Terrorism Arrests In Germany

Aimed at the US:

Three men suspected of planning attacks at Frankfurt airport and a U.S. military base in Ramstein have been arrested.Two of the suspects were German nationals and one had a Pakistani passport. The AFP news agency is reporting that all three had links to Pakistan and had been experimenting with explosives and trying to build car bombs.

Allah has a full run down.

Comments

[seekeronos]

Yeeps. And I don't think the GSG-9 boys are going to place very nicely with those lot of terrorists.

They tend to make our boys running Gitmo look like schoolboys when it comes to "information extraction".

(Grenzschutzgruppe 9, is the German version of a mix of the FBI and 24's CTU, only on steroids...)

[nowingker]

Seems odd that "Old Europe" is able to uncover real terrorist plots, and terrorists with real provable ties to Al Quaeda--and doing so without any new laws or new powers--using the same old libril/socialist/surrender mentality and civil liberties standards they've always had; yet with all our new shiny police powers, all we can do is railroad two college students with homemade firecrackers.

Makes you wonder what we're getting for all those billions spent on fighting terrorism.

[Dan Riehl]

"Makes you wonder"

That's dumb, NW. You're ignoring how more akin to police states much of old europe already is. Look around for the pics, even the polizei are walking around in ski masks.

[chris]

So true. Old Europe can uncover plots, meanwhile we have a 4-star surrender-monkey who wants to abandon the Iraqis.

[Fred Beloit]

"Seems odd that "Old Europe" is able to uncover real terrorist plots, and terrorists with real provable ties to Al Quaeda--and doing so without any new laws or new powers--using the same old libril/socialist/surrender mentality and civil liberties standards they've always had; yet with all our new shiny police powers, all we can do is railroad two college students with homemade firecrackers" This is from that expert on international law nowinner.

"So true. Old Europe can uncover plots,..." from his chief assistant, Mr christamfordmum.

Unfortunately for them, the links below will demonstrate they are full of crap as usual.

[Fred Beloit]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3335/is_200502/ai_n18039626

[Fred Beloit]

http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.1/frenchlaw

[Fred Beloit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17082-2004Nov1?language=printer

[Fred Beloit]

http://www.schnews.org.uk/sotw/opportunism-anti-terrorist.htm

[nowingker]

I wish you guys would make up your minds, I thought the French were no good? I thought Europe was full of weaklings and capitualtors? I thought the whole lot of them were Neville Chamberlain clones? I thought Euope was a socialist sink hole that was going down the tubes because of their secular humanism and multi culturalism.

They catch some terrorists and all of a sudden, all that hate for Europe goes out the window?

I should have expected it, WingerWorld never disappoints in the hypocritical category or the ability to hold mutually contradictory views on anything so long as it supports their central premise.

[chris]

Wow, those were some POWERFUL links. I predict many more VICTORIES in the near future!

[Fred Beloit]

Unfortunately for them, the links above demonstrated they are full of crap as usual.

[seekeronos]

It's not the sum total of Europeans, French or Germans that are Neville Chamberlain clones.

It's largely their leadership who fears aggravating the masses of angry young Muslim males in their midst more than necessary.

You see, even an Old Europe can learn new tricks, and since the bomb plot was directed primarily at US forces in Europe, the GSG-9 and its paralell agencies might be more motivated (by the German government) to act.

Why?

I think it is because our presence there is something like a military meal ticket - that is, they don't have as much of a sense of urgency to re-arm to such a level as needed to fight the Russkies (who are starting to get a bit uppity recently) or other threats, so long as Uncle Sam is spending our tax dollars to do it for them.

By and large, Europe _has_ been digging its own grave through unchecked multi-culti pandering and playing up the carrot of socialist policies, whilest not tending to their guns the way they ought to.

Furthermore, it is better that the GSG-9 do the waterborarding and the bamboo shoots under the fingernails and the application of car battery currents to the naughty bits of suspected terrorists than us -- because if we do such things, suddenly, we are the bad guys.

If the Germans do it, it's just the business as usual.

[nowingker]

It beats me why we still have so many troops in Europe now that the USSR isn't a threat, well, of course, due to George's looney actions, the Ruskies ARE gearing back up, fearing that the US has lost all sense of reason, but that's another story.

Do you have any evidence that the Europeans use harsher tactics on their prisoners than we do?

I know the Brits tortured some IRA guys back in the day, but that was a huge scandal, not 'business as usual'.

[Capitalist Infidel]

But but but....vicious America haters like nowanker keep telling us that if we weren't in Iraq the terrorists would leave us alone. Funny, I don't remember Germany sending any troops to Iraq.

[Techie]

I love it. Russia is incapable of making it's own decisions. Everything in the world is a reaction to the US. Must be nice being the only people on the planet w/ free will.

[nowingker]

These terrorists were going to attack AMERICANS IN GERMANY, not Germans. Good grief, at least keep your facts somewhat straight.

No one ever said the terrorists would leave us alone if we weren't in Iraq. What I says is that the Iraq war has INCREASED hatred of the US and has INCREASED the number of terrorists and people who support terrorists actions against us. This belief is born out by the ever INCREASING number of terrorist plots.

See, there are more terrorists now than on 9/11 because the "war on terror" is being waged by a bunch of fools and they are created exactly what they say they don't want: more terrorists, less support for the US.

[chris]

The TERRURR is everywhere. Why does General Petraeus want to cut and run? If we don't fight them in Iraq, we will have to fight them here - in our Walmart parking lots and nascar tracks.

Amen.

[seekeronos]

Right now, it's just a gut feeling - given the German mindset when they really want to get something done.

And based upon some personal first hand knowledge of how German cops can operate if given particular circumstances. For instance, Germany is extremely strict in enforcing its DUI laws.

About some 10-12 years ago during a DUI stop, there was a German national with some G.I.'s and another German national, all of whom had had just enough beer to attract some attention by the Polizei (cops). The German driver started to put up a fuss about having been stopped, and then the cop simply stopped arguing, grabbed the guy out of car, and proceeded to beat the living daylights out of him. I mean, Rodney King had it easier than that poor dumb German civilian that got beat down.

And then to add final "insult" to injury, the officer collected the test sample anyway, (it was a blood sample) by rapping the guy on the smartly above eyebrow with his baton, and then collecting a swap of blood from the wound.

This may have been done more to make an impression on the G.I.s as much as to enforce their laws... but when this news incident did make it back to Army channels, it did leave the intended impression that Germany's DUI laws were not something to be flouted, nor the Polizei to be mouthed off to.

I'll have to do some digging for other specific instances of harsh tactics, but yeah, I'd say that messing with the German police is a pretty stupid idea, especially when the ACLU won't be likely to butt in.

[nowingker]

You nean like my gut feeling that the two Egyptian students are nothing but dumbasses who wanted to try blowing up some stuff based on what they were learning in school and nothing more?

I don't say you are wrong about the Germans or Europeans, but I still find it pretty hypocritical that the wingers have slammed Europeans no end for not supporting the Iraq war, called them cowards, railed agianst their governments and societal structures, can anyone forget Freedom Fries, and now, all of a sudden, all that animosity evaporates and we need to do it like the Germans do.

Pretty contradictory if you ask me.

[seekeronos]

"--- No one ever said the terrorists would leave us alone if we weren't in Iraq. What I says is that the Iraq war has INCREASED hatred of the US and has INCREASED the number of terrorists and people who support terrorists actions against us. This belief is born out by the ever INCREASING number of terrorist plots. ---"

Indeed. And this implies that regardless of our actions, that the terror plots have always been in play against us.

Therefore, no matter what we do, there will still be, and always will be, terrorist (Islamist) agitation against the American "Great Satan", a.k.a. "Amriki al-Shaytan".

Therefore, the various facets of the war on terror (to include Iraq and A'stan, and probably P'stan and Iran in the near future) have served to uncover many of the terror plots that we did not see.

Will the war cause some more Islamist imams to succeed in flaming the fires of jihad in the hearts of desparately poor and angry young, jobless Muslim males who can't even get a fair Muslim wife to beat around the house to strap on a one-way ticket to Allah?

Perhaps it will.

And if they do plot and plan, we will eventually catch them, and either kill them, or incarcerate them.

But the other side of it is the growing trust that the Iraqis and A'stanis are starting to have in the tribe of al-Amriki, who have come to their lands to help them stand back on their own feet again.

[seekeronos]

That bit with "Freedom Fries" was about the most retarded bit of idiocy we could have ever came up with, shortly following the diplomatic row with France (who at that time, was trying to play dodge and run from its missile sales to various rogue states in the M.E.)

It was childish, and even then upon hearing it I thought it was a jingoistic attempt to slap back at France's dodgery of committing to action against Saddam.

There are different folks in power now in Europe. Chirac is gone. Gerhardt Schroeder is gone. The Chamberlains are being replaced by folks who, while not Churchills, are certainly more willing to stand by their ally accross the Atlantic.

Ms. Merkel and Mr. Sarkozy may indeed turn out to be far more trustworthy than the fair-weather friends Messrs. Chirac and Schroeder were to us, both pre- and post- Sept. 11th, 2001.

[nowingker]

But the other side of it is the growing trust that the Iraqis and A'stanis are starting to have in the tribe of al-Amriki, who have come to their lands to help them stand back on their own feet again.
-----------------------------------------------------------

That's a fantasy Seek.

The only group that ever attacked us before was Al Quaeda, and that was against even their better judgement but Bin Laden got his way.

Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, they want the Israelis, not Americans and certainly not American civilians in America.

What Bush has done is create hundreds? thousands? of people who hate America enough to want to kill us, why in all probability would never have felt that way before Iraq.

You will never beileve it, but most of these terror attacks probably would never have happened if we had not invaded Iraq and gone on our own anti Muslim jihad.

[Techie]

Who blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut then, nowingker?

[rwilymz]

"I thought Euope was a socialist sink hole that was going down the tubes because of their secular humanism and multi culturalism."

When A European nation catches some folks doing these things, then they will prosecute under their laws, which they [as might be expected] see as the world's best laws. When we catch ditto and prosecute under our laws, they complain because they view their laws as the best -- remember -- and they also view us as a usurper of First World Primacy.

How dare the US, the bastard, renegade child of Europe, dare to insinuate itself as the leader of the free world?? Keep in mind that until the 80s, the concept of "US as primary force of the West" was, for all practical purposes, notional. Oh, sure, we had the most **money**, and once in a while the US actually took the lead on some specific event; but when the rubber hit the road and the shit hit the fan, it was British and French diplomacy that ruled the day.

Up until the late 70s, France was still the focus of pan-islamist shenanigans. Now that pan-islamism is centered on *anti-American* hesperophobia, France feels left out and, well, sorta emasculated. If the islamist weenies can't be bombing the Paris Metro stations, then, what good is it? We're stealing France's headlines, and, therefore, legitimacy.

Nope. They do every day what we're doing in Iraq and in Gitmo; but when they do it it's fine; when we do it it's not. Sour grapsing.

You are paying too much attention to the smoke and mirror in the Great Hall of Oz, and not enough attention to the man [plural] behind the curtain. And you're forgetting that each and every nation on the planet has curtains of their own.

"It beats me why we still have so many troops in Europe now that the USSR isn't a threat"

Of course it does! Because you are only paying attention to the smoke and mirror in the Great Hall of Oz et cetera.

They don't want us gone; the US military in Europe is a financial windfall for them.

"Do you have any evidence that the Europeans use harsher tactics on their prisoners than we do?"

Cote d'Ivorie. Look it up.

"No one ever said the terrorists would leave us alone if we weren't in Iraq."

That's been strongly implied by everyone mouthing it, and you know it.

"What I says is that the Iraq war has INCREASED hatred of the US and has INCREASED the number of terrorists and people who support terrorists actions against us."

The hatred that has been increasing ever since [pick your original source], you mean?

I thought that the hatred of the US was all because of us having troops in Saudi. No wait, I thought it was all because of Israel. No wait, I thought it was all because of the Shah. No, wait, I thought it was all because of...

Is anyone ready to clearly define what the hell it is these people really hate us for, and which started that damned spiral of terrorism against us?

...or is it simply because they are collectively under the spell of megalomaniacal theocrats and they'd be like this no matter what we did or didn't did?

"See, there are more terrorists now than on 9/11 because ..."

There wer more terrorists on 9/11 than there were in 1983 when the US limped home from Lebanon. There were more terrorists in 1983 than there were in 1979 when the Iranian students seized the US embassy.

Yadda, blah-blah, and et friggin cetera.

There is no starting point.

"I still find it pretty hypocritical that the wingers have slammed Europeans no end for not supporting the Iraq war, called them cowards, railed agianst their governments and societal structures, can anyone forget Freedom Fries, and now, all of a sudden, all that animosity evaporates and we need to do it like the Germans do."

You really like the smoke and mirror in the Great Hall of Oz, doncha?

Wake up. Pay attention. This is nothing more than the World Politics Polka going on. It is, almost literally, a dance, and only dunces get taken in by it. ...dunce.

"The only group that ever attacked us before was Al Quaeda"

...and Hamas, and Hezbollah, and all manner of individuals acting individually without a recognized group affiliation for support, but the financial or materiel backing of certain national interests...

Except for them, you're absolutely right.

"What Bush has done is create hundreds? thousands? of people who hate America enough to want to kill us"

They were already there, being whipped into a frothy foam of indignant outrage by their imams and mullahs.

[seekeronos]

Well, here's the thing:

Islam has an undying hatred of Israel.

America supports Israel (because of the rather large Jewish population in the USA, and also because of the Christian Zionist movement, which supports Israel based upon some interpretation of Bible prophecies regarding the end-times restoration of Israel. Still others support Israel because it is a sovereign nation surrounded by mortal enemies).

Therefore, because the USA supports Israel, Islam views the USA as an enemy, to be either conquered, enslaved, or exterminated, if its peoples do not submit to Allah.

So regardless of our activity in the M.E., we are firmly within the jihadists' cross hairs.

And until the majority of Muslims either reject Jihad as a pillar of their faith, or otherwise become willing to tolerate playing in our secular ball-park with the rest of religions of the world... we will be vigilant, and we will watch them, and punish the ones who do attack us with very little remorse or sympathy.

And coming back to those zany young Egyptian boys, out for a night of blowing things up in that vacant lot before heading off to the dance club... yes, we will hold them in suspicion for driving a car load of unauthorized, non-permitted explosives and devices over state lines, and especially so because they are foreign nationals and can be linked to a religion with a substantial and rather large subset of people who carry out (terrorist) combat operations against Americans.

[nowingker]

The key word is Marine barracks in Beruit. They blew it up because they didn't want American soldiers in their country, period, let alone helping the Israelis.

There isn't a rather large population of Jews in the US, aren't they only like 3%?

There is NOTHING wrong with supporting Israel!! It's a secular democracy, my kind of democracy:) There is MUCH that is wonderful about Israel. But, supporting Israel's interests OVER those of the U.S. is beautifically stupid, and treating Israel as if it is the only country on the planet that can do NO WRONG, that gets a pass for any atricity it commits because of the holocaust is not only morally wrong but in the long run, it is harmful to Israel. Keeping millions of people in limbo on your own border for decades is a recipe for violence. You reap what you sow. Turning a blind eye to Israeli mistsreatement of Palestinians has done NOTHING to make Israel safer, treating all Palestinians like they are all suicide bombers has not made Israel safer either. The only thing that will make Israel safer is a Palestinian state and a few decades of cooling off.

Rwilyzm, okay, that's a fair point.

[seekeronos]

"--- The only thing that will make Israel safer is a Palestinian state and a few decades of cooling off. ---"

Right. And if only if Egypt, Syria, or Jordan would fork over some of their territory to make that happen, it just might work. But as for Eretz Y'israel, it belongs to the Israelis.

[rwilymz]

"They blew it up because they didn't want American soldiers in their country, period, let alone helping the Israelis."

We weren't in Lebanon helping the Israelis; we were in Lebanon helping the Arab/Lebanese not destroy themselves in a civil war inspired by the attempted insinuation of Syrian puppets into Lebanon's government.

"You reap what you sow."

Bingo. And the Pal-Arabs sowed anarchist privation. Funny that they now have it, eh?

I'm laughin; how 'bout you?

[nowingker]

You know, there are always losers in history, that's the way of things.

The Etruscans, Celts, Cathars [okay, they were a religion, but..], Native Americans and the Palestinians. They are one of histories sad stories, it doesn't matter how much of this is 'their' fault vs. the fault of the UN, vs the other Arab states vs. the Israelis. They are one of histories losers and I don't see anything changing that, absent a global upheavel that turns the current power structure on its head.

[bloodrage bob]

that's actually a very impressive series of posts, rwilymz. it's always notable when a liberal is forced to stop squealing and admit, "well, yeah, i guess that's true". you made that happen. (the "ivory coast" comment was brilliant, btw.) sure, it'll wear off soon enough. sure, it's not like the intellectually dishonest liberal in question will actually *learn* anything from the exchange.

but still.

[rwilymz]

"You know, there are always losers in history, that's the way of things."

Right. Very, very right. You are correct.

And the US will eventually find itself as one of History's losers as well, simply because of entropy if nothing else. Just like every person will eventually die. We don't go to the doctor to acheive imortality, we go to stave off death for just a bit longer.

There is nothing which will allow the US to continue to exist; but there are things which will allow the US to stave off entropic stagnation and political irrelevance just a bit longer.

Among those things, if we are to believe historical patterns set down long ago, are these two:
1] respond to all aggressors, large and small, as if they are consequential -- as if they actually mean a good god damn -- and kick their asses just as hard and just as far as you possibly can [see U Mich v Appalachian State for the football metaphore]. A small aggressor left un-ass-kicked grows to be a big aggressor, not to mention encouraging a hundred knock-offs and immitators.
2] partisan politics ends at the border -- and even if academically criticizable, foreign policy must be unitary if it is to be effective; not-unitary foreign policy plays into the hands of enemies, current or future. Unitary foreign policy, even if "wrong", is the only one which has a chance of success.

The purpose of US foreign policy, even that which the current majority disagrees with, is to hold off entropic irrelevance as long as possible. Rome fell, largely, because it didn't want to protect its frontiers. Byzantium fell largely because they thought it was more important WHO held off the Turkish raiders than simply having SOMEone holding off the Turkish raiders.

[IslamoLlama]

"You will never beileve it, but most of these terror attacks probably would never have happened if we had not invaded Iraq and gone on our own anti Muslim jihad."

I wouldn't go that far. No doubt the train bombing in Madrid and the bombings in London would have been attempted regardless of or Iraqi incursion. It's not like the bombers were Iraqi, any more than even a single one of the 9/11 hijackers. Saddam wasn't pushing any terror attacks on the US or Europe because he'd already seen the hammer fall back in '91. He was cowering in Bagdad, trying to eek out a living as a glorified oil salesmen.

But that's just the point. Invading Iraq hasn't thwarted any terror attacks in Europe. When we killed Zarkawi, we didn't save any American lives or prevent any future 9/11s. The Taliban were free to kidnap South Korean missionaries, and all the reinforcements in the Bagdad Green Zone did nothing to stop them. Iran is still refining uranium. Syria is still funneling money to Hezbollah. Saudi Arabia is undeterred in sponsoring terror assaults throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world. Jordan and Lebanon aren't any more pro-America than they were in March of '03. The democracies that have flourished in the Middle East are largely composed of Islamic fundamentalist radicals, all despite boots on the ground in Al-Anbar and Kirkut.

Someone please show me an area of the Middle East that would be worse if we hadn't invaded. I haven't seen one.

[bloodrage bob]

maybe you could please show US, islamokitty, show us an area of the middle east that wouldn't be scratching their beards and saying, "hmmmm. the USA does not respond to attacks upon their citizens. this means they're weak, and we can attack them some more!" had we *not* invaded.

dead osama saw bubba's cowardly response to the somalia debacle, and began planning for 9-11, we're told. any honest study of middle eastern history shows that they see compassion (or, in this case, "failure to respond to provocations") as "weakness". jordan has killed many more palestinians than israel ever has, and so now jordan no longer has a "palestinian problem." israel still does.

so there's TWO real good things about the invasion right there: troublesome hajis are getting killed, and they're being killed by armed soldiers who volunteered to do so, rather than american civilians forced to do the fighting here.

are you saying we shouldn't have responded to 9-11? or that our response should have been limited to 'prosecuting osama'? knowing that every asswipe in the middle east would have been emboldened by that? true, the invasion hasn't "stopped terrorism", as you note. but appeasement didn't "stop terrorism" either. (see 'israel vs. the pals'; 'oslo peace accords'; etc etc). when dealing with islamic middle-eastern asswipes, it's better to make errors of commission or be overly vigorous, history has taught us. jordan killed 20,000+ palestinians in september 1970 when they kicked them out of their country. (so much for 'islamic charity', btw.) that's worked out just *fine* for jordan since then.

bush's mistake is that he's not being ruthless enough, but at least he's getting some hajis killed who might otherwise be tempted to move to america and kill unarmed civilians. your mistake is that your (apparent) tendencies towards appeasement will do *nothing at all* to help our cause, and is proven to actually make things worse.

[rwilymz]

"Saddam wasn't pushing any terror attacks on the US or Europe because he'd already seen the hammer fall back in '91."

Hussein was the financier behind the '93 Hamas attempt to blow up the NYC subway -- the A Train, if I remember the article correctly. Wasn't '93 after the falling hammer of '91? Or do I have the wrong calendar again?

Hussein was a megalomaniac. He believed he was untouchable. Megalomania is like that. The rules of reality don't apply. You are imputing a rational response upon an IRrational person. The same type of personal extrapolation to the world that has made the insanity defense so plausible in murder trials: "you'd have to be insane to kill someone. ...oh, gee, I guess he was... that's the only explanation..."

It would have been foolish to start worldwide trouble after getting thumped in a war, therefore he didn't. Sorry: facts differ.

"Invading Iraq hasn't thwarted any terror attacks in Europe"

How do you know? The invasion of Iraq has -- as you have previously conceded -- drawn a goodly number of pre-existing pan-islamist hotheads to a central location to take on The Great Satan, who's playing on the road. What would those pre-existing pan-islamists have done without the attraction in Iraq?

The invasion of Iraq also knocked Iraq, Libya and Yemen out of the state-sponsorship program. What would their continued *official* funding of pan-islamist paramilitarism have accomplished?

"Saudi Arabia is undeterred in sponsoring terror assaults throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world."

BZZZZZZT!!!

Saudi Arabia?? No.

Saudi ArabiANS, yes.

This is not going to be allowed to pass. Now or ever -- unless the factual basis changes.

Saudi Arabia is -- once again -- a monarchy that derives it's power not from the mandate of the masses, but high-handed "outdated imperialist dogma". They stole the country in '27 and haven't given it back yet. The Saudi on the street is a wahhabist separatist, in full self-righteous glory. The Saudi in the Palace is a money-grubbing "western accomodator" that the Saudi on the street imagines on the wrong side of a firing squad.

The answer isn't going to change in the near future.

To accuse Saudi Arabia of institutional support for panislamism is as foolish as accusing the US of the 40s and 50s of running the KKK. Hey, the KKK existed and was filled out by Americans, therefore it was run by the American *government*.

No. Equivocation of that sort does not work.

"Someone please show me an area of the Middle East that would be worse if we hadn't invaded."

Someone please explain why US foreign policy is graded, let alone **should be** graded, based on how other parts of the world feel about it, or benefit from it.

It is ****US**** foreign policy, not altruism. The purpose of US foreign policy is not the betterment of the world at large nor, specifically, the benefit of nations-not-the-US.

[seekeronos]

"--- It is ****US**** foreign policy, not altruism. The purpose of US foreign policy is not the betterment of the world at large nor, specifically, the benefit of nations-not-the-US. ---"

Quite so.

But, if it US foreign policy does have some positive effect on other nations as a by-product ... or more likely, can be spun properly so as to make other nations *believe* that it has a positive effect for them, then that's a probably good thing.

[rwilymz]

All things being equal, I'd agree with that about 100, maybe 102 percent.

But all things are not equal, and much of the facially altruistic US foreign policy we've embarked on in the last two generations has come back to bite us squarely on the left nut by foreign diplomatic demagogues spinning the by-product in ways that are favorable to their own pet ideologies.

The Marshall Plan has morphed into "...so you think you can just *buy* your way around the world??"

The Peace Corp started out being denounced as a cover for CIA operations, and has had its legacy used as yet another example of American "cultural warfare" on the third world.

We simply don't get the benefit of the doubt; altruism buys us nothing in the end. Probably [mostly] because we're the pre-eminent power in the world. Whatever we do is wrong, regardless of how we spin it.

Since we don't get respect by being nice, and "non-aligned" nations will not side with us simply because of gratis donations to their cause, why go to the effort and expense?

Others will align themselves with us for one reason only: they know which side of the bread is buttered. The deal at this point is that the buttering is not, as yet, at critical mass. Most nations' soundness, let alone their survival, does not require them to actively place their hands on the bread. They still have the luxury of critiquing the butterer.