Today is the anniversary of the London bombings of the underground. 52 people lost their lives to terrorist bombings. The largest peace time loss of life since WWII according to this article.
An interesting article titled "Why Britain?" I think that it makes two important points:
European Muslims do not assimilate as well as US Muslims thus they do not have an onus to respect and give loyalty to their new home nation.
"The U.S. has a historical advantage; America is still the land of opportunity to the whole world. The people moving there believe the American dream of social mobility," he said. "In Europe , we've historically treated our immigrants as hired help, and waited for them to finish the work they arrived for and go home."
That is true, more people come here to live the life than to just get a job and go home. Even those "guest workers" that are imagined to do so, often end up staying here for years or permanently. We have a second advantage:
Experts, noting that success against terrorism can be very temporary, agree that there are other reasons.
The United States is geographically more separate from the Middle East , the home of Islamic fundamentalism. Beyond that, especially since 9-11, the U.S. has cracked down on both travel and new-resident visas, making it hard for terrorists from outside to get into the country.
Magnus Ranstorp, the chief scientist at the Swedish Defense College , said that U.S. efforts to track down everything involved in terrorism, particularly funding, had made it very difficult to operate in America.
" The United States is so difficult to crack, they have to have established operatives living inside the country to be effective," he said. "To date, they haven't shown themselves. The truth is, while it's not the al Qaida Great Satan, Europe is a much easier place to move around."
Of course, you cannot imagine that we are safe just because these things make it more difficult. It doesn't change the dangers.
You never know who is coming in under what circumstances. I believe that is why the US has been reluctant to let in huge numbers of Iraqi refugees. There is a danger there when you cannot know, as one said about the doctor terrorists in Britain, what is in someone's heart.
Then again, according to a relative, said doctor was very plain in his anger about Iraq and believing that Islam had been insulted. Frankly, stating that something should be done about it. Obviously, his heart was on his sleeve and really, no one wanted to believe it.
Which is a major malfunction. Many mass murderers have stated their intentions to friends, family and in public, but no one wants to believe. We should believe them more often and believe that we must be vigilant.
People use the systems that we have against us. Not just immigrating here and getting jobs or using our airplanes, freedoms, and complacency about people who over stay their time.
In one British case, an asylum seeker received assistance to the tune of $100,000 pounds to make his life in Britain with his family. Using it to finance terrorism and continue to defraud for many more thousands of dollars and launder money for terrorism. Money that was surely used to kill innocents, if not British soldiers and citizens.
One must wonder who we are financing here.
Then there are the three who were jailed for operating a terrorist web site and inciting others to terrorism. Excuse me, "holy war". None of them were sentenced to life in prison. According to the judge, they do not have blood on their hands because they did not touch a bomb or gun. In the US, such people, if not tried for more severe federal crimes, would be subject to the RICOH law that prosecutes such people as leaders of mob crime for murders including life sentences or death. This was because too many were getting away while others did their dirty work.
Still, one must ask an important question: Why aren't these men being charged with treason against the crown and sentenced to life?
My question stems from a historical view of what happens when you send radicalized Muslims to jail for short periods of time and then they get out. Usually, they continue to be or are more radicalized than before. They simply go on to bigger and badder things. In the case of these three, one will be deported to Morocco when his term is over. Unless the Moroccans pick him up on entering the country and charge him with more crimes to be jailed indefinitely, there is an extreme likelihood that he will go on to become a big leader. Such as is the case with many well known terrorists like Zarqawi and Zawahiri. Both were sentenced to short jail terms in their nation of origin, only to get out more radicalized, join and eventually lead even more violent attacks against civilians and other nations.
I believe that the judge's comments on the subject of what exactly these men have done is lame, fantastical and should have caused a national outcry. Except, of course, that Britains believe there is hope for everyone, even as they are stabbing their victim for the 40th time.
The question is: What have we learned from Britain?
Nothing, according to JD at Outside the Wire
And to prove my point, Paul comes along and asks me a simple question, but did not get a simple answer in this post: We are at War
We must fight them there because that is where terrorism has started (to wit, in the Middle East), where it is prevalent and where it must die in order for our nation and others to be safe. There is nothing we can "fight" here or do here that ends the Islamist Salafist ideology. Aside from capitulate to their demands and some how "change" our foreign policy.
Paul asks in comments, basically, why not? Why don't we swallow some of our pride and change our foreign policy? Well, his simple question (that is really an answer wrapped up as a question) got a long response from me:
Whose "pride" are we supposed to swallow first? Who shall we surrender first to them? Where will it end? At what line are you willing to say "no more"? And, once you have decided this, will you be in a position to actually do something, having swallowed so much "pride"?at the post:
Your question is interesting and simplistic. Would that all things should have such a simple answer. But it hides or ignores the real dangers and complexities of the situation. It hides the real costs of such an answer.
My question to you is, "Is the value that you place on these peoples and the ideas so low that you are willing to swallow your pride intact or in part in order to save yourself"? And for what will you have saved yourself having given it all away?