Truck and Barter: Terrorists continue to underestimate us

July 07, 2005

Terrorists continue to underestimate us

By Tino

This barbaric attack will not the scare British into submission or retreat, it will just solidify their resolve. These are the same heroic people who took 43.000 civilians dead during the Blitz without any dent to their willpower. Do the Islamist scum really think a few bombs will do what Hitler couldn’t do with 13 kiloton of explosives and over a million incendiary bombs? This British response still applies:

"What kind of a people do they think we are? Is it possible they do not realize that we shall never cease to persevere against them until they have been taught a lesson which they and the world will never forget?" -- Winston Churchill

Some seem to think patriotism or rallying around our leaders during times of war are signs of irrationality, an unsophisticated response from the masses to frown upon. Many also make fun of the mindset of “let’s not do X because it's what the terrorists want”, viewing it as jingoism or meaningless platitudes. I completely disagree. This is in fact the exact correct response in the game-theoretical situation we are faced with. As often the common people are more rational in their beliefs than many intellectuals:

The terrorist have their strategy clear. They know they cannot win militarily, instead they expect the west to give in due to political sensitiveness to small casualties, something they can actually achieve despite their limited resources. This is the lesson Beirut and Mogadishu taught them.

To quote Bin Laden’s declaration of war on America in 1996:

“…when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983. You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in less than 24 hours!"

"your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; hereafter vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA... [you moved]twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you.” “You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear.”

If they did not believe small casualties had large political effects on US and UK there would be no point for them to purpose the attacks. This is why Kerry exploiting the Zarqai car-bombs during the 2004 election was so horribly misguided. The bombings in themselves were costly to the terrorist and had no inherent payoff. They only had a political payoff, and that only if we chose to give them one. But this is exactly what Kerry did, I believe causing him the election. I don’t think this was on purpose, but to misunderstanding the situation. By his dovishness he made the election about signaling resolve to the world and to the terrorists.

Noble prize winner James M. Buchanan stated this perfectly:

"I support President Bush for a simple reason. A victory for Kerry would be taken as a victory for the terrorists, by both the terrorists and the rest of the world. Economic issues pale in comparison with this overriding fact."

The west also has it’s share of Bribed Traitors, spineless appeasers, and the mentally insane, all practically begging to submit to Al-Quaida. Nevertheless, the continued determination of the Australian, American and British have gone a long way showing the right stuff the Anglo-American world is made of. Again the only man worth quoting on this at this tragic moment is Churchill:

"We have not journeyed across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies, because we are made of sugar candy."

Posted at July 7, 2005 06:23 PM

Comments

The moslim world have failed to achieve any political, scientific ,economical ,cultural and/or
military success or breakthrough during the past
seven hundred years and this is called "STAGNATION" , which is the basis for envy and hate towards the industrialized and
democratic Western world ; which happens to be
mainly of Christian faith.

Bin Laden , The Muslim Brotherhood , the Wahabbies, et al will for the foreseeable future
stick to their guns and will attempt to terrorise
the Modern World at any given oppertunity , since
they´re born and live with hate and envy.

This vicious cycle will pervail until some sort
of order ( democratic or even dictatorial ) replaces the existing Muslim States who can be
more sympathatic to the outside world and thier own citizens and put a stop to terrorism.
One other possible scenario : when the oil reserves are depleted and these people are forced
to "WORK" for a living !

Meantime, the US-lead Western states must bear
the cost and through fighting or perhaps , political pressure , economic sanction ...etc
help the innocent (and ignorant) masses in this
part of the world to break this cycle of violance
and create an atmosphere of hope in the region.

Nice going Tino , Keep up the excellent work...

Comment by Khosro at July 8, 2005 06:20 AM | Permalink

Every point you have made is based on the premise that Saddam had a significant role in 9/11 and was allied with AQ. Since there is no evidence to support that I would argue that the US invasion of Iraq has played into Ben Laden's hand. Ben Laden must thank Allah every day that his enemy as stupid as George Bush.

Maybe if Bush had not pulled troops out of Afghanistan too soon he would have caught Ben Laden in Afghanistan and we could now talk about AQ in the past tense.

Comment by spencer at July 8, 2005 07:20 PM | Permalink

No, what I wrote has nothing to do with your premiss. Do you think the people that attacked London were Iraqis? Almost certainly this was done by non-Iraqis, and people who were already islamist before Iraq.

And not that it matters, but there is a lot of evidence of Saddam having ties with Al-Quadia. It would be nice if you could explain to me why Zarkawi was in Bagdad in 2002, one year before the war?

The best source is the 9/11 commission report, that says:

“Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime."

"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994."

"Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan”

Now what the commission did find is that there were no ties between *9/11* and Saddam, not terrorista and Saddam. Understand the distinction?

Bush had said over and over again that Saddam did NOT have anything to do with 9/11, but correctly pointed out that Saddam had ties with Al-quaida and other terrorists, and that the Iraqi state even had their own terrorist trained agents. *The Iraq war was not an act of revenge, but a war to prevent future terror*. Of course, the official policy of the Democrats is that America must wait and be attacked before they are permitted to react.

PS. Bush never “not pulled troops out of Afghanistan too soon”. The US never had that many soldiers in Afghanistan to start with, and actually has more now than during the invasion. In January 2002 you had 5000 soldiers there, now you have 18.000.

This is a misperception John Kerry tried to spread during the election, trusting that his voters knew nothing about military affairs and would think the US had to pull out it’s army from Afghanistan to attack Iraq.

At either case Bin-Laden almost certainly slipped though the US net in Afghanistan already in 2001 or early 2002, well before the Iraq war. I am also curious to see why you think the terrorist have not been able to attacked the US in 4 year, despite the fact that Bush ‘made them stronger’. Why settle with 50 dead in a soft target when they could get 3.000 dead in the heart of the enemy before Bush strengthened them by taking out Afghanistan and Iraq?

Comment by Tino at July 10, 2005 08:36 PM | Permalink