Anti-Americanism in Europe helps al-Qaeda

#1
Anti-Americanism in Europe 'helps al-Qa'eda'
Daily Telegraph
Link
Anti-American feeling in Europe is playing into the hands of al-Qa'eda and unwittingly encouraging terrorism, Australia's foreign minister said today.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Alexander Downer urged European politicians to weigh the consequences of their words before they "leap out there and attack America".

Mr Downer gave warning that criticism of America's conduct in Iraq could – inadvertently – provide an incentive for terrorist attacks.

"People in the West, and not only in Europe, blame America for a suicide bomber in a market in Baghdad," he said.

"That only encourages more horrific behaviour. Every time there is an atrocity committed, it is implicitly America's fault, so why not commit some more atrocities and put even more pressure on America?"
advertisement

Mr Downer added: "The al-Qa'eda leadership has said on many occasions that more than 50 per cent of the battle is a battle in the media. The more you can get media denigration of America, the more that the war against terrorism is seen to be an indictment of America, the better for those who started this war."

Speaking during a visit to London, Mr Downer, who has served as Australia's foreign minister for almost 11 years, said that European critics of Washington were not aiming to help terrorists, but this could be the unintentional consequence of their words.

"It's very rude to say these people want to help al-Qa'eda. They don't. But obviously America's enemies take comfort from continual attacks on America by America's friends," he said. "Before you leap out there and vigorously attack America, think about what you're saying and the consequences of what you're saying."

Mr Downer, 55, added that populist attacks on Washington "might play well in some political constituencies in Europe, but that's no excuse".
 
#2
Random_Task said:
Anti-Americanism in Europe 'helps al-Qa'eda'
Daily Telegraph

"People in the West, and not only in Europe, blame America for a suicide bomber in a market in Baghdad," he said.
The people who commit these atrocities aren't American. How can they (the Americans) be blamed, unless it's by a PR machine already attuned to an anti-western agenda?
 
#3
Random_Task said:
he said. "Before you leap out there and vigorously attack America, think about what you're saying and the consequences of what you're saying."
And perhaps the Yanks should think twice before voting in the likes of GWB and putting up with the appointment of a muppet like Condi Rice to execute their foreign policy. But there again they did think twice didn't they? (ie. they voted for the president twice did they not?).

Downer has a large vested interest in making such statements. Let's not forget that he and his boss, together with our very own Tony Blair, fell for GWB's foreign policy hook, line and sinker. This was a political decision to be a "good ally" rather than a dispassionate evaluation of the facts. This is an attempt by one of those politicians involved in the original decision to change the debate now that it is going wrong. I expect to see a lot more of this.

Secondly, if the people of a free country like the UK cannot comment on the shambles that a blundering foreign power has generated in the last four years, what views precisely are we permitted by our politicians to express?
 
#4
toadinthehole said:
Random_Task said:
he said. "Before you leap out there and vigorously attack America, think about what you're saying and the consequences of what you're saying."
And perhaps the Yanks should think twice before voting in the likes of GWB and putting up with the appointment of a muppet like Condi Rice to execute their foreign policy. But there again they did think twice didn't they? (ie. they voted for the president twice did they not?).

Downer has a large vested interest in making such statements. Let's not forget that he and his boss, together with our very own Tony Blair, fell for GWB's foreign policy hook, line and sinker. This was a political decision to be a "good ally" rather than a dispassionate evaluation of the facts. This is an attempt by one of those politicians involved in the original decision to change the debate now that it is going wrong. I expect to see a lot more of this.

Secondly, if the people of a free country like the UK cannot comment on the shambles that a blundering foreign power has generated in the last four years, what views precisely are we permitted by our politicians to express?
Think you're fine words, 'Toad', are making it far too complicated for an Aussie politician like Downer to understand...
How about, ''stop blaming everyone else, you ARRSE-licker''
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#5
I agree with him. There are too many 'mealy mouthed' European politicians who believe that if they openly show non support for the US that this will for some reason or other, keep the terrorists away from the door and themselves in votes. At the same time, terrorists are operating within the borders of those country's where they can plan for attacks on ours.

We've made our bed so let's at least have the decency to lie in it.
 
#7
There seems to be a worldwide media process where by to express any anti American sentiment is begining to be seen if not yet an actual crime a sign of nascent criminality.
The Muslims in Europe are being warned in effect to keep their mouths shut.
If the Bush regime was getting stronger rather than weaker this pressure to be careful about expressing any criticism of the Americans would soon be being applied to the whites as well.

An natural progression from that would be the need to confirm as it were your anti, anti Americanism by praising America.
This worldwide P.R. project would like to change our culture to a point where criticizing America is looked upon as unfavourably as Holocaust denying.


But the pressure on governments in Europe to view 'anti Americanism' as a virtual crime was twofold.
First the want to stretch the definition of 'terrorist' so that it might become a crime of the mind bringing more people within liability of terrorist acts.
Secondly they wanted to conflate the Bush regime with America itself.

Fortunately for all of us in this respect the neo con project has gone so disastrously wrong that the 'Reich' they had in mind to put in place will not be lasting a thousand more days let alone a thousand more years.

'Anti Americanism' is a defensive self pitying rightist accusation that shows increasing desperation. A growing majority of people in America itself are beginning to express 'anti American' sentiments.
But of course the truth is more accurate - they are anti Bush, not anti America.'
 
#8
Really learned mr.Bush is the main helper to al-Qaeda and respected mr.Rumsfeld is the main recruiter.
 
#9
Well, if there wasn't an English speaking US, the world would be an unimaginably worse place, and we'd all be slaves under one despotic empire or another. I'm personally glad they're the only superpower....
 
#10
The Americans really do bring this sort of thing on to themselves though. Like the goon on ITV last night in Idaho, the disdain and ignorance towards the rest of the world just foments dislike and hatred. The American attitude that they are always right, never make mistakes and do not recognise International Protocols that are recognised by almost every other country, just invites it all on. Not saying it is right, just explaining why it is thus.
 
#12
No fan of the terrorists and done my bit for the 'War Against Terror!" But you have to be seriously stupid not to realize that it is the arrogant US foreign policy over the last 60 years that has fermented the hatred of all things US that feeds the terrorists.

You can't mishandle a hornets nest and that not know why you are being stung.
 
#13
4(T) said:
Well, if there wasn't an English speaking US, the world would be an unimaginably worse place, and we'd all be slaves under one despotic empire or another. I'm personally glad they're the only superpower....
If I was writing in the 1980's I would agree with you. With 20/20 hindsight it seems the Soviet Union provided a useful balance to the US and this 'competition' for hearts and minds made the US play its best hand. That time is gone and I believe this is no longer the case. With the departure of the Soviets and the assumption of the US as the sole superpower I believe that now we are faced with an prime example of the corruption that near absolute power induces. Nevertheless British institutional groupthink still appears to allow us to adopt US priorities as though they are our very own. We are soft gits.

If we really still want a truely independent voice so those like me can stop whining on ARRSE then first off we should follow the lead of the Frogs by developing our own nuclear deterrent. Then perhaps we wouldn't need to kiss so much US backside every 20 years to replace our main national firepower. We have the brains and the technology and why we choose not to is purely Brit-pathetic. There cannot be much 'real' strategic thinking going on there in Whitehall.
 
#14
Until the US psyche comes to terms with the fact that their own country was created on genocide, theft and violence and that those behaviors are neither normal or acceptable, their moral compass will be out of line with the rest of the world.

Again and again they go into other countries and try to impose their view of the world using the same methods that their country was established by and believe that this is the correct way forward.

You have to admire them though, no matter how many times they screw it up they are back for more just as soon as they can.
 
#15
western said:
Until the US psyche comes to terms with the fact that their own country was created on genocide, theft and violence and that those behaviors are neither normal or acceptable, their moral compass will be out of line with the rest of the world.

Again and again they go into other countries and try to impose their view of the world using the same methods that their country was established by and believe that this is the correct way forward.

You have to admire them though, no matter how many times they screw it up they are back for more just as soon as they can.
And in that sentence you describe an inherent weakness in overwhelming strength. The current American administration is using its hyper power status like a kid driving a Ferrari having just passed his test.
 
#16
toadinthehole said:
If I was writing in the 1980's I would agree with you. With 20/20 hindsight it seems the Soviet Union provided a useful balance to the US and this 'competition' for hearts and minds made the US play its best hand.
WTF - the Soviet Union a "useful balance"?! Have you ever been to Russia or a (ex-)communist country - or any other one-party state, for that matter? Even in their worst moments, the liberal democracy in UK/USA is unimaginably better that the situation in those benighted countries.
 
#17
I was being ironic. In simpler terms; they f%$k up time and time again but seem too dumb to try another way other than that inspired by Western films.
 
#18
4(T) said:
toadinthehole said:
WTF - the Soviet Union a "useful balance"?! Have you ever been to Russia or a (ex-)communist country - or any other one-party state, for that matter? Even in their worst moments, the liberal democracy in UK/USA is unimaginably better that the situation in those benighted countries.
The US two party, electoral college system may be better than a 'one party system', but not by much. Recent US elections have shown a system where more people can vote against the party that is finally 'elected' than for it, and any 're-counts' are selective in their results due to outside manipulation or unrealistic time constraints.

There is no 'perfect' system, and any can be open to abuse, but if I was to make a list of the top 10 most democratic systems, the US electoral college wouldn't be anywhere near it, let alone on it.

The US tell other countries that they should be democratic. The people of those countries look at the US system, how it works and it's no wonder that not all are convinced.
 
#19
America is now and has been for sometime a one party state.
It was the Republican President Eisenhower who back in the fifties coined the phrase and warned of the coming of the 'Military Industrial Complex.'

Emerging Capitalism was a useful element at one time in generating wealth and furthering the development of society.
However, allowed to grow unchecked in unwary and uncomprehending democracies it has become the tape worm that is now consuming the host.

Now instead of capitalism being a useful element in the house of democracy, democracy is now merely the brickwork that houses the power plant of capitalism.

The next election in America is going to be the first 1 BILLION DOLLAR election. No matter whether the blue team or the red team win President Joe Blogg is going to end up owing corporate America a lot of favours.
 
#20
SLRboy said:
America is now and has been for sometime a one party state.
It was the Republican President Eisenhower who back in the fifties coined the phrase and warned of the coming of the 'Military Industrial Complex.'

Emerging Capitalism was a useful element at one time in generating wealth and furthering the development of society.
However, allowed to grow unchecked in unwary and uncomprehending democracies it has become the tape worm that is now consuming the host.

Now instead of capitalism being a useful element in the house of democracy, democracy is now merely the brickwork that houses the power plant of capitalism.

The next election in America is going to be the first 1 BILLION DOLLAR election. No matter whether the blue team or the red team win President Joe Blogg is going to end up owing corporate America a lot of favours.
Very true indeed, but made even more sad by the fact that the one sat in the Oval Office owing the corporations favors may not be the one that most of the people actually voted for. And that's democracy?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads