|
 |
March 11, 2004
The facts are still murky, of course, but I have to admit that the more I think about it the more reasonable it seems that possibly the ETA was not at fault after all. Not only was this bombing far bigger and more coordinated than anything they've done before, but you'd think that even fanatical Basque terrorists would realize that four days before an election is not a good time to do something like this. Then again, I'm not a fanatical terrorist, so what do I know about how they think? In any case, if it does turn out to be al-Qaeda, I wonder how that will change things? It's been something of an article of faith in America that if 9/11 had happened in Europe there wouldn't have been so much resistance there to the Iraq war. These train bombings aren't 9/11, of course, but they're plenty bad. Will it affect European opinion much about America's approach to fighting terrorism? Posted by Kevin Drum at March 11, 2004 03:11 PM | TrackBackComments
Before the political discussion ensues, I'd like to express my deepest sympathies to those affected. Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 03:13 PM | PERMALINKFunny, to the Spaniards ETA was "the obvious suspect," though I thought al-Q was obvious from the first I heard of it. Guess it depends on who you're payint attention to. Posted by: trotsky at March 11, 2004 03:14 PM | PERMALINKOn the issue of European support for the Iraq effort, I don't think the general opposition will change. So far there's no link to Iraq (although that didn't stop our neocons after 9/11). I think Europe may be innoculated against that kind of stupid thinking after being berated by Bush, et al. Most recent post! Posted by: idahogie at March 11, 2004 03:19 PM | PERMALINKWe talk as if Europe has had no experience with terror attacks. Doesn't anybody know any history around here? Europe has been fighting terrorism for years, including France dealing with Algerian terror attacks in the early 1960s. Spain has been coping with ETA for years, too. Not to mention Englad and the IRA (and yes, I know the British government supported us on Iraq, but the British population which had suffered from the attacks did not). Posted by: Annie at March 11, 2004 03:20 PM | PERMALINKBingo! Rove will now engineer the foiling of a terrorist plot on America. Between now and november, they will put it together somehow. It would not be that hard to do, a little stitching here and a little there and soon there is a massive plot. They've done similar things with the iraq war justification PR campaign. That would perhaps be a better argument for reelection than catching OBL 3 years too late, especially when our allies are suffering horrific attacks like today. We really do need someone in the WH who is more focused on the real threat instead of implementing ideology and feeding war profiteers. Posted by: obe at March 11, 2004 03:22 PM | PERMALINKVery sad news. Those pictures were like a nightmare. Europeans rightly see terrorism as a symptom of a "problem," not a "war" to be "waged." Posted by: Old Hat at March 11, 2004 03:22 PM | PERMALINKKevin, Kevin, Kevin: Europe was not against the "War on Terror" in Afghanistan, which is where Al-Qaeda seems to be headquartered. In fact, the UN was right with us there, with European blessings and participation. Why anyone would have changed their mind about Iraq in connection with Al-Qaeda is beyond me. Obviously the US "cooked the books" when it came to Iraq, and Europe saw through it...except for Spain, and other small countries, and maybe Great Britain. Another thought: Europe has had a lot of terrorist attacks over the years, in France from Algerians, in Spain from the ETA, in GB from the IRA. It seems that their response isn't to go after countries that aren't involved, but to go after who they perceive to be the directly responsible parties. So, no, I doubt they would have participated in the war against Iraq. It was too obviously a red herring, so much so that anyone with some international savvy here in the US also thought so. Of course, we won't go into a discussion about how France and Russia had been active trade partners with Iraq before we bombed Baghdad to smithereens, despite the UN embargo. Posted by: Carol at March 11, 2004 03:23 PM | PERMALINKIslamicist terrorist have a special place in their crawl for Spain. Spain is the only major territory that was conquored in the original Arab/Muslim thrust in the 8th century that is no longer a Muslim country. That includes the Central Asian Republics and Sind (Southern Pakistan)along with North Africa, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Palestine. Of all of that, only Spain was Muslim and is no longer Muslim. Further more Spain produced one of the most advance slices of Muslim civilization - a true golden age. (It was from Muslim Spain that much of Europe's intellectual rennaisance sprang). As a result these people believe that Spain belongs to the Muslims. (I do believe in one of the follow up to 911 court cases, one of the defendents made this as part of their opening statement to the judge) Throw in on top of this that they helped out the Americans and well you've got yourself a natural target for Islamicist Terrorist. Posted by: tim kane at March 11, 2004 03:23 PM | PERMALINKLooks like Al Qaeda is claiming responsibility now. Look for a denunciation of the attacks from ETA with 24 hours. It seems Spain might have taken a hit for being part of the Coalition of the Bought and Cajoled. Posted by: Times New Roman Online at March 11, 2004 03:24 PM | PERMALINKI don't know how much something like this would have affected European willingness to support the Iraq war. Spain was the non-UK, non-US member of the so-called Coalition of the Willing from the get-go. Had this happened in the Paris Metro or inBerlin, it might be another story. As to al-Qaida vs. ETA, I'm still leaning towards ETA, but the fact that they haven't claimed responsibility does cast some pretty serious doubt on that. Posted by: Johnny at March 11, 2004 03:24 PM | PERMALINKI think we'll find a clear connection to the group who did this and Saddam. I'm going to talk to some friends at the pentagon and see if we can't use this as a reason to invade iraq... oh wait. Posted by: Goldberg at March 11, 2004 03:25 PM | PERMALINK"Before the political discussion ensues, I'd like to express my deepest sympathies to those affected." Agreed.
It's been suggested that the Dems should speak out that a terrorist attack would be a failure of the bush.Would'nt this attack support that statement.Is'nt the WOT a global enterprise.Does'nt this attack,if AQ,make the point that the bush administration is,in effect,losing the WOT?Wouldnt or should'nt Kerry come out and say this is a failure on the part of the admin? That being said If this IS AQ,and they have found this van with docs.Why did'nt the intelligence community know about this attack in advence.Is'nt this ANOTHER failure of the current admin.This would indeed make this administration a complete failure in the intelligence business. Or did they really let this attack happen for the reasons stated above in the thread?As is usually the case,the facts will sort themselves out and we will know in time.Probably not in time to effect this election,but maybe another nail for the impeachment coffin. Posted by: smalfish at March 11, 2004 03:26 PM | PERMALINKHey, it is tin foil hat thursday, sin't it? OTOH, is there any doubt such a feat would be on Rove's wish list of things that could save the election for Bush. It's shaping up so that bush may need something like that to win. He won't be able to pull it out without some help like that. Posted by: obe at March 11, 2004 03:27 PM | PERMALINKCarol: All excellent points ! Nato is fighting in Afganistan, including French Troops. Iraq was a ruse. Europeans simply execised good judgement and common sense and told Bush to go packing, we should too. Posted by: tim kane at March 11, 2004 03:27 PM | PERMALINKI though al-Q too. And then I thought: How stunningly ridiculous for us Mericans to approach the world's biggest challenges by declaring war on everything. War on Terror. War on Drugs. War on Poverty. Maybe we should declare War on War . . . the perfect rejoinder to all the Leaks about Leaks and Lies about Lies. All is well. Posted by: theplotsickens at March 11, 2004 03:29 PM | PERMALINKHere's something to consider: it's exactly half a year away from 9/11. Posted by: pcat at March 11, 2004 03:30 PM | PERMALINKsmalfish, Or did they really let this attack happen for the reasons stated above in the thread? You actually see that as a possibility? Seriously?? That perspective astounds me. Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 03:30 PM | PERMALINKHey, just so we don't analyze and spin what we don't know yet, this from AP via Atlanta Journal Constitution (snip) Spain's security forces were not ruling out ``any line of investigation,'' Interior Minister Angel Acebes said. The United States believes Al-Masri sometimes falsely claims to be acting on behalf of al-Qaida. The group took credit for blackouts in the United States and London last year. A U.S. counterterrorism official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it was too early to determine who was responsible. The official noted that al-Qaida usually does not take responsibility for attacks. If the attack was carried out by ETA, it could signal a radical and lethal change of strategy for the group that has largely targeted police and politicians in its decades-long fight for a separate Basque homeland. But after police found a stolen van with seven detonators and the Arabic-language tape parked in a suburb near where the stricken trains originated, Acebes said: ``I have just given instructions to the security forces not to rule out any line of investigation.'' A top Basque politician, Arnold Otegi, denied ETA was behind the blasts and blamed ``Arab resistance,'' noting Spain's support for the Iraq war. The government said ETA had tried a similar attack on Christmas Eve, placing bombs on two trains bound for a Madrid station that was not hit Thursday. Posted by: Brian at March 11, 2004 03:34 PM | PERMALINKIt sure looks like a war to me. No, it looks like terrorism. Wars have "uniforms" and "fronts" and "armies." Fighting terrorism is a matter for law-enforcement, not military power. Besides, you can't declare war on a political tool. You can declare war on al-Qaeda, I guess, or Osama bin Laden, but not "terrorism." Let's imagine that everyone lives in Bush's wingnut fantasyland and we "win" the so-called "War on Terror." Who signs the armistice? What are the terms of surrender? Will our victory over terrorism be as successful as the war on drugs? How about the war on poverty? Because everyone knows that there are no drugs and there is no poverty anymore after we declared and won those wars. Posted by: Old Hat at March 11, 2004 03:35 PM | PERMALINKSpeaking of Politicization: If you haven't seen the excert at Salon.com from the soon to be released book: House of Bush, House of Saud - I suggest you take a look. http://salon.com/books/feature/2004/03/11/unger_1/index.html Its quite inflamitory. No doubt many know here that the Bush Administration helped to fly out of the country all prominent Saudi's including members of the Bin Landen family and Saudi royals who may have known in advance that 911 was coming - The Bush administration hustled these people out of the country with little screening. Is this what Bush means by being tough on terrorism? Is this how a true patriot acts? Maybe,maybe not.Call me the tinfoil man but what if the governments involved need this kind of attack to promote their certain kinds of ideology.Bush has this unquenched desire to push his religion on us and Blair has this need to pule G.B. with an Iron hand.I dont know much about Spain's leadership other than to say they are old style righties that desire nothing more than the lust for power.Government around the world are fighting off the democratic principals that all humanity has fought and died for thoughout history and these neo-politicos want to bring the world back to the days of the catholic church rule and the inquesition era. Posted by: smalfish at March 11, 2004 03:37 PM | PERMALINKI agree with all who have commented on the barbaric attacks on Spain. My condolences to all affected! Wars have "uniforms" and "fronts" and "armies." Says who? Posted by: Al at March 11, 2004 03:39 PM | PERMALINKSays who? The Geneva Conventions that the United States signed, bitch. Posted by: Old Hat at March 11, 2004 03:41 PM | PERMALINKFunny, to the Spaniards ETA was "the obvious suspect," though I thought al-Q was obvious from the first I heard of it. Not just the Spaniards -- the UN Security Council voted 15-0 to blame ETA. Posted by: cmdicely at March 11, 2004 03:41 PM | PERMALINKsickofit ARE we at "The end of days"? Is armegeddon imminent.Is bushes dream to be realised? Posted by: smalfish at March 11, 2004 03:41 PM | PERMALINKOld Hat, Actually, two of the definitions of war (from a low-level dictionary) don't have your requirements. See 2a and 2b, they seem fairly apt: 1a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. b. The period of such conflict. c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science. 2a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war. b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain. Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 03:41 PM | PERMALINKA U.S. counterterrorism official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it was too early to determine who was responsible. Someone should have told our UN ambassador that. Posted by: cmdicely at March 11, 2004 03:42 PM | PERMALINKWill it affect European opinion much about America's approach to fighting terrorism? By European opinion,,,do you mean the Kerry camapaign?? I am sure we will soon here the Democrats demand Bush not mention these bombings in the campaign, then they will claim that Ansar knew about the bombings ahead of time and that he may have cooked the whole thing up. Kerry will claim the Spainairds are crooked and liars and demand they not commit any war crimes. Re al Qaeda, remember that one of bin Laden's first missives after 9/11 specifically refered to the reconquista of Spain. This was before Iraq, so let's not go and say that al Qaeda would have been fine with Spain if not for Iraq. It's going to be a long, long war if the Islamofascists are still upset about Boabdil... Posted by: Al at March 11, 2004 03:43 PM | PERMALINKWell, both the 14th Century "Tragedy of Andalusia" and Spain's participation in the U.S. coalition make speculation about Al Qaida reasonable. I believe Sept. 11th was the anniversary of a significant event in Moslem history to Osama bin Laden. Anyone know if today is another such anniversary? It could help narrow the question further. David Innes Posted by: David Innes at March 11, 2004 03:43 PM | PERMALINKBy European opinion,,,do you mean the Kerry-- You're a pretty dull blade, aren't you, Keiser? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... Posted by: Old Hat at March 11, 2004 03:44 PM | PERMALINKThe Geneva Conventions that the United States signed, bitch. Really? Please point me to the section of the Geneva Convention that says that war require armies, fronts, and uniforms. Posted by: Al at March 11, 2004 03:44 PM | PERMALINKOld Hat, I guess it was that you were wrong, but I was trying to be nice. Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 03:46 PM | PERMALINKThere's very good coverage, at El Mundo. Even if you don't read Spanish, this animated graphic is very helpful, and shows one of the most stunning details of the attacks: the explosions were timed almost perfectly to coincide with the trains' arrivals in the stations. A small change in the timing, the paper notes, "could have caused the collapse of [the station]" (my translation) Posted by: ned at March 11, 2004 03:46 PM | PERMALINKRead them yourself, Al, it's all in there: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html Posted by: Old Hat at March 11, 2004 03:46 PM | PERMALINKI guess it was that you were wrong, but I was trying to be nice. No, pulling out your Merriam Webster doesn't do anything. Let's talk about agreed upon international law instead of some shit you found on Dictionary.com Posted by: Old Hat at March 11, 2004 03:47 PM | PERMALINKAny government that would allow such an occurrence for any reason is so unspeakably evil that those responsible should be hanged as traitors. I think it is best to wait until there is hard evidence before considering such a possibility. That said, I disagree Hubris; this doesn't look like war. The most important question was just asked and you haven't had time to answer it (actually, while I was composing this you did have time, but didn't answer), so I will reiterate it because it is that important, how do we know the war is over? The claim is that this is a "war on terror," not a war on Al Queda. If it were the latter then we could show the war was over if there were no more Al Queda, but then since all the members now identify themselves as "Templars of the Dogs" or some such nonsense, it wouldn't be much of a victory – so I understand why that's out, but that merely leaves the question intact. What describes the end of the War on Terror? Surely you don't support the notion of a perpetual war? "I am sure we will soon here the Democrats demand Bush not mention these bombings in the campaign" Actually,Kerry should use these bombings as a source that Bush is the
one weak on security.The administration should have known it was
comming.Where was the "terror alert"??? Miserable failure is right in this context today.Bush has touted long and loud about how he's winning the war on terra,I submit this is NOT VICTORY! Posted by: smalfish at March 11, 2004 03:49 PM | PERMALINKSo Al & Hubris, are you going to stop calling the Palestinians "homicide bombers" and start calling them "soldiers"??? Because that's the only way you have any hope of consistency here. Posted by: doesn't matter at March 11, 2004 03:50 PM | PERMALINKAl, you get thoroughly bitchslapped here day in and day out, it actually hurts my feelings to watch you get sonned by people who don't get their news from Guns and Ammo and Fox. You obviously have never read the Geneva Conventions because a bunch of sissy Euros wrote them. Try it instead of asking other people to do your homework for you. Posted by: Old Hat at March 11, 2004 03:51 PM | PERMALINKOld Hat, Wow, you can curse, I guess you are right. Actually, the stuff from dictionary.com is quite sufficient. Or did the Geneva Conventions restrict the US in our use of the word "war?" I've read over the text, but I might have missed that part. Is the dictionary outlining the actual meaning of the word illegal now? If so, please don't report me to the UN. Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 03:52 PM | PERMALINKThe Geneva Conventions that the United States signed, bitch. Now, now, Old Hat. No need to get testy when there is ample evidence from recent European history that participants in war don't always wear uniforms. Just look at the partisans of WWII vs Hitler, the Algierians vs the French, the Congolese vs the Belgians, etc. There is even an example from our own recent history - Vietnam. I don't recall that the Vietcong had a specific uniform that was distinct from the everyday wear of the common person. Despite the moniker 'Islamia' there is no Muslim land that would even need a uniform in this war. And it is a war. That said, my sincere condolences to the families of the deceased. May there be no further bloodshed. Posted by: pessimist at March 11, 2004 03:53 PM | PERMALINKOr did the Geneva Conventions restrict the US in our use of the word "war?" Yes. That's the entire point, moron. Every signatory to the Geneva Conventions was limited by them. That's what treaties do, they bind states to adhere to certain actions. 've read over the text, but I might have missed that part. And guess what? You're lying! You didn't read the entire Geneva Conventions over in the past five minutes, Hubris! You're basing this argument on some winger conception of the Geneva Conventions you've gathered from Little Green Football or wherever else you hang around on the Internet. Try actually reading them and then come to the stunning realization that you don't know what you're talking about! Posted by: Old Hat at March 11, 2004 03:57 PM | PERMALINKSmalfish gets it wrong again: """"Actually,Kerry should use these bombings as a source that Bush is the one weak on security.The administration should have known it was comming.Where was the "terror alert"???"""" There has been terror alerts in Spain for weeks FOOL TROLL. Read your international news. Just admit you are wrong once again, as usual. Posted by: keiser at March 11, 2004 03:58 PM | PERMALINKLori, I was thinking mostly about this definition: A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain. The thing is, it's an effort to put something to an end; it's not necessarily successful in bringing a discrete end. We can have (and I would encourage) a War on Pollution, but there will always be some form of pollution. That doesn't mean our goal shouldn't be to end it. I am for "perpetual war," in the sense of a perpetual effort to end
the injurious thing. Actually, I think that's a bit more realistic than
using the word "problem," which suggests there's a full and final
solution to the problem. Are militant loonies ever going to be
completely excised from the Earth? Unfortunately, no. But we can
strive like heck against them. Oh, OK. It's a war because pessimist done said so. Glad that's settled. Posted by: Paolo Maldini at March 11, 2004 04:00 PM | PERMALINKI dont mind calling it a "war on terror" so long as its not used as a hammer to overthrow countries to console those with a predijuce against said countries. I cannot see the U.S. invading a soverign nation to deal with a purported terrorist "threat".It should also not be used in cases where terrorist are labeled by their repressive governments and our government wants to help eliminate the threat.AS in Chad?Or Zimbawbe?Or any other of those governments. If the U.S. wants to help the people overthrow a repressive govt the govt should come to the electorate and play it out,honestly. War against every outfit that has a grieveance against its govt is not right. Posted by: smalfish at March 11, 2004 04:01 PM | PERMALINKyou'd think that even fanatical Basque terrorists would realize that four days before an election is not a good time to do something like this. Um, no. Of all these things, it's corresponds most with ETA's M.O.: Aznar is bowing out after eight years of zero-tolerance towards the Basque separatists -- including banning Batasuna, its political wing -- and an attack like this could be construed as saying both 'fuck you' to Aznar, and reminding Spain that terrorism isn't off the political table. Posted by: nick sweeney at March 11, 2004 04:01 PM | PERMALINKThere was a mention that this is not on the scale of '9/11.' Spain's population is around 40 million and the United States is around 290 million. Therefore this heinous act PROPORTIONALLY is equal to around 1400 U.S. deaths and over 6000 injured. Surely this is '9/11' scale? Posted by: Gully_Foyle at March 11, 2004 04:05 PM | PERMALINKOld Hat, I'll try to remain nice. You may find this hard to believe, but I actually read some things prior to someone else suggesting that I read them during a comment thread debate. I have read them before (and, saw constant references on Hogan's Heroes). I is a college graduate. I don't recall anything restricting our use of the word war in describing our efforts against injurious things. Since I'm such a moron, could ya cut'n paste that part for me? You might want to spell phonetically, to make it easier for me. Hey, this is your perfect chance to prove your belief that I don't know what I'm talking about. I invite you: show me. Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 04:05 PM | PERMALINKInsty put up the address of the Spanish embassy if anyone wants to send flowers and/or cards here it is. "2375 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. - Washington, D.C. 20037. The Embassy phone number, which you'll need to enter for Internet orders (I used 1800flowers.com) is 202.452.0100." http://www.spainemb.org/information/indexin.htm Spain grieved for us, it's time to grieve for them. Kevin if you could give this info a more prominent place than the comments it would be appreciated. Posted by: Ryan at March 11, 2004 04:07 PM | PERMALINKBy European opinion,,,do you mean the Kerry-- Keiser couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel. Posted by: Gryn at March 11, 2004 04:08 PM | PERMALINKThese train bombings aren't 9/11, of course, but they're plenty bad. In fact, the bombings are twice as bad as 9/11. The Geneva Conventions that the United States signed, bitch. Old Hat - I would agree in principle. However, we've seen that nobody cares about definitions in treaties or even the Big C any more. Congress abdicates its power/right to declare war, and we ignore Geneva whenever we want to. Of course, I always thought attempts to regulate war were quaint, if not outright silly. Maybe it's my Quaker upbringing... Posted by: NTodd at March 11, 2004 04:09 PM | PERMALINKHubris, I think this trivializes the notion of war. It also allows dishonest demagoguery on the part of people like Bush – "I am a war President," leading to the conclusion that one should vote for Bush because he is leading a war. Well, Clinton was leading the "War on Drugs," and using our military to fight it (c.f. Columbia), but I don't recall him ever suggesting that he was a "war President" – and rightly so. By the way, in case the above makes you wonder, yes, I do oppose the very notion of a "War on Drugs" a "War on Poverty," and a "War on Poor Math Skills." I much prefer that we fight each of these ills with the best tools and leave fighting wars to the military. Posted by: Lori Thantos at March 11, 2004 04:10 PM | PERMALINKEvery signatory to the Geneva Conventions was limited by them.
That's what treaties do, they bind states to adhere to certain actions. The Geneva Conventions don't even purport to define war, they define what behavior is lawful in interstate (and some intrastate, IIRC) armed conflict. Posted by: cmdicely at March 11, 2004 04:10 PM | PERMALINKSpain grieved for us, it's time to grieve for them. We are all Spaniards now. Thanks for the info. Posted by: NTodd at March 11, 2004 04:10 PM | PERMALINKPaolo Maldini, You say pessimist, I say realist. Tomato, tomahto. Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 04:11 PM | PERMALINKAdditionally: Will it affect European opinion much about America's approach to fighting terrorism? 'European opinion' isn't homogeneous, and there's something of a contrast between the way Aznar froze Batasuna out of the political process in Spain, while Blair has created the opportunity for Sinn Fein to enter the political process in Northern Ireland. (Blair's domestic policy, of course, being at odds with his poodle-like approach to Bush's one-size-fits-all attitude towards terrorism.) And again, you can say that 'America's approach to fighting terrorism', parsed according to the actions of the Bush administration, means leaving the job half-done to attack a poltically-expedient but wrong target. So, make your own mind up. Posted by: nick sweeney at March 11, 2004 04:12 PM | PERMALINKMiserable failure is right in this context today.Bush has touted long and loud about how he's winning the war on terra,I submit this is NOT VICTORY! Actually, Bush has claimed more than once in the past that terrorist blowing things up overseas is evidence that they can't hit America and therefore that we are winning the war on terror. And if, as some have suggested it might be, this is connected to the
war in Iraq, the standard Bush Admin line would be that it proves that
our opponents in that effort are desperate, because of our success. Lori, I respect your opinion, but still have no problem with using the word
that accurately describes something. While it might have different
connotations for you, "War on Poverty" doesn't suggest a fighting war to
me. It suggests a sustained effort to end something bad; to me, that's
good. cmdicely - you are correct, insofar as there is no definition of war explicit in the Conventions. However, they recognize that war exists, even if parties dispute it: the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. And in terms of treatment of prisoners and civilians, the Conventions are very precise in identifying what it means to be a belligerent. Thus Old Hat's references to uniforms, etc, are apt, I think. Posted by: NTodd at March 11, 2004 04:15 PM | PERMALINK"Will it affect European opinion much about America's approach to fighting terrorism?" If we actually were fighting terrorism, this might be a reasonable question. Posted by: MattB at March 11, 2004 04:16 PM | PERMALINKThe problem with declaring war on this and that and whatever is the implication that there is a possibility of winning. As Old Hat so artfully argues, there ain't no such thing as winning a war on drugs, poverty or terror. You can call this a war if you want, but stand prepared for it to be a never-ending war -- a war that cannot in fact be won. I worry that this sort of simplistic rhetoric ignores root causes in favor of wingnut muscle flexing. Unthinking (most) Mericans satisfy themselves that their righteous country is doing something productive when there's little evidence to suggest that is so. Posted by: theplotsickens at March 11, 2004 04:20 PM | PERMALINKMakes sense. What other country was in on the Iraq coalition? The UK? Yes? I guess Camaroon is next. . . . and the Sears Tower was just sold, I'm glad I don't work there. Posted by: Occam's Cuisinart at March 11, 2004 04:21 PM | PERMALINKtheplotsickens, And "problem" doesn't imply that there's a "solution"?? Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 04:25 PM | PERMALINKAnd "problem" doesn't imply that there's a "solution"?? Yes. Stop driving you damned SUV, carpool, take mass transit and stop voting for the oil business assholes who do business with the Bin Ladens and the terrorist-supporting Saudis kleptocrats. Posted by: Old Hat at March 11, 2004 04:31 PM | PERMALINKManufacturing enemies, or manufacturing their attacks, is a time-honored method of states to impose fascistic controls on their countrymen. See Operation Gladio and Northwoods for some historical examples of this method in action. Posted by: sofla at March 11, 2004 04:31 PM | PERMALINKPosted by Kevin Drum: "It's been something of an article of faith in America that if 9/11 had happened in Europe there wouldn't have been so much resistance there to the Iraq war." It has? In whose America? Not in mine. In whose faith? Not in mine. I'll have more faith in this "article" if the French respond to today's terrorist attack (whether it was carried out by ETA or al Qaeda) by invading and occupying, say, Costa Rica. The truth is that the French, the Europeans, and the people of the rest of the world were not the only ones opposed to attacking Iraq: the majority of the American people were as well. Though they were little covered by the war-happy corporate media and their crowds were vastly underestimated, protests in this country against going to war drew the most massive numbers in the history of such demonstrations. And unlike past conflicts, they were largely comprised of ordinary people from all ages and all walks of life, not merely activists. Also, in polls taken during the lead-up to the war in late 2002, a clear majority was against going to war. Only when the question was framed to include U.N. backing did a majority support attacking Iraq. Despite this fact regarding public opinion before the war, in the administration's attack TV ad on Kerry released today they claim that "He wanted to delay defending America until the United Nations approved." Imagine that! Kerry wanted to do precisely what the American people, the French people and the rest of the world wanted to do. Instead, we did what Bush and his corrupt and greedy crowd wanted to do. Now, as always, they lie and feed us this article of bullshit. Posted by: jayarbee at March 11, 2004 04:32 PM | PERMALINK"War against [X]" is a dangerous phrase. The implication that I get from it is that War is serious business, so you better get behind this War against [X] and never question it (or risk being painted as part of [X], as Ann Coulter has already declared that liberals are traitors). The War against [X] will continue until [X] has been defeated, but somehow there's never a light at the end of the tunnel; the War will go on forever. What I'm trying to say is that using the term War against [X] grants a
dangerous sort of license to those who use it. Any means justified and
no end in sight. Not good, IMO. It strikes me that this might be an effort on AQ's part designed to discredit the government in Spain a few days before elections (one of the reasons I don't think ETA is behind this is because if it could be proved as such, it would actually help the government in the same way that an AQ attack right before the election HERE might). Recall, too, that there are rumors of Spanish involvement in whatever those mercernaries stuck in Zimbabwe are doing. Their connection with the Great Satan goes much further than their involvement in the Iraq war. Which leads me to wonder if this won't have what might be the desired effect--to totally infuriate Spanish voters, that their governments "adventures" have wreaked such havoc at home. Posted by: emptywheel at March 11, 2004 04:33 PM | PERMALINKTry doing a search for "war on terror" at the johnkerry.com web site. One of the results: "I am convinced that we can prove to the American people that we know how to make them safer and more secure – with a stronger, more comprehensive, and more effective strategy for winning the War on Terror than the Bush Administration has ever envisioned. Incidentally, the title of the speech (delivered in February) was "Fighting a Comprehensive War on Terrorism." I guess Kerry is a crazy wingnut too. Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 04:34 PM | PERMALINKAQ started with 9/11. Now we have 3/11. How about 6/11 anyone? Posted by: 11 bad news at March 11, 2004 04:37 PM | PERMALINKSorry about confusing Spain with France in the previous post. Posted by: jayarbee at March 11, 2004 04:37 PM | PERMALINKI do think this will shift public opinion...there will be more sympathy for American suffering as a result of 9/11, and the American reaction to it as well. The chattering classes will delve deeper into the argument for spreading democracy in the Middle East as a long-term effort to uproot Islamic terrorism, and perhaps we'll see more political initiative in that direction because of it. However, I don't think Bush will get any political breaks, and the argument for the Iraq War largely centered on the existence of WMDs, motive to harm and possible connections to Al Qaeda can't be changed -- the past can't be changed. Posted by: Sugar Plum Fairy at March 11, 2004 04:38 PM | PERMALINKIf FDR had taken Bush's approach in '41, we wouldn't have had a war against global fascism, we would have gone to war against sneak attacks. Posted by: fastback at March 11, 2004 04:40 PM | PERMALINKI don't think the Europeans were so much against the war against terror per se, but rather that they figured that Iraq was the wrong target to fight a war against terror, er, against. My perception was/is that after 911 many European nations were totally with us with regard to going after terror. "War Against Terror" does not equal "War with Iraq" Posted by: sgrey at March 11, 2004 04:40 PM | PERMALINKThe ETA almost always fucks things up. The fact that the attack was so devastating was an immediate point against their being the culprit. Posted by: Boronx at March 11, 2004 04:43 PM | PERMALINKIf this means Bush wins the election, this will have a net negative impact on Europe shifting closer to our position. The terrorists have no greater ally than George W. Bush. Without his team ripping up international laws, standards and alliances, they have no chance. This is a classic divide and conquer strategy that starts by getting Bush's poll numbers back up. Posted by: Divide and Conquer at March 11, 2004 04:46 PM | PERMALINKHubris, Then why not use struggle, jihad, or kampf? The purpose of rhetoric isn't just to convey meaning; it is also to convey nuances in that meaning. The Republicans want a "War on Terror" because that gives them a "War President." That conflating of the broad meaning of war, as in your definition, and the narrow meaning of war as defined by treaty, ultimately undermines the second and leaves the language poorer for it. Posted by: Lori Thantos at March 11, 2004 04:46 PM | PERMALINKThere is some powerful circumstantial evidence that ETA was behind this attack. On March 1, 2004 -- that is, 10 days ago -- Spanish police stopped a van filled with 1,000 pounds of explosives that was headed towards Madrid. The men inside were affiliated with the ETA, and according to press reports, their plan was to have a huge attack in Madrid before the election. Unfortunately, the Spanish police mistakenly belived they foiled that attack. Today, the european press has reported that the bombs used in today's attack were the same type as those found in the ETA van stopped ten days ago. A conclusion that ETA was behind this attack is a reasonable suspicion. And Kevin, since it is known that ETA planned to attack Madrid with a
bomb big enough to kill a hundred or more people just before the
election, your suggestion that ETA wouldn't do such a thing doesn't hold
water. Problem does indeed imply there's a solution. But it doesn't not imply that the solution is predicated on winning something. It implies "solving" which I am all in favor of. Saying we want to solve the problem of terrorism seems infinitely more reasonable than winning the war on terrorism. And as for Kerry's piling on to the war on terrorism rhetoric? Shame
on him. I think he's probably smart enough to know better . . . but is
evidently not smart enough to reframe the issue. It saddens me to see anyone debating whether 9/11 or the terrible events today in Madrid are worse. I don't care to compare them. But if any of you have never been to Madrid, and need a sense of perspective, you should know that Atocha -- where most of the bombs were detonated -- is the main transportation hub of Madrid. Equivalent to someplace like Penn Station or Grand Central. Subway, commuter, regional, and long distance trains pass through it. Millions have been affected -- from those who died and were injured to those who will now live in fear on their daily commute. No one should question the magnitude of these events nor the terror they were clearly intended to create. Posted by: quacky at March 11, 2004 04:48 PM | PERMALINKIn fact, the bombings are twice as bad as 9/11. Scratch that. It's the other way around. Horrific all the same. Note to self: don't start drinking to lament the dead before you blog about it. Posted by: NTodd at March 11, 2004 04:49 PM | PERMALINKRegarding the squishy definition of "War": Life itself, is a war for survival. Every individual organism has to fight to survive. They kill other organisms to eat, reproduce, occupy territory. Some organisms, among their own species, cooperate, so that as a group, they survive, and other competing species loses in the competition. A single hive of bees works together to ensure the survival of the Queen, and her genes. But one hive may WAR and compete for survival against another hive. Among humans, in this context of fighting for survival, it's necessary for different tribes to war, in competition for resources. But within a given tribe, there is cooperation for mutual benefit and survival. ALL of human politics, consists of redefining where the lines are drawn, between tribes, defining with whom we compete, and with whom we cooperate. As long as there are nations, we will perpetually be at war - economic war, for supremecy and domination. Sometimes this competition is expressed as "shrewd bargaining",sometimes, legal boundries are crossed, and corruption and bribery to win marketshare, sometimes that's legitimized in one nation's legal code. Sometimes this evolves to embargoes, sometimes to piracy, sometimes to violent action. Sometimes the violent action is limited. These limits are rules - what's acceptable, in terms of violence, and what is not. Kill only our uniformed soldiers who "bought on to the deal" by putting on a uniform. But each and every human being ever born, was born into LIFE, to fight for survival. When the gloves come off, the war includes everybody. Because an embargo can starve civillians to death just as easily as a suicide bomber can blow them to death. So yeah. This is war. So is choosing a soft drink at the store. So is voting for a particular candidate. Or even abstaining from voting. Even the act of choosing to produce children, is ultimately a form of war. Passing on genes, imposing a particular cutlure; tribal rituals defining who we compete with, and who we cooperate with. Nearly every other law of nature has been violated by the ingenuity of Man. But not the law of competition for survival. And it appears to be completely voluntary. Posted by: Occam's Cuisinart at March 11, 2004 04:50 PM | PERMALINKIt saddens me to see anyone debating whether 9/11 or the terrible events today in Madrid are worse. I hate keeping score personally, but sometimes people need a sense of magnitude to understand the horror, especially in the US. I've spoken to people who will dismiss bombings in Israel, or Bali, or Spain as "not as bad as 9/11" because all they see is the raw death toll. Part and parcel of our self-centered nature... Posted by: NTodd at March 11, 2004 04:53 PM | PERMALINKOld Hat is correct to suggest that a war between states has a beginning and an end, whereas a war against an amorphous melange of religious fanatics can have no known end. We'll never know who is still lurking in the shadows. It is also true that in this context the word 'war' suggests that the solution lies primarily in violence. That is why the word 'problem' has alot to be said for it. It is evident from the language Bush & Co use that they see this struggle as a problem in extermination. But many of us see this as primarily a problem in human communication, economic development and political reform. We could, for example, be offering to debate with representatives of conservative Muslim groups (not AQ) in arabic, on Al Jazeera. Belligerance begets the same. Posted by: obscure at March 11, 2004 04:55 PM | PERMALINK**It's been something of an article of faith in America that if 9/11 had happened in Europe there wouldn't have been so much resistance there to the Iraq war. ** Who believes this? If 9-11 happened in Europe, I doubt Iraq would have even come up. 'Cept maybe from Blair, who would have been backed by Bush. They, too, would have looked right at Afghanistan, and maybe Pakistan, but Iraq is Bush's trip, not Europe's, I don't believe. At least not enough to trump up evidence to start a war of convenience. The only possible connection the Iraq invasion might have to this tragedy is that the world was distracted from Bin Laden for two frikkin' years while Bush relentlessly went after Saddam, which allowed AQ to regroup and plan. Question: I know everyone says that AQ never takes credit for attacks, but is this really true? Posted by: Laura at March 11, 2004 04:55 PM | PERMALINK"I guess Kerry is a crazy wingnut too." No, he's a political realist. For better or for worse, Republicans have defined the terms of debate on this one, as they have so many times before (Death Tax, anyone?). You have to talk about the War on Terror because that is the only thing your opponent talks about, and if you don't use that term nobody knows what the hell you're saying. I agree with most of the rest of the posters here that calling it a War on Terror is a stupid, disingenuous thing to do. It automatically divides groups into two sides, Good and Evil which, to say the least, simplifies the discourse a bit. Unfortunately that's as complex as this president's thinking ever gets. On the plus side, yes, it can help mobilize support and draw
attention to the problem. But it allows for demonization of any
dissenters and makes it easy to respond incorrectly to the threat. It
also makes it a hell of a lot easier to do other things you want (like
invade a country that had no provable link to the major terrorist act on
your soil). Not all terrorists have the same objectives, even if their
tactics may be similar, not all terrorists are in league, and calling
people like Contras Freedom Fighters doesn't make them any less
terrorist than Chechnyan bombers. One of the problems that we must face in dealing with the "War on Terror" is that it is less an issue for ordinary Americans than automobile accidents, heart attacks, and the rest of the top ten reasons why people die in America. That Democrats like Kerry still try to sell themselves as strong in this war against a rather unlikely event is a testament to the innumeracy of the voting public, the "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality of the corporate press, and the dishonesty of the Republican rhetoric on the issue. I realize that this seems heartless in the wake of such an appalling
tragedy, but without perspective perception trumps reality. We all know
that this can lead to people voting against their own interests –
surely something to be avoided. Lets hope that the Europeans are more interested in eliminating Bin Laden than the Bush administration. After 9/11 elimination of Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri should have been the first priority. Clearly it was not a priority of any kind, finding excuses to settle old scores with Saddam was the only priority. If Bin Laden is caught before the election it will be because the Spanish put more effort into catching him than the Bush administration has. Incidentaly, the guy referred to in the US press as 'Bin Laden's number 2' is actually leader of his own terrorist organization that has been active for thrity years. Al Zawahiri was responsible for the murder of Saddat. It is essential that both are eliminated. The main thing Bin Laden brought to the table was his fortune. If Bin Laden is eliminated and Al Zawahiri is untouched there will be little improvement. Al Zawahiri will simply continue as before using Bin Laden's fortune. It is essential that both terrorists are eliminated. Posted by: Phill at March 11, 2004 04:56 PM | PERMALINKRead them yourself, Al, it's all in there: Bzzzt. Wrong, Old Hat. They are most certainly NOT. Another lying liar on the left... Posted by: Al at March 11, 2004 04:59 PM | PERMALINKHa ha. "Lets hope that the Europeans are more interested in eliminating Bin Laden than the Bush administration." At first read I thought you meant that you hope Europeans are more interested in eliminating Bin Laden than they are in eliminating the Bush administration. "It is essential that both terrorists are eliminated." Precisely. Posted by: quacky at March 11, 2004 05:00 PM | PERMALINKYes, our number 1 item is to get Bin Laden. This should have been Bush's main goal but of course it was not! Posted by: Dereck at March 11, 2004 05:01 PM | PERMALINKIf FDR had taken Bush's approach in '41, we wouldn't have had a
war against global fascism, we would have gone to war against sneak
attacks. And if FDR had taken the anti-war leftists' approach, Nazi Germany would be running Europe today, since we would only have attacked the Japan - you know, the country that actually attacked us at Pearl Harbor - and not attacked Germany, which never did anything to us. Posted by: Al at March 11, 2004 05:02 PM | PERMALINKPoint of order Al, Germany declared war on the United States 2 days after Pearl Harbor, not the other way around. Posted by: dryListener at March 11, 2004 05:04 PM | PERMALINKLori, I hope you're right about "rather unlikely event," but it's very hard to tell. The aggregate toll of the things you noted (heart attacks, auto accidents, etc) are fairly predictable based on past data and statistical models, and are to a certain extent limited in terms of potential. The effects of terror, alas, are not. Also, there's a substantive difference between accidental death and deliberate killings. Please note, I'm not speaking of this casually.
Eerie coincidence or designed? September 11, 2001 = WTC Attack March 11, 2004 = Madrid Attack Days between attacks = 911 Posted by: vee at March 11, 2004 05:08 PM | PERMALINKHubris — No, the term "war on X" isn't the exclusive property of wingnuts, or even non-wingnut Republicans (should any remain). But the word "war" does have a number of definitions and connotations, so using it inevitably leads to confusion and manipulation (cf., Bush declaring himself a "war President"). It's one thing if my boss declares a "war on tardiness." Maniacal as she is, much as she'd love to, she can't call up armed troops or fire off missiles. Bush can. Which is why he should be more careful, or more honest, in his use of the term. Long before Bush took office, "War on X" had become a flabby, debased term. He has gleefully and eagerly taken advantage of the word's stretchy vagueness. When it serves his purposes, we're at war (again, "I'm a war president!"); otherwise, we're not ("Go shopping!"). At this point, there's no way a political opponent could reframe the argument; Kerry's got to go with the terms as set. But who's most determined to blur the legal and popular meanings of the word "war"? It's not Kerry. Posted by: dix at March 11, 2004 05:09 PM | PERMALINKBush just likes the fear vibes of a shooting war. The more reptilian brain activity in the average citizen, the more votes for Bush. Posted by: obscure at March 11, 2004 05:13 PM | PERMALINKTerrorist attacks aren't a major cause of death in the US, if you compare them to such things as heart attacks, car accidents, etc. across the whole country. On the other hand, the Sept. 11 attacks were a pretty significant cause of death in New York City. For a localized attack, dividing by the population will give you different results depending on how large a circle you draw. And large terrorist attacks aren't likely to be randomly distributed-- they're going to disproportionately affect people who live near attractive targets in cities. So I think that it's not innumerate to regard terrorist attacks like
the Madrid, New York, Pentagon or Oklahoma City attacks as more than
just a marginal hazard. dix, Hmmm. I'm sorry, but I see a double standard there. If Kerry disagreed with this framing, he should be able to re-frame it. Heck, if he were right, it would be a selling point, correct? "Bush misleading/scaring you by inaccurately calling this a war on terror!" You need to be consistent. If Bush is wrong for using the word (I don't think so, but you do), Kerry is too. After all, in your construct, aren't both of them doing it for reasons of political expediency? Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 05:15 PM | PERMALINKobscure, Then why is Kerry helping Bush by using the word?? That logic doesn't stand up. Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 05:16 PM | PERMALINKA couple of points that I would like to make in the "war on terror" debate is that it tends to import a certain dignity to a person when he is defined as an "enemy combatant" instead of a criminal. If someone is an Al Queda "soldier" wouldn't he theoretically be eligible for release once the war is deemed to be over? Another problem is that it seems that this loosely defined war is being used to justify large defense budgets. How big an army do you need to conduct a war on terror? Should we attack every country that harbors terrorists? Let's look at the results after 2-1/2 years after the start of the war on terror. How many terrorists have we caught or killed? Posted by: Another Bruce at March 11, 2004 05:17 PM | PERMALINKAlso, the word 'problem' does not necessarily imply a permanent solution and whether it does or not is irrelevant. What it does, which 'war' doesn't, is suggest approaches other than violence. Posted by: obscure at March 11, 2004 05:17 PM | PERMALINKAl: You are so misinformed that it is a disgrace. You might want to brush up on your history facts. Posted by: Dereck at March 11, 2004 05:19 PM | PERMALINKHubris, I don't fault Kerry for using the word 'war' on account of the fact that this is an emotional issue and Kerry is a politician trying to get elected. What I'm saying is my particular view. I recognize that I am more liberal--probably--than the average American. I don't expect Kerry to adhere to an overly idealistic agenda. But as far as debating this subject, here at this blog... hey, I'm not running for President. Posted by: obscure at March 11, 2004 05:22 PM | PERMALINKFrench and Spanish radio reporting that the terrorist group Abu Hafs al-Masri will next attack England and Japan in the coming months. The reality is that countries that continue to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs will be attacked until they stop. Arabs and Muslims are strong, but they are not savages as Americans would have one believe. If you respect them, they will respect you. I say this as a white Frenchwoman. Posted by: Françoise at March 11, 2004 05:24 PM | PERMALINKSomething that Americans don't realize is that Europeans already have plenty of experience with terrorists. The IRA in England, of course. The ETA in Spain. The Red Brigades in Italy (they killed very senior political figures). Chechen separists in Russia. The Baader Meinhoff in Germany. Various Algerian and then ultra-nationalists French in France (Remember Day of the jackal). So this is not likely to make much difference in Europe. Posted by: Jon Juzlak at March 11, 2004 05:29 PM | PERMALINKThe hyperbolic "WAR ON TERROR" is a war on religious fundamentalism. Since pandering to religious fundametnalists is Bush's stock in trade, he probably isn't the one to be leading this "war". Posted by: epistemology at March 11, 2004 05:29 PM | PERMALINKI fail to see the connection beween terrorism and the Iraq war. We want their oil. There was no connection betwenn Al-Qaeda and Iraq. And I'm not sure what you mean about America's approach to fighting terrorism. Killing people for oil doesn't fight terrorism. It's not that difficult to understand. The Administration is lying to you. Not little lies, big lies. Posted by: joe at March 11, 2004 05:33 PM | PERMALINKWell said, epistemology. Like Bush's use of the word 'crusade' early on, this man has little historical knowledge and less curiosity. He is sure his cause is right. Just as his Islamic foes are sure of theirs. Posted by: obscure at March 11, 2004 05:34 PM | PERMALINKCarol: If you don't go into how France and Russia were trading with Iraq before the war, we won't need to go into how Cheney lobbied for a lifting of sanctions between the two gulf wars, profited off the rebuilding of Iraq, then lobbied for another gulf war to destroy Iraq again, only to see the Bush administration steer contracts back to Halliburton, to rebuild Iraq again...the endless story. Posted by: epistemology at March 11, 2004 05:34 PM | PERMALINKDereck is absolutely right. "Al" seems not to have heard of the sunken American ships or perhaps the fact that Germany first decared war on the USA! Posted by: bwise at March 11, 2004 05:35 PM | PERMALINKI pretty much expected this. To me, it is clear that AQ is picking on organizations that help the US war in Islamic countries. We've had attacks in Saudi Arabia, On the British consulate in Turkey and on Turkey itself, on several embassies in Iraq and on the UN compound in Bagdad. Though the UN could easily have been Iraqi resistance - there are more than enough reasons for a given Iraqi to hate the UN. There was a bombing on a Australian-national night club in Bali. Spain was a major supporter of the US efforts, at least the most vocal of the continental countries. Heck, I think they bravely offered a couple of minesweepers in the war (Coalition of the Willing, HA!). I would not be a bit surprised to see attacks on the "New Europe" "allies" Rumsfeld felt proved their relevance by doing what we told them to. Just think, if we hadn't squandered our energies on Iraq, we might have been able to do a good job on Al Qaida and prevented this altogether. THAT would be my point if I were a Spanish opposition leader. Posted by: TMorgan at March 11, 2004 05:37 PM | PERMALINKThe hyperbolic "WAR ON TERROR" is a war on religious fundamentalism. for many, this is a war on Islam. don't let Bush's speeches fool you, right wing whips like Coulter and Falwell and doing their damndest to make sure we all know that Islam is a religion of violence (search "Surah 9:92" and see how fast their misreading of the wrong verse from the Koran has spread), and that this is a war of civilizations, to the death. just drop by any righty blog comment board and see for yourself. Posted by: cleek at March 11, 2004 05:39 PM | PERMALINKTMorgan: To pick up where you left off. Just think if Bush ignored Iraq and focused on the terrorists. Think of how much we could have done if we focused all our resources(Army, Money, Etc) on putting an end to the attacks. Posted by: Dereck at March 11, 2004 05:41 PM | PERMALINKjoe, Since you are sure we're killing people for oil, please outline which American companies are now possess that oil, are selling it, and reaping the profits. obscure, Isn't Kerry sure his cause is right? Aren't you sure your cause is right? Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 05:42 PM | PERMALINKWe are mildly amused by this tempest in our semantic teapot. It serves to confirm our longstanding suspicions. It matters what we say. Our words carry weight. A problem is a problem. The word implies solutions. A war is a war. The word implies violence in pursuit of victory. Posted by: Liz at March 11, 2004 05:43 PM | PERMALINKLiz, So LBJ's "War on Poverty" implied violence? Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 05:45 PM | PERMALINKMatt McIrvin, you are right of course. But this is why I support a more vigorous approach to fighting terrorism than fighting GM. In other words, counter-terrorism should get more funding than a simple-minded look at the death tolls would suggest, but the Bush approach of $1B/wk (even if one agrees that Iraq is part of a rational counter-terror strategy) isn’t rational either. Posted by: Lori Thantos at March 11, 2004 05:52 PM | PERMALINK"Isn't Kerry sure his cause is right? Aren't you sure your cause is right?" Come now, Hubris, you've made some good points, but aren't you playing a bit much with semantics? I have very strong beliefs in my causes, but I try to keep an open mind (not always easy), and I don't see any reason to believe otherwise of Kerry. I do, however, see all kinds of reasons to believe that Bush is the kind of fundamentalist who will not listen to other opinions. There's a bit of a difference in degree between belief in one's cause and "my way or the highway", wouldn't you say? Hubris, you make the mistake of excluding other options when asking which companies are reaping the profits. For example, if the war was fought for oil and the natives turned out to be unwilling to fall quickly into line and sell their oil at rock bottom prices, that wouldn’t change why the war was fought; it would merely mean that the planners were unsuccessful in attaining their goals. Posted by: Lori Thantos at March 11, 2004 05:56 PM | PERMALINKHubris, It is a matter of degrees. I don't condemn everything Bush does. Example; I agree with Tom Friedman that Bush deserves credit for creating a unique opportunity for representative gov't in Iraq. But we really have no clue as to how the situation there is going to pan out. I think it is fair to say that some people are more attached to their ideas than others. This is what is commonly called 'open-mindedness.' To be willing to modify one's beliefs based upon the available evidence. Frankly, that is what characterizes a scientific mind, in contrast to an ideological mind, which is much less open to new facts & new evidence. Bush is an ideologue. I don't think being an ideologue is consistent with either high intelligence or good mental health. Posted by: obscure at March 11, 2004 05:56 PM | PERMALINKTed, Sorry if I overstated my case. I agree that to be open-minded is valuable, and I agree that there are different degrees of open-mindedness. My (intended) point was that both sides seem firmly entrenched at this point, so I guess that's where we disagree. There's not a lot of dialogue/listening/flexibility at either the leadership level or among the rank-and-file. Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 05:59 PM | PERMALINKThe facts are still murky, of course, but I have to admit that the more I think about it the more reasonable it seems that possibly the ETA was not at fault after all. Not only was this bombing far bigger and more coordinated than anything they've done before, but you'd think that even fanatical Basque terrorists would realize that four days before an election is not a good time to do something like this. Kevin, has anyone truly defined AQ or how AQ operate ? Seems to me they have never really been a distinct organisation like the IRA or ETA. Their one 'operation' was 9/11 everything since has been committed by related groups or groups somehow connected to AQ, rather I would argue they seem to be 'enablers' of terror, AQ after all means "the base". In Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban they provided safe harbour and training for a multitude of muslim terrorist organisations from nations accross the muslim world. Post 9/11 and prior, these 'local' organisations have carried out attacks on US embassies, the Cole, Bali, and so on. And for the most part these groups are operationaly autonomous and they are still out there. Perhaps there is a link between AQ and ETA or then again perhaps ETA has simply become inspired or emboldened by AQ's apparent success. If the former, this might be testimony to AQ's continued organisational strength, if the latter then this might be thought of as an even more dangerous situation whereby previous 'run of the mill' terrorists are renewed in their enthusiasm and encouraged to 'up the ante' by AQ's example. Either way there is ample justification to berate this administration for it's relaxation of the pursuit of AQ et al over the past year or more during the Iraq distraction. regards I met someone who commented "Look, how much money we are spending in Iraq. Why not just pay Saddam to leave everyone alone". My answer, "So how do you stop him next year?". Europe now has a similar choice. If they reward terrorism by breaking
relations with the United States, they buy time. At the expense of
rewarding terrorism and proving to terrorism that The interesting example is France. It stayed out of Iraq. So according to the "negotiate with Islamic terrorism" theory, they have nothing to worry about. The last Al-Qaeda tape added them to the list of targeted countries. Why? Because of a law that banned religious symbols in schools. Its interesting to note that they don't feel any safer than the rest of us. "Europe - AP By ELAINE GANLEY, Associated Press Writer PARIS - France raised its terror alert late Thursday, posting more soldiers on public transport, and also stepped up security along its border with Spain in response to the train bombings in Madrid. " This could be the EEC's death knell. If Spain wants to fight terrorism and France doesn't. Spain's border with France can't be kept open anymore.... Posted by: Researcher at March 11, 2004 06:03 PM | PERMALINKHubris, No argument there. The country is now more polarized than I can ever remember, and that's not a good climate for rational debate. But I suppose that the flip side of that is that truly undecided people are an endangered species. Perhaps some debate will survive, for the sake of winning these people over, but it may not necessarily be rational. As the number of undecideds get smaller, look for each party to start taking them to dinner, mowing their lawns, etc. Carol said: "Of course, we won't go into a discussion about how France and Russia had been active trade partners with Iraq before we bombed Baghdad to smithereens, despite the UN embargo." That is a joke, yes? Iraq's main trading partner for the past 20 years is the US by far. Pretty much until 1991, most of the weapons, incl. dirty ones, were provided by the US, and used with at least tacit consent, incl. against the Kurds. When the US decided it wanted a change, it forced upon Iraq a blend of illegal (no-fly zones) and strong-armed "legal" but immoral restrictions (UN embargo). The UN embargo was transformed by the US into a criminal, dishonest, machiavelian effort to inflict as much damage on the country rather than as a means to prevent it from creating WMD. For example, there are extremely well documented instances of the US refusing to let vaccines and similar medical basics into Iraq under ridiculous pretenses denounced by the UN itself. The country that had a criminal attitude to Iraq during the embargo is the US, not France, Germany and Russia who did have (very modest) continued business activities with Iraq. Posted by: Francois at March 11, 2004 06:03 PM | PERMALINKobscure, Didn't mean to ignore you, we crossed in the mail. Hey, we chose the same term! Where we differ is that I don't see a big difference in degree between Republicans and Democrats in this area. (1) Digest one's party's conventional wisdom (2) drink the Kool-Aid (3) repeat. I'm not being a hypocrite. I see good things about Kerry. To see the presidential contest as a black/white good/evil struggle would be incorrect. I guess we agree, in that respect. Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 06:05 PM | PERMALINKThis is the lowest quality thread I've ever read at Calpundit - usually most of you are lively and estimable debaters. Head over to Eschaton, of all places, for a couple of excellent comment threads on this subject including plenty of contribution by Spanish readers. Oh, and Kevin, as to been something of an article of faith in America that if 9/11 had happened in Europe there wouldn't have been so much resistance there to the Iraq war that's cos we realized there was no bloody connection between the two. Posted by: daithi mac mhaolmhuaidh at March 11, 2004 06:05 PM | PERMALINKThe interesting example is France. It stayed out of Iraq. So according to the "negotiate with Islamic terrorism" theory, they have nothing to worry about. The last Al-Qaeda tape added them to the list of targeted countries. Why? Because of a law that banned religious symbols in schools. Its interesting to note that they don't feel any safer than the rest of us. Yeah, but France also doesn't feel any less safe than we do, and they aren't expending 200 billion dollars/500 lives/15000 casualties per year on Iraq. Posted by: dryListener at March 11, 2004 06:09 PM | PERMALINKA good example of the difference between an ideologue and--for lack of a better term--a 'careful observer': A religious fundamentalist sees morality as a question of obeying orders. God says xy&z is 'good' so for that reason I should do xy&z. An open minded agnostic derives morality from observation of the facts--external and internal--of existence. I treat other people thus, because I want to set a precedent for which I (and everyone else) will be the beneficiary. Posted by: obscure at March 11, 2004 06:11 PM | PERMALINKdrylistener, Why should they expend it? We're doing it for them. Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 06:12 PM | PERMALINKDearest Hubris. Regarding the war on poverty, we stand corrected on the implication of violence. We nonetheless contend that such so-called wars remain patently unwinnable. Posted by: Liz at March 11, 2004 06:13 PM | PERMALINKobscure, You lost me there. Religious people, not just agnostics, can follow Kant's categorical imperative. Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 06:14 PM | PERMALINKLiz, I'm similarly pessimistic. Also, words do matter...I am chastened by the authority implied by your royal "we." :) Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 06:17 PM | PERMALINKOK, not good night yet. I was just making an illustration. I wasn't proposing to define the terms. Posted by: obscure at March 11, 2004 06:19 PM | PERMALINKWhy should they expend it? We're doing it for them. Well, the short answer is because Iraq has nothing to do with Al Queda terrorism. If one is going to invade a middleeast country, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or finishing the job in Afghanistan would all have been more relevant towards the ostensible goal of ending Al Queda. The longer answer is because France has recent (eg . in the current lifetime of their politicians) experience with colonialism and the resulting terrorism: Algeria. They knew better from first-hand experience. I think the last time the US has done this kind of thing was the early 1900s in the Philippines, and you can bet there was lots of resistance (terrorism) from the colonized back then too. Oh, and it took about 90 years since the US occupation before a democracy took root in the Philippines. Posted by: dryListener at March 11, 2004 06:20 PM | PERMALINKH. Such is the burden of multiple personalities. No chastening intended, of course. Rest well.
Could it be while the Texas jackass futzed around with Iraq, the real terrorists were regrouping? I don't see how this event would make anyone believe we are on the right track, although I'm sure it will be spun that way. Posted by: Nick at March 11, 2004 06:28 PM | PERMALINKDry listener, My point is that terrorists tend to move the line whenever you draw it. Sometimes the best long-run strategy is to remind everyone that you can move the line too. Iraq did this perfectly. I do note that Clinton foreign policy was unable to break a pattern. WTC bombing, USS Cole, 9/11. Bush seems to have shifted the attacks overseas and reduced the size Bali, Marriot Jakarta, Spain) quite well. If Spain does anything in the next elections other than give a strong swing to the Spanish government, they can expect similar attacks every election. Why? Because they will have worked. Terrorism is based on the theory that $100,000 worth of suicide hijackers does more to achieve your political goals than $100 million in political advertising.... Posted by: Researcher at March 11, 2004 06:31 PM | PERMALINKDereck is absolutely right. "Al" seems not to have heard of the
sunken American ships or perhaps the fact that Germany first decared war
on the USA! We've had this conversation before on Calpundit thread. JAPAN was the country that attacked us on 12/7. Not Germany. Germany merely made a declaration. Words. Germany did not kill 2000 Americans in a sneak attack; Japan did. FDR's proper response to Germany's declaration was "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but declarations never hurt me." Once we were attacked by Japan, everything else should have been secondary. FDR should have settled with or ignored Germany and focused on Japan. Posted by: Al at March 11, 2004 06:32 PM | PERMALINKFirst, I would like to draw a parallel. This is an act of a magnitude, compared to the size of the country, at least as large as the WTC attacks. We are talking about thousands of families directly affected, in a country an eighth or so of the population of the US. The psychological impact is at least as big as it was in the US on 9/11. I have no real conviction whether ETA or some other terrorist organization (al Q) is responsible. However I disagree with Kevin's suggestion that this is not ETA like. While it would go well beyond the already attrocious records ETA has set for itself, it is just one more step on a path marked with blood, violence and cowardice. ETA has already killed hundreds of Spaniards. It has already bombed and killed at random, including children, even though the majority of its murderous activities has been so far directed at instruments of the Spanish government so far (politicians, civil servants, officers of the law). We know that in the past few weeks the Spanish authorities have thwarted several efforts by ETA at bombings... So it is far from impossible. Terrorist groups do belong in a bloody and shameful fraternity. It has been proven that they train in the same camps, and have the same networks to procure weapons. Whether this is one or the other organization matters little to me - they could also be working together... What matters is that terrorism must be fought. However fighting terrorism is a more subtle fight than what Bush envisions. Most of Europe has been subject to intense terrorism at a time when the topic was of little interest to the US press. Growing up in Paris I have for many years been exposed to bombings and threats of bombings, as have people in Italy, Germany, Spain, England... Terror in Europe, even after this horrible event, as decined substantially, and it is not a coincidence. It is the result of long haul policies. These policies are not always visible, and they are rarely trumpeted. They are not solely based on force, and combine multiple means (diplomatic, intelligence, military, police, judicial, political, social and cultural) to address the issues. An example in Spain is the amount of political change that has been made in the past 20 years toward a high degree of provincial empowerement. While it might not represent the secession ETA desires, it actually has provided a political solution that resulted in marginalizing ETA in its own backyard, as even separatists Basques recognize that political and democratic processes are the normal process. We have seen quite a bit of progress made in Ulster as well for somewhat similar reasons. Military activities are not excluded, provided they are well defined: Europeans went to Afghanistan against al Q as well. Judicial activities are numerous and, while slow, they tend to be effective. France has captured, judged and jailed Carlos (Jackal) thanks to Judge Bruguieres, a leading (but not unique) anti-terrorist judge who is also to be thanked for the resolution of the UTA bombing by Lybia (the one plane bombing by Lybia that the US had no interest in, because it did not involve US citizens...) While Europeans have a diverse set of opinions, they generally understand that mono-dimensional, flashy, superficial and short sighted policies are not the way to go against terrorism. Posted by: Francois at March 11, 2004 06:37 PM | PERMALINKAs far as I know, all dumb "Al" comments on this thread are by the real fake Al. Just in case you think that I was trying to make him look bad. But maybe there's a second fake fake Al out there....? Posted by: al at March 11, 2004 06:38 PM | PERMALINKIt's clearly the work of the Heinz Ketchup Corporation. Posted by: justme at March 11, 2004 06:41 PM | PERMALINKJAPAN was the country that attacked us on 12/7. and Germany was the country that attacked US ships the Greer and the Steel Seafarer in 9/41, the Kearny, Salinas and Rueben James 10/41. Posted by: cleek at March 11, 2004 06:41 PM | PERMALINKMy point is that terrorists tend to move the line whenever you draw it. Sometimes the best long-run strategy is to remind everyone that you can move the line too. Iraq did this perfectly. Um, no, invading Afghanistan did this perfectly. We dismantled the government that was harboring terrorists, killed and captured many of them (should have been more--the Tora Bora encirclement was not effective), forced their families to flee their comfortable digs, disrupted their Saudi sources of finance, etc. Afghanistan, remember? Remember the Afghani foreign minister with an accent thicker than molasses denying all responsibility in a press conference the week after 9/11? Remember a broad international coalition that even hung together through blue-on-blue attacks causing more than half the friendly casualties? As far as Clinton breaking a pattern, he was somewhat preoccupied with an attempt to topple the US goverment over a blowjob, and it does appear that the Alghanistan invasion plan was concocted during the last two years of the Clinton administration. Even so, he did blow up Bin Laden's chemical plant--notice how there haven't been any Al Queda WMD attacks? Posted by: dryListener at March 11, 2004 06:42 PM | PERMALINKIf it is Al Qaeda, I am almost sure it is going to lead even more Spaniards to question the close ties with Bush. Had Spain confined itself post 9/11 to arresting AQ members on its soil, this might not have happened. Probably Bush dragging Aznar along on Iraq caused this to happen. Posted by: Bob H at March 11, 2004 06:43 PM | PERMALINKSome speculation on who's responsible - may be too early to blame Al Qaeda: I am sure we will soon here the Democrats demand Bush not mention these bombings in the campaign, then they will claim that Ansar knew about the bombings ahead of time and that he may have cooked the whole thing up. This could in fact be an example of Bush causing terrorism to metastasize. If it was Al Qaeda, it might have been caused by Bush dragging Aznar along on Iraq. Given that Iraq was totally unnecessary, Bush may share some of the blame. Posted by: BobNJ at March 11, 2004 06:47 PM | PERMALINKFrancois-- Great post. Can you distill the part about effectively fighting terrorism down to sound-bite length? Posted by: dryListener at March 11, 2004 06:49 PM | PERMALINK"Why should they expend it? We're doing it for them. Well, the short answer is because Iraq has nothing to do with Al Queda terrorism. If one is going to invade a middle east country, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or finishing the job in Afghanistan would all have been more relevant towards the ostensible goal of ending Al Queda"- Dry Listener The logic is that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are cooperating enough that a war is not worth the cost. Secondly, there is even less of a legal basis to go after those two than Iraq. Thirdly, the war would be difficult. Saudi Arabia could simply destroy the world economy by blowing up its own oil fields and use the holy city Mecca as a shield to block foreign attacks. Pakistan has a nuke. So its not worth it unless they are totally non-ccoperative. Now Iraq was vulnerable and a basis existed. The US has now made quite clear sponsoring terrorism (Al-Qaeda or not) and researching (or pretending to have) WMD has consequences. Diplomacy is not all hat and no bull. The next time some countriy gets sanctioned by the rest of the world, it can't just hold out by starving and repressing its own people. Posted by: researcher at March 11, 2004 06:51 PM | PERMALINKBien sur, Francois...the good old US of A certainly armed Hussein's Iraq to the teeth..as did the USSR...and we all traded with that country until it pleased us to dislike Hussein. SOmetime after he fought with Iran and before he tried the same with Kuwait. And we turned a blind eye when Hussein gassed the Kurds... There is enough pitch to tar all of us... But I don't know how "illegal" the ambargo was, since it was imposed by the UN. How do we define legality in this case? It certainly did not have the "intended" effect of forcing Hussein into submission, since he managed to keep his life style well padded, even as he allowed his subjects to suffer want and need. Posted by: Carol at March 11, 2004 06:56 PM | PERMALINKresearcher-- You ducked the option of staying in Afghanistan and finishing the job, preventing a resurgence of the Taliban, and not uncoincidentally securing the route of the northern pipeline so that Enron's currently idle 3 billion dollar power plant in northern India can get cheap natural gas. Afghanistan was vulnerable AND culpable, and served as sufficient
example. The lesson rogue states have learned from Iraq is that they
need nukes (hello North Korea), but it's best not to noise about it
until you actually have the nukes. and Germany was the country that attacked US ships the Greer and
the Steel Seafarer in 9/41, the Kearny, Salinas and Rueben James 10/41. Bzzzt! While that may have been sufficient for war in 9/41 or 10/41, we clearly decided to pass then. Only after Pearl Harbor did we decide to go to war with Germany. I mean, this is like saying war with Iraq was justified in 2003 because of what happened in 1990, or even in response to the Shiite massacres in 1991 or so. Nope, the anti-war lefties have spoken - if you don't take the opportunity to respond right then and there, you can never respond. You snooze, you lose. Posted by: Al at March 11, 2004 07:04 PM | PERMALINKdryListener: There is precious little that Bush did that I approve. But somehow he was able to untangle the Lybian knot. He was able to work through a combination of negotiations, pardons and pusnishments to turn the page and hopefully help improve the outlook for a peaceful, less terror supportive Lybia. This went largely unrewarded in public opinion, bizzarely. Posted by: Francois at March 11, 2004 07:06 PM | PERMALINKAl-Dubya, German declared war on the US. Using WWII as a reference is meaningless, because we don't know how much FDR would have had to do to get the US to declare war on Germany. It almost certainly would have happened, but Germany saved the US the trouble. Posted by: dryListener at March 11, 2004 07:08 PM | PERMALINKCarol: I can't help but wonder if we'd applied $100 billion in resources to stopping al-Qaeda instead of squandering it on George Bush's pointless vanity war in Iraq whether we might have disrupted this or future attacks. A wise leader would have used the world's outrage at the attacks of 9/11 to engage the world community in a coordinated effort to crush al-Qaeda AND ultimately oust Saddam Hussein in the fullness of time. But instead of electing a leader, we burdened ourselves and the world with a liar with poor impulse control who rushed the US into a costly and avoidable quagmire in Iraq simply because he is a fool with a big hammer who has surrounded himself with paranoids and ideologues who've convinced him that every problem looks like a nail. My deepest and heartfelt sympathies to the families and friends of the innocent victims of the unforgivable atrocity in Spain. Those sympathies are multiplied many-fold for the innocent Iraqi civilians killed by the weapons of "The Willing" during the Persian Gulf War of 2003. My sympathies are multiplied many-fold beyond that for the tens and even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis murdered by Saddam Hussein during the 1980's when Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush and toadies like Donald Rumsfeld were actively propping up Saddam's horrifying dictatorship. My sympathies are also extended to the families and friends of the innocent people of Afghanistan who got in the way of America’s rage when we sent the Angel of Death sweeping through their land in search of Osama bin Laden and his ghouls. Sadly, the people of Afghanistan will not receive much of America’s new found devotion to nation building because they have the misfortune of living in a land that is sitting on dirt instead of floating on an ocean of oil. Oil. Funny how that word keeps popping up whenever war, as in “War
On Terrorism”, is mentioned. I guess it’s just a coincidence. An
amazing coincidence. I mean, this is like saying war with Iraq was justified in 2003 because of what happened in 1990, or even in response to the Shiite massacres in 1991 or so. yes, a difference of 1 or 2 months is exactly the same as a difference of 10 or 15 years. Posted by: cleek at March 11, 2004 07:17 PM | PERMALINKas usual, model train enthusiasts are already way ahead/behind us http://www.trainboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=58;t=000331;p=1
Al-Dubya, German declared war on the US. That's what I'm saying! FDR should have ignored it and focused on the more immediate threat - Japan, you know the country that had just killed 2000 Americans. Germany had not done anything to us - a few words, "we declare yadda yadda yadda...", nothing more. But what did FDR do? He decided that it was more important to attack Germany! Not a single US soldier should have set foot in Europe until Japan was taken care of. Just like not a single US soldier should have set foot in Iraq until Al Qaeda was taken care of. Right?
Although I enjoy the little WWII tete-a-tete, I wasn't the one who brought up WWII... Posted by: Al at March 11, 2004 07:21 PM | PERMALINKI don't see what the length of time has to do with it, cleek. If you are attacked and don't respond, you forfeited your right to respond -- 2 months later or 2 decades later. Right? Posted by: Al at March 11, 2004 07:23 PM | PERMALINKBeing the Ralph Nader supporter that I am... this war is about oil just Ralph said it was. The Spainish government had the HIGHEST level of war protester voter turn out in history. The Spain government thought the Bush administration knew what they were talking about when Richard Perle said that Iraqis would fold after a the first "whiff of gun powder" and Spanish government thought this war would easy oil. Spain WASN'T even suppose to have to contribute military aid but simply support Bush as part of a Coalition of the Willing --- however guess what? Spain had to pony up and send soldiers into Iraq anyway after Bush asked for more troop support because of Junior's unplanned post war Iraqi resistance and Paul Wolfowitz new "flypaper doctrine" - (the "if we build it, they will come" scenario that states terrorist will fight us in Iraq rather than on US soil). This is why the Japanese people had a cow about sending any militry people at all to Iraq. JUST another reason why we desperately need UN peacekeeping forces in Iraq and why we need the UN's okay BEFORE making war in Europes own back yard. This guy Michael McPhearson - a spokes person for Bring Them Home Now.org made the following statement. Our troops are trained soldiers, not police officers. They do not know how to treat the civilian population. They routinely use more force than necessary. They shoot before thinking — because they are trained soldiers, not peacekeepers — and innocent people are hurt or die, including children. Amazingly most of the people I talked to are not angry with individual soldiers. They are angry with our government. They believe that our leadership does not see an Iraqi life as equal to a U.S. soldier's life. Many people said that there are two victims: the soldier and the Iraqi. I was told to tell the American people that U.S. soldiers' and Iraqis' lives are equally important. One person said that Iraqis hurt every time a U.S. soldier is harmed just as they hurt when a soldier abuses one of them. Michael McPhearson is an African American that has so much potential as a public speaker that he rivals Martin Luther King in his engaging style. Nader should draft this guy McPhearson, because he is a very powerful speaker. He is very careful with what he says and what he says is very compelling. Posted by: Cheryl at March 11, 2004 07:23 PM | PERMALINK"Just like not a single US soldier should have set foot in Iraq until Al Qaeda was taken care of. Right?" Al, your intellect is truly dizzying. Of course you're right, since Al Qaeda had signed an alliance with Iraq, and... oh wait. No credible link. Oh, no, I forgot, they're both towel-head groups, right, and they're all the same. JamesHiltonII, The word "oil" "keeps popping up" because you are popping it up. Not much of an "amazing coincidence" there. Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 07:26 PM | PERMALINKGreat quote, Cheryl - this is about the same concept I was writing about: attempting to understand the other's point of view. Not been a historical strength of the US at large unfortunately. I hope we can improve on this. Posted by: Francois at March 11, 2004 07:28 PM | PERMALINKAl: Germany had not done anything to us yes they did. they were attacking our ships. we waited, for whatever reason, a month or so before deciding they weren't accidental attacks. If you are attacked and don't respond, you forfeited your right to respond -- 2 months later or 2 decades later. Right? right, because 2 months is exactly like 2 decades. there's no such thing as investigation, planning, negotiation, diplomacy, sanctions, alliance-building or anything else; there is only attack and response - any delay greater than the length of time it takes a bullet to reach its target is an automatic forfeit. Posted by: cleek at March 11, 2004 07:35 PM | PERMALINKJust like not a single US soldier should have set foot in Iraq until Al Qaeda was taken care of. Right? -- Al-Dubya No. Not a single US soldier should have set foot in Iraq until Iraq commited an act of agression against the United States. While Iraq's selling oil in euros rather than dollars was far more threatening to the US than anything Saddam was actually accused of, we really don't want to set a precedent of economic gangsterism. The evidence is in--Iraq didn't do anything. The WMD "programs" were just Iraqi insiders bilking the regime, sort of like the Bright Pebbles space defence in the Reagan years. Posted by: dryListener at March 11, 2004 07:35 PM | PERMALINKFrancois, There is no right to respond to violence by violence, to terror by terror. Not 2 years later. Not 2 months later. Not instantly. Never. That's a pretty strong statement. Hypothetical to test it: Country A invades Country B. Country B has no right to defend itself by the force of arms? I thought that was OK, per the UN. Posted by: Hubris at March 11, 2004 07:37 PM | PERMALINK... oh, and Al, Spain has already forfeited their chance to retaliate against anyone. Posted by: cleek at March 11, 2004 07:37 PM | PERMALINKHubris: to my point, and not to take an aim at cleek, the term "retaliate" in his last post Posted by: Francois at March 11, 2004 07:44 PM | PERMALINKThe fanatic hardliners on one side of a conflict are functional allies of the fanatical hardliners on the other side. If it weren't for al Qaeda, would Bush have any chance of re-election? Posted by: Carl Nyberg at March 11, 2004 07:47 PM | PERMALINKWell Kevin, it's almost Friday -- do you know where your Kitties are? I'm going into kitty withdrawl symptoms - and it's not pretty. Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty,Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty,Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty,Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty,Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty,Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty,Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty,..... You get the picture Kevin??? Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty,Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty,Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty,Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty,Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty,Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty,Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty,Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty,Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Help I need kitty pics NOW... Posted by: Cheryl at March 11, 2004 07:50 PM | PERMALINK"That's a pretty strong statement. Hypothetical to test it: Country A invades Country B. Country B has no right to defend ...?"Posted by Hubris Do you agree with Bush that if stateless group A attacks country USA, then country USA is authorized to invade country C? It stuck me as "odd" that Spanish authorities should have found a van with "Arabic tapes" inside so quickly. Quickly and conveniently. Madrid is a big city. It's police force must be very, very good. My gut tells me that it happened too fast. I'm left feeling uneasy - and sort of spoonfed. Posted by: bipod at March 11, 2004 08:26 PM | PERMALINKSo far, this is the only blog which contains news of and comments on the bombing in Atocha. Given the relative sizes of our populations, this atrocity in Madrid is truly comparable to the 2001 atrocity in NYC. My heart goes out to those directly affected, and to the whole country. Al Qaeda didn't announce itself after 9/11, did it? It didn't leave audio tapes of Koran readings where they could be easily found in, say, Hoboken, as they were in Madrid (or rather in Alcalá de Henares, I believe). Do I think something fishy may be going on? Yup. But then the stink of old fish may be confusing my nose. Posted by: Bean at March 11, 2004 08:30 PM | PERMALINKSpain has a population of about 40,000,000. About 190 died there today (and the number is still expected to grow?. The US has about 290,000,000 people and about 2,750 people died on 9/11. So the Madrid attacks were about half as bad as the 9/11 attacks in terms of population affected. Posted by: Asa Dotzler at March 11, 2004 08:59 PM | PERMALINK"So far, this is the only blog which contains news of and comments on the bombing in Atocha." Bullshit. Posted by: Blue at March 11, 2004 10:01 PM | PERMALINKFrancoise wrote: "French and Spanish radio reporting that the terrorist group Abu Hafs al-Masri will next attack England and Japan in the coming months."
Also, what is meant by "meddling in Middle Eastern affairs"? Does that mean our mere presence or our business dealings which make the monarchies of the Middle East more powerful or does it mean our support for Israel? We aren't going to end our support for Israel, though we may attempt to guide their hands at some times. The Muslims of that region should consider it the cost they paid for supporting Germany in the two great wars. It's tragic really. The Jews were slaughtered and Middle-Eastern countries were traded around like so many playing cards. Now the situation has settled down; countries borders are more stable. It's time to settle the Israel-Palestinian border dispute and discover the blessings of peace. We need the oil, so we can hardly stop buying it from whomever is in power. Our military presence in recent years was largely dictated by the aggression of Saddam Hussein, however he may have been inspired by former President George H.W. Bush. There doesn't appear to be any quick way to disentangle the "West" from the Middle East, so Al Qaeda will feel they have to fight us. It seems likely to be be bloody, they may win some battles, but we definately have better armed forces (see Iraq).
pj says "there is some circumstantial evidence that eta was behind the attack" yeah. like for instance, it took place in the capital of spain. i think that is a pretty big clue. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 12, 2004 12:37 AM | PERMALINKJust as the US doesn't need the UNs permission to defend ourselves, al Qaeda doesn't need our permission to attack us. Just because there hasn't been another 9/11 since 9/11/01, doesn't mean there won't be. Just wait...it'll be our turn again soon. TFHITWH can say whatever he wants to about his "Success in the WOT", it isn't going to stop 4-6 guys operating under the radar in Anywhere, USA from blowing something up if they really want to. Mabye even in conjunction with 4-6 guys in Somewhere Else, USA. We can run around Baghdad in Humvees and M-1's until the next Millennium, landing 140,000 soldiers on an idea isn't going to win anything. Except, mabye, a Crackerjack prize for the Most Bodybags Shipped Home During A Recent Presidency for TFHITWH. All you trolls, troglodytes and meandering misanthropes can wrap it up in all the clever rhetoric, snarky asides and belligerent shoe-banging you like, what it comes down to is having someone in charge who is willing to see (and try to understand) just how gray the world really is. At this point along the timelime, human events have become even more eerily Newtonian - ie - For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I for one have had enough of the simple-minded dipshit Black or White worldview. I want someone in charge who'll lose sleep and struggle with the truly important and difficult solutions to the worlds Gordian knots. Not someone who drinks his Bosco in footie PJs and whose widdle head hits the pillow at 9pm regardless. Francois wrote upthread: "Most difficult but necessary is trying to understand. Not really trying to understand the violence, but rather the motivations for it, however sick its expression. We need to ask ourselves, what makes a Palestinian woman of 25 blow herself up to kill Jews? I condemn the act but need to understand the despair, because only that might help me eventually understand how I can in a small way make some improvement. If I had been born in Gaza, would I feel in my heart the same hatred she felt? And if so, how can I help restore some hope to that group of people, so that they chose an alternative to violence?" I've been futilely arguing a similar viewpoint since 9/12/01. I've decided that TFHITWH doesn't have the equipment to understand a complicated mental exercise such as this, much less that the US shouldn't be in the revenge business. Or that repeatedly bashing a hornets nest with a baseball bat may not be the best way to get rid of it. Was the Madrid attack an al Qaeda operation? At this early stage, who knows? A van w/detonators and a tape of Koran verses in Arabic conveniently found blocks away from the station could be a misdirect. Better call in the DIA and CIA and FBI and the 3ID and invade Madrid now! Before the perpetrators get away! We gotta protect the oil reserves! What? Only olive oil? Ok folks! Move on! Nothing to see here. Move on! C'mon - move it along! Posted by: tfhitwh at March 12, 2004 12:59 AM | PERMALINKRegarding the type of dynamite used in the attacks, a simple websearch reveals that ETA is no longer the only group in possession of it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0%2C3604%2C509119%2C00.html (Note date: June 2001) Clearly there are about 500 warning signs that should make al Qaeda at least a prima facie suspect: simultaneous attacks on busy public spaces, civilians (rather than officials or soldiers) as targets, no advance warning, the November bombings in Istanbul (another U.S. ally)... It all seems that the Spanish government's insistence on blaming ETA (expressed in the UN Sec Cncl's condemnation) is politically motivated rather than based on a careful evaluation of the evidence. Does this sound familiar? Posted by: ogmb at March 12, 2004 01:02 AM | PERMALINKand al. if a country declares war on you you are perfectly justified in attacking it so shut the hell up. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 12, 2004 01:06 AM | PERMALINKI don't think that Spain will have a similar reaction to this as the US. Remember, Australia experienced what was called "their 9/11" in Bali. I've seen a number of countries now describe that they've had "their 9/11" - Italy, Israel, Turkey, even Saudi Arabia. I think it is important to remember that America's conception of itself as a nation - ie American exceptionalism, "the last best hope on earth," revolutionary heritage - make it very different in terms of worldview to a lot of other countries. For the most part, the US has never really "failed" in its history, experienced a huge decline. Almost every other country on earth has. Also, the US's size has allowed it to be relatively isolated from other countries, thus creating a sense of solipsism. Also, no major land war has been fought on American soil. Together, I think this explains much of the US/European divide on world affairs today - it has little to do with the fact 9/11 occurred on US soil. Posted by: Ben P at March 12, 2004 01:35 AM | PERMALINKSmalfish troll-belches out new proof Ahhh, from thine own lips comes thy judgement. Francois writes: "Most difficult but necessary is trying to understand." "If you respect them, they will respect you." MarkH writes: "We respect your perspective, but I don't think you've said much which can change our view of the problem." I think that what we have here in a nutshell is the basic flaw in American efforts to deal with the problem of terrorism. I must say that if MarkH is correct, there is no hope to stop the
butchering of innocents. The argument Francois and others have made in
this thread is the only ONLY OOOONNNLLLYYY!!! answer to terrorism. What
a pity that so many of us are hardwired in such a way that we honestly
and truly can't see her point, or that, understanding it, cannot take it
seriously beyond patronizing lipservice. Strong ethical leadership is
called for here. Who can fill the breach? Ben P writes: "Also, no major land war has been fought on American soil." What about the Civil War? Which I don't bring up to refute your point, only to query what you consider a "major land war"? Posted by: tfhitwh at March 12, 2004 03:03 AM | PERMALINKAhh, not true Noodge. Middlea Eastern regimes have continually propped themselves up by fomenting hate against America or the western world. Time-honored tactic. Simply leaving middle eastern countries alone is not the solution. Globalization seems irreversible at this point- a region's problems are now the world's problems. Also... National sovereignty should not be invioable for whatever reason- Peacekeeping efforts in the Balkan regions have, for example, met with modest success. Furthermore, sitting around and watching a regime butcher its own people, eh... meh. IMHO, we should have finished the Baathists off in Gulf War I. On the other hand, that was not the justification for war in Iraq, we never finished the job in Afghanistan, and now we don't seem to have enough troops to help either country. And you can't topple every or even more than a couple of the corrupt regimes militarily; it's impractical. Tim Kane- Incorrect. I believe Armenia, which was Muslim-occupied for much of its history, is currently a Christian nation. Only exception I know of though, besides Spain. "no major land war has been fought on American soil" I will wishy washy.. the American Civil War was certainly a major land war- but it was very long ago in American collective memory and, uh, a civil war anyway. ;) Olaf- " Japan has sent troops to Iraq recently. They had to amend their constitution (I think) to do it, so it's a big deal. As for "War for Oil" or "Blood for Oil"- It is not impractical to assume so. I don't think it was the primary motivation, no, but Iraq's use of the Euro standard- rather than the Dollar standard- (it switched in 2000)- and the Bush administration's immediate reversal of this as soon as they could- is pretty blatant. More on that here. It's a little tinfoil-hat and off the wall, but it outlines the oil motivation pretty well. As for WWII- FDR was itching for a reason to declare war on Germany before Pearl Harbor. He knew where the problem was. America had strong isolationist sentiment, preferring to deal with its local problems rather than those of others. I don't think we can get a feel for this sentiment today- after forty years of the Cold War as a global power, it's pretty hard to get back in the shell, so to speak. "Francoise: "Arabs and Muslims are strong, but they are not savages as Americans would have one believe.
That was totally inappropriate, loaded, and evasive. The fanatic hardliners on one side of a conflict are functional allies of the fanatical hardliners on the other side. If it weren't for al Qaeda, would Bush have any chance of re-election?
More about the Civil War as a major land war- It was certainly so, it was a precursor to WWI and just as much of a total war. The South did so well so consistently because it learned the value of defense more than the North- dug in (read: entrenched) troops were simply unbeatable with the technology of the day. True, there were few rapid-fire guns, but there was a lot less powerful artillery as well..Most of the South's worst defeats occured when it went on the offense, either strategically (Gettysburg) or tatically (Pickett's Charge). The analogies to WWI are inescapable. It's just there was FAR more front and less people, so the stagnation into a humongous trench line simply never occured. The South was not so much outfought as it was beaten into submission- cities besieged and taken, people starved, ports blockaded, and most men of military age and most of the others as well either killed, wounded, crippled, or captured. A total war by any scale. Posted by: Sandals at March 12, 2004 03:37 AM | PERMALINKI just wonder if the Bush "war on terra" has been impetus enough to cause terrorists to join forces?? Rather than a radical group here and there is the world now facing an organized force with combined resouces? Could what was once a bunch of rag tag groups become an illusive "ghost rider" group, hitting designated targets all over the world? barbara Posted by: barbara at March 12, 2004 04:28 AM | PERMALINKGordian knots are impossibly difficult puzzles, by definition. Terrorism is our generations' Gordian Knot. Parking oneself in the La-Z-Boy and doing nothing in the face of growing threats from al Qaeda is as effective as grinding every suspected "terrorist-harboring nation" into a fine powder. My point, there has to be a solution, other than ass-sitting or powder-grinding. I want someone in charge with the will and the mental chops to spend sleepless nights trying to come up with a reasonable alternative to the two I mentioned above. I don't have a solution to the problem, other than to suggest that listening and understanding are a couple of key components to solving any problem, including this one. As with most everything, there are no quick and easy solutions. No one has written "Solving the Terrorist Problem For Dummies" yet. And I don't think it should be trivialized to that point. There are lots of parts to it. Going after the people who are responsible - REALLY responsible - and punishing them. Yes. It didn't take too long to figure out bin Laden was behind 9/11. Yet, now we're in the process of sweeping up the powder we made of Iraq and bin Laden is banging around the Hindu Kush 2 & 1/2 years later. To me, that says it all. It just sounds cock-eyed and wrong. So does landing 140,000 soldiers on an idea. "Bomb 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out!" is stupid and incendiary and aggravates the problem exponentially. The solution in this case is infinitely worse than the problem. It's a "Love-Hate" thing. They (the Muslim Middle East) love the chance at Opportunity here in America but hate our policies and our looking down our noses at them. We've been dissin' 'em ever since we stumbled across them 1200+ years ago. We love their oil but have an unwillingness to respect the pride they have in their heritage and culture. We see their hopelessness, resentment and anger as a character fault and shake our collective Western fingers at them and then wonder why so many young Muslims are attracted to radical mullahs playing on their fear and loathing and envy of Western culture. See? It's not a simple problem at all. It's not just a social or political or religious or cultural or regional or global or military or diplomatic or resource problem. It's all of these and quite a few more that I didn't mention because I haven't thought of them yet. Solving any or all of these parts of the larger problem doesn't involve grinding anything into powder, with the possible exception of the notion that the "War on Terror is Moral, is Legal and is Winnable". Posted by: tfhitwh at March 12, 2004 05:10 AM | PERMALINKMadrid pretty much sinks whatever slim chance Kerry had at the Presidency. It's painfully obvious (except to the Drumophiles) that the terrorists are waging war against civilization, that the common theme is militant Islamism, and that they will not rest until we or they are interred. Hence, the Bush Doctrine, to bring war to those who are -- or who harbor terrorists, makes a whole lot more sense to a whole lot more people than Kerry's, "I'd treat it as a law enforcement problem", dictum. Posted by: Norman Rogers at March 12, 2004 05:28 AM | PERMALINKIt's painfully obvious (except to the Drumophiles) that the terrorists are waging war against civilization, that the common theme is militant Islamism, and that they will not rest until we or they are interred. And yet, despite the fact that apparently you believe that the terrorists (by which I take it you mean al-Qaeda) are waging a war against civilisation - you think that Bush is the one to vote for? Bush is the one who diverted resources, time, and political goodwill from fighting what you think is a "war defending civilisation" into invading Iraq. Bush is quite willing - from the available evidence - to stand by and do nothing useful against "militant Islamism". Hence, the Bush Doctrine, to bring war to those who are -- or who harbor terrorists, makes a whole lot more sense to a whole lot more people Except for the tiny little detail that Iraq was irrelevant to this "war against terrorism". So by your own thinking, Bush occupied much of his Presidency since 9/11, and much American resources, to an irrelevant war. than Kerry's, "I'd treat it as a law enforcement problem", dictum. Worked for Clinton in 1993. Would undoubtedly have worked better than Bush's "Pick a country and invade it" notion. Posted by: Jesurgislac at March 12, 2004 06:16 AM | PERMALINKBut But But Al Qaeda is on the run! They have seen the terrible swift sword of justice! Gosh how could anyone doubt that Bushs' truth is marching on! US President George W Bush last night claimed the United States was winning the 'war on terrorism'. In his State of the Union address yesterday, President Bush said that since the 11 September attacks the US and coalition countries had Al-Qaeda 'on the run', arresting more than 3,000 suspected terrorists worldwide and dismantling terrorist cells in Hamburg, Milan, Madrid, London, Paris, and New York. 'One by one, the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice,' he stated, adding that the US had worked closely with coalition partners to detect and disrupt terrorist plots as far afield as Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Yemen and maritime attacks in the Straits of Hormuz and Gibraltar. Oh! well maybe it IS more dificult than Junior first was a thinkin. Posted by: tb at March 12, 2004 06:17 AM | PERMALINKFirst, it rather seems to be getting ahead oneself to draw any conclusions at all at this stage. Recall Oklahoma City and heated Islamic connection speculation or the heated speculation regardin the anthrax letters. The evidence is confused and unclear. Some portions fit ETA, some may fit al-Qaeda related/associated groups, for example the van. The Abu al-Hafs group appears to be a bunch of posers which claims credit for unrelated events. I believe it can be excluded. The van is a key point of evidence, but without cooroboration, the tapes for example could be a plant. The explosives and backpacks fit ETA, the lack of warning and targetting do not. Could be novel or breakaway group, or could be some third explanation. Too little data to know to form an opinion. On the historical point mentioned supra in re Spain or rather more precisely old Andalucia (al-Andalous in Arabic), while old Muslim Spain (1492 saw the expulsion of the Jews and the Muslims from Andalucia and other areas of the 'reconquista' - surrender treaties with the Spanish crown(s) had 'guaranteed' freedom of worship for the 'Moriscos') is hardly the only place historically conquered which 'reverted' in religion, it is psychologically important to the Salafiste strain of thought. Again, too early to know regarding these events - horrific but obscure in motivation. Posted by: collounsbury at March 12, 2004 06:34 AM | PERMALINKAl, take a look at Operation Drumbeat -- if this wasn't an immediate act of aggression by Nazi Germany, then... Posted by: Chris at March 12, 2004 06:50 AM | PERMALINKIf it was Al Qaeda, I wonder if they deliberately timed the attack to influence Spain's upcoming elections. Here's why I think the timing may have been calculated. Posted by: Lionel Levine at March 12, 2004 06:54 AM | PERMALINKToo bad the Islamofascists are dumber than a sack full of hammers. The best thing they could do would keep things nice and peaceful until after the election. That would help Kerry, and then the only thing they would have to fear would be a Janet Reno clone Attorney General serving them with a supboena. Face up to it, lefties, Bush is going to win, Posted by: Dan at March 12, 2004 07:17 AM | PERMALINKI thought I ought to add: the whole 9/11: 3/11 numerology thing, trying to assign significance to the date of the attack, is rubbish. Remember the Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar? Days of months vary when you translate them into the western solar calendar. It takes a whole leap month every 4 years to keep a lunar calendar in synch with the solar year. And the islamicists are nothing if not parochial -- as parochial as the most nutzoid warblogger, in fact. They're not going to time their attacks by the infidel calendar just to send a message. Now, if the date of the attack in the islamic calendar fell on, say, the tenth anniversary of some significant date in that calendar (which could vary by +/- 4 weeks in western terms) the numerological arguments might hold a bit more weight. But the linkages I'm hearing so far are just dumb. For example, noting that it's 911 days since 9/11 is completely spurious. 9/11 is not a meaningful date to AQ's supporters because they don't use that calendar as a way of marking time; all it is is an American style date. If AQ did try to pop an anniversary surprise it would almost certainly fall some weeks to either side of 9/11. (Final illustrative aside: one of my buddies here in Scotland regularly jokes about asking his American friends just what's so special about the ninth of November. Yes, even within the English-speaking world, dates don't mean what you think they do.) Posted by: Charlie Stross at March 12, 2004 07:20 AM | PERMALINKDan: why would helping Kerry be good for the islamofascists? Arguably, they want Bush to be re-elected. Bush is predisposed by personality to fall for the establishment role in Mao's doctrine of guerilla insurgency: lash out hard, attacking the irritants while they melt away in the crowd (in this case, the Dar al Islam), who will receive the blows and become alienated from the authoritarian leaders who are making life hard. Bush is Bin Laden's partner in this particular dance, and I can't see Osama wanting to change partner in mid-stream. Posted by: Charlie Stross at March 12, 2004 07:25 AM | PERMALINKFor Jer... & tb At last count 60% of Americans (at least the ones who respond to polls) think taking Saddam out was a good idea. There is both good reason and compelling evidence to link Saddam and Islamic terrorists -- both the direct evidence (documents, facts on the ground) linking Saddam and Al Q), AND the hand-in-glove linkages between Arafat & Co, Al Q, and Saddam -- remember the $25K blood money bounty Saddam paid to each "martyr"? There is no way any of you morons can claim Iraq wasn't a state sponsor of terrorism. Nor can any of you posit an alternative strategy to deal with the crazies -- other than killing them and their hosts and sponsors. As for "kicking the can down the road" working for Clinton in '93 -- Yeah it worked. That's why we got hit on 9/11 and Madrid on 3/11. President Bush has and will ACT. Kerry will find at least two sides for every issue and he'll be on both -- and he will NEVER act in a meaningful way. Kerry would be another Clinton -- blow up a camel in the desert and
an aspirin factory and call it a day. That's why I like Bush. Bush is the one who diverted resources, time, and political goodwill from fighting what you think is a "war defending civilisation" into invading Iraq. Bush is quite willing - from the available evidence - to stand by and do nothing useful against "militant Islamism".
I'm seeing a lot of people saying that because we're fighting terrorism, we're creating terrorists. Huh? What, specifically, was the provocation for 9/11? The 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt and Suadi Arabia, countries we actually get along with to some extent. Posted by: Chris K at March 12, 2004 07:38 AM | PERMALINKThe date to watch out for this year is August 9th, aka the sixth day of Jumada II. (See this nifty calendar translator for details. It's when the third anniversary of 9/11 falls in the Islamic calendar.) Posted by: Charlie Stross at March 12, 2004 07:45 AM | PERMALINKHere's the WSJ's Daniel Henninger's take on this subject. The Presidency In a perfect world, we would pause here to ponder the implications of the photos sent this week by the Hubble Space Telescope from the Ultra Deep Field of the universe -- real photos of light that began its journey 13 billion years ago, when the universe was so young and full of possibility. But we inhabit an imperfect world, and so a consensus would hold it more in our short-term interest to examine another mysterious complexity, the matter of John Kerry's flip-flops, a subject that might also be called the Ultra Deep Field. But let's not make light of the matter. The better course is to put the best face possible on John Kerry's habits of mutability and place that face inside the Oval Office, to see whether it looks like it fits. In the New York Times last weekend, Mr. Kerry's friends did just that. Jonathan Winer, a Washington lawyer and former Kerry aide, said: "There's indoor John and outdoor John. Indoor John is thoughtful, works all this through, is nuanced, and so deeply into the process that you can get impatient. Outdoor John is a man of action. There'd be a point where, Boom! and go. Once it happened, the dialogue was over, and you wouldn't always know which way he was going to go." Should either man, Indoor John or Outdoor John, be President of the United States? John Kerry entered the U.S. Senate in 1985, and for 18 years built the record that is now the basis for calling him either complex and nuanced or inconsistent and opportunistic. Most famously, Mr. Kerry voted for the Iraq war resolution, but criticizes nearly every action Mr. Bush has taken on Iraq. He voted for the Patriot Act but says John Ashcroft is "abusing" it. There is a long list of similarly nuanced positions (a word Mr. Kerry rejects). Here is a Harry Truman story from Alan Axelrod's book on Truman's leadership style. Speaking at Columbia University in 1959, a student challenged the 33rd President, a Democrat, on dropping the second A-bomb. "The reason I asked this," the student said, "was that it seemed to me the second bomb came pretty soon after the first one." After speaking testily of "Monday morning quarterbacks," Truman said simply: "I was there. I did it. I would do it again." This isn't John Kerry. Indeed, it is unlikely that Harry Truman's blunt, almost cocky retort would be seen as admirable by current standards of public sensitivity. But the stubborn forcefulness of Truman's decision-making still stands as a symbol of presidential leadership, as does that of FDR, Lincoln and increasingly Ronald Reagan, who installed Pershing missiles in Europe against opposition similar to that faced now by Mr. Bush on Iraq. Roosevelt pressed the Lend Lease Act against an embittered domestic opposition. This is a guess, as inevitably one has to guess about a presidential challenger, but John Kerry's temperament, as we have seen it, appears unlikely to have let him make Truman's decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He would have found the implications of that decision too difficult to bear the heavy judgments of history, then or now. Iraq aside, one must doubt that Mr. Kerry would have attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan on the scale and with the ferociousness of Mr. Bush's successful assault. After September 11, both conservatives and liberals opposed retaliation against al Qaeda's redoubts in Afghanistan, describing many scenarios of political and geographic disaster. It is reasonable to guess that a President Kerry would have sided with those articulating arguments against. Many agree with the view that the contemporary world, complex and difficult to predict, requires above all an instinct for caution and diplomacy. Mr. Kerry is most comfortable inhabiting this world, and there is nothing dishonorable in serving it. But it is not leadership. It is something else, and John Kerry is the embodiment of that something else. John Kerry, like so many other political men who have sought the presidency, is a product of the Senate. But other than JFK and the incomparable Warren Harding, the American electorate has elevated no member directly from the Senate to the presidency. Most stopped first at the vice presidency. The Senate is not only not a training school for the presidency, it is almost certainly the opposite. The Senate (like diplomacy) is thoughtful. It is "the world's greatest deliberative body." Given a troublesome issue, its 100 men and women work it like a kaleidoscope, the details endlessly multiplying into shapes only they can resolve. Finally, they vote, and this reveals the "sense of the Senate." In this world, the instinctive hedging ascribed to Mr. Kerry, an ear for the upper registers of nuance and an aversion to constancy, is natural and normal. Nothing could be clearer from what we've seen than that John Kerry -- complex, intelligent, deliberative -- has the frame of mind to be a very good Senator. However, he decided as far back as Yale that this would not be enough. He wanted the presidency. Across the years, Mr. Kerry has been Hamlet, a political metaphor sure to rise again and again until November. This is one ghost that can't be mocked offstage. It needs to be faced. Vietnam haunted him, then and now. By his friends' accounts, he wrestles in his maturity with the decisions of life and politics. Hamlet is very much a man for our times. Perhaps the presidency deserves one version of Everyman in the complex and inconstant world we inhabit. I doubt it. The historian James McGregor Burns said a few years back that often now politicians "don't have firm sets of ideals or values, either liberal or conservative or radical, that can underpin strong leadership." Some truths don't change. It is very hard to see John Kerry as the right fit for the office of the American presidency. -- Send comments to henninger@wsj.com. "Maybe we should declare War on War . . . the perfect rejoinder to all the Leaks about Leaks and Lies about Lies." Ah, the old 'f*cking for chastity' bit. The more things change .... I wonder if the Spaniards are thanking George Bush for his 'I don't know where he [bin Laden] is. I don't care' attitude; had we followed through in our efforts to take out al Queda and the Taliban, there wouldn't have been a sizable and determined organization in place to put together this attack, or any others. Blood for oil -- quite a trade, eh?
Hey Drone -- that's real catchy! Why don't you write to the Kerry campaign and suggest he make it his campaing slogan: No Blood for Oil Posted by: Norman Rogers at March 12, 2004 08:07 AM | PERMALINKNorm Yer geezer-hood's showing. Go get a shot of prune juice and join the other 1%'ers out on the porch. Posted by: tfhitwh at March 12, 2004 08:07 AM | PERMALINKNorman: There is both good reason and compelling evidence to link Saddam and Islamic terrorists -- both the direct evidence (documents, facts on the ground) linking Saddam and Al Q), Oh, really? If there is direct evidence linking Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida, why have the Bush administration, who need this direct evidence to back up their lying claims, not been publishing it? Al-Qaida were opposed to Iraq as a secular state. Osama bin Laden urged the faithful to attack Saddam Hussein. There is not only no evidence to support any connection (and if there were, I have every confidence that the Bush administration would make it public) there is plenty of evidence to show that a connection would be unlikely and contrary to reason. AND the hand-in-glove linkages between Arafat & Co, Al Q, and Saddam -- remember the $25K blood money bounty Saddam paid to each "martyr"? Here you're guilty of confusion based on (I assume) an ignorant kind of bigotry. Yes, Saddam Hussein was famous for supporting the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. There is good historical reason for this: the Palestinians are every Arab's "good cause", so supporting them was good publicity for Saddam Hussein in the Arab Street: the Palestinians openly supported Saddam Hussein in Gulf War I: and giving (relatively) small monetary gifts to Palestinian families didn't commit Saddam Hussein to any political inconvenience except the hatred of the US and of Israel, both of whom were already Iraqi enemies. Arguing from "he gave the families of Palestinians suicide bombers money" to "he's obviously linked to militant Islamists" is an enormous leap. Just because they're all Muslims does not mean it makes sense to lump them all together in one heap. It doesn't. There is no way any of you morons can claim Iraq wasn't a state sponsor of terrorism. Ad hominem attacks, Norman? The point I was making at more length above is that it is moronic in the extreme to argue that because Palestinian suicide bombers are terrorists, and al-Qaeda are terrorists, there is necessarily a connection between them. Politically they have nothing in common. Nor can any of you posit an alternative strategy to deal with the crazies -- other than killing them and their hosts and sponsors. Now, now, Norman. You're just talking nonsense. Many alternative strategies to mass murder have, in fact, been posited. It's just that, ahem, some morons prefer to ignore all alternative strategies and claim they were never proposed. As for "kicking the can down the road" working for Clinton in '93 -- Yeah it worked. That's why we got hit on 9/11 and Madrid on 3/11. Let's spell out that argument in full, Norman. You're saying that Clinton's treating the 1993 WTC attack as a law enforcement problem, and having those responsible for it tracked down, charged, tried, and jailed, obviously didn't work because in 2001 another group also bombed the WTC. But Bush treating the 2001 WTC as an act of war, and going to war against Afghanistan and against Iraq, while making no particular effort to track down those who planned the 2001 WTC attack, obviously worked - because in 2004, the same group committed another large-scale terrorist attack in Madrid. Do you actually pay attention to your own arguments, Norman? President Bush has and will ACT. Kerry will find at least two sides for every issue and he'll be on both -- and he will NEVER act in a meaningful way. Well, so far Bush has spent billions on an irrelevant war against Iraq, which he and his administration have managed to con large numbers of the American people into believing had some connection with the attack on the WTC. Including you, evidently. Have you ever wondered why, if this evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda exists, the Bush administration haven't published it openly? No? Further, Bush has apparently managed to convince you that this irrelevant war is the right way of pursuing al-Qaeda - even though we have bloody proof that it's not done a thing to weaken al-Qaeda, and may even have strengthened it? And you think Kerry won't "act meaningfully"? But within your standards of "meaningfully", he could go into the White House and sing a little song in the Oval Office and that would match up to Bush's actions against al-Qaeda - and be much less expensive, too. Chris K: Surely you have at least heard of the theory that a free, stable Iraq IS a weapon against terrorism. If not, there it is. I've heard the theory. It's a nifty one. Unfortunately, it's been
obvious since May last year that Bush & Co had no plans at all for
creating a free, stable Iraq - and still don't. Why this obsession with an Al Qaeda link in Iraq? The pattern of Muslim terrorism under previous administrations is this: WTC bombing, Moghadishu (Black Hawk Down), USS Cole, 9/11 The pattern of terrorism, under Bush is this: 9/11, Bali, Jakarta, Ongoing Iraq insurgency, Spain Ever notice its moving further away and doing less damage? Did you realise that after 9/11 terrorism was positioned for a quantum leap in growth? Success breeds credibility. Bush changed the game by establishing a substanial credible deterrant to flirting with terrorism. That credibility is the fact that if provoked, America can respond with an agressive diplomatic approach ending in sanctions and eventually regime change by force. Vote Kerry in and any regime with some UN Veto favours from Russia/China/France can get away with developing WMD and terrorist assets.
Why this obsession with an Al Qaeda link in Iraq? Ask Vice-President Cheney. Posted by: George Claredon at March 12, 2004 09:36 AM | PERMALINKUnlike numerous other blogs, the Calpunditocracy doesn't seem to really give a damn about what happened to the people of Madrid except as a means to explain why it is all Bush's fault. The bone-dry political analyses, loopy conspiracy theories, dessicated discussions about semantics, morbid discussions on body counts and which is statistically worse, and utter lack of concern for anything but generation of minor debating points marks a new low for this blog. Francois, your characterization of the evil U.S. selling arms to Iraq while the valiant U.N. tried to prevent substandard goods from being shipped there is totally out of touch with reality. Haven't you read the voluminous material about the utterly corrupt UN Oil-for-Food Program? Aren't you even award that France and Russia together sold 70% of the arms sold to Iraq from 1973-1990? Your misrepresenation of the facts is shameless and breathtakingly audacious. See http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html for well-documented evidence in this regard. I was heartened by reponses of many other bloggers on the left or the right regarding this dismal event. First they thought of the people of Spain. This lengthy thread, with its tendentious nitpicking and sheer lack of concern, only leaves me seriously depressed. Posted by: Daniel Calto at March 12, 2004 09:39 AM | PERMALINKWhy this obsession with an Al Qaeda link in Iraq? Goodness knows. Ask Norman Rogers: he keeps claiming it exists. Isn't the whole 'preemption thing' about taking out threats before they hit you? Indeed. The problem is, Bush failed to prove that Iraq was a threat to the US. Indeed, as events have proved, it wasn't, and it's extremely likely that Bush & Co knew it. Saddam hates the US, had tremendous resources Like what? Read the Kay report, Researcher. a history of supporting Palestinian terrorism, which is relevant to what? That's a reason for Israel to attack Iraq - but not for the US to do it. a group called Ansar Al Islam in its borders For someone called Researcher, you don't do much research! The full name of the group is Ansar al-Islam fi Kurdistan (Supporters of Islam in Kurdistan), and it was "one of a number of Sunni Islamist groups based in the Kurdish-controlled northern provinces of Iraq" (cite). In short, it was in the part of Iraq not controlled by Saddam Hussein, and was, if anything, in opposition to Saddam Hussein. was believed to have WMD by everyone including Clinton Except that, as we're now discovering, intelligence agencies round the world were fairly dubious about Saddam Hussein's WMD - no one except the Bush administration in the US, and the Blair administration in the UK, were prepared to claim that the data showed Hussein's WMD were a threat to the US. The use of the term WMD was (deliberately?) misleading: there was more evidence of chemical/biological WMD than actually existed, but no evidence at all of nuclear WMD - which is what would have actually posed a threat to the US or the UK. Significantly, Iraq's neighbours were uniformly against the US invasion. and had an outstanding legal obligation after Gulf War I to prove it had disarmed. However, that much-vaunted "legal obligation" did not constitute in itself a legal reason to invade Iraq. Bush changed the game by establishing a substanial credible deterrant to flirting with terrorism. Yeah: he made it clear that, so long as you're talking the right talk (Pakistan), or you're good oil businessmen (Saudi Arabia), or you really do have nuclear weapons (North Korea) the US will leave you the hell alone. He also made it clear that if the US attacks a country with no oil, it will take only a fleeting interest in deterring it from terrorism (Afghanistan). This is hardly a deterrant. That credibility is the fact that if provoked, America can respond with an agressive diplomatic approach ending in sanctions and eventually regime change by force. This would be why Saudi Arabia, the nation with the closest links to al-Qaeda, has never met with any "aggressive diplomacy", isn't being threatened by sanctions, and is never going to find itself subject to "regime change by force". Oh yes... Vote Kerry in and any regime with some UN Veto favours from Russia/China/France can get away with developing WMD and terrorist assets. Like Saudi Arabia, you mean? Oh yes - that regime is protected by the US, so it's perfectly okay. Like Pakistan, you mean? Oh yes - that regime is protected by the US, so it's perfectly okay. Like North Korea, you mean? Oh, but they already have nuclear weapons - so the "Bush doctrine" is useless. If the Democrat position is that every nation gets to kill 2000 lives before the US is entitled to respond, you have to be willing to lose a lot of Americans. Like Bush, you mean? According to Bush, if a nation contributes 15
out of 19 people to a terrorist attack on the US that kills over 3000
people, the US still isn't entitled to respond. Now that's a President who's willing to lose a lot of Americans... Daniel, I can't speak for anyone else, but at the moment I'm unwilling to discuss the attack on Madrid because we simply don't know enough about it. It may be ETA. It may be al-Qaida. Right now, all we know is that hundreds of people have been killed and over a thousand people injured. When we know more about it, I'll be willing to discuss it. At the moment, I fear those trying to discuss the political implications are merely sharing their ignorance. All I know is that it is a tragedy. I hope that soon we'll know more. Dear Jesur.. Thank you for your thoughtful comments, but let me respond. You say: Oh, really? If there is direct evidence linking Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida, why have the Bush administration, who need this direct evidence to back up their lying claims, not been publishing it? I think you’ll be hearing a lot more on this subject from GWB & Co as November nears – but why don’t you try this: Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam for some light reading. Hey – you might learn something. J: Arguing from "he gave the families of Palestinians suicide bombers money" to "he's obviously linked to militant Islamists" is an enormous leap. OH, The PLO & Co aren’t terrorists because they only kill Jews? If you’re as much a student of current events as you pretend to be – you’d know they’re all using exactly the same explosives technologies – exactly THE SAME SIGNATURE. And you claim they’re not related? Any you question why I think you’re a moron? J: it is moronic in the extreme to argue that because Palestinian suicide bombers are terrorists, and al-Qaeda are terrorists, there is necessarily a connection between them. Politically they have nothing in common.. And, they have nothing in common BECAUSE MORONS LIKE YOU CLAIM IT'S SO. Of course, there's extensive evidence that they have common purpose, common methodologies, and common command – but morons like you claim it ain’t so. Brilliant! Fortunately, most of America sees it for what it is – and ain’t about to vote for your guys. It’s time to MOVE-ON! And J argues that GWB’s actions and programs (such as toppling Saddam) haven’t been effective against the crazies because, the same group committed another large-scale terrorist attack in Madrid. BWAHAHAHAHA Hey J, let’s get this right. You’re claiming that because GWB hasn’t yet killed them all – that he’s been ineffective. Right? And your guy Kerry – who wants to duck behind the local constabularies – can guarantee that if he’s elected we’ll never see another Al Q attack, ANYPLACE IN THE WORLD, EVER AGAIN! BWAHAHAHAHA (and you wonder why I think you’re a moron?). BWAHAHAHAHA J tells us: Norman. You're just talking nonsense. Many
alternative strategies to mass murder have, in fact, been posited. It's
just that, ahem, some morons prefer to ignore all alternative strategies
and claim they were never proposed. . Hey J – let’s hear your favorite theory! How would you guarantee the safety of Western Civilization -- and an absolute guarantee against future attacks by AL Q & Co.?
Let’s hear it, wiseguy! And then mail it into to Kerry – he badly
needs a strategy! And tell us why our obvious success in building a
free and stable Iraq isn’t working and wasn’t necessary. except for Spain, and other small countries, and maybe Great Britain. - Carol so much so that anyone with some international savvy here in the US also thought so -Carol You mean the internaional savvy ones that know: CNN reports: "The U.S. Department of Homeland Security will probe to see if there is any specific threat to trains in response to the deadly bomb attacks in Madrid, but it has no plans to raise the color-coded threat level, officials said on Thursday." If we're hell-bent on winning the so-called war on terrorism, why do the Minions of The Great Leader find themselves scurrying "in response." Our ongoing preoccupation with airports followed 9/11. Won't commuter trains be next? What about shopping malls and basketball arenas and ports and dams? We've visited these crowded or dangerous venues often since 9/11 and have not yet had to remove our shoes, empty our pockets, open our laptop, or show our ID. We say again. If this is a war, it is one we cannot win. Kevin, There you go, equating Iraq with al Queda. Iraq had nothing to do (other than act as a diversion) with the war on terror. Posted by: CJ at March 12, 2004 10:22 AM | PERMALINKI think you’ll be hearing a lot more on this subject from GWB & Co as November nears Yes, no doubt. After all, the November 2004 election is what's important to Bush. – but why don’t you try this: Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam for some light reading. Hey – you might learn something. Thanks for the Telegraph link: an interesting example of a story that came out last year and was comprehensively debunked shortly afterwards. By U.S. law-enforcement records, incidentally. OH, The PLO & Co aren’t terrorists because they only kill Jews? Oh, for heaven's sake. Respond to what I actually wrote, rather than inventing stuff and responding to that. And, they have nothing in common BECAUSE MORONS LIKE YOU CLAIM IT'S SO. Going into ALL CAPS doesn't prove your point, Norman. Just about the only thing that Palestinian suicide bombers and the al-Queda suicide hijackers had in common is (a) they were all Muslims and (b) they were all terrorists. My point was that this is not sufficient to treat them as if they were the same group - it would be like lumping the Pope and George W. Bush together because they're both Christians and they're both world leaders. And J argues that GWB’s actions and programs (such as toppling Saddam) haven’t been effective against the crazies Um - you were claiming that self-evidently Clinton's tracking down the terrorists who attacked the WTC in 1993 wasn't effective because, eight years later, a different group of terrorists also attacked the WTC. You were also asserting that Bush's attack on Iraq was self-evidently effective because, two and a half years later, the same group of terrorists attacked in Madrid. Can you spot the holes in your reasoning? How would you guarantee the safety of Western Civilization -- and an absolute guarantee against future attacks by AL Q & Co.? Interesting question, Norman. I would say that the safety of Western Civilisation is best guaranteed by defending it both in principle and practice - which would not include launching aggressive attacks against countries which represent no threat to it. I would say that, if al-Qaeda is responsible for the attack in Madrid, Bush has managed definitively to demonstrate that he is incapable of ending the threat of further attacks by al-Qaeda. And tell us why our obvious success in building a free and stable Iraq isn’t working You must be living in a different universe from me: I see no signs of
"obvious success" in building a free and stable Iraq in this one. I feel terribly for the people this happened to - it's randomness is
chilling - esp. if it proves to be fanatical muslims - it means all of
us in the west are in more danger than we can guess at - we have to find
a way to fight terrorists (as opposed to fighting terrorism) and its'
root causes - I know that terrorists have been from the middle-classes
in the Middle-eastern world, but they come poverty stricken countries -
rates for people living below the poverty level in these countries are
astoundingly high - and then there's their hate based faith (argue all
you want, but there are passages in the Koran that reference Jews saying
they are no better than pigs and dogs - and they don't like the west
much more - they repress women etc.) (We should build a wall around the
entire middle-east) - we can assist only so much in regards to poverty,
and as for the 16th century manner in which they practice their faith I
see no answers save one - stop doing business with these people until
they decide they are ready to join the 21st century - we don't need
their oil (only 10% of the oil the US uses comes from the middle-east)
There is no cold war going on - we don't need allies of convenience to
combat the USSR anymore - let's get back to core principles and stick
with them - As for the Norman: try discussing without childish invective
- it's pathetic - talk radio is what you're looking for - try pasting
this URL in your browser and have a good laugh: Democracy, the only political system that honors life and the freedom
inherent to it, was attacked yesterday. If there is ever a moment to
define who we are by who we are not, this is it. And the flip
side of the coin is totalitarianism -- terrorists are only those that
represent that ideology to the extreme. To the extent that
totalitarianism exists, it will breed deathists to no end. Spreading freedom is the only cure to this human disease. So, maybe to put my tin hat on, if your 'Euro's' had backed a plan to follow through on direct military action in Afghanistan (tactical to remove immediate threat, which they have failed to do, once again leaving it to the US, so they can throw stones at what they benefit from) Yes, that must be why the European bit of NATO has been handling security in Afghanistan, and taking losses as a result, especially since most of the US special units were re-located in the Iraqi theatre. Indeed, it's the European input in Afghanistan which basically preserves Karzai as Mayor of Kabul. Smarter trolls, please. Posted by: nick sweeney at March 12, 2004 11:06 AM | PERMALINKKarl, there's scary violent stuff in the bible, too. So what--the bible is there for people to find the meaning they seek--it is not a how-to guide to life, and neither is the Koran. Saying only 10% of US oil comes from the middle-east so we can just pull out is simplistic. For starters, there are things the US has done (cozying up to the Shah of Iran for one) that will inflame the locals for generations, kind of like some Americans still are pissed off about the civil war, excuse me, war between the states. The US is involved the middle-east for the long haul. We do have to go forward and try to build or contribute to some stability and civil society. However, setting up client-states like we did to South America in the 20th century is just going to breed more terrorists. Bush's problem is that his US owners want the oil, but the locals aren't giving it up without a fight. Posted by: dryListener at March 12, 2004 11:09 AM | PERMALINKSugar Plum: Well put. The attack in Madrid, regardless of who carried it out, was an attack on our collective civilization itself, and if we wnat it to survive we need to oppose murderous terrorists resolutely and over the long haul. Posted by: Daniel Calto at March 12, 2004 11:16 AM | PERMALINKJesur.. tell us: After all, the November 2004 election is what's important to Bush. -- As if it wasn’t the be-all and end-all for Kerry, and Jeser… And J tells us that the UK Telegraph’s scoop on the AL Q/Saddam connection was comprehensively debunked … by U.S. law-enforcement records. But J’s cite is actually a Newsweek article. And, even a cursory reading of this article shows that it’s principal source is one Hassan Mneimneh, codirector of an Iraqi exile research group reviewing millions of captured Iraqi government documents., who hadn't seen the Telegraph document. Great Job, J! And J insists again that there is no relationship between the Palistinean terrorists and Al Q and Iran – even though it’s been documented dozens of times. Hey J – give us your thoughts on the Karine A. And tell us why they their operations bear the same signature (suicide bombers, coordinated attacks, same explosives, same bomb signatures, etc.) But no, J insists it’s all coincidence. I hope Kerry tries the same line of idiocy. J, they’re not Muslim terrorists – they’re Islamist terrorists. Try reading Daniel Pipes – maybe you’ll learn something about the subject. Then again … And J tell us if al-Qaeda is responsible for the attack in Madrid, Bush has managed definitively to demonstrate that he is incapable of ending the threat of further attacks by al-Qaeda.. But J – you didn’t take up my challenge. If you’re setting the bar so that the protection of these United States MUST prevent ALL future AL Q attacks – then how would YOU accomplish this? (And you wonder why I think you’re a moron?) And of course J sees no progress in Iraq. Saddam in prison? A new constitution? Iraq to be self governing by 6/30? No progress? BWAHAHAHAHA Hey J – how many good citizens of Iraq have been fed feet first into plastic shredders since we deposed Saddam? How many Islamist’s families have been paid blood money for killing innocents? Really J, tell us IN DETAIL what your strategy would be to end the threat of AL Q. BWAHAHAHAHAHA drylistener -- this has been asked before (but you obviously weren't listening) If it were true that the Iraq war was waged to steal the people's oil -- then why do we plan on letting them sell it on the open market? Posted by: Norman Rogers at March 12, 2004 11:25 AM | PERMALINK"Iraq's main trading partner for the past 20 years is the US by far. Pretty much until 1991, most of the weapons, incl. dirty ones, were provided by the US, and used with at least tacit consent, incl. against the Kurds." Yeah that explains all the M-16's, M-1A Abrams, Apaches, F-16's that were used in the first Gulf War by Iraq. There alot of things you can point to US involvement in Iraq but the above is just wrong and comes from a line of kneejerk thinking. The US is always the culprit is just as bad as the US is always a saint. In terms of military hardware, Russian(and Chinese made) equipment dominated. From the Ak-47 to the Russian Made Anti-Tank Missles to the Scuds to the T-72. Then you had French Mirages Here's a link to a Library of Congress report circa 1987 http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/iraq/iq_appen.html Here's another link for the library regarding French Arms sales in 1980's... http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?cstdy:3:./temp/~frd_YB66:: Here's yet another discussing trade in 1980's http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?cstdy:5:./temp/~frd_YB66:: Here's one discussing US trade with Iraq through the 90's http://landview.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5050.html Interestingly, Iraq trade with the US in the 90's was very little to none until 97-98 when the situation once again grew tense. Posted by: Ryan at March 12, 2004 11:38 AM | PERMALINKIf it were true that the Iraq war was waged to steal the people's oil -- then why do we plan on letting them sell it on the open market? -- norman rogers The availability of oil was one of several motivators for invading Iraq: correcting the perceived error of not toppling Saddam in 1991, stopping the worrisome trend of oil being sold for euros, keeping domestic politics under control (there's a war on!). As far as our Iraqi client-state selling oil on the open market, yeah, sure. But it'll be pumped and piped by Cheney-connected firms under very favorable contracts, and you can be damned sure it'll be sold for dollars, not euros. And if Opec dares to raise prices, guess what? Our loyal Iraqis will just increase output! I have no desire to shovel more money to Opec, I just want to point out that under the Neo-cons' plan Iraq will not be an independent oil producer, despite whomever we prop up to sell us the oil on our terms. The Iraqis know this, which is why they're trying to make sure the US gets out of Iraq before new oil contracts are negotiated. Posted by: dryListener at March 12, 2004 12:09 PM | PERMALINKjesus, all that shouting. this place has really gone to hell. Posted by: flatulus at March 12, 2004 12:12 PM | PERMALINKdryListener tells us: The availability of oil was one of several motivators for invading Iraq: correcting the perceived error of not toppling Saddam in 1991, stopping the worrisome trend of oil being sold for euros, keeping domestic politics under control (there's a war on!). Well, that's a far cry from claiming we invaded Iraq to get their oil! You also left out (as reasons for the war): 1. To enforce the '91 treaty. 2. To eliminate a state sponsor of terrorism. 3. To disarm an outlaw regime. 4. To put 150,000 troops on the borders of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran -- all ACTIVE sponsors of terrorism. 5. To introduce democracy into the (non-Jewish) middle east. So far ... Iraq has been disarmed, they have the beginnings of democracy, Lybia has forsworn atomic and chemical weapons, Pakistan is coming clean, Iran's atomic program has been partially exposed, the Saudi's and Syria are hearing loud footsetps, etc. Sounds like a pretty effective policy to me. What's Kerry got? Posted by: Norman Rogers at March 12, 2004 12:28 PM | PERMALINKYou know you've won against a freeper when the freep changes the subject. (subject was Iraqis being free to sell their oil on the open market). Posted by: dryListener at March 12, 2004 01:04 PM | PERMALINKs if it wasn’t the be-all and end-all for Kerry, and Jeser… The be-all and end-all for me? No. If the worst happens and Bush is elected in November 2004, well, I hope sincerely that George W. Bush won't succeed in destroying the US, or the planet, over the next 4 years, and can at least feel sure that by 2008, the consequences of this disastrous Presidency will be so evident that no one tainted with the Bush legacy will be able to achieve power again for a generation. I doubt, in fact, that Bush can destroy the US or the world, though his policies are destructive and disastrous: but that he could destroy the Republican party as a credible force in politics appears all too likely. Kerry has a long history as a respected politician: if by some horrible chance he doesn't win in November, or if the same thing happened as happened in November 2000, and he does win but Bush gets the Presidency anyway, well, I feel sure Kerry can deal with it. Bush, on the other hand, has a do-nothing career as governor of Texas and a disastrous career as a dishonest businessman to look back on. Plus at least one senior member of his administration who needs Bush to win in November, in order to pardon his treason in betraying Valerie Plame. But my comment meant simply that Bush's team are plainly strategizing everything - from the handover in Iraq down to the famous "Mission Accomplished" banner - in an effort to win votes for Bush. To Bush, national and international policy are basically campaign tools. He is an irresponsible President, and this is just one example. And J tells us that the UK Telegraph’s scoop on the AL Q/Saddam connection was comprehensively debunked … by U.S. law-enforcement records. But J’s cite is actually a Newsweek article. Which you evidently didn't read. The Newsweek article reported that during the time the faked document claimed that Mohammad Atta had been in Iraq, US law enforcement records reported that he had been in motels in the US. This is simply a fact. If you don't believe it, ask yourself this: If this supposed story of Mohammad Atta being trained in Iraq had not been rapidly and comprehensively debunked, why do you suppose George W. Bush has kept so quiet about it? And J insists again that there is no relationship between the Palistinean terrorists and Al Q and Iran – even though it’s been documented dozens of times. Really? Go on then, Norman: cite your documentation. Try to make it some documentation of better quality than rumors reported and quickly debunked. Do some real research. (Oh, and pay attention to what I actually write - I merely pointed out that the Palestinian suicide bombers and Al-Quaeda have nothing in common beyond the immediate obvious; both terrorists, both Muslims. You have suddenly thrown Iran in as if I'd mentioned it: but I didn't. You are clearly not bothering to read what I write. Hey J – give us your thoughts on the Karine A. And tell us why they their operations bear the same signature (suicide bombers, coordinated attacks, same explosives, same bomb signatures, etc.) But no, J insists it’s all coincidence. Oh, Norman. Suicide bombers, are, unfortunately, no evidence of connection. They are a tragic and horrible idea that it's impossible to put back in the box. Evidence of "coordinated attacks"? Document it. Evidence of "same explosives"? Document it. Evidence of the same bomb signatures? Document it. Thus far you are producing no evidence of your assertions that the Palestinians and al-Qaeda are linked. J, they’re not Muslim terrorists – they’re Islamist terrorists. Well, no. Al-Qaeda are certainly Islamist terrorists. Some Palestinian terrorists are probably Islamists. But defining both Palestinian terrorists and al-Qaeda as "Islamist terrorists" and claiming that means they're linked is proof of ignorance. Read this article on the meaning of "Islamist". It is not accurate to refer to most Palestinians, terrorists or not, as Islamist: to Muslims, that means political parties who support "the establishment of Islamic Law with formal status". This is not the objective of the Palestinian resistance or Palestinian terrorists: Palestinians include both Christians and Muslims. The more you attempt to prove your point, the more ignorant you look. It sounds as if you are merely repeating half-remembered arguments from right-wing news stories or op-eds: you should do some research on your own account. (If you had, you might not have made that silly mistake citing the debunked story about Mohammad Atta being "trained in Iraq".) And of course J sees no progress in Iraq. Saddam in prison? A new constitution? Iraq to be self governing by 6/30? No progress? Again, Norman, it would make more sense if you responded to what I wrote rather than your own fantasies. But you're right in that I do not see the handover to the governing council, timed to provide what Bush hopes will be positive publicity for the November 2004 US election, as a sign of progress. I would rather see a President who was willing to stick with Iraq for as long as it took to establish a secure democracy, one who was willing to make a long-term committment no matter how politically expensive it might be, rather than one running away because it's too hard and what really matters is getting elected in November. That's Bush. If you’re setting the bar so that the protection of these United States MUST prevent ALL future AL Q attacks – then how would YOU accomplish this? Treat al-Qaeda like criminals; track them down, arrest, and try them. I note that you're ignoring the major hole in your argument - which is that you're claiming Clinton's method (catch the bastards who did it) didn't work because it was eight years before anyone tried the same thing again - but that Bush's method (pick a country with no connection to al-Qaeda and invade it) must have worked, because al-Qaeda is still around and attacking. Naturally I'm trying to avoid throwing ad hominem insults at you, but... Hey J – how many good citizens of Iraq have been fed feet first into plastic shredders since we deposed Saddam? At least 8437 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invaded Iraq. No, they weren't killed by being fed feet first into plastic shredders. But they're just as dead. And no one is counting the mutilated thousands more who are still being killed by US cluster bombs. (And in Uzbekistan, another dictator, supported by the US, is in the habit of boiling his victims alive... which makes claims by the Bush administration to care about human rights look fairly shaky, doesn't it?) Really J, tell us IN DETAIL what your strategy would be to end the threat of AL Q. I'd go with what evidently works: tracking down the actual criminals involved and arresting them for trial. You, it appears, prefer to go with the method that evidently doesn't work - invade an unrelated country and throw it into chaos. How many Islamist’s families have been paid blood money for killing innocents? How many Islamist’s families have been paid blood money for killing innocents? Oops - teach me to click Post without clicking Preview first. That last sentence was Norman's, not mine. I meant to respond to it, but honestly, re-reading through Norman's ill-researched tirade and reflecting that he's clearly not reading my responses, it's not worth it.
You're doing a hell of a job, Jes. Keep up the good work. Posted by: Anarch at March 12, 2004 02:47 PM | PERMALINKJesur.. tell us: Kerry has a long history as a respected politician: if by some horrible chance he doesn't win in November, or if the same thing happened as happened in November 2000, and he does win but Bush gets the Presidency anyway, well, I feel sure Kerry can deal with it.. OK, J – tell us who in the Senate has any warmth for the man. And name his significant pieces of legislation. Distinguished? – Distinguished as the man who wasn’t there. And Kerry has been salivating for this job since he was a teenager (read some quotes from his fellow Eli’s). Why do you think Kerry brought a film crew back the next day to the spot where he murdered the wounded VC, crawling away from battle? And J tells us that GWB was a “do-nothing” governor of Texas? Gee, he was re-elected and we went from there to the Presidency of these United States. Sure sounds like he’s got a more impressive CV than J. J, you would have us believe our President committed our military to battle in Iraq to enhance his chances for reelection. Anyone with an ounce of common sense (something that Clinton has in abundance) would tell you this is just plain nuts. If Bush had the character of Clinton, he’d have kicked the can down the road for his successor (as Big Bill did). GWB brought war to the terrorists because it was the right thing to do (something you Demoncrats will never understand). As for your embarrassment over your citation of the Newsweek article, read it. They didn’t refute the document because they didn’t have the document. The article claimed the document’s contents were inconsistent with Newsweek’s claim as to the FBI’s best current guess as to Atta’s timeline and whereabouts. The document speaks for itself. It’s either forged or genuine. If it’s genuine, the FBI will have a new best guess. And the UK Telegraph seems to think it’s genuine. But of course, J knows better. J – you keep claiming there’re no relationships between the sundry Islamist terror groups, and you ask me for proofs. I’ll be happy to supply more of them for you – but first you must explain away the Karine A (gee, you must have overlooked that section of my prior post). Who supplied the arms? Who loaded them aboard ship? Who paid for them? Why don’t you try googling “connections "Al Qaeda" Hamas Hezbollah” and see what you find? Now J tells us that HE would treat terrorists as criminals and track ‘em down – just like Bill Clinton. And J tells us that there was no Al Q attacks on the US from ’93 until 9/11 as proof of this tactical nonsense. J conveniently forgets the USS Cole and our African embassies -- and the four years of planning that went into 9/11 And J – like Hillary – tell us how much better things were in Iraq before we deposed Saddam. And tell us how YOU know there’s no connections between Al Q and Hamas and Hezbollah and the PLO. And tell us how you’d track down these “criminals” without deposing the tyrants who harbor them. And why won't you tell us how many Islamist’s families have been paid blood money for killing innocents? Posted by: Norman Rogers at March 12, 2004 03:19 PM | PERMALINKYou're doing a hell of a job, Jes. Keep up the good work. Thanks for the compliment, Anarch. But to quote my favourite witch: "Bored now." Shooting fish in a barrel isn't sporting. And it's Friday night: I have other fish to fry. Night-Nite J -- come back when you have a comeback. Target practice isn't much fun when they're shootin' back. I love these boards! Posted by: Norman Rogers at March 12, 2004 03:43 PM | PERMALINKWas it Al-Queda or ETA? Don't forget the date: 3-11. I vote for Al-Queda. Posted by: Martin Nystrand at March 12, 2004 08:14 PM | PERMALINK"""""Jes spews his empty wad: Gee IDIOT, we tried that when they bombed the WTC in 1993 and we got
the Khobar Tower bombing, then we sent the cops in and got the African
embassy bombing, then we sent the cops and got the USS Cole bombing,
then we sent the cops in and got Sept 11th. And stop blaming the US soldier for the deaths of Iraqis killed by Al Queda terrorists, your starting to sound like John Kerry. Let's get J's answers to Charles Krauthammer: WASHINGTON -- Look. I know it is shooting French in a barrel. But when yet another insufferable penseur -- first Chirac, then de Villepin, now the editor of Le Monde -- starts lecturing Americans on how they ought to conduct themselves in the world, the rules of decorum are suspended. In an article in The Wall Street Journal, Jean-Marie Colombani, who wrote the famous Sept. 12, 2001, Le Monde editorial titled ``We are all Americans,'' gives us the usual more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger lament about America's sins: We loved you on Sept. 11. We were all with you in Afghanistan. But, oh, what have you done in Iraq? This requires some parsing. We loved you on Sept. 11 means: We like Americans when they are victims, on their knees and bleeding. We just don't like it when they get off the floor -- without checking with us first. Colombani glories in Europe's post-Sept. 11 ``solidarity'' with America: ``Let us remember here the involvement of French and German soldiers, among other European nationalities, in the operations launched in Afghanistan to ... free the Afghans.'' Come again? The French arrived in Mazar-e Sharif after it fell -- or as military analyst Jay Leno put it, ``to serve as advisers to the Taliban on how to surrender properly.'' Afghanistan was liberated by America acting practically unilaterally, with an even smaller coalition than that in Iraq -- Britain and Australia, with the rest of the world holding America's coat. But then came Iraq. ``The problem was not so much the war itself, but the fact that it was launched without U.N. approval,'' Colombani explains. Rubbish. The Kosovo war was launched without U.N. approval and France joined it. Only two wars have ever been launched with U.N. approval: the Korean War (an accident of the Soviets having walked out of the Security Council on another matter) and Gulf War I. It is touching to hear such legalistic objections to deposing a man who has killed more Muslims than any person on earth -- particularly when the objection is offered from a pose of superior international morality from a country whose commandos once blew up a Greenpeace ship monitoring French nuclear tests in the South Pacific. Moreover, Colombani complains, George Bush ``lied about the weapons of mass destruction -- the official pretext for the war -- as now publicly established by recent investigations.'' More rubbish. The investigations have established that the weapons have not been found and may not exist. The claim that the president knew so at the time, and lied about it as a ``pretext'' for war, is a malicious falsehood. There is more. Colombani grieves that the Bush administration has taken an ``ax'' to the two great pillars of Western success post-World War II: containment and free trade. Colombani decries the fact that containment has given way to pre-emptive war. But containment was designed for the Soviet Union, which died 10 years before Bush even took office. Only a fool would advocate containment against the new threat that has arisen in its place: terrorists and terrorist states acquiring weapons of mass destruction. When dealing with undeterrables (like al Qaeda) or undetectables (like an Iraq or an Iran passing WMDs to terrorists) there is no such thing as containment. There is no deterrence, no address for the retaliation. There are two options -- do nothing and wait for the next attack, or get them before they acquire the capacity to get you. That is called pre-emption. Warming to the ``ax'' theme, Colombani then decries the Bush administration's ``return of protectionism.'' This (plus pre-emption), ``is why John Kerry is, a priori, perceived with so much sympathy'' in Europe. Good grief. Only an ignoramus oblivious to what is happening in American politics could prefer Kerry over Bush on grounds of free trade. Has no one told Colombani that the Democrats have made protectionism -- attacking everything from NAFTA to the WTO -- a theme of this campaign, radically reversing the Clinton policies of the 1990s? It is not John Kerry's fault that he is endorsed by a Frenchman. (Or by Kim Jong Il of North Korea, whose media have been running some of Kerry's speeches verbatim!) But Kerry has made the major -- indeed, only discernible -- theme of his foreign policy ``rejoining the community of nations'' and being liked abroad once again. Which is why he does not just court foreign support, he boasts about it. ``I've met foreign leaders, who can't go out and say this publicly,'' he told a Hollywood, Fla., fund-raiser, ``but boy they look at you and say, `You gotta win this one, you gotta beat this guy.''' For the world. For France. Posted by: Norman Rogers at March 13, 2004 05:20 AM | PERMALINKhttp://www.barrychamish.com WHY THE MADRID BOMBINGS by Barry Chamish (Many of the following concepts will be unfamiliar to those who have not been following my research steadily. It is the author's contention that Spain is playing a central, though covert, role in Middle East diplomacy, believing it has a God-given, if Medieval, right to rule Israel and especially Jerusalem. Its Jesuit King, Juan Carlos, owns the title, Protector Of The Holy Places Of Jerusalem, and he takes the responsibility seriously, as do his superiors in Rome. For an overview of the hidden role of Spain, visit http://www.barrychamish.com ) The Spanish people are clamoring to know who was responsible for the March '04 http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/030818/2003081807.html Shaath explained following his talks with the Syrian foreign minister Farouk al-Shara in Damascus that the Palestinian leadership wants to deepen consultation and coordination with each of Syria and Lebanon concerning the peace process in the region. The Palestinian minister said that Abbas will meet during the
forthcoming visit with President Bashar al-Assad.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/syria/?id=6468 Spain's economy minister announces King Juan Carlos, Queen Sofia are to visit Syria in autumn. DAMASCUS - King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia of Spain are to visit
Syria in the autumn, Spanish Economy Minister Rodrigo Rato said here
Monday. ** Now why would Spain commit itself to pushing for a Syrian partnership agreement with the EU? What could Syria offer the EU but some canned dates and its fine human rights record? Note the $5 million bribe to Assad and ask what was behind it. The PA's prime minister lands in Damascus on September 8 and look at the reaction on September 9. ** Article.... Tuesday, 9 September 2003, 9:34 pm http://english.daralhayat.com/world_news/09-2003/20030913-20030913-9a701d2b-c0a8-01ed-0036-3068473ecbbf/story.html ** The PA prime minister has just left and a day later Spain's
Foreign Minister announced that he will be meeting with Colin Powell of
the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR). And where was the announcement
made but in Damascus? But look what else is in the Spanish FM's
repartee. First comes the defence of Arafat against Israeli threats to
expel him for his direction of terror against their country. Then come
what have to be huge lies. Do Spain and Syria really hold "identical
views" on Iraq? Is Spain really in favor of "getting rid of the foreign
occupation" or its American and British partners, in Iraq? http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters09-17-131342.asp?reg=MIDEAST ** And now we know who was behind Libya renouncing its weapons of
mass destruction. Little old Spain must have carried one nasty message
to persuade Libya to return to the fold. And in the process, Spain must
have angered not a few of Libya's terrorist allies. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/347908.html Syria vows military response if Israeli attacks continue Last paragraph http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=7460 http://www.europedaily.com/p/0f/553df16bb687.html?id=16bc11b http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/031017/2003101701.html ** And now Juan Carlos is in Damascus and the fun begins. We
have already observed that the Syrians are doing their best to drive a
wedge between Spain and America, or more precisely, the CFR. .....al-Assad visits Spain to inaugurate the role of the Umayyads
with KJC and other officials.....two days later PJP visits Syria to
visit the Umayyad Temple and call for inter-faith dialogue. Interesting
the way visits go.......KJC visits Spain Oct. 19 just after the Geneva
Accord is announced but just before it is signed in Geneva on Nov. 4th. Damascus 18-10 (SANA)- President Bashar al-Assad, in a speech opening the Fair of "From Damascus to Cordova" during a visit he paid with the First lady to Spain, said " the Arab civilization in Andalusia was an important era marked with accord, tolerance, social and intellectual richness among different peoples. That era transferred the civilization from Shami-Andalusia to Arab-Andalusia, creating a sort of civilization merger that it was impossible to attain without the dialogue among civilizations". Syria has always sought as a strategic aim for dialogue, not conflict, among civilizations, and has always called for fostering meeting points among cultures of different peoples, for the creation of a civilized, harmonious mixture that takes humanity to higher levels. From this point of view, Syria looks for the forthcoming visit of His Majesty King of Spain Juan Carlos and Her Majesty Queen Sofia, and warmly welcomes their Majesties The Royal Couple in Damascus, capital of the Omayads who were the first to establish and deepen the dialogue of civilizations when they set for Europe and the world through Andalusia to spread their message of tolerance. They also carried with them the latest digest of human thinking in various fields of knowledge, assisted by the fertile land in Andalusia, for long the settling point for different ancient civilizations. That climate led to a unique state of interaction and communication among civilizations in the Omayad-Andalusia epoch, and became an example for the whole world. Cordova at that time attracted Europe as a source of new knowledge in philosophy, arts, architecture, poetry and literatures. We also pin great hopes on this visit for strengthening existing relations of cooperation between Syria and Spain, and through her with the European countries to further deepen a constructive dialogue and the establishment of a real partnership based on reciprocal respect, equity and mutual benefit. We hope that the European countries would take a more active role in building world peace, establishing security and stability in the Middle East region by bringing about a just and comprehensive peace and the return of rights to their owners so that this would be positively reflected on the region’s prosperity and for the sake of dialogue, not conflict, among civilizations. Welcome to His Majesty King of Spain, to Her Majesty Queen of Spain, to Damascus the land civilizations and cradle of divine faiths which call for amity and peace. http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/popsyr.htm
** Now how do you like that? Look who's meeting in MADRID just a month after Juan Carlos' http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=4159384 BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The United States is seeking to engage European allies in President Bush's drive for democracy in the greater Middle East, partly to heal the rifts of the Iraq war. U.S. officials say involving Europeans through both NATO and the European Union in the initiative launched by Bush late last year is one of the administration's top priorities for 2004. Bush is expected to give more pointers to his approach in his State of the Union message to Congress Tuesday. "We are looking at ways to work better together with the EU on the greater Middle East, in security, economically and in promoting democracy and human rights, as we did in the Cold War toward Eastern Europe," a U.S. official in Brussels said. He said Washington wanted to build on the EU's existing Euro-Mediterranean dialogue -- known as the Barcelona process -- which offers North African and East Mediterranean partner states trade and aid benefits in return for economic and political cooperation and reform. **Now compare his father's State Of The Union Address. **
We have within our reach the promise of a renewed America. We can find meaning and reward by serving some higher purpose than ourselves, a shining purpose, the illumination of a Thousand Points of Light. And it is expressed by all who know the irresistible force of a child's hand, of a friend who stands by you and stays there, a volunteer's generous gesture, an idea that is simply right. ** This was a State Of The Union address that no one apparently
understood. Whatever this BARCELONA process is, it inspired the
President to announce a "New World Order," illuminated by "a thousand
points of light." The Spanish diplomacy was more than part and parcel of
the world order we are entering, it was central to it. http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/000522/2000052252.html Mubarak's Madrid visit to focus on Euro-Mediterranean cooperation "President Hosni Mubarak's itinerary of the visit to begin on May 29 includes three separate meetings with King Juan Carlos, in addition to expanded session of talks with Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and the speakers of the Congress of Deputies and the Senate," he said. "The issue of Euro-Mediterranean partnership is expected to top the agenda of talks with Spanish officials, specifically on the activation of the Barcelona process, and the Middle East peace process started in Madrid and bilateral relations," he said. Ambassador Haridi stressed the importance of activating the Barcelona process during President Mubarak's visit to Spain. "The EU will expand in the near future and European states will be busy trying to acclimatize themselves with this expansion," he said. "It is this pre-occupation with how to correspond to and face these new changes that raise fears among south-of-the Mediterranean states," he added. Will Europe's interest in Euro-Mediterranean partnership and the Barcelona process subside?, he questioned. "Spain is the European country to activate the Barcelona process and to set aside fears arising in this respect, given its geographic proximity to the Arab world and its exceptional relationship with Egypt in particular and Arab countries in general," Ambassador Haridi told MENA. "Spain presented the Mediterranean initiative to the European union to unite all European policies in one that all states must follow," he said. ** So Spain has chosen itself, or has been chosen, to unite the
warring factions of this simmering World War III. It plays the role of
the Jesuit mediator between all the factions: Islam versus the EU,
Vatican, Bilderberg, CFR, or to simplify matters, Europe and America.
However it may try to fool Islam, its sympathies lie with what is known
as the West. And Islam is getting madder and madder. All the bones
thrown at it are not calming the wolf. Fritz Springmeier, who is currently in Federal prison, has written several books on Illuminati blood lines. In Illuminati Formula for Undetectable Total Mind Control we read: "There is a connection between Marxism and a group of Satanists called Frankists. One of the strongest satanic cults to take control over the Jewish population was called Sabbatianism. Jacob Frank assumed the role of leader of this group, and afterward this brad of satanism was called Frankism. (Freud's sexually-obsessed theories came from Frankism.) Frank taught his followers to convert to another religion and hide behind that religion to practice their satanism. (One of several books on the subject of Frankism is The Contemporary Faces of Satan by Ratibor-Ray M. Jurjevich.) ** The Islamic rulers want no part of the New World Order. All
the bribes and attractions to Syria are falling on deaf ears. So in
comes Vatican agent Shimon Peres to sweeten the deal. NATO to upgrade relations with Israel NATO is seeking to deepen political and military contacts with Israel and a number of Arab states and may invite their representatives to a summit of alliance leaders in June, officials said Thursday. According to The Associated Press, it was not yet clear at what level these nations would be represented at the June 28 - 29 summit in Istanbul, Turkey. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/391957.html Spain offers EU ties as incentive for peace talks Spain will help Israel and the Palestinians achieve closer ties to
the European Union as an incentive to advance the Middle East peace
process, Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said Sunday. On Sunday, the co-winner of the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize said, "Once the two parties reach an agreement for peace, each will be admitted to the European Union, and the European Union will serve as a common ground for economic and social life." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040208/481/xpw11102081747
Her remarks came on the same day that Jordanian King Abdullah called for a "heavy-handed" international alliance to force a negotiated settlement on Israel and the Palestinians, who he said had shown they were incapable of making peace alone. Speaking at a brief news conference in Toledo with Labor Party Chairman Shimon Peres and Palestinian negotiations minister Saeb Erekat, Palacio said that, "an association of Palestine and Israel" with the EU at "the conclusion of this peace process... is an idea" worth consideration. "We need to discuss it in the European Union and see how we can integrate it into the peace process," she added. "So, my commitment is to discuss it, to put it before European" institutions. Peres brought the proposal up the day before in Madrid at a meeting of the Socialist International. On Sunday, the co-winner of the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize said, "Once the two parties reach an agreement for peace, each will be admitted to the European Union, and the European Union will serve as a common ground for economic and social life." Asked whether the proposal really was membership in the European Union, he replied, "There are variations how to do it. And anyway, the European Union already put their legs in the Mediterranean by admitting Cyprus and Malta. So they're no longer innocent. They're Mediterranean." ** And who is the ultimate source behind the Peres sellout of
Israel; who lo and behold but the Vatican? Without an ounce of
understanding of who is manipulating their nations and cultures, both
Israelis and Moslems have rejected the plots of the New World Order. The
difference is in style. Israel tries to limit civilian mortality while
Islam attempts to increase it for effect. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/391957.html Qorei, who has yet to meet with his Israeli counterpart Ariel Sharon
since taking office last autumn, confirmed he hopes the meeting could
take place by "the end of this month if the preparation succeed." ** The same forces are at work: the CFR, Jesuit Vatican, and Sabbateans. Spain has chosen itself as the uniter of all these factions with Islam. Islam rejected the offer in Madrid with its own form of heartless evil. And this battle between two evils will continue to engulf the world. Israel is at the forefront of the war, but Madrid offered a foul taste of what's in store for all of us. ** end As a lifelong Dem. The only blame should be placed on OBL! Posted by: Larry E at April 15, 2004 07:36 PM | PERMALINKCommunism has nothing to do with love. Communism is an excellent hammer which we use to destroy our enemy. Posted by: Kingdon Jim at May 2, 2004 05:28 PM | PERMALINKJust as a solid rock is not shaken by the storm, even so the wise are not affected by praise or blame. Man is the missing link between apes and human beings. Posted by: Foong Chwee Sze at June 30, 2004 08:08 AM | PERMALINK3977 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 05:57 PM | PERMALINK8836 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com 553 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 08:12 AM | PERMALINK2618 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 10:49 AM | PERMALINKDon´t worry, be clicking: 6301 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: Viagra at August 14, 2004 03:59 AM | PERMALINK5405 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 04:33 PM | PERMALINK527 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: play blackjack at August 17, 2004 07:51 AM | PERMALINK5598 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 3334 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 11:21 PM | PERMALINK615 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for The other day I was looking for some : 2232 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 24, 2004 02:43 AM | PERMALINK8757 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 01:33 AM | PERMALINK2180 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: online texas hold em at August 26, 2004 10:20 PM | PERMALINK4191 Look at http://oncas.tramadol-web.com/ its the hizzy for online casino action any where! Posted by: online casino at August 27, 2004 08:37 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
MADRID BOMBINGS....Robert Tagorda has a pretty good roundup of the evidence that 
