The Islamofascist's Little List of Justifications
The Islamofascists have struck again. And, therefore, so have the Islamofascist apologists. This is what Britain gets, they say, for fighting Bushitler's war in Iraq & Afghanistan. The poor innocents in London suffer only because the poor innocents suffered in Kabul and Baghdad.
This implies that if Great Britain didn't stand beside America, they'd be safe from terrorists. As Lee Corso would say, not so fast my historically ignorant friend. The Islamofascists have shown time and time again that they have a slew of justifications for the slaughter of civilians. If it wasn't Iraq or Afghanistan, they would have found another reason to be pissed at England. History paints a grim picture:
|1988||Pan Am Flight 103||270 dead||US air strikes in Tripoli OR shooting down of Iranair 655|
|2001||World Trade Center/Pentagon||3,000 killed||US Troops in Saudi Arabia, Support for Israel|
|2002||Bali||190 killed||Australia's close relationship with the US, and its involvement in East Timor's transition to independence from Indonesia|
|2004||Madrid||191 killed||Spanish troops in Iraq|
|2004||Theo Van Gogh||1 killed||Angry over anti-fundamentalist film|
|2004||Beslan||344 killed||Russian occupation of Chechnya|
|2005||London||Unknown||British troops in Iraq & Afghanistan|
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The point is that these terrorists will never be satisfied. We cannot appease them enough. There will always be something. By our mere existence, by our freedoms, we're a perpetual threat to the way of life they'd impose on the world. If we pulled our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow, if we denounced Israel the next day and if we completely isolated ourselves and had no involvement with the Middle East at all, we'd still be the Great Satan. They'd still hate us. They'd just find a new justification. Instead of going after the World Trade Center, they'd go after Hollywood for exporting godless American infidel culture or they'd try to hit Wisconsin because they prophet certainly wouldn't approve of our beer production and consumption.
The Islamofascists are like terrible two-year olds. We don't try to rationalize a toddler's tantrum and we shouldn't try to rationalize the actions of these evil terrorists either.
Posted by at July 7, 2005 09:47 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/978
|Homocon linked with The League of Doom|
|# July 9th, 2005 12:18 AM jonts|
|Your analysis is what i call "lets stick our heads in the sand apporach"
The first step in losing a war is to fail to understand your enemy. Your complete inability to understand why educated, well off young men would die for a cause i.e. the 9-11 hijackers will , makes the enemies job a heck of a lot easier.
Let me explain: you list a number of actually very reasonable causus belli- occuptation of land, air strikes, foreign soldiers in ones country. Now i wonder how keen americans would be to have arab soldiers in Ohio (for you own security of course ;) etc.
On another note- I am a Brit and like many Brits (and spanish last year) I blame blair's support for the invasion of Iraq for the bombings in london. I hope pressure builds and that blair is focred to pull out British troops from iraq in the coming weeks/months.
|# July 9th, 2005 12:21 AM jonts|
|You may say to the above that pulling UK troops out of iraq would only mean that the terrorists 'have won'.
BUT, why stand up and fight for a bogus and illegitimate cause in the first place e.g. invasion of Iraq.
We made a mistake by invading iraq, now we , like the spanish have been hit in return by our enemy. But when you have chosen the wrong enemy in the first place the best thing is to cut your losses, realise your mistake and move on.
|# July 9th, 2005 12:25 AM BVBigBro|
|"The first step in losing a war is to fail to understand your enemy". No it's not. The first step in losing a war is to be unwilling to kill your enemy, which is precisely the problem we now face.
So let's see, the invasion of Iraq is the reason why a bunch of people who will turn out to be non-Iraqis bombed London? No, they bombed London because it exists.
|# July 9th, 2005 12:27 AM jonts|
|"No, they bombed London because it exists."
Wow, denial is not just a river in Egypt.
|# July 9th, 2005 12:33 AM BVBigBro|
|I should have added your approach is what I call the "let's stick our heads up our asses approach." |
|# July 9th, 2005 2:53 AM jonts|
I am sure thats what al queda are saying about bushes approach now while heartily chuckling abou their good fortune to be facing an enemy with the sophistication of
a Fanny Mae chocolate chip cookie.
|# July 9th, 2005 6:27 AM BVBigBro|
|Sorry jonts, but my experience is that the average American is both more knowledgeable and more sophisticated than the average European, in spite of what Europe may believe about itself.
The average al qaeda member isn't saying anything, because he is dead.
You can run and hide for a while, but eventually the muslim fanatics will come loking for you. Unless you are willing to become one of them, they want you dead.
|# July 9th, 2005 7:32 AM mbrlr|
|I notice it's now become a religious war on our side? Interesting.
Invading Iraq does not excuse anything these terrorists in London or elsewhere have done, but we do have to deal with and acknowledge the fact that our invasion both created new converts to that cause and that, one more time, *Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11*. Our actions there make many in the muslim world more amenable to listening to terrorists and aggressors; we haven't won friends or influenced many muslims by attacking Iraq based upon false information and outright lies, but we have created an opportunity for al Quaeda and other terrorist groups to recruit some muslims who otherwise wouldn't have listened to them. Right or wrong, it provides a rationale in their eyes --- an invalid rationale --- for their bringing bombs onto mass transit. These are evil people who did the bombing, but our simply talking about "muslim fanatics" without trying to understand ---- not excuse, but understand --- where all this antagonism towards the West comes from is just stupid. Let's instead find the monsters behind this attack and get them, just as we need to find Osama bin Laden.
|# July 9th, 2005 7:43 AM BVBigBro|
|mbrlr, perhaps you should read what these people profess. They don't believe you're human. Your life is nothing to them. That doesn't apply to islam in general, but it does apply to islam as practiced by muslim fanatics.
By your rationale, we shouldn't have bombed Germany in WWII. After all, it undoubtedly caused otherwise rational Germans to support the nazis. The USA didn't start this, but we wil finish it.
|# July 9th, 2005 12:41 PM jonts|
The irony is that you are the dream US voice as far as al queada are concerned- ignorant, simplistic and so easy for them to portray you as a militaristic fool and split you (aka US)from your allies e.g. Spain, and soon Britain.
|# July 9th, 2005 7:47 PM BVBigBro|
|If being allies with Spain and Britain means kissing up to terrorists, then please let that split come. |
|# July 11th, 2005 12:13 AM gitardood|
|It's ignorant for people to think that by simply giving in to Al-Qaeda's demands, whatever that may be, they would live in peace and harmony with the rest of the non-Allah believers.
Just to remind everyone, they would kill your kids, your parents, your grandparents and anyone else that does NOT believe in, and live by, their version of Islam. That's the simplicity of it.
To say that Iraq (Saddam) was not directly involved in 9/11 is probably
accurate. On that same thought do you really think Saddam was not involved with terrorists? Was there not a report that said Saddam was paying $25,000 to families that would produce a suicide bomber to attack Israel? That's what CBS reported. Here's the link:
So all you appeasers think before you make a claim that Iraq had nothing to do with terror. Ok, so Bush was wrong about WMD, and Iraq might not have been involved in 9/11, but Saddam WAS A TERRORIST period.
|# July 11th, 2005 2:36 AM jonts|
|"Was there not a report that said Saddam was paying $25,000 to families that would produce a suicide bomber to attack Israel?"
Yes, i have heard of that report.
This raises an interesting question- arent the Palestinians merely fighting against an occupying power? In the same way that the French resistance fought the germans, the americans fought the Brtis in the 18 Century?
The palestinians could argue that by killing civilians in suicide bombs in israel, they are actually speeding up the end of the conflict btw Israel and palestine by 'shocking' the enemy into submission and thereby saving lives in the long run a la hiroshima.
I dont buy that argument in either cases, but if you buy the hirsohima justification then surely you have to buy the palrestinan scenario, no??