The last days of Londonistan

[rcne]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4720603.stm

The last days of 'Londonistan' The London bombings have spurred the British government into proposing a series of new laws designed to put an end to the reputation of the capital as "Londonistan", a centre for militant Islam. It wants to create offences such as "indirect incitement to terrorism", "acts preparatory to terrorism" and using the internet for terrorist recruitment and training. It also wants to make it easier to deport foreign nationals who openly preach jihad and violence. However, one attempted deportation shows how human rights legislation and its interpretation by the judiciary can prevent the executive in a Western democracy from simply exercising its will. At a time when al-Qaeda and its associates are showing a resilience and ability to strike at widespread targets in London and Egypt - let alone Iraq - the government feels such legal protections must be looked at again. By Paul Reynolds World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website

Times are changing.

[Sean]

Not too surprising. The terrorist acts in London have caused a backlash. I thought the attacks on Europe were some of the more moronic moves by the terrorists. They have now increased European support for a variety of security increases similar to the US.

[ibm]

what kind of “increased security measures” in europe? just curious to know. so far i know these surveillance cameras. anything else?

to me the thing is, no matter how we increase the security measure, the terrorists only have to break them once to defeat it. and the increase of the measures will have to stop at certain point. for instance, it’s unimaginable to have our boarders guarded at an intensity say 10 men every mile. and for any measure there are counter-measures. a simple example would be that a surveillance camera can be easily disabled if the terrorists are planning for something.

is it necessary to increase the security measures? yes. is the way it has been done, especially the way it has been in the us, the right direction to go? i think not. how much money and human resources are spent by the homeland security department each year? and how much has been achieved (other than changing the colors from time to time while no one takes it seriously any more)? what has the patriot act achieved other than stripping some liberty and privacy away from the citizenry?

[MadKatz]

They poop in their own yards! Makes their terrorist title fit well.

[Sean]

Quote by: ibm what kind of “increased security measures” in europe? just curious to know. so far i know these surveillance cameras. anything else?

Yes, there are several anti-terror bills being made in Britain, and I think Europe in general is starting to become a little more concerned about domestic terror.

to me the thing is, no matter how we increase the security measure, the terrorists only have to break them once to defeat it. and the increase of the measures will have to stop at certain point. for instance, it’s unimaginable to have our boarders guarded at an intensity say 10 men every mile. and for any measure there are counter-measures. a simple example would be that a surveillance camera can be easily disabled if the terrorists are planning for something.

Every bit helps so long as it keeps civil liberties in mind. We might catch a few more attacks in the making that could have killed thousands.

[madprophet]

Quote by: Sean Not too surprising. The terrorist acts in London have caused a backlash. I thought the attacks on Europe were some of the more moronic moves by the terrorists. They have now increased European support for a variety of security increases similar to the US.

Stupid? Spain pulled their troops out of Iraq due in part to the Madrid bombings. 85% of Britons blame their government's participation in the war for the London bombings. Connect the dots. Their goal isn't to make things better for themselves in Britain, it is to force a change of Western policy towards Muslim countries.

[Sean]

Quote by: madprophet Stupid? Spain pulled their troops out of Iraq due in part to the Madrid bombings. 85% of Britons blame their government's participation in the war for the London bombings. Connect the dots. Their goal isn't to make things better for themselves in Britain, it is to force a change of Western policy towards Muslim countries.

That pullout in Madrid was different. They thought their government betrayed them by lying to them about who did it.

It is a dumb idea for the terrorists to attack Europe in my opinion because it will merely spark anti-arab backlashes.

[madprophet]

Quote by: Sean It is a dumb idea for the terrorists to attack Europe in my opinion because it will merely spark anti-arab backlashes.

And what better way to recruit followers? You have to remember that these people are trying to start a war between our two cultures in order to seperate them. Anti-muslim sentiments in Western countries plays into that perfectly: It alienates pro-Western muslims; radicalizes moderates; gives comfort to extremists who think they are on a righteous path; and reinforces the view among many in the world that we are hypocrites and racists.

[Sean]

Yes, I agree...perhaps they are looking for a spiral of violence. The problem with that is I do not think they would win that game...but who knows

[rcne]

If you look at the efforts in London and then look at the efforts in France, Germany and Spain I think you'll find that the nations of Europe are tightening the security and cooperating to locate Islamist within their countries.

The bombing in London has focused Europe on the terror within. I think for the first time in a long time the nations will cooperate to identify and remove the Islamists.

Just today France and Britain air flighted a group out of Europe. The status of Londonistan as a haven for Islamist may be coming to at an end.

[castille]

I think in the end, the terrorists won't win in this "hate spiral" war.

Let's say the terrorists succeed in creating tensions between the West and the Arabs. So Arabs/Muslims become unwanted in the West, while Westerners become unwanted in the Middle East.

But who has more to lose? The Middle East only has oil as a resource (and research is being conducted on alternatives). They are poor, and even the wealthiest Arab countries have a high level of poverty. The only thing that could come out of this is that the West begins to reduce economic agreements with the Middle East, which means a further state of poverty.

If the terrorists succeed, I would think ironically, they will only be driving their people into a further state of poverty and despair.