Oh I have no doubt it is an Al Qaeda victory in so far as they wish to cause political actions to happen a certain way by using violence and they got exactly what they wished for.

Spain will now show that it is highly suseptable to intimidation, just so long as it is truly brutal enough, and as a result will get more, not less, of exactly that. I expect ETA will now be giving their tactics a long hard look and wondering if aiming for far more civilian deaths is not the way to go. After all, if it works for Al Qaeda...

It is hard to see how this is not a victory for the bad guys and a savage indictment of how craven Spain's political culture is. The real solution is more military engagement, not less, but I guess not enough people in Spain have what it takes to support seeing that course of action through. Oh well.

In the long run they may find the cost of appeasing the Islamofascists is higher than the shorter term pain of opposing them.

Perry writes:

"In the long run they may find the cost of appeasing the Islamofascists is higher than the shorter term pain of opposing them."

Oh yes. Won't they be surprised when they discover that bin Laden was perfectly serious when he indicated that the sensitivity of the Islamic ego encompasses slights experienced many generations back. Ah well. Moorish architecture can be achingly lovely. Let there be more of it.

As an aside, one supposes that manipulation by terror is something the U. S. electorate has to look forward to this coming fall.

The Socialists have pledged to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq if the U.N. does not take control by June 30 when Washington plans to hand power back to Iraqis.

Was the Spanish government planning to keep its troops in Iraq after the planned U.S. withdrawal?

I was not under the impression handing power to an Iraqi government was going to lead to the immediate withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq.

In many ways the collapse of the Aznar gov't is a great move forward in a State where privacy and personal liberty was under great threat from this right wing government.

If you ask any Spaniards, there will be no one in Spain who will be loosing sleep over the takeover by the Socialists. It's actually a great step towards more power to the regions like Catalonia and Basque.

Spain needs to give more autonomy to it's regions rather then develop a monolothic state run from Madrid. Although I don't happen to agree with many of the social policies of the Socialists, I agree with their federalist style of govt.

Media watch 2004

Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society --Thomas Jefferson

The Socialists have pledged to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq if the U.N. does not take control by June 30 when Washington plans to hand power back to Iraqis. Opinion polls showed as many as 90 percent of Spaniards opposed the Iraq war.

Maybe they'll give back the Alhambra as well?

I have never understood what is so great about Federalism or why that is seen as a step forward towards liberty. Residential planning laws, for example, are a gross violation of property rights and in most places are a function of local, not central, government. Is that supposed to make the fact I cannot decide what colour my house is painted less of an abridgement of my rights just because the decision is not made in the national capital? In many ways it just puts the source of the government closer to the people it it regulating and makes my actual neighbour more likely to be a threat to me, given that he now has a very local source of power to vote for that can interfere in my life.

Making government more local just ensure there will be more of it.

Hopefully, the new socialist government in Spain will do its part in speeding a US withdrawal from NATO. It's about 10 years past due, but better late than never.

The eastern half of the Western world has now officially committed cultural and political suicide. Eurabia has been reborn in its place.

I like Susan's interesting comment.

The liberal blogs all over the U.S., normally quiet on a Sunday, are singing the praises of the Spaniards for bending to the will of Al Queda.

One of the worst may be Change for America one of the splinter groups from the Howard Dean presidential campaign.

Disgusting.

I am also reminded of a time in the 1930's when political groups ranging from anarchist to socialist to communist to democrat all joined together to fight a common evil and the political baggage each brought with them ultimately did not deter them from understanding who the common enemy was.

None were political purists who would withstand a political crititique with any intellectual force behind it, yet they knew that fascism and the corrupt Spanish church were their common enemy.

But I also recall that after their defeat their remnants fled to France and Franco's rule of a once proud people turned them in large measure into a cowardly society bent to the will of their own local big brother, one fearing involvement in their own affairs, let alone the world.

I'd thought that time was beginning to pass, and still have some hope such is the case. One wonders after the election when so many are displaying a yellow stripe down the middle of their backsides.

"It is hard to see how this is not a victory for the bad guys and a savage indictment of how craven Spain's political culture is. The real solution is more military engagement, not less, but I guess not enough people in Spain have what it takes to support seeing that course of action through."

In what way does the vote show how craven Spain's political culture is? Were the millions who marched, and the large numbers of people who decided to vote at the last minute, acting cravenly? IMO it just shows that people there don't like the way the government tried to exploit the blasts (by blaming ETA without any evidence), and possibly don't wish to be terrorist targets as a result of their PM entering them into a war that was opposed by most of the population.

Being brave for a cause you support makes perfect sense. Being brave for a cause you oppose is utterly irrational. If you oppose a cause, such as Spain's population does vis a vis Iraq, then wanting to withdraw is not craven in the least, it is simply sensible. Now you may think they are *wrong* to oppose the liberation of Iraq, but that gives no grounds to call them craven.

Secondly, why do you think that the Spanish people's lack of desire for military engagement is to do with them not "having what it takes"? I think you are flat out wrong here. They do not want military engagement because i) they think that there will be no threat to them if they militarily disengage ii) they view military engagement - with a country that has not attacked or threatened them - as immoral. It is nothing at all to do with cravenness or lack of bravery, it is simply that they disagree with you on core issues of facts and morality.

Now of course you may think they are flat out wrong about this. In which case the correct charge to level is that they are incorrect either wrong about the facts of the situation, or wrong to be following a path of non-aggression. But I fail to see the grounds for calling them craven.

Perry, you touched on an interesting topic that isn't really relevant to this thread but allows me to perform a minor hijacking nonetheless.

Federalism is good in that it gives a person more choices. America is seeing the reversing of the trend started in the 30s to make the feds more powerful. I'd rather have each State decide what gun laws are appropriate as Idaho doesn't have the crime rate of NY. I also see this as a factor in speed limits, Carter's 55mph wasn't popular, and welfare laws. I'm all for it. I'm also going to leave the State I'm in pretty soon for one with laws more to my liking. I like that different States have different laws.

After reading the other comments, there is one thing to make clear - it is not "appeasement" to do something you would want to do anyway. If most Spanish people do not want a presence in Iraq, then should they suddenly change their position because they are bombed? Of course not. It does not suddenly become "appeasement" just because *you* think they should engage militarily.

They wish to leave Iraq because they don't agree with being there, not because they care what Al-Queda thinks. IMO anyone who thinks the Spanish are adopting the French position is incorrect.

Perry,

Being the good American conservato-libertarian that I am, I have to take issue with your slight against federalism.

It's true that local governments have the capacity to regulate your life in many annoying ways.

However:

1) Those ways are one the whole (as far as I can imagine) only ANNOYING rather than frightening due to the liberties that are supposed to be protected at the top. Hence, the flunkies at the city council meeting can dictate what color your front door is painted, but cannot choose to break down that door whenever they please looking to make sure you don't have any horribly tacky lawn jockeys stashed in your living room.

2) A private citizen or a small group of them is much more able to deal as equals with said flunkies than with the beheamoth morass of a distant federal government. Ask yourself which task is more likely to be achieved by a committed individual - convincing the local zoning commission to drop their silly door color restrictions, or going to Washington (or London, I suppose in your case) with the notion of somehow repelaing the latest national tax increase?

3) Federalism allows people to sort themselves according to the kind of local gov't they want, rather than forcing some kind of national standard on everyone. There may be some communities that really want to strictly control the colors of doors and others that couldn't care less. I suspect you'd opt for the latter. I realize moving across the county line could be a tad inconvenient, but it's a breeze compared to one whose only option is switching countries.

The opposite of federalism is one world government. It should be obvious which system is a bigger threat to liberty. And don't forget that federalism effectively introduces competition between states. You can't migrate to a lower tax state if there's only one of them.

Andrew Sullivan in his column probably sums things up as well as the original article here.

Brits are next. Expect bigger things than what occured in Spain.

And if it worked on the Spainish electorate why not try it in the U.S. before the November elections?

The Daily Telegraph, that bastion of clear thinking and truth, has an interesting take on the Spanish situation.

They seem to think bin Ladin is out for revenge of the loss of Al-Andalus by the Moors to the infidels. Don't you just love all this modern drama? It's simply rife with historical information, whether correct or distorted to serve the journalist's needs.

On the other hand the business of doing a logical analysis of the thoughts of Muslim terrorists isn't always quite as easy as one might first thing, so....

Cobden,

The important thing for the planners of the next bombing run are if tthey think their tactic was successful.

If you believe the polls it was. Aznar was leading by a few percent on We. By Sunday he was behind by 5 percent.

People in Spain say the switch was due to the attacks.

If that is the case expect more bombs during an election. Especially Spanish elections. Or perhaps just after if the wrong party wins.

I applaud Perry for stating the truth. The Spanish have capitulated to terrorism. I saw it coming in the events immediately following the terrorist tragedy - and what I'm about to write does not mean my sense of outrage is in any way diminished.

Five million Spaniards gathered in public squares to "protest terrorism". What the hell is that supposed to mean? Al Qaeda's going to say, "Gosh, lots of people are mad with us and demonstrating against us. Maybe we should quit doing this."?

At least when Americans protested the war in Viet Nam, they knew their voices and actions might sway the administration. But demonstrating "against terrorism", is vapid and weak and adolescent.

The same goes for carrying signs that said "Peace". That message was addressed to who, exactly?

And all those black loops. The whole Diana-esque and weepy display was weak and grotesque. Where was the anger and defiance at what had been perpetrated in the capital of a civilised country? Next time Al Qaeda wants anything from the Spanish, all they'll have to do is send an engraved invitation with a little RSVP card enclosed.

The Spanish people have been disloyal to the Coalition. Where was the fire? Where was this famous Spanish pride? As I said, this doesn't diminish my outrage at what happened to them, but I'd have expected somewhat stiffer spines. They handed Al Qaeda a victory, and we will all suffer for their weakness.

Finally, do we really want to belong to a club of which Spain is a member?

M Simon - it is only a success if they have gained something out of the attacks. But what exactly has been achieved by changing the Spanish government? Will the outcome of the war on terror be changed if marginal European countries take their tiny number of troops out of Iraq? Of course not. Will Bin Laden and his lieutenants evade capture for longer, or acquire WMDs any quicker, because Spain pulls its troops back home? No. Will Spain stop sharing intelligence on terrorism with us as a result of the attacks? No. Is George Bush quivering under his duvet, terrified at the prospect of the US not having Spain as an aggressive military ally? I doubt it.

In a strategic sense, the attacks have done nothing to help Al Queda at all. Like 9/11, the bombing is a tactical victory that does nothing whatsoever to help achieve their long-run goals. If anything it will actually *reduce* the chances of success, by provoking a more hawksih backlash.

Cobden Bright, with respect, I take issue with your point that the attacks have done nothing to help Al Qaeda. The speed with which the Spanish capitulated handed them a psychological boost. They now know they can affect the politics of a European nation. However, as you rightly pointed out, Spain's participation in anything - other than its new membership in the Old Europe club - is irrelevant.

If Sr Aznar has any sense, he'll pack his bags and head for the Spanish speaking New World.

Sorry for two postings in a row, but I've just reread Perry's first post and was struck by his final sentence: In the long run they may find the cost of appeasing the Islamofascists is higher than the shorter term pain of opposing them.

On reflection, I think this comment, rather than comments from people who think somewhere else in Europe will be next, comes closer to the mark. None of us knows, of course, but it is reasonable to assume that, having found a weak target, they will bash away at it again to weaken it further. In attacking other European countries, especially those of the north, they can't really guess what the response might be.

But for Spain, they know.

What do othr people think?

Verity wrote - "The Spanish have capitulated to terrorism."

Capitulation is defined as giving up something you want, in the face of a threat. So what is it that the Spanish people wanted, that they have been bullied into giving up? The Spanish people did not want to be involved in Iraq - so voting in a government to withdraw from there is not a capitulation at all, it is simply doing what they wanted to do anyway.

Capitulation would occur if, for example, Al Queda demanded some change of law to benefit Muslims in Spain (with the threat of terror attacks if they did not comply), and the Spanish then agreed. Then they would be craven pussies. But so far they are just getting rid of a government that was very unrepresentative on the whole Iraq issue.

I wonder if you think Britain "capitulated to terrorism" by giving up the Empire?

Cobden Bright - I wonder if you think Britain "capitulated to terrorism" by giving up the Empire? Yes. I do. I think the time for the empire was drawing to a natural close and it would have shut down, or mutated into something else, like the Commonwealth, but yes - the way it was done, the British responded to terrorism. As Tony Blair did in N Ireland.

What Spain surrendered was its pride. It allowed itself to be bullied into delivering the result demanded by the terrorists. Aznar was ahead by 5% on Wednesday. By Sunday, he'd lost the election. It can't be proven that it was cause and effect, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the terrorists are going to think they've got themselves a duck.

The question to me is: have 5 - 10% of the Spanish electorate made it more or less likely that shortly before the next British elections there will be bombs going off at Paddington, Kensington, Bank, Oxford Circus, Piccadilly, Leicester Square, Charing Cross, Green Park, Blackfriars and Cannon Street more or less simultaneously?

Good post David. Bear in mind, btw, that the vast majority of Spanish voters polled in opinion snapshots before the Madrid horror said they opposed the campaign in Iraq, although it does appear that a critical number of swing voters probably took the view that by pledging to get out of Iraq, the Islamo-fascists would leave their country alone. Fat chance.

The outcome of this poll is bound to encourage the terrorists to target countries seemed to be pliable before an election. I trust and hope that Britain's police forces and security services bear that in mind. As the Daily Telegraph put it today, the islamists now realise they can exploit perceived fault-lines in European public opinion and can be expected to do so on a vast scale.

Isolationist libertarians like Cobden Bright are clinging to a delusion if they imagine that a non-interventionist foreign policy can deflect the wrath of these people. It cannot. Any trading nation will have some contact with the islamist world in some form and hence these bastards will find some "excuse" to hit out. After all, these people deem the entire planet as their legitimate domain. There is no hiding place.

God what a depressing start to the week.

Sounds to me like childishness to accuse a whole country of "capitulation" when they never wanted to be involved in the first place. The government ran roughshod over the people, involved itself in somebody else's war, provoked a disaster, naturally the people were furious.

Sounds to me like childishness to accuse a whole country of "capitulation" when they never wanted to be involved in the first place. The government ran roughshod over the people, involved itself in somebody else's war, provoked a disaster, naturally the people were furious.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

As Tony Blair did in N Ireland.

He did? And Major, Thatcher, Callaghan, Wilson and Heath had done things differently?

(PS Verity, that is a rhetorical question)

Julian - I think you don't grasp that this is a war on our civilisation. It's not "somebody else's" war. In fact, the goons running Al Qaeda have already stated that they are going to retake Spain, and Italy and Venice are on their little list, too, because they were once Islamic fiefdoms and these guys are still fighting wars of 500 years ago.

As one of the late OBL's henchman once said: "We are not bombing you because we want concessions from you. We are bombing you to eliminate you."

Obviously, a bunch of thugs from the Dark Ages can't destroy Western civilisation, but they can make us very uncomfortable for a few years. This is why we must stop reacting and, instead, take the battle to them. Afghanistan was a good start. Iraq was a sound next step. But the main sponsors of terror are the Wahabi regime in Saudia Arabia. We should therefore insist on a change of regime. We put that "royal" family in there. We can yank them out again at our pleasure. We should do so.

Julian Morrison writes:

'The government ran roughshod over the people, involved itself in somebody else's war, provoked a disaster...'

There are two fundamental errors here. The first is that Spain was involved in 'somebody else's war'. The second, that last week's attack was a direct consequence of it.

A third (unspoken), is the implicit suggestion that bending the knee to terrorists will afford protection from similar massacres.

The September 11th attack on New York was not an attack on the USA. It was an attack on the entire non-fundamentalist Moslem world: thus it was a equally attack on Spain, the UK, Ireland - any country that opposes Islamic theocratic fascism.

Iraq, similarly, was not 'someone else's war'. It was a bid to remove a wicked government, whose tentacles stretched far across the Middle East and, thus, helped ensure that region remains the world's greatest source of danger.

It was Spain's war. It was the war of everyone who does not wish to be ruled by Islamic terrorists.

As for having 'provoked a disaster' - even were it true, to tiptoe through the world appeasing every psychotic for fear of his reaction is not only the act of a craven coward, it is the act of a fool.

Iraq or no Iraq, Spain was (and remains) target. Even a scant knowledge of its history and the ravings of the insane bin Laden show that.

Perry et al are quite right. Those Spanish people who voted for appeasement let themselves and the rest of the civilised world down.

There can be no negotiations with radical Islamists as they, themselves, have said. The do not wish to negotiate with us. They wish to destroy us. The choice is that stark. And the remedy that obvious.

Are you the Dave who bade us an angry - not to say deeply sulky - farewell a couple of weeks ago?

Whether you are or not, no, the other wets were almost as bad as Blair, but Thatcher had a shoot to kill policy until the "human rights" tranzi militants put an end to it.

As one of the late OBL's henchman once said: "We are not bombing you because we want concessions from you. We are bombing you to eliminate you."

That was Hussein Massawi, former head murderer of Hezbollah... not a henchman, but a colleague.

Verity says: "Julian - I think you don't grasp that this is a war on our civilisation. "

I do grasp you and many others here think that. I simply disagree. I consider it a "tempest in a teacup". Islamic nutballs are no more likely to harm western civilization, than the IRA is to overrun and annex England. For two reasons.

First: civilization is extremely robust and resilient.

Second: terrorists are rarer than albinos, because most people aren't fanatics, most fanatics are all mouth, and even most action-oriented fanatics can't kill when it comes to the crunch; "Thou shalt not murder" is instinct. Therefore terrorism will never be more than marginal.

It takes a government to organize and muster an offensive war. Terrorism isn't war, it's crime. Treating it as crime would not only be more effective, it would put the proper stigma upon it.

Julian, while I can agree with some of what you write, terrorism on this scale does, however, as I wrote above, have the power to make us uncomfortable and put us to a lot of trouble and inconvenience for several years.

You say treating it as a crime would stigmatise it. Not only does that not make sense, but it is so irrelevant. We're not trying to shame the late OBL's thugs into behaving themselves.

It is within our power to nip it in the bud. We should do so. I think it is time we delivered a shock to the system. Why should we be providing the battleground? We have to take the fight onto their territory - and without so much as a "Mother, may I?" to Kofi Annan and the ragtag and bobtail of thugs, chancers and kleptomaniacs posing as "diplomats" at the UN.

Why did our civilization survive the 20th century? There were 3 competing visions of civilization then, one died, one is dying, and one survives. Was it because people said "things will work out because they always do?" NO. It was because we fought for it. Civilization is resilient because those who came before us paid for it with their blood. When civilization survives this challenge, again paid for in blood, I'm sure you will feel justified in your position that it was never in any real danger.

Are you the Dave who bade us an angry - not to say deeply sulky - farewell a couple of weeks ago?

I did what, not that I recall?

I've just been a bit busy to read Blogs is all. Been to Sweden a few times, France once, the US and have narrowly escaped having to be in Korea this week.

Back now :)

Thatcher had a shoot to kill policy until the "human rights" tranzi militants put an end to it.

She did? Authorised personally by her? I somehow doubt that.

You also ignore the behind the scenes work of many in the Yard, the Gardai, RUC, paramilitary groups at the same time.

It was always a murky grey in NI.

In the long run they may find the cost of appeasing the Islamofascists is higher than the shorter term pain of opposing them.

Perry sounds like he's saying that a country's political decisions are the cause of terrorist attacks against it. Isn't that evil thinking in that it shifts responsibility for evil from 'islamofacists'?

If the attack comes, Perry will feel vindicated. But that doesn't mean he wants an attack to vindicate him and his beliefs, of course. He wouldn't dream of wishing harm to people who he feels stabbed him in the back and made him unsafe.

Perry, if the Spanish govt fell because the voters thought they were dishonest about who did the bombing, doesn't that refute your constant "all govts lie all the time so I don't care if they lied about Iraqi WMD" refrain?

Julian wrote "Second: terrorists are rarer than albinos, because most people aren't fanatics, most fanatics are all mouth, and even most action-oriented fanatics can't kill when it comes to the crunch; "Thou shalt not murder" is instinct. Therefore terrorism will never be more than marginal."

But it doesn't take a lot of terrorists to make a big splash. How many terrorists did it take to kill 3,000 people on September 11? How many would die if 4 Islmonazis manage to smuggle a small nuke into downtown Manhattan?

The bad guys don't want lots of people on their side. More people equals more chance of spilling the beans. They want a few hard core fanatics (which we have seen are relatively easy for them to find in the Muslim world) who will go to their deaths knowing they caused the deaths of hundreds or thousands of infidels.

I see that Spain's wake up call hasn't reached the ears of everyone yet.

It takes a government to organize and muster an offensive war. Terrorism isn't war, it's crime. Treating it as crime would not only be more effective, it would put the proper stigma upon it.

Perhaps we should send you over with a brief case full of arrest warrants and some hand-cuffs? That should just about fix it.

Treating this as a crime versus a war assumes a clear black and white line. There is none. It is merely shades of grey on a continuum. To say that there are not governments involved in terrorism is wrong. But is it an official State position? No. How do you fight an enemy that has oblique support of some States, more solid support in ethnic sub-regions which transcend political borders, and are certainly bigger than a a group of thieves looking to knock over a bank? Calling this a crime is the wrong description. Perhaps calling it a War is also (I've never been too enthusiastic about the 'War on Terror'), but something in between.

Calling it a crime and presumably leaving it to some over-arcing Executive Authority (U.N. ?) who use some sort of policing methodology accomplishes nothing. Greater force is needed to root out the perpetrators. Either the official political authority helps or they are included as an enemy. Our goal is to protect life and property, sometimes extending that cloak to trading partners. When someone knocks over a gas station, you send in the police. When a country attacks another you call in the marines. When a multi-national, centrally co-ordinated quasi-government declares a jihad or some such thing, who do call for? The police or the military?

As for Spain, I don't care for the results, but the people decided for themselves in an open election. The adage that people get the government they deserve applies. They apparently didn't want to get involved, as did most of Europe seemingly, and it seems anti-libertarian to force a people into war for their own good. To my mind the military is a public program, and it should serve the needs and wants of the people. The martial spirit should arise from the people upward, not a collective few downward. I certainly wish the Spanish had chosen to go in another direction, but they chose what they thought was best for them. Better to have such a weak ally removed from the equation. Now we'll see what lies in store for the UK and the US at election time. Explosions and angry electorates seem to be on the menu.

> The September 11th attack on New York was not an
> attack on the USA. It was an attack on the entire
> non-fundamentalist Moslem world.

You make it sound as if 9/11 happened because of what the United States *is* as opposed to being in response to specific U.S. *actions* in the Middle East?

Do you really believe that Al Qaeda would now be blowing up skyscrapers and train stations in the West if our governments were pursuing a strictly isolationist, neutral (and dare I say truly libertarian) policy versus the Arab World/Israel??

Note: I am not commenting on the "morality" of doing this, or whether killing thousands of civilians consistutes a legitimate response to U.S. foreign policy. I am saying I do not believe the argument that bin Laden & co. hate the mere existence of the West to such an extent they will kill regardless of what we do, because they hate our "values". Sure -- they might be paying lip service to old grievances such as the Crusades and Granada'1453, but the real reasons date back to the late 20th century.

MARCU$

Do you really believe that Al Qaeda would now be blowing up skyscrapers and train stations in the West if our governments were pursuing a strictly isolationist, neutral (and dare I say truly libertarian) policy versus the Arab World/Israel??

Oh, yes. Indeed I do.

People crazy enough to strap explosives to their own children and send them into pizza parlors are somehow going to be perfectly rational about why they're doing it? Not likely.

Julian power dont always emanates from majorities sadly but true recent exemple: Saddam and Iraq: his tribal base and some well connected individuals(Christian Tarek Aziz etc) were able to control 20 millions and take them to war 3 times.

How the Communists and Nazis aquired power: maybe they had an active support base of 10% of population , 10% political enemies and remainng 80% of populaton just try to fit in what is the wining side.

You dont need many thugs to control your life.

"Do you really believe that Al Qaeda would now be blowing up skyscrapers and train stations in the West if our governments were pursuing a strictly isolationist, neutral (and dare I say truly libertarian) policy versus the Arab World/Israel??"

Yep. Definitely so Sir.

Unless you start believing in Uncle Osama's fancy homemade videos, the Palis/Israeli conflict is nothing but another handy justification to lure Western idiotarians into Djihad Support and PR.

It works, apparently.

You make it sound as if 9/11 happened because of what the United States *is* as opposed to being in response to specific U.S. *actions* in the Middle East?

Do you really believe that Al Qaeda would now be blowing up skyscrapers and train stations in the West if our governments were pursuing a strictly isolationist, neutral (and dare I say truly libertarian) policy versus the Arab World/Israel??

Yes, and yes. See the Massawi quote above. Or try googling on the term "Khilafa".

They want the Dar El Islam, whole.

I'm amazed that it took so long for someone to bring up Israel. Marcus, these gits are not shedding tears for the Palestinians. The Palestinians are employed because they invoke the word "justice" which the Islamonutters know we in the West respond to.

If they gave a crap about the Palestinians, they would have offered them jobs and citizenship in Saudi Arabia. They could send all the Indians and Sri Lankans home and have Palestinians, who already speak Arabic and have the same religion.

Please. Israel is a hat rack on which to hang their terrorist hat. Nothing more. As many others have pointed out, this is about Islamic hegemony. It's about killing the infidel. It has bugger all to do with Israel.

Sure -- they might be paying lip service to old grievances such as the Crusades and Granada'1453, but the real reasons date back to the late 20th century.

Am I right in reading that you are actually telling killers who say they are killing for one reason that they are actually killing for another? That takes some pretty big brass balls IMO.

Personally I'll take Bin Laden and his ilk at their word. Are there others who are motivated more topically. Probably. There are as many reasons to fight as there are people involved. There has never been one clear cut reason to War for the individuals that comprise it. But I certainly believe that there is an over-arcing East-West dynamic that over shadows the current economic realities that cause friction. Islam at its core is a Theocratic mechanism. The Church is the State and vice versa. It arises from the Eastern mentality. Individualism is in short supply in the Middle and Far East and always has been. Parts of the West have made some head way in championing the cause of Individualism, a concept lost East of Budapest for the most part. That's why the actual terrorists find it such a fertile place to be, as the official governments likely have little regard for the West even if they are not in open conflict with us. Economic ties (with the Mid East)are about the only ties that bind, and unfortunately divides the West instead of consolidating it.

So Bin Laden and his stripe are merely the most fundemental of one brand of the totalitarianisms in the region. They get along well with the others (brutal monarchies, secular fascists, secular communists) sometimes, sometimes are at odds with them, but they all have little use for the West and its classical liberal viewpoints. It is intrinsic in the region and that's why it takes more than idle words and threats that maybe, sometime in the future, when the chips are really down, we might, perhaps, get pretty darn mad about it and really shake our finger really, really hard (as long as it doesn't make them too mad in return). Sometimes it takes dropping of bombs and a broadcast use of force of a military type versus a focused police type to effect the results necessary. And when you've got a group of people who are killing thousands of people fairly effectively, and they say it's for reason X, I'll believe them. And if we can't send a few John Q Laws over and arrest them, then some greater form of persuasion and destruction is necessary. If the official governments don't co-operate, they, and their citizens, will be held to account as well.

Julian Morrison, above, a writer whom I respect, argues that an isolationist policy would not have brought this calamity upon Spain. Of course, an isolationist may think he can buy time by adopting the foreign policy equivalent of hiding under a bush while the tiger prowls by, but in the long term, such a stance is little more than a delusion.

Isolationism also presupposes a degree of rationality in one's real or potential opponents. Al-Qaeda and their associates may be cunning, as the timing of the Spanish atrocities suggests, but their demands cannot be met by a liberal regime with an ounce of self respect. As I said before, even an isolationist regime which traded and interacted with the rest of the world is bound to excite the wrath of these folk. What they want is to conquer the world and estalish a global caliphate, marked by a harsh interpretation of Islam on a scale that would put most moderate moslems in horror. That is the reality.

They cannot be appeased, only crushed.

>> Sure -- they might be paying lip service to old
>> grievances such as the Crusades and
>> Granada'1453, but the real reasons date back to
>> the late 20th century.

> Am I right in reading that you are actually telling
> killers who say they are killing for one reason that
> they are actually killing for another?

No, I am saying bin Laden & co. clearly are motivated mainly by recent events such as (e.g.) the post-Gulf War I American military presence in the Land of Holy Places.

Why do I believe this? Well, simply because 9/11 type attacks are a relatively new phenomenon. If hatred of all things Western were the primary reason, Islamists would have been ramming Boeing 707s into the Empire State Building more than 40 years ago. Or (put another way), if all Westerners were equally "despicable" in the eyes of bin Laden & co., why did not Al Qaeda bomb Stockholm or Helsinki instead of Madrid?? We would be a much easier target since we have no ETA type problem with terrorism up here.

MARCU$

> What they want is to conquer the world and estalish
> a global caliphate, marked by a harsh interpretation
> of Islam on a scale that would put most moderate
> moslems in horror. That is the reality.

Or so they say. And we are soooo afraid they might actually "conquer the world and establish a global caliphate" aren't we?:-)

C'mon Johnathan -- these nations and peoples are weak and powerless. Their combined military might would be no match even for the notoriously powerless European armies. As for their economic and industrial power, uh, lets not talk about that either.

These irrelevant losers are essentially powerless, which is why they pursue terrorism. That is clearly a reason for vigilance (e.g. let's work really hard to keep Russian nuclear materials out of reach of these guys!), but let's not exaggerate the deadly threat to Western civilization that it represents.

MARCU$

The Spanish joined their European brothers and allies - the Freanch and the Germans. What's so remarkable about it ? It is sad, but not remarkable or unexpected.

Will Western civilization survive this assault from the Barbarians ? Maybe. But not thanks to the Franco-Spanish-German EU. They are not interested, they don't care.

Marcus - The terrorist attacks have been going on for 10 years. Remember the Achille Lauro? The first bombing of the WTC. The bombing of American marines. Remember the taking of your Iranian embassy and the holding of American hostages for months during Jimmy Carter's watch? There was a build-up of unaddressed terrorist activity during Bill Clinton's watch.

And for each incident that passed unpunished, the perception of weakness was reinforced and the terrorists became bolder. No retribution. Allah was on their side for sure! They were invincible.

This is why I keep saying, and I think Jonathan Pearce was saying in the post above yours, we must act now, with a merciless iron fist. It is inevitable that in crushing them, we will kill innocent people. But innocent people are being killed right now, by the Islamo-fanatics. We are going to have to fight back and we should do it before they get their hands on a nuclear weapon.

Tony Blair doesn't have the stomach for it because he's weak and he overrates his personal charm and powers of suasion. But George Bush has the nerve to go in for the kill, and so do Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice. I hope America doesn't have to act alone. I would prefer that we were by her side.

Why do I believe this? Well, simply because 9/11 type attacks are a relatively new phenomenon. If hatred of all things Western were the primary reason, Islamists would have been ramming Boeing 707s into the Empire State Building more than 40 years ago.

This will be my last comment on this article so as not to be a blog-hog (my others were lengthy as is).

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that 40 years ago a well funded Bin Laden didn't exist? The oil money had yet to flood in the amounts it was to, and did not find its way into the Saudi (et al) economies bringing the Bin Laden family to the level of wealth in total, and the amounts Osama had? Also, there was much more pro-westerners in control of many of the States, and they bore the brunt of the islamo-fascists first. Also, don't under estimate the impact of the cold war and the Soviet and Western domination of much of the region, and statesmen who were willing to lead their people in one direction of the other versus a regional nationalistic road. A peculiar status quo existed in the region during this time and the Middle East, like the rest of the world, was more or less on one side or the other. There was a larger balance of power in place then. When the soviet states and satellites disintegrated and could no longer hold sway, militarily or persuasively in the region, it was felt by some that this would be the result. When the left was going on about Peace Dividends, folks who didn't have their heads buried in their behinds saw the writing on the wall. When there was no longer a network of tribes and cabals all held in balance, with payoff money coming in to choose a side, it fell apart and old sores, tribal issues, and the like would rise to the surface. Without the perverse glue of the Cold War the hot bed of the Middle East was likely to flare up. It did.

As for those who don't think that the Middle East can eventually overthrow the West consider that the Roman Empire, the strongest State of the time, eventually succumbed to incessant attacks, chipped away at a little at a time until it fell. It took centuries, but that's precisely the terms in which these drones think. They will stop at nothing, they will keep chipping away, unless we stop them first, and flood the region with Western Classical Liberal ideas, promoting the individual above all. They can't fathom any such thing. They are the antithesis of the West and are on a mission. Toss in the declining birth rates in the West and the exploding birth rates in the Middle and Far East, in conjunction with the totalitarian modes of thinking which permeate, it's not too far fetched to think of the West's downfall within a few hundred years.

If other people don't seem to care, then I won't either. If my country decides to pull out and change its policies so be it. If the UK were to follow in Spains footsteps, so be it. The downfall won't likely happen in my lifetime anyway. I'll just worry about my time and space. That's my natural inclination anyway. But I will still want to fight to preserve the resources of key trading partners, regardless. That does impact me directly, today and next week. So if an East/West struggle is too far fetched a reason to support actions in the Middle East, then keeping important resources from falling into the hands of those rabid fundementalists, and in the hands of agreeable trading partners is still in my interests. And, in the end, since they won't want our presence there in any form, and will fight and attack us as we trade, the net results will be the same.

The Spanish people are, of course, entitled to vote as they think fit.
But al Qaeda are sure to think they may be on to something (for that matter, even if it turns out to be an ETA operation).

Anyone know when the next general elections are due in Italy, Poland, etc?

Toolkein -You are not being a bloghog! Your posts are readable and thought provoking. For example, the point Marcus naively raised (after raising the equally naive non-point of Israel) of these incidents just being a flash in the pan now and not a strategy because otherwise, we'd have had terrorism for, oh, ages. Of course, you are correct. The late OBL's father made his mega bucks in construction. No one was constructing anything much in Saudi Arabia until around 30 years ago. Before that, you were a wealthy man if you had three camels and four wives. Or maybe it was the other way round.

So the late OBL's father was the first generation that had wealth on a scale that we would recognise as wealth. Then, of course, we've got the Saudi royal family kicking in for the bandwagon.

You are also right about the East-West tension being a kind of glue that held everything in place in the Middle East back then.

I wonder what Rumsfeld and Co are planning...

Jacob - I said about 20 posts up that Spain was the newest member of the Old Europe Club.

Terrorism works.

Marcus -- they aren't so powerless that they can't kill, maim, or poison tens of thousands of people. Where do we draw the line that separates an acceptable rate of terrorism from something else?

Julian -- (1) if the murder of 3200-odd people and the threat of more atrocities can be disparaged as a "tempest in a teacup", then I pity your moral sense, whether you agree with the civilizational argument or not. (2) The real threat posed by the islamonutters obviously isn't military. It's that islamic terrorists will succeed in cowing enough voters in non-islamic democratic nations that they essentially impose an "islamic veto" on leadership and other national referenda. Isn't this what we just previewed in Spain?

> Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that 40 years ago
> a well funded Bin Laden didn't exist?

...or perhaps the answer lies in the fact that 40 years ago the United States was nowhere near as unpopular among Arabs as it is today? I recall seeing a lengthy article by Fareed Zakaria making this point, only a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks.

> Please. Israel is a hat rack on which to hang their
> terrorist hat. Nothing more. As many others have
> pointed out, this is about Islamic hegemony.

Well, yes -- and no. Certainly they are using the Israel/Palestine problem for their own purposes, but you can't deny that the "Arab street" feels genuinely wronged and humiliated. Whether they are right or wrong is a different matter, but it would be foolish of you to argue the Palestine situation isn't a major driver. It clearly is.

MARCU$

Verity replies to me:

Julian, while I can agree with some of what you write, terrorism on this scale does, however, as I wrote above, have the power to make us uncomfortable and put us to a lot of trouble and inconvenience for several years.

Nowhere near enough to justify the current level of panic. This is the country that rode out the Blitz without flinching! Nobody has even blown anything up over here yet, and I 'm not holding my breath waiting.

You say treating it as a crime would stigmatise it. Not only does that not make sense, but it is so irrelevant. We're not trying to shame the late OBL's thugs into behaving themselves.

It's anything but irrelevant. The intent being to stifle recruitment. By treating them as cheap murdering thugs, their projected image of "righteous battle" is destroyed. Terrorists have membership churn same as any organization. If nobody wants to join up, they'd go out of business.

Marcu$ writes:

'You make it sound as if 9/11 happened because of what the United States *is* as opposed to being in response to specific U.S. *actions* in the Middle East?'

Of course I do - and so does anyone else who has troubled to read what the Islamofascists have said.

The Palestinian cause (such as it is) appeared remarkably late in bin Laden's progressive psychotic breakdown. His original bellyache was about Saudi Arabia, not the hapless Palestinians.

What he and his kind oppose is the West and all the many (even contradictory) things it represents.

Individual 'causes' are just noise, excuses and attempts to rationalise a diffuse rage against any manifestations of progress.

Julian - with respect - but you think that you're going to discourage recruitment for Al Qaeda and similar by categorising them as "cheap, murdering thugs"?

We are talking stupid young men in high testosterone mode here. We are talking aggressive twerps, deprived of seeing even a woman's face, who regard being categorised as a "cheap, murdering thug" as glamourous. Maybe even babes-in-burquas magnets.

No one can ever take away from the bravery of the Britons who carried on with their lives through the Blitz. But do we want a rerun? And this time with a green glow in the sky?

As G Cooper writes, they are frightened of the West. The way people who have agoraphobia are frightened of going outside. Too much space. Too much movement.

Too much freedom.

I couldn't let Julian's post go by without a comment. No, unfortunately today's UK is NOT the country that rode out the Blitz without flinching. Today's Britain is the country that kisses the arse of people like Gerry Adams and Idi Amin and elects political puppets like Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Ed Heath, and Tony Blair. A Britain with guts wouldn't have made self-defense a forgotten right and gun ownership damned near completely illegal. You guys are a long way down the path to perdition. Don't delude yourselves that you still have the backbone that saw you through WWII. Your country, with a few slowdowns under some Conservative governments, has been working to diminish British moral confidence for almost fifty years. It HAS had an effect, a seriously detrimental one, and anyone familiar with Britain's past can see it. Anthony Daniels may not be dead on target in his writings but he's far too close to the truth for your comfort.

As for the terrorists, I hope that the nation-states that harbor them can be induced to stop that practice without the use of weapons of mass destruction. I'm not certain I'd be money on it, though. As for dealing with individuals, I recently read a comment from a Muslim in Europe who said that simple interpersonal relationships with non-Muslims were becoming increasing difficult and confrontational. The Europeans are possibly beginning to get the attitude that many Americans already have.

I suspect that the next (and there will be a next) major terrorist attack in the United States will see a much more anti-Muslim attitude than 9-11 evoked. Since silence is construed as assent, the average Muslim's failure to condemn the actions of the murderers among them has allowed the lot of them to be tarred with the same brush.

Right now there are an awful lot of people in the US who wouldn't have the slightest qualm about seeing all Muslims rounded up and summarily deported. John Ashcroft is quite probably one of them. When the next attack comes, those Muslims who haven't been smart enough to leave while the getting was good would do well to have their bags packed. Patience on this side of the pond, idiots like John Kerry and his ilk notwithstanding, is wearing awfully thin.

"Making government more local just ensure there will be more of it."

Perry:

You make a good point. But it cuts both ways. Here in Canada, we have provinces that want to reduce the government monopoly on health care services but can't because of the power and influence of the federal government, which opposes the changes. (This despite health care being officially a provincial jurisdiction.)

I'm not sure the degree of centralization affects the quantity of government all that much. That probably depends more on the attitude of the voters -- what demands they make on the government. But, for a large and diverse country such as Canada, a "strong" federal government means less flexibility for people to find their own solutions to problems, whether that be through some lower form of government or through civil society.

Toolkien wrote:

"As for those who don't think that the Middle East can eventually overthrow the West consider that the Roman Empire, the strongest State of the time, eventually succumbed to incessant attacks, chipped away at a little at a time until it fell. It took centuries, but that's precisely the terms in which these drones think."

This a myth. The Roman Empire fell because over the centuries it became transformed into a centralised high taxing bureaucratic sclerotic State in which economic and personal freedoms were extinguished. The small numbers of invading "barbarians" were mostly welcomed.

If there is a lesson to be learned from the fall of the Roman Empire, it is that the way for libertarians to ensure the survival and prosperity of our society is not to conjure up paranoid fantasies of Islamic domination in order to justify ever greater State control over our lives and our wallets, but to work to restore the freedoms that are being stolen from us by our own Governments in the name of the "war" on terrorism and sundry other "wars".

Nobody in any of the many well argued essays above has mentioned the dilemma, vis-a-vis the UK, for those terrorists who think they can affect democratic elections by outrages designed to get rid of current pro-American Prime Ministers. What do they do about Blair? They can hardly oust his government in the same way they now believe they did in Spain - it would almost inevitably lead to a Tory Government here. Not an improvement for them, surely? Most of Tony's backbenchers are on their side anyway. Unless of course they think it might lead to a Lib Dem Government? Surely that is a bit far-fetched even for Islamofascists. Ginger Charlie for PM? Nah.

Now, if they were to assassinate Blair in order the shoe horn Gordon Brown in, I suppose there could be slim hope of a change of UK policy in the Middle East, but by no means a certainty. And I guess that's a nuance too far for the nutters involved in this latest mutation in terror tactics. Anyway why should they bomb Britain? We're already appeasing them on our home territory, it's open borders for them and we keep 'em housed, fed and watered when they come, too. And fund their legal aid if they happen to get caught with a bomb up their shirt. Moreover the British media is largely on their side, it would seem. They are certainly unlikely to detonate the Doughnut in Wood Lane - it's their major propaganda organ. The Palace of Westminster is tearing itself apart without their help. The Royal family is dysfunctional if not indeed imploding. Why attack a nation when it's in self-destruct mode. They think long term - both past and future - and probably have already guessed that in thirty years time, most of the sane indigenous anglos will have emigrated to the States and left these Sceptic Isles to the the mad mullahs and a mish-mash of miscellaneous miscegenated moonbats. Luckily I shan't be here to witness it and I've already pointed our issue and theirs westwards. I hope they heed my advice.

And I fear that, in the future, the pain in Spain will not just be on the train. They will live to regret their foolish response to this terrible tragedy. I agree with Susan; future generations will celebrate this month for the birth of Eurabia. She gets my vote for best coined word of the year. Put that in the blog glossary Perry.

If there is a lesson to be learned from the fall of the Roman Empire, it is that the way for libertarians to ensure the survival and prosperity of our society is not to conjure up paranoid fantasies of Islamic domination in order to justify ever greater State control over our lives and our wallets, but to work to restore the freedoms that are being stolen from us by our own Governments in the name of the "war" on terrorism and sundry other "wars".

Well said!

"The Roman Empire fell because over the centuries it became transformed into a centralised high taxing bureaucratic sclerotic State in which economic and personal freedoms were extinguished"

Doesn't this describe the EU ? (Probably more than the Roman Empire).

The problem is you have to do both - try to reform the inner, decadent, structure, and protect yourself from outside threats. You don't have the luxury of concentrating on one task at a time.

Verity writes:

we must act now, with a merciless iron fist. It is inevitable that in crushing them, we will kill innocent people.

Ahh! Such sweet feminine charm; with this soothing poetry it can't be long before you make some lucky man very happy. It was probably pretty love talk such as this that won Joseph Goebbels' heart for Magda.

Paul, I don't recall your having had such dainty feelings before.

We are talking about attacks on our society. I believe we should do whatever it takes to stop them, regardless of the liberals and "human rights" activists. I see that police on the London Underground are now stopping passengers at random (mostly, I'm sure, blonde women and old men so as not to be accused of profiling) and searching their bags. I find this an insufferable infringement on a Briton's liberty to go peaceably about his business, and it's a direct result of appeasing terrorists - which directly stems from allowing them to flow into the country in the first place.

Curb the liberty of the terrorists. Not the British citizenry.

We must take the war overseas to their territories, and stop importing it into ours. This means some innocent people will be killed. So be it. They should have done something about terrorism at home, instead of applauding it and doing happy little jigs when a bomb goes off in the West.

What if the Terorrists are British Citizens Verity?

Ship 'em back where they came from?

Dave - I thought you had foresworn Samizdata, and here you are again, always with a smug, superior air of one bringing up an irrefutable point. In fact, there's something Blairesque about you. Maybe it's the unaccountable self-satisfaction. Maybe it's the humourlessness. Who knows? Who cares?

Given that someone else would have posed the same question, if this thread lasts that long, I'll address it anyway, regardless of the source.

Young men, up to age 32 or thereabouts who were born in Britain could have the choice of renouncing their British citizenship, surrendering their passports and going elsewhere, or being interned in camps until the war on terror was won. Yes, it's religionist. So what? So is blowing up the infidel.

Anyway, it wouldn't be for an extended period. Not like the years that the Japanese were interned during WWII. The Americans will be able to flatten whatever they decide to flatten within a month or six weeks. Unless the West adopts a less "human rights" driven agenda, this war will drag on and probably cost more lives.

Dave - I thought you had foresworn Samizdata

Nope, as I said yesterday, merely been travelling and working - flying here and there and that sort of thing and soon I will be again. In the mean time, as I said, I'm back :)

and here you are again, always with a smug, superior air of one bringing up an irrefutable point. In fact, there's something Blairesque about you. Maybe it's the unaccountable self-satisfaction. Maybe it's the humourlessness. Who knows? Who cares?

You seem to.

As I recall our last discussion ended with you saying something along the lines of "I don't care what the facts are, this is what I believe to be true."

Hardly a point one can debate in a logical civilised manner.

Given that someone else would have posed the same question, if this thread lasts that long, I'll address it anyway, regardless of the source.

Why thank you Verity.

Young men, up to age 32 or thereabouts who were born in Britain could have the choice of renouncing their British citizenship, surrendering their passports and going elsewhere, or being interned in camps until the war on terror was won. Yes, it's religionist. So what? So is blowing up the infidel.

What young men? Muslim men? All Muslim men regardless of background? Are we including Turks and other Muslims? White Muslims who have converted? North Africans who we suspect might be Muslims even though they claim not to be? What is your mechanism Verity, what are the tests?

Like many of your suggestions you don't seem to let reality impinge on having a good old fashioned Rant.

Anyway, it wouldn't be for an extended period. Not like the years that the Japanese were interned during WWII. The Americans will be able to flatten whatever they decide to flatten within a month or six weeks. Unless the West adopts a less "human rights" driven agenda, this war will drag on and probably cost more lives.

And when its flattened what then?

You believe that that will make the terrorism go away?

What on Earth makes you think this is true?

The Russians waged an all out war in Chechnya against terrorists, flattening the place and still they have attacks. Given the Russians are historically more robust in their approach to this sort of thing than the Americans - why should this work for Americans and fail for Russians?

Verity,

Those testosterone supplements are really not a good idea. You'll be growing hair on your chest soon as well as beating it.

Paul, Ha ha!

Ok, let's hear your plan for overcoming this pestilence.

Dave - No. It's you all right. You make grammatical errors identical to those of the man you say you're not, and you use many of the same sentence structures and phrases.

I'm not going to argue with you because I'm not the prime minister of a country and don't have an army of civil servants to devise plans for discussion. And I don't have access to intelligence reports. So I have no idea of precisely which groups would be targetted for deportation or temporary internment.

Groups targetted would be the ones intelligence services have deemed dangerous. Yes, of course I would include white Muslims who've converted. Whyever not? There's no one more committed to a cause than a convert.

Why should serious bombing work for us when it didn't work for the Russians in Chechnya? Because I believe our intelligence knows where the funding comes from. This level of terrorism is a very, very rich man's game. Kill the rich man (sorry, Paul Coulam, not kill him exactly; more jump out at him and shout "Boo, you naughty rich man!" and make a really mean face) and sequester his money.

Frank P: Thanks for the compliment, but I can't take credit for "Eurabia". It was coined by Madame Bat Ye'or, the world's leading historian and scholar on the culture of the non-Muslim people living as second class citizens in Islamic states (called "dhimmies") in their own lands.

Mme. Bat Ye'or will shortly publish a book with that title. You may want to watch for it.

No. It's you all right.

Sorry?

As I said, its me. Definately me. Yup. Me.

I'm not going to argue with you

Oh good.

because I'm not the prime minister of a country and don't have an army of civil servants to devise plans for discussion. And I don't have access to intelligence reports. So I have no idea of precisely which groups would be targetted for deportation or temporary internment.

*sigh*

So you do want to argue then?

In other words, "don't argue with me Dave, I've made up my mind!"

Hardly what I, personally, think of as Libertarian myself and something I'd fight tooth and nail to prevent a government from getting away with.

Why should serious bombing work for us when it didn't work for the Russians in Chechnya? Because I believe our intelligence...

Like it *knew* where the Iraqi Weapons were? Like it *knows* where the next attacks will be? Like it can already stop the flow of money? Oh yes, our intelligence in this regard is top notch.

It helps for terrorists to be rich and well equiped. But they don't have to be.

Susan, hi. Bat Ye'or is formidable. I came across her around a year ago. Her writing certainly has the ability to concentrate the mind.

Verity: From time to time I forget that terms that are common to those of us who monitor the "war blogs" are often new to people who post on more mainstream blogs.

I am sure that most non-tapped in Europeans would be horrified to hear that this unflattering term is spreading very quickly in the US via the Internet.

Then again, judging from the Spanish elections, maybe they wouldn't be horrified at all. Maybe they would think it was a compliment.

Thank you, ladies, for the pointer to Bat Ye'or. She wrote:

"Strategically, the Euro-Arab Cooperation was a political instrument for anti-Americanism in Europe, whose aim was to separate and weaken the two continents by an incitement to hostility ... "

Given the birth date of this unholy alliance--what, 60s? Early 70s?--it takes about 2 seconds to imagine parties who might have benefited from hostility between Europe and America. What we're really doing now is cleaning up after the Cold War.

Susan - "I am sure that most non-tapped in Europeans would be horrified to hear that this unflattering term is spreading very quickly in the US via the Internet. "

Yes.

none: Yes. Do you think it escapes the estimable Senor Zapatero's attention as to whom to credit for putting him into power?

Nor has it escaped the attention of those who are gunning for Tony Blair's job or Anders Fogh Rasmussen's job or Silvio Berlusconi's job. You can count on that. Not that I'm implying direct collaboration, you understand -- it's more subtle than that.

The Red-Green alliance has been going on for quite some time; the Spanish elections have simply formalized the relationship. (And no, I don't mean Schroeder's partnership with Joshcka Fisher.)

I mean Red as in Communist/collectivist and Green as in Islam's sacred color.

You can also throw in a few of the neo-Nazis into the picture, who have jew-hatred and anti-Americanism in common with the others.

That makes it a Red-Green-Brown coalition.

An extremely formidable threat to Euro-freedom, the most formidable one since Hitler and Stalin signed the non-Aggression treaty.

Verity: If most Euros would be horrified by our use of that term, then maybe there's hope for Europe yet. Maybe they still have some cultural pride left that hasn't been completely obliterated by the tranzi Establishment.

Susan writes: If most Euros would be horrified by our use of that term, then maybe there's hope for Europe yet. Maybe they still have some cultural pride left that hasn't been completely obliterated by the tranzi Establishment.

Not too sure on that point, Susan. I think they would be horrified, yes, but at American impertinence for so designating them. I mean, it's just so .... unnuanced ...
(Obviously, I don't include Brits under the term "Europeans".)