Al Qaeda vs. The West

Published October 1, 2005 in Al Qaeda.

Once again, terrorists attack the west.

Digg This!

45 Responses to “Al Qaeda vs. The West”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 rightisright
Oct 1st, 2005 at 11:10 pm

If Gore were “selected” in 2000, this never would have happened.
2 Semanticleo
Oct 1st, 2005 at 11:10 pm

RR;

Make a contribution to the discussion
3 Frank_D
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 12:10 am

Bali is the West? President Yudhoyono, call your office!
4 Frank_D
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 4:10 am

To truly understand worldwide Islamic terrorism, you need to see this Flash

presentation:

http://www.conceptwizard.com/pipeline_of_hatred.html

p.s. It’s not about the West (keep your voice down or Oliver will hear you)
5 johnnyprogressive
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 4:10 am

yeah… im not so sure Bali qualifies as “the West” either
6 JayTea
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 7:10 am

Looks more like “Al Qaeda is too impotent to attack in the West, so they attack in the Far East, and kill far more Easterners than Westerners in the process” to me.

So, since OBVIOUSLY we can’t give the Bush administration credit for keeping terrorism away from our shores since 9/11, what’s the explanation for Al Qaeda attacking England, Spain, France (almost), Indonesia, and the like? Poor aim? Misreading a map? Dog ate their plane tickets?

J.
7 Jay C
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 8:10 am

Oliver, Bali is in the “far east”, not the west.

Brush up on your geography big guy.
8 Semanticleo
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 10:10 am

Frank;

That is an interesting presentation. Let me ask you; Which branch of Zionism assassinated Yitzhak Rabin?
9 Jadegold
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 10:10 am

Jeebus, is JayIDTea really claiming that Al Qaeda’s attacks on western allies is a good thing? This is akin to telling someone who has had a heart attack that they were lucky it wasn’t leukemia.

Just when you think the rightwing can’t get dumber, they always surprise.
10 Zappa
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 12:10 pm

I would argue that since we are in the Global War on Terrorism that any attack by terrorists is an attack on us. Of course you could whine about the rules and exclude various attacks for various reasons - I just add that up to another point in why these guys are not the ones to lead us out of this war.
11 JayTea
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 1:10 pm

While I appreciate the link, Semanticleo, please try to get it right:

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/007236.php

That will give you the FULL piece, not just the part that got you in a dither.

J.
12 Semanticleo
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 1:10 pm

Jay;

The fact that organization is anathema to arab culture is demonstrated by the lack of progress dating from the attempt fby T.E. Lawrence to unify the arab tribes 1n 1918; to the choaticians of the present Palestinian Authority.

The fact that Al Qaeda has not attacked us here is less a demonstration of the competence of the Administration, than it is of the incompetence and dysfunction that is a by-product of arab ‘unity’.

Bush has been lucky. But even high-ranking admin. officials agree; ‘it’s not a matter of if, rather, when we will next be attacked’.
13 Semanticleo
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 1:10 pm

BTW;

Jay has a nice piece on the domestic version of ‘Attack them over there, so they don’t attack us here!’

http://www.wizbangblog.com/
14 JayTea
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 1:10 pm

Jade, please don’t be denser than absolutely necessary.

Al Qaeda has carried out successful attacks in the UK and Spain, and tried in France. But who’s their real enemy? Who’s done more harm to them than anyone? Who was their major target right up through 9/11? Us, spelled “U-S.”

Since then, they’ve had more reason than ever to attack us, and they haven’t.

No, the fact that they’re attacking elsewhere is not a good thing, but in the big picture, they aren’t hitting where they want to, but where they can. You know what lengths they’d go to in order to hit us hard, at home, where it would hurt — and they haven’t. That’s a HUGE sign of weakness.

J.
15 JayTea
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 2:10 pm

Semanticleo, I trust most people will see either the “satire” label or the “there’s more” bit. If they don’t, then… well, I don’t write to the lowest common denominator.

J.
16 Jadegold
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 2:10 pm

My Jeebus, JayIDTea was serious. I suppose I should retract my comments about him being ‘dumb’ as it’s poor form to criticize the mentally-challenged.
17 Semanticleo
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 2:10 pm

Jay;

Your point is taken. Perhaps the context should be higher up. Then occasional visitors to your site won’t get in a dither.
18 JayTea
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 2:10 pm

Actually, the host of this site is pretty much the “lowest common denominator” I tend to consider. After all, anyone who thinks “articulate” is an ethnic slur against blacks, but doesn’t think “filthy” in relation to a Jew is, definitely doesn’t “get” a lot of things.

J.

(And yes, I caught both RWR references.)
19 Semanticleo
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 2:10 pm

Trust But Verify; or would you prefer ‘ketchup is a vegetable’ as the lowest common denominator
20 Wilbur
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 3:10 pm

Wow, I just have to say that the commentary on this thread has gotten particularly stupid

Frank, Jay C, etc.: you geniuses have any idea why terrorists picked tourist locations in Bali to blow up? You know who goes to those tourist locations?

JayTea: when Bush keeps terrorist attacks off our shores for as long as Clinton did, gimme a call. Till then, color me unimpressed.
21 Jay C
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 3:10 pm

After all, anyone who thinks articulate is an ethnic slur against blacks, but doesn t think filthy in relation to a Jew is, definitely doesn t get a lot of things.

Not to mention he thinks Bali is in the west.
22 Jadegold
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 4:10 pm

The very nature of terrorism dictates terrorists base their attacks on targets of opportunity vice, as in conventional warfare, against an opponent’s strengths/military might.

JayIDTea is also very confused as to what the objectives of terrorism are; apparently, he thinks it’s AQ’s goal to convert the US to Wahabbism or something.

Regardless, it’s going to be a tough sell to other nations to take our side in GWoT if we’re selling the JayIDTea notion that they should act as fodder for the protection of the US.
23 JWG
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 6:10 pm

when Bush keeps terrorist attacks off our shores for as long as Clinton did, gimme a call

If you define “our shores” as the 50 states, then Clinton and Bush are equal. If you consider US territory elsewhere, then perhaps you forgot a little history:
World Trade Center (1993)
Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia
American Embassy in Tanzania
American Embassy in Kenya
USS Cole
24 JayTea
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 7:10 pm

Dang, JWG, you done stole my thunder. Although I gave the Khobar Towers a pass — the rest, though, are US territory.

Nicely done.

J.
25 Semanticleo
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 8:10 pm

Jay;

So the perilous position you’ve taken is that you’re against the terrorists.

Bit simplistic isn’t it.

OK. OK your man Bush is tougher than Cinton. As I’ve said in the past, the game of ‘my dad can beat up your dad’ serves no purpose other than increasing the black eyes

It’s an adolescent game. My eldest son frequently deflects attention from his errors of omsission and comission by highlighting the sins of his brother.

Allow me to repeat a post which earlier got derailed by an OT issue;

The fact that organization is anathema to arab culture is demonstrated by the lack of progress dating from the attempt fby T.E. Lawrence to unify the arab tribes 1n 1918; to the choaticians of the present Palestinian Authority.

The fact that Al Qaeda has not attacked us here is less a demonstration of the competence of the Administration, than it is of the incompetence and dysfunction that is a by-product of arab unity .

Bush has been lucky. But even high-ranking admin. officials agree; it s not a matter of if, rather, when we will next be attacked .

Your guy, Bush, has taken the ‘genie out of the bottle’ (that is; sectarian and inter-tribal rivalries) and enriched the environment beyond the dreams of Bin Laden and Al Zwahiri. Civil war in Iraq may well be inevitable, and the Pottery Barn rule ‘if you break it. You own it’ is soon to a full blown case of ‘we told you so’.
26 Jay C
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 8:10 pm

Yet, it can t be denied that since George Jounior has embarked on his Excellent Adventure terrorism has increased in both frequency and magnitude.

Magnitude? They’ve gone from bombing embassies, warships and financial centers to suicide bombings. Exactly how has the magnitude increased? Name one terrorist attack against the US or US installations abroad since 9/11.

And you certainly wouldn t be claiming we had some moral high ground after Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.

Oh please. Only a fool would compare the brutal campaign of terrorists to what happened at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.

And you Flanagan, are a fool.
27 Jadegold
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 8:10 pm

And Jadegold: they re not cannon fodder. They re allies, and as such they deserve our respect, our support, and our assistance. But they are still sovereign countries, and responsible for their own sovereign territory.

Moving the goalposts again? Just a few posts ago, you were telling us about how Dear Leader deserved adoration for keeping the violence from our shores. Yet, it can’t be denied that since George Jounior has embarked on his Excellent Adventure–terrorism has increased in both frequency and magnitude. By most accounts (excluding Uncle Dick Cheney’s) Al Qaeda and its offshoots have increased in numbers.

It s a war, and I ve thought it over carefully. I ve decided that the side that kidnaps people and shouts God Is Great while beheading them on videotape, the side that goes out of its way to kill and maim innocent civilians, the side that once ran a regime that brutally oppressed and maimed women and summarily executed homosexuals, that turned a sports stadium into a public execution ground, is the one I d like to see lose.

No, you haven’t thought at all. If you had, you might not be conflating Al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein. And you certainly wouldn’t be claiming we had some moral high ground after Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.
28 Jadegold
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 9:10 pm

Put down the malt liquor, Jay and pay attention to the thread. It will marginally help the quality of your ramblings.

Michael Scheuer

MSNBC

Face facts, Jay–your Prez has helped OBL succeed beyond his wildest imagination.
29 Oliver
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 10:10 pm

Western tourists in Bali is still the West. I thought I wouldn’t have to dumb things down to explain that, even to right wingers you’d think such a thing would be self-evident, but once again I realize that I should never underestimate the incapability of the American right to understand the most simple basic things in the world.
30 Jadegold
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 10:10 pm

Only a fool would compare the brutal campaign of terrorists to what happened at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.

You’re the fool, Jay C. You apparently believe we should measure the US using the same standards as we would measure a Saddam or OBL or Zarqawi.

I don’t.

The fact is Abu Ghraib and Gitmo–among others–will be a long -lasting stain on this country. You can argue that other regimes and despots are worse but it’s a silly defense.
31 Oliver
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 10:10 pm

Yes, Al Qaeda is so impotent they can kill people in London and westerners in Bali. Your fucking president can’t even handle a goddamn hurricane he had advance notice of, but we’re supposed to believe he can stop terrorists? More terrorists have killed Americans under George W. Bush than any president in our history.
32 Wilbur
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 11:10 pm

JWG and Jay T seem to be falling over each other to prove which is the thickest.

Um, guys, let me spell it out for you. The first WTC attack occurred in early 1993.
The terrorists were rounded up and thrown in jail without benefit of invading Iraq, and In the eight years remaining in Clinton’s presidency there were no further attacks in the US.

GWB has been in office 4 years since 9/11. If we make it through the next 4 years without another attack then I’ll admit that GWB has something to brag about. But he’ll have something to brag about in spite of his invasion of Iraq rather than because of it.

As for overseas attacks on US interests/personnel/property: if you guys get to count Khobar, Cole and the embassy bombings, I get to count all the al qaeda/zarqawi/insurgent attacks on US personnel and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan, and your boy’s in an even bigger hole. Go ahead and keep splitting hairs and I’m sure you’ll find a way to get him out of it.
33 JayTea
Oct 3rd, 2005 at 4:10 am

Oh, the WTC bombers. Weren’t they the ones were helped, even after their conviction, by their attorney, a lion of the left, even after they were convicted? Isn’t that attorney still being cast as a victim, even after her conviction of providing material support to terrorists? And isn’t that same Lynne Stewart a bosom buddy of Cindy Sheehan and darling of the left?

Here, lemme save you one particular talking point: no, Saddam was not involved in 9/11, and no one can cite a single example of the Bush administration saying so. But I’ve always believed that was a matter of operational security, and not because Al Qaeda was afraid he’d disapprove. He was a long-time supporter of terrorism in general and Al Qaeda in particular, and had repeatedly violated the terms of the cease-fire from the first Gulf War. That, plus certain strategic realities, made it opportune, legal, and right to remove him from power.

Bin Laden? No, we haven’t put his head on a spike in front of the White House. But we’ve driven him from the halls of power in Afghanistan, made him a fugitive with a huge price on his head, and haven’t heard from him in ages. I personally was of the belief he’d been reduced to a stain on the walls of Tora Bora, and despite evidence to the contrary since I’m still about 25% convinced he’s dead. Regardless, he might as well be — he’s been utterly irrelevant (one might say “impotent”) since then.

Abu Ghraib? You wanna compare that to their videotaped beheadings and blowing up children? (I recall one busful of children killed by a suicide bomber.) Fine.

1) Nobody died from those abuses at Abu Ghraib.
2) Abu Ghraib was an aberration, a violation of the norms, and those responsible were reviled and punished.
3) The first reports from Abu Ghraib were based on publicly-released Army statements on the incident.
4) I suspect more people died as a result of Newsweek’s “Koran in the toilet” lie than from the reports from Abu Ghraib.

The hurricane? Yeah, I forgot about that one. Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen again. Let’s give the president the power to set aside duly-elected mayors and governors when disaster threatens, because there’s a good chance they’ll prove incompetent in the crisis. Fuck the Constitution, to hell with “pussy comitatus,” , there are LIBERAL TALKING POINTS to be answered here!

“Increased frequency and magnitude” of terrorist attacks? Both statements are laughable on their face. “Magnitude?” Show me the terrorist attack anywhere near the scale of 9/11. And “frequency?” Part of that’s a redefinition of terrorism in the last couple of years, and that counts a LOT of terrorist attacks that have nothing to do with Iraq. For example, Mindanao and Beslan really didn’t have a hell of a lot to do with our war on terror.

Now, lemme turn it back around on you. You say what Bush has done has made it MORE dangerous for Americans. So, what SHOULD he have done? what magic wand could he have waved to suddenly make the terrorists get all warm and fuzzy and stop trying to kill us?

The answer: nothing. ANYTHING we did — short of selling out the only democracy in the Middle East, abandoning a good chunk of the world to Muslim extremism, and doing absolutely nothing to hinder the restoration of the Caliphate — would have reduced the animosity towards the US. And that would have only postponed the inevitable confrontation until, once again, it would have been on their terms, at a time and place of their choosing.

This fight was inevitable. Just when it became inevitable is a matter for debate — I put it on the Iran hostage crisis, when the United States demonsrated that it could be cowed into acquiescence to large-scale acts of war without retaliation — but IT WAS COMING. Carter started it. Reagan allowed it to grow. Bush 41 took a few decent steps, but not enough. And Clinton allowed it to thrive and prosper. Bush 43 wasn’t doing a hell of a lot, either, until 9/11.

So, prove me wrong: give your grand ideas. Show what visionary steps Bush 43 could have taken, what opportunities he missed, to prevent further terrorism. It’ll be a refreshing change for me, to be the one who gets to sit back and watch you do all the heavy lifting and thinking, while I relax and nit-pick and criticize.

J.
34 JWG
Oct 3rd, 2005 at 6:10 am

if you guys get to count Khobar, Cole and the embassy bombings, I get to count all the al qaeda/zarqawi/insurgent attacks on US personnel and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan

Wow. If you don’t see the difference, then that explains a lot.
35 JayTea
Oct 3rd, 2005 at 6:10 am

JWG, you’re right, but I’ll explain it a bit better for the clueless:

They’re going to try to kill us. That’s a given. The question is, which would you prefer they attack — US civilians, where they can sacrifice 19 for 3,000, or the military, where they lose hundreds to kill a handful?

I know the military, given their druthers, would rather they be the targets than us. Because they’re not sitting ducks like we are. They fight back, and often see the attack coming and hit first.

The terrorists like fighting civilians. They know that the worst that can happen there is they get locked up. The military will kill them, kill their allies, and then take what they get and learn from them to kill even more terrorists. There are those who say that Iraq is a classroom for the terrorists, but it’s also one for our military — who are learning at least just as much as the terrorists, but far more of them survive to pass on those lessons.

J.
36 dugger1
Oct 3rd, 2005 at 7:10 am

I dedicate this song to OW.

“Oh, east is west and west is east and never the twain shall meet”

Dugger, with props to Kudyard Ripling
37 JWG
Oct 3rd, 2005 at 8:10 am

Western tourists in Bali is still the West.

That’s a reasonable point, which is why I personally didn’t criticize the title…but it’s worth mentioning that the majority of dead and injured are Indonesian.

More terrorists have killed Americans under George W. Bush than any president in our history.

And more terrorists have been killed under Bush than any other president in history.
38 Jay C
Oct 3rd, 2005 at 9:10 am

Western tourists in Bali is still the West. I thought I wouldn t have to dumb things down to explain that, even to right wingers you d think such a thing would be self-evident, but once again I realize that I should never underestimate the incapability of the American right to understand the most simple basic things in the world.

There were people from Japan and Korea that were injured as well. Your title is absurd. Deal with it.
39 Wilbur
Oct 3rd, 2005 at 9:10 am

Wow. If you don t see the difference, then that explains a lot.

I suppose you mean they are military targets rather than civilian targets. That sound you hear is Khobar and Cole going down the toilet as your trump cards. Also, since Bush has done a good job of privatizing the war and recovery effort the line is not so easy to draw, is it?

You say what Bush has done has made it MORE dangerous for Americans. So, what SHOULD he have done? what magic wand could he have waved to suddenly make the terrorists get all warm and fuzzy and stop trying to kill us?

I can tell you’re not serious when you set up false dichotomies like this: if I can’t come up with a “magic wand” that immediately eliminates all terrorism then I have no right to criticise Bush’s bumbling. Horsefeathers.

A lot of what Bush should have done he did do and is still doing:stepped-up security, surveillance, international cooperation; and I’m one lefty who thought the invasion of Afghanistan was necessary. What he didn’t do was keep his focus on those efforts. Instead he barged on into a quagmire in Iraq, sapping our attention and resources, allowing Bin Ladin off the hook (and sorry, you have no idea where Bin Ladin is, what he’s doing and how much operational involvement he has in ongoing al qaeda activities), alienating our current and potential allies and making more people hate America more virulently than ever before. He also didn’t take his job seriously enough to avoid using sensitive posts in homeland security and disaster preparedness for political payoff to cronies and hacks.

So, if Bush thought Iraq was a possibly potential imminent threat (or whatever the final formulation he settled on was) he should have stuck with the painstaking, often frustrating, international effort to keep him contained. The money and people he has wasted in Iraq should have been applied to finishing the job in Afghanistan and securing our homeland.

And more terrorists have been killed under Bush than any other president in history.

And by all accounts more terrorists have been created under Bush than under any president in history. Not even cowboys can kill that fast.
40 Semanticleo
Oct 3rd, 2005 at 9:10 am

“So, what SHOULD he have done? what magic wand could he have waved to suddenly make the terrorists get all warm and fuzzy and stop trying to kill us?”

JayTea;

According to the response you just gave (smelling like a redacted White House document) Bush and fellow Visionaries couldn’t have done a better job

End of discussion. So why should anyone answer the absurdly unnecessarry question above?

Now you see the point I was making when I “cherry-picked” the link to your piece, you indescribeably disingenuous candidate for Bush White House Press Secretary.
41 JWG
Oct 3rd, 2005 at 10:10 am

I suppose you mean they are military targets rather than civilian targets.

No…Iraq and Afghanistan are war zones, while the other examples are not. Most people expect attacks in a war zone. I didn’t include Clinton’s debacle in Somalia for just that reason.
42 Wilbur
Oct 3rd, 2005 at 10:10 am

Jay C: if terrorists were not trying to attack the west, why did they - again! - choose touristy spots in Indonesia’s most touristy island? Deal with it!

Japan and Korea may be in “the east”, but I’m sure your average islamic terrorists considers Japanese and Korean tourists part of “our” world rather than their own.
43 nawoods
Oct 3rd, 2005 at 12:10 pm

“Jay C: if terrorists were not trying to attack the west, why did they - again! - choose touristy spots in Indonesia s most touristy island? Deal with it!”

Allow me to answer that one. Radical islamists want to impose Islamic law in Indonesia, as they do in parts of the Phillipines. They attacked the tourist area to strike againts that which they find unnacceptable. Namely, the non-believers actually having the audacity to try to have fun. Its been the MO of terrorists all over the world. You see here kids, some things are much bigger than this little Dems vs. Reps game you all play. You guys work so hard to find evil in the “Cons” when its staring all of us in the face. These people would just as soon kill you as they would me. The fact that you may not have voted for Bush doesn’t matter in the slightest. To them we are all the enemy.
44 Wilbur
Oct 3rd, 2005 at 3:10 pm

Nawoods, are you under the impression that someone said that the terrorists only wanted to kill Republican westerners? Um, nobody did.

Hate to break it to you, but your great revelation is hardly news to anyone here, and is irrelevant to the discussion. Al qaeda attacked the world trade center because they want to impose their version of Islamic law on Saudi Arabia. Does that mean that it wasn’t an attack against the west?
45 Jadegold
Oct 3rd, 2005 at 3:10 pm

You can play at home–see how many lies you can find in one JayIDTea comment.

no, Saddam was not involved in 9/11, and no one can cite a single example of the Bush administration saying so.

Perhaps JayIDTea will argue Cheney isn’t part of the admin. Cheney, 14 Sep 2003:

“With respect to 9/11, of course, we ve had the story that s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don t know. “

Problem is, they did know. The Czech Govt. told this admin. a year earlier this supposed meeting never took place.

We also have Paul Wolfowitz making the same claim: “We also know there are things that haven t been explained … like the meeting of Mohammed Atta with Iraqi officials in Prague .”

And of course there’s Richard Perle: “Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11. We have proof of that, and we are sure he wasn’t just there for a holiday. The meeting is one of the motives of an American attack on Iraq.”

Of course, there are other instances where this admin linked Saddam to 9/11.

1) Nobody died from those abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Not according to a GOP Senator:

Last year a Republican senator conceded that they contained scenes of “rape and murder” and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said they included acts that were “blatantly sadistic.”

Wait–JayIDTea says I’m not dead, yet

2) Abu Ghraib was an aberration, a violation of the norms, and those responsible were reviled and punished

JayIDTea might wish to do a search of ‘Bagram+prisoner+torture’

3) The first reports from Abu Ghraib were based on publicly-released Army statements on the incident.

Not quite. It actually came to light when a CBS news story broke it.

Oliver Willis

Al Qaeda vs. The West

45 Responses to “Al Qaeda vs. The West”

Leave a Reply

Tag Cloud

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories