Mark Steyn: These guys want to kill us anyway

The Weekend Australian ^ | March 15, 2004 | Mark Steyn

[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.

[Truthsayer20]

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

The first thing that popped into my mind when reading this is one scene from the movie Independence Day. The one where the president asks the alien: "What do you want us to do?" and the reply is: "We want you to die". After this the good guys open fire and waste the creature. I wish we could do the same thing when one of the Islamist turds spouts this kind of rhetoric.

[Levante]

"THE bombs dropped on Baghdad exploded in Madrid!"

This is typical cowardly bullsh*t from the anti-war scumbags. Blame the victim or the one standing up to the criminal, but never the f*kin criminal.

[Museum Twenty]

In his speech to Congress after 9/11, I believe the President said "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists."

To me, it seemed an odd phrasing at the time. Your phrasing is more natural.

But now, I really prefer how the President (or his writer) phrased it. It leaves no wiggle room. You cannot be both against us and against the terrorists, which would be possible with a "you are with us or against us" phrasing.

By saying "with us or with them," there is no sidleline in this ballgame. No third way allowed!

[xzins]

Before we reacted to 9/11, they hated us and killed us.

Are we afraid that retaliating will make them mad?

This time -- given that they get made --- what can they do that's worse than killing us?

[NZerFromHK]

It seems like the first time Mark Steyn has addressed Australia directly. Don't worry Mark, as you know Paddy McGuinness (a typical Australian columnist) is to the left of you but he agrees with 95% of what you stand.

[HungarianGypsy]

Good point. And the U. S. Navy was formed for similar reasons, back when what we now call "Islamic terrorism" was Islamic "piracy." This has been our battle for over 200 years, and it's likely to go on for a long time to come.
Not to mention our Marines were created for the same reason. This is really going to sound tin-foilish, but I had often wondered after 9/11 if one of the reasons related back to those events almost 200 years ago. We're not taking rational people here, so many the idea isn't too far out.

[68skylark]

I think you're on to something.

Conflicts between Islam and Chrisitanity have been going on for 1,200 years or more and seem likely to continue, I'm sorry to say. The sort of battles we fight will change -- OBL is a lot different than the Barbary Pirates -- but the battle remains.

I think our efforts in Iraq are the first real hopeful action that the West has taken in the whole length of the conflict. The only hope for winding down this battle is for Islamic countries to get a little prosperity, freedom, tolerance, pluaralism, etc.

I don't know if we'll succeed or not in Iraq, but I'm thrilled that we're trying. The only real danger of failure comes from within the U. S. -- if the libs can make us cut and run.

[Gritty]

BTTT

[Kay]

Thank YOU!! Excellent post. Where have I been? Mark Steyn is new to me.

[Samwise]

There MUST be a meaning to this?!? Maybe I better get my tin-foil beanie on FAST. Steyn must be communicating with my brain. OR maybe I have ESP?!?

Or maybe two people can have similar thoughts given the same set of circumstances. :^)

[John Jorsett]

Thank YOU!! Excellent post. Where have I been? Mark Steyn is new to me.

I just began to take note of him a few months ago myself. Funny how somebody can be there for a while and then suddenly spring upon your awareness.

[Pokey78]

Thanks for the pings!

[mylife]

Sing it Mark!!

[WaterDragon]

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

And that is now our goal for the jihadists...to eliminate them before they eliminate us.

[NZerFromHK]

Mark Steyn writing about Australia. Ping!

[KangarooJacqui]

Thanks for the ping, mate... I particularly liked the quote below:

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.

My dad used to say, "You never negotiate with terrorists. You shoot them."

As one might shoot a rabid dog, perhaps... which is the only likeness I can make to the Islamic terrorists the world is plagued with now.

[Piefloater]

Thanks for the ping! I get the Weekend Australian delivered but somehow managed to miss this article. As usual a great read from Mark Steyn.

It looks like Spain has decided to go down the -

Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway.

path.

I can only pray that we in Australia have the good sense not to do likewise.

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks for the ping, Pokey78! I adore Steyn; I'm just wondering when we can get him to unleash more on JohnF'nKerry like he did on Howling Howie.

[aruanan]

Any thoughtful person who knows history and religion would be anti-Islam. Along with Communism, Naziism, and the Black Death, Islam has been responsible for more death and destruction on the face of the planet than just about anything else since the last asteroid impact. Islam was started by predators. It has spread by predation. It has lived off the decaying corpses of the civilizations it has destroyed. It is a vast, ancient sea of corruption, oppression, fanaticism, and ignorance lapping up against the shores of the present, kept alive by the fortuitous accident of living above huge reserves of petroleum.

[JulieRNR21]

You can join Bush in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes

Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway.

Wisdom, common sense and the ability to paint a vivid 'word picture!.....BRAVO STEYN!