Let me follow up on a point from my Monday Thread below: what exactly does it mean if al Qaeda decides that it doesn’t need the Republicans anymore? What is this phase two that Kevin Drum mentioned?
Recall that al Qaeda’s overall mission statement doesn’t specifically involve killing Americans. Like most terrorist groups Bin Laden and Zawahiri’s outfit has an agenda that relates more to their local environment than to the people they attack. It may serve America’s self-absorption to think the evil men attacked us for our freedoms or some such pap but it just ain’t so. Ultimately al Qaeda’s endgame serves Bin Laden’s pseudo-messianic fantasies about uniting the Arab middle east under a populist, fundamentalist banner. A Greater Caliphate. Bin Laden’s primary problem is the British partition of the mideast, which functions exactly as designed by keeping any potential Ottoman empire bottled up in conflicts between more than a dozen competing nation-states.
Al Qaeda plans a modern domino effect – knock down secularist regimes like Syria, Egypt and Iraq, destabilize the region and revolutionize or co-opt fundamentalist states like Saudi Arabia. Foment chaos and then, absent credible opposition from the recently-departed local governments, offer people an alternative. The appeal potentially has legs – by virtue of its oil reserves alone a unified mideast would instantly become answerable to nobody on the world stage. After Iraq (again, which ministry did we guard from looters?) the image of western states obsessed with and dependent on Arab oil will not be lost on many. Right now the idea of a fundamentalist state only appeals to so many in the mideast, but al Qaeda learned a critical lesson from Afghanistan. Give people a taste of chaos and they will eagerly give order a chance, even order with significant trade-offs.
The persistence of key Arab states has frustrated al Qaeda more than anything. And almost every time the single most important factor is support from the US. I will leave out the strategic wisdom of these arrangements, not every foreign policy decision gives you options that you like. Wheels within wheels. But from al Qaeda’s perspective the big US prop behind Hosni Murbarak, the Sauds and Jordan definitely poses a problem.
What to do? Look to Afghanistan and before that, Vietnam. A ragtag band can’t defeat a superpower but they can make it bleed until it decides to go away. Underneath the rhetoric, Al Qaeda attacked America and kept attacking America because they wanted to draw us into another Afghan war. Bleed the US while using the conflict to inflame Muslim sentiment us until we no longer have the will (Vietnam) or the resources (Afghanistan) to go on.
The sad irony of the last five years is that al Qaeda gambled and lost. Their attack offended more Muslims than expected and their military position in Afghanistan folded like a house of cards. Then, unbelievably, with bin Laden’s outfit on the ropes Bush gave them exactly what they wanted.
What happens next? In my understanding, nothing as far as America is concerned. Notwithstanding mutations like Zarqawi’s former organization, which view killing (Americans, Shiites, whatever) as an end in itself, the terrorists got what they needed from us. Assuming that the old Al Qaeda has any influence relative to the strategy-blind mutations the folks who probably should worry are US-backed regimes like the al-Sauds and Murbarak. There are the guys who will soon turn to us in the face of a growing insurgency and find no help forthcoming. And, ultimately, Israel.
chopper
and it woulda worked too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids and your oil addiction.
spoosmith
One of the things Bin Laden was reportedly pissed about was the presence of US military bases in Saudi Arabia. One of the early moves after 9/11 was to remove the military base there.
Check one off his wish list
ThymeZone
An excellent and thoughtful post.
My reaction is, the US is mired in policy quicksand based entirely, if I understand it correctly, in the idea that other nations, particularly troublesome ones and Middle East ones, better do what we say or we will do something really bad to them. In the case of Iraq, it was Shock and Awe followed by the falling statues and the Mission Accomplished Banner, then several years of chaos and insurrection. In Iran, it will be … something really naughty. But all of it grounded in the insane notion that we can just push other countries around at the ends of our many and excotic gunbarrels and they’ll fall into line. Someday, because, you know, it’s “hard” and we can’t have “timetables” for these things lest our adversaries find out that we are not as all-powerful as our boasts and chest-thumping are intended to convey.
In other words, we have a completely delusional set of policies which have no future other than prolonged war, pain, chaos, destabilization . . . and strutting and posturing on our part.
Tomas
Good post. It seems that the Bush administration walked into the terrorists’ trap, when it decided to invade Iraq.
Furthermore: one can agree or disagree with the decision to invade. But the bungling of the post-invasion, and the lack of post-war planning, are incomprehensible. With so much at stake!
Zifnab
If any nation but our own and Iraq has the right to knee President Bush in the balls, its Isreal. Bush has done in the past 6 years to increase potential nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East than any other world figure I could name. You know the moment Tehran gets the bomb, it’s going to take a great deal of self-control not to rush of and make Tel Aviv glow in the dark.
Tom Tomberg
Terrific post.
Am I reading you right, to infer from this post that an Iranian client state in Iraq might be the least undesirable likely end result here? (That’s assuming that “functioning democracy” is off the table, which hopefully it is not).
Iran says and does a lot of horrible stuff, but it is a state with territory, people to govern, strategic interests. Would an Iranian client state be less bad than a Talibanesque, anarchy-ridden, terrorist-run state?
If I’m reading this post right, then one might conclude that even though Hizbollah is financed by Iran, and is beyond horrible, they at least have somewhat circumscribed tactics and enemies than those of the possible emerging regime in Iraq– worldwide terror in pursuit of a new Caliphate.
Li'l Mamzer
The problem with Iran is that it is a state actor whose clerical leadership has jihadist megalomaniacal designs not unlike Al Qaeda, albeit from a Shiite perspective. It doesn’t make any difference to me whether the Muslim who wants to force me into dhimmitude or decapitate me is a Sunni or a Shiite – better he should die than me.
And yes, I believe it has come to that.
The good part, if one can call it that, is that there is an address: Teheran.
Steve
I think that a big mistake just about everybody made was to believe that a terrorist strike was a discrete act of murder. Further, that the terrorists only wanted to bring more and bigger bombs into the USA. Al Qaeda mistakenly believed that the US would invade Afghanistan, but instead we just intervened on behalf of their resistance. That was perfect. Then we bailed Al Qaeda out by invading Iraq and doing on our own the same thing they couldn’t get us to do in 2001. Has anybody considered that Al Qaeda hasn’t NEEDED to attack us over the last 3 years? It probably doesn’t matter to them which party wins nest week, our options are so poor. Al Qaeda’s biggest future problem won’t be us, it’ll be their own rivals who want the same power they do.
Tim F.
You are certainly right that the Iranian sphere of influence directly clashes with Al Qaeda’s potential sphere of influence, and I strongly doubt that AQ has any options for striking at Iran in a meaningful way. In fact if we can dispense with the “axis of evil” pap and think strategically Iran could prove to be a very useful ally against AQ’s regional strategery. Iran’s intelligence is very good if a bit bloody for our tastes, but given the direction we are headed that may not be a problem.
Pb
Dude, where do you live? Has the invading Muslim horde gotten that far yet, or does it just seem closer because we’re already there?
sglover
If any nation but our own and Iraq has the right to knee President Bush in the balls, its Isreal. Bush has done in the past 6 years to increase potential nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East than any other world figure I could name. You know the moment Tehran gets the bomb, it’s going to take a great deal of self-control not to rush of and make Tel Aviv glow in the dark.
Er, well, seems to me that if anyone’s done more than their share to drive nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, it’s Israel.
I hope some happy surprise comes along that proves me wrong, but what discourages me about the American democracy experiment is its complete, decades-long inability to have an honest, lucid discussion about two big pathologies:
1) Our oil habit, which will only be addressed by adopting a gradually rising petroleum tax.
2) Our lunatic blank check policy towards Israel, a tiny ally of dubious loyalty whose long-term strategic position is a losing one. We’d save a lot of money and hatred if we subsidized mass emigrations from Israel to the States, and let the diehards who choose to stay fend for themselves without the American money and arms tit.
Until some national-level leadership folks start addressing these things in a forthright manner, I’m afraid that all political “dialogue” will be just a form of whistling past the graveyard….
sglover
The problem with Iran is that it is a state actor whose clerical leadership has jihadist megalomaniacal designs not unlike Al Qaeda, albeit from a Shiite perspective. It doesn’t make any difference to me whether the Muslim who wants to force me into dhimmitude or decapitate me is a Sunni or a Shiite – better he should die than me.
And yes, I believe it has come to that.
Do you know anything about the region, other than the trash you’ve obviously devoured while grazing the right-wing sites? Can you give us a quick summary of recent Iranian history? Can you describe their government? Quick, how large is the Iranian GDP, compared to that of the States? Have you ever spoken to an Iranian? Can you even locate Tehran on a map? I’m guessing I know your answers to all these in advance…..
Li'l Mamzer
Pb –
People in Europe are scared, and they are being intimidated into silence. You should read the note that was attached to the knife stuck into Theo Van Gogh’s chest.
And it will happen in the US as well. How in-your-face are you willing to get with the Muslim cab driver who refuses to take you because you may be blind and have a seeing eye dog?
Wouldn’t want to be non-PC and humiliate a Muslim in his own, I mean, OUR own country.
Tim F.
I see that you are doing everything that you can to make it happen. Bravo.
BadTux
Uh, dudes, Iran is *NOT* going to nuke Tel Aviv. There are 4.5 million Jews in Israel, but there are also 800,000 Arabs and a couple hundred thousand Druse in Israel, as well as 5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip who would get irradiated by a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv. Iran is trying for regional hegemony. Killing 6,000,000 fellow Muslims would not further that goal.
Furthermore, the crazy dude doing all the crazy talk, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has no army. It is only in third world banana republics and the United States (but I speak redundantly) that the President has control of the armed forces. In civilized nations, the Presidency is a ceremonial position. Under the Iranian constitution, the army is controlled by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who is only allowed by the Guardian Council and Constitution to take those actions consistent with the Koran and Islamic law. Under Islamic law, Jews are a protected class as “People of the Book”, and in fact Judaism is an offical state religion of Iran. Until 1948, only Iraq’s Jewish community was larger than Iran’s in the Middle East (and there were more Jews in both countries than in Palestine in 1948 — funny, for people who “hate Jews” and “want to exterminate Jews”, 1/5th of Israel’s population is Iranian and Iraqi Jews who moved there after 1948!). Killing people merely for being Jews simply isn’t allowed by Islamic law, surprisingly enough and contrary to all propaganda.
In short, probably the only thing under Iranian law that would allow them to make a nuclear strike against Tel Aviv would be if Israel attacked other Muslim states with nuclear weapons first. As long as Israel refrains from using its own nukes, Iran can’t, under Islamic law, use its nukes against Israel, due to the injury it would cause to innocent People of the Book (both Jews and fellow Muslims). And unlike here in the United States, the ayatollahs take their religion seriously, and would sooner shoot themselves in the head than violate what they perceive as their religious duties…
Now, there’s good reasons to oppose Iran having nuclear weapons. They want regional hegemony, they have a prior claim to the western half of Iraq (Iran and the Ottomons fought over Iraq for centuries and it changed hands several times over those centuries), and they do not by any means have the U.S.’s best interests in their hearts (but then again, in today’s day and age, who does?). But Iran nuking Tel Aviv is *not* one of the reasons to oppose Iran having nuclear weapons. It simply doesn’t fly under Islamic law, which is the only law that Iran acknowledges.
_BT
Pooh
Whereas you’re only being intimidated into anonymous calls for nuclear genocide on the intertrons. Bravo, courageous sir, bravo.
Jon H
” How in-your-face are you willing to get with the Muslim cab driver who refuses to take you because you may be blind and have a seeing eye dog?”
How in-your-face are you willing to get with a pharmacist who refuses to dispense prescribed birth control?
How about if he’s brown?
Pooh
Oh boy…The Israel question is incredibly complex, and so we’ve done what any right thinking people would do in such a situation: punt. I’d like to be able to have an honest discussion of what our best Israel policy should be, but calls for that generally include requests for ponies as well…
BadTux
Uhm, while I’m talking about Islamic law, I’ll also point out that under Islamic law Christians are also “People of the Book” and thus forced conversions of Christians to Islam are illegal under Islamic law. Not saying that it hasn’t ever happened, but the sizable Christian population of Lebanon (which has been under Islamic rule for over 800 years save for a brief time under French rule) should give one pause there. While Islamic jihadis have done forced “by the sword” conversions in the past, it has almost always been of “heretics”, such as the millions of Hindus converted to Islam at swordpoint by the Moghul Empire. (And if you don’t know what the Moghul Empire was, then don’t even bother contradicting me, because you’re too ignorant to have a clue).
Which isn’t to say that being a Christian or Jew in a nation ruled by Islamic law is something to look forward to, since Islamic law has very discriminatory treatment towards Christians and Jews, such as imposing extra taxes upon them and such, in hopes of having them convert voluntarily to Islam. Just that all these morons whining about Christians being “converted at swordpoint” to Islam are projecting. The only mass conversions ever done at swordpoint between Christianity and Islam were done by Christians forcing Muslims and Jews to become Christian at swordpoint. Look up “Spanish Reconquista” and get back with me.
– Badtux the History Penguin
Pooh
Notice, BTW, that the cab driver doesn’t expect to get a fare for not taking you anywhere, while the pharmacist still expects to get paid for not filling your prescription…
Andrei
Tim’s sentiment here is exactly what upsets me so much about the comments from GOPers that generally entail the question, “You want America to wiin the war, don’t you?” Which they have been using a lot mroe these days leading up to the election.
It’s so incredibly annoying to watch people like Dave Letterman and Wolf Blitzer sputter around for an answer to this insulting line of questioning. No one in the mainstream media or Democrat labeled politicians bother to look at neocons or rightwingers at say right back to them, “You obviously don’t know HOW to win, so let’s stop trying this your way.”
In order to “win,” one has to look at the entirety of the situation, which includes the points Tim makes in this posts about the larger picture and the dynamics of what is going on in the middle east. There is much more going on in this whole predicament, and the neocon strategy has utterly failed in every respect. It has failed on the ground to provide security for the occuptation, and it has failed in losing our status and moral bearing in this fight by using torture. It has failed by giving Americans a cheap couch potato war where people can be vocal aobut their supprt to let other Americans die to protect them while they watch Deal or No Deal on the tube. It has failed to keep Iraqi civilian casualties down. It has failed by costing the American public an arm and leg of money we don’t actually have.
It’s time to start looking at the GOP and saying right back at them, “Of course I want to win. That’s an offensive and stupid question. We tried to win using your simplistic, failed policies and shortsighted reasoning for engaging in this war. It’s time to switch gears. I want to win, and that means we have to stop doing it your way.”
The GOP has been given every single opportunity to succeed. They have had all branches of government to conduct and legislate the execution of the war in whatever way they wanted to run it. They have had the moral support of everyone on both sides of the partisan divde after 9/11. And they had allies willing to help in the wake of 9/11.
They have completely failed.
To put this into sports analogies. The GOP is like the Houston Oilers in the wild car dgame against the Bills. The Oilers were up 35-3 at halftime, and wound up losing 41-38. Fuck them. It’s their own fault at this stage, and I for one am entirely sick of their whining about why they can’t seem to do a better job.
The GOP has fucked this up themselves, and have taken the rest of us with them, which is why so many of us are flipping mad. They have only themselves to blame for being petty, shortsighted and pretty much wrong at EVERY TURN in the fiasco that they have called the War on Terror.
They refuse to look in the mirror and admit not only that they were wrong, but that they have failed when they were given every opportunity to prove they were right about the way to do this. Party of accountability my ass.
And while they continue to act like asshats in this whole fiasco, soldiers and innocent civilians are dying. Unacceptable.
BadTux
Just to make it clear — I don’t want to be under the rule of either the Islamic Taliban *OR* the Christian Taliban. I just get irritated when people make up lies to catapult their propaganda. Reality is bad enough without making things up.
_BT
Zifnab
There were Arabs working in the WTC back in ’01. There were Sunnis living in Kuwait back in ’92. There were Japanese living in Hawaii in ’42.
That said, I did exaggerate a touch. You’re probably right on the Iran thing.
chopper
well, remember that a big reason why so many iraqi and iranian jews moved to israel after 1948 is that they got their asses kicked out of iraq and iran.
however, there still is a jewish population in iran. it aint huge, but its bigger than you’d expect. under the constitution, there is one jewish MP in iran’s parliament, although he’s not very pro-israel and it’s easy to see his position as a decorative one.
Zifnab
Li’l Mamzer, you’re absolutely right.
That’s why I adhere to a strict Shoot-On-Sit policy concerning all Arabs in the US. We need to kill them in their mosques before they kill us in our churches. I say we firebomb every Islamic religious facility from the tip of Maine to the California coast. Because, lets face it, they were probably going to do it to us if we didn’t do it to them first.
I know if Theo Van Gogh were alive today, he’d be encouraging all Dutchmen to rise up and stick knives in the chests of all the Arabs who have offended him. But its just like Europe to turn tail and surrender. That’s why we need to take the initative and nuke Europe, before the towel-heads take over.
Just a modest proposal.
chopper
the GOP are like the chicago cubs of politics. they keep fsckin up, year after year after year, yet people still love em.
(this coming from a guy who grew up a rabid cubs fan)
srv
Perhaps if the Blue States funded a Red Dawn Scenario in the south, we could get rid of the pop evangelicals and islamofascistas at the same time. We could play them off each other. Hell, it worked in Iraq and Iran for most of the 80’s.
sglover
And it will happen in the US as well. How in-your-face are you willing to get with the Muslim cab driver who refuses to take you because you may be blind and have a seeing eye dog?
WTF?!?
Do you wet yourself when you see dark-skinned people? Get a grip, you trembling pussy!
sglover
Oh boy…The Israel question is incredibly complex, and so we’ve done what any right thinking people would do in such a situation: punt. I’d like to be able to have an honest discussion of what our best Israel policy should be, but calls for that generally include requests for ponies as well…
Well, sure. But the thing that bothers me is that the whole topic isn’t even discussed, in any meaningful sense. Same thing with an oil tax. The GOP has to play to form, and adopt the stupid stance — Hey, no problem that the market can’t solve! The Dems, meanwhile, dare not say that any meaningful energy policy has to have costs — so their “solution” is make vague noises about Manhattan Projects and/or Apollo Programs to achieve “energy independence”. In all cases, in the long run we’re better off if we discuss unpleasant choices honestly, now. Because eventually the choice we refused to confront today is going to be the painful constraint we have to live with tomorrow.
Demdude
Everyone keeps forgetting the fact that Israel is not exactly sitting there unarmed. We didn’t attack the Soviet Union (or they us), because of “MAD” (Mutually Assured Destruction). Iran is no hurry to seal it’s own fate.
I’ve seen estimates of several hundred nuclear weapons in Israel. Even if that number is 1/10th of a large number, it’s enough to make any attack unattractive.
They can bluster and make all the speeches they want, they aren’t suicidal.
Zifnab
The devil is in the details. It’s also where they keep all the pork. I think everyone in America is ready to hear a little more detail on the WHY and HOW on our big ticket tax items and their costs.
Politicans absolutely love to tell you how Global Warming is too complicated to explain, but you just have to trust that it is/isn’t true. The War on Terror is top secret, so we can’t tell you how we’re deploying troops or what measures we’ve enacted to keep you safe. Deficit Spending improves the economy in ways that only a Doctorate in math will give you the insight to understand. ID is a perfectly valid topic for High School Biology because Evolution is just too damn complicated for people to accept.
So much bullshit. And the worst of it is the bullshit you’re not even smart enough to hear.
skip
With regard to the theoretical muslim cab driver:
Suppose we posit the Arab equivalent of Borat, let’s call him David Ben- David (played by an Arab) lampooning Jewry as scheming, covetous, clannish and vulgar etc. How long would this David Ben-David be on the air— or even stay alive in the open venues frequented by Mr. Cohen (Borat)?
BadTux
Zifnab, Saddam was a secular leader. What does that have to do with Islamic law as interpreted by the Iranian Guardian Council (their equivalent of our Supreme Court, more or less)? Osama attacked what he believed was a valid military target, the center of what he viewed as a secular conspiracy to corrupt the youth of the Muslim world (hmm, replace “Muslim” with “Christian” and you have Pat Robinson!). By his warped interpretation of Islamic law, any Muslim who chose to work there was collaborating with the enemy. What does that have to do with nuking a civilian city occupied by hundreds of thousands of innocents guilty of nothing but being born?
There are valid reasons to oppose Iran’s goals in the Middle East. Assuring U.S. oil supplies for the near future is one of them — giving Iran that sort of hold over the world’s oil supplies would be a Bad Idea for so many reasons. But the notion of Iranians nuking Tel Aviv — or the notion of Iran invading Alabama and doing forced conversion of Christians to Islam at swordpoint (another thing not allowed by Islamic law under the Iranian Constitution) — ain’t amongst those valid reasons.
-BT
Filthy McNasty
It’s a poor use of one’s time to listen to Tim F. and hope to gain an understanding of AQ, let alone terrorism in general. His understanding of AQ’s mission and the motivations of the various tribes in that region betrays an ignorance of staggering proportions.
He sure sounds like he knows what he’s talking about, but he’s, in fact, clueless. He represents one of the dangers of our connected world: the magnitude of bad information that is presented as being serious and credible.
Tim F.
Thank you for offering a substantive riposte to my ideas, sir McNasty. We all feel so much better informed now.
Dustbin Of History
Shorter Filthy: ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem
Andrei
Oh fucks sake… Put up or shut up. And you guys are the ones cliaming *we* are ruining this country. No one is going to listen to you anymore when you say the sky is falling simply because you *claim* the sky is falling.
Cite examples with some concrete sourcing and a modicum of rationale thought behind your righteous proclamations or STFU.
Here’s the part I simply do not get. And John Cole, please feel free to enlighten some of us who never even bought the Kool Aide much less drank it. How is it that folks from the rightwing side of the aisle make claims that when tested against reality seem to describe themselves, not the thing they claim they are talking about?
I mean honestly… when I read McNasty’s comment there, the first thing I think of are what idiots like Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter say as their talking points.
Pb
Well, last I heard, were I to trust the characterizations of my Western media, they elected that guy President of Iran. He’s Persian, though–does it still count?
Anyhow, I think it might turn out sort of like how Colbert’s show plays with conservatives–they aren’t sure how much of it really is a joke, but they seem to like it anyhow.
Tom Tomberg
You guys presumably know this commentor better than I do. But Mr/Ms McNasty’s comments in this thread, while reflecting absolute zero ability to mention or comprehend facts or logical arguments, betray no hint of ideological bias. An anti-reality bias, to be sure, but just from his ad hominem on this thread, it could be from any ideological corner.
The Other Steve
You’re right. McNasty doesn’t have an ideology. Or at least he doesn’t hold any beliefs of what he considers right or wrong.
He suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome. It’s pro-Bush all the time, right or wrong, doesn’t matter.
Pb
Tom Tomberg,
Yes, Filthy McNasty did not just suddenly spring full-formed into this comment thread. If you’re interested, there’s always TEH GOOGAL. I know I’m not–I have yet to see him come close to contributing anything positive, insightful, interesting, or amusing.
BlogReeder
I was going to wait until after the elections to read you guys again because you’ve gone squirrelly. You guys are just like a couple of squirrels running around a bush.
I was intrigued by this. It seems like you’re saying Bush was successful against Al Qaeda. He was, after all, in office during the last 5 years. Amazing. Tim F. said Bush was successful against Al Qaeda. Of course you woke up by the end of the quote.
Beej
Gee, John, do you ever get tired of being “Juan Cole”? And it was Tim’s post anyway.
Pb
Except, of course, that he was saying no such thing. It is indeed possible for Al Qaeda to screw up all on their own, and for that to have nothing to do with Bush. The problem, however, is when Bush manages to screw up even more, so as to negate the effects of their screw up entirely, and then some. Now, perhaps you could have figured this all out by yourself eventually, through mere reading comprehension, given time and perseverance–so I’ll let you take a crack at it all by yourself next time.
Tim F.
Blogreeder, if I saw the world through eyes as jaded and ideologically blinkered as yours I think I would quit my job and take up drinking.
Cal Gal
What IS that about the Muslim cab driver? They won’t take a dog, is that it?
And what about “you MAY be blind and have a seeing-eye dog”?
Are you blind or not? If you’re not blind, the dog is not a seeing-eye dog, is it?
If you are blind, ask someone near you to write down the cab driver’s medallion number, because I think what they did MIGHT be illegal.
If you’re not blind, be a little more sensitive to people who either don’t like dogs in general, are allergic to dogs, or who have had dogs “mess” in their cars.
Li'l Mamzer
Cal Gal – go here:
http://www.startribune.com/191/story/766918.html