Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mark Steyn: These guys want to kill us anyway
The Weekend Australian ^ | March 15, 2004 | Mark Steyn

Posted on 03/14/2004 6:51:49 AM PST by John Jorsett

"THE bombs dropped on Baghdad exploded in Madrid!" declared one "peace" protester in Spain. Or as Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty put it, somewhat less vividly: "If this turns out to be Islamic extremists . . . it is more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq."

By "other allies", he means you – yes, you, reading this on the bus to work in Australia. You may not have supported the war, or ever voted for John Howard, but you're now a target. In other words, this is "blowback". This is what you get when you side with the swaggering Texas gunslinger and his neocon Zionist sidekicks.

There are three responses to Commissioner Keelty:

1) Not necessarily.

In his penultimate public appearance, the late Osama bin Laden, broadcasting from his cave in the early hours of the Afghan campaign, listed among his principal grievances "the tragedy of Andalusia" – that is, the end of Muslim rule in Spain in 1492. That's 512 years ago, but the al-Qa'ida guys are in no mood to (as the Democrats used to urge Republicans in the Clinton impeachment era) "move on". After half a millennium, even Paula Jones would have thrown in the towel. But not these fellows. They're still settling scores from the 15th century. They might not get around to Johnny-come-lately grievances such as Iraq until the early 2600s.

2) Commissioner Keelty could be right.

The question then is what does a nation have to do to avoid being targeted by the Islamists. Canada refused to take part in the war on Iraq, but whoever makes Osama's audio tapes these days still named the disinclined dominion as one of al-Qa'ida's enemies. Ireland did no more than allow American aircraft to continue their practice of refuelling at Shannon but that was enough for Robert Fisk to volunteer them for a list of potential Islamist targets.

Turkey refused to let the US attack Iraq from its territory, but they made the mistake of permitting the British to maintain consular and commercial ties, so a bunch of Muslims in Istanbul got slaughtered anyway. France was second to none in the creative energy and elegant deviousness they brought to the undermining of Bush and Blair vis a vis Iraq, and the only thanks they got was the detonation of their oil tanker off the coast of Yemen.

Maybe you could avoid all that by overthrowing the Bush poodles and installing John Pilger as prime minister. But I wouldn't advise it. Before he became a born-again Baathist urging on the Iraqi resistance, Pilger's big pet cause was independence for East Timor, which seemed like a smart move at the time but has since been cited by the Islamofascists as one of the reasons they blew up Bali.

And that brings me to the best response to the commissioner:

3) It makes no difference.

Even if you'd avoided Iraq or Andalusia or British banks or Pilger or any other affront to Islamist sensibilities, you'd still be a target. As the PR guy for the Islamic Army of Aden said after blowing up that French tanker: "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels." Commissioner Keelty is confusing old-school terrorism – blowing the legs off grannies as a means to an end – with the new: blowing the legs off grannies is the end. Old-school terrorists have relatively viable goals: They want a Basque state or Northern Ireland removed from the UK. You might not agree with these goals, you might not think them negotiable, but at least they're not stark staring insane.

That kind of finely calibrated terrorism – just enough slaughter to inconvenience the state into concessions – is all but over. Suppose you're an ETA cell. Suppose you were planning a car-bomb for next month – nothing fancy, just a dead Spanish official plus a couple of unlucky passers-by. Still want to go ahead with it? I doubt it. Despite Gerry Adams's attempts to distinguish between "unacceptable" terrorism and the supposedly more beneficial kind, these days it's a club with only one level of membership. That's why so many formerly active terrorist groups have been so quiet the past couple of years. In that sense, Bush is right: It is a "war on terror", and on many fronts it's being won.

If Islamic terrorism were as rational as Irish or Basque terrorism, it would be easier. But Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." You can be pro-America (Spain, Australia) or anti-America (France, Canada), but if you broke into the head cave in the Hindu Kush and checked out the hit list you'd be on it either way.

So the choice for pluralist democracies is simple: You can join Bush in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes. Despite the sneers that terrorism is a phenomenon and you can't wage war against a phenomenon, in fact you can – as the Royal Navy did very successfully against the malign phenomena of an earlier age, piracy and slavery.

Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway.


TOPICS: Editorial; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: australia; canada; france; marksteyn; marksteynlist; spain; steyn; thegreatsteyn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

1 posted on 03/14/2004 6:51:49 AM PST by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway. Maybe Steyn's best line ever!
2 posted on 03/14/2004 6:57:40 AM PST by twntaipan (NY Slimes: Best toilet paper leftists can produce.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: John Jorsett
......or you can let the terrorists dictate who runs your government, as they are trying to do in Spain.
4 posted on 03/14/2004 7:06:38 AM PST by Gaetano
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
"THE bombs dropped on Baghdad exploded in Madrid!"

The holder of that sign should ask one simple question. "Why were AQ sleeper cells in Spain to begin with?"
5 posted on 03/14/2004 7:07:00 AM PST by cripplecreek (you tell em i'm commin.... and hells commin with me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

Worth remembering.

L

6 posted on 03/14/2004 7:07:06 AM PST by Lurker (Don't bite the hand that meads you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Ping!
7 posted on 03/14/2004 7:12:27 AM PST by Rutabega (the only good thing about living in Europe was finding out that we captured Saddam two hours early!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Oh WOW, this is really, r-e-a-l-l-y weird!

When I woke up this morning and was thinking about the bombing in Spain, I was also thinking about the paradox that while Columbus was sailing in 1492 and 'europe was enlightened', a good portion of Spain was STILL under Muslim rule. Then wah-la Steyn writes this article and, "the tragedy of Andalusia" – that is, the end of Muslim rule in Spain in 1492."

There MUST be a meaning to this?!? Maybe I better get my tin-foil beanie on FAST. Steyn must be communicating with my brain. OR maybe I have ESP?!?

Now where's that tin-foil....

8 posted on 03/14/2004 7:12:31 AM PST by Condor51 ("Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments." -- Frederick the Great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
"THE bombs dropped on Baghdad exploded in Madrid!" Looks like the left has alredy surrendered.
9 posted on 03/14/2004 7:13:37 AM PST by Redcoat LI ( "help to drive the left one into the insanity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: twntaipan
dittos!!!
10 posted on 03/14/2004 7:14:57 AM PST by mathluv (Protect my grandchildren's future. Vote for Bush/Cheney '04.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Remember the phrase "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute"?

Mohammedans have practiced "divide and conquer" on the Western world before. And the US attempts to form a coalition met with limited success, because (as now) some European countries preferred to appease the Mohammedans.

America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe, by Gerard W. Gawalt (the manuscript specialist for early American history in the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.)

Ruthless, unconventional foes are not new to the United States of America. More than two hundred years ago the newly established United States made its first attempt to fight an overseas battle to protect its private citizens by building an international coalition against an unconventional enemy. Then the enemies were pirates and piracy. The focus of the United States and a proposed international coalition was the Barbary Pirates of North Africa. [snip]

Jefferson's plan for an international coalition foundered on the shoals of indifference and a belief that it was cheaper to pay the tribute than fight a war.


11 posted on 03/14/2004 7:22:10 AM PST by syriacus (Time to repeal the 22nd Amendment. Give Bush three or four terms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcoat LI
Hey, check out the hamas sympathizer with the rag around his neck in thr front row. What nerve.

El Cid! Calling El Cid.....

12 posted on 03/14/2004 7:24:55 AM PST by Lion in Winter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Spain needs another Charlton Heston ( El Cid )
13 posted on 03/14/2004 7:27:32 AM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
...But not these fellows. They're still settling scores from the 15th century.

That's what makes them so nuts.
14 posted on 03/14/2004 7:29:36 AM PST by baseballmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Steyn is always great.

Despite the sneers that terrorism is a phenomenon and you can't wage war against a phenomenon, in fact you can – as the Royal Navy did very successfully against the malign phenomena of an earlier age, piracy and slavery.

Good point. And the U. S. Navy was formed for similar reasons, back when what we now call "Islamic terrorism" was Islamic "piracy." This has been our battle for over 200 years, and it's likely to go on for a long time to come.

15 posted on 03/14/2004 7:30:12 AM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
As one of the Islamic fanatics who inspired al-Qa'eda said: "We are not trying to negotiate with you. We are trying to destroy you."
16 posted on 03/14/2004 7:34:14 AM PST by snooker (Drag a 'botox gigolo' through a swamp, and some dumb gator will always bite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway.

A classic.

17 posted on 03/14/2004 7:42:59 AM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
All this terrorism will end when one of two things have happened: Either we have killed all of them, or the ones we haven't killed get tired of dying. To quote Bush, "you're either with us or against us." It is so classic leftist mentality to never blame the person who tries to kill you. Instead, you blame the enemy of the person who tried to kill you.

The bombing in Spain was not AlQaeda flexing it's muscle, it was a decimated AlQaeda with few options left, reduced to attacking an easy target. WIth Morrocco next door infiltrating was easy.
18 posted on 03/14/2004 7:44:22 AM PST by Casloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Steyn is an absolute treasure!
19 posted on 03/14/2004 7:48:21 AM PST by Aeronaut (The ACLU Doesn't hate all religion, just Christianity!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
Actually, 1492 was the year that Muslims were definitively defeated in Spain, after a 700 year fight to get them out. They weren't in control of anything in 1492.

I hope Spain, when it goes to the polls today, remembers that it took them 700 years to get rid of the Muslims the first time around and decides that it would be no fun to have to do it again. If Spain votes for the Socialists, look for Spain to be Muslim-dominated within about five years.
20 posted on 03/14/2004 7:51:10 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Excellent article, thanks for posting.
21 posted on 03/14/2004 7:51:30 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett; SJackson; dennisw; B4Ranch; MeekOneGOP; Salem

"Even if you'd avoided Iraq or Andalusia or British banks or Pilger or any other affront to Islamist sensibilities, you'd still be a target. As the PR guy for the Islamic Army of Aden said after blowing up that French tanker: "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels."

Onward Muslim Soldiers ping.

22 posted on 03/14/2004 7:54:36 AM PST by Happy2BMe (U.S.A. - - United We Stand - - Divided We Fall - - Support Our Troops - - Vote BUSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker; Stopislamnow

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

The "Religion of Peace"

Muslimes Protest Head-Scarf Ban In France (America Is Next)

Islams Hatred Of The Clitoris

Rape In Islam - Blame The Victim

How Hamas Turned Adultress Into Jihad Bomber

Hamas - "Women Who Shame Family Can Become Jihad Bombers

Clinton: Muhammad Would Have Let Ladies Drive

Supporting Jihad In America - Why Does Bush Allow This?

Jihad In America

Forced Female Suicide

23 posted on 03/14/2004 7:57:02 AM PST by Happy2BMe (U.S.A. - - United We Stand - - Divided We Fall - - Support Our Troops - - Vote BUSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59
Onward Muslim Soldiers ping . .

What they're saying about "Onward Muslim Soldiers" - An expose of militant Islam.

The FREEPERS Guide To Islamic Terror Websites - CYBERTERRORISM (And It's Sponsors)

We Must NEVER Forget!

It’s O.K. Akhmed – Christians Are Infidels, and Infidels Are Just Dogs
Jihad in Houston, in California, in Miami, in Detroit, In .. ..

PBS Shame On You: A former Muslim speaks.

24 posted on 03/14/2004 7:59:23 AM PST by Happy2BMe (U.S.A. - - United We Stand - - Divided We Fall - - Support Our Troops - - Vote BUSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
The conventional wisdom about the political consequences of Thursday’s terrorist attacks in Spain for today’s Spanish elections formed remarkably (indeed, suspiciously) quickly. It is the following:

“If the attacks were carried out by the Basque group ETA, that is good for Aznar and the ruling Conservative party, because they have taken a hard line against ETA and because the opposition Socialists have called for compromise and negotiations. On the other hand, if the attacks were carried out (as it now appears, based on arrests and Al Qaeda claims of responsibility) by Al Qaeda, it is in retaliation for Aznar’s domestically unpopular support of the war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and Spanish voters will blame Aznar for bringing this on and punish him at the polls.”

I have seen variations of this analysis in practically every story about the Spanish situation. The Associated Press has been particularly egregious, failing to distinguish in some stories between those demonstrations in which many millions of Spaniards came out against terrorism, and anti-government demonstrations by a couple of thousand left-wingers blaming Aznar for the attacks.

The problem with the “conventional wisdom” is that it is itself completely dependent on the left-wing analysis of the situation, in which ETA and Al Qaeda have nothing in common. Aznar believes that “terrorism” is a common enemy, and that the fight against ETA and the fight against Al Qaeda are part of the same war. The Socialists are assuming that the Spanish electorate will analyze the situation as they do, which is why the opposition candidates have actually accused Aznar of lying about the evidence in order to make it look like it was ETA rather than Al Qaeda, an absurd charge given that the government arrested five Muslims within 2 days of the attacks, and given that its earlier public statements, while pointing out reasons it might have been ETA, carefully declined to rule out Arab/Muslim terrorism.

The contention that the attacks are Al Qaeda’s retaliation for Spain’s assistance in the Iraq war also shows the absurdity of the conventional media view. Remember how everyone said that the Iraq war was wrong because there was no link at all between Saddam and al Qaeda, Bush just made one up? But now we are supposed to believe that Al Qaeda retaliates for the toppling of Saddam, and yet accept that there is no further linkage with ETA, despite the existence of some evidence of a link.

In my opinion, the Spanish voters are going to view the attribution of the attacks to Al Qaeda as evidence that the Conservatives’ “common enemy” analysis is more correct than the Socialists’ “no link” analysis, and give the Conservatives a big victory.

If I am wrong, this is very bad for the U.S., because if the Spaniards give the Socialists a victory, terrorists will be encouraged to believe that attacks timed to influence an election can succeed in scaring the voters into appeasing them.

25 posted on 03/14/2004 8:00:48 AM PST by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Barnacle; MeekOneGOP; devolve; B4Ranch; JackelopeBreeder

RISE UP My Brothers . .

KILL The INFIDELS WhereEver You May Find Them . .


26 posted on 03/14/2004 8:03:14 AM PST by Happy2BMe (U.S.A. - - United We Stand - - Divided We Fall - - Support Our Troops - - Vote BUSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
These people don't negotiate, they don't take prisoners, and they have one simple, admirable aim: to see you dead. Perhaps Jean F. Cheri can tell us how we are supposed to satisfy them without winding up as trophy heads on their walls.
27 posted on 03/14/2004 8:13:57 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Despite the sneers that terrorism is a phenomenon and you can't wage war against a phenomenon, in fact you can – as the Royal Navy did very successfully against the malign phenomena of an earlier age, piracy and slavery.

True enough, but not the whole story.

We must remember this...

By 1800 a new slogan was beginning to appear across the new country, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." ...

"After the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars, which ended in 1815, inspired by America's example, Great Britian and Holland ended their policies of appeasement by bombarding Algier's fleet and fortresses."

See citation for above quote at: Dutch "expert": Netherlands Safe from Terrorism

See also, post 20 on that page:

The continued existence of this African piracy was indeed a disgrace to Europe, for it was due to the jealousies of the powers themselves.

France encouraged them [Barbary pirates] during her rivalry with Spain; and when, she had no further need of them [the Barbary pirates] were supported against her by Great Britain and Holland.

In the 18th century British public men were not ashamed to say that Barbary piracy was a useful check on the competition of the weaker Mediterranean nations in the carrying trade.

When Lord Exmouth sailed to coerce Algiers in 1816, he expressed doubts in a private letter whether the suppression of piracy would be acceptable to the trading community.


28 posted on 03/14/2004 8:57:17 AM PST by syriacus (Time to repeal the 22nd Amendment. Give Bush three or four terms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
Jefferson's plan for an international coalition [against the Barbary Pirates] foundered on the shoals of indifference and a belief that it was cheaper to pay the tribute than fight a war.

Someone should point "internationalist" John Kerry in the direction of Gerard W. Gawalt the manuscript specialist for early American history in the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.

29 posted on 03/14/2004 9:05:09 AM PST by syriacus (Time to repeal the 22nd Amendment. Give Bush three or four terms like FDR had.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe; Pokey78; yall
Thanks for the ping !

From the article:

If Islamic terrorism were as rational as Irish or Basque terrorism, it would be easier. But Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." You can be pro-America (Spain, Australia) or anti-America (France, Canada), but if you broke into the head cave in the Hindu Kush and checked out the hit list you'd be on it either way.

So the choice for pluralist democracies is simple: You can join Bush in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes. Despite the sneers that terrorism is a phenomenon and you can't wage war against a phenomenon, in fact you can – as the Royal Navy did very successfully against the malign phenomena of an earlier age, piracy and slavery.

Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway.


30 posted on 03/14/2004 9:18:20 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (The Democrats say they believe in CHOICE. I have chosen to vote STRAIGHT TICKET GOP for years !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." You can be pro-America (Spain, Australia) or anti-America (France, Canada), but if you broke into the head cave in the Hindu Kush and checked out the hit list you'd be on it either way.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, in black and white, the bottom line of the War on Terror.

31 posted on 03/14/2004 9:26:34 AM PST by Steel Wolf (Statistics show that self abuse often goes unreported.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe

RISE UP My Brothers . .

KILL The INFIDELS WhereEver You May Find Them . .

I normally post this as a link, but I'm gonna just post it and hope this isn't deleted:


32 posted on 03/14/2004 9:27:47 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (The Democrats say they believe in CHOICE. I have chosen to vote STRAIGHT TICKET GOP for years !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP
There is one pooch who knows how to take care of bizness . .

LoL!

33 posted on 03/14/2004 9:29:53 AM PST by Happy2BMe (U.S.A. - - United We Stand - - Divided We Fall - - Support Our Troops - - Vote BUSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP
My favorite picture:)
34 posted on 03/14/2004 9:32:12 AM PST by international american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP
"Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway."


Classic!

[I plan to e-mail this article to EVERYONE I know!]


35 posted on 03/14/2004 9:39:47 AM PST by DrDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: livius
Hoping for the best in Spain.Let us know if you hear any news.
36 posted on 03/14/2004 9:40:47 AM PST by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
"If this turns out to be Islamic extremists . . . it is more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq."

When Keelty said this,he wasnt implying that it is America's fault Australians might be targeted,the Australian government lobbied as hard as anyone for the Iraq war.Bali was an incident that came from muslim hostility towards Australians,and had zip to do with America.

However,Australia is more of a target because it participated in Afghanistan/Iraq.Just like Australia was more of a target for certain enemies when it participated in WW1,WW2,Vietnam,Korea,Gulf 1 and East Timor.

It's nothing new for Australia to be serving alongside America in wars,it has done so more than any other nation.With the exception of clueless left wing pansies,everyone knows the risks involved.

37 posted on 03/14/2004 9:53:24 AM PST by browsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe; international american
hehe ! ;^)

38 posted on 03/14/2004 10:11:36 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (The Democrats say they believe in CHOICE. I have chosen to vote STRAIGHT TICKET GOP for years !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb
[I plan to e-mail this article to EVERYONE I know!]

Good idea, thanks. I think I'll do the same thing ...


39 posted on 03/14/2004 10:12:45 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (The Democrats say they believe in CHOICE. I have chosen to vote STRAIGHT TICKET GOP for years !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
He nailed it dead on!!!! Excellent.
40 posted on 03/14/2004 10:54:00 AM PST by Arpege92 (This will be a monumental struggle of GOOD -vs- evil, but GOOD will prevail. - - George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

The first thing that popped into my mind when reading this is one scene from the movie Independence Day. The one where the president asks the alien: "What do you want us to do?" and the reply is: "We want you to die". After this the good guys open fire and waste the creature. I wish we could do the same thing when one of the Islamist turds spouts this kind of rhetoric.
41 posted on 03/14/2004 11:02:27 AM PST by Truthsayer20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcoat LI
"THE bombs dropped on Baghdad exploded in Madrid!"

This is typical cowardly bullsh*t from the anti-war scumbags. Blame the victim or the one standing up to the criminal, but never the f*kin criminal.
42 posted on 03/14/2004 11:35:43 AM PST by Levante
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Casloy
In his speech to Congress after 9/11, I believe the President said "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists."

To me, it seemed an odd phrasing at the time. Your phrasing is more natural.

But now, I really prefer how the President (or his writer) phrased it. It leaves no wiggle room. You cannot be both against us and against the terrorists, which would be possible with a "you are with us or against us" phrasing.

By saying "with us or with them," there is no sidleline in this ballgame. No third way allowed!
43 posted on 03/14/2004 11:36:41 AM PST by Museum Twenty (Support the President - wear the Baseball Cap - display the Bumper Sticker - http://www.ilovew.com .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Before we reacted to 9/11, they hated us and killed us.

Are we afraid that retaliating will make them mad?

This time -- given that they get made --- what can they do that's worse than killing us?
44 posted on 03/14/2004 12:04:49 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
It seems like the first time Mark Steyn has addressed Australia directly. Don't worry Mark, as you know Paddy McGuinness (a typical Australian columnist) is to the left of you but he agrees with 95% of what you stand.
45 posted on 03/14/2004 2:24:41 PM PST by NZerFromHK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
Good point. And the U. S. Navy was formed for similar reasons, back when what we now call "Islamic terrorism" was Islamic "piracy." This has been our battle for over 200 years, and it's likely to go on for a long time to come.
Not to mention our Marines were created for the same reason. This is really going to sound tin-foilish, but I had often wondered after 9/11 if one of the reasons related back to those events almost 200 years ago. We're not taking rational people here, so many the idea isn't too far out.
46 posted on 03/14/2004 2:29:57 PM PST by HungarianGypsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: HungarianGypsy
I think you're on to something.

Conflicts between Islam and Chrisitanity have been going on for 1,200 years or more and seem likely to continue, I'm sorry to say. The sort of battles we fight will change -- OBL is a lot different than the Barbary Pirates -- but the battle remains.

I think our efforts in Iraq are the first real hopeful action that the West has taken in the whole length of the conflict. The only hope for winding down this battle is for Islamic countries to get a little prosperity, freedom, tolerance, pluaralism, etc.

I don't know if we'll succeed or not in Iraq, but I'm thrilled that we're trying. The only real danger of failure comes from within the U. S. -- if the libs can make us cut and run.
47 posted on 03/14/2004 2:48:59 PM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
BTTT
48 posted on 03/14/2004 4:18:40 PM PST by Gritty ("We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you"-Hezbolla)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Thank YOU!! Excellent post. Where have I been? Mark Steyn is new to me.
49 posted on 03/14/2004 4:20:58 PM PST by Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
There MUST be a meaning to this?!? Maybe I better get my tin-foil beanie on FAST. Steyn must be communicating with my brain. OR maybe I have ESP?!?

Or maybe two people can have similar thoughts given the same set of circumstances. :^)

50 posted on 03/14/2004 4:24:59 PM PST by Samwise (I am going to need to be sedated before this election is over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson