Right! Let's play spot the TWAT shall we?
Bush, Blair: "We're civilised, they're NOT..."
statements seem to capitalize on the 'great work the G8 is doing in Africa'
I am just going to make a short statement to you on the terrible events that have happened in London earlier today, and I hope you understand that at the present time we are still trying to establish exactly what has happened, and there is a limit to what information I can give you, and I will simply try and tell you the information as best I can at the moment.
It is reasonably clear that there have been a series of terrorist attacks in London. There are obviously casualties, both people that have died and people seriously injured, and our thoughts and prayers of course are with the victims and their families.
It is my intention to leave the G8 within the next couple of hours and go down to London and get a report, face-to-face, with the police, and the emergency services and the Ministers that have been dealing with this, and then to return later this evening.
It is the will of all the leaders at the G8 however that the meeting should continue in my absence, that we should continue to discuss the issues that we were going to discuss, and reach the conclusions which we were going to reach. Each of the countries round that table have some experience of the effects of terrorism and all the leaders, as they will indicate a little bit later, share our complete resolution to defeat this terrorism.
It is particularly barbaric that this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty in Africa, and the long term problems of climate change and the environment. Just as it is reasonably clear that this is a terrorist attack, or a series of terrorist attacks, it is also reasonably clear that it is designed and aimed to coincide with the opening of the G8. There will be time to talk later about this.
It is important however that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world. Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilised nations throughout the world.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I spent some time recently with the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and had an opportunity to express our heartfelt condolences to the people of London, people who lost lives. I appreciate Prime Minister Blair's steadfast determination and his strength. He's on his way now to London here from the G8 to speak directly to the people of London. He'll carry a message of solidarity with him.
This morning I have been in contact with our Homeland Security folks. I instructed them to be in touch with local and state officials about the facts of what took place here and in London, and to be extra vigilant, as our folks start heading to work.
The contrast between what we've seen on the TV screens here, what's taken place in London and what's taking place here is incredibly vivid to me. On the one hand, we have people here who are working to alleviate poverty, to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS, working on ways to have a clean environment. And on the other hand, you've got people killing innocent people. And the contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill -- those who have got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks.
The war on terror goes on. I was most impressed by the resolve of all the leaders in the room. Their resolve is as strong as my resolve. And that is we will not yield to these people, will not yield to the terrorists. We will find them, we will bring them to justice, and at the same time, we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate.
Thank you very much.
all this while crops fail and famine spreads in Niger
How many people have to die of malnutrition before they label it a famine?|
see here as to why this is allowed to happen
Famine in Niger...
A British aid plane is transporting 41 tons of emergency supplies to malnourished families in the West African country Niger.
Organised by the Charity Save the Children and funded by the Department for International development, the supplies will feed families for one month.
Niger has been hit by locusts and drought bringing grain shortages and increased food prices but why has it taken so long for the country's desperate situation to come to light.
Emergency aid is beginning to get through, but for some children it's too late. The opposition in Niger says the government was reluctant to sound the alarm before the elections last December, not wanting to admit to the voters that they'd failed to feed the poorest members of society.
Others blame donors for not responding to last year's UN appeal.
So why wasn't the endemic crisis in Niger brought up by the Make Poverty History campaigners pressuring the G8 leaders in Scotland just three weeks ago?
- Channel 4
er..what happened to Live8???
Blair tries to save his own skin
Blair pays tribute to resilience [with my notes]
Prime Minister Tony Blair has paid tribute to the "great resilience" of the British people in the wake of the London bombings. He told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme Londoners' response had been "extraordinary" and that they would not be "terrorised by terror". He said the government would act with caution and not bring in strict new laws to boost security. "The British have a very great inner resilience," he said.
"Several of the leaders at the (G8) summit commented to me how remarkable the British people are that they are simply not going to be terrorised by terror in this way," Mr Blair said. "Even as we mourn the lives of those people killed so brutally and unnecessarily the sense, I think, and I hope, within the country, is to pull together and to make sure people can't divide us." Security measures alone cannot protect the UK from attack and the underlying causes of terrorism must be "pulled up by the roots", Mr Blair said.
"All the surveillance in the world" cannot stop people going on a bus to blow up innocent people.
He said the "dreadful perversion of the true faith of Islam" must be tackled.
And he argued the "worst terrorist atrocity" - the 11 September attacks - came before the Iraq war.
[so 911 is now year 0]
Mr Blair says there also has to be a drive to create a fairer and more just world and to foster peace in the Middle East.
[that means building a state of the art-consumer security state globally]
Respect MP George Galloway has said Londoners have "paid the price" of the government failing to heed warnings that military action in Iraq and Afghanistan would increase risks of an attack on the UK.
But Mr Blair said the bombers in Madrid had been planning further attacks before they were caught even after the government had changed.
[from where? Italian Secret Police headquarters]
And the 11 September attacks in America had been the reason for the war in Afghanistan.
After high of winning the Olympics and the tragedy of the blasts, Mr Blair says he has gone through an "extraordinary gamut of emotions".
[try mind control]
He says there is nothing more awful than seeing death and destruction - not just because he is a national leader but because of thoughts for grieving families.
[except when its actually being done by the US/UK forces in Afganistan & Iraq]
Blair: it's probably "Islamist extremist terrorists"...
Bush: "We don't know...but they have a totalititarian ideology...
and er they're called, er.. AlQueda and ...
er...we will continue to bomb anywhere we want...
Blair: We will hunt down bombers
11/07/2005 - The Prime Minister today promised the one of the most "vigorous and intensive" manhunts ever seen in Britain to find those responsible for the London terrorist attacks last Thursday.
Mr Blair told the Commons said it "seems probable" that the bombs were planted by "Islamist extremist terrorists" of the kind responsible for outrages, including September 11 and Madrid.
He expressed "revulsion at this murderous carnage of the innocent" and sent deepest sympathies and prayers to the victims.
And he vowed that the country "will not be defeated by such terror, but will defeat it and emerge from this horror with our values, our way of life, tolerance and respect for other undiminished".
In a statement listened to in sombre silence by a packed Commons, Mr Blair confirmed that the death toll stood at 52 and that a two minute silence would be held on Thursday, with a memorial service to follow on a date yet unnamed.
Bush vows to 'take the fight' to London terrorists
11/07/2005 - US President George Bush vowed today to "take the fight" to the terrorists behind the London bomb attacks.
The President was delivering an update on the war on terror at an FBI training academy in Virginia. The White House said the address was planned before the terror strike but the bombings gave his remarks even more significance.
"In London the terrorists were killing innocent men and women in cold blood," Mr Bush said. "These attacks were barbaric and they provide a clear window into the evil we face. "We don`t know who committed the attacks in London. "But we do know that terrorists celebrate the suffering of the innocent. "We do know that terrorists murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent. "The aim of the terrorists is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression by toppling governments, by exporting terror, by forcing free nations to retreat and withdraw."
It was this that led to the September 11 attacks on America and other strikes in Bali, Casablanca, Riyadh, Jakarta, Istanbul, Madrid and elsewhere, the President said. "These kind of people who blow up subways and buses are not people you can negotiate with or reason with or appease," he said. "In the face of such adversaries there is only one course of action. "We will continue to take this fight to the enemy and we will fight until this enemy is defeated."
Blair 'to reject bombs inquiry'
Tony Blair is expected to reject Conservative demands for an inquiry into the London bombings when he makes a statement to MPs later on Monday. The prime minister is due to underline his confidence in the intelligence services after the attacks which killed at least 49 and injured 700. Conservative leader Michael Howard has called for an inquiry, to see if any lessons could be learned. But minister Hazel Blears said the idea was unhelpful and may distract police. She said that in the normal course of their inquiries the police would examine how things had gone in the aftermath of Thursday's atrocities but she did not want them distracted and forced to take their "eyes off the ball". Downing Street meanwhile said it had two priorities: identifying the dead and informing the relatives, and finding the forensic clues that would help capture the perpertrators.
"It's not time for a knee-jerk response," the spokesman added.
Contact with enemy
Conservative homeland security spokesman Patrick Mercer said it was entirely possible the terrorists would attack again and said his party wanted a quick inquiry so any lessons could be learned. "No plan survives contact with the enemy and clearly things weren't perfect on Thursday," he told BBC News. "I don't mean that to be antagonistic. This is designed to be helpful to the government," he added. "Our priority is to nail these people, of course it is. But at the same time, there has got to be a quick inquiry to find out what can be done, what didn't go perfectly on Thursday and to try to protect us from a further attack."
On Sunday Mr Howard told BBC News 24 said: "It is sensible to have an inquiry with the benefit of hindsight into what was done and what wasn't done to see if there are lessons which can be learned. Perhaps there are perhaps there aren't."
Ms Blears said all efforts were being directed towards capturing the bombers.
"For goodness sake, let's focus on what's important here and that is for the police and the security services to follow up every single lead they've got," she said. "I genuinely think that calling for an inquiry at this point is not going to be helpful at all".
The Home Secretary Charles Clarke is expected to propose further anti-terrorism measures at a meeting with his European counterparts this week. These are set to include a proposal for telecommunication firms to make records of phone calls and emails available to the police.
Police and security agencies say they are now almost certain that they are not dealing with a suicide bomb attack. Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said his party would work constructively with the government on measures to improve UK security.
"I am encouraged by the home secretary's admission that ID cards would not have stopped Thursday's attacks. We remain convinced that the money for ID cards would be better spent on more resources for the police and the intelligence services.
"We will work with the government to establish plans to extend the length of time data from e-mails and phone calls can be kept." - BBC
Blair and his perception managers
probably took note of the way the Hutton and Butler 'whitewashes' were received
which begs the question why are the British public accepting this dangerous charade of a government ???
The issue of racial profiling has long been a sore spot for the black and Asian communities in Britain. It exploded to the surface in 1993 when white hooligans beat Stephen Lawrence, a black London youth, to death. Police came under intense fire for their foot dragging investigation into the beating. It took five years, and a mass protest campaign, before British officials conducted an "inquiry" into the killing. Scores of black and Asian Londoners told harrowing tales of harassment, verbal insults, and even physical assaults by police. In a stark admission, the "Stephen Lawrence Inquiry" concluded that institutional racism infected all levels of policing in Britain.
British officials made a mild stab at reform. In 2003, they announced that under new guidelines an individual could not be subjected to unwarranted street stops because of race, but only when there was clear suspicion of criminal activity. It was a hollow victory. Five years after the commission fingered institutional racism as the cause of profiling, and a year after the guidelines took effect, a commission advisor found that young black men were still twice as likely to be stopped by police than five years earlier.
The Terrorism act gives British officials virtually unlimited power to question and detain anyone they deem a likely terrorist suspect whether there is any actual evidence of terrorist involvement on their part. In nearly all cases, the suspect is black, Asian or Muslim Britain, though, is not the United States when it comes to dealing with the prickly issue of race profiling. Some states have passed laws that ban racial profiling, and police departments have spent millions on sensitivity programs and training. Michigan Congressman, John Conyers' Traffic Stops Statistics Act, which would collect data on police traffic stops, has kicked around Congress for the past five years. That at least keeps the issue of racial profiling alive at the federal level.
But with the terror war now in full swing in Britain, and national jitters that more bombings and attacks could happen at any time, British officials are in no mood to do much to protect against blatant civil liberties abuses. The reaction of British officials to the police killing of Menezes is a prime example of the collateral fall-out of innocents getting killed in the terror battle. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's apology for the killing sounded more like a defense of the police than a sincere expression of regret over the tragedy. Blair and British officials made it clear that the street stops and searches will continue, and that there will be no change in the police shoot to kill policy. They gave no indication that the officers that killed Menezes would be punished.
- Earl Ofari Hutchinson
Blair promises to deport extremist preachers
[extract] July 13, 2005 Tony Blair today said he intended to tighten the Government's controversial anti-terror laws after the London bombings which claimed 52 lives.
Mr Blair also said measures were in hand to fast-track the deportation of radical priests, to prevent them from spreading what he described as their "evil and extreme ideology", springing from a "perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of Islam".
As the police investigation continued in Leeds, Luton and London, Mr Blair told a hushed Commons that police and security services had done 'magnificent work' in the aftermath of the July 7 bombings.
The raids came after the discovery of driving licences and credit cards at the scenes of the explosions, and a telephone call from the mother of Hasib Hussain, who asked police to try to trace her son. timesonline.co.uk
Minister backs stop-and-search plan
10:40am 31st July 2005 - A Government minister has defended a police move to target specific ethnic groups for stop-and-searches as part of the security response to the London bombings.
Home Office minister Hazel Blears said she believed the Asian community would accept that the measure is a necessary response to the security threat.
Interviewed by the Mail on Sunday, British Transport Police Chief Constable Ian Johnston made it clear that his officers would not shy away from targeting those groups most likely to present the greatest threat. Mr Johnston told the newspaper: "Intelligence-led stop-and-searches have got to be the way", adding that there were "challenges for us in managing diversity as an issue."
But he continued: "We should not bottle out over this. We should not waste time searching old white ladies."
Mr Johnston said he was confident that "there is every sign that the Muslim community understands the predicament we face" and that the police would continue to receive support from them, even if young Asians become the focus of most police searches.
Interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House, Ms Blears supported the approach. She said: "What it means is if your intelligence in a particular area tells you that you're looking for somebody of a particular description, perhaps with particular clothing on, then clearly you're going to exercise that power in that way. That's absolutely the right thing for the police to do.
"But what I think is really important is that we have a dialogue with that community - that says look, this is why we're using the powers. We're going to use them in this way, it will be fair and people will have the circumstances explained to them."
But Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty, said 'racial profiling' was a disaster. She said: "If you search people of a particular race or description while lettings others through, it doesn't take long for a terrorist group to learn ways of placing their lethal cargo with those who don't meet the profile."
- daily mail
"It is going to be disproportionate. It is going to be young men, not exclusively, but it may be disproportionate when it comes to ethnic groups.
"We are very sensitive to the effects that that can have and it isn't an attack on particular communities."
Press do a damage limitation exercise: Blears backs away from racial profiling
Fear of 'suicide bombers makes racial profiling OK???
|UK seeks return of London bomb suspect from Italy
Police have said they will take race into account when deciding which people to stop and search, despite fears among some Muslims that this could anger members of their community.
Cabinet minister Peter Hain insisted the government wanted to avoid provoking any backlash from Asian communities who might start sympathizing with those committing terrorist acts.
"We can't have that. At the same time we have to be clear we are dealing with an entirely new phenomenon of worldwide suicide terrorism and you can't take any chances with that," he told BBC radio.
The government, working on new anti-terrorism laws, has also said it may consider extra passport checks after Italian police said Hussain had traveled abroad by train from London after the failed attacks.
Police deny race attack
Press Association Tuesday July 12, 2005 - The Guardian
Two police officers racially abused a black man after hauling him out of his car window and beating him up, Salisbury crown court heard yesterday.
Bar supervisor Anthony Francis, 21, who has Caribbean roots, was on his way home to Reading early on November 8 2003 after finishing work at a bar in Henley-on-Thames when he was pulled over by Thames Valley police constables Derek Ingram and Antony Sams.
Michael Butt, prosecuting, played a video of the alleged attack which was captured by a camera on the patrol car. It appears to show Mr Francis being hauled out of the window, allegedly by his head, after being sprayed in the face with CS spray.
Mr Francis, an asthmatic, was shown running off before being caught.
He said his nose and hand were broken by baton blows.
PC Ingram and PC Sams both deny racially aggravated assault.
spot the subliminal message!!!
"The threat is most likely to come from those people associated with an extreme form of Islam, or who are falsely hiding behind Islam.
If a threat is from a particular place then our action is going to be targeted at that area.
It means that some of our counter-terrorism powers will be disproportionately experienced by the Muslim community.
It was a reality that should be recognized."
Home Office minister Hazel Blears - March 2005
Welcome to Perception Central - William Bowles
so... why isn't there a threat from people who
falsely hide behind Christianity, or Judaism?
Answer: there is! it's all these fuckers, and many more like' em
Good citizens grin and bear profiling
David Gelernter, Los Angeles Times - Tuesday, August 2, 2005
THE NEW YORK CITY police are prowling subway and train stations for possible terrorists. They say they are stopping travelers "at random," but I'm happy to report that they are (unintentionally) lying. Because they have also said (reports the New York Sun) that they will only stop people with "cumbersome containers or backpacks," or "wearing bulky coats" inappropriate for summer, or seeming "nervous." So they are not checking "at random."
Good for them. The police can't check everyone. Naturally, they identify easily visible characteristics that terrorists are likely to have, then concentrate on people who have them. That is, they work from a profile -- which should be as complete as possible. Even if it becomes a dreaded "racial profile."
Terrorists are rare. If you fit the profile, it only means that you are more likely than other people to be a terrorist. But most people who fit are completely innocent. And some who don't fit are guilty: No responsible police force can rely on profiles exclusively. Alert observers are always the best terrorist detectors. Still, information is the most important anti-terror weapon. Profiles summarize the best current information. If "looks like a young Muslim" or "looks Middle Eastern" is an easily visible characteristic that terrorists are likely to have, it belongs in the profile.
But that's racial profiling, some will say, which is bad, not to mention illegal. When police stop blacks merely because of their race, the overwhelming majority are innocent of any crime. All Americans, they say, must be treated equally! But the same holds true for bulky-backpack wearers -- the overwhelming majority are innocent of any crime; all are entitled to equal treatment.
Ideally, a profile would list characteristics that identify all criminals and only them, but usually there are no such (easily visible) characteristics.
So the real question is: Are we eager enough to prevent the crime in question to stop people (like bulky-backpack wearers or travelers who appear Middle Eastern) who we know might be guilty but almost certainly aren't? Are we willing to impose this inconvenience on innocent people who fit the profile to find a few guilty ones?
If the goal is to pre-empt "ordinary" crimes (theft or robbery) that hurt only a few individuals, the coldblooded answer is probably no. If the goal is to pre-empt a terrorist attack that might hurt the nation, the answer ought to be yes.
Once we've decided to use profiles, we should make them complete. A complete profile is as likely to promote fairness as damage it.
If I'm carrying a bulky backpack and you look Middle Eastern, and both items belong in the profile -- why should I be stopped and not you? Equality doesn't mean you get a pass or special privileges just because your skin is dark or you appear Middle Eastern.
You might argue that dark-skinned people are a special case, given the way the United States has treated them. I agree -- we have treated them so solicitously, and worked so hard to suppress racial prejudice, that dark- skinned people owe their country the benefit of the doubt.
The United States doesn't deserve gratitude for not doing wrong. But no nation in history has ever worked harder to correct a fault than the United States has to end racial prejudice. We've earned the right to expect everyone who fits a security profile to grin and bear it.
Which doesn't make it any less of a pain to match a profile. As a graduate student traveling alone in early-1980s Europe, I sometimes matched terrorist profiles and got stopped. (In those days, European terrorist groups were bigger problems than Islamic terrorism.) Today, I look like a bearded, troublemaking professor, and I still get stopped occasionally, in airports.
But the fact remains that profiling is logical in loads of circumstances, from deciding who should get flu shots to choosing whom to chat with when you don't know anyone at a party. Profiling means making smart choices when you have nothing but externals to go by.
Good citizenship -- remember that phrase? -- requires that we cooperate with the authorities as they work to head off the next terror attack. John F. Kennedy, a Democrat and the nation's first neoconservative president, put it well: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
How to deal with profiling? Take it like a New Yorker, with a shrug.
- David Gelernter is a professor of computer science at Yale and a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard.
[Hmmm... Yale & Murdoch, nice combination huh?]
The Cato Institutes Doug Bandow kindly defines the wests liberal 'values' for us: Ignorance is strength|
November 23, 2003 - "It is hard for most people steeped in the humane, liberal values of Western Civilization to understand the massacre of innocents. To slaughter to make a political point. But terrorism is not likely to disappear. Indeed, it is a surprisingly common practice. Although Americans were taken unaware on September 11, many other peoples have long suffered from the murderous attention of domestic and foreign terrorists.
"Terrorism is common, and will persist, because it is a tool of the weak versus the strong, a cheap military weapon to achieve expensive political goals. As long as there are people willing to kill to advance their ends, there will be terrorists."
|Bascially he's saying the people
of the west are
better off kept in la la land
written on the day of the London Attacks:
more like master bate...
Roger Bate is a resident fellow at American Enterprise Institute.
"If anything can come out of this attack it is perhaps that the leaders of the G8 are together. How will anti-war leaders President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder react to another terrorist attack in Europe? President George Bush was quick to tell G8 Summit media in Gleneagles that "the war on terror goes on." And perhaps for the first time in a while he has the support of the majority of the British people behind him. But it's not the people of UK and US that need to be paying attention, but those in France and Germany. It's time to wake up--Paris and Berlin may well be next."
He Researches water policy in developing countries; health policy and endemic diseases in developing countries (AIDS and malaria); international environmental and health agreements (industrial chemicals, climate change, and water); the role of aid agencies and NGOs in developing countries; and genetically-modified organisms and pesticide policy in developing countries.
Michael Rubin is one of the youngest neoconservative figures to gain prominence within the George W. Bush administration. A Yale graduate too, hmmm
Washington Must Plan Today for Democratic Iran of Tomorrow
By Michael Rubin, American Enterprise Institute - Thursday, July 7, 2005
No American official has called for invasion nor, despite accusations to the contrary, has there been any proposal to employ the Mujahidin al-Khalq--an organization guilty of terrorism against Iranians, Iraqis and Americans--in pursuit of regime change. The White House nevertheless has a number of policies that could empower Iranians to the point where they win the same rights for themselves that Georgians, Ukrainians, Lebanese and even Bhutanese have in the past year.
A democratic Iran might not abandon its nuclear program, but neither would it sponsor anti-American terrorism, undercut the Middle East peace process or deny Israel's right to exist. Democratization, therefore, can take the edge off the Iranian threat. - AEI