LAT: British Response to Attacks Is Measured (contrast to U.S., Spain)

[DeepModem Mom]

British Response to Attacks Is Measured
There has been little public talk of altering policy or of harsher measures for suspects.

By John Daniszewski, Times Staff Writer


LONDON — When Al Qaeda struck the United States on Sept. 11, the response was immediate and visceral. Led by President Bush, Americans were angry and determined to hold those responsible to account. In less than a month, the United States had launched a war in Afghanistan.

When bombers struck in Spain last year, the Spanish people also were galvanized. Within days, they had ousted a conservative, pro-American prime minister and elected a leftist administration that immediately pulled Spanish troops out of Iraq.

By comparison, after the worst terrorist attack ever on British soil, this country's response has been almost preternaturally calm and measured, almost serene.

Prime Minister Tony Blair set the tone from the moment the news of Thursday's multiple bombings on the London transit system spread: Britain would not be cowed, Britain would carry on as usual, and Britain would not allow the attacks to divide its people....

***

So far at least, there has been almost no public discussion of a need to alter government foreign or domestic policy or to take more draconian measures to crack down on extremists. The signals emanating from Blair and his Cabinet ministers are that the government will continue with its current strategies, and absorb any other terrorist attacks if they occur as part of the price of remaining British....


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-blair9jul09,0,1401901.story?coll=la-home-world

[Melodybe]

1. The worst terrorist attack ever on British soil? The Nazi's damn near

leveled the city and this is the worst attack ever?

But Cheers to the brits for being stronger emotionally and more rational than Americans.

[lebkuchen]

2. I was hoping the UK citizens would do what the Spanish did

and oust their leader, in this case, Tony. And he should go. In fact, he should offer his resignation.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

3. The General Election has already been and gone

Had this happened before May 2005, who knows?

[lebkuchen]

6. Yes, just as ours had.

I was thinking in terms of working through public pressure and legal parameters which allow the people to rid its government of incompetents when the incompetence is made obvious at a time that does not fall in line with an immediate election.

Spain held its leaders accountable through the election. Because Blair and Bush were already in office, that shouldn't preclude the public from holding them accountable.

Granted, there are so many incompetents in US govt. right now as to make the impeachment process unrealistic. Other than rock bottom votes of "no confidence" in the polls, there must be some other legal action the public can take to save itself rather than having to wait and suffer through another 4 years of dangerous derangement.

[Benbow]

12. I read somewhere that presidents, prime ministers etc cannot be impeached

while in office. So Bush and Blair are going to hang on for dear life, aren't they!

[Benbow]

11. Britons are "slow-burners" -

in our culture a lot of heat builds up before the people break out into flames - and the Tory opposition are not being any help. If they were more credible, then the British people might feel that they would like to try an alternative. But, as it is, the Labour Government - as distinct from the Prime Minister - is more credible, still. However, the Prime Minister appears to have aspirations to be President: he seems to be a complete control freak. He will have to go ...

[Benbow]

4. It is the worst PEACETIME attack since WWII

I guess that whoever sub-edited that piece in the LA Times dropped the "peacetime".

[Art_from_Ark]

8. Not really "peacetime", is it?

Considering that Britain is, for all intents and purposes, at war

[Benbow]

10. It is peacetime, and No, Britain is not at war - even in Iraq

In Iraq, British troops are keeping order, peacekeeping; unlike the US troops. No, for all intents and purposes, Britain is not at war.

For your country to be at war, your government has to have issued a declaration of war. Unless you are the USA, in which case you just invade, bomb, occupy, without bothering with so much as a UN Resolution never mind a declaration of war.

[trebizond]

5. Pretty good article, but i disagree with the implication that the Spanish

response was not "measured"- in my view, voting out a government that cynically tried to blame a massive terrorist attack on uninvolved parties in order to gain political advantage is an unimpeachably measured response to such an event.

But it's actually kind of reassuring that we can still rely on the Sun to spew out rants about internment camps. Kind of an affirmation that things really are just carrying on as normal.

[Judi Lynn]

7. This article really hits the spot! Thanks. Here's a bit more:

In part, the measured response reflects a society that was already inured to attacks, and had been warned by its leaders to expect more.

In Britain during the Blitz, 40,000 people were killed by German bombs. During the 1970s, '80s and '90s, the Irish Republican Army regularly set lethal explosives in British cities. And the Sept. 11 attack in New York claimed 67 British lives, a higher toll so far than that of this week's bombings. And with its imperial past, this country is also used to the idea — so shocking to Americans on Sept. 11 — that some people will always hate it.

On top of that, even Blair's critics don't appear to want to give the attackers any moral satisfaction.

So far, the prime minister's calm resolution has won plaudits and struck a chord with the public, and there has been little recrimination against the government for failing to prevent the bombings or for Blair's stance on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which a militant website claimed were the motive for the attack. In May elections in which Blair's Labor Party lost ground in parliament, many disaffected voters cited the prime minister's decision to join President Bush in invading Iraq.
(snip)

Of course they didn't have an organization of right-wing psychopaths fanning the flames, expecting to reap a wild, hysterical, imbecilic backlash they could parlay into a bloodthirsty hell to unleash in Iraq.

[truthisfreedom]

9. and, what's more, tokyo rove's self-implosion is still on schedule.

which is quite remarkable, if you ask me.

[area51]

13. Rove

I love your phrase "Tokyo Rove".

[DeepModem Mom]

14. I second truthisfreedom, above: "TOKYO ROVE"!

Can you spread this term around somehow? I think it's quite apt, and might bring the importance of Rove's treachery home to some folks.