I was in a poker game last night when the subject turned to the cancellation of flights from Britain to the US on security grounds. One player at the table, whom I shall call 'the bystander' said 'This is all happening because we went along with George Bush's war'. I spluttered, but managed to be polite enough to limit my comments to 'That's total bollocks'. So astonished was I to hear this defeatist talk from someone who wasn't French, that I totally failed to give the correct response, which is 'So what if that's true?' The mere fact that evil people attack you for something you did doesn't make what you did wrong! If I give evidence against a paedophile and his relatives attack me, it doesn't mean that I was wrong to testify, does it?
But that wasn't the reasoning I had in mind last night. Instead I was thinking of the logical flaws in the argument. In order to believe that the UK-US flight was targeted because of our backing of the US in the war against Saddam Hussein's regime, it is also necessary to believe that countries that were opposed to the war have not been attacked by Islamic terrorists. So let's see then. Is that true?
In May 2002, a suicide attack in Karachi, Pakistan killed 11 French submarine technicians working for a company that was contracted to the Pakistani Navy. I don't recall that France has ever been an energetic supporter of George Bush. You can read about it if you Click here!
Terrorist also struck against a French oil tanker in October 2002, killing most of the crew. This was at a time when it was reasonably clear that France would not support a war against Iraq. You can read about it if you Click here!
The above story ends with a written statement from Al-Qaeda: 'We congratulate the Muslim Nation for the daring and heroic Jihad operations which our brave sons conducted in Yemen against the Christian oil tanker. By striking the oil tanker in Yemen with explosives, the attackers struck at the umbilical cord of the Christians, reminding the enemy of the bloody price they have to pay for continuing their aggression against our nation'.
No mention of France. No mention of Iraq. Just a clear mandate for the murder of Christians. Afterwards, a spokesman for the Islamic Army of Aden said: 'We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels'.
And what of other Al-Qaeda actions? In 1998, three years before the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were attacked, two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were destroyed on the same day. Only 11 Americans lost their lives, but over 200 Africans were murdered too. There is no way that the terrorists could have not expected this to happen.
And what of the Bali bombing? What was Bali's position on the Iraq conflict? I don't know and I don't care, because the man who confessed to planting the bomb used his day in court to say that the bombings had positive effects because they 'encouraged people to re-embrace religion and weakened the corrupting influence of foreign tourists'. If he instigated his attacks because of Israel, Iraq or to help the poor and needy, he certainly forgot to mention it, as you can see if you Click here!
Hundreds died on that day in a part of the world not known for being full of Americans or Jews. Islamic fascists instead saw Europeans and Australians. They saw women who dressed to please themselves and who considered themselves the equal of men. They saw people who did not worship Allah. That's what they saw and that's what they killed.
What will it take to make people like 'the bystander' realise that there is a trend of Islamic fascism that just wants to kill us? In recent months, Al-Qaeda's terrorism has focused on Islamic countries: Turkey and Saudi Arabia. I specifically recall that the Turks refused to allow the US army to enter Iraq through its border. Did that give them a 'Get out of Terrorism Free' card? No. They got bombed in Istanbul just the same.
Saudi Arabia refused to allow the US to fly from its bases to attack Iraq. Did Al-Qaeda decide to lay off attacking inside the kingdom? Certainly not! It instead blew up a residential compound that housed Arabs from other countries. These attacks may have finally woken the Saudi people to realise what is at stake. Several clerics who had previously encouraged the use of terror against the West have realised that it's backfired on their own doorstep.
You can read about this if you Click here!
Please take the time to click on some or all of these links.
I don't recall this sort of reaction with Timothy McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murray building in Oklahoma City. I don't recall people saying 'this is the inevitable consequence of expanding the federal government and was thus highly provocative to the small-government survivalist cults'.
Why should this be any different?
_ DY
at 1:33 PM GMT
Updated: Wednesday, 7 January 2004 2:43 AM GMT