Being anti-war won't save you

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,4...121567,00.html

Richard Littlejohn

THERE’s no getting round it, the outcome of the Spanish election is a serious setback for the war on terror.

It would be impertinent to criticise the deeply-traumatised Spaniards for casting their votes they way they did.

Spain is a nation in shock.

But the implications of their decision will reverberate way beyond their borders.

I hesitate to call it a victory for the terrorists because they can never win. But it will give comfort to those fanatics who think the West is too soft to resist and has no stomach for a fight.

The Spanish seem to have convinced themselves that it was their country’s involvement in the war in Iraq which was somehow responsible for Thursday’s atrocity.

No one can be certain. But even if the terrorists do try to use that as some kind of justification it doesn’t mean Madrid would otherwise have been safe.

Spain has been in the frontline of the conflict between radical Islam and Western civilisation for centuries.

We are all in the frontline, whether or not we supported the invasion of Iraq. In Spain, 90 per cent were against their country taking part in the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

That means most of those killed or maimed last Thursday were anti-war. Did the maniacs who planted those bombs care? Of course not.

They don’t mind who they kill * Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, fellow Muslims, peaceniks. It’s all the same to them.

A CND badge and a Not In My Name T-shirt are no protection against a nutter with half a pound of Semtex strapped under his anorak.

A homicide bomber isn’t going to have second thoughts because the bloke sitting next to him on the Underground is reading the Guardian.

“You love life, we love death,” gloat the fanatics. There are no deals to be done with madmen who want to bomb the world back to the Stone Age.

Pulling troops out of Iraq isn’t going to make the streets of Madrid and Marbella any safer.

The outcome of the election is bad news for President Bush and even worse news for Tony Blair.

Spain’s new Socialist government will move closer to France and Germany, which will not only be a setback for the Anglo-American anti-terror coalition but also for efforts to reform the EU and weaken the Franco-German axis.

Blair should have gone to Madrid to pay his respects instead of sending Two Jags, even at the expense of our having to put up with another of his People’s Princess performances.

Whatever differences I may have with Blair, I’ve always admired his stance on terror since 9/11.

Unlike many of the pygmies posturing on the world stage, Blair grasps absolutely the gravity of the threat we face.

Terrorism has to be confronted. There can be no armistice, no negotiated settlement with Islamofascism.

The people of Spain appear to have drawn the opposite conclusion and think that if they disengage from the wider battle they will be spared.

In their ghastly circumstances, that’s understandable. But they’re wrong.

It’s also what the terrorists want. They know they will never achieve their stated ambition of Islamic world domination, so they content themselves with spreading fear and slaughtering as many infidels as possible.

Plenty of people in Britain think if we either ignore or appease the terrorists they will pack up their tents and go away.

That simply ain’t going to happen.

It was also a bad week for those who have accused Blair of exaggerating the threat of terrorism.

On the day the Madrid bombs went off, the front cover of The Spectator blared: Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Blair?

Writer Rod Liddle accused the Government of overstating the dangers we face and pointed out that since 9/11 there had been no attacks in Western Europe or the USA.

Simon Jenkins attacked Blair for scaring us half to death and concluded that the Prime Minister was “out of his depth”.

In punditry, as in comedy, timing is everything. Unlucky, lads.

As Madrid mourns, now more than ever Blair and Bush need to stand firm.

*******************

Here is one Brit who understands what we are up against. It's a shame most of the continent doesn't share his wisdom.

I went looking for info on the article writer and I found this right away:
http://www.urban75.com/Punch/littlejohn.html

Unfortunately the people of Spain have condemned every western nation to pre-election terrorist attacks.

Really? So I can look forward to some wonderful "terrorist attacks" around election time and then someone like Kerry or Bush saying stuff like "I will protect you and defend you and love you!"

SPAM.
REPORTED.
POETIC JUSTICE.

How can a response be spam?

Then I presume you think that Bin Laden will NOT attack US targets during the US election campaign?

based on:

1. You believe that Bin Laden would prefer Kerry as President.
2. You believe that attacks by Bin Laden would ensure Bush's presidency.

Therefore Bin Laden, if he does indeed give a shit who the US President is, will NOT attack the US since that would ensure Bush becomes president again.

...by your logic.

Britain, Italy, Denmark, Poland, every European nation that participated in the war with us can expect this. It's going to get bloody over there, and in addition to the terrorists, we can blame the people of Spain for thinking that these Islamist nutjobs can be appeased.

I agree with you John...
unfortunately though, the local right-wingers are to deluded to even read a book by Richard LittleJohn to realise how much rhetoric is pouring out of this guys mouth...

e.g; a part transcript of a Radio Interview between Will Self & Richard Littlejohn.
Like every typical right-winger, LittleJohn demonstartes that he cannot directly answer any questions...
instead, he prefers to detract from the debate at hand, and head straight for the personal insult's aimed at Will Self.

Is the US under the Bush administration weak - is that why Bin Laden attacked it on Sept 11th?

Bin Laden doesn't strike at weakness - if he did he wouldn't have launched a devastating attack on the world's only remaining superpower.

I think that the next attacks might come at Britain as well, but obviously for completely different reasons - because of Blair's active support for Bush's invasion of Iraq. A few days ago the Chief Inspector of the Met said exactly the same thing.

Luckily in Britain, as in much of Europe, we're very experienced at dealing with terrorism - decades of countering the terrorism of both the IRA and the Loyalist paramilitary groups has taught us.

I grew up (in England) during the 70s and the 80s always aware of the threat of terrorism - I saw cities in my country attacked with bombs, and even the frequent bomb threats and scares that resulted in city centres, railway stations etc being cleared and cordoned off. The threat of terrorism is not new to people in Europe like it is to people in America. We're used to it. The Spanish people are also used to the threat of terrorism from groups such as Eta - that's why it's so laughable for ill-informed people to claim that it was fear of terrorism that influenced the recent election there. The police and military and intelligence services in Europe have an existing network built up over decades to help defend against terrorist attacks.

That doesn't mean we're invulnerable to terrorist attacks in Europe - you can't make yourself invulnerable to terrorist attacks. The only way to deal with terrorism in the long term is to remove the situation which produces terrorism. In Northern Ireland the UK government tried the military option for years and years - it keeps a degree of terrorism at bay, but it does nothing to eradicate the problem.

The real break-throughs in Northern Ireland have happened in the past decade or so, as the military option has been scaled back, and diplomacy and torturously long & complicated talks entered into.

It's not's great for producing jingoistic slogans for half-wits, but it's been proved to be the only working solution to countering modern day terrorism.

I wonder if JLB realizes that Clinton actually assaulted Afghanistan?
And demanded Bin Laden be turned over to boot..

Yeah..that sounds like ignoring him eh?

The drone that had Osama in its sights was unarmed.

Question: why worry about Osama?

If you haven't noticed anything about America, it is that it takes no steps to prevent any potential terrorist attacks in countries outside of America, unless if it would benefit America to do any such action as that.

Even when it would help to benefit it isn't necessarily going to occur, since America often demonstrates an isolationist attitude when it pertains to the governmental activities.

At the time most, if not none of the victims due to Osama's activities had been Americans. Mainly he had concentrated on targets that would normally disrupt normal American activities.

What in the world are you talking about?

America was subjected to a supposed terrorist attack supposedly due to the AQ. Due to this America took into their own hands a hostile attack on two different countries that had no real links, and only one of which had a prominent presence of the AQ within it.
Also at a time when the economy was chugging along ehhish, a war/skirmish/conflict occured. As I was taught in my Economics class every 10-20 years a war, or something akin to a war, will occur to help stimulate the economy.
Every action taken by America was designed specifically to aide America, and not the world. America chose to attack another country when other countries did not want to see it happen, American politicians chose to ignore information and mislead the public so that they could continue attacking other countries, again against some countries wishes, and lastly America is demonstrating once again that it prefers to think only of itself by attempting to shove it's form of government down other countries throats.

America is acting like the big bully you'd see in Elementary School during Recess, standing off to the side and moving in to beat up people so they'd remember he's there and so they'd do what he wanted them to do, before returning to stand all by his lonesome again.

Allegedly attempted all of those.
It's like saying he did 9/11.
Allegedly all the way.

Terrorist organizations will say they did it just for the attention, glory or overall boost in morale within their ranks.

Actually America kills the AQ, the Afghanistan citizens, military and most probably various animals accidently caught in the line of fire.
On top of killing millions of people in Iraq, destroying Iraq's infrastructre at least once before, and attempting to throw our weight around in the general direction of other countries who don't agree with us.

If a terrorist living in a country means the country is a terrorist sponsering place, then America, Canada, France, Germany, Poland, Britain and many more countries are all guilty of being terrorist sponsers.

I'm sorry but I think I'll believe someone who's been teaching Economics for over 10 years, went to college for years, and acquired all of that crap so he could teach over you.

Freeing? Please explain how we freed them.

I guess you forgot how to read? Or is it called selective reading..?

Actually most munitions that America drops are "dumb bombs", not smart bombs...and a lot of smart bombs fail to hit their target.

Approval eh? So if they make up some fake name and say that they want to live here and we say go ahead they have the countries approval?

Try reading it again.
If you really want to learn more about it come to nearby where I live and go talk to the man who taught me.

Enslaved them?
Well let's see here..
After Saddam's removal from power:
Multiple bombings occur throughout Iraq.
American soldiers take a great deal of Iraqi civilians and place them in prisons for no reason, and for months longer than what they say they'll hold them.
A potential civil war is brewing, one that would not have occured if Saddam was in power.

Yes..we "freed" them into nothing more than chaos, death and a nightmare of a life.

1. Most of the bombings done in Iraq are by people who are targetting American soldiers, or people who are attempting to help the American soldiers, which means they wish to remove the trespassing aggressors who are still remaining in Iraq.
2. You also forgot to deal with the other things I listed which help to prove that there really is no freedom in Iraq..
3. His visiting hours would probably be when he's at work, teaching people, since he's usually dealing with his cats or wife at other times.
4. You're going to have to prove that Saddam knew that they were who they said they were, instead of someone else.
5. Cluster bombs have been dropped in the recent years. Cluster bombs are considered "dumb bombs" and can even become akin to mines if made faulty. Cluster bombs can cause a great deal of civilian deaths due to an inability to discern enemy targets from friendly targets.