9/28/2002: What Semtex does

[Undertoad]

This week 100 grams of Semtex were found in the armrest of a French jet returning from Marrakesh. This is the same material used by shoe-bomber Richard Reid. It was discovered by dogs that were run through the passenger compartment between flights. There was no detonator. It is thought that maybe the plan was for the passenger on the arriving flight to hide it so the passenger on the return flight could detonate it.

Shown above is the effect of 200 grams of Semtex detonated on a 747.

Yet to be explained is how US foreign policy is responsible, or what type of terrorist appeasement France did not perform that might have prevented a possible atrocity.

Well-understood is French inability to address the situation. After finding the material, the plane was allowed to take off and return to Morocco because of a delay by customs officials in notifying judicial authorities. Well, at least everyone's civil rights weren't violated by having to wait at a terminal for a few hours.

[Xugumad]

Undertoad
Yet to be explained is how US foreign policy is responsible, or what type of terrorist appeasement France did not perform that might have prevented a possible atrocity.

Yet to be explained is why this is still happening. After all Afghanistan has been liberated, and those terrorist training camps destroyed. Iraq will be attacked because they are threatening the US with biochem or nuclear weapons (not that there is any proof, but I am perfectly willing to entertain that notion), not because they are supposedly training or financing terrorists. (nobody in the current administration is claiming that at this point).

Please explain why this is happening, and why the US don't have their sights on countries that allow this to happen. (presumably those within the 'Axis of Evil' that aren't going to be using biochem or nuclear weapons against the US)

I am serious. Please explain. Since you use 'US foreign policy' as a possible cause in the very first sentence of your post, explain to me how US foreign policy fits into all of this. (Also note that I did advocate liberating and democratising any and all Middle East dictatorships in another post, as well as explaining that I'm pro-American, not anti-American, despite your accusations, so you may want to leave those flamebaits at home this time. Also, please don't invoke the threat of 'Germany', and don't use Nazi comparisons, for once. Please.)

Well, at least everyone's civil rights weren't violated by having to wait at a terminal for a few hours.

When somebody's policies are under attack (flagrant constitutional breaches by the current US administration), make sure to point out that others are at fault, too. Two wrongs make a right. Since everybody else is doing it, it's OK to do it, too.

Ensure that your post is dripping with sarcasm, as well. It usually invites civilized and polite discussion of an issue. (see my last paragraph; QED)

X.

[Undertoad]

I don't know who is responsible. But I do know one thing: you are one paranoid dude.

[Xugumad]

Undertoad
I don't know who is responsible. But I do know one thing: you are one paranoid dude.

Who knows, maybe I am. I guess you are joking about the paranoia, since I wouldn't assume you'd be making fun of (or insinuating) somebody else's genuine mental malady.

Nonetheless, your post was a continuation of the things discussed in a previous thread, where we clashed over Europe's role in the 'war on terrorism', where you specifically mentioned France et al as bombing/terrorism targets. The tone of your posting seemed to suggest that it was to some extent disproving that Europe would not be the target of terrorism unless it was allied with the US. Am I wrong in this assumption?

Since you borught up US foreign policy, and how it influences the world stage (including terrorism in Europe), I presented a conflicting view, in which current US foreign policy is not necessarily on a course in which all islamic fundamentalism and thus-resulting violence will be stopped. (if we can assume that related forces were behind the Semtex on the French jet)

Nobody else seemed to be answering to the post in a few hours, possibly because they're too busy with other things on a weekend; I waited for a while to see if a conversation was starting, and added my two <a href="http://www.colonialacres.com/euro.shtml">cents</a>

You didn't address my points, but I freely admit that it's easy to consider them tangential to your intended meaning. I see them as interconnected, but not everyone may see it the same way. I attempted to forestall any flames by asking you not to invoke the 'German' threat (again), since that didn't aid debate in the past. If you consider that paranoid, I am sorry (Even if your answer sounded a lot like an ad hominem attack, but I'm happy to ignore that)

X.

PS: The protests are <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2002/09/28/brits/index.html">underway</a> (the headline is incorrect, SY said more than 150k, the STWC claimed around 400k, the truth is probably somewhere in-between).

[jaguar]

Yet to be explained is how US foreign policy is responsible, or what type of terrorist appeasement France did not perform that might have prevented a possible atrocity.

Well that wins the stupid post of 2002 award. Hell, i have right wing teachers who still understand this.

Take one large group of impoverished, disenfranchised people.
Add anger.
Add a group that claims to have an easy colution to a difficult problem (Hitler, Bin Laden, should i go on?)
Then, have the US act exactly as bin laden says they will, they attack 'muslim' countries, support isreal etc. this is a war of minds, and the US is trying to win it with bombs, i woner why i keep getting temped to post the fark dumbass tag.
You cannot, repeat cannot. Stop terrorism with force. It simply is not going to work, you have to provide an alternative. What they need to do is a middle eastern equilivent of hte marshall plan, happy, wealthy people are less likely to suicide bomb somewhere than impoverished, angry people.

[Undertoad]

Thanks, Jag, for answering the stupid question that I posed.

I have followups.

1) Throughout history we see that probably the majority of peoples were impoverished and disenfranchised. Yet it's extremely rare to find killing civilians to be considered jusifiable in any way. What is different in this case?

2) Normally when money is given under threat of physical violence, that's called "robbery". Depending on the nature of the threat, it might also be called "blackmail". What do you call it when it's done on a global scale?

In the long run, economic growth is created through maximization of human activity. Most Muslim countries suffer from several cultural practices which will ensure that they will never, ever become productive, such as the total subjugation of 50% of their population. Maybe this is the biggest difference from the Marshall Plan. The taxpayers of any/every productive country on Earth will never, ever agree to endlessly subsidize a broken people.

Furthermore, the fanatical muslims would find being "supported" in such a way to be a complete and total insult to his belief system - in which he is given to understand that he is better than you by the will of Allah.

So 3) how many times will the shit have to hit the fan - i.e., see the image - before the west really gets fed up and does something *truly* rash and stupid?

[Undertoad]

<i>I presented a conflicting view, in which current US foreign policy is not necessarily on a course in which all islamic fundamentalism and thus-resulting violence will be stopped. (if we can assume that related forces were behind the Semtex on the French jet)</i>

Sorry, I meant to get back to this earlier.

One thing you've been short on, if I recall your posting correctly, is your own proposal. So, what would your approach be?

[Xugumad]

Undertoad
One thing you've been short on, if I recall your posting correctly, is your own proposal. So, what would your approach be?

I understand that my posts are sometimes (overly?) verbose; whilst skimming them, it's easy to overlook my actual opinion amongst deconstructivist neo-realist international relations theory.

My proposal, incredibly simplified, can be found in <a href="http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?threadid=2158&pagenumber=2">this</a> post, which I wrote yesterday (following up your own question, by the way):

Undertoad
Would it not then be the US' moral obligation to go in and correct its terrible errors?

Xugumad
Here is one piece of information that I haven't told you yet, since you seem to be automatically assuming that I am against war in Iraq: I am fully behind an UN intervention in Iraq, under two conditions:

That UN troops are stationed for several decades there, to protect democracy, personal freedoms, and ensure stability. (akin to Germany, after-WW2)

That all other dictatorships in the region are also removed and replaced by democratically elected regimes; with UN troops stationed in force in all those democracies.

If you remove one tumor, but leave all the others intact, the cancer will spread again. Yes, it's the moral duty of the US and UN to go in, and deal with that evil - since I consider dictatorships and murderous dictators to be evil. But the proposed half-fix is an obvious PR ploy, and will cause more evil than good in the region.

Yes, it's simplistic - and yes, it's dangerous, expensive, and near-impossible to achieve politically. A few more terrorist attacks on US soil might just be the motivator that will achieve that, however. Anything less will cause more anti-Americanism in those who are a true danger to the US. The only alternative to it is a return to true political isolationism not seen since the inter-war period. If there is to be a Pax Americana, it cannot be half-baked. Therein lies the real danger to America's safety, and I pray that the people in charge will understand this.

X.

[Undertoad]

Got it. I like that! Well, it's my secret hope that this is, in fact, what the secret plan is, sort of.

With a nod to USS Clueless, the real source of most of my pre-packaged soundbite thoughts.

The USS Clueless plan: wholesale, unapologetic cultural imperialism. Taking Iraq is first, free up their oil, end a serious source of terrorism, and put the rest of the area into imbalance, and roll the dice. Take the intelligence information you get from Iraq and use it to document Syria's connections and weaponry. Nod with appreciation when the presense of a little help in the area emboldens the anti-Islamist factions in Iran. Maybe get a new attitude out of the Saud family - or document their connections to terrorism, or find some other pretext and liberate the next country.

The easy way to do it, the wrong way, would have been to encourage a racist, xenophobic, us versus them scenario in the US. (I was never so proud as when Bush visited the mosques post-9/11.) Instead, in space of days after 9/11, they came up with a Big Lie slogan: "Islam means Peace". It would both snuff any nationalist/racist instinct, and sharply indicate that the nature of the conflict was a hijacking of a belief system. In one fell swoop, they defined the nature of the debate. A neat trick, and done without mirrors too.

After only a few days, they crafted Bush's speech to tell the world that this meant war, and not just a war against al Queda or bin Laden, but a broader war that would take years and years. Maybe they was thinking that Afghanistan would take years, but they were so unspecific about who the enemy was.

So I think they "get it", that what is really intended here is a smackdown of all of radical Islam. Without which there remain several million Richard Reids to ignite several million pairs of Semtex shoes.

[snagglefish]

so.

at the risk of adding to an ever lengthening post, let me weigh in with some thoughts.

one.

the US proposal to attack Iraq has little to do with removing a big bad dictator. it has more to do with

*politics ("he tried to kill my daddy"),

*oil (the US government is deeply aligned with both the Oil Industry [Cheney of Haliburton fame] and car industry (all references to Global warming were *removed* in the US' most recent 'state of the environment' report)

*perceived threat (Iraq has not had weapons inspectors since, what, 1994 - and all of a sudden they are *now* a threat that has to be dealt with within the week?) ;

Saddam is a survivalist and would not be silly enough to do something (pre-emptive strike on Israeli or US targets) that would lead to US bombs being rained down on his head. This is one of the reasons that there have been NO conclusive links made between the Sept 11 Al Qaeda attack and Iraq.

Additionally, Scott Ridder (former UN weapons inspector in Iraq) has said that he finds it highly unlikely that Iraq has either chemical or biological weapons, much less Nuclear ones. He (and many other allied nations - Germany, France, Canada, etc) and many others think it would be a BIG MISTAKE to attack Iraq. However, judging from this quote in the Savannah Now (http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/091202/LOCvox.shtml) not all Americans feel that way: "I'd like to know who's paying this Scott Ridder guy, the ex-U.N. inspector, to be such a traitor to America now. I think we should revoke his citizenship."

Ok.

And while we are on the subject of Chemical weapons and whatnot let's talk about Saddam and Rumsfeld. Start by reading this article here (http://newsobserver.com/news/story/1...-1783387c.html) - Rumsfeld was a special envoy to Iraq in 1983, when the US was supporting Saddam and Co. against Iran. This was about the same time that Saddam was gassing the Kurds, and "Rumsfeld warned that Saddam's use of chemical weapons might "inhibit" U.S. aid.

Right.

So this meanders back into talk of US Foreign Policy which always seems to come back and bite it in the ass. Saddam supported by the US in the proxy war against Iran. Bin Laden originally supported by the US in the proxy war against the Russians.

Etc etc.

If this was about peace, and getting rid of dicators and all that good stuff then the US and UN should get rid of Mugabe who is starving his nation. They should move against countless nations. They should force Israel to agree to UN monitors.

But guess what?

None of this is going to happen.

A man with the brain capacity of an over-ripened Texas tomato is going to lead the US (and possibly other poor allies) into a war with Iraq.

And guess what?

You think that this just *might* further inflame anti-western sentiment not just in Iraq, but in other Middle Eastern countries as well?

You think that this might be the sort of foreign policy that will come back for that nice bite in the ass?

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

And above all don't learn from the past.



*(apologies for length of post, meandering thoughts, and nothing to do with a picture of a plane getting blown up)*

Hey, in the interest of full disclosure, Scott Ridder *has* received payments from a prominent Iraqi-American businessman with family in Iraq.

So that's who's paying him.

[tw]

Originally posted by dave
Hey, in the interest of full disclosure, Scott Ridder *has* received payments from a prominent Iraqi-American businessman with family in Iraq.

Full disclosure. Lies by telling half truths would be more like it. He was hired to speak his opinion in Iraq before a Congress. He told them exactly what he was telling us before he was hired to make that trip and speech. Suddenly the other half of the truth makes a big difference in the conclusion.

Scott Ridder, by telling the facts as they really are, is what is called a patriot. Enemies of America have opinions - then seek facts to provide those opinions - even when no such facts exist. (Johnson, Nixon and now George Jr).

Others faced the same neanderthal attitude in the days of VietNam. How many patriots were labeled at traitors because they told the truth about VietNam? Need we remember Nixon's enemies list? Even John Lennon made the list only because he advocated peace. Some 'traitors' included one of the toughest American Marines who went alone into enemy territory without escort to learn facts. Daniel Ellsberg I believe his name was. Eventually he discovered the same truths we all later learned in the Pentagon Papers. But in the meantime, a naive public labeled him as a traitor - because, like Ridder, he told the truth in direct contradiction to a president that did not want us to know the truth.

Careful who is labeled as a traitor. It makes one an enemy of America just as all those who advocated 'bombing VietNam into the stone age". Fools are those who fail to learn the lessons of history. Scott Ridder is what America needs more of - a man willing to take risks in order to expose facts.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Yet to be explained is how US foreign policy is responsible, or what type of terrorist appeasement France did not perform that might have prevented a possible atrocity.

Americans forget (often out of ignorance) that we are (or were) down the list of terrorist targets. France has long been a major target of terrorism. How many remember the French Jumbo bombed out of Senegal skies? Or French troops in a Lebanon barracks who were victims of a suicide truck bomb? How many remember that French ships always ran a gaunlet of artillery fire when transiting the straits between the Red Sea and Indian Ocean? Or their never ending problem with Algier terrorists? Other countries have been more targets of terrorism. But a US public with all but no international news reports, forgets to learn about or remember non-American terrorism.

When the US chooses not to enforce its opinions on a people, then those peoples don't make Americans a target. Americans could often walk through war zones safely. It was American 'blow them back to the stone age' attitudes that made, for example, 1980s Lebanon such as dangerous place for Americans. We made ourselves a target of terrorists.

Everyone makes enemies. It is a question of whether we make a few trivial enemies OR convert a whole political faction, nation, or region into a hotbed of anti-American activity.

Want to see what terrorism is really about? Unilaterally invade Iraq. Frenchmen may like that. It would make the French a lesser target.

[snagglefish]

tw - well said.

i agree that what makes america (and other democracies) so potent is the ability to express views contrary to ruling party dogma.

the atmosphere that bush has fostered post sept 11 is a "if you don't support this government's stance on all things relating to security, terrorism, and civil rights you are unpatriotic", or worse, a traitor. this seems to be a straw man argument (am i using the right term here.....?)

being able to speak out in a political climate like that is very difficult. ridder has done it. there have been recent comments by gore (who admittedly may have his own agenda) criticizing bush (nice synopsis here: http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/29/Co..._the_pre.shtml ; also some nice articles in Salon's premium section) and others.

in any case - it looks like the media, and politicians are gaining some steam in being openly critical of bush et al. maybe there will be an opposition in the US after all. . .

[quzah]

Originally posted by Xugumad

Iraq will be attacked because they are threatening the US with biochem or nuclear weapons (not that there is any proof, but I am perfectly willing to entertain that notion), not because they are supposedly training or financing terrorists.

He's finnishing Daddy's War. This is a side point really. The only reason Afghan was attacked was so that we could get the nice little oil pipeline finished so we could get at the $6 TRILLION worth of oil sitting in the nice little sea.

While he's over there, he figures he'll go finish what Daddy didn't. Nevermind the fact that Daddy helped Iraq test bio on their own country. Nevermind the fact that we have umpteen million nukes floating around in subs. (I'd call those 'weapons of mass distructuion', wouldn't you?) Nevermind the fact that we aren't bombing China, even though China has nukes. Nevermind the fact that we aren't bombing Korea, even though they have nukes. Nevermind the fact that we aren't bombing Izzy, even though they have nukes. Nevermind the fact that we aren't bombing India because... god that's getting tiring. See the point?

Quzah.