Thursday, July 14, 2005

War on terror Myths I'm sick of hearing.

We (the U.S) created Bin Laden.

Nonsense, I don't base this on any third party sources, no links to websites to back up my position, this is first hand knowledge.

In the late Nineties, I worked for a company which was engaged by a member of the Saudi Royal family to do work here in the greater Boston area.

He was a prince, which is not nearly as impressive as it sounds there are tens of thousands of Saudi Princes on the loose, and as a prince he had body guards, these body guards and I as well and some of the servants would often have tea in the small guest house on the property, which was used as servants quarters, the guards were Saudi's, the servants mostly Yemeni's, all fluent in English, I liked them all, they were well mannered and very hospitable.

One day our conversation for some reason veered in the direction of Afghanistan, and the war against Russia, in which one of the bodyguards saw combat. Thinking we could have a moment of solidarity I made a statement to the effect of " we helped you guy's", the bridge between cultures promptly collapsed in to the river of good feelings with the Guard becoming visibly agitated and pointing what I assume was his trigger finger towards my face declared "we took nothing from you!"

He went on to explain that there were essentially two groups of forces fighting the Russians, the indigenous Afghan Mujahadeen, who we did supply, most notably with Stinger missiles, and an "Arab" contingent comprised of recruits from the Gulf states, like Saudi Arabia, including Bin Laden, who were solely supplied and financed by wealthy Saudi and other well to do Gulf state Arabs, like the Bin Ladens.

It was a point of pride that they did not accept money from the United States, and given their generally dim view of us, it makes perfect sense.

This ties in with another G.W.O.T myth "Osama would never cooperate with Saddam, because Saddam was a secular Muslim, and Osama was a fundamentalist."

You usually hear this myth as a corollary to the first, and for some reason those who breathe the rarefied air of the "reality based community" never really seem to realize that if Osama wouldn't take money or assistance from Saddam because he was not Muslim enough, why would he accept money and aid from the" Great Satan", who isn't Muslim at all?

unfortunately, this is a point not nearly nuanced enough for your average lefty and whatever you do don't mention the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact as an example of ideological enemies working together to their mutual benefit, they usually say " the Russians fought the Germans in the Second world war" and think they won the argument.

And don't mention any of this either The Mother of All Connections ,Stephen Hayes, The Weekly Standard.

Although Liberals have through natural selection( at least those luckily enough not to have been aborted) adapted the remarkable ability to ignore anything which conflicts their narrow, small minded world view, large amounts of facts such as contained in the above mentioned article do cause spontaneous combustion and the stench of burning dreadlocks, unwashed armpit hair and Birkenstocks is truly awful, the smell is even worse if it's a male liberal.

The latest, and equally specious myth " the war in Iraq is creating terrorists." Again this is usually found along with myth two, in the shape of "there were not any terrorists in Iraq before we invaded!" (a deeply insulted Abu Nidal could not be reached for comment.)

We heard this mantra for quite some time, it was a talking point waiting for an event and the 7/7 bombings provided the pole for this cheap floozy of logic to gyrate upon, the pathetic Washington Post exclaimed through some type of trans-Atlantic recently atomized suicide bomber mind - meld that the psycotics who murdered complete strangers who were offending the prophet by going to work in the morning were "irate" over Britain's involvement in Iraq.

You see it's very simple, fighting terrorism creates terrorism, so if you don't fight it their won't be any, until there is an attack, then you can fight it but only if everyone agrees.

The French, for some reason are vital to this formula, if they give you the nod, like Afghanistan, most likely your fighting terrorism won't result in more terrorism, unlike Iraq, where their disagreement means it most likely will.

Being simple minded, I ask the question "if these British Muslims were so irate, why didn't they blow themselves up in Iraq?"

It seems some of them had recently gone to Pakistan, and I'm sure their irritation was such that it could have easily led them to Saudi Arabia, or Syria and into Iraq, on the Syrian visa application if you check the box marked "Jihad" ( it's between bookishness and tourism) you move to the front of the line, and other British Muslims have made the trip, so why not them?

I'll concede that our invasion of Iraq is a sore spot with the Islamofascist types but is you average Muslim in the street angry enough about a blood thirsty dictator who murdered millions of his fellow Muslims to be driven to murder, and their own death by it?

There are many roads to terrorism, whether it be a madrassa in Karachi, or a Mosque in Leeds, or a middle class existence in Cairo, like Mohammed Atta, the basic building material is hate, without it nothing else is possible, and that hatred needs fuel, you need to be taught very well to be fluent enough in the language of hatred to end your own life to kill strangers, is the Iraq war a fuel to the fire yes, but someone has to light it first.

Don't take my word for it, listen to the psychopath welfare lay about who Killed Theo Van Gogh:

"I did what I did purely out my beliefs" the 27-year-old Muslim told judges after entering court clutching a Quran. "I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insultedted."

Good thing he hadn't heard about Iraq, or things could have gotten ugly.