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

Skip to comments.

Suicide Blunderers
Reason ^ | Jeremy Lott

Posted on 12/05/2001 9:20:20 AM PST by Sir Gawain

December 5, 2001

Suicide Blunderers
Terrorists kill selves, blame Jews.
By Jeremy Lott
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

If body count or media coverage are the yardsticks, 2001 was a banner year for terrorists.

The World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings were an unthinkable masterstroke, producing a media spectacle that rocked the world. It would be hard to come up with a better symbolic bloody nose to the Great Satan than the collapsed Twin Towers and soldiers scrambling to pull bodies from the burning wreckage of their own headquarters. Worse yet, a handful of poorly trained men armed only with box cutters were able to pull this off; no guns, car bombs, or plastique necessary.

But substitute a different set of measures--namely, effectiveness in advancing a political cause--and this year begins to look more and more like a cautionary tale for future would-be terrorists of how not to proceed.

Osama bin Laden’s three objections to America, and the stated basis for his 1998 fatwa, are as follow: 1) U.S. troops are garrisoned in Saudi Arabia; 2) the U.S. enforces sanctions on Iraq; and 3) America supports Israel over and against the PLO. Given the state of pre-September 11 politics, at least two of these three were reversible.

President Bush had run on the promise of a "more humble" foreign policy, willing to withdraw troops and accommodate foreign countries. A pull back from Kosovo wasn’t far off and it would have been in keeping with that tendency for the administration to bend to the will of its Saudi Arabian "allies" and remove the troops from the Gulf peninsula as well.

Colin Powell, an attitudinal dove, had been installed as secretary of state. He made it clear that he would like to remove, or at least loosen, the sanctions on Iraq. And while the U.S. was in no danger of joining the anti-Israel chorus in the U.N. that recently dominated its conference on racism, the administration signaled that it wanted a more "hands off" approach to the peace process. Earlier in the year, Powell chastised Israel for the "disproportionality" of responding to suicide attacks by shelling PLO military targets.

In this climate, the best thing to do to accomplish bin Laden’s stated objectives would have been... nothing. Or at least nothing as large and nasty as September 11. Guerilla warfare in Saudi Arabia and pressure on some of the surrounding Arab states to boost the surreptitious trade with Iraq would have worked wonders. Either way, U.S. policy was moving in a direction of which bin Laden and company should have approved. Indeed, the Bush administration's post-September 11 announcement that it supports--or at least supported--a Palestinian state struck many as cynical in its timing, but it's in keeping with all of the president's pre-attack foreign policy signals.

It wasn’t to be. Sleeper agents were activated and the largest act of war on America since Pearl Harbor was inaugurated. The intent was either to break decadent America or to unite the Muslim world in a concerted attack on America, Israel, and the West. Neither has occurred.

Instead, the Islamic extremists found that they roused a giant. The previously humble Bush declared war on "all terrorists organizations of global reach," warned that those who do not side with the U.S. are considered to be "with them," and privately began to confess to friends and advisors that he may finally have found his raison d’etre. The dogs of war were unleashed and, by the beginning of December, the Taliban lay in ruins, dug in to its few remaining strongholds in Afghanistan. The long-dormant American war machine, to switch metaphors rather abruptly, has been geared up to the extent that the only question is which regime is next: Iraq or a target yet to be named?

If Bin Laden and Al Qaeda's desire was the withdrawal of America from the Muslim world, then the failure is total and complete. Worse still, Muslim or Arabic solidarity has not been forthcoming, if for no other reason than that the various states fear what the U.S. will do to them. An alternative explanation, one that takes into account the frenzy of consumer activity that followed the liberation of Kabul, is perhaps even more damning: Muslims, especially relatively poor ones, desperately want more contact with both the governments and the products of the secular, commercial West. Either way, history will likely record September 11 as the beginning of the end of radical Islam.

And so we come to the events of December 1. At close to midnight, in the heart of downtown Jerusalem, two suicide bombers detonated themselves, killing at least 10 and injuring upwards of 180 people. Bush said that he was "horrified" at what occurred. Powell used language that paralleled Bush’s following the September attacks, calling the suicide bombers "cowardly" and demanding that Arafat put a stop to such atrocities at once.

Again, the best thing that these terrorists could have done was nothing. The polity was already ebbing in their direction. Instead, they have blown up far more than they bargained for.



TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: 2001; 2001review; globaljihad

1 posted on 12/05/2001 9:20:20 AM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sirgawain
good read bump
2 posted on 12/05/2001 10:07:33 AM PST by Blueflag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirgawain
This guy nails it. The US really was heading towards a more "hands off" foreign policy, and with Powell at the helm, we were turning into relative Doves.. Those terrorists are Freakin MORONS. Actually, I think it exposes them for what they REALLY want.. they dont really seek the gains the claim (Palestinians, Saudis, etc etc).. all they LIVE for is HATE. To hate us Infidels, to wage their Jihad on us. I have a feeling that no matter what we did, they would find a reason to hate us...

So its us against them.. and I bet on US.

3 posted on 12/05/2001 10:10:20 AM PST by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
ping
4 posted on 12/05/2001 10:23:04 AM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirgawain
They are as shortsighted as the Japanese were when they bombed Pearl Harbor and not the mainland also. I can't understand how they could have expected to beat us.
5 posted on 12/05/2001 10:26:58 AM PST by Aria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirgawain
This was a joy to read. It was a simply excellent analysis.
6 posted on 12/05/2001 10:43:54 AM PST by Selara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirgawain
President Bush had run on the promise of a "more humble" foreign policy, willing to withdraw troops and accommodate foreign countries.

Weren't we pretty much convinced that this was just election year rhetoric? Certainly, the Weekly Standard crowd did all they could to make it look that way. The other side of the coin was always that we'd be even more committed to defending our interests overseas. Powell, seemed on his way to becoming another William Rogers, or Cyrus Vance, the "well-meaning" establishment figurehead, who had no real power.

7 posted on 12/05/2001 11:05:19 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirgawain
This guy has completely missed it. Although it is well written he ignores a few points of importance. American freedoms were taken by violence. Don't assume that that it is human nature to accept "freedom" that is given to you by a patronizing giant. Moslems, like Americans, will fight for their freedom, and will win their freedom, like America, through violence. American freedom and honor cannot be taken away because it was earned in the acts of courage of the revolutionary war. They could have said the very same things about King George III...That he was moving in a direction torward the political demands of the American Colonies. It's just not true, and it does not matter.

Americans did not only just gain freedom from tyrannical King George, they gained solidarity, national unity, and a reputation of courage and honor that they carry with them wherever they go.

It is human nature to die for these things, and through death cement them into the national conciousness. Do you realize that the signers of the declaration of independence were hunted down, tortured, and killed, their families destroyed,their homes burned? Don't forget your history.

Who really cares what Bin Ladin's stated objectives were. The Declaration of Independence Stated objectives are: "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
And Not: Repeal the stamp tax, and the tea tax,...there is no demand for representation in the British Parliment stated in the Declaration of Independence, but the cry "No taxation without representation was heard loud and clear in the American streets before we spilled our blood for our freedoms"
Look at us...we are very alike, moslems and americans. We are people who were pushed to a breaking point by a very powerful oppressor. We are people who quit going to the bargaining table once and for all. We are people who punched the school bully in the nose, and earned the right to walk on the playground without getting pushed around.

Is freedom is important to you? Would you go to war over it?

8 posted on 12/05/2001 11:22:09 AM PST by ramdalesh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirgawain
I hope that I haven't caused a problem. I feel that if the moderators have pulled my statements of response to this article from the forum it can only be because I tell a truth which is hard to face. I understand that during a war many people lose their ability to be objective. Socrates was not very well liked either in his time. I do not want to put myself in a position where I am attacked or become a martyr, but in general, I welcome the feedback, and even the angry ranting from the people of freerepublic, but my goal is not to bring angry people. I only speak one point of view...and though it is disagreeable-it is valid and should be allowed on the forum
9 posted on 12/06/2001 10:15:01 AM PST by ramdalesh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ramdalesh
Moral equivalence? Crap.
10 posted on 12/06/2001 10:20:20 AM PST by Stentor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Stentor
So are you a moderator? In college we are taught to argue objectively. Has it not been noted many times that individuals here are often venting rage, indulging sarcasm, and fallacy. It serves no purpose to raise controversy when you are afraid of the reactions of the educated minority.
11 posted on 12/06/2001 3:30:34 PM PST by ramdalesh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ramdalesh
I am not a moderator and it is not a personal attack to characterize what you wrote. I save reasoned argumentation for those that are not apologists for terror.
12 posted on 12/07/2001 6:38:25 AM PST by Stentor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Stentor
Isn't that prejudiced? Like saving your reasoned arguements for those who are apologists for Christianity...Just because you are Muslim?
13 posted on 12/07/2001 8:08:46 AM PST by ramdalesh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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