Questions and Thoughts About the British Terrorism Plot

Questions:

1. The U.S. and U.K. authorities all say the alleged terrorists "might" have links to Al Qaeda.  Does this mean authorities have no evidence of a link?  What is exactly is a link? 

2. The alleged terrorists in this plot are mainly UK born and bred.  Did UK participation in the Iraq war inspire their plot?

3. Why are the authorities banning liquids and gels only in the cabins?  Why not in the checked baggage compartments as well?  Does one need to detonate these kinds of explosives manually?  Or could it be done with a timer or other remote device?  If so, why is there any benefit from banning the liquids and gels just in the cabins?  If it is possible to detonate liquid explosives using a remote device from the cabin, then why did the plotters not use that approach?

4. There are millions of possible targets for terrorists other than airplanes (trains, bridges, soccer stadiums, school buses, restaurants, and so on), and terrorists have chosen other targets many times (e.g., the London and Madrid subways).  Why would terrorists again focus on airplanes? Because an airplane explosion over the Atlantic is dramatic? To prove they can do it despite all the added security measures since 9/11? 

5. Why do the press and the public seem to accept that everything the authorities are telling us about this alleged plot is correct?  Consider statements made after the London police shot and killed a man suspected of being connected with the London subway attacks in July 2005:

London police say a man they shot to death in front of horrified subway riders Friday was "directly linked" to their investigation of recent bombings aimed at the city's transit system.

It turned out, of course, that the man had no connection whatsoever to the subway bombings.

Thoughts:

1. The information released by authorities yesterday seems to imply that all the waiting in line at airport security since 9/11 has been a total waste of time; terrorists have had the ability all along to blow up planes using liquid explosives.

2. A widely held view about the cause of terrorism against the U.S. / U.K. is that the terrorists hate freedom, or Christianity, or Jews, or U.S. wealth, or U.S. influence in the world.  A different view is that the terrorists hate U.S. / U.K. intervention in the Middle East and the U.S. / U.K. support of Israel. 

3. If the second view is correct, the only way for the U.S. and U.K. to substantially reduce terrorism is to eliminate their presence in the Middle East and stop supporting Israel.  Note that Germany and France, which did not participate in the Iraq invasion, have not been the targets of attacks.

3. There has been much commentary in op-eds pages and the blogosphere about whether it is anti-Semitic to criticize Israel's invasion of Lebanon.  That question should be irrelevant.  The right question is whether it serves U.S. interests to support Israel.

4. My answer is No.  Our support of Israel makes the U.S. a target of terrorism, and it does nothing to promote peace or prosperity in the Middle East.   A better policy, for the U.S. and for Jews around the world, is open borders.  Imagine how the history of the past 75 years would have been different if the U.S. had offered unrestricted immigration in the 1930s and 1940s.  Jews would have left Europe in large numbers.  The Holocaust, if it had occurred, would been vastly smaller.  The U.S., U.K., and other powers would probably not have created Israel.   All the wars between Israel and Arab countries would not have taken place.  For that matter, open borders would have reduced or eliminated other humanitarian calamaties, such as the killing fields in Cambodia in the 1970s or the slaughter in Bosnia in the 1990s.  And so on.

5. To be clear, I am not suggesting elimination of Israel: it exists, and it has the right to defend itself.  My best guess is that it can do so successfully without U.S. support (which is a separate question from whether the recent invasion of Lebanon is in Israel's best interests).  But the U.S. should play no role, positive or negative.  This is exactly the position the U.S. should take regarding conflicts around the world.

Comments

[James]

"To be clear, I am not suggesting elimination of Israel: it exists, and it has the right to defend itself."

What kind of talk is this, Dr. Miron? I was under the impression that your views are not based on any notions of rights, just costs and benefits. And now here you are telling us that a state has rights?!?

The individuals in Israel really do have every right to defend themselves, or to do so jointly, but I'm surprised that you would lapse into rights-talk on this one.

[Chris]

I think your thoughts on #4 are too simplistic by far. The current Jewish/Arab conflict has direct roots back to WWI and the British meddling there. The players might be a bit different (Jewish terrorists and Arab states?) but to wish away the conflict is a far stretch.

[happyjuggler0]

Given that Islamic fascists (there, I used the phrase) want to coerce everyone who disagrees with them into abiding with the Koran, or rather their warped interpretation of it, does it make sense to blame the victims of these murderers?

Because that seems to be where your "points" seem to be leading, namely that if we were attacked or almost attacked, it must be our fault because we weren't non-interventionist enough.

I'm pretty much a diehard libertarian of the minarchist variety and usually find myself nodding in assent with Miron's posts, with the occasional reservations.

But it is worth mentioning that we were attacked on 9 11 2001, well before we decided to remove Saddam Hussein from power by invasion. If we had never gone into Iraq, does Miron seriously think that this liquid explosive plot might've been directed at France instead?

The US is a target of these Islamic fascists precisely due to our relative libertarianism, not because we have strayed from that superior path. They hate us for our booze, loose women, liberated women, and our lack of censorship of non-Islamic thoughts and beliefs.

Appeasement doesn't work. Never has, never will. No matter what we do they will hate us (the US) and view us as enemy number 1.

[Steven]

"Note that Germany and France, which did not participate in the Iraq invasion, have not been the targets of attacks"

What about Canada? They didn't participate in the Iraq invasion either. The Islamofascist hate freedom and democracy in addition to occupation.

Therfore I agree with your thoughts that the terrosits hate occupation, however they also hate freedom and liberty.

[Rytis]

How can you, guys, claim that everything what terrorists would hate happens only in the USA? Remember when France forbade to wear any kinds of religious accessories in schools? Muslims were more than mad. On the other hand, I don't remember any terrorism acts there. The same thing fits for the Danish case. Pictures of Mohammed, a scandal and yet everything's calm over there. And you can't say that the press disposes more freedom in the US than it would in Western Europe. As a European, I think that's absolutely ridiculous.

Personally, I live near Brussels. Here at least every third person that you run into is either an African or a Maghrebin. And you know, whatever their religion is, they all enjoy freedom and liberty. Some of them try to show who they are, where they are from, what they believe, some of them don't. But they are free to choose and they like it. I think this is natural for all the people, terrorists included.

What I take as the real cause of anti-Americanism among the islam states (unfortunately, among most of the European states as well) however, it is the need for the USA to be everywhere, to know everything and to influence every made decision. People are not of the same culture, not of the same thinking and their attitude differs according to the country. When the US invades Iraq or Afghanistan and brings democracy, it tries to impose a system that has not been natural for these regions before. They impose suddenly what they think would be the best for the region and obviously, some people rise to stand against it.

My point is that American opinion is not the only one that can be right and I'm pretty sure that islamic terrorists would soon disappear if Americans could understand that they can't make America from every single country. I would propose you to live and let live.

And no, I don't support terrorists, nor I am anti-American. I am against any kind of war, even the one that should bring peace,as a war on terrorism is.

[Jack]

All the post-9/11 waiting in line and security measures have been a waste of time?

No. They increased the cost of doing terrorism.

But would it pass a cost-benefit test? Probably not.

[caveatBettor]

Should France and Spain have helped the Americans during the American Revolution? Or does being a set of English Colonies further liberty?

[Alan Brown]

Are religious extremists the problem here? Sure. It doesn't matter if they are Moslem, Christian, Jewish or Buddhist.

Ok, that last one made no sense, but you get my meaning.

Neutralizing these people in all countries is the path to peace.