George II says that “We will direct every resource at our command, every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence and every necessary weapon of war, to the disruption and defeat of the global terror network.” He also says that the rest of the world are either for him or again’ him and with the terrorists.
You want us in the rest of the world to be more careful with the movement of peoples? Then you be more careful who you sell arms to, and don’t get in the way of global efforts to stamp out illicit arms trading.
You want us to keep Islamic fundies from laundering their money in Toronto or London? Then stamp out the domestiic American fundraising and logistical networks for ETA and both sides in the Northern Ireland problem.
You want a multilateral war on terrorism? Then stop acting unilaterally and making demands of your friends, neighbours, and potential coalition partners.
The rest of the free world, much of which, sadly, has already had long-standing experiences with homeland terrorist attacks, will stand with you. But you have to stand with the rest of us. The corollary of “All for one” is “One for all.”
I’m not trying to stir up trouble… I just wish that any good that comes out of the past week would include a full frontal assault (not just militarily either) on all terrorism. Now’s as good a time as any. But as a reality check for the US, it’s going to be hard to maintain an international anti-terrorism effort that has, as its predominant aim, combatting anti-American terrorism, without consideration for the many other countries that face the same problem. We should all be in this together.
(PS Vive le Labrador libre !)
[“Whose Line Is It Anyway” theme music]
Good evening and welcome to “Whose War Is It Anyway?” starring:
“Hey, it wasn’t me.” - Osama bin Laden
“Don’t put your troops in our country.” - "The Pakistani Muslem Fundamentalists
“We have no idea where he is.” - The Taliban Militia
and “We HAVE the proof to nail him.” - The US Justice Department.
I’m your host, George W. Bush. Let’s go kick some ass.
[/“Whose Line Is It Anyway” theme music]
Wait wait…so you’re complaining that now that the US is trying to do something against international terrorism, that there should be conditions imposed on the US to spearhead this effort?
To quote P.J. O’Rourke (“Among the Euro-Weenies”, Holidays in Hell, written back in April and May of 1986, after the U.S. raids on Libya in retaliation for the bombing of a West Berlin discotheque):
The US is getting a lot of support from countries too numerous to mention. The level of support varies of course, but the coalition is looking good. Certainly, one of your major allies is the UK, although this comment does not denigrate any contributions made by Canada.
Let us theorise here. After many years of concentrated effort on diplomatic, military, economic and other fronts, the threat of international terrorism recedes to a point where it is considered to be contained, if not defeated. Any danger to the US is minimal, although vigilance remains the watchword.
I do not wish to discuss the Northern Ireland issue here, except in terms of what the US is going to do about the fund raising for the IRA which takes place in the US, either now, or when the international terrorist threat is deemed to be contained, or at some point in between.
Quite obviously the IRA poses no threat to the US, so is the US going to be interested at any time in the future in terminating these fund raising activities, or are the people who are instrumental in effecting donations to the IRA untouchable for one reason or another.
Finally I do not understand why labradorian is getting so much heat in respect of his OP. His language may be a touch florid but his point is a fair one.
But…Why in the HELL would anyone, much less Americans, give money to the IRA? I mean, I could MAYBE understand it back in the day when they were an actual army trying to fight a revolution, but those days are LONG over…Now they are terrorists, tried and true…and terrorism, aside from being morally reprehensible, is complete ineffective as a political tool…All it does is sure up the opposition and polarizes the moderates (usually against the terrorist)…You can’t strong-arm a Nation, especially not a strong one like the US or the UK…These nations spent 50 years staring down enough nuclear firepower to kill EVERYONE ON EARTH and didn’t flinch…you think your little semtek bomb is going to do something? Other than kill a few people and piss a whole lot off?
Terrorism is a stupid ploy of a desperate cause, and sending money after it isn’t helping the cause, its just killing people…
Okay, I feel better…now back to your regularly scheduled thread…
I found myself wondering where this “war on terrorism and those who harbour terrorism” left the exponents of Italian terrorism (assuming the murder of judges, police, etc falls into George’s definition), the Mafia ?
