Terrorism: The old is new.

BBC REPORTS :Oxford group claims Iraq spawns “new terrorism”. It’s all Bush’s fault, of course. Except when the fault is evil globalization and evil climate change, both of which have been going on for quite awhile but are usually spun as Bush’s fault too.

The BBC writes: “Its latest report said these issues were still the greatest threats, but added that the ongoing war on terror and the war in Iraq were increasing the risk of future terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11.”

Hmm…guess the intellectuals missed that 9/11 was originally planned in a Manila apartment in the 1990’s, and only delayed because the terrorist’s hot plate caused a fire, and a smart police woman suspected something going on.

The Bush doctrine, not that anyone remembers it, was not about terror, but said that countries that supported and encouraged terror would be on notice that they would be stopped. And if the UN wouldn’t do it, George and his friends would.

And we all know the result: what Dr. Krauthammer satirically calls “Bush Derangement syndrome“, using Bush as a scapegoat for all the troubles in the world.

So I find it ironic that below the fold of the BBC story, you read that the report, Beyond Terror: The Truth About the Real Threats to Our World, contained warnings about Iran, specifically that Iran should not be allowed to develop civil nuclear power.

Well, how does one stop them? The report reminds us: said any military intervention in Iran would be “disastrous”. Fine. Well, what will they do? Does this sound familiar?
Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN’s collective mind. I’m sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.
Kim Jong Il: Or else what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you… and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.

Ah yes. Only the nihilist of SouthPark have the nerve to ridicule the European belief in reason.
One is reminded of the fable about the mice, who met and passed a resolution that Cats should wear bells on their collars, so mice could be warned of their enemy. But then a small mouse asked: Yes, but who will bell the cat?

The UN of course is the one who should be enforcing their laws against nuclear weapons proliferation.

Whoops.
Guess who’s leading the latest UN disarmament council? Iran and Syria...

and last week the UN Human Rights commission decided to drop all investigations concerning Iran. Membership list HERE…Yup, the list includes such pristine countries as Saudi Arabia (no freedom of religion for OFW, and women have to cover up), Cuba, and China.
Ah, but what do we make of a Pew poll that sees most people in the world saying they think countries “should be prevented from making nuclear weapons”? Indeed, not only “prevented” but “stopped” from making nuclear weapons.

The difference? In the first, “prevent”, it would mean that France and Russia would have to stop helping Iran produce “civilian” nuclear plants.
The second opinion, stop, means military action.

Ah, you say, third option: sanctions.
Well, the dirty little secret is that sanctions don’t work. Sanctions didn’t stop Japan in 1939: indeed, the Japanese defended their attack on Manila and Pearl Harbor by blaming the sanctions that prevented them from getting oil and rubber from the East Indies. Since then, sanctions merely “worked” on one country: South Africa, and that was because, despite all the demonization, the partially democratic government did care about their people. But sanctions don’t work with dictators who prefer to stay in power even if their own people suffer. Look at Cuba, look at Iraq’s “oil for palaces program”, look at North Korea.
That leaves only the threat of war, and only the US i(and to a lesser extend Israel) are capable of that.
Ah, best of both worlds, wrote one pundit. Europe can support military action to stop Iran, but if the US or Israel actually does anything, they can sit back and condemn the warmongers for protecting them.

But the problem of making a false reality is that reality has a sneaky way of breaking in on it.
Europe’s choice to be anti American while cutting back their own military leaves them a “paper tiger”, while the Democrat’s peace plan is unlikely to succeed in the Middle East, but may succeed in undermining Hillary’s presidential hopes when it blows up in their face.

The second problem on blaming Bush for terrorism is that a look at the headlines show a lot of problems that cannot be blamed on Bush, which is probably why you have to look hard to find the stories.
Look at today’s headlines:
A bomb left at doorstep of policeman..the third bomb found in that district this week in Northern Ireland

That conflict goes back to King Willie killing the Irish and settling thousands of Scots Protestants in the North. Nope, can’t blame Bush.

Al Qaeda Car bomb kills 30…in Algeria….in the 1990’s Islamic extremists tried to take over the government by “free” elections, i.e. where people were warned to vote for them or else. When stopped, they started a civil war with many massacres of civilians by going into villages and slitting throats, kidnapping, or bombing civilian targets. Two hundred thousand were reported killed in the “civil war” which rarely was noticed by the West…nope can’t blame Bush.

Then there is this: Car bomb hits police headquarters…in Cali, Colombia. Well, that’s nothing new: The US Embassy was hit by a car bomb back in the mid 1980’s. And that terror war has been going on since the 1950’s…with hundreds of thousands dead and displaced. Nope, can’t blame Bush…heck, can’t even blame the “war on drugs” for that one.

Indeed, the violence in the Middle East is now in the headlines, but are the death counts any worse than the recent past, when such massacres rarely made the front pages? One could point out that when Saddam Hussein massacred Kurds in the 1980’s and Shiites in the 1990’s it was ignored. Also ignored was the million soldiers killed in the Iraq Iran war, the Hama massacre by Syria, or for that matter the many massacre of civilian Kurds by Iran and Turkey.

Yet Islamicist terror, and the radical impulse to use terror as a weapon to destablize governments isn’t Islamic. It goes back to the Russian anarchists, even though nowadays such groups are more likely to be funded by drug money or money diverted from Islamic charities than the KGB.

The linkage of communist ideology with terror attacks is now forgotten, but the communists are still with us, as the recent atrocities in Nepal, India and the Philippines demonstrate.

Indeed, just today our local NPA “kidnapped” 500 civilian hostages…and the communist NPA has roots in the post WWII Huk uprising.

No one here is too excited about the kidnappings, since the NPA is only using the civilians to shield them from government attacks. That kidnapping didn’t even make the headlines at ABS-CBN, perhaps because no body thinks the NPA will kill them. You see, the NPA has become more civilized than that. Since the fall of communism and the fact that young unemployed men now have alternatives to playing Robin Hood (mainly opportunities to work overseas), the NPA have evolved into a type of Mafia, and have to live off of kickbacks and protection money and money for contract killings.

Hmmm…the Mafia goes back to the middle ages…

Nope, can’t blame Bush for that one either.

————————–

Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the rural Philippines. Her website is Finest Kind Clinic and Fishmarket. 

Be Sociable, Share!