[GospelWeb.net Globe]
Are We Safer Because Of War
On Terrorism and Al-Qaida?

By Editor/Webmaster - James Dearmore
Follow The Book & Flag

Editorial - Published - 5-23-2006 - on www.gospelweb.net and www.biblicalpatriot.net

YES, we are safer --- Undoubtedly, unequivocally and absolutely! --- We are safer because of taking the war to the enemy! We are safer because of the actions and sacrifices of the brave men and women of our military and intelligence services. Those who say otherwise are either woefully ignorant or, more likely, they have a political axe they are trying to grind -- Most of them without much success!

Getting down on our knees would not have kept us safe from the Jihadists who hated us, and eveything we stand for. The Islamo-Fascists also hate Judaism and Christianity and the whole western life style. In fact, they hate any culture or religon which is not in accord with and subservient to Islam.

(And don't try to sell me that old hairy story about the Muslims considering the Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who "share the same basic beliefs." As I have written in other editorials, this is PC and "liberal lying" gone mad.)

The Koran itself, their "holiest book," openly and in more than one place, clearly calls for the faithful Muslims to "kill the infidels" ('infidels' = non-Muslims). The Koran even goes further, and indicates the 'infidels' may be killed by trickery or treachery or by whatever means possible.

The US led war against terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other areas may have exposed us to some new dangers, but it was still the right thing to do, and is doubless the reason that there have been no more major attacks on United States soil since that of 9/11/2001.

Some liberal "ignoramuses," posit that but for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, those countries that supported the US would not now be fearing attack from al-Qaida.

Some even go so far as to postulate the idiotic view that if Britain, Spain, Poland, and other states were to withdraw their forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, this would remove the principal problems in their relations with al-Qaida. They then use this position to conclude that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the continued presence there of coalition forces, have made the countries that contributed those forces less safe.

But is this true?

It is possibly true that we have increased the ire of some Muslims and others who may now be willing to take up arms against us; and if such there are, they may be encouraged by the time which has passed without the destruction of al-Qaida.

We must assume that al-Qaida has used this time to plot further attacks and to reorganize itself after the many arrests that disrupted it.

But (as Philip Bobbitt wrote, March 20, 2004, in the British liberal newspaper, "The Guardian") it is the wrong question to ask "Are we safer now than three years ago?" Such an inquiry is a prime example of what might be called "Parmenides's fallacy" - named after the Greek philosopher who held that all change was illusion. This fallacy occurs when one tries to assess a state of affairs by measuring it against the past, as opposed to comparing it to other possible present states of affairs. (Bobbitt is author of a book, "The War Against Terror.")

The proper question is this: are we, the US and her allies, better off today than we would have been if we had not gone into Afghanistan and Iraq in order to remove the regimes there?

Are we better off today than we would have been if we had let the Taliban continue arming and sheltering al-Qaida, many of whom we killed or captured? Certainly, we are much better off for having acted, because our capture of documents and interrogation of prisoners has allowed us to prevent many attacks that would otherwise have taken place.

Are we better off than if Saddam Hussein were still in power, seeking nuclear weapons technology on the black market? That was always the key issue - not whether he was to be punished for acquiring WMD, but whether he could be removed before he actually got nuclear arms, thus making him impervious to pressure for change? Certainly - both we and the Iraqi people are vastly better off for having acted, since we know the extent of the black market trade that could have bypassed years of development and catapulted him quickly to nuclear capability!

Just notice Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, for definite indications. The reason that al-Qaida objects to the reconstruction of Afghanistan is simple. Bin Laden can no longer use it as a safe haven from which to train fighters and plan operations. If he still had his safe haven, he would NOT be less threatening, nor we more safe. That's why he is trying to compel coalition forces to leave Iraq and Afghanistan.

With respect to the demand that other coalition troops leave Iraq, there is a similar self-interest. Bin Laden doesn't want 150,000 well-armed troops in bases from where they can support pro-western governments. He and his minions are NOT defending Iraqi or Afghani freedom.

If he had his way, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other states would be subjugated and absorbed into a Talibanised theocratic empire. Iraq's occupation makes it harder for him to operate in the region.

The USA, Kenya and Tanzania were all attacked by al-Qaida before the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq.

Bali, Morocco, Turkey and Tunisia have all been attacked since, although their governments had nothing to do with supporting coalition efforts.

Al-Qaida has ambitions far beyond Afghanistan and Iraq. Just as the struggle of the Palestinians was tacked on to al-Qaida's manifestos, it is idiotic to believe that his late arrival of concern for the sovereignty of Iraq exhausts Bin Laden's plans and ambitions, or that if al-Qaida occupied Kabul and Baghdad and Jerusalem, its ambitions would be satisfied.

Bin Laden's impression of the USA was formed by our abrupt withdrawal from Lebanon. He said it persuaded him that if the US were confronted, it would run, abandoning its local allies. His propaganda stresses that the west has no stomach for conflict, a lesson he claims he learned from Beirut.

But it is clear that getting on your knees doesn't make you a more appealing society to the men who run terrorist organisations; it just makes you an easier target.

It is only a matter of time, before the atrocities of which September 11 was the first of such magnitude, will become the example for any or all groups who wish to turn the riches, technology and freedom of the west against its citizens as a means to destroy the system of representative government and civil and religious freedoms we share.

Remember the disclosure of an al-Qaida document that outlined the use of bombing to influence the Spanish elections and expressed hope that the other partners of the US-led coalition would follow if Spain were to withdraw from Iraq.

Bombing is the principal means of Islamic Terrorists of all stripes to a geopolitical result of their choice - namely, a widespread, or preferably worldwide, "Caliphate" under Islamic rule. Their "holy books" tell them it is their duty to subjugate all to "Allah."

Asymmetrical warfare, as this is generally called, is a function of our power just as it is part of our vulnerability. Its availability is only one among many flaws in the arguments of those liberal "blame everything bad on America first" ignoramuses who assert that if we had only left Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Bosnia, alone, we would be safe. - (James Dearmore, Garland, Texas (May 23, 2006).