July 8 - The war on terror has drawn a critical line in the sand, not between left and right but between those who have integrity and those who are opportunists. Dave reminds us to thank Britain's PM Tony Blair, who despite his many political differences with President Bush, has been singularly capable (and sadly rare among leftists) of taking the longer view to recognize how directly the threat from Islamists fundamentalists attacks the very existence of a debate over our differences.

There is no room for philosophical or political debates in the world order which al Qaeda would establish. We wouldn't be arguing about women's, gays' or religious rights under their rule because they don't allow for dissent.

It still astonishes me that more people do not understand that our very right to dissent faces a far more direct challenge from al Qaeda and their apologists than any "repression" in the U.S., and although that fancied repression in the U.S. is refuted if only by the scores of people who are able to publicly and openly state their political views in the media and online in freedom rather than by smuggling their tracts out of jail, those claims do attest to the power of the diversionary tactics which focuses our attention from our enemy.

I tend to believe that the timing of yesterday's terror attack in London intentionally coincided with the G-8 conference for the same reasons as the Sept. 11 attackers targeted the World Trade Centers, and that while Britain may have been a high-profile target due to their staunch support and actions in the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, they are also a target because they offer Muslims a place to work, live, and add to the fabric of multi-culturalism.

Al Qaeda does not want Muslims to become part of any Western society, and thus has no compunction about killing Muslims who have become so.

The quickie assumption that the attack was due to was Britain's military presence in Iraq conveniently overlooks al Qaeda's demand that all Western units be removed from all Muslim countries (which Canadians would do well to remember include Afghanstan, Bosnia, Kosovo and the Golan Heights) and that simplistic explanation also fails to take into account the attacks on Iraqi soldiers, who are predominantly Muslims.

Although I understand the intent, I do take exception with Adams's characterization of yesterday's attacks as a defeat for the same reason that I do not consider every German plane that crossed to channel to drop bombs during the blitz of World War II as representing a defeat.

Defeat implies the other side was victorious, yet by rights such terms can only be applied when an adversary faces it's opponents openly.

Defeat implies there was a battle, but there was no battle.

London was sucker-punched, plain and simple. Civilians were targeted without warning, deliberately and with murderous malice, by a foe that is cowardly and operates out of shadows.

God bless the good people of London. They have not been defeated, and their attackers would learn the meaning of victory and defeat should they come out of hiding and face us openly and in honourable battle.

Posted by: Debbye at 06:52 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 538 words, total size 4 kb.