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
Posted on: 16 March 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
I don't say things like "Britons have always been too stupid to elect leaders who represent the will of the populous.
Well you should because it is true, and I wouldn't take it personally.
The British electorate is gullible to an extent beyond which the likes of Blair tend to exploit.
If only we were more like the French (well 85% of them anyway...)
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 16 March 2004 by quincy
quote:
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.
What celebrity mag did you get these stats from?
AQD
Posted on: 16 March 2004 by Justin
Here's what CNN reported of an Al Quieda report posted on a bulliten boards several months before Madrid. I find it chilling:
"We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it," the al Qaeda document says.
"If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed -- and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto."
Chilling not so much that the planned bombings took place (I've little reason to doubt Al Queda's determination and proficiency - free societies will always be vulnerable), but more because the predictions regarding the Spanish electorate were so accurate (in fact, they were even more occomodating than originally predicted). Is this ALL it takes?
The more interesting question is WHY is Bin Laden so interested in Iraq in the first place? Why are Spanish (and American) efforts there so threatening to the world order envisioned by Bin Laden and his brand of fundamentalism?
Anyway, the pundits on TV (and in the papers) since Madrid have drawn a sharp line between the predicted responses to this sort of attack in Europe on the one hand and the US on the other. Overhwelmingly, as it did in Spain, these attacks are expected to cause most of Europe to disengage from the "war on terrorism" in all its alleged forms (ie., not just in Iraq). The opposite is expected in the US (as I suggested before); ie, greater engagement. The pundits identify the UK as a "wildcard". Many predict a re-engagement, others a disengagement.
What will the UK do? Everybody seemed to think London was next.
In any event, a total disengagement is horrible. But disengaging from Iraq alone is bad enough. If the US (and whoever else counts themselves among our support) permits Iraq to get out of hand, and fall into Sunni (or even Shi-ite) fundamentalist control, that will be the beginning of the end for liberal democracies. I fail to see how throwing away European security is an acceptable price to pay just to see the US with a black eye.
Judd
"We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it," the al Qaeda document says.
"If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed -- and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto."
Chilling not so much that the planned bombings took place (I've little reason to doubt Al Queda's determination and proficiency - free societies will always be vulnerable), but more because the predictions regarding the Spanish electorate were so accurate (in fact, they were even more occomodating than originally predicted). Is this ALL it takes?
The more interesting question is WHY is Bin Laden so interested in Iraq in the first place? Why are Spanish (and American) efforts there so threatening to the world order envisioned by Bin Laden and his brand of fundamentalism?
Anyway, the pundits on TV (and in the papers) since Madrid have drawn a sharp line between the predicted responses to this sort of attack in Europe on the one hand and the US on the other. Overhwelmingly, as it did in Spain, these attacks are expected to cause most of Europe to disengage from the "war on terrorism" in all its alleged forms (ie., not just in Iraq). The opposite is expected in the US (as I suggested before); ie, greater engagement. The pundits identify the UK as a "wildcard". Many predict a re-engagement, others a disengagement.
What will the UK do? Everybody seemed to think London was next.
In any event, a total disengagement is horrible. But disengaging from Iraq alone is bad enough. If the US (and whoever else counts themselves among our support) permits Iraq to get out of hand, and fall into Sunni (or even Shi-ite) fundamentalist control, that will be the beginning of the end for liberal democracies. I fail to see how throwing away European security is an acceptable price to pay just to see the US with a black eye.
Judd
Posted on: 16 March 2004 by Justin
Mathhew,
You sly dog. You KNOW I went to GREAT lengths to avoid equating disengagment in the war on terror with disengagment in the war in Iraq. How else to explain your inexplicable falure to quote my little parenthetical ("ie., not just in Iraq") when you quoted the rest of my sentence if not to set me up as a strawman?
You know I agree with you 100% that the equation is invalid. But don't try to suggest here that the EU is considering ONLY a withdrawal from Iraq. Now THAT's a specious argument!!! The EU commissioner made it doubly clear "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," said Prodi. THIS isn't just about Iraq (or even hardly about Iraq). Prodi is suggesting that being hard on terror is the worng directive. And it is to THIS that I direct my comments.
How much of Europe is going to fall in line with the appeasement being urged by the EU commissioner? AND, even if you believe that going into Iraq was a step back in the fight against terror, is pulling out of Iraq now really a step forward, or another step back?
I happened to think going into Iraq was a step forward. But I also KNOW that a failure to follow through there would be an even greater step backwards. With respect to Iraq only, what the EU (or parts thereof) decide to do in the coming year will either embolden and strengthen Al Queda or will help to cut them down. I've no doubt that no matter how you felt about the decision to go into Iraq in the first place, disengaging now from that war will have the former effect on Al Queda.
So two questions: Disengagement from Iraq is one thing. Even assuming it will happen, the question is whether Europe will also follow the EU commissioner in disengaging from the battle against terror in general. Just how engaged IS Germany and France and Spain in Afghanistan - a war they ostensibly supported?
Judd
You sly dog. You KNOW I went to GREAT lengths to avoid equating disengagment in the war on terror with disengagment in the war in Iraq. How else to explain your inexplicable falure to quote my little parenthetical ("ie., not just in Iraq") when you quoted the rest of my sentence if not to set me up as a strawman?
You know I agree with you 100% that the equation is invalid. But don't try to suggest here that the EU is considering ONLY a withdrawal from Iraq. Now THAT's a specious argument!!! The EU commissioner made it doubly clear "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," said Prodi. THIS isn't just about Iraq (or even hardly about Iraq). Prodi is suggesting that being hard on terror is the worng directive. And it is to THIS that I direct my comments.
How much of Europe is going to fall in line with the appeasement being urged by the EU commissioner? AND, even if you believe that going into Iraq was a step back in the fight against terror, is pulling out of Iraq now really a step forward, or another step back?
I happened to think going into Iraq was a step forward. But I also KNOW that a failure to follow through there would be an even greater step backwards. With respect to Iraq only, what the EU (or parts thereof) decide to do in the coming year will either embolden and strengthen Al Queda or will help to cut them down. I've no doubt that no matter how you felt about the decision to go into Iraq in the first place, disengaging now from that war will have the former effect on Al Queda.
So two questions: Disengagement from Iraq is one thing. Even assuming it will happen, the question is whether Europe will also follow the EU commissioner in disengaging from the battle against terror in general. Just how engaged IS Germany and France and Spain in Afghanistan - a war they ostensibly supported?
Judd
Posted on: 16 March 2004 by Justin
Ludwig,
I agree. I'm not dismissing Kerry on the issue. I need to see what he says over the next 8 months. Absolutely, I do. I need to determine that he's not in accordance with the EU commissioner.
For god's sake, SOMEBODY has to risk putting his nuts in the fire.
Judd
I agree. I'm not dismissing Kerry on the issue. I need to see what he says over the next 8 months. Absolutely, I do. I need to determine that he's not in accordance with the EU commissioner.
For god's sake, SOMEBODY has to risk putting his nuts in the fire.
Judd
Posted on: 16 March 2004 by Justin
Look,
Not even France can avoid this sort of thing. It's NOt about being alligned with the US. It's about being a liberal democracy.
The EU needs to wake up.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/16/france.threats/index.html
Judd
Not even France can avoid this sort of thing. It's NOt about being alligned with the US. It's about being a liberal democracy.
The EU needs to wake up.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/16/france.threats/index.html
Judd
Posted on: 16 March 2004 by Harvey
quote:
Overhwelmingly, as it did in Spain, these attacks are expected to cause most of Europe to disengage from the "war on terrorism" in all its alleged forms
Can you please tell me where Zapatero, or indeed European political figures has suggested that they had any intention of disengaging from the fight against terrorism? As far as I can see, Zapatero has stated that dealing with terrorism is his first priority and that his government would initiate a systematic fight. He stated that the fight against terrorism should be conducted with "a grand alliance" of democracies and not through "unilateral wars. How is that dancing to Al Queda's tune? The intelligence forces in France and Germany have been working intensively and channelling resources to infiltrating Islamic terrorist cells. This is where Spain, the UK and the US should have been directing their energy instead of trying to dazzle us all with smoke, mirrors and a rich tapestry of lies in Iraq, removing a despicable murdering tyrant, their despicable murdering tyrant when they wanted it, but compared to Al Queda, a relatively impotent and minor threat.
They're still doing it. Taliban and Al Queda regrouping in Afghanistan, BL rejuvenated and fresh as a daisy whilst the rangers who should have been snapping at his feet were off drumming up easy headlines, doing the bidding and lining the pockets of Perle, Cheney Bush et al. Thus far it looks like expenditure on the Iraq excursion is somewhere in the region of $150bn, to reconstruct and secure Afghanistan, the home of Al Queda, $1bn. The Spanish people have seen the Iraq nonsense for the pointless diversion it was and they have suffered cruelly while those responsible for their defence failed to focus on the real threat. They voted against the party preoccupied with the bit players in the sideshow and for the party prepared to deal with the main actors in this tragedy. The Spanish electorate showed great strength, courage and conviction. Through their suffering and rebuke to their government some good may just come if it brings home to Blair how far he has allowed himself to be distracted from the real threat. Fat chance, but one can hope.
I honestly know of nobody who feels safer as a result of the Iraq invasion just a lot of people who see European capitals being prepared for attack and who are struck momentarily by fear when their train or tube comes to a sudden stop or when a plane banks noisily overhead. A real bloody triumph.
Posted on: 16 March 2004 by herm
quote:
Originally posted by Justin:
For god's sake, SOMEBODY has to risk putting his nuts in the fire.
And the reason why you're talking all this talk, on & on, is because you know damn well it's not going to be your nuts.
You're living safely out in Ohio, no one is sending you to Iraq or whatever in a plane because you're well over age.
So, from places with a much more dense and vulnerable infrastructure (whether it's NYC, London, Paris, Amsterdam or Madrid) we say thank you for you gratuitous heroism and why don't you shut the fuck up.
This is not a video game.
Herman
Posted on: 16 March 2004 by Don Atkinson
Bush might be a twit (he does a pretty good impression if he isn't). Presumably he is advised by others and has to get some sort of approval from the elected assemblies, (please feel free to put me right on these issues) before implementing any policy. So whether we endorse Bush's actions or not, let's at least recognise its not just Bush.
Likewise Tony Blair. Not everybody is apparently called Robin Cook or Claire Short.
Now, both Bush and Blair are required to present a mandate and seek re-election fairly soon. We don't expect to believe everything in the mandate but we can expect to get rid of both candidates if enough voters are that way inclined.
As yet I haven't seen the mandate from BL, and I don't anticipate an election to either vote him in as Head of the World, nor do I anticipate one to vote him out. But I think that's his aim. No doubt some people see him as a perfectly sane, reasonable person.
If we weren't already awake before Madrid its about time we woke up now. We need to establish a stable, democratic, Iraqi self-government in Iraq and then withdraw, (Matthew, you have the right idea, but the wrong sequence), and at the same time we have to counter terrorism. The self-government could be in place this year. Appeasement of terrorists won't work.
It would be very helpful if the UN would wake up and put its back into both jobs (and a few others).
We should also tell the EU Commissioner, whatever his name is, to shut up until he is properly elected to represent us.
Cheers
Don
Likewise Tony Blair. Not everybody is apparently called Robin Cook or Claire Short.
Now, both Bush and Blair are required to present a mandate and seek re-election fairly soon. We don't expect to believe everything in the mandate but we can expect to get rid of both candidates if enough voters are that way inclined.
As yet I haven't seen the mandate from BL, and I don't anticipate an election to either vote him in as Head of the World, nor do I anticipate one to vote him out. But I think that's his aim. No doubt some people see him as a perfectly sane, reasonable person.
If we weren't already awake before Madrid its about time we woke up now. We need to establish a stable, democratic, Iraqi self-government in Iraq and then withdraw, (Matthew, you have the right idea, but the wrong sequence), and at the same time we have to counter terrorism. The self-government could be in place this year. Appeasement of terrorists won't work.
It would be very helpful if the UN would wake up and put its back into both jobs (and a few others).
We should also tell the EU Commissioner, whatever his name is, to shut up until he is properly elected to represent us.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 16 March 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by herm:
And the reason why you're talking all this talk, on & on, is because you know damn well it's not going to be your nuts.
You're living safely out in Ohio, no one is sending you to Iraq or whatever in a plane because you're well over age.
So, from places with a much more dense and vulnerable infrastructure (whether it's NYC, London, Paris, Amsterdam or Madrid) we say thank you for you gratuitous heroism and why don't you shut the fuck up.
This is not a video game.
Herman
This is the worst argument I have ever read. Honestly, I don't know what to do with this. This is pretty disgusting.
Judd
[This message was edited by Justin on Tue 16 March 2004 at 23:01.]
Posted on: 16 March 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Justin,
It's my view that fundamentally to defeat al-Qaeda one needs to remove the popular base of support that allows such extremists to prosper and commit thier atrocities.
Agreed. This is 100% right. And you are also 100% right that Bush has fucked up post Iraq. As I said on this forum several months ago, despite him going in without UN support, he had an opportunity right after Baghdad fell to go back to the UN and get some help. But he fucked that up. I don't deny it now, and I didn't deny it then. Such an action would have gone a long way in legitamizing US policy in the region - even when it was found that there were no WMD. But he squandered that opportunity.
If Bush has even one brain cell left he will recognize that the bar for keeping Spanish troops in is pretty freaking low (ie, bring the UN back in). He should take every opportunity to go back to the UN and make this happen so as to show Al Queda this small victory (ie, keeping Spain's, albiet symbolic, contingent in Iraq). But he won't.
Judd
Posted on: 16 March 2004 by ErikL
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
It's my view that fundamentally to defeat al-Qaeda one needs to remove the popular base of support that allows such extremists to prosper and commit thier atrocities.
Thirded, and I imagine it's the worldwide consensus among reasonable people. Unfortunately, Bush took action before answering the fundamental question "why do they hate us?" He says over and over they hate us because we're "peace loving (Christian) people" but of course that's just cross-eyed hickabilly PR. Your view is what I see as the necessary long-term approach. But there must also be a short-term approach and IMO Bush took the wrong steps, fighting a battle over the mind with conventional warfare tactics as though it was a battle over bridges, borders, and buildings. There was no precision, no intelligence, no multi-staged approach, no clever framework. Instead it's been like a heart surgeon using hedge clippers to perform a triple bypass for fucks sake.
For one second I'd like my government to consider the teenage Pakistani and Indonesian boys getting geared up for jihad at their religious schools, the welfare of people in the Islamic and Arab worlds, the economies, the media and press, and the lack of political representation- i.e., the cultures or "the ingredients". I'm sure there are State Department analysts whose absolutely brilliant analysis and recommendations have gone unheard, and that's pathetic.
PS- Am I required to post my "terrorism experiences and qualifications" in order to discuss this stuff now?
Posted on: 16 March 2004 by herm
quote:
Originally posted by Justin:
This is the worst argument I have ever read. Honestly, I don't know what to do with this. This is pretty disgusting.
Well, in that case you shouldn't have started talking about people having to put their nuts on the line.
The way I read that is you want to see some action ("nuts") and you want to see it on CNN.
Herman
Posted on: 16 March 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by herm:
The way I read that is you want to see some action ("nuts") and you want to see it on CNN.
Herman
Well, you read it wrong. I was talking about taking political risks. I suspect you knew that anyway, though.
But who cares. You've made your position clear. Only males between the ages of 18 and 31 (BTW, I fall in that range) who live in major metropolitan areas may advance an argument which supports armed conflict. IN your view, then, I suppose the converse must also be true: People between the ages of 18 and 31 who favor non-violent solutions are really just Pussy's who sole interest in avoiding war is to save thier own lives.
Try to be a bit more circumspect.
Judd
Posted on: 17 March 2004 by MarkEJ
quote:
Originally posted by Harvey:
<your post above>
Brilliant. Spot on.
Please sign up for Prime Ministerial duties immediately.
Posted on: 17 March 2004 by bigmick
Justin said
I know that you just love to say the word appeasement, but did you actually read the article? If so, then cheers for the censorship. What Prodi went on to say was that what was needed diplomacy and political movement, not just military action. The concept that anyone who disagrees with the way the US has blundered on terrorism is an appeaser makes you look ridiculous. I recall that you called me an appeaser for daring to suggest that both Palestinian militants and the IDF should stop killing innocent people. I rarely agree with Prodi, but are you saying that he is wrong when he opines that terrorism is more powerful than a year ago?
Everyone sensible here has stated that we need to address the ills that feed these maniacs, starve the terrorist cause and this surely is the only long term hope. I’ve stated as such to you many times on the Middle East problem. I’m happy that you seem to actually agree with this yet, since this was all that Prodi was saying, I am somewhat surprised to see you change your spots in such a short space of time. Is this a Road to Damascus for you? Are we to see a future post where you acknowledge that the West has in the past and continues to screw over a lot of countries and people for our own gain and that just maybe the worm has turned and is pretty pissed off. Two problems that we have to deal with equally, the cause and the effect. Or shall we stick with the old chestnut whereby we've done nothing wrong and this current bit of bother is a spontaeneous jealousy of our free and properous non-Islamic democracy and an overwhelming desire to tear it down and convert us all.
Justin said
From your remarks I can only conclude that you know zero about the EU, it’s framework and powers. What withdrawal is the EU considering from Iraq? The EU doesn’t have a foreign policy. The Commission president has no power in this regard and his statements simply cannot be the EU line. The EU has no provisions for having an actionable line in this regard any more than the Women’s Institute has. Again what he said was that the US approach to the war on terrorism has been a failure.
Justin said
Am I correct in thinking that you see an approach which uses political, diplomatic, good intelligence and military might to not only take out the terrorist but deal with the motivating factors as a polar opposite to putting one’s nuts in the fire? What is your definition of putting one’s nuts in the fire?
You say this
Well answer this, what kind of political risks are you talking about that don’t involve bombing people? Tell you what you vote for the guy crouching naked over the fire screaming, I’ll shout for the guy with his chap buttoned up but using his head and we’ll see who gets the job done.
Can we have some clarity on your stance Justin? Are we correct in assuming that you refer to France and Germany as dovish countries because of their failure to join the US in their attack on Iraq or are there other reasons of which I am not aware?
Justin said
Others have queried this but received no answer. Can you please explain where you have seen evidence of any such disengagement? Can you further explain what “greater engagement” means were the US to be attacked again?
Justin said
Again where is your evidence for this throwing away of European security?
Justin said
The EU? Disregarding the internment without trial in Guantanamo Bay as a defensible, viable measure, and the Iraq attack, unrelated as it is in any real sense to the fight against terror and assuming you mean the countries of Europe, can you specify in what particular regard you see e.g. France, Germany and UK as failing in their anti-terrorist measures with specific reference to how the US measures have been successful in reducing the threat of terrorism in the West?
Not for the first time, you’ve not been particularly circumspect yourself, making quite a few wild claims. Let’s hope that unlike previous threads, you actually exhibit some degree of testicular fortitude and substantiate your statements.
Just a final side question Justin. I try to steer clear of Andrew Sullivan’s diatribe since he is such an arch twat and it always seems like time I’m never going to get back, but since many of your sentiments, reporting references and language seem to be lifted wholesale from his blog, what is your view on his following sweeping statement?
“Islamism does not seek to integrate itself into Europe. It seeks the abolition of Europe as a democratic, peaceful, pluralist place.
The only way to meaningfully defang Islamist terror is to transform the region. If we don't, we will simply be putting out small fires for ever, instead of dealing with root causes. The root cause is the lack of democracy in the region, which gives these religious fanatics the oxygen they need. Al Qaeda understand the stakes. So must we. Iraq is the battlefield. We cannot, must not, falter. In fact, we must ramp up the pressure. Alone, if needs be.”
Sounds like you’ve got yourself another John Mill supporter there.
[This message was edited by bigmick on Wed 17 March 2004 at 10:54.]
quote:
"It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," Prodi said. "Terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago"
The alternative, I guess, is negotiation with terrorists, accomodation of terrorists. Classic appeasement. Is this REALLY the EU line?”
I know that you just love to say the word appeasement, but did you actually read the article? If so, then cheers for the censorship. What Prodi went on to say was that what was needed diplomacy and political movement, not just military action. The concept that anyone who disagrees with the way the US has blundered on terrorism is an appeaser makes you look ridiculous. I recall that you called me an appeaser for daring to suggest that both Palestinian militants and the IDF should stop killing innocent people. I rarely agree with Prodi, but are you saying that he is wrong when he opines that terrorism is more powerful than a year ago?
Everyone sensible here has stated that we need to address the ills that feed these maniacs, starve the terrorist cause and this surely is the only long term hope. I’ve stated as such to you many times on the Middle East problem. I’m happy that you seem to actually agree with this yet, since this was all that Prodi was saying, I am somewhat surprised to see you change your spots in such a short space of time. Is this a Road to Damascus for you? Are we to see a future post where you acknowledge that the West has in the past and continues to screw over a lot of countries and people for our own gain and that just maybe the worm has turned and is pretty pissed off. Two problems that we have to deal with equally, the cause and the effect. Or shall we stick with the old chestnut whereby we've done nothing wrong and this current bit of bother is a spontaeneous jealousy of our free and properous non-Islamic democracy and an overwhelming desire to tear it down and convert us all.
Justin said
quote:
“But don't try to suggest here that the EU is considering ONLY a withdrawal from Iraq. Now THAT's a specious argument!!! The EU commissioner made it doubly clear "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," said Prodi. THIS isn't just about Iraq (or even hardly about Iraq). Prodi is suggesting that being hard on terror is the worng directive. And it is to THIS that I direct my comments.”
From your remarks I can only conclude that you know zero about the EU, it’s framework and powers. What withdrawal is the EU considering from Iraq? The EU doesn’t have a foreign policy. The Commission president has no power in this regard and his statements simply cannot be the EU line. The EU has no provisions for having an actionable line in this regard any more than the Women’s Institute has. Again what he said was that the US approach to the war on terrorism has been a failure.
Justin said
quote:
I need to determine that he's not in accordance with the EU commissioner.
For god's sake, SOMEBODY has to risk putting his nuts in the fire.
Am I correct in thinking that you see an approach which uses political, diplomatic, good intelligence and military might to not only take out the terrorist but deal with the motivating factors as a polar opposite to putting one’s nuts in the fire? What is your definition of putting one’s nuts in the fire?
You say this
quote:
Well, you read it wrong. I was talking about taking political risks.
Well answer this, what kind of political risks are you talking about that don’t involve bombing people? Tell you what you vote for the guy crouching naked over the fire screaming, I’ll shout for the guy with his chap buttoned up but using his head and we’ll see who gets the job done.
Can we have some clarity on your stance Justin? Are we correct in assuming that you refer to France and Germany as dovish countries because of their failure to join the US in their attack on Iraq or are there other reasons of which I am not aware?
Justin said
quote:
these attacks are expected to cause most of Europe to disengage from the "war on terrorism" in all its alleged forms (ie., not just in Iraq). The opposite is expected in the US (as I suggested before); ie, greater engagement.
Others have queried this but received no answer. Can you please explain where you have seen evidence of any such disengagement? Can you further explain what “greater engagement” means were the US to be attacked again?
Justin said
quote:
I fail to see how throwing away European security is an acceptable price to pay
Again where is your evidence for this throwing away of European security?
Justin said
quote:
The EU needs to wake up.
The EU? Disregarding the internment without trial in Guantanamo Bay as a defensible, viable measure, and the Iraq attack, unrelated as it is in any real sense to the fight against terror and assuming you mean the countries of Europe, can you specify in what particular regard you see e.g. France, Germany and UK as failing in their anti-terrorist measures with specific reference to how the US measures have been successful in reducing the threat of terrorism in the West?
Not for the first time, you’ve not been particularly circumspect yourself, making quite a few wild claims. Let’s hope that unlike previous threads, you actually exhibit some degree of testicular fortitude and substantiate your statements.
Just a final side question Justin. I try to steer clear of Andrew Sullivan’s diatribe since he is such an arch twat and it always seems like time I’m never going to get back, but since many of your sentiments, reporting references and language seem to be lifted wholesale from his blog, what is your view on his following sweeping statement?
“Islamism does not seek to integrate itself into Europe. It seeks the abolition of Europe as a democratic, peaceful, pluralist place.
The only way to meaningfully defang Islamist terror is to transform the region. If we don't, we will simply be putting out small fires for ever, instead of dealing with root causes. The root cause is the lack of democracy in the region, which gives these religious fanatics the oxygen they need. Al Qaeda understand the stakes. So must we. Iraq is the battlefield. We cannot, must not, falter. In fact, we must ramp up the pressure. Alone, if needs be.”
Sounds like you’ve got yourself another John Mill supporter there.
[This message was edited by bigmick on Wed 17 March 2004 at 10:54.]
Posted on: 17 March 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by bigmick:
Everyone sensible here has stated that we need to address the ills that feed these maniacs, starve the terrorist cause and this surely is the only long term hope. I’ve stated as such to you many times on the Middle East problem. I’m happy that you seem to actually agree with this yet, since this was all that Prodi was saying, I am somewhat surprised to see you change your spots in such a short space of time. Is this a Road to Damascus for you? Are we to see a future post where you acknowledge that the West has in the past and continues to screw over a lot of countries and people for our own gain and that just maybe the worm has turned and is pretty pissed off. Two problems that we have to deal with equally, the cause and the effect. Or shall we stick with the old chestnut whereby we've done nothing wrong and this current bit of bother is a spontaeneous jealousy of our free and properous non-Islamic democracy and an overwhelming desire to tear it down and convert us all.
I think you are missing both the subtlety of the arguments expressed on this forum as well as the states goals of those who are committing the terrorist acts the first place. Let's start with the second one.
You're correct that the West does not face terrorism primarily because we are liberal democracies (though that is certainly one of the reasons - I'm at a loss as to why you cannot bring yourself to admit even that much). However, you can't make this claim in a vacuum. For instance, while it's clear that Palestinians (even among those who support suicide bombings) support a peacefull seperate state next to Isreal, those responsible for the suicide bombings themselves have a seperate and more radical agenda, which is to eliminate the existance of Isreal. It has been thier agenda for 50 years, and while a legitmate "two-state" solution will satisfy most Palestinians, those Palestinians who are responsible for maintaining the militant side of the conflict (ie, Hamas and PJ and AMB) will never be satisfied - what assurances does Israel have (in the face of published promises by these groups to continue the carnage) that a negotiated solution with the PLO will have any effect on those who wish Isreal ill.
Moreoever, your insistence that Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism is concerned only with "missguided" Western foreign policy ignores the genuine threats faced by so-called enlightened western democracies (and maybe a few non-western lite-democracies). Take France and Turkey as two examples. French anti-terrorism forces have been extremely active within thier own borders. These threats suggest France is vulnerable to terrorism for reasons wholly distinct from those associated with Western Foreign Policy. (I'll mention only in passing the most recent threats published in the French papers over the weekend, ostensibly linked to the headscarf issue - probably a hoax, I'm guessin - but they are taking it seriously). Likewise, the threat to Turkey is manifest, in the form of the bombings in March and last Nomember. What about these bombings suggests that they are principally motivated by "Western" foriegn policy (yes yes, the British Consulate . . .only one of several targets). Attributing all fundamentalist terrorism to western foreign policy ignores the published goals of groups like Al Queda, who have repeatedly published demands for conversions, establishment of fundamentalist states (Sunni fundamentalist states - not even Shi-ite will be permitted to participate).
Finally, most of the western world supported the war in Afghanistan (maybe even you). Do you honestly think that attacks in Madrid and Hungary, and future attacks in the UK, France and/or Germany will not have been motivated (at least in part - though I think in large part) by the removal of Al Queda's client state and the strongest font of Islamic Fundamentalism existing at that time. What world are you living on.
I'm the last one to suggest that the problems are not complex ones. But in light of attacks and threats against states who do not "tow the US line", and published positions from groups like Hamas and Al Queda, I'm unwilling to entertain the notion that the asnwers can be found by looking introspectively.
You keep telling yourself this is just about Iraq (and that the Isreali/Palestinian problem is just about settlements and refugies). Your own PM understands better than you (the house erupted in "here here's" (sp) after he said this (ie, it's not just him).
"The idea that if you were to give in over the issue of Iraq that that will be the end of the matter is completely and hopelessly naive".
It simply is NOT only a matter of western foriegn policy.
quote:
Am I correct in thinking that you see an approach which uses political, diplomatic, good intelligence and military might to not only take out the terrorist but deal with the motivating factors as a polar opposite to putting one’s nuts in the fire? What is your definition of putting one’s nuts in the fire?
[QUOTE]
I already covered this with [Herm?]. I meant that somebody has to take political risks. That's about all.
[QUOTE]
Well answer this, what kind of political risks are you talking about that don’t involve bombing people? Tell you what you vote for the guy crouching naked over the fire screaming, I’ll shout for the guy with his chap buttoned up but using his head and we’ll see who gets the job done.
huh?
quote:
Can we have some clarity on your stance Justin? Are we correct in assuming that you refer to France and Germany as dovish countries because of their failure to join the US in their attack on Iraq or are there other reasons of which I am not aware?
Well, with respect to Germany, the country's constitution does not permit deployment of its troops on foriegn soil. It's a comitted pacivist country. Besides that, I used the word "dove" only as a shorthand to refer to those countries who did not support the war in Iraq. It wasn't a normative statement. During the run-up to the war, EVERYBODY simply referred to those in favor of the war as hawks and those opposed to the war as doves. With respect to Iraq, France and Germany were the doves. I'm not suggesting they are incapable of picking up a gun. You are reading too much into this.
As far as the EU commissioner is concerned, I was talking in the context of the political platform of John Kerry. The principle difference between Kerry and Bush on this question is whether the fight against terror is a strategic military one or a "law enforcement one". Kerry feels it is the latter, and I don't happen to agree. I read the Commissioner's statement to suggest much the same. That's all.
In any event, my position on this matter has been clear since the beginning. I think this is a strategic military war, which includes guns and bullets and bombs, and also more subtle things like spies and operatives. I don't know what role "negotiations" and "diplomacy" have to play in the war on terror other those those between allies (and between prospective or ostensible allies like the US and Pakistan, and the US and Saudi Arabia). There's NO negotiated settlement between western liberal democracies and islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
In any event, I'll not ignore your repeated attemps to paint me as little more than a bomb-dropping hawk.
quote:
Others have queried this but received no answer. Can you please explain where you have seen evidence of any such disengagement? Can you further explain what “greater engagement” means were the US to be attacked again?
Again, another straw man argument. Look at what I wrote. Here it is:
"Anyway, the pundits on TV (and in the papers) since Madrid have drawn a sharp line between the predicted responses to this sort of attack in Europe on the one hand and the US on the other. Overhwelmingly, as it did in Spain, these attacks are expected to cause most of Europe to disengage from the "war on terrorism" in all its alleged forms (ie., not just in Iraq). The opposite is expected in the US (as I suggested before); ie, greater engagement. The pundits identify the UK as a "wildcard". Many predict a re-engagement, others a disengagement.
What will the UK do? Everybody seemed to think London was next."
I'm simply setting forth what the political pundits were saying on TV. I refer to these pundits at least three times in the paragraph above ("pundits", "they", "many", "everybody", etc.)
And then, INEXPLICABLY (well, not inexplicably - I know quite well why you would be dishonest here) you ignore central and overridning theme of my post, which is that regardless of a "total" disengagement by Europe (whether it happens or not), the true danger was a disengagement from Iraq because a collapse of that country (and maybe Afghanistan) would signal a tremendous and dangerous victory for Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism in general, and it is THIS which threatens European security (and of course, US security).
quote:
Again where is your evidence for this throwing away of European security?
I set my argument out very clearly. Why are you ignoring it? No sensible person could possibly suggest that a failure in Iraq will not create more danger for Europe (and the US) than a success - even IF you believes the war was a mistake in the first place.
I've made my position clear on this point:
"I happened to think going into Iraq was a step forward. But I also KNOW that a failure to follow through there would be an even greater step backwards. With respect to Iraq only, what the EU (or parts thereof) decide to do in the coming year will either embolden and strengthen Al Queda or will help to cut them down. I've no doubt that no matter how you felt about the decision to go into Iraq in the first place, disengaging now from that war will have the former effect on Al Queda."
disengaging from Iraq would be a huge mistake no matter how illadvised you think the war was. But, this is not the only fear. It will be possible for Europe to also disengage from Afghanistan (in factm how much does France and germany help in Afghanistan now? I don't know).
quote:
The EU? Disregarding the internment without trial in Guantanamo Bay as a defensible, viable measure, and the Iraq attack, unrelated as it is in any real sense to the fight against terror and assuming you mean the countries of Europe, can you specify in what particular regard you see e.g. France, Germany and UK as failing in their anti-terrorist measures with specific reference to how the US measures have been successful in reducing the threat of terrorism in the West?
I have no clue. I would have to know how much terrorism would have occurred without the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. I know we had quite a bit before those wars. If you know, let me know.
As for Andrew Sullivan, I agree with some of what he writes, and some I do not agree with. He's a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative. I agree with the social liberal parts, and am kind of indifferent on the fiscal conservative bits.
I agree with him 100% that the war on terrorism is a stratigic military one, and not a "law enforcement" one. And before he put up his blog after the election in Spain, it realized that BUT for the bombings there, the election would NOT have gone to the socialists. WHO CARES what the socialists will do regarding terrorism - frankly I can't know at this point - they claim they will be tough. Great!!! BUT, the Spaniards changed an election due to terrorist pressure - and THAT is a bad precident.
In any event, no, I don't agree with the sentiments expressed in the quote you put up here.
I read a lot of blogs, CNN, foxnews, msnbc, and a host of others. Sullivan is just one of the best because it's not just a blog, it is a blog digest - which means it does a LOT of linking to other articles and blogs. That saves me a lot of time. That's the main reason I read it.
I sense in your post a more congenial tone towards me than usual. If intended, I appreciate it.
Judd
Posted on: 17 March 2004 by Justin
BTW BigMick,
Read the le monde quote that started this threat. It's not just ME who is saying these things. Apparently thier editorial board also thinks that Europe is at a cross-roads.
Are they wrong too?
Judd
Read the le monde quote that started this threat. It's not just ME who is saying these things. Apparently thier editorial board also thinks that Europe is at a cross-roads.
Are they wrong too?
Judd
Posted on: 18 March 2004 by Harvey
quote:
Honestly, I don't know what to do with this. This is pretty disgusting.
You must be joking! Considering the repugnant bile that you peddle on this forum and the insults you've hurled, your apparent sensitivity rings truly hollow.
Which bit of Herm's post disgusted you? I work in Victoria and travel there and home by tube passing throughthe centre of London and 3 major railway termini. It's accepted that central London is probably top 3 of AQ targets. Within a radius of 150 miles of London we get a huge population who either travels to London regularly for work or pleasure or who knows well someone who works in London. Then we hit the heavily populated Midlands, Birmingham and Manchester, other likely targets. A large number of forum members fall into this area and so may suffer directly or indirectly from such an attack. I'm guessing that Cleveleand struggles to get onto the list. Lucky you, you get to watch any attacks and other people's pain from the comfort of nowheresville. My cousin and family live in Williamsburg, Brooklyn and he is considering moving out to get away from the target area. Most of his friends have already gone, citing schools, traffic and envirinmental reasons, but the real reason is they are scared of the threat. My cousin noted that there's a real resentment of rednecks living in the middle of nowhere who love to talk up a storm, baying for the blood of Islamists and consumed with the idea of kicking Arab butt. Of course they would, they will never, ever suffer. AQ isn't going to target some mini mall in the middle of Nebraska or Ohio or wherever.
So while you and your ilk sit in a provincial backwater playing armchair Rumsfeld, more than happy to fight to the last drop of everybody else's blood, stop for a minute and try to connect to reality and picture a real person being killed or losing their family to an AQ attack or to a bomb dropped from 30,000 feet.
You say that you don't know what to do with this? If your previous posts are any guide, I think the smart money will be on the following scenario:
You will return with vacuous bluster, pretending to be shocked all over again, still not answering any of the many questions asked of you, making more statements and accusations that you can't substantiate and most likely challenging statements and opinions which you incorrecly attribute to other posters. Finally, as usual, you'll stonewall and piss off only to reutrn like a bad smell with some new barmy thread starter.
Actually, I don't have time right now to read your latest post but 2 quick scans is enough to confirm that yes, still nobody's questions answered and apparently a conversation with yourself as it looks like you've addressed remarks that nobody made. You're a frickin' mystery, guy. One big abusive, dull, sickening mystery.
Even though I fail to see how you can concur with Matthew's sentiments, I fourth his analysis and second Herm's.
Posted on: 18 March 2004 by Justin
Harvey,
Are you really getting anything out of these threads? If I'm not worth engaging intellectually or otherwise, treat me as a troll and ignore me. Under the circumstances I can't explain the 6 paragraph post of yours. A quick "don't feed the troll" would be sufficient, no? Ignore me. Afterall, I'm trying to ignore you.
As it stands, your post is nothing but personal animus and bile to which I'm not going to respond. If its worth it to you at all, tone it down a bit. Until then, just like the last thread, I'm simply not going to engage you on the merits. You're a bully. Go away.
Judd
Are you really getting anything out of these threads? If I'm not worth engaging intellectually or otherwise, treat me as a troll and ignore me. Under the circumstances I can't explain the 6 paragraph post of yours. A quick "don't feed the troll" would be sufficient, no? Ignore me. Afterall, I'm trying to ignore you.
As it stands, your post is nothing but personal animus and bile to which I'm not going to respond. If its worth it to you at all, tone it down a bit. Until then, just like the last thread, I'm simply not going to engage you on the merits. You're a bully. Go away.
Judd
Posted on: 18 March 2004 by Harvey
The problem is that nobody can tell if you're worth engaging intellectually as you simply refuse to, or are simply incapable of answering questions. These questions are about remarks you've made. Where's the intellect worth in deciding which questions you will or will not answer? My 6 paragraph post doesn't need explaining as it's perfectly obvious. It asks what you find so disgusting about the suggestion that as, unlike many on this forum, you live nowhere near a high target area, should consider this when you propose inflammatory and warmongering solutions to complex problems. The closest you'll get to it is TV. As someone living in London I'd rather not have someone who has zero chance of getting involved rehashing right-wing bilge as possible solutions.
The fact is guy, it's not me you're trying to ignore, it's the hard questions. Are you goign to start ignoring Herm and Bigmick and anybody else who probes for your backbone? Why should I ignore you? If there's vermin in my basement, they're not going away because I ignore them. Come out with something of intellectual merit that's based on fact and then we can have a debate. You keep coming out with inflammatory, indefensible crap and I'm going to ask my questions till you're sick. I've given you the opportunity to come up with the answers on this and other threads and each time you fail miserably. It's not that you won't it's thta you can't. If asking you to justify and stand by your statements, to defend them in any possible intellectual fashoin is bullying, then yes in your eyes I must be a bully. I think most people know the kind of forum you thrive in; back under your stone man.
The fact is guy, it's not me you're trying to ignore, it's the hard questions. Are you goign to start ignoring Herm and Bigmick and anybody else who probes for your backbone? Why should I ignore you? If there's vermin in my basement, they're not going away because I ignore them. Come out with something of intellectual merit that's based on fact and then we can have a debate. You keep coming out with inflammatory, indefensible crap and I'm going to ask my questions till you're sick. I've given you the opportunity to come up with the answers on this and other threads and each time you fail miserably. It's not that you won't it's thta you can't. If asking you to justify and stand by your statements, to defend them in any possible intellectual fashoin is bullying, then yes in your eyes I must be a bully. I think most people know the kind of forum you thrive in; back under your stone man.
Posted on: 18 March 2004 by bigmick
Subtlety! Yes of course, sorry about that Justin. I thought that it was just more of your poorly thought out, barely researched, largely plagiarised, dismally argued and barely comprehensible bellicose cobblers. So when people pick you up on some nonsense or asks why you’re plainly not answering questions AND you say either that they didn’t understand your little nuance or note your little parentheticals OR realize that you were just quoting some publication or pundit AND that really you have no opinion either way AND that of course we knew this all along; that’s you being subtle and us being silly heads for not noticing. Yeah, subtlety, le mot juste, whatever you need to tell yourself son. If you want to get into the patronising and talking down game then fair enough, let’s go.
I’m going to go through the steaming pile of ordure which is your post, line by line and I’m going to ask you to identify with quotes, where you have found the multitude of claims and statements that you have attributed to me. I’m going to ask you a series of questions, many of which are old friends, growing visibly older waiting for you to answer. I’m going to number them and ask that in your reply post, you do not try to obfuscate the issue with irrelevant, insupportable flannel from some other unsubstantiated source which fails to address the questions and issues or attempt to attribute stances or statement to myself or others for which there is no evidence. Put the thesaurus and dictionary away, close down whatever neocon site you’re thinking of trawling for some slick one-liners and pull your tongue out of the corner of your mouth. You can do this without repeatedly referencing straw men, normative statements and appeasers. I want to hear YOU say something substantive and supportable in plain English and without any attempts to convince us that your lump of coal will buff up nicely to a diamond, if only you could just shoehorn enough big words in there.
If you make accusations or statements, you must learn that there is a responsibility to ensure that these can be proved or backed up with hard evidence. If I’m wrong and you get me stone cold on any of these questions then fair play and I’ll hold my hands up. I’d like to see some reciprocity on your behalf. So, either answer the questions directly or retract the statements and henceforth desist from making groundless statements and allegations. You don’t have to of course, you could just keep plodding on looking like a tool. And the least sharp tool in the box at that. Your choice Susan.
Justin said
Q1. Where did I state that this is not a factor? Please identify with quote.
Justin said
Q2. What claim are you referring to and how is it being made in a vacuum? Please identify with quote.
Justin said
Q3. Where did I “insist” that Western “foreign policy” is the “only” concern of Islamic Fundamentalism? Please identify with quote.
Am I also correct in thinking that you believe France and Turkey to have and have always had clean hands in respect of their dealings with the Arab world?
Justin said
Q4. Where did I state that the action in Afghanistan was not a nmotivating factor? Please identify with quote.
In fact, this seem to be the nub of others arguments against you in that that the Spanish electorate’s reaction to the attacks were not a surrender to Al Queda but rather a bullet in the head for a government who was busy beating up on the local burglar whilst the neighbourhood gang was left alone to plan their rapes and murders. So are you now conceding that Afghanistan is where Al Queda really cared about and Iraq just some bullshit diversion? So that’s actually where the military and reconstruction resources and attention should have been directed and maybe we might have nipped some of these atrocities in the bud? Let’s call that Q5. I’m living in the real world, wish you were here but then again kind of glad you’re not. To help you, I’ll get my youngest to knock off a sketch at nursery and maybe some pointers as how to structure an argument.
Q6. Where did I state that the attacks were unrelated to the war in Afghanistan? Please identify with quote.
Justin said
Q7. Where did I say that this is just about Iraq? Please identify with quote. I’d be chuffed to bits to have you point out where I even inferred as such.
The Israeli/Palestinian problem is much, much more than settlements and refugees as you well know from the countless occasions I’ve had to re-explain this to you. So that’s something else I haven’t said.
Justin said
Q8. Where is this quote from?
Matthew Robinson said
Justin said
Matthew is clearly and correctly stating that we need to look at the motivations of al-Queda and starve the support by afddressing the issues, 2 examples given being the Israeli-Palestine problem and support for corrupt regimes like the Saudis and one might also add the former Iraqi regime. You then appear to concur enthusiastically.
Q9. As such action requires, by definition, looking introspectively and through negotiation and diplomacy to influence corrupt regimes and the Israeli/Palestinian politicians, how do you explain:
Justin said
And
Justin said
In case that penny needs a push. Negotiations and diplomacy are necessary behind the scenes to starve the terrorist of oxygen. Anything yet?
Justin said
I believe that this was the point that a number of posters were trying to explain to you when you were stating that the EU needed to wake up.
Justin said
Well that’ll be good news to the 60,000 German soldiers involved either directly or indirectly in military operations world-wide, 2300 in Afghanistan and the German naval fleet in the Gulf. Especially comforting for the 4 killed and 29 injured. France currently has 500 troops in Afhanistan and has been primarily responsible for training the first contingent of 7000 Afgan troops. Their air force has launched raids on Al Queda hideouts in the Tora Bora region. French Special Forces have also most notably in the last month come closer than any other force to nailing down OB. I’ll think you’ll find that any way you try to spin it, calling Germany and France “dovish” is a normative statement and where the inference is that Europe is or has already disengaged from the “war on terrorism” it is very much a pejorative term and you clearly know it. There’s nothing to read into; the words and the meanings are plain.
So your definition of a politician putting his nuts in the fire is one who is willing to take political risks. We got that. Now answer the question I asked:
Q10. what kind of political risks are you talking about that don’t involve bombing people? I fail to believe that you can’t come up with something better than “huh”.
Justin said
But then you do appear to do just that!!! I need to paint you as nothing, for you are, as has been remarked on earlier threads, a huge self-basting chicken.
Who are you trying to fool with this nonsense about pundits. This is a forum where people express their opinions and views. What’s the bloody point of saying “here’s a particular view expressed by some sources that I haven’t referenced, expressly balanced or linked to and there was some guy at the bus stop who concurred. Oh and I have no opinion on it, so you can’t ask me about it.” When you’re selecting which point of view to report I think we can infer the rest. What a complete and utter waste of time.
Justin said
Well I think that most people, including the Spanish electorate, reckoned correctly that the true danger was Afghanistan. This is where Al Queda lived, trained and planned. So we attack and get a tenuous grasp on it. So far so good. Then instead of properly securing it, the US hands a stack of cash to the warlords to keep the peace and moves on to settle a minor score which surprise, surprise establishes a magnet for pissed off, heavily armed Fundamental Islamist terrorists. Other posters have spelt out the scale of the financial commitment in Iraq, almost frig all threat, compared to that in Afghanistan, home to Al Queda, huge mother of a threat to everyone, no return address and reportedly regrouping nicely. It makes dismal reading and shines a bright light on the bullshit that is your assessment of the true danger.
Bigmick said
The question was quite clear. You stated that the EU (as opposed to the EU and US) needed to wake up and I asked you to specify the nature of this awakening and what measures you were suggesting that Europe implemented that were already being successfully implemented by the US.
Justin said
Refreshingly honest but news to nobody and naturally no answer to a straightforward question i.e. “Europe should wake up but I don’t know in which particular regard and the US has already woken up, but again I don’t know exactly how”
Where are we up to now Q11?
Q11. Please answer the damned question.
Justin said
Yes, or one might say, a wake up call. Sure thing victories have been lost at the last minute by much lesser factors. Let’s welcome a government who reflects the wishes of the Spanish people. If a larger turnout changed the result, then arguably, democracy is all the better for it. Seems somewhat more palatable than the results which Bush into power.
As has been pointed out by other posters, the attacks changed nobody’s voting preference but only served to increase turnout, particularly amongst the young who had felt disenchanted by the PP but felt that their opportunistic duplicitiousness and failure to attack the real enemy had lead indirectly to huge bloodshed.
Ahhh, so Le Monde is now your journal of choice. How is your French? Of all the countries you’ve visited in Europe, would you say it’s now your favourite? I look forward to your choice of Gallic thread starters since you clearly hold their opinion in such high esteem, Like Matthew. I feel that it’s no big shakes and I can’t say that Le Monde has ever been my first port of call in stormy seas but I’ll bet it doing going down a riot on the neocon sites. Yes, just checked. Funny how last month oily rag is becomes this month’s font of wisdom when you’re scrabbling for crumbs. If you need something to hold onto then I’ll leave you clutching your morsel. Christ knows you’ve bugger all else to show for your careless travails. If you can post a link to that editorial so that it can be read it in all it’s uncensored glory, that would be a first step in the right direction.
Congeniality? Nope, that would you being wrong, again. Dogs and fleas. I regularly clean gunk off the bottom of my walking boots that I care more about, but I do feel utterly revolted at your opinions and fear that unchecked, belligerent, right wing ignorance is very dangerous and in no small part has been one of the catalysts that militant Islamic fundamentalism needed to get itself into the major leagues. With my work hat on, I always feel sad when the loudest and most aggressive person has the least of any worth to say and no notion how to say it. I can honestly state that with your exhibited powers of research, analysis and presentation I can’t think of one post I’ve offered where you would have made it through first interview.
If you guys haven’t already prised open the lid and want a chilling insight into what neo-conservative pond life really want and really think, over and above the dubious gems that Justin cherrypicks, have a quick read of Daily Dish ,. Afterwards, I recommend two large single malts, something from Speyside, to get the nasty taste out of your mouth after the dry heaves.
To finish on a slightly lighter note. A colleague and I were both sitting round the screen reading Justin’s post when one of the girls came in and burst out laughing. She said that whatever it was we were looking at reminded her of the photo of Shrek and Donkey at the information booth, looking genuinely bemused and puzzled. I couldn’t recall it but she has just forwarded me the link and I see what she means. Flattering.
Michael and Doug looking at Naim Forum
[This message was edited by bigmick on Thu 18 March 2004 at 15:04.]
I’m going to go through the steaming pile of ordure which is your post, line by line and I’m going to ask you to identify with quotes, where you have found the multitude of claims and statements that you have attributed to me. I’m going to ask you a series of questions, many of which are old friends, growing visibly older waiting for you to answer. I’m going to number them and ask that in your reply post, you do not try to obfuscate the issue with irrelevant, insupportable flannel from some other unsubstantiated source which fails to address the questions and issues or attempt to attribute stances or statement to myself or others for which there is no evidence. Put the thesaurus and dictionary away, close down whatever neocon site you’re thinking of trawling for some slick one-liners and pull your tongue out of the corner of your mouth. You can do this without repeatedly referencing straw men, normative statements and appeasers. I want to hear YOU say something substantive and supportable in plain English and without any attempts to convince us that your lump of coal will buff up nicely to a diamond, if only you could just shoehorn enough big words in there.
If you make accusations or statements, you must learn that there is a responsibility to ensure that these can be proved or backed up with hard evidence. If I’m wrong and you get me stone cold on any of these questions then fair play and I’ll hold my hands up. I’d like to see some reciprocity on your behalf. So, either answer the questions directly or retract the statements and henceforth desist from making groundless statements and allegations. You don’t have to of course, you could just keep plodding on looking like a tool. And the least sharp tool in the box at that. Your choice Susan.
Justin said
quote:
West does not face terrorism primarily because we are liberal democracies (though that is certainly one of the reasons - I'm at a loss as to why you cannot bring yourself to admit even that much
Q1. Where did I state that this is not a factor? Please identify with quote.
Justin said
quote:
You can't make this claim in a vacuum
Q2. What claim are you referring to and how is it being made in a vacuum? Please identify with quote.
Justin said
quote:
your insistence that Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism is concerned only with "missguided" Western foreign policy
It simply is NOT only a matter of western foriegn policy.
Q3. Where did I “insist” that Western “foreign policy” is the “only” concern of Islamic Fundamentalism? Please identify with quote.
Am I also correct in thinking that you believe France and Turkey to have and have always had clean hands in respect of their dealings with the Arab world?
Justin said
quote:
Finally, most of the western world supported the war in Afghanistan (maybe even you). Do you honestly think that attacks in Madrid and Hungary, and future attacks in the UK, France and/or Germany will not have been motivated (at least in part - though I think in large part) by the removal of Al Queda's client state and the strongest font of Islamic Fundamentalism existing at that time. What world are you living on.
Q4. Where did I state that the action in Afghanistan was not a nmotivating factor? Please identify with quote.
In fact, this seem to be the nub of others arguments against you in that that the Spanish electorate’s reaction to the attacks were not a surrender to Al Queda but rather a bullet in the head for a government who was busy beating up on the local burglar whilst the neighbourhood gang was left alone to plan their rapes and murders. So are you now conceding that Afghanistan is where Al Queda really cared about and Iraq just some bullshit diversion? So that’s actually where the military and reconstruction resources and attention should have been directed and maybe we might have nipped some of these atrocities in the bud? Let’s call that Q5. I’m living in the real world, wish you were here but then again kind of glad you’re not. To help you, I’ll get my youngest to knock off a sketch at nursery and maybe some pointers as how to structure an argument.
Q6. Where did I state that the attacks were unrelated to the war in Afghanistan? Please identify with quote.
Justin said
quote:
You keep telling yourself this is just about Iraq (and that the Isreali/Palestinian problem is just about settlements and refugies). Your own PM understands better than you (the house erupted in "here here's" (sp) after he said this (ie, it's not just him).
Q7. Where did I say that this is just about Iraq? Please identify with quote. I’d be chuffed to bits to have you point out where I even inferred as such.
The Israeli/Palestinian problem is much, much more than settlements and refugees as you well know from the countless occasions I’ve had to re-explain this to you. So that’s something else I haven’t said.
Justin said
quote:
"The idea that if you were to give in over the issue of Iraq that that will be the end of the matter is completely and hopelessly naive".
Q8. Where is this quote from?
Matthew Robinson said
quote:
It's my view that fundamentally to defeat al-Qaeda one needs to remove the popular base of support that allows such extremists to prosper and commit thier atrocities. Solving the Israel-Palestine problem would be a good start. Not supporting and propping up corrupt regimes like the Saudis would be another.
Fundamentally I see it as a battle of "hearts and minds" and the Bush administration has demonstrated itself catastrophically inept in this regard.
Justin said
quote:
Agreed. This is 100% right.
Matthew is clearly and correctly stating that we need to look at the motivations of al-Queda and starve the support by afddressing the issues, 2 examples given being the Israeli-Palestine problem and support for corrupt regimes like the Saudis and one might also add the former Iraqi regime. You then appear to concur enthusiastically.
Q9. As such action requires, by definition, looking introspectively and through negotiation and diplomacy to influence corrupt regimes and the Israeli/Palestinian politicians, how do you explain:
Justin said
quote:
I'm unwilling to entertain the notion that the asnwers can be found by looking introspectively
And
Justin said
quote:
I don't know what role "negotiations" and "diplomacy" have to play in the war on terror other those those between allies (and between prospective or ostensible allies like the US and Pakistan, and the US and Saudi Arabia). There's NO negotiated settlement between western liberal democracies and islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
In case that penny needs a push. Negotiations and diplomacy are necessary behind the scenes to starve the terrorist of oxygen. Anything yet?
Justin said
quote:
French anti-terrorism forces have been extremely active within thier own borders.
I believe that this was the point that a number of posters were trying to explain to you when you were stating that the EU needed to wake up.
Justin said
quote:
Your own PM understands better than you (the house erupted in "here here's" (sp) after he said this (ie, it's not just him).
One would hope as such, but you would probably have said the same about Aznar this time last week and yet only one of us is off to work in the morning so not much value in that point. As you seem to already have the full complement of two feet in your mouth, I offer as an act of kindness to reduce marginally your future embarrassment, the explanation that parliamentarians shout “Hear, hear”, a shortened version of “Hear him, hear him”. It is the job of backbenchers to shout this out loudly, repeatedly and en masse whenever the PM announces a new hospital ward, announces the favourable outcome of a rigged enquiry or so much as passes wind in the right direction. Using this as some form of calibration to prove the inherent righteousness and worth of the PM’s statement reveals that your knowledge of the British political process is currently running neck and neck with your knowledge of the EU political process.
Justin said
[QUOTE]
Well, with respect to Germany, the country's constitution does not permit deployment of its troops on foriegn soil.
Well that’ll be good news to the 60,000 German soldiers involved either directly or indirectly in military operations world-wide, 2300 in Afghanistan and the German naval fleet in the Gulf. Especially comforting for the 4 killed and 29 injured. France currently has 500 troops in Afhanistan and has been primarily responsible for training the first contingent of 7000 Afgan troops. Their air force has launched raids on Al Queda hideouts in the Tora Bora region. French Special Forces have also most notably in the last month come closer than any other force to nailing down OB. I’ll think you’ll find that any way you try to spin it, calling Germany and France “dovish” is a normative statement and where the inference is that Europe is or has already disengaged from the “war on terrorism” it is very much a pejorative term and you clearly know it. There’s nothing to read into; the words and the meanings are plain.
So your definition of a politician putting his nuts in the fire is one who is willing to take political risks. We got that. Now answer the question I asked:
Q10. what kind of political risks are you talking about that don’t involve bombing people? I fail to believe that you can’t come up with something better than “huh”.
Justin said
quote:
I'll not ignore your repeated attemps to paint me as little more than a bomb-dropping hawk.
But then you do appear to do just that!!! I need to paint you as nothing, for you are, as has been remarked on earlier threads, a huge self-basting chicken.
Who are you trying to fool with this nonsense about pundits. This is a forum where people express their opinions and views. What’s the bloody point of saying “here’s a particular view expressed by some sources that I haven’t referenced, expressly balanced or linked to and there was some guy at the bus stop who concurred. Oh and I have no opinion on it, so you can’t ask me about it.” When you’re selecting which point of view to report I think we can infer the rest. What a complete and utter waste of time.
Justin said
quote:
the true danger was a disengagement from Iraq because a collapse of that country (and maybe Afghanistan) would signal a tremendous and dangerous victory for Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism in general, and it is THIS which threatens European security (and of course, US security).
Well I think that most people, including the Spanish electorate, reckoned correctly that the true danger was Afghanistan. This is where Al Queda lived, trained and planned. So we attack and get a tenuous grasp on it. So far so good. Then instead of properly securing it, the US hands a stack of cash to the warlords to keep the peace and moves on to settle a minor score which surprise, surprise establishes a magnet for pissed off, heavily armed Fundamental Islamist terrorists. Other posters have spelt out the scale of the financial commitment in Iraq, almost frig all threat, compared to that in Afghanistan, home to Al Queda, huge mother of a threat to everyone, no return address and reportedly regrouping nicely. It makes dismal reading and shines a bright light on the bullshit that is your assessment of the true danger.
Bigmick said
quote:
Justin said
quote:
The EU needs to wake up.
The EU? Disregarding the internment without trial in Guantanamo Bay as a defensible, viable measure, and the Iraq attack, unrelated as it is in any real sense to the fight against terror and assuming you mean the countries of Europe, can you specify in what particular regard you see e.g. France, Germany and UK as failing in their anti-terrorist measures with specific reference to how the US measures have been successful in reducing the threat of terrorism in the West?
The question was quite clear. You stated that the EU (as opposed to the EU and US) needed to wake up and I asked you to specify the nature of this awakening and what measures you were suggesting that Europe implemented that were already being successfully implemented by the US.
Justin said
quote:
I have no clue.
Refreshingly honest but news to nobody and naturally no answer to a straightforward question i.e. “Europe should wake up but I don’t know in which particular regard and the US has already woken up, but again I don’t know exactly how”
Where are we up to now Q11?
Q11. Please answer the damned question.
Justin said
quote:
the Spaniards changed an election due to terrorist pressure
Yes, or one might say, a wake up call. Sure thing victories have been lost at the last minute by much lesser factors. Let’s welcome a government who reflects the wishes of the Spanish people. If a larger turnout changed the result, then arguably, democracy is all the better for it. Seems somewhat more palatable than the results which Bush into power.
As has been pointed out by other posters, the attacks changed nobody’s voting preference but only served to increase turnout, particularly amongst the young who had felt disenchanted by the PP but felt that their opportunistic duplicitiousness and failure to attack the real enemy had lead indirectly to huge bloodshed.
Ahhh, so Le Monde is now your journal of choice. How is your French? Of all the countries you’ve visited in Europe, would you say it’s now your favourite? I look forward to your choice of Gallic thread starters since you clearly hold their opinion in such high esteem, Like Matthew. I feel that it’s no big shakes and I can’t say that Le Monde has ever been my first port of call in stormy seas but I’ll bet it doing going down a riot on the neocon sites. Yes, just checked. Funny how last month oily rag is becomes this month’s font of wisdom when you’re scrabbling for crumbs. If you need something to hold onto then I’ll leave you clutching your morsel. Christ knows you’ve bugger all else to show for your careless travails. If you can post a link to that editorial so that it can be read it in all it’s uncensored glory, that would be a first step in the right direction.
Congeniality? Nope, that would you being wrong, again. Dogs and fleas. I regularly clean gunk off the bottom of my walking boots that I care more about, but I do feel utterly revolted at your opinions and fear that unchecked, belligerent, right wing ignorance is very dangerous and in no small part has been one of the catalysts that militant Islamic fundamentalism needed to get itself into the major leagues. With my work hat on, I always feel sad when the loudest and most aggressive person has the least of any worth to say and no notion how to say it. I can honestly state that with your exhibited powers of research, analysis and presentation I can’t think of one post I’ve offered where you would have made it through first interview.
If you guys haven’t already prised open the lid and want a chilling insight into what neo-conservative pond life really want and really think, over and above the dubious gems that Justin cherrypicks, have a quick read of Daily Dish ,. Afterwards, I recommend two large single malts, something from Speyside, to get the nasty taste out of your mouth after the dry heaves.
To finish on a slightly lighter note. A colleague and I were both sitting round the screen reading Justin’s post when one of the girls came in and burst out laughing. She said that whatever it was we were looking at reminded her of the photo of Shrek and Donkey at the information booth, looking genuinely bemused and puzzled. I couldn’t recall it but she has just forwarded me the link and I see what she means. Flattering.
Michael and Doug looking at Naim Forum
[This message was edited by bigmick on Thu 18 March 2004 at 15:04.]
Posted on: 18 March 2004 by bigmick
My apologies Harvey as I've just noticed your post and appear to be stepping on your toes a little. Still nice to see that there's a few of us willing to challenge this nonsense.
Justin, if you thougt that Harvey was a bully, then I suppose that we're going to get an Oscar winngin teary performance after my post. 2 thngs. Firstly, you've no compunction in maligning myself and others on tis forum so suck it up when you're caught out. Secondly, apart from addendums like this, a secretary types my replies to you which is good in that It means I can crack on with pursuits of intellectual worth and that my responses to your worthless crap are measured and could only be contrued as bullying by someone completely devoid of spine. Anyway, you got quite a few answers to work on, so i'll let you get on with it.
Justin, if you thougt that Harvey was a bully, then I suppose that we're going to get an Oscar winngin teary performance after my post. 2 thngs. Firstly, you've no compunction in maligning myself and others on tis forum so suck it up when you're caught out. Secondly, apart from addendums like this, a secretary types my replies to you which is good in that It means I can crack on with pursuits of intellectual worth and that my responses to your worthless crap are measured and could only be contrued as bullying by someone completely devoid of spine. Anyway, you got quite a few answers to work on, so i'll let you get on with it.
Posted on: 18 March 2004 by Justin
Look Harvey,
1.
I've already addressed Herm's issue in this thread. Firstly, I said that I was talking about taking political risks - not picking up a gun. Why do you ignore this? Secondly, I explained clearly (I think) why judging the merits of ones arguments with reference to his risk of going to war or being killed in an attack is prejudicial. I said that such an argument is no better than the converse - ie, one suggesting that a "dove" dislikes military conflict not out of a sense of principle, but because he is a coward.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about this issue. It's funny, really, because I had to make this same argument to you on the last thread - the rather unexceptional principle that ones arguments should be judged on thier merits, NOT on who he counts among his friends, to whom he is related, where he lives, or whether he is old enough to be drafted.
I found Herm's argument "disgusting" because he suggests that I am not also effected by terrorism unless it actually happens to me - that I am incapable of the same measure of empathy that the "enlightened" appear to have. Also, he told me to "fuck off" - think it was.
2.
Your arguments have no nuance at all. I am no more a "war-mongerer" because I supported the war in Iraq that you are a "coward" for opposing them. Nor are my arguments "inflamatory". My argument is this thread has been measured and tightly constructed - that no matter how ill-advised you think the war in Iraq was to begin with, (a) pulling out before the job is done will be worse for European (and US) security than staying in, (b) that the possibility of terrorism against European nations and the US will not be diminished by pulling out of Iraq, and (c) that the risk of terrorism is manifest even in those countries that did not support US foreign policy. You may or may NOT agree with one or both of these principles, but they're not insane either - like you seem to be suggesting that they are. And they hardly make me a "warmongerer", incapable of measuring and appreciating the value of human life; they are hardly "repugnant bile", as you say.
3.
Why do you "fourth" the sentiments of Mathhew, and fail to see how I could agree with them. I've nothing against doing something about the "popular base of support" for groups like Al Queda. I am pretty sure, though, that permitting Iraq to fall into a state of Sunni or Shi-ite fundamentalist control (or for better or worse, some form of ongoing chaos) will do NOTHING to diminish the popular base of support of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Perhaps, my view is that the BEST way to change this "popular base of support" for Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists is to support the establishment of liberal democratic ideals in the the region. Again, you may or may not agree with this sentiment, but why all the bluster and bile about my personal moral anchoring?
In any event, Mathhew has also said the following on the first page of this thread:
"But of all the very good reasons for not getting involved not wanting to make oneself a target for terrorists sounds like the least persuasive and of course Al-Quaeda would have found some other resason to blow some people up somewhere. I suspect the prime motive in their operations is opportunity".
How exactly is this bit of analysis different from my own? How can you read it, agree with it, and then call my own a bunch of bile, warmongering, etc?
make an argument without calling me a name, impuning my intelligence, or accusing me of have no morals and I'll respond in kind.
Judd
1.
I've already addressed Herm's issue in this thread. Firstly, I said that I was talking about taking political risks - not picking up a gun. Why do you ignore this? Secondly, I explained clearly (I think) why judging the merits of ones arguments with reference to his risk of going to war or being killed in an attack is prejudicial. I said that such an argument is no better than the converse - ie, one suggesting that a "dove" dislikes military conflict not out of a sense of principle, but because he is a coward.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about this issue. It's funny, really, because I had to make this same argument to you on the last thread - the rather unexceptional principle that ones arguments should be judged on thier merits, NOT on who he counts among his friends, to whom he is related, where he lives, or whether he is old enough to be drafted.
I found Herm's argument "disgusting" because he suggests that I am not also effected by terrorism unless it actually happens to me - that I am incapable of the same measure of empathy that the "enlightened" appear to have. Also, he told me to "fuck off" - think it was.
2.
Your arguments have no nuance at all. I am no more a "war-mongerer" because I supported the war in Iraq that you are a "coward" for opposing them. Nor are my arguments "inflamatory". My argument is this thread has been measured and tightly constructed - that no matter how ill-advised you think the war in Iraq was to begin with, (a) pulling out before the job is done will be worse for European (and US) security than staying in, (b) that the possibility of terrorism against European nations and the US will not be diminished by pulling out of Iraq, and (c) that the risk of terrorism is manifest even in those countries that did not support US foreign policy. You may or may NOT agree with one or both of these principles, but they're not insane either - like you seem to be suggesting that they are. And they hardly make me a "warmongerer", incapable of measuring and appreciating the value of human life; they are hardly "repugnant bile", as you say.
3.
Why do you "fourth" the sentiments of Mathhew, and fail to see how I could agree with them. I've nothing against doing something about the "popular base of support" for groups like Al Queda. I am pretty sure, though, that permitting Iraq to fall into a state of Sunni or Shi-ite fundamentalist control (or for better or worse, some form of ongoing chaos) will do NOTHING to diminish the popular base of support of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Perhaps, my view is that the BEST way to change this "popular base of support" for Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists is to support the establishment of liberal democratic ideals in the the region. Again, you may or may not agree with this sentiment, but why all the bluster and bile about my personal moral anchoring?
In any event, Mathhew has also said the following on the first page of this thread:
"But of all the very good reasons for not getting involved not wanting to make oneself a target for terrorists sounds like the least persuasive and of course Al-Quaeda would have found some other resason to blow some people up somewhere. I suspect the prime motive in their operations is opportunity".
How exactly is this bit of analysis different from my own? How can you read it, agree with it, and then call my own a bunch of bile, warmongering, etc?
make an argument without calling me a name, impuning my intelligence, or accusing me of have no morals and I'll respond in kind.
Judd
Posted on: 18 March 2004 by reductionist
quote:
If you guys haven’t already prised open the lid and want a chilling insight into what neo-conservative pond life really want and really think, over and above the dubious gems that Justin cherrypicks, have a quick read of http://www.andrewsullivan.com/ ,. Afterwards, I recommend two large single malts, something from Speyside, to get the nasty taste out of your mouth after the dry heaves.
[This message was edited by bigmick on Thu 18 March 2004 at 15:04.]
The anti-anti-gay stuff seems ok, pity about the rest.