Lessons from London
MFOgilvie
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 8, 2005
"[They] might have nuclear bombs but we have the children bomb, and
these human bombs must continue until liberation." - Sheikh Yusuf
Qaradawi.
When British immigrant Sheikh Qaradawi uttered these words, he had
Israel, not his adopted base-of-operations, in mind; however,
yesterday's events underscored their prescience. How they contrast
with the bluster of London's pro-Islamist mayor, "Red" Ken
Livingstone, who boldly told terrorists, "whatever you do, however
many you kill, you will fail." The fact that Livingstone recently
"hosted" and embraced Sheikh Qaradawi, defending him from charges
of extremism while calling George W. Bush "the greatest threat to
life on this planet," further illustrates the self-destructive
indulgence of the Left's Unholy Alliance with radical Islam. The fact
that al-Qaeda killed nearly 40 people yesterday morning in a series of
Israeli-style bus bombings in order to drive Europeans out of Iraq
illuminates the critical facts facing the nations of the democratic
West.
Fact #1: The war on Iraq is not a distraction from the War on Terror;
it is the War on Terror - and al-Qaeda will stop at nothing to end
it.
Yesterday's bombings prove al-Qaeda agrees with President Bush's
classification of Iraq as the terror war's "central front." The
terrorist cell that claimed responsibility for London's 7/7 attack
- "The Secret Organization of al-Qaeda in Europe" - declared:
We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all
crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they
do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Notice the strategic priority conveyed by their press release: "Iraq
and Afghanistan." Although Osama bin Laden is likely surrounded by
Green Berets in the mountainous no man's land straddling the
Afghan-Pakistani border, his minions demand Allied withdrawal from
Iraq, because that is the terrorists' bleeding wound. Iraq has become
the terror war's valley of Armageddon, the decisive battleground
between good and evil - and as in eschatology, evil is losing.
Al-Qaeda's first strike in the West in 16 months killed 40 people;
Last month, Coalition forces killed more than that many
"insurgents" in one day. They also arrested more than 900
terrorists, including Zarqawi's "most trusted aide" and many
other top al-Qaeda operatives, killed more, and even freed one of our
own hostages during the two-week-long "Operation Lightning." (Last
week's "Operation Sword" netted more terrorists yet.)
Moreover, the liberation of Iraq has the potential to change the
dynamics of the entire Middle East. Coalition sacrifices brought
democracy to Iraq and saw paralyzing fear drown in a sea of ink-stained
fingers. A democratic, pluralistic, majority-Muslim nation in the heart
of the Islamic world could demonstrate the superiority of Western
values and inspire a chain-reaction throughout the region, drying up
jihadist recruitment. Put simply, Iraq is what Noam Chomsky calls
"the threat of a good example."
The terrorists understand, as Osama bin Laden does, that "This Third
World War...is raging" in Iraq; "The whole world is watching this
war"; and it will end in his "victory and glory or misery and
humiliation." That they have taken such desperate measures to get us
out confirms beyond all doubt the importance of this battle, and which
way it is going.
Fact #2: Appeasing terrorists cannot buy peace.
Amidst yesterday's tragedy, a moment approaching farce came when
Spain's socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero pledged
his "immediate and unconditional help...to pursue the criminals that
have carried out such a repulsive attack." Zapatero has helped
enough. There is a one-to-one correlation between Madrid's surrender
to al-Qaeda last March and the slaughter in London's "tube."
Zapatero was swept into office three days after the March 11, 2004,
Madrid train bombings (which killed 191), essentially at al-Qaeda's
request. Immediately upon election, he rewarded the terrorists by
withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq. His "help" taught al-Qaeda
that First World governments are weak and easily blackmailed by
terrorism. During the campaign, Zapatero declaimed, "Fighting
terrorism with bombs, with Tomahawk missiles, isn't the way to beat
terrorism, but the way to generate more radicalism." The London
subway bombings show that "fighting" terrorism with capitulation is
a quicker route.
Yesterday, other Euro-socialists followed closely on his heels. French
foreign minister Dominique de Villepin pronounced, "More than ever,
democracies must rally together and show unity in the face of the
terrorist threat." Jacques Chirac went further yet, saying, "This
scorn for human life is something we must fight with ever greater
firmness." Tony Blair knows not to count They have reneged on their
proffered anti-terrorist aid before. In a private dinner on January 19,
2003, de Villepin assured Colin Powell France would take an active part
in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The wild-haired French diplomat then killed
the U.S.-backed second authorization of force resolution in the UN
Security Council. The French could pursue "ever greater firmness"
for eternity and never rise above the level of collaboration.
The Euro-Left apparently wants to fight terrorists everywhere except
where they are: in Iraq. Italy's Berlusconi is one honorable
exception. Should Denmark change its mind, this would mark a new low,
even for Europe: pre-emptive appeasement.
Fact #3: The enemy isn't just "Bin Laden."
Appeasement does not just come from surrender; it also comes from
setting the standard of "victory" too low. To the Left, "winning
the War on Terror" means capturing Osama bin Laden and trying him
before the International Criminal Court (where he'll receive life in
prison after a multi-year trial). Since Bush has not "gotten bin
Laden," he has not won the War on Terror. However, genuine victory
must assure that all terrorist cells that would threaten our safety and
all those governments that aid and abet them are liquidated -
regardless of whether they happen to feature Osama bin Laden as their
titular head. Remember, Osama and al-Zarqawi were presumably not
connected...until a tape-recorded bin Laden endorsed the Jordanian viva
voce, and al-Zarqawi changed the name of his terrorist group. Now we
understand a defeat for one is a setback for the other.
...Which brings us to the London bombings. Before yesterday, no one
knew of the existence of "The Secret Organization of al-Qaeda in
Europe," and as of this writing, it is unclear whether it is a formal
part of al-Qaeda or merely appropriated the name. Some have speculated
the "secret organization" got its foot soldiers from Ansar al-Islam
"feeder cells" throughout Europe. Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda
affiliate, has an estimated 100-times the number of fighters needed to
carry out the London strike. This al-Qaeda affiliate also maintained a
training base in northern Iraq during Saddam's reign and has returned
post-Saddam. Still, the entire chorus of left-wing Democrats chided the
president for linking Iraq with the War on Terror last week. House
Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, accused President Bush of trying
to "exploit the sacred ground of 9/11." Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid, D-NV, said Bush's speech "did not provide a way forward
in Iraq. [It] only served to remind the American people that our most
dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose."
It does not matter if Osama is "on the loose" if he is
incapacitated, and it does not matter if he is in police custody if his
followers continue to assault Western, liberal democracy.
Tony Blair said this was "not an attack on one nation but on all
nations and on civilized people everywhere." And it was not merely
perpetrated by "bin Laden" but by the forces of worldwide Islamic
terrorism. President Bush understands one must wage a multi-front war
to make the United States safe. This is why the Left's ruse of
splitting the war in Iraq from the War on Terror is ridiculous, losing
sight of the forest amidst the trees. The war may at times focus on bin
Laden - but it will surely rage on after his capture, perhaps more
violently for a time. And as my friend Alan Nathan pointed out on his
radio program "Battleline," at some point this war will have to
focus on the terrorists en route to Iraq, before they cross its porous
borders. This is why the War on Terror is all of-a-piece, a seemless
front against Islamic jihad, wherever the terrorists happen to strike
at the moment. It is foolish to reduce the war to any one man. Osama is
but the most visible (and best-funded) representative of an
Islamofascist movement popular throughout the Muslim world. Including
London itself.
Fact #4: Unbridled immigration and tolerance of radical Islam is
hazardous.
Great Britain finds itself the victim of terror in part because of its
lax homeland security, open borders, and liberal social welfare
policies. Shortly after 9/11 during a raid in Afghanistan, British
intelligence discovered al-Qaeda had trained nearly 1,200 Muslim
British nationals. This is a tiny percentage of the UK's 1.8 million
Muslims, nearly all recent immigrants fed on the King's pence.
England also has no Patriot Act, so terrorists have a freer hand in
plotting their crimes - even in public. Groups like Al-Muhajiroun -
which celebrated 9/11 as "A Towering Day in History," has called
for the assassination of world leaders, and whose leader has ties to
Osama bin Laden - operated freely post-9/11. London played home to
the infamous Finsbury Park Mosque, led by Abu Hamza al-Masri. Finsbury
provided spiritual support for "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, al-Qaeda
trainee Feroz Abassi, the man who allegedly plotted to blow up the U.S.
Embassy in France. When the bobbies made their belated raid, they found
chemical weapons gear, as though the mosque were planning to live
through a chemical attack. Imam Masri openly told his followers to
"terrorize even policy makers," screaming his Friday sermons on the
sidewalk. Any society tolerating public cries for its violent overthrow
will likely live to see that come to pass.
Fact #5: The modern Left has become so consumed with hatred of the West
that it embraces its would-be destroyers.
The fact that fundamentalist Muslims murdered British civilians as G-8
leaders met to bestow massive aid on underdeveloped and increasingly
Muslim Africa could not make the contrast between the capitalist West
and our murderous enemies any sharper. As President Bush said, "On
the one hand, we have people here who are working to alleviate poverty,
to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS, working on ways to have
a clean environment. And on the other hand, you've got people killing
innocent people." The subway bombers claimed with glee, "now
Britain is burning with fear and terror, from north to south, east to
west." They long for the day a despotic madman - whether Saddam,
(Iranian president), or Kim Jong-il - will provide them a nuclear
weapon they can detonate in the highest concentration of innocent
Western civilians they can find.
Meanwhile, the Left, at home and abroad, continues to demonize George
W. Bush and the soldiers carrying out the War on Terror. London's
"Red" Ken Livingstone provides the most lamentable example. As
noted above, he played host to Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi after the sheikh
called for the death of Jews and "infidels" and told al-Jazeera,
"There is no dialogue between us except by the sword and the
rifle." This February, Livingstone maintained, "Sheikh
Al-Qaradhawi's ideology is utterly remote from extremism."
President Bush's plan to kill terrorists, he assured us, was the real
Weapon of Mass Destruction. Far-Left British MP George Galloway -
whom Congress has said laundered Oil-for-Food bribes from Saddam
Hussein through his wife's charity, allegedly benefiting an Iraqi
child with leukemia - also lashed out at President Bush during his
appearance on Capitol Hill.
If only the venom were limited to foreigners. Leftist Congresswoman
Jane Harman, D-CA, responded to Thursday's bombing by stating, "the
notion that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to
fight them in our cities is clearly false." Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA,
in a speech given the day before the London bombings, said,
"terrorism was the result of the war, not a reason for waging it and
so we are in greater danger." Boxer then demanded a "time frame for
the subsequent withdrawal of our troops." Sen. Dick Durbin, D-IL,
compared the well-fed detainees of Gitmo to the emaciated inmates of
Bergen-Belsen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA, called Abu Ghraib "George Bush's
gulag" and insisted the president cooked up the Iraq war before 9/11.
Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-NY, helpfully added last week that Bush didn't
launch this theory on his own (how could he, the dummy?) - several
prominent Jews assisted him. Amnesty International, the International
Red Cross, the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and scores
of leftist organizations repeat the jiahdists' talking points as
though they were the words of Allah, perpetuating al-Qaeda's
propaganda war gratis. Apparently, even the occasional mass murder will
not dissuade them from clasping bloodstained hands in a united assault
against the United States.
Until a radical Muslim can lay hands on a nuclear weapon, the Left will
remain al-Qaeda's most potent weapon. However they harass the
Coalition, even on its own soil, they cannot defeat us militarily.
Their only hope lies in causing us to defeat ourselves - a role the
"antiwar" Left perfected in Vietnam and continues to relish.
The bombings - carried out, as "Red" Ken noted, against
"working class" Londoners, in an attempt to disrupt the
philanthropic designs of the G-8 Summit - should make clear the
character of those the leftists are rallying behind, and the
unflappable British showed the face of those they are rallying against.
The United States and our allies in the Coalition have a charge to
keep. Yesterday's bombings show us the stakes if we fail.
MFOgilvie
Adenoid...@LoonyRighwing.com wrote:
> On 8 Jul 2005 03:59:41 -0700, "MFOgilvie" <matthew....@lmco.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Lessons from London
>
> Blair is going to borrow Karl Rove so that he can Capitalize on the
> bombings
>
> Worked for Dumbya.
Nice to know you care so much about the people who were killed or hurt
in the bombings. Typical for a liberal to trivialize a tragic event
for partisan political purposes.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> Fact #1: The war on Iraq is not a distraction from the War on Terror;
> it is the War on Terror - and al-Qaeda will stop at nothing to end
> it.
Maybe you're correct. Espionage experts (I hate the word "intelligence"
as jargonfor espionage) knew this all along, but Bush Jr. lacked the
cognitive ability (that's P.C. for "he was too stupid") to understand
what they might tell him. So his advisors conconcted something his
limited mental ability could understand, namely WMD (Weapons of Mass
Destruction), thereby tricking him into launching the war under bogus
premises that was needed for a different and valid reason.
Maybe you're incorrect: Before the Iraq invasion, Saddam was just a
dictator and a local bully, invading neighboring Kuwait to get oil
resources, but he had no particular ties to al-Qaeda and in particular
didn't want to support Osama Bin Laden because he felt such acts of
terrorism would invoke retaliation from the USA, and if Iraq were
related to those attacks then Iraq would be invaded just as Afghanistan
already had been, which would destroy his local bully powerhold. But
Bush&Blair's invasion of Iraq destroyed his local-bully power anyway,
leaving his surviving operatives free to re-align themselves with
al-Qaeda. So *now*, underground terrorist groups in Iraq and
Afghanistan are allies, hence the warning that various European nations
should stop supporting our military operations in both countries
equally.
Will we ever know which theory is correct?
By the way, regarding "the buck stops here": With Bush Jr. too stupid
(oops, PC: "intellectually challenged") to make his own decisions, so
the buck doesn't really stop with him except officially, it really
stops at whichever secret advisor really made any particular decision
for him, I'm saddened that we don't currently have anyone to take
personal moral responsibility for what the Executive branch of our
government (USA) does. Even our president can later say "I was just
following instructions". It was a sad day when our voters, already
having experienced Bush Jr. mental limitations, nevertheless re-elected
him. "Fool me twice, shame on me" the voters should eventually realize.
> the liberation of Iraq has the potential to change the dynamics of
> the entire Middle East. Coalition sacrifices brought democracy to Iraq
> and saw paralyzing fear drown in a sea of ink-stained fingers. A
> democratic, pluralistic, majority-Muslim nation in the heart of the
> Islamic world could demonstrate the superiority of Western values and
> inspire a chain-reaction throughout the region, drying up jihadist
> recruitment. Put simply, Iraq is what Noam Chomsky calls "the threat of
> a good example."
Unfortunately, because of the widespread local terrorist activities
going on, because of lack of sufficient security forces to restrain
them, and widespread unemployment and poverty and near starvation, the
"good example" is currently quite tattered and ugly, and many people
see no advantage compared to Saddam. Why didn't Bush include enough
security forces from the beginning? Because his limited brain couldn't
understand the need, and his advisors in this case couldn't think of a
bogus explanation (like the WMD story I cited above) to convince him to
do the right thing for the wrong reason. Nobody thought of some bogus
story like this: "Mr. Bush, you can't just invade Iraq and topple
Saddam and then lock down the major WMD fabrication facilties, and
expect to find all the WMD material that way. You know how we have our
thermonuclear missiles distributed all over the country, moving them
from place to place so the enemy can't find them all at one time? Oh,
you didn't know that? I'm sorry, let me try to explain it to you. ...
.. (an hour later) ... Aha, so you understand that now. Fine, let me
use that as a metaphor, you do know what that means, right? ... (half
an hour later) ... So now you understand what "metaphor" means? Yea, I
was meaning to get back to the main topic. Well Saddam has gone further
than we have, not just distributing complete individual weapons around
the country, but breaking down the materials into small parcels and
hiding them in people's cupboards and basements all around the country.
We have no idea which particular households have a small parcel of WMD
material at any given time, so when we invade we'll have to lock down
*every* dwelling or business or any other building. We'll need one
security officer for each single-family dwelling, and one security
officer at each exterior doorway of each multi-family dwelling such as
apartment complex, or business, plus one extra security officer inside
the building to look for secret passages and to report any suspicious
activity inside the building. You ask how many security officers will
that require? Approximately 30 million. You'll need to deploy 30
million security officers in addition to the regular military. You'll
need to get all 30 million assembled during the initial invasion, so
that as various regions of Iraq are liberated we can immediately deploy
them to the liberated region. You'll need to paratroup batches of
security officers in immediately behind the active military lines so as
not to allow any time for families to move their WMD parcels out of
their homes to places they'd be more difficult to locate"
IMO, the best way to set a good example is to make sure that anyone not
actively involved in terrorism would have a good job to support
themselves and any family they may have. We need to start by employing
our own people, anyone who is a citizen of the USA (or whatever country
the reader of this message is in, if your country has severe
unemployment as the USA does, where people with more than 20 years
experience in writing computer software nevertheless are unable to find
any paying work for years at a time) or a legal resident alien. Set up
the Robert Maas (proposed-only so-far) variation of the George McGovern
(proposed-only) variation of the Great-Depression-era WPA (Works
Progress Administration). After 100% of the people in the USA who want
to work are able to find employment through the InterNet-WPA, then
extend the system to third-world countries on an equal basis, both
African countries unrelated to any terrorism, and mid-East countries
such as Iraq, but in each country *ony* to individuals not actively
promoting terrorism in any way. Instead of attacking anyone who
supports terrorism, reward anyone who doesn't. Make it clear that if
you don't support terrorism then you have a job and opportunity for a
lifestyle at Western standards, far better than what most of the
mid-East experiences. Let otherwise unemployed people perform services
that are needed, thereby benefiting others who need those services,
exchange for earned income, by which they can buy our exported products
and thereby boost our productive economy. By letting *everyone* (except
anyone supporting terrorism) earn a decent wage and thereby have money
to spend on desired products and services, the money trickles up from
all those consumers to the taxpaying businesses that make those
products and services, providing increased tax revenue to pay for some
of it. Eventually the businesses will be able to hire most of the
InterNet-WPA people, reducing the monetary burden on our government.
(This works because InterNet-WPA pays only minimum wage, and allows
only limited hours/week at that wage, as much as funds are available,
but enough to support just-above-Western-poverty-level which is way
better than what Afghanis usually have, and quite a bit better than
what I currently have, whereas private business can offer slighly
higher wage to lure people to them for an even better lifesyle.)
> Fact #2: Appeasing terrorists cannot buy peace.
I agree. But note that hiring everyone who is *not* involved in
terrorism is not appeasing terrorists, it's simply draining away the
excuses they give for attacking us, about how we don't care if people
starve so long as they're not Americans. If we show, by our hiring
policy, that we care about *everyone* anywhere in the world, except for
those practicing terrorism at the moment, then only our infidelity
would remain as an excuse to kill us, and most Islamic citizens don't
really think just because we're infidels they should spend their money
trying to kill us, especially if they're getting wages by working for
us and if they kill us they lose that money and go back to abject
poverty.
By the way, I'm strongly opposed to foreign aid as in just giving
foreigners our money without getting any products or services in
return. It's a drain on our financial resources without any clear
benefit, and it gives the recipients a feeling of being worthless that
they can do nothing we want so we would rather give them a handout
instead of paying them for their fine work. Only in emergencies, such
as disaster relief, should we just give foreigners money without giving
them a chance to do some work in return and have their work formally
recognized as valuable to us. If we had our own house in order, i.e.
InterNet-WPA already in effect for our own citizens and legal resident
aliens, then I'd suggest extending it to victims of disasters: Not just
sending emergency medical supplies and staff, and money to pay for
rebuilding their homes, but then providing the surviving victims with
InterNet-WPA jobs until their local economy is back to functionning to
provide them with more lucrative local jobs.
> ... Madrid's surrender to al-Qaeda last March ... Immediately upon
> election, he rewarded the terrorists by withdrawing Spanish troops from
> Iraq.
Indeed that was a sad week in history, when a terrorist attack convinced
voters to vote *for* people favoring the people responsible for the
attack, basically rewarding those responsible for the attack. I would
have rather read that one of the candidates had expressed a new policy
that was balanced, fully investigating the indicent and capturing and
punishing those responsible, while spending an exactly equal amount of
money in humanitarian aid to those in poor countries which were *not*
in any way reponsible for the acts of terrorism, and that such
candidate was rewared by winning the election, and that such policy did
in fact then go into effect.
> His "help" taught al-Qaeda that First World governments are weak and
> easily blackmailed by terrorism.
Not weak, just stupid.
> genuine victory must assure that all terrorist cells that would
> threaten our safety and all those governments that aid and abet them
> are liquidated -
That's the military way of viewing it. I would rather win a political
victory, whereby the populace of the world's currently-poorest
countries see our society as better than the poverty they had, yet
because of religious differences they can't convert to our way, but the
incentive for emulating our lesser poverty is so great than they find a
reasonable compromise whereby they can obtain wealth like ours while
retaining most of their religion and culture. After WWII, the Japanese
have already performed the adaption (not conversion) with great
success, so I know it can be done. Anyway, with zero support from their
populace, terrorist cells would dry up because of no financial
resources and no cover and no new recruits.
Us: Let's do something intelligent!
Bush Jr.: Not on my watch.