a.g.politics: a blast from the past (was Re: Special Offer on a Baghdad Invasion)
Endymion
Fascinet, posted here and on alt.punk:
> I've got $20.00 per comer that says that the (U.S.) military
> death toll will be less than 1,500 and the total (U.S.) casualties
> will be less than 7,500 if they try to take Baghdad. Who wants to
> make a bet?
Did anyone ever take the bet? I'm also curious when the bet should be
settled. The new constitution is signed, of course - do we consider the
occupation phase to be a separate event from the invasion? Because if we
consider the invasion itself to be concluded, Fascinet's won his bet
several times over.
And on a related note,
Ralf Sandner ralf....@murderdisco.de wrote in reply:
> does this include the victims of future terrorist acts which will be
> caused by the usa attacking iraq?
I find the question interesting because this assumption was argued very
fiercely here both as a prediction of the consequences of the war in
Iraq and eighteen months earlier as an identical prediction of the
consequences of military action, specifically an attack on the Taliban
and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, in response to the 9/11 attack. The
Conventional Wisdom, at least around here, seemed sure that such a
military response was exactly what the terrorists were hoping for, and
that it would inevitably result only in a strengthening of the
extremists' hand in the Islamic world and a dramatic increase in both
terrorist attacks on the US and hatred of the US in the oft-invoked
"Arab street".
I think it's instructive, then, to look at real-world results. Prior to
9/11, the Clinton administration followed the exact policy many
advocated here and Senator Kerry seems to propose now: abstaining from a
military response to terrorism and treating it as a law enforcement
problem requiring the identification and apprehension of individual
suspects. In response to these tactics, al Qaeda and its allies mounted
an increasingly daring series of attacks: the first WTC bombing in 1993,
the embassy bombings in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and
finally, of course, the destruction of the WTC in 2003.
After that, as we all know, GWB reversed the Clinton policy and pursued
an aggressive and militaristic policy of first containment and then
preemptive warfare against terrorist regimes. Since the invasions of
Afghanistan and Iraq, what has been the chief response of al Qaeda and
its allies? In the words of Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria (this week's
column at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4468639/):
"For a decade they had attacked high-profile American targets
only-embassies, a naval destroyer, the World Trade Center. Once the
United States mobilized against them, and got the world to join that
fight, what have they hit? A discotheque, a few synagogues, a couple of
restaurants and hotels, all soft targets that could not ever be
protected, and all outside the Western world. As a result, the
terrorists have killed mostly Muslims, which is marginalizing them in
the world of Islam."
"Every few months we hear of a new 'message' from Al Qaeda and analysts
ponder what it portends. By now surely it is clear that Al Qaeda can
produce videotapes but not terrorism. In fact, their poorly produced
tapes, threatening spectacular attacks, are becoming a joke, much like
Saddam Hussein's promises to fight 'the mother of all battles.'"
"In political terms they have fared even worse. Support for violent
Islam is waning in almost all major Muslim countries. Discussions from
Libya to Saudi Arabia are all about liberalization. Ever since September
11, when the spotlight has been directed on these societies and their
dysfunctions laid bare to the world, it is the hard-liners who are in
retreat and the moderates on the rise."
It still feels a bit early, a little too nervous, to talk about al Qaeda
being done for. It seems like tempting fate to say they can produce only
tapes. Still, it's been 30 months and several doom-laden videotapes
since the WTC attack, and not one target in the West proper has been
hit. Surely we've at least severely disrupted bin Laden's timetable and
apparatus. And can we at least agree that the massive flocking to his
banners, the riots in the "Arab street", the apocalyptic war of Islam
against the Great Satan were as much a figment of the imagination of the
administration's critics as of bin Laden's - probably even more so?
After all, I said at the time that I thought it was in appalling taste
to wager money on the lives of our soldiers, and I wouldn't take part in
it - but at what point do we say it's no longer too soon for a great big
"I told you so all along"?
And the real zinger of a question: how many of you USians out there, or
others who don't live here but take an interest in our politics anyway,
are crossing your fingers, clicking your ruby-red slippers' heels
together, and wishing on a star for (a) a massive terrorist attack on
the US, (b) a complete breakdown in Iraq hopefully resulting in civil
war, or (c) an economic nosedive with job losses instead of the
projected gains, or better yet two of the three, so you can be sure Bush
won't win re-election this fall?
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Dag
@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com:
> I was playing around on Google a bit and found this little gem from HRH
> Fascinet, posted here and on alt.punk:
<SNIP>
> Still, it's been 30 months and several doom-laden videotapes
> since the WTC attack, and not one target in the West proper has been
> hit. Surely we've at least severely disrupted bin Laden's timetable and
> apparatus.
Out of curiosity, would you want to re-evaluate this post after what
happened in Madrid?
Dag
Bruce Tucker
> "Endymion" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
> <SNIP>
> > Still, it's been 30 months and several doom-laden videotapes
> > since the WTC attack, and not one target in the West proper has been
> > hit. Surely we've at least severely disrupted bin Laden's timetable
and
> > apparatus.
>
> Out of curiosity, would you want to re-evaluate this post after what
> happened in Madrid?
Certainly.
However, tragic as this attack is, it's still no more attacks over the
last 2 1/2 years than we were seeing before - and a dramatic step down
from the scale of the 9/11 attacks.
It saddens me terribly to see the Spanish electorate take the coward's
path in response. "Don't provoke them, maybe they'll attack someone else
instead." After all, it's not as if al Qaeda would just go away and live
peacefully if they were left alone, is it? Too many in Europe, it seems,
are still ready to re-enact Munich. Hard to blame them, I suppose;
400,000 Americans were willing to die solving their problems and
straightening out their messes in the last century, why should the new
one be any different?
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Edward Scissorhands
>However, tragic as this attack is, it's still no more attacks over the
>last 2 1/2 years than we were seeing before - and a dramatic step down
>from the scale of the 9/11 attacks.
I suspect, somewhat harder to implement than the 9/11 attack, though.
I get so annoyed with these terrorists, because they seem incapable of
blowing up the people responsible for the policies. The politicians
don't care about the dead people - the previous Spanish government would
have remained in power had they half a brain cell between them - and the
populous have no idea what to do beyond placing their trust in the
government. What else can they do?
If someone blew up Blair/Blunkett, I wouldn't be at all surprised. Yet
they consistently fail to kill anyone who is responsible for the
treatment they claim to be reacting against.
This, above everything else, is why I have no respect for terrorists.
EdwardS
--
EdwardS - Romero crossed with Teletubbies.
What kind of Zombies like Living Flesh?
Fat zombies, skinny zombies, zombies who climb on rocks
Tough zombies, sissy zombies, even zombies with the pox love living flesh...
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> It saddens me terribly to see the Spanish electorate take the coward's
> path in response. "Don't provoke them, maybe they'll attack someone else
> instead."
I suspect that the former Spanish PM's attempt to turn the attack to
political advantage --- he kept insisting that it must have been the
Basques, even while evidence was mounting that it was Al Qaeda, because his
party had a rep for taking a hard line on the Basque terrorists --- rubbed a
lot of people the wrong way. This major miscalculation probably had more to
do with the result than a desire to appease Arabs.
--
I'm gonna eat a lot of glitter
To keep my shit from lookin' dull.
-- Dirk Hamilton
Endymion
> Bruce Tucker wrote:
>
> > It saddens me terribly to see the Spanish electorate take the
coward's
> > path in response. "Don't provoke them, maybe they'll attack someone
else
> > instead."
>
> I suspect that the former Spanish PM's attempt to turn the attack to
> political advantage --- he kept insisting that it must have been the
> Basques, even while evidence was mounting that it was Al Qaeda,
because his
> party had a rep for taking a hard line on the Basque terrorists ---
rubbed a
> lot of people the wrong way. This major miscalculation probably had
more to
> do with the result than a desire to appease Arabs.
True. I've seen quotes both ways - a lot of people seemed to be saying
they blamed Aznar for "making Spain a target". It may be a while before
what was said in Spanish media filters through to us.
I wouldn't be surprised, btw, if it turned out to be a cooperative
effort between the two groups. Over the weekend I read up a bit on the
developments over the last six months or so and the reasons why the
government thought the ETA might be to blame for this, and it seems that
it does match very closely with the MO of some of the attacks the
government managed to foil - attacks that already marked a radical
departure in ETA methods. The ETA was never supposed to be very large,
it may be that they lost so many assets in the last few attempts that
remaining cells threw in their lot with al Qaeda (although how they'd
contact each other would be a mystery, unless the ETA has old PLO
contacts in N. Africa). So I don't think that was purely opportunism on
the government's part, although I'm sure politicking was a part of it.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Panurge
> It saddens me terribly to see the Spanish electorate take the coward's
> path in response. "Don't provoke them, maybe they'll attack someone else
> instead."
Have you considered that if the West responded peacefully (so to speak)
the Arab world in general would get the message? Or do you think that
poorly of the Arab world in general?
Have you considered that the Spanish electorate was overwhelmingly
against the Iraq war in the first place? Why should they let terrorists
change their minds, hmm? Hmm? Or should we let *another* country fall
to the neo-con "terrorists attacked you on our watch--that means you
have to keep us in power forever" fallacy?
> After all, it's not as if al Qaeda would just go away and live
> peacefully if they were left alone, is it? Too many in Europe, it seems,
> are still ready to re-enact Munich.
I haven't seen anyone over there doing anything of the sort. Where have
you heard that Spain is willing to concede to al-Qaeda's demands? Where
have you heard that al-Qaeda had made demands specifically of Spain in
the first place?
> Hard to blame them, I suppose;
> 400,000 Americans were willing to die solving their problems and
> straightening out their messes in the last century, why should the new
> one be any different?
Um, first, Spain was *neutral* in WWII. No American (or Briton, or
Russian, for that matter) died in that war for the sake of Spain.
Second, you make it sound as if the U.S. entered those wars out of the
goodness of its heart. Wanna ask a Canadian about that sometime?
--
"Composers tend to think most people really care a lot about music.
Well, most people don't." --Aaron Copland
Endymion
> "Bruce Tucker" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > It saddens me terribly to see the Spanish electorate take the
coward's
> > path in response. "Don't provoke them, maybe they'll attack someone
else
> > instead."
>
> Have you considered
Considered? Yes. Think it for a moment? Not even.
> that if the West responded peacefully (so to speak)
What, like called off the bombing campaign we were running against
Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and so forth before 9/11?
Oh, that's right, there wasn't one!
> the Arab world in general would get the message?
Do you think five guys from India and two from Morocoo, plus an unknown
number of accomplices, with a few sackfulls of high explosives and some
tapes of Koran verses, are proper spokespersons for "the Arab world in
general"? Which one of us do you think is being unreasonable with that
representation?
Do you think if more rape victims would just shut up and enjoy it they'd
get hurt less often?
> Or do you think that
> poorly of the Arab world in general?
It seems one of us certainly thinks poorly of the Arab world in general.
Hint: it's the one who thinks the Arab world in general is best
represented by guys who go into other countries' train stations and blow
up rush hour commuters.
If I thought that was what the Arab world in general was doing I would
say no, reacting "peacefully" would not be the appropriate message. When
a mad dog attacks you you don't act peacably towards it and hope it
"gets the message". You pull out your shotgun and blow it to hell. A mad
dog is a mad dog and it is never going to "get the message" of peace.
People who blow up commuter trains are by definition not reasonable.
Hitler was not, despite Mr. Chamberlain's fantasies, a reasonable man
and he did not share anyone else's desire for "peace in our time". He
"got the message" alright, only the message he got was "We are cowards
and weaklings who can be bullied if you push us hard enough."
Al Qaeda is patently not a reasonable organization staffed by reasonable
people, and there is nothing that you or I or anyone else is going to
do, unless we all sit down and commit suicide tomorrow, that will get
them to stop trying to destroy the West. All Europe can do is buy them
off, like the Huns of old, and persuade them to attack someone else
instead for a little while.
> Have you considered that the Spanish electorate was overwhelmingly
> against the Iraq war in the first place? Why should they let
terrorists
> change their minds, hmm? Hmm?
By all indications, it was more or less willing to stick with the
center-right until the bombings.
> > After all, it's not as if al Qaeda would just go away and live
> > peacefully if they were left alone, is it? Too many in Europe, it
seems,
> > are still ready to re-enact Munich.
>
> I haven't seen anyone over there doing anything of the sort.
You must have been living in a shoebox for the last thirty years.
Europe, with the exception of the UK, has been appeasing terrorists as
long as I've been watching the nightly news.
> Where
> have you heard that al-Qaeda had made demands specifically of Spain in
> the first place?
Specific demands of Spain, none, but they did specifically mention
targeting Spain, IIRC.
> > Hard to blame them, I suppose;
> > 400,000 Americans were willing to die solving their problems and
> > straightening out their messes in the last century, why should the
new
> > one be any different?
>
> Um, first, Spain was *neutral* in WWII. No American (or Briton, or
> Russian, for that matter) died in that war for the sake of Spain.
True, although a few died trying to save it from fascism. Anyway I was
speaking in general terms, as should have been clear from the context.
> Second, you make it sound as if the U.S. entered those wars out of the
> goodness of its heart.
Oh, I forgot, it was Roosevelt's being I the pocket of the Wall St.
Jewish financinciers' conspiracy (*eye roll*).
Either way, it was certainly out of the *badness* of Europeans' hearts.
Lying, scheming, bloodthirsty, war-crazed bastards the first time out,
all eager to throttle each other for what? And to drag Africans and
Turks and Arabs and Indians and everybody else around the globe they
could into it, do everything possible (like sneaking contraband onto
passenger liners illegally) to get US citizens killed so we'd join in
too, make conflicting promises to everyone about who'd get what
afterwards, then break every one at the "peace" conference which became
a land-grab and vengeance-fest so rapacious it guaranteed Round Two, but
just in case you feel sorry for the losers (including Russia), they come
up with leaders who are psychopaths so perverse and evil they manage to
outdo the last war's body count on their own people... yeah, I'd say
Americans come off looking pretty darned good-hearted by comparison.
> Wanna ask a Canadian about that sometime?
Not really. Canada could have thrown off those shackles too, and didn't,
so while I'm sorry for them, just like I am for the Aussies at
Singapore, I'm not going to feel guilty for it if her people signed a
blank check on their lives over to British politicians and paid the
price.
And here's a thought for you: when they were dying on the beach at
Dieppe in 1942, or in the trenches along the Somme in 1916, do you think
somebody asked, "Have you considered that if the West responded
peacefully (so to speak) the German nation in general would get the
message?"
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Peter Constantine
> Um, first, Spain was *neutral* in WWII. No American (or Briton, or
> Russian, for that matter) died in that war for the sake of Spain.
If it counts for anything, some 900 Americans died for Spain in the
Civil War.
x
Peter Constantine
> I wouldn't be surprised, btw, if it turned out to be a cooperative
> effort between the two groups.
Most of the 'experts' I've heard talking about this seem to agree that
Al Qaeda would not be prepared to work with any non-Muslim organisation.
x
Peter Constantine
> You must have been living in a shoebox for the last thirty years.
> Europe, with the exception of the UK, has been appeasing terrorists as
> long as I've been watching the nightly news.
With the exception of the UK?!! The result of successive UK governments'
policies towards Northern Ireland is a shining example of how terrorists
can bomb their way to the negotiating table and into power...
x
--
["Do you ever hear the screams as the limbs are all torn off?
Did you ever kiss the child who just saw his father shot...?"]
Jodi
>I get so annoyed with these terrorists, because they seem incapable of
>blowing up the people responsible for the policies.
Eta actually have a good history of killing, if not the top people in
government, generals and MPs and such.
Jodi
I am angry I am ill and I'm as ugly as sin
My irritability keeps me alive and kicking
- Magazine, "A Song from Under the Floorboards"
Endymion
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:41:56 +0000 (UTC), Edward Scissorhands wrote:
>
> >I get so annoyed with these terrorists, because they seem incapable
of
> >blowing up the people responsible for the policies.
>
> Eta actually have a good history of killing, if not the top people in
> government, generals and MPs and such.
That was in the past, particularly under Franco and immediately
afterwards. Apparently the new generation of ETA have taken to killing
local civil servants and ordinary citizens as their politics have become
increasingly irrelevant and decreasingly popular.
It's not an unusual cycle for terrorist groups - when their tactics
don't bring about the desired result, they step up the violence, which
only alienates everyone further, leading to further escalation, and
further alienation, and so forth. In conflicts between states it's
usually possible to bring about a resolution, but with terrorist groups
it appears that the only solution is first to cut them off from their
base of support and then to eradicate them.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Endymion
> Endymion wrote:
>
> > You must have been living in a shoebox for the last thirty years.
> > Europe, with the exception of the UK, has been appeasing terrorists
as
> > long as I've been watching the nightly news.
>
> With the exception of the UK?!! The result of successive UK
governments'
> policies towards Northern Ireland is a shining example of how
terrorists
> can bomb their way to the negotiating table and into power...
I will admit I am not as up on domestic UK politics as I once was, but
do you think this is truly a policy of appeasement? After all London
took a *very* hard line towards the IRA for over 25 years.
I would distinguish saying "we'll give you what you want because we
can't take the bombing any more", which is appeasement, from a
recognition that, *despite* the terrorists' tactics, the people they
claim to represent actually do have legitimate grievances (as has been,
I think, indisputably the case in both N. Ireland and Palestine), and a
willingness to say you'll agree to discuss and deal with those
grievances *after* the bombing has stopped.
I was under the impression that the latter was the government's attitude
towards the IRA - that cessation of attacks was a precondition to
negotiations, and disarmament a precondition to any permanent solution,
not the other way around (i.e., not that peace would be a reward granted
by the terrorists only after a favorable settlement on their terms,
which has always been the PLO's position vis-a-vis Israel).
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Nyx
@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com:
> I will admit I am not as up on domestic UK politics as I once was, but
> do you think this is truly a policy of appeasement? After all London
> took a *very* hard line towards the IRA for over 25 years.
The main guy they negotiate with...I forget his name, invented the
fertilizer bomb.
Nyx
Panurge
I thought some might've, so that's why I put in that qualifier. I
didn't know the figure was 900, though. Thanks.
Peter Constantine
> I will admit I am not as up on domestic UK politics as I once was, but
> do you think this is truly a policy of appeasement? After all London
> took a *very* hard line towards the IRA for over 25 years.
>
> I would distinguish saying "we'll give you what you want because we
> can't take the bombing any more", which is appeasement, from a
> recognition that, *despite* the terrorists' tactics, the people they
> claim to represent actually do have legitimate grievances (as has been,
> I think, indisputably the case in both N. Ireland and Palestine), and a
> willingness to say you'll agree to discuss and deal with those
> grievances *after* the bombing has stopped.
>
> I was under the impression that the latter was the government's attitude
> towards the IRA - that cessation of attacks was a precondition to
> negotiations, and disarmament a precondition to any permanent solution,
> not the other way around (i.e., not that peace would be a reward granted
> by the terrorists only after a favorable settlement on their terms,
> which has always been the PLO's position vis-a-vis Israel).
In order to bring an end to the 'Troubles', the British and Irish
governments have allowed some very nasty people to (literally) get away
with murder. To me this constitutes a form of appeasement. It would seem
to me that violent crimes should not go unpunished, no matter what
legitimate grievances people may have thought they had.
Most (if not all) terrorism represents the extreme end of action in
pursuit of resolution of genuine grievances. ETA, IRA, PLO, ANC, Mudiad
Amddiffyn Cymru, The Irgun, Timothy McVeigh - no doubt they all
believe(d) their particular cause justified their actions. For some of
these people violent acts may really have been a last resort and the
only option left to them... but this is were it gets a bit subjective
and we enter the 'terrorist v freedom fighter' debate.
In this context Al Qaeda may be something of an exception... spreading
terror ('shock and awe'?) seems to be their sole objective and not a
means to any particular end.
Constantine
x
[Who still can't hear 'basque seperatist'
without imagining some kind of bodice ripping...]
Tiny Human Ferret
I predict that every nation in the Western World which is having public
elections will get a significant rash of attacks immediately before the
election.
Sometimes I suspect that Al Qaeda forgot what year it was when they did
the WTC. If they'd done it in September of 2000, lord only knows which
way the election would have gone. Or where the election rhetoric would
have gone, for that matter.
--klaatu, predicting much unhappiness at the ballot box this November
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
Tiny Human Ferret
> "Jodi" <jo...@gene13.demonspam.co.uk> wrote
>
>
>>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:41:56 +0000 (UTC), Edward Scissorhands wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I get so annoyed with these terrorists, because they seem incapable
>
> of
>
>>>blowing up the people responsible for the policies.
>>
>>Eta actually have a good history of killing, if not the top people in
>>government, generals and MPs and such.
>
>
> That was in the past, particularly under Franco
This just in. Generalissimo Francisco Franco is _still_ dead.
<snips>
Edvamp
>governments have allowed some very nasty people to (literally) get away
>with murder. To me this constitutes a form of appeasement. It would seem
>to me that violent crimes should not go unpunished, no matter what
>legitimate grievances people may have thought they had.
But as you said, both sides are doing it. When violence and atrocities can be
accounted for both sides (which can be said of almost any violent dispute),
then both sides saying enough is enough and working towards a peace is not
appeasement they way I read Endymion describing it.
The way you are saying, that all crimes should be punished, would just continue
the cycle of retribution to avenge retribution. Yes, people will be getting
away with murder on both sides. But the sign of a good agreement in these
cases is where both sides walk away somewhat unhappy.
Ever and Always
Edvamp
If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college.
www.insidecx.com
Endymion
> This just in. Generalissimo Francisco Franco is _still_ dead.
And I trust you didn't get that from watching Comedy Central either, O
fellow Old Fart!
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
(who was too young to be watching such smut, but did anyway...)
erithromycin
>I was playing around on Google a bit and found this little gem from HRH
>Fascinet, posted here and on alt.punk:
>>I've got $20.00 per comer that says that the (U.S.) military
>>death toll will be less than 1,500 and the total (U.S.) casualties
>>will be less than 7,500 if they try to take Baghdad. Who wants to
>>make a bet?
>Did anyone ever take the bet?
Not as far as I know, no.
>I'm also curious when the bet should be settled.
Well, the death toll's certainly less than 1,500, though more have died now
that the regime's gone than died getting rid of it, which isn't so good. I'm
not sure about the total casualty statistic, but it's been a year now, give
or take, and I don't think there's been 20 casualties a day.
>The new constitution is signed, of course - do we consider the
>occupation phase to be a separate event from the invasion?
The _interim_ constitution is signed, the one that's meant to tide
everything over until the constitutional convention has run its course which
must take place before the transfer of power. Yes, though, I'd say that you
could consider the occupation phase to be a seperate event from the
invasion, but then you've got to pick a date - the capture of Saddam would
be the most obvious, I'd say, though you could argue for the whole of the
deck of cards if you were feeling ornery.
>Because if we consider the invasion itself to be concluded, Fascinet's won
>his bet several times over.
I don't think he was trying to get someone to cover the spread. As it was,
I'd probably have gone long on about 250 dead, though knowing the way that
forces mix I'd have tried to go long on friendly and accidental casualties
over 25. That's just me. Though arguably you should include the duration of
the 'occupation', so there's time yet.
>And on a related note,
>Ralf Sandner ralf....@murderdisco.de wrote in reply:
>>does this include the victims of future terrorist acts which will be
>>caused by the usa attacking iraq?
>I find the question interesting because this assumption was argued very
>fiercely here both as a prediction of the consequences of the war in
>Iraq and eighteen months earlier as an identical prediction of the
>consequences of military action, specifically an attack on the Taliban
>and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, in response to the 9/11 attack.
My objection to the war was that I wasn't convinced by its objectives or
justification, and that I wasn't sure what was going to happen afterwards.
I'm still not convinced of its justification, and I'm still not sure what's
happening in the aftermath.
>The
>Conventional Wisdom, at least around here, seemed sure that such a
>military response was exactly what the terrorists were hoping for, and
>that it would inevitably result only in a strengthening of the
>extremists' hand in the Islamic world and a dramatic increase in both
>terrorist attacks on the US and hatred of the US in the oft-invoked
>"Arab street".
I'm sure that some people were worried about putting American soldiers in
the middle east where they would be targets, and, lo and behold, this is the
case.
>I think it's instructive, then, to look at real-world results. Prior to
>9/11, the Clinton administration followed the exact policy many
>advocated here and Senator Kerry seems to propose now: abstaining from a
>military response to terrorism and treating it as a law enforcement
>problem requiring the identification and apprehension of individual
>suspects. In response to these tactics, al Qaeda and its allies mounted
>an increasingly daring series of attacks: the first WTC bombing in 1993,
>the embassy bombings in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and
>finally, of course, the destruction of the WTC in 2003.
Eh? 2001, surely?
>After that, as we all know, GWB reversed the Clinton policy and pursued
>an aggressive and militaristic policy of first containment and then
>preemptive warfare against terrorist regimes. Since the invasions of
>Afghanistan and Iraq, what has been the chief response of al Qaeda and
>its allies? In the words of Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria (this week's
>column at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4468639/):
I wouldn't really describe Iraq as a 'terrorist regime', except maybe now.
What of Libya?
>"For a decade they had attacked high-profile American targets
>only-embassies, a naval destroyer, the World Trade Center. Once the
>United States mobilized against them, and got the world to join that
>fight, what have they hit? A discotheque, a few synagogues, a couple of
>restaurants and hotels, all soft targets that could not ever be
>protected, and all outside the Western world. As a result, the
>terrorists have killed mostly Muslims, which is marginalizing them in
>the world of Islam."
Amazing how many Muslims hang around in synagogues. Ignoring Spain, for the
moment, what of the attacks in Pakistan, and the continued attempts on
Musharraf's life?
>"Every few months we hear of a new 'message' from Al Qaeda and analysts
>ponder what it portends. By now surely it is clear that Al Qaeda can
>produce videotapes but not terrorism. In fact, their poorly produced
>tapes, threatening spectacular attacks, are becoming a joke, much like
>Saddam Hussein's promises to fight 'the mother of all battles.'"
Now can we talk about Madrid?
>"In political terms they have fared even worse. Support for violent
>Islam is waning in almost all major Muslim countries. Discussions from
>Libya to Saudi Arabia are all about liberalization. Ever since September
>11, when the spotlight has been directed on these societies and their
>dysfunctions laid bare to the world, it is the hard-liners who are in
>retreat and the moderates on the rise."
This is interesting, particualry in light of the recent elections (and
attendant circumstances) in Iran.
>It still feels a bit early, a little too nervous, to talk about al Qaeda
>being done for. It seems like tempting fate to say they can produce only
>tapes. Still, it's been 30 months and several doom-laden videotapes
>since the WTC attack, and not one target in the West proper has been
>hit.
Does Spain count?
>Surely we've at least severely disrupted bin Laden's timetable and
>apparatus. And can we at least agree that the massive flocking to his
>banners, the riots in the "Arab street", the apocalyptic war of Islam
>against the Great Satan were as much a figment of the imagination of the
>administration's critics as of bin Laden's - probably even more so?
Well, yes and no - I mean, weren't they a vision in the minds of the
administration that couldn't be allowed to come to pass?
>After all, I said at the time that I thought it was in appalling taste
>to wager money on the lives of our soldiers, and I wouldn't take part in
>it - but at what point do we say it's no longer too soon for a great big
>"I told you so all along"?
History doesn't really work like that though, does it?
>And the real zinger of a question: how many of you USians out there, or
>others who don't live here but take an interest in our politics anyway,
>are crossing your fingers, clicking your ruby-red slippers' heels
>together, and wishing on a star for (a) a massive terrorist attack on
>the US, (b) a complete breakdown in Iraq hopefully resulting in civil
>war, or (c) an economic nosedive with job losses instead of the
>projected gains, or better yet two of the three, so you can be sure Bush
>won't win re-election this fall?
Well, I'm not, but I do wonder what will happen in another 4 years. By then
it's not impossible that Blair will be gone, and who comes after 8 years of
a Bush White House I know not.
--
erith - .sig
erithromycin
>Endymion wrote:
>>You must have been living in a shoebox for the last thirty years.
>>Europe, with the exception of the UK, has been appeasing terrorists as
>>long as I've been watching the nightly news.
>With the exception of the UK?!! The result of successive UK governments'
>policies towards Northern Ireland is a shining example of how terrorists
>can bomb their way to the negotiating table and into power...
Eh?
The same organisations of whom membership is still illegal, that have had
the assembly they are represented on suspended for the last few years
because they've not completed disarming, that are still the subject of
inquiries and murder investigations?
Also, it's an odd conception of 'power' - unless you're going to argue that
people only vote for Sinn Fein because they're afraid of being blown up.
--
erith - .sig
erithromycin
>Endymion:
>>I will admit I am not as up on domestic UK politics as I once was, but
>>do you think this is truly a policy of appeasement? After all London
>>took a *very* hard line towards the IRA for over 25 years.
>The main guy they negotiate with...I forget his name, invented the
>fertilizer bomb.
Martin McGuiness?
I find that hard to believe though - the explosive properties of nitrates
have been known for years. I mean, there was that big explosion in Galveston
in '46 or so, that took out a few hundred folk.
--
erith - .sig
erithromycin
>Bruce Tucker wrote:
>>It saddens me terribly to see the Spanish electorate take the coward's
>>path in response. "Don't provoke them, maybe they'll attack someone else
>>instead."
>I suspect that the former Spanish PM's attempt to turn the attack to
>political advantage --- he kept insisting that it must have been the
>Basques, even while evidence was mounting that it was Al Qaeda, because his
>party had a rep for taking a hard line on the Basque terrorists --- rubbed
>a lot of people the wrong way. This major miscalculation probably had more
>to do with the result than a desire to appease Arabs.
The fact that, according to opinion polls, 90% of the population were
against Spain's involvement in the Invasion of Iraq was a big factor. The
government's insistence that it was ETA from the very beginning didn't help
matters much, nor did their statement that ETA's denial was 'a lie'. When
evidence emerged that it wasn't ETA's modus operandi (copper detonators
rather than aluminium, cellphone timers) and the evidence from the
undetonated device (including phone numbers), people got angry - remember
that the attacks brought millions of people out onto the streets into the
rain to protest, and had a similar effect on voter turnout.
Remember, also, that Aznar wasn't standing to be Prime Minister again - so
he would have been out even if his party had won. I also don't think that
the Spanish can be described as cowards in the face of terrorism, nor
unaware of the dangers of fascism, what with ETA and Franco easily in living
memory. I think they had deep-seated objections to the war in Iraq, and,
when it comes down to it, it's not as if the Spanish, in their long history,
have ever done anything to offend the Muslim world, have they?
--
erith - .sig
erithromycin
>Endymion wrote:
I think it depends which 'experts' you talk to. A lot of it comes down to
who you can get in touch with - it's easier for one Muslim group to find
another Muslim group through a handful of extremist clerics, or governments,
but for one group to find another outwith that sort of circle you'd need old
Soviet or CIA contacts, or to have been to the same training camp in Libya,
or buy your AK-47s and Semtex from the same dealer, or the like.
The fact that the explosives were similar to those used by ETA, to my mind,
has more to do with availability in the area than cooperation, but that's
just my opinion. The fact that the attack showed some evidence of
coordination, and a clear attempt to maximise casualties, points at Al
Qaida. They do seem to be very interested in killing lots of people and
producing good pictures to go with them, which is quite different to the
more directed campaigns that we've seen in the past - remember that when the
PLO hijacked three airliners, they blew them up empty in the desert.
--
erith - .sig
Peter Constantine
> >In order to bring an end to the 'Troubles', the British and Irish
> >governments have allowed some very nasty people to (literally) get away
> >with murder. To me this constitutes a form of appeasement. It would seem
> >to me that violent crimes should not go unpunished, no matter what
> >legitimate grievances people may have thought they had.
>
> But as you said, both sides are doing it. When violence and atrocities
> can be accounted for both sides (which can be said of almost any violent
> dispute), then both sides saying enough is enough and working towards a
> peace is not appeasement they way I read Endymion describing it.
I don't think I said 'both sides are doing it'. Who are the opposing
sides in the Northern Ireland 'war' anyway? UK v RoI? Protestants v
Catholics? Unionists v Nationalists...?
In this particular discussion the only 'sides' I had in mind were
'terrorists' on one hand and 'people who wish to go about their lives
without being blown apart at random' on the other
> The way you are saying, that all crimes should be punished, would just
> continue the cycle of retribution to avenge retribution. Yes, people will
> be getting away with murder on both sides. But the sign of a good
> agreement in these cases is where both sides walk away somewhat unhappy.
This may eventually be the case in the Basque region and Palestine...
but I can't see it happening with Al Qaeda.
x
Peter Constantine
> The same organisations of whom membership is still illegal, that have had
> the assembly they are represented on suspended for the last few years
> because they've not completed disarming, that are still the subject of
> inquiries and murder investigations?
Here we see the strange contradictions that arise in Northern Ireland...
illegal terrorist organisations get to be represented in the assembly? I
still don't think the political parties representing the extremes of
Nationalist and Unionist opinion are honest about the links between them
and the "paramilitaries".
I don't believe that since the Good Friday Agreement unsolved terrorist
crimes are being investigated with any great vigour.
> Also, it's an odd conception of 'power' - unless you're going to argue that
> people only vote for Sinn Fein because they're afraid of being blown up.
No... people of little conscience vote for extreme Nationalist and
Unionist parties in NI despite their links to terrorists not, I hope,
because of them. In Ireland people can vote for Sinn Fein if they want
to... in Spain Batasuna cannot stand for election. Does this mean ETA
violence is justified? I still don't think so.
x
Endymion
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4521743/, about the lessons from Vietnam
applicable to the current situation in Iraq and how US policy got from
there to here, with emphasis on the current administration's
intellectual pedigree.
The interesting thing is that there's plenty of analysis of the Bushies'
background, and also of that of some of their critics, but almost
nothing is said about what the countervailing position in the Democratic
party leadership really is. And I think that's very telling.
What it tells me is this. You may disagree with Bush, Rumsfeld, et al,
but at least they're honestly pursuing a policy that they feel to be
justified by past events. This author thinks they went to far, and in
fact thinks they have realized that and are adjusting their policy as
they go along.
But apparently, as far I can see, there is no similar policy, no similar
intellectual pedigree, among Democratic *leaders* - just that of some
other opponents, plus Kerry's "I served in Vietnam and you didn't"
blustering.
So what *is* Kerry's position on Iraq?
Is this "nuance"? Or is it all-too-typical backseat driving? He'll
advocate anything, as long as it's whatever seems to be NOT what the
administration is said to be doing that morning? What are you against? I
don't know, what has George Bush got?
I think I know what Howard Dean's program was - if he had his druthers,
if he really could do what he wanted, I think he'd disband the Pentagon,
slash military spending by 90%, and leave us with a UN-led peacekeeping
force about the same size, in proportion to the nation's, size, as
Denmark's, and spend the money on health care and schools instead. He
wasn't ready to campaign on quite so radical a platform this year, but
at least he was honest about the gist of his foreign policy disagreement
with the President.
But Kerry? He talks about lessons learned from Vietnam, but smells like
another Clinton - his "policy" is that he should be the man in the Oval
Office, and the best "policy" is to say whatever he has to say, do
whatever he has to do, and dance to whatever tune he has to dance to in
order to fool people into putting him there.
And no one else in positions of power in the party - as opposed to
thinkers and pundits on the margins, who contribute but don't actually
get to lead - seems willing to commit to anything any more concrete.
So just what *is* the position of the Democratic Party leadership on the
use of American power in the world? Are we to be hamstrung by the
"Vietnam Syndrome" for another generation or not? Do we regard the use
of force in pursuit of national security aims to be a legitimate and
proper function of government, even at the cost of some lives? Was, for
example, the war in Afghanistan a proper use of force - and if so, how
exactly, if at all, is Iraq to be distinguished? Are we or are we not
going to shrink from fatalities among our soldiers as bin Laden
predicted?
And John Kerry can't spend every day of the next eight months weaseling
out of these questions by pretending that "Are you questioning my
*patriotism*? Because I'll remind you that I served in Vietnam..."
answers them.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
> I was playing around on Google a bit and found this little gem from HRH
> Fascinet, posted here and on alt.punk:
>
> > I've got $20.00 per comer that says that the (U.S.) military
> > death toll will be less than 1,500 and the total (U.S.) casualties
> > will be less than 7,500 if they try to take Baghdad. Who wants to
> > make a bet?
>
> settled. The new constitution is signed, of course - do we consider the
> occupation phase to be a separate event from the invasion? Because if we
> consider the invasion itself to be concluded, Fascinet's won his bet
> several times over.
>
In at least one post, I stipulated six months after the first American
troops entered Baghdad, which would allow for all war-related
casulaties. This was also just for Baghdad, as well, because someone
in alt.punk was using Stalingrad as a template to predict what would
happen.
<...>
>
> It still feels a bit early, a little too nervous, to talk about al Qaeda
> being done for. It seems like tempting fate to say they can produce only
> tapes. Still, it's been 30 months and several doom-laden videotapes
> since the WTC attack, and not one target in the West proper has been
> hit. Surely we've at least severely disrupted bin Laden's timetable and
> apparatus.
>
I doubt al-Qaeda will disappear at any time. And, as long as we keep
a major military presence in the region, there will always be an
effective recruiting tool for bin Laden, which means we shouldn't
expect a major (i.e., order of magnitude) reduction in "membership"
(whatever that means for a terrorist organization) for some time.
Remember Sandino. Even if you have only occasional successes, you'll
be able to recruit adventurous zealots and rogues for an indefinite
period, and you don't need terrorist hordes, a terrorist trickle is
more than enough.
However, the nature of this organization, if that's the right word,
allows it to change focus at will and for just about anyone to claim
to be a member. Certainly, if bin Laden's purpose was to cause the
United States to collapse, as he claims to have destroyed the Soviet
Union, then al-Qaeda has been castrated, if it ever had any testicles
to begin with, but as a local group of pan-arabists, it will probably
continue to to function in some capacity for decades after the last
time they throw a bomb in the West.
<...>
>
> And the real zinger of a question: how many of you USians out there, or
> others who don't live here but take an interest in our politics anyway,
> are crossing your fingers, clicking your ruby-red slippers' heels
> together, and wishing on a star for (a) a massive terrorist attack on
> the US, (b) a complete breakdown in Iraq hopefully resulting in civil
> war, or (c) an economic nosedive with job losses instead of the
> projected gains, or better yet two of the three, so you can be sure Bush
> won't win re-election this fall?
>
Thanks to Spain, I think that starting in October and continuing
through election day, I'm not riding the Metro.
Screw it, I'll use it. It beats parking on a Saturday night.
And I never ride during peak hours, anyway.
-F
Nyx
news:4058b6c3$0$3198$afc3...@news.ukonline.co.uk:
> I find that hard to believe though - the explosive properties of
> nitrates have been known for years. I mean, there was that big
> explosion in Galveston in '46 or so, that took out a few hundred folk.
I think what he invented was the actual idea of putting fertilizer and
diesel together in a truck. Not a big innovation but it would have been
enough to get a patent.
Nyx
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
Does Timothy McVeigh owe him royalties?
-F
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
>
> In this context Al Qaeda may be something of an exception... spreading
> terror ('shock and awe'?) seems to be their sole objective and not a
> means to any particular end.
>
You may be shocked when someone lays a lead pipe across the back of
your head, but you'll never be awed by it. A dastard inspires no
respect.
It seems highly unlikely to me that al Qaeda has no objective other
than to destroy things. As unlikely as I find their delusional stated
objectives to be their true motives--the removal of "crusader-Zionist"
troops from the "holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula," for
example--, from what I've heard, they're hardly nihilists. From what
I've been reading and listening to recently, their goals include have
a pan-arab nationalist streak in the group, hoping to both acquire
arab territory and unite it, with a sprinkle of universal religious
conquest.
I'm not sure how much to believe the "experts," but these seem liek
goal a violent organization would have.
It may be true that Western people are targeted in order to convince
them to withdraw from the Middle East or keep them from interfering
during a dreamt-of conquest of region. It may also be a way to help
recruiting by showing that they have a kind of international influence
and to show that al Qaeda is more powerful than the current
governments of the arab states.
However, even if we don't consider their actions directly related to
meaningful objectives, motives are still there.
Whether we want to go halfsies with them is another matter.
-F
Tiny Human Ferret
> "Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote
>
>
>>This just in. Generalissimo Francisco Franco is _still_ dead.
>
>
> And I trust you didn't get that from watching Comedy Central either, O
> fellow Old Fart!
Actually, it was mentioned on Page Two (I think) of _the Washington Post_.
Apparently someone in the editing department has a bit of a sense of humor.
Endymion
> Yes, but look at what the French did for the fledgling USA, and how
they
> were vilified.
That debt was long remembered and appreciated. And paid, twice over.
"Lafayette, we are here!"
(My grandfather was among those who were there as well. Somewhere among
his effects I have an AEF campaign medal along with certificate of
appreciation from the French government given to Americans who fought in
that war "to save Democracy".)
And of course some prominent Americans, most notably Paine, threw their
lot in with the French Revolutionaries, whom they saw, in contrast to
the monarchy, as the representatives of the French people, to whom the
debt was owed.
Even today many people find much to admire about French culture while
deploring many of its governments' policies and the apparent popular
support for them.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Endymion
> Enymion:
That was on purpose!
> >The new constitution is signed, of course - do we consider the
> >occupation phase to be a separate event from the invasion?
>
> The _interim_ constitution is signed, the one that's meant to tide
> everything over until the constitutional convention has run its course
which
> must take place before the transfer of power.
True.
> Yes, though, I'd say that you
> could consider the occupation phase to be a seperate event from the
> invasion, but then you've got to pick a date - the capture of Saddam
would
> be the most obvious, I'd say, though you could argue for the whole of
the
> deck of cards if you were feeling ornery.
Unrealistic. They never did get Bormann either.
> >I find the question interesting because this assumption was argued
very
> >fiercely here both as a prediction of the consequences of the war in
> >Iraq and eighteen months earlier as an identical prediction of the
> >consequences of military action, specifically an attack on the
Taliban
> >and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, in response to the 9/11 attack.
>
> My objection to the war was that I wasn't convinced by its objectives
or
> justification, and that I wasn't sure what was going to happen
afterwards.
> I'm still not convinced of its justification, and I'm still not sure
what's
> happening in the aftermath.
Fine, but in that case the post wasn't directed at you. That was a major
objection, if not the major objection, raised to the general concept of
the "War on Terrorism". The question is whether the "WoT" has spurred
more attacks than the lack of such a war would have done.
> >The
> >Conventional Wisdom, at least around here, seemed sure that such a
> >military response was exactly what the terrorists were hoping for,
and
> >that it would inevitably result only in a strengthening of the
> >extremists' hand in the Islamic world and a dramatic increase in both
> >terrorist attacks on the US and hatred of the US in the oft-invoked
> >"Arab street".
>
> I'm sure that some people were worried about putting American soldiers
in
> the middle east where they would be targets, and, lo and behold, this
is the
> case.
That's their job. The point is whether the overall effect is good or
bad; many said the risk you mention was not worthwhile because it would
actually make the risk of further terrorist incidents worse, not better.
> >I think it's instructive, then, to look at real-world results. Prior
to
> >9/11, the Clinton administration followed the exact policy many
> >advocated here and Senator Kerry seems to propose now: abstaining
from a
> >military response to terrorism and treating it as a law enforcement
> >problem requiring the identification and apprehension of individual
> >suspects. In response to these tactics, al Qaeda and its allies
mounted
> >an increasingly daring series of attacks: the first WTC bombing in
1993,
> >the embassy bombings in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and
> >finally, of course, the destruction of the WTC in 2003.
>
> Eh? 2001, surely?
Typo, sorry.
> >After that, as we all know, GWB reversed the Clinton policy and
pursued
> >an aggressive and militaristic policy of first containment and then
> >preemptive warfare against terrorist regimes. Since the invasions of
> >Afghanistan and Iraq, what has been the chief response of al Qaeda
and
> >its allies? In the words of Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria (this week's
> >column at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4468639/):
>
> I wouldn't really describe Iraq as a 'terrorist regime', except maybe
now.
You have a strangely selective memory then.
> What of Libya?
What of it? Are in the camp who believe that the timing of Khadaffi's
dramatic and unprecedented volte-face is *entirely* coincidental?
> >"For a decade they had attacked high-profile American targets
> >only-embassies, a naval destroyer, the World Trade Center. Once the
> >United States mobilized against them, and got the world to join that
> >fight, what have they hit? A discotheque, a few synagogues, a couple
of
> >restaurants and hotels, all soft targets that could not ever be
> >protected, and all outside the Western world. As a result, the
> >terrorists have killed mostly Muslims, which is marginalizing them in
> >the world of Islam."
>
> Amazing how many Muslims hang around in synagogues.
"Mostly". And of course if you blow up a building in a crowded city
using a car bomb parked outside, the people inside the building are by
no means going to be the only ones killed.
> Ignoring Spain, for the
> moment, what of the attacks in Pakistan, and the continued attempts on
> Musharraf's life?
Like Algeria, that situation long predates the current war.
> >"Every few months we hear of a new 'message' from Al Qaeda and
analysts
> >ponder what it portends. By now surely it is clear that Al Qaeda can
> >produce videotapes but not terrorism. In fact, their poorly produced
> >tapes, threatening spectacular attacks, are becoming a joke, much
like
> >Saddam Hussein's promises to fight 'the mother of all battles.'"
>
> Now can we talk about Madrid?
Sure. Lets compare the number and scale of terrorist attacks from Sep.
12, 2001 through today with the number and scale during the thirty
months from March 1999 through Sep. 11, 2001. Would you say al Qaeda has
still had to scale back or been hampered its operations, or would you
say there has been a dramatic increase in the scale and intensity of
terrorist attacks in Western countries in the aftermath of the 9/11
attacks? I'd particularly like to focus on terrorist attacks in the US.
> >"In political terms they have fared even worse. Support for violent
> >Islam is waning in almost all major Muslim countries. Discussions
from
> >Libya to Saudi Arabia are all about liberalization. Ever since
September
> >11, when the spotlight has been directed on these societies and their
> >dysfunctions laid bare to the world, it is the hard-liners who are in
> >retreat and the moderates on the rise."
>
> This is interesting, particualry in light of the recent elections (and
> attendant circumstances) in Iran.
The regime there is still clinging to power but I think events have
shown that in the "Persian Street" the reformers probably have more
popular support, and the hard-liners less, than at any point since the
Revolution.
> >And can we at least agree that the massive flocking to his
> >banners, the riots in the "Arab street", the apocalyptic war of Islam
> >against the Great Satan were as much a figment of the imagination of
the
> >administration's critics as of bin Laden's - probably even more so?
>
> Well, yes and no - I mean, weren't they a vision in the minds of the
> administration that couldn't be allowed to come to pass?
I see no support for such a proposition. The administration always said
the everyday citizen in Iraq or elsewhere in the Arab world would prefer
freedom to life under brutal regimes or terrorist warlords once given a
chance to experience the difference.
> >And the real zinger of a question: how many of you USians out there,
or
> >others who don't live here but take an interest in our politics
anyway,
> >are crossing your fingers, clicking your ruby-red slippers' heels
> >together, and wishing on a star for (a) a massive terrorist attack on
> >the US, (b) a complete breakdown in Iraq hopefully resulting in civil
> >war, or (c) an economic nosedive with job losses instead of the
> >projected gains, or better yet two of the three, so you can be sure
Bush
> >won't win re-election this fall?
>
> Well, I'm not,
Heh. I actually saw one columnist (Nicholas von Hoffman, in the New York
Observer) come out and admit it this week - that the best chance for the
country lies in the worst things happening, more war, more unemployment.
He's making his list and checking it twice.
> but I do wonder what will happen in another 4 years. By then
> it's not impossible that Blair will be gone, and who comes after 8
years of
> a Bush White House I know not.
Maybe Hillary, if Bush gets reelected. There's no strong Republican
waiting in the wings, she's reinventing herself as a moderate, the
foreign policy crisis that the Republicans are feeding on will be over,
and the Republicans are turning people off too much to stay in office
without it.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Tiny Human Ferret
> Last episode const...@xsublime.demon.co.uk (Peter Constantine) said:
>
>>Panurge wrote:
>>
>>>Um, first, Spain was *neutral* in WWII. No American (or Briton, or
>>>Russian, for that matter) died in that war for the sake of Spain.
>>
>>If it counts for anything, some 900 Americans died for Spain in the
>>Civil War.
>
>
> were vilified.
>
Hey, I personally stood up for the French in that recent flap. The thing
you have to understand about the French is that they feel obliged to be
contrary. Why help the fledgling US? To spite the British. But in the
last flap, they were able to get two spitings in for the price of one.
If they'd also somehow been able to also spite Germany, I expect they'd
have done that as well, but it just didn't work out that way.
erithromycin
>Edvamp wrote:
>>>In order to bring an end to the 'Troubles', the British and Irish
>>>governments have allowed some very nasty people to (literally) get away
>>>with murder. To me this constitutes a form of appeasement. It would seem
>>>to me that violent crimes should not go unpunished, no matter what
>>>legitimate grievances people may have thought they had.
>>But as you said, both sides are doing it. When violence and atrocities
>>can be accounted for both sides (which can be said of almost any violent
>>dispute), then both sides saying enough is enough and working towards a
>>peace is not appeasement they way I read Endymion describing it.
>I don't think I said 'both sides are doing it'. Who are the opposing
>sides in the Northern Ireland 'war' anyway? UK v RoI? Protestants v
>Catholics? Unionists v Nationalists...?
It was a three way 'war' - Unionists v Nationalists v Government Forces.
Which reduces quite nicely to 'us' and 'them'.
>In this particular discussion the only 'sides' I had in mind were
>'terrorists' on one hand and 'people who wish to go about their lives
>without being blown apart at random' on the other
Oh. Well, they elected governments, and supported organisations, that fought
on their behalf. Or opposed them, which is different, but sort of the same.
>>The way you are saying, that all crimes should be punished, would just
>>continue the cycle of retribution to avenge retribution. Yes, people will
>>be getting away with murder on both sides. But the sign of a good
>>agreement in these cases is where both sides walk away somewhat unhappy.
>This may eventually be the case in the Basque region and Palestine...
>but I can't see it happening with Al Qaeda.
That's because they're not going to walk away unhappy - you can settle for
50% of your ancestral homeland, but you can't really get your hands on 25%
of the total annhilation of Western Civilisation now, can you?
--
erith - well, you can in Illuminati, probably
erithromycin
>erithromycin wrote:
>>The same organisations of whom membership is still illegal, that have had
>>the assembly they are represented on suspended for the last few years
>>because they've not completed disarming, that are still the subject of
>>inquiries and murder investigations?
>Here we see the strange contradictions that arise in Northern Ireland...
>illegal terrorist organisations get to be represented in the assembly? I
>still don't think the political parties representing the extremes of
>Nationalist and Unionist opinion are honest about the links between them
>and the "paramilitaries".
Well, some are, and some aren't - it all depends on what can be proven,
remember, at least until we get Blunkett's "Illegalisation Of Looking Shifty
And That Act".
>I don't believe that since the Good Friday Agreement unsolved terrorist
>crimes are being investigated with any great vigour.
Apart from all the ones that are, with the various inquiries, and the
attempts at something approximating the truth and reconciliation committee,
you mean? Also, all the murder investigations still open that are being
affected by declarations from various organisations about where people are
buried?
>>Also, it's an odd conception of 'power' - unless you're going to argue
>>that people only vote for Sinn Fein because they're afraid of being blown
>>up.
>No... people of little conscience vote for extreme Nationalist and
>Unionist parties in NI despite their links to terrorists not, I hope,
>because of them. In Ireland people can vote for Sinn Fein if they want
>to... in Spain Batasuna cannot stand for election. Does this mean ETA
>violence is justified? I still don't think so.
The problem with terrorism is that it's, well, unequal, in most ways - I
mean, if you're willing to kill for something, you'd really better make sure
that most people agree that it's worth killing for before you go out and do
it.
--
erith - .sig
erithromycin
>Nyx:
>>Erith:
>>>I find that hard to believe though - the explosive properties of
>>>nitrates have been known for years. I mean, there was that big
>>>explosion in Galveston in '46 or so, that took out a few hundred folk.
>>I think what he invented was the actual idea of putting fertilizer and
>>diesel together in a truck. Not a big innovation but it would have been
>>enough to get a patent.
>Does Timothy McVeigh owe him royalties?
I always wondered who ended up paying for the rented truck. The answer's no,
by the way, as it wasn't patented. Though the idea of patenting terrorist
tools so you can tack a couple of extra years onto the sentences has a
certain lunatic appeal. Certainly it would make it easier for the British
Constabulary when they're trying to decide between charging folk with
'Conspiracy To Cause Explosions'* or 'Possession Of Items That May Be Of Use
In Terrorism'.*
--
erith - *real
Jennie
> If someone blew up Blair/Blunkett, I wouldn't be at all surprised. Yet
> they consistently fail to kill anyone who is responsible for the
> treatment they claim to be reacting against.
It wouldn't be so very difficult either. I'm not sure how many
people will have heard about this - it was removed from news programmes
pretty quickly on the morning it happened - but a couple of weeks ago
officials discovered that person or persons unknown had broken into the
Houses of Parliament at Westminster and carved the words 'Tony Blair is a
cunt.' on the underside of the despatch box. This was conveniently
forgotten about when las weekend, a couple of protestors scaled Big Ben,
and we were treated to senior policemen dismissing the incident with
assurances that they'd never gave got inside Parliament itself.
One can only conclude that al Quaeda's people are utterly
incompetent (which seems unlikely, if only because there are quite a few
of them, so the law of averages suggests at least one must have a
rudimentary brain) or that their actual agenda is somewhat different from
their proclaimed agenda. I suggest that they like to think of themselves
as sophisticated and politically motivated, but what really drives them is
a pretty basic, ill-considered desire for revenge, and revenge through
chattel at that.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
Jennie
> With the exception of the UK?!! The result of successive UK governments'
> policies towards Northern Ireland is a shining example of how terrorists
> can bomb their way to the negotiating table and into power...
There was a little more to it than that. Irish Republicans also
_bred_ their way to the negotiating table. There are simply many more of
them now, of voting age, than of their rivals, in Northern Ireland. This
has changed the balance of the whole situation. It means that, aside from
anything is, nobody now _needs_ to resort to terrorism in that cause. It's
harder to persuade (those who perceive themselves as) vulnerable
minorities and people unable to directly defend their homelands to
approach things peacefully.
Jennie
> In this context Al Qaeda may be something of an exception... spreading
> terror ('shock and awe'?) seems to be their sole objective and not a
> means to any particular end.
I do wonder if anybody made large sums of money on the stock
markets after the Madrid bombings the way they did after the Twin Towers
fell, and if we're all being fools when we ascribe political motives to al
Quaeda's terrorism.
Jennie
Peter Constantine wrote:
> Edvamp wrote:
>> be getting away with murder on both sides. But the sign of a good
>> agreement in these cases is where both sides walk away somewhat unhappy.
> This may eventually be the case in the Basque region and Palestine...
Maybe before today. :(
Jennie
> Nobody cares about the past anymore - they care about now.
That was evident when we saw reports on the news, following the
Madrid bombings, claiming that this was the worst mass killing the city
had ever known.
Jennie
> It saddens me terribly to see the Spanish electorate take the coward's
> path in response. "Don't provoke them, maybe they'll attack someone else
> instead."
Other people have gone into the other reasons for the Spanish
electorate's decision already, so I'll leave those aside just now. I'd
just like to note that post-election analyses suggest there were
comparatively few votes against the former government by those who
traditionally voted for it - what happened was that a huge number of
people who wouldn't normally bother to vote went to the ballot box to make
their voices heard.
It seems to me disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that the
Spanish people did not have the right to choose the government they
wanted, or that it should not now be treated with the same respect as that
of any other democratic nation. It also seems foolish, because when we
proclaim that terrorists have affected our choices we enable them to
maintain the illusion that they're achieving something. The truth is quite
the opposite. Which party came to office is irrelevant. This bombing has
inspired a whole lot of people who had become apathetic about democracy
to leap to its defence. It has reminded them that their right to vote is a
precious thing, and that they should use it. Spain's vastly increased
electoral turnout is a victory _for_ democracy, and we must make sure
that the terrorists understand that.
Edward Scissorhands
<jen...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> It wouldn't be so very difficult either. I'm not sure how many
> people will have heard about this - it was removed from news programmes
> pretty quickly on the morning it happened - but a couple of weeks ago
> officials discovered that person or persons unknown had broken into the
> Houses of Parliament at Westminster and carved the words 'Tony Blair is a
> cunt.' on the underside of the despatch box.
I reckon it was Gordon Brown.
(Siani tells me it was someone on a tour un-noticed, and the news item
was on the Scotsman for a while...)
EdwardS (Tony Blair is not a cunt. That is rude to cunts).
--
EdwardS - Romero crossed with Teletubbies.
What kind of Zombies like Living Flesh?
Fat zombies, skinny zombies, zombies who climb on rocks
Tough zombies, sissy zombies, even zombies with the pox love living flesh...
Tiny Human Ferret
Ah, somehow, to me, voting for the commies because someone blew
something up doesn't seem particularly sane, could have been the commies
who blew stuff up you know. Especially after this reaction, I expect
they (the commies or socialists or whoever they are) will blow stuff up
before the next election and blame that on their rivals.
Endymion
> In article <c34ptd$vgj$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>, Bruce Tucker
wrote:
> > It saddens me terribly to see the Spanish electorate take the
coward's
> > path in response. "Don't provoke them, maybe they'll attack someone
else
> > instead."
>
> It seems to me disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that
the
> Spanish people did not have the right to choose the government they
> wanted, or that it should not now be treated with the same respect as
that
> of any other democratic nation.
The Spanish people *have* the right to do what they wish. It does not
mean they are not foolish and cowardly to do so, or that it does not
amount to handing the terrorists the greatest victory they have ever
won, greater by far than anything accomplished by the September 11
attack.
> It also seems foolish, because when we
> proclaim that terrorists have affected our choices we enable them to
> maintain the illusion that they're achieving something.
What we proclaim about it doesn't change what happened. Your logic is
specious in the extreme. It presumes that your and my spin on the
Spanish elections is more important than the elections themselves.
That's nonsense. There was an attack, and there was a response by the
electorate to that attack. The terrorists understand what that response
meant. They don't need you or me to explain it to them. Asking me to
pretend it's something other than what it was won't change what it was.
And the prodigious achievement the terrorists won with their bombs in
Madrid is no illusion - they steered the foreign policy of a great
modern state from one inimical to their cause to one entirely in line
with it with only a few pounds of explosives. Such an accomplishment is
unprecedented in modern history.
> The truth is quite the opposite.
Except, of course, that it isn't.
> Which party came to office is irrelevant.
That is, of course, technically correct. What is not irrelevant is that
the terrorists had previously issued demands for Spain to cease
cooperating with the American and British efforts in Iraq, and the first
statement by the incoming government was that it would do so - followed
by an immediate announcement by the terrorist group claiming
responsibility for the bombings that it would cease operations against
Spain.
The terrorists got the message. Just not the one you seem to think was
intended.
> This bombing has
> inspired a whole lot of people who had become apathetic about
democracy
> to leap to its defence.
To leap to obey the demands of the people attacking it, you mean.
> It has reminded them that their right to vote is a
> precious thing, and that they should use it. Spain's vastly increased
> electoral turnout is a victory _for_ democracy,
What is this democracy that is worth preserving? What is this great
victory that we should be celebrating? What is the nature of this
"defense of democracy" that the Spanish citizens have undertaken? Is
democracy defended merely by the act of getting up, walking out the
door, and voting, regardless of the issue, candidate, or policy for whom
one votes? Is democracy purely a momentary observance of form? Is the
defense of democracy merely a one-time participation in a process? Do I
become a heroic defender the right of free speech merely by shouting a
slogan today as I walk home?
If so, if your logic holds true, the record turnout in the plebiscite by
which Austrian voters approved the Anschluss in 1938 was a tremendous
victory for democracy.
Get this straight - rising to vote to surrender control of your foreign
policy to terrorists is *NOT* a victory for democracy. Cowardice and
surrender in the face of bullying tyranny are not "defenses of
democracy" merely because a nation decides upon such disgraceful
policies democratically, any more than voting to join the Third Reich
was a victory for democracy.
There were good and bad reasons for supporting the war in Iraq, and good
and bad reasons for opposing it, but caving in to the demands of
terrorists is quite possibly the *worst* conceivable reason for not
cooperating, and the worst possible response to a terrorist attack. It
has sent a clear message, which the terrorists have vocally
acknowledged, that a terrorist attack will provoke nothing but
acquiescence with the terrorists' demands. I cannot think of a better
possible way to motivate more such attacks in the future.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
enigma
"Jennie" <jen...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnc5umoa...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
> In article <1gat17y.1j3e57whap5osN%const...@xsublime.demon.co.uk>,
> Peter Constantine wrote:
> > In this context Al Qaeda may be something of an exception... spreading
> > terror ('shock and awe'?) seems to be their sole objective and not a
> > means to any particular end.
>
> I do wonder if anybody made large sums of money on the stock
> markets after the Madrid bombings the way they did after the Twin Towers
> fell, and if we're all being fools when we ascribe political motives to al
> Quaeda's terrorism.
>
heh....the spirit of bill hicks lives on... :-)
--
enigma
Peter: Brian, there is a message in my Alphabet Cereal. It says "OOOOO"
Brian: Peter, those are Cheerios.
Jennie
> Ah, somehow, to me, voting for the commies because someone blew
> something up doesn't seem particularly sane
They're not commies, they're socialists, and that difference is a
lot more significant in Europe than it seems to be in the US understanding.
Furthermore, the assumption that people voted for them because
someone blew something up is a bit off. I'd argue that people _voted_
because of that, and that who they voted for was, to a large extent,
incidental. As I said earlier, there's little evidence of a swing, and
those who did change their votes to Socialist almost universally report
doing so because they were dissatisfied with the way Snr Aznar handled the
aftermath of the bombing.
Or do you think it's more likely that forty percent of the people
in Spain are insane? Does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to
participate in democracy?
> who blew stuff up you know. Especially after this reaction, I expect
> they (the commies or socialists or whoever they are) will blow stuff up
> before the next election and blame that on their rivals.
When people make this kind of suggestion about right wing
governments (eg: suggesting that Bush's people had the World Trade Centre
blown up to solidify his position in office and give him an excuse for
warmongering) it is dismissed with horror. What makes it okay to imply the
same kind of thing about other participants in the democratic process?
Cavalorn
at...@mindspring.com> writes
>That is, of course, technically correct. What is not irrelevant is that
>the terrorists had previously issued demands for Spain to cease
>cooperating with the American and British efforts in Iraq, and the first
>statement by the incoming government was that it would do so - followed
>by an immediate announcement by the terrorist group claiming
>responsibility for the bombings that it would cease operations against
>Spain.
So, the logic here presumes that the electorate expected the incoming
government that they elected to capitulate to terrorists on their
behalf, yes?
Did the party in question make any kind of pre-election commitment to
pull troops out of Iraq if it was elected? Did they, in short, present
themselves as the party to vote for if you wanted to capitulate to the
terrorists?
The impression I've been given by such media as I have had a chance to
consult is that at least some of the Spanish electorate voted as they
did out of disgust with the outgoing government's stubborn insistence
that the bombings were performed by ETA. According to one source I
heard on the radio, it was the government's attempt to use the bombings
to shore up its *own* 'ETA must be crushed' position, and thus twist the
(alleged) truth of the Al-Quaeda link, that turned the electorate.
The Spanish were, apparently, sick and tired of being lied to. The war
in Iraq was seen as having been waged on a basis of lies and
misinformation. It was *already* deeply unpopular.
Cav
--
Give me a woman who's taken her knocks,
Who's tasted both gutter and stars.
Give me a lady with holes in her socks.
Give me a princess with scars.
Jennie
> What we proclaim about it doesn't change what happened. Your logic is
> specious in the extreme. It presumes that your and my spin on the
> Spanish elections is more important than the elections themselves.
This is a war about propaganda. Terrorism thrives on propaganda.
Every attack perceived as successful helps the terrorists to rally more
supporters. Hysteria over terrorist attacks is always counterproductive
(albeit very often understandable), and the spin produced relating to the
Spanish election result is not just what you and I will hear - it is what
disaffected young Muslims tempted by al Quaeda will hear. This is _all_
_about_ the message.
As for the elections themselves, their primary importance is to
the Spanish people, not to any international cause, and that does appear
to be the basis on which most people voted. They are not obliged to think
first about the 'message' they are sending, and to imply that they are
cowards for prioritising their own concerns within their own national
election is out of line.
> That's nonsense. There was an attack, and there was a response by the
> electorate to that attack.
There was an election, and people had to vote for somebody. If
they'd kept their previous government, that too could have been
interpreted as a reaction, though it's likely that the people complaining
about it would be different.
> And the prodigious achievement the terrorists won with their bombs in
> Madrid is no illusion - they steered the foreign policy of a great
> modern state from one inimical to their cause to one entirely in line
> with it with only a few pounds of explosives.
'Entirely in line with it'? I suppose neither of us can
reasonably claim to know exactly what it is they're after, but I think it
would be foolish to suggest their interests stop at ending the occupation
of Iraq (in fact, I think you've said as much elsewhere in this thread).
As for that, well, Snr Rodriguez has said that he will pull out Spanish
troops only if the UN does not take charge by June; I don't recall
al Quaeda's statements being a great deal more positive about a UN
occupation than about a US-led one.
> That is, of course, technically correct. What is not irrelevant is that
> the terrorists had previously issued demands for Spain to cease
> cooperating with the American and British efforts in Iraq, and the first
> statement by the incoming government was that it would do so
That statement would have made sense in any case, as it was
always at the forefront of the Socialists' policies in this election, and
was important to their supporters.
> What is this democracy that is worth preserving? What is this great
> victory that we should be celebrating? What is the nature of this
> "defense of democracy" that the Spanish citizens have undertaken? Is
> democracy defended merely by the act of getting up, walking out the
> door, and voting, regardless of the issue, candidate, or policy for whom
> one votes?
Yes.
Of course that's not the only thing worth striving for, but it is
an immensely important thing. Electoral turnouts all across Europe have
fallen drastically over the last few decades. People feel disenfranchised
and unwilling to engage with the system. They bitch about governments, but
don't perceive themselves as having the power to make a change. That's a
dangerous state of affairs. Democracy is worth nothing if people don't use
it, if they lose faith in it. There's a lot of talk from the US and UK
governments about fighting for democracy, and this is where it starts.
> Is democracy purely a momentary observance of form? Is the
> defense of democracy merely a one-time participation in a process?
One would hope it is a lot more; but, without that, it is nothing
at all.
Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> they steered the foreign policy of a great
> modern state from one inimical to their cause to one entirely in line
> with it
Call socialists what you will, but I think "terrorist sympathisers" is
well beyond the pail - not to mention well outside the evidence.
> That is, of course, technically correct. What is not irrelevant is
> that the terrorists had previously issued demands for Spain to cease
> cooperating with the American and British efforts in Iraq, and the
> first statement by the incoming government was that it would do so
Entirely in line with its established policy. It was going to do that if
it got in anyway. Can't see it forming an alliance with the Taliban, all
the same.
> Get this straight - rising to vote to surrender control of your
> foreign policy to terrorists is *NOT* a victory for democracy.
But Spain haven't surrendered control of anything; their foreign policy
has changed in exactly the way it would always have done following that
result in a general election.
> There were good and bad reasons for supporting the war in Iraq, and
> good and bad reasons for opposing it, but caving in to the demands of
> terrorists is quite possibly the *worst* conceivable reason for not
> cooperating, and the worst possible response to a terrorist attack.
Which is a fine sentiment unless you knew someone who got blown up a
couple of Thursdays ago.
Hmm... I wonder - who would have won an election held on September 15,
2001, _if_ Bush had gone out of his way to claim - despite an
accumulation of contrary evidence - that the bombing was the work only
of Iraq, and nobody other than Iraq would be in the frame for it...? (No
matter what anyone thinks of his behaviour since, his actions
immediately post-9/11 seemed to be exactly the statesmanship that the
American public needed, thankfully.)
My point (though maybe clumsily expressed) is that you're overlooking
the effect that the post-bombing behaviour of the government in Spain
had on the election result - which was apparently not inconsiderable, if
the impression I got from the World Service is at all accurate. That
might explain the effect Jennie observed, as a whole lot of jaded
socialist voters went from "no point voting for my lot, they aren't
going to win anyway" to "the hell with it, I have to register a protest
against this bunch of ****s!"
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)
some girls wander by themselves
Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> Ah, somehow, to me, voting for the commies because someone blew
> something up doesn't seem particularly sane, could have been the
> commies who blew stuff up you know. Especially after this reaction, I
> expect they (the commies or socialists or whoever they are) will blow
> stuff up before the next election and blame that on their rivals.
God, American political perception... *shakes head sadly*
Socialists != communists != anarchists. (Usually all three groups are
too busy fighting each other to work out how to attack capitalism. Or
splitting into ever smaller groups fighting each other... bloody Trots.)
However, I wouldn't be surprised if after all the kerfuffle had died
down, we discovered that ETA was responsible after all...
Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> a couple of
> weeks ago officials discovered that person or persons unknown had
> broken into the Houses of Parliament at Westminster and carved the
> words 'Tony Blair is a cunt.' on the underside of the despatch box.
Please - beverage warnings! (Oh well, I'm not short of keyboards.)
That's cheered me up no end. Thanks, Jennie.
--
Gwenhwyfaer (no wonder Charles Kennedy's been looking peaky)
Endymion
> In article <c3ntlt$qb0$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>, Endymion
<disintegr
> at...@mindspring.com> writes
> >That is, of course, technically correct. What is not irrelevant is
that
> >the terrorists had previously issued demands for Spain to cease
> >cooperating with the American and British efforts in Iraq, and the
first
> >statement by the incoming government was that it would do so -
followed
> >by an immediate announcement by the terrorist group claiming
> >responsibility for the bombings that it would cease operations
against
> >Spain.
>
> So, the logic here presumes that the electorate expected the incoming
> government that they elected to capitulate to terrorists on their
> behalf, yes?
Yes.
> Did the party in question make any kind of pre-election commitment to
> pull troops out of Iraq if it was elected?
Absolutely. It was one of their main campaign themes.
> Did they, in short, present
> themselves as the party to vote for if you wanted to capitulate to the
> terrorists?
Of course they did not put it that way, but yes, absolutely.
> The impression I've been given by such media as I have had a chance to
> consult is that at least some of the Spanish electorate voted as they
> did out of disgust with the outgoing government's stubborn insistence
> that the bombings were performed by ETA.
That was a factor too.
> The Spanish were, apparently, sick and tired of being lied to. The
war
> in Iraq was seen as having been waged on a basis of lies and
> misinformation. It was *already* deeply unpopular.
True, but the conservative Popular Party was ahead in the polls until
the bombing.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Endymion
> In article <405F66C2...@earthops.net>, Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> > Ah, somehow, to me, voting for the commies because someone blew
> > something up doesn't seem particularly sane
>
> They're not commies, they're socialists, and that difference
is a
> lot more significant in Europe than it seems to be in the US
understanding.
Is it, still? I would have thought it a lot more significant fifteen or
twenty years ago. What's so critical now that there's no longer a Moscow
Party to take money and orders from?
> Furthermore, the assumption that people voted for them
because
> someone blew something up is a bit off.
Is it? The news was absolutely *full* of statements by people saying
things like "Shame on Aznar for making us a target for incidents like
this!"
> I'd argue that people _voted_
> because of that, and that who they voted for was, to a large extent,
> incidental.
I think this is absurdly naive. Incidental? What do expect they did,
flip coins?
> > who blew stuff up you know. Especially after this reaction, I expect
> > they (the commies or socialists or whoever they are) will blow stuff
up
> > before the next election and blame that on their rivals.
>
> When people make this kind of suggestion about right wing
> governments (eg: suggesting that Bush's people had the World Trade
Centre
> blown up to solidify his position in office and give him an excuse for
> warmongering) it is dismissed with horror. What makes it okay to imply
the
> same kind of thing about other participants in the democratic process?
I agree that this is an unwarranted charge against the participants in
the democratic process. It is a monstrous thing to say to suggest that
the socialists had anything to do with the bombing or would ever do such
a thing in the future.
However, people who *did* commit the bombing got exactly what they
wanted out of it - they wanted to intimidate the Spanish electorate into
dumping the conservatives and getting out of Iraq, they had said in the
past that this was their intention, and they accomplished this goal. I
don't think it is unwarranted or unfair to suggest that in complying
with these wishes the voters gave the bombers a tremendous victory for
terrorism and in doing so provided a powerful incentive for a repeat
performance in London, Washington, or some other lucky city elsewhere in
the world.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Endymion
> Quoth Endymion:
> > they steered the foreign policy of a great
> > modern state from one inimical to their cause to one entirely in
line
> > with it
>
> Call socialists what you will, but I think "terrorist sympathisers" is
> well beyond the pail - not to mention well outside the evidence.
I didn't call them sympathizers - I called them cowards.
> > That is, of course, technically correct. What is not irrelevant is
> > that the terrorists had previously issued demands for Spain to cease
> > cooperating with the American and British efforts in Iraq, and the
> > first statement by the incoming government was that it would do so
>
> Entirely in line with its established policy. It was going to do that
if
> it got in anyway. Can't see it forming an alliance with the Taliban,
all
> the same.
The socialists were, yes, and campaigned on that promise. And the party
was running behind in the polls up to the bombings.
> > Get this straight - rising to vote to surrender control of your
> > foreign policy to terrorists is *NOT* a victory for democracy.
>
> But Spain haven't surrendered control of anything; their foreign
policy
> has changed in exactly the way it would always have done following
that
> result in a general election.
Assumming the result of the election was unchanged by the bombing is a
big, and unwarranted, "if". So yes, they did surrender control of their
foreign policy. They let a bunch of thugs with bombs bully them into
changing it. And the nexttime a Europeans government does anything
another bunch of thugs with bombs doesn't like, that bunch of thugs will
do the exact same thing.
> > There were good and bad reasons for supporting the war in Iraq, and
> > good and bad reasons for opposing it, but caving in to the demands
of
> > terrorists is quite possibly the *worst* conceivable reason for not
> > cooperating, and the worst possible response to a terrorist attack.
>
> Which is a fine sentiment unless you knew someone who got blown up a
> couple of Thursdays ago.
Horseshit.
> My point (though maybe clumsily expressed) is that you're overlooking
> the effect that the post-bombing behaviour of the government in Spain
> had on the election result - which was apparently not inconsiderable,
if
> the impression I got from the World Service is at all accurate.
Possibly so, but the socialists made a big deal of the fact that "Aznar
made us a target over Iraq", and I saw many quotes in the press to that
effect. And the one thing the voters did NOT do was send a message to
the terrorists that they would not be cowed by refusing to change their
minds or change governments over the bombings.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Tiny Human Ferret
> In article <405F66C2...@earthops.net>, Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
>>Ah, somehow, to me, voting for the commies because someone blew
>>something up doesn't seem particularly sane
>
>
> They're not commies, they're socialists, and that difference is a
> lot more significant in Europe than it seems to be in the US understanding.
As best we can tell over here, the main difference between Communists
and Socialists is that the Communists are a bit more inclined to kill
lots of people to hurry the destruction of Capitalism, while the
Socialists prefer to merely cripple and otherwise bide their time.
> Furthermore, the assumption that people voted for them because
> someone blew something up is a bit off. I'd argue that people _voted_
> because of that, and that who they voted for was, to a large extent,
> incidental. As I said earlier, there's little evidence of a swing, and
> those who did change their votes to Socialist almost universally report
> doing so because they were dissatisfied with the way Snr Aznar handled the
> aftermath of the bombing.
> Or do you think it's more likely that forty percent of the people
> in Spain are insane?
They're Spanish, aren't they?
> Does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to
> participate in democracy?
No, even the thoughtless and mad should be allowed to vote, it's
Democracy after all. This would be why the US is a Constitutional
Republic of Democratic Form, instead of a Direct Democracy or even a
Parliamentary Democracy. Then again you might feel free to rip right
into our Electoral College, intended to prevent this sort of thing, but
having been manipulated to leave us with Mr Bush as a frontstipiece to
Mr Rove who by now everyone knows is madder than a hatter.
>
>
>>who blew stuff up you know. Especially after this reaction, I expect
>>they (the commies or socialists or whoever they are) will blow stuff up
>>before the next election and blame that on their rivals.
>
>
> When people make this kind of suggestion about right wing
> governments (eg: suggesting that Bush's people had the World Trade Centre
> blown up to solidify his position in office and give him an excuse for
> warmongering) it is dismissed with horror.
Not at all. See the flap in _the Washington Post_ and elsewhere over Mr
Richard Clark's new book, in which it's revealed that the US should have
known and defended against the WTC-9/11 incidents at least towards the
end of the Clintonista Administration and certainly from the first day
after the Bush inauguration. Furthermore, that the whole thing was
allowed to happen to appease Israel and also to allow Mr Bush to finish
his father's war against Saddam Hussein. WTC-9/11 was, in this view, the
same sort of thing as in Coventry being allowed to be bombed to protect
the goals of keeping secret that the German WWII "ENIGMA" cyphers had
been broken.
> What makes it okay to imply the
> same kind of thing about other participants in the democratic process?
Truth hurts. The Spanish, at least in this hemisphere, are absolutely
notorious for letting their emotions sway them far from commonsense. But
I truly didn't realise that even in Spain this was true.
It's Appeasement and Accomodation, it's Sudetenland all over again. Mr
Churchill would have been quick to condemn it and I see no reason to not
do as Mr Churchill would certainly have done.
Cavalorn
<jen...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk> writes
> 'Entirely in line with it'? I suppose neither of us can
>reasonably claim to know exactly what it is they're after, but I think it
>would be foolish to suggest their interests stop at ending the occupation
>of Iraq (in fact, I think you've said as much elsewhere in this thread).
I was under the impression that the terrorists in question were not
willing to accept any kind of concession or capitulation *at all*.
There aren't any *demands* involved, just continuous assault on the
Great Satan and its allies.
Canticle
"Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message
news:405FA377...@earthops.net...
> As best we can tell over here, the main difference between Communists
> and Socialists is that the Communists are a bit more inclined to kill
> lots of people to hurry the destruction of Capitalism, while the
> Socialists prefer to merely cripple and otherwise bide their time.
That's because you live in a polarized political world where nuance is a bad
word, shades of grey evils to be set upon with brickbats and truncheons, and
anything that deviates from established doctrine becomes distortion and
spin.
> Truth hurts. The Spanish, at least in this hemisphere, are absolutely
> notorious for letting their emotions sway them far from commonsense. But
> I truly didn't realise that even in Spain this was true.
Yeah, because decades of expoitation followed by decades of Western funded
dictatorships followed by further exploitation is bound to leave one calm
and sedate.
I'd love to see how Americans placed in a similar political situation would
fare. They'd probably accuse their political opponents of supporting
terrorists for disagreeing with them or launch wars on flimsy evidence out
of fear and paranoia.
> It's Appeasement and Accomodation, it's Sudetenland all over again. Mr
> Churchill would have been quick to condemn it and I see no reason to not
> do as Mr Churchill would certainly have done.
Fuck you.
The Spaniards were dealing with the ETA while you and everyone in your
nation seemed to believe that terrorism was just something that happened to
everyone else. The people have your nation have been cheerfully surrendering
long cherished, enshrined rights to a band of religious zealots out of fear
of terrorists, and yet you brand Spanish anger over a war as appeasement?
The Socialists in Spain have been as hardline on terrorism as the Populars,
they just completely, utterly disagreed with the invasion of Iraq. And they
are cheerfully demonstrating how much they disagree by giving a hearty 'Fuck
you' to the Bush Regime. Good for them I say, they're better off taking a
hardline stance against the ETA and managing their own affairs than giving
in to the ridiculous demands of Mad King George's people.
Appeasement? That's presuming disparate fundamentalist Islamic sects that
choose to ally themselves with the al-Queda brand name could even be
defeated in a 'War'. Thats a monstrously delusional conceit best left to
people like George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and terminally clueless pundits
who need a 'War Against (Insert Cause Here)' to salve their fearful psyches.
'The World' is not safer because of the War on Terror. More civilians have
died in terrorist acts in the last 3 years than in the previous 12 combined.
More Americans have died in terrorist acts in the last 3 years than in the
previous 12 years combined. Thats not safer.
It makes for great political soundbites though, and the delusional throngs,
convinced of their ubermensch status, will continue to drool and spew out
the patriotic lie that they are somehow the 'pinnacle' of freedom in the
world.
The only appeasement left is to actually pay attention to anything spewed
forth by the White House.
Terrorism has been out their for decades, has been dealt with by Britain,
Spain, Israel, Germany and hell, even Canada, long before it was a flicker
in any Americans eye. And all of the nations that have dealt with it look
upon attitudes like your with sickening, deserving contempt, because its the
arrogance of the ignorant.
Wow, extremists fucked up some big fucking buildings and killed a boatload
of people. Ooo, NOW its important because it fucking happened to us.
Well guess what, the only difference between what happened to you and what
has happened worldwide for decades is scale. And the only reason it hasn't
happened before in other countries on a scale like that is sheer fucking
luck. Japan almost had a seriously higher body count in its own domestic
terror atrocity, were it not for the aforementioned luck and inherit
unreliability of chemical/biological weapons.
So to the entire United States of Arrogance, a big bitchslap and welcome to
the real fucking world. You're not a unique cloud in the sky or a special
flower deserving of all the attention and care in the garden. There are
weeds here, and the only reason you've noticed them is because one of them
fucking stepped on your root. Before then, it was everyone elses problem but
yours.
Jeff-boy, Eater of Worlds
"No flesh shall be spared"
Potato Junkie
> > Furthermore, the assumption that people voted for them
> > because someone blew something up is a bit off.
>
> Is it?
Well, yes, it is. See Jennie's earlier point about post-election analyses,
if nothing else.
> > I'd argue that people _voted_ because of that, and that who they voted
> > for was, to a large extent, incidental.
>
> I think this is absurdly naive. Incidental? What do expect they did,
> flip coins?
Voted for the party that they felt was best? Made a choice that has fuck all
to do with the bombings, is the original point.
> However, people who *did* commit the bombing got exactly what they
> wanted out of it - they wanted to intimidate the Spanish electorate into
> dumping the conservatives and getting out of Iraq
Again, see what Jennie said earlier. Very little swing against the
conservatives, lots of socialist voters kicked out of apathy.
> I don't think it is unwarranted or unfair to suggest that in complying
> with these wishes the voters gave the bombers a tremendous victory for
> terrorism and in doing so provided a powerful incentive for a repeat
> performance in London, Washington, or some other lucky city elsewhere in
> the world.
Well you're just plain wrong, then. If you want terrorists to believe
they've won, carry on shouting "this is a victory for terrorism!". What it
actually is is a victory for common sense.
You are seventy-eight miles in diameter. Your southern portion contains
three mounds and a distinct craterlet.
Potato Junkie
> Mr Churchill would have been quick to condemn it and I see no reason
> to not do as Mr Churchill would certainly have done.
How about: "Churchill was more than a bit thick"?
Endymion
> 'The World' is not safer because of the War on Terror. More civilians
have
> died in terrorist acts in the last 3 years than in the previous 12
combined.
> More Americans have died in terrorist acts in the last 3 years than in
the
> previous 12 years combined. Thats not safer.
That's an extraordinarily dishonest statement even for you, Jeffie. The
"War on Terror" was declared *AFTER* the September 11, 2001 attack, not
before. So three years is not the dividing point you want. If you put
the WTC attack in the pre- "War on Terror" category, where it should be,
the formula is reversed. Fewer people, fewer civilians, and fewer
Americans have died since the "War on Terror" began than died in the
thirty months before it began.
Thank you for playing.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Endymion
> In article <slrnc5v19f...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk>, Jennie
> <jen...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk> writes
> > 'Entirely in line with it'? I suppose neither of us can
> >reasonably claim to know exactly what it is they're after, but I
think it
> >would be foolish to suggest their interests stop at ending the
occupation
> >of Iraq (in fact, I think you've said as much elsewhere in this
thread).
>
> I was under the impression that the terrorists in question were not
> willing to accept any kind of concession or capitulation *at all*.
> There aren't any *demands* involved, just continuous assault on the
> Great Satan and its allies.
In response to both of you: yes, actually, we can claim to know what
they're after, because they're telling us.
"CAIRO (Reuters) A group claiming to have links with al Qaeda said on
Wednesday it was calling a truce in its Spanish operations to see if the
new Madrid government would withdraw its troops from Iraq, a pan-Arab
newspaper said."
"In a statement sent to the Arabic language daily al-Hayat, the Abu Hafs
al-Masri Brigades, which claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings
that killed 201 people, also urged its European units to stop all
operations."
"'Because of this decision, the leadership has decided to stop all
operations within the Spanish territories... until we know the
intentions of the new government that has promised to withdraw Spanish
troops from Iraq,' the statement said."
"'And we repeat this to all the brigades present in European lands: Stop
all operations.'"
Whether they can or will keep their promise remains to be seen, of
course. Rome was only able to buy the Huns off for a year or two at a
time before their thirst for more gold awoke again... The more
headstrong elders probably suggested spending the gold to outfit an army
of the city's young men to fight the Huns instead, but no, the wise men
said, that might *provoke* them! Better to give them what they want, and
hope they go somewhere else to plunder.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Cavalorn
ti...@mindspring.com> writes
>In response to both of you: yes, actually, we can claim to know what
>they're after, because they're telling us.
More accurately, someone *claiming* to be them has made a statement
*after the fact* stating that the result was exactly what they wanted.
Had there been any kind of statement *before* the elections that 'unless
troops are withdrawn from Iraq, there will be bombings', then there
might be greater grounds for deeming this an appeasement.
>"CAIRO (Reuters) A group claiming to have links with al Qaeda said on
>Wednesday it was calling a truce in its Spanish operations to see if the
>new Madrid government would withdraw its troops from Iraq, a pan-Arab
>newspaper said."
Well, anyone can claim responsibility after the fact.
From the same article that you cite:
'An unrelated videotape of a man describing himself as al Qaeda's
European military spokesman also claimed responsibility for the Madrid
bombing, saying it was in retaliation for outgoing Spanish Prime
Minister Jose Maria Aznar's domestically-unpopular support for the
U.S.-led Iraq war.'
Whatever the truth is, whoever it was that had the idea of sending a
message that 'operations would now cease' knew exactly how to manipulate
perceptions. It was a bloody clever move, and whatever the original
intention may have been, I doubt the terrorists could have hoped for a
better outcome. By acting as if Spain had done the right thing and
making reassuring noises that they now wouldn't be getting blown up any
more, they made the Spaniards look like they had capitulated. Never
mind any *other* reasons that they might have had for wanting a change
of government - if the terrorists say that they like what you did, then
some people are going to infer that you did it *because* you wanted them
to back down.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, as the Romans used to say.
So now, of course, we have these accusations of appeasement, with
America standing against 'Old Europe' once again. Spain's withdrawal
from Iraq is *much* less significant for the terrorists than the
undermining of the American agenda among the allies. Divide and
conquer, as some other historical bods once said.
Canticle
"Endymion" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:c3pqhp$ed4$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> That's an extraordinarily dishonest statement even for you, Jeffie. The
> "War on Terror" was declared *AFTER* the September 11, 2001 attack, not
> before. So three years is not the dividing point you want. If you put
> the WTC attack in the pre- "War on Terror" category, where it should be,
> the formula is reversed. Fewer people, fewer civilians, and fewer
> Americans have died since the "War on Terror" began than died in the
> thirty months before it began.
Only a human shitpile like you could only count 'Americans' as civilians as
if the rest of the world simply didn't count. Although in that pea sized
withered orifice you call a brain, I expect that's true..
I said civilians, you dumbfuck. As in civilians, period.
Canticle
"Cavalorn" <cava...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> So now, of course, we have these accusations of appeasement, with
> America standing against 'Old Europe' once again. Spain's withdrawal
> from Iraq is *much* less significant for the terrorists than the
> undermining of the American agenda among the allies. Divide and
> conquer, as some other historical bods once said.
It also plays intellectual adolescent ubermensch wannabes like Endymion's
delusions of adequacy, allowing them to sit back and tut tut from their
porcine posteriors, presuming that they actually have a freaking clue as to
what motivates radical fundamentalist Islamic terror, when all they go on is
pseduo intellectual claptrap spewed by their favourite pundit on hand.
Makes for amusing theatre, really, but reminds me of just how threats such
as those posed by al-Queda manage to slip through. Radical fundamentalist
Islam's threats to the United States specifically and many other nations
generally were being widely discussed by a variety of experts almost a
decade prior to 9/11, particularily in relation to the conflicts in Chechnya
and later Dagestan/Chechnya. I was following Khattab's movements in Chechnya
more closely than it would appear US 'Intelligence' was through their own
freaking web site in in the late 90s for a paper on precisely the topic of
international jihad, and commented on it was simply a matter of when, not
if, organizations such as those backing Khattab turned their attentions to
the continental United States.
That anyone acts as if this is somehow a new, stunningly clear threat,
particularily after Kenya and Tanzania, is simply further demonstration of
colossal, navel gazing arrogance.
As for the various claims of responsibility, I wasn't suspecting the ETA
from the start (I spend my time bloviating about crap like this in my blog,
and largely only to friends, because tried and true stupidity such as is
usually demonstrated in this forum tires me out, and I generally don't have
the time in the day to spend waxing poetic to the willingly stupid). The
simple fact is, ETAs trademark is notifying people before hand that
somethings going to go boom so there is a) clear line of blame and b) there
are casualties but nothing that will politically tank them.
I wouldn't doubt the motivation behind it was to try and change election
results, but really, the primary motivation would be to punish 'crusader
allies'. Anything else would be happy coincidence for most radical
fundamentalist Islamic cells. Once a call goes out to target someone, timing
isn't nearly as important as the statement that they can kill you anytime,
anywhere, when they choose to do so, and nothing your security forces can do
can keep you safe. That's the entire point of terror.
Of course, since most Americans like Endymion are fond of war analogies, as
violence seems to be the only form of analogy capable of being grasped by
many of them, the Spanish voting populations reaction (voting out a
deceitful, lying government that went to war against the populations
explicit desire not to and then immediately tried to pin the bombing blame
on a politicially expedient target) is viewed as 'cowardice' and
'appeasement'.
Carrying the war analogy forward, to the limited intellectual capacity of a
brain like Endymion's, its much like how the Russians targeted the Germans
'weakest' links in the Winter campaigns with particularily brutal strikes,
knowing that they a) Weren't participating in what was an overly popular
campaign at home and b) Would pull up stakes and call it quits the moment
they were pressured. Why sacrifice your life for something you don't even
believe in, after all? For a lot of Spaniards, the threat of ETA terror is
real, the threat of radical Islamic terror reared its head only after they
were dragged into something they didn't want. The fact that they only became
civilian victims of the latter after their population said,"If you drag us
into this, you'll make us a target" simply reinforces that belief.
Will it protect the civilians of Spain from further attacks? Depends on how
radical Islamic terror cells view the maneuver. Most will probably back of
Spain to concentrate their efforts on allies like Britain and Australia who
are more accessible and easier to strike at. Some will probably actually
believe they've accomplished their goal with Spain. Others will just keep
killing wherever they can. As much as Americans want to believe in al-Queda
as corporate entity, most of these cells are simply picking up the ideology
and making it their own because it suits them to do so, increases the terror
factor of their acts, and keeps an already fearful population more in fear
of a nebulous, hydra like beast.
Bruce Tucker
> "Endymion" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
> > That's an extraordinarily dishonest statement even for you, Jeffie.
The
> > "War on Terror" was declared *AFTER* the September 11, 2001 attack,
not
> > before. So three years is not the dividing point you want. If you
put
> > the WTC attack in the pre- "War on Terror" category, where it should
be,
> > the formula is reversed. Fewer people, fewer civilians, and fewer
> > Americans have died since the "War on Terror" began than died in the
> > thirty months before it began.
>
> Only a human shitpile like you could only count 'Americans' as
civilians as
> if the rest of the world simply didn't count. Although in that pea
sized
> withered orifice you call a brain, I expect that's true..
>
> I said civilians, you dumbfuck. As in civilians, period.
As usual, I see you substitute scatological invective for intelligent
response.
I don't know how you're doing your math. I do exclude civilian
casualties in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, because they were in
the states spreading the terror, not the part of the world we were
seeking to make safe from it, and in order to include them you'd have to
balance against those deaths the deaths caused in the previous years by
the regimes being attacked. Aside from that, I don't know where you get
the notion I was including only Americans.
As I said, fewer people, fewer civilians, fewer Americans. Three
distinct categories. Fewer of each have died due to terrorist attacks
from September 12, 2001 until today than in the thirty months prior to
September 12, 2001.
And you're a big stinky doodyhead.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
> "Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message
> news:405FA377...@earthops.net...
>
> > As best we can tell over here, the main difference between Communists
> > and Socialists is that the Communists are a bit more inclined to kill
> > lots of people to hurry the destruction of Capitalism, while the
> > Socialists prefer to merely cripple and otherwise bide their time.
>
> That's because you live in a polarized political world where nuance is a bad
> word, shades of grey evils to be set upon with brickbats and truncheons, and
> anything that deviates from established doctrine becomes distortion and
> spin.
>
That's right, Klaatu. Haven't you ever watched The Life of Brian? A
major subplot is about how important it is to be able to differentiate
between varieties of socialism caused by this schism or that. Here's
the bit where it's introduced:
BRIAN: Larks' tongues. Otters' noses. Ocelot spleens.
REG: Got any nuts?
BRIAN: I haven't got any nuts. Sorry. I've got wrens' livers, badgers'
spleens-
REG: No, no, no.
BRIAN: Otters' noses?
REG: I don't want any of that Roman rubbish.
JUDITH: Why don't you sell proper food?
BRIAN: Proper food?
REG: Yeah, not those rich imperialist tit-bits.
BRIAN: Well, don't blame me. I didn't ask to sell this stuff.
REG: All right. Bag of otters' noses, then.
FRANCIS: Make it two.
REG: Two.
FRANCIS: Thanks, Reg.
BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front?
REG: Fuck off!
BRIAN: What?
REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean
People's Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS: Wankers.
A gray sliver of ideology separates religious lunacy from insane
zealotry, and don't you forget it. I remember way back when, back
when there was a Soviet Union, talking to an avowedly communist
professor one day, and he vehemently explained that Reagan's Evil
Empire was socialist, not communist. That, he said, was just what
ignorant people called it. A few weeks later, I was talking to a
self-proclaimed socialist professor, and he was just as vehement in
telling me that the USSR was communist and not socialist. They both
had their reasons, and both were right.
Ideologues have categories for ideologies, and those categories have
as little to do with reality as their beliefs.
If you'd like Marx's take on the Communist/Socailist debate, Marx will
tell you that a socailist is utopian, envisioning a perfect and
impossible world, whereas a communist believes only in the historical
necessity of the eventual coming communist state. Some standard texts
take the difference between the two to be a matter of degree, others
as different phases in historical development, and still others label
a few states one or the other as paradigms, but most authors will give
you their own quirky views about socialism and whatever varieties of
it that they recognize.
And if you don't agree with the major outline of socialism, then it is
just as important for you to understand these differences as it is
important to understand the difference between the Judean People's
Front and the People's Front of Judea or the differences in doctrine
that lead to various congregation splits in the Lutheren Church.
-F
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
And that's the problem: whether or not the polls were inaccurate, the
perception that the bombings influenced the election is enough to
encourage terrorists of all stripes. Image, in this case, is enough,
and the reason for the change is ultimately irrelevant.
-F
Endymion
> "Endymion" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > I think this is absurdly naive. Incidental? What do expect they did,
> > flip coins?
>
> Voted for the party that they felt was best? Made a choice that has
fuck all
> to do with the bombings, is the original point.
That isn't what they were saying to the media.
> > However, people who *did* commit the bombing got exactly what they
> > wanted out of it - they wanted to intimidate the Spanish electorate
into
> > dumping the conservatives and getting out of Iraq
>
> Again, see what Jennie said earlier. Very little swing against the
> conservatives, lots of socialist voters kicked out of apathy.
The terrorists made a demand. The demand was satisfied. I expect they'll
draw the appropriate conclusion.
> > I don't think it is unwarranted or unfair to suggest that in
complying
> > with these wishes the voters gave the bombers a tremendous victory
for
> > terrorism and in doing so provided a powerful incentive for a repeat
> > performance in London, Washington, or some other lucky city
elsewhere in
> > the world.
>
> Well you're just plain wrong, then. If you want terrorists to believe
> they've won, carry on shouting "this is a victory for terrorism!".
What it
> actually is is a victory for common sense.
I don't think what I say will matter a great deal in the court of world
opinion. Beyond that, I think actions speak louder than words. The
terrorists spoke, and the electorate spoke in reply, and how anyone
spins it is not really all that important. The lesson will be absorbed
regardless.
> You are seventy-eight miles in diameter. Your southern portion
contains
> three mounds and a distinct craterlet.
Better being thought of as a crater than a Sailor Moon character,
anyway.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Endymion
> In article <c3ntlt$qb0$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>, Endymion wrote:
> > What we proclaim about it doesn't change what happened. Your logic
is
> > specious in the extreme. It presumes that your and my spin on the
> > Spanish elections is more important than the elections themselves.
>
> This is a war about propaganda. Terrorism thrives on
propaganda.
It's a war about bodies flying through the air. propaganda is secondary.
> Every attack perceived as successful helps the terrorists to rally
more
> supporters.
Yes, that's true, and we've been through this before. You seem to think
it possible to deny the enemy a success by refusing to admit you've been
attacked - and that responding to any attack is admitting defeat. This
is nonsense. This isn't schoolyard taunting, Jennie. This is not an
attack *of* propaganda.
> Hysteria over terrorist attacks is always counterproductive
Who's advocating hysteria? Certainly not me. I merely advocate refusal
to be cowed by terrorist pressure. That's hardly "hysteria".
> As for the elections themselves, their primary importance is
to
> the Spanish people, not to any international cause, and that does
appear
> to be the basis on which most people voted.
That might be true if the elections had not been cast as a referendum on
the government's foreign policy - but that was not the case. It was so
cast. The results of this election have worldwide repercussions.
> They are not obliged to think first about the 'message' they are
sending,
Obliged in what sense? They are under no legal obligation to do
anything.
> and to imply that they are cowards for prioritising their own concerns
within their own
> national election is out of line.
Well, many of the people still voted for the conservatives, and many of
the people had intended to vote for the socialists all along, so none of
this applies to any of them, although it might apply to some of the
socialist supporters for other reasons. But I will call anyone who
either switched their vote or decided to cast one because of the attack
a moral coward. if you think that's out of line, too bad. There comes a
time when free people must either stand up and be counted among those
willing to fiight to preserve their freedom, or slink off into the
shadows and hide, hoping the terrorists, criminals, tyrants, and mass
murderers of the world will fail to notice them and pick on someone else
instead, and while you may call that "prioritising their own concerns" I
call it something else.
> > And the prodigious achievement the terrorists won with their bombs
in
> > Madrid is no illusion - they steered the foreign policy of a great
> > modern state from one inimical to their cause to one entirely in
line
> > with it with only a few pounds of explosives.
>
> 'Entirely in line with it'? I suppose neither of us can
> reasonably claim to know exactly what it is they're after, but I think
it
> would be foolish to suggest their interests stop at ending the
occupation
> of Iraq (in fact, I think you've said as much elsewhere in this
thread).
Stop there? No. But this is a good first step - and we'll see where the
socialists go from here.
> > What is this democracy that is worth preserving? What is this great
> > victory that we should be celebrating? What is the nature of this
> > "defense of democracy" that the Spanish citizens have undertaken? Is
> > democracy defended merely by the act of getting up, walking out the
> > door, and voting, regardless of the issue, candidate, or policy for
whom
> > one votes?
>
> Yes.
You didn't answer my charge, then, about the Anschluss. Was a person
voting for the union of Austria with the Third Reich defending
democracy, simply because he got up, walked out his front door, and
participated in the democratic process by voting?
You seem to think he was. I must disagree.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> I don't know how you're doing your math. I do exclude civilian
> casualties in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, because they were
> in the states spreading the terror
The people flying the planes were Saudi Arabian, mostly, as has been
pointed out elsewhere.
In any case, civilian casualties remain civilian casualties, whichever
side they're on. You can't exclude them on that basis.
Also, a major part of the moral justification for removing Saddam
Hussein was the damage he was doing to his own citizens (had to be,
really, since it turns out he wasn't even a theoretical threat to the
US). If they deserve to be freed, their dead deserve to be counted.
> not the part of the world we were
> seeking to make safe from it, and in order to include them you'd have
> to balance against those deaths the deaths caused in the previous
> years by the regimes being attacked.
No, not as part of the "War on Terror". It's a separate atrocity in its
own right; like it or not (and I don't), nations have - or at least, had
- the right to dispose of their own citizens, the basis being that their
own citizens can then depose them and bring them to trial.
Creative accounting, Endymion - but unjustifiable.
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)
some girls wander by themselves
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> Call socialists what you will, but I think "terrorist sympathisers" is
> well beyond the pail - not to mention well outside the evidence.
Alas! A metaphor has died.
Hand - staple - forehead. . . .
--
I'm gonna eat a lot of glitter
To keep my shit from lookin' dull.
-- Dirk Hamilton
Panurge
> "Panurge" <pan...@mindspring.com> wrote
> > Have you considered
> > that if the West responded peacefully (so to speak)
>
> What, like called off the bombing campaign we were running against
> Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and so forth before 9/11?
> Oh, that's right, there wasn't one!
This is just farcical. Fortunately for you, it's slightly funny, but
it's a terrible attempt to re-direct the discussion due to its utter
irrelevance. I said "respond".
> > the Arab world in general would get the message?
>
> Do you think five guys from India and two from Morocoo, plus an unknown
> number of accomplices, with a few sackfulls of high explosives and some
> tapes of Koran verses, are proper spokespersons for "the Arab world in
> general"? Which one of us do you think is being unreasonable with that
> representation?
>
> Do you think if more rape victims would just shut up and enjoy it they'd
> get hurt less often?
>
> > Or do you think that
> > poorly of the Arab world in general?
>
> It seems one of us certainly thinks poorly of the Arab world in general.
>
> Hint: it's the one who thinks the Arab world in general is best
> represented by guys who go into other countries' train stations and blow
> up rush hour commuters.
And who exactly is thinking that?
> > Have you considered that the Spanish electorate was overwhelmingly
> > against the Iraq war in the first place? Why should they let
> > terrorists change their minds, hmm? Hmm?
>
> By all indications, it was more or less willing to stick with the
> center-right until the bombings.
And there's the nub, isn't it? The rightward party!
> Europe, with the exception of the UK, has been appeasing terrorists as
> long as I've been watching the nightly news.
That's not "re-enacting Munich", sorry.
> > Where
> > have you heard that al-Qaeda had made demands specifically of Spain in
> > the first place?
>
> Specific demands of Spain, none, but they did specifically mention
> targeting Spain, IIRC.
And yet there can't be appeasement without a demand. It's a matter of
fact that the PP in Spain was turned out for trying to direct blame at
ETA. BTW, what if the Socialists had the governing party? Would it be
"appeasement of terrorists" then?
> > No American (or Briton, or
> > Russian, for that matter) died in that war for the sake of Spain.
>
> True, although a few died trying to save it from fascism.
Yes, and some of them were Communists. ;-P
> > Second, you make it sound as if the U.S. entered those wars out of the
> > goodness of its heart.
>
> Oh, I forgot, it was Roosevelt's being I the pocket of the Wall St.
> Jewish financinciers' conspiracy (*eye roll*).
WTF? I meant it entered the war *because it was attacked*. What do you
take me for?
> > Wanna ask a Canadian about that sometime?
>
> Not really. Canada could have thrown off those shackles too, and didn't,
What the *hell* are you talking about? Exactly what shackles did Canada
not throw off?
*I'm* talking about the fact that Canadians occasionally get sore at the
U.S. for not entering the World Wars from the get-go like they did.
> And here's a thought for you: when they were dying on the beach at
> Dieppe in 1942, or in the trenches along the Somme in 1916, do you think
> somebody asked, "Have you considered that if the West responded
> peacefully (so to speak) the German nation in general would get the
> message?"
OK, OK--"*more* peacefully", "as peacefully as possible". I thought the
"(so to speak) would make things clear--I guess it didn't. But this is
not a World War-like situation, and the Bush Administration has not
acted as peacefully as possible. It has SOUGHT WAR. Repeat: It has
SOUGHT WAR--war with uninterested parties, *escalation*. It has, if
you'll excuse the term, *warmongered*. That's a serious qualitative
leap from the necessity of making war to defend oneself.
--
"Composers tend to think most people really care a lot about music.
Well, most people don't." --Aaron Copland
Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil wrote:
>
> > Call socialists what you will, but I think "terrorist sympathisers"
> > is well beyond the pail - not to mention well outside the evidence.
>
> Alas! A metaphor has died.
um... oops. Sorry.
In semi-justification, I'm somewhat preoccupied at present. Real life
stuff.
--
Gwenhwyfaer (I _thought_ I meant different things... but no)
Albatross
> Jeff-boy, Eater of Worlds
> "No flesh shall be spared"
You are one delusional, isolate, potty-mouthed, shit for brains,
Jeff.
You know, your painfully limited repertoire isn't really enhanced
by your rehearsing it more loudly.
But, on a more serious note, you are the only person on this
newsgroup to whom I would ascribe the word bigot. For a number of
years now, you've done little more than spew venom against things
which you haven't the least understanding or experience. It is
possible for many adults to disagree with intelligent people and
still admit that they are intelligent people - crikey, even many
intelligent Americans can do that, you swine, you one trick pony,
you snot for tears, you wasting disease in the bowels of a dying
sow. I don't know what bucket of sewage most informs your diaretic
rantings, but you ought to leave it on the toilet seat and a step
out of the bathroom of your money sheltered ignorance, and try,
like some of us, even some of us who disagree, towards a more
complete understanding of reality.
Otherwise, get lost, you pathetic fuck.
st Albatross
~
Cavalorn
Panurge <pan...@mindspring.com> writes
>> Not really. Canada could have thrown off those shackles too, and didn't,
>
>What the *hell* are you talking about? Exactly what shackles did Canada
>not throw off?
At a rough guess:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/canadian_monarchy
If Canada hadn't been part of the British Empire, you wouldn't have been
dragged in to fight in World War I, which I suppose is Endymion's point,
though he can of course speak for himself. As I read it, he's not about
to waste sympathy on those who don't boot out their monarchs (like wot
America done) and thus get drawn into conflicts that are nothing to do
with them.
World War II, on the other hand, which is what I *thought* he was
focusing on, had nothing to do with those 'shackles' so far as I can
tell - the now-independent Canadian parliament declared war on Germany
about a week after Britain and France did. I'm not sure what part of
having an independent parliament of your own constitutes handing a blank
check to British politicians, unless there were some singularly one-
sided treaties in place regarding expected military support that I'm not
aware of.
As a side note, it is gratifying for an old monarchist like myself to
know that 'there is not much public interest in turning Canada into a
republic', especially given the sheer number of Americans who've said
'if this gets any worse, I'm moving to Canada'.
Canticle
"Albatross" <umbrel...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nu2dnd9n5-z...@comcast.com...
> But, on a more serious note, you are the only person on this
> newsgroup to whom I would ascribe the word bigot.
Yup. I find Endymion to be an intellectual clown. Just because you and he
share the same delighted love in thinking you've figured the world out
because you manage to intake more magazine articles and television punditry
than your bretheren and you can both ape and echo chamber each other to the
full content of your hearts really doesn't matter to me. The fact that you
mimic what I find hysterically funny is, however. If my complete and utter
lack of regard for Endymion strikes you as bigotry, more power to you, I
could really give two fucks in a flying donut.
> out of the bathroom of your money sheltered ignorance, and try,
> like some of us, even some of us who disagree, towards a more
> complete understanding of reality.
Money sheltered ignorance is an amusing twist. I pay my own way for
everything in life, haven't inherited a dime, spent my own money on
University, travel overseas on numerous occasions, south of the border on
others, and across this country. You see, I enjoy experiencing life, which
is why I'm not really around here all that often. It's also why the opinions
of net pundits such as Endymion do little more than amuse me.
Nice invective though.
Tiny Human Ferret
> "Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message
> news:405FA377...@earthops.net...
>
>
>>As best we can tell over here, the main difference between Communists
>>and Socialists is that the Communists are a bit more inclined to kill
>>lots of people to hurry the destruction of Capitalism, while the
>>Socialists prefer to merely cripple and otherwise bide their time.
>
>
> That's because you live in a polarized political world where nuance is a bad
> word, shades of grey evils to be set upon with brickbats and truncheons, and
> anything that deviates from established doctrine becomes distortion and
> spin.
Actually, no, it's because I grew up and have lived most of my life
right next to Ground Zero and honestly expected that most of my country
and possibly all life on earth might be extinguished at any moment, by
Communists.
Nice rant, snipped.
Tiny Human Ferret
Well then, I guess we had best not get you started on Rwanda or Zaire,
now had we.
Tiny Human Ferret
And exactly how many Canadians died before, and after, 9/11?
Tiny Human Ferret
> "Canticle" <cant...@escape.ca> wrote in message news:<79X7c.16682$vo6....@news1.mts.net>...
>
>>"Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message
>>news:405FA377...@earthops.net...
>>
>>
>>>As best we can tell over here, the main difference between Communists
>>>and Socialists is that the Communists are a bit more inclined to kill
>>>lots of people to hurry the destruction of Capitalism, while the
>>>Socialists prefer to merely cripple and otherwise bide their time.
>>
>>That's because you live in a polarized political world where nuance is a bad
>>word, shades of grey evils to be set upon with brickbats and truncheons, and
>>anything that deviates from established doctrine becomes distortion and
>>spin.
>>
>
>
> That's right, Klaatu. Haven't you ever watched The Life of Brian? A
> major subplot is about how important it is to be able to differentiate
> between varieties of socialism caused by this schism or that. Here's
> the bit where it's introduced:
<snip snip>
> If you'd like Marx's take on the Communist/Socailist debate, Marx will
> tell you that a socailist is utopian, envisioning a perfect and
> impossible world, whereas a communist believes only in the historical
> necessity of the eventual coming communist state.
That being my point, I supposed, that the Communists don't mind helping
along of the eventual coming of the communist state.
And also that the Socialists are basically quite mad, trying to build
their little castles in the clouds, which cannot come to be.
Evil, or delusional, take your pick. Neither one's going to be of much
use to us, eh?
And don't get me started on the delusory/delusional nature of our
present Administration or its equally-mad predecessor.
<snips>
Tiny Human Ferret
> Quoth Tiny Human Ferret:
>
>>Ah, somehow, to me, voting for the commies because someone blew
>>something up doesn't seem particularly sane, could have been the
>>commies who blew stuff up you know. Especially after this reaction, I
>>expect they (the commies or socialists or whoever they are) will blow
>>stuff up before the next election and blame that on their rivals.
>
>
> God, American political perception... *shakes head sadly*
>
> Socialists != communists != anarchists. (Usually all three groups are
> too busy fighting each other to work out how to attack capitalism. Or
> splitting into ever smaller groups fighting each other... bloody Trots.)
>
> However, I wouldn't be surprised if after all the kerfuffle had died
> down, we discovered that ETA was responsible after all...
Not likely, or so the pundits say.
And BTW, American political perception is more-or-less
Anarchists suck because Communists prefer to have the Anarchists do the
heavy-lifting exertions of Revolution, then pick up the pieces and make
it a single-party State Capitalism calling itself Communism.
Communists suck because you have to pretend you're a frothing ideologue
to get a job, and the ideology is so mad that you have to be mad to
froth convincingly; thus you wind up with complete loons running the
country into economic, if not social, collapse.
Socialists suck because they're so busy spending money on the
downtrodden that they make it impossible for business to stay in
business so as to pay the taxes to pay for spending money on the
downtrodden; concurrently all of the pampering of the downtrodden makes
for an increasing parasitic class that can't be made to work with
anything less than a whip and even then they do a crappy job. Both
social and economic collapse eventually are likely results.
Fascism sucks because it gives whips to businesses to eliminate the
parasitic and then it works the productive to death, which initially
assures that the taxes are paid into the treasury, but eventually
eliminates the working class, creating a society of rich bastards that
can't buy anything because there's nobody left to make it. Social, but
possibly not economic, collapse.
Democracy sucks because eventually the plebescite discovers it can vote
to distribute the treasuries to itself, and it will either thus turn
into Socialism with all of its faults, or internal dissension on who
gets the treasury distributions tears the society into competing
radicalized factions. See also, subsequently, Anarchy and/or Communism
and/or Fascism.
Constitutional Monarchies or other variations of hereditary
aristocracies suck, but at least you have a class of people raised for
generations to govern successfully who are left in control. If they
weren't raised well, they can be replaced. The people can't vote to open
the treasuries to themselves and so it's likely that the realm will
remain solvent absent outside intervention or the accession to power of
persons with extreme personal flaws ovr which they cannot mostly
exercise self-control. Constitutional Monarchies with sensible rulers
may be one of the few situations where an otherwise Socialist government
can not only succeed, but thrive.
Constitutional Republics suck, but nowhere near as badly as anything
else. To the degree that their Constitutions are well-written and
followed scrupulously, restraints on arbitrary power prevent the
totalitarianisms of Fascism, Communism, or Monarchical Tyranny. A
tendency towards Socialism may be prevented by a well-worded clause in
the Constitution, or balanced against the inherent tropisms to Fascism
of businessmen, by a generally free-market trade economy balanced by
minimal Socialist restraints on abusive practices.
Tiny Human Ferret
> Quoth IHCOYC XPICTOC:
>
>>Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Call socialists what you will, but I think "terrorist sympathisers"
>>>is well beyond the pail - not to mention well outside the evidence.
>>
>>Alas! A metaphor has died.
>
>
> um... oops. Sorry.
>
> In semi-justification, I'm somewhat preoccupied at present. Real life
> stuff.
Actually, I rather like it. Sort of in the same line of thought as
"think outside the box". Behaviour, it would seem, is properly done only
inside the bucket.
Endymion
> Actually, no, it's because I grew up and have lived most of my life
> right next to Ground Zero and honestly expected that most of my
country
> and possibly all life on earth might be extinguished at any moment, by
> Communists.
Wasn't that a wonderful feeling?
Richmond doesn't have any strategic facilities, but it's about equally
distant (90 minutes by car) from the largest complex of naval and air
force bases in the US and from the DC area. It also has the Defense
General Supply Center, which is a colossal depot that doesn't have
combat supplies but supplies every mundane item you can imagine from
uniforms to toilet paper to MREs to requisition forms (in triplicate) to
P-38 can openers. We always wondered if that was worth a megaton or two
just to throw a wrench in the gears, or if everything they had was
devoted to taking out nuclear strike capabilities and big cities - and
for that matter, if the city itself was considered big enough to be
worth a nuke.
So it boiled down to: do we go up in a flash and never know it, or do we
hunker down between the hundreds of mushroom clouds to the north and
east and wait for our hair to fall out and the terminal bloody diarrhea
to start?
Knowing the Roosskie penchant for thoroughness and overkill combined
with sloppiness, incompetence, and drunkenness, my bet was that we had
at least a warhead or two aimed at us, it was about a 50-50 shot whether
it actually launched or came within 50 miles or not, but there was also
a 50-50 shot that one of the DC or Norfolk MIRVs would stray off course
and hit close enough to wipe us out instead.
Weren't the 70's and 80's grand?
Charlottesville's much nicer. There's nothing here anyone would want to
blow up, other than as a symbolic gesture, and even that's got to be way
down the list.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Endymion
> Well then, I guess we had best not get you started on Rwanda or Zaire,
> now had we.
I was assuming the statement referred to incidents related to the "War
on Terror". I don't think it's possible to connect those situations.
Likewise, while one can criticize or support the administrations policy
in Haiti, I don't think it can be related to the policy vis-a-vis Iraq
or al Qaeda.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Endymion
> In article <panurge-E2557E...@news05.east.earthlink.net>,
> Panurge <pan...@mindspring.com> writes
> >> Not really. Canada could have thrown off those shackles too, and
didn't,
> >
> >What the *hell* are you talking about? Exactly what shackles did
Canada
> >not throw off?
>
> At a rough guess:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/canadian_monarchy
>
> If Canada hadn't been part of the British Empire, you wouldn't have
been
> dragged in to fight in World War I, which I suppose is Endymion's
point,
> though he can of course speak for himself. As I read it, he's not
about
> to waste sympathy on those who don't boot out their monarchs (like wot
> America done) and thus get drawn into conflicts that are nothing to do
> with them.
(I'll get back to Panurge's post at some point, but it's longer, and
hence will require more thought and time.)
Roughly, although I was thinking more of shackles of the mind and of
policy. Canada had its own parliament in both 1914 and 1941, but despite
some protest it did not dispute Whitehall's assertion that Britain's
declaration of war included all the Dominions as well, so Canada's
foreign policy was slaved to the Empire's so thoroughly that it allowed
itself to be dragged the war without any consideration as to whether its
interests were being served by such involvement, or how it might
influence overall policy to best serve the broader interests of all
concerned rather than the narrow interests of London - and then it
repeated the performance in 1939 when it did have its own foreign
office. Compounding the error, it also allowed its armed forces to be
placed under British command and used piecemeal as British commanders
saw fit. The results of this were unsatisfactory to say the least, as
any Canadian familiar with the history of the world wars will tell you,
and caused considerable rancor. This was true of Australia and New
Zealand as well (and, to be fair, later of some Australians towards
MacArthur).
Australia actually asserted its independence to the point of recalling
troops earmarked for Imperial purposes in Burma for home defense in
1942, but AFAIK Canada never did any such thing. Likewise, the US was
able to assert itself in 1917-18 by refusing to allow its army arriving
in France to be broken up and fed into the meatgrinder of the trenches
piecemeal as replacements for the British and French armies. It also
attempted to assert what it felt were the best interests of the
international community at the peace conference, rather than simply
backing London's selfish grasp for more Imperial prizes. I don't see any
of these as indicating insufficient devotion to the causes of freedom or
democracy.
I don't think some sense of loyalty to England was misguided, but I do
think loyalty to the point of charging off to war in 1914 and sending
young men to die at places they'd never heard of in Flanders for a
European policy and an Imperial ideology which most Canadians probably
couldn't have articulated if you paid them was misguided and rash - and
even moreso allowing those young men to be used as shock troops for
missions so dangerous the British generals either weren't willing to use
their own troops or didn't think their own troops would be able to
accomplish, or both.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Endymion
> Quoth Endymion:
> > I don't know how you're doing your math. I do exclude civilian
> > casualties in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, because they were
> > in the states spreading the terror
>
> The people flying the planes were Saudi Arabian, mostly, as has been
> pointed out elsewhere.
And the planes were built in Seattle. What has that got to do with
anything? They weren't sent as agents of the Saudi state.
> In any case, civilian casualties remain civilian casualties, whichever
> side they're on. You can't exclude them on that basis.
As I said, if you're going to bring them in, you need to bring in the
deaths in those countries caused by the regimes being replaced. We're
really talking about deaths from terrorism here - whether there have
been more or fewer since Bush's policies took effect.
> like it or not (and I don't), nations have - or at least, had
> - the right to dispose of their own citizens, the basis being that
their
> own citizens can then depose them and bring them to trial.
Not under any understanding of international law I've ever heard.
Nice try yourself, but it doesn't wash.
I'll include deaths in Iraq due to acts of terrorism since the invasion
shifted over to an occupation, but not those incurred on either side in
toppling the regime itself, unless you want to include in the balance
those inflicted by the regime in the years preceding the invasion. You
can't have it both ways. Either the invasion itself was part of the "War
on Terror" or it wasn't.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Tiny Human Ferret
Eh, he was talking about "civilians all over the world" and the apparent
American public oblivion to reigns of blatant terror all over the globe.
Actually "we noticed". but there's some things you just can't do much about.
Endymion
> > I was assuming the statement referred to incidents related to the
"War
> > on Terror". I don't think it's possible to connect those situations.
> > Likewise, while one can criticize or support the administrations
policy
> > in Haiti, I don't think it can be related to the policy vis-a-vis
Iraq
> > or al Qaeda.
>
> Eh, he was talking about "civilians all over the world" and the
apparent
> American public oblivion to reigns of blatant terror all over the
globe.
Well "all over the world" I understand and agree with, but that doesn't
equate to "from any human cause".
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Tiny Human Ferret
Here's how we expected it once the Soviets bought every damn Casio
scientific calculator watch on which they could get their grubby little
hands.
20 megatons smack over Germantown MD, with simultaneous (or nearly so)
detonations roughly as follows at about 10 megatons:
Annapolis MD Bowie MD, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Clinton MD, Frederick
MD, Indian Head MD, PAX River Naval Base MD, Salisbury MD, University of
Maryland at College Park, Rosslyn VA, Fairfax VA, Manassas VA, Leesburg
VA, assorted points best left unspecified in the Shenandoahs VA. And
right about the time all of those shockwaves began hitting each other in
downtown DC, a triple MIRV each head yeilding 20MT in Bethesda Md,
Hyattsville MD, and again in Rosslyn, and a dead-center 10MT each for
Baltimore MD, Richmond VA, and three 10MT for Norfolk and the Hampton
Roads DelMarVa.
We generally just abbreviated this to "glassing the District". Nobody
from roughly Frederick MD to the Dismal Swamp hoped at all to survive,
and after a bit of thought tended to pray that they wouldn't, if it
happened at all.
Even if there wasn't radiation to contend with, the blast from all of
that ought to sink every ship and obliterate every hospital, bridge,
overpass, police station, Guard or Army Base, about 5,000 scientific or
medical research facilities, not to mention -- and this last bit nobody
minded much -- all of the goddamn "Beltway Bandits". Not to mention
knocking down about a million houses, and melting all exposed flesh the
length of the Chesapeake, inland to the west for about 100 miles. Even
without the 600-meter circular-error-probable ("CEP") which made it
likely that direct ground bursts might have some success in attempts to
knock out midwest Minuteman sites, the fact that about 150MT of
airbursts over just Maryland and NoVa would produce a few megadeaths was
something of a deterrent to us even considering a first-strike outside
of inescapable necessity or the perception thereof.
I wonder if people like Al Qaeda quite understand that what Moscow had
planned for us, we had planned rather more than triple for the USSR.
IIRC the intended response to "glassing the District" was pretty much
carpet-bombing with a kilotonne per acre for everything east of Berlin
and no less than a quarter gigatonne per population center with a
million or more inhabitants. And I wonder if Al Qaeda has any idea that
if a suitcase nuke is detonated in a major American city, or even a
minor one, what we were prepared to give Moscow isn't one tenth of what
we're prepared to deliver in retaliation to any such detonation within
an American city.
So, as Mister Eastwood as Dirty Harry would say...
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> >>>Call socialists what you will, but I think "terrorist sympathisers"
> >>>is well beyond the pail - not to mention well outside the evidence.
> >>Alas! A metaphor has died.
> > In semi-justification, I'm somewhat preoccupied at present. Real life
> > stuff.
> Actually, I rather like it. Sort of in the same line of thought as
> "think outside the box". Behaviour, it would seem, is properly done only
> inside the bucket.
Much would appear to be contingent, it seems, on what you were trying to
catch with the bait in there.
Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> And BTW, American political perception is more-or-less
>
> Anarchists suck because Communists prefer to have the Anarchists do
> the heavy-lifting exertions of Revolution, then pick up the pieces and
> make it a single-party State Capitalism calling itself Communism.
Ah, so anarchists only suck because they're easily manipulated? :)
[snip rest of analysis]
> Constitutional Republics suck, but nowhere near as badly as anything
> else. To the degree that their Constitutions are well-written and
> followed scrupulously, restraints on arbitrary power prevent the
> totalitarianisms of Fascism, Communism, or Monarchical Tyranny. A
> tendency towards Socialism may be prevented by a well-worded clause in
> the Constitution, or balanced against the inherent tropisms to Fascism
> of businessmen, by a generally free-market trade economy balanced by
> minimal Socialist restraints on abusive practices.
So in short, they suck less because they can use the best bits of all
the other models to prevent the worst bits of all the other models
from gaining a foothold? Somehow that's quite an appealing thought.
*looks at news*
Oh. Shame about that theory/practice interface...
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)
some girls wander by themselves
Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> > pointed out elsewhere.
>
> And the planes were built in Seattle. What has that got to do with
> anything? They weren't sent as agents of the Saudi state.
*sigh* that's the point. They weren't sent as agents of ANY state! Not
Iraq, not Afghanistan. If you want to make a case for Afghanistan's
involvement because the Taliban regime offered lambchops safe haven, you
have to make a case for America itself being involved on the strength of
that CIA funding / training.
> > In any case, civilian casualties remain civilian casualties,
> > whichever side they're on. You can't exclude them on that basis.
>
> As I said, if you're going to bring them in, you need to bring in the
> deaths in those countries caused by the regimes being replaced. We're
> really talking about deaths from terrorism here - whether there have
> been more or fewer since Bush's policies took effect.
Oh, if we're talking about deaths directly resulting from terrorism,
then fair enough. I thought we were talking about deaths resulting from
both terrorism and the military action resulting from the War on Terror.
Whatever happened in Iraq before America invaded was nothing to do with
either.
> > like it or not (and I don't), nations have - or at least, had
> > - the right to dispose of their own citizens, the basis being that
> their
> > own citizens can then depose them and bring them to trial.
>
> Not under any understanding of international law I've ever heard.
OK, fair comment (guess I wasn't thinking so clearly the other night).
Let me rephrase. One country can't just turn round to another country
and say"I don't like your government, so I'll depose it". It has to be a
unified, UN-led push, otherwise it's an illegal action. The UN would
have insisted on a lengthy diplomatic process first, and there were
states who had already made it clear that they would never support a
US-sponsored invasion of Iraq on that basis (France, for example, stated
from the outset that it would have veto'd it). Hence the US's need to
find further justification - something that would show a threat to the
US itself.
[snippage - no, I agree I can't have it both ways either]
> Either the invasion itself was part of the "War on Terror" or it
> wasn't.
Now isn't that the question...
As I understand these things, it was justified as part of the "War on
Terror" because of the evidence produced that Iraq was an active threat
to the rest of the world, and in particular to America, by making the
means of terror (WMDs) available; that evidence has been subsequently
discredited. The treatment of its citizens didn't factor much, whether
because nobody cared much (I sincerely doubt this!) or because it wasn't
seen as sufficient justification for interfering with a state (at least,
not without going through a UN-led diplomatic process first).
On that basis, and counting civilian casualties of the War on Terror as
civilian casualties of terrorism, we should count the Iraqis killed by
the Americans (because the war was part of it), but not the Iraqis
killed by Saddam Hussein (because his treatment of those civilians was
not what made it part of the War on Terror).
If we say that the invasion of Iraq wasn't part of the War on Terror, on
the other hand (because the justification proved unfounded), but an
invasion by one sovereign state of another with no legal basis - then
the action was probably illegal according to international law. Do
illegal actions count as terrorism? Let's say no (Israel would thank
us!) and exclude the Iraqi casualties on that basis.
Your choice - was it or wasn't it?
(But let's not pretend that any _state_ had anything to do with 9/11.)
Endymion
> three 10MT for Norfolk and the Hampton
> Roads DelMarVa.
*Three*? Are you joking? I'd bet on at least thirty, and probably more
like a hundred, detonated in the waters from Norfolk through Hampton
Rhoads and the Bay towards the Atlantic, just to catch any subs trying
to make it out of the naval base before the missiles hit - they can't be
tracked once they get out of the channel but you don't exactly need to
*hit* a sub with a nuke to kill it, just saturate the area with one
every few miles and let the water do the rest. Then there's the base
itself, with at one time up to five! supercarriers in port at one time,
plus the subs, escorts, and other ships, plus Langley Air Force Base and
Oceana NAS, with multiple potential hard targets at each of those
facilities. It's about as target-rich an environment as ever existed on
planet Earth. I expect there were warheads aimed at individual
facilities at each base, probably in different phases of the attack.
Norfolk would have been one of the top ten individual targets for the
Sovs just because of the subs and carriers, along with Pearl, Bangor,
and Charleston. You don't let a target like that go without MAJOR
overkill.
From what I've read those blasts wouldn't melt flesh 100 miles away,
15-20 miles would be about the maximum for serious immediate injuries
for normal scale weapons (although minor flash burns might occur even
farther out, and anyone who looked directly at an airburst even 20+
miles away could suffer permanent blindness). People in, say,
Fredericksburg would live through the blasts. But the amount of fallout
would be ungodly. It would, indeed, be much, much more merciful to be
sitting right under one of the things when they went off. And your
assessment of the damage to economic resources, especially to emergency
response and medical facilities, is also correct.
Interesting experiment - I don't think anyone ever figured out how many
of those warheads could be expected to be lost to fratricide. By the
time it occurred to anyone to run such a test, the atmospheric test ban
treaty had been signed, and there was no way to get any sort of
preliminary data on which to base the computer models.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Nyx
@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com:
> And the planes were built in Seattle. What has that got to do with
> anything? They weren't sent as agents of the Saudi state.
Bullshit. Next you'll be saying Air America had nothing to do with the CIA.
Nyx
--
"You can't change the world, but you can put a dent in it." Smoochy.
Albatross
>
> "Albatross" <umbrel...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:nu2dnd9n5-z...@comcast.com...
>
> > But, on a more serious note, you are the only person on this
> > newsgroup to whom I would ascribe the word bigot.
>
> Yup. I find Endymion to be an intellectual clown. Just because
you and he
> share the same delighted love in thinking you've figured the
world out
> because you manage to intake more magazine articles and
television punditry
> than your bretheren and you can both ape and echo chamber each
other to the
> full content of your hearts really doesn't matter to me. The
fact that you
> mimic what I find hysterically funny is, however. If my complete
and utter
> lack of regard for Endymion strikes you as bigotry, more power
to you, I
> could really give two fucks in a flying donut.
Your bigotry isn't to do with Endymion. It is the out-of-control
anti-Americanism, which goes beyond hyperbolic to ludicrous.
As for me sharing opinions with Endymion - we do share a common
view of the Left as it currently exists. But while he seems to be
a Conservative informed as a Conservative, I'm consider myself a
Liberal stunned by the current hateful stupidity of the Left. In a
recent online 'find out who you should vote for' questionaire, I
scored closer to Al Sharpton than George Bush. I very often
disagree with Bruce - but find disagreeing with him, on this
newsgroup, embarassingly reduntant. Anyway - I follow Orwell in
the assesment that what one thinks is of secondary importance to
how one thinks. I find Endymion's positions consitantly sane, even
when I think he is wrong - whereas your positions are consistanly
distorted and drenched in, you know, garbage feelings.
As for reading magazines - I read fairly broadly, taking in the
usual 'middle-brow' magazines like The Atlantic and (I've once
again braved) Harpers. I dally with the New Republic. I also wade
into the National Review, the Nation and Commentary. But I find
these more 'intellectual' magazines too ideological and, not
really surprisngly, less literate. Of course, where an opinion
comes from doesn't speak to the quality of the opinion which
should stand or fall on its own. Some things remain true even
though stupid people also believe them. Opinions must meet the
test of reality, not passion. I wonder exactly what you mean by a
'pundit' - I assume it means someone on the TV who you disagree
with. I don't watch politics on the TV.
> Money sheltered ignorance is an amusing twist. I pay my own way
for
> everything in life, haven't inherited a dime, spent my own money
on
> University, travel overseas on numerous occasions, south of the
border on
> others, and across this country.
It isn't to do with how you handle your money. The fact is that
the society you live in - by which I mean the West, the Western
Democracies - provides an historically remarkable safety for your
relative affluence in spite of the fact that you invect against
it. Your opinions are not confronted by reality, they are
protected from it - and long may they continue to be. You are able
to remain ignorant because nothing ever really compels you to
confront your ignorance. You can continue to hate what makes your
existance possible. Your opinions are sheltered by money - not
your money.
> You see, I enjoy experiencing life, which
> is why I'm not really around here all that often. It's also why
the opinions
> of net pundits such as Endymion do little more than amuse me.
They do more than amuse you, they enrage you. Or, at least, you
give a good show of being enraged. As for not spending much time
around here - I'm not here much either - but whatever flips a
body's lid. If someone really enjoys spending hours writing posts
to a newsgroup - I know longer feel much need to critisize them.
> Nice invective though.
Thanks.
st Albatross
~