You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
TERRORIST OVERREACH
2004-08-14
AL Qaeda and its affiliates are losing. They'll do their utmost to strike the United States before our elections. But even if they succeed, the effect will be the opposite of what they hope. And it won't change the fact that the terrorist beast is badly wounded. The recent wave of arrests, from Pakistan through the Middle East to Britain, stunned the terrorists and sent them crawling for ever-deeper cover. The blow against terror has been so indisputable that even our embrace-the-terrorists-with-understanding crowd stopped crying that the War on Terror's a failure (note the shift in campaign rhetoric).

But it's also a fact that this struggle is far from over. It will take at least a full generation — perhaps much longer — to rid the world of the demons who have appointed themselves as Allah's executioners. We do have some unexpected allies in this war, though: the terrorists themselves.

Counter to the made-on-campus nonsense that we can't succeed against terror, it's the terrorists who can't win. They can do horrific damage, creating scenes of slaughter among the innocent. But when it comes to employing such mega-violence, the terrorists are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. The terrorists need to stage spectacular events to convince the world of their power, to reassure their supporters of their continued viability and to draw fresh blood to the movement. Few flock to join a fugitive in a basement, but an Osama bin Laden allowed to appear triumphant — the Clinton administration's approach — is a magnet for every psychopath in the Muslim world. Yet when the terrorists do conduct dramatic attacks, they earn brief fame, but unite ever more of the world against them. Had al Qaeda and its surrogates laid low after 9/11, instead of creating strategically random carnage, they'd be in vastly better shape today.
More...
Posted by:tipper

#7  BullSpin.......
Now that's a demiMasterWord.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-08-14 7:49:59 PM  

#6  Like "bullspin"?
Posted by: Fred   2004-08-14 4:11:43 PM  

#5  I don't look at a newspaper and think "spin". The words I think are much blunter.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-08-14 1:53:29 PM  

#4  B, I hope you use gloves when you pick up the paper. You never know what's in it or where it's been. Safe surfing is the only way to go.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-08-14 10:06:36 AM  

#3  But their problem for the WAPO and other Alphabets is that anyone truly interested in following the WOT now only reads them to find out what the spinners find necessary to spin. Tell me, who here among us doesn’t pick up one of these papers and think, “let’s see how they are spinning it today”.

Oh sure, they reach voters not paying attention, which is their goal. But anyone actually following the war gets their new elsewhere and only considers the NYT and WAPo informative when things have gotten so bad for their side that they are forced to ignore it or lie.
Posted by: B   2004-08-14 9:45:08 AM  

#2  Yep, and while Ralph gets it right, the WaPo says al Qaeda's only getting more dangerous.
Posted by: AzCat   2004-08-14 1:53:19 AM  

#1  An excellent article by Ralph Peters.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2004-08-14 1:24:13 AM  

00:00