As you can see I am not done with the topic of Bloomberg using the Patriot Act to dress up an issue that is more about national security than inconvenience to local straphangers. It really does not make me feel more secure to know I may be randomly harrased by the NYPD. I really, truly feel it is a waste of Transit Police and NYPD that could be better employed in real security measures.

I've written some thoughts about the new rash of blasts in London over at c u l t u r e k i t c h e n: Another terrorist attack in London. Is this what Self-Service Jihad is all about? I'd like to explore a bit what it means for us here in NYC.

What do you do in the face of an endless war? How do you deal with potential terrorist attacks without attacking civil liberties? Here's is a sobering statistic :

[via Experts fear 'endless' terror war - Terrorism & Security - MSNBC.com]:

Now, he said, "we're at the point where jihad is self-sustaining," where Islamic 'holy warriors' in Iraq fight America with or without allegiance to al-Qaida's bin Laden.

The cold statistics of a RAND Corp. database show the impact of the explosion of violence in Iraq: The 5,362 deaths from terrorism worldwide between March 2004 and March 2005 were almost double the total for the same 12-month period before the 2003 U.S. invasion.

And what is most sobering is the fact that many of the so called terrorists did not come from extremist muslim sects or had ties to Al-Quaida in any way. They became radicalized by the war in Iraq itself.

Asia Times Online :: Self-service jihad

Contrary to the official line of both the George W Bush and Tony Blair governments, it's not hatred of Western values and freedom that drives the Salafi-jihadis. This is a fight for political power. Al-Qaeda is profiting immensely from the fact that average, moderate Muslims in the Middle East as well as in Europe have become so enraged by the excesses of the US imperial adventure in Iraq that for them the only counter-measure is to become a jihadi.

This is why I am going to revise my earlier comments about A vote for Bloomberg is a vote for George Bush:

I insist, and now more than ever after the London blasts, that not one, but all the Democratic hopefuls need to talk more about NYC in a national context than to diddle with issues of potholes or toilet paper in schools. This election has to resonate as a vote of no confidence on the policies of the Bush Administration.

Bloomberg has done nothing, and I mean, nothing to really address the security issues we have all around New York City; and this has to be hammered into people's minds from now until election day.

Look at the problems we experienced in building across the city with the loss of running water during the BlackOut of 2002 ---has Bloomberg addressed issues of alternative energy sources in building across the city, especially in Manhattan, to ensure people at least do not lose their running water duringa blackout? Isn't that a real emergency and security measure that still needs to be addressed? There has been no push to deal with aggressive rescue measures for people in high-rises. How about more clinics and emergency outposts?

Let's keep on growing this list. There are many reasons not to vote for Michael Bloomberg --and people are raving about him because they've fallen into the "he's no Guliani" trap.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |