"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."
Posted on 03/14/2004 6:51:49 AM PST by John Jorsett
"THE bombs dropped on Baghdad exploded in Madrid!" declared one "peace" protester in Spain. Or as Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty put it, somewhat less vividly: "If this turns out to be Islamic extremists . . . it is more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq."
By "other allies", he means you – yes, you, reading this on the bus to work in Australia. You may not have supported the war, or ever voted for John Howard, but you're now a target. In other words, this is "blowback". This is what you get when you side with the swaggering Texas gunslinger and his neocon Zionist sidekicks.
There are three responses to Commissioner Keelty:
1) Not necessarily.
In his penultimate public appearance, the late Osama bin Laden, broadcasting from his cave in the early hours of the Afghan campaign, listed among his principal grievances "the tragedy of Andalusia" – that is, the end of Muslim rule in Spain in 1492. That's 512 years ago, but the al-Qa'ida guys are in no mood to (as the Democrats used to urge Republicans in the Clinton impeachment era) "move on". After half a millennium, even Paula Jones would have thrown in the towel. But not these fellows. They're still settling scores from the 15th century. They might not get around to Johnny-come-lately grievances such as Iraq until the early 2600s.
2) Commissioner Keelty could be right.
The question then is what does a nation have to do to avoid being targeted by the Islamists. Canada refused to take part in the war on Iraq, but whoever makes Osama's audio tapes these days still named the disinclined dominion as one of al-Qa'ida's enemies. Ireland did no more than allow American aircraft to continue their practice of refuelling at Shannon but that was enough for Robert Fisk to volunteer them for a list of potential Islamist targets.
Turkey refused to let the US attack Iraq from its territory, but they made the mistake of permitting the British to maintain consular and commercial ties, so a bunch of Muslims in Istanbul got slaughtered anyway. France was second to none in the creative energy and elegant deviousness they brought to the undermining of Bush and Blair vis a vis Iraq, and the only thanks they got was the detonation of their oil tanker off the coast of Yemen.
Maybe you could avoid all that by overthrowing the Bush poodles and installing John Pilger as prime minister. But I wouldn't advise it. Before he became a born-again Baathist urging on the Iraqi resistance, Pilger's big pet cause was independence for East Timor, which seemed like a smart move at the time but has since been cited by the Islamofascists as one of the reasons they blew up Bali.
And that brings me to the best response to the commissioner:
3) It makes no difference.
Even if you'd avoided Iraq or Andalusia or British banks or Pilger or any other affront to Islamist sensibilities, you'd still be a target. As the PR guy for the Islamic Army of Aden said after blowing up that French tanker: "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels." Commissioner Keelty is confusing old-school terrorism – blowing the legs off grannies as a means to an end – with the new: blowing the legs off grannies is the end. Old-school terrorists have relatively viable goals: They want a Basque state or Northern Ireland removed from the UK. You might not agree with these goals, you might not think them negotiable, but at least they're not stark staring insane.
That kind of finely calibrated terrorism – just enough slaughter to inconvenience the state into concessions – is all but over. Suppose you're an ETA cell. Suppose you were planning a car-bomb for next month – nothing fancy, just a dead Spanish official plus a couple of unlucky passers-by. Still want to go ahead with it? I doubt it. Despite Gerry Adams's attempts to distinguish between "unacceptable" terrorism and the supposedly more beneficial kind, these days it's a club with only one level of membership. That's why so many formerly active terrorist groups have been so quiet the past couple of years. In that sense, Bush is right: It is a "war on terror", and on many fronts it's being won.
If Islamic terrorism were as rational as Irish or Basque terrorism, it would be easier. But Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." You can be pro-America (Spain, Australia) or anti-America (France, Canada), but if you broke into the head cave in the Hindu Kush and checked out the hit list you'd be on it either way.
So the choice for pluralist democracies is simple: You can join Bush in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes. Despite the sneers that terrorism is a phenomenon and you can't wage war against a phenomenon, in fact you can – as the Royal Navy did very successfully against the malign phenomena of an earlier age, piracy and slavery.
Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway.
Onward Muslim Soldiers ping.
“If the attacks were carried out by the Basque group ETA, that is good for Aznar and the ruling Conservative party, because they have taken a hard line against ETA and because the opposition Socialists have called for compromise and negotiations. On the other hand, if the attacks were carried out (as it now appears, based on arrests and Al Qaeda claims of responsibility) by Al Qaeda, it is in retaliation for Aznar’s domestically unpopular support of the war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and Spanish voters will blame Aznar for bringing this on and punish him at the polls.”
I have seen variations of this analysis in practically every story about the Spanish situation. The Associated Press has been particularly egregious, failing to distinguish in some stories between those demonstrations in which many millions of Spaniards came out against terrorism, and anti-government demonstrations by a couple of thousand left-wingers blaming Aznar for the attacks.
The problem with the “conventional wisdom” is that it is itself completely dependent on the left-wing analysis of the situation, in which ETA and Al Qaeda have nothing in common. Aznar believes that “terrorism” is a common enemy, and that the fight against ETA and the fight against Al Qaeda are part of the same war. The Socialists are assuming that the Spanish electorate will analyze the situation as they do, which is why the opposition candidates have actually accused Aznar of lying about the evidence in order to make it look like it was ETA rather than Al Qaeda, an absurd charge given that the government arrested five Muslims within 2 days of the attacks, and given that its earlier public statements, while pointing out reasons it might have been ETA, carefully declined to rule out Arab/Muslim terrorism.
The contention that the attacks are Al Qaeda’s retaliation for Spain’s assistance in the Iraq war also shows the absurdity of the conventional media view. Remember how everyone said that the Iraq war was wrong because there was no link at all between Saddam and al Qaeda, Bush just made one up? But now we are supposed to believe that Al Qaeda retaliates for the toppling of Saddam, and yet accept that there is no further linkage with ETA, despite the existence of some evidence of a link.
In my opinion, the Spanish voters are going to view the attribution of the attacks to Al Qaeda as evidence that the Conservatives’ “common enemy” analysis is more correct than the Socialists’ “no link” analysis, and give the Conservatives a big victory.
If I am wrong, this is very bad for the U.S., because if the Spaniards give the Socialists a victory, terrorists will be encouraged to believe that attacks timed to influence an election can succeed in scaring the voters into appeasing them.
True enough, but not the whole story.
We must remember this...
By 1800 a new slogan was beginning to appear across the new country, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." ..."After the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars, which ended in 1815, inspired by America's example, Great Britian and Holland ended their policies of appeasement by bombarding Algier's fleet and fortresses."
See also, post 20 on that page:
The continued existence of this African piracy was indeed a disgrace to Europe, for it was due to the jealousies of the powers themselves.France encouraged them [Barbary pirates] during her rivalry with Spain; and when, she had no further need of them [the Barbary pirates] were supported against her by Great Britain and Holland.
In the 18th century British public men were not ashamed to say that Barbary piracy was a useful check on the competition of the weaker Mediterranean nations in the carrying trade.
When Lord Exmouth sailed to coerce Algiers in 1816, he expressed doubts in a private letter whether the suppression of piracy would be acceptable to the trading community.
Someone should point "internationalist" John Kerry in the direction of Gerard W. Gawalt the manuscript specialist for early American history in the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.
Thanks for the ping !From the article:
If Islamic terrorism were as rational as Irish or Basque terrorism, it would be easier. But Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." You can be pro-America (Spain, Australia) or anti-America (France, Canada), but if you broke into the head cave in the Hindu Kush and checked out the hit list you'd be on it either way.
So the choice for pluralist democracies is simple: You can join Bush in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes. Despite the sneers that terrorism is a phenomenon and you can't wage war against a phenomenon, in fact you can – as the Royal Navy did very successfully against the malign phenomena of an earlier age, piracy and slavery.
Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, in black and white, the bottom line of the War on Terror.
RISE UP My Brothers . .
KILL The INFIDELS WhereEver You May Find Them . . I normally post this as a link, but I'm gonna just post it and hope this isn't deleted:
LoL!
When Keelty said this,he wasnt implying that it is America's fault Australians might be targeted,the Australian government lobbied as hard as anyone for the Iraq war.Bali was an incident that came from muslim hostility towards Australians,and had zip to do with America.
However,Australia is more of a target because it participated in Afghanistan/Iraq.Just like Australia was more of a target for certain enemies when it participated in WW1,WW2,Vietnam,Korea,Gulf 1 and East Timor.
It's nothing new for Australia to be serving alongside America in wars,it has done so more than any other nation.With the exception of clueless left wing pansies,everyone knows the risks involved.
hehe ! ;^)
[I plan to e-mail this article to EVERYONE I know!]Good idea, thanks. I think I'll do the same thing ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
