Monday, August 14, 2006

Republicans do not care about terrorism

* digby:
"So, last week we have what appears to be a rather elaborate but low tech terrorist plot unravelled that shows that terrorists are still operating out of Pakistan. Pakistan is also ramping up its nuclear operations with the knowledge of the administration, which kept that knowledge from the US congress until a couple of weeks ago.

Why is this not considered a problem by anyone in Washington? Do they honestly believe that this combination of al Qaeda, nuclear weapons and a tenuous military dictatorship whose intelligence services are sympathetic to bin Laden is not worth worrying about ---- while we obsess over Iraq and Iran?

Apparently. It's one of those issues that has confounded me from the beginning. Al Qaeda style Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is a real threat. Their methods are designed for maximum effect and are almost guaranteed, if successful, to create a disproportionate and inchoate response. And yet the country that is the hive of such terrorism (with a government police force that is reputed to be sympathetic to it) is considered to be an ally on the par of Great Britain --- which is a target just like the US. It makes no sense and it's one of the primary reasons that we can be sure that the neocons are no more serious about terrorism than they have ever been.

Repeat after me --- these people do not really care about terrorism. They never have... They are completely rigid in their thinking, refusing to consider new evidence, even decades after they've been proven wrong.

And not only do they not see terrorism as a real threat, their own obsessions with toppling middle eastern states virtually guarantees that terrorism will continue to rise. Their unearned reputation for competence in this area is another case of Republican upisdownism in full effect."

* haaertz:
Since Friday afternoon the second Lebanon war is taking on a similar character: the decision to move on to the Litani River is motivated by a hidden agenda but is being justified through practical needs.
The suspicion that the broadening of the military deployment is driven by hidden motives is reinforced further not only by Olmert's refusal to allow Tzipi Livni to participate in the deliberations of the Security Council, but also when answers are sought over what the military operation actually means. The impression is that the prime minister, who updated some of his ministers on Friday night, did not offer a uniform explanation.
Notwithstanding, it raises concerns about the wisdom of the country's leadership: does the cost in human life claimed in this operation justify the expected result? Will the chances of deriving from this war a substantive change in the Israel-Lebanon relations increase as a result of the takeover of a few more square kilometers of territory? Will the vulnerability of the IDF forces to the lethal strikes of Hezbollah fighters not increase as a result of broadening its deployment? Will Israel's image in the world improve in view of images of continued fighting, despite the UN resolution? Will this action not strengthen Hezbollah's motivation to intensify its responses and establish its image as the group standing before the Israeli war machine?


LeeB said...

It has long been my belief that these people "care" a great deal about terrorism . . .

Where the rest of us set ourselves up for mystification and bafflement is the very spot where we assume, contrary to all the evidence, that they care about STOPPING terrorism. They do not.

For them, terrorism is a necessary component in their plan for world domination. What most sane people describe as "incompetence" on the part of the bu$h/DarthCheney regime is actually planned strategy toward unthinkable goals.

If we continue to allow ourselves to deny the unthinkable, we continue to enable this criminal cabal to pursue its plans for empire.

They remain rigid in their thinking because they are achieving their goals with exactly that thinking.

The best thing the U.S. could do - and the fastest way to regain some decent standing in the world - is to turn these criminals over to The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity.

oldschool said...

Yeah - what she said.

And a hearty "Amen" from me.

lukery said...

i'm with oldschool, who is with LeeB.


damien said...

Yes, LeeB, you're right. But if people can't even accept that terrorism is a problem needing nuanced policing rather than militarism, then there is no hope that they will graduate to the idea that the US leadership is criminal or complicit in terrorism. And that's exactly what's happening.

This from Wayne Madsen(Aug 11)that you'll never see in Murdoch media:

Not surprisingly, after Galloway tore into a Sky News reporter on a recent televised interview, The Sun, a Murdoch paper, is now reporting that one of the 24 British aircraft liquid bomber suspects now under arrest, Waheed Zaman, met with Galloway "many times." The paper quotes the sister of the suspect. A Galloway spokesman denies that Galloway knows the suspect.....

Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) agency has helped provide the cover story for the alleged liquid bombers. Working with British and U.S. intelligence, the ISI says it broke up the plot after arresting terrorist suspects in Lahore and Karachi. However, the ISI claims that the men were affiliated with the Kashmiri terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba, a group that is run and funded by the ISI itself.

No chance of war crimes charges. The Hague is no.12 on the bombing list.

LeeB said...

Hi, Damien -

One happy note in all of this crap is that a number of people (some in blogs; some on Air America Radio - but the MSM . . . ? not so much . . . ) are pointing out the obvious fact that effective counter-terrorism efforts are executed by law enforcement, not military actions.

This is what I was jumping up and down about back on September 12, 2006, and onward, but who listens to me?!

I'm trying to focus on the fact that at least they're paying attention NOW.

And if they plan to subvert my plans for war crimes trials by blowing up The Hague, I guess we'll just have to find another venue.

damien said...

I listen to you LeeB (otherwise I'd be forced to listen to myself.)

I'm trying to focus on the fact that at least they're paying attention NOW.

Yes, they are, but I've just been reading the Murdoch press here in Australia and the results aren't pretty. That pause for reflection that you and I hope for is being massively crammed with every piece of superficial and self-serving falsehood. Not very reassuring.

People may become too terrorised and then start to ask whether it's all worth it and who exactly is the enemy. But I don't like it. The lies and denial are even harder to overcome. A militarised society could follow.

Our best chance to get people asking the right questions may just be the long airport waiting qeues.

(Note, Leeb: I've collared the 'panic' role at this site and I'm sitting on it. Everyone else needs to be sane.)

LeeB said...

Murdoch is one of the black hats, obviously. His outlets in this hemisphere are the same. The sources I referred to above are not mainstream, nor are they hooked up with black hat mediaMonsters like Murdoch.

I think you make a very good point about the useful effects of long airport waiting qeues -- especially as the absurdity of ordinary people throwing away ordinary toiletries and drinking water begins to permeate consciousness. One thing these idiots (the black hats) don't seem to take into account is that sooner or later, their victims WILL catch on, and they WILL rebel, and it won't be at all pretty.

(Go get some Valerian. You'll feel much better. It's legal and there are no side effects. It didn't get named "God's Valium" for nuthin')

lukery said...

hey D - you certainly don't have a monopoly on the panic position.

i love the idea of long airport waiting qeues being the revolt for the trigger. how appropriately kafkaesque

damien said...

Perhaps all the airport TVs could run 'Last Year at Marienbad' and episodes of The Prisoner.