How global is the terrorists war on whatever?

[KillerMuffin]

Link: http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=politicsnews&StoryID=891425

From Reuters
Many Europeans were also deeply concerned about Bush's characterization of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as members of an "axis of evil," developing weapons of mass destruction and supporting international terrorism.

Europe has also been skeptical about Washington's apparent determination to oust Saddam by force.

[Simon Serfaty, director of the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington] said European governments' Middle East policies were motivated by their proximity to the region, dependence on Gulf oil and their domestic constituencies. Between 16 and 18 million Muslims live in Europe.

He said it was just that vulnerability that would ultimately require the Europeans to get more firmly behind the U.S. war on terrorism and action against Iraq.

"The next wave of terror will be in Europe, not here. They have all sorts of soft targets," he said.

A joint U.S.-European approach to the war on terrorism and the Arab-Israeli conflict offered the only chance for success, some experts said.

Discussion?

 

[Myrrdin]

Who are the Center for Strategic and International Studies ?

They sound like the sort of outfit Todd Or Writer Dom could campaign for.

 

[Jellybeangirl]

Just as the US is determined to protect itself, these other countries are just as determined. I'm sure that Iraq, Iran and N. Korea have the same opinion of the US as we do of them. Being a US citizen, I agree that they do pose a danger. However, Bush & his administration need to focus on long term effects that may damage relations w/ other nations.

I am concerned that this won't happen and we will lose allies as a result. Without allies, the United States can't stand alone.

 

[Ishmael]

KM, the pansy ass Europeans can blow it out their ass. It is NOT concern, it is out and out fear.

The UK, France, and Germany have allowed almost unchecked immigration of peoples from the Arab world. All three, especially Germany, have been in negative population growth for a while and require more and more outside labor to support the taxes to support their Social systems. Now, if they were to openly support Bush they would be subjecting themselves to internal terrorism. Rather than deal with the problem, they hide behind weasel words.

As to the countries you mentioned. They do support and train terrorists. Of that there is no doubt. By extension, by supporting these groups they become terrorists in their own right. Hiring someone to do your killing for you does not absolve you of the crime.

Terrorist organizations require logistic support and 'safe harbor'. That is what these countries provide. Perhaps one can think of these countries as 'Aircraft Carriers' that loose their 'weapons' from afar. Bush is absolutely correct in understanding that you must 'sink the carriers'. Terrorism will not be stopped until there is no safe place left in the world for the terrorists to hide.

Their are some few on the board that believe that the terrorist have legitimate grievances. And that may be true, but terrorism IS NOT a legitimate way to address these grievances. And terrorism must NEVER be allowed to succeed. The very future of civilization demands that terrorists be eliminated. Civilization cannot allow terrorist to ever succeed in their mission, no matter how legitimate the grievance.

Why? The answer is simple. If just one terrorist group succeeds in using terror to achieve it's demands it will be seen as a 'legitimate' means to achieve an end. Other groups will follow. Until every group with a grievance will resort to terrorist tactics to achieve their goal. Society as we know it could not survive such an onslaught.

Ishmael

 

[SINthysist]

I've been telling p_p_ ever since he got on Arafat's boat that the English were as likely to be in the crosshairs as America.

I posted earlier that I ran across an article in Drudge about the popularity of Mein Kampf in the Arab world and it's increased sales in Britain.

Christian Europe and Muslim Middle East have been foes for a long time. The odds are good that they'll go at it again.

GUESS WHO THEY TURN TO FOR HELP?

Albania,
Brazil,
China,
Ecuador,
Greenland,
.
.
.
?

 

[bluespoke]

KM, the pansy ass Europeans can blow it out their ass. It is NOT concern, it is out and out fear.

The UK, France, and Germany have allowed almost unchecked immigration of peoples from the Arab world.

Middle East immigration into the Uk is about 7% of all immigrants (around 4,000) and aproximately 60% of those are wives and children.

Hardly unchecked (a bit like your post!).

 

[SINthysist]

Speaking of Immigration.

60 Minutes last night was a real eye-opener for me about Canadian immigration...

 

[Ishmael]

Middle East immigration into the Uk is about 7% of all immigrants (around 4,000) and aproximately 60% of those are wives and children.

Hardly unchecked (a bit like your post!).

Given relative population numbers, we are still talking about a lot of people.

Your government is very concerned, enough so that new policies are in the process of formulation.

The elections in France are telling enough. I don't really have to comment on them.

Germany is the unheard from party here.

The rest of my post is dead on. Terrorism, like kidnapping, black mail, and extortion can not be tolerated by the civilized world. The motives are immaterial to the facts of the crime.

Perhaps you should read a poem by one of your more famous countrymen. "Dane Gelt" by R. Kipling.

Ishmael

 

[bluespoke]

Given relative population numbers, we are still talking about a lot of people.

Your government is very concerned, enough so that new policies are in the process of formulation.

The elections in France are telling enough. I don't really have to comment on them.

Germany is the unheard from party here.

The rest of my post is dead on. Terrorism, like kidnapping, black mail, and extortion can not be tolerated by the civilized world. The motives are immaterial to the facts of the crime.

Perhaps you should read a poem by one of your more famous countrymen. "Dane Gelt" by R. Kipling.

Ishmael

I'm not disputing the rest of your post, it is spot on. I just took exception to the 'unchecked immigration'.

 

[Ishmael]

I'm not disputing the rest of your post, it is spot on. I just took exception to the 'unchecked immigration'.

All right, then I'll preface the statement with "relatively speaking".

Take a look at the immigration numbers from the 50's and 60's as compared to today. And the requirements thereof.

When the harsh reality of the Social programs going broke due to an aging population coupled to slowing to negatinve population growth finally sank in, the knee jerk reaction was to flood the labor market with young immigree's to pick up the tax burden. I fault not the European countries alone on this issue, our politicians here in the States are doing the same thing.

The casual advocates of this method of 'social salvation' believe the flow of immigrants to be some altruistic moral issue and the results of 'caring' politicians. It's not. It is cold hard cash in the form of tax revenue to the government that has driven these policies.

There is an unintended consequence for every action.

Ishmael

 

[bluespoke]

All right, then I'll preface the statement with "relatively speaking".

Take a look at the immigration numbers from the 50's and 60's as compared to today. And the requirements thereof.

When the harsh reality of the Social programs going broke due to an aging population coupled to slowing to negatinve population growth finally sank in, the knee jerk reaction was to flood the labor market with young immigree's to pick up the tax burden. I fault not the European countries alone on this issue, our politicians here in the States are doing the same thing.

The casual advocates of this method of 'social salvation' believe the flow of immigrants to be some altruistic moral issue and the results of 'caring' politicians. It's not. It is cold hard cash in the form of tax revenue to the government that has driven these policies.

There is an unintended consequence for every action.

Ishmael

Indeed there is. Our influx of cheap, though often well educated labour, has always tended to come from Commonwealth countries rather than the Middle East.

The casual advocates of such policies are naive in the extreme. The governments who support such schemes are pure cynics, but then again is that something we should be surprised about?

 

[Ishmael]

Indeed there is. Our influx of cheap, though often well educated labour, has always tended to come from Commonwealth countries rather than the Middle East.

The casual advocates of such policies are naive in the extreme. The governments who support such schemes are pure cynics, but then again is that something we should be surprised about?

No, no surprise if you think about it at all.

Ishmael

 

[p_p_man]

Terrorist organizations require logistic support and 'safe harbor'. That is what these countries provide.

As the US was at the height of the IRA terror campaign I suppose.

Ishmael you seemed to have, as usual, drifted off track and confused yourself.

Europe, and especially the UK have never been 100% supporters of Israel. We have always had more affinity with the Arab nations than with Israel.

We have made major mistakes in the past under pressure from the US but we knew they were major mistakes at the time.

Quote:

"The Balfour Declaration, made in November 1917 by the British Government...was made a) by a European power, b) about a non-European territory, c) in flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority resident in that territory...[As Balfour himself wrote in 1919], 'The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant (the Anglo French Declaration of 1918 promising the Arabs of the former Ottoman colonies that as a reward for supporting the Allies they could have their independence) is even more flagrant in the case of the independent nation of Palestine than in that of the independent nation of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country..."

Quote:

"By this time [November 1947] the United States had emerged as the most aggressive proponent of partition...The United States got the General Assembly to delay a vote 'to gain time to bring certain Latin American republics into line with its own views.'...Some delegates charged U.S. officials with 'diplomatic intimidation.' Without 'terrific pressure' from the United States on 'governments which cannot afford to risk American reprisals,' said an anonymous editorial writer, the resolution [concerning Partition] 'would never have passed.'" John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

The relationship between the Arab states and in this case, the UK, has always been strong. It is based on hundred of years of common history, wars and a practice of working together, which in itself took centuries to develop. We are both a people who understand each other. America, on the other hand which has never had a direct personal role as a race with the Arabs (well you couldn't really expect to have one in the time span you've been around so far), except as a provider of money and goods, cannot in the same sense understand the closeness the UK has with them.

Israel on the other hand is the new boy on the block and if it hadn't been for the Zimmermann Note or Zimmermann Telegram it is possible that the US would not have entered the First World War when they did and the Balfour Declaration would not have been made. And Israel would not exist in its present form.

Quote

"it should be considered that Britain issued the Balfour Declaration in exchange, not for something she hoped would happen in the future, but for something that had already happened in the past. If we look back a few months before the time of the Balfour Declaration we find an event of xtreme value to Britain—America’s entry into the war. What I suggest is that the Balfour Declaration was a reward to the Zionists for their part in having brought the United States into the First World War at Britain’s side."

Europe is fully aware that we are targets for terrorist attacks as we suffer from them almost daily from different organisations anyway.

For Serfaty to say, "European governments' Middle East policies were motivated by their proximity to the region, dependence on Gulf oil and their domestic constituencies. Between 16 and 18 million Muslims live in Europe."

and "it was just that vulnerability that would ultimately require the Europeans to get more firmly behind the U.S. war on terrorism and action against Iraq.

The next wave of terror will be in Europe, not here. They have all sorts of soft targets."

shows a remarkable lack of knowledge about how and why Europe views the situation. And a man who doesn't seem to know the famous Truman statement about not having 100,000 arab constituents to consider. A man who is just repeating old arguments, or is possibly grabbing at any straw, with facts that we know already. In other words he ain't saying anything new.

A bit like your own view of things Raphael.

And for Richard Perle, "who served in President Ronald Reagan's Defense Department and now advises the Bush administration," to say, "The Europeans are anti-Israel." is frightening.

Maybe it's not all Bush's fault that he's viewed as a clown after all, if he has to listen to advisers like that.

On the whole the link KM provided has I think got it right.

A rift has appeared between Europe and America but it isn't all to do with the Middle East. I don't have to repeat the actions of Bush just after he took office. We all know them.

But he is now trying to operate a bankrupt Forign Policy in the Middle East as Sharon and Crown Prince Abdullah have shown...

And he has lost America a lot of the trust Europe used to have.

We didn't always agree with your methods or your motives but at least we trusted you.

Now?

ppman