The Command Post Op-Ed Page

Time For A Truce?

Thanks to Dhimmi Watch, which points out an OpEd article in Lebanon’s Daily Star, by the hand of Mark LeVine, associate professor of modern Middle Eastern history, culture and Islamic studies at UC.

The government paper supports John Kerry, who promised the Arab world ‘Dramatic change’ if he’s elected President in November. LeVine jumps on this, and offers a suggestion.

A Truce.

It is time for the United States to declare a truce with the Muslim world, and radical Islam in particular.

This may sound like a naive, even defeatist statement in the context of the 9-11 Commission Report’s reminder that the United States remains very much at war with “Islamist terrorism” and the ideas behind it. Yet a truce (Arabic hudna) rather than an increasingly dangerous “clash of civilizations” is the only way to avoid a long, ultimately catastrophic conflict.

But here’s the kicker:

And it’s up to Europe to be the good broker.

Wow. Rather than giving a real alternative strategy here, he simply states that to avoid a long conflict with our enemies, we should just bow before them, and all will be good again. That’s not a solution, that’s surrender. His reasoning for it goes like this:

Indeed, there is no chance for a halt in the “war on terror”, or any fundamental change in US foreign policy as long as George W Bush is president. Even if John Kerry wins the presidential election this November, the possibility that he might initiate such a transformation is slim. However, there is one difference - at least rhetorically - between the two possible presidencies: Kerry has made a point of saying that he would “listen” to European allies and strive to build a common approach to combating terrorism.

European leaders face the threat of an increasingly bloody conflict with Muslim extremists thanks to the continent’s imperial past in the region and, more important today, their perceived support for US policies in Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq. They would be wise to suggest that president Kerry call a truce so that the United States, the European Union, and more broadly the “West” can have the time collectively and publicly to explore the root causes of the violence against them that emanates from the Muslim world - something the 9-11 Commission should have, but did not, do. At least there’s a chance Kerry might listen, especially if the war in Iraq continues to spiral out of America’s control.

He does point out correctly that the Europeans, if given half a chance, would give anything to just be left alone, without any guarantees for future safety of her continent. Remember, its history is rife with examples of appeasing a strengthening enemy, blindly hoping that it will all go away if we just give them what they want. Chamberlain, and recently Zapatero in Spain, are good examples. And the fact that Osama Bin Laden has offered Europe a truce only underscores this. Though they did not take him up on it the last time, I believe this had more to do with the fact that with President Bush in the White House, there would be nothing to gain from it. With a President Kerry covering their cowardice with a new doctrine, Europe’s momentary steadfastiness won’t last long.

His truce offer itself is a riot. Not only does it include a complete kneefall before Islamists everywhere, it also only seems to carry obligations for the US and Europe. LeVine asks nothing from our enemies, except to maybe (though he does not mention this) please stop killing us. It also leaves Israel alone in the world, a small price, like Czechoslovakia once was, for peace in our time.

From the US and European side, a meaningful hudna with Islam would include (but not be limited to) the following steps:

First, just as most every mainstream Muslim personality has condemned Muslim extremism, the next US president must be prodded by his European counterparts to take the important psychological step of admitting US responsibility for the harm decades of support for dictatorship, corruption and war have caused ordinary Muslims, especially in the Middle East.

Second, the US, the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should halt all offensive military actions in the Muslim world and outline a serious plan for the removal of troops from Muslim countries, including Afghanistan and Iraq. (These could be replaced, where necessary, by robust United Nations peacekeeping forces or UN-assisted transitional administrations.) The hunt for Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and related terror networks would then be transformed from a war of vengeance into what it always should have been: a vigorous international effort led by the US, the UN and, where relevant, European and other governments to apprehend, prosecute and punish people and groups involved in the September 11, 2001, assaults and similar attacks.

Third, all military and diplomatic agreements and aid to Middle Eastern countries that aren’t democratic or don’t respect the rights of the peoples under their control should be suspended. Yes, this means for Israel as well as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other “allies” and “partners”. This is crucial to stopping the regional arms race and cycle of violence that make peace and democratic reform impossible.

Finally, the hundreds of billions of dollars that would have been devoted to the “war on terror” should be redirected toward the kind of infrastructural, educational and social projects the 9-11 Commission Report argues are key to winning the “war on terror”.

It contains two poignant contradictions, both related to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. In his first point he states that going after Bin Laden in Afganistan would be acceptable under this truce, but in the same point he also states that all Western troops would have to be removed from Muslim lands. So how would we go after Bin Laden then? By serving him with a soebpena?

Secondly, he states that the West would need to sever all ties with any repressive or undemocratic Middle Eastern country (which means all, save maybe a future Iraq and Afghanistan, although a troop pullout will have both countries run either by Iran or the Taliban within no time). But with whom do we sign the truce then? The Islamists themselves who also oppose these regimes? Who, under point one, are fair game to go after?

It’s capitulation. It freaks me out to think that LeVine actually teaches this crap.

First published at Southern Watch.

The Threat Exists

I haven’t seen so much chest pounding since watching Mighty Joe Young. The usual suspects (I won’t link to them. They know who they are and you know who they are) are all clamoring to proclaim that Howard Dean was right and that the Bush administration is politicizing the war on terror. It’s based on this super spinning article in the NY Times that reveals the information which led to increased terror alerts in New York, Washington and Neward is 3-4 years old.

The fact that the bulk of the information is 3-4 years old does not mean the threat does not exist. Does anybody seriously think these attacks are planned a couple of weeks in advance? They take years to plan and carry out. The 9/11 attack plans were hatched 5-7 years before they took place. The African embassy attacks were 3-5 years in the making.

In addition, the information found had been updated as recently as January. What was Tom Ridge and the administration supposed to do? Flush this stuff down the toilet and dismiss it because most of it was 3-4 years old? What if one of these buildings were attacked and the press got wind of the fact the administration was in possession of these documents but said nothing of them? The howl of outrage from the same people feigning outrage today would be loud enough to shatter windows.

In an amazing display of chutzpah, the critics of the administration are now lambasting the administration for doing what they lambasted them for not doing prior to the 9/11 attacks: Issuing warnings and taking steps to prevent such attacks from taking place. The administration is doing precisely what it should be doing.

What would those who are complaining have done? Judging by their reaction, the only possible thing they would have done is: nothing. According to them, it was all cooked up by the administration in an attempt to deflect attention away from Kerry’s mini-bounce coming out of the convention. It’s for that reason alone, that I cannot fathom supporting Democrats in the upcoming election. If they cannot be trusted to take this kind of intelligence seriously, why then should they be entrusted with our national security?

Europe Is Not Prepared

The more details come out of the investigation into the Madrid bombings of March 11 of this year, the more I am beginning to get the feeling that I’m walking around with a big target pinned to my back, while the government seems to be calling ‘over here!’ to our enemies. The first stages of paranoia? Mmm, maybe. I’ll try and explain, then you tell me if I’m sliding.

When Italian police arrested Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed in Milan, considered to be one of the masterminds behind the Madrid attacks, they had been tapping his phone conversations for three months. The wealth of information about the planning and motivation of the attacks, is just starting to come out now. Yesterday, Spanish newspaper El Mundo (link in Spanish, local copy kept here)
published new details from the transcripts of Rabei Osman, aka ‘Muhammad the Egyptian’, in which at the end he mentions a weapon they devised, which looks like a blow dryer and would cause convulsions and high fever (translated, emphasis mine):

Rabei Osman El Sayed Ahmed, aka ‘Muhammad the Egyptian’, considered to be the brain behind the terrorist attacks of March 11, and arrested in Italy, said that “Madrid is a lesson to Europe, they need to break with the US” and praised the head of the Spanish government, Rodríguez Zapatero, “for valuing Arabs”

‘The Egyptian’ also called for a large-scale attack in Italy like in Madrid, he assured that Berlusconi is “a dictator” and that his government “will have the same ending as that of Aznar”, for following “the American dog”, as he referred to George Bush.

[…]

“Madrid is a lesson to Europe, which must understand that they need to break with the Americans. The Berlusconi government is following the same methods as the dog (referring to Bush) and I hope that God will eliminate this government of Berlusconi because it’s dictatorial and a destroyer of Islam. We hope that God will give them [Berlusconi government -ed.] a disaster, and that so Italy will have a disaster”, stated ‘the Egyptian’.

[…]

They’re slaves, now that the dog (Bush) comes [this was on the day of President Bush’s visit to Rome -ed.] they put all these controls in place which serve nothing, if we want to strike, we can. It’s Berlusconi’s fault, who is a great dictator”, states the terrorist. ‘The Egyptian’ adds that according to him, all countries that follow the US “will have the same fate as Aznar”.

He underlines that after the Madrid attacks, which caused 192 victims, “all the Arabs and all the Spanish went onto the streets, calling Aznar a murderer”.

Continuing his conversation, ‘the Egyptian’ has words of praise for the president of the Spanish government, stating that José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero “inmediately understood the importance of the Arabs, and his rise to power has opened a dialogue”.

He attacks Berlusconi again, and they are talking about if what happened in Madrid would take place in Italy, the blame would be on Berlusconi, “whoever follows this dog (Bush) will hurt himself”.

On the same day, but later, ‘the Egyptian’ returns to talk with his friends and he talks with them about a weapon, “in the shape of a hair dryer”, which “causes a lot of damage to your health”.

He adds that when this weapon, of which more details are lacking, starts to blow hot air, “it heats the temperature a couple of degrees, the body will start to suffer convulsions and it weakens [the target -ed.]and the (body) temperature starts to rise”.

My first instinct says Ricin, don’t know why, but it may also be Anthrax, but that tends to take longer to cause effect. I’m not a toxin expert here, but Ricin in powdered form, distributed by blow dryers?

Now, this is bad enough, but look at this recent Reuters report about the same terrorist. During his stay in Paris, he was directing the cell(s) in Madrid by phone, masking his calls by hacking into a local bank’s phone switch:

Prosecutors this month began a probe into a flurry of calls to Spain and Morocco from a bank in the Val-de-Marne area.

The calls increased significantly in the days before the attack and stopped a few hours before the bombs ripped through a series of commuter trains on March 11, killing 191 people, according to the daily newspaper Le Parisien.

Police have established that the calls were made by “phreaking” — a practice similar to hacking that bypasses the charging system.

The paper said Rabei Osman Ahmed es-Sayed, alias Mohamed the Egyptian, a suspect in the attacks who was arrested in Milan in June, spent several months in Val-de-Marne last year.

I tried this myself for a while, back in the eighties, but never got it to work, it is hard to do, even though the average techie will snuff at it. This is an enemy using low-end means in a counter-counter terrorist fashion, which absolutely worked.

There’s one tidbit of information more I wanted to share. This week it came to light in the local press here, that a second car was used to bring the terrorists to the train stations. It was detected in June, three months after the attacks. On the first day they found a minivan, with detonators and tapes with coranic verses. This time, the police were alerted by the rental company Hertz, who recovered a stolen car from the same spot where they found the minivan, and while cleaning it, they came across a box with clothes, and again tapes. DNA testing proved two persons had been in touch with the items, one a presumed cell leader who blew himself and six other terrorists up, when their hideout was stormed in a suburb of Madrid (they started tearing down the building yesterday), and the other one, well his DNA was found in the other car, but he remains at large.

And now the politicians are calling each other names, because the government decided to keep this under wraps until this week. Recall if you will the whole setup by the Socialists directly after the attacks, inmediately spreading rumors that Aznar’s government was lying, (leading exactly to all these Spaniards flooding the streets calling for Aznar’s head, to the joy of the terrorists we now know). The PP is fuming that they were forced to inmediately make everything public right after the first attack, while the Socialists are now claiming that they didn’t want to harm the ongoing investigation.

I said it right after the attacks, the real-time reporting of progress, by the Interior minister and heads of police, directly endangered the investigation itself, but the PP government felt itself cornered, defending against rumor mongering to which there really was no defense.

Meanwhile, there are intelligent and tech-savvy terrorist cells and at least one plotter of the Madrid attacks out there, and they’re working on some Doomsday Weapon.

So, am I being paranoid?

first published at Southern Watch.

Courage Versus Hate

It was Courage versus Hate….from the moment they stormed the cockpit to the second they brought down the plane.

Some in the Arab world will make the case that hate won — that Al Qaeda’s merciless terrorists, after murdering the pilots, brought down Flight 93 before the rebelling passengers could get to them. But, in reality, Courage won — because the passengers weren’t going to take it and signalled in that instant that the days of passive passengers trusting thugs who take over their airplanes were definitely over.

The bipartisan 911 Commission report contains a chilling account of what went on board on that plane. It’s a story for the ages.

But it won’t need the impact of ages: as soon as you read it you realize that in that moment when the passengers rebelled, the terrorists job became that much more difficult forever more. You can read it all here but we offer these key highlights from a New York Times report:

——(After Captain and passengers knew about the other hijackings and got warnings about possible attempts to enter the cockpit..JG)Two minutes later, the hijackers attacked Captain Dahl and his first officer.

Unlike the three other hijackings, Flight 93 continued transmitting over the radio during the struggle in the cockpit. The captain or first officer declared “Mayday,” and 35 seconds later, one of them shouted, “Hey, get out of here get out of here get out of here.” Later, passengers reported seeing two bodies outside the cockpit, injured or dead, probably the pilots….

—-A lot of the passengers used cell phones to call the ground.

—They were stormed by the passengers. And they knew it. And they knew they were losing…so:

At three seconds after 10 a.m., Mr. Jarrah is heard on the cockpit voice recorder saying: “Is that it? Shall we finish it off?”

But another hijacker responds: “No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off.”

The voice recorder captured sounds of continued fighting, and Mr. Jarrah pitched the plane up and then down. A passenger is heard to say, “In the cockpit. If we don’t we’ll die!”

Then a passenger yelled “Roll it!” Some aviation experts have speculated that this was a reference to a food cart, being used as a battering ram.

Mr. Jarrah “stopped the violent maneuvers” at 10:01:00, according to the report, and said, “Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!”

“He then asked another hijacker in the cockpit, `Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?’ to which the other replied, `Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.’ “

Eighty seconds later, a hijacker is heard to say, “Pull it down! Pull it down!”

“The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them,” according to the report, which seems to indicate that the hijackers themselves crashed the plane. “With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes’ flying time from Washington, D.C,” according to the report

.

So there you have it: hijackers consumed with hatred for the West and the United States, determined to use an airplane as guided missle, in control of a plane after murdering the pilots and seeking their own and the passengers’ deaths. Courageous passengers of all backgrounds and sexes, not sitting back and taking it. THOSE PASSENGERS launched the war against terrorism…in that plane.

In the end, the hijackers — knowing they would lose control of the plane — in their final contemptuous act thinking they would “win” by crashing it into the ground and killing everyone. So they aimed the plane down. And when it was over, the passengers’ souls ascended and the terrorists souls descended into eternal damnation.

And the story of Flight 93 lives on in history.

Which Side Are We On Anyway?

[Picture not available. Please go over to the original post to see the accompanying photo.]

Look at this photo. Just look at it. Some sports hero advertising the latest isotone drink? A flamenco dancer’s album cover? The latest contestant in the Spanish version of Idols?

Wrong. This is Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed, fresh out of Guantanamo and recently released on a €3000 bail by Judge Garzón, after he ensured to him in an interview that he denounced terrorism. And if he gave him that look, who could have said no?

Disgusting, I keep seeking a decent expression of the revulsion I felt reading this interview in El Mundo newspaper (in Spanish, local copy kept here) with the unlawful combattant picked up by the Pakistani army in November 2001. We reported on his release here, mentioning back then that the press seemed to be celebrating, rather than reporting facts.

And that seems to be true, reading the interview in El Mundo. Writer Juan Carlos de la Cal interviews the man on route to his home in Spanish Ceuta, the Spanish enclave in Morocco from which Abderrahman hails, making every effort to ‘humanize’ the ‘Spanish Taliban’ as he’s known in the press.

Hamed Abderraman Ahmed, Hamido para su familia, tenía 26 años cuando bajó el empinado callejón por el que se llega a su estrecha casa, en el laberíntico centro de la barriada ceutí del Príncipe.Era una soleada mañana de junio de 2001, víspera de San Pedro para los cristianos. Bajó la mirada al despedirse de su enfermo padre. Contuvo las lágrimas cuando besó a su madre. Esbozó una forzada sonrisa cuando acarició las cabezas de algunos de sus sobrinos.

Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed, Hamido to his family, was 26 years when he went down the steep alley which led to his small house, in the labyrinth of the Ceuta Principe quarter. It was a sunny morning of June of 2001, the eve of San Pedro to the Christians. He lowered his head while saying goodbye to his sick father. He held back his tears when he kissed his mother. He forced a smile while caressing the heads of some of his nephews.

And it goes on like this. Ahmed tells of his journey from Madrid to Afghanistan, and the reporter interjects that he flew out of Madrid to Tehran on July 4, the American national holiday, which ‘surprised Ahmed’.

No tenía ningún contacto ni nadie me organizó el viaje. En Ceuta conocí a algunas personas que habían estado en la zona y que me dieron algunos consejos. Nada más. Desde el mismo aeropuerto de Teherán cogí un taxi para la frontera que me costó muy barato: unas 1.500 pesetas por un trayecto de un par de horas, casi como desde Málaga a Algeciras”. Hamido habla todavía en pesetas porque cuando se marchó el euro no existía.

I didn’t have any contact and nobody organized the trip. In Ceuta I knew some people who had been there [Afghanistan -V-Man] and they gave me some tips. Nothing else. From the same airport in Tehran I took a taxi to the border, which was very cheap: 1.500 pesetas [about 12 dollars -V-Man] for a trip of a couple of hours, about from Málaga to Algeciras”. Hamido still speaks of pesetas, because when he went, the Euro didn’t exist.

Note that the reporter calls him by his family-given first name, which he does for the entire interview. Habderrahman tells of his reception at the Afghanistan border, where he was welcomed by Taliban border guards, accustomed to receiving foreigners, and got him a taxi ride to Kandahar, where he stayed in a Madrassa, with other, mostly Asian, foreigners. He notes that the Taliban have brought peace to the country, and well, HE never minded the women in Burkas.

But he tells this, after the reporter’s insistence to his audience that ‘now comes the hard part’ of the interview:

Llega el momento de las preguntas incómodas. Aún con la presencia de su solvente abogado, no queremos entrar en juicios de valor.Hamido está especialmente sensibilizado sobre el tema. No olvidamos que estamos ante un hombre que ha sido interrogado cientos de veces por policías, militares y jueces de varias nacionalidades.

The moment comes of the uncomfortable questions. Still in the presence of his court appointed lawyer, we don’t want to pass value judgements. Hamido is very sensitive on the whole subject. We must not forget that we are before a man who has been interrogated hundreds of times by police, soldiers and judges of various nationalities.

Follows his description of 9/11, leaving Kandahar for the Pakistan border with a group of fellow students of the Madrassa he was at. On the Pakistan side of the border, they were picked up by the Pakistan army and after being detained for some time, handed over to US forces, who took him back, first to Kandahar, and then saw fit to move him on to Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo (you know, where all religious students were sent to).

He tells of the evil Americans guarding them, the humiliation, the horror of it all, down to the depression he suffered, yada yada yada. And then he gives us this little gem:

- ¿Es verdad que les dijo a los representantes consulares españoles que cuando le liberaran quería ir a luchar con los chechenos?

“Sí, pero lo dije siguiendo una consigna que funcionaba entre los prisioneros del campamento. Allí pensábamos que como los americanos son enemigos de los rusos, les iba a gustar esa relación”.

- Is it true that you told the representatives of the Spanish consulate that when they let you go, you wanted to go and fight with the Chechens?

“Yes, but I told them that following advice which was going around among the prisoners at the camp. There we thought that because the Americans were the enemies of the Russians, they would like that story”.

Sounds like lawyers talking to me. This guy is still under investigation for pertaining to Al Qaeda in Spain, and we have reporters from all over celebrating his freedom from the clutches of Evil America.

We have buried the dead of the Madrid bombings, and with it our heads it seems. We pulled out of Iraq, we are sanitizing terrorist suspects, Wahhabi mosques in our midst are treated as ‘moderate’, we insist upon prosecuting terrorists as criminals and we’ll do generally whatever it takes to show the Islamofacsists that we have learned our lesson, and please don’t bomb us again. Thereby converting Spain in precisely the type of target for any future ‘quick fix’ success they need to keep the Jihad going.

Remember, there’s Spanish troops in Afghanistan. And over the horizon is the never forgotten pain over the loss of Al Andalus.

First published at Southern Watch.

Summer Tourorism

This was in the news yesterday, but didn’t get around to posting on it. Spanish anti-terrorism judge Baltasár Garzon claims that there are about 100 Al Qaeda Cells inside Moroccan territory:

Madrid - Morocco - home to most of the suspects in the Madrid train bombing - is teeming with some 100 al-Qaeda-linked cells that are capable of suicide attacks and pose Europe’s biggest terrorist threat, Spain’s leading anti-terrorism judge testified on Thursday.

Each cell has five to 10 members, “so we are talking about 900 to 1 000 people who could be sought by police now in Morocco,” Judge Baltasar Garzon told lawmakers investigating the March 11 attacks, which killed 190 people. Garzon quoted police and intelligence data.

“In my opinion it is the gravest problem Europe faces today with this kind of terrorism,” Garzon said, noting that many of those groups are in northern Morocco, with members who speak perfect Spanish and are able to slip easily in and out of Spain.

Garzon has little positive to say about the EU’s attempts to fight islamic terrorism:

He also complained that European law enforcement bodies, intelligence services and courts lack a clearly defined strategy for fighting Islamic terrorism.

“At least I don’t know of one yet, despite all the efforts that are being made,” Garzon said.

Of course, this isn’t news, but it is reason for concern. The EU is more and more becoming like an example of cat herding, in my opinion. All good when you’re dealing with the size of bananas and fiscal harmonization, but the threat of terrorism looming over Europe is too important to fight by concensus, which always brings out the lowest common denominator, and usually two years late.

On the same note, Spain’s Southern Coast is the main transit point for Moroccans living throughout Europe, returning to their motherland for the summer vacation. Referred to in Spanish as Operación Paso de Estrecho (Operation Crossing of the Straight), between July and August every day more than fifty-thousand (50,000) Moroccans cross the Straight, with peaks to going over 100,000 a day. On this page (in Spanish) on the left side there is a pull down menu with which you can show the daily flow of cars, passengers etc. making the crossing. Operation Paso is renowned for its efficiency in getting as many across in as little time possible.

In 2003, more than 2,5 million Moroccans and more than 600,000 cars made the crossing by ferry, going to Morocco and coming back one month later. For this year, they’re expecting more than 2,8 millian Magreb-born immigrants to make the crossing.

Spain’s police forces have warned (link in Spanish) that the crossing may be taken advantage of to get terrorists across and into Europe. A total of 7,000 combined police forces have been allocated to oversee the crossings.

Which means that this summer, if Al Qaeda would like to smuggle in say, ten cells into Europe, each consisting of ten terrorists, making 100 terrorists, they can hide them between 2,5 million Moroccan tourists, which are watched over by 7,000 police officers along the entire southern coast of Spain.

Odds, anyone?

First published at Southern Watch

No War On Terror, No Liberties Either

GAL, a three-letter acronym that can get any Spanish socialist up in a tizzy, and his back against the wall. Short for Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación, or Anti-terrorist Liberation Groups, this was a shadowy death squad, funded and operated by the Spanish socialist government of Felipe Gonzalez between 1983 and 1987. Its aim was to deny safe haven to ETA terrorists, by kidnapping and killing them, inside Spain, and in the French part of Basque province.

During the late eighties the first GAL members were arrested when trying to hire killers, which led to an inquiry in 1994. Two years later, the socialists were ousted from government by a victory for the Popular Party. The socialists might have won still, as ETA was and continues to be much hated and Spaniards generally felt little if no compassion towards them, were it not that of the 23 extra-judicial killings, about one third had no relation with ETA. A fact that many say contributed to a revival in ETA’s support from Basque reactionaries. To this date, Gonzalez and his socialist PSOE party deny every direct involvement with GAL, which is commonly referred to as Spain’s ‘Dirty War’.

Now, twenty years later, Spain’s Attorney General, Candido Conde-Pumpido, is comparing the Bush Administration’s anti-terrorist politics with GAL. Speaking at Madrid’s Universidad Complutense, the attorney appointed by Zapatero stated:

As part of the summer courses of the Universidad Complutense, Conde-Pumpido stated that the United States have responded to the terrorist violence “with more violence and to throw out all legality”, like what “happened in Spain at the end of the seventies and the start of the eighties”. To Pumpido, who during those years was a magistrate in one of the provincial courts of San Sebastian [Basque Province -V-Man], this attitude, far from solving the problem, “created more terrorism”.

He then goes on to state that because of Spain’s experience with terrorism, the world, and specifically the United States, should take note of how to defeat terrorism:

The State Attorney General suggested that the experience of Spain in the fight against barbarism centers on three ideas. The first one is the acknowledgement that “the fight against terrorism is not to be seen as a war, because the terrorists aren’t combattants, they’re delinquents and criminals and the fight needs to be fought with legal proceedings and procedures”.

Secondly, he commented that our country provides a system, specialized in the prosecution of terrorism, the ‘Audiencia Nacional’. “A centralized system which carries an enormous number of advantages with it, which do not exist in other countries, and make them seek procedures outside the normal justice system, like for instance Guantanamo, because no systems exist like the Audiencia Nacional”, he explained.

The third point Conde-Pumpido mentioned, is the thesis that “you cannot respond to violence with violence”. “When Spain responded with violence things went bad for her in her fight against terrorism”, on the contrary, “nowadays we use the law, and only the law, but with maximum force, and we are further than ever in our fight against ETA’s terrorism”. The Attorney General expressed his conviction that “using the same proceedings we can defeat Islamic terrorism”.

To counter his arguments on how to fight terrorism, I sincerely do believe that we are fighting a war, which needs to be taken to the enemy, rather than serve them with legal papers after they strike, as President Bush has stated so many times.

How do you prosecute a terrorist organization, intent on the destruction of your civilization, hiding out in failed states which have no functioning legal system nor extradition treaties? How do you wait for the ‘criminal’ act to take place, when you know that the evidence may come in 2,000, 10,000 or in the case of the Madrid bombings, 191 dead innocent citizens?

The second point is truly a gift to respond to. Because it shows exactly the difference between European and American ways of dealing with terrorism, and by extent, personal freedoms. He speaks as the true bureaucrat, when there is a problem, we’ll make a law for it, and another and another, until we have such great laws that we can prosecute it from every angle, and convict without exception. And then pound his chest and have the whole world take note of the ‘advanced’ legal system they built, truly a model for the world.

The Audiencia Nacional was formed in 1976, right after the transition from Franco’s dictatorship, and was modeled after Franco’s Tribunal de Orden Publico (‘Tribunal of Public Order). Spain has a long history of these types of tribunals, going back to the civil war which ended 1882. The role of these tribunals has always been to actively investigate and prosecute (not separated, judges have wide-ranging investigative powers, can hold defendants for years without charges being brought, and ultimately judge them) terrorist or before the Audiencia Nacional’s founding, subversive elements.

The sad thing is, he doesn’t see it. He thinks the United States of America would embrace this type of tribunal when seeing it in action. Sure, it works wonders when you’re fighting terrorists, but doesn’t it leave a whole lot of power in the hands of the government? And doesn’t it take away a whole lot more rights from citizens?

His final point on which he bases his entire view of how to prosecute the War on Terror is a fallacy. He states that answering violence with violence is wrong, not because it would be wrong per sé to do so, but because the result in Spain has shown that terrorism flared up afterwards. He doesn’t realize that this was not a result of violence being dealt at the terrorists, but how it was dealt. With a government death squad. Therefore, his conclusion that violence can never be answered with violence is based on the premise that all government action to counter terrorism would be illegal and uncontrollable. Which, for an Attorney General, shows little confidence either in his democracy or his party.

To sum up, it is not the means with which the fight against terrorism is fought that creates more terrorism, as Spain’s highest prosecutor states, but rather as was in the case of Spain, setting loose an uncontrolable band of kidnappers and assasins, targeting who they thought were terrorist, without any recourse. A government attempting to do that, will see the public’s support disappear like snow before the Spanish sun, and give the terrorists legitimate ammunition to score public relations points.

And finally, I hope some liberal civil rights activists will read this post. You may worry about the Patriot Acts, I and II. Believe me, you can go up to Patriot Act XII and still have more civil liberties than the average European.

The article (in Spanish) can be found here, if it has moved to a paid archive, I kept a local transcript here.

First published at Southern Watch.

Profiles In Terrorism

I picked up an interesting article in the Washington Times, from Hannah K. Strange of UPI. She interviews Marc Sageman, who wrote “Understanding Terror Networks,” and teaches at the University of Pennsylvania. He’s also a counterterrorism adviser to the U.S. government.

In the interview, Sageman tells us that it’s a myth to believe that terrorists are poor, fanatically religious and would carry a huge chip on their shoulders. He bases his findings on research which involved studying 400 members of terrorist networks from North Africa, the Middle East, Malaysia and Indonesia.

Of this sample, he said, 75 percent come from upper- or middle-class backgrounds, and most also from “caring, intact” families. Sixty percent were college educated and 75 percent could be considered professional or semi-professional. Seventy percent were married, and most had children.
Only half came from a religious background, and a large group raised in North Africa or France grew up in entirely secular communities, which, Dr. Sageman said, “refutes the notion of culture,” often cited as a factor encouraging terrorism.
He rejected the idea of terrorists as “inherently evil.”
“None of these guys, really, are evil — though their acts definitely were.” Neither are they mentally ill, he said. Of those studied, he said, only 1 percent had hints of psychological disorders — the same as the world base rate.
“Most of [them] were the elite of the country,” he said.
Many were sent abroad to study, became lonely and isolated from their communities and cultures, and sought friends among people like themselves. They often found them in groups based around mosques, even if they had little previous interest in religion, Dr. Sageman added.
Seventy percent joined a jihad — “holy war” — group while away from their country of origin, he said, and a further 20 percent were second-generation immigrants. Sixty-eight percent had friends in the jihad, or joined as groups. An additional 20 percent had close relatives who were already members.

His remarks on Salafism are interesting, Northern Africa is home to many followers. Overlooked by many is the notion that Salafists are in fact followers of Wahhabism, since Wahhabists detest to be called as such. Explains Khaled Abou El Fadl, Distinguished Fellow in Islamic Law at the UCLA School of Law: (quoted from a different article)

But Wahhabism did not spread in the modern Muslim world under its own banner. Even the term “Wahhabism” is considered derogatory by its adherents, since Wahhabis prefer to see themselves as the representatives of Islamic orthodoxy. To them, Wahhabism is not a school of thought within Islam, but is Islam. The fact that Wahhabism rejected a label gave it a diffuse quality, making many of its doctrines and methodologies eminently transferable. Wahhabi thought exercised its greatest influence not under its own label, but under the rubric of Salafism. In their literature, Wahhabi clerics have consistently described themselves as Salafis, and not Wahhabis.

Sagem seems to disagree, from reading his interpretation of Salafism:

Salafi, “the re-creation of the practices of the devout ancestors,” as Dr. Sageman last year told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, is inherently a peaceful social movement, with about 30 million followers worldwide.
Dr. Sageman pointed out that more than half of the terrorists in his sample worshipped at only 10 mosques worldwide.
Salafis generally advocate the formation of a model Islamic society “based on fairness and justice” by nonviolent means. But there is a violent strand, he said.
This violent group develops what he called “in-group love and out-group hate.” It sees those standing in the way of the true Islamic community as “infidels,” who, according to distorted interpretations of the Koran, can justifiably be killed.
Targets include Arab leaders viewed as oppressive or corrupt, such as the Saudi royal family, and, particularly in the case of networks such as al Qaeda, the “far enemy,” Dr. Sageman said, meaning those Western countries seen to be aiding such leaders, chiefly the United States.

The considerably mild tone in Sagem’s description of Salafism can be related to his final verdict on the War on Terror. According to him, we will never to win with weapons and intelligence, but we more or less brought it on ourselves, so we need to engage in a war of ideas.

Therefore, Dr. Sageman said, it is “almost trivial to arrest terrorists acting right now, against preventing the next generation.” Though we must, he said, “eliminate the immediate and present threat to the U.S. and the West, much of our focus needs to be on the war of ideas. “Our military options have run out,” he said.
“We have to stop shooting ourselves in the foot,” Dr. Sageman said.
“Much of the [present] anger is because of the run-up to Iraq, the occupation of Iraq. … The way we’ve handled the Israel-Palestine issue has not played well in the Muslim world. We need to appear much fairer and just in our dealings with both sides than we have been in the last few years.”

So, in the end, it’s the ‘Root Causes’ caravan again. Rather than to seek blame with us, it is Islam that needs to reform itself, and weed out the sects that preach a return to 11th century beliefs, and seek the spread of their religion by killing its opponents. We can and will help in this process where possible, but in the end it’s up to muslims everywhere to challenge these clerics, and to ensure that others don’t fall prey to them by looking at the early warning signals Sagem writes about.

First published at Southern Watch.

The Polishing Of Al Qaeda

Much how I hate to push down all those nice 4th of July pictures, it’s my first post to the Op-Ed pages of the Command Post, where I’m hoping to share some views with you all from Madrid, Spain, which is where I live. Most posts appear on my blog Southern Watch as well (unshameless plug, last time I promise), which deals mostly with the War on Terror, and how it affects Spain and Northern Africa. Because I follow the Spanish and North African press, some links to articles will lead to Spanish or French articles.

I’m not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but with regards to Spain’s socialist government’s and the liberal press’ handling of the March 11 attacks, I keep having this feeling that something is very wrong here. It’s like they want to forget, move on, hoping (and in many cases believing) that the Madrid bombings were somehow a deserved payback for Spain’s support of the liberation of Iraq, so Spain can now be considered safe from Islamist terror. These are things almost impossible to say out loud over here.

Recently, one hundred days passed since the bombings, without any official rememberance ceremony. On the contrary, on June 9, Madrid City Council revealed a replacement for the spontaneous memorials erected at the targeted stations, replacing candles, notes and flowers with a cold, sterile video wall and a website, on which pictures of the now cleaned up memorials are displayed. The reason for this? Station and railway workers were having a hard time dealing with the memorials day after day, and it kept them from recovering. These railway workers must have endured all this stress at least, say, 50 days, before asking for the removal? And knowing a bit more about organized labor here, I can very well imagine a labor union (which are all in some way linked to the socialist party) pushing for this on behalf of the government? But that’s when my rational side usually stops me from endulging in more conspiring.

But I digress, although it helps introducing what I really wanted to write about, namely the ‘polishing up’ of Al Qaeda. Ever so softly, it seems the agenda set by the press (the US as the true enemy of peace), the government (you can’t shoot your way out of any situation, you need to talk and work together) seems to evoke a reenforcing response by the other. Today it struck me for the first time, seeing references made here and in El Periódico to “Al Qaeda’s military wing” I’m mentioning El Periódico specifically, because it also carries an interview with Diaa Rechuan, quoted as an ‘expert on pacifist and violent Islamism’, who works at the ‘prestigious’ Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies in Egypt.

The Al-Ahram Centre is the research center of the Al-Ahram group of newspapers, state-owned and widely known for its open anti-semitism. For a good starting point on what Al-Ahram stands for, check out this MEMRI special report on the newspaper, and the anti-semitic and anti-american cartoons that grace its pages.

Because I had no link, I’ve pasted (and translated) the interview below. Remember, this is a respectable Spanish newspaper passing this on as an ‘expert opinion’

Al Qaeda no es una red sino sólo un modelo, asegura un experto

La red terrorista Al Qaeda no existe como tal, se ha convertido en un modelo que multitud de grupos terroristas utilizan según su conveniencia, y ni siquiera en Irak está presente, según cree uno de los mayores expertos del mundo.

Diaa Rechuan, experto en islamismo pacífico y violento en el prestigioso Centro Al Ahram de Estudios Estratégicos, ha explicado a Efe que Al Qaeda se está convirtiendo “en una especie de MacDonald’s, una marca o franquicia que muchos se quieren atribuir y para lo que no hace falta más que un requisito: extender el terror en nombre del islam”.

Después del 11-S

Al Qaeda nació probablemente después del 11 de septiembre del 2001, no antes, y ahora está operativa solo en Afganistán, Pakistán, el centro de Asia, el este de África y algún lugar de la Península Arábiga, pero carece de mando central operativo y Osama bin Laden ya solo actúa como inspirador, pues su capacidad de reunión y reclutamiento es nula, según Rechuan.

El hombre que Estados Unidos considera jefe de Al Qaeda en Irak, el jordano Abu Musab al Zarqaui, probablemente no tiene nada que ver con Al Qaeda, pues los ataques antishiís que se le atribuyen —como los del pasado marzo en Bagdad y Kerbala, con 143 muertos— no entran dentro del estilo de Al Qaeda, asegura el experto.

Explica que Al Qaeda sigue siempre una política constante: atacar a los que considera “infieles” y a sus aliados, pero no a una multitud de shiís en una mezquita, pese a que Bin Laden y sus hombres, todos ellos sunís, no profesen ninguna simpatía por el shiísmo.

Rechuan tiene sus dudas de que Zarqaui, por el que EEUU ofrece una recompensa de 25 millones de dólares, sea en realidad tan importante como Washington dice que es, y asegura que ha sido el secretario de Estado, Colin Powell, el que ha hecho famoso a Zarqaui.

Dudas de su relación con el 11-M

También duda de que Al Qaeda haya tenido algo que ver en el atentado del pasado 11 de marzo en Madrid, pues significaría un fallo estrepitoso de los servicios de seguridad españoles, fallo que sería más comprensible si se tratara de un grupo que actuaba por su cuenta y riesgo.

Advierte este experto de que Al Qaeda no desmiente su participación en atentados que se le atribuyen siempre que éstos cumplan con ‘un patrón común’: golpear a los infieles o a sus aliados, pues así se va engrosando el mito del “terror global”.

Sin embargo, sí ha desmentido su vinculación con los atentados antishiís, recuerda.

Al Qaeda is no network but just a model, assures an expert

The terrorist network Al Qaeda doesn’t exist as such, it has converted into a model which multiple terrorist groups use it to fit its purposes, and isn’t even present in Iraq, so thinks one of the biggest experts in the world.

Diaa Rechuan, expert in pacifist and violent islamism at the prestigious Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, explained to Efe [Spanish news agency -VM] that Al Qaeda is changing itself in “a type of McDonald’s, a brand or franchise to which much is attributed, and for which the only prerequisite is to spread terror in the name of Islam”.

After 9/11

Al Qaeda was probably conceived after September 11, 2001, not before, and now it operates only in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the center of Asia, the east of Africa and someplace on the Arabian peninsula, but lacks a central operational command and Osama Bin Laden now just acts as inspiration, since his capacity to meet and recruit are zero, according to Rechuan.

The man the United States consider the head of Al Qaeda in Irak, the Jordan Abu Musab al Zarqawi, probably has nothing to do with Al Qaeda, since the anti-Shi’a attacks they attribute to him —like the ones last March in Baghdad and Kerbala, with 143 dead— have nothing to do with the style of Al Qaeda, assures the expert.

He explains that Al Qaeda always follows a constant policy: attack those they consider “infidels” and their allies, but not a congregation of Shi’a in a mosque, in spite that Bin Laden and his men, all of them Sunnis, hold no sympathy whatsoever towards Shi’a muslims.

Rechuan has his doubst that Zarqawi, for whom the US offers a reward of 25 million dollars, in reality is as important as Washington makes him to be, and assures that it was Secretary of State Colin Powell, who made Zarqawi famous.

Doubts over his relation to March 11

He also doubts that Al Qaeda had anything to do with the attack on March 11 in Madrid, since it would mean an enormous failure on part of the Spanish security services, a failure which would be more understandable if it were dealing with a group which operated on its own.

The expert notes that Al Qaeda will not deny its involvement in attacks they attribute to them, and that these attacks are always carried out with a similar pattern hit the infidels or their allies, since this is how the myth of “global terror” grows.

However, remember that they have denied their involvement in the anti-shi’a attacks.

So what you have read either puts the whole world on its head, because Al Qaeda doesn’t really exist, and is just being used as an excuse to go after Islam, or this is Revisionism in its more refined form, with El Periódico helping to erase the image of an Al Qaeda plotting attacks and planning the downfall of the Western world, and replacing it with individual groups claiming to be Al Qaeda but really not having any link whatsoever. Which might lead to someone claiming that all these ‘separate’ groups, once stripped of the Al Qaeda brand, have legitimate worries and can at least be heard out. And that we should look beyond Al Qaeda, the terrorist ‘cry for help’ and address their root causes.

The idiocy of stating that Al Qaeda was formed after 9/11 is just beyond words, look here for an accurate overview of its history, which you’ll appreciate starts around 1988.

Rechuan then jumps on Al-Zarqawi’s non-relation with Al Qaeda as proof that Al Qaeda doesn’t exist. As we’ve explained before here, in the intercepted memo from Al-Zarqawi to Bin Laden he clearly speaks of his own organization Al Tawhid (which is widely known to be intent of the overthrow of the Jordan house of Hussein, and not as Rechuan states ‘made famous by Colin Powell’).

Finally, but most importantly perhaps to the interview’s aims, Rechuan states that Al Qaeda could not have been involved in the Madrid attacks, because it would mean an enormous intelligence failure. El Periódico’s printing this blatant nonsense just makes me wonder where the Spanish are heading for. Its use of a ‘military wing of Al Qaeda’ when threats are made, and then stripping Al Qaeda of its threat by letting Al-Ahram’s revisionists explain to us ‘what really happened’, it all just leaves me wondering if there somehow could be some concerted action going on, designed to make us all think that we’re safe.

Which of course, we are not.

"Earth To Saudi Arabia..."

Get out your CD with the old Twilight Zone series’ theme song and put it on as you read this item that shows the objectivity and world view of a high (and he must be smoking something) Saudi Arabian official. This gem of a quote from the lively blog Fringe:

Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah blames Israel for Paul Johnson’s beheading: “Zionism is behind it. It has become clear now. It has become clear to us. I don’t say, I mean… It is not 100 percent, but 95 percent that the Zionist hands are behind what happened.” Talk about your classic case of denial and projection.

We bet if you asked Prince Abdullah “Do you know what denial is?” he’d say: “A river in Egypt?”

What We've Learned From The Beheadings So Far

So now a 33-year-old South Korean whose only “crime” was that he was definitely in the wrong place at the wrong time has been mercilessly beheaded by Al Qaeda militants. And we have a clear pattern — a new political modis operandi.

And what have we learned? A lot.

First, what have we seen over the past year? The beheadings of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson and now Kim Sun-il, the 33-year-old South Korean interpreter kidnapped in Baghdad Thursday by Islamist militants. Coincidence? Not at all. These beheadings reflect goals brutally pursued with possible political implications for various countries’ internal political scenes and for the international scene.

Here are some lessons and thoughts:

(1)The U.S. is now engaged in a four-fronted terrorist war: the U.S. homeland, Afghanistan (holding and pattern and nation building stage), Iraq (consolidation of the victory that Sadaam forces and Al Qaeda militants are trying to yank away before authority is handed over to Iraquis on June 30), and Saudi Arabia (opposing stepped up efforts to destabilize the Royal Family).

(2)The beheadings have little if anything to do with religion. They are about instilling blood-curdling fear to break the will of the populations of various countries. It is no longer just aimed at the U.S. but ANY coalition countries, companies or agencies (including the United Nations).

(3)It’s all about body count. The terrorists have shifted strategy from a quantitative body count (911; Madrid) to a qualitative body count (symbolic victims such as an American Jewish journalist, an American Jewish businessman, an American mechanic aiding the Saudi Arabian military, and a South Korean on the eve of his country sending more troops to the region).

(4)They will likely raise the bar of barbarity to get publicity and continue to shock with the same impact. So far the victims have been males in their 30s and 40s. Will they choose a woman — or a child? Or a group?

(5)Beheadings are not unusual in that part of the world as punishment — but they are swift. Yet the terrorists’ victims suffer a terrifying, humliating prelude, then a slow, excruciating death akin to the slaughter of screaming animals. There is a large degree of sadism in this that goes way beyond politics. The goal is to make non-fundamentalist societies feel impotent — to terrify beyond anything witnessed since Adolph Hitler’s time.

(6)The beheadings are political tools aimed to accentuate tensions within the societies or cultures at which they are aimed, much as the Madrid bombings were timed to impact the elections. The South Korean’s murder is just the latest blatant example. The goal is to have companies and countries yield to the fears of workers, investors, or their citizens and to flee the area.

(7)All of this is accelerating — not coincidentally — as we approach the June 30th turnover of authority to the new Iraqui government. It is likely to get worse in coming weeks, worse after June 30th and definitely worse the closer we get to elections here in the United States.

(8)The Saudi Arabian government’s moment of truth has arrived. They are being attacked full force now; the language of the killers is aimed at appealing to the lower-classes in Saudi Arabia and to the Arab street.

(9)Evidence of Saudi Arabian security force’s complicity with terrorists is now clear in the death of Paul Johnson. What other “parallel police/military” forces played roles in the abductions of the other men in Pakistan and Iraq? If the Saudi Arabian government does not purge its security forces it is in for even bloodier events — or its eventual erradication.

(10)If there is any religious significance, it’s in the use of the sword. But snatching someone off the streets, videotaping a terrified victim sweating or pleading for his life, setting a deadline with outrageous demands, then butchering him (or her) like a cow is cheap, not as hard to pull off as a 911 — and gets tons of international media and Internet publicity. It’s shockingly cost-effective for them.

So the bad news is that governments are going to have work to have well-prepared advance worst case scenarios ready for more — and even worse — outrages. Families will have to understand that when their loved onces are snatched and they see the video with the demands their relative is effectively dead.

The good news — in a round about way — is that as more horrifiying incidents occur, people (and governments) accept them and learn to live with them. It would have been unthinkable in 1954 to be searched at an airport or have to worry about hijacking or terrorism; now it’s a fact of life and people don’t like it, but they’re used to it. And the mixed news is this: more than ever governments are understanding they have to exterminate the terrorists before the terrorists exterminate them.

Meanwhile, given beheadings’ impacts, goals and — sadly — cost-effectiveness, it’s an outrage that is likely to continue….as once again the level of violence that becomes commonplace increases.

"Does Anyone Doubt That We Really Are At War?"

That’s one of several questions posed by Donald Sensing, a former military man who is now a man of the cloth — and who has one of the most thoughtful conservative weblogs on the Internet. In a fascinating piece, Sensing dissects where we are in the terror war and suggests there are four possible outcomes:

1. Over time, the United States engenders deep-rooted reformist impulses in the Islamic lands, leading their societies away from the self- and other-destructive patterns they now exhibit. It is almost certainly too much to ask that the societies become principally democratic as we conceive democracy (at least not for a very long time), but we can (and must) work to help them remit radical Islamofascism from their religious and political cultures so that terrorism does not flourish.

2. The Islamofascists achieve their goals of Islamicization of the entire Middle East, the ejection of all non-Muslims from Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Persian Gulf, the destruction of Israel, and the deaths of countless numbers of Americans.

3. Absent achieving the goals stated just above, al Qaeda successfully unleashes a mass-destructive, mass-casualty attack against the United States and total war erupts between the US and several Islamic countries.

4. None of the above happen, so the conflict sputters along for decades more with no real changes: we send our troops into combat intermittently, suffer non-catastrophic attacks intermittently, and neither side possesses all of the will, the means and the opportunity to achieve decisive victory. The war becomes the Forever War.

Indeed, that is about as complete a realistic analysis as you can get — since no one seriously expects the Nader/Kucinich approach of just pulling the U.S. out of the area is going to happen (despite what some on the right may suggest about John Kerry he is almost on the same wavelength as GWB on the war, even though it can score campaign points to claim otherwise).

And Sensing, who constantly shows on his site that he can look at and deftly outline multiple scenarios, chillingly (and realistically) adds this:

“A terrible danger is that we could someday be well underway to achieving our long-term objectives and still get struck by a catastrophic attack inside the US. ….Which brings me back to my original questions: Does anyone doubt we must win this war? And does anyone still doubt that we really are at war?”

Dan Darling: A Thorough Analysis of the 9/11 Report's Flaws

Dan Darling has an exhaustive pair of reports on the 9/11 commission and its findings (Part 1 | Part 2) over at winds of Change.NET. He is not impressed, and writes in an email:

“I’m not sure how interested you are in the nuts and bolts aspect of this kind of stuff, but I just figured I’d throw this your way to show you just how truly whacked-out the findings of this commission are entirely apart from the issue of Iraq and al-Qaeda. If this is the state of our intelligence agency, the whole WMD thing is starting to make a lot more sense now.”

Kerry on Iraq, Then and Now

John Kerry today:

“This administration took its eye off of al-Qaeda, took its eye off of the real war on terror in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan and transferred it for reasons of its own to Iraq,” Kerry said. “And the American people are paying billions of dollars now because of that decision. And most importantly, American families and American soldiers are paying the highest price of all.”

Asked what Bush’s true motivation was for attacking Saddam’s government, Kerry said that is a question for the administration.

“It is clear that the president owes the American people a fundamental explanation about why he rushed to war for a purpose that it now turns out is not supported by the facts,” Kerry said. “And that is the finding of this commission.”

Kerry’s grievance?

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said the commission’s report is evidence that Bush misled the nation in setting out the case for war against Iraq.

“The president and the vice president, on a number of occasions, have asserted very directly to the American people that the war against al-Qaeda, the war against terror, is the war against Iraq,” Kerry said after arriving at Detroit Metropolitan Airport this afternoon.

But what was Kerry saying when he had to vote on the war?

It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. . .

A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world’s determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems… [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.

Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.

I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

What's Really Behind Al Qaeda's Threat To Paul Johnson

Terrorists who sized Lockheed Martin worker Paul Johnson have now issued a 72-hour ultimatum: if Saudi Arabia doesn’t free Al Qaeda militants, they’ll kill him.

As is now the custom, the threat comes on an Islamic website with photos of the all-but-condemned-to-death prisoner, who looks terrified and humiliated.. And it isn’t good news for Johnson or his family that it’s posted on a credible website.

In fact, what few are saying is this: unless he escaped (and a miracle like that did happen once) there is no way he is going to survive since there is no way the Saudi government is going to meet this demand — and the terrorists know it. So within three days there will likely be another Internet-aired bloodfest, method of massacre yet unknown. The bottom line is: the terrorists want and need to scare foreign workers out of the Royal Kingdom and you don’t sow fear by releasing a prisoner.

That the Saudi government knows what it’s facing is abundantly clear by these comments from Adel al-Jubeir, the government’s foreign affairs advisor who immediately noted that his government has a no-negotiation policy with terrorists (as any thinking government would have to have):

“Their strategy is to try to sow fear in people’s hearts, and to panic, and to cause an exodus of foreign workers from Saudi Arabia, in particular Westerners…They are trying to scare foreign workers into leaving Saudi Arabia because they believe it will weaken the Saudi economy and consequently weaken the Saudi government, but they are mistaken.”

Some abroad — and in the United States — might be tempted to ask: Can’t we reason with them? Can’t we win their hearts?

It’s abundantly clear the answer is a resounding no. And if you don’t believe it, note that the terrorists have already changed their demands. At first they had captured him (they said) to treat him the way they said American guards treated Iraqi prisoners at the center of the prisoner abuse scandal.

But how they’ve changed their tune — making a demand they know full well the Saudi government cannot meet, so they can kill Johnson in a public, horrorific way to send a message to other foreignors and weak-kneed governments to quit Saudi Arabia.

And, indeed, if you go back and read all the news stories and analyses in the immediate aftermath of 911 Osama bin Laden’s key goal from the start was to drive the United States and foreignors out of Saudi Arabia — and establish a more pure (read that TALIBAN STYLE) government in Saudi Arabia.

So we should pray for Paul Johnson — the latest human being deemed expendable in the terrorists’ bloody chess game to manuever Saudia Arabia back into a distant past.

Carrots and Sticks: An Update on the War on Terror

The Taliban, Saddam, and other terrorists have seen what happens when a president firmly wields America’s big stick. Fortunately, President Bush also understands the value of the carrot. Gadhafi, who has felt America’s stick several times in the past, finally decided to pursue the carrot after years of supporting terrorism. In an extraordinary move, Gadhafi agreed last December to dismantle Libya’s biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs. Since then President Bush has been slowly rewarding Libya’s good behavior by first allowing Americans to travel to Libya and recently moving to allow resumption of oil imports and most commercial and financial activities.

This has two key benefits. First, it shows that we reward nations for good behavior. Second, it will also eventually put more oil on the market (Libya’s oil production is about half of what is was before Gadhafi consolidated his power and lead his country down the terrorist path).

Libya still has a long way to go before they are fully trusted again. President Bush is being careful to keep some restrictions on Libya – I imagine he will carefully remove them as Libya continues to improve. However, it is nice to see some progress.

Libya serves as a dramatic counterpoint to Syria who continues to resist the war on terror. So three days ago, President Bush waved a stick in their direction by creating an executive order forbidding all American companies from selling goods to Syria other than food or medicine.

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, hereby determine that the actions of the Government of Syria in supporting terrorism, continuing its occupation of Lebanon, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, and undermining United States and international efforts with respect to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Wretchard has some interesting comments on how this action continues to put pressure on the traditional Sunni leaders. I do not know enough about these politics to judge, but Wretchard’s comments seem reasonable. For my part, I think Bush also timed this to closely follow the events in Libya. Bush continues to use both the carrot and the stick in his war on terror, at least the part that is visible to onlookers. I strongly believe that President Bush is also using the stick and the carrot behind the scenes, but if this is done properly, we will never hear of it - at least not for twenty-five years or so.

We do indeed live in interesting times.

Religion, Terror & Our Future

Is the War on Terror really a war between the West (or at least some parts of the West) and Islam? Do the terrorists speak the true thoughts and aspirations of Muslims around the world? And can Westerners speak freely about the limitations of Islamic societies? This is a sensitive and complex topic. My hope here is to begin a thoughtful discussion about the role that religion plays in international affairs and how that role may impact us all in the 21st century. The issue goes well beyond Islam.

Last week the former (Anglican) Archbishop of Canterbury spoke out regarding Islamic culture, saying it was authoritarian, inflexible and under-achieving:

“[Lord Carey] acknowledged that most Muslims were peaceful people who should not be demonised. But he said that terrorist acts such as the September 11 attacks on America and the Madrid bombings raised difficult questions.

Read The Rest…

The Appearance of Appeasement

Supporters of the War on Terror have been troubled by the results of last week’s elections in Spain, so troubled that some of us have even used the word “appeasement”. Not surprisingly the use of the A-word has brought a torrent of criticism from war opponents. Users of such terminology apparently do not respect Spain’s right to make a decision independent of the US and its Iraq “Coalition”. By calling the Spanish appeasers we are misrepresenting their actions. It is not appeasement to withdraw one’s military from a “quagmire” it is rational national security strategy. At least that is the argument. All this got me thinking about what appeasement is exactly.

Read the Rest at the Chicago Report

Hard Rain

In the midst of smoke not quite dispersed, with confusing signs pointing this way and that, whoever set off the bombings in Spain achieved their desired result - to throw the Spanish elections into turmoil.

I can only consider that the reaction of the Spanish public is not one of abject fear, and a desire for appeasment. That sentiment is present, to be sure, yet there are a range of strong emotions, bare and raw by the events of the past few days. A toxic cocktail of anger, anguish, fear - such things great masses of people do not hold inside.

Without the true targets to vent upon, for purging these emotions, the people turned on the most opportune target available - the government in power. The people that were supposed to keep them safe, the ones that were not supposed to allow things such as the nightmare of a few days ago to happen. The ones that were supposed to stop the almost unstoppable. Absent the cowardly perpatrators that have slunk away, the tidal wave of emotion crashed onto those left behind to pick up the pieces.

A hard lesson, for all of us to learn. That terror can be effective.

In such a compressed and volatile situation, humans will and do lash out. As such, the concept that these events were staged simply to ‘hand’ the Socialists the election because they’ll be appeasers, or that the Spanish are cringing away in fear, while passionate arguments to make, probably are not totally the case. It is true that whoever set off those bombs expected to influence the election. And they did. And they could do so again in other countries. But expect that the line taken by the new Spanish government will not be exactly the dhimmitude anticipated, if it was in fact the Islamofascists. And god help the ETA if it turns out to be their handiwork. The rage that was turned against the ruling party will not be diminished so quickly - and the Socialists will be pushed, despite any campaign retoric to the contrary, to seek justice for what was done. Because they will be the ones that are supposed to make sure that this doesn’t happen again. They’ll be the ones that are supposed to keep the people safe. If they don’t, they’re very likely to find themselves turned out once people sit and think about it for a while.

With the exception of Vladamir Putin, probably every Western leader facing a plebecite in the near future should view the events of Spain with great alarm. As should every citizen of a Western Democracy.

As such, every citizen of a Western Democracy should go to school on what happened in Spain. The lesson should be for you to make your choice in a calm, deliberate fashion - before anyone has a chance to thrust a manufactured ‘emergency’ upon you to try and sway your opinion, if only for a critical moment. And be aware, that if such an occurance takes place, that is exactly what is happening. Not a discussion of issues, not a rational argument to present facts, but a base attempt to reach in and rudely pluck the strings of your emotions. To play you, as an instrument. And hope for a herd reaction.

Be aware. Don’t simply consider that it could happen, count on that it will happen. And be on the watch for it. Be on the watch also, for those that would attempt to capitalize on such a grotesque methodology, with soothing and placating words of solace, intertwined with those intended to focus and channel the raw emotions evoked, to thier advantage.

Recognize these things. And recognize what it is they wish to do; to drive populations, to drive you, as masses of sheep, towards their objective.

Reject such things absolutely. It’s easier to do if you know which course you wish to take.

al-Qaeda attack impacts Spanish election

The terrorist attacks in Madrid, which are probably the work of al-Qaeda, have turned the tide of their national elections reports the Washington Post. The Popular Party, which supports the war on terror and was ahead in the polls, has been ousted in favor of the Socialist Party.

“I was going to vote for one side, and now I ended up voting for the other because of the attacks,” said one voter, Manuel Yunta. “The thought that it could be al Qaeda behind the attacks changed my vote, because I blame the government for the massacre.”

Another voter, Jose Antonio Alvarez, said, “I voted for the Socialists, but I wasn’t happy with the protests I saw last night in front of the PP headquarters. It’s not the time even though I don’t think the government has been completely open with all the information” it has about the attacks.

That the anti-war socialists in Europe would vote in favor of appeasement directly following a major terrorist attack is not altogether surprising. While Americans tend toward emotions of vengence and retaliation (lets go get those bastards), it has been no secret that Europe has largely embraced an attitude of appeasement (why do they hate us).

What is bothersome is that terrorists were able to sway a national election through senseless violence. With our own election coming up in November, al-Qaeda will undoubtedly be planning an October surprise for us?

Where's the Basque Observer to the United Nations when you need him?

Want to know what I first thought when I woke up and read the headlines?

“Thank God it wasn’t in Israel.”

You don’t see the United Nations creating agencies and commissions and special assemblies concerning the “Basque Occupied Territories.” Where’s Kofi’s statement demanding that Spain return to the bargaining table with the ETA? Where’s the global shunning of Spain’s legitimate government while welcoming the Socialists meeting with the ETA as distinguished guests, potential partners with which to write Madrid Conventions calling for a new land-for-peace territorial surrender?

I have yet to hear the European Union demand the granting of a Basque state (or the acceptance of credentials of a “Basque Observer Permanent Mission”), or President Bush declaring that he’s come up with a Roadmap for them. Mexico and Venezuela are too busy propping up their corrupt crypto-democratic regimes to pay for arms smuggling into Spain with their oil revenues.

Where’s the separate telephone codes? Where’s the top-level two-letter Internet country code? Where’s the cheese-flavored chips with the ETA leaders face on them?

Instead, the battle cry is unanimous: kill the ETA. Obliterate the ETA. Protect Spain’s sovereignty.

Feh.

Waging The War Against Terrorism

In the upcoming election, national security and the war on terrorism will be the front and center issue for many voters. It is for this voter. Were it not for President Bush’s leadership in confronting terrorism head on, risking his Presidency to do so, I would stay home this November. Bush’s wild spending and refusal to reign in the cost of the federal government is irresponsible and goes against just about every ideal that conservatives stand for.

However, I will cast my vote for President Bush this November, because they country cannot afford for any of the Democratic nominees, save for Joe Lieberman, to become President.

Oliver Willis weakly attempts to make the case that Democrats are more serious about fighting Al Qaeda than President Bush. He precedes making that statement by listing a bunch of quotes from the wannabes on the Democratic side. John Edwards and John Kerry have very tough words for Saudi Arabia, but how is it that during their tenures as Senators they have never felt to address this issue?

Wesley Clark and Howard Dean in short are repeating the meme that Iraq has become a “distraction” from the war on terror and that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Edwards and Kerry have made similar comments and it is proof positive as to why none of these men should be given the responsibility of leading our nation.

The position that Iraq is a “distraction” from the war on terror is ridiculous. Every day we are reading of Al Qaeda members being captured, as well as Taliban leaders. Two-thirds of Al Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed. Where is the distraction? The recent orange alert was not proof of this either. The alert showed our intelligence community gathering good information and we’re taking steps to prevent any attacks.

As for Oliver’s assertion that Democrats are more serious than GWB in fighting terrorism, the only reference we have for that to determine its’ validity is to look at the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Clinton far more hawkish than either Howard Dean or John Kerry. Yet, his record with regard to fighting terrorism is a disgrace. From 1993 to 2000, there were 5 major terrorist attacks against UN institutions. The World Trade Center bombing, the Khobar Towers, the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and the USS Cole. Aside from criminal conviction the the WTC bombing, we did nothing to fight back. President Clinton ordered a few missile strikes and we bombed an aspiring factory in the Sudan. But other than that, nothing.

Many Democrats have attempted to say that the GOP was to blame because they hamstrung the President in his attempts to pass more terrorism related legislation. However, a recent article by Richard Shultz in the Weekly Standard offers a devastating look at how the Clinton adminstration really handled terrorism. Paul Begala has said that Clinton was ‘obsessed’ with Al Qaeda.

Maybe he was. On paper. President Clinton planned quite a bit, but he didn’t pull the trigger:

These examples, among others, depict an increasingly aggressive, lethal, and preemptive counterterrorist policy. But not one of these operations—all authorized by President Clinton—was ever executed. General Schoomaker’s explanation is devastating. “The presidential directives that were issued,” he said, “and the subsequent findings and authorities, in my view, were done to check off boxes. The president signed things that everybody involved knew full well were never going to happen. You’re checking off boxes, and have all this activity going on, but the fact is that there’s very low probability of it ever coming to fruition. . . .”

To be fair, Shultz also pins quite a bit of the blame on the Pentagon as well, but it starts at the top.

The question is, how would John Kerry and Howard Dean be any better? What concrete proposals and ideas have they offered? The answer is, nothing. They’ve paved their way to the Presidential election by doing nothing but complaining about President Bush. Pretty soon, they are going to have to answer the question: What are you going to do about the war on terrorism?

The answer thus far, has made it clear to me that President Bush deserves a second term. It goes beyond people like me, who are more conservative to begin with. Ed Koch, a lifelong Democrat has already said he will cast his vote for President Bush in November:

I am a lifelong Democrat. I was elected to New York’s City Council, Congress and three terms as mayor of New York City on the Democratic Party line. I believe in the values of the Democratic Party as articulated by Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and by Senators Hubert Humphrey, Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Our philosophy is: “If you need a helping hand, we will provide it.” The Republican Party’s philosophy, on the other hand, can be summed up as: “If I made it on my own, you will have to do the same.”

Nevertheless, I intend to vote in 2004 to reelect President Bush. I will do so despite the fact that I do not agree with him on any major domestic issue, from tax policy to the recently enacted prescription drug law. These issues, however, pale in importance beside the menace of international terrorism, which threatens our very survival as a nation. President Bush has earned my vote because he has shown the resolve and courage necessary to wage the war against terrorism.

The Democratic presidential contenders, unfortunately, inspire no such confidence. With the exception of Senator Joseph Lieberman, who has no chance of winning, the Democrats have decided that in order to get their party’s nomination, they must pander to its radical left wing. As a result, the Democratic candidates, even those who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, have attacked the Bush administration for its successful effort to remove a regime that was a sponsor of terrorism and a threat to world peace.

As one famous blogger often says: Indeed.

Iraqi hospitality

(Glenn Reynolds preacheth...)

TELEGRAPH: Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam

Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.

Abu Nidal, who was responsible for the failed assassination of the Israeli ambassador to London in 1982, was based in Baghdad for more than two decades.

Unlike James Brown, of course, Abu Nidal is dead.

Say what you will about those oil-soaked slimewads in the House of Saud, but at least Idi Admin died of old age. Saddam, on the other hand, had no problem assassinating his "valuaed Arab Brother guests" when they outlived their usefulness and proved more of a burden than an Islamic blessing.

Having trouble with Muslim fundamentalists? No problem. Send over the Mormon fundamentalists. Game over (*NEW PHOTO*)

Better yet, the Mormons will follow the massacre with a pot-luck supper.

As I've discussed on my humble blog before, I recently read an excellent book about some grisly murders committed by Morman fundamentalists, their polygamous lifestyle, and a general history of the Mormon church and their prophet, Joseph Smith. The book, by Jon Krakauer, is titled "Under the Banner of Heaven."

Here are some of my random notes on "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer:

1. The bulk of the book is a very quick, engrossing read. Much of the book deals with Mormon fundamentalists Ron and Dan Lafferty - and their brutal murder of their sister-in-law and her infant daugther - due to commandments they'd received from God.

Yes - it's a "page turner." The last few chapters aren't as quick a read as the first few, however, primarily because Krakauer deals more there with some sticky philosophical issues about religion.

2. Krakauer takes a couple of gratuitous shots at Bush and Ashcroft - which decreases Krakauer's credibility in my view. But the rest of the book seems extremely well researched - so I let him off the hook. I figure he's a good researcher who nonetheless, alas, is still a misguided liberal in some regards.

3. I have dated a Mormon recently. I find all the Mormons I have met to be extremeley kind, religious, conscientious, and hard-working (and, oddly, attractive too). While the miracles witnessed by Joseph Smith (i.e., the basis for their religion above and beyond thier Christianity) may or may not be complete hooey, I have consistently maintained (and still do) that, on average, you will not meet a better Christian than a Mormon.

4. The Mormon fundamentalists believe in polygamy or "plural mariage." Despite my best efforts, I have been unable to persuade my girlfriend of the God-given wisdom of this practice. If one is to believe Krakauer's analysis, this practice arose because Joseph Smith was one very horny prophet. (Which, you know, I totally respect).

Please note, for clarity's sake, that the official Mormon Church (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) disavows the fundamentalist Mormons and the practice of polygamy. (Just to be a trouble-maker, though, I have to note that the practice, although disavowed by the official Mormon Church, is still in print in the Church's book of "Doctrines & Covenants" as "D&C #132.")

5. I have an elegant solution, I believe, to end all this trouble with al Qaeda and those nutty Muslim fundamentalists. We Americans should sick our religious fundamentalists (especially our Mormon fundamentalists) on the Arab religious fundamentalists (followers of Osama Bin Laden and/or Wahabbiism).

My prediction: the Mormon fundamentalists would clean the clocks of the Muslim fundamentalists in short order. Even better: the Mormons would complete the massacre in an extremely efficient and tidy manner - and would thoroughly clean-up afterwards. Best of all: the Mormons would follow the carnage with a large pot-luck supper - totally free for everyone.

Send the troops home! Send in the Mormons.

* * *

"Mormon fundamentalists greet a contingent of Saddam Fedayeen in the Sunni Triangle"

* * *

P.S.

The above discussion began here at the gorgeous blog of the lovely and talented Jen. It was prompted by a comment from her, um, I guess lovely and talented sister, Jaynee (who recently had a baby - congratulations).

Jen, you will please note, is now officially a "large mammal" in the Truth Laid Bear Blogosphere Ecosystem. Yet, typically, Jen is totally humble about the whole thing.

Wow, Jen. Your ranking is approaching that of national, relatively mainstream sites, like RealClearPolitics. Wow - thanks for returning my e-mails...

Al Qaeda: You May Have Already Won!

Dear Mr. Qaeda,
Are you....
-- mad that your travel agent can't use Visa Express any more?
-- frustrated by visa hassles every time you need to visit the US?
-- wasting too much cash on visa baksheeh?
-- tired of going through inconvenient unmanned border spots?
-- from a "state sponsor of terrorism" (CUBA, IRAN, IRAQ, NORTH KOREA, SYRIA, SUDAN) or one of sixty or more countries where terrorists operate*?

Then enter the Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery!

That's right--we said IMMIGRANT Visa. Forget those visas good for only one trip. If you have one of the 50,000 winning entries for 2005, you AND YOUR FAMILY will soon be a Permanent Resident well on your way to becoming a US Citizen, free to come and go as you please! Diversity Visa Lottery winners are chosen AT RANDOM by a computer-generated drawing.

TIMING IS CRITICAL! Entries for the Diversity Visa Lottery must be submitted electronically at http://www.dvlottery.state.gov between Saturday, November 1 and Tuesday, December 30, 2003 (the web site address will not work before November 1). Check out all the rules at http://travel.state.gov/dv2005.html.

*The only people not eligible for the Diversity Visa Lottery are natives of Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, South Korea, or the United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam. These countries already sent more than 50,000 immigrants to the US in the last five years.

Terrorism: An "-ism" of Its Own?

Saul Singer, author of "Confronting Jihad," has some timely thoughts on this subject:

"I used to think that the war against terrorism was misnamed, since a war cannot be against a tactic. I still do, in that it obscures who the enemy is: radical Islamism. But on second thought, terrorism is more than a tactic. It has become an "ism" of its own....

...There is another way that terrorism has taken on ideology-like characteristics. The normal pattern of war and peace is that in war, certain tactics are acceptable and, when the war is over, they are not. Even bitter wars between countries have not prevented rival peoples from reconciling, once the war was over.

The essence of terrorism is to eliminate the distinction that allows peoples to reconcile afterwards the distinction between military and civilians....

...But what happens when one side's main tactic is terrorism, which means its entire attack consists of what in a normal war would be termed a war crime? How can the distinction between military and civilian, once systematically obliterated by years of brainwashing that killing Jewish children is heroic, be restored even if a peace agreement is reached?

The choice of terrorism as a tactic, and particularly the preference for terrorism even over the prospect of statehood, is integral to the idea that Israel is unacceptable in any size or form. Terrorism is only possible for people who have no intention of making peace with their victims under any circumstances. It is a tactic that is so critical to the ideology it supports that the line between tactics and ideology are blurred.

The same is true for the terrorism of September 11. Terrorism is a form of war to the death for both sides. Al-Qaida has no terms by which it would make peace with the West, and the feeling is mutual. This is why those who think the way to end terrorism is to make peace have it backwards. The only way to make peace is first to defeat terrorism."

War against al-Qaida won't end quickly

From Sunday's Birmingham News"

The recent al-Qaida attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco have demonstrated that the war on terror continues. They have also brought forth criticism of the administration, such as the following from Sen. (and presidential candidate) Bob Graham, D-Fla.: "We have let al-Qaida off the hook. We had them on the ropes, close to dismantlement, and then as we moved resources out of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight a war in Iraq, we let them regenerate."

Link to the rest

Maggie comes in swinging

Former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher broke her medical ban on public speaking with a speech at an Anglo-US free market think-tank in New York last week. Choice quote:

"There are too many people who imagine that there is something sophisticated about always believing the best of those who hate your country, and the worst of those who defend it."

She also said:

. . . she had “drunk deep from the same well of ideas” as her great ally, the former US President Ronald Reagan. Both instinctively knew what worked, she said, including low taxes, small government and enterprise. “We knew, too, what did not work, namely socialism in every shape or form. Nowadays socialism is more often dressed up as environmentalism, feminism, or international concern for human rights. All sound good in the abstract. But scratch the surface and you will as likely as not discover anti-capitalism, patronising and distorting quotas, and intrusions upon the sovereignty and democracy of nations.”

As an environmentalist feminist with a concern for human rights, I acknowledge this is true. There are people working in those areas who understand that rule of law, protection of minority rights, representative democracy, and market economies will further those goals much more effectively than vague, biased international bureaucracies, but they are too busy working inside the system to get much publicity.

UPDATE: I apologize - I forgot to include the URL!

Al Qaeda, Already on Thin Ice, Begins to Tap-Dance

Stupidity More Shocking Than Brutality

Originally posted at Little Tiny Lies.

It appears that Al Qaeda is behind the recent bombings in Casablanca. Targets included a Jewish community center, the Belgian consulate, a Spanish social club and a hotel.

I haven't seen anyone propose a rationale for choosing these targets. I suspect that's because there isn't one.

Sure, the community center makes sense. They're Jews, or at least most of them are. Muslim terrorists attacking Jews; no explanation required. I suppose the social club could have something to do with Spain's support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

How do you explain the attack on Belgian interests? If Germany and France are Groucho and Chico, Belgium is Harpo. Belgium has been utterly useless to the coalition.

The hotel bombing is another puzzle, unless you start with the premise that the puzzle has no answer. I would imagine that Moroccan hotels are generally staffed and occupied by Muslims. That dovetails nicely with my belief that Al Qaeda now sees Muslims as expendable or even as enemies. I hope the feeling becomes mutual.

We know Al Qaeda is hostile to some Muslims. Those in the Saudi government, in particular, because they allowed American infidels to defile Arabia's sacred sand with their footprints. But even in the Arab world, there's a wide gulf between sour relations and terrorism. If bitterness always equaled terrorism, the Saudis would be bombing us themselves instead of quietly paying Al Qaeda to do it.

Operation Iraqi Freedom got support from Muslim nations, but unless I am greatly deceived, it has been lukewarm support. The Saudis wouldn't let us use their soil. The Syrians allowed Iraqis to go home and fight us. Arab news organizations routinely distorted the news in Hussein's favor. It's not like Muslims the world over were rushing to support us. But it looks like the halfhearted, two-faced "support" they gave us suffices to make them targets of Al Qaeda terrorism.

In the past, the Arabs' incentive to help us was largely commercial. They wanted to keep the oil flowing. I assume they also wanted to avoid pushing us deeper into the pro-Israel, anti-Arab camp; that's just common sense. Now Al Qaeda is killing Muslim Arab civilians unpredictably and with no clear goal. Suddenly, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab nations are saying, with sincerity, the same things they used to say merely to placate us. Terrorism has to be stopped; the perpetrators have to be punished.

I hate to say this, knowing it's exactly the kind of statement the left's tinfoil-hat brigade likes to seize on and turn into pillars of faith, but if George Bush had wanted to get the Arabs into our corner for a change, one great way to do it would have been to have the CIA arrange just the sort of attacks Al Qaeda has been pulling. Bomb a few hotels and shopping areas, blame it on Al Qaeda, and watch the fur fly. Of course, that's hard to do when the instruments of destruction are suicide bombers. It's not easy to find people who will blow themselves up for pay.

Obviously, this is Al Qaeda action. It's not a clever plot by the CIA. But if we were able to plan Al Qaeda's moves for our own benefit, we couldn't do much better than they've done on their own.

I hate to get my expectations up. Islam is a faith that owes its very existence to religious intolerance. Mohammed had a hard time getting the ball rolling until he made a rule that Muslims were only allowed to rob and pillage the villages and cities of non-Muslims, and once he put that rule in place, it became much easier to convert people. Intolerance for non-Muslims has been an important part of Islam since the very beginning, and I think little has changed. I believe that by and large, Muslims view the non-Muslim West with contempt. That's a hard obstacle to overcome.

Still, Al Qaeda is doing everything it can to help. If they keep it up, rank-and-file Muslims the world over may well decide it's easier to stomach fighting Al Qaeda than to put up with news broadcasts featuring shots of Muslim blood pooling in Middle Eastern gutters. Maybe Al Qaeda isn't Robin Hood and his band of merry men; maybe they're misguided cultists who don't care who they hurt. Maybe Arabs will come to see Al Qaeda the way we saw the Branch Davidians.

Muslim unity is not as monolithic and unassailable as people think. There are Bedouin groups who, for decades, have served in the Israeli military. If Israel can make allies of Muslims, it's not unreasonable to hope that the Arab world will abandon a dangerous, unpredictable cult that lashes out in random directions.

I hope reason triumphs over passion and bigotry just this once. If Al Qaeda manages to unite Muslims and non-Muslims even temporarily, the improvement in relations could lead to a peace that could last for decades.

Al Qaeda Craps Where it Eats

Meanwhile, Major News Outlets Still Discussing Dung-Flinging Teenagers

Originally posted at on May 16, 2003, at Little Tiny Lies.

Dean Esmay blogged something really interesting today. Now that Al Qaeda is bombing other Muslims, Arabs have decided suicide bombing may possibly be a BAD THING. He found some Arab papers describing the bombers as criminals and expressing sincere fury over their actions.

Welcome to the party, boys.

There may be some bloodstained treasures to pick out of this hill of dung.

For one thing, it says a lot about the state of Al Qaeda. If these guys had really gotten it together, the way they claim to, they would never have done something this stupid. As Dean said to me tonight, "It smacks of desperation." And you have to wonder if it reflects the severity of the damage we've done to their leadership. When you cut a chicken's head off, it still runs, but it doesn't run anywhere important. Al Qaeda is still killing, but is it killing the people it needs to kill?

In my opinion, it's killing exactly the wrong people, if you look at it from Al Qaeda's perspective. Excuse me for being flippant about mass murder, but my summary of the Arab articles condemning the bombers was as follows: "This s--t isn't funny any more!"

Until now, there was an idiotic, unfazable current of Muslim pride that caused Muslims all over the world to back our enemies. They backed Saddam Hussein, who was the world's leading persecutor of Muslims. It didn't bother them when he gassed and machine-gunned Iraqis. Frankly, oppressive, brutal government is something Arabs expect. But look at them jump when Al Qaeda rips up innocent Saudis. Borderless terrorism that strikes Arabs in locations that can't be predicted? That's not cricket.

The terrorists aren't just Muslims. They're not just Muslim extremists. They're lunatics. Idiots. And armed idiots are bad for everyone; their destruction knows no direction, no method. In 2001, it was us. Next week, it may be a column of pilgrims walking toward Mecca, saying prayers Al Qaeda hasn't approved.

Whoever planned this thing, he is not deserving of the usual term, "mastermind." He blew up people whose relatives support terrorism. He may have blown the biscuit wheels right off his own gravy train. Though he harmed us in the short run, he may have done something we could never do on our own. He may have united Arabs and Americans in a sincere battle to slaughter his troops and jail their supporters until the average Saudi would rather donate money to the B'nai Brith than Al Qaeda.

This act reeked of stupidity. As I told Dean, the tone-deafness was "Hillaryesque."

Read the story. I think you'll agree, this tragedy may carry inside it the seeds of an alliance we could never have forged on our own.

Much ado about the 'terrorist' tag

[Note: This entry is a cross-post from my blog]

Today's Philippine Daily Inquirer editorial ("Useless ultimatum") questions the June 1 ultimatum Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo gave to the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF):

It's not only the President who seems to think that being labeled as a terrorist is the worst thing that could happen to the MILF. Everyone in the government, from the President to her Cabinet down to some local officials has been brandishing it as if it were the ultimate weapon assuring the MILF's total destruction. The problem is that such a threat has not made very many MILF members quake in their boots. On the contrary, they have been acting lately as if they themselves were in a great hurry to earn that label. Whereas before they were quick to deny any involvement in the bombings near the Davao airport and the Sasa wharf, lately they have shown no qualms about accepting responsibility for last week's raid in Siocon which left 35 people dead and the Koronadal blast that killed nine people last Saturday.

Furthermore, the piece concluded:

There is one sure outcome of declaring the MILF a terrorist organization: a much wider and longer conflict and possibly more terrorist attacks on civilian targets. Kabalu said such labeling would mean "the government is closing the door to the peace process and pursuing a military solution."

That is, of course, the solution favored by many in the administration and the military as well as an increasing number of citizens, people who have grown tired and angry at the killings and depredations of the MILF. But the key question is: Will it work? Will more bloodshed move Mindanao closer to peace? Ferdinand Marcos tried it for more than a decade, and it didn't work. Other presidents have also tried it at one time or the other, and still the insurgency remained. What makes the President and the military believe that an all-out war now is the only way to peace?

But what is happening now? What did we see in the past few years? The MILF routinely defy established ceasefires by randomly mowing down military personnel passing through rebel-controlled areas, blowing up vital government infrastructure, bombing civilian targets, and kidnapping women and children and using them as human shields against military pursuers while MILF spin doctors and their influential coddlers apply psy-war and work the media to the hilt by making it appear that everything is the fault of the Armed Forces. They have mastered the art of the blame game and table reversal.

By not labeling the MILF as a "terrorist organization", the government keeps the door open for peace. But judging from recent developments, it is the MILF itself who doesn't want peace. Keep the talks going? Will it work? How? What makes the government believe that the Moro rebels will accept anything less than what the latter has been waging war for for decades now - that is, a separate Islamic state? We know concessions in any form will not be acceptable for the group of Hashim Salamat.

Although it is utterly unfortunate that the civilians living in communities near where the Islamic extremists operate are the most heavily affected by military maneuvers, the government has no other recourse but to go after these perpetrators of terrorist attacks. One way or another, these murderers for their religion must be stopped and be held accountable for their criminal actions, whether the rebels get officially tagged as "terrorists" or not.

In one of the recent television newscasts featuring candid interviews of villagers in Koronadal, one of the places recently bombed by the MILF, a reporter asked a resident what he wants done with the rebels. The man replied, "kailangang ubusin na 'yang mga rebelde na 'yan. Sobra na'ng pinsala ang dinudulot nila. Kung gusto nila, sasama na din kaming mga tao na labanan sila. Tutal, may mga baril din naman kami" ("We need to wipe them out. They're causing too much destruction. If they want, we people can join the fight against them. Anyway, we have guns ourselves.") One woman even said, "dapat sa kanila, balatan ng buhay sa pagpatay nila sa mga inosenteng mamamayan" ("They should be skinned alive for killing innocent citizens.")

I'm not for the imposition of, nor do I condone, cruel and unusual punishment. But sometimes, you can't blame victims of terrorism for wishing the infliction of brutal retribution for those who initiate the heinous acts. As I have mentioned here in the past, terrorists should be treated like the common criminals they are and should not enjoy the romanticized label of "freedom fighters".

The Globalization of Antisemitism

This essay contrasts the first two eras of anti-semitism (religion-based and then race-based), in which bigotry against Jews was localized, with the current era:

Perhaps most distinctive, though, is the unmooring of antisemitism from its original sources. It is detached from Christianity, even if there are still powerful Christian sources of antisemitism. It is detached from its 19th-century European sources of nation building, reactions against modernity and pseudo-scientific notions of race and social Darwinism, even if that era's demonology is still potent in somewhat transposed form.

Globalized antisemitism has become part of the substructure of prejudice of the world. It is free-floating, located in many countries, subcultures and nodes, available in many variations, and to anyone who dislikes international influences, globalization or the United States. It is relentlessly international in its focus on Israel at the center of the most conflict-ridden region today, and on the United States as the world's omnipresent power. It is self-reinforcing, with its fantastical constructions of Jews and Zionism — which are divorced from the fair criticisms that can be made of Israel's policies — and by being located totally outside people's countries and experience. And it is only a few clicks of a mouse away.

Our Road Map Partners

A video encouraging Palestinians to murder Jews living in the occupied territories is being aired on official PA TV. (URL has links to view the video - see for yourself.)

Road Map Plans End to Palestinian Terror Within 30 Days

From the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web:

So the "roadmap" for Middle East peace is finally out. Does anyone else find it overly optimistic? The roadmap identifies "Phase I" as "Ending Terror And Violence, Normalizing Palestinian Life, and Building Palestinian Institutions." The time frame for this phase? "Present to May 2003." You've got 30 more days, guys; good luck.

Here's another gem from this April Fool's Document:

At the outset of Phase I....All official Israeli institutions end incitement against Palestinians.

Mike's Bar Bombing

From a Corner reader ("IDF guy" his title of choice) who has served in those parts:

It is one convenience store away from the extremely well-secured American embassy. It is owned by two Israeli/American brothers--Assaf and Gil and caters almost exclusively to American expats--tourists, long term residents, embassy staff and even American forces ages 18-80 (literally). Assaf plays the blues in a band called Southbound Train, a band that has given many of us who have spent time in Israel a desperately needed taste of home. He is also a consummate bartender in the "Sam Malone" style.

They throw one heck of a Fourth of July party.

Mike's Place started in Jerusalem where it was the bar of choice amongst a generation of American kids spending their junior year abroad at the Hebrew University. Mike's was one of the only bars to have survived the horrible blow that the Jerusalem (and Israeli) hospitality industry has encountered since the intifada started. Their expansion to a second Tel Aviv location on the beach at a time when there are almost no new bar openings defied conventional wisdom, but was a natural as many of us "seculars" find ourselves spending more time in Tel Aviv.

Do any of you out there know the Talking Heads song "Heaven"?...well that is Mike's Place...everyone knows you, they're always playing your favorite song, but in the end nothing really happens--and that's precisely what is so great.

I really don't know what to say... so many people I know (myself included) have had so may great times there. People have met their wives there. It's the only place where you can see a yeshiva student from LA, an African-American soldier, and an Israeli just back from Thailand sharing a stage belting the lyrics to Sweet Home Alabama "where the skies are so blue." Mike's had become a really important and unique part of the thriving and important live music scene in Tel Aviv that keeps many of us grounded. Hebrew not spoken here, yet frequented by Israelis who love the Americans that hang out there and American culture.

I wish I could have waxed more eloquent for your readers, but at this point I'm still waiting to go through that inevitable wince we all get when we first see that the names of the victims have been released. I just hope my buddies are OK.…

I don't want to make any accusations about why this bomb went off here and why now. But whoever bombed it knew exactly what this place was and what kind of people were in it. It should give Americans pause to think.

If this e-mail, posted from National Review On-line, is at all accurate, this is the American equivalent of the Bali bombing. An attack directed against Americans.