From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
It's the policies, stupid.

September 8, 2004 7:58 PM

Benjamin Schwarz reviews Anonymous' Imperial Hubris: "But Anonymous will draw the most fire for his cogent arguments -- contrary to both Democratic and Republican leaders who orate that Islamist terrorists hate America because of its freedom and values -- that al-Qaeda and the Islamic world hate this country because of its specific policies and actions, and that bin Laden's war against America isn't an act of rage; rather, it aims to alter those policies."

In the book, Anonymous suggests a foreign policy strategy of "tough-minded neo-isolationism," which includes a drive toward energy self-sufficiency and a "re-examination" of America's support of Israel.

Osama bin Laden, in a letter to the American people, a few weeks after 9/11: "Why are the Americans fighting a battle on behalf of the Jews? Why do they sacrifice their sons and interests for them?"

Good question.

More from the archive in Terrorism.

It's the policies, stupid. (09.08.2004)

Next Entry: Outfoxed & Uncovered -- on sale at Virgin Megastores (09.09.2004)
Previous Entry: Bush Lied, People Died -- update (09.06.2004)

Read the 16 comments.

tomaig:

Substitute "the British" or "the French" for "the Jews" and it sounds like some sort of Nazi propaganda broadcast from WWII, yet to you it's a "good question".

Imagine if New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York all declared war on Massachusetts because ....oh I don't know: Maybe the descendants of Roger Williams are still pissed about him having to leave Mass almost 400 years ago and the folks in the other states, who never really liked those arrogant Mass-holes too much to begin with, have joined the RI'ers to free the earth from the scourge that is Massachusetts. Swamp Yankee terrorists attack again and again in Salem and Plymouth because Roger Williams lived there centuries ago and the Rhode Islanders believe that these "holy" sites are being sullied by the infidels of Massachusetts.

Surrounded by enemies bent on destroying the Commonwealth and wiping any remnant of it from the face of the earth, the people of Massachusetts appeal to Texas for help.

Now, applying your logic to my fanciful example, the folks from Texas should just say "To Hell with Massachusetts...it's only those stupid Yankees getting killed anyway and after all they DID drive out poor Roger all those years ago and besides, if we help the people of Mass., the OTHER states will be mad at us." Let Massachsetts be destroyed by its enemies and overrun as long as those insane fanatics in Vermont and New Hampshire and Connecticut and New York don't come after US.

That's your idea of how thw world should work?

That's how you would treat people who, after all, just want to be left alone?

Thu Sep 9 2004 5:11 AM


dhermesc:

Same question right back at OBL, why are the Islamics spending so much blood and capital to kill the Jews? Don't they realize they could be doing something useful with their time and money (like improving their shit hole countries) if they where not spending it all in the name of Allah killing infidels?

Instead of attempting to alter Western Policy, may they should alter Eastern Policy.

Thu Sep 9 2004 6:56 AM


Anonymous:

Very upsetting that you find this "a good question." You have seriously damaged your credibility with me.

Thu Sep 9 2004 7:28 AM


Jim Gilliam:

Are none of you willing to answer the question?

Is it a moral obligation? A strategic foothold in the Middle East? A politically untouchable subject?

Thu Sep 9 2004 7:34 AM


Right Wing Robby:

The question was answered by Tomaig in the very first response. I liked the analogy he used. Let me try and clearly state exactly what he means.

The US public strongly insists on Israel’s right to exist and overwhelmingly agrees with the United States involvement in ensuring that it does. The simple fact is without US support, Israel would cease to exist.

If you don’t understand that, it’s not the explanation you lack, but an American value you lack. Osama lacks that value as well, and that’s why he asks the question. He just doesn’t get it. Apparently either do you.

Thu Sep 9 2004 8:31 AM


Jim Gilliam:

So it's a moral obligation. In effect, Israel is the 51st state.

Wouldn't the debate about Iraq and the "war on terror" be more honest if people actually mentioned that the reason we've been targeted is because of Israel? That a thousand Americans died for Israel's right to exist?

At some point, don't we have to at least talk about this? If it's not a thousand dead Americans, what is it? two thousand? ten thousand?

Look, I'm not saying we need to abandon Israel.. It's not possible to make a statement like that at this point, because no one is even discussing it. But isn't it time we challenged what our "American values" really are?

Thu Sep 9 2004 9:33 AM


Johnny Utah:

Substitute "The Germans" for "the Jews" and "The Italians" for "the Americans" and it sounds like some sort of Allied propaganda broadcast from WWII.

Propaganda aside, You really think America is supporting Israel for altruistic reasons?

Give me an "O"!

Give me an "I"!

Give me an "L"!

Now, Give me a "Destabilize the region by playing all sides against each other so that the US can impose a sphere of influence under the guise of altruistic restabilization in order to get access to the all-important black gold, Texas tea...oil that is."!

Now, applying my logic to your fanciful example, the folks from Texas should just say "We fear for our lives that one of these unstable Yankee states might collude with Soviets and that the whole region would fall into the hands of the evil empire. We should curry the favor of these states by giving them more weapons than the Russians do." Now we can't let Massachusetts be destroyed by its enemies and overrun by those insane fanatics in Vermont and New Hampshire and Connecticut and New York, so we need to give Massachusetts even more weapons. Then, while everyone is fighting and worrying about whose God will win, Texas can get all the oil. But the Soviet Union fell and Texas was left without an excuse to remain in New England. But as fate would have it, a bunch of New Yorkers flew a plane into the Alamo. Texans were scared shitless that New Englanders would blow them all up. Now Texas had no choice but to invade ...Maine, a state that had nothing to do with the Alamo. Most of the hijackers came from New York, but Texas had good friends there, so Maine would have to do. Plus, we didn't have any bases in Maine and they had alot of oil that we weren't getting.

So, to answer Osama's question, we don't give a shit about the Jews. We just use them as pawns on the chess board of geopolitical "strategery" (as W would say it).

Thu Sep 9 2004 10:14 AM


Dhermesc:

I never knew that Israel had oil for export. Maybe Utah Johnnie can show us where its at.

Thu Sep 9 2004 11:11 AM


Johnny Utah:

I never knew I said Israel had oil for export. Maybe Dhermesc can show us where I said it.

In the New England allegory, Mass. represents Israel if I'm not mistaken. Any suggestion that Israel had oil would have included a reference to Mass having oil. I don't believe I made such an assertion. I don't think I have to insult anyone's intelligence anymore by spelling the whole thing out. It was a simple mistake for someone to make. Just go back and read my post a second time, digest the content and make the connections.

This shit's chess not checkers!

Thu Sep 9 2004 12:01 PM


Anonymous:

Direct quote from Johnny:

"Johnny Utah:
Propaganda aside, You really think America is supporting Israel for altruistic reasons?

Give me an "O"!

Give me an "I"!

Give me an "L"!"

As for the assertion the US is hoping to "Destabilize the region by playing all sides against each other so that the US can impose a sphere", how far can one reach for a theory before one falls on their ass?

The entire middle east has been in a state of flux since the 1950s, I really don't think that such a far reaching plan could span so many decades and administrations without an administration announcing it as US policy. No do I believe that administration after administration would pursue this plan with so few rewards and so many failures. Its not like the war on poverty where they can turn the money into votes.

The theory that the Middle Eastern countries has been playing the two (former) super powers off against each other in attempt to become regional (or Islamic) kingpin makes much more sense. They continue to play the western powers against each other to this day. Several times the US state department has made it clear it is more then willing to accept even the most deprived dictatorships in the name of stability, as long as they stay within their own borders. Problem is in their aspiration for power the Arab countries would have long ago killed each other off in regional wars if they didn't occassionally unit to pick another fight with Isreal and commiserate in their collective agony after having ther asses kicked - again.

Stick to checkers, thinking beyond one dimesion is only confusing you.

Thu Sep 9 2004 1:28 PM


Paul:

I thought OBL's main justification for targeting America was because the U.S. had troops in the "holy land" (Saudi Arabia), not primarily because the U.S. provides monetary support to Israel?

Thu Sep 9 2004 1:54 PM


dhermesc:

Paul, you are confusing the issue, this is about Texas wanting oil from Massachusetts by declaring war on Maine because its freinds with New York.

Thu Sep 9 2004 2:20 PM


Johnny Utah:

“As for the assertion the US is hoping to "Destabilize the region by playing all sides against each other so that the US can impose a sphere [of influence]", how far can one reach for a theory before one falls on their ass?”
“The theory that the Middle Eastern countries has been playing the two (former) super powers off against each other in attempt to become regional (or Islamic) kingpin makes much more sense.”
I don’t see how you could be so quick to dismiss my theory as so far-fetched when yours uses the same logic and motivation for different people.

“The entire middle east has been in a state of flux since the 1950s”
I’m not sure, but I think the region may have had some strife before the 1950’s

"I really don't think that such a far reaching plan could span so many decades and administrations without an administration announcing it as US policy."
From a National Security Council memo (Eisenhower administration): “If we choose to combat rabid Arab nationalism and hold Persian Gulf oil by force, if necessary, a logical corollary would be to support Israel as the only strong pro-West power left in the Near East”

"Nor do I believe that administration after administration would pursue this plan with so few rewards and so many failures."
Ask Halliburton or Carlyle Group beneficiaries if they have had any rewards from instigating a sphere of influence in the Middle East. Then ask how many of those beneficiaries are/were in any US administrations.

"Its not like the war on poverty where they can turn the money into votes."
You don’t think they have exploited instability in the Middle East for votes?


Thu Sep 9 2004 2:47 PM


Johnny Utah:

"Paul, you are confusing the issue, this is about Texas wanting oil from Massachusetts by declaring war on Maine because its freinds with New York."

No! No! No! No! No!
I clarified this already. The Oil isn't coming from Massachusetts. I know my post was really subtle, but keep trying. You can do it!

Thu Sep 9 2004 2:53 PM


"First time poster, long time reader...":

Israel is first and foremost the product of Allied guilt post-WWII. The initial UN partition language is fairly explicit in this regard.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/partition.html

Over the decades and generations, whatever US guilt that has dissipated has been replaced by institutionalized and systematic pro-Israeli policy backed by the nascent and extraordinarily staunch lobbying force which makes the NRA look like girly men. It became a matter of survival for the worldwide Jewish community, evolving under the "fool us once, shame on you - and there's no freakin' way anyone is fooling us twice because we're going to organize to prevent anything like this from ever happening again" moniker. Call it zionism.
http://www.zoa.org/aboutzoa.htm

If anyone doesn't believe this theory, look at the UN GA voting record on resolutions passed regarding Israel.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/gatoc.html
Notice that out of hundreds of GA resolutions passed (only symbolic with no enforcement teeth, but notable nonetheless) there exists only 2 countries appearing in the "against" column for every resolution containing the global community's input. The US and Israel. Every time.

Good or bad, it's amazing what a group can accomplish while sharing common goals.

Thu Sep 9 2004 9:59 PM


Common sense:

We shed blood for the right for Isleal to exist. We shed blood therefore OBL must CEASE to exist. We shed blood therefore we have a covenent. Blood means men died and families morn. For a powerfull force to do nothing when evil raises it's head is MORE evil then the doer. Strong emotions cloud common sense. The best solution for this when addressing an issue is to remeber fundemental truthes and accept then reguardless of emotion. It's what 'adulthood' is.

Mon Dec 27 2004 8:39 PM


Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam

Email:







Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Last.fm Weekly Artists Chart