![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
planet earth, paging colin rubenstein
Sep. 20th, 2006 04:20 pmJesus fuck. I mean, I know opinion pieces are supposed to just be a point of view, but sometimes it just gets crazy. Today's case is Colin Rubenstein who, based on this piece in the Age, is a class A moronic fuck.
For fuck's. Bin Laden stated, clearly, many times, that his primary grievance was the US military presence in Saudi Arabia after the 91 Gulf War. And anyone who doesn't think that the current surge in Islamic terrorism isn't driven by Iraq and Palestine should put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard.
Ok. I'm officially voting Colin off the Island of Sensible Pundits. This is idiotic. The folks who planned and executed the London bombing didn't have state support. The people who planned and executed the Madrid bombing didn't have state support. The Chechens responsible for untold numbers of attacks in Moscow, ditto. Despite the bleatings of the dead-enders on the right, there WAS NO FUCKING LINK TO SADDAM from Al-Qaeda. The Taliban sheltered them, yes, but that was barely a state (and how's that going in Afghanistan, anyway? Oh, that's right - it's an ever-growing clusterfuck). The two states most responsible for funding Al Qaeda are Our Good Friends in Saudi Arabia and Our Good Friends in Pakistan. The Saudi's bestest friend in the world, James Baker III, is now leading a commission to determine how to unshit the bed in Iraq.
Contra Rubenstein, the only viable strategy is intelligent law enforcement and engagement.
Google is a bitch, isn't it Colin? Here's a piece from you, back in January 2003 - "No more talk, Saddam must go". I don't see the slightest mention of human rights, legitimate government or economic opportunity. Instead we get non-existent WMDs and non-existent links to Al Qaeda. Desperately backfilling justifications might make you look like a sleazy hack if you're not careful.
This next sentence I'm quoting is a doozy. It displays a breathtaking arrogance and unwillingness to handle the real world:
From Informed Comment, a (no doubt partial) list of a single day's death toll from this "new and positive debate":
That's a "positive debate"? On which fucking planet, you complete asswipe?
Back to Colin:
And if a pony had wings, it'd be a fucking Pegasus, and a wonder of nature.
So maybe, just maaaybe, the invasion of Iraq shouldn't have happened? And once it did, perhaps it could have been handled in a vaguely competent way. I mean, what sort of idiots pushed for this war in the first place? Oh. That's right. Idiots like Colin.
The conflict with Islamist extremism is unavoidable, despite understandable hopes that there must be another way. The only way to neutralise the threat in the longer term is to deal with the root causes of the Islamist surge in the Middle East. This is not a series of grievances, as some assert, but a system of ideas and beliefs that makes terrorism the outcome of those grievances. Those who point to Muslim grievances about Iraq or Palestine as the causes of Muslim extremist terror should remember that the September 11 attacks were planned and prepared in the late 1990s, when the United States under Bill Clinton had just orchestrated a coalition force to protect the Muslims of Kosovo from Serb ethnic cleansing, and was trying to bring about an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
For fuck's. Bin Laden stated, clearly, many times, that his primary grievance was the US military presence in Saudi Arabia after the 91 Gulf War. And anyone who doesn't think that the current surge in Islamic terrorism isn't driven by Iraq and Palestine should put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard.
The only viable strategy remains the same as it was five years ago. Eliminate state support for terror groups.
Ok. I'm officially voting Colin off the Island of Sensible Pundits. This is idiotic. The folks who planned and executed the London bombing didn't have state support. The people who planned and executed the Madrid bombing didn't have state support. The Chechens responsible for untold numbers of attacks in Moscow, ditto. Despite the bleatings of the dead-enders on the right, there WAS NO FUCKING LINK TO SADDAM from Al-Qaeda. The Taliban sheltered them, yes, but that was barely a state (and how's that going in Afghanistan, anyway? Oh, that's right - it's an ever-growing clusterfuck). The two states most responsible for funding Al Qaeda are Our Good Friends in Saudi Arabia and Our Good Friends in Pakistan. The Saudi's bestest friend in the world, James Baker III, is now leading a commission to determine how to unshit the bed in Iraq.
Contra Rubenstein, the only viable strategy is intelligent law enforcement and engagement.
Attempt to deal with the dearth of legitimate government, human rights and economic opportunity that plagues the Middle East. Despite mistakes and intelligence failures, the liberation of Iraq was justified in these terms.
Google is a bitch, isn't it Colin? Here's a piece from you, back in January 2003 - "No more talk, Saddam must go". I don't see the slightest mention of human rights, legitimate government or economic opportunity. Instead we get non-existent WMDs and non-existent links to Al Qaeda. Desperately backfilling justifications might make you look like a sleazy hack if you're not careful.
This next sentence I'm quoting is a doozy. It displays a breathtaking arrogance and unwillingness to handle the real world:
Despite its very serious problems, there is no doubt that Iraq is now part of a new and positive debate about democracy in Middle East discourse.
From Informed Comment, a (no doubt partial) list of a single day's death toll from this "new and positive debate":
Late reports said that a big bombing in the northern Turkmen city of Tal Afar killed 20 and wounded 17.
A suicide bombing at a police recruitment station in Ramadi killed 13 and wounded 10.
AP says that perpetually troubled Baqubah also saw 12 persons die in shootings and other violence. (Reuters only reported 4 of these).
14 bodies were found in Baghdad, and 4 were found in Mosul (the ones up north were all women, one tortured.)
4 persons were killed in the Shiite holy city of Karbala. What is that about? They don't have Sunnis or Kurds, so they are killing each other?
In Basra, the police officer in charge of security was assassinated.
That's a "positive debate"? On which fucking planet, you complete asswipe?
Back to Colin:
If Iraq can be stabilised, this positive influence will grow exponentially.
And if a pony had wings, it'd be a fucking Pegasus, and a wonder of nature.
The costs of abandoning Iraq now, aside from the horrors likely to be inflicted on Iraqis themselves, would be that the Islamist movement will claim credit for "defeating" the West, and be seen as the wave of the future throughout the Middle East.
So maybe, just maaaybe, the invasion of Iraq shouldn't have happened? And once it did, perhaps it could have been handled in a vaguely competent way. I mean, what sort of idiots pushed for this war in the first place? Oh. That's right. Idiots like Colin.
