Worth remembering.
L
When I woke up this morning and was thinking about the bombing in Spain, I was also thinking about the paradox that while Columbus was sailing in 1492 and 'europe was enlightened', a good portion of Spain was STILL under Muslim rule. Then wah-la Steyn writes this article and, "the tragedy of Andalusia" – that is, the end of Muslim rule in Spain in 1492."
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?!?
Now where's that tin-foil....
Mohammedans have practiced "divide and conquer" on the Western world before. And the US attempts to form a coalition met with limited success, because (as now) some European countries preferred to appease the Mohammedans.
America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe, by Gerard W. Gawalt (the manuscript specialist for early American history in the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.)
Ruthless, unconventional foes are not new to the United States of America. More than two hundred years ago the newly established United States made its first attempt to fight an overseas battle to protect its private citizens by building an international coalition against an unconventional enemy. Then the enemies were pirates and piracy. The focus of the United States and a proposed international coalition was the Barbary Pirates of North Africa. [snip]Jefferson's plan for an international coalition foundered on the shoals of indifference and a belief that it was cheaper to pay the tribute than fight a war.
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.
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.
A classic.
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.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, in black and white, the bottom line of the War on Terror.