"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
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.
