Rantingprofs

Speaking of Canada

They're still trying to figure out if they're at risk.

But clearly there are risks.

Major Security Sweep in Italy

This is big news in the Canadian press, but I haven't seen it reported anywhere yet in American outlets.

That Didn't Take Long

Everyone understands why Dennis shared almost, then, gradually, equal billing with the London bombings.

A hurricane is one of the few stories where there is no question that early and adequate coverage really can save lives, since the story develops over time and can be seen coming, thanks to modern technology.

The bombing was Thursday, and on Saturday Fox has coverage of Natalie Holloway mother's apology for something or other.

Rally 'Round the Union Jack

Via Instapundit, USS Neverdock points to an amazing poll of Britons in the wake of the bombing.

Don't listen to anyone who suggests there is or will be a backlast against Islam or Muslims:

Although most Britons do reckon that the London bombings were the work of Islamic extremists, most show no disposition to point the finger of blame at British Muslims as a whole. On the contrary, well over 80 per cent are convinced that the great majority of British Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who condemn the bombings like everyone else.

And that's despite the fact that over 40 percent associate Islam itself with the problem.

The response of Tony Blair and his ministers to the attacks has clearly boosted the standing of both. Early this year, twice as many people said they were dissatisfied with Mr Blair as Prime Minister as said the opposite. In the aftermath of Thursday's bombings, Mr Blair's approval rating has flipped from negative to positive for the first time in five years.

So, the rally 'round the flag phenomena proves itself transnational.

Moreover:

Moreover, the bombings have failed - despite Mr George Galloway's best efforts - to undermine support for the British presence in Iraq. The proportion wanting British troops brought home quickly has fallen and the proportion who now want Britain to retain its close ties with the US has risen. The section of the chart headed "Assessing performance" tells a story of which Britons can be proud.

As I said Thursday, these are the people who went through the Blitz. Don't try and tell them what to do at the point of a gun.

Get this one:

A mere one per cent of YouGov's respondents expects to make big changes as a result of the bombings. The great majority, 88 per cent, expect to make few changes or none at all.

And that's despite a shocking number, 92%, expecting another attack.

We have chosen our allies well, no?

I Haven't Changed My Mind

Something's come up, and I'm not likely to blog much today, but I did want to mention one thing.

You may have heard that the British are now looking very seriously at the claim of responsibility made that first day. I want to make clear that this does not change my criticisms of the press's performance at all -- when that claim of responsibility was first made, it was unconfirmed. There was no way to know who that group was, or if they were serious. And betting money was against them because of the history and doctrine of al Queda regarding claims of responsibility. That means that even if the claim turns out to be real it was still irresponsible for them to put that statement out on the air immediately -- they had no idea what they had, or whether it was authentic, but they were putting it out on the airwaves, when it was nothing more than extremist propaganda. Without confirmation, I say giving that statement a platform was not the responsible thing to do, and I stand by that judgment.

Meanwhile, reading about friends and family roaming the city with fliers ("Have you seen X?") will just break you heart. If that doesn't make it clear we're all in this together, nothing will.

Update: Fox is reporting there are now actually 3 claims of responsibility. I could only find a report of a second.

Treasonosphere Already Exploiting Bombings

Friends, Democracyguy, Michelle Malkin and others are doing an excellent job of exposing the treasonosphere--the fifth column of people in our midst and on blogs who are exploiting the terror attacks to strike at George W. Bush, Tony Blair, America, and Western Civilization. They can't wait for the blood to dry before focusing their anger, not on the actual killers, of course. Why they feel compelled to do so is a mystery for the psychoanalyst's couch.

Let me go back some time ago for a point of comparison. I'm working on a book on the media coverage of Pearl Harbor. Now, if you have read much about December 7th and its aftermath, you know that the malfeasance and incompetence of the Roosevelt administration and many in the military establishment leading up to the attack was huge and glaring. I don't think that FDR actually conspired to engineer the disaster, but the blunders, miscues, failed policies, and lack of preparation for war was almost criminal. Yet, the Congressional Republicans, who had no love for the President, basically backed off with only a few mild investigations. They were an opposition, but a loyal one.

Why? I know this will shock today's left: because the "opposition" lawmakers realized that political civil war was both absurd and treasonous while America faced an implacable enemy who wanted to destroy us!

That's what amazes me about today's islamopologists and blame-America-firsters and Bush-is-evil-ites. Don't they know how much they give aid and comfort to the enemy with every C-Span speech, protest march, and blogpost? If Bin Laden's personal computer is ever captured, you can bet which blogs will be in his FAVORITES folder!

Or take Vietnam. You could look at the protesters of 1968, shake your head at their antics, understand that they were actually prolonging the conflict, BUT the stakes were limited; the North Vietnamese were not going to assault Cleveland.

Today's enemy wants everything; they want a global empire with all the rest of us either dead or slaves. Left, right and center, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, whatever, will all be marched to the slave pens or killing fields together. This enemy doesn't care about Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine or Guantanamo. Those are smokescreen excuses, not causes. They seek total, complete power. And they won't stop until they get it. Why help them?

Victory against international terrorism is possible, but only if all of us realize it is in our own best interests in the West to stand together. But I have little hope that will happen. The left has signed on to a new Stalin-Hitler pact with terror, and, alas, nothing will dissuade them...

--soror et frater ave alle vale--paleologos

Compare and Contrast

Well, I'm off to the office, unfortunately, although I'll try hard to get back, as I have much more to say.

But I'll leave you with this:

Here's the powerful lead editorial from today's Post.

Here's the lead editorial from the Times, which contains many of the same fine sentiments, but which also clearly labels the events of September 11th not an "attack," but a "crime."

It also contains this:

Fear was another inescapable response - the natural fear that this kind of attack, carried out by people with no regard for their own lives or anyone else's, could happen anywhere.

That fear has already led to questions about why the British security agencies did not anticipate the attacks, why the wealthy nations have not done enough about the root causes of terrorism and why Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden continue to function after almost four years of the so-called war on terrorism. Many will wonder why the United States is mired in Iraq while Al Qaeda's leader still roams free.

Of course, the British did "anticipate" the attacks, which is why the emergency services people were so well prepared, but anticipating is not the same thing as having intelligence so perfect as to be able to intercept. Having that time and time and time again, every single time, is simply impossible, and expecting it is setting a standard no human system will ever be able to meet.

As to the "root causes" of terrorism, that's generally a euphemism for poverty. Now, I'm all for doing more to stop poverty -- as a moral issue -- but casting that as a part of counterterrorism is just disingenuous. Take a look sometime at the poorest nations in the world, calculated any way you care to calculate it. They simply don't have terrorism problems. Meanwhile, every demographic study of suicide bombers find them to be generally well educated and middle class.

And for the "many" wondering how we can be "mired" in a war against this ideology after four whole years, I would suggest they weren't listening at the very beginning, when they were told repeatedly that this would be long and slow and hard.

That last sentence sets up a series of unproven assumptions: why the United States is mired in Iraq while Al Qaeda's leader still roams free. It suggests, through the use of the word why that it is because we are still in Iraq that OBL hasn't been caught -- and furthermore it assumes that it is because OBL hasn't been caught that London was bombed. That's a series of steps, each of which is enormously contestable, none of which are defended.

Al Queda the Movement

Here's an article in the Washington Post that discusses the "affiliate" model of al Queda. Seeking to be transnational, al Queda has always had affiliated, but largely independent groups, around the world -- think Jemaah Islamayaah (JI), the group responsible for the terrorist attacks in Bali and Jakarta, Indonesia. What the article here suggests is that there are now groups less "affiliated" loosely and more "modelled on," as the relationship becomes looser and looser, and al Queda becomes more of a movement than an institutional structure, a hierarchy.

Notice that there is no mention made in the article of the "group" that claimed responsibility yesterday. That's because there's no confirmation, no reason whatsoever so far to believe they actually had anything to do with it. It's stunning how many outlets and reporters are flat out saying that there is an "unconfirmed al Queda claim of responsibility."

That's just wrong. Just because this group has al Queda in the name, doesn't make it "al Queda." At most, it may be one of these loose associate groups -- but then the reporter needs to explain that. Simply saying "it's al Queda" without the qualifying information is flat misleading.

We're four years in already. I'm stunned how little most of these reporters appear to know about al Queda and Islamist terrorism, judging by the way they talk on air and the questions they ask.

I realize one of the reporters who wrote this Post article is a beat reporter, and you can't hold general assignment reporters to the same standard. But you can hold general assignment reporters to a standard of some basic knowledge on critical topics, and since Sept. 11 I would have thought al Queda qualified.

The Personal Communication Device as Mass Medium: The Role Played In Terrorism

By boss and I have periodically remarked that while it may have been modern technology that made September 11 possible, it was also modern technology that empowered the passengers of United 93 to take back the plane. Because of live television coverage, their families knew what the terrorists had planned for that plane, that it wasn't a hostage situation, but that it was meant to be used as a missle, and knew it in real time, and because cell phones work on planes, they were able to find that out for themselves in time.

But even though that was not quite four years ago we don't have any photographic images of what it was like inside those four planes -- which is probably a blessing.

It's been clear for some time that the next terrorist event would be photographed from the inside, and those photographs sent along in real time.

Sure enough, you've all no doubt seen the short bit of footage taken from inside one of the trains from someone's cell phone. It's not very clear, but it's a first. There will be more.

Indeed, according to the Washington Post there are all sorts of images along with the first person accounts on the web (although we had those starting with September 11.)

But really the bread and butter of terrorism will be the images. If the victims of terrorism begin to share the images of terrorism from within the event, what will be the result? Can you imagine if there were images from inside those four planes? From inside that gym at Beslan, Russia, as the terrorists held 1,000 people, most of them children? Will those of us outside the event -- the real targets of terrorism -- be made more resolute, brought face to face with the event, or will these photographs be grist for the kind of emotional pablum the morning shows engage in, turning everything into an Oprahesque discussion of emotions and feelings? And what will that mean for governments ability to do what's necessary?

Can a government stand fast, and not bargain for hostages when the hostages are sending camera phone pictures of their ordeal to the outside world in real time?

On the Frontlines in the War on Terror

The OpinionJournal has a piece tying yesterday's bombing to support for the Bolton nomination, but you don't need to reach that conclusion to recognize how dead on they are in this analysis:

For bin Laden and al-Zarqawi, the relatively small bombs they set off in Iraq or London are a second-grade weapon. Their large-bore weapons in the terror war are modern electronic news technology and, ironically, open democratic societies.

We think we're merely observers of events such as London's awful scenes yesterday or the Baghdad car bombs. No, if you watch television, you're on the battlefield. And some of us don't want to be there. Bin Laden and al-Zarqawi set off these bombs to pound the combatants at home, or in Congress, to make them put their hands on their head and, in effect, surrender. Suffering living-room shell shock, some do. The experience of seeing battlefield death or blown-up people from the couch is not normal.

In an act of terrorism such as yesterday's bombing, the people hurt and killed are not the real audience. They're incidental, a means to an end, literally innocent bystanders in the sense that the killer were not interested in killing those specific Brits as opposed to any different group of Brits -- any large group of Brits would have done.

The real audience was, literally, the audience: those watching at home, on television, in Britain and around the world, especially in the liberal democracies.