Hi there, !
Today Mon 07/04/2005 Sun 07/03/2005 Sat 07/02/2005 Fri 07/01/2005 Thu 06/30/2005 Wed 06/29/2005 Tue 06/28/2005 Archives
Rantburg
533770 articles and 1862115 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 97 articles and 610 comments as of 3:44.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Non-WoT           
16 U.S. Troops Killed in Afghan Crash
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 4: Opinion
2 00:00 phil_b [8] 
2 00:00 Glirt Angatle8738 [5] 
4 00:00 .com [2] 
2 00:00 Sock Puppet 0’ Doom [4] 
12 00:00 2b [4] 
2 00:00 eLarson [4] 
2 00:00 .com [2] 
8 00:00 2b [9] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
1 00:00 muck4doo [8]
16 00:00 3dc [8]
3 00:00 tu3031 [7]
4 00:00 bigjim-ky [5]
15 00:00 john [6]
5 00:00 trailing wife [3]
1 00:00 Omavitch Cravitch1380 [4]
4 00:00 Fun Dung Poo [4]
13 00:00 trailing wife [7]
12 00:00 WITT [4]
6 00:00 Fun Dung Poo [6]
6 00:00 buwaya [4]
6 00:00 .com [6]
14 00:00 2b [4]
4 00:00 Drano [5]
0 [4]
11 00:00 Fun Dung Poo [4]
0 [5]
4 00:00 cingold [4]
1 00:00 2b [4]
8 00:00 Shipman [4]
2 00:00 tu3031 [7]
1 00:00 Jackal [4]
14 00:00 Fun Dung Poo [3]
0 [4]
0 [4]
14 00:00 Frank G [11]
4 00:00 trailing wife [5]
1 00:00 Red Dog [9]
Page 2: WoT Background
22 00:00 Frank G [6]
2 00:00 muck4doo [4]
16 00:00 Saddam Hussein [6]
1 00:00 bigjim-ky [4]
1 00:00 Cheper Unavise7761 [4]
5 00:00 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) [10]
16 00:00 trailing wife [8]
6 00:00 Shipman [4]
0 [4]
0 [4]
3 00:00 Glenmore [3]
6 00:00 Shipman [5]
0 [5]
2 00:00 Frank G [4]
0 [5]
2 00:00 CrazyFool [2]
13 00:00 trailing wife [8]
6 00:00 Darth VAda [6]
12 00:00 Shomons Unaviger5004 [6]
13 00:00 Fun Dung Poo [5]
12 00:00 Tom [2]
9 00:00 tupak4doo [4]
1 00:00 mojo [4]
0 [8]
6 00:00 .com [8]
2 00:00 2b [9]
5 00:00 Cravish Angomons3644 [4]
1 00:00 Paul Moloney [3]
0 [4]
12 00:00 Desert Blondie [4]
0 [4]
2 00:00 trailing wife [4]
4 00:00 Jackal [4]
4 00:00 Shipman [4]
Page 3: Non-WoT
5 00:00 Sock Puppet 0’ Doom [5]
10 00:00 .com [6]
16 00:00 Matt [5]
0 [4]
6 00:00 phil_b [4]
8 00:00 Atomic Conspiracy [4]
6 00:00 Fun Dung Poo [10]
2 00:00 Fun Dung Poo [6]
32 00:00 Captain America [11]
5 00:00 Shipman [4]
10 00:00 Fun Dung Poo [7]
11 00:00 Frank G [6]
11 00:00 Phil Fraering [4]
12 00:00 Red Dog [4]
8 00:00 Jackal [5]
5 00:00 half [5]
5 00:00 Xbalanke [4]
6 00:00 Frank G [5]
0 [5]
11 00:00 Chuck Simmins [4]
3 00:00 .com [4]
1 00:00 phil_b [13]
3 00:00 BA [4]
21 00:00 Stephen [4]
11 00:00 Shipman [4]
12 00:00 Fun Dung Poo [6]
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Tom Cruise: Movie star or Alien Messenger?
Clever guy, that Tom Cruise. "War of the Worlds" has been out, what, two days? And everybody’s still thinking it’s a Spielberg movie, that Cruise is just the high-priced window dressing.
C’mon people, wake up and smell the formaldehyde. "War" isn’t just another summer blockbuster, despite Spielberg’s name stamped across it like "Tide" is stamped across a box of detergent. No, no. It’s a message movie. And the message is scary enough to make Don Rumsfeld cry like a little girl: The aliens are coming. The end times are at hand.

And it’s Cruise’s message, not Spielberg’s. I don’t know what Spielberg is getting out of this deal — maybe he’s being blackmailed — but "War" is not his bag. He’s the guy who gave us "Close Encounters" and "E.T." He’s a squishy Hollywood liberal, remember, the man who sees aliens as benign, childlike beings who need a hug or two.

The way I see it — and my friends at flouridemakesyoublind.com agree with me on this one — "War of the Worlds" is a Scientology tract, a coded warning from Cruise to his minions that some bad muchachos from the Mother Planet are about to apply a big, nasty can of Raid to the roaches of the human race. It’s a heads-up to the Rapture.

Laugh if you want. But aren’t I the one who told you that "Batman Begins" was a blueprint for a neo-fascist takeover of the Eastern Seaboard by snooty Bush-hating Europeans? Aren’t I the one who warned you that Arnold Schwarzenegger takes his orders from corrupt Russian petro-chemical interests, that George Lucas is developing a nuclear weapon?

And all this strange behavior Cruise has been exhibiting in the lead-up to the film’s release? Messages, all of it. Jumping up and down on Oprah’s couch. Cracking on Brooke Shields, chiding Matt Lauer. Cruise knows that he and the other Enlightened Ones won’t have to put up with the rest of us swine much longer. That’s what’s making him so annoyingly happy.

Cruise’s sweeping romance and abrupt engagement to Katie Holmes was the most sobering message of them all. It’s time to find some prime breeding stock, fellas. After the apocalypse, we’re going to have kick-start this species all over again. Let’s do it right this time.

Cruise is probably the most famous person on the face of the planet. Considering his gargantuan ego, his passionately held beliefs, his Messiah complex and his power as the top box-office star in the world, is it likely that he’d be content just collecting another multi-million dollar paycheck for just another tawdry blockbuster? Not very.

Hey, it’s all there in the movie. This "War of the Worlds" resembles the original H.G. Wells novel only in broad outline. Notice one thing about the new movie, if you will. When the aliens attack, all electrical power is shut down immediately, meaning there’s no media to tell you what’s happening (I hear you: they’d probably get it wrong anyway). So who the aliens are, where they came from or what they want is never explained, except in one instance.

In that scene, in which Cruise’s character meets up with a TV reporter in a news truck, he figures out that the aliens are destroying the earth in machines they had planted under the earth’s surface millions of years earlier.

One of the fundamental beliefs of the Scientologists and L. Ron Hubbard, the bad sci-fi writer who founded the "church," is that some extraterrestrial life form had visited the earth long before man came along to muck it up. Nice coincidental parallel, don’t you think?

After that, of course, the symbolism hits with tsunami-like force. Cruise is a blue-collar New Jersey guy who happens to be a lazy, inattentive father (like us complacent, greedy Americans, get it?). By chance, the weekend the world comes to an end, he’s entrusted to take care of his hostile teenage son and his luminous 10-year-old daughter.

So, for much of the film Cruise, punished by the gods for being such a lousy father, is trying to protect his kids, especially his golden lamb of a daughter, from the swiftly unfolding carnage around them. He’s like a cave man guarding the last ember of his fire against the raging rainstorm.

In one scene, a ferry boat pulls away from a dock with thousands of panicked people trying in vain to get on board. There’s no plausible reason why being on the boat would be safer than remaining on land, but everybody’s desperate to get on that boat. And there’s Cruise, safely on the boat, screaming at the men operating it: "There’s still room on the boat!"

There it is, in a nutshell, folks. Our cinema-age Messiah Tom Cruise warning us, there’s still room on the boat. There’s still time to get "clear" in Scientology parlance and avoid the fate of the blind, frightened masses.

But now you have to ask yourself: Is Cruise the Messiah trying to save his worthless species from pitiless aliens bent on annihilation? Or is he the lead agent of the aliens himself?

And Cruise, for all his alleged appeal, has always been just a tad off-center on the humanity scale, don’t you think? All that speculation about his sexual orientation, which goes back years, is really off track. The real speculation should be: Is this guy human? While we’re all looking askance at poor old Michael Jackson, maybe it’s Cruise who’s the real weirdo. I have it on very good authority — a shout-out to the guys at vaportrailscausecancer.com — that he eats boiled kitten heads for breakfast every morning.

And, again, it’s there in the movie. What, for instance, is Tom Cruise’s character’s name in "War of the Worlds"? That’s right, Ray. And what do the aliens use to vaporize every fleeing human in his/her tracks? A death ray.

Hey, I’m just saying ...
Posted by: Steve || 07/01/2005 11:23 || Comments || Link || [2 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Do scientologists have a plan to fight Islamofascists? apart from shouting there's still room to be clear on the boat.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) || 07/01/2005 12:55 Comments || Top||

#2  Tom Cruise: Movie star or Alien Messenger?

Actually, dude having a whack job midlife crisis. Most guys go out and by a Vette or a Harley. But he can get engaged to a twenty something starlet and gets to make an ass of himself on every talk show in America.
Posted by: tu3031 || 07/01/2005 13:24 Comments || Top||

#3  But now you have to ask yourself: Is Cruise the Messiah trying to save his worthless species from pitiless aliens bent on annihilation? Or is he the lead agent of the aliens himself?

Nah, he's really Xenu, and he's infiltrated the Scientologists. Shhhh! Don't tell!


Posted by: Desert Blondie || 07/01/2005 16:01 Comments || Top||

#4  [insert MIB jokes here; e.g. Dennis Rodman]
Posted by: .com || 07/01/2005 16:06 Comments || Top||


superpatriots
Not sure where to put this,but everybody needs to check this web site out.Trully a mind blower.Give me your thoughts and opinions please.
Posted by: raptor || 07/01/2005 10:11 || Comments || Link || [4 views] Top|| File under:

#1  someone linked this yesterday -and it is cool! I wish they had an easy to read index - so when you are listening to some smuckoid - you can easily look up to see if he's one of these guys.
Posted by: 2b || 07/01/2005 10:23 Comments || Top||

#2  Yeah, I saw it yesterday too and loved it! The format does make it hard to read (at least at work), but this gives me hope for the guys we're still looking for over there. I've read the Hunt for bin Laden, and it completely blew my mind how we basically took over Afghanistan with 10-12 teams (of about 8-10 men each), with the help of the N. Alliance, and, yet, the mighty Russkies couldn't do it in YEARS w/ everything they had.
Posted by: BA || 07/01/2005 11:12 Comments || Top||

#3  Mind-boggling! This *really* gives you pause about news sources credibility. I thought usurping military (among others) credentials was difficult and illegal - apparently I'm completly wrong.
Btw, you might want to give a little backround on this, the site itself isn't very clear on that, except the words by Jack; I suspected this was about this US contractor arrested in Afghanistan (missed the article yesterday) and had to search for "Jack Idema" in previous articles.
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 07/01/2005 11:15 Comments || Top||

#4  WHy did our SOF teams do so well in Afghanistan, looking back at the British, the Soviets, etc?

Its easier to liberate than it is to conquer.

That and they are the best that has ever existed.
Posted by: OldSpook || 07/01/2005 11:27 Comments || Top||

#5  I gave what I had,5089.That is why I just posted the link.Certainly says alot about MSM criedability,though.I can't think of a better reason to get most of my news from blogs.
Posted by: raptor || 07/01/2005 11:54 Comments || Top||

#6  I find it fascinating. I wondered back when this all broke, about what was really going on. Wish it was on page one so more folks could see it, allowing the word to get out.
Posted by: legolas || 07/01/2005 13:02 Comments || Top||

#7  The articles are interesting but be carefull with this Jack guy. He is still very juestionable and his public cruisade against Ed Artis is bullshit. Judging from his article on Ed and my knowledge of Ed he is only 10% correct, the rest is slander.
Posted by: 49 pan || 07/01/2005 13:56 Comments || Top||

#8  go to stuporpatriot.blogspot.com and find out about jack the sourse of this website. Then concider your sourse on this guy.
Posted by: 49 pan || 07/01/2005 14:10 Comments || Top||

#9  The correct web is stuporpatriots.blogspot.com
Posted by: 49 pan || 07/01/2005 14:11 Comments || Top||

#10  Yeah, this is Jonathan "Jack" Idema, the guy who got caught running his own jail in Afghanistan. He's a legend in his own mind. There was a story linking him to a money transfer conviction the other day:
A Hayward pizzeria owner has pleaded guilty to charges that he illegally transferred nearly $1 million to people in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Some of the money went to a bounty hunter and former U.S. Army special forces member named Jonathan "Jack" Idema, who is serving five years in prison for torturing Afghan detainees, Virginia Kice, regional spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said Sunday.
Idema, a former Green Beret, claimed to Afghan officials that he was working with the American government to hunt down al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. U.S. military authorities have denied any involvement with Idema, who is being held by Afghan authorities at Pul-e Charkhi prison near Kabul.


I wouldn't put too much stock in anything connected to him.
Posted by: Steve || 07/01/2005 15:05 Comments || Top||

#11  I guess time will tell, I'll wait to study both sides of the story before I jump to a conclusion.
Posted by: legolas || 07/01/2005 15:14 Comments || Top||

#12  but be carefull with this Jack guy

noted. But the bottom line is, is the information in this blog correct or isn't it? If it is correct, then I don't care if Barney the Purple Dinosaur posted it.
Posted by: 2b || 07/01/2005 20:01 Comments || Top||


Fifth Column
How the NY Times Today Would Report D-Day
This just came in an e-mail (no link). Apologies if it's been posted earlier.

It surely is true, though.... :-(


NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of Naval gunfire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason, "said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."

Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile, who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre Le Wimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."

Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon - a so-called "atomic bomb". Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before, and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that American soldiers had abused German prisoners. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans, at their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this remains unproven.

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion, and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up."
_______________________________________________________

Throw in some forged memos alleging Winston Churchill's desertion from the Boer War and Ted Kennedy comparing the D-Day invasion to the Visigoth's sacking of Rome, and you've got it all.

--
Anybody know the origin of this? It would be nice to give credit.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 07/01/2005 14:33 || Comments || Link || [5 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I love it - it rings true from start to finish. Thx, Barbara!
Posted by: .com || 07/01/2005 16:10 Comments || Top||

#2  "Spineless French Crab" __ Dept of Redundancy Dept alert.
Posted by: Glirt Angatle8738 || 07/01/2005 16:56 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Politix
VDH : The Politics of American Wars
How fascists became the "victims" in the current war.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

For all the talk of imperial America, and our frequent “police actions,” we are hardly militarists. Protected by two-oceans, and founded on the principles of non-interference in Europe’s bloody internecine wars, the United States has always been rightly circumspect about going to war abroad. The American people are highly individualistic, skeptical of war’s utility, and traditionally distrustful of government — and wary of the need of their sacrifice for supposed global agendas.

So we go to war reluctantly. And being human, our support for war hinges on it being short and economical, and waged for professed idealistic principles. Wars that drag on past three years — from the Civil War to Vietnam — can often lead to demonstrations and popular disdain.

By the same token, some politics are more compatible with the American perception of the need to fight.

It was not only Lincoln’s gifted rhetoric that got the Union through Cold Harbor and the Wilderness, but after the war’s initial months of hard fighting, his reinvention of the North’s very aims, from a utilitarian struggle to restore the United States to a moral crusade to end slavery and the power of the plantationists for good. In that effort, he was willing to suspend habeas corpus, sidestep the Congress, and govern large chunks of the border-states through martial law.

Woodrow Wilson intervened liberally in Central America. He led us to war against right-wing Prussian militarism. His “too proud to fight” slogan in no time was scrapped for the Fourteen Points, a utopian blueprint for the nations of the world, handed down by a former professor from his high and moralistic Olympus.

Few worried that Franklin Delano Roosevelt not only waged a savage global struggle against Italian, German, and Japanese fascism, but in the process did some pretty unsavory and markedly illiberal things at home. It was no right-wing nut who locked up Japanese-Americans without regard for habeas corpus or ordered German agents to be shot as terrorists.

To end the dictatorial and genocidal plans of Slobodan Milosevic, liberal Bill Clinton was willing to bomb downtown Belgrade, commit American forces to a major campaign without U.S. Senate approval and bypass the United Nations altogether. Few accused him of fighting an illegal war, contravening U.N. protocols, or cowardly dropping bombs on civilians. In all these cases, public opposition was pretty much muted, despite the horrendous casualties involved in some of these past conflicts.

Some general principles, then, can guide us in determining American reactions to war, and they transcend even the notion of comparative sacrifice and cost. Progressives, like a Wilson or Clinton, who, we are assured, hate war, can intervene far more easily, and are more likely to receive a pass from a hypercritical elite media.

In the end, they always seem forced to fight by circumstances, since their very liberal natures are supposed to abhor optional conflicts. FDR’s wartime criminal justice apparatus trumped anything that John Ashcroft could imagine, but it has remained relatively unexamined even to this day: liberals must have had very good reasons to put non-white people in camps, so contrary to their innate notions of social justice.

Second, the United States seems to be more united against right-wing fascism than left-wing totalitarianism, perhaps because our elites in academia, journalism, and politics feel authoritarian dictators from the right lack the veneer of egalitarian empathy for the poor. In any case, we are more prone even today to assume the 6-8 million Hitler slaughtered puts him in a category far worse than Stalin or Mao, despite the fact that the two combined did away with ten times Hitler’s tally.

During World War II, here at home we experienced nothing like the Rosenbergs or an Alger Hiss working for the Axis, even though Soviet-inspired global communism would end up liquidating 80 million in Russia and China alone. Fighting North Korea or North Vietnam — or even waging the Cold War — was a far more difficult enterprise than opposing the Kaiser, Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo. Our successes were often due to the efforts of strong anti-communist democrats like Harry Truman who could assure our influential universities, media, politicians, writers, actors, and foundations of the real danger, and the fact that the president had little choice but to go to war.

In this context, many had some apprehensions about the present so-called war on terror. Ostensibly, the Islamicists who had pulled off September 11 largely fit past definitions of fascism and so should have galvanized universal traditional American furor.

The tribal followers of bin Laden advocated a return to a mythical age of ideological purity uncorrupted by modernism, democracy, or pluralism. Islamicism certainly held no tolerance for other religions, much less any who were not extreme Muslims. Sexism and racism — remember bin Laden’s taunts about Africans, ongoing slavery in the Sudan, and the genocide of blacks in Darfur — were an integral part of radical Islamicist doctrine. Al-Qaeda was not so much chauvinistic as misogynistic. Substitute bin Laden’s evocation of “believer” for the old “Volk,” and the crackpot rants about world domination, purity, and the anti-Semitic slurs of “apes and pigs” fall into the old fascist slots.

It is no accident that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf are still popular sellers among zealots in some capitals of the Arab world. Was our war on terror, then, going to be morally clear to even the most progressive utopian, since our enemies lacked liberal pretensions and the charisma of a Stalin, Ho, Che, or Fidel that so often duped the gullible?

Hardly.

Two factors explain the current growing hysteria over Iraq, and they transcend the complex nature of the war and even the depressing media reports from the battlefield. First is the strange doctrine of multiculturalism that has become one of our most dominant boutique ideologies of the last few decades, as the United States experienced unleveled prosperity, leisure — and guilt.

All cultures are of equal merit; failure and poverty abroad are never due to indigenous pathology but rather Western colonialism, racism, Christianity, and gender bias. The Other is never to be judged by our own “biased” standards of jurisprudence and “constructed” bourgeoisie notions of humanity; those poorer, darker, non-Christian, and non-English-speaking are to be collectively grouped as victims, deserving condescension, moral latitude, and some sort of reparations or down right cash grants. Senator Patti Murray gave us the soccer-mom version of this pathology when she once talked of the need to rival bin Laden’s supposed humanitarian projects in Afghanistan, while Senator Durbin assures us from a private email that poor suspects in Cuba (no longer terrorists who plot to butcher more thousands) suffer the similar fate of Hitler’s victims.

As September 11 faded in our collective memory, Muslim extremists were insidiously but systematically reinvented in our elite presentations as near underprivileged victims, and themselves often adept critics of purported rapacious Western consumerism, oil profiteering, heavy-handed militarism, and spiritual desolation.

Extremists that otherwise would be properly seen in the fascistic mold were instead given a weird pass for their quite public and abhorrent hatred of non-believers and homosexuals, and Neanderthal views of women. Beheadings, murder of Christians, suicide bombing of children, systematic torture — all this and more paled in comparison to hot and cold temperatures in American jails on Cuba. Suddenly despite our enemies’ long record of murdering and carnage, we were in a war not with fascism of the old stamp, but with those who were historical victims of the United States. Thus problems arose of marshalling American public opinion against the supposedly weaker that posited legitimate grievances against Western hegemons. It was no surprise that Sen. Durbin’s infantile rantings would be showcased on al-Jazeera.

When Western liberals today talk of a mythical period in the days after 9-11 of “unity” and “European solidarity” what they really remember is a Golden Age of Victimhood, or about four weeks before the strikes against the Taliban commenced. Then for a precious moment at last the United States was a real victim, apparently weak and vulnerable, and suffering cosmic injustice from a suddenly empowered Other. Oh, to return to the days before Iraq and Afghanistan, when we were hurt, introspective, and pitied, but had not yet “lashed out.”

If one examines the infomercials of a bin Laden or Dr. Zawahiri, or the terrorist communiqués sent to the Westernized media, they are almost all rehashes of the Michael Moore left, from “Bush lied” to “Halliburton” to “genocide” and “Gulag.” This now famous “Unholy Alliance” of radical anti-American and reactionary jihadist is really a two-way street: Islamicists mimic the old leftist critique of the United States, and the Western Left hopes that they in turn can at least tone down their rhetoric about knocking walls over gays or sending all women into burqa seclusion—at least long enough to pose as something like disposed Palestinians minus the Hamas bombs laced with feces, rat poison, and nails.

The second problem was not only were we no longer clearly fighting a right-wing extremist ideology, but Texan, twangy, and conservative President Bush was hard to repackage into the reluctant liberal warrior in the image of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, or Bill Clinton.

So there was never much leeway for error in this war. We are not talking in this postmodern era in terms of a past Democratic president invading Latin America, interring citizens in high-plains camps, hanging terrorist suspects, nuking cities, or bombing pharmaceutical factories in Africa, but, at least from the weird present hysteria, something apparently far worse — like supposedly flushing a Koran at Guantanamo.

In a leisured and liberal society, it is very difficult in general for a conservative to wage war, because the natural suspicion arises that his tragic view of human nature and his belief in the occasional utility of force, makes him seem to enjoy the enterprise far more than a lip-biting progressive, who may in fact order far more destruction. George Bush Sr. barely pulled off freeing Kuwait, but only because he fought on the ground for only 4 days, used the aegis of the U.N., pulled back on televised images of the so-called “Highway of Death,” and was able to avoid going to Baghdad and dealing with a murdering despot still in power.

In contrast, once the metamorphosis of the Islamicists from fascists to victimized critics of the West was well underway, and once a suspect conservative like George Bush eschewed the old League of Nations utopianism, the fireside chat, or the ‘I feel your pain’ persona of traditional Democratic war leaders, I feared we were in real trouble finishing this war.

Contrary to all recent popular wisdom, the war in Iraq is not a disaster, but nearing success. It has been costly and at times tragic, but a democracy is in place, accords are being hammered out with Sunni rejectionists, and the democratic reformist mindset is pulsating into Lebanon, Egypt, and the Gulf. This has only been possible because of the courage and efficacy of a much maligned military who, for the lapses of a small minority, has been compared to Stalin and Hitler at Guantanamo Bay and at Abu Ghraib.

If President Bush were a liberal Democrat, if he were bombing a white Christian, politically clumsy fascist in the heart of Europe, if al Qaeda and its Islamicist adherents were properly seen as 8th-century tormenters of humanists, women, homosexuals, non-Arabs and non-Wahhabi believers, and if Iraq had become completely somnolent with the toppling of Saddam’s statue, then the American people would have remained behind the effort to dismantle Islamic fundamentalism and create the foundations to ensure its permanent demise.

But once the suicide murdering and bombing from Iraq began to dominate the news, then this administration, for historical reasons largely beyond its own control, had a very small reservoir of good will. Quite literally, the Islamicists proved to be more adept in the public relations of winning liberal exemption from criticism than did the administration itself, as one nude Iraqi on film or a crumpled Koran was always deemed far worse than daily beheadings and executions. Indeed, the terrorists were able to morph into downtrodden victims of a bullying, imperialistic America faster than George Bush was able to appear a reluctant progressive warrior at war with the Dark-Age values of fascism.

And once that transformation was established, we were into a dangerous cycle of a conservative, tough-talking president intervening abroad to thwart the poorer of the Third World — something that has never been an easy thing in recent American history, but now in our own age has become a propagandist’s dream come true.
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 07/01/2005 10:26 || Comments || Link || [4 views] Top|| File under:

#1  AC's gonna love this piece - and I'm right there with him. Wow. VDH is simply remarkable for his ability to clearly analyze and present the clear truth. The best BS filter in the business. Thx A5089! Sheesh, I'm exhausted after reading this, heh.

Padlock the "boutique" and commit the "clientele".
Posted by: .com || 07/01/2005 16:41 Comments || Top||

#2  Perfect description of the left and it's total blindnees and total ignorance of Islam.

VDH never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom || 07/01/2005 17:01 Comments || Top||


Home Front: WoT
Get Smart
There is no such thing as an experienced suicide bomber.

This insight seems to have eluded the Central Intelligence Agency. A few days ago a classified CIA report was leaked to the media. It put forward the frightening “assessment” that terrorists in Iraq are developing greater skills than those who learned their trade in Afghanistan under Taliban/al-Qaeda rule in the 1990s.

Think about that: The most effective weapon the terrorists utilize in Iraq is the suicide bomber. Surely it is the rare suicide bomber who improves his performance mission after mission.

What other abilities are the terrorists mastering in Iraq? They are assembling Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). Does anyone seriously believe that the IED learning experience provided in a Fallujah basement is so much richer than what used to be offered in Kandahar in the days when Osama bin Laden was resident there?

As for kidnapping and hostage-holding, let's concede that these skills probably can best be acquired through on-the-job training rather than class-room instruction. But we now know that many of abductions in Iraq are carried out by non-ideological criminals who then sell their victims to the highest bidder. The throat-cutting of the hostages that often follows is a competence that probably can be mastered in a variety of environments.

It is not clear on what basis the CIA has been able to compare the expertise of terrorists now learning their trade in Iraq with those who studied in the 1990s under al-Qaeda teachers in Afghanistan. And by what yardstick do CIA analysts measure the abilities of those who studied terrorism at Salman Pak, an Iraqi training camp maintained by Saddam Hussein and whose purpose was -- according to Saddam himself -- to enable both Iraqi and foreign terrorists to “hit American targets”?

During Saddam's reign, terrorists trained, too, at the Ansar al-Islam camp in northeastern Iraq. Does the CIA happen to know how effective were the programs provided by that group – which has ties to the Iranian mullahs and which administration officials have linked to al-Qaeda as well?

It would be useful to know why certain CIA officials decided to leak this classified report. Could the answer be that it bolsters those within the agency who have argued that the U.S. approach to terrorism ought to be to stay out of the terrorists' way and hope they will then leave us alone? (The best-known advocate for that policy is former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, A.K.A. “Anonymous.”) Perhaps it has something to do also with defensiveness and sensitivity over the fact that the CIA knew little -- and did less -- about either Saddam's or bin Laden's training of terrorists during the 1990s, a period when there were multiple attacks on Americans, a period when planning was underway for what would be the most devastating terrorist atrocity in American history.

The CIA report predicts that when the war in Iraq ends, the terrorists will disperse to Arab countries, Europe and the United States. Presumably, those we kill or capture in Iraq will not move about so freely.

A major mission of the CIA is to steal secrets. But America's premier spy agency knew little about what was going on in the Kremlin before the Soviet Union collapsed. It failed to penetrate Saddam's regime or that of the mullahs in Iran. It had no assets inside the Taliban, al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.

While not ferreting out the secrets of others, the CIA has become adept at letting its own secrets get loose. The motivation behind leaking classified “assessments” such as this one is obvious: to shape public opinion, influence policy makers and affect domestic politics. These are not the tasks the CIA receives billions of dollars to carry out.

If the new leaders of the intelligence community, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss, mean to fix what's broken, they have their work cut out for them.

- Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies a policy institute focusing on terrorism.
Posted by: Steve || 07/01/2005 15:05 || Comments || Link || [8 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Presumably, those we kill or capture in Iraq will not move about so freely.

gotter luv that line. :)
Posted by: muck4doo || 07/01/2005 16:44 Comments || Top||

#2  All businesses have their tricks of the trade, things which are not written down and you only learn on the job. Frankly I can think of no more dangerous 'business' to learn by trial and error than suicide bombing - I'm referring to organizing and motivating the bombers.

It's something of a mystery to me why we have not seen suicide attacks in more places. It's far and away the most effective Islamo-terrorist tactic and very difficult to counter. I note there was an attempt today in Turkey and I expect to see many more, especially in Europe.
Posted by: phil_b || 07/01/2005 17:05 Comments || Top||


Terror Networks & Islam
“Yes, I am a Terrorist”
By Robert Spencer

“Yes, I am a terrorist. Write that down: I admit I am a terrorist. [The Qur’an] says it is the duty of Muslims to bring terror to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim.”

These are the words of Marwan Abu Ubeida, the subject of a Time magazine piece entitled “Inside the Mind of an Iraqi Suicide Bomber.” It is gratifying to see Time being willing to take this trip into Marwan’s mind, since most mainstream media outlets have been singularly uninterested in the thought processes of jihad terrorists. But even Time doesn’t explore the implications of Marwan’s words. And this is no trivial omission: jihadists from Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to Marwan Abu Ubeida have consistently made clear that today’s jihadists are working from mainstream traditions and numerous Qur’anic exhortations, and that by means of these traditions and teachings they are able to gain recruits among Muslims worldwide — as well as to hold the sympathy of others whom they do not recruit. This explains why there has been no widespread, sustained, and sincere Muslim outcry against the jihad terrorist enterprise in general.

Marwan makes it clear: “The jihadis are more religious people. You ask them anything — anything — and they can instantly quote a relevant section from the Qur’an.” He is chillingly forthright: “The only person who matters is Allah — and the only question he will ask me is ‘How many infidels did you kill?’” He invokes Qur’an 8:60: “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy.” The jihad ideology Marwan reflects is rooted in the Qur’an and Islamic tradition. The longer we postpone confronting that fact, the worse the problem will grow.

Yet both liberal and conservative media analysts do not want to face this. They think that by speaking about the Islamic roots of jihad violence they will undercut moderate Muslims. But in fact, no reform in Islam can ever take place without an acknowledgment of what needs to be reformed. The near-universal refusal to provide that acknowledgment is just one reason why that reform is virtually certain not to be forthcoming. The contemporary problem of global Islamic terrorism will never be solved unless people are willing to speak forthrightly about the nature of the challenge we face and work to find positive solutions. Ignoring or distorting the true nature and source of the problem will only postpone the crisis, and make its ultimate resolution more difficult.

The media is failing the American public on this issue. But the truth will out, if in other venues. It’s time for the direct approach. One organization is taking the truth about jihad terrorism directly to the people: The People’s Truth Forum. On September 21 I will be participating in a symposium on terror, sponsored by the Forum, entitled, “The Radical Islamist Threat to World Peace and National Security.” This symposium will challenge media bias head-on by exploring forthrightly such unexamined dogmas as the idea that regionalized economic conditions and American injustices are the real cause of terrorism, not any imperative derived from Islamic theology. We will explore the mindset of people like Marwan Abu Ubeida who think that terror is commanded by God, providing a profile of the slaughterers of innocents that is urgently needed — and has not been provided by the media in almost four years since 9/11.

Other speakers include the renowned terrorism expert Harvey Kushner, author of Holy War on the Home Front; Brigitte Gabriel, a former anchor for world news in the Middle East and a prominent Arab-American journalist; and Judith Jacobson, vice-president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) and the coordinator of the Columbia University SPME chapter. This promises to be one of the few places in modern-day America where you will be able to hear the truth about what we're up against. Get more information about how you can attend at www.peoplestruthforum.com.

The People’s Truth Forum was organized to heighten public awareness about the issues that matter most. The Forum hopes to host similar events around the country in the future and thereby to circumvent the information stranglehold of the mainstream media — a stranglehold which, with its cavalier refusal to face the facts, leaves us all that much more vulnerable.
Posted by: ed || 07/01/2005 07:15 || Comments || Link || [4 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Marwan? Didn't he evade the CTU all last season on 24? He's one tricky dude!
Posted by: Bobby || 07/01/2005 8:10 Comments || Top||

#2  "His name is Habib Marwan." -- 24
Posted by: eLarson || 07/01/2005 16:08 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Culture Wars
Death Threats and Tolerance
By Robert Spencer

“May Allah rip out his spine from his back and split his brains in two, and then put them both back, and then do it over and over again
.Amen.”

“I believe he’s already on the hit list, nothing new.”

“we make dua [i.e., we pray] Allah allows your blood to spill over our hands.”

These are threats I have received recently. Last week, when I spoke at the New York Tolerance Center about “The True Nature of the Jihad Threat,” I discovered that news of these threats have somehow found their way to the New York Police Department, which -- unbeknownst to me until I arrived at the venue -- dispatched its “Hercules Team” to ward off any who might have wanted to make those threats reality. The Team, a group of courteous and accomplished plainclothesmen, turned away one young man with a backpack at the door, after he refused to let them search his bag.

Against that somewhat ominous backdrop, I spoke about the violent intolerance of the Islamic jihad: its imperative to impose Sharia, with its institutionalized discrimination against non-Muslims and women, and its mandate to commit violent acts that is rooted in the Qur’an and Sunnah, supported by mainstream understandings of those texts, and elaborated by Islamic law. I tried to impress upon the crowd the threat that the jihad poses to central notions of human rights enshrined in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Bravo for life’s little ironies: after this talk about the need to defend the West from this furious and fanatical form of intolerance, I was confronted by a young man and a young woman who were quite offended by my -- you guessed it -- intolerance. The Muslims who made it necessary for us to have our conversation under armed guard because of death threats did not offend them. My talk did. We had a brief discussion -- until the young man refused to shake my hand and I realized that no real exchange of ideas was going to be possible -- in which I found that their views reflected not just their personal opinions, but a large number of common prejudices and false assumptions about the nature of the present conflict, the meaning of tolerance itself, and more.
Rest at link.
Posted by: ed || 07/01/2005 07:11 || Comments || Link || [2 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I find it simply baffling how the "tolerant" cannot tolerate the intolerant. And that they cannot ever see that there are times that intolerance is the correct and reasonable response to these murderous people.

How can these "tolerant" people tolerate the only religion that overtly, regularly and actively calls for the death of others.
Posted by: PlanetDan || 07/01/2005 10:19 Comments || Top||

#2  Beautifully written. Imminently quotable throughout. Excellent piece - Thx ed!
Posted by: .com || 07/01/2005 16:18 Comments || Top||


Africa: Subsaharan
Monster of the moment
Zimbabwe is being hypocritically vilified by the west for forced slum clearances that are routine throughout the developing world

For a month now, the BBC, CNN, ITV and others have been reporting what has been portrayed as one of the greatest humanitarian and human rights disasters in years. At least 200,000 people - sometimes this figure grows to 250,000 or even 300,000 - are said to have been forcibly evicted from slum areas of Harare in Zimbabwe. The figure peaked last week at 1.5 million, but yesterday the BBC reckoned that bulldozers were now "crashing through the homes of 500,000 people". In fact, only about 1.2 million people live in Harare and no one is suggesting that half the population has fled in terror or that most of the city has been wrecked.
The BBC just did. And if it's only a quarter-million does that make it better?
So where are all these allegedly terrorised people? A few thousand have been filmed in makeshift camps but not many more.
It's hard to film them all when Bob's goons are discouraging amatuer photography.
Who is trying to count the numbers? They are almost always attributed to an unnamed person in an unnamed UN agency. But read the only UN statement on the evictions and it says nothing of 200,000 people.
So the wussie UN doesn't provide a number and that makes it all right.
The evictions - which are clearly happening on a wide scale -
So it is happening ...
... have been seized on by the west, and the former colonial power Britain in particular, as another reason to demonise President Mugabe and further humiliate long-suffering Zimbabwe.
And there are so many reasons from which to choose.
It's duck open season on the Harare regime and it appears that anyone can say anything they like without recourse to accuracy or reality.
Homes are being demolished. People are being evicted with precious little planning to tide them over, provide them with a new home, feed them, or keep them out of the elements. Does that bother you?
Whipped into a frenzy of hypocritical outrage, the EU, Britain and the US, as well as the World Bank - all of which have been responsible for millions of evictions in Africa and elsewhere as conditions of infrastructure projects - have rushed to condemn the "atrocities".
It's one thing to demolish a slum after some planning, perhaps ineffective since this is Africa, but still planning on what to do with the people and their belongings. It's one thing to demolish a slum after paying compensation to the people involved. That isn't what is happening in Zim-Bob-We, though I fear I am villifying the man ...
The vilification of Mugabe is now out of control.
And hasn't gone near far enough.
The UN security council and the G8 have been asked to debate the evictions, and Mugabe is being compared to Pol Pot in Cambodia.
He's not there yet but he's trying.
Meanwhile, the evictions are mentioned in the same breath as the genocide in Rwanda and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans - although perhaps only three people have so far accidentally died. Only at the very end of some reports is it said that the Harare city authority's stated reason for the evictions is to build better, legal houses for 150,000 people.
For which they don't have the money or the resources. And the people bulldozed out just coincidentally happen, most of them, to suppor the opposition, such as it is. I can add 2 + 2, can you?
Perspective is needed. The summary removal of people at gunpoint from their homes is indefensible, almost certainly unnecessary, and probably economically counter-productive, but it is not unusual in the developing world.
Does that make it okay then?
Every year millions of poor people are evicted to make way for tourism, dams, roads and airports, for events like the Olympics, and for the gentrification and beautification of cities, national parks and urban redevelopments.
Again: planned demolition of a slum with compensation and help for the displaced people is fine. We even do that in the States. That isn't what is happening in Zim-Bob-We.
Nor is it new. Forced evictions, brutal land grabs and slum clearances were all used by Britain's own rulers in the past to enlarge their estates, build bigger, more modern cities, construct reservoirs, make way for railways and lay out fine parks and fashionable areas for the newly rich to live.
But we'd all agree that it wasn't right, it wasn't the best way, and we wouldn't do it that way today in London or Chicago.
Rapidly developing countries are now doing the same as the rich world did during its own industrial and urban development.

The difference is mostly in numbers. According to UN-Habitat, the Nairobi-based agency that concerns itself with the urban environment, hundreds of millions of the world's poor are technically illegal squatters living in slum communities like those in Harare, liable to be moved on by private landowners or by governments. In the past five years, slum clearance programmes have forced more than 150,000 people out of their homes in Delhi; 300,000 people were evicted to make way for Olympic sites in Beijing; 100,000 were moved on in Jakarta; 250,000 were forced out of dam sites in India; and as many as a million in Lagos and Port Harcourt in Nigeria. There are many more.
How many were removed on a few hours notice with no chance to gather their belongings?
Yet those who like to call themselves "the international community" say nothing about these mass evictions and the world's press has been mostly silent. For the World Bank to condemn the Zimbabwean evictions was particularly rich. According to its own calculations, the bank has funded projects that have required the eviction of at least 10 million people.
How much of the funding went to compensate the people moved?
So why are the Harare slum clearances so different? As international monster of the moment, Mugabe is unacceptable to Britain and the west mainly because he has chosen to evict whites and redistribute land grabbed in colonial times.
I think we also have issues concerning the usurption of democracy, the destruction of personal liberties, the ruination of the country, the corruption, the graft, the greed, and his wife's ostentacious shopping trips, but then I'm just a Westerner.
The fact that the African Union and other African leaders are not prepared to condemn him for the Harare evictions reflects the fact that they, too, recognise the injustice of the colonial land ownership inheritance and do not want to see Africa bullied again by the west.
Plus they're concerned that they'd be the next leader turned out of their shithole countries.
But there may be another reason why African leaders have not condemned the evictions. Urbanisation is overwhelming most African cities, which have been flooded by impoverished people forced off the land. According to the UN's 2003 study of urbanisation and slums, the driving force behind the slums of Africa and Asia is not bad governance or tyrants, but laissez-faire globalisation, the tearing down of trade barriers, the privatisation of national economies, structural adjustment programmes imposed on indebted countries by the IMF, and the lowering of tariffs promoted by the World Trade Organisation.
Must be our fault, in other words. It always is.
Like every city in the world that has tried to clear its slums, Harare will find that history repeats itself. This year, Zimbabwe faces massive food shortages that will force more of the urban poor into destitution and drive yet more people off the land into the cities to look for work. The poor, punished for their poverty rather than for voting one way or another, will become poorer and the shacks and shelters so brutally pulled down in the past month will just go up somewhere else.
Except these folks ARE being punished for voting one way. By the way, recall how the food shortages came about?
However, an alternative to forced evictions is emerging right under Mugabe's nose. Last year, 250 homeless Zimbabweans, members of the Federation of Slum and Shackdwellers, negotiated the provision of land from the city authority. They have now planned the layout of their community, worked out the costs of the homes and are ready to build. Where are they? Harare.
How did they vote in the last election?
Posted by: Steve White || 07/01/2005 00:00 || Comments || Link || [9 views] Top|| File under:

#1  You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.
Posted by: Walter Duranty reporting for the Guardian || 07/01/2005 1:48 Comments || Top||

#2  I wouldn't describe the brick built homes I saw being demolished on TV as belonging to a slum. This prick should be more concerned with the coming humanitarian disaster than Mugabe's vilification in the Western media. Idiot.
Posted by: Howard UK || 07/01/2005 6:20 Comments || Top||

#3  sigh. One well placed bullet and all these problems would just go away.
Posted by: 2b || 07/01/2005 7:14 Comments || Top||

#4  One well placed bullet and all these problems would just go away.

I don't think that would be enough to deal with the entire staff of the Guardian. Maybe if it's a really big round, and you had them lined up just so, but...
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 07/01/2005 8:31 Comments || Top||

#5  I would love to see the Foxnews footage of a mob of 250,000 displaced people battering down the doors of the presidential palace and sticking that idiots head on a pole. Now that would be just desserts, and completely free of Western interference.
Posted by: bigjim-ky || 07/01/2005 10:51 Comments || Top||

#6  What do you think our Kool Aid drinker would be saying if Bob hired Halliburton to do it for him?
Posted by: tu3031 || 07/01/2005 11:04 Comments || Top||

#7  Lol, RC!
Posted by: .com || 07/01/2005 16:09 Comments || Top||

#8  rc...lol! Where is John Wilkes Booth when you need him?
Posted by: 2b || 07/01/2005 20:03 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
97[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.

Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.

Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has dominated Mexico for six years.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Fri 2005-07-01
  16 U.S. Troops Killed in Afghan Crash
Thu 2005-06-30
  Ricin plot leader gets 10 years
Wed 2005-06-29
  The List: Saudi Arabia's 36 Most Wanted
Tue 2005-06-28
  New offensive in Anbar
Mon 2005-06-27
  'Head' of Ansar al-Sunna captured
Sun 2005-06-26
  76 more terrorists whacked in Afghanistan
Sat 2005-06-25
  Ahmadinejad wins Iran election
Fri 2005-06-24
  132 Talibs toes up in Zabul fighting
Thu 2005-06-23
  Saudi Terror Suspect Said Killed in Iraq
Wed 2005-06-22
  Qurei flees West Bank gunfire
Tue 2005-06-21
  Saudi 'cop killers' shot dead
Mon 2005-06-20
  Afghan Officials Stop Khalizad Assassination Plot
Sun 2005-06-19
  Senior Saudi Security Officer Killed In Drive-By Shooting
Sat 2005-06-18
  U.S. Mounts Offensive Near Syria
Fri 2005-06-17
  Calif. Father, Son Charged in Terror Ties


Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
3.138.105.124
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (29)    WoT Background (34)    Non-WoT (26)    (0)    (0)