Sixty years ago today, on August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, killing approximately 140,000 people in the first use of a nuclear weapon in war. That's a sobering thought with today's Rantburg news being filled with stories on North Korea's nuclear program, Iran's nuclear progran, Pakistan's missile development, etc. Where will we draw the line with this new axis of evil? Will we draw the line? Who will be the victors when the people of 2065 look back to these times? I fear that 2065 -- when my children should be retiring -- will be an ugly, nasty world because we did not have the will halt the creeping menace.
Bogus numbers. If you demand they show where they got them, its usually referencing someone else. Its a long dig and you discover, it was pulled out of someone's ass.
The development group really wanted to know the full effect of the weapons and did a very indepth analysis. They weren't hiding anything. They found the Japanese rice ration allocations which identified everyone in the city. They then conducted a census, not a statistical sample. The census included interviews which asked each interviewee who lived in their neighborhoods and streets. Very systematic, which the big number people can not show similar methodologies. The final number killed outright and immediately following from various causes was around 65,000, the long term radition numbers tracked both by the US and the Japanese government was an additional 5,000.
So why the difference between 70,000 and 140,000, probably to cover the massive slaughter of Chinese as at Nanking and Filipinos at Manilia [Feb '45]. It the big victim game tagged to the anti-American crowd.
Not sure it is a valid comparison; Imho, muslim terror has much deeper roots than a simple secular ideology, and AQ type terror is just one "military" arm of the global jihad, which is also economical, ideological, demographic,... and is not going to wither away all by itself. Still, the nihilist undertone is the same.
Graham Stewart
A bomb on the Underground was only one of the anarchist outrages that shook Europe a century ago
These indiscriminate acts caused widespread alarm. Dark and shadowy bearded figures, with capes concealing orb-shaped bombs with fizzing fuses, stalked the popular imagination. The Times warned its readers of the âanarchist epidemicâ and told the Home Secretary, Herbert Asquith, to quit his âmasterly inactivityâ and get a grip on the problem. For a brief moment in the mid-1890s, the Western world shook before this new enemy within. And yet, where is the anarchist terror network now? Are there lessons in its rise and fall for todayâs war on terror?
The militant atheists of late 19th- century Europe would have found little common intellectual ground with 21st-century Islamists. Yet, both were ascetic movements whose followers were repelled by the decadence and thoughtless exploitation they believed inherent in Western bourgeois society. Both movements turned away from the world as it was in favour of an idealised world as it might be. Like the Islamists, the anarchists rejected the political compromises of the democratic process. The more desperate among them put their point across with dynamite instead.
These sentiments are reminiscent of those believers in American hubris who applauded when the mighty twin towers came tumbling down. Like al-Qaedaâs operatives, anarchists thrived on the cult of death. The 30,000 killed in the suppression of the Paris Commune in 1871, the hanging of four anarchists on flimsy evidence for a Chicago bomb explosion and even the death of three protesters at the hands of the police trying to prevent an illegal demonstration in Trafalgar Square in 1887 (the original âBloody Sundayâ): all were co-opted as martyrs to the cause whose deaths should be avenged.
Unlike nationalist terrorist groups, such as the IRA or ETA, the gripe of anarchists and al-Qaeda was not confined to a specific grievance against a single country and its government. Rather, the grievance was international in reach and fundamental in ideology. Many of the anarchist outrages were committed by terrorists who were not of the same nationality as their target. A high proportion came from immigrant communities, often those who had arrived as political asylum-seekers through Victorian Britainâs open door.
It was widely assumed in Europe that there was a tacit understanding that the anarchist cells could remain unmolested in Britain so long as they carried out their attacks abroad. In an echo of todayâs scathing criticism of âLondonistanâ, such tolerance infuriated European neighbours who believed London was becoming a base for terrorist strikes on the Continent. When the terror came to London, the foreign press could scarcely conceal its relief.
In 1898 the Italian Government called an international conference to address the anarchist threat. The intention was to reach agreement for each country to frame laws that banned anarchist publications and publicity of anarchist trials and that all anarchists should be repatriated to their country of origin. This proved too sweeping at the time, although the US Congress responded to the assassination of President McKinley with a law banning entry to the country to anyone âwho disbelieves in or is opposed to all organised governmentsâ. In Britain, the 1905 Aliens Act allowed for the deportation of undesirable immigrants.
By then, the anarchist terror threat had already abated. Partly, it was because the forces of law and order made life so difficult for the terrorists and their sympathisers. This was not easy. The decentralised nature of anarchism meant that its terrorist cells were small. It could not be decapitated merely by rounding up the ringleaders. Indeed, many of the atrocities were committed by adherents acting on their own initiative.
However, this was not an excuse for doing nothing. Suspected anarchists were watched, their meetings monitored, their clubs closed down. Groups remaining unmolested feared that they had been infiltrated by police informers. This had a corrosive effect on the bonds of trust that underground movements depend upon. Those sent to prison became suspicious on release of those who remained at liberty. Suspicion bred disintegration.
The principal cause, though, was the realisation that while other socialist movements were making gains, the anarchists, by refusing to engage and cooperate, were not. Potential converts joined the radical causes that were succeeding instead. This is the problem for âall-or-nothingâ fundamentalism: it usually ends with nothing.
Terrorists with specific goals and the nous to make tactical compromises can end up in power. But this imperfect world is not good enough for al-Qaeda. And that profound weakness may yet confine it to the same historical irrelevance as the 1890s anarchists.
#1
This is the problem for âall-or-nothingâ fundamentalism: it usually ends with nothing. Ain't that the truth. Despite all of the planning, death and destruction, they have gained nothing and lost much. And with each attack, they lose more. You think at some point they'd get a clue - but they won't.
Just as an aside, I predict that we will soon see a shift in the rhetoric. Instead of "root causes, oil, poverty and the big bad Dick Cheney" we are going to start seeing the handwringers agonizing if Western decadence is to blame. I almost look forward to the day that the Beserkly crowd blames Bush for moral decay and praising the Islamists for saving them from moral decadence. LOL! It all makes sense when you understand that it's really all about hating America for these people.
#2
In Britain, the 1905 Aliens Act allowed for the deportation of undesirable immigrants.
By then, the anarchist terror threat had already abated.
WWI was sparked by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
By an anarchist.
That threat had really "abated", hadn't it?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/06/2005 12:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Princip was no anarchist. He was a radical Serbian nationalist. He was not acting alone either, he was one of an organized conspiracy by an irredentist group affiliated with the Serbian secret service, or of a faction therein.
Pretty much the opposite of an anarchist, ideologically.
#4
Really? From what I remember, he's been consistently described as an "anarchist". I could easily be misremembering, though.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/06/2005 13:16 Comments ||
Top||
#5
A good history argument is ensuing. Good because it cannot be resolved absolutely. Princip was a Serb Nationalixt. He was in the Black Hand. Was he an anarchist? I dunno. I doubt 2005 is like 1905 in that the Wahabbist threat has passed like the anarchist one didt, though.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/06/2005 14:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The money quote - The principal cause, though, was the realisation that while other socialist movements were making gains, the anarchists, by refusing to engage and cooperate, were not.
The so called anarchists were socialists for the most part - revolutionary socialists. They lost ground becuase socialism was gaining ground without terrorism. The article should logically conclude that we can stop islamic terrorism by ensuring enough people convert to Islam.
#7
In Terror and Liberalism Paul Berman argues that some of the facist roots of Muslim Brotherhood et al are not just Islamic but European imports, and he makes some links with the anarchist movement. One common theme is that one measure of the validity of a philosophy is how much you are willing to destroy for its sake. Are you willing to die for it? Blow up children for it?
Posted by: James ||
08/06/2005 20:31 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
