Europe's 9/11

[jon_forward]

re-read you past post and back up what you claim, simple enough. and as for the terrorist hating us, they do, why? because we stand for everything they despise. the many freedoms we have being #1. if you dont like it tough. oh hell yea, lets bury our heads in the sand so the world will seem better. If we dont stand up to the terrorist they will win. we lose. some lives will be lost on our side but the price of freedom never is cheap and freedom never has been free!!!!

 

[spillmind]

It already has. What terrorist actions have you seen on US soil lately? Which of our ships have had holes blown into the side of them?

jim, honestly, do you feel immune to a terror attack? what if another incident comprable to 9/11 happened again? while i support the effort to stymie terror, i also understand the use of force and the way we went about iraq were all wrong. and i simply assert that this has generated new hatred, and new potential terror. why cut off the top of the weed if you leave the root? and i am not talking about murderizing every last one of them.

while it didn't happen on our soil, anti-western terror is alive and well. a move towards and energy solution (to cut off the funding to the ME) AND a broader coalation of international countries UNITED against this kind of terror on the western world... the US being at the heart of it.

i comend the efforts made to protect our people and our country, but there is still work to be done. basic, fundamental work.

 

[spillmind]

and as for the terrorist hating us, they do, why? because we stand for everything they despise. the many freedoms we have being #1.

PLEASE, where are you getting this from?

 

[jon_forward]

why do they hate us then? come on tell us, we are waiting on pins and needles...

 

[jon_forward]

and spilly, that post to jim you put up is the first one from you that didnt rant and rave!!!!! Bravo..

 

[jimnyc]

jim, honestly, do you feel immune to a terror attack?

I'd be lying if I said I felt immune, but I feel a helluva lot better today than a did in the months after 9/11. Terrorist plots have been foiled, many terrorists, including Al Qaeda leaders, have been captured. I think the war on terrorism is going along as planned. Anyone would have to be naive to think the terrorists wouldn't try to fight back when they have a chance.

what if another incident comprable to 9/11 happened again?

I would pity the poor souls that would commit such an act. That would solidify the world behind us then. You would see more power than you dreamed possible. It would make the Iraq invasion seem petty.

while i support the effort to stymie terror, i also understand the use of force and the way we went about iraq were all wrong. and i simply assert that this has generated new hatred, and new potential terror. why cut off the top of the weed if you leave the root? and i am not talking about murderizing every last one of them.

I disagree. When you get infested with cockroaches, you don't figure out a way to come to terms with them, you eliminate them. I believe the backlash from the terrorists was probably expected. What's the alternative, allow them to go along on their merry way?

while it didn't happen on our soil, anti-western terror is alive and well. a move towards and energy solution (to cut off the funding to the ME) AND a broader coalation of international countries UNITED against this kind of terror on the western world... the US being at the heart of it.

Alive, yes, but it's not well. It's been struck hard and has taken some major damage. This won't end overnight, but I think huge strides have been made since 9/11. Ultimately good will win out over evil.

i comend the efforts made to protect our people and our country, but there is still work to be done. basic, fundamental work.

Agreed, there's a long, long way to go. But you have to start somewhere, and I think the US and coalition have done a tremendous job to date.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by spillmind
quite the excellent guess, but i'm not quite the 'wet behind the ears' fundamentalist you vehemently wish i was.

Oh Puh-leeeeeze. If I were to waste a wish upon you, it would be that you had some common sense.

Clinton was popular because the rest of the world was fairly certain he would do nothing to upset the status quo. That is the goal of the U.N. these days - geopolitical stasis. So, all the totalitarian despots around the world could rest quite easy knowing that Clinton wouldn't do anything to disturb their stranglehold on their abused subjects.

Sometimes it is wise not to trust people who are too popular.

 

[spillmind]

damn jim, i actually agree with you a lot more than i disagree. who'da thought? however, this is very the crux of our difference in viewpoint.

When you get infested with cockroaches,

i'm not sure if 'infestation' is the best possible analogy.

you don't figure out a way to come to terms with them, you eliminate them.

i am not relating to this image of 'eliminating them' that you have. how exactly do you think that we could ever possibly eliminate all those that oppose and threaten the US?

What's the alternative, allow them to go along on their merry way?

i thought:

a move towards and energy solution (to cut off the funding to the ME) AND a broader coalation of international countries UNITED against this kind of terror on the western world... the US being at the heart of it.

was a good start.

 

[spillmind]

why do they hate us then? come on tell us, we are waiting on pins and needles...

i wasn't the one clamoring about why they hate us in the first place. you make a claim, and now you want ME to back it up? sorry. homey don't play that.

Oh Puh-leeeeeze. If I were to waste a wish upon you, it would be that you had some common sense.

do go on!

Clinton was popular because the rest of the world was fairly certain he would do nothing to upset the status quo. That is the goal of the U.N. these days - geopolitical stasis. So, all the totalitarian despots around the world could rest quite easy knowing that Clinton wouldn't do anything to disturb their stranglehold on their abused subjects.

so you're saying that the goal of the US alone is to promote selflessness and doing the 'right thing' by liberating all the oppressed people of the world? what's this 'common sense' thing you're babbling about?

 

[jimnyc]

damn jim, i actually agree with you a lot more than i disagree. who'da thought? however, this is very the crux of our difference in viewpoint.

Have you forgotten to take your meds?

i'm not sure if 'infestation' is the best possible analogy.

Perhaps not, but not too awfully far off. There really is no redeeming qualities about a terrorist. They have been growing in numbers over the past 20 years. It's an outbreak of sorts. I've seen 'similar' issues with cockroaches.

i am not relating to this image of 'eliminating them' that you have. how exactly do you think that we could ever possibly eliminate all those that oppose and threaten the US?

Not those who oppose us, but rather those that want to kill us and our allies through terror acts. I highly doubt we'll kill them all. I think a sustained attack/war against them will wear them down. Take out key leaders and the little guys will die off like weeds without the roots. I'm sure you'll say that more will just pop up, and you're probably right. Then we take it to them as well if they decide to engage in murderous tactics to promote their agendas. I'm confident the people standing against terrorism will ultimately prevail.

a move towards and energy solution (to cut off the funding to the ME) AND a broader coalation of international countries UNITED against this kind of terror on the western world... the US being at the heart of it.

I think that's a decent start as well. But we cannot ignore those that have already acted with terror. There needs to be immediate solutions and long term solutions.

 

[Zhukov]

spilly
fact is, our involvement in other countries around the world is more of a perpetuation of our global commerce domination ideal, and less of a moral, ehtical upstanding.

me

The fact is our involvement in other countries is the result of the policies of our democratically elected federal representatives.

Many people in this country support those policies for many different reasons.

spillmind
...and (there is more to that) sometimes those 'reasons' are sometimes for our sole benefit, even it means lives and death. so then- no one has a right to hold us accountable?

You described our international involvement as being primarily driven by economics. I explained how that the real situation was much more complex than that. I don't think I understand your response.

it's not about who's up first here

Yes it is! We are! We are first! The interests and safety of the American people come before ALL THINGS concerning the job of the PoTUSA. It is not the President's job to try and figure out what's best for the world. He must do what he thinks is best for us because he works for us. We do not live under a global government and we are not responsible for the well being of the world no matter how much you wish we were. All the same we feel what's best for America is best for the world. Your opinion is perhaps a reversed version of this premise, and were that true, it wouldn't matter anyways, because it's not the job of our President to take care of the world.

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by spillmind

gee, maybe if we didn't ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE in CREATING and PERPETUATING terrorism, we wouldn't have to fear it so much, no?

LINKS PLEASE

you want links on niaragua?how about chile? how about southeast asia? africa? how about venezuela? dont waste our time with your obvious denial.

LINKS PLEASE....you posted it, not I,you prove it. :cof:

 

[Annie]

Hint, it won't work:

fighting words
To Die in Madrid
The nutty logic that says Spain provoked Islamist terrorism.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 15, 2004, at 12:28 PM PT


I can remember when I was a bit of an ETA fan myself. It was in 1973*, when a group of Basque militants assassinated Adm. Carrero Blanco. The admiral was a stone-faced secret police chief, personally groomed to be the successor to the decrepit Francisco Franco. His car blew up, killing only him and his chauffeur with a carefully planted charge, and not only was the world well rid of another fascist, but, more important, the whole scheme of extending Franco's rule was vaporized in the same instant. The dictator had to turn instead to Crown Prince Juan Carlos, who turned out to be the best Bourbon in history and who swiftly dismantled Franco's entire system. If this action was "terrorism," it had something to be said for it. Everyone I knew in Spain made a little holiday in their hearts when the gruesome admiral went sky-high.

The Basque country, with its historic capital in Guernica, had been one of the main battlegrounds against Hitler and Mussolini in their first joint aggression in Spain, and many European families adopted Basque orphans and raised money for the resistance. It is tedious to relate the story of ETA's degeneration into a gangster organization that itself proclaims a fascist ideology of Basque racial uniqueness, and anyway one doesn't need to bother, since nobody any longer argues that there is a "root cause" of ETA's atrocities. In the face of this kind of subhuman nihilism, people know without having to be told that the only response is a quiet, steady hatred and contempt, and a cold determination to outlast the perpetrators while remorselessly tracking them down.

However, it seems that some Spaniards, and some non-Spanish commentators, would change on a dime if last week's mass murder in Madrid could be attributed to the Bin-Ladenists. In that case not only would there be a root cause—the deployment of 1,300 Spanish soldiers in the reconstruction of Iraq—but there would also be a culpable person, namely Spain's retiring prime minister. By this logic, terrorism would also have a cure—the withdrawal of those Spanish soldiers from a country where al-Qaida emphatically does not desire them to be.

Try not to laugh or cry, but some spokesmen of the Spanish left have publicly proposed exactly this syllogism. I wonder if I am insulting the readers of Slate if I point out its logical and moral deficiencies:

Many Spaniards were among those killed recently in Morocco, where a jihadist bomb attack on an ancient Moorish synagogue took place in broad daylight. The attack was on Morocco itself, which was neutral in the recent Iraq war. It seems a bit late to demand that the Moroccan government change sides and support Saddam Hussein in that conflict, and I suspect that the Spanish Communist and socialist leadership would feel a little sheepish in making this suggestion. Nor is it obvious to me that the local Moroccan jihadists would stop bombing if this concession were made. Still, such a concession would be consistent with the above syllogism, as presumably would be a demand that Morocco cease to tempt fate by allowing synagogues on its soil in the first place.

The Turkish government, too, should be condemned for allowing its Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan to visit the shattered synagogue in Istanbul after the latest mass murder (thus becoming, incidentally, the first Turkish prime minister ever to do so). Erdogan is also the first prime minister ever to be elected on an Islamist ticket. Clearly, he was asking for trouble and has not yet understood al-Qaida's conditions for being allowed to lead a quiet life. Not that he hadn't tried—he prevented the U.S. Army from approaching Baghdad through what is now known as the Sunni Triangle. He just hasn't tried hard enough.

It cannot be very long now before some slaughter occurs on the streets of London or Rome or Warsaw, as punishment for British and Italian and Polish membership of the anti-Saddam coalition. But perhaps there is still time to avoid the wrath to come. If British and Italian and Polish troops make haste to leave the Iraqis to their own "devices" (of the sort that exploded outside the mosques of Karbala and Najaf last month), their civilian cousins may still hope to escape the stern disapproval of the holy warriors. Don't ask why the holy warriors blow up mosques by the way—it's none of your goddam crusader-Jew business.

The other countries of NATO, which has now collectively adopted the responsibility for Afghanistan, should reconsider. As long as their forces remain on the soil of that country, they are liable to attract the sacred rage of the Muslim fighters. It will not be enough for Germany and France to have stayed out of Iraq. They cannot expect to escape judgment by such hypocritical means.

French schools should make all haste to permit not just the veil but the burqa, as well as to segregate swimming pools and playgrounds. Do they suppose that they deceive anybody when they temporize about God's evident will? Bombings will follow this blasphemy, as the night succeeds the day. It is written.

I find I can't quite decide what to recommend in the American case. I thought it was a good idea to remove troops from Saudi Arabia in any event (after all, we had removed the chief regional invader). But, even with the troops mainly departed, bombs continue to detonate in Saudi streets. We are, it seems, so far gone in sin and decadence that no repentance or penitence can be adequate. Perhaps, for the moment, it's enough punishment, and enough shame, just to know that what occurred in Madrid last week is all our fault. Now, let that sink in.

Correction, March 16, 2004: Adm. Luis Carrero Blanco was killed in 1973, not 1975 as this article originally stated. (Return to the corrected item.)


Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and a regular contributor to Slate. His most recent book is A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq.

Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2097138/