Madrid Bombing Group Announces Next Possible Targets

[MMMMMM]

(excerpt) "The Islamic militant group that claimed responsibility for last week’s Madrid train bombings has warned its next targets could be Japan, the U.S., Italy, Britain, or Australia, an Arabic newspaper reported today...

...In its statement, Abu Hafs al-Masri said it was calling a truce in Spain to give the socialist government that was elected Sunday—three days after the train attacks—time to carry out its pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq.

The group appeared to boast it had the power to change governments. The socialists—who have long opposed Spain’s military involvement in Iraq—were running second in Spanish opinion polls until last Thursday’s bombings.

“We change and destroy countries,” the statement said. “We even influence the international economy, and this is God’s blessing to us.

“We won’t accept to be an object in this world, but a player, a strong player—with God’s will,” it added. (end excerpt)

Full article:

http://www.fftimes.com/index.php/3/2004-03-18/17377

Now let's ask: is it any surprise that these nutcase fanatics now see the opportunity for blackmail by terror more clearly than ever before? For whatever reason Spain turned on a dime and elected Zapatero, the message the terrorists received was clear: this changing elections stuff stuff works great and will work again. Nice going Spain, with your monumental message of appeasement you have just ensured more attacks in other countries than would otherwise have occurred. So, who will be next I wonder?

[nicky g]

"Nice going Spain, with your monumental message of appeasement you have just ensured more attacks in other countries than would otherwise have occurred. So, who will be next I wonder?"

Right, becase prior to the Spain attacks, there was zero chance that al-Qaida might attack the US and other US allies. Get a grip. I'd still like to know if you think the Spanish should have voted for a party that insisted on blaming the wrong culprits for the attack for political gain.

[ComedyLimp]

Of course in a parallel universe where Spain elected a right wing government Abu Hafs al-Masri issued a statement saying "Due to Spain's continuing acts of imperial aggression we vow to continue our bloody fight with Japan, the U.S., Italy, Britain, or Australia, Spain or frankly anywhere else we can manage to blow up being likely targets".

From your analysis of the reported statement it seems to me you don't have much experience or understanding of terrorism or terrorists (use of the word "appeasment" is highly correlated in this regard in my experiece) but with regard to your main argument the important thing to remember when dealing with terrorists is to do what you think is right not what you think they wouldn't want you to do. If the PP had done what was right instead of lying to their electorate and trying to use the tragic events for political gain they would probably still be in government. Similarly if the Socialists had stood up after the bobmbings and promised to get out of Iraq and aquiese to all AQ's demands wherever possible in order to reduce the risk of further attacks against Spain they would almost certainly have lost.

Did the bombings effect the election? Well yes, obviosuly, how could they not? Elections respond to major events.

Do you think 9/11 or Iraq or Terror will affect the US Election? Of course. Do you think "Heros" will vote for bush and "Cowards" will vote for Kerry? Or do you think people will vote for whoever they think can solve this problem most effectively? If you believe Kerry will form a better government becuase Bush lied (or at least was wrong) about WMD in Iraq and so vote for him are you an "appeaser"?

If you were Spanish and your Government had taken you into a war you didn't want and then had behaved as it did after the bombings would you not consider voting for someone else? Or would you say "I don't like my government, I think it has made terrible foreign policy decisions and its use of tragedy for political gain makes it morally bankrupt but I would never give in to terrorists so I am must vote for them anyway"?

Just my 2c.

[nicky g]

Don't you know by now ComedyLimp that if the terrorists tell you not to jump off a cliff, absolutely the last thing you must ever do is not jump off a cliff. Anything else would be appeasement of the most craven kind. Unless it's withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia.

[superleeds]

[Gamblor]

Good and bad, right and wrong, are subjective and determined by your moral structure. There is little doubt that successful society's moral structure holds the preservation of life as the highest of all ethics.

One must take one's own morals as the highest, otherwise there would be no reason to defend them.

Thus, one must sacrifice morals in one area (most notably, I find, in ensuring quality of life for the terrorists' supporters) in order to preserve the right to life of a nation's inhabitants.

I don't know enough about why the troops are still in Iraq. But I do know that given a choice between lowering your quality of life and preserving my right to life, well, sorry buddy, no steaks for you for a while. Not even Halal steak.

[MMMMMM]

It should be obvious that Spanish capitulation to terror blackmail increases the chances that similar further terror blackmail will ensue. The group responsible for the attacks is now publicly proclaiming this as a sign that they have the power to change elections!

The fact that some terror attacks would occur likely anyway does not mean that this capitulation does not significantly increase the risk of future similar attacks on the eve of elections, as you so erroneously imply.

And yes the Spanish should have voted for the party that initially blamed the wrong terror org for the attacks. Placing that issue on a higher plane than capitulation to direct terrorist blackmail shows a lack of awareness of the importance of "future hands" (to use a poker analogy). Aznar's party was initiually mistaken and then reluctant to change its publicly stated view until it had to. So they probably shaded their opinion a bit until it was crystal clear who was behind the bombings: big friggin' deal, compared to the bombings and terrorist blackmail, anyway. I guess to some having a leader who is 100% honest rather than say 90% honest is more important than resisting terrorism. Well good luck to them because I doubt they will find Zapatero or any leader to be 100% honest. But they will surely eventually face more terror threats and attacks--and their recent cave-in to terrorist pressure will of course encourage more such attacks.

France was recently threatened with mass terror attacks because of a recent law which prohibits the wearing of the hijab in schools (and perhaps when having identification photos taken as well). Hey, maybe the law is off-base and too strict--but threats of mass terror attacks are surely out of line as a response--but the Islamists don't think so! They think that is a perfectly acceptable way to deal with such a law! If you do something they don't agree with they have a very simple method of negotiation: kill you! Bomb you!

Well it is time for France and Spain and every European country to respond even more aggressively to these deluded murderers. Doimng what they WANT because they blow up your people is pecisely the wrong approach to the problem; they should be punished not rewarded for such actions. Even if the primary reason the Spanish voted for Zapatero was as you surmise (which I doubt), the fact that the terrorists should not be rewarded for their horrific attacks overrides that consideration. An election being changed to comply with a terrorist demand and threat made clear by a horrific bombing is a terrible, terrible precedent to have set. A more appropriate response would be to have done the exact opposite of what the terrorists are trying to achieve and then redouble efforts to capture them and break up their group. The fact that this lesser known terror org associated with al-Qaeda drew attention to itself in such manner could have proved a disincentive to future similar attacks if it brought increased heat on those terrorists and if the attack did not achieve the objective it sought.

[MMMMMM]

I think not giving in to murderous blackmail trumps all those other considerations. Just my 2c.

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice going Spain, with your monumental message of appeasement you have just ensured more attacks in other countries than would otherwise have occurred

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, how dare they have a democratic election and elect who they want? Didn't they consult with Bush first?

[MMMMMM]

Nicky I fear you are not thinking clearly here on two accounts.

Firstly the analogy is off because you contrived an absurd example regarding jumping off a cliff. Terrorists should not be able to successfully demand that an underdog in an election be made into a winner, much less so if they kill hundreds of people to express their demand.

Secondly the US did not withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia in order to appease terrorist demands. The Saudi government is no longer requesting these troops remain, and the US has found a better base for these troops anyway.

[MMMMMM]

Gee, just before the bombing they knew very clearly who they wanted according to the polls, and it wasn't Zapatero. So they capitualted to the demands of a terrorist group that had just executed a horrific terrorist attack against them. Amazing that anyone would consider that a good or fair example of "democracy in action."

Hey next time you go to the voting booth how about letting Tony Soprano go into the booth with you with a loaded gun pointed at your head? Feel free to vote for whomever you choose.

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
Amazing that anyone would consider that a good or fair example of "democracy in action."

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. Clearly they're another rogue nation incapable of making good decisions and governing themselves. We'd better go invade them. Or better yet, have the CIA install a Saddam-like dictator.

[nicky g]

I have no idea how your response relates to my post.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe Kerry will form a better government becuase Bush lied (or at least was wrong) about WMD in Iraq and so vote for him are you an "appeaser"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I found this statement to be funny in more ways than one /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

But seriously why are you holding back from sharing your expertise after you post this:

[ QUOTE ]
From your analysis of the reported statement it seems to me you don't have much experience or understanding of terrorism or terrorists (use of the word "appeasment" is highly correlated in this regard in my experiece)

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously inquiring minds would appreciate your sharing your understanding of terrorism and how the problem should be solved.

[nicky g]

M you have repeatedly made it clear that you oppose any objective that may be shared by a terrorist group regardless of whether it is right or wrong. THat is my point about the cliff analogy. Any step that may help resolve a conflict is regared as giving in to terrorism or weakness, even ones that would significantly reduce the the terrorist threat. That you really believe the Spanish should have voted for a government that shamelessly played politics with the Madrid bombings simply to show that they refuse to "give in" to the terrorists, despite the fact that they largely opposed the occupation before the bombings, shows how stubornly ingrained this belief has become. I can see that the result may encourage AQ to time its attacks around elections (though given this is an ageold terrorist tactic I hardly see any need for encouragement) but the idea that the result is to blame for AQ's statement that they will attack other US allies is absurd.

"Secondly the US did not withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia in order to appease terrorist demands. "

I wonder how true that is. SA and the sanctions against Iraq were clearly becoming a liability and you may wish to consider that as one of the strategic reasons behind the Iraq invasion. Regardless, Zapatero is not withdrawing from Iraq to appease terrorist demands. It was his stated policy for months, and the Spanish were long opposed to both the invasion and the presence of Spanish troops there.

[ComedyLimp]

The flaw in your argument is that you don't seem to realise that withdrawing from Iraq might be the right thing to do and might actually constitute progress towards defeating terrorism. You seem to have this blindspot that requires you to consider Spain's actions to be capitulation and appeasement when that need not be the case at all.

If the motivation were appeasement or giving in to terror blackmail why did the new government not just say we are pulling out full stop? As I understand what they have said, if the US, UK and Spain do handover control to the UN by June 30th then the Spanish troops can stay as part of an Internationalised security force. Surely if they wanted to reduce their own short term risk they would be out by next Wednesday?

Or consider this. If I were OBL sitting in my cave plotting my "War Against Freedom" (and possibly other abstract nouns to be announced later) what is the very best thing that can happen now? Bush announcing the imminent invasion of Syria would be pretty much like flopping a straight flush from his perspective -- and yet it is something that would get huge support from the usual NeoCon and Freeper loonies (not that I am saying you are a neocon or likely to support such a move you understand).

What's the worst thing that can happen from OBL's perspective (apart from the Rangers actually finding him)? How about the US ceeding control of Iraq to an international security force under UN control? That would rob him of lots of great anti-US propaganda, make the US seem maybe not so bad after all to lots of moderate Arabs, etc.

But hang on isn't that giving in to terror blackmail?

[andyfox]

It's amazing to me how both sides constantly say that god is on their side. How little we've "progressed" in the last thousand years.

The Christian and Islamic gods are evil.

[Phat Mack]

It's amazing to me how both sides constantly say that god is on their side.

It's interesting that fundementalists don't like each other. You would think that all those who thought god was on their side would band together, then sort out their religous differences when they eliminated rationality. Personally, I would like to see the war on terrorism replaced with a war on fundementalism.

[ComedyLimp]

"Seriously inquiring minds would appreciate your sharing your understanding of terrorism and how the problem should be solved"

My understanding of terrorism comes from -- like many people in Britain and Ireland -- having lived most of my life in a country with a major terrorist problem.

Also, fwiw, I've personally been nearly blown up by the IRA twice (the Harrods bomb in London and the Manchester bomb), I have a number of friends who have lost family members or close friends to acts of terrorism, I have met at least one genuine real-life terrorist (a member of the IRA) and quite probably a few more as well, my partner works for the British government and was (in a former role) involved in a minor way with the political process that lead to the Good Friday Agreement, I was politically involved as a student in the 80s with the situation in Northern Ireland and specifically the idea that a solution required us to talk to the IRA's political representatives Sinn Fein -- a view that in the 80s got one branded as an appeaser even though the solution (which is still a work in progress) utlimately required exactly that. Overall, although I do not claim any level of expertise it has been a serious issue for me, my family and friends for 30 years and its something I have given quite a lot of my time and effort to.

Regarding how I think the problem should be solved it's obviously not quite that simple but I will give you two principles that I beleive to be absoluitely fundamental to the process:

1) Anyone who thinks you can beat terrorism via military means is flat out wrong and will often do more harm than good (albeit from the best of intentions).

2) Terrorists can exist and prosper because they have the tacit support of moderate, mainstream people. Since its essentially impossible to defeat the terrorists directly the best approach is to address the issues that cause these normal people to support the extermists. Essentially, to use a Americanism, the war against terrorism is a battle of "hearts and minds".

I don't pretend for one moment that the situation w.r.t. to al-Qaeda and the Middle East is not a lot more complicated and murderous than the situation in Northern Ireland (although if you go back to the early 70s and Bloody Sunday, mainland no warning pub bombings, Diplock trials, internments, etc. there are actually strong parrallels) but everything I have experienced tell me these principals apply here as well. And when I read stuff like MMMMMMM's talk of appeasment and giving in to terror blackmail it sounds *exactly* like the guff I heard from British (well English actually) politicians in the 80s that did little more than keep the bombing and murdering going for another 20 years.

Matthew
Off to the Pub

[adios]

First of all thanks Matthew for your cogent and reasoned post it's appreciated.

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding of terrorism comes from -- like many people in Britain and Ireland -- having lived most of my life in a country with a major terrorist problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you would say something like this and FWIW it is a worthwhile and insightful perspective IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, fwiw, I've personally been nearly blown up by the IRA twice (the Harrods bomb in London and the Manchester bomb), I have a number of friends who have lost family members or close friends to acts of terrorism, I have met at least one genuine real-life terrorist (a member of the IRA) and quite probably a few more as well, my partner works for the British government and was (in a former role) involved in a minor way with the political process that lead to the Good Friday Agreement, I was politically involved as a student in the 80s with the situation in Northern Ireland and specifically the idea that a solution required us to talk to the IRA's political representatives Sinn Fein -- a view that in the 80s got one branded as an appeaser even though the solution (which is still a work in progress) utlimately required exactly that. Overall, although I do not claim any level of expertise it has been a serious issue for me, my family and friends for 30 years and its something I have given quite a lot of my time and effort to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok

[ QUOTE ]
1) Anyone who thinks you can beat terrorism via military means is flat out wrong and will often do more harm than good (albeit from the best of intentions).

[/ QUOTE ]

If my take is correct the Northern Ireland experience and the actions of the British government in response to terrorism in the 80's lead you to this conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Terrorists can exist and prosper because they have the tacit support of moderate, mainstream people. Since its essentially impossible to defeat the terrorists directly the best approach is to address the issues that cause these normal people to support the extermists. Essentially, to use a Americanism, the war against terrorism is a battle of "hearts and minds".

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok then what should be done about Middle East terrorism?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't pretend for one moment that the situation w.r.t. to al-Qaeda and the Middle East is not a lot more complicated and murderous than the situation in Northern Ireland (although if you go back to the early 70s and Bloody Sunday, mainland no warning pub bombings, Diplock trials, internments, etc. there are actually strong parrallels) but everything I have experienced tell me these principals apply here as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume the parallels are valid, what course of action would you recommend. Any response appreciated.

[ QUOTE ]
And when I read stuff like MMMMMMM's talk of appeasment and giving in to terror blackmail it sounds *exactly* like the guff I heard from British (well English actually) politicians in the 80s that did little more than keep the bombing and murdering going for another 20 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was giving in to terror blackmail part of the solution in Northern Ireland? I assume you mean that you feel M is viewing the situation in Spain incorrectly.

[Gamblor]

Don't you know by now ComedyLimp that if the terrorists tell you not to jump off a cliff, absolutely the last thing you must ever do is not jump off a cliff. Anything else would be appeasement of the most craven kind. Unless it's withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia.

I took this to mean as follows:
One must do what is right regardless of what groups who commit terrorist acts demand via their actions.

My response was to right and wrong are not binary in that they are either right or wrong, but rather rights and wrongs must often be prioritized at the expense of other rights and wrongs. (i.e. some "rights" are more important than other "rights)

[MMMMMM]

Yes I am right, thank you, and your irrelevant sarcasm doesn't change anything.

[MMMMMM]

"M you have repeatedly made it clear that you oppose any objective that may be shared by a terrorist group regardless of whether it is right or wrong."

No, I haven't. You are misinterpreting my remarks.

"THat is my point about the cliff analogy. Any step that may help resolve a conflict is regared as giving in to terrorism or weakness, even ones that would significantly reduce the the terrorist threat. That you really believe the Spanish should have voted for a government that shamelessly played politics with the Madrid bombings simply to show that they refuse to "give in" to the terrorists, despite the fact that they largely opposed the occupation before the bombings, shows how stubornly ingrained this belief has become. I can see that the result may encourage AQ to time its attacks around elections (though given this is an ageold terrorist tactic I hardly see any need for encouragement) but the idea that the result is to blame for AQ's statement that they will attack other US allies is absurd."

I guess your views about what is most important are different than mine. Not giving in to terror and blatant blackmail is higher on my list than it is on yours, apparently, and I don't think terrorists should be able to sway the votes of a country to what they desire with a handful of well-placed bombs. I also don't think a government "playing politics" is anywhere nearly as important a matter. Heck, governments and candidates "play politics" all the time. But "playing politics" is a hell of a lot less serious a matter than demanding a change of politics at gunpoint or bombpoint, or executing attacks to let the populace know that they are about to make a decision that will either result in more horrific attacks or not.

[MMMMMM]

"The flaw in your argument is that you don't seem to realise that withdrawing from Iraq might be the right thing to do and might actually constitute progress towards defeating terrorism."

I am convinced it wouldn't be.

"You seem to have this blindspot that requires you to consider Spain's actions to be capitulation and appeasement when that need not be the case at all."

It seems pretty obviously so.

"If the motivation were appeasement or giving in to terror blackmail why did the new government not just say we are pulling out full stop? As I understand what they have said, if the US, UK and Spain do handover control to the UN by June 30th then the Spanish troops can stay as part of an Internationalised security force. Surely if they wanted to reduce their own short term risk they would be out by next Wednesday?"

No, the terrorists are sufficiently delighted with the current results as they stand.

"Or consider this. If I were OBL sitting in my cave plotting my "War Against Freedom" (and possibly other abstract nouns to be announced later) what is the very best thing that can happen now? Bush announcing the imminent invasion of Syria would be pretty much like flopping a straight flush from his perspective -- and yet it is something that would get huge support from the usual NeoCon and Freeper loonies (not that I am saying you are a neocon or likely to support such a move you understand)."

You seem to put a lot more faith in public opinions as a controlling aspect of terror than you do in the nuts and bolts: depriving them of sanctuary and weaponry and finances is very powerful and probably more powerful than the public opinion stuff you mention. So is capturing or killing them.

"What's the worst thing that can happen from OBL's perspective (apart from the Rangers actually finding him)? How about the US ceeding control of Iraq to an international security force under UN control? That would rob him of lots of great anti-US propaganda, make the US seem maybe not so bad after all to lots of moderate Arabs, etc."

If you actually think withdrawal at this juncture would help stabilize Iraq at this point you are living in a dreamworld. The problem ISN'T making the terrorists or moderate Muslims mad--they're angry anyway--the problem is that the organized militant jihadists still have room and funds to operate. But their freedom of operation is slowly being constricted and eventually will be largely taken away from them.

"But hang on isn't that giving in to terror blackmail?"

Yes it would be which is one of many reasons why withdrawing from Iraq prematurely would not be a good idea.

[MMMMMM]

What you must understand is that IRA terrorism or Basque/ETA terrorism is quite a different animal than Islamic terrorism.

The IRA and the Basque separatists have specific goals and agendas which could negotiated with. They want(ed) specific things. Militant Islamic fundamentalists however are simply violently opposed to everything non-Islamic.

If you gave the IRA everything it wanted the attacks would cease (not saying that would be the answer to the problem, but that attacks would cease). But what the Islamists jihad warriors want is something far greater and truly impossible.

They want the whole Middle East, Spain and eventually Europe and the entire world to become Islamic. A couple years ago al-Qaeda released a statement demanding that the UK and USA stop interfering in the Middle East, stop supporting Israel, and that the USA and UK convert to Islam or face further attacks. Their position is fanatical, impossible, and wholly irrational. The caliphate isn't going to be restored as they dream it will (must) be. Islamic law (Shar'ia) isn't going to eventually be implemented all over Europe. Islamic Theocracy isn't going to replace democracy everywhere. But nothing less will truly satisfy the radical Muslims, the Islamists, and they are waging a jihad to precisely this end. The affairs in Israel and Palestine are a sidenote. The Islamists want One World Under Islam and they are willing to strive, fight, and die for this fanatical religious vision--and they say so: in speeches, writings, and actions. We are facing a fanatical ideology which does not hold human life in nearly the same regard we do. Observe the death-cultism of the suicide bombers, too. It is a much different scenario than with the IRA.

[MMMMMM]

Andy you must try to look a little (or a lot) deeper.

I'll be away for at least a week so I won't have time to elaborate, best wishes in the meantime.

[superleeds]

A terrorist is a terrorist, pure and simple. They see no possible way to bring about the society they want and so they resort to terror tactics. 'My terrorist is more insane than yours' is utter crap as an argument.

I suggest you read a book about the IRA before you start making glib comments about their goals and methods. Heres a start (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=55KS9AC6RT&isbn=0312294166& itm=1)

[andyfox]

I read your post carefully, and chose to comment on one point. Both our enemies and our leaders always mention god in their speeches, telling us that he's on the right side, i.e., the side that is doing the speaking. Same thing leaderes were doing a thousand years ago.

Anyway, see you back here when you return.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
A terrorist is a terrorist, pure and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok.

[ QUOTE ]
They see no possible way to bring about the society they want and so they resort to terror tactics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't mean to speak for M but I believe Ms point is that the society the IRA terrorists want and the society the Jihadist terrorists want are far different.

[ComedyLimp]

"If my take is correct the Northern Ireland experience and the actions of the British government in response to terrorism in the 80's lead you to this conclusion"

Yes. Militarily we had a *much* simpler problem than that which faces us now. We had a relatively small number of terrorists in a small country that we actually governed and another small country that, whilst not exactly close allies, were at least resolutely oppossed to terrorism. In the 70s and much of the 80s many in the UK were convinced that the problem of IRA terrorsim could be solved via sending in the army and rooting them out and either shooting or arresting them. So we attemtped to solve the problem through a combination or military means, security measures, a "pragmatic" approach to the civil rights of terror suspects (internment, military tribunals, etc.) and so on.

This strategy, despite it being faced with a far more tractable problem than the problems we face with extremist Islamist terrorists, basically achieved nothing beyond killing a few thousand (mostly) innocent people. Both sides carried on for 30 years in a bloody stalemate until everyone was so exhausted that eventually a political process got started and we are where we are today -- with an uneasy and incomplete peace but with a sense of hope and progress and no meaningful terrorist problems (spliter groups like the Real/Continuity IRA although much more bloody are relatively simple to deal with).

"Let's assume the parallels are valid, what course of action would you recommend"

The IRA prospered becuase a significant minority of the Northern Ireland population had legitimate grievances with the British Government. They were poor, abused by the Protestant majority, denied jobs, housing, etc. The vast majority of these people were perfectly reasonable, normal people who would no sooner plant a bomb than you or I but because of the percieved injustices and a sense of powerlessness they supported the IRA to as greater or lesser extent. Indeed many of them explicitily supported the terrorists by from something relatively benign like voting Sinn Fein to looking the other way, to providing practical help for the people actually blowing people up.

The key thing is that if it were not for these people it would be relativelt simple to round up the IRA (and the various Loyalist terror groups). However, given the deep immersion of terrorists within the fabric of an actual communnity that gives them tacit support and comfort, rounding them up becomes pretty much impossible. Or rather you can so it but only by rounding up and locking up everybody (and there was a short period in the 70s when the British came fairly close to actually trying this).

Now wind forward to the current situation where there is a political process in place that is addressing the fears and problems of the Catholic minority (and, equally, the security concerns of the Protestant majority). Now the IRA pretty much has zero support for its armed stuggle and terrorism, whilst not exaclt going away, ceases to be a factor. So for exmaple look at the way the various splinter groups despite a few initial successes and, in Omagh, just about the worst atrocity of the whole period quickly withered and died without the support of the community.

Note also that the Catholic community doesn't require nailed on, gift wrapped solutions to all their problems to stop supporting the IRA -- simply a sense of hope and getting a fair shake is enough to bring along the majority of people in a process that undermines the terrorists. At some decidelt wobbly points in the process the IRA could quite easily have pulled out of the process and put us back to square one -- the fact that they didn't was largely becuase the idea of political soliution and no more bombs was so hugely popular with their natural constituency that, once the process was underway, they didn't have much choice but to stick with it.

The parallels with the Middle East should hopeful be obvious and i re-iterate my earlier points: You cannot win via (solely) military means and treating it like a war and basically its a question of winning "Hearts and Minds".

So, despite the predictable chest thumping and cries of "Appeaser" and the like from the Right I firmly believe that the best thing the US can do to help solve this problem is to make changes to its foreign policies. A solution to the Israel-Palestine problem is the single biggest and most important issue and while this is obviosuly not anything but simple I think that with a strong enough President with the right courage and leadership the US could go a long way to making it happen. This is not to say that the US shouldn't be utterly ruthless in dealing with the actual terrorists, and that the military and security services don't have a huge role to play -- just that you can't have one without the otehr.

[An aside: I don't really want to get into the Israel issue as frankly one big issue is enough. Suffice it to say that although I would probably be thought of as a Liberal in US circles and think we should proceed with a negotiated two-state settlement ASAP, I am not one for the unhelpful demonising of Israel and sweeping under the carpet the fact that the likes of Hamas are murderous loonies. As a friend of mine in Tel Aviv is fond of saying, the great tragedy of the region is that everybody knows what the eventual solution will be -- you can pretty much write it down now -- and the only real question is how many more years each side is going to spend killing each other before they get around to sorting it out.]

So overall I believe that the US's problems start with the way they are percieved by ordinary Arabs and that this perception is at the heart of al-Qaeda's support. Convincing oridnary Arabs that the US is not the Great Satan and not the cause of all their problems is the crux of the matter and with this the defeat of al-Qaeda becomes eminently possible which, short of nuking half the planet, it currently isn't.

Finally a quick word about GWB. Post 9/11 the US had this huge reserve of support and goodwill from prety much the whole of the world. Such has been the staggeringly bad way in which Bush has gone about tackling the problem and with the breathtakingly ill-advised Iraq situation in particular that all this goodwill has pretty much been frittered away without achieving very much in terms of solving terrorism.

Consider this: Many, many perfectly ordinary and decent people with mainstream, reasonable views, in my country -- your closest and staunchest ally -- believe that the Bush administration via it misguided foreign policy is causing more problems than its solving. If the frightfully nice vicar in a village in Oxfordshire thinks your government is as much part of the problem as the solution what chance do you have of convincing the market trader in Bagdhad?

Matthew
Back from the pub

[ComedyLimp]

Perhaps I'll come back go your points when I have more time but suffice it to say that I have faced similar arguments and attiudes before -- to think and feel the way you seemingly do is quite understandable after all -- and I'm fairly sure that there is not much I can say that will sway you from your views.

I think you see things rather in black and white and somewhat simplistically and, I suspect, in 10 years time you might have acquired a more nuanced view and less of, what seems to be, a closed mind.

Of course I might be wrong and in 10 years we may be all toasting the final victory in the War Against Terroras the very last Islamist terror cell is rounded up and slung in jail.

Matthew

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't mean to speak for M but I believe Ms point is that the society the IRA terrorists want and the society the Jihadist terrorists want are far different.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Just because one group flew planes into a building and the other, amongst many other atrocities, exploded a bomb during a rememberance day parade make their ultimate goals somehow different. They both use methods to effect change because they know legal methods will not acheive their goals. Trying to suggest Terrorists have some kind of moral scale based on how much of the world they wish to affect is pure and utter drivel.

The old argument that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter I can accept but to suggest that there are levels of evil within the terrorist world is obscene.

[MMMMMM]

Well that is indeed what both sides tend to say. Yet what both sides say isn't necessarily the same as what God would say--nor is what both sides say even necessarily in keeping with what their respective religious texts say. Also, the two religious texts, the New Testament and the Koran, are not just two sides of the same coin; they are instrinsically very distinct from each other, even in that which they exhort their followers to do.

Well gtg best wishes again.

[MMMMMM]

superleeds, I agree that a terrorist is a terrorist. But the IRA does not insist that Protestant England convert to Catholicism or face future attacks, does it? The IRA does not desire that the Pope become the effective legal ruler of the UK? What I'm saying is that the objectives of the Islamists are more encompassing in scope and more impossible and fanatical than those of terrorists who hold more concrete objectives. Sorry I won't be able to continue this discussion for the next week or two. Be well.

[superleeds]

Have fun while your away

[MMMMMM]

I'm not trying to suggest that the Islamists are somehow more evil than the IRA; rather it is their ideology that is more impossibly insane, impractical, grander in scope and uncompromising. The IRA wants certain political and concrete things in Ireland. The Islamists want to turn the entire world, by force, into a Theocracy ruled by an Islamic Caliphate. That's some difference in goals if you ask me.

[MMMMMM]

Don't worry Tom, on the few occasions you have attempted to speak for me I do not recall you making any significant errors;-)

[superleeds]

MMMMMM,

Maybe I am just suffering from selective hearing, after all it is a fault we all suffer from, but for what its worth this is what I hear.

We are fighting a war on terror, and I know various countries, allies of ours, have had problems in the past themselves which we have either ignored or at the very least played down, this time its serious. We know how to deal with it so leave all the details to us and don't dare question us. It will look like appeasement. Just suffer in silence when you also suffer the inevitable consequenses and help pay for it but under no circumstances question us. You haven't had what we've had so just trust us to get it right

This administration had a huge opportunity after Sept 11th to mobalise the all of the most powerful nations and basically pissed it away with its arrogant bull in a china shop approach.

[adios]

You are missing his point IMO. Nobody is claiming that some terrorists actions are more legitimate than others. What is being claimed is that some terrorists have more legitimate causes than others. Just because someone's cause may have more legitimacy than another doesn't excuse acts of terrorism.

[nicky g]

I completely disagree. You seem to advocate voting for the PP. regardless of its handling of the bomnings, simply because that will not look like "giving in" to terrorism. From my point of view, that is letting the terrorists make a much bigger difference in the election than throwing out a party in response to its atrocious handling of the bombings. It's simply cutting off your nose to spite the terrorists, to coin a phrase. Playing politics at such a time with a grieving country is much worse than you suggest, but that wasn't all the Aznar government did to deserve the swing against it; it, like Blair and Bush, took its eye off the al-Qaeda ball, to concentrate resources on a smaller threat from ETA and a nonexistent threat from Iraq, and then when al-Qaeda struck refused to acknowledge who it was. It also made SPain an international laughing stock by pushing through a UN resloution blaming ETA well before blame was established. THat is not the hallmark of a serious government or one that can be trusted to chose to do the right thing in protecting its citizens if a politicaly more expedient option is available. That is a disastrous way to deal with a terrorist threat. To overlook all that simply to show unity or defiance is nothing but moronic bloody-mindedness.

[ACPlayer]

Well put.

In fact it is reasonable to state that the Aznar government shot itself in the foot with its rush to indict the ETA in the bombings and the totally idiotic UN resolution.

A more measured response may have prevented the "victory" that the Al Qaeda is now claiming in changing the government. It is of course unknown if that was an objective of the bombing or did Aznar play into the hands of the terrorists.

This is not to absolve him of the blame he richly deserves in siding with the pointless Iraqi campaign. Even in that he played politics at the expense of the Spain's long term best interests and definitely against the wishes of the populace.

Unfortunately the principle players in the "War on Terror" (Bush, Blair and Aznar at least) have all been playing politics rather than getting down to the serious business of solving the problem. Feel good, knee-jerk reactions have made the world more dangerous and Iraq less stable one year after the decision to strike at Saddam.

The people of Spain have said that they want solutions not politics. Lets see what Britain, Japan, and the US do in the ir respective political landscapes.

[Ed Miller]

"I don't like my government, I think it has made terrible foreign policy decisions and its use of tragedy for political gain makes it morally bankrupt but I would never give in to terrorists so I am must vote for them anyway"?

VOTE BUSH!

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]

VOTE BUSH!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the endorsement - from a big time author, it really means a lot! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif