WE, oui?
Two weeks ago, the Underground was the world's busiest subway system, ferrying three million people each day through London.
"Madrid carried terror to the heart of Europe, but we never believed we would be a lonely, unique case," said Jorge Dezcallar, the head of Spain's foreign intelligence service during the Madrid attacks. "[Madrid] just had the bad luck of being chosen as the first target, but not the last. London, like Madrid, proves how vulnerable we are."
And this is who "we" are: Brits and Spaniards, yes, but also Pakistanis, Australians, Israelis, Americans--Christians, Jews, and Muslims--and, oui, the French.
Take Tony Blair, for all that's wrong with the war in Iraq, at his word: "[Islamic extremism] and the violence that is inherent in it did not start a few years ago in response to a particular policy."
Nor should Paris count on Islamofacism's end safely beyond the secularized borders of France, a nation that licenses its clerics, bans religious dress in its schools, and imports more than 400,000 barrels of oil per day from caliph-avorites like Saudi Arabia and Algeria.
Algeria, a Mediterranean neighbor to Spain and the North African Al Qaeda hotspots from which the Madrid bombers came--Morocco and Tunisia--knows terror, too: Between 1992 and 1998, more than 100,000 Algerians were killed during the army-led Algerian government's struggle with the Islamic Salvation Front and other Islamacists such as the Armed Islamic Group. France perhaps remembers the Armed Islamic Group as the terrorists responsible for the 1994 Air France murder-hijacking in which the fully-fueled plane was meant to be crashed into the Eiffel Tower, as well as Paris subway bombings that killed eight people the following year.
No, the Armed Islamic Group attacks against France were not, as those in Madrid and London, the work of Moroccans, or Tunisians, or Pakistanis, or British nationals of Pakistani descent, or Jamaican-born British residents like Germaine Lindsey, who murdered 27 people on the Piccadilly line train. And the Armed Islamic Group had no apparant hand in the Al Qaeda attacks since 2002 against French citizens in Morocco and Tunisia and Pakistan and Yemen.
Yet, somehow, it's all about Iraq?
Posts
9 comments:
Exactly, the terrorists aren't issue based. The anything-but-war crowd insists if we just change our policies we will be left alone. But when a policy is a principle, what does a change mean?
If you want peace you must abandon Isreal. If you want peace you must abandon the democracy movement growing in the fertile crescent. If you want peace you must invite the neighborhood thugs over for the BBQ and serve them burgers with a smile. If you want peace you must join all criminals in a callous disregard for humanity and freedom. You will find nothing more peaceful than a silent battlefield covered by the dead...peace at any cost? Must be a French concept.
That we must resist cannot be argued. How to resist can. Somebody make the case. Hit me one time!
This will make me distinctly unpopular here in blog land, but I do want to point out the French do have actual troops suffering actual wounded and casualties alongside US soldiers in Afghanistan. While it is fun to mock the French because they disagreed with us over Iraq, I do think it’s important to realize they are our allies in a very important theatre of this conflict. Out of simple respect for those that are fighting, and dying, along side us, its time to back-off the French jokes.
Also, I’m not sure what Stalin means by the “anything but war crowd.”
Finally, an attack in France is inevitable, and the French know this. The reality of this conflict is that due to the lack of a definitive target, or nation state, every nation is forced to act in its own best interests. Attacks come at random and are not choreographed through a central command chain. Al Quaeda hit us, some random splinter group hit Indonesia, another random group hit London, some other random splinter group hit Madrid, and some handful of wackos under some random derivation of Al Quaeda will hit France. What we need to get used to is the idea that against a constantly evolving, amorphous enemy, the good guy alliances will also constantly shift. They shouldn’t, its best to always have a united front, but in reality, they will. When the next US President may drastically shift policy, what level of commitment can we honestly expect from our allies? Expecting the rest of the world to stick to our 4 year election cycles and whims is even more fanciful than expecting them to risk their citizens in a conflict they don’t agree with, just because we ask. French leadership is doing what it thinks is best for its citizens, as is US leadership. Each will be rewarded, or punished, according to its own actions. Alliances of convenience or revenge will become the norm in the struggle against terrorism. However, when France is hit, the US will have two options. It can say “I told you so” and silently (or overtly) rejoice, or it can offer a hand.
Our response to an attack on France is not in question...America will help. As deserving of contempt as the current French leadership is, American pettiness could never be justified.
The anything-but-war crowd are the ones who hold that a militaristic approach to terrorism is unjustifiable. They believe that police action - arrests and trials - should be the only solution. Some of them are liberals, some of them are "realists", all of them are mistaken. The ugliest examples are the "peace activists" who called the Iraqi insurgents "freedom fighters" and the US troops "occupiers" as they made the argument that we are getting what we deserve.
The service of certain brave Frenchmen does not elevate the entire body politic above reproach. France has done precious little to contribute to the wellfare of the world community. In fact, it's cynical support of Saddam Hussein, the UN and Iranian chicanery only serves to undermine it. I see no reason to let France off the hook. I only hope they'll take themselves off the hook by changing governments.
And finally, let me just say its a thrill to see UBlo back on the beat.
Yeah,yeah. I was ready to go, when M3K, came out of the blue and aborted the self-destruct. It was almost like a movie. The countdown was 5...4...3...2...(then M3K jumps in and shouts "Abort self-destruct, abort, abort!" then the computer voice says, "Auto-destruct aborted...Hydrablog resumes normal function. Have a nice day." Riveting stuff.
Thank you for the clarification on the "anything but war crowd" or as I like to call them ABWC’s, or "abwook’s." Just to drill down a bit further. When you say "unjustifiable" do you mean no-way-no-how under any circumstances, or do you mean something like "tactically inappropriate/ill conceived/executed at this time, but maybe under new/different info or events?" Or both? And if you mean the first (no way, no how), are you exempting out those who oppose violence for moral or religious reasons?
Enquiring minds want to know.
http://www.content.loudeye.com/scripts/hurl.exe?~a-600111/0793132_0114_00_0002.ra
More after I'm back from the beach.
Let me say that I'm certain it was not the first time M3K saved the day. Just look at that jaw line.
The ABWCs are made up of many subsets. Yes, you named some. There are sincere members (like Quakers) who are principled and consistant. Then there are cynical members like some democrats who are only trying to score political points. But my point is that the application of their ideas will not keep the world safe.
There is nothing wrong with questioning our current use of force. But not all arguments against it are created equal. And not all are generated by an honest hope to find the best solution. The "peace activists" in our colleges today are just as ignorant as their predecessors. The arguments they use are not serious attempts to solve any of the world's problems. Its just white noise.
I can't make a statement about the ABWCs and then add in all the necessary disclaimers and still produce a sentence that anyone would read. So feel free to seek clarity at any point.
I couldn't get M3K's link to work. Was it exciting?
To the 1,800 French troops in Afghanistan--second only to the Germans and the Afghans amongst our allies there--my thanks. I wonder whether the 73 percent of French citizens who in 2001 supported the liberation still do today. It'd be, to me, a telling measure of how the wars after Iraq will, or will not be fought. Blogger, your "best interests"/"good guy alliances" comments point the way with, as always, mad skillz.
There's no harder truth about the war on terror than that Iraq is now one more of the many fronts on which we must fight and win at ever-dearer costs to us and the Iraqis. Invasion was a mistake; retreat would be a catastrophe, and we'd leave Iraq as the global terror state it never was under Saddam. We and whoever will stand firm with us must now and for the years to come hope that, while we're in the neighborhood, we're leading radicalized Islam with our troops like a dog wanting a Wham-O to fight us and die in the streets of Iraq instead of our own.
For Stalin, this was the best reason to go, but Islamicists, unfortunately, are not one, they are many, and many are as willing to die in London, Madrid, Riyadh and cities 'round the world as in Baghdad.
We must, however, stay this course that's led us and our allies astray--there's a need, for example, for NATO as well as African Union troops in Darfur, but the American might and will necessary for this to occur is, thanks to the war in Iraq, neither ready nor welcome. In Africa we should be--and in the years ahead, must be--both.
Yet another discussion in which I have bested all.
THREAD CLOSED!
Post a Comment