http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005100

Stop the Moral Equivalence
Suicide-bombing and hostage-taking vs. democracy

BY GARRY KASPAROV
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
It is said that to win a battle you must be the one to choose the
battleground. Since the Abu Ghraib abuses were revealed, the battleground
has been chosen by those who would blur the lines between terrorists and
those fighting against them. The Bush administration has contributed to the
confusion with its ambiguous "war on terror." You cannot fight a word. You
need targets, you need to know what you are fighting for and against. Most
importantly you must have beliefs that enable you to distinguish friend from
foe.

While al Qaeda may not have a headquarters to bomb, there is no shortage of
visible adversaries. What is required is to name them and to take action
against them. We must also drag into the light those leaders and media who
fail to condemn acts of terror. It is not only Al Jazeera talking about
"insurgents" in Iraq, it is CNN. Many in Europe and even some in the U.S.
are trying to differentiate "legitimate" terrorism from "bad" terrorism.
Those who intentionally kill innocent civilians are terrorists, as are their
sponsors. No political agenda should be allowed to advance through terrorist
activity. We need to identify our enemy, not play with words.




The situation is worse in the Muslim world. Calling the terrorists
"militants" or "radical Islamists" presupposes the existence of moderates
willing to confront the radicals. Outside of Turkey, it is very hard to find
moderate clerics who will stand up to Islamist terrorists, even though the
majority of their victims are Muslim. In Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr has been
murdering his religious opposition and using armed gangs to establish
political rule. He appears immune to anything resembling condemnation. We
know that his militia receives outside support--and where would it come from
other than Syria and Iran?
We have seen 25 years of anti-Western propaganda and hatred emanating from
Iran, not only against Israel and the U.S. but against the liberal values
that make up the core of our civilization. The effect has been to so
polarize the Muslim world that we are left with two unappealing groups. On
one side you have those who rally support by exhortation against a common
foe: America and Israel. We may call this the Arafat model. By appearing to
be the only viable leader in Palestine he has received billions of dollars
from the European Union to prop up his corrupt organization and to fund
terrorism. Hijacking, suicide bombings, hostage-taking--this "Palestinian
know-how" has been exported throughout the region.

Leaders of this type focus the energy of an impoverished people into
fighting a sworn enemy. They realize that the free circulation of liberal
ideas would threaten their hold on power. With modern methods of
communication it is impossible to build a new Iron Curtain, so they convince
their people that they are engaged in a war against the very source of these
democratic ideals. Arafat has done this successfully for decades.

On the other side of this dual model we have dictators who present
themselves as the last bastion against religious extremists. Gen. Musharraf
in Pakistan and the Saudi royal family are supported by the U.S. and given
free reign to limit human rights because they are considered the lesser
evil. Yet the more favor they have with the U.S., the more they are hated at
home, empowering the extremist opposition. Everyone gets what they want in
the short run but it is a recipe for inevitable meltdown.

U.S. success in Iraq is essential in order to provide an alternative model.
Unlike Vietnam, there will be repercussions for global security if America
does not finish the job. This is the big picture that must stay in focus. We
are dealing with an enemy who considers the concessions and privileges of
democracy to be weaknesses. To prove them wrong we must follow through.

The Islamic public-relations offensive is focused on proving that the West
is corrupt and offers no improvement on the despots in charge throughout the
Islamic world. At the same time, Al Jazeera isn't examining Vladimir Putin's
war against Muslims in Chechnya. All of Chechnya is one big Abu Ghraib, but
the Islamic world pays scant attention to the horrible crimes there because
Mr. Putin shares their distaste for liberal democracy. The war is not about
defending Muslims; it is about Western civilization and America as its
representative.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to pursue a nuclear arsenal and the U.N.
Secretariat, France and Russia are busily covering up their involvement in
the Oil-for-Food scandal. If we are to impress the superiority of the
democratic model upon the Muslim world we must thoroughly investigate any
and all allegations of abuse and clean up our act. This goes for plush U.N.
offices as well as Iraqi prison cells.




It is a mistake to see the debate on how to deal with terrorism along
antiquated political lines. Partisan politics have played a role, but for
the most part the battle to do what is necessary to win this war has freely
crossed traditional party boundaries. One's beliefs about tax policy and
social benefits have little to do with how to deal with the terrorist threat
being generated in the Islamic world.
Every era dictates its own political divisions. In 19th century Great
Britain, the political fight centered on the Corn Laws, reform bills and
home rule for Ireland. Many of the old splits have vanished in Europe but
this new divide is both wider and more vital. Jacques Chirac on the right is
against intervention while Labour's Tony Blair is for it. The consequences
of José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero caving in after the Madrid attack have yet
to be felt, but I have no doubt that we will be facing more attacks in
Europe based on the terrorists' reading of the weakness of European leaders.

In this fight the enemy does not play by our rules, or by any rules at all.
WMD will be in terrorist hands eventually; conventional wisdom recognizes
this reality. Concessions and negotiations at best only delay catastrophe.
Europe and its people are in this war whether they acknowledge it or not.
Those who would appease terrorists must realize that by pretending that this
battle does not exist, they will soon have blood on their hands--both real
and metaphorical.

Mr. Kasparov, the world's leading chess player, is chairman of the Free
Choice 2008 Committee in Russia.

Attached Images

 

I am very interested in Kasparov's opinions on chess, not his opinions on
the war.

Please go away.

"Gunny Bunny" wrote in message
.. .
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005100

Stop the Moral Equivalence
Suicide-bombing and hostage-taking vs. democracy

BY GARRY KASPAROV
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
It is said that to win a battle you must be the one to choose the
battleground. Since the Abu Ghraib abuses were revealed, the battleground
has been chosen by those who would blur the lines between terrorists and
those fighting against them. The Bush administration has contributed to
the
confusion with its ambiguous "war on terror." You cannot fight a word. You
need targets, you need to know what you are fighting for and against. Most
importantly you must have beliefs that enable you to distinguish friend
from
foe.

While al Qaeda may not have a headquarters to bomb, there is no shortage
of
visible adversaries. What is required is to name them and to take action
against them. We must also drag into the light those leaders and media who
fail to condemn acts of terror. It is not only Al Jazeera talking about
"insurgents" in Iraq, it is CNN. Many in Europe and even some in the U.S.
are trying to differentiate "legitimate" terrorism from "bad" terrorism.
Those who intentionally kill innocent civilians are terrorists, as are
their
sponsors. No political agenda should be allowed to advance through
terrorist
activity. We need to identify our enemy, not play with words.




The situation is worse in the Muslim world. Calling the terrorists
"militants" or "radical Islamists" presupposes the existence of moderates
willing to confront the radicals. Outside of Turkey, it is very hard to
find
moderate clerics who will stand up to Islamist terrorists, even though the
majority of their victims are Muslim. In Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr has been
murdering his religious opposition and using armed gangs to establish
political rule. He appears immune to anything resembling condemnation. We
know that his militia receives outside support--and where would it come
from
other than Syria and Iran?
We have seen 25 years of anti-Western propaganda and hatred emanating from
Iran, not only against Israel and the U.S. but against the liberal values
that make up the core of our civilization. The effect has been to so
polarize the Muslim world that we are left with two unappealing groups. On
one side you have those who rally support by exhortation against a common
foe: America and Israel. We may call this the Arafat model. By appearing
to
be the only viable leader in Palestine he has received billions of dollars
from the European Union to prop up his corrupt organization and to fund
terrorism. Hijacking, suicide bombings, hostage-taking--this "Palestinian
know-how" has been exported throughout the region.

Leaders of this type focus the energy of an impoverished people into
fighting a sworn enemy. They realize that the free circulation of liberal
ideas would threaten their hold on power. With modern methods of
communication it is impossible to build a new Iron Curtain, so they
convince
their people that they are engaged in a war against the very source of
these
democratic ideals. Arafat has done this successfully for decades.

On the other side of this dual model we have dictators who present
themselves as the last bastion against religious extremists. Gen.
Musharraf
in Pakistan and the Saudi royal family are supported by the U.S. and given
free reign to limit human rights because they are considered the lesser
evil. Yet the more favor they have with the U.S., the more they are hated
at
home, empowering the extremist opposition. Everyone gets what they want in
the short run but it is a recipe for inevitable meltdown.

U.S. success in Iraq is essential in order to provide an alternative
model.
Unlike Vietnam, there will be repercussions for global security if America
does not finish the job. This is the big picture that must stay in focus.
We
are dealing with an enemy who considers the concessions and privileges of
democracy to be weaknesses. To prove them wrong we must follow through.

The Islamic public-relations offensive is focused on proving that the West
is corrupt and offers no improvement on the despots in charge throughout
the
Islamic world. At the same time, Al Jazeera isn't examining Vladimir
Putin's
war against Muslims in Chechnya. All of Chechnya is one big Abu Ghraib,
but
the Islamic world pays scant attention to the horrible crimes there
because
Mr. Putin shares their distaste for liberal democracy. The war is not
about
defending Muslims; it is about Western civilization and America as its
representative.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to pursue a nuclear arsenal and the U.N.
Secretariat, France and Russia are busily covering up their involvement in
the Oil-for-Food scandal. If we are to impress the superiority of the
democratic model upon the Muslim world we must thoroughly investigate any
and all allegations of abuse and clean up our act. This goes for plush
U.N.
offices as well as Iraqi prison cells.




It is a mistake to see the debate on how to deal with terrorism along
antiquated political lines. Partisan politics have played a role, but for
the most part the battle to do what is necessary to win this war has
freely
crossed traditional party boundaries. One's beliefs about tax policy and
social benefits have little to do with how to deal with the terrorist
threat
being generated in the Islamic world.
Every era dictates its own political divisions. In 19th century Great
Britain, the political fight centered on the Corn Laws, reform bills and
home rule for Ireland. Many of the old splits have vanished in Europe but
this new divide is both wider and more vital. Jacques Chirac on the right
is
against intervention while Labour's Tony Blair is for it. The consequences
of José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero caving in after the Madrid attack have yet
to be felt, but I have no doubt that we will be facing more attacks in
Europe based on the terrorists' reading of the weakness of European
leaders.

In this fight the enemy does not play by our rules, or by any rules at
all.
WMD will be in terrorist hands eventually; conventional wisdom recognizes
this reality. Concessions and negotiations at best only delay catastrophe.
Europe and its people are in this war whether they acknowledge it or not.
Those who would appease terrorists must realize that by pretending that
this
battle does not exist, they will soon have blood on their hands--both real
and metaphorical.

Mr. Kasparov, the world's leading chess player, is chairman of the Free
Choice 2008 Committee in Russia.

I completely disagree. The article by Garry Kasparov is very good and
I agree almost completely with it.

Sam Sloan

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 16:48:31 GMT, "Rob Hill"
wrote:

I am very interested in Kasparov's opinions on chess, not his opinions on
the war.

Please go away.

"Gunny Bunny" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005100

Stop the Moral Equivalence
Suicide-bombing and hostage-taking vs. democracy

BY GARRY KASPAROV
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
It is said that to win a battle you must be the one to choose the
battleground. Since the Abu Ghraib abuses were revealed, the battleground
has been chosen by those who would blur the lines between terrorists and
those fighting against them. The Bush administration has contributed to
the
confusion with its ambiguous "war on terror." You cannot fight a word. You
need targets, you need to know what you are fighting for and against. Most
importantly you must have beliefs that enable you to distinguish friend
from
foe.

While al Qaeda may not have a headquarters to bomb, there is no shortage
of
visible adversaries. What is required is to name them and to take action
against them. We must also drag into the light those leaders and media who
fail to condemn acts of terror. It is not only Al Jazeera talking about
"insurgents" in Iraq, it is CNN. Many in Europe and even some in the U.S.
are trying to differentiate "legitimate" terrorism from "bad" terrorism.
Those who intentionally kill innocent civilians are terrorists, as are
their
sponsors. No political agenda should be allowed to advance through
terrorist
activity. We need to identify our enemy, not play with words.




The situation is worse in the Muslim world. Calling the terrorists
"militants" or "radical Islamists" presupposes the existence of moderates
willing to confront the radicals. Outside of Turkey, it is very hard to
find
moderate clerics who will stand up to Islamist terrorists, even though the
majority of their victims are Muslim. In Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr has been
murdering his religious opposition and using armed gangs to establish
political rule. He appears immune to anything resembling condemnation. We
know that his militia receives outside support--and where would it come
from
other than Syria and Iran?
We have seen 25 years of anti-Western propaganda and hatred emanating from
Iran, not only against Israel and the U.S. but against the liberal values
that make up the core of our civilization. The effect has been to so
polarize the Muslim world that we are left with two unappealing groups. On
one side you have those who rally support by exhortation against a common
foe: America and Israel. We may call this the Arafat model. By appearing
to
be the only viable leader in Palestine he has received billions of dollars
from the European Union to prop up his corrupt organization and to fund
terrorism. Hijacking, suicide bombings, hostage-taking--this "Palestinian
know-how" has been exported throughout the region.

Leaders of this type focus the energy of an impoverished people into
fighting a sworn enemy. They realize that the free circulation of liberal
ideas would threaten their hold on power. With modern methods of
communication it is impossible to build a new Iron Curtain, so they
convince
their people that they are engaged in a war against the very source of
these
democratic ideals. Arafat has done this successfully for decades.

On the other side of this dual model we have dictators who present
themselves as the last bastion against religious extremists. Gen.
Musharraf
in Pakistan and the Saudi royal family are supported by the U.S. and given
free reign to limit human rights because they are considered the lesser
evil. Yet the more favor they have with the U.S., the more they are hated
at
home, empowering the extremist opposition. Everyone gets what they want in
the short run but it is a recipe for inevitable meltdown.

U.S. success in Iraq is essential in order to provide an alternative
model.
Unlike Vietnam, there will be repercussions for global security if America
does not finish the job. This is the big picture that must stay in focus.
We
are dealing with an enemy who considers the concessions and privileges of
democracy to be weaknesses. To prove them wrong we must follow through.

The Islamic public-relations offensive is focused on proving that the West
is corrupt and offers no improvement on the despots in charge throughout
the
Islamic world. At the same time, Al Jazeera isn't examining Vladimir
Putin's
war against Muslims in Chechnya. All of Chechnya is one big Abu Ghraib,
but
the Islamic world pays scant attention to the horrible crimes there
because
Mr. Putin shares their distaste for liberal democracy. The war is not
about
defending Muslims; it is about Western civilization and America as its
representative.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to pursue a nuclear arsenal and the U.N.
Secretariat, France and Russia are busily covering up their involvement in
the Oil-for-Food scandal. If we are to impress the superiority of the
democratic model upon the Muslim world we must thoroughly investigate any
and all allegations of abuse and clean up our act. This goes for plush
U.N.
offices as well as Iraqi prison cells.




It is a mistake to see the debate on how to deal with terrorism along
antiquated political lines. Partisan politics have played a role, but for
the most part the battle to do what is necessary to win this war has
freely
crossed traditional party boundaries. One's beliefs about tax policy and
social benefits have little to do with how to deal with the terrorist
threat
being generated in the Islamic world.
Every era dictates its own political divisions. In 19th century Great
Britain, the political fight centered on the Corn Laws, reform bills and
home rule for Ireland. Many of the old splits have vanished in Europe but
this new divide is both wider and more vital. Jacques Chirac on the right
is
against intervention while Labour's Tony Blair is for it. The consequences
of José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero caving in after the Madrid attack have yet
to be felt, but I have no doubt that we will be facing more attacks in
Europe based on the terrorists' reading of the weakness of European
leaders.

In this fight the enemy does not play by our rules, or by any rules at
all.
WMD will be in terrorist hands eventually; conventional wisdom recognizes
this reality. Concessions and negotiations at best only delay catastrophe.
Europe and its people are in this war whether they acknowledge it or not.
Those who would appease terrorists must realize that by pretending that
this
battle does not exist, they will soon have blood on their hands--both real
and metaphorical.

Mr. Kasparov, the world's leading chess player, is chairman of the Free
Choice 2008 Committee in Russia.

Just because you agree with someone politically does not mean that they
should be shooting off at the mouth. I'd prefer to let those who have a
field of expertise in those affairs influence us-not Kasparov, Martin Sheen,
Travolta (who I agree with), Streisand, etc.

Kasparov's chess ability does not qualify him to influence opinions about
politics.

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
I completely disagree. The article by Garry Kasparov is very good and
I agree almost completely with it.

Sam Sloan

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 16:48:31 GMT, "Rob Hill"
wrote:

I am very interested in Kasparov's opinions on chess, not his opinions on
the war.

Please go away.

"Gunny Bunny" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005100

Stop the Moral Equivalence
Suicide-bombing and hostage-taking vs. democracy

BY GARRY KASPAROV
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
It is said that to win a battle you must be the one to choose the
battleground. Since the Abu Ghraib abuses were revealed, the
battleground
has been chosen by those who would blur the lines between terrorists
and
those fighting against them. The Bush administration has contributed to
the
confusion with its ambiguous "war on terror." You cannot fight a word.
You
need targets, you need to know what you are fighting for and against.
Most
importantly you must have beliefs that enable you to distinguish friend
from
foe.

While al Qaeda may not have a headquarters to bomb, there is no
shortage
of
visible adversaries. What is required is to name them and to take
action
against them. We must also drag into the light those leaders and media
who
fail to condemn acts of terror. It is not only Al Jazeera talking about
"insurgents" in Iraq, it is CNN. Many in Europe and even some in the
U.S.
are trying to differentiate "legitimate" terrorism from "bad"
terrorism.
Those who intentionally kill innocent civilians are terrorists, as are
their
sponsors. No political agenda should be allowed to advance through
terrorist
activity. We need to identify our enemy, not play with words.




The situation is worse in the Muslim world. Calling the terrorists
"militants" or "radical Islamists" presupposes the existence of
moderates
willing to confront the radicals. Outside of Turkey, it is very hard to
find
moderate clerics who will stand up to Islamist terrorists, even though
the
majority of their victims are Muslim. In Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr has been
murdering his religious opposition and using armed gangs to establish
political rule. He appears immune to anything resembling condemnation.
We
know that his militia receives outside support--and where would it come
from
other than Syria and Iran?
We have seen 25 years of anti-Western propaganda and hatred emanating
from
Iran, not only against Israel and the U.S. but against the liberal
values
that make up the core of our civilization. The effect has been to so
polarize the Muslim world that we are left with two unappealing groups.
On
one side you have those who rally support by exhortation against a
common
foe: America and Israel. We may call this the Arafat model. By
appearing
to
be the only viable leader in Palestine he has received billions of
dollars
from the European Union to prop up his corrupt organization and to fund
terrorism. Hijacking, suicide bombings, hostage-taking--this
"Palestinian
know-how" has been exported throughout the region.

Leaders of this type focus the energy of an impoverished people into
fighting a sworn enemy. They realize that the free circulation of
liberal
ideas would threaten their hold on power. With modern methods of
communication it is impossible to build a new Iron Curtain, so they
convince
their people that they are engaged in a war against the very source of
these
democratic ideals. Arafat has done this successfully for decades.

On the other side of this dual model we have dictators who present
themselves as the last bastion against religious extremists. Gen.
Musharraf
in Pakistan and the Saudi royal family are supported by the U.S. and
given
free reign to limit human rights because they are considered the lesser
evil. Yet the more favor they have with the U.S., the more they are
hated
at
home, empowering the extremist opposition. Everyone gets what they want
in
the short run but it is a recipe for inevitable meltdown.

U.S. success in Iraq is essential in order to provide an alternative
model.
Unlike Vietnam, there will be repercussions for global security if
America
does not finish the job. This is the big picture that must stay in
focus.
We
are dealing with an enemy who considers the concessions and privileges
of
democracy to be weaknesses. To prove them wrong we must follow through.

The Islamic public-relations offensive is focused on proving that the
West
is corrupt and offers no improvement on the despots in charge
throughout
the
Islamic world. At the same time, Al Jazeera isn't examining Vladimir
Putin's
war against Muslims in Chechnya. All of Chechnya is one big Abu Ghraib,
but
the Islamic world pays scant attention to the horrible crimes there
because
Mr. Putin shares their distaste for liberal democracy. The war is not
about
defending Muslims; it is about Western civilization and America as its
representative.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to pursue a nuclear arsenal and the U.N.
Secretariat, France and Russia are busily covering up their involvement
in
the Oil-for-Food scandal. If we are to impress the superiority of the
democratic model upon the Muslim world we must thoroughly investigate
any
and all allegations of abuse and clean up our act. This goes for plush
U.N.
offices as well as Iraqi prison cells.




It is a mistake to see the debate on how to deal with terrorism along
antiquated political lines. Partisan politics have played a role, but
for
the most part the battle to do what is necessary to win this war has
freely
crossed traditional party boundaries. One's beliefs about tax policy
and
social benefits have little to do with how to deal with the terrorist
threat
being generated in the Islamic world.
Every era dictates its own political divisions. In 19th century Great
Britain, the political fight centered on the Corn Laws, reform bills
and
home rule for Ireland. Many of the old splits have vanished in Europe
but
this new divide is both wider and more vital. Jacques Chirac on the
right
is
against intervention while Labour's Tony Blair is for it. The
consequences
of José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero caving in after the Madrid attack have
yet
to be felt, but I have no doubt that we will be facing more attacks in
Europe based on the terrorists' reading of the weakness of European
leaders.

In this fight the enemy does not play by our rules, or by any rules at
all.
WMD will be in terrorist hands eventually; conventional wisdom
recognizes
this reality. Concessions and negotiations at best only delay
catastrophe.
Europe and its people are in this war whether they acknowledge it or
not.
Those who would appease terrorists must realize that by pretending that
this
battle does not exist, they will soon have blood on their hands--both
real
and metaphorical.

Mr. Kasparov, the world's leading chess player, is chairman of the Free
Choice 2008 Committee in Russia.

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:33:16 GMT, (Sam Sloan) wrote:

I completely disagree. The article by Garry Kasparov is very good and
I agree almost completely with it.

Kasparov is a Zionist nut. Who cares what this idiot says? Do you want me to
quote Bobby Fischer view on Israel? You will **** in your pants (if you are
Jewish).

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
I completely disagree. The article by Garry Kasparov is very good and
I agree almost completely with it.

That`s right Sam, usenet chess groups are the right place where people can
discuss political views of famous chess players like e.g. Kasparov. BTW
maybe you should try to get rid of your cumbersome manner of crossposting
and topposting and and posting irrelevant quotations ?

The article had been posted before here by "Aryeh Davidoff" and obviously
"Rob Hill" didn`t notice it.

However I feel a kind of embarrassment seeing chess deals between Kasparov
and Ilyumzhinov whose political views are completely different ...

Regards,
Jerzy

I don't care about your "preferences", and I'm pretty sure that
Kasparov, Martin Sheen, Travolta, or Streisand don't care what you
think, either.

It is the elites with the "expertise" who are responsible for
allowing the rise of Pan-Islamic and Pan-Arab terrorism. As long as
the policy makers continue to make a muddle of things, there is a
need--indeed, a duty--for non-experts to voice their opinions.


"Rob Hill" wrote in message om...
Just because you agree with someone politically does not mean that they
should be shooting off at the mouth. I'd prefer to let those who have a
field of expertise in those affairs influence us-not Kasparov, Martin Sheen,
Travolta (who I agree with), Streisand, etc.

Kasparov's chess ability does not qualify him to influence opinions about
politics.

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
I completely disagree. The article by Garry Kasparov is very good and
I agree almost completely with it.

Sam Sloan

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 16:48:31 GMT, "Rob Hill"
wrote:

I am very interested in Kasparov's opinions on chess, not his opinions on
the war.

Please go away.

"Gunny Bunny" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005100

Stop the Moral Equivalence
Suicide-bombing and hostage-taking vs. democracy

BY GARRY KASPAROV
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
It is said that to win a battle you must be the one to choose the
battleground. Since the Abu Ghraib abuses were revealed, the
battleground
has been chosen by those who would blur the lines between terrorists
and
those fighting against them. The Bush administration has contributed to
the
confusion with its ambiguous "war on terror." You cannot fight a word.
You
need targets, you need to know what you are fighting for and against.
Most
importantly you must have beliefs that enable you to distinguish friend
from
foe.

While al Qaeda may not have a headquarters to bomb, there is no
shortage
of
visible adversaries. What is required is to name them and to take
action
against them. We must also drag into the light those leaders and media
who
fail to condemn acts of terror. It is not only Al Jazeera talking about
"insurgents" in Iraq, it is CNN. Many in Europe and even some in the
U.S.
are trying to differentiate "legitimate" terrorism from "bad"
terrorism.
Those who intentionally kill innocent civilians are terrorists, as are
their
sponsors. No political agenda should be allowed to advance through
terrorist
activity. We need to identify our enemy, not play with words.




The situation is worse in the Muslim world. Calling the terrorists
"militants" or "radical Islamists" presupposes the existence of
moderates
willing to confront the radicals. Outside of Turkey, it is very hard to
find
moderate clerics who will stand up to Islamist terrorists, even though
the
majority of their victims are Muslim. In Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr has been
murdering his religious opposition and using armed gangs to establish
political rule. He appears immune to anything resembling condemnation.
We
know that his militia receives outside support--and where would it come
from
other than Syria and Iran?
We have seen 25 years of anti-Western propaganda and hatred emanating
from
Iran, not only against Israel and the U.S. but against the liberal
values
that make up the core of our civilization. The effect has been to so
polarize the Muslim world that we are left with two unappealing groups.
On
one side you have those who rally support by exhortation against a
common
foe: America and Israel. We may call this the Arafat model. By
appearing
to
be the only viable leader in Palestine he has received billions of
dollars
from the European Union to prop up his corrupt organization and to fund
terrorism. Hijacking, suicide bombings, hostage-taking--this
"Palestinian
know-how" has been exported throughout the region.

Leaders of this type focus the energy of an impoverished people into
fighting a sworn enemy. They realize that the free circulation of
liberal
ideas would threaten their hold on power. With modern methods of
communication it is impossible to build a new Iron Curtain, so they
convince
their people that they are engaged in a war against the very source of
these
democratic ideals. Arafat has done this successfully for decades.

On the other side of this dual model we have dictators who present
themselves as the last bastion against religious extremists. Gen.
Musharraf
in Pakistan and the Saudi royal family are supported by the U.S. and
given
free reign to limit human rights because they are considered the lesser
evil. Yet the more favor they have with the U.S., the more they are
hated
at
home, empowering the extremist opposition. Everyone gets what they want
in
the short run but it is a recipe for inevitable meltdown.

U.S. success in Iraq is essential in order to provide an alternative
model.
Unlike Vietnam, there will be repercussions for global security if
America
does not finish the job. This is the big picture that must stay in
focus.
We
are dealing with an enemy who considers the concessions and privileges
of
democracy to be weaknesses. To prove them wrong we must follow through.

The Islamic public-relations offensive is focused on proving that the
West
is corrupt and offers no improvement on the despots in charge
throughout
the
Islamic world. At the same time, Al Jazeera isn't examining Vladimir
Putin's
war against Muslims in Chechnya. All of Chechnya is one big Abu Ghraib,
but
the Islamic world pays scant attention to the horrible crimes there
because
Mr. Putin shares their distaste for liberal democracy. The war is not
about
defending Muslims; it is about Western civilization and America as its
representative.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to pursue a nuclear arsenal and the U.N.
Secretariat, France and Russia are busily covering up their involvement
in
the Oil-for-Food scandal. If we are to impress the superiority of the
democratic model upon the Muslim world we must thoroughly investigate
any
and all allegations of abuse and clean up our act. This goes for plush
U.N.
offices as well as Iraqi prison cells.




It is a mistake to see the debate on how to deal with terrorism along
antiquated political lines. Partisan politics have played a role, but
for
the most part the battle to do what is necessary to win this war has
freely
crossed traditional party boundaries. One's beliefs about tax policy
and
social benefits have little to do with how to deal with the terrorist
threat
being generated in the Islamic world.
Every era dictates its own political divisions. In 19th century Great
Britain, the political fight centered on the Corn Laws, reform bills
and
home rule for Ireland. Many of the old splits have vanished in Europe
but
this new divide is both wider and more vital. Jacques Chirac on the
right
is
against intervention while Labour's Tony Blair is for it. The
consequences
of José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero caving in after the Madrid attack have
yet
to be felt, but I have no doubt that we will be facing more attacks in
Europe based on the terrorists' reading of the weakness of European
leaders.

In this fight the enemy does not play by our rules, or by any rules at
all.
WMD will be in terrorist hands eventually; conventional wisdom
recognizes
this reality. Concessions and negotiations at best only delay
catastrophe.
Europe and its people are in this war whether they acknowledge it or
not.
Those who would appease terrorists must realize that by pretending that
this
battle does not exist, they will soon have blood on their hands--both
real
and metaphorical.

Mr. Kasparov, the world's leading chess player, is chairman of the Free
Choice 2008 Committee in Russia.

We can be civil and agree to disagree. Why don't we interview the local
homeless guy? Would you be interested in his opinion? or a teacher? a
policeman?

What makes Kasparov's opinion worth more than the average person's opinion?

He's just another dude. If he were in office or political science professor,
I'd think otherwise. If the topic were Russia, I'd like to hear his opinion.
But the truth be told he has nothing to do with Iraq and has no expertise at
all in this topic any more than the average person.

"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
I don't care about your "preferences", and I'm pretty sure that
Kasparov, Martin Sheen, Travolta, or Streisand don't care what you
think, either.

It is the elites with the "expertise" who are responsible for
allowing the rise of Pan-Islamic and Pan-Arab terrorism. As long as
the policy makers continue to make a muddle of things, there is a
need--indeed, a duty--for non-experts to voice their opinions.


"Rob Hill" wrote in message
om...
Just because you agree with someone politically does not mean that they
should be shooting off at the mouth. I'd prefer to let those who have a
field of expertise in those affairs influence us-not Kasparov, Martin
Sheen,
Travolta (who I agree with), Streisand, etc.

Kasparov's chess ability does not qualify him to influence opinions
about
politics.

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
I completely disagree. The article by Garry Kasparov is very good and
I agree almost completely with it.

Sam Sloan

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 16:48:31 GMT, "Rob Hill"
wrote:

I am very interested in Kasparov's opinions on chess, not his
opinions on
the war.

Please go away.

"Gunny Bunny" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005100

Stop the Moral Equivalence
Suicide-bombing and hostage-taking vs. democracy

BY GARRY KASPAROV
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
It is said that to win a battle you must be the one to choose the
battleground. Since the Abu Ghraib abuses were revealed, the
battleground
has been chosen by those who would blur the lines between
terrorists
and
those fighting against them. The Bush administration has
contributed to
the
confusion with its ambiguous "war on terror." You cannot fight a
word.
You
need targets, you need to know what you are fighting for and
against.
Most
importantly you must have beliefs that enable you to distinguish
friend
from
foe.

While al Qaeda may not have a headquarters to bomb, there is no
shortage
of
visible adversaries. What is required is to name them and to take
action
against them. We must also drag into the light those leaders and
media
who
fail to condemn acts of terror. It is not only Al Jazeera talking
about
"insurgents" in Iraq, it is CNN. Many in Europe and even some in
the
U.S.
are trying to differentiate "legitimate" terrorism from "bad"
terrorism.
Those who intentionally kill innocent civilians are terrorists, as
are
their
sponsors. No political agenda should be allowed to advance through
terrorist
activity. We need to identify our enemy, not play with words.




The situation is worse in the Muslim world. Calling the terrorists
"militants" or "radical Islamists" presupposes the existence of
moderates
willing to confront the radicals. Outside of Turkey, it is very
hard to
find
moderate clerics who will stand up to Islamist terrorists, even
though
the
majority of their victims are Muslim. In Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr has
been
murdering his religious opposition and using armed gangs to
establish
political rule. He appears immune to anything resembling
condemnation.
We
know that his militia receives outside support--and where would it
come
from
other than Syria and Iran?
We have seen 25 years of anti-Western propaganda and hatred
emanating
from
Iran, not only against Israel and the U.S. but against the liberal
values
that make up the core of our civilization. The effect has been to
so
polarize the Muslim world that we are left with two unappealing
groups.
On
one side you have those who rally support by exhortation against a
common
foe: America and Israel. We may call this the Arafat model. By
appearing
to
be the only viable leader in Palestine he has received billions of
dollars
from the European Union to prop up his corrupt organization and to
fund
terrorism. Hijacking, suicide bombings, hostage-taking--this
"Palestinian
know-how" has been exported throughout the region.

Leaders of this type focus the energy of an impoverished people
into
fighting a sworn enemy. They realize that the free circulation of
liberal
ideas would threaten their hold on power. With modern methods of
communication it is impossible to build a new Iron Curtain, so they
convince
their people that they are engaged in a war against the very source
of
these
democratic ideals. Arafat has done this successfully for decades.

On the other side of this dual model we have dictators who present
themselves as the last bastion against religious extremists. Gen.
Musharraf
in Pakistan and the Saudi royal family are supported by the U.S.
and
given
free reign to limit human rights because they are considered the
lesser
evil. Yet the more favor they have with the U.S., the more they are
hated
at
home, empowering the extremist opposition. Everyone gets what they
want
in
the short run but it is a recipe for inevitable meltdown.

U.S. success in Iraq is essential in order to provide an
alternative
model.
Unlike Vietnam, there will be repercussions for global security if
America
does not finish the job. This is the big picture that must stay in
focus.
We
are dealing with an enemy who considers the concessions and
privileges
of
democracy to be weaknesses. To prove them wrong we must follow
through.

The Islamic public-relations offensive is focused on proving that
the
West
is corrupt and offers no improvement on the despots in charge
throughout
the
Islamic world. At the same time, Al Jazeera isn't examining
Vladimir
Putin's
war against Muslims in Chechnya. All of Chechnya is one big Abu
Ghraib,
but
the Islamic world pays scant attention to the horrible crimes there
because
Mr. Putin shares their distaste for liberal democracy. The war is
not
about
defending Muslims; it is about Western civilization and America as
its
representative.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to pursue a nuclear arsenal and the U.N.
Secretariat, France and Russia are busily covering up their
involvement
in
the Oil-for-Food scandal. If we are to impress the superiority of
the
democratic model upon the Muslim world we must thoroughly
investigate
any
and all allegations of abuse and clean up our act. This goes for
plush
U.N.
offices as well as Iraqi prison cells.




It is a mistake to see the debate on how to deal with terrorism
along
antiquated political lines. Partisan politics have played a role,
but
for
the most part the battle to do what is necessary to win this war
has
freely
crossed traditional party boundaries. One's beliefs about tax
policy
and
social benefits have little to do with how to deal with the
terrorist
threat
being generated in the Islamic world.
Every era dictates its own political divisions. In 19th century
Great
Britain, the political fight centered on the Corn Laws, reform
bills
and
home rule for Ireland. Many of the old splits have vanished in
Europe
but
this new divide is both wider and more vital. Jacques Chirac on the
right
is
against intervention while Labour's Tony Blair is for it. The
consequences
of José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero caving in after the Madrid attack
have
yet
to be felt, but I have no doubt that we will be facing more attacks
in
Europe based on the terrorists' reading of the weakness of European
leaders.

In this fight the enemy does not play by our rules, or by any rules
at
all.
WMD will be in terrorist hands eventually; conventional wisdom
recognizes
this reality. Concessions and negotiations at best only delay
catastrophe.
Europe and its people are in this war whether they acknowledge it
or
not.
Those who would appease terrorists must realize that by pretending
that
this
battle does not exist, they will soon have blood on their
hands--both
real
and metaphorical.

Mr. Kasparov, the world's leading chess player, is chairman of the
Free
Choice 2008 Committee in Russia.

(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote (to Rob Hill):
(snipped)
It is the elites with the "expertise" who are responsible for allowing the
rise of Pan-Islamic and Pan-Arab terrorism. As long as the policy makers
continue to make a muddle of things, there is a need--indeed, a duty--for
non-experts to voice their opinions.

Perhaps someone like 'Isidor Gunsberg' would approve of what
Brigitte Bardot (a strong supporter of the French neo-Fascist leader,
Jean-Marie Le Pen) has written about the Muslims in France:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040610/325/evnbo.html

"Bardot fined for race hate book ...

Brigitte Bardot has been convicted of inciting racial hatred and
ordered to pay 5,000 euros...The Paris court sentenced Bardot, 69,
on Thursday for remarks made in her book, 'A Scream in the Silence',
an outspoken attack on gays, immigrants, and the jobless which shocked
France last year. In the book, she laments the 'Islamisation of
France' and the 'underground and dangerous infiltration of Islam'.

'Mdm Bardot presents Muslims as barbaric and cruel invaders,
responsible for terrorist acts and eager to dominate the French to
the extent of wanting to exterminate them', the court said.
....
Bardot's attacks on Muslims prompted anti-racism groups to launch
legal proceedings against the former star...The court awarded a
symbolic one euro in damages to France's anti-racism movement MRAP
and to the League for Human Rights. It also sentenced the head of
Bardot's publishing house Le Rocher to a 5,000-euro fine and ordered
both to pay for advertisements in two newspapers announcing their
conviction."

--as reported by Yahoo UK (10 June 2004)

Here's an article about the award of the Camera d'Or prize at the
Cannes Film Festival to the film, 'Or', by Keren Yedaya, an Israeli
director:

http://www.festival-cannes.com/news_...ur=inde x.php

"I want to dedicate this film, from the bottom of my heart, to all
the people who are not free, to all those living in slavery. I hope
that with this prize we can construct a home for all women who want
to get out of prostitution. It's very difficult for me to say that
because I come from Israel and we are responsible for the slavery of
3 million Palestinians. I love Israel; I love my country. But,
please, there are many people in Israel who are fighting this
occupation, help them, help the Palestinians."
--Keren Yedaya (May 2004)

Jack Shaheen is an American scholar who has devoted much of his
academic career to studying the (usually ignorant and negative)
stereotyping of Arabs and Muslims in United States culture.

Here are some books by Jack Shaheen:

'Arab and Muslim Stereotypes in American Popular Culture'
'The TV Arab'
'Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People'

'The incapacity of the United States to see Arabs as other human
beings is consistent with the ebbing of universalism within
American society.'
--Emmanuel Todd (After the Empire, p. 118)

--Nick

(Nick) wrote in message . com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote (to Rob Hill):
(snipped)
It is the elites with the "expertise" who are responsible for allowing the
rise of Pan-Islamic and Pan-Arab terrorism. As long as the policy makers
continue to make a muddle of things, there is a need--indeed, a duty--for
non-experts to voice their opinions.

Perhaps someone like 'Isidor Gunsberg' would approve of what
Brigitte Bardot (a strong supporter of the French neo-Fascist leader,
Jean-Marie Le Pen) has written about the Muslims in France:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040610/325/evnbo.html


Well, I think the hard-hitting book by Orianna Fallaci has more
merit, but I'm sure that Bardot makes some useful points. This is not
to say that I necessarily agree with all of what either Bardot of
Fallaci have to say.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...922587-4551308


"Bardot fined for race hate book ...

Brigitte Bardot has been convicted of inciting racial hatred and
ordered to pay 5,000 euros

This says much about the extent of the French commitment to Free
Speach and open social debate.

....The Paris court sentenced Bardot, 69,
on Thursday for remarks made in her book, 'A Scream in the Silence',
an outspoken attack on gays, immigrants, and the jobless which shocked
France last year. In the book, she laments the 'Islamisation of
France' and the 'underground and dangerous infiltration of Islam'.

'Mdm Bardot presents Muslims as barbaric and cruel invaders,

The Arab Islamic invasions and conquests of other peoples and
their lands, was indeed both barbaric and cruel. This is even
controversial?

responsible for terrorist acts

Many Muslims are responsible for committing terrorist acts. The
majority of terrorist acts committed around the world are committed by
Muslims

and eager to dominate the French to

Many Muslims do want to dominate the French. Manifestly, they are
having some success.

the extent of wanting to exterminate them'

I'd say that only a small minority of Muslims want to exterminate
the French. Unless you are talking about French Jews, in which case a
rather sizeable minority of Muslims would be in favor of
extermination.

, the court said.


...
Bardot's attacks on Muslims prompted anti-racism groups to launch
legal proceedings against the former star...The court awarded a
symbolic one euro in damages to France's anti-racism movement MRAP
and to the League for Human Rights. It also sentenced the head of
Bardot's publishing house Le Rocher to a 5,000-euro fine and ordered
both to pay for advertisements in two newspapers announcing their
conviction."

--as reported by Yahoo UK (10 June 2004)

Here's an article about the award of the Camera d'Or prize at the
Cannes Film Festival to the film, 'Or', by Keren Yedaya, an Israeli
director:

http://www.festival-cannes.com/news_...ur=inde x.php

"I want to dedicate this film, from the bottom of my heart, to all
the people who are not free, to all those living in slavery. I hope
that with this prize we can construct a home for all women who want
to get out of prostitution. It's very difficult for me to say that
because I come from Israel and we are responsible for the slavery of
3 million Palestinians. I love Israel; I love my country. But,
please, there are many people in Israel who are fighting this
occupation, help them, help the Palestinians."
--Keren Yedaya (May 2004)

Jack Shaheen is an American scholar who has devoted much of his
academic career to studying the (usually ignorant and negative)
stereotyping of Arabs and Muslims in United States culture.

Here are some books by Jack Shaheen:

'Arab and Muslim Stereotypes in American Popular Culture'
'The TV Arab'
'Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People'

'The incapacity of the United States to see Arabs as other human
beings is consistent with the ebbing of universalism within
American society.'
--Emmanuel Todd (After the Empire, p. 118)

Wow, three books on the topic! Maybe he should move on to the
study of stereotypical depictions of Americans and Jews in Arab and
Islamic culture. He'd find a ton of source material for that.

www.memri.org


--Nick