[Xugumad]

Tony, Maggie - I'll address your points separately and answer them in sequence. Apologies if I misattribute anything. I'll try to number my points as well, to make it easier to cross-reference later.

Originally posted by Undertoad
The fact that Europe's body count came largely from the Taliban and is entirely wrong would be part of the problem.

The French also believe no jet hit the Pentagon, and that they don't have an anti-semitism problem.

Mistake No 0: (I am using computer science counting methods here, starting at 0 ) 'The French' don't believe that, it was merely a conspiracy theory that came partly from France, and is generally considered to be somewhat absurd. To claim that this is true is akin to claiming that 'Americans believe that there are UFOs at Area51'. A small hardcore conspiracy-obsessed group may believe it, but that's it. Regarding the 'anti-semitism problem', I'd like further details on how you perceive it, especially regarding the considerable number of French Jews in the French Parliament and French Government. Much was made in US about Joseph Lieberman being the first Jew to potentially be the US VP, with <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Why_Lieberman_not_Kerry_was_the_right_choice_for_Gore+.shtml">some</a> sources <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/columnists/wickham/wick134.htm">claiming</a> that the choice was going to be yet another factor that would lose the Democrats virtually every southern state (and possibly some of the black vote). (Quote: "Some Democrats privately expressed concern that there would be a voter backlash against Gore for having a Jew on the Democratic ticket." Quote: "black voters "need to be suspicious" of a Jewish vice presidential candidate because Jews care more about money than anything else.") Anti-semitism is on the rise in France, as well as everywhere else in the world, including the US. Singling out France merely weakens your statements, although sweeping claims such as the one above it invalidate them to a certain extent as well.

We'll talk again when the US has had a Jewish head of state, like France has in the past.

Mistake No 1: That is not 'Europe's' body count, it was done by a professor at the University of New Hampshire.

Mistake No 2: Your link is a 'Letter to the Editor', without any further link to the AP report it indicates. (please provide it; I provided my link to the actual report reference above) It suggests that Taliban doctors exaggerated the civilian body count, as reported by, quote, "Afghan journalists." You do realize that Afghanistan had no free press under Taliban rule, thus any Afghan 'journalists' are going to be inevitably opposing the Taliban? Their reports are unverifiable, their motivation unclear. At best we have third-hand reports from second-hand sources. You can thus not claim that your one source invalidates Dr. Nathanson's report.

Even one of the most conservative sources on the matter, the Project on Defense Alternatives, which specializes in military research, <a href="http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html">concludes</a> that there were most likely at least between 1000-1300 civilian casualties, twice the 500-600 'at most' specified in the quoted AP report in the Letter to the Editor linked by you. That data was drawn solely from "Western press sources" and were "disinclined to accept on face value official Taliban reports or accounts from the Pakistani press", qualifying for the criteria mentioned in that letter. That additional report shows the lack of credibility in the source you linked, which in itself was little more than an opinion piece, concluding with a patriotic statement by G.W. Bush.

The NY Post reported earlier this year that al Queda targetted Big Ben and Parliament for destruction on 9/11, but unexpectedly flights out of Heathrow airport were grounded.

I'll give you a few blank lines for that to sink in.




I don't think it's sunk in yet.

Mistake 3: Maggie's original piece referenced London, Belgium, and Rome. In the ad absurdum section of my reply where I held that several countries would not have been attacked, I included Belgium and Rome/Italy, but omitted Britain. In fact, I later stated that Britain was the only US ally in Europe.

This is why the absurdity of her earlier statement is so transparent: the US was under attack, and the only true US ally, the only country in Europe that would provide a take-off point for US bombers for the April 1986 bombing of Libya, the only European state that will unquestioningly fall into line, and thus the only logical enemy for those targeting the US.

What will it take for Europe to collectively pull its head out of the sand? [...] Didja notice the Iraqi embassy that was taken over two days ago was in Germany?

Mistake 4: We've lived with the threat of terrorism for as long as you've been alive, Tony. I have friends who have lost relatives to IRA bombs. I have seen the RAF's effects in Germany first-hand; I've seen a man - in person - who was crippled by a terrorist assassination attempt. Please don't repeat the nonsense about Europe having its head in the sand: I've lived with terror and fear, right next door to me, for as long as I can think, and so have many others of us, in Britain, in Ireland, in Germany, in Spain, in Greece. For many of us, things have improved considerably over the 90s.

The embassy occupation was done by ostensible enemies of Saddam Hussein, wanting to hasten the attack on Iraq. Those are the types of men that Iraq will be liberated for. They didn't particularly resist arrest, by the way, mostly wanting to make a statement.

Didja notice that almost every European nation has a virulent anti-immigrant political movement gaining enormous ground?

Mistake 5: Stop watching CNN, come live in Europe for a few years, then speak again: most of that anti-immigrant rhetoric is quite soft compared to that of the Republican right in the US. Fact. The much-maligned Dutch LPF is so 'virulent', as you put it, because the immigrant Muslims are directly threatening the tolerant and enlightened Dutch society, directly opposing the legalization of drugs, moral liberty, and a variety of other modern approaches. You yourself <a href="http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?threadid=2005">questioned</a> such multiculturalism in a Cellar post recently.

Don't just blankly believe the ever-returning 'Europe is falling to the extreme right' droning overhyping, realize that most supposedly radical right-wing parties that are anywhere near government in Europe are nowhere near as radical as the Republican right. None of them seriously propose adherence to religious values, not even the 'Christian' Democrats in Germany, the party that was in power in Germany for much of the after-WW2 period. What is considered right-wing in much of Europe is at best middle-of-the-road in the US, especially seeing how European right-wingers often promote social responsibility through state-sponsored health insurance, decent unemployment benefits, etc. The only serious 'threat' was Le Pen in France, and for the French, very few seriously wanted him to win the presidential election: it was a protest vote.

The European attitude is one of detente. The devil we know is better than the devil we don't know.

Mistake 6: Sweeping generalizations about a continent with vastly diverse cultural, social, and political attitudews, when your sole information about it seems to be either from the Internet or the media, without having lived there for extended periods of time during your adult life, are a mistake. So are run-on sentences, but what the heck.

I myself mentioned in my last post that such generalizations are unwise (as I made them myself), but I tried to restrict myself to general brief observations on a specific subject, namely G.W. Bush's presidential legitimacy and the consequences thereof. As unfair as any generalized European snap judgments on one individual may be (and I am sure that they are), it is comparatively easy to conclude from the general mood in several European countries that common opinion on him is very low.

This is partly because they are MORE dependent on Arabian oil than the US. Europe gets like 2/3rds of its oil from there, the US only gets about 1 third. For all the people who shout that it's all about oil, you're right, and it's more about oil in Europe.

Mistake 7: I mentioned the US propping up of Saudi Arabia, which is much-criticized in Europe, despite Europe's dependency on Arab petrol. Moral rights and wrongs rarely depend on economic circumstances.

Meanwhile, your rant includes the notion that the only reason the US was attacked was anti-Israel or anti-semitism.

Mistake 8: No. My 'rant', as you call it (why the subliminal insult; why the need to be passive-aggressive?), mentioned that the attackers may have seen it as a reason. I did not say that it was right, it was merely seen as one (of many?) motive(s). For the record, I do not believe that it was the only reason, my own Political Science studies indicate that to some of the radical Al-Quaeda leaders, Israel's existence is just another factor, another excuse, yet another notch on the ladder of causality.

See, again, this is the rape analogy: the US was "just asking for it" by acting provocatively... being friends with the dirty Jews.

Allegations of anti-semitism are low; I explained one of the causes that made some of those attackers hate; I never specified whether it was right or wrong.

If you believe that makes the attacks "okay", well, fuck you and all the nations that the US defends through NATO. (Or did I miss that fleet of Portuguese aircraft carriers?)

Maybe you wish to shout 'without us you'd all be speaking German' at this point? I appreciate the protection of NATO, although I myself did grow up in the country with the largest standing land army in Western Europe. I never said anything about NATO, or that anything makes the attacks 'ok', you are putting words in my mouth whilst simultaneously insulting me.

I understand that this may be an emotional subject for you, but ultimately rage won't get you anywhere.

If you think it makes you immune because you seem to be gently anti-semitic, my advice to you is... at least, don't walk near the embassies!

This is patently absurd; is there any need to resort to insults because I mentioned that the US-Israel closeness was a factor?

That's why the papers print stories when the State Department gives them a nod.

I assume your German is good enough to have read the articles I specified; they come from one of Europe's most respected news weeklies. The details were quite specific.

The truth is, Europe doesn't have much we need, militarily speaking.

The Saudis have already denied US requests to invade Iraq from their soil, and the US is currently <a href="http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/18/wiraq18.xml">threatening</a> all Arab countries in the middle east, using 'be with us or against us' rhetoric. The US Ambassador to Germany has repeatedly complained about the German attitude towards the imminent attack on Iraq, repeatedly criticizing the government's refusal to stand with the US. Why all the sound and the fury if there's nothing there?

It really bugs Europe that we could just handle this one on our own.

At this point, the sweeping nature of your statements becomes absurd. As an aside, unfortunately the US <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/21/1029114137298.html">can't</a> handle the Iraqi invasion (for <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/21/1029114137295.html">whatever</a> reason)on their own.

Because the worst thing to be, on the world stage, is irrelevant.

Sometimes being wrong is worse.

(As an aside, I would appreciate it if you ceased to directly insult me or put words in my mouth. I've managed without doing so myself, I hope, and I'd like to see the same civility from you. Thanks in advance.)

Originally posted by MaggieL
And no matter how much military force EU may have as individual countries, if it can't marshal it effectively it *is* irrelevant.

Very true, I am in full agreement. The current EU move towards joint armed strike forces, with sovereignty over individual armies being ceased to a joint commanding authority is the first step in that direction. It is of course completely opposed by Britain, unwilling to cede any authority and sovereignty, and with that any pull coming from NATO and Britain's privileged role as America's European ally. So far Europe has relied on NATO, but pretty much all EMU countries are moving rapidly away from relying on NATO. The changeover will be interesting, and the US will lose all military influence in Europe, with NATO being more and more relegated to irrelevance, especially considering how Russia has been given a virtual veto right on NATO missions.

[...]are you actrually claiming there's much difference between watching CNN and reading "Time"[...]

CNN has to fight a ruthless ratings war, with Fox News etc. gaining, or winning outright. The audience for CNN and the audience who spends maybe 20 minutes reading a Time Magazine article is somewhat different, attention spans being one factor, and the desire for opinion and editorializing rather than factual information being another factor. I do agree that Time, with its comparatively shallow reporting especially regarding world politics issues (compared to The Economist in the US/UK, or Der Spiegel in Germany) is not all that far away from CNN.

X.