Livingstone blames West's appetite for oil for London Bombings

Apparently Ken Livingstone - Mayor of London, whose main job it usually is to expand the c-charge zone up to the Irish Sea, has now fallen to the Spin of radical pacifists and Muslims:

"Mr Livingstone was asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme what he thought had motivated the bombers.

He replied: "I think you've just had 80 years of western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the western need for oil. "

Harsh, isn't it? Especially for a Mayor of a town which is the latest victim of terrorism - which was purely motivated by hate towards the western and Christian way of life. No foreign citizens from poor, exploited Oil countries were involved - just fish battering and Cricket playing Brits - all of them radicalized in good old Blimey's mosques.

But Ken doesn't stop there - he urgently felt the need to express his understanding for suicide bombers in general:

"Mr Livingstone said he did not just denounce suicide bombers.

He also denounced "those governments which use indiscriminate slaughter to advance their foreign policy, as we have occasionally seen with the Israeli government bombing areas from which a terrorist group will have come, irrespective of the casualties it inflicts, women, children and men".

He continued: "Under foreign occupation and denied the right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs, often denied the right to work for three generations, I suspect that if it had happened here in England, we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves." "


It seems fairly obvious that Kenny Boy has neither a clue of his own party's policy nor of history at all - which of course doesn't really for being a Mayor of a city as diverse and multi-cultural as the capital.

But it is certainly highly important to emphasize that those countries, that were exploited under British occupation - such as India - are now completely impoverished - and their only way to get back on track is to bomb commuters to smitherness ;-).

Yes - and of course - it would happen in England - remember the legions of Northern Irish suicide bombers during the height of the Ulster conflict - yeah right, they used only car bombs and were usually polite enough to give the Yard a call... but who cares!

Nice one, Ken!

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4698963.stm

How to prepare against Suicide bombers

The BBC features an interesting article on how security forces might be able to defend themselves against suicide bombers.

Written by Crsipin Black - an intelligence analyst with Janusian SRM - it provides an unbiased and informed view on intelligence tactics and the phenomenon of the suicide bomber.

Good morning London

Yes, London was the major target terrorist tried to hit so long - at least since the UK's involvement in the Iraq war.

But no, it was not the shining victory for the Islamic terrorist - they didn't paralyse Britain's capital and didn't succeed in spreading the same surprise and horrors as in New York and Madrid.

This is partly due top the fact that no one really was surprised by the attacks - and partly to the high level of preparation and calm reactions of both, the emergency services and the public itself.

London is used to this - the Blitz is long ago but struggles with the IRA in Northern Ireland and the bombs of the 80s and 90s in London have taught us invaluable lessons - plus the increased security training since 9/11.

It is highly likely that the terrorists failed in hitting their main targets - it's hard to believe that the bombs were really scheduled to go off in the tunnel - probably Liverpool Street Station was the only prime target that was hit - other targets may include the big stations like Paddington (probably the explosion on Edgware road), Kings Cross and Bank station - were delays were reported earlier in the morning.

Furthermore the numbers of innocent victims is going down since New York - which is mainly due to the increased security measures which prevent terrorists from attacking high risk targets as airlines, nuclear power plants etc.

That's a good thing - and even if the death toll is still rising - London seems to be back on track. Travelling to work this morning showed the familiar red busses - tube stations are prepared for re-opening Hyde Park was full of cyclists and pedestrians on their way to work.

Terrorist will fail more and more to cause civil disruption. People are getting used to it and the more they do the less understanding there is for the stupid atrocities of the Islamic fanatics.
And then there is the thing with the G8 - probably the terrorists thought it was a clever idea to hit Britain while hosting the world's 8 most powerful man. Nope! It was not. At no other occasion those who should be united in the war against terror had the chance to stand really united behind their words - and those who where doubtful in the past - like Germany's Schroeder or Russia's Putin, will see how important a united answer to such senseless violence is.

There is no room for childish disputes. There is no room for explaining how important it is to understand the causes of the terrorists. There is only room for united, strong and decisive action. And the mere image of the G8 leaders standing behind Tony Blair was not what the terrorist could have whished for.

Since the Madrid bombings their strategy was one of planting schisms between the world leaders - trying to force out countries of the coalition against terror by seeding fear. They succeeded in Spain and Germany and France - but now they achieved something different - they forced the leaders to re-unite.

Sure there will be struggles on the way ahead - but every strike, every bomb will do nothing as strengthening the commitment of the free world to stick to it's values and to fight it's enemies.

Good morning London!

First Hints on prevented attacks

Only hours after the attacks on the London Transport system first rumours and hints on prevented attacks start to spread.

Eyewitnesses (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4659237.stm) report of delays caused by security incidents prior to the main blasts. It might be that those incidents are due to the normal routine on the underground but it might also be that the increased security levels since 9/11 have prevented further devastation. Especially the Northern Line and Bank Station were subject to delays and closed stations before the explosions took place.

So far an initial analysis shows that:
-Londoners remained calm - panicking was widely avoided
-LU staff and Emergency Services worked together in an outstanding manner
-London probably will not be as traumatised as New York was after the blast

We have to say a big THANK YOU to the work that was done since 9/1. The often annoying security measures (missing bins etc.) are now paying off - even if there are casualties and fatalities which is still terrible and beyond every comprehension.

But the war on terror is not won yet - and it will not only take years or decades but an ongoing investment in the spread of democracy.

London Blasts - How right they were...

In Britain - similar to many core European countries we had and probably still have a broad opposition to the war in Iraq.

Unfortunately we had to learn the hard way how right those were, who emphasized the vital importance of the war against terror.

Now, in front of the eyes of the G8 leaders it has become clear that TERROR is the most important issue on the agenda - not poverty, not Kyoto!

Update:

First information hint towards an al-Qaeda involvement in today's attacks on the London transport system. Also there seemed to be warnings on very short notice from the Israelian gobernment.

We have been warned, though - believing that we are save in a world where terrorists in Iraq can manage to held up strong resistence against the British and American forces show that there is a lot to do - retreat is no option.

Surpreme Court: Live or let Die?

The government's influence on the Supreme Court and therefore America's course of justice is undoubted. The president basically fills the seats of the Court which are available while his administration is in office.

This has proven efficient in many cases, allowing the administration to underline its general way of governing and get confirmation for controversial laws and decisions. Nevertheless it is important to say that the Supreme Court by no means is an disguised instrument of the administration - especially since Judges tend to stay in office much longer than the President itself.

But since I support the current administration - because like Britain's it is without a real alternative - it might be the time to speak about the weaknesses of a system which does not always support a clean cut between the administration and the guards of the law. A good example is the dispute on finding a successor for the vacated Justice Sandra Day O'Connor - a centrist, by European standards liberalist Stanford alumni - who was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981.

The vacancy arose in a time when critical and controversial decisions on rights of abortion and the right to die are on the docket of the Court. Day O'Connor who always supported the protection of the women's health when it came to state abortion rights was very much the only insurance for those rights to survive - it is highly likely that a newly appointed conservative judge will turn the mood within the court towards the government's 'no-tolerance' approach.
While I support President Bush's views on international relations, world trade, and terrorism I firmly disagree with his support for the pro-live campaign.

The Court, including Day O'Connor ruled out some state laws which didn't include an health exception - allowing women who would evidently suffer from not ending the pregnancy - e.g. raped teenagers - to consider abortion after reasonable consultation - with a ratio of 5 - 4. Since government appeals against this verdicts are pending - it is expected that Bush will seize the opportunity and make sure that the right minded candidate will be in place to turn a 5 - 4 vote into a 4 -5.

Furthermore - the verdict would be seen as a role model for the other states who could jump on the conservative bandwagon in order to avoid hassle with the opposition and the strong religious lobby.

Other pending issues on the docket include the right-to-die laws and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy practised by the military during court hearings. While my personal opinion would tend towards the governments view on this cases - the weakness system is apparent.

Instead of being an neutral instance - according to the constitutional principle of checks and balances - the court's opinion tend to lean strongly towards the government's view - especially if one administration manages to remain in office of if one party manages to fill the President's seat successively.

As stated above, this might not be a bad thing for smooth law making and by no ways a threat to democracy - but a in any case it's a good occasion to value the work of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and say thank you to a balanced decision maker - free of ideological prejudices.

Why Bob (really) did it again...

"Most people get into bands for three very simple rock and roll reasons: to get laid, to get fame, and to get rich."

Bob Geldof