Posted on 09/26/2004 8:22:08 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
'When people see a strong horse and a weak horse," Osama bin Laden said after the destruction of the World Trade Center, "by nature they will like the weak horse." No maxim has better encapsulated the merciless philosophy of al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups around the world.
In the past week, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist believed to have captured the Liverpudlian engineer Kenneth Bigley and two Americans 10 days ago, has shown that this principle remains at the heart of what he and his fellow fanatics are doing.
If Zarqawi's aim has been to show that the West is weak and decadent, then there has been much to cheer him in recent days. In their coverage of Mr Bigley's appalling case, the British media - television, tabloids and quality newspapers alike - have conspired unwittingly in the terrorists' objectives, which have been to control the agenda, nurture the impression of Western impotence, and encourage the misapprehension that Mr Bigley's suffering is somehow the consequence of decisions taken by President Bush and, more specifically, Tony Blair.
It is certainly true that the Prime Minister, who has relied so much on emotionalism and the use of personal anecdotage for his political appeal, is particularly vulnerable to public anger following the distressing pleas for help made by the Bigley family. It is hard to imagine the blanket coverage of their tears and anger being so politically dangerous to, say, Gordon Brown.
Nonetheless, in apportioning blame, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the Foreign Office had issued clear warnings to civilian contractors such as Mr Bigley heading for Iraq, who are paid a very high premium for the risks they take. Mr Bigley had reportedly told his relatives who had tried to persuade him not to go: "I'm not afraid - you only die once." Alas, in the sadistic hell that is Zarqawi's world, his pleading victims die many times, on camera, for instant consumption on the internet.
What Zarqawi has sought and has achieved is a running commentary in the British media on Mr Bigley's suffering. When the freelance reporter James Brandon was kidnapped in Basra last month while on assignment for this newspaper, the sound advice from the Foreign Office was for The Sunday Telegraph to say as little as possible in public about his capture until he was released.
Of course, Mr Bigley's dreadful story is important and distressing, and it is understandable that news organisations should wish to cover it first and most vividly. But there is a question of proportionality: hundreds of Iraqi families have already had to deal with such horrors, in a country that has grown depressingly habituated to the vicious practice of hostage-taking.
It is notable, too, that the American media treated the captivity and murder of Mr Bigley's fellow hostages, Eugene Armstrong and Jack Hensley, with much greater restraint. Sadly, the Americans have been here before. They know the depraved game the captors are playing.
For a depraved game it most certainly is. The most dangerous delusion that British coverage of Mr Bigley's case has encouraged is the myth that it is possible to negotiate with fundamentalist terrorists. It would have been quite wrong, strategically and morally, to capitulate to the demands made by Zarqawi for the release of female Iraqi prisoners.
Furthermore, it would almost certainly have made not the slightest difference to his chances of survival. In a website statement last week, Zarqawi himself mocked "the ministers of all infidel nationalities" for refusing to negotiate with him: "As if there was any question of negotiation. Far from it - they must obey the demands of the mujahadeen. If you refuse, we slaughter."
In the past, many terrorist organisations have had specific, negotiable objectives: political autonomy in a particular ethnic or religious enclave, freedom from persecution, the release of jailed comrades. But those who subscribe to the al-Qaeda franchise regard such goals as pathetically limited.
Their hope is to undermine the West tout court, to exploit its weaknesses at every turn, and to establish a new Islamic theocracy in the historic caliphate. The notion that the release of a few Iraqis is going to appease such driven and murderous men is frankly risible.
That is why the mawkish, hand-wringing coverage of Mr Bigley's case has been so damaging. It will encourage prospective hostage-takers to believe that their activities will be rewarded with acres of newsprint and hours of airtime.
The practical effect will be to make Britons in Iraq all the more vulnerable to kidnap. Zarqawi and his cohorts - who combine a primordial disregard for human life with a completely modern awareness of media techniques - will be satisfied by their work. They have, in their own eyes and the eyes of their supporters, shown Britain to be a weak horse.
We are strong, but our understanding is weak.
'When people see a strong horse and a weak horse," Osama bin Laden said after the destruction of the World Trade Center, "by nature they will like the weak horse."
I didn't bother reading the rest of this article, since the author got the quote completely wrong. Bin Laden said the exact opposite!
Understanding may begin when the TV is turned off. Deny telepellation!
I guess I'll post my thoughts on who is stronger or weaker some other time.
That's true, he said that. He didn't say that the mechanism of production and marketing is the stronger horse and we have that. His 72 grapes movement is weaker by 1000 years.
We are weak because we will not turn the methods of the evildoers on themselves.
Imagine the U.S. kidnapping a few terrorists and finding interesting ways--televised of course--to slowly kill them.
A lesson they might learn from. Two can play the game--if both sides understand the rules.
--Boris
It's not hard to understand why people distrust the media when they can't even get a quote right to support their bias.
'When people see a strong horse and a weak horse," Osama bin Laden said after the destruction of the World Trade Center, "by nature they will like the weak horse."
UBL said they prefer the strong horse. If a reporter can't get the basic premise of his story right, it is not worth reading what they have to say. What has happened to jounralistic standards? How does a blatant mistake like this make it by the journalist, the editors, the copywriters, and everyone else involved in the production. Are they all stupid AND ignorant?
I guess he's pretty red in the face but he had his heart in the right place.
Yep, the writer is onside with the cause. The cause of GWB, and the Coalition. Also the English language has many pitfalls -re misunderstanding exactly what is meant. The writer needed a footnote, still that is not usually used in journalism. Sort of like Freepers who forget to post "sarcasm on" - if you know what I mean. Thanks for the post.
You're welcome.
"Like the weak horse"? Bin Laden, of course, said they will like the "strong horse." Dumb error by the Telegraph.
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.