventure as such does much damage. Already the legacy of Iraq is causing problems with intervention elsewhere: the people of Darfur desperately need intervention yet it is not forthcoming, in part because of the damage done to the US and UK over Iraq. It is hard to claim moral authority when the rest of the world views you as immoral.

And Darfur is just the beginning - sub Saharan Africa is in for a rough century as climate change hits Africa hardest (Darfur is already an example of the effects of climate change). What we need now is the moral courage to devise an exit strategy in Iraq with it's neighbours and to lick our wounds and move forwards to face the real dangers of the next hundred years rather than creating bogeymen to help lend US neocons legitimacy and inadvertently supporting their real aim of extending US hegemony.

I agree with you about the exit strategy, about Africa and about the challenges ahead.
Where I disagree is with the description of the invasion as an "imperial adventure"; it was motivated (at least on the British side) by a belief that the world would be safer and Iraqi society more just and free if Saddam was deposed.
I am no supporter of the USA's political and economic hegemony, nor of neo-conservatism, but to see it in terms of old-fashioned imperialism is wrong in my view. And being clear about the USA's role is essential if the problems of Africa and elsewhere are to be tackled.

I am happy to describe it as neo-imperialism. In fact that is a better description.

I couldn't agree more. I'm just a little more suspicious than you.

Fair enough; but then we need to define neo-imperialism, if only to avoid confusion with non-imperialist intervention.



Or perhaps just suspicious about different people!!!!

You might be right. But then, I tend to be suspicious of everyone.

Beware Of The Flowers Cause I'm Sure They're Going To Get You Yeah.

Mr Otway's anthem for conspiracy theorists everywhere.

Hmmm. Very helpful.

You were right to say that Barmyrob and I agree. But about 95% of people in this country probably wouldn't.
People care about people like them, and when something happens near them.
It's not right, but would you expect it to be any different?
What are people thinking about in the UK right now? Not the fighting in Somalia, but the missing child.

If you read about Iraq in the papers, or watch the excelent Mark Urban in Iraq on Newsnight then you might have real empathy with people in Iraq. But most people choose not to.

If I am honest, an attack on the Bluewater shopping center would disturb me much more than if I hear tonight on the news that there has been another bomb attack in a market in Baghdad.

Don't understand your first paragraph.

I really find it very difficult to empathise with people who live with daily bomb blasts. How could you send your kids to school with that going on? How could you go shopping? I can't imagine what it would be like to live like that. And I sympathise because they must have thought that, with Saddam Hussein gone, justice was on the agenda. Now they seem to have worse problems brought about Western powers who said they were going to make everything better.

You don't understand the first paragaph? You mark a lot of school papers don't you Andy? Does reading them have a certain technique? I imagine skimming through them (fast) mentally marking them for technical merit and structure. I'm sure my posts would get lots of X's (for ''poor'').

On the news last night there were dramatic and tragic scenes from Gaza, where the place seems to be spiraling into chaos. Dead bodies were shown, journalists were cought in a crossfire and in fear of their lives.
Does anyone in Britain really have a care. I would say: not really.
And people in Gaza probably couldn't give a monkeys about what goes on in Britain or Somalia.
It's not right, but that's just the way it is.

I can't help be more involved in what goes on around me, than events in a place like Congo.
I try to keep informed of events around the world, but when I hear of terrible events in Africa that seem to have no sign of ending, it's a normal human reaction to push it out of your mind for most of the time.

What I don't understand in your posts is what you're trying to say. "Does anyone in Britain really have a care?" you ask. An interesting question. Well, I do. So there's one. Presumably, the percentage of people who were in favour of the war in Iraq felt like that because they were concerned about events a good distance from home. Then you say, "not really." So what's your point? That Brits are selfish twats?

You say that you think Britons don't "really care." So your answer could be "People in Britain care." Is that your point? They care but not enough? If people in Gaza don't care about Britain that could be because they're shit scared that they will be killed or maimed as they go about the daily round of their lives. Why is that "not right" as you suggest?

It stands to reason that the illness of a loved one, poverty, violence, disease and all that stuff prevent you from considering others. When you suggest that it's a "normal human reaction," however, I become quite angry. You see, I think that kind of vague phrase smacks of accepting received wisdom. In short, I think you're wrong and way off the mark. Let's not forget that not everyone behaves like that: there are some people around who can rise above that kind of adversity to join in the struggle for humanity. I have no statistics to back up my views, I just have this notion that human beings are an unpredictable lot and most of them are actually good.

I'm sorry, I only got a 'D' in english language O level.
I can see why saying ''don't really care'' or ''not really'' might be confusing. (The word ''really'' should be left out.)
Brits are selfish twats I'd say. Along with most other people around the world.
I know people who went on the big London anti-war march before the invasion of Iraq, who hardly give it a thought now. I can understand why, as they have busy lives and it's turned into such a long drawn out mess.

I visited Gaza and the main West Bank towns (on day trips) in 2000, which was before the second intefada broke out, and I'd say they couldn't have cared about much outside their own 'world' back then as well.
But living under occupation, I understand they had other things on their minds.
In Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria, I thought that the people were overly preoccupied by events in the middle east, and not much else. It would be good if people were unpridictable in their opinions, but those young arab guys that used to want to talk, seemed to always have the same kinds of opinions.
It's not surprising, considering nearly all Arab countries have an official pro Palestinian line, that replaces having genuine political debate in their own country.

I simply don't agree with you. People are not selfish. It is such a dreadful thing to think. You clearly are not a selfish person. I know a few people who are selfish and they are not the people I want to spend my time with. My friends are not selfish. People cooperate with each other. Actually, I think we have to: we would find it very difficult to be anything other than cooperative.

Perhaps another reason for the apparent lack of concern is the way the media cover events around the world. The BBC is very euro-centric, so is the press. You have to work hard to find any coverage of events outside Britain in the red tops. When you do find it, ten to one it's about some US film actress or 'our boys' in Iraq. However, you clearly read about world events and then characterise yourself as different somehow. In the college where I work there are regular events to help others around the town and around the world. Students organise these events themselves. It strikes me as evidence to counter your claim that people are selfish twats.

If selfish is too strong a word, apathetic might be better.
Where was the opposition to Empire and imperialism in Europe after the second world war?
All during the war in Northen Ireland, people in Britain chose not to think about it too much, and when they did it was to support what the government and army was doing.
How many did the French kill in Algeria? How did their people let them get away with doing that?

And if people want to know about what's going on in Congo or Burma they can. But most people don't want to. I know loads of people who would never (ever) dream of buying The Independent newspaper (for example) and reading an article by Robert Fisk about what's going on in Lebanon or Iraq.

But of course people can be heroic and selfless as well. There was a documentry about Mao's Long March on the telly last night. There was nothing selfish about what they did.

Where was the opposition to Empire and imperialism in Europe after the second world war? Answer - The Independent Labour Party in Britain. The government of Britain who granted India independence in 1947. The Soviet Union was anti-imperialist too.

All during the war in Northen Ireland, people in Britain chose not to think about it too much, and when they did it was to support what the government and army was doing. Answer - was it? How do you know? I've had loads of extremely heated debates about Ireland from the 1970s until the present day. Opinions ranged from the Troops Out agenda to the let our lads free to kill all Micks agenda.

How many did the French kill in Algeria? How did their people let them get away with doing that? Don't know and I don't know that they did 'get away with' it.

And if people want to know about what's going on in Congo or Burma they can. But most people don't want to. I know loads of people who would never (ever) dream of buying The Independent newspaper (for example) and reading an article by Robert Fisk about what's going on in Lebanon or Iraq. Why do you think that most people are different from you?

But of course people can be heroic and selfless as well. There was a documentry about Mao's Long March on the telly last night. There was nothing selfish about what they did. You've countered your own argument here.
[/quote]

The Independent Labour party (from what I just read on wikipedia) was all washed up by 1948. I don't think radical small parties count as opposition to imperialism. The British government was still imperialist after it gave up India. And I wouldn't call Stalin's USSR anti-imperialist. I was in the Baltic states this time last year, and the people of those three countries regard their time in the USSR as an occupation.

How much support did the ''troops out'' people get. I remember one march organised by several leftish groups on the 20th annirversary of troops going to Northen Ireland. ''Time to Go'' was their slogan. It was a very small march considering it was about a bloody conflict taking place inside the UK.
Why do I think people are apathetic? Because I live and work amongst people who strongly give that impression. They aren't interested in things that don't seem to effect them.

And while I agree that you have to give people some slack, because of the way the media reports things, there is plenty of information right there if you choose to look at it.
Programmes like Unreported World are there if you want to watch them. But I bet that they don't get many viewers.

I give up Damon. You're right. I'm wrong. It's clearly not worth the struggle for emancipation or progress. People just aren't worth it.

If I'm being too pessimistic, then I'd say that maybe Andy is too far the other way.
It would be interesting to know how much political debate takes place in universities these days.
In the past there would be several groups and societies on every campus. From what I hear from a family member at Manchester Uni, students are just into hedonism there these days. (Not that there's anything wrong with a bit of hedonism).
And people are worth it.