Bali bomber thanks anti-war protesters

The BBQ Pit
161

Again, it’s funny how all the “enemies of the US” will quickly intepret protests as a sign of “weakness,” but that Bush’s constant strong words against terrorism, the overwhelming military superiority of the United States, and the obvious willingness to send US armed forces all over the world in pursuit of terrorists, are apparently not interpreted as “strength” by the terrorists.

You can imagine those terrorists right now, sitting in their hidey-holes, saying “Hey guys, i know that Bush went on TV last night to reaffirm his commitment to the war on terrorism. And i know that there’s a massive US military presence in Iraq right now, with even more armed forces around the world on high alert. And i know Baghdad had been bombed to shit, with thousands of Iraqis killed. And i know that they’ve been catching quite a lot of Al Qaeda members and Ba’ath Party faithful recently. But, hey, remember those protests in America? Yeah, they sure showed how weak America was. If it weren’t for those protests, i don’t think it would be worth doing what we’re doing.”

Interesting. Tom’s point is specious, yet correct. You may be right that the President “weighed the various pros and cons,” but the end result of his actions might be that he encouraged terrorism. Yet how many American conservatives, including the President himself, and december and his ilk, have you heard blaming US foreign policy for encouraging terrorism? I thought tomndebb’s point, and Miller’s was to point out the blatant hypocrisy of that conservative position–the willingness to blame a (relatively small) number of peace protesters, while completely ignoring the massive influence of the US government and its armed forces.

And even if there were a tiny truth at the core of december’s argument–which, given the time-line of the protests and the Bali bombing, is far from proven–don’t you think that his priorities are slightly screwed up, blaming protesters but ignoring government policy? Which one of those two things do you honestly think is most influential in encouraging the action of terrorists? And by what factor? A million to one? A billion to one? I mean, if we drop a nuclear bomb on a city, it might also cause a gas tanker to explode. Does that make the gas tanker responsible for the destruction? The Administration’s actions led to both terrorism and to protests, yet it is only the protests that are being blamed for the terrorism by december.

Here i would reassert Binarydrone’s position. Where is the evidence? All we have been presented with so far is the ravings of a single, confirmed terrorist who, it seems, has been misinterpreted by december. We know that the terrorist’s action preceded the events that he says supported his cause by a matter of some months. So, there is no way that the anti-Iraq War protests could even have been considered by the terrorists before the bombing–THEY HADN’T HAPPENED YET!!!

Actually, it could be that this whole thread is a great day for religious and cultural understanding. I can’t remember seeing another occasion when a bunch of conservatives have been so tolerant and accepting of the testimony of an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist. Maybe december’s just doing his bit for intercultural harmony. If the terrorist wasn’t going to be executed, Brutus would probably put his name up for Republican party membership, just for the liberal-bashing opportunities he has provided.

The only way in which people have been unable to refute the OP is by the terms of his own distorted logic, in which everything the Republican administration does is noble and praiseworthy, and all the actions of liberals and leftists are simply contributing to the decline of the nation. But hey, at least he’s polite.

162

It is pretty sad that the misinterpretation by a few fanatics that Western dissent is a sign of weakness, and not of the strength that it is, should be used by certain quarters as proof of that misinterpretation. We need to act, and be seen as acting, in the ways that make us what we are, that reflect the principles that let us call ourselves civilized. But some would have us act according to the lowest standards in existence, not the highest ones we can. That makes not only the OP but the defense of it by those who should know better examples of tendencies that can destroy us from within far more thoroughly than any bombings can from without.

IzzyR, I had thought you were more thoughtful and responsible than december, but you’re proving me wrong. You admit that there’s no evidence to back up your belief that the strength that is our dissent actually causes any bombings at all, but you hold to that accusation anyway (see your last sentence), and with even more sleazy wording than he does.

163

So show me the numbers. I am not asking for you, or anyone else making this claim, to prove that a specific bombing would not have taken place without the “aid and comfort” of protestors. I am asking for you to show me, from a big picture perspective, that as incidents of protests rise, so do the incidents of terrorism. Hell, the State Department cites that I gave do half the work for you.

This is something that should be provable with hard numbers, and I await your reply.

164

And what you continue to conveniently ignore is that, if we accept that the terrorists know about the protests in places like America and Australia, they are also certain to know about the official policies of the goverments in those countries. And George Bush has made it very clear, with words and actions, that the protests were not and are not going to cause him to deviate from his stated intention of ridding the world of terrorism.

Even if we accept that a terrorist might see a protest march and say to himself “Hey, maybe they’re losing their resolve over in America,” surely that terrorist would also see Bush get on TV that same night, and would say to himself, “Well, shit, those protests don’t seem to be having any effect at all on actual policy or actions.” You have been presenting your interpretation of terrorist thought as if it occurred in a vaccuum, based on nothing more than knowledge of protests. But, while they might be evil, terrorists aren’t all stupid, and it must have been as obvious as dog’s balls to them that, no matter how many protests there were, there has been no sign of “weakness in opposition to terrorists” on the part of the people who actually make the decisions–the President and his Administration. Christ, even Congress has shown no sign of offering any sort of critical perspective. These last couple of years have been about as unanimous as it gets when it comes to foreign policy, with Republicans dominating the Administration and Congress, and most of the Democrats choosing not to rock the boat.

The final 2 sentences? THE FINAL 2 SENTENCES???

In case you hadn’t noticed, those final 2 sentences constituted the sum total of the OP’s substantive points. There was no “larger point” in the OP. And you had the gall to call the OP “rational.”

To the extent that a larger point emerged, it came later, and was made not by the OP himself but by more rational posters like weirddave, who i don’t agree with, but who at least tends to avoid simplistic, inflammatory drive-bys and disingenuous assertions.

165

Sarcasm aside, you’re missing the entire point of terrorism. Terrorists are never going to fight a nation state on even terms, they can’t-that’s the whole point. The only way a terrorist can “win” is by making the government that he opposes change their policies to ones more in line with what the terrorist favors, and the only way they can do that is by creating enough carnage among the civilaian population that the average Joe on the street says “enough” and makes the government change it’s policies, either by revolution or by voting the bums out and voting different bums into their place.

166

I suppose that this might have some merit if it was not a strawman that pretended I said things I did not.

I can see where you worked your way around to wanting to believe that, but you should probably stick to what has been said.

As to specious statements (and claims about “what has been posted here,” perhaps you should be careful about making erroneous claims such as

Really?

The OP, based on errors of fact, was emotional encitement, (correctly placed, for a change, in the Pit), not “rational.” A single out-of-context quotation from a terrorist, supported by no evidence that the terrorist actually based his actions on any similar protests, followed by a claim that the protestors “encouraged this carnage,” with no evidence that the terrorists ever consider such protests when they are planning their deeds, is not a rational OP.
On the other hand, there have been no calls in this thread for his banning and you have taken to december-like characterizations, pretending that everyone who has opposed him is a “liberal.”
If you can reach outside this thread to find calls for banning, then we can also reach outside for the already demonstrated evidence the the administration selectively ignored evidence that the Iraq sideshow would not reduce terrorism (and manufactured evidence to pretend that it might). Of course, comparing whether people who protested a war actually were considering other (hypothetical) effects of their actions against an administration deliberately ignoring other (publicly predicted) effects of their actions would be a quite different thread–but it would not be the thread that december actually initiated.

167

Actually the OP implicitly invited posters and lurkers to consider the consequences, because it actually pointed them out. Also, later in the thread I explicitly addressed the idea that consequences should be considered. I think I may have been the first poster to do so in this thread.

mhendo, thank you for pointing out that there were a “few demonstrations in late 2001 to protest against US action in Afghanistan…and that might have been what the terrorist fucker was referring to, although we’ll never really know what goes through his twisted mind.”

I’m confused about the your belief is regarding Bush’s impact on terrorists. You seemed to imply that his constant strong words against terrorism, the overwhelming military superiority of the United States, and the obvious willingness to send US armed forces all over the world in pursuit of terrorists are interpreted as “strength” by the terrorists. I would have thought that looking strong would tend to discourage terrorism.

OTOH, I also understood you to imply that Bush’s actions have encouraged terrorism.

I for one am very concerned about the impact of Bush’s actions on terrorists and potential terrorists. If his actions had “inflamed the Arab street” (as many predicted), I’d be upset. However, that didn’t happen. In fact, removing Saddam’s money has interfered with some middle eastern terrorist groups.

168

Bullshit, bullshit, and oh-my-is-that-some-rancid-ass bullshit you’re spewing there, december.

The OP did not point out consequences, it pointed out the words of a terrorist, and made the fallacious assertion that “protestors encouraged this carnage.” The implication in such an OP is not “consider the consequences,” it is “the protestors are to blame for this terrorist’s actions.”

And you were most definitely not the first to address the idea of unintended consequences, december. If you read back at your own comments in the thread, you have the OP, a subsequent cite, and a content-free non-response. Then Brutus does you a favor and says the words “unintended consequences,” a banner which you then begin to carry as your own.

Are you going to make lying a habit, december? Your track record over the past couple weeks is pretty fucking poor.

169

Going to?

He made a fucking art form out of it.

170

december, in the OP you stated:

Now, the specifics of your OP have been totally debunked but my impression is that you still stand behind the general premises that protesting war encourages terrorism.

I have stated that this should be provable with hard numbers, and have done half of the work to that end. I invite you to stop bobbing and weaving and back up your claim with hard, credible data. Failing that, please explain to me why this is not provable with hard data.

171

If what you say is true–and for the most part i believe that it is–then much of my point still stands. Bush’s popularity has remained high throughout all of this, and i still can’t see any Democratic candidate beating him next November, although i hope i’m wrong.

What’s more, any decline in popularity that the Administration has suffered recently has been due not to the war on terrorism, but to issues like the domestic economy, and concerns that the American people were misled about WMD’s etc in Iraq. I know that you can argue that this second one is a part of the war on terrorism, but the fact is that the majority of the American people were supportive of the war itself–they are just starting to get a bit pissed off that they were lied to.

Your point is more directly relevant to the actual incident under review here–the Bali bombing. The Australia government has been a strong, even uncritical supporter of Bush over the past few years, and Australians constituted a considerable proportion of those killed in the Bali attack. But again, it’s very hard to draw direct lines of causation in terms of terrorism and a leader’s popularity. Most Australians were opposed to involvement in the Iraq War, but at the same time polls consistently showed that the Prime Minister was running considerably ahead of the Labor opposition party in popularity. And PM John Howard’s recent decline in popularity has been more due to a series of domestic bungles than to his position regarding the war on terrorism.

A key point, it seems to me, is that while many people might get worked up about foreign policy issues, most people are more likely to cast their vote based on domestic issues, particularly economic ones. For example, i think that if Bush is beaten next year, the problematic domestic economic situation will be an important factor. The apparent lying about WMDs could also play a factor, but i believe that this is NOT the same thing as the war on terrorism. He could quite easily have continued to prosecute the war on terrorism without misleading the American people, and if he had done this his popularity rating, much as i hate to say it, might still be up in the high 70s.

Is a terrorist able to make these distinctions between the effects of terrorism, the effects of foreign policy decisions, and the effects of domestic policy decisions on the voters of a country like Australia or the United States? I honestly don’t know. But, given the small number of people protesting in these countries (relative to total population size), and given the counter-protests held by supporters of the war, i really find it quite unlikely that terrorists could see the protests as a sign of weakness, or as a sign that Bush was politically vulnerable. As i said before, if the terrorists can read about protests, they can also read about opinion polls, and those showed strong support for Bush and his policies all through the events we are talking about.

172

Good work December! Great to see that you are now getting your info from news organisations rather than terrorists. Congratulations.

173

Avalonian

What is left of the OP is that although protesters say they also against terrorism, this is not necessarily how their position is perceived by the terrorists. I believe this point is made in the first sentence (or two) of the OP.

I remember this argument the way I presented it, but to make sure I went back and looked up his post. And the point is made most clearly in the final paragraph where he says:

This is parallel to saying that december is saying that it is wrong to demonstrate against the war.

I agree with this (although the Bush actions might also have a negative effect on terrorism as well).

mhendo

I would assume that they are (interpreted as strength). Has anyone suggested otherwise?

Well, yeah, he was correct in his facts, but wrong as to there implications. I’m sure you must have encountered this concept before, somewhere.

True. But he also might have discouraged it on a net basis.

Presumably they agree with my suggestion above.

Again, the protestors are to be blamed if they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of such a consequence arising from their actions. This is not the same thing that you ask them to blame the government for.

I believe this has already been addressed.

binarydrone,

I vehemently disagree with this. As you are certainly aware, there are many many actions going on at the same time with regards to terrorism. These include but are not limited to the Bush invasion of Iraq, with its many consequences, the overall global battle (political, military, intelligence and financial) against terrorism, the ongoing situation in Afghanistan, the situation in Israel/Palestine and many other factors. There is absolutely no way you can isolate the impact of demonstrations.

On preview:

mhendo,

Of course the terrorists know about Bush. So do the demonstrators. If the demonstrators did not think they had some chance of changing Bush policies, they would likely not be demonstrating at all. Certainly a resolute Bush opposed by a vocal minority of the country is less intimidating than an equally resolute Bush with less vocal opposition.

As for your final paragraphs, see my post to Avalonian above.

tomndebb,

Your denial is too vague for me “that’s not really what I said”. I stand by my presentation of your position - if you want to clarify otherwise, you should be more specific. (See also my post above to Avalonian).

Nonsense.

Also untrue. What I have said is that december’s OP was “followed by a horde of outraged liberals” etc. Not the same thing at all, my dear. I could not possibly know that everyone who opposed him is a liberal. But the majority seem to be, making my characterization apt.

174

Actually, my sarcasm is if anything understated considering the sheer idiocy of the OP.

Anyway, you now seek to move from the concrete example of the OP - wise move considering how easily it’s been dismissed - to the more hypothetical: could terrorists view anti-war protests as support for their actions.

This is, of course, blatant stupidity. Not because it’s impossible - it’s very possible. That’s because it’s the nature of a fanatic to read approval from every possible source. Their cause is right because their religions tells them so, because the people cry out for freedom, because…hell, because a group of people demonstrating on a completely different issue some months after the issue somehow show it’s so. If you need proof of this you need look no further than the OP himself, who will clutch at any news article, survey, editorial or blog to somehow claim proof for his views. If you don’t expect reason from him, why should you expect it from someone so fucked up that they’re prepared to plant a bomb?

Of course the real root of the anger and resentment that leads people to such actions is a completely different kettle of fish. Or do you honestly think that these people planted a bomb in some sort of response to a peace protest?

But then, that would mean you can’t scapegoat people whose politics you disagree with, wouldn’t it?

175

WEIRDDAVE –

Why? If they are not responsible for it, and we apparently agree they are not, then why should they be aware of it? I don’t know how you can be aware of some effect you didn’t actually cause, anyhow. Not until someone speciously tries to lay the blame on you, that is, which of course doesn’t occur until after the fact.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing. You appear to align yourself in this argument with people who certain do say or imply that protesting causes terror attacks, but now you say only that people should “be aware” of how their actions “seem” to others, without explaining why, if people are not responsible for how those actions seem, they should nevertheless be aware of it. You deny any desire to imply cause-and-effect – and I certainly believe you – but that implication is still there, because if there is no cause-and-effect, there’s no reason anyone should have to keep in mind how their actions might “seem.” Despite your disavowals, your agument does continue to imply cause and effect by using terms such as “cost,” as if greater terror attacks are a “cost” (i.e., an effect) of protest, which they simply are not. I do now take your point (I think), except that now I don’t understand why you would apparently place on people the responsibility to “be aware” of how their actions might “seem” to others wholly unconnected to them or their POV, in light of your admission that they are not responsible for what those unconnected “others” might willfully choose to do.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. I certainly never advocated “sitting down” much less “compromising” with terrorists, or even protesters for that matter. A “common solution” to what?

DECEMBER –

This is where you should quietly back out of this thread. Your ENTIRE OP was premised on an uninvestigated assumption that was sixteen shades of WRONG. Your reputation is such that it is unlikely everyone will believe this mistake was unintentional, though I for one do believe that. But perhaps you might pause to reflect that your zeal to post in pursuit of your own pet agenda has caused you to not simply imply but STATE something that you ought to have known was absolutely and 100% wrong. Frankly, your little “Oopsie!” followed immediately by an attempted segue back into the discussion really doesn’t cut it.

IZZYR –

“Very wrong”? Why, because you, the Magical Declaimer of Truth, declare that it is? Nonsense. If someone is encouraged by my lawful and peaceful actions to commit an act of terror, it is NOT MY PROBLEM. Why on earth would I have to concern myself with it? This argument that we are somehow responsible for how our actions “seem” to crazy people or criminals just floors me. I didn’t accept this argument when people on the left were spouting in in the wake of 9/11 (that America is responsible for how our culture or policy “seems” in fundamentalist nations, and the “encouragement” to terror they take therefrom), and I don’t accept it now just because it’s spouted by someone on the right.

What utter crap. “Rational OP”? The OP was WRONG in every respect. WRONG. Your definition of a “rational OP” does not include intellectual honesty? I am not an “outraged liberal” or a liberal of any stripe, for that matter. I’m a Republican and a supporter of the war. I have not “distorted the OP,” made “personal attacks,” or called for anyone’s banning. Perhaps you meant to say that this response was typical of YOU, in that it totally misrepresents the thread to date?

In the absence of cause and effect, or any degree of culpability to the protesters, you have entirely failed to explain why they should have the obligation to know or care if terrorist choose to take “encouragement” from acts that obviously in fact offer no encouragement of acts of terror whatsoever. Again, why is this the protesters’ problem? Why are you not decrying the transparent attempt of mass murdering criminals to place the blame for their own actions on shoulders other than their own?

If someone takes my words or actions as “encouragement” to something entirely unrelated to either – something I may well despise far more than I do the thing I’m actually speaking against – I have no obligation to “consider” or “acknowledge” that irrational and baseless connection,. No one in this entire thread has been able to articulate a reason why I should have any such obligation in the absence of any causal (or “consequential”) link. So don’t drop by just to inform me my position is “wrong” until you can articulate why it is wrong.

176

Well of course. Anything can happen. But the fact that anything can happen should not be used to obscure the fact that some things are more likely to happen than others. And there are some things that are more likely to encourage people to commit terrorist acts than others. Invading Iraq will anger a subset of the population and motivate them to turn to terrorism (though it may also have an intimidating effect on others). Opposing US policy will embolden a subset of the population to commit terrorist acts (though this will not be their motivation, obviously).

Of course not. Still it is the nature of people to get more worked up about things that are not immutable, and to fight battles that are winnable. The weaker or less resolute the US (or the West) seems, the more likely others are to battle against it.

(This is actually a subset of an interesting and often ignored facet of history - that revolutions and uprisings tend to take place in the aftermath of reforms. Perhaps some other thread.)

Jodi,

I get these vibes from your post that you disagree with me. OK. But I don’t see anything beyond that which calls for a response.

177

I am sorry, but that is a load. The number of terrorist attacks is quantifiable data. The number of people protesting is also quantifiable data. If you want to argue that protestors encourage terrorists that implies a one to one relationship. Otherwise you are just making claims based on tortured logic and partisan bias.

178

Anyone think december is masturbating feverishly at the chaos he’s caused in this thread?

december and his ilk’s incite to divisiveness is more damaging than a thousand terrorist attacks. Someone in this thread hates America, and he wrote the OP.

179

Don’t you dare fucking thank me for that as if it supports your OP. The fact is that the link YOU posted said that the terrorist was referring specifically to the anti-Iraq War protests, NOT the anti-Afghanistan war protests. And the anti-Iraq War protests occurred AFTER the Bali bombings, as i said in that same post, and as you conveniently ignored.

It might, or it might not. It really depends on the mindset of the terrorist. But again, unsurprisingly, you either ignore or fail to understand the point i was making.

A key point that you and your supporters have been making is that protests encourage terrorism by making the US seem weak or divided on the issue. And you seem to believe that terrorists are rational enough to make this connection. What i am saying is, if they are rational enough to do that, then they are also rational enough to evaluate other actions of the United States. And if this is true, then they can weigh up the “weakness” of the US (as represented by protesters) and the “strength” of the US (as evidence by its government’s policies and actions) and decide which is most influential.

It is my contention that any rational examination of American policy over the past couple of years would have to conclude that the protests have had virtually zero effect of Bush’s foreign policy and military actions. The US has remained strong and forceful and belligerent during the whole period. Yet terrorist acts like those in Bali still occurred, US intelligence continues to allegedly uncover futher plots, and Bush constantly gets on TV saying that the terrorist threat is still grave, demonstrating that the apparent strength of the US has not served as a deterrent to terrorism.

So, in answer to your question about strength, it seems that the terrorists are not put off by shows of US strength. In fact, it seems entirely plausible to suggest that the more the US fights, the more resolve it will instill in the terrorists. And, as many Middle East observers have pointed out, the invasion of Iraq and other US interference in the Middle East could even prompt some people to become involved in terrorist activity who would not previously have done so.

The point i was making was that Osama bin Laden and other Middle East terrorists have consistently cited US foreign policy as a reason behind their terrorist actions. Whether you like the American foreign policy or not, if you’re willing to believe the terrorist cited in your OP and thus cast blame on the protesters, why are you so reluctant to believe bin Laden and other terrorists when their claims would cast blame on US foreign policy?

You are now speaking in non-sequiturs. Just because the ouster of Saddam Hussein has temporarily cut off funds that might have been used by terrorist groups, it does not mean that many in the Middle East are not “inflamed” by the American actions. There are plenty of people in the Middle East who are angry and inflamed at America, and just because they don’t have funds right now does not make them any less angry, and does not make the fanatics among them any less inclined to engage in terrorism. This whole thread was started based on the terrorists’ state of mind, their beliefs about their actions. To turn it around now to a simple question of funding is typically disingenuous of you.

IzzyR conveniently ignores that fact that world terrorism did not begin on 9/11. Terrorism has been part of America’s relations with the Middle East for a long time now, and bin Laden specifically cited US activity in the Middle East as a reason for his own terrorist activity. Given that the single biggest incident of anti-American terrorism occurred as a result of American foregn policy (according to the man responsible), don’t you think that US foreign policy and those who implemented it deserve blame for 9/11?

You assert that the President’s actions might have discouraged terrorism on a net basis, but again ignore the fact that i was taling about US foreign policy over a longer period, not just during the Bush administration. It’s hard to see 9/11 as part of a net decline. And, as i said, many conservatives refused–and still refues–to blame US policy for that massive spike in terrorism.

But hey, you just go on blaming the protesters. I’m sure it makes you feel better, and if it stops you drooling on your keyboard then at least it serves a purpose.

180

IZZYR –

It is not not NOT a consequence of their actions! “Consequence” implies a logical flow of cause and effect. There is simply no way that an act of murderous terror can reasonably be “caused” by a peaceful protest thousands of miles away. You – and DECEMBER – are pretty fast to take this particular murdering terrorist at his word, even though we’re not even actually sure what he was talking about, without pausing for so much as a second to ask whether it is in any way reasonable to attribute the effect to the claimed cause. Which it obviously and simply is not. What is preventing you from looking beyond the claimed causation to investigate whether the claim makes factual sense?

GARY makes the same point when he says:

In other words, and as I have already said, we should not leap in to invoke the law of “unintended consequences” without bothering to investigate whether the effect is a “consequence” of the claimed cause at all. If it’s not – and it’s not – then there’s no need to argue about whether the consequence is intentional or not, because it simply isn’t a consequence in the first place.

And I didn’t hear you taking the terrorists so gleefully at their word about cause and effect in the wake of 9/11. Why so fast to respectfully believe them now?