Re: [WikiEN-l] off-topic political thread (was "More anti-US bias in Current Events")

On 27 Oct 2004, at 14:28, Ray Saintonge wrote: You bet it is: http://www.iht.com/articles/537873.html Try running around with a Kerry T-shirt in Germany. Some people will actually give you stern looks -- not because they're against Kerry, but because they've started to despise the entire U.S. during Dubya's tenure. Where I currently live (in Germany), there essentially are two opposing groups: The better informed ones (who love Kerry), and the less well informed ones (who now just hate all of the U.S., and everything about it, including the U.S. flag on Kerry T-shirts). I have yet to meet ANY Bush supporting Germans. If they exist. That's not what frightens me most. What frightens me most is the spectre of another 9/11: George Bush senior's (and Reagan's) policies sow the seeds for 9/11 and now Bush junior is committing the very same political mortal sins (only this time they're actually raised to the power of n). Al Qaeda couldn't be happier. Bush junior has guaranteed them a steady stream of new recruits for generations to come. Including recruits from countries where al Qaeda didn't previously exist, such as Iraq. Ok, considering that this story was hardly reported in the U.S. -- here's a quick recap: During the Kuwait crisis, the Bush senior administration relayed satellite photos to the Saudis. The satellite photos reportedly showed Saddam amassing troops on the Iraqi-Saudi border, supposedly on the verge of invading Saudi Arabia. The only trouble is the troops were just not there. The satellite photos were likely doctored. Even today, traces of German WWII troop movements (under "desert fox" Erich Rommel) can still be seen from space. However only 14 years later there is no such trace from Saddams army on the Iraqi-Saudi border. Also, Russian satellite photographs were made publicly available (in the U.S. only one (regional) newspaper printed them). The Russian photos showed NO Iraqi troops on said border. Nevertheless the photographs had their desired effect -- shortly afterwards, the Saudis allowed U.S. troops into their country. Granted, we don't know if Bush tricked the Saudi government with the above satellite photos. The Saudi government might have been in on the deal and might have used this together with the U.S. to sway the Saudi public's opinion. On the other hand, it's intriguing that the U.S. have only very recently (and rather silently) started withdrawing from Saudi -- and that withdrawal was AFTER the 9/11 attacks in which Saudi nationals had a hand. (Conspiracy theories may however not be warranted. Maybe the way the U.S. military is overstretched has more to do with the withdrawal.) Now, the fact that the Saudis allowed U.S. troops into their country in the early nineties -- this totally shocked and outraged an affluent Saudi, the former "Afghanistan resistance fighter" (CIA trained in that context) Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden (an extreme Islamist religious fundamentalist) had at a time been moderately pro-U.S. He had been grateful for the U.S. help in bringing the Taliban to power in Afghanistan (and kicking the Soviets out of there, which was the reason why Reagan/Bush senior were so happy to deal with, support and install the Taliban). Bin Laden became opposed to the U.S. over U.S. support of Israel's continued attacks against Palestinian civilians. Because of these Israeli attacks, bin Laden grew sympathetic to the POV of Palestinian terrorists and suicide bombers. However, his attitude and views really changed when U.S. troops entered Saudi. Bin Laden (arguably not a peaceful man before either) got totally, murderously outraged by this -- in his eyes the U.S. troop presence amounted to "infidels" desecrating Islam's holy land. And not just infidels but actual infidel soldiers! Including--gosh--WOMEN SOLDIERS!! And not through an invasion but actually ''with the consent'' of the Saudi government. Bin Laden started hating the Saudi government and the U.S. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/panorama/01/laden_clip2.ram -- Real player format). He started to openly campaign against the Saudi government and the U.S. This led to him getting ousted from Saudi (and getting denied some or most of his money at that stage). He next settled in Sudan and started to build a radical terrorist organization, both from scratch and by using and building on his existing contacts and expertise (the expertise again was in part obtained through his CIA training). Al Qaeda started to grow and operate (African U.S. embassy bombings, U.S. Cole, etc.). NB: Perhaps surprisingly al Qaeda was less funded by bin Laden's personal fortune (see above) than by individual follower's contributions. Sure, Clinton aggressively pursued bin Laden, ordered him killed and bombed bin Laden's later Afghanistan hideouts with cruise missles, but Clinton didn't manage to take him out. However, bin Laden didn't strike on U.S. soil during Clinton's watch either. Bush senior probably could not have foreseen that this particular nutcase extremist bin Laden was to turn terrorist over U.S. troops moving into Saudi. BUT he could have and should have been aware of and understood the local attitudes and sensitivities. And from that it's not rocket science to figure out that if you're royally pissing off a fair share of the local populace, then among that populace there are bound to be some nutcases who will simply flip. So while I don't think that Bush senior is personally, directly to blame for 9/11, there nevertheless is a clear connection between his administration's policies and the 9/11 attacks. With slightly more intelligent policies and slightly more truthful diplomacy I think at least bin Laden would not have mutated into the maniacal terrorist mastermind he has become and that tells me that there is a fair chance that without the events on Bush senior's watch 9/11 would not have happened. To finally come to my main point: There is little historical parallel to the extent and way Bush junior now has pissed of and continues to piss off sh*tloads of people in the Arab world. Al Qaeda recruitment is up, and that's very clearly thanks to Bush jr. This could easily have been avoided. What really frightens me then is this: As the bin Laden example has again demonstrated, mercilessly murderous terrorists have a long, long memory. Terrorism has a rather long incubation period. Worse, there is little chance of a cure once an infection has taken place. I hate to say it, but I suspect that regardless of how the election turns out, the enormity of Bush's actions has already ensured that the U.S. will see several further 9/11s. I have high hopes about the determination and skill of the current opposition to turn things around and defuse a great many future terrorist threats. But I still fear that given what the current administration has already done, the point of no return may already be past for quite a few future terrorists and it may no longer be possible to avoid all further attacks -- it may only be possible to reduce their scale and frequency. And that's only '''if''' the two Johns play their cards right. And ''if'' America dumps the current incumbent. I hate to think what'll happen if they don't. No US president has been so widely off the mark as regards world politics as the current one. -- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com PS: A quite informative bin Laden profile: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm