Mitterrand: Made nice -- got bombed.
Experience shows that the appeaser becomes
a more attractive target for the terrorists.
Posted on 07/20/2005 6:00:01 AM PDT by OESY
Chatham House, the London foreign-affairs think tank, has given its seal of respectability to the claim that Britain's participation in the liberation of Iraq allowed al Qaeda to transform a bunch of ordinary Muslim youths into the suicide-killers of July 7.
...[I]t is not clear how anyone could know that the suicide-killers were solely motivated by Britain's role in Iraq. The two claims of responsibility for the operation cite a variety of reasons, making it clear that the attack on Britain was part of a broader campaign against the "infidel" West.
And how could Islamist suicide-bombers be concerned only about Britain's participation in the war in Iraq — and not about its similar role in Afghanistan?
If the suicide-killers were al Qaeda Islamists, then they should be more angry about the destruction of the Taliban regime, which they regarded as the world's only genuinely Islamic government, than at the toppling of Saddam Hussein, whom they saw as an atheist and a purely tactical ally.
Why then does Chatham House prefer to focus on the British role in Iraq? It has nothing to do with reality. But in the circles to which Chatham House caters, it is politically fashionable to pretend that Afghanistan didn't happen.
...Saddam Hussein, however, was supposed to be a secular and Socialist ruler who could claim some kinship with the "useful idiots" in the West.
More important, from Chatham House's point of view, is that the "international community," meaning Jacques Chirac and Kofi Annan, swallowed the liberation of Afghanistan but made loud noises against the liberation of Iraq....
Those who look for excuses for terrorism do so only to justify a policy of appeasement....
The appeased terrorist concludes that, having won a battle, he should press for victory in his war against a weakened adversary....
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The writer is correct, IMO. History has shown that a non response to terror encourages more of it.
The clearest example of this is the fact that Al Qaeda repeatedly hit American targets abroad during the Clinton presidency, with no meaningful response from America. Eventually they felt confident enough for the extremely ambitious 9/11 attack, which in addition to hitting our financial center, was probably intended to decapitate our entire federal government. It seems clear enough that Al Qaeda continued to grow and strengthen during those years. Had we made it our business to end their business, perhaps the threat we face today could have been averted.
Also, I believe the general history of Islamic terror from its inception demonstrates the foolishness of appeasement. Its primary mission and its original raison d'etre has traditionally been the destruction of Israeli targets. I can imagine that it may well not have grown into the many headed monster that it is today, if not for the world's history of constantly restraining Israel from going after these people. Hell, the man sworn to the destruction of Israel, Yasser Arafat, was given a Nobel Peace Prize.
Most intelligent people can ascertain that to appease the "bully" , who wants to scare you into giving him what he wants, never works cause the "bully" never leaves you alone once he knows he has power over you due to fear.
I think the liberals must still be those "school-age children" who have always given the "bully" what he wants.
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.