Le Monde said this. . .????
Posted by: Justin on 14 March 2004
"Nothing, evidently, no cause, no context, no supposedly political objective, justifies this kind of terrorism."
and
"If the trail back to Al-Qaida is confirmed, Europeans should rethink the war against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, as did the United States after the attacks of September 11, 2001. . . . Will March 11 have in Europe the same effect as September 11 in the US? After having spontaneously expressed their solidarity with the Americans, the Europeans, preoccupied with other forms of terrorism, found that the Americans had become consumed with paranoia. Contrary to the latter in 2001, Europeans today discover not only their own vulnerability, but also that they are confronted with a new phenomenon, mass terrorism. Like the Americans, they may now be forced to admit that a new form of world war has been declared, not against Islam but against totalitarian and violent fundamentalism. That the world's democracies are confronted with the same menace and should act together, using military means and waging at the same time a war for their ideals."
(courtesy of the Daily Dish)
Do Spaniards agree with this? If Al quieda is to blaim, the majority of those who participated in the protests earlier in the week in Spain said that Aznar had "provoked" these attacks by supporting the US in Iraq. What does that mean exactly? Is that a positive statement (that Spanish support in Iraq is a cause in fact of the attacks) or a normative statement (that the attacks, if by Al queda, are in some way justified or mitigated in light of Spain's support for the US in Iraq). Perhaps "provoke" is CNN's own term. Frankly I don't know.
If Al Quieda is to blaim, do Spaniards think they got what they deserved? For those of you who don't support the war in Iraq, would a similar attack in one of your tubes be received in the same way?
Again, I only have CNN's language. Perhaps somebody who speaks the language can help me with this word.
Judd
and
"If the trail back to Al-Qaida is confirmed, Europeans should rethink the war against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, as did the United States after the attacks of September 11, 2001. . . . Will March 11 have in Europe the same effect as September 11 in the US? After having spontaneously expressed their solidarity with the Americans, the Europeans, preoccupied with other forms of terrorism, found that the Americans had become consumed with paranoia. Contrary to the latter in 2001, Europeans today discover not only their own vulnerability, but also that they are confronted with a new phenomenon, mass terrorism. Like the Americans, they may now be forced to admit that a new form of world war has been declared, not against Islam but against totalitarian and violent fundamentalism. That the world's democracies are confronted with the same menace and should act together, using military means and waging at the same time a war for their ideals."
(courtesy of the Daily Dish)
Do Spaniards agree with this? If Al quieda is to blaim, the majority of those who participated in the protests earlier in the week in Spain said that Aznar had "provoked" these attacks by supporting the US in Iraq. What does that mean exactly? Is that a positive statement (that Spanish support in Iraq is a cause in fact of the attacks) or a normative statement (that the attacks, if by Al queda, are in some way justified or mitigated in light of Spain's support for the US in Iraq). Perhaps "provoke" is CNN's own term. Frankly I don't know.
If Al Quieda is to blaim, do Spaniards think they got what they deserved? For those of you who don't support the war in Iraq, would a similar attack in one of your tubes be received in the same way?
Again, I only have CNN's language. Perhaps somebody who speaks the language can help me with this word.
Judd
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Toy:
The hawkish mindset (entrenched or otherwise) in the US is based on a mistaken belief that America has global supremacy.
Steve.
The attacks in Turkey, which decided resolutely NOT to support the USA in Iraq, in addition to heightened security for transportation in dovish countries like France and Germany, suggests that Europe faces manifest threats of terrorism wholly seperate from whatever support it has provided to the US (though, of course, they may also face threats from that as well).
I'm SURE you'll be able to solve this problem with little more than ad hoc derogations of US foriegn policy. Way to get your arms around this issue, Steven.
Judd
quote:
How quickly one forgets that the attackls of 9/11 were planned even before "that dimwit" was even President.
I think that under Clinton things would have been better. Clinton had a better sense of timing and he would have kept the whole world on his side while terrorists were perhaps more quietly dealt with.
In these rather intricate matters, raw intelligence and a decent grasp of world affairs is a clear advantage.
Bush possesses neither of these qualities. He may be able to keep his dick in his trousers and not drink, but the same could be said of Hitler (although it has been alleged that Hitler had advanced syphilis before he topped himself)
Intelligent Quotients may not be the whole story but Bush's IQ is only 90 - that's ten points below the average human being. Clinton's was 183 - that's in genius territory.
Yanks seem to prefer sqeaky-clean morons over intellectual and visionary heavyweights with an almost (im)perfect fallibility to lead their country and the rest of the world.
Right now we need a genius to solve current pressing global problems.
How the hell could a nation of generally well-informed* and prosperous people elect a complete thicko to lead them into troubled times? I'll never know.
Regards,
Steve.
*I'm awaiting feedback particularly on this point...
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Tue 16 March 2004 at 2:28.]
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Toy:
Yanks seem to prefer sqeaky-clean morons over intellectual and visionary heavyweights with an almost (im)perfect fallibility to lead their country and the rest of the world.
Ah, so you've reviewed every one of our presidents, their IQ's, and their policies and concluded that we prefer morons through and through. Well done, Toy, well done.
quote:
Originally posted by Justin:
a president weak on national security and/or the fight against terrorism is a deal breaker for me
Glad you're sticking with Kerry. He really needs Ohio.
quote:
Ah, so you've reviewed every one of our presidents, their IQ's, and their policies and concluded that we prefer morons through and through. Well done, Toy, well done.
Fuck history. You yanks elected a decent chap back in 1992 and were clever enough at least to re-elect him again in 1996. It is only recently that you chose to elect an idiot when we as a world needed him the least.
Regards,
Steve.
[QUOTE]
How the hell could a nation of generally well-informed* and prosperous people elect a complete thicko to lead them into troubled times? I'll never know.
QUOTE]
Eight years of quiet prosperity will do that. Why pay attention, when both candidates, Gore and The Shrub, position themselves as moderates? Gore came off like a cold fish, and Bush was personable. End of story.
Make no mistake, GWB is every bit as fundamentalist as the bushy-bearded, wild-eyed whackos we are hunting down. The American public is finally, FINALLY, coming around to that.
He's out in November.
How the hell could a nation of generally well-informed* and prosperous people elect a complete thicko to lead them into troubled times? I'll never know.
QUOTE]
Eight years of quiet prosperity will do that. Why pay attention, when both candidates, Gore and The Shrub, position themselves as moderates? Gore came off like a cold fish, and Bush was personable. End of story.
Make no mistake, GWB is every bit as fundamentalist as the bushy-bearded, wild-eyed whackos we are hunting down. The American public is finally, FINALLY, coming around to that.
He's out in November.