Norman Vale - more ads

I wrote Norman Vale and asked for the other ads in the anti-terror campaign the European Security Advocacy Group has been running in European newspapers. Here they are - four of them. Articles have mentioned a fifth which wasn't in the mail I got. (Also, they appear to be late drafts - one number is given only as zeroes, probably to be filled in later, and there were no footnotes in the newspaper versions):

Norwegian: Ad 1, ad 2, ad 3, ad 4. English: Ads 1-4.

The first deals with the myth about a connection between poverty and despair and terrorism:

Some of the world's worst terrorists come from the best families.

Common wisdom says that terrorists are the products of poverty and despair. But that's a half-truth at best. Fact is, the chieftains of global terrorism come not from poverty, but from comfortable, well to do families.

This is an important point. We are usually aware that bin Laden is a billionaire, but there is still an assumption that poverty and despair is a motivating factor somehow. We can understand the anger of the poor and downtrodden. It's a theme we're familiar with from our own culture. And because the Arab world is poor and downtrodden, we assume that terrorism is a product of this, that it is merely the form Arab anger against their oppressors has taken.

The effect is increased if you happen to believe that the oppressors of the third world today are Western imperialists and corporations. This may be why the further left you go, the the stronger the association becomes between 20th century third world rebel fighters and today's third world terrorists. The wealthy background of terrorists underscores the flaw in this picture, and points to a better definition of Islamic terrorism - a middle class fascist ideology in Islamic clothing.

The second ad deals with the assymetric aspect of terrorism - it's cheap:

To a terrorist, the beauty part of a suicide attack is that it's so cheap.

Terrorists are calculating killers: they demand good value for their money. And usually they get it. It costs relatively little to blow up an airplane or an embassy. Nothing, really, compared to the cost of replacing or rebuilding it. Or the stunning cost of human lives.

This too is important. Terrorism is guerilla fighting taken to the extreme, the ultimate in bargain warfare. You don't have to hold any territory, you don't even have to kill enemy soldiers, all you have to do is destroy something, anything. Destruction is cheap, and - as the ad points out - it is made cheaper by the low value terrorists place on their own lives.

The third is the one I translated below, and deals with the hold of terrorists (or more properly their advocates) on children through madrasas.

The fourth is dubious:

How brave is a terrorist who gets kids to do his dirty work?

If terrorists had any conscience, they wouldn't put guns and bombs in the hands of youngsters. But that's exactly what they do. Kids as young as six are recruited by terrorists - and used as spies, as couriers, and yes, as foot soldiers. [..]

Unthinkinable, isn't it? Yet it is nothing out of the ordinary for Al Qaeda and its ilk.

Except it is. If some of you know of any terrorist attacks of al-Qaeda that were carried out by children, or if children are known to play other roles in the network, I'd like to know about it. I couldn't find any. I've found mentions of children used by terrorists in general, (and of course they're commonly enlisted by guerillas), but I found no cases involving al-Qaeda.

Anders G. Romarheim replied to my previous post, (where I criticized his article about Vale in Dagbladet):

Bjørn should also have translated the worst of the ads into English. The one with the headline: ?How brave is a terrorist who gets children to blow themselves and others up? This ad is not accurate. It claims that Al Qaeda frequently applies children as suicide bombers. No children were involved in the 9-11 attacks. No children attacked the USS Cole. No children were involved in the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Uganda. Mentioning pregnant suicide bombers is also just a propagandistic attempt at generalizing highly exceptional cases. This is called disinformation and propaganda.

I agree. To the ad's defense, the ad did not specify that al-Qaeda "frequently applies children as suicide bombers", it only implied as much by stating that it's "nothing out of the ordinary for al-Qaeda and its ilk", which may also be read as a statement about terrorism in general. And there was a suicide bombing in Iraq by a pregnant woman in April:

On April 3, Rippetoe was manning a coalition checkpoint near Hadithah Dam in Northwestern Iraq when a car approached carrying Iraqi civilians. A pregnant woman got out and ran screaming from the car. Then, in an explosion Rippetoe and two others from his regiment were killed. "The woman was saying 'I'm hungry, I need food and water' and Rusty walked over to take charge and he was caught in the blast".

But to imply that this is typical of al-Qaeda is careless and needlessly sensationalist. There is no need to exaggerate the evil of terrorism, and it only serves to weaken the overall message of the campaign. In a debate, people automatically focus on the least convincing arguments of the other side, and anyone with some knowledge about al-Qaeda knows that this ad is exaggerating. That makes it easier to dismiss the overall message as well. The other ads stick to the facts. This one should have too.

While it is not typical of al-Qaeda to use pregnant suicide bombers, it is however defining of them. It defines them through the contrast of death against life, their love of death against our love of life. The madness of suicide against the miracle of birth. There is no need for exaggeration here - the truth is horrible enough.

Update 13/11: I exchanged a few mails with Vale about this, and got this response:

My team and I discussed your comments and offer this in response: 1) our reference was to "al-Qaeda and its ilk," meaning that we are making a general statement embracing all sorts of terrorist organizations - we are campaigning not just against al-Qaeda but terrorism in all its manifestations; and 2) that the use of kids in terrorist operations is found pretty much worldwide.

As for the second point, there's abundant documentation. One brief example: "...In Northern Ireland, Palestinian refugee camps and Tamil towns and villages in northern Sri Lanka, terrorist organizations, like youth gangs in many western cities, are a powerful magnet for boys and girls approaching adulthood. Peer preDeassure, family tradition and exemplary heroes play a part in the choice made [.i.e., to become terrorists]." (Jonathan Barker, The No-Nonsense Guide to Terrorism, Verso, London, pb version, p. 126)

It goes without saying that we are making our arguments as forcefully as we know how. But they are, in every case, based on well-founded documentation and in the next phase of our campaign, we plan to footnote our statements.


--Kids as young as six are recruited by terrorists - and used as spies, as couriers, and yes, as foot soldiers. [..]--

Why narrow the scope to AQ? Just look to Arafish's thugs.

How do you think the ad would have gone over if that group was mentioned?

Anders wrote: "No children were involved in the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Uganda."

No one was involved in the bombing of the US embassies in Uganda, because there has never been one.

Taco: you are right. Naturally I meant the embassy in Dar Es Salam in Tanzania. Next, I agree that the campaign as a whole would have looked much better if the inaccurate ad had been omitted. The negative impressions informed readers get from this ad spills over to the other ads. The truth is, as Bjørn says, bad enough and spinning it towards half-truths and beyond is clearly unnecessary. Red Cross installations and personnel have to be the most illegitimate targets ever. It’s worse than killing ordinary civilians! Regarding the use of children the abysmal examples are found in the civil wars in Africa, not in the suicide-bomber ranks of terrorist organizations. Before the US and its “allies” invaded Iraq there was not much terrorism there. Now there is...unfortunately- But is all the havoc in Iraq really terrorism?
The discussions we are having lead on to more fundamental definition issues. What is terrorism? What is sabotage? What is guerilla warfare? What is violent resistance to occupation? What is civil war? It is common to require that to label something a terrorist attack. It has to be directed at civilians and not against military personnel. The violence in Iraq is not all terrorism.

What was the Iraq war all about? Toppling the Saddam regime is probably a change for the better, but it only came in as a case for the war when the US had given up trying to convince the nations of the world that the WMD threat was imminent and real.
The maxim to be abstracted from the case is horrible, and is also the reason why nations all over the world now fear the US.

The maxim goes: If the US (falsely) believe that a nation has WMD, and that at some point in the future this nation may pose a threat to security in a region far from the US, it is OK to invade them, as long as they are ruled by a ruthless dictator.

The official reasons for going to war should also be the parameters by which the success and legitimacy of the war is rated. No WMD = No success or legitimacy. I quote the President of the USA in the recent press conference in the Rose Garden: He said this about the Kay report: "And I felt the report was a very interesting first report -- because he's still looking for -- to find the truth." Not very eloquent, and he also suggests that the report requested by the Bush administration does not contain much truth. Kay HAS already found the truth, must he find another one to satisfy his employer? We are touching on old “kill the messenger” practices here. Faulty intelligence and ignorance of information that does not support your own convictions does not provide a good base for a prudent foreign policy.
I suppose you would label this a very European argument :-)

Anders: "But is all the havoc in Iraq really terrorism?" Attacking soldiers is guerilla warfare, but terror plays a so important role in their campaign that I don't have a problem with calling them terrorists. I suppose we don't know for sure if the groups waging guerilla warfare are connected with the ones that are blowing up civilians, but a guerilla group that practices terrorism is a terrorist group. It's a defining quality, even when most of their attacks are military ones.

"The maxim to be abstracted from the case is horrible, and is also the reason why nations all over the world now fear the US." No - you're confusing the confirmation of a view with the reason for it. The Iraq war has confirmed the views a lot of people have about Bush, the American right, and American foreign policy, but if Bush had never raised the issue in the first place, nobody would have liked him any more. He would still be a dangerous cowboy. Remember that the anti-Bush rhetoric was the same immediately after 9/11 as it was during the buildup to Iraq. Remember that he was commonly seen as an idiot from the day he was elected. Everything that has happened since has confirmed (or crystallized) many people's views about him, but the views were there from the beginning.

What we should be looking for here is what it is about Bush and the American right that Europeans would dislike even if 9/11 had never happened. That's more vague. A basic difference in outlook, perhaps, some bad memories from the Cold War, envy/disgust with their cultural, economical and military power. We're getting close to the core anti-Americanism, which isn't to _hate_ the US, but to see it as a constant negative influence on the outside world. (American movies corrupt our young, their economy exploits the third world, their military bombs people back to the stone age, etc., and this is what they _are_ as Americans.) The Iraq war has now become part of the anti-American worldview, as yet another example of how evil/stupid Republicans are, but the opposition to it (or the form it took, the level of rhetoric) was a product of anti-Americanism, not a cause of it.

Anders: "Red Cross installations and personnel have to be the most illegitimate targets ever. It’s worse than killing ordinary civilians!"

Why is that worse?

Anders: "Before the US and its 'allies'..."

Why the quotes around allies?

Anders: "Toppling the Saddam regime is probably a change for the better..."

Probably? Are you not sure?

Anders: "... but it only came in as a case for the war when the US had given up trying to convince the nations of the world that the WMD threat was imminent and real."

This is historical revisionism. Claiming that the WMD threat was the only argument for war made by the Bush administration before the war started is ludicrous. Saddam being a ruthless dictator that murders his own people was often mentioned in the same sentence as were many other arguments. Furthermore, the Bush administration never called the threat imminent. Never. On the contrary. In the 2003 SOTU speech Bush said the following:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

More on the 'imminent threat' at Spinsanity ( ).

Anders: "Kay HAS already found the truth, must he find another one to satisfy his employer?"

Kay has found some of the truth and stressed himself several times how important it is that the search goes on in order to find the rest of it.

Some excerpts of statements made by Kay himself in an television interview (,2933,99151,00.html ):

"...we have found right now - and we're still finding them - over two dozen laboratories that were hidden in the Iraqi intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, were not declared to the U.N., had prohibited equipment, and carried on activities that should have been declared.
Now, at the minimum, they kept alive Iraq's capability to produce both biological and chemical weapons. We found assassination tools. So we know that, in fact, they had a prohibited intent to them."

"An Iraqi scientist in 1993 hid in his own refrigerator reference strains for - active strains, actually would've - were still active when we found them - Botulinum toxin, one of the most toxic elements known.
He was also asked to hide others, including anthrax. After a couple of days, he turned them back because he said they were too dangerous; he had small children in the house.
This is typical. We now have three cases in which scientists have come forward with equipment, technology, diagrams, documents and, in this case, actual weapons material, reference strains and Botulinum toxin, that they were told to hide and that the U.N. didn't find.
We're actively searching for at least one more cache of weapons - of strains that we know exists. It's much larger. It contains anthrax, and that's one reason we're actively interested in getting it."

In another interview (,4057,7457247%255E2,00.html ):

Asked at a telephone press conference if chemical or biological weapons had been moved out of Iraq before the US-led invasion, Kay replied: "We have multiple reports from Iraqis of substances being moved across borders."
He added: "We've got information indicating movement to Iran, Syria, Jordan, essentially all states that border the north with Iraq, that's not surprising those routes have been long used."

I'm really wondering if Anders actually read the Kay report.

People hiding insignificant amounts of Botulinum in their private kitchen is one of the important findings of the Kay report. Do you really believe that to be remotely close to acceptable, considering the hype, spin and worst-case scenario prophecies in the build-up to the war in Iraq? I am surprised that when even Bush, who ordered the report, has to defend the meager findings of the Kay report, you still think its smashing stuff!!?? The story "Friendly Fire in The New Republic by Bob Drogin of the LA Times depicts a somewhat different picture.

Regarding your other questions: Killing people who are willing to risk their life to save yours is worse than killing ordinary civilians. The Geneva convention and other war regulating documents assign special amnesties for humanitarian and medicinal personnel.
I am glad you picked up the “allies” bit, because the US are running short of allies in the traditional sense of the word. The coalition in Iraq is conspicuously small compared to the coalitions in Afghanistan and the war to liberate Kuwait. The UK has outsourced foreign policy shaping to Washington so they will always run along. Denmark and Italy have FAR-right governments who traditionally automatically applaud US foreign policy. Poland wants to prove that it is a force to be reckoned with and generally hope to improve its relations with the US. This is, in my opinion, the main reason why all the other small and untraditional allies of the US have suddenly flocked behind the hegemonic leader. Allies is not a word I would use. “The mission defines the coalition and not vice versa”. How wonderful! Because the US defines all the missions! So basically what we get is; The US attacks whoever it wants regardless of what anyone else feels appropriate. If anyone wants to bandwagon...sure come along!! The keyword is unilateralism.
I am not sure that toppling Saddam is a change for the better Taco. Neither can you be. Because we do not know what will follow. As I stated I strongly believe it will be a change for the better. But there is a chance that too much success for the militants in Iraq might trigger increased anti-americanism in other Arab-countries (if that’s possible).

Islamistic revolutions in neighboring countries would not necessary be a change for the better! That is why I totally agree with anyone who claims that once the US is in Iraq it is IMPERATIVE that they do the job properly. The US has chosen to go it “alone”, then fix it alone. That is the stubborn attitude of many traditional European allies.
I have not read the entire Kay report. If large quantities of WMD should be found outside of kitchens in Baghdad suburbs I hope to acquire information through other channels and then I will consider going through the full report.
Powell did not go to the UNSC to tell them about Saddam’s atrocities. He spoke about alleged WMD. Claiming that destruction of WMD was not the MAIN reason for the war in Iraq can hardly be labeled anything else but historical revisionism.

In reply to Anders:

I think any amount of Botulinum is significant where ever it may be found, because it proofs INTENT to develop biological weapons. Besides that, there is no such thing as an insignificant amount of Botulinum when lethality is considered. I don't want any in my house and I wouldn't allow my neighbor to keep any 'insignificant' amount either.

I also don't see why it matters where it was found, especially when we can assume that Saddam did his best to hide it at the least likely places.

Furthermore, when it comes to WMD or any other security related issues, one should consider the worst-case scenario and act accordingly. I would not like people that hope for the best to be in charge of the security of me and my family.

As for 'hype and spin'. There was, is and always will be hype and spin in any major political showdown. That doesn't mean the burden of proof should be raised.

That all said, I don't think the Kay report was 'smashing stuff'. There is no 'smoking gun' in there, but I think that there is enough to warrant further investigation.

I'm still puzzled why you think that killing Red Cross personnel is worse than killing civilians. I understand that they are trying to help, but that doesn't make killing them any more wrong than killing a civilian (who might also try to help others in his own way or who is just struggling to keep his family alive). It is correct that the Geneva Convention has special provisions for humanitarian and medicinal personnel, but so it has for civilians. I don't know of any article in the Geneva Convention or any other war regulating document that values the life of a medic higher than that of a civilian. However, this is all besides the point, because I was raising a moral judgment issue. 'Because it says so in [fill in any holy scripture]', is not a valid argument to me.

Your perfectly right to suggest that the US allies might have motives to join the coalition. So did the 'old' allies. What's wrong with that? Does that make them less allies? Does that mean that there soldiers dying in Iraq don't count? Ally, 'in the traditional sense of the word', doesn't mean being equals. For sure the west-European countries couldn't measure themselves with the US after WWII and didn't try so either. Still, they were allies. Sure, the mission was defined by the US, but no ally was forced to be one.

If you don't want to call anybody who joins a coalition and has a motive to do so, an ally, then we can take that word out of the dictionary. I suspected that you put the quotes around allies to belittle them. Your reply confirmed that.

(BTW: You forgot some significant allies like Spain, Australia and Israel. I'm sure you find that they might have had motives too)

I'm still happy that Saddam is gone. I spent some time reading about the alleged atrocities that occurred during his reign. I seriously doubt that things can get worse. But you're right. I can't look into the future. Maybe, we're going to be looking for Saddam one day. Not to kill him, but to ask him if he's willing to return to power.

Finally, you point out one speech by one US official to make a point:

"Powell did not go to the UNSC to tell them about Saddam’s atrocities. He spoke about alleged WMD. Claiming that destruction of WMD was not the MAIN reason for the war in Iraq can hardly be labeled anything else but historical revisionism."

Ironically, Powell DID tell the UNSC about Saddam's atrocities. He did so at length at the end of his presentation. Transcript here: .

I don't claim that the WMD was not put forward as the main reasons to go to war. There were, however, many other reasons that were mentioned by Bush, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Fleischer, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. many times on many occasions. That the WMD started to lead a life of it's own and eventually grew into 'THE MAIN REASON' has also many reasons. The Bush administration can be blamed for some (if you have many reasons to do something, you don't emphasize the one that you think is the most important. You pick to one that you think is most likely to convince others to support you.
). The media played a big part in that process (main headline = main reason). War-opponents surely made it the main reason after no WMD were found. You can't blame Bush for trying to make toppling Saddam - something he advocated strongly long before the war started - into the main reason. Whatever you point out as the main reason, fact is that there were many reasons and none of them should be discarded.

PS.: I'm leaving the last word to others now. I apologize to Bjørn for the length of my comments. If I had more time, I would write less.


You dodged Taco's correction regarding your false allegation that Dubya claimed the Iraqi WMD threat to be "imminent."

This "imminence" falsehood is a popular one amongst appeasers of Arab autocracies and Islamofacist regimes.

One lesson -- perhaps the primary one -- of 9/11 is that we CANNOT allow a "potential" WMD threat to reach the level of "imminence" anywhere in that nihilistic cauldron known as Arab totalitarianism and Islamic theocracy.

Saddam was ready, willing & able to resume his WMD program at any time, and if the heat were turned off, he would have reached the "imminent" threshhold sooner or later.

As for Saddam's modum operandus -- _see_ the Ayatollahs with their plutonium dusted paws.

One can only hope the macabre mullahs are next in line for a change of regime.

As for your statement,

"Before the US and its 'allies' invaded Iraq there was not much terrorism there."

Oh you clever fella.

Just mass graves and woodchippers.

Bjørn wrote,

"If some of you know of any terrorist attacks of al-Qaeda that were carried out by children, or if children are known to play other roles in the network, I'd like to know about it. I couldn't find any. I've found mentions of children used by terrorists in general, (and of course they're commonly enlisted by guerillas), but I found no cases involving al-Qaeda."

Recall the MASSIVE call up of kids from the Wahhabi-cult financed madrasses in Pakistan, for jihad duty in Afghan on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion.

Kids who were in the age-range of Pal stone throwing children. Maybe at the upper end of that range, but kids nonetheless

Do you really believe the Taliban, all on its own, had the power and authority to cause the children to leave their Wahhabist madrasses in Pakistan and meet their doom in Afghanistan?

Or was it al-Q's call to jihad in defense of its sacred terrorist haven that worked this Pied Piper wonder?

May I suggest to you that the fourth advert is right on the money.

And may I suggest to Mr. Vales that it be footnoted accordingly.

Anders: "Denmark and Italy have FAR-right governments who traditionally automatically applaud US foreign policy." This smells a bit circular. The US doesn't really have allies .. except its allies. And in what way is the Danish government far right? My impression is that it's overall moderate (ie. centre-right), with a few causes that in other countries are often identified with the far right - pro-American worldview, restrictive on immigration. But there's nothing inherently right-wing about this. Blair is a moderate leftist. And that restrictive immigrant policies have become indentified with the far right is a historical accident - the left (and center) has become the stronghold of anti-racism, which has been redefined as political correctness and multi-culturalism, leaving only the far right to criticise this. There's nothing inherently left-wing about believing that it is wrong to stop immigrant parents from forcibly marrying their children to a cousin from the old country. There's nothing inherently right-wing about believing that the government has an obligation to fight this.

"Powell did not go to the UNSC to tell them about Saddam’s atrocities. He spoke about alleged WMD. Claiming that destruction of WMD was not the MAIN reason for the war in Iraq can hardly be labeled anything else but historical revisionism."

There's a difference between reason and justification. WMD's were the international justification for attacking Iraq, and was most likely made so because it was the only justification that would have any chance of being supported by the UNSC. Good candidates for the real reason pop up if you analyze both the post-9/11 mood in the US, and the political situation in the Arab world.

One is to reduce world dependency on Saudi oil. Saudi Arabia plays an enormously important role in the world economy, but is also unstable and the foremost enemy of the US. Removing Saddam removes the need for boycotting his oil, making the world economy less vulnerable to a Saudi disaster, and giving the US leverage with the Saudis.

Another is to fight the root of radical Islam by introducing democratic ideas in its own backyard. This is a war of ideas, and the wahhabs are vulnerable to the temptations of wealth and secularism - which is why they've made the wealthy and secular West their enemy. Iraq won't convince any terrorists that they're wrong, but it may - in the long run - convince regular Arabs that the terrorists are wrong.

Bush articulated some of this in his speech on democracy recently. When Bush speaks about democracy in the Arab world, his critics often say that he's merely diverting attention from the lack of wmd's. But that assumes wmd's were his primary motivation in the first place, and that's a very superficial interpretation of world politics, to believe that the stated reason is always the real reason. And while we may not know for sure what Bush's real motivation was, it's easy to show that all of the above motivated Americans to support him. This is apparent from the mood in political magazines and weblogs from all over the spectrum except the far left, and has been so from the day the towers fell. 9/11 taught Americans two things: 1) The Muslim world is in deep shit, and 2) their problems are now our problems. Everything that has happened since is consistent with this realization. Critics should not blame Bush for their own failure to pay attention to the American mood.

I am sorry that I have to dodge a few arguments every now and then. It is a demanding task to answer for all "appeasers of Arab autocracies and Islamofacist regimes". I would just like to point towards this forthcoming article in the New York Review of Books. It is an eloquent answer to many of the questions here.

Powell to the UNSC: "Iraq today has a stockpile of 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons agent."

The fact that the threat was not even perceived as imminent is an argument that works better for those who opposed the war than for the War mongerers. It classifies the war as a preventive war which is TOTALLY in breach with the UN-charter, and any kind of norms accepted by what used to be called the international community. A community which the neo-cons seem to be quite unaware of. Pre-epmtive war, on the other hand, can in certain cases be justified. (The six days war is often taken as the defining example.)

I am honored to be referreds to as a clever fella :-)
There is no logic in pointing to mass graves and saying "Voila" when everyone was already aware of these mass graves, and the official object was to destroy WMD! Mass graves are not signs of terrorism. Mass graves are not Weapons of Mass Destruction. A mass grave proves that we are dealing with a brutal and cynical regime. The US has no duty to rid the world of all brutal regimes. If preventing atrocities were an important part of the neo-cons' agenda they should have gone to Congo instead. If promoting democracy was the issue Riyadh might be worth a visit.In fact if the US tries to do so it will be transformed into a brutal regime itself... That would indeed be a change for the worse. B-52s are not necessary the best devices for spreading the ideas of democracy and freedom. What was democracy and freedom all about again?? I am not sure anymore...


Thank you for taking the time to join in this discussion and to respond to my comments.

Whether a war may be characterized as justifiably preemeptive is a sovereign prerogative, from what I understand.

To my admittedly limited knowledge, membership in the UN, per se, does not constitute a relinquishment of the sovereign right to determine what justifiable self-defence may require.

Bjorn makes a good point in distinguishing between "reasons" and "justifications." It would be nice if the two were entirely consistent. It would also be nice if all other nations were held to this same standard of consistency in their international affairs.

Again, thank you.

we are interested in european security advocacy group's announcements for 2.5 months. (we=i'm a member of komikparti which is a unofficial political party in internet)
i have news about "esag"'s announcements in turkey. if you know that turkey's announcement's different to all about europe's. and announcements stopped in turkey. (since about 1 month) is it’s still going on in europe?? it's very important for us...

somebodies were talking about the sixth ads. it was published in turkey at 17 october, 2003 namely, the attack in istanbul after two days.
and they said " a very artificial and suggestive references to Islam..." and it's right. in europe's ads there is a curtain connection between islamic elements and terrorism. but they can not achieve this in turkey. because, turkey is governed by an islamic party at the moment. (it's seem so) and religious schools are under control of government. therefore turkey's ads do not include any comment about this.

we noticed that the power which is very dangerous is hiding behind esag's name who publish these anti-terorism's announcements. we wrote a warning title about that, announcing these ads as "the message of very bloody provocations" in november,11 at komikparti's web site.

we think, the attacks in †stanbul are as a result of esag's announcements norman vale is a professional adman and his ads are controllig public opinon.

in our opinion, this campaign's reasons are:
-as you know the war in iraq commanding by abd and abd's coalitions are facing with resistance. many people lost their lives.
abd is killing innocent people in iraq and elsewhere....

nobody stops talking in europe, abd and in other countries who are against the war..
supports for bush in abd and blair in england are decreasing.
european’s emperialst states and firms want to take part in that alliance.

campaign’s final aim's are;
-public opinon are terrorized by anti-terrorism campaign..
in this way;
they want to pasificate the people who are against the abd's policy and
unjust wars.
they want to persuade the europe's public opinons to support the abd's

bush and blairs's explanations seem such that dying people are exploited.
is it only a chance; a bomb made up of fertilizer as explained in ads
published in europe and the ones used in †stanbul?

norman vale mentioned 6 kind of advertisement. if it’s true, 4 ads are
published in europe, other 2 ads in turkey. turkish people don't know the ads in europe and european people don't know the ones in turkey. (restricted campaign??)
everybody talks about these ads in europe but nobody is talking about it-except for us- in turkey. we find all of them and published in our site in english.

we want to know your personal opinion about our comments; about europe's point of view and meaning of the ads's.

Esep Merkep: I don't know if the ads are still running in Europe. I don't buy the newspapers they run in very often. The last two ads mentioned above are European ads - one has been printed but I haven't been able to get it, the second would apparently be printed the day after a major terrorist attack. I don't know the relationship to the Turkish versions - if they're basically the same or completely different.

But I do know that this is wrong: "we think, the attacks in Istanbul are as a result of esag's announcements norman vale is a professional adman and his ads are controllig public opinon" Al-Qaeda or a subsidiary bombed Istanbul, not Bush, Norman Vale, or anyone else. Blaming the people who warn of a danger for _causing_ the danger is a common and irrational reaction when someone awakes you from a beautiful dream. In your case, the beautiful dream would seem to be that Al-Qaeda has no reason to hate Turkey, and only got angry because of ESAG's campaign. In reality, Al-Qaeda see Turkish Islam as a dangerous heresy, and the Turkisk separation of religion and state as a dangerous threat to their own religious totalitarianism.

Btw, I would be grateful if you would translate the Turkish ads to English and post them in a comment here, or perhaps on your site.

we have got any technical problem in website but trying to solve..

you can find the version of turkish advertisement of the esag's in

we have got any technical problem in website but trying to solve..

you can find the version of turkish advertisement of the esag's in


Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/544

Sebastian Holsclaw: How Should We Convince Europe, November 20, 2003 08:07 AM

One of the major sub-themes on the war against terrorism is the idea that the US hasn't done what it takes to enlist the aid of Europe--most especially France and Germany. In the same vein, there is often much talk...

Post a comment

Comments on posts from the old Movable Type blog has been disabled.