Tim Blair

Hey, the Spaniards have made it plain. I will vote the way you want just please don't hurt me.

Go get the Jew, it was all his idea.

Israel is still democratic, despite ongoing terrorist attacks.

So is Britain, Ireland, America, India, Spain, France, Germany, Italy...

Which civilised society has been undermined by terrorism?

Jay Bryant on the capitulation he blames on PP leader Rajoy's prevarication, creating a problem for Kerry.

Or to put it more plainly, if a car bomb goes off in Sydney and Howard/Costello gets voted out, how have the terrorists "won"?

If Blair gets the boot and a Tory government returns, will anyone give a damn?

Exactly how can the exercise of the democratic process be construed as the collapse of civilisation?

Michael: Exactly how can the exercise of the democratic process be construed as the collapse of civilisation?

When the electorate choose not to defend themselves against an overwhleming threat.

as I put on my tin-foil turban, perhaps osama bin laden is dead. The reaction of the west have resulted in the advancement of his obejective like few could have imagined. The further advancement of osamas goals could only be reached by his surrender and dipolomatic endeavours. If he was alive it would be the logical choice to surrender and encourage Islamic advancement through achievement rather than threat. He is either dead or a deciever.

Tim, you're begging the question. If it's a threat that civilisation has survived for hundreds of years, it's hardly overwhelming, is it?

Timothy McVeigh blew up a whole building in a truly despicable act of terror, and yet, civilisation was unmoved. You can kill individuals but civilisation is a robust entity that takes more than a few truck bombs to overthrow.

"Bombs kill and panic the panicky. But they do not undermine civilised society" is an entirely correct statement.

Osama is dead. Any further argument gives him creedence and make him a martyr. Let his name die and be blown away like the sands of a dune.

And if by chance some asshole shows up looking like him, and claiming to be him, shoot him on the spot in the face, and call it collateral damage.

The Lockerbie bombing did not undermine civilised society. Nor for that matter did the explosion of the Hindenberg, the sinking of the Titanic or even the destruction of the World Trade Center. Civilisation is not that fragile!

The democratic process reserves the right to fail. We hope to fail less than if a couple assholes were in control. I respect Spain's right to fail in logic because I expect that our logic may also fail and I also expect that their failure is not total.

Geez, that Steyn article is pure bile. What exactly is his problem?

"The Influenza virus is a greater threat to civilisation than Islamic terrorism is. Discuss."

Pity fighting diseases with microbiologists just isn't macho enough :)

speaking of poor timing, reynolds linked this:

INFLUENTIAL REPORTERS AND BLOGGERS

I'm especially disappointed Stephen Green, Steve Den Beste, Tyler Cowen, and Econopundit are not much higher.

"Asteroid impact is a greater threat to civilisation than Chinese missiles are. Discuss"

Sadly, asteroid defence is also much less macho than missile defence.

aaron, is there any indication of which blogs were spidered to generate that list?

Counting links to determine influence also depends on how influential the linker is, and so on, as with Google's PageRank.

For example, the Technorati Top 100 has a quite different ordering. I would take all such lists with a substantial lump of salt.

I have no clue.

I just wanted to plug those sites.

Technocrati seems more in line with my expectations.

Alan of Southerly Bluster says that 70 million Spaniards marched, which is quite a turnout for a country of 40 million people.

Who is doing the counting? John Pilger?

I'm surprised that there is no tool for automatically tracking the political affiliations of blogs, too. It would be trivially discernible from the links, I would imagine.

Michael, you're right that terrorism isn't really a big threat. It can become one. The motives are interesting. It is completely irrational. It is completely unnecessary. It is completely man made.

These other problem are just less interesting to us common folk. They are much more tedious to deal with and more out of our control.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see Spain withdraw from the Coalition, and it saddens me to see another chunk of Europe fall under the socialist spell. But there is every possibility that the socialists might have been elected anyway - the lure of bountiful handouts paid for by other people's money seems to strike a powerful chord with much of Europe.

My guess is that thinking Spaniards will soon learn the folly of their choice as Zapatero's govt undoes the economic progress of the Aznar era.

Personally, I prefer to attribute the result of the elections to the Spanish people. I'm not inclined to give Osama Bin Turd In A Tin or his proxies any credit whatsoever.

But thanks, Tim. You really brightened my day with the earlier link to the Grauniad article re the 'virgins' theory. I just wish I could see the look on the next Islamosplodey martyr-idiot as he stares uncomprehendingly at a bowl of chilled grapes and mutters, "Where's my black eyed houris?" What a hoot.

Socialist Workers' Party

Good grief, that isn't a good name for a party wishing to see itself as democratic rather than a bunch of, um, nazis.

"the lure of bountiful handouts paid for by other people's money seems to strike a powerful chord with much of Europe."

Luckily of course, no one in other parts of the world is foolish enough to succumb to the siren song of government subsidies!

ahem.

What planet are you from Michael? Let me take some of your lunacy in order.
First up, you seem to be equating 'undermine' with destroy. No one is suggesting that a single terrorist attack will result in the end of our civilisation. What they are suggesting is that a certain type of response - i.e. appeasement - to an ongoing threat may eventually lead to the collapse of secular, pluralist, western style democracy - i.e. our current 'civilisation'. Modern terorrism is not a threat that 'civilsation has survived for hundreds of years' - our civilisation as it exists now can barely be traced to the industrial revolution, if not even more recently than that.
Either you are a very unimaginative troll, or you are misinterpreting 'civilisation' to mean 'humans' Yes, people will survive even if the terrorists achieve their goals, but what sort of 'civilisation' will they be living in? A medieval theocracy? oh goody

aaron, terrorism will not be a significant threat until individual people have the power to destroy an entire planet. I expect that we shall reach that point somewhere between 2100 and 2200. After that, we're screwed. Such is life.

Put it this way, if there was a button that when pressed would end the universe, you would be able to find someone on this planet willing to press it. Just for kicks. Not much that can be done about that.

Right now I'm just wishing I had some cash to invest due to the dip our markets took because of the correction and increased risk of terrorism. I'm ready for a nice pop here before summer, then another dip when interest rates go up.

Paul, I see no indication that truck bombs and plane hijackings will lead to the overthrowing of democracy and the establishment of a theocracy. Do you?

by then there will be other planets and less motivation.

I do see them influencing democracy when aligned with media agendas.

"appeasement" generally refers to the policy of accepting Hitler's demands in the '30s.

I see no indication that any democratic nation has attempted to "appease" al-Quaeda. (One could say that the American withdrawal from Saudi Arabia constitutes appeasement, but that way lies madness).

aaron, I suspect that there will not be other planets populated by humans, and there will always be the motivation. People are just ornery like that :)

Enough!

Whilst youz guyz go on about yer own personal (and weird) vendatta, the rest of us might be wonderin':

- what happens when Bush gets voted out?
- what happens when Howard gets voted out?
- what happens when Blair gets voted out?

Who will speak for the dead, dying and left-behind when someone asks why we didn't do more? Maybe by then, many of us may not give a shit anymore and decide you were all right after all, and pull up the fucking drawbridge. After all, the answer was there right in front of your faces, and you refused to listen, but who are we to argue at that point?

Far be it from me (and thousands like me) to let our kids go out and die for ingrates.

Perhaps, by then, your self-satisfying polemics will have assumed the dry, empty air of those in the press pre-9-11 and 3-11.

Of course, you could always blame it on the evil Bush empire.

Yet remember this: cowards can only buy so much time.

Argue with that, arseholes.

geezer, if Bush, Howard and Blair are voted out, life will continue as it always had. If they serve another term, life will also go on pretty much as it always has.

People are dying in North Korea and we do nothing. Such is life, eh? People only have so much attention to spread around. It is a mistake to typify any election choice as being between Good and Evil. Life goes on.

"if Bush, Howard and Blair are voted out, life will continue as it always had"

Tell that to the Arabs, Iranians and North Koreans who wil be dancing in the streets!

Allah, that's moronic. How has North Korea been changed by the Bush, Howard or Blair administrations?

What do you expect "Arabs" to do if Bush is voted out? Throw a party? And then what? How exactly will it change things?

So, to take Mark Steyn's views to their logical conclusion, the western nations should effectively become one party states in order not to look weak to terrorists.

Who's the moral coward here?

Did he say that Mork?.

Jesus, what is this? Troll-fest '04???

Michael, no, North Korea hasn't been changed by the 3 horsemen of the Anglosphere **yet**. Give them another term and a continuation of the Madness Of King Jong Il III and we can change that. As for the Arabs, regrettably only action by the said 3 horsemen might force a change of administration and culture in the Arab world that might drag at least a few of its members into the modern age. Sadly there's no prospect of Kerry or Latham or any of Blairs rivals (at least within the British Labour Party) viewing Western civilization as exportable. As such, without the 3 horsemen the 'change' in N. Korea or the Ummah will be the removal of any prospect for improvement.

As for the comment "life will go on pretty much as it always has". Yeah. Right. Or, to put it another way "Nothing really bad can happen to me". Good luck with your life if you believe that.

The question is not whether or not we confront Islamofacism, the question is whether we confront it now with depleted uranium, or if do it ten years with the live stuff.

Michael

Terrorists may or may not be a threat to our civilisation - I do however take exception to anyone who wants to blow me up because I want to catch a plane and I'm not muslim.

I would like to go to work and at the end of the day have a quiet beer, not end up in a bloody pile of rubble because someone has a problem with my civilisation.

I'm glad my government does something in response to the September 11's and the Bali's because I believe it will give the terrorists pause to think.

I don't think civilisation is going to be wiped out by islamofascists, but I don't want to be wiped out either.

I sincerely hope that anyone, or any group that wants to interfere with my way of life has their way of life severly and permanently disrupted by my government.

I hope the day never comes when my actions, or the actions of my elected representatives are swayed by how a terorist may react.

Headcase, North Korea hasn't been changed yet, but it will if Bush is re-elected? How? What magic pixie dust does Bush bring to the table?

listen 'michael', osama and his buddies have put gay people like yourself at the top of their hitlist. why would you defend them?

Michael:

ya sound like a thoughtful guy, and you've probably been posting here a lot longer than I.

That said, I'm 47 yrs old, (26 in the USAF, rcently retired) and I've lived under 10 presidents. Who cares? I fucking do. What they say IS what happens to America, especially now in the digital age. Nowadays, every friggin' utterance of any major American media figure comes under close scrutiny, particularly by our worst enemy.

I (and hopefully many others) see that as a major danger to what the Western world hopes to accomplish against the onslaught of our common, non-Western enemy. If you (and your loved/not-so-loved ones) are sufficiently and comfortably innoculated against that enemy, then please tell the rest of us your secret. Minus hands-in-the-air capitulation, that is.

For the record, my Mom's house is just across the water from lower Manhattan, and I had plenty of troops leave out of here from Delaware for Afghanistan and Iraq. I was also close to a guy who got killed in Khobar Towers, as well as a few who got non-JFK II Purple Hearts, too.

You're either in or out -- get off the fence, dude.

Michael,

As N.Korea shows no signs of abandoning a desire to be a threat to American security in North Asia and the Northern Pacific, I think it's a plausible prediction that sooner or later an American government must choose between removing the threat or allowing it to become part of the status quo. Bush's track record says the former is more to be expected from him; equally his track record says the means he would use will be (to use some naughty words) regime change. Given thte current state of N.Korea it's diffiuclt to picture a change as being other than an improvement.

While I'll happily defer to American commenters on this, from this side of the Pacific it's difficult to see Kerry being prepared to take the same action.

N'tl Party Headcase, Andrew and Sum Gai: ya'll are THERE. Keep up the fight, guys.

Gilly: you're close, Brother. You want to give the other side the benefit of the doubt, but you're being too damned nice! An Islamofascist exerts no more discretion between you and an amoeba when planting a bomb, government be damned. They have no more compunction blowing someone up (vis a vis religion/politics/pop music) than you'd have with a fucking rock... this alone should tell you what chance you have to reason with them!

Sorry... didn't mean to preach. (For those familiar with the movie "Gettysburg", you'll know EXACTLY where I was coming from with that line.)

I will say it again Michael, you are either an unimaginative troll, or a complete w_nker, i am as yet undecided.
You seem to be suggesting that the election of one person or another really doesnt make that much difference to how the world works. Such a ho-hum all governments are the same attitude might get you through an arts degree, but it comes up rather short against reality.
I am happy to admit that whoever gets elected in Australia doesnt make a huge difference to the world order, but what happens in the US does.

"What magic pixie dust does Bush bring to the table?"

He doesnt bring pixie dust, he brings the worlds largest economy, the USAF and a whole shit load of tanks. These can have a rather large effect on the world.
Let me make it simple for you - imagine that Gore had won instead of Bush. Now tell me that the world would look largely the same now under Gore as it does under Bush.

Paul, every American leader brings the American military to the table, that's a given. I don't see Bush trying to topple the North Korean government though, as it is totally not in his or America's interest to do so at this time.

Many thanks, Paul Dub, or should I say many thoroughly-updated and fully-capable Abramseseses....

And to think I missed the History Channel's series on "Iraq -- One Year Ago" for this shite.

Michael (if yer still awake, as I'm WAY fuckin' past my bedtime!)

Just between us guys: you don't really believe this shit you're slinging, do you?

Paul, and my comments were not that all governments are the same, but that there is no requirement to re-elect the current sitting parties otherwise "the terrorists have won" -- such a claim is merely spin.

geezer, I happened to be on a train that was bombed by the Ulster Unionists later that same day. Thankfully I wasn't on it, and the bomb fizzled, 'cos they ain't too bright at wiring those things. But I'm fully aware that there are people in the world who will kill people without due process. However, I recognise that these people are not a threat to civilisation as we know it, even as the recent Washington sniper was not a threat to civilisation.

Ultimately, terrorists by themselves are ineffectual. They can wreak isolated acts of terror, but that is all. Subduing every Islamic government in the world and converting them to democracy will not eliminate terrorism, as shown by Timothy McVeigh and a host of others. Thus, terrorism will always be with us in the same way that plane crashes and yes, plane hijackings will always be with us. It sucks, but life goes on.

It is also worth pointing out that Islamic terrorists target China, a decidedly non-democratic country. So it is hardly terrorists vs. democracy, but rather terrorists vs. practically everyone in the world, and my money is on the world.

sum gai, it's just fantastic that if someone believes that terrorism is not the most significant threat to the world then they are "defending Osama", I mean that's just great. I suppose if you think malaria is not a significant threat then you're defending infectious diseases spread by mosquitoes, right?

"I see no indication that any democratic nation has attempted to "appease" al-Quaeda. (One could say that the American withdrawal from Saudi Arabia constitutes appeasement, but that way lies madness)."

yeah madness. Them being told to, then doing it. A truly twisted leftist mind would call it a concession.

"I am happy to admit that whoever gets elected in Australia doesnt make a huge difference to the world order, but what happens in the US does."

No you silly. Bush while being rich isn't really that powerful. He is a front man. The window dressing the conglomerates use. If Kerry is elected he will dance the same dance. His speech writers will poll the same groups. They will be doing buisness as usual. Facade.

"listen 'michael', osama and his buddies have put gay people like yourself at the top of their hitlist. why would you defend them?"

And those lovely Republicans are coddling up to you with promises of a White Wedding.

Gilly: "I hope the day never comes when my actions, or the actions of my elected representatives are swayed by how a terorist may react."

So, someone else who believes that the Spanish people can vote for whoever they damn well please?

Michael - you are looking at the result, and ignoring the process that created it. You say that terrorists are ineffectual by themselves. No argument there (unless you are one of the innocents killed by them), but the point is that the world will only go on if people deal with the problem. Ignoring it on the basis that terrorism is always with us borders on insanity.
If we view terrorism as a form of disease, then applying your logic to diseases that have plagued us in the past, e.g. small pox, the best option would be to ignore it, as disease has always happened, and even if sections of the population are killed by it, the world will go on, albeit a less pleasant, more dangerous world.
Same for terrorism - the arab fundamentalists are never going to be in a position to defeat and conquer the western world by force of arms. However, they may destroy large chunks of it using WMD of some sort, or just make life extremely unpleasant for our populations on an ongoing basis. Why should we ignore that? We shouldnt. We should find the cause of the problem (muslim terrorism) and fix it. I am not saying that is an easy task, but it is one that must at least be attempted.

Paul, what about Christian terrorism, such as the bombing of abortion clinics and assassination of doctors?

What about domestic terrorism in America, Spain, Ireland, Russia, China...?

In short, what about terrorism that can't be "dealt with" by toppling a foreign government?

Michael

"every American leader brings the American military to the table"

The point is, will they use it if necessary and do the other world leaders believe them.

Ultimately, terrorism will be solved by law enforcement. This is a given, because if every country is ruled by a democratic government, there will be no single party states left to topple. But there will still be terrorists. Thus, law enforcement. But that's a dirty word when it comes to terrorism, isn't it?

Gary, Bush I did, Clinton did, Bush II did, I mean when *hasn't* the American military been used?

Oi, IXL@WAKNMAWILLY, ummm, you might not know it, but most of your 'argument' has already been done. Go read Garry Allen's "None Dare Call it Conspiracy". It's (just) marginally better written than your crap, and has the same obsession with Evil Corporations (TM) controlling the White House. Why not just copy and paste from it to Tim's site and call it a day? By then you'll have said all you need to say.

By the way, what country are you from? I'm getting the impression English isn't your first language.

Michael: funny you should bring up N. Ireland, as my first wife had some hilarious stories about tripping over soldiers on her way home from a disco (ecch!) in Belfast... I've got quite a few more of those if you're ever of a mind to ask me.

Mebbe it's just me, but I seem to detect a difference you make between individual cranks (like the not-so-dearly departed TimmAH!... please tell me you get South Park where you live?!) and organized groups who've got one sole purpose in life -- to convert or kill anyone who doesn't whoop out the old prayer rug 5 times a day. I brought a shit-load of them back with me from SA and TU if you should ever need one, BTW...

Oh, and N. Korea/Ch Comms will have to wait their respective turns. As much as the Demeaucrats want their country back, they shan't have it until we Evil Republicans are done fixing it, in stages, of course.

I repeat my earlier question: you don't really believe the leftist crap you're slinging here, do you?

Why on Earth would I have someone other than myself spout the garbage I spout? To what purpose would I allow some simp to express what only I can? If the problem is terrorist them kill them. That's easy isn't it?

When a terrorist name comes out I suggest killing every living relative they have. See how that kicks in thier Jihadist teachings at home. Wonder if Mom and Dad will still feel so much pride if the blowing up they do so fast ends up with themselves the targets of a surgical action.

What I hate are half measures, and fools who think a political party matters one way or another. Lies are lies no matter which group spouts them.

Oh, and a blow job "IS" a whole lot less worth reporting on than a failing economy, and worldwide distrust.

leftist crap? *sigh*

Okay, terrorism *is* the greatest threat to civilisation, and we shall solve it through superior firepower. Happy now? Macho enough for you?

We shall nuke the Kingdom to a glassy plain, and there shall be no acts of terror ever ever again. (Barring the odd individual nutcase, state sponsored organisation or group that only bothers brown people).

Well Michael, I a have a suspicion you are deliberately being obtuse and contrarian. Entertaining in short burst but it gets boring over time. Leave the thread hijacking to Mork.

Thank you Michael. I'm very tired now and not quite myself, but what you've said makes a lot of sense to me. Terrorism simply can't stop civilization unless we decide to let it. There are also many greater threats to (the prosperity of) civilization. Malaria is, by what I understand, a greater detriment to society.

However, terrorism is much more a part of society. We can decide to what level we incorporate it now. We can decide on no checks and let it be part of our politcal process, or we can continue to improve effectively.

Michael: OK, so if "leftist crap" is too personal, I'll settle for "cranky spittle."

No? How 'bout: "Stalinist twaddle?" Dude, we ARE talking about enemies of Western Civilization here, right? As in "People who want to see you, I, and everybody else we really, really like" dead, right?

Ok, so I'll stop trying to be cute: I see Islamofascists as much of a danger as our parents/grandparents saw fascism in the 30s. It's just our poor luck that they all poured their lives and souls in to defeat something that would somehow, under another name, rear it's ugly head many hard-to-count years later. Name your Poland. Name your Dunkirk. Name your Normandy. Name your Berlin. It's all the same, Brother, and we'd all better watch our arses or the same damn thing will bite us in the arse in the end. So to speak.

We won't get many more wake-up calls.

Creativity or destruction.

Wow, the outpatients are out in force, aren't they?

Earth to Michael: These people want to kill you. They want to get as many bombs as they can - preferably nuclear - and destroy the city you live in, along with you, your family, your friends, neigbours, cats, dogs, budgies, whatever.

Or to put it more plainly, if a car bomb goes off in Sydney and Howard/Costello gets voted out, how have the terrorists "won"?

Are you hard-of-thinking?

Howard and Costello strongly oppose terrorism. They are the terrorists' enemies. The terrorists have now disposed of said enemies. As just happened in Spain.

They have won. A battle, yes, not the war, but they have still won.

The islamo-fascists want to destroy Western civilisation. They can't win, not unless we surrender outright.

The choice is this: Treat each attack separately, until we are all like Israel, with bombs tearing apart restaurants and hotels every week, with children afraid to take the bus to school because they know that someone wants to blow it up and kill them. And then wake up one morning to find half the city gone.

Or: Take the attack to the enemy, kill them, wipe out their bases, their support, their sources of funding.

Aaron and Pixy Misa: hoo-ah/oo-ah/urr-ah.

Take your pick, depending on service.

geezer, Stalinist??? Might as well say Trotskyist, it has as little connection with what I'm saying. In what way is "terrorism is not the greatest threat we face today" supposed to be Stalinist, exactly?

Islamic terrorism and Islamic fascist states are as big a threat to peace as Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan and Russia were in the '30s? Do you honestly believe that? Before Saddam fell, did you wake up each morning wondering if this would be the day that the Iraqi planes started bombing Washington? That this would be the day that the Saudi troops would march triumphantly into Paris? That this would be the day that Osama would order the gassing of 6 million infidels? Likening the threat of Islamic terrorism to the threat of '30s fascism is absolutely absurd. Terrorists can only blow things up occasionally! Yes, that's a bad thing. Yes, it's worth fighting. Yes, it should be stopped. But for crying out loud, it's hardly on a scale of World War II.

Pixy, I'm glad that Howard and Costello oppose terrorism, given that only a complete moron would support it. Trust me, I polish my fridge magnet daily, and give thanks that their eternal vigilance has kept us safe from the Islamic hordes.

Israel suffers reoccuring terror attacks because the country is full of people who enjoy blowing stuff up to make a point. Australia, America and Britain are not, and do not seem likely to become so, regardless of how many countries we invade or choose not to invade. (For the defense of Australia, the first choice would be Indonesia, but I don't see that happening any time soon).

geezer, yes, crazy people "want to see me dead". And fundamentalist Christians probably think I'm going to hell, but I'll hold off on invading America for now, despite its harbouring the greatest concentration of such people.

To sum up: get a grip, people. Eternal vigilance and law enforcement will keep terrorism as a manageable threat, at least until nuclear weapon technology is simple enough that high school students can build them, and then we're all dead anyway. In the meantime, how about tackling some of those problems that can't be solved by blowing stuff up?

Michael - They only need to kill you once.

Michael, get a clue.

Pakistan and North Korea (and a whole bunch of other people) were selling nuclear technology to anyone with a suitcase full of cash. If we don't stop that, a Western city will be nuked, and it won't be long before it happens.

What the hell is a "manageable threat", anyway? 200 killed, 1500 injured? That, once a year? Once a month? What?

Who's been the world's top blogger in terms of output and referrals for the important last 3 days? An Australian blogger!

See Here

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/top-authors-00.html

See BlogRunner's overall list of the most influential reporters and bloggers on the world-wide-web.

Who is #007? That's Blair, Tim Blair.

Crank up the bumper-sticker machine:

"Is _YOUR_ Governing Party Al-Qaeda Approved?"

Who's blowing stuff up?

We are not significantly diverting our resources from other prospects. Just because dollars are assigned to one cause does not mean that means of pursuing other avenues disappear.

TO: Michael
RE: How?

"Exactly how can the exercise of the democratic process be construed as the collapse of civilisation?" -- michael

Because, based on your own words describing the scenario, it's extortion. The guy with the bigger bomb gets to decide what is done. Not the people.

So then, based on YOUR theoretical approach, whoever has the bigger bomb wins? Hmmmmm....US can live with that.

HEAR THIS!!!!!

VOTE THE WAY WE WANT OR YOU DIE!!!

Sound okay to you, Michael? If not, why not?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Peace through fire superiority?]

TO: Michael
RE: Only....

"Timothy McVeigh blew up a whole building in a truly despicable act of terror, and yet, civilisation was unmoved. You can kill individuals but civilisation is a robust entity that takes more than a few truck bombs to overthrow." -- Michael

...if the civilization is made up of strong individuals. They are the building stuff of civilization.

The Spaniards, along with the rest of continental Western Europe, are in decline. Their birth rate cannot sustain their civilization. In this century they will become a third-rate society...

...or adopt sharia.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

tim blair at 007, yaya! where's quiggan and sheils?? oh, maybe the list excluded deluded leftist dildoes...

To Mr. Flippant:

Showing Islamic terrorists that they can successfully decide the outcome of western elections through well-timed attacks is indeed a Very Bad Thing(tm). Also, this is part of a larger and rather troubling societal pattern and not an isolated incident.

If you feel that semantics ("where do we draw the line for "undermining" western civ? hmmm...") is the most important thing to talk about in connection to these phenomena, so be it, but don't be surprised when quite a few people disagree.

Oh, and by the time nuclear technology goes home-brewed, expect to see some really cool new surveillance tech on the market. Extrapolating current trends without taking countertrends into account makes for bad predictions.

Regards, Döbeln

-Stabil som fan!

michael has obviously rowed the boat to shore

alleluia!

Mike's right you know.

Cancer is always going to be here, of course
it can't wipe out mankind so why bother?

Unless Mikey is the one diagnosed.

Of course, Mickey, your smug
ho hum attitude may be fun, but see if
it is bombproof.

Cunt.

The Spanish didn't vote to please, or thwart, Al Qaeda. The ousting of the Partido Popular Party was a result of the way the Aznar administration tried to instantly pin the attacks on ETA without any corroborating proof and contrary to the evidence they did have (the much talked about "van" was discovered prior to the govt's statements about ETA being to blame). The terrorists didn't win--the liars lost.

You know, Tim McVeigh didn't have a lot of time for the Clintons.

Did that mean that anyone who voted Republican in '96 was an appeaser of terrorism?

I don't think there's much point in trying to reason with Michael. Either he's of the nihilistic bent and just doesn't care much about anybody's life (including his own), or he's the usual leftist twit for whom people deliberately killed by other people are just statistics and not, you know, people who were deliberately killed by other people.

He certainly has a curiously static view of the world where no government ever makes a difference and where terrorism perpetually remains at the level of "manageable threat". Oh, okay, until they get nukes and we're all dead. Alrighty then!

I thin k what Michael isn't quite grasping here is that the Provos, Tim McVeigh, Ulster Orangeaids and most of their ilk aren't actually set on destroying Western civilisation as their, like, main gig. They just want to cut a piece of the pie, by fair means or foul.

No terrorist group has waded as deep in blood as Osama's, or as frequently. The numbers seem inexhaustible as the death factories or "schools" keep churning out the wouldbe martyrs. In a short space of time we have had two African embassies (100), 9/11 (3000), Bali (200) and Madrid (200) not to mention such lesser dust-ups as Tunis (a lot of German tourists), Turkey, Kurdish Iraq , Mombasa hotel, etc etc etc.

We have never been as sated with horror as we are right now, when any atrocity is possible or indeed probable.

Civilisation is already damaged, because even compassion and horror are blunted by this continuous assault on every decent human value. The fact that many in the West are blaming themselves for the massacre has opened a dark place inside us all.

The likely purpose of the attack, as well as the timing of the attack, was to impact the spanish elections so that the Partido Popular would lose.

CNN even claims to have access to a document to that effect right now. Naturally, I can't vouch for it's authenticity, but the assumption is most likely good in any case.

The vote in Spain means that the terrorists accomplished their goal to 100%. Trying to rationalize it away using the subjective perspective of spanish voters isn't really much good - they have in any case handed the Al Qaeda a major victory. That the new government is more pliant, and is going to make the Al Qaedas' job in Iraq a bit easier is of course a nice bonus.

As for the specifics, that the Spanish government initially labelled ETA as the likely culprits hardly makes them "liars". As shown by the rapid arrests of islamic activists, as well as rapid publication of evidence pointing in an islamist direction there was no subversion of evidence or other decietful activity. I do understand that many spaniards are in need of a good rationalization for their complicity in realizing Al-Qaeda policy goals.

Regards, Döbeln

-Stabil som fan!

PS.

"You know, Tim McVeigh didn't have a lot of time for the Clintons.

Did that mean that anyone who voted Republican in '96 was an appeaser of terrorism?"

No, but anyone who thought the bombing was a good reason to switch their vote to the repubs would have been. Oh, and if McVeigh had blown up that building three days before the election, causing millions of voters to switch their alliegance to the Repubs, yes, they would have been appeasers to an even higher degree. If McVeigh had been part of a larger, more well-funded and connected terrorist network, the appeasment factor goes up even further. (If the Repubs had at the same time decided to follow up on their victory by at once carrying out some pet policy of McVeigh's, it gets even worse...)

DS.

Döbeln: As for the specifics, that the Spanish government initially labelled ETA as the likely culprits hardly makes them "liars". As shown by the rapid arrests of islamic activists, as well as rapid publication of evidence pointing in an islamist direction there was no subversion of evidence or other decietful activity."

"On Saturday, as Spanish protesters accused their government of attempting to promote the theory of ETA's responsibility for its political advantage, Acebes repeatedly insisted that ETA was the prime suspect. But on Thursday, the Spanish police had already found a van containing detonators and a tape of Koranic verses, ETA had issued a rare denial of responsibility and concurrently blamed 'an operation of the Arab resistance' and an al-Qaeda related group had claimed the act as their own."

A Sunday Reuters article reported that: "Some Spaniards were vitriolic in accusing Aznar of 'manipulating' public opinion over the bombings." And on Sunday's national US television, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice all insisted that there was insufficient information to know who was responsible for the Madrid attacks. But this was long after Thursday's Security Council resolution naming ETA, and with an apparent election debacle facing Spain's war supporters that very day." Full article here: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC16Aa05.html

Döbeln: "I do understand that many spaniards are in need of a good rationalization for their complicity in realizing Al-Qaeda policy goals."

Charming. You do realise that the PP were dropping percentage points daily in the polls prior to the attack? But if you want to give comfort to the enemy by attributing election results to their efforts, and at the same time lay the boot into a traumatised people, feel free.

The Spanish electorate has decided that it is better to live on their knees than die on their feet.

Let me float this baloon.

ETA hates Azner and vice versa. ETA wants him out for fuckin with them very effectively. ETA knows that the war in Iraq is not populer with the Spanish electorate. ETA blows up the trains and makes it look like AQ with conveniently located trucks with detonators and bullshit Koranic tapes. ETA fakes the AQ videoes, one deposited outside a main Mosque in Milan (how corny). The Spanish go apeshit that Azner brought this down on them and vote him outa office and elect a pussy Socialist that ETA will just love.

Game, set and match ETA. Or maybe I should stay off the Magic Mushies!?

From Michael:

Timothy McVeigh blew up a whole building in a truly despicable act of terror, and yet, civilisation was unmoved.

Timothy McVeigh had no follow-on forces. Timothy McVeigh didn't have Afghanistan to train in, or funding from governments in the Arab world. He didn't have thousands of young men like him willing to kill for his cause. This is not a valid comparison.

Likewise, the medical comparisons are weak. Sure, heart disease will kill more Americans than murderers will, but we still pay a lot of money (money that could go to medical research) for the police to investigate and bring murderers to justice. Why?

Christian terrorists? Last I heard, all the clinic bombings and doctor shootings put together killed fewer people than a single bad suicide bombing in Israel. And maybe some fundamentalists think you're going to Hell, but they aren't even remotely interested in sending you there. The Islamist terrorists both believe you are going to Hell and they have already helped thousands take an early trip. HUGE difference. Not even remotely comparable.

"Bombs kill and panic the panicky. But they do not undermine civilised society" is an entirely correct statement.

I would bet that people who survived the atomic blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would disagree.

"Asteroid impact is a greater threat to civilisation than Chinese missiles are. Discuss"

Sadly, asteroid defence is also much less macho than missile defence.

Thank you for the lectures, professor. I would say asteroid defense is very macho, very Bruce Willis. Oh, but you're the only one here talking about macho. You might want talk to your analyst about that, you know.

Ultimately, terrorism will be solved by law enforcement. This is a given, because if every country is ruled by a democratic government, there will be no single party states left to topple. But there will still be terrorists.

First, it isn't a given in any way, shape or form. You have no proof, no facts whatsoever. Your statement is pure supposition.

Second, different tools for different times. Every government today is NOT a democracy. If they were, I would probably support a concerted, international law enforcement answer. And it would probably work, in that world.

As to what to do about domestic terrorism that toppling a government won't stop, what's your point? These things are internal security matters. Do you have some problem with flexibility?

And what about terrorism that toppling a dictatorship WILL stop?

geezer, yes, crazy people "want to see me dead". And fundamentalist Christians probably think I'm going to hell, but I'll hold off on invading America for now, despite its harbouring the greatest concentration of such people.

Posted by: Michael at March 16, 2004 at 07:56 PM

Um, do we in America have the greatest number of crazy people, or fundie Christians?

How many Christians have wanted to kill you lately? And no, not the nutbags who bomb abortion clinics, as they are derided and, more importantly, disavowed by mainstream Christian leaders in a way that Muslim fundie leaders have never disavowed the acts of the suicide bombers and mass murderers in the name of Allah.

Most fundie Christians will even let you dance, if you want to, nowadays.

And I am so betting you don't know the proportion of crazy people in the US vs. anywhere else.

Dave, "We have never been as sated with horror as we are right now, when any atrocity is possible or indeed probable."

You're right! Compared to 11/9 and 11/3, the V-2 bombings of London were nothing. The Rape of Nanjing, the Tokyo and Dresden fire bombings, the atomic bomb attacks on Japan, hell, even Guernica, they were all peanuts compared to the atrocities of blowing up trains and truck bombs.

"The fact that many in the West are blaming themselves for the massacre has opened a dark place inside us all."

Luckily of course in the past we were made of sterner stuff, and we could happily firebomb a city and blame the inhabitants for requiring it.

Pixy, "Pakistan and North Korea (and a whole bunch of other people) were selling nuclear technology to anyone with a suitcase full of cash. If we don't stop that, a Western city will be nuked, and it won't be long before it happens."

So, do we increase the funding for port security, border controls, surveillance and intelligence gathering do thwart such attempts? Or do we invade countries without nuclear technology, encouraging Iran, North Korea and Indonesia to step up their efforts to obtain a nuclear deterrent? You tell me.

Chuck, I think that your obsession with birth rate needs further consideration. If it's all down to population, the world won't be adopting sharia any time soon -- or have India and China adopted a muslim majority recently?

Birth rate is declining all over the world. But for some reason, you see that as a problem only affecting "old Europe". The birth rate is pretty low in Australia these days, but Australia sent troops to Iraq, therefore Australia is not in decline. I mean, what the hell? That kind of thinking echoes that of columnists 100 years ago when sending troops to the Boer War was all about proving national vigour.

fred, indeed, cancer *will* always be with us, and it will kill far more people than terrorism ever can. Certainly we all have a much higher chance of dying from cancer than dying in a terrorist attack. But we probably have a higher chance of dying by choking to death on a peanut too, so it's hard to get too worked up about it.

Viewing all policy decisions through the prism of terrorism leads to a very warped world view. "If the wrong party is elected, the terrorists have already won!" Well, okay, except the "wrong" party *did* get elected, and I don't see Osama striding triumphantly into Madrid.

Dbeln, Osama really *really* wanted US troops out of Saudi Arabia. The vote in the American congress authorising the use of force in Iraq and the subsequent occupation of Iraq has accomplished that goal, removing the boots of the Infidel from the Holy Land. "The terrorists accomplished their goal to 100%"! "Trying to rationalize it away using the subjective perspective of American congressmen voters isn't really much good"!

And yet, who gives a damn? Terrorists don't control your actions, and doing something that a terrorist might have wanted doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. I've heard a lot of people around here saying America should pull out of the UN. That would have made Timothy McVeigh *real* happy, and fit in with the paranoid delusions of scores of wackos convinced that the New World Order is out to get them. So... America should stay in the UN, otherwise the terrorists have already won! What the hell? Janet Jackson should be free to show whatever she wants on TV, otherwise the terrorists have already won! At what point do you stop caring what a bunch of morons in the desert want, and just get on with your life?

Terrorism is not the biggest threat to civilisation, and people can vote for their candidate of choice without being a coward or a terrorist sympathiser. Is that so hard to grasp?

"Terrorism is not the biggest threat to civilisation, and people can vote for their candidate of choice without being a coward or a terrorist sympathiser. Is that so hard to grasp?"--Michael

You finally get it, .

Well gee thanks Gary, but that's kinda what I've been saying all along, you know?

"Exactly how can the exercise of the democratic process be construed as the collapse of civilisation?"

So you weren't asking a question you making a statement?.

So do you disagree with the people that changed there vote because of the bombing?

Gary, I disagree with people that see the election results in Spain as a sign of failure and weakness and terrorist victory, and I disagree with the assessment that terrorism is undermining civilised society.

"cogdis" agrees with "michael"... why are y'all even bothering to answer to determined cognitive dissonance? for nothing really matters except your vote for leftist/democrats/socialists. the islamofascist "threat" is manufactured. all that really matters is voting for candidates who promise you jobs and to stop global warming. trans-national sensibilities trump irksome and indiscriminate bombings. get a grip and elect kerry. he'll say whatever it takes. franco-europe loves him, too

Michael

So you do you think terrorism didn't play a part in the election?

"charlotte", the threat from Islamic terrorism is real, as demonstrated in Madrid. However, it is only one threat in a broad continuum of threats to society, not the one deciding factor for all future policy decisions.

Gary, it is quite possible that it influenced votes. However, that does not mean that it undermined civilised society. If people rioted in the streets and looted shops, that would be uncivilised. If people set fire to Madrid that would be uncivilised. If people overthrew the government and restored a fascist dictatorship that would be most unwelcome. But a democratic election is not a disaster, even if it takes place after a terrorist attack.

Michael

Aren't shops being looted all the time? So why is that "uncivilised"?

Gary, well, I look outside and I don't see widespread looting, arson, rioting and violence. There may be isolated incidents of theft, but they tend not to take place in public view in a civilised society, ya know?

The terrorist bombings led to massive peaceful protests, and may have influenced the election results. They did not undermine civilised society, nor do they show any sign of doing so in the future.

Does anyone here actually disagree with this: "Bombs kill and panic the panicky. But they do not undermine civilised society unless that society wants to be undermined."

Michael

Do the rioters have a secret meeting place for rioting?
If you get angered isn't that relative to rioting?

Gary, ???

Michael

Why three '?'?.

I must admit, “Michael”, that you have gotten my attention. Apart from your enormous number of posts -- smarmy sophists like you are rather annoying. Your true agenda is revealed by your constant references to McVeigh and Christian fundamentalists in order to make your tendentious little comparisons. Talk about boilerplate leftie thinking. Yawn.

Most rational people would agree that Islamic terrorism is at least of a radically (no pun intended) different scale, if not kind. The population base that breeds it is huge and it taps into widely held cultural and religious beliefs, not to mention fantasies, of that population. You add major financing into the mix and you have a formidable force. Furthermore, modern media and weapons of mass destruction leverage the actions of terrorists like never before.

True, your standard garden-variety terrorist organizations are more easily dealt with because their aspirations are so much more conventional. The IRA has basically morphed into a criminal mafia and so has the PLO for that matter. The futile ideological hatred of the Islamic terrorists is what makes them so dangerous. We know they can’t win in a conventional sense and so do they. But they don’t care. They want a fight nevertheless. Try to ignore them and they ratchet up the pressure until a response is forthcoming. You are left with the imperfect options of going after them now or going after them later.

Again, any rational person knows that no 100% conclusive slam-dunk victory is in the offing, but, my God, are we supposed to sit by until another 18 nut cases kill thousands of people and do hundreds of billions of dollars damage to our economy. It is estimated that two hundred thousand people lost their jobs directly as a result of 9/11. Maybe they will pull it off anyway but at least we are engaged in the fight. The leftist siren song that this is strictly a “police/criminal” matter flies in the face of real world experience. The recent release of a 9/11 conspirator by the German authorities highlights one of the problems. The judge told the defendant that he was being released not because they thought he was innocent but because they didn’t have enough “evidence”.

How you can make the claim that the Spanish election result wasn’t a “victory” for the terrorists is beyond me. The PP was leading in the polls prior to the terrorist attacks. The purported reason for the attacks was to punish Spain for their support of the U.S in Iraq. Next thing we know Spain elects someone who immediately announces he will pull troops out of Iraq and it was all a big mistake. No one is claiming Al Qaeda will now take over Spain. However, the election result is another tacit indication of how Europe is in cultural decline. Like the citizens of the late Roman Empire, they are so spoiled and decadent, they no longer have the will to defend themselves. Instead, the Roman’s populated their army with mercenaries and tried to bribe the barbarians into leaving them alone. In truth, Islamic terrorists aren’t Europe’s biggest problem. Their biggest problem is the delusion that they can remain in their comfortable little socialist bubble and work 35 hours a week for 10 months of the year and hope to survive against the emerging and hungry economies of the Far East. All they have to do is be “nice” to everybody and the whole rest of the world will make sure they can continue to spend lots of quality time at cafes decrying the rapacious capitalism and jingoism practiced by the unseemly Americans.

"But a democratic election is not a disaster, even if it takes place after a terrorist attack."

Thanks, Michael. As you imply, we were all upset that the Spanish election was even held. And now, thanks to your input, we are also chastened in the knowledge that results do not matter, as long as they are voted upon.

John, so if it is not a matter of diplomacy, border control, surveillance and law enforcement, then who is going to be invaded next?

John, the "formidable force" of the terrorists is pretty minor, as threats go. The reason I keep mentioning McVeigh is because Islamic terrorists have not gone beyond his level -- truck bombs and hijackings. The most advanced attacks they have attempted are synchronised truck bombs and synchronised hijackings. That's all well and good, but it pales into insignificance compared to what a nation state can unleash: *actual* nuclear weapons, not just hypothetical ones, and conventional armaments in bucketloads. Witness the "1000 bomber" raids on Germany, or the bombing of Vietnam, or the battles at Verdun for that matter. Nothing that terrorist groups can unleash comes close to what a nation state can do when it puts its mind to it. The mass hysteria over terrorism seems hollow, similar in spirit to the mass hysteria over communism, which was at least backed by a credible potential threat.

The magnification of the terrorist threat is encouraged by those who would profit from it, either materially or politically. Not unexpected by any means, but it seems wise to apply a little more consideration to claims that are backed by such an agenda.

For example, should Australia spend more money on tanks? The easy answer is yes, we need them to fight terrorism. That is making a lot of assumptions about Australia's place in the world and the nature and responsibility of Australia's defence forces right off the bat, and suppresses any debate by playing the terrorism card. "If you vote against this, the terrorists have already won!" Hmm.

charlotte, no, you were upset that the socialist party won. Fine, no harm in taking sides. But portraying it as undermining civilisation, handing a victory to the terrorists, the Spanish "voting on their knees" (???) and the cultural decline of Europe seems to be massively overstating the case.

The British empire was kicking the world around 100 years ago, and it sure isn't today. Does that mean the British people are "spoiled and decadent" and in decline?

Or does it just mean that the world has changed (for the better), and the British world hegemony is no longer viable?

I'm just dreading the day when America starts feeling threatened by China, as I'm sure the rhetoric coming out of the blogosphere then is going to put all this to shame.

So, Michael, the best defense against islamofascism, which is merely "one threat of a broad spectrum of threats", is not structural or even ideological, but rather a matter of national/ international police work and treaties only? Please do inform the German courts

Or, perhaps our best bet DOES lie in a structural change... to the U. S. current policy of tough action against sponsoring states. OK, agreed, we should leave them be and let them metastasize in socio/economic oppression and freakish fundamentalism. All we need to do is close down our borders, spy on everyone, and ask France what Saddam oil profits might be available as our reward. (Oh, nevermind, those were all spoken for)

charlotte, the "tough action against sponsoring states" sounds good, but obviously doesn't apply to Saudi Arabia, so why not be honest? It is a policy of being tough to states for which it is in US interests to be tough. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it helps to clarify the issue.

The (Moroccan?) suspected terrorists arrested in Spain were captured as a result of police work. Domestic terrorism cannot be combated any other way, and ultimately all such terrorism is domestic as the terrorists have to be on location to perform it. Certainly it seems quite probable that September 11 could have been averted with police work, in the sense that the information was there, but was not noticed in time. It is unlikely that it could have been avoided by toppling the Taliban and Saddam Hussein earlier. Certainly, neither regime change was enough to stop the Madrid bombings.

Your implication that current US action is preventing fundamentalism seems somewhat far-fetched, given that the fall of Saddam Hussein gives fundamentalists in Iraq a voice that was previously denied to them. Very democratic, but people sometimes democratically choose a theocracy.

Michael, you're " dreading the day when America starts feeling threatened by China, as (you're) sure the rhetoric coming out of the blogosphere then is going to put all this to shame"?

In your mind, would the ascendency and hegemony of China in the world be analygous to the "change (and for the better)" of the US' eventual preeminence over Britain? Change happens, yes sure, but you truly posit that it makes little or no value difference in the long run?

Two things: I did not use the words or sentiments you attributed to me, such as "the Spanish voting on their knees". That you misrepresent, though, is less annoying than you masquerading a strong leftist sympathy as amoral political relativism. But one thing you're right about: as much as we all love the Brits, they really are in decline and in danger of becoming eurobrats. You called that one right

charlotte, sorry, the Spanish knees statement was not from you, but it has been said many times since the election results were known. Unreasonably, I feel.

The ascendancy of China is essential, as the prospect of 800 million peasants scratching out a living in squalor for the rest of time doesn't seem like an attractive alternative. I do worry that America will not take well to a rival, and note that the deceptively easy breakup of the British empire was masked by the Second World War. I hope that the world can evolve more gradually to a new balance of power this time.

I am somewhat baffled that some people harken back to the Europe of 100 years ago as being more vigorous and manly and generally not "in decline" compared to the Europe of today. If being "in decline" is equivalent to "not being in a state of constant warfare with each other" then what exactly is not to like?

An article indicating that sloppy police work and a lack of international cooperation may have let the Madrid bombings happen. Who woulda thunk it. Spain should invade Morocco!

Re Spanish election

Reminds me of Raffles Dictum
-Money lost..........Little lost
-Name lost...........Much lost
-Pluck lost..........All lost

Michael, your one-size-fits-all approach to critique is difficult to quarrel with. Just because many of us think that much more than diplomacy and police work is involved in combatting islamist terrorism, then you say that police work can sometimes catch plotters and perps. That is a revelation, but of little consolation.

And when many of us believe that different nations should be "pressed" in different ways due to differing circumstances, you accuse the US of not dealing with troublesome regimes in the same cookie cutter way. You point out that the US policy appears a lot tougher on Iraq than, say, Saudi Arabia. Are you saying that America should have waged war against the Sauds even though the US (neo-con cabal) didn't have decade-long international sanctions against S.A. as it had against renegade Iraq to justify such an intervention? And the UN and EU would have supported this when they couldn't agree on a more obvious case? That must be where the Bush administration went wrong- they should have approached the international community saying that military action was needed not only against the corrupt and dangerous Iraqi regime, but that of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Tunesia, Morocco and North Korea, to name but a few. By the logic of one-size-fits-all, of course.

BTW, the Muslim terrorists caught in Spain as a result of the police work you cited had already done their deed. Massive casualties, costly infrastructure repairs and damage to collective national psyche were not prevented. Maybe the suspects will be convicted and go to prison. What we know for sure, though, is that the new Spanish government will be pulling its troops out of the Iraq reconstruction efforts. The newly liberated Iraqis must suffer this gesture to undermine US efforts at bringing hope and prosperity to an oppressed Middle East

Re China's probable rise to superpowerdom- do you really believe its 800 million peasants will not still be scraping by??

charlotte, Bush *did* approach the international community with a list of countries: the "Axis of Evil", remember?

And it appears that diplomacy and police work would have stopped the Madrid bombings, while the Spanish Iraq invasion did not. *shrug*

charlotte, as for my critique, I disagree with the following assertions:

* Terrorism is the most serious threat to civilised society.
* The Spanish election results are a disaster, and a victory for the terrorists.
* Fighting terrorism with police work and diplomacy is guaranteed not to work.
* Europeans are decadent, weak and cowardly people.

Which of those do you agree with?

>

I said the leftist position is seeing it as “strictly” a matter of law enforcement. I don’t exclude any of the above. However, military options should likewise not be excluded. There are a number of strategic and tactical reasons for this. First of all, over reliance on a defensive posture has been proven wrong historically. Just ask the builders of the Great Wall of China. The Chinese general, Sun Tzu also realized thousands of years ago that a major tactical error is to fight on the ground of your enemy’s choosing. Us trying to defend against all potential attacks is exactly what the terrorists want – impossible to do and ties up maximum resources plus puts us into a fearful mindset that inflates the power of the enemy beyond all reality. If you are afraid of the “boogyman” then he is behind every door, under every bed, etc. Furthermore, the kind of surveillance, border control, and law enforcement necessary to be even partially successful is totally at odds with an open democratic society and would never be politically viable.

“Diplomacy” doesn’t work without credible negotiating power. There were ten years of “diplomacy” with Hussein that yielded nothing because each succeeding year confirmed the West did not have the balls to call his bluff. “Ok, you get one more chance, and this time we really, really, really mean it!” Frankly I don’t think we will “invade” anyone next. It won’t be necessary. Did you ever hear about the “boulder” theory of motivation? The situation is this: you have three men who are charged with moving a large boulder. Well they strain and grunt and heave and can’t budge it an inch. Q: How do you get them to move it? A: You shoot one of them and then the other two move it. All parties now know there is a limit to what will be tolerated. Machiavelli told his Prince that it is better to be loved, but if one cannot be loved then it is best to be feared.
Another point is that these terrorist acts aren’t criminal acts per se. They are political acts committed by foreigners who are aided and abetted by foreign political regimes. Most of them aren’t quite so stupid and megalomaniacal as good old Saddam and offer a much more nebulous target. However, this shouldn’t mean they can operate with impunity.
When facing an opponent who has amply demonstrated he is willing to kill you without mercy, you must at least demonstrate that you take him seriously and will fight him on his own terms if necessary. I am not advocating this be our only posture or even the major one. But without it we lose credibility in the eyes of our enemies and ultimately our own self-respect.

>

What are you smoking? If you truly believe there is no difference in the threat from Al Qaeda there is no rational argument I can make that would dissuade you.

>

You conveniently ignore the catastrophic effects of 9/11 – they targeted over 50,000 people (it was luck that so few actually were killed), hundreds of billions in economic costs, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost – this is “minor” to you!?

>

What is your point? Do you think there is much chance that a “nation state” will unleash a direct military attack on us? Yeah right.

>

Terrorism is designed to create “mass hysteria”. Works good doesn’t it?

>

One could easily invert this by substituting “minimization” for magnification. In fact, there is a great deal more substantive evidence for the minimization. France’s sweetheart oil deals with Iraq are a major case in point. Gerhard Schroeder’s last minute campaign strategy when facing defeat is another.

Reminds me of Raffles Dictum
-Money lost..........Little lost
-Name lost...........Much lost
-Pluck lost..........All lost >>

Actually, Cervantes has a famous quote that is quite similar: "When you lose your wealth you lose much; when you lose your friends you lose more; but when you lose your courage you lose all." He must be rolling over in his grave.

China will become the dominant world power within 30 years. I have made a number of business trips to China and came away with a tremendous respect for the sheer pent up dynamism that exists in China today. The Chinese have no intention of working for 10 cents an hour forever so that the Western world can have cheap goods. And Michael, don't worry that the U.S. will not take kindly to a rival. We're too busy closing all of our factories and moving them to China to be concerned about that. Lenin had the Achilles heel of capitalists pegged, "A capitalist will sell the hangman the rope that will hang him."

Here is a telling contrast between two cultures: In Saudi Arabia, the most popular college degree conferred is "Islamic Studies", in China it is mathematics, computer science & engineering. Guess which society is positioning itself for the future? The potential intellectual capital of China is awesome and India is not far behind.

china has the economic impetus..... nobody could doubt it

check how many items in your house are made in china

Michael

"And it appears that diplomacy and police work would have stopped the Madrid bombings, while the Spanish Iraq invasion did not. *shrug*"

Is leaving Iraq and Spain(diplomacy) to the terrorist is ok, by you?

Were the Spanish police on holiday?