Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Breaking: Vehicle Plows into Pedestrians in London
The first report from the BBC:
A vehicle has struck pedestrians “leaving a number of casualties” in north London, police said. One person has been arrested following the incident on Seven Sisters Road in Finsbury Park.
Officers were called at 12.20 BST and are at the scene with other emergency services, the Metropolitan Police said. A London Ambulance Service spokesman said: “We have sent a number of resources to an incident in Seven Sisters Road.”
Early reports indicate that the vehicle struck people leaving the Finsbury Park mosque, which has been implicated in several terror incidents. It remains to be seen if this an attack of retribution.
Update from the BBC (6:50 pm ET):
Published in GeneralThe Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said a van “intentionally” ran over worshippers. Many of the victims are believed to have just left evening prayers after breaking the Ramadan fast.
One eyewitness who lives in a flat on Seven Sisters Road told the BBC she saw people “shouting and screaming”.
“Everyone was shouting ‘a van’s hit people’.
“There was this white van stopped outside Finsbury Park Mosque that seems to have hit people who were coming out of the mosque after prayers finished.”
Oh I get it – brutal, but it absolutely works if you know who is responsible for attacking you and where their community is located.
Israel has done this with Hezbollah by destroying Lebanon a few times – it’s kept the border relatively quiet. But that was possible because the link between Hezbollah and Lebanon is so clear and real. If Israel had bombed a random Muslim city – say Cairo or Amman or Riyadh – it would be unlikely to have affected Hezbollah’s actions. The connection would be lacking.
Because terrorists never come from war torn areas with a grudge against America.
Well it certainly assumes no resolution of issues but rather focuses on managing an on-going conflict.
That’s a point in favor of W’s strategy.
Afghanistan had the connections, but not the big targets.
That assumed that the Taliban Government was willing and able to control Alqaida. They may have been willing (?) but I don’t think they were able – and Alqaida was quite okay with sacrificing Afghanistan (and Pakistan).
It’s like asking Iraqis to depose Saddam and avoid the country being destroyed by war. Many of them were doubtless willing, but they were utterly incapable.
These aren’t reasonable things to ask and expect because they’re based on unrealistic assumptions.
That’s a factor in Afghanistan not having the targets. It’s not a new strategy, it’s just difficult to apply to our current enemies.
The later bombing runs on Japan, nukes and the conventional bombing of Tokyo worked on the same idea. Hit them hard so they give up. In that case we went in for occupation and rebuilding, but that was after an unconditional surrender.
The end of the civil war had some similarities. They didn’t have the remote bombing capabilities, but the union army destroyed a lot of infrastructure in the lead up to surrender.
Reagan’s attack on Libya was exactly this strategy.
That’s why borders and immigration control.
Quite.
In all the examples you gave there was a coherent ‘them’, who control a ‘homeland’ that can be threatened to make them do what you want.
That’s not the case with Alqaida.
Take 9/11 – most of the people flying the planes were from Saudi. Would bombing Saudi have dissuaded them? No – they bombed Saudi some themselves. Would bombing Afghanistan do the job? No, they didn’t care about Afghanistan.
I do follow the logic, I just think there’s a gap in the reasoning – people assume a coherent monolith when there isn’t one.
Right, it’s more complicated without a State as an enemy. ISIS may qualify eventually.
This isn’t really in dispute.
Not really. People know we aren’t going to get all the terrorists in one targeted strike. The strategy doesn’t really need a monolith, and I don’t think people were claiming it would end all terrorism. It doesn’t require a nation to actually support the terrorists. If they allow people in their territory to attack foreign nations, then they are culpable. Afghanistan clearly qualified. Pakistan probably did to some degree also. My impression is that the cooperated on some leve, but held back.
Applying this idea to Afghanistan would have meant not bothering trying to pick Afghanis to ally with, rather just bomb anything associated with the taliban or Al-qaeda and don’t bother trying to rebuild or set up a new government.
I don’t think the Afghan or Pakistani Governments are capable of stopping anything.
It would have persuaded the Saudi’s not to fund them or give them covert support anymore.