< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://bokertov.typepad.com/ btb/" >

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Anti-terrorist raids in Britain


The AFP has this article on the raids, but doesn't mention the half ton of ammonium nitrate found, according to Debka.

Whenever there's "action" in the UK, I always check the Jewish Comment blog, from an excellent bunch of American (at least I think they're all American) writers in the UK. Their latest editorial, "Harold Pinter, the 9/11 Commission and the Current Terror Dilemma," is an eye-opener:
In due course we will be printing on this site a complete review of the seminars we attended, but suffice it to say that we were chilled to the bone by the speech of Dr Izzam Tamimi, Chair of the Muslim Association of Britain (co-sponsor of the Anti-War Coalition) at a seminar by the Friends of al Aqsa. Dr Tamimi worked himself into a near-frenzy explaining to the audience of mostly berobed young British-born Muslims that the world cannot exist with Israel in its midst. He does not wish harm to Jews but Israel must be dismantled. Why does one's blood freeze at this thought? There are scores of Muslim and Arab countries and several rapidly reaching a Muslim majority. Why must a tiny strip of land, devoid of oil and natural resources, be Judenrein?

How soon will such ‘spokesmen for the anti-war coalition’ be demanding the dismantling of the USA and disenfranchisement of its Jews? 9/11 could have brought the United States to its knees. Is this what the ‘anti-war’ leaders want?

Harold Pinter, the eminent British playwright, sent a message to the anti-war event at St James’s Church Piccadilly last week. It was so extreme in its rhetoric about the USA that we could barely listen without cringing. The gist of his meesage was that America, the perpetrator of a litany of crimes he listed for the huge and adoring church audience, had for all intents and purposes got its just desserts on 9/11. (Does Harold complain when six-figure sums come in from his American royalties?)

We are reminded of a talk we attended in London last year. The speaker was a Jewish member of the peace movement. He said that Americans were sitting in their living rooms scheming about who they wanted to kill next. One of us had to cut in to remind him that it was December and that Americans, including President Bush, were sitting in their living rooms on the edges of their seats waiting to see who would win the Super Bowl.

Despite the endless streams of crimes we have heard levelled against our native ( and dare we say beloved?) United States of America in three weeks of seminars, demos and day events in London, my assessment of the situation, as we watch the Washington hearings, is that the Big Country is misunderstood. Likewise the Americans appearing before the cameras will never understand terrorism (oh, how we have heard about ’American state terror’ these past few weeks from fuming peace campaigners!) and will have to become much meaner and ruthless if they are to prevent further 9/11s.

Also, being away this past week, I missed most of the Richard Clarke drama as it unfolded. I soon got caught up to speed, reading "A Missile Strike on the Spiritual Leader of Terrorists" at Jewish Current Issues.

You MUST follow the link where it says "no plan" - it will take you an interview with Richard A. Clarke in August 2002. I especially enjoyed the exchange wherein the interviewer asked, "Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?" Clarke said, "Because they were tough issues."

And also,
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.