In addition to the TV ads to be aired this week, ESAG has begun a new round of newspaper ads in Aftenposten and VG.

Nr 1:

The problem with terrorism is that – like any cancer – the cells keep spreading.

From the beginning, Osama bin Laden dreamed of turning al-Qaeda into a global network of assassins.

And today, in whatever shadowy hideout he occupies, he can survey his grim handiwork with satisfaction.

For Qaeda has matured into a well-trained, well-financed multinational operation – an alliance of regional terrorist cells that like a malignancy (as one expert put it) “is mutating and adapting at lightning speed.” [1]

Nowhere has this happened more quickly than in Europe. Fact is, since September 11, 2001, over 200 jihadist suspects have been arrested in Europe – more than in any other region.[2] And that was even before the Madrid railway bombings.

Has the European Union faced up to the growing danger from these self-styled “holy warriors”? Hardly.

After the September 11 attacks, then again after the Madrid bombings, EU leaders called for bold, new measures against terrorism. But sad to say, most of the “new” measures were anything but new.

Many have been proposed repeatedly – in some cases, for decades– always to little effect.[3]

Well, that’s no longer acceptable. Not with the upsurge in Qaeda-inspired violence we’ve experienced lately.

What Europe needs is a counter-terrorist response that’s thoughtful, balanced but appropriate.

A more vigorous response than the EU has given it before.

European Security Advocacy Group
www.esag.info

There’s no future in terrorism.

[1]Vivienne Walt, Terrorists 'spread all over Europe', USA Today, July 21 2002.
[2]"Tackling a hydra," The Economist, January 30, 2000
[3]EU Counter Terrorism efforts in jHA Field, EU Press Release, Brussels, 12 March 2004

Nr 2:

The next "Madrid". Will terrorists envelop it in a deadly chemical cloud?

In a crowded suburb of Lyons, French security officers recently uncovered a shocking plot.

A terrorist cell with links to al-Qaeda planned to attack a European city with lethal chemical weapons. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, might have died.

In the investigation that followed, officials in Venisseux learned the grim details. The five alleged plotters had close ties to terrorists elsewhere in Europe, Algeria and the Middle East.[1]

They got their technical training from the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarkawi. Zarkawi reportedly taught classes in chemical warfare at an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, and one specialty was a "toxic cloud" chemical weapon. But the Venisseux plot was hardly unique.

Police and security officials have disrupted similar plots elsewhere in Europe. Scores of suspects have been arrested - typicall with caches of chemicals, decontamination suits, and maps of targeted cities.[2]

One of Italy's top anti-terrorism prosecutors says that he's sure we will have to "deal with other grave episodes of terrorism in Europe in the future".[3] What could be more grave than a chemical or biological attack, or worse, in a major European city? Europe - all of Europe - must cooperate in deliberate, thoughtful but forceful measures against terrorism.

The threat today is all too real.

European Security Advocacy Group
www.esag.info

There's no future in terrorism.

[1]Mark Husband, Terrorist Chemical Threat 'Worse Than suspected', The Financial Times, April 11, 2004.
[2]William Boston, In Europe, terror trail leads to Algeria, The Christian Science Monitor, January 28, 2003.
[3]Stefano Dambruso, quoted by Sebastian Rotella, Fragmented Europe Invites Terrorism, Los Angeles Times, April 26, 2004.

Nr 3:

The "new" European Union. Has it made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks?

When the European Union admitted 10 new member-states recently, politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels celebrated.

But even as Champagne corks popped, European security officials sounded a warning.

Enlarging the EU has added thousands of miles of poorly protected borders. Isn't that practically a welcome mat for terrorists?

The reality is that, while some terrorists are homegrown, many are not. Increasingly they are foreign terrorists who know Europe's borders are easy to breach. So they jump around, eluding local police and security forces.[1]

Take, for example, the suspects in the Madrid railway bombings. Before attacking Spain, they moved effortlessly for several years among alleged terrorists in Morocco, Algeria, France and Germany.[2]

One of Italy's top anti-terrorism prosecutors says "The most important thing now is .. to abolish (bureaucratic) borders for police prosecutors so they can work together."[3]

The EU has proposed a common European arrest warrent, which would help. But the measure still hasn't been adopted in all countries - including the home country of the EU's new "anti-terrorism czar"![4]

That's simply no longer acceptable. Europe must find the political will to confront the terrorists among us - cooperatively, sharing intelligence and expertise, with the full force of our laws.

European Security Advocacy Group
www.esag.info

There's no future in terrorism.

[1]Sebastian Rotella, Fragmented Europe Invites Terrorism, Los Angeles Times, April 26, 2004.
[2]Tim Golden, et.al., As Europe Hunts for Terrorists, the Hunted Press Advantages, The New York Times, March 22, 2004.
[3]Stefano Dambruso, quoted by Sebastian Rotella, Fragmented Europe Invites Terrorism, Los Angeles Times, April 26, 2004.
[4]Cited by Associated Press, in Anti-terror boss 'surprise pick', CNN.com, March 25, 2004.

A variant of the third ad lists "Italy’s resurgent Red Guards or Turkey's PKK" as examples of home-grown terrorists - I assume it's meant for those countries.

I still fail to see anything propagandistic about the rhetorics here. Any bought political message is of course propaganda in one sense of the word, but in the stylistic sense these are just short opinion pieces, not propaganda. And that's how they should have been published, as opinion pieces instead advertisements. But as long as there's so little room for these views in Norway's op-ed pages, ESAG is doing us a favor by printing them as ads.

What the adds forgot to mention is that TERRORISM stems from TERROR and that ' nations with muslim blood on their hands should be always on high alert'

Are these ads about creating awareness to terrorism or about getting Europe to accept the American style of combatting it? That's a very easy question.

The guys who write these ads seem to be unaware of the number of terrorist plots that have been foiled in Europe the last year. It's significant and it's a sign of a counterterror policy that works through policing not through invading Iraq.

Has ESAG ever written a single negative word about US foreign policy....NO,No;NO... I wonder why?? Do you?? Probably not Bjørn. You snap into "I-like-message" mode and then you don't care about the other details. ¨

When ESAG's going on about Europe not responding adequately...where do you think this American-based group is going to present an alternative policy from.....maybe the US??? Any other suggestions???

ESAG abstain from saying that the US approach is the right way explicitly. But since there are generally two conceptions of how GWOT should be fought they implicitly put down their chips. That strategy is intelligent, but far from impossible to see through.

Enpough from me on this. You know where I stand and we've talked through a lot of this before.
I'm curious about the TV ads. Do you have them Bjørn?

Pseudo-ex-Christian, get a new tune, that one's getting _really_ old and is a recipe for unending worldwide war (every government has the blood of other religions on its hands and the kind of actions you seem to support do _nothing_ to Moslems safer anywhere and a lot of ensure that more and more are killed.

OT:

Anders, you said you studied American History in college. Was Charles Zanco ever mentioned? You should check him out.

This is in relation to the comment that until Iraqis are willing to die for freedom, they're not going to get anywhere. Samarra is the beginning.

I wonder what the hell they want.. Do they want us to invade Iran? Or is it to help the Americans in Iraq? Or is it just to get "in line" with the american policy?

Well, I think the best way Europe can combat terrorism is internally. Get more police, make them cooperate better within Europe, etc. BUT, not as USA has done it, by killing peoples rights. I tell you, if they can combat organised crime, then they can combat this, provided the correct methods, people and equipment is used. And definately NOT by invading other countries. Thats just weird. Its like USA should invade Italy because of the mafia.

Anders: Are these ads about creating awareness to terrorism or about getting Europe to accept the American style of combatting it?

So to criticize the way Europe fights terrorism is implicitly to support the way Americans fight it? How does this follow? We don't live in a bipolar world where either one of two clearly defined camps are right. The message I read in these ads is that 1) terrorism is a serious threat to Europe, and 2) Europe is not doing enough to fight terrorism today. Not a word about Americans - and why should there be? Why should every discussion about terrorism revolve around America? This is about us, not them.

The guys who write these ads seem to be unaware of the number of terrorist plots that have been foiled in Europe the last year. It's significant and it's a sign of a counterterror policy that works through policing not through invading Iraq.

I wrote something about this in April which I'm not sure is correct but is worth considering. It's based on the software development truism that for every bug you find there are ten bugs you haven't found:

All these arrests have obviously made us safer, but should they make us feel safer? Not if for every terrorist you find there are two, five or ten more you haven't found yet. In that case every arrest makes us less safe - less safe than we thought we were.

Ask yourself: Where do you find the most terrorists? Where there are the most terrorists to find. From that perspective, the high number of terrorist arrests in Europe is a cause for alarm, just like finding a large number of bugs in a piece of code is a cause for alarm to a developer.

Has ESAG ever written a single negative word about US foreign policy....NO,No;NO... I wonder why?? Do you??

You keep raising the bar here. At first you objected to the propaganda nature of these ads. Now you object because they do not also contain criticism of US foreign policy. But US foreign policy is a separate issue, logically unrelated to how Europe deals with terrorism within its own borders. And the criticism you ask for has no problem whatsoever being voiced in Europe. Surely you can't demand that ESAG voice views you agree with for this not to be propaganda. Propaganda is a style, not a point of view.

As for US foreign policy, Iraq, etc., I already told you: Norman Vale did not support the Iraq war, did not vote for Bush in 2000, and will not vote for Bush this year. So perhaps there are more than two views about how to fight terrorism. There usually are on any issue.

I'm curious about the TV ads. Do you have them Bjørn?

Not yet, but I probably will.

Allan: Well, I think the best way Europe can combat terrorism is internally. Get more police, make them cooperate better within Europe, etc.

That would also seem to be the message ESAG is sending here. There's not a word about US foreign policy.

"Propaganda is a style, not a point of view."
Hmmm...Most scholars agree that propaganda is a technique. I do agree that this technique has certain stylistic implications. But at the heart it is a technique designed to get people to do what you want them to.

Now a new interesting question for you Bjørn. Why have not these ads been shown in England and Denmark? Is it because they are doing such a fine job on internal policing?? Or could there be other reasons?

Are you suggesting that we should catch as few terrorists as possible?? Your logic with bugs here is a bug in itself. What's a good counter-terrorist policy to you? European police catch terrorists but still you and the strange ESAG group are not pleased. What is it you want?? PATRIOT act?? Should the EU start its own invasions to end all terrorism? Once again I don't get it.

If the EU has got it all so wrong, then who is right on these issues Bjørn? Now you may not answer the US to that question. You have already ruled that one out.

Sandy: Rather than reading aloud from my CV, I provide you with a link to a list of modules to the University of Oslo where I studied American History and society for two years.
(Scroll to the bottom for NORAM courses)

http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/enheter/iba-eng.html
Let's stay on thread shall we?

Anders: But at the heart it is a technique designed to get people to do what you want them to.

Yes, a style or technique - which depends on deception and other irrational methods to bypass the critical senses, (which is what separates propaganda from honest argument). Feel free to provide an analysis of how the ads I've quoted above deceive the public. Unlike the lack of criticism for US foreign policy, such deception (if it exists) is relevant here. You appear in the media regularly to denounce ESAG as a propaganda organization. Do you believe this applies to the ads above? Why/why not?

Now a new interesting question for you Bjørn. Why have not these ads been shown in England and Denmark? Is it because they are doing such a fine job on internal policing?? Or could there be other reasons?

Both Denmark and especially England have broader discussions of terrorism than we do, where views like these appear in opinion pages without anyone having to be paid money for it. This is connected with the decision these countries have made to support Bush in Iraq, because those who support the Iraq war also tend to believe that terrorism is a great danger. But it does not follow that to believe that terrorism is a great danger you must support the Iraq war. As Norman Vale and a large number of American centrists are good examples of.

ESAG does have a limited amount of money. It is only natural to spend those money in countries which take terrorism the least seriously. Norway is one of those countries. The strange reaction these ads have received (secretive wealthy American propagandists!) is a reflection of this.

Are you suggesting that we should catch as few terrorists as possible?? Your logic with bugs here is a bug in itself.

I didn't explain the analogy well enough. Software bugs are a symptom of underlying design problems. Bad design => many bugs. So if I write a program and discover a lot of bugs in it, this tells me that I've designed it poorly. I can fix the bugs I've found, but that won't improve the design. So it's better not to discover bugs than to discover them. If I'm unable to discover all that many bugs, the design is good. Lack of bugs in a properly tested program is a symptom of good design.

Exchange bugs with terrorists, and I believe you have a somewhat analogous situation. We should try to discover as many terrorists as we can, for this makes us safer than we already were - but we should not conclude that we are now safer than we already thought we were. Every new terrorist we discover is a symptom of an underlying design weakness. To fight terrorism, we must detect and correct those design weaknesses. (Lack of cooperation is one of them - see ads 1 and 3).

If the EU has got it all so wrong, then who is right on these issues Bjørn? Now you may not answer the US to that question. You have already ruled that one out.

What I think is irrelevant. ESAG does one thing very well: Pointing out the problem. Finding a way to solve that problem is up to us. I have views about that, but more importantly I believe it's something we should discuss. All of us. Even you.

You, however, keep digging up excuses not to discuss the problem ESAG points at. Earlier it's been "propaganda" and "secrecy", now they're not sufficiently anti-Bush, and they don't advertise in Denmark, and they're not specific enough, and they somehow implicitly support Bush even when you know perfectly well that they don't. Which hat do you wear when you make these objections? The hat of Anders, the NUPI propaganda expert who tells Norwegians to ignore ESAG because they're a propaganda group, or Anders, a Norwegian citizen who happens to disagree with Norman Vale one some issues? I can't tell any more.

"You, however, keep digging up excuses not to discuss the problem ESAG points at."
And you accept the excuses they make for upholding their secrecy. Which no decent participant in a public debate would degenerate to. Who are we supposed to discuss with...I ask you once again?

"They somehow implicitly support Bush even when you know perfectly well that they don't"
How would I know that perfectly well? Because you have told me to believe that. How do you know that? Because Norman Vale has told you to believe that. I don't know if you are a trusted member of this secretive group and know the poeple who whip-out the cash for the ads. But you seem very sure about this. Just like you were sure about what Hagen REALLY meant with his fine portraits of muslims, to which you were DIGGING up more excuses than imaginable, regardless of your hat. Touche!

These arguments may pass here in your own realm. But put on any hat you like and try to defend them in public. Ouch... I forgot...that's impossible. I'm beginning to understand the true concept of virtual reality now.

Anders: Who are we supposed to discuss with...I ask you once again?

It's difficult to have a discussion with an advertisement - but it is possible for others to discuss an advertisement. All I'm asking is that you, or someone, take the time to argue against the message of those ads, instead of targetting the sender. Doesn't matter if nobody replies. By criticizing the content, you'll have contributed to the debate. Nothing more is required.

How would I know that perfectly well? Because you have told me to believe that. How do you know that? Because Norman Vale has told you to believe that.

There is a difference between suspicion of secretive organizations and paranoia. It is perfectly reasonable - and common - for an American to both dislike Bush and believe that a war on terror is important. Take a look around the blogosphere. You'll find a lot of these people in the very, very large center of American politics. Do you deny that this is a common position in the US? If not, the burden of evidence is on you to show why it is likely that Norman Vale lies about his political affiliation. (I'm not demanding proof, only that you make it likely that a person who holds the beliefs voiced by ESAG necessarily votes for George W. Bush.)

ESAGs articles - because that is what they are - does not say much. What they do say however is something worth discussing.

However, I simply do not agree that these are views that have difficulties finding their way into Norwegian media. I have already seen these discussions adressed several - if not many -times, not only in letters to the editor, but also in articles.

You are right, Bjørn, that does who supported - and since it won't be over in a long time yet supports - the war in Iraq takes terrorism seriously. But are you implying that those countries that were opposed to it doesn't? Terrorism is absolutely on the agenda in the European Union, the Norwegian media, academia, military, police and public also takes the threat seriously.

But then - George W. Bush is not a very popular guy, and American foreign policy is met with scepticism. Just like it should be. Why? Because the "American solution" is even worse than the "European one".

Øyvind

I am not first and foremost interested in Norman Vale's personal views. I'm more interested in the views of those who pay for the ads. I have no burden of proof regarding Vale's personal views. I definitely believe Vale when he says it's not from his own pockets! I've talked to this man and look on him as a spokesman. Spokesmen say spokesman-things. Some call it spin. Spin is NOT lying. I want the guys with the big bucks to speak up!

As Øyvind and I pointed out. Europe is not a wasteland when it comes to counter-terrorism. I therefore disagree with the accuracy of information and content of those ads who claim otherwise. I disagree with Øyvind when he says that going to Iraq shows that you are concerned about terrorism. Even Rumsfeld conceded that point only yesterday! Iraq Al Qaeda haven right...

The police powers that European governments are using for their much-lauded internal police investigations are probably not too far removed from the PATRIOT Act powers that are invoked with nonspecific pants-wetting horror. The difference is that Americans have a long history of loudly complaining about these things from their own governmnent, while Europeans have a long history of loudly complaining about things from the American government while ignoring their own. Thus, Europeans hear both Americans and Europeans raising a screaming fit over what they think the American government is doing, and nary a peep over anything done by European governments, leading Europeans to draw the not-necessarily-valid conclusion that everything the European governments are doing must automatically be much better.

Hey "christian who is now a muslim"-
You fool only yourself with your simplistic and childish words. It is YOU who have terrorized your own people, it is you who sow the seeds of ghetto rapes across scandinavia and within europe, it is muslims whose leaders lead them to their slaughter like foolish sheep who seek 72 naked young girls.
Why in the hell have muslims been fleeing to the west for decades and then try to re-plant their failed society within the ghettos they create for themselves? Why can you not make your place in this world without western welfare money or a western educational sytsem? Why does a country like Swaziland have more patents than the entire arab region? The cunning and cowardness the jihad muslims have brought in front of the world's eyes will spell the death of your invented religion. And it will be the US that knocks the dust from your skulls in order to bring your minds out of the caves you have created for yourselves. Your delushional minds are pathetic in the face of modernity.
The US came to your defense two times within just the last decade in europe, even as your impotence made you bring your jihad brethren from the middle east to help. You are in europe to accept the welfare monies, free govt housing and food, and to escape the ends of your un-elected "ruler's" sword. With these facts, your comments truly are so ignorant.
You have started these battles and you will be defeated so extraordinarily that it will bring you to your knees for many more generations unless you halt your cowardess immediately and repent.
"Bernard Lewis often tells audiences about an encounter he once had in Jordan. The Princeton University historian, author of more than 20 books on Islam and the Middle East, says he was chatting with Arab friends in Amman when one of them trotted out an argument familiar in that part of the world
We have time, we can wait," he quotes the Jordanian as saying. "We got rid of the Crusaders. We got rid of the Turks. We'll get rid of the Jews."
Hearing this claim "one too many times," Mr. Lewis says, he politely shot back, "Excuse me, but you've got your history wrong. The Turks got rid of the Crusaders. The British got rid of the Turks. The Jews got rid of the British. I wonder who is coming here next."

@ allan- you say "the Italian mafia has not promoted a jihad against america's people." I do not see italians seeking bomb belts and virgins either. With a war delared against the west by these jihad bearded cowards, any action taken to defend oneself from a purely "police action" is so absurd it borders on insanity.
And you think "rights" that a guaranteed for citizens of the US should be applied to those who try to blow people up? You must be nuts.
It is just this type of mindset that has, and will bring europe to it's knees. You in the "eu" spend a lifetime lashing out at the US, and it's developments and it's ideas... but you spend decades struggling with yourselves before you adapt these policies that the US has had in place for decades.

Pato: Hey "christian who is now a muslim"- You fool only yourself with your simplistic and childish words.

Please observe the rules here - the general validity of Islam is not even closely the topic of this thread.

There is an interesting interview with Bat Ye'or in Frontpage magazine (via Rantburg.com)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15044

Basically, among other things, she says that there is a coordinated effort in Europe to promote a "Eurabia", involving the cultivation and use of anti-American and anti-semitic propaganda to further European goals.

Very interesting.

Uh, you without name:
@ allan- you say "the Italian mafia has not promoted a jihad against america's people."
Where did I say that?

"With a war delared against the west by these jihad bearded cowards, any action taken to defend oneself from a purely "police action" is so absurd it borders on insanity"
And this is insane, because?

"You in the "eu" spend a lifetime lashing out at the US, and it's developments and it's ideas"
Hmm, not that I'm aware of, I sit here, post a message once in a while (1-3 times a week on average, unless I end up discussing with someone like Kevin)
Oh, and by the way.. I dont know of any Melbourne in EU :p One in US, and one in Australia as I know. And if we hate US developments and ideas so much, then how come so many of us dont have anything against our daily life appliances (internet tell you anything?) ?

Look, just because I disagree with invading Iraq, does not mean I hate US. I actually think it has lots of good qualities, (of course some bad as well, like EU, or Norway, or Australia for that sake) so I would rather that you instead of bashing on EU as a whole, explain why I'm so wrong and insane. Oh, and for your information, Norway(my home country) is not even in EU.

Sylvia:
"There is an interesting interview with Bat Ye'or in Frontpage magazine (via Rantburg.com)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15044"
"Very interesting."

I found this quite interresting article for you as well:
http://jonjayray.batcave.net/fasfraud.htm

And no, let me repeat myself for clarity.. I dont hate America, I dont hate Israel, I dont hate France either for that matter. I just find that many of the directions that you guys take are quite to nationalistic, you should have more logical arguments than nationalistic hate-mongering like this.

hey Bjorn-
I am aware of the rules for your comments and hope they are applied equally to all posters here. The poster's "name" in itself was his/her statement overall, which I was replying to.
My posting "name" is spanish for duck, so no harm done really. But maybe I am a duck who used to be a hummingbird, and I hope that is not insulting to all birds.
"Pato: Hey "christian who is now a muslim"- You fool only yourself with your simplistic and childish words.

bjorn- Please observe the rules here - the general validity of Islam is not even closely the topic of this thread.

Pato: I am aware of the rules for your comments and hope they are applied equally to all posters here. The poster's "name" in itself was his/her statement overall, which I was replying to.

Uh-huh. So the mere existence of the word "Muslim" in a nick is provocation enough to justify a 400 word long angry off-topic rant? If you believe that is a fair interpretation of the rules, I suggest you change your interpretation. This blog is not your personal battleground for you war against Islam.

I found the ESAG articles to be more of what I would call an opinion piece.

For me, propaganda (in a limited sense for this discussion) is that which is deliberately constructed so that you are redirected to another subject and/or has caused you to miss a larger point.

What was done to Ester Kristoffer is a good example - she is unhappy with Norwegian government policy and that morphs into "Zionist some-thing or other". Change the subject, and miss the larger point of what she was trying to express.

Interestingly, when I posted the link to Bat Ye'or's article (wholly about european policies), Allan posted an article that wasn't an analysis or a rebuttal, but a piece with points on how the US is really a closet dictatorship. (Complete with ruling elites and the old patriotism = nationalism = nazis meme that may be true in Europe but has wholly different connotations in the US. When I think of flags and bunting, what comes to mind is barbeque and drat! It's election season.)

A bigger issue - and one I think that the ESAG article is trying to address is a lack of objective internal analysis on the part of Europe.

The fact that many people can't - or are unwilling to do so may imply that the people doing the reading have already been propagandized to some extent (the question would be why, but that's another discussion)

If you ask "Say, what about Total Elfina - the French state owned oil company involved in that oil-for-food program" The response you're most likely to get is "EnronHalliburtonBushitler" Nevermind that Kenneth Lay of Enron infamy is in jail, the Halliburton isn't an oil company - they're a heavy industry service supplier and that Dick Chaney had to divest from them long ago. Bush isn't Hitler, and no, John Ashcroft isn't goose-stepping all over my front yard. And Total Elfina is still operating with impunity.

The articles are about Europe. They don't say to follow a US blueprint - I don't see that there. Quite frankly, the soft diplomacy that (some) in Europe seems to favor has not worked with the Mad Mullahs. Their missiles may be capable of reaching parts of Europe. If Europeans can't discuss their own policies without some kind of pavlovian change-the-subject to US policies critique, then that to me is a far more worrisome problem.

"Interestingly, when I posted the link to Bat Ye'or's article (wholly about european policies), Allan posted an article that wasn't an analysis or a rebuttal, but a piece with points on how the US is really a closet dictatorship"
Oh, I thought you were joking, So I put up another funny thing as well.. you really believed the argument that Europe wants to be a part of Arabia?
Do you think that Europe actively turn a blind eye on terrorism (because thats what we would need to do in order to follow the logic of Bat Ye'or)?
Why dont you continue along that path and say that Europe is cooperating with Bin Laden to do terrorism...

"Complete with ruling elites and the old patriotism = nationalism = nazis meme that may be true in Europe but has wholly different connotations in the US"
Oh? Why is it so much different in the US? Last time I checked, you guys have a few neo-nazi's yourself.

"A bigger issue - and one I think that the ESAG article is trying to address is a lack of objective internal analysis on the part of Europe"
How can you arrive at that conclusion? The ad says that terrorism is dangerous, and that Europe has not done enough to address it. Not more than that (according to Bjørn and yourself)... Because what you are saying is that because ESAG says that Europe has not done enough in the field of terrorism, then we are not capable of internal analysis? That is quite a bit more broad field than terrorism alone, no?

"When I think of flags and bunting, what comes to mind is barbeque and drat"
I think of ice cream and kids, and youths with wistles, drinking alcohol.. I think of spring and what that encompassess, with sunshine and women in nice mini skirts.. :)

I guess I can start to understand Americans though.. its not nice to be critisized by others. The only difference is that we are critisizing US foreign policy, and not America as a whole, and we dont draw conclusions about fundamental errors in your society.. I cant say the same for you.

Anders et al.,

While I don't have time to enter into a long debate at this moment, I did want to make a comment regarding Anders position.

Its interesting to me that throughout his entire defense of his position, he never considers its internal inconsistencies.

Anders begins by asking: "Are these ads about creating awareness to terrorism or about getting Europe to accept the American style of combatting it? That's a very easy question."

Yes it is Anders, and I find it fascinating that your "concern" already implies two things. One is a implied contempt for an open disourse, and the other is about the power to manage opinion. The two are related of course.

Consider. You posit an 'acceptable' dialectic only in terms of whether it is about "raising awareness" about terror. Is this the only acceptable 'way' that the ads would be permissable by you? What does that even mean... "raising awareness"?

But wait, it doesn't matter... because you finish that sentence by saying that the ads may be about "getting Europe to accept the American Style of combatting it", and that it is simply understood... is unacceptable.

Two things come to the fore here. One is that you clearly fear that if such ideas get into the discourse, it might influence people to think about or even reconsider the presently dominant 'way' of (Ahem) "combatting" terror in the European discourse.

My goodness could it be so? Have you in one sentence admitted that:

A) The Norwegian/Old European discourse is framed with part of its express purpose being to maintain the unchallenged dominance of a narrow perspective?
and
B) The idea of addressing alternatives could actually impact the ... you know, "citizenry" of Norway and affect their opinions.

Anders, you have unequivocally established the nature, if not the essence of your credentials as an expert in propaganda and the War on Terror.

Here is information for you: The ads are NOT about "getting people to accept the American style of combatting terrorism". From the perspective you hold of a free society, are people so weak minded... or are the presently uncontested ideas so inherently weak... that this could even be so? Is that what your fear over the ads is?

In any case, the ads certainly ARE about exposing people to the ideas that have been the source for the American policy towards terror. It is information that many Americans who travel and/or live here can empirically so is quite monstrously absent from the discourse here. Unless you include the highly controlled forums where an almost laboratory level of control can dissect, deconstruct and invert anything and everything to do with those ideas so they can be simply "dismissed" by any "right thinking" person.

You continue to argue as though such an observation is somehow absurd in this freethinking paradise (everyone knows that!), which Anders my friend, is truly absurd.

The alternative is that Europe defines 'rightness' in its policies as "whatever the US is against" and vice versa.

Have I missed something? Do tell.

In that comment I am quoting from, you ended with the invocation that you had had "enough" and that we know your position.

This is true Anders, we know yours. It is insulated and repeated and harmonized with and reinforced in a veritable orchestra all the time. We know it well.

Do we (the 'herd') know all we need to know then... according to you?

Is that what you stand for?

It seems so Anders. And every post you have had on this thread and elsewhere reinforces it.

Alas... its unsustainable.

KM

Incidentally, speaking of opinion pieces... here's a link to one in a bastion of Conservatism, Townhall.com, written by a well known conservative "Europhile" of sorts. It may be related to the clear though sad need for the kinds of concerned actions that the ESAG ads represent. It is a short and interesting read in any case.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/suzannefields/sf20041007.shtml

Cheers,

KM

Once again I only understand parts of your post Kevin. I try my best...but I can't. I did read it. (Since you sometimes accuse people of not doing that.)

I am not very sad that you don't have much time to discuss, since you never truly discuss. You normally just tell those who disagree with you that they are inable of discussing. And you do so in a time-consuming imprecise way. Let me quote you: "And every post you have had on this thread and elsewhere reinforces it."

For internal inconsistencies and paradoxes I smilingly acknowledge that your defense speech for the secretive non-debating group ESAG is mainly (or shall we say allegedly) about......
open discourse!!!!
I think that's fantastic :-)

Ok Anders,

I'll engage. Please do your best to answer my post if you want to have a discourse. I reread it, it seems quite comprehensible by someone with as good a command of English as yourself. Seriously, thats a technical compliment.

When I said that "every post you have had on this thread and elsewhere reinforces it.", I meant it simply as that. You and I disagree fundamentally to the extent that I think you have become a professional apologist for a state of affairs that you know both exists, and is wrong. If I am mistaken about whether you think it is wrong, and you can justify your position on that level, feel free to do so. I challenged you on the basis of your objections to the ads on their face, and I posit that they are ideological objections. Period and full stop. I hope this is clearer. I think it is quite clear in the post above as well.

Your comparison to the idea that the ads are an example of an "unfree" discourse, because they reflect a coherent perspective, is a logical fallacy of the first order. In that context everything that NRK does, or indeed every position you take is "unfree"... based on the fact that it was concocted by a "non-debating group". What an interesting proposition! In fact, your "smiling acknowledgement" must have been ironic, as that "dark secrecy" you intimate to, would be much more applicable to NRK in the PFU thread, ikke sant?

In any case, I think (and mind you, this is merely my opinion) that you understood my above post very well.

Cheers,

KM

Kevin: You did point to a clear fallacy in my post. There was one sentence missing from my argument.
Let my try to clear up things. ESAG want to inform people about terrorism. But I believe that they are more interested in action of European governments in accordance with the American policy on Anti-terror. That's my point.

This is suggested through the following:
1.Never a negative word on the U.S. or Israel as regards counterterrorism. (Is everything perfect there?? If not why leave it out, when it's a sure way of getting us stubborn narrow-minded Europeans to listen???)
2. Accusing Europeans in general, and the EU more specifically for not taking terrorism seriously and not combatting it with enough force
(Factually wrong in my opinion. More true, however, if we say Military force)
3. The fact that Denmark and England with their policy leaning towards the American are left out of the ads. Why are all their surrounding neighbours less supportive of U.S. counterterror policy is in. (Denmark & England are in the box, they contribute forces to Iraq)

Iraq is important because in the first wave of ads, one was clearly focused on Iraq. (A link not supported by Europe, Iraq was not, but later became, a front in the War on Terror) And how everyone had to engage there.

I'll also grant you that I normally understand the general direction of your comments. However, from the point where you say : "From the perspective you hold of a free society" and a couple of paragraphs following that I lose sight of your argument...truly.

To those who want more nuance into the positions of the EU and the U.S. in counterterror policies.
I challenge you to name regions of importance that have policies not fitting in either camp. And establish a middle ground.
(Skip Middle East where some countries have no policy, or simply close their eyes to terrorism)
BTW such closing of eyes does not legitimize WAR!

I'm in a squeeze with dead-lines at work, so I might have to dodge long counter arguments. For that I apologize.

Anders,

In your reply you restated your position, and that your "real" objection was that "they are more interested in action of European governments in accordance with the American policy on Anti-terror."

And so? Perhaps you should read the above post once more.

Yes, they are interested in speaking on behalf of the American policy. Indeed, they are trying to defend it in the only means open to them because of the collective-subjective obstinacy you just displayed. To wit: Is such a prospect verboten for them? Is it necessary to 'protect' the discourse from their ideas?

You further reinforce then, the "validity" of this position by what amounts to virtual non-sequiturs.

First you object to their statements because they do not speak negatively about the US and Israel regarding terrorism.

So, it is inherently invalid to agree with this policy then? And there are ethical constraints to attempt to publicly profer even the idea that this policy might be a worthy cause? Ending on sarcastic reference to "narrow minded Europeans" was tragically ironic.

Then you object to their suggestion that Europe, and specifically the EU, are cynically averting their gaze from an existential crisis bound to a murderously evil ideology, and simultaneously internalizing the nihilism it represents... as is usually the case when appeasement becomes the mainfestation of collective malaise. Ok... so you didn't say they said that. I said that... with my point being that its opposition to the "dominant view" is even more direct then you suggested. Am I wrong? Is what I've said so dangerous that even entertaining the discussion publicly should be proscribed?

Consider... how very close you are to what I am saying.

You also point out the most self evidently obvious, which has already been addressed to you by Bjørn, but it seems to have been lost on you. I am quite certain that this is not for lack of ability... but based on the fact that ideology "thinks" for you in such matters. In any case, the reason that the ads are not running in Denmark or England... is that there they actually openly address these questions in the public forum. Mind you, the level of intellectual intolerance by the "mainstream" academia-media caste is high there as well... bound as it is to the same ideas... but it is not completely dominant.
Now, as to whether there is a more open discourse there because of the policies of the state, or whether there are these policies of the state because they have been enabled by the discourse... WELL! now THAT... would be a good question to answer!

Finally, you point out that they had the audacity to make their focus about Iraq and you dutifully point out in almost surreal intellectual arrogance, that the Iraq link is "not supported by Europe".

When did you come to speak for Europe Anders?

One devastating concern in the minds of those sponsoring the ads I'm quite sure, is that the opinions of all too many Europeans is the result of a very unfree and oppressive conformity across the length and breadth of European media and intellectual elite.

Yet even beyond that is not Bjørn for example, a member of "Europe"? Is it simply not valid for anyone to make the "Iraq Link"?

Allow me to make it again! Iraq is THE link in the War on Terror, because the only remedy that can possibly address this creeping nihilism and murderous ideology, is Liberty. It has come that far, and it is time to decide if Liberty stands for something. The expansion of FREEDOM to people in the places where now there is only rampant oppression casting long shadows where the most base and vulgar impulses, give way to ideology anchored in pure hatred, is the only way to excise this cancer. We protect ourselves in the free world by doing so, not in spite of but BECUASE we offer a remedy to those beneath its bane now. On the one hand confronting it face to face for what it is, and with the other hand, forcing it into the light that only a free people can create. This is the ONLY way to win the so called War on Terror.

I could be right. Maybe it should even be discussed.

One more thing I want to make a point of, in the hopes that upon rereading it, something will click.

You end with:
"To those who want more nuance into the positions of the EU and the U.S. in counterterror policies. I challenge you to name regions of importance that have policies not fitting in either camp. And establish a middle ground."

Dude... you just won't get it, will you?

There, I've engaged... and it has dogged my weekend. Free speech hurts.

KM

Anders,

In the interest of clarity, I've recomposed that part of my post that was difficult to discern.

-----

Here is information for you: These ads are NOT about "getting people to accept the American style of combatting terrorism". Do you think that people are so weak minded... or are the the relentlessly restated but never challenged ideas that presently dominate, so inherently weak... that this could even be so? Based on the perspective you hold of a free and just society, Is that where your fears over the ads lies?

In any case, the ads, while not about "getting people to accept" anything, they certainly ARE about exposing people to the ideas that have been the true source for the American policy towards terror. This is information that many Americans who travel and/or live here can empirically see is quite conspicuously absent from the discourse here. (Unless you include the highly controlled forums such ideas can be dissected, deconstructed and inverted until everything having to do with those ideas can be simply "dismissed" by any "right thinking" person.)

You continuously argue here (and that must be a very different experience in this forum, which IS free and open... than it is in the field of media "punditry", I'm quite certain.) as though this self evident fact is somehow absurd in such a freethinking paradise (everyone knows that!), which Anders my friend, is truly absurd.

The alternative would have to be that Europe defines 'rightness' in its policies as "whatever the US is against" and vice versa... and I reject such a premise as simply impossible in such a nuanced and sophisticated intellectual culture.

Is this clear?

You ended your post by declaring that you had had "enough" and that we know your position anyway.

To which I agree. We know your position very well indeed as it is in full alignment with the very same message that is repeated and reinforced relentlessly in a veritable orchestra of tunes. We know it well.

Do we (the 'herd') know all we need to know then... according to you?

Is that idea what you stand for?

It seems so Anders. And every post you have had on this thread and elsewhere reinforces it.

Alas... its unsustainable.

I hope that was clearer.

KM

"surreal intellectual arrogance"

I'm not sure if I'm the one suffering from this. I have read your stuff. I don't have time to fully respond to such long entries.

Speaking for Europe.. Check opinion polls and see what the populations of Europe generally feel about the war in Iraq....and what most of them except for the UK felt when the war started. (It took them some time to realize what you will never admit untill there's just a hole of scorched earth between Euphrates and Tigris) Your mind is locked.

Europeans speak for themselves. I don't speak for Europe. Just as you don't speak for America or Bjørn speaks for ESAG. (Although all of us sometimes may sound as if we do) Those opinion polls is Europe "speaking". Your free open discourse seems to imply that democratic regimes should enter wars their populations reject. It's probably the same notion of democracy that is enforced in Iraq at the point of a gun.

>> CB, Maryland The police powers that European governments are using for their much-lauded internal police investigations are probably not too far removed from the PATRIOT Act

Well put! I haven't found anything in the Patriot act which 'violates' our rights.

>> Uh, you without name: @ allan- you say "the Italian mafia has not promoted a jihad against america's people." Where did I say that?

Allan, you made a direct comparison between terrorism and organized crime. By saying that the US reaction to terrorism is like invading Italy to get the mafia, you are saying that the proper response to terrorism is police action. We tried that during the Clinton years, and we got 93 WTC, Cole, OK City, TWA 800, Embassies in Africa, Somalia. Prior to Clinton, terrorism was always considered to be a clear and present danger when sponsored by a state. In fact, without state sponsorship, it could be handled by law enforcement, if there was a world police force. However, with state sponsorship, it threatens the heart of civilization. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya were well known to be major terrorist sponsors. When a state sponsors terrorism, it's an act of war. Because of US action, Libya, Afghanistan & Iraq are no longer on the list.

>> "police action" is so absurd it borders on insanity" And this is insane, because?

Because it would be like asking Japan in 1941 to extradite the criminals who attacked Pearl Harbor.

Gunnar:
"Allan, you made a direct comparison between terrorism and organized crime. By saying that the US reaction to terrorism is like invading Italy to get the mafia, you are saying that the proper response to terrorism is police action. We tried that during the Clinton years, and we got 93 WTC, Cole, OK City, TWA 800, Embassies in Africa, Somalia"
Perhaps you did not try hard enough, secondly: It was no proof found that Saddam had contact with al-qaeda, they actually said it was highly unlikely he had contact with them.. And its Al-Qaeda you're going after, right?
And btw: OK City was a US homegrown terrorist organisation as far as I can recall, you cant suggest US do something else about that than to use police force?

"Well put! I haven't found anything in the Patriot act which 'violates' our rights"
How come you write 'violates' like this? is it because they actually violates you rights?
You know putting words in marks like this make them sound sarcastic, thus having the opposite meaning? Anyways, you dont think it is a righ to have an attorney? You think it is fair that the government can keep you in prison for as long as they like based on suspicions?

>> "police action" is so absurd it borders on insanity" And this is insane, because?
-Because it would be like asking Japan in 1941 to extradite the criminals who attacked Pearl Harbor"

And the US response was to nuke Japan. If the similarities are so obvious, how come the response is so different?

>> It was no proof found that Saddam had contact with al-qaeda, they actually said it was highly unlikely he had contact with them..

Perhaps you're reading bias news. I have read numerous articles detailing a lot of contacts and links between Al Queda and Iraq. The full picture is still emerging, but it looks like Bin Laden was expelled from the Sudan flat broke, with terrorist fighters declining rapidly. He then met with the Iraqis, and suddenly, Bin Laden was able to buy a country (probably through the Oil-For-Food program). After that, Bin Laden speeches started to include positive references to Iraq. Iraqi agents went to Afghanistan to meet with him. Iraq provided money and training. Clinton blew up a vx nerve factory in the Sudan, when the owner (bin laden was living on site), went to Iraq to get training from Iraqi scientists. Iraqi agents have been arrested in the US, one just a few months ago. The masterminds of the 93 WTC had iraqi passports, and identities taken from dead Kuwaities during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. Iraq tried to assasinate the US president, and shoot down US planes, both acts of War. We now have 42 pages of iraqi intelligence documents that directly ties them to terrorists groups. More directly, it's very likely that the 9/11 terrorists were trained at Salmon Pak, and Iraqi terrorist training facility with a Boeing 707, where foreign fighters were trained by Iraqis on how to take over airplanes.

>> And its Al-Qaeda you're going after, right?

No, it's anyone who threatens the US in a serious way. Besides, Al-Qaeda is not an organization, but a loose association of like minded individuals and groups.

>> And btw: OK City was a US homegrown terrorist organisation as far as I can recall, you cant suggest US do something else about that than to use police force?

Actually, you should read Jayna Davis's book about it. She was an investigative reporter in OK city, and one of the first on the scene. When things didn't match what she saw and knew, she started investigating. She found strong evidence of a mid-east connection, most likely an Iraqi operation. They have found plans to use local operatives, this building was listed in a list of terrorist targets. After being executed, McVeigh's lawyer strongly implied that there were other more sinister conspirators.

>> How come you write 'violates' like this? is it because they actually violates you rights?

Not being sarcastic, merely quoting the word used previously.

>> Anyways, you dont think it is a righ to have an attorney? You think it is fair that the government can keep you in prison for as long as they like based on suspicions?

First of all, the patriot act didn't allow the above. It's just the default. The above cannot possibly happen to a US citizen, despite the propoganda you have heard. US Constitutional rights cannot possibly be used to protect non-citizens engaged in enemy comabative action against the US. If so, prisoners of war could sue, which is ridiculous.

The only part of the patriot act which has been changed is from a ruling that increases the burden on prosecturs before they can get sensitive financial information from companies. Sounds good to me, checks and balance is our way.

>> "police action" is so absurd it borders on insanity" And this is insane, because?
-Because it would be like asking Japan in 1941 to extradite the criminals who attacked Pearl Harbor"

And the US response was to nuke Japan. If the similarities are so obvious, how come the response is so different?

They aren't. One is a conventional war, and this war is unconventional, but every war is dramatically different from the last. Our immediate response was not to nuke Japan, but to fight in Europe. In both cases, the US looked at the big picture, and decided to fight the whole fight. In WW2, the US fought all forms of fascism. And now, the US is fighting a global war against terrorism. You may only hear about Iraq, but the reality is that there have been anti-terror operations in 102 countries. To be more precise, the US is still fighting fascists, Islamo-Fascists. Since the baath party is a nazi party, and Saddam had portraits of Hitler, it's amazing that people have a hard time considering him dangerous and evil. In a real sense, the west is more threatened now that at anytime before. German Nazis didn't have WMD, the soviets did, but they were rational. Now, who knows.

Gunnar,

I have read numerous articles detailing a lot of contacts and links between Al Queda and Iraq.

Since neither George W Bush or any his people have provided detatiled documented evidence of links with Al qaeda you would need to produce your sources for this claim to have any credibility at all. Surely if they had that information they would be hammering it out 24/7 during the election campaign. As it is they are very much on the defensive on this issue.

The right wing in America have track record of spreading misinformation and downright lies to further their interests (see FReeper). They lack integrity and believe that in poltics the ends justify the means. For this reason alone one has to discount totally any statement like I have read numerous articles that is both controversial and supportive of a right wing poltical agenda.

(The same of course goes for left wing conspiracy theories -- no documentation = no credibility)

No, it's anyone who threatens the US in a serious way

A useful article in todays Guardian on this question entitled "The making of the terror myth" -- UK experience but the parallels with the US are self evident:

http://tinyurl.com/6jgru

First of all, the patriot act didn't allow the above. It's just the default.

The Patriot Act has to be seen in the context of a wider policy initiative that gives sweeping powers to the US authoriities. The working principle applied across the board is that when it comes to the "War on Terrorism" the normal standards of justice in western democracies no longer apply. Once a individual becomes a "Terrorist" suspect they effectively lose their civil rights, become "Enemy combatents" and can be detained without trial and punished summarily anywhere in the world.

The obvious potential for these powers to be used to suppress dissent hardly need to be stated. (Define a Terrorist).

The fact that these powers have not yet been used on in this way on a massive scale does not detract from their from their scope or the degree to which they rewrite the standards of justice we have come to take for granted in Western society. (I would draw attention to the FBI operation in London this week that closed down a number of radical independent media web-sites)

>> Since neither George W Bush or any his people have provided detatiled documented evidence of links with Al qaeda you would need to produce your sources for this claim to have any credibility at all. Surely if they had that information they would be hammering it out 24/7 during the election campaign. As it is they are very much on the defensive on this issue.

You are wrong on multiple different levels. First, there is the logic fallacy. 1) Imagine if a district attorney, instead of executing a surprise search warrant were to announce 3 months in advance that he was going to search a suspected drug dealers house. And everyday, in the newspapers, the DA increases the threats to come search. When the search finally takes place, they find no drugs. Only a complete idiot would conclude that the drug dealer didn't have drugs, based on the fact that none were found. Especially since the biological and chemical WMD can be hidden in a garage, and Iraq is the size of California.

2) Your premise is that Bush would benefit from the discovery that Saddamm had WMD. Consider his political situation. What position do you think he would rather be in: a) darn, we thought he had WMD, but we were wrong, but look, we saved the Iraqi people from a madman or b) He did have WMD, but he managed to transfer them to the terrorists and Syria before we could stop him. In scenario B, suddenly Kerry could effectively argue that Bush failed to protect America. In reality, no could have done better, given the long and drawn out UN debates/inspector mess, but clearly, scenario A is a better political argument.

3) There is plenty of info to see that Iraq was indeed a big threat. For example, Salmon Pak. Duelfer said it was a terrorist training facility. One would have to be very thick to be unable to connect a facility to train terrorists to take over airplanes and 9/11.

If you are a careful observer, you'll note that entities that Bush has control over are the ones who discount the WMD. They make sure that there is a big head-line that there were no WMD in Iraq, and say the opposite in the details. Read the reports. On several occassions, WMD have been found, and then quickly discounted.

For example, Zarqawi definitely tried to execute a WMD attack on the Jordanians that would have killed 80k people.

What's easier to believe, that the entire world was wrong, including every intelligence service, Saddam himself, his top henchman, and everyone who defected from Iraq, or maybe, just maybe he had them. If he didn't why wouldn't he prove it, in order to get sanctions lifted, and avoid a US invasion? Why would he shoot some of the scientists involved?

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670120
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock040303.asp
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm
http://www.cnsnews.com/specialreports.asp

----------------------------
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Sunday, Sept. 26, 2004 4:03 p.m. EDT
Ex-CENTCOM No. 2: Intel Showed Iraq Smuggled Out WMDs

Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong (USMC Ret.), who until last September was the No. 2 in command of the Iraq war under Gen. Tommy Franks, revealed Sunday that U.S. military intelligence had determined that weapons of mass destruction were being smuggled out of the country as the U.S. prepared to invade. "I do know for a fact that some of those weapons went into Syria, Lebanon and Iran," Gen. DeLong told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg, while discussing his new book, "Inside CENTCOM: The Unvarnished Truth About the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."
---------------------------

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\\Nation\\archive\\200410\\NAT20041011a.html

-----------------------------------------------------
Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq
Monday, May 17, 2004
FoxNews.com
-----------------------------------------

>> "War on Terrorism" the normal standards of justice in western democracies no longer apply. Once a individual becomes a "Terrorist" suspect they effectively lose their civil rights, become "Enemy combatents" and can be detained without trial and punished summarily anywhere in the world.

You seem unable to grasp that the US is not treating the word "War" as symbolic. This is not a criminal justice issue. No country has ever provided lawyers to enemy combatents in a war. Certainly, there are no US citizens that are being detained as enemy combatants.

Gunnar,

1. I don't believe the two situations are comparable. In fact one of the problems here is that they have been seen as such. The whole "world policeman" notion is flawed IMO.

You point 2 is well taken.

3. Iraq under Saddam was a threat that is true. How large a threat in comparison to others at the time is debatable.

Whether Iraq now represents an even bigger threat directly or indirectly is also debatable.

You seem unable to grasp that the US is not treating the word "War" as symbolic. This is not a criminal justice issue.

No, I understand that perfectly well. I am suggesting that they should treat it more as a criminal justice issue. IMO it is a huge mistake to declare war on an enemy that you cannot adequately define in either military or territorial terms. The civil rights issues are too far reaching.

there are no US citizens that are being detained as enemy combatants.

yet.

>> 1. I don't believe the two situations are comparable. In fact one of the problems here is that they have been seen as such. The whole "world policeman" notion is flawed IMO.

I'm just pointing out that Saddam had plenty of warning that the US was coming. So, logically, the US wouldn't find anything. It would be surprising if the US did find something. It's a complete break in logic to go from "we didn't find any -> he must not have had any", given that we gave him a big warning that we were coming.

I agree that the US isn't and shouldn't be the world's policeman.

Gunnar?

Saddam had plenty of warning that the US was coming.

A convincing a priori argument but:

Dr Kelly Senior Weapons Expert for the UK on Iraq when he gave evidence to the Intelligence and Security committee behind closed doors on July 16th 2003 indicated that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Saddam to have MOVED any of his weapons without detection.: http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/isc/isc_1_0003to0035.pdf "Hutton Enquiry>

oops -- sorry for that duff link: heres the URL:

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/isc/isc_1_0003to0035.pdf

--US is not treating the word "War" as symbolic. This is not a criminal justice issue

>> No, I understand that perfectly well. I am suggesting that they should treat it more as a criminal justice issue. IMO it is a huge mistake to declare war on an enemy that you cannot adequately define in either military or territorial terms.

It was the Red Chinese who concluded that the west could not be beaten by conventional means, only by non-conventional means. They wrote a big report on it, and copies of it have been found in terrorists hands.

What you are saying is that if someone chooses to fight us with unconventional means, we have no choice but to surrender? If they stay outside the 12 mile limit, and shoot down airliners with missiles, our only choice is to hope they make the mistake of venturing on shore so that the FBI can arrest them?

This is not a criminal justice issue, since this is outside US jurisdiction. They operate globally, and have weapons/methods that greatly threaten us (perhaps more so than Japan or Germany ever did)

>> Gunnar?

Yes, that was me.

>> Saddam had plenty of warning that the US was coming. A convincing a priori argument but:

How is it a priori?

>> Dr Kelly Senior Weapons Expert for the UK on Iraq when he gave evidence to the Intelligence and Security committee behind closed doors on July 16th 2003 indicated that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Saddam to have MOVED any of his weapons without detection.

I read through that, and it didn't seem to say anything like that. How could anyone claim that it was --impossible-- to move the WMD? It's so possible and probable, it's isn't funny. Al-qaeda has a fleet of 20 ships. They could have been loaded onto one of the ships. Zarqawi attempted to use them against the Jordanians.

>> An equally convincing hypothesis is that the US deliberately set this hare running to start making a case to invade Syria.

Hardly convincing. What a strange viewpoint. Why?

What you are saying is that if someone chooses to fight us with unconventional means, we have no choice but to surrender?

Where did I say that? This is one of the most egregious straw men I have seen in a long time -- laughable really.

I will try to explain using an analogy: the smart cop and the dumb cop.

The smart cop goes into the hostile neighbourhood talks to people makes friends here strikes alliances there. Most of all he earns the respect of the community. Out of that he can isolate the really bad guys arrest them and put them in jail.

The dumb cop goes in with his heaviest artillary busting heads smashing up houses and pulling in people more or less at random. Pretty soon he has the whole community against him. The really bad guys love this because now nobody is going to turn them in.

This is what America is doing on a global basis by declaring its "War on Terror" and if the situation isn't turned around pretty damned soon this is going to prove itself to be possibly the biggest blunder ever in world history.

Me: What you are saying is that if someone chooses to fight us with unconventional means, we have no choice but to surrender?

you: Where did I say that?

You implied this conclusion, by saying that the terrorists attacks on us should be treated as a criminal justice issue (btw, we tried in the 90s, and it failed):

You: I am suggesting that they should treat it more as a criminal justice issue. IMO it is a huge mistake to declare war on an enemy that you cannot adequately define in either military or territorial terms.

So, you concede defeat.

>> I will try to explain using an analogy: the smart cop and the dumb cop.

The evidence is that we're following the good cop path. Your view is that the US is the bad cop, but that's just wishful thinking on your part, and doesn't match reality. Read "how bush is winning the war on terror". The author started with a view negative towards bush, but research changed his mind.

You implied this conclusion,

according your logic but certainly not mine or a that of a great many other people.

The evidence is that we're following the good cop path.

No the evidence is the precise and exact opposite.

So, you concede defeat.

I concede defeat in being able to have a sensible conversation with you.

Hello there, i'm seeking for info on ESAG which is why i'm here.
I'm french and exhausted thus please forgive me my poor english ;)

@ Pato, Venice, USA | 2004-10-05 18:40
imho, get a life and open a book, because you are taking the way to rascism.

@Sylvia, Denver | 2004-10-07 06:23
«If you ask "Say, what about Total Elfina - the French state owned oil company involved in that oil-for-food program" The response you're most likely to get is "EnronHalliburtonBushitler" Nevermind that Kenneth Lay of Enron infamy is in jail, the Halliburton isn't an oil company - they're a heavy industry service supplier and that Dick Chaney had to divest from them long ago. Bush isn't Hitler, and no, John Ashcroft isn't goose-stepping all over my front yard. And Total Elfina is still operating with impunity.»

Can you explain me what Total-Elf-Fina have done? Maybe you have just read false rumors coming from US republicans that try to falsely explain why we have say no to go to war in Irak.

@ Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-10-07 18:50

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/suzannefields/sf20041007.shtml

«The day after Sept. 11, the Paris newspaper Le Monde famously declared that "Today we are all Americans." That reads now like a dispatch from the War of 1812. Sit down for an espresso in a sidewalk café on the Champs Elysees today and you're more likely to hear, "Today we all hate America."»
«The French have their own reasons. (Jacques Chirac habitually sneers at "le Anglo-Saxons.")»

All these words are pure lies, truly: "we were all americans" after 09/11, and we went and we are still in afghanistan to fight true terrorists, but wtf? shall we eat all the US government lies and go to Irak for no any decent reason? No. We don't hate the american people, but we don't like their current government and his foreign policy (this last since a long time), that's simple.

My opinion on the ESAG is that they are the right arm of terrorists, spreading the fear while the whole body counts due to terrorism for the last twenty years is 20000, which is 1/5 of Iraqi civilians killed since the USA are in Irak (http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf).

from ESAG:
«Most important: future generations - our children and grandchildren - are at risk.»
«Be alert and report suspicious activity»

all this stink and smell the R.Murdoch.

Best regards,
Sensi

@ Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-10-08 02:45

«Allow me to make it again! Iraq is THE link in the War on Terror, because the only remedy that can possibly address this creeping nihilism and murderous ideology, is Liberty. It has come that far, and it is time to decide if Liberty stands for something. The expansion of FREEDOM to people in the places where now there is only rampant oppression casting long shadows where the most base and vulgar impulses, give way to ideology anchored in pure hatred, is the only way to excise this cancer.»

Remember that CIA put Saddam in place in 63, as half the past dictators worldwide. With a little chance, iraqi people will have the freedom to live in a islamic republic, they will love it.
Also remember that Iraq used to have a two part parliament two thousands years ago, dunno if they have something to learn from you...
And what about Israelian oppression supported by your government? this is the start point of all muslims terrorisms... pathetic policy in short.

@ Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-10-13 22:35

« (...) »

Omg, all these articles are lies, trying to make a link between Iraq and terrorism which have never happened (if you exclude a few palestinian groups support), where have you read that? hope you don't stick at Fox news... the misinformation is even larger than i imagined it...

I can't answer at all the false things you have written Gunnar, you are thinking with in mind nothing except some misinformation as a start point, we have free news, you have propaganda: Go Europe we will welcome you. :)

Thanks for that insightful comment! It makes interesting reading, especially when I need a payday loan.

http://www.infoguerre.com/article.php?sid=820

(in french)

Nice resume of Norman Vale military life: Korean war then counter-spying in DDR & BRD Germanies, seeking for communist bunches...
Here we are: CIA propaganda?

Best regards,
Sensi

SENSI....NOW I KNOW WHO YOU REALLY ARE..EITHER YOU ARE an inveterate leftist apologist for the despicable acts of islamist terrorists or else you are mullahislamist sympathiser or an inveterate lying- thro- your teeth muslim propagandist........how DARE YOU SAY ISRAELI 'OPPRESSION' supported by the US is the starting point of muslim terrorism...how dare you... obviously you have no morals whatsoever.... Islamist terrorism started since day one millenia ago with the founding of the demonic Cult 1400 by the brigand which you call a prophet ! Islam was founded with the sword and by the sword shall it die !!!The 1400 yrs history of Islam is replete with murder,mayhem and terrorism...ask the chaldeans/assyrians, the armenians, the hindus, the various people of the mediterranean and the europeans of bygone yrs...ask the millions that have been terrorised and murdered wherever the dark and evil presence of Islam reigns...why islamists even kill each other...no honor among thieves !...all this frenzy of violence, murder and mayhem perpetuated by islam occured long before the founding of israel and the formation of the united states of america. By the way the US had had prior experience of terrorism at high seas by islamist brigand...in the early days of the United States..the early fathers of the republic had to defend their rights to free passage from harrasment from the barbary coast state islamic pirates. l million plus europeans were enslaved and terrorized by muslim brigands and pirates from the barbary coast, tunisia, morocco, algeria, libya...when one of their ambassador was confronted with this fact..he retorted that the Quran gave them the prerogative and authority to harass and kidnap infidels for ransom !

How dare you play the blame game by blaming israel and the US for your own failure and misery...if land dispute were the cause of terrorism..don't you think the poor tibetans (whose country was taken over by red China which had committed unpardonable cultural genocide against the tibetan people) would have even more cogent reason to rampage through the streets of amsterdam or stockholm, maiming and looting and shooting and beheading people to vent their anger on the complacency of the free world...how is it we do not hear of tibetans bombing all the trade centers and consulates and embassy of China and also taking chinese hostages and slitting their throats ( ironically we have muslim terrorist kidnapping chinese workers and technicians and slitting their throats and shooting them in the head etc. ) and if poverty or economic inequality were the root cause of terrorism, why do not millions of other poor and destitute people of the world take up arms and rampage through civilized societies, maiming looting and kidnapping and blowing up towers ?

Truth is- the violence, murder and mayhem of islamist terorists are merely the symptoms , the demonic force which impells members of the demonic cult of militant islam to do heinous crimes against humanity and the real God of the universe ( ilah is the arabic word for God, Allah is the appelation of the arabic god -- probably a preIslamic pagan moon God akin to Ba'al ...this is evident from the shahaddah or proclamation of faith made by all muslims

لا إله إلّا اللّه ............. و محمد هو عبده و رسوله

la ilah(i) ila Allah(u).........wa Mohammad abduh(u) wa rasooluh(u)
( the 'i' and 'u' endings are the cases of classical arabic ex. fatha, tanwin, maddha ,shaddah etc. which gives subtle meanings to the quranic texts and which can also be points of contention in translations and exegesis ..since the original quranic texts were written with the kufic script with no points inserted !!!)
there is no God (ilah-i) but Allah( specific name of the arab pagan god)........and Mohammad is his slave/servant and messenger( strange that muslims would only pay obeisance to mohammad and not to the other prophets of the olden days...how clever of mohammad to insert a clause which demands that all adherents of the creed pay exclusive attention to him and his actions. The early islamic writers like ibn ishaq paints a rather frightening picture of a cruel and inhumane man who was a brigand, deceitful and a ruthless strategist - a cult-like megalomaniac...and this is the model that all pious islamist terrorists hope to emulate !)

By the way Sensi..there is another possibility that you may well be a european muslim revert...and if so , know you , that association with this cult of death and destruction bodes ill for you and hopefully you will have the common sense ( a rare commodity these days ) and divine guidance to arouse you from the evil trance that you are in so that you do not recruit more of your gullible european compatriots to rush headlong into mayhem and perdition--- both veritable fruits of this evil cult.

Angel of Truth
Anjo de Verdade
真相天使
ملاك الحقيقة

p.s. here is an interesting site for you to ponder over :

http://aididsafar.com/

@ Kim Sook-Im,US | 2004-12-16 07:15

Lol, nice delirium for a one month and a half post single row. have a nice day.

@ Sylvia, Denver | 2004-10-06 01:59

«There is an interesting interview with Bat Ye'or in Frontpage magazine (via Rantburg.com)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15044

Basically, among other things, she says that there is a coordinated effort in Europe to promote a "Eurabia", involving the cultivation and use of anti-American and anti-semitic propaganda to further European goals.
Very interesting.»

huh, well, nice propaganda from him:
http://www.dhimmitude.org/index.php
financed by them:
http://www.jewishinternetassociation.org/

«What is the purpose of Jewish Internet Association?
Israel and the Jewish people are under attack in one of the front line battles of the war between peaceful Western nations and hostile forces that seek to destroy our civilization, our freedom and way of life. Every channel must be utilized to resist and convert others to our defense and support. In the 21st century, the Internet is one of the battlefields of that war and JIA is determined to hold the line.»

ty to them and their objectives prerogatives, in their "plot" against Israël (cf. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15044), France, once again the perfect usual suspect, is seeking since the 70's to destroy Israël, lol... is this fable not pathetic? What they will invent thereafter?
Of course there is nothing decent here, only a fanatic and unreal dream made in the unique purpose of a biased propaganda that will fill a hole in a few receptives brains (Guess where?).
Lovely attempt of a clash of religions/civilizations, with the christians that have to fight, see objectives prerogatives above, mainly all the muslims (why not? are they not all jihadists terrorists by nature and claim for the charia all the day?) at the sides of the jews... clap clap clap.
We are already in a great century, un millésime.

Best regards,
Sensi

n.b: btw Iran is the place in the muslims' countries where there is the less people in the mosques, guess why? ...Because a majority of muslims hate islamists, their wishes, their acts, their regimes. (just ask, e.g, algerians or afghans)

Hi again Sensi,

so you dismiss alternative view points as delirium...hmmm what an interesting and sly revisionist methodology... cast aspersion on your opponents and dismiss them as delirious....truth is you and your compatriots with similar leftist inclination will one day wake up to rue your mistake of ignoring the warning signs of islamization of france---- kindly read the following article..you may find it 'comment dit-on ' un peu " delirious " ha ha :

--->http://www.meforum.org/article/338

Ange de la verite
angel of truth
真相天使

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1436